From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 08:11:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.233756.12563@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.231941.1467@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>>More than enough money _where_?  The SEI budget is in the $10's...
>
>Nick, nobody is talking anything about SEI. The question was raised of how
>much a particular project would cost. The estimate you give was wildly 
>in error since you failed to account for the cost effects of a larger market.
>

That's strange, we just had a huge thread about SEI's FLO, which
you flamed me for daring to criticize.

It's also interesting that you deleted the second part of that sentence,
which pointed out business investment would not be a source of funds.

(Repeating point that should be obvious for third time in a row, for 
Allen's benefit):

The whole point of mentioning SEI's budget is there _isn't_ any 
significant market in the political/contracting arena.  That's
what the NASA contractor moon-related work (and ads) are focused on. 
There isn't any paying market from the point of view of business, either, 
whether the project costs $100 billion or $1,000 billion.  Business just 
does not invest in schemes that require multiple layers of new technologies 
assumed to be orders of magnitude cheaper than what previous projects 
have accomplished.  Any investor with those $$$  will laugh you 
right out of their office, unless you've got a juicy NASA contract in your 
hand.  It won't matter how many earnest space fans you can gather to
pile on the critics.  If you don't beleive me, try it.  Or at least start 
reading what the biz rags like the Economist and Wall Street Journal have 
to say about space development. The first thing you will realize is that 
selling a commercial project is _very_ different from the traditional skill of
selling the government and government contractors.   They don't care
how popular the project is, and they do care how expensive it is;
almost 180 degrees opposite of governemntal concerns.

Furthermore, your thesis (>volume => <cost) has several exceptions, including 
the last magical launch-cost reducer, STS.  The more they tried to increase 
STS's launch rate, the more things broke, until they finally went "boom" 
with Challenger.   The saddest thing of all is the current SEI and SSTO 
strategies are repeating the strategy of the Shuttle -- build something for 
astronauts and then start trying to stuff in commercial projects as peripheral
add-ons.  Commerce learned its lesson getting burnt with the STS.
They're not going to take back seat on a NASA project again, unless
NASA is footing the bill.

Finally, the major volume-expanding market already exists, comsats.
But your culture, the NSS lobbyist and NASA contractors, have chosen
to snub comsats, and really commerce and general, as some sort of
hanger-on.   You promote projects like SSTO and SEI that are not
targeted at comsats.  Too bad, because they remain the biggest launcher 
market, and the biggest potential customer of lower cost and more reliable
launch services.  It also reveals that your invocation of "commerce"
is just a ruse; you have no serious interesting in _using_ space
except for your own selfish goal, "I wanna go".  You don't realize
that the average businessman can see through that like a fish through
water. 

>If the project where executed, launch costs (among other costs) would be
>an order of magnitude lower than you estimate. 

Last you were talking it was _two_ orders of magnitude.  Make up your
mind!

(Notice how Allen avoids posting actual numbers, and is quick to flame
those who dare mention costs. That will really impress the investors, 
Allen :-)

>Any estimate which fails to
>account for this was either made by a fool

You're right.  I am a fool for repeating over and over the same 
common-sense business facts to folks who have their minds made
up, and really couldn't give a damn about business anyway, but
just want to use it to justify the same old failed junk.


-- 
Nick Szabo					 szabo@techboook.com
Hold Your Nose: vote Republocrat  ////////  Breathe Free: vote Libertarian