What if we still had Saturn V

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Dick Morris" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Dick Morris" wrote:
: :
: :Some markets are very inelastic and some are very elastic. Get the
: :recurring costs down enough and we will be hard pressed to keep up
with
: :demand just for LEO tourism. It will take some time to get to the
point
: :where the tourism market takes off, but there are enough payloads for
: :traditional markets to keep the system in operation, with continual
: :improvements in cost and reliability, until then.
:
: But to start generating many of those kinds of extra flights, launch
: costs would have to drop by at least an order of magnitude from
: current levels.
:
:Compared to the Shuttle, an order of magnitude would be relatively easy
for
:an RLV.

Note that the same claim was made for the Shuttle over expendables
(except it was two orders of magnitude). That didn't happen.

That claim was made for the fully-reusable design that NASA wanted to build.
Two orders-of-magnitude was not realistic for the complex, winged design
that they wanted, and once they were forced into the existing, partly
expendable design, even one order-of-magnitude was unrealistic.

If it was "relatively easy", someone would have built one decades ago.
We're still waiting.

Developing a launch vehicle is one of the hardest jobs in engineering, but
if it is done right, an order-of-magnitude reduction could be confidently
expected. To do that, the vehicle has to be completely reusable and it has
to be designed for reliability and maintainability, which drives up the
development cost and difficulty. The existing launch vehicle manufacturers
could never make a business case for spending maybe $10 billion of their own
money to develop a vehicle which would put their existing launchers out of
business, and would not make money unless there was a dramatic increase in
the market for launches. The NASA launch vehicle community was more
interested in pushing the envelope with programs like NASP and X-33. A
practical launcher using existing technology would "de-justify" a lot of the
technology development programs that the centers had on their wish lists.
--
"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

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:37:57 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Dick Morris" wrote in message
...


Compared to the Shuttle, an order of magnitude reduction would be
relatively
easy for
an RLV.

Then why is no one doing it?

Because the people who want to do it don't have the money to do it,
and the people with the money don't care.

In other word it's not easy.

If it were, those who want to do it would have the money.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:03:10 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Compared to the Shuttle, an order of magnitude reduction would be
relatively
easy for
an RLV.

Then why is no one doing it?

Because the people who want to do it don't have the money to do it,
and the people with the money don't care.

In other word it's not easy.

Whether it's "easy" or not, it's certainly possible, given a motivated
investment. He modified it with the word "relatively." Something
relatively easy compared to Shuttle could still be quite expensive.

If it were, those who want to do it would have the money.

That depends on how "easy" it is. The point is not that it's "easy,"
but that it's not as difficult/impossible as many at NASA would have
us believe.

Richard D. Latham wrote:
(Derek Lyons) writes:

"Dick Morris" wrote:

There is an overcapacity of *expensive* launchers, but I would expect a
*cheap* one to change that situation considerably. While I wouldn't expect
there to ever be a large market for unmanned launches, there should be
enough traffic in the traditional markets, like communications satellites,
to keep us going while the non-traditional markets develop.

Sure... Once you get past the chicken-and-egg stage of convincing the
people with billion dollar communications birds that your 50 million
dollar launcher is as reliable as the 150 million dollar launcher.

*That* is the essential problem.


Luckily, for someone like Paul Allen, this isn't that big an
impediment.

It is no lesser impediment.


If no-one wants to fly their comm satellite on one of his launches, he
can easily go into the communications business. :-)

And that would by and far just create a lot of laughter.


As I understand it, the reason the birds are so expensive is that the
launches are so expense, they're engineering to a fare-thee-well.

Thats one reason.


As a hypothetical, imagine that a manned repair mission cost $5
million, and OnDemandSpaceCompany Inc. could deliver your 2 man repair
crew to GEO, and return, with 2 days notice.

I suspect that comm birds would drop in price pretty rapidly.


They won't because comms companies are *extremely* conservative and
for various good reasons. And they were like that already way before
satellites. What you are saying is like claiming that US military -
all of it - would rapidly switch over to prefering foreign imports
of everything just based on price and logistics advantages (as opposed
to subsidizing US companies until they are "as competitive").

