Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I find it amusing that John Pike, who worked for years as an anti-military disarmament activist, now calls himself a "defense consultant" and is billed as such on Fox News.

If Pike ever finds a way to make money talking up new space transportation systems, I have a hunch he would switch sides there, too. He would be no better informed, of course, just as he is no better informed on defense matters, but he would be on the other side.

By the way, does anyone know what Pike's academic background really is? I understand he was never a scientist before becoming a spokesman for the Federation of American "Scientists."

Posted by at October 5, 2006 04:08 PM

As I recall, Pike doesn't even have a college degree.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at October 5, 2006 04:13 PM

Pike's academic background or lack of same is irrelevant (it is a variant on the appeal-to-authority logical fallacy). What matters is whether what he is saying is correct or not. And, as has been pointed out by Clark Lindsey and Lee Valentine, Pike is wrong.

Posted by Ed Minchau at October 5, 2006 05:00 PM

> Pike's academic background or lack of same is irrelevant (it is a variant
> on the appeal-to-authority logical fallacy).

Uh, no. You have it backwards.

An appeal to authority is when someone claims to prove an argument because of his occupation, background, or affiliation.

Verifying a person's occupation, background, or affiliation is not an appeal to authority. It may be a *refutation* of an appeal to authority, but refuting an argument is not the same as making the argument.

According to your rules, John Doe could call himself a forensic scientist in court, but no one would be allowed to ask if he was a forensic scientist or a fishpeddler.

Posted by Edward Wright at October 5, 2006 06:15 PM

"I find it amusing that John Pike, who worked for years as an anti-military disarmament activist, now calls himself a "defense consultant" and is billed as such on Fox News."

It might help to be precise:

1-Pike was never really "anti-military." He was anti-SDI. It's not the same thing.

1.5-He was also often critical of expensive weapons systems that did not work, but that is also not the same as being "anti-military." Is it patriotic to support every new weapons system the Pentagon wants? Are the people who opposed the Sergeant York DIVAD two decades ago "anti-military"?

2-News outlets frequently apply labels to their guests without the guest having much input into it or even knowing what the label is. Is Pike calling himself a "defense consultant" or is Fox News calling him that?

3-One does not have to be "pro-military" (whatever that means) in order to be called a "defense consultant." One could favour defense budget cuts and still be a "defense consultant." The issue is how knowledgeable the person actually is.

Posted by Gordon Grant at October 5, 2006 06:56 PM

"Pike's academic background or lack of same is irrelevant (it is a variant on the appeal-to-authority logical fallacy)."

Not exactly. Would you apply this criteria to the doctor operating on you in the emergency room after a car accident? Or would you prefer that he had gone to medical school and gotten a degree? Even assuming that degrees are not the be-all-and-end-all, one would at least like to know about some professional training in the claimed area of expertise.

Admittedly, one does not have to possess an academic degree to be a talking head on television. But a big problem with Pike is that he claims to be an expert in just about everything--military space, civilian space policy, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, military strategy, conventional munitions, aerospace technology, etc. Go to www.globalsecurity.org and look at the various articles posted there that quote him on a wide range of subjects.

What none of these reporters ask is what is his professional education and/or professional training. If they did, they would discover that he has never been in the military or defense industry (thus, no on the job training) nor does he possess an academic degree in anything at all. But he is perfectly willing to allow the press to portray him as an expert on a wide range of subjects based simply on the fact that he is: a) very well read, and b) good at providing soundbites.

All of that said, what it boils down to is that the press does not care.

Posted by Gordon Grant at October 5, 2006 07:04 PM

"According to your rules, John Doe could call himself a forensic scientist in court, but no one would be allowed to ask if he was a forensic scientist or a fishpeddler."

Well, I don't think that Fox news is equivalent to a court of law (or an operating theater as pointed out by Gordon Grant). And, if he was correct in his assessment, then it wouldn't matter if he was a PhD in Physics or if he was a high school student.

My point is that the veracity of his argument has nothing to do with his qualifications; his argument either stands on its own merit or it does not. And, as Clark Lindsey and Lee Valentine pointed out, his argument has no merit.

Appeal-to-authority and ad hominem are two sides of the same logical fallacy; both are fallacies because they do not address the idea being presented but the person presenting them. I'd much rather refute his argument by pointing out the flaws to the argument itself (such as Valentine did by showing that Soyuz payloads cost $2500 a pound rather than the $10k/lb lower limit that Pike asserted).

