The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

clark · 2004-07-08 14:43:00

Like an X-prize, this is a sort of "cheating". If we are trying to look at the costs of a standalone business, both this and the prize are market-distorters. Let's leave them aside for now

Then what's the freaking point? You know the answer. We all know the answer. It dosen't work. It can't work. We're f*cking boxed in.

When faced with that kind of problem, the only solution is to quit, or to change the rules of the game. The solution does not exsist under the parameters you have laid down. Expecting to find one is being unrealistic.

If, under your demands, nothing is left to change the exsisting variables, we must wait an indefinite amount of time for technology levels to filter down, and their associated cost factors, to such a point as to make any such endeavour financially feasible by a private entitity.

JimM · 2004-07-08 15:38:16

Then what's the freaking point? You know the answer. We all know the answer. It dosen't work. It can't work. We're f*cking boxed in.
When faced with that kind of problem, the only solution is to quit, or to change the rules of the game. The solution does not exsist under the parameters you have laid down. Expecting to find one is being unrealistic.

It's taken you a while, but at last you've figured out what I was saying right back at the begining of this thread:

Orbital space tourism is a non-starter.

Or I'll qualify that slightly-- Space tourism will never be the driver for manned spaceflight. It will happen one fine day, but it will be as a spin-off from other applications of manned spaceflight--space solar power, for one example.

A second point, and the reason I don't want us to reach for the easy solution such as an X-prize, or a government subsady, or tax fiddle or whatever, is that there is absolutely no longterm future for space travel until it becomes self-financing--or to be more exact, until it can make a profit and pay taxes to the government instead of depending on government handouts of one sort or another for survival.

And anyway, can you really believe that the government would lay out serious money to subsidise joy-rides into space for billionaires? As you put it yourself, "We all know the answer. It dosen't work. It can't work. We're f*cking boxed in."

The first step towards making progress is to face reality.

clark · 2004-07-08 15:53:07

Or I'll qualify that slightly-- Space tourism will never be the driver for manned spaceflight. It will happen one fine day, but it will be as a spin-off from other applications of manned spaceflight--space solar power, for one example.

I respectfully, and humbily, think you are dead wrong. There is, and will only ever be, one reason for manned spaceflight. To put people up there. It is the end, the reason, the point.

What we are seeing with the suborbital push is to put people higher and farther up than ever before. People's desire is what drives this. Not for better cargo delivery.

We can already do non-human orbital launches. If you throw people out of the equation, we can do it far more cheaply than anything we have been talking about. But that's not what we are working towards. That's not the point.

When it becomes obvious and possible for people to get into space, that feeds everything else. It puts the demand for heavy-lift back into the equation because now people want infrastructure up there to serve the available market. It puts demand for production of rocket fuel on the Moon and asteroid mining because this all leads to reducing costs to service one market- people in space.

Look, alot of people fall back on these other historical analogies, and most of them fail for one reason or another when you look at space. It's f*cking empty. It has no inherent value until people are put up there.

The moon, mars, and every floating rock is worthless until you get feet up there that assign it a value. People are, and have always been, the engine of economic value.

We don't need people up there for space based solar sats. We don't need them there for exploration. We don't need them there for anything but to look at the pretty view. We make exscuses to put astronauts up there now- the justification? To one day bring this opportunity to more people on Earth.

It's all about people, and getting them there. People are the driver, which you seem to miserably fail to understand by creating a scenerio that will not allow for it. And, given your variables, it won't happen for another ten years- but it will happen, and it will happen because people and their screwed up desire to go live out there drives it.

I'm done playing your little game.

Euler · 2004-07-08 23:17:35

There is, and will only ever be, one reason for manned spaceflight. To put people up there. It is the end, the reason, the point.

The reason for sending people into space is to get used to living and working in space. Tourism does not do that. Tourists only visit space. I would argue that tourism is as far away from the point of manned spaceflight as you can get while still sending people into space.

What we are seeing with the suborbital push is to put people higher and farther up than ever before. People's desire is what drives this. Not for better cargo delivery.
We can already do non-human orbital launches. If you throw people out of the equation, we can do it far more cheaply than anything we have been talking about. But that's not what we are working towards. That's not the point.

Um... we can already do human orbital launches. Where have you been for the last 45 years?

