Armstrong lauds another spaceman

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:38:43 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Fred J.
McCall" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

:In article ,
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
::Turning the general populace into space enthusiasts *will not happen*, and
:lans which assume that it will are pointless fantasies. The only way to
::get to (say) Mars is to lower the cost to the point that overwhelming
:ublic enthusiasm is not required.
:
:Which essentially says that it will never happen, Henry, since you
:have to start going there before there is an incentive to lower the
:cost of going there.
:
:Not at all. The single technical change that would contribute most to
:lowering the cost of a Mars expedition -- much cheaper launch to LEO -- is
:desirable for a number of more immediate reasons.

And yet that doesn't seem to be progressing with great rapidity,
either. It seems that EVERY new launch system I can remember promised
to reduce cost of getting a pound to LEO to the $100 range.

You must be living in some alternate reality. Most new launch systems
(at least the ones that get formally proposed to the government) only
propose to reduce the costs by an order of magnitude or so, if that.

In fact, the actual cost of getting a pound to LEO doesn't seem to
have moved even a single order of magnitude over the entire history of
real space launchers, much less the two orders of magnitude necessary
to make 'swamping the problems with mass' really feasible.

Only because there's little demand for it from the traditional
providers of launch system development funds.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:38:43 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Fred J.
:McCall" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
:in such a way as to indicate that:
:
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
:
::In article ,
::Fred J. McCall wrote:
:::Turning the general populace into space enthusiasts *will not happen*, and
::lans which assume that it will are pointless fantasies. The only way to
:::get to (say) Mars is to lower the cost to the point that overwhelming
::ublic enthusiasm is not required.
::
::Which essentially says that it will never happen, Henry, since you
::have to start going there before there is an incentive to lower the
::cost of going there.
::
::Not at all. The single technical change that would contribute most to
::lowering the cost of a Mars expedition -- much cheaper launch to LEO -- is
::desirable for a number of more immediate reasons.
:
:And yet that doesn't seem to be progressing with great rapidity,
:either. It seems that EVERY new launch system I can remember promised
:to reduce cost of getting a pound to LEO to the $100 range.
:
:You must be living in some alternate reality.

Yes. I live in the one the actual world occurs in. Not sure about
your current residence.

:Most new launch systems
at least the ones that get formally proposed to the government) only
ropose to reduce the costs by an order of magnitude or so, if that.

That's what generally happens after downselect. The original number
proposed for the Shuttle, for example, was on the order of $150-$300
per pound with 100% reusability (and a much smaller payload and much
less crossrange capability). This relied on selling a *lot* of them
(something like 5 for NASA plus commercial sales after that).

This number rather rapidly devolved to the range you're discussing
(around $1500 per pound) as payload and crossrange requirements grew.
It still relied on 100% reusability and an unrealistic number of
Shuttles being constructed.

Now go look at the real number.

:In fact, the actual cost of getting a pound to LEO doesn't seem to
:have moved even a single order of magnitude over the entire history of
:real space launchers, much less the two orders of magnitude necessary
:to make 'swamping the problems with mass' really feasible.
:
:Only because there's little demand for it from the traditional
roviders of launch system development funds.

Largely because they don't believe it can be done and don't want to
fund yet more development of another system that doesn't hit the
target (again).

Do you truly believe that a system that cut price to LEO to the $1500
range wouldn't rapidly become the launch system of choice (assuming
payload capability similar to what is currently extant)?

Why would commercial users (in particular) stick with a higher-cost
system, all other things being equal?

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 05:05:57 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Fred J.
McCall" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


:Most new launch systems
at least the ones that get formally proposed to the government) only
ropose to reduce the costs by an order of magnitude or so, if that.

That's what generally happens after downselect.

And generally before.

:In fact, the actual cost of getting a pound to LEO doesn't seem to
:have moved even a single order of magnitude over the entire history of
:real space launchers, much less the two orders of magnitude necessary
:to make 'swamping the problems with mass' really feasible.
:
:Only because there's little demand for it from the traditional
roviders of launch system development funds.

Largely because they don't believe it can be done and don't want to
fund yet more development of another system that doesn't hit the
target (again).

Do you truly believe that a system that cut price to LEO to the $1500
range wouldn't rapidly become the launch system of choice (assuming
payload capability similar to what is currently extant)?

Of course not. Do you truly believe that I wrote such a thing?

Why would commercial users (in particular) stick with a higher-cost
system, all other things being equal?

They wouldn't. Nice straw man, though. Chock full.

What I said was that there was no demand for it, or at least not
enough to justify the investment. I didn't say that they wouldn't
prefer a cheaper ride if they could get one. But they're obviously
satisfied with current prices.

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
:Only because there's little demand for it from the traditional
roviders of launch system development funds.

Largely because they don't believe it can be done and don't want to
fund yet more development of another system that doesn't hit the
target (again).

And if you do it the way *they* traditionally do it, it probably can't be
done and it probably wouldn't hit the target. This doesn't mean it's
impossible, only that *they* can't do it.

Yes, there are people who will tell you that it *is* impossible. These
are people to whom it is unthinkable that the emperor is really standing
there with no clothes on. He just *can't* be naked, therefore he isn't.

Why would commercial users (in particular) stick with a higher-cost
system, all other things being equal?

Think it through. Today's commercial launch customers are people whose
business case closes even with today's high costs.

That being so, they are not really all that interested in lower costs.
They will take a cheaper ride if it comes along, yes, but they are not
interested in taking risks to help it happen.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 05:05:57 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Fred J.
:McCall" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
:in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:
::Most new launch systems
:at least the ones that get formally proposed to the government) only
:ropose to reduce the costs by an order of magnitude or so, if that.
:
:That's what generally happens after downselect.
:
:And generally before.

Not nearly as much, since there's nothing to puncture the fantasy and
let reality in until they actually have to build something.

::In fact, the actual cost of getting a pound to LEO doesn't seem to
::have moved even a single order of magnitude over the entire history of
::real space launchers, much less the two orders of magnitude necessary
::to make 'swamping the problems with mass' really feasible.
::
::Only because there's little demand for it from the traditional
:roviders of launch system development funds.
:
:Largely because they don't believe it can be done and don't want to
:fund yet more development of another system that doesn't hit the
:target (again).
:
:Do you truly believe that a system that cut price to LEO to the $1500
:range wouldn't rapidly become the launch system of choice (assuming
:payload capability similar to what is currently extant)?
:
:Of course not. Do you truly believe that I wrote such a thing?

That's how I read the "...there's little demand for it from the
traditional providers of launch system development funds" comment,
yes.

:Why would commercial users (in particular) stick with a higher-cost
:system, all other things being equal?
:
:They wouldn't. Nice straw man, though. Chock full.

Just going by what you say, Rand. If you don't mean it, don't say it.

:What I said was that there was no demand for it, or at least not
:enough to justify the investment. I didn't say that they wouldn't
refer a cheaper ride if they could get one. But they're obviously
:satisfied with current prices.

We're obviously using a different definition for 'demand'.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:29:59 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Fred J.
McCall" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

::Only because there's little demand for it from the traditional
:roviders of launch system development funds.
:
:Largely because they don't believe it can be done and don't want to
:fund yet more development of another system that doesn't hit the
:target (again).
:
:Do you truly believe that a system that cut price to LEO to the $1500
:range wouldn't rapidly become the launch system of choice (assuming
:payload capability similar to what is currently extant)?
:
:Of course not. Do you truly believe that I wrote such a thing?

That's how I read the "...there's little demand for it from the
traditional providers of launch system development funds" comment,
yes.

Then you misread it.

:Why would commercial users (in particular) stick with a higher-cost
:system, all other things being equal?
:
:They wouldn't. Nice straw man, though. Chock full.

Just going by what you say, Rand. If you don't mean it, don't say it.

I didn't say it.

:What I said was that there was no demand for it, or at least not
:enough to justify the investment. I didn't say that they wouldn't
refer a cheaper ride if they could get one. But they're obviously
:satisfied with current prices.

We're obviously using a different definition for 'demand'.

Obviously. I'm using it the sense that they are willing to purchase
at the current price, and are not demanding a lower one. That doesn't
mean that they wouldn't prefer to pay less, if they thought they
could. They're not stupid, but they're also not sufficiently
dissatisfied with the current prices to make major investments and
accept risk in lowering them. Also, I said that there's no demand
from the traditional providers of launch development funds. That's a
different group of people from the purchasers of launch services.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:29:59 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Fred J.
:McCall" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
:in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:::Only because there's little demand for it from the traditional
::roviders of launch system development funds.
::
::Largely because they don't believe it can be done and don't want to
::fund yet more development of another system that doesn't hit the
::target (again).
::
::Do you truly believe that a system that cut price to LEO to the $1500
::range wouldn't rapidly become the launch system of choice (assuming
::payload capability similar to what is currently extant)?
::
::Of course not. Do you truly believe that I wrote such a thing?
:
:That's how I read the "...there's little demand for it from the
:traditional providers of launch system development funds" comment,
:yes.
:
:Then you misread it.

Or you miswrote it.

::Why would commercial users (in particular) stick with a higher-cost
::system, all other things being equal?
::
::They wouldn't. Nice straw man, though. Chock full.
:
:Just going by what you say, Rand. If you don't mean it, don't say it.
:
:I didn't say it.

Well, perhaps you didn't MEAN to say it....

::What I said was that there was no demand for it, or at least not
::enough to justify the investment. I didn't say that they wouldn't
:refer a cheaper ride if they could get one. But they're obviously
::satisfied with current prices.
:
:We're obviously using a different definition for 'demand'.
:
:Obviously. I'm using it the sense that they are willing to purchase
:at the current price, and are not demanding a lower one.

Which is no definition at all, since 'demand' implicitly includes 'at
a given price'. The way you have to make this determination is to
look at demand at the current price vs demand at the lower price and
use THAT to determine whether it makes sense to develop something that
can operate at the cheaper price (including business captured from
competitors, of course).

See pretty much any Econ 102 book.

:That doesn't
:mean that they wouldn't prefer to pay less, if they thought they
:could. They're not stupid, but they're also not sufficiently
:dissatisfied with the current prices to make major investments and
:accept risk in lowering them. Also, I said that there's no demand
:from the traditional providers of launch development funds. That's a
:different group of people from the purchasers of launch services.

Yes, well that group would generally be the government, which is not
real 'demand-based' in any event.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn