Mike

Mike

Are we reading the same comments from the same poster? Anonymous.space’s comments are articulate, clear, and demonstrate great understanding. He/she is one of the main reasons I come to this site. Ad hominem attacks do not benefit your argument, and they’re even more worthless when they’re just wrong.

You’ll probably dismiss me for anonymity as well, but to paraphrase “anon”, some of us aren’t exactly toeing the party line in our business.

Look, Mr. Snead, if my critique of your proposal really is that poorly put together, then it shouldn’t take much effort for you to refute it, point-by-point. If my reasoning or facts are in error, please do correct me. I’m willing to learn.

But don’t you hide behind an ad hominem attack on my anonymous status, when the owner of this forum (Mr. Foust) has repeatedly welcomed anonymous comments. You can choose not to respond, but don’t denigrate me without going into the substance of the argument I’ve offered.

“For some reason, anonymous.space chooses to hide their identity. There is no reason for this”

Sure there is. Some of us have day jobs that we have to protect.

“unless they are simply trying to gain support for some position which benefits them directly or indirectly”

Yeah, I work for the anti-space infrastructure development FGC lobby. It’s right up there with tobacco and petroleum lobbies.

[rolls eyes]

” If he or she believes they have valid questions, asking questions is certainly something that anyone can do regardless of where they work or their position. Asking questions about a proposal, such as I made in the article, does not require elaboration on their personal views. Encouraging such discussions are why the article was written and why this discussion forum exists.”

I don’t have questions about the proposal. I have constructive criticisms, which this forum is also for and which I hoped the proposal could benefit from. If you choose not to accept them, because they’re wrong or because you just don’t want to, that’s fine. But don’t attack me personally for offering them. I critiqued your proposal, but I never attacked you or your credentials. Argue the facts, logic, and opinions of the posters, not the posters themselves. You shouldn’t have to be told twice.

Thank you.

For some reason, anonymous.space chooses to hide their identity. There is no reason for this unless they are simply trying to gain support for some position which benefits them directly or indirectly. If he or she believes they have valid questions, asking questions is certainly something that anyone can do regardless of where they work or their position. Asking questions about a proposal, such as I made in the article, does not require elaboration on their personal views. Encouraging such discussions are why the article was written and why this discussion forum exists.

Mike

“Hence, starting to build and then to operate an integrated spacefaring logistics infrastructure where private industry is called upon to undertake the design, production, installation, and most operation of the infrastructure will provide opportunities that do not exist today for alt.space companies to gain a foothold and then to grow into substantial space enterprises.”

As it relates to “alt space”, the problem with the FGC model is that most entrepreneurial space companies are not interested in designing, building, or operating infrastructure for the government (in the form of an FGC or otherwise) or anyone else. Their business models, right or wrong, are all about designing, building, and operating infrastructure that they own and with which they can sell services to various customers, including the government. Space-X is not building Falcon I, Falcon 9, and Dragon to turn over to the government. Rather, Space-X plans to own these assets and sell their services to various customers, including NASA. Same goes for Bigelow and Sundancer and BA 330. Same goes for Virgin Galactic and the SpaceShipTwo fleet.

Heck, there are commercial entities outside the “alt space” world that operate on this model. United Launch Alliance owns EELV infrastructure and sells EELV launch services to the military and NASA. Same goes for OSC and Pegasus. Same goes for SpaceHab.

I apologize if I sound like a broken record, but again, it makes no sense and very bad policy for the government to create an entity that, instead of buying services from these pre-existing commercial companies, has as its primary mission to create an infrastructure that competes with them.

“The facilitation of this growth of new American private space enterprise would be an essential purpose of the FGC. The Tennessee Valley Authority, an early FGC, had similar objectives in terms of increasing private enterprise in the rural south. Building dams and generating electricity was only one of many TVA objectives.”

