#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Establish demand
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Establish demand
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Establish demand
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Establish demand
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Establish demand
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Establish demand
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Establish demand
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Establish demand
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Establish demand
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
When did we establish... | N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) | Astronomy Misc | 8 | October 13th 05 06:17 PM |
Fake Moon Dirt Is in Demand Again | MrPepper11 | Astronomy Misc | 1 | March 18th 05 12:14 AM |
Fake Moon Dirt Is in Demand Again | MrPepper11 | History | 1 | March 18th 05 12:14 AM |
We Should Demand Nasa Explain The Rover Science Embargo! | Chosp | Policy | 1 | July 25th 04 02:48 AM |
We Should Demand Nasa Explain The Rover Science Embargo! | Chosp | Astronomy Misc | 2 | July 25th 04 02:48 AM |