Hans.Moravec%cmu-ri-rover@sri-unix.UUCP (03/13/84)
a211 1034 11 Mar 84
AM-Space-Business, Bjt,660
Government Launching Private Companies Into Space Business
Laserphoto WX3
By GENE GRABOWSKI
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - If you want to launch a weather satellite into
orbit or grow herpes vaccine in space you don't have to rely on the
federal government anymore.
In fact, the government is helping companies get started in the
business of ferrying scientific experiments and communication relay
stations into space in competition with its own space shuttle program.
By the end of the decade, scientific research firms, oil companies
and weather forecasters are expected to be hiring those companies,
instead of Uncle Sam's shuttle, to launch many of their payloads
skyward.
President Reagan took the first step toward that goal on Feb. 24
when he created the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, the
only government agency with which a new space transport company must
deal.
''Without this office, a company would have to get clearance from as
many as 17 government agencies, like the Coast Guard, the Federal
Aviation Administration, and even the State Department before a
private sector launch,'' says Jennifer Dorn, the 33-year-old director
of the new 15-person office.
''That kind of red tape can be overwhelming to a private company and
it can send very bad signals to the investment community, which is
interested in these kinds of ventures,'' she said in a recent
interview.
Specifically, Ms. Dorn's job is to help new companies take over
building and selling the kind of non-reusable rockets the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration once used in its Mercury, Gemini,
and Apollo space programs. That way, NASA can focus its resources on
developing the reusable shuttle for space exploration.
But the first companies starting from scratch in the space business
in 1982 and 1983 were forced to hack through a thick jungle of
government red tape. Their calls for help resulted in the creation of
the space office, which is part of the Department of Transportation.
''We went to six different agencies and had to wait about six months
just to get preliminary approval for our first project,'' recalled
Charles Cheffer, vice president of Space Services Inc., a Houston
company that plans to launch sensory satellites for oil companies and
agricultural combines by next year.
''The government still has red tape because it must protect national
security, but the new space office streamlines the whole operation
and saves us time and aggravation,'' Cheffer said.
One of the most potentially lucrative markets in space is the
manufacture of drugs that are expensive to make on Earth, but easy and
cheap to manufacture in zero gravity. Industry projections show that
space-made pharmaceutical products could generate annual sales of $20
billion by the 1990s.
Two of the first drugs that will be produced in zero gravity in mass
quantities are beta cells, expected to be a single-injection cure for
diabetes; and interferon, used for treating viral infections, cancer
and sexually transmitted Type II herpes.
Most space production of drugs will take place aboard space shuttle
flights, but new firms expect to be launching small orbital labs of
their own at a lower cost to drug companies.
One of those companies is Starstruck Inc., of Redwood City, Calif.,
which has already advertised its ''Mack truck'' launching service as
an alternative to the space shuttle's ''Porsche'' quality
transportation.
''Our Dolphin rocket is still in the testing stages, but it's
designed to carry research payloads more than 100 miles up, where
medicines can be produced in micro-gravity,'' Starstruck Vice
President James Bennett said in a telephone interview.
''We're projecting there's going to be a healthy profit for somebody
who can produce reliable service,'' he said.
Space Services' Cheffer even forsees cooperative ventures where
private companies rocket drug labs into orbit and the space shuttle -
on scheduled flights - retrieves batches of medicine from the labs,
leaving behind ingredients for more drugs.
''The possibilities in space transportation are limitless, we just
don't know what's out there yet,'' said Ms. Dorn. ''The potential
markets and the kinds of problems this industry is facing now are
similar to those the railroad industry faced when it was just
beginning.''
