Total Number Of Launches (Or Attempts) In History?

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:48:37 +0100, in a place far, far away, Dr J R
Stockton made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

In sci.space.history message ,
Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:09:15, Rand Simberg
posted:

Both. Going reusable eliminates the issue that every launch of a
vehicle is a first launch (and infant mortality is a significant
factor in reliability). But it also allows a much higher flight rate
to figure out what works and what doesn't. It also allows incremental
testing, so that failures don't necessarily result in vehicle loss,
and test flights cost much less on the margin.

True, if reusable only means capable of reuse.

But if done as it has been done, with the construction schedule having a
built-in presumption that the vehicles are practically indestructible,
it means that any loss of vehicle puts a two-to-three year delay in the
program, and any significant damage to a vehicle may cause a delay of
several months.

That's why it shouldn't be done that way.

On Apr 12, 10:46 am, Jim Davis wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
If you assume high flight rates, I don't see how expendables
could compete with a properly designed reusable.

And by "properly designed reusable" you mean a reusable which
expendables can't compete against?

It will be decades before anyone learns how to "properly design" a
reusable. These are skills that only experience teaches.

Jim Davis

IMO, Jim, the problem is not technical--although we have not placed
enough emphasis on conceptual design that is not fettered by bad
preconceived ground rules. The main problem for a "properly designed"
space transport is the lack of funding in the hands of an organization
that
can "design properly." The funding problem is compounded by the lack
of an existing, high-traffic-level market that inhibits investment.
The
lack of an existing, hight-traffic-level market, in turn, is a direct
result
of unnecessarily high transportation costs to LEO. Unnecessarily
high
transportation costs to LEO are a direct result overlong dependence
on
ELVs and incredibly misdirected efforts on such concepts as NASP,
Space Shuttle, and other concepts that preclude a good solution.

The real problem is getting out of this vicious circle. Once that
happens,
real progress can happen in a few years--not decades. The technology
has been in-hand for decades that would permit radically reduced costs
to
LEO. However, additional technology efforts--e.g. on low-maintenance
rocket
engines--would be welcome and would provide the potential for
reducing
transportation cost to LEO even further.

Len

On Apr 12, 10:46 am, Jim Davis wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
If you assume high flight rates, I don't see how expendables
could compete with a properly designed reusable.

And by "properly designed reusable" you mean a reusable which
expendables can't compete against?

It will be decades before anyone learns how to "properly design" a
reusable. These are skills that only experience teaches.

Jim Davis

I copied the table into my excel spreadsheet. There are 8299 entries
are listed in the reference given as of end of September 2006 - which
is 49 years of flight. That's an average 169 entries per year.

If I could figure out my excel functions I would count the entries in
the first column excluding the first rows - to get the number of
launches. The cost per launch would be interesting to track, that way
we'd know how much humanity has spent on space launch.

By comparison the world generated $65,000 billion in economic activity
in 2006.

How much do weathersats, spysats, navsats, comsats contribute to this
total?
How much do they cost?

At $100 million each, to pick a number, that's $16.9 billion per year
- to get a ball park number. The total is $829.9 billion for all
those objects. I recall reading somewhere that comsats add about $60
billion per year to the global economy. Assuming navsats, spysats,
weathersats, etc., provide additoinal value of say $40 billion - again
a ball-park number is $100 billion per year - contributed to the
global economy. That's a return of 6:1 for space activity currently
looking at $16.9 expenditures versus $100 billion revenues.

49 years at $100 billion per year is $4.9 trillion in terms of value
received - assuming that value is constant over time - for a total
cost of $0.83 billion - which is about a 60:1 value for space
investments. Which makes sense because once a satellite is up on
orbit functioning properly, its solar powered and fully automated and
lasts at least 10 years.

These numbers are approximate and preliminary, real numbers are likely
not to be off by more than a factor of 3 - and would be very
interesting to obtain.

On 12 Apr 2007 12:48:36 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

I copied the table into my excel spreadsheet. There are 8299 entries
are listed in the reference given as of end of September 2006 - which
is 49 years of flight. That's an average 169 entries per year.

The table contains all payloads, of which there are often multiple
ones per launch. The number of actual launches is about half that.

Excel is too crude a tool to use to analyze this data. As I said, I
had to write a Perl script to parse it.

If you assume high flight rates, I don't see how expendables could compete
with a properly designed reusable.


A scary aside on high flight rates: If the price of launching something
into orbit gets very low, many people (countries and companies) may want
to fly lots of satellites and such, and that would make the "space junk"
problem a lot worse... We'd need a governing body to allocate orbits
and regulations on disposing of dead satellites (de-orbit and make it
reenter over a selected empty ocean).

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:46:54 -0500, robert casey wrote
(in article . net):

We'd need a governing body to allocate orbits

I believe there already is one (ITU maybe?) for geostationary orbits.

