Date: 25 Jun 91 19:13:28 GMT
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!hsvaic!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re:  Business in space

In article <3008@ke4zv.UUCP> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>This is simply ideology talking. There is no evidence that large scale
>capital is available for space investment. There is no plausible scheme 
>that starts from where we are and bootstraps us to large scale industrial
>use of space based solely on private capital. As Nick is fond of pointing
>out, the comsats are the only commercially viable industry that is space
>based and primarily privately funded. And that industry depends in large
>part on infrastructure developed and paid for by government funds in it's
>previous generation. Without infrastructure and technical demonstration
>projects, private capital in the large quanities needed for industrial
>development of space is simply not going to be risked by the private sector.

I speak from personal experience here.  Boeing's Board of Directors was
willing to invest $1 billion to develop the Jarvis launch vehicle for
use by Hughes and other satellite builders.  I know this because my
boss at the time was one of the people who made the presentation to the
BOD.  The program did not go ahead because (1) we needed to get all
three satellite builders (Ford, Hughes, and RCA) to commit as customers,
which would have given us a monopoly on comsat launch, which would
violate anti-trust laws, and (2) the only other customer with lots
of payloads, the US Air Force, was not interested in a commercial
rocket over which they had no control of the design requirements (even
though it was 50% cheaper that way).  There was every reason to
believe that given the customers, the capital was available.

My second example from personal experience was the ISF. 
Westinghouse was the prime contractor for Space Industries.  Space
Industries was able to raise $400 million in capital, part of it
from contractors, part from the financial markets.  Boeing was
a subcontractor for the docking equipment and the equipment racks.
We proposed to develop them for the ISF by 1992, and later use the
same design for the Space Station.  This way the hardware would
have had a space test before Freedom used it.  A massively useful
thing to do with the ISF would be to launch the life support
system along with a couple of racks of animals, to give it a
real test in space BEFORE the manned crew rely on it to breathe.
Again, NASA saw it as a competitor to Freedom, and refused to
sign up as the 'anchor tenant', so the ISF died for lack of
customer.  

I suspect that if the ISF was done internally by NASA, and had
a name like 'Space Station Life Support System Orbital Test-Bed',
it could probably have been sold and be flying in a couple of years,
even with Space Industries as the builder.  

Plausible Scheme:

Phase I:	Small Mach 2-3 mechanical catapult with liquid-air
		augmented fixed ramjet "X-40" spaceplane.  
		Seats pilot and 1 passenger. Vehicle mass about
		6000 lb max takeoff wt.  Funded with commercial
		sponsors (like Coors 'Silver Bullet'), and 
		private sponsors that want to fly faster than
		an SR-71 (Mach 3.5), and perhaps get 'astronaut'
		status (requires 50 miles altitude).  Cost in
		The few millions, using mostly aircraft components
		except for ramjet and liquid air injector system.
		Function is to demonstrate catapult & spaceplane
		work.

Phase II:	Delete people and substitute autopilot and off-the
		shelf missile (military) to achieve sub-orbital
		sounding rocket capability.  The missile is fired
		at the peak of the spaceplane trajectory.  This
		should undercut regular sounding rockets (0.5-2 M$)
		since the spaceplane and catapult are reuseable.
		The missile should be in the 0.1M$ range each

Phase III:	Replace off-the shelf missile with rugged, reuseable
		liquid propellant projectile (using e.g. Nitric Acid
		Kerosine propellants).  Lowers cost because now entire
		system is reuseable.  Sell copies of system to
		University research centers and small countries that
		want low-cost per launch sounding rocket flights.
		Market launch slots for smaller customers.  

Phase IV:	Replace small catapult and spaceplane with a light
		gas gun and fire the projectile to higher speeds than
		the Mach 6-7 that the catapult/spaceplane can reach.
		Put solid kick motor plus payload on top of projectile
		and get ~10 kg to low orbit.  Deliver fuel to Freedom,
		worth on order of 200M$/yr by replacing 1 shuttle
		launch.

Phase V:	Upgrade gas gun (extend barrel, add 2nd chamber).
		Projectile now can get to orbit with little or no
		kick motor, increases payload to 50-100kg.  Deliver
		small robots to orbit which collect payloads and
		via teleoperation start constructing useful things
		like:

Phase VI:	Orbital tether capable of reaching partway down from
		orbit.  Electric propulsion system to maintain tether
		orbit.  Projectile does not have to get to orbit any
		more, only to the bottom of the tether, further 
		increasing payload capacity.

