Let's have a little fun. Anyone interested?
You're a member of the U.S. Geological Survey and using a specially
constructed vessel you've landed on the shores of Hawaii.
You had to traverse boiling acidic water because of the undershore
volcanoes. Using special breathing gear and chemical suits you make
your way onto land. The volcanic gases make the air completely
unbreathable but they have spawned never before seen flora and the
sky and sunrise/set are unbelievable beautiful.
You notice that your geological hammer is corroding before your
eyes. The gases. No common tools can be used. If you come back to
Hawaii, and oh how it beckons to you, you'll have to come prepared
with specially designed equipment that can withstand the corrosive
environment.
The world sees the pictures of your expeditions and falls in love
with the vistas and they would like to go there.
You think it would be a good idea to develop a tourist industry in
Hawaii but because it is such a hostile environment there is a lot
of risk associated with your untested proposal.
If you want to boat people in no ordinary boat will do. It must be
specially constructed. If you want to fly people in you have to
build an airport, but all of your bulldozers, pavers, rock drillers
have to be specially designed to withstand the environment, not to
mention that the plane has to be specially designed because the air
intake for the turbines won't like all of the other gases. If you
want food or water you need to build a special refinery to extract
hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and other trace elements from
local rocks.
In your heart you know that people will flock to Hawaii, and in your
mind's eye you see scores of giant hotels alongside the beach.
Hundreds of thousands of tourists playing on the sand and frolicking
in the water once the pressure dome is built. This could be Nirvana,
but how do you bootstrap from where you are to this vision?
What is the very first thing you do that will lead to the next step?
Simply offering boat tours doesn't help create the next step.
Do you develop the tourist industry in one big, interconnected shot
or do you take little steps?
Any takers?
TangoMan
> Do you develop the tourist industry in one big, interconnected shot
> or do you take little steps?
development then if you can't get there in little steps, you can't get
there.
......Andrew
P.S. only the wording of the principle is original - the ideas behind
it have been around for a long time.
> Do you develop the tourist industry in one big, interconnected shot
> or do you take little steps?
development then if you can't get there in little steps, you can't get
there.
As a rule of thumb it's true. However the Channel tunnel was funded, and until it opened, no baby steps would have created it. It's very likely to be long-term sustainable now it's open, (although the Japanese banks that funded it took a bath, since the repayment is going to be much longer than they hoped.)
OTOH it took more than 200 years to get funded, so I'm not entirely sure that that's not the exception that proves the rule :-)
......Andrew
P.S. only the wording of the principle is original - the ideas behind
it have been around for a long time.
The wording I saw was more like:
"Most big systems in the world, used to be small systems, with the capacity to grow."
But I'm unable to find a more exact quote at the moment.
>
> I present Case's Principle: If the goal is long-term sustainable
> development then if you can't get there in little steps, you can't get
> there.
>
> >As a rule of thumb it's true. However the Channel tunnel was funded,
> and until it opened, no >baby steps would have created it. It's very
> likely to be long-term sustainable now it's open, >(although the
> Japanese banks that funded it took a bath, since the repayment is
> going to be >much longer than they hoped.)
Chunnel was built tunneling technology was sufficiently mature that the
only really new thing about it was the length. There were some minor
innovations, but the technology was well proved out, and there was
little doubt that the project would succeed.
> >OTOH it took more than 200 years to get funded, so I'm not entirely
> sure that that's not the >exception that proves the rule :-)
If they'd tried it with 1800s technology, it would have failed. By
waiting until the Chunnel was only a little bit more of a task than the
next biggest tunnel, they minimized risk and maximized the probability
of success.
My point is not so much about small steps along the path to a
particular goal, but that each project should be a small step more
ambitious than the last. This can be either a project starting from
scratch and going a little further than anyone else, or an incremental
improvement on an existing project.
The question for SSI'ers is how do we get to the point where Island One
and SPS are just a small increment more complex than something that
already exists?
......Andrew
> As a rule of thumb it's true. However the Channel tunnel was
funded, and
> until it opened, no baby steps would have created it. It's very
likely
> to be long-term sustainable now it's open, (although the Japanese
banks
> that funded it took a bath, since the repayment is going to be
much
> longer than they hoped.)
>
> OTOH it took more than 200 years to get funded, so I'm not
entirely sure
> that that's not the exception that proves the rule :-)
point that some projects must be looked at as a totality and cannot
be implmented in a piecemeal fashion.
Once the project is completed the benefits and spin-offs accrue.
That's the point I'm at now. I don't see bootstrapping on a project-
by-project basis, non inter-related, leading to much other than a
whole series of self-sufficient orbiting projects.
I think that there needs to be a guiding hand, a consortium, and an
orbital economy that will reward orbital buyers and sellers as they
develop what we all want to see there.
I don't see a whole bunch of pull yourself up by your bootstraps
entrepreneurs achieving anything sustainable.
What does taking tourists on suborbital hops do for the big picture?
TangoMan
>
> > I present Case's Principle: If the goal is long-term sustainable
> > development then if you can't get there in little steps, you
can't get
> > there.
> >
> > >As a rule of thumb it's true. However the Channel tunnel was
funded,
> > and until it opened, no >baby steps would have created it. It's
very
> > likely to be long-term sustainable now it's open, >(although the
> > Japanese banks that funded it took a bath, since the repayment
is
> > going to be >much longer than they hoped.)
>
> I think the Chunnel is actually a point in favor - By the time the
> Chunnel was built tunneling technology was sufficiently mature
that the
> only really new thing about it was the length. There were some
minor
> innovations, but the technology was well proved out, and there was
> little doubt that the project would succeed.
>
to be a surrogate for orbital development, how would numerous
actors, all showing up independently on the English or French
shores, all digging willy-nilly to achieve some goal of their own
actually complete the Chunnel. They'd dig for a few feet in some
direction and then give up because there was no money in it for them.
The Chunnel is the totality, not an extension of previous technology.
TangoMan
The question for SSI'ers is how do we get to the point where Island One
and SPS are just a small increment more complex than something that
already exists? It's true that past a point, O'Neill conceded that Island One would not happen until it was a small increment over an already existing business of building SPS from space materials. So the question becomes: What near-term businesses can we propose which can represent baby steps toward SPS from space resources?
Mike Combs
--- In ssi_list@... "Combs, Mike"
> So the question becomes: What near-term businesses can we propose
which can
> represent baby steps toward SPS from space resources?
>
> Mike Combs
I have no clue!
TangoMan
>
> My point is not so much about small steps along the path to a
> particular goal, but that each project should be a small step more
> ambitious than the last. This can be either a project starting
from
> scratch and going a little further than anyone else, or an
incremental
> improvement on an existing project.
economy consists of interlinkages. If each project is a self-
sustained entity, I just can't see how project scope and complexity
will increase.
Is everyone seeing something that I'm oblivious to?
TangoMan
>>
>> My point is not so much about small steps along the path to a
>> particular goal, but that each project should be a small step more
>> ambitious than the last. This can be either a project starting
> from
>> scratch and going a little further than anyone else, or an
> incremental
>> improvement on an existing project.
>
> I guess that my argument isn't convincing anyone when I say that an
> economy consists of interlinkages. If each project is a self-
> sustained entity, I just can't see how project scope and complexity
> will increase.
next successful project more likely. But the individual project has to
be able to succeed on its own or it won't be able to raise funding. If
the requirement for positive ROI (return on investment) is that a huge
complex plan be executed without error and with no surprises, then
nobody but fools will invest. If the criterion is just that a small
incremental advance over current state of the art be successful, then
there are people willing to take the chance.
The problem is not to find a single comprehensive plan that makes SPS
possible, for example. The issue is to find a single plan that is
sufficiently low risk to attract investors and which lowers barriers to
other types of business in space. We don't need to have a path plotted
out in advance that brings SPS into being. In fact, it may turn out
that SPS never makes economic sense. What is needed is simply to reduce
barriers to other kinds of ET resource exploitation, harnessing the
creativity of thousands of people who will try to make a buck in their
own way. If any one of them succeeds, it makes it more likely that
someone else will figure out how to take the next step. That's the
natural way for complexity to grow in an economy. Trying to design it
in from the ground up has failed every single time it's been tried.
......Andrew
> What does taking tourists on suborbital hops do for the big picture?
the moment there's reason to doubt this; it's a big job and governments
aren't really stepping up to the plate as they should; but they're on
the playing field and this is scaring off the other players.
Space is funding/market limited right now; governments will not take us
there; although they could, but they have insufficient incentive to do
this. Perhaps private industry won't either, but then again, it has
never tried as yet.
If suborbital hops work, private funding for orbital is much more
likely- hopefully certain. There are certainly non governmental funding
sources out there that can fund orbital vehicles, the question is why
should they? What's in it for them? Suborbital may very well be the
stepping stone on the way there; particularly if it makes money.
>
> What does taking tourists on suborbital hops do for the big picture?
way of making money, someone will likely come forwards with investment
funds for an orbital RLV.
Another important point is that it creates a pool of people who know
how to design suborbital RLVs, and have hands-on operational
experience. It's a smaller step from there to orbital RLVs than from
where we are now.
......Andrew
>
> > I guess that my argument isn't convincing anyone when I say that
an
> > economy consists of interlinkages. If each project is a self-
> > sustained entity, I just can't see how project scope and
complexity
> > will increase.
>
> Project scope and complexity increase because each success makes
the
> next successful project more likely. But the individual project
has to
> be able to succeed on its own or it won't be able to raise
funding. If
> the requirement for positive ROI (return on investment) is that a
huge
> complex plan be executed without error and with no surprises, then
> nobody but fools will invest. If the criterion is just that a
small
> incremental advance over current state of the art be successful,
then
> there are people willing to take the chance.
scenario where nobody can even offer a viable IDEA of what we should
fund. Not one industry that should be in orbit.
I don't thnk it makes sense to take the rules which work in a well-
established construct and apply them in another dissimilar construct.
Have you ever tried to argue the existence of god with a believer?
They always start from the position that god exists.
I'm completely open to the idea that the free hand of private
enterprise will be our salvation with respect to orbital
development, but I'm skeptical. But how come so many are taking the
position that it will be private enterprise that leads the way
without examining the necessary precursors required. Absent those
precursers, how can it come to be?
> The problem is not to find a single comprehensive plan that makes
SPS
> possible, for example. The issue is to find a single plan that is
> sufficiently low risk to attract investors and which lowers
barriers to
> other types of business in space. We don't need to have a path
plotted
> out in advance that brings SPS into being. In fact, it may turn
out
> that SPS never makes economic sense. What is needed is simply to
reduce
> barriers to other kinds of ET resource exploitation, harnessing
the
> creativity of thousands of people who will try to make a buck in
their
> own way.
It usually helps increase the velocity of capital if there are local
markets? Buyers and sellers in orbit. If every project can't count
on a domestic orbital economy taht means they'll have to make a go
of it independently of each other, and success will only come from a
payday on Earth, satisfying terrestrial needs.
If any one of them succeeds, it makes it more likely that
> someone else will figure out how to take the next step. That's the
> natural way for complexity to grow in an economy. Trying to design
it
> in from the ground up has failed every single time it's been tried.
>
> ......Andrew
Then are you prepared to never see orbital development, because at
the margins, every project will face exernalities that are daunting
and that are not central to the mission. Such externalities sink
many projects here on Earth, and the sheer scale of externalities in
orbit will doom many projects. OTOH, if there were other players who
specialized in tasks that you're not competent to address, they
could profit from their services and allow you to concentrate on
your expertise.
TangoMan
>
> > What does taking tourists on suborbital hops do for the big
picture?
>
> It shows that private industry can tackle both rocketry and space.
At
> the moment there's reason to doubt this; it's a big job and
governments
> aren't really stepping up to the plate as they should; but they're
on
> the playing field and this is scaring off the other players.
>
> Space is funding/market limited right now; governments will not
take us
> there; although they could, but they have insufficient incentive
to do
> this. Perhaps private industry won't either, but then again, it
has
> never tried as yet.
The way I see suborbital technology for space tourism is akin to hot
air balloning. It's a niche market, entirely tourist driven. Nobody
gets on a ballon to travel.
You get on a jet to go someplace in order to do something.
Sub-orbital will let you sightsee but it won't get you someplace
where you can earn a buck, or spend a buck on leisure.
Even if orbital tourism becomes tachnologically possible it still
needs a destination, otherwise it's just a new-fangled balloon.
TangoMan
> So the question becomes: What near-term businesses
> can we propose which can
> represent baby steps toward SPS from space
> resources?
a small amount of reply:
Ryan Z
If each project is a self-
sustained entity, I just can't see how project scope and complexity
will increase.
Projects aren't self sustaining; they have a beginning, middle, and end. Organizations that fund and run the projects are self sustaining.
TangoMan
>
> > If each project is a self-
> > sustained entity, I just can't see how project scope and
complexity
> > will increase.
>
> Projects aren't self sustaining; they have a beginning, middle,
and end.
> Organizations that fund and run the projects are self sustaining.
>
> > TangoMan
TangoMan
I'll take the risk of introducing anothr analogy into the debate.
The way I see suborbital technology for space tourism is akin to hot
air balloning. It's a niche market, entirely tourist driven. Nobody
gets on a ballon to travel.
Ballooning is profitable too- in fact, it's not a bad paradigm. You don't exactly go anywhere, but people are quite willing to pay for a trip anyway. You get a nice badge and everything. Same with suborbital, except you get your astronaut wings.
You get on a jet to go someplace in order to do something.
Yes, but you can also get on a cruise ship and do nothing. Think of orbit as doing a cruise around the world. Zero-g is thrown in at no extra cost.
Sub-orbital will let you sightsee but it won't get you someplace
where you can earn a buck, or spend a buck on leisure.
People spend a buck to balloon, and that doesn't go anywhere specifically. Will they spend enough bucks to make it profitable? Nobody knows, although the Mig flights suggest they might.
Even if orbital tourism becomes tachnologically possible It already is.
it still
needs a destination, otherwise it's just a new-fangled balloon.
No, because orbit is a destination. People want to stay up for a week or more ideally, and they are going to be prepared to pay. That really needs a hotel.
This is a blessed spiral. If we can seriously get onto this spiral then mankind will get into space (rather than just a few astronauts and cosmonauts). If we don't... we may not; we probably will not, unless there is a breakthrough (but they are relatively rare, compared to incremental improvements). Maybe 20 years, if things go well; maybe less, maybe more. Then you will be able to buy a ticket if you are only above averagely wealthy; rather than obscenely wealthy. I think we will know more within 5 years. Suborbital will either be going well or not; large scale orbital will look possible or not.
Alternatively, the Ruskies may get us there, all on their own (ok, with American travel agents). They already have orbital space tourism after all. Either way, we'll know more in the next few years.
TangoMan
Many people rode the concorde, not for speed but for prestige of it. Also consider the russian high altitude MIG joy rides, don't go anywhere but UP.
>
> Ballooning is profitable too- in fact, it's not a bad paradigm.
You
> don't exactly go anywhere, but people are quite willing to pay for
a
> trip anyway. You get a nice badge and everything. Same with
suborbital,
> except you get your astronaut wings.
disagreement centers on one word: Bootstrapping.
>
> > You get on a jet to go someplace in order to do something.
>
> Yes, but you can also get on a cruise ship and do nothing. Think
of
> orbit as doing a cruise around the world. Zero-g is thrown in at
no
> extra cost.
Where's the bootstrapping aspect? I hope it's a profitable business.
If it goes, and is proven safe, I'll be a customer if the price is
below a couple hundred thousand. I have no wish to risk my life but
I will be in their customer base. Nevertheless, I don't see any
bootstrapping potential for orbital development. I'm excluding from
this analysis, the sub-orbital routes between two locations of Earth
as a business model, because I think there will be a market there
that is probably larger than the tourist market.
> > Even if orbital tourism becomes tachnologically possible
>
> It already is.
Come on! Do you really think I don't know that people go to orbit,
and that Tito and Shuttlesworth were in space.
I know that the fault is mine for not being as specific as I
should've been in my statement, but really, what do you think I
could have meant?
Don't you think that tourism involving the general public has more
stringent safety requirements than professional activities? Can you
just strap a tourist into a deep-sea diver's suit and send him down
into a mixed gas zone with no training? Can you put tourists into
untested planes? Why does the FAA require years of certification?
Do there exist any spacecraft that are safe for tourists?
> > it still
> > needs a destination, otherwise it's just a new-fangled balloon.
>
> No, because orbit is a destination. People want to stay up for a
week or
> more ideally, and they are going to be prepared to pay.
So they'll stay in the space vehicle. Orbit is the destination, and
that's fine. My rebuttal once again, Bootstrapping. This doesn't
offer any help for subsequent endeavors.
That really
> needs a hotel.
Yes, that is a destination. Hopefully it is sufficient in scale to
support ancillary ventures. From this there is at least the
potential of future growth.
The point, from my perspective anyway, of this series of posts, was
how to bootstrap, not how to make a buck with some space themed
businesses.
TangoMan
Many people rode the concorde, not for speed but for prestige of it. Concorde was outcompeted by subsonic flight; so it became marginalised. If the only way across the Atlantic was concorde, then concorde would have been very successful indeed and that would have allowed further development. The nice thing about orbital flight is that there is only the high tech way to get there; so if tourist flights start up we will see an explosion of R&D.
>
> Ballooning is profitable too- in fact, it's not a bad paradigm.
You
> don't exactly go anywhere, but people are quite willing to pay for
a
> trip anyway. You get a nice badge and everything. Same with
suborbital,
> except you get your astronaut wings.
disagreement centers on one word: Bootstrapping.
>
> > You get on a jet to go someplace in order to do something.
>
> Yes, but you can also get on a cruise ship and do nothing. Think
of
> orbit as doing a cruise around the world. Zero-g is thrown in at
no
> extra cost.
Where's the bootstrapping aspect? You suddenly have a bunch of companies with rocketry experience. The suborbital market is limited. The orbital market is less so. Some of them are going to go for it- it's the best way to grow their business.
Don't you think that tourism involving the general public has more
stringent safety requirements than professional activities? Can you
just strap a tourist into a deep-sea diver's suit and send him down
into a mixed gas zone with no training? No. So give them the training. Somehow I think that people going to spend more than a million dollars will be prepared to take a course.
Can you put tourists into
untested planes? Why does the FAA require years of certification?
Actually, they don't recognize the 'c-word' (as the FAA representatives put it) for rockets; and suborbital vehicles are not going to be certified. There's a recognition that expecting space vehicles to reach commercial air vehicle standards at this stage is completely unrealistic. They are looking at certifying the tourists more than anything.
Do there exist any spacecraft that are safe for tourists?
There exist tourists prepared to go on the existing spacecraft; so in that sense, yes. There are other tourist industries that kill as many people, for example climbing Everest.
> > it still
> > needs a destination, otherwise it's just a new-fangled balloon.
>
> No, because orbit is a destination. People want to stay up for a
week or
> more ideally, and they are going to be prepared to pay.
So they'll stay in the space vehicle. Maybe initially; or perhaps not.
Orbit is the destination, and
that's fine. My rebuttal once again, Bootstrapping. This doesn't
offer any help for subsequent endeavors.
Launch cost! Orbital infrastructure! Commercial skills! Investor comfort levels! Technology pushes! In situ-resource utilisation! (hint: is it cheaper to pick a rock off Deimos or the earth and put it in LEO? How much rock do you need for radiation shielding?)