Posted by Ed Minchau at October 5, 2006 07:34 PM

Having read what Pike said, and what Clark Lindsey and Lee Valentine wrote, it's clear that all of them have good points. But I think that Lindsey and Valentine are sort of missing an important point--the physics, as Pike says, DO matter. Maybe they don't make this stuff impossible, but they do make it hard. It requires more energy to get into orbit than to perform any other kind of transportation on earth.

Valentine claims that all would be perfect _if only_ one developed a reusable launch vehicle. But that's where the physics make things difficult. You have to push that reusable vehicle into orbit, and if you try to do it like Lindsey claims, with low performance engines, well, how does that work, exactly? Plus, the physics also demands lightweight structures _and_ thermal protection, which can be done, of course, but aren't trivial, and cost money.

So we've got Valentine saying that it's easy if you simply develop a reusable vehicle, and we've got Lindsey saying it's easy if only you have enough fuel...

This reminds me of something the Great Engineer Montgomery Scott once said: "And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon."

Posted by Gordon Grant at October 5, 2006 07:36 PM

"I'd much rather refute his argument by pointing out the flaws to the argument itself (such as Valentine did by showing that Soyuz payloads cost $2500 a pound rather than the $10k/lb lower limit that Pike asserted)."

You're being literal when Pike was being rhetorical. Note that Boyle stated that Pike admitted that building a rocket in a country with cheap labor gives you a cheaper rocket. That includes the Soyuz.

However, everybody who holds up the Soyuz as an example of something or other tends to miss a few points. For starters, it is not available for a whole host of payloads (US government payloads, for instance) and never will be. And the Russian economy is not exactly a model of capitalism. So the $2,500 per pound cost of Soyuz proves very little. We don't know, for instance, how much that cost is subsidized. How much of the cost of maintaining all of that launch infrastructure ever makes it into the cost, for instance? How much is Soyuz run simply as a way of gaining western dollars?

Posted by Gordon Grant at October 5, 2006 07:42 PM

"You have to push that reusable vehicle into orbit, and if you try to do it like Lindsey claims, with low performance engines, well, how does that work, exactly?"

Where did I say "low performance engines" exactly? "Less than ultimate performance for the engines" does not imply low performance. Good engine performance can be plenty good enough if the overall system provides a high performance to cost ratio.

The tradeoff is that you accept a smaller payload to orbit in exchange for that lower cost. If, for example, your good and robust engine allows you to send 3 people to orbit several times cheaper than you can send 6 with a high performance but fragile engine then it pays to fly twice with the cheaper vehicle.

The Kistler K-1 should prove that a fully reusable two stage vehicle is practical and can provide lower cost access to orbit. It uses good engines but ones that don't push the envelope of engine performance. No one has pointed out any significant engineering flaws in the K-1 much less shown that it violates any laws of physics. I don't hold the K-1 to be the ultimate in fully reusable vehicles. Just a first pretty good proof-of-principle. (The Falcon 9 may also eventually become fully reusable but there are some engineering issues that need to be resolved, such as how the boosters will react to the impact on the ocean and exposure to saltwater.)

- Clark

Posted by Clark at October 5, 2006 09:31 PM

Pike's academic background or lack of same is irrelevant

Well, his credentials are certainly irrelevant to Fox. I don't know if they even have a fact checking department, and if they do it probably has tumbleweed problems of epidemic proportions.

Posted by Chris Mann at October 6, 2006 01:08 AM

The Kistler K-1 should prove that a fully reusable two stage vehicle is practical and can provide lower cost access to orbit.

I don't think it's going to prove anything until RPK finds the $1-1.5B more that it's going to take to build the thing. And at only 9000lbs payload per flight, you can get a hell of a lot of Soyuz-ST's, Delta II's and (hopefully soon) Falcon V's with that money.

Unless they're pushing over 25 flights a year, they're not even going to meet the interest payments on that capital.

Posted by Chris Mann at October 6, 2006 01:15 AM

> 1.5-He was also often critical of expensive weapons systems that did not work, but that is also not
> the same as being "anti-military."

Yes, and according to Pike, every American weapon system was expensive and unworkable. But I stand corrected. Pike was not anti-military. Just anti-US military.

> Is it patriotic to support every new weapons system the Pentagon wants? Are the people who
> opposed the Sergeant York DIVAD two decades ago "anti-military"?

Some of them were. So what? The proverbial stopped clock is right twice a day.

Of course, you've created a strawman. No one said defense analysts should support every weapon system. However, it isn't reasonable for an analyst to oppose every weapon system, either. There's a middle ground between those two extremes.

Posted by Edward Wright at October 6, 2006 01:38 AM

> You're being literal when Pike was being rhetorical.

Indeed, but science, engineering, and engineering economics are fields that depend on math, not rhetoric.

> However, everybody who holds up the Soyuz as an example of something or other tends to miss
> a few points. For starters, it is not available for a whole host of payloads (US government payloads,
> for instance) and never will be.

Indeed? Perhaps you could tell me how US government payloads got to ISS, while the Shuttle was grounded.

> And the Russian economy is not exactly a model of capitalism. So the $2,500 per pound cost of
> Soyuz proves very little. We don't know, for instance, how much that cost is subsidized. How
> much of the cost of maintaining all of that launch infrastructure ever makes it into
> the cost, for instance? How much is Soyuz run simply as a way of gaining western dollars?

If Soyuz were subsidized, it wouldn't be gaining western dollars. It would be donating them.

Posted by Edward Wright at October 6, 2006 02:12 AM

The point about going for maximum performance in rocket engines is similar to what happens with engines used in drag racers. Without all the performance tweaks and nitro fuel, those engines could last for hours and produce hundreds of horsepower. Pushed to their limits, the produce thousands of horsepower but their lives are measured in seconds. The SSMEs went for maximum performance and reusability. The result was much higher development costs and high maintenance costs per flight.

The Soyuz booster is probably the most economical ever built on a payload to orbit basis. It isn't hard to understand why. It's a direct descendent of the R-7 that launched Sputnik 49 years ago this week. It has been updated from time to time but only when necessary and only incrementally. In the meantime, combining the Soyuz and Molyniya versions (which add an additional upper stage), some 2000 of them have been built and flown over the years. The R&D costs were recouped a long time ago. It has proven a rugged and reliable booster. Sure, there's cheap labor there but not spending R&D constantly helps a lot, too. It's the embodiment of the "Big, dumb booster" concept (and I mean that as a compliment).

As the linked article stated, launch rate is key. Reusable boosters tend to have significantly higher R&D costs with the opportunity for lower operational costs than expendables. However, if you don't launch it often enough, it'll end up costing more than expendables like the Shuttle did. Kistler and SpaceX are trying to achieve reusability and I wish them well. So far, they have not been successful but there's always hope they can succeed.

Posted by Larry J at October 6, 2006 06:30 AM

I don't know if they even have a fact checking department, and if they do it probably has tumbleweed problems of epidemic proportions.

Unlike, say, the New York Times and CBS, and CNN, no one at Fox News has ever been fired for making shit up, or had to be. I never fail to be amused at the ignorant slams at FNC.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 6, 2006 07:52 AM

A long time ago, I had the job of reviewing the test data on numerous weapon systems for the US Army's Operational and Test Evaluation Agency (OTEA), which had the responsibility for testing just about everything that the Army was buying or thinking of buying. This included the DIVAD, which was going through two separate phases of operational testing at the time. I had the opportunity to review the raw test data (not PR releases from flaks), and as I had a very strong interest in the many weapons systems controversies of that period, I remember this particular debate quite well.

Pike was not simply opposed to SDI or even all big unworkable weapon systems. He was opposed to virtually everything with even a hint of high tech. The DIVAD actually passed its operational tests quite well, but Pike (rather dishonestly) claimed that it failed to meet numerous objectives that were not even being tested for. He mixed tests results and objectives from mutliple tests, and given the way he did it, it was impossible for him not to have known that what he was doing was at best deceptive.

It is often forgotten now, but the whole 'defense reform' crowd of the 1980s were rather thoroughly discredited by the performance of the various weapon systems that they so strongly opposed when they were finally used in combat.

Posted by at October 6, 2006 08:47 AM

Forgive the ignorance, but what was the Sgt York DIVAD?

Thanks.

Posted by brent at October 6, 2006 08:56 AM

Rand: "I never fail to be amused at the ignorant slams at FNC."

Agreed. And I don't understand the aledged FOX/Pike conection as Pike has not special affiliation with FOX, he's often been featured on ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, CNN, MSNBC etc. etc.

