I don't see how a true "commercial" space station would be profitable without long term state-sponsored funding.Forget about the costs to develop, build and launch the station, which will be already be a huge number. How do you keep up with the necessary logistics ? Even a small station that is staffed at half the level of ISS will require multi-billions per year in logistics, crew rotations, and maintenance. Where is that money coming from if the complex isn't owned and funded by a multiple nation states ?
Yes, I think the costs can get to $100 million or below per year if SpaceX or Blue Origin achieve their targets. I think it's more than 50% likely SpaceX will do it within 10 years. Blue Origin seems more of a long shot to me, though it's hard to tell with how secretive they are.
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 01/15/2014 05:48 pmI don't see how a true "commercial" space station would be profitable without long term state-sponsored funding.Forget about the costs to develop, build and launch the station, which will be already be a huge number. How do you keep up with the necessary logistics ? Even a small station that is staffed at half the level of ISS will require multi-billions per year in logistics, crew rotations, and maintenance. Where is that money coming from if the complex isn't owned and funded by a multiple nation states ?I agree with you that the costs are too high to be justified by the commercial market. But "multi-billions per year" is over-stating it. Dragon is already in commercial service supplying logistics to the ISS for $133 million a flight, including all costs from launch vehicle to capsule to pad operations. Crew Dragon is nearing operational status and shows no signs of costing much more than the current cargo Dragon. So the costs for maintaining a small station with six-month crew rotations is likely to be between half a billion dollars and a billion dollars a year with currently-available and soon-to-be-available (2-3 years at most) systems.
I think cargo and crew flights every month makes it a lot more expensive than it needs to be. In my opinion, you could do that if it is a success and you can scale up to more business to make it worth the cost, but the most likely path to initial feasibility is with something like three cargo and two crew flights a year, to minimize total costs.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 01/15/2014 08:13 pmI think cargo and crew flights every month makes it a lot more expensive than it needs to be. In my opinion, you could do that if it is a success and you can scale up to more business to make it worth the cost, but the most likely path to initial feasibility is with something like three cargo and two crew flights a year, to minimize total costs.And you are still talking about more money than just about every country other than the US and Russia spends on space.
I thought Bigelow does have interested customers, just no way of getting them into orbit (waiting for CST-100 and Dragon).
But the phase of developing cheaper ways of doing what ISS already does, is now.
Yes, I had the same idea, basically NASA would be paying the bills (at a level way below ISS), but will not dictate the station/transportation design, it will just buy space on the station. The same method can be applied to a moonbase later on.However I think it's a bit early to think about this, given ISS may get extended to 2028, and SpaceX may make launch cost a lot cheaper in the next few years.
Quote from: baldusi on 01/16/2014 04:57 pmBut the phase of developing cheaper ways of doing what ISS already does, is now. Is anyone actually working on this?
To what level of detail? I'm sure folks (say, at Bigelow) have done some paper studies and produced some powerpoints... but actually testing out things would require at least labs, not just studies.
If NASA isn't operating the station, then they really don't need to be involved at all. Any research being performed by NASA scientists would have it's funding shifted to the NSF, I assume, except that the NSF doesn't really have that much funding on a regular basis, right ? And I certainly don't see any part of the US government committing to a 10 year long contract.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 01/15/2014 06:33 pmI thought Bigelow does have interested customers, just no way of getting them into orbit (waiting for CST-100 and Dragon).If Bigelow had really motivated customers with billions of dollars in hand who desperately wanted a station, those same customers could easily invest enough to ensure that one (or more) of the commercial crew competitors completed their vehicles in a timely fashion. At this point, finishing crew Dragon, CST-100 or Dreamchaser is probably lower risk than the rest of the Bigelow station project.
What do you feel is driving the overwhelming urgency that they'd be compelled to fund the vehicles?
Also, I'd note this...http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/01/dream-chasers-european-deal-opens-ambitions/Is it related? I have no idea, but can we be sure it isn't?
