Cost of launch and laws of physics

I agree with that. Commercial supersonic flight is actually a tougher
technical problem than low-cost launch.


But a commercial SST *has* been built, while a low-cost spaceship is still a
wisp in a few human minds.

ISTM that what killed supersonic jetliners was unforeseen changes in the
marketing paradigm. When Concorde was being designed, air travel was something
mostly VIPs did; for such, the added cost was not a problem; and no one
anticipated the closure of overland routes to bisonic flight.

On 06 Aug 2003 18:35:10 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(G EddieA95) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I agree with that. Commercial supersonic flight is actually a tougher
technical problem than low-cost launch.

But a commercial SST *has* been built, while a low-cost spaceship is still a
wisp in a few human minds.

Not a successful one. It had limited range, eliminating the largest
markets (trans-Pacific), and couldn't overfly land, ruling it out for
coast to coast. It required government subsidization, and it's going
out of business shortly. There won't be another until there are some
significant advances in aerodynamics. In fact, I won't be at all
surprised if we have commercial suborbital transports before we see
another supersonic transport.

--
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:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 15:21:00 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
"Dave" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

But, what interests me more is the basis you use for this claim?

Any number of studies performed for both NASA and the Air Force. Most
of the current high cost is due to low utilization rates and
diseconomies of scale, not "physics."

Surely it can be argued that both of those are a factor of the physics
though?

No, they are a factor of no desire (to date) to build a
high-flight-rate vehicle.

I'd argue that's because it's much harder to build a high fly rate vehicle.

Both of those factors stem from the technological limitations rather than
shear bloody mindedness on the part of the various space programmes.

No, (to date) they stem from a disbelief in the utility of high flight
rates.

We have to differ on this point.

As you pointed out yourself, if I chartered a 737 for myself, the cost
for my ticket would go up two orders of magnitude. No change in
physics.

How about if you wanted to fly supersonic across country?

You need a change in the physics there.

I agree with that. Commercial supersonic flight is actually a tougher
technical problem than low-cost launch.

--
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:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 06 Aug 2003 18:35:10 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(G EddieA95) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I agree with that. Commercial supersonic flight is actually a tougher
technical problem than low-cost launch.

But a commercial SST *has* been built, while a low-cost spaceship is
still a
wisp in a few human minds.

Not a successful one. It had limited range, eliminating the largest
markets (trans-Pacific), and couldn't overfly land, ruling it out for
coast to coast. It required government subsidization, and it's going
out of business shortly. There won't be another until there are some
significant advances in aerodynamics. In fact, I won't be at all
surprised if we have commercial suborbital transports before we see
another supersonic transport.

It would solve some of the more serious problems caused by the atmosphere
being in the way. However, I'll wait and see if commercial sub-orbitals
prove to be any better an option.

Dave

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:59:21 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In fact, I won't be at all
surprised if we have commercial suborbital transports before we see
another supersonic transport.

It would solve some of the more serious problems caused by the atmosphere
being in the way. However, I'll wait and see if commercial sub-orbitals
prove to be any better an option.

We both will. I'm simply expressing my opinion of the relative
prospects.

--
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:

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:58:22 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

No, they are a factor of no desire (to date) to build a
high-flight-rate vehicle.

I'd argue that's because it's much harder to build a high fly rate vehicle.

It's not "harder," but it's probably more expensive up front. It's
certainly not impossible.

Shuttle, even with 1970s technology, could have been designed for much
higher flight rates and much lower operational costs. All they needed
to do was spend the money on reusable fly-back boosters, and get rid
of the requirements for sixty-five thousand pounds payload and a
thousand miles cross range.

The program was a failure because it was overspecified and
underfunded, not because there was any intrinsic reason that high-rate
fully-reusable launch systems couldn't be built, even then. It would
be much easier now.

Both of those factors stem from the technological limitations rather than
shear bloody mindedness on the part of the various space programmes.

No, (to date) they stem from a disbelief in the utility of high flight
rates.

We have to differ on this point.

I speak from extensive personal experience in discussions with policy
makers (and corporate executives at major aerospace corporations).
They want low-cost launch, in theory, but don't understand that it's
much more of a scale problem than a technological one, because they
can't get their heads around the concept of mass space markets, or
their desirability. Their thinking has been molded by the experience
of the Cold War.

--
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:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:58:22 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

No, they are a factor of no desire (to date) to build a
high-flight-rate vehicle.

