Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

A year and a half ago, I announced this very thing in USA Today with a piece entitled "A Space Race to Change the World."

However, I might risk being considered rude by pointing out that unlike Virgin Galactic, both NASA and China have launched people into orbit.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at February 17, 2006 11:47 AM

Isn't this enterprise going to use a government (Russian gov't) built vehicle?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at February 17, 2006 12:02 PM

No, it's going to use a Russian-built vehicle, but I'm not aware that it's a government vehicle. My understanding is that it's being funded by a consortium including the Ansari family.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 17, 2006 12:05 PM

Not rude, Mark, just stuck in the past.

I'm much more interested in space races that actually have some prospect for opening up space to humanity in a big way.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 17, 2006 12:07 PM

Maybe not a directly government funded vehicle, but the Myasishchev C-21 looks a lot like the 1960's Myasishchev VKA-23 which was government funded.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at February 17, 2006 01:05 PM

OK, and your point is, Cecil...?

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 17, 2006 01:14 PM

Well, a cynical person would suggest that thrill rides at a quarter or so million a pop are very far away from opening up space to the masses. Now, not being a cynic, I'm all in favor of what Virgin Galactic and others are doing, just as I am in favor of going back to the Moon. Both are necessary parts of opening up space. But the day that the masses get to go is far off, and may not happen because of rockets. (I.e., space elevators have a greater promise to do that.)

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at February 17, 2006 01:25 PM

My point is that I'm not convinced this is a prime example of free enterprise based private spaceflight at work, that this thing will only fly because it is in at least some small way subsidized by the Russian government.

I'm still betting on Rutans craft being the first passenger carrying private spacecraft, without any government subsidy ties.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at February 17, 2006 01:38 PM

Well, a cynical person would suggest that thrill rides at a quarter or so million a pop are very far away from opening up space to the masses.

Yes, just as two-thousand-dollar VCRs were very far away from allowing anyone to watch movies in the privacy of their own home...

Cecil, just because they're because they're using an aircraft based on a government development doesn't mean that it's subsidized, any more than Learjet is subsidizing Rocketplane's activities. I doubt if there is any Russian government money going into this venture.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 17, 2006 01:50 PM

Rutan is on a former Government base, has had plenty of DoD contracts, cut his teeth on Government aeronautics problems and has a lot to be thankful for. The good news is that NASA or some other gov't agency doesn't hold the purse strings and doesn't hold the patents.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at February 17, 2006 03:06 PM

I have to agree with Mark

The expensive VCR / cheap VCR argument is getting a little old. VCRs can be cheap because the raw materials are cheap, and the energy is low. We know that SS1 cost Rutan $30M, and airliners cost ~$100M. This vehicle is smaller but more complicated than an airplane plus you have to comply with FAA regulations. Maybe you could make a 5 passenger version for ~$200M, but then there’s maintenance. A suborbital roller coaster ride will always cost $100k + and unlike an airplane flight, a person is unlikely to do it more than once. Same goes for orbital flights, but the proper scaling factor is the huge difference in the energy involved, so those flights will always cost 10 to 100 times more. This is a crummy business model, expensive product, few customers, and no repeat business.

Posted by brian d at February 17, 2006 03:07 PM

Energy isn't what makes the cost of spaceflight high. And I can buy a ticket in a hundred million dollar airliner for a lot less than a quarter of a million dollars.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 17, 2006 03:18 PM

> both NASA and China have launched people into orbit.

Neither NASA nor China have launched any significant number of people into orbit.

Nor would "Apollo on Steroids" launch any significant number of people into space.

There are many alternative approaches that would enable larger numbers of Americans to go into space, for less money.

Yet, you reject all of them, because they aren't "Apollo on Steroids."

If you want NASA to have no significant human spaceflight capability for decades to come, then you have selected an excellent plan.

if you want to see wholesale layoffs in the NASA astronaut office, you've practically guaranteed them.

If you want space to be rewerved for "peaceful scientific uses," while our enemies develop reusable spacecraft for military purposes, you've got the right policy.

But for those of us who believe the US should have routine, affordable access to space for commercial, military, and scientific purposes, your policy is a step in the wrong direction.

> the masses get to go is far off, and may not happen because of rockets.

That's what you want to believe. That doesn't make it true.

Cheap access to space does not require space elevators, scramjets, warp drives, or other exotic technologies. Anyone who knows the cost of rocket propellants and understands the rocket equation can show that in five minutes.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 17, 2006 03:42 PM

We know that SS1 cost Rutan $30M, and airliners cost ~$100M. This vehicle is smaller but more complicated than an airplane plus you have to comply with FAA regulations.

Why do you think the vehicle is more complicated than an airplane? For SS1, and presumably any followon, the propulsion system is _much_ simpler than a turbojet; it's just a pressure-fed hybrid, and the oxidizer tank is even self-pressurizing.

Maybe you could make a 5 passenger version for ~$200M, but then there’s maintenance.

Where do you get that figure? A SS1 followup with five passengers would merely need to carry six people. Since SS1 could carry three people, the followup would need to be merely twice the size.

IF the vehicle cost scaled with the payload, this would give a $ 60 million dollar figure.

OTOH, I can think of reasons that this would not be the case; while the carrier aircraft might cost more, the SS2 vehicle itself, I suspect, would cost less than twice as much as SS1. You'd need more composite materials, but it would have the same number of actuators, for example. It would need a larger wing, but it wouldn't need twice the number of wings...

A suborbital roller coaster ride will always cost $100k + and unlike an airplane flight, a person is unlikely to do it more than once. Same goes for orbital flights, but the proper scaling factor is the huge difference in the energy involved, so those flights will always cost 10 to 100 times more. This is a crummy business model, expensive product, few customers, and no repeat business.

It might be a bad business model, and I've seen convincing arguments to that effect... but not from you.

Let's assume you're right about the "100 times more" than $ 100,000.00 per suborbital flight, for the cost of an orbital flight. (Let's assume you're right about the cost of suborbital flight, just for argument's sake, too).

That would imply for the annual cost of the shuttle program (or its likely government-funded followon, the stick/shaft/whatever, which is likely to match the shuttle program in cost because it uses all the same resources), the private operator able to duplicate the figures you outlined above could launch about 300 people to low earth orbit and back.

It suggests that a private program with the costs outlined above could duplicate the people carrying capability of the stick (we'll be generous and say it launches four times a year with eight people each, which sounds to me like it would be par for the course for something kitbashed out of shuttle parts) and still have some 85% of its capability left over.

Posted by Phil Fraering at February 17, 2006 04:13 PM

Quote:
A suborbital roller coaster ride will always cost $100k + and unlike an airplane flight, a person is unlikely to do it more than once. Same goes for orbital flights, but the proper scaling factor is the huge difference in the energy involved, so those flights will always cost 10 to 100 times more. This is a crummy business model, expensive product, few customers, and no repeat business.
-- Posted by brian d

It is very dangerous to one's credibility to make such sweeping statements. What is true today needn't always be so, especially when it concerns economics and technology development.

Sure, SS1 is a pure stunt. The Wright Flyer was as far from the DC3 as SS1 will be from its practical relatives.

As for the economics, rollercoaster rides aren't likely to make great markets (Disney and Magic Mountain not withstanding) but they can provide steping stones to viable vehicles and operational methods.

I don't have the billions it will take to make the investment, but eventually massive passenger dollars will be spent on ballistic transportation. The crucial question is can ballistic costs compare favorably to long haul aircraft costs. Today the answer is:
a) Not Applicable - no cases to study
b) SS1 $$$ >> 747 per passenger $$$

but if the investment is funded by rollercoaster rides so that SS1 per passenger $$$ ~is approximately~ 747 per passenger $$$ then things get interesting.

People will try to argue that physics prohibits near equality of these costs. I don't find that case compelling in the least. The energy needed to go LAX -> Aukland on a 747 is on order to that of a ballistic flight.

People will try to argue that the engineering is prohibitive (and we don't have an existance proof at this time), but SS1 has expanded the envelope. And its progeny will expand it further.

Is it really that hard to imagine ballistic passenger flight?

Posted by Fred K at February 17, 2006 04:18 PM

> A suborbital roller coaster ride will always cost $100k + and unlike an airplane flight,

Richard Branson says that Virign Galactic will be charging $50,000 or less within a few years.

Every form of transportation has gotten cheaper over time. There's no reason to think commercial spaceflight is an exception to the normal laws of economics.

> a person is unlikely to do it more than once.

"A" person? Certainly. In fact, many people be unlikely to do it more than once.

That does not mean no one will.

I know at least one person who has signed up and paid deposits for more than one flight.

You're committing a classical marketing error, Brian: assuming everyone thinks like you and shares your tastes.

Internet cynics who sneer at human spaceflight as "thrill rides" are not the target audience. Nor are people who merely want to "see NASA astronauts walk on the Moon."

The target audience is people who want to be doers, not passive watchers or carping critics.

> Same goes for orbital flights, but the proper scaling factor is the huge difference in the energy involved, so
> those flights will always cost 10 to 100 times more. This is a crummy business model, expensive product,
> few customers, and no repeat business.

It's a crummy business model if you don't understand how much energy is required and what that energy actually costs. A little math makes things look much better.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 17, 2006 04:21 PM

"Energy isn't what makes the cost of spaceflight high."

"The energy needed to go LAX -> Aukland on a 747 is on order to that of a ballistic flight."

"Anyone who knows the cost of rocket propellants..."

Good to see the old straw man is alive and well. If he only had a brain...

Posted by Monte Davis at February 17, 2006 05:32 PM

Good to see the old straw man is alive and well.

Free clue, Monte. It's not a strawman argument, when it's stated in response to the argument that the required energy is high.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 17, 2006 05:48 PM

So someone propped it up for you and then you clobbered it.

Way to go, tiger.

Posted by Monte Davis at February 17, 2006 08:16 PM

Sorry, but when someone puts up a nonsensical argument, do you think we should ignore it?

Or do you just think that the public (admittedly, that small portion of it that reads this blog) should remain ignorant?

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 17, 2006 08:29 PM

> Good to see the old straw man is alive and well. If he only had a brain...

Hardly a strawman, Monte, since you used similar fallacious arguments in your anti-spaceflight diatribes on Space.com.

Like the claim that you "know" better than everyone else because you wrote about space for Omni "science" magazine -- alongside the ariticles on Bigfoot, ghosts, and UFOs. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at February 17, 2006 09:07 PM

My sense is that the suborbital barnestorming proposed by Virgin Galactic and others will ultimately be seen as a minor but useful step toward a true space faring economy. The true space faring economy will manifest when people are actually going to and from places beyond Earth, and that's not going to happen without a lot of government involvement, direct and indirect. But then again, it also will not happen without a lot of private investment.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at February 18, 2006 12:23 AM

I wish them all success, but I see more fizzle than sizzle. Suborbital is always going to be an historical footnote. People remember John Glenn because he went to orbit.

Many people will pay for a suborbital 4 minute ride.

Then we will move on.

Posted by ken anthony at February 18, 2006 12:27 AM

for people lamenting the price of rocket fuel ..

http://members.axion.net/~enrique/spacecraftcost.html

change the fuel price and see what it does to your bottom line, then go change labor rate and see what this does ..

if you are not happy with the model, youre free to modify it, its GPLed, as long as you publish yours.

Posted by kert at February 18, 2006 12:41 AM

> My sense is that the suborbital barnestorming proposed by Virgin Galactic and others will ultimately
> be seen as a minor but useful step toward a true space faring economy.

It was the sense of leading military experts that aviation would have a minor effect on future wars. (Airplanes could never replace the battleship.)

It was the sense of many experts that airplanes would play a minor role in air commerce. (They would never compete with heavy-lift dirigibles.)

It was the sense of most knowledgeable persons that microprocessors would play a minor role in the development of computers. (They could never compete with the big mainframes.)

Disruptive technologies are always dismissed by mainstream experts.

> The true space faring economy will manifest when people are actually going to and from places
> beyond Earth, and that's not going to happen without a lot of government involvement, direct and indirect.

Well, NASA doesn't seem to be sending many people to and from space right now, despite an awul lot of government involvement.

And if NASA pursues the course you want, they will be sending *fewer* people to and from space than they did during the Shuttle era. Maybe even fewer than the Apollo era.

Once again, Mark, you are attacking a strawman. No one said government investment should not be involved in space.

The question is *how* government should be involved in space.

Should it rely on Soviet-style Twenty Year Plans to develop space -- or should it create incentives for the private sector to develop space, as it once created incentives for the private sector to develop commercial aviation?

Should it own and operate its own spacelines to take civil servants to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond, or should it purchase tickets on commercial craft (as it does in aviation)?

Should it spend all of its manned space dollars to develop Apollo replicas for Kennedy-style bread and circuses, or should it develop military space planes to secure the high ground and guarantee US superiority over potential enemies who might use space against us?

Should we worry about nonsensical "threats" like the Chinese stealing Apollo flags from the Moon, or should we develop suborbital vehicles that can delivery smart weapons and special forces anywhere in the world within 45 minutes to conduct rapid strikes against real enemies and protect real interests?

There's more to government than NASA, Mark. You forget that the first function of government is "to provide for the common defense" -- something that's as absent from your vision as commercial development.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 18, 2006 11:51 PM

Clark Lindsey is reporting that there may be a lot of commercial opportunities in the return to the Moon effort.

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=984

I wonder how long NASA has to keep saying "yes" before certain internet rocketeers come around.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at February 19, 2006 10:36 PM

NASA just paid two old-line contractors who have never built methane/lox engines to build experimental methane/lox RCS engines for about $7million each. This after XCOR (for one) had built two methane/lox engines, one on internal funds, one on AF SBIR - i.e. for a small fraction of the price.