Lunar trips!
> That really needs a hotel.
Yes, that is a destination. Hopefully it is sufficient in scale to
support ancillary ventures. From this there is at least the
potential of future growth.
The point, from my perspective anyway, of this series of posts, was
how to bootstrap, not how to make a buck with some space themed
businesses.
Making a buck is not against the law. Not making a buck (like NASA is doing) probably should be. NASA cannot open up the high frontier; and there is ample evidence of this. For example when the Shuttle was on the design board they told all these fairy stories about how cheap it was going to be.
Now you might naively think as I did, that they had just overestimated the difficulty. Apparently not, according to the guy that ran the Shuttle program, they knowingly lied, and didn't even try to achieve any of the numbers that they quoted. And people like Gerard O'Neill were asked to back their program based on the quoted numbers. But of course they lied and that killed any chance of it starting to happen whilst he was alive.
TangoMan
> > Where's the bootstrapping aspect?
>
> You suddenly have a bunch of companies with rocketry experience.
The
> suborbital market is limited. The orbital market is less so.
statement. It could be argued that sub-orbital will be the one to
flourish because it will find more markets than just tourism. Given
enough time it may become the dominant form for long range travel,
pakage delivery and if so then it will probably have more R&D
invested in it which will lead to more advances, and so forth.
Doesn't that make sense?
Some of
> them are going to go for it- it's the best way to grow their
business.
>
> > Don't you think that tourism involving the general public has
more
> > stringent safety requirements than professional activities? Can
you
> > just strap a tourist into a deep-sea diver's suit and send him
down
> > into a mixed gas zone with no training?
>
> No. So give them the training. Somehow I think that people going
to
> spend more than a million dollars will be prepared to take a
course.
Yes, in this subset of the general scenario of tourism this makes
sense, but overall it doesn't. You can so narrowly define "tourism"
that it becomes so exclusive that its market size becomes neglible.
You can't point to the large dollar size of the tourism market and
then tailor your offering only to those who can pay a million
dollars, go through weeks of training, be physically fit, be willing
to sign a waiver of liability, and be in an industry that has a
failure rate of 1/250 or so. You're either in the tourist market or
the adventure market. They're not the same thing. So my point
stands: the tourist market requires more stringent safety
requirements than a professional astronaut environment, or for that
matter, an adventure market. The technology of reliability, as far
as I know, and counter to your assertion, doesn't exist that could
render spaceflight reliable for the general tourist market.
>
> > Can you put tourists into
> > untested planes? Why does the FAA require years of certification?
>
> Actually, they don't recognize the 'c-word' (as the FAA
representatives
> put it) for rockets; and suborbital vehicles are not going to be
> certified. There's a recognition that expecting space vehicles to
reach
> commercial air vehicle standards at this stage is completely
> unrealistic. They are looking at certifying the tourists more than
anything.
Yes, I've read that. Now I ask you to look to the future and
extrapolate some trends. If the tourist aspect of sub-orbital grows
and the price points come down, do you honestly think that the FAA
is not going to want to tighten up requirements?
I think they're cutting some slack to the suborbital market now
because it is so fringe. If it comes closer to mainstream, then I
personally can't see how they couldlet it continue, especially if
there are a few accidents.
>
> > Do there exist any spacecraft that are safe for tourists?
>
> There exist tourists prepared to go on the existing spacecraft; so
in
> that sense, yes. There are other tourist industries that kill as
many
> people, for example climbing Everest.
This whole line of questioning stems from your assertion that the
technology exists that makes orbital tourism possible. I disagree.
If you and I didn't understand each other, then let's end there. If
we did understand each other then by all means, let's continue back
and forth. :)
If you redefine the question that I asked then, as you've
demonstrated, you have the answer. Of course, there is a big
difference between a craft certified for tourists and tourists
prepared to risk more than general tourists in order to go on lesser
certified, or non-certied, craft. Completely different question.
As for the other tourist industries, they don't come under the
authority of certification agencies. They don't involve technology,
maintenance and procedures that could be made more stringent.
They're a different animal. Acts of nature that kill tourists are
different than acts of negligence that could have been prevented by
FAA oversight. I tend to think that the FAA might be sensitive to
that charge after a sub-orbital tragedy. Don't you?
> > Orbit is the destination, and
> > that's fine. My rebuttal once again, Bootstrapping. This doesn't
> > offer any help for subsequent endeavors.
>
> Launch cost! Orbital infrastructure! Commercial skills! Investor
comfort
> levels! Technology pushes! In situ-resource utilisation! (hint: is
it
> cheaper to pick a rock off Deimos or the earth and put it in LEO?
How
> much rock do you need for radiation shielding?)
>
> Lunar trips!
Lowering of launch cost is an indirect benefit to all who must rely
on launch. I conceded that issue from the outset. I never had a
problem with volume leading to lower prices. Lowered launch costs
could also result from a resurgence of satellite launches, or
military launches. Tourism isn't uniquely situated as the prime
driver in this respect, but it isn't excluded either.
Orbital infrastructure and ISRU. Bingo. Those are direct drivers of
bootstrapping efforts.
Technology pushes can come from anywhere, not solely orbital
tourism. I think that your analysis is reaching too far.
Orbital tourism has potential to satisfy a market and to push rocket
technology. This I do not doubt. I'm not arguing against the
potential. I just don't see it as adding to the bootstrapping
effort. If you delve more deeply into how orbital tourism causes
orbital infrastructure that is conducive to bootstrapping efforts i
think you'll find that one can only make a tenuous case, not a
reliable one. The suppositions that are required to be accepted are
too large and come back on relying on Faith alone that things will
work out that way.
> > The point, from my perspective anyway, of this series of posts,
was
> > how to bootstrap, not how to make a buck with some space themed
> > businesses.
>
> Making a buck is not against the law.
Am I really communicating that poorly that that is the impression
that I convey? Of course it's not. I was interested in a more
narowly defined question that concerned bootstrapping, not profit.
Not making a buck (like NASA is
> doing) probably should be. NASA cannot open up the high frontier;
and
> there is ample evidence of this. For example when the Shuttle was
on the
> design board they told all these fairy stories about how cheap it
was
> going to be.
I have no quibble with anything that you've written here. Inciteful
analysis.
>
> Now you might naively think as I did, that they had just
overestimated
> the difficulty.
Actually I did, until I read more about it, and then the truth came
out.
Apparently not, according to the guy that ran the
> Shuttle program, they knowingly lied, and didn't even try to
achieve any
> of the numbers that they quoted. And people like Gerard O'Neill
were
> asked to back their program based on the quoted numbers. But of
course
> they lied and that killed any chance of it starting to happen
whilst he
> was alive.
>
At the risk of repeating myself, heck why not, I think that NASA
should get into the business of laying down economic infrastructure
in orbit as a common good, and then let the private sector make use
of that infrastructure the way they make use of interstates,
seaports, airports, electrical grids, radio spectrum, etc here on
Earth.
What is too expensive for one private enterprise project to fund,
NASA and ESA could, and leave the other stuff to private operators.
Each to his own strengths. Governments are good for somethings and
private interests are good for others. Hopefully, never the twain
shall meet.
TangoMan
It could be argued that sub-orbital will be the one to
flourish because it will find more markets than just tourism. Given
enough time it may become the dominant form for long range travel,
pakage delivery and if so then it will probably have more R&D
invested in it which will lead to more advances, and so forth.
Probably not. It turns out you need a pretty big rocket (e.g. an ICBM) to go more a thousand or so miles- in fact most orbital vehicles are simply ICBMs with a bit less payload and a reprogramed guidance system. And rockets that go a few thousand miles use much more fuel than aeroplanes do, so cost very much more. So, just like Concorde, the hi tech gets undercut. Most things don't need to get there that quickly. Oh yeah, and sub-orbitals cause sonic booms too (mainly at takeoff and landing though).
So my point
stands: the tourist market requires more stringent safety
requirements than a professional astronaut environment, or for that
matter, an adventure market. The technology of reliability, as far
as I know, and counter to your assertion, doesn't exist that could
render spaceflight reliable for the general tourist market.
I don't agree. I do personally know some people that have built a liquid fuelled rocket engine and lit it several thousand times. It has never exploded.
Yes, I've read that. Now I ask you to look to the future and
extrapolate some trends. If the tourist aspect of sub-orbital grows
and the price points come down, do you honestly think that the FAA
is not going to want to tighten up requirements? I think they're cutting some slack to the suborbital market now
because it is so fringe. If it comes closer to mainstream, then I
personally can't see how they couldlet it continue, especially if
there are a few accidents.
Yup, that's right.
This whole line of questioning stems from your assertion that the
technology exists that makes orbital tourism possible. I disagree.
It's called Soyuz right now. The price of Soyuz can and will drop as the launch rate goes up. I'm expecting/hoping for competition to back this up.
As for the other tourist industries, they don't come under the
authority of certification agencies. They don't involve technology,
maintenance and procedures that could be made more stringent.
They're a different animal. Acts of nature that kill tourists are
different than acts of negligence that could have been prevented by
FAA oversight. I tend to think that the FAA might be sensitive to
that charge after a sub-orbital tragedy. Don't you?
Probably. We shall see. It wasn't such a big issue back early in the last century when quite a few people died; although it did mean that the FAA did eventually become as careful as it is. The point is that they didn't do that clamp down until there was a serious chance of passenger flights becoming big business. We're not there in space tourism- we're more at the barnstorming end of the spectrum.
And there's a subtle point about the FAA you've apparently missed- the FAA is on the side of the industry- not the public. They only push reliability for airlines because unreliability is seen as bad for that industry. Pushing reliability to a ridiculous degree in the suborbital industry is bad for the industry right now, so they aren't doing it. I've been to lectures by the relevant section of the FAA, and that's really how they look at it.
