Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

Bill White · 2004-05-03 12:51:35

None of this analysis involves the technical feasibility of $100 per pound Earth to LEO RLV technology. It only looks at the consequences were such technology to magically appear.

Why $100 per pound as my threshold? Because the Russians already offer $1000 per pound to LEO off the shelf. And $500 per pound for smallish payloads on left over ICBMs.

$100 per pound seems a reasonable threshold for an alt-space inquiry. The consequences of $50 per pound to LEO will be addressed at the end.

= = =

The "alt-space" issue that I frankly see no solution for is the national security angle.

First, if a genuine ultra-low cost Earth to LEO RLV were developed, by definition it would be inexpensive to manufacture and operate. Otherwise capital costs along would drive payload prices above $100 per pound.

Example. At 10% interest (venture capital rates) a $50 million spacecraft would need to lift 50,000 pounds to LEO per year just to cover interest expense, with nothing towards R&D and operatng expense.

50,000 pounds lifted at $100 per pound generates $5 million in revenue, which covers the capital cost of buying your $50 million RLV. Add depreciation and you need to lift more per year to cover acquisition costs.

Add insurance, fuel, salaries and you get an idea just how much a $50 million RLV needs to fly just to break even.

The fictional DH-1 carries 5,000 pounds, right? Is that wih or without the flight crew which comes back to Earth?

Second, if such a craft were developed, mass production would also be needed to assure Earth to LEO launch costs fell below $100 per pound. If only a handful were built, supply and demand would force prices above $100 per pound.

Example. Suppose a dozen say, of these fancy new RLVs are built. Thats all, just one dozen.

Those owners could then charge full market rate, less 5%, and still corner the market. Why would they charge $100 per pound when they could charge $900 per pound and still get 100% of the business?

It appears Musk will need to charge more than $1000 per pound for Falcon to cover costs and therefore this RLV owner can undercut Musk by 5% and still take ALL the business.

Therefore mass production and the ability to deploy a great many alt-space RLVS is needed to lower costs below $100 per pound.

Third, IF very large numbers of these RLVs were built, international proliferation would be impossible to prevent.

Why?

Suppose hundreds or thousands of RLVs are flying routinely.

Bribe a pilot to land in China rather than the Mojave and then the Chinese rather easily reverse engineer the thing and start making hundreds or thousands of their own. And maybe sell some to North Korea and al Qaeda.

By definition, these RLVs are easy and inexpensive to manufacture, remember?

After September 11th, the US Air Force has orders to shoot down unauthorized airliners that approach US air space. But they travel at maybe 500 mph.

How fast would an RLV approach US airspace? What if a de-orbit burn began for a Chinese RLV when it was already over Los Angeles, how loong until it reached Atlanta. say?

How could we stop atacks using this new alt-space style RLV?

Wouldn't our entire current national ballistic missile defense investment be rendered worthless?

Frankly, I believe that if the federal government ever truly believed an ultra-low cost Earth to LEO RLV was imminent, the developers would vanish under an avalanche of regulation.

= = =

Suppose this alt-space RLV cost $5 million per copy.

Then Chinese could build thousands and flood US air defenses rather easily, right?

Missile defense is based oin stopping 5 or 6 (maybe) North Korean nukes. Thats all. What is 500 $5 million alt-space RLVs were in LEO at the same time?

I double dare you to protect the USA from a terrorist attack.

$50 per pound? The foregoing analysis is only strengthened.

= = =

Discuss!

C M Edwards · 2004-05-03 13:01:10

I don't understand the necessity of a $100 cutoff (or $10, or $10000) for this argument. Launch expense seems irrelevant... ???

clark · 2004-05-03 13:02:26

Controlled flight vectors on launch and return, with a full flight plan (including contingencies) filed several months prior to any actual flight.

In the case of an errant orbital RLV, it will be shot down by the missle defense shield (since these RLV's can't really do course changes, it will be relatively easy to shoot down in comparison to an ICBM).

In order to reduce the number of competitors (or basically cover our asses), liability insurance will ensure that companies know their flight crew and their intentions. When you're looking at billions in liability costs, something tells me that even the passagener's will be vetted along the same lines as the crew.

Any orbital RLV's that land in hostile territory... well, that might fall under the current space treaties, and any nation would have to help return the "commercial-nauts". Not sure though, tough one. But since this is private industry, I doubt there would be any national security implications other tan the usual industrial spying that goes on (even the RLV's need the rockets, which is what we get touchy about, and which is ditched on launch over or near the spaceport)

Bill White · 2004-05-03 13:15:04

I don't understand the necessity of a $100 cutoff (or $10, or $10000) for this argument. Launch expense seems irrelevant... ???

True. That is why the alt-space types cannot go to, say the Cayman Islands and do their stuff.

It violates US non-proliferation laws.

We don't want the North Koreans to get ICBM technology at any price. Deploy low costs Earth to LEO and how will we stop it?

= = =

As for clark's point, how does the US prevent China from sending RLV's on US overflights when they say they intend to launch and land in China?

Remember Sputnik? We were terrified about a grapefruit.

Imagine 50 RLVs launching supposedly going to Chinese or Japanese space hotels.

I mentioned the Chinese. Why should we be sanguine that the Japanese will remain our friends forever?

= = =

In my coming fictional book - - all commercial Earth to LEO transport was confined to an equatorial inclination, unless US Space Command gave special permission.

NO overflights of northern hemisphere nations. Ever.

clark · 2004-05-03 13:22:42

I'll give you three thousand reasons why the Japanese, or the Chinese, will remain our "friends"... that antiquated nuclear deterent still has a bit of heft to it Bill.

Could a lone nut do something bad, well, yeah, sure. A nation state? No. It's suicide for everyone.

One of the militaries little war games involves a strike by an agressor nation against our space assests. What kind of response can we intitiate in kind, or in response to say an EMP burst that significantly destroys or degrades our commercial and military space assests.

There was a wide range, and nuclear was an option.

Orbital trjectories tend to be pretty consistent, no? Any changes to that orbit will be met with stern voices asking for explanations. Failure to respond in a manner that is pleasing may very well result in some new space debri and a fireworks display over a portion of Earth.

Bill White · 2004-05-03 13:31:07

I'll give you three thousand reasons why the Japanese, or the Chinese, will remain our "friends"... that antiquated nuclear deterent still has a bit of heft to it Bill.
Could a lone nut do something bad, well, yeah, sure. A nation state? No. It's suicide for everyone.
One of the militaries little war games involves a strike by an agressor nation against our space assests. What kind of response can we intitiate in kind, or in response to say an EMP burst that significantly destroys or degrades our commercial and military space assests.
There was a wide range, and nuclear was an option.
Orbital trjectories tend to be pretty consistent, no? Any changes to that orbit will be met with stern voices asking for explanations. Failure to respond in a manner that is pleasing may very well result in some new space debri and a fireworks display over a portion of Earth.

Abundant low cost Earth to LEO RLVs (commercially & internationally available) returns the United States to the era of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and levels the playing field amongst every nation with access to those systems.

No more lone superpower hegemonist.

I agree that if the United States were to accept the status of being fundamentally equal to every other nation with RLVs then we have nothing more and nothing less to fear that anybody else.

But we will be an equal power amongst many, not a sui generis superpower.

= = =

An RLV doing a lawful overflight of US territory might allow 3 - 5 minutes warning before dropping a nuke on an American city. Perhaps much less.

Sure, we can nuke them back (deterrence) but they can use their nukes to thwart our efforts to leverage them. Stalemate.

= = =

If alt-space RLVs are real, then our current national missile defense plans are already obsolete.

So lets save all that money and go to Mars instead.

In truth, I believe this alt-space stuff is all a bunch of hype, anyways. But that is an engineering question, and I ain't no rocket scientist.

Blog to come. . . :;):

clark · 2004-05-03 13:33:32

Up for a game of "Go". :laugh:

deagleninja · 2004-05-03 15:10:30

Great points Bill. To make real progress in developing the infastructure needed for LEO and beyond we need to think in real per pound costs. I know most people here consider a space elevator a pipe-dream, but the technology is maturing incredibly fast. Anyone read the article about the atomic scale conveyor-belt that has recently been developed.

We have material stronger enough to build it out of.

We now have a means to quickly transport mulltiple atoms quickly.

We DON"T have skilled practice with deploying a tether.

There are many different estimates but the price range seems to be $10-100 per pound depending on efficency. The Planetary Society is launching a test solar sail soon. I figure, how hard can it be to pick out an asteroid of appropriate composition, hopeful with no spin, and send a sail to it robotically to alter its orbit enough to enter orbit rather than flyby. BAM! You got the resources in orbit to set your nano-friends to work. Ten years to build a cable, five years to move an asteroid. Think of the profit margin charging $500 per pound.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-03 15:36:25

Abundant low cost Earth to LEO RLVs (commercially & internationally available) returns the United States to the era of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and levels the playing field amongst every nation with access to those systems.
No more lone superpower hegemonist.

Well, we better start being nice, then.

I must have seen this on a bumper sticker somewhere: "The best way to defend against an enemy is to make him your friend."

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-03 19:11:12

The big issue with a super-cheap LEO RLV like the DH-1 is that its too small... not enough payload... and that the means of recovering the upper stage I think won't work like is hoped to. Nor is there any payload to fly ATM.

