Cost of launch and laws of physics

Len wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...
Len wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...

Althoug I disagree with John with respect to the need for
advanced technology for a near-term space transport capable
of frequent, reliable low-cost transport to LEO, I have
to agree with both of you with respect to the current
economic environment for commercial development of a
space transport.

That is why I insist that the first commercial space
transports must be brought on line for an investment
of no more than $200 million--and perhaps the limit
may be more like $100 million. I view this investment
limit as a requirement every bit as basic as the
delta-vee requirement. Where I part company with both
of you is that I truly believe that it is possible
to meet this investment requirement with current
technology. It does require getting the money somehow
without resorting to a DOA type of management that
precludes good system concept design. And that is tough.


Len, I think you missed the point of this particular discussion.

It wasn't about CATS by means of low cost rocket flight,
it was about the feasibility of a space elevator.

My departure with you was about the capability of a private
company developing a commercial space company for the
$100-200 million figure without some kind of a leading
technology program. I believe we already beat that discussion
to death in earlier threads and I certainly hope you are more
nearly correct than I am.

Thanks. I keep beating on this point, because I would
like a financial climate that might enable raising the
money to try.

However, in this particular discussion I was only discussing
the proposal for a space elevator and I believe that is far beyond
the bounds of our current technology. As I expressed in an
earlier part of that discussion, that one really requires some
advancement of the state-of-the-art technology. Right now
I doubt that anyone is going to pay for it, and I find it incredible
to believe that it could be done without NASA, the government
and some form of big business and certainly not without it
even being noticed.

I realize that the context has been in terms of SE--
however, John O.'s recurring theme is that there are
no launch concepts that can reduce costs without
new "technology."

This is a place where I part company with John Ordover.

I do believe that a government financed "proof of concept"
small, completely reusable space vehicle would be a step
in the right direction. I see a problem with a commercial
organization having to demonstrate a capability that has
not so far been demonstrated by anyone. That is recovering
and reusing an upper stage, complete with propellant tanks
and all that goes with them. The fact that the Shuttle solved
the problem by dumping the propellant tanks makes that
a continuing region of uncertainty.

Mike Walsh

"E.R." wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...
However, in this particular discussion I was only discussing
the proposal for a space elevator and I believe that is far beyond
the bounds of our current technology. As I expressed in an
earlier part of that discussion, that one really requires some
advancement of the state-of-the-art technology. Right now
I doubt that anyone is going to pay for it, and I find it incredible
to believe that it could be done without NASA, the government
and some form of big business and certainly not without it
even being noticed.

Mike Walsh

I think the 'without it even being noticed' is a comment on a comment
I made earlier in the thread. If I may respond;

As to the 'not being noticed' bit what I was referring to was getting
the funding, the regulatory permission and etc. done .. in other
words, getting an offical blessing put on the project .. before the
institutions concerned can 'officially' formulate a respone i.e.
protect their turf i.e. kill the project. If the crowd building the
space elevator can get inside the vested interests Decsion-Action loop
that's a good start.

~er

What I meant was I don't think you can sneak something this
big through unnoticed. I think you can count on a lack of reaction
until it looks as if it isn't just someone's fantasy.

If you want to look at what happens on a smaller scale take a
look at how regulation goes with the X-Prize and the
sub-orbital tourist groups. Regulatory problems came right
out of the closet when the government suddenly perceived
that things might really happen.

This is different from the technical problems of building a
space elevator, but does describe things that will have to
be faced if it looks as if the space elevator may actually
be built.

Mike Walsh

(Will Simmons) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(John Ordover) wrote:

Of course nothing is proven - but I remain solidly unconvinced that
there is revenue stream that can provide the kind of profits that
would be necessary to attract the large investment needed to develop
space travel. I would be happy to be proven wrong by a working
system. But if you think -I- am skeptical, ask someone for 10M
dollars and see how skeptical -they- get.