Quote from: Lar on 01/16/2014 08:19 pmTo what level of detail? I'm sure folks (say, at Bigelow) have done some paper studies and produced some powerpoints... but actually testing out things would require at least labs, not just studies.From my limited understanding, Bigelow did have two smaller unmanned prototypes in space that validated many of their designs.
If NASA isn't operating the station, then they really don't need to be involved at all. Any research being performed by NASA scientists would have it's funding shifted to the NSF,
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 01/16/2014 08:25 pmQuote from: Lar on 01/16/2014 08:19 pmTo what level of detail? I'm sure folks (say, at Bigelow) have done some paper studies and produced some powerpoints... but actually testing out things would require at least labs, not just studies.From my limited understanding, Bigelow did have two smaller unmanned prototypes in space that validated many of their designs.I was referring to ECLSS, power, and radiators and maintenance of it all telerobotically.. for less than ISS. I didn't think the Bigelow inflatables were more than just inflated structures.
No, NSF doesn't really fund this type of research
Quote from: Jim on 01/18/2014 12:50 pmNo, NSF doesn't really fund this type of researchJim, I'm very interested in you personal opinion on the general approach I proposed.
Quote from: Lar on 01/18/2014 07:12 amQuote from: Elmar Moelzer on 01/16/2014 08:25 pmQuote from: Lar on 01/16/2014 08:19 pmTo what level of detail? I'm sure folks (say, at Bigelow) have done some paper studies and produced some powerpoints... but actually testing out things would require at least labs, not just studies.From my limited understanding, Bigelow did have two smaller unmanned prototypes in space that validated many of their designs.I was referring to ECLSS, power, and radiators and maintenance of it all telerobotically.. for less than ISS. I didn't think the Bigelow inflatables were more than just inflated structures.http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/hea/4260682849.html
Quote from: Blackjax on 01/18/2014 03:49 amWhat do you feel is driving the overwhelming urgency that they'd be compelled to fund the vehicles?The point I was trying to make is that there aren't companies with deep pockets who have an overwhelming urgency to have a space station. If some big company thought a space station would add billions to their bottom line, they could pay Bigelow to finish their station rather than stopping work and laying a bunch of people off. If transport is the roadblock (as Bigelow has suggested), they could invest to make it more of a sure thing. The fact this hasn't happened doesn't mean there is no interest, but it does suggest some upper bounds.
Quote from: hop on 01/18/2014 05:48 amQuote from: Blackjax on 01/18/2014 03:49 amWhat do you feel is driving the overwhelming urgency that they'd be compelled to fund the vehicles?The point I was trying to make is that there aren't companies with deep pockets who have an overwhelming urgency to have a space station. If some big company thought a space station would add billions to their bottom line, they could pay Bigelow to finish their station rather than stopping work and laying a bunch of people off. If transport is the roadblock (as Bigelow has suggested), they could invest to make it more of a sure thing. The fact this hasn't happened doesn't mean there is no interest, but it does suggest some upper bounds.You still seem to be making the assumption that customers would pay to either hurry things along or ensure that the capability is there, and I just don't see why that would be likely.
Companies or sovereign clients are more likely, in my opinion, to wait on the fence until capability exists and has been demonstrated, then initiate their own programs which would make use of what is available. Until the capability is there I doubt they spend much time, attention, or funds on the whole thing.Consequently, I think it is premature to try to draw any conclusions from the apparent lack of customers at this point.
1-2 years after it is in orbit and people can fly things to it, then if there is no groundswell of customers, we'll all have our answers about whether there is a market at the price point Bigelow is selling at.One thing I do want to highlight about the viability of the commercial station business model is the issue of availability of redundant transport to the station if they have people flying to it or time sensitive perishable payloads. If I were a decision maker considering investing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in a project which makes use of a commercial station, I'd spend some time assessing the risks. A big point of concern for me would be if there were only a single *affordable* transportation provider to that station. It'll be great if SpaceX can bring costs way down, but if nobody follows suit, it is going to inhibit market growth among the more conservative side of the potential market if there is no real alternative option if they get grounded for some reason.People can pretend that the Atlas V is an alternative, but it really isn't unless some radical and unlikely things happen with their prices.
Moreover, the commercial entities paid only for the cost of the investigators while NASA covered the cost of payload integration, transportation, and ISS resources. According to NASA, it is unlikely that any of these commercial experiments would have taken place in the absence of the Agency’s in-kind contributions and assistance.
Hey, guess what. The market will never exist if people wait to build (insert item) until the market is demonstrated. Leaders see an opportunity and capitalize on it before it's been demonstrated to everyone.
People can pretend that the Atlas V is an alternative, but it really isn't unless some radical and unlikely things happen with their prices.
Quote from: Blackjax on 01/19/2014 01:03 amPeople can pretend that the Atlas V is an alternative, but it really isn't unless some radical and unlikely things happen with their prices.Quite the opposite. People can pretend that Spacex is going to be game changing, but it really isn't since their prices will be aligning with the rest of the industry.
Quote from: Blackjax on 01/19/2014 01:03 amPeople can pretend that the Atlas V is an alternative, but it really isn't unless some radical and unlikely things happen with their prices.Quite the opposite. People can pretend that Spacex is going to be game changing, but it really isn't since their prices will be aligning with the rest of the industry
You still seem to be making the assumption that customers would pay to either hurry things along or ensure that the capability is there, and I just don't see why that would be likely.
Companies or sovereign clients are more likely, in my opinion, to wait on the fence until capability exists and has been demonstrated, then initiate their own programs which would make use of what is available.
Consequently, I think it is premature to try to draw any conclusions from the apparent lack of customers at this point. 1-2 years after it is in orbit and people can fly things to it, then if there is no groundswell of customers, we'll all have our answers about whether there is a market at the price point Bigelow is selling at.
Also, potential clients should note that as opposed to the ISS, where astronauts dedicate the lion's share of their time to supporting station operations and maintenance, astronauts aboard the Alpha Station will be able to focus exclusively on their own experiments and activities, ensuring that both nations and companies can gain full value from their investment in a human spaceflight program.
The demand for space tourists at $30-40 million for a week or two appears to be one per year. What if it was longer? What if the price were $5 million or $2 million? Mightn't it be conceivable that you'd get dozens of interested folks per year? At $15 million per flight ($7 million for the launch same as what SpaceX intends to charge for its reusable flights eventually, $7 million for the spacecraft and operations), you could charge $3 million per seat and turn a healthy profit.
{snip}Depending on assumptions it looked like that was in the $1-5M/seat range.That said, if prices got down to that point, my guess is there's a whole number of other markets that would also suddenly make sense as well. The key is just having the financial staying power to keep prices low long enough for the market to respond. ~Jon
from the public disclosures I've seen, Bigelow's business model is, unsurprisingly, rather a "hotel in LEO for national prestige missions" model, rather than a "Space Station for research, experiments and exploration" model.
I don't think you'd be able to reach those sorts of prices until you're launching crafts with, at least >50pax.Let's do that number the other way around. 5M/pax, to get the same revenue as the current Cargo Dragon contract (~400M/yr), would mean about 80pax per year. If you wanted to do at 1M, that's 400pax/year.According to the Fulton's report, at 5M/yr, they were expecting 60 flight/yr. I think that's extremely optimistic. Unless they used nominal dollars, for which case it would mean 3.5M/pax, which would seem more reasonable. If I look at the wealth curve, it would seem that if you reduce your price by 80%, you could get a 2000% increase in quantity. So, for 700k/pax, you could be talking about 1,200pax/yr. If that extrapolation can be done. Then 1M/yr (today's money) means about 1,000pax/yr.It's extremely difficult to get to a cost of just 1M/Pax. If you had to launch 1,000pax/year, and do it for cheap, would seem that 15 to 30 missions/year is a good number. If you had to launch in 5pax config, that would mean 200 missions/yr. That would require quite a fleet. I guess that with just two stacks you could minimize cost. That would give you around 20pax per launch at 50 missions/year, or 25missions/yr/craft, or two week turnaround.Said craft would be something like a DreamChases scaled 50% in each directions (HL42 was about 16 pax). So I assume that a 25tonne craft would do (HL42 was 20tonnes). So you need a fully reusable LV that can put 25tonnes on LEO. Something close to a reusable Falcon Heavy.And each cost would get a revenue of just 20M. So the LV cost should be about 12M/launch, plus another 6M for the craft's refurbishment and 2M in range and overhead.It would seem to me that we are quite far from those numbers and thus is not an immediate concern. The microgravity science and NASA's astronaut needs are real, are known, and there's a lot of experience.
