|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The Non-Innovator's Dilemma
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:32:38 CST, in a place far, far away, "Jon
Berndt" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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 actually think that Burt's flight is a stunt, optimized purely to win the X-Prize, but unlikely to provide an evolutionary path to orbit, but that doesn't apply to all of the X-Prize contenders (or the non-X-Prize contenders, like XCOR, or Pioneer, Blue Origin, or SpaceX). In any event, we have to walk (or even crawl) before we run. The point is that the startups are finally taking a sensible approach to developing safe, low-cost space transports. They are developing safe, low-cost suborbitals, which can then have their envelopes gradually expanded, increasing velocity and altitude until they eventually have safe, affordable orbital transports. NASA's approach is to have a low-cost and safe system spring full-born from the head of Zeus, and to have the hubris to think that they know how to do it, and can predict the specific technologies and operations required to do it, with almost zero experience with low-cost and safe *anything*. The latter approach has been shown to fail, repeatedly, at the cost of billions of dollars of taxpayers' dollars, and lost decades. It's time to go back to the original incremental approach (started with the X-15) that was dropped in the rush to get to the Moon. 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? In terms of development costs, a private entity should be able to do it for easily an order of magnitude less than a cost-plus contract. As to operational cost, that depends entirely on flight rate. As I point out in the column, by its nature OSP will never achieve the low marginal costs necessary to achieve the high flight rates that are necessary to drive down per-flight costs, because it's wed to an expensive expendable. You might propose that we eventually develop a reusable booster for it, but in that case, it will be an extremely suboptimized system, because it doesn't really make sense to design a space transport with a tiny reusable crew capsule (winged or otherwise) as a final stage, because it probably implies three stages, when, at the current technology level, two is probably best. The real issue, as I pointed out, comes back to requirements, and what our vision for the future of manned space is. OSP is business as usual, in which no one will be going into space except a few government employees for the foreseeable future. It may save a few lives, relative to the Shuttle, but it's unlikely to save any money, and it will perpetuate the myth that only the government can afford to put people into space. -- 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: |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The Non-Innovator's Dilemma
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
Fortunately, not everyone shares your doubts. True, and I wish them luck and success. It would be a _pleasant_ surprise if they succeed. Jon |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The Non-Innovator's Dilemma
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
The real issue, as I pointed out, comes back to requirements, and what our vision for the future of manned space is. OSP is business as usual, in which no one will be going into space except a few government employees for the foreseeable future. It may save a few lives, relative to the Shuttle, but it's unlikely to save any money, and it will perpetuate the myth that only the government can afford to put people into space. At this time, it's not a myth. At this time only the government can orbit people - unfortunately. I don't expect to see a private enterprise orbit people for quite a while, and if they do it will likely be viewed as a stunt, as well. I don't see a way out of that unless there is a good business reason to go into space. I am very doubtful about space tourism on a scale that would make the design, development, and operation of a commercial space transportation vehicle anything but an investment disaster. Jon |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
The Non-Innovator's Dilemma
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:25:47 CST, in a place far, far away, "Jon
Berndt" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message The real issue, as I pointed out, comes back to requirements, and what our vision for the future of manned space is. OSP is business as usual, in which no one will be going into space except a few government employees for the foreseeable future. It may save a few lives, relative to the Shuttle, but it's unlikely to save any money, and it will perpetuate the myth that only the government can afford to put people into space. At this time, it's not a myth. I meant myth in the sense of widely held cultural belief (which is the sense in which anthropologists use it). Myths may or may not be true. To the degree that it continues to discourage private investment, this particular myth remains a self-fulling one. I am very doubtful about space tourism on a scale that would make the design, development, and operation of a commercial space transportation vehicle anything but an investment disaster. Fortunately, not everyone shares your doubts. -- 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: |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The Non-Innovator's Dilemma
"Dholmes" wrote in message ... However, at this point, that money has been spent. So it's already accounted for. You want to count it twice. You always use the same standards when comparing two proposals. I am only trying to count each once not one 0 times and the other 3 times by adding in interest. But you're not comparing the same thing in both cases. The sunk costs for the shuttle are spent. There's nothing in the budget to account for "Original R&D" in future shuttle ops. There is such a thing as "Original R&D" for the OSP. Unlike private industry, NASA doesn't have to amortize costs after the fact. Now, if you want to include FUTURE R&D costs for the Shuttle (safety upgrades, etc) that's entirely appropriate. Lower failure rate has yet to be demonstrated. Is that 4 billion a capsule? Or for X capsules? As much as I like the Shuttle it is kind of hard to end up with a higher failure rate. Sure there is. Look at almost any other rocket system in the world. Developing and building the first most estimate around 250 million per capsule after that. Thanks. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The Non-Innovator's Dilemma
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:44:25 CST, in a place far, far away, "Dholmes"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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. When comparing 2 proposals you should always compare them equally when possible. To not do so is bad economics. By not treating them the same you set up a strawman arguement. I don't think you know what a strawman argument is. Look. You have an old car that's already paid for. You're thinking about buying another one. Keeping the old one has costs of upkeep and maintenance. Buying a new one has the cost of purchasing it. The only cost basis on which you're going to make the decision as to whether or not to buy the new one is how much it will sot you int the *future*--whether or not the payments of the new car are worth it, relative to continuing to repair and maintain the old one. You will not, unless you're insane, consider the payments that you already paid on the old one, because those are already paid, and you don't have any control over them. 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. If you are carrying it up by OSP or OSP with an attached cargo capsule then of course you count it. Even if it does not go up by OSP but replaces a shuttle flight it reduces overall costs it could be argued to count it but this is more debatable. Divide 1000 by 4 then divide 1000 by 20 the figures are radically different. But you wouldn't divide it by twenty, unless there are going to be twenty OSP flights. You will only fly OSP on those flights that require crew, and those are much fewer than cargo flights. Again it comes back to using the same figures for both. No, it comes back to using what makes accounting sense. 5) If they use the capsule version they will be reasonably cheap. That remains to be seen. If it is not then they have messed up big time and they should just copy the Russians or the Chinese. They've messed up big time repeatedly in the past. If by "messing up big time" means spending many billions of dollars on the OSP, they've already indicated that that's exactly what they're going to do. 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. The Russian, American and Chinese experience with capsules say this is not the case. Really? How many private companies have bought Russian, American and Chinese capsules? That was exactly the point of the column. Then you should be proposing ways for NASA to buy rockets from private companies to increase those volumes That's a different column. I publish columns, not books. not encourage fewer such purchases. In what way did I do that? You apparently didn't read the column carefully. I read it. I just used the same figures for both and came to a completely different conclusion based on an equal comparison. Because you apparently don't understand basic accounting. Remind me not to have you make any business decisions for me. -- 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: |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The Non-Innovator's Dilemma
"Jon Berndt" wrote in message ... "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. No but many experiments would need to be retrieved and therefore would have to go up on an OSP even though unmanned. One of the conditions of the OSP is that it be able to dock with the station unmanned. Even if it is just a cargo run it would use much of the same equipment( launch pad, base rocket, navigation etc) and people. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
The Non-Innovator's Dilemma
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... 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. When comparing 2 proposals you should always compare them equally when possible. To not do so is bad economics. By not treating them the same you set up a strawman arguement. 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. If you are carrying it up by OSP or OSP with an attached cargo capsule then of course you count it. Even if it does not go up by OSP but replaces a shuttle flight it reduces overall costs it could be argued to count it but this is more debatable. Divide 1000 by 4 then divide 1000 by 20 the figures are radically different. Again it comes back to using the same figures for both. 5) If they use the capsule version they will be reasonably cheap. That remains to be seen. If it is not then they have messed up big time and they should just copy the Russians or the Chinese. 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. The Russian, American and Chinese experience with capsules say this is not the case. 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. Then you should be proposing ways for NASA to buy rockets from private companies to increase those volumes not encourage fewer such purchases. 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. I read it. I just used the same figures for both and came to a completely different conclusion based on an equal comparison. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The Non-Innovator's Dilemma
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message news "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. You always use the same standards when comparing two proposals. I am only trying to count each once not one 0 times and the other 3 times by adding in interest. Lower failure rate has yet to be demonstrated. Is that 4 billion a capsule? Or for X capsules? As much as I like the Shuttle it is kind of hard to end up with a higher failure rate. Developing and building the first most estimate around 250 million per capsule after that. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|