X-37 revived again?

[JonClarke]

In this case I use the word "civil" to mean non-military. <br /><br />Using spin offs to justify investment in any field of technology never works as a logical argument. Investment in specific technological fields needs to be justified on the grounds of return in its own field, not possible spin offs into unrelated areas. <br /><br />In the case of militaryy space, the US miliary isn't interested in developing cheap access to space. They are interested in assured supply of space services, like intelligence, communications, navigation, launch on demand and so forth.<br /><br />Why should "cheap" imply inferior quality? Air travel is cheaper than it was 50 years ago. Are the 767 and A340 inferior to a DC4 because of this. Computer power is vastly cheaper than it was 10 years ago. Are modern PC's inferior as a result.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

I am a Value Engineer at the company I work for. It is my job to make things cost less. Therefore we say that we "add value" or "reduce cost" but never say cheaper for in carries with it the implication of reduced quality.

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I am a Value Engineer at the company I work for. It is my job to make things cost less. Therefore we say that we "add value" or "reduce cost" but never say cheaper for in carries with it the implication of reduced quality. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Exactly. I would use words such as "economical", "affordable", "value".... but never "cheap". <br /><br />As for as access to space, what is "economical" or "affoerdable" are really subjective. While some thinks $10,000 per lbm is too expensive, others may think that's really economical --- if it gets you to where the satellites need to go reliably, instead of blowing up your hundreds of million dollars worth of satellite/ space "asset", etc. <br /><br />Some may think access to space will always be too expensive, no matter what price they charge. <br /><br />Then there's reality of the market place. There's no good business case so far for a launch company to offer *affordable* launch service. If SpaceX can launch paylaod reliably for $6M per launch AND be profitable doing so, then perhaps it will change the paradigm of the market. Until then, there's just no market for such *cheap* access to space.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

We are quibbling over words here, the industries I have worked in regard "cheap" as an accolade. Cheap, value added, reduced cost, its whatever floats your boat.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[propforce]

Address the market place issue, JonClarke.<br /><br />I bet if you pay Boeing for the next 1,000 launches, you'll get a very attractive *CHEAP* prices! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />It's all about Who's-your-daddy. Now quibble that word. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I agree that cheap access (or low cost if you prefer) has yet to be achieved (although in relative turns costs have come down markedly in the past 40 years).<br /><br />I agree that it is technologically demanding (and I notethe claims of groups like SpaceX to achieve cheap/low cost launches are yet to be proved).<br /><br />I agree that the mass market (which is one way to bring down the unit costs of space flight) does not yet exist.<br /><br />So what's your problem?<br /><br />Ands what does "Who's-your-daddy" mean?<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[propforce]

No problem anymore. Just want to understand your position on the issues <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.<br /><br /><br />"Who's-your-daddy" is all about the golden rule of the market place --- he who has the gold dictate the rule. In this case, no one has step up with the gold and able to buy "volume" of launches, thus no "low-cost" launch pricing can be offerred. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Exactly. I would use words such as "economical", "affordable", "value".... but never "cheap"."</font><br /><br />OK -- let's toss out CATS. We need a new acronym:<br /><br />Economical ATS? (EATS)<br />Non-Expensive ATS (NEATS)<br />Less-Expensive ATS (LEATS)<br />Reduced-Expense ATS (REATS)<br />Bargain ATS (BEATS)<br />Truly Economical ATS (TEATS)<br /> <i>(Probably wouldn't get that one past NASA PR)</i><br />TRuly Economical ATS (TREATS)<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[bitbanger]

LOw Cost Access To Space (LOCATS)?<br />

 

[rocketman5000]

I like the EATS and LOCATS the best.... now everyone post it on your blogs and it will be the next waffle phenomenon