launch

Some comments on Zeinio's excellent critique of my launch vehicle
development proposal:

On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 07:58 AM, Ryan Zelnio wrote:

> While I do not totally disagree with this I do wish to
> point out that RLVs are really only about manned
> launch.

Perhaps you believe this because there is only one RLV (shuttle) and it
launches people. One should note that all other forms of transportation
use reusable vehicles.

> Launching sats and other cargos are
> apparently at an affordable launch as industry
> (telecom and remote sensing) has already sprouted
> which can bear the costs of launching. IMHO, the cost
> of launching, while high, is bearable commercially.
>

Bearable cost depends on the application. For
- geosynchronous telecom YES
- for LEO telecom NO -- (Iridium only survived by reniging on
billions of dollars of debt)
- remote sensing MAYBE -- these companies are marginal or unprofitable
- tourism NO (unless your hotel - the ISS today -- is free)
- low-G retirement homes NO
- solar power satellites NO
- asteroid mining NO
- colonization NO

So, if you're happy with geosynchronous telecom and don't want to do
anything else commercially, current launch capabilities are just fine.

> With the current glut of launchers, I imagine this
> price will only go down more and more. It will be
> very hard to compete rlv with an elv, something I
> doubt will ever happen.

Ever is a long time. Some believed railroads would never really compete
with horses.

>
> Now for human flight, I agree that RLV is the way to
> go. How much the government should be involved in
> this thogh I am not sure.

Without major breakthroughs in propulsion and materials RLVs are
probably an iffy proposition. Government R&D works for these kinds of
things. Also, by providing a guaranteed market the government can also
spur development that could, otherwise, never generate a decent business
plan. The government subsidized the development of nearly every form of
modern transportation -- sometimes in major ways -- and continues to do
so. I wouldn't expect launch to be any different.

>
> 2) develop streamlined procedures with the faa and
> other government orgs to help get vehicles qualified
> for flight. ...

Be careful here. Streamlining can becoming corner-cutting and launch
failures do not help the cause.

Complete post:

While I do not totally disagree with this I do wish to
point out that RLVs are really only about manned
launch. Launching sats and other cargos are
apparently at an affordable launch as industry
(telecom and remote sensing) has already sprouted
which can bear the costs of launching. IMHO, the cost
of launching, while high, is bearable commercially.

With the current glut of launchers, I imagine this
price will only go down more and more. It will be
very hard to compete rlv with an elv, something I
doubt will ever happen. First and foremost, all RLV's
assume a payload involving humans, this eats up alot
of space, some predictions I have read is roughly 10%
of the mass is devoted to life supports for all rlvs.
Considering that fuel take up almost 90%, it does not
leave alot of space for cargo.

Now for human flight, I agree that RLV is the way to
go. How much the government should be involved in
this thogh I am not sure. Some items I would add to
your list though include:

1) putting an infrastructure in for commercial
launches. This includes ground stations and launch
pad. Currently several states are already creating
commercial launch facilities but these facilities are
all geared towards ELVs. RLV will have a very
different demand for facility support.

2) develop streamlined procedures with the faa and
other government orgs to help get vehicles qualified
for flight. Currently this is a mess which have
caused many delays. Just look at the problems groups
like armadillo aerospace and beal have had with
government regulations. Not only are permits needed
to fly but new permits whose regulations have not even
been ironed out are needed to land a spacecraft.
There has never been to date any need for this as the
shuttle lands on an air force base, but I am assuming
a commercial RLV will be landing at a commercial base,
which falls under faa regulation.

Not only is the faa takeoff/landing permits required,
but just like the aircraft industry, all
mechanics/engineers/ground support personnel need to
be qualified to even work on an RLV. These standards
need to be ironed out also in order to facilitate
paper work.

3) Highly placed government officials and respected
academics need to start saying its possible. I know
its easy to rag on these guys, but the fact of the
matter is, Wall Street listens to these guys. Why
would wall street back a commercial project if highly
respected leaders in the field say your full of crap?
For further elaboration on this matter look at
comments from Boeing and Dan Goldin in the past
lamenting the problems of RLVs...

4) I cannot help but stress your last point but for a
different reason, insurance carriers. There needs to
be several flights accomplished before an insurance
carrier even begins to CONSIDER underwriting such an
undertaking. I am not even sure ten flights are
enough. There are massive liabilities associated with
manned space flight. These liabilities will scare off
serious investors. By having the gov pay for the
first 10 launches, you can build up a record which may
help bring over insurance underwriters. My only
concern is that 10 launches will not be enough to win
over the insurance industry. It may still require gov
backed insurance for RLVs for the first 5 years
minimum until commercial insurance companies will even
think about it.

For an RLV to be successful I do not think NASA alone
is enough. This is more a concerted effort between
private and public institutions. I believe it can be
done but it will take a heck of a lot more then nasa's
current SLI vision, especially since now half of that
program is being cut to fund a space plane!

Just my buck and a quarter...

Ryan Z.

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 08:17:02 -0800
From: Al Globus
Subject: launch

Excerpted from a letter to the editor of Space News:

Launch cost is the reason all space science, Mars
exploration, space
tourism and everything else is limping. It's not
just the actual launch
cost. Weight and volume limitations drive the cost
of nearly every
aspect of space hardware and mission design. We
need better launch, and
everything else is strictly secondary. To this end
I believe NASA
should devote at least 50% of the budget to reusable
launch vehicle
development. Several expendable launch vehicles
have been developed in
last 20 years without much NASA involvement, so
there is no need to fund
expendables. The $7.5+ billion/year should be used
to

-- upgrade the shuttle
-- develop new materials and propulsion
-- provide test facilities and consulting to vehicle
developers
-- and, most important, buy the first ten+ launches
of new reusable
vehicles developed by the private sector. Launch
developers should be
paid after launch, but could use the guaranteed
business to get loans
for development. Most launch failures occur in the
first 10 or so
flights, so this proposal effectively funds flight
test programs. NASA
hasn't developed and flown a new orbital vehicle
since the shuttle and
must be paid up front for all work, whether it flies
or not. This
proposal only costs taxpayer dollars when the
vehicle is flown -- no
flight, no expense. It's time to directly address
the real problem of
space development: launch cost.

The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~500 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html