Author Topic: Commercial Spaceflight overtaking Government? (Read 11447 times)

scienceguy · « **on:** 04/14/2008 12:13 am »

So I was just wondering what people here think. From what I've read from other posts, some people think NASA is making a mistake with ARES-I (because Obama might cancel it), and that Direct is the only way to go but NASA might not do that. I think someone said that NASA is just going to go with another shuttle if Obama wins. Is NASA being flushed down the toilet?

So do you think private companies will overtake government space programs? If so, how far away is this?

Jim · « **Reply #1 on:** 04/14/2008 12:15 am »

Define overtake

scienceguy · « **Reply #2 on:** 04/14/2008 12:16 am »

More launches per year.

Lee Jay · « **Reply #3 on:** 04/14/2008 12:24 am »

Quote

scienceguy - 13/4/2008 6:16 PM

More launches per year.

??

That happened a long time ago.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #4 on:** 04/14/2008 12:28 am »

Commercial payload launches outnumbered government launches for a year or two during the late 1990s, back when the Iridium and Globalstar constellations were being put up, but government launches (mostly for defense purposes) have outnumbered commercial flights since (and before) then. This year, for example, there have so far been four commercial launches (one a failure) out of 15 launches worldwide. Five launches were ISS-related. Take away the manned programs and commercial nearly equals defense launches this year.

- Ed Kyle

scienceguy · « **Reply #5 on:** 04/14/2008 12:31 am »

I apologize for my ignorance. For some reason I thought most launches were done by government space programs.

What about manned launches? Doesn't government have more manned launches per year?

Lee Jay · « **Reply #6 on:** 04/14/2008 12:34 am »

Okay, perhaps we're defining these differently, and I'm probably defining them wrong. I was thinking of government owned and operated (or operated by subcontractors) launch vehicles versus vehicles owned and operated by commercial companies. A ULA launch that carries a government payload would count as commercial in my definition (commercial *launch*, government payload).

tnphysics · « **Reply #7 on:** 04/14/2008 01:06 am »

Then the only US government launches are shuttle.

How does Arianespace fit in to all this?

« **Reply #8 on:** 04/14/2008 02:19 am »

Private companies will never overtake government space programs until we all start to speak Galactic.

Obama is not going to cancel Ares.

NASA is not returning to the shuttle.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #9 on:** 04/14/2008 03:31 am »

Quote

Lee Jay - 13/4/2008 7:34 PM

Okay, perhaps we're defining these differently, and I'm probably defining them wrong. I was thinking of government owned and operated (or operated by subcontractors) launch vehicles versus vehicles owned and operated by commercial companies. A ULA launch that carries a government payload would count as commercial in my definition (commercial *launch*, government payload).

The definition I use, and the clearest one for me to understand, is to ask this question: Who paid for the payload and for the launch services? If a purely commercial company paid, it is a commercial launch. If a government paid, whether for a civil or defense payload, crewed or not, it is a government launch.

- Ed Kyle

edkyle99 · « **Reply #10 on:** 04/14/2008 03:35 am »

Quote

bhankiii - 13/4/2008 9:19 PM

Obama is not going to cancel Ares.

Not Ares I/Orion, on the face of his statements, but delaying the lunar landing program for five years, which is essentially the same as killing it - and Ares V.

- Ed Kyle

Lampyridae · « **Reply #11 on:** 04/14/2008 03:42 am »

In terms of putting fleshbags above the atmosphere, Virgin Galactic will overtake NASA / Russia after its first few flights. Bigelow *may* have 7 people in space at any one time, with even 1 launch per year they will overtake NASA with zero people per year until 2015 (unless we get DIRECT). Manned circumlunar flights are already offered for $200 million; two very rich people need to fork out for that to happen. If that happens anytime before 2017 or so, then you could assert that commercial spaceflight overtook government (for a time, although the circumlunar flight is still Russian govt. hardware and support...)

« **Reply #12 on:** 04/14/2008 03:06 pm »

Quote

edkyle99 - 13/4/2008 10:35 PM

Quote
bhankiii - 13/4/2008 9:19 PM

Obama is not going to cancel Ares.

Not Ares I/Orion, on the face of his statements, but delaying the lunar landing program for five years, which is essentially the same as killing it - and Ares V.

- Ed Kyle

Yes - like Reagan was going to do away with the Dept of Education, and Bush wasn't going to be the policeman for the world. Obama doesn't care enough about space to blow the political capital on it that it would take to win against a pro-NASA congress.

