Thoughts on paying private sector for science results
rk
> I've seen a lot of suggestion here and elsewhere
> that NASA should simply offer to pay for data, not
> build and fly missions on its own. In general I like
> the idea of government contracting out, but I'd be
> curious to hear some supporters flesh out their ideas
> of how this would work. Here are some possibilities:
< mostly snipped, interesting long post >
i basically agree with most of what you have, here's a few comments,
things i've seen picked up along the way.
for a view on contracting out, particularly w.r.t. planetary missions,
please see the letters to the editor in this week's aviation week and
space technology. there are two interesting ones there.
for buying paper clips the same as spacecraft, that's not quite true.
there are different mechanisms in place for standard stock items than
for custom spacecraft built on a competitive contract. i think gao has
a list of approved suppliers and products with pre-approved, discounted
prices. perhaps someone else can fill in the details.
there has been a lot of talk and testimony in congress about "data
purchases." it's something that sounds good and competitive but i think
your analysis is pretty much on.
interesting post!
have a good evening,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rk The world of space holds vast promise
stellar engineering, ltd. for the service of man, and it is a
stel...@erols.com.NOSPAM world we have only begun to explore.
Hi-Rel Digital Systems Design -- James E. Webb, 1968
Jorge R. Frank
>
> 1. Some hardcore advocates seem to suggest you
> put up a prize -- "The first group to bring us a CD-ROM
> with a year's worth of Martian climate data gets $250
> million dolars, delivered in person by Ed McMahon". Is
> this correct?
>
> If so, that certainly allows maximum creativity. I do
> see big problems though. Most importantly, how would
> you possibly get investors to take such an all-or-nothing
> risk? Spend, say $100M up front, to have some
> chance of doubling it, but a large chance of losing the
> whole thing? After all, you could have a 100% successful
> mission, but get the data a week later than Mars-R-Us, and lose
> the whole shebang. Put up your 401k if you like; I sure
> wouldn't for only a 2:1 payout.
Good post, a couple of additions:
Another risk to the private sector from the "prize" method is that, if
you play by the letter of "the government pays nothing unless someone
succeeds", then you have a situation where the Congress offering the
prize is essentially committing some future Congress to pay it out.
Which rarely works in practice - the 1997 Congress committed future
Congresses to abide by strict spending caps as part of a deficit
elimination plan, and today's Congress is already wiggling out of it.
Personally, I wouldn't risk a plug nickel on such a commitment.
The risk to the private sector could be reduced considerably by having
the current Congress appropriate the prize amount and put it in escrow.
There would be a time limit on the prize, after which the government
gets the money back if no one wins. That would also limit the prize to
a fixed number of winners, solving the problem of redundant datasets.
However, it violates the spirit of the claim "the government pays
nothing unless someone succeeds". I could see Congress using it for
smaller prizes, but I can't see Congress ever paying a really big prize
this way. Some think that the government should finance big projects
like moon bases or a manned Mars mission using prizes; I regard this
notion to be firmly in the land of fantasy.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" and think one step ahead of IBM.
David Burbach
I've seen a lot of suggestion here and elsewhere
that NASA should simply offer to pay for data, not
build and fly missions on its own. In general I like
the idea of government contracting out, but I'd be
curious to hear some supporters flesh out their ideas
of how this would work. Here are some possibilities:
1. Some hardcore advocates seem to suggest you
put up a prize -- "The first group to bring us a CD-ROM
with a year's worth of Martian climate data gets $250
million dolars, delivered in person by Ed McMahon". Is
this correct?
If so, that certainly allows maximum creativity. I do
see big problems though. Most importantly, how would
you possibly get investors to take such an all-or-nothing
risk? Spend, say $100M up front, to have some
chance of doubling it, but a large chance of losing the
whole thing? After all, you could have a 100% successful
mission, but get the data a week later than Mars-R-Us, and lose
the whole shebang. Put up your 401k if you like; I sure
wouldn't for only a 2:1 payout.
Now, at some point the risk premium would
be large enough that firms might try anyway, but
is that premium 5 to 1, 20 to 1, 100 to 1? Do we want
to put up a $2 billion dollar prize for a mission that a
clever entrepreneur might do for $100 M? If we really
think the data is worth two billion, then it's still
a net utility gain for the country. However, it's probably
more expensive than doing a "bloated" NASA mission for
$500 million.
Obviously I'm making these numbers up, but the point is
this: would the risk premium really be less than the
government inefficiency premium? Not at all clear. Remember,
you're not talking about real estate developers who will
probably find _someone_ willing to pay a a halfway decent
price for a new condo. You're talking all or nothing. NASA/NSF/etc
-- the goverment -- is the only plausible client for
Mars datasets right now. Maybe you'd find an experienced,
well-capitalized firm willing to try, but then you still
have Lockheed-Martin -- not a daring little space startup.
You'd also set yourself up for HUGE, HUGE fights over
the prize terms -- what if Mars-R-Us is first with a
just-good-enough dataset, but a month later WalMars shows
up with a much better one? More likely, how long do
you think it'd take WalMars' attorneys to find some way
to claim that Mars-R-Us didn't live up to the offer
terms? Or there'd be accusations of favoritism
in allocating scarce resources, like say renting DSN or
Mars Relay time (or do we imagine each contestant
duplicating the whole infrastructure). It would become
"political", inevitably.
Even if a tycoon put up $2 bil of their own money, there'd
still be lawsuits. Or if the sugar daddy just pulled out
their money, or split it in half, or said "it's my money and
I choose X" in case of a dispute, that sorry spectacle would
make it all the harder to woo investors next time around.
Finally, just as investors are loathe to take big
risks, politicians are loathe to hand out money when they
don't know who'll get it. Just because Congress is willing
to spend $200M on a JPL-LockMart Mars mission does NOT
mean they'd be willing to put up a $200M prize. There'd
be a huge discount because they have no idea who they're
rewarding. Complain all you want about that being dumb,
but from their position it's perfectly rational. Welcome
to democracy.
2. Another approach would be to pay anyone who shows up
with a dataset that meets a certain criteria, like,
"we'll pay $1,000 per sq km of Martian surface imaged
at 5m/pixel resolution".
That avoids the all-or-nothing problem; I bet you
would get firms willing to take the risk that they would
succeed, since it now doesn't matter how their
competitors do.
The problem is that we set
ourselves up to spend way more than we'd like. Let's
say we're willing to pay a billon dollars for a global
Mars map. How much are we willing to pay for a *second*
Mars map, same resolution and spectral band? More than
zero, to fill in gaps, different sun angles or whatever,
but a lot less than a billion. How much for the *tenth*
global image set?
With the bounty system, it would be very easy to overspend.
Space science datasets are a good for which the demand curve
is far from linear -- we'll pay a huge amount for the first
of each item, but a hell of a lot less for duplicates. Using
the real estate example, again, I don't offer to pay anyone
who builds me a nice condo $100,000. I only want *one*.
And you'd still have to pay for lots of QA by the government
(or a contractor) -- is this *really* 5m data,
did they *really* know the orbiter's
location precisely enough? And whenver the agency says
"this data set doesn't cut it", expect to hear from the lawyers
again. Administrative costs don't vanish.
One could certainly work out a payout scheme that blends
the two systems. No matter what, though, you'll be stuck
with some amount of risk premium and some amout of payment
for duplicate services. Wherever that optimum point is found,
one then has to ask whether it could be done more cheaply
by the government?
3. The third option is to choose a winner in advance,
to solict proposals and issue a contract to someone. This
is how big projects are normally done, whether making
a bomber for the Air Force or new headquarters building
for Pepsi.
Even this approach isn't so simple, though. You don't
just want to go with the low bidder -- they need to have
a track record or *some* kind of credible
evidence that their probe won't auger into Hellas (or
Cocoa Beach, for that matter). If I want a house built,
that's not so tough: I look at what they've built before,
and of course houses are a mature technology. I've seen
lots of houses, know what I want and how much they
cost locally. The builder has made them before and
knows his or her expenses. It's not too tough. I OK
the design, I pays my money, and I come back six
months later when it's finished.
Unless I want a solar-heated house where none of the
rooms have four sides and the lighting is all from
plasma tubes and the walls are covered with
yak leather. I've never seen a house like that,
the builder sure hasn't made something like that. We
are going to spend a *long* time in design discussions
and contract talks. We'll probabaly need to
interact very frequently during construction, with
lots of monitoring and renegotiation. We might even
end up with a "cost-plus" contract. It certainly
won't look "efficient" to anyone.
It's ludicrous that the government goes
through the procurement games it does to buy standard
items like office furniture or fruitcakes, or even
telecom services. With space science, though, you're
talking about a product which is unique, which has
no other buyers, and where the customer has no clear
idea in advance how much something "should" cost or
what is a reasonable end-product to expect. That
makes it pretty tough to just issue and RFP and quickly
hand over $200M to the best looking proposal. Instead,
you end up with something like the JPL-LockMart
relationship, with all its overhead, for some good reasons.
Even if James Cameron decides he wants IMAX-quality
Mars footage for Titanic II, he would probably go the
detailed contract/partnership route, not just put up
a bounty. The method flows from the market situation,
not the fact that government is stupid.
I suspect we're not at the optimum level of contracting
out -- though perhaps the MPL review will show
otherwise. NASA does not seem open enough to working with
smaller and more innovative firms. And certainly we waste
money buying NASA's paperclips the same way we buy its
spacecraft. It would be going too far, though, to think
you could have someone at NASA or NSF glance at some proposals
from Mars-R-Us, WalMars, and Phobos Unlimited, then
quickly make a choice (i.e, get rid of all that administrative
"waste") and mail out a cashier's check for $200M.
OK, enough of my musings.
David Burbach
Hume
David: This is an excellent post, which raises some significant issues.
I am substantially in favor of the government collecting its money by, in
effect, offering prizes for the data. And I would accept the suggestion that
the prize money be placed in escrow when it is announced, so that the company
will be sure to obtain it when (if) they complete the terms of the contract.
"How would you possibly get investors to take such an all-or-nothing risk?"
One way is to spread out the risk. We are assuming that NASA puts out a number
of different requests, not just one. A company can aim to fulfill 10 of these
requests -- perhaps succeeding in filling out 5 of them, but using the proceeds
from those to continue to grow the business.
It is much like a sports event. Each individual race is an "all or nothing"
prospect. But, if you have a good enough horse and you enter in enough races,
you can do pretty well in that business.
Another way to reduce the risk is by not depending entirely on the money that
you would receive by collecting the data. From corporate sponsorships to
merchandising to cashing in on the entertainment value of the mission (even the
failed Mars Polar Lander mission generated nearly 100 million web hits -- with
potential advertising revenue in the millions) and supplemental services (e.g.,
consulting work), a company can bring in a great deal of additional revenue
other than that from the prize money itself.
The successful company will be that company which is best at coming up with
these types of options."
"Let's say we're willing to pay a billon dollars for a global Mars map. How
much are we willing to pay for a *second* Mars map, same resolution and
spectral band?"
You are right, probably greater than $0 but less than that for the first map.
But this is no more difficult to figure out in practice than determining the
price for the first map. So it is not a different problem.
"With the bounty system, it would be very easy to overspend."
Not if the spending is capped.
"And you'd still have to pay for lots of QA by the government (or a contractor)
. . . . "
This is all a part of doing business. These types of expenses will never be
eliminated, and they should never be eliminated.
"And whenver the agency says "this data set doesn't cut it", expect to hear
from the lawyers again. Administrative costs don't vanish."
Not if it is properly run. It should be set up like any type of sporting event.
Losing teams typically do not have recourse through the courts for the
decisions of umpires and referees as to who actually ran the race, no matter
how much they have invested in it.
Len for MMI
dbur...@mit.edu (David Burbach) wrote:
>
>
Well, David, I find what you later call "musings"
quite good.
I've had similar thoughts, and also some additional
thoughts that might overcome some of the flaws that
you flag.
> I've seen a lot of suggestion here and elsewhere
> that NASA should simply offer to pay for data, not
> build and fly missions on its own. In general I like
> the idea of government contracting out, but I'd be
> curious to hear some supporters flesh out their ideas
> of how this would work. Here are some possibilities:
>
> 1. Some hardcore advocates seem to suggest you
> put up a prize -- "The first group to bring us a CD-ROM
> with a year's worth of Martian climate data gets $250
> million dolars, delivered in person by Ed McMahon". Is
> this correct?
>
> If so, that certainly allows maximum creativity. I do
> see big problems though. Most importantly, how would
> you possibly get investors to take such an all-or-nothing
> risk? Spend, say $100M up front, to have some
> chance of doubling it, but a large chance of losing the
> whole thing? After all, you could have a 100% successful
> mission, but get the data a week later than Mars-R-Us, and lose
> the whole shebang. Put up your 401k if you like; I sure
> wouldn't for only a 2:1 payout.
>
IMO, this has always been the big "flaw in the
investment <g>" with respect to chasing prizes.
Basically, you need a lot of "prizes" to induce
investors, so that you avoid the winner-take-all
syndrome. But is this really unthinkable? I
think not. Why not encourage a lot of competition
for a lot of guaranteed prizes (actually contracts
awarded for results rather than promises).
For example, why not take $10 billion dollars of
potential $500,000,000 contracts to be awarded to
the first TWENTY independent teams that can get
500 tonnes of water to a 450-km orbit of any
inclination? This corresponds to $1000 per kg.
The actually payload could be redefined to mutual
satisfaction -- providing that it did not impact
the particular LV (ELV or RLV) design to any serious
extent.
Is twenty excessive? Again, I think not. It's
not hard to find 20 competing airlines, counting
regionals. Worldwide, you can find 20 manufacturers
of airliners, again counting regionals. Is this
type of competition bad or excessive? Obviously not.
Would the potentially resulting total of 10,000
tonnes to LEO be useful?
Considering that most competing companies would be
anxious to do something useful, redefinition of
payloads would not likely be a stumbling block --
even if the redefinition comprised only provisions
for electrolysis, propellant storage and handling
in addition to the baseline water payload. This
would satisfy most of the payload requirement for
deep-space missions using chemical propulsion.
Engine suppliers and other suppliers, including
consultants, might support as many teams as
appropriate. Actually competing project teams
(engineering/vehicle-manufacturing/operating
companies), however, might be limited to only
one main project, plus support for perhaps one
other project.
No government money would be expended for other
than results. Does anyone really doubt that
such an approach promises less results than
an award of a $5 billion contract to one company
for promises (and, possibly, results)?
Some potential problems: Is a $500 million
guaranteed contract (prize) enough to induce
some worthwhile efforts. I do not believe
that I am alone in believing that it is more
tnan adequate for a startup company; it might
even be attractive for a Boeing and/or a
Lockmart -- considering future potential markets.
And even if there were no takers, the
government would not spend any money. In fact,
the government would not spend any money unless
there were successful competitors.
The government might even certify potential
contractors for a guaranteed contract award
-- providing that the potential contractor
actually produces results within, say, five
years. If there turn out to be more than
twenty, viable potential contractors, the
government might consider extending the
program to, say, 25 potential contractors.
All of this should help to obtain private
investment. The government might also back
off on the some of the securities laws
restrictions. For example, any small
investor -- regardless of his/her financial
circumstances -- might be allowed to invest
up to $250 per year in a particular project
in this qualified arena. Small investments in
this class might be pooled into larger investment
clubs to minimize the cost of shareholder accounts.
With resepect to potential reductions in the
cost of space access, I, for one, would be
sharply focussed on the potential follow-on market.
Accordingly, the initial $1000 per kg of payload
goal would be just for starters. The real
competitive game would follow.
... snip ... a lot of good thoughts ...
>
> OK, enough of my musings.
mine too.
> David Burbach
>
Best regards,
Len (Cormier) for MMI
Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc. /and/ PanAero, Inc.
--
MMI = 2001: the start of the third millennium
l...@tour2space.com ( http://www.tour2space.com )
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jim Kingdon
(and I think NASA is using it in a few places, at least they are
supposed to be if certain conditions are met). But when you get to
the details, it can get complicated.
As for:
3. The third option is to choose a winner in advance, to solict
proposals and issue a contract to someone.
NASA already does this in programs like Discovery (look for it on
www.hq.nasa.gov if you don't know it) and ESSP (analogue for earth
observation). Anyone can propose a mission and they get scored on
science (via peer review panels), cost, technical feasibility, &c.
Contrast with, say, Mars Surveyor, which involves issuing contracts to
people like Lockheed Martin, but in a rather different paradigm (in
which the contractors are basically just another part of the
organization, that is the designs are done within that organization,
rather than via the bidding process).
Robert Lynn
> With resepect to potential reductions in the
> cost of space access, I, for one, would be
> sharply focussed on the potential follow-on market.
> Accordingly, the initial $1000 per kg of payload
> goal would be just for starters. The real
> competitive game would follow.
I think 20 at $500m is probably too many. The market is just not big
enough to support that many competing launchers. Instead try 5 prizes
at $1G each (to give each company a real chance to develop it's vehicle
within the budget) and at the same time increase the payload required
pushing the cost into the $500-1000/kg range that should be acheievable,
and would be a big improvement over the current cheapest systems coming
out of the CIS.
Some sort of provision would have to be made to prevent the same system
being slightly modified to claim the prize a number of times with 'new'
launchers. Another problem might be that someone might try to do it
with a launcher which is too big to be useful in an ongoing sense - say
a one off sea dragon or a reworked Energia. Perhaps you could limit the
launch mass to under 50 tonnes at a shot. At the same time set a
minimum requirement as well, nothing under 1 tonne.
Instead of specifying water as a payload set up a formula governing
payload dimensions and mass in a way that produces a more useful package
for ongoing commercial use. This would allow the payload to be changed
arbitrarily by the prize giver to fit the prize giver's needs.
I am sure that almopst anyone you talked to would agree that this is a
much better way to acheive CATS than the current NASA (mis)guided
efforts. The problem is how to make it happen. Government and NASA
bureaucrats will not be willing to relinquish control over the decisions
and dollars involved in the space industry.
Robert
Len for MMI
> > cost of space access, I, for one, would be
> > sharply focussed on the potential follow-on market.
> > Accordingly, the initial $1000 per kg of payload
> > goal would be just for starters. The real
> > competitive game would follow.
>
> enough to support that many competing launchers. Instead try 5 prizes
> at $1G each (to give each company a real chance to develop it's
> vehicle
> within the budget) and at the same time increase the payload required
> pushing the cost into the $500-1000/kg range that should be
> acheievable,
> and would be a big improvement over the current cheapest systems
> coming out of the CIS.
>
is there -- perhaps just a bit more than one
year's worth. In terms of tonnages, of course,
the current market is zilch. But I think that
this is more a consequence of capabiliy than
real demand. We've just chosen to spend the
money the wrong way.
Assuming for the moment the real market is
dollar-limited, rather than tonne-limited,
then the government can take either of two
basic courses: 1) get serious about reducing
the cost of access to space with a sufficient
number of contracts for results from companies/
teams that may be able to really change the
situation; or 2) get out of the way.
I'm not sure what numbers your are suggesting.
However, I think the number of prizes have to
be sufficient that there is no rationing and
no tendency for the government to downselect
potential winners. And the amount of the
guaranteed contracts has to be large enough
to make business sense from the points of
view of potential investors.
> Some sort of provision would have to be made to prevent the same
> system
> being slightly modified to claim the prize a number of times with
> 'new'
> launchers. Another problem might be that someone might try to do it
> with a launcher which is too big to be useful in an ongoing sense -
> say
> a one off sea dragon or a reworked Energia. Perhaps you could limit
> the
> launch mass to under 50 tonnes at a shot. At the same time set a
> minimum requirement as well, nothing under 1 tonne.
>
Yes.
> Instead of specifying water as a payload set up a formula governing
> payload dimensions and mass in a way that produces a more useful
> package
> for ongoing commercial use. This would allow the payload to be
> changed
> arbitrarily by the prize giver to fit the prize giver's needs.
>
Something like this might be a good idea. The
main idea is to avoid inhibiting good ideas and to
avoid arguments that the current programw can
not bear the risks of a new, untried launcher.
> I am sure that almopst anyone you talked to would agree that this is a
> much better way to acheive CATS than the current NASA (mis)guided
> efforts. The problem is how to make it happen. Government and NASA
> bureaucrats will not be willing to relinquish control over the
> decisions> and dollars involved in the space industry.
>
> Robert
>
Thanks for your generally supportive comments.
Len for MMI
Robert Lynn <rob...@peterlynnkites.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> "Len (Cormier) for MMI" wrote:
>
> > potential $500,000,000 contracts to be awarded to
> > the first TWENTY independent teams that can get
> > 500 tonnes of water to a 450-km orbit of any
> > inclination? This corresponds to $1000 per kg.
> > The actually payload could be redefined to mutual
> > satisfaction -- providing that it did not impact
> > the particular LV (ELV or RLV) design to any serious
> > extent.
>
> I think 20 at $500m is probably too many. The market is
> just not big enough to support that many competing
> launchers. Instead try 5 prizes at $1G each (to give each
> company a real chance to develop it's vehicle
> within the budget) and at the same time increase the payload required
> pushing the cost into the $500-1000/kg range that should be
> acheievable, and would be a big improvement over the current
> cheapest systems coming out of the CIS.
>
Oops. I missed your specific suggestion in my first
reply to your post, Robert. Perhaps the amount of
the guaranteed contract should be variable. But I
would like to see a very low threshhold for relatively
small guaranteed contracts worth, say, $250 million.
Both Gary Hudson and myself have said publically that
we each think that we can get our proposed vehicles
operational within a $150 million budget. Accordingly,
I feel that a $250 million guaranteed contract would
be a sufficient investor carrot for our concepts --
and perhaps for Pioneer, Kelly and Beal. Kistler
and others might require more. And perhaps larger
guaranteed contracts would be more appropriate for
other concepts. The important aspect from the investor
point of view would be an escrowed promise to use a
capability, if the proposing company can deliver as
promised. If any company is unrealisticly optimistic,
they will probably fail and not cost the government
anything except the use of the escrowed funds for
perhaps five years.
>
As noted in my earlier post, the dollar market is
already here; the tonnage market is currently zilch.
However, IMO, the long-term tonnage market will be
much more a function of future capability rather
than current tonnage demand. To deny this is
tantamount to saying that potential users are so
unimaginative that they have no idea how they
would use one or two orders of magnitude of more
capability without increasing the current cost of
transportation -- i.e. assuming that elasticity
will always be less than 1.
> Robert
Hume
viable.
For one, I think $10 billion in prize money is out of the political question.
Plus, I believe that room needs to be made for not only promoting engineering
skill, but also entrepreneurial skill. That is to say, contestants should be
encouraged (required) to obtain funding from outside sources. Not just
investor-financing to engineer the rocket, but customer-financing.
Also, the objective (putting bags of water in orbit) probably is going to
appear foolish. You and I know the value of such an enterprise, but politicians
need to be concerned with how Jay Leno may present this to the audience of the
Tonight Show.
Otherwise, the company (companies) that win the engineering contest and claim
the prize, may do so with a design that simply does not work in the business
world.
For example, a company may engineer a highly effective way of getting bulk
cargo into space. But bulk cargo can handle stresses that many forms of cargo
can not. And there may be little need for bulk cargo transportation from Earth,
for example, if technology for bulk cargo transportation from the moon and
asteroids is competitive.
So, to sell the idea, I would be happy with:
(1) A prize level that does not cover all of the costs of development, but
which instead requires competitors to be skilled at obtaining
customer-financing in addition to the prize money even to enter the race. The
prize should not be made available to a company that can not put together an
entrepreneurial team that is as effective as its engineering team.
(2) Awards the prize for something more sellable, such as delivery of material
to the ISS.