No, we DON"T have material strong enough to make the space elevator out of yet... carbon nanotube composits of that strength are still a little ways off.

And we don't need an asteroid either... the initial cable itself simply won't weight that much. You could launch the entire first cable spool up on a single EELV flight.

Bill White · 2004-05-03 19:31:43

The big issue with a super-cheap LEO RLV like the DH-1 is that its too small... not enough payload... and that the means of recovering the upper stage I think won't work like is hoped to. Nor is there any payload to fly ATM.
No, we DON"T have material strong enough to make the space elevator out of yet... carbon nanotube composits of that strength are still a little ways off.
And we don't need an asteroid either... the initial cable itself simply won't weight that much. You could launch the entire first cable spool up on a single EELV flight.

Like I said above - - I ain't no rocket scientist - - I was merely speculating about the geo-political consequences if a DH-1 magically appeared, and worked, and could be built for $5 to $50 million a copy.

NORAD would go ape-shit, IMHO, since 5000 pounds is plenty big enough to deliver nukes pretending to be rogue nation tourists.

A 50,000 pound capable DH-10 would certainly increase upfront capital costs yet the national security issues remain the same.

= = =

By twisting Enrico Fermi's quip "where is everybody" to an inappropriate context, I conclude from the above that alt-space to LEO is very, very much further away than its advocates would like to admit, simply because North Korea and China are not eager beavers working on alt-space to LEO and because the Pentagon hasn't shut down the X-prize people.

It is just a hobby people. A waaay cool hobby, but a hobby.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-03 19:35:47

Oh now get this... the DH-1 is supposed to cost One Billion Dollars to develop. I would put this figure as being pretty low for trying to make a high-performance reuseable manned upper stage that can fly multiple times quickly and such.

The problem with any small RLV is that there still isn't anything for it to launch. Its too small to launch satelites, its too small to launch many people to orbit safely, and its too small to haul much cargo either (even less than the puny Progress-B).

And even if it could... there still wouldn't be anything for it to launch. Satelites are expensive, even if launch costs were zero, and they aren't going to magically shrink with a lower cost launcher.

The DH-1 is a toy...

Bill White · 2004-05-03 19:45:39

Oh now get this... the DH-1 is supposed to cost One Billion Dollars to develop. I would put this figure as being pretty low for trying to make a high-performance reuseable manned upper stage that can fly multiple times quickly and such.
The problem with any small RLV is that there still isn't anything for it to launch. Its too small to launch satelites, its too small to launch many people to orbit safely, and its too small to haul much cargo either (even less than the puny Progress-B).
And even if it could... there still wouldn't be anything for it to launch. Satelites are expensive, even if launch costs were zero, and they aren't going to magically shrink with a lower cost launcher.
The DH-1 is a toy...

And this is why no one at NORAD is losing ANY sleep over alt-space developments.

I called Paul Allen's investment in SpaceShipOne a hobby (over at Rand Simberg's site) and was flamed for it, but it's true.

= = =

GCNR, are we in agreement or arguing? I can't tell. :;):

deagleninja · 2004-05-04 09:53:43

GCN- If we don't use an asteroid, what is going to keep the cable from being pulled down by Earth's gravity? A suspended cable in geosync orbit is going to encounter a lot of drag once it starts entering our atmosphere. I was under the impression that the cable would have to be kept taunt.

Images of suspension bridges swaying to their descrution come to mind.

deagleninja · 2004-05-04 09:56:22

Bill-I'm not flaming I swear, but I'd call Paul Allen's interest in space more than a hobby. he also donated 9 or 13 million, I can't remember, to a new dish array.

clark · 2004-05-04 09:59:46

When I was younger, I used to fly model rockets. Once, I saved my allowance for weeks and weeks. I got a really big rocket then.

Paul Allen just has a bigger allowance.

"Monument to an Ego." Much better name for the space ship. :laugh:

deagleninja · 2004-05-04 10:24:54

Is Paul Allen doing these things just to be remembered long after everyone says Bill who? Maybe. And if so, so what? He donated millions to causes that get you and me, or at least our children, that much closer to going ourselves.

I think he does deserve to have his ass kissed. We need more people like him.

Rxke · 2004-05-04 10:28:04

Paul Allen is an "Angel Investor" like Bigelow: they don't really care wether they see a return of their investment (and how on Earth can you earn money with an antennae farm?)

Kudos to the guys, they don't *have* to do this, but they do. Great.

Bill White · 2004-05-04 10:31:16

Bill-I'm not flaming I swear, but I'd call Paul Allen's interest in space more than a hobby. he also donated 9 or 13 million, I can't remember, to a new dish array.

