A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Non-Innovator's Dilemma



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12  
Old September 20th 03, 10:27 PM
Doug...
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Non-Innovator's Dilemma

In article ,
says...
h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html

With regard to your commments on the NASA "culture":

As a former employee of both NACA and NASA, I would
say, just compare how the two organizations operated.
NACA was always very decentralized with many small
projects--some of which competed directly with each
other. I remember working at Ames on a transsonic
research program that recovered a drop missile that
recorded data with optical levers, etc. Langley
had a similar program that used telemetry. They
would compare notes. There may have been some
friendly rivalry, but never plots to kill one
another off to gain complete control of the program.

I worked for the National Academy of Sciences before
and after Sputnik--and worked indirectly for both
Drs. Van Allen, Pickering (then head of JPL), and
Homer Newell (NRL).

There was a bill in Congress to make JPL NASA, and
another to make ABMA NASA. But NACA was so well
liked and respected--thanks in part to gentlemen
like Hugh Dryden and thanks in part to the NACA culture,
that Jim Van Allen (a later vociferous critic) and
others testified in favor of NACA getting the job--
primarily because, well, it was NACA.

In 1959 while at NASA Headquarters, some of my
colleagues from NACA Langley complained: "We used
to complain about the USAF bureaucracy, but we've
already gotten worse."

How do we go back? Perhaps an Advisory Committee
again, with no big fiefdoms. In order to avoid
the big fiefdoms, the new organization cannot have
any huge programs like ISS or Space Shuttle.
Apollo was an opportunity, a trap, and an anomaly.
Apollo should not be part of the discussion. This
does not mean that NASA could not do things like
a manned Mars mission or a return to the moon. I
think the odds of something like that happening
would actually better with an NACA culture and a
robust commmercial space transportaion industry.

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


Len, your occasional comments here are always intriguing. You were in
the midst of people and organizations that were making history. Have you
ever considered writing a book of your own?

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for | Doug Van Dorn
thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup |

  #13  
Old September 21st 03, 03:45 AM
Andrew Case
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Non-Innovator's Dilemma

Doug... wrote:
[to Len Cormier]
Len, your occasional comments here are always intriguing. You were in
the midst of people and organizations that were making history. Have you
ever considered writing a book of your own?


I'll second that. I hope he stays too busy building spaceships to write a
book, but if you find the time, Len, I'll be first in line to buy it.

.......Andrew
--
--
Andrew Case |
|

  #14  
Old September 21st 03, 04:47 AM
Len
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Non-Innovator's Dilemma

"Doug..." wrote in message ...
In article ,
says...
h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html

With regard to your commments on the NASA "culture":

As a former employee of both NACA and NASA, I would
say, just compare how the two organizations operated.
NACA was always very decentralized with many small
projects--some of which competed directly with each
other. I remember working at Ames on a transsonic
research program that recovered a drop missile that
recorded data with optical levers, etc. Langley
had a similar program that used telemetry. They
would compare notes. There may have been some
friendly rivalry, but never plots to kill one
another off to gain complete control of the program.

I worked for the National Academy of Sciences before
and after Sputnik--and worked indirectly for both
Drs. Van Allen, Pickering (then head of JPL), and
Homer Newell (NRL).

There was a bill in Congress to make JPL NASA, and
another to make ABMA NASA. But NACA was so well
liked and respected--thanks in part to gentlemen
like Hugh Dryden and thanks in part to the NACA culture,
that Jim Van Allen (a later vociferous critic) and
others testified in favor of NACA getting the job--
primarily because, well, it was NACA.

In 1959 while at NASA Headquarters, some of my
colleagues from NACA Langley complained: "We used
to complain about the USAF bureaucracy, but we've
already gotten worse."

How do we go back? Perhaps an Advisory Committee
again, with no big fiefdoms. In order to avoid
the big fiefdoms, the new organization cannot have
any huge programs like ISS or Space Shuttle.
Apollo was an opportunity, a trap, and an anomaly.
Apollo should not be part of the discussion. This
does not mean that NASA could not do things like
a manned Mars mission or a return to the moon. I
think the odds of something like that happening
would actually better with an NACA culture and a
robust commmercial space transportaion industry.

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


Len, your occasional comments here are always intriguing. You were in
the midst of people and organizations that were making history. Have you
ever considered writing a book of your own?