I think that orbital space tourism will continue to be what it has been for the last few years: a small number of billionaires who provide a small amount of supplemental income to the big aerospace companies with government subsidized spacecraft.

The big aerospace companies have far more experience and resources then the alt-space groups, and I don't think that the alt space groups will be able to get into orbit more cheaply than them, especially if they cannot use government to subsidize their R&D. The cheapest way to get people into orbit will not be a SSTO, and it will probably use an existing expendable lower stage (another advantage for Big Aerospace).

JimM · 2004-07-09 01:26:07

Or I'll qualify that slightly-- Space tourism will never be the driver for manned spaceflight. It will happen one fine day, but it will be as a spin-off from other applications of manned spaceflight--space solar power, for one example.
I respectfully, and humbily, think you are dead wrong. There is, and will only ever be, one reason for manned spaceflight. To put people up there. It is the end, the reason, the point.
What we are seeing with the suborbital push is to put people higher and farther up than ever before. People's desire is what drives this. Not for better cargo delivery.

(Sigh) And I thought you'd got it.

There must be a more convincing reason for manned orbital spaceflight than popping up to take in the view. There must be a reason that will convince the government, the military, or business, to pay for the venture.

Sooner rather than later, in order that the manned colonisation of space can really hapen, the whole space venture must be a net contributer to the govenment in the form of taxes. So long as it costs the government, it will never get anywhere, as we have seen over the last 30-odd years. Space needs, desperately needs, to break even.

Orbital space tourism as a stand-alone business is never going to break even. I think that's now clear. But in any case, tourists are not settlers or colonists. They'd be no more than gawkers, when all is said and done. And somehow I don't think governments will pay for even a part of that. Nor should they, I think.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-09 06:00:38

Quote
>>3000 tons into LEO for the cost of one shuttle trip?
>Well, what can I say? I know Shuttle is expensive,
>but $1.8 billion per trip? Who's kidding who now?

£3M/10tons = $300/kg.
3000tons = 300 launches = $900M.
Current estimates for shuttle launches are hovering at just over $1B. Check you maths please, particularly if you're going to be condescending afterwards.

>>Under $1000/kg?
>$660/kg, actually.

So, as I said, under $1000/kg. And again, check your maths.

>But of course then you have to add profit, insurance (on the
> vehicle itself, not the other things), ground handling
> facilites, etc. So maybe you could sell at about twice
> $660/kg....

You said $3M per flight. At a vehicle cost of $150M and 100 flights costs rise to $450/kg. (But hey, if they're giving them away, why not just pick up half a dozen and screw insurance?) Ground handling is included by definition in the $3M per flight.

Profit need not be added at this stage. If a company makes a delivery to your door, they make a profit not on the delivery but what they are selling you. The delivery is done at cost.

There must be a more convincing reason for manned orbital spaceflight than popping up to take in the view. There must be a reason that will convince the government, the military, or business, to pay for the venture.

On this we agree. One possible solution to this would be government built SPS systems.

Mass: 50,000tons
Power generated at ground station: 5GW
Launch costs: $15B
Insurance costs: $7.5B
Construction cost*: $8B
Ground station: $2B
My last bill: 7p/kwh = 12c/kwh
Energy generated = 43.83 billion kwh
Income generated per SPS-year: $5.26B
Total income (ten years): $52.6B

*Construction cost based upon two Nimitz class aircraft which equate the mass but which are much more complex. Assume assembly of components in space that are prefabricated on earth.

So that's a good $15B 'profit' for one SPS system. If government built, no money need be borrowed, so no pesky investment. If 12c is too high a price (and it's at least in part a product of the current high exchange rate) sell it at a lower cost or sell it in other countries! If one country stops buying, aim at another! (Try 'moving' any other type of power station!)

There are profitable things you can do in space, and launch systems like the theoretical one you have described will be the thing that will make them practical. Once started, the market will already exist, and new launchers can be developed for it. After that it should be reasonably self sustaining.

Hence I find your view that no one would want a $300/kg launch system to be entirely unsubstantiated.

And one last point: Even if you are right JimM, and the first spaceline is sued out of existence, then the R&D costs will get completely written off before the new owners get ahold of it - which would lead to a knock on effect on launch costs. So if it happens it may well reduce the cost of launch rather than increase it.

ANTIcarrot.

JimM · 2004-07-09 07:28:28

£3M/10tons

The thing is able to lift 10,000lbs payload. That is 5 tons, not 10. So double your cost to $1.8 billion, just as I said.

Check you maths please, particularly if you're going to be condescending afterwards.

So, as I said, under $1000/kg.

$660/kg

And again, check your maths.

There must be a more convincing reason for manned orbital spaceflight than popping up to take in the view. There must be a reason that will convince the government, the military, or business, to pay for the venture.
On this we agree. One possible solution to this would be government built SPS systems.

Good. Although I don't think they need neccessarily be government built.

Even if you are right JimM, and the first spaceline is sued out of existence, then the R&D costs will get completely written off before the new owners get ahold of it...

Well, they say you can tell who were the pioneers by the arrows in their backs...

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-09 08:06:59

The thing is able to lift 10,000lbs payload.

Ah. My mistake. Though it wouldn't have happened if you weren't using those silly lb things.

Good. Although I don't think they need neccessarily be government built.

In stand-alone business plans I've asumed it would take $40B to develop a system that could launch at costs less than $500/kg. Add that to the cost and bring the sold electricity to 6c/kwh (as NASA does) and you need to spend a lot of money to break even. IIRC, at UK prices you'd need to spend $120B, build 4, and operate them for 24 SPS years before you broke even.

That's quite a lot of money for private business to raise on it's own.

ANTIcarrot.

JimM · 2004-07-09 10:09:21

In stand-alone business plans I've asumed it would take $40B to develop a system that could launch at costs less than $500/kg.

That's an awfully expensive way to achieve cheapness. I think I've said that before, and more than once.

Especially bearing in mind the huge chunks you'd have to orbit (I don't know if you envisage the SSPS's all coming up from earth, or fabricating the bulk of their mass on the moon, etc., but in either case, a lot will have to come up from the bottom of the gravity well) I would invite you to consider the delights of the Big Dumb Booster, for which this sort of project was made, you might say.

BDB development costs would not come close to $40 billion, but $500/kg to LEO should be just about achievable.

...and you need to spend a lot of money to break even.

True enough. Yet private money (not a penny of public) financed the Channel Tunnel, to the tune of about $25 billion+, and that was a good decade ago now. All right, the Channel Tunnel Company is loosing money hand over fist today, but the thing got built with private money.

And one difference from the Channel Tunnel is that SSPS's would start earning income as soon as the first stretch of the infrastructure was complete; it would not all be up-front money. Yes, I think it's possible as a non-government project. Especially if Big Oil woke up to the danger of having their money-flow (ME oil) cut off and realised the urgent need for an alternative.

Big Oil has the funds to do this thing.

John Creighton · 2004-07-09 11:53:17

Or I'll qualify that slightly-- Space tourism will never be the driver for manned spaceflight. It will happen one fine day, but it will be as a spin-off from other applications of manned spaceflight--space solar power, for one example.
I respectfully, and humbily, think you are dead wrong. There is, and will only ever be, one reason for manned spaceflight. To put people up there. It is the end, the reason, the point.
What we are seeing with the suborbital push is to put people higher and farther up than ever before. People's desire is what drives this. Not for better cargo delivery.
(Sigh) And I thought you'd got it.
There must be a more convincing reason for manned orbital spaceflight than popping up to take in the view. There must be a reason that will convince the government, the military, or business, to pay for the venture.
Sooner rather than later, in order that the manned colonisation of space can really hapen, the whole space venture must be a net contributer to the govenment in the form of taxes. So long as it costs the government, it will never get anywhere, as we have seen over the last 30-odd years. Space needs, desperately needs, to break even.
Orbital space tourism as a stand-alone business is never going to break even. I think that's now clear. But in any case, tourists are not settlers or colonists. They'd be no more than gawkers, when all is said and done. And somehow I don't think governments will pay for even a part of that. Nor should they, I think.

This is all really technologically dependent. If the military builds a fighter bomber that can fly to the moon (maybe scram jet technology), you will probably see a military moon base. Otherwise, any military use of space will probably be unmanned. Similarly unless the launch cost falls, I hardly see people worth the trouble in any business venture in space except for the odd billionaire tourist. The real discussion needs to be what needs to be done to changes this. It is true that big aero space companies have a lot of resources that smaller companies do. Thus they are better suited to push the technological envelop. However, smaller companies can learn from what the bigger companies did, study what factors raised costs and try to make it cheaper. Suborbital fights are a great starting point for such companies. As time passes, they will have done some of there own research and more importantly have a much larger body of research to draw on from the big aero space companies. One step at a time.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-09 12:11:44

I used $40B as that's a big enough sum to satisfy most peopel that it's doable. I don't think a well managed development would actually cost that.

Personally I'd run it as a competition: company to win gets $40B cash, plus whatever profits they can get out of the $500/kg. EG: If they manage to get it down to $250/kg they pocket the difference. Arrangement will last until the launch of 4 SPSs or 200,000tons, at which point contract will be changed. If launch company offers costs substantially lower than $500/kg an extended contract may be offered. And no damn shuttles!

Should be enough insentive there for a company (any company) to really want to get the costs down.

Your point about the channel tunnel is well made. However after the tunnel many companies woudl not want to take another such gamble, especially now. And oil companies would not want to be seen as rats deserting a sinking ship, least it affect their share prices. It's possible though.

But I imagine industry would be more agreeable with one or more governments standing by as garantors.

ANTIcarrot.

JimM · 2004-07-09 13:51:29

One step at a time.

Doubtless. But do they have to be so slow, so timerous... and do we have to have at least one step back for every one forward? We landed on the moon in 1969--35 years ago, for heaven's sake! Nowadays the best we manage... occassionally, and far more expensively than back in 1969 ... is low earth orbit.

There is something more than unfortunate or sad about this. It is sick in the sense of 'ill' and that's just plain sickening.

If the military builds a fighter bomber that can fly to the moon...

And remember that the instument of most of this sickness, the Space Shuttle, was the result of NASA bending its design to fit the performance demands of the USAF--who in the end decided Shuttle was too unreliable for them. They at least got that bit right.

In the end, the only reliable motive to drive this or any other great enterprise is greed. Capitalism works, socialism does not. And let's face it, the US space program has been a socialist venture from day one. And see where its got us.

-----------------------------
I'm thinking of adopting the following as my motto:
Put not thy trust in Princes -- Psalms 146:3

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-09 14:45:17

A forty billion dollar cash prize?

Hey, why are we still bothering with chemical rockets, lets just ask Anti here how his flying saucer works that he used to get here from his home planet... Are you mad? Nobody would ever put up the money needed (millions... no. billions of dollars) to simply have a reasonable shot the competition for a chance that they might win?

It is true that big aero space companies have a lot of resources that smaller companies do. Thus they are better suited to push the technological envelop. However, smaller companies can learn from what the bigger companies did, study what factors raised costs and try to make it cheaper... One step at a time."

Yes and no... Well more like no and no.

The "factors that raise the costs" unfortunatly have alot to do with fundimental physical limitations, like how much energy by weight that practical chemical fuels contain, the minimum mass of material strong enough to contain the forces, and oh other little nit-picks... like gravity. These factors are not going to change a whole lot, rockets might be lightend a little with composits, but thats about it, so as long as we have to use chemical engines to beat gravity, then the technology to get into orbit simply does not yet permit small time operations from coming up with enough reasources. If gravity on Earth were a little stronger, then no chemical rocket of any kind would ever work... mass margins are razor-thin enough as it is.

And "development" of technology and development of an actual spacecraft are very different things. So different, that a teeny-tiny startup is essentially on its own about the latter, which can get to be an extremely expensive proposition rapidly... (steel bolt: $0.25 titantium bolt: $5.00) So expensive, that it is pretty clear that no little "AltSpace is the future man!" can make a vehicle big enough to beat low mass margins or use fancy materials to squeeze that last ounce out of a rocket.

There are no clever tricks to beat gravity or beat the chemistry or the other physics factors of spaceflight, either your rocket is big and orbital, or it is not. There is no profit in-between.

JimM · 2004-07-09 15:11:18

Personally I'd run it as a competition: company to win gets $40B cash...

I wouldn't, for two main reasons:

(1) Using BDBs, $500/kg could be got with a develop & build program of not $40 billion but about $2 to $5 billion-- there is no new technology needed!

(2) What matters to a large corporation like one of the oil majors when considering a large investment is not just the ultimate profit/loss or the total capital investment required but--crucially--the cash flow.

What this means is best illustrated by a (very simplified) example.

