🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan21.141726.1@max.u.washington.edu> games@max.u.washington.edu writes:
>Let me start by making 4 assumptions.

>1:  The DC-X tests in a couple of months will be a success.
>2:  MCD successfully builds more of the DC-X's as sounding rockets.
>3:  Funding for DC-Y never materializes.
>4:  We want the DC-Y and DC-1 to be built.

>Now, the question is, HOW to we accomplish this goal.  Assuming that the
>big G doesn't kick in money, we are left with convincing MD of the long
>term commercial viability of further development.

If Uncle Sam doesn't pay for the initial development of the Y vehicle
(and possibly DC1) it won't happen. Period.

The existing launch market simply isn't large enough to justify the
investment. The fact that nobody is making money in launch services at
the moment makes it a lot harder.

One DC-1 would be enough for almost all of the current launch market.

BTW, it turns out that at least two other contractors have developed
SSTO designs. One is intended as a Titan IV replacement.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------141 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

In <1993Jan26.024338.10181@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>If Uncle Sam doesn't pay for the initial development of the Y vehicle
>(and possibly DC1) it won't happen. Period.

That is by no means certain.  Lockheed was ready to proceed with an 
SSTO using its own money, if the government was willing to get out
of the way.  Grumman was prepared to go ahead with the development
of a smaller, commercial SSTO (Frequent Flyer) using its own funds, 
if SDIO had selected its proposal for the suborbital demonstration 
phase.  Boeing is prepared to go ahead with an SSTO project, if it
can be shown what the markets are.  

McDonnell Douglas found that the Japanese were willing to finance
the development of DC-Y, provided they got access to the technology
as well as a piece of the action (something the US State Department
would probably never allow).


>One DC-1 would be enough for almost all of the current launch market.

That's because you're looking at the wrong market.  Any vehicle that
can reach orbit, single-staged, can reach Japan or Tokyo as well.  There
is a market for fast transportation, for people as well as cargo.  Beyond
that, space tourism is a major market -- much more so than the satellite
launch market, according to G. Harry Stine.


>BTW, it turns out that at least two other contractors have developed
>SSTO designs. 

Five that I'm aware of, if you include assisted (air-launched) single-
stage-to-orbit.  (I assume you're limiting yourself to designs produced
in the last couple years.)

In article <ewright.728027076@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>>If Uncle Sam doesn't pay for the initial development of the Y vehicle
>>(and possibly DC1) it won't happen. Period.

>That is by no means certain.  

For the forssable future, I think it is.

>Lockheed was ready to proceed with an 
>SSTO using its own money, if the government was willing to get out
>of the way.  

What do you mean by out of the way?

>Grumman was prepared to go ahead with the development
>of a smaller, commercial SSTO (Frequent Flyer) using its own funds, 
>if SDIO had selected its proposal for the suborbital demonstration 

That is news to me. Grumman was not one of the Phase I contractors.

>Boeing is prepared to go ahead with an SSTO project, if it
>can be shown what the markets are.  

Sure. The operative words are 'if it can be shown what the markets are'.
They won't settle for expected space tourism or other applications which
may or may not happen.

>>One DC-1 would be enough for almost all of the current launch market.

>That's because you're looking at the wrong market.  

I am looking at the existing launch market. There are no others.

>Any vehicle that
>can reach orbit, single-staged, can reach Japan or Tokyo as well.  There
>is a market for fast transportation, for people as well as cargo.  Beyond
>that, space tourism is a major market -- much more so than the satellite
>launch market, according to G. Harry Stine.

I agree. The problem is that this cannot be proven to the degree needed
to justify the opportunity cost of funding development. If you don't
agree, show us your buisness plan.

    Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------140 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

In <1993Jan27.020909.11819@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>For the forssable future, I think it is.

Fortunately, your opinions are not acts of God. :-)


>>Lockheed was ready to proceed with an 
>>SSTO using its own money, if the government was willing to get out
>>of the way.  

>What do you mean by out of the way?

I'm only repeating what I heard, but I think it's fairly obvious
they were talking about regulation (and maybe a guarantee that
the government would not build something to compete with them).


>>Grumman was prepared to go ahead with the development
>>of a smaller, commercial SSTO (Frequent Flyer) using its own funds, 
>>if SDIO had selected its proposal for the suborbital demonstration 

>That is news to me. Grumman was not one of the Phase I contractors.

Grumman's bid was declared ineligible because it was not technically
single-stage-to-orbit.  (It's air-launched from a 747.)


>>Boeing is prepared to go ahead with an SSTO project, if it
>>can be shown what the markets are.  

>Sure. The operative words are 'if it can be shown what the markets are'.
>They won't settle for expected space tourism or other applications which
>may or may not happen.

Please tell me what else was said at the meeting, Allen.  I don't
recall hearing that.


>>That's because you're looking at the wrong market.  

>I am looking at the existing launch market. There are no others.