Seems every network likes the idiot.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at October 6, 2006 08:57 AM

Ah, wikipedia. Is there anything it doesn't know?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York

Short version - the Army was buying high speed tanks (the M-1) AFVs (Bradley) and needed an air defense system that could keep up.

Reading wiki I'm wondering why speed of the vehicle is an issue. AD units don't march forward in lockstep with the grunts - they deploy in overwatch. And you wouldn't want them directly exposed to the same fire as the M1 and Bradleys.

More ignorance from Mr. Pike?

Posted by Brian at October 6, 2006 09:24 AM

Unlike, say, the New York Times and CBS, and CNN, no one at Fox News has ever been fired for making shit up, or had to be.

That's right, Rand. They get promoted instead.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 6, 2006 09:30 AM

Alan Boyle sensibly pre-empts a lot of the frothing about Pike:

"So my advice for the true believers of the personal spaceflight revolution would be not to get angry at John Pike, but to see if you can prove him wrong."

Posted by Monte Davis at October 6, 2006 09:32 AM

Alan's advice is good, as far as it goes, but it doesn't address the fact that John's nonsense continues to misinform the public, with media cooperation, and make it more difficult to raise the money to do so.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 6, 2006 10:13 AM

I've always found the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy to be an interesting one. Taking it to mean "you should believe thing X rather thing Y simply because thing X is propounded by authority A" is indeed a fallacy--which thing should be believed needs to be based on evidence and logic, not who said it.

However.

From a practical standpoint, we don't have time to analyze every argument about everything from every Joe Blow. It is generally useful and time saving to discover who is more dependable in presenting correct 'things' to believe, and take their word over people presenting something different. One of my children in the past had more trouble with telling me the truth than my others (fortunately he's doing better), so I ended up spending more time digging into what he told me than what my other children told me--based on experience, I'd accept the "authority" of my other children.

Naturally this can lead to many problems we see. If you decide to trust authority B implicitly, B can lead you to a very bad place. Nice fresh lemonade anyone? When is the next comet due?

Ideally, degrees and experience in the field should be an indication that we can more readily accept somebody's position without having to take the time to check all the details of the argument. Not that we should never check those details, but just that we should be able to have a different level of initial trust based on the credentials of the arguer. That's why it's bad to mislead about credentials--you are deceptively trying to increase or decrease the level of intial trust a person has and the liklihood that the argument will actually get checked out.

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at October 6, 2006 10:16 AM

That's right, Rand. They get promoted instead.

Are we supposed to know to what fictional event you're referring? Or are you just making shit up?

If so, you have a promising future in the rest of the MSM, if not Fox News.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 6, 2006 10:30 AM

Are we supposed to know to what fictional event you're referring? Or are you just making shit up?

Probably the best example is Bill O'Reilly. He has been caught inventing claims about himself many times. He said that he was an independent, when he was a registered Republican. He said that "we" won the Peabody award, but he didn't. He said that he had meant to say the Polk award, except that his former show won that award only after he had left.

O'Reilly also claimed that a Wisconsin school changed the lyrics to Silent Night out of political correctness, when in fact the revised lyrics were part of a religious play written by the musical director of a church. (In fact, Ronald Reagan's church.)

O'Reilly even fabricated a claim that American troops murdered German troops in Malmedy, when in fact it was the other way around.

O'Reilly also claimed that he had only ever called for one boycott on his show, a boycott of France, when by that time he had separately called for boycotts of the New York Times and the Pepsi-Cola corporation.

Fox News has generally rewarded Bill O'Reilly for his antics. His show is popular. They have to be well aware of his dishonesty by now, but evidently they see it as part of a package that makes him interesting.

But it may well be true that if O'Reilly worked for the New York Times, they would be forced to fire him.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 6, 2006 11:33 AM

Yak yak yak. Shut up and build something. That will take care of Mr Pike et al.

:-) :-)

Posted by Aleta at October 6, 2006 12:26 PM

Just menntion Fox news and watch the moonbats wretch and recoil like Dracula at the sight of a cross made of pressed garlic.

Aleta,

Shut up and get back to work, you have a Pike to skewer. ;~)

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 6, 2006 12:37 PM

Just mention Fox news and watch the moonbats wretch and recoil like Dracula at the sight of a cross made of pressed garlic.

Look, if you want to watch the crap on Fox News, that's fine with me.