My (D) congressman tells me that Obama's science advisers are already redrafting that bad idea.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #13 on:** 04/14/2008 03:09 pm »

In terms of long term research and exploration, I don't think private industry will ever overtake the government. There are certain areas where profit-driven enterprises are not well suited to take over what has traditionally been the role of government.

cpcjr · « **Reply #14 on:** 04/14/2008 03:26 pm »

In terms of Human capcity to orbit once the shuttle is retiered all space x has to do is get the manned varient of their Dragon space craft operational and overtake goverment.

Shenzhou - 3
Soyuz ----- 3
Orion ------ 4-6
Dragon ---- 7

Lee Jay · « **Reply #15 on:** 04/14/2008 04:00 pm »

Quote

edkyle99 - 13/4/2008 9:31 PM

Quote
Lee Jay - 13/4/2008 7:34 PM

Okay, perhaps we're defining these differently, and I'm probably defining them wrong. I was thinking of government owned and operated (or operated by subcontractors) launch vehicles versus vehicles owned and operated by commercial companies. A ULA launch that carries a government payload would count as commercial in my definition (commercial *launch*, government payload).

The definition I use, and the clearest one for me to understand, is to ask this question: Who paid for the payload and for the launch services? If a purely commercial company paid, it is a commercial launch. If a government paid, whether for a civil or defense payload, crewed or not, it is a government launch.

- Ed Kyle

Okay, I understand. I still find it odd. I'd call a Direct TV satellite launched on Shuttle a "Government launch of a Commercial payload", and an Orbital launch of a government satellite a "Commercial launch of a Government payload".

In other words, if speaking of launches I'd think of the provider, not the customer, just like I'd think purchasing a BMW in the USA is a foreign purchase even if the customer is American.

But I'm not in the industry and if you all have generally accepted lingo, I should accept it too.

Jim · « **Reply #16 on:** 04/14/2008 04:27 pm »

Quote

cpcjr - 14/4/2008 11:26 AM

In terms of Human capcity to orbit once the shuttle is retiered all space x has to do is get the manned varient of their Dragon space craft operational and overtake goverment.

Shenzhou - 3
Soyuz ----- 3
Orion ------ 4-6
Dragon ---- 7

Yes, it is just that easy

aero313 · « **Reply #17 on:** 04/14/2008 04:58 pm »

Quote

edkyle99 - 13/4/2008 11:31 PM

The definition I use, and the clearest one for me to understand, is to ask this question: Who paid for the payload and for the launch services? If a purely commercial company paid, it is a commercial launch. If a government paid, whether for a civil or defense payload, crewed or not, it is a government launch.

- Ed Kyle

I guess I'll challenge that. The second launch of the Taurus vehicle was a commercial, FAA-licensed space launch (and we used a Castor 120, not a Peacekeeper on that flight). The customer (defined as who signed the check that we cashed for the launch) was Ball Aerospace. The payload was the US Navy Geosat Follow-On spacecraft. Ball was paid by the Navy. I call this a commercial launch service, since our contract was to deliver a satellite to orbit, not to deliver launch vehicle hardware and our customer was a commercial entity.

aero313 · « **Reply #18 on:** 04/14/2008 05:00 pm »

Quote

cpcjr - 14/4/2008 11:26 AM

In terms of Human capcity to orbit once the shuttle is retiered all space x has to do is get the manned varient of their Dragon space craft operational and overtake goverment...

All? ALL??!!??! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Jim · « **Reply #19 on:** 04/14/2008 05:44 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 14/4/2008 12:58 PM

Quote
edkyle99 - 13/4/2008 11:31 PM

The definition I use, and the clearest one for me to understand, is to ask this question: Who paid for the payload and for the launch services? If a purely commercial company paid, it is a commercial launch. If a government paid, whether for a civil or defense payload, crewed or not, it is a government launch.

- Ed Kyle

I guess I'll challenge that. The second launch of the Taurus vehicle was a commercial, FAA-licensed space launch (and we used a Castor 120, not a Peacekeeper on that flight). The customer (defined as who signed the check that we cashed for the launch) was Ball Aerospace. The payload was the US Navy Geosat Follow-On spacecraft. Ball was paid by the Navy. I call this a commercial launch service, since our contract was to deliver a satellite to orbit, not to deliver launch vehicle hardware and our customer was a commercial entity.