ap-ny-03-11 1333EST
***************eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (11/02/85)
> rockets. Two companies are now backed with large amounts of money to develop > private launch vehicles, one of which is a manned vehicle with the intent of > taking tourists into space for two day trips. The scuttlebut is that Soceity > Expeditions has agreed to set up a funding package of up to $280M to back > Pacific American Launch Services (Gary Hudsen) in design and construction of > the reusable VTVL-SSTO Phoenix. Vessel is modular and refuelable, so unlike > the shuttle, it can leave LEO. A Phoenix is projected to cost about the same > as a 747. Completion supposedly by the early 1990's. Maybe you can book a > flight to watch NASA put up it's space station. > > Actually, I don't honestly know how real the funding is. I've been trying to > get hold of Gary to find out, but I haven't gotten a call back yet. I'd also > guess the first flight will be several years late and will cost twice as > much as expected to develop, build and operate. But even then, it will fly > economic circles around anything the turkeys at NASA or DOD are up to. > Having reviewed the Phoenix reference design, I can say several things about it. For a vehicle that has several new technologies in the design (aerospike engine, oxidizer rich combustor, transpiration cooled heat shield), he is carrying a very low weight growth margin . The figure in Hudson's weight statement is about 5% of inert weight (weight without propellant). It should be more like 20%. After proving the new technologies, we estimate it would cost Boeing $2.7 Billion to build a vehicle like the Phoenix, and that the first one off the assembly line would cost about $300 million (3 times a 747). Considering that we can use existing manufacturing and assembly plants, with experienced people , whereas Pacific American would be starting from scratch, I find it doubtful they could build it for less than we can. There might be some advantage in engineering if they go 100% CAD, but on the other hand, we own a CRAY to do number crunching. We don't yet have a keyboard for every engineer, its more like one/three. Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/06/85)
> ... After proving the new > technologies, we estimate it would cost Boeing $2.7 Billion to build > a vehicle like the Phoenix, and that the first one off the assembly line > would cost about $300 million (3 times a 747). > > Considering that we can use existing manufacturing and assembly > plants, with experienced people , whereas Pacific American would be > starting from scratch, I find it doubtful they could build it for > less than we can... No offence to you personally or to Boeing, Dani, but the military and space branches of major aerospace companies are incapable of building anything cheaply. Even when it can be, and should be, built cheaply. They simply don't know how any more. I agree, by the way, that Hudson's weight margin in particular makes Phoenix a high-risk investment. But I strongly suspect that if it can be done at all, it can be done more cheaply than Boeing would do it. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (11/09/85)
> > ... After proving the new > > technologies, we estimate it would cost Boeing $2.7 Billion to build > > a vehicle like the Phoenix, and that the first one off the assembly line > > would cost about $300 million (3 times a 747). > > > > Considering that we can use existing manufacturing and assembly > > plants, with experienced people , whereas Pacific American would be > > starting from scratch, I find it doubtful they could build it for > > less than we can... > > No offence to you personally or to Boeing, Dani, but the military and > space branches of major aerospace companies are incapable of building > anything cheaply. Even when it can be, and should be, built cheaply. > They simply don't know how any more. > > I agree, by the way, that Hudson's weight margin in particular makes > Phoenix a high-risk investment. But I strongly suspect that if it can > be done at all, it can be done more cheaply than Boeing would do it. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry Since the group I work for is in the midst of a study whose goal is the reduction of space transportation cost by a factor of 5 to 10, we have become quite aware of what makes space hardware expensive. Note that the estimates I gave above are based on the way the Boeing Company makes things. Most of what we do is build commercial jet transports, and thus our cost equations are mostly derived from that experience. For example, the Phoenix tank is to be made of 2219-T87 aluminum alloy , and we happen to have a lot of experience in making things out of aluminum, i.e. airplanes. What is the real driver in costs is your design margins. If you lose one engine on a jet transport, the plane still flys, but somewhat slower. A small percentage of the rivets holding the plane together can fall out without catastrophic failures. As a consequence, the amount of checking you do between flights and the maintenance you do is small. On the Shuttle, if one engine goes out at the wrong time, you end up in the Atlantic. If a few key tiles fall off, your skin burns through, and perhaps lose the vehicle. Therefore, you must check these things between flights. Which costs money. When you design an airplane, you stress parts to maybe 50% of ultimate capacity. On the Shuttle, some parts are designed to 90% of ultimate strength. Therefore you must design them more carefully, not making approximations. You must build the parts with much more attention to quality, since a flaw would be much more likely to degrade the part below its required strength. These add to cost. If and when we have propulsion capable enough to allow larger design margins, we will be able to operate more like airplanes, and hence be cheaper. I was looking at the Phoenix to see if there was any good ideas in it that we could apply to our work, and there are some intriguing ideas, but they are untried technologies. It will take much time, people , and money to develop the technologies to the point of being able to carry passengers. I wish it were otherwise. If you or anyone else has a cheaper way to do things, please tell me. You may save the US many billions of dollars in the next fifteen years. But merely saying "we will be a new, efficient company", as Hudson is claiming for Pacific American Launch Systems, will not do. You must be able to say 'we can design a part in x hours' or 'we can build structure in y hours per pound' or 'this engine is z percent higher specific impulse than the SSME'. Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/ Boeing
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (11/11/85)