Rand didn't "just mention" Fox News, he praised it. He said that it is a news organization that hasn't fired people "for making shit up". My only point is that Rand is right, but for a different reason. Fox News wants some of its news to be fabricated. Many of its viewers want the same thing, whether or not they realize it. If you're one of those viewers, that's your choice.

Personally, when I want fake news, I prefer the Onion. Just like Fox News, they haven't fired anyone "for making shit up". Maybe one day they will fire a reporter for filing true stories!

Posted by Jim Harris at October 6, 2006 12:53 PM

Tell me Jim, what exactly has Fox News made up and attempted to pass off as real news?

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 6, 2006 02:01 PM

Tell me Jim, what exactly has Fox News made up and attempted to pass off as real news?

It's right there on this page, Mike. Bill O'Reilly makes up all kinds of stuff about himself and other people. He even slandered American troops who fought in World War II.

The only debatable part is whether Fox News truly does pass off anything as "real news". They pass it off as "Fox News", but is Fox News real news? We report, you decide!

Posted by Jim Harris at October 6, 2006 02:40 PM

How does, in your or anyone else’s fantasy world, Bill O’Reilly faking/padding his resume and/or being ignorant on his WWII history even compare to Dan Rather trying to alter the outcome of a Presidential election by airing a fake story about fake documents? And that was his latest in a long history of faking news.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at October 6, 2006 03:47 PM

Dr. Lindsey ( PhD., physics) is not, nor am I(B.S., minor) ignorant of the relevant physics. The question is not physics; it is engineering and economics. Luckily, both of the latter have been improving lately.

John Pike is not the first to conflate these disciplines. He is just as mistaken as Simon Newcomb( who predicted, for sound physical reasons, that man would never fly; and later, when the Wrights were seen clearly to be flying, that aircraft would never at a price affordable by anyone but "the capitalist who could afford his own yacht") and for the same reason.

He doesn't understand engineering. Part of the evidence of that ignorance is his failed predictions of the performance of weapons systems.I predict that within three years it won't be the last evidence.;-)

Posted by Lee Valentine at October 6, 2006 05:14 PM

Hi Aleta, I thought you're s'posed to be buildin'.

Posted by Lee Valentine at October 6, 2006 05:17 PM

Jim,

You seem to be confusing entertainers like O'Riley with the hard news like Brit Hume reports. You know, their Dan Rather.

Neal Boorts has offered 10,000 dollars to anyone who can prove a bias on Fox News.

I am still wating for you to tell me the name of a fake news story that Fox's news division attempted to pass off as real.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 6, 2006 05:27 PM

Gordon, here's what I said:
Rocket engineering has improved dramatically in the past five years. XCOR has designed and tested cheap, robust and reliable, high Isp rocket engines capable of thousands of full duration burns. The new engines have orders of magnitude better price performance than Cold War legacy engines. XCOR has also built a new composite LOX tank which is both stiffer and stronger than previous designs and capable of thousands of flights. The new composite LOX tanks weigh 65% as much as the best previously available tanks. Since the LOX tank is more than half the typical vehicle weight excluding the engines, the large weight saving means increased margin or increased payload.

I never said it was EASY.;-)

Posted by Lee Valentine at October 6, 2006 05:29 PM

Of course, the O'Reilly examples are irrelevant, since he doesn't claim to be a news show.

So we're still waiting for some basis for the ignorant rant against Fox News.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 6, 2006 05:32 PM

I am still wating for you to tell me the name of a fake news story that Fox's news division attempted to pass off as real.

See, this is exactly the point, Mike (and Rand). Fox News doesn't pass off anything as real. They are philosophical relativists. They talk about showing both sides, rather than showing the plain truth.

So all sorts of people on Fox News certainly do "make up shit". But, since they don't pass it off as real, it's par for the course. There won't ever be anyone to fire for fabrication, because it isn't a transgression. Since you two are evidently fans of Fox News, you are unlikely to be impressed by examples. You're just used to it; you don't really consider it out of bounds.

Actually, Rand's version of it is not correct. Rand says that O'Reilly doesn't claim to be a news show, but it does. Here is a quote from a typical Fox news page, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135164,00.html : "'The O'Reilly Factor' uncovers news items from the established wisdom and goes against the grain of the more traditional interview-style programs."