But electrification of the rural south was no doubt the TVA’s main, driving objective. And unlike the proposed FGC to develop ETO and Earth orbit infrastructure, the TVA had no pre-existing commercial competition for electrical power generation and supply in the areas the TVA was trying to electrify. (If there had been such commercial electricty suppliers, there would have been no need to electrify and no need for the TVA.)

FGCs exist where commercial companies do not exist, to address needs that the private sector does not address. A space infrastructure FGC, especially for ETO and Earth orbit, does the exact opposite. It would invade a segment of the national economy where commercial companies do exist and create competition for companies that are already meeting public and private needs in that segment.

I’m not trying to be mean, but until the FGC proposal addresses this reality and adopts a different model, especially for any ETO and Earth orbit infrastructure where there are numerous existing and planned commercially owned capabilities, the proposal is very bad policy and likely an unrealistic non-starter politically.

“A fully-reusable, two-stage space access system capable of deploying a 25,000 lb net payload to the ISS has a gross weight of about 2.9 million lbs. The system development effort consists of a booster, orbiter, cargo, container, 10-person passenger spaceplane, booster engine, orbiter engine, and spaceplane engine.”

Why 25k lbs. to ISS? Why 10 passengers? Why a fully reusable TSTO?

In the absence of any driving end objective, it’s not clear why the proposal is picking these vehicles with these technical characteristics. For example, going all the way back to the ’70s, most studies show that the costs of developing an RLV cannot be justified or paid back without annual flight rates in the range of 50-60 flights per year (at least). But the FAA currently forecasts an annual world-wide demand for commercial launches that’s only about half that (25-35 flights per year). So the TSTO RLV proposed for this FGC would have to capture the entire commercial launch market and then double it to make good investment sense. Is that realistic? Or is the TSTO RLV infrastructure for the sake of infrastructure?

Instead of starting with the infrastructure, I’d urge Mr. Snead to start with the end-goals of his proposed FGC and then let that drive the infrastructure. For example, the FGC could have the goal of developing the Moon (as opposed to space in general), a goal that might get translated into putting in place enough surface habitats, power, and supplies (ISRU and delivered) to support X paying visitors and Y kg of their hardware each year (where X and Y increase with time). A TSTO RLV might not fit that goal — it might be better addressed and/or at lower cost using existing and soon-to-exist commercial launch vehicles.

Focusing a little on the end-goals like this (instead of the infrastructure) could have the benefit of moving the FGC out of the realm of competing with existing or soon-to-exist commercially owned assets (ETO and Earth orbit) and into a realm (such as the Moon) where the private sector does not yet exist and the FGC can serve a public good. It would also have the benefit of more clearly driving the FGC’s proposed technical solutions, showing where the FGC can leverage existing commercial services to ETO and in Earth orbit, where the FGC must develop new infrastructure, and what minimum technical characteristics that new infrastructure must have (TSTO RLV or otherwise) to fulfill the end-goals in the FGC’s charter.

I’m not saying the Moon is necessarily the right target for an FGC. But I think this proposal would benefit enormously from more clearly delineating public (FGC) from private (commercial capabilities) roles and some thinking about specific end-goals before jumping into infrastructure.

My 2 cents… FWIW.

Developing new flight systems for public use that have acceptable levels of safety is far from simple. It is especially difficult for new start companies that do not have the benefit of an integrated and experienced workforce. The challenge of forming a successful new company becomes even more challenging for spaceflight, whether getting to and from space or operating within space.

As we all expect, most new start companies approach these problems in a highly optimistic manner leaving the impression that the problems can be easily overcome though a new twist in the design process or a potentially revolutionary advancement in technology. Unfortunately, unexpected technical challenges have typically arisen that have caused delays and cost increases.

I thought it might be helpful to place these development efforts into perspective. A fully-reusable, two-stage space access system capable of deploying a 25,000 lb net payload to the ISS has a gross weight of about 2.9 million lbs. The system development effort consists of a booster, orbiter, cargo, container, 10-person passenger spaceplane, booster engine, orbiter engine, and spaceplane engine. The total effort required to develop this system is estimated at 100,000-125,000 work years. For comparison, a typical Boeing commercial airliner may require 20,000-25,000 work-years. It will require substantial industrial capabilities to undertake the development of such a new spaceflight system. This would appear to be beyond the capabilities of a modestly-funded new company.

Another key aspect is achieving the necessary airworthiness needed for routine passenger transport. This, again, is an area where established corporate experience and expertise is important. To achieve an airworthiness certification, the FAA or some other governmental body will require substantiation of the airworthiness of the design. This is generally done in an evolutionary manner. A near-term, fully-reusable, two-stage space access system will still draw upon substantial existing subsystems and similar subsystem designs. New companies may not have ready access to such information.

Developing industrial mastery of spacefaring operations would be an important objective of a FGC. We need new blood in this industry and building the spacefaring logistics infrastructure provides a very good opportunity for encouraging and enabling this goal. This opens the door for new-start companies to enter successfully into space business, to form partnerships with existing companies to draw upon their established capabilities, and to bring innovation and a new enthusiasm to space operations.

Mike

The key emphasis of such groups has been on space exploration. We need to now shift emphasis to spacefaring logistics. Under the “Spacefaring America” banner, I would envision a federation of pro-space organizations that support the establishment of spacefaring logistics infrastructure because this step is enabling for the individual organizations to more practically achieve their goals.

Why is this appropriate at this time? My belief is that there is a general public myth of a “space access barrier” where the public perceives that significant technological advancement is needed before fully-reusable space access with “aircraft-like” safety and operability can be achieved. While this is true for single-stage, I do not believe it is true for two-stage systems based on my 20+ years of direct experience. With the development of fully-reusable, two-stage space access systems, developing and deploying the in-space elements of a useful integrated spacefaring logistics infrastructure become practical. Undertaking these steps would be the focus of the public-private partnership that I have proposed for this purpose. The “Spacefaring America” federation would strive to dispel this space access barrier myth and to promote the public-private partnership.

Mike

With respect to the comments of “alt.space” enterprises”

Building an integrated spacefaring logistics infrastructure will be undertaken through many individual projects of different sizes and complexities. Some will be of the scale that large companies may be best positioned to be responsive to the request for proposals while others will be of smaller scale and, therefore, more accessible to smaller companies. Hence, starting to build and then to operate an integrated spacefaring logistics infrastructure where private industry is called upon to undertake the design, production, installation, and most operation of the infrastructure will provide opportunities that do not exist today for alt.space companies to gain a foothold and then to grow into substantial space enterprises.

The facilitation of this growth of new American private space enterprise would be an essential purpose of the FGC. The Tennessee Valley Authority, an early FGC, had similar objectives in terms of increasing private enterprise in the rural south. Building dams and generating electricity was only one of many TVA objectives.

Why should the spacefaring logistics FGC be interested in this as an objective? The answer lies in the clear need to improve the industrial base’s mastery of logistics operations in space and to provide for the injection of innovation into the process. The act of becoming involved in building the new infrastructure will provide businesses of all sizes with the opportunity to gain new expertise, experience, and industrial capabilities that will significantly enhance their competitive position with respect to future private space enterprise operations. It will also provide the opportunity for these businesses, especially smaller businesses, to argue the merits of innovative approaches to designing, building, and operating the infrastructure. Hence, undertaking the building of a spacefaring logistics infrastructure through the leadership of a FGC should significantly enhance the business prospects for alt.space companies and benefit the FGC’s goal of providing robust, effective, and efficient spacefaring logistics capabilities to the nation.

[[[Actually that of one of the key problems with the alt.space movement, they believe too much in science fiction. It fun to read, but you should base national space policy on it.]]]

Should be

Actually that is one of the key problems with the alt.space movement, they believe too much in science fiction. It fun to read, but you shouldn’t base national space policy on it.