Alan Boyle writes that it may be not tourism, but research.
People are going to look back at the history, and wonder why we weren’t doing this decades ago. There was certainly no technological reason.
34 thoughts on “The Killer App For Suborbital Flights”
Comments are closed.
That would be really good news. The tourism business case is real, but it would be nice to have more than one leg to stand on in the 2010-2020 time frame. Tourism is a remarkably fickle market.
Further, doing science in zero-g is really the only way to find commercial applications for zero-g. Once you’ve got some commercial application that only works in zero-g (say for instance, a new kind of crystal wafers for computer chips) then the business will really improve in cost and efficiency, as steady demand for commercial applications drives engineering R&D. Imagine what Armadillo or Masten could do with 3% of Intel’s budget …
/waiting for Mark Whitlesston to call this the “Study, but don’t build” business case.
Perhaps Virgin can create a 1 for 2 deal (similar to what the OLPC program did a few years ago) where a well heeled client purchases two seats, but one seat is donated to a worthy sub-orbital research project. The two seats wouldn’t necessarily be on the same flight, but it may be a good way to give those that can afford it an opportunity to participate to a greater degree in space exploration. The PR opportunity for the clients is pretty obvious as well.
Rand, I guess I’m missing something here. Having worked in manned space flight (albeit some time ago) and in the payloads community I was under the impression that we’ve had PLENTY of zero G science done already. IF there was a pot of gold at the rainbow, we’d have had some hints already, and would be using the ISS or other means to get this research done. As I am not current on the literature are there specific material properties research plans that at least appear promising? Otherwise this looks to me like a sales pitch for rocket companies, not science. When it comes to astronomy, the advantages of getting out of the atmosphere are obvious, ditto communications satellites. Other fields are not so clear (to me at least).
There actually hasn’t been much done in Shuttle or station, because the science budgets were cut to pay for the Shuttle and station. And the costs are so high that most researchers haven’t had the opportunities. There are some things that can’t be done in twenty seconds in the airplane, but could in three or four minutes, and the low cost will open up a lot more opportunities.
RKV, I believe Rand may have posted a while back a link that described the big difference 40 seconds of microgravity on zero-g airplane flight versus 4 to 8 minutes of microgravity on a sub-orbital flight can make with a lot of zero-g experiments. I’m under the impression that ready access to sub-orbital flights may make it possible for graduate students and other academic researches to find $300,000 to $500,000 research grants and conduct meaningful research within a years time. That’s a cost and time frame that wouldn’t even begin to open up a valuable slot on the ISS.
Guys, Cubesats are already flying. Cheap. And much longer than 8 minutes. http://cubesat.atl.calpoly.edu/pages/satellite-developers.php I guess what I’m after is more specifics on what areas of research seem promising, and from people in the know, rather than what a google search would turn up. I personally remember lots of promises being made, and I’m reacting to the lack of delivery on the same when I come across as skeptical. If you say, the promise hasn’t been delivered because the cost is too high, my response is that we’ve had capability enough to at least try the high probability, high payoff cases, haven’t we? Maybe I’ve got the facts wrong, but maybe there is no there there. That doesn’t mean don’t find out what we can, but maybe we ought to get realistic as to the potential payoffs, or lack thereof.
RKV,
Did you read the article? The article specifically addresses why the ISS and Shuttle have not be able to meet scientific needs. And there seem to be a number of scientists very excited by this. The orders of magnitude cost differences have kept whole fields of science from testing their theories. And we can’t know if there’s any “there” there until we look.
Yes I read the article. It sounded like a commercial for rocket vendors, rather than an explanation of why zero gravity science has economic value, which would support the need for rockets. If you build it they will come is not a business plan.
Doesn’t surprise me. When I worked on the feasibility study for the spaceport in 1992 I told them this was the market they should position the spaceport in New Mexico towards, not SSTO. A more recent proprietary study I did for another spaceport a couple of years ago showed this market had far more potential then space tourism for generating revenue for sub-orbital systems.
The reason is there are already lot more sub-orbital flights each year then orbital ones. In short there is already an existing market. And the number is limited by budgets not demand. If you cut the price of a flight in half you could likely double the number.
And since its often cargo only you have an opportunity to really test out your systems before having to fly passengers.
Also the real killer app. is not zero-G but aeronomy research. Given the likely increases in funding for climate research a mobile system like SS2 (or even the Lynx) could make real money flying research missions. More so then flying tourists. Of course its not as sexy as space tourism, which is why its been ignored by New Space, no flashy press releases, but I will take a good bread and butter market over a sexy one any day.
We were doing suborbital zero g flights decades ago. Ever heard of X-15?
Ever heard of X-15?
Yes. We quit doing it decades ago as well.
Oh, ffs…
One of the keys to the suborbital research market is rapid turnaround of existing test apparatus +/- any tweaks they do to the experiment. That compresses the research schedule dramatically.