So there it is, it claims to uncover news items. Just not necessarily true news.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 6, 2006 06:19 PM

O'Reilly and Fox News have made it clear many times that his show is an interview and opinion program (like Hannity and Colmes), and not a news program (like Brit Hume). But carry on in your little "progressive" cocoon.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 6, 2006 06:32 PM

> John Pike is not the first to conflate these disciplines. He is just as
> mistaken as Simon Newcomb( who predicted, for sound physical reasons, that
> man would never fly;

Lee, that's not really fair. Remember that Orville Wright also said "Man will never fly for a thousand years." What most people overlook is that between the time Orville said that and the first flight, the Wright Brothers did not just build a machine, they invented an entirely new theory of aerodynamics. If their new theory had turned out to be wrong, powered flight may very well have turned out to be impossible.

Affordable spaceflight, on the other hand, does not require the discovery of any new theory -- only the application of existing theory.

Pike does not even understand the difference, so comparing him to Newcomb is an insult to Newcomb.

Newcomb was also able to support his opinions with mathematics, while Pike and others who cite "the rocket equation" as a reason why space travel must be inordinately expensive never actually offer a solution to the rocket equation that supports their claims.

The only thing the rocket equation really tells you is the mass of propellant needed. From that, one can calculate propellant costs. As Dr. Max Hunter used to say, anyone who thinks the rocket equation makes space transportation expensive either does not understand the rocket equation or does not know the price of rocket propellant.

Posted by Edward Wright at October 6, 2006 06:44 PM

Whether or not O'Reilly's conduct is reasonable has nothing to do with whether or not he conducts interviews and expresses opinions. If the audience is interested in the truth, the interviewer is not supposed to lie about himself and slander American troops. Maybe someone being interviewed could do those things, but serious interviewers -- for example Terry Gross on NPR -- distinguish their role from sheer entertainment. But Rand is right that the O'Reilly Factor is just entertainment, like the Colbert Report or the Ali G show.

So is the rest of Fox News. Brit Hume is no exception. For example, Hume falsely claimed that a California elementary school banned the Declaration of Independence because it mentions God. What the school actually banned was Christian proselytization by one of its teachers. The teacher handed out a Christian pamphlet with some excerpts from the Declaration of Independence. The school still has many copies of the Declaration of Independence in its materials.

It wasn't just Brit Hume who said it. The same claim appeared on many other Fox News programs.

But it isn't a bad thing that it's not true, if it's what the viewers want. On Fox News, everything has shades of opinion and entertainment.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 6, 2006 07:30 PM

Yes, Ed, I agree that the post does denigrate Newcomb. I thought about putting in a sentence to that effect when I wrote it. Now you've done it, so I don't have to. Thanks.

Posted by Lee Valentine at October 6, 2006 07:46 PM

Tell me Jim, what exactly has Fox News made up and attempted to pass off as real news?

Recently? D-FL Mark Foley.

And I know the D and R keys are next to each other, but don't you dare call it a typo. They did it five times, each on seperate graphics.

Posted by Chris Mann at October 6, 2006 08:31 PM

I suggest all take a look at Rands's update to the original thread. Fox is no longer the subject.

Perhaps we can further discuss Pike's fishy credentials and his dogmatic clinging to his $10k per pound myth in the face of repeated evidence to the contrary.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 7, 2006 11:20 AM

It never was the subject, except for some Fox-hate-deranged moron who decided to drag it in for no obvious reason.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 7, 2006 11:34 AM

Going back to the basics...

Forget structure for a moment--frame, tanks, engines.

Using the rocket equation and current costs, what is the dollar cost in fuel (whichever) to accellerate a kilo to orbital velocity?

Posted by Big D at October 7, 2006 01:25 PM

Big D:

If you include structure as part of the kilogram on orbit I think it is around $20.

That's just a very quick mental approximation, I'm willing to stand corrected. It's 6:30 AM Sunday here and I'm not a morning person.

Mike

Posted by Mike Borgelt at October 7, 2006 02:04 PM

> Using the rocket equation and current costs, what is the dollar cost in fuel (whichever) to accellerate a kilo to orbital velocity?

Assuming a 20:1 mass ratio, you need 20 kilos of fuel and oxydizer.

Taking propellant costs at $1.00 a kilo, the propellants will cost you $20 a kilo.

That's quite conservative because, while jet fuel costs about $1.00 a kilo at the pump right now, you can buy it in bulk for much cheaper -- the military price is about half that -- and LOX is much, much cheaper. Propellant costs of $10 per kilo on orbit are probably doable.

So, yes, the rocket equation does impose a lower limit on costs, but that limit is 1000x lower than Pike thinks it is.

The real problem is not the rocket equation but capital costs, labor costs, and flight rate (throughput).

Unfortunately, NASA only wants to work on performance (i.e., propellant cost). Joe Carroll, one of the leading experts on space tethers, calculated the throughput for NIAC's "space elevator." The result, he told me, was "terrible." And, of course, the capital costs would be astronomical. Yet, the space elevator people insist elevators would be cheaper than rockets, using the same flawed "rocket equation" argument Pike uses.

Posted by Edward Wright at October 7, 2006 02:13 PM

The additional problem with the space elevator folks is that there are entirely new scientific theories in mechanical and structural engineering that need to be developed, especially if you are going to obtain something that can withstand the tensile strength necessary to get a fully working tethered space elevator working. And there are additional unknowns involved as well that go even beyond merely the strength of the material.

I would have to agree that significantly improved rocket performance is not necessary in terms of allowing affordable access to space by ordinary people. There will continue to be military applications which will demand the highest performance levels, which is what is driving NASA at the moment more than anything else. The electronics industry gave up on this idea a long time ago and has now completely seperate lines for mil-spec components vs. commercial-grade components. Try to guess which are cheaper? Guess which ones can withstand incredible extremes in environmental challenges? Most people just don't need an iPod that works at -60 C.

Posted by Robert Horning at October 7, 2006 04:07 PM

That's even better than I was expecting.

Maybe *that* should be the meme... rocket fuel is cheap. Bent metal *can* be expensive, but doesn't always have to be. People are always expensive, and fixed costs. Find a way to do more with a few really good people who stay busy all the time, and marginal launch costs head towards the theoretical limit.

If you say it enough times--$20/lb in rocket fuel to orbit--maybe it'll start to sink in.

Posted by Big D at October 7, 2006 04:08 PM

Err, $20/kg., $10/lb ($5/lb in bulk).

Posted by Big D at October 7, 2006 04:18 PM

Correct. The Zenit booster's actual propellant cost per kg of payload to LEO in 2006 is about $12.

Posted by Lee Valentine at October 7, 2006 08:44 PM

Maybe *that* should be the meme... rocket fuel is cheap. Bent metal *can* be expensive, but doesn't always have to be.

Case in point, Toyota Camry's are almost as complex as a rocket to manufacture yet they don't cost $10,000,000 each. If the cost of bent metal is really the driving factor, it's instructive to notice that the dry mass of an Atlas V 402 is only 18x that of a Camry.

Posted by Chris Mann at October 8, 2006 06:00 AM

Edward Wright Yet, the space elevator people insist elevators would be cheaper than rockets, using the same flawed "rocket equation" argument Pike uses.

Not all of us "space elevator people" are members of a monolithic block ignorant of how things work in engineering or the business world.

Yes, to listen to some SE advocates you'd think the only think we need to do is develop a suitable ribon material and we're good to go.

Others of us know that there are legal, political and business problems to work out in addition to engineering challenges. We know they won't be easy to surmount, and we know that they all have to be in harmony or it's not going to work.

This is true of any project of course.

Posted by brian at October 8, 2006 10:45 AM

Quote from Chris Mann: "Toyota Camry's are almost as complex as a rocket to manufacture yet they don't cost $10,000,000 each"

*Runs out to the Camry parked in driveway and looks at speedo* Darn only 160 MPH.

Posted by Josh Reiter at October 9, 2006 08:05 PM

Don't believe the Camry's speedometer - in reality, it can go much faster! First, find/create a very large ramp - say 500 miles long, 10% slope (so the end is 50 miles high...). Next, get a big scuba tank, so that the Camry doesn't get altitude sickness. Now drive the Camry up the ramp (supposedly the range is >650 miles, but we are climbing so who knows), and when you get to the end, just keep driving...

After about 120 seconds of free fall (70 km before you hit air), you are traveling 1.2 km/s. Since you slow down considerably before you hit the ground, you might even survive - but probably not...

Posted by David Summers at October 10, 2006 09:39 AM

I prefer bolting on multiple JATO rockets myself. Or maybe a GEM.

Point is that if you build 1,000,000 of them on a production line you'll probably get costs down.

Posted by Chris Mann at October 11, 2006 05:55 AM

Good thing too, if we want to keep driving them off cliffs!

Posted by David Summers at October 11, 2006 08:00 AM

Post a comment