Reusable/low-cost/routine space access?

[Pipcard]

Now, we've all probably read/heard about how reusability will make launch costs a lot cheaper than expendable rockets, because fuel is only a small fraction of the cost, and you don't have to build a new vehicle for every flight.

But, this will take:

- a very high flight rate, much higher than today's rockets (I believe that mass space tourism can be the best anchor tenant for this), to amortize the higher development costs inherent in making a system reusable
- low operational costs (e.g. a quick turnaround/maintenance that doesn't require a large standing army of engineers)

Also, I read stuff like this:

SSTO is possible but if it was economically vialble it would be around for some time already.

(by that logic, since reusable TSTOs aren't "around for some time already," they are not "economically viable")

and wonder if ending is really better than mending?

How can we have low-cost/routine access to space? Will it ever be possible?

 

[Urwumpe]

- a very high flight rate, much higher than today's rockets (I believe that mass space tourism can be an anchor tenant for this), to amortize the higher development costs inherent in making a system reusable
- low operational costs (e.g. a quick turnaround/maintenance that doesn't require a large standing army of engineers)

Exactly - you can't design a rocket to be reusable and economic. You need to design a whole system, from the manufacturing, to the turn around. You need the standard business units, like marketing and sales. And you need an eye for constant improvements. you need to be flexible, especially if your rocket can't be it, by physics.

Also, you need to design your reusable rocket to the market. It does not help you to have a great spacecraft, if the market is not ready for it.

That is why any focus on single technical details will not pay out in the end. Designing a reusable spacecraft, that works even in non-perfect flight- and market- conditions, is a masterpiece work for any engineer today. Nothing you simply do by declaring that something has the DV to reach orbit.

 

[TMac3000]

Also, you need to design your reusable rocket to the market. It does not help you to have a great spacecraft, if the market is not ready for it.

If Elon Musk has a problem, this is it.

 

[Urwumpe]

If Elon Musk has a problem, this is it.

It is also the system design aspect - he does too much in-house, and does not look much for synergy effects outside... its more a prestige project or expensive hobby, than a real company in that sense.

 

[Pipcard]

Will the market ever be ready for it?

 

[Urwumpe]

Will the market ever be ready for it?

Maybe. Maybe never. Will the market ever be ready for betamax?

 

[Pipcard]

Would mass orbital space tourism be the best potential market? I say, even if it's unlikely to happen, it's the least unlikely to happen. Thousands of people would go per year if the prices were lower.

(the problem is, which would come first, the price drop or the demand increase?)

 

[Urwumpe]

Would mass orbital space tourism be the best potential market? I say, even if it's unlikely to happen, it's the least unlikely to happen. Thousands of people would go per year if the prices were lower.

(the problem is, which would come first, the price drop or the demand increase?)

I am sure, nobody would want to go to space for a week or two. Its hard work, spending most of the time in Space Adaptation Syndromes. Thats no fun. If you go there, you want to do something exciting in space, or something useful.

But I am sure, everybody would like to spend some bucks for a short 30 minutes hop into space, maybe also for a short multi-hour orbital flight. So, the demand increase and price drop will of course, like always, happen parallel, but I would say, that the demand increase is the bigger driving force as long as we have little space market.

The rest - is unforseeable. Maybe we will soon have work in space. Maybe we will decide that robots are good enough. Maybe we will occupy Mars. Maybe Mars occupies us.

 

[Pipcard]

You know what, I would love affordable mass space tourism to become a reality someday, but I now realize that some will see it as "useless joyrides" and as a "frivolous industry" as opposed to scientific space research which serves a purpose other than leisure, or "focusing on Earth's problems first!".

 

[Unstung]

Not all spaceflight has to be orbital and there is utility for a short space hop as a form of transportation. If Virgin Galactic succeeds, maybe they can drive the cost down in this area.

 

[Pipcard]

Elon Musk says about the Falcon 9 reusable: "At a low flight rate, the [cost] improvement is still probably around 50 percent"

---------- Post added at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

Not all spaceflight has to be orbital and there is utility for a short space hop as a form of transportation. If Virgin Galactic succeeds, maybe they can drive the cost down in this area.

What about the reasons why Concorde was retired, and the Boeing 2707 was cancelled? (sonic booms, lower passenger count due to the higher costs of supersonic transport)

...but on the other hand, this time you get to go into space (at even faster speeds)!

 

[Urwumpe]

Elon Musk says about the Falcon 9 reusable: "At a low flight rate, the [cost] improvement is still probably around 50 percent"

Elon Musk says many things. :rofl:

 

[N_Molson]

I am sure, nobody would want to go to space for a week or two. Its hard work, spending most of the time in Space Adaptation Syndromes. Thats no fun. If you go there, you want to do something exciting in space, or something useful.

Well, personally I would be happy to experience the good like the bad aspects of the thing. But an 1-week of orbital flight in a Soyuz, maybe with a "stand-up EVA" would be enough for me. As you said, longer durations are probably not interesting from a touristic point of view. But I must say, my wildest dream would be a 5-6 days "8" circumlunar flight. Which is feasible with a Proton-M and a BO-stripped Soyuz ("7K-L1 Zond-like"). Well, that and a lunar landing. But that involves much more money.

 

[Urwumpe]

But an 1-week of orbital flight in a Soyuz, maybe with a "stand-up EVA" would be enough for me.

Well, look at the Gemini missions there - a few hours of flight time is enough for a full EVA, but also you can learn there: EVA is not easy at all and nothing that a tourist could currently do. Even with better space suits, the environment is so much different, that it would be a deadly gamble.

But that is where the space hotel idea could be useful - for training professional astronauts and hobby astronaut. What could be better for training for the deep space, if no outpost in the low space?

 

[fred18]

I agree about the utility of the space hotel to train astronaut for long journeys. That's more or less what ISS already is in part: tests on astronauts are performed for long life in space to understand human body reactions and be prepared when the time to go to mars arrives... as far as I know one of the reason why the new missions lasts now at least 6 months in space is exactly for advanced tests on humans before sending them away with Orion.

Anyway, talking about suborbital flights and sonic booms... could suborbital flights become the real fast travelling around earth in the future? it could take like 3 hours from NY to Sydney...

 

[Urwumpe]

it could take like 3 hours from NY to Sydney...

Suborbital, it could be as fast as 40 minutes from NY to Sydney, but at a price.

 

[fred18]

Suborbital, it could be as fast as 40 minutes from NY to Sydney, but at a price.

if this ever happens we will feel really lonely in the universe... Earth will become so small and everything on Earth will be so close, while all the rest will be so far away and out of reach...

 

[Urwumpe]

if this ever happens we will feel really lonely in the universe... Earth will become so small and everything on Earth will be so close, while all the rest will be so far away and out of reach...

Maybe. Maybe we will also just get rid of something else, that troubles humanity way more than this:

That everything from far away can be seen filtered through internet and TV, but can't be visited over the weekend to see it with your own eyes.

We talk so much about the negative sides of globalisation, that we forget that it maybe makes the planet smaller, but also our horizons broader.

And if we have the technology to get as fast from NY to Sydney one day, as it takes you to travel by high-speed rail from Hanover to Berlin (1:30), we will not be far away from the technology to get from KSC to the moon in 24 hours.

 

[fred18]

Maybe. Maybe we will also just get rid of something else, that troubles humanity way more than this:

That everything from far away can be seen filtered through internet and TV, but can't be visited over the weekend to see it with your own eyes.

We talk so much about the negative sides of globalisation, that we forget that it maybe makes the planet smaller, but also our horizons broader.

And if we have the technology to get as fast from NY to Sydney one day, as it takes you to travel by high-speed rail from Hanover to Berlin (1:30), we will not be far away from the technology to get from KSC to the moon in 24 hours.

I totally agree with you, I was just thinking on the real distance of the universe, Mars is so close to us compared to the rest, but still it's an incredible journey to go there...

But global transportation and communication is amazing and efficient!

 

[N_Molson]

EVA is not easy at all and nothing that a tourist could currently do.

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.