tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post5603580395585954003..comments2024-03-19T00:19:09.117-07:00Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: Fifty Years of Human SpaceflightRickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comBlogger146125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-92079984746589542792021-07-08T23:17:33.833-07:002021-07-08T23:17:33.833-07:00So, as to the public/private space arguments at th...So, as to the public/private space arguments at the bottom of the page (I skipped lightly over the economic and political Purple-Green) looking back from the vantage point of 2021 and the days of SpaceX's ascendance:<br /><br />"A pool of wealthy space enthusiasts means that exiguous space projects can get funding that more mundane enterprises can only dream of." = Rick<br /><br />Which has proved true but kind of depressing. We need to rely on the whims of super-rich sponsors to get anything substantive done. Shades of Renaissance Venice!Saint Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-79159728186965985282021-07-08T17:44:52.691-07:002021-07-08T17:44:52.691-07:00"And I believe it is quite plausible that war..."And I believe it is quite plausible that war is obsolescent - at least if post-industrial civilization is viable. If this century goes dystopian, war will probably be part of the mix (and extensive human spaceflight almost certainly will not be).<br /><br />But if we don't screw the pooch, warfare may continue on the path to marginalization we've seen in the past six decades." = Rick<br /><br />War in the sense of large scale Clash of Nations may be less common and less murderous, because nukes, but violent conflict and skirmishes will probably be with us well into the post-human eras. <br /><br />The thing is, a story need not a a LSCON to be interesting reading. The crew of a show-the-flag cruiser doing gunship diplomacy to a Belter nation with a lot of rock-throwers, or a patrol cutter in a sketchy neighborhood, can be just as drama-rich as re-enacting the Battle Of Jutland. Plus, you're not limited to approximating historical actions and outcomes.<br /><br />Make the story more personal in scope while keeping to the scale of space in the background. Re-define Operatic! Saint Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-88922938422054841002019-12-05T02:09:17.821-08:002019-12-05T02:09:17.821-08:00hihiField engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08368954071302365577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-6885218718631376582011-05-05T11:43:42.713-07:002011-05-05T11:43:42.713-07:00And let's not forget that a lot of the Constel...And let's not forget that a lot of the Constellation money was always intended to keep people employed in key constituencies. Nota bene: the alternate super heavy LVs presented at the Augustine commission all attempted to use as much Shuttle tech as possible. Leveraging the existing industrial base not only has technical merit, it has political merit as well.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-50431683917507747432011-05-05T11:37:59.056-07:002011-05-05T11:37:59.056-07:00Also, frankly, I suspect there was a whiff of some...Also, frankly, I suspect there was a whiff of somewhat cynical jobbing around Constellation. <br /><br />You didn't need a crystal ball to guess that the thing would end up being canceled, but meanwhile a lot of money was getting waved around, and for industry players the temptation to cash in was very strong. So there was every motivation to write nice fat termination clauses into contracts, etc.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-86528656303912972492011-05-05T10:02:24.189-07:002011-05-05T10:02:24.189-07:00jollyreaper:
"Wow. $800 million for a fully ...jollyreaper:<br /><br /><i>"Wow. $800 million for a fully functional manned space rocket versus $2.5 billion just to scrap the old program! SpaceX to world: 'Choke on our awesome!'"</i><br /><br />Apples and oranges. If SpaceX went out of business, it would have business and regulatory costs to address as well. And unlike NASA, which expects to have future use for its personnel, so it pays to keep them on the payroll, SpaceX would just give everybody a month or two of severance and say "Good luck." I imagine the majority of the $2.5 billion is in fact going to pay, bennies, and plant costs for keeping the NASA army stood up for the next iteration of manned spaceflight, whatever that turns out to be.<br /><br />There's also the old fiscal trick of finding ways to spend your budgetted appropriations, even if there's no real need. That helps you justify the next fiscal year's budget. "See, we spent it all. Give us that much next year." <br /><br />Finally, as has been previously pointed out, SPaceX is a startup that embraces risks in an effort to gain business. As soon as they become an established government contractor, with a profit margin to service, their operational methods are going to revert to the industry standard, whcih is very cautious and expensive.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-77575793093160895002011-05-05T07:18:13.375-07:002011-05-05T07:18:13.375-07:00GREENBELT, Md. — The $2.5 billion in NASA’s Fiscal...<i>GREENBELT, Md. — The $2.5 billion in NASA’s Fiscal 2011 budget request to terminate the Constellation Program is probably “oversubscribed,” and will not cover all of the expenses expected to grow from shutting down the shuttle-follow-on effort.<br /><br />Elizabeth Robinson, the former Office of Management and Budget career official appointed by President Barack Obama as the space agency’s chief financial officer, told the Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium here last week that the funds are not intended to cover contract termination liability — the cost to a contractor and NASA of shutting down contractor facilities, terminating leases and the like.<br /><br />Instead, they will go for the cost to the government of pulling Constellation equipment out of its own facilities, environmental remediation at those facilities, and keeping civil servants on the payroll until new work can be found for them, Robinson said.<br /><br />“The program termination costs and the civilian transition costs are the primary things in the $2.5 billion,” she said.</i><br /><br />Wow. $800 million for a fully functional manned space rocket versus $2.5 billion just to scrap the old program! SpaceX to world: "Choke on our awesome!"jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-32743953716359013922011-05-05T06:39:59.641-07:002011-05-05T06:39:59.641-07:00Well someone is pretty confident:
http://www.spac...Well someone is pretty confident:<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow">http://www.spacex.com/updates.php</a><br /><br /><b>Why the US Can Beat China: The Facts About SpaceX Costs</b><br /><br />May 4, 2011<br /><br />Whenever someone proposes to do something that has never been done before, there will always be skeptics.<br /><br />So when I started SpaceX, it was not surprising when people said we wouldn’t succeed. But now that we’ve successfully proven Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon, there’s been a steady stream of misinformation and doubt expressed about SpaceX’s actual launch costs and prices.<br /><br />As noted last month by a Chinese government official, SpaceX currently has the best launch prices in the world and they don’t believe they can beat them. This is a clear case of American innovation trumping lower overseas labor rates.<br /><br />I recognize that our prices shatter the historical cost models of government-led developments, but these prices are not arbitrary, premised on capturing a dominant share of the market, or “teaser” rates meant to lure in an eager market only to be increased later. These prices are based on known costs and a demonstrated track record, and they exemplify the potential of America's commercial space industry.<br /><br />Here are the facts:<br /><br />The price of a standard flight on a Falcon 9 rocket is $54 million. We are the only launch company that publicly posts this information on our website (www.spacex.com). We have signed many legally binding contracts with both government and commercial customers for this price (or less). Because SpaceX is so vertically integrated, we know and can control the overwhelming majority of our costs. This is why I am so confident that our performance will increase and our prices will decline over time, as is the case with every other technology.<br /><br />The average price of a full-up NASA Dragon cargo mission to the International Space Station is $133 million including inflation, or roughly $115m in today’s dollars, and we have a firm, fixed price contract with NASA for 12 missions. This price includes the costs of the Falcon 9 launch, the Dragon spacecraft, all operations, maintenance and overhead, and all of the work required to integrate with the Space Station. If there are cost overruns, SpaceX will cover the difference. (This concept may be foreign to some traditional government space contractors that seem to believe that cost overruns should be the responsibility of the taxpayer.)<br /><br />The total company expenditures since being founded in 2002 through the 2010 fiscal year were less than $800 million, which includes all the development costs for the Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon. Included in this $800 million are the costs of building launch sites at Vandenberg, Cape Canaveral and Kwajalein, as well as the corporate manufacturing facility that can support up to 12 Falcon 9 and Dragon missions per year. This total also includes the cost of five flights of Falcon 1, two flights of Falcon 9, and one up and back flight of Dragon.<br /><br />(more at site)Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-50398631555999424842011-04-25T10:22:22.861-07:002011-04-25T10:22:22.861-07:00Thucydides:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8PlzDg...Thucydides:<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8PlzDgFQMM<br /><br />He does make a few good points about the need to change the way space launch is handled, but he does have more optimisum than seems to be justified.<br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-13240370957451703872011-04-25T08:31:31.215-07:002011-04-25T08:31:31.215-07:00Thucydides:
"Making space pay and having fu...Thucydides:<br /> <br /><i>"Making space pay and having fun doing it:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8PlzDgFQMM<br /><br />Lets watch and digest this before deciding..."</i><br /><br />He talks a good game, but the bottom line is that he's selling vaporware to naive marks. The main engine for XCOR's Lynx suborbital spaceplane has 2,700 lbs of thrust. That's only 700 lbs more than the stabilization verniers on an Atlas missile from fifty years ago. XCOR is so far from putting even one person in orbit that it's ridiculous to think that they can.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-29789238401924054262011-04-24T18:10:47.367-07:002011-04-24T18:10:47.367-07:00Making space pay and having fun doing it:
http://...Making space pay and having fun doing it:<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8PlzDgFQMM</a><br /><br />Lets watch and digest this before deciding...Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-43486056887381343692011-04-24T13:28:35.645-07:002011-04-24T13:28:35.645-07:00Re: Raymond
The problem is still in identifying a...Re: Raymond<br /><br />The problem is still in identifying a market that justifies the system. "If you build it, they will come," is an economic argument that only works at the intersection of Iowa and Heaven (or Heaven and Iowa, I always get the two confused).Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-18161988659097073352011-04-23T10:26:39.799-07:002011-04-23T10:26:39.799-07:00I tend to agree with Raymond that laser launch is ...I tend to agree with Raymond that laser launch is 'less mega' than launch loops, let alone elevators.<br /><br />But truth to be told, all of these techs strike me as rather desperate attempts by space advocates to handwave away the awkward facts that a) space launch is expensive, and b)there is a limited demand for it.<br /><br />I also take all space advocates' cost estimates with a huge grain of salt, because they have a history of grossly lo-balling costs. Case in point Werner von Braun: His technology worked, magnificently, but cost orders of magnitude more than he claimed it would.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-35181216604363700072011-04-22T14:56:19.341-07:002011-04-22T14:56:19.341-07:00Tony:
Scale still matters, though. Big difference...Tony:<br /><br />Scale still matters, though. Big difference between a laser launch facility plus a cargo-handling space station plus a bunch of cargo modules (even though the whole system is still kinda expensive) versus a 2000 km launch loop, much less a 45,000 km space elevator. I'm thinking an order of magnitude cost increase for each step: you might be able to get a laser launcher for 50 billion, a launch loop would cost 500 billion at least, and I'd doubt any numbers less than 5 trillion for an elevator.<br /><br />As for small cargo: if the reduced launch cost via laser is sufficient to offset the overhead of smaller cargo modules, it'll be done. And that's mostly a matter of long-term demand (open question, since if such a facility were available demand may increase from present levels) and long-term accounting (open question, since I haven't a clue what the amortization period on such a thing would be).Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18103471451043461302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-78097860675249560002011-04-22T14:20:27.965-07:002011-04-22T14:20:27.965-07:00Re: Raymond
From my point of view, the difference...Re: Raymond<br /><br />From my point of view, the difference between megastructures and megasystems is not all that great. Megastructures are a subset of megasystems like a squares are a subset of rectangles. Also, handling lots of small lots of cargo has always been considered a systemic inefficiency. That's why we have bulk and container carriers.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-54633696679768760252011-04-22T13:52:20.077-07:002011-04-22T13:52:20.077-07:00Tony:
Megasystemic, perhaps. Still a good sight c...Tony:<br /><br />Megasystemic, perhaps. Still a good sight cheaper than a space elevator. And the lack of a spiral development path is true, but the whole point of a laser launch system would be exactly to build the capacity for hundreds or thousands of launches.<br /><br />The small-payload problem...doesn't seem like too much of a problem, really. If you're building a laser launch system, you're obviously attempting to maintain a large space presence, so on-orbit cargo processing facilities aren't necessarily a bad thing. Nor would it automatically rule out heavy-lift rockets for those payloads which can't be lifted in small modules. (Plus, it gives us a reason for the much-maligned space station.)Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18103471451043461302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-50707063463081719982011-04-22T12:57:10.955-07:002011-04-22T12:57:10.955-07:00Raymond:
"One small quibble: I wouldn't...Raymond:<br /> <br /><i>"One small quibble: I wouldn't put laser launch in the same megastructure class as space elevators or launch loops. Expensive, yes. Unlikely to appear via private investment, yes. Anywhere close to the cost of a frakking space elevator? Not a chance."</i><br /><br />It's not megastructural, but it's megasystemic. To launch one payload, you ahve to build the capability to launch hundreds or thousands. There's no spiral development path. About the only thing that is scalable is the number of payload capsules you build. And while those may be relatively sophisticated as packaging goes, each additional one is a marginal cost on the whole project. It's big bang integration by it's very nature.<br /><br />Also, each payload is reltively small. That means you either base all of your space access and commerce on small bundles and modules, or you build the on-orbit infrastructure to unpack the payload capsules, assemble their contents into something useful, and send capsules back down for reuse. Or you build a laser launch system that can put 20+ tons on orbit at a swipe. And then you do start to get megastructural.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-66800027087328087582011-04-22T12:43:12.153-07:002011-04-22T12:43:12.153-07:00One small quibble: I wouldn't put laser launch...One small quibble: I wouldn't put laser launch in the same megastructure class as space elevators or launch loops. Expensive, yes. Unlikely to appear via private investment, yes. Anywhere close to the cost of a frakking space elevator? Not a chance.Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18103471451043461302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-66670549540956122192011-04-22T11:59:40.424-07:002011-04-22T11:59:40.424-07:00Scott:
"Tony, if megastructures are not par...Scott:<br /> <br /><i>"Tony, if megastructures are not part of your plausible midfuture, how do people get into space, and for what price?"</i><br /><br />People ride rockets, and it costs a lot of money. Someday more efficient and powerful means of propulsion will (hopefully) invalidate this analysis. Until then, manned spaceflight is for ocassional exploration and nothing else.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-45795425307040612132011-04-22T11:38:32.866-07:002011-04-22T11:38:32.866-07:00Tony, if megastructures are not part of your plaus...<i>Tony, if megastructures are not part of your plausible midfuture, how do people get into space, and for what price?</i><br /><br />I can't answer for Tony (though I suspect that in this domain - unlike, say, laserstars! - our views are not radially different).<br /><br />For the truly plausible midfuture, I don't think human spaceflight becomes radically cheaper, and accordingly remains quite limited in volume.<br /><br />Suppose it costs $2 million to send a person into space, and $1 million/month to keep them there. If you have 10,000 short-term (average 2 weeks) space travellers each year, and 2000 long term (average 6 months).<br /><br />In that case the total budget for human spaceflight is <br /><br />$25 billion for short-term travel<br />$16 billion for long-term travel<br />___<br /><br />$41 billion for human spaceflight, with an average of 1400 people in space at a given time.<br /><br />This is for launch and life support, basically, not counting the additional cost of drive buses for deep space missions, other support, robotic missions, and so forth. <br /><br />Perhaps a $100 billion world space budget, 5x the current NASA budget.<br /><br />That is a lot of human space activity, but too low by orders of magnitude for colonies, space armadas, and the like.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-72630558369777297552011-04-21T16:46:33.722-07:002011-04-21T16:46:33.722-07:00Tony, if megastructures are not part of your plaus...Tony, if megastructures are not part of your plausible midfuture, how do people get into space, and for what price?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08876828579688122237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-41759846305032906462011-04-21T09:24:23.114-07:002011-04-21T09:24:23.114-07:00Thucydides:
"Same goes for fountains, launch...Thucydides:<br /><br /><i>"Same goes for fountains, launch loops and other megastructures. Even rocket sleds up the sides of mountains, laser launchers large enough to fire man rated capsules and huge two stage gas guns would seem to have the same chicken and egg issues."</i><br /><br />Well, since I don't buy into any megastructure "solution" to launch costs, I guess it's not a problem. Well, for me, anyway...Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-56059799593954294652011-04-21T09:14:30.979-07:002011-04-21T09:14:30.979-07:00The problem with funding a space elevator, even if...<i>The problem with funding a space elevator, even if you had all of the engineering and materials problems worked out, is in identifying a plausible market with a real demand. IOW, for the plausible midfuture, space elevators could only happen as a government infrastructure project. Private concerns simply wouldn't invest.</i><br /><br />Same goes for fountains, launch loops and other megastructures. Even rocket sleds up the sides of mountains, laser launchers large enough to fire man rated capsules and huge two stage gas guns would seem to have the same chicken and egg issues.Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-8455883665149504552011-04-21T08:36:18.951-07:002011-04-21T08:36:18.951-07:00The problem with funding a space elevator, even if...The problem with funding a space elevator, even if you had all of the engineering and materials problems worked out, is in identifying a plausible market with a real demand. IOW, for the plausible midfuture, space elevators could only happen as a government infrastructure project. Private concerns simply wouldn't invest.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-59430059278772611982011-04-20T20:34:11.934-07:002011-04-20T20:34:11.934-07:00I know there are a number of PhD candidates workin...I know there are a number of PhD candidates working on mass producing carbon nanotubes affordably, so there's certainly a lot of effort being directed at the problem.<br /><br />Unfortunately, only time will tell if all this research has more to do with monkeys and footballs than with productive endeavors. <br /><br />I remember that my text specifically used $50B for the cost of the elevator, but it was getting used as the example of determining break-even costs. The author probably pulled a number out of his butt for easy calculations in the text example.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08876828579688122237noreply@blogger.com