Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development

Ool wrote:
"jeff findley" wrote in message ...
"Ool" writes:

Yeah. To bad the *military* has no use for a rocket that can touch
down again in one piece...

You're joking right? Who do you think funded the original development
of the DC-X, the only reusable "rocket" that has proven through flight
testing that VTVL landing of "rockets" is feasible?


From the way you're formulating the question I'd hazard that the an-
swer is: The military.

So what use do they have for a rocket that can land softly, ass down?


Launching things to orbit? They do that quite a lot.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Cardman wrote in message . ..
On 22 Jan 2004 17:22:49 -0800, (Christopher M.
Jones) wrote:

It'd be great if NASA could develop a low cost RLV.

They could give that a shot if these RS-84 engines come about.

Let me state this as clearly as possible. There are
no technological roadblocks to creating low cost
launch vehicles. None whatsoever. Not even engines.
We have the engines we need on the shelf. Right now!
It lacks only the right management and the right
business plan to make cheaper launch vehicles a
reality.


But the simple, sad fact is that they
*cannot* do it and very likely cannot be *made*
to do it.

NASA's half-assed attempts so far have left little to inspire, but
since they are now serious about replacing their Shuttle, then they
have gone back to the basics of what does work.

It's hard to call anything "half-assed" when it costs
tens of billions of dollars. Was Shuttle development
"half-assed"? Or X-33? By many standards, sure. But
that's the way NASA does it and giving them more money
simply makes their half-assed attempts more expensive.
NASA cannot do it, they would have to be forced to do
it. And, as I said, I don't think they can be forced
to change enough to do it. Especially not with the
way civil service employment works today.


Rocket and capsule.

And I do not believe that it is that hard to build a reusable rocket,
when with the RS-84 engines, then you just need to attach these to
your rocket frame that can make a safe landing.

Since NASA has never really tried to do that, then it is a little
early to say if they could succeed or not.

Oh, but NASA has tried. Over, and over, and over, and
over again. That they don't know the right way to do
it even when it's blindingly ****ing obvious is the
best reason to not ever give them the money to try
again!


If they do, then this could well provide great advantages, when buying
those expendable rockets, certainly in NASA's ideal size, are not
cheap you know.

And if I farted gold ever hour on the hour I'd be a very
wealthy man.


If directed to do it they would more
than likely both fail

Since NASA has been running the Shuttle for years, then until now they
have not had much desire to replace it. Also it is congress who
usually ends these projects by denying further funding.

NASA has long been looking for alternatives to the
Shuttle and for replacements as well. They spent
around a billion dollars on just the "demonstrator"
for a Shuttle replacement last time. All it
demonstrated was that NASA knows jack about how to
get into space cheaply.


and hobble commercial development in that area.

How so? NASA does not launch commercial payloads and I do not see any
other company trying to profit from a RLV.

You miss your own point! If, as you say, NASA is able
to develop a low cost launch vehicle then that vehicle,
or a derivative, will be the one to serve the majority
of the commercial market. Look at it this way. NASA
discovers the secret to low cost launch vehicles,
NASA pays contractor A to develop and build said
launch vehicle. Later, contractor A creates new
design based off NASA's to offer commercially. Since
most of the development work on said design was paid
for by NASA, contractor A can sell their commercial
launcher for much less than what it actually cost to
make. It has happened before in different and
closely related industries (especially aviation).
Smart investors, which tend to be the ones with the
most money to invest, though not always, know these
things. The biggest problem is when NASA funds
development but fails, because then the competition
is driven off but nothing comes of it.


It's very difficult
to compete profitably with an organization
which does not need to make a profit.

NASA is as much in the area of competition as it is with profit.

It is
similarly difficult to obtain funding from
investors expecting a decent rate of return
when there is little hope of profit due to said
destructive competition.

If NASA does make a successful RLV system, then this will give others
the reason to do so.

See above.


NASA has, to date,
tried to reinvent orbital launch with *several*
times, spending anywhere from a mere billion to
tens of billions of dollars at each try. And
always it has failed.

Maybe it has never really tried to make a replacement vehicle, but all
this past research will prove useful in their CEV.

It *has* tried! Many times! That it's failed so
catastrophically so many times, sometimes even
before getting started, is an argument against,
not for.


X-33 is only the most recent failure.

The one with the now fixed fuel tank I guess.

Would that that were the only serious, debilitating
flaw with that design.


However, NASA can run the numbers on this one and figure out that it
does not make financial sense.

The most dramatic is perhaps
the Shuttle itself, which was supposed to be
somewhere between ten to a hundred times cheaper
than it turned out to be (i.e. one of the most
expensive launch vehicles ever made).

Clearly NASA was not interested in reducing launch costs when they
made the Shuttle, or they would not have made it.

Reducing launch costs was the overarching goal of
the entire Shuttle program. From its inception.
The whole idea was that for the same amount of
money, or less, the Shuttle would allow much more
frequent trips to orbit. Thus lowering the per
launch costs dramatically. This never happened.


Directing NASA's activities *away* from launch
vehicle development is a very, very good thing.

Perhaps, but NASA will still have to develop technology that they
need, but does not exist.

But, hopefully, in an area where their activities will
not do the most damage to private enterprise in space
flight.


I am fully happy for Boeing or LM build their RLV instead, at NASA's
direction, when this could lower their support costs.

Half the problem is that Boeing and LM don't know how
to do it either!


Worst case situation is that if their reusable rocket does not work
out, in terms of cost per pound launched, then they can always fall
back on the likes of the Delta IV-H anyway.

And this isn't a bad thing?! That's not hardly the worst
case scenario either. The worst case scenario is that
NASA continues to hamper private launch vehicle
development and we get stuck with the Delta IV and
friends, and incremental improvments on such, *FOR EVER*.


NASA does need a new rocket to make the Moon though.

You'd be surprised. It can be done, and done well, with
what we have on the shelf now.

Dick Morris wrote in message ...
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:
Directing NASA's activities *away* from launch
vehicle development is a very, very good thing.
It's a feature, not a bug.

The private sector hasn't done much better.

Did you not read where I explained the poisoning effect
of NASA interest in launch veicle development or did
you just not understand it?

On 24 Jan 2004 13:13:18 -0800, (Christopher M.
Jones) wrote:

Let me state this as clearly as possible. There are
no technological roadblocks to creating low cost
launch vehicles.

True, but these X-Prize linked launch companies are the ones who will
prove this.

None whatsoever. Not even engines.

True, but NASA wants the best from their engines.

We have the engines we need on the shelf. Right now!
It lacks only the right management and the right
business plan to make cheaper launch vehicles a
reality.

Go for it then. ;-]

Well you really could, when even the stock market may see profits to
be had in such a plan.

NASA's half-assed attempts so far have left little to inspire, but
since they are now serious about replacing their Shuttle, then they
have gone back to the basics of what does work.

It's hard to call anything "half-assed" when it costs
tens of billions of dollars.

Yes, but even that is not a serious amount of funds to the likes of
NASA, not to forget other government agencies.

After all these moronic people who pay their taxes like good little
slaves to the system are only happy to cough up more. ;-]

Was Shuttle development "half-assed"? Or X-33? By many standards,
sure.

See. :-]

But that's the way NASA does it and giving them more money simply
makes their half-assed attempts more expensive.

As I said before that if NASA pays me $1 million, then I can examine
their expenses and save them $2 million.

NASA cannot do it, they would have to be forced to do
it. And, as I said, I don't think they can be forced
to change enough to do it. Especially not with the
way civil service employment works today.

Then good luck to these companies who will soon start taking people on
LEO hops.

NASA at least with a suitable plan can achieve something in the middle
ground.

Since NASA has never really tried to do that, then it is a little
early to say if they could succeed or not.

Oh, but NASA has tried. Over, and over, and over, and
over again. That they don't know the right way to do
it even when it's blindingly ****ing obvious is the
best reason to not ever give them the money to try
again!

Overlooking the area of blame, then one repeated point of project
failure is in the area of trying to develop new technology.

This Columbia accident report apart from mentioning that NASA should
change to a new safer craft as soon as possible, but they also said
that they should do so only using existing technology.

So that is one reason why the CEV could well work out.

Since NASA has been running the Shuttle for years, then until now they
have not had much desire to replace it. Also it is congress who
usually ends these projects by denying further funding.

NASA has long been looking for alternatives to the
Shuttle and for replacements as well.

Not seriously it seems, when that is the only reason why they do not
yet have one.

They spent
around a billion dollars on just the "demonstrator"
for a Shuttle replacement last time.

Just be thankful that this is a US billion and not a UK billion. ;-]

And yes that so well highlights NASA at work, but they did at least
obtain quite a lot of progress with these funds.

All it
demonstrated was that NASA knows jack about how to
get into space cheaply.

That is not NASA job, when all they have to do is to meet their
objectives out of their available budget.

Not that they can even do that well of course.

How so? NASA does not launch commercial payloads and I do not see any
other company trying to profit from a RLV.

You miss your own point! If, as you say, NASA is able
to develop a low cost launch vehicle then that vehicle,
or a derivative, will be the one to serve the majority
of the commercial market.

That sounds good to me. Lowering the launch costs and having an
American company being in the lead.

Look at it this way. NASA
discovers the secret to low cost launch vehicles,
NASA pays contractor A to develop and build said
launch vehicle. Later, contractor A creates new
design based off NASA's to offer commercially. Since
most of the development work on said design was paid
for by NASA, contractor A can sell their commercial
launcher for much less than what it actually cost to
make.

Well develop, but true enough.

However, even creating one monopolistic launch service is still
providing lower launch costs to the end customer. And when other
launch companies see how they are missing out, then sure enough they
will spend the money to develop their own version.

Sure, they may be behind this first company still, but things have
just been taken up a level to the benefit of their customers. It is
also true to say that these second systems may even have improvements
over the first.

Also face the truth that no launch system made by NASA, Boeing or LM
will ever be that cheap, when these new emerging companies will one
day be able to prove that they can do it for much less.

It has happened before in different and
closely related industries (especially aviation).
Smart investors, which tend to be the ones with the
most money to invest, though not always, know these
things.

And I do not see much of a problem here, when in the end the
technology has simply got better.

The biggest problem is when NASA funds
development but fails, because then the competition
is driven off but nothing comes of it.

True, but such technology can be proved eventually.

If NASA does make a successful RLV system, then this will give others
the reason to do so.

See above.

Yes, where now everyone will have RLVs and the world will be a happier
place. :-]

Maybe it has never really tried to make a replacement vehicle, but all
this past research will prove useful in their CEV.

It *has* tried! Many times! That it's failed so
catastrophically so many times, sometimes even
before getting started, is an argument against,
not for.

And even overlooking blame, then NASA has still developed a lot of
good technology out of all this, which will certainly form part of the
CEV.

X-33 is only the most recent failure.

The one with the now fixed fuel tank I guess.

Would that that were the only serious, debilitating
flaw with that design.

Except that the planned aerospike engines did not exist beyond the
drawing board stage during this project, when only the very first
aerospike engine was demonstrated recently.

Clearly NASA was not interested in reducing launch costs when they
made the Shuttle, or they would not have made it.

Reducing launch costs was the overarching goal of
the entire Shuttle program. From its inception.

Yes, but it never stood a chance of working out.

The whole idea was that for the same amount of
money, or less, the Shuttle would allow much more
frequent trips to orbit. Thus lowering the per
launch costs dramatically. This never happened.

Maybe because each launch still cost a large amount of extra money,
where congress was just not willing to pay.

Perhaps, but NASA will still have to develop technology that they
need, but does not exist.

But, hopefully, in an area where their activities will
not do the most damage to private enterprise in space
flight.

You can trust me when I say that NASA will never harm these emerging
orbital hop companies, when they will always be able to do it for
less. This is NASA we are talking about after all.

NASA should be doing what best achieves their objectives. If Boeing or
LM wish to make use of NASA's designed and paid for engines and
systems, then these companies should pay NASA for doing so.

I am fully happy for Boeing or LM build their RLV instead, at NASA's
direction, when this could lower their support costs.

Half the problem is that Boeing and LM don't know how
to do it either!

Maybe so, but at least they are cheaper than NASA.

Worst case situation is that if their reusable rocket does not work
out, in terms of cost per pound launched, then they can always fall
back on the likes of the Delta IV-H anyway.

And this isn't a bad thing?!

It is not a good thing, but at least it is a fall back plan should
NASA try to do an RLV and fail.

That's not hardly the worst
case scenario either. The worst case scenario is that
NASA continues to hamper private launch vehicle
development

NASA has greater respect for private launch development these days,
when past efforts would never have made it to LEO altitude with or
without NASA's s******ing.

They know that all recent developments means that doing the LEO hop
thing is now only a matter of time. Companies certainly have the
vehicles, where the rockets are following on behind, even if the
electronics have still to be developed.

So NASA would not dare try doing that now, when if they did they would
soon be eating their words.

And I personally look forwards to an LEO hop market, where I will even
more look forwards to NASA turning over the ISS to some hotel chain so
that these same companies could progress to full orbital and to
actually take them there.

Some other companies may even see profit to be had in further LEO
development, not that NASA's ISS example is a very good one.

and we get stuck with the Delta IV and
friends, and incremental improvments on such, *FOR EVER*.

So NASA developing an RLV is not such a bad thing after all.

NASA does need a new rocket to make the Moon though.

You'd be surprised. It can be done, and done well, with
what we have on the shelf now.

That it can, but only in expendables.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:

Dick Morris wrote in message ...
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:
Directing NASA's activities *away* from launch
vehicle development is a very, very good thing.
It's a feature, not a bug.

The private sector hasn't done much better.

Did you not read where I explained the poisoning effect
of NASA interest in launch vehicle development or did
you just not understand it?

I've seen and heard that argument many times. If it's true, then why
was there no rush to get into the RLV market after NASP went belly up?
NASA's credibility, in the wake of the SEI debacle, was at an all-time
low. The Shuttle was certainly no competition - commercial payloads had
been booted off of the vehicle in the wake of the Challenger disaster -
and X-33 didn't come along until years later. If the private sector had
been just waiting for NASA to get out of the way so they could pick up
the ball and run with it, that would have been a good opportunity.
There were plenty of engineers in the private sector who knew how to
reduce launch costs, the proper approaches being "blindingly...obvious",
but it didn't happen.

Boeing, and other aerospace companies, really would like to be the
developer of the first true RLV. The problem is that nobody has been
able to make a plausible business case, with realistic estimates of
development cost and schedule, that would get past a board of
directors. Existing markets are much too small to provide a return on
investment, and speculative markets like tourism are not known even
within an order-of-magnitude.

Even if keeping NASA out of the picture, permanently, is a NECESSARY
condition for enabling private sector investment in an RLV, that doesn't
mean that it's a SUFFICIENT condition. The risks may just be too high
for the private sector to take on - the job is going to be hard enough
without having to amortize development costs. The organizations that
have failed so miserably in the past should not get another chance, but
there is no guarantee that tying NASA's hands completely will have the
desired effect.

Dick Morris wrote in message ...

Boeing, and other aerospace companies, really would like to be the
developer of the first true RLV.

Actually, Boeing claims it has already built a "First Generation RLV."
That's Boeing's term for the Shuttle. But if you mean a launch vehicle
that's actually reusable, rather than repairable, there's no evidence
Boeing is interested in that. At least, not without another
Shuttle-like deal, that guarantees Boeing will be paid no matter how
the vehicle performs.

You claim your "true RLV" would do all the things Boeing claimed the
Shuttle would do. The marketing hasn't been updated in 40 years, even
if the technology has. That's the problem. The biggest flaw in the
Shuttle was not the technology but the markets, or lack thereof. You
propose technical fixes for the Shuttle's technical problems, but
ignore the fundamental economic problem.

Meanwhile, Scaled Composites is testing a true RLV right now. I know
you want to think it's not "true," but it's true whether you think so
or not.

The problem is that nobody has been able to make a plausible business case,
with realistic estimates of development cost and schedule, that would get past a board of
directors.

As a "nobody," I see nothing wrong with that. :-)

You have a severe case of the Not Invented Here Syndrome.

Existing markets are much too small to provide a return on
investment, and speculative markets like tourism are not known even
within an order-of-magnitude.

The microcomputer market was not known to within an
order-of-magnitude, back in the days when mainframe companies said the
government needed to invest billions to develop Fifth Generation
computers.

If existing markets are too small for your mainframe approach, that
doesn't mean no one can succeed. There are other approaches, some of
which are already providing a return on investment. Sometimes, one
needs to look beyond the obvious approach of bigger, more expensive,
and more elaborate.

Even if keeping NASA out of the picture, permanently, is a NECESSARY
condition for enabling private sector investment in an RLV, that doesn't
mean that it's a SUFFICIENT condition. The risks may just be too high
for the private sector to take on - the job is going to be hard enough
without having to amortize development costs.

Only if the development costs are too high. I don't understand your
fixation on hugely expensive vehicles.

The organizations that have failed so miserably in the past should not get another chance,

You mean like the companies that worked on Shuttle, NASP, X-33, X-34,
and X-37? If you aren't going to give those organizations another
chance, who should the government give the money to? Do you think the
government's going to pick a startup company to build a multi-billion
dollar Shuttle Replacement?

Edward Wright wrote:

Dick Morris wrote in message ...

Boeing, and other aerospace companies, really would like to be the
developer of the first true RLV.

Actually, Boeing claims it has already built a "First Generation RLV."
That's Boeing's term for the Shuttle. But if you mean a launch vehicle
that's actually reusable, rather than repairable, there's no evidence
Boeing is interested in that. At least, not without another
Shuttle-like deal, that guarantees Boeing will be paid no matter how
the vehicle performs.

"First Generation RLV" is NASA's term for the Shuttle, and Boeing is
quite happy to go along with whatever NASA wants. Boeing will also
build whatever NASA wants, and if they want to build a fully-reusable
launcher, Boeing will go all out to get the job. Boeing certainly is
not going to risk it's own money to develop an RLV as long as the
markets are such a small fraction of what it would take to provide a
return on that investment.

You claim your "true RLV" would do all the things Boeing claimed the
Shuttle would do. The marketing hasn't been updated in 40 years, even
if the technology has. That's the problem. The biggest flaw in the
Shuttle was not the technology but the markets, or lack thereof. You
propose technical fixes for the Shuttle's technical problems, but
ignore the fundamental economic problem.

I have been acutely aware of the fundamental economic problems for 30
years. I have also been acutely aware of all the start-up companies
that have tried to solve those problems over the years, and failed.

The problem with the Shuttle is that you can't develop markets unless
you first have a marketable vehicle. Marketability is a technical
matter. Suppose, for example, that we were to suddenly increase the
airlines' average cost per flight by $1 million. Ticket prices would go
up by about an order-of-magnitude, and the vast majority of the market
would evaporate overnight. The Shuttle's cost-per-flight starts with
that $60 million throwaway tank and goes up from there. The Shuttle's
total recuring cost per flight is at least $100 million, and it can't do
significantly better than that, regardless of the flight rate.

If you have a system with positive feedback, any displacement will cause
the system to go hard-over in the direction of the displacement. The
fact that the initial diplacement is much smaller than the final,
hard-over value does not mean that the displacement was unimportant.
The direction of the displacement determines which direction the system
will go.

Our existing space transportation systems are hard-over in the direction
of huge costs and miniscule markets. It is a classic example of
positive feedback. Just because the total cost of a Shuttle launch,
including all the fixed costs, is much larger than the costs due to the
expendable and unreliable hardware does not mean that those technical
issues are unimportant.

We're on the wrong side of the demand curve with space transportation,
and to get on the good side we need to drive recuring costs way down.
Then the marketers will be able to do their thing and develop the
markets, including tourism, that we need to drive costs down to low
levels.

Meanwhile, Scaled Composites is testing a true RLV right now. I know
you want to think it's not "true," but it's true whether you think so
or not.

Scaled Composites is testing a true, rocket-powered airplane. I wish
them luck: Getting to LEO, and back, will be about 100 times more
difficult than what they have accomplished thus far.

The problem is that nobody has been able to make a plausible business case,
with realistic estimates of development cost and schedule, that would get past a board of
directors.

As a "nobody," I see nothing wrong with that. :-)

You have a severe case of the Not Invented Here Syndrome.

Not even a slight fever. ;-) I am strongly in favor of whatever works,
and I'll take a good idea wherever I can get it. (FWIW, I have been
very upset with Boeing's behavior in the space transportation area in
recent years, and I let a few people know it, including our former CEO.)

Existing markets are much too small to provide a return on
investment, and speculative markets like tourism are not known even
within an order-of-magnitude.

The microcomputer market was not known to within an
order-of-magnitude, back in the days when mainframe companies said the
government needed to invest billions to develop Fifth Generation
computers.

The PC market was addressed originally by people working out of their
garages. Hobbyists had already built their own computers. It was
relatively easy to start small in the microcomputer market, but the
price of admission to LEO markets is 8 km/sec. That is a big step, and
the technical requirements of an orbital launcher cannot be addressed,
reliably, on the cheap. SS1 is child's play compared to what it takes
to get to LEO, and back, safely. There is never going to be a "Mom and
Pop's Plumbing Supply and Launch Vehicle Company".

If existing markets are too small for your mainframe approach, that
doesn't mean no one can succeed. There are other approaches, some of
which are already providing a return on investment. Sometimes, one
needs to look beyond the obvious approach of bigger, more expensive,
and more elaborate.

Bigger, more expensive, and more elaborate works in a mature market like
commercial aviation, but we obviously are not there yet with space.
Smaller and simpler than the Shuttle, with full reusability and much
higher reliability is the direction we should go right now, as far as
commercial markets are concerned.

Even if keeping NASA out of the picture, permanently, is a NECESSARY
condition for enabling private sector investment in an RLV, that doesn't
mean that it's a SUFFICIENT condition. The risks may just be too high
for the private sector to take on - the job is going to be hard enough
without having to amortize development costs.

Only if the development costs are too high. I don't understand your
fixation on hugely expensive vehicles.

I don't advocate hugely expensive vehicles. My entire approach is to
get costs DOWN so we can afford to do more in space. One reason I
advocate VTOL is because ballistic designs are much cheaper to develop
than winged designs. I advocate going to Mars with an RLV and LEO
refueling to avoid throwing away billions of dollars of launch vehicle
hardware on each flight, that being the only way we're going to get a
long-term program.

Unfortunately, we can't get low recuring costs by skimping on
development cost. We did that with the Shuttle and look where it got
us. That's the REAL lesson of the Shuttle. An RLV of reasonable size
(~20,000 lb. payload, or more, to LEO) will cost billions to develop. I
am pesimistic that the private sector can do that on it's own, but would
be delighted to be proven wrong.

The organizations that have failed so miserably in the past should not get another chance,

You mean like the companies that worked on Shuttle, NASP, X-33, X-34,
and X-37?

No, the NASA organizations that ran those programs.

If you aren't going to give those organizations another
chance, who should the government give the money to? Do you think the
government's going to pick a startup company to build a multi-billion
dollar Shuttle Replacement?

Certainly not.

Dick Morris wrote in message ...

"First Generation RLV" is NASA's term for the Shuttle, and Boeing is
quite happy to go along with whatever NASA wants. Boeing will also
build whatever NASA wants, and if they want to build a fully-reusable
launcher, Boeing will go all out to get the job.

Boeing went all out to get X-37, too. Then what happened? When the
cost of the project grew, Boeing threatened to walk away unless NASA
kicked in more money. If Boeing can't complete its demonstrator on
time and within budget, what makes you think a fully reusable launcher
that's hundreds of times larger would be a piece of cake?

I have been acutely aware of the fundamental economic problems for 30
years.

If you understood the problem, you wouldn't advocate building another
Shuttle -- ballistic VTOL or not. No technical fix that can overcome
the fact that there isn't enough demand to justify that kind of
vehicle. You can't make 1 plus 1 equal 4, no matter what technology
you come up with.

Meanwhile, Scaled Composites is testing a true RLV right now. I
know
you want to think it's not "true," but it's true whether you think
so
or not.

Scaled Composites is testing a true, rocket-powered airplane.

Then why is AST evaluating their launch license application? AST
doesn't license airplanes, they license launch vehicles.

I wish them luck: Getting to LEO, and back, will be about 100 times more
difficult than what they have accomplished thus far.

So? Are you making some Kennedy-esque point, that we ought to do this
just because it's hard?

Not even a slight fever. ;-) I am strongly in favor of whatever works,
and I'll take a good idea wherever I can get it.

Are you the same Dick Morris who said his idea was "the only way"?

The PC market was addressed originally by people working out of their
garages. Hobbyists had already built their own computers. It was
relatively easy to start small in the microcomputer market, but the
price of admission to LEO markets is 8 km/sec.

Your fever seems to have progressed to the next stage -- "LEO on the
brain." :-)

If getting to LEO is so hard and the rewards are so small, doesn't
that suggest you may have picked the wrong destination?

You sound like a guy in 1904 telling Orville and Wilber they're
wasting their time because the only "true airplanes" are those with
trans-Pacific range.

Bigger, more expensive, and more elaborate works in a mature market like
commercial aviation, but we obviously are not there yet with space.
Smaller and simpler than the Shuttle, with full reusability and much
higher reliability is the direction we should go right now, as far as
commercial markets are concerned.

Simpler and smaller than the Shuttle surely describes Spaceship One,
doesn't it? So, what's your hang up there, again?

I don't advocate hugely expensive vehicles.

Yes, you contradict yourself in the very next paragraph -- "will cost
billions to develop."

My entire approach is to get costs DOWN so we can afford to do more in space. One reason I
advocate VTOL is because ballistic designs are much cheaper to develop
than winged designs.

Who do you work for again?

Wings typically account for about 20% of the weight (and therefore
cost) of a vehicle. A 20% cost saving won't begin to close the gap
between the demand needed to justify your vehicle and what exists in
the real world.

I advocate going to Mars with an RLV and LEO
refueling to avoid throwing away billions of dollars of launch vehicle
hardware on each flight, that being the only way we're going to get a
long-term program.

It's a two-year round trip to Mars. If you can only make one trip
every two years, reusability is not a big advantage. You might as well
keep those billions of dollars of hardware on Mars and use them for
habitat space.

Unfortunately, we can't get low recuring costs by skimping on
development cost. We did that with the Shuttle

"Skimped on development cost"? I thought Shuttle development cost many
billions of dollars. Am I mistaken?

Scaled Composites skimped more than that on Spaceship One, didn't
they? Does that mean Spaceship One has higher recurring costs than the
Shuttle?

and look where it got
us. That's the REAL lesson of the Shuttle. An RLV of reasonable size
(~20,000 lb. payload, or more, to LEO) will cost billions to develop. I
am pesimistic that the private sector can do that on it's own, but would
be delighted to be proven wrong.

Why should it? 20,000 pounds is not a reasonable payload size. Not
only are you telling the Wright Brothers they should be building
trans-Pacific airplanes, you're insisting they start out with
something big enough to carry an entire DC-3 as cargo.

The organizations that have failed so miserably in the past should
not get another chance,

You mean like the companies that worked on Shuttle, NASP, X-33,
X-34,
and X-37?

No, the NASA organizations that ran those programs.

I thought NASP was run primarily by DoD? Okay, so how many chances do
the companies get? And what motive do they have to succeed, when the
only consequence of failure is the chance to bid on the next
iteration?

Edward Wright wrote:

Dick Morris wrote in message ...

"First Generation RLV" is NASA's term for the Shuttle, and Boeing is
quite happy to go along with whatever NASA wants. Boeing will also
build whatever NASA wants, and if they want to build a fully-reusable
launcher, Boeing will go all out to get the job.

Boeing went all out to get X-37, too. Then what happened? When the
cost of the project grew, Boeing threatened to walk away unless NASA
kicked in more money. If Boeing can't complete its demonstrator on
time and within budget, what makes you think a fully reusable launcher
that's hundreds of times larger would be a piece of cake?

As I have said many times, developing launch vehicles (or airliners) is
among the hardest jobs in engineering. It is you who seem to think that
it's a piece of cake, so any start-up company can do it for a few tens
of millions of dollars.

I have been acutely aware of the fundamental economic problems for 30
years.

If you understood the problem, you wouldn't advocate building another
Shuttle -- ballistic VTOL or not. No technical fix that can overcome
the fact that there isn't enough demand to justify that kind of
vehicle. You can't make 1 plus 1 equal 4, no matter what technology
you come up with.

I have said explicitly, many, many times that there isn't enough demand
to justify the private development of a true RLV. Hence my belief that
government funding of some sort will be required. If you knew anything
about the problem you would know that new transportation systems must
create their own market. We don't build bridges based on the number of
people who swim the river at a particular point.

Meanwhile, Scaled Composites is testing a true RLV right now. I
know
you want to think it's not "true," but it's true whether you think
so
or not.

Scaled Composites is testing a true, rocket-powered airplane.

Then why is AST evaluating their launch license application? AST
doesn't license airplanes, they license launch vehicles.

I don't know and I don't care. You'll have to ask them.

I wish them luck: Getting to LEO, and back, will be about 100 times more
difficult than what they have accomplished thus far.

So? Are you making some Kennedy-esque point, that we ought to do this
just because it's hard?

Do you actually read anything I write? I have been saying for years
that doing things just "because they are hard" is DUMB!!! It's one of
the main reasons we still don't have a practical launch vehicle after 40
years of spaceflight. See "NASP" and "X-33".

Not even a slight fever. ;-) I am strongly in favor of whatever works,
and I'll take a good idea wherever I can get it.

Are you the same Dick Morris who said his idea was "the only way"?

I have said that an RLV (and an LEO propellant depot) is the only way we
are going to get a long-term program of manned lunar and planetary
exploration going. The expendable HLLV paradigm manifestly does not
work! After 30 years of trying to re-create the Apollo program, with
zero success, I should think that everybody would have gotten the point
by now.

The PC market was addressed originally by people working out of their
garages. Hobbyists had already built their own computers. It was
relatively easy to start small in the microcomputer market, but the
price of admission to LEO markets is 8 km/sec.

Your fever seems to have progressed to the next stage -- "LEO on the
brain." :-)

If you know of a way to get to the Moon or Mars without getting to
orbital velocity I'd like to see it. You've got suborbital on the
brain.

If getting to LEO is so hard and the rewards are so small, doesn't
that suggest you may have picked the wrong destination?

You sound like a guy in 1904 telling Orville and Wilber they're
wasting their time because the only "true airplanes" are those with
trans-Pacific range.

Get a life.

Bigger, more expensive, and more elaborate works in a mature market like
commercial aviation, but we obviously are not there yet with space.
Smaller and simpler than the Shuttle, with full reusability and much
higher reliability is the direction we should go right now, as far as
commercial markets are concerned.

Simpler and smaller than the Shuttle surely describes Spaceship One,
doesn't it? So, what's your hang up there, again?

You're hung up on SS1. If all you ever want to do is work on glorified
carnival rides, or race rocket-powered airplanes, that's your
priviledge. If so, you have missed the entire point.

I don't advocate hugely expensive vehicles.

Yes, you contradict yourself in the very next paragraph -- "will cost
billions to develop."

"Hugely" expensive means "much more than" expensive. Developing an RLV,
of any significant size, will be expensive. Deal with it.

My entire approach is to get costs DOWN so we can afford to do more in space. One reason I
advocate VTOL is because ballistic designs are much cheaper to develop
than winged designs.

Who do you work for again?

Wings typically account for about 20% of the weight (and therefore
cost) of a vehicle. A 20% cost saving won't begin to close the gap
between the demand needed to justify your vehicle and what exists in
the real world.

If you had any engineering experience you would know that development
cost is not simply proportional to weight.

I advocate going to Mars with an RLV and LEO
refueling to avoid throwing away billions of dollars of launch vehicle
hardware on each flight, that being the only way we're going to get a
long-term program.

It's a two-year round trip to Mars. If you can only make one trip
every two years, reusability is not a big advantage. You might as well
keep those billions of dollars of hardware on Mars and use them for
habitat space.

You have an amazing ability to miss the point. Expendable HLLV's are
reduced to scrap metal in minutes, not years.

Unfortunately, we can't get low recuring costs by skimping on
development cost. We did that with the Shuttle

"Skimped on development cost"? I thought Shuttle development cost many
billions of dollars. Am I mistaken?

It would have cost twice as much had it been fully-reusable.

Scaled Composites skimped more than that on Spaceship One, didn't
they? Does that mean Spaceship One has higher recurring costs than the
Shuttle?

Get a life.

and look where it got
us. That's the REAL lesson of the Shuttle. An RLV of reasonable size
(~20,000 lb. payload, or more, to LEO) will cost billions to develop. I
am pesimistic that the private sector can do that on it's own, but would
be delighted to be proven wrong.

Why should it? 20,000 pounds is not a reasonable payload size. Not
only are you telling the Wright Brothers they should be building
trans-Pacific airplanes, you're insisting they start out with
something big enough to carry an entire DC-3 as cargo.

If you want something smaller go right ahead. Just don't tell your
investors that it can all be done for a few tens of millions, tops.
Investors hate being lied to.

------

I thought for a moment we had a rational discussion going, for once. My
mistake. All you want to do is twist everything I say in order to score
debating points. So, my last word to you is...

PLONK

Dick Morris wrote in message ...

As I have said many times, developing launch vehicles (or airliners) is
among the hardest jobs in engineering. It is you who seem to think that
it's a piece of cake, so any start-up company can do it for a few tens
of millions of dollars.

Okay, if building X-37 was too hard, what makes you think a big
orbital RLV won't be?

I have said explicitly, many, many times that there isn't enough demand
to justify the private development of a true RLV.

Repeating something many, many times doesn't make it true.

Scaled Composites is testing a true, rocket-powered airplane.

Then why is AST evaluating their launch license application? AST
doesn't license airplanes, they license launch vehicles.

I don't know and I don't care. You'll have to ask them.

Why? I have no problem with AST's definition.

Do you actually read anything I write? I have been saying for years
that doing things just "because they are hard" is DUMB!!! It's one of
the main reasons we still don't have a practical launch vehicle after 40
years of spaceflight. See "NASP" and "X-33".

And your proposed RLV is designed to perform the same mission. Getting
20,000 pounds to orbit hasn't become any easier.

I have said that an RLV (and an LEO propellant depot) is the only way we
are going to get a long-term program of manned lunar and planetary
exploration going. The expendable HLLV paradigm manifestly does not
work! After 30 years of trying to re-create the Apollo program, with
zero success, I should think that everybody would have gotten the point
by now.

I never claimed that trying to recreate the Apollo program would work.
That doesn't prove a huge uneconomical RLV will work, however. It's
possible for more than one thing not to work, Dick.

If you know of a way to get to the Moon or Mars without getting to
orbital velocity I'd like to see it. You've got suborbital on the
brain.

It isn't necessary to get to orbital velocity in a single step. The
first airplanes weren't built to haul 20,000 pounds to Europe. An
expensive new vehicle to support a mad rush to Mars may promise
instant gratification, but it won't change anything in the long run. A
ticket will still cost more than your life savings, and even if the
government subsidizes it as you want, there will be a long line of
people ahead of you. NASA gets about 100 applications for every spot
in the astronaut program. If you want to get to the Moon or Mars,
we've got to learn to do things cheaper first.

Get a life.

Clever, Dick. Haven't heard that one since high school.

"Hugely" expensive means "much more than" expensive. Developing an RLV,
of any significant size, will be expensive. Deal with it.

In this context, "expensive" means $5-20 million. If you insist on
what you call "significant size," then it will be hugely expensive.

If you had any engineering experience you would know that development
cost is not simply proportional to weight.

Funny. Boeing's cost models are based on weight.

It's a two-year round trip to Mars. If you can only make one trip
every two years, reusability is not a big advantage. You might as
well
keep those billions of dollars of hardware on Mars and use them for
habitat space.

You have an amazing ability to miss the point. Expendable HLLV's are
reduced to scrap metal in minutes, not years.

So? NASA can buy a lot of scrap metal for what Boeing would want to
build a heavy-lift RLV.

Unfortunately, we can't get low recuring costs by skimping on
development cost. We did that with the Shuttle

"Skimped on development cost"? I thought Shuttle development cost
many
billions of dollars. Am I mistaken?

It would have cost twice as much had it been fully-reusable.

Shrug. I suppose you could figure a way to make it cost ten times as
much. So? A billion dollars may be a small unit to the Federal
government, but no one else would call it skimpy.

If you want something smaller go right ahead. Just don't tell your
investors that it can all be done for a few tens of millions, tops.
Investors hate being lied to.

Spaceship One constitutes an existance proof that it can be done for a
few tens of millions. If you want to cover your eyes, okay, but it can
be done, has been done, and will be done.