Russia launches lunar lander - declaring space race

[CupofJoe]

Crewed trips to Mars are inevitable.
For me it is all down to the geo-economic politics of it.

America will do it to prove they are still the leading technology country on the planet.

China will do it so say “No you’re not. We are!”

Russia will do to say, “Don’t forget about us, we started it all.”

India will do to prove you can go to Mars with an aubergine [Good Gracious Me in-joke there], or more realistically, it can be done for a third the cost of the Americans.

And one or more ego-driven billionaires will do it for the self-serving glory [but they won’t go themselves, of course].

If you want science send a machine or 5.

If you want headlines send people. Preferable well-spoken and telegenic.

I am still amazed that 2700 people volunteered to try and get on a one-way trip to Mars.

 

[Justin Swanton]

For now, yes, until R&D has been completed and we have cost effective, safe space travel in the same way as aeroplanes, trains and road transport.


According to Google, the cost of the original Apollo programme to send a manned mission to the Moon (adjusted for inflation) was over $250 billion. The cost of the Artemis project to return to the Moon is under $100 billion. Presumably the next one will be cheaper still.

In context, the Airbus 380 project was around $25 billion and Dreamliner around $30 billion. Its conceivable that in 10-20 years time, the cost of developing a new commercial aeroplane will not be too dissimilar to the cost of developing a new spaceship.

On the other hand the Mars Rover was 'only' about $2 billion, and has provided far more information than any manned flight ever could.

I do think that it is inevitable that someone, be it Russia, China, India or the USA will attempt a flight to Mars - perhaps even a mega rich tycoon wanting to put their name in the history books like Armstrong and Aldrin, Mallory and Tenzing or Amundsen. There are precious few 'firsts' that still are within the reach of someone rich or skilled or brave enough.

One of these days if I ever manage to motivate myself enough I'll write a book called "The Walls." In in I posit that any branch of technological development initially advances rapidly, then tapers off and finally reaches a ceiling, its wall. I postulate that space travel tech reached its wall decades ago and all we can do now is cross t's and dot i's. At present a Falcon launch costs $67 million even with a reusable launcher. In comparison a Russian Proton launch, using decades-old tech, costs $65 million. I really, really doubt the cost of launches will substantially decrease, ever.

 

[Pyan]

What we need is a D.D. Harriman...

The Man Who Sold the Moon

 

[paranoid marvin]

Crewed trips to Mars are inevitable.
For me it is all down to the geo-economic politics of it.

America will do it to prove they are still the leading technology country on the planet.

China will do it so say “No you’re not. We are!”

Russia will do to say, “Don’t forget about us, we started it all.”

India will do to prove you can go to Mars with an aubergine [Good Gracious Me in-joke there], or more realistically, it can be done for a third the cost of the Americans.

And one or more ego-driven billionaires will do it for the self-serving glory [but they won’t go themselves, of course].

If you want science send a machine or 5.

If you want headlines send people. Preferable well-spoken and telegenic.

I am still amazed that 2700 people volunteered to try and get on a one-way trip to Mars.

Yes, I remember this quite some years ago. After reading I was astounded; had I missed something, were humans really on the verge of a manned flight to Mars? No. But it made headlines, and I guess that was the intention.

 

[Justin Swanton]

BTW here is my source for the cost of a Proton launch. It's for a Proton M which is 22 years old and can put 23 metric tons into LEO orbit compared to 22,8 tons for the Falcon 9 if it is expended or 17,4 tons if its launcher is reused. No school like the old school....

 

[Robert Zwilling]

The entire space industry is approximately 464 billion dollars. One estimate has that growing to 737 billion within 10 years. The majority of the value is in telecommunications, Earth observation and companies utilizing satellite navigation to deliver services to their customers. The US space industry has been pretty consistent over the last 10 years, with a small yearly increase.

The money is being spent mainly on services that are being used in everyday life, although it might not seem visible. As long as the space industry is contributing to every day life it will continue to function. The most physical component is the satellite business which shows no signs of decreasing. The satellites have to be launched and have to operate in space. If a company can make money off of the satellite industry it can generate an income. The proliferation of space based equipment will probably put people in space to have hands on maintenance on all that equipment. The global military air force is a fraction of the commercial air industry. Manned space flight will get a lot of publicity even though it will be only a fraction of the total space market, which is probably enough to keep it going.

 

[CupofJoe]

One of these days if I ever manage to motivate myself enough I'll write a book called "The Walls." In in I posit that any branch of technological development initially advances rapidly, then tapers off and finally reaches a ceiling, its wall. I postulate that space travel tech reached its wall decades ago and all we can do now is cross t's and dot i's. At present a Falcon launch costs $67 million even with a reusable launcher. In comparison a Russian Proton launch, using decades-old tech, costs $65 million. I really, really doubt the cost of launches will substantially decrease, ever.

It's called the S curve.
A technology is "discovered".
After initial slow improvement as the technology gets more widely understood, there is increase in performance as designs and processes are perfected.
Eventually the technology reaches it peak and there are fewer and fewer improvements possible.
It is used in many contexts.

I am all in favour of old tech!
I think systems like the Falcon are the way forward. The price per launch is not the only criteria. Even if it is a very complex equation, and ignoring the current geopolitical position, the idea of a system that is reusable in parts seems the better bet in the long term.
We are still in the very early days of commercial space flight, who know who it will shake out? Not me.

 

[Justin Swanton]

I am all in favour of old tech!

Me too!

 

[Wayne Mack]

I don't see the economic viability of anything outside of near Earth orbit and for anything beyond communications and transferring information. The expense of getting things off of the Earth and then bringing things back down to Earth is too expensive by several orders of magnitude.

For mining operations, I would expect to need daily shipments of some type of ore for it to be viable. The cost of a single space shuttle flight is $0.8 billion to $1.5 billion. Even assuming that cost holds for lunar flights, if one assumes a 10% profit, the minimum value of a load become $0.88 billion to $1.65 billion. That ignores any costs associated with running and maintaining a remote mining facility. A manufacturing facility would be even more challenging in that it must also pay the costs for raw materials.

One interesting consideration might be for a corporation to establish a near Earth orbit headquarters to avoid paying national taxes. I'm not convinced, though, that the tax offset would be sufficient to justify the infrastructure costs of the headquarters.

Reference: What are Launch Costs? (with pictures)

 

[Ambrose]

A corporation could not go independent. All space objects remain subject to the jurisdiction of the state that launched them under the Outer Space Treaty and the Registration Treaty, The state could waive its taxes but how likely is that?

 

[Justin Swanton]

I think systems like the Falcon are the way forward. The price per launch is not the only criteria. Even if it is a very complex equation, and ignoring the current geopolitical position, the idea of a system that is reusable in parts seems the better bet in the long term.
We are still in the very early days of commercial space flight, who know who it will shake out? Not me.

There are limits to the cost savings of reusable launchers. SpaceX director of vehicle integration Christopher Couluris affirmed that the cost of a launch could be brought to below $30 million (once R&D costs are paid off). Current launch cost according to Musk is $62 million. I say boost that $30 million estimate by at least a good 30% to $40 million and that probably represents the effective savings of reusable rockets, which is not that much. So a break-even $40 million for 17,4 tons or $2,3 million per ton. That I suspect is as good as rocket technology is likely to get.

Problem is what to replace it with. Our theoretical knowledge of physics has long since outstripped our ability to make practical use of that knowledge. So we know what antimatter is and the enormous amount of energy it can produce when annihilated with matter, but we can't harness antimatter as a practical power source because we can't make and store it in sufficient quantities. There is nuclear pulse propulsion but that's been ruled out as an unacceptable health hazard. Physics doesn't offer anything else (space elevators - how do you prevent a 35,000km long elevator cord from being degraded by micrometeorites?).

 

[Omits]

" echoic incentive ". That is new one to me , I will just need to work out what it means , so I can work it into future conversations. Many thanks

Tell us!

 

[Swank]

A corporation could not go independent. All space objects remain subject to the jurisdiction of the state that launched them under the Outer Space Treaty and the Registration Treaty, The state could waive its taxes but how likely is that?

What if launched at sea?

 

[Ambrose]

A sea launch platform would have the nationality of its state of registry snf thst would be one of the states that qualify as the state of registry of the launch. Alernatively if the sea launch was within the territorial sea of a foreign state that state would also be one of the lauching states. Either way the the object launched would be subject to the jurisdiction, supervision and control of the state of registry. Although a state of regstry can transfer its powers to another state, an pbject launched into space cannot be abandoned to become 'independten'. So the space station office would not be legally independent.

 

[Wayne Mack]

I believe, though, that shared resources, such as space stations, and moons and other planets are exempt from being claimed as a country's sovereign territory. I could see a privately built space station, especially if the material was launched by several different jurisdictions, claiming independence and creating a tax haven. This would probably require the space station to be declared its own government. To do so, however, there would probably need to be a resident population and that population would likely be held hostage to having food, water, and air sent up from Earth resident countries.

A recent US ruling may apply in that people staying in Antarctica are not considered as residing in a foreign country for tax purposes: Tax Court: Antarctica Not a Foreign Country for Tax Purposes

 

[paranoid marvin]

I believe, though, that shared resources, such as space stations, and moons and other planets are exempt from being claimed as a country's sovereign territory. I could see a privately built space station, especially if the material was launched by several different jurisdictions, claiming independence and creating a tax haven. This would probably require the space station to be declared its own government. To do so, however, there would probably need to be a resident population and that population would likely be held hostage to having food, water, and air sent up from Earth resident countries.

A recent US ruling may apply in that people staying in Antarctica are not considered as residing in a foreign country for tax purposes: Tax Court: Antarctica Not a Foreign Country for Tax Purposes

It's quite depressing to see the 'ceremonial' South Pole surrounded by flags of certain nations, as if in some way that makes it theirs. Flags should be banned from Antarctica. And they should also be banned entirely in space/on planets/moons/asteroids.

 

[Wayne Mack]

It's quite depressing to see the 'ceremonial' South Pole surrounded by flags of certain nations, as if in some way that makes it theirs. Flags should be banned from Antarctica. And they should also be banned entirely in space/on planets/moons/asteroids.

As national or commercial ego seems to be the most viable motivation to engage in space travel, I feel the need to accept flags or business logos. Of course, this reasoning sounds sadly close to The Man Who Sold the Moon by Robert Heinlein.

 

[Ambrose]

See the Outer Space Treaty, accepted by all the space competent states.

OUTER SPACE TREATY

Its main principles have passed into customary international law. States must license the space activities of their nationals.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

"The Psyche mission is a journey to a unique metal-rich asteroid orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter. The Psyche mission will test a sophisticated new laser communication technology that encodes data in photons at near-infrared wavelengths (rather than radio waves) to communicate between a probe in deep space and Earth."

The Psyche target is not that far away, between Mars and Jupiter. One of the problems of real time space exploration by remote means in the communication lag. This won't cut down the time lag but it could greatly increase the mount of data that can be sent back and forth.

 

[Danny McG]

Methinks there is a real incentive for governments to keep their people optimistic about the future. If people believe in a glorious age to come then they will accept whatever they have to in the present

Another Mandela effect comes to me now.
Following Neil Armstrong's "one small step" the newspapers seemed to have nothing else to report for weeks. As a nerdy little schoolboy I eagerly read all of them.

One think I remember is them doing a very tongue in cheek report on an article that appeared in the mainland China newspaper, it claimed that, for the last four years, they'd had a beautiful Chinese girl living in a dome on the moon.
There were going to be follow ups to this initial news bulletin, but alas the Western press never reported anything else on that issue.