Spaceflight 1000 Times Cheaper

Marsman · 2007-07-29 00:40:02

Found this article on developments in commercial space travel- http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/new_ … pace.shtml

Thoughts?

cIclops · 2007-07-29 04:57:43

The prototype of a small orbital spaceplane, needed to trigger this line of development, could be developed in about six years at a cost comparable to one or two flights of the Space Shuttle. It might be possible to progress from this prototype to airline operations within ten years, given a massive development effort.

So they say develop a small protoype spaceplane in six years for about $1 billion then "it might be possible" to develop an airline type operation within ten years given a massive development effort. That sums up my thoughts nicely. In other words it's a very high cost, very high risk 16 year project that no sane commercial company would undertake. Of course that doesn't stop a government, such as India, trying to do it.

noosfractal · 2007-07-29 13:47:09

Found this article on developments in commercial space travel- http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/new_ … pace.shtml
Thoughts?

A nice, optimistic article.

TSTO (and later, SSTO) RLVs are a long time dream, and (as intended by the X Prize) Rutan got everyone dreaming again.

The "1000 times cheaper" claim is a little disingenuous. First they are comparing against the space shuttle ( > $10,000/lb ) instead of, say, SpaceX's next gen heavy lifter ( ~ $1500/lb ), and then everything depends on volume (the number of flights per year). Since for high enough volume you can ignore development costs, you are then free to set the cost at pretty much whatever you like.

Most TSTO RLV proposals claim $2000/lb initially, $1000/lb for modest volume, and $500/lb for high volume. The order of magnitude improvement is enough to attract interest while fending off disbelief, but if you like you could say $50/lb (for a million flights per year). The initial shuttle proposals did exactly this, promising $120/lb at high volume.

Tech barriers I've seen highlighted include:
- hypersonics are hard when you are a rocket, they are much harder when you are also trying to generate lift
- reusable reentry shields don't really exist (inspecting and refurbishing the shuttle's heat shield is a big part of its per launch cost)
- but most of all, going from 10 launches/year -> 1000 launches/year -> 100,000 launches/year at ever decreasing marginal cost is not just a matter of logistics, but requires serious technological advance.

I think private companies will do better than NASA (profit motivator), but I think the price will come down a lot slower than the optimistic articles suggest.

Grypd · 2007-07-30 09:37:08

It is optimistic but then again it does have the advantage of being completely reusable and this is a major advantage when it comes down to cost.

Material science has improved a lot since the creation of the Shuttle and one of its biggest problems where its large size and weight restrictions impacted on what sort of shielding it could have. Ceramics has improved and a TSTO shuttle being smaller of size than the Shuttle (No need for cargo just passengers) radically improves the chances for more robust shuttles.

Cargo would be sent directly up without consideration of returning, though it might be possible to reuse the engine system to save money.

Martian Republic · 2007-08-04 09:37:53

Found this article on developments in commercial space travel- http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/new_ … pace.shtml
Thoughts?

Although it look good and that is the way to go for bring down the price of going into space. Whether or not it bring the price down a thousand time, is in dispute, but even if it only brings it down to a tenth of what it is now, it would still be an improvement over what we have now. I don't think the private sector has the resources to finish developing the key technologies that need to be developed to make that happen. But, with what these private contractors have to work with, No, I don't see it happening. Now if NASA goes back to developing Scram Jets sub-orbital in the Mach 10 to 15 range and bring that kind of technologies on line, then I might see it happening. Then use polymers and epoxies instead of using metals to get the weight down, then that might be possible. That would be the only way that a two piece shuttle to the ISS station might be possible and that would have the prospect of bring down the access to space that we are all looking for.

But, just slapping on a private venture on something, doesn't necessarily have to bring down the access to space a 1000 times or more. I see the private sector using technologies that has already been developed to build there sub-orbital craft or there artist concept of the craft they intend to build, but nothing that could actually get the job done that needs to be done to go where we want to go. I don't see them developing any new technologies that we need to have in hand to do what they say they want to do.

Larry,

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-08-25 16:23:02

Werner Von Braun originally proposed three stage to orbit with his Sirius Rocket, each of those stages was reusable, the first two landed in the ocean by parachute and the third stage was a flyback glider. Each stage was refurbished, cleaned out and readied for the next launch from Hawaii. The orbits Von Braun assumed were three hour orbits perpendicular to the ecliptic, this way they could service the Lunetta Space Station which housed the personnel maintaining the orbital launch platforms and targetting station. Because of this particular orbit this system of three satellites could target just about any point on Earth according to his book Project Mars. Later this infrastructure was used to assemble a fleet of Mars bound spaceships.

publiusr · 2007-11-09 14:16:21

Heady days of Collier.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-13 10:15:03

Von Braun had the right idea, there was just the little matter of implementing it. Have you seen the latest figure for China's GDP? According to my 2008 Almanac its $10.2 trillion, compared to the United States' 13.1 trillion. The World has got a new Superpower now, there are two countries whose GDPs exceed $10 trillion. China has got alot of money to spend, it is largely a capitalist country now, Communism being a mere formality now, its undemocratic Communist rulers want to hold onto power of course, but the main source of that economic pawer is paradoxically, Capitalism.

I think a possible partnership with China or China going it alone are possibilities that should not be overlooked in space plane development. Russia is basically a shell of its former self, it has talented rocket engineers, but somebody has to pay their salaries and the Russian government is in no position to do it, despite all the oil sales, China has basically replaced the old Soviet Union as the second Superpower.

cIclops · 2007-11-13 10:30:31

Have you seen the latest figure for China's GDP? According to my 2008 Almanac its $10.2 trillion, compared to the United States' 13.1 trillion. The World has got a new Superpower now, there are two countries whose GDPs exceed $10 trillion. China has got alot of money to spend, it is largely a capitalist country now, Communism being a mere formality now, its undemocratic Communist rulers want to hold onto power of course, but the main source of that economic pawer is paradoxically, Capitalism.
I think a possible partnership with China or China going it alone are possibilities that should not be overlooked in space plane development. Russia is basically a shell of its former self, it has talented rocket engineers, but somebody has to pay their salaries and the Russian government is in no position to do it, despite all the oil sales, China has basically replaced the old Soviet Union as the second Superpower.

China's GDP in dollar terms is just over $2 trillion, and that's what counts globally, not that they produce a zillion tons of rice. The EU has a true superpower GDP, and as a result of the fall in the dollar it's now greater than the US .. about $14 trillion. The EU ain't a super power either, it had no integrated military or economy, it's fragmented and divided. Russia has LOTS of nuclear weapons and ICBMs but it's supported by an economy smaller than Chinas. Japan has an economy greater than Russia or China, but its only one third of the US and it has very little military power.

The US has both a real superpower economy and military, both nuclear and conventional and global in reach. Furthermore the US is the leader in science and technology with few exceptions, and of course it leads in space. The US does more in space than the rest of the world combined.

Almost back OT

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-13 12:02:23

Then how come my Almanac lists China's GDP as 10.2 trillion dollars?

cIclops · 2007-11-13 14:01:33

Then how come my Almanac lists China's GDP as 10.2 trillion dollars?

Because they are using Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) dollar values. For example (these numbers are all made up):

1 kg of rice in China costs 10c whereas in the US it costs $1. China produces 1 billion tons of rice that it mostly consumes. This has a value of $100 billion (1 billion x 1000 kg x 10c ) inside China. Outside China it would be worth $1 trillion. If the Chinese economy only produced rice, would it be a $100 billion or a $1 trillion economy?

Now this is way OT, maybe adding the word space here helps

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-07-29 00:40:02

Re: Spaceflight 1000 Times Cheaper

#2 2007-07-29 04:57:43

Re: Spaceflight 1000 Times Cheaper

#3 2007-07-29 13:47:09

Re: Spaceflight 1000 Times Cheaper

#4 2007-07-30 09:37:08

Re: Spaceflight 1000 Times Cheaper

#5 2007-08-04 09:37:53

Re: Spaceflight 1000 Times Cheaper

#6 2007-08-25 16:23:02

Re: Spaceflight 1000 Times Cheaper

#7 2007-11-09 14:16:21

Re: Spaceflight 1000 Times Cheaper

#8 2007-11-13 10:15:03

Re: Spaceflight 1000 Times Cheaper

#9 2007-11-13 10:30:31

Re: Spaceflight 1000 Times Cheaper

#10 2007-11-13 12:02:23

Re: Spaceflight 1000 Times Cheaper

#11 2007-11-13 14:01:33

Re: Spaceflight 1000 Times Cheaper

Board footer