# Private Space Travel: Our Ticket off the Planet?



## REBerg (Dec 22, 2015)

SpaceX brings a rocket home. This is both historic and inspirational.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 22, 2015)

It's no ticket off the planet. The first stage landing by rocket would be more economic if a combination of rocket and parachute. The current design doesn't suit escape velocity or large capacity as the extra fuel reduces mass that can be carried. Very small payloads to high orbits. The launched satellites are LEO type and about fifth the weight of a typical geosynchronous satellite.

A nice trick. The Shuttle was advertised as reusable. The real reason for it's design was recovery of LEO military surveillance satellites with film in them. Very many missions were classified and it was more expensive to run than a non-reusable capsule.

Space tourism too is only orbital and for the very rich.

If you do the sums, even a "space elevator" is no ticket off the planet except for a very tiny minority.

This adds competition and capacity for the lucrative Satellite market. There are three organisations involved in LEO to MEO satellite "swarms" apart from "GPS" and Geophysics / Weather satellites.

Arianespace has over 50% of satellite launches. Over 60% of operational satellites were launched by them. They are now partnering with RosCosmos who now have a launch pad at the South American European Space Port.

Time will tell if Virgin Galactic, SpaceX etc can actually be viable and successful without USA subsidies. The ESA space truck can be a re-usable manned capsule. Currently it's only used to deliver and then filled with junk/rubbish and burnt up in the atmosphere. Arianespace and Roscosmos think they can compete with SpaceX.

The Russian Buran, abandoned in 1991, unlike the similar looking shuttle had powered atmospheric flight and did do a powered landing.  There is a question of how many times the rockets of a first stage can be re-used (the rest is a relatively cheap tank). What is the refurbishment cost?


----------



## REBerg (Dec 22, 2015)

Today, a commercially reusable rocket stage. Several tomorrows from now, solar system colonization and interstellar travel.

Baby steps. Baby steps.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 22, 2015)

REBerg said:


> Several tomorrows from now, solar system colonization and interstellar travel.


Maybe, but totally unconnected with SpaceX.
They have achieved a lot, but *there are established competitive commercial space launch companies, but they are not American!*. This does zero for Solar system human travel (we reached that stage 45 years ago, in a way) and we have no clue how to do Interstellar travel.

US companies are really good at hype and promotion.


----------



## tinkerdan (Dec 22, 2015)

This is true::



Ray McCarthy said:


> Maybe, but totally unconnected with SpaceX.
> They have achieved a lot, but *there are established competitive commercial space launch companies, but they are not American!*. This does zero for Solar system human travel (we reached that stage 45 years ago, in a way) and we have no clue how to do Interstellar travel.
> US companies are really good at hype and promotion.


::
but much of what we see today from all of these agencies amount to baby-steps to get them lined up for some things that have been planned for well over five years possibly ten.

 I would be more inclined to just say we take a wait and see attitude toward what that will bring.


----------



## REBerg (Dec 22, 2015)

In a capitalist society, the road to space will be paved  by profits. If putting satellites in orbit will keep private space enterprises afloat, that's a good thing.
Landing a reusable rocket is something that, to the best of my knowledge, NASA has never done. Perhaps that was because the government was underwriting their efforts, and cost was not a limitation. Those funds have dwindled, and the job has been passed to the private sector.
Who is to say how companies like SpaceX might evolve in the next few decades? The clock is running out on Earth, and we will need to get off the planet sooner than later.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 22, 2015)

REBerg said:


> Who is to say how companies like SpaceX might evolve in the next few decades?



The only shame is that the British government decided against Lossiemouth airbase becoming a space port. I was looking forward to the possibility of seeing space launches near my neck of the woods.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 22, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> British government decided against Lossiemouth airbase becoming a space port


But crazy except for Molina type orbits. Too far North. UK is an indirect investor anyway in the European (not EU), space port which has existed since 1960s and is the most important *commercial* space port in the world.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 22, 2015)

The UK is the only country in the World to achieve orbit and then abandon space (though there are UK companies involved and UK does contribute to ESA):


> Britain launched its own satellite, Prospero, on its own rocket, Black Arrow, from its own launch site in Woomera, Australia, in 1971 and then withdrew from the space race.


Article about Chinese exploration on moon.
New type of moon rock discovered by Chinese lunar lander

"Private" Moon Exploration?
Private space race gathers pace

SpaceIL has signed with SpaceX for a launch.


