Economics of Private Corporate Spaceflight

[publiusr]

Thank you for the kind response. I remain convinced that only an Apollo approach will get us to the moon before the Chinese. Musk is finding out the hard way that the infrastructure needed for launch vehicles of any real size are taxing to say the least. It has been said that private spaceflight is the surest way to turn billionairs into millionairs.

My fear is that some of the big talk of the alt.spacers will cause the Proxmire types in Washington to cut NASA funds thanks to the illusion of progress on the private spaceflight front. The rocket planes we see fly today are little better than the ME-163 Komets used by the Luftwaffe to try to shoot down B-17s...to little effect. It will be all Musk can do just to get his EELV class Falcon IX in the air--and I simply do not see a private HLLV.

If you want to go to the moon--you must abandon the concept of space assembly via EELV. Each of those Launch Vehicles stays on the pad a long time. Take the Delta IV that has been lingering in SLC-6 as long as that old Titan IV has been there.

It is too simple to say "well, that's gov't for you." That shows a lack of understanding of what is needed to make these birds fly--and Musks own delays are proof enough of that fact.

I think that the private world has much to contribute. The gov't funded genome project was in a very close chase with a private company that actually led the race. Its one think to work in a so called man-scale with microscopes.

It is something else again to produce one-million pounds of thrust or so needed to get to orbit. NASA is best at Big Access to space--needed for stations, moonships, landers to Europa, etc. Private industry is good for payloads.

The strong-man approach to spacelift worked. You had ruthless Chief Designers with resources at their beck and call. Griffin emulates these men. He knows that the number 1 goal of the prime contractors is to make money--thus the push behind EELVs and the attacks on HLLV. Griffin has an adversarial relationship with the contractors and will have them build what he needs--and not build what they want. Thus his approach is best for the taxpayer. If you believe that regulation/oversight is always bad--the result is that the prime contractors gut you.

Sean O'Keefe got things backwards. He fell for the Kistler promises, and thought that NASA would 'buy rides' from private space companies, who would provide the actual launch services.

That scenario failed because it played to the weakness of both parties.

It needs to be the other way around. NASA builds the launch vehicles and private industry has the payloads. That is why we have space tourists. The big R-7 launch vehicles came first--and were privatized in part with tourism funds. Rutans craft flys a couple of times higher--and only one Mach number faster--than the MiG-25 Foxbat, which allows you to stay in the air longer, is more stable, and as an altitude winner in its own right gives you a good view.

The result is that if I want to FLY fast and high, I'll go rent a MiG flight. If I actually want to go to space--I'll get on a Soyuz. The oreration aspects are exactly what NASA is suited for, because Musk and others just cannot compete at the level needed.

Economies of scale favor NASA. The Kistler folks have had their try--and will continue to fall flat because they are at the mercy of private funds, and NASA isn't. A private flight to the moon using all private rockets is no more doable than a private Tennesee Valley Authority, or a private Interstate highway system.

The Soviet military understood scale--but not commerce. That is why they had trouble duplicating the B-29. Their consumer sector was also in a shambles. Our military had both strong men like Medaris on the inside, and consumer goods on the outside.The space race was between gov'ts, after all.

Libertarians understand commerce, but not scale. An all-private approach in the 1950s and sixties would have given the Soviets the moon, as would the enemies of NASA. The same is true today.

With Griffin forcing the contractors to toe the line, he will get the LVs he needs, and it is up to the primes to make their money on that. Since it is may tax money behind this--I want an engineer to make the calls, not the suits.

Kistler had some good engineers, but it was the suits who, by failing to invest in favor of other 'sure things' left the engineers in the lurch. If we attack NASA, we will do that on a grand scale and destroy the infrastructure which gave us the brainpower behind the GPS, which Rutan needed for SS1.

To truly be a private spacecraft, he would have had to put his own GPS constellation up to say that he did his stunt without gov't. NASA is gov't at its best. Same with the Russian space firsts--it is one thing they did well.

And that is why Boeing and Lockheed-Martin use their engines.

Do you want to know what really lost the Soviets the moon race?

Competition.

I know that goes against everything you were taught--but hear me out. The REDS had a lot of cooks (Chief Designers) each with his own idea for space. Chelomei vs. Mishin...Korolev vs. Glushko, vs Kuznetzov. And they had loads of funds compared to the space start ups.

In the USA, Von Braun led the way. Yes he wasn't a big fan of balloon tanks and Centaurs, but his expertise was without question, and with the weight of NASA behind the Saturn V, the moon race was won.

Cooperation, in the end, won the day, not competition.

Economics bore me. I am for whatever works in spaceflight. Because when that next big asteroid hits, it want matter what system you live under any more. So I am with what works. Griffin is of the Apollo generation, and I choose to support his vision.

And beware venture capitalists. They are some of the worst scum on the planet. They will put a little funds here, a little there, to see what takes hold. To wet their beaks if you will. But they have no staying power--and no vision. So if someone finds a cheaper way to grow tobacco, they will put money in that. If you had a cheaper way to go to space--well, they'll help you EAT the cake.

But they won't help you bake it, beyond a few crumbs used to print glossy pamphlets passed around to other folks at space conventions, where everyone is selling...and no one is buying. The worst of the venture capitalists give you just enough money to get your hopes up--then dash your head to the ground when they pull out the carpet.

Which makes me wonder if hauling them off to Siberia after laying the butt of an AK-47 upside their head is such a bad thing after all.

[adiffer]

Mr Musk is also finding out how much fun it is to interact with a government customer. I've been there. It is a royal pain in the...

The alt.spacers aren't really trying to kill funding for NASA. Some are, but they are arguing from an ideal involving the wasting of tax money. Lots of people argue from that ideal, but Representatives and Senators get re-elected more often if they bring bacon home. That ideal doesn't work well in DC unless the expenditures are politically embarrassing. NASA hasn't reached that level yet, so don't worry too much. The largest percentage of alt.spacers are arguing that SOME of the money should be redirected to encourage growth in the private sector so the public sector doesn't have to remain concerned about things it cannot handle well. Public sector budgets face political risks, so agencies must be extra careful to avoid embarrassments. Private sector budgets are much more resilient since failures are an expected part of the investment game. Operation of a science lab can be handled equally well by the government or a private contractor, but their responses to future change are likely to be quite different. Most alt.spacers argue that we should use each sector to do what it does best and one thing the private sector does better is innovate when it is motivated.

Private HLLV doesn't make much sense right now. Who would buy it? A market with one or two customers isn't a market. An attempt to commercialize HLLV's right now would probably fall flat. A few years ago I looked at the potential to commercialize the microgravity market. It looks like it has several customers, but they all get the majority of their funding from just a few sources, so the customer base is small. That situation isn't a market. It is a sure way to blur the lines between the government funding source and the 'private' contractor hired to deliver a vehicle or service. Unless there are a number of possible customers with financial independence from each other, there can't be a commercial market no matter how much we alt.spacers hope and pray. I know that and many others do too.

Having said all that, those folks in Mojave who are giving you stomach acid ARE facing a market. You might not think much of their toys at present and I won't try to change your mind. PC's started off as toys, though, so don't bet against them. If you want to loose your money, I'll take any reasonable bet. As I remember it, the privately funded genome project effort radically changed the way the race was run. It wasn't at all obvious that would happen from the outside, but those on the inside knew the impact they would have.

Maybe one of the differences between you and I is that I don't care much about heavy lift using rockets. Big rockets go boom occasionally and their isn't enough money in the world for insurance underwriters to take on that kind of risk. Part of the infrastructure needed to make the bigger vehicles economically viable is insurance limitations and protection. We do the same thing for airlines to some degree since one full 747 (or one of those new Airbuses) going down could bankrupt the airliner in court. Because of this infrastructure need, I don't care much how heavy lift is done as long as the players do not put up hurdles against the light lifters who might try to take secondary payloads away from them. If no one can use the governments to erect barriers to entry for lower mass payloads, I honest don't care much about the potentially wasted tax money and whether we plan to beat the Chinese or not. Griffin can fight for the money he needs and then fight some more to keep his contractors behaving ethically. I don't think that makes much sense, but that is his business and not mine.

I strongly disagree with you, though, when you say NASA should build the vehicles and we should bring the payloads. You have it backwards. NASA is terrible at operational programs. What talent they do have would be excellent at the payload side. They should not be building launch vehicles or operating 'access to space' programs. I have no problem with them funding the scientists and helping to contract for the payloads, but I draw the line at the launch vehicles. I think they could afford to take a less active role in the payloads too (I know of more than one company that would step in and do a good job), but that is a different issue. The US Army doesn't build trucks and tanks. It states its requirements, has contractors provide for them, and doesn't accept unnecessary stupidity. Having NASA design and build LV's makes a much sense as having the FBI construct the cars used by their field operatives. Customers with requirements for a given product are to be expected. Micromanagement of the private sector suppliers is beyond silly. Musk will build the rockets the way he wants to do it. If he fails to build something the customers want to buy, we will see his people in the unemployment lines. THAT is the way it is supposed to work.

Sean O'Keefe's real mistake was that he couldn't control his agency. He has some good and some bad ideas, but he couldn't keep his people on the tasks he set them. That is another reason I think the aeronautical side of NASA needs to be free. It just makes sense.

I hope you know more about the alt.spacers than just Kistler and Musk. There are a lot more of us out there including my business partners. I won't talk much about any one of them, though, because we have some bids in for what money is available. Talking too much about potential customers can sink a bid. 8)

Your definition of a truly 'private' spacecraft is pretty funny. If you follow your definition to its conclusion, all the taxi cab companies aren't private because they use public roads. Nonsense. The public sector purchases infrastructure intentionally for it to be used as part of the commons. I know DOD did not intend that with GPS, but they caught on to the scale thing when hand held receiver prices fell through the floor because of private demand for the use of that piece of infrastructure. Roads and schools are built to be used. Infrastructure is an economic investment made by the public sector. When the investment works, tax receipts rise.

Have you had a bad experience with a venture capitalist firm? I know some of them have earned their vulture reputations, but that doesn't make them as evil as you describe. You have to understand the motivations of the person on the other side of a contract. If you can't do that, don't sign. If you can't do it with too many people, get out of business. Their job is to risk money to make more money. They aren't into space for some of the starry eyed stuff we are. Understand their motivations and the money becomes just one more tool available to your business.

Most venture capitalists won't touch the alt.space companies yet and with good reason. Most of our CEO's are wanna-bee's. The few of us with a lick of business sense are the only ones who should receive any attention and only then if the business model makes financial sense. That's pretty rare, but there are a few very quiet successes so far.

I think you worry too much about repeating the successes of history. The Cold War is over. That's why I don't expect a return of the past. There is precious little reason for the nation to fund an expensive return to the Moon no matter who does it. I like exploration a lot, but I would like to see it remain funded for the long term. Bringing the costs down would do that by stretching the available NASA budgets. That's why you need us to do what we do best... innovate in an environment relatively free of political risk.

[genebujold]

An other way to make big money and develop spatial activities is to use space as a garbage dump.

As you know there are many dangerous substance on earth , like MDW , dangerous biological or chemical products or waste and of course radiactive wastes.

So build big reliable rocket , build very tough containers able to sustain a drop from an avorted launch , fill the containers with the wastes and put them on orbit. Then a slow ionic or M2P2 booster drive them into planet Venus or the Sun.

Develop space activities and get a clean mother earth all in the same movement !

I think we produce about a billion times more garbage per year in terms of gross tonnage than we would ever be able to haul into space during the same time period.

Just a guess...

Besides, the amount of energy wasted hauling all that garbage into space could be used to turn it into elemental plasma about 10,000 times over, using high-temp recombinative techniques to form harmless compounds safe for dumping anywhere on Earth.

Or, for even more savings, we could simply incinerate it using modern, high-tech, non-polluting techniques, then rapid-cool it to prevent dioxin recombination: http://www.japanfs.org/en/business/10_imamura.html#2

[genebujold]

Right now, the largest barrier to private corporate spaceflight involves a combination of the huge initial investment combined with the high risk. Very few corporations on Earth have enough expertise and excess capital to risk loosing a couple of their first rockets.

Governments, however, do, which is why governments are in the business of space launches, while private industry is not.

Consider it an "insurance" program, funded by the taxpayers, against loosing a satellite or two.

[adiffer]

The initial investments for certain niches within the private spaceflight industry aren't all that large. The first round pays for salaries for the basic team. The second round pays for the first services to customers and is only executed if the financial details of the contracts are attractive. Doing it piecemeal like this reduces risks by giving investors a chance to bail out if important milestones get missed by the core team. The minimum buy-in, therefore, is a few million to pay salaries and buy a few essentials that retain some resale value if the effort flops.

I know of a few small companies that have been financed. The trick is to NOT shoot for the Moon on the first day. Prove your competence in business first and the money flows from the capital markets a little smoother.

[publiusr]

Where to begin...

"The alt.spacers aren't really trying to kill funding for NASA. Some are, but they are arguing from an ideal involving the wasting of tax money. Lots of people argue from that ideal, but Representatives and Senators get re-elected more often if they bring bacon home."

Tom Delay's loss was a great blow. If nothing else, he was a good friend to NASA.


"Private HLLV doesn't make much sense right now. Who would buy it?"

www.spaceislandgroup.com is looking into heavy-lift.

The customer base for all spaceflight is small--that is why you open space up to something besides the comsat/tourist market.

"Having said all that, those folks in Mojave who are giving you stomach acid ARE facing a market. You might not think much of their toys at present and I won't try to change your mind. PC's started off as toys, though, so don't bet against them."

Apples and dump trucks.

The comparison of space-launch with personal computers is a bad one. One deals with blue-collar engineering and thrust requirements that change very little, unlike computers that are obsolete once marketed.


"Maybe one of the differences between you and I is that I don't care much about heavy lift using rockets."

Thats fine, I don't care anything about the empty promises of space libertarians.

"Big rockets go boom occasionally and their isn't enough money in the world for insurance underwriters to take on that kind of risk."

They took on Titan IV, which cost more per pound than Saturn V. I'd say Volna was a bigger risk--the lack of engine-out and all. Big tankers go boom too--but I don't see supertankers being replaced by Rutan-built john-boats.


"Griffin can fight for the money he needs and then fight some more to keep his contractors behaving ethically. I don't think that makes much sense, but that is his business and not mine."

It is very sad you say that--and half of the problems we have stem from business getting away with bloody murder due to lack of oversight. That's also why libertarian presidential canditates get less votes than Lola Falana.

"I strongly disagree with you, though, when you say NASA should build the vehicles and we should bring the payloads. You have it backwards."

No, I have it forwards, because I know the strengths of both parties--you have it backwards due to the Ayn Rand mythology.

"NASA is terrible at operational programs."

Oh, thats a good one--and how many rovers has Rutan put on Mars?

"They should not be building launch vehicles or operating 'access to space' programs. I have no problem with them funding the scientists and helping to contract for the payloads, but I draw the line at the launch vehicles."

And I erase that line, for they know more about going to LEO than Rutan and others ever will--and that is why I do have faith in NASA.

Big Rockets are what NASA is best at.
Big Talk is all the alt.spacers are good at.


"The US Army doesn't build trucks and tanks. It states its requirements, has contractors provide for them, and doesn't accept unnecessary stupidity."

Like the Sgt. York? I think Griffins oversight is better.


"Micromanagement of the private sector suppliers is beyond silly."

And lack of oversight is even more dangerous--just ask the residents near but the latest Texas City explosions. Or the folks near certain levees. Or the folks who did away with ice due to a certain less-gov't FEMA director who wanted to 'get FEMA out of the ice business' like you wish to get NASA out of the launch business.


"I hope you know more about the alt.spacers than just Kistler and Musk."

Those two and Interorbital are the only ones worth talking about. Kistler had some real N-1 engines, and Musk is farther along than anyone else now. I love Interorbital in that they are big fans of big pressure-feds. Gump and Rutan I think less of.



"Your definition of a truly 'private' spacecraft is pretty funny. If you follow your definition to its conclusion, all the taxi cab companies aren't private because they use public roads. Nonsense."

And they would exist without public roads?

"The public sector purchases infrastructure intentionally for it to be used as part of the commons. I know DOD did not intend that with GPS, but they caught on to the scale thing when hand held receiver prices fell through the floor because of private demand for the use of that piece of infrastructure. Roads and schools are built to be used. Infrastructure is an economic investment made by the public sector. When the investment works, tax receipts rise."

Same with the Soviet R-7. Gov't got a big rocket built no one thought was marketable, and then some suit calls it a private space-tourist achievement, and takes credit for it. Lovely

"Have you had a bad experience with a venture capitalist firm?"

Lets say that I am a little poorer due to some big promises, and leave it at that.

"I know some of them have earned their vulture reputations, but that doesn't make them as evil as you describe."

Ha.


"Most venture capitalists won't touch the alt.space companies yet and with good reason. Most of our CEO's are wanna-bee's. "

You have just made my point for me. You cannot talk about how much better private spaceflight is with the above admission. It doesn't wash.

"I think you worry too much about repeating the successes of history."

I think you worry too little--remember your George Santayana: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

You philosophy is the enemy of exploration, based on dollars, and based on the feelings that Korolovs's enemies had. They didn't see the need for a man in LEO. Korolov proved them wrong, and space tourists benefit from his wisdom.

Too bad they bash the mechanism by which their dreams were achieved.

[Planetwatcher]

I recently read an interesting article of a private company with plans for a very unique rocket which would carry up to 4 passengers.

It would ride attached to the underside of a large jet aircraft, such as a 767, flying to the maximum altitude that such a jet is capible of.
Then it is released, lower end first, and the upper end is attached to a tether. Once the rocket is in a verticle position, it is totally released, and fires it's engines after the jet clears it's flight path.

Such a rocket could achieve orbit using about 20% of the fuel that launching a same size rocket from the ground would take.

This company has already done a number of drop tests of the ballests that it will use, and it has performed flawlessly.

[publiusr]

The problem is money. Most people just don't care about space. I'm not too keen on Air Launch--although I would like to see that AN-225 launch something. You really need something of its size--otherwise your are just fooling yourself.

[galacsi]

The reason I still work that approach is because I've waited far too long for my government to open the frontier and our future and it hasn't happened. You may be unenthusiastic about the odds of the alt.space people being successful. I'll bet I have an even lower opinion about the odds of the central planner (Administrator) being successful no matter who he is.

A question is nagging me : Are the governements really interested in opening the frontier ? Governements want to control their flock, sheeps are not supposed to escape and thrive free.

Many established government have had this attitude in the past : Chinese empire , Japonese empire , Corea , are most famous for that , but may be the Catholic Church, have done the same.

Assuming space travel will stillbe very long , no terrestrial power can hope retain authority on a thriving space colony.

So beware Elon Musk sheepdogs are coming for you !

[suntrack2]

private companies are giving a tight security for the lifes? or a commercial view has taken into account to see the profits? are they really increasing the thirst of a man to see or walk into the space but the costs are not looking competitive one. why don't private companies visits to a certain planet in the solar system? along with their clients?

[publiusr]

Spaceflight is too important to be left up to the caprices of private enterprise:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AmericaSpace/message/381

From NASAWATCH:

"Space Frontier Foundation departs from the Space Exploration Alliance"

"... Instead, the SEA has reverted to blind cheerleading for whatever design bureau government-centric approaches the agency has put forward..."

"Editor's note: Of course, these folks and their "alt.space"companies also want government money and tax breaks - they just don't want Boeing and LockMart to get them too."

BINGO! Look's like Cowing just broke the code. (He gets it right once in a blue moon.)

Long live SEA--and may SFF go rot!!

Here is something to think about, when it comes to Musk:

From www.nasaspaceflight.com

"Meanwhile, SpaceX's Falcon 1 has also suffered a delay - and won't launch until the middle of November."

When in doubt, sue:

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/new...archived=False

REMEMBER!

A court is a way to use the force of law to force someone else to pay for your needs. For all you libertarians out there--this is no different than a tax. If Musk could compete on his own and was doing well, he would not have to resort to the legal system to have two prime contractors pay for his mistakes. He is facing more engine troubles and flight delays, and he thinks he can get these two companies to pay for his rocket.

If you believe in no regulation, what the dillio if folks merge?

Musk wants a bit of the NASA/DoD pie same as everyone else. So if he wins (and I hope he does) I don't want to hear anyone here talk about how Musk's launches are an advance for the free market--in that he is using the same legal system that gave us the MacDonalds verdict.

As the saying goes, there ain't no free-lunch--and there ain't no 'free-market' either.

But do not be sad.

I have good news--and no, its not car insurance.

There is one space program that is doing very well in space using money willingly spent by Americans.

This program even has man-rated launchers and spacecraft, and free trade has given them all the money they need to orbit a man--or two--in space.

The only successful space program to use American money not confiscated from US citizens just orbited two men--thanks to each trip you make to Wal-Mart.

How strange it is that the libertarian (anti-tax) alt.space folks rail against our space program--that represents the free world---but forget that it is their principles that are paying for a truly socialist space power, for everytime we shop at a store, we are not paying for one gov't space program.

We are paying for two.

As for me, I'd rather more money go to the one, and less to the other.

I used to think a lot like the alt.space folks. I even laughed when one guy talked about the 'communist free-traders' and how that term was an oxymoron--but only in the most legalistic sense it seems.

I grew up.

With Apollo, it was our economy which helped our space program.


***************************

Recently there was a nice little gathering called "Space Expo". Some questioned if it was a bust.

The only honest answer is 'yes.'

Did any outsider sign on mega-bucks to one project or other?

Or was it just the same old space advocates, each one doing what the late Carl Sagan did in that episode of Cosmos a week or two back--just standing in a field and 'wishing hard.'

The problem with meetings like that is that there is no new blood. It is rather the same problem that Camille Paglia spoke about when addressing the lack of classics being taught in American schools in how feminists need to be read more Shakespeare and read less of each other.

Same in talk radio to be fair--no real discussion, just the same old same old.

[adiffer]

Do you realize that most alt.space folks actually aren't libertarian? I'm not. I have no qualms with using the legal system for personal gain when it is appropriate and not immoral.

A lot of us aren't economic idealists either. We just think the current regulatory environment is more than a little stupid since it is structured to prevent the opening of the frontier and the economic expansion of the US into that frontier.

Technically, I'm a Democrat. I'm sure my space attitudes conflict with many in my party, though. We've never been monolithic, so this isn't that big a deal.

[publiusr]

I wish the DNC would nominate a pro-space candidate.

I wish Lou Dobbs would run.

BTW I just heard that the Senate appoved 20 billion in foreign aid. More than the NASA budget.

I would put one year of that into NASA.

[adiffer]

That would certainly be interesting. During that year, a lot more poor folks would start growing poppies or some other 'cash' crop that our addicts will buy. After a while you wouldn't have to send any foreign aid at all as they will have found a way to be self-sufficient. 8)

Lou Dobbs has a decent space perspective, but many of his other attitudes are ones I find scary. He is too much of a protectionist for me. Do we have a Democrat we can count as pro-space? Most of them are pretty ignorant if I remember right. I know a few Republicans who aren't space-idiots, but I can't quite bring myself to vote for them. 8)

[publiusr]

I think Dobbs is right on--and he is exactly the centrist this country needs--and is certainly more pro-space than Kerry ever thought about being.

The Chinese are proposing a new launch vehicle as you know--in fact, they have done a great job of reaching for the stars. A much better job, in fact, than China's only private astronaut--a merchant by the name of Wan-Hoo. And we all know what happened to him.

That made me reflect upon ancient attempts to reach for the heavens.
I was reading a nice book the other day, on this subject:

The MOON: Earth's Natural Satellite
by Franklyn M. Branley

And stumbled across this quote:

"In the time of Alexander the Great...a method for reaching the moon was suggested...to harness two griffins...Their continued efforts would carry the passenger to the moon..."

We have come a long way from those days of yore.

Today, we don't require two Griffins to reach the moon.

We need only listen to the one.



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

[Carlos2006]

SpaceDev claims Lunar missions can be completed for less than $10Bn
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-05zzv.html

[publiusr]

And Wan Hoo had a rocket chair too.

Dream Chaser I like. But let NASA handle the HLLVs we need for REAL exploration.

[genebujold]

In the USA, Von Braun led the way. Yes he wasn't a big fan of balloon tanks and Centaurs, but his expertise was without question, and with the weight of NASA behind the Saturn V, the moon race was won.

Cooperation, in the end, won the day, not competition.

Von Braun was a fire-spitting, foul-mouthed, unbelievably egotistical (insert your word of choice here). He cooperated with virtually no one.

He dissented from everyone's opinion but his own (I know - my teacher grew up next to his family; she knew, and related all kinds of sordid details to us).

But he also got the job done.

Keep that in mind the next time you're considering slamming someone else simply because their opinion differs from your own, or from what you've come to believe. Von Braun didn't just dissent from others, he dissented from established scientific thought of the time. He was a pioneer. He cared less what others thought. He simply did what he knew was right.

All to often today we're quick to judge others, but without really getting to know them first. It's an established fact that 90% are followers and 10% are leaders, and that it's often the leaders who get their necks hacked by their followers because their followers, while well-educated, nevertheless are unable to break themselves away from a very genetically poor gene pool of established thought.

Some of you reading this are beginning to realize what I'm getting at. The rest are too busy responding with their own slams to care.

In time, society always learns the difference between the two.

It's excrutiatingly important to realize that the roads to discovery are not paved with politically correct individuals, or those who "toed the line," but rather, with those who challanged the system, even extremely well-developed systems at that.

Knowledge is easy, people, and many groups gather daily to pat one another on their backs (I've got several degrees and professional credentials - big whoop). By contrast, discovery is difficult, and there are often very few, sometimes none, to congratulate you at the end of your journey. Sometimes your efforts remain unacknowledged until years later.

Is it worth it? Most who've pursued the path would say, "hell, yes!"

The question is, do you want to belong? Or do you want to be. If you want to belong, join a club. If you want to be, just be. Learn the fire inside of you, apply what you have learned. Challenge the status quo when you believe it's wrong given your knowledge and understanding, and make your case well, so that you can achieve progress, rather than ridicule.

Such is the world we live in, folks.

Rutan simply ignored what others said, and did it anyway. He's joined the ranks of the Wright brothers, Lindbergh, and others. While PM was praising him back in the 70s, many contemporary magazines were slamming him and his forward-thinking ideas.

I'm simply challanging you to do the same. It's easy to sit back in your comparative laurels of achievement and lambast someone else for their "ridiculous" ideas. It's far more difficult to pick up the ideas of another, to test them, to run those ideas through their paces.

Were you aware that more than 90% of all scientific discovery was ancillary in nature, that is, it wasn't the "discoverer" who made the discovery, but someone else who was observing nature, who brought it to the attention of the local scientist? Most discounted the discoveries of those beneath them, and as a result, have disappeared into obscurity. But the discoverer who used the uncientific observations of another, but documented the details using scientific method, bringing the observation to fruition - that person is in the history books.

You probably won't recognize them, as they're not at all arrogant. In fact, they rarely, if ever, slam others for their beliefs.

How are any of you hoping to achieve any status when you're first reaction is always a knee-jerk reaction quashing any thought contrary to your own?

By the way, this has absolutely nothing to do with ID. I've told you before and many times since that's not my cup of tea, so please stop throwing it in my direction.

Thanks.

It's the consideration and testing of contrary thoughts which have resulted in scientific discovery.

Ridicule has never resulted in any discovery.

Well, I've said enough. What transpires from here on out is the result of your character, not my input.

Good luck, all.

- Gene' Bujold

[lpetrich]

One has to look at basic economics: one ought to ask how economically sustainable a space venture is; how much money can be made off of it as opposed to money has to be put into it.

