New Mars Forums

Paul Allen and Burt Rutan formed a company, Mojave Aerospace, which owns the intellectual property rights of SS1, and will own, I believe, those of the next generations of rocketplanes. Given that Paul Allen is the world's fourth richest man, and that so far SS1 has been a hell of a PR boost for him personally, I don't think it will run into many funding problems. Mr Rutan does have a reputation for being fiscally efficient. I think we're finally in the rocket business, people.

Also note that Jeff Bezos (founder of Amazon.com) is now in the game with Blue Origin, and that his company is working on a reusable suborbital vehicle as well. It is highly doubtful that he seeks to build a vehicle for just a stunt (especially since the X-Prize is essentially Burt's, also because he's a space enthusiast) so it's possible that Mojave Aerospace will have some competition in the market to keep prices down. Capitalism works! (Did anyone notice that having NASA run space transportation is a socialistic practice?)

It's hard not to be excited. I know hundreds of Americans within a few miles of my home that would pay at least $10,000 for a trip (tier 3?), especially if they could get halfway across the world in the process (though not possible  with SS1). So why is there any pessimism here at all? Hello guys, we're the space geeks of the world!! We should be celebrating!! Hurrah, and congrats burt! 

I don't remember where I read it, but there was an article somewhere about a group developing a new substance which they hoped would one day lead to truely low cost solar power.. It was pretty inefficient, but it could essentially be painted onto any surface, and they spoke of covering every rooftop and road with it.

Now, hypothetically, if the top of every home and skyscraper and factory and every road and parking lot were covered with something like this, why would we need SSPS? (Thats a big if but, at this point, seems a little more likely)

As for cheap access to space, as you've all pointed out to me, its impossible unless theres a huge market.... Zubrin once wrote "More people want to go to Tokyo than to orbit" or something along those lines. So, perhaps it would be best to first produce a large, passenger carrying suborbital rocketplane that could fly many times per day. (Hopefully it wouldn't end up like the concorde) Then, later, such a plane could carry a reusable upper stage which could reach orbit.

What other way can cheap access to space be achieved? There has to be some way to do it. I've read "The Space Elevator" by Bradley Edwards and he made a good argument that a space elevator could be viable, but unless theres a huge market such a project is doomed to financial failure. So, how do you people think we could pull this off?

I don't see why everyone is so pessimistic about the DH-1 on this board. Many have made a good case that if, as the authors say, 5000 lbs of cargo could be brought to LEO for $100/lb, then the company only makes $500,000 of revenue each flight, which is extremely small.

BUT, consider what would happen if we flew an airplane with the flight schedule of current expendable launchers. Ticket prices would be astronomical! Airliners are 150 million dollars or more, only made economical by flying people many times per day. So, if you could make something like the DH-1 that flew several times per day, then the launch costs would get closer and closer to a small factor of the costs of propellants... if you could find a market to justify that many launches.

First of all, I think the DH-1's fictional 5000 lbs to LEO is somewhat small because it's not even enough to payload to launch the inflatable habitats being developed by Bigelow aerospace. So, a payload close to or larger than the capability of the Falcon V (a little under 5 tons) would seem to be a minimum. However, if any of you have the book Islands in the Sky, there's an analysis by G. Stine about an SSTO that can carry 10 tons to orbit. To make his argument valid let’s just assume  that we have a “DHx4” that can carry a 10-ton payload.

Stine assumes that a 10-ton to LEO SSTO could be built for $500,000 million, but something similar to the DH-1 with a ten ton payload is also imaginable for this price. With a life of 500 flights, requiring 1.2 million pounds of H2/02 at a cost of $0.50/lb, flying 100 times per year, having a nice debt to equity capital structure of 33% debt and 67% equity and a 16% return on investment, the required revenue for flight is
only $1.6 million or $80/lb. Assuming you could launch 40 people in a single flight, that’s 40,000 dollars per person. In the US alone, the market for this would be HUGE. Millions of people could afford a trip to space, as long as you keep the spaceship flying. Sure, there’s no market to launch that many satellites, but people are a different story.
At 40 people a flight and 100 flights a year, if there were 20 vehicles out there then you would be launching 80,000 people per year. Does anyone know the figures from the surveys taken in the United States and Japan? I seem to remember that for this price range, the amount of people that said they would pay it is in the tens of millions.

I'm sure something like the DH-1 could be built that could match or even exceed the costs of Stine's SSTO. If it’s too expensive to develop a 10-ton-DH-1 (new engines?) then a 5-ton one would be fine—just minimize the development costs. Keep in mind that if such a vehicle would truly prove to be as reliable as an airplane, the orbital stage could be modified to be used as a suborbital vehicle (no TPS, different engine bells for in the atmosphere) which is another market entirely. Businessmen would probably pay a lot to go anywhere in the world in 40 minutes or less. Also, the first stage, the “pop-up stage” can be used several times a day to launch several orbital stages, so launch costs would probably be less because u only need to buy one lower stage for 5 or so upper stages.

In summary, I just don’t understand why so many people on this board are unimpressed by the concept behind the DH-1!