Pathways to space
Pete Lynn
practically feasible trigger that could be pulled so as to open humanity to
space settlement. I used to think that the critical path was cheap access
to LEO, now I think the market must come first, also I think space
settlement must be its own justification. To this end I have been wondering
if a couple of hundred ton of raw material annually accumulated in LEO might
serve as such a catalyst. An obtainable prize like this which is within the
reach of human hands might justify the launch vehicles, refining systems and
other technical developments that we need to initiate space settlement.
Would it be possible to deliver raw materials to LEO for 10$-100$/kg for a
minimal initial capital investment, say less than a hundred million. Some
options would be NEA, Lunar, Mars, skimming from earth's atmosphere,
ballistic plus rocket launch from earth, etc. What could be done with an
initial couple of ton payload in LEO? I am guessing that nuclear energy
sources, mass drivers, and the like are effectively ruled out. I expect
there would be limited capacity for numerous independent modules and a lot
of solar power will be required. On a side note, I have been looking at
solar thermal power systems and think that it might be possible to achieve
power to weight ratios in the 0.5-1kW/kg range for sizes above say 100kW.
Such systems might be able to power high ISP rockets using insitu fuels,
electrodynamic tethers which support upper atmosphere collection, refinement
of LOX/Al rockets, etc.
I am enjoying this as a particularly interesting design problem. If it has
a solution, I am wondering just what the minimum initial capital investment
might be and how it would be done. How do the many possible solutions
compare?
Pete.
Len for MMI
economically feasible with current technology -- although
I might suggest some modifications to your numbers.
I think that you are right that CATS is likely to be
market driven. That is why some of us have suggested
that one of the best things that government might do
is to guarantee markets: "If you will build it, we
will come." Rand Simberg has suggested a guaranteed
market for carrying passengers to orbit. I tend to
favor a "pile of raw materials or water" that is not
critical to any existing program, but that would enable
entirely new approaches to some applications, as well
as entirely new applications. I think the "pile" should
be more than the hundred tonnes or so that you suggest.
I think the "pile" should be measured more in the
thousands of tonnes. With CATS, this does have to
amount to tonnes of money. A paradigm shift is
necessary in thinking with respect to amounts and
costs.
As to RLV costs to LEO, I am quite confident that
my company has a specific, practical, near-term
concept for getting to $100/kg in 2400-kg chunks.
That's the high end of your desired range. I don't
know how to do this under a $100 million investment,
but I do think that it could be done under $200 million.
However, the people directly concerned with carrying
out the project would have to have complete control
of the checkbook -- and this may be an impossible premise.
I agree that solar thermo (or thermodynamic, at least),
appears to hold the most promise for power generation
in space for use in space.
Best regards,
Len (Cormier) for MMI
Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
MMI = 2001: the start of the third millennium
l...@tour2space.com ( http://www.tour2space.com )
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Thomas Kalbfus
>market driven. That is why some of us have suggested
>that one of the best things that government might do
>is to guarantee markets: "If you will build it, we
>will come." Rand Simberg has suggested a guaranteed
>market for carrying passengers to orbit. I tend to
>favor a "pile of raw materials or water" that is not
>critical to any existing program, but that would enable
>entirely new approaches to some applications, as well
>as entirely new applications. I think the "pile" should
>be more than the hundred tonnes or so that you suggest.
>I think the "pile" should be measured more in the
>thousands of tonnes. With CATS, this does have to
>amount to tonnes of money. A paradigm shift is
>necessary in thinking with respect to amounts and
>costs.
>
Hard to justify dumping raw material into orbit for no reason. A space based
SDI program might push CATS along. A lot of money has to be spent to create the
economies of scale that will produce CATS. To spend alot of the government's
money you need to do something vital like defend the country. Whether SDI works
or not is besides the point. So long as the policy makers believe that it will,
they will deploy it, and that will push CATS along. Alot of the liberal
scientists try to find reasons not to deploy SDI so as not to offend their
Russian pals, so they build arguments showing that SDI won't work, but they are
throwing the baby out with the bathwater if they succeed and are destroying
CATS as well. They might argue that if we really wanted CATS, then we should
fund CATS directly, but by taking away the vital National Security link, they
also reduce the likelyhood that CATS will ever be funded. It will be hard to
convice Congress to spend alot of money putting rubble in low earth orbit
without finding a national security reason for them to do so.
Tom Kalbfus
j
thomas...@aol.com (Thomas Kalbfus) wrote:
If you draw the national borders in the right location then frontier forts
can be justified. Pearl Harbor was useful for defending Texas, but didn't
make sense without the purchase of California.
--
---
Links to the future http://ttsw.com/orion/Orion.html
Len for MMI
Let me say that I agree almost entirely with what you
are saying above. I don't really recommend funding the
dumping of a bunch of raw material in orbit. It should
definitely have some value and usefulness. However, its
main usefulness may be as a demonstration that CATS is
possible. Once CATS is shown to be possible, then a lot
of applications become possible -- including SDI; manned
planetary missions; space solar power stations; the
consideration of solar-orbit or lunar disposal of
high-level nuclear wastes; high throughput, medium-value
space anufacturing; new approaches to telecommunications;
..... the list goes on.
Part of my motivation for trying to achieve CATS for four
decades has been to make a space-based defense system both
economically and technically feasible. As to some of the
political barriers to space-based defense, I have almost
as much of a problem with some of the conservatives, as
with the madly-in-love with MAD liberals. For example,
if the real problem is a political problem vis-a-vis the
Russians, then let's be honest. We are either concerned
with only rogue nations (and not Russia), or we are not.
If we are only concerned with rogue nations, then why not
-- as the late General Danny Graham had suggested --
include the Russians in a cooperative space-based system,
with proper protections that the technology does not go
elsewhere than the U.S., U.S. allies, and Russia. Perhaps
the most critical technology might be strictly confined to
U.S. control, but with cooperative operations. Nothing in
this plan would preclude reducing nuclear weapons to zero;
nuclear weapons are close to useless for a country such as
the U.S. has become. Defense against counter-value nuclear
weapons should, however, be our top priorty. Yes, I know,
bio and chem and other potential weapons are also a threat
in the hands of terrorists and/or rogue nations. I agree.
But let's tackle these problems one at a time -- at the
same time keeping all in mind with respect to the big picture.
As for making CATS happen, there are a number of us that
do not think that huge amounts of government funding is
necessary. IMO, a billion USD for well thought out market
guarantees could result in two or three operational systems.
Market guarantees are perhaps the most promising way to
encourage systems with real, near-term potential for CATS.
But the guarantees have to be for large amounts of low-cost
payloads that are not critical to current government programs.
That is why I recommended that NASA and DoD come up with a
"third class" of payloads for this purpose, when I was a
reappointed charter member of DoT's COMSTAC.
Best regards,
Len (Cormier) for MMI
Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
--
Pete Lynn
Len (Cormier) for MMI <l...@tour2space.com> wrote in message
news:93sr72$o3c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I think a lot of what you suggest is technically and
> economically feasible with current technology -- although
> I might suggest some modifications to your numbers.