Orbital tourism has potential to satisfy a market and to push rocket
technology. This I do not doubt. I'm not arguing against the
potential. I just don't see it as adding to the bootstrapping
effort. If you delve more deeply into how orbital tourism causes
orbital infrastructure that is conducive to bootstrapping efforts i
think you'll find that one can only make a tenuous case, not a
reliable one. The technology is very much dual use. It's a bit like arguing that military aeroplanes don't help out civil aeroplane technology. But the 747 was derived from a military jet. Similarly tourist vehicles are a way of launch colonists; and the associated freight can carry settlement stuff just as much as hotel related equipment.
The suppositions that are required to be accepted are too large We shall see.
What is too expensive for one private enterprise project to fund,
NASA and ESA could, and leave the other stuff to private operators. I don't know about ESA, but the experience of companies with NASA has shown that the strings attached to launch-infrastructure related projects constrain them along lines that don't lead anywhere particularly useful.
TangoMan
>
> > It could be argued that sub-orbital will be the one to
> > flourish because it will find more markets than just tourism.
Given
> > enough time it may become the dominant form for long range
travel,
> > pakage delivery and if so then it will probably have more R&D
> > invested in it which will lead to more advances, and so forth.
> >
> > Doesn't that make sense?
>
> Probably not. It turns out you need a pretty big rocket (e.g. an
ICBM)
> to go more a thousand or so miles- in fact most orbital vehicles
are
> simply ICBMs with a bit less payload and a reprogramed guidance
system.
> And rockets that go a few thousand miles use much more fuel than
> aeroplanes do, so cost very much more. So, just like Concorde, the
hi
> tech gets undercut. Most things don't need to get there that
quickly. Oh
> yeah, and sub-orbitals cause sonic booms too (mainly at takeoff
and
> landing though).
sub-orbital technology will find a larger market serving Earth-Earth
transit than tourist hops into sub-orbit. I'm not particularly
attached to the points I raised, I only brought them up to rebut the
definitive nature of your statement.
I would be intersted in your take on the fact that has so often been
stated, which is that fuel costs are but a minor cost component of
the journey. Why are they an impediment to furthr development of sub-
orbital transport if the fuel costs can be offset by faster turnover
of flights thus increasing utilization of the expensive hardware and
by being able to charge some degree of premium for the ticket.
Also, if sonic booms are a problem, why aren't they are problem for
sub-orbital tourism and orbital tourism?
> > So my point
> > stands: the tourist market requires more stringent safety
> > requirements than a professional astronaut environment, or for
that
> > matter, an adventure market. The technology of reliability, as
far
> > as I know, and counter to your assertion, doesn't exist that
could
> > render spaceflight reliable for the general tourist market.
>
> I don't agree. I do personally know some people that have built a
liquid
> fuelled rocket engine and lit it several thousand times. It has
never
> exploded.
Well I don't see where we can go from here. I've flown hundreds of
thousands of miles on planes and I've never been involved in a
crash. Others have though. What does this tell us?
>
> > This whole line of questioning stems from your assertion that the
> > technology exists that makes orbital tourism possible. I
disagree.
>
> It's called Soyuz right now. The price of Soyuz can and will drop
as the
> launch rate goes up. I'm expecting/hoping for competition to back
this up.
I don't know enough about Soyuz to comment intelligently. Didn't
they just have a landing malfunction a few months back?
If the Russians were smart about they'd first determine the price
elasticity associated with price reductions. It one outcome it may
not make economic sense to lower prices because the expected
increase in launches may not offset the reduced income.
Competition would be a welcome turn of events.
> > As for the other tourist industries, they don't come under the
> > authority of certification agencies. They don't involve
technology,
> > maintenance and procedures that could be made more stringent.
> > They're a different animal. Acts of nature that kill tourists are
> > different than acts of negligence that could have been prevented
by
> > FAA oversight. I tend to think that the FAA might be sensitive to
> > that charge after a sub-orbital tragedy. Don't you?
>
> Probably. We shall see. It wasn't such a big issue back early in
the
> last century when quite a few people died; although it did mean
that the
> FAA did eventually become as careful as it is.
Very true, but is the US legal system from a century ago the same in
character as it is today? And for that matter, are the citizen's of
today more or less litigious than a century ago? Didn't a judge just
approve lawsuits against the airlines and Boeing on the expectation
that they should have known that boxcutters could have been used to
take over a plane and fly it into a building. I hold the opinion
that this type of ruling wouldn't have been issued a century ago.
The point is that they
> didn't do that clamp down until there was a serious chance of
passenger
> flights becoming big business. We're not there in space tourism-
we're
> more at the barnstorming end of the spectrum.
I'm in agreement with your analysis.
>
> And there's a subtle point about the FAA you've apparently missed-
the
> FAA is on the side of the industry- not the public. They only push
> reliability for airlines because unreliability is seen as bad for
that
> industry. Pushing reliability to a ridiculous degree in the
suborbital
> industry is bad for the industry right now, so they aren't doing
it.
