Establish demand

If the total cost of the shuttle program, about $150G, were divided by
the total number of launches, almost 120, and pretending that each
mission delivered 30 tons to orbit, the cost per pound would be over
$20000. Now make the wild assed assumption (WAA?) that we could have
a RLV, in the range of twenty tons to leo, like the largest of the
falcon 9 series or a delta IV, that made deliveries for $4000/Kg, but
only if it is launched atleast a dozen times a year. That would be 240
tons to leo for a bit under $1G. What could utilize the payload space
that might win public support and not run more than four times it's
delivery price.
Water, or bulk propellants have been suggested, but I don't think this
will make the kids all starry eyed.

The Keck telescopes have a bit over 16 times the light collection area
of the HST and are made of 36 mirror segments. Most of the 270 ton
weight and $100M cost is to keep the structure rigid against
gravitational distortion. Building a succession of assemblable space
telescopes, ASTs, would be a real coup for astronomy. Along with its
robotic and/or human assemblers it would use up a few hundred tons of
capacity over a decade.
Robotic water prospectors at the moons pole could eat up another
hundred. A VP assembled mass driver would be good for a couple of
years worth of cargos, but it would be a greater advance than was
landing a man on the moon.
Mastering the art of drilling on Phobos, and returning samples, could
easily call for another 200 worth, as would setting down half a dozen
rugged rovers on the geological feast that is Mars.

Of course this is so much handwaving on my part. I can atleast dream
of a leadership that chops and pounds with its hands, while
proclaiming a new age of space exploration and enterprise, on a $5G/yr
budget, something like Kennedy did 46 years ago.

Why is space different from anything else? If there is insufficient
cargo to go up surely the logical solution is bankrupcy - that is to
say you apply natural selection and reduce the number of launchers.
That would be the solution anywhere else in the economy.

When we have Ariane, Proton, Soyuz, Long march and a few Delta/Atlas
type launchers the development of a shuttle replacement is total
madness. What we really need is the Adam Smith launcher. NASA instead
of developing launchers should pay so much per kg and get private
enterprise to provide the facilities. Probably what we would come up
with would be Proton/Soyuz technology, some purchasing of complete
systems and some licensing. Anyway that is what the management would
have to decide. Private enterpise would also cater for the global
market.

Why do we insist that space is developed by socialism? Why doesn't the
US do what it constantly nags third world countries to do and have a
genuinely open market?

There is no need for new technology such as hypersonic aircraft to
reduce launch costs. These would come down anyway with the demise of
Socialism.


- Ian Parker

"Ian Parker" wrote:

:Probably what we would come up
:with would be Proton/Soyuz technology, some purchasing of complete
:systems and some licensing. Anyway that is what the management would
:have to decide. Private enterpise would also cater for the global
:market.

In other words, your 'free market' will pick a vehicle that was
created under socialism.

:Why do we insist that space is developed by socialism? Why doesn't the
:US do what it constantly nags third world countries to do and have a
:genuinely open market?

Because there isn't enough demand to support a real 'open market'.

:There is no need for new technology such as hypersonic aircraft to
:reduce launch costs. These would come down anyway with the demise of
:Socialism.

No, they'd go up. Everyone goes broke but Proton/Soyuz. Then they
jack up the price on you once everyone else has destroyed their
tooling.

Take a look at the Russian behaviour toward Europe with regard to
energy...

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

On 25 Feb, 15:34, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote:

:Probably what we would come up
:with would be Proton/Soyuz technology, some purchasing of complete
:systems and some licensing. Anyway that is what the management would
:have to decide. Private enterpise would also cater for the global
:market.

In other words, your 'free market' will pick a vehicle that was
created under socialism.

This in fact happens all the time. A company is mismanaged, goes broke
and its assets are then sold off. The Proton is certainly an asset.
Let it be sold.

:Why do we insist that space is developed by socialism? Why doesn't the
:US do what it constantly nags third world countries to do and have a
:genuinely open market?

Because there isn't enough demand to support a real 'open market'.

Nonsense. Demand will always find its own level. If there id no demand
why talk about new launcher facilities. IT JUST DOESNT MAKE SENSE.

