Posted on 06/27/2012 11:30:04 AM PDT by NonZeroSum
“Launch costs aren’t high because we need “an inexpensive means of propulsion.”” ?
Chemical propulsion is too expensive. The expense is a function of the actual cost of the chemical propellant & infrastructure enabling it’s use. And most of all, what do you do after the chemical reaction is used up?
If we go beyond a “low Earth orbit”, where are the gas stations beyond that? You will need a “Space Station” like vehicle in orbit to send the “extra fuel”. -OR- have a means of producing fuel going beyond Earth orbit.
Ion drive may be used to accelerate, but you may need more power either chemical or other means to overcome gravity of a destination planet & return (if required).
Different set of logistics are required if the mission is simply a mining expedition. In either case, if we can develop a means of propulsion not needing a chemical reaction, that will greatly reduce the cost required for any chemical reaction device for thrust.
The concept being any chemical propulsion system has cost attributed to massive containment & limited use in acceleration time. Not to mention infrastructure necessary to “create” more chemical fuel on route.
SpaceX vehicles are a first step, but keep in mind they are heavily subsidized through NASA. Without U.S. Government intervention, how long do you suppose they would remain in business? Maybe through China, their program is progressing.
No, we need to get away from chemical propulsion systems, if space travel is to be less expensive in monetary costs. But cost has many faces.
This is my opinion, and not that of NASA.
Good info; thanks.
Bump.
The ISS was always a waste. We had Skylab 40 years ago. We never needed another low earth orbit space station.
Great stuff. Some people will never have the exploration spirit. Our president is one of them. Some on this thread are the same.
Got some news for you -- space is already "commercialized." Where do you think DirecTV comes from? Or global telephone calls? We've been making money from space applications since 1962.
The idea that some new magic space transportation system will come along is pure fantasy -- such requires not new engineering, but new physics. Simply because of the magnitude of Earth's gravity and the rocket equation, we're stuck with rockets for the foreseeable future, at least to get from Earth's surface to low Earth orbit. And basically, those cost numbers (dollars per pound to LEO) may come down a factor of two or three or four, but not by an order of magnitude.
Making NASA “Pay for itself” cannot get there if getting beyond Earth’s orbit costs 20K, 10K, or even 1K per pound.
It's getting to Earth orbit that's the problem, not "beyond" it. NASA could be made to "pay for itself" -- it doesn't require financial break-even, only that its returned value is perceived to be higher than the money spent on it. Thus, it should focus on creating value for tax dollar spent, not conducting public relations stunt missions, such as astronauts to asteroids.
Typical New Space propaganda crockery. Some bozo replicates what is basically a Soviet-era "Progress" mission to the ISS and suddenly he's Zephram Cochrane unveiling the warp drive.
That’s because all of a sudden we have some liberal drones on this site....
Thank you Cincinatus, for illustrating a very important concept with respect to the phrase: “The problem with thinking outside the box is, you forget what is inside the box”. The news inside, or “focus” if you will, is inside the box with respect to this discussion; in an attempt to meander towards next steps, “Getting Serious” about space.
The corrective purpose of your “news”, has a sent of bitter satire in it. If true, sorry that my short treatise has caused some kind of negative reaction in you. If false, can assure you that current “commercial applications” are understood.
Yes, we have communication, surveillance & to a very limited extent, manufacturing in zero-G commercial applications. We begin the concept of teachable innovation, by the questions we ask, rather those that have been answered. Will leave that concept for your off-line contemplation.
Also, please, be assured magic has absolutely nothing to do with science & engineering. Some would assert, things not understood are “magical”. One ignorant of truth, in and of itself may use that concept as a crutch. There is a better way.
Suppose seeing long boats for the first time, hundreds of years ago, may be thought of as “magical”. Those seeing long boats for the first time, may have used canoes and understood the concept of water travel; so they may have been in awe & possibly able to glean some purpose of long ships. But, had virtually no idea as to the exact technology of actually building one.
Please allow the concept of progress, entering into discussion. You may be surprised of your own growth.
Since the late 60’s, NASA has been wrestling with the concept of “paying for itself” and came to the realization that based on current technology, it had its limitations towards that goal. You could build Earth observing technology that would monitor weather, land characteristics, identify natural resources, etc... But no individual could afford this capability.
Yes, taxing spreads out the cost so that individuals or organizations can exploit valuable information. So maximizing tax resources should be of concern. Attempting this noble effort is “taxed” itself, by those who decide what intermediate goals are necessary. Remember, failures and successes both come at a cost. And much is learned by failure. Understanding our planet was the justification regardless of cost. But we sometimes benefit from success. We all benefit from more accurate weather forecasting, identification of natural resources, and instantaneous communications, etc...
Problems pertaining an evolving progression towards continued commercialization of “space”, goes beyond simple Earth related ingress & egress, off the planet. Like those who saw long boats for the first time, had little idea of global commerce. Those long boat explorers did. We as “spectators” into emerging technological advancements are not unlike those observing long boats for the first time. Propulsion advancements such as “ion drive” are small steps towards chemical propulsion alternatives. And can assure you, this is not magical.
If we limit our horizons with Earth related excursions, we are not unlike those who observed long boats for the first time, just familiar with canoe trips between islands for commerce.
This is my opinion, and not of NASA.
I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. The only "ion drive" I am familiar with is solar electric, which has been around for years -- high Isp with continuous, low thrust. That won't hack it for getting stuff from Earth into low Earth orbit.
There is no reason to want to recreate it. It was canceled for a reason -- it was horrifically expensive.
No, it's not. There is nothing intrinsically expensive about chemical propulsion.
The expense is a function of the actual cost of the chemical propellant & infrastructure enabling it’s use.
The cost of chemical propellants is trivial, on the order of one percent of the total launch costs. All one needs to do to get costs down is to increase flight rate and stop throwing hardware away. SpaceX is working on both.
SpaceX vehicles are a first step, but keep in mind they are heavily subsidized through NASA.
No, they're not. This is a myth.
Without U.S. Government intervention, how long do you suppose they would remain in business?
A long time. Indefinitely. There is no "government intervention," other than purchasing services from them. And they have a large commercial backlog. They just signed a contract with Intelsat.
Thanks for your reply. I don’t deny that Governments have played a role in enabling new technologies and industries in the past. I just don’t think that it is required. Look at the aircraft industry between the World Wars. New industries of air freight and passenger delivery drove the innovation in aircraft design with minimal government intervention. A bottom up approach of many enterprises working their own plans and competing is a much better way to foster innovation than having one big project. Competition among private launch companies are getting the price per pound to orbit down. Private enterprise doesn’t have the same scale of resources as governments, but it is also not handicapped by the many political considerations and can be much more efficient in it’s spending. I hope that some cheaper form of propulsion can be found, but a disruptive technology in propulsion can’t be created by throwing money at it anyway, that is not the nature of innovation. We will have to wait and see. Standards between commercial enterprises are usually arrived at when it is more cost effective to standardize than for a single company to try an dominate the market. They don’t need to be imposed to work. I hope NASA goes on doing great exploration and basic science, but I don’t see the need for big manned missions on the scale that put men on the moon.
Funding
As of May 2012, SpaceX has operated on total funding of approximately one billion dollars in its first ten years of operation. Of this, private equity has provided about $200M, with Musk investing approximately $100M and other investors having put in about $100M. The remainder has come from progress payments on long-term launch contracts and development contracts. NASA has put in about $400-500M of this amount, with most of that as progress payments on launch contracts. SpaceX currently has contracts for 40 launch missions, and each of those contracts provide down payments at contract signing, plus many are paying progress payments as launch vehicle components are built in advance of mission launch, driven in part by US accounting rules for recognizing long-term revenue.
That is not a subsidy, and it’s not going to be ongoing, so it has nothing to do with their launch prices.
Right. A company with 80% of its billion-dollar capitalization provided by the federal government, that has delivered one government satellite to orbit and one load of groceries to ISS. That's "commercial space" for you.
It has not received 80% of its capitalization from the federal government.
President Obama killed all Manned Space Exploration by the USA. this will be the status-quo for decades to come. Even if the USA makes a complete policy shift back into space exploration, it will take decades to recover from his actions. This is a deplorable situation, and it is one that cannot stand if the USA has any hope to maintain global significance.
I have posted on Freerepublic for years, and have watched a steady decline in liberties and freedoms. There was a time when, I too, believed that we could recover from the downward trends that I saw appearing time and time again. But, time has proven me wrong.
As our industry fell, so did the number of jobs in my specialties... Advanced research in Space technology, electronics and fabrication. It became harder and harder to obtain work in the USA, and yet increasingly easier to find work overseas. I now work in Communist China. Who would of ever thought? Me! Me, of all people!
So, I have seen both sides of the coin, and so listen to me now. For I have some uncomfortable things to say.
The Communist Chinese are thriving. They have learned from the mistakes made by the United States, and the work ethic as well as their drive and long term vision is propelling the nation so far higher that the USA that they are now heading towards the stratosphere. And we have no one else to blame but ourselves.
In 5 years their space station will be mature enough to maintain consistent resupply missions to the moon, and to repair their space satellites.
In 10 years, their moon base will be fully operational. They will be maintaining a small but busy group of 4 men who will build and tunnel beneath the lunar surface to expand their colony there.
In 15 years, their moon base will have expanded to include incremental moon manufacturing, fabrication and will open up to allow private ventures to operate out of the Chinese complexes.
The USA has not been outside of LOW-EARTH orbits for over 40 years! It may look like we have been in space, with the Space Shuttle and ISS. But that is an illusion. Under president Obama, the USA will never leave earths orbit.
The chinese will be able to provide space launch services to the USA. But we will be at their mercy. They will be able to let us conduct experiments on their space stations, but only under their rules. And, I strongly suspect that they will severely limit the space activities of the USA on the moon. Effectively closing the moon to Americans.
In 5 years all astronauts will have to be able to speak, read and write mandarin. That is the Obama legacy.
It makes me sad, but I am now too old to continue the good fight. I hand the torch over to someone at FR. Please, I implore you, to work to regain the USA supremacy in Space. Do not settle for anything less. I have lost. Good luck.
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Private American companies will have people in orbit within five years, and on the moon within ten.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.