Tugboats In Space

Despite the fact that even Lance Bass doesn’t seem to have enough money to go, there are some successful commercial space activities.

Space manufacturing, and space tourism and entertainment, won’t really take off until the necessary investments are made in high flight-rate, low-cost launch systems–systems that will make affordable the movement of the large amounts of mass necessary to make them happen.

But because space launch remains extremely expensive, the only commercial ventures, so far, that have been successful are those that can generate large amounts of revenue with the delivery of a relatively small amount of mass to space. Fortunately, there’s a valuable commercial product that can be produced in space, and cheaply delivered to and from there, because it has very low mass. In fact, it has zero rest mass. They’re called photons, the stuff of light and…telecommunications.

Bandwidth has long since become a commodity, and in today’s market, communications satellites are almost a license to print money.

Once properly stationed in geostationary orbit, positioned far above a specific point on the earth’s equator, a single transponder on one can lease for millions of dollars per year. Since the typical satellite has a dozen or more such transponders, the revenue from one can generate tens of millions of dollars per year, and even at high launch costs, still pay for itself very quickly.

However, the high value of a transponder-year is a double-edged sword. Even a month’s delay in launch can correspondingly mean a loss of many millions of dollars of revenue for its operator.

For this reason, launch operators compete on many factors other than the pure price of the launch. A satellite owner will cheerfully pay a ten million dollar premium to have his satellite delivered two months earlier. Similarly, she’ll pay a lot to make sure that it gets safely to its designated spot, because even at high launch costs, the launch is still a small fraction of the total cost of building, delivering, and operating a modern communications satellite.

This is a factor that’s made it very difficult for new entrants in the satellite launch market, because the market isn’t very large, and the existing customers are very wary of unproven providers. This is one reason that I encourage anyone who wants to change the launch paradigm to go after unconventional markets–the existing market just doesn’t want to play.

There is, however, one area in which they may welcome new approaches, because they can represent low risk, with a very high payoff.

For reasons already stated, getting a satellite up sooner is not the only schedule parameter of interest. At the end of life, providing just a few additional weeks of satellite life can also be worth millions.

One other feature that launch providers compete with is payload capability to geostationary orbit (the location of most comsats). That’s because even a few extra pounds can allow the operator to load more propellant for keeping the satellite “on station,” and for pointing it, both necessary to allow it to operate, and hence extending its useful revenue-generating life.

There have been many concepts studied over the years for extending the useful life of comsats, but most of them involved changing the design of the satellite itself (e.g., to allow refueling or propellant tank changeout), and the owners weren’t willing to spend the money, given that the capability wasn’t proven. But one of the concepts considered in the past, by NASA and its contractors, was an orbital “tug” that could keep the “bird” in position, and point it, and even move it into a safe parking orbit, above geosynchronous, when it was so degraded that it had become obsolete and had to be replaced by another in its designated slot.

So what’s new?

As opposed to simply studying it, someone is actually funding the idea. With private money.

The money comes from Walt Anderson, a long-time guardian angel of space entrepreneurs. He funded the failed Rotary Rocket company, and more recently, Mircorp, which has been working mightily (but perhaps in vain) to get Lance Bass into space.

He’s uniquely qualified for such a venture, having both the money and the knowledge, because he made his fortune in space telecommunications. He’s an excellent example of the old aphorism, “…if you want to make a small fortune in the space business, start with a large one…”

He admits himself that he makes money on the telecom side so that he can spend it on the space side, with the hope that one of his bets will pay off.

This looks like a good one. One of the interesting aspects of the concept is that it’s one of the first commercial applications of ion propulsion. While it sounds Star Trekkish, this is a means of providing extremely efficient propellant economy to a spacecraft, by using ions accelerated to very high velocities, and the energy of the sun to power it, rather than conventional rocket propellants, which most satellites use. So the system can do the job with much less mass, or conversely, for a given amount of propellant, it can provide a “walker” for an aging comsat well into its dotage.

My only concern is that once the big boys (i.e., Boeing-Hughes) figure out that it’s a potential gold mine, they’ll go after it themselves, and with their infinitely-larger financial resources, run the newcomer into the ground.

But they’re not as spry, and there’s a big market, so I think that there’s a good chance that Walt will win out. But even if they don’t, he’ll likely find a niche that gets his money back, and he finally got the conventional industry off their duffs. And that’s what competition, and free enterprise, are all about.

I’ll Bet He Is

Bill says he’s “full of regret” that he didn’t get bin Laden. No doubt, as he continues to watch the vestiges of his “legacy” spin down the old crapper.

“I thought that my virtual obsession with him was well placed, and I was full of regret that I didn’t get him,” he said.

I can’t stand to watch Larry King, but I’d be willing to bet that this statement was not challenged in any way by the sycophantic softballmeister.

“Virtual obsession”?

Like when he told the Sudanese to ship him to Saudi Arabia instead of taking custody of him? Like when he sent a few cruise missiles into empty Afghan terrorist camps? Maybe such ineffective and inattentive actions are why he calls it a “virtual” obsession. It’s certainly not the mark of a real one.

We know what his real obsessions are, and they have nothing to do with either terrorism specifically, or national security in general. And amidst all the big-money speeches, and mindless fawning females, he no doubt continues to indulge them.

I’ll Bet He Is

Bill says he’s “full of regret” that he didn’t get bin Laden. No doubt, as he continues to watch the vestiges of his “legacy” spin down the old crapper.

“I thought that my virtual obsession with him was well placed, and I was full of regret that I didn’t get him,” he said.

I can’t stand to watch Larry King, but I’d be willing to bet that this statement was not challenged in any way by the sycophantic softballmeister.

“Virtual obsession”?

Like when he told the Sudanese to ship him to Saudi Arabia instead of taking custody of him? Like when he sent a few cruise missiles into empty Afghan terrorist camps? Maybe such ineffective and inattentive actions are why he calls it a “virtual” obsession. It’s certainly not the mark of a real one.

We know what his real obsessions are, and they have nothing to do with either terrorism specifically, or national security in general. And amidst all the big-money speeches, and mindless fawning females, he no doubt continues to indulge them.

I’ll Bet He Is

Bill says he’s “full of regret” that he didn’t get bin Laden. No doubt, as he continues to watch the vestiges of his “legacy” spin down the old crapper.

“I thought that my virtual obsession with him was well placed, and I was full of regret that I didn’t get him,” he said.

I can’t stand to watch Larry King, but I’d be willing to bet that this statement was not challenged in any way by the sycophantic softballmeister.

“Virtual obsession”?

Like when he told the Sudanese to ship him to Saudi Arabia instead of taking custody of him? Like when he sent a few cruise missiles into empty Afghan terrorist camps? Maybe such ineffective and inattentive actions are why he calls it a “virtual” obsession. It’s certainly not the mark of a real one.

We know what his real obsessions are, and they have nothing to do with either terrorism specifically, or national security in general. And amidst all the big-money speeches, and mindless fawning females, he no doubt continues to indulge them.

That Others Might Live

It’s not a new story, but a new take on an old one. USA Today says that at least a couple hundred people made the horrific choice of jumping to their deaths from the World Trade Center, rather than dying by suffocation or burning.

What struck me in the story, however, was this sentence:

Many south tower survivors say the sight of people jumping created an urgency that caused them to leave immediately and ignore announcements that it was safe to return to their desks. About 1,400 people evacuated the upper floors before the second jet hit.

While it wasn’t their intent, the jumpers, in choosing to jump, may have saved many hundreds more in the South Tower.

20-20 Hindsight

Jim Bennett says that it’s not always as obvious at the time what should be done, as it is later to the Monday-morning quarterbacks. He compares the Titanic to the World Trade Center. And to Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler in 1938.

One example he points out is relevant to space (you knew I was going to talk about how this is relevant to space, didn’t you?)

Today we ask, “How could Titanic not have enough lifeboats for everybody?” But at the time, it was assumed that lifeboats were only usable in a minority of scenarios, and in most of those scenarios the boats would be used to evacuate passengers from a slowly-sinking ship to another ship, making multiple trips. The general assumption was that it was more productive to concentrate on making the ship as robust as possible. Similarly today we do not design airliners with military-style ejection pods, like those used on bombers, but rather concentrate on making the aircraft as robust as possible.

And similarly, we didn’t design the Shuttle for ejection–the design goal was to make such an eventuality unnecessary, because it was unaffordable to put in that capability. It would have added a lot of extra weight to the vehicle, sacrificing payload, and it would have had a dramatic impact on functionality of the system as planned.

The problem with that philosophy was that they didn’t just save money on the crew-escape system–they also scrimped on the reliability, by using multi-segment solids, instead of liquid boosters, and in not providing adequate testing of the system, because it was too expensive to fly, as designed.

But the lesson is not that manned space transports must have ejection seats–it’s that we need to truly design them to not require them, just as we do airliners.

Process Versus Product

The recent post on the electoral college raised anew an issue that I often find frustrating in debating policy, particularly when it comes to court decisions, and particularly Supreme Court decisions.

I often find that people have difficulty making a distinction between their position, and the metadiscussion of how they arrive at it. These are two separate discussions, but they continually get conflated in common discourse. That post was not about the merits of the electoral college per se, but rather about the merits of a couple of particular arguments that were made against it.

It is quite possible to believe that a position is correct, while a particular argument for it is weak, or fallacious. In fact, it’s important to be able to articulate and make a good argument (or at least the best one possible) for either side of a case–this is commonly taught (or so I am told) in law school.

While I do happen to think that the current electoral college system is satisfactory (though perhaps increasing the resolution on it so that electors are elected by congressional district, rather than at a state level, might improve it somewhat), I was disagreeing in that post with the quality of the arguments presented, not the position itself.

It is quite possible to agree with (or at least be in favor of) the outcome of, for example, a decision of the Supreme Court, while disagreeing with the reasoning by which it was reached. The case that jumps most immediately to mind here is Roe v. Wade, in which they ruled abortion a right by flawed reasoning and a reading into the Constitution of rights that many believe are not there. Even Justice Ginsberg, I believe, has stated that while she believes herself in a woman’s right to choose to abort her child, she’s troubled by that particular decision on Constitutional grounds.

There are many decisions of the Supreme Court that I view as “wrong” in the sense that they result in a society in which it’s less desirable for me to live, but I agree with them in the sense that they are indeed in concert with the Constitution, which is the criterion on which they’re supposed to be basing their decisions. I don’t understand why more people aren’t capable of making this distinction.

And it’s not just a complaint about topics and modes of discussion on a blog–it has real-world political consequences.

By my view, when the Supremes make a decision that I dislike, but is constitutionally correct, the appropriate response is not to be angry at them, and to start an impeachment drive, or to lobby my senators to put someone on the Court who will make decisions more compatible with my desires (i.e., to rig the process to give me the result I want), but rather, to amend the document whence the decision came.

Unfortunately, it’s easier to play politics and bork judges than it is to amend the founding document, so that’s what politicians do, and because the public rarely makes the distinction, they get away with it.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!