Thanks. I was young at the time and had a fly-on-the-wall
status--which was quite interesting, I admit. However, I
am too busy right now still trying to make something
happen on my own.

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

  #15  
Old September 21st 03, 05:14 AM
Hairball
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Non-Innovator's Dilemma

heh heh well for what it's worth I too have concerns about the sense of
building an OSP and am glad you brought attention to its cost vs capability.


  #16  
Old September 21st 03, 02:02 PM
Dholmes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Non-Innovator's Dilemma


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html

I see several flaws with your argument.

1) By using development costs for the OSP vs. not including them for the
shuttle you compare apples on oranges making the cost comparison worthless.

2) Using three launches have nothing to do with rocket capabilities. The
heavy versions of both the Delta and Atlas could launch a Big Gemini with
lots of cargo mass left over totaling more people and more cargo then the
shuttle. It has to do with reducing risks even though it raises costs.

3) The vast majority of the 12 billion cost estimates has to do with "man
rating" Atlas and Delta not the OSP itself. Most cost estimates put the cost
of a 4 man capsule at around 4 billion. The full man rating does not have to
be done until after the OSP is flying as a lifeboat and cargo vehicle, both
do not need to be rated until after it is carrying men to orbit delaying
greatly the cost of man rating the rockets. At the same time the lower
failure rate is beneficial in and of itself saving billions in lost
satellites.

4) If you are using 3 OSP flights to replace a shuttle flight and you
replace at least 4 shuttle flights a year that totals 12 not 4 or 8. If you
replace 6 shuttle flights then you have 18 flights.

5) If they use the capsule version they will be reasonably cheap. There is
no reason a private company with its own rocket could not buy an OSP. All
they need is the ability to launch 8 tons to LEO, less if they want to sell
suborbital flights.

6) Reusability is in the early stages not all that important. Without
sufficient rate of launches to support a decent number of vehicles and
absorb fixed costs reusability can easily raise costs.

7) Delta and Atlas rockets at low launch rates cost less then $100 million.
Shuttle flights cost right now over $600 million.
Even at an extra $100 million you only have the same cost not more for a
safer vehicle. With a little luck and decent launch rates you should be able
to get launch costs under $100 million. Based on 4 people and 500 kg of
cargo that is around $20 million a person considerably cheaper then the
shuttle at around $50 million.







  #18  
Old September 21st 03, 05:07 PM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Non-Innovator's Dilemma


"Dholmes" wrote in message
...

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html

I see several flaws with your argument.

1) By using development costs for the OSP vs. not including them for the
shuttle you compare apples on oranges making the cost comparison

worthless.

No. If we're back in 1972 making this decision, then including shuttle
development costs would be important.

However, at this point, that money has been spent. So it's already
accounted for. You want to count it twice.


2) Using three launches have nothing to do with rocket capabilities. The
heavy versions of both the Delta and Atlas could launch a Big Gemini with
lots of cargo mass left over totaling more people and more cargo then the
shuttle. It has to do with reducing risks even though it raises costs.

3) The vast majority of the 12 billion cost estimates has to do with "man
rating" Atlas and Delta not the OSP itself. Most cost estimates put the

cost
of a 4 man capsule at around 4 billion. The full man rating does not have

to
be done until after the OSP is flying as a lifeboat and cargo vehicle,

both
do not need to be rated until after it is carrying men to orbit delaying
greatly the cost of man rating the rockets. At the same time the lower
failure rate is beneficial in and of itself saving billions in lost
satellites.


Lower failure rate has yet to be demonstrated. Is that 4 billion a capsule?
Or for X capsules?


4) If you are using 3 OSP flights to replace a shuttle flight and you
replace at least 4 shuttle flights a year that totals 12 not 4 or 8. If

you
replace 6 shuttle flights then you have 18 flights.

5) If they use the capsule version they will be reasonably cheap. There

is
no reason a private company with its own rocket could not buy an OSP. All
they need is the ability to launch 8 tons to LEO, less if they want to

sell
suborbital flights.

6) Reusability is in the early stages not all that important. Without
sufficient rate of launches to support a decent number of vehicles and
absorb fixed costs reusability can easily raise costs.