>
> I think that you are right that CATS is likely to be
> market driven. That is why some of us have suggested
> that one of the best things that government might do
> is to guarantee markets: "If you will build it, we
> will come." Rand Simberg has suggested a guaranteed
> market for carrying passengers to orbit. I tend to
> favor a "pile of raw materials or water" that is not
> critical to any existing program, but that would enable
> entirely new approaches to some applications, as well
> as entirely new applications. I think the "pile" should
> be more than the hundred tonnes or so that you suggest.
> I think the "pile" should be measured more in the
> thousands of tonnes. With CATS, this does have to
> amount to tonnes of money. A paradigm shift is
> necessary in thinking with respect to amounts and
> costs.
>
If government can prime the pump, then all in good. Personally I have
little faith in governments and would feel far more comfortable if a
privately funded alternative could be found.
To be honest I was thinking primarily in terms of the automated collection
of extra terrestrial resources and the possibility of doing this
inexpensively in the near future without a manned presence. While this
would be ambitious technically, it is conceivable that the actual physical
weight and cost of such machinery might be quite low, (couple of ton, $100
million), and the low cost delivery to LEO thereby possible. Also, such a
project might be within the reach of the private sector. I would expect
that in the long term, raw materials in LEO would be most economically
sourced elsewhere, but might this cross over from earth derived resources be
sooner rather than latter? Point being that this might help in generating
financial reasons for going to LEO, give us some place to go and stuff to do
when we get there.
> As to RLV costs to LEO, I am quite confident that
> my company has a specific, practical, near-term
> concept for getting to $100/kg in 2400-kg chunks.
> That's the high end of your desired range. I don't
> know how to do this under a $100 million investment,
> but I do think that it could be done under $200 million.
> However, the people directly concerned with carrying
> out the project would have to have complete control
> of the checkbook -- and this may be an impossible premise.
I checked out your website and I must say I was quite impressed. I went
through some basic numbers on this a while back and from what I can tell
from my very limited knowledge and understanding, the concept is good,
especially when compared to other proposed launch systems of this general
type. I like it a lot, a simple, flexible and yet uncompromised design
which is largely independent of launch facilities. Low risk, low cost with
high launch rate enabling a high degree of continual improvement, etc.
Technical question, what is the weight penalty of wings, heat shield and
landing gear? How severely do these govern the basic design with respect to
payload, etc?
>
> I agree that solar thermo (or thermodynamic, at least),
> appears to hold the most promise for power generation
> in space for use in space.
Interestingly, the cold end heat exchanger radiating to space dominates so
not surprisingly solar intensity is not that critical, still, with such
systems many cool and fun things become possible.
Len for MMI
"Pete Lynn" <pe...@peterlynnkites.com> wrote:
>
> Len (Cormier) for MMI <l...@tour2space.com> wrote in message
> news:93sr72$o3c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > I think a lot of what you suggest is technically and
> > economically feasible with current technology -- although
> > I might suggest some modifications to your numbers.
> >
> > I think that you are right that CATS is likely to be
> > market driven. That is why some of us have suggested
> > that one of the best things that government might do
> > is to guarantee markets:
> > "If you will build it, we will come."
.... snip.....
> >
> If government can prime the pump, then all in good. Personally I have
> little faith in governments and would feel far more comfortable if a
> privately funded alternative could be found.
>
Amen.
> To be honest I was thinking primarily in terms of the automated
> collection of extra terrestrial resources and the possibility
> of doing this inexpensively in the near future without a manned
> presence. While this would be ambitious technically, it is
> conceivable that the actual physical weight and cost of such
> machinery might be quite low, (couple of ton, $100 million),
> and the low cost delivery to LEO thereby possible. Also,
> such a project might be within the reach of the private sector.
> I would expect that in the long term, raw materials in LEO would
> be most economically sourced elsewhere, but might this cross
> over from earth derived resources be sooner rather than latter?
> Point being that this might help in generating financial reasons
> for going to LEO, give us some place to go and stuff to do
> when we get there.
>
Well, that's one solution -- and perhaps a good one.
And, no matter how good we get at CATS, there will
always likely be a strong incentive to make things
in space lighter, if it doesn't cost much. But I
think that Earth-to-LEO CATS is fundamentally important.
And Earth-to-LEO CATS, IMO, is synonomous with thousands
of tonnes per year of low-cost payloads. Current business
is irrelevant, and should not have the the controlling
influence that it has had on launch vehicle design.
> > As to RLV costs to LEO, I am quite confident that
> > my company has a specific, practical, near-term
> > concept for getting to $100/kg in 2400-kg chunks.
> > That's the high end of your desired range. I don't
> > know how to do this under a $100 million investment,
> > but I do think that it could be done under $200 million.
> > However, the people directly concerned with carrying
> > out the project would have to have complete control
> > of the checkbook -- and this may be an impossible premise.
>
> I checked out your website and I must say I was quite
> impressed. I went through some basic numbers on this
> a while back and from what I can tell from my very
> limited knowledge and understanding, the concept is good,
> especially when compared to other proposed launch systems
> of this general type. I like it a lot, a simple, flexible
> and yet uncompromised design which is largely independent
> of launch facilities. Low risk, low cost with high launch
> rate enabling a high degree of continual improvement, etc.
Stay tuned. You ain't seen nuttin' yet. The cost numbers
in the previous paragraphs refer to our "newest improved
version." After we finish putting the finishing touches
on this version, we'll publish it.
> Technical question, what is the weight penalty of wings,
> heat shield and landing gear? How severely do these govern
> the basic design with respect to payload, etc?
With our current concept that allows designing the
orbiter wing for burnout mass and for reentry, approach,
and landing, then wing, tail, TPS, landing gear, and
attitude control system is about 19.6 percent of burnout
mass - and about24.5 percent of burnout mass without the
2400 kg payload. This corresponds to about 2.4 percent
of orbiter gross mass. If we design the orbiter wing for
orbiter gross mass, then wing mass increases perhaps
eightfold -- which also increases tail, TPS, etc. In
this exponential game, subsonic launch is no longer
practical without further staging.
Our current orbiter has a gross mass of 100 tonnes.
System mass at takeoff is 250 tonnes; however, our
primary concerns with the carrier stage are cost and
good operations -- not size or mass.
> >
Best regards,
Len (Cormier) for MMI
Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
--
Pete Lynn
in great anticipation, but now for the hard part, funding. I hope your
current success continues.
Pete.
Len (Cormier) for MMI <l...@tour2space.com> wrote in message
news:941ov0$ohj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Larry Gales
> In article <t67vs0...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Pete Lynn" <pe...@peterlynnkites.com> wrote:
> >
> > Len (Cormier) for MMI <l...@tour2space.com> wrote in message
> > news:93sr72$o3c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> With our current concept that allows designing the
> orbiter wing for burnout mass and for reentry, approach,
> and landing, then wing, tail, TPS, landing gear, and
> attitude control system is about 19.6 percent of burnout
> mass - and about24.5 percent of burnout mass without the
> 2400 kg payload. This corresponds to about 2.4 percent
> of orbiter gross mass. If we design the orbiter wing for
> orbiter gross mass, then wing mass increases perhaps
> eightfold -- which also increases tail, TPS, etc. In
> this exponential game, subsonic launch is no longer
> practical without further staging.
