What would be the impact of a 75% Reduction in cost per Kg

[spacy600]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do we have the capability to build robotic satellite "tow trucks" that can haul them over to the repair garage, and the reinsert them into orbit? <br /> Posted by tampaDreamer</DIV></p><p>DoD is working on it:</p><p>http://www.physorg.com/news107446980.html</p><p>and Google orbital express</p><p>Just have to transfer the tech to the private sector.&nbsp;</p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>DoD is working on it:http://www.physorg.com/news107446980.htmland Google orbital expressJust have to transfer the tech to the private sector.&nbsp; <br />Posted by spacy600</DIV></p><p>All that article addresses is computer simulation of computer algorithms for guidance of vehicle rendezvous and grappling of an orbiting satellite.&nbsp; That is rather a long way from having a real hardware system or even having any technology worthy of being transferred.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tampaDreamer]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All that article addresses is computer simulation of computer algorithms for guidance of vehicle rendezvous and grappling of an orbiting satellite.&nbsp; That is rather a long way from having a real hardware system or even having any technology worthy of being transferred.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Even still, the cost of running this tow truck and keeping the personell in orbit to work in the garage would have to exceed the cost of making new satellites and boosting them into orbit, adjusted for the time to next failure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacy600]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All that article addresses is computer simulation of computer algorithms for guidance of vehicle rendezvous and grappling of an orbiting satellite.&nbsp; That is rather a long way from having a real hardware system or even having any technology worthy of being transferred.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Yes it was also a old link. I think that was the precursor to the orbital express, which demoed the ability.</p><p>Here is a better link:</p><p>http://www.darpa.mil/orbitalexpress/mission_updates.html</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[spacy600]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Even still, the cost of running this tow truck and keeping the personell in orbit to work in the garage would have to exceed the cost of making new satellites and boosting them into orbit, adjusted for the time to next failure. <br /> Posted by tampaDreamer</DIV></p><p>Well, if you have something like the Orbital Express (Link above) grab a bunch of old sat, and </p><p>put them in a cue at the garage.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Then Get some people up there, </p><p><font><font><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">"The projected cost for transportation and living onboard a Bigelow space complex for a four-week period is $14,950,000 in 2012 dollars."</font></font></font></font></p><p>http://www.space.com/news/070410_nss_bigelow.html</p><p>In that time you fix four "high value sats", Military or commercial. refuel them and put them back in useable orbits.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It would depend on the cost of four new sats, and launch cost.</p><p>I think this is doable.&nbsp;</p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Saw a TV news article about recycling and China. The trade is worth Billions of Dollars, just for paper and plastic bottles.&nbsp;Now instead of burning up old sats, Why don't we fix them, recycle them. That would be a good first step, instead ofmining, with all the logistic that involes.Have a big Bigelow 330&nbsp; garage up in orbit, an old sat comes in, remove the solar pannels, fix it, or strip it for parts,and send it on it's way. Cleaner, and more delicate work can be done than what was done on the shuttle.This sounds like a business plan. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by spacy600</DIV></p><p>1.&nbsp; Most spacecraft aren't "burnt up".&nbsp; Most spacecraft are in GSO.&nbsp; Very high detla v to get there.</p><p>2.&nbsp; How do you open a inflatable station to vacuum to allow for a spacecraft to enter?&nbsp; ;-)&nbsp;</p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, if you have something like the Orbital Express (Link above) grab a bunch of old sat, and put them in a cue at the garage.&nbsp;Then Get some people up there, "The projected cost for transportation and living onboard a Bigelow space complex for a four-week period is $14,950,000 in 2012 dollars."http://www.space.com/news/070410_nss_bigelow.htmlIn that time you fix four "high value sats", Military or commercial. refuel them and put them back in useable orbits.&nbsp;It would depend on the cost of four new sats, and launch cost.I think this is doable.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by spacy600</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;You are making claims for something when you don't even know the big picture. </p><p>1.&nbsp; Those are the costs for a LEO Bigelow station and not one in GSO.&nbsp;</p><p>2.&nbsp; Do you know where most satellites are?</p><p>&nbsp;3.&nbsp; Do you know how much launch vehicle performance it takes to place a spacecraft there?</p><p>4.&nbsp; Do you know what it takes to service a spacecraft? just on the ground and not in zero G? </p><br /><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[spacy600]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1.&nbsp; Most spacecraft aren't "burnt up".&nbsp; Most spacecraft are in GSO.&nbsp; Very high detla v to get there.2.&nbsp; How do you open a inflatable station to vacuum to allow for a spacecraft to enter?&nbsp; ;-)&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/dcsss/2004/C23_ToddEDITfinal.pdf</p><p>Are you saying there are no worth while sat's in LEO, and Polar orbits?</p><p>My plan is to start in LEO first, then branch out.&nbsp;</p><p>2 How big of an airlock you got?&nbsp;<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" width="18" height="18" />&nbsp; Depending on what you want to do wth the sat, it may be fixed outside.</p><p>If you want to strip it, the process may start outside, then finish inside.&nbsp;</p>

 

[spacy600]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;You are making claims for something when you don't even know the big picture. 1.&nbsp; Those are the costs for a LEO Bigelow station and not one in GSO.&nbsp;2.&nbsp; Do you know where most satellites are?&nbsp;3.&nbsp; Do you know how much launch vehicle performance it takes to place a spacecraft there?4.&nbsp; Do you know what it takes to service a spacecraft? just on the ground and not in zero G? &nbsp; <br /> Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>1 I didn't see any orbit in the article, both Bigelow craft are in LEO, about 340 miles.</p><p>2 My service is Quality, not quantity.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" width="18" height="18" /></p><p>3 well the original sat got there, so it can be done.</p><p>4 NASA has fixed a couple of sats on orbit, made it look easy. </p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> fAre you saying there are no worth while sat's in LEO, and Polar orbits?.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by spacy600</DIV></p><p>Very few that can be reached from a central staging point.&nbsp; It would take large amounts of propellants and time. &nbsp;&nbsp; Polar orbits, even fewer. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Take the ISS for example.&nbsp; there is no spacecraft within "reasonable"* reach of it.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>* moderate propellant amounts. &nbsp; </p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;1 I didn't see any orbit in the article, both Bigelow craft are in LEO, about 340 miles.2 My service is Quality, not quantity.3 well the original sat got there, so it can be done.4 NASA has fixed a couple of sats on orbit, made it look easy. <br /> Posted by spacy600</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>1.&nbsp; Totally useless for spacecraft servicing</p><p>2.&nbsp; Quality doesn't make a business case.&nbsp; Cheaper to launch another spacecraft</p><p>3. &nbsp; This shows you don't see the big picture.&nbsp; So what how the spacecraft got there, it is a one way trip, and that isn't the issue.&nbsp; Your scheme requires material and personnel to transported back and forth from LEO to GSO.&nbsp; It take more energy to go from LEO to GSO than from LEO to the moon </p><p>&nbsp;4.&nbsp; those spacecraft. were specifically designed for it and were very expensive.&nbsp; Not the mention the&nbsp; 1/2 -1 billion dollars for the shuttle flight.&nbsp;&nbsp; Thhe first spacecraft NASA repaired was Solar Max, it would have been cheaper just to launch a duplicate.&nbsp; </p>

 

[kelvinzero]

<p>Looks like the conversation has moved on a bit,</p><p>In terms of tipping points, my favorite potential one is Space solar power. It is still a way off, but&nbsp;when at some point the expected return from launching a SSP satelite exceeds the cost of launch, plus a little bit more, then there will never be a reason to not just reinvest your money into launching more satellites. Space infrastructure would begin growing exponentually. </p>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; Totally useless for spacecraft servicing2.&nbsp; Quality doesn't make a business case.&nbsp; Cheaper to launch another spacecraft3. &nbsp; This shows you don't see the big picture.&nbsp; So what how the spacecraft got there, it is a one way trip, and that isn't the issue.&nbsp; Your scheme requires material and personnel to transported back and forth from LEO to GSO.&nbsp; It take more energy to go from LEO to GSO than from LEO to the moon &nbsp;4.&nbsp; those spacecraft. were specifically designed for it and were very expensive.&nbsp; Not the mention the&nbsp; 1/2 -1 billion dollars for the shuttle flight.&nbsp;&nbsp; Thhe first spacecraft NASA repaired was Solar Max, it would have been cheaper just to launch a duplicate.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Are these assumptions based on current costs and procedures?&nbsp; How close would you be to making the business model work given a 75% reduction in launch costs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Looks like the conversation has moved on a bit,In terms of tipping points, my favorite potential one is Space solar power. It is still a way off, but&nbsp;when at some point the expected return from launching a SSP satelite exceeds the cost of launch, plus a little bit more, then there will never be a reason to not just reinvest your money into launching more satellites. Space infrastructure would begin growing exponentually. <br />Posted by kelvinzero</DIV><br /><br />Again another prime mover in economics.&nbsp; Energy production and distribution in/from space would have a lot of benifits if it could be done cheaply enough.</p><p>I have pondered the possibility of recovering large quantities of hydrocarbons from the Jupiter and Saturn systems.&nbsp; But I think we are a very long&nbsp;way (even from LEO) from being able to get there and back with enough quantity to make it feasible.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[tampaDreamer]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Looks like the conversation has moved on a bit,In terms of tipping points, my favorite potential one is Space solar power. It is still a way off, but&nbsp;when at some point the expected return from launching a SSP satelite exceeds the cost of launch, plus a little bit more, then there will never be a reason to not just reinvest your money into launching more satellites. Space infrastructure would begin growing exponentually. <br />Posted by kelvinzero</DIV><br /><br />At that point it will also become more worth it to create debris harvesting robots that zoom around orbit picking up the trash. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Again another prime mover in economics.&nbsp; Energy production and distribution in/from space would have a lot of benifits if it could be done cheaply enough.I have pondered the possibility of recovering large quantities of hydrocarbons from the Jupiter and Saturn systems.&nbsp; But I think we are a very long&nbsp;way (even from LEO) from being able to get there and back with enough quantity to make it feasible. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>Hydrocarbons are very useful for building many things and of course for life. It is a pity there wasnt a more obvious supply of them on the moon, or it would have been a much more enticing target these last few decades since apollo.</p><p>However we would never seek them from another planet as fuel. There are two key reasons for this.</p><p>(a)&nbsp;The difference in orbital energy of any other world and earth is typically much greater than the energy you could get from burning it. You would expend more power to bring it home.</p><p>(b) but more importantly,&nbsp;Although there are worlds with oceans of methane or&nbsp;for that matter of liquid hydrogen, and on earth we would regard these materials as fuels,&nbsp;the&nbsp;energy isnt infact in these&nbsp;materials, but in the fact that they want to react with oxygen.</p><p>So the energy in fuel is limited to your&nbsp;supply of&nbsp;oxygen in its unreacted state.&nbsp;Oxygen is super reactive. It only exists on earth as a peculiar byproduct of&nbsp;photosynthesis. We could be living on an ocean of petroleum&nbsp;but in the end we could only burn it as fast as plant life produced&nbsp;oxygen.&nbsp;The rate at which our planet can produce oxygen is totally limited by the amount of solar power that plants can&nbsp;gather&nbsp;create&nbsp;02&nbsp;out of c02. Burning fossil fuels, or wood, or animal fats for that matter is all just a form of solar power and&nbsp;ultimately limited by the surface area of the earth that recieves solar energy.&nbsp;</p>

 

[keermalec]

<p>One new market appearing now is space tourism. It stands to reason that if one lowers the cost of access to space the number of space tourists will increase. That in turn may lead to demand for more space infrastructures: zero-g hotels in orbit, lunar hotels etc. Creating demand for launches may further reduce their cost even more.</p><p>Virgin Galactic claims to have 200 clients paying 200'000 USD each just for a suborbital flight and around 10 persons are ready to pay 20 million USD for an orbital flight (as seems to be claimed by Space Adventures). If we try out a rough&nbsp;elasticity of demand graph the largest returns would be 50 persons ready to pay&nbsp;around 7&nbsp;million USD. </p><p>Considering the Soyuz module masses 7.25 tons and assuming it can carry two tourists at the same time (with one pilot), launch costs should come down to 1.9 million USD/ton for space tourism to really take off.</p><p>Current launch prices for the Soyuz are around 50 million USD per launch (according to&nbsp;Astronautix, and extrapolated from 1999 to 2008 dollars) which gives&nbsp;7.2 million USD/ ton. Given these assumptions a 75% reduction in launch costs could certainly create a very viable orbital space tourism market.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>