--- In spacesettlers@y..., smasters@g... wrote:

> -forget all this space crap, it is a waste of time, technology is
not
> advanced enough

All of the technology aboard space shuttle Columbia was available in
1975 - that was part of the original program, to use only the
technology available at the time. The remaining shuttles are built
using newer technology, but the same basic design.

The technology is already advanced enough; it has been for decades.
None of the ideas I have been talking about are new, Martin Marietta
studied ET orbital salvage issues 26 years ago, various solutions
have been available for a long time, including the Aft Cargo Carrier.

The only thing lacking has been _will_ on the part of NASA. Not that
everybody at NASA feels this way, it is just one of the effects of
bureaucracy and inertia.

:) ed

Ed Minchau wrote:

> --- In spacesettlers@y..., smasters@g... wrote:
>
> > -forget all this space crap, it is a waste of time, technology is
> not
> > advanced enough
>
> The technology is already advanced enough; it has been for decades.

advanced enough for what? I don't think anyone can launch for less than
several thousand dollars a kilogram, even the Russians. There's a lot of
price pressure on launch providers today because of oversupply. Prices have
come down, but not by the order of magnitude or more necessary to colonize
the solar system or even enable tourism on large-scale.

>
> None of the ideas I have been talking about are new, Martin Marietta
> studied ET orbital salvage issues 26 years ago,

> various solutions
> have been available for a long time, including the Aft Cargo Carrier.

a friend of mine at NASA Ames studied the aerodynamics of the aft cargo
carrier using computational fluid dynamics. It was a long time ago that I
discussed it with him, but I'm pretty sure I remember him saying that it
caused very serious aerodynamic problems. Fatal problems. Wish I'd written
something down at the time ...

>
> The only thing lacking has been _will_ on the part of NASA.

To a first approximation, NASA does what the president and Congress wants it
to, subject to the usual problems of large organizations and hard tasks. I
think we should push Congress and the new president hard to make space
tourism front and center at NASA. It's the only market I see for inexpensive
human-rated launch vehicles. Such vehicles are essential to space
colonization.

Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

I think we should:

1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020 goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failure
rate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will need to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.

2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid are
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500 times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space colonies,

each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.

3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their colony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby stars.

Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.

Al Globus wrote:

> Ed Minchau wrote:
>> --- In spacesettlers@y..., smasters@g... wrote:
>>> -forget all this space crap, it is a waste of time, technology is
>>> not advanced enough
>>
>> The technology is already advanced enough; it has been for decades.
>
> advanced enough for what? I don't think anyone can launch for less than
> several thousand dollars a kilogram, even the Russians. There's a lot of
> price pressure on launch providers today because of oversupply. Prices have
> come down, but not by the order of magnitude or more necessary to colonize
> the solar system or even enable tourism on large-scale.

I don't think that tech is the problem. We have most of the
knowledge necessary to colonize space. It needs quite a bit
more R&D.

The real problem is economics.

At present the launch rate is low. That's due to the low demand.
This leads to high prices that leads to low demand- the cost of launches
is weakly dependent on technology and mostly dependent on the number
of people required. But the number of people weakly depends on the
number of launches.

So, anything that raises the launch rate will bring the costs down.
But, anything that brings the cost down may raise the launch rate
(but it's believed that the demand for launch isn't much affected
by the cost right now; that's another reason it is high, because
this is believed; hence the launch supplies charge accordingly.)

Additionally demand has exceeded supply for a while. That has now
changed; and Iridium has reduced demand, at the same time that
supply has increased.

My theory is that the price will halve every 5 years for the
foreseeable future; on average; but it may drop more quickly in
the short run due to competition between the Russian block and
the Americans.

Demand should remain flat for the next 5 years, and then after
that I believe it will start to climb, particularly when the
price drops below the psychological $1000/kg barrier soon after
that.

Tourism is ~15 years away, if I am right.

Anyway, that's my theory. It's assumes that there is
an intrinsic complexity in space- that a given cost improves the
area by a fixed amount and that the profitability is only
able to pay a certain amount to improve the space area.

> To a first approximation, NASA does what the president and Congress wants it
> to, subject to the usual problems of large organizations and hard tasks. I
> think we should push Congress and the new president hard to make space
> tourism front and center at NASA. It's the only market I see for inexpensive
> human-rated launch vehicles. Such vehicles are essential to space
> colonization.

Can NASA supply a market? Can a government make profit? It seems
unlikely, but it has happened occasionally.

> --
> Al Globus
> aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
--
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)

"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological
civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill

Ian Woollard wrote:

> Al Globus wrote:
>
> > Ed Minchau wrote:
>
> My theory is that the price will halve every 5 years for the
> foreseeable future; on average; but it may drop more quickly in
> the short run due to competition between the Russian block and
> the Americans.

Considering that the price of launch has actually risen over the last 30 years,
that's a theory in need of some data. Measured in person-hours per ton to
low-Earth-orbit, a Saturn V launch was cheaper than any current alternative, with
the possible exception of some Russian launchers Source: Reducing Space Mission
Cost, James Wertz and Wiley Larson, page 116. In addition, launch costs have never
halved over any 5 year period. Why would they suddenly start now?

As to competition between the old USSR and the U.S., most of the new and recent
launchers developed or in development in the US use major pieces of ex-Soviet
hardware (engines, whole vehicles, etc.).

>
> Tourism is ~15 years away, if I am right.
>

I wish you were right, but I don't see a shred of evidence for a tourism business
outside of people with literally millions to spend on a trip to space.. The only
hope I see for middle-class tourism is NASA's official goal of a few hundred
dollars/lb to LEO by 2020 or so with one failure in 10,000 flights. If this goal
were reached, tourism should work. However, I don't see a development path that
will get us there. Hopefully am wrong.

> Can NASA supply a market? Can a government make profit? It seems
> unlikely, but it has happened occasionally.

NASA by itself is not really a market. A market with one customer, isn't a
market. Also, governments aren't supposed to make profits. If they did, they
could use the power of taxation and their control of the legal system to destroy
all possible competition. This happens in many countries, almost all of which are
pretty poor as a result. We need to insure that our government never makes a
profit, and removes itself from any line of development that begins to be
profitable. That's for business and private enterprise.

Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

I think we should:

1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020 goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failure rate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will need to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.

2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid are
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500 times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space colonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.

3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their colony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby stars.

Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.

Hi Al,

The price of launch has risen because US politicians wanted it to do so.
They wanted it because it kept their voters in this State or that in
jobs - and to hell with the rest of the world - or at least that is how
it has seemed over here.

Other people in other lands had plans for cheaper launchers that they
were not permitted to develop due to US pressure on their governments
that this should not be permitted to happen. I know of one particular
vehicle using what was off-the-shelf tech then that could have been
developed 15 years ago but was not, just for that reason. If David
Ashford's 'Spacebus' had been given proper backing (2 billion - about
the same as Concorde {which he helped design}) when he designed it and
asked for support back in 1986, in 10 years we would have had a fleet of
72 of these. By 1996 we would have had space hotels already up there.
Had it been developed in the way planned, it would presently cost
$10,000 per head to put a man in space for a week and space tourism
would already be up there and running.

However, in 1986 the cold war was still happening, even if getting less
intense. The UK still needed US Trident missiles. I reckon we had to do
what we were told and I'm sure our politicians thought likewise.

NASA claims it supports space tourism, but has failed to publish its own
report on the subject. Indeed, had it not been for economics Professor
Patrick Collins - who works for NASDA in Japan, we wouldn't even know
about that report. It said space tourism could start any day and would
become an enormous space business. Here is a quote from NASA's own 1998
report (though not yet published by NASA) "Fortunately, critical
advances have been made during the past decade in many of the
technologies that can enable non-astronaut human space travel to become
both technically and economically feasible, and more are foreseen. As a
result, the potential exists for the creation, in the next very few
decades, of a $10-20 billion... per year "general public space travel
and tourism" business."

Best wishes, Andy Nimmo.

Al Globus wrote:

> Ian Woollard wrote:
>
> > Al Globus wrote:
> >
> > > Ed Minchau wrote:
> >
> > My theory is that the price will halve every 5 years for the
> > foreseeable future; on average; but it may drop more quickly in
> > the short run due to competition between the Russian block and
> > the Americans.
>
> Considering that the price of launch has actually risen over the last
> 30 years,
> that's a theory in need of some data. Measured in person-hours per
> ton to
> low-Earth-orbit, a Saturn V launch was cheaper than any current
> alternative, with
> the possible exception of some Russian launchers Source: Reducing
> Space Mission
> Cost, James Wertz and Wiley Larson, page 116. In addition, launch
> costs have never
> halved over any 5 year period. Why would they suddenly start now?
>
> As to competition between the old USSR and the U.S., most of the new
> and recent
> launchers developed or in development in the US use major pieces of
> ex-Soviet
> hardware (engines, whole vehicles, etc.).
>
> > Tourism is ~15 years away, if I am right.
> >
> I wish you were right, but I don't see a shred of evidence for a
> tourism business
> outside of people with literally millions to spend on a trip to
> space.. The only
> hope I see for middle-class tourism is NASA's official goal of a few
> hundred
> dollars/lb to LEO by 2020 or so with one failure in 10,000 flights.
> If this goal
> were reached, tourism should work. However, I don't see a development
> path that
> will get us there. Hopefully am wrong.
>

The price of launch has risen because US politicians wanted it to doso. They wanted it because it kept their voters in this State or that injobs - and to hell with the rest of the world - or at least that is howit has seemed over here.
Other people in other lands had plans for cheaper launchers that theywere not permitted to develop due to US pressure on their governments thatthis should not be permitted to happen. I know of one particular vehicleusing what was off-the-shelf tech then that could have been developed 15years ago but was not, just for that reason. If David Ashford's 'Spacebus'had been given proper backing (£2 billion - about the same as Concorde{which he helped design}) when he designed it and asked for support backin 1986, in 10 years we would have had a fleet of 72 of these. By 1996we would have had space hotels already up there. Had it been developedin the way planned, it would presently cost $10,000 per head to put a manin space for a week and space tourism would already be up there and running.
However, in 1986 the cold war was still happening, even if getting lessintense. The UK still needed US Trident missiles. I reckon we had to dowhat we were told and I'm sure our politicians thought likewise.
NASA claims it supports space tourism, but has failed to publish itsown report on the subject. Indeed, had it not been for economics ProfessorPatrick Collins - who works for NASDA in Japan, we wouldn't even know aboutthat report. It said space tourism could start any day and would becomean enormous space business. Here is a quote from NASA's own 1998 report(though not yet published by NASA) "Fortunately, critical advances havebeen made during the past decade in many of the technologies that can enablenon-astronaut human space travel to become both technically and economicallyfeasible, and more are foreseen. As a result, the potential exists forthe creation, in the next very few decades, of a $10-20 billion... peryear "general public space travel and tourism" business."
Best wishes, Andy Nimmo.
Al Globus wrote:
Ian Woollard wrote:
> Al Globus wrote:
>
> > Ed Minchau wrote:
>
> My theory is that the price will halve every 5 years for the
> foreseeable future; on average; but it may drop more quicklyin
> the short run due to competition between the Russian block and
> the Americans.
Considering that the price of launch has actually risen over thelast 30 years,
that's a theory in need of some data. Measured in person-hoursper ton to
low-Earth-orbit, a Saturn V launch was cheaper than any currentalternative, with
the possible exception of some Russian launchers Source:Reducing Space Mission
Cost, James Wertz and Wiley Larson, page 116. In addition,launch costs have never
halved over any 5 year period. Why would they suddenly startnow?
As to competition between the old USSR and the U.S., most of thenew and recent
launchers developed or in development in the US use major piecesof ex-Soviet
hardware (engines, whole vehicles, etc.).
>
> Tourism is ~15 years away, if I am right.
>
I wish you were right, but I don't see a shred of evidence for atourism business
outside of people with literally millions to spend on a trip tospace.. The only
hope I see for middle-class tourism is NASA's official goal ofa few hundred
dollars/lb to LEO by 2020 or so with one failure in 10,000 flights. If this goal
were reached, tourism should work. However, I don't see adevelopment path that
will get us there. Hopefully am wrong.

Al Globus wrote:

> Ian Woollard wrote:
>
>> Al Globus wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ed Minchau wrote:
>>
>> My theory is that the price will halve every 5 years for the
>> foreseeable future; on average; but it may drop more quickly in
>> the short run due to competition between the Russian block and
>> the Americans.
>
> Considering that the price of launch has actually risen over the last 30 years,
> that's a theory in need of some data. Measured in person-hours per ton to
> low-Earth-orbit, a Saturn V launch was cheaper than any current alternative, with
> the possible exception of some Russian launchers

Yes, but costs to launch go down greatly with launcher size. Saturn V
was rather a lot bigger. Launchers are getting bigger aren't they?

> Source: Reducing Space Mission
> Cost, James Wertz and Wiley Larson, page 116. In addition, launch costs have never
> halved over any 5 year period. Why would they suddenly start now?

Launchers are getting bigger. Therefore costs are going down. There
does not appear to be much limit as to how big launchers can get. The
cost per launch is to a first approximation fixed. The amount
launched scales with launcher size.

> As to competition between the old USSR and the U.S., most of the new and recent
> launchers developed or in development in the US use major pieces of ex-Soviet
> hardware (engines, whole vehicles, etc.).

Yes. Also it has been shown that kero is cheaper than hydrogen and
has similar performance (although kero rockets give
less unit thrust per pound of fuel, the lower tankage costs;
smaller engines and most importantly, faster mass reduction to
reduce gravity losses help kero match hydrogen.)

>> Tourism is ~15 years away, if I am right.
>
> I wish you were right, but I don't see a shred of evidence for a tourism business
> outside of people with literally millions to spend on a trip to space.. The only
> hope I see for middle-class tourism is NASA's official goal of a few hundred
> dollars/lb to LEO by 2020 or so with one failure in 10,000 flights. If this goal
> were reached, tourism should work. However, I don't see a development path that
> will get us there. Hopefully am wrong.

Isn't that the same goal they had for the Space Shuttle? NASA don't
care about cheap launch. Or more accurately the associated companies
around NASA don't care about cheap launch. They like it just
fine really expensive with them raking off a percentage. Why else
is the space shuttle the most expensive launcher ever per pound
(ignoring the small launch systems)?

Right now there is negligable tourism of course.

>> Can NASA supply a market? Can a government make profit? It seems
>> unlikely, but it has happened occasionally.
>
> NASA by itself is not really a market. A market with one customer, isn't a
> market. Also, governments aren't supposed to make profits. If they did, they
> could use the power of taxation and their control of the legal system to destroy
> all possible competition. This happens in many countries, almost all of which are
> pretty poor as a result. We need to insure that our government never makes a
> profit, and removes itself from any line of development that begins to be
> profitable. That's for business and private enterprise.

There is good evidence that NASA and the associated companies are
squashing competition. Beale specifically said so when he closed his
launch business. Or perhaps he was trying to cover the size of his mistake?

> --
> Al Globus
> aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

--
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)

"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological
civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ian Woollard wrote:
> Al Globus wrote:
>
> > Ian Woollard wrote:
> >
> >> Al Globus wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Ed Minchau wrote:
> >>
> >> My theory is that the price will halve every 5 years for the
> >> foreseeable future; on average; but it may drop more quickly in
> >> the short run due to competition between the Russian block and
> >> the Americans.
> >
> > Considering that the price of launch has actually risen over the
last 30 years,
> > that's a theory in need of some data. Measured in person-hours
per ton to
> > low-Earth-orbit, a Saturn V launch was cheaper than any current
alternative, with
> > the possible exception of some Russian launchers
>
> Yes, but costs to launch go down greatly with launcher size. Saturn
V
> was rather a lot bigger. Launchers are getting bigger aren't they?
>

First off, Al, just because I am going after NASA on this doesn't
mean an attack on you personally; you're one of the more forward-
thinking guys there. Not that I detect any animosity, just want to
head it off before it starts....

NASA launch costs have remained pretty static for the last fourty
years. The space shuttle program is hugely expensive right now, but
the payload capacity is small; add in the Challenger explosion and
the failure rate is well off the 1 in 10000 goal.

NASA had considerable clout with the space industry in the early
70's, being pretty much the only launch system outside the USSR, and
with considerable backing from the US government. The space shuttle
program diverted a huge chunk of cash from the supply available for
researching CAST and other programs.

Suppose instead all the money put into the shuttle program was used
instead to mass-produce Saturn V rockets; the cost per unit would
drop dramatically, as would the cost per launch.

One question I have for you Al: are the launch costs you quoted in
constant dollars? If not, then once adjusted for infation, launch
costs should be steadily dropping and have been continuously doing
so...just a thought.

> > Source: Reducing Space Mission
> > Cost, James Wertz and Wiley Larson, page 116. In addition,
launch costs have never
> > halved over any 5 year period. Why would they suddenly start now?
>
> Launchers are getting bigger. Therefore costs are going down. There
> does not appear to be much limit as to how big launchers can get.
The
> cost per launch is to a first approximation fixed. The amount
> launched scales with launcher size.
>
> > As to competition between the old USSR and the U.S., most of the
new and recent
> > launchers developed or in development in the US use major pieces
of ex-Soviet
> > hardware (engines, whole vehicles, etc.).
>
> Yes. Also it has been shown that kero is cheaper than hydrogen and
> has similar performance (although kero rockets give
> less unit thrust per pound of fuel, the lower tankage costs;
> smaller engines and most importantly, faster mass reduction to
> reduce gravity losses help kero match hydrogen.)
>

Just because the US and Russia currently have most of the launch
facilities etc does not mean that this will continue to be the case.
There is simply too much money to be made for other countries to stay
out of the space launch business for much longer. China has its own
space program, too.

> >> Tourism is ~15 years away, if I am right.
> >
> > I wish you were right, but I don't see a shred of evidence for a
tourism business
> > outside of people with literally millions to spend on a trip to
space.. The only
> > hope I see for middle-class tourism is NASA's official goal of a
few hundred
> > dollars/lb to LEO by 2020 or so with one failure in 10,000
flights. If this goal
> > were reached, tourism should work. However, I don't see a
development path that
> > will get us there. Hopefully am wrong.
>
> Isn't that the same goal they had for the Space Shuttle? NASA don't
> care about cheap launch. Or more accurately the associated companies
> around NASA don't care about cheap launch. They like it just
> fine really expensive with them raking off a percentage. Why else
> is the space shuttle the most expensive launcher ever per pound
> (ignoring the small launch systems)?
>
> Right now there is negligable tourism of course.
>
> >> Can NASA supply a market? Can a government make profit? It seems
> >> unlikely, but it has happened occasionally.
> >
> > NASA by itself is not really a market. A market with one
customer, isn't a
> > market. Also, governments aren't supposed to make profits. If
they did, they
> > could use the power of taxation and their control of the legal
system to destroy
> > all possible competition. This happens in many countries, almost
all of which are
> > pretty poor as a result. We need to insure that our government
never makes a
> > profit, and removes itself from any line of development that
begins to be
> > profitable. That's for business and private enterprise.
>
> There is good evidence that NASA and the associated companies are
> squashing competition. Beale specifically said so when he closed his
> launch business. Or perhaps he was trying to cover the size of his
mistake?
>

Once space business really takes off (sorry, couldn't resist) NASA
will likely remain a major customer, but only one among many.

:) ed

andy-nimmo wrote:

> Hi Al,
>
> The price of launch has risen because US politicians wanted it to do
> so. They wanted it because it kept their voters in this State or that
> in jobs - and to hell with the rest of the world - or at least that is
> how it has seemed over here.
>

Then explain why the European Araine launch vehicle, which has about
half of the market, is comparably priced. Even the Russian and Chinese
launchers, while cheaper, are not ten times cheaper. Furthermore, this
is probably because you can get excellent Russian and Ukrainian rocket
engineers for a few thousand dollars year. That won't last forever.
Your theory doesn't fit the data.

The U.S. did make a huge mistake by mandating the shuttle as the sole
launcher in the '80s. That's one major reason the Europeans have about
half the commercial launch market today.

>
> Other people in other lands had plans for cheaper launchers that they
> were not permitted to develop due to US pressure on their governments
> that this should not be permitted to happen. I know of one particular
> vehicle using what was off-the-shelf tech then that could have been
> developed 15 years ago but was not, just for that reason. If David
> Ashford's 'Spacebus' had been given proper backing (2 billion - about
> the same as Concorde {which he helped design}) when he designed it and
> asked for support back in 1986, in 10 years we would have had a fleet
> of 72 of these. By 1996 we would have had space hotels already up
> there. Had it been developed in the way planned, it would presently
> cost $10,000 per head to put a man in space for a week and space
> tourism would already be up there and running.

Any number of people have made these kinds of claims in the past. Some
of them with no connection to the US. None have produced. This sort of
behavior is not confined to space launch, you see it in the commercial
and government world all the time. Note that even the Chinese launchers
aren't all that cheap.

>
> NASA claims it supports space tourism, but has failed to publish its
> own report on the subject.

You can find that report at
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/general_public_space_travel_and_tourism.shtml.
There's a link from http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/, a
site I'm closely connected with. When I asked the NASA Ames librarian
for this report, she provided me with these URLs and a hard copy.

> Indeed, had it not been for economics Professor Patrick Collins - who
> works for NASDA in Japan, we wouldn't even know about that report. It
> said space tourism could start any day and would become an enormous
> space business.

What *can* start today, according to the report, is space related
tourism: theme parks, flights in a vomit comet (which are available
today), training at Star city (which is available today), and extremely
high and tourism such as Dennis Tito -- who has a good chance of flying
in October.
.
NASA has not yet figured out that space tourism is a really good thing.
Yelling and screaming at them may or may not get you what you want.
Letting your representatives know that space tourism is important and
you want it may be useful. The congressman I talked to had never even
heard of the concept. Space tourism is popular with the general public.
Space colonization is not. I think that space tourism is by far our
best bet, but implementation will require reliable, inexpensive
launchers -- hardware, not promises and paper. Working hardware in this
business (human space flight) is made by large teams of extremely
high-quality engineers with very rigorous quality-control. It's not a
personal-computer in the garage kind of business.

I would love to fund every crazy idea out there, and I think we have the
money to do it, but institutionally, NASA will have a hard time handing
out $100 million or so to small time launch vehicle people. NASA
intends to spend the few billion dollars over the next three years
developing new launchers. Most of that will probably go to the big
aerospace corporations, but there is a new administration in the White
House and there's a window of opportunity to make some changes.

Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

I think we should:

1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020
goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failure
rate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will need
to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.

2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid
are
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500
times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space
colonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.

3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their
colony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby stars.

Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.

Ian Woollard wrote:

> Al Globus wrote:
>
> > Ian Woollard wrote:
> >
> Yes, but costs to launch go down greatly with launcher size. Saturn V
> was rather a lot bigger. Launchers are getting bigger aren't they?
>

I believe the shuttle has the greatest capacity to LEO, and it's less than Saturn V, so
no, they aren't.

> >> Tourism is ~15 years away, if I am right.
> >
> > I wish you were right, but I don't see a shred of evidence for a tourism business
> > outside of people with literally millions to spend on a trip to space.. The only
> > hope I see for middle-class tourism is NASA's official goal of a few hundred
> > dollars/lb to LEO by 2020 or so with one failure in 10,000 flights. If this goal
> > were reached, tourism should work. However, I don't see a development path that
> > will get us there. Hopefully am wrong.
>
> Isn't that the same goal they had for the Space Shuttle?

No. Cost goals for the shuttle were $500/lb in 1980 dollars and one failure in 100,000
flights. The shuttle missed these goals by over an order of magnitude in cost and three
orders of magnitude in reliability. Nonetheless, the space shuttle is by far the most
capable launch vehicle in the world.

> NASA don't
> care about cheap launch.

There's a difference between failing to achieve your ambitious goals and not caring. In
my experience, many people at NASA do care about cheap launches, although there has been
little success.

> Or more accurately the associated companies
> around NASA don't care about cheap launch. They like it just
> fine really expensive with them raking off a percentage.

I think there may be some truth to this. However, in the current launch market people
are cutting margins to the bone because of the extreme competition. Most of the fat is
either gone or will be gone soon, so current commercial prices are a pretty good
indication of real cost.

> Why else
> is the space shuttle the most expensive launcher ever per pound
> (ignoring the small launch systems)?

Other possibilities: It's the only re-usable launch vehicle, it's man-rated, and
operations are quite different than other vehicles. The shuttle has a 1% failure rate
while commercial launchers have about a 7% failure rate. At these levels, additional
reliability is pretty expensive. Also, the shuttle is the *least* expensive launcher in
volume per lb., so your choice of measurement affects the analysis.

>
> There is good evidence that NASA and the associated companies are
> squashing competition. Beale specifically said so when he closed his
> launch business. Or perhaps he was trying to cover the size of his mistake?

I think there's may be some of that going on, but I don't think it's decisive. Gathering
evidence on the subject will be extremely difficult and probably not particular
productive.

Beale had plenty of problems other than the government. His analysis may be correct, or
it might have been sour grapes. Note that Orbital Sciences was able to create a new
company, break into the aerospace market (including launchers), and become a major player
over the last 10 or 15 years. It's not impossible.

Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

I think we should:

1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020 goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failure rate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will need to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.

2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid are
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500 times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space colonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.

3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their colony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby stars.

Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.

Hi Al,

The reason Ariane is expensive is that it is basically a pre-shuttle
vehicle based on the old UK Bluestreak of the 60s souped up several
times since. A number of the early versions were flying in the 70s
before you guys even got to the Shuttle. The vehicles I was talking
about were designed in the 80s. It is your theory that doesn't fit the
data.

You say, "Any number of people have made these kinds of claims in the
past. Some of them with no connection to the US. None have produced."
I've just told you why those developed over here were not produced. The
URL NASA told you is Professor Patrick Collins' site.

You say, "NASA has not yet figured out that space tourism is a really
good thing." That is in direct contradiction of their report. You also
say, "Yelling and screaming at them may or may not get you what you
want." (1) I am not yelling and screaming at NASA, just pointing out
that they have been economical with their own truth. (2) Even if I did
yell and scream at NASA, I would never expect it to get me anything I
want. It is not NASA's job to provide me, as a UK citizen, with anything
I or anybody else over here may or may not wish for. That is the job of
the BNSC - the British National Space Centre, the UK NASA-equivalent
that has never put a penny into any kind of launch development
whatsoever. You also say, "Letting your representatives know that space
tourism is important and you want it may be useful. The congressman I
talked to had never even heard of the concept." As I have now been a
space activist for 45 years I think those UK politicians with an
interest in space are well aware of my views. Those who don't won't of
course, but you cannot expect everyone to be interested in everything,
and even politicians are human, some into one thing and others into
another.

You say, "Working hardware in this business (human space flight) is made
by large teams of extremely high-quality engineers with very rigorous
quality-control. It's not a personal-computer in the garage kind of
business." - When David Ashford designed 'Spacebus' he had just
completed work with the Concorde team and was still working for British
Aerospace - but then perhaps you regard them as "a personal-computer in
the garage kind of business."

You go on, "I would love to fund every crazy idea out there, and I think
we have the money to do it, but institutionally, NASA will have a hard
time handing out $100 million or so to small time launch vehicle
people." Nobody here is looking for any money from NASA - not one penny!
What I am after is a change of attitude to manned spaceflight by the UK
Government. Right now they don't put a penny into ESA's manned space
program nor into any non-military launch development. I want that to
change. As far as I understand it NASA is on my side in this. They also
want that to change.

Best wishes, Andy Nimmo.

Al Globus wrote:

>
> andy-nimmo wrote:
>
> > Hi Al,
> >
> > The price of launch has risen because US politicians wanted it to do
>
> > so. They wanted it because it kept their voters in this State or
> that
> > in jobs - and to hell with the rest of the world - or at least that
> is
> > how it has seemed over here.
> >
> Then explain why the European Araine launch vehicle, which has about
> half of the market, is comparably priced. Even the Russian and
> Chinese
> launchers, while cheaper, are not ten times cheaper. Furthermore,
> this
> is probably because you can get excellent Russian and Ukrainian rocket
>
> engineers for a few thousand dollars year. That won't last forever.
> Your theory doesn't fit the data.
>
> The U.S. did make a huge mistake by mandating the shuttle as the sole
> launcher in the '80s. That's one major reason the Europeans have
> about
> half the commercial launch market today.
>
> > Other people in other lands had plans for cheaper launchers that
> they
> > were not permitted to develop due to US pressure on their
> governments
> > that this should not be permitted to happen. I know of one
> particular
> > vehicle using what was off-the-shelf tech then that could have been
> > developed 15 years ago but was not, just for that reason. If David
> > Ashford's 'Spacebus' had been given proper backing (2 billion -
> about
> > the same as Concorde {which he helped design}) when he designed it
> and
> > asked for support back in 1986, in 10 years we would have had a
> fleet
> > of 72 of these. By 1996 we would have had space hotels already up
> > there. Had it been developed in the way planned, it would presently
> > cost $10,000 per head to put a man in space for a week and space
> > tourism would already be up there and running.
>
> Any number of people have made these kinds of claims in the past.
> Some
> of them with no connection to the US. None have produced. This sort
> of
> behavior is not confined to space launch, you see it in the commercial
>
> and government world all the time. Note that even the Chinese
> launchers
> aren't all that cheap.
>
> > NASA claims it supports space tourism, but has failed to publish its
>
> > own report on the subject.
>
> You can find that report at
>
> ttp://www.spacefuture.com/archive/general_public_space_travel_and_tourism.shtml.
>
> There's a link from http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/, a
> site I'm closely connected with. When I asked the NASA Ames librarian
>
> for this report, she provided me with these URLs and a hard copy.
>
> > Indeed, had it not been for economics Professor Patrick Collins -
> who
> > works for NASDA in Japan, we wouldn't even know about that report.
> It
> > said space tourism could start any day and would become an enormous
> > space business.
>
> What *can* start today, according to the report, is space related
> tourism: theme parks, flights in a vomit comet (which are available
> today), training at Star city (which is available today), and
> extremely
> high and tourism such as Dennis Tito -- who has a good chance of
> flying
> in October.
> .
> NASA has not yet figured out that space tourism is a really good
> thing.
> Yelling and screaming at them may or may not get you what you want.
> Letting your representatives know that space tourism is important and
> you want it may be useful. The congressman I talked to had never even
>
> heard of the concept. Space tourism is popular with the general
> public.
> Space colonization is not. I think that space tourism is by far our
> best bet, but implementation will require reliable, inexpensive
> launchers -- hardware, not promises and paper. Working hardware in
> this
> business (human space flight) is made by large teams of extremely
> high-quality engineers with very rigorous quality-control. It's not a
>
> personal-computer in the garage kind of business.
>
> I would love to fund every crazy idea out there, and I think we have
> the
> money to do it, but institutionally, NASA will have a hard time
> handing
> out $100 million or so to small time launch vehicle people. NASA
> intends to spend the few billion dollars over the next three years
> developing new launchers. Most of that will probably go to the big
> aerospace corporations, but there is a new administration in the White
>
> House and there's a window of opportunity to make some changes.
>
> --
> Al Globus
> aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
> The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
> accident.
> Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
>
> I think we should:
>
> 1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020
> goal of
> reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01%
> failure
> rate.
> This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will
> need
> to
> develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary
> technologies.
>
> 2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid
>
> are
> sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500
>
> times
> greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space
> colonies,
> each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.
>
> 3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their
> colony
> to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
> tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby
> stars.
>
> Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.
>
[www.debticated.com]

Al Globus wrote:

> . Also, the shuttle is the *least* expensive launcher in
> volume per lb., so your choice of measurement affects the analysis.
>

That should have been "*least* expensive launcher in $/volume". Sorry.

Ed Minchau wrote:

> Suppose instead all the money put into the shuttle program was used
> instead to mass-produce Saturn V rockets; the cost per unit would
> drop dramatically, as would the cost per launch.
>

Would have been a very good idea, IMHO. Of course, hindsight is 20-20. One
thing though, every Saturn V launch had major anomolies, but we lucked out
with fantanstic work by the staff. Shuttle often launches with no major
problems. Of course, by now the bugs probably would have been out of the
Saturn V as well.

>
> One question I have for you Al: are the launch costs you quoted in
> constant dollars? If not, then once adjusted for infation, launch
> costs should be steadily dropping and have been continuously doing
> so...just a thought.

The original shuttle goals were then-year dollars. Launch costs from Wertz
and Larson are in man-years, not dollars.

>
> Just because the US and Russia currently have most of the launch
> facilities etc does not mean that this will continue to be the case.

They don't. China and Europe are major players in commercial launch.

andy-nimmo wrote:

> You say, "NASA has not yet figured out that space tourism is a really
> good thing." That is in direct contradiction of their report.

NASA produces hundreds, if not thousands, of reports every year. The
vast majority of them do not become policy. In this particular case,
only a tiny fraction of people at NASA are aware it exists. I seriously
doubt the administrator has read the executive summary, although I might
be wrong. In any case, promoting space tourism is definitely not NASA
policy, and neither the Congress nor the president has pushed NASA in
this direction. I think they should. NASA is remarkably (although not
perfectly) responsive to the people who supply their funding.

andy-nimmo wrote:

>
> You say, "Any number of people have made these kinds of claims in the
> past. Some of them with no connection to the US. None have
> produced." I've just told you why those developed over here were not
> produced.

You provided one hypothesis as to why they have not produced. It's not
unreasonable, but I don't think it fits the data. Several countries have
developed launch vehicles with little or no connection to the U.S.
(China, India, USSR), some of these countries have been active enemies
of the U.S. The notion that U.S. pressure prevented these folks from
building $100/lb to LEO vehicles seems unlikely. BTW: the new Indian
launcher just suffered a failure.

Here's another hypothesis: I'm a programmer. When my programs fail, I
can examine the wreckage and usually figure out what happened. If I
designed rocket engines, when they failed there would be little pieces
of metal over the place and some telemetry until shortly before the
failure. Figuring out what happened is a little more difficult. Fixing
it requires building a whole new rocket, not just changing a few
characters in a file. Talk to anyone who's actually built a rocket that
will go on a predictable trajectory.

Hi Al,

If anybody in this country wants to develop any kind of space launch
vehicle they will be told by the BNSC that it is against Government
policy to permit such vehicles to be developed. The fact that this is an
outright lie is beside the point. It is what they will be told. You seem
to be saying that this is not relevant as to why such vehicles are not
being developed!

Before you can develop anything you need funding. Money men are
sensitive. As soon as they hear that kind of thing they shear off. So
long as a government body such as BNSC gives out that line there will be
no such development in this country no matter how good the designs may
be. Accordingly, to imply, as you did earlier, that the reason there is
lack of funding is because of incompetence of design is nonsense.

Best wishes, Andy.

Al Globus wrote:

>
> andy-nimmo wrote:
>
> > You say, "Any number of people have made these kinds of claims in
> the
> > past. Some of them with no connection to the US. None have
> > produced." I've just told you why those developed over here were not
>
> > produced.
>
> You provided one hypothesis as to why they have not produced. It's
> not
> unreasonable, but I don't think it fits the data. Several countries
> have
> developed launch vehicles with little or no connection to the U.S.
> (China, India, USSR), some of these countries have been active enemies
>
> of the U.S. The notion that U.S. pressure prevented these folks from
> building $100/lb to LEO vehicles seems unlikely. BTW: the new Indian
> launcher just suffered a failure.
>
> Here's another hypothesis: I'm a programmer. When my programs fail, I
>
> can examine the wreckage and usually figure out what happened. If I
> designed rocket engines, when they failed there would be little pieces
>
> of metal over the place and some telemetry until shortly before the
> failure. Figuring out what happened is a little more difficult.
> Fixing
> it requires building a whole new rocket, not just changing a few
> characters in a file. Talk to anyone who's actually built a rocket
> that
> will go on a predictable trajectory.
>
[www.debticated.com]

Is BNSC Britain? In the U.S. there are three or four small start-up
companies developing launchers with private funds. In addition, Boeing
Sea Launch, Orbital Sciences, and Lockheed have all recently developed
more-or-less successful launchers. These systems have reduced costs
somewhat, but not by a huge margin. Sea Launch sees their competitive
position as primarily low-cost launch. A number of small start-up
companies have also gone bust in the last 20 years or so. This happens
in the computer business as well. Actually, most new companies go bust
in every field.

When Orbital Sciences developed their small ground launcher, they
intended to cut the cost of launch by half over the old NASA developed
system. They actually cut the cost by about 15 percent or so. When
asked about the difference in the goal and the result, the Orbital
Science's spokesman said, "we learned a lot physics," or something
similar.

I see a lot of activity, I don't see the U.S. government leaning on
them. Actually, I see the U.S. government providing some of the money
for development, at least to the aerospace giants and orbital (which is
a new company, relatively). In addition, at least one of the small
start-ups is getting Space Lunch Initiative funds last I heard. Beale
did complain about the government funding competition with the Space
Launch Initiative, and I think there was some truth to that. However,
Beale was in trouble before NASA started funding development beyond the
X33, X34, and X37 programs. He could have applied for government funds
and may even have got some, but he didn't want to. In any case, it seems
to me that the primary problem is launchers. If NASA wasn't working on
it, they wouldn't be doing their job.

andy-nimmo wrote:

> Hi Al,
>
> If anybody in this country wants to develop any kind of space launch
> vehicle they will be told by the BNSC that it is against Government
> policy to permit such vehicles to be developed. The fact that this is
> an outright lie is beside the point. It is what they will be told. You
> seem to be saying that this is not relevant as to why such vehicles
> are not being developed!
>
> Before you can develop anything you need funding. Money men are
> sensitive. As soon as they hear that kind of thing they shear off. So
> long as a government body such as BNSC gives out that line there will
> be no such development in this country no matter how good the designs
> may be. Accordingly, to imply, as you did earlier, that the reason
> there is lack of funding is because of incompetence of design is
> nonsense.
>
> Best wishes, Andy.
>
> Al Globus wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> andy-nimmo wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > You say, "Any number of people have made these kinds of claims in
>> the
>> > past. Some of them with no connection to the US. None have
>> > produced." I've just told you why those developed over here were
>> not
>> > produced.
>>
>> You provided one hypothesis as to why they have not produced. It's
>> not
>> unreasonable, but I don't think it fits the data. Several countries
>> have
>> developed launch vehicles with little or no connection to the U.S.
>> (China, India, USSR), some of these countries have been active
>> enemies
>> of the U.S. The notion that U.S. pressure prevented these folks from
>>
>> building $100/lb to LEO vehicles seems unlikely. BTW: the new
>> Indian
>> launcher just suffered a failure.
>>
>> Here's another hypothesis: I'm a programmer. When my programs fail,
>> I
>> can examine the wreckage and usually figure out what happened. If I
>>
>> designed rocket engines, when they failed there would be little
>> pieces
>> of metal over the place and some telemetry until shortly before the
>> failure. Figuring out what happened is a little more difficult.
>> Fixing
>> it requires building a whole new rocket, not just changing a few
>> characters in a file. Talk to anyone who's actually built a rocket
>> that
>> will go on a predictable trajectory.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

I think we should:

1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020
goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failure
rate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will need
to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.

2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid
are
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500
times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space
colonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.

3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their
colony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby stars.

Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.

Al Globus wrote:

> Ian Woollard wrote:
>> Al Globus wrote:
>>> Ian Woollard wrote:
>> Yes, but costs to launch go down greatly with launcher size. Saturn V
>> was rather a lot bigger. Launchers are getting bigger aren't they?
>
> I believe the shuttle has the greatest capacity to LEO, and it's less than Saturn V, so
> no, they aren't.

Absolutely. Space Shuttle is a highly capable, highly advanced space vehicle.
It's a source of great national pride, and rightly so.

Not cheap though.

When I formed the opinion I now hold (and unlike most people I know I am
quite willing to change my opinion on something) I checked out the data
on launch payloads and costs. I threw away all the expensive ones- I
figured they'd screwed up somehow- space launch is HARD after all
and in any case I was trying to minimise the cost of a project I
was working on (landing 10 tonnes of hardware on the moon).

I then stared at the numbers and noticed a weak correlation with
launch size. In particular, the cheapest was Proton V with a launch
cost of $2600/lb which was also amongst the biggest.

I've since read up on the theory behind launch costs, it looks like
everything else being equal (which it never is) big rockets are
cheaper than little ones. This is spectacularly true at the small
payload sizes. When you reach Space Shuttle sizes it isn't quite
so obvious, then again there's probably only about 4 launchers of
that weight class including Saturn V.

My theories about why both the Space Shuttle and ESA launchers are
similarly priced are:

a) they address a similar market (ESA could afford to price its
launcher upto the space shuttle prices because there's been little
competition.

b) they use hydrogen (hydrogen has required some massive development
costs, and still has technical disadvantages; and it turns out that
the supposed advantages of hydrogen aren't there once you plug it
into a complete launch system, or are greatly reduced, I'd have
naively expected many times more payload)

c) they are projects run by western governments (Soviet block governments
tend to be more efficient than western governments, but not nearly
as efficient as western companies!)

d) this is a weird one- they're kinda similar! Sure, the ESA has no
wing, but they both have 3 sets of rockets, the central one burns
hydrogen, with two booster rockets either side to allow them to
make orbit. There's a reason for that too. ESA were trying to copy
the Space Shuttle (Hermes).

>>>> Tourism is ~15 years away, if I am right.
>>>
>>> I wish you were right, but I don't see a shred of evidence for a tourism business
>>> outside of people with literally millions to spend on a trip to space.. The only
>>> hope I see for middle-class tourism is NASA's official goal of a few hundred
>>> dollars/lb to LEO by 2020 or so with one failure in 10,000 flights. If this goal
>>> were reached, tourism should work. However, I don't see a development path that
>>> will get us there. Hopefully am wrong.
>>
>> Isn't that the same goal they had for the Space Shuttle?
>
> No. Cost goals for the shuttle were $500/lb in 1980 dollars and one failure in 100,000
> flights. The shuttle missed these goals by over an order of magnitude in cost and three
> orders of magnitude in reliability. Nonetheless, the space shuttle is by far the most
> capable launch vehicle in the world.

Undoubtedly. The space shuttle is like a Ferrari; overpriced, somewhat unreliable
(although not by space standards!) and excellent performance. And I want one
of each ;-)

>> NASA don't
>> care about cheap launch.
>
> There's a difference between failing to achieve your ambitious goals and not caring. In
> my experience, many people at NASA do care about cheap launches, although there has been
> little success.

Yes. I'm more talking not about what the people that make up NASA want; but
how NASA as a whole behaves. It's a subtle distinction. NASA behaves
as if space costs are irrelevent. NASA people state that they want to reduce
costs, but NASA doesn't do so. NASA people aren't lying either. They may
well be trying to do so. But if the political will isn't there, or doing so
would damage NASA then they may be organisationally unable to act in a way that
they may genuinely wish to.

For instance if a big dumb booster really would slash costs by an order of
magnitude would NASA go for it? Doubtful. Going to a big dumb booster would
also slash the profits of the associated companies. The politics would be
terrible also, NASA is supported by pork barrel politics. There might even
be national esteem issues of large bruteforce low tech throwaway rockets
compared to reusable, cutting edge hydrogen, with these amazing tiles...

There is evidence that the associated companies deliberately intervened
in the studies of big dumb rockets. Whether they intervened to provide
technical assistance or provide apparent technical assistance but
scupper the whole thing is unclear; but I strongly suspect the latter.

Whether a big dumb rocket would actually cut costs; probably, but of
course till someone actually tries it...

>> Or more accurately the associated companies
>> around NASA don't care about cheap launch. They like it just
>> fine really expensive with them raking off a percentage.
>
> I think there may be some truth to this. However, in the current launch market people
> are cutting margins to the bone because of the extreme competition. Most of the fat is
> either gone or will be gone soon, so current commercial prices are a pretty good
> indication of real cost.

Yes. But there is a difference between real cost that was achieved and
real costs that can be achieved or even real costs that have been
achieved elsewhere.

>> Why else
>> is the space shuttle the most expensive launcher ever per pound
>> (ignoring the small launch systems)?
>
> Other possibilities: It's the only re-usable launch vehicle, it's man-rated, and
> operations are quite different than other vehicles. The shuttle has a 1% failure rate
> while commercial launchers have about a 7% failure rate. At these levels, additional
> reliability is pretty expensive. Also, the shuttle is the *least* expensive launcher in
> volume per lb., so your choice of measurement affects the analysis.

I don't consider re-usability to be much of a plus, but other
than that its all very true. Volume is definitely useful for
some payloads, but in general I have a feeling that weight is
more critical; many things can fold, but things never get
heavier when they reach orbit.

> Note that Orbital Sciences was able to create a new
> company, break into the aerospace market (including launchers), and become a major player
> over the last 10 or 15 years. It's not impossible.

Glad to hear.

> --
> Al Globus
> aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

--
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)

"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological
civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill

I think what the US needs to push it a head is not internation cooperation, but a return to some sort of space "cold war" conditions. Apollo would probably not have happened yet if it had not been for the political desire to beat the Soviet Union.

This is why I keep hoping that some other country (that we don't like too much) will suddenly decide that it wants to sink loads of cash into a manned space program... I have some hopes for China... but I wonder if they have enough money to sustain the effort. The Soviets really let us down by not completing the N1 and getting to the moon. Scare congress, I say!

Mark

On Thu, 29 March 2001, Al Globus wrote:

> You provided one hypothesis as to why they have not produced. It's not
> unreasonable, but I don't think it fits the data. Several countries have
> developed launch vehicles with little or no connection to the U.S.
> (China, India, USSR), some of these countries have been active enemies
> of the U.S. The notion that U.S. pressure prevented these folks from
> building $100/lb to LEO vehicles seems unlikely. BTW: the new Indian
> launcher just suffered a failure.
>
> Here's another hypothesis: I'm a programmer. When my programs fail, I
> can examine the wreckage and usually figure out what happened. If I
> designed rocket engines, when they failed there would be little pieces
> of metal over the place and some telemetry until shortly before the
> failure. Figuring out what happened is a little more difficult. Fixing
> it requires building a whole new rocket, not just changing a few
> characters in a file. Talk to anyone who's actually built a rocket that
> will go on a predictable trajectory.
>

Join the Space Program: Get FREE E-mail at http://www.space.com.

Hi Al,

I took the liberty of forwarding a copy of your message to Professor
Collins. Here is his reply:

Hi Andy,

Yes, I do have a comment. It's surely true that
Nasa produces lots of reports etc ("Two thirds of
the world is covered in water - the rest is
covered in reports...")

But Goldin certainly knows about this one, because
he is on video-tape saying it will be put on Nasa's
web-site (at Space Frontier, 1999). His assistant
Lori Garver then checked with me about it, but
it wasn't put up. And when I challenged her in
public at the STA in June 2000 she too said it
would be put up - but it's not.

The wider reason for the importance of this is
that it's the most economically valuable report
Nasa ever published - and Goldin does NOT want
the public of the media to read it. I discuss this
at more length in my invited speech to the FAA this
Feb, here:

www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_prospects_for_passenger_space_travel.shtml

Nasa is obligated by law to "...encourage,
to the maximum extent possible, the fullest
commercial use of space" - but it does not.

However, I certainly agree that this is at
least equally the fault of the committee
that supposedly oversees Nasa. They're
asleep at the wheel! (I have a letter on
this in Aviation Week, March 12.)

Best,

Patrick Collins

Best wishes, Andy Nimmo.

Al Globus wrote:

> andy-nimmo wrote:
>
> > You say, "NASA has not yet figured out that space tourism is a
> really
> > good thing." That is in direct contradiction of their report.
>
> NASA produces hundreds, if not thousands, of reports every year. The
> vast majority of them do not become policy. In this particular case,
> only a tiny fraction of people at NASA are aware it exists. I
> seriously
> doubt the administrator has read the executive summary, although I
> might
> be wrong. In any case, promoting space tourism is definitely not NASA
>
> policy, and neither the Congress nor the president has pushed NASA in
> this direction. I think they should. NASA is remarkably (although
> not
> perfectly) responsive to the people who supply their funding.
>
[www.debticated.com]

Hi Al,

BNSC is the British National Space Centre - the UK's equivalent of NASA,
except that as I said, it doesn't spend a penny on either launch
vehicles or manned spaceflight.

Best wishes, Andy.

Al Globus wrote:

> Is BNSC Britain? In the U.S. there are three or four small start-up
> companies developing launchers with private funds. In addition, Boeing
>
> Sea Launch, Orbital Sciences, and Lockheed have all recently developed
>
> more-or-less successful launchers. These systems have reduced costs
> somewhat, but not by a huge margin. Sea Launch sees their competitive
> position as primarily low-cost launch. A number of small start-up
> companies have also gone bust in the last 20 years or so. This
> happens
> in the computer business as well. Actually, most new companies go
> bust
> in every field.
>
> When Orbital Sciences developed their small ground launcher, they
> intended to cut the cost of launch by half over the old NASA developed
>
> system. They actually cut the cost by about 15 percent or so. When
> asked about the difference in the goal and the result, the Orbital
> Science's spokesman said, "we learned a lot physics," or something
> similar.
>
> I see a lot of activity, I don't see the U.S. government leaning on
> them. Actually, I see the U.S. government providing some of the money
> for development, at least to the aerospace giants and orbital (which
> is
> a new company, relatively). In addition, at least one of the small
> start-ups is getting Space Lunch Initiative funds last I heard. Beale
> did complain about the government funding competition with the Space
> Launch Initiative, and I think there was some truth to that. However,
>
> Beale was in trouble before NASA started funding development beyond
> the
> X33, X34, and X37 programs. He could have applied for government
> funds
> and may even have got some, but he didn't want to. In any case, it
> seems
> to me that the primary problem is launchers. If NASA wasn't working
> on
> it, they wouldn't be doing their job.
>
> andy-nimmo wrote:
>
> > Hi Al,
> >
> > If anybody in this country wants to develop any kind of space launch
>
> > vehicle they will be told by the BNSC that it is against Government
> > policy to permit such vehicles to be developed. The fact that this
> is
> > an outright lie is beside the point. It is what they will be told.
> You
> > seem to be saying that this is not relevant as to why such vehicles
> > are not being developed!
> >
> > Before you can develop anything you need funding. Money men are
> > sensitive. As soon as they hear that kind of thing they shear off.
> So
> > long as a government body such as BNSC gives out that line there
> will
> > be no such development in this country no matter how good the
> designs
> > may be. Accordingly, to imply, as you did earlier, that the reason
> > there is lack of funding is because of incompetence of design is
> > nonsense.
> >
> > Best wishes, Andy.
> >
> > Al Globus wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> andy-nimmo wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You say, "Any number of people have made these kinds of claims in
>
> >> the
> >> > past. Some of them with no connection to the US. None have
> >> > produced." I've just told you why those developed over here were
> >> not
> >> > produced.
> >>
> >> You provided one hypothesis as to why they have not produced. It's
>
> >> not
> >> unreasonable, but I don't think it fits the data. Several countries
>
> >> have
> >> developed launch vehicles with little or no connection to the U.S.
> >> (China, India, USSR), some of these countries have been active
> >> enemies
> >> of the U.S. The notion that U.S. pressure prevented these folks
> from
> >>
> >> building $100/lb to LEO vehicles seems unlikely. BTW: the new
> >> Indian
> >> launcher just suffered a failure.
> >>
> >> Here's another hypothesis: I'm a programmer. When my programs
> fail,
> >> I
> >> can examine the wreckage and usually figure out what happened. If
> I
> >>
> >> designed rocket engines, when they failed there would be little
> >> pieces
> >> of metal over the place and some telemetry until shortly before the
>
> >> failure. Figuring out what happened is a little more difficult.
> >> Fixing
> >> it requires building a whole new rocket, not just changing a few
> >> characters in a file. Talk to anyone who's actually built a rocket
> >> that
> >> will go on a predictable trajectory.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> Service.
> >
> --
> Al Globus
> aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
> The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
> accident.
> Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
>
> I think we should:
>
> 1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020
> goal of
> reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01%
> failure
> rate.
> This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will
> need
> to
> develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary
> technologies.
>
> 2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid
>
> are
> sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500
>
> times
> greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space
> colonies,
> each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.
>
> 3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their
> colony
> to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
> tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby
> stars.
>
> Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.
>
[www.newaydirect.com]

Hi Mark,

I understand that the way the Chinese economy is developing they are
expected to become the wealthiest country on this planet within as
little as 10 years.

Best wishes, Andy.

the_doctor@... wrote:

> I think what the US needs to push it a head is not internation
> cooperation, but a return to some sort of space "cold war"
> conditions. Apollo would probably not have happened yet if it had not
> been for the political desire to beat the Soviet Union.
>
> This is why I keep hoping that some other country (that we don't like
> too much) will suddenly decide that it wants to sink loads of cash
> into a manned space program... I have some hopes for China... but I
> wonder if they have enough money to sustain the effort. The Soviets
> really let us down by not completing the N1 and getting to the moon.
> Scare congress, I say!
>
> Mark
>
> On Thu, 29 March 2001, Al Globus wrote:
>
> > You provided one hypothesis as to why they have not produced. It's
> not
> > unreasonable, but I don't think it fits the data. Several countries
> have
> > developed launch vehicles with little or no connection to the U.S.
> > (China, India, USSR), some of these countries have been active
> enemies
> > of the U.S. The notion that U.S. pressure prevented these folks from
>
> > building $100/lb to LEO vehicles seems unlikely. BTW: the new
> Indian
> > launcher just suffered a failure.
> >
> > Here's another hypothesis: I'm a programmer. When my programs fail,
> I
> > can examine the wreckage and usually figure out what happened. If I
>
> > designed rocket engines, when they failed there would be little
> pieces
> > of metal over the place and some telemetry until shortly before the
> > failure. Figuring out what happened is a little more difficult.
> Fixing
> > it requires building a whole new rocket, not just changing a few
> > characters in a file. Talk to anyone who's actually built a rocket
> that
> > will go on a predictable trajectory.
> >
> Join the Space Program: Get FREE E-mail at http://www.space.com.
>
[www.debticated.com]

I can arrange to put this report on
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/. Can you have Professor
Collins contact me to make arrangements to send it in a convenient
format? aglobus@...

andy-nimmo wrote:

> Hi Al,
>
> I took the liberty of forwarding a copy of your message to Professor
> Collins. Here is his reply:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Yes, I do have a comment. It's surely true that
> Nasa produces lots of reports etc ("Two thirds of
> the world is covered in water - the rest is
> covered in reports...")
>
> But Goldin certainly knows about this one, because
> he is on video-tape saying it will be put on Nasa's
> web-site (at Space Frontier, 1999). His assistant
> Lori Garver then checked with me about it, but
> it wasn't put up. And when I challenged her in
> public at the STA in June 2000 she too said it
> would be put up - but it's not.
>
> The wider reason for the importance of this is
> that it's the most economically valuable report
> Nasa ever published - and Goldin does NOT want
> the public of the media to read it. I discuss this
> at more length in my invited speech to the FAA this
> Feb, here:
>
> www.spacef
> ture.com/archive/the_prospects_for_passenger_space_travel.shtml
>
> Nasa is obligated by law to "...encourage,
> to the maximum extent possible, the fullest
> commercial use of space" - but it does not.
>
> However, I certainly agree that this is at
> least equally the fault of the committee
> that supposedly oversees Nasa. They're
> asleep at the wheel! (I have a letter on
> this in Aviation Week, March 12.)
>
> Best,
>
> Patrick Collins
>
> Best wishes, Andy Nimmo.
>
> Al Globus wrote:
>
>> andy-nimmo wrote:
>>
>> > You say, "NASA has not yet figured out that space tourism is a
>> really
>> > good thing." That is in direct contradiction of their report.
>>
>> NASA produces hundreds, if not thousands, of reports every year.
>> The
>> vast majority of them do not become policy. In this particular case,
>>
>> only a tiny fraction of people at NASA are aware it exists. I
>> seriously
>> doubt the administrator has read the executive summary, although I
>> might
>> be wrong. In any case, promoting space tourism is definitely not
>> NASA
>> policy, and neither the Congress nor the president has pushed NASA
>> in
>> this direction. I think they should. NASA is remarkably (although
>> not
>> perfectly) responsive to the people who supply their funding.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

I think we should:

1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020
goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failure
rate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will need
to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.

2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid
are
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500
times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space
colonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.

3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their
colony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby stars.

Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.

Hi Al,

Thanks very much indeed! I've forwarded your message direct to Patrick,
so I expect you will be hearing from him.

Best wishes, Andy.

Al Globus wrote:

> I can arrange to put this report on
> http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/. Can you have Professor
>
> Collins contact me to make arrangements to send it in a convenient
> format? aglobus@...
>
> andy-nimmo wrote:
>
> > Hi Al,
> >
> > I took the liberty of forwarding a copy of your message to Professor
>
> > Collins. Here is his reply:
> >
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > Yes, I do have a comment. It's surely true that
> > Nasa produces lots of reports etc ("Two thirds of
> > the world is covered in water - the rest is
> > covered in reports...")
> >
> > But Goldin certainly knows about this one, because
> > he is on video-tape saying it will be put on Nasa's
> > web-site (at Space Frontier, 1999). His assistant
> > Lori Garver then checked with me about it, but
> > it wasn't put up. And when I challenged her in
> > public at the STA in June 2000 she too said it
> > would be put up - but it's not.
> >
> > The wider reason for the importance of this is
> > that it's the most economically valuable report
> > Nasa ever published - and Goldin does NOT want
> > the public of the media to read it. I discuss this
> > at more length in my invited speech to the FAA this
> > Feb, here:
> >
> > www.spacef
> > ture.com/archive/the_prospects_for_passenger_space_travel.shtml
> >
> > Nasa is obligated by law to "...encourage,
> > to the maximum extent possible, the fullest
> > commercial use of space" - but it does not.
> >
> > However, I certainly agree that this is at
> > least equally the fault of the committee
> > that supposedly oversees Nasa. They're
> > asleep at the wheel! (I have a letter on
> > this in Aviation Week, March 12.)
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Patrick Collins
> >
> > Best wishes, Andy Nimmo.
> >
> > Al Globus wrote:
> >
> >> andy-nimmo wrote:
> >>
> >> > You say, "NASA has not yet figured out that space tourism is a
> >> really
> >> > good thing." That is in direct contradiction of their report.
> >>
> >> NASA produces hundreds, if not thousands, of reports every year.
> >> The
> >> vast majority of them do not become policy. In this particular
> case,
> >>
> >> only a tiny fraction of people at NASA are aware it exists. I
> >> seriously
> >> doubt the administrator has read the executive summary, although I
> >> might
> >> be wrong. In any case, promoting space tourism is definitely not
> >> NASA
> >> policy, and neither the Congress nor the president has pushed NASA
> >> in
> >> this direction. I think they should. NASA is remarkably (although
>
> >> not
> >> perfectly) responsive to the people who supply their funding.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> Service.
> >
> --
> Al Globus
> aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
> The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
> accident.
> Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
>
> I think we should:
>
> 1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020
> goal of
> reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01%
> failure
> rate.
> This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will
> need
> to
> develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary
> technologies.
>
> 2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid
>
> are
> sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500
>
> times
> greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space
> colonies,
> each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.
>
> 3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their
> colony
> to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
> tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby
> stars.
>
> Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.
>
[www.newaydirect.com]

Well, they don't have to take it that far (: Wealthiest in what way? Can't be per capita income, there are just too many of em.

The space program needs some "evil empire" (like Ronald Reagan put it) to come on scene so we can spend $ billions on more cool toys! We can get the CIA to lie to us again about how evil and rich they really are. It would be just like old times. The Soviets really let us down last time. We need an enemy with more staying power!

Mark

On Fri, 30 March 2001, andy-nimmo wrote:

>
> Hi Mark,
> I understand that the way the Chinese economy is developing they are
> expected to become the wealthiest country on this planet within as little
> as 10 years.
> Best wishes, Andy.
> the_doctor@... wrote:
> I think what the US needs to push it a head is
> not internation cooperation, but a return to some sort of space "cold war"
> conditions. Apollo would probably not have happened yet if it had
> not been for the political desire to beat the Soviet Union.
> This is why I keep hoping that some other country (that we don't
> like too much) will suddenly decide that it wants to sink loads of cash
> into a manned space program... I have some hopes for China... but I wonder
> if they have enough money to sustain the effort. The Soviets really
> let us down by not completing the N1 and getting to the moon. Scare
> congress, I say!
> Mark
> On Thu, 29 March 2001, Al Globus wrote:
> > You provided one hypothesis as to why they have not produced.
> It's not
> > unreasonable, but I don't think it fits the data. Several countries
> have
> > developed launch vehicles with little or no connection to the
> U.S.
> > (China, India, USSR), some of these countries have been active
> enemies
> > of the U.S. The notion that U.S. pressure prevented these folks
> from
> > building $100/lb to LEO vehicles seems unlikely. BTW: the
> new Indian
> > launcher just suffered a failure.
> >
> > Here's another hypothesis: I'm a programmer. When my programs
> fail, I
> > can examine the wreckage and usually figure out what happened.
> If I
> > designed rocket engines, when they failed there would be little
> pieces
> > of metal over the place and some telemetry until shortly before
> the
> > failure. Figuring out what happened is a little more difficult.
> Fixing
> > it requires building a whole new rocket, not just changing a
> few
> > characters in a file. Talk to anyone who's actually built a rocket
> that
> > will go on a predictable trajectory.
> >
> Join the Space Program: Get FREE E-mail at http://www.space.com.
>

Join the Space Program: Get FREE E-mail at http://www.space.com.

Maybe we should just contact the nearest alien and have them invade, nothing
like an alien invasion to advance technology.

We already have an evil empire, its called the United States of America.

--- the_doctor@... wrote:

LOL! All we need to do is FAKE the alien civilization. That would scare the pants off them. I wonder how we could do that. How about a space probe, with a secret backup RTG generator, and a big inflatable mylar antenna. When the probe got far enough away (this plan would take about 20-30 years) the extra antenna inflates and the thing starts blasting out unlikely things like prime numbers! Instant alien civilization.

What is that line from Return of the Jedi "you will find, Luke, that many truths we hold dear in life depend on our point of view." I suppose that from the point of view of, say, China, or even some of the countries that Ike overthrew down in Central America, the US is an evil empire.

Mark

On Mon, 02 April 2001, Ryan Healey wrote:

>
> Maybe we should just contact the nearest alien and have them invade, nothing
> like an alien invasion to advance technology.
>
> We already have an evil empire, its called the United States of America.
>
> --- the_doctor@... wrote:
> > Well, they don't have to take it that far (: Wealthiest in what way? Can't
> > be per capita income, there are just too many of em.
> >
> > The space program needs some "evil empire" (like Ronald Reagan put it) to
> > come on scene so we can spend $ billions on more cool toys! We can get the
> > CIA to lie to us again about how evil and rich they really are. It would be
> > just like old times. The Soviets really let us down last time. We need an
> > enemy with more staying power!
> >
> > Mark
>

Join the Space Program: Get FREE E-mail at http://www.space.com.

We would have to be very careful on how we go about it, we have to make sure
that the probe follows the motion of the star, we would also have to launch the
probe in secret so that people don't know where it is (except for us).

Then we send out some primes, c^2=a^2+a^2, E=MC^2 and a few others to get
people's attention, and maybe a few movies.

When looking though the history of the CIA it is pretty obvious that the US are
somewhat evil, maybe they aren't as evil as the USSR were, but they are still
evil and should probably be dissolved (or at least pacified).

--- the_doctor@... wrote:

the_doctor@... wrote:

>
The space program needs some "evil empire" (like Ronald Reagan put
> it)
to come on scene so we can spend $ billions on more cool toys!

Nah. All the cool stuff gets classified and we don't get to play with
it. Apart from the dissolution of a major super power(!) what cool
stuff really came of the last Star Wars project?

Nothing. Atleast nothing that we know of...

My case in point.

;-)

Now an ECONOMIC arms race. That would be cool.

> Mark

--
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)

"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological
civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill

Eventually those things "trickle down" (sounds like a good expression to use what with the supply siders returning to the White House) to us. Like, GPS. You could have a personal x-ray laser one day. After all, you have the constutional right to keep and bear arms!

I don't like Star Wars, but, hey, if it is the only way to get the mondo launch vechiles we need built, why not? Who cares if we bankrupt the national economy doing it... at least we could have some fun on the way!

Mark

On Mon, 02 April 2001, Ian Woollard wrote:

>
> the_doctor@... wrote:
>
> The space program needs some "evil empire" (like Ronald Reagan put
> > it)
> to come on scene so we can spend $ billions on more cool toys!
>
> Nah. All the cool stuff gets classified and we don't get to play with
> it. Apart from the dissolution of a major super power(!) what cool
> stuff really came of the last Star Wars project?
>
> Nothing. Atleast nothing that we know of...
>
> My case in point.
>
> ;-)
>
> Now an ECONOMIC arms race. That would be cool.
>
> > Mark
>
> --
> - Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)
>
> "Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological
> civilization?"
> - Gerard O'Neill
>

Join the Space Program: Get FREE E-mail at http://www.space.com.

We need to find a way to fund this. Perhaps we could redirect some HUD funds?

Mark

On Mon, 02 April 2001, Ryan Healey wrote:

>
> We would have to be very careful on how we go about it, we have to make sure
> that the probe follows the motion of the star, we would also have to launch the
> probe in secret so that people don't know where it is (except for us).
>
> Then we send out some primes, c^2=a^2+a^2, E=MC^2 and a few others to get
> people's attention, and maybe a few movies.
>
> When looking though the history of the CIA it is pretty obvious that the US are
> somewhat evil, maybe they aren't as evil as the USSR were, but they are still
> evil and should probably be dissolved (or at least pacified).
>
> --- the_doctor@... wrote:
> > LOL! All we need to do is FAKE the alien civilization. That would scare the
> > pants off them. I wonder how we could do that. How about a space probe,
> > with a secret backup RTG generator, and a big inflatable mylar antenna. When
> > the probe got far enough away (this plan would take about 20-30 years) the
> > extra antenna inflates and the thing starts blasting out unlikely things like
> > prime numbers! Instant alien civilization.
> >
> > What is that line from Return of the Jedi "you will find, Luke, that many
> > truths we hold dear in life depend on our point of view." I suppose that
> > from the point of view of, say, China, or even some of the countries that Ike
> > overthrew down in Central America, the US is an evil empire.
> >
> > Mark
>

Join the Space Program: Get FREE E-mail at http://www.space.com.