:There is no need for new technology such as hypersonic aircraft to
:reduce launch costs. These would come down anyway with the demise of
:Socialism.

No, they'd go up. Everyone goes broke but Proton/Soyuz. Then they
jack up the price on you once everyone else has destroyed their
tooling.

Take a look at the Russian behaviour toward Europe with regard to
energy...

The argument about monopoly is always present in a capitalist system.
In fact what I would advocate is the purchase of complete Soyuz/Proton
systems. In that way Russian bureaucracy would be circumvented. It
would be preferable from this viewpoint to have a private enterprise
company launching payloads, rather that purchase it from Russia on a
per kg basis. I am not in favor of getting rid of drawings, you always
need the ability to compete.

What I would be in favor of is this. Remove all space launchers from
national bureaucracies - Have 2 private companies purchasing IPR
rights. This might be of the form of one lump payment or a per launch/
kg basis. Then let competition start. The companies involved could
decide on their policies. Proton/Soyuz/Long March are clearly cheaper
than anything else. This might be better technology or simply reflect
low labor costs. If the latter it might be an idea to build Ariane in
Russia or China just as tea shirts are made there.

Comanies would then have to think how they could expand their
business. Attention to the customer is key to most situations. I am
told that although Ariane is more expensive than Soyuz/Long March the
bureaucratic restrictions are less. This is another characteristic of
socialism, the lack of attention to the customer. Arianespace could be
one company. Possibly Virgin Galactic could be another I dobn't know.
If space tourism is viable it should be marketed. Private enterprise
markets and tries to attact customers.

As far as energy is concerned Russia is charging the market rate. The
thing to do is to reduce dependence on imported energy. Space is of
course not like this. In energy you have a large market and a definite
international price. In space governments and socialism have inflated
market assessments. Socialism, I call NASA socialist and all the
astronauts are good socialists in this regard, does not attempt to
market, it does not have to stake its shirt on getting accurate market
forecasts.

Your posting in fact convinces me even more of the truth of what I am
saying. Space is not national virility, it is no different from any
other business. If NASA cannot do a proper market forecast its
bureaucracy should forfeit their shirts as they would anywhere else.


- Ian Parker

Totorkon wrote:

If the total cost of the shuttle program, about $150G, were divided by
the total number of launches, almost 120, and pretending that each
mission delivered 30 tons to orbit, the cost per pound would be over
$20000. Now make the wild assed assumption (WAA?) that we could have
a RLV, in the range of twenty tons to leo, like the largest of the
falcon 9 series or a delta IV, that made deliveries for $4000/Kg, but
only if it is launched atleast a dozen times a year. That would be 240
tons to leo for a bit under $1G. What could utilize the payload space
that might win public support and not run more than four times it's
delivery price.
Water, or bulk propellants have been suggested, but I don't think this
will make the kids all starry eyed.

I've already explained to you in great detail over and over again Tork.

First of all, there will always be a demand for oxygen and fresh water,
anywhere and anytime, and anyone who claims otherwise is a crackpot.

Secondly, to establish demand for anything you have to have a product
and a means of transporting that product to market. Thus, by simple
logical deduction you need a prototype. In order to waive a great deal
of the development costs, it is a rational approach to use an existing
variation on existing products and markets. In space that means building
your prototype out of existing engines and tank technology. Since
demonstrably we do not yet have RLV technology, the rational approach
indicated that we should first attempt less ambitious variations of
existing ELV techniques, for instance, recovery of the first stages,
demonstration of cryogenic expendable single stage to orbit, etc.

Now lets get into details. Rocket stages are fragile. They break when
even just slightly dented. Ok, let's forget stage recovery. What about
stage reuse in orbit? We already have a demonstrable upper stage orbital
debris problem, so let's focus on that. For instance, when man rated
EELVs dock with the space station, they already include the upper stage
as payload, particularly with high energy cryogenic upper stages. Those
stages often contain significant amounts of residual fuel, oxygen and
hydrogen which is easily converted to water. Thus we have our oxygen to
breathe, hydrogen for propellant, and water to drink and grow plants.
There then remains the engines, which clearly can be reused in any
ambitious deep space exploration program, and the hydrogen tank, which
is large enough in any case to be converted to habitat and hotel rooms.
The unused engines can be easily returned to Earth to be reused again.