Even if there was a desire to do so, re-evalutaing teh design principles
would simply take a very long time.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Fred J. McCall wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Derek Lyons) wrote:

:Even if the launches cost $50 million per, the birds will *still* be
:gold plated... Because the costs of an outage are quite high. Even
:if you *could* launch a bird within a day, it takes time to get it
:into GEO and commissioned, time that is inescapable.

There's a much simpler approach. Launch spares ahead of time. If the
launches are cheaper and the birds are cheaper this makes perfect
sense. Again, it relies on the reduction in cost more than making up
for any reduction in reliability.

I explain why this is stupid down below.

Then if one fails, you switch the traffic over to a 'hot spare'.
Reliability goes up, since even gold plated stuff fails once in a
while and it costs too much to have hot spares up in that case.

In fact, you don't even have to put things at GEO anymore, since if
the launches are cheap enough you can put them lower, let your
constellation 'precess', and use some of the spare capacity as 'hand
off' as birds rise and set.

Fred; There's a *reason* why commsats are in GEO. I.E. you've just
added considerable expense and complexity to the system for zero
return.

:After all, when you have hundreds of millions of dollars of exposure
:just to launch a replacement, the originals have to be pretty damned
:robust and the number of spares you can have up is limited.
:
:Spares are a non-issue here. Nobody stores expensive spares out in
:the 'weather' (as it were). There's simply no place worse to store
:your spare birds than out where there are eating maneuvering fuel,
:accumulating radiation and micrometeorite damage, and can have neither
reventative nor corrective maintenance performed on them.

I'd suggest you might want to rethink that. The GPS system does
precisely this.

I'd suggest you consider the difference between a system funded by the
military, and a system that must answer to stockholders and responds
to the market.

:The cheap launcher doesn't even have to be as reliable as the
:expensive one, although there's no a priori reason why it shouldn't
:be. It just has to not lose so much reliability that the savings in
:cost are eaten up. Then I can launch cheaper, less reliable
:satellites on cheaper, less reliable launchers and just plan on
:launching enough of them to make up for the reliability differences.
:
:If such a thing made economic sense then the cell towers that infest
ur land would be filled with cheap, expendable, marginally reliable
:hardware. (Especially those in cities where acess is 24/7 and only an
:hour or two from the spares depot.) They aren't.

Well, actually, they ARE to the extent that it makes sense.

So are commsats.

To flip your example around, if your claims above made economic sense,
cell towers would be 'gold plated' to the point where the cell system could
only exist in densely populated areas and carrying capacity would
generally not be adequate as demand grows, since the hardware would
cost too much to deploy anyplace where it wasn't going to see 100%
utilization.

ROTFLMAO. If you had a clue... You'd know that this was, other than
the gold plating, exactly the history of cell towers.

:The CATS community, as a general rule, doesn't understand that far
:more goes into the equations than simply launch costs.

While you, on the other hand, don't seem to understand that LARGE
changes in launch costs will help drive demand, as with much cheaper
launch costs it starts making sense to do things that we currently do
not do.

ROTFLMAO. You don't seem to understand that launch costs are one very
small part of the equations.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:37:57 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Dick Morris" wrote in message
...


Compared to the Shuttle, an order of magnitude reduction would be
relatively
easy for
an RLV.

Then why is no one doing it?

Because the people who want to do it don't have the money to do it,
and the people with the money don't care.

In other word it's not easy.

If it were, those who want to do it would have the money.

The *politics* has turned out to be very difficult: We have yet to succeed
in 40 years of trying. But if somebody can be persuaded to put up enough
money to do the job right, and if the RLV is developed with the primary
objectives of high reliability, maintainability, and simplicity, using
proven technology throughout, then an order of magnitude reduction would not
be difficult.

"Dick Morris" wrote:

:"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...
:
: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message
: ...
: On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:37:57 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
: Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
: on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:
: "Dick Morris" wrote in message
: ...
:
:
: Compared to the Shuttle, an order of magnitude reduction would be
: relatively
: easy for
: an RLV.
:
: Then why is no one doing it?
:
: Because the people who want to do it don't have the money to do it,
: and the people with the money don't care.
:
: In other word it's not easy.
:
: If it were, those who want to do it would have the money.
:
:The *politics* has turned out to be very difficult: We have yet to succeed
:in 40 years of trying. But if somebody can be persuaded to put up enough
:money to do the job right, and if the RLV is developed with the primary
bjectives of high reliability, maintainability, and simplicity, using
roven technology throughout, then an order of magnitude reduction would not
:be difficult.

And if cows could fly we'd all carry umbrellas when we went out of
doors.

If it was that easy, someone would put together a business case for
it. It being that easy, the business case would bring the money.
Given the money, it would be done (were it that easy).

It hasn't been done. Hence it isn't that easy.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Dick Morris" wrote:

:"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in
message
...
:
: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message
: ...
: On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:37:57 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
: Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
: on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:
: "Dick Morris" wrote in message
: ...
:
:
: Compared to the Shuttle, an order of magnitude reduction would be
: relatively
: easy for
: an RLV.
:
: Then why is no one doing it?
:
: Because the people who want to do it don't have the money to do it,
: and the people with the money don't care.
:
: In other word it's not easy.
:
: If it were, those who want to do it would have the money.
:
:The *politics* has turned out to be very difficult: We have yet to
succeed
:in 40 years of trying. But if somebody can be persuaded to put up enough
:money to do the job right, and if the RLV is developed with the primary
bjectives of high reliability, maintainability, and simplicity, using
roven technology throughout, then an order of magnitude reduction would
not
:be difficult.

And if cows could fly we'd all carry umbrellas when we went out of
doors.

What is there about reliable, fully-reusable launchers that you don't
understand? We've had the technology to do that for over 35 years.

If it was that easy, someone would put together a business case for
it. It being that easy, the business case would bring the money.
Given the money, it would be done (were it that easy).

It hasn't been done. Hence it isn't that easy.

There isn't nearly enough of a demonstrated market for space transportation
to make a purely private development effort pay off, especially given the
considerably higher development cost for a fully-reusable vehicle. That
leaves the public funding approach, which, as I said, has proven to be very
difficult.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

"Dick Morris" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Dick Morris" wrote:
:
: :"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
: ...
: :
: : "Rand Simberg" wrote in message
: : ...
: : On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:37:57 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
: : Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
: : on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: :
: :
: : "Dick Morris" wrote in message
: : ...
: :
: :
: : Compared to the Shuttle, an order of magnitude reduction would be
: : relatively
: : easy for
: : an RLV.
: :
: : Then why is no one doing it?
: :
: : Because the people who want to do it don't have the money to do it,
: : and the people with the money don't care.
: :
: : In other word it's not easy.
: :
: : If it were, those who want to do it would have the money.
: :
: :The *politics* has turned out to be very difficult: We have yet to succeed
: :in 40 years of trying. But if somebody can be persuaded to put up enough
: :money to do the job right, and if the RLV is developed with the primary
: bjectives of high reliability, maintainability, and simplicity, using
: roven technology throughout, then an order of magnitude reduction would not
: :be difficult.
:
: And if cows could fly we'd all carry umbrellas when we went out of
: doors.
:
:What is there about reliable, fully-reusable launchers that you don't
:understand? We've had the technology to do that for over 35 years.

Really, Dick? Where are they?

: If it was that easy, someone would put together a business case for
: it. It being that easy, the business case would bring the money.
: Given the money, it would be done (were it that easy).
:
: It hasn't been done. Hence it isn't that easy.
:
:There isn't nearly enough of a demonstrated market for space transportation
:to make a purely private development effort pay off, especially given the
:considerably higher development cost for a fully-reusable vehicle. That
:leaves the public funding approach, which, as I said, has proven to be very
:difficult.