Rough business numbers:		
Phase		Capital required	Revenue Generated
I		a few M$		a few M$ from sponsors
II		$2M to modify for missile  $3M/yr @ 10 launches/yr
III		$6M for projectile	$50M for 5 systems (2 Univ,
					  3 small countries)
IV		$10-20M			$100M station refuel
V		$40M			$500M station refuel +
					 comsat upper stage fuel
VI		$100M			300 t/yr @ $3M/t=$900M/yr

Dani Eder
Boeing Advanced Civil Space Systems

Date: 1 Jul 91 13:54:36 GMT
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!hsvaic!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL
Subject: Re: Business in space
To: space@andrew.cmu.edu

In article <1991Jun27.075300.16783@demon.co.uk> Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes:
>In-Reply-To:  eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
> 
>What new knowledge would further sub-orbital sounding rocket flights
>give us ? - apart from testing new rocket technology. Surely most of
>this work has already been covered in the 50s & 60s ?
>
>I'm not disputing that they're worthwhile, just curious as to what
>they would tell us.


There is a market (at the right price) for zero gravity with durations
in minutes.  For durations of seconds you can use a drop tower (a hole
in the ground, evacuated, into which you drop things, which puts them
into free-fall until they hit bottom).  For durations of hours you have
to go into orbit.  The University of Alabama @ Huntsville just tried
to do a sounding rocket flight for $2 million, carrying a bunch of
zero-g experiments.  The rocket veered off course and had to be
destroyed by range safety (I don't know if the payload package was
recovered).  So even at high cost and low reliability there is some
market today.  Given higher reliability and lower cost there should be
a better market.


-- 
Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Civil Space/(205)464-2697(w)/461-7801(h)/#905, 1075
Dockside Dr.,Huntsville,AL35824/Member: Space Studies Institute
Physical Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.
***THE ABOVE IS NOT THE OPINION OF THE BOEING COMPANY OR ITS MANAGEMENT.***

Date: 1 Jul 91 15:02:43 GMT
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!hsvaic!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL
Subject: Re:  Bootstrap Scenario Details
To: space@andrew.cmu.edu

In article <44449@fmsrl7.UUCP> wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter) writes:
>In article <342@hsvaic.boeing.com> eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes:
>~Phase I:	Small Mach 2-3 mechanical catapult with liquid-air
>~		augmented fixed ramjet "X-40" spaceplane.  
>~Rough business numbers:		
>~Phase		Capital required	Revenue Generated
>~I		a few M$		a few M$ from sponsors
>
>I find it EXTREMELY difficult to believe that a Mach 2 catapult,
>plus a 2-person spaceplane, could be built for < $10 million.
>Maybe it if were unmanned, but not manned.  The cost of land for
>the catapult alone (where do you get the safety zone you need for
>a reasonable price?) would run a fair fraction of $10 mil.

I am thinking in terms of a one-off experimental aircraft built
like the Voyager round-the-world aircraft, i.e. a good deal of
sweat equity by people who can later say 'I was part of that
project'.  We need a pilot who will take a large risk in return
for achieving astronaut status (requires >50 miles altitude)

The meachanical catapult is designed thus:
To achieve Mach 3 (900 m/s) at 6 g's acceleration requires a path
length of d=(v^2)/2a= 7km.  Find two mountain peaks 7 km apart.
On peak A place the spaceplane on a slightly upward sloping
ramp.  Assume the spaceplane masses 5 metric tons (this is not
an actual estimate, it is to further elaborate the catapult
components.)  If the acceleration is 6 g's, then a 30 ton
force is required.  This can be provided by a kevlar rope
1/2 inch in diameter.  The rope is strung over to peak B.
On peak B, we need a good slope.  Say a 45 degree slope is
available, 250 m high and 350 m long.  At the top we
have a heavy duty axle with two drums, with a 20:1 ratio
of diameters.  The large diameter drum winds in the kevlar
rope.  The small diameter one winds out a heavier rope
connected to a drop weight that powers the launch.  With
a 20:1 ratio, the drop weight needs to accelerate at
0.3 g's, and provide an accelerating force of 600 tons to
the axle.  It's travel is 7000/20=350 m, which is our required
slope.

To get 0.3 g's going down a 45 degree slope, the mass needs
to be about 1000 tons (allowing for some frictional losses)

The drop mass is reinforced concrete sliding down greased
rails.

