Will the 5 years between Shuttle and Orion allow...

llivinglarge · Mar 5, 2007

the commercial space companies to show off and attempt to outdo NASA?

mattblack · Mar 5, 2007

They're welcome to try and I encourage them lots. However, until some of these people actually start to succeed through hard work, luck and let's face it -- money -- then a lot of the Altspace startup companies will bare a passing resembance to snake-oil salesmen...<img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

dreada5 · Mar 5, 2007

My money's on Spacex succeeding... they have all three.

Boris_Badenov · Mar 5, 2007

allow the commercial space companies to show off and attempt to outdo NASA? In a word, yes. Bigelow, SpaceX & SpaceDev have publicly stated some of their plans & hinted at others. The technical hurtles are great, but not impossible. The real problem is going to be money. If the Alt Space companies can't make a buck from their efforts (& I don't mean from transporting tourists or government astronauts & supplies for a government research station) they will not succeed. The best way to make that buck IMO is in mining The Moon or NEO's for platinum. Platinum has the value per volume necessary to make it worth the effort. Access to more platinum than is available terrestrially could be of tremendous value to our civilization, not just the company that is doing the mining. NASA, according to it's charter cannot involve itself in a commercial enterprise, so it's up to the private/commercial guys to pick up the ball & run with it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div> </div>

cuddlyrocket · Mar 5, 2007

It will probably take you longer than 2015 to find any economically extractable deposits!

holmec · Mar 5, 2007

"The best way to make that buck IMO is in mining The Moon or NEO's for platinum. Platinum has the value per volume necessary to make it worth the effort. Access to more platinum than is available terrestrially could be of tremendous value to our civilization, not just the company that is doing the mining." Well, while that would be nice, no one has a project in place for that. But tourism is big bucks...it always has been. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

radarredux · Mar 5, 2007

> If the Alt Space companies can't make a buck from their efforts (& I don't mean from transporting tourists or government astronauts & supplies for a government research station) they will not succeed./i> There are two major values to the tourist, sub-orbital market. First, it allows these companies to get their flight rates up to levels that no other space-oriented organizations has done. I think they will learn an incredible amount from that, and of course it will help them amortize their costs over many launches. Second, they can plow the revenue (and their experience) from sub-orbital activities into developing LEO and eventually CIS-Lunar capabilities. This begins to open up more doors. However, I agree that a significant revenue source beyond supporting NASA operations needs to be found. The NASA market for commercial launch services will probably not grow beyond $1 billion per year (To put that into perspective, that is only about 1/5 of the ringtone market for cell phones right now). And I don't think the tourist industry will grow to support the Moon (or maybe even LEO) for a few decades. To attract serious capital, I think there needs to be greater revenue sources. Microgravity manufacturing, PGM mining, or something else needs to be established. Of course, PGM mining leads to the question of property rights on the Moon. That should prove an intesting issue.

elguapoguano · Mar 5, 2007

I'd like to see the alt space companies flourish, but the fact of the matter is. None, I repeat none of these companies have had even one successful launch of any vehicle. Which means relatively no money coming in. No bucks, no buck rogers... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>) </div>

no_way · Mar 5, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Perhaps their plans will be more accurate than SpaceX has been over the last 3 or 4 years.<hr /></blockquote> Nice pot shot. Anyone willing to take 30 years of NASAs failed promises of affordable space launch over SpaceX's four ? Yes, they are wildly over their initial time estimates, yes they underestimated how difficult some stuff gets in that industry, dealing with established bueraucracies being one of their biggest worries. But, they damn sure arent blowing endless billions of tax money on hangar queens and powerpoint slides. ( just as an aside, their expenditures so far arent even close to a billion ) <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I'd like to see the alt space companies flourish, but the fact of the matter is. None, I repeat none of these companies have had even one successful launch of any vehicle.<hr /></blockquote> That would come as a bit of surprise for Burt Rutan and Peter Diamandis who handed out a fat check for a certain salvo of launches.