Same thing applies to GOES on D-IV

edkyle99 · « **Reply #20 on:** 04/14/2008 06:52 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 14/4/2008 11:58 AM

Quote
edkyle99 - 13/4/2008 11:31 PM

The definition I use, and the clearest one for me to understand, is to ask this question: Who paid for the payload and for the launch services? If a purely commercial company paid, it is a commercial launch. If a government paid, whether for a civil or defense payload, crewed or not, it is a government launch.

- Ed Kyle

I guess I'll challenge that. The second launch of the Taurus vehicle was a commercial, FAA-licensed space launch (and we used a Castor 120, not a Peacekeeper on that flight). The customer (defined as who signed the check that we cashed for the launch) was Ball Aerospace. The payload was the US Navy Geosat Follow-On spacecraft. Ball was paid by the Navy. I call this a commercial launch service, since our contract was to deliver a satellite to orbit, not to deliver launch vehicle hardware and our customer was a commercial entity.

This would be a government payload, and therefore a government launch. Performed by a commercial launch provider, yes, but with the government ultimately footing the bill. No government, no launch.

- Ed Kyle

kevin-rf · « **Reply #21 on:** 04/14/2008 07:09 pm »

I would key in on the word "SpaceFlight" which implies a ride, implying a human in the loop, unmanned ELV launches are called "launches".

So the question should be when will commercial Spaceflights eclipse goverment space flights. Do you count suborbital flights? The way I see it right now, we have two or so commercial Soyuz passengers a year along with all the goverment sponsored Soyuz/Shuttle/Shenzhou passengers

aero313 · « **Reply #22 on:** 04/14/2008 07:23 pm »

Quote

edkyle99 - 14/4/2008 2:52 PM

Quote
aero313 - 14/4/2008 11:58 AM

Quote
edkyle99 - 13/4/2008 11:31 PM

The definition I use, and the clearest one for me to understand, is to ask this question: Who paid for the payload and for the launch services? If a purely commercial company paid, it is a commercial launch. If a government paid, whether for a civil or defense payload, crewed or not, it is a government launch.

- Ed Kyle

I guess I'll challenge that. The second launch of the Taurus vehicle was a commercial, FAA-licensed space launch (and we used a Castor 120, not a Peacekeeper on that flight). The customer (defined as who signed the check that we cashed for the launch) was Ball Aerospace. The payload was the US Navy Geosat Follow-On spacecraft. Ball was paid by the Navy. I call this a commercial launch service, since our contract was to deliver a satellite to orbit, not to deliver launch vehicle hardware and our customer was a commercial entity.

This would be a government payload, and therefore a government launch. Performed by a commercial launch provider, yes, but with the government ultimately footing the bill. No government, no launch.

- Ed Kyle

If it was a government launch, we wouldn't have needed the FAA launch license.

brihath · « **Reply #23 on:** 04/14/2008 07:27 pm »

I believe the definition here is too broad (or more aptly, undefined) to make any kind of prediction. History has shown that there was no clear break from government to private enterprise in other exploration efforts. The Dutch West India Company is one that come to mind during the settlement of the new world. Very large and costly undertakings were almost always done by either governments or quasi-governmental corporations (TVA, St. Lawrence Seaway, Interstate Highway System, etc.).

I guess I don't see how space exploration will be any different for quite some time, and I mean decades, to get to purely private enterprise, meaning vehicles, spacecraft, tracking systems, launch infrastructure, etc. If I were to again use the settlement of the new world as an analogy, the further the reach of the exploration, the less the system would have been defined as commercial, while closer to the source, the system would have gone to a more complete commercial model. To give an example, Boston had long transitioned away from the Massachusetts Bay Colony model while Lewis and Clark were first exploring the Louisiana Purchase as a purely government funded undertaking.

So it will be with Space. LEO will transform to a commercial model long before any missions to the Moon or Mars do.

That said, it is still too hard to predict, so I am abstaining from the vote.

texas_space · « **Reply #24 on:** 04/14/2008 08:19 pm »

The question is a little undefined to give a good answer. If the question is will commercial spaceflight (manned) overtake manned gov't programs like those run by RSA and NASA, then within 10 years (counting suborbital flights). Even if NASA's programs stay on schedule, they'll be putting fewer astronauts into space than they have been with the shuttle due to smaller crews and fewer flights per year (not a bad thing if we are out exploring the solar system IMO though). However, the commercial flights won't be exploring for a very long time if ever. I doubt I'll see a commercial manned spaceflight outside LEO in my lifetime other than a few space tourists going around the moon (a BIG maybe).

Analyst · « **Reply #25 on:** 04/15/2008 01:04 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 14/4/2008 9:23 PM

Quote
edkyle99 - 14/4/2008 2:52 PM

Quote
aero313 - 14/4/2008 11:58 AM

Quote
edkyle99 - 13/4/2008 11:31 PM

The definition I use, and the clearest one for me to understand, is to ask this question: Who paid for the payload and for the launch services? If a purely commercial company paid, it is a commercial launch. If a government paid, whether for a civil or defense payload, crewed or not, it is a government launch.

- Ed Kyle

I guess I'll challenge that. The second launch of the Taurus vehicle was a commercial, FAA-licensed space launch (and we used a Castor 120, not a Peacekeeper on that flight). The customer (defined as who signed the check that we cashed for the launch) was Ball Aerospace. The payload was the US Navy Geosat Follow-On spacecraft. Ball was paid by the Navy. I call this a commercial launch service, since our contract was to deliver a satellite to orbit, not to deliver launch vehicle hardware and our customer was a commercial entity.

This would be a government payload, and therefore a government launch. Performed by a commercial launch provider, yes, but with the government ultimately footing the bill. No government, no launch.

- Ed Kyle

If it was a government launch, we wouldn't have needed the FAA launch license.

But this is only a point of legal regulation.

Without the government there wouldn't be a launch. This definition by Ed, which I totally agree with, leaves only communication satellites and a few earth observing sats as commercial. And this is exactly the way it is: Everything other done in space is not turning a profit, is not done without the government finally paying.

So be careful what you wish for: No government spaceflight (manned or unmanned), almost no spaceflight at all. It is even doubtful there would be any launch service without governments paying for some (development etc.).

The world will stay this way for quite some time.

Analyst

tnphysics · « **Reply #26 on:** 04/15/2008 10:17 pm »

Has Pegasus ever launched a commercial (not goverment funded) sattelite?

aero313 · « **Reply #27 on:** 04/15/2008 11:50 pm »

Quote

tnphysics - 15/4/2008 6:17 PM

Has Pegasus ever launched a commercial (not goverment funded) sattelite?

Most of the satellites launched by Pegasus were commercial. Several dozen Orbcomms, Orbviews, etc.

This brings up some even fuzzier missions. What do you call the Minisat mission for Spain? The US government certainly had no stake in the mission. How about SeaStar? Orbital built and owned the satellite but sold remote sensing data to NASA (as well as to commercial customers)?

I guess by Ed's definition, nearly all the SpaceX missions on their manifest are "government" launches.

Takalok · « **Reply #28 on:** 04/16/2008 02:31 am »

The question hints at the vast resources private industry can bring to space activities. Of course, what it's going to take to get them involved (ULA aside) is another discussion, but consider this: Intel has built a $3 billion fab plant in AZ; it is estimated Microsoft spent $10 billion developing Vista (hopefully they wont develop spacecraft).

My rudimentary point is if the commercial sector seriously gets into the mix, then yes, they will dominate at least lift services. NASA will still have a science and perhaps exploratory roll that will piggyback off of commercial launchers, but frankly, I think such a relationship would be ideal, and is hardly a new thought. I hope it comes to be.

Analyst · « **Reply #29 on:** 04/16/2008 06:23 am »

Quote

aero313 - 16/4/2008 1:50 AM

I guess by Ed's definition, nearly all the SpaceX missions on their manifest are "government" launches.

Exactly. One reason I don't understand the hype about SpaceX. No government, no COTS, Falconsat etc. Keeping this in mind helps staying realistic about spaceflight: There are only a handful of profit generating satellite types (communication, earth observing). All the other stuff is in the end financed by taxpayers. Isn't nice or pretty, but reality.

Analyst

Frediiiie · « **Reply #30 on:** 04/16/2008 08:57 am »

The Space Report 2008: The Authoritative Guide to Global Space Activity, released by the Space Foundation today, revealed more than $251 billion in global space activity in 2007.
(April 9, 2008)
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=25166
and further:
"The Space Report 2008 also reveals that satellite-based products and services and U.S. government spending on space again comprise the two largest segments of the space industry at 55 percent and 25 percent of total revenues, respectively. Direct-to-home television and Global Positioning System equipment and chipsets, the two largest sub-segments of the commercial space industry, also posted the strongest growth numbers in 2007, with 19 percent and 20 percent increases, respectively."

