DIRECT Update
A couple of weeks back, Doug Stanley (the guy who headed up the ESAS team) was a guest at the NASASpaceFlight.com forums, hosting a Q&A thread about the propellant studies they had been doing for the LSAM. This was right after Ross Tierney came out with his DIRECT concept, and Ross asked Doug if he could look over his proposal over the holidays. Dr Stanley was welcomed back today to host a Q&A thread about what he found (here's the link).
While there's a lot of discussion, here's the key takeaways:
Of course, if they had cryogenic propellant transfer, they could do a single Ares V (or DIRECT) launch with the full lunar stack, and then transfer propellants and crew on-orbit. Whether they went with Ares V or DIRECT, that could allow for a substantial increase in the number of lunar missions per year. Something like that might actually be able to salvage something from this mess, but only after unnecessarily wasting a several billion dollars and several years. Of course at that point, why not just launch the whole stack dry on a Delta-IVH or one of the heavier Atlas Vs and do the same? But I digress.
Anyhow, just thought I ought to draw some attention to this. I was initially a fan of DIRECT due to the hope that by freeing up some of the development money for NASA-specific launch vehicles, they might actually have money around to sponsor higher-risk, but higher-reward projects like propellant transfer demos, etc. However, it appears as though DIRECT is in the same boat as Ares I and Ares V--Even if it could be made to succeed technically, it wouldn't be worth the money.
While there's a lot of discussion, here's the key takeaways:
- Ross's numbers for the RS-68 Regen upgrade were apparently incorrect. The expected Isp is only in the 418-420s range, not the 435s he was claiming. I had run some numbers about the improvement from ablative to regen, and hadn't been able to come up with the full gain that Ross was claiming, but figured I didn't have all the data.
- With the correct engine performance numbers, payload to orbit drops far enough that DIRECT wouldn't be capable of lofting the current ESAS-derived lunar stack in two launches without some significant changes. The payload is still pretty good, but not quite enough for NASA's prefered method.
- Changes to upgrade DIRECT sufficiently to allow for a 2-launch architecture are actually possible, but would cost more than Ross had budgetted, and would take longer to develop, as the vehicle ends up being a lot less directly Shuttle Derived than the original DIRECT architecture.
- While Dr Stanley admitted that DIRECT would likely have lower life cycle costs than the combined Ares I/Ares V, the benefits were overstated. The real savings is closer to about $5B, not $17B.
Of course, if they had cryogenic propellant transfer, they could do a single Ares V (or DIRECT) launch with the full lunar stack, and then transfer propellants and crew on-orbit. Whether they went with Ares V or DIRECT, that could allow for a substantial increase in the number of lunar missions per year. Something like that might actually be able to salvage something from this mess, but only after unnecessarily wasting a several billion dollars and several years. Of course at that point, why not just launch the whole stack dry on a Delta-IVH or one of the heavier Atlas Vs and do the same? But I digress.
Anyhow, just thought I ought to draw some attention to this. I was initially a fan of DIRECT due to the hope that by freeing up some of the development money for NASA-specific launch vehicles, they might actually have money around to sponsor higher-risk, but higher-reward projects like propellant transfer demos, etc. However, it appears as though DIRECT is in the same boat as Ares I and Ares V--Even if it could be made to succeed technically, it wouldn't be worth the money.
Labels: Launch Vehicles, Lunar Commerce, NASA, Space Development
posted by Jon Goff at 8:11 PM
27 Comments:
They've also put back on that other Q&A he did where he says we should go direct to Mars on the site too. You should mention that as it's more important than his comments on direct. I don't know how to post clickable URL's so if you could do it . Thanks.
Anonymous,
You mean like this
If the RS-68 does not have good enough ISP, you could easily substitute it with the Vulcain 2 engine used by the Ariane V.
It has a very good ISP for a booster engine. You would have to use six vulcain II instead of two RS-86. But that has the added benefit that it would give you engine out capability, and there is more than enough room at the base of a ET for six or even seven engines.
I realize that buying engines from the russians is a bit politically problematic. But buying them from europe should be much less so.
Once you accept buying european hardware, you could also replace the J2 engine with vinci engines.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/vulcain2.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/vinci.htm
By the way: if buying the engine from europe would be politically unacceptable because of the animosity towards the french, you could always buy the LE-7A engine from japan.
In fact you could probably negotiate a very good price for the engines by having a competition between europe and japan.
You know, bandying about computer model Isp numbers of theoretical performance is nice and all, but my question would be "What does the hot fire tell us?" If you're modeling 450 seconds Isp and the engine produces 428 seconds during a hot fire, I'm going with the 428 number.
Perhaps it's time for a true Encyclopaedia of Rocket Motors. Or maybe at least a Handbook. I'm mucking around with the idea of a trump card game based on rocket motors to get kids to memorize their vital stats.
In all honesty I don't expect NASA's hot fires to go as well as they expect, which is why I really wish everyone would take a much harder look at the rockets we are already building and launching. Like the EELVs. Small bite size chunks of mass to orbit. Lots of them.
Which reminds me - Jon, I remember when Dr. Livingston referenced the academic from I think NJ about how increased production might not bring down the cost of launch. Like you, I'd be very interested in seeing more details, as it contradicts one of the fundamental tenets of economics and production manufacturing. If I got that in an investor presentation I'd have some serious questions about the assumptions, variables, and structure of the model. He'd have his work cut out for him convincing me of his findings.
Great job on the Space Show, Jon. Hopefully you'll get invited back sooner than me.
But if someone builds one and the price is good, they will buy fuel.
I believe Mike Griffin has said exactly the same thing on various occasions.
Does anyone imagine this happening in real world ?.
Once you have designed your architecture to be pretty much straight to moon, i.e. 1.5, "buying fuel" just all of a sudden is not in the cards. You simply dont have any vehicles to buy the fuel for. There is no budget and no time for developing one, so you go on with what you had planned.
Jon, it seems USAF/DARPA is doing an on-orbit propellant transfer this year: project ASTRO (SpaceFlightNow , paragraph 8).
Are you aware of this mission, and do you think it's results will apply towards the kind of propellant transfer that NASA would need to scrap one of their two new launchers?
For Murphydyne: The economist you are referring to is Dr. Henry Hertzfeld, not from NJ, but the Space Policy Institute at GWU in Washington, DC. His academic papers on this subject are on his website which I listed on The Space Show program you referenced, plus the archive write-up for this show. You can find his papers at
www.gwu.edu/~spi. Choose research papers on the left side menu and Henry's paper is there among the others from the Space Policy Institute. The show was aired Nov. 28, 2006.
As. Dr. Hertzfeld is world recognized space economist and policy maker from the most prestigious space policy university around, I suggest you read his paper, his assumptions and footnotes and then send him a note to challenge him in the areas you disagree. He wants all notes to go through me at drspace@thespaceshow.com and he is very good at replying. I suggest that if you do challenge his analysis, assumptions and conclusions, that you be as well versed in economics and policy and markets as he is so you can have a common reference point for the discussion. If you do not have the econ background, that's fine, but then I also suggest you give careful attention to why you discount what he says when you don't have the background to factually document what you believe to be accurate. While the circumstances have not yet unfolded which would present a factual record for Dr. Hertzfeld, he does have a track record with multiple peer review and he does understand markets, demand, and the other issues associated with his research and that understanding is supported by reality and facts. Holding onto one's beliefs is a fine thing to do, but always be prepared to consider new information and factual data, especially when it comes to you from noted authorities and is in areas where your expertise may be lacking.
In the end, reality will pay no attention to what you believe or what Dr. Hertzfeld concludes. Reality is what it is. In the end, time will tell, but were I looking to make an investment in a business, I would pay careful attention what people like Henry say as their facts and analysis have track records and extensive peer review. My money would likely be invested far wiser by paying attention to work by the Dr. Herzfeld's of the world rather than just relying on my gut or some other less factual source. But again, yes, Henry could be wrong and you could be right, but for my money and given my economic and market background, I seriously doubt that he is wrong or far off the mark. I urge you to challenge him and I would very much like to see the exchange between the two of you .I would even consider having you discuss your challenge and the results on The Space Show if it its turns out to be a good and dynamic discourse between you both that would likely interest listeners.
