|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fixed costs dominate launch costs
Current issues in NewSpace
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/823/1 From above: Sowers was optimistic that additional demand for the Atlas 5 from commercial orbital manned missions could benefit all users of the vehicle. "The launch vehicle industry is very highly invested in fixed costs," he said. "If there's a new big market we think we can get factors of two to four, nearly, in cost reduction by increasing launch rates by factors of two to four." I know NewSpace is looking for even greater cost reductions, but what stuck in my mind is the potential launch costs reductions that are there if NASA would abandon Ares I/V and buy Atlas and Delta launches instead. Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Fixed costs dominate launch costs
On 5 Mar, 15:20, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
Current issues in NewSpacehttp://www.thespacereview.com/article/823/1 From above: Sowers was optimistic that additional demand for the Atlas 5 from commercial orbital manned missions could benefit all users of the vehicle. "The launch vehicle industry is very highly invested in fixed costs," he said. "If there's a new big market we think we can get factors of two to four, nearly, in cost reduction by increasing launch rates by factors of two to four." I know NewSpace is looking for even greater cost reductions, but what stuck in my mind is the potential launch costs reductions that are there if NASA would abandon Ares I/V and buy Atlas and Delta launches instead. Quite - and that's from LM. What would Spacex offer? That's why Constellation should be launched with a contract for about 24 Atlas V Heavy / Delta IV Heavy / Falcon S9 Heavies every 24 months. Even on current list prices, NASA would save money. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Fixed costs dominate launch costs
On 5 Mar, 20:38, "Alex Terrell" wrote:
On 5 Mar, 15:20, "Jeff Findley" wrote: Current issues in NewSpacehttp://www.thespacereview.com/article/823/1 From above: Sowers was optimistic that additional demand for the Atlas 5 from commercial orbital manned missions could benefit all users of the vehicle. "The launch vehicle industry is very highly invested in fixed costs," he said. "If there's a new big market we think we can get factors of two to four, nearly, in cost reduction by increasing launch rates by factors of two to four." I know NewSpace is looking for even greater cost reductions, but what stuck in my mind is the potential launch costs reductions that are there if NASA would abandon Ares I/V and buy Atlas and Delta launches instead. Quite - and that's from LM. What would Spacex offer? That's why Constellation should be launched with a contract for about 24 Atlas V Heavy / Delta IV Heavy / Falcon S9 Heavies every 24 months. Even on current list prices, NASA would save money. Problem is too much competition. Any capitalist worth his salt would buy Proton/Soyuz - At any rate until the market was big enough to reduce costs by a factor of 4. As I said in "Establish Demand" we are quite happy to leave other pieces of technology to the marketplace. Somehow space is a symbol of national virility in a way cars are not. OK we need the knowledge - True. We sinply archive CAD we don't destroy it. Apart from that why is space different from cars? - Ian Parker |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Fixed costs dominate launch costs
On Mar 6, 1:54 am, "Ian Parker" wrote:
On 5 Mar, 20:38, "Alex Terrell" wrote: On 5 Mar, 15:20, "Jeff Findley" wrote: Current issues in NewSpacehttp://www.thespacereview.com/article/823/1 From above: Sowers was optimistic that additional demand for the Atlas 5 from commercial orbital manned missions could benefit all users of the vehicle. "The launch vehicle industry is very highly invested in fixed costs," he said. "If there's a new big market we think we can get factors of two to four, nearly, in cost reduction by increasing launch rates by factors of two to four." I know NewSpace is looking for even greater cost reductions, but what stuck in my mind is the potential launch costs reductions that are there if NASA would abandon Ares I/V and buy Atlas and Delta launches instead. Quite - and that's from LM. What would Spacex offer? That's why Constellation should be launched with a contract for about 24 Atlas V Heavy / Delta IV Heavy / Falcon S9 Heavies every 24 months. Even on current list prices, NASA would save money. Problem is too much competition. Any capitalist worth his salt would buy Proton/Soyuz - At any rate until the market was big enough to reduce costs by a factor of 4. I remember a presentation by Jordin Kare comparing launch costs, with a row in the table labelled, simply, "Anything Russian". In fact, it's the only thing I remember about that presentation. The lack of a true competitive market for launch might be attributed to the perception of a native launch industry as a national asset (which it certainly is, in the defense complex.) As I said in "Establish Demand" we are quite happy to leave other pieces of technology to the marketplace. Somehow space is a symbol of national virility in a way cars are not. Yes. There are cars that can get you laughed at even if you don't crash them or get them blown up. Not that a native automobile industry can't be a symbol of national virility -- several nations make their own cars when they'd probably be better off with imports. OK we need the knowledge - True. We sinply archive CAD we don't destroy it. Apart from that why is space different from cars? Let me count the ways. ;-) Mass market: Henry Ford discovered that if he paid his workers more, he got all the money back and then some, because higher paid workers could afford his cars. Somehow, I don't expect this kind of positive feedback loop to establish itself in space vehicle production. Low substitutability: the modern cityscape and its suburbs have reached the point where there is no good substitute for the car. For most space applications, there are substitutes, in some cases better or cheaper ones. Industrial synergy: Most of the industries that fed the nascent automobile industry were also feeding other industries at the time. Cars started out as truly "horseless buggies". However, space is an extreme environment, and to reach it requires exotic engineering. Can you think of a terrestrial industrial use for a launch-worthy rocket engine? For an ion drive? One of my favorite ghettoized concepts for heat rejection in space is something called the Liquid Droplet Radiator. Try as I might, I can't think of a good terrestrial application for it. Space has, in some cases, provided an early proving ground for some technologies (solar cells, for example, and I think the first computer made with integrated circuits was in the Apollo CM.) However, in general, the more you optimize something for space uses, the less cost-effective it is on the ground. National defense: a full marketization/globalization of space access would mean surrender of the industry to the low-cost leaders, eventually if not sooner. This mattered relatively little to a nation like Japan, but Japan has been under the US nuclear umbrella since WW II. I'm no big fan of ballistic missile defense, but if it could be made to work, it might be good for cheap space access -- not because depoying BMD yields economies of scale in launch (as in the Brilliant Pebbles scenario), but because it Makes the World Safe for Big Dumb Cheap Rockets, whether from India, Russia, China, or hell, Iran and Pakistan if it came to that. Russia's edge in launch costs has a lot to do with paying workers 1/10th of what they are paid in the U.S. I'm probably missing a couple more differences. -michael turner |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Fixed costs dominate launch costs
On 6 Mar, 15:19, "Michael Turner" wrote:
On Mar 6, 1:54 am, "Ian Parker" wrote: On 5 Mar, 20:38, "Alex Terrell" wrote: On 5 Mar, 15:20, "Jeff Findley" wrote: Current issues in NewSpacehttp://www.thespacereview.com/article/823/1 From above: Sowers was optimistic that additional demand for the Atlas 5 from commercial orbital manned missions could benefit all users of the vehicle. "The launch vehicle industry is very highly invested in fixed costs," he said. "If there's a new big market we think we can get factors of two to four, nearly, in cost reduction by increasing launch rates by factors of two to four." I know NewSpace is looking for even greater cost reductions, but what stuck in my mind is the potential launch costs reductions that are there if NASA would abandon Ares I/V and buy Atlas and Delta launches instead. Quite - and that's from LM. What would Spacex offer? That's why Constellation should be launched with a contract for about 24 Atlas V Heavy / Delta IV Heavy / Falcon S9 Heavies every 24 months. Even on current list prices, NASA would save money. Problem is too much competition. Any capitalist worth his salt would buy Proton/Soyuz - At any rate until the market was big enough to reduce costs by a factor of 4. I remember a presentation by Jordin Kare comparing launch costs, with a row in the table labelled, simply, "Anything Russian". In fact, it's the only thing I remember about that presentation. The lack of a true competitive market for launch might be attributed to the perception of a native launch industry as a national asset (which it certainly is, in the defense complex.) As I said in "Establish Demand" we are quite happy to leave other pieces of technology to the marketplace. Somehow space is a symbol of national virility in a way cars are not. Yes. There are cars that can get you laughed at even if you don't crash them or get them blown up. Not that a native automobile industry can't be a symbol of national virility -- several nations make their own cars when they'd probably be better off with imports. OK we need the knowledge - True. We sinply archive CAD we don't destroy it. Apart from that why is space different from cars? Let me count the ways. ;-) Mass market: Henry Ford discovered that if he paid his workers more, he got all the money back and then some, because higher paid workers could afford his cars. Somehow, I don't expect this kind of positive feedback loop to establish itself in space vehicle production. Low substitutability: the modern cityscape and its suburbs have reached the point where there is no good substitute for the car. For most space applications, there are substitutes, in some cases better or cheaper ones. There are commercial applications of space. Comm sats, GPS/Galileo, Earth resource satellites. OK there are terrestrially based alternatives, but space is generally reckoned to be cheaper. OK worldwide fiber optics is an alternative to comm sats. Probably better for the civilized environment but satellites are essential for marine and aviation applications. Industrial synergy: Most of the industries that fed the nascent automobile industry were also feeding other industries at the time. Cars started out as truly "horseless buggies". However, space is an extreme environment, and to reach it requires exotic engineering. Can you think of a terrestrial industrial use for a launch-worthy rocket engine? For an ion drive? One of my favorite ghettoized concepts for heat rejection in space is something called the Liquid Droplet Radiator. Try as I might, I can't think of a good terrestrial application for it. Space has, in some