Evidently, NASA's 'commercial opportunities' are only there if one has sufficient overhead charges. The best cure for any pessimism about space flight is one thing: act as if the agency didn't exist. We'll get along farther and faster that way.

Posted by Charles Lurio at February 19, 2006 11:52 PM

>People will try to argue that physics prohibits >near equality of these costs. I don't find that >case compelling in the least. The energy needed to >go LAX -> Aukland on a 747 is on order to that of a ?ballistic flight.

But what if the 747 only carried six people per flight the way a suborbital or orbital vehicle typically would? I suspect ticket prices would be much higher in that case!

Posted by X at February 20, 2006 02:34 AM

> Clark Lindsey is reporting that there may be a lot of commercial opportunities in the return to the Moon effort.

No, Clark did not report that there may be "a lot" of commercial opportunities.

He reported that Aviation Week was saying NASA said it wants private industry to develop and provide "various" technologies.

You are putting your words into Clark's mouths

> " I wonder how long NASA has to keep saying "yes"
> before certain internet rocketeers come around.

Ah, the old Whittington slander. Anyone who doesn't toe the party line is an "internet rocketeers" -- as opposed to "real rocketeers" like you, I guess?

"Internet rocketeers" like Elon Musk have shown their work to the world. Why don't you tell us what you've done, Mark?

What rockets have you built, which qualify you to make snarky comments about people like Elon? What makes you a "real" rocketeer?

We know you "live in Clear Lake City" and "have a BA in History," but what do you do in the JSC Empire?

What do you do besides spouting off on the Internet?

So that you can stop wondering. Mark -- those who want to see America move forward in space, rather than retreating to the 1960's will never "come around." We will never agree with your view that private enterprise should be limited to unimportant ("non-critical path") things in space, while 99.5% of the NASA budget goes to support Soviet-style Twnety Year Plans.

"You cannot win, Darth." :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at February 20, 2006 11:38 AM

Edward, speaking of slander, you've just told two lies about me. First, I don't live in Clear Lake, but in Houston proper, about twenty miles away from Clear Lake. Second, I'm a free lance writer and have not taken a dime from NASA or its contractors.

The rest of your post is typical Edward Wright drivel.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at February 20, 2006 02:10 PM

> Edward, speaking of slander, you've just told two lies about me. First,
> I don't live in Clear Lake

Mark, saying you live in Clear Lake may be false. I wouldn't know. All I know is that you Robert Oler claimed that residence, when boasting about your "Clear Lake Group." Then again, you two claimed many things.

Saying something about you that isn't true does not necessarily constitute a "lie, let alone "slander." I thought Rand had explained that to you in the past.

To be slander, an untruth must not only deliberate, it must also be dematory. Saying you live in Clear Lake is not defamatory. Your aspersions about "internet rocketeers" are. Someone who claims to be a "journalist" should know the difference.

> Second, I'm a free lance writer

Evidence??

You have claimed to be a "science fiction author" but your only published works turn out to be a couple of vanity-press novels. Meaning books you paid a publisher to print -- not books someone paid you to write.

A free-lance writer is someone who sells his work to various outlets for pay, not an amateur who pays to be published.

You have also claimed to be a "space policy analyst" and a "journalist," but you've never been able to say who you analyze space policy for or who you report for.

Getting back to the subject you which to avoid. Assuming you really *are* a free-lance writer -- how does that make your opinions more credible than "internet rocketeers" like Elon Musk who you sneer at?

Posted by Edward Wright at February 20, 2006 03:10 PM

Edward, you've accused me of being in the pay of NASA, which is a lie and the implications are potentially actionable. You have a reputation of being somewhat careless about your facts, which your most recent post certainly proves. But if I were you, I would be very careful whom you try to slime.

Your behavior only confirms in my mind how very unserious certain internet rocketeers are.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at February 20, 2006 03:35 PM

> Edward, you've accused me of being in the pay of NASA

Someone who claims to be a "journalist" and "free-lance writer" should read better than that.

I did not say you were in the pay of NASA.

I said you lived in Clear Lake -- something you once boasted of.

Whether you live in Clear Lake or not, "living in Clear Lake" does not equal "being in the pay of NASA."

This looks like another of your famous strawman arguments intended to change the subject.

> the implications are potentially actionable.

So, sue me -- if you can find a lawyer willing to sue for something that you *wish* I said.

> how very unserious certain internet rocketeers are.

The evil "Internet rocketeers" are building real rockets, Mark.

Are you???

Once again, Mark, I give you the opportunity to tell us what YOU are doing, besides spouting off on the Internet.

Tell us why anyone should take YOU seriously.

I'm waiting... waiting... still waiting....

Posted by Edward Wright at February 20, 2006 05:11 PM

Post a comment