It’s about the space economy, stupid.
I agree that developing lunar resources should be part of the mix, though we have a lot of work to do to prove out the techniques to do so in a way that makes economic sense. But as I’ve said before, I’m not that concerned about abandoning that goal for now — it was many years off in any event, and if it’s the momentary price we have to pay to kill off the misbegotten Ares program, it’s one well worth it. We can decide to go to the moon any time, and it will be a lot easier with a low-cost infrastructure than with a high-cost one.
And if you want to further the cause of cheap small lift, a destination that allows substantial use of propellant transfer. That probably means beyond LEO, apart from minor training and precursor missions, but not necessarily beyond GEO.
Again destinations…
I want the lowest hanging fruit business model that has large numbers of people doing stuff in space. That likely means low cost space stations/depots/satellites/tugs in LEO that are assembled using small cheap lift.
I doubt that NASA is compatible with low cost anything.
Assembly doesn’t sound like a promising initial model to me. Tourism and orbit raising do. Neither requires depots. Still, neither exists today, although people are working towards them. Providing temporary artificial demand might close the business case for the development of cheap launchers.
Propelling a spacecraft, presumably towards some destination, any destination, seems like a good way to generate that artificial initial demand. And it doesn’t have to be fancy. It could be something as simple as a NEO transfer stage loitering at a Lagrange point, waiting for a new one to be discovered and then swooping in.
NEOs can easily provide the necessary volume since there are so many of them. Loitering at L1/L2 also gives you a far better responsiveness than would be possible with ground based launch. NEOs are also somewhat exciting in that they could conceivably wipe out mankind, in addition to the genuine scientific merit that studying them or even just tagging them with a transponder might have.
Or else anything that provides enough value compared to what NASA usually does to justify buying the required propellant in orbit. That’s not setting the bar very high.
In the graduate it was…, “plastics.”
For low cost access (like any business) it’s… “competition.”
Competition is the only thing guaranteed to lower costs.
To get competition you need enough business that Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, and all the rest are unable to keep up.
To get that will take many, many habitats… in orbit, Lagrange points, bottom of various gravity wells, etc.
Everything else follows from that. If depots haven’t come first, they will once we have that kind of demand.
If reusables make sense, competition will bring that about as well. No need to argue for or against them.
Can we get there? Sure, Bigelow will sell the habitats right now. The business models for using those habitats is what’s needed. Sure they exist, but someone has to actually put up the money and do it.
Those habitats are also useful as structure for a ship as well.
I sound like a sales rep. for Bigelow, don’t I? Actually, I’d like to see Bigelow have some competition as well. I definitely think we can get the $100m per BA330 down with a little…
“Competition” Shhhh… pass it along.
Assembly doesn’t sound like a promising initial model to me. Tourism and orbit raising do. Neither requires depots. Still, neither exists today, although people are working towards them.
The type of tourism and orbit raising you suggest does not enable dramatic cost reduction, merely minor refinement of existing high cost launch vehicles and the perpetuation of that culture.
Launch market elasticity does not kick in until launch costs are dramatically below existing rates – ELVs are not going to directly help with that.
SpaceX is helping by reducing the giggle factor and by revealing that NASA is not wearing any clothes and I wish them all the best, but I am not sure that they will find a long term place for themselves in the new world they are helping to create.
Ed, no. Paul is a dinosaur because he seems to think humans are necessary to do lunar ISRU. NASA has authorized Project-M to put a humanoid robot on the Moon by 2012. An ISRU Flagship Technology Demonstration Program lander will be there shortly after. The development of lunar resources can and should be done fully autonomously to lower the cost of subsequent human flights when propellant depots come online.
Launch market elasticity does not kick in until launch costs are dramatically below existing rates – ELVs are not going to directly help with that.
It looks as if we’re talking past each other. You asked for a business model, and I described two business models that would likely be profitable once you had cheap small lift. Another crucial question is how to get there.
As you say tourism and orbit raising by themselves are probably not enough, although we can’t rule it out completely. So how do we get the necessary scale? Propellant is very interesting because it is nearly perfectly divisible (so it will fit small on cheap small lift), cheap to buy on the ground (so you are limited only by launch costs, not by the cost of expensive aerospace payloads like satellites) and useful enough to get funding (by supporting exploration).
People and consumables are also cheap, though people are also precious and you would not only need cheap small lift for them, but safe cheap small lift. Propellant and consumables are an easier first target. Consumables do require someone to consume them, which makes it more difficult to generate a high demand for launch services with them without having cheap lift for people first. That’s why propellants seem like the ideal initial payloads to bring about cheap small lift.
The destination is just an excuse to launch and burn the propellant.
What compels us to go into space now?
Satellites, probes and resupply. Probes are a minor issue. Satellites are market driven. That leaves resupply.
Put people in space and launch rates go up. The more people the better.
Depots can jumpstart a market, but will always follow the market… they are not a driver. Resupply is a driver. More people in more places will drive up launch rates like nothing else will.
You can leave a depot dry, but you must resupply humans in space. Depots enable, humans ultimately are markets.
Depots can jumpstart a market, but will always follow the market… they are not a driver. Resupply is a driver. More people in more places will drive up launch rates like nothing else will.
Exactly. Think of depots as the igniter and LEO tourism or even LEO industry as the fuel. Then realise that cryogenic depots are more than is necessary to act as an igniter and simplify it to the simplest thing that could work. Then choose your destination to fit that. The first destination shouldn’t be chosen to maximise excitement or scientific value but to maximise the boost to development of cheap small lift as soon as possible.
Martijn,
After cheap lift the next most important thing would probably indeed be a deep space vehicle, and after that ISRU.
Just so. The easiest ISRU is going to come from slicing off bits of small asteroids and small planetary moons (e.g., Phobos, Deimos, etc.). Earth’s Moon is only interesting from an ISRU standpoint because it’s close and has a shallow enough gravity well that electromotive launch is doable, even if not trivially, as a way to get the ISR’s out of it.
NASA could focus on the deep space spacecraft (not launchers) and simultaneously the private sector would work on launch costs.
Great minds and all that Martijn. That’s exactly what NASA should be doing. We need real spaceships. NASA is, at least in theory, a space agency. Seems like a potentially good fit.
The destination is just an excuse to launch and burn the propellant.
Exactamundo! Damn fine turn of phrase!
Pete,
Maybe SpaceX can transition to a reusable launch vehicle but I am not holding my breath – dinosaur markets are very pervasive in their corrupting influences and can pervert the design of every little component at the fundamental level.
SpaceX’s vehicles were designed from the get-go to be reusable. The stages that don’t go all the way to orbit have parachute compartments, for instance. No retrofit required.
“Maybe SpaceX can transition to a reusable launch vehicle but I am not holding my breath – dinosaur markets are very pervasive in their corrupting influences and can pervert the design of every little component at the fundamental level.”
SpaceX’s vehicles were designed from the get-go to be reusable. The stages that don’t go all the way to orbit have parachute compartments, for instance. No retrofit required.
The shuttle solid rocket boosters were similarly designed from the get-go to be reusable, for what it is worth.
In comparison, new space vehicles can usually be refueled and reused multiple times a day.
Say one assembles a space station (including propellant depot) from a thousand ~300lb parts over a year or a hundred satellites from 10 ~300lb sections starting with a small tug plus self assembling arm. Both these approaches should give one low cost safe lift before the first people even get launched.
There are added complexities and costs associated with launching people, interfacing with dinosaur markets and going beyond LEO. Ideally one should be able to establish low cost safe and reliable launch and space infrastructure before even embarking upon those specific markets. Go for the low hanging fruit first.
Say one assembles a space station (including propellant depot) from a thousand ~300lb parts over a year or a hundred satellites from 10 ~300lb sections starting with a small tug plus self assembling arm.
Theoretically that would work too, but all such payloads are much more expensive than their launches. Aerospace hardware, especially hardware that is intended to be used in manned spaceflight, can easily cost $100k/kg. It would be unaffordable to do 1000 such launches. Propellant costs on the other hand are negligible compared to their launches.
Both these approaches should give one low cost safe lift before the first people even get launched.
No having to wait for humans is a good argument. But you can use propellant to propel unmanned spacecraft too.
“Say one assembles a space station (including propellant depot) from a thousand ~300lb parts over a year or a hundred satellites from 10 ~300lb sections starting with a small tug plus self assembling arm.”
Theoretically that would work too, but all such payloads are much more expensive than their launches. Aerospace hardware, especially hardware that is intended to be used in manned spaceflight, can easily cost $100k/kg.
There is no point in developing low cost launch if the payloads are going to remain high cost. Payload cost has to come down along with launch cost. Hence combining low costs launch development with low cost space infrastructure development is probably a necessity.
There is no point in developing low cost launch if the payloads are going to remain high cost. Payload cost has to come down along with launch cost.
Lower payload costs would be very nice, but provided the spacecraft are reusable, their cost can be amortised over many missions/tickets/whatever. If we had cheap small lift for people, then Bigelow’s business case would close, even if he still had to construct his stations with the same cost structure and even if he had to launch them on EELVs at current prices. Even funding development of crew vehicles wouldn’t be a problem anymore.
Cheap small lift would be such a powerful capability that it would give us everything else. Developing cheap small lift shouldn’t have to wait for a breakthrough in payload costs any more than it should have to wait for anything else. With it, we have everything and without it we have nothing. It’s amazing really, things are rarely that simple.
In part, payload costs are high because launch costs are high and launch costs are high because payload costs are high. This vicious circle has to be broken for low cost space to happen.
Low cost payloads are actually already possible, see some of the small satellite stuff. These approaches need to be combined with low cost launch vehicles for the low cost space industry to become established. Simply trying to apply low cost mammalian launch techniques to dinosaur markets will result in said mammals evolving back into dinosaurs – the SpaceX problem.
Even with cheap launch, very few people could afford to live in a hundred billion dollar house for six people – even with reusability. Low cost accommodation has to be designed around low cost launch.
I’m not sure you and I will live to see that happen, but once we have cheap small lift, we’ll see the beginning of it. I wouldn’t want to make emergence of small cheap lift dependent on development of cheap habitats, landers etc. The cheap lift is easier yet difficult enough and is enough to free manned spaceflight from dependence on NASA and government budgets.
Small cheap lift will help bring about cheap space infrastructure, and vice versa. If we live to see one then we will likely live to see the other.
My point is, the development of cheap space infrastructure assembled from small payloads will help bring about small cheap launch vehicles much faster.
My point is, the development of cheap space infrastructure assembled from small payloads will help bring about small cheap launch vehicles much faster.
Then we have the same goal. But what do you mean by faster? Faster than what?
NASA could focus on the deep space spacecraft…
Space transportation is a potentially profitable service. NASA should not be doing any profitable services any more than they should be in the launch service.
NASA can fund beyond the envelope issues. While nobody has ever built a spaceship it’s within current knowledge. NASA shouldn’t be doing it. They might do research on components, but not if the private sector is already on it.
Currently a moon base is not likely to be profitable in the short term, but enables other profitable services immediately, so it’s an ideal choice for NASA.
A new space station would not be, because that is now entering the phase of a potentially profitable service.
NASA should offer a contract to transport mass to destination at a reasonable rate… one with room for profit and competition.
My point is, the development of cheap space infrastructure assembled from small payloads will help bring about small cheap launch vehicles much faster.
Then we have the same goal. But what do you mean by faster? Faster than what?
Yes the same goal, but I doubt anyone here differs much on that front. Capabilities push, markets pull, with only one, life is tenuous, with both, things happen much, much faster.
The shuttle solid rocket boosters were similarly designed from the get-go to be reusable, for what it is worth.
Reusable, yes, but not too similarly. The Shuttle solid cases and SpaceX’s booster stages both require retrieval at sea, towing to shore and rinsing off of seawater. After that, the SpaceX stages simply have to go through the same checkout new stages have to go through upon arrival from the Texas test facility. Shuttle SRB’s had to be disassembled and substantially rebuilt, as well as refueled, before being reused. The process was slow and labor-intensive – therefore, expensive. There was also the problem of the parachutes being underspec’d a bit so that there was usually at least some minor damage to the nozzle end to deal with after each use as well. To be fair, we can’t know, at present, whether or not SpaceX will have similar problems with its Falcons until some experience is gained.
In comparison, new space vehicles can usually be refueled and reused multiple times a day.
If one consigns SpaceX to provisional “dinosaur”-hood, then – for the nonce, anyway – there are no New Space orbital vehicles so I’m unclear as to exactly what you mean here. If you’re referring to concepts, as yet unfunded or built, that envision a winged first stage of some kind that flies back to launch point, you could be right… when such a beast actually exists, and also assuming that the process of mating up said first stage with whatever the orbiter vehicle is is not too complex or time-consuming. I’d love to see airline-style operations to orbit, but we are, I think, at least 10 years away from such and perhaps appreciably more.
NASA can fund beyond the envelope issues. While nobody has ever built a spaceship it’s within current knowledge. NASA shouldn’t be doing it. They might do research on components, but not if the private sector is already on it.
VASIMR engine development has been mainly private sector to this point (Ad Astra Corp.) Developing the rotating crew modules for a deep spacecraft is also within the competence of private entities (Bigelow?) Ditto magnetic radiation protection; any manufacturer of MRI imagers or of ring magnets for things like the Large Hadron Collider probably already has the relevant engineering expertise. High output, compact, microgravity-compatible nuclear powerplants are iffier. A lot of terrestrial reactor designs need gravity to work. They’re obviously doable. The Russians built such things to run ocean surveillance sats back in the day. But no American firm – or NASA – has current experience in this area and the Russian stuff had reliability problems that may make it an inadvisable model to follow too closely.
Regardless of who does the development and system integration, NASA needs real spaceships to pursue human exploration missions. Ideally, commercial exploitation missions wouldn’t be too far behind and would employ the same spacecraft type, purchased from the same maker.
If one consigns SpaceX to provisional “dinosaur”-hood
I tend to think of it more of SpaceX being on the mammal side of dinosaur. But I fear the market it is pursuing is more likely to drag it back into being a dinosaur than forward into being a mammal.
The benefits of reusability really do not kick in until one is launching in the hundreds of times, and ideally one should be looking in the ten thousand flight range per vehicle. How many times will SpaceX be reusing its launch vehicles?
How many times will SpaceX be reusing its launch vehicles?
I have no idea. I note, however, that if the turnaround/refurbishment costs can be held to between, say, 5 and 10 percent of new vehicle cost, then SpaceX has the potential to cut another order of magnitude off of the prices on their current rate card and still make money even if they can only reuse a given vehicle a dozen or so times. I don’t see anything about the design of their vehicles or the proposed recovery/refurbishment process that makes such a cost point unreasonable. Achieving even quite modest levels of reusability would give SpaceX huge pricing advantages over anything else on offer in the near term.
Achieving even quite modest levels of reusability would give SpaceX huge pricing advantages over anything else on offer in the near term.
Conceivably they might halve their cost with reusability – which might make them internationally competitive in the dinosaur market. Launch services in this cost range have been available from the USSR, and have not changed the market – much lower costs again are required to achieve that.
I do not see them making the second stage reusable anytime soon and I doubt they will be reusing their first stage more than around ten times. Refurbishment costs of the first stage will I think be significant. Safety is a serious concern and crash landing the first stage in the ocean (a very challenging engineering environment) is going to have non trivial consequences.
High output, compact, microgravity-compatible nuclear powerplants are iffier.
I’d think the navy would have some good designs although perhaps not microgravity-compatible. I would think the real problem for private companies is getting fuel for the powerplant.
Use of nuclear power in space seems a no-brainer… unless perhaps, Iran decides it needs a space program.