If, for example, a researcher can purchase a 20 flight, 2 week block of flights for a 100 kg experimental payload, that results in:
reliable test apparatus
lots of usable data
wide variation in test inputs
What would a researcher pay for that? A lot more than they would pay for 20 sounding rocket flights.
The cubesat, being a “configure once, then launch to orbit” is not in the same market.
*rant off
I would think such a subortal approach might help seperate the wheat form the chaff before comitting big bucks for orbital experiments.
Anyone who thinks “cost” is the primary driver for commercial customers of micro-g should Google “Get Away Special” ($111/kg to orbit!) and ask themselves why so many GAS cans were filled with ballast.
Many potential customers for micro-g/sub-orbital flights are actually prepared to pay significant sums of money for this service but are NOT prepared to wait in a queue for tens of months… followed by a similar wait for any follow-on flight.
Availability is a quality of service that has, so far, NEVER been provided by any launch system. This factor, more than any other, is the reason why I believe the upcoming sub-orbital launch systems will very likely be in great demand.
Dave,
The same is true for aeronomy research. Being able to quickly capture information with short lead time will result in many new opportunities for research and for revenue for the suborbital systems.
Tom
Of course its not as sexy as space tourism, which is why its been ignored by New Space, no flashy press releases,
Go to http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/press_releases.shtml, and you will find lots of flashy press releases about suborbital science.
Just because you don’t know about something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
but I will take a good bread and butter market over a sexy one any day.
🙂
I’ve been telling you that for the last five years. But you thought Ares and Orion were *so* sexy!
Many potential customers for micro-g/sub-orbital flights are actually prepared to pay significant sums of money for this service but are NOT prepared to wait in a queue for tens of months… followed by a similar wait for any follow-on flight.
When I had breakfast with Rick Searfoss recently, he pointed out that a suborbital vehicle might cost about the same as a Learjet — a price that a university could afford. For less than the cost of a new football stadium, a university could have its own space program.
Note to Tom: That would create a significant market for spaceport consulting, if you’re through hawking Ares.
RKV is correct. Having received my PhD in the heat transfer and fluid dynamics I am well aware of the zero-g fluid dynamics experiments that people would like to perform. There are virtually none that will be performed by private interests at $200k. Zero g fluid dynamics experiments are only performed by well connected professors funded by NASA or other government agencies. Do you think NASA will pick a private enterprise or themselves to fly their experiment?
I’m not saying there is no zero-g work that will be done by private groups, just almost none. Like RKV said, give us specific examples, not drivel like this “Stern said a wide range of experiments could be done in life sciences, materials science or even planetary science”. If you think Ph.D. candidates will be flying their experiments, then you’ve never been one. OK all you PhDs out there, line up and tell me where your funding came from and how much you could afford for your experimental work? Now professors, how much money do you have for your work?
@brian d
I rather like Edward Wright’s approach — approach a university to simply buy a suborbital rocket plane outright.
Paint the CalTech logo or MIT logo on the tail.
Whenever the plane is idle for lack of experiments, fly well heeled alumni in exchange for donations. Notre Dame does the same thing for 50 yard line football tickets.
PS — NASA need not be involved in any of this.
If a university desires to buy (or lease or time share) a sub-orbital spacecraft (such as the XCOR Lynx, for example) the only people who rally matter for that are on the University Board of Trustees.
Talk them into doing it and it’s a done deal.
Probably be easier to get a deal done if the funding wasn’t associated with NASA.
The July/August PilotMag has a great article on page 34 about a company that owns 3 F-104 Starfighters that they are going to use for suborbital tourism and microsatellite launches.
They are going to be located out of KSC. They think that they have a market with these birds.
Good luck to em!
The July/August PilotMag has a great article on page 34 about a company that owns 3 F-104 Starfighters that they are going to use for suborbital tourism and microsatellite launches.
Do you have a link? I wonder if the flight meets the legal suborbital requirement.
Edward,
Looks like those press releases on suborbital science are from 2008 at the earliest. The first study I did for New Mexico was in 1991, while the suborbital market studies were in 2002 and 2006, well before New Space discovered it. Back then you were still hawking your teachers in space program.
You also need to do a little research and learn the different between the VSE, which I support, and the Ares I/Orion which is Griffin’s interpretation of Constellation. Again, do your research.
VSE still makes sense if you use EELV and Shuttle-C, read Dennis’ posts on it, which was the direction NASA was going before Griffin came on board.
Pat Bahn was looking at the university market for his Michelle B back in 2000. Its a very attractive market once you have a vehicle to sell to it. But you need to approach the market the right way or you will have the same public backlash as the auto companies owning business jets. Especially since many of the customers are public universities. And yes, that would include using them for joy rides by alumni. That said there are about 40 to 50 schools that would be prime targets to buy one if the price was on the low end of costs for a business jet.
It was also why I proposed a Space Markets Act in 2005, to create a stimulus for suborbital vehicles beyond space tourism.
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=279
But as I noted above, in 2005 all the space pundits were chasing space tourism as the killer app for new space.
