What will the impact of inexpensive access to space be?

[storme]

First time post. I've been wondering what happens if/when Spacex is successful with their goal of dramatically lowering the cost and convenience of access to space?

What will be the impact of (relatively) inexpensive access to space? What kinds of new science, satellites, businesses, other activities might we expect to develop? Will it significantly change internet access for example? In Africa, cell phone access came before (and has now supplanted) landlines, what kinds of analogous differential development might we expect with cheap access to space?

A related question is what kinds of volume of launches might we expect? Currently that figure is about 70-80 per year (per this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_spaceflight)

What happens when an average launch costs $60/million? $40? $30? $20? $10?

Addendum at Aero's suggestion: for purposes of comparison, let's say this is for a 15 tonne payload to LEO. That said, this should be scaled for larger/smaller payloads. Maybe one of the impacts of cheap access would be the deployment of swarms of micro-sats for example.

Second addendum: really hoping to understand what the next 50 years of space-based applications looks like. (Tourism, got it, discussed-ad nauseum, what *other* applications are people anticipating?)

[aero]

What happens when an average launch costs $60/million? $40? $30? $20? $10?

I think you should add the qualifier "For 15 tonnes payload to LEO."

After all, we don't need to be arguing with someone from the perspective of a communications satellite while others argue from micro sat prospective.

[AncientU]

A benchmark can be established by examining early seventies Space Shuttle projected cost of $500/pound, $1.1M/mT, which was thought to be low enough to start a virtuous cycle of space growth and development.   In today's dollars, this is about 6x higher when adjusted for inflation, or $6.6m/mT ($100M for the 15mT standard load).  Today's launch costs have fallen below that point, but no significant launch market expansion is evident -- there's much commotion in the market, so maybe it is waking up to this reality. It is likely that another reduction past this point by a factor of a few (maybe $30M/launch, $2M/mT) is still needed to jump start any virtuous cycle.

I believe the real break point will be when launch costs are low enough to launch bulk cargo (fuel, supplies, habs, tourists, etc.) where the payload cost plus the cost to prepare for launch is well below the cost of launch itself.  This will allow launch rates to rise independent of limited GEO slot, NASA experiment, DoD payload availability and reinforce the lower price launch business models -- lowering prices still more.

[dante2308]

They'd need about 50 flights a year at $20 million a flight to match their revenue stream for a standard year like 2014 including CCP funding. Ideally, they'd need to build something that has no expendable mode and could manage dozens of flights without needed to be retired including recovery from GSO to leverage reusability. 

To reach that launch rate, they can't rely on a program that only cuts the cost by a factor of three. That kind of a decrease in cost isn't enough to generate a market large enough to support a single vehicle launching that many times for that price. As it is now, they would have to wait for new start-ups to form just to increase their rate by a factor of two over their current manifest. That kind of waiting and hoping others succeed isn't reliable and it holds far too much risk.

In order to bypass this, they need to get access to the human passenger market, but to do that they need to get costs down below 100k per seat. Only then can they access the normal economics that come with price reductions.

If they can fill up a Raptor 9 with 100 passengers or so, but keep costs down to $10 million, then they have a good shot of making the economics work.

[meekGee]

What happens when an average launch costs $60/million? $40? $30? $20? $10?

I think you should add the qualifier "For 15 tonnes payload to LEO."

After all, we don't need to be arguing with someone from the perspective of a communications satellite while others argue from micro sat prospective.

I'll tune it more SpaceX's way.

A couple of weeks ago, Shotwell casually mentioned a $5-$7M price tag. (or cost.  Doesn't really matter).

If she did it in public, you can be sure that Elon has been mentioning this number to his VC circle and the start-ups they are entertaining, for probably a year or so.

So what are the VCs looking at?

We already know that low-latency Earth observation is an emerging market.  Maybe even real-time observation - all possible if you can have large constellations of small satellites.

I think everyone is taking another look at comm constellations.  The mobile data market is something that didn't exist when the current constellations were conceived, and together with low launch costs - it's just waiting to happen.

Orbital and cis-lunar space tourism is another obvious market.  Trips to LEO, GTO, and Lunar-free-return are possible with not much more than a Dragon-like capsule.

But all these are obvious.   The real killer apps are usually not what people expect them to be.

[aero]

And I personally don't expect space tourism to kick off in a very big way even at $7 million per launch. That low price is still a million dollars a ride. At that price the customers would need to be multimillionaires, up in the wealth bracket where a million dollars could be discretionary.

By way of guessing, you can look at the number of customers currently signed up for sub-orbital rides. Its like 700-800 I think. Look at the customer wealth. Now look at the number of customers who spend $5 - $10 thousand for a 7 day cruise. Its a huge number, but look at their wealth. Cruise ships have a much broader customer base and a lot more customers but it is nothing like the number of tourists who spend tourist dollars.

[dante2308]

I don't see the F9 becoming fully reusable. I'm convinced it will be the next generation, larger rocket class which isn't constrained by a 7 passenger limit.

[aero]

I don't see the F9 becoming fully reusable. I'm convinced it will be the next generation, larger rocket class which isn't constrained by a 7 passenger limit.

You may well be right but I'll counter by saying that I don't think the next generation, larger rocket class is constrained by the $7 million launch cost either.

[meekGee]

And I personally don't expect space tourism to kick off in a very big way even at $7 million per launch. That low price is still a million dollars a ride. At that price the customers would need to be multimillionaires, up in the wealth bracket where a million dollars could be discretionary.

By way of guessing, you can look at the number of customers currently signed up for sub-orbital rides. Its like 700-800 I think. Look at the customer wealth. Now look at the number of customers who spend $5 - $10 thousand for a 7 day cruise. Its a huge number, but look at their wealth. Cruise ships have a much broader customer base and a lot more customers but it is nothing like the number of tourists who spend tourist dollars.

Probably even more - $5-7M was their estimate for launch only.  You need to launch a Dragon-like capsule, but with more capabilities, and then depending on your destination, you will need upwards of an FH.  So it might be more like $20M for a trip around the moon, divided by ~4 revenue people. 

Still, the number of people world-wide that will shell out $4-5M for a real space trip is large enough.  VG has been selling $250k tickets for a 10 minute zero-g experience.  This here is the real thing.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-29/there-are-199235-ultra-high-net-worth-people-world-over-30-million-assets

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

Two independent estimates, about 2x apart.

If out of ~100,000 people, you get 300 a year, that's more than a launch a week for this market.

----

As for when $5-7M will happen - I think Shotwell's remarks were about an F9-ish rocket.  Probably not F9.1, but maybe F9.x

[dante2308]

I don't see the F9 becoming fully reusable. I'm convinced it will be the next generation, larger rocket class which isn't constrained by a 7 passenger limit.

You may well be right but I'll counter by saying that I don't think the next generation, larger rocket class is constrained by the $7 million launch cost either.

Size isn't the cost driver if we're talking about $7 million. Using the performance to make it more robust means more flights and a larger denominator on fixed costs.

[chalz]

1. Competition and technology
2. Cheap access to space
3. ?
4. Profit!

[Dave G]

And I personally don't expect space tourism to kick off in a very big way even at $7 million per launch. That low price is still a million dollars a ride. At that price the customers would need to be multimillionaires, up in the wealth bracket where a million dollars could be discretionary.

Let's take a look at that.  First, how many millionaires are there?  Type that question into Google, and the answer: those with an investable fortune of US $1-million or more = 12 million people.  As a ballpark figure, let's say 1% of those are willing to spend a million dollars on a ride to orbit.  That's 120 thousand people.  At 6 tourists per launch, that's 20,000 launches.  Obviously somewhat of a guess, but it shows the market potential at $7 million per launch.

[dante2308]

And I personally don't expect space tourism to kick off in a very big way even at $7 million per launch. That low price is still a million dollars a ride. At that price the customers would need to be multimillionaires, up in the wealth bracket where a million dollars could be discretionary.

Let's take a look at that.  First, how many millionaires are there?  Type that question into Google, and the answer: those with an investable fortune of US $1-million or more = 12 million people.  As a ballpark figure, let's say 1% of those are willing to spend a million dollars on a ride to orbit.  That's 120 thousand people.  At 6 tourists per launch, that's 20,000 launches.  Obviously somewhat of a guess, but it shows the market potential at $7 million per launch.

That's a famous calculation. Every business case makes sense if we just say a certain percentage of people with total wealth greater than a price will do it. Problem is there is no justification for assuming 1% of the world population of millionaires will spend a million dollars for a trip to LEO.

[AncientU]

While I believe that space tourists will one day sustain the market, there needs to be a phase in which Something Big is done in space (sustained exploration, space junk clean-up, several LEO/EML-1/2 stations, depots, combination of these) by governments or large private concerns before prices will drop to the $5-7M range.  $20-30M per 15mT should make a few of these projects thinkable... once flight rate breaks out of the current rut, many possibilities begin to open.  We basically need someone interested in colonizing Mars or whatever...

[Dave G]

But all these are obvious.   The real killer apps are usually not what people expect them to be.

Exactly.

[Dave G]

Problem is there is no justification for assuming 1% of the world population of millionaires will spend a million dollars for a trip to LEO.

Very true.  Estimating future market potential always boils down to an educated guess.  A lot ends up having to do with fads.  Cabbage Patch dolls are the perfect example.  When they were popular, everyone had to have one.

In the end, its about what's cool.  How cool is going into orbit?  For many people, the idea of that is still pretty cool.  Showing people your pictures from space will definitely have some impact.

[ClaytonBirchenough]

Just to think out loud, a reusable Falcon 9 would reduce payload by ~ 30% (some Elon quote) to around 20,000 lbs. to LEO.

If fully reusable Falcon 9 AND Dragon cost $10 million a launch and six tourists can be launched, that means each ticket would have to cost ~$2 million. That still seems like too large an amount to allow ordinary travel to space...

[meekGee]

Just to think out loud, a reusable Falcon 9 would reduce payload by ~ 30% (some Elon quote) to around 20,000 lbs. to LEO.

If fully reusable Falcon 9 AND Dragon cost $10 million a launch and six tourists can be launched, that means each ticket would have to cost ~$2 million. That still seems like too large an amount to allow ordinary travel to space...

SpaceX can't handle "ordinary" travel volumes.

According to the links above, there are 100k - 200k people in the world with ultra-high net worth (>$30M)
That's the target market for an expenditure in the multi-million dollar range that is not an asset.

And forget 1%.   Get 0.1% of them, and that's 100-200 people. Figuring 4 people per flight, that's 25-50 flights.

[guckyfan]

Just to think out loud, a reusable Falcon 9 would reduce payload by ~ 30% (some Elon quote) to around 20,000 lbs. to LEO.

If fully reusable Falcon 9 AND Dragon cost $10 million a launch and six tourists can be launched, that means each ticket would have to cost ~$2 million. That still seems like too large an amount to allow ordinary travel to space...

If they expect a larger number of customers they can build a larger Dragon and accomodate at least twice as many people, probably more. That would reduce cost by a lot again.

[storme]

Just to summarize some applications that others have mentioned and add a few of my own:

• Tourism
• Swarms of short-lived spy or communication sats used during conflicts or disaster
• Swarms of long-lived comm sats providing orders more communication bandwidth
• Environmental monitoring
• New generation of weather sats (with much higher resolution / sampling used to drive more sophisticated modeling?)
• Technology research, programs to develop basic technical infrastructure for living and working in space: biosphere-like habitats, grow labs, radiation shielding, physiological research, waste recycling, power generation, etc. etc.
• Zero-G manufacturing?
• Zero-G basic science
• Asteroid mining? Anyone think this is viable?
• Expanded Planetary exploration
• Kinetic weapons

[joek]

If fully reusable Falcon 9 AND Dragon cost $10 million a launch and six tourists can be launched, that means each ticket would have to cost ~$2 million. That still seems like too large an amount to allow ordinary travel to space...

True, but from an acorn a mighty oak may grow... $2M..$1M..$500K..$100K..$10K... Then maybe Disney Space Odyssey Resort, or Extreme Zero-G Sports.  Or maybe Elysium.  That's the problem trying to extrapolate from where we are today with disruptive technologies.  (Disprutive is the category DFJ places SpaceX, one of SpaceX's investors.)  As it is disruptive, no one is quite sure of the outcome.

The typical technology adoption cycle is: (1) do what we did yesterday cheaper and faster using the new technology; then (2) the real innovators figure out completely new applications and ways of doing things (telephony, television, and of course the Internet, are classic examples.)  All we can say for sure is that launch costs on the order of $5-7M would significantly reduce the barriers to entry and the risk of those wanting to exploit or send stuff to space.  That means investment will be easier to obtain (internal or external) and that a larger number of possibilities open.

Beyond individuals (tourism), many organizations (commercial, educational, NGO's, etc.) would likely contemplate space ventures that would not be considered today due to price and risk.  Exactly what those might be and their results is hard to predict.  But without giving them a chance--allowing a larger number of smaller bets--we'll never know, and that is where the "phase 2" (real innovation) is likely to be found.

[chalz]

Please lets avoid another space tourism thread.

If cost of space flight reduces sufficiently would it make non optimal launch sites more likely?

Would orbits and altitudes get more crowded and impacts more likely when more things are in the sky? Wouldn't this require more international cooperation and regulation? By regulation I mean a Space Traffic Control network to coordinate trajectories. How are cube sats monitored right now?

In another thread someone suggested satellite prices might fall because they could be made less robust and launched more often instead.

My dream would be that prices fall enough that university's could have their own satellites. Perhaps below $1m for launch and the payload framework would have to be more off-the-shelf.

The whole discussion about potential markets for mass space flight is rather dismal and depressing. It highlights the fact that the killer app has still not emerged. Spaceflight may turn out to be a generational mania. In another 50 years the cultural imperative will have gone and it will be a niche business like hot air ballooning.

(Mods: Would this thread be better in another section?)

[ClaytonBirchenough]

SpaceX can't handle "ordinary" travel volumes.

According to the links above, there are 100k - 200k people in the world with ultra-high net worth (>$30M)
That's the target market for an expenditure in the multi-million dollar range that is not an asset.

And forget 1%.   Get 0.1% of them, and that's 100-200 people. Figuring 4 people per flight, that's 25-50 flights.

25 - 50 flights is a "considerable amount" of flights compared to today's market.

However, say you launch 10 missions a year (just for tourism), you would have no other people "waiting" to fly to orbit. Then, optimistically (IMO) you would only have around 10 people entering the "ultra-high net worth 0.1%". This equates to around 3 launches a year assuming your 4 people to orbit per launch scenario.

If they expect a larger number of customers they can build a larger Dragon and accomodate at least twice as many people, probably more. That would reduce cost by a lot again.

I'm not sure it would reduce cost. If I were SpaceX, I would be aiming for total reuse and rapid launch of the "existing" (or near term) Dragon and Falcon 9.

Also, you say "by a lot again". SpaceX has yet to demonstrate the ability to transport people to orbit, even at a reduced price.

True, but from an acorn a mighty oak may grow... $2M..$1M..$500K..$100K..$10K... Then maybe Disney Space Odyssey Resort, or Extreme Zero-G Sports.  Or maybe Elysium.  That's the problem trying to extrapolate from where we are today with disruptive technologies.  (Disprutive is the category DFJ places SpaceX, one of SpaceX's investors.)  As it is disruptive, no one is quite sure of the outcome.

The typical technology adoption cycle is: (1) do what we did yesterday cheaper and faster using the new technology; then (2) the real innovators figure out completely new applications and ways of doing things (telephony, television, and of course the Internet, are classic examples.)  All we can say for sure is that launch costs on the order of $5-7M would significantly reduce the barriers to entry and the risk of those wanting to exploit or send stuff to space.  That means investment will be easier to obtain (internal or external) and that a larger number of possibilities open.

Beyond individuals (tourism), many organizations (commercial, educational, NGO's, etc.) would likely contemplate space ventures that would not be considered today due to price and risk.  Exactly what those might be and their results is hard to predict.  But without giving them a chance--allowing a larger number of smaller bets--we'll never know, and that is where the "phase 2" (real innovation) is likely to be found.

I agree with everything you said, but I do think nearest term "mighty oak" may be the $7 million launch price quoted by SpaceX.

[joek]

The whole discussion about potential markets for mass space flight is rather dismal and depressing. It highlights the fact that the killer app has still not emerged. Spaceflight may turn out to be a generational mania. In another 50 years the cultural imperative will have gone and it will be a niche business like hot air ballooning.

The lack of a killer app does not mean one can not or will not emerge.  Is it due to the fact that there is fundamentally no such killer app (as you suggest, a "generational mania"); that the circumstances have not been conducive to the emergence of such; or simply a failure of imagination?  As Henry Ford supposedly said, "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."

Granted, that no such killer app(s) have emerged puts the onus on the risk-takers who believe such exist, even if they can't identify exactly what the result may be.  However, when credible investors put significant money on the line, they should not be summarily dismissed. IMHO the operative question and discussion should focus on: What makes them think this will pan out?  What are we not seeing that they see?

[QuantumG]

I think biomedical research is the killer app.

[joek]

I think biomedical research is the killer app.

Agree that is most likely from today's vantage.  <joking-sort-of> But imagine the stampede if it were revealed that microgravity extends life expectancy by 50%; or X revealed she lost 50lbs in 10 days with her on-orbit regimen; or that Y says "Drooping boobs, no problem, zero-g is where it's at". </joking-sort-of>

[Elmar Moelzer]

What about entertainment? I mean filming movies, TV- shows, commercials and music videos in space? A few million USD are peanuts compared to most movie budgets. Maybe even some sort of zero G sport? With low enough launch prices all these things suddenly become possible.
Another thing I keep thinking about is that pleasure cruise ships did not exist before the 1840ies and back then that was reserved to a few nobles. Before that traveling by ship was slow and unpleasant and thus only done to actually go from A to B (or for some special purpose like research and defense). I am sure that if you had told an average person from the 18th century that someone would go on ship for a pleasure cruise, they would have laughed at you. Today an ocean cruise is affordable by the average middle income person and there are many cruise lines. That development was a slow process but it did happen. I think that spaceflight as it is now is still at a stage comparable to shipping in the 17th century (not even the 18th). It is only for the adventurous types and it needs to have a purpose (research, military, etc). Few take the expense and risk for personal entertainment. I wonder how that would change once prices come down and flights become more routine.

[copper8]

Salvage.  There is a lot of expensive junk up there.  Your brand new very expensive sat left in a useless orbit? What's it worth to you?

Service & repair.  Think about a new generation of sats that are designed from the start to be refueled, upgraded, repaired, etc.

Orbital cleanup.


The price gets low enough all kinds of people will get creative.

[Prober]

First prove you can do it again, and again and then we can discuss it 

[TrevorMonty]

Building  satellite or lunar power stations would require thousands of tonnes a year lifted into space. The demand for power is definitely there and grow rapidly each year. At $7m a launch they maybe viable. The lunar version requires establishing a large lunar manufacturing infrastructure before any power stations can be built from lunar materials.

[TripD]

In case it wasn't already mentioned, micro gravity and or hard vacuum  manufacturing.

[ioconnor]

Manned spaceflight is a fad that will pass quickly. The emphasis will be on sats of various types, research posts, and a hundred year ramp up on robots that can self replicate. In about 100 years when self sustaining robots and factories are a reality humanity will start moving off earth.

Killer app for inexpensive space flight? Robots.

[ChrisWilson68]

SpaceX has yet to demonstrate the ability to transport people to orbit, even at a reduced price.

Actually, SpaceX has demonstrated the ability to transport people to orbit.  Every Dragon flight could have taken people along.  We're just too risk averse to let anyone go without a launch abort system.

[meekGee]

Manned spaceflight is a fad that will pass quickly. The emphasis will be on sats of various types, research posts, and a hundred year ramp up on robots that can self replicate. In about 100 years when self sustaining robots and factories are a reality humanity will start moving off earth.

Killer app for inexpensive space flight? Robots.

That's why remote robo-tourism is such a giant industry here on Earth.  Who wants to go?  Just send the robots.

Truly self-replicating robots (Von-Neumann machines, as opposed to 3D printers) are an incredibly difficult feat, much more so than manned spaceflight.  People OTOH, self-replicate just fine - actually it's all that you can do just try to stop the little buggers from doing it.