----------



## J Riff (Dec 22, 2015)

Well, in my experience, (deleted) and then, if you do get there, the (*****) have done that, long ago, and who is 'we'? The seven billion people who are going to build spaceships and take TV to the Moon and beyond?
 People can't handle cars, imagine the damage they could do with homebuilt spacecraft.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 23, 2015)

REBerg said:


> Today, a commercially reusable rocket stage. Several tomorrows from now, solar system colonization and interstellar travel.
> 
> Baby steps. Baby steps.




It give those 50's and 60's science fiction films with rockets taking off and landing  boost.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 23, 2015)

It's quite amazing. 
Perhaps he read too much of the 1930s-1950s SF, as the way he is doing it doesn't really make sense.
If it is viable to reuse the rocket motors and 1st stage, then they will later change to a mix of rocket and parachute as the extra fuel for complete vertical landing is punishing.


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 23, 2015)

To be fair this is a hard nosed commercial organisation they will not be doing things this way for either romantic or nostalgic reasons. I make no claim to understand the economies of this arrangement but one thing to consider is that most of the weight of the first stage rocket will have been the fuel used to lift the payload to orbit. That has now gone so the landing weight will be much much less. Second consideration is that a parachute descent is vulnerable to the vagaries of wind; difficult to get a precise landing. If you go for a sea splash down then the precision is not so important but then the rocket must be recovered (expensive) and then cleansed of all the corrosive salt; in fact with all the precision engineering on board it might already be too late for reuse after it has had any contact with the sea salt. Bottom line; this might be the only realistic way to reuse the rocket when landing on Earth.

And all credit to the engineers. I'm sure they learnt huge amounts about doing this from the Mars Curiosity mission, but doing it in Earth's much larger gravity is impressive and also on Earth it is quite a bit more critical to land in exactly the right place!


----------



## mosaix (Dec 23, 2015)

Vertigo's right. This hardly likely to have been a personal decision by Musk. There'll be a whole bunch of scientists and rocket engineers who have come to this decision.

Over and above what Vertigo has said a parachute landing is almost certain to cause some damage to the craft - maybe enough to make it unusable or expensive to repair. Not only that but the craft is exactly where you want it not half way up a mountain or at the bottom of a river.


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 23, 2015)

To avoid damage they could do the combined approach that was used by the Mars Curiosity lander. But I still think the location is the key factor


----------



## REBerg (Dec 23, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> The only shame is that the British government decided against Lossiemouth airbase becoming a space port. I was looking forward to the possibility of seeing space launches near my neck of the woods.


Watching the clips of the landing and the human reaction to it was personally moving. I gave no thought to how practical it might be. All I thought was "Hey, maybe an interplanetary mission won't need to be a one-way trip some day." I know I won't see that in my lifetime, but it gave me hope.

Witnessing a space launch in person is on my bucket list. I anticipate that the crackling roar of the rockets at liftoff would have every hair I possess, including the few surviving on my head, standing on end.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 23, 2015)

I'm not sure how accurate this analysis is:

Getting metal hunks into orbit used to cost a bomb. Then SpaceX's Falcon 9 landed

Read the comments. Some good points.



> *Nice try, Bezos*
> Elon Musk might have been talking a mean game about landing a rocket, but his firm was beaten to the punch by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, whose Blue Origin space company managed to land its New Shepard rocket in November.
> 
> Shortly after the Falcon rocket touched down Jeff Bezos took to Twitter to pass on a rather backhanded compliment to the SpaceX team.
> ...






mosaix said:


> Over and above what Vertigo has said a parachute landing is almost certain to cause some damage to the craft


Not true. Also a hybrid approach of rockets and parachutes ensures landing where desired (the USSR usually landed capsules on land) and without damage.

I agree is it's a great achievement, I'm just sceptical that it's as big game changer as claimed.


> There is however a problem. Landing the rocket is a big step, but that won’t necessarily mean that the rocket can be reused.
> 
> The rocket will now be taken back to SpaceX headquarters and examined piece by piece. The hardware will be tested by x-rays and ultrasound to look for imperfections and may be fuelled up for a few static burns, if it is safe.



After all, the space shuttle was supposed to be reusable, and it was – up to a point. The spacecraft had cost a lot to get into orbit, but after it had landed the costs continued to mount – repairing the craft after each mission cost millions of dollars and took a lot out of NASA's budget.



mosaix said:


> This hardly likely to have been a personal decision by Musk. There'll be a whole bunch of scientists and rocket engineers who have come to this decision.


