Increasing the size of the launch market

[Blackjax]

For myself and I am sure many of you, there is the belief that in order to open up space the industry needs to shift from an expensive low launch rate model to a low cost high volume model.  Historically the problem has been twofold, first is that the launchers themselves were not optimized for high volume and low cost.  Second is the issue of where you'd come up with the high volume of payloads since historical patterns seem to show that the market is limited and relatively inelastic.

Assuming they get their production and launch tempo dialled in, SpaceX might well offer a route to solving the launcher problem.  Beyond SpaceX it is possible that the increased utilization of the Atlas V (from ISS Commercial Crew) might enable the prices to drop enough that it can compete in the traditional satellite launch market and further increase its flight rate and contribute to a positive feedback loop on prices.  The baseline business provided by ISS cargo for Antares might have a similar effect.  In the longer term Stratolaunch might also be able to bring down costs and boost flight rates. 

So the question becomes, what would be getting launched?  Usually the speculation focuses around the potential for a large market for human space flight (tourists, sovereign clients, researchers).  Not only would the people be payloads but the construction and resupply of the destinations (most likely Bigelow habitats) would require a significant number of launches as well.  However nobody really knows how large this market would actually be at the launch costs we are likely to see in the next 10-15 years, it could be quite modest.  Other schemes revolving around major government exploration programs using EELVs or space solar power projects seem pretty unlikely for both political and funding reasons.

What I wonder is whether there is a way for launch companies (or others) to significantly grow the payload market without requiring any grand schemes or the raising of massive amounts of money by a single entity?  A grass roots bottom up growth focused on small low cost payloads. 

Presently small payloads are launched as hosted or piggyback payloads along with flights of a primary payload, but are treated as so inconsequential that they aren't even really tracked in studies.  What if it were possible to cater to this market and try to aggressively grow it?  Perhaps this market could grow to the point where dedicated launches might cater to large numbers of small payloads rather than requiring a main payload to ride along with.  Obviously this would require some development work for technologies to facilitate this because the existing model for launches has never emphasized doing it, but are designs/technologies which could enable it?

So how to foster the low end of the market?  Here are some ideas:

The development of standards & common interfaces for small payloads.  Presently this seems to be happening for the very smallest payloads in the form of cubesats, but I have to wonder if it might also be worthwhile to target the next few steps up from a cubesat class as well Nanosatellites -> Microsatellites -> Minisatellites. Basically looking for ways of making the whole range of smallsats cheaper, easier to develop, and easier to integrate by developing cubesat style standards.

Developing a large common bus designed to provide common services like power, stationkeeping, and communications to a very large number of small payloads.  This would cater to payloads that are fairly insensitive to a specific orbit and really just need to be somewhere in microgravity for extended periods.

Donating small amounts of payload capacity to companies & universities who presently don't have space oriented research programs in return for them developing some.  Try to draw in people who presently aren't part of the market.

Founding an online crowd based learning community centered around how to develop/fly small payloads.  There are tons of different models for getting information transferred from experts or even just people who have figured out how to do a specific thing to people who want to get started learning how to do something.  Some examples: Makezine, Instructables, Idea Connection, Wonderhowto, Tutorvista, Scitable, Connexions, Howdini, Khan Academy, Wikiversity, YouTube EDU   This strategy might be particularly useful if the above idea of standards for payloads happened first because it would allow common strategies for creating payloads to be developed and shared.  Basically, provide an easy onramp for new entrants to the market.

With the launch of a large vehicle (FH for example) that is delivering many small satellites which do require positioning in specific orbits, you could include a tether system that would handle getting them to their respective orbits.  You might even be able to get it subsidized by the government if, after it has finished positioning the payloads, it becomes dedicated to orbital debris removal.

I don't know how far this market could grow or whether it could ever do anything more than generate a modest supplement to the rest of the launch market, but the nature of disruptive innovation is that you try a lot of different things and a few pay off.  Seems to me that attacking the payload market from this direction might be worth trying.  Anyone have any ideas on the subject?

[go4mars]

Anyone have any ideas on the subject?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23010.0

Zubrin's transorbital railroad idea might tie in nicely.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX isn't the only one.

Blue Origin are developing a hydrolox, reusable VTVL TSTO launch vehicle.
Skylon (really expensive development, might work though).
Lockheed Martin (with Air Force funding) with their flyback booster.
XCor with their Lynx Mk III which will be capable of launching nanosats (expendable upper stage(s)). They also have a fully reusable orbital HTHL TSTO concept being worked on, probably hydrolox.

Plus the smaller folk like Armadillo Aerospace and Masten Space Systems. They are obviously small and don't now have the resources for a fully reusable TSTO vehicle. But they are doing exactly the sort of work that needs to be done for rapidly reusable VTVL rockets. It has to be done routinely (i.e. every day) in order to get the price down. If we find or develop some magical non-chemical approach to get a much higher performance rocket, it won't matter one lick if we don't learn how to operate rockets in general routinely and rapidly first.

Some people claim that supply creates its own demand. I don't think that's always true, but I hope it is for launch vehicles.

[Blackjax]

As an addendum to my original post.  The ideas I put forward, and hopefully additional ones supplied by others on this forum, still require money in order to happen.  So where does the funding come from?  Well the benefit of a grassroots effort targeted at the extreme low end is that it does not require a single group to sell a single vision in order to achieve a huge do or die funding level.  It is about generating a huge number of small efforts requiring small amounts of funding but overall generating an aggregate demand for goods and services.  So where do lots of small amounts of funding come from?  Well, there are the traditional sources like SBIRs, grants, and research budgets from schools & companies, but I doubt that would be enough.  Fortunately there are a host of new ways to get funding for small projects:

https://www.crowdtilt.com/
https://www.profounder.com/
http://www.prosper.com/
http://www.kickstarter.com/
http://rockethub.com/
http://cofundos.org/
http://www.indiegogo.com/
http://peerbackers.com/
http://fundry.com/project
http://beex.org/

I'd be willing to bet that these platforms combined with publicity from major space news sites, blogs, and advocacy organizations such as NSS, The Planetary Society, and the SFF would enable many projects to obtain funding.  One of the most crucial uses of this wouldn't necessarily be the funding of projects that would fly, but rather the funding of tools, components, and platforms that low cost missions could be built with (again, assuming the development of Cubesat type standards for hardware).  This kind of enabling hardware development through Crowd Funding is already happening in areas that don't necessarily apply to space.  A few examples:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/147564168/bilibot-an-affordable-robotics-platform?ref=category
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/93832939/makerslide-open-source-linear-bearing-system?ref=category
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/701662757/makerbeam-an-open-source-building-kit?ref=category
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/upgradeindustries/boardx-the-open-source-miniature-motherboard-redem?ref=category
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/988159748/extracore-arduino-compatible?ref=category
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/251588730/kicksat-your-personal-spacecraft-in-space?ref=category
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/csshop/arduino-powered-stepper-motor-board?ref=category

In addition to directly funding a specific team to develop something, an alternate route might be to go with a crowd funded prize.  Carmack demonstrated this in an Ad Hoc sort of way for a full system:

http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=376

But there is nothing to say that it couldn't be used to foster the development of more targeted open hardware solutions that might be used by the community in creating low cost payloads.

As an aside, I cited orbital payloads but the truth is that this sort of grassroots development would also benefit the suborbital market as well.  I see the suborbital market as a potential 'gateway drug' leading to the growth of the low cost orbital market.

[Moe Grills]

Anyone have any ideas on the subject?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23010.0

Zubrin's transorbital railroad idea might tie in nicely.

Has Zubrin sent anything into space in the last 30 years?

[go4mars]

Has Zubrin sent anything into space in the last 30 years?

Relevance?

[Blackjax]

Has Zubrin sent anything into space in the last 30 years?

Relevance?

I do think that Zubrins plans are offtopic for this thread since the whole thesis here is about how we grow the launch market without relying on large top down projects.

[DarkenedOne]

Some people claim that supply creates its own demand. I don't think that's always true, but I hope it is for launch vehicles.

No supply does not create demand, but supply enables consumption.  There are many applications for spaceflight that remain currently unfeasible due to the costs of launch vehicles and other associated expenses. 

[Blackjax]

There are many applications for spaceflight that remain currently unfeasible due to the costs of launch vehicles and other associated expenses. 

Exactly.  Because the launch is expensive, the payloads are engineered for very high reliability and long life.  This makes the payload expensive.  If the payload is expensive, then the insurance will be expensive.  If the total package (launch/payload/insurance) is expensive, then the number of players in the market is extremely limited, the barriers to entry to new players are extremely high, and the market is inelastic.

[gbaikie]

"What I wonder is whether there is a way for launch companies (or others) to significantly grow the payload market without requiring any grand schemes or the raising of massive amounts of money by a single entity?  A grass roots bottom up growth focused on small low cost payloads. "

I would think the best way is getting prices for various launches available for everyone. People need to know what is available: when and how much.
And knowing whatever requirements are needed related to potential payload and what is nature of services- what is gee loading, how reliable is launch, and whatever.
Even free launch, isn't necessarily the best price, due to other factors- uncertainty of time of launch, chance of successful launch, whatever restrains of the payload, and other things.

[Blackjax]

"What I wonder is whether there is a way for launch companies (or others) to significantly grow the payload market without requiring any grand schemes or the raising of massive amounts of money by a single entity?  A grass roots bottom up growth focused on small low cost payloads. "

I would think the best way is getting prices for various launches available for everyone. People need to know what is available: when and how much.
And knowing whatever requirements are needed related to potential payload and what is nature of services- what is gee loading, how reliable is launch, and whatever.
Even free launch, isn't necessarily the best price, due to other factors- uncertainty of time of launch, chance of successful launch, whatever restrains of the payload, and other things.

That is a good idea, a one stop shopping location for people seeking to launch a payload.  Launch companies could list their available upcoming payload slots along with the characteristics of the flight and specific capabilities they have to offer.  You could shop based on the timeframe of the launch and the specific needs of your payload (as well as perhaps the cost as well).  Since I'd anticipate launch companies might be leery of directly posting prices, you might also use more of a blind bidding model that works in reverse to be used where a launch is not being offered for free.  Projects searching for a launch provider could post their payload description and launch needs and launch companies could contact them to bid.

[Jim]

Secondary payloads take more effort to integrate than prime payloads.

Also, there isnt that much availability for Nanosatellites -> Microsatellites -> Minisatellites as secondaries.

The only way they are going to get rides is like THEMIS or ST-5.  Dedicated launches.

[gbaikie]

"What I wonder is whether there is a way for launch companies (or others) to significantly grow the payload market without requiring any grand schemes or the raising of massive amounts of money by a single entity?  A grass roots bottom up growth focused on small low cost payloads. "

I would think the best way is getting prices for various launches available for everyone. People need to know what is available: when and how much.
And knowing whatever requirements are needed related to potential payload and what is nature of services- what is gee loading, how reliable is launch, and whatever.
Even free launch, isn't necessarily the best price, due to other factors- uncertainty of time of launch, chance of successful launch, whatever restrains of the payload, and other things.

That is a good idea, a one stop shopping location for people seeking to launch a payload.  Launch companies could list their available upcoming payload slots along with the characteristics of the flight and specific capabilities they have to offer.  You could shop based on the timeframe of the launch and the specific needs of your payload (as well as perhaps the cost as well).  Since I'd anticipate launch companies might be leery of directly posting prices, you might also use more of a blind bidding model that works in reverse to be used where a launch is not being offered for free.  Projects searching for a launch provider could post their payload description and launch needs and launch companies could contact them to bid.

The business would provides service to launch providers. To provide such service, that business, must be trustworthy and have access to customers for launch providers.
This requires lots work and is not easy. In other words, free enterprise.
You have the chicken and egg problem of how to get it started. One way is start small and build up, other way is associate with existing name.
You already have companies sort of similar doing this, such as Space Adventure:
http://www.spaceadventures.com/
One could work with them, or somehow be connected in some way, or be a competitor.

[Blackjax]

Secondary payloads take more effort to integrate than prime payloads.

Also, there isnt that much availability for Nanosatellites -> Microsatellites -> Minisatellites as secondaries.

The only way they are going to get rides is like THEMIS or ST-5.  Dedicated launches.

Glad to see you weighing in on this.  What do you think of the idea I mentioned earlier:

Developing a large common bus designed to provide common services like power, stationkeeping, and communications to a very large number of small payloads.  This would cater to payloads that are fairly insensitive to a specific orbit and really just need to be somewhere in microgravity for extended periods.

Payload integration by the launch vendor would only need to be done for one larger craft that all the smaller payloads were designed to socket into based on a common standard interface design.  Kinda like Nanoracks.

It could be sized to be a primary payload itself for a specific vehicle or be a modular design that allowed it to smoothly grow along a curve so the same basic idea could be scaled to fit whatever payload space was available.

[Jim]

1.  Developing a large common bus designed to provide common services like power, stationkeeping, and communications to a very large number of small payloads.  This would cater to payloads that are fairly insensitive to a specific orbit and really just need to be somewhere in microgravity for extended periods.

2.  Donating small amounts of payload capacity to companies & universities who presently don't have space oriented research programs in return for them developing some.  Try to draw in people who presently aren't part of the market.

Been done many times over.

Current effort at this
http://rsdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/catalog.html

2.  NASA already did and does this.

[edkyle99]

Historically the problem has been twofold, first is that the launchers themselves were not optimized for high volume and low cost.  Second is the issue of where you'd come up with the high volume of payloads ...

For starters I will point out that launch vehicle production capacity ("high volume") has never been a problem.  Just look back to the 1960s, when Thor, Atlas, and Titan combined to perform almost one orbital launch every week.  During its peak year, Thor nearly pulled off that feat all by itself!  (The USSR nearly doubled the U.S. numbers during the early 1980s.)  This could happen again if needed.

The "high volume" payload back then was Agena with a wide variety of "spysat" payloads.  Agena still retains the mark as the "most flown" upper stage in U.S. history.  But the film return payloads went away with the development of CCDs, and they're not coming back.

So, what "high volume" payload can I imagine?  Space junk mitigation!  Space junk is increasing, even if no more satellite launches were to take place.  Removing that junk is going to be a long, hard job.  It could involve thousands of launches.

 - Ed Kyle

[Jim]

That is a good idea, a one stop shopping location for people seeking to launch a payload.  Launch companies could list their available upcoming payload slots along with the characteristics of the flight and specific capabilities they have to offer.  You could shop based on the timeframe of the launch and the specific needs of your payload (as well as perhaps the cost as well).  Since I'd anticipate launch companies might be leery of directly posting prices, you might also use more of a blind bidding model that works in reverse to be used where a launch is not being offered for free.  Projects searching for a launch provider could post their payload description and launch needs and launch companies could contact them to bid.

a commercial broker isn't going to since it would need have access to data from each competing launch service provider.

NASA has a pseudo broker for itself in LSP

[go4mars]

I do think that Zubrins plans are offtopic for this thread since the whole thesis here is about how we grow the launch market without relying on large top down projects.

Then how about this one?  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25981.0  Or does that qualify as well? 

[Robotbeat]

...

The "high volume" payload back then was Agena with a wide variety of "spysat" payloads.  Agena still retains the mark as the "most flown" upper stage in U.S. history.  The film return payloads went away with the development of CCDs, and they're not coming back.

Yup. High launch rates are a casualty of technological progress.

So, what "high volume" payload can I imagine?  Space junk mitigation!  Space junk is increasing, even if no more satellite launches were to take place.  Removing that junk is going to be a long, hard job.  It could involve thousands of launches.

 - Ed Kyle

Everyone is always looking for a "killer app" that needs lots of launches. I don't think you've found it, yet. Unless, of course, there's a war which destroys a good portion of the satellites already in orbit. Not exactly a rosy scenario, though.

