From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sat Dec 30 2000 - 14:54:08 MST
On Saturday, December 30, 2000 8:04 AM Greg Burch GBurch1@aol.com wrote:
> What are we to think of the news that Roton looks like it's crashing and
the
> other "indie" booster-builders of the 1990s are either dead or dying? I
hate
> to admit it, but like so many stories in the space arena, it looks like
> another case of "too little, too early." All of these endeavors seem to
> share a common theme: A single visionary who manages to sell an image of
> being able to "do it different this time" to just enough investors and
> engineers to get a highly visible start, followed by a painful,
embarrassing
> failure before anything really gets off the ground. The community of
space
> enthusiasts seems to have had such a short memory for these failures that
the
> pattern has been able to repeat itself a number of times.
I agree with some of this, BUT the same is true of new businesses and
inventions in general. Many or most fail. A few survive. The particularly
vexing problem in the space industry is that there are several, heavily
government funded space agencies out there absorbing most of the launch
dollars. If these ceased operation, I bet we would have more private launch
companies.
However, that said, Sea Launch, a public-private venture funded by some big
names in the aerospace industry, has had successful launches. (See
http://www.sea-launch.com/) However, unlike Roton, conventional launch
technology is being used. Yeah, the launch pad -- onboard a ship -- is
unconventional -- though many captured V2 rockets were launched at sea --
but their main launch vehicle is not.
I think this is more in line with the kind of thinking a private launch
company needs. I.e., off-the-shelf technology. On this list previously,
I've even championed the idea of just using old Saturn V designs for a heavy
launch vehicle. Surely, the patents have expired, though others have
brought up documentation problems, so it might not be practical. Still, why
stick to Saturns. There are old Titans, Atlases, and the like.
> For myself, at least, I've think I've finally gotten to the point that I
> won't be fooled again. The technology just hasn't gotten to the point
that
> private venture investment can make a go of it. There aren't any
> intermediate steps to orbit to establish an incremental approach that
> smaller, private ventures can build on one step at a time: The initial
> threshold of success is just too high.
Not so! One can get into related technologies and support services. Much
of this area is already done by private firms. NASA, e.g., doesn't build
rockets. Private companies build them for it.
Also, there is a small market for sounding rockets and the like.
And why not take something along the lines of the X-15 or SR-71 and make it
into an expensive thrill ride or even a suborbital spacecraft or satelite
launcher? (One company was taking an approach like this by launching from
under the belly of B-52s. I don't recall its name or the success, though I
think it was focused on the military launch market.)
> Until material and manufacturing
> technology get to the point where a relatively small group of people can
make
> a go of it n one relatively short push from start to finish, I think space
> access will continue to be the domain of governments and huge
institutions.
I won't deny that, though not just because of plain old market barriers to
entry, but because of the above reasons I noted above: government space
agencies subsidize launches.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:36 MST