Reusable/low-cost/routine space access?

[Pipcard]

It's why I specified a stand-up EVA. With just the upper torso out of the BO, and the vertigo to see the Earth above your head. It would require suitable health and proper training, of course.

I even think that the Sokol could do the job, as long it is not longer than 10-20 minutes.

How about a small orbital module (perhaps inflatable) with a bubble canopy on top? (this would be if spacecraft like the Dragon, CST-100, etc. were used for tourism)

 

[N_Molson]

How about a small orbital module (perhaps inflatable) with a bubble canopy on top?

Honestly, I'd be more confident in a Sokol suit

 

[Pipcard]

What if?

It just occured to me...why didn't we have large scale commercialization of space already? And I had a strange answer:

The microchip and the fiber optic cable.

One of the few killer apps for space satellites was the communications satellite. But the microchip allowed multiplexing many voice streams onto a single high bandwidth signal, and the fiber optic cable made cheap long range high bandwidth communications possible.

What might have happened if the microchip and fiber optic cable weren't developed for another few decades? We might actually have needed hordes of communications satellites to keep up with global demand. That means a solid customer base for launchers, and that means mass produced launchers and/or big dumb boosters.

Without the microchip, these communications satellites suck up all sorts of juice. Thus, there's a huge incentive to develop efficient solar cells. With advanced space rated solar cells and cheaper launch technology, space based power may even be practical.

The result? Large scale industrialization of space, and sufficient economies of scale that launch costs are relatively cheap.

 

[Andy44]

Using a space hotel to train government astronauts? Fine, but that just means that ultimately you are still relying on government exploration programs to subsidize your business. You still haven't solved the problem of how to get private people and their companies to willingly spend money on space travel.

The elephant in the room is always the fact that there is no economic reason to spend lots of money to fly in space. There is no economic reason for most people to travel to the deepest parts of the ocean, either, so depsite the fact that it's been done before and far cheaper than a moon trip, very few people ever do it.

Colonizing Mars or other bodies? Sounds great. Antarctica is a lot closer, has breathable air and lots of fresh water, but nobody is colonizing it yet. So space colonization would not seem to be enough of a priority to blow tons of money it yet, either.

 

[Pipcard]

The thing is, low Earth orbit, or looking up at Earth from the Moon, provides more interesting views than Antarctica.

 

[Loru]

The thing is, low Earth orbit, or looking up at Earth from the Moon, provides more interesting views than Antarctica.

Looks alone won't justify investment needed for cheap and reusable spacecraft for space tourists. Remember that it took WW2 to get big runways which later resulted in increased air travel.

 

[Pipcard]

According to this, the plans for the Kankoh-maru tourism SSTO would involve 52 vehicles being produced, 700000 passengers flying per year (each vehicle can carry 50), and a ticket costing $25000 per person (maximum total launch cost of $1.25 million).

Will it take 14000 flights per year (about 38 flights/day) for space flight to cost $357 per kilogram? (assuming the average human weight is 70 kg)

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 AM ----------

But...

This page shows the "mass characteristics" for Kankoh-maru.

Based on that, the mass of the cabin structure + airlock + environmental system + equipment + passengers/crew (avg. weight of 75 kg for each passenger) is 11679 kg. So it's $107/kg. If you count the actuator/power supply/navigation/communications systems as part of the useful payload in addition to the above, that's 13815 kg or $90/kg.

And if you count the dry mass of the entire vehicle which reaches orbit (50254 kg), that's $25/kg.

edit: and according to this page
- $300000/ticket ($15 million/launch) involves 10 launches per year
- $50000-100000/ticket ($2.5-5 million/launch) involves 1 launch a day (365/year)

 

[Urwumpe]

You can only count passengers and their consumables for the flight there, maybe luggage. Everything else is common for every flight.

But the Kankoh-Maru was a rather old-school SSTO. With a very poor user-interface.

 

[Pipcard]

You can only count passengers and their consumables for the flight there, maybe luggage. Everything else is common for every flight.

So if that mass is 4320 kg, that's $289/kg at $1.25 million per flight.

With a very poor user-interface.

What do you mean by this? Do illustrations/3D renders of the cockpit actually exist? Or do you mean the general idea of piloting the thing?

 

[Urwumpe]

What do you mean by this? Do illustrations/3D renders of the cockpit actually exist? Or do you mean the general idea of piloting the thing?

No, but a pilot manual was somewhere. I was laughing out loud and then ignored it.

