New Space - In 20 Years Will Old Space Matter?

[bad_astra]

In 20 years there won't be a "New Space" or "old space." The industry will be more robust, and the new cmopanies that have found their niche will either have integrated in while making money with the rest, or will fold. Regardless, government is going to be the biggest customer. Always will be.

[Lars_J]

"Always" is a rather long time span to make such definitive statements for.

I'm no futurologist, but I am an avid SF reader. Once humanity spreads across the solar system, nation-state ties and organizations that originate on earth will not be as relevant nor as influential as they are now. New ones may replace them, or they may fade away.

If space travel becomes a commodity, government(s) will no longer be the biggest customers - just like they are no longer for air-travel, cars, electronics, and other commodities.

[SpacexULA]

In 20 years there won't be a "New Space" or "old space." The industry will be more robust, and the new cmopanies that have found their niche will either have integrated in while making money with the rest, or will fold. Regardless, government is going to be the biggest customer. Always will be.

It's really way to early to say "Always will be" with that much certainty.  I would say for the next 10 years there is a near 100% change that government will be the largest customer.

But after that point I think all bets are off.

Bigelow said that they would need 20+ Launches a year to support their Bigelow stations, that in itself would mean that Bigelow would be a larger customer for ULA than the government.

For early adopters Virgin is asking $200,000 for a trip to 100km, which makes many people scoff at the cost, and their ability to fill the seats but remember that is only twice as much as a Mt. Everst climb, and you would be part of a much more exclusive club.

More so than any time I have seen in Space, we are in transition.  10 years now could be a lot like 10 years ago, or VASTLY different, and noone really knows what's down the road.  Only time will tell.

[savuporo]

In 20 years there won't be a "New Space" or "old space." The industry will be more robust, and the new cmopanies that have found their niche will either have integrated in while making money with the rest, or will fold. Regardless, government is going to be the biggest customer. Always will be.

It's really way to early to say "Always will be" with that much certainty.  I would say for the next 10 years there is a near 100% change that government will be the largest customer.

Soo .. looking at the tonnage lifted to LEO over last year, for how much was government a customer ? Im guessing, not that much.

[hop]

Soo .. looking at the tonnage lifted to LEO over last year, for how much was government a customer ? Im guessing, not that much.

Guess again ?

By my rough count, in 2009, govt launches outnumbered commercial by about 3:1. LEO is even more skewed, and by tonnage, there's no contest at all (*cough* STS)

[Norm Hartnett]

http://www.space.com/news/nasa-contracts-private-moon-data-101015.html

This is likely how OS will matter to NS. JMO.

[InvalidAttitude]

I think the question is not "or" but rather "and" as the private companies cannot evolve without some sort of gov. sponsorship, like the SpaceX or the Space Adventures still heavily rely on gov. assets.

The Virgin is a good shot and I gladly take a ride, but come on its still not a fully orbital experience... 

[vt_hokie]

The Virgin is a good shot and I gladly take a ride, but come on its still not a fully orbital experience... 

What bugs me is the amount of hype, and the widespread lack of understanding about what it really amounts to.  I think many people don't understand the difference between a suborbital hop and what's required for orbital spaceflight.  The media doesn't help when it misrepresents things. (That really cheesy episode of CSI Miami comes to mind, where they portrayed a Virgin Galactic-like outfit that flew a modified business jet to orbit for a week or something like that.  Then again, that's a pretty cheesy show anyway!)  I'm sure there are people out there who think who cares if we retire the shuttle, the commercial players like Virgin Galactic are about to replace it!

Don't get me wrong, it's neat stuff, I'm glad to see they're making progress even if it is really just an expensive amusement park ride! (I still think calling it a "manned spaceflight system" is a bit disingenuous, but I guess technically it is, albeit one that barely hits Mach 3 before coasting past the arbitrary official boundary of "space" for a couple of minutes and then falling back to Earth. Still, I'd love to take a ride on it!)

[savuporo]

I think many people don't understand the difference between a suborbital hop and what's required for orbital spaceflight.

Yes, and the topic has been debated on these boards multiple times. The difficulty of going from suborbital to orbital flight is likely often exaggerated.

History has some proof : Freedom 7 to Friendship 7 was not a long gap.

