Launch Limits Lifted 74
TOTKChief writes: "Apparently, Uncle Sam now doesn't want to keep an artificial advantage in commercial spaceflight launches. I personally think this is great -- allowing commercial booster companies unfettered access to space will allow for market action to take place, which should eventually drive down launch costs and allow for R&D efforts to further lower launch costs. " What's going on is that Russian rockets don't have sales caps here - or at least they're expiring, and aren't being renewed. This means more launches with Russian rockets, which means more stuff, hopefully, going into space.
Space Junk (Score:1)
- Desi
Re:Space Junk (Score:2)
Re:profitability (Score:1)
I disagree. I think space will be a great money maker purely for the advertising value, just imagine: The Pizza Hut Rocket has carried the first man to mars. The world watches breathlessly as the module lands down and the astronaut plants a "the Best Pizza's under 1 roof" flag on the dusty soil. Then a few shots of other astronauts eating pizza back on board should be enough to engrave whatever slogan they have into the minds of many whether they like it or not.
The slogans are endless: out of thid world, intergalactic, You don't have to travel to mars (shot of mars landing and pizza flag) to get a great pizza
This is why corporations are interested in the space program
US Commies (Score:3)
Here's something I wrote over 10 years ago about this ridiculous situation [geocities.com]:
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 10:46:54 PDTo m!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
- -------------------------
From: mordor!lll-tis!oodis01!riacs!rutgers!pnet01.cts.c
To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: re: Private launch costs
John Roberts writes:
> Another problem: the USSR has just one "company" to supply all its launch
> needs. If the US has 10 private launch companies, will it have to have 10
> times the USSR's launch volume for all the companies to have good economy
> of scale?
The Soviet government's effectiveness in space activities can, in general,
be attributed to the fact that while our private sector is more effective
than the Soviet public sector, our public sector is LESS effective than
the Soviet public sector. Why this is so becomes obvious when you
consider that the Soviet public sector has no private sector to tax --
any costs are born by itself, directly, whereas in the US (and other
relatively free market economies) the governments have the luxury of
becoming fat and lazy at the expense of the private sector.
It is a simple matter of accountability, the US private sector is
most accountable for its costs, the Soviet system is next most
accountable for its costs and the US government is least accountable
for its costs.
-------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981 Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038 (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)
UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com
Re:As Someone Already Somewhat Familiar... (Score:2)
Re:Who thought of this in the first place? (Score:3)
Re:serves them well (Score:1)
Aside: I'm soooo sick of these politically "aware" types who confuse their hatred of the US and Micro$oft with objectivity. No, it's not a troll, the guy really thinks this way...
Every superpower does, has done, and will do the same kinds of things as the US. The European empires did, so did the USSR, and so will the EU and China when they get their acts together. Nobody complains about globalization when European companies spread, do they? Hyprocrites, all.
I think that given the economic, military, and intellectual power that America (yes, the US of A, not fscking Guatamala or Canada) wields, we've been very responsible. The USA may dominate the world, but as an open democracy (albeit with flaws) it provides an excellent role model.
In the case of rockets, why shouldn't the US dominate? A large chunk of my tax $$$ has been spent developing them; it'd be nice to see some return on the investment, and if that means not giving the technology away to Bezerkistan, then so be it.
As for Panama, Teddy Roosevelt broke off a bit of an extremely corrupt Columbia to make something that has benefited the entire world. If you'd actually read the history, you'd know that buying Panama from Columbia was not an option.
And bananas! You're bananas to think that the US is wrong to accuse Europe of unfair trade practices. The WTO can back me up on this...
Pollution? (Score:2)
I mean, commercial jets are bad enough. Maybe we need to put the restriction back as an environmental law. Maybe we need to make strict emission quota laws for the booster rockets and suchlike that will be used.
Maybe through competition and public outrage combined, the private companies will develop not-as-bad methods of propulsion (slingshots!).
Probably not.
*sn
U is a Burmese apellation equivalent to Mister.
Nix is latin for snow.
UNIX means Mister Snow.
Re:Pollution? (Score:1)
Just wondering what this is going to do in terms of upper-atmosphere pollution.
I mean, commercial jets are bad enough. Maybe we need to put the restriction back as an environmental law. Maybe we need to make strict emission quota laws for the booster rockets and suchlike that will be used.
Absolutely. All that water vapor produced by the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen certainly requires regulation. Think of how humid it will get for the ecosystem at 20 km (65000 feet).
Enough environmental policy has been based upon junk "feel-good" science. Give us a break.
Satellite industry stable. (Score:3)
But make no mistake: with Iridium failing to sell at a penny on the dollar [yahoo.com] (that's right, 1% of the investment so far, and the buyer walked away), its strongest competitor Globalstar perilously close to bankruptcy [yahoo.com], ICO just emerging from Chapter 11, Orbcomm losing money despite orders, and so on, the LEO constellation market is pretty much over and done with.
[See Lloyd's Satellite Constellations [surrey.ac.uk] for more info.]
With the end of speculation in the LEO constellation business [as well as a tanking tech stock sector], Rotary Rocket [rotaryrocket.com] failed to get further investment despite an operational vehicle. This pretty much put the kibosh on anyone like Kistler or Beal or energizing the Cheap Access to Space [prospace.org] market by dramatically reducing launch costs, at least anytime soon.
It may seem counterintuitive, but there actually are only a limited number of things you can do in space. Communications satellites in GEO are one; scientific satellites in LEO are another. And there are already plenty of commercial devices selling the data they collect.
What the launch limitations did was two things. First, they were political cover for an administration burned by Loral malfeasance in assisting China [space.com] with a launch. Second, they were a simple protectionist measure aimed at giving homegrown companies (Rotary, Beal, Kistler) a window in which to develop vehicles and compete for business against the established American leaders, Boeing and Lockmart.
The irony is that most post-Soviet space vendors (Khrunichev, Energiya, Ukraine's Sea Launch) have partnered with one or more of the leading American vendors, who are now able to steer customers to a "preferred" international partner, in effect recapturing lost business. There has been no new American vendor to reach maturity. Whether these quasi-monopolies constitute improved American competition for the global satellite business, which pretty much remains a zero-sum game, is an exercise for the reader.
----
Re:Funny that... (Score:1)
Space Junk (Score:2)
What we truly need - - - (Score:2)
Actually, what we truly need is finding better ways to get the space junks out of the sky.
Putting useful stuffs up there may be wonderful, but till now, no one, - not Uncle Sam, and not the Ruskies either, - has come up a economically viable way to get the junks - stuffs that are NO LONGER NEEDED - down from the sky.
Re:Funny that... (Score:1)
>Shuttle: $20,000 / kg * 2.2 =~ $44,000 / lb Try:
>$3,500
>= $9,090
>other way around!
Argh! Almost every day I encourage my co-workers to go home after 8 hours because a person is bound to make stupid errors when they're tired. So, what do I do? Make a simple (and incorrect) calculation in haste right before I go to bed and post it to a public forum. Yes, those cost / conversion figures are dross, but I'll stand by the others.
You're right when you say that costs should tend to go down as launch mass goes up, as would fit with other economies of scale. However, launchers to date have been the exception which breaks that rule. As an example, the Titan IV, which offers the largest payload to orbit of any active launcher (Energia or Saturn V would be more) costs more to construct and operate each and every time it's launched.
Unfortunately, the complexity of a launch vehicle increases with attempted reliability no matter what the scale. With a little luck, new realistic designs (like those offered by Kistler) will fix this problem and bring about the launch costs and realiability which we're all hoping for.
Umm, they DO track that stuff ... (Score:1)
They track everything. last I checked (a while ago I admit) they had radars (like millimeter band or something) dedicated to this task.
I agree with you that space junk is gonna be a problem, but we aren't just putting stuff up there and playing routlette.
dv
Re:hrm... (Score:1)
Re:Funny that... (Score:1)
Who thought of this in the first place? (Score:3)
Thank heavens that the Clinton administration... (wait, that's not right! The Senate has to legally ratify such treaties... that means that this was a bipartisan effort. Sorry, Bill, but you ain't gonna find a legacy here.) got something right. These restrictive and punitive protectionist measures only hurt our economy as well as foreign ones. This is certainly A Good Thing(tm) for both the US and Russia.
Re:More isn't always better (Score:1)
Re:serves them well (Score:1)
Re:serves them well (Score:1)
Take the time to educate the fool who blew that smoke up your ass concerning the history of the Panama Canal; while the US gummint is a collection of wasted sperm cells, it isn't an excuse to be ignorant of history. If you want reasons to hate the US, find the real reasons why we're pieces of shit, not the ignorant crap that your overly loud friend likes to toss around while trying to impress you with his versimilitude. Or better yet, stow your stereotypes, ditch the hate trip and try to enjoy life a little; although I may be a scumbag, many of my fellow US citizens aren't, so give 'em a chance.
Deo
Re:Space Junk (Score:1)
--
Re:Space Junk (Score:1)
Re:Space cartel breaks up! America loses. (Score:3)
I've heard the story, too bad it isn't true. Please stop spreading this myth.
Paul Fisher invested several million dollars of his own money to develop and patent the space pen. See this page [astropen.com].
By the way, pencils are a bad idea. They generate airborne graphite particles that contaminate the crew compartment.
Re:Space Junk (Score:1)
Re:Space cartel breaks up! America loses. (Score:2)
Spider Robinson writes a column, Past Imperfect, Future Tense, for the Toronto Globe and Mail. A few months ago (last year?), his column was titled "Senator Socksdryer and the Two Million Dollar Boondoggle". In it, Spider relates a conversation he had with Buzz Aldrin at a science fiction convention where they were co-Guests Of Honour. Buzz Aldrin related a fairly hushed up incident in the Apollo 11 mission.
The lunar landing module was very tight for space. The story is that, at the end of the exploration phase of the mission, as our heroes get ready to return to Earth, they need to remove their backpacks (dead weight) and switch back to the LEM air supply. In removing his backpack in the tight constraints of the LEM, Neil Armstrong breaks the ignition switch for the ascent engine. They are stranded on the moon with no tools to fix the problem and a finite reserve of air.
As Spider puts it:
``It dawns on Armstrong and Aldrin that they are now dead men walking, a long way from home.
``And then, God be thanked, Armstrong remembers what Senator Jocksfire called the Two Million Dollar Boondoggle. That egregious taxpayer-ripoff frippery: his zero-gravity pen. He retrieves it, roots around in the ruins of the switch...and becomes the first man ever to hot-wire a vehicle on another planet."
In the rest of his article, Spider uses the space pen, and other by-products of space-race research, to justify the support of basic research by government in the face of opposition from pork-barrelling politicians like Senator Socksdryer.
The space pen had a bigger side effect than having any notes written by American astronauts more easily preserved for posterity. The failure of Apollo 11 could have crippled the American space program and provided the Russians with breathing room for their moon landing efforts. Kennedy's goal, after all, was ``to land a man on the moon and return him safely"
Jerry Pournelle argues the point that the fall of the Soviet Union is in large part due to the fact that the Russians bankrupted themselves trying to match the American SDI ("Star Wars") effort. Their belief that the Americans might succeed at Star Wars was, Pournelle believes, founded in the USA's success on seemingly impossible projects like Apollo. Would we still be living with the Cold War had we not had the space pen?
Re:serves them well (Score:1)
Re:Space Junk (Score:1)
Re:profitability (Score:1)
Hmmm. I wonder . . . could Microsoft avoid the DOJ verdict by moving into space and proclaiming themselves an independent entity?
i wonder (Score:1)
But in my opinion, if its gotta be done, might as well post the DeCSS source in orbit
But in reality...20 bucks says its porn. cause that would be fawking funny.
relax dude (Score:1)
Re:Pollution? (Score:2)
1. Too much water in the high atmosphere *is* dangerous (greenhouse-effect)
2. Most rocket's don't burn hydrogen and oxygen.
E.g. the solid boosters of Space Shuttle/Titan/Ariane, the russian Proton and a lot of other rockets use highly toxic fuels (like hydrazine, UDMH, MMH most (all?) solid fuels) or oxidzer (nitrogen tetroxide, nitric acid, bromine pentafluoride, chlorine trifluoride...) and whatever comes out of the reaction(s) is often pretty toxic as well or has effects to ozone layer/greenhouse-effect.
Ohh great - let's hope they're more reliable (Score:1)
I'll keep watching my backyard for debris.
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
Yeah... lets see them stop me (Score:1)
----
Does this mean I can launch stuff from my backyard (Score:3)
Why do you want more stuff in space? (Score:1)
I'd rather see an advancement in technology so that fewer satellites can do more, and life limits with controlled re-entry and burns.
Anyone know how much dead space junk is floating around up there? I saw a thing about how one collision could cause a chain reaction and cripple all the satellites. One collision causing hundreds of pieces of debris flying off and hitting other satellites.
----------
More isn't always better (Score:1)
More trash is currently being tracked than functioning craft (both can be considered satelites). We are creating another modern monument that will last eons, a ring around our planet. But ours will be trash!
We should be putting things in space. We should explore and use communications via satelites, but NO thought is going into what happens to all that stuff we leave behind!
This will continue to be our attitude until a shuttle is torn apart by somthing large enough to do it! Say, a one inch bolt that floated away from an old Apollo mission.
Oh well.
profitability (Score:3)
Neither of these are particularly profitable, and even if they were, the investment needed would be far too high to outweigh the risk. I'm not sure what money could be made off a space station. Tourism is a possibility, but the market for it is too small, even if you could make a lot of money per person. Medical research is a possibility, but again I don't think there is much of a safe investment there either.
Planetary exploration stands to make no profit, until you have ships big and fast enough that could fly out and start mining the asteroid belt. Current technology levels for exploring mars or other planets is far better suited for scientific discovery than for a corporations bottom line.
So the conclusion is this: while privitization is sometimes good, it's not a blanket solution. The government still needs to pump money into it's own programs (space station, mars programs) until there is enough technology that can be transfered to private corporations that will allow for profitability. Most emerging markets followed a similar path, with most of the modern tech industry being a good example, after military technology was transfered to private corporations.
Re:Space Junk (Score:1)
Re:Not necessarily good. (Score:1)
Re:Space Junk (Score:1)
- Desi
As Someone Already Somewhat Familiar... (Score:3)
Re:Space pen article. (Score:1)
Re:WARNING: Slashdot DDoS brewing (Score:1)
Re:Yeah... lets see them stop me (Score:1)
Mikael Jacobson
Re:Space Junk (Score:1)
Russian limits were a _good_ thing (Score:2)
During the "bad old days" of communism, constructed items did not have a cost as western markets understand it -- they were constructed with parts and labour lovingly grafted from the collective (i.e. They were FREE). So, when the iron curtain fell and everything went up for sale, the prices the Russians put on their boosters were arbitrary. They did not reflect market reality and would heavily distort the launch market (which, at the time the limits were implemented, was dominated by _European_ boosters, not the Big Bad 'ol United States) and damage the global industry if they were to be sold at the quantities and prices desired at the time.
Today, Russia still has the same old boosters with the same old infrastructure but now they're charging western rates for the goods. Sure, they could go back to the $10 million per launch cost they claimed to be able to do before, but now, since they actually PAY their people in money, it wouldn't be a viable business and would collapse if they charged that rate.
This price equilization would have occurred sooner or later without the imposition of limits. However, limits minimized the damage to the rest of the world's space sector while giving Russia time to get their act together.
If Russia wants, they can still charge bargain prices for their "superior" launch technology. Nothing is stopping them from running themselves out of business if they want to.
Re:Space cartel breaks up! America loses. (Score:2)
>launcher if it was man rated (it isn't); it could
>launch people for around $350,000 per person. If
>there is competition in this market; this price
>can fall by 4 or more, easily. 10x is harder. But
>there are credible designs that reduce it by a
>100x.
...and operate at a slightly reduced margin of risk? Is one spacecraft lost in 100 a good margin for you? Would you take that kind of risk at an airport?
So, it costs $350,000 to launch a person to orbit on your dream ship...
Plan on bringing any food? Clothing? Air? A habitat? I'll bet you could find a Western launcher able to hoist your naked body aloft for $350,000, too.
Looks like you're spending too much time waving your arms (wishing Reeeeeeeeeeeeally hard) and not enough time being an engineer.
Something _is_ being done (Score:1)
Some things to keep in mind:
Expended boosters are de-orbited, along with expired satellites, once their mission has been completed.
Companies which violate this policy (by screwing up and creating debris) face heavy financial penalties. It's not worth a company's while to keep junk in orbit.
Lens caps, protective covers, etc. remain attached to spacecraft these days. They do not fly off into the ether when finished with, as they once did.
Orbits decay. Once you put something about the Earth, the (very thin) atmosphere creates drag which slows the item and draws it back into the atmosphere to be burned up. I doubt you'll find a one-inch bolt which floated away from an old Apollo mission.
As romantic as your imagery is, we are not creating "another modern monument that will last eons". Thought _is_ being given to "all that stuff we leave behind".
Might not be a good thing... (Score:2)
There is already a scary glut of launch vehicles today. The manufacturers had been forcasting a lot of demand, based on the expected success of Iridium. Iridium is a constellation system, which requires lots and lots of launches, as compared with single-launch satellites like the ones the Sea Launch puts up.
So... When Iridium went bankrupt, we saw an immediate evaporation of interest in constellation systems. Very simply, investors don't want to take the risk. Sometimes the systems have been reformed as non-constellation systems, or lumped onto other satellites, and other times they're simply cancelled. In any case, the net result is the same: The projected large market for launches is vanishing rapidly.
I think all of us know that the way to get low per-widget costs is to make a lot of them. Henry Ford proved this out with his affordable mass produced cars. And we all know that when you write a piece of software, the more customers you can sell to, the wider you can spread your development costs, and the lower a price you can charge and still make profit. Competition is a great way to drive costs down, but doing it in volume is an even better way.
So I don't know, maybe there will be a "clearance sale" or some such, but I *think* the result ain't going to be what we'd like. Having more launchers is fine, but what we *really* need are a lot more launches. Nothing else is really going to drive costs down to where we need them, IMHO.
Re:Satellite industry stable. (Score:2)
Rotary Rocket failed to get further investment despite an operational vehicle.
Rotary Rocket did not have an "operational" vehicle. Further, they abandoned their original vision and kept a mockery of it around as a substitute for a parachute.
The price of insured launch has been held at artificially stable levels long enough for satellites to come to a kind of equilibrium, thereby providing NASA with its long-awaited excuse to start breaking the law and fund its own comsat R&D.
But make no mistake: with Iridium failing to sell at a penny on the dollar (that's right, 1% of the investment so far, and the buyer walked away), its strongest competitor Globalstar perilously close to bankruptcy, ICO just emerging from Chapter 11, Orbcomm losing money despite orders, and so on, the LEO constellation market is pretty much over and done with.
And these are all competing with a mature land-line voice market rather than focusing on internet transport which is where the growth and tolerance of network delays is.
The disruptive technology here is going to be extreme failure tolerance born of volume production of both expendible launchers and expendible internet sat-sat routers. This is the approach Calling Communications Corporation, which became Teledesic, gave lip service to from the satellite side only, but did not really execute on -- even in that half.
No one in the US has the balls to do this anymore and the demand for such "intersats" is primarily from places like Africa, Siberia and China.
Re:serves them well (Score:1)
Re:Space cartel breaks up! America loses. (Score:1)
>So, it costs $350,000 to launch a person to orbit ...
Very roughly, atleast this is the current freight cost. In theory (though probably not in practice), the only thing that needs lifting is an hour of air, and my naked body, and I don't suppose a swimming costume would break the budget ;-)
The rest can be up there already if need be, certainly air can be recycled. Food might be grown in space as well. The habitat is a fixed cost. Reducing launch costs also reduce the costs of mining the moon- low earth orbit is closer to the lunar surface than the earth. Once enough infrastructure is launched lunar materials are much cheaper for basic building materials.
Sure whatever happens its going to cost many billions; but there's plenty of projects of that size on the earth.
Space Junk (Score:1)
I think that NORAD or whatever tracks *thousands* of pieces which could cause damage. Every time one of those rockets deploys its payload you have a panel or a bolt go floating off, ready to punch a hole in something at 18,000 mph.
Just food for thought.
serves them well (Score:1)
ranting off.
Re:Why do you want more stuff in space? (Score:1)
Plus, even a paint chip can do damage at those speeds!
Re:Why do you want more stuff in space? (Score:1)
Space is big. Really big. And dumping stuff in the ocean isn't so bad as long as you do it in a continental subduction zone.
Who knows, maybe they'll invent a satellite that cleans up space? That'd make you happy, wouldn't it?
joel
Good and bad (Score:1)
The bad, however, is that this could significantly add to the amount of space junk already orbiting about earth. I hope that somewhere in this deal, someone is considering this.
cosmic dumps... (Score:1)
More stuff? Shouldn't we at least get all the dead monkeys in metal spheres out of the way before everyone starts launching their sat's and orbiting q3 arena servers?
-----
Cethiesus
Not necessarily good. (Score:2)
If chemical rockets were hard to come by, but there were still a big market for getting stuff up into space, wouldn't it just accelerate the development of more efficient launch systems? This will only provide less of an incentive to improve.
hrm... (Score:2)
Space cartel breaks up! America loses. (Score:2)
The deal was dodgy anyway. The size of the space market seems to be partly set by the price- the idea is that reducing the cost of a rocket would just reduce the profit in space. I don't completely understand that, but it makes a certain sense in the short term; if you assume the industries make a fixed percentage of the price, and if the amount launched doesn't depend on the price. Neither is true in detail, or probably general. Probably reducing the price will raise the total value of yearly launches, in the long run.
Anyway it looks like the cartel has broken up. Probably the Ruskies think that they have better rockets based on their long cost-sensitive development history (and they have a point). And they have cheap labour costs.
Maybe the Merkins think that they have more money and can come up with a better design themselves. Maybe, but the cost of rockets seems to increase with greater sophistication rather than decrease.
Personally I'd bet on the Ruskies, but the Merkins might win.
Basically every time the space shuttle launches for the same cost the Russians could have launched about 6 times. That's nutty but true.
Everyone's probably heard the story about the space pen- the Americans needed something that can write in zero-g. They spent a million dollars developing a pen that can write upside down, underwater and even in zero-g. The russians used pencils. That sums up the difference in principle between the two approaches.
Anyway think about this. The Russian proton launcher if it was man rated (it isn't); it could launch people for around $350,000 per person. If there is competition in this market; this price can fall by 4 or more, easily. 10x is harder. But there are credible designs that reduce it by a 100x.
Would you pay $3500 for a trip to space? I would...
Re:serves them well (Score:1)
Re:Not necessarily good. (Score:1)
There is a certain amount of energy required to get something into orbit. Chemical rockets may not have the best of efficiencies -- ~90% of their mass is fuel which you must accelerate as well, but the other alternatives are currently not that viable. Nuclear rockets are a possibility, but people don't like the sound of the word "nuclear". These are estimated to have a specific impulse of at least 850, compared to 420 for H2-O2. (Specific impulse is impulse per unit mass of fuel). The thing is that there are people ready to pay the price for chemical rockets to send stuff to sapce right now and there is currently no better way to do it.
With logic like that... (Score:1)
>in 100 failure rate.
No, there is no _inherent_ reason. However, since a rocket is a big tube 'o propellant which pushes itself upwards through a controlled explosion, I'd say there's a very _good_ reason why rockets tend to have a 1 in 100 failure rate: They are very complicated things to manufacture, maintain and operate and cost a great deal in time, money and effort to do so reliably.
>In fact rockets are quite unreliable the first
>few launches and then improve quite considerably.
>The problem with launchers at the moment is they
>haven't launched enough times to get the bugs
>out.
Rockets are not necessarily unreliably the first few launches, nor do they fix themselves after being launched over 100 times.
Given that logic, I'm sure Windows will become the most reliably O/S on the market if it's launched enough times to get the bugs out, too!
>>So, it costs $350,000 to launch a person to
>>orbit
>Very roughly, atleast this is the current freight
>cost.
Do you have numbers to back that claim up?
>In theory (though probably not in
>practice), the only thing that needs lifting is
>an hour of air, and my naked body, and I don't
>suppose a swimming costume would break the budget
>;-)
>The rest can be up there already if need be.
I'd say the need for it being up there is pretty high, seeing as you intend to launch yourself naked through space, saving your swim suit.
>Sure whatever happens its going to cost many
>billions; but there's plenty of projects of that
>size on the earth.
...and they generate Billions in revenue or benefit, too! That's why they're pursued.
The cost of building that facility in itself will ruin your $350,000 dream flight. How do you intend to spread that multi-billion cost around? Presuming you could manage to launch and construct your space facility for $20 billion (a bargain price for a space habitat!), you'd need to find 20,000 customers willing to pay $1,000,000 for this thing to pay for its construction costs alone. Then there's on-going maintenance, replenishing fuel, oxygen and food (how much do you intend to eat while you're there?) which need to be launched for every visit. Or do you intend to construct a hydroponics facility, too? How much mass in food, clothing, life-support, etc. etc. etc.? More than one-person's body weight for each visiting person?
I'd like to believe you could go to space safely and visit for $350,000 (REALLY I do) but it's just not possible given forseeable technology.
You can believe what you want, but if you can't back it up with numbers, it's just wishful thinking and arm waving.
Re:Why do you want more stuff in space? (Score:1)
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
Re:With logic like that... (Score:1)
>a rocket is a big tube 'o propellant which pushes
>itself upwards through a controlled explosion
No explosions are involved. Anyway, most failures these days are stupid things like guidance system screwups- software bugs that sort of thing. The point is that all failures are removable with practice, process or redesign changes. There's nothing in the laws of physics that says that 2% of all rockets explode.
>>>So, it costs $350,000 to launch a person to
>>>orbit
>>Very roughly, atleast this is the current freight
>>cost.
>Do you have numbers to back that claim up?
Oh sure. Proton has about the lowest cost at present $60-80 million for 21 tons. Let's take $70 mill. Lets assume an average weight, say 85 kgs and you end up with about 280 people per launch.
In fact that makes $250,000. I think the 350,000 figure allowed for extra launch mass. But it doesn't matter because there are so many other variables- its all rule of thumb.
The thing is though if you go to a launch vehicle supplier and say, Great! I want to launch one a week for the foreseeable future what can you do for me? You may well be able reduce the cost by >50% with economies of scale... right off the bat; you've just grown his business by 1000%; with greater reductions down the road if you can grow your business too.
Of course in practice, you can't herd the people like cattle onto a proton,
The bottom line though is that rockets scale real well. Launching more rockets or bigger rockets reduces the costs massively. The current state of the art is well away from the achievable values.
A real attempt at this would probably have to have a target price of around $150-250,000 for a week. Little or no luggage. Clothing would be provided. Launching say 30 people a week into a space station consisting of a few MIRs connected together. The only questions in my mind is whether the increased launch rate would reduce the costs enough... and whether the launchers can be made reliable enough.
Its definitely doable, but it's getting over the startup hump that's the problem- like most businesses.
The zero gravity swimming pool bit would be rather fun though.
Funny that... (Score:1)
>>a rocket is a big tube 'o propellant which pushes
>>itself upwards through a controlled explosion
>No explosions are involved.
Err... Have you found a different means of Earth-to-Orbit propulsion aside from chemical combustion? I know a few engineering firms who would like to chat with you if you have...
>Anyway, most failures these days are stupid
>things like guidance system screwups- software
>bugs that sort of thing. The point is that all
>failures are removable with practice, process or
>redesign changes. There's nothing in the laws of
>physics that says that 2% of all rockets explode.
Nope, there's nothing at all that says 2% of rockets should explode. The problem is, 2% of rockets _do_ explode for the reasons you stated (faulty turbopumps, software, guidance systems, etc.). Do you intend to make 100 rockets into test articles (with zero payload and zero revenue for all flights) to try and work out the bugs?
>Oh sure. Proton has about the lowest cost at
>present $60-80 million for 21 tons. Let's take
>$70 mill. Lets assume an average weight,
>say 85 kgs and you end up with about 280 people
>per launch.
What?!?! Are you going to melt people into goo and pour them into the fairing? How do you intend to shove 280 people into a payload fairing the size of a school bus? Intend to add any seats, oxygen, radiation sheilding, etc. while you're at it?
How did you get that 21 ton figure for a Proton's payload capacity? My Aviation Week & Space Technology Sourcebook says that a single Proton-K launch can deliver 12,100 lbs into a 28.5 degree transfer orbit. Just a wee bit less than you're dreaming of.
And where did you get that cost figure!?!? Last I read, the __lowest__ commercial launch cost in the world (including the Proton or Long March) will give you $10,000 / lb to Low Earth Orbit, with a Proton launch costing significantly more than the $70 million you're claiming.
>Its definitely doable, but it's getting over the
>startup hump that's the problem- like most
>businesses.
Yes, it's definitely do-able -- the Space Station (if nothing else) is proving that. However, human spaceflight is _not_ commercially viable.
You seem to be as honestly keen about the space program (and humanity's future in space) as I am. The things you are discussing are possible but you're pulling numbers out of thin air and wishing for a reality that does not exist. You're not doing the space program or yourself any favours by turning physics into fiction.
I'd suggest you take a peek into some peer-reviewed publications such as Acta Astronautic, Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, The Journal of the British Interplanetary Society or periodicals such as Aviation Week and Space Technology to get an idea of what's possible today and what is likely to be possible tomorrow (without the advent of some miracle like anti-gravity). All of these publications can be found in an average-sized university library and can be perused for free.
While you're at it, why not take the time you spent on Slashdot today and write a letter to your MP / Congressman / Senator encouraging a stronger budget for your own nation's space program? I'm off to do that right now...
Re:Funny that... (Score:1)
> Technology Sourcebook says that a single Proton-K launch can deliver 12,100 lbs into a 28.5
> degree transfer orbit. Just a wee bit less than you're dreaming of.
> And where did you get that cost figure!?!? Last I read, the __lowest__ commercial launch cost in
> the world (including the Proton or Long March) will give you $10,000 / lb to Low Earth Orbit, with
> a Proton launch costing significantly more than the $70 million you're claiming.
Your figures are way off. Way, way, wayyyyyyy off. The space shuttle costs $9,000 / lb and that may be the most expensive vehicle ever! Check out: http://www.ssc.se/ssd/diary001.html. Incidentally the latest module launched for the ISS was close to 20 tons, and that was launched on a Proton.
According to: http://www.russianspace.com/proton.html the LEO launch capability of a PROTON-K is 20.6 tons, PROTON KM is 23.5 tons.
As for melting people down- no I'm not seriously suggesting launching people on a Proton, it's just a plausibility argument. Its not manrated.
Still, theoretically, how much extra weight is a couch and an enlarged nose cone? There'd be more aerodynamic losses, but I'd be surprised if they were that significant. Most of the thrusting is outside the atmosphere anyway. Volume is mostly irrelevant, its mass that counts...
But the real point was purely illustrative. You are taking this way too seriously.
As for talking to politicians. Thanks but no thanks. I'm more tempted to talk to a hotel or a banker. I'm in the UK, the government may not be able to find 1 billion. The US government/NASA can't make money by law so wouldn't go for it.
Re:Space cartel breaks up! America loses. (Score:1)
Re:Funny that... (Score:1)
>off. The space shuttle costs $9,000 / lb and that
>may be the most expensive vehicle ever! Check
>out: http://www.ssc.se/ssd/diary001.html.
A quick check at that web site URL gives:
"...$3,500 per kg offered by the Proton or $20,000 per kg it costs to fly the Space Shuttle..."
Proton: $3,500 / kg * 2.2 =~ $7,700 / lb
Shuttle: $20,000 / kg * 2.2 =~ $44,000 / lb
At 20,000 lb for a hypothetical Proton launch, that'll run you ~$154,000,000. Seems like a little more than $70,000,000 to me.
As the shuttle costs show, human-rating a launch vehicle (with all the shielding, life support, redundancies, etc. which that entails) costs a huge amount of time, effort and cost. No amount of arm-waving will change that.
>Incidentally the latest module launched for the
>ISS was close to 20 tons, and that was launched
>on a Proton.
Zvezda was its own transfer vehicle. Launching a chunk 'o mass into LEO and waiting for orbital decay to do its work isn't the most effective means of running a space mission -- you need a transfer vehicle to take you and your payload somewhere else.
>According to:
>http://www.russianspace.com/proton.html the LEO
>launch capability of a PROTON-K is 20.6 tons,
>PROTON KM is 23.5 tons.
...add in the transfer vehicle and you'll get a dramatically reduced figure. I stick to my previous (peer reviewed, industry-standard) figure from AW&ST of a Proton-K launch delivering 12,100 lbs into a 28.5 degree transfer orbit.
>Still, theoretically, how much extra weight is a
>couch and an enlarged nose cone? There'd be more
>aerodynamic losses, but I'd be surprised if they
>were that significant.
Making any design change to a launch vehicle (particularly if it's human-rated) requires a great deal of time and effort in desiging and adequately testing your solution. What you're proposing is an entirely new spacecraft, which is hardly an 'off-the-shelf' solution.
>Most of the thrusting is
>outside the atmosphere anyway. Volume is mostly
>irrelevant, its mass that counts...
Volume is irrelevant? Try telling that to an aircraft or satellite design team. You can't just wish your payload into an ideal shape, nor change the laws of physics to suit your fancy. People may object to being crushed into a 10cm / 10cm cube to enable efficient packing on-board your luxury liner to space.
>But the real point was purely illustrative. You
>are taking this way too seriously.
You're right: I am taking this far too seriously.
After working for some time in the space-sector, I've grown extremely agitated by space "enthusiasts" who claim that physics and private-sector finance will save the day in the next-generation of spacecraft, while chosing to ignore those laws of physics and private-sector finance which get in the way of their daydreams.
The problems you've brought up are real and they can't be resolved by re-photonizing trans-modulated di-lithium through the flux-capaciting thruster core. If you want to see real-world space travel, use real-world spacecraft and the real-world physical limitations they're up against.
>As for talking to politicians. Thanks but no
>thanks. I'm more tempted to talk to a hotel or a
>banker.
...and get laughed out of the building. The private sector makes money from established technologies, the public sector creates new technologies (communications satellites, launch vehicles, computer technology, Internet, etc. etc.) which the private sector later champions, once the technology is established and the risks are (mostly) gone.
>I'm in the UK, the government may not
>be able to find 1 billion. The US government/NASA
>can't make money by law so wouldn't go for it.
http://www.esa.int/
Your tax dollars for space go there. Ariane V has a comparable payload capacity to Proton-K.
Stay in fantasy-land or try to make it a reality. It's your call.
Re:More isn't always better (Score:1)
And, when you think about it, its up-down orientation doesn't really matter in terms of getting hit by debris.
I'll agree that there *is* a space junk problem, though.
Re:Ohh great - let's hope they're more reliable (Score:1)
Umm, heads up, but Russian rocket technology is way ahead of Uncle Sam's.
Re:Why do you want more stuff in space? (Score:1)
In the lower orbits, like where the space shuttle flies, space isn't all that big. Especially when you have to worry about tiny pieces of debris.