Have I been going about my space program all wrong for all this time?

[Pipcard]

My space program, HASDA (Hatsunia AeroSpace Development Agency), was mostly modeled on the real-life JAXA (Japan's space agency, and a merger of NASDA, ISAS, and NAL).

I had developed Negishima Space Center and the M-II/Negi-5 rockets, trying to base them on Tanegashima Space Center (except as a near-equatorial island) and the H-IIA/Epsilon. I was developing a 4-person space capsule (first launched in the 1990s in my fictional universe), and was eventually planning to develop a small space station (constructed in the 2000s) with seven pressurized modules, and later on, a moon mission (which would have taken place in 2019).

But, after realizing that I wanted a world in which space travel (especially $20,000 flights to orbiting hotels) is commonplace, seeing the "technological optimism" in World of 2001, and reading this article,

“Space travel services for the general public have been widely recognized as the major space business of the future. They could grow to more than $100 billion a year and employ millions of people,” said Patrick Collins, professor of environmental policy at Azabu University in Kanagawa Prefecture.

But sadly, most government space agencies in Japan and elsewhere have long kept space development to themselves and used it as a tool to compete with other nations, he said.

Collins, an expert on the economics of space tourism, who has done research at London University, the University of Tokyo, the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science and the National Space Development Agency of Japan, said that while major economies spend more than $23 billion annually on civilian space activities — $16 billion by the U.S., $5 billion by Europe and $2 billion by Japan — only about 20 percent of those expenditures are spent on forms of space science that are of benefit to the general public, such as astronomy, or conducting experiments that are impossible except in zero-gravity conditions.

The rest — approximately $18 billion — is used for applications that Collins believes neither yield profit nor lead to space-related business, such as developing extremely expensive expendable vehicles or spending on the International Space Station (ISS). ISS was scheduled to be completed in 1992 at a cost of $8 billion — but is still under construction despite having already cost $100 billion.

“One purpose of the ISS was for it to be used by fee-paying companies, for instance as a zero-gravity research laboratory. Now, though, it’s too expensive for anyone to use, so it won’t pay as a business,” Collins said.

As a consequence of this, space travel has effectively become a monopoly for a small group of very special people called astronauts — who ordinary people are supposed to admire after paying out squillions in taxes to equip them for their jobs.

And although OECD government space agencies are legally required to encourage the development of commercial space industries, Collins said that commercial interest in services like remote-sensing satellite systems and telecommunications have been far too small to justify their huge investment.

“This situation of not pursuing space travel is because of a ‘culture of monopoly’ by government space agencies and their reluctance to take risks. But it has wasted way too much money,” Collins said.

In fact, until now space development has largely been driven by the reality and the aftermath of Cold War competition between the U.S. and the former USSR. Collins believes that in that context, there was no incentive for engineers to create spacecrafts that were economical, reusable or able to carry paying passengers.

“As a result, a huge amount of tax money was used to develop rockets that cost 10 billion yen, and are disposed of after a single use — which not only wastes money, but also prevents the creation of reusable vehicles — a key element in realizing passenger travel.”

Collins said that at a time when the world’s economy is in a precarious condition, with so much joblessness and a lack of new industries, this put an extremely heavy burden on taxpayers.

“I call this an anti-space tourism policy,” he said.

The technology to build suborbital passenger spacecraft existed in the 1960s, space hotels could have been possible in the ’70s, and orbital passenger spacecraft in the ’80s, he said.

“If they had started at these times, they would have created several million permanent jobs and the world would be a much better place today.”

I'm considering changing my Orbiter development philosophy from one that is realistic (like today's space agencies, with a total of about 500 people ever having been in space, or the fictional space agencies in the Orbiter community which use expendable launchers), to one that is idealistic (i.e. reusable space travel for the masses), and retconning Hatsunia's space development history. One can dream, can't they?

 

[N_Molson]

As a consequence of this, space travel has effectively become a monopoly for a small group of very special people called astronauts — who ordinary people are supposed to admire after paying out squillions in taxes to equip them for their jobs.