Oh?  Really?  I could have sworn I saw an ad in this morning's
paper for flights to Australia.  And that Society Expeditions
collected quite a few reservations for LEO tourist flights, 
just a few years back.  Guess the memory does play tricks
at my age.


>>There is a market for fast transportation, for people 
>>as well as cargo.  

>I agree. The problem is that this cannot be proven to the degree needed
>to justify the opportunity cost of funding development. 

I can't prove Santa Claus exists.  As for Federal Express... give
me your address and I'll have the evidence on your desk at 10:00
tomorrow morning.


>If you don't agree, show us your business plan.

Sorry, it's not my plan.  If you want to see it, you'll
have to talk to the copyright holder.

(Yes, I know, I'm a terrible fussbudget about these things.
Comes from being a professional writer.)

In article <1993Jan27.020909.11819@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <ewright.728027076@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
> 
>>Boeing is prepared to go ahead with an SSTO project, if it
>>can be shown what the markets are.  
> 
> Sure. The operative words are 'if it can be shown what the markets are'.
> They won't settle for expected space tourism or other applications which
> may or may not happen.

As far as I know, boeing doesn't really care WHAT you do with one of their
planes once you buy it (as long as you stay within the operational parameters).

To this end, "what the markets are" really means people lined up cash in hand
to buy one or two of these things.  

Boeing does study the airplane market, and it hurts when an airline goes under,
but they are not in the operations business.  This means that someone somewhere
needs to make an order for one or two of these birds.  Those are the people
that need to know "what the markets are".

This seems to be true of all of the people who are "willing" to build an SSTO.

My question is more on the order of "how do we convince the manufacturers that
they will be able to sell these things?"  Including the possibility that 
somehow WE as a group step up, and place an order.

		John.

In article <ewright.728179408@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
> In <1993Jan27.113743.1@max.u.washington.edu> games@max.u.washington.edu writes:
> 
>>My question is more on the order of "how do we convince the manufacturers that
>>they will be able to sell these things?"  Including the possibility that 
>>somehow WE as a group step up, and place an order.
> 
> One order is not going to convince Boeing to do anything.  They already
> know they could get one order.  The problem is, one vehicle could fly
> off the *entire* backlog of satellite launch orders, plus soon-to-be
> orders such as Iridium, in short order.  What Boeing wants is to see
> is proof that there's a large enough market to keep the orders coming
> in, and that's not satellites.
> 
Well, lets not limit this to Boeing.  I know less about the development cycle
for MD, and the rest of the people mentioned in earlier posts that want to
build SSTO's.

The real question is again "what specifically will it take"...  two separate 
companies making orders...  5 separate companies...  1 company ordering 10 ...
1 company ordering 20...

Assuming that the airline operational characteristics can be met (or hell,
even double that cost), and assuming that the tourism paper from that U.K.
guy is right, can you make money and pay off one of these things flying
say, 5 guys a week, at $50k per head, with a satellite launch for 1 or 2 mil
every other flight?  Assume that the satelite market goes away right after
you fly off the backlog (enough to pay off the first one?)  Thats 1/4 mil per
flight, for operational revenues of 12.5 mil per year (2 weeks off for 
dedicated maintenance)

Can you put 5 guys up for a week in the payload bay of a proposed SSTO? or
is it more like 10?   

Yes, later, you can put up a hotel can, and fly only saturday to take new
ones, and return old ones, and do something else during the week, but not at
first...  (Besides, at this point, you can make the can (like a tinker toy
set) big enough to run two rotations, and then three, and then...  so as the
cost of the flight goes down, you get more economy in scale...)  And then, the
first few flights, would cost more, in order to take advantage of the scarcity
of the product.  You might even get John Denver for 5 mil for your FIRST 
customer, and then some others at 1 mil each for the first 10 or 15 flights)
(And, yes, I realize that the developer will probably charge more for the
first one, so you can scratch thinking about making gobs of extra money off
these first flights.)

Assume that production SSTO's will cost what an airliner does, $40 mil or so,
right?  After operational expenses, fuel, etc...  The 12.5 mil/year leads
to payoff of the craft in 5 or so years.  How does an airline amoratize
its craft.  They have lasted 20 years, right?  Can you make enough money to
buy a second and a third, and a fourth...

These figures are so rough it hurts my hands to type them.  What are more
reasonable numbers.  Who puts them together?  And again, what are the potential
developers REALLY looking for in order to get into the SSTO production
business?

 John asserts Boeing doe snot study the airplane market on an operational
sense.

I have to disagree.  I know the other big companies constantly study the passeng
er market, looking for missions.  Sure, the airlines study the market,
but Boeing has to figure out what distance, payload and cost and speed.

the 727, 707, 747, 767 were all developed based upon studies that
N number of people wanted to go between certain distances and at certain
times.  otherwise we'd still be using DC-3s.

pat