One may also consider whether some application is a natural monopoly -- can several instances of it easily coexist? Consider cars vs. roads. Roads are a natural monopoly in many cases; it's hard for there to be several competing roads going past the front of one's home. However, car making is not a natural monopoly, several car makers can easily coexist in a sufficiently-advenced economy.

To date, the most commercially viable applications of spaceflight have involved automated spacecraft that return information: communications satellites, Earth-observation satellites, etc. These are automated spacecraft that do not have to keep a human crew alive, and that do not have to physically return; instead, they send back information by radio broadcast. And all this helps keep down the financial input needed for the financial output.

This is also why automated spacecraft have been able to explore much more of the Solar System than (human) astronauts have been able to -- one gets much more return per unit investment of resources.

So I suspect that the most commercially viable forms of spaceflight will be of automated spacecraft in near to synchronous Earth orbits.

And the most commercially-viable human presence in space will be the abundantly-discussed prospect of space tourism. Some people are willing to spend large amounts of money on climbing mountains, diving deep in oceans, etc.; going into outer space would not be much of a stretch for such people.

A more serious application may be suborbital "super airline" service between distant cities, like cities across oceans. A suborbital spacecraft could make it from Sydney to Los Angeles in about 35 minutes instead of 14 hours by Jumbo Jet.

Commercial space tourism would also likely be suborbital at first; suborbital means that the spacecraft would not be traveling fast enough to go into orbit around the Earth, but would come back down after going up. This means less rocket fuel, thus less rocket and less expense.

[publiusr]

Von Braun was a fire-spitting, foul-mouthed, unbelievably egotistical (insert your word of choice here). He cooperated with virtually no one.

He dissented from everyone's opinion but his own (I know - my teacher grew up next to his family; she knew, and related all kinds of sordid details to us).

But he also got the job done.

Von Braun didn't just dissent from others, he dissented from established scientific thought of the time. He was a pioneer. He cared less what others thought. He simply did what he knew was right.

It's excrutiatingly important to realize that the roads to discovery are not paved with politically correct individuals, or those who "toed the line," but rather, with those who challanged the system, even extremely well-developed systems at that.

Good luck, all.

- Gene' Bujold

That is why I think more of Mike Griffin than Rutan. Griffin is the real pioneer no one likes. Rutan has all the alt.space press, and has done little to deserve it--and even he has been forgotten. Thats why you have NASA--to MAKE people pay for space whether they want to or not. The free-trade thing isn't working--except in funding the Long March rockets, that is.

I say more power to China--like I say more power to Indian Casinos. Take our greed and ram it right back down our own throats.

[adiffer]

Have you ever met Burt Rutan?

[publiusr]

Have you ever met Griffin?

I know where you are going in asking your question. If the answer to your question is 'no' then you respond with "So how do you know if..." etc.

My guess is you haven't met Griffin--as many free-traders have not-- but that doesn't keep the alt.spacers from NASA bashing does it?

[adiffer]

No. I'm not trying to bash you though.

I have met Rutan and won't bash either one of them.
I was just curious if you had met him and had a personal reaction.

[publiusr]

It isn't so much Rutan himself--though his "Spaceship One/ Gov't Zero" sign got my blood pressure so high It nearly blew the top of my skull off. Its the Ed Wrights, The Gumps, The Tumlinsons and all the rest of the NASA bashers that talk smack they can't back up. They haven't flown anything powered by much more than hot air--but their talk can certainly undermine the support REAL engineers like Griffin need to get HLLVs on the table.

Rutan made his mark by getting performance from craft built right on the point of structural failure. His Global Flyer and Proteus are two examples of his best work, and I think he would be a fine UAV manufacturer. But Beech bought back pretty much every Starship, and there must be something up with that.

It is the anti-gov't Libertarian party adherants who don't know orbital from sub-orbital that get me. SS1 was probably the worst thing to happen to spaceflight because it engendered false hope, acts like a brain drain and gives the Proxmire types in Washington a reason to cut VSE, spouting the "Private initiatives are always better" myth that people need to question for the reasons I describe above and over at www.xprizenews.org And now Jeff Bell is spouting off again. Simon who runs Space Daily carries every piece of garbage he writes, but won't carry my pieces anymore (Save for EELV's ARE A BAD DEAL & HEAVY LIFT IS NEEDED.) due to a misunderstanding over an article IS THE AIR FORCE THE ENEMY OF SPACE? where I detail how space launch progressed quickly under the ABMA from Redstone to Saturn, and how the Air Farce cocked up the works.

That was also explained in my postings at www.xprizenews.org in the thread called "mmm, Yeah."

BTW Golden Palace seems to have other interests than Flyin Brian.

[adiffer]

ah...

