|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
Cost of launch and laws of physics
Len wrote: Michael Walsh wrote in message ... Len wrote: Michael Walsh wrote in message ... Althoug I disagree with John with respect to the need for advanced technology for a near-term space transport capable of frequent, reliable low-cost transport to LEO, I have to agree with both of you with respect to the current economic environment for commercial development of a space transport. That is why I insist that the first commercial space transports must be brought on line for an investment of no more than $200 million--and perhaps the limit may be more like $100 million. I view this investment limit as a requirement every bit as basic as the delta-vee requirement. Where I part company with both of you is that I truly believe that it is possible to meet this investment requirement with current technology. It does require getting the money somehow without resorting to a DOA type of management that precludes good system concept design. And that is tough. Len, I think you missed the point of this particular discussion. It wasn't about CATS by means of low cost rocket flight, it was about the feasibility of a space elevator. My departure with you was about the capability of a private company developing a commercial space company for the $100-200 million figure without some kind of a leading technology program. I believe we already beat that discussion to death in earlier threads and I certainly hope you are more nearly correct than I am. Thanks. I keep beating on this point, because I would like a financial climate that might enable raising the money to try. However, in this particular discussion I was only discussing the proposal for a space elevator and I believe that is far beyond the bounds of our current technology. As I expressed in an earlier part of that discussion, that one really requires some advancement of the state-of-the-art technology. Right now I doubt that anyone is going to pay for it, and I find it incredible to believe that it could be done without NASA, the government and some form of big business and certainly not without it even being noticed. I realize that the context has been in terms of SE-- however, John O.'s recurring theme is that there are no launch concepts that can reduce costs without new "technology." This is a place where I part company with John Ordover. I do believe that a government financed "proof of concept" small, completely reusable space vehicle would be a step in the right direction. I see a problem with a commercial organization having to demonstrate a capability that has not so far been demonstrated by anyone. That is recovering and reusing an upper stage, complete with propellant tanks and all that goes with them. The fact that the Shuttle solved the problem by dumping the propellant tanks makes that a continuing region of uncertainty. Mike Walsh |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
Cost of launch and laws of physics
"E.R." wrote: Michael Walsh wrote in message ... However, in this particular discussion I was only discussing the proposal for a space elevator and I believe that is far beyond the bounds of our current technology. As I expressed in an earlier part of that discussion, that one really requires some advancement of the state-of-the-art technology. Right now I doubt that anyone is going to pay for it, and I find it incredible to believe that it could be done without NASA, the government and some form of big business and certainly not without it even being noticed. Mike Walsh I think the 'without it even being noticed' is a comment on a comment I made earlier in the thread. If I may respond; As to the 'not being noticed' bit what I was referring to was getting the funding, the regulatory permission and etc. done .. in other words, getting an offical blessing put on the project .. before the institutions concerned can 'officially' formulate a respone i.e. protect their turf i.e. kill the project. If the crowd building the space elevator can get inside the vested interests Decsion-Action loop that's a good start. ~er What I meant was I don't think you can sneak something this big through unnoticed. I think you can count on a lack of reaction until it looks as if it isn't just someone's fantasy. If you want to look at what happens on a smaller scale take a look at how regulation goes with the X-Prize and the sub-orbital tourist groups. Regulatory problems came right out of the closet when the government suddenly perceived that things might really happen. This is different from the technical problems of building a space elevator, but does describe things that will have to be faced if it looks as if the space elevator may actually be built. Mike Walsh |
#234
|
|||
|
|||
Cost of launch and laws of physics
Michael Walsh wrote in message ...
I think the 'without it even being noticed' is a comment on a comment I made earlier in the thread. If I may respond; As to the 'not being noticed' bit what I was referring to was getting the funding, the regulatory permission and etc. done .. in other words, getting an offical blessing put on the project .. before the institutions concerned can 'officially' formulate a respone i.e. protect their turf i.e. kill the project. If the crowd building the space elevator can get inside the vested interests Decsion-Action loop that's a good start. ~er What I meant was I don't think you can sneak something this big through unnoticed. I think you can count on a lack of reaction until it looks as if it isn't just someone's fantasy. If you want to look at what happens on a smaller scale take a look at how regulation goes with the X-Prize and the sub-orbital tourist groups. Regulatory problems came right out of the closet when the government suddenly perceived that things might really happen. This is different from the technical problems of building a space elevator, but does describe things that will have to be faced if it looks as if the space elevator may actually be built. I was expressing myself badly; you've stated what I was thinking rather well. It does look like Mr. Rutan is going to get the X-Prize soon, and then we'll see what happens. ~er |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
Cost of launch and laws of physics
Michael Walsh wrote in message ...
Len wrote: I realize that the context has been in terms of SE-- however, John O.'s recurring theme is that there are no launch concepts that can reduce costs without new "technology." This is a place where I part company with John Ordover. I do believe that a government financed "proof of concept" small, completely reusable space vehicle would be a step in the right direction. I see a problem with a commercial organization having to demonstrate a capability that has not so far been demonstrated by anyone. That is recovering and reusing an upper stage, complete with propellant tanks and all that goes with them. The fact that the Shuttle solved the problem by dumping the propellant tanks makes that a continuing region of uncertainty. Mike Walsh Your point (I think) that government has far more resources than a commercial organization is well taken. However, IMO, commercial entrepreneurs have a huge flexibilty advantage when it comes to defining real requirements and allowable design paths. With respect to an example of "real" requirements, the mass and size of the Shuttle payload requirement is moot. As an example of design flexibility, let me cite the external tank--as you have cited it as a "solution." As project engineer for space transportation systems at the LA sister division at North American Aviation, I had come to the conclusion a decade before the Shuttle program started that the volume of internal propellants could relieve reentry heating by providing lower planform loading; moreover, my tradeoffs indicated that this benefit could counter the performance advantages of dropping an external tank. As for economics, an expendable tank kills any potential for the type of cost effectiveness I was looking for. As for safety, I fail to see why an adjacent external tank with disconnectable propellant transfer was going to be so much safer than carrying propellants internally in a design that could take full advantage of not having to disconnect propellant lines in flight. At the time that North American--Rockwell by that time --won the Shuttle Program, I was head of tactical systems at the LA Division, with a conflict of interest agreement with respect to commercial space transportation. When Rockwell won the Shuttle program, I quit Rockwell--partly because of conflict of interest, but also because of the sheer absurdity of the Shuttle program. Best regards, Len (Cormier) PanAero, Inc. and Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc. ( http://www.tour2space.com ) |
#236
|
|||
|
|||
Cost of launch and laws of physics
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 21:12:24 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: I keep expressing the hope that the government that obtains its resource advantage from our tax dollars will do something wise with it. Yes, you do, just like Charlie Brown hopes that this time Lucy let's him kick the ball. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High Launch Costs - Result of Physics? | Dr John Stockton | Policy | 101 | July 25th 03 12:10 AM |
Solar sailing DOESN"T break laws of physics' | Geoffrey A. Landis | Policy | 70 | July 13th 03 01:00 AM |