Can manned spaceflight turn a profit?

[SpaceForAReason]

We have been hearing alot about budgets and money related to manned space travel. As far as I am aware there are no proposal for manned space travel that turns a profit beyond mere joyrides.

What do you think? Can money be made by manned space travel?

 

[SpaceForAReason]

I see from those that have answered that those concerned are positive about the prospects. I also see from those who did not participate that people generally discount capitalism as a motivating force.

It would be interesting to hear what people with some real business sense think how and when manned space-flight might tirn a profit?

Also, those who believe that turning a profit is a useless pursuit might have something to say?

 

[halman]

100 years ago, the potential of aviation was very obscure. The flimsy craft of the day had very limited capabilities, just as our space craft today are very limited. A contemporary of the Wright brothers would have been flabbergasted if told that, within 75 years, planeloads of people would be crossing oceans at hundreds of miles per hour. The situation today is somewhat different, in that we achieved so much so fast with the Apollo program that it completely distorted public perception of spaceflight.

If it had not been for the Apollo program, we probably would be preparing our first lunar exploratory manned mission. But we would probably have a two-stage to-orbit launch system, several space stations, and profitable space tourism flights on a regular basis. So we are still trying to catch up with where we should be in space exploration.

The Earth is not a closed system, where life uses up all the available resources and then goes extinct. We live in a solar system full of the materials we need for our advanced technology, some in planetary structures, others drifting around in the form of asteroids and comets. Our primary provides immense quantities of energy for us to use in processing those materials into usable forms.

Environmental restrictions here on Earth will eventually make it profitable to find and extract resources off-planet, and to process them there, so that only finished products, ready for assembly, are imported to Earth. This will be the culmination of a process that began when steel mills where built in nations will few, if any, environmental regulations, because operating steel mills in places with such regulations was prohibitively expensive.

Currently, less than one billion of the Earth's several billion inhabitants enjoy a high standard of living. If we extrapolate energy and resource consumption to levels required for the entire world's population to enjoy such standards of living, there simply is not enough here on Earth to go around. We can either reduce our standard of living considerably, so that all will have the same, or we can expand our sphere of activity beyond Earth.

Space could be profitable in as few as 20 years, if the investment in technology were large enough. At our current levels of investment, it will probably be more like 50 years before we see profitable operations off-planet.

 

[SpaceForAReason]

100 years ago, the potential of aviation was very obscure. The flimsy craft of the day had very limited capabilities, just as our space craft today are very limited. A contemporary of the Wright brothers would have been flabbergasted if told that, within 75 years, planeloads of people would be crossing oceans at hundreds of miles per hour. The situation today is somewhat different, in that we achieved so much so fast with the Apollo program that it completely distorted public perception of spaceflight.

Agreed, we are only 50 years or so since the first manned flight. Compared to aircraft we still have at least 25 years to go before the industry can mature sufficiently.

It will be hard to be an old man looking up when it does happen.

 

[rhapsodyinspace2]

Yes space flight will turn a profit, there will be so many folks making one way trips into space and leaving it all behind on earth as soon as they are able to.

here in a few years will tell the tale. Hell i am ready to go now!.......and remember this! Our solar systems first trillionaire will make it out there in space! :geek:

 

[SpaceForAReason]

There is so much that is almost ready that I think all it would take is several big dollar investors to bring it all together in a matter of just 5 years...

Bigelow is almost ready with their modules.
There are at least two companies with the know-how to put vehicles in space but simply lack the resources to finish.
There are several companies like GE with the ability to create and manage space based systems for power that could be beamed earthward and used to supply on orbit farms with power for hydroponic food production.

And others...

All it would take is enough money and a good team partnership with the right companies and the whole thing would just take off!

 

[SpaceXFanMobius57]

Space Mining

 

[asj2010]

I think it's too simplistic to compare the history of the commercialization of airplanes with space. There are several very big differences.

1. It cost a hell of a lot more to get into space and stay there.

2. Space is MUCH more inimical to life than the next continent over.

3. Whereas the driving force for commercial air flight was the fact people needed to go over to the next continent to visit other people, no such driving force exists to go to space. There's no martian culture or people to aim for.

I think the commercial enterprises that finally crack space will be corporations that are partly or fully state-sponsored and controlled.

 

[aaron38]

There's no martian culture or people to aim for.

That's why we have to create one. A colony. A (mostly) self-sustaing off-world branch of our civilization. And then there WILL be a reason to go to Mars. New colonists, documentarists, tourists, trade. The colony gets put to work on belt resource extraction to save us from ourselves. And then they'll revolt. But we'll worry about that later.

You don't have a child to make money off it, at least, not right away. It's a very long term investment our species makes. To end childish play and reproduce. And what is there left to do on Earth but play? There's no where new to go, nothing really new to do. Do we really want to wait until resource extraction drives us outward?

So let's have a kid. It'll be a lot of work, and you don't get paid. But in the end you have a new world at your side. How is it not worth it?

 

[Jazman1985]

fantastic example aaron38, best I think I've heard! Unfortunately many people can't look farther in the future than dinner and see not only the financial payoffs, but the cultural payoffs that would be afforded by this step. The same reason many people my age nowadays are putting off having children until their time for it is almost over.

 

[tanstaafl76]

Of course it will turn a profit, that's not the question. The only question is how big will that market be. For the foreseeable future it will be only a handful of wealthy individuals who will be going to space for recreation, but there still can be money made in that effort. The companies serving that market would probably be doing so with the eventual intention of expanding that market through lower prices, but we're quite a ways away from it being even remotely affordable for the average consumer.

I suppose you could also consider if a private company like SpaceX gets a contract from NASA to ferry people to the ISS they could turn a profit, though the funds are coming from a government agency so I don't know if you are thinking of it in that regard.

 

[halman]

I think it's too simplistic to compare the history of the commercialization of airplanes with space. There are several very big differences.

1. It cost a hell of a lot more to get into space and stay there.

2. Space is MUCH more inimical to life than the next continent over.

3. Whereas the driving force for commercial air flight was the fact people needed to go over to the next continent to visit other people, no such driving force exists to go to space. There's no martian culture or people to aim for.

I think the commercial enterprises that finally crack space will be corporations that are partly or fully state-sponsored and controlled.

Military investment in aviation made possible the great advances we take for granted. The development of superchargers, cabin pressurization, jet engines, inertial navigation, etcetera were very expensive. Aviators suffered hypoxia, frostbite, and oxygen poisoning during the early days of flight, because altitude is quite inimical to life.

People were able to travel in comfort and style long before aviation. Most liners were floating palaces, at least for first class passengers. Only the time saved by flying made commercial air travel viable, and it still needed considerable government subsidy to survive. (Witness what has happened since airline deregulation. How many airports were built with federal funds? Who pays for Air Traffic Control, weather forecasts, and the other infrastructure needed to make airline travel possible?)

The greatest obstacle to making money in space right now is the cost of getting off of Earth, and that is simply because our technology for doing so is still very primitive. When we can launch vehicles into space without having absolutely perfect conditions, armies of technicians monitoring every facet of the vehicle, and multiple redundancy for every system, launch costs will come down drastically. This is where government investment is critical, to pioneer the technology to make going to space little different than flying across an ocean. Once that hurdle is overcome, billions of dollars will be invested into space stations, space craft, and whatever else is needed to lift our industry off planet.

Not only does space promise the ability to do things which simply cannot be done in a gravity field, but it also will be a haven from environmental costs that are escalating rapidly for almost any heavy industry. Imagine what would happen if it was discovered that an alloy of aluminum and sodium created a room temperature superconductor, or that a foamed ceramic with carbon fiber reinforcement could be used to make a light weight roofing material with a lifespan of a minimum of 100 years. Corporations already invest billions of dollars to extract oil from arctic locations, or from miles beneath the seabed, without significant government assistance.

 

[neutrino78x]

People were able to travel in comfort and style long before aviation. Most liners were floating palaces, at least for first class passengers. Only the time saved by flying made commercial air travel viable, and it still needed considerable government subsidy to survive. (Witness what has happened since airline deregulation. How many airports were built with federal funds? Who pays for Air Traffic Control, weather forecasts, and the other infrastructure needed to make airline travel possible?)