--
You can run on for a long time,
Sooner or later, God'll cut you down.
~Johnny Cash

Len wrote:

IMO, Jim, the problem is not technical--although we have not
placed enough emphasis on conceptual design that is not fettered
by bad preconceived ground rules.

Would "must be reusable" be an example of a "bad preconceived
ground rule"?

The main problem for a "properly designed" space transport is
the lack of funding in the hands of an organization that can
"design properly."

And how would one go about determining who can "properly design" an
RLV? Presumably you include yourself in such a group. Exactly when
did Len Cormier learn how to "properly design" an RLV? 1970? 1980?
1990? 2000?

The funding problem is compounded by the
lack of an existing, high-traffic-level market that inhibits
investment.

Well, yes, of course. If there is no demand for a product,
investment is difficult to justify.

The lack of an existing, hight-traffic-level market,
in turn, is a direct result of unnecessarily high transportation
costs to LEO.

This is exactly backwards - high transportation costs to LEO are a
direct result of a lack of an existing, high-traffic-level market.

Unnecessarily high transportation costs to LEO are
a direct result overlong dependence on ELVs

The existence of any LEO market *at all* is due to fortuitous
availability of ELVs. When RLVs appear they will serve markets
developed by ELVs. This notion that ELVs are preventing the
development of RLVs is silly. ELVs are a necessary precursor of
RLVs. The "overlong dependence on ELVs" is due to the "overlong
ability of ELVs" to service LEO markets. One might as well complain
about the "overlong dependence" of subsonic airliners for
intercontinental travel.

and incredibly
misdirected efforts on such concepts as NASP, Space Shuttle, and
other concepts that preclude a good solution.

Yes, efforts to develop reusables have been misdirected. The last
thing we need are more misdirected efforts to develop reusables.
The notion that there are "proper designers" out there that can
produce an RLV that can radically reduce transportation costs if
only we would take someone's word for it that they are in fact
"proper designers" is every bit as misdirected as NASP, Space
Shuttle, etc.

The real problem is getting out of this vicious circle.

The real problem is the perception that there is a vicious circle
that needs to gotten out of.

Once
that happens, real progress can happen in a few years--not
decades. The technology has been in-hand for decades that would
permit radically reduced costs to LEO.

No offense intended, Len, but that's no more than a self-serving
assertion. It might possibly be the case that when RLVs do emerge
people will smack themselves on the forehead and say "We could have
done that back in 1970!" but I would bet against it.

However, additional
technology efforts--e.g. on low-maintenance rocket
engines--would be welcome and would provide the potential for
reducing transportation cost to LEO even further.

And who knows, Len, such efforts might even make those cost
reductions possible in the first place. But that's something you
would bet against, right? :-)

Jim Davis

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:13:33 +0200 (CEST), in a place far, far away,
Jim Davis made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Once
that happens, real progress can happen in a few years--not
decades. The technology has been in-hand for decades that would
permit radically reduced costs to LEO.

No offense intended, Len, but that's no more than a self-serving
assertion. It might possibly be the case that when RLVs do emerge
people will smack themselves on the forehead and say "We could have
done that back in 1970!" but I would bet against it.

I suspect that you'd lose that bet. How would one formulate it,
either way?

On Apr 12, 8:13 pm, Jim Davis wrote:
Len wrote:
IMO, Jim, the problem is not technical--although we have not
placed enough emphasis on conceptual design that is not fettered
by bad preconceived ground rules.

Would "must be reusable" be an example of a "bad preconceived
ground rule"?

Perhaps. I have tried to avoid the term "reusable" as much as
possible, but it is difficult at times. If ELVs get cheap enough,
then I guess they would qualify as space transports--but I don't
see this happening. Bad preconceived ground rules include,
IMO, a REQUIREMENT to use airbreathing engines, or solid
propellants, or airbreathing combined with a zoom clilmb
(RASCAL), or single-stage (as opposed to good economics
and even, good operational characteristics), etc. OMB A-109
directs much more exploratory development and continuing
competition in lieu of total package procurement. Newer and
smaller businesses are supposed to be eligible to compete
for exploratory development studies--not just companies
that are capable of building the vehicle to be studied.
Moreover, requirements are supposed to be stated in terms
of basic mission element needs--not preconceived solutionsl.
This has not been done since McNamara change the
procurement process.


The main problem for a "properly designed" space transport is
the lack of funding in the hands of an organization that can
"design properly."

And how would one go about determining who can "properly design" an
RLV? Presumably you include yourself in such a group. Exactly when
did Len Cormier learn how to "properly design" an RLV? 1970? 1980?
1990? 2000?

It's a matter of degree. If you want an unqualified answer,
I guess I would have to say 2006. IMO, our Space Van 2011
(unpublished) is significantly superior to anything else that
I have done--even though the basic technology (as opposed
to conceptual design) has been around for decades. I think
some of our earlier concepts were pretty good. However,
I am far more confident about the potential success of our
current concept, relative to anything else that I have done.
As for other concepts designed by others, I find that even
their goals are too conservative. At this time, I feel that
even a relatively crude design should reduce current
costs of access to LEO by a factor of 10 or 20.

The funding problem is compounded by the
lack of an existing, high-traffic-level market that inhibits
investment.

Well, yes, of course. If there is no demand for a product,
investment is difficult to justify.

The lack of an existing, hight-traffic-level market,
in turn, is a direct result of unnecessarily high transportation
costs to LEO.

This is exactly backwards - high transportation costs to LEO are a
direct result of a lack of an existing, high-traffic-level market.

What you say is also true. Both are true. It is a
circular argument.

Unnecessarily high transportation costs to LEO are
a direct result overlong dependence on ELVs

The existence of any LEO market *at all* is due to fortuitous
availability of ELVs. When RLVs appear they will serve markets
developed by ELVs. This notion that ELVs are preventing the
development of RLVs is silly. ELVs are a necessary precursor of
RLVs. The "overlong dependence on ELVs" is due to the "overlong
ability of ELVs" to service LEO markets. One might as well complain
about the "overlong dependence" of subsonic airliners for
intercontinental travel.

No. No. No. If ELVs were fortuitous at all, it is
because they showed that it was feasible to get
the first satellites into orbit. However, the market
that has resulted from sole dependence (forget
Shuttle) on ELVs has obscured the potential of
an entirely different space industry. IMO, space
transports and high traffic levels are not likely
to evolve from the current situation. A revolutionary
break appears necessary--at least to me.

and incredibly
misdirected efforts on such concepts as NASP, Space Shuttle, and
other concepts that preclude a good solution.

Yes, efforts to develop reusables have been misdirected. The last
thing we need are more misdirected efforts to develop reusables.
The notion that there are "proper designers" out there that can
produce an RLV that can radically reduce transportation costs if
only we would take someone's word for it that they are in fact
"proper designers" is every bit as misdirected as NASP, Space
Shuttle, etc.

See my earlier comments on OMB A-109,
which was a direct result of the 1973 Procurement
Commission studies. The Procurement Commission
identified the problems and proposed good solutions.
OMB A-109 turned this into a directive that has
generally been ignored. You find "proper designs"
by enabling, many low threshhold, exploratory studies,
followed by continuing contracts to those contractors,
big and small, that produce results, not promises.
We used to believe in real competition.


The real problem is getting out of this vicious circle.

The real problem is the perception that there is a vicious circle
that needs to gotten out of.

I obviously don't agree, Jim.

Once
that happens, real progress can happen in a few years--not
decades. The technology has been in-hand for decades that would
permit radically reduced costs to LEO.

No offense intended, Len, but that's no more than a self-serving
assertion. It might possibly be the case that when RLVs do emerge
people will smack themselves on the forehead and say "We could have
done that back in 1970!" but I would bet against it.

Self-serving, I admit. However, forgive me if
I feel a bit frustrated about the way the system
works, relative to the way I think it should work.

I've been at this game a long time, Jim.
Accordingly, at my age, I have to think
in terms of moving things along faster :-)

However, additional
technology efforts--e.g. on low-maintenance rocket
engines--would be welcome and would provide the potential for
reducing transportation cost to LEO even further.

And who knows, Len, such efforts might even make those cost
reductions possible in the first place. But that's something you
would bet against, right? :-)

I think engines like the AJ26/NK-33 (derated for
longer life) and the RD-0124/125 are already good
enough. However, a lower cost per flight would
make things even better. Cost per flight of
rocket engines tends to be long pole in our tent.

Although we disagree to some extent, I think
we have managed to stay on topic at least :-)

Len

Jim Davis

On Apr 12, 8:44 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:13:33 +0200 (CEST), in a place far, far away,
Jim Davis made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Once
that happens, real progress can happen in a few years--not
decades. The technology has been in-hand for decades that would
permit radically reduced costs to LEO.

No offense intended, Len, but that's no more than a self-serving
assertion. It might possibly be the case that when RLVs do emerge
people will smack themselves on the forehead and say "We could have
done that back in 1970!" but I would bet against it.

I suspect that you'd lose that bet. How would one formulate it,
either way?

Naturally, I would also suspect that Jim would
lose that bet. However, I do like the forehead-
smacking scenario that he describes :-)

I think you might formulate the bet, by examining
the technology that was essential to the emerging
(space transport). However, I regard conceptual
design as perhaps the most important technology
of all. In this sense, it couldn't have been done
back in 1970, because we didn't conceive of it
then.

Len