Quote from: baldusi on 01/20/2014 08:55 pmI don't think you'd be able to reach those sorts of prices until you're launching crafts with, at least >50pax.Let's do that number the other way around. 5M/pax, to get the same revenue as the current Cargo Dragon contract (~400M/yr), would mean about 80pax per year. If you wanted to do at 1M, that's 400pax/year.According to the Fulton's report, at 5M/yr, they were expecting 60 flight/yr. I think that's extremely optimistic. Unless they used nominal dollars, for which case it would mean 3.5M/pax, which would seem more reasonable. If I look at the wealth curve, it would seem that if you reduce your price by 80%, you could get a 2000% increase in quantity. So, for 700k/pax, you could be talking about 1,200pax/yr. If that extrapolation can be done. Then 1M/yr (today's money) means about 1,000pax/yr.It's extremely difficult to get to a cost of just 1M/Pax. If you had to launch 1,000pax/year, and do it for cheap, would seem that 15 to 30 missions/year is a good number. If you had to launch in 5pax config, that would mean 200 missions/yr. That would require quite a fleet. I guess that with just two stacks you could minimize cost. That would give you around 20pax per launch at 50 missions/year, or 25missions/yr/craft, or two week turnaround.Said craft would be something like a DreamChases scaled 50% in each directions (HL42 was about 16 pax). So I assume that a 25tonne craft would do (HL42 was 20tonnes). So you need a fully reusable LV that can put 25tonnes on LEO. Something close to a reusable Falcon Heavy.And each cost would get a revenue of just 20M. So the LV cost should be about 12M/launch, plus another 6M for the craft's refurbishment and 2M in range and overhead.It would seem to me that we are quite far from those numbers and thus is not an immediate concern. The microgravity science and NASA's astronaut needs are real, are known, and there's a lot of experience.The range in question is "$1-5M/seat". For Dragon with 7 passengers that's $7-35M per flight. SpaceX has said they're targetting $5-7M per launch for comsats, so even the low end of the range is possible for F9R and Dragon if SpaceX meets their targets. Even if they can't meet those targets, $35M per flight with the first stage and Dragon capsule reusable is certainly not implausible.So, no, 50 passengers per flight is definitely not a requirement to reach this price range.
Just to reinforce the message, this should be about how to create a service based commercial LEO station. On issue I have been pondering, is about the CBM. I've been given to understand maximum diameter of payload is a critical issue. I understand that IDSS has 800mm of clearance, but if you can take the petals out, you could have 1100mm. CBM is a square of 1500mm, so its a lot bigger. But I don't know how would you berth without the Canadarm.
You guys are missing the fact that the ISS cannot last forever. From what I have seen there is still going to be demand for a space station from NASA. Not $100 billion dollars of demand, but still some demand. I think a commercial partnership between NASA and some commercial entity to build a commercial space station can definitely work. A space station with the same habitable volume as the ISS can be build with just a few of Bigelows BA-330 modules. NASA would serve as the primary customer, and would take up most of the space with their operations. The rest of the space station would then be rented out to various clients including other space agencies, space tourism companies like Space Adventures, and organizations looking to do research.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 01/22/2014 02:25 pmYou guys are missing the fact that the ISS cannot last forever. From what I have seen there is still going to be demand for a space station from NASA. Not $100 billion dollars of demand, but still some demand. I think a commercial partnership between NASA and some commercial entity to build a commercial space station can definitely work. A space station with the same habitable volume as the ISS can be build with just a few of Bigelows BA-330 modules. NASA would serve as the primary customer, and would take up most of the space with their operations. The rest of the space station would then be rented out to various clients including other space agencies, space tourism companies like Space Adventures, and organizations looking to do research. Can you elaborate on just what NASA's demand for a space station would be post-ISS? Isn't NASA already moving in the direction that utilisation activities in LEO should be commercially driven? Isn't the CASIS model now adopted for ISS a sign of future LEO activities?
A next door free flyer to ISS is an interesting option. The same crew transport could service both stations. Delivering 3 crew to the free-flyer and 4 to ISS. NASA could transport 7 astronauts for the price of 4, the current crew complement for crew missions to ISS. If NASA can save $.5B on crew and cargo transport costs by 2020 they could afford to rent 330m3 of yearly space on a next door free-flyer.
How about a commercial expansion to the ISS? Bigelow is going to do something like that as a small scale test with BEAM. I could imagine doing this on a much greater scale with BA modules when the time is right.
Ripe with complications. The module would essentially be parasitic to ISS. Because ISS is the vehicle and the module is just that, all standard rules, regulations and procedures would apply to that module as every other module that make up the ISS vehicle. Depending on what one wants to do with this "commercial station" that could make it prohibitive.
Quote from: Go4TLI on 01/22/2014 05:45 pmRipe with complications. The module would essentially be parasitic to ISS. Because ISS is the vehicle and the module is just that, all standard rules, regulations and procedures would apply to that module as every other module that make up the ISS vehicle. Depending on what one wants to do with this "commercial station" that could make it prohibitive. I am not 100% sure, but I believe that the BA modules will come with their own power supply, life support and station keeping thrusters, might also be that Bigelow wanted to do an extra module for that. Either way, they should be able to function without being parasitic to the ISS, at least as far as possible while being attached to it.
I am not 100% sure, but I believe that the BA modules will come with their own power supply, life support and station keeping thrusters, might also be that Bigelow wanted to do an extra module for that. Either way, they should be able to function without being parasitic to the ISS, at least as far as possible while being attached to it.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 01/22/2014 06:06 pmI am not 100% sure, but I believe that the BA modules will come with their own power supply, life support and station keeping thrusters, might also be that Bigelow wanted to do an extra module for that. Either way, they should be able to function without being parasitic to the ISS, at least as far as possible while being attached to it.No, not either way. 1. It won't be function while attached to the ISS2. It would be parastic.And this is why they would be incapable with the ISS. 1. Where is the power "supply" going to come from? Solar arrays? Not feasible. There would be shadowing on the ISS and from the ISS. Same goes for radiators. 2. Life support? Can't have an independent system from the ISS, it must be integrated to ensure proper conditions3. Thrusters? Why would they be needed when part of the ISS?And the reason why another module added to the USOS is not feasible: No resources (power, cooling, etc) available to the another module. See what is being done with BEAM.
2. Ok, that is a good point! On the other hand there are currently several different systems on different ISS modules that contribute to the ECLS. So while I agree that these systems have to be synced, this might not be an insurmountable problem.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 01/22/2014 06:51 pm2. Ok, that is a good point! On the other hand there are currently several different systems on different ISS modules that contribute to the ECLS. So while I agree that these systems have to be synced, this might not be an insurmountable problem.They aren't "different", they are all part of the same integrated system. It is just distributed.
Not trying to argue with you, but I was under the assumption that there were at least 3 different, independently activated oxygen generation systems on the ISS (on different modules), some meant as backups. Is that incorrect?
Either way, I understand the reservation and you are probably right. I am still not 100% that it is so impossible though. The idea of expanding the ISS with Bigelow modules is certainly not new. I have seen it before.