Exactly!!! The government will maintain ports, and provide law and order, but the actual transportation, the actual colonization, is going to be done by private entities. Government's role is to create the fundamental economic and logistical infrastructure, then step aside and let private actors do the actual activities supported by said infrastructure. Just as Silicon Valley (where I live) would not exist without both Intel AND The San Jose Police Department and the San Jose International Airport, future cities and nations on Mars and other places will not exist without both private actors and the government infrastructure.

The greatest obstacle to making money in space right now is the cost of getting off of Earth, and that is simply because our technology for doing so is still very primitive. When we can launch vehicles into space without having absolutely perfect conditions, armies of technicians monitoring every facet of the vehicle, and multiple redundancy for every system, launch costs will come down drastically. This is where government investment is critical, to pioneer the technology to make going to space little different than flying across an ocean. Once that hurdle is overcome, billions of dollars will be invested into space stations, space craft, and whatever else is needed to lift our industry off planet.

Again, exactly. This is something NASA should be involved in a lot. They should be funding something like the X-33 again. Using SpaceX for launch services is a good idea.

--Brian

 

[ZenGalacticore]

I see from those that have answered that those concerned are positive about the prospects. I also see from those who did not participate that people generally discount capitalism as a motivating force.

It would be interesting to hear what people with some real business sense think how and when manned space-flight might tirn a profit?

Also, those who believe that turning a profit is a useless pursuit might have something to say?

Maybe this will sum it up for you: If YOU had just inherited 10 Million Dollars, would you risk it all, or even 10% of it, on a 'for profit' space venture that most likely has a 90% something failure probability?

 

[ZenGalacticore]

100 years ago, the potential of aviation was very obscure. The flimsy craft of the day had very limited capabilities, just as our space craft today are very limited. A contemporary of the Wright brothers would have been flabbergasted if told that, within 75 years, planeloads of people would be crossing oceans at hundreds of miles per hour. The situation today is somewhat different, in that we achieved so much so fast with the Apollo program that it completely distorted public perception of spaceflight.

Agreed, we are only 50 years or so since the first manned flight. Compared to aircraft we still have at least 25 years to go before the industry can mature sufficiently.

It will be hard to be an old man looking up when it does happen.

Hmm... Really? Let's see now: the Wright brothers first took flight in 1903; the first bi-plane fighters took off in circa 1915; Lindberg flew across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe in c. 1927; the first jet aircraft were developed in the early 1940s; the first OPERATIONAL military jet aircraft(the Messerschmidt 262) came off the production line in mid 1944; and by the Korean War, in 1951, the Russians had the Mig jet fighter, and the Americans had the Saber.

So, within 50 years of the Wright Brother's first flimsy flight, the Great Powers had effective, operational, high speed, deadly jet fighters and other jet powered bombers and transport craft in development. "25" years after that, the Americans had stealth fighters and bombers in the experimental stage.

We SHOULD be much further along in spacecraft development than we are; there are no excuses, other than public apathy and indifference to the cause, and all round stupidity! (And lack of will.)

 

[halman]

ZenGalacticcore,

As I pointed out, the Apollo program skewed practically every aspect of space exploration by throwing any reasonable timetable out the window. Launch vehicle technology probably would have advanced in tandem with our capabilities off-planet if we had not charged off to the Moon right out of the gate. The original designs for the space shuttle, back about 1970, were for a small, two stage to orbit vehicle, which would have been used to ferry people to orbit, where they would meet payloads sent up on large rockets. This was the kind of vehicle which could be operated fairly cheaply, in weather that was marginal, because it was a horizontal take-off design.

But Apollo caused such drastic cuts in NASA funding that the agency had to seek a partner to help pay for the next generation of launch vehicles, and the Air Force was the only one willing to dance. They wanted to be able to launch payloads the size of a bus, to accommodate intelligence missions. This meant that the lifting body that was the key to reusablity had to be huge, because the payload was going to be carried inside the vehicle. There was no way that such a large vehicle could be launched horizontally, so the engines had to be beefed up to handle launching vertically, which meant that the fuel for the engines could not be carried internally. The external tank got so big that boosters were needed to lift it, resulting in the vehicle being even bigger and more expensive to fly. NASA would probably have abandoned the whole reusable idea, except for the fact that the public was getting outraged about throwing a Saturn 5 rocket away every time we launched.