Poppycock! How many space launches are there in a given year? If it
was as simple as you claim (which it isn't) and a fully reusable
vehicle would drop costs to orbit (and it would if one existed), it
seems clear that everyone would be flying them by now.

Everyone is NOT flying them by now. In fact, no one is. This should
tell you something.

--
"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

!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"
html
 
p"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
blockquote TYPE=CITE"Dick Morris" wrote:
p:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
br:a href="news:0577011snbsgcedi3gnj6248sa5bvamj65@4ax. om/a...
br: "Dick Morris" wrote:
br:
br: :"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote
in message
br: :a " /a...
br: :
br: : "Rand Simberg" wrote in message
br: : a . et/a...
br: : On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:37:57 GMT, in a place far, far away,
"Greg D.
br: : Moore \(Strider\)" made
the phosphor
br: : on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
br: :
br: :
br: : "Dick Morris" wrote in message
br: : a "new /a...
br: :
br: :  
br: : Compared to the Shuttle, an order of magnitude reduction
would be
br: : relatively
br: : easy for
br: : an RLV.
br: :
br: : Then why is no one doing it?
br: :
br: : Because the people who want to do it don't have the money to
do it,
br: : and the people with the money don't care.
br: :
br: : In other word it's not easy.
br: :
br: : If it were, those who want to do it would have the money.
br: :
br: :The *politics* has turned out to be very difficult:  We have
yet to succeed
br: :in 40 years of trying.  But if somebody can be persuaded to
put up enough
br: :money to do the job right, and if the RLV is developed with the
primary
br: bjectives of high reliability, maintainability, and simplicity,
using
br: roven technology throughout, then an order of magnitude reduction
would not
br: :be difficult.
br:
br: And if cows could fly we'd all carry umbrellas when we went out
of
br: doors.
br:
br:What is there about reliable, fully-reusable launchers that you don't
br:understand?  We've had the technology to do that for over 35
years.
pReally, Dick?  Where are they?/blockquote
Which part of that do you think we can't do?  Which technologies do
you think we don't have?
blockquote TYPE=CITE 
p: If it was that easy, someone would put together a business case for
br: it.  It being that easy, the business case would bring the
money.
br: Given the money, it would be done (were it that easy).
br:
br: It hasn't been done.  Hence it isn't that easy.
br:
br:There isn't nearly enough of a demonstrated market for space transportation
br:to make a purely private development effort pay off, especially given
the
br:considerably higher development cost for a fully-reusable vehicle. 
That
br:leaves the public funding approach, which, as I said, has proven to
be very
br:difficult.
pPoppycock!  How many space launches are there in a given year? 
If it
brwas as simple as you claim (which it isn't) and a fully reusable
brvehicle would drop costs to orbit (and it would if one existed), it
brseems clear that everyone would be flying them by now./blockquote
Developing aerospace vehicles is among the hardest jobs in engineering, 
and developing a new launch vehicle from scratch would cost many billions
of dollars.  Making it reliable and fully-reusable would cost many
more billions of dollars.  With demonstrated markets in the dozens
of flights per year there isn't anywhere near enough market to allow a
decent return on an investment of that magnitude.  I've tried to make
a business case for doing it, and it's tough to get any return at all. 
The people with the kind of money required to develop an RLV don't put
their money into such risky ventures, expecially in the face of all the
NASA propaganda about how terribly, terribly difficult it is, and how it
will take "spectacular breakthroughs" in technology to do it.
pIf such vehicles existed, everybody *would* be flying them.  But
the fact that they don't exist has little to do with lack of technology
or engineering difficulty. 
blockquote TYPE=CITE /blockquote

blockquote TYPE=CITEEveryone is NOT flying them by now.  In fact,
no one is.  This should/blockquote

blockquote TYPE=CITEtell you something./blockquote
It tells me that nobody has put up enough money to build one.  Getting
the money is the hard part.
blockquote TYPE=CITE 
p--
br"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
br man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
br all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
br       &nbs p;                 &n bsp;       &nbs p;    
--George Bernard Shaw/blockquote
/html