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/pilot_procedures_for_kankoh_maru_operations.shtml

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/kankoh_maru_flight_manual.shtml

 

[Pipcard]

What exactly about it made you laugh? Was it the idea of airline-like operations for an SSTO (keep in mind, even at a million passengers per year, it's still "less than 0.1% of commercial aviation")? The pilot landing the thing vertically?

 

[Urwumpe]

What exactly about it made you laugh? Was it the idea of airline-like operations for an SSTO? The pilot landing the thing vertically?

The completely unergonomic engine controls for example, which will only cost you precious time during an emergency.

And many other subsystem controls, which you would never need for a spacecraft like that, if you would really think about it - any additional subsystem is a subsystem that will fail when you don't need additional failures.

It is not the airline like operations, I really think that the essence is correct there: You need streamlined operations and defined managed processes that are constantly in a PDCA cycle.

But airliner like user interfaces for something that isn't a airliner... thats the wrong way. Take the chance to start on a clean sheet, instead of copying the "hysteric historic design" of airliners. You will not do more errors than by trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

 

[Pipcard]

You can only count passengers and their consumables for the flight there, maybe luggage. Everything else is common for every flight.

If that's the case, then the Falcon 9 + DragonRider would be $115306 per kilogram. ($56.5 million/490 kg for 7 people)

But instead, people cite the Falcon 9's price/kg as being about $4000-5000.

 

[Urwumpe]

If that's the case, then the Falcon 9 + DragonRider would be $115306 per kilogram. ($56.5 million/490 kg for 7 people)

But instead, people cite the Falcon 9's price/kg as being about $4000-5000.

Yes. That is called marketing. You are not needing to be truthful there, only the really big lies are sanctioned.

Also, the Falcon 9 can really have such prices. If SpaceX operates at a loss and you only use the Falcon 9 for hauling maximum payload with a "cost-neutral :lol:" reuse of the first stage. I love economic buzzwords sometimes.

 

[Pipcard]

What I was trying to say is, people usually refer to price/kg for the entire spacecraft payload carried into orbit, not just the passengers. This applies for any launcher, not just the Falcon 9, so I wasn't talking about "marketing lies."

 

[Urwumpe]

What I was trying to say is, people usually refer to price/kg for the entire spacecraft payload carried into orbit, not just the passengers. This applies for any launcher, not just the Falcon 9, so I wasn't talking about "marketing lies."

Yes, but that's because you always refer to the spacecraft for a reason.

Even the Dragonrider: Additionally to the passengers, you will have pilots, expendable parts like the trunk, etc. Its not just the passengers that SpaceX really does pay for internally. Of course, a reusable SSTO is calculated in a different way - but that must not mean a SSTO is cheaper.

But for you, as customer, you of course only want to pay the price for you and your luggage - and maybe some oxygen of course.

You will select the service provider, which is closest to your price while providing the services that you need. In case of SpaceX, you will likely pay the price for the various capsule parts and crew yourself as well.

A Soyuz seat does also not cost 25 million - but that's the price you pay for it.

 

[Pipcard]

But here, Elon Musk and/or the author of the article is being misleading:

Musk tells us that with daily flights, the cost will run about $100 per pound. For the average male, that means about 20,000 bucks. Start saving your money.

 

[Urwumpe]

Before SpaceX can even think about daily flights, they would need to develop the processes to do monthly flights. And have the production capacity. Then, it would need the mission control capacity...

Short: Its Musk. Reality is for losers.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Elon has some creative marketing ideas eh?

I'm far from being a member of the "Cult of Elon", and am not a SpaceX cheerleader, but I do wish them success.

Musk is very good at getting ideas, and starting a process rolling. At least it would appear that way on the surface. I wonder how many of his ideas have been shelved because not only are they not feasible, but not even desirable? Anyway, point is, he's a dreamer with a hefty sized checkbook. Throw enough money at something and the results can be often beyond expectations, even if you are throwing it into a money pit.

So long as SpaceX is privately owned, with no stockholders to keep happy, Musk can allocate any funds he wants to whatever he wants. And since he has that fat wallet and checkbook, he is either doing something right, or is very very lucky (or both).

He's not a very good public speaker, and he often says things that he wants, rather than things he has (or can maybe deliver on). He reminds me of Preston Tucker, only not as charismatic. The guy is clearly pretty smart, they don't exactly hand out PhDs in physics.

To get the cost of spaceflight down as much as he says will take a truckload of "ifs".

 

[Pipcard]

If he wasn't charismatic, there wouldn't be any "Cult of Elon."