> I've been to lectures by the relevant section of the FAA, and
that's
> really how they look at it.
>
I didn't miss the point - I just didn't make it. Nevertheless, it is
a useful perspective to throw into our discussion. I actually
appreciate the firsthand knowledge you've conveyed from the lecture
you've attended. Thanks, that's so much better than the knowledge
that we usually pass around which has more pedestrian, and sometimes
dubious, origins.
> > The suppositions that are required to be accepted are too large
>
> We shall see.
And therein lies the heart of our dilemma. You and I can't come to a
definitive conclusion to this part of our conversation without
events actually coming to pass. If we're still here years from now,
rehashing this topic, we'll hopefully have reached a gentleman's
conclusion based on the events that transpire.
We shall see is right.
>
> > What is too expensive for one private enterprise project to fund,
> > NASA and ESA could, and leave the other stuff to private
operators.
>
> I don't know about ESA, but the experience of companies with NASA
has
> shown that the strings attached to launch-infrastructure related
> projects constrain them along lines that don't lead anywhere
> particularly useful.
>
> > TangoMan
That's the way things are now with NASA. Pity. If NASA undergoes a
wholesale mission change so that it must purchase launch services,
then it is just as likely that they could undergo a similar change
to fund infrastructure development for the common good.
Or we work with the situation as it stands now, discount the role of
NASA, rely on private enterprise to establish infrastructure, and
live with the fact that some types of infrastructure may never be
built for lack of immediate profit motive, and thus efforts for
further development will be stymied.
TangoMan
I would be intersted in your take on the fact that has so often been
stated, which is that fuel costs are but a minor cost component of
the journey. Why are they an impediment to furthr development of sub-
orbital transport if the fuel costs can be offset by faster turnover
of flights thus increasing utilization of the expensive hardware and
by being able to charge some degree of premium for the ticket.
They are a problem for suborbital because airflight costs are currently approaching the cost of fuel (perhaps a factor of 2 or so currently). Orbital costs, and suborbital costs are much, much higher. But what I'm saying is that it's unlikely that suborbital will ever compete with airflight, even if the suborbital costs fall down just to the fuel costs because the fuel costs are so much higher than the airflight costs. But what I'm saying is that it's unlikely that suborbital can ever to compete with airflight, even if the suborbital costs fall down just to the fuel costs; because the fuel used is determined by the physics of these vehicles. Also, if sonic booms are a problem, why aren't they are problem for
sub-orbital tourism and orbital tourism?
They are. However for those cases you can operate from certain carefully chosen sites which mitigates the problem (in the extreme- operate from the sea). But they still are a problem to a degree. The Shuttle throws off sonic booms across America as it reenters. People mostly put up with it because it is relatively rare.
>> liquid fuelled rocket engine and lit it several thousand times. It
>> has never exploded.
>
> Well I don't see where we can go from here. I've flown hundreds of
> thousands of miles on planes and I've never been involved in a crash.
> Others have though. What does this tell us?
The standard rule of thumb is that the reliability of rocket engines is such that they catastrophically fail about 0.2% of the time. However, this particular rocket engine was designed for reliability and has lit many more times more often than that; and has not failed. The clear implication is that there is no inherent unreliability in rocketry.
> I don't know enough about Soyuz to comment intelligently. Didn't they
> just have a landing malfunction a few months back?
Yup guidance system failed. The backup system kicked in, as designed. You'll notice that everyone was fine. Some people have compared this to the Shuttle failure...
> If the Russians were smart about they'd first determine the price
> elasticity associated with price reductions. It one outcome it may
> not make economic sense to lower prices because the expected increase
> in launches may not offset the reduced income.
They're not stupid or they wouldn't be making rockets.
> Competition would be a welcome turn of events.
Yes.
> Very true, but is the US legal system from a century ago the same in
> character as it is today? And for that matter, are the citizen's of
> today more or less litigious than a century ago? Didn't a judge just
> approve lawsuits against the airlines and Boeing on the expectation
> that they should have known that boxcutters could have been used to
> take over a plane and fly it into a building. I hold the opinion that
> this type of ruling wouldn't have been issued a century ago.
If that is a big problem, then flights will not go from American soil or will not be run by American companies. Still, the airlines have this mostly but not completely sorted- they face a similar sort of issue. Basically paying up a largeish sum of money, no questions asked, goes a long way to head off these sorts of problems. But it doesn't always work as we see here.
TangoMan
> I think they're cutting some slack to the suborbital
> market now
> because it is so fringe. If it comes closer to
> mainstream, then I
> personally can't see how they couldlet it continue,
> especially if
> there are a few accidents.
>
came out last year on the economic potential of
suborbit title "Suborbital Reusable Launch Vehicles
and Applicable Markets". Its at:
http://www.technology.gov/space/library/reports/
I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions on this report.
The question for SSI'ers is how do we get to the point where Island One
and SPS are just a small increment more complex than something that