Logic is great, isn't it? Let's consider launch. Single stage to orbit
is basically a glorified large upper stage. Thus, the payload (engines,
tankage, residual fuel, payload and infrastructure) is always readily
available as product demonstrably in demand at any orbital spaceport.
The large orbiting cryogenic tankage for all purposes is the spaceport.

I've gone through all of the demonstrable benefits of cryogenic SSTO and
TSTO space flight. Now tell me, what the **** is wrong with you people?

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

kT wrote:

Totorkon wrote:

If the total cost of the shuttle program, about $150G, were divided by
the total number of launches, almost 120, and pretending that each
mission delivered 30 tons to orbit, the cost per pound would be over
$20000. Now make the wild assed assumption (WAA?) that we could have
a RLV, in the range of twenty tons to leo, like the largest of the
falcon 9 series or a delta IV, that made deliveries for $4000/Kg, but
only if it is launched atleast a dozen times a year. That would be 240
tons to leo for a bit under $1G. What could utilize the payload space
that might win public support and not run more than four times it's
delivery price.
Water, or bulk propellants have been suggested, but I don't think this
will make the kids all starry eyed.


I've already explained to you in great detail over and over again Tork.

First of all, there will always be a demand for oxygen and fresh water,
anywhere and anytime, and anyone who claims otherwise is a crackpot.

Secondly, to establish demand for anything you have to have a product
and a means of transporting that product to market. Thus, by simple
logical deduction you need a prototype. In order to waive a great deal
of the development costs, it is a rational approach to use an existing
variation on existing products and markets. In space that means building
your prototype out of existing engines and tank technology. Since
demonstrably we do not yet have RLV technology, the rational approach
indicated that we should first attempt less ambitious variations of
existing ELV techniques, for instance, recovery of the first stages,
demonstration of cryogenic expendable single stage to orbit, etc.

Now lets get into details. Rocket stages are fragile. They break when
even just slightly dented.

Other than perhaps Atlas, can you name some?

Ok, let's forget stage recovery. What about
stage reuse in orbit? We already have a demonstrable upper stage orbital
debris problem, so let's focus on that. For instance, when man rated
EELVs dock with the space station, they already include the upper stage
as payload, particularly with high energy cryogenic upper stages. Those
stages often contain significant amounts of residual fuel, oxygen and
hydrogen which is easily converted to water.

Scattered across various orbits, at various times. You want to
expend more propellant to gather it all to a useful location?

Thus we have our oxygen to
breathe, hydrogen for propellant, and water to drink and grow plants.
There then remains the engines, which clearly can be reused in any
ambitious deep space exploration program, and the hydrogen tank, which
is large enough in any case to be converted to habitat and hotel rooms.

Will your guests be launched on these expendables?

Similar things were proposed for the shuttle ET, but it didn't
consider how fast any possible market would be saturated. Or wht would
happen when the next vehicle eventually came along that didn't use a big
ET. (And not all your upper stages are a useful volume, either)

The unused engines can be easily returned to Earth to be reused again.

By what means?

Logic is great, isn't it? Let's consider launch. Single stage to orbit
is basically a glorified large upper stage.

Why?

Thus, the payload (engines,
tankage, residual fuel, payload and infrastructure) is always readily
available as product demonstrably in demand at any orbital spaceport.
The large orbiting cryogenic tankage for all purposes is the spaceport.

I've gone through all of the demonstrable benefits of cryogenic SSTO and
TSTO space flight. Now tell me, what the **** is wrong with you people?

We prefer reality? And to think things through?