If I remember right, that scoreboard sign was one that someone else wrote and then handed up to the pilot. I don't think it came from Rutan's staff. It was probably inked by one of those libertarians who get your blood to boil. 8)

If you ever get a chance to see Burt Rutan, I would encourage you to do it. I can tell you honestly that he tends to look at some of my friends with wariness. I think he would agree with you that people who haven't designed and built a vehicle that has been flown could be talking out their a$$. There are a few people at Mojave that look at the rest of us as a pain and they keep their distance.

As I understand the incident with Beech, the problem was with the civil litigation environment associated with general aviation aircraft. The design was pretty good from all accounts. However, Beech couldn't protect themselves from liability due to dumb certification rules, so they chose to get out of that line of business. I've heard those cert rules have become more sane, but I'm not an expert in that stuff.

I'm not surprised about GoldenPalace.com. I've been involved with a team that relied upon sponsor money. You have to give them something attractive in return for their money or they won't buy again. Fail to deliver and you sour your chances with other sponsors too.

Freedom of the press can be a pain when you don't own the press. 8)
In case you are even mildly interested, my friends are opening a 'commons' meant for all of us where you can post your articles. What gets posted is determined by how a vote goes. Well thought-out pieces tended to make it in the past version and I'm sure they will in the future. You might be surrounded by 'libertarians' on all sides, but all are welcome as long as everyone keeps their cool. Opposition voices are a must for a good commons. The site is Frontier Files Online (frontierfiles.org). I run it, so send compaints my way. We are ramping up our publicity campaign, so you won't see a lot there just yet. It should come to life over the holidays though.

[adiffer]

oh...

I remember now....


Beech could sell a fully certified general aviation aircraft and still not be protected. That was the problem. A court held a manufacturer liable for something stupid the vehicle owners did to an otherwise certified aircraft.

Certification by the FAA is supposed to protect manufacturers from some liability by having an 'expert' stamp of approval on the vehicle design. The judge that held the other company liable sent shock waves through the industry and everyone quit building and designing general aviation vehicles. Beech withdrew the stuff they built to protect themselves legally even though they weren't involved in the case.

(I think this is closer to the truth. I'm sure there are many around who know more, though.)

[kanathan]

If I remember right, that scoreboard sign was one that someone else wrote and then handed up to the pilot. I don't think it came from Rutan's staff. It was probably inked by one of those libertarians who get your blood to boil. 8)

Yep, you're right. I was at that launch, and there was a libertarian group there with 5-6 signs with slogans like "Spaceship One Government Zero". I have a few photos of the signs, but they're not on the computer I'm on. After the successful flight, Spaceship One was towed in front of the crowd with Mike Melvill on top. The group was there holding their signs, and Mike got someone to hand him the "Spaceship One Government Zero" sign, which he held up for a short while.

You certainly can't blame Rutan for that. I know Mike Melvill asked to keep the sign after the event, but I have my doubts that he was trying to send a message with it.

[publiusr]

That explains it. It still irked me to see it shown and held high like that. I think what got me was Tumlinson going after Griffin.

The website is www.frontierfiles.org ? I'll check it out.

Stay away from Gary Hudson. He is the kiss of death on everything he touches.

[adiffer]

That's us. You are all welcome to drop by and contribute, but don't let us take away anything you would otherwise do here. I like BAUT and several other space/astronomy sites around the net. FFO is meant to help support the longer, more detailed issues where journalism comes into play and discussion threads can't quite keep up. Hopefully we will add to the community by providing a commons for that kind of speech.

Rick definitely is one of our zealots. He has interacted with Griffin and others. I think they've even exchanged emails. It's not all vitriol, though. Rick is best when the pressure he applies is NOT subtle. Most of it isn't meant to give Griffin headaches, though. It is meant to give ulcers to those who would trap Griffin in non-optimal approaches. Think about how the US Senate sees space expenditures as compared to how Griffin would operate and you'll see a bit of what bothers us.

[publiusr]

He may not MEAN to give Griffin headaches, but when he attacks a qualified engineer with HLLV bashing nonsense in front of a Congress looking for something to cut--how else is it supposed to be received? Griffin knows the need for science cuts, but he can't do too much to cut it or he would lose Congress' support.

D.C. has actually been more decent than expected, but they meddle a bit. Par for the course. Tell Rick that I would appreciate it if he were to find private payloads for heavy lift, instead of trying to shoot i down--and Griffin would be more helpful. A 100 ton factory or pilot SPS demonstrator would help Griffin and would be less expensive than making your own tiny rocket no better than the UR-100s, R-7s and UR-500 Musk has to compete against--in an overly glutted light launcher market.

Let Griff build the rockets, and Rick make the payloads. Trust me--this is the way to go.

I would like to see Rick write a letter of support for Griffin for once.