cases, provided an early proving ground for some technologies (solar cells, for example, and I think the first computer made with integrated circuits was in the Apollo CM.) However, in general, the more you optimize something for space uses, the less cost-effective it is on the ground. Robotics is very much dual use, but I will agree with you on your examples National defense: a full marketization/globalization of space access would mean surrender of the industry to the low-cost leaders, eventually if not sooner. This mattered relatively little to a nation like Japan, but Japan has been under the US nuclear umbrella since WW II. I'm no big fan of ballistic missile defense, but if it could be made to work, it might be good for cheap space access -- not because depoying BMD yields economies of scale in launch (as in the Brilliant Pebbles scenario), but because it Makes the World Safe for Big Dumb Cheap Rockets, whether from India, Russia, China, or hell, Iran and Pakistan if it came to that. Russia's edge in launch costs has a lot to do with paying workers 1/10th of what they are paid in the U.S. I think it would perhaps be better not to mention defense too much. If there is a real sandbag danger then I think that alternatives to space should be sought EVEN IF THEY ARE MORE EXPENSIVE. Cable - not commsats. Use mobile phone bases NOT GPS. Synthesize meterological maps from ground and aircraft based observations. You see it is possible that the space age will end in the next few years. OK you say that Russia and China have no desire to sandbag. This is only true because they don't want to go to war anyway! Either defense is all a big con, or we should seriously think of abandoning space. In point of fact I myself believe it is a con - you are right that no one wants to sandbag. However we have got to look at the careers of military officers. If the truth got out they would all be retired early. I will repeat, in any hard fought symmetical war the loser is going to bring the roof down if he can. - Ian Parker I'm probably missing a couple more differences. -michael turner- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Fixed costs dominate launch costs
As far as wage costs are concerned we must compete in all other fields
with that difference. Russia cannot produce cheaper computers on the basis of lower wage costs - or cars for that matter. It wage costs are the sole difference - why not have Ariane of a NASA heavy lifter built in Russia? As far security is concerned it would perfectly possible to take a Proton to bits and store the results on CAD. There are precedents. I recall that the early days of WW1 the British were paying Krups of Essen royalties for every fuse used! Needless to add this soon stopped. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Fixed costs dominate launch costs
On Mar 6, 3:19 pm, "Michael Turner" wrote:
Mass market: Henry Ford discovered that if he paid his workers more, he got all the money back and then some, because higher paid workers could afford his cars. Somehow, I don't expect this kind of positive feedback loop to establish itself in space vehicle production. It didn't exist for cars, either. Ford discovered that if he paid his workers more he got better workers and they stuck with the job, and the improved productivity and reduced turnover easily paid for the higher wages. The rest is just an urban myth, though one that's proven very hard to kill. Mark |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Fixed costs dominate launch costs
On 6 Mar, 15:19, "Michael Turner" wrote:
On Mar 6, 1:54 am, "Ian Parker" wrote: On 5 Mar, 20:38, "Alex Terrell" wrote: On 5 Mar, 15:20, "Jeff Findley" wrote: Current issues in NewSpacehttp://www.thespacereview.com/article/823/1 From above: Sowers was optimistic that additional demand for the Atlas 5 from commercial orbital manned missions could benefit all users of the vehicle. "The launch vehicle industry is very highly invested in fixed costs," he said. "If there's a new big market we think we can get factors of two to four, nearly, in cost reduction by increasing launch rates by factors of two to four." I know NewSpace is looking for even greater cost reductions, but what stuck in my mind is the potential launch costs reductions that are there if NASA would abandon Ares I/V and buy Atlas and Delta launches instead. Quite - and that's from LM. What would Spacex offer? That's why Constellation should be launched with a contract for about 24 Atlas V Heavy / Delta IV Heavy / Falcon S9 Heavies every 24 months. Even on current list prices, NASA would save money. Problem is too much competition. Any capitalist worth his salt would buy Proton/Soyuz - At any rate until the market was big enough to reduce costs by a factor of 4. I remember a presentation by Jordin Kare comparing launch costs, with a row in the table labelled, simply, "Anything Russian". In fact, it's the only thing I remember about that presentation. The lack of a true competitive market for launch might be attributed to the perception of a native launch industry as a national asset (which it certainly is, in the defense complex.) I wonder how much of their fixed costs have been covered. Just as some of LM's and Boeing's are by the Pentagon. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Launch costs to soar | William Elliot | Policy | 0 | January 21st 07 06:55 AM |
Launch costs seem irrelevant | Alex Terrell | Policy | 17 | September 24th 05 04:13 AM |
Costs of one versus costs of one million | glbrad01 | Policy | 4 | November 16th 04 02:59 AM |
USAF Predicts Much Higher Launch Costs | ed kyle | Policy | 18 | December 13th 03 02:14 PM |
Manpower and costs for an orbital launch? | MattWriter | Policy | 10 | October 26th 03 07:34 AM |