Still looking for that killer app.

[edkyle99]

So, what "high volume" payload can I imagine?  Space junk mitigation!  Space junk is increasing, even if no more satellite launches were to take place.  Removing that junk is going to be a long, hard job.  It could involve thousands of launches.

 - Ed Kyle

Everyone is always looking for a "killer app" that needs lots of launches. I don't think you've found it, yet. Unless, of course, there's a war which destroys a good portion of the satellites already in orbit. Not exactly a rosy scenario, though.

Still looking for that killer app.

A couple of years ago, NASA's reported the following.

"Approximately 19,000 objects larger than 10 cm are known to exist. The estimated population of particles between 1 and 10 cm in diameter is approximately 500,000. The number of particles smaller than 1 cm probably exceeds tens of millions."

It might take more cleanup launches than it took original launches to remove this stuff.  That's more than 5,000 launches!  That's more than two per week for 50 years!  Sounds killer to me.

 - Ed Kyle

[spacejulien]

"Approximately 19,000 objects larger than 10 cm are known to exist. The estimated population of particles between 1 and 10 cm in diameter is approximately 500,000. The number of particles smaller than 1 cm probably exceeds tens of millions."

It might take more cleanup launches than it took original launches to remove this stuff.  That's more than 5,000 launches!  That's more than two per week for 50 years!  Sounds killer to me.

 - Ed Kyle

This is really a very good example of the worst killer-app at all and thus very educative:

First of all, 5000 Launches in 50 years is mere 100 a year. Currently, about 60 to 70 orbital rockets are launched per year. So increasing launch rate by two point five is not really a killer-app.

Second, the space-cleaning-maids (images from "spaceballs" come to mind) launched would be highly complex spacecraft themself. Their cost would be prohibitive, much more than the launchers needed. Thus this would be a massive investment in spacecraft and mission operations and in relation the cost of the launch is - well - rather unimportant. So this wouldn't exert the needed pressure on launch costs.

I think the best killer-app is the ISS and successors (both, gov and com) in terms of their resupply, lots of launches with rather low-cost payloads (food, water, propellant).

[savuporo]

So how to foster the low end of the market? 

Like this.

Launch slabs of concrete until an application shows up. If it does not in a few years ( and better have the funding to keep launching daily for a few years ) it was a dead cause.

I'll just put a fair use quote right here too

Now suppose the rockets do start showing up one a day, and departing on schedule with a success rate that makes the supplier's profit margin juicy enough to fund further R&D, but the payloads don't appear. The Agency rapidly becomes the butt of every stand-up comic and a motion is introduced in the Legislature to re-name it the “Orbital Ready-Mix Delivery Agency”. Well, if that's how it plays out, I guess we all ought to pack up and go home then, shouldn't we? Because that would demonstrate, in a real-world test, that there really aren't very many useful things to do in space, after all.

Q.E.D.

[edkyle99]

"Approximately 19,000 objects larger than 10 cm are known to exist. The estimated population of particles between 1 and 10 cm in diameter is approximately 500,000. The number of particles smaller than 1 cm probably exceeds tens of millions."

It might take more cleanup launches than it took original launches to remove this stuff.  That's more than 5,000 launches!  That's more than two per week for 50 years!  Sounds killer to me.

 - Ed Kyle

This is really a very good example of the worst killer-app at all and thus very educative:

First of all, 5000 Launches in 50 years is mere 100 a year. Currently, about 60 to 70 orbital rockets are launched per year. So increasing launch rate by two point five is not really a killer-app.

Second, the space-cleaning-maids (images from "spaceballs" come to mind) launched would be highly complex spacecraft themself. Their cost would be prohibitive, much more than the launchers needed. Thus this would be a massive investment in spacecraft and mission operations and in relation the cost of the launch is - well - rather unimportant. So this wouldn't exert the needed pressure on launch costs.

I think the best killer-app is the ISS and successors (both, gov and com) in terms of their resupply, lots of launches with rather low-cost payloads (food, water, propellant).

ISS only needs one launch per month, give or take.  How is that more "killer" than two launches per week?

I view space junk cleanup as essential and inevitable.  Yes, it will have high costs, but so does the EPA Superfund effort, which has spent many billions of dollars steadily over several decades.  Something similar, except on a world-wide funding basis, could be set up for space debris cleanup.

If no action is taken, orbital debris will begin to limit future missions, manned and unmanned.  The cost of not being able to use space will be higher than doing a cleanup.

 - Ed Kyle

[Blackjax]

So, what "high volume" payload can I imagine?  Space junk mitigation!  Space junk is increasing, even if no more satellite launches were to take place.  Removing that junk is going to be a long, hard job.  It could involve thousands of launches.

 - Ed Kyle

Everyone is always looking for a "killer app" that needs lots of launches. I don't think you've found it, yet. Unless, of course, there's a war which destroys a good portion of the satellites already in orbit. Not exactly a rosy scenario, though.

Still looking for that killer app.

I agree, I don't see much hope for a silver bullet which solves all the problems.  The flaw in most plans that are debated here is where does the money come from?  It is all well and good talk about Zubrins plans, or big exploration projects you'd like SpaceX to spend money on, or NASA programs that would 'thousands of launches' but is anything like any of those really gonna get funding?  If it gets funding will it be consistently funded over the length of time needed to achieve its goals? 

A sustainable industry doesn't rely on a single killer app funded by massive doses of money which nobody is likely to pony up, it will happen by ramping up on a variety of fronts.  A miracle giant project might fall in our laps and gift us with a vibrant industry, but I don't think we should be banking on it and in the meantime look for ways to bootstrap in more mundane and modest ways.

NASA might get funding for a debris mitigation project, and that might contribute some payloads to the launch market, but it is pretty likely to be a modest project with a handful of payloads not one with thousands.

SpaceX might invest in things which help grow their market but I don't think it would involve large volumes of launches on their own dime NASA style, it'd be small investments and/or things they can get things like tax deductions for.

Zubrins plans?  Not even gonna go there.

So again, the question is how can you grow the market based on approaches which don't require epic amounts of money with no obvious likely source?

[Blackjax]

So how to foster the low end of the market? 

Like this.

Launch slabs of concrete until an application shows up. If it does not in a few years ( and better have the funding to keep launching daily for a few years ) it was a dead cause.

Where do you think the funding would come from for this?  If you don't have a plan that includes a reasonably achievable way to obtain funding, then you don't have a plan at all, you have the beginning of a science fiction story.

[savuporo]

Where do you think the funding would come from for this?

A measly $500M - $1B a year to open up launch market ? I know a few certain boondoggles that i would take it from in a heartbeat, but yeah it's not my money.

Where would the funding come for any of the stuff in this thread by the way ?

[Blackjax]

Where do you think the funding would come from for this?

A measly $500M - $1B a year to open up launch market ? I know a few certain boondoggles that i would take it from in a heartbeat, but yeah it's not my money.

Where would the funding come for any of the stuff in this thread by the way ?

Here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28037.msg861964#msg861964

[baldusi]

You seem to forget that the payload guy are investing heavily on the technologies for making "fewer" launches. We are seeing satellites with hundreds of transponders and Gbps of bandwidth. The orbital slots are basically all taken. There's a glut of commercial imagery. And let's not forget that fiber optics and wireless technologies also compete. So basically you have a lot of effort on making less launches.
And it's not because the launch cost is high. Is because a mission life cost and risk is huge. So it gos to a single huge and expensive launch.

[gbaikie]

So, what "high volume" payload can I imagine?  Space junk mitigation!  Space junk is increasing, even if no more satellite launches were to take place.  Removing that junk is going to be a long, hard job.  It could involve thousands of launches.

 - Ed Kyle

Everyone is always looking for a "killer app" that needs lots of launches. I don't think you've found it, yet. Unless, of course, there's a war which destroys a good portion of the satellites already in orbit. Not exactly a rosy scenario, though.

Still looking for that killer app.

I agree, I don't see much hope for a silver bullet which solves all the problems.  The flaw in most plans that are debated here is where does the money come from?  It is all well and good talk about Zubrins plans, or big exploration projects you'd like SpaceX to spend money on, or NASA programs that would 'thousands of launches' but is anything like any of those really gonna get funding?  If it gets funding will it be consistently funded over the length of time needed to achieve its goals? 

A sustainable industry doesn't rely on a single killer app funded by massive doses of money which nobody is likely to pony up, it will happen by ramping up on a variety of fronts.  A miracle giant project might fall in our laps and gift us with a vibrant industry, but I don't think we should be banking on it and in the meantime look for ways to bootstrap in more mundane and modest ways.

NASA might get funding for a debris mitigation project, and that might contribute some payloads to the launch market, but it is pretty likely to be a modest project with a handful of payloads not one with thousands.

SpaceX might invest in things which help grow their market but I don't think it would involve large volumes of launches on their own dime NASA style, it'd be small investments and/or things they can get things like tax deductions for.

Zubrins plans?  Not even gonna go there.

So again, the question is how can you grow the market based on approaches which don't require epic amounts of money with no obvious likely source?

I think idea in top post is fine, but it's not going to just happen, though in sense it's already happening in some respects. Someone has to make easy for potential payload to find launch providers. An improvement could simply be a website- though perhaps already dozen of them somewhere. I don't Know off top my head where to look. Hmm.
I guess start with "Amateur satellites":
http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/index.php

As for killer app. I think there two of them.
Suborbital and depots- a market of rocket fuel in space.

As for something "new", I think something like zero stage launch.
This is broad area: It's motherships. It's reusable "first stages". It's spaceports, and spaceports that add velocity to rocket.
What it does is get rockets/spacecraft to environment of space.
So get something to somewhere 100,000' and say velocity of 1 km/sec.
So it has to have low cost. It has some standard way for rocket or whatever to connect to it.
It could be that getting to 100,000 is all that wanted- for example- sky diving. It's a different way to sky dive- which more exciting. But main thing it's doing part of getting into orbit and/or suborbital. And rockets brought to that environment can be operating in vacuum.

Say focus on sky divers, and you giving them something they can't easily get- 100,000'. You want it safe. You want it fun. And where it's done could be important. You make at least seem "green" [environmental friendly]. And cheap.
What is cheap? Somewhere around hundreds of dollars to tens of thousand of dollars?
Number of "seats" could say 4 to say 2 dozen. How much market is there for big group dives.
100,000' looks exactly like space- so it's accurate to call it space diving.
Can the cost be somewhere around $10 per lb- can be less??
Is there any need for a pilot?
"How many people skydive a year?
Answer
About 350,000 people complete more than 3 million jumps in a typical year. The big question is always, "How dangerous is skydiving?" Each year, about 30 people die in parachuting accidents in the United States alone.


The number of jumps each person does in a year varies a lot. To give a few examples:

    A university student learning to skydive - 30 to 40 jumps a year
    A full time skydiving instructor and cameraman - 700 to 800 jumps a year
    A 4way formation skydiving competitor with a decent budget - 125 to 200 jumps a year. This also includes significant time in a wind tunnel which is a skydiving simulator.
    A summer boogie jumper who jumps at the weekends, does not compete, but attends events - 200 jumps a year.
http://wiki.answers.com

Seems like a lot people. Could grow the market, could get 10% of the market?
Where is a good location?

[Blackjax]

You seem to forget that the payload guy are investing heavily on the technologies for making "fewer" launches. We are seeing satellites with hundreds of transponders and Gbps of bandwidth. The orbital slots are basically all taken. There's a glut of commercial imagery. And let's not forget that fiber optics and wireless technologies also compete. So basically you have a lot of effort on making less launches.
And it's not because the launch cost is high. Is because a mission life cost and risk is huge. So it gos to a single huge and expensive launch.

I can't speak for others on this thread but I wasn't really speaking to the comsat and imaging markets, I was really talking about the payloads defined as "Science and Engineering" on page 63 of this report:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/2011%20Forecast%20Report.pdf

[Blackjax]

Another potential market that might be opened is in astronomy.  On a recent Space Show episode there was a brief discusion of swarm based telescopes and how they might be used in place of giant death star telescopes like Hubble or JWST.  Apparently there are certain niches where swarms might be even more capable than the large telescopes.  At the very least there should be plenty of cases where they are competitive with the ones that many ground based observatories buy and install.  A quick search yielded a paper on the subject:

http://doc.utwente.nl/75268/

Perhaps a standard design for a low cost telescope intended to function in a swarm could be developed.  Since you'd be using larger numbers of smaller craft you'd be able to do production runs which could take advantage of the cost benefits of economies of scale. 

This would probably require refining some techniques for working with swarms where the capabilities of each member of the swarm is pretty limited, but this kind of work is already underway.

http://www.ae.illinois.edu/news/article.html?id=1330

http://dst.jpl.nasa.gov/control/team.htm

Universities and observatories already either lease government space assets or build their own ground based stuff.  If the price could be brought down to a reasonable point perhaps they'd also lease private space assets or build their own space based stuff.

[Blackjax]

This looks interesting...

http://www.stevens.edu/news/content/godin-receives-award-research-new-propulsion-method-low-cost-microsatellites

...a 1cm square thruster that includes a layer of solid state sodium azide. When a picosatellite needs to make a position adjustment while in orbit, a circuit underneath the sodium azide will heat to 275°C, at which point the chemical releases a burst of nitrogen gas enough to execute a maneuver. By covering a picosatellite with these simple thrusters, the satellite can make numerous controlled position adjustments throughout its lifecycle.

 Miniaturized satellites are a trending topic for university and independent researchers finally able to reach outer space without reaching into incredibly deep pockets. Incorporating the latest developments in micro-circuitry, revolutionary propellants, and even off-the-shelf consumer electronics, these devices can be fabricated and launched for a fraction of the cost of a traditional satellite.

[Blackjax]

I just got done reading this:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/02/20/video-gen-shelton-of-air-force-space-command-at-faa-conference/

"Because it’s so expensive to launch, we want the satellites to live very long, so by the time you reach end of life of the satellite on orbit, your sensor and computing technology can be anywhere from 20-30 years old. And with Moore’s law operating on computing technology, that’s a good 15 to 20 generations out of date.  Cheaper launch would open up design trades that could allow more frequent tech refresh on orbit, which would create demand for more launches…you see the circle here. This is a cycle we could take advantage of."

Seems like the military could be open to the idea of shifting to a low cost high volume model if the launches were available.  The point he make might well hold true on the commercial side too.  More frequent tech refreshes of satellite constellations would mean more services that could be offered on the market to consumers.

[Jim]

.  More frequent tech refreshes of satellite constellations would mean more services that could be offered on the market to consumers.

What services?  Relaying data is the only service that is out there that is commercially viable. 

[JohnFornaro]

The ideas I put forward ... still require money in order to happen.  So where does the funding come from?  Well the benefit of a grassroots effort ... is that it does not require a single group to sell a single vision in order to achieve a huge do or die funding level.  It is about generating a huge number of small efforts ... overall generating an aggregate demand for goods and services.  So where do lots of small amounts of funding come from?  Well, there are the traditional sources ...  Fortunately there are a host of new ways to get funding for small projects:

First, I'm a little sour on the idea of grassroots movements at the moment, frankly because I think a manned lunar base is the key to expanding human presence in the solar system; therefore it should be attempted first.  Unfortunately, around this forum, it is an idea whose time will not come.  But on another thread, an entity intending to mine Shackleton crater for ice and propellant is apparently following a crowd source funding paradigm.

At first, I poo-poo'ed the idea, since the amounts needed are so large, and the amounts gotten are so small, but then I started thinking:  In a way the first Obama campaign raised a huge amount of dollars with esactly that sort of grass roots effort.  Now he was selling sizzle, not steaks, really, and that is where the analogy falls apart somewhat.  In addition, Mr. Obama had plenty of traditional funding from bundlers and all, analogous to getting an angel investor for the small company.  The bundlers made possible the large concerted grass roots funding effort.  So there's that.

Has Zubrin sent anything into space in the last 30 years?

Have you? 

These kinds of rhetorical putdowns annoy me, since nobody was ever born having already put something into space.  At some point in one's life, one gets the experience, funding, and all, which is necessary to
actually put something in space.  For example, has Paul Allen put anything in space over the last 30 years?  No.  Well what's he got that Zubrin doesn't, besides money?  So is he better than Zubrin on money alone?  Are his ideas any good?  Sheesh.  Think before posting.

Still looking for that killer app.

I think a lunar base would be that killer app.  Unlike data relay sat constellations, it is something for people to do.

Launch slabs of concrete until an application shows up.

I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but, well, I uhhh... can't really support that particular mission paradigm.

[Blackjax]

.  More frequent tech refreshes of satellite constellations would mean more services that could be offered on the market to consumers.

What services?  Relaying data is the only service that is out there that is commercially viable. 

That's true if you choose to broadly define 'data relay' and lump a lot of things that appear to end customers as very different services under it. 

Nonetheless it does not invalidate the point I was making.  The types of data relayed and the services that data support manifests in a lot of different markets, each of which might benefit some of the providers in those markets if they could enhance the portfolio of services they offer.  A quick search turned up several examples pretty easily:

http://www.satimagingcorp.com/services.html
http://www.siriusxm.com/
http://www.dish.com/
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/index.jsp
http://www.findmespot.com/en/
http://www.mtnsat.com/

If there was a complete list of everyone making use of 'data relay' capabilities out there, would there be a significant subset of them who would expand in some direction they see a market in if there were the ability to get satellites up there to support it for a reasonable price?  I think it is at least plausible. 

[Jim]

.  More frequent tech refreshes of satellite constellations would mean more services that could be offered on the market to consumers.

What services?  Relaying data is the only service that is out there that is commercially viable. 

That's true if you choose to broadly define 'data relay' and lump a lot of things that appear to end customers as very different services under it. 

Nonetheless it does not invalidate the point I was making.  The types of data relayed and the services that data support manifests in a lot of different markets, each of which might benefit some of the providers in those markets if they could enhance the portfolio of services they offer.  A quick search turned up several examples pretty easily:

http://www.satimagingcorp.com/services.html
http://www.siriusxm.com/
http://www.dish.com/
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/index.jsp
http://www.findmespot.com/en/
http://www.mtnsat.com/

If there was a complete list of everyone making use of 'data relay' capabilities out there, would there be a significant subset of them who would expand in some direction they see a market in if there were the ability to get satellites up there to support it for a reasonable price?  I think it is at least plausible. 

The long pole isn't the spacecraft, it is the ground system.  Spacecraft can be launched in a few years.  Setting up a ground system and getting it distributed takes much longer.  Same goes for changes to the ground system.

[Blackjax]

The ideas I put forward ... still require money in order to happen.  So where does the funding come from?  Well the benefit of a grassroots effort ... is that it does not require a single group to sell a single vision in order to achieve a huge do or die funding level.  It is about generating a huge number of small efforts ... overall generating an aggregate demand for goods and services.  So where do lots of small amounts of funding come from?  Well, there are the traditional sources ...  Fortunately there are a host of new ways to get funding for small projects:

First, I'm a little sour on the idea of grassroots movements at the moment, frankly because I think a manned lunar base is the key to expanding human presence in the solar system; therefore it should be attempted first.  Unfortunately, around this forum, it is an idea whose time will not come.  But on another thread, an entity intending to mine Shackleton crater for ice and propellant is apparently following a crowd source funding paradigm.

At first, I poo-poo'ed the idea, since the amounts needed are so large, and the amounts gotten are so small...

I agree with you that people are not likely to get grassroots funding for big projects that would take tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.  Grassroots funding is more for small stuff on the order of thousands to tens of thousands, but I think at lot can be done with that amount if you come at it from the extreme low end.

That being said, crowd sourcing does at times raise suprisng amounts of money:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/66710809/double-fine-adventure
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hop/elevation-dock-the-best-dock-for-iphone
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1104350651/tiktok-lunatik-multi-touch-watch-kits

I really wish a lot of the aerospace talent we have out there who got all the press about being laid off over the past year would follow Altius example and form startups around innovative ideas.  There is money out there to get things kickstarted, they just need to realize that not all jobs require someone else to hire you.  We hear about a lot of innovative NASA projects that never got funded or were cancelled, surely some of these people could take those and run with variants of them.

[Jim]

I really wish a lot of the aerospace talent we have out there who got all the press about being laid off over the past year

most were operations types and not design and development.   Been hearing through the grapevine that they are having trouble getting jobs with the startups because projects are in development and the former workers don't have design experience.

[Blackjax]

That's true if you choose to broadly define 'data relay' and lump a lot of things that appear to end customers as very different services under it. 

Nonetheless it does not invalidate the point I was making.  The types of data relayed and the services that data support manifests in a lot of different markets, each of which might benefit some of the providers in those markets if they could enhance the portfolio of services they offer.  A quick search turned up several examples pretty easily:

http://www.satimagingcorp.com/services.html
http://www.siriusxm.com/
http://www.dish.com/
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/index.jsp
http://www.findmespot.com/en/
http://www.mtnsat.com/

If there was a complete list of everyone making use of 'data relay' capabilities out there, would there be a significant subset of them who would expand in some direction they see a market in if there were the ability to get satellites up there to support it for a reasonable price?  I think it is at least plausible. 

The long pole isn't the spacecraft, it is the ground system.  Spacecraft can be launched in a few years.  Setting up a ground system and getting it distributed takes much longer.  Same goes for changes to the ground system.

Could you outline more clearly what you mean by 'ground systems'.  I suspect I know but I want to be sure.  If it is what I suspect then I'd say the timeframes for change would vary widely depending on the market in question and the model for rolling new capabilities into some markets may be as straightforward as a new product line being sold on the market alongside existing products.

Unless I am missing something (entirely possible) I doubt there is a single long pole which applies across all markets.

[Blackjax]

I really wish a lot of the aerospace talent we have out there who got all the press about being laid off over the past year

most were operations types and not design and development.   Been hearing through the grapevine that they are having trouble getting jobs with the startups because projects are in development and the former workers don't have design experience.

Interestingly it is not 100% necessary to have in house design and development to bootstrap a company.  Sometimes all it takes is to have a very clear understanding of the market need & requirements such that you can provide clear guidance to that talent.  A service like this:

https://www.innocentive.com/

Is one route to getting a technical implementation approach that is at least good enough to start shopping around to prospective customers or investors.  I think some operations people could have a lot to offer in that their real world experience might give them insight into product needs somewhere in the aerospace ecosystem that others without that experience would not even realize existed.

[Jim]

I think some operations people could have a lot to offer in that their real world experience might give them insight into product needs somewhere in the aerospace ecosystem that others without that experience would not even realize existed.

Not when you only attached tiles or assembled SRB's.  There is a vast difference in launch operations and space applications.

There is a big difference in the crews that deal with launch vehicles vs those that deal with spacecraft.

[Robotbeat]

.  More frequent tech refreshes of satellite constellations would mean more services that could be offered on the market to consumers.

What services?  Relaying data is the only service that is out there that is commercially viable. 

True for the purposes of our discussion (significantly increasing the size of the launch market), but not true in general (satellite imagery... GeoEye and DigitalGlobe and RapidEye each have a small fleet in LEO).

[sdsds]

Building a business around a satellite constellation can be challenging <cough>Iridium<cough>, but I personally expect the telecom industry to make another attempt at it sometime in the next two decades, probably using hybrid networks that combine both satellite and terrestrial infrastructures.  Rather than only 66 (or 77 in the original Iridium design) satellites, if the constellation is placed in very low orbit it will need many more, and they will need to be replenished more frequently.  I think the service this would provide (seamless high speed data anywhere on the globe) is the only application where end-user demand could possibly lead to the high launch rates that would enable low launch prices.

[JohnFornaro]

.  More frequent tech refreshes of satellite constellations would mean more services that could be offered on the market to consumers.

What services?  Relaying data is the only service that is out there that is commercially viable. 

That's true if you choose to broadly define 'data relay' and lump a lot of things that appear to end customers as very different services under it. 

I have to disagree with BlackJax here.  These "services".  They involve a "content" creator on the "ground", who beams up his content to the constellation of sats; which then beam down the content to the "consumer" who is also on the ground.

What it is, and only what it is, is data relay.  Marketing bling would suggest that you're learning about Pocahontas, or learning about how to enhance your ItOuch experience, or sharing inane photos with everyone on the blogoshpere, or any number of other things.

It is only data relay.  Data relayed from the ground to the sat and back to a different place on the ground.

Building a business around a satellite constellation can be challenging <cough>Iridium<cough>...

<cough>LiteSquared<cough.  Problems with interfering with other "services". <cough>RIMM<cough>  Problems with the "ground systems".

Not saying anything negative about crowd sourced funding tho.  Just pointing out some things about data relay.

Backing up to the OP.  Reducing launch costs seems to be the only thing that would help; this I'd say, would come from private enterprises.  But if there is no MISSION (<cough>lunar base<cough>) that the goveernment can fund thru incubation without interruption, it will prove to be harder for private enterprise to get launch costs down to where the tourist market could start opening up, for starters.

[Blackjax]

That's true if you choose to broadly define 'data relay' and lump a lot of things that appear to end customers as very different services under it. 

I have to disagree with BlackJax here.  These "services".  They involve a "content" creator on the "ground", who beams up his content to the constellation of sats; which then beam down the content to the "consumer" who is also on the ground.

I think you need to take another look at the first link I posted, in that scenario the content is generated from space.

Backing up to the OP.  Reducing launch costs seems to be the only thing that would help; this I'd say, would come from private enterprises.  But if there is no MISSION (<cough>lunar base<cough>) that the goveernment can fund thru incubation without interruption, it will prove to be harder for private enterprise to get launch costs down to where the tourist market could start opening up, for starters.

It is certainly true that a brisk government demand for launch will contribute towards enabling at least the potential for a downward cost spiral.  That being said, the idea that this demand will come from a single major "MISSION" is off topic for this specific thread.  The thrust here is ways to generate demand specifically in the absence of such a single high profile source, whether that be a major NASA exploration initiative, some Zubrin scheme, space solar power, or some other low-probability-of-being-funded plan. 

The question is, where might be varied, smaller, much less flashy, sources of payloads that could be aggregated into a significant uptick in demand for launches?  Where are the nascent markets that are tiny now and are barely on the radar, but which offer at least the potential for growth?

[JohnFornaro]

I think you need to take another look at the first link I posted, in that scenario the content is generated from space.

That's fine as to the generation of content.  What part of that content, tho, is not data, and is not relayed to the ground?

The question is, where might be varied, smaller, much less flashy, sources of payloads that could be aggregated into a significant uptick in demand for launches?  Where are the nascent markets that are tiny now and are barely on the radar, but which offer at least the potential for growth?

Which is a good question indeed.

[Jim]

The question is, where might be varied, smaller, much less flashy, sources of payloads that could be aggregated into a significant uptick in demand for launches?  Where are the nascent markets that are tiny now and are barely on the radar, but which offer at least the potential for growth?

No, because there is no new content to be generated from space.  Space is a location and not a resource. 

Space tourism is the only nascent market.

[Blackjax]

Building a business around a satellite constellation can be challenging <cough>Iridium<cough>, but I personally expect the telecom industry to make another attempt at it sometime in the next two decades, probably using hybrid networks that combine both satellite and terrestrial infrastructures. 

To return to my theme of nontraditional efforts on the low end of the market, it seems like this group is trying for a new approach to telecom.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16367042
http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/02/hackers-in-space-hackerspace-global-grid-interview/
http://shackspace.de/wiki/doku.php?id=project:hgg

They are targetting GEO rather than the low end of LEO and I don't know if the project will ever go anywhere, but if they do manage to fly they will be launch market consumers throwing business specifically to launchers which emphasize low cost as a primary feature.

[Jim]

Building a business around a satellite constellation can be challenging <cough>Iridium<cough>, but I personally expect the telecom industry to make another attempt at it sometime in the next two decades, probably using hybrid networks that combine both satellite and terrestrial infrastructures. 

To return to my theme of nontraditional efforts on the low end of the market, it seems like this group is trying for a new approach to telecom.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16367042
http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/02/hackers-in-space-hackerspace-global-grid-interview/
http://shackspace.de/wiki/doku.php?id=project:hgg

They are targetting GEO rather than the low end of LEO and I don't know if the project will ever go anywhere, but if they do manage to fly they will be launch market consumers throwing business specifically to launchers which emphasize low cost as a primary feature.

That isn't a new market, just a few more spacecraft to existing market.  The constraining factor will be comm licensing and orbital slots.

[Blackjax]

Building a business around a satellite constellation can be challenging <cough>Iridium<cough>, but I personally expect the telecom industry to make another attempt at it sometime in the next two decades, probably using hybrid networks that combine both satellite and terrestrial infrastructures. 

To return to my theme of nontraditional efforts on the low end of the market, it seems like this group is trying for a new approach to telecom.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16367042
http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/02/hackers-in-space-hackerspace-global-grid-interview/
http://shackspace.de/wiki/doku.php?id=project:hgg

They are targetting GEO rather than the low end of LEO and I don't know if the project will ever go anywhere, but if they do manage to fly they will be launch market consumers throwing business specifically to launchers which emphasize low cost as a primary feature.

That isn't a new market, just a few more spacecraft to existing market.  The constraining factor will be comm licensing and orbital slots.

I didn't claim it was a new market, my point was that it represented a nontraditional entrant into the market.  By a 'nontraditional entrant' what I am trying to highlight is potential consumers of launch services which may have either been completely invisible in surveys which have in the past concluded that the launch market is inelastic, or which were noted but were too unpredictable consider as a significant factor.

I was also trying to highlight that nontraditional entrants at the low end of the market might differ from past and current consumers in the market in that price may be their driving selection criteria with reliability as a secondary concern (a much higher risk tolerance) rather than the reverse (which has been a contributor to the inflexibility of launch prices).

[baldusi]

Blackjack, do you know how to do constrained optimization? The main question is which are the binding constraints. That's the core to any business proposition or technical challenge. You're working under the assumption that the binding constraint is the cost of launch vehicle. And then that the cost of the satellite is the binding constraint.
First, you've got to understand that you have to separate satellite bus (GNC, power system, station keeping, etc) from payload (be a camera, a radio transponder or a retroreflector). Which will take you to the actual demand of services.
I'm pretty sure there's no supply limitation in general. In fact, we might be moving towards a satellite bandwidth over supply situation in a few years. Most of the growth in bandwidth has been payed by military needs. And two things are happening. First, the big operations are stopping (Irak, Afganistan, etc.) And second, the militaries are putting some serious GSO networks up there (look into MUOS, WGS, AEHF). What's more, the cost of the satellites themselves are nothing compared to the actual portable stations that the soldiers use.
So, deploying a new technology would mean developing, certifying and deploying a whole new infrastructure. The same happens for the consumer applications. And once you get into consumer applications you've got to get a license for each country you want to work in. Which most countries have given to the local monopoly (or the president's daughter's company).
Binding constraints. Try to think in those terms. It's the difference between having a description of a person you're looking for vs just "you'll know when you see him".

[Blackjax]

Blackjack, do you know how to do constrained optimization? The main question is which are the binding constraints.

I did a bunch back in college, operations research was one of my more favorite courses.  I haven't done any pure work on it lately but as a software developer and the finance guy for a couple of companies I partly own I have certainly skirted the edges of that kind of thing on numerous occasions. 

You're working under the assumption that the binding constraint is the cost of launch vehicle. And then that the cost of the satellite is the binding constraint.

Actually, I don't think it is the cost of the vehicle, I think it is the cost of the launch (which includes the vehicle but many other things as well).  Launch costs drive the trades made in payload design (including both the bus and what you call the payload below).  The combination of launch costs and payload costs (i.e. the replacement cost of the whole deal) then drives the costs of insurance.

First, you've got to understand that you have to separate satellite bus (GNC, power system, station keeping, etc) from payload (be a camera, a radio transponder or a retroreflector). Which will take you to the actual demand of services.  I'm pretty sure there's no supply limitation in general. In fact, we might be moving towards a satellite bandwidth over supply situation in a few years.

The overall supply is not really what drives the expansion of the sort of markets I am trying to get people to discuss on this thread, it is the supply at price points previously unavailable which matters.

What's more, the cost of the satellites themselves are nothing compared to the actual portable stations that the soldiers use.  So, deploying a new technology would mean developing, certifying and deploying a whole new infrastructure. The same happens for the consumer applications.

One of the reasons I dredged up and posted this earlier:
http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/02/hackers-in-space-hackerspace-global-grid-interview/
Was in response to a similar comment from Jim.  I think you both have a very different picture in your heads from what I have been attempting so unsuccessfully to articulate.  I suspect you are still thinking in terms of major commercial projects and government initiatives involving tens/hundreds of millions of dollars, and a top down control.  What I am thinking of is a lot more like the Maker and Open Hardware movements you see these days.  I could see something akin to the Arduino approach working for low end satellite components and/or busses.  The guys on the powerbase interview I linked above seem to have a similar idea in mind for ground unit technology.  This open approach means that you don't 'upgrade' everyone, you add a new service to what is available and those who want to use it make whatever additions to their capabilities are necessary to access it.  Those who don't, just simply continue to do whatever it is they are doing.  There is no coordinated replacement initiative, it is an additive process.  Think of it like the internet, you don't need the latest browser or plugin, but if you don't have whatever it takes to access a site, you are limited in what you can do.  In the same fashion, the sites themselves can use newer technologies, older technologies, or whatever mix they want.  There is no central planning, just optional standards and a free distributed market.

And once you get into consumer applications you've got to get a license for each country you want to work in. Which most countries have given to the local monopoly (or the president's daughter's company).

The upside of having many many small efforts that are loosely coordinated (if any coordinate with each other at all), is that they can sort out (or fail to) issues like those you cite locally.  There is no large central effort which has to fund something global and lives or dies based on whether it can get it all unsnarled.  The places where things get sorted, an ecosystem will thrive, the places where it doesn't will remain barren.  So long as there are at least *some* places a market for launch services thrives, the goal is accomplished.

[Robotbeat]

The best thing we could do to increase flight rates on the US side is to outlaw CCDs, CMOSs, etc, and force the use of film return...

But seriously, Jim as usual is right. Space needs a new market, and we should all pray that space tourism is good enough to get us beyond the next bend. We should pray for a killer app for space.

Don't think day and night about new rocket designs, think about what can be done to make you really, really rich from space because that's really the only way to attract a lot of private capital.

[Warren Platts]

The best thing we could do to increase flight rates on the US side is to outlaw CCDs, CMOSs, etc, and force the use of film return...

But seriously, Jim as usual is right. Space needs a new market, and we should all pray that space tourism is good enough to get us beyond the next bend. We should pray for a killer app for space.

Don't think day and night about new rocket designs, think about what can be done to make you really, really rich from space because that's really the only way to attract a lot of private capital.

Jim is right?!? "[T]here is no new content to be generated from space.  Space is a location and not a resource. Space tourism is the only nascent market."

It's guys like you and Jim who lobby against and pooh-pooh any talk of a major push by NASA to develop space resources (and yeah that means the Moon--not Mars, not empty space) that reinforce the giggle factor among the ignorant and thus help to ensure that there never are any resources from space. A self-fulfilling prophecy that's self-defeating.

You don't even believe what you say about getting really, really rich. Watch this:

"Private industry could gross $100 billion USD per year mining Lunar gold."

See, you're scoffing at the very idea. And so the "space community" remains as splintered as NASA HQ; meanwhile, the space program becomes fodder for late night TV comedians. Keep up the good work buddy...

[Robotbeat]

...
It's guys like you and Jim that lobby against and pooh pooh any talk of using government resources to research producing space resources that ensures that there never are any resources from space. A self-fulfilling prophecy that's self-defeating. ...

I can only speak for myself, but that's quite wrong. Unless you're trying to monopolize the conversation to talk about your Moon grand plan again.

[Warren Platts]

...
It's guys like you and Jim who lobby against and pooh-pooh any talk of a major push by NASA to develop space resources (and yeah that means the Moon--not Mars, not empty space) that reinforce the giggle factor among the ignorant and thus help to ensure that there never are any resources from space. A self-fulfilling prophecy that's self-defeating.  ...

I can only speak for myself, but that's quite wrong. Unless you're trying to monopolize the conversation to talk about your Moon grand plan again.

You just proved my point....

[Robotbeat]

If private companies can make so much... Why don't you start a business, create a business plan, and get some investors behind you?

[Warren Platts]

Yeah maybe I will!

[Blackjax]

If private companies can make so much... Why don't you start a business, create a business plan, and get some investors behind you?

If that was directed to Warren Platts could I suggest that you guys take the argument over to private messages? 

If it was a more general statement to the thread, I'd chime in that I have actually started considering it as a result of the thread (and I'm hoping others might too).  I'm a software developer and I am thinking one of the ideas earlier in the thread might actually have some potential.  It would effectively be Craigslist for the DIY/Maker/Student/Professor end of the the industry to enable people to connect needs with resources.  It is a big step so I am not sure I'll go for it, but in the next few weeks I might mock something up to get a feel for the complexity of a small starter site.

[Warren Platts]

It would effectively be Craigslist for the DIY/Maker/Student/Professor end of the the industry to enable people to connect needs with resources.  It is a big step so I am not sure I'll go for it, but in the next few weeks I might mock something up to get a feel for the complexity of a small starter site.

A giant leap for a man. One small step for mankind. A killer app it ain't...
_____________________________________

You gotta think about the revenues you really need to be bringing in to make it worth it. The cost for a major space project is going to run billions at the very least. Therefore, you need to be thinking in terms of 10's of billions. Not too many items out there that are worth that much even potentially.

Space tourism? Nope. Single billions at best. Most likely tens to a few hundred million annual gross. Not enough to form a killer app. You'd have to get to orbit for the cost of a Concorde flight to make it BIG. Hard to see how that's going to happen.

Movies and reality TV? Nope: you could hope to gross in the hundreds of millions; maybe a billion or two if you hit a jackpot with an an IMAX blockbuster. Not enough to make a killer app, however.

Lunar rocket propellant a la Bill Stone's Shackleton Energy? Nope: although massive amounts of it would be worth 10's of billions at today's launch costs, and NASA would like to use some of that for Mars missions, neither NASA nor anyone else can afford to pay that much. They simply don't have that kind of cash.

SBSP: Gross revenues are potentially there, but you get eaten up by construction costs.

100,000 unit Full-spectrum Brilliant Pebbles missile defense system: Would have to be a government contract, but it would be worth many 10's of billions and would really ramp up the flight rate. Although Uncle Sam is broke, maybe you could talk the Chinese into one of these. It would be a great way for them to become the world's sole superpower, so they might consider it to be worth it.

Lunar GOLD: I probably shouldn't be mentioning this, but since no one will take me seriously, it's OK to throw this out--at least you'll be able to say you heard about it first at nasaspaceflight.com: my own BOTE calculations suggest there should be significant electrostatic placer deposits in the cold traps, which provides theoretical support for the empirical findings of LCROSS. If the Au concentrations exist anywhere near the LCROSS upper limits of 1.5%, the Moon represents the Mother of all Motherlodes. Potential annual gross revenues of between $10 and $100 billion USD would be realizable without depressing the price of gold too much (you'd want to drive down the price somewhat to drive out Earth-based marginal competitors, and thus pick up more market share). The back and forth that such a gold mining operation would entail would ramp up the flight rate quite a bit.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
Lunar GOLD: I probably shouldn't be mentioning this, but since no one will take me seriously, it's OK to throw this out--at least you'll be able to say you heard about it first at nasaspaceflight.com: my own BOTE calculations suggest there should be significant electrostatic placer deposits in the cold traps, which provides theoretical support for the empirical findings of LCROSS. If the Au concentrations exist anywhere near the LCROSS upper limits of 1.5%, the Moon represents the Mother of all Motherlodes. Potential annual gross revenues of between $10 and $100 billion USD would be realizable without depressing the price of gold too much (you'd want to drive down the price somewhat to drive out Earth-based marginal competitors, and thus pick up more market share). The back and forth that such a gold mining operation would entail would ramp up the flight rate quite a bit.

Making the propellant, thruster and heat shield on the Moon using ISRU materials will probably reduce your mining costs.  Platinum can also be sold.

[Blackjax]

Lunar GOLD: I probably shouldn't be mentioning this, but since no one will take me seriously, it's OK to throw this out

Actually it is not OK, as that sort of thing is offtopic for this specific thread.  As previously mentioned many times earlier in the thread, this is not the appropriate thread to be discussing megaprojects with significant funding challenges.  If you want to discuss a megaproject my suggestion is to start a thread that is appropriate to discussing it.

[baldusi]

You can't use radio spectrum without a license. Bluetooth, Wifi, etc. have licensed spectrums that dispense the need for a formal license to each particular uses as long as the device has capped the power level (and can play nice with others). Every single device sold has to be certified for each country (in the US is the FCC, in Argentina the Comfer, etc.). We usually get the iPhones late because the certification takes so long here.
If the basis to get license exempted spectrum slots is to get low enough power levels, how are you going to get it to orbital height, and how are you going to receive it with a satellite cheap enough that it isn't a good business to launch on a normal launcher?
Even if you went to modulating retroreflectors, you'd have the problem of power, orbital data, etc.
That's what I meant about binding constraints. And I didn't get into orbital slots and spectrum licensing at ITU.
So, you have to find something that's not communications.

[Watchdog]

There are many motifs to return to the moon, and a moon base seems to be the next logical step after ISS is finished now. The international orbital launch rate has recovered from its low and is now increasing from year to year. I expect an annual increase of 5 to 10 launches per year, mostly due to the introduction of newly developed launcher systems.

After the shuttle with its large upload and download capacity has stopped its duty, the amount of payload mass to be transported to the ISS is restricted to consumables and science gear. However, the combined number of launches required by Cygnus and Dragon per year will be more than the 3 to 4 shuttle launches of the past years. Crewed flights will add additional launches after 2016.

Falcon 9 and Antares are supposed to increase the number of launches for customers from various fields, and therefore - by offering more competitive prices - stimulate the space industry. But also a new generation of Chinese launchers (Long March 5, 6 and 7) has the potential to decrease launch costs per kilogramm and increase the world-wide launch rate.

Even Russia with its established space launchers prepares for the transition to the new generation of Angara launchers using kerosene for better environmental compatibility and higher flexibility in launch preparations. India and other emerging economies (e.g. South Korea, Iran) contribute by newly developed national launch systems.

Europe now has contributed Ariane 5ECA, Vega and tropical Soyuz and will help to boost the launch rate of the future further up to 10 launches per month as a first milestone. But all these world-wide efforts to develop cheaper, faster and safer access to space could be driven to a new standard by an almost forgotten technology - a two stage reusable launch system.

According to an article by Charles E. Miller from February 20, the technical prerequisits for such a system responsible for cheap LEO transportation are much better compared to the last two decades of the past millenium (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2030/1). The developement of Spaceship 1 and 2 for suborbital tourist flights and many other enabling technologies which are now available require a new point of view on that matter.

There are two questions about it. Can NASA afford to develop both the Space Launch System AND a reusable two stage LEO transport system in parallel? Although the decision to develop the SLS has already been made one may ask what system has higher priority for the launch community and their potential customers. Maybe the solution is to develop the reusable system sequentially after the SLS is ready to fly and after cheap access to space via e.g. a manned Dragon or any other system has been obtained.

I think that it is common sense among engineers that only with partially or entirely reusable launchers costs/kg could be decreased steadily and may significantly contribute to an ever increasing launch rate over the next two decades.

[Blackjax]

There are many motifs to return to the moon...
I think that it is common sense among engineers that only with partially or entirely reusable launchers costs/kg could be decreased steadily and may significantly contribute to an ever increasing launch rate over the next two decades.

I am missing how that essay relates to the premise of the thread which is:  Assuming low cost high flight rate launch is available, where does increase in the payloads come from?

[Warren Platts]

There are many motifs to return to the moon...
I think that it is common sense among engineers that only with partially or entirely reusable launchers costs/kg could be decreased steadily and may significantly contribute to an ever increasing launch rate over the next two decades.

I am missing how that essay relates to the premise of the thread which is:  Assuming low cost high flight rate launch is available, where does increase in the payloads come from?

Supplying propellant for megaprojects like moon bases?

But unfortunately, even here it's not clear that the light-loads-and-quick-returns paradigm that you apparently favor will be more cost effective than the heavy-loads-few-returns paradigm. Even Skylon has gone to a 15-tonne minimum payload.

Good luck with your quest....

[JohnFornaro]

The question is, where might be ... demand for launches?  Where are the nascent markets that are tiny now and are barely on the radar, but which offer at least the potential for growth?

No, because there is no new content to be generated from space.  Space is a location and not a resource. 

Space tourism is the only nascent market.

I'd say that Jim is absolutely right that space is a location and not a resource.  One could make the truly feeble argument that the vacuum of space could be sealed into little spheres and sold back here on Earth, but that's such a convoluted idea that it can be safely ignored.

Tourism is a business model based entirely on location.  When people go to a location and start mining gold, they are generally not classified as tourists, rather businesses in the mineral resource industry.  When people go to the ISS, they're going for the location, not to acquire a product.

When Jim says that there is "no new content to be generated from space", think of it this way:  Today we have data set #1 from Spirit and Oppy.  Tomorrow we'll have data set #2.  In some sense, data set #2 is "new", but in a fundamental sense, "newness" has no meaning.  Yesterday was a picture of a rock on the left; today a picture of a rock on the right.  It's all bits and bytes transmitted over a network to users on the ground.  Even if the rock on the right is actually a Rosetta stone, complete with hieroglyphics, it's still bits and bytes transmitted over a network.

So for me, your theme of "non-traditional efforts is a bit puzzling.  From a financial side, if it could be scaled up, crowd sourced financing for launches may be less expensive than one of the current methods: government taxation and overhead plus political wrangling eventually leading to a financed launch.  I don't think that your suggestion here will really affect launch costs:

...my point was that it represented a nontraditional entrant into the market.  ... what I am trying to highlight is potential consumers of launch services which may have either been completely invisible ... in the past ...

I was also trying to highlight that nontraditional entrants at the low end of the market might differ from past and current consumers in the market in that price may be their driving selection criteria with reliability as a secondary concern (a much higher risk tolerance) rather than the reverse (which has been a contributor to the inflexibility of launch prices).

There probably could be some new business entities along the lines of what you say, but the only killer app, I think, along these lines would have to have some serious hardware in order to become the next Utoob.  Say, a  fleet of a thousand lunar or Martian rovers that you could rent out to people at a thousand dollars an hour, or something along those lines.  Or maybe a comsat constellation along the lines of Skype could be launched, along with a new doodlebug type cell phone for a dollar a month; but I don't see how it could pay for the installation of itself.

Later, when there's a lunar base, and a ring station hotel, other business models serving the logistics of the scientific, mining and tourist industries could evolve, and maybe crowd sourcing is indeed how those businesses could be financed.

Actually, I don't think it is the cost of the vehicle, I think it is the cost of the launch (which includes the vehicle but many other things as well).  Launch costs drive the trades made in payload design (including both the bus and what you call the payload below).  The combination of launch costs and payload costs (i.e. the replacement cost of the whole deal) then drives the costs of insurance.[/qutoe]

I tend to agree with this, but...

The overall supply is not really what drives the expansion of the sort of markets I am trying to get people to discuss on this thread, it is the supply at price points previously unavailable which matters.

... now you're obligated to put some current and proposed numbers on your thinking.

I'd chime in that I have actually started considering it as a result of the thread (and I'm hoping others might too). 

Now that's interesting.

[baldusi]

Blackjax,
 May be you want first to state to which lower price point you want to study. And there are two metrics that are important. Cost per unit of weight (USD/kg), and total cost of launch (USD).
If you can get a cost of 100 USD/kg but you need to launch a 10,000tonnes, you'd have few clients that can spend 1B per launch. And the development cost of the payload would be prohibitive. On the other hand, 25,000USD for 1kg satellite has a bad cost per weight, but the price point is low enough to be easily affordable even for individuals.
Over which range of costs (for both metrics) are you expecting to find out uses?

[jongoff]

Space tourism is the only nascent market.

While your assertion *might* be right, I think you're overstating your case here. I've seen other potential markets, that if approached right, could very well be viable. Space Tourism looks like it could be a viable orbital market, but I'm interested in making sure we don't put all our eggs in one basket.

~Jon

[Robotbeat]

Space tourism is the only nascent market.

While your assertion *might* be right, I think you're overstating your case here. I've seen other potential markets, that if approached right, could very well be viable. Space Tourism looks like it could be a viable orbital market, but I'm interested in making sure we don't put all our eggs in one basket.

~Jon

Space manufacturing?

[Blackjax]

Space tourism is the only nascent market.

While your assertion *might* be right, I think you're overstating your case here. I've seen other potential markets, that if approached right, could very well be viable. Space Tourism looks like it could be a viable orbital market, but I'm interested in making sure we don't put all our eggs in one basket.

~Jon

Exactly, this is the fundamental core point I've been trying to make.  Perhaps we can get this thread back on track.  With all the tangents and offtopic posts I think the original message is not clear in peoples minds.  I'd encourage people to go back and read this post and
this post.

The whole point of this thread was not necessarily to talk about specific payloads or the business propositions they represent.  It was to solicit ways to make it easier for people to come up with lots or different payloads and business concepts they could try.  Relatively inexpensive ones which would not be held up by a lack of accessible funding.  I don't care what all those payloads are or even whether any given business model they relate to is viable in the end, I just want to see a lot of activity and many things getting tried.  As I pointed out to someone recently, I want to grease the skids on the creation of payloads, I don't care so much what rides along those skids.

What I was hoping people would contribute here was not missions or payloads, it was ideas for the things (components, subsystems, docs & howto information, standards) which could be created to enable those.  What Jon is saying is (IMHO) the same thing I've been trying and apparently failing to say "I'm interested in making sure we don't put all our eggs in one basket."  So how do we create circumstances which foster many baskets?

I'll grant that Jims 100% certainty that he can predict the future may prove to be correct, but unlike Jim the rest of us cannot be 100% certain things will play out as he has predicted.  For us the only way to know is to see that various approaches actually get tried and if any of them works.  I worry that people who have a vast amount of knowledge of the past and present ways the space industry has worked will fall prey to the Innovators Dilemma and be unable to recognize opportunities for disruptive change.  History furnishes a lot of examples of this happening and it is the people who know an industry best who are most susceptible.  An excerpt from the link:

Christensen defines a disruptive innovation as a product or service designed for a new set of customers.

"Generally, disruptive innovations were technologically straightforward, consisting of off-the-shelf components put together in a product architecture that was often simpler than prior approaches. They offered less of what customers in established markets wanted and so could rarely be initially employed there. They offered a different package of attributes valued only in emerging markets remote from, and unimportant to, the mainstream."

Christensen argues that disruptive innovations can hurt successful, well managed companies that are responsive to their customers and have excellent research and development. These companies tend to ignore the markets most susceptible to disruptive innovations, because the markets have very tight profit margins and are too small to provide a good growth rate to an established (sizable) firm.  Thus disruptive technology provides an example of when the common business-world advice to "focus on the customer" ("stay close to the customer", "listen to the customer") can sometimes be strategically counterproductive.

Note the section I bolded.  It's the "off-the-shelf components" part that I am trying to get people to focus on.  Can we define the standards they'd be designed to, crowd fund their designs, facilitate their manufacture, and provide easy to use instructions on how to make use of them to facilitate different types of payloads.  The manufacturing side of things is not a sticking point, there are plenty of ways to get a design manufactured very easily once you've come up with it (or someone else has).  Here are a few but there are plenty more:

Ponoko
Batchpcb
Shapeways

Want to create something you feel is needed, and think it could be crowdfunded but you don't have the skills to do some of the work (i.e. converting a sketch to a CAD model or drawing up a PCB diagram)?  Possibly a call for volunteers might get you the assistance you need, but there is also this route:

elance.com
freelancer.com
guru.com
odesk.com
vworker.com

Got a design problem you can't solve?  Post the problem on Innocentive and see if you can get others to solve it for you.

The model I am talking about above probably won't work for a new satellite constellation or most other in space business concepts based around payloads, but what if you are just working on a single component that makes it easier to build a cubesat?  That is the kind of thing I am talking about.  All the funding and services are out there and reasonably accessible to any of you on this forum such that you could go and do it today if you could define a niche that needs to be filled.  All we need is for people to start considering (and possibly posting) what those niches are. 

So answer this question, if you were building a small satellite or other sort of payload, what are the parts that are common to many payloads of that kind which it would be very helpful for you to be able to buy off the shelf or have fabricated for you on demand by the sorts of services I list above?  What tutorials would you want to have available to teach you the basics of how to create that payload if you were new to doing it?

The point is, how do we make it easier for a university researcher, a student, a hobbiest, a small company, or anyone else who has never created a payload before to make one?

[JohnFornaro]

Space tourism is the only nascent market.

While your assertion *might* be right, I think you're overstating your case here. I've seen other potential markets, that if approached right, could very well be viable. Space Tourism looks like it could be a viable orbital market, but I'm interested in making sure we don't put all our eggs in one basket.

Exactly, this is the fundamental core point I've been trying to make.

I'm not sure what Jon means by "putting all our eggs in one basket", since it's not like the space tourist industry is actually supporting the HSF industry.  Perhaps Egypt is a case where one industry, tourism, is a huge economic driver.  With all the unrest over there, tourism has declined precipitously, and a lot of dollars are not being spent in Egypt.  But Egypt didn't decide to put a large number of its economic eggs in the tourism basket.  The situation sorta evolved over the last hundred years or so.  In a hundred years, space tourism may be a big thing, but I wouldn't worry about the "one basket" problem just yet.

But I put the question to Jon:  What other markets do you see?

The whole point of this thread was not necessarily to talk about specific payloads or the business propositions they represent.  It was to solicit ways to make it easier for people to come up with lots or different payloads and business concepts they could try.

Well, it is the former which interests me.  Ideas are easy to come by, and a lot of people on this forum have any number of ideas on different payloads and biz concepts.  That's not the problem.  The problem is convincing Joe Investor to pony up a few B's.

So I took a look at Ponoko, under electronics.  There's not really anything there that's necessary, that I could tell, after looking thru four pages.

One of the things I need is a clean sheet steam turbine design; low mass, achieved perhaps by polymer or ceramic castings;  labyrinth gland to work in vacuum; mechanism to keep steam dry and supersaturated.

So I took a look at elance.com.  And lo:

https://www.elance.com/r/contractors/q-steam%20turbine%20design/cat-engineering-manufacturing

There's a few designers mentioned. One of them, in Mexico, sounds promising, but his English, per his writing, is so broken that communications would be a road block.  Others on that site don't particularly stand out for me as being useful, which is not a slight on their particular talent.  How could they possibly know what I'm looking for?

So it is promising in principle, as is that "Innocentive" website.  Even so, there's nothing easy, and I have to gage whether it's worth my time looking into a particular solution that I need.

The point is, how do we make it easier for a university researcher, a student, a hobbiest, a small company, or anyone else who has never created a payload before to make one?

This is not a bad question to ask either.  Personally, I have an idea about the payload I want to create.  I also need the EDS to take that payload to its final destination.  I'll be looking at some of the things you posted.

[Jim]

The point is, how do we make it easier for a university researcher, a student, a hobbiest, a small company, or anyone else who has never created a payload before to make one?

There are plenty of sources for that info but what does that have to do with the topic? 

[Robotbeat]

Blackjax:
There's actually a pretty good bunch of off-the-shelf cubesat (and micro/mini sat) parts:
http://www.cubesatshop.com/
http://www.clyde-space.com/cubesat_shop
http://www.cubesatkit.com/

The open-source hardware approach has the best chance getting into the space industry for the cubesat platform, IMHO. Arduino has been flown in space on the Pollux nanosatellite: http://www.arduino.cc/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1236996885
http://eludium.stensat.org.nyud.net/ANDE/Pollux.html

Have to start small. REALLY small:
http://kicksat.wordpress.com/

(successfully raised funding and has been awarded a launch)

(This isn't likely to generate any additional demand, though, at least not for conventional launch vehicles.)

[Blackjax]

The point is, how do we make it easier for a university researcher, a student, a hobbiest, a small company, or anyone else who has never created a payload before to make one?

There are plenty of sources for that info but what does that have to do with the topic? 

Go read my first two posts on the thread, it is the whole point of the topic.  If payloads are much easier and cheaper to make, there will be more.  If there are plenty of sources for that, help out and post them because just because it might be obvious to an industry professional like you, it may not be to the rest of the universe and that is the market that needs to be tapped.

As an aside, cubesats are a great start and as a result I use them as an example, but they are just an example not the end of the story.  As I stated in my original post which started this thread, they likely don't meet every need and the point of the thread is to look at where something isn't in existence to meet a need and see what can be done to supply it.

That being said, if all the hardware that is really needed is already readily available, then perhaps what is needed is more on the "Intro to payload creation" docs & tutorials side.  If that is also being especially well done and couldn't be improved on, then perhaps what is needed is better publicity for the hardware and tutorials to outreach to people who don't know about it yet.  The point is, find what could be improved in the ecosystem and consider how to address it.

[Jim]

If there are plenty of sources for that, help out and post them because just because it might be obvious to an industry professional like you, it may not be to the rest of the universe and that is the market that needs to be tapped.

I would just be doing it like any one else, google it. 

[BeanEstimator]

The question is, where might be varied, smaller, much less flashy, sources of payloads that could be aggregated into a significant uptick in demand for launches?  Where are the nascent markets that are tiny now and are barely on the radar, but which offer at least the potential for growth?

No, because there is no new content to be generated from space.  Space is a location and not a resource. 

Space tourism is the only nascent market.

gonna have to agree with jim on this...

and i could've swore we were all told back in '04 that suborbital tourism was taking off in t-minus a few years...

or you could trace it back to '01 with the first "commercial" trip to station.  "joe blow richguy will be paying for rides into space in no time"

then again, branson readily advertises over 40m in deposits from something like 400+ customers looking for suborbital tourism. but at the same time has delayed since '07...we haven't had a crewed suborbital flight since ansari in '04...and branson is still only barely looking at late this year for a powered flight

which is exactly why is scratch my head at strato et. al.   

[Robotbeat]

The question is, where might be varied, smaller, much less flashy, sources of payloads that could be aggregated into a significant uptick in demand for launches?  Where are the nascent markets that are tiny now and are barely on the radar, but which offer at least the potential for growth?

No, because there is no new content to be generated from space.  Space is a location and not a resource. 

Space tourism is the only nascent market.

gonna have to agree with jim on this...

and i could've swore we were all told back in '04 that suborbital tourism was taking off in t-minus a few years...

or you could trace it back to '01 with the first "commercial" trip to station.  "joe blow richguy will be paying for rides into space in no time"

then again, branson readily advertises over 40m in deposits from something like 400+ customers looking for suborbital tourism. but at the same time has delayed since '07...we haven't had a crewed suborbital flight since ansari in '04...and branson is still only barely looking at late this year for a powered flight

which is exactly why is scratch my head at strato et. al.   

Being late is the name of the game in this business. Better late than never.

Suborbital tourism is pretty important for this whole process to work, IMHO, because it's the only thing that has a chance right now of tapping the middle class of the advanced economies of the world and thus getting a high flight rate for totally and cheaply reusable rocket vehicles, establishing an alternative concept of operations to typical orbital launch. If they get tens of thousands of launches off and can do so very safely (for the most part), their concept of operations may start leaking into orbital launch operations. You also get another whole generation thinking and dreaming about spaceflight applications... Who knows, maybe one of those tens (or hundreds?) of thousands of suborbital tourists will hit upon a killer app for orbital human spaceflight?

None of that is a given, of course. But it has a reasonable chance of happening, if folks like XCor are successful with the Lynx.

[peter-b]

Perhaps this market could grow to the point where dedicated launches might cater to large numbers of small payloads rather than requiring a main payload to ride along with.

Some of my colleagues are working on ways to deploy large numbers of very small satellites in a single payload while avoiding impingement problems. If there's some interest, I can dig up some links to paper preprints etc. (There are also some folks working on close formation-flying nanosatellite constellations too, which is pretty cool).

At SSC we do quite a bit of work on novel technologies which spacecraft designers don't want to use until they've got flight heritage. But we can't get flight heritage unless they get used. So we face a chicken-and-egg problem. The UK government is funding the TechDemoSat series of flights to try and solve this. But if it was easy to buy a flight for a 3kg nanosat for £5k to £6k, I bet SSC would fly a couple every year! I'm sure other universities would too. 

[QuantumG]

None of that is a given, of course. But it has a reasonable chance of happening, if folks like XCor are successful with the Lynx.

XCOR.

[Jim]

Perhaps this market could grow to the point where dedicated launches might cater to large numbers of small payloads rather than requiring a main payload to ride along with.

Some of my colleagues are working on ways to deploy large numbers of very small satellites in a single payload while avoiding impingement problems. If there's some interest, I can dig up some links to paper preprints etc. (There are also some folks working on close formation-flying nanosatellite constellations too, which is pretty cool).

Just the opposite is happening.  More secondary opportunities are opening up.  And the thing with secondaries, they ride free.

NASA is looking to fly P-PODS on ESPA rings. 

a hundred cubesats still doesnt warrant a Pegasus ride.

[peter-b]

Perhaps this market could grow to the point where dedicated launches might cater to large numbers of small payloads rather than requiring a main payload to ride along with.

Some of my colleagues are working on ways to deploy large numbers of very small satellites in a single payload while avoiding impingement problems. If there's some interest, I can dig up some links to paper preprints etc. (There are also some folks working on close formation-flying nanosatellite constellations too, which is pretty cool).

Just the opposite is happening.

Are you arguing with me or Blackjax? The research I described is being done, and we do have more hardware we want to fly and flight tests we want to do than affordable opportunities. And I'm sure we're not the only research centre in a similar situation.

[Blackjax]

Some of my colleagues are working on ways to deploy large numbers of very small satellites in a single payload while avoiding impingement problems. If there's some interest, I can dig up some links to paper preprints etc. (There are also some folks working on close formation-flying nanosatellite constellations too, which is pretty cool).

I'd be particularly interested in anything that talks about the platform they want to build these around and what trades went into their design.  Did they start with a clean sheet or go with something like a cubesat?

At SSC we do quite a bit of work on novel technologies which spacecraft designers don't want to use until they've got flight heritage. But we can't get flight heritage unless they get used. So we face a chicken-and-egg problem.

Does that ever lead to you flying pure demonstrators?  Or if not, do you have a price point where it would be worth it to you to start?

[peter-b]

Some of my colleagues are working on ways to deploy large numbers of very small satellites in a single payload while avoiding impingement problems. If there's some interest, I can dig up some links to paper preprints etc. (There are also some folks working on close formation-flying nanosatellite constellations too, which is pretty cool).

I'd be particularly interested in anything that talks about the platform they want to build these around and what trades went into their design.  Did they start with a clean sheet or go with something like a cubesat?

It's only since Astrium bought SSTL from the university that SSC has done any satellite projects other than through SSTL. We cannot afford to design and flight-qualify a novel satellite bus; all of the upcoming flights that I am aware of are on cubesats or standard satellite buses (e.g. TechDemoSat-1 is based on an SSTL microsatellite bus).

At SSC we do quite a bit of work on novel technologies which spacecraft designers don't want to use until they've got flight heritage. But we can't get flight heritage unless they get used. So we face a chicken-and-egg problem.

Does that ever lead to you flying pure demonstrators?  Or if not, do you have a price point where it would be worth it to you to start?

A lot of our research is funded wholly or in part by corporate sponsors. Sometimes, they fly hardware that comes out of the centre. For non-sponsored research, or outcomes that sponsors decide they don't want to take a risk on, we also occasionally get the opportunity to fly a cubesat (or smaller; we had a proposal for an ridiculously teeny picosat at one point).  Finally, there are initiatives like TechDemoSat-1, funded by the Research Councils/UKSA. I've probably missed some out. However, there's still some satellite systems research being done here that may never see the light of day, even though there's nothing actually wrong with it.

Let's not talk about how my colleague designing control algorithms for legged rovers feels about the situation... 

[JohnFornaro]

So.... What <iu>is the hangup with legged algorithms?  My buddy Matt Conway, IIRC, was working on them back in 1990 at UVA.  Last Month's Photonics Spectra had an interesting "spider" from some German company.  Thing is, legged rovers have not come to fruition.

Over the last couple of days, I had another out of brain experience:  What about horses, instead of lunar rovers?  I don't ride like I did thirty years ago, but a twenty mile trip is a piece of cake.  "All" you need is a space suit for the horse.  It would be attached to the horseshoes of course; you would have to have, I guess, an extensive underwater training program set up to simulate the low gravity; a bigger capsule with the means for supporting the belly of the horse upon re-entry; Oxygen tanks; training for the astros; yada yada.  What's not doable?

Waht you get is exploration abilities far in excess of what you now have, and at little energy cost when you're there.  Yeah, the hab is going to have to have a corral, so there's a size issue...

... Maybe I otta get back into my brain...

[Blackjax]

At SSC we do quite a bit of work on novel technologies which spacecraft designers don't want to use until they've got flight heritage. But we can't get flight heritage unless they get used. So we face a chicken-and-egg problem.

Does that ever lead to you flying pure demonstrators?  Or if not, do you have a price point where it would be worth it to you to start?

A lot of our research is funded wholly or in part by corporate sponsors. Sometimes, they fly hardware that comes out of the centre. For non-sponsored research, or outcomes that sponsors decide they don't want to take a risk on, we also occasionally get the opportunity to fly a cubesat (or smaller; we had a proposal for an ridiculously teeny picosat at one point).  Finally, there are initiatives like TechDemoSat-1, funded by the Research Councils/UKSA. I've probably missed some out. However, there's still some satellite systems research being done here that may never see the light of day, even though there's nothing actually wrong with it.

This prompts me to wonder to what extent there would be a general market increase in payloads from companies purely for the purpose of proving out technologies that are on their development roadmap as launch costs decrease.  Is it possible at least some of the testing that is now done on the ground might migrate to space?  For example, rather than testing in a vacuum chamber might they just test in space instead?  Instead of developing aerospace rated components might they just loft and test a selection of COTS components and use the ones which stand up to the conditions well?

[Jim]

Is it possible at least some of the testing that is now done on the ground might migrate to space?  For example, rather than testing in a vacuum chamber might they just test in space instead?  Instead of developing aerospace rated components might they just loft and test a selection of COTS components and use the ones which stand up to the conditions well?

If it breaks right away and then what?

Always cheaper to test on the ground.  The COTS components can be tested in a vacuum chamber.

[Robotbeat]

Is it possible at least some of the testing that is now done on the ground might migrate to space?  For example, rather than testing in a vacuum chamber might they just test in space instead?  Instead of developing aerospace rated components might they just loft and test a selection of COTS components and use the ones which stand up to the conditions well?

If it breaks right away and then what?

Always cheaper to test on the ground.  The COTS components can be tested in a vacuum chamber.

...and possibly also on suborbital flights, if the price is right.

[Namechange User]

Instead of developing aerospace rated components might they just loft and test a selection of COTS components and use the ones which stand up to the conditions well?

Not everything is developed brand new for each individual space application.  Many components can be purchased from suppliers if they meet the specifications desired for whatever the end product is.

Here is an example:

http://www.atk.com/capabilities_multiple/cs_ss_subsys_default.asp

Note:  I picked ATK just to get people's goat due to many of the inaccurate things that are said around here.  There are many others as well. 

[JohnFornaro]

Thanks for that post on ATK's off the shelf components.  ONly thing missing is a price tag...

I got nothing against ATK in principle.  I just don't like no-bid SRM's.

[Blackjax]

Is it possible at least some of the testing that is now done on the ground might migrate to space?  For example, rather than testing in a vacuum chamber might they just test in space instead?  Instead of developing aerospace rated components might they just loft and test a selection of COTS components and use the ones which stand up to the conditions well?

If it breaks right away and then what?

Always cheaper to test on the ground.  The COTS components can be tested in a vacuum chamber.

Implicit in the question I was asking was the idea that the economics might change enough at some point to where in some cases testing in space becomes financially viable.  I recognize that the reason vacuum chambers and ground testing exist is because your statement has been unquestionably true in the past and is also true in the present.  What is less clear is that it must always remain true in the future regardless of launch costs.

Very small lightweight things (relatively inexpensive to fly) or cases where a highly sophisticated vacuum chamber would be needed to compensate for a rapid flow of materials into the chamber from a fuel source (a larger chemical or electric motor for example) might represent examples of edge cases where in space testing could have an increasingly stronger rationale as launch prices fall.  Will prices ever fall enough?  Dunno, but you get a handle on the likelihood by asking the question and working through the constraints rather than simply making a snap call from the gut that things must always be as they've been.  How easy/expensive is it to get access to a vacuum chamber anyway?  Where would your average low end project go shopping for one?  Does the list of options and costs change much if you depending on what you are testing...a solar array vs. a small Hall Thruster for example?

But a vacuum chamber is just an example.  I'd imagine that there are projects out there which might have remained at a paper stage in the past because zero-g was critical to prove the concept, and it was just too expensive to test.  But would lower cost launch prompt increasing numbers of these to go to a hardware test phase as launch prices transition lower?  Funding isn't necessarily a zero sum game and money that otherwise never would have been accessible to a project if the next step was way out of reach might be available if that step had more moderate requirements.  If that happens, it means an uptick (could be negligible or could be significant) in payloads needing launches, and that is the point in this thread.

All that being said, I am not trying to argue that all this will play out that way or if it does that it will constitute any useful increase in the launch market, I am just trying to look around and see if there are any nooks and crannies in the market which might potentially grow somehow as launch costs transition along a downward curve.  I am a believer in growth coming from the aggregation of many small changes from various sources in the market rather than big flagship projects; I am trying to identify some of those sources and what changes would be needed to enable them. 

[Namechange User]

Implicit in the question I was asking was the idea that the economics might change enough at some point to where in some cases testing in space becomes financially viable.  I recognize that the reason vacuum chambers and ground testing exist is because your statement has been unquestionably true in the past and is also true in the present.  What is less clear is that it must always remain true in the future regardless of launch costs.

What you are describing is basically flight tests, something that is generally done in any aircraft/spacecraft (especially when crews will be onboard).

It is recognized that not everything can be tested on the ground and eventually it is time to put the bird in the air and validate it performs as expected.

However, for many reasons, including cost, that is done after various levels of testing on the ground where as much confidence as possible is gained in the design. 

[Blackjax]

Instead of developing aerospace rated components might they just loft and test a selection of COTS components and use the ones which stand up to the conditions well?

Not everything is developed brand new for each individual space application.  Many components can be purchased from suppliers if they meet the specifications desired for whatever the end product is.

True and that covers the 'OTS' part of the proposition, but my understanding is that it is relatively common for traditional aerospace suppliers to be not so competitive on the 'C' part.  My point was more towards the idea of the low end of the market 'space rating' relatively inexpensive stuff from outside the aerospace world.  Arduinos, mobile phones, commercially available solar arrays, actuators, etc.  Or perhaps even just proving that widely available alloys, plastics, or some other substance which might be under consideration for a part on a payload will work OK for its intended use.

One of the interesting things about an open development model is that you tend to publicize what worked and what didn't.  Armadillo, for example, used to do this a lot by mentioning which suppliers, parts, and models exhibited which behaviors.  Somebody attempting to do something similar would be able to use that to work around problems in advance by tending to select the stuff that had already been proven more reliable.  If a lot of non-aerospace COTS stuff were being flown, it would build a body of knowledge in the community about what could and couldn't be used, helping new projects be cheaper and more likely to succeed.

[Namechange User]

True and that covers the 'OTS' part of the proposition, but my understanding is that it is relatively common for traditional aerospace suppliers to be not so competitive on the 'C' part.  My point was more towards the idea of the low end of the market 'space rating' relatively inexpensive stuff from outside the aerospace world.  Arduinos, mobile phones, commercially available solar arrays, actuators, etc.  Or perhaps even just proving that widely available alloys, plastics, or some other substance which might be under consideration for a part on a payload will work OK for its intended use.

If I understand you correctly, this is done as well.  There are a host of materials and equipment that are used in space applications that are used elsewhere in everyday life, assuming they can be qualified to stand up to the conditions and environments expected to be seen.

[baldusi]

See the case of Astrobotics batteries. They qualified stock 123 batteries for the environment they are expecting on for their Moon rover. Then used them stock. It was cheaper than buying already certified batteries, apparently. At least that's what they state.
And, if I'm not mistaken (shooting from the hip here) NASA made some changes to a line of defibrillator and qualified those for the Shuttle. Apparently it costs the same so the manufacturer actually sell space qualified defibrillators on the ground market.
But none of this has anything to do with what you propose. It's just creative solutions.

[Jim]

Very small lightweight things (relatively inexpensive to fly) or cases where a highly sophisticated vacuum chamber would be needed to compensate for a rapid flow of materials into the chamber from a fuel source (a larger chemical or electric motor for example) might represent examples of edge cases where in space testing could have an increasingly stronger rationale as launch prices fall. 

With your line of reasoning, one could make their own chamber for small items.  Launch prices aren't going to drop that much where it is cheaper to fly than test on the ground.

Most items tested in chambers don't have an out flux of material.  And space testing is already used for items that do.

[Blackjax]

Very small lightweight things (relatively inexpensive to fly) or cases where a highly sophisticated vacuum chamber would be needed to compensate for a rapid flow of materials into the chamber from a fuel source (a larger chemical or electric motor for example) might represent examples of edge cases where in space testing could have an increasingly stronger rationale as launch prices fall. 

With your line of reasoning, one could make their own chamber for small items. 

Absolutely, and good instructions on how to make a decent DIY version of one would be an excellent example of the kind of 'enabling item for the low end of the payload market' I've mentioned elsewhere on the thread.  Another would be some sort of website or other easily accessible information source with a list of places where others have built or bought their own and are willing to let people use it for free or a nominal fee.  Kinda like the 'aerospace test sites' version of this:
http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/List_of_Hacker_Spaces

I can't afford a laser cutter for myself and likely wouldn't use it enough to justify getting one even if I did, but that doesn't mean I didn't love the fact that I got to use a site like that to find a local hackerspace which had one, have them give me a tutorial on how to use it, and to occasionally go there and cut something for whatever project I happen to be working on.  Seems to me that researchers, students, small companies and anyone else trying to put together a payload might feel the same way about a vacuum chamber or some other thing they'd occasionally need to get their project done.

Launch prices aren't going to drop that much where it is cheaper to fly than test on the ground.

Won't argue with you, you might well be completely correct, but I would appreciate seeing some sort of numbers to back up the assertion.

Most items tested in chambers don't have an out flux of material.  And space testing is already used for items that do.

I figured as much, that's why I classified it as an edge case and that actually helps prove my point.  If space testing is already used for it in some cases, then a drop in launch costs my well increase the usage of space testing for it.

Then again, just because most items tested in chambers don't have an out flux of material now, in a situation where testing those things is relatively difficult and costly, the proportion may shift to some extent when the difficulty and economics shift.  See my earlier point about projects not progressing past paper...could be a few of those were stalled due to costs associated with outflux related testing.

[peter-b]

Always cheaper to test on the ground.  The COTS components can be tested in a vacuum chamber.

Solar sails cannot be tested on the ground, tethers cannot be tested on the ground, vacuum chambers are not flight heritage, and flight heritage is what users care about.

[Jim]

Always cheaper to test on the ground.  The COTS components can be tested in a vacuum chamber.

Solar sails cannot be tested on the ground, tethers cannot be tested on the ground, vacuum chambers are not flight heritage, and flight heritage is what users care about.

He is talking components, and not spacecraft missions.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Speaking of components, one of the posts that mentioned Astrobotic reminded me about the computer that they were using: BRE 440 http://www.broadreachengineering.com/products/cpu-boards/

I find it interesting that they would choose a CPU designed for a Cubesat. But when looking at the cpu’s in use in space built by aerospace companies and others compared to this one including their prices and this one’s there is no contest. The Cubsat parts suppliers market will start making inroads into other space markets outside of supplying parts for Cubsats (and in a few cases they have already), because of the higher volume involved with Cubsats these parts will become common, cutting edge, lower weight, and cheaper. The very things that space systems developers in the commercial world use to cut costs and close the business case, a black box with well-defined hardware software interfaces that is standardized enabling purchasing the box from multiple suppliers without doing much of a design change. Basically your space application needs a computer system with X capability so you look through the suppliers list looking for the lowest price black box that will do, a case that is currently happening for Cubsats.

The custom space electronics manufactures will be overtaken by the common space electronics suppliers that got their start in the Cubsat market.

[go4mars]

For example, I have a garage project that I want to build a vacuum chamber for and I want to build it on a budget that wouldn't raise my wife's eyebrows too far.  Essentially for the elimination of wind resistance on a rotating device to get very accurate measurements of loss on a system with magnetic bearings that is testing something.  No, it's not a perpetual motion machine.  But if you know of links for fairly large and fairly good DIY vacuum chambers, I would be grateful to have them sent my way! 

Somewhat OT, but kind of demonstrates the point.  Not that I expect launch prices to ever come down enough for me to test this in space, but there may be similar types of things out there with more funding.

[Jim]

Speaking of components, one of the posts that mentioned Astrobotic reminded me about the computer that they were using: BRE 440 http://www.broadreachengineering.com/products/cpu-boards/

I find it interesting that they would choose a CPU designed for a Cubesat. But when looking at the cpu’s in use in space built by aerospace companies and others compared to this one including their prices and this one’s there is no contest. The Cubsat parts suppliers market will start making inroads into other space markets outside of supplying parts for Cubsats (and in a few cases they have already), because of the higher volume involved with Cubsats these parts will become common, cutting edge, lower weight, and cheaper. The very things that space systems developers in the commercial world use to cut costs and close the business case, a black box with well-defined hardware software interfaces that is standardized enabling purchasing the box from multiple suppliers without doing much of a design change. Basically your space application needs a computer system with X capability so you look through the suppliers list looking for the lowest price black box that will do, a case that is currently happening for Cubsats.

The custom space electronics manufactures will be overtaken by the common space electronics suppliers that got their start in the Cubsat market.

Cubesats have been subject to SEU's.*  So I don't think so.

* happens a lot to PC's on the ISS. Some even latch up. 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Speaking of components, one of the posts that mentioned Astrobotic reminded me about the computer that they were using: BRE 440 http://www.broadreachengineering.com/products/cpu-boards/

I find it interesting that they would choose a CPU designed for a Cubesat. But when looking at the cpu’s in use in space built by aerospace companies and others compared to this one including their prices and this one’s there is no contest. The Cubsat parts suppliers market will start making inroads into other space markets outside of supplying parts for Cubsats (and in a few cases they have already), because of the higher volume involved with Cubsats these parts will become common, cutting edge, lower weight, and cheaper. The very things that space systems developers in the commercial world use to cut costs and close the business case, a black box with well-defined hardware software interfaces that is standardized enabling purchasing the box from multiple suppliers without doing much of a design change. Basically your space application needs a computer system with X capability so you look through the suppliers list looking for the lowest price black box that will do, a case that is currently happening for Cubsats.

The custom space electronics manufactures will be overtaken by the common space electronics suppliers that got their start in the Cubsat market.

Cubesats have been subject to SEU's.*  So I don't think so.

* happens a lot to PC's on the ISS. Some even latch up. 

The BRE 440 is a deep space specification hardened cpu board, not your normal Cubsat computer that is not hardened at all. But that brings us to computer architecture and the strength of a redundant architecture at the macro level vs radiation hardening a single string computer system, SpaceX’s solution was to go for redundancy over the use of radiation hardening.  No matter how good the system has been radiation hardened it will still be a victim of SEU’s like you pointed out. Redundant architecture is the only workaround for this problem. In more severe radiation evironments a combination of redundancy and hardening of the components would be needed to achieve higher reliability over very long durations (years).

[Blackjax]

Speaking of components, one of the posts that mentioned Astrobotic reminded me about the computer that they were using: BRE 440 http://www.broadreachengineering.com/products/cpu-boards/

I find it interesting that they would choose a CPU designed for a Cubesat. But when looking at the cpu’s in use in space built by aerospace companies and others compared to this one including their prices and this one’s there is no contest. The Cubsat parts suppliers market will start making inroads into other space markets outside of supplying parts for Cubsats (and in a few cases they have already), because of the higher volume involved with Cubsats these parts will become common, cutting edge, lower weight, and cheaper. The very things that space systems developers in the commercial world use to cut costs and close the business case, a black box with well-defined hardware software interfaces that is standardized enabling purchasing the box from multiple suppliers without doing much of a design change. Basically your space application needs a computer system with X capability so you look through the suppliers list looking for the lowest price black box that will do, a case that is currently happening for Cubsats.

The custom space electronics manufactures will be overtaken by the common space electronics suppliers that got their start in the Cubsat market.

Cubesats have been subject to SEU's.*  So I don't think so.

* happens a lot to PC's on the ISS. Some even latch up. 

Seems like there might be an assortment of ways they might mitigate that if their customer base is particularly worried, the difference between low end suppliers moving up and current mainstream suppliers would be a more acute focus on finding ways to do so economically.

[Jim]

Yeah, just keep believing that.

[Blackjax]

Yeah, just keep believing that.

If you don't believe it is the case could you explain why and help the rest of us understand? 

[A_M_Swallow]

Military specification components frequently have to be radiation hard.  One of the simpler ways of testing them will be to put the part into a cubesat and send it through the Van Allen Belts.  Components and circuit boards that pass will frequently find their way onto the general market.  At less than $100,000 to launch a cubesat the component manufactures may find it worthwhile space testing their components.  Particularly since they can test several different chips in one go.

[Robotbeat]

For example, I have a garage project that I want to build a vacuum chamber for and I want to build it on a budget that wouldn't raise my wife's eyebrows too far.  Essentially for the elimination of wind resistance on a rotating device to get very accurate measurements of loss on a system with magnetic bearings that is testing something.  No, it's not a perpetual motion machine.  But if you know of links for fairly large and fairly good DIY vacuum chambers, I would be grateful to have them sent my way! 
...

Learn to weld.

[JohnFornaro]

For example, I have a garage project that I want to build a vacuum chamber for and I want to build it on a budget that wouldn't raise my wife's eyebrows too far.  Essentially for the elimination of wind resistance on a rotating device to get very accurate measurements of loss on a system with magnetic bearings that is testing something.

Hey, me too.  A high pressure steam seal against a rotating shaft, possibly supported on magnetic bearings.  But I would rather have a cryo vacuum chamber, to test radiative cooling concepts.

Over on the propellantless propulsion thread, there are a few pictures of a DIY vacuum chamber that one experimenter built so as to eliminate the possibility of air having an effect on the tiny thrust levels that he wanted to measure.  It is a conceptually simple machine, but one's DIY skills have to be up to the task.

So I read BlackJax's comment with some interest:

...some sort of website or other easily accessible information source with a list of places where others have built or bought their own and are willing to let people use it for free or a nominal fee. ...

...and took a peek at hackrva.org, fairly near me.  First, a hearty thank you to BlackJax for starting this thread.  I've been wanting places like this since about 1972, when my hi-school shop was no longer available to me as a student.  There's a caveat tho:  These hacker spaces are a bit on the OWS side; very decentralized and limited in capability, largely because they are very inexpensive.  This is quite unlike the centralized, top down, well funded university, government and corporate labs and skunk works which do some of the same stuff for a decidedly different clientele.

I'm starting to get the hang of what BlackJax is talking about, but here's my take at the moment:  The idea has gotta be taken to the next level. If I ever get successful, I think I would be happy to share the nuts and bolts of how I made it happen.  It being some cool mission or something along those lines.

Solar sails cannot be tested on the ground...

I thought I remembered a solar sail mockup in a huge vacuum chamber, possibly pictured in NTB.  They were testing its deployment, and IIRC, somehow testing its reaction to a light source.

[Blackjax]

There's a caveat tho:  These hacker spaces are a bit on the OWS side; very decentralized and limited in capability, largely because they are very inexpensive. 

Yes the capabilities do vary widely.  There is one operation that exists as kind of a franchise and has a pretty solid list of capabilities and services:

http://techshop.ws/index.html

They are several cuts above most hackerspaces, and if you live in a significant metro area that doesn't have one they are pretty open to discussion on establishing new ones.

As an aside, a new hackerspace just started up in Mojave...I'd be willing to bet that one gets pretty interesting pretty fast.

Another option (for those who have some access to acedamia) is FabLabs.  There is some overlap with the hackerspace world but it isn't complete and if you can't find what you need on one side it may be available on the other.  List of FabLabs here.

[Blackjax]

Another thought for enabling low end payloads might be the promotion of open fractionated designs & standards.  The upside of this would be that rather than designing a standard component to be integrated into say a cubesat, you might just develop a mass produced single purpose cubesat that would be used in tandem with your more custom cubesat.  I don't know if it is a real scenario but simply for the sake of throwing out an example you might design your cubesat to do only very low power local communications (wifi?) but it would be intended to be positioned near an off the shelf cubesat which has a single purpose design to maximize its ability to communicate and relay data with the ground. 

Another upside of this fractionated approach is that if part of the swarm fails or you want to upgrade capabilities, you may be able to launch a replacement.  The smaller size of fractionated payloads could allow a wider range of launch options and/or lower launch costs.  Designing satellites with the idea of continuously and incrementally upgrading them over time rather than doing a single monolithic architecture and praying nothing untoward happens to it could lead to a heavier demand for launches.

Some of the 'References' at the bottom of the wikipedia page lead to interesting discussions of the idea. 

[JohnFornaro]

Hah!  BlackJax is full of interesting links!

TechShop is worth taking a look at, and the Mojave group is very close to the action.

These are the kinds of places, groups, and capabilities I've always been looking for.   Apparently my strategy of mental apathy is working:  All I've done is think about this kind of thing for thirty years or more, and lo, here they are!

Again, thanks BlackJax.

[Blackjax]

Since we've covered crowdsourcing design on this thread, I figured I'd throw out this link as an interesting example of how it can be applied to large complex designs which can be fabricated through non-traditional means.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/adaptive-vehicle-make-darpas-plan-to-revolutionize-auto-manufacturing-6646618?link=rel&dom=msn_auto&src=syn&con=art&mag=pop

I wonder if some of their tool chain would be available for other uses.

As an additional example, if you have never looked at Local Motors they are pretty neat:

http://www.local-motors.com/

One of the benefits of their approach is that they both teach you how to build your implementation of an open design as well as provide the physical infrastructure (workspace, tools, etc.) which enables you to do so.  The concept is particularly interesting because they teach you how to build a vanilla implementation of an open design, and once you've done that and know it intimately inside and out, you now have the knowledge & ability to customize it to your hearts content. 

How does this apply to payloads?  Well perhaps the same model could be adapted.  Perhaps you could provide a venue and mentors to teach people how to make standard implementations of designs (cubesats or something) and then they would go on to adapt what they've made with the customizations they want for their own applications.  Moreover, once they've done something once, it is a much lower hurdle to do it again.

Is there a venue today where anyone could go to get hands on experience building a payload?

The easier you make the onramp into the market, the faster it will grow as prices drop and/or flight opportunities increase.

[JohnFornaro]

...How does this apply to payloads?  Well perhaps the same model could be adapted....Is there a venue today where anyone could go to get hands on experience building a payload?

The easier you make the onramp into the market, the faster it will grow as prices drop and/or flight opportunities increase.

I'd be quite interested in starting up such a thing. 

[Jim]

Another upside of this fractionated approach is that if part of the swarm fails or you want to upgrade capabilities, you may be able to launch a replacement.  The smaller size of fractionated payloads could allow a wider range of launch options and/or lower launch costs.  Designing satellites with the idea of continuously and incrementally upgrading them over time rather than doing a single monolithic architecture and praying nothing untoward happens to it could lead to a heavier demand for launches.

Strawman
a.  The concept may not be viable
b. and if it is, it doesn't mean it will increase demand for launches
c.  Also, doesn't mean the launches will be cheaper.

they would be a  greater increase in space debris as they fail.

How is it better? Each omponent would need a guidance system, data system, propulsion system, attitude control system, power system, etc.

Robotic component replacement would be better.

[Jim]

Is there a venue today where anyone could go to get hands on experience building a payload?

Strawman.

Not every device can be built by the common man.

[Jim]

How does this apply to payloads?  Well perhaps the same model could be adapted.  Perhaps you could provide a venue and mentors to teach people how to make standard implementations of designs (cubesats or something) and then they would go on to adapt what they've made with the customizations they want for their own applications.  Moreover, once they've done something once, it is a much lower hurdle to do it again.

Example that it is not going to happen to satellites.  See PC's.  Anyone can make a PC if that want.  How has that affected the PC market?

[Blackjax]

Another upside of this fractionated approach is that if part of the swarm fails or you want to upgrade capabilities, you may be able to launch a replacement.  The smaller size of fractionated payloads could allow a wider range of launch options and/or lower launch costs.  Designing satellites with the idea of continuously and incrementally upgrading them over time rather than doing a single monolithic architecture and praying nothing untoward happens to it could lead to a heavier demand for launches.

Strawman
a.  The concept may not be viable
b. and if it is, it doesn't mean it will increase demand for launches
c.  Also, doesn't mean the launches will be cheaper.

they would be a  greater increase in space debris as they fail.

How is it better? Each omponent would need a guidance system, data system, propulsion system, attitude control system, power system, etc.

Robotic component replacement would be better.

If by strawman you mean this:

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

...then absolutely, that is the purpose of this thread.  I have no silver bullets, no proposals that I am unquestioningly convinced will work, and no comprehensive solutions which apply to all problems.  That being said, a series of strawman proposals with a vigorous debate about pros and cons might illuminate at least some promising avenues for people in the space community to pursue.

[JohnFornaro]

Another upside of this fractionated approach is that if part of the swarm ... you may be able to launch a replacement.  The smaller size ... could allow ... lower launch costs.  Designing satellites with the idea of continuously and incrementally upgrading them ... could lead to a heavier demand for launches.

Strawman
a.  The concept may not be viable
b. and if it is, it doesn't mean it will increase demand for launches
c.  Also, doesn't mean the launches will be cheaper.

I agree with Jim's a,b,c.  But it is not a strawman argument.  It is just not completely thought out.

Is there a venue today where anyone could go to get hands on experience building a payload?

Strawman.

Not every device can be built by the common man.

Again, while that is true about a complicated device, it is not a strawman argument.  He asks, is there a venue?   Short answer is no, there is not.  I wouldn't mind quitting my day job to work on setting up such a venue, precisely because the device is so complicated and, I think, necessary.

I'd say that were there such a venue, one could expect it to be run by a competent crew, but that since "anyone" would be able to get the hands on experience, that there would have to be a department of triage:  Savvy investors and engineers; interested participants who want to learn; idle googlers.

[Blackjax]

Is there a venue today where anyone could go to get hands on experience building a payload?

Strawman.

Not every device can be built by the common man.

I think you need to look up the word strawman, I suspect it doesn't mean quite what you think it means (unless you are actually implying that your own argument is intended to be a strawman argument?).

How does the fact that not everyone can build everything invalidate the cases where some can accomplish what they need to accomplish?  A solution does not have to be valid for everyone to be valid for some.  By trying to represent that the overall approach fails because it doesn't work for a subset of the potential universe of possible applications could be construed as a strawman argument.

I think you add a lot to the debates on this site by bringing a skeptical review of ideas based on a lot of real world experience and knowledge.  However I've noticed that your feedback tends to be overwhelmingly on the side of trying to prove that things won't work rather than assisting in trying to modify ideas so they will work (or proposing new ideas of your own that you feel will).  I can't speak for others but I'd really be interested to see what you have to contribute on the side of generating ideas rather than critiquing others ideas.  Do you have any you could share?

[Blackjax]

Seems like some people are already trying to make cubesats more standard, less expensive, and easier:

http://evadot.com/2012/03/07/evadot-and-kentucky-space-think-you-can-hack-space/

[Blackjax]

And another entry at the low end. 

http://www.solarsystemexpress.com/gravity-development-board.html

[edkyle99]

So, what "high volume" payload can I imagine?  Space junk mitigation!  Space junk is increasing, even if no more satellite launches were to take place.  Removing that junk is going to be a long, hard job.  It could involve thousands of launches.

I think idea in top post is fine, but it's not going to just happen, though in sense it's already happening in some respects.

If by "it" you mean space junk cleanup, it is already happening. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/15/swiss-create-janitor-satellite-space-cleanup

I love that it is the Swiss making the first effort.  I do believe that the world will eventually follow their example - by necessity if for no other reason.

Here is an example of how funding could be supplied to space junk cleanup.  No one wanted to pay for these earth-bound efforts either.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/

 - Ed Kyle

[Blackjax]

So, what "high volume" payload can I imagine?  Space junk mitigation!  Space junk is increasing, even if no more satellite launches were to take place.  Removing that junk is going to be a long, hard job.  It could involve thousands of launches.

I think idea in top post is fine, but it's not going to just happen, though in sense it's already happening in some respects.

If by "it" you mean space junk cleanup, it is already happening. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/15/swiss-create-janitor-satellite-space-cleanup

I love that it is the Swiss making the first effort.  I do believe that the world will eventually follow their example - by necessity if for no other reason.

Here is an example of how funding could be supplied to space junk cleanup.  No one wanted to pay for these earth-bound efforts either.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/

 - Ed Kyle

Hmmm, I wonder if anyone has ever posed the question to the EPA of whether they would consider space to be part of the domain they are responsible for.

[edkyle99]

So, what "high volume" payload can I imagine?  Space junk mitigation!  Space junk is increasing, even if no more satellite launches were to take place.  Removing that junk is going to be a long, hard job.  It could involve thousands of launches.

I think idea in top post is fine, but it's not going to just happen, though in sense it's already happening in some respects.

If by "it" you mean space junk cleanup, it is already happening. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/15/swiss-create-janitor-satellite-space-cleanup

I love that it is the Swiss making the first effort.  I do believe that the world will eventually follow their example - by necessity if for no other reason.

Here is an example of how funding could be supplied to space junk cleanup.  No one wanted to pay for these earth-bound efforts either.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/

 - Ed Kyle

Hmmm, I wonder if anyone has ever posed the question to the EPA of whether they would consider space to be part of the domain they are responsible for.

EPA serves as an example of the process.  Some other organization, likely international, perhaps UN funded, would have to be established to handle space cleanup.  At least for some of it because some of the countries that launched the stuff no longer exist.

 - Ed Kyle

[peter-b]

By the way, I can confirm that there's work going on here at Surrey on space debris mitigation. It seems to be a fairly hot research topic at the moment

[edkyle99]

Following up on the "killer app" aspect, here's a quote worth remembering.

"Overcrowding in space is now a national security threat"

http://www.military.com/news/article/space-clutter-a-growing-concern-for-pentagon.html

When the Pentagon gets interested, funding usually follows.

 - Ed Kyle

[JohnFornaro]

Interesting to me to note that China and Russia would like a replacement treaty for the OST.

[go4mars]

Interesting to me to note that China and Russia would like a replacement treaty for the OST.

"Both China and Russia prefer a new treaty to replace the Outer Space Treaty, a move opposed by most Western nations."

Thanks for pointing that out!

[Blackjax]

Another potential market that might be opened is in astronomy.  On a recent Space Show episode there was a brief discusion of swarm based telescopes and how they might be used in place of giant death star telescopes like Hubble or JWST.  Apparently there are certain niches where swarms might be even more capable than the large telescopes.  At the very least there should be plenty of cases where they are competitive with the ones that many ground based observatories buy and install.  A quick search yielded a paper on the subject:

http://doc.utwente.nl/75268/

Perhaps a standard design for a low cost telescope intended to function in a swarm could be developed.  Since you'd be using larger numbers of smaller craft you'd be able to do production runs which could take advantage of the cost benefits of economies of scale. 

This would probably require refining some techniques for working with swarms where the capabilities of each member of the swarm is pretty limited, but this kind of work is already underway.

http://www.ae.illinois.edu/news/article.html?id=1330

http://dst.jpl.nasa.gov/control/team.htm

Universities and observatories already either lease government space assets or build their own ground based stuff.  If the price could be brought down to a reasonable point perhaps they'd also lease private space assets or build their own space based stuff.

I just got finished reading this:

http://www.citizensinspace.org/2012/03/rethinking-the-webb-space-telescope/

Innovative approaches like optical interferometry will benefit greatly from coming revolution in low-cost launch. By eliminating the need to launch large single-piece mirrors, optical interferometers can reduce astronomy’s dependence on expensive heavy-lift rockets. Each of the TPF free-flyers, for example, would be less than 1000 kilograms.

I really do wonder if there might be a market for a standard mass produced space telescope design.  Perhaps this could be done in combination with the same electric propulsion technology that Boeing is using for their satellites.

[Blackjax]

This looks like a great enabling technology for low end payloads:

http://actu.epfl.ch/news/getting-to-the-moon-on-drops-of-fuel/

"With their ionic motor, MicroThrust, EPFL scientists and their European partners are making this a reality and ushering in a new era of low-cost space exploration. The complete thruster weighs just a few hundred grams and is specifically designed to propel small (1-100 kg) satellites, which it enables to change orbit around the Earth and even voyage to more distant destinations"

It'd be neat if there were something like this available off the shelf from the same companies that provide stock cubesat components or as open hardware.

[JohnFornaro]

This looks like a great enabling technology for low end payloads:

" The complete thruster weighs just a few hundred grams and is specifically designed to propel small (1-100 kg) satellites, which it enables to change orbit around the Earth and even voyage to more distant destinations"

My bold.  I just can't stand marketing exaggerations like this.  Technically, going from a 100km orbit to a 101km orbit is a, well, "more distant destination".

But I am glad to hear of the development of the hardware in general.

[AnalogMan]

This looks like a great enabling technology for low end payloads:

" The complete thruster weighs just a few hundred grams and is specifically designed to propel small (1-100 kg) satellites, which it enables to change orbit around the Earth and even voyage to more distant destinations"

My bold.  I just can't stand marketing exaggerations like this.  Technically, going from a 100km orbit to a 101km orbit is a, well, "more distant destination".

But I am glad to hear of the development of the hardware in general.

In this case though, it is clearly is a reference to lunar orbit if you read the article.

[JohnFornaro]

In this case though, it clearly is a reference to lunar orbit if you read the article.

It is true that I only read the quoted portion of the article: "The complete thruster weighs just a few hundred grams".  This small size does not seem able to send very much payload to a lunar orbit.  I'm objecting to the marketing language used, not the small thruster.

[Robotbeat]

In this case though, it clearly is a reference to lunar orbit if you read the article.

It is true that I only read the quoted portion of the article: "The complete thruster weighs just a few hundred grams".  This small size does not seem able to send very much payload to a lunar orbit....

Well, of course not! This is for nanosatellites and the like. Electric propulsion, my friend.

[Blackjax]

In this case though, it clearly is a reference to lunar orbit if you read the article.

It is true that I only read the quoted portion of the article: "The complete thruster weighs just a few hundred grams".  This small size does not seem able to send very much payload to a lunar orbit.  I'm objecting to the marketing language used, not the small thruster.

...and yet it is still 100% more payload than you could do without it.  As an aside, who is to say you couldn't use multiple copies on larger payloads?  Look at how cubesats work for example, you aren't stuck with 1U if you need larger, you just grow it in standard sized chunks.

[Blackjax]

Well, it looks like we are seeing a first attempt at ramping up a big system via crowd funding:

Hermes Spacecraft
by STAR Systems
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hermesspace/hermes-spacecraft?ref=category

I still say crowd funding is better suited to smaller more commodity user oriented things rather than something like this, but it'll be interesting to watch and see how it plays out.

[JohnFornaro]

I only read the quoted portion of the article: "The complete thruster weighs just a few hundred grams".  This small size does not seem able to send very much payload to a lunar orbit.  I'm objecting to the marketing language used, not the small thruster.

...and yet it is still 100% more payload than you could do without it.  As an aside, who is to say you couldn't use multiple copies on larger payloads?  Look at how cubesats work for example...

A few hundred gram thruster on a spacecraft could send a small payload of 'x' grams to lunar orbit; 100% more than a spacecraft without the thruster.  Likewise a craft with a 2mT 'thruster', or even an array of smaller thrusters, could send a much larger payload 'y' to lunar orbit; 100% more than a spacecraft without such a 'thruster'.

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. 

Well, it looks like we are seeing a first attempt at ramping up a big system via crowd funding:

Checked that site out this morning.  They want $20K for their project.  I'm pretty amazed at the low cost of what they're asking for.

[Blackjax]

I only read the quoted portion of the article: "The complete thruster weighs just a few hundred grams".  This small size does not seem able to send very much payload to a lunar orbit.  I'm objecting to the marketing language used, not the small thruster.

...and yet it is still 100% more payload than you could do without it.  As an aside, who is to say you couldn't use multiple copies on larger payloads?  Look at how cubesats work for example...

A few hundred gram thruster on a spacecraft could send a small payload of 'x' grams to lunar orbit; 100% more than a spacecraft without the thruster.  Likewise a craft with a 2mT 'thruster', or even an array of smaller thrusters, could send a much larger payload 'y' to lunar orbit; 100% more than a spacecraft without such a 'thruster'.

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. 

Would a system based on currently available technologies other than this and delivering the same ability to deliver the craft someplace fit in within the same mass and size constraints?  ...or would it cut significantly into the available space and mass budget for the primary portion of the payload?

If it is the latter, then you effectively have zero ability to fly certain types of missions now, and this new capability lets you fly 100% more of them.

[JohnFornaro]

I only read the quoted portion of the article: "The complete thruster weighs just a few hundred grams".  This small size does not seem able to send very much payload to a lunar orbit.  I'm objecting to the marketing language used, not the small thruster.

...and yet it is still 100% more payload than you could do without it.  As an aside, who is to say you couldn't use multiple copies on larger payloads?  Look at how cubesats work for example...

A few hundred gram thruster on a spacecraft could send a small payload of 'x' grams to lunar orbit; 100% more than a spacecraft without the thruster.  Likewise a craft with a 2mT 'thruster'... could send a much larger payload 'y' to lunar orbit...

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. 

(1) Would a system based on currently available technologies other than this and delivering the same ability to deliver the craft someplace fit in within the same mass and size constraints?  ...(2) or would it cut significantly into the available space and mass budget for the primary portion of the payload?

(3) If it is the latter, then you effectively have zero ability to fly certain types of missions now, and this new capability lets you fly 100% more of them.

Arrrrg.  I still don't get it.

(1) A large thruster would deliver a large payload, and a small one a small one.  Obviously, the small one couldn't handle the large load, and the large one would make little sense being asked to handle the small load.  The point being???

(2) Maybe one thruster is more efficient on a pound for pound basis; the typical "wisdom" is that larger is better, hence the SLS path.  Obviously, thruster size scales with the payload.

(3) More arrrg.  If you don't have a small enough thruster, then you can't fly certain small types of missions.  Are you saying that the evolutionary improvement that this thruster adds to the launch cost mix is exactly that it is so small?  Thus enabling more small missions?  Which is fine, if so, but personally, I want more mass in orbit with fewer launches at a lower cost, not more small payloads launching that same mass.

[Blackjax]

Are you saying that the evolutionary improvement that this thruster adds to the launch cost mix is exactly that it is so small?  Thus enabling more small missions? 

Yes.

It permits small craft (most likely cubesats) to perform missions that were either less practical or impossible for them to achieve previously.

[Blackjax]

Does anyone else look at this development:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28680.msg888637;topicseen#new

...and its mentions of swarms of vehicles through multiple successive generations of craft over the next 7-10 years, backed by people who have the funds to do it, and see an uptick in launch demand?  I do.

I love that this is a market entrant that is unlikely to be accounted for in normal projections of the launch market.  I only hope this is the first of several and the beginnings of significantly higher launch volumes.

[Jim]

Does anyone else look at this development:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28680.msg888637;topicseen#new

...and its mentions of swarms of vehicles through multiple successive generations of craft over the next 7-10 years, backed by people who have the funds to do it, and see an uptick in launch demand?  I do.

I love that this is a market entrant that is unlikely to be accounted for in normal projections of the launch market.  I only hope this is the first of several and the beginnings of significantly higher launch volumes.

Nah.  Still looking for all the SS2 flights over the last 5 years

[JohnFornaro]

Well then, I finally get it.  Thanks for stayin' with me.  As of today, with the Diamandis announcement, I guess that the Arkoyd sat concept now has more viability?  And their biz plan of sending out a swarm of sats to scope out asteroids is thereby more likely?

[Blackjax]

Does anyone else look at this development:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28680.msg888637;topicseen#new

...and its mentions of swarms of vehicles through multiple successive generations of craft over the next 7-10 years, backed by people who have the funds to do it, and see an uptick in launch demand?  I do.

I love that this is a market entrant that is unlikely to be accounted for in normal projections of the launch market.  I only hope this is the first of several and the beginnings of significantly higher launch volumes.

Nah.  Still looking for all the SS2 flights over the last 5 years

You don't think Planetary Resources will manage to loft any significant number of Arkyd craft?  Why?

[Jim]

You don't think Planetary Resources will manage to loft any significant number of Arkyd craft?  Why?

Significant is the key word.

They are looking for rides as secondaries.

[Blackjax]

You don't think Planetary Resources will manage to loft any significant number of Arkyd craft?  Why?

Significant is the key word.

They are looking for rides as secondaries.

Fair point, thanks.  I guess the question then becomes how many secondaries will they be adding to the market?  I've read a lot of the articles on this, watched the webcast of the press conference, read their website, and I can't say I really have clarity on that.

Some articles act like it might just be one or two telescopes initially, other comments lead me to wonder if they are thinking in terms of a market for dozens including both those for their own use as well as those they can sell to any university or other organization with the means to scrape together a few million dollars.  Since they talk about using them both for astronomy as well as earth observation, I wonder about what the demand would be.  The fact that the price point is about the same as some rich guys vacation home or yacht does make it an interesting question.

Same story with the prospectors, I think I saw some places imply there would be many (8+?) assigned to a single asteroid, and possibly many asteroids in parallel.  Other places made it look like 2-3 per asteroid and left open the question of whether this group might move around from asteroid to asteroid.  Then there is the question of whether they'd also get bought by science organizations or space agencies to fly missions other than the Planetary Resources missions?  Could be they get totally ignored, but is it possible there is some kind of market?

I wonder how big an influx of payloads the secondary market can accommodate before it is saturated and something has to change to accommodate demand?  In that situation, what would happen?

[go4mars]

You don't think Planetary Resources will manage to loft any significant number of Arkyd craft?  Why?

Significant is the key word.

They are looking for rides as secondaries.

How many is a significant number?

Could they loft 30/year as secondaries (like a trunk-full per COTS mission)?  Or is the number more likely to be 2-3 per year?

[Jim]

Could they loft 30/year as secondaries (like a trunk-full per COTS mission)?  Or is the number more likely to be 2-3 per year?

No, because COTS ends on this or the next flight

No, because most if not all the capacity on CRS flights will be used to meet CRS requirements.

[Jim]

I wonder how big an influx of payloads the secondary market can accommodate before it is saturated and something has to change to accommodate demand?  In that situation, what would happen?

they wait for rides because they have no money for dedicated flights.

[DarkenedOne]

Could they loft 30/year as secondaries (like a trunk-full per COTS mission)?  Or is the number more likely to be 2-3 per year?

No, because COTS ends on this or the next flight

What do you mean by this?  I take it you believe they will fail.

[neilh]

Could they loft 30/year as secondaries (like a trunk-full per COTS mission)?  Or is the number more likely to be 2-3 per year?

No, because COTS ends on this or the next flight

What do you mean by this?  I take it you believe they will fail.

COTS -> CRS

[DarkenedOne]

Could they loft 30/year as secondaries (like a trunk-full per COTS mission)?  Or is the number more likely to be 2-3 per year?

No, because COTS ends on this or the next flight

What do you mean by this?  I take it you believe they will fail.

COTS -> CRS

That is by no means helpful.  What do you mean?

[neilh]

Could they loft 30/year as secondaries (like a trunk-full per COTS mission)?  Or is the number more likely to be 2-3 per year?

No, because COTS ends on this or the next flight

What do you mean by this?  I take it you believe they will fail.

COTS -> CRS

That is by no means helpful.  What do you mean?

Sorry, I assume what Jim meant is that COTS is only for the development flights. CRS is for the actual operational flights, and the trunk will presumably be full with deliverables.

[Jim]

Could they loft 30/year as secondaries (like a trunk-full per COTS mission)?  Or is the number more likely to be 2-3 per year?

No, because COTS ends on this or the next flight

What do you mean by this?  I take it you believe they will fail.

No, the program is finished after it meets its objectives on this or the next flight.   Cargo delivery is performed under the CRS contract.