I always found this amusing :
"Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev criticized Freedom 7 as a mere "flea hop" compared to the flight of Vostok 1."

[butters]

There will be no BEO spaceflight in the next 20 years or more without public funding.  There is no profit motive for interplanetary science, and a commercial lunar hotel would be priced way beyond even the most elite private consumer markets.

The only medium-term source of funding for BEO spaceflight is taxpayers.  So in terms of financing, the public sector is the only real option for the time being.

But that only means that the taxpayers are buying.  This doesn't speak to whom we are buying from.  We can buy from NASA agencies which market products of their own design directly to Congress and contract their manufacture to commercial firms.  Or we can buy from commercial firms which market products to NASA under the auspices of congressional authorization.

So in terms of design and specification (as distinct from objectives and requirements, which are derived from NASA as the financier), we can choose between public and private solutions, and the new law chooses some of both.

None of this really matters with respect to "new space" vs. "old space", since both generations of aerospace firms theoretically have equal opportunity to secure publicly-funded contracts regardless of whether the designs are NASA specifications or their own commercial proposals.  One may argue that in practice new space might have a better shot if they are permitted to bid in-house designs.

Then there is a question of what is "new space" and what is old space"?  Is Boeing "new space" in the context of CST-100, or do we consider them to be clearly "old space" by virtue of absorbing all the firms that manufactured the Shuttle Orbiters, Apollo CSM, and Saturn V?

And does this distinction even matter?

If personally find it very hard to believe that Congress will let Boeing and Lockheed Martin be squeezed out of the civilian space program by the likes of SpaceX.  We also know that ATK has substantial political clout, and so does P&WR. 

I believe that SpaceX can potentially compete in the future with P&WR for third-party engine contracts.  But there is room for two American suppliers of liquid rocket engines, and SpaceX may end up displacing Russian engines more than P&WR.

SpaceX may also put a dent in the demand for ISS experiment racks.

As for the suborbital guys -- Virgin, Masten, Armadillo, and the like -- they don't really have any "old space" competition, and what they're trying to do (for the time being at least) is obviously a different ballgame than the orbital market.

In short: "old space" isn't going anywhere.  They'll have at least the Pentagon to keep them alive and launching.  "New space" may penetrate the civilian public space program and will likely surpass American "old space" in commercial services (where they haven't been competitive with Russia and Europe).

[hop]

The difficulty of going from suborbital to orbital flight is likely often exaggerated.

I disagree. It tends to be underestimated. Specifically, people tend to take things like SS1 / SS2, which are totally almost entirely irrelevant to orbital flight, and say "hey they are already in space, just a few more minor adjustments and they will be in orbit."

History has some proof : Freedom 7 to Friendship 7 was not a long gap.

That doesn't prove your claim. Mercury was always an orbital program, the vehicle was designed to be an orbital vehicle from the start. The fact that it happened to have some suborbital test flights first does not do anything to illustrate the relatively difficulty.

[mr. mark]

Just because you wish for SS3 to be an orbital vehicle does not make it so. Virgin Galactic/Scaled have stated that the next evolution for the vehicle will be suborbital point to point. So looking about another 10 years out, that's the market that they will be going for. Capsules are going to be around for LEO transport for a long time. And for good reason, you don't need wings beyond LEO and a capsule design can be scaled up for BEO. A wnged vehicle cannot due to BEO reentry speeds.

[savuporo]

Specifically, people tend to take things like SS1 / SS2, which are totally irrelevant to orbital flight

And then we have people like you come with absolute statements like "totally irrelevant". Come on ?
A manned rocket powered vehicle that goes up to vacuum, with attitude control system, with life support, does a reentry from low velocities .. is "totally irrelevant" ? I mean, come on ..

[hop]

And then we have people like you come with absolute statements like "totally irrelevant". Come on ?
A manned rocket powered vehicle that goes up to vacuum, with attitude control system, with life support, does a reentry from low velocities .. is "totally irrelevant" ? I mean, come on ..

It's not a viable starting point for an orbital, crew carrying vehicle. So yeah, it's irrelevant. "totally" was a bit of hyperbole, feel free to substitute "almost entirely"

[vt_hokie]

Just because you wish for SS3 to be an orbital vehicle does not make it so. Virgin Galactic/Scaled have stated that the next evolution for the vehicle will be suborbital point to point. So looking about another 10 years out, that's the market that they will be going for.

I actually find this potentially more exciting than suborbital joyrides, as this would be a practical application of technology that could transform the transportation landscape and make the world a little smaller - sort of the difference between a roller coaster and a practical rail transportation system!

[savuporo]

It's not a viable starting point for an orbital, crew carrying vehicle.

How can you claim that with absolute certainty ? Do you work for Rutan ? Are you privy to their engineering plans ? Do you know exactly which design elements from SS1 to SS2 got reused, and how much got  re-invented ? Do you know the exact details of SS3 plans ?
Nobody even knows yet the final flight configuration of SS2, or whether its going to work at all. Thats why they run an incremental flight test program.

Making such claims at this point is not much more than FUD. You could say "i dont see direct application of key SS2 technologies like its shuttlecock reentry method for orbital flights" but thats about it.

[hop]

How can you claim that with absolute certainty ?

The basic parameters are well known (like SS1 but a bit bigger). Don't need to be privy to engineering details to conclude that very little of the hardware is applicable to orbital flight. It's a high performance aircraft that happens to use a modest performance rocket for propulsion. If you think this is FUD, maybe you can explain what aspects of an SS1 type vehicle could be re-used on an orbital vehicle.

I don't know anything about "SS3" but I don't think Rutan has ever claimed that there would be a simple evolution form SS1/SS2 to an orbital vehicle.

FWIW, I'm talking about the hardware here. Having easy access to suborbital space might very useful in developing orbital vehicles, especially if they also use it as the first stage of an orbital micro-launcher. The experience gained developing and operating the suborbitals may also be very valuable.

[FinalFrontier]

How can you claim that with absolute certainty ?

The basic parameters are well known (like SS1 but a bit bigger). Don't need to be privy to engineering details to conclude that very little of the hardware is applicable to orbital flight. It's a high performance aircraft that happens to use a modest performance rocket for propulsion. If you think this is FUD, maybe you can explain what aspects of an SS1 type vehicle could be re-used on an orbital vehicle.

I don't know anything about "SS3" but I don't think Rutan has ever claimed that there would be a simple evolution form SS1/SS2 to an orbital vehicle.

FWIW, I'm talking about the hardware here. Having easy access to suborbital space might very useful in developing orbital vehicles, especially if they also use it as the first stage of an orbital micro-launcher. The experience gained developing and operating the suborbitals may also be very valuable.

Not exactly. Orbital VS Suborbital is a big difference. Namely it depends how high your going and how many orbits your planning on. Also I am not sure if they can use the same feathering system to re-enter if its orbital, and that entails big design changes to add the needed shielding.

Point to point makes much more sense from a technical and business perspective here. Seems like SS3 would be that.

Lets not forget the success or failure of SS2 will govern whether SS 3 ever happens.

[mr. mark]

I think that for SS3, Virgin and Scaled have looked at this and decided that near term suborbital point to point makes more sense from a business perspective. Both Rutan and Branson have stated that this is where they are going. In fact, they've stated it multiple times and they are right, from a business perspective, there is a lot more potential business for them from suborbital point to point.

[vt_hokie]

How can you claim that with absolute certainty ? Do you work for Rutan ? Are you privy to their engineering plans ? Do you know exactly which design elements from SS1 to SS2 got reused, and how much got  re-invented ? Do you know the exact details of SS3 plans ?
Nobody even knows yet the final flight configuration of SS2, or whether its going to work at all. Thats why they run an incremental flight test program.

Making such claims at this point is not much more than FUD. You could say "i dont see direct application of key SS2 technologies like its shuttlecock reentry method for orbital flights" but thats about it.

I'm pretty sure SS2 would melt if it even tried to stay at Mach 3 for any length of time - I remember a comment to that effect in the SS1 documentary anyway.  The vehicle gets nowhere near the hypersonic regime, and to design a vehicle for that would present much greater challenges.  Designing a vehicle that could achieve orbit, maneuver, keep a crew alive, handle re-entry from orbital velocity, etc. would be orders of magnitude more difficult still, no?