Digest Number 465

Several replies in a single message here. Please accept my apologies in advance, I was not able to attribute all the quotes which come from various different people.

>
> I wonder. Recently there have been articles on space.com and elsewhere
> bemoaning the overcapacity that currently exists in the launcher market.
> Allowing more ICBM conversions would glut the launcher market even more,
> making it tougher for other launcher companies to stay afloat. Would
> that be a good thing? I'm not so sure...
>
> Ron
>

Why is overcapacity a bad thing ? From the point of view of the provider I can see they are losing money. But why is that a problem for those of us who want to expand the high forntier ? If the launch companies are losing money, I could care less. Actually, it makes me rather happy. It will force launch prices down, and that
will reduce the cost of entry for new space business.

If there is an overcapacity of launchers, then there needs to be a shake out. The less competitive companeis will fall by the wayside, and the new fleet will be leaner and meaner.

It is somewhat similr to the current shakeout in the airline industries, we will see some bankrupticies. That is the nature of the free market..

As somebody who has recently been downsized, I can sympathize with the dislocated workers, but protecting markets is not the long term answer (although I can support it as a short term band aid).

>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:29:53 -0400
>
> >To reduce environmental opposition I would put the demonstrator at L-1 and
> >use it to beam power to the Sinus Meridium region of Luna.
> >
> Hey, I like this plan!
>
> >This demonstrator would dispell once and for all any question as to the
> >feasibility of the concept. It would also provide effectively unlimited
> >power for a lunar base, which would enable mining and refining operations on
> >the lunar surface.
> >
> Nice way to step up to use of lunar materials. Brilliant!
>

Thanks, I am glad you see the advantages.

> >
> In addition to a gas tax? That would just drain our own oil resources
> dry quicker and bring windfall profits to US oil companies - hate to do
> that :-)
>

The US gas tax is the lowest in the western world by far.

>
> So, could we get some of those tax/tarriff revenues directed toward SPS?
>
> Arthur
>

It should probably be used for energy research. The other measures I proposed will make SPS one of the more attractive avenues for research compared to hte other alternatives.

>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:58:10 -0000
>
> My concerns center on expansion issues and bonding. Would there be
> a problem with the weld joints on the original structure by having a
> monolithic layer of metal sprayed on top of them? Do the welds allow
> some expansion stresses to be absorbed? How would the VVD material

The welds can be safely ignored, why are you concerned about them ? Welds are verified using X-ray and N-ray inspection to ensure no cracks or voids. After that, for analysis purposes, they do not exist, they can be treated as part of the native metal structure.

>
> adhere to the original structure? Would there be engineering issues
> with the cooling of the VVD material between each successive
> application? This last question is similar to issues that concrete

Well you would want to depressurize the vessel before applying the coating, and then wait for the coating to cool down and "set" before repressurizing. I do not see any other issues really.

>
> applicators face. If they allow a portion of their pour to cure and
> then apply another pour next to it, there is a joint. Because the
> VVD will be applying layer ontop of layer, will we still have a
> monolithic shell, or will it be one of many layers?
>

Many layers I expect.

> If it is a monolithic shell, is that ideal? How would stresses be
> relieved?
>

You do not relieve stresses in a pressure vessel. I am not sure what you mean.

>
> If it is one of many layers, then is it less structurally sound?
>

> Analysing the load sharing between layers could be complicated, perhaps impossible. Probably better to use the extra layer as a safety backup structure, rather than a primary structure.
> Hope that somebody can help with answers to these questions.
>

Analysizing layered pressure vessels is a common spacecraft problem. Many spacecraft tanks have a metal liner with a composite cladding. Getting them certified is a little complicated.

>
> Meanwhile, we keep adding more thickness to the shell, thus allowing
> more gas pressure to be held.
>

No. You need to depressurize between adding layers to the pressure vessel. The atmosphere will have to be pumped off into a storage tank.

>
> Now for some Habitat designs the windows issue will not allow this

The window issues is irrelevant here so far as I can see.

>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:45:27 -0400
>
> Do you care whether or not the U.S. economy goes into depression as a
> result of these draconian actions? An economy that is in the gutter does
> not seem to me to be likely to be able to produce the huge investments
> required to develop space.
>

Claims of depression are exaggerated. For the last 30 years Europe has had gas taxes about ten times higher (per gallon) than the USA, and they are not in depression. About 80% of the price of petrol in Europe has been tax for decades.

For much of this time, Germany, for example, has run a balance of trade surplus, whereas the USA has been consistently in defecit.

The facts do not support your argument.

Also, I am not proposing a net increase in taxes. The defense tax on imports should be offset by a reduction in personal income taxes.

This would upset the GATT treaty, but we will have to rethink workd trade anway in the context of the high military cost of protecting foreign sources of supply, for everything ranging from fuel to texiles. After all, the US military's uniforms are made in China.
Quote from a different message:

> >
> You should not assume that America or it's law are the world.
>

You might want to reconsider that comment.
The USA dominates the aerospace industry via its technology, and the world through the World Bank and military might. Hence, the USA is more able than most to enforce its laws around the world.

>

Another random quote:

> >
> Less. Tito paid about $15 million. The rocket only costs $5 million.
>

Correct, Soyuz rockets are really very cheap, Russia sells them at a huge profit, they have no competition. In fact, the USA and France have forced Russia to keep their prices artifically high to protect Ariane and the US launch companies..

> What are you smoking? 500 million per launch is anything but effective.
> You can launch
> about 10 Protons for that. And the irony is that the Russian space work
> is far more
> efficient than the American's. The Russians do/did socialism better than
> the Americans ;-)
>
> And don't give me any nonsense about Russian wages...that doesn't
> explain why they
> are so much cheaper.

It is part of it. But I think the major part is that they armortized the development costs a long time ago, and now they can afford to make them for a very low unit cost. They have a production lines of a reliable design, and proven repeatable formula. Soyuz is the model-T Ford of space.

>
> Message: 14
> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 23:30:07 -0400 (EDT)
>
> > >It makes absolutely no difference to the market for commercial
> > >space settlement that there is $50 billion in commercial satellite
> > >activity, since there seems to be $0 crossover.
> > >
> > It may do if there is a cost pressure. Currently there is none. It's a
> > bit of a perverse market really.
>
> Huh? Ariane vs. SeaLaunch vs. Proton vs. Atlas sees no cost pressure?
> Telco companies see no cost pressure????
>
> > >[...]
> > Less. Tito paid about $15 million. The rocket only costs $5 million.
>
> I wasn't referring to Tito. Anyway, if the Russians make that much
> profit, how come they're always short of money? All the competitive

Despite the high profit margin, the low volume of their sales cannot support their entire space program.
The USA and France have not allowed them to drop their prices. If Soyuz were sold for a more reasonable profit margin (e.g. 10% instead of 1000%) then they would capture the entire world market, and increase their volume considerably, and drive down launch costs considerably. But the western launch companies would scream bloody
murder, and they have very powerful lobbyists in Washington and Paris.

>
> > > [...transorbital.net...]
> > >
> > Why should I in the UK contribute money to an American firm? I see no
> > evidence that they
> > are cutting launch costs.
>
> Oh, so now we're nationalistic? If it matters to you, Richard Perry,
> on the TransOrbital board of directors, and actively involved in
> the project, is a UK citizen. See:
> http://www.transorbital.net/PressReleases/press000926.html
> At least one other participant, that I know of, is from New Zealand.
> It's an international project, though the company is US-based.
>

There is also a Canadian involved.

>

Regards,

Charles F. Radley