1. -It has been stated that a cygnus pressurised module can be fitted to stay connected to a station as a parasitic module with minor tubing aditions. A station that will utilize such a method could grow bigger with every cargo ship coming.2. -The second stage of the falcon does most of the way up only to be turned back again. Can it be used as a module or as propultion for a station? Wet launch? That may seem like too much, but then again it was the idea for skylab. SpaceIslandGroup took that idea to extreme and might have had a station working by now if the shutle program didn't tragicly stoped.
-It has been stated that a cygnus pressurised module can be fitted to stay connected to a station as a parasitic module with minor tubing aditions. A station that will utilize such a method could grow bigger with every cargo ship coming.
-A hard shell station module is more robust than an inflatable one. Maybe that the good old fasion modules are just better.
RS systems are separate from the USOS systems. I was only talking about the USOS hosting a module. The USOS ECLSS system is integrated and uses the OGS for O2.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 01/22/2014 02:25 pmYou guys are missing the fact that the ISS cannot last forever. From what I have seen there is still going to be demand for a space station from NASA. Not $100 billion dollars of demand, but still some demand. I think a commercial partnership between NASA and some commercial entity to build a commercial space station can definitely work. A space station with the same habitable volume as the ISS can be build with just a few of Bigelows BA-330 modules. NASA would serve as the primary customer, and would take up most of the space with their operations. The rest of the space station would then be rented out to various clients including other space agencies, space tourism companies like Space Adventures, and organizations looking to do research. Can you elaborate on just what NASA's demand for a space station would be post-ISS?
Microgravity research.
Where would these additional Cygnus modules attach to?
I know that Bigelow argue that the wall thickness and meteorite shielding is better, but can it suport equipment? Can you hang a picture on the wall?
Can you hang a picture on the wall?
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/22/2014 04:12 pmA next door free flyer to ISS is an interesting option. The same crew transport could service both stations. Delivering 3 crew to the free-flyer and 4 to ISS. NASA could transport 7 astronauts for the price of 4, the current crew complement for crew missions to ISS. If NASA can save $.5B on crew and cargo transport costs by 2020 they could afford to rent 330m3 of yearly space on a next door free-flyer.That doesn't work. One vehicle, two stations leaves one station with the crew stranded on it and without an emergency escape vehicle in the event it becomes necessary.
The price of the flight from the ground to the commercial station is totally off topic for this thread.
I like what Jon had to say about free flyers. Done properly, there shouldn't be much need for a crew member to don a spacesuit and go outside. Think of the UAV fliers. They sit in a comfortable flight station and fly their aircraft from half way around the world. There's no reason we can't do that same kind of thing with a properly designed free flyer for telerobotic operations all around and on the station exterior. Commercial station designers ought to include 1 or 2 such stations in their designs. ISS would have greatly benefited from such operations. It's still "eyes and hands on the mission", just from inside the station instead of inside a spacesuit outside the station. If surgeons can perform delicate telerobotic operations on a person from thousands of miles away using properly designed "hands" and tools, there's no reason we couldn't do the same kind of delicate missions telerobotically, but from inside the station, instead of outside.
I had an idea about a similar technology. I thought about doing a standardized SEP tug. And have a lot of them, like ten or even a dozen. When attached to the station, they would supply power and attitude control. If you design an extension to the CBM, you could do some very dumb cargo modules. Imagine something like the Cygnus but without the bus. And have the upper stage supply some enhanced battery power and let the SEP tugs actually rendevouz with the US, capture the cargo, supply it with power, and take it and berth it with the station. This way, you would be constantly reusing the bus and the cargo compartment could be a
How many experiments are there on the ISS that don't need human interaction of some sort ?
How many experiments are there on the ISS that don't need human interaction of some sort ?I was thinking about how you could eliminate the unpacking of the cargo modules by just leaving those experiments in a PCM module that docked with the station. But then, what is the purpose of docking with the station anyway, if everything can be handled remotely from the ground anyway. Why dock the Cygnus PCM module, if it can be a standalone lab module all by itself ? You could outfit the PCM or that other vendor's module with racks and let it go as a complete free flier to perform science missions in LEO. No permanent station required. Just fill up the available rack space on the spacecraft, and let it fly for a year. If you want your experiment back, get it from the vehicle with a heat shield. These independent free-fliers might actually make sense. Fees would be based on how much power and rack space each experiment would need. Of course, you would probably need a company like Nanoracks (not necessarily Nanoracks) to handle selling the available space to make sure it gets launched at a decent percentage of capacity.
The new smallsat LVs in development have potential to create a whole new area of possibilities for a commercial station. These LVs allow for miniature COTS vehicles (eg 120-150kg Cygnus or DC) to be developed that can launch on demand for <$5m. These vehicles would be small enough to be robotically captured and placed in an ISS airlock. Where cargo/experiments are removed and reloaded for down mass(DC) or rubbish disposal(Cygnus).Besides supplying ISS the same vehicles could be free flier labs or service a small fully automated station. Full size Cygnus would make an ideal automated station.{snip}
Given small size of vehicles it would be simpler to just fly them into an airlock then deal with them. With ISS safety this may be an issue but for automated station it shouldn't be a problem.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 07/20/2015 09:44 pmGiven small size of vehicles it would be simpler to just fly them into an airlock then deal with them. With ISS safety this may be an issue but for automated station it shouldn't be a problem.If the space station has an air lock then visits from people are expected so air quality has to be controlled.An in vacuum handling area is possible.
The new smallsat LVs in development have potential to create a whole new area of possibilities for a commercial station. These LVs allow for miniature COTS vehicles (eg 120-150kg Cygnus or DC) to be developed that can launch on demand for <$5m. These vehicles would be small enough to be robotically captured and placed in an ISS airlock. Where cargo/experiments are removed and reloaded for down mass(DC) or rubbish disposal(Cygnus).Besides supplying ISS the same vehicles could be free flier labs or service a small fully automated station. Full size Cygnus would make an ideal automated station.These small COTs vehicles with regular supply runs may also make a small partially manned station possible eg few Cygnus or Exoliner modules connected together with crew of 2-3. A small crew frees up a lot of room in crew capsule (Dragon or CST100) for cargo or accommodation. With 3 major suppliers in small sat LV market (RocketLab, Firefly, LauncherOne), prices should only go down and hopefully lead to even lower cost RLVs. NB. The miniature DC is required as it has to be able to land at an airport. A capsule would be OK if it can land on land as water recovery adds significant costs.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 07/20/2015 05:00 pmThe new smallsat LVs in development have potential to create a whole new area of possibilities for a commercial station. These LVs allow for miniature COTS vehicles (eg 120-150kg Cygnus or DC) to be developed that can launch on demand for <$5m. These vehicles would be small enough to be robotically captured and placed in an ISS airlock. Where cargo/experiments are removed and reloaded for down mass(DC) or rubbish disposal(Cygnus).Besides supplying ISS the same vehicles could be free flier labs or service a small fully automated station. Full size Cygnus would make an ideal automated station.These small COTs vehicles with regular supply runs may also make a small partially manned station possible eg few Cygnus or Exoliner modules connected together with crew of 2-3. A small crew frees up a lot of room in crew capsule (Dragon or CST100) for cargo or accommodation. With 3 major suppliers in small sat LV market (RocketLab, Firefly, LauncherOne), prices should only go down and hopefully lead to even lower cost RLVs. NB. The miniature DC is required as it has to be able to land at an airport. A capsule would be OK if it can land on land as water recovery adds significant costs. One of the concepts Altius has been working on for several years is the idea of using smallsat launch vehicles *without* mini rendezvous spacecraft for deliveries to space facilities. Upper stages already have a decent amount of sophistication, if you have a capture arm that doesn't require the delivery vehicle to station keep (*cough*Sticky Boom*cough*), you can put the prox ops sensors on the destination side, and talk the upper stage through the rendezvous maneuvers. If you do it that way, you get a much better $/kg rate than if you have to take up half your cargo mass with a very expensive wrapper.~Jon