Can the ISS be Privatized?

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:21:23 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
: Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: The government managed to get Apollo to the Moon in 8 years, from a
: standing start, with 1960's technology.
:
: By spending an ungodly amount of money. They didn't build cheap
: vehicles.
:
: They weren't asked to do it cheaply. They were asked to do it quickly.

: Exactly. There's no existence proof that they can do it (or anything)
: cheaply.

One can say that for the entire US Government and not necessarily single
out NASA.

Did you know that the National Institute of Health gets nearly double that
NASA budget now as compared to less than NASA a mere 10 years ago?

Maybe budget constraint has more to do with HAVING to do things cheaply?

: Privately developed launch
: vehicles have yet to put their first ounce of payload into orbit, 35
: years later.
:
: Because they haven't been funded.
:
: Because the corporations and individuals with that kind of money are
: smart enough not to risk it on an unproven market.

: Which says nothing about their ability to build low-cost launchers,
: given funding.

Where is the funding suppose to come from?

: And if you come up with a good business plan you will get funded.

: That may yet happen. In fact, I expect it to.

I'd like to see that business plan in action.

Eric

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:25:06 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick Morris
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Suppose Congress were to establish an "LEO Prize", with an award of,
say, $10 billion to any US company which demonstrates, within 10 years,
the ability to launch, say, a 20,000 lb. payload into LEO twice within a
period of two weeks using the same vehicle. Do you think that might get
some action?

Probably not from Boeing.

Dick Morris wrote in message ...
Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:33:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Dick Morris wrote in message ...

The numbers for LEO tourism may add up - if the government picks up the
tab for the RLV development.

I can't think of a better way to keep the cost out of reach. (except
making it illegal)

Agreed.

The government managed to get Apollo to the Moon in 8 years, from a
standing start, with 1960's technology.

By spending an ungodly amount of money. They didn't build cheap
vehicles.

They weren't asked to do it cheaply. They were asked to do it quickly.

Privately developed launch
vehicles have yet to put their first ounce of payload into orbit, 35
years later.

Because they haven't been funded.

Because the corporations and individuals with that kind of money are
smart enough not to risk it on an unproven market.

This would seem to be a rational point, but it cannot be accepted,
because it undermines important myths about the "free market" and why
people will invest. Rather we must resort to what are apparently
absurd claims about how the reason we have not gone into space is
because NASA is competing everyone out of business (I notice that
often these claims apparently do not even take into account Lockheed
and Boeing--I suppose all the investors are being drawn off so they
can invest in a federal agency?) More rational analyses do take into
account the corporate welfare role, and I think behind those ones
there does lurk some real thought, though I still disagree about many
things.

Dick Morris wrote in message ...
Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:33:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Dick Morris wrote in message ...

The numbers for LEO tourism may add up - if the government picks up the
tab for the RLV development.

I can't think of a better way to keep the cost out of reach. (except
making it illegal)

Agreed.

The government managed to get Apollo to the Moon in 8 years, from a
standing start, with 1960's technology.

By spending an ungodly amount of money. They didn't build cheap
vehicles.

They weren't asked to do it cheaply. They were asked to do it quickly.

Privately developed launch
vehicles have yet to put their first ounce of payload into orbit, 35
years later.

Because they haven't been funded.

Because the corporations and individuals with that kind of money are
smart enough not to risk it on an unproven market.

This would seem to be a rational point, but it cannot be accepted,
because it undermines important myths about the "free market" and why
people will invest. Rather we must resort to what are apparently
absurd claims about how the reason we have not gone into space is
because NASA is competing everyone out of business (I notice that
often these claims apparently do not even take into account Lockheed
and Boeing--I suppose all the investors are being drawn off so they
can invest in a federal agency?) More rational analyses do take into
account the corporate welfare role, and I think behind those ones
there does lurk some real thought, though I still disagree about many
things.

Alexander Sheppard wrote:

Dick Morris wrote in message ...
Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:33:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Dick Morris wrote in message ...

The numbers for LEO tourism may add up - if the government picks up the
tab for the RLV development.

I can't think of a better way to keep the cost out of reach. (except
making it illegal)

Agreed.

The government managed to get Apollo to the Moon in 8 years, from a
standing start, with 1960's technology.

By spending an ungodly amount of money. They didn't build cheap
vehicles.

They weren't asked to do it cheaply. They were asked to do it quickly.

Privately developed launch
vehicles have yet to put their first ounce of payload into orbit, 35
years later.

Because they haven't been funded.

Because the corporations and individuals with that kind of money are
smart enough not to risk it on an unproven market.

This would seem to be a rational point, but it cannot be accepted,
because it undermines important myths about the "free market" and why
people will invest. Rather we must resort to what are apparently
absurd claims about how the reason we have not gone into space is
because NASA is competing everyone out of business (I notice that
often these claims apparently do not even take into account Lockheed
and Boeing--I suppose all the investors are being drawn off so they
can invest in a federal agency?) More rational analyses do take into
account the corporate welfare role, and I think behind those ones
there does lurk some real thought, though I still disagree about many
things.

I'm not sure who you are disagreeing with here - me or the free market
"myth" makers. I certainly don't believe that the free market is the
answer to every problem, or that everything would be fine if we only got
NASA out of the way.

Alexander Sheppard wrote:

Dick Morris wrote in message ...
Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:33:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Dick Morris wrote in message ...

The numbers for LEO tourism may add up - if the government picks up the
tab for the RLV development.

I can't think of a better way to keep the cost out of reach. (except
making it illegal)

Agreed.

The government managed to get Apollo to the Moon in 8 years, from a
standing start, with 1960's technology.

By spending an ungodly amount of money. They didn't build cheap
vehicles.

They weren't asked to do it cheaply. They were asked to do it quickly.

Privately developed launch
vehicles have yet to put their first ounce of payload into orbit, 35
years later.

Because they haven't been funded.

Because the corporations and individuals with that kind of money are
smart enough not to risk it on an unproven market.

This would seem to be a rational point, but it cannot be accepted,
because it undermines important myths about the "free market" and why
people will invest. Rather we must resort to what are apparently
absurd claims about how the reason we have not gone into space is
because NASA is competing everyone out of business (I notice that
often these claims apparently do not even take into account Lockheed
and Boeing--I suppose all the investors are being drawn off so they
can invest in a federal agency?) More rational analyses do take into
account the corporate welfare role, and I think behind those ones
there does lurk some real thought, though I still disagree about many
things.

I'm not sure who you are disagreeing with here - me or the free market
"myth" makers. I certainly don't believe that the free market is the
answer to every problem, or that everything would be fine if we only got
NASA out of the way.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:31:49 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The numbers for LEO tourism may add up - if the government picks up the
tab for the RLV development.

Even if not.

Do you have any data, models or references to back this up.?

On 6 Feb 2004 03:08:34 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Reg burz) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:31:49 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The numbers for LEO tourism may add up - if the government picks up the
tab for the RLV development.

Even if not.

Do you have any data, models or references to back this up.?

Yes.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message ...
On 6 Feb 2004 03:08:34 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Reg burz) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:31:49 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The numbers for LEO tourism may add up - if the government picks up the
tab for the RLV development.

Even if not.

Do you have any data, models or references to back this up.?

Yes.

Perhaps your not all rhetoric after all.

So what would this data be.

Dick Morris wrote in message ...

NASA cannot operate an RLV cheaply, at their launch rate, but an RLV can
certainly be developed with government funding. If Congress directs
that the design be selected based, primarily, on the criteria of minimum
recurring cost, then the private sector will be able to use the vehicle
to drive down costs.

The same argument has been made a few years ago, when "NASA" was
"USAF" and "RLV" was "EELV." Instead of driving down launch costs, as
Boeing and Lockheed, EELV has turned out to be a money loser. So,
Boeing and Lockheed are threatening to shut down EELV operations if
they don't get additional subsidies.

The big aerospace companies have always argued that the next big
launch vehicle would allow them to drive down launch costs. Shuttle,
NASP, and EELV were just a few of the projects sold on that promise.
Government investment in the American SST and Anglo-French Concorde
was justified the same way. All of these projects ignored the
realities of the market, which would constraint the flight rate for
such vehicles. Consequently, none came close to realizing their goals.

Even if the government subsidized 100% of its development cost,
Boeing's big RLV would still face staggering operating costs. Jumbo
jets are able to achieve low operating costs only when there's enough
demand to keep them in the air on a daily basis. NASA might be able to
use a dozen RLV flights per year, in an optimistic scenario. The
market for commercial satellite launches is smaller -- and worse, for
Boeing, the primary competitor for thos launches is Boeing's own Delta
IV. If the Boeing RLV undercut Delta IV, it would mean a net loss of
revenue for Boeing. At the same time, this big RLV would require big
facilities -- the annual upkeep on Kennedy Space Center alone is
monumental. Amortizing those costs over a few flights per year might
easily exceed the costs of Delta IV operations. Boeing might expect
the taxpayers to pay for that, too, but eventually, someone will ask
why the taxpayers should pay for Boeing's commercial launch
operations. (That's why there are no more commercial payloads on the
Shuttle.)

Finally, there's the "aging Concorde" problem. What happens when
Boeing's RLV fleet gets old, the wiring starts to go bad, and the
government doesn't want to pay for a replacement?

Boeing can build a launcher with low recurring costs just as soon as
somebody puts up the money.

Someone *has* put up the money, Dick. You keep repeating that as if
Boeing had never managed to win a government launcher contract. Boeing
has received many government contracts to build launchers. Shuttle and
Delta IV among them. Yet, there's still no evidence that Boeing has
built a launcher with low recurring costs.