What is your thought on private space flight.

[pippin]

It looks like someone has an opinion about private vs government space.

Well, private will certainly be faster at taking decisions if you let them.
And ESA is not even a government, it's a multinational body that needs to get buy-in and funding from various governments to actually start something. This is not even like ONE government making decisions, this is at least half a dozen of them.

Once they have a buy-in, Arianespace, Astrium et al can do a pretty good job and they also do succeed commercially, also in the spacecraft business. But there is no such decision for a manned spacecraft within ESA yet and that means there is no way they can get anything off a pad before the 2020-2025 timeframe.

[happyflower]

and that means there is no way they can get anything off a pad before the 2020-2025 timeframe.

Im not even sure there is any kind of interest in Europe for human space flight right now. Maybe in 5 years after the economy recovers a bit, there will be interest and another 4-5 years to develope it. Yes, Pippin's time frame sounds about right to me.

[nec207]

It looks like someone has an opinion about private vs government space.

Well, private will certainly be faster at taking decisions if you let them.
And ESA is not even a government, it's a multinational body that needs to get buy-in and funding from various governments to actually start something. This is not even like ONE government making decisions, this is at least half a dozen of them.

Once they have a buy-in, Arianespace, Astrium et al can do a pretty good job and they also do succeed commercially, also in the spacecraft business. But there is no such decision for a manned spacecraft within ESA yet and that means there is no way they can get anything off a pad before the 2020-2025 timeframe.

The  ESA  has a bigger budget than NASA and there was plans for the clipper spacecraft that lack the money to keep it going.All they have to is build it.This will not take long if they get the green light to go and build it.

[Jorge]

The  ESA  has a bigger budget than NASA

Incorrect.

and there was plans for the clipper spacecraft

Canceled.

[Mandark]

The ESA won't be building any manned spacecraft anytime soon. Most of the member nations are too worried about their economies imploding at the moment!! The ESA will be hiring seats from other providers. You probably won't see anything from the ESA until the middle of the century.

[nec207]

Read below on ESA plan by 2017.

The ESA won't be building any manned spacecraft anytime soon. Most of the member nations are too worried about their economies imploding at the moment!! The ESA will be hiring seats from other providers. You probably won't see anything from the ESA until the middle of the century.

CSTS (Crew Space Transportation System) or ACTS (Advanced Crew Transportation System) is a human spaceflight system proposal. It was originally a joint project between the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Russian Space Agency (FKA), but is now solely an ESA project. It aims to design a spacecraft for low earth orbit operations such as servicing the International Space Station but also capable of exploration of the Moon and beyond. This study was conceived as a basic strategic plan to keep a viable European human space program alive because NASA officials have announced that NASA's Vision for Space Exploration Orion spacecraft will be developed without participation of international partners.[citation needed] CSTS had completed an initial study phase, which lasted for 18 months from September 2006 to spring 2008, before the project was shut down before an ESA member state conference in November 2008. However, the head of the ESA denies that the ATV evolution plan is an alternative and talks are still ongoing as to whether or not to continue funding the ACTS plan.[1] As of late November 2008, the project funding has been limited to a feasibility study with a launch of an actual vehicle possible no earlier than 2017.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSTS

[Mandark]

Very interesting. I knew the there was a joint project in the works as it hit the headlines a while back but I didn't know the Russians had bailed out. Even if the feasibility of the project is still being assessed, I still can't see how Europe could afford to build a vehicle inside the next 10 years or even the next 20 to be honest.

[hop]

CSTS (Crew Space Transportation System) or ACTS (Advanced Crew Transportation System) is a human spaceflight system proposal.

Relevant word bolded. See also: Viewgraph, powerpoint, paper study.

As of late November 2008, the project funding has been limited to a feasibility study with a launch of an actual vehicle possible no earlier than 2017.

In other words, if someone had ponied up gigabucks in 2009 or so, it could have theoretically flown by 2017. In reality, no one did.

[MrAnthonyDR]

CSTS (Crew Space Transportation System) or ACTS (Advanced Crew Transportation System) is a human spaceflight system proposal.

Relevant word bolded. See also: Viewgraph, powerpoint, paper study.

As of late November 2008, the project funding has been limited to a feasibility study with a launch of an actual vehicle possible no earlier than 2017.

In other words, if someone had ponied up gigabucks in 2009 or so, it could have theoretically flown by 2017. In reality, no one did.

Spot on, ESA are barely closer to putting a man in space than Iran or India are..

Going back to the original topic of the thread my thought is that we've reached a wall in space-flight. I know it's a cliched sentiment but we really do need a step-change in our approach to space-flight, just as how jet-engines were a step change to propellers.


Weather it's the Dragon, SpaceShipTwo, Lynx, Cygnus - whatever the commercial vehicle, it's become obvious by this point that we're struggling to make space flight viable for anything other than commercial or military satellites and some robotic exploration.

The only benefit that I see to the likes of SpaceX over NASA is that SpaceX is (theoretically) less bound by red-tape, and can be more ambitious and dynamic. In theory, and in publicity so far this has proved true. In practice, this is still debatable.

Even Virgin Galactic, who have had the technology, and vision to build SpaceShipTwo since 2004 have been delayed time and again, and what was originally supposed to fly in 2007 will now be most likely 2014.

So much for commercial energy and drive pushing the boundries of human access to space.

[go4mars]

The only benefit that I see to the likes of SpaceX over NASA is that SpaceX is (theoretically) less bound by red-tape, and can be more ambitious and dynamic. In theory, and in publicity so far this has proved true. In practice, this is still debatable.

A good observation, but to me, a bigger factor is that Blue Origin, SpaceX, and XCOR are all aiming toward rapid-reusable architectures.  I'm not certain that they'll get there, but it's a critical direction imo. 

[MrAnthonyDR]

The only benefit that I see to the likes of SpaceX over NASA is that SpaceX is (theoretically) less bound by red-tape, and can be more ambitious and dynamic. In theory, and in publicity so far this has proved true. In practice, this is still debatable.

A good observation, but to me, a bigger factor is that Blue Origin, SpaceX, and XCOR are all aiming toward rapid-reusable architectures.  I'm not certain that they'll get there, but it's a critical direction imo. 

Agreed, and I'd even take it a step further - I think our focus should be on rapidly reusable SSTO. That kind of craft would essentially be the start of 'real' space travel. SSTO may be ambitious with current tech, but it is that kind of ambition that will force a step-change. There's no reason why concepts like Skylon and X-33 cannot be realised, with enough hard work, ingenuity and R&D (and a little bit of luck).

Again, with reference to the thread title, my hope would be that the nature of private/commercial spaceflight will push such ambitious projects forward faster than near-sighted politics ever could.

[douglas100]

I would hope that private space flight companies would concentrate on getting their vehicles flying reliably and consistently. Only in that way can they hope to generate income and survive in the long term. Everything else is a distraction until this is achieved.

I think our focus should be on rapidly reusable SSTO. That kind of craft would essentially be the start of 'real' space travel. SSTO may be ambitious with current tech, but it is that kind of ambition that will force a step-change. There's no reason why concepts like Skylon and X-33 cannot be realised, with enough hard work, ingenuity and R&D (and a little bit of luck).

SSTO is marginal with current technology. It is exactly the sort of thing a private launch company should not be doing. You missed out one item from your list of things needed to make it work: money, and lots of it. A private company wishing to stay cash positive cannot afford to risk it, given the history of SSTO efforts so far.

We already have "real" space travel.

[nec207]

CSTS (Crew Space Transportation System) or ACTS (Advanced Crew Transportation System) is a human spaceflight system proposal.

Relevant word bolded. See also: Viewgraph, powerpoint, paper study.

As of late November 2008, the project funding has been limited to a feasibility study with a launch of an actual vehicle possible no earlier than 2017.

In other words, if someone had ponied up gigabucks in 2009 or so, it could have theoretically flown by 2017. In reality, no one did.

Spot on, ESA are barely closer to putting a man in space than Iran or India are..

Going back to the original topic of the thread my thought is that we've reached a wall in space-flight. I know it's a cliched sentiment but we really do need a step-change in our approach to space-flight, just as how jet-engines were a step change to propellers.


Weather it's the Dragon, SpaceShipTwo, Lynx, Cygnus - whatever the commercial vehicle, it's become obvious by this point that we're struggling to make space flight viable for anything other than commercial or military satellites and some robotic exploration.

The only benefit that I see to the likes of SpaceX over NASA is that SpaceX is (theoretically) less bound by red-tape, and can be more ambitious and dynamic. In theory, and in publicity so far this has proved true. In practice, this is still debatable.

Even Virgin Galactic, who have had the technology, and vision to build SpaceShipTwo since 2004 have been delayed time and again, and what was originally supposed to fly in 2007 will now be most likely 2014.

So much for commercial energy and drive pushing the boundries of human access to space.

Read this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26152.60


It not the scopes of this thread to discusses how to bring space cost down in this thread.

[nec207]

On a last note here for this thread you are right with the economic times most countries  in the world will not be putting people into space .

But when the the economic times look better there is no reason the ESA ,Japan or India will not continue their plan on manned space flight.

[savuporo]

I dont get the point of this thread : "private", or rather non-government run spaceflight has been going on for decades. Arguably since first Intelsat I.

The only real question is what other markets besides communication and remote sensing applications will develop, and how soon.

[nec207]

I dont get the point of this thread : "private", or rather non-government run spaceflight has been going on for decades. Arguably since first Intelsat I.

The only real question is what other markets besides communication and remote sensing applications will develop, and how soon.

The start of this thread was ----Do you think private space flight is going to start to take up people and cargo into space in one year from now or 2 years from now? -----

I got the reply no it is most likely 3 or 4 years from now.


Than I was saying could NASA not use the ESA and the reply is clear .

There is no plans before 2017.Meaning when the economic times get better and the ESA starts to put lots of money into CSTS or Skylon and no one pulls the plug on the projet it is going to be after 2017 before they cam start to take people up into space.


This is not going to help NASA now on how to get in space before the SLS is built and if no one pulls the plug on SLS for being too costly.

In other words the US is doomed.

[savuporo]

I dont get the point of this thread : "private", or rather non-government run spaceflight has been going on for decades. Arguably since first Intelsat I.

The only real question is what other markets besides communication and remote sensing applications will develop, and how soon.

The start of this thread was ----Do you think private space flight is going to start to take up people and cargo into space in one year from now or 2 years from now? -----

Yes i read that, comsats are cargo.

[douglas100]

In other words the US is doomed.

That's just silly. Try to keep a sense of proportion.

[nec207]

In other words the US is doomed.

That's just silly. Try to keep a sense of proportion.

I was saying how can the US go to space you got 4 options

1 -Go to Russia or China

you don't like that

2- around 2015 the private sector may be in its prime time to start to take people up into space .

3-  10 or 15 years in the future may be ESA ,India or Japan


4- 10 years in the future SLS if they do not pull the plug on it .

So in the mean time if you want to go to space ASAP you need to go to Russia or China or in 3 or 4 years from now the private sector .

Or you last option 10 or 15 years in the future may be ESA ,India or Japan.

There is no reason why the US is in this mess. How could big powerful country not have a way to get into space .

Why no rocket before SLS goes in service or give more money so SLS goes in service much faster.

[mlorrey]

There is no reason why the US is in this mess. How could big powerful country not have a way to get into space .

Why no rocket before SLS goes in service or give more money so SLS goes in service much faster.

More money wont speed up the failure that is the Senate Launch System. All it will do is make the date of cancellation sooner and the bill to the taxpayers bigger. We need to recognise that NASA is as incapable of building a new launch system as Washington DC is incapable of functioning as a national government, and end the misery for both organizations.