But NASA managed to come up with something which would have worked, if Congress had agreed to build a big enough fleet of shuttles for economies of scale to come into play. But Congress was still smarting from the Vietnam police action, so no fleets of shuttles were going to be paid for. Then the Air Force bailed out of the program, going back to expendable rockets, and NASA was stuck with a vehicle that they definitely did not want, and one that they had no mission for.

If it had not been for the Apollo program, we probably would have seen a two stage to orbit, totally reusable space shuttle come along in the late 1970's. There is a good chance that it would have been used in the construction of a space station, which would have been assembled from modules sent up on Titan IIIC launch vehicles. We would probably have gotten to the Moon in the 1990's sometime, and we would probably still be developing bases there about now, while we designed a deep space vehicle to go sniffing around Mars, Near Earth Asteroids, and maybe even Mercury.

Unlike aviation, the technical know-how existed very early in the history of space flight to build advanced vehicles, but the money just was not there, because of Apollo. Apollo was also the reason that money for a space station was so hard to come by, because it would have seemed like we were going backwards. But a space station is essential for learning how to live and work in space, so we couldn't very well advance until we had built one. The Apollo program probably set back our efforts in space by at least 30 years, and we still have not escaped from its shadow.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Halman- That's some great information and a valid perspective. I appreciate that, but, as they say, 'hindsight is always 20/20'.

Let's face it, as wasteful or even silly as it may seem to us now, at the time it was crucially important to beat the Soviets to the Moon, whatever it took. And it just goes to show what we-the US- can do when we put our hearts, minds, and wallets into something that we consider crucial.

I still believe that our main problem today is apathy and indifference, general public ignorance on the multiple benefits-both direct and indirect, obvious and unperceived- of space exploration and utililization, and a serious lack of national collective inspiration and will.

And I'd like to add, that a country that could fund a $Two-Billion dollar a month war in Vietnam for nine years AND fund the Apollo program at the SAME TIME can do just about anything it puts its collective mind to doing! (I have no idea what that 2 billion a month pricetag for Vietnam would be in today's dollars, but I'm sure it would total upwards of a trillion dollars over nine years in current value.)

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Btw, I vote 'Yes', that manned space expliots and ventures will ONE DAY turn a profit. But only after the taxpayers pave the way with the initial public investment necessary to create the level of technology and infrastructure that will make it all feasible, and financially worth the risk of private investment.

Let's all keep in mind that from 1492, all the way up to the founding of the colony of Georgia in 1731, that overseas colonial enterprises were largely government and/or trustee financed. Gradually, and piecemeal at different times and locales were private share and stockholders involved with the financial risks.

And while there may not be Aztec, Inca, and Mayan gold and silver on the Moon, there's a whole lot of titanium and aluminum in the regolith. And there's pobably lots of precious-and strategic- metals contained in the asteroids of the Asteroid Belt.

 

[neutrino78x]

I think space travel is more analogous to sea travel than to air. It could be my Navy bias, but as I said in another thread, I see interplanetary and interstellar space as the ocean, Earth as Europe, and the various destinations as the targets of European exploration in centuries past.

But we still need to replace the Outer Space Treaty with something better, something that allows nations to claim territory on Mars, or at least, through some other method, stimulate private colonization there.

--Brian

 

[halman]

ZenGalacticore,

The Soviet Union had no thought of sending people to the Moon until Kennedy made that the goal of the Unite States. The USSR was interested in a sustainable, step-by-step program to establish a space station.

NASA had spent most of the money needed for the Apollo hardware by 1966, well before the Vietnam police action became a major drain on the budget.

What has been spent on the liberating the Iraqi oil supply could have easily paid for a return to the Moon.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

ZenGalacticore,

The Soviet Union had no thought of sending people to the Moon until Kennedy made that the goal of the Unite States. The USSR was interested in a sustainable, step-by-step program to establish a space station.

NASA had spent most of the money needed for the Apollo hardware by 1966, well before the Vietnam police action became a major drain on the budget.

What has been spent on the liberating the Iraqi oil supply could have easily paid for a return to the Moon.

That's true about the Soviets. But we had to beat them at something dramatic because of Sputnik and Yuri. And both the Vietnam war wasted effort and the space program occurred largely in tandem, from '63 to '73. In fact, since 1954, IIRC, the US was paying 80% of the cost of the French 'war' effort to retain her colonies in Indo-China. (Which was absurd from the get-go.) I won't bother going into the historical and geo-political reasons for that!

Look, I agree with you for the most part, I just still say hindsight is 20/20. We're all well aware of US military expenditures, with or without an Iraqi War, vis a vis NASA's paltry $20 billion dollar annual budget. The US spends more on its Defense Budget in one year than it has spent on NASA in the last 25 or 30 years.

 

[halman]

Let's be realistic; a real program of practically any kind in space is going to take 10, 15, maybe even 25 years. To date, the only program that the US government has been willing to fund without completely rewriting the budget every couple of years has been the International Space Station, and that budget has been cut repeatedly. If it had been a strictly US project , it probably would not stand a chance at completion, because of budget rewrites.

When the government commits to building an aircraft carrier, it doesn't usually jerk the budget around too much, because everybody knows that doing that will only drive up the costs, and delay delivery. The same rules don't seem to apply to NASA projects, from some reason, because budgets get hacked so bad that complete redesigns are required. (Witness the shuttle booster rockets.) Right now, the entire focus of the NASA budget for development is the Ares I rocket. Which there would be no use for shortly after it is introduced, because the space station would be de-orbited! This isn't planning, it is knee-jerk reaction-type politics.

Somehow, Congress has got to be convinced that space exploration is not about prestige, it is not about scientific enlightenment, it is not about colonizing other planets, it is about developing the economic potential of vast resources and unlimited energy. A good part of the economic straits that we are in could be the result of true economic growth being stifled by a failure of governments to expand the sphere of human activity. The kind of growth that our modern economies seem to need to satiate the greed requires huge supplies of cheap resources, energy that is practically free, and no government regulation, so that product innovation is never hindered.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

I completely agree with all the above.* Perhaps we should start an e-petition here at SDC to lobby Congress to appropriate more funds as well as a more sensible approach to NASA and its purpose.

What's SDC's membership? Something like a half-million? And many are no doubt Americans from all walks of life and randomly all over the country. I don't see how such a petition could NOT have an impact on the dunderheads!

*Except the part about no government regulation. Some regulation is necessary.

 

[neutrino78x]

Somehow, Congress has got to be convinced that space exploration is not about prestige, it is not about scientific enlightenment, it is not about colonizing other planets, it is about developing the economic potential of vast resources and unlimited energy.

But, other planets have resources to be developed!! And it does add to our prestige to land humans on celestial bodies.

 

[Booban]

When the government commits to building an aircraft carrier, it doesn't usually jerk the budget around too much, because everybody knows that doing that will only drive up the costs, and delay delivery. The same rules don't seem to apply to NASA projects, from some reason, because budgets get hacked so bad that complete redesigns are required. (Witness the shuttle booster rockets.) Right now, the entire focus of the NASA budget for development is the Ares I rocket. Which there would be no use for shortly after it is introduced, because the space station would be de-orbited! This isn't planning, it is knee-jerk reaction-type politics.

The reason why Congress pays for an aircraft carrier and out comes an aircraft carrier, one after the other after the other is because the need for aircraft carriers existence is clear and indisputable.

Crusader, Commanche, were axed because there was no longer a need for them, that will happen in your Ares I example, and every other thing NASA has or will ever do unless NASA can explain why they do the things they do.

Somehow, Congress has got to be convinced that space exploration is not about prestige, it is not about scientific enlightenment, it is not about colonizing other planets, it is about developing the economic potential of vast resources and unlimited energy. A good part of the economic straits that we are in could be the result of true economic growth being stifled by a failure of governments to expand the sphere of human activity. The kind of growth that our modern economies seem to need to satiate the greed requires huge supplies of cheap resources, energy that is practically free, and no government regulation, so that product innovation is never hindered.

Exactly, NASA explain yourself, if you can't then you can't complain you have the budget that you have. Where's your plan to develop those resources and unlimited energy.