[storme]

Just to clarify the topic, this topic is a thought experiment, *Assuming* SpaceX is successful with their stated goals and cheap, safe, reliable launch has arrived. What then? I'm curious about what industries or technologies might develop or be be disrupted by this. These opportunities will define how the space launch industry develops and I've been surprised at the dearth of discussion.

It seems clear that tourism at least at some level is a given.

Better global coverage for communication sats seems a given as well, is that transformative of current industry in any way? Will that disrupt land-based communications? My thinking is that future communication will be IP based and that asymmetric mostly one-way push technologies like TV broadcasting, cable or satellite reception are on the way out, to be replaced by fiber, however I'm not an expert on the capabilities of comm sats and the potential for symmetric transmission.

Much more comprehensive weather sats seems a likely thing too but I don't know if this is revolutionary, perhaps current coverage and resolution is sufficient?

Much more comprehensive environmental monitoring seems likely, and perhaps might play a critical role in avoiding global environmental climate disaster and/or more prosaic environmental monitoring such as forest management or firefighting.

A lot more astronomy seems a given as well.

Self-replicating robots is a sexy concept but not ready for prime time

A couple of people have mentioned zero-g and hard vacuum manufacturing, does anyone know what this might include? Similarly, some have mentioned biomedical research, other than for spaceflight, does anyone know what this might include? It's hard for me to imagine any kind of biomedical research that couldn't be done easier and at less cost than planet side.

Musk's vision is that we become a space-faring people but I've been stumped by the middle-game on this. What useful things will we be doing out there?

[dante2308]

Just to think out loud, a reusable Falcon 9 would reduce payload by ~ 30% (some Elon quote) to around 20,000 lbs. to LEO.

If fully reusable Falcon 9 AND Dragon cost $10 million a launch and six tourists can be launched, that means each ticket would have to cost ~$2 million. That still seems like too large an amount to allow ordinary travel to space...

SpaceX can't handle "ordinary" travel volumes.

According to the links above, there are 100k - 200k people in the world with ultra-high net worth (>$30M)
That's the target market for an expenditure in the multi-million dollar range that is not an asset.

And forget 1%.   Get 0.1% of them, and that's 100-200 people. Figuring 4 people per flight, that's 25-50 flights.

That isn't enough for them to match their current revenue stream if done over a single year. That scenario would mean a LOT of downsizing at SpaceX.

[chalz]

I'm curious about what industries or technologies might develop or be be disrupted by this. These opportunities will define how the space launch industry develops and I've been surprised at the dearth of discussion.

Perhaps the answer is nobody knows - hence all the scientific research. Perhaps it is a question better suited to more diverse audience.

It seems clear that tourism at least at some level is a given.

It is very unclear that tourism is a viable business and not only for the price reasons already mentioned. Even if the launcher and accommodation can be made cheap you then need an attraction. Simply being in space will not be enough for most people. Suborbital space shots are the best chance for a decent recreational experience for the foreseeable future.

A lot more astronomy seems a given as well.

This gets me excited, a radio telescope on the moon could put the SKA well in the shade. But it will be the opposite of a great money making exercise.

Musk's vision is that we become a space-faring people but I've been stumped by the middle-game on this. What useful things will we be doing out there?

The first sentence explains the second in a way. Elon Musk is a persuasive speaker. At each stage he has been careful to say that there is a good chance of failure; then dazzles the audience with the next proposal. It is a very impressive ability to present an aspirational target as if it is just around the corner. The search for a grand future and killer app hides the possibility that neither exists.

Real answer to your question: reduced costs for satellite operators and national space agencies to keep doing what they are already doing.

[CuddlyRocket]

Being able to establish a self-sustaining colony on Mars is the activity Elon Musk and SpaceX have in mind following on from cheapish access to space. Once established, there is almost certain to be traffic between Earth and Mars.

Some current activities will expand. Scientific satellites and probes would seem likely to increase; as will Earth observation. Most countries will want their own (covert intelligence), and a few will want their own manned station. There will be some tourism - where else can the super rich go that the hoi polloi cannot? Solar power satellites might become a good investment.

But the big markets are likely to be a surprise. When Michael Faraday showed Queen Victoria around the Royal Institution he demonstrated what he was working on. Seemingly unimpressed she asked 'what use is it?' and got the response 'what use is a baby?' What he was demonstrating was the electric motor and dynamo. Similarly in the 60s when the latest American Nobel Prize winner was being interviewed by the press he explained his work and one of the journalists asked if the little device he invented for his experiments had any practical use. 'I can't think of any', was the response. The device was the laser.

We shall have to hope that 'build it and they will come' applies to cheapish access to space.

[MP99]

Just to think out loud, a reusable Falcon 9 would reduce payload by ~ 30% (some Elon quote) to around 20,000 lbs. to LEO.

If fully reusable Falcon 9 AND Dragon cost $10 million a launch and six tourists can be launched, that means each ticket would have to cost ~$2 million. That still seems like too large an amount to allow ordinary travel to space...

IIRC, Musk's quote was that F9 loses 15% if *first stage* "landed" on the ocean, and 30% for RTLS.

Overhead including second stage recovery will be higher.

Cheers, Martin

[john smith 19]

First time post. I've been wondering what happens if/when Spacex is successful with their goal of dramatically lowering the cost and convenience of access to space?

What will be the impact of (relatively) inexpensive access to space? What kinds of new science, satellites, businesses, other activities might we expect to develop? Will it significantly change internet access for example? In Africa, cell phone access came before (and has now supplanted) landlines, what kinds of analogous differential development might we expect with cheap access to space?

A related question is what kinds of volume of launches might we expect? Currently that figure is about 70-80 per year (per this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_spaceflight)

What happens when an average launch costs $60/million? $40? $30? $20? $10?

Addendum at Aero's suggestion: for purposes of comparison, let's say this is for a 15 tonne payload to LEO. That said, this should be scaled for larger/smaller payloads. Maybe one of the impacts of cheap access would be the deployment of swarms of micro-sats for example.

Cost is only part of the equation. 15 tonnes for Spacex would be the the reusable version of the FH, not the F9. F9R has not flown and not even the ELV version of FH has flown yet.

Price elasticity studies at George Washington U reckoned you only get market growth when price drops 10x from current (which is also Musk's sub $1000/lb with 3-4 FH launches a year, although I presume that would be for the expendable  version).

Likewise reliability is a big enabler. 1 flight that has a payload price of < $1000/lb every 2,3 or more years apart is pretty much useless either. With higher frequency you can trade mass for reliability. Run with single string rather than triple redundant systems because if it fails it can be recovered Likewise on orbit mfg from semi raw materials EG power satellites from raw silicon would be much less fragile during launch but the cells could be much thinner on orbit, to a level impossible to mfg reliably on Earth.

The point about reliability is important to commercial customers. IIRC a couple of companies ran drug separation experiments on the Shuttle but they gave up because they just could not get any kind of reliable repeat schedule. In the end ground based systems working in Earth's gravity caught up with them.

Note also that independent space facilities could be built which have "dial-a-gravity,"  whose internal gravitational field is set by their rate of rotation. For some applications a small g field, or one whose direction relative to a substrate, may be just what is needed.

This also comes into play if people want to make bulk billets of exotic alloys (IE ones with grossly different element densities).

People like that will want scheduled deliveries and pickups, not once every six months.

LEO and MEO comm sats were an idea that sparked much interest in RLV's in the 90's. Most of them never happened and the RLV's people were looking to launch them on didn't either (IIRC only Iridium and Globalstar actually delivered).

Iridium is an interesting case study because their top mfg guy came from Apple and they cut mfg cycles of their 66 satellites a lot, despite them being substantial vehicles, in no way "nanosats."

Iridium is now launching 2nd generation sats built (IIRC) in Germany. In Africa they never had linelines for a lot of the population. So mobiles had no competition and those LEO constellation would have been outrageously expensive by local standards (not being able to get inside a steel framed building was also pretty dumb if you're pitching "use anywhere"  )

Passenger transport is a possible as passengers are quite "standardised" but you'll need a better location than the ISS. That's important as there's a thing called a "coupled loads analysis" that's can be up to 1/3 the ops costs and usually has to be repeated several times throughout the design of a payload. it can be reduced by using shock and vibration absorbing mountings instead of directly bolting the payload to the LV.

BTW Every  other transport mode on the planet separates the vehicle manufacturer from the operator. That is only a legal requirement for US aircraft mfgs due to anti trust rulings.

Yet everyone everywhere does it. Coach builders do not operate coach companies. Airbus does not own an airline, AFAIK no ship operator owns its own shipyards. Railways do not build locomotives or even rolling stock.

Do you think there's a reason for this?

[ioconnor]

Self replicating robots is sort of pie in the sky. Like self driving cars. The edge cases go on forever.

Much of the initial cargo on inexpensive spacex vehicles will be of very low value. Supply type stuff like water, solar panels, scaffolding. Perfect items for testing how many times a reusable rocket can be reused.

Building an outpost on Mars to resupply the methane needed for return flights may require huge solar farms. PV panels, batteries, wiring, thermal insulation, and robot maintenance will be huge requiring supply ships in much the same way we need trucks, trains, and cargo ships on earth. Research on robotic factories to produce these items on mars will become a huge industry here on earth. This is the "killer app". Every year the technology will improve allowing more to be built and maintained on mars and other places of value. Decades will slip by this way. At some point shipping materials between locations in space will dwarf the ships coming and going from earth.

There will be legions of robots controlled in much the same way drones are remotely controlled by humans in Nevada. Physical distances will require human outposts in remote areas. As the decades go by these remote outposts will turn into prospering colonies.

The impact of inexpensive access to space will result in Engineering and sciences in general becoming very sexy. People will look back to our current era, pre-spacex era, and see the tv shows and such and think we were living in something akin to the "dark ages".

[AncientU]

Being able to establish a self-sustaining colony on Mars is the activity Elon Musk and SpaceX have in mind following on from cheapish access to space. Once established, there is almost certain to be traffic between Earth and Mars.

Some current activities will expand. Scientific satellites and probes would seem likely to increase; as will Earth observation. Most countries will want their own (covert intelligence), and a few will want their own manned station. There will be some tourism - where else can the super rich go that the hoi polloi cannot? Solar power satellites might become a good investment.

But the big markets are likely to be a surprise. When Michael Faraday showed Queen Victoria around the Royal Institution he demonstrated what he was working on. Seemingly unimpressed she asked 'what use is it?' and got the response 'what use is a baby?' What he was demonstrating was the electric motor and dynamo. Similarly in the 60s when the latest American Nobel Prize winner was being interviewed by the press he explained his work and one of the journalists asked if the little device he invented for his experiments had any practical use. 'I can't think of any', was the response. The device was the laser.

We shall have to hope that 'build it and they will come' applies to cheapish access to space.

Although our use of space has many existing/practical apps, it could be analogous to a toddler... comms is probably the first app to have a growth spurt as we develop anywhere-to-anywhere communications -- wifi the planet (mobile ground, air, orbit, everywhere connectivity) and eventually cis-lunar space. Orbcomm and Iridium are a start.  The logical extension of the SES two-satellites-per-slot in GEO is a comm station per slot at which modular units are delivered by tugs, docked, and supplied with full services.  Laser comms are still in the baby stage.
A distributed network of fueling stations will eventually be needed -- supplying fuel from the surface or from alternate locations (asteroids, etc.) will require continual bulk launches.
As an astronomer, I envision telescopes across the electromagnetic spectrum as well as robotic exploration of all major solar system bodies.  Launch costs are largely constraining this opportunity.
Tourism, earth observation, etc. -- all existing but limited apps will grow at their unique rates.
Unanticipated killer apps will emerge, too...
The human drive to explore will push this growth across cis-lunar space and beyond.
And as usual, cleaning up the mess we create (i.e., space junk) will become an industry in itself.

[ClaytonBirchenough]

Actually, SpaceX has demonstrated the ability to transport people to orbit.  Every Dragon flight could have taken people along.  We're just too risk averse to let anyone go without a launch abort system.

Wrong. Has SpaceX transported people to orbit? NO.

Dragon at the very least needs seats, a life support system, and comms/controls. If you're feeling lucky, you could fly without a LAS. All these systems are not trivial and require a great deal of testing and paperwork to implement.

EDIT: Just thought of another too; Falcon 9 would have to modify its ascent trajectory to limit the maximum acceleration to "comfortable" levels.

[Chris Bergin]

Got to stay focused on here folks. This thread will easily run away with itself.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Just to summarize some applications that others have mentioned and add a few of my own:

• Tourism
• Swarms of short-lived spy or communication sats used during conflicts or disaster
• Swarms of long-lived comm sats providing orders more communication bandwidth
• Environmental monitoring
• New generation of weather sats (with much higher resolution / sampling used to drive more sophisticated modeling?)
• Technology research, programs to develop basic technical infrastructure for living and working in space: biosphere-like habitats, grow labs, radiation shielding, physiological research, waste recycling, power generation, etc. etc.
• Zero-G manufacturing?
• Zero-G basic science
• Asteroid mining? Anyone think this is viable?
• Expanded Planetary exploration
• Kinetic weapons

Let's look at the market impacts for each going from a $4,500/kg to a $1,000/kg to LEO price:
1) Tourism
Suborbital flight rate is currently estimated at 300 passengers per year at $250K per seat. Using a 4/10 ratio price/passengers makes a $1M price have 30 passengers per year or about 5 launches vs selling an occasional empty seat every other year at $20M per seat price. Practically non currently to 5 launches per year.

2) Swarms
Here the real impact is cost for a 1CU from the lowest current cost for kit + launch of $25K to $5,000 per kit +launch. This moves this market from 1CUs as college projects to 1CUs as High School projects. This will cause a 100/1 increase in the number of these sats. College projects will increase but they will be much larger than current 1CU or 3CU.

3) Research
Experiments are prototypes of possible commercial application or basic knowledge seek. The knowledge seek is covered primarily by the college market and for really large satellites research foundations. Commercial experimental prototypes especially by startups will increase. These sats are the next size up from Cube sats. A factor of 5 drop may make this market explode depending on the business cases applicable for various industries. Just too say this market will be significantly larger than currently of very few of 1or 2 launches to 10 or 20 launches.

4) ISRU
Here is a market that is not well understood because it really does not exist yet. From the standpoint of this item is the launch of the experiments and capital equipment to do the ISRU. Let's just say it will go from current of 0 to several (<10).

5) Military
Military spending will remain fairly flat or decrease. But if satellite construction costs/weight decrease by a factor of 5 mirroring the reduction in launch costs all based upon quantity then the number of launches would increase from 10/year to 50/year.

6) Manufacturing
Again this is a market that barely exists today and all practically in one industry biomedical. A lowering of price would cause an expansion by other industries using zero-G to produce some items at less cost or not previously accomplishable. Current market size is equivalent to <1 launch to grow to possibly somewhere <10.

7) Multi-Megawatt Power from Space or used in space
Sadly without a significant ISRU and Manufacturing of parts in space a price of $1,000/kg does not make this happen except as small prototypes. This is a much unknown market and is likely to still be 0 even at these prices of $1,000/kg. A note is that at $500/kg most business cases close for this industry.

So what is the increase?
Current of ~12 (excludes GEO sats since this is a very constrained market) at $5,000/kg.
Future of ~180 (excludes GEO sats since this is a very constrained market) at $1,000/kg.

[ioconnor]

Let's look at the market impacts for each going from a $4,500/kg to a $1,000/kg to LEO price:

4) ISRU
Here is a market that is not well understood because it really does not exist yet. From the standpoint of this item is the launch of the experiments and capital equipment to do the ISRU. Let's just say it will go from current of 0 to several (<10).

I'm not following the "<10" and other numbers you assigned. Is this an increase in magnitude? So for example ISRU will increase by less that 10x?

I

[Lar]

Let's look at the market impacts for each going from a $4,500/kg to a $1,000/kg to LEO price:

4) ISRU
Here is a market that is not well understood because it really does not exist yet. From the standpoint of this item is the launch of the experiments and capital equipment to do the ISRU. Let's just say it will go from current of 0 to several (<10).

I'm not following the "<10" and other numbers you assigned. Is this an increase in magnitude? So for example ISRU will increase by less that 10x?

I

I read it that ISRU will go from nothing to several launches a year but not more than 10 launches a year.

I think this was an interesting analysis, thanks, oldAtlas_Eguy.

[ioconnor]

Let's look at the market impacts for each going from a $4,500/kg to a $1,000/kg to LEO price:

4) ISRU
Here is a market that is not well understood because it really does not exist yet. From the standpoint of this item is the launch of the experiments and capital equipment to do the ISRU. Let's just say it will go from current of 0 to several (<10).

I'm not following the "<10" and other numbers you assigned. Is this an increase in magnitude? So for example ISRU will increase by less that 10x?

I

I read it that ISRU will go from nothing to several launches a year but not more than 10 launches a year.

I think this was an interesting analysis, thanks, oldAtlas_Eguy.

Thanks. Now I understand. It will be interesting to see how ISRU takes off.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I think the market for space tourism is bigger than people think. Just look at how many people go on cruises today, now that it is (comparably) safe and cheap.
I also think that once launch prices go down, we will see a lot more space exploration projects. I can see every major university having their own space program, sending people, research and satellites into space. Physics, astrophysics, astronomy, biology, medicine and chemistry are just some of the university departments I can think of from the top of my head, that would send stuff into space. The devices would probably be built by the universities engineering departments as a lab project. My biggest worry is that there will be so much junk in space, that it gets even more of a problem. But then, at launch prices low enough, space junk removal becomes a worthy project on its own. It would be paid for either by private entities that are forced to remove their junk, or private entities seeking to replace a satellite, or space fairing governments that want to ensure orbit stays safe.

[Robotbeat]

Space tourism for orbital launches is about 1 person a year, $40 million per person when there is room on Soyuz. Is there any elasticity at all? A factor of 20x reduction in per seat cost... Can it increase revenue by 5x? 10x? That's a good start.

[Rocket Science]

To the OP... Unfortunately more space debris...

[CuddlyRocket]

The main problem with space tourism today is not the cost but the inconvenience. You practically have to train as an astronaut for months before flight. What you want is to be able to turn up on the day (or maybe the day before) with at most a certificate from your doctor confirming your fitness to fly - no training, nothing (other than a safety briefing as on an aircraft and perhaps putting on a flight suit).

[Elmar Moelzer]

The main problem with space tourism today is not the cost but the inconvenience. You practically have to train as an astronaut for months before flight. What you want is to be able to turn up on the day (or maybe the day before) with at most a certificate from your doctor confirming your fitness to fly - no training, nothing (other than a safety briefing as on an aircraft and perhaps putting on a flight suit).

That will happen once spaceflight has become enough routine.

[gregpet]

One aspect that I have thought about is how much redundancy (physical design & testing) has to go in to each payload given the expense of launch today.  If you can bring launch costs down substantially you could just send a 'cheap' replacement up if you have a problem.

And then the broken one is then repaired/recycled by a salvage company (using robots) that exists through cheap access to space...

Using fuel provided by a fuel depot that is only possible through cheap access to space...

I guess this could be the virtuous circle...

[storme]

What I'm mostly interested in, are the new applications that cheap launch will enable.

As chalz noted down-thread, Space tourism has been discussed to death. It seems clear to me that if a small market exists at $20-40 million, a larger one will exist at $10, $5, $1 million. How big that market is, is up for debate, but it's not a debate I personally find very interesting.

This forum is filled with people who are excited about the space: why? what future potentials do you dream of? Self-replicating robots seem a necessary long-term endgame of a multi-star exploring civilization, but that technology is a long way off.

Put another way, if space is going to be a long-term viable project, there have to be applications. Comm sats, spy sats (and to a lesser degree weather/environmental sats) have been the killer applications of the early space age. What will be the applications going forward? Surely there a people out there drawing up business plans for the next 50 years.

Put another way, if *you* had $500 million and wanted to invest in the future of space, what would you invest in?

[MikeAtkinson]

By 2020 there will be over 50 superyachts above 100m, these cost $300-1500M to build and have running costs of > $50M/year. Charter rates are typically $1-2M/week with 50% extra fees on top. Some of these are owned by billionaires with only a few $B in assets (the lowest I found was $1.2B).

The problem for billionaires wanting to impress their friends and clients and to reward their loyal staff is that all their peers either have a superyacht themselves or can easily charter one. What they need is a personal space station!

At the sort of cheap launch prices talked about on this thread, a $500M station with $100M running costs (including launch) seems possible. 10 visits/year would enable a billionaire to impress >40 friends or clients per year. Charter rates would be $3M/week + flight.

There are approximately 400 people who could afford a personal space station and more than 2000 who could afford a charter. At $500M per station the market might be 1/year, so $2B could be used for NRE and a production cost of approx $200M. Each personal space station could generate 5-30 launches/year.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Hehehe, whenever I hear personal space station I think of a certain James Bond movie

[macpacheco]

The main problem with space tourism today is not the cost but the inconvenience. You practically have to train as an astronaut for months before flight. What you want is to be able to turn up on the day (or maybe the day before) with at most a certificate from your doctor confirming your fitness to fly - no training, nothing (other than a safety briefing as on an aircraft and perhaps putting on a flight suit).

That will happen once spaceflight has become enough routine.

Unlikely, launches subject astronauts to 6g's for long enough. At least you need some centrifuge training.
Might not be months, but I believe 3-5 days worth of training (centrifuge, high altitude chamber for starters) is unavoidable.
That's one aspect that Skylon would be interesting. It's ascent breathing oxygen should be far less g intensive. Perhaps about 2.5g's.

[ioconnor]

I thought the F9 was about 4G. Something the average person could handle right off the street.

[KelvinZero]

The problem for billionaires wanting to impress their friends and clients and to reward their loyal staff is that all their peers either have a superyacht themselves or can easily charter one. What they need is a personal space station!

I like this! Maybe not personal, but probably not ISS. This does seem a reasonable prediction about how the kind of space tourism would change.

I expect the number of space tourist candidates would increase at least by a few times, and I imagine that would make the ISS not a suitable destination.

I think this could create an opportunity for someone such as Bigelo. I don't see it as a space hotel entirely disconnected from the government though. The fact that they are commercial should mean they don't refuse money from anyone, and there are things the ISS is not good for because you want to keep it a pristine laboratory environment.

I would speculate that this new space station would have a fair bit of volume. That was not a goal for the ISS but it would be more pleasant for tourists. I think some ISS projects would move to it, any that might interfere with the really sensitive experiments done there. BLEO technology development might be a good candidate, perhaps simulations of working with asteroid materials in zero-g, to see how much trouble it will cause.

I don't think this would be stealing budget from the ISS, rather the ISS project and its people would now be working with two destinations, and be able to perform more diverse work.

In addition to this the length of stay may increase. Some semi-retired billionare could still do a lot of PR for their company by becoming the first permanent space resident.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I thought the F9 was about 4G. Something the average person could handle right off the street.

That was what I thought as well.

[Roy_H]

Certainly the cell phone market along with space based communications is a big and already in process market. Right now a cell tower costs about $150k and can be up to $500k in cities where real estate values are high. High data rate suitable for internet use satellites would allow world wide access and if cheap enough could compete with cell towers. How many satellites would it take. How big would they have to be?

[Roy_H]

I think that this issue of astronaut training is an important topic. I can't imagine exercising in space on a machine for hours a day is any fun. Going to the bathroom, showers, cooking and eating are all more difficult without gravity. I think it is not too big of a step to design a space station with a hub of 3 or more Bigelow modules for docking, entertainment, scientific research, and manufacturing all non-spinning mico-gravity, but not for living. Set up an arrangement of two groups of Bigelow modules (2 or 3 modules each) on long cables spinning around the central hub to give earth normal gravity. These would be the living area (one set could be for living the other a farm). People would eat, sleep and do some work in normal gravity environment and take an elevator to the hub to work in micro-gravity. This would be much more pleasant and avoid the requirement of a rigorous exercise program.

I know this drives the cost up, but I think one large station with these features (6 to 10 modules) would be much better than several smaller free floating modules presently envisioned.

[TripD]

The notion of creating earth like gravity would also lend itself to research for long missions. Although, for the case of tourism, I vaguely remember Neil Degrasse Tyson attempting to experience a short jaunt on a centrifuge.  He made it clear that it would not be comfortable for the casual visitor. I believe you would need a large radius to reduce the unpleasant effects.  Anyone know for sure?

[luinil]

With tethers you can get quite a large radius, the problem being how to travel between the center and the rotating modules.

[ChrisWilson68]

Another possibility is disposing of high-level radioactive waste.

Yucca Mountain was the U.S. government's plan to deal with it by burying it, until it was killed when Harry Reid came to power because it was in his state.  Yucca Mountain was supposed to handle 70,000 metric tons of waste.  It has already cost $21 billion and it was projected the total lifecycle cost would be $90 billion.  That's more than $1.2 million per ton.  So at $10 million for 15 tons to LEO you can get that waste to LEO for less than it would have cost to bury in Yucca Mountain.  Cut the launch costs some more and you can send it to the Moon, or to a Lagrangian Point.  You'd want it sealed in a container that would survive re-entry intact and not break open, so that would also increase the mass required.  But any safety issues with the launch would be balanced by not having a continuing safety issue for thousands of years if it were buried somewhere.

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

[go4mars]

 3D printing of very large pusher plates in space.  Most people will get very interested starting at 9:04

[llanitedave]

Another possibility is disposing of high-level radioactive waste.

Yucca Mountain was the U.S. government's plan to deal with it by burying it, until it was killed when Harry Reid came to power because it was in his state.  Yucca Mountain was supposed to handle 70,000 metric tons of waste.  It has already cost $21 billion and it was projected the total lifecycle cost would be $90 billion.  That's more than $1.2 million per ton.  So at $10 million for 15 tons to LEO you can get that waste to LEO for less than it would have cost to bury in Yucca Mountain.  Cut the launch costs some more and you can send it to the Moon, or to a Lagrangian Point.  You'd want it sealed in a container that would survive re-entry intact and not break open, so that would also increase the mass required.  But any safety issues with the launch would be balanced by not having a continuing safety issue for thousands of years if it were buried somewhere.

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

I worked at Yucca Mountain before it was killed.  Your figures, even if accurate, are applied wrongly.  The cost for burial of nuclear waste is not just the cost for digging the tunnels, it's the cost for the facilities and operations that would transport the waste from its current locations, extract it from its current containers, and encapsulate it into safer canisters.  Much of this infrastructure cost would be the same whether you're burying it or launching it, so you'd still have to add huge amounts to simple launch costs.  And you'd have to much more than double the mass of the spent fuel itself just to shield it and protect it in case of a launch mishap.

When you account for all the packaging, transport, and processing you'd have to do, there's no way your launch costs to the Moon or anywhere else could come even remotely close to the costs for deep geologic storage.

In addition, there's no "continuing safety issue" for properly buried waste to balance.  The $21 billion you referred to was spent on, among other things, studies of the site itself and the designs of canisters that would keep the waste isolated for the time required before it decayed to safe levels.

Regardless of what politicians like Harry Reid have stated, the site was killed for purely political reasons, not for any technical deficiencies.  Yucca Mountain would have entombed the waste perfectly adequately, without any continuing intervention by humans.  The waste would not have come into any significant contact with groundwater, and there would have been no place for it to escape to.

Launching the stuff into space was a suggestion I had to deal with almost daily, and any kind of real analysis would show what a bad idea that is.

[jeff.findley]

All of the training which used to be "required" for spaceflight won't truly be needed once Dragon has been proven relatively safe.  Certainly it will be a bit more than the "safety lecture" given on every commercial airliner flight.  But, consider the fact that there will be no need to "weed out" candidates (as long as they have the cash), which was the *real* reason that government run space programs have historically been very picky about selecting astronaut candidates. 

Note the types of "passengers" who have already flown on Soyuz and even on the space shuttle.  Considering quite the odd assortment of "payload specialists" that the shuttle flew (e.g. Senator Jake Garn and then 77 year old Senator John Glenn), this seems to demonstratively prove that reasonably healthy adults can and *do* survive flights to LEO and back.

[RanulfC]

All of the training which used to be "required" for spaceflight won't truly be needed once Dragon has been proven relatively safe.  Certainly it will be a bit more than the "safety lecture" given on every commercial airliner flight.  But, consider the fact that there will be no need to "weed out" candidates (as long as they have the cash), which was the *real* reason that government run space programs have historically been very picky about selecting astronaut candidates. 

Note the types of "passengers" who have already flown on Soyuz and even on the space shuttle.  Considering quite the odd assortment of "payload specialists" that the shuttle flew (e.g. Senator Jake Garn and then 77 year old Senator John Glenn), this seems to demonstratively prove that reasonably healthy adults can and *do* survive flights to LEO and back.

How is the "helping" your argument since every single one of those "passengers" trained for months prior to going up? No one gets away with "short" training time because the environment is very dangerous and the slightest "accident" can lead to a lot of death in very nasty ways. Having Dragon "proven-safe" is not going to change this much, if at all. The majority of the training recieved is what to do in case the worst happens. (And 99% of the "Passengers" training is to get OUT of the way of the people who actually know what they are doing so they can do it)

It takes several day to weeks for someone to get minimum training in being a "passenger" on high performance jet aircraft, (minimum I've seen is two days (about 6 hours each day) PRIOR to getting into the aircraft and that's a "don't touch anything" ride) which includes tests and training to learn how to handle G-forces, pressurization/de-pressurization, and safety training as well as life-support, and suit fittings. No you are not going to "show-up" with a certificate from your doctor and board the spaceship for a long, long time.

Randy

[Elmar Moelzer]

It takes several day to weeks for someone to get minimum training in being a "passenger" on high performance jet aircraft, (minimum I've seen is two days (about 6 hours each day) PRIOR to getting into the aircraft and that's a "don't touch anything" ride) which includes tests and training to learn how to handle G-forces, pressurization/de-pressurization, and safety training as well as life-support, and suit fittings. No you are not going to "show-up" with a certificate from your doctor and board the spaceship for a long, long time.

I think that once spaceflight is more routine, anyone will be able to go. Health concerns will be a lot lower as well. I sure hope they will let me go (have a stent, but am otherwise fit) once prices come down (still hoping it will happen in my lifetime).
The months of training now are IMHO largely unnecessary in a more commercial (non ISS) setting.
It could come down to a few of days, which seems more in line with other commercial settings. No one had to go through elaborate training or health checks prior to boarding the Concorde. Even a flight on the SS2 will only require a few (2?) days of prior training and I think it is only a small step from that to an orbital trip.
I also remember a time when you could book a hypersonic joy ride (some including a steep climb to 30 km) on a Russian Mig 29 shortly after the collapse of the USSR. No prior training required and no questions asked.

[QuantumG]

Quite a number of people flew on the space shuttle as "payload specialists" and "mission specialists" with no training on how to fly the vehicle.

The Russian requirement that everyone be able to fly the Soyuz isn't a law of nature.

[Roy_H]

With tethers you can get quite a large radius, the problem being how to travel between the center and the rotating modules.

If my math is correct, cables 223 meters long and a rotational time of 30 seconds will produce an earth normal gravity. I envision an elevator that rides up and down the cables like a Bigelow Sundancer, about the same size as the addition Bigelow is putting on the ISS. People would dock on the non-rotating hub, transfer into the Sundancer elevator. A robotic arm would move the Sundancer from the hub to the cable spinning slowly. Once attached to the cable the robotic arm would let go and the Sundancer would be lowered to the living quarters.

[macpacheco]

It takes several day to weeks for someone to get minimum training in being a "passenger" on high performance jet aircraft, (minimum I've seen is two days (about 6 hours each day) PRIOR to getting into the aircraft and that's a "don't touch anything" ride) which includes tests and training to learn how to handle G-forces, pressurization/de-pressurization, and safety training as well as life-support, and suit fittings. No you are not going to "show-up" with a certificate from your doctor and board the spaceship for a long, long time.

I think that once spaceflight is more routine, anyone will be able to go. Health concerns will be a lot lower as well. I sure hope they will let me go (have a stent, but am otherwise fit) once prices come down (still hoping it will happen in my lifetime).
The months of training now are IMHO largely unnecessary in a more commercial (non ISS) setting.
It could come down to a few of days, which seems more in line with other commercial settings. No one had to go through elaborate training or health checks prior to boarding the Concorde. Even a flight on the SS2 will only require a few (2?) days of prior training and I think it is only a small step from that to an orbital trip.
I also remember a time when you could book a hypersonic joy ride (some including a steep climb to 30 km) on a Russian Mig 29 shortly after the collapse of the USSR. No prior training required and no questions asked.

Something being offered in Russia right after the collapse of the USSR are pretty meaningless to the standards of developed countries. Take the Chernobyl reactor as a simple example. That reactor as it was constructed wouldn't be allowed to operate in North America, East Europe, Japan and a few more countries ever. It lacked the most essential safety feature, the equivalent would  be a fighter jet without an ejection seat and a few more avoidable risk factors. And the biggest reason F15/F16 pilots were told not to dogfight a Mig 29 unless they absolutely had to was exactly because it was lighter for not having many of the robust features their NATO equivalents had (giving it a better thrust to weight leading to better agility).

There's a clear track record of little respect for human life in the USSR times. All the way from every soldier is 100% expendable to the way they treated their own population. This has changed today BTW (to some extent).

Sorry for the off topic, but the argument presented screams the need for a clarification.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Something being offered in Russia right after the collapse of the USSR are pretty meaningless to the standards of developed countries. Take the Chernobyl reactor as a simple example. That reactor as it was constructed wouldn't be allowed to operate in North America, East Europe, Japan and a few more countries ever. It lacked the most essential safety feature, the equivalent would  be a fighter jet without an ejection seat and a few more avoidable risk factors. And the biggest reason F15/F16 pilots were told not to dogfight a Mig 29 unless they absolutely had to was exactly because it was lighter for not having many of the robust features their NATO equivalents had (giving it a better thrust to weight leading to better agility).

There's a clear track record of little respect for human life in the USSR times. All the way from every soldier is 100% expendable to the way they treated their own population. This has changed today BTW (to some extent).

Sorry for the off topic, but the argument presented screams the need for a clarification.

I don't see your point. My point was that months of training for a space flight as a passenger is unnecessary. Jeff argued that it takes days or even weeks for someone to train for flight on a hypersonic jet. I simply showed that it is not necessary.  Chernobyl is off topic (and was human error anyway). The USSR did not like loosing their pilots any more than the US did.

[jpfulton314]

Any increase in the use of space needs to be tied to having destinations.  In this sense, Bigelow stands out as an obvious choice for creating a number of destinations, both at LEO, Lagrange Points, and on the Moon.  As I see it, once we have additional heavy lift at relatively inexpensive prices, there will be a market for BA-330's and possibly even BA-2100's.  There are quite a large number of graphics on the web demonstrating a number of configurations.  In any case we really do live in interesting times.

[jeff.findley]

How is the "helping" your argument since every single one of those "passengers" trained for months prior to going up? No one gets away with "short" training time because the environment is very dangerous and the slightest "accident" can lead to a lot of death in very nasty ways. Having Dragon "proven-safe" is not going to change this much, if at all. The majority of the training recieved is what to do in case the worst happens. (And 99% of the "Passengers" training is to get OUT of the way of the people who actually know what they are doing so they can do it)

It takes several day to weeks for someone to get minimum training in being a "passenger" on high performance jet aircraft, (minimum I've seen is two days (about 6 hours each day) PRIOR to getting into the aircraft and that's a "don't touch anything" ride) which includes tests and training to learn how to handle G-forces, pressurization/de-pressurization, and safety training as well as life-support, and suit fittings. No you are not going to "show-up" with a certificate from your doctor and board the spaceship for a long, long time.

Please don't mistake organizational inertia ("it's *always* been done this way") with reality.  For project Mercury, it made sense to pull candidates from the ranks of test pilots.  But we are several generations of spacecraft removed from that original starting point.  Passengers on a commercial spacecraft will not have to be trained to take the controls. 

Yes, commercial spacecraft passengers *might* train for contingencies like egress from the spacecraft in case of a water landing.  But even that is not written in stone.   In the history of commercial air travel, there have been cases where passengers had to leave an aircraft after a water ditching, but passengers still don't train for that scenario.  All commercial aircraft passengers need to do for training for that scenario is listen to a brief "safety lecture" which includes "your seat cushion may be used as a floatation device". 

And finally, from a regulatory point of view commercial launch providers do not, and will not, have to answer to NASA.  So, it matters little what NASA has "required" in the past for their government run spacecraft.

[RanulfC]

I think that once spaceflight is more routine, anyone will be able to go. Health concerns will be a lot lower as well. I sure hope they will let me go (have a stent, but am otherwise fit) once prices come down (still hoping it will happen in my lifetime).
The months of training now are IMHO largely unnecessary in a more commercial (non ISS) setting.
It could come down to a few of days, which seems more in line with other commercial settings. No one had to go through elaborate training or health checks prior to boarding the Concorde. Even a flight on the SS2 will only require a few (2?) days of prior training and I think it is only a small step from that to an orbital trip.
I also remember a time when you could book a hypersonic joy ride (some including a steep climb to 30 km) on a Russian Mig 29 shortly after the collapse of the USSR. No prior training required and no questions asked.

Supersonic joy ride actually No one does "hypersonic" yet... However if it was ever "no prior training" and "no questions" it was only for a short time and is no longer that way because NOW all those joy rides have to deal with insurance and they require training. (I pretty guarantee it was never "no-training" even though they may have not cared if you had "prior" training because people who deal with high performance aircraft in hazerdouze situations and a zoom climb qualified do NOT want someone who has never been given a rigerious and intensive "shooling" around them when they are doing it. Such people tend to make such situations VERY much worse by making simple mistakes because they don't know any better. Short of strapping someone arms and legs so that they can't move, then you MUST train the person in certain minimum safety and operations procedures before they ever climb into the aircraft. If you don't you will find yourself in a flat spin at 30Km with no control because your "passenger" didn't know any better than to pull the "red-handle" to adjust his seat. And managed to blow himself and every bit of control you had out of the airplane

SS2 will require two (2) WEEKS of "training" we've been told by VG, most of which will be a "vacation" really and about 4 days of actual "training" one of which will be microgravity training aboard the WK2 after it drops an SS2 mission. Branson is hoping to get away with minimum training time but there are no indications that the FAA or anyone else is going to let him get away without altitude training and emergency training. Like I said about 4 days.

Quite a number of people flew on the space shuttle as "payload specialists" and "mission specialists" with no training on how to fly the vehicle.

The Russian requirement that everyone be able to fly the Soyuz isn't a law of nature.

Agreed but those payload specialists still tooks months of training learning how and what to do during an emergancy and what not to do and specifically how to live and operate as part of a crew in a hostile environment. Even if you're not "flight-crew" the training tends to be intensive if not as long.

Please don't mistake organizational inertia ("it's *always* been done this way") with reality.  For project Mercury, it made sense to pull candidates from the ranks of test pilots.  But we are several generations of spacecraft removed from that original starting point.  Passengers on a commercial spacecraft will not have to be trained to take the controls.

Ahhh, no putting words in my mouth I NEVER made that point thank you. However far we are removed from Mercury though passengers STILL will have to undergo training in various aspects that make space flight DIFFERENT than other forms of transportation.

Yes, commercial spacecraft passengers *might* train for contingencies like egress from the spacecraft in case of a water landing.

No "might" about it they WILL have to be trained in contingenciy and emergency operations. This is not going to be "optional" even if government regulations do not mandate it any insurance company will.

But even that is not written in stone.   In the history of commercial air travel, there have been cases where passengers had to leave an aircraft after a water ditching, but passengers still don't train for that scenario.  All commercial aircraft passengers need to do for training for that scenario is listen to a brief "safety lecture" which includes "your seat cushion may be used as a floatation device". 

Spacecraft are not aircraft and they are not going to be any time in the near future. Where as people do not have to "train" to leave an aircraft in a water ditching scenerio people who fly in spacecraft do because it it a very different environment and conditions than those faced by airline passengers. We are a very long way off from the point where being a spacecraft passenger is anything like being an airline passenger. The sooner people understand that simple fact of life the sooner people will gain the true persepective on how space tourism and passenger operations will be.

And finally, from a regulatory point of view commercial launch providers do not, and will not, have to answer to NASA.  So, it matters little what NASA has "required" in the past for their government run spacecraft.

Note here: NASA does not make up these regulations and training that I've been speaking of. NASA HAS regulations and the FAA is leaning towards adopting most of them for application to commercial launch providers for passenger safety. Not all of them or course but the idea of sending someone up in a spacecraft that has never "practiced" even simple procedures is pretty ridiculous. Think about it for a moment. Rent a nice "spacesuit" costume, sit in your car and then have someone time you doing an "escape" drill and check your time compared to not wearing the suit. Then try getting out of a chair on you back in the same exercise. Go up and down a ladder in the suit, if you can afford it dive into a pool and try and stay afloat while inflating a life vest. (They don't always automatically work)

Now imagine having to execute those same tasks in microgravity? In a cramped spacecraft where one careless kick or sweep of the arm could effect the spacecraft controls, knock loose a vital piece of equipment or worse yet put someone ELSE in danger?

This has nothing to do with "organizational inertia" or "outdated" rules set in stone and everything to do with the fact that the "Passengers" will in fact be dealing with very "non-standard" conditions and situations that they NEED to be trained in, aware of, and able to cope with in a way that no passenger on an airliner, ship, train, or car has had to do. This isn't about jumping into the "pilots" seat as a passenger and saving the day it is about being able to NOT get in the way of the people who are trying to save the day while also being prepared and able to do exactly what YOU need to do, when you need to do it to save your own life in an emergency.

Commercial providers know this all as well as anyone and there is no indication that they will try and "avoid" the needed training and every indication they will in fact proscribe to the same rules and regulations that history has already established.

Randy

[Elmar Moelzer]

Supersonic joy ride actually

Yeah, I was ahead of myself there

However if it was ever "no prior training" and "no questions" it was only for a short time and is no longer that way because NOW all those joy rides have to deal with insurance and they require training. (I pretty guarantee it was never "no-training" even though they may have not cared if you had "prior" training because people who deal with high performance aircraft in hazerdouze situations and a zoom climb qualified do NOT want someone who has never been given a rigerious and intensive "shooling" around them when they are doing it. Such people tend to make such situations VERY much worse by making simple mistakes because they don't know any better. Short of strapping someone arms and legs so that they can't move, then you MUST train the person in certain minimum safety and operations procedures before they ever climb into the aircraft. If you don't you will find yourself in a flat spin at 30Km with no control because your "passenger" didn't know any better than to pull the "red-handle" to adjust his seat. And managed to blow himself and every bit of control you had out of the airplane

You know telling someone to "not touch anything" unless told to do so, does NOT require months of training... but maybe they should have a 30 minute IQ test first.
I am pretty sure Adam Savage from the Mythbusters went on a ride on a Blue Angels fighterjet without much prior training. Certainly not days of training.

SS2 will require two (2) WEEKS of "training" we've been told by VG, most of which will be a "vacation" really and about 4 days of actual "training" one of which will be microgravity training aboard the WK2 after it drops an SS2 mission. Branson is hoping to get away with minimum training time but there are no indications that the FAA or anyone else is going to let him get away without altitude training and emergency training. Like I said about 4 days.

Ok, 4 days then. 4 days of actual training is not MONTHS!

Agreed but those payload specialists still tooks months of training learning how and what to do during an emergancy and what not to do and specifically how to live and operate as part of a crew in a hostile environment. Even if you're not "flight-crew" the training tends to be intensive if not as long.

A lot of that was for their actual job as a payload specialist.

Ahhh, no putting words in my mouth I NEVER made that point thank you. However far we are removed from Mercury though passengers STILL will have to undergo training in various aspects that make space flight DIFFERENT than other forms of transportation.

And that can be days of training, maybe a couple of weeks. I don't see why you would need months.

Spacecraft are not aircraft and they are not going to be any time in the near future. Where as people do not have to "train" to leave an aircraft in a water ditching scenerio people who fly in spacecraft do because it it a very different environment and conditions than those faced by airline passengers. We are a very long way off from the point where being a spacecraft passenger is anything like being an airline passenger. The sooner people understand that simple fact of life the sooner people will gain the true persepective on how space tourism and passenger operations will be.

How, why? Where is it different? What exactly is so complicated about that, that requires months of training?

NASA HAS regulations and the FAA is leaning towards adopting most of them for application to commercial launch providers for passenger safety.

I don't think so. I thought that right now the safety of the passengers was not governed by the FAA, only the safety of the civilians on the ground. I might be wrong though.

Not all of them or course but the idea of sending someone up in a spacecraft that has never "practiced" even simple procedures is pretty ridiculous.

No one said that. You can learn simple procedures in a few days. That does not require months.

Think about it for a moment. Rent a nice "spacesuit" costume, sit in your car and then have someone time you doing an "escape" drill and check your time compared to not wearing the suit. Then try getting out of a chair on you back in the same exercise. Go up and down a ladder in the suit, if you can afford it dive into a pool and try and stay afloat while inflating a life vest. (They don't always automatically work)

These drills are ridiculous. Risk is part of the game. Noone practices that with a jumbo jet full of passengers. Probably not easy to get out of that either with luggage flying around and stuff. If you are afraid of the risks, go do something else, space is not for you!

Now imagine having to execute those same tasks in microgravity? In a cramped spacecraft where one careless kick or sweep of the arm could effect the spacecraft controls, knock loose a vital piece of equipment or worse yet put someone ELSE in danger?

I doubt that passengers will be doing EVAs. So no need to put on a space suit. Putting on a space suit in an emergency will not work anyway.

This has nothing to do with "organizational inertia" or "outdated" rules set in stone and everything to do with the fact that the "Passengers" will in fact be dealing with very "non-standard" conditions and situations that they NEED to be trained in, aware of, and able to cope with in a way that no passenger on an airliner, ship, train, or car has had to do. This isn't about jumping into the "pilots" seat as a passenger and saving the day it is about being able to NOT get in the way of the people who are trying to save the day while also being prepared and able to do exactly what YOU need to do, when you need to do it to save your own life in an emergency.

And learning that does not take months.

[TrevorMonty]

Passengers will need to wear light cabin spacesuits and helment these will require training. There is also issue of handling bodily functions, nappies maybe answer for short trips, extended trips will require toilet training. With 2 crew and ground controlled autopilot I doubt any flight training of capsule will be needed, except how operate radio.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Passengers will need to wear light cabin spacesuits and helment these will require training.

You mean for the launch. Yes, they will have to. Yes they require training. No, I don't think it will be months.

There is also issue of handling bodily functions, nappies maybe answer for short trips, extended trips will require toilet training. With 2 crew and ground controlled autopilot I doubt any flight training of capsule will be needed, except how operate radio.

I remember Richard Garriotts take on that. No one can quite train you for that.
You pretty much learn that "up there" and from what he said, it is not a pleasant experience ( market niche anyone?).

[llanitedave]

Now imagine having to execute those same tasks in microgravity? In a cramped spacecraft where one careless kick or sweep of the arm could effect the spacecraft controls, knock loose a vital piece of equipment or worse yet put someone ELSE in danger?

Any space craft designed for tourist use will not have vital controls sticking out where passengers can hit them.  Cruise ships don't make the scuttles available to the passenger, do they?

[chalz]

Suppose 15 years from now all orbital flights cost <10% of what they are now. Reusability via flyback stages works and is copied by all rocket makers. Then suppose that reliability is still bad, 1 in 1000 flights is catastrophically lost. How would this restrain uses?

I think unmanned use would expand much more than manned uses. Working in space would be the most dangerous occupation possible and as a tourist location it would be like climbing Mount Everest. It sounds like a risk people would take if they thought the rewards were adequate. The training would then be welcomed by the willing and incidental for the rest.

[john smith 19]

Certainly the cell phone market along with space based communications is a big and already in process market. Right now a cell tower costs about $150k and can be up to $500k in cities where real estate values are high. High data rate suitable for internet use satellites would allow world wide access and if cheap enough could compete with cell towers. How many satellites would it take. How big would they have to be?

You mean like say Iridium or Orbcomm?

They already exist.

You might like to look up their history. People thought it was such an obvious market there would room for multiple RLV's to launch them, and launch their upgrades (as LEO comm  sats would have lower life expectancies than GEO)

Didn't happen then, and cell phone coverage is much wider now than in the mid to late 90's. 

What do you think has changed to make that idea any more reasonable?

[john smith 19]

Suppose 15 years from now all orbital flights cost <10% of what they are now. Reusability via flyback stages works and is copied by all rocket makers. Then suppose that reliability is still bad, 1 in 1000 flights is catastrophically lost. How would this restrain uses?

Current loss of vehicle stats for ELV's is around 1 in 20 to 1 in 34 launches of a given type.
1 in 1000? That's 100x better already, and BTW Shuttle stats were pretty much on the ELV figure as well.

I think unmanned use would expand much more than manned uses. Working in space would be the most dangerous occupation possible and as a tourist location it would be like climbing Mount Everest. It sounds like a risk people would take if they thought the rewards were adequate. The training would then be welcomed by the willing and incidental for the rest.

Actually every year hundreds of tourists climb Everest. The trouble is the traffic jams.

If you're looking at "risk" sports or professions you might like to consider things like commercial divers supporting oil rigs (especially saturation divers, where things can go seriously wrong) or diving in a bathysphere (yes that is an activity holiday if you're rich enough) or those zero g plane flights.

All require a fair bit of pre-work training because the environment is strange (and potentially, if not actually fatal). 

And yet people do take these holidays and work in these environments.

[edit An interesting training example would be the what people traveling to North Sea oil rigs have to do. SOP is a helicopter flight from Aberdeen or Stavanger every few weeks. Despite this all passengers have to have a certificate confirming (among other things) they have been trained in a)Putting on and taking off the dry suit (your life expectancy in the North Sea without one is about 5-10 minutes before hyperthermia sets in and you freeze to death) and have practiced ditching in a large pool.

Passengers have to pay for their training and it's been known for some workers to fake their certificate. I think it's a firing offense to be caught with a fake certificate, and probably a lethal one if the chopper ditches and you don't know what to do. Note this is not for the pilot and crew, just the passengers, because there is a significant risk of it happening and the consequences are severe.  .

So yes people do train, even for something as "trivial" as getting on a helicopter for a few hours. The North Sea is a lonely place to die.    ]

[john smith 19]

SS2 will require two (2) WEEKS of "training" we've been told by VG, most of which will be a "vacation" really and about 4 days of actual "training" one of which will be microgravity training aboard the WK2 after it drops an SS2 mission. Branson is hoping to get away with minimum training time but there are no indications that the FAA or anyone else is going to let him get away without altitude training and emergency training. Like I said about 4 days.

IIRC one of the big dampeners for Soyuz tourist flights was not the money, but the year (or 18 months) the Russians required for pre training. 2 weeks? 4 days?  That's nothing in comparison.

Quite a number of people flew on the space shuttle as "payload specialists" and "mission specialists" with no training on how to fly the vehicle.

Agreed but those payload specialists still tooks months of training learning how and what to do during an emergancy and what not to do and specifically how to live and operate as part of a crew in a hostile environment. Even if you're not "flight-crew" the training tends to be intensive if not as long.

Last time I checked they will be called "spaceflight participants," flight safety will come under the FAA as they won't be flying on a NASA owned or operated vehicle. The joker is if it goes to the ISS what rules apply there? Time to check with the Commercial Spaceflight Association I think.

Ahhh, no putting words in my mouth I NEVER made that point thank you. However far we are removed from Mercury though passengers STILL will have to undergo training in various aspects that make space flight DIFFERENT than other forms of transportation.
No "might" about it they WILL have to be trained in contingenciy and emergency operations. This is not going to be "optional" even if government regulations do not mandate it any insurance company will.

I think an interesting comparison might be oil rig workers in the North Sea. SOP is transfer by helicopter from Aberdeen or Stavanger. It's just a single flight every few weeks but all passengers have to practice
a) Putting on the full body dry suit (without it you're dead in 5-10 minutes) b) Egress in a simulated ditching (in a pool). You have to have a certificate to prove you've done this (I'm not sure if you do "refresher" training) and it has been known for people to fake the certificate and take the chance. 

OTOH crew transports have crashed in the North Sea and it's a lonely place to die. 

Spacecraft are not aircraft and they are not going to be any time in the near future. Where as people do not have to "train" to leave an aircraft in a water ditching scenerio people who fly in spacecraft do because it it a very different environment and conditions than those faced by airline passengers. We are a very long way off from the point where being a spacecraft passenger is anything like being an airline passenger. The sooner people understand that simple fact of life the sooner people will gain the true persepective on how space tourism and passenger operations will be.

As you see, sometimes they do.

Note here: NASA does not make up these regulations and training that I've been speaking of. NASA HAS regulations and the FAA is leaning towards adopting most of them for application to commercial launch providers for passenger safety. Not all of them or course but the idea of sending someone up in a spacecraft that has never "practiced" even simple procedures is pretty ridiculous. Think about it for a moment. Rent a nice "spacesuit" costume, sit in your car and then have someone time you doing an "escape" drill and check your time compared to not wearing the suit. Then try getting out of a chair on you back in the same exercise. Go up and down a ladder in the suit, if you can afford it dive into a pool and try and stay afloat while inflating a life vest. (They don't always automatically work)

Now imagine having to execute those same tasks in microgravity? In a cramped spacecraft where one careless kick or sweep of the arm could effect the spacecraft controls, knock loose a vital piece of equipment or worse yet put someone ELSE in danger?

This has nothing to do with "organizational inertia" or "outdated" rules set in stone and everything to do with the fact that the "Passengers" will in fact be dealing with very "non-standard" conditions and situations that they NEED to be trained in, aware of, and able to cope with in a way that no passenger on an airliner, ship, train, or car has had to do. This isn't about jumping into the "pilots" seat as a passenger and saving the day it is about being able to NOT get in the way of the people who are trying to save the day while also being prepared and able to do exactly what YOU need to do, when you need to do it to save your own life in an emergency.

Commercial providers know this all as well as anyone and there is no indication that they will try and "avoid" the needed training and every indication they will in fact proscribe to the same rules and regulations that history has already established.

[Dudely]

I thought we weren't supposed to be talking about tourism. . .


I think a major application will be the prospecting of off-world resources using swarms of orbital telescopes. They are not that expensive to produce, and 15 mT worth of 20-50kg telescopes could get you an absurd amount of viewing time. You could even send up improved versions over time and then turn some of the later, more capable ones into probes by attaching a propulsion system to the backside (or just send up another batch with propulsion already attached). Targeting a carbon-rich NEA with a few dozen small probes capable of basic sample return seems like it could be a very viable investment in a couple decades, considering oil companies are, today, creating robotic cities miles beneath the surface of the ocean at costs exceeding 10 billion for a single platform. 10 billion would get you a lot of failed attempts, and the potential revenue on a success would be astronomical.

With big launch costs come big projects to justify the cost of the launch. They also must prove their worth before launch. Smaller, riskier projects like the one described above could be funded multiple times by millionaires with no more of an aim than an itch to carve their name into the history of space exploration. I could think of worse things to do with it.

EDIT: I think we will come up with a set of basic rules surrounding who can mine a given asteroid. Adding real, valuable property to space would open it up to real investment where the people with money use math to extrapolate whether purchasing some asset is worth it in the long run. If an asteroid turns into an "asset" once you prospect it (again, given some set of rules as-of-yet-to-be-defined), then it suddenly becomes worth it to give a few dozen people with an engineering degree some fraction of your wealth on the off chance they are able to find a valuable asteroid and maybe return some samples. Only a few corporations even need to do anything with the asteroids at first. The potential that someone might lease your mining rights on a very valuable asteroid sometime in the future would be enough to pretty much coat the inner solar system with probes.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I think an interesting comparison might be oil rig workers in the North Sea. SOP is transfer by helicopter from Aberdeen or Stavanger. It's just a single flight every few weeks but all passengers have to practice
a) Putting on the full body dry suit (without it you're dead in 5-10 minutes) b) Egress in a simulated ditching (in a pool). You have to have a certificate to prove you've done this (I'm not sure if you do "refresher" training) and it has been known for people to fake the certificate and take the chance. 
OTOH crew transports have crashed in the North Sea and it's a lonely place to die. 

And all that does not take months to train. You can learn that in a few hours, maybe a couple of days. People will need training, but it wont be months. One could probably let them train these things on their own time and schedule as well. No need for a 18 month sabbatical.

[chalz]

Suppose 15 years from now all orbital flights cost <10% of what they are now. Reusability via flyback stages works and is copied by all rocket makers. Then suppose that reliability is still bad, 1 in 1000 flights is catastrophically lost. How would this restrain uses?

Current loss of vehicle stats for ELV's is around 1 in 20 to 1 in 34 launches of a given type.
1 in 1000? That's 100x better already, and BTW Shuttle stats were pretty much on the ELV figure as well.

Thanks for the correction. That makes it much harder to imagine a great increase in industry on orbit under my scenario.

The reason I brought up mountain climbing is that it is known to be dangerous and people still do it. But what people seem to have in mind with space tourism is not adventure sport but orbital accommodation - a LEO Hilton - something with opposing customer requirements.

The occasional millionaire thrill seeker is going to remain the only likely space tourist. And any industrial process that proves cost effective in space would have to be extremely profitable to justify the expense in operation and the risk premium involved in space.

I thought we weren't supposed to be talking about tourism. . .

Quite right, forgot my own advice.

I think a major application will be the prospecting of off-world resources using swarms of orbital telescopes.

Not sure what people expect to find. Asteroids are meteorites that haven't hit us yet and most meteorites are simple iron. We have plenty of iron on Earth already. A mineral rare on Earth is likely to be rare in Space as well. But even supposing a solid chunk of a rare earth mineral(ha) is found. Then suppose it is in a convenient place and of a manageable size. We still need enough energy or time to stop its current current trajectory and give it a new one, bring it back to orbit and dismantle it, process it or shield it and deorbit it. Not conceptually impossible but could it be cost efficient even with reusable rockets?

[Elmar Moelzer]

Current loss of vehicle stats for ELV's is around 1 in 20 to 1 in 34 launches of a given type.
1 in 1000? That's 100x better already, and BTW Shuttle stats were pretty much on the ELV figure as well.

Thanks for the correction. That makes it much harder to imagine a great increase in industry on orbit under my scenario.

Loss of vehicle does not mean loss of crew. It only meant that with STS, but Dragon, DreamChaser and CST100 will have escape systems that should make the risk of a loss of crew a lot lower, even if the launch vehicle is lost.
Also one is 1000 would be 50 times better than 1 in 20, not 100 times. I am pretty sure Atlas and Soyuz have a better track record (in case of Soyuz for manned launches).

[Lar]

Not sure what people expect to find. Asteroids are meteorites that haven't hit us yet and most meteorites are simple iron. We have plenty of iron on Earth already. A mineral rare on Earth is likely to be rare in Space as well. But even supposing a solid chunk of a rare earth mineral(ha) is found. Then suppose it is in a convenient place and of a manageable size. We still need enough energy or time to stop its current current trajectory and give it a new one, bring it back to orbit and dismantle it, process it or shield it and deorbit it. Not conceptually impossible but could it be cost efficient even with reusable rockets?

I doubt we'd be bringing back iron any time soon. Too low value Ultra high value raw materials (palladium group metals) maybe.[1]Ultra high value products made from space sourced raw materials, also maybe.

But most likely would be things to use IN space, moved from where they are to where they can be used. Water to make into LH2 and LOX[1], iron and silicon and aluminum for construction of large structures.

But it's a chicken/egg problem to get that sort of thing started. Unless you have a space manufacturing base you don't need raw materials and unless you have propellant depots you don't need propellants.

Lower cost access may get this pump primed. That is my hope anyway.

1 - Part of the Planetary Resources business plan.

[Robotbeat]

Suppose 15 years from now all orbital flights cost <10% of what they are now. Reusability via flyback stages works and is copied by all rocket makers. Then suppose that reliability is still bad, 1 in 1000 flights is catastrophically lost. How would this restrain uses?

Current loss of vehicle stats for ELV's is around 1 in 20 to 1 in 34 launches of a given type....

Disagree. Delta II demonstrated 1/75 reliability, and it was a pretty complicated launch vehicle. If your criteria for success is getting to a usable orbit for the customer, then Atlas V has basically no failures in 43 flights (there was one suboptimal flight, but the customer deemed it a success and was able to compensate), and Delta IV had just one partial failure on the first Delta IV Heavy launch (out of 24 flights). So I'd say reliability for state of the art ELVs is currently near 99%, not 95%.

Especially if you had a high launch rate like Delta II did, I'd definitely expect the reliability to approach at least 99%.

...but I agree that in order to get to ~99.9% reliability, you're going to have to go reusable, if only because you have to launch ~1000 times in order to demonstrate such a statistic.

[RanulfC]

Supersonic joy ride actually

Yeah, I was ahead of myself there

Don't we all?

You know telling someone to "not touch anything" unless told to do so, does NOT require months of training... but maybe they should have a 30 minute IQ test first.
I am pretty sure Adam Savage from the Mythbusters went on a ride on a Blue Angels fighterjet without much prior training. Certainly not days of training.

Days, they just didn't show it (An easy way to tell is during the video he "grunts" during high speed turns, that's not an instinctive thing to do and something they train people to do to resist the Gs better )
The major issue with "telling" someone not to touch anything is chances are very, very good they will anyway. You have to show them what happens when they do and WHY they shouldn't to get it into their heads

Ok, 4 days then. 4 days of actual training is not MONTHS!

No but neither is SS2 an orbital spacecraft And lets not forget those 4-days are contained within a two WEEK stay at what amounts to a luxury "resort" training center, and all the "training" is going to be in the first week, (with the flght and "recovery" period during the second) I have my doubts that the "training" will be all that effective.

Agreed but those payload specialists still tooks months of training learning how and what to do during an emergancy and what not to do and specifically how to live and operate as part of a crew in a hostile environment. Even if you're not "flight-crew" the training tends to be intensive if not as long.

A lot of that was for their actual job as a payload specialist.

No the majority of it was doing their job with the crew as cohesive whole, and learning to live and trust each other on the job, in space and on the ground. The whole reason for the training WITH each other is to be able to count on and anticipate what anyone will do in a sitation.

Would a "passenger" have to go through as rigerous training? Currently the answer is yes because there really is no such thing as a "passenger" on a spaceflight. There are a lot of situation you have to practice for so that everyone does everything in a compact and efficent manner and everyone is starting from the same frame of reference. Will it always be that way? Of course not but right now we're nearer THIS end of the spectrum than we are that end and that's the reality we have to work on.

With less expensive and more access to space by "regular" people that will change faster, but we're not there yet and when we DO get there is when things will start changing.

Ahhh, no putting words in my mouth I NEVER made that point thank you. However far we are removed from Mercury though passengers STILL will have to undergo training in various aspects that make space flight DIFFERENT than other forms of transportation.

And that can be days of training, maybe a couple of weeks. I don't see why you would need months.

Right now it is because as noted above we don't have "passengers" so anyone riding the spacecrat has to be able to deal with situations as part of a "crew" not simply a lump-of-flesh in a spacesuit. The other aspect that you have to keep in mind is some of the training is physically demanding, especially if you've never done it before. You can take an altitude chamber and accelleration training in the same day. However that usually leaves TRAINED PROFESSIONALS pretty much useless for the next couple of days while recovering. (You can usually get away with training/classroom work on those days but recall these are people who started OUT partially trained for this stuff not someone off the street) If someone goes through "microgravity" training (parabolas/vomit-comit) and they do NOT get any ill effects over the course of the day (most do to some extent) you need a day to rest before you start training again. (Again classroom stuff is usually possible)

The list goes on and we haven't even talked about simulator work, and there WILL be some of that for any spacecraft passenger. (Remember I noted you'd have to "practice" doing emergency procedures while wearing an unpressurized and pressurized suit? There are others as well)

Spacecraft are not aircraft and they are not going to be any time in the near future. Where as people do not have to "train" to leave an aircraft in a water ditching scenerio people who fly in spacecraft do because it it a very different environment and conditions than those faced by airline passengers. We are a very long way off from the point where being a spacecraft passenger is anything like being an airline passenger. The sooner people understand that simple fact of life the sooner people will gain the true persepective on how space tourism and passenger operations will be.

How, why? Where is it different? What exactly is so complicated about that, that requires months of training?

See suit comment above. But you seem stuck on the "months" aspect and I think you miss the point. The "months" currently needed are only a small part for "training" to handle the conditions and expectations of the flight. The whole thing COULD probably be cut down to a couple of weeks, or maybe a week if you really were capable of "pushing" the passenger to learn everything as fast as possible. (Something that no airline passenger has EVER had to do mind you) Currently the REST of the time is getting to know your fellow crewman and learning to work together and anticipate each other in various situations to minimize the chance of miscomunications and missunderstandings. This is of course something that a future "passenger" only type person might NOT have to learn, and what Branson and VG are leaning towards as a model. But there is no guarantee that particular model is going to work out for anything other than suborbital flights. (And no guarantee it will work out even for that)

NASA HAS regulations and the FAA is leaning towards adopting most of them for application to commercial launch providers for passenger safety.

I don't think so. I thought that right now the safety of the passengers was not governed by the FAA, only the safety of the civilians on the ground. I might be wrong though.

You are technically correct but the FAA has final say on granting launch licenses and they've pretty much decided that "suborbital" flights can get away with a signed waiver AND some sort of "training" plans for which have to be submitted to them prior too operations. No one has actually "submitted" any plans yet though because they are still feeling their way around and it is pretty clear that the FAA is not going to agree to letting people just step up and hop on a ride. "Technically" the FAA is currently prohibited from "regulating" commercial space flight beyond a certain point but in actuality they ARE going to have the final say and they are currently clearly leaning towards using a mix of current space and high performance aircraft safety and training guildlines to build upon. When the "grace" period expires, (this year IIRC) they are "tasked" with coming up with an officall set of "rules" and "regulations" to govern commercial space flight.

Since everyone, (including the FAA) had expected to actually have some real data to go on by this time that was ok with everyone but we have yet to have an actual "commercial" manned space flight, orbital or suborbital so the only thing they have to go with is what we currently have for government space and high-performance aircraft regulations and guidelines. It is assured that they will "work" with commercial entities but in the end they are GOING to have to set up the basic groundrules and they have to cover a lot of bases with very little real data. By default they will use the ones that are in place with adjustments for the situation at the time.

A lot of them won't apply directly across, but without a database to work from a lot of them WILL.

Not all of them or course but the idea of sending someone up in a spacecraft that has never "practiced" even simple procedures is pretty ridiculous.

No one said that. You can learn simple procedures in a few days. That does not require months.

Ahem, no. People HAVE said that as in comparing getting into and flying in a spacecraft SHOULD be as simple as getting into a plane or a car, etc. I agree that once there are spacecraft capable of carrying "passengers" rather than "passenger/crew" the training process could be as short as a week or two. But there aren't any PLANNED right now let alone available so we are not talking ABOUT passengers, but people who are going to be expected to "carry" a load instead of being "cared" for by a dedicated flight crew.

Think about it for a moment. Rent a nice "spacesuit" costume, sit in your car and then have someone time you doing an "escape" drill and check your time compared to not wearing the suit. Then try getting out of a chair on you back in the same exercise. Go up and down a ladder in the suit, if you can afford it dive into a pool and try and stay afloat while inflating a life vest. (They don't always automatically work)

These drills are ridiculous. Risk is part of the game. Noone practices that with a jumbo jet full of passengers. Probably not easy to get out of that either with luggage flying around and stuff. If you are afraid of the risks, go do something else, space is not for you!

Then space will never be for anyone, which is the "point" most people miss when talking about cheap-access-to-space. Space is not like ANY environment on Earth, making a very simple mistake can kill YOU, but it can also kill those around you just as easily.

Two major points:
1) Risk is part of the equation, in order to achieve the proper "answer" you must reduce the "risk" factor to a point where it is controllable. This does not mean that you have to have no "risk" that is impossible to achieve it also means that you never, ever 'fear' risk because that keeps you from properly assesing and controlling the risks. However, you must carefully and rigerously CONTROL the amount of risk generated or it WILL overwhelm and destroy you. Risk reduction and control is not a "nice" thing to have it is a neccssity.

2) There is no "game" There never was and never will be. Either you keep the fact that space is dangerous and it WILL kill you if you are not careful, and prepared in your forebrain or you WILL die and most likely take someone else with you.

Now:
Noone "practices" getting a full load of passengers out of a ditched jumbo jet? Really? I know that YOU know you are wrong here. You know how we BOTH know this? Because the CREW of said jumbo jet has spent MONTHS training for just that sort of situation so THEY can handle the passengers and try and save as many as possible. (Part of that training by the way is learning that FACT that YOU will not be able to save them all because people are people and somewhere along the line someone will do something stupid and get themselves killed. Part of your job is to recognize and keep them from killing anyone else as well)
 
Think for just a moment and then tell me how many of the "7" people on a proposed Dragon flight will be those DEDICATED "flight-attendents" who's primary job is to know what to do and how to do it in an emergency so YOU the "passenger" doesn't have to?

That's one of the major differences between spaceflight and any other transportation system. There isn't room for someone who's trained to save a "passenger" so they have to train the "passenger" to act as part of the "crew" as a whole so that everyone has the maximum chance of survival in any situation. How long will this take? Days at least for EACH "situation" so that everyone knows, understands, not just by rote their role in such situations. Till it is something you DO, not some thing you think about.

Passenger aircraft have flight crews (attendents) who's main purpose is to do all the thinking for and control the actions of the passengers because they KNOW the "territory" and they know, having been trained long and hard, what to do during an emergency. They KNOW that the "passengers" are not going to listen to the briefings, they are not going to take a "second" and note where the exits are, they know in fact that the "passenges" are going to be about useless in an emergency and more a liability than an asset. And they are trained to deal with and control that situation. WHEN there is enough "room" and capability to carry DEDICATED members of a "crew" with that same training and ability (and the means and capability to carry it out) you can have "passenges" on a spacecraft but not a moment before that.

The "drills are ridiculous"??!!?? How can you even attempt to justify that statement when I'm pretty sure you havent' even TRIED any of the suggestions? On what do you base your statement? The fact that you've flown on an airplane? Please...

The "drills" are vital, no "ifs," no "buts," no excuses. Think not? Ever wore a five-point harness? Ever tried to get it off when you can only do it by feel and can't see it directly? Yes it is a "quick-release" no it doesn't always work. Now imagine doing this on your back, in the dark with water flooding into the capsule. And you happen to be in the seat "almost" futherest from the hatch. Now imagine that you've never bothered to "practice" getting out of the capsule but have 'read' the pamphlet in the seat back in front of you. (Ok you really glanced at it but didn't read it) Your harness is stuck, but the guy in the seat furthest from the hatch got his loose...

One of two ways this situation could go: If you two have actually done drills together and trained ever a bit on this he leans over and helps you clear your harness so you can move out in order and clear the way for him to leave. The other is that he sees your not moving so he simply shoves himself over you and tries to get to the hatch which MIGHT save him but probably means you're screwed. Given the rather "cramped" conditions envisioned for most spacecraft you and he will probably both die if he doesn't actually managed to block of the hatch and kill everybody. Oh but wait! What if you have a "dedicated" flight attendant on-board? You are their LAST priority, first they get everyone who seems compentent enough to operate a buckle out THEN they can "come-back" for you if you aren't already underwater. Needs of the many and all that...

And before you think I'm picking on you about the buckle I'm not. They get stuck, they do not operate properly in certain positions, if you're wearing a thick coat (or a uninflated pressure suit) "slapping" the QR may not engage it enough to activate. I've been there, luckily it was never in a life or death situation but it DOES happen.
(And just as an FYI, no continuing to "hit" the mechanism if it is "half" cocked is useless it has to then be fully "seated" to finish opening. In my case a crewman on the aircraft had to haul off and kick me in the chest to get it to work. Didn't feel a thing though, thick coat and all )

To address a later point you make, no you will NOT have people "training" on their own. It may take no more than a few days but you are going to be in close quarters with other people if and when you have to do the real thing and training on your "own" does not equate to those conditions. You NEED to train under the conditions you will face in the real situation. If you don't your responses won't be the same and that can and will get you killed. Further and probably most important is you need to have someone there who is watching the whole process because the person doing the "training" will inevitably find "short-cuts," "work-arounds," and "simple" ways to do things that will make it "easier" on them to get done with the drill. Those will also inevitably be the WRONG thing(s) to do and probably get them and/or others killed. It's human nature to try and make things "easier" which is why it takes someone NOT involved to point out the flaws in that strategy.
(Personal note again: I had "discovered" a short and simple means to exit the lower bay of an aircraft and planned on using it in an emergency as it seemed quicker. Luckly for me I KEPT using it even after I figured it out and eventually found the "flaw" before it killed me. A fully fueled aircraft bay is about 4 feet lower than one that is not fueled. From a 4 foot higher departure point I over-rotated by about 90 degrees and ended up faceplanting onto the tarmac. Had it been an actual emergency situation the seconds I lay there bemoaning the fact it really, really hurt were probably ones I couldn't have afforded... But ya, it hurt )

Training counts...

Now imagine having to execute those same tasks in microgravity? In a cramped spacecraft where one careless kick or sweep of the arm could effect the spacecraft controls, knock loose a vital piece of equipment or worse yet put someone ELSE in danger?

I doubt that passengers will be doing EVAs. So no need to put on a space suit. Putting on a space suit in an emergency will not work anyway.

Right. You base this on what? There's also the "assumption" that I was talking about EVA, while it is include it is not all inclusive. "Passengers" will remain in their seats and strapped down at all times during flight? No "experiancing" zero-g on "passenger" flights? I'm pretty sure "Launch and Landing" suits will be required for quite a while, anyone who is considering "commercial manned spaceflights" is assuming so. And I for one, (if you haven't noticed in the various MCP threads) am confident that the bulky pressure suits of today will eventually be replaced with something better. You seem to be assuming as well that people in space won't have occasion to wear a space suit, like in-space. How does  that logic work? (Think "life-boat" drills)
But mostly the most dangerous places for "emergencies" to happen will be WHEN people are wearing space suits so trying to "assume" they won't be wearing them is really setting things up to fail. It a clear fact that training under the worst conditions you can imagine will always serve you well. (In 99% of the cases your imagination will fall short or what actually happens but you will at least have a fighting chance)

(On the note that spacecraft would keep their controls and equipment "out-of-the-way" of passengers I'll note that it used to be a common "privilage" to visit the cockpit of aircraft and the bridge of ships. Despite the access of other than "approved" personnel to ships spaces there are dozens of people injured and even killed by taking short cuts through "restricted" areas on cruise ships every year. And how do you "isolate" equipment and controls on something as small as a Dragon capsule or as crowded as the ISS? The more "people" around the higher the chances are that something will happen. People who are untrained increase this likely outcome by orders of magnitude. Fail to prepare? Prepare to fail.)

This has nothing to do with "organizational inertia" or "outdated" rules set in stone and everything to do with the fact that the "Passengers" will in fact be dealing with very "non-standard" conditions and situations that they NEED to be trained in, aware of, and able to cope with in a way that no passenger on an airliner, ship, train, or car has had to do. This isn't about jumping into the "pilots" seat as a passenger and saving the day it is about being able to NOT get in the way of the people who are trying to save the day while also being prepared and able to do exactly what YOU need to do, when you need to do it to save your own life in an emergency.

And learning that does not take months.

It greatly depends on WHAT you are learning and how well you are learning it. No it probably won't take "months" to train people to fly in space. Then again it might depending on what conditions and possible emergencies they are expected to face and how they will be expected to react to them.

Airline passengers are expected to take a few minutes and "familerize" themselves with layout of the aircraft they are on and the emergency procedures given them. Most don't and that's actually OK because the flight attendant is TRAINED to be able to get those passengers out of the aircraft in pitch-dark conditions, from a smoke filled fuselage that is sinking in rough seas. Without any help FROM the passengers because they are useless and incapable of following instructions. That's why THEY are trained for months in doing just that.

Ship passengers are expected to listen to and understand life-boat and life-jacked training when it is given to them. They are REQUIRED to participate in a certain number of drills during their voyage, (technically you can be "set-ashore" anywhere if you fail to do so with no compensation or relief, though it is very rare and unevenly enforced at best) during which you will be shown the procedure to enter and exit the life-boat and how to wear the life jacket properly. To be "fully-qualifed" (you can get an actual certificate for "qualifying" BTW) usally takes "two-days" worth of drill attendance and participation which is usually spread over about two weeks of "real-time" but some shipping lines actually offer the 'certification' as a voluntary course during the trip.
Still the "standard" is that the crew is responsible for getting the passengers organized and to safety and are trained accordingly, nominally taking several weeks to get "qualified" and normally several trips (months) to be fully certified. (As evidenced by many recent events this is another area where "enforcement" and "actuality" are have been lacking) The main point though is that crew training is aimed at getting the passengers organized and off the ship in an efficent and timely manner with the baseling assumption being they will NOT be any use in doing either. So a good crew is trained to do their thinking and reacting for them.

Now, lets imagine a "commercial" Dragon flight shall we? Seven (7) "souls" on-board, two (2) crew and five (5) passengers. Everyone is wearing the L&L suits unpressurized and strapped into their seats, access arm is in place and the hatch is closed and locked.

Emergency! What happens?

Several weeks to a month of training as a 'crew'?  (Note the assumption here that this is NOT the only scenerio practiced during this time)
Assigned passenger nearest the hatch hits his QR and rolls over to unlatch the hatch and open it. All others hit thier own QR and assist nearby persons if needed. Hatch opens, AP rolls out the hatch and assures access arm is clear and keeps the hatch open. In succession, as they trained to do each "passenger" goes from their seat and out the hatch. First one to the access arm door/gate opens it and holds it for the rest. Each in turn moves to a spot in the access "escape" route (elevator, slide basket, whatever) insuring clear access for the next person. Passengers are out the first crew member exits his seat then the hatch and takes over for the passenger at the hatch. That passenger make their way to the escape device with the others. Second crewman exits seat and hatch, first crewman moves to relieve the passenger at the access arm gate. First crewman closes hatch and proceeds to the escape device, second crewman closs gate behind them and assignd person activates the escape device.

"Ship" model: (A couple of days traing to no more than a week for ALL training)
Everyone hits their QR, move as little as possible to "assist" others if needed. All "passengers" remain in their seats. Crewman one leaves seat and unlocks and opens hatch, then moves to hold hatch and assists passengers out of capsule and onto access arm. Crewman two moves out of seat and out of capsule onto access arm and moves to open arm-gate and prep escape device. Crewman one orders first passenger to leave seat and move out of hatch, down the arm and into escape device. As soon as this passenger has cleared the hatch the next passenger is called and so on until the last passenger is out of the capsule, then Crewman one secures the hatch. Crewman one moves across access arm an into escape device to control, Crewman two closes gate and escape device door and Crewman one activates escape device.

"Airline" model: ("Familerization" at most a few hours getting into the suits and discussing scenerios)

Crewman One and Two hit QRs, passengers remain in their seat and do NOT hit QRs. Crewman one leaves seat and opens hatch and stands by to assist. Crewman two moves to passenger nearest door and releases QR and helps them out of their seat, Crewman one helps passenger out of capsule and has them standby near hatch but out of the way. Crewman two moves to next passenger and repeats process, Crewman one repeats process this continues till all passengers are gathered on the access arm. Crewman Two exits the capsule and leads/helps passengers to access arm gate and escape device. Crewman one closes hatch and proceeds to help straggling/struggling passengers. Crewman two opens door to escape device and enters, Crewman two closes arm gate and proceeds to help passengers into escape device where Crewman one ensures they are seated and strapped in. Once all the passengers are in place and strapped in Crewman one closes escape device door and moves to his seat. Once everyone is seated and accounted for escape device is activated.

Time? Set one could have it all done in well under five minutes. Set two would be closer to 10 but still pretty quick. Set three would be lucky to get it done in under 15 to 20 minutes more like a half hour. All assuming nobody actually panics and jams things up. (Less likely as training time and effort goes up)

The BIGGEST factor that shortens training is simply making vehicles larger (more room to manuever) and sending along more "Help" that reduces the need for training, but realistically it can't and won't "go-away" to airline standards. That would take a risk reduction and safety factor that is probably not achivable with current known technology, nor human nature.

Space travel is going to remain dangerous and people just willing to "risk" their lives to go into space is not enough if they are not "ready" as well. That's going to take training and preperation. How long THAT will take will depend on where they are going and for how long.

Randy

[jeff.findley]

Sure, space is not the same as any activity on earth, but there are a few analogs and they aren't nearly as tightly regulated nor do they require the sort of training you're claiming will be necessary. 

Diving is a sport that can be dangerous and does involve some relatively complex equipment to keep you alive (somewhat similar to spacesuits in that humans can't breathe water much better than vacuum).  Most divers do go through quite a bit of training and certification, but there are "fly by night" operations in other countries where you can don equipment and go diving on the same day with a bare minimum of "training". 

Climbing Mt. Everest is quite dangerous and people die every year trying to climb it.  It's also a situation where one person's mistakes can spell disaster for others.  Yet, there seems to be little in the way of regulation and little in the way of required training.  Similar to diving, there are groups that climb Mt. Everest that really have no business doing so, and that's an environment where a "happy day" doesn't involve sitting strapped to a seat during the "dangerous" parts. 

And I still think the airline analogies are appropriate, provided that emergencies are at least as few and far between as in the very early days of airline travel.  In the beginning of airline travel, flights weren't nearly as safe as they are today, yet the sort of "training" for emergencies being advocated here still wasn't required of passengers.

[RanulfC]

SS2 will require two (2) WEEKS of "training" we've been told by VG, most of which will be a "vacation" really and about 4 days of actual "training" one of which will be microgravity training aboard the WK2 after it drops an SS2 mission. Branson is hoping to get away with minimum training time but there are no indications that the FAA or anyone else is going to let him get away without altitude training and emergency training. Like I said about 4 days.

IIRC one of the big dampeners for Soyuz tourist flights was not the money, but the year (or 18 months) the Russians required for pre training. 2 weeks? 4 days?  That's nothing in comparison.

Well Soyuz orbital flight or an ISS trip does not equate to a "hop" on SS2 either so I doubt the "training" is even close to the same

Last time I checked they will be called "spaceflight participants," flight safety will come under the FAA as they won't be flying on a NASA owned or operated vehicle. The joker is if it goes to the ISS what rules apply there? Time to check with the Commercial Spaceflight Association I think.

Everyone avoids talking about it but being a "spaceflight participant" and signing a waiver is NOT going to be enough. The FAA is still going to have to issue a launch license and everyone involved is well aware that waiver or not killing "participants" in accidents is NOT going to help grow the market or business. Especially if it was preventable in any way. In the end the FAA is going to have to set some "ground-rules" once the "free-period" is over, and like everyone else they had been "expecting" to have some data to work with by now.

Really this probably isn't the thread to actually be discussing this specific of an area, but since "assumptions" have come up I felt it needed responding too.

Possibly here:
"We Need To Get More Comfortable With People Dying In Space"
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33917.0;all

Randy

[Elmar Moelzer]

No but neither is SS2 an orbital spacecraft And lets not forget those 4-days are contained within a two WEEK stay at what amounts to a luxury "resort" training center, and all the "training" is going to be in the first week, (with the flght and "recovery" period during the second) I have my doubts that the "training" will be all that effective.

I am all OK with two weeks, even 4 weeks of training, but I do not think that more than that is necessary, even for an orbital flight.

No the majority of it was doing their job with the crew as cohesive whole, and learning to live and trust each other on the job, in space and on the ground. The whole reason for the training WITH each other is to be able to count on and anticipate what anyone will do in a sitation.
Would a "passenger" have to go through as rigerous training? Currently the answer is yes because there really is no such thing as a "passenger" on a spaceflight. There are a lot of situation you have to practice for so that everyone does everything in a compact and efficent manner and everyone is starting from the same frame of reference. Will it always be that way? Of course not but right now we're nearer THIS end of the spectrum than we are that end and that's the reality we have to work on.

Sorry, but I don't see how this is in any way different for spaceflight than say a tandem parachute jump.

Right now it is because as noted above we don't have "passengers" so anyone riding the spacecrat has to be able to deal with situations as part of a "crew" not simply a lump-of-flesh in a spacesuit. The other aspect that you have to keep in mind is some of the training is physically demanding, especially if you've never done it before. You can take an altitude chamber and accelleration training in the same day. However that usually leaves TRAINED PROFESSIONALS pretty much useless for the next couple of days while recovering. (You can usually get away with training/classroom work on those days but recall these are people who started OUT partially trained for this stuff not someone off the street) If someone goes through "microgravity" training (parabolas/vomit-comit) and they do NOT get any ill effects over the course of the day (most do to some extent) you need a day to rest before you start training again. (Again classroom stuff is usually possible)

Why, why why do you need that sort of training even? In the correct setting it is completely unnecessary. Noone gave passengers on the Concorde altitude training. I see this sort of training for the crew, not the passengers.

The list goes on and we haven't even talked about simulator work, and there WILL be some of that for any spacecraft passenger. (Remember I noted you'd have to "practice" doing emergency procedures while wearing an unpressurized and pressurized suit? There are others as well).

Unnecessary.

But you seem stuck on the "months" aspect and I think you miss the point. The "months" currently needed are only a small part for "training" to handle the conditions and expectations of the flight. The whole thing COULD probably be cut down to a couple of weeks, or maybe a week if you really were capable of "pushing" the passenger to learn everything as fast as possible.

So why are you arguing with me?

Currently the REST of the time is getting to know your fellow crewman and learning to work together and anticipate each other in various situations to minimize the chance of miscomunications and missunderstandings. This is of course something that a future "passenger" only type person might NOT have to learn, and what Branson and VG are leaning towards as a model.

I lean towards that model as well. The passenger on an airliner does not spend months learn the safety/emergency procedures, it is the crew.

Then space will never be for anyone, which is the "point" most people miss when talking about cheap-access-to-space. Space is not like ANY environment on Earth, making a very simple mistake can kill YOU, but it can also kill those around you just as easily.

Newsflash, the same is true for driving a car, maybe even more so and yet people do it every day and 30,000 die every year in the US in car accidents and no one cares. That's life, it is risky, we take risks every day. Space is no different. If you explain to people to "not open the airlock", they most likely will not try to open it. I rarely hear of someone trying to open a cabin door of an airplane in mid flight... Same for all the other imagined risks a passenger in space could pose on himself and the crew and other passengers.

Noone "practices" getting a full load of passengers out of a ditched jumbo jet? Really? I know that YOU know you are wrong here. You know how we BOTH know this? Because the CREW of said jumbo jet has spent MONTHS training for just that sort of situation so THEY can handle the passengers and try and save as many as possible.

Exactly my point! The passengers don't spend months training, the crew does!!!

Think for just a moment and then tell me how many of the "7" people on a proposed Dragon flight will be those DEDICATED "flight-attendents" who's primary job is to know what to do and how to do it in an emergency so YOU the "passenger" doesn't have to?

One or two at most. Even one would be a much higher crew to passenger ratio than a on a commercial jet airplane.

That's one of the major differences between spaceflight and any other transportation system. There isn't room for someone who's trained to save a "passenger"

One crew for 6 passengers would be much more than on any other means of commercial transportation. IIRC, they are planning for two crew.

The "drills" are vital, no "ifs," no "buts," no excuses. Think not? Ever wore a five-point harness? Ever tried to get it off when you can only do it by feel and can't see it directly? Yes it is a "quick-release" no it doesn't always work. Now imagine doing this on your back, in the dark with water flooding into the capsule. And you happen to be in the seat "almost" futherest from the hatch. Now imagine that you've never bothered to "practice" getting out of the capsule but have 'read' the pamphlet in the seat back in front of you. (Ok you really glanced at it but didn't read it) Your harness is stuck, but the guy in the seat furthest from the hatch got his loose...

How likely is that situation in the first place? I think there was one (dubious) situation in the entire history of spaceflight. You can not train for every possible and impossible type of failure. Part of this thinking is why we never get anywhere. Yes spacecraft can fail, yes people can die. If you are afraid of the risk, don't go to space!

One of two ways this situation could go: If you two have actually done drills together and trained ever a bit on this he leans over and helps you clear your harness so you can move out in order and clear the way for him to leave. The other is that he sees your not moving so he simply shoves himself over you and tries to get to the hatch which MIGHT save him but probably means you're screwed. Given the rather "cramped" conditions envisioned for most spacecraft you and he will probably both die if he doesn't actually managed to block of the hatch and kill everybody. Oh but wait! What if you have a "dedicated" flight attendant on-board? You are their LAST priority, first they get everyone who seems compentent enough to operate a buckle out THEN they can "come-back" for you if you aren't already underwater. Needs of the many and all that...

Wonderful story man! You should write science fiction for a living!

And before you think I'm picking on you about the buckle I'm not. They get stuck, they do not operate properly in certain positions, if you're wearing a thick coat (or a uninflated pressure suit) "slapping" the QR may not engage it enough to activate. I've been there, luckily it was never in a life or death situation but it DOES happen.
(And just as an FYI, no continuing to "hit" the mechanism if it is "half" cocked is useless it has to then be fully "seated" to finish opening. In my case a crewman on the aircraft had to haul off and kick me in the chest to get it to work. Didn't feel a thing though, thick coat and all )

Sorry, this is such an unlikely scenario. I would rather focus on the spacecraft not ending up in the water in the first place! The money spent on 18 (!) months of training of how to open the belt buckle might be better spent ensuring that the stupid buckle opens when it is supposed to!

To address a later point you make, no you will NOT have people "training" on their own. It may take no more than a few days but you are going to be in close quarters with other people if and when you have to do the real thing and training on your "own" does not equate to those conditions. You NEED to train under the conditions you will face in the real situation.

Obviously there are things that you need to train in a group, but some things could be trained (some still with a trainer) on a separate schedule. I imagine a "commercial space participant school", where people are trained for the job. Some will do the fast round and go in 8 to 10 hours a day, some will do a couple of hours after work.
There will still be some things that will have to be done together with others and with the other participants of the exact flight, but with delays and cancellation most likely not being uncommon in the future either, you might end up on a completely different flight with different people anyway.

And how do you "isolate" equipment and controls on something as small as a Dragon capsule or as crowded as the ISS? The more "people" around the higher the chances are that something will happen.

Like what? You think that a passenger will feel the urge to push buttons he is not supposed to push? I don't get it! I have flown in small helicopters right next to the pilot, as a passenger, with no training. A few simple instructions by the pilot as we went were all that was needed. "We are going to do an auto rotation emergency landing exercise, I am going to turn off the engine. Don't be alarmed. Do this, don't do that". 5 sentences as we went. I did as I was told. I did not feel the need to start pushing buttons or jump out the helicopter in mid flight. Maybe I am just smarter than most, I don't know...

It greatly depends on WHAT you are learning and how well you are learning it. No it probably won't take "months" to train people to fly in space.

Which was my point.

[macpacheco]

Why, why why do you need that sort of training even? In the correct setting it is completely unnecessary. Noone gave passengers on the Concorde altitude training. I see this sort of training for the crew, not the passengers.

I recall the Concorde was designed to handle flying with one window blown out without depressurizing.
Plus like any airliner, it went through a lot of certification tests, which can't be done with vehicles that can't be reused hundreds of times (at a bare minimum).
Look up differences between an experimental (i.e. amateur) aircraft and a transport aircraft.
Hint, experimental aircraft are forbidden from being used for hire (PAX paying for rides).
Once space becomes a common thing, the FAA will start to put some rules around it.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I recall the Concorde was designed to handle flying with one window blown out without depressurizing.
Plus like any airliner, it went through a lot of certification tests, which can't be done with vehicles that can't be reused hundreds of times (at a bare minimum).
Look up differences between an experimental (i.e. amateur) aircraft and a transport aircraft.
Hint, experimental aircraft are forbidden from being used for hire (PAX paying for rides).
Once space becomes a common thing, the FAA will start to put some rules around it.

The Concorde flew at a maximum height (IIRC) of 18,000 meters. The air is very thin up there, which was my point.
I hope the day the FAA imposes rules on commercial spaceflight is a long way off. It will unnecessarily complicate things early on and only drive prices up. We need lots of frequent flights, especially in the beginning. There are already so many technical hurdles in the way, we don't need bureaucratic hurdles on top of that.

[RanulfC]

Sure, space is not the same as any activity on earth, but there are a few analogs and they aren't nearly as tightly regulated nor do they require the sort of training you're claiming will be necessary.

See this is why I say your "not-helping" your case because you are citing the exceptions rather than the majority

There are in fact very few "correct" analogs of activities because Earth is covered by an infrastructure base that has no equivilent in space. Even with inexpensive access that has to come first in order for almost any analogy to "work" enough to make a sensible argument. 

Diving is a sport that can be dangerous and does involve some relatively complex equipment to keep you alive (somewhat similar to spacesuits in that humans can't breathe water much better than vacuum).  Most divers do go through quite a bit of training and certification, but there are "fly by night" operations in other countries where you can don equipment and go diving on the same day with a bare minimum of "training". 

Great as long as you expect and assume that someone is going to get away with "fly-by-night" space launch. Those "fly-by-night" operations fold up as soon as someone is injured or dies and then go and try and set up somewhere else. All the while OFFICIAL diving organizations and governments are trying their best to kill them BECAUSE of the lack of safety. You sure you want to argue that is how commercial space travel should be set up?

Climbing Mt. Everest is quite dangerous and people die every year trying to climb it.  It's also a situation where one person's mistakes can spell disaster for others.  Yet, there seems to be little in the way of regulation and little in the way of required training.  Similar to diving, there are groups that climb Mt. Everest that really have no business doing so, and that's an environment where a "happy day" doesn't involve sitting strapped to a seat during the "dangerous" parts.

And for those exact reasons things are changing Actually there IS "regulation" and "required training" for climbing Mt Everest. The majority of people who have NOT taken at least minimum training and preperation don't make it past the first base camp. The number of people who TRY and fail to climb Mt. Everest far exceeds those that do, and one of the major complaints about the number of people who actually suceed is the fact that unlike lot of other "sports" (like diving) you can in fact PAY to be carried to the top if you have enough money. And at its worst it is an environment that is still far more benign than space.

And I still think the airline analogies are appropriate, provided that emergencies are at least as few and far between as in the very early days of airline travel.  In the beginning of airline travel, flights weren't nearly as safe as they are today, yet the sort of "training" for emergencies being advocated here still wasn't required of passengers.

Airline analogies are not appropriate. The simple fact is that even in early airtravel planes didn't simply go up into the air and then come down a few days later. They "traveled" and that is what caused the expansion of technology and access. They went from "point-a" to "point-b" which is what other forms of transportation were already doing, but in many case the airplane could do it faster if not cheaper. Add the fact that maintaining and operating an "airplane" was supported by a large infrastructure of industry, parts, supplies, peronel and support from the start and you lose all ability to "compare" the two. "Space" has no such system of destinations, no infrastructure, and no supporting market base to draw on. Your attempt at adding a "qualification" fails because of that very lack as well. Airplanes could and did "abort" quite often in the early days with MAYBE the loss of a "ship" but often without major injury or death for people involved. When it DID happen there were new regulations, new procedures, and new technology invented to keep it from happening again, including more aborts.

For a very long time aircraft were technically capable of doing things that no passenger could survive. Airlines flew lower than they were capable of because no "passenger" was going to submit to the indignity of wearing a complicated (and expensive) uncomfortable and prone to failure "pressure suit" despite the fact that aircraft flying in the statosphere could go faster and get to destinations quicker and cheaper. Wearing a "spacesuit" such as the Launch&Landing pressure suits is going to be a requirement because unlike any "airplane" a spacecraft can't simply drop down to an altitude where the passengers can "breath" if it springs a leak. If you're half way to Hawaii in a Stratoliner that's an option, but not if you're halfway to the Moon in Dragon capsule.

Over a hundred years has passed since the Wright Brothers and todays "aircraft" industry standards and regulations, and in that time MILLIONS of "emergencies" have happened on, to, and with aircraft. 99% of them were "minor" and could be easily taken care of by "aborting" back to a lower speed, alititude, the destination or back to base. In all that time even if the "worst" happened and the plane crashed it didn't mean that the passengers and crew were lost. After all they were surrounded by the environment of the Earth. They might lack for food or water at times but they didn't have to worry about running out of air.

Space is NOTHING like that and to forget that or try to gloss over it invites disaster to not only come in but move in and raid your kitchen cabinets! An air tank rupture but no major control functions are effected and the basic vehicle structure appears intact. On an airliner that's a "minor" emergency. Simply land at the nearst airport and wait for repairs or replacement. In Space? We lost a Moon mission and nearly the lives of the astronauts on-board.

Aircraft do not compare to spacecraft. Ships do not compare to spacecraft (No neither do submarines) Trains don't compare to spacecraft. Cars and Trucks do not compare to spacecraft. No form of transportation ON EARTH has managed to make anything but a cursory and very limited analogy to space travel.

Learn those differences, understand the lack of analogy, always keep in mind the reasons space travel is so different than any type of transportation we've had experiance with in the past and you are more than half way to true understanding of how and why it is difficult and costly, you're also more than half way to understanding how and what needs to be done to change the current paradigm and situation.

Don't and commenting on an internet forum is about all the effect you'll ever have.

Randy

[joek]

What in the heck are you two (RanulfC, Elmar Moelzer) arguing about?  The current ISS commercial crew conops won't even have a "crew"; everyone will be "spaceflight participant",  with some of those participants trained for some crew-like tasks in the event of an emergency.  Any nominal mission should be handled by autonomous systems or remote control, and require no intervention on the part of the on-board participants.

[john smith 19]

Disagree. Delta II demonstrated 1/75 reliability, and it was a pretty complicated launch vehicle. If your criteria for success is getting to a usable orbit for the customer, then Atlas V has basically no failures in 43 flights (there was one suboptimal flight, but the customer deemed it a success and was able to compensate), and Delta IV had just one partial failure on the first Delta IV Heavy launch (out of 24 flights). So I'd say reliability for state of the art ELVs is currently near 99%, not 95%.

Especially if you had a high launch rate like Delta II did, I'd definitely expect the reliability to approach at least 99%.

...but I agree that in order to get to ~99.9% reliability, you're going to have to go reusable, if only because you have to launch ~1000 times in order to demonstrate such a statistic.

Now consider that's a 1 in 100 failure rate. This would be completely unacceptable for any other transport system. Would you get in a car if it had a 1 in 100 chance of going bang when you started it up?

But I do agree, if you want a better chance of success launch regularly and launch often. 

Not sure what people expect to find. Asteroids are meteorites that haven't hit us yet and most meteorites are simple iron. We have plenty of iron on Earth already. A mineral rare on Earth is likely to be rare in Space as well. But even supposing a solid chunk of a rare earth mineral(ha) is found. Then suppose it is in a convenient place and of a manageable size. We still need enough energy or time to stop its current current trajectory and give it a new one, bring it back to orbit and dismantle it, process it or shield it and deorbit it. Not conceptually impossible but could it be cost efficient even with reusable rockets?

There are 2 classic arguments about "space mining." a)Once you factor in the propellant costs, DDTE costs you need either a very valuable cargo or a very big cargo. As was learned in Apollo the cost of getting a lb of cargo to LLO was more (IIRC 5x) more than its weight in Gold.
2) The people to whom such resources are most valuable are those people who are already in space, IE as reaction mass, life support and materials to expand your structures.

Manufacturing in space is a bit different. The big hope is low gravity reduces certain effects by a huge amount, improving the yield of various materials. That potentially means high value, low mass items which could be (literally) worth much more than their weight in Gold (and so be economically viable to transport up and down).

My instinct is that the big winners will be applications no one has thought of enabled by the specific vehicle used to provide the access.

LEO data repositories in polar orbits that are read and written though your personal satellite ground terminal?

Who knows?

[Elmar Moelzer]

Now consider that's a 1 in 100 failure rate. This would be completely unacceptable for any other transport system.

Is it? I wonder what the "failure rate" was for the first ships sailing across the Atlantic to the US and back. How many never made it home? Maybe it was better than 1 in 100, but I would be surprised if it was much better and when the ships did not sink, people would get sick (cholera, scurvy, etc), or get murdered by pirates and once they arrived in the new world, life was not particularly safe either.

[john smith 19]

Now consider that's a 1 in 100 failure rate. This would be completely unacceptable for any other transport system.