Assemble at least 1,000 Paul Allens and we can go to Mars.

Hobby is an unfortunate term and I surely wouldn't use it to his face, yet we must be realistic about what the alt-space people will be able to accomplish.

= = =

Hey! Prove me wrong! If Burt Rutan goes orbital within ten years I will scream from the rooftops - - "Bill White is an idiot" - - and still buy folks champagne.

Hope for the best, but plan for the worst. . .

Rxke · 2004-05-04 10:34:51

deagleninja,

the cable, as planned today, would be launched on a reel, and go waaaay beyond GEO, while unspinning, so it stays stable. Centre of gravity stuff etc. Advantage: you can set it up with 'off the shelf' rocketry, no need for asteroid-juggling (would be neat, though, but we can't do that... yet.)
I'm afraid research for the right cable-stuff will peter out, once they find a way to mf fibre that's say 100times stronger than today's steel... Earth market doesn't need stronger stuff, so why pump in $$$$$ for a 'wild plan'? (not my view, but that'll be the view of the bean-counters behind the material-scientists...)

And the 'transporter' is esp. good news for 'massive nanofacturing' if they et it working wth other elements, too: great way to transport individual elements/molecules to the 'assemblers' (If you're a Drexeler fan, and not a Smalley-guy, heh...)

Rxke · 2004-05-04 10:36:26

Hey! Prove me wrong! If Burt Rutan goes orbital within ten years I will scream from the rooftops - - "Bill White is an idiot"

A new bet, maybe?

clark · 2004-05-04 10:38:02

You're right deagleninja, every ass there is needs to be kissed. And something tells me you're just the man for the job. :laugh:

Burt Rutan won't be going orbital in ten years. I'll talk to the one eyed hobo.

deagleninja · 2004-05-04 11:02:40

Thanks Clark! I knew I was good for something....

Bill- You're on! What shall the wage be?

Folks, let's not be so pessimestic about the future. We keep assuming that there won't be another space race (Hello China), that there won't be a market even for low-cost space access (on your left you can see the Great Pyramids), and that reaching Mars is 40 years away (run russia run).

Colonizing Mars will happen. Why? Because transportation speed will improve to the point where a hop to Mars is easy. It's just a matter of when. I'd like to see Mars settled before it becomes too easy to get there so we don't end up with a colony of typical americans. If we go while it's still a challenge, then the greatest benefit is technology developed to conquer a hostile domain.

clark · 2004-05-04 11:06:35

ancient martian zen question... :laugh:

Typical American says, "If we go while it's still a challenge, then the greatest benefit is technology developed to conquer a hostile domain.

Bill White · 2004-05-04 11:21:23

Thanks Clark! I knew I was good for something....
Bill- You're on! What shall the wage be?
Folks, let's not be so pessimestic about the future. We keep assuming that there won't be another space race (Hello China), that there won't be a market even for low-cost space access (on your left you can see the Great Pyramids), and that reaching Mars is 40 years away (run russia run).

What is the bet, exactly?

Humans from Earth to LEO under X-Prize rules, more or less with no governemnt subsidy? 10 years? !!!

Colonizing Mars will happen. Why? Because transportation speed will improve to the point where a hop to Mars is easy. It's just a matter of when. I'd like to see Mars settled before it becomes too easy to get there so we don't end up with a colony of typical americans. If we go while it's still a challenge, then the greatest benefit is technology developed to conquer a hostile domain.

If transportation will improve, the smart bet would seem to be to get to Mars sooner rather than later and stake your claim.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-05-03 12:51:35

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#2 2004-05-03 13:01:10

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#3 2004-05-03 13:02:26

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#4 2004-05-03 13:15:04

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#5 2004-05-03 13:22:42

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#6 2004-05-03 13:31:07

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#7 2004-05-03 13:33:32

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#8 2004-05-03 15:10:30

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#9 2004-05-03 15:36:25

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#10 2004-05-03 19:11:12

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#11 2004-05-03 19:31:43

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#12 2004-05-03 19:35:47

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#13 2004-05-03 19:45:39

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#14 2004-05-04 09:53:43

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#15 2004-05-04 09:56:22

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#16 2004-05-04 09:59:46

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#17 2004-05-04 10:24:54

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#18 2004-05-04 10:28:04

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#19 2004-05-04 10:31:16

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#20 2004-05-04 10:34:51

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#21 2004-05-04 10:36:26

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#22 2004-05-04 10:38:02

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#23 2004-05-04 11:02:40

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#24 2004-05-04 11:06:35

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

#25 2004-05-04 11:21:23

Re: Why "alt-space" won't work - Invite to a flame war! :-)

Board footer