I'd argue that's because it's much harder to build a high fly rate
vehicle.

It's not "harder," but it's probably more expensive up front. It's
certainly not impossible.

Shuttle, even with 1970s technology, could have been designed for much
higher flight rates and much lower operational costs. All they needed
to do was spend the money on reusable fly-back boosters, and get rid
of the requirements for sixty-five thousand pounds payload and a
thousand miles cross range.

Agreed. But the price tag would have been astounding too.

The program was a failure because it was overspecified and
underfunded, not because there was any intrinsic reason that high-rate
fully-reusable launch systems couldn't be built, even then. It would
be much easier now.

I'm not going to argue that lower costs aren't impossible. I just think the
physics and engineering involved represent a cost impact that people are not
currently prepared to pay.

That increased expense is down to the challenge involved.

Both of those factors stem from the technological limitations rather
than
shear bloody mindedness on the part of the various space programmes.

No, (to date) they stem from a disbelief in the utility of high flight
rates.

We have to differ on this point.

I speak from extensive personal experience in discussions with policy
makers (and corporate executives at major aerospace corporations).
They want low-cost launch, in theory, but don't understand that it's
much more of a scale problem than a technological one, because they
can't get their heads around the concept of mass space markets, or
their desirability. Their thinking has been molded by the experience
of the Cold War.

However, even when a mass market raises its head as it did a decade ago,
there still wasn't much interest.

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:55:24 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Shuttle, even with 1970s technology, could have been designed for much
higher flight rates and much lower operational costs. All they needed
to do was spend the money on reusable fly-back boosters, and get rid
of the requirements for sixty-five thousand pounds payload and a
thousand miles cross range.

Agreed. But the price tag would have been astounding too.

Actually, by getting rid of the cross-range requirement, and making it
much smaller, I suspect it could have been done for the same
development budget.

I speak from extensive personal experience in discussions with policy
makers (and corporate executives at major aerospace corporations).
They want low-cost launch, in theory, but don't understand that it's
much more of a scale problem than a technological one, because they
can't get their heads around the concept of mass space markets, or
their desirability. Their thinking has been molded by the experience
of the Cold War.

However, even when a mass market raises its head as it did a decade ago,
there still wasn't much interest.

That wasn't a mass market by the definition required to drive down
launch costs.

--
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:

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:59:21 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In fact, I won't be at all
surprised if we have commercial suborbital transports before we see
another supersonic transport.

It would solve some of the more serious problems caused by the atmosphere
being in the way. However, I'll wait and see if commercial sub-orbitals
prove to be any better an option.

We both will. I'm simply expressing my opinion of the relative
prospects.

Even though my opinion is that costs of commercial sub-orbitals will be
higher than those predicted by advocates of sub-orbital tourist flights
(Rand Simberg for one) I believe that a bigger problem is getting some
kind of reasonable government regulations.

I am not quite certain what the laws of physics have to do with
government regulations, but government regulations can have a
great effect on the cost of launch.

Mike Walsh

Rand Simberg wrote:

Shuttle, even with 1970s technology, could have been designed for much
higher flight rates and much lower operational costs. All they needed
to do was spend the money on reusable fly-back boosters,

I am not so sure about this one. While the reusable fly-back booster
doesn't require meeting the re-entry requirements of the orbiter
(there are those laws of physics again) the first stage fly-back booster
gets extremely large, costly, and has its own set of risks. Remember,
we are talking 1970's technology.

Also, not developing reusable propellant tanks for the orbital vehicle
resulted in both the high cost of the throw-away tankage and the
fact that any design and operational problems resulting from this kind
of integration have not been demonstrated, to this day.

and get rid
of the requirements for sixty-five thousand pounds payload and a
thousand miles cross range.

Yes, the oversizing of the orbiter is, in my opinion, one of the
drivers that led to the high cost of the Shuttle.

The program was a failure because it was overspecified and
underfunded, not because there was any intrinsic reason that high-rate
fully-reusable launch systems couldn't be built, even then. It would
be much easier now.

I believe it would have been better to build a smaller and lower cost
reusable orbital vehicle as a test vehicle and not aim immediately for
a large operational vehicle.

I admit to being somewhat obsessed with wanting to see flight
demonstrations actually happen, as opposed to claims that we
can prove that "all will go well" by analysis.

Rather sadly, when NASA has actually attempted to do a
flight test demonstration (X-33 and X-34) they have failed
miserably.

Mike Walsh