Every company I've worked in, mostly Engineering, and places I know about, the scientists and engineers present opportunities or implement the bosses policies. In every case the development decisions ARE personally made by the boss, and often don't seem based on logic. Marketing and personal agenda / arrogance / ego / prejudice of Boss/Shareholders/Directors  not engineer and scientists make the decisions. There IS a reason that the Dilbert cartoon exists and is popular.
Almost all the problems and ALL the programs in USSR and NASA space programs where result of management / Political decisions.

Musk is in charge, deciding the strategy. The Scientists and Engineers are employed to make his dream happen.


----------



## mosaix (Dec 23, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Not true. Also a hybrid approach of rockets and parachutes ensures landing where desired (the USSR usually landed capsules on land) and without damage.



Exactly. Capsules, not first stage rockets with fuel tanks, engines etc., and not for reuse. Cosmonauts and astronauts have described landing in those capsules as 'heavy'.



> Musk is in charge, deciding the strategy. The Scientists and Engineers are employed to make his dream happen.



Just your opinion, Ray, and not my experience of engineering or big business.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 23, 2015)

mosaix said:


> Just your opinion, Ray, and not my experience of engineering or big business.


Not my opinion: do some research ,the boss /Directors are in charge, the Engineers and Scientists don't set policy.  Do some research on:
Amazon (Jeff Bezos)
Google
Apple
MS
Oracle
HP
Tesla (Elon Musk)
BBC

Your opinion is obviously based on very unusual companies.



mosaix said:


> Cosmonauts and astronauts have described landing in those capsules as 'heavy'.


Those didn't have rocket assisted breaking and steerage.


----------



## mosaix (Dec 23, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Not my opinion: do some research ,the boss /Directors are in charge, the Engineers and Scientists don't set policy.
> 
> Your opinion is obviously based on very unusual companies.



Ray, and I'm saying this in the nicest possible way and in the spirit of Chrons generally, in a lot of your posts you post your opinion as fact when it isn't. Your interpretation of the facts are your opinion, nothing more nothing less.

I have worked for over 50 years in a variety of companies around the world (engineering, telecoms, retail, wholesale, manufacturing, medical, aerospace, oil, finance, food, distribution, warehousing etc.) programming, designing and implementing computer systems. My opinion is that they weren't very unusual companies, yours is that they were. I'm happy for you to have an _opinion_ on over 200 companies and organisations of which you have no knowledge and I'm happy to leave it at that. 

In most companies bosses and directors do indeed set policy but engineers and others, advise on what is possible, what is affordable, what is legal and what is safe. Your interpretation (your opinion) is that it was _definitely_ Musk that decided on this method of landing, mine is that it _probably_ wasn't - that's the way opinions work. And, unless you were present at the relevant meetings, my opinion is as valid as yours.

The internet can a be a difficult place to put across one's ideas without being misunderstood, misinterpreted or generally putting people's backs up but I've always found that one of the easiest ways to get along on places like the Chrons is to start my posts with the words _'I think'. _


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 23, 2015)

It maybe worth noting that there's often a difference between setting out a goal - i.e., achieve commercial space flight viability - and the exact method of doing so - which may depend on a host of conflicting interests in the same company.

Either way, to echo the spirit of the first post, this is all great news as the controversial move by the USA to push on the private sector to move us into space continues to deliver results.

Then again perhaps we shouldn't be, in case these private enterprises are going to grow into evil conglomerates that own complete star systems.


----------



## REBerg (Dec 24, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> It maybe worth noting that there's often a difference between setting out a goal - i.e., achieve commercial space flight viability - and the exact method of doing so - which may depend on a host of conflicting interests in the same company.
> 
> Either way, to echo the spirit of the first post, this is all great news as the controversial move by the USA to push on the private sector to move us into space continues to deliver results.
> 
> Then again perhaps we shouldn't be, in case these private enterprises are going to grow into evil conglomerates that own complete star systems.


If SpaceX eventually becomes another Evil Empire, a Rebel Alliance will arise to bring it down. Regardless of which side of The Force we support, at least we'll be out there.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 24, 2015)

mosaix said:


> The internet can a be a difficult place to put across one's ideas without being misunderstood, misinterpreted or generally putting people's backs up


Indeed. I apologise if I seem  dogmatic on this. There are of course a wide spectrum of management and governance styles in Industry.  I often don't express myself as I'd wish. 

It's of course *purely my opinion* that Elon Musk decided on the pure rocket engine landing as a goal (the idea of course isn't his or any of his team, it goes back to 1920s and several organisations have done it before, but not with a rocket stage that reached as high an altitude). Time will tell how useful and commercial it is. There is always a huge amount of PR spin on American announcements. Musk's operations are highly subsidised with grants, government subsidies (Tesla) and government funded contracts. So not "commercial" in the sense of Apple or a non-State airline company. I've also no idea what sort of personality Elon Musk is or his style of management, so I was too dogmatic. (I know a little bit of Alan Sugar, Clive Sinclair, Steve Jobs, Dyson from reading about them and following the progress of their companies, I first encountered Sinclair's marketing in 1960s.).

Have a good holiday


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 24, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> these private enterprises are going to grow into evil conglomerates that own complete star systems.


In my opinion, that would be SpaceX's competitors   Some already are regarded as Evil Empires.


----------



## mosaix (Dec 24, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Indeed. I apologise if I seem  dogmatic on this. There are of course a wide spectrum of management and governance styles in Industry.  I often don't express myself as I'd wish.
> 
> It's of course *purely my opinion* that Elon Musk decided on the pure rocket engine landing as a goal (the idea of course isn't his or any of his team, it goes back to 1920s and several organisations have done it before, but not with a rocket stage that reached as high an altitude). Time will tell how useful and commercial it is. There is always a huge amount of PR spin on American announcements. Musk's operations are highly subsidised with grants, government subsidies (Tesla) and government funded contracts. So not "commercial" in the sense of Apple or a non-State airline company. I've also no idea what sort of personality Elon Musk is or his style of management, so I was too dogmatic. (I know a little bit of Alan Sugar, Clive Sinclair, Steve Jobs, Dyson from reading about them and following the progress of their companies, I first encountered Sinclair's marketing in 1960s.).
> 
> Have a good holiday



Excellent post, Ray. Thanks ever so much. Have a great holiday, yourself.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 26, 2015)

REBerg said:


> If SpaceX eventually becomes another Evil Empire, a Rebel Alliance will arise to bring it down. Regardless of which side of The Force we support, at least we'll be out there.




At least we might get Space tourism.


----------



## mosaix (Jan 19, 2016)

Despite this Spacex rocket crashing whilst attempting a soft landing yesterday it would appear the fault was caused by a leg collapsing and not buy the soft landing technology itself. Not only that but I'm so impressed by the accuracy of it all. The video shows the rocket coming down exactly on 'X marks the spot'.

SpaceX rocket explodes while trying to land on drone ship


----------



## Vertigo (Jan 19, 2016)

I'd not realised this before:


> It has a purpose-built unmanned “drone ship” built for the purpose (named “Just Read the Instructions” in honour of the science fiction author Iain M Banks)


and being very much a Banks fan I think that's really neat - not to mention a great name for a 'drone' ship.

It's a shame the landing failed but it sounds like a relatively easy problem to fix.


----------



## mosaix (Jan 19, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> I'd not realised this before:
> 
> and being very much a Banks fan I think that's really neat - not to mention a great name for a 'drone' ship.
> 
> It's a shame the landing failed but it sounds like a relatively easy problem to fix.



I wonder of the drone ship and rocket co-ordinate movements to improve the accuracy of the landing?


----------



## Vertigo (Jan 19, 2016)

mosaix said:


> I wonder of the drone ship and rocket co-ordinate movements to improve the accuracy of the landing?


Must admit I wondered that. I suppose, within limits, if there's a bit of wind blowing it's maybe easier to reposition the boat than to try and steer the rocket against that wind.


----------



## REBerg (Mar 15, 2016)

An inspirational essay from Anne Leckie, the Hugo and Nebula award winner of Ancillary Justice.

Space Is Cold, Vast, and Deadly. Humans Will Explore It Anyway


----------



## J Riff (Mar 15, 2016)

Bus leaving for Antares please have tickets ready.


----------



## REBerg (Mar 15, 2016)

J Riff said:


> Bus leaving for Antares please have tickets ready.


And thanks for going Greyhound!


----------



## J Riff (Mar 16, 2016)

Spacehound bus lines. Ride the wormhole to M57-Q89.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 16, 2016)

We will be landing at Mars terminal very soon.


----------