>
> Our current orbiter has a gross mass of 100 tonnes.
> System mass at takeoff is 250 tonnes; however, our
> primary concerns with the carrier stage are cost and
> good operations -- not size or mass.
> > >
>
> Best regards,
> Len (Cormier) for MMI
> Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
> --
> MMI = 2001: the start of the third millennium
> l...@tour2space.com ( http://www.tour2space.com )
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
---------------------
Len, I recall that you once said that airlaunch at 30,000 and Mach 0.8 was
equivalent to a dV advantage of 670 m/s. With you much higher altitude
launch (62000 feet?) what is the dV advantage there? Thanks,
Larry Gales
Len for MMI
"Larry Gales" <lar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> "Len (Cormier) for MMI" <l...@tour2space.com> wrote in message
> news:941ov0$ohj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <t67vs0...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Pete Lynn" <pe...@peterlynnkites.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Len (Cormier) for MMI <l...@tour2space.com> wrote in message
> > > news:93sr72$o3c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
>
> > With our current concept that allows designing the
> > orbiter wing for burnout mass and for reentry, approach,
> > and landing, then wing, tail, TPS, landing gear, and
> > attitude control system is about 19.6 percent of burnout
> > 2400 kg payload. This corresponds to about 2.4 percent
> > of orbiter gross mass. If we design the orbiter wing for
> > orbiter gross mass, then wing mass increases perhaps
> > eightfold -- which also increases tail, TPS, etc. In
> > this exponential game, subsonic launch is no longer
> > practical without further staging.
> >
> > Our current orbiter has a gross mass of 100 tonnes.
> > System mass at takeoff is 250 tonnes; however, our
> > primary concerns with the carrier stage are cost and
> > good operations -- not size or mass.
> > > >
> >
>
> ---------------------
> Len, I recall that you once said that airlaunch at 30,000 and
> Mach 0.8 was equivalent to a dV advantage of 670 m/s. With
> your much higher altitude launch (62000 feet?) what is the dV
> advantage there? Thanks,
>
> Larry Gales
Actually, only about 700 or 800 m/s. Our
new separation point is likely to be about
0.5 mach at about 15 km altitude. We plan
to use a *turboprop* transport for efficient,
but low-q climb to altitude, plus about
60 seconds of subsonic rocket assist to get
from 10 km to perhaps 15 km (50,000 ft). The
exact credit will depend how we fly the orbiter
after launch -- the low-q, low heating exit
trajectory doesn't come free. This credit is
important; but relief on the orbiter wing is
even more important. Check our web site in a
few more days for more details.
Our current carrier preference is a modified
Antonov An-22. If all goes well, we hope to
achieve our approach to CATS with a carrier
airframe that has been flying for 36 years,
powered by engines that have been flying for
46 years, and with an orbiter powered by engines
that have been mothballed for 25 years. But all
of these old components are still very good --
just like the current designer who has pulled
them all together :-).
Len for MMI
"Pete Lynn" <pe...@peterlynnkites.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the information, very interesting. I'll be watching
> your website in great anticipation, but now for the hard part,
> funding. I hope your current success continues.
>
> Pete.
Pete:
It took somewhat longer than I had planned,
but we have now updated our website for the
latest version of the Millennium Express:
Roga
An analysis was done, included in a
class co-taught by Harrison Schmidt (http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~neep602/lecture37.html)
at Wisconsin-Madison, that showed a good cost effectiveness at low risk
for such a project where R&D was financed by government and the infrastructure
sold to a private company; and a very high risk with a long baseline to
profitability (~25 yr) if all R&D was taken on by the company.
It seems that this is one area where, by creating a working infrastructure,
government can assure a profit at low risk while still engaging in politically
persuadable spending, because it is a market that exists, as opposed to
a theoretical space tourism market; energy is energy is energy.
Pete Lynn
progression, the design has become quite polished. With the effective
demise of Roton I had been feeling somewhat despondent about the future of
low cost RLV's. It is nice to see that you have found ways around the old
RLV pitfalls without compromising the fundamental design by regressing to
proven ELV solutions and cost structures. From what I can tell the
Millennium Express has the best chance of any of the RLV developments and
the lowest price tag to boot. Even considering the current economic
climate, I suspect that your chances of finding the necessary financing are
pretty good. I will continue to follow your progress closely and wish you
all the best.
Pete.
tom_d...@my-deja.com
Len (Cormier) for MMI <l...@tour2space.com> wrote:
-snip-
> It took somewhat longer than I had planned,
> but we have now updated our website for the
> latest version of the Millennium Express:
>
> http://www.tour2space.com
>
> Best regards,
> Len (Cormier) for MMI
> Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
> --
> MMI = 2001: the start of the third millennium
> l...@tour2space.com ( http://www.tour2space.com )
Wow! Your design looks more do-able on every iteration. Great job!!!
Now, for a few questions:
1. What's it going to take to build this?
2. Why isn't everybody working on something like this? Why do we keep
getting regurgitated ICBMs as launch vehicles? Because nearly all launch
vehicles *are* a byproduct of ICBM development efforts?
Keep up the good work!
-- Tom Durrant
Henry Spencer
Roga <crem...@emerald.tufts.edu> wrote:
>I think the #1 enabling force would be the development of a working, beyond
This is by no means clear yet. Not everyone is so optimistic about 3He.
I heard an interesting talk by John Lewis (of U of Arizona) a couple of
years back, in which he commented that the more pessimistic estimates show
a relatively poor energy gain in the process. Extracting 3He from lunar
soil is *very* energy-intensive unless you assume near-miraculously
efficient recovery of waste heat (which the 3He advocates tend to do).
>...It seems that this is one area
>where, by creating a working infrastructure, government can assure a profit
>at low risk while still engaging in politically persuadable spending,
>because it is a market that exists, as opposed to a theoretical space
>tourism market...
Uh, no. The energy market exists, yes. The 3He market is still just as
theoretical as space tourism. (Indeed, arguably more so: there have been
some disturbing calculations indicating that building 3He reactors may be
prohibitively difficult for quite fundamental reasons.)
--
When failure is not an option, success | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
can get expensive. -- Peter Stibrany | (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)
Henry Spencer
>2. Why isn't everybody working on something like this? Why do we keep
>getting regurgitated ICBMs as launch vehicles? Because nearly all launch
>vehicles *are* a byproduct of ICBM development efforts?
Development costs are high, markets are modest, and various forms of
government intervention are frequent, so attracting private money is
difficult. (If Andrew Beal, who was spending *his own money* and running
the project himself, no longer thinks launchers are a good investment, you
can bet your booties that the usual investment types don't either.) That
leaves government money.
You can usually get government money for only two classes of things:
+ Operational systems, done by well-established government contractors in
response to a clear government requirement, which almost always specifies
the preferred solution in some detail, usually very conservatively. (The
government penalizes failure, dislikes change, and doesn't care much about
efficiency, so safe mediocre repetitions of the status quo are strongly
favored over innovative gambles.)
+ Advanced R&D on new technology that's not ready for practical use yet.