Dr John Stockton
13 Dec 1999 14:02:09 in news:sci.space.policy, Hume <hu...@aol.com>
wrote:
>
>Also, the objective (putting bags of water in orbit) probably is going to
>appear foolish. You and I know the value of such an enterprise, but politicians
>need to be concerned with how Jay Leno may present this to the audience of the
>Tonight Show.
>
>Otherwise, the company (companies) that win the engineering contest and claim
>the prize, may do so with a design that simply does not work in the business
>world.
>
>For example, a company may engineer a highly effective way of getting bulk
>cargo into space. But bulk cargo can handle stresses that many forms of cargo
>can not. And there may be little need for bulk cargo transportation from Earth,
>for example, if technology for bulk cargo transportation from the moon and
>asteroids is competitive.
ISTM that foodstuffs are the obvious answer. Many forms can be packaged
to survive high stresses, especially if a modest degree of subsequent
food preparation is allowed. Food is cheap enough, on the ground, that
cargo replacement would be an insignificant cost.
Corned beef is worth of the order of a pound a pound in the shop, a
fraction of that at the cannery; but thousands as much in rendezvous
orbit. Bread itself would not do, but its ingredients would.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff in astro.htm; quotes.htm; puzzles.htm; pascal.htm; &c &c &c.
Don't Mail News. Y2k for beginners http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/year2000.txt
Len for MMI
hu...@aol.com (Hume) wrote:
> I would like to add some points with the aim of making
> this idea politically viable.
>
> For one, I think $10 billion in prize money is out of the
> political question. Plus, I believe that room needs to be
> made for not only promoting engineering skill, but also
> entrepreneurial skill. That is to say, contestants
> should be encouraged (required) to obtain funding from
> outside sources. Not just investor-financing to engineer
> the rocket, but customer-financing.
>
I have a little trouble with calling it prize money in
the first place. Rather, I would like to call it something
like "contingent, guaranteed contracts." There would be
no government money awarded or lent prior to the actual
achieving of a promised capability. As to the total amount,
I had posted elsewhere that the government already spends
this type of money on transportation over perhaps a two
year period. So it is really a question of getting more
for the amount already spent through a change in procurement
practice. As you point out later, "more" should also be
clearly useful from the political point of view. But if
the government is not willing to do something fairly
significant to break the present impasse in the cost of
space access, then it should stop talking about it and
get out of the way.
But IMO more important than the amount of a single contract
should be the availability of a sufficient number of guaranteed
contracts to insure investors that this is really an open
game -- a game that is open to capable newcomers as well
as traditional suppliers. I would rather see smaller
guaranteed contracts, than some type of rationing system
that requires bureaucrats to select potential players on the
basis of promises, rather than results. False promises
without appropriate results would net no awards from the
government.
In this regard, a relatively small guaranteed contract
could be quite effective -- especially if integrated
with a commercial business plan, as you suggest. Of
course, it would be nice to show investors enough potential
business from one source to completely answer the question of
market credibility. But a little bit of market credibility
could go a long way. As for our own X Van and our plans
for telecommunications applications, a $50 million
promise for a government contract based upon our eventual
ability to deliver as promised (after we deliver) might
just do the trick to get the ball rolling to line up
some commercial customers as well. Accordingly, I
would rather see twenty potential guaranteed contracts
at the $50 million level that say two at the $1 billion
level.
> Also, the objective (putting bags of water in orbit)
> probably is going to appear foolish. You and I know the
> value of such an enterprise, but politicians need to be
> concerned with how Jay Leno may present this to the
> audience of the Tonight Show.
Good point. I was just trying to keep the definitions
as simple as possible. When I was on COMSTAC during the
first four years of its existence, I proposed that the
government put potential future payloads into three
categories: 1) essential payloads that require proven
launch vehicles from day one of planning; 2) desirable
payloads that are somewhat flexible and that would
benefit from lower transporation costs and other
potential improvements with new or improved luanch vehicles;
thsee payloads might be designed to fly on any of several
launch vehicles, both proven and proposed; and 3) a new
class of payloads that are not essential, but would be
great if we could get somehow into an era of low-cost,
reliable, frequent access to space. This latter category
might comprise the type of payloads that we are talking
about, with a promise that contracts would be issued if
a particular proposer could deliver according to that
proposer's promises. Water -- redefinable to some other
payload -- just seemed like an easier way to say all this.
>
> Otherwise, the company (companies) that win the engineering
> contest and claim the prize, may do so with a design that
> simply does not work in the business world.
>
We both agree that that would not be very smart; I
would expect that individual companies would be trying
to make their proposed LVs as useful as possible to
the real business world. Smaller guaranteed contracts
might require this as a natural consequence. But please,
let's have enough potentially guaranteed contracts to
make this a really open game.
> For example, a company may engineer a highly effective way
> of getting bulk cargo into space. But bulk cargo can handle
> stresses that many forms of cargo can not. And there may be
> little need for bulk cargo transportation from Earth,
> for example, if technology for bulk cargo transportation from
> the moon and asteroids is competitive.
>
Well, here is where our proposed guaranteed contracts
should encourage actual development to operational status
of several competing -- and quite possibly complementary --
systems. A small passenger-carrying RLV might be just the
right complement for some larger bulk-carrying RLV or ELV.
> So, to sell the idea, I would be happy with:
>
> (1) A prize level that does not cover all of the costs of
> development, but which instead requires competitors to be
> skilled at obtaining customer-financing in addition to the
> prize money even to enter the race. The prize should not
> be made available to a company that can not put together
> an entrepreneurial team that is as effective as its
> engineering team.
Well, the prize (contract) would not be awarded
unless a company was not only able to raise commercial
funds, but also able to deliver as promised.
>
> (2) Awards the prize for something more sellable, such as
> delivery of material to the ISS.
>
This should be sellable -- but I suspect, that the ISS
managers would insist that any payload to ISS is essential,
and that they cannot risk planning on any unproven vehcles.
That's why I think that you have to propose new missions
that would be very desirable, but that would essentially
be enabled by much improved acccess to space with one or
more new, unproven LVs.
mlin...@my-deja.com
Len (Cormier) for MMI <l...@tour2space.com> wrote:
> In article <19991213090209...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
> hu...@aol.com (Hume) wrote:
> >
> > For one, I think $10 billion in prize money is out of the
> > political question. Plus, I believe that room needs to be
> > made for not only promoting engineering skill, but also
> > entrepreneurial skill. That is to say, contestants
> > should be encouraged (required) to obtain funding from
> > outside sources. Not just investor-financing to engineer
> > the rocket, but customer-financing.
> >
> I have a little trouble with calling it prize money in
> the first place. Rather, I would like to call it something
> like "contingent, guaranteed contracts." There would be
> no government money awarded or lent prior to the actual
> achieving of a promised capability. As to the total amount,
> I had posted elsewhere that the government already spends
> this type of money on transportation over perhaps a two
> year period. So it is really a question of getting more
> for the amount already spent through a change in procurement
> practice. As you point out later, "more" should also be
> clearly useful from the political point of view.
In general, I agree with Len here. I am not sure if a $10-billion prize
is politically realistic. But it surely *ought* to be -- as long as the
government does not have to pay anything unless it gets a good service
in return...
---
My understanding is the US government currently spends about $6 billion
a year on space transportation -- 50% on the Shuttle and the rest on
ELVs. The expendable launch vehicle contracts are typically awarded a
few years in advance (say, _x_ years). If somebody wins the prize by
satisfying all the criteria, they get all the future launch contracts
that haven't been awarded yet. If there are no takers, we continue
business-as-usual by awarding the contract to EELV manufacturers.
---
In some ways, a "prize" is similar to the kind of market guarantees
Lockheed-Martin sought for the Venturestar in the mid-1990s. I.e., if
private industry develops a good RLV that meets all the goals and
requirements, the government should buy services.
> for our own X Van and our plans
> for telecommunications applications, a $50 million
> promise for a government contract based upon our eventual
> ability to deliver as promised (after we deliver) might
> just do the trick to get the ball rolling to line up
> some commercial customers as well.
Uh... With all due respect, the risk associated with a $300-a-pound
fully reusable RLV development project costing no more than $50 million
would be astronomical. Most neutral observers would regard the risk of
cost overruns as too great. If the government promised to pay $500
million for the Space Van and if you thought you could do it for
one-tenth of the prize, your venture might be more attractive.
> > (2) Awards the prize for something more sellable, such as
> > delivery of material to the ISS.
> >
> This should be sellable -- but I suspect, that the ISS
> managers would insist that any payload to ISS is essential,
> and that they cannot risk planning on any unproven vehcles.
> That's why I think that you have to propose new missions
> that would be very desirable, but that would essentially
> be enabled by much improved acccess to space with one or
> more new, unproven LVs.
If you want to see radically improved space transportation, I agree with
you (and Rand Simberg) that existing government markets will not do. So
the "government launch prize" might not have such an enormous impact,
since the "design drivers" aren't attractive enough.
---
For example, the International Space Station will require $2 billion
worth of Shuttle cargo flights per year after the assembly phase ends in
the mid-2000s. If Soyuz/Progress level prices were possible, the
government would only have to spend $1 billion. So we might have a prize
worth a combined $10 billion in 2006-2015 with a deadline in 2003.
That's a lot of money, but I am not sure anybody would regard the
market/financial reward as lucrative enough when NASA's user
requirements are accounted for.
MARCU$
Rand Simberg
mlin...@my-deja.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>If you want to see radically improved space transportation, I agree with
>you (and Rand Simberg) that existing government markets will not do. So
>the "government launch prize" might not have such an enormous impact,
>since the "design drivers" aren't attractive enough.
>
>---
>
>For example, the International Space Station will require $2 billion
>worth of Shuttle cargo flights per year after the assembly phase ends in
>the mid-2000s. If Soyuz/Progress level prices were possible, the
>government would only have to spend $1 billion. So we might have a prize
>worth a combined $10 billion in 2006-2015 with a deadline in 2003.
>That's a lot of money, but I am not sure anybody would regard the
>market/financial reward as lucrative enough when NASA's user
>requirements are accounted for.
Yes, that's what I call a market "impedance" mismatch. In order for
the government to really goose the market, they need to not only
provide money, but purchase bulk services, far beyond what they
presently think they need. For instance, instead of buying a few
dozen round-trip tickets per year (which is all they need to service
*this* space station) at, say, $10 million per ticket (which is
perhaps what they're spending now), they should instead request
thousands of round-trip tickets at (again, for example) fifty thousand
dollars per ticket.
The amount of money expended would be the same, but they would provide
much more market, make it more interesting to the providers (and flush
out nonsense like Venturestar). Any tickets not needed by the
government would be auctioned back on the market to the space tourism
and industrial park operators. The difference between what the
government paid and what they received for their auctioned tickets
would be the government's actual cost, and presumably far below what
they're currently paying, while dramatically reducing the unit cost
for the product.
In fact, on this principle, they government could even put out to bid
for services that cost much more than it's currently spending in
aggregate, and still end up actually spending less after the resale on
the market.
These are the kind of market guarantees that could really get the ball
rolling...
************************************************************************
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
Len for MMI
mlin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8341dl$155$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Len (Cormier) for MMI <l...@tour2space.com> wrote:
> > hu...@aol.com (Hume) wrote:
> > >
> > > For one, I think $10 billion in prize money is out of the
> > > political question. Plus, I believe that room needs to be
> > > made for not only promoting engineering skill, but also
> > > entrepreneurial skill. That is to say, contestants
> > > should be encouraged (required) to obtain funding from
> > > outside sources. Not just investor-financing to engineer
> > > the rocket, but customer-financing.
> > >
> > I have a little trouble with calling it prize money in
> > the first place. Rather, I would like to call it something
> > like "contingent, guaranteed contracts." There would be
> > no government money awarded or lent prior to the actual
> > achieving of a promised capability. As to the total amount,
> > I had posted elsewhere that the government already spends
> > this type of money on transportation over perhaps a two
> > year period. So it is really a question of getting more
> > for the amount already spent through a change in procurement
> > practice. As you point out later, "more" should also be
> > clearly useful from the political point of view.
>
> $10-billion prize is politically realistic. But it surely
> *ought* to be -- as long as the government does not have
> to pay anything unless it gets a good service in return...
>
spent -- not so much "how much" is spent.
> ---
>
> My understanding is the US government currently spends about
> $6 billion a year on space transportation -- 50% on the Shuttle
> and the rest on ELVs. The expendable launch vehicle contracts
> are typically awarded a few years in advance (say, _x_ years).
> If somebody wins the prize by satisfying all the criteria, they
> get all the future launch contracts that haven't been awarded
> yet. If there are no takers, we continue business-as-usual by
> awarding the contract to EELV manufacturers.
>
> ---
>
> In some ways, a "prize" is similar to the kind of market guarantees
> Lockheed-Martin sought for the Venturestar in the mid-1990s. I.e., if
> private industry develops a good RLV that meets all the goals and
> requirements, the government should buy services.
>
> > for our own X Van and our plans
> > for telecommunications applications, a $50 million
> > promise for a government contract based upon our eventual
> > ability to deliver as promised (after we deliver) might
> > just do the trick to get the ball rolling to line up
> > some commercial customers as well.
>
> Uh... With all due respect, the risk associated with a
> $300-a-pound fully reusable RLV development project costing
> no more than $50 million would be astronomical. Most neutral
> observers would regard the risk of cost overruns as too great.
> If the government promised to pay $500 million for the
> Space Van and if you thought you could do it for one-tenth
> of the prize, your venture might be more attractive.
>
I don't know how to do it for one-tenth the cost --i.e.
$50 million -- either; but I think that one-third the cost
for a system about one-fourth the size of the Space Van,
i.e. our X Van, can be realistic with appropriate management.
For example, orbiter propulsion comprising two RL10s instead
of six or eight scales directly. Our version with one
RD-120 plus two RL10s for the Space Van orbiter was an
attempt to reduce engine costs -- as well as to capitalize
on the benefits of density impulse.
The above $50 million statement was made in the context that
the prize might not have to cover all development costs. It
would be nice if the guaranteed amount of business would be twice
the expected development cost; however, one-third the expected
development costs might get investors interested.
> > > (2) Awards the prize for something more sellable, such as
> > > delivery of material to the ISS.
> > >
> > This should be sellable -- but I suspect, that the ISS
> > managers would insist that any payload to ISS is essential,
> > and that they cannot risk planning on any unproven vehcles.
> > That's why I think that you have to propose new missions
> > that would be very desirable, but that would essentially
> > be enabled by much improved acccess to space with one or
> > more new, unproven LVs.
>
> If you want to see radically improved space transportation,
> I agree with you (and Rand Simberg) that existing government
> markets will not do. So the "government launch prize" might
> not have such an enormous impact, since the "design drivers"
> aren't attractive enough.
>
> ---
>
> For example, the International Space Station will require
> $2 billion worth of Shuttle cargo flights per year after
> the assembly phase ends in the mid-2000s. If Soyuz/Progress
> level prices were possible, the government would only have
> to spend $1 billion. So we might have a prize worth a
> combined $10 billion in 2006-2015 with a deadline in 2003.
> That's a lot of money, but I am not sure anybody would regard the
> market/financial reward as lucrative enough when NASA's user
> requirements are accounted for.
>
Yes, I think a firm commitment would be more important than
a larger, squishy commitment. That's why I would like to
see a tentative new mission -- e.g. an experimental
propellant production and handling depot in LEO. Various
potentially low-cost RLV and ELV candidates could be
proposed for "enabling" this type of facility. The
commitment would be for definitel use of any low-cost
and operationally suitable, proposed vehicle -- if that
vehicle can perform according to promises. The commitment
would be for actual services actually delivered -- not
for promises. The idea would be to establish market
credibility for high-frequency, low-cost services.
Judging the technical feasiblity and coming up with
development funds would be left entirely to commercial
sector -- perhaps with such things as pass-thruough tax
credits and R&D deductions to limited partners or to
debenture holders as government-sponsored incentives.
No one in government would be deciding which particular
concept deserved funding or loans. The function of
government would be a promise to use it if you will
build it. Again, I think a sufficient number of
firm, smaller commitments would be better than one or
two large, squishy commitments.
> MARCU$
Len for MMI
simberg.i...@trash.org (Rand Simberg) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:29:57 GMT, in a place far, far away,
> mlin...@my-deja.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>
> >I agree with you (and Rand Simberg) that existing government
> >markets will not do. So the "government launch prize" might
> >not have such an enormous impact,
> >since the "design drivers" aren't attractive enough.
> >
> >---
> >
> >For example, the International Space Station will require
> >$2 billion worth of Shuttle cargo flights per year after
> >the assembly phase ends in the mid-2000s. If Soyuz/Progress
> >level prices were possible, the government would only have
> >to spend $1 billion. So we might have a prize
> >worth a combined $10 billion in 2006-2015 with a deadline in 2003.
> >That's a lot of money, but I am not sure anybody would regard the
> >market/financial reward as lucrative enough when NASA's user
> >requirements are accounted for.
>
> the government to really goose the market, they need to not only
> provide money, but purchase bulk services, far beyond what they
> presently think they need. For instance, instead of buying a few
> dozen round-trip tickets per year (which is all they need to service
> *this* space station) at, say, $10 million per ticket (which is
> perhaps what they're spending now), they should instead request
> thousands of round-trip tickets at (again, for example) fifty thousand
> dollars per ticket.
>
> The amount of money expended would be the same, but they would provide
> much more market, make it more interesting to the providers (and flush
> out nonsense like Venturestar). Any tickets not needed by the
> government would be auctioned back on the market to the space tourism
> and industrial park operators. The difference between what the
> government paid and what they received for their auctioned tickets
> would be the government's actual cost, and presumably far below what
> they're currently paying, while dramatically reducing the unit cost
> for the product.
>
> for services that cost much more than it's currently spending in
> aggregate, and still end up actually spending less after the resale on
> the market.
>
> These are the kind of market guarantees that could really get the ball
> rolling...
>
it seems to complement the other idea that I have posted
on this thread; i.e. NASA sponsorship of an experimental
proprellant production and handling facility that might
be enabled by frequent, low-cost access to space. Another
idea for NASA's new "if you will build it, we will come"
program -- at least an s.s.p proposal for a new program.
>
************************************************************************
> simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson
Hole)
> interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax)
http://www.interglobal.org
Best regards,
Len )Cormier) for MMI
mlin...@my-deja.com
Granted, it's an interesting concept. But would Rand's scheme *really*
make it the ISS transportation market more interesting or valuable to
commercial providers...? Think about it: NASA would significantly raise
the performance bar _but_ the reward is no greater except for the fact
the excess capacity supposedly will be sold to private investors.
---
Let's say NASA is currently paying $5 million for transporting an
astronaut to ISS, plus another $105 million per astronaut for
experiments and supplies (3,000kg * $35,000/kg). If fifteen NASA
astronauts are shuttled between ISS and the Earth, the annual cost
becomes roughly $1.65 billion. These requirements are quite easily
within reach of ELV-launched expendable spacecraft which will be
comparatively inexpensive to build.
---
Now, what happens if NASA suddenly says, "we will only pay $16.5
million per year for the services we need rather than $1650 million
using the Shuttle"? The government's "true" need represents only 1% of
the total, if launch costs to ISS are reduced by a factor of 100 which
is what Rand is suggesting here. Will anyone take the US government's
promises seriously, if it claims to be truly committed to paying $1.6
billion+ for services ISS doesn't need?? Would any responsible venture
capitalist or banker want to invest money in an advanced RLV that has
to be capable of slashing launch costs by a factor of 100 on such shaky
premises? Isn't it far more likely that the good folks at NASA Watch
and Space Policy Digest would regard this as a clever deception by NASA
to protect the Shuttle's monopoly in the American ISS transportation
business...? If nobody accepts Rand's challenge (either because they
regard NASA's commitment as too shaky or because they believe $220-a-
pound orbital transportation is economically and technically
impossible), the Shuttle would remain the only game in town...
MARCU$
mlin...@my-deja.com
> Moreover,
> it seems to complement the other idea that I have posted
> on this thread; i.e. NASA sponsorship of an experimental
> proprellant production and handling facility that might
> be enabled by frequent, low-cost access to space. Another
> idea for NASA's new "if you will build it, we will come"
> program -- at least an s.s.p proposal for a new program.
I regard this as a slightly better idea, although it would require that
some new NASA "customer" program be started.
---
A good candidate would appear to be a manned lunar or geostationary
outpost. If space based reusable chemically propelled lunar transfer
vehicles are used, the annual transportation requirement to the low
Earth orbit spaceport could be as high as 500 metric tons per year.
That's a factor of ten higher than required for ISS maintenance. If
NASA somehow managed to receive funds for building and launching the
lunar/GEO infrastructure, they would then have a permanent "cash cow"
(and the private sector could have a reasonably stable and credible
customer for services, if the political cost of cancelling the project
were deemed too great) _but_ transportation cost would also be a major
problem. True, it could be a "make work" project for a Shuttle derived
HLLV but the cost to all of NASA would be formidable. If Beal or Rotary
could launch the propellant much more cheaply, it would be a "win-win"
situation to the government / NASA and private launch providers. There
would be a real incentive for private industry to develop cheaper
launch vehicles as long as NASA's ability to pay for services were
real. The NASA project itself does not have to be terribly "successful"
or efficient as long as it's *there* and survives the political
attempts to kill it. The International Space Station is an excellent
example of such an artificial "market"; I believe private investors are
starting to take it very seriously indeed as a potential revenue source
since the fully operational Station requires $1 billion+ of space
transportation services a year.
---
I believe there is some food for thought here, and NASA probably will
have to focus on manned deep-space exploration after ISS is completed
and if the agency wants another major project. It is by no means clear
reusable lunar spacecraft and a permanent space base in LEO (either the
International Space Station or some new facility) would be the most
efficient or cost effective option, but I think it could make it more
valuable to private industry and probably harder for Congress to cancel
the project. The Shuttle and ISS are clumsy and expensive giants, but
unlike Apollo they represent PERMANENT investments and at least
marginal opportunities to other (commercial-) service providers than
NASA... I do think this is an important point: reviving the Saturn
V/Apollo means the manned lunar project really is open to NASA only.
MARCU$
Len for MMI
Well, Marcus, I still think that Rand has a grand idea.
However, I will concede to your argument that it might not
be a proper mission for NASA to promote low-cost transport
of passengers -- although that could utimately save NASA
big bucks. But Rand's idea would help solve the elasticity
problem of RLVs: RLVs can do a lot more for the same amount
of money -- and they NEED to do a lot more to be economically
effective.
IMO, the upshot of all this is that perhaps the U.S.
Department of Transportation should be the promoter of
Rand's idea. The Office of Commercial Space Transportation
was set up by Congress TO PROMOTE, as well as TO REGULATE
commercial space transportation.
The companion idea that I suggest -- i.e. an experimental
orbital propellant production and handling facility enabled
by frequent, reliable low-cost access to space by some
combination of new RLVs and ELVs might fall more clearly
into NASA's charter, in view of the overriding importance
of low-cost propellants out of Earth's potential energy
well. There would not be the same limitations on quantity
that there might be with respect to passengers.
I think the idea of free-market elasticity support for
low-cost space transportation is potentially too important
to die because of organizational inappropriateness. Why
not a combined NASA/DoT program to provide such market
support? If these incentives worked, they would save money
and/or enable a lot more to be done with the same money.
If the incentives didn't work, they would cost nothing
beyond having the guarnteed market-support funds tied up
for some period of time. Sounds a lot better than loan
guarantees to me. Just make sure that startups have a
decent crack at the guaranteed market, along with the
established companies. Any rationing should be by the
amount of market guarantees, not the number of potential
contracts for different vehicles.