7) Delta and Atlas rockets at low launch rates cost less then $100

million.
Shuttle flights cost right now over $600 million.
Even at an extra $100 million you only have the same cost not more for a
safer vehicle. With a little luck and decent launch rates you should be

able
to get launch costs under $100 million. Based on 4 people and 500 kg of
cargo that is around $20 million a person considerably cheaper then the
shuttle at around $50 million.








  #19  
Old September 21st 03, 06:08 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Non-Innovator's Dilemma

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 07:02:57 CST, in a place far, far away, "Dholmes"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html

I see several flaws with your argument.

1) By using development costs for the OSP vs. not including them for the
shuttle you compare apples on oranges making the cost comparison worthless.


Nope. I addressed that in the column. You can't compare sunk costs
to avoidable ones, at least if you're trying to make a rational
economic decision.

2) Using three launches have nothing to do with rocket capabilities. The
heavy versions of both the Delta and Atlas could launch a Big Gemini with
lots of cargo mass left over totaling more people and more cargo then the
shuttle. It has to do with reducing risks even though it raises costs.


I don't understand what you're saying here, or the relevance.

3) The vast majority of the 12 billion cost estimates has to do with "man
rating" Atlas and Delta not the OSP itself.


So? It's still a cost that has to be amortized.

4) If you are using 3 OSP flights to replace a shuttle flight and you
replace at least 4 shuttle flights a year that totals 12 not 4 or 8. If you
replace 6 shuttle flights then you have 18 flights.


How do you figure? You can't count the cargo flights.

5) If they use the capsule version they will be reasonably cheap.


That remains to be seen.

There is
no reason a private company with its own rocket could not buy an OSP.


No, but there are many reasons that it wouldn't--the high costs.

All
they need is the ability to launch 8 tons to LEO, less if they want to sell
suborbital flights.

6) Reusability is in the early stages not all that important. Without
sufficient rate of launches to support a decent number of vehicles and
absorb fixed costs reusability can easily raise costs.


That was exactly the point of the column.

7) Delta and Atlas rockets at low launch rates cost less then $100 million.
Shuttle flights cost right now over $600 million.
Even at an extra $100 million you only have the same cost not more for a
safer vehicle. With a little luck and decent launch rates you should be able
to get launch costs under $100 million. Based on 4 people and 500 kg of
cargo that is around $20 million a person considerably cheaper then the
shuttle at around $50 million.


You apparently didn't read the column carefully.

--
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:

  #20  
Old September 21st 03, 07:32 PM
Jon Berndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Non-Innovator's Dilemma

"Dholmes" wrote:

2) Using three launches have nothing to do with rocket capabilities. The
heavy versions of both the Delta and Atlas could launch a Big Gemini with
lots of cargo mass left over totaling more people and more cargo then the
shuttle. It has to do with reducing risks even though it raises costs.
...
4) If you are using 3 OSP flights to replace a shuttle flight and you
replace at least 4 shuttle flights a year that totals 12 not 4 or 8. If

you
replace 6 shuttle flights then you have 18 flights.


I think we also have to consider what the future needs will be. After ISS is
assembled, would there be a need for launching crews *and* payloads
together? For satellites, space telescopes, etc. there is a need for a
*single* launch. For crew rotations carrying a small amount of payload
there is need for a *single* launch. I find this comparison in Rand's
column off target.

Also, there is some value in having a crewed vehicle that is operationally
simpler, has fewer crit 1 items, and has viable abort modes that cover a far
wider range of the flight envelope than is currently available with shuttle.

There are a few companies out there now that are working hard trying to make
an attempt at a short, suborbital flight (the links that Rand provided in
his column when referring to private ventures: "having its [NASA] high-cost
myths exposed as private entities start to show the way to affordable and
safe human spaceflight"). As much as I find Scaled Composite's current
endeavor fascinating to follow, let's keep in mind that there is a big
difference between what it takes to go from 2,000 mph in a suborbital arc to
17,500 mph and LEO - the ideal energy required (per pound) scales roughly
with the square of the velocity. I also want to see safe and affordable
routine access to space become available, and I am curious as to just how
cheap and safe Rand thinks a private company could do it, compared to the
current way (or proposed future, as with OSP) it is being done. How much
should it cost a private enterprise to develop and test a four person space
transportation vehicle? How much should it cost, per flight, to operate? In
other words, how far off the mark are we, now?

Jon


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.