So at just 25% government activity in space is already well and truly swamped by commercial space, and falling further and furher behind at 11% per annum.

Jim · « **Reply #31 on:** 04/16/2008 02:12 pm »

Quote

Frediiiie - 16/4/2008 4:57 AM

So at just 25% government activity in space is already well and truly swamped by commercial space, and falling further and furher behind at 11% per annum.

Incorrect

Paying for DirectV and a GPS receiver is not "space activity"

kevin-rf · « **Reply #32 on:** 04/16/2008 02:25 pm »

No DOD bucks, no GPS... The DOD subsidy pays for the GPS service and secondary market of civilian receivers... Just like the GPS subsidy kept the Delt II prices low... You need to differentiate goverment space activity that has major civilian impact from goverment for goverment only activities. How many dolars and lives are saved each year because the goverment pays for weather satellites. Will any commercial weather service actually buy and operate its own fleet of vehicles? There are certain things the goverment does that I want, shudder to think what would happen if tornado warnings went a pay per alert basis from a comercial operator. No bucks, no mad dash to the storm shelter... "Space Activity" is so inter-twined with our daily lives we actually fail to notice it anymore...

... getting back to "SpaceFlight" means a human in the loop for a ride...

Frediiiie · « **Reply #33 on:** 04/17/2008 03:10 am »

Quote

Jim - 16/4/2008 9:12 AM

Incorrect

Paying for DirectV and a GPS receiver is not "space activity"

How incorrect? This is the way Space Report 2008 defines it.
By their definition government activity is already small cheese.

You are, of course, free to define what is and isn't space activity another way.

Jim · « **Reply #34 on:** 04/17/2008 11:32 am »

Quote

Frediiiie - 16/4/2008 11:10 PM

Quote
Jim - 16/4/2008 9:12 AM

Incorrect

Paying for DirectV and a GPS receiver is not "space activity"

How incorrect? This is the way Space Report 2008 defines it.
By their definition government activity is already small cheese.

You are, of course, free to define what is and isn't space activity another way.

In the context of this discussion, "space activity" is defined as a launch

Frediiiie · « **Reply #35 on:** 04/18/2008 05:52 am »

The original question was

Quote

scienceguy - 13/4/2008 7:13 PM

So do you think private companies will overtake government space programs? If so, how far away is this?

If you want to narrow the question down that's fine.
But answering the above question:
the Space Report 2008 puts govt space at 25%
Commercial space as the rest.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=25166

Jim · « **Reply #36 on:** 04/18/2008 12:25 pm »

Quote

Frediiiie - 18/4/2008 1:52 AM

The original question was

Quote
scienceguy - 13/4/2008 7:13 PM

So do you think private companies will overtake government space programs? If so, how far away is this?

If you want to narrow the question down that's fine.
But answering the above question:
the Space Report 2008 puts govt space at 25%
Commercial space as the rest.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=25166

That doesn't answer the above question.

GPS and directv receivers are not "space programs" neither of these go into space

kevin-rf · « **Reply #37 on:** 04/18/2008 12:51 pm »

The whole question is grey, government space programs are only measured in cost. Commercial ventures are measured in cost and revenue. Then we get into the grey area of markets that use space resources in products (GPS,Sat Tv, Sat Radio,Weather,Emergency Beacons,ect...) How do you measure those, and what metric do you use. People benefit from them but for some governments foot the bill. Not all of this can be boiled down to dollars and cents.

It just gets grey; for instance anything that receives data from a satellite is technically a "ground station", even a clock radio that uses GPS to get the current time.

Dollars and Cents only work for commercial entities... Dollars to public benefit (Lives property saved, crops enhanced, not being lost hiking) is how you measure government space.

Frediiiie · « **Reply #38 on:** 04/19/2008 08:16 am »

You're absolutely right. Economics gets very grey very quickly. Thus it's often less important how you measure your field than that you measure it consistently.
Jim is right in that a narrow definition of space activity as just launch programs has some virtue for some things. As a larger measure of the economic impact of space it is limited.
The virtue of the Space Reports is that it gives a series of data for the whole of the industry over a number of years now.
The most interesting datum was the 11% growth for the industry for the year even though it was in areas Jim would exclude.