Is it? I wonder what the "failure rate" was for the first ships sailing across the Atlantic to the US and back. How many never made it home? Maybe it was better than 1 in 100, but I would be surprised if it was much better and when the ships did not sink, people would get sick (cholera, scurvy, etc), or get murdered by pirates and once they arrived in the new world, life was not particularly safe either.

Yes. Very heroic no doubt.  However I'd presume that most of those ships were working crew who were basically in it for the money.

IOW "Get rich or die trying." So most of them did. 

Do you not think that the situation here is a little bit different?

If not you basically seem to be saying the answer to the question "What will the impact of inexpensive access to space be" is "a lot of fairly rich people will get killed flying on various orbital vehicles."

Or am I misunderstanding you?

[Robotbeat]

I think he was making a general point.

But anyway, you and I are in total (violent) agreement here. Expendables, even if mass-produced, won't ever get as reliable as they need to be. (Neither will they get as cheap.)

[CuddlyRocket]

The point about any potential space tourism business is that if the requirement for time spent on training or other activities for passengers is too great then there won't be any significant space tourism business! As developing such a business would appear to be in the interests of all the relevant parties (launcher companies, governments, would be tourists), and given international competition, then the requirements will be reduced to whatever extent is necessary to facilitate the business. Safety will be reduced to a 'buyer beware' acceptance of the risk.

Obviously any safety rules that don't hinder the development of the business can and will be introduced, which will lead to pressure to modify equipment and procedures to minimise the risks. For example, if passengers touching the wrong button is considered a high risk then you need to modify things so passengers can't touch the wrong button, or if they can, can't operate it. (Passenger aircraft did this mainly by the introduction of the cockpit!)

[Robotbeat]

I don't understand why there has to be months of training. They didn't train people for months before they flew on Concorde.

This isn't actually that difficult of a problem.

[mme]

I don't understand why there has to be months of training. They didn't train people for months before they flew on Concorde.

This isn't actually that difficult of a problem.

As far as I can tell, people are inventing problems. There is no training required to be a passenger in a human rated Dragon that orbits the Earth n-times and then lands on Terra firma.  Certainly no more training than is required for a "resort dive" and definitely less training than to climb Mt. Everest. I am not saying that SpaceX wants anything to do with this business, just that it doesn't take a lot of training "not to touch anything," if everything is automated and it doesn't matter if you "touch anything." You sign a form that says. "this is really dangerous and if I die, my family does not have the right to sue." I've signed that form more times than I can count. If I could afford it, I'd sign that form to orbit the Earth once - today.

All that is required is a spacesuit that can handle vomit, and a spacecraft that ignores panicked occupants.

[john smith 19]

I think he was making a general point.

But anyway, you and I are in total (violent) agreement here. Expendables, even if mass-produced, won't ever get as reliable as they need to be. (Neither will they get as cheap.)

Agreed. There is also the statistical issue that if you want to demonstrate a certain level of reliability with a certain level of confidence you have to make quite a lot of flights. Some of the ULA papers show this.

The EELV's have racked up those sort of launch numbers. Spacex is (hopefully) racking them up now. But IMHO with the projected flight rate SLS will never achieve them and unlike the Saturn V it does not have engine out.

Now to get back on topic. A valid question would be if we assume that cheap access is by RLV would it kill off the ELV launchers? I'd say no, unless it's as big (or bigger) than what is currently available in the ELV market. That's because historically all RLV's take a big payload hit for reusability, with one exception which has not flown yet.

[EDIT. Note while I think this is the way to go I'm quite sure it's neither a universal opinion or a universal conclusion amongst aerospace engineers. The "Big dumb booster" approach for example, refuses to accept that performance at any price is the only goal of an LV. IIRC Loral space systems looked at that and ran with it for a bit. ]

I think a successful RLV would make investors (and that includes governments) think very carefully about wheather they want to invest in what has effectively become an obsolete technology. So it may well kill the market for new or upgraded ELV's, but existing ELV's will continue to launch, [EDIT if you need to launch a bigger single payload. Note also that if the RLV is smaller than existing ELV's you'll need big cost incentives to get customers to restructure their payloads. By "restructure" I mean a)Split into segments that can be docked together to carry out the task or b) allow on orbit servicing EG ORU replacement or refueling or c) recapture by the RLV for return to the ground for refurbishment. Not trivial as a lot of boom, aerial and PV panel deployment mechanisms are 1 shot devices and they don't work in reverse. That suggests a lag of years before core users switch over.

If the RLV manages 50% of an ELV payload and the launch cost is not a lot less than 50% why bother? Just take out an insurance policy or do a deal with the satellite supplier for a reduced price replacement if the original launch fails]

[Avron]

I think he was making a general point.

But anyway, you and I are in total (violent) agreement here. Expendables, even if mass-produced, won't ever get as reliable as they need to be. (Neither will they get as cheap.)

I agree,, why build in quality if you are going to dispose of the asset..

[Dudely]

Not sure what people expect to find. Asteroids are meteorites that haven't hit us yet and most meteorites are simple iron.

Incorrect in the extreme. There are lots of different types of asteroids, some of which have substantial water ice for making fuel. Fuel could be sold to others taking advantage of low cost to LEO. This avoids nearly all the difficulty in getting resources from space to Earth because you're not sending it into the atmosphere.

We have plenty of iron on Earth already. A mineral rare on Earth is likely to be rare in Space as well.

Again, incorrect. Earth is a giant liquid ball where all the heavy stuff already sank into the core billions of years ago. Every last gram of platinum group metals (you know, the ones in every microchip built in the last 20 years?) has been mined out of an ancient meteorite impact crater. It destroy huge amounts of the earth to search for the tiny crumbs left over from these impacts. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to go get a large chunk from space instead and avoid all the mess and difficulty? They are literally sitting RIGHT THERE. Some of them are easier to get to than the moon. Some of them are gravel piles pre-sifted by the winds of space for easy processing.

But even supposing a solid chunk of a rare earth mineral(ha) is found. Then suppose it is in a convenient place and of a manageable size. We still need enough energy or time to stop its current current trajectory and give it a new one, bring it back to orbit and dismantle it, process it or shield it and deorbit it. Not conceptually impossible but could it be cost efficient even with reusable rockets?

Uh, yes? There are lots of small asteroids out there. No need to burn hundreds of tonnes of fuel to reorbit a giant rock when one the size of a farmhouse contains more platinum group metals than has even been mined in the history of mankind.

If the price of these metals were to drop appreciably we would likely see an engineering renaissance akin to what happened with aluminium when we figured out electrolysis (*cough* aerospace industry *cough*). The only reason nothing is made out of these metals is because they are horrifyingly expensive. They are extremely useful chemically and structurally. I can't believe a forum with as many engineering degrees as this one has isn't all over asteroid mining. Would be badass and really, really useful if it works.

[jeff.findley]

And I still think the airline analogies are appropriate, provided that emergencies are at least as few and far between as in the very early days of airline travel.  In the beginning of airline travel, flights weren't nearly as safe as they are today, yet the sort of "training" for emergencies being advocated here still wasn't required of passengers.

Airline analogies are not appropriate. The simple fact is that even in early airtravel planes didn't simply go up into the air and then come down a few days later. They "traveled" and that is what caused the expansion of technology and access. They went from "point-a" to "point-b" which is what other forms of transportation were already doing, but in many case the airplane could do it faster if not cheaper. Add the fact that maintaining and operating an "airplane" was supported by a large infrastructure of industry, parts, supplies, peronel and support from the start and you lose all ability to "compare" the two. "Space" has no such system of destinations, no infrastructure, and no supporting market base to draw on. Your attempt at adding a "qualification" fails because of that very lack as well. Airplanes could and did "abort" quite often in the early days with MAYBE the loss of a "ship" but often without major injury or death for people involved. When it DID happen there were new regulations, new procedures, and new technology invented to keep it from happening again, including more aborts.

For a very long time aircraft were technically capable of doing things that no passenger could survive. Airlines flew lower than they were capable of because no "passenger" was going to submit to the indignity of wearing a complicated (and expensive) uncomfortable and prone to failure "pressure suit" despite the fact that aircraft flying in the statosphere could go faster and get to destinations quicker and cheaper. Wearing a "spacesuit" such as the Launch&Landing pressure suits is going to be a requirement because unlike any "airplane" a spacecraft can't simply drop down to an altitude where the passengers can "breath" if it springs a leak. If you're half way to Hawaii in a Stratoliner that's an option, but not if you're halfway to the Moon in Dragon capsule.

Over a hundred years has passed since the Wright Brothers and todays "aircraft" industry standards and regulations, and in that time MILLIONS of "emergencies" have happened on, to, and with aircraft. 99% of them were "minor" and could be easily taken care of by "aborting" back to a lower speed, alititude, the destination or back to base. In all that time even if the "worst" happened and the plane crashed it didn't mean that the passengers and crew were lost. After all they were surrounded by the environment of the Earth. They might lack for food or water at times but they didn't have to worry about running out of air.

Space is NOTHING like that and to forget that or try to gloss over it invites disaster to not only come in but move in and raid your kitchen cabinets! An air tank rupture but no major control functions are effected and the basic vehicle structure appears intact. On an airliner that's a "minor" emergency. Simply land at the nearst airport and wait for repairs or replacement. In Space? We lost a Moon mission and nearly the lives of the astronauts on-board.

Aircraft do not compare to spacecraft. Ships do not compare to spacecraft (No neither do submarines) Trains don't compare to spacecraft. Cars and Trucks do not compare to spacecraft. No form of transportation ON EARTH has managed to make anything but a cursory and very limited analogy to space travel.

Learn those differences, understand the lack of analogy, always keep in mind the reasons space travel is so different than any type of transportation we've had experiance with in the past and you are more than half way to true understanding of how and why it is difficult and costly, you're also more than half way to understanding how and what needs to be done to change the current paradigm and situation.

Don't and commenting on an internet forum is about all the effect you'll ever have.

Randy

We're talking about policy issues, not laws of physics.  I do understand the physical differences between air travel and space travel since I've got a B.S. in Aeronautical and Astronautical engineering.  And I still believe aircraft analogies are appropriate since during a normal spaceflight, all a "spaceflight participant " needs to do is to stay buckled into their seat and not touch any of the controls on the spacecraft or their pressure suit. 

Yes, commercial "spaceflight participants" will almost certainly need to wear pressure suits, but what I disagree on is the amount of training required for a "spaceflight participant" to sit in a seat and not touch anything during their flight.  In the unlikely event of a cabin depressurization, they still shouldn't have to touch anything if the suit is functioning properly.  It would take a failure of the pressure vessel and some sort of suit anomaly/failure before they'd need to do anything to the suit controls.  Should they train for this?  Certainly, but how much?  Spacesuit controls just aren't complex enough to justify "months" or even "weeks" of training.

Yes, commercial "spaceflight participants" will need to know how to egress from a spaceship that has landed, or splashed down, at a site which is not the primary landing site.  What I disagree with his the length of training that will be required.  Again, training to get out of a spacecraft in these sorts of situations isn't enough to justify "months" or even "weeks" of training.

The same thing goes for "how to use the zero gravity toilet", "how to give yourself the equivalent of a sponge bath in zero gravity", and "how to eat a meal in zero gravity".  Learning how to do these things "well enough" for a short trip to LEO and back isn't going to be that hard for someone who's in good physical condition and is smart enough and motivated enough to take the training seriously. 

A "spaceflight participant" on a LEO flight simply will not have to meet the same qualifications nor train as much as a NASA astronaut.  The aircraft analogy is that a passenger does not have to meet the same qualifications nor train as much as the flight crew or flight attendants.

[Joffan]

The same thing goes for "how to use the zero gravity toilet", "how to give yourself the equivalent of a sponge bath in zero gravity", and "how to eat a meal in zero gravity".  Learning how to do these things "well enough" for a short trip to LEO and back isn't going to be that hard for someone who's in good physical condition and is smart enough and motivated enough to take the training seriously. 

Allow me cynically to foresee problems when someone takes their only-semi-interested teenage kids along for the ride.

[ChefPat]

Inexpensive access to LEO = Infrastructure. Infrastructure = everthing else.

[RanulfC]

What in the heck are you two (RanulfC, Elmar Moelzer) arguing about?  The current ISS commercial crew conops won't even have a "crew"; everyone will be "spaceflight participant",  with some of those participants trained for some crew-like tasks in the event of an emergency.  Any nominal mission should be handled by autonomous systems or remote control, and require no intervention on the part of the on-board participants.

Say what? Where did that come from? "Current" ISS "commecial crew" conops is to go to Russia for a year of training before they let board the Soyuz for the ISS. No one else has "commercial crew" conops in planning let alone in writing. (As a "side-note" while I'm at it I'll point out that noone outside the US has "officially" decided on if they will or will not accept the designation of "spaceflight participant" as legal or applicable for THEIR spacecraft or spacecraft "flown" from their national borders.)

I'd love to see some citation to support this.

Randy

[dante2308]

Inexpensive access to LEO = Infrastructure. Infrastructure = everthing else.

What type of infrastructure makes space not an astonishingly lethal hard vacuum filled with more ways to die than are imaginable by physicists or addressable by modern engineering? Fast data rates? Solar power? Mines on the moon? What is it?

[PahTo]

...um, an NSF launch party followed by an NSF on-orbit party, followed by a post-landing NSF party, with many of us meeting each other? 

[RanulfC]

We're talking about policy issues, not laws of physics.  I do understand the physical differences between air travel and space travel since I've got a B.S. in Aeronautical and Astronautical engineering.  And I still believe aircraft analogies are appropriate since during a normal spaceflight, all a "spaceflight participant " needs to do is to stay buckled into their seat and not touch any of the controls on the spacecraft or their pressure suit.

You may continue to "believe" whatever you want, but I think your A&A degree should be very helpful in pointing out that "normal" is never the basis for operational planning, even in the aircraft industry  

Yes, commercial "spaceflight participants" will almost certainly need to wear pressure suits, but what I disagree on is the amount of training required for a "spaceflight participant" to sit in a seat and not touch anything during their flight.  In the unlikely event of a cabin depressurization, they still shouldn't have to touch anything if the suit is functioning properly.  It would take a failure of the pressure vessel and some sort of suit anomaly/failure before they'd need to do anything to the suit controls.  Should they train for this?  Certainly, but how much?  Spacesuit controls just aren't complex enough to justify "months" or even "weeks" of training.

Part of the "problem" as I see it is your point-of-view lacks depth. This is NOT an airline flight from LA to Hawaii. Really the spacesuit is the least of the issues involved. "Spaceflight Participants" (I'm not sure but everyone DOES realize that "term" has been around for quite a while and does NOT reflect a status of "training" or lack thereof? "Spaceflight Participants" have historically been AS trained as the "Astronaut" crew if not for as long a period/career and is LEGALLY "just" to define the difference between "career" astronauts and those who are not?) will in many cases be doing as much as a "crew" member, in others they will not but that is what will drive the "training" requirements and time. You're assuming here that the "only" thing a "spaceflight participant" is going to do is be strapped into a seat for the duration of the "flight" as a "normal" parameter but that doesn't take into account the fact that is NOT the "experiance" that people seem interested in. When go beyond that "simple" experiance, (and you have to) what they do and how much they need to know to do it safetly increase rapidly.

Yes, commercial "spaceflight participants" will need to know how to egress from a spaceship that has landed, or splashed down, at a site which is not the primary landing site.  What I disagree with his the length of training that will be required.  Again, training to get out of a spacecraft in these sorts of situations isn't enough to justify "months" or even "weeks" of training.

That greatly depends on the design of the vehicle, the crew training, and the amount of "training" given the particpants. And again it's simply ONE part  of the situation and taken together your time needed goes up.

The same thing goes for "how to use the zero gravity toilet", "how to give yourself the equivalent of a sponge bath in zero gravity", and "how to eat a meal in zero gravity".  Learning how to do these things "well enough" for a short trip to LEO and back isn't going to be that hard for someone who's in good physical condition and is smart enough and motivated enough to take the training seriously.

I "bolded" the significant part as well because you manage in one paragraph to actually argue both "sides" at once

You also manged to argue against your own argument in that IF a "spaceflight participant" is going to be strapped into his seat/suit for the whole flight then obviously NO such "training" is required so whether they "pay attention" or not is immaterial But you have a point in that such training to a degree needed for being "well enough" WILL take time and effort. More so to MAKE people take it seriously than the actual 'training' probably but that's TIME added.

A "spaceflight participant" on a LEO flight simply will not have to meet the same qualifications nor train as much as a NASA astronaut.  The aircraft analogy is that a passenger does not have to meet the same qualifications nor train as much as the flight crew or flight attendants.

The first part is correct in a simple way but in truth they have to (currently) at least be trained enough to handle situations up to a minimum level. Depending on where you "go" for training that is anywhere from 6 to 18 months minimum. Currently there is NO other option than "training" with a government agency (Russian or American) to their "standards." The main problem is there is no current "definition" available for what "standards" will be required for a "spaceflight participant" to be trained to because there is no vehicles, missions, or parameters available for defininig those standards. That does not however in any way indicate or assure that such standards can be assumed to not exist. Rather the opposite given what surveys of relevent demographics have shown since the "minimum" experiance desired by the possible "spaceflight participants" is a lot higher than you and a lot of other people want to assume.

Randy

[RanulfC]

The point about any potential space tourism business is that if the requirement for time spent on training or other activities for passengers is too great then there won't be any significant space tourism business! As developing such a business would appear to be in the interests of all the relevant parties (launcher companies, governments, would be tourists), and given international competition, then the requirements will be reduced to whatever extent is necessary to facilitate the business. Safety will be reduced to a 'buyer beware' acceptance of the risk.

The first part is correct but the "conclusion" is wrong in its simplification. "Buyer beware" is inherent in just about any transaction without written guarantees as an acceptance of SOME risk but it does not mean, nor does it normally infer an acceptance of ALL risks. Point being, some "risk" is inherent in any activity and this is accepted by most people without question but there is an accepted perception of reduction of SOME risks to an acceptable level inherent in the system. There are no "guarantees" of someone arriving at a destination by any means of travel whole and alive, but there is an "assumed" reduction of that outcome to a "low" risk factor acceptable to the person purchasing the ticket.

Successful business requires that the risks be assesed, and mitigated where possible and a continious policy of review so as to remain current. "Buyer beware" was/is never a basis for a successful or sustainable business model. Again I'm not arguing the basic premis but the conclusion.

Obviously any safety rules that don't hinder the development of the business can and will be introduced, which will lead to pressure to modify equipment and procedures to minimise the risks. For example, if passengers touching the wrong button is considered a high risk then you need to modify things so passengers can't touch the wrong button, or if they can, can't operate it. (Passenger aircraft did this mainly by the introduction of the cockpit!)

Agree but that doesn't exactly fit the "buyer-beware" criteria which is why I questioned it.

Randy

[AncientU]

Inexpensive access to LEO = Infrastructure. Infrastructure = everthing else.

What type of infrastructure makes space not an astonishingly lethal hard vacuum filled with more ways to die than are imaginable by physicists or addressable by modern engineering? Fast data rates? Solar power? Mines on the moon? What is it?

The foreign (to us) nature of stable, hard vacuum doesn't actually make it that difficult engineering-wise, compared to the lethal and highly variable conditions that we find on Earth.  Examples are the increasing pressure with depth (one atmosphere per approx 10m) under the sea, life draining cold and dehydration (plus distances/things that eat you) on much of its surface, Antarctic winter cold/wind/dark, Mountain top 'thin' air/vertical drop/variable weather -- for all of which we have engineered solutions.  (In other words, if you really want a broad menu of ways to die, stay on earth.)

Infrastructure doesn't change the hard vacuum engineering problem, but does help avoid the necessity of taking everything you'll need for the round trip with you in the launch vehicle and betting your life on each item working every time.

[joek]

Say what? ... I'd love to see some citation to support this.

For context see here and then here.

[Robotbeat]

Inexpensive access to LEO = Infrastructure. Infrastructure = everthing else.

What type of infrastructure makes space not an astonishingly lethal hard vacuum filled with more ways to die than are imaginable by physicists or addressable by modern engineering? Fast data rates? Solar power? Mines on the moon? What is it?

The foreign (to us) nature of stable, hard vacuum doesn't actually make it that difficult engineering-wise, compared to the lethal and highly variable conditions that we find on Earth.  Examples are the increasing pressure with depth (one atmosphere per approx 10m) under the sea, life draining cold and dehydration (plus distances/things that eat you) on much of its surface, Antarctic winter cold/wind/dark, Mountain top 'thin' air/vertical drop/variable weather -- for all of which we have engineered solutions.  (In other words, if you really want a broad menu of ways to die, stay on earth.)

Infrastructure doesn't change the hard vacuum engineering problem, but does help avoid the necessity of taking everything you'll need for the round trip with you in the launch vehicle and betting your life on each item working every time.

Megastructures can be infrastructure. A colony's dome (if that's how you chose to do it, just to take a typical example from scifi) would count as infrastructure, like a dike keeping the Netherlands dry, it protects you from the vacuum of space (and hard UV, etc).

[joek]

"Spaceflight Participants" have historically been AS trained as the "Astronaut" crew if not for as long a period/career and is LEGALLY "just" to define the difference between "career" astronauts and those who are not?) will in many cases be doing as much as a "crew" member,

The distinction between "crew" and "spaceflight participant" as defined by the FAA is quite specific and unrelated to whether one is a career astronaut or level of training.  Crew must have a specific contractual relationship with the provider (among other things), and as a rule, spaceflight participants may not legally perform crew activities unless an exception is granted by the FAA.

edit: That said, there is a long-standing precedent that bets are off (greater freedom of action allowed) in the case of an emergency and public safety.  To paraphrase the FAA's position, "We'd rather everything turned out well rather than everyone stick to the letter and end up in a smoking crater".   However, that is very different from the FAA saying that spacecraft participants (aka, "non-crew") may, as a matter of normal operations, be considered crew and perform crew functions.

[AncientU]

Inexpensive access to LEO = Infrastructure. Infrastructure = everthing else.

What type of infrastructure makes space not an astonishingly lethal hard vacuum filled with more ways to die than are imaginable by physicists or addressable by modern engineering? Fast data rates? Solar power? Mines on the moon? What is it?

The infrastructure of ISS allowed Shuttle crews to get their ride inspected and repaired, though not needed in fact after the practice started, while sipping on something 'not quite entirely unlike tea.'  And hard vacuum wasn't the threat...

[dante2308]

Inexpensive access to LEO = Infrastructure. Infrastructure = everthing else.

What type of infrastructure makes space not an astonishingly lethal hard vacuum filled with more ways to die than are imaginable by physicists or addressable by modern engineering? Fast data rates? Solar power? Mines on the moon? What is it?

The foreign (to us) nature of stable, hard vacuum doesn't actually make it that difficult engineering-wise, compared to the lethal and highly variable conditions that we find on Earth.  Examples are the increasing pressure with depth (one atmosphere per approx 10m) under the sea, life draining cold and dehydration (plus distances/things that eat you) on much of its surface, Antarctic winter cold/wind/dark, Mountain top 'thin' air/vertical drop/variable weather -- for all of which we have engineered solutions.  (In other words, if you really want a broad menu of ways to die, stay on earth.)

Infrastructure doesn't change the hard vacuum engineering problem, but does help avoid the necessity of taking everything you'll need for the round trip with you in the launch vehicle and betting your life on each item working every time.

I wasn't implying that vacuum was the problem with space, though it sort of implies a lack of in-situ oxygen resupply opportunities. It is merely the setting for all the uncountable ways you can die in space. The dangers of a simple bolt intersecting your orbit far outweigh the dangers one would expect to face in the Antarctic. I don't know how one could expect to compare how cold or dark (or hot and bright) space is to Antarctica or a mountain climb and I would expect some training would be in order for that as well.

I still haven't heard the answer to high energy particles except to try to get to your destination as fast as possible before you take too much damage. Space infrastructure makes it so you don't have to bet your life on everything working? How many failing parts would infrastructure replace? How does one have a failing spacecraft and have hope of being in any useful proximity to this infrastructure? What exactly is this thing we can put in space that makes it safer?

e infrastructure of ISS allowed Shuttle crews to get their ride inspected and repaired, though not needed in fact after the practice started, while sipping on something 'not quite entirely unlike tea.'  And hard vacuum wasn't the threat...

The ISS allowed them to repair the shuttle? No it did not. The point of the last shuttle flights was to travel to the ISS. The ISS provided nothing but a camera view of the belly of the shuttle and the same could have been accomplished by the shuttle's own arm. The only reason it needed to be done at all is because a slight defect in those tiles would kill everyone and it wouldn't be because of vacuum. And no, they weren't relaxing and sipping tea, they were running through procedures they drilled for quite a while as if their life depended on it. I sincerely hope that you consider more than vacuum if you ever find yourself in space or designing a ride to space.

[Robotbeat]

The ice is always changing in Antarctica (on the ice sheets, like the South Pole). Covering buildings so they have to be built on stilts. Opening invisible chasms underneath your path as you drive in your snowcat, possibly swallowing the entire vehicle. No sun for long stretched of the year, forcing you to rely on trekking fuel for 1000 miles over those invisible ice chasms.

It's awesome that you have oxygen and pressure in Antarctica. But other than that, wintertime at the South Pole is nearly as harsh as Mars, and in some ways it'd be more difficult to colonize than Mars would be (lack of a solid surface on the ice, need to constantly move structures up on stilts or be slowly crushed by the ice and snow, etc... Inability to have a permanent structure there makes it very difficult to imagine colonization, even when compared to Mars.). The parts of Antarctica with solid ground and nearby volcanic geothermal heat may be good places to colonize, though. And both Argentina and Chile do have Antarctic colonization projects in progress right now with some families permanently located there.

[dante2308]

Orbit =/= Mars. Mars =/= Space. Stilts =/= Space Colony.

[jeff.findley]

This company is working on providing training for (commercial) suborbital and orbital flights. 

http://waypoint2space.com/

Look at how many days their courses (will) take on their pricing page:

http://waypoint2space.com/programs/pricing/

7 days for "spaceflight fundamentals" followed by 8-12 weeks for orbital flights.  Considering their location, and the detailed listing of "courses",  I'd guess they plan on following a very traditional training approach.  So even then, we're "only" talking about 2 to 3 months of training for (commercial) orbital spaceflight.  If we assume this as a "baseline" starting point, I'd expect that number to go down as launch rates increase, operations are streamlined, and spaceflight becomes more "routine". 

[Elmar Moelzer]

Great find Jeff! Yes 2 to 3 months sounds a lot more like it than 18 months and as you say, that number is more likely to go down rather than up!

[Jim]

This company is working on providing training for (commercial) suborbital and orbital flights. 

http://waypoint2space.com/

Look at how many days their courses (will) take on their pricing page:

http://waypoint2space.com/programs/pricing/

7 days for "spaceflight fundamentals" followed by 8-12 weeks for orbital flights.  Considering their location, and the detailed listing of "courses",  I'd guess they plan on following a very traditional training approach.  So even then, we're "only" talking about 2 to 3 months of training for (commercial) orbital spaceflight.  If we assume this as a "baseline" starting point, I'd expect that number to go down as launch rates increase, operations are streamlined, and spaceflight becomes more "routine". 

The company is making bogus claims, see NASA Watch.  They are in no position to set precedence or policy.

[llanitedave]

In the 1970's, I was a missile technician on the crew of a Poseidon missile submarine.   Training consisted of 6 weeks of submarine school, and some 30 combined weeks of 'A' and 'C' schools which were focused almost exclusively on the work involving the missiles themselves.

Once assigned to a boat, all crew members are expected to "Qualify", which means knowing the basic operation, safety cutoffs, and emergency equipment of all the gear on the boat, those spaces where one would very rarely visit.  The maximum time alloted to qualify was two patrols, which works out to about 5 months of actual sea time.  Many crew members succeeded in qualifying within a single patrol.

Essentially, the amount of training not involving the actual skilled operation of a submarine and it's specialized equipment, that required simply to behave safely and respond to emergencies, comes out to twenty-six weeks as a maximum.  Much of this is self-study, and much of it is group training.  Comparatively little is actual one-on-one  simulation and demonstration.

I'd think a non-operating set of passengers on a space ship could get by with a bit less.

[jeff.findley]

This company is working on providing training for (commercial) suborbital and orbital flights. 

http://waypoint2space.com/

The company is making bogus claims, see NASA Watch.  They are in no position to set precedence or policy.

O.K.  Sounds like Keith takes offense at their website giving the appearance they work closely with JSC, when apparantly that's not the case. 

While being critical of this company on NASA Watch, Keith mentions that he's had some spaceflight training from NASTAR:

http://www.nastarcenter.com/aerospace-training/space/passengers

NASSTAR's trainings are measured in days (cut and pasted from the above website):

Basic Suborbital Space Training
   Price: $3,000.00
   This two day foundational course...

Advanced Space Training
   Price: $4,000.00
   This two day course...

Space Payload Specialist Training
   Price: $1,000.00
   This one day supplemental specialty course...

Space Suits and Systems Training
   Price: Call for Price – 1-866-482-0933
   This one day supplemental specialty course...

[RanulfC]

Say what? ... I'd love to see some citation to support this.

For context see here and then here.

"Context" assumptions don't support the argument as "fact"actually. For one thing you appear to have taken "space flight participant" totally out of "as-used" context. "Space Flight participant" simply means someone who is not a "career" astronaut. They CAN be someone who works as a ISS "crew" member in duties but is not directly attached to, or employed by the Russian or American space program. There are no "plans" to replace the crew or duties on the ISS with automation or remote equipment those "on-board" are still going to have to be trained in and perform the duties as "crew" even if they are defined as "space flight participants." This is really no different than Shuttle Mission Specialists who were not "crew" but "space flight participants".

Randy

[RanulfC]

"Spaceflight Participants" have historically been AS trained as the "Astronaut" crew if not for as long a period/career and is LEGALLY "just" to define the difference between "career" astronauts and those who are not?) will in many cases be doing as much as a "crew" member,

The distinction between "crew" and "spaceflight participant" as defined by the FAA is quite specific and unrelated to whether one is a career astronaut or level of training.  Crew must have a specific contractual relationship with the provider (among other things), and as a rule, spaceflight participants may not legally perform crew activities unless an exception is granted by the FAA.

edit: That said, there is a long-standing precedent that bets are off (greater freedom of action allowed) in the case of an emergency and public safety.  To paraphrase the FAA's position, "We'd rather everything turned out well rather than everyone stick to the letter and end up in a smoking crater".   However, that is very different from the FAA saying that spacecraft participants (aka, "non-crew") may, as a matter of normal operations, be considered crew and perform crew functions.

The FAA definition "suplements" but does not replace the original and still valid definition. A "space flight participant" CAN be a working "non-crew" member or just a "Passenger" it will depend on the mission, flight mode, vehicle and other parameters but being a "space flight participant" does not mean they will NOT be required to train as extensivly at say Shuttle Mission Specialist did. How much and how long will be up to the people who set the training and again that will greatly depend on factors we don't have access to yet. What we do have is history and that comes down as training almost as hard as the "crew" itself.

I doubt it will REMAIN that way as has been noted, too much time spent training will lose business, but not enough will compromise safety.

Randy

[Elmar Moelzer]

According to this article the FAA is OK with Waypoint at least for their training (the article is a bit ambiguous).
http://www.gizmag.com/waypoint2space-faa-approval/30680/

[RanulfC]

The ice is always changing in Antarctica (on the ice sheets, like the South Pole). Covering buildings so they have to be built on stilts. Opening invisible chasms underneath your path as you drive in your snowcat, possibly swallowing the entire vehicle. No sun for long stretched of the year, forcing you to rely on trekking fuel for 1000 miles over those invisible ice chasms.

It's awesome that you have oxygen and pressure in Antarctica. But other than that, wintertime at the South Pole is nearly as harsh as Mars, and in some ways it'd be more difficult to colonize than Mars would be (lack of a solid surface on the ice, need to constantly move structures up on stilts or be slowly crushed by the ice and snow, etc... Inability to have a permanent structure there makes it very difficult to imagine colonization, even when compared to Mars.). The parts of Antarctica with solid ground and nearby volcanic geothermal heat may be good places to colonize, though. And both Argentina and Chile do have Antarctic colonization projects in progress right now with some families permanently located there.

Ya kinda just invalidated your whole "argument" there with that last bit (It helps that while both Argentina and Chile ORIGINALLY signed the Antarctic Treaty neither of the "present" governments feel they need to adhere to it The "problem" is that you still have access to O2-pressure and enough "infrastructure" on-hand to support those "families" year round. It's hard but once you're off the "ice" shelves Antarctica is just another "continent" with all that implies. Space is not, Mars is not, The Moon is not, etc...

Like "space" you need to bring the majority of your "infrastructure" with you anywhere you go on Antarctica, AND you have to have a pretty hefty "support" infrastructure to continue to supply you with what you need to continue living. You need that even more in space because (despite ISRU "claims" to the contrary you don't get ANYTHING for free there. Once you "have" ISRU you get some materials "easier" and "cheaper" but only to the extent where it "cost" you to build it up in the first place.

Once you have inexpensive access to space it becomes "easier" to ship materials, which makes it easier and cheaper to ship in the needed equipment and materials for ISRU and other support infrastructure...

On the "other" hand "cheap" access means that you don't necessarily HAVE to build up such things as ISRU and infrastructure as it MAY be almost easier and cheaper to just keep shipping in supplies rather than "invest" large amounts of money, equipment and time into effective "colonization" efforts

It really depends on your "long-term" goal

(Ask yourself is it a "colony" if Argentina and Chile have people there but are not building up infrastructure to make them self supporting and capable of growth? )

Randy

[RanulfC]

This company is working on providing training for (commercial) suborbital and orbital flights. 

http://waypoint2space.com/

Look at how many days their courses (will) take on their pricing page:

http://waypoint2space.com/programs/pricing/

7 days for "spaceflight fundamentals" followed by 8-12 weeks for orbital flights.  Considering their location, and the detailed listing of "courses",  I'd guess they plan on following a very traditional training approach.  So even then, we're "only" talking about 2 to 3 months of training for (commercial) orbital spaceflight.  If we assume this as a "baseline" starting point, I'd expect that number to go down as launch rates increase, operations are streamlined, and spaceflight becomes more "routine". 

The company is making bogus claims, see NASA Watch.  They are in no position to set precedence or policy.

As Jim notes they are in no position to "set" policy or precedence and in fact none of the 'training' companies are. The have no "standards" to train to or examples to go by. Right now it's "pay-your-money" but you have nothig to actually "base" the certificate (or whatever) on. NASTAR is probably something of a "minimum" while waypoint2space would be a maximum, I don't see how either can actually "qualify" anyone for space flight participant in anything more than a "general" manner. When something is in existance that allows civilian/commercial "space flight participants" the training will be relevant to that basis, not before.

Great find Jeff! Yes 2 to 3 months sounds a lot more like it than 18 months and as you say, that number is more likely to go down rather than up!

I'll "remind" you mister that it was YOU who had a problem with "months" of training! Just because you "assumed" 18 months doesn't meant it was what I meant and "I" didn't! the waypoint2space program is "about" what I was figuring for a maximum. As I said above I'd consider the NASTAR program a "minimum" but neither is actually "relevent" at the moment

Randy

[Elmar Moelzer]

I'll "remind" you mister that it was YOU who had a problem with "months" of training! Just because you "assumed" 18 months doesn't meant it was what I meant and "I" didn't! the waypoint2space program is "about" what I was figuring for a maximum. As I said above I'd consider the NASTAR program a "minimum" but neither is actually "relevent" at the moment

I don't know who brought up the 18 months of training originally (it was not me), but that was what I was objecting to. 8 weeks sounds a lot more reasonable. It is technically still "months" but not 18 months...
So I guess we are all good

[RanulfC]

According to this article the FAA is OK with Waypoint at least for their training (the article is a bit ambiguous).
http://www.gizmag.com/waypoint2space-faa-approval/30680/

The FAA isn't in a position to be critical of any training as there is no set standard. NASTAR makes a claim that they are "FAA approved" but that means nothing since the FAA is in no position to "approve" or "disapprove" of anyone at this point There are a couple of other "companies" out there that offer "training" but it's all the same problem, the "training" may or may not be "relevant" to whatever "space flight participant" participation you end up involved in!

IIRC there are a couple of companies that were or are planning on offering "certification" courses for flight CREW for suborbital vehicles! One would feel that it would be difficult considering those vehicles don't as of yet exist...

Randy

[RanulfC]

I'll "remind" you mister that it was YOU who had a problem with "months" of training! Just because you "assumed" 18 months doesn't meant it was what I meant and "I" didn't! the waypoint2space program is "about" what I was figuring for a maximum. As I said above I'd consider the NASTAR program a "minimum" but neither is actually "relevent" at the moment

I don't know who brought up the 18 months of training originally (it was not me), but that was what I was objecting to. 8 weeks sounds a lot more reasonable. It is technically still "months" but not 18 months...
So I guess we are all good

It was mentioned that was the Russian requirement for Soyuz/ISS tourists. As long as we're all on the same page now? Yes? (Come-on ya'll big-group-internet-hug! )

Randy

[joek]

"Context" assumptions don't support the argument as "fact"actually. For one thing you appear to have taken "space flight participant" totally out of "as-used" context. "Space Flight participant" simply means someone who is not a "career" astronaut. ...

The two prevalent formal definitions are very context dependent (see below), and are unfortunately often mixed or confused.  They are quite specific and have rules, regulations and laws associated with them.  The FAA definition does not "supplement"; it is different as the FAA's focus is transportation--not what happens after you reach your destination.

To continue this conversation productively, we need: (1) clarity on whether the context is commercial, government, or both; (2) clarity around whether the context is transportation, destination, or both; and (3) more precision as to the definition of a spaceflight participant (i.e., non-crew or "not a career astronaut").

Feel free to pick your own terms and definitions, but please don't overload, conflate or muddle existing and clearly established terms and definitions.  For the record...

FAA (U.S. commercial) -- from FAA Title 14 CFR Chapter III — Commercial Space Transportation §401.5 Definitions.

Crew means any employee or independent contractor of a licensee, transferee, or permittee, or of a contractor or subcontractor of a licensee, transferee, or permittee, who performs activities in the course of that employment or contract directly relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of or in a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle that carries human beings. A crew consists of flight crew and any remote operator.
...
Space flight participant means an individual, who is not crew, carried aboard a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle.

ISS (government) -- from Principles Regarding Processes and Criteria for Selection, Assignment, Training and Certification of ISS (Expedition and Visiting) Crewmembers.

Professional Astronaut/Cosmonaut
A professional astronaut/cosmonaut is an individual who has completed the official selection and has been qualified as such at the space agency of one of the ISS partners and is employed on the staff of the crew office of that agency.
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight participants are individuals (e.g. commercial, scientific and other programs; crew members of non-partner space agencies, engineers, scientists, teachers, journalists, filmmakers or tourists) sponsored by one or more partner(s). Normally, this is a temporary assignment that is covered under a short-term contract.
Expedition (Increment) Crewmembers
Expedition crewmembers are the main crew of the ISS and are responsible for implementing the planned activities for an increment. The right of a partner to have its candidates serve as expedition crewmembers is allocated in accordance with Article 11.1 of the MOUs. As part of this allocation, it may be possible to have spaceflight participants as part of an expedition once the ISS has a crew complement of more than 3 persons.
Visiting Crewmembers
Based on experience to date with visiting vehicles to the ISS, visiting crewmembers travel to and from the ISS, but are not expedition crewmembers. Consequently, the visiting crewmembers do not count as a use of a sponsoring agency’s allocation of flight opportunities or crew time on-orbit rights as defined in Article 11.1 and Article 8.3.c of the MOUs. They may be either professional astronauts/cosmonauts or spaceflight participants.
Sponsoring Agency
A sponsoring agency is one of the five ISS partners (CSA, ESA, NASA, GOJ, and Rosaviakosmos) that provide the crew flight opportunities.

[RanulfC]

The two prevalent formal definitions are very context dependent (see below), and are unfortunately often mixed or confused.  They are quite specific and have rules, regulations and laws associated with them.  The FAA definition does not "supplement"; it is different as the FAA's focus is transportation--not what happens after you reach your destination.

The "term" (it's actually a single designation addressed in BOTH your examples) is very often mixed and confused. The FAA definition DOES