Len for MMI
mlin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Len Cormier wrote:
>
> > Moreover,
> > it seems to complement the other idea that I have posted
> > on this thread; i.e. NASA sponsorship of an experimental
> > proprellant production and handling facility that might
> > be enabled by frequent, low-cost access to space. Another
> > idea for NASA's new "if you will build it, we will come"
> > program -- at least an s.s.p proposal for a new program.
>
> I regard this as a slightly better idea, although it would
> require that some new NASA "customer" program be started.
>
robotic -- would be a lot less controversial mission
for NASA than designing, building, and operating a
series of Space Shuttles. If lots of low cost
propellants in LEO gave NASA a lot more options, then
this could be potentially good for NASA, as well as
for commercial space.
make sure that the maket-guarantee game is open to all
reasonable comers -- with reasonable being defined by
potential investors, not government reviewers.
> ---
>
> I believe there is some food for thought here, and NASA probably will
> have to focus on manned deep-space exploration after ISS is completed
> and if the agency wants another major project. It is by no means clear
> reusable lunar spacecraft and a permanent space base in LEO (either
> the International Space Station or some new facility) would be the
> most efficient or cost effective option, but I think it could make
> it more valuable to private industry and probably harder for
> Congress to cancel the project. The Shuttle and ISS are clumsy and
> expensive giants, but unlike Apollo they represent PERMANENT
> investments and at least marginal opportunities to other
> (commercial-) service providers than NASA... I do think this is an
> important point: reviving the Saturn V/Apollo means the manned lunar
> project really is open to NASA only.
>
IMO, the idea that we are discussing is broader than
NASA's current or appropriate charter. DoT has a charter
to promote, as well as to regulate, commercial space
transportation. A combined NASA/DoT program could
legitimately support market supports for Rand's passenger
idea, as well as for the above idea. Other government
agencies might be added. Deep-space disposal for high-
level nuclear wastes may, or may not, be a good idea.
But having the option available could have high value;
IMO, it would be hard to come up with a more absurd idea
than permanent burial in Yucca Mountain Nevada -- and this
would address a worldwide need, not just DoE.
> MARCU$
mlin...@my-deja.com
> mlin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Len Cormier wrote:
> >
> > I regard this as a slightly better idea, although it would
> > require that some new NASA "customer" program be started.
> >
> I think that deep-space exploration -- manned and/or
> robotic -- would be a lot less controversial mission
> for NASA than designing, building, and operating a
> series of Space Shuttles.
Sure. By the way, there is no real disagreement about the Shuttle being
a bad/improper US gov't decision...
> If lots of low cost
> propellants in LEO gave NASA a lot more options, then
> this could be potentially good for NASA, as well as
> for commercial space.
Yep... It's also much less expensive than ISS, even if done as a
business-as-usual effort. I have seen one estimate from 1995 (by James
French, in AEROSPACE AMERICA) saying the cost would be $6 billion.
Space Station Freedom's "Phase 2" elements (50KW additional power, a
satellite servicing facility, propellant storage, probably additional
habitation modules) would also have cost about $6 billion in today's
dollars. A dedicated "spacedock" free flying platform in a 28-degree
orbit certainly would be better, but it might be politically easier to
expand the International Space Station.
> > The International Space
> > Station is an excellent example of such an artificial "market"; I
> > believe private investors are starting to take it very seriously
> > indeed as a potential revenue source since the fully operational
> > Station requires $1 billion+ of space transportation services a
> > year.
> >
> Good thoughts, Marcus. My only word of caution is to
> make sure that the maket-guarantee game is open to all
> reasonable comers -- with reasonable being defined by
> potential investors, not government reviewers.
Well, NASA's diminished role in the ISS project (compared with Freedom,
that is) probably makes it harder to prevent other service providers
from joining the ISS team. I note Spacehab decided to join forces with
the Russians when NASA picked a different consortium for Transhab. The
same thing could conceivably happen in the ISS logistics game; there
are many commercial ELVs and the Russians have some proven "space tugs"
that could be used almost off-the-shelf.
---
By the way, the total market currently available to American ELV
companies accounts for about 350-400t/year to LEO. 55% of this is
commercial missions currently captured by European, Russian and Chinese
boosters. The rest is US-launched commercial or government missions.
ISS could boost the requirement by as much as 100t. So I think the
potential ISS market for (ELV-) services is quite significant. In some
ways it serves the same role as US government fortifications in the
Wild West. The government makes the initial investment, and private
investors move in and start doing business. This was President Reagan's
intention back in 1984, and I feel ISS is finally starting to move in
that direction.
> Deep-space disposal for high-
> level nuclear wastes may, or may not, be a good idea.
> But having the option available could have high value;
> IMO, it would be hard to come up with a more absurd idea
> than permanent burial in Yucca Mountain Nevada -- and this
> would address a worldwide need, not just DoE.
Hmmm...I can see some interesting candidates for the "Next Major Manned
Program" (NMMP) here. And I would certainly be _much_ happier if our
NMMP wasn't so big or expensive... A small single-module man-tended
free-flying platform (MTFF) would be a nice addition, since it could
provide microgravity services at a very reasonable cost. The same basic
vehicle could conceivably serve as a manned waystation in geostationary
or lunar orbit.
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/MTFF85.JPG
Alternatively, we might want to do something akin to Marshall's "Space
Platform" from the early 1980s. I.e. a simple unpressurized platform
that can be outfitted with transponders, science experiments,
propellant storage facilities, remote sensing equipment or even
pressurized modules depending on where we want to put it (geostationary
orbit, polar orbit, LEO). Heck, *this* is what NASA should have done
before building a space station, but it won't be too late to build one
as an inexpensive ISS follow-on project.
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/samps.jpg
The total cost would be only a few billions, so hopefully it will be
much easier to keep politics out of it. The American private sector
and/or international space agencies could do the projects mentioned
above.
---
NASA's "meal ticket" could be a manned Orbital Transfer Vehicle to
geostationary or lunar orbit...I believe an OTV would be too expensive
and risky for private industry to "go it alone." It could be used for
satellite servicing, perhaps even nuclear waste disposal as Len says...
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/otv86psf.jpg
Of course, none of this will happen if Shuttle and ISS operations ($3-5
billion/year) completely drain NASA's budget.
MARCU$
Rand Simberg
>Granted, it's an interesting concept. But would Rand's scheme *really*
>make it the ISS transportation market more interesting or valuable to
>commercial providers...? Think about it: NASA would significantly raise
>the performance bar _but_ the reward is no greater except for the fact
>the excess capacity supposedly will be sold to private investors.
Well, that's a significant fact, if it occurs. Your use of the word
"supposedly" indicates, I assume, your scepticism.
>Let's say NASA is currently paying $5 million for transporting an
>astronaut to ISS, plus another $105 million per astronaut for
>experiments and supplies (3,000kg * $35,000/kg). If fifteen NASA
>astronauts are shuttled between ISS and the Earth, the annual cost
>becomes roughly $1.65 billion. These requirements are quite easily
>within reach of ELV-launched expendable spacecraft which will be
>comparatively inexpensive to build.
>
>---
>
>Now, what happens if NASA suddenly says, "we will only pay $16.5
>million per year for the services we need rather than $1650 million
>using the Shuttle"? The government's "true" need represents only 1% of
>the total, if launch costs to ISS are reduced by a factor of 100 which
>is what Rand is suggesting here.
Well, first of all, the USG has no "true" need for space services at
all. All demand for USG space services is a product of the inertia of
past programs, current capabilities, and political imperatives. We
have to take a certain number of people to ISS because we decided to
build ISS a certain size because we had a certain amount of money and
political constraints (e.g., it had to be done primarily with the
Space Shuttle), and jobs to maintain in Houston/Huntsville/Florida.
The crew size/rotation is *not* derived from any requirement to do any
particular level of any particular activity in space.
Now if the political situation remains the same (i.e., the purpose of
the space program is to provide jobs and foreign aid and the
occasional photo op for the politicians that beneficently fund it)
then you're right, it's not going to happen. But if we could ever
have a real national debate on space policy, and our purposes and
goals in space, then there is a chance that it could happen (it should
be noted that such a debate has not occurred since the late 1950's, at
the time of the chartering of NASA).
After such a debate, then it's possible to talk sensibly about "true"
needs in space. But not now.
>Will anyone take the US government's
>promises seriously, if it claims to be truly committed to paying $1.6
>billion+ for services ISS doesn't need??
Only if it occurred in the context of a refocused program, in which
the national goal was to open up space, rather than provide welfare
for engineers on every continent.
>Would any responsible venture
>capitalist or banker want to invest money in an advanced RLV that has
>to be capable of slashing launch costs by a factor of 100 on such shaky
>premises?
Again, yes, if it were done with the same sense of national purpose
as, say, the airmail subsidy (on which the idea is partially based).
>Isn't it far more likely that the good folks at NASA Watch
>and Space Policy Digest would regard this as a clever deception by NASA
>to protect the Shuttle's monopoly in the American ISS transportation
>business...?
Possibly, but (once more with feeling) not if it were done as on
overall overhaul of NASA.
One way to build credibility for it (and to provide a foundation for
such a radical policy) would be for NASA to spend, say a hundredth as
much on some market research (with people who know how to do market
research--not aerospace companies, as occurred in CSTS), to determine
if they could sell the overage, and at what price. I am appalled
daily on how much we spend on technologies to reduce cost of launch
(when technology is not really the problem) and how little we spend to
figure out how to pay for reduced-cost vehicles (which is the real
problem).
>If nobody accepts Rand's challenge (either because they
>regard NASA's commitment as too shaky or because they believe $220-a-
>pound orbital transportation is economically and technically
>impossible), the Shuttle would remain the only game in town...
Well, in that case, we would be no worse off than we are now.
************************************************************************
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..."
mlin...@my-deja.com
billion/year (=ISS) would be a sufficiently attractive goal? It seems
one could justify developing $2-billion EELVs and maybe a Kistler type
vehicle if the market guarantee were worth $2 billion a year. But even
the Venturestar really needs to launch commercial communications
satellites as well; government markets alone won't be sufficiently
lucrative.
---
If you raise the bar to something along the lines of "the US government
wants to buy 40,000 passenger tickets/year to low Earth orbit and is
willing to pay $50,000 per ticket," will private industry regard the
revenues as sufficiently lucrative...? As a first approximation, annual
LEO launch revenues of $2 billion will buy you a =<$2-billion RLV
development+production program. If commercial passenger aircraft are
any indication, an FAA-certified safe low-cost RLV capable of reducing
launch costs by a factor of 100 won't be cheap... You are talking about
launching at least 4,000 *tons* of cargo per year, which to me (sorry,
Len Cormier) implies a fairly large fleet consisting of (by space LV
standards) extremely capable vehicles. Somebody might attempt to
develop such RLVs if the incentives were deemed great enough, I agree
about that. But will promising $2 billion a year really be enough?
---
More realistically, one could start to "get the ball rolling" by first
doing $50,000-a-ticket RLVs capable of suborbital Mach 4 missions only,
which sounds like a much easier and less expensive goal to me. But it
is not clear how any government could provide useful incentives for
that.
MARCU$
Rand Simberg
>Hmmm...do you believe an "iron-clad" government commitment worth $1-2
>billion/year (=ISS) would be a sufficiently attractive goal?
No, but I was only using ISS crew rotation as an example. I would
take the same principal and apply it to all NASA human space
operations, which constitute much more than $2B per year (depending on
how one does the accounting (ISS + STS + "Mission Support," I think
that it's closer to five or six billion). NASA would not only
purchase X round-trip tickets, but also: Y cubic feet of habitable
volume, Z megawatts of power, W person days of life support, etc. And
again, any excess against the government "needs" (whatever those turn
out to be) would be resold on the market, presumably to hotel
operators, tour operators, industrial park operators, etc.
This gets back to the issue of just what the government's "needs" in
space are. If we decide that the government's needs in space are to
create a LEO infrastructure with a vibrant LEO economy, this would be
the way to do it. Again, to determine if it could be done within the
existing budget would require market research.
>It seems
>one could justify developing $2-billion EELVs and maybe a Kistler type
>vehicle if the market guarantee were worth $2 billion a year. But even
>the Venturestar really needs to launch commercial communications
>satellites as well; government markets alone won't be sufficiently
>lucrative.
But it won't be government markets alone. Once the low-cost systems
are in place, there is nothing to prevent them from selling additional
services, over and above the government purchases. If the government
purchases are auctioned, they will be presumably sold at the market
price, so it won't be unfair competition to those trying to expand the
market even further. Again, this would all be dependent on the
results of good market research (for which there will be much more
incentive if the vehicles appear to be on the verge of availability).
>If you raise the bar to something along the lines of "the US government
>wants to buy 40,000 passenger tickets/year to low Earth orbit and is
>willing to pay $50,000 per ticket," will private industry regard the
>revenues as sufficiently lucrative...? As a first approximation, annual
>LEO launch revenues of $2 billion will buy you a =<$2-billion RLV
>development+production program. If commercial passenger aircraft are
>any indication, an FAA-certified safe low-cost RLV capable of reducing
>launch costs by a factor of 100 won't be cheap...
If FAA certification is required, then all bets are off. That is not
currently the regulatory situation, and if I have anything to say
about it, that will remain the case for a good long time.
>You are talking about
>launching at least 4,000 *tons* of cargo per year, which to me (sorry,
>Len Cormier) implies a fairly large fleet consisting of (by space LV
>standards) extremely capable vehicles. Somebody might attempt to
>develop such RLVs if the incentives were deemed great enough, I agree
>about that. But will promising $2 billion a year really be enough?
As I said, I don't think that $2B is the right number.
mlin...@my-deja.com
simberg.i...@trash.org (Rand Simberg) wrote:
> mlin...@my-deja.com :
>
> >Hmmm...do you believe an "iron-clad" government commitment worth $1-2
> >billion/year (=ISS) would be a sufficiently attractive goal?
>
> No, but I was only using ISS crew rotation as an example. I would
> take the same principal and apply it to all NASA human space
> operations, which constitute much more than $2B per year (depending on
> how one does the accounting (ISS + STS + "Mission Support," I think
> that it's closer to five or six billion).
That's about correct. From memory, the US government spends $3 billion
on ELVs and another $3 billion on the Shuttle.
---
Out of curiosity, how do these figures compare with the annual revenues
from space tourism at $50,000 and $500,000/ticket, respectively?
> This gets back to the issue of just what the government's "needs" in
> space are. If we decide that the government's needs in space are to
> create a LEO infrastructure with a vibrant LEO economy, this would be
> the way to do it. Again, to determine if it could be done within the
> existing budget would require market research.
In another reply to Len, I suggested a manned lunar outpost could
provide a large launch market. Do you regard this as potentially
valuable? I just checked the 1997 stats and discovered the total demand
for US government and American+foreign commercial satellite launches
was about 350-400 metric tons to low Earth orbit. The is the
real "need", and about half of it currently goes to non-American
launchers. Shuttle+ISS logistics will increase this total by about 100t.
---
Supplying a moonbase would require ~400t of propellants in LEO per
year, if space based reusable chemical transfer vehicles are used! In
other words, the market for launch services would almost double. NASA
could start on a small scale by using Shuttle-C or an EELV-derived
heavy lift rocket. These vehicles are capable of launching about 100t
of cargo per year (=a single lunar mission). I think NASA could afford
the cost (if it were part of the Shuttle ops. budget), but a
permanently manned outpost probably requires a cheaper and better RLV.
So it could represent a major business opportunity.
> But it won't be government markets alone. Once the low-cost systems
> are in place, there is nothing to prevent them from selling additional
> services, over and above the government purchases. If the government
> purchases are auctioned, they will be presumably sold at the market
> price, so it won't be unfair competition to those trying to expand the
> market even further. Again, this would all be dependent on the
> results of good market research (for which there will be much more
> incentive if the vehicles appear to be on the verge of availability).
OK -- I see your point. The key factors seem to be technical
feasibility (could anyone provide the service requested by the US
government?), and the credibility of the US government's commitment...
E.g., if the US government wants to buy 5,000 supersonic passenger
tickets in 1940, the private sector will accept the challenge only if
it feels the reward is great enough.
MARCU$
Len for MMI
> one could justify developing $2-billion EELVs and maybe a Kistler type
> vehicle if the market guarantee were worth $2 billion a year. But even
> the Venturestar really needs to launch commercial communications
> satellites as well; government markets alone won't be sufficiently
> lucrative.
>
seems to have gotten lost in space; so I apologize
if this ends up being a repeat.
Whether or not a $2 billion/yr commitment would be
enough is very dependent upon the type of RLV in
question. IMO, a $2 billion commitment would be
enough to support ten small RLVs of the type that
I have in mind -- and insufficient for something
like Venture*. Both Gary and I have stated
publically that we think that $150 million front-end
money would be sufficient to get our respective
vehicles to an operational status.
> ---
>
> If you raise the bar to something along the lines of "the US
> government wants to buy 40,000 passenger tickets/year to low
> Earth orbit and is willing to pay $50,000 per ticket," will
> private industry regard the revenues as sufficiently
> lucrative...? As a first approximation, annual
> LEO launch revenues of $2 billion will buy you a =<$2-billion RLV
> development+production program. If commercial passenger aircraft are
> any indication, an FAA-certified safe ...
Present law does not require an FAA-certified RLV. If
it ever does, kiss CATS goodbye for a long time to come.
>....low-cost RLV capable of reducing
> launch costs by a factor of 100 won't be cheap... You are
> talking about launching at least 4,000 *tons* of cargo per year,
> which to me (sorry, Len Cormier) implies a fairly large fleet
> consisting of (by space LV standards) extremely capable vehicles.
> Somebody might attempt to develop such RLVs if the incentives were
> deemed great enough, I agree about that. But will promising
> $2 billion a year really be enough?
>
Well, Marcus, you knew I couldn't let this pass --
and this is my second try at a reply. As I've said
before, economic elasticity is the core problem of
RLV marketability. What you view as a problem is the
real solution to the real problem. A large fleet
flying many thousands of flights per year is just
what is needed to make an RLV viable. I admit that
I could have a hard time selling small cargo payloads
to some potential users -- but people? Just what is
it that precludes carrying five passengers (with full-
size seats) at a time, rather than 50 or 500? For
subsonic transports, the answer is the economics of
the lengths and destinations that can support large
transports. But everything that I have done with respect
to RLV economics points in the opposite diretion for
RLVs.
> ---
>
> More realistically, one could start to "get the ball rolling" by first
> doing $50,000-a-ticket RLVs capable of suborbital Mach 4 missions
> only,
> which sounds like a much easier and less expensive goal to me. But it
> is not clear how any government could provide useful incentives for
> that.
>
Well, I think that $50k may be adequeate for carrying
people to orbit -- perhaps for a one-week stay. IMO,
this should be far more marketable than $50k for a
10-minute mach 4 flight (plus any loiter or flyback
time).
> MARCU$
Rand Simberg
>> No, but I was only using ISS crew rotation as an example. I would
>> take the same principal and apply it to all NASA human space
>> operations, which constitute much more than $2B per year (depending on
>> how one does the accounting (ISS + STS + "Mission Support," I think
>> that it's closer to five or six billion).
>
>
>That's about correct. From memory, the US government spends $3 billion
>on ELVs and another $3 billion on the Shuttle.
Well, I wasn't even including ELV's. That would make it even more.
You don't seem to be including ISS budget. I would throw that in, and
contract out for orbital infrastructure as well.
>Out of curiosity, how do these figures compare with the annual revenues
>from space tourism at $50,000 and $500,000/ticket, respectively?
Yes. These figures are much higher than annual revenues from orbital
tourism at any price, which is currently, to first order, zero <g>.
If you are asking how they compare to estimates, I have no idea. No
market research on which I'd rely has been performed to date.,
>In another reply to Len, I suggested a manned lunar outpost could
>provide a large launch market. Do you regard this as potentially
>valuable?
Potentially, but not until the price comes down to the point at which
we could have lunar Hiltons.
>I just checked the 1997 stats and discovered the total demand
>for US government and American+foreign commercial satellite launches
>was about 350-400 metric tons to low Earth orbit. The is the
>real "need", and about half of it currently goes to non-American
>launchers.
That is only the real "need" at current launch prices. We do not know
what the real need is in a low-cost environment.
>Shuttle+ISS logistics will increase this total by about 100t.
Yes, a trivial amount, in the context of what's needed to drive down
costs.
>Supplying a moonbase would require ~400t of propellants in LEO per
>year, if space based reusable chemical transfer vehicles are used! In
>other words, the market for launch services would almost double. NASA
>could start on a small scale by using Shuttle-C or an EELV-derived
>heavy lift rocket. These vehicles are capable of launching about 100t
>of cargo per year (=a single lunar mission). I think NASA could afford
>the cost (if it were part of the Shuttle ops. budget), but a
>permanently manned outpost probably requires a cheaper and better RLV.
>So it could represent a major business opportunity.
But it doesn't address the market impedance mismatch problem.
Doubling something insignificant does not change it appreciably. We
need orders of magnitude more market, not double.
>> But it won't be government markets alone. Once the low-cost systems
>> are in place, there is nothing to prevent them from selling additional
>> services, over and above the government purchases. If the government
>> purchases are auctioned, they will be presumably sold at the market
>> price, so it won't be unfair competition to those trying to expand the
>> market even further. Again, this would all be dependent on the
>> results of good market research (for which there will be much more
>> incentive if the vehicles appear to be on the verge of availability).
>
>OK -- I see your point. The key factors seem to be technical
>feasibility (could anyone provide the service requested by the US
>government?), and the credibility of the US government's commitment...
Yes, the latter is a far more difficult problem than the former.
There's little doubt to people who have seriously studied the problem
that we can reduce costs by a couple of orders of magnitude, given
sufficient demand.
mlin...@my-deja.com
> mlin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Whether or not a $2 billion/yr commitment would be
> enough is very dependent upon the type of RLV in
> question. IMO, a $2 billion commitment would be
> enough to support ten small RLVs of the type that
> I have in mind -- and insufficient for something
> like Venture*. Both Gary and I have stated
> publically that we think that $150 million front-end
> money would be sufficient to get our respective
> vehicles to an operational status.
I would like to see some indirect historical evidence for this... Small
but efficient "mom and pop shops" do not build reusably space launchers
or even supersonic aircraft, but they are fairly active in the small
subsonic aircraft business. What (homebuilt-?) aircraft would you cite
as evidence, Len? How much did the BD-10 or Proteus cost, and what
relevant "Big Aerospace" or USAF projects are there if one wanted to do
a cost comparison?
---
I'm constantly frustrated by the lack of good "data points" since we
have only had a few hypersonic spaceplanes to date and they were all
developed by the same type of organizations. Your arguments seem to be,
RLVs are no more difficult than advanced aircraft and actually may be
easier to develop than ELVs? I do note that organizations which have
been extremely successful in the commercial aviation business
apparently do not regard reusable launch vehicles as a very lucrative
market. Of course, the lack of cheap space access may be a case
of "absence of evidence" rather than "evidence of absence" (=CATS is
very hard), as I believe.
> > If commercial passenger aircraft are
> > any indication, an FAA-certified safe ...
>
> Present law does not require an FAA-certified RLV. If
> it ever does, kiss CATS goodbye for a long time to come.
But if the main market is space tourism, the vehicle will have to meet
similar safety regulations. If your business case is based on the idea
that you fly lots of tourists while charging only a comparatively small
amount of money per flight, you will be badly affected by a Challenger-
type accident. Of course, your own "Antenna Farm" plans may be superior
in this respect.
> As I've said
> before, economic elasticity is the core problem of
> RLV marketability. What you view as a problem is the
> real solution to the real problem. A large fleet
> flying many thousands of flights per year is just
> what is needed to make an RLV viable.
I suspect the initial startup costs will be higher, though. Existing
off-the-shelf LV systems (engines in particular) tend to have a shorter
lifetime than aircraft systems. They also cost more and require more
maintenance, hence the relatively timid "Shuttle like" goals proposed
for the Venturestar, K-1, Astroliner, Pathfinder...
---
On the other hand, if you want to fly hundreds of orbital missions per
year at aircraft-like cost, I believe you will have to spend more money
on vehicle and technology development than otherwise would be the case.
I also note that jet aircraft were not very efficient or economical
right from the beginning; jet propulsion required a decade or more to
become competitive vs. propeller aircraft. The X-15, SR-71 and Space
Shuttle has had the same initial problems.
---
I agree that there are lots of "ifs" "buts" and "maybes" when
discussing the likely cost and difficulty of building a low-cost RLV,
though. I do think it's much safer to start on a comparatively
unambitious level and simply aim for the kind of performance the Space
Shuttle was supposed to deliver 15 years ago. I.e., 60 flights/year and
transportation costs of $1000-$1500/lb for existing payloads. If you
need lower costs and higher flight rates than that, it might be safer
to do an X-15 type suborbital vehicle rather than a fully reusable SSTO
or TSTO.
> I admit that
> I could have a hard time selling small cargo payloads
> to some potential users -- but people?
Propellant may be another "any size is OK" type of cargo. Let's say the
US government wants to transport 250t of LH2+LOX to LEO per year.
Boeing could propose launching a dozen heavy-lift Delta IVs, and the
key parameters (achievable launch rate, marginal cost per flight, cost
of expendable cargo transfer vehicle) would be reasonably well known
from previous projects. I think launching 250 1000-kg Space Vans per
year would be a lot riskier, though.
> Just what is
> it that precludes carrying five passengers (with full-
> size seats) at a time, rather than 50 or 500? For
> subsonic transports, the answer is the economics of
> the lengths and destinations that can support large
> transports. But everything that I have done with respect
> to RLV economics points in the opposite diretion for
> RLVs.
I agree that RLVs need to fly a certain number of missions per year (>
~30 flights) to be competitive. Like I said, I am just not sure it is a
very good idea to base your business plans on the assumptions you will
effortlessly fly hundreds of missions per year right from the
start. "Conventional wisdom" says the first commercial RLVs had better
be priced only slightly below existing ELVs. New emerging markets and
RLV technologies + operational experience will eventually permit the
operators to profitably increase flight rates and reduce launch prices.
> >
> Well, I think that $50k may be adequeate for carrying
> people to orbit -- perhaps for a one-week stay. IMO,
> this should be far more marketable than $50k for a
> 10-minute mach 4 flight (plus any loiter or flyback
> time).
This depends on what your costs are, though. The more timid orbital RLV
cost estimates are in the $500-1000/lb range which translates to six-
figure ticket prices. Mach 4 space tourism may be cheaper and easier in
the short term. Besides, the cost and risk has to be reduced to an
absolute minimum for private investors to participate.
MARCU$
Len for MMI
mlin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <852kcm$4rj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Len (Cormier) for MMI <l...@tour2space.com> wrote:
> > In article <84tbom$dio$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > mlin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Whether or not a $2 billion/yr commitment would be
> > enough is very dependent upon the type of RLV in
> > question. IMO, a $2 billion commitment would be
> > enough to support ten small RLVs of the type that
> > I have in mind -- and insufficient for something
> > like Venture*. Both Gary and I have stated
> > publically that we think that $150 million front-end
> > money would be sufficient to get our respective
> > vehicles to an operational status.
>
> I would like to see some indirect historical evidence for
> this... Small but efficient "mom and pop shops" do not build
> reusably space launchers or even supersonic aircraft, but
> they are fairly active in the small subsonic aircraft
> business. What (homebuilt-?) aircraft would you cite
> as evidence, Len? How much did the BD-10 or Proteus cost,
> and what relevant "Big Aerospace" or USAF projects are there
> if one wanted to do a cost comparison?
>
let me say first: good post, good points.
I agree, the historical evidence is not there for
RLVs and "mom and pop shops" supersonic aircraft.
And this does make my type of argument rather difficult.
Having said that, what are the arguments in support of
small vs big aerospace for doing something like an RLV?
The success stories for the first decade of aviation, IMO,
was with the "mom and pop's." They did wonders with 10 HP
engines. The Wright Bros. without government support
did better than Langley. As to supersonic homebuilts,
wait a little bit. I don't think they are that far off.
I am more and more amazed myself, when I see the capabilities
of some of the home-built suppliers. Particularly, some
that have not been mentioned here. The BD-10 does have
some flaws, but Jim did not spend much money on it,
either. The supersonic game has been in the realm of
government-supported aerospace; but even here I am
encouraged by the history of the Skunk Works relative
to more formal programs. This was true before, when the
Skunk Works was strictly "a way of doing business," rather
than a "place" with much more formal government interfaces.
The relative, inversely proportional productivity with
management formality is startling.
History will have to wait. In the meantime, I base my
calculations on a buildup of what I think are realistic
component weights and costs, not parametric extrapolations
based upon past performance, nor blue-sky wishful thinking.
> ---
>
> I'm constantly frustrated by the lack of good "data points" since we
> have only had a few hypersonic spaceplanes to date and they were all
> developed by the same type of organizations. Your arguments seem to
be,
> RLVs are no more difficult than advanced aircraft and actually may be
> easier to develop than ELVs? ....
Correct. Incremental flight testing of a small RLV
can be easier and cheaper than trying to develop a
large ELV, with necessarily hand-wringing, expensive
testing that is a direct result of the high cost of
an individual test. ELV development can be an
incredibly vicious tradeoff circle of the number of test versus
the cost of individual tests. BTW, some major companies
have considered that this may be a valid development-
cost model; however, this type of thinking was completely
ignored in the Space Shuttle development-cost economic model
that led to the erroneous decision in favor of expendable tanks,
SRBs, etc., instead of the Phase A concepts. Some of the
Phase A concepts would not only have been much less
expensive to operate, IMO, they also could have been
CHEAPER to develop. The economic model was severely
flawed, IMO>
> ....I do note that organizations which have
> been extremely successful in the commercial aviation business
> apparently do not regard reusable launch vehicles as a very lucrative
> market. Of course, the lack of cheap space access may be a case
> of "absence of evidence" rather than "evidence of absence" (=CATS is
> very hard), as I believe.
>
Clever way of stating the problem.
However, a completely different market from the competitive
point of view. A susbonic transport is an extremely sophisticated
design precisely because it has to compete headon with
other subsonic transports and other forms of transportation.
RLVs, OTOH -- with a sufficiently elastic dollar/tonnage
market -- are competing with sitting ducks, with respect
to relative competition in the dollars/kg of payload
marketplace. Of course, there is an all-important
transistion phase; in this phase, the RLV developer
has to be very careful about front-end investment.
> > > If commercial passenger aircraft are
> > > any indication, an FAA-certified safe ...
> >
> > Present law does not require an FAA-certified RLV. If
> > it ever does, kiss CATS goodbye for a long time to come.
>
> But if the main market is space tourism, the vehicle will have to meet
> similar safety regulations. If your business case is based on the idea
> that you fly lots of tourists while charging only a comparatively
> small amount of money per flight, you will be badly affected by a
> Challenger- type accident. Of course, your own "Antenna Farm" plans
> may be superior in this respect.
Yes. Space tourism has never been our primary market --
either for orbital or suborbital, for this reason. I
do try to use the allure of space tourism -- with a
belief that it can become a reality with enough
operational experience under our belt -- as a potential
way of raising development funds. Hence, our space
tourism sweepstakes to promote third-party businesses
(with commissions). But, I agree that carrying space
tourists with a vehicle that has to be proven trhough
certification,rather than trhough experience looks like
a real loser.
>
> > As I've said
> > before, economic elasticity is the core problem of
> > RLV marketability. What you view as a problem is the
> > real solution to the real problem. A large fleet
> > flying many thousands of flights per year is just
> > what is needed to make an RLV viable.
>
> I suspect the initial startup costs will be higher, though. Existing
> off-the-shelf LV systems (engines in particular) tend to have a
> shorter lifetime than aircraft systems. They also cost more and
> require more maintenance, hence the relatively timid "Shuttle like"
> goals proposed for the Venturestar, K-1, Astroliner, Pathfinder...
>
Engines are a long pole in the maintenance-cost tent.
This is factored into our cost estimates and is based
upon hard test data for the RL10. There are plenty
of operational data for our booster airbreathers, and
this maintenance/ownership cost is not particularly
significant. A little scarier are our booster rocket engines;
we are avoiding the usual suspects. Instead we hope to
rely on reusable pressure-feds or a simple hydrocarbon
based upon John Hare's low-cost pumps and our concept
for driving the pumps. Our approach to cost and mass
estimates is more of a grass-roots, rather than a
parametric, approach. But if a component is too heavy
or too costly, we look elsewhere.
> ---
>
> On the other hand, if you want to fly hundreds of orbital missions per
> year at aircraft-like cost, I believe you will have to spend more
> money on vehicle and technology development than otherwise would be
> the case.
Hundreds of flights per year is a low flight level for
an aviation fleet. We should not generally be faced
with the same level of fatigue problems. An RLV that
is designed for incremental flight testing is also
not likely to need a standing army to turn it around.
The main difference is rocket propulsion, not airframe
-- especially with a low planform loading, low heating
reentry and reasonable landing characteristics.
> I also note that jet aircraft were not very efficient or economical
> right from the beginning; jet propulsion required a decade or more to
> become competitive vs. propeller aircraft. The X-15, SR-71 and Space
> Shuttle has had the same initial problems.
>
RLVs do not have to be nearly as good to meet the
relative competition.
> ---
>
> I agree that there are lots of "ifs" "buts" and "maybes" when
> discussing the likely cost and difficulty of building a low-cost RLV,
> though. I do think it's much safer to start on a comparatively
> unambitious level and simply aim for the kind of performance the Space
> Shuttle was supposed to deliver 15 years ago. I.e., 60 flights/year
and
> transportation costs of $1000-$1500/lb for existing payloads. If you
> need lower costs and higher flight rates than that, it might be safer
> to do an X-15 type suborbital vehicle rather than a fully reusable
SSTO
> or TSTO.
>
These goals were not high enough. A cursory analysis
suggests that an RLV type must fly hundreds of flights
per year to start to be interesting; it must fly thousands
of flghts a year before it starts reaching its full
potential. Obviously, it cannot be politically designed
like the Shuttle -- or there is no chance of getting
there from here.
> > I admit that
> > I could have a hard time selling small cargo payloads
> > to some potential users -- but people?
>
> Propellant may be another "any size is OK" type of cargo. ...
We seem to agree to some degree on this one.
> ... Let's say the US government wants to transport 250t of
> LH2+LOX to LEO per year.
> Boeing could propose launching a dozen heavy-lift Delta IVs, and the
> key parameters (achievable launch rate, marginal cost per flight, cost
> of expendable cargo transfer vehicle) would be reasonably well known
> from previous projects. I think launching 250 1000-kg Space Vans per
> year would be a lot riskier, though.
>
Why riskier economically? Aborts and hull losses are
factored in. Human life loss would be unfortunate,
but inevitable, as it is for all forms of transportation
-- or even couch sitting.
> > Just what is
> > it that precludes carrying five passengers (with full-
> > size seats) at a time, rather than 50 or 500? For
> > subsonic transports, the answer is the economics of
> > the lengths and destinations that can support large
> > transports. But everything that I have done with respect
> > to RLV economics points in the opposite diretion for
> > RLVs.
>
> I agree that RLVs need to fly a certain number of missions per
> year ( ~30 flights) to be competitive. Like I said, I am just
... I think the number is at least 200-500 flights per
year (for the fleet), and thousands of flights per year
make much more business sense. There is a continuing
operational learning curve for a specific type of vehicle.
My calculations that a larger investment for lower
operational costs per kg (neglecting other good arguments
for larger payloads per flight) does not make business
sense until the small RLV is flying as many as 100,000
flights per year.
> .... not sure it is a
> very good idea to base your business plans on the assumptions you will
> effortlessly fly hundreds of missions per year right from the
> start. "Conventional wisdom" says the first commercial RLVs had better
> be priced only slightly below existing ELVs. New emerging markets and
> RLV technologies + operational experience will eventually permit the
> operators to profitably increase flight rates and reduce launch
prices.
>
As you might guess by now, I am not guided by
conventional wisdom. And I have no intention of
wasting much time trying to sell launches to current
LV customers. Our problem is to somehow raise
$150 million -- plus another $50 milllion for
the first phase of the orbital facility. If we
can find a way to do this, we intend to use this
capability to build products and services that
are far more marketable than launches.
Through our vertical integration approach, we have
not lessened any real problems that may, or may not,
be associated with on-orbit assembly and proepellant
handling. However, we have sidestepped the potentially
impossilbe problem of selling small payloads an high
traffic levels to some potential customers; we do,
however, still have to be able to raise the front-end
money, which, IMO, is at least 90 percent of the CATS
problem.
> >
> > Well, I think that $50k may be adequeate for carrying
> > people to orbit -- perhaps for a one-week stay. IMO,
> > this should be far more marketable than $50k for a
> > 10-minute mach 4 flight (plus any loiter or flyback
> > time).
>
> This depends on what your costs are, though. The more
> timid orbital RLV cost estimates are in the $500-1000/lb
> range which translates to six-figure ticket prices.
> Mach 4 space tourism may be cheaper and easier
> in the short term. Besides, the cost and risk has to be
> reduced to an absolute minimum for private investors to
> participate.
>
We should be able to do $50k after we have written off some
of the front-end money and have gained operational experience.
For development and early operations, we do not intend to
burden the vehicle and investment with regulatory supervision
of a passenger-carrying capability. We assume that carrying
company personnel will fall into a catetory different from
the general public.
> MARCU$
Bet regards,
Len (Cormier) for MMI
Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc. /and/ PanAero, Inc.
--
MMI = 2001: the start of the third millennium
l...@tour2space.com ( http://www.tour2space.com )
mlin...@my-deja.com
> mlin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I agree, the historical evidence is not there for
> RLVs and "mom and pop shops" supersonic aircraft.
> And this does make my type of argument rather difficult.
The only solution (unless the financial community is willing to gamble
on you or Rotary-) is to have a "mom and pop" experimental vehicle.
Unfortunately, it seems direct government funding automatically
increases the cost as well! So we're probably better off with a prize or
reward of some sort. The $10-million X-Prize does not seem to have made
much of a difference so far. Maybe the situation would improve if the US
government contributed another $100 million?
---
As long as you are not building any hardware, the second-best option
would be to compare the cost of an advanced homebuilt aircraft with a
corresponding military airplane. For example, the BD-10 ought to be in
the same performance ballpark as a Hawk military training aircraft but
it probably cost far less. But this argument is not as convincing as
actually building a vehicle...sceptics like myself will say it is
dangerous to extrapolate from relatively simple subsonic aircraft to
RLVs. It is clearly possible to build the former on a real shoestring,
but there is no evidence the orbital RLVs will be as easy.
> Having said that, what are the arguments in support of
> small vs big aerospace for doing something like an RLV?
> The success stories for the first decade of aviation, IMO,
> was with the "mom and pop's." They did wonders with 10 HP
> engines. The Wright Bros. without government support
> did better than Langley.
Sure, but the cost of building state-of-the-art aircraft has increased
dramatically since WW II. Only a handful of companies can afford to
build commercial jets today, and military aviation may be pricing itself
out of existence as Norm Augustine once remarked.
---
I don't think there is any clear evidence that you, XOr Aerospace, TGV
Rockets, Rotary etc. could build a fully reusable low-cost orbit-capable
RLV for as little as a few hunded million dollars. The Big Aerospace
Establishment thinks it would cost billions. Having said that, I would
like to give you guys a chance to prove your ideas are correct, by
actually building some hardware. If the financial community is too risk
adverse, I think having the US taxpayer pay the cost in some indirect
manner (e.g. prizes) would be acceptable.
> I am more and more amazed myself, when I see the capabilities
> of some of the home-built suppliers. Particularly, some
> that have not been mentioned here. The BD-10 does have
> some flaws, but Jim did not spend much money on it,
> either.
That's another problem...trying to cut corners has rarely produced
positive results in past entrepreneurial LV projects. I note most of the
new ELV companies in the 1980s also said they were going to be really
efficient and cost effective, but they rarely had enough resources to
cope with the unexpected problems that invariably surfaced. I am no
expert on homebuilt aircraft, but I seem to recall Jim Bede's previous
BD-5 project had an appalling safety record.
> however, this type of thinking
[=incremental flight testing]
> was completely
> ignored in the Space Shuttle development-cost economic model
> that led to the erroneous decision in favor of expendable tanks,
> SRBs, etc., instead of the Phase A concepts. Some of the
> Phase A concepts would not only have been much less
> expensive to operate, IMO, they also could have been
> CHEAPER to develop. The economic model was severely
> flawed, IMO>
However, it isn't clear incremental flight testing of vertically
launched multistage RLVs can be done as cheaply or easily as for
aircraft. Unless you're carrying landing jets, your abort & landing
options will more restricted than for powered aircraft. I note the X-33
will have to achieve at least Mach 3 on its maiden flight for a safe
landing (this is due to its vertical launch mode), and TSTOs would have
a risky staging maneuver as well. You may start by doing unpowered glide
landings like OV-101 Enterprise did in 1976, but the step from that to
powered launchings is relatively great.
---
You may also need a new custom-built engine for your RLV. NASA was
convinced the F-1 and J-2 didn't provide enough performance or would
have a long-enough lifetime, so they did the SSME instead.
Ground-testing a new engine is an extremely expensive business, so you
start with a very high cost.
> Space tourism has never been our primary market --
> either for orbital or suborbital, for this reason. I
[...]
> agree that carrying space
> tourists with a vehicle that has to be proven trhough
> certification,rather than trhough experience looks like
> a real loser.
Well, there are two schools of thought on that. You are "starting at the
top" if you want to do an orbital RLV primarily designed for carrying
unmanned payloads. I think your goals are breathtakingly ambitious
already, but they nonetheless fall slightly short of what's required to
serve the space tourism market (e.g. flight safety and cost). You would
eventually get there, however, as you gain more experience.
---
The other option is to do what VelaTech or Bristol Spaceplanes are
doing, i.e. "start at the bottom" while gradually working your way up.
These organizations seem to be working on Mach 4 RLVs that would be
flown and certified like aircraft while meeting the requirements of
space tourism right from the start. It's not an unreasonably expensive
process for aircraft development, so it might be easier to stretch the
philosophy to a Mach 4 rocketplane. Their PERFORMANCE goals are much
less ambitious than yours, though -- but ECONOMY and SAFETY will be much
more important since they will be carrying passengers right from the
start.
> Hundreds of flights per year is a low flight level for
> an aviation fleet. We should not generally be faced
> with the same level of fatigue problems. An RLV that
> is designed for incremental flight testing is also
> not likely to need a standing army to turn it around.
> The main difference is rocket propulsion, not airframe
> -- especially with a low planform loading, low heating
> reentry and reasonable landing characteristics.
I note most RLV proposals assume the airframe would have a lifetime of
only 100 to 200 flights, versus thousands or even tens of thousands of
flights for aircraft. Why?
> > ... Let's say the US government wants to transport 250t of
> > LH2+LOX to LEO per year.
> > Boeing could propose launching a dozen heavy-lift Delta IVs, and the
> > key parameters (achievable launch rate, marginal cost per flight,
cost
> > of expendable cargo transfer vehicle) would be reasonably well known
> > from previous projects. I think launching 250 1000-kg Space Vans per
> > year would be a lot riskier, though.
> >
> Why riskier economically? Aborts and hull losses are
> factored in. Human life loss would be unfortunate,
> but inevitable, as it is for all forms of transportation
> -- or even couch sitting.
It's much riskier because Third Millennium has never built any Space
Vans before. In fact, *nobody* has ever built a Space Van. The closest
thing is probably the X-15, which achieved a maximum of *forty* flights
per year to Mach 5-6... Three vehicles were built and the two surviving
aircraft were totally banged up after the X-15 program ended. A total of
199 flights were made over nine years.
---
In contrast, _launching_ 250t of propellant on ELVs is clearly feasible.
The Russians have achieved 15 or 16 Proton launches per year and we have
a good grasp of what the total ELV cost would be.
---
However, this does not mean I am opposed to anybody proposing a high
flight-rate RLV for launching spacecraft propellant! The additional
demand for launch services could hopefully translate to new
opportunities for start-up companies, and the successful ones would
further reduce the cost. But I feel a manned Moon/Mars project
_initially_ should be based on proven launch vehicles or else it
wouldn't survive politically. Like ISS today, the operational costs
would be very high and it would not be possible to fully utilize the
system (=lunar/Mars transportation system) without CATS.
> > I agree that RLVs need to fly a certain number of missions per
> > year ( ~30 flights) to be competitive. Like I said, I am just
>
> ... I think the number is at least 200-500 flights per
> year (for the fleet), and thousands of flights per year
> make much more business sense. There is a continuing
> operational learning curve for a specific type of vehicle.
> My calculations that a larger investment for lower
> operational costs per kg (neglecting other good arguments
> for larger payloads per flight) does not make business
> sense until the small RLV is flying as many as 100,000
> flights per year.
But the goal is to make a decent profit at the lowest possible risk --
not necessarily to achieve the biggest possible cost reductions!
---
For example, if I could persuade the US government to buy 100 X-15
flights for $300-400 million (including termination liability in case
Congress terminates the program), I probably have a much stronger
business case... The reason is, I have a guaranteed source of income and
the X-15's performance requirements are well known. I could show how
much the X-15 & X-34 cost to build and operate, what the lifetimes of
the important subsystems were -- no real technical uncertainties or
risks as far as the eye can see. Of course, I won't be starting any
"CATS revolution" or creating any new launch markets; but my investors
would still finance the project if the return on investment looks good
enough. This is how Orbital Sciences Corp. did with the Pegasus, i.e.
you sign a launch contract with DARPA or somebody and then convince
investors the technical plan is firmly within the state-of-the-art. The
Pegasus is no Roton or Space Van, but it was clearly do-able so the
private sector agreed to finance its development...
> As you might guess by now, I am not guided by
> conventional wisdom. And I have no intention of
> wasting much time trying to sell launches to current
> LV customers. Our problem is to somehow raise
> $150 million -- plus another $50 milllion for
> the first phase of the orbital facility. If we
> can find a way to do this, we intend to use this
> capability to build products and services that
> are far more marketable than launches.
>
> Through our vertical integration approach, we have
> not lessened any real problems that may, or may not,
> be associated with on-orbit assembly and proepellant
> handling.
Uh, this sounds like the same potential "chicken-and-egg" problem NASA
had with the Shuttle. Their mission models from the early 1970s assumed
the Shuttle would fly 40 times a year, plus 20 Spacelab flights. The
sceptics objected (correctly, as it turned out) that the entire
commercial, USAF & NASA launch market would be worth at most 20 STS
flights a year. NASA's response was that the Shuttle would permit
cheaper payload designs, and that the cost reductions would translate to
more money for unmanned science satellites and space probes. For this
reason, the agency assumed a total of 34 space probes would be launched
on the Shuttle in 1979-91. Most of the projects were cancelled in
1978-82 or never authorized at all, when unexpected cost overruns and
delays forced NASA to slash its space science spending. In the end, only
two probes on the list (Galileo, Magellan) made it to orbit and they
were delayed three years by the Challenger accident. You also seem to be
proposing two interdependent high-risk projects; if one fails, the other
won't succeed either.
---
I suspect it's better to do something that is perfectly feasible using
existing ELVs, but could be significantly more lucrative if a new
low-cost reusable launch vehicle were available. This was the philosophy
behind the Kistler K-1 and Venturestar, and I still think the basic idea
is a good one. Historically, people have usually built new
transportation systems to address EXISTING markets that may not have
been very "mainstream" or economically important when the venture was
started but nonetheless represented a real financial opportunity. Small
(LEO) satellites could be such a launch market, and the government could
create artificial incentives such as ISS or the GEO/Moon/Mars LEO
transportation node.
---
By the way, I am not convinced the financial community is primarily
interested in investing in AEROSPACE PROJECTS (=a single vehicle or
mission). These are awfully risky. Consequently the successful players
in the entrepreneurial aerospace game (Orbital Sciences, Scaled
Composites) etc. offer a diverse range of products without putting all
their eggs in one basket. I think Jim Benson's SpaceDev may be evolving
in this direction as well, by buying other organization and hiring a
diverse team of specialists. Stockholders are probably more interested
in the value of the COMPANY and its financial prospects, rather than
individual projects.
MARCU$
Rand Simberg
>> Having said that, what are the arguments in support of
>> small vs big aerospace for doing something like an RLV?
>> The success stories for the first decade of aviation, IMO,
>> was with the "mom and pop's." They did wonders with 10 HP
>> engines. The Wright Bros. without government support
>> did better than Langley.
>
>
>Sure, but the cost of building state-of-the-art aircraft has increased
>dramatically since WW II. Only a handful of companies can afford to
>build commercial jets today, and military aviation may be pricing itself
>out of existence as Norm Augustine once remarked.
But that's mostly because of the high costs of FAA certification. If
the launch industry can escape that for a while, you actually can "mom
and pop" a launcher (in the context of relative dollars between now
and a hundred years ago).
>That's another problem...trying to cut corners has rarely produced
>positive results in past entrepreneurial LV projects. I note most of the
>new ELV companies in the 1980s also said they were going to be really
>efficient and cost effective, but they rarely had enough resources to
>cope with the unexpected problems that invariably surfaced. I am no
>expert on homebuilt aircraft, but I seem to recall Jim Bede's previous
>BD-5 project had an appalling safety record.
Well, "appalling" is in the mind of he being appalled. I suspect that
its safety record was no worse than many aircraft in the 1920's, or a
commercial ELV <g>.
>However, it isn't clear incremental flight testing of vertically
>launched multistage RLVs can be done as cheaply or easily as for
>aircraft.
Well, it's quite clear that they can't, but that isn't the bar. It
doesn't have to be as cheap as aircraft--just cheap enough. It would
be better compared to building and flight testing present ELV's.
>Unless you're carrying landing jets, your abort & landing
>options will more restricted than for powered aircraft.
Yes, and several companies have proposed just that.
>I note the X-33
>will have to achieve at least Mach 3 on its maiden flight for a safe
>landing (this is due to its vertical launch mode),
Well, it's not due to its vertical launch mode so much as the
combination of its vertical launch mode and horizontal landing mode.
Roton doesn't require any particular velocity for a safe abort (as has
already been demonstrated).
>You may also need a new custom-built engine for your RLV. NASA was
>convinced the F-1 and J-2 didn't provide enough performance or would
>have a long-enough lifetime, so they did the SSME instead.
Well, perhaps NASA was wrong--certainly there was undeniable political
pressure to give Marshall an engine development.
>> Space tourism has never been our primary market --
>> either for orbital or suborbital, for this reason. I
>[...]
>> agree that carrying space
>> tourists with a vehicle that has to be proven trhough
>> certification,rather than trhough experience looks like
>> a real loser.
>I note most RLV proposals assume the airframe would have a lifetime of
>only 100 to 200 flights, versus thousands or even tens of thousands of
>flights for aircraft. Why?
An excellent question. I don't know any technical reason for it. I
suspect it's mostly just because it's an unknown, since we have so
little actual experience with reusables, and it perhaps helps with
credibility to investors who have been taught for the last forty years
by NASA et al that "space is hard."
>But the goal is to make a decent profit at the lowest possible risk --
>not necessarily to achieve the biggest possible cost reductions!
For some (like me), both goals are important. If my only goal were to
make a decent profit at the lowest possible risk, I wouldn't be
involved in the space business at all. ;-)
>Uh, this sounds like the same potential "chicken-and-egg" problem NASA
>had with the Shuttle. Their mission models from the early 1970s assumed
>the Shuttle would fly 40 times a year, plus 20 Spacelab flights. The
>sceptics objected (correctly, as it turned out) that the entire
>commercial, USAF & NASA launch market would be worth at most 20 STS
>flights a year. NASA's response was that the Shuttle would permit
>cheaper payload designs, and that the cost reductions would translate to
>more money for unmanned science satellites and space probes. For this
>reason, the agency assumed a total of 34 space probes would be launched
>on the Shuttle in 1979-91. Most of the projects were cancelled in
>1978-82 or never authorized at all, when unexpected cost overruns and
>delays forced NASA to slash its space science spending. In the end, only
>two probes on the list (Galileo, Magellan) made it to orbit and they
>were delayed three years by the Challenger accident. You also seem to be
>proposing two interdependent high-risk projects; if one fails, the other
>won't succeed either.
But this history doesn't necessarily mean that the theory was
bad--just that it was poorly implemented due to political constraints
(shortfalls in development funds, need to maintain employment in
Houston, Hunstville, Coco Beach, etc.).
Kwr...@rockisland.com
>In article <85b7ab$1n2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Len (Cormier) for MMI <l...@tour2space.com> wrote:
>> In article <85a2f3$8us$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>---
>I don't think there is any clear evidence that you, XOr Aerospace, TGV
>Rockets, Rotary etc. could build a fully reusable low-cost orbit-capable
>RLV for as little as a few hunded million dollars. The Big Aerospace
>Establishment thinks it would cost billions. Having said that, I would
>like to give you guys a chance to prove your ideas are correct, by
>actually building some hardware. If the financial community is too risk
>adverse, I think having the US taxpayer pay the cost in some indirect
>manner (e.g. prizes) would be acceptable.
By far the best incentive would be a loan guarantee program like the
one currently proposed in Congress. Currently, the government gives
loan guarantees to all kinds of industries. Developing an RLV is more
worthy than most of these. This will also cost the government very
little. As long as an RLV is financed by high yield debt, there will
never be a significant reduction in launch costs, even if a new RLV
has dramatically lower operating costs.
>---
>You may also need a new custom-built engine for your RLV. NASA was
>convinced the F-1 and J-2 didn't provide enough performance or would
>have a long-enough lifetime, so they did the SSME instead.
>Ground-testing a new engine is an extremely expensive business, so you
>start with a very high cost.
Roton seems to have discontinued their engine development.
Most of the RLVs projects use existing engines.
Space Access LLC has already spent a lot of money testing their
ejector ramjet. This is an area that the government can help with,
providing testing facilities at low or no cost.
>The other option is to do what VelaTech or Bristol Spaceplanes are
>doing, i.e. "start at the bottom" while gradually working your way up.
>These organizations seem to be working on Mach 4 RLVs that would be
>flown and certified like aircraft while meeting the requirements of
>space tourism right from the start. It's not an unreasonably expensive
>process for aircraft development, so it might be easier to stretch the
>philosophy to a Mach 4 rocketplane. Their PERFORMANCE goals are much
>less ambitious than yours, though -- but ECONOMY and SAFETY will be much
>more important since they will be carrying passengers right from the
>start.
There is a huge advantage to building to aircraft certified standards
(FAR 25) even if you are not carrying passengers. Insurance cost for
payloads will be dramatically lower. Operations would also be much
safer for the areas around the takeoff and landing facilities. I know
that Space Access is advertising full FAR 25 compliance, giving them
engineout, loiter and divert capabilities. Are there any other orbital
RLV systems that are trying to do this ?
>For example, if I could persuade the US government to buy 100 X-15
>flights for $300-400 million (including termination liability in case
>Congress terminates the program), I probably have a much stronger
>business case... The reason is, I have a guaranteed source of income and
>the X-15's performance requirements are well known. I could show how
>much the X-15 & X-34 cost to build and operate, what the lifetimes of
>the important subsystems were -- no real technical uncertainties or
>risks as far as the eye can see. Of course, I won't be starting any
>"CATS revolution" or creating any new launch markets; but my investors
>would still finance the project if the return on investment looks good
>enough. This is how Orbital Sciences Corp. did with the Pegasus, i.e.
>you sign a launch contract with DARPA or somebody and then convince
>investors the technical plan is firmly within the state-of-the-art. The
>Pegasus is no Roton or Space Van, but it was clearly do-able so the
>private sector agreed to finance its development...
This is in fact part of the history that is holding the RLV companies
back. Investors are worried that the USG will do that again with a RLV
or and EV and wipeout the competition. As the USG has done this
before, and has given no indications that it will not do so again,
investors are waiting until the government picks the winner before
they commit their money.
.
Kwr...@rockisland.com
simberg.i...@trash.org (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 15:32:34 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>>mlin...@my-deja.com
>>
>>Sure, but the cost of building state-of-the-art aircraft has increased
>>dramatically since WW II. Only a handful of companies can afford to
>>build commercial jets today, and military aviation may be pricing itself
>>out of existence as Norm Augustine once remarked.
>But that's mostly because of the high costs of FAA certification.
Military aircraft do not go through FAA certification.
>>I note the X-33
>>will have to achieve at least Mach 3 on its maiden flight for a safe
>>landing (this is due to its vertical launch mode),
>Well, it's not due to its vertical launch mode so much as the
>combination of its vertical launch mode and horizontal landing mode.
>Roton doesn't require any particular velocity for a safe abort (as has
>already been demonstrated).
Aren’t the rotors stowed for launch ?
There must be some minimum altitude they need for a safe abort.
It must deploy the rotors and get them spun up to create enough lift
for a soft landing. Anyone know what the altitude is ?
Rand Simberg
Kwr...@rockisland.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>>But that's mostly because of the high costs of FAA certification.
>Military aircraft do not go through FAA certification.
No, military aircraft are expensive for other reasons (much different
requirements), which still do not apply to launchers.
Rand Simberg
Kwr...@rockisland.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>There is a huge advantage to building to aircraft certified standards
>(FAR 25) even if you are not carrying passengers. Insurance cost for
>payloads will be dramatically lower.
Perhaps, but not necessarily lower enough to justify the cost.
>Operations would also be much
>safer for the areas around the takeoff and landing facilities.
That is not clear.
>I know
>that Space Access is advertising full FAR 25 compliance, giving them
>engineout, loiter and divert capabilities. Are there any other orbital
>RLV systems that are trying to do this ?
No. Space Access is also advertising a several billion dollar
development cost...
Michael P. Walsh
Kwr...@rockisland.com wrote:
> mlin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <85b7ab$1n2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Len (Cormier) for MMI <l...@tour2space.com> wrote:
> >> In article <85a2f3$8us$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >---
> >I don't think there is any clear evidence that you, XOr Aerospace, TGV
> >Rockets, Rotary etc. could build a fully reusable low-cost orbit-capable
> >RLV for as little as a few hunded million dollars. The Big Aerospace
> >Establishment thinks it would cost billions. Having said that, I would
> >like to give you guys a chance to prove your ideas are correct, by
> >actually building some hardware. If the financial community is too risk
> >adverse, I think having the US taxpayer pay the cost in some indirect
> >manner (e.g. prizes) would be acceptable.
>
> By far the best incentive would be a loan guarantee program like the
> one currently proposed in Congress. Currently, the government gives
> loan guarantees to all kinds of industries. Developing an RLV is more
> worthy than most of these. This will also cost the government very
> little. As long as an RLV is financed by high yield debt, there will
> never be a significant reduction in launch costs, even if a new RLV
> has dramatically lower operating costs.
>
> >---
>
> >You may also need a new custom-built engine for your RLV. NASA was
> >convinced the F-1 and J-2 didn't provide enough performance or would
> >have a long-enough lifetime, so they did the SSME instead.
> >Ground-testing a new engine is an extremely expensive business, so you
> >start with a very high cost.
>
> Roton seems to have discontinued their engine development.
> Most of the RLVs projects use existing engines.
> Space Access LLC has already spent a lot of money testing their
> ejector ramjet. This is an area that the government can help with,
> providing testing facilities at low or no cost.
---
---
---
It isn't clear to me that Space Access LLC has spent any money
at all on testing their ejector ramjet.
I would be delighted to see some proof that they are. So far,
the money seemed to have been spent by the U.S. Government
and the tests are on subscale hardware.
OK, companies are secretive on things like this, so they
could be doing something and just not telling.
I would appreciate any information that would invalidate my
comments.
Mike Walsh
Len for MMI
mlin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <85b7ab$1n2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Len (Cormier) for MMI <l...@tour2space.com> wrote:
> > In article <85a2f3$8us$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > mlin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > I agree, the historical evidence is not there for
> > RLVs and "mom and pop shops" supersonic aircraft.
> > And this does make my type of argument rather difficult.
>
> The only solution (unless the financial community is willing
> to gamble on you or Rotary-) is to have a "mom and pop"
> experimental vehicle. Unfortunately, it seems direct government
> funding automatically increases the cost as well! So we're
> probably better off with a prize or reward of some sort. The
> $10-million X-Prize does not seem to have made much of a
> difference so far. Maybe the situation would improve if the
> US government contributed another $100 million?
>
community is not likely to fund this type of game.
I don't waste much time anymore pursuing this
possibility. A government guarantee to buy services
-- IF a potential service provider is able to deliver
low-cost payloads, such as propellants for an OPTION
to use for a different approach to deep-space
exploration -- might turn the trick with regard to
financing. Although, as you point out elsewhere,
low-cost RLV advocates like ourselves would still
lack a proven track record.
To be effective, the guarantee would have to be a
"hands-off" relationship, with no up-front
funding and no payments until the services are
delivered as promised. Any other arrangement --
including payments for experimental vehicles like
the X-34 -- is likely to destroy any possibility of
a truly entrepreneurial program. U.S. Government support
of the SST 25 to 30 years ago also demonstrated the
incompatibility of direct government funding and a
truly commercial approach to development.
A third (unmentioned) option is to somehow earn the
money with other activities. This is our main approach.
We do have other projects in mind as a "means to an end."
These are in addition to our present main approach of
using the eventual promise of space tourism as a potential
option to cash prizes in sweepstakes designed to earn
commissions through the promotion of third-party businesses
with the sweepstakes. Whew! That's a lot to say in one
breath. But the lousy situation drives one to an
intricate plan.
We entrepreneurs need some combination or credibility
and money. With enough credibility, we can probably
get the money. With enough money, we wouldn't need
the credibility -- but credibility would come with the
money. Finding a way to earn it may be less effort and
more practical than trying to raise not-too-venturesome
venture capital.
> ---
>
> As long as you are not building any hardware, the second-best option
> would be to compare the cost of an advanced homebuilt aircraft with a
> corresponding military airplane. For example, the BD-10 ought to be in
> the same performance ballpark as a Hawk military training aircraft but
> it probably cost far less. But this argument is not as convincing as
> actually building a vehicle...sceptics like myself will say it is
> dangerous to extrapolate from relatively simple subsonic aircraft to
> RLVs. It is clearly possible to build the former on a real shoestring,
> but there is no evidence the orbital RLVs will be as easy.
>
Other home-built suppliers have a rather good safety
record, including designing for non-professional pilots.
One company with which we are working has built and
delivered 148 pre-built wing sets to satisfied customers.
The retail price of such components seems to be in the
$75/lbm category for well-built, medium-tech components.
Bede is perhaps not the best example; although Jim has
perhaps been willing to push the potential speed and
altitude (not range) envelope for this type of aircraft
further than others.
As for building RLVs relatively cheaply, you're right:
There is no evidence that this is possible. There is
also no evidence that it is not possible. It just
hasn't been tried.
> > Having said that, what are the arguments in support of
> > small vs big aerospace for doing something like an RLV?
> > The success stories for the first decade of aviation, IMO,
> > was with the "mom and pop's." They did wonders with 10 HP
> > engines. The Wright Bros. without government support
> > did better than Langley.
>
> Sure, but the cost of building state-of-the-art aircraft
> has increased dramatically since WW II. Only a handful of
> companies can afford to build commercial jets today, and
> military aviation may be pricing itself
> out of existence as Norm Augustine once remarked.
>
But, IMO, this is only in (small) part due to increased
complexity. I blame most of the phenomenom on incredibly
bad procurement practices. And this then becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy. If the game were more open
and really competitive, costs would be a lot lower, IMO.
As for commercial aircraft, there are actually quite
a few companies involved, although only the handful
you mention for wide-body jets. A lot of the contraints
on commercial aircraft are due to regulatory and
certification costs. Smaller general aviation aircraft
are only beginning to rebound from excessive awards for
questionable lawsuits. These last factors are less
applciable for an integrated RLV/application approach
where operations are internal business.
> ---
>
> I don't think there is any clear evidence that you,
> XOr [XCor-] Aerospace, TGV, Rockets, Rotary etc. could build
> a fully reusable low-cost orbit-capable RLV for as little
> as a few hunded million dollars. The Big Aerospace
> Establishment thinks it would cost billions. Having said that,
> I would like to give you guys a chance to prove your ideas are
> correct, by actually building some hardware. If the financial
> community is too risk adverse, I think having the US taxpayer
> pay the cost in some indirect manner (e.g. prizes) would be
> acceptable.
>
See earlier comments. I appreciate your desire to
support entrepreneurial efforts, including trying
to find concrete ways for governement to do this
in a practical maner.
> > I am more and more amazed myself, when I see the capabilities
> > of some of the home-built suppliers. Particularly, some
> > that have not been mentioned here. The BD-10 does have
> > some flaws, but Jim did not spend much money on it,
> > either.
>
> That's another problem...trying to cut corners has rarely produced
> positive results in past entrepreneurial LV projects. I note most
> of the new ELV companies in the 1980s also said they were going
> to be really efficient and cost effective, but they rarely had
> enough resources to cope with the unexpected problems that
> invariably surfaced. I am no expert on homebuilt aircraft, but
> I seem to recall Jim Bede's previous BD-5 project had an appalling
> safety record.
>
Let's don't consider the BD-5 and BD-10 as being
really representative of the home-built industry.
As for cutting corners with LV development, I
really think that a small RLV has more potential
for methodical development within a small budget
because of its suitability for incremental flight
testing.
> > however, this type of thinking
>
> [=incremental flight testing]
>
> > was completely
> > ignored in the Space Shuttle development-cost economic model
> > that led to the erroneous decision in favor of expendable tanks,
> > SRBs, etc., instead of the Phase A concepts. Some of the
> > Phase A concepts would not only have been much less
> > expensive to operate, IMO, they also could have been
> > CHEAPER to develop. The economic model was severely
> > flawed, IMO>
>
> However, it isn't clear incremental flight testing of vertically
> launched multistage RLVs can be done as cheaply or easily as for
> aircraft. Unless you're carrying landing jets, your abort & landing
> options will more restricted than for powered aircraft. I note the
> X-33 will have to achieve at least Mach 3 on its maiden flight for
> a safe landing (this is due to its vertical launch mode), and TSTOs
> would have a risky staging maneuver as well. You may start by doing
> unpowered glide landings like OV-101 Enterprise did in 1976, but
> the step from that to powered launchings is relatively great.
>
I have found no significant performance advantages for
HTOL versus VTOL/VTOHL. However, I have found OPERATIONAL
advantages -- including suitability for incremental flight
testing -- that favor HTOL. Consequently, I have tended
to favor HTOL. But you can also misdesign HTOL vehicles.
I shall not try to defend such vehicles. Our own design
lends itself to incremental flight testing and low-risk
staging above the atmosphere -- as well as engine-out
capability at all times. Using airliner turbofans, the
booster makes powered approaches and landings with or
without the empty orbiter.
The orbiter reenters at about one-fourth the planform
loading of the Shuttle and lands at less than one-seventh
the span loading. That makes the X Van orbiter much
cooler on reenty and a lot easier to land. Even so, we
plan a low-cost "trainer" that can be launched from our
booster.
> ---
>
> You may also need a new custom-built engine for your RLV. NASA was
> convinced the F-1 and J-2 didn't provide enough performance or would
> have a long-enough lifetime, so they did the SSME instead.
> Ground-testing a new engine is an extremely expensive business, so you
> start with a very high cost.
>
The booster turbofans are existing engines. The
booster rockets will either be pressure-fed or
will be similar thrust chambers with John Hare's
low-cost pumps and our concept for driving the
pumps. The booster rockets are not used below
11 km and do not require altitude compensation.
The booster rocket engines will require some
quite modest development effort. Pratt & Whitney
expects to deliver the RL50 in 2003; we would be
hard-pressed to specify a more appropriate engine
for our orbiter.
Engine selection by NASA seems to have been more
political than technical. The XRL-129 was fairly
far along on the development path, but the SSME
got the nod nonetheless.
Well, I won't argue this point too strenuously, since I
am proud to support the Vela program as a senior advisor
and I feel the basic approach is well thought out.
However, the orbital approach is harder to achieve only with
respect to vehicle performance, not passenger safety. In
fact, mach 3 or 4 at 100 km is actually a rather awkward
place to be. Recovery can result in rather high g's if
one does not take special precautions. However, 100 km
from orbital velocity is a quite natural place to be;
with lifting reentry, the g-load on passengers can be
quite benign. In either case, one must also deal with the
space environment -- albeit for a much shorter time with
the suborbital type of flight. Our orbiter will be manned
on all flights with a pilot; some flights will carry company
personnel instead of carg. I choose to try to gain experience
in this manner while earning revenue with non-tourism missions
to build a proven track record for carrying passengers.
I feel fortunate to be able to bet on both options; both
are good IMO. As for costs, the carrying passengers to
orbit will not cost too much more and will provide more
value IMO. However, the suborbital can be done sooner.
> > Hundreds of flights per year is a low flight level for
> > an aviation fleet. We should not generally be faced
> > with the same level of fatigue problems. An RLV that
> > is designed for incremental flight testing is also
> > not likely to need a standing army to turn it around.
> > The main difference is rocket propulsion, not airframe
> > -- especially with a low planform loading, low heating
> > reentry and reasonable landing characteristics.
>
> I note most RLV proposals assume the airframe would have a lifetime of
> only 100 to 200 flights, versus thousands or even tens of thousands of
> flights for aircraft. Why?
>
We're talking about fleet traffic levels, not the number
of flights for a specific vehicle. However, a specific
vehicle that is good for 100 or 200 missions is probably
also good for 500 missions; fatigue is not likely to be
much of a design factor. There do not seem to be
strong economic reasons to push for more than 500 flights
for a specific vehicle.
> > > ... Let's say the US government wants to transport 250t of
> > > LH2+LOX to LEO per year.
> > > Boeing could propose launching a dozen heavy-lift Delta IVs,
> > > and the key parameters (achievable launch rate, marginal cost
> > > per flight, cost of expendable cargo transfer vehicle) would
> > > be reasonably well known from previous projects. I think
> > > launching 250 1000-kg Space Vans per year would be a lot
> > > riskier, though.
> > >
> > Why riskier economically? Aborts and hull losses are
> > factored in. Human life loss would be unfortunate,
> > but inevitable, as it is for all forms of transportation
> > -- or even couch sitting.
>
> It's much riskier because Third Millennium has never built
> any Space Vans before. In fact, *nobody* has ever built a
> Space Van. The closest thing is probably the X-15, which
> achieved a maximum of *forty* flights per year to Mach 5-6...
> Three vehicles were built and the two surviving aircraft were
> totally banged up after the X-15 program ended. A total
> of 199 flights were made over nine years.
>
Well, now you're talking about credibility, not economics.
And I can't say that this is not a serious problem. That
is why I say that launch operators who think they can
deliver payloads at far lower costs if the market is big
enough should be allowed to try to do so at their expense,
but with a government guarantee to buy a certain amount of
the services, if the launch provider is actually able to
deliver. The risk is in program disruption, not in wasted
expenditures. Therefore, the payloads should be tied to
a program that is enabled by low cost space transportation
and would not exist without low cost space transportation.
The risk would be that an otherwise unobtainable option
would not become available; but the government would not
have risked any money, except perhaps for program planning.
It seems to me that this type of risk is well worth taking,
if it enables CATS.
As for the X-15, it was designed to be a research
vehicle to investigate problems, not avoid them as
a good transport should do. Moreover, only a certain
number of missions are appropriate for research purposes.
IMO, the X-15 is a completely inappropriate comparison point.
> ---
>
> In contrast, _launching_ 250t of propellant on ELVs is clearly
> feasible.
> The Russians have achieved 15 or 16 Proton launches per year
> and we have a good grasp of what the total ELV cost would be.
>
Right, and the answer is prohibitive economics for really
large-scale missions.
Try rephrasing it this way. The well defined expenditure
for launch of 250 t of propellants with current ELVs could
launch at least 5000 t of propellants with the type of RLV
some of us think is possible -- including proper return on
investment for commercial development of a small TSTO RLV.
You can tell me that you don't want 5000 t of propellants
-- and I can tell you to go back to the drawing board/tube
and try again to figure out how you could lower total program
costs and risk with this type of option.
> ---
>
> However, this does not mean I am opposed to anybody proposing a high
> flight-rate RLV for launching spacecraft propellant! The additional
> demand for launch services could hopefully translate to new
> opportunities for start-up companies, and the successful ones would
> further reduce the cost. But I feel a manned Moon/Mars project
> _initially_ should be based on proven launch vehicles or else it
> wouldn't survive politically. Like ISS today, the operational costs
> would be very high and it would not be possible to fully utilize the
> system (=lunar/Mars transportation system) without CATS.
>
Well, I can that see you have not learned from the Apollo
experience. That dead-end was predictable and predicted
by some of us that felt that a sustainable program
required a lot more attention to basic economics. If
you insist on relying solely on a proven disastrous (from
the econmic point of view) approach, then you will be
voting to continue the impasse. It is necessary to break
out of this vicious circle, or we will continue to go
nowhere with great gusto -- and great expense.
> > > I agree that RLVs need to fly a certain number of missions per
> > > year ( ~30 flights) to be competitive. Like I said, I am just
> >
> > ... I think the number is at least 200-500 flights per
> > year (for the fleet), and thousands of flights per year
> > make much more business sense. There is a continuing
> > operational learning curve for a specific type of vehicle.
> > My calculations that a larger investment for lower
> > operational costs per kg (neglecting other good arguments
> > for larger payloads per flight) does not make business
> > sense until the small RLV is flying as many as 100,000
> > flights per year.
>
> But the goal is to make a decent profit at the lowest possible risk --
> not necessarily to achieve the biggest possible cost reductions!
>
IMO, RLV profit will flow from an understanding of the
basic elasticity problem that has been created by taking
the wrong fork in the road decades ago. IMO, a sound
business plan must go beyond shaving ELV costs as a
basic goal.
I believe that a 20 to one reduction $ per kg of
payload costs is quite feasible in the near term
with in-hand technology. If it is feasible,
someone will do it. If someone does it, any
success based upon a "shave-ELV costs" strategy
will be short-lived unless the vehicle involved
is actually capable of very low costs.
It's quite possible to "cut corners" when it
comes to business strategy -- as well as for
technical matters.
> ---
>
> For example, if I could persuade the US government to buy 100 X-15
> flights for $300-400 million (including termination liability in case
> Congress terminates the program), I probably have a much stronger
> business case... The reason is, I have a guaranteed source of income
> and the X-15's performance requirements are well known. I could show
> how much the X-15 & X-34 cost to build and operate, what the
> lifetimes of the important subsystems were -- no real technical
> uncertainties or risks as far as the eye can see. Of course, I won't
> be starting any "CATS revolution" or creating any new launch markets;
> but my investors would still finance the project if the return on
> investment looks good enough. This is how Orbital Sciences Corp.
> did with the Pegasus, i.e. you sign a launch contract with DARPA or
> somebody and then convince investors the technical plan is firmly
> within the state-of-the-art. The Pegasus is no Roton or Space Van,
> but it was clearly do-able so the private sector agreed to finance
> its development...
>
The guaranteed market would be important, but otherwise
it is an entirely different business -- albeit possibly
a sound business. Not necessarily though; has Pegasus
actually produced profits? I think that we agree violently
that market guarantees could be very important for at least
reducing the market uncertainty for potential investors.
I'll have to say that the perceived technical risk would
likely be significantly higher for an orbital RLV than for
a research vehicle. But I do not think the real technical
risk need be all that much greater. I also have to say that
I have no way of demonstrating this belief short of doing it.
Two points: First, the Shuttle never had the potential for
really low cost per kg of payload, and therefore could
never hope to achieve closure on an high traffic level
scenario. Second, the "chicken and egg" problem is quite
real, but it was created artificially with constraints on
what would have been the normal development of space
transportation in a much more commercial, free-market
environment. Therefore, It think it necessary to address
the two problems simultaneously in order to break out
of this very real trap.
> ---
>
> I suspect it's better to do something that is perfectly feasible
> using existing ELVs, but could be significantly more lucrative
> if a new low-cost reusable launch vehicle were available. This
> was the philosophy behind the Kistler K-1 and Venturestar, and
> I still think the basic idea is a good one. Historically, people
> have usually built new transportation systems to address EXISTING
> markets that may not have been very "mainstream" or economically
> important when the venture was started but nonetheless represented
> a real financial opportunity. Small (LEO) satellites could be such
> a launch market, and the government could create artificial
> incentives such as ISS or the GEO/Moon/Mars LEO transportation node.
>
See my argument above. Short sightedness in goals
is likely to receive its own just rewards. You are
right about the historical perspective. But I feel
that the current transportation dilemma has been
artificially created and must be taken apart by
non-traditional means.
> ---
>
> By the way, I am not convinced the financial community is primarily
> interested in investing in AEROSPACE PROJECTS (=a single vehicle or
> mission). These are awfully risky. Consequently the successful players
> in the entrepreneurial aerospace game (Orbital Sciences, Scaled
> Composites) etc. offer a diverse range of products without putting all
> their eggs in one basket. I think Jim Benson's SpaceDev may be
> evolving in this direction as well, by buying other organization
> and hiring a diverse team of specialists. Stockholders are probably
> more interested in the value of the COMPANY and its financial
> prospects, rather than individual projects.
>
I agree that diversification is good. And I agree that
the financial community is not inclined to invest in
aerospace projects -- especially space transportation,
which has lost money, even when it seems to be successful.
But you don't need an in-house team capable of everything.
A virtual corporation with good networking skills can
get the skills it needs when AND WHILE it needs them.
> MARCU$
>
Best regardds,
Len (Cormier) for MMI
Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc. /and/ PanAero, Inc.
--
MMI = 2001: the start of the third millennium
l...@tour2space.com ( http://www.tour2space.com )
Kwr...@rockisland.com
>It isn't clear to me that Space Access LLC has spent any money
>at all on testing their ejector ramjet.
>I would be delighted to see some proof that they are. So far,
>the money seemed to have been spent by the U.S. Government
>and the tests are on subscale hardware.
They have, see http://www.wtn.org/ProjectStories/crada/payloads.htm
as a reference. It clearly states that Space Access paid for the
testing.
>OK, companies are secretive on things like this, so they
>could be doing something and just not telling.
The ejector ramjet is Space Access most important proprietary
technology, so don’t expect them to say too much about it.
Len for MMI
Kwr...@rockisland.com wrote:
...snip...
>
> There is a huge advantage to building to aircraft certified standards
> (FAR 25) even if you are not carrying passengers. Insurance cost for
> payloads will be dramatically lower. Operations would also be much
> safer for the areas around the takeoff and landing facilities. I know
> that Space Access is advertising full FAR 25 compliance, giving them
> engineout, loiter and divert capabilities. Are there any other orbital
> RLV systems that are trying to do this ?
>
Well, Kelly, FAA certification is not absolutely
necessary for safety. FAR-25 would, however, preclude
any chance of developing a small commercial RLV for
a pre-operational budget of $150 million. And
larger pre-operational budgets preclude commercial
development and low costs, because of the impossibily
of recovering investment in a transiton market. And
some of us -- probably including yourself -- believe
that non-commercial development is likely to preclude
the business discipline necessary for low costs, even
if the development cost is forgotten as it is
in most government programs.
Safety is important. But the first generation
of commercial RLVs would suffer immensely from
imposition of formal safety standards. Later
generations -- based upon the experience of
one or more earlier generations -- may be able
to achieve the required mass ratio and required
economics within the constraints of a formal
certification environment. I actually hope so.
I do not recall ever designing an RLV without
an engine-out capability. It is a basic
requirement that, IMO, should never be relaxed.
Reliability and safety are an integral design
aspect of any RLV that is designed to be a
good business proposition. I expect our X Van
to be a very safe launch vehicle, but perhaps
a rather dangerous airplane. I think that
that has to be good enough for the first
generation.
IMO, insurance is a non-player for RLVs.
Consider each category of insurance separately.
Payload insurance has traditionally been the
big item. But I believe that high cost payloads
are basically inappropriate for RLVs. By far most
of the tonnage is likely to be low-cost payloads.
Then there is third-party liability.
On return, our orbiter is like a light airplane
with empty, purged fuel tanks. We drop nothing
on the way out. While we are on the booster,
we have engine-out capability with airliner-proven
turbofans. And this whole operation takes place
basically overwater in a remote area. So why
should liability insurance be a showstopper
without FAA certifcation?
Hull insurance is a self-insured item in my
book. The perception of risk is almost bound
to be greater than the real risk must be, if
cost goals are to be met.
As for passenger insurance, company personnel
will be covered by bonds or escrowed deposits.
As for the public, I do not believe it appropriate
to carry passengers until a track record is
established with other types of revenue missions.
And then some type of cap would be appropriate.
With a reasonable cap and reasonable safety,
insurance, bonds, or escrowed amounts for passenger
loss of life or limb should not be more than a
reasonable part of total costs.
I feel that our X Van concept would be more
suitable for formal certification than any
other concept of which I am aware -- including
what I know about the Space Access concept. But
FAA certification at this point is likely to be
the kiss of death for CATS -- at least RLV
approaches to CATS.
Basic commersial space law does not require
certification -- only range safety and national
security considerations apply. Why saddle
a particular type of launch vehicle with a
killer requirement, just because it starts
to look like an airplane? For the first
four years of its existence, I was the sole
voice for RLVs on DoT's COMSTAC. At that
time, there was no thought of considering an
RLV as basically any different from any other
launch vehicle -- except for a possilbe need
for licensing multiple similar, repetitive
flights. Since that time, all kinds of new
ideas have crept into the problem -- including
a need for new legislation for reusability and,
in some people's minds, even certification.
No relation, I suppose, but can you imagine
what a requirement for certificaion might
have done to the Wright Brothers' plans?
Best regards,
Len (Cormier) for MMI
Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc. /and/ PanAero, Inc.
--
MMI = 2001: the start of the third millennium
l...@tour2space.com ( http://www.tour2space.com )
Michael P. Walsh
Kwr...@rockisland.com wrote:
---
---
---
Thank you. That is the first definite information I have read on
Space Access paying for test work. Most of the information I
have read has been about NASA ejector ramjet programs and
this was a cooperative program with the Air Force.
The information on what has already been done reads as
credible. The prediction about testing a full-size engine in
2001 and beginning commercial service in 2001 does not.
Mike Walsh
kelly...@my-deja.com
$mK.2...@brie.direct.ca>,
> Kwr...@rockisland.com wrote:
>
...snip...
>
>> There is a huge advantage to building to
aircraft certified standards
>> (FAR 25) even if you are not carrying
passengers. Insurance cost for
>> payloads will be dramatically lower.
Operations would also be much
>> safer for the areas around the takeoff and
landing facilities. I know
>> that Space Access is advertising full FAR 25
compliance, giving them
>> engineout, loiter and divert capabilities. Are
there any other orbital
>>RLV systems that are trying to do this ?
>
>Well, Kelly, FAA certification is not absolutely
>necessary for safety. FAR-25 would, however,
preclude
>any chance of developing a small commercial RLV
for
>a pre-operational budget of $150 million.
I am a bit confused as to what you mean exactly.
Are you saying that designing your vehicle so
that is could be certified at some point after
flight testing would break your business ?
Or are you saying that the certification process
is so expensive that you could not afford it
before you started getting some revenue from your
first operational flights ?
>IMO, insurance is a non-player for RLVs.
>Consider each category of insurance separately.
>Payload insurance has traditionally been the
>big item. But I believe that high cost payloads
>are basically inappropriate for RLVs. By far most
>of the tonnage is likely to be low-cost payloads.
Why are high cost payloads inappropriate for
RLVs ? It seems to me that it is very
appropriate, as RLVs give some opportunity for
orbital checkout and return in the event of
problems. Are you not planning to fly anything
worth insuring ?
>Then there is third-party liability.
>On return,
What about takeoff ?
>our orbiter is like a light airplane
>with empty, purged fuel tanks.
>We drop nothing
>on the way out.
Are you doing an unpowered landing ?
> While we are on the booster,
>we have engine-out capability with airliner-
proven
>turbofans. And this whole operation takes place
>basically overwater in a remote area. So why
>should liability insurance be a showstopper
>without FAA certifcation?
>Hull insurance is a self-insured item in my
>book. The perception of risk is almost bound
>to be greater than the real risk must be, if
>cost goals are to be met.
Agreed
>As for passenger insurance, company personnel
>will be covered by bonds or escrowed deposits.
>As for the public, I do not believe it
appropriate
>to carry passengers until a track record is
>established with other types of revenue missions.
>And then some type of cap would be appropriate.
>With a reasonable cap and reasonable safety,
>insurance, bonds, or escrowed amounts for
passenger
>loss of life or limb should not be more than a
>reasonable part of total costs.
This is where you might run into problems with
the law. Don’t you have to be FAA certified to
carry passengers in the air for money ? Hot air
balloons and pilots are FAA certified, the
process does not have to be financially
crippling.
>I feel that our X Van concept would be more
>suitable for formal certification than any
>other concept of which I am aware -- including
>what I know about the Space Access concept. But
>FAA certification at this point is likely to be
>the kiss of death for CATS -- at least RLV
>approaches to CATS.
Well, Space Access is planning on FAA
certification X Van is not, so naturally I feel
their concept is more suitable for
FAA certification;)
>Basic commersial space law does not require
>certification -- only range safety and national
>security considerations apply. Why saddle
>a particular type of launch vehicle with a
>killer requirement, just because it starts
>to look like an airplane?
If you have to choose between FAA certification
and range safety destruct-pyros,
which are you going to pick ?
>No relation, I suppose, but can you imagine
>what a requirement for certificaion might
>have done to the Wright Brothers' plans?
Nothing is really certified on its first test
flight. Can you imagine what might happen to your
plans if someone’s RLV kills 200 people on the
ground in an accident ?
Rand Simberg
kelly...@my-deja.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>This is where you might run into problems with
>the law. Don’t you have to be FAA certified to
>carry passengers in the air for money ?
Yes, but this isn't the air. Space launch is not subject to
regulation by AVR, which certifies aircraft--AST has jurisdiction
regardless of whether it is a passenger or cargo vehicle.
>Hot air
>balloons and pilots are FAA certified, the
>process does not have to be financially
>crippling.
But if it's comparable to aircraft certification, it will be.
>If you have to choose between FAA certification
>and range safety destruct-pyros,
>which are you going to pick ?
I can't speak for Len, but I would pick another country.
>>No relation, I suppose, but can you imagine
>>what a requirement for certificaion might
>>have done to the Wright Brothers' plans?
>
>Nothing is really certified on its first test
>flight. Can you imagine what might happen to your
>plans if someone’s RLV kills 200 people on the
>ground in an accident ?
The likelyhood of that is vanishingly small--even large transport
crashes don't do that, fully loaded.
There are already licensing procedures in place by AST to ensure the
safety of people on the ground--that is in fact their charter. That
is an entirely different issue than certification for carrying
passengers.
mlin...@my-deja.com
> mlin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> To be effective, the guarantee would have to be a
> "hands-off" relationship, with no up-front
> funding and no payments until the services are
> delivered as promised.
It's a prize type reward, then. By the way, how would you feel about
"milestone prizes" where the government awards a series of successively
more valuable prizes for things such as PDR blueprints/detailed design
work completed, construction of prototype engine etc.? I'd imagine
raising a few million dollars isn't too hard even for a startup company
if the idea is good, so maybe an incremental "chain" of smaller prizes
would work better than a single multibillion reward?
> A third (unmentioned) option is to somehow earn the
> money with other activities. This is our main approach.
Bingo... It is probably easier to first become a billionaire and *then*
a successful LV designer, rather than the other way around:-) Andrew
Beal, for example. He can afford to show naysayers the finger since he
is spending his own money. The easiest person in the world to convince
that a project is worth doing, has to be oneself.
---
Let's call it the Thomas Jerome Newton approach, after the 1976 Nick
Roeg movie starring David Bowie. Newton was a space alien who was
marooned on Earth, so he quickly started his own business empire by
selling patents for stuff such as Instamatic cameras and then used the
proceeds to fund his own space program.
> We entrepreneurs need some combination or credibility
> and money. With enough credibility, we can probably
> get the money. With enough money, we wouldn't need
> the credibility -- but credibility would come with the
> money.
That's right. If some Bill Gates or Ted Turner invests a hundred million
dollars or so in a commercial RLV venture, it doesn't necessarily mean
the project is viable. But people would say "Wow! These guys probably
know something that we don't" and the project immediately becomes more
attractive in the eyes of other investors too. It's easier to later jump
the bandwagon rather than be the guy who provides the initial funding.
> But, IMO, this is only in (small) part due to increased
> complexity. I blame most of the phenomenom on incredibly
> bad procurement practices. And this then becomes a
> self-fulfilling prophecy. If the game were more open
> and really competitive, costs would be a lot lower, IMO.
> As for commercial aircraft, there are actually quite
> a few companies involved, although only the handful
> you mention for wide-body jets.
But the same trend (=higher cost) is clearly visible in commercial
aviation, unless you include smaller aircraft -- a segment which has
been quite stagnant from a performance point of view for some time. If
the cost of a DC-3 type aircraft is less than it was 30 or 50 years ago
it is probably because this class has been around for a long time and
does not represent a real engineering challenge.
> I have found no significant performance advantages for
> HTOL versus VTOL/VTOHL. However, I have found OPERATIONAL
> advantages -- including suitability for incremental flight
> testing -- that favor HTOL. Consequently, I have tended
> to favor HTOL.
[As as aside, passenger-carrying "aircraft-like" RLV seem to be mostly
HTHL or VTVL; conservative/cautious RLV proposals mainly aimed at the
unmanned launch market tend to be VTHL]
> Well, I won't argue this point too strenuously, since I
> am proud to support the Vela program as a senior advisor
> and I feel the basic approach is well thought out.
> However, the orbital approach is harder to achieve only with
> respect to vehicle performance, not passenger safety.
But the mission also lasts much longer, and you need higher performance
engines etc..
> launch operators who think they can
> deliver payloads at far lower costs if the market is big
> enough should be allowed to try to do so at their expense,
> but with a government guarantee to buy a certain amount of
> the services, if the launch provider is actually able to
> deliver. The risk is in program disruption, not in wasted
> expenditures. Therefore, the payloads should be tied to
> a program that is enabled by low cost space transportation
> and would not exist without low cost space transportation.
> The risk would be that an otherwise unobtainable option
> would not become available; but the government would not
> have risked any money, except perhaps for program planning.
> It seems to me that this type of risk is well worth taking,
> if it enables CATS.
This seems to be the same as Rand Simberg's earlier proposal...Rand
wanted a government commitment to buy thousands of passenger flights to
orbit for a few ten thousand dollars per ticket. It's essentially the
same thing as a prize, again.
> The well defined expenditure
> for launch of 250 t of propellants with current ELVs could
> launch at least 5000 t of propellants with the type of RLV
> some of us think is possible -- including proper return on
> investment for commercial development of a small TSTO RLV.
> You can tell me that you don't want 5000 t of propellants
Well, I would like 2000t of propellants if possible;-) If 250t would
enable a small scale semipermanently manned lunar outpost, 2000t would
make it possible to fly more missions and start a Mars exploration
program using heavy reusable orbital transfer vehicles.
> > But I feel a manned Moon/Mars project
> > _initially_ should be based on proven launch vehicles or else it
> > wouldn't survive politically. Like ISS today, the operational costs
> > would be very high and it would not be possible to fully utilize the
> > system (=lunar/Mars transportation system) without CATS.
> >
> Well, I can that see you have not learned from the Apollo
> experience. That dead-end was predictable and predicted
> by some of us that felt that a sustainable program
> required a lot more attention to basic economics. If
> you insist on relying solely on a proven disastrous (from
> the econmic point of view) approach, then you will be
> voting to continue the impasse.
I disagree. Apollo could have survived in at least some form, if your
plan (=Saturn IBs plus a "spacedock" in low Earth orbit) had been used
and if a fleet of reusable lunar transfer vehicles had been used... OK,
a lot would have depended on NASA's willingness to fight for the
program. But I think it is easier to keep a project alive if it isn't
designed to be disposable. Skylab *could* have been reused but NASA only
planned to use it as a temporary stopgap since they were proposing a
larger 12-man follow-on space station at the same time.
---
Manned orbital flight has been around since 1961 with few interruptions.
It is a very expensive and marginal activity that only governments can
afford. The cost of manned lunar exploration was deemed too high by the
US and USSR, but I think modest improvements would enable a Salyut-Mir
level moonbase. In other words, a semipermanent crew of 2-3 astronauts
on the Moon.
> IMO, RLV profit will flow from an understanding of the
> basic elasticity problem that has been created by taking
> the wrong fork in the road decades ago. IMO, a sound
> business plan must go beyond shaving ELV costs as a
> basic goal.
I think investors care more about the return on investment, though.
> The guaranteed market would be important, but otherwise
> it is an entirely different business -- albeit possibly
> a sound business. Not necessarily though; has Pegasus
> actually produced profits?
To my knowledge, *every* small privately financed ELV to date has lost
money... That's probably another reason why investors are not interested
in privately financed launcher projects unless they involve established
companies and technologies, and preferably government assistance too.
> the "chicken and egg" problem is quite
> real, but it was created artificially with constraints on
> what would have been the normal development of space
> transportation in a much more commercial, free-market
> environment.
What do you mean?
> I agree that diversification is good. And I agree that
> the financial community is not inclined to invest in
> aerospace projects -- especially space transportation,
> which has lost money, even when it seems to be successful.
> But you don't need an in-house team capable of everything.
> A virtual corporation with good networking skills can
> get the skills it needs when AND WHILE it needs them.
OK, Spacehab seem to be using this model although may still be a "one
horse show" that are too much dependent on Shuttle/ISS revenues. This
is probably why they are now collaborating with the Russians on the
Enterprise module.
MARCU$
Len for MMI
kelly...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8600sf$sjg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,> > In article <N%pg4.3382
> $mK.2...@brie.direct.ca>,
> > Kwr...@rockisland.com wrote:
> >
> ...snip...
> >
> >> There is a huge advantage to building to
> >> aircraft certified standards
> >> (FAR 25) even if you are not carrying
> >> passengers. Insurance cost for
> >> payloads will be dramatically lower.
> >> Operations would also be much
> >> safer for the areas around the takeoff and
> >> landing facilities. I know
> >> that Space Access is advertising full FAR 25
> >> compliance, giving them
> >> engineout, loiter and divert capabilities. Are
> >> there any other orbital
> >> RLV systems that are trying to do this ?
> >>
> >Well, Kelly, FAA certification is not absolutely
> >necessary for safety. FAR-25 would, however,
> >preclude any chance of developing a small
> commercial RLV for a pre-operational budget of
> $150 million.
> (snip)
> I am a bit confused as to what you mean exactly.
> Are you saying that designing your vehicle so
> that is could be certified at some point after
> flight testing would break your business ?
> Or are you saying that the certification process
> is so expensive that you could not afford it
> before you started getting some revenue from your
> first operational flights ?
>
Sorry. Good clarification question. IMO, any
need for certification would affect the design
process right from the start. Yes, the
certification process tends to be expensive;
but this would not in itsself be a reason against
requiring it for RLVs. The problem with RLVs
is that the required mass ratio is tough enough
to do without any additional constraints that
may, or may not be, arbtitrary. Any regulatory
process can be reasonable or unreasonable.
I feel that even well-intentioned regulators
are not likely to understand the sensitivity of
RLV design to additional requirements. The
growth factor is likely to be 75 to 1, rather
than 5 to 1 or less. This can drive size up and
drive costs up exponentially. This is particulary
true for a small RLV. And I feel a small RLV is
vital for being commercially viable in
the transition period from an ELV-based market
measured in terms of hundreds of tonnes per year
of high-cost payloads to tens of thousands of
tonnes per year of low-cost payloads.
> >IMO, insurance is a non-player for RLVs.
> >Consider each category of insurance separately.
>
> >Payload insurance has traditionally been the
> >big item. But I believe that high cost payloads
> >are basically inappropriate for RLVs. By far most
> >of the tonnage is likely to be low-cost payloads.
>
> Why are high cost payloads inappropriate for
> RLVs ? It seems to me that it is very
> appropriate, as RLVs give some opportunity for
> orbital checkout and return in the event of
> problems. Are you not planning to fly anything
> worth insuring ?
I feel that the cheapest way by far to demonstrate
adequate safety and reliabilty will be through
actual operational experience. Trying to convince
insurers ahead of actual flight experience is likely
to be a very expensive proposition. I also feel that
the great bulk of tonnage to be carried by a
properly designed RLV will be low-cost payloads.
So I feel that spending a lot more money chasing
a small marginal increase in our real market does
not make business sense. We are not against
carrying high-cost payloads; we just do not want
to increase our front-end costs by a factor of two
to ten just to satify insurers early in the game --
when high-cost payloads are not likely to be an
important part of our market.
>
> >Then there is third-party liability.
> >On return,
>
> What about takeoff ?
>
We are inclined to return to Pago Pago as our
primary launch site. I had gotten away from
it for a while, since equatorial launch seems
better for most of our requirements. However,
I have found some tricks that make Pago Pago's
14 degree latitude location in the South Pacific
look good again. The existing runway ends in
open ocean -- with nothing much else for 6000 miles.
And for the first part of the flight we operate
like an airliner with proven, subsonic four
turbofans, when we could fly on any two.
American Samoa is American territory, with the
finest natural harbor in the South Pacific.
As for weather, the intertropical convergence
zone tends to hang out about 5 degrees north
of the equator.
> >our orbiter is like a light airplane
> >with empty, purged fuel tanks.
> >We drop nothing
> >on the way out.
>
> Are you doing an unpowered landing ?
>
Yes, with an over ocean approach with a span
loading one-seventh that of the Shuttle and
a landing mass one-twentieth that of the Shuttle.
> > While we are on the booster,
> >we have engine-out capability with airliner-
> >proven
> >turbofans. And this whole operation takes place
> >basically overwater in a remote area. So why
> >should liability insurance be a showstopper
> >without FAA certifcation?
>
> >Hull insurance is a self-insured item in my
> >book. The perception of risk is almost bound
> >to be greater than the real risk must be, if
> >cost goals are to be met.
>
> Agreed
>
> >As for passenger insurance, company personnel
> >will be covered by bonds or escrowed deposits.
> >As for the public, I do not believe it
> >appropriate
> >to carry passengers until a track record is
> >established with other types of revenue missions.
> >And then some type of cap would be appropriate.
> >With a reasonable cap and reasonable safety,
> >insurance, bonds, or escrowed amounts for
> >passenger
> >loss of life or limb should not be more than a
> >reasonable part of total costs.
>
> This is where you might run into problems with
> the law. Don’t you have to be FAA certified to
> carry passengers in the air for money ? Hot air
> balloons and pilots are FAA certified, the
> process does not have to be financially
> crippling.
>
You raise good points here. That is why we are
not counting on space tourism as an initial
bread-and-butter (or bed-and-breakfast) mission.
With enough experience -- and understanding of
RLV design sensitivities -- we would hope to
work together with the regulators for some type
of review equivalent to certification, but still
sensitive to RLV realities and design constraints.
> >I feel that our X Van concept would be more
> >suitable for formal certification than any
> >other concept of which I am aware -- including
> >what I know about the Space Access concept. But
> >FAA certification at this point is likely to be
> >the kiss of death for CATS -- at least RLV
> >approaches to CATS.
>
> Well, Space Access is planning on FAA
> certification X Van is not, so naturally I feel
> their concept is more suitable for
> FAA certification;)
>
Space Access seems to be counting on government
money, and the X Van is not. Space Access is
planning to spend billions prior to operations,
the X Van is hoping to do this for $150 million
in the belief that larger amounts cannot be
recovered commercially in the transition period
between current ELVs and first-generation RLVs
(and, possibly, very low-cost ELVs). Space Access
believes in a different game. They are entitled
to that opinion -- that makes a good horse race.
However, I do no think using certification as
a club to destroy low-cost approaches to be a
legitimate horse race.
> >Basic commersial space law does not require
> >certification -- only range safety and national
> >security considerations apply. Why saddle
> >a particular type of launch vehicle with a
> >killer requirement, just because it starts
> >to look like an airplane?
>
> If you have to choose between FAA certification
> and range safety destruct-pyros,
> which are you going to pick ?
>
I don't think either is an appropriate choice for
the type of operational plan we envisage. The
real risk of damage is quite small -- and the
potential damage is also quite small -- for the
design we are pursuing. And this is by design.
We hope to overkill on range safety -- assuming
a common-sense point of view -- relative to
almost any other system that I have heard of.
> >No relation, I suppose, but can you imagine
> >what a requirement for certificaion might
> >have done to the Wright Brothers' plans?
>
> Nothing is really certified on its first test
> flight. Can you imagine what might happen to your
> plans if someone’s RLV kills 200 people on the
> ground in an accident ?
>
I doubt that it would be possible to kill 200
people on the ground with our concept -- short
of a madman pilot. The same pilot could do a
lot more damage with a 747, which I doubt has
a destruct device on board.
Best regards,
Len (Cormier) for MMI
Rand Simberg
>This seems to be the same as Rand Simberg's earlier proposal...Rand
>wanted a government commitment to buy thousands of passenger flights to
>orbit for a few ten thousand dollars per ticket. It's essentially the
>same thing as a prize, again.
No, it's not the same thing as a prize. A prize is an award for a
specific achievement. I am proposing an ongoing subsidy and market
guarantee by having the government purchase services, similar to the
airmail subsidy.
>Manned orbital flight has been around since 1961 with few interruptions.
>It is a very expensive and marginal activity that only governments can
>afford.
Only the way governments do it (i.e., few and far between). It is
quite affordable for the private sector as a mass-market activity.
Len for MMI
mlin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <85uadv$kmi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Len (Cormier) for MMI <l...@tour2space.com> wrote:
> > In article <85soai$ik3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > mlin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > To be effective, the guarantee would have to be a
> > "hands-off" relationship, with no up-front
> > funding and no payments until the services are
> > delivered as promised.
>
> It's a prize type reward, then. By the way, how would you feel about
> "milestone prizes" where the government awards a series of
> successively
> more valuable prizes for things such as PDR blueprints/detailed design
> work completed, construction of prototype engine etc.? I'd imagine
> raising a few million dollars isn't too hard even for a startup
> company if the idea is good, so maybe an incremental "chain" of
> smaller prizes would work better than a single multibillion reward?
>
question. Machst nichst, I guess.
As to "milestone prizes," that would probably
depend upon how they are structured. If they
are clearly identifiable objective milestones,
this might work, since theoretically, at least,
the bureucracy would not be judging concepts
and imposing design constraints. The danger is
that it could easily degenerate to the "picking
winners" type of contest that real innovators
and entrepreneurs are not likely to win.
> > A third (unmentioned) option is to somehow earn the
> > money with other activities. This is our main approach.
>
> Bingo... It is probably easier to first become a billionaire
> and *then* a successful LV designer, rather than the other way
> around:-) Andrew> Beal, for example. He can afford to show
> naysayers the finger since he is spending his own money. The
> easiest person in the world to convince that a project is worth
> doing, has to be oneself.
>
Well, I screwed up on this. I should've started
earlier -- like going to work for PanAm in 1947
and then building a fortune from that base,
instead of opting out of a Navy fighter squadron
to be a freshman at Pasdena City College. But
I didn't have the dream back then. From my present
perspective, I'll have to depend to some extent
on help from others to pick up on my plans to raise
money through the promotion of third-party businesses
(with a potential space tourism carrot). Money
raised in that manner is relatively free of
strings that would preclude real innovation.
And I'll continue to try the "other aerospace projects"
approach -- although I haven't had much success to date
beyond staying alive. Moreover, even with success, it
requires some years of succcess before being able to
start the CATS-type project in earnest.
> ---
>
> Let's call it the Thomas Jerome Newton approach, after the 1976 Nick
> Roeg movie starring David Bowie. Newton was a space alien who was
> marooned on Earth, so he quickly started his own business empire by
> selling patents for stuff such as Instamatic cameras and then used the
> proceeds to fund his own space program.
>
> > We entrepreneurs need some combination or credibility
> > and money. With enough credibility, we can probably
> > get the money. With enough money, we wouldn't need
> > the credibility -- but credibility would come with the
> > money.
>
> That's right. If some Bill Gates or Ted Turner invests
> a hundred million dollars or so in a commercial RLV
> venture, it doesn't necessarily mean the project is
> viable. But people would say "Wow! These guys probably
> know something that we don't" and the project immediately
> becomes more attractive in the eyes of other investors
> too. It's easier to later jump the bandwagon rather than
> be the guy who provides the initial funding.
>
Well, I've tried a lot of them over the years.
J. Paul Getty declined to invest, but took five
minutes to write an encouraging note in the margin
of a letter I sent years ago. At his rate of
earning, I figure he had a bigger stake in the
project at that point than I did.
> > But, IMO, this is only in (small) part due to increased
> > complexity. I blame most of the phenomenom on incredibly
> > bad procurement practices. And this then becomes a
> > self-fulfilling prophecy. If the game were more open
> > and really competitive, costs would be a lot lower, IMO.
> > As for commercial aircraft, there are actually quite
> > a few companies involved, although only the handful
> > you mention for wide-body jets.
>
> But the same trend (=higher cost) is clearly visible in commercial
> aviation, unless you include smaller aircraft -- a segment which has
> been quite stagnant from a performance point of view for some time. If
> the cost of a DC-3 type aircraft is less than it was 30 or 50 years
ago
> it is probably because this class has been around for a long time and
> does not represent a real engineering challenge.
>
Well, big airliners are finely engineered, no doubt.
But IMO, engineering costs for military projects or
for something like a first generation commercial
RLV may be greatly exagerrated by bad management.
I once did a study of A-11/A-12 (SR-71 precursor)
costs; I found that engineering costs with a
Skunk Works type of management and a largely "hands-
off" government management team were only about six
percent what might be expected with a "normally managed"
aircraft of comparable complexity. I think that an
entrepreneurial group with some modest amount of
funding and a relatively free hand could bring in
a small RLV for $150 million. This type of project,
IMO, does not require a billion dollars or more of
engineering. An initial fleet of three vehicles can
move a helluva lot of cargo to orbit by present standards.
Three vehicles require neither elaborate tooling nor
extensive engineering to avoid production line mistakes
or to be able to compete with in a well established,
competitive marketplace like air transport.
And then consider non-aerospace. Cars and gasoline
get more complex AND relatively cheaper. Computers?
Completely different story from typical aerospace.
> > I have found no significant performance advantages for
> > HTOL versus VTOL/VTOHL. However, I have found OPERATIONAL
> > advantages -- including suitability for incremental flight
> > testing -- that favor HTOL. Consequently, I have tended
> > to favor HTOL.
>
> [As as aside, passenger-carrying "aircraft-like" RLV seem to be mostly
> HTHL or VTVL; conservative/cautious RLV proposals mainly aimed at the
> unmanned launch market tend to be VTHL]
>
> > Well, I won't argue this point too strenuously, since I
> > am proud to support the Vela program as a senior advisor
> > and I feel the basic approach is well thought out.
> > However, the orbital approach is harder to achieve only with
> > respect to vehicle performance, not passenger safety.
>
> But the mission also lasts much longer, and you need higher
> performance
> engines etc..
>
The engines are available for our concept,
except perhaps for pressure-fed rockets for
the booster. If we are willing to live with
the acquisition and maintenance costs of an
RD-120 or RS-27, then the booster rocket
engines are available also. The design
approach should follow what is available --
not establish a requirement for a new engine.
That approach, however, is likely to come
from an entrepreneurial, business-oriented
design group than a technology-loving
government group.
Strictly speaking, the RL50 is not availble
now. However, I have great faith that it
will be available about the time we could
use it. Otherwise we would stick with a
design built around two RL10A-4s or RL10B's.
And most emphatically, our approach does not
require an altitude-compesating rocket engine,
which, BTW, the RD-120, RS-27, and Atlas and
Titan booster engines are. The need for
fancier engines is not a basic requirement for
an appropriately design TSTO RLV.
> > launch operators who think they can
> > deliver payloads at far lower costs if the market is big
> > enough should be allowed to try to do so at their expense,
> > but with a government guarantee to buy a certain amount of
> > the services, if the launch provider is actually able to
> > deliver. The risk is in program disruption, not in wasted
> > expenditures. Therefore, the payloads should be tied to
> > a program that is enabled by low cost space transportation
> > and would not exist without low cost space transportation.
> > The risk would be that an otherwise unobtainable option
> > would not become available; but the government would not
> > have risked any money, except perhaps for program planning.
> > It seems to me that this type of risk is well worth taking,
> > if it enables CATS.
>
> This seems to be the same as Rand Simberg's earlier proposal...Rand
> wanted a government commitment to buy thousands of passenger flights
> to orbit for a few ten thousand dollars per ticket. It's
> essentially the same thing as a prize, again.
>
I've said before that I think Rand's idea is very good.
Other "prize contracts" might include: 1) many tonnes of
propellants as an option for a different approach to Mars
and other deep-space mission; 2 ) demonstration of low-cost
transport of materials for SPS options and/or for deep-space
disposal of high-level nuclear wastes; 3) demonstation
of low-cost transport of cargo and personnel for high
throughput space manufacturing; etc. Note that this might
be done by setting aside perhaps ten percent of the money
(siphoned or added) now spent by the U.S. Government on
space transportation to establish the feasibility of new
options/approaches to missions that are now deemed
economically out of reach. They would not necessarily
have to disrupt any present programs. And if no one
could meet the challenge, the government would not have
spent anything other than planning money. Investors
would lose, however; but they often lose on new shopping
centers and restaurants as well. And they may eventually
lose on Internet stocks as well, when the musical chairs
game stops.
> > The well defined expenditure
> > for launch of 250 t of propellants with current ELVs could
> > launch at least 5000 t of propellants with the type of RLV
> > some of us think is possible -- including proper return on
> > investment for commercial development of a small TSTO RLV.
> > You can tell me that you don't want 5000 t of propellants
>
> Well, I would like 2000t of propellants if possible;-) If 250t would
> enable a small scale semipermanently manned lunar outpost, 2000t would
> make it possible to fly more missions and start a Mars exploration
> program using heavy reusable orbital transfer vehicles.
>
Wouldn't 5000 t give you even more options?
> > > But I feel a manned Moon/Mars project
> > > _initially_ should be based on proven launch vehicles or else it
> > > wouldn't survive politically. Like ISS today, the operational
> > > costs would be very high and it would not be possible to fully
> > > utilize the system (=lunar/Mars transportation system) without
> > > CATS.
> > >
> > Well, I can that see you have not learned from the Apollo
> > experience. That dead-end was predictable and predicted
> > by some of us that felt that a sustainable program
> > required a lot more attention to basic economics. If
> > you insist on relying solely on a proven disastrous (from
> > the econmic point of view) approach, then you will be
> > voting to continue the impasse.
>
> I disagree. Apollo could have survived in at least some form, if your
> plan (=Saturn IBs plus a "spacedock" in low Earth orbit) had been used
> and if a fleet of reusable lunar transfer vehicles had been used...
> OK, a lot would have depended on NASA's willingness to fight for the
> program. But I think it is easier to keep a project alive if it isn't
> designed to be disposable. Skylab *could* have been reused but NASA
> only planned to use it as a temporary stopgap since they were
> proposing a larger 12-man follow-on space station at the same time.
>
But the LEO rendezvous approach -- with or without an
RLV -- is part of the type of thinking that I am
trying to promote. I'm oriented toward an RLV
approach to CATS. However, I do not discount
the possibility that someone else might achieve
CATS with very low-cost ELVs. I think that
economic elasticity is probably important to
low-cost ELVs, but is probably more crucial to RLVs.
> ---
>
> Manned orbital flight has been around since 1961 with few
> interruptions.
> It is a very expensive and marginal activity that only governments can
> afford. The cost of manned lunar exploration was deemed too high by
the
> US and USSR, but I think modest improvements would enable a Salyut-Mir
> level moonbase. In other words, a semipermanent crew of 2-3 astronauts
> on the Moon.
>
I think we are so far from a common-sense approach,
that we need far more than modest improvements. We
need to make a clean break with the detour. This
does not mean we have to stop what we are now doing;
it just means we have to allow the new way of doing
space. Hmmm. I seem to see a parallel here with
post-Soviet Russia. As bad as the old system was,
it did work to some extent and should not have been
summarily dismantled. All that was necessary was
to legalize and to encourage the free market, while
the old system limped along.
> > IMO, RLV profit will flow from an understanding of the
> > basic elasticity problem that has been created by taking
> > the wrong fork in the road decades ago. IMO, a sound
> > business plan must go beyond shaving ELV costs as a
> > basic goal.
>
> I think investors care more about the return on investment, though.
>
Yes, and they care about losing their investment --
which could well happen if a concept based upon
shaving ELV costs suddenly has to compete with a
really cost-effective RLV with a 20 to 1 reduction
relative to current ELV costs. I have few technical
doubts about whether or not a 20 to 1 reduction is
feasible; however, I do share your doubts about being
able to raise the money required to try.
> > The guaranteed market would be important, but otherwise
> > it is an entirely different business -- albeit possibly
> > a sound business. Not necessarily though; has Pegasus
> > actually produced profits?
>
> To my knowledge, *every* small privately financed ELV to date has lost
> money... That's probably another reason why investors are not
> interested in privately financed launcher projects unless they
> involve established companies and technologies, and preferably
> government assistance too.
>
Agreed. Heller could add this to his list
of Catch-22s.
> > the "chicken and egg" problem is quite
> > real, but it was created artificially with constraints on
> > what would have been the normal development of space
> > transportation in a much more commercial, free-market
> > environment.
>
> What do you mean?
>
Let's see. What do I mean? Well, I guess I feel
that the Apollo race to the moon put things on an
artificial track. And unfortunately, the people
in charge of Apollo did not see -- or refused to
see -- the trap involved in the direct ascent
approach. Without the race, I think normal
evolutionary development would have led to a less
ingrained reliance on inefficient ELVs. With the
race and a little more thoughtful long-range
planning, the Apollo momentum could have aided
the move toward more efficient space operations,
instead of hindering it. And then the Apollo
infrastructure descended upon the Shuttle idea
to pave the detour.
> > I agree that diversification is good. And I agree that
> > the financial community is not inclined to invest in
> > aerospace projects -- especially space transportation,
> > which has lost money, even when it seems to be successful.
> > But you don't need an in-house team capable of everything.
> > A virtual corporation with good networking skills can
> > get the skills it needs when AND WHILE it needs them.
>
> OK, Spacehab seem to be using this model although may still be a "one
> horse show" that are too much dependent on Shuttle/ISS revenues. This
> is probably why they are now collaborating with the Russians on the
> Enterprise module.
>
Spacehab is a little hard to figure out in this
context. I guess I would like to see what a
capable, free-wheeling virtual company might be
able to do in a truly commercial environment.
> MARCU$
>
Best regards,
Len (Cormier) for MMI
Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc. /and/ PanAero, Inc.
--
MMI = 2001: the start of the third millennium
l...@tour2space.com ( http://www.tour2space.com )
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
<jakem...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:862vk5$1os$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> There was a clear argument supporting the airmail subsidy - the US
> Postal Service is in the Constitution. There is a less clear argument
> for subsidizing passenger air or space travel.
So, it follows that the Government should be subsidizing efforts for
CATS so they can deliver mail to astronauts on the space station!
Bruce
jakem...@my-deja.com
simberg.i...@trash.org (Rand Simberg) wrote:
> No, it's not the same thing as a prize. A prize is an award for a
> specific achievement. I am proposing an ongoing subsidy and market
> guarantee by having the government purchase services, similar to the
> airmail subsidy.
There was a clear argument supporting the airmail subsidy - the US
Postal Service is in the Constitution. There is a less clear argument
for subsidizing passenger air or space travel.
I agree that subsidies are the best way to get the tourism market
going - I'm just pointing out what might be a flaw in the plan.
--
Jake McGuire
Rand Simberg
jakem...@my-deja.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>> No, it's not the same thing as a prize. A prize is an award for a
>> specific achievement. I am proposing an ongoing subsidy and market
>> guarantee by having the government purchase services, similar to the
>> airmail subsidy.
>
> There was a clear argument supporting the airmail subsidy - the US
>Postal Service is in the Constitution. There is a less clear argument
>for subsidizing passenger air or space travel.
Less clear, yes, but not necessarily politically impossible.
OTOH, right now, it wouldn't be possible to implement such a policy
(Constitution aside, and unfortunately, the Constitution is almost
irrelevant to current government policies). Since the only national
purpose of our space program at present is to provide jobs and foreign
aid, while also providing a (almost transparently thin) veneer of
"science and exploration," there's zero probability of making it
happen.
In order to do so, we would actually have to have a serious national
debate on what we as a nation want to do in space. After such a
debate, if the outcome were that we actually do want to expand our
civilization (and in this context, that would be American
civilization) off the planet, then this would be a reasonable way to
do so.
> I agree that subsidies are the best way to get the tourism market
>going - I'm just pointing out what might be a flaw in the plan.
Yes, but as I said, the Constitution is the least of its problems...
kelly...@my-deja.com
> > >to carry passengers until a track record is
> > >established with other types of revenue missions.
> > >And then some type of cap would be appropriate.
> > >With a reasonable cap and reasonable safety,
> > >insurance, bonds, or escrowed amounts for
> > >passenger
> > >loss of life or limb should not be more than a
> > >reasonable part of total costs.
> >
> > This is where you might run into problems with
> > the law. Don’t you have to be FAA certified to
> > carry passengers in the air for money ? Hot air
> > balloons and pilots are FAA certified, the
> > process does not have to be financially
> > crippling.
> >
> You raise good points here. That is why we are
> not counting on space tourism as an initial
> bread-and-butter (or bed-and-breakfast) mission.
> With enough experience -- and understanding of
> RLV design sensitivities -- we would hope to
> work together with the regulators for some type
> of review equivalent to certification, but still
> sensitive to RLV realities and design constraints.
That is the key, obviously some sort of regulation is
going to be necessary, but it does not need to be excessively
burdensome.
snip
> > Well, Space Access is planning on FAA
> > certification X Van is not, so naturally I feel
> > their concept is more suitable for
> > FAA certification;)
> >
> Space Access seems to be counting on government
> money, and the X Van is not.
Space Access is not counting on any direct government funding.
They are very much in favor of investment incentives or at least
a government posture that does not actively discourage investment
in RLVs.
> Space Access is
> planning to spend billions prior to operations,
> the X Van is hoping to do this for $150 million
> in the belief that larger amounts cannot be
> recovered commercially in the transition period
> between current ELVs and first-generation RLVs
> (and, possibly, very low-cost ELVs). Space Access
> believes in a different game. They are entitled
> to that opinion -- that makes a good horse race.
Yes, and this difference is evident with regards to
insurance and high value payloads.
snip
> >
> I doubt that it would be possible to kill 200
> people on the ground with our concept -- short
> of a madman pilot. The same pilot could do a
> lot more damage with a 747, which I doubt has
> a destruct device on board.
That Long March accident killed about 200 people.
Your approach seems to minimize the risk, but what
If some other company is not so careful ?
Consider if there was an accident, what kind of regulatory
environment would you be in then ?
Len for MMI
kelly...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <862b8g$hu9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
... snip
> > I doubt that it would be possible to kill 200
> > people on the ground with our concept -- short
> > of a madman pilot. The same pilot could do a
> > lot more damage with a 747, which I doubt has
> > a destruct device on board.
>
> That Long March accident killed about 200 people.
> Your approach seems to minimize the risk, but what
> If some other company is not so careful ?
> Consider if there was an accident, what kind of regulatory
> environment would you be in then ?
>
As Rand pointed out in another reply on this
subject, a DoT license considers safety for
those on the ground. Certification is concerned
with both people on the ground and people in the
aircraft. I think that this could make a big
difference with regard to RLV feasibility and
economics. The current regulatory environment
should be adequate to preclude unwarranted
danger to those on the ground. Even certification,
however, does not guaranttee that no one will
ever be killed or hurt on the ground by a
certified aircraft. Sane regulatory policy
must deal with probabilities, not certainties.
Kwr...@rockisland.com
>Thank you. That is the first definite information I have read on
>Space Access paying for test work. Most of the information I
>have read has been about NASA ejector ramjet programs and
>this was a cooperative program with the Air Force.
>The information on what has already been done reads as
>credible.
Tthat page has been around for years and has never been updated
>The prediction about testing a full-size engine in
>2001 and beginning commercial service in 2001 does not.
The current timetable is 2005, see PopSci June, 1999.
Michael P. Walsh
Kwr...@rockisland.com wrote:
---
---
---
Yet another optimistic timetable for an unproven
concept. It will obviously be in hot competition
with VentureStar :<)
Mike Walsh
Kwr...@rockisland.com
All of the RLV companies have slipped their schedules over the years.
A fully reusable launch vehicle is an unproven concept, but all of the
key technologies, like the ejector-ramjet, have been validated. I can
understand that you are a septic. However, I hope that you will not
disparage a project that could dramatically reduce the cost of space
access.
Len for MMI
Kwr...@rockisland.com wrote:
> "Michael P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Michael P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> -
> >Yet another optimistic timetable for an unproven
> >concept. It will obviously be in hot competition
> >with VentureStar :<)
> All of the RLV companies have slipped their schedules over the years.
Startup schedules slip because of lack of money,
not becouse of the lack of technology.
>
> A fully reusable launch vehicle is an unproven concept, but all of the
> key technologies, like the ejector-ramjet, have been validated. I can
> understand that you are a septic. However, I hope that you will not
> disparage a project that could dramatically reduce the cost of space
> access.
>
In my book, the ejector ramjet is not a key technology.
The problem with ejector ramjets is not ejector ramjets;
it is the system effects of trying to collect air at
high speed. Extra vehicle drag, inlet weight, higher
heating on exit, and poor fuel specific impulse (not
propellant specific impulse) are the killers for
all airbreathing acceleration concepts. LOX is cheap,
dense, and doesn't require further acceleration and
attention once it is used. I've worked these problems
for decades. Airbreathing looks superficially promising.
With detailed system analysis, rocket comes out the winner
for acceleration missions. Cruise at, say, mach 5 is a
different matter.
Anyway, hi Mike. Haven't talked to you for a while.
Best regards,
Len (Cormier) for MMI
Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc. /and/ PanAero. Inc.
--
MMI = 2001: the start of the third millennium
l...@tour2space.com ( http://www.tour2space.com )
Michael P. Walsh
"Len (Cormier) for MMI" wrote:
> In article <lDRh4.4962$mK.3...@brie.direct.ca>,
> Kwr...@rockisland.com wrote:
> > "Michael P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > Michael P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > -
> > >Yet another optimistic timetable for an unproven
> > >concept. It will obviously be in hot competition
> > >with VentureStar :<)
> > All of the RLV companies have slipped their schedules over the years.
>
> Startup schedules slip because of lack of money,
> not becouse of the lack of technology.
---
---
---
As I have remarked before, it would have been interesting if the
new startup companies were able to get far enough to actually
run into technical problems, as far as reusable launch vehicles
go. It appears that Beal Aerospace has enough money to get
to the technical problem region with their attempt to produce
a low cost launcher.
Lockheed Martin's government financed X-33 program has
certainly managed to get to the technical problem stage.
----
----
----
> >
> > A fully reusable launch vehicle is an unproven concept, but all of the
> > key technologies, like the ejector-ramjet, have been validated. I can
> > understand that you are a septic. However, I hope that you will not
> > disparage a project that could dramatically reduce the cost of space
> > access.
---
---
---
I seem to be missing a few posts and will have to go to another news
service to look for it. Remarks such as "all of the key technologies
have been validated" ignore the major problem of design and integration
into a flight weight operating system.
There is no problem with the concepts that have been demonstrated in
subscale wind tunnel tests as far as the ejector rocket is concerned.
I am unaware of any flight tests, and would appreciate hearing about
any. Ramjets have been flying for years and provide good cruise
performance. They need boost assistance to get up to operational
speed and the key technical problem is integrating the ramjet
inlet and ducting with the air intake and ducting of the ejector
rocket.
---
---
---
> >
> In my book, the ejector ramjet is not a key technology.
> The problem with ejector ramjets is not ejector ramjets;
> it is the system effects of trying to collect air at
> high speed. Extra vehicle drag, inlet weight, higher
> heating on exit, and poor fuel specific impulse (not
> propellant specific impulse) are the killers for
> all airbreathing acceleration concepts. LOX is cheap,
> dense, and doesn't require further acceleration and
> attention once it is used. I've worked these problems
> for decades. Airbreathing looks superficially promising.
> With detailed system analysis, rocket comes out the winner
> for acceleration missions. Cruise at, say, mach 5 is a
> different matter.
>
> Anyway, hi Mike. Haven't talked to you for a while.
>
> Best regards,
> Len (Cormier) for MMI
> Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc. /and/ PanAero. Inc.
---
---
---
I will now switch around and say that you may be a
bit too pessimistic about the long term advantages of
the ejector-rocket ramjet combinations. There were
a number of these concepts studied back in the 1960's
and one of the problems was that it was hard to design
an integrated rocket-ramjet that was lighter than using
a separate booster rocket to boost an optimized
ramjet up to operational speed.
Since this is the year 2000 I would hope that there
have been sufficient advances in materials, structures,
and design to provide a more optimistic picture.
My problem is that I see a big gap between what
has been demonstrated and what needs to be tested.
I also read articles about the current NASA test programs
that discuss a serious of small vehicle tests over the
next several years. If the NASA test schedule indicates
the state-of-the-art then I wouldn't expect any large
vehicle to be built until after 2010 at the earliest.
Of course, if you are pessimistic, then everything might
slip down there.
Mike Walsh
Kwr...@rockisland.com
>In article <lDRh4.4962$mK.3...@brie.direct.ca>,
> Kwr...@rockisland.com wrote:
>> "Michael P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> Michael P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> -
>> >Yet another optimistic timetable for an unproven
>> >concept. It will obviously be in hot competition
>> >with VentureStar :<)
>> All of the RLV companies have slipped their schedules over the years.
>Startup schedules slip because of lack of money,
>not becouse of the lack of technology.
That is what is at work here, they have made a decision not to take
the "build a little, wait a lot" approach that some of the others have
taken.
>>
>> A fully reusable launch vehicle is an unproven concept, but all of the
>> key technologies, like the ejector-ramjet, have been validated. I can
>> understand that you are a septic. However, I hope that you will not
>> disparage a project that could dramatically reduce the cost of space
>> access.
>>
>In my book, the ejector ramjet is not a key technology.
>The problem with ejector ramjets is not ejector ramjets;
>it is the system effects of trying to collect air at
>high speed. Extra vehicle drag, inlet weight, higher
>heating on exit, and poor fuel specific impulse (not
>propellant specific impulse) are the killers for
>all airbreathing acceleration concepts.
The technology need to make their system work, such as
air liquefaction that you mentioned, have all been validated, there
are no technological show stoppers here. They are not publicly
disclosing things like the fuel specific impulse, so it is difficult
to make an accurate judgment.
> LOX is cheap,
>dense, and doesn't require further acceleration and
>attention once it is used. I've worked these problems
>for decades. Airbreathing looks superficially promising.
>With detailed system analysis, rocket comes out the winner
>for acceleration missions. Cruise at, say, mach 5 is a
>different matter.
I think that you are letting the decisions that you have made
regarding your own project color your perceptions. Just as with
payload insurance, this is a different game. Ejector-Ramjets only
really work for a large TSTO vehicle, and development costs will be
far beyond your $150m budget.
Len for MMI
> >In my book, the ejector ramjet is not a key technology.
> >The problem with ejector ramjets is not ejector ramjets;
> >it is the system effects of trying to collect air at
> >high speed. Extra vehicle drag, inlet weight, higher
> >heating on exit, and poor fuel specific impulse (not
> >propellant specific impulse) are the killers for
> >all airbreathing acceleration concepts.
>
> The technology need to make their system work, such as
> air liquefaction that you mentioned, have all been validated, there
> are no technological show stoppers here. They are not publicly
> disclosing things like the fuel specific impulse, so it is difficult
> to make an accurate judgment.
>
My point does not hinge on whether or not a
technology has been validated. Rather, it is
based upon decades of study of system-level
tradeoffs -- usually giving the benefit of
doubt to unvalidated high-tech propulsion
concepts. Don't misunderstand me. I believe
that we should continue to look at any technology
that may eventually pay off. What I have objected
to in the past -- for NASP and just about every
other "promising" airbreathing approach that has
come down the pike -- is that the airbreathing
concepts tend to push the straightforward rocket
concepts out of consideration. The airbreathing
concepts tend to be complex and therefore tend to
absorb all of the available funds and attention
even in the study or early development phase. I
would be quite happy with a live and let live
approach, but that has not been the case for the
past four decades of airbreather versus rocket
RLV work. The promise of airbreathers remains
unfilled and the promise of the rocket approaches
remains to be tried. Some basic physics considerations
suggeste that the airbreathing promise may never
be fulfilled for acceleration missions.
With regard to fuel specific impulse, broad ranges
of numbers have been published -- and this broad
range is pretty well limited by basic physics and
varying assumptions with respect to process effeciencies.
By fuel specific impulse, I mean (and I think others
mean): what is the specific impulse counting only
fuel and ignoring oxidizer? This is a useful parameter,
since using air for the oxidizer requires an inlet
and constrained trajectories and since fuel tends
to be much less dense and much more costly than the
oxidizer (at least for LH2 and LOX). The fuel specific
impulse for a hydrogen rocket (using LOX, which is not
counted in fuel specific impulse) is on the order of
32,000 m/s; moreover, this is essentially independent
of mach number and altitude (but not at low altitude).
To my knowledge, this is close to the best predictions
for airbreathers in the supersonic regime, and well
above predictions for the hypersonic regime. Meanwhile,
the simpler, lighter, rocket approach lends itself to
playing a mass-ratio game, even when the mass of the
LOX is factored back in. As you indicate, it is a
different game, and the economic factors can also be
quite different.
In deference to the fact that this n.g. is s.s.p., let
me say that a lot of bad policy has been bsed upon a
lack of understanding of the previous paragraph. BTW,
some of us comfortable with s.s.p. being really "general"
or "misc", as well as "policy." Perhaps there could be
some way of tagging the posts so those who wish it
were more strictly limited to policy could easily
separate out this category.
> > LOX is cheap,
> >dense, and doesn't require further acceleration and
> >attention once it is used. I've worked these problems
> >for decades. Airbreathing looks superficially promising.
> >With detailed system analysis, rocket comes out the winner
> >for acceleration missions. Cruise at, say, mach 5 is a
> >different matter.
>
> I think that you are letting the decisions that you have made
> regarding your own project color your perceptions. Just as with
> payload insurance, this is a different game. Ejector-Ramjets only
> really work for a large TSTO vehicle, and development costs will be
> far beyond your $150m budget.
>
Yes. But that is the reason that I have chosen to
play a different game. And I maintain that operating
costs -- at least for any airbreathing approach I have
considered (including combined cycle engines and ejector
ramjets) -- will also be far higher per unit of paylaod.
This is in addition to any consideration of recovery of
investment.
As I said before, I do believe that some of
the airbreathing concepts do hold great promise for
point-to-point range missions. I have not found
them promising for acceleration missions. This does
not mean that studies and experimental work should
not continue -- but such work should not preclude
work on pure-rocket RLV concepts as it has done at
times in the past. In the commercial world, I want
to see a level playing field where all concepts can
be judged on their respective economic and technical
merits. If we're lucky, both approaches will work,
and we'll have some nifty competition.
>
Best regards,
Len (Cormier) for MMI
Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc. /and/ PanAero, Inc.
Len for MMI
"Michael P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
> "Len (Cormier) for MMI" wrote:
> > Startup schedules slip because of lack of money,
> > not becouse of the lack of technology.
>
> ---
> As I have remarked before, it would have been interesting if the
> new startup companies were able to get far enough to actually
> run into technical problems, as far as reusable launch vehicles
> go. It appears that Beal Aerospace has enough money to get
> to the technical problem region with their attempt to produce
> a low cost launcher.
>
> Lockheed Martin's government financed X-33 program has
> certainly managed to get to the technical problem stage.
Well, Mike, that certainly is an interesting way
to state this particular situation.
> ----
> I seem to be missing a few posts and will have to go to another news
> service to look for it. Remarks such as "all of the key technologies
> have been validated" ignore the major problem of design and
> integration into a flight weight operating system.
>
Amen. To me, an even more important challenge is
the integrated system performance and costs, even
when and if one reaches the operational stage.
> There is no problem with the concepts that have been demonstrated in
> subscale wind tunnel tests as far as the ejector rocket is concerned.
> I am unaware of any flight tests, and would appreciate hearing about
> any. Ramjets have been flying for years and provide good cruise
> performance. They need boost assistance to get up to operational
> speed and the key technical problem is integrating the ramjet
> inlet and ducting with the air intake and ducting of the ejector
> rocket.
> ---
>
> > >
> > In my book, the ejector ramjet is not a key technology.
> > The problem with ejector ramjets is not ejector ramjets;
> > it is the system effects of trying to collect air at
> > high speed. Extra vehicle drag, inlet weight, higher
> > heating on exit, and poor fuel specific impulse (not
> > propellant specific impulse) are the killers for
> > all airbreathing acceleration concepts. LOX is cheap,
> > dense, and doesn't require further acceleration and
> > attention once it is used. I've worked these problems
> > for decades. Airbreathing looks superficially promising.
> > With detailed system analysis, rocket comes out the winner
> > for acceleration missions. Cruise at, say, mach 5 is a
> > different matter.
> >
>---
> I will now switch around and say that you may be a
> bit too pessimistic about the long term advantages of
> the ejector-rocket ramjet combinations. There were
> a number of these concepts studied back in the 1960's
> and one of the problems was that it was hard to design
> an integrated rocket-ramjet that was lighter than using
> a separate booster rocket to boost an optimized
> ramjet up to operational speed.
>
Well, aside from weight disadvantages/advantages, I
doubt that the performance for the integrated
design is any better that for separate engines
operating simultaneously -- the main advantage that
I see is integration of the base area. Moreover,
compare the amount of fuel (not just fuel plus
oxidizer) used by an airbreather with a comparable
pure rocket -- especially when hydrogen is used.
This, of course, is not the whole story; but it is
an important aspect of the total cost and
performance picture.
> Since this is the year 2000 I would hope that there
> have been sufficient advances in materials, structures,
> and design to provide a more optimistic picture.
> My problem is that I see a big gap between what
> has been demonstrated and what needs to be tested.
> I also read articles about the current NASA test programs
> that discuss a serious of small vehicle tests over the
> next several years. If the NASA test schedule indicates
> the state-of-the-art then I wouldn't expect any large
> vehicle to be built until after 2010 at the earliest.
>
> Of course, if you are pessimistic, then everything might
> slip down there.
>
> Mike Walsh
>
As I've posted elswhere on this thread, my main
concern is that interest in complex complex combined
cycle engines tends to preclude adequate interest in
straightforward pure-rocket RLV approaches that are
based upon much lower level technology, but that are
seemingly able to provide at least as low a cost per kg
of payload to orbit.
Phil Fraering
> There was a clear argument supporting the airmail subsidy - the US
>Postal Service is in the Constitution. There is a less clear argument
>for subsidizing passenger air or space travel.
No, that isn't a clear argument, because at the time it was
probably easier and more efficient to send mail by train.
--
Phil Fraering
p...@globalreach.net ?Year00 error
/Will work for tape/ Harddrive meltdown sequencer initiated.
Kwr...@rockisland.com
>With regard to fuel specific impulse, broad ranges
>of numbers have been published -- and this broad
>range is pretty well limited by basic physics and
>varying assumptions with respect to process effeciencies.
When Kaiser Marquardt tested SA’s ejector-ramjet in 1996 it performed
20 times better than any other ram jet ever had. They are quoted as
saying that from 0 to Mach 8 it produces seven times more thrust for
every pound of fuel than a conventional rocket.
>By fuel specific impulse, I mean (and I think others
>mean): what is the specific impulse counting only
>fuel and ignoring oxidizer? This is a useful parameter,
>since using air for the oxidizer requires an inlet
>and constrained trajectories and since fuel tends
>to be much less dense and much more costly than the
>oxidizer (at least for LH2 and LOX). The fuel specific
>impulse for a hydrogen rocket (using LOX, which is not
>counted in fuel specific impulse) is on the order of
>32,000 m/s;
You will have to forgive me, I am not a rocket scientist.
I am having trouble interpreting this number.
Shouldn’t specific impulse be either lbf. s/lbm or N. s/kg ?
I have always seen the figure for chemical rockets as
something in the 150-450 range. Now I think that
is pound force / pound of mass of propellant.
Anyway, can you help me make the conversion ?
snip
>In deference to the fact that this n.g. is s.s.p., let
>me say that a lot of bad policy has been bsed upon a
>lack of understanding of the previous paragraph. BTW,
>some of us comfortable with s.s.p. being really "general"
>or "misc", as well as "policy." Perhaps there could be
>some way of tagging the posts so those who wish it
>were more strictly limited to policy could easily
>separate out this category.
I think that it is fair to treat s.s.p as sci.space.fast.unmoderated.
We are closer to being on topic than alot of threads.
>As I said before, I do believe that some of
>the airbreathing concepts do hold great promise for
>point-to-point range missions. I have not found
>them promising for acceleration missions. This does
>not mean that studies and experimental work should
>not continue -- but such work should not preclude
>work on pure-rocket RLV concepts as it has done at
>times in the past. In the commercial world, I want
>to see a level playing field where all concepts can
>be judged on their respective economic and technical
>merits. If we're lucky, both approaches will work,
>and we'll have some nifty competition.
Yes, but something needs to be done to encourage
investment by private capital in the RLVs. Lets
help get the competition started.
Len for MMI
Kwr...@rockisland.com wrote:
> Len (Cormier) for MMI <l...@tour2space.com> wrote:
>
> >With regard to fuel specific impulse, broad ranges
> >of numbers have been published -- and this broad
> >range is pretty well limited by basic physics and
> >varying assumptions with respect to process effeciencies.
>
> 20 times better than any other ram jet ever had. They are quoted as
> saying that from 0 to Mach 8 it produces seven times more thrust for
> every pound of fuel than a conventional rocket.
>
below, say, mach 6. I think this type of performance
is greater than most advocates claim for above mach 6,
however. See, e.g., figure 6-13, page 127, of Spacecraft
Systems Engineering, by Fotrescue and Stark (Wiley 1991/
1992). My arguments are on the system level -- when
drag losses (excluding inlet bookkeeping), acceleration
of four times as much nitrogen as there is oxygen in
the air, inlet mass, fuel tank mass, additional thermal
strsses, and other system-level factors are considered
for total system performance. I have found that you are
lucky to break even on performance versus empty mass
(and even gross mass, at times) when the airbreather is
compared with a much simpler rocket approach. And, you do
not break even on costs by a long shot.
> >By fuel specific impulse, I mean (and I think others
> >mean): what is the specific impulse counting only
> >fuel and ignoring oxidizer? This is a useful parameter,
> >since using air for the oxidizer requires an inlet
> >and constrained trajectories and since fuel tends
> >to be much less dense and much more costly than the
> >oxidizer (at least for LH2 and LOX). The fuel specific
> >impulse for a hydrogen rocket (using LOX, which is not
> >counted in fuel specific impulse) is on the order of
> >32,000 m/s;
>
> You will have to forgive me, I am not a rocket scientist.
> I am having trouble interpreting this number.
> Shouldn’t specific impulse be either lbf. s/lbm or N. s/kg ?
> I have always seen the figure for chemical rockets as
> something in the 150-450 range. Now I think that
> is pound force / pound of mass of propellant.
> Anyway, can you help me make the conversion ?
>
Yes, you're right. But this is another way of saying
that specific impulse has the units of velocity: i.e.
momentum per unit mass. The unit of "seconds" is a
bastardized unit that has become popular because it
supposedly has the same value in both English and
metric units. But that coincidence is due to sloppiness
of defining units, not to any real similarity.
If you multiply the 150 "sec" (monoprops) to 470 "sec" (RL50)
by g, then you get 1471 m/s to 4609 m/s (4826 ft/sec to
15,122 ft/sec). If you consider that the RL50 hs a 6:1
mixture ratio, then the "fuel specific impulse" becomes
32,263 m/s.
> snip
>
> >In deference to the fact that this n.g. is s.s.p., let
> >me say that a lot of bad policy has been bsed upon a
> >lack of understanding of the previous paragraph. BTW,
> >some of us comfortable with s.s.p. being really "general"
> >or "misc", as well as "policy." Perhaps there could be
> >some way of tagging the posts so those who wish it
> >were more strictly limited to policy could easily
> >separate out this category.
>
> I think that it is fair to treat s.s.p as sci.space.fast.unmoderated.
> We are closer to being on topic than alot of threads.
>
I feel the same way. Please excuse us, David Anderman.
> >As I said before, I do believe that some of
> >the airbreathing concepts do hold great promise for
> >point-to-point range missions. I have not found
> >them promising for acceleration missions. This does
> >not mean that studies and experimental work should
> >not continue -- but such work should not preclude
> >work on pure-rocket RLV concepts as it has done at
> >times in the past. In the commercial world, I want
> >to see a level playing field where all concepts can
> >be judged on their respective economic and technical
> >merits. If we're lucky, both approaches will work,
> >and we'll have some nifty competition.
>
> Yes, but something needs to be done to encourage
> investment by private capital in the RLVs. Lets
> help get the competition started.
>
Hey, Kelly, we can agree violently on that.