One of the good things about this weblog is that it not only introduces space issues to people who don't normally get exposed to them, but it offers an opportunity to thrash them out with other people in the industry, perhaps giving them and me a new perspective on the problem. The fact that we have to have such conversations is one of the reasons that I've decided to finish my book on space technology and policy.

In response to today's Fox News column, I got an email from a Bill Kunce, who I assume works for USA in Houston.

After reading your response to Tony Ianettie, I reread your article "For Lack Of A Nail... ". I too an an engineer for NASA at JSC in Houston (actually I work for a subcontracted aerospace company). My comments are: You can't really compare the loss of 1 DC-10 not shutting down the airline industry to the Challenger halting the space program. Aircraft manufacturers have 100+ customers to support their industry; manned space flight only has two - USA and Russia (which also are their own manufacturers - China will be their soon).

Well, I thought that that was exactly my point. It's why the comparison is interesting.

Next comes the obligatory (incorrect) conventional wisdom:

The cost development process for a manned spacecraft is several orders of magnitude greater than a passenger aircraft. Only a government (and very few) would have the financial resources for that development. How many private space flight companies currently exist? Manned, none. Unmanned, a few are starting up.

There is insufficient data to determine if a space transport requires "orders of magnitude" more development cost than an air transport, since we've never attempted to build the former. Capsules on expendable vehicles are totally inapplicable in evaluating the cost of fully-reusable vehicles, and the only empirical data that we have for the latter is Shuttle, which is also inapplicable, for several reasons: it's not fully reusable; it was overspecified; given those overspecifications, its development funding was insufficient for the technology and knowledge of the time; it was done by the government on a cost-plus contract basis; it was done with technology available three decades ago; and its primary mission was to give NASA and its contractors something to do after Apollo wound down, rather than minimize either development or operational costs.

In addition, even if those conditions didn't exist, it's only a single data point, and is not particularly useful to extrapolate to the general case.

Certainly only governments are capable (or willing) to fund such programs, but this has nothing to do with low-cost access to space.

And as to the fact that there are few private companies doing manned space, this is a problem only in the short term. There are actually several, and they are either being self funded and bootstrapping, or raising needed funds. Their market is tourism, a market which is being taken more and more seriously as time goes on.

Considering the "next generation launch system, as thought there will only be one". As I stated above, there are beginning to emerge companies to support unmanned satellites. But no manned systems. And if you look at the Russians, the only reason they are still in business is that we let them sign-on to the ISS program. Maybe with the advent of space tourism, some entrepreneurs will succeed.

That is the market, and that will be the inevitable result of current demand and trends.

Why do you consider a focus remaining on technology and vehicle concepts, beside the point? Technology and the advancement of such got us into space.

They are beside the point not because they aren't necessary, but because they aren't the major factor holding us back. Markets, finance, and regulatory issues are. Solve those, and the technology will be developed, if it's not available off the shelf (as in fact most of it is).

Vehicle concepts? That's the process of determining what is the safest and most economical path into space.

Yes, but it's not the primary problem. There are lots of ways to solve the technical problem, given funding and incentive.

We DO recognize the "currently infinitesimal market size for space transportation". We're the only one's really in the business.

You don't have a "business." All you have is a NASA contract. There's a lot more to business than following the direction of bureaucrats. It involves market research, marketing, sales, R&D (with your own money, not funds reimbursable by the government), etc.

What do you mean by "the traditional aerospace contractors"? NASA uses whomever submits the best plan at the most reasonable cost.

As long as NASA is the only customer, there's no hope of making space affordable. See the title to this post.

Have you got any "untraditional solutions"? NASA is working on ion engines and other propulsion techniques. How much diversity do you believe there is in launching a rocket? Only one way to do it, a LOT of thrust! I agree that a diversity of provides can only be supported by a large demand. But the demand isn't there yet.

This is my favorite paragraph, because it encapsulates just how much we are working at cross purposes. Bill believes that if we only had the right technology, that all would be well--a typical engineering response. The point is that new approaches mean new approaches to developing markets and raising funds, not (just) designing and testing vehicles. It is not an engineering problem, it is an institutional and paradigm problem, and one that's amply demonstrated by this exchange.

Here comes more conventional "wisdom."

As I see it, "the problem with our space markets and approaches" is 1) We don't have a desire as a nation to support a vibrant space program, 2) We're not willing to spend the money to achieve that goal, 3) the complexities of living in space are sometimes greater that planned, 4) because of those complexities, NASA is blamed for poor planning. and 5) unlike during Mercury/Gemini/Apollo days, people seem to be driven more by the bottom line than by pride in accomplishments.

Our hostage holder is NOT "microscopic slivers of metal", it is the holders of the purse strings. When you buy cheap, you get cheap.

Let me translate.

"We at NASA and the contractor community have done nothing wrong. It's all the American peoples' fault. That they don't consider a three-person space station that took almost two decades to build, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars, or Space Shuttle missions that cost half a billion dollars apiece, an "accomplishment," and take pride in it, just shows how little they understand about space and how difficult and expensive it is. All we need is more money, nothing else needs to change."

Sorry, but given the government's performance in every other sphere, it's hard for me to believe that it's not possible to do space any better than the government does it.

I know it's just a tyop, but ... the Shuttle was to give NASA something to do after *Apollo* wound down.

NASA seems to be stuck in this mindset of "space travel is expensive and complex." And why is it this way? Because they can't afford to lose a single launch vehicle because they are expensive and complex. Why is the ISS so expensive? Because it has to work almost flawlessly because if something needed repairing or an astronaut was sick, it takes a minimum of two weeks and thousands of people to prepare a shuttle for launch. If, instead, we had a smaller fleet of many different kinds of vehicles, some just for people, some for cargo, and some for a mixture, the overall cost for both launches and a space station would be a fraction of what is spent. That oxygen generator is broken? Well, we'll have a new one up to you in 12 hours, not 12 days.

I disagree with Bill Kunce's comment that "the cost development process for a manned spacecraft is several orders of magnitude greater than a passenger aircraft." Yes, a spacecraft is more complex than a jet but I would like to think we've gotten a bit better at engineering, materials, and electronics since then. Most people don't realize that the 747 was designed over 35 years ago at a cost of over $1 billion and the development of the Boeing's new subsonic plane is estimated at $8 to $10 billion while the development cost of the Airbus 380 is estimated to be $11 billion.

What we need to do is try many different, inexpensive solutions, searching for the ones that work and learning from mistakes. Instead of spending $10 billion on a single next generation shuttle, the government should be funding 100 small studies at $20 million each 40 larger projects at $200 million each. Not all of them will work and there will be accidents and failures but we will evolve something that will be cheaper to fly, easier to maintain, and just as reliable as regular aircraft.

Doh!

Yes, read what I meant, not what I wrote. It's fixed now.

Many people, especially technologists, think that technology is decisive. They do so despite clear evidence that it almost never is. (Quick - name three companies that went out of biz because they picked the wrong technology. If technology was a huge factor, one name on that list would be Intel, as the x86 is deficient in so many ways, yet ....)

Technology is merely an check-box. If what you've got "works", for a fairly loose definition of "works", you're in the game. Whether you win or not will be determined by other factors.

"Why not go out on a limb? That's where the fruit is."

--Mark Twain

I never go a week without seeing something on one of my many cable science channels about the new, innovative designs that someone has for spacelaunches. Not from NASA, or from huge global companies with zillions of dollars to throw away, but small-time smart guys who want to use extra money and brain cells to come up with new ideas. Technology IS just a checkbox--and the interest IS there--now we just need to get past the "it's not possible" and start thinking about the reality of it--everything will fall into place.