And that are heroes that risk their lives up there. :dry:

 

[Pipcard]

Or maybe I could do what I have planned, and save the mass space tourism for the (fictional) 2030s (I was just thinking of space hotels by 2010). Basically creating two eras, the past/present in which being an astronaut means something special, and the future in which everyone can enjoy space.

After all, the history described in the World of 2001 add-on talks about how governmental agencies took the initiative to construct 50-man space stations, as well as Moon and Mars bases, which created an incentive for reusable spacecraft.

The reason why I tried to make HASDA realistic was to create a sense of familiarity.

 

[Codz]

ISS was scheduled to be completed in 1992 at a cost of $8 billion — but is still under construction despite having already cost $100 billion.

Completed in 1992? The first module was launched in 1998...

Is the article mistaking the ISS for the scrapped [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Station_Freedom"]Space Station Freedom[/ame] concept?

 

[Pipcard]

Completed in 1992? The first module was launched in 1998...

Is the article mistaking the ISS for the scrapped Space Station Freedom concept?

Probably. Wonder where that $8 billion figure comes from.

 

[speedademon]

Completed in 1992? The first module was launched in 1998...

Is the article mistaking the ISS for the scrapped Space Station Freedom concept?

ISS is not still under construction
It finished in 2010

 

[Pipcard]

ISS is not still under construction
It finished in 2010

There's the Nauka module, planned to launch this year. Also, at the time the article was written (January 2007), there were several modules that hadn't been launched yet.

 

[Codz]

ISS is not still under construction
It finished in 2010

Yes, however, as Pipcard pointed out, there are still parts being grafted on every now and then, and at the time of the article, there were several important modules not yet launched.

 

[ISProgram]

But, after realizing that I wanted a world in which space travel (especially $20,000 flights to orbiting hotels) is commonplace

The technology to build suborbital passenger spacecraft existed in the 1960s, space hotels could have been possible in the ’70s, and orbital passenger spacecraft in the ’80s, he said.

See, it's not a question of whether it's possible to have orbiting hotels, or suborbital/orbital passenger spacecraft, because that's all possible since we're (somewhat) doing it now.

The problem pops up when there aren't going to be people in those hotel, because the common person (who wasn't, I think, any richer back then than right now), its still too expensive. Unless you lower the price of spaceflight, you'll still have a situation like today, in which only celebrities are, for example using Virgin Galactic. An alternative is to make everyone rich, but that's not realistic or plausible, unless its a Golden Age.

Of course, things could change:

Flights on board a Virgin Galactic spaceship – of which the company has two at the moment – will initially cost $250,000.

Though with Virgin also going for a space hotel, I wonder who their target consumer will be, since only a few dozen people in the world could afford the trip...

For IPSA, I ran into this problem as well, and decided to go for a solution between realistic and idealistic that was also plausible: a lot of commercial spaceflight ventures, with the intention of perhaps creating competition with each other that drive for lower costs.The fact that it is in a Space Race-style environment (politically and economically/budget wise) might've helped with the plausibility in this regard.

Whatever you choose, however, is your own choice.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes, however, as Pipcard pointed out, there are still parts being grafted on every now and then, and at the time of the article, there were several important modules not yet launched.

Still, he has a very poor concept of economy.

While you can argue, if astronautics must have 80% of the budget and astronomy 20%, it does not change the fact that astronautics are important. Especially in the long term.

The problem, and that is where the ineffectivity lies, is in the political toy status of astronautics. A new US president, and everything there has to change. Unmanned probe programs are only affected by budget discussions, but not as much as manned programmes. That is something that he has right there, but his analysis goes wrong then.

You can't change the long-term goals of space exploration every 4 years. That is a point, where you maybe should better have a "national spaceflight charter", which defines the core framework of the spaceflight program for the next 20 years and which only leaves some room for "novelty" programs, that can be changed after every election, while the big path is cast in stone.

Spaceflight could be alone much cheaper, if we would have a real basic spaceflight industry. The base is currently to small. Without starting much smaller, the commercial spaceflight programs are no difference to the old completely government handled spaceflight. That SpaceX produces everything from engines to rockets itself is no sign of a good economy. Or that NASA only cares about a few big companies to do something that is labelled commercial.

Real commercial spaceflight would require more companies, as providers and customers. Supply and demand would need to be initiated at a low level, not at the top of the food chain. I am not even sure if starting at manned spaceflight is really the way to go. Much better would be taking the small unmanned payload market that already exists among universities and expand it, open it for others. And then let things grow by themselves.

If I would do a commercial spaceflight add-on thing, it would be all about small payloads until manned suborbital flights become economic. One fun add-on that I had in that direction was a reusable, small, unmanned, suborbital lifting body concept inspired by the SHEFEX experiments. only 300 kg payload to 150 km altitude in a small payload bay, but that was still enough to use a small SRM upperstage for putting something of the size of a Cubesat into LEO.

 

[Codz]

Oh, I'm certainly not defending the author of the article, they lost a large amount of credibility at the 1992 claim alone.

 

[sputnik]

Oh, I'm certainly not defending the author of the article, they lost a large amount of credibility at the 1992 claim alone.

Lost credibility? Or just has a longer memory than you?

The space station was indeed promised at $8 billion, and completion in 1992, throughout the 1980's and 1990-1.

Example:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/27/s...-for-92-is-still-mostly-on-drawing-board.html

 

[kamaz]

Seriously, I don't understand all this ISS hating, and especially I don't understand it on boards like this one. This thing had to be built, if only to obtain experience. You cannot learn to walk before you learn to crawl -- even if you are Bob Zubrin. I mean, last time the US-made toilet on ISS broke down, all it resulted in was ridicule on some message boards, as US astronauts had to use a toilet on a Russian side. Now, imagine a toilet breaking down on a way to Mars.

The program went overbudget and overtime? Big deal. Show me a space program which was ever on budget and on time.

PS. $8B in 1984 dollars is $18B in 2014 dollars. And part of why ISS ended up being expensive was that it was a vehicle for funding Russian aerospace workers to avoid them being bought by Iranians etc. ISS deserves a Nobel peace prize even if only as a successful non-proliferation effort.

 

[Urwumpe]

The space station was indeed promised at $8 billion, and completion in 1992, throughout the 1980's and 1990-1.

The 1984 space station Freedom was also still calculated with Shuttle launch costs that the Shuttle never reached.

 

[Unstung]

Going back to what Pipcard asked in the title post, you should develop your space agency in whatever way you enjoy the most, whether it is fantastical or not. If realism is keeping your creativity grounded, go ahead and create whatever futuristic spacecraft you desire. I know you were working on an island launch facility, so why not update it to support frequent commercial flights. Wernher von Braun dreamed about a massive human presence in space and on Mars. I'd say all of us support more space exploration.

 

[Pipcard]

As Japan’s space policy plans shift away from research and development, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) is finding its flagship science, technology and manned spaceflight programs in line for cuts and cancellations. Some or all of Japan’s satellites planned for the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), the HTV-R pressurized sample-and-crew-return mini-shuttle, and the H-X/H-3 launcher programs could face cancellation, says JAXA’s Hiroshi Sasaki, senior advisor for the strategic planning and management department.

New laws have placed control of the Japanese space agency in the hands of the Office of National Space Policy. And ONSP director Hirotoshi Kunitomo seeks to reorient Japan’s space efforts from idealism to realism.

"From idealism to realism." Meanwhile, I feel like going in the opposite direction.

 

[Urwumpe]

"From idealism to realism." Meanwhile, I feel like going in the opposite direction.

Believing that the money could be better spent into expanding the corruption in the Japanese nuclear industry, is also one kind of idealism....

 

[Izack]

The program went overbudget and overtime? Big deal. Show me a space program which was ever on budget and on time.

Heck, show me any project, space or no space, that was on budget and time. :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

Heck, show me any project, space or no space, that was on budget and time. :lol:

The Spitfire?

 

[paddy2]

Until you are paying 70 Million real dollars a ticket, its a game.

( A heck of a fine game, neat platform, great add ons, skilled programming, fast help and so much more. Its what you want it to be, no right few wrongs!! )