Even assuming the poster is correct the present factual context, reasonably
predictable changes in the facts would quickly revise those "revenue
streams," e. g., Professor Hawking is quoted as saying "I don't think that
the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into
space." URL:

Even if true, how does that change the revenue stream?


or, if advances come along that make space travel routine, it will
could hasten mankinds destruction by making weapons technology as
routinely available as an airplane that can be crashed into the WTC -
and any place accessible by spacecraft would of course be accessible
to nuclear and biological weapons. in fact, diverting resources to
space travel could just as easily -hasten- mankind's destruction by
pulling resources away from building world where there is less of a
divide between the richest and the poorest.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F10%2F16%2Fnhawk16. xml)

As destructive technology inexorably advances, the need for colonies of
young, healthy reproductive people to be safely removed from biological,
nuclear or other forms of terrorist warfare (or just plain errors), will
assuredly become clearer, from which perception new budgetary calculations
and spending patterns relative to space travel will inevitably emerge.

Where is this safe place in a world with regular space travel?



-- Will --

reasonably likely

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...
I think the 'without it even being noticed' is a comment on a comment
I made earlier in the thread. If I may respond;

As to the 'not being noticed' bit what I was referring to was getting
the funding, the regulatory permission and etc. done .. in other
words, getting an offical blessing put on the project .. before the
institutions concerned can 'officially' formulate a respone i.e.
protect their turf i.e. kill the project. If the crowd building the
space elevator can get inside the vested interests Decsion-Action loop
that's a good start.

~er

What I meant was I don't think you can sneak something this
big through unnoticed. I think you can count on a lack of reaction
until it looks as if it isn't just someone's fantasy.

If you want to look at what happens on a smaller scale take a
look at how regulation goes with the X-Prize and the
sub-orbital tourist groups. Regulatory problems came right
out of the closet when the government suddenly perceived
that things might really happen.

This is different from the technical problems of building a
space elevator, but does describe things that will have to
be faced if it looks as if the space elevator may actually
be built.

I was expressing myself badly; you've stated what I was thinking
rather well. It does look like Mr. Rutan is going to get the X-Prize
soon, and then we'll see what happens.

~er

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...
Len wrote:


I realize that the context has been in terms of SE--
however, John O.'s recurring theme is that there are
no launch concepts that can reduce costs without
new "technology."

This is a place where I part company with John Ordover.

I do believe that a government financed "proof of concept"
small, completely reusable space vehicle would be a step
in the right direction. I see a problem with a commercial
organization having to demonstrate a capability that has
not so far been demonstrated by anyone. That is recovering
and reusing an upper stage, complete with propellant tanks
and all that goes with them. The fact that the Shuttle solved
the problem by dumping the propellant tanks makes that
a continuing region of uncertainty.

Mike Walsh

Your point (I think) that government has far more
resources than a commercial organization is well taken.
However, IMO, commercial entrepreneurs have a huge
flexibilty advantage when it comes to defining real
requirements and allowable design paths.

With respect to an example of "real" requirements, the
mass and size of the Shuttle payload requirement is moot.

As an example of design flexibility, let me cite the
external tank--as you have cited it as a "solution."
As project engineer for space transportation systems
at the LA sister division at North American Aviation,
I had come to the conclusion a decade before the
Shuttle program started that the volume of internal
propellants could relieve reentry heating by providing
lower planform loading; moreover, my tradeoffs indicated
that this benefit could counter the performance advantages
of dropping an external tank. As for economics, an
expendable tank kills any potential for the type of
cost effectiveness I was looking for. As for safety,
I fail to see why an adjacent external tank with
disconnectable propellant transfer was going to be
so much safer than carrying propellants internally in
a design that could take full advantage of not having
to disconnect propellant lines in flight.

At the time that North American--Rockwell by that time
--won the Shuttle Program, I was head of tactical systems
at the LA Division, with a conflict of interest agreement
with respect to commercial space transportation. When
Rockwell won the Shuttle program, I quit Rockwell--partly
because of conflict of interest, but also because of the
sheer absurdity of the Shuttle program.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc. and Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
( http://www.tour2space.com )

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 21:12:24 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


I keep expressing the hope that the government that obtains its
resource advantage from our tax dollars will do something wise
with it.

Yes, you do, just like Charlie Brown hopes that this time Lucy let's
him kick the ball.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: