Jeff Faust has a comprehensive report on the current thinking about the fate of the Hubble Space Telescope, which is reaching the end of its life. The issues are whether or not to extend its life, and if not, how best to decommission it. The Columbia loss has complicated the issue considerably, because Shuttle missions, particularly Shuttle missions that don't go to the ISS (where it can be inspected prior to entry, and support the crew temporarily in the event of a problem) are viewed differently now than they were on January 31.

One idea. We have a few years to deal with the problem (unless the gyros fail), so why not put up a prize for a private mission to do a life extension and instrument changeout? If nobody wins by some set date, then the government's out no money, and they can launch a fallback Shuttle mission to decommission.

But if somebody wins, then science and the nation win.

Big.

I'm a big fan of prizes, even gov't ones, but I don't think this would be a particularly compelling example.

I doubt any politician, NASAcrat, or STI scientist would be in favor of letting an untested private company get its grubby, space-suited hands on the Hubble.


A more compelling market could be created for space station resupply...

I'm a big fan of prizes, even gov't ones, but I don't think this would be a particularly compelling example.

I doubt any politician, NASAcrat, or STI scientist would be in favor of letting an untested private company get its grubby, space-suited hands on the Hubble.


A more compelling market could be created for space station resupply...

What's Hubble's orbit like? Is it in LEO?

If a company has to develop an orbit-capable vehicle with multi-ton payload in order to do the mission, it is very unlikely to happen within the next two or three years. And it would have to be a pretty huge prize.

OTOH, a prize could get pretty big and still look cheap compared to a Shuttle launch.

Yes, it's in LEO (though a fairly high one). It's serviced by the Shuttle, which is a LEO vehicle.

It doesn't have to be done within two or three years. The end of the decade would be fine, as long as the gyros hold up. Even then, it can probably be put in a safe mode--it just wouldn't be usable for science any more until it was repaired.

I think you?re right. This could be used as the one. Everyone is looking for the killer space app and frankly space tourism isn?t going to cut it. Satellite repair, re-servicing, and orbit transfer is what?s needed now; we?re years away from successful robotic servicing.

Also, you wouldn?t need anything as complex as a shuttle. You could put a capsule and piggy back on the top of a delta or atlas (keeping the payload in tact as well, offsetting the cost further). The astronaut could probably get away with a Gemini space suit as well.

Everyone is looking for the killer space app and frankly space tourism isn?t going to cut it.

Do you have some knowledgable basis for that statement?

?Do you have some knowledgeable basis for that statement??

Not really, but I'll give it a shot. Let's say it costs $1000 per pound. The average American (and I'm being kind) would have to pay $150,000.00 a ticket. I?m not sure you can base your industry on 5% of the population who could afford to do such a thing. For real tourism, it would have to go down closer to $3k-$5k a ride to be considered by the masses. Since no one wants to put money into figuring out how to break gravity without filling a building up with fuel and lighting it off, I?m not sure how, with even competitive companies building reusable rockets, they would be able to get the ticket down far enough. It could be like the Concord at $200k a pop, but I?m not sure you?d be able to take enough people per trip for it to be profitable.

Entities that are will to pay now are corporations that have a need to and can pay out the $200ks for servicing their livelihood. Unfortunately, we?re stuck in the same position with the corporations putting up satellites; its cheaper to just send up a new one now than wait and hope for NASA to come along and fix it for them. This need to re-service can be filled and breed a competitive field that will force companies to figure out creative launch approaches and perhaps spur on some much needed gravity R&D. And since it is a private industry, the gravity R&D will have to produce results and not be a welfare program.

Similar to the early days of the airline industry so too will go space tourism. Business oriented at first (profitably speaking), wealthy riders next, then common folk subsidized by cargo and the wealthy.

My knock on space tourism was not to discredit the zest and desire to go into space and beyond that many people hold dear, but to realize the business strategy that will produce this vision. To start at tourism, common cost effective tourism, is not feasible now. The only way to get there is to subsidize the customernauts with payloads, build a reusable launch system (similar to, if not, kistler), and yes market it as toursim/entertainment. Advertising could subsidize it a bit but it can?t be the underpinning fiscal foundation for it, the dot commers learned (and some are still) this.

Investors need a return. They don?t care if it is for the good of mankind. Tourism needs to be piggybacked on a profitable endeavor. A Hubble prize could foster that initial investment and be a prime display for other companies with assets in space how they could save by in-orbit servicing instead of shipping up a whole new product. If you could show by the numbers how much it could save them, and my initial conservative estimates show a 35% savings, then you have something to build the tourist industry on.

Not really, but I'll give it a shot. Let's say it costs $1000 per pound.

I didn't bother to even read the rest of your post, because that's an absurdly high number for a well-designed, robustly used space transport.

High launch costs are mostly a result of low vehicle utilization. There is a tremendous demand for public acces to space, and any vehicle that satisfies it will not only have to, but easily be able to operate at, much lower costs than that (by at least an order of magnitude).

Great minds think alike. I saw that number and skipped the rest too.

Rand, this is a great idea. The X-Prize is nice, but it really represents little more than manned model rocketry. This would require going to orbital space and actually doing something. And, as the Hubble is something of a national treasure and an international icon, this could capture the general public's imagination, something the X-Prize will never do.

One thing though: Why send humans? Is there something up there that a built-to-task robot couldn't handle?

I wouldn't make the prize contingent on humans doing it, but I suspect that would be the only viable answer. Of course, a serious issue is how to prevent an incompetent from screwing it up to the point that no one else could fix it...

Sean, I can't find the un-post button? How did you do that?

Sorry, Transistor, but I lost all of my comments from yesterday and had to rebuild from a Wednesday-morning backup. You need to read my whole blog to stay on top of things. ;-)

Well played. No disrespect, just trying to keep things interesting.

I would be interested in reading how you and Connors can get launch costs under $1k per pound, when the going rate is $10k. I understand government pig barreling, but I mean under today's technology. It seems to me the only way is through subsidizing and public interest (i.e. your hubble challenge).

One gets much less than a thousand dollars per pound simply through economies of scale. It's not a technology problem, per se--it's the fact that we only launch a few times per year, and we throw the hardware away every time (other than Shuttle, in which we only throw part of it away). That accounts for at least two orders of magnitude in launch costs. By simply getting to the point at which propellant costs become a significant cost of operations (as they are now for aircraft), that easily gives you on the order of a hundred dollars per pound.

Tourism is the enabling market for low launch costs. I'm no aware of any other market that demands low launch costs that's sufficient large to generate enough flights to get them that low (including, currently, on-orbit servicing).

I think we agree in principle of what needs to be done. You are very accurate in noting the rare launches, and yes this is a large portion of cost because if its infrequency. However, we do need to note that these shuttle missions aren?t about just orbiting anymore. They do plan for years to reach a multitude of specific objectives. And they did at the pitch of the shuttle, say it would be launched almost weekly. This, if that were the case, would have lowered cost over all.

Now, I am troubled by using tourism as the base. In the airline industry today, costs are so cheap only because travel is necessary, not particularly tourism. If you pulled off the people who needed to get some where, not out of pleasure but for business or other reasons, and simply provide tourist transportation, then the cost for an airline would be extremely high. It is the fact that I am paying two hundred dollars to get to my vacation spot and the guy sitting next to me dumping in two grand weekly, is what makes prices to tourists so cheap.

The answer, I believe, lies in bringing both to bear. The Concord should be the example of what is desired for all stake holders. By using launch technologies to (most likely mag launches for first stage), reusable second stage, you could cut a flight to Europe down to about fifteen minutes (less if you could push G on them a little harder). Now that would be a powerful industry. It pulls in the delivery systems, the business travelers, and even tourists. Physical connectivity pays big. If you can get items delivered faster, industry will pay out. And science, NASA, and explorers will reap the benefits.

I just heard about a court case started by a man who feared that cancer broke out among a small village near a shuttle launch site (I don't recall the name, but it had the word 'plane' in it). Further expansion on space transit may depend on the outcome of this man' proving the detrimental effects of the fuel emissions.

Also, as a side note, perhaps we should continue research into space transit, bearing in mind that we may eventually need it.