Conscious Choice cover

From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

 
Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.

 

“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.

 

Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.


Europe reconsiders reusability in its rockets

The competition heats up: Pressured by SpaceX, Europe has restarted a research program into developing a reusable first stage to its rockets.

The headline is actually an overstatement. The European managers quoted in the article actually spend most of their time explaining why trying to reuse a rocket’s first stage makes no sense, but they feel forced to reluctantly look into it anyway because of what SpaceX is doing with its Falcon 9.

This story makes me think of two blacksmiths around 1900. One poo-poos cars, saying that the repair cost is so high no one will ever buy them. He goes back to pounding horseshoes. The other decides that if he learns how to fix cars, he can turn his shop from fixing horseshoes to fixing cars, and make more money. Europe is the first blacksmith, while SpaceX is the second.

Which do you think is going to succeed?

Readers!
 

I must unfortunately ask you for your financial support because I do not depend on ads and rely entirely on the generosity of readers to keep Behind the Black running. You can either make a one time donation for whatever amount you wish, or you sign up for a monthly subscription ranging from $2 to $15 through Paypal or $3 to $50 through Patreon.


Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Your support is even more essential to me because I not only keep this site free from advertisements, I do not use the corrupt social media companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook to promote my work. I depend wholly on the direct support of my readers.


You can provide that support to Behind The Black with a contribution via Patreon or PayPal. To use Patreon, go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation. For PayPal click one of the following buttons:
 


 

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Patreon or Paypal don't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 

Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
 

Or you can donate by using Zelle through your bank. You will need to give my name and email address (found at the bottom of the "About" page). The best part of this electronic option is that no fees will be deducted! What you donate will be what I receive.

8 comments

  • pzatchok

    They can either build cheap disposable rockets or build repairable reusable ones.

    Its all in the starting design and philosophy.

    They have already proven that they can not build cheap disposable rockets.

  • Cotour

    Yes, not that I know much about the rocket business specifically but generally the level of available funding, choice of design / materials and technology you decide to commit to becomes your long term business model. The trick is being able to have the vision and be correct about those choices. So far Elan Musk seems to be making the correct choices.

    There is nothing worse than being married to and having to sell something that you know is not the best or as flexible as it could have been. And then sometimes, even though you have done your best in considering all of the variables you have to scrap the whole thing and start from scratch.

  • Edward

    From the article: “a rocket with a reusable first stage would need to overcome the fact that reusability means reducing the economies of scale realized from producing lots of rocket stages and motors.”

    I’m not sure that this analysis has considered that reusing a rocket only once (assuming no refurbishment cost) halves the cost of the rocket per launch. If it can be reused ten times, then the cost is 1/10th per launch. Reuse can very quickly overcome the “economy of scale.” Perhaps, some decade, rockets will be as reusable as commercial airliners, SpaceShipTwoes, or XCOR Lynxes.

    Further, if the engines can be used as many times as the Space Shuttle’s engines, then a huge cost can be saved. Engines are pretty expensive.

    If the avionics and other electronics boxes are able to be salvaged from end-of-life rockets, that can save millions of dollars more.

    Since SpaceX is prepared to design more-advanced hardware, they may be able to adapt from experience and improve the re-usability, refurbish-ability, and reliability of their first stages faster than NASA was able to improve the Space Shuttle. They also seem to be more nimble and more willing than ESA and NASA to make design improvements. This may be an advantage in having the chief engineer also be the top decision maker — no need to convince a committee that something is a good idea. (The downside, of course, is that it is harder to overrule a bad idea.)

  • Cotour

    Attention NASA nerds:

    Please explain http://youtu.be/kurNi0bAxdQ

  • fred k

    It is true that reusing rockets will result (mostly likely)* in fewer rocket engines that need to be manufactured. Manufacturing a lot of something generally drives down the unit cost per item.

    Of course, the real customers, the satellite operators don’t care about the cost to manufacture the rocket, they just care about the cost/price to fly their payload to orbit. Unless SpaceX incurs a ridiculous refurbishment cost, (and/or can’t reuse it more than once) it going to be way cheaper to fly rockets many times than it will be to build a fresh rocket everytime.

    *NOTE: we don’t know how lower launch prices will change the market. It might grow things enough to keep the rocket factory busy even with reuse. Even if it does not, it can still result in lower launch costs.

  • Richard

    You’re ignoring the cost of the propellant.

  • Edward

    I’m not sure just what you mean or if you are joking.

    You may mean: A) the cost of propellant may become the major cost of a flight, as with the airline industry, or B) the cost of the propellant is a significant factor between reusable and expendable rockets.

    For case A:
    I agree, that is the ultimate goal, one which Peter Diamandis thought he would champion with his original X-Prize (now known as the Ansari X-Prize). The cost-performance of airlines was his example, and the Orteig Prize, won by The Spirit of St. Louis, was his inspiration.*

    For case B:
    Propellant costs would be similar whether the rocket is an expendable or a reusable. The reusable rocket would require additional amounts, estimated as being about 10% more. This cost is likely “in the noise” that includes the refurbishment costs, which I also ignored.

    Additional ignored costs include: 1) The cost of building landing pads at the launchsites/spaceports, which would look similar to the test pads used by SpaceX’s Grasshopper test vehicle — concrete with few other fixed facilities on or near the pad. 2) The use, maintenance, and construction of SpaceX’s “barge” floating landing platform. 3) Construction and maintenance of various hardware and facilities unique to rocket refurbishment. 4) The cost to develop the reusable rocket and its procedures — which would likely be higher than an expendable rocket, as there is little experience in this area (e.g. SpaceX built special test facilities, built at least two test rockets, and hired several design and test engineers to develop and test these, not to mention the rented cows that added entertainment value to the videos).

    I’m sure that a detailed analysis could itemize more costs, but the point is that re-usability overcomes economies of scale, as airlines, trucking companies, railroads, and your own car have demonstrated.

    In fact, none of these industries ever considered their “vessels” to be onetime use. For them, it was inconceivable, as the cost would have been prohibitive.

    It is amazing that commercial use of space is able to overcome the transportation cost of getting hardware “up the hill.” It suggests the enormous potential for additional — and more efficient — use of space as a resource and place to do business.

    * Peter Diamandis is one of my heroes, because he had the “Field of Dreams” spirit of ‘If you build it, the entrants and donors would come.’ He didn’t know how to reuse a rocket within his stated two-week requirement, and he had no money to offer when he set the prize amount, but he had the audacity to set both the requirement and the prize.

  • MIKE GREEN

    I don’t see that there is any argument to be had over the issue of reusability. If you can reuse any portion of a rocket, without adding prohibitive recovery costs, it reduces the cost of that portion of the rocket. Period. That was the philosophy that lead to to the development of the American space shuttle. The fact that the design and manufacture of the space shuttle, to a major degree, was decided by the Congress and driven by one of Robert Zimmerman’s favorite congressional traits: pork, combined with the expense that the bloated bureaucracy that NASA had become, made the potential cost savings of the space shuttle concept an impossible thing to achieve. That’s the nature of government endeavors. The European Space Agency is also a government(s) based enterprise so it is not surprising that they are reluctant to favorably consider or achieve the development of a reusable rocket. Reusability reduces pork and pork is the mother’s milk of government programs. I believe SpaceX will be successful at some point in the quest for reusable rockets and that success will drive all other rocket manufacturers to follow suit or fail. Or the governments of the world will get together and outlaw reusable rockets. Either scenario is possible but at some point down the line reusable rockets will become the norm.

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *