-
#20
by
Patchouli
on 19 Nov, 2011 00:09
-
...and by the way, don't count Bigelow out, yet. Even if Bigelow fails, another will spring up eventually. And actually, I think there's room for competition. Bigelow isn't the well-oiled machine they claimed to be, so a very energetic and well-focused company could beat them. There are a few Bigelow employees out of work. Biggest thing you need, of course, is to find customers. Find customers, and people will throw money at you (partly why Elon Musk has been successful so far in spite of being a ballsy, somewhat arrogant newcomer is because there is a large market and pent-up demand for good electric cars---people are begging electric car manufacturers to take their money--and a reasonably large global market for affordable launch services... even though Elon has been slow to deliver on both those fronts, there's a real market there, so money will flow if they don't fail technically).
And I think there's good evidence that there are lots of customers for affordable suborbital space tourism, too. Just need to deliver and not spend too much money on it.
Whether there's enough of a market for a commercial space station, though, is a lot harder gamble, in my opinion. So much hinges on affordable launch, and in order to get affordable enough means you need RLVs, and in order for there to be a high enough flight rate for RLVs depends on if there's a market for a commercial space station.... It's a difficult problem to solve. I bet if you could get the per-passenger cost of a human-rated orbital launch vehicle down to a million dollars per person per lauynch, you could get several hundred passengers a year, but it'd be a stretch at best. But to get costs that low would take a very, very high flight rate... It's a chicken-and-egg problem that might never resolve until a new use for a high-flight-rate RLV is found besides tourism (or until we all get a lot richer).
Now, compare all this for the price of a single launch of SLS, and you quickly run out of money (A thousand people going to an orbital space station every year paying a million dollars each only nets you a billion dollars, a small fraction of the annual operating costs of SLS... Your space station is going to need to find a much cheaper way to get up there.)
Find a new use for space that requires an RLV but is still quite profitable and you may open up the solar system. Until then, we're talking about almost a zero-sum game.
Bigelow has money he's just waiting for a commercial vehicle.
Though if Bigelow went under expect someone like Musk or Bezos to snap up the assets and fly something.
Bezos does have enough money and his commercial orbital RLV would need a destination.
But I have to say NASA will probably have their own station after ISS.
It may not be located in LEO but instead at lunar L1.
This really depends on the presence of commercial US stations in LEO.
If NASA is to explore Mars and beyond a staging point is necessary.
The uncertainty here is something like Skylon or a fully reusable F9 could completely change the game and make an SLS launched station make less sense.
Though the core sections could still benefit from the large fairing on SLS.
-
#21
by
Patchouli
on 19 Nov, 2011 20:19
-
I found an interesting story of a 1970 space station design that might give good insight into what an ISS successor may look like.
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2011/11/mcdonnell-douglas-phase-b-12-man-space.htmlSince it might be better to move microgravity experiments to unmanned and man tended free fliers that are usually devoid of a crew a future station could feature artificial gravity.
This would be more in line with the long term goal of learning how to live in space for long duration missions.
-
#22
by
DarkenedOne
on 20 Nov, 2011 23:52
-
This argument both comes down to one simple question. Can a space station be constructed and maintained for a cost that is less than the benefits that it can provide?
I think it is pretty safe to say that no one will be spending $100 billion, and several billion dollars per year. However among space stations the ISS is the exception.
Practically all of the others including the new Chinese space station, the MIR space station, Skylab, several experimental Russian stations did not cost nearly that much.
Now if we can build and maintain space stations that cost under $10 billion and < $1 billion per year than I think it is a possibility.
Even the critics admit there is value in having a space station just not $100 billion dollars of value.
-
#23
by
Astromark
on 21 Nov, 2011 00:24
-
I think there will be a follow-on to the ISS, but I doubt it'll be a science station. As space becomes increasingly commercialized, I'd look for a combination station/fuel depot in LEO - a waypoint for spacecraft headed to the outer solar system. It could also service commercial vehicles, of which I hope there'll be many by the time all of this is possible.
-
#24
by
Patchouli
on 21 Nov, 2011 00:50
-
This argument both comes down to one simple question. Can a space station be constructed and maintained for a cost that is less than the benefits that it can provide?
I think it is pretty safe to say that no one will be spending $100 billion, and several billion dollars per year. However among space stations the ISS is the exception.
Practically all of the others including the new Chinese space station, the MIR space station, Skylab, several experimental Russian stations did not cost nearly that much.
Now if we can build and maintain space stations that cost under $10 billion and < $1 billion per year than I think it is a possibility.
Even the critics admit there is value in having a space station just not $100 billion dollars of value.
An SLS built station is probably would be assembled in 5 or so Skylab sized payloads in just a few years vs 30 to 40 smaller launches spread out across over a decade and a half.
It should be a lot cheaper then ISS was.
Even if each module costs 5B on orbit it would still come in at about 1/4 the cost.
A Bigelow module could very well be no more expensive then the SLS rocket that carries it up.
In that case ISS 2 could be not much more then a single BA-2100,solar arrays,a docking node,and propulsion node.
The whole thing could be lifted on just two or three SLS block I flights.
Nice to have would be a Nautilus-X style centrifuge, truss mounted solar arrays,and some sorta work area for spacecraft maintenance.
-
#25
by
RocketmanUS
on 21 Nov, 2011 01:07
-
Large module space station like Skylab or multiple modules connected together. Whether for Nasa or commercial it looks like it could be the next step for LEO station(s). After that it would seem that stations might be constructed in space ( piece by piece non modular, more like Star Trek or Babylon 5 stations ). Whether commercial or goverment funded, for science, manufacturing, or recreation, ect.
So after the test flight(s) are done then this could be one of many good payload(s) for SLS block I.
-
#26
by
Jim
on 21 Nov, 2011 02:15
-
Large module space station like Skylab or multiple modules connected together. Whether for Nasa or commercial it looks like it could be the next step for LEO station(s). After that it would seem that stations might be constructed in space ( piece by piece non modular, more like Star Trek or Babylon 5 stations ). Whether commercial or goverment funded, for science, manufacturing, or recreation, ect.
So after the test flight(s) are done then this could be one of many good payload(s) for SLS block I.
Yeah, right. Who has the money for such a station? Also, NASA has no plans orr one neither.
-
#27
by
RocketmanUS
on 21 Nov, 2011 02:46
-
Large module space station like Skylab or multiple modules connected together. Whether for Nasa or commercial it looks like it could be the next step for LEO station(s). After that it would seem that stations might be constructed in space ( piece by piece non modular, more like Star Trek or Babylon 5 stations ). Whether commercial or goverment funded, for science, manufacturing, or recreation, ect.
So after the test flight(s) are done then this could be one of many good payload(s) for SLS block I.
Yeah, right. Who has the money for such a station? Also, NASA has no plans orr one neither.
Why would Nasa ( U.S. goverment ) not want a station after ISS?
-
#28
by
spectre9
on 21 Nov, 2011 02:53
-
Until we have warehouses in space I don't see how you would be able to build a module from parts out there. You would need all the materials, tooling and workers.
How would we build such a warehouse?
RLVs? Skylon?
Yeah, that's still science fiction just like Bab 5.
Right now I don't really care if there is a station in LEO or not. It's not like it's that far away or they can do any real exploration up there. They just go around and around and it costs lots of money.
Build a new station at EML-1/2 or LLO and I'd be more interested.
-
#29
by
hop
on 21 Nov, 2011 03:34
-
Why would Nasa ( U.S. goverment ) not want a station after ISS?
Why would they ? Things could change, but currently there's no indication the government has any requirement for a crewed station after ISS.
-
#30
by
manboy
on 21 Nov, 2011 03:49
-
I think there will be a follow-on to the ISS, but I doubt it'll be a science station. As space becomes increasingly commercialized, I'd look for a combination station/fuel depot in LEO - a waypoint for spacecraft headed to the outer solar system. It could also service commercial vehicles, of which I hope there'll be many by the time all of this is possible.
If the BLEO program gets the shaft then I have my fingers crossed for an artificial gravity station.
-
#31
by
RocketmanUS
on 21 Nov, 2011 05:07
-
Until we have warehouses in space I don't see how you would be able to build a module from parts out there. You would need all the materials, tooling and workers.
How would we build such a warehouse?
RLVs? Skylon?
Yeah, that's still science fiction just like Bab 5.
Right now I don't really care if there is a station in LEO or not. It's not like it's that far away or they can do any real exploration up there. They just go around and around and it costs lots of money.
Build a new station at EML-1/2 or LLO and I'd be more interested.
The part about building a station in space was for future beyond 2030 and not a module but the whole station. Most parts ( structure ) would most likely be made on the moon.
Building it would most likely start from an existing modular station.
ISS is for science, experimentation, ect. Not for just going around LEO orbit.
You could have multiple station at different locations.
-
#32
by
RocketmanUS
on 21 Nov, 2011 05:44
-
Why would Nasa ( U.S. goverment ) not want a station after ISS?
Why would they ? Things could change, but currently there's no indication the government has any requirement for a crewed station after ISS.
The topic is 70-ton ISS successor
So even if Nasa ( U.S. goverment ) has not said anything about an ISS successor that does not mean there will be no successor. 2020 is a long way off and we don't have the SLS block I yet ( or a launcher in it's class ). There are private companies, not just in the U.S. that are looking to put up stations and not just for tourist.
Station(s) might do research, manufacturing ( could be medicine not able to be made on Earth ), satellite repair, ect.
If other countries end up with station and the U.S. does not have one then were does that leave the U.S.?
-
#33
by
hop
on 21 Nov, 2011 07:04
-
So even if Nasa ( U.S. goverment ) has not said anything about an ISS successor that does not mean there will be no successor.
All I've said is that the US doesn't currently have a requirement for a post ISS station. NASA isn't going plan one until a requirement is identified. That requirement has to be sufficiently compelling to convince congress to budget billions of dollars for it. Sure, you can come up with all kinds of hand wavy speculative reasons to build one, but so what ?
If other countries end up with station and the U.S. does not have one then were does that leave the U.S.?
If the US doesn't have a requirement for a space station, then it's irrelevant what other countries or commercial entities are doing. "Somebody else has one" is not a good reason to build a space station.
-
#34
by
spectre9
on 21 Nov, 2011 07:45
-
Infact that argument of "we have to have one too" does seem valid.
What are the chances of China having a space station and the USA not?
-
#35
by
A_M_Swallow
on 21 Nov, 2011 08:45
-
A EML-1/2 gateway spacestation can be used for the storage, repair and refueling of lunar landers and Mars Transfer Vehicles. Astronauts can change from vehicles equipped for Earth re-entry to the landers.
Trades need doing on whether propellant is lifted directly to EML-1/2 depot using the upper stage of LV or a (smaller) LV delivers the propellant to the LEO depot and a SEP takes it to EML-1/2 depot.
-
#36
by
apace
on 21 Nov, 2011 08:45
-
What are the chances of China having a space station and the USA not?
Question will be, why the Chinese need a station if other countries, like USA, have no requirement after 2020 for one?!
-
#37
by
nethegauner
on 21 Nov, 2011 09:08
-
Intersting. So now this thread is no longer about the feasability of launching space stations modules using SLS -- it is about the issue whether or not anyone needs a space station.
Well, we have to be careful, I'd say.
When , for e.g., Jim says, NASA has no plans for an ISS successor, he is right of course. Has anyone ever heard an official word from NASA about what comes next in regard to LEO, ISS-type space stations? Announcements? Schedules?
If there was one, I missed it. It is all about Orion and exploration and using SLS in support of this.
What I find disturbing however is the notion of space stations being basically useless and hanging around up there in order to create jobs on Earth, or whatever. Of course, the political aspects of the ISS cannot be discussed away -- but I still think that from a scientific point of view and from one of culture, sociology and human development, You cannot give the value of the ISS (or any other manned program) in dollars, euros or whatever currency You are dealing with.
Yeah -- call me a dreamer. But if it were not for dreams, then what the heck do we do in a spaceflight forum ..?
-
#38
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 21 Nov, 2011 10:55
-
I would remind everyone of what 51D Mascot has reminded us on several occasions. It is difficult to prognosticate about what "NASA" might "want" or for which it has a budget years in advance as these can change every Presidential or even every Congressional cycle.
Right now, the swingometer of political support is a drive towards a SHLV and deep space exploration. That could change. We may yet see some kind of LEO long-term science program revived. Perhaps, a large space platform might be even be cheaper to operate and easier to construct if the elements are bigger (Skylab- rather than Spacelab-sized).
If we learn anything from SpaceX's and Bigelow's current issues, it is that we cannot assume that certain commercial capabilities will be available. Nor would NASA be wise to base their forward planning on that assumption.
-
#39
by
nethegauner
on 21 Nov, 2011 13:23
-
I would remind everyone of what 51D Mascot has reminded us on several occasions. It is difficult to prognosticate about what "NASA" might "want" or for which it has a budget years in advance as these can change every Presidential or even every Congressional cycle.
Good point there, I guess . . .
If we learn anything from SpaceX's and Bigelow's current issues, it is that we cannot assume that certain commercial capabilities will be available. Nor would NASA be wise to base their forward planning on that assumption.
And again: good point. I totally agree.