Using existing technology in radically new systems fits neither of these.
rk
> Development costs are high, markets are modest, and various forms of
> government intervention are frequent, so attracting private money is
> difficult. (If Andrew Beal, who was spending *his own money* and running
> the project himself, no longer thinks launchers are a good investment, you
> can bet your booties that the usual investment types don't either.) That
> leaves government money.
Just a pointer to a related article about markets I read last night.
Space News, January 22, 2001
p. 8
"Launch Supply Could Exceed Demand for Next Decade"
The global capacity for launching commercial satellites
will dwarf demand over the next 10 years, putting heavy
downward pressure on prices and perhaps driving some
players out of the market altogether, an industry
analyst here said.
-- end excerpt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
rk The key to developing engineering
stellar engineering, ltd. confidence is the rigorous identi-
stel...@erols.com.NOSPAM cation of the cause for ALL failures
Hi-Rel Digital Systems Design encountered for ALL phases of testing
... - Dr. Joseph F. Shea, Deputy
Director of Manned Space Flight, Spaceborne Computer Engineering
Conference, October, 1962.
Thomas Kalbfus
>I heard an interesting talk by John Lewis (of U of Arizona) a couple of
>years back, in which he commented that the more pessimistic estimates show
>a relatively poor energy gain in the process. Extracting 3He from lunar
>soil is *very* energy-intensive unless you assume near-miraculously
>efficient recovery of waste heat (which the 3He advocates tend to do).
>
How about using the Moon as a safe place to test nuclear rockets?
Woollard, Ian
> + Advanced R&D on new technology that's not ready for practical use yet.
Sounds like Rotary Rocket could get funding! Things are looking up!
> Using existing technology in radically new systems fits neither of these.
Doh! Guess not! ;-)
(On a more serious note, perhaps the rotary rocket part counts as
a new technology- it clearly has the ability to save weight by
integrating the reentry shield, the main engines and the turbopump;
using a parachute for returning to the sea sounds like a viable
research technique. This research could quite conceivably be
fundable it seems to me, suborbital rockets can be made quite
cheaply if they are only a few feet high; successful tests may
well attract further funding.)
> --
> When failure is not an option, success | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
> can get expensive. -- Peter Stibrany | (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)
--
-Ian (wo...@nortelnetworks.com)
|"Dynamo is ... an interpreter for HP's PA-8000 instruction set that |
|itself runs on a PA-8000 processor. Programs "interpreted" by Dynamo |
|are often faster... than native. Sometimes by 20% or more." |
Pete Lynn
Wait until the launch market picks up again.
Find a rich angel with long term commitment.
Find an alternate market as a stepping stone.
Wait for some breakthrough technology to trivialize the problem.
I wonder if part of the problem with Roton, Beal and the like, was that they
were just too slow, and the market collapsed before they could get
established, not that they necessarily had a choice. In this I am making
the rather dubious assumption that the launch business is to a certain
degree cyclic. If RLV's must wait for the next launch boom in order to get
established, then now is the time to do the ground work so as to be able to
hit the ground running when the time comes. I still wonder if the
Millennium Express might be an economic proposition even within the
currently depressed launch market.
Pete.
rk <stel...@nospamplease.erols.com> wrote in message
news:3A70B06E...@nospamplease.erols.com...
William Mook
"Pete Lynn" <pe...@peterlynnkites.com> wrote:
> I have been trying to figure out what would be the cheapest and most
> practically feasible trigger that could be pulled so as to open
humanity to
> space settlement.
Change the mind of those who define national strategy for the State
Deparment and Department of Defense.
Right now space is not considered an industrial resource by these
departments. It is considered at most the high ground for the US to
dominate and at worse a potential avenue of tremendous waste spent by a
naive public overly enthusiastic about a frontier that has no payoff.
> I used to think that the critical path was cheap access
> to LEO, now I think the market must come first,
You're right. The market drives the investment in technology. That's
the way it works normally. The markets exist for space services, but
the business environment doesn't support the development of those
markets. Why? Because those markets aren't allowed to
exist. "Serious" aerospace firms are captives of the federal
government and that won't change until the strategic planners in the
federal government allow that to change. This could be done at very
low cost and would include;
CHANGE THE MINDSET OF THE COMPANIES WITH THE KNOWHOW TO SUCCEED IN
SPACE DEVELOPMENT:
1) fixed price contracting replacing cost plus contracting in aerospace
sector, rewarding lowering of costs rather than penalizing it;
RELEASE INFORMATION THAT WOULD SUPPORT PRIVATE SPACE DEVELOPMENT:
2) review of confidential technical information important to aerospace
development now held by the federal government for release to qualified
US firms, and the establishment of a government office to provide
technical assistance qualified US firms who develop space based
businesses;
DON'T INTERFERE OR PROHIBIT ACTIVITIES THAT PRIVATE SPACE VENTURES MUST
ENGAGE IN TO SUCCEED:
3) relaxation of the restrictive laws that prohibit or tortuously
interfere with for-profit space ventures (look at the history of SPOT
for example) and creation of laws more supportive of space investment;
ALLOW PRIVATE ENTITIES TO MAKE A PROFIT FROM THEIR INVESTMENTS:
4) removal of the US from current Outer Space treaties that prohibit
private ownership of assets and resources in space and the creation of
a legal basis for ownership of assets and resources and provide legally
the making of profit by privately owned entities from operation on,
around and in a celestrial body, in a way that sets the stage for large
scale private investment;
DON'T TAX SPACE VENTURES FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME:
5) In addition to allowing investors to keep their profits, provide for
tax free profits for a limited period of time (say 20 years) on new
investments off-world. This wouldn't cost anything since there are
little or no taxes paid now from off world, but would sweeten the pot
for investors in space based ventures;
AS ASSETS ARE DISCOVERED OR DEFINED AUCTION OFF LIMITED MONOPOLIES TO
QUALIFIED PRIVATE ENTITIES;
6) Investment in space travel capacities by private entities can
further be rewarded by allowing those who make adequate investments in
their space faring capacities to play exclusively in limited monopolies
of resources that are discovered or defined in the future. This pays
dividends today because even if a current use for advanced space faring
capacities don't exist today they're worth something today if uses
could reasonably exist in the future, and if having capacities today
qualifies one to play in limited monopolies in the future. This is
akin to private investment in research for patent and FDA monopolies of
resulting intellectual property, which supports long term massive
investments.
None of these changes will require any massive new expenditures by the
government, or cost the government any revenues it is collecting
today. All of these changes *will* change the environment of space
investment in the US, and lead the way to a new age of space
development.
> also I think space
> settlement must be its own justification.
There are several areas where space investment can be justified under
the right environment. These include;
1) broadband global wireless internet; which includes; global cel
phone, 2way portable TV, 2 way portable HDTV, telepresence, telecherics
2) broadband solar system wide internet; which supports a large
population of robotic sensors and actuators throughout the solar
system. This robotic population spread throughout the solar system
builds accurate virtual reality models at Earth based computer sites of
the locales they operate in and allows real time interaction of folks
with these models for a connection fee, as well as a number of other
kindred services;
3) returning small quantities of celestial bodies by automated probe
for use in the jewelry trade. Interesting stones found on the surface
of a variety of celestial bodies could be worth their weight in
diamonds and thus pay for their transport across the solar system.
Other interesting 'high end' products might be interesting consumables -
which might include, but aren't limited to; cooling your drinks with
ice chipped from the surface of a Jovian moon, or a martian ice cap;
the creation of perfumes and other similar products using the volatiles
extracted from lunar, martian, or other soils, and so forth.
> To this end I have been wondering
> if a couple of hundred ton of raw material annually accumulated in
> LEO might
> serve as such a catalyst. An obtainable prize like this which is
> within the
> reach of human hands might justify the launch vehicles, refining
> systems and
> other technical developments that we need to initiate space
> settlement.
An Atlas class fully reusable two-stage launcher along with a
relaxation of the requirements to put up a satellite constellation
would be enough to get the ball rolling. Teledesic, Iridium, and other
networks planned in the early 90s showed that significant corporate
interest was there for telecom. Unfortunately, there was no similar
interest by the government to make sure they succeeded. This doesn't
require any investment by the government, it only requires cooperation
by government agencies with qualified groups. Iridium suffered in part
from the limited capacities of their satellites. This limitation was
the result of limitations in launch capacity, licensing, and frequency
licensing. Had more satellites each more powerful been permitted to
operate as a cohesive network, and Motorola had more favorable
treatment by their banks and in the courts - when it was clear they
needed to expand their network to compete successfully, Iridium could
have competed successfully with current cell phones.
And note, low-cost high quality global satellite cell phones are just
the tip of the ice berg. A space based broad band global wireless
internet is possible.
Several of these satellite networks operating in competition with one
another could provide space launch providers with a demand of several
hundreds of satellites a year or more at $100 million each.
If space launch providers used fully reusable unpiloted two stage
launchers to deliver these launch services, huge profits could be
made.
Much of these profits could be directed at expanding the demand for
space launch beyond global cell phone and global internet. The first
step beyond Teledesic and Iridium like services would be 2Way TV, 2Way
HDTV, telepresence, and telecherics.
Also, would be a variety of navigation services building upon the
success of the navy navigation network. Too, would be a variety of
reconassaince, mapping, and weather services building upon the success
of the military spy sats - but the information would be available for
public and private use.
> Would it be possible to deliver raw materials to LEO for 10$-100$/kg
> for a
> minimal initial capital investment, say less than a hundred million.
No. With current technology you need about a billion dollars, and you
don't get that cheap on recurring cost.
But don't despair, in the right environment, a billion dollars is easy
to raise these days. In the wrong environment, $10,000 is hard to come
by. Also, $1,000 per kg is sufficient to earn lots of money in the
right environment.
Consider, that Boeing spent $7 billion on their 777.
Consider, a fleet of three fully reusable two stage launchers capable
of lofting 8 tons into LEO for $1 million/ton ($1,000/kg) could be
built for about $650 million. The launch services could be sold for
$10,000/kg to global information providers who didn't balk at launch
costs for their $40,000/kg satellites, but at restrictive insurance
requirements and availability, launch reliability, and launcher
availability. A multi-stage reusable built by a major aerospace firm -
in a more relaxed regulatory environment - meets all these challenges.
In an environment where a successful Iridium and Teledesic made money
and attracted 3 competitors each, you would have a situation where
3,000 satellites would be orbited over a 3 or 4 year period at $80
million per launch.
This $240 billion in launch services would support $1500 billion of
investments in satellites. Those investors would capture a space based
business that generates over $200 billion in profits a year in new
telecom services world wide.
With this kind of profit earned in space, and the obvious
transformation of global business services, excitement in other
possibilities in space would definitely materialize around the world.
In this environment expect a bubble in space investements to develop,
and maybe a few trillion dollars (the amount invested in dot coms over
the past decade) to be spent in space development.
In the right environment, with support of government labs, scores,
perhaps hundreds of major investments will take place and dozens of
major successes will result in the first wave of private space firms to
develop off world.
> Some
> options would be NEA, Lunar, Mars, skimming from earth's atmosphere,
> ballistic plus rocket launch from earth, etc. What could be done
> with an
> initial couple of ton payload in LEO? I am guessing that nuclear
> energy
> sources, mass drivers, and the like are effectively ruled out.
That's because of the restrictions placed on these technologies by the
government. This could change overnight at the stroke of a pen.
> I expect
> there would be limited capacity for numerous independent modules and
> a lot
> of solar power will be required.
All the commercial spysats, navsats, comsats, will be solar powered,
and needn't go beyond EO to set the stage for trillions of dollars in
capital invested - in the right investment environment. Beyond the
other opportunities I've mentioned here, I'll speak again of other
opportunities that await us - after this initial flush of success;
1) solar power sats - microwave based for stationary consumers, laser
based for mobile consumers (including space consumers);
2) asteroid capture and mining for development of large scale space
based assets and export of part of these to Earth;
2) use of asteroid feedstock and telecheric network in EO to support
massive industrial production on orbit primarily for Earth export;
3) expansion of EO industry to support consumer product manufacturing
on orbit and distribution to Earth directly from space;
4) expansion of EO industry to support farming, forestry, fishing, on
orbit in EO biospheres;
5) expansion of laser SPS to support global ballistic delivery and
passenger service;
6) expansion of laser SPS to support global transport from Earth
Surface to EO for delivery and passengers; providing humanity low cost
broad scale access to EO;
7) expansion of EO industry to support residences on orbit in massive
biospheres;
8) expansion of laser SPS - in SOLAR ORBIT - to support deep space
propulsion and powering deep space operations for mobile space
residences, providing humanity low cost broad scale access to the solar
system;
9) expansion of the laser SPS - to SOLAR STATION KEEPING inside the
orbit of Mercury - and construction of large station keeping FRESNEL
LENSES beyond the orbit of Neptune - to provide laser light sail
transit to star systems up to 12 light years distant; providing
humanity low cost broad scale access to nearby solar systems.
> On a side note, I have been looking at
> solar thermal power systems and think that it might be possible to
> achieve
> power to weight ratios in the 0.5-1kW/kg range for sizes above say
> 100kW.
Using lightweight, perhaps inflatably deployed, concentrators, this is
possible. Using large scale solar pumped lasers in solar orbit and
beaming the energy to receivers throughout the solar system at
hundreds, perhaps thousands of solars concentration - this is easily
exceeded!
Lawrence Livermore National Labs and Hughes Aerospace has done
significant research in laser propulsion resulting in practical designs
for laser light sails and laser sustained detonation - both powered by
remote lasers.
> Such systems might be able to power high ISP rockets using insitu
>fuels,
Laser Sustained Detonation rockets using high polymer plastics can
achieve Isps exceeding 2000 seconds and thrust to weight ratios of 50.
> electrodynamic tethers which support upper atmosphere collection,
> refinement
> of LOX/Al rockets, etc.
If you have a big enough solar pumped laser you can use LSD rockets and
jets to power very low cost lift off from Earth, low cost escape from
Earth orbit, and laser light sails to propel you at low cost around the
solar system and beyond.
This problem is solved - technically. What is not solved is the
political and business environment needed for appropriate business
investment in this technology.
Compare the state of these technologies with the state of say, a new,
but untried drug. Far more is invested in a riskier drug than is
invested in the less risky laser rocket, laser light sail, because the
investment environment is better for the drug, providing investors with
a clear avenue to payoff (but by no means assuring it!) Whereas, the
space based biz environment provides no clear avenue to payoff.
> I am enjoying this as a particularly interesting design problem. If
>it has
> a solution, I am wondering just what the minimum initial capital
> investment
> might be and how it would be done.
A new aircraft can cost $5 billion or more and take a decade to
complete. A new auto manufacturing plant can cost $10 billion or more
and take 5 years to complete. A new chip manufacturing plant can cost
$2 billion and more and take 3 years to complete. A new drug
manufacturing plant can cost $3 billion or more and take two decades to
complete. A new consumer electronics product can cost $1 billion or
more and take decades to achieve. A new satellite service (like Direct
TV) can take $2 billion and 8 years to complete.
A small fleet of new unpiloted reusable multi-stage launchers, each
capable of lofting 8 tonnes into orbit per launch, should cost less
than a billion dollars and take less than 5 years to complete, using
available technology.
The profit margins of such a launcher in the current launch environment
could exceed 40% - greater than the margins in the software industry.
In the right regulatory environment with this launcher, Iridium could
have succeeded, Teledesic would go forward, their success would have
attracted other investors in other networks - this would have led to a
massive change in global telecom and the creation of hundreds of
billions in new revenues each year among all investors.
This would have led to trillions of new investments - in the right
environment. These trillions would have gone to creating all manner of
new launchers, payloads, propulsive systems, in the right regulatory
environment, one where the government is supportive of such investments.
> How do the many possible solutions
> compare?
>
> Pete.
Look at the regulatory environment today's space launch provider and
today's satellite owner must work in. This is where you can start.
We have the technology, we have the skills, we have the capabilities,
we have the money, we have the markets. The only thing we lack is
support of those strategic planners who set national strategy. Their
reasons are sound. Their conclusions are overly narrow and do not
serve the US in today's world. This is where we start.
In the right environment, after an Atlas class, TSTO-RLV fleet is
making money, other vehicles will quickly follow suit. These are TSTO-
HL-RLV (Nova Class or better), Solar Pumped Laser SPS, LSD-SSTO-RLV,
LSD-DSV (Deep Space Vehicle), Laser beamed power to/from lunar surface,
and so forth.
William Mook
Orbatek, Inc.
--
> I can never have a magic wand or a crystal ball that lets me see the
> future or talk to the dead. I _might_ have a warp drive. I _might_
> meet an alien. I _might_ build a Heath-kit phaser gun and take out my
> neighbor's friggin' rooster.
>
> -- Scott Lowther Jan 17, 2001
Len for MMI
"Pete Lynn" <pe...@peterlynnkites.com> wrote:
> That is a pretty cool design, it is interesting to see the
> developmental progression, the design has become quite polished.
> With the effective demise of Roton I had been feeling somewhat
> despondent about the future of low cost RLV's. It is nice
> to see that you have found ways around the old
> RLV pitfalls without compromising the fundamental design by
> regressing to proven ELV solutions and cost structures. From
> what I can tell the Millennium Express has the best chance of
> any of the RLV developments and the lowest price tag to boot.
> Even considering the current economic climate, I suspect that
> your chances of finding the necessary financing are
> pretty good. I will continue to follow your progress closely
> and wish you all the best.
Pete:
Thanks for the very kind post. I've been on travel
for a week. Although I was able to access the Internet
the first two days, I've been cut off for the past five
days.
With respect to funding, I think that our prospects
for funding for one or more integrated applications
have improved markedly in the past few months. Note,
that we are not talking about anything like traditional
sources of funding -- which is just as hopeless as ever.
>
> Pete.
>
> > It took somewhat longer than I had planned,
> > but we have now updated our website for the
> > latest version of the Millennium Express:
> >
> > http://www.tour2space.com
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Len (Cormier) for MMI
Best regards
Len for MMI
> Len (Cormier) for MMI <l...@tour2space.com> wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> > It took somewhat longer than I had planned,
> > but we have now updated our website for the
> > latest version of the Millennium Express:
> >
> > http://www.tour2space.com
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Len (Cormier) for MMI
> > Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
> > --
> > MMI = 2001: the start of the third millennium
> > l...@tour2space.com ( http://www.tour2space.com )
>
> Wow! Your design looks more do-able on every iteration.
> Great job!!!
>
been on travel and have had trouble accessing the
Internet.
> Now, for a few questions:
>
> 1. What's it going to take to build this?
Our estimate for bringing the Millennium Express to
operational status with four orbiters and one to three
carrier stages is $170 million. The feasibility
stage of either of two integrated applications
requires another $30 million. Initial operational
capability for one of the applications might be
on the order of another $200 million. Full-scale
operational capability for either of the two main
integrated applications might require about
$1 billion or more -- assuming the availability of
the Millennium Express with substantially the economic
and performance charactersitics we now expect to
achieve. Without the Millennium Express, these
applications are not economically feasible. With
the Millennium Express, they should make very good
business sense.
>
> 2. Why isn't everybody working on something like
> this? Why do we keep getting regurgitated ICBMs
> as launch vehicles? Because nearly all launch
> vehicles *are* a byproduct of ICBM development efforts?
>
That's one reason. Another, IMO, is that NASA is
more interested in technology than CATS. This would be
fine -- if NASA would stay out of the launch vehicle
development and operational business, and stick to
furnishing good technology-base support of commercial
and military systems -- like NACA, which did such a
superb job at this type of work that nearly everyone
supported the idea that NACA should get the job to
become NASA.
> Keep up the good work!
Thanks again.
>
> -- Tom Durrant
>
Best regards,
Len (Cormier) for MMI
Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
--
MMI = 2001: the start of the third millennium
l...@tour2space.com ( http://www.tour2space.com )
Len for MMI
Pete:
I agree with Henry's analysis of why things
do not happen in the current space-launch
environment. However -- with respect to how
to get around the problem -- I probably take
quite a different approach than he and others
familiar with the problem might advocate.
I basically view the current market and market
projections as being completely irrelevant to
what an RLV can and must do. IMO, the current
launch market is best ignored. But how do we
manage to make sense in the transition period
between an ELV-based market measured in hundreds
of tonnes per year of high-cost payloads to an
RLV-based market measured in tens of thousands of
tonnes per year of low-cost payloads? This
transition problem is a product of a very unnatural
suppression of what should have been a normal
progression in launch vehicle development. It
began with Apollo and has been exacerbated by
a continuing government monopoly with respect
to development of new launch vehicles. How do
we break through this "created" problem? (I am
reminded of the drug-policy fiasco, where the
size of the problem has been greatly increased
through incredibly bad policy).
IMO, the answer during the transition period
is to develop one (or perhaps more) RLVs with a
medium-payload capability within a budget that
can support one or more integrated applications
as part of a reasonable business plan. For this
purpose, I feel that a $150 million or $200 million
investment may be the limit for initial operational
capability of the RLV itself. Once operational,
it may be possible to raise additional funds for the
integrated application(s). We view this limitation
as a basic design requirement -- not just a desired
result. The result of this thinking is the
Millennium Express.
>
> Wait until the launch market picks up again.
> Find a rich angel with long term commitment.
> Find an alternate market as a stepping stone.
> Wait for some breakthrough technology to trivialize the problem.
>
Angels are always welcome, but not expected.
> I wonder if part of the problem with Roton, Beal and the
> like, was that they were just too slow, and the market collapsed
> before they could get established, not that they necessarily had a
> choice. In this I am making the rather dubious assumption that the
> launch business is to a certain degree cyclic. If RLV's must wait
> for the next launch boom in order to get established, then now is
> the time to do the ground work so as to be able to hit the ground
> running when the time comes. I still wonder if the Millennium
> Express might be an economic proposition even within the currently
> depressed launch market.
See above, IMO, the current market is best ignored. At
best it a distraction. At worst, it becomes an insurmountable
barrier.
>
> Pete.
>
> rk <stel...@nospamplease.erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3A70B06E...@nospamplease.erols.com...
> > Henry Spencer wrote:
> >
> > > Development costs are high, markets are modest, and
> > > various forms of government intervention are frequent, so
> > > attracting private money is difficult. (If Andrew Beal,
> > > who was spending *his own money* and running
> > > the project himself, no longer thinks launchers are a good
> > > investment, you can bet your booties that the usual investment
> > > types don't either.) That leaves government money.
Or unconventional sources or means of raising funds.
> >
> > Just a pointer to a related article about markets I read last night.
> >
> > Space News, January 22, 2001
> > p. 8
> > "Launch Supply Could Exceed Demand for Next Decade"
> >
> > The global capacity for launching commercial satellites
> > will dwarf demand over the next 10 years, putting heavy
> > downward pressure on prices and perhaps driving some
> > players out of the market altogether, an industry
> > analyst here said.
> >
> > -- end excerpt
I maintain this is excellent evidence for ignoring
the current market, which, even at its flood -- is
far removed from RLV tonnage capabilites and needs.
> >
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > rk The key to developing engineering
> > stellar engineering, ltd. confidence is the rigorous identi-
> > stel...@erols.com.NOSPAM cation of the cause for ALL
failures
> > Hi-Rel Digital Systems Design encountered for ALL phases of
testing
> > ... - Dr. Joseph F. Shea, Deputy
> > Director of Manned Space Flight, Spaceborne Computer Engineering
> > Conference, October, 1962.
>
>
Best regards,
Len (Cormier) for MMI
Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
--
MMI = 2001: the start of the third millennium
l...@tour2space.com ( http://www.tour2space.com )
Michael Walsh
"Len (Cormier) for MMI" wrote:
>
> >
> > 1. What's it going to take to build this?
>
> Our estimate for bringing the Millennium Express to
> operational status with four orbiters and one to three
> carrier stages is $170 million. The feasibility
> stage of either of two integrated applications
> requires another $30 million. Initial operational
> capability for one of the applications might be
> on the order of another $200 million. Full-scale
> operational capability for either of the two main
> integrated applications might require about
> $1 billion or more -- assuming the availability of
> the Millennium Express with substantially the economic
> and performance charactersitics we now expect to
> achieve. Without the Millennium Express, these
> applications are not economically feasible. With
> the Millennium Express, they should make very good
> business sense.
> >
People who are interested in low cost access to space
should read this particular posting by Len Comier very
carefully because it details the different stages of development
and their costs.
Using his numbers they come out to.
Development of Vehicles and feasibility demonstration for
one integrated application = $200 million.
Initial Operational Capabity = $200 million
for a total of $400 million.
Full Scale Operational Capability = $600 million
for a total of $ 1 billion.
I assume that Len's figure of $1 billion was a total
including the previous amounts he mentioned.
This is where one of the problems with the investors
comes home because the money is spent up front and
any payback comes later. This isn't new, the same
thing was a requirement of some of the LEO comsat
systems and so far it doesn't look good for the investors
getting their money back.
I could post my usual "it probably will take more money
and longer than planned" remark but that would be a
mere quibble. The big thing that Len has done is to
honestly lay out all of the costs involved in bringing a
system up to complete operational capability as well as
the development costs of the vehicles.
And maybe, quite possibly, it could be brought in
on time and within budget.
Mike Walsh
Len for MMI
Michael Walsh <mp1w...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Len (Cormier) for MMI" wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > 1. What's it going to take to build this?
> >
> > Our estimate for bringing the Millennium Express to
> > operational status with four orbiters and one to three
> > carrier stages is $170 million. The feasibility
> > stage of either of two integrated applications
> > requires another $30 million. Initial operational
> > capability for one of the applications might be
> > on the order of another $200 million. Full-scale
> > operational capability for either of the two main
> > integrated applications might require about
> > $1 billion or more -- assuming the availability of
> > the Millennium Express with substantially the economic
> > and performance charactersitics we now expect to
> > achieve. Without the Millennium Express, these
> > applications are not economically feasible. With
> > the Millennium Express, they should make very good
> > business sense.
> > >
>
> People who are interested in low cost access to space
> carefully because it details the different stages of development
> and their costs.
>
> Using his numbers they come out to.
>
> Development of Vehicles and feasibility demonstration for
> one integrated application = $200 million.
>
> Initial Operational Capabity = $200 million
> for a total of $400 million.
>
one of the two applications. At this point we
should be able to produce revenue -- even though
everything doesn't work at full capability. For
example, our proposed big LEO system should be
attractive from both the business and customer
satisfaction viewpoints at this initial operational
capability level -- although the full-scale system
would be more attractive. An alternative telecom
application would involve assembly of very large
antennas in LEO for subsequent deployment to GEO.
The geosynchronous system scales very well from
the business point of view, since the large antennas
would permit dealing with one medium-size country at
a time. We think that we could establish an intial
operational capability for either telecom approach
for about $200 million.
Our second major application would be space tourism.
My main concern here -- after the funding concern --
is the unknown regulatory environment for space
toursim. I have generally assumed that we would
first have to prove ourselves with the telecom
operation with company personnel in space, before
we might be permitted to carry members of the public
for one-week stays in space. Right now the economics
look good: i.e. $100,000 per person per week in space
with relatively spacious accommodations. This scales
to some extent. We could handle some early customers
in more austere accommodations within the $200 million
increment over the first $200 million for the Millennium
Express and early design and test work.
> Full Scale Operational Capability = $600 million
> for a total of $ 1 billion.
>
> I assume that Len's figure of $1 billion was a total
> including the previous amounts he mentioned.
>
It wouldn't include the Millennium Express or the initial
operational capability. And the size of full-scale system
is rather arbitrary. For the big LEO system, the initial
operational capability might be for 128 to 256 satellites
-- which would be capable of producing revenue. Once the
technical and business aspects have been proven, then I
think it should be possible to consider rather large
investments. Moreover, The Millennium Express's capability
for carrying two-tonne payloads to LEO for about $480,000
-- half of of which would be recurring cost and half ROI
-- should be attractive for a number of other applications.
This, in turn, should relieve funding requirements. However,
our main business is not space launch. Rather, it is
telecommunications, space tourism, etc.
For the big LEO system, the first increment beyond IOC
might be on the order of an additional $1 billion for a
total of 1024 satellites -- or perhaps a total of
$2 to 4 billion for the full system of 4096 satellites.
At full scale, we would hope to build and to deploy
1-tonne satellites to 800 km / 60 degree orbits for about
$500,000 each. This should permit a rather different
ball game with respect to performance and price to the
customer.
> This is where one of the problems with the investors
> comes home because the money is spent up front and
> any payback comes later. This isn't new, the same
> thing was a requirement of some of the LEO comsat
> systems and so far it doesn't look good for the investors
> getting their money back.
>
The pre-revenue investment for the unproven system
should be on the order of $400,000 for vehicle and
application at the initial operational capability
level. This level of investment should provide a
modest return on investment and prove out the system
from both the technical and business points of view.
As for the bad reputation now [enjoyed?] by the big
LEO systems, we would expect to provide an at least
30 db stronger signal that sells for pennies per
minute rather than dollars per minute with an
all-weather capability. We would expect to provide
low monthly flat rates for broadband service in
remote areas -- our primary market area.
> I could post my usual "it probably will take more money
> and longer than planned" remark but that would be a
> mere quibble. The big thing that Len has done is to
> honestly lay out all of the costs involved in bringing a
> system up to complete operational capability as well as
> the development costs of the vehicles.
>
> And maybe, quite possibly, it could be brought in
> on time and within budget.
Thanks for your comments, Mike.
>
> Mike Walsh
Len for MMI
he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
> In article <3A6FC2DE...@emerald.tufts.edu>,
> Roga <crem...@emerald.tufts.edu> wrote:
> >I think the #1 enabling force would be the development of a
> >working, beyond breakeven, helium 3 fusion reactor...
>
> This is by no means clear yet. Not everyone is so optimistic
> about 3He. I heard an interesting talk by John Lewis
> (of U of Arizona) a couple of years back, in which he commented
> that the more pessimistic estimates show a relatively poor
> energy gain in the process. Extracting 3He from lunar
> soil is *very* energy-intensive unless you assume
> near-miraculously efficient recovery of waste heat (which the
> 3He advocates tend to do).
>
one time, I was completely excited about it. I believe
that your point in your second paragraph may be the real
show stopper, Henry. However, I am not too concerned
about the energy required to extract 3He from the lunar
surface. Solar energy should be relatively abundant for
this purpose. I look at 3He as a potentially
high-value-density product for transporting relatively
cheap and abundant energy in space back to Earth's surface
-- where it is potentially far more valuable. If the 3He can
actually be used on Earth at a price of, say, $1 million
per kg, then I feel quite confident that we could mine it
and bring it back and make a lot of money. I see that part
of the problem as being quite straightforward. Unfortunately,
other parts of the problem appear less tractable.
> >...It seems that this is one area
> >where, by creating a working infrastructure, government
> >can assure a profit at low risk while still engaging in
> >politically persuadable spending, because it is a market
> >that exists, as opposed to a theoretical space
> >tourism market...
>
Well, I would view a $1 billion guarantee for one tonne of
3He as being a very good business proposition. Market
guarantees would be a very appropriate government mechnanism
for encouraging the development of commercial RLVs and CATS.
> Uh, no. The energy market exists, yes. The 3He market
> is still just as theoretical as space tourism. (Indeed,
> arguably more so: there have been some disturbing
> calculations indicating that building 3He reactors may
> be> prohibitively difficult for quite fundamental reasons.)
Yes, Henry. This bothers me a lot too. But perhaps the
*research* market would be enough to encourage investment
for the development of something like the Millennium Express.
Perhaps there might be a viable research market for a tonne
of 3He -- whether or not it ever proved practical for fusion
energy. A government guarantee to purchase a tonne of 3He
could be a very valuable incentive for attracting investors.
I feel that we would have a much better chance of convincing
investors that the Millennium Express is doable within budget,
than we would have of convincing them that 3He is the key to fusion
reaction. A serious 3He fusion reactor effort and a guaranteed
market for a tonne or more of 3He could be the missing link.
If the government offered such a gurantee to one, or perhaps
five fledgling and/or established, companies on a "no-tickee, no
washee" basis, then we might really see something happen. If
three companies actually succeeded, then an expenditure of
$3 billion for 3 tonnes of 3He *and* 3 successfully demonstrated
commercial RLVs and OTVs would seem to be a bargain.
> --
> When failure is not an option, success | Henry Spencer
he...@spsystems.net
> can get expensive. -- Peter Stibrany | (aka
he...@zoo.toronto.edu)
>
Best regards,
Len (Cormier) for MMI
Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
--
Michael R. Irwin
j wrote:
<snip>
>
> If you draw the national borders in the right location then frontier forts
> can be justified. Pearl Harbor was useful for defending Texas, but didn't
> make sense without the purchase of California.
My history is not the strongest but I thought we
won California in the "Spanish American" war along
with some other territory.
Was there a stipend forwarded to Spain or
Mexico as political cover claiming that we
purchased it?
Mike Irwin
Rand Simberg
> My history is not the strongest but I thought we
> won California in the "Spanish American" war along
> with some other territory.
You thought incorrectly. We acquired California over sixty years before the
Spanish American war, which occurred at the beginning of this century.
Christopher M. Jones
...at the end of the century before last, but 2 centuries off is
close enough. =D
Also, for the record, we acquired the Philippines, Puerto Rico,
and the Guantanamo bay naval base in Cuba from the Spanish-
American war.
Also, somewhat as side affects, the US asserted control over
Hawaii and Guam because of the Spanish-American war.
...
That is your history lesson for today. Tomorrow we will
discuss the 30 years war and The Peace of Westphalia. And,
this material _WILL_ be on the test. =D
--
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
Michael R. Irwin
Was it purchased or appropriated?
Michael Walsh
"Michael R. Irwin" wrote:
Captured as a result of one of two wars with Mexico.
Mike Walsh
Rand Simberg
R. Irwin" <mir...@harborside.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> You thought incorrectly. We acquired California over sixty years before the
>> Spanish American war, which occurred at the beginning of this century.
>
>Was it purchased or appropriated?
It depends on how you want to interpret the events. It could be said
that the Californians declared independence from Mexico, and then
joined the U.S. It was called the Bear Flag rebellion, starting in
Sonoma.
But since most of those rebelling were Americans, and the majority
population at the time was Mexican, it could also be interpreted
otherwise...
************************************************************************
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..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
Rand Simberg
"Christopher M. Jones" <christ...@qwest.net> made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> You thought incorrectly. We acquired California over sixty years before
>the
>> Spanish American war, which occurred at the beginning of this century.
>
>...at the end of the century before last, but 2 centuries off is
>close enough. =D
Yeah, I was so resistant to calling it the 21st century last year that
I've overreacted and am now having difficulty thinking of it as that,
even after the true turn of the calendar...
And the difference between 1899 and 1901 is very small compared to the
difference from 1836.