David Livingston, Host of The Space Show
drspace@thespaceshow.com.
Hi Dr. Livingston!
I've looked over the paper, considered the audience, put it in the context of why it was written, run it through my investment analyst filters, dusted off my economics background (BA Int'l Bus. & Econ, magna cum laude), and find that in general what he says is correct, but doesn't really address the kinds of things that Jon and I talk about:
An example is:
"Based on past experience, the costs of an entirely new launch system to met [sic] either the very heavy lift requirements of NASA’s Exploration Initiative or that will be a reusable human-rated vehicle will be very large, possibly ranging from $30 billion up."
If I had to met either NASA's heavy-lift requirements or produce a fully re-usable launch vehicle that met NASA's human-rating requirement, then yeah, I would put it in that ballpark and I imagine a lot of folks would.
In the same paragraph:
"Even if a company were to find the funds and build a vehicle that would meet both financial and technical objectives, the price charged would not be instantly “an order of magnitude” less than current costs. Perhaps over a period of many years such a company can lower costs and prices
significantly, but only when it has recovered its investment outlays."
This is kind of one of those "No sh:t, Sherlock" statements. I don't think either Jon or I expect an immediate "order of magnitude" reduction in costs. He cites studies anticipating surges of launches, reminding me of one of my earliest class days at ISU, when they put up a chart from a Futron study regarding Iridium which effectively showed a log function climbing into the heavens for launch frequency from LEOSat constellations. What I say, which doesn't contradict what Mr. Hertzfeld says, is that if Boeing is manufacturing and selling 40 launch cores per year, instead of say 15, then they would benefit from a reduction in the fixed costs applied to each particular core, and recoup their R&D costs faster.
Let's say that over the course of year 200X Boeing builds 15 Delta IV cores for customers. Let's say that the costs of operating the manufacturing facility during the course of the year turns out to be about 15% of the cost of goods sold for each core. (Property taxes, high electric delivery costs, amortization of costs of physical infrastructure, &c.) Had they produced forty cores that cost would have been reduced to about 5.5%. Let's round that up by 200 bps to 7.5% for the marginal increase in power consumption, increased maintenance from higher use, &c., and you're still talking about a savings that can be passed on (in part) to the customer.
Let's say that the R&D costs are budgeted to be recouped over 50 launches. At 15 per year that's over thirteen calendar quarters to do so. At 40 per year the cost is recouped in five calendar quarters.
Let's look at insurance. Insurance is a significant part of the cost in part because of less than stellar performance on the part of the space industry. Premiums charged can only be a portion of the risk covered, but the higher the loss rate and payout, the higher the percentage of risk covered that must be charged so that the insurance risk pools can at least break even. As successes pile up, the insurance companies can charge lower premiums, because they are starting to actually make money, which usually attracts more so they have to stay on their toes to be in the market.
What Mr. Hertzfeld is effectively saying is that we're lacking any really good information because what is out there was produced mostly for a NASA audience with NASA money (including the paper under consideration). Launch rates are not going to climb exponential growth charts to deliver "order of magnitude" reductions in launch costs. I 100% cannot disagree. But that's not what I'm looking for.
What I'm looking for is tangible ways to reduce launch costs. If NASA and the DoD and the private sector and foreign customers are all buying from the same stable of launch vehicles, then the -costs- of any individual purchase are going to go down, putting downward pressure on the -price- charged to the customers as the increasing margins attract more providers.
Launch providers do work hard to keep cost and price info under wraps, but there is a bit of transparency because of SEC filing requirements for publically-listed companies. The price points become known, and as they reduce over time, private companies, not you or I or Mr. Hertzfeld, are able to make the determination of when the price point makes sense for them. Is it a reduction from $240Mn to $210Mn? Or $198Mn? Can improved supply chains, able to pass on their own savings, and better knowledge for the second manufacturing facility, from lessons learned in the first, be applied to reduce it to $175? Who knows at what price point the transport company and freight forward company partner up to buy a reusable ATV to regularly transport supplies to orbital facilities. It may not work till 20 metric tonnes to LEO only costs $125Mn for the rocket. But I can't project every business case to be made for a space endeavor, and I doubt anyone can.
I know John Logsdon of the SPI through ISU (he may or may not remember me, he's met a lot of folks), and I still remember the machiavellian U.S. space policy lecture he gave our MSS class early in the year. It sent shivers down the spines of a lot of my non-U.S. classmates, and I don't think any of them ever looked at us Americans the same way again. I don't know Mr. Hertzfeld, though. I don't think...
Any debate will have to wait until after the ISDC, though I don't see that we have much to disagree on. It depends on the context, and in his context what he says is pretty much right, and in my context I think what I say is pretty much right. Though if you pressed me I would start looking at tweaked margins and assumptions. I'll let Jon chime in on his context.
Disclaimer: I don't hold any degrees in economics.
The whole discussion is moot since we know the situation with Bigelow Aerospace and Lockheed which can only be interpreted as having a per-unit sales price quite a bit lower than the present one. In other words market elasticity is already on the table so why would one argue that it's not going to happen?
Jonathan Goff mentioned some reasons why it is possible in the radio interview and others here have mentioned more. In addition to those and the point above I would like to add:
- increased income stability and cash flow for LM
- market entry into commercial manned launches for LM gives increased income diversification
- the competitive edge of being the first in the market and probably the cheapest alternative for at least several years, first with proven track record in docking to BA modules and so on
I'm sure there's more but these are just additions off the top of my head.
All at the (relatively measly) cost of man-rating a well-proven launch system. I would think that cost is paid off within the first batch order from BA.
The crux of the matter is this; do you believe BA will succeed or not? If you do and you're in LM's position then I see no reason why you wouldn't be salivating at the prospect.
And when the "Not A Sensible Approach" fails to provide a viable path to VSE, well... LM will be ready to offer an off-the-shelf man-rated alternative and a fed-up congress will force Nasa's hand. No wonder LM is keen on on-orbit propellant transfer as well: it's the last piece required for an excellent strategy.
Don't prove me wrong LM! ^_^
.
.
.
Jon,
Look at this amazing "mix" of a Bigelow module and an Orion capsule!!!
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/016_BigelowOrion.html
Gaetano
.
.
.
(i thought i posted yesterday, anyway, repost)
If we are talking about US-European franken-rockets, why not build a "Shuttle derived" vehicle like shuttle-C with 2-4 Zenit strap-ons? It'd be great for Ukraine, give us an immediate, modular approach to heavy lift and not involve nasty segmented solids. It'd also more closely match the ET's current loading system.
It doesn't really matter, though. I'm banking on SpaceX, Bigelow and Lockmart for the Earth-cislunar segment.
Rudiger,
Yes either the Vulcain II or LE-7A or RD-0120 could possibly work in place of the RS-68Rs that Ross had been proposing. In fact most of them would weigh less than two big RS-68s, and would have a shorter thrust structure, which might allow for the tank stretch that Ross had suggested.
However, even if they might be workable technically, getting NASA to build a booster centered around a foreign-built engine is going to be a tough sell. Especially doing that and scrapping their own pet rocket...
Ain't going to happen even if it does make some technical sense.
~Jon
Ken,
Regarding Dr H's paper, I had a chance to skim it, and while I think the paper itself is more or less right, I think that some people are misunderstanding his conclusions. He wasn't so much saying that there's no such thing as elasticity in demand for space launch, or that prices can't go down with higher flight rates. Merely he was pointing out that since companies seek to maximize their profits, that sometimes small increases in flight rates aren't accompanied by much of a price decrease, and that most historical markets have not been very elastic demand-wise.
At least that's what I got out of it from my first read. Once I get some time for a longer read, I'll post some more thoughts on it.
~Jon
Bill,
I read this comment to say that NASA will not rely upon a LEO fuel depot for its architecture unless someone else demonstrates the ability to get fuel to LEO, store it, and then accomplish on-orbit re-fueling.
But if someone builds one and the price is good, they will buy fuel.
I believe Mike Griffin has said exactly the same thing on various occasions.
Yes, that's exactly what Mike has been saying. My point is that that is a crappy way of going about things. The potential payoff of having commercial orbital propellant delivery and storage capabilities is so high, that not investing in it is foolish on NASA's part. They could greatly enhance their mission capabilities and simultaneously help "encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space."
If they did for orbital propellant transfer and storage what they've been doing for COTS, it would be an excellent investment. Sure, there's risk involved, but there are risk involved with Ares I/Ares V. There are risks with any approach.
IMO, being too financially conservative can be just as fiduciarily irresponsible as being financially cavalier. It's kind of like the biblical parable of the ten talents. The servant given one talent decided instead of risking losing it in an investment, that he'd just hide the talent away until his master came back. Needless to say, his master wasn't exactly impressed at his prudence...and neither should the American people be impressed by a space agency that seems incapable of taking the risks it truly needs to, while insisting on taking the risks it can and should avoid.
~Jon
Kert,
Exactly. Once you've locked yourself into a high-price, high-overhead system like STS, or Ares I/V, it becomes really hard to free-up money to take advantage of stuff like orbital propellant transfer. Sure, they *could* theoretically cancel Ares I at some point and use COTS for crew launch and commercial orbital propellant depots to top off their stack on orbit...but finding enough money to make that worthwhile is going to be a challenge unless there is commercial demand for orbital propellant depots sufficiently high to have already driven down the price by a lot...
It's possible, and I have some ideas of how to get that ball rolling. But it's a disgusting waste that our national space agency that is taking billions of taxpayer dollars to supposedly advance the development of space technology is blowing money on its own fantasies instead of acting like the enable that it can, should, and legally is supposed to be.
~Jon
Iain,
As I understand it, Orbital Express and ASTRO are demonstrating transfer of storable propellants. While it is useful, and some of the autonomous rendezvous and docking technologies would be nice to have on the shelf, I'm not sure how applicable it is to cryo propellant transfer (especially since cryo propellant transfer really doesn't have to be done autonomously). Interesting, but not critical. Plus, the soviets demonstrated most of this back when they were still the soviets...
~Jon
Pete,
While Bigelow's success wouldn't necessarily change everything overnight in the launch world, I think it would make a bigger impact than you think. One of the key problems in space transportation is getting real funding. One of the key challenges with that is that there are very few succesful companies in the industry with a track record of entrepreneurial returns on investment. It doesn't matter how many rock solid investments there are in a field, if there isn't a track record of success in that field, most investors will be scared away. Bigelow succeeding would prove that there's a large demand for spaceflight even at those prices, would show that substantially higher flight rates are possible, and that price elasticity is possible. I think the market will also be big enough to start providing demand for more truly revolutionary space transportation systems. But that last one's just a hunch.
~Jon
Josh,
It doesn't really matter, though. I'm banking on SpaceX, Bigelow and Lockmart for the Earth-cislunar segment.
Exactly. NASA's picked which shuttle derived monstrosities are the annointed way, and have thus more or less sentanced themselves to utter irrelevance for the most part. If large numbers of people are going to visit the moon in my lifetime, it'll be much more because of Robert Bigelow, Elon Musk, and the Atlas V team (among many others, myself hopefully included) than it will because of George Bush or Mike Griffin.
~Jon
If large numbers of people are going to visit the moon in my lifetime, it'll be much more because of Robert Bigelow, Elon Musk, and the Atlas V team (among many others, myself hopefully included) than it will because of George Bush or Mike Griffin.
Which is exactly as it should be.
I am a huge advocate of L point transfer stations and fully reuseable lunar shuttles -- if littering the Atlantic with hardware is dumb, throwing away an LSAM is double dumb -- BUT the private sector needs to own and operate that facility, not NASA.
Also, do not discount Russian carrier rockets. See Sam Dinkin's new venture to give away a Soyuz cis-lunar flight to be funded by advertising revenue.
(Heh!)
Hi again,
I am posting the identical message on the Space Cynics blog, (space-cynic.blogspot.com) and its a special invitation for those of you posting on both blogs. As host of The Space Show, I've decided to create a new program series which I will title "Space Advocate Sound off" until a better name is suggested. I invite those of you posting on the two blogs to come on this special two hour show as I will do a four person panel and afford you the opportunity to sound off on The Space Show as you do on these blog posts. As with all Space Show guests, you will be treated with the utmost of respect, the program always takes the highroad, there will not be any disrespect or put downs or anything like that. You will have the opportunity to let us all know your space ideas, why you think your market ideas are more accurate or better than say those of Dr. H, why you think your BA equals a PhD or your able to discuss economics on the level of PhD economist, etc. All topics will be fair game and you will get email, chat and possibly phone calls from Space Show listeners. The program will be archived and it will be podcast and the life of Space Show programs is in the years so you might continue to get feedback for a long time. As with all Space Show guests, you will get a CD of the show and you will get a special guest only Space Show t-shirt. You need to be available using a land line corded telephone for audio clarity. No cells, no VoIP, no cordless, headsets, speaker phones, etc. You will be introduced using the bio of your choice. You agree to provide an email address on the show so listeners can contact you with further questions and comments. I would like to set this two hour special panel show up for a February date so if you are interested in being one of the panel members, please email me at drspace@thespaceshow.com. The first four of you will be on the first panel. I hope this program can be repeated with different panel members at least once per quarter.
No strings attached to this invitation. This is your chance to pontificate and show us all your expertise and your space ideas. Again, as with all Space Show guests, you will be afforded every courtesy and level of respect.
Thanks.
Dr. David Livingston, Host
The Space Show
drspace@thespaceshow.com.
I'm pretty sure this is the paper we're discussing:
"Launch Vehicles: An Economic Perspetive" by Henry R. Hertzfeld (Research Professor), Ray A. Williamson (Research Professor), Nicolas Peter (Research Assistant) performed under NASA Grant #NNG04GN66G, published September 2005 link
And if it is then I have to make at least a small post because I'm getting annoyed at what is by this time nothing but a red herring; the misconception that this paper argues against the possibility of market elastics within the launch market (it doesn't even do that regarding heavy lift GTO, it merely states that it is inelastic at this point in time and is likely to remain so for the immediate future).
If I was to explain the paper in detail this post would become far too long. I've saved my tentative notes but don't expect to spend more time on this. I can only suggest people read it carefully paying keen attention to context (don't forget the chapter titles and footnotes). If need be more than once.
I think the authors would agree wholeheartedly that the economic concepts within the paper are exceedingly simple (even consciously so on their part as they go as far as teaching some basic economics) and that claiming anyone needs a doctorate to understand or debate it is simply absurd.
I can only join the point of view of Murphydyne and Jonathan Goff, in particular that the paper is somewhat misinterpreted.
The paper and its conclusions are reasonable but in at least some cases debatable (or in need of further detail), even so those very conclusions are far removed from what some of you seem to be claiming.
Page 35, last paragraph, last sentence:
"For lighter lift LEO vehicles, price decreases may lead to more customers, but not in large numbers."
This is within the context of the pre-2005 situation based on data from 1999-2004. This is before BA's entry and yet at this point the paper says there is already some price elasticity within this specific market segement. Now if we want to have a more interesting debate we can change the subject to the details of how BA & LM can manage to improve the elasticity beyond the pre-2005 level (which they already must have decided they can).
Habitat Hermit,
That was pretty close to my take on the paper. Perfectly reasonable itself, but the interpretation that some were putting on it wasn't actually proven in the paper. And yeah, it's dated. When you write a paper based on thin data, and new data comes out that calls some of the points into question...you have to reevaluate things.
~Jon
Ok. So those of you taking issue with Henry's paper, why not engage him in a discussion, ask him questions, challenge him? Or come do The Space Show Advocate Sound Off I mentioned. Why do you refuse to engage the author? Just posting your thoughts on the blog does little for the debate and certainly does not add credibility to what you are saying. Oh well, I wish one of you or someone would help me understand the value of a blog post rather than disusing and challenging ideas on their merit with the authors and the experts, etc. I just don't get it about advocates/spacers. If you can explain it to me here on the blog, please do.
In case someone does respond and instruct me, thank you.
David L.
David,
I'd love to when I actually get enough time. However, to do a fair job I'm going to need to set aside enough time to go over the paper again in detail and take notes on the areas that I'd want to discuss, and right now I just don't have the time to do that. Especially considering that I have some other more timely posts that I'm trying to put together that have higher priority.
After I've got those up (and figured out what I'm doing to finish my thesis so I can complete that Masters Degree), I'd be more than willing to try and do a better job of explaining why I think that the argument has problems.
Now if Habitat Hermit, Ken Murphy, or any of the others have more free time, they might be able to do something sooner.
Sorry if that sounds like a lame excuse on my part, but that's the reality I face--demands on my time are unfortunately much, much higher than my supply.
~Jon
Jon and others, I too understand demands on time and priorities. I wonder why I am even taking the time to post here given the priorities I have for the show and my non-space related business issues, plus just general housekeeping of which I am the worst. Anyway, given time restraints and priorities, how is that you and others continue to have time to post and pontificate on this and other blogs about Henry's paper but you can't find the time to engage Henry? So I guess my age at 60 is a handicap with younger people. Going to the source, understanding and making sure my comments and perspectives have merit and are solidly based comes with the turf for most in my generation. Maybe the world has changed and passed me by, especially in the new world of blogging where one can say and write anything, pay no attention to education and fact and make such naive posts their priority over learning and getting it right. I don't get it. Well, go ahead and prioritize and do what you must. I am all for that. But really, don't you care about the accuracy of what you say, about having a basic education about what you are saying, about quality in your reasoning and education which can only benefit your analysis and conclusions?
I will do all of you on this post a big favor. Since you only have time to post here regardless of the merit of your post, I will copy this set of posts and discussions and send it to Henry. I have no clue if he will take the time to respond to any of you, but at least he will see the level of discussion that his paper and his being on The Space Show created within this particular community. If he does take the time to respond back to me, I will share his comments with you unless he instructs me otherwise. If he does reply, I can only hope that at least some of you pay careful attention to what he is says and explains. Clearly in your own expertise you can decide and accept whatever you want but I am going to make the effort to elevate the discussion to where it should be, a good debate or exchange with the author so many of you disagree with, think does simplistic research and what is even more interesting, possesses an education and expertise that not a one of you even comes close to having, plus Henry has years of experience which none of you likely have (not completely sure of the last point).
Again, I will make a post here as to any possible reply or comments I might get back from Henry. If any are forthcoming, I hope your understand the instructive nature of this exercise.
David L.
Dr. Livingston: at least what I'm debating against here is the notion that there can't be (significant) market elastics within the launch industry. There can be market elastics and indeed the paper says that there already are, albeit limited, in some market segments. I have quoted the paper to such effect; see my last post.
As far as I'm concerned and within the context and data sets of the paper it is my opinon that the paper and I agree on this topic.
Please show me how and why you disagree with the above paragraphs and please quote those parts of the paper that you deem relevant.
Unless you do so you can't expect anyone to go any further and please don't tell me to call upon Dr. Hertzfeld when in my opinon I'm not arguing against him or any other of the authors :)
I don't really want to broaden the topic of discussion until we've put the above behind us but I have to mention that the paper makes a nice job of explaining why Nasa and government involvement historically has not been conductive to increased elasticity and why that will in all likelihood continue to be the case. As such the paper can be read as a solid argument to the benefit of the NewSpace commercial industry.
Post a Comment
<< Home