Cost components:

Drop weight 700 cubic yards reinforced concrete @$100/yd = $70K
700 m rail: 200 cubic yards reinf. concrete + 50t
steel @ $1000/t = $70
Drop weight rope: 600t @ 8 x 1 inch high strength steel
cables (bridge cable type), 17 tons @ 3000/ton = $50K.
Axle: 600 ton capacity = 25x railroad axle capacity, special
order item 5000 lb forgings & bearings @ $75/lb = $375K.
Tow rope = 3750 lb @ $100/lb kevlar = $375K.

Total so far = $940K.

Sweat equity & donated/scrounged hardware reduces this by
60%, to $375K.  Balance of 2-3 million mostly for spaceplane.


-- 
Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Civil Space/(205)464-2697(w)/461-7801(h)/#905, 1075
Dockside Dr.,Huntsville,AL35824/Member: Space Studies Institute
Physical Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.
***THE ABOVE IS NOT THE OPINION OF THE BOEING COMPANY OR ITS MANAGEMENT.***

Date: 1 Jul 91 15:26:57 GMT
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!hsvaic!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL
Subject: Re: Access to Space
To: space@andrew.cmu.edu

In article <1991Jun29.072145.14563@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes:
>In article <ROCKWELL.91Jun27084358@socrates.umd.edu> rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) writes:
>
>market, but that's the point.  Such collusion would have eliminated all the 
>other ways of launching, regardless of merit, just as NASA attempted to 
>eliminate everything but the STS in the late 70's and early 80's.   For
>an existing market we need competition between a variety of methods, 
>rather than collusion one particular method.
>
>For Jarvis, the R&D costs (c. $1,000 million) were slightly too high, and 
>the demand slightly too low, for large cost reduction to occur.  Furthermore,
>this was still the era of the subsidized STS.  Only a fool competes with
>the IRS.  Thus, Boeing management rejected the development effort.  We can 
>argue all day on what specifically those numbers were, but that was the 
>reasoning of seasoned commercial aerospace businessmen.  On the other hand, 
>Orbital Sciences Corporation and Hercules developed an interesting new way of 
>launching satellites for only $50 million in R&D.  Pegasus, if it proves
>to be reliable, improves several important variables in launch transportation 
>(including response time and entry level cost), and may pay back the 
>investment several times over.  The key difference is that R&D costs 
>were a factor of 20 lower than for Jarvis.
>

Hi Nick!

Let me clear up a few points:  The Jarvis project got started as a
specific response by a Hughes VP to being kicked off the Shuttle.
That VP had a specific size vehicle (100klb payload) in mind, which
is the size we stayed with.  We always had in mind that there would
be future business launching space station stuff and military
satellites, in fact what we had in the Jarvis concept is very
close to what NASA was proposing for it's smaller version of the
Shuttle-C.  

But in a very parallel way to what happens on the airplane side,
it takes a customer telling us what they want to initially size
an airplane/rocket.  Then we see if there are enough customers
to kick off the program for real.  This is not all the customers
there are, just enough to get started.  There was an airplane
project called the 7J7 that died a couple of years ago for lack
of customers, even though we had reached the point of having
hundreds of engineers working on it and lining up Japan for
a 25% share in the program.  There just werent enough customers
to make a go of it.  

The major point I was trying to make was that given the customers,
there is billion dollar money available and willing to be spent.
Alas, in this case, the market wasn't there (it was physically,
but a key customer, the USAF, didn't want out product).  We also
can't get Air France to buy Boeing airplanes, but that's life, they
prefer Airbus.

I personally think that Pegasus is a great program, since it is
small and thus inexpensive to develop in absolute dollars.  Note
that the JArvis would have given 100x the payload for 20x the
development cost.  The good thing about being small is that
you don't have to get the major part of the market to buy your
service to make a profit.

Unfortunately, for a big company, If I as an engineer want to
start a small launcher program, it has to go through half a
dozen layers of management for approval, and if each one is a
50% chance, then the the total p(go) is 1.5%.  In the
Jarvis case, it was a Hughes VP talking initially to a Boeing
VP, and so only a few layers of higher approval were required.

A smaller operation has less approval levels to go through, and
thus less chance of a project being killed.  (I wonder if I just
discovered the major reason big companies are outcompeted by
small companies?)

-- 
Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Civil Space/(205)464-2697(w)/461-7801(h)/#905, 1075
Dockside Dr.,Huntsville,AL35824/Member: Space Studies Institute
Physical Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.
***THE ABOVE IS NOT THE OPINION OF THE BOEING COMPANY OR ITS MANAGEMENT.***