--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"No matter how big or soft or warm your bed is, you still have to get
out of it."
- Grace Slick

Frank Glover wrote:
kT wrote:

Totorkon wrote:

If the total cost of the shuttle program, about $150G, were divided by
the total number of launches, almost 120, and pretending that each
mission delivered 30 tons to orbit, the cost per pound would be over
$20000. Now make the wild assed assumption (WAA?) that we could have
a RLV, in the range of twenty tons to leo, like the largest of the
falcon 9 series or a delta IV, that made deliveries for $4000/Kg, but
only if it is launched atleast a dozen times a year. That would be 240
tons to leo for a bit under $1G. What could utilize the payload space
that might win public support and not run more than four times it's
delivery price.
Water, or bulk propellants have been suggested, but I don't think this
will make the kids all starry eyed.


I've already explained to you in great detail over and over again Tork.

First of all, there will always be a demand for oxygen and fresh
water, anywhere and anytime, and anyone who claims otherwise is a
crackpot.

Secondly, to establish demand for anything you have to have a product
and a means of transporting that product to market. Thus, by simple
logical deduction you need a prototype. In order to waive a great deal
of the development costs, it is a rational approach to use an existing
variation on existing products and markets. In space that means
building your prototype out of existing engines and tank technology.
Since demonstrably we do not yet have RLV technology, the rational
approach indicated that we should first attempt less ambitious
variations of existing ELV techniques, for instance, recovery of the
first stages, demonstration of cryogenic expendable single stage to
orbit, etc.

Now lets get into details. Rocket stages are fragile. They break when
even just slightly dented.

Other than perhaps Atlas, can you name some?

Ok, let's forget stage recovery. What about
stage reuse in orbit? We already have a demonstrable upper stage
orbital debris problem, so let's focus on that. For instance, when man
rated EELVs dock with the space station, they already include the
upper stage as payload, particularly with high energy cryogenic upper
stages. Those stages often contain significant amounts of residual
fuel, oxygen and hydrogen which is easily converted to water.

Scattered across various orbits, at various times. You want to
expend more propellant to gather it all to a useful location?

Well, orbital debris is such an extreme problem, much like global
warming, that changes in your lifestyle are not only required, but
demanded. We have a high inclination space station, and equatorial
orbit. I suggest these places be the starting point for all further deep
space and geosynchronous missions. Clearly the stopover at the ISS and
any equatorial fuel depot will require some extra fuel, but that is the
price you pay for being such stupid irrational ****s in the first place.

Thus we have our oxygen to
breathe, hydrogen for propellant, and water to drink and grow plants.
There then remains the engines, which clearly can be reused in any
ambitious deep space exploration program, and the hydrogen tank, which
is large enough in any case to be converted to habitat and hotel rooms.

Will your guests be launched on these expendables?

They aren't expendables, they are reusables. Everything is reused.

No, the guests will fly on EELVs in the beginning, until an engine is
developed with deep throttling capabilities, or launch vehicles large
enough for clusters of seven engines, in which case they can be
sequentially cut off, to reduce maximum gee forces at the top.

Similar things were proposed for the shuttle ET, but it didn't
consider how fast any possible market would be saturated. Or wht would
happen when the next vehicle eventually came along that didn't use a big
ET. (And not all your upper stages are a useful volume, either)

Cryogenic upper stages are, all other fuels are pathological.

The unused engines can be easily returned to Earth to be reused again.

By what means?

By cleverly designed nose cones.

Logic is great, isn't it? Let's consider launch. Single stage to orbit
is basically a glorified large upper stage.

Why?

Are you just pathologically stupid, or are you just a troll?

Thus, the payload (engines,
tankage, residual fuel, payload and infrastructure) is always readily
available as product demonstrably in demand at any orbital spaceport.
The large orbiting cryogenic tankage for all purposes is the spaceport.

I've gone through all of the demonstrable benefits of cryogenic SSTO
and TSTO space flight. Now tell me, what the **** is wrong with you
people?

We prefer reality? And to think things through?

You prefer some crackpot version of irrationality.

Like - let's mothball our SSMEs until 2050.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

On 25 Feb, 23:29, kT wrote:

Well, orbital debris is such an extreme problem, much like global
warming, that changes in your lifestyle are not only required, but
demanded. We have a high inclination space station, and equatorial
orbit. I suggest these places be the starting point for all further deep
space and geosynchronous missions. Clearly the stopover at the ISS and
any equatorial fuel depot will require some extra fuel, but that is the
price you pay for being such stupid irrational ****s in the first place.

I thought when I made my contribution that someone would have raised
the question of military space launches which would not fit so easily
into the competition scheme I have outlined.

Above is the answer. Space cannot be allowed to be used for military
purposes. As soon as ASATs get moving space will become unusable for
EVERYONE. All you need to knock the space environment out completely
is some bags of sand in a counter rotational orbit with chemical
explosives to disperse it. No nukes required.


- Ian Parker

On Feb 25, 4:15 am, "Ian Parker" wrote:
Why is space different from anything else? If there is insufficient
cargo to go up surely the logical solution is bankrupcy - that is to
say you apply natural selection and reduce the number of launchers.
That would be the solution anywhere else in the economy.

When we have Ariane, Proton, Soyuz, Long march and a few Delta/Atlas
type launchers the development of a shuttle replacement is total
madness. What we really need is the Adam Smith launcher. NASA instead
of developing launchers should pay so much per kg and get private
enterprise to provide the facilities. Probably what we would come up
with would be Proton/Soyuz technology, some purchasing of complete
systems and some licensing. Anyway that is what the management would
have to decide. Private enterpise would also cater for the global
market.

Why do we insist that space is developed by socialism? Why doesn't the
US do what it constantly nags third world countries to do and have a
genuinely open market?

There is no need for new technology such as hypersonic aircraft to
reduce launch costs. These would come down anyway with the demise of
Socialism.

- Ian Parker

The procurement system of the pentagon is essentially socialist and
runs close to $300G a year. For many systems there is only one
reasonable vendor, like Boing for air tankers.
The first aim of NASA should be to bring launch costs down. Henry
suggests that a RLV could do this, at least if it is launched
frequently enough. To justify this, suitable payloads must be part of
the plan.
A mass range of 20 tons to orbit is large enough that per launch costs
under $2000/Kg might be achievable, yet small enough to require the
frequent flights that can amortise the initial costs, for an overall
cost of $4000/Kg. It could provide the technology and experience to
pave the way for further drops in price.
The present VSE is to use SRBs and disposable RS68 engines to put a
manned base on the moon. For less cost we could have missions that
really bring home the data for deep space astronomy and the solar
system, and a launch system that dosn't ditch itself in the Atlantic
after each countdown.

On 27 Feb, 05:34, "Totorkon" wrote:

The procurement system of the pentagon is essentially socialist and
runs close to $300G a year. For many systems there is only one
reasonable vendor, like Boing for air tankers.

Interesting point. Boeing claims that Airbus is subsidized. True there
are "headline" subsidies for Airbus, yet the Pentagon "subsidies" for
Boeing are ignored.

The first aim of NASA should be to bring launch costs down. Henry
suggests that a RLV could do this, at least if it is launched
frequently enough. To justify this, suitable payloads must be part of
the plan.
A mass range of 20 tons to orbit is large enough that per launch costs
under $2000/Kg might be achievable, yet small enough to require the
frequent flights that can amortise the initial costs, for an overall
cost of $4000/Kg. It could provide the technology and experience to
pave the way for further drops in price.
The present VSE is to use SRBs and disposable RS68 engines to put a
manned base on the moon. For less cost we could have missions that
really bring home the data for deep space astronomy and the solar
system, and a launch system that dosn't ditch itself in the Atlantic
after each countdown.- Hide quoted text -

You may be right. Your shirt please. I feel that if we got removed
from bureaucracy and subsidy we might be in a better position. I tend
to feel that Science should have a budget. It could then decide
whether to spend the money on Earth based astronomy or space. If space
it would be free to find the cheapest solution. One part of a cheap
solution that should not be ignored is this. Do you send up a single
entity where if something goes wrong the mission is useless, or do you
send a swarm where the system is failure tolerant? A failure tolerant
system might have a lower development cost with less checking and less
expensive components, but a higher launch cost. Quite clearly that
should be for scientists to decide NASA does not have a role.

One thing for sure. If people were doing this kind of tradeoff we
would be better able to look at the economics of alternatives.


- Ian Parker