Posted on 11/28/2005 6:33:44 PM PST by KevinDavis
DENVER, Colo. -- Stand by for dramatic and radical change in the emerging passenger space travel industry—but don’t count on NASA or major aerospace service providers to propel the public into space anytime soon.
Since the early 1970s, NASA seems to mean No Adult Supervision Apparent. The unaffordable space shuttle, for example, is a failure in trying to reduce cost for accessing Earth orbit. Moreover, companies out to build the space agency’s replacement for the shuttle — the Crew Exploration Vehicle — are doing so under an arrangement that cripples innovation, creativity, and the chance for breakthroughs.
Thus says Burt Rutan, the private airplane and spacecraft designer, who is anything but shy when it comes to telling the world where he thinks the United States – and NASA in particular, has gone wrong since the heyday of human spaceflight.
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
10,000 people per year at 10 per flight = 1,000 flights per year, or 3 flights per day.
OK -- figure the company has 100 people on payroll at a net cost to the company of $100,000/year/person (salaries and benefits) ==>$10 million.
Figure the rocket motor alone costs $100,000 per flight (assuming it's the same sort of hybrid they're running now).
Figure facilities -- dunno, but several million per year... let's make it $10 million.
So just to break even they need to charge something like $30,000 per passenger.... And I'm probably low-balling the price tag: for example, for a flight rate like this, there'd be some pretty extensive maintenance costs, not to mention insurance.
Now, there might be 10,000 people per year who want to pay $30,000+ for one of these flights. But I somehow don't think there are. Especially after one or two of these little fellas fails to make an intact landing.
Burt Rutan is not Jesus. He reminds me a lot of John Delorean, however.
Can people like Burt do this anywhere? Burt's a very smart guy -- really innovative. However, he is in full marketing mode in this interview, which should raise some big red flags. Remember: this is a sympathetic interview, and this is the best Mr. Rutan can offer.
A serious investor would want to ask a few questions ... such as, does he really expect to be able to make 1,000 flights per year, and to have a full load of passengers for each? What about maintenance, wear, and tear? How many ships would he need to maintain this flight rate?
And, of course, we have a fellow who's making these predictions about a system for which "the mega-launching plane, a big spaceship that carries eight to ten people, and a new rocket motor—all these have to be developed, certified, and then put into production." So your cagey investor might also want to know about risks, schedules, costs, return on initial investment, and so on.
But Burt's "tight-lipped" about that. Wonder why?
The giant money would be in satellites if the could get to where they could do that.
Well, yeah ... but that would require orbital missions, which (especially for reusable manned missions) are a couple of orders of magnitude more complex and expensive than what Rutan's proposing here.
For satellite launches, it's probably always going to be cheaper to use expendables than reusables -- manned or otherwise.
What's really needed for a viable commercial satellite launch business is a) reliability and flexibility; b) orbit injection accuracy; c) a profitable commercial niche for the satellite builders that will justify the development, launch, and operations costs of their vehicles; and finally, d) lower launch costs.
Note that I put "commercially viable satellites" in among the criteria for a successful launch business. The crash of projects like Iridium and Globalstar, and the resultant impact on the launch business, show how important it is to have somebody who's going to make money after you launch them.
Finally, note that I put launch costs dead last. They're important to some extent, but if you've got a commercially viable system you'll pay for the launch in relatively short order. And, like it or not, your launch will always cost multiple millions.
Reliability and injection accuracy are the biggest selling points for satellite builders. Reliability for obvious reasons. Accuracy, because it allows you to budget less propellant for correcting launch dispersions, and for constellation launches, it might allow you to get by with fewer launches.
That's about an order of magnitude higher than what you can buy a ticket for today.
Your pessimism reminds me of the folks I worked with on IBM 370's, who laughed at PCs.
You don't get it.
Delorean didn't invent entirely new kinds of vehicles. He just copied gull wing doors from Mercedes.
The airplane industry went through a phase not unlike this. Many people sunk fortunes into the industry from 1908 through the mid 30's. Several generations of vehicles went by before flight became really practical for the masses.
But a few lucky people were in on the ground floor of companies like Lockheed, Martin, Boeing, Douglas and others. They made out pretty well, and I think the others really didn't mind because they participated in a very exciting time. We could very well be seeing the same thing happen again.
Ping for later reading
Rutan isn't designing entirely new kinds of vehicles, either. He has stylistic flair in spades, though. And a great marketing sense. But when you get down to it, it's still just airplanes and rockets.
We could.... But somebody's got to find a realistic way to make a pile of money from it first, and I seriously doubt that Rutan's "suborbital tourist" trade is gonna pay the bills.
Burt also flacks for the idea, but you're right -- Branson is offering the flights.
And now for the serious question: do you really think Branson can get 10,000 folks per year to line up and drop close to a quarter of a million dollars for a 40-minute ride? I don't.
HE-162 Volks Jaeger (Peoples' Fighter)
I wish that Rutan would refrain from attaching the word "Peoples" to his work-product. This is the fruit of his labor, not some socialist collective. To my way of thinking it's also an indication that "you are doing it on the cheap." While this may be true, you don't want to advertise it.
Rutan's isn't merely rearranging old airplane designs. His varieasy with the canard wasn't necessarily new (even the Wright Bros used it), but it was one of the first practical canards out there. The design of the White Night is unique where the horizontal stablizers are completely separated. That's not a small thing, and they must be syncronized lest they torque the wing seriously. In essence, it's two airplanes in very tight formation.
The grizzly was a very unique STOL airplane with a canard featuring high lift flaps. The Boomerang idea has been done (twin engine, twin fuselage, single passenger compartment), but it's asymetrical design, with forward swept wings, that nevertheless is totally ballanced is a one-of-a-kind.
Delorean was merely a stylist, in a market where everyone has a unique style. Rutan is different. Really different.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.