spacester · Mar 5, 2007

2010 is the target year for many companies. That will be the mega-big coming out party year for NewSpace. Because it's space flight and delays are inevitable, the actual maiden and groundbreaking flights will carry into 2012. 2010's crop will be at least partially a result of the X-Prize, a five-year cycle. But 2007 is going to be a break out year. More exposure and initial successes of the very first successful pioneers SpaceX and Bigelow. So I see a second wave of companies arising from this year's progress, starting another 5-year cycle, right on the heels of the first wave (having succeeded or not by 2012). So IMO what happens between 2010 and 2015 is that commercial space hits some home runs early and then it's a matter of rate of growth, with plenty of possibilities to score big. One thing I think we will see develop over that time is shrinking development cycle time. SpaceX took on one of the toughest problems there is - actual applied rocket science - and the problem was even harder than they thought, but they will get there. Bigelow had a conservative schedule and is accelerating it. Blue Origin is the slow and steady model, but they expect to be flying commercially by 2010 as well IIRC. These companies have good strategies for making the transition from sub-orbital to orbital, and I expect those development cycles to be quicker than simple projections would indicate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

no_way · Mar 5, 2007

X-30 NASP, X-33, X-34, X-38, OSP, HL-20, 2GRLV ridden any of those fine spacecraft lately ?

dreada5 · Mar 5, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />2010 is the target year for many companies. <hr /></blockquote> Yeah, call me optimistic but although dates may slip and plans get cancelled, at any rate there so much in the pipeline, that 2010-2020 seems destined to be an exciting decade for national/private space initiatives.

radarredux · Mar 5, 2007

> None, I repeat none of these companies have had even one successful launch of any vehicle. Which means relatively no money coming in./i> Well, the sub-orbital efforts by Scaled and Blue Origin have flown actual hardware, and scaled has substantial money flowing in from Virgin, and Virgin has locked in their first 100 passengers (with deposits). Space/X and Kistler have progress payments on their way from NASA via COTS. t/Space members have had contracts with DARPA to develop many of the components. Bigelow has a prototype space station in orbit today, with another ready to launch. If LM decides to move forward with their own capsule for their Atlas, that would make them pseudo New Space, and certainly LM and Atlas elements have flown. Your point is a very good one (there is a *LOT* to prove still), but if we define "alt space" or "new space" as "non-government sponsored manned space exploration", there is a fair amount that is going on, and dollars are flowing.

radarredux · Mar 5, 2007

> ... X-34 .../i> The X-34A did exactly what it was supposed to. I think we need to move that into the "successful" category.

comga · Mar 6, 2007

>..The X-34A did exactly what it was supposed to. I think we need to move that into the "successful" category. Pardon me? From Spaceflight Now March 1, 2001 "NASA announced Thursday that it would not provide any additional funding for the X-33 or X-34 launch vehicle technology demonstration programs, effectively killing both projects before either made its first flight. The decision came after NASA decided to refocus its attention on developing the technology for a next-generation reusable launch vehicle with new programs under the agency's Space Launch Initiative (SLI). NASA officials said they are in "competitive negotiations" with a number of companies for SLI contracts, but that neither the X-33 nor the X-34 would receive any SLI funding. " Phase 1 of the X-34 was supposed to include two flights to Mach 3.8. So you can add the SLI to no-way's list and leave X-34 solidly on it. Were you thinking of the X-43? That did fly, but we could argue about the utility of that success.

elguapoguano · Mar 6, 2007

OK, yes Burt and the boys won the X-Prize and I shouldn't poo poo that effort. And yes Bigelow has got his first test mod in orbit as we speak. I was really referring to Orbital projects. As in launching your own vehicle. When you guys talk about a private corp filling the gap for NASA during their 4 -? year gap between Shuttle and CEV, I sure didn't think you meant a sub orbital joy ride, or using Russian vehicles to get your payload in Orbit... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>) </div>

holmec · Mar 6, 2007

"X-33, X-34, X-38" - unmanned, unless you hide in a wheel well. "X-30 NASP" - they're still working on the scram jet. "HL-20, 2GRLV" - there's your point, but Benson Space Company is taking the HL-20 idea and running with it. I guess the 2GRLV idea is still viable in the future. But finances are so constrained these days that I think such an amount of reusablility is impractical now. Can we quit the bit about manned X-33? Can't believe people are still crying in their beer over that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

no_way · Mar 6, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I was really referring to Orbital projects.<hr /></blockquote> Your words: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />none of these companies have had even one successful launch of any vehicle<hr /></blockquote> Not exactly the same thing, is it ? As for orbital launchers, there is actually only one serious contender in that game that claims to get to orbit soon, SpaceX. Yes, they are way over schedule, but there are serious reasons to believe that they will make it before 2010. So why would you go around throwing statements about "any" of the companies or "any" of the vehicles when there is actually just one, currently ? Now this is more of a leap of faith, but i believe that by 2015 there will be a few more players on orbital launch market, close to getting there or already made it.