> ... there are some intriguing ideas [in Phoenix], but they are > untried technologies. It will take much time, people, and money > to develop the technologies to the point of being able to carry > passengers. I wish it were otherwise. If you or anyone else has > a cheaper way to do things, please tell me. This is exactly the point. If Boeing were to develop these ideas `properly', it would take much time, people and money. The `entrepreneurs' will instead try to develop these on a shoestring ---a crazy idea `of course'---and will probably fail, but if they succeed, WOW! Boeing's investors would never approve. Pacific American Launch Systems', on the other hand.... -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 4251) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu
wb6rqn@yojna1.UUCP (Brian Lloyd) (11/11/85)
> > ... After proving the new > > technologies, we estimate it would cost Boeing $2.7 Billion to build > > a vehicle like the Phoenix, and that the first one off the assembly line > > would cost about $300 million (3 times a 747). [...] > > > No offence to you personally or to Boeing, Dani, but the military and > space branches of major aerospace companies are incapable of building > anything cheaply. Even when it can be, and should be, built cheaply. > They simply don't know how any more. [...] > > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry The aerospace industry as a whole suffers because there are no simple technologies for the construction of air- and spacecraft. Our current technologies are very labor intensive. Combine that with the product liability problems faced by the aerospace companies (currently 30-40% of the cost of a new aircraft is product liability insurance) and it is not likely that any aerospace company can produce an inexpensive anything. If you are interested in an inexpensive air/spacecraft you must: 1. come up with a way to reduce the product liability costs, and ... 2. come up with a structure that has a strength-to-weight ratio that is as good as the riveted sheet metal, monocoque construction used today, that also is not labor intensive (expensive) to build. Another reason that military and NASA craft are so expensive is that they are built to military and government specifications (a mouse built to government specs is an elephant), so you are correct in stating that the military and space branches of the major aerospace manufacturers tend to build expensive products, but it is by decree rather than by choice. They build what the customer wants, and to the customer's specifications. What we are really talking about here is commercial production where things tend to be a little looser, albeit plagued by the product liability problem. Most of the technology is now in place and I think that Dani's numbers sound quite reasonable. By the way, Henry, what is your experience in the aerospace industry? Brian Lloyd ...![bellcore!cp1]!yojna1!wb6rqn
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/17/85)
> The aerospace industry as a whole suffers because there are no simple > technologies for the construction of air- and spacecraft... > > Another reason that military and NASA craft are so expensive is that they > are built to military and government specifications... [of necessity] Every time I am about to succumb to the argument that "there just ain't no better way", I remember the A-4 Skyhawk. Dani, Brian, are you aware of it? It was a light carried-based bomber, heavily used by the US Navy in the 50s and 60s, and still in service with various other nations. What is striking about it is that the US Navy's top aeronautical-engineering people were firmly convinced, and could argue convincingly, that it was impossible. The spec said such-and-such a load, such-and-such a radius, and a maximum weight of 30,000 pounds. Most everybody thought this was reasonable, perhaps a bit tight. Ed Heinemann of Douglas said that it could be done with a much smaller aircraft, less than half that weight. Most everyone thought he was lying or crazy. I should emphasize that nobody doubted Heinemann's ability -- he had designed a good fraction of the Navy's aircraft inventory at the time -- or Douglas's ability to build aircraft promptly and well. They simply did not think that it was physically possible to meet those specs at under 15,000 pounds. Gross weight of the first production Skyhawk was 14,600 pounds. It met the spec fully. Furthermore, it was *not* optimized so single-mindedly as to make it impractical. It was 100 knots faster than the spec asked for (in fact, it set a world record for sustained speed at low altitude). It had 100 miles more combat radius. It was stressed for higher G-loading than the spec called for. Developed versions eventually carried nearly their own weight in payload. In actual combat in Vietnam, it acquired a reputation for being almost indestructible. Its serviceability exceeded that of any other combat jet in Vietnam, with better than 95% readiness. A rough guess by informed people put its maintenance load at 40% of what it would have needed if it had been built as an ordinary 30,000 pound aircraft. The result was the first combat aircraft to stay in production for a quarter of a century. The final production Skyhawks were still nearly identical to Heinemann's original design sketch. Oh yes, the Navy said "pretty please, can you possibly bring it in under a million dollars, so we can afford it?". (Money was tight at the time, and cost estimates for the 30,000 pound bomber were circa two million.) The first few hundred Skyhawks cost $860,000 each. On schedule, too. Nor was this an isolated incident, although it was the most spectacular one. The Skyhawk evolved out of a proposal for a 6,000 pound (!) supersonic interceptor. Heinemann's 68,000 pound Skywarrior met a spec that several other companies had rejected as impossible at 100,000 pounds. And -- of some relevance -- in the early 50s Heinemann's crew did a detailed study for a ONE-STAGE satellite launcher; they thought it was possible. (Some of their ideas were later used in the "one-and-a-half-stage" Atlas.) All in all, this is a remarkable example of just how much things can be tightened up when the boss knows his stuff and insists that the "standard method" just isn't good enough. It's a shame that Heinemann was too old (and working for the wrong company) to be chief engineer for the Shuttle. The aerospace business needs more Heinemanns. > By the way, Henry, what is your experience in the aerospace industry? Fortunately :-), none. I'm just a skeptical observer. -- Theorem: **NO** new technology is needed to build the Space Station. Proof: We built one fifteen years ago. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry