Quote from: savuporo on 06/11/2014 05:25 pmThe only feasible payloads that fit this category in foreseeable future is people. Question is, is there enough people with that kind of money, and the answer is likely no.And propellant.
The only feasible payloads that fit this category in foreseeable future is people. Question is, is there enough people with that kind of money, and the answer is likely no.
Quote from: Llian Rhydderch on 06/11/2014 06:20 pmYeah, I can't see anything at all that could make change occur in the spaceflight industry or in technology that would increase demand over what it's been the past fifty years. (In this, I'm channeling the sort of thinking of Jim, and of Thomas Watson, president of IBM, who in 1943 said: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.")Just for the record, I think the industry will change a great deal in the next fifty years, just as all innovating tech industries do when human ingenuity is set free and people actually compete (I know, a novel concept) to provide goods and services that people want in market where people exchange what they have for what they want.15 years is the timeframe under discussion, not 50. And your analogy is not applicable, spaceflight does not equate to consumer goodsAdditionally, for every Watson prediction, there are 100's of predictions of "game changing" processes/devices that never come to be. There are some many of them that few stand out to be quotable like the Watson one.
Yeah, I can't see anything at all that could make change occur in the spaceflight industry or in technology that would increase demand over what it's been the past fifty years. (In this, I'm channeling the sort of thinking of Jim, and of Thomas Watson, president of IBM, who in 1943 said: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.")Just for the record, I think the industry will change a great deal in the next fifty years, just as all innovating tech industries do when human ingenuity is set free and people actually compete (I know, a novel concept) to provide goods and services that people want in market where people exchange what they have for what they want.
Quote from: aga on 06/12/2014 03:46 pmQuote from: meekGee on 06/12/2014 02:38 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/12/2014 02:29 pmQuote from: meekGee on 06/12/2014 02:29 am2. Now it's about markets. Large constellations of low-cost satellites (telecom, imaging).2. Those don't require that many launches2. Where is that info from?orbcomm, globalstar, iridium?In regards to comm constellations, the whole point is that the landscape completely changes since then. Demand for global bandwidth is high and will only get higher for the foreseeable future, so will require more satellites for more even coverage. Google is now just giving it a test shot, which is evidence that there's interest, but this constellation, by itself, is just a trial shot.I'll go one further. It's not 100 flights a year in the relatively near term, but 100s.And the money for it is insane, not when you're talking $5M per launch.If the whole argument here is "there will be no market because there hasn't been", then it's an empty argument. If you have both increased demand AND lower costs, volume will increase.But hey - it's fine. Just like a couple of years ago (with respect to capabilities, it was then), we'll do the same thing - wait a couple of years and see...
Quote from: meekGee on 06/12/2014 02:38 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/12/2014 02:29 pmQuote from: meekGee on 06/12/2014 02:29 am2. Now it's about markets. Large constellations of low-cost satellites (telecom, imaging).2. Those don't require that many launches2. Where is that info from?orbcomm, globalstar, iridium?
Quote from: Jim on 06/12/2014 02:29 pmQuote from: meekGee on 06/12/2014 02:29 am2. Now it's about markets. Large constellations of low-cost satellites (telecom, imaging).2. Those don't require that many launches2. Where is that info from?
Quote from: meekGee on 06/12/2014 02:29 am2. Now it's about markets. Large constellations of low-cost satellites (telecom, imaging).2. Those don't require that many launches
2. Now it's about markets. Large constellations of low-cost satellites (telecom, imaging).
...You might send a shipment of ice cream and refrigerators to south pole, but penguins are notoriously unreliable market for that kind of product.
We don't know what the future holds, but supporting arguments about the future and that it won't be much different because one is thinking by analogy to the recent past is not very convincing to most careful readers.
Jim, if you like 15 years rather than 50, I'll match your 15! I think the industry will change a great deal in the next fifteen years.
Quote from: meekGee on 06/12/2014 06:06 pmQuote from: aga on 06/12/2014 03:46 pmQuote from: meekGee on 06/12/2014 02:38 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/12/2014 02:29 pmQuote from: meekGee on 06/12/2014 02:29 am2. Now it's about markets. Large constellations of low-cost satellites (telecom, imaging).2. Those don't require that many launches2. Where is that info from?orbcomm, globalstar, iridium?In regards to comm constellations, the whole point is that the landscape completely changes since then. Demand for global bandwidth is high and will only get higher for the foreseeable future, so will require more satellites for more even coverage. Google is now just giving it a test shot, which is evidence that there's interest, but this constellation, by itself, is just a trial shot.I'll go one further. It's not 100 flights a year in the relatively near term, but 100s.And the money for it is insane, not when you're talking $5M per launch.If the whole argument here is "there will be no market because there hasn't been", then it's an empty argument. If you have both increased demand AND lower costs, volume will increase.But hey - it's fine. Just like a couple of years ago (with respect to capabilities, it was then), we'll do the same thing - wait a couple of years and see...For some pure conjecture.Everyone is focused on Bigelow, or Planetary Resources but Google is the wild card, IMO. We know EM is bullish while the industry and old guard are not. We know Elon and Larry Page are pals, and both interact with SV and VC. Do they know something about future market demand things, that we don't? We know Google is interested in space and disruptive tech, broadband, and the developing world. Google has the brains and money, and SpaceX has the brains and rockets.
Quote from: Llian Rhydderch on 06/12/2014 07:28 pmJim, if you like 15 years rather than 50, I'll match your 15! I think the industry will change a great deal in the next fifteen years. It won't for two reasons. Inertia, as Coastal Ron points out. It will take at least generation of current comsats, and that is more than 15 years. And second, the "supporters" are greatly over estimating Spacex's impact.
Google, Skybox,
Disruptive innovation does not require new technologies, only that new business models use technology in new ways. Lower cost disposable launchers is certainly a disruptive innovation from the standard model of the launch industry, and if SpaceX can perfect reusability of at least the 1st stage that would be even more disruptive innovation.The big key here is whether lowering costs significantly will create new business models for space-based services. I have no doubt they will, but as I've already stated I think the pace of adoption will be slow for existing service providers, so only the entry of new service providers like Google could change the pace.However compared to other industries where disruptive innovation has occurred, I think change for the launch industry will still be relatively slow in comparison - but any change based on disruptive innovation is going to be good for all space-related activities, including government-funded activities.
As I'm sure you all know, this thread is not a Jim Q&A. Added to his inability to use one post when making a response and his apparent insistence that he is the one man devils advocate of all spaceX conversations, I've deleted back this thread.
Okay here's a different question that was alluded to in Gwynne Shotwell's June 4th talk:How difficult would it be for SpaceX to get to a stage where they have rockets going up on a schedule and all the payload providers are effectively in a queue, such that if any delay is payload associated, SpaceX can just bump them to the next flight and have the next payload in line take the slot? (ie have a backup payload for every flight). I assume the process of programming the Falcon 9v1.1 computers to go to a particular orbit and adding the appropriate amount of fuel is relatively quick process. Obviously payload integration would be an issue, but how long does that take, relative to the 2-3 day delays that seem to have happened a couple of times now for purely payload related reasons? Also, is this more of a launch site issue? and will we see launch rates increase exponentially for each site brought online?
I apologize but didn't find answer here.On wiki and somewhere else there is:At a NASA news conference on 18 May 2012, SpaceX confirmed again that their target launch price for crewed Dragon flights is $140,000,000, or $20,000,000 per seat if the maximum crew of 7 is aboard, and if NASA orders at least four DragonRider flights per year.Is it price of new launcher and new Dragon V2 for every flight for NASA? Or does Musk expected reusability of some of parts of system?Thanx for answer.