Increasing the size of the launch market

[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.