no_way · Mar 6, 2007

So, how is any of these fine projects anything but a paper planes or hangar queens by now ? and why did you drag in the manned vs. unmanned ? ( X-38 operational version was supposed to be a ISS lifeboat, exactly of what use would a unmanned lifeboat be ? )

holmec · Mar 6, 2007

Well, X-38 was a prototype with no windows..... And Congress killed that one thus T-Space got a contract to do a study on the CXV capsule. And as far as I know T-Space is still working on it. And I believe there is a mock up of it. And I think I saw it on a web feed a the X-Prize Cup last September. So go ahead and climb into it. So you see the trend of some NASA projects made their way to the commercial sector. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

j05h · Mar 6, 2007

> And Congress killed that one thus T-Space got a contract to do a study on the CXV capsule. Are you saying that the X-38's abject failure allowed t/space to get Air Force/NASA money? Or are you saying that the CXV is a direct derivative of x-38? The CXV is based on the Corona spy-sat moldline, not X-38. Notice first the lack of tailfins or body-flaps (bodyflaps being a critical cross-range feature of X-38). The interior is 100% Rutan. It's not a NASA project being commercialized. I'm not sure where NASA's lack of budgetary control (and overambitious designs) would have anything to do with the CXV/t-space and Quickreach/Airlaunch. T/space got a $6M contract from NASA and performed drop-tests with that cash, but again, it's their own tech, not a public-private transfer effort. On "the gap", I think there will be cheaper, American-built alternatives to the ARES/Orion available before that capsule flies. It's going to be embarassing but a US firm will offer humans-to-LEO for 1/10th the price that NASA is claiming for ARES in the 2010-1015 timeframe. Space-X? Lockheed? I'm not sure, but someone will have a new solution. (ironic if it's Lockheed, as they'd be competing against themselves) Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

mithridates · Mar 6, 2007

I hope you're wrong too, and I'm hopeful because of COROT, Kepler and the other work being put into finding extra-solar planets. Once we find an/a few extra-solar planets resembling Earth, we are going to finally have a lot more interest in space than before. It's wise to remember that thus far all we've been able to find have been places in which humans couldn't possibly live; even if a planet might not have life, to find another planet in which humans could easily live (far away or not) would excite the imagination beyond anything else we've discovered so far, because in theory if we could just get there, we could settle down there just about as easily as any other place on this planet. Then the questions would be: is there life? If not, which country is going first? And how to develop the propulsion to get there? Because even if there's no life, the first country to get there gets their own planet. You can bet a few dozen secret propulsion projects would be started up within a month of the announcement of such a discovery, if the system was located within a few dozen light years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

MeteorWayne · Mar 6, 2007

A+ anvel. BTW, here is an APOD of the (artistic) view from the moon during a lunar eclipse. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

spacester · Mar 6, 2007

(edit: replying to anvel's post previous to the one directly above) anvel, I'm not going to try to change your mind, I'm just going on record with rebuttals. Your arguments are old and familiar to me. Using matching paragraphs, 1 thru 5 . . . The comparison is moot. No one travels commercial aviation for any reason than to go somewhere else on the planet. You are correct that the novelty of flying on the Concorde means next to nothing in the marketplace but floating and gazing at the Big Blue Marble means next to everything in space tourism. The claimed lack of affordability does not follow, nor the final sentence. You paint with a broad brush. Not all multi-millionaires are the stay-at-home types. You are not familiar with the target market in this enterprise. The industry will sustain your lethal setbacks, should they occur. NASA has preached since forever how hard it is to do space, the first fatal accident may be a long time coming but if it comes sooner, there is no actual mechanism in place to shut the industry down. Public outrage will not happen. This is not government money here, just regulatory powers. I don't like analysis by analogy, but I am not going to defend ISS here either. I can make a case for ISS but it is not easy and off topic. False analogy and off topic politics. Yes, we face huge financial challenges down the road. That happens to be why I advocate the fastest possible development of space. The faster we get er done, the more space can help us meet these challenges. Space is the next economic boom, it's a matter of when; if soon enough, we build the wealth soon enough to meet these challenges and shrug them off like the great country we are. My predictions can be assumed to be the opposite of yours. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

radarredux · Mar 6, 2007

> Pardon me?/i> Mea culpa. My dyslexia kicking in. I was thinking X-43A, not X-34A.

Will the 5 years between Shuttle and Orion allow...

llivinglarge

Guest

mattblack

Guest

dreada5

Guest

Boris_Badenov

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

holmec

Guest

radarredux

Guest

elguapoguano

Guest

no_way

Guest

spacester

Guest

no_way

Guest

dreada5

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

comga

Guest

elguapoguano

Guest

holmec

Guest

no_way

Guest

no_way

Guest

holmec

Guest

j05h

Guest

mithridates

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

spacester

Guest

radarredux

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page