From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:58:56 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Oct11.081102.10795@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>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.   

Well, that's what happens when you're developing technology in the
real world, rather than the world of "I, Robot."  You push things
until they break.  Then you figure out why they broke, go back, and
fix them.  This is the same way every aircraft is developed.  Except
that no aircraft is declared operational after four test flights. It
takes hundreds of flights.  And not infrequently, aircraft prototypes
do go boom during the development stage.  The problem with the Shuttle
is that each flight required so much preparation that it was not possible
to carry out that many test flights -- at least, not within a period of
less than 20 or 30 years.


>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.

Yes, commerce launches its satellites on vehicles developed
to carry atomic warheads, which later accomodated commercial
payloads as peripheral add-ons.  Big difference.  Except, of
course, that the Atlas and Titan, two of the rockets used most 
frequently by commercial customers, were modified to carry
astronauts at roughly the same time they were modified to
carry satellites.

And even with the most expensive satellites on top, these
missiles still have a tendency to go "boom" as frequently
as the Space Shuttle.

Oh, you might also see if you can dig up a philosophy professor 
somewhere and ask if he'll explain the logical fallacy called
"extrapolating from a single example."


>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.  

You, on the other hand, are completely different.  You snub comm sats
in favor of mining the asteroids.


>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; 

Or maybe, just maybe, Nick, they have enough imagination to believe
that space is big enough for more than *one* businesses.


>>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 :-)

The numbers he's talking about, Nick, are yours.  It doesn't matter
whether the number is two orders of magnitude higher or one; you'll
just take whatever seems like a credible estimate and tack as many
zeroes onto the end of it as you need to make your point. Generally,
you do this at several stages of the calculation, so that you can
come up with a really whopping figure at the end.

Meanwhile, you refuse to be pinned down about any of the holes
in your scheme, which depends on the commercial availability of
AI technologies that don't exist even in the laboratory.


>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.

Kid, I was running a business probably before you were old enough
to have a paper route.  
Newsgroups: sci.space