…as I noted above, in 2005 all the space pundits were chasing space tourism as the killer app for new space.
They are both politically incorrect markets, for different reasons…
Bill,
You only need the Board of Trustees if the university owns the spacecraft. And in that case you run the rest of getting sucked into university politics. (i.e. if they could afford rockets for physics why not new pickups for agriculture?)
A far more cleaner and more practical business model is for a spaceport to own a couple of craft and to simply charter them to university or industry researchers as needed. Then its the researchers decision and that of whoever is providing them the research grants (NSF, NOAA, etc.). You stay out of the politics of the university. You just run the business as an extension of the spaceport.
Its a win for the spaceport because the public starts seeing flights from it and its a win for suborbtial researchers as they have more affordable options for research at multiple sites around the country.
Its brings space closer to the public with suborbital research craft flying around the country advancing science versus the image spaceports and suborbital space being the domain of a few super rich tourists at one or two locations.
The Space Markets Acts I proposed actually included a funding mechanism for this based on the matching funds model used for public airports since the craft would be considered part of the spaceport infrastructure.
The first study I did for New Mexico was in 1991, while the suborbital market studies were in 2002 and 2006,
1991 was a long time ago, Tom. Then Bush did his Kennedy bit, and you started telling us we should forget about reusable vehicles and support Apollo II which was going to mine Helium 3 and platinum group metals.
Surely you remember that?
learn the different between the VSE, which I support, and the Ares I/Orion which is Griffin’s interpretation of Constellation
Okay, Tom, I’m dumb. Please tell me, how did the Bush Vision of Space Exploration differ from Constellation in terms of bread-and-butter markets like suborbital?
VSE still makes sense if you use EELV and Shuttle-C, read Dennis’ posts on it, which was the direction NASA was going before Griffin came on board.
Griffin wanted to spend many billions on an expensive Shuttle-derived rocket to increase the cost of space transportation. Dennis wants to spend many billions on an expensive Shuttle-derived rocket to increase the cost of space transportation.
Doesn’t seem like a major change in direction to me, even if you think the Shuttle-C design is sexier.
I proposed a Space Markets Act in 2005, to create a stimulus for suborbital vehicles beyond space tourism.
Who did you proprose this to? I can’t find it on Thomas.
@ Tom Matula
A far more cleaner and more practical business model is for a spaceport to own a couple of craft and to simply charter them to university or industry researchers as needed. Then its the researchers decision and that of whoever is providing them the research grants (NSF, NOAA, etc.). You stay out of the politics of the university. You just run the business as an extension of the spaceport.
Point taken
Tom,
Not all of the “NewSpace” companies were chasing suborbital tourism. Masten Space Systems has *always* been focused on developing suborbital research platforms, not on flying people. We won’t claim to be
the first group to see the potential of suborbital science, but we’ve been focused on the suborbital science market since 2003.
~Jon
Jonathan Goff,
I thought of Masten when this topic came up, and something in the article also make me think of Masten – the idea of the scientists flying up with the experiment to perform it himself. Masten wouldn’t support that if I understand the proposal, correct? I understand that there are different markets and you can’t be all things to all people, but how big of a limitation do you think this will be?
And in that case you run the rest of getting sucked into university politics. (i.e. if they could afford rockets for physics why not new pickups for agriculture?)
The obvious solution is to pay for the rockets through one mechanism (say, the Space Grant Consortium) and agricultural programs through another (e.g., the Land Grant Consortium).
Bill White,
Re:your suggestion about MIT (or Caltech) owning a craft and dual using it for Alumni tourism.
MIT tried almost exactly that with a Zero-G flight. They chartered two flights, one for Alumni to take and another that was to use the proceeds from the first flight to pay for a research flight. The alumni flight didn’t happen due to lack of participants (blamed on recession and publicity missteps) and the research flight only happened when the researchers had to scramble for more funding. I’m not saying you model won’t work, just that the “well heeled alumni” pool is not as deep as many would like to believe.
As to the rest of the topics raised, I have sat in on several brain storming sessions for sub-orbital research and I haven’t really been impressed by what is able to take advantage of it. Again, not saying that it is not there, just that I haven’t seen the killer application yet.
Brock,
I don’t know if you’re still reading this thread, but if you are, I wanted to attempt an answer to your question:
I thought of Masten when this topic came up, and something in the article also make me think of Masten – the idea of the scientists flying up with the experiment to perform it himself. Masten wouldn’t support that if I understand the proposal, correct? I understand that there are different markets and you can’t be all things to all people, but how big of a limitation do you think this will be?
There’s limitations both ways. People onboard tend to make it harder to get good microgravity or good fine-pointing for astronomical missions. People tend to also cost more (we’re looking at a base price in the $25-50k range, compared to the $100-200k per seat price for others). Having people on board also prohibits more hazardous experiments like stuff involving volatile cryo fuels in the payload section. But People give you some flexibility you don’t have otherwise…
It’ll be interesting to see how it pans out, but we feel we’re in pretty good shape for this market.
~Jon