Columbus, scurvy, deformed space fetii and plaintiff lawyers

Thank you for the information on project financing, Robert.

Suppose that I launch a satellite intended for geosynchronous orbit. The
satellite itself is operating just fine after launch. Unfortunately, the
upper stage misfires, leaving the satellite stranded in an orbit that is
useless for its intended application.

As I understand it, when such a scenario unfolds, the satellite is declared
lost and insurance money changes hands.

Let me ask you a few questions. Maybe you can desribe how the standard
financing models you mention --- models that place emphasis on percentage
contribution rather than absolute level of launch costs --- address such
issues.

Why is it that today we don't launch a robot or person to go get the
stranded satellite and return it to Earth for re-launch (or re-boost it to
its intended orbit)? Could it be that the high absolute level of launch
costs might have something to do with the fact that noone tries to
fix/repair/return such satellites today?

Next, consider designing a new satellite under different design
assumptions.
Design Assumption A: The satellite will never be serviced by any
robot or human.
Design Assumption B: The satellite will be regularly serviced and
maintained.
Under which assumption is the development cost of the satellite likely to
be higher? Could it be that the high absolute level of launch costs might
influence the manner in which we design satellites, thus driving up their
price?

Finally, consider launching a worker into orbit for a trip of less than one
week of duration. Which is more challenging, launching the worker, or
keeping him or her alive for one week once launched?

Ron Menich

Robert.Clements@
PM and plainti ff lawyers
Please respond
to ssi_list

> Percentage of entire project cost is not a good measure of how
expensive
> launch costs are. A far better measure, in my opinion, is the
absolute
> scale in $ of the costs: to launch a sizable payload into space
costs as
> much as it would to construct an entire factory here on Earth!
If I want
> to ship a 10-ton object from where I live to Australia, it doesn't
cost $50
> million to do that!

Unfortunately, what you consider a more logical apoproach is actually
a highly artificial measure of costs; & is never used by economists
or financiers... & for good reason: if the Iridium satellites &
infrastructure costs (an exaggerated eg; but a good illustration of
the process) cost close to US$6g; reducing the launch costs from less
than US$0.5g even to zero does almost nothing to a bottom line built
not around your own money; but a line of credit obtained to finance
this project. The reduction in debt servicing costs really are
miniscule under these circumstances; & offer no financial incentive
to develop cheaper launch systems... especially with exSoviet
boosters like Proton & Zenit around to service the cash strapped
consortium.

(To use a less extreme case: comsats generally cost around US$1g; &
can have servicing & infrastructure costs up to that same amount:
switching from Ariane cinque to a cheaper booster may say you, say,
US$100m; but that can be less the 5% of your line of credit costs)

You can't choose the budgeting system which suits your personal
preferences; you have to use the ones in standard use - & preferably
understand why they're in standard use as well. That's why we
abandoned large Apollo scale dreams & looked for cheap technologies
instead: from the financiers' perspective, it's the only way to
change the paradigm quickly.

Robert.