For example, a total investment of $50bn over 10 years which will begin generating income of $1bn in Year 3 rising to $5bn/year by Year 6 is a lot more interesting than another project that has a total investment of just $25bn over 10 years but only generates income of $5bn/year from Year 11. In the first example, the low-point in the cash-flow is $15bn in Year 5; in the second it is $25bn in year 10. When the financing cost of negative cash-flows are added in, the attractiveness of the first, superficially more expensive, project becomes yet more marked.

(I know something of which I speak, as I once used to work on exercises like this for Mobil Oil, before they merged to become ExxonMobil.)

This is why, properly organised, a SSPS project could be a much more attractive investment than something like the Channel Tunnel. The Channel Tunnel may be cheaper, but the cash flow is terrible. Not one penny will be earned until the whole thing is complete and you have spent all you are spending on building it. A SSTS scheme can start to earn money once the first significant part of the first satellite is ready and the means are at hand to transmit the power back to earth and there is a receiver ready to collect it.

I can't work out the costs in detail here of course--I don't have nearly enough information--but provided the company is not diverted into R&D, building and testing and then getting operational some fancy new launch system at the outer envelope of technology but instead settles for something that is almost old technolog, but will deliver quick returns at low cost (like BDB) SSPS has the makings of a good investment, cash-flow wise.

Indeed after a decade or two (or maybe less) the cash-flow will be so positive, it will be able to finance additional SSPSs out of current income.

Space will be self-financing at last!

John Creighton · 2004-07-09 16:48:27

Smaller companies can look for ways to reduce the maintenance costs, production costs and turn around costs.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-09 17:35:32

I wouldn't, for two main reasons:

Oh where's your sense of drama? Just think of all the constipated expressions on the Boeing and McDonnald Douglas executives as the prize was awarded to Bigalowe.

Actually I'd like the end product to launch at *less* than £500/kg. Of if $2B-$5B could get us that I'd prefer to spend $10B and get down to $300-400/kg.

A 500MW SPS could probably be built for $3-5B. It would be a neat trick if the company built this first and then never paid any electricity or heating/cooling bills again - ever!

ANTIcarrot.

Lars_J · 2004-07-09 20:03:53

I'm no expert in the field, but I personally see no chance of SPS system being built. I just don't see the energy market ever getting bad enough that it would make economic sense at current launch costs. It's not like we have tapped all the possibilities for earth-based solar power, nor other "clean" and nuclear sources of power.

Should launch costs fall drastically, the situation will of course change. Another case of "build it and they will come" situation, I suppose, similar to what has been argued here for "space tourism".

But I believe commercial manned space travel will be a much stronger driver for lower launch costs than SPS, that's for sure. I guess you could call it "build it and they will come quicker".

JimM · 2004-07-10 02:20:10

Actually I'd like the end product to launch at *less* than £500/kg. Of if $2B-$5B could get us that I'd prefer to spend $10B and get down to $300-400/kg.

A bad idea. The trade-off does not sound worthwhile. About $100/kg less for spending an extra $5 to $8bn up front breaks even at 50,000 to 80,000 tons of payload. Add in the cash-flow financing cost and you are certainly looking at a breakeven point of somewhere over (possibly well over) 100,000 tons delivered to LEO. And you've delayed the project (and therefore return on capital) for several years into the bargain.

Cheap can come awfully expensive in this business.

But in any case, in principle a reduced price/kg can be got simply by scaling up the BDB. You start modest and make 'em bigger as confidence (and demand) grows. No need to sepnd extra billions and wait years.

A 500MW SPS could probably be built for $3-5B. It would be a neat trick if the company built this first and then never paid any electricity or heating/cooling bills again - ever! ;

Enegry is in essence free to any energy company in any case.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-10 04:54:48

JimM:

A bad idea. The trade-off does not sound worthwhile. <snip> Cheap can come awfully expensive in this business.

I thought one of the lessons from the shuttle was that not spending the money up front can screw you later on? The second sentence works both ways.

But in any case, in principle a reduced price/kg can be got simply by scaling up the BDB. You start modest and make 'em bigger as confidence (and demand) grows. No need to sepnd extra billions and wait years.

Maybe. BDBs may have practical upper limits on thier size and cost/kg that aren't immediately apparent. It's important to get the cost down before you start serious construction. Whatever system could best do that.

Enegry is in essence free to any energy company in any case.

Which would be the point: The moment they do this they stop being a bunch of kooks burning their money and become a real electricity company with an economical product they can sell. It's a matter of showmanship.

Lars_J:

I just don't see the energy market ever getting bad enough that it would make economic sense at current launch costs.

Perhaps you missed the bit where we talked about spending up to $40B bringing the costs down...

Another case of "build it and they will come" situation, I suppose,

You suppose wrong. This is a situation more like the C-5 Galaxy, the Super Guppy, or the Beluga transport aircraft. Each was built for a specific customer for a specific purpose. It's not 'build it and they will come' but 'build it because you already have a customer lined up who's specifically *asking* you to build it and has already given you a down payment'.

ANTIcarrot.

Lars_J · 2004-07-10 10:28:20

Okay, so riddle me this: Where exactly is this vast demand for energy, that cannot be easily met by cheaper investments earth-side? Even with cheaper launch costs? Which customer is lined up for SPS?

I can see a market for space tourism - but I really don't see one of SPS.

JimM · 2004-07-10 10:33:24

I thought one of the lessons from the shuttle was that not spending the money up front can screw you later on? The second sentence works both ways.

Hah! A good point, ANITcarrot. The second sentence does work both ways.

But there's an optium scale, and optimum time too, of investment...

To every thing there is a season,
and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born,
and a time to die,
A time to plant,
and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

There is certainly a school of thought which says more should have been invested at the beginning to make what became Shuttle a two-stage fully reusable system. I can certainly say now, with the advantage of hindsight(g) that I am not one of them. I think it is clear today that the development cost of such a pair of vehicles back in the 1970's would have been truly collosal; the project would never have got funded, or even worse, would have been abandoned half way when funding was stopped.

For your information, I believe I would have favored making the first stage 100% reusable and leaving the second stage to be various things, depending on the mission -- a small reusable crewed vehicle, a larger non-recoverable cargo module, a module for a Mars vehicle, or whatever. That would have supplied (hopefully) cheaper access in a much more flexable way, and of course the recoverable first stage would not have to be subject to the extreme aerodynamic conditions of re-entry, making it cheaper to design and build. But what's done's done. We have to move on.

For all its many and various faults, Shuttle did not depend on original research in the matter of propulsion systems. One of my main objections to the idea of an aerospace plane (for example) as this point in the proceedings is that it would require very considerabe time and money on developing new propulsion systems which either don't exist yet or are in their extreme infancy--and compared with BDB would deliver a tiny payload. The beauty of something like BDB is that it does not need vast R&D; it's just a good old fashioned fire-and-go rocket, writ large. To spend $40 or $50 billion development money on some other way of lifting very large payloads would seem pointless, a waste of money, the pursuit of technical improvement for no other reason than it would be interesting technically. That would be wrong.

And yet Shuttle cost a fortune... and costs a fortune to operate too.

BDBs may have practical upper limits on thier size and cost/kg that aren't immediately apparent.

Yes. We do know (from detailed studies for Sea Dragon and other similar proposals) that a 20,000 ton GLOW BDB could place 500 tons in LEO for about $750/kg, and a 30,000 ton GLOW BDB could place 800 tons in LEO for about $500/kg--that's the one I've 'used' to build the SSPS's

So push things just a little more, to say 40,000 tons GLOW, and we must be approaching something like 1,100 or 1,200 tons in LEO for about $400/Kg.

(30 or 40 thousand ton GLOW vehicles... you can see why these things are built in shupyards and launched at sea. Real spaceships!!)

How far can we extrapolate this model? I dunno, but I'd think a 100,000 ton GLOW BDB is quite feasable, but a million ton BDB (delivering maybe 50,000 tons or so to LEO!!!) might have problems.

JimM · 2004-07-10 10:46:03

Okay, so riddle me this: Where exactly is this vast demand for energy, that cannot be easily met by cheaper investments earth-side? Even with cheaper launch costs? Which customer is lined up for SPS?

Customers for SSPS? How about everyone who uses energy, be it to heat their home, travel, run a business, and so on and on and on...?

Oil is going to come to a sudden stop one fine day, and sooner rather than later, not so much because there's none left as because the Middle East situation will make it impossible to get it extracted and back to the West. SSPS is the way out of this.

I can see a market for space tourism - but I really don't see one of SPS.

Most of this thread has been to argue about the validity of space tourism; there seems to be general agreeement by this point that while there is a possible market for little hops like the one made by Spaceship One, orbital tourism is just not realistic--unless you can find several thousand billionaires who like spending anything up to $5 million each so that they can seriously risk their lives.

Lars_J · 2004-07-10 11:15:55

Why do you assume that I was writing about oil or other fossil fuels? I certainly was not... There are other earth-based alternatives for generating energy. (Solar, nuclear, and many more)

JimM · 2004-07-10 14:28:53

Why do you assume that I was writing about oil or other fossil fuels? I certainly was not... There are other earth-based alternatives for generating energy. (Solar, nuclear, and many more)

SSPS is solar power, on an industrial scale, in space where it is many times more efficient than it ever can be on earth.

Nuclear will be needed too, on a large scale, alongside SSPS. Nuclear power stations have a long lead-time to get onstream, but SSPSs will have an even longer one, at least at first before virtually all the materials needed to build one can be obtained off-earth.

Earth-based solar, wind, tide, etc. power does not amount to more than a few percent of power generation today. They probably can never amount to more than about 10% and are intrinsically not consistent or reliable- earth-based solar power goes away at sunset; windpower dies on a calm day; no-one has figured out how to make tide power work yet--and none of them are actually cheap: the very opposite in fact.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-11 05:10:46

One of my main objections to the idea of an aerospace plane (for example) as this point in the proceedings is that it would require very considerabe time and money on developing new propulsion systems which either don't exist yet or are in their extreme infancy--and compared with BDB would deliver a tiny payload. The beauty of something like BDB is that it does not need vast R&D; it's just a good old fashioned fire-and-go rocket, writ large. To spend $40 or $50 billion development money on some other way of lifting very large payloads would seem pointless, a waste of money,

Agreed. Hence my rule of no shuttles! And the beauty of the prize system is that the aerospace companies will not thier engineers to waste *THEIR* prize money in the same way they allow them to waste government money.

So push things just a little more, to say 40,000 tons GLOW, and we must be approaching something like 1,100 or 1,200 tons in LEO for about $400/Kg.

Suppose you needed to put up 2000tons/month. How easy would it be to scale up production of such vehicles?

Consiquence of BDB:
If you're launching thousands of tons of steel alongside your cargo, then it might make sense to reuse that steel in SPS construction. Alternatively very big BDBs with good enough thermal properties could survive reentry completely intact to be recovered. Recasting the steel might work out cheeper than buying new. Do your launch costs take this kind of thing into account?

Where exactly is this vast demand for energy, that cannot be easily met by cheaper investments earth-side?

Car use. Either electric or hydrogen cars will mean massive increases in power consumption. Also a little known country called China is beginning to wake up, and it's citizens want the same level of luxury we have. Which means 4 times the consumption of the US once they've finished. Ditto for India.

Yes there are eath alternatives. But most alternatives are severely limited in expansion or location. They should *still* be built on general principle, but they won't solve the whole problem without a major breakthrough.

Nuclear I'm somewhat wary of, especially fission. The disposal is a BIG problem. The only solution (linked to massive particle accelerators) requires so much power that it can only be run by another power station.

ANTIcarrot.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-07-08 14:43:00

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#77 2004-07-08 15:38:16

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#78 2004-07-08 15:53:07

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#79 2004-07-08 23:17:35

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#80 2004-07-09 01:26:07

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#81 2004-07-09 06:00:38

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#82 2004-07-09 07:28:28

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#83 2004-07-09 08:06:59

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#84 2004-07-09 10:09:21

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#85 2004-07-09 11:53:17

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#86 2004-07-09 12:11:44

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#87 2004-07-09 13:51:29

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#88 2004-07-09 14:45:17

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#89 2004-07-09 15:11:18

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#90 2004-07-09 16:48:27

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#91 2004-07-09 17:35:32

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#92 2004-07-09 20:03:53

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#93 2004-07-10 02:20:10

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#94 2004-07-10 04:54:48

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#95 2004-07-10 10:28:20

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#96 2004-07-10 10:33:24

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#97 2004-07-10 10:46:03

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#98 2004-07-10 11:15:55

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#99 2004-07-10 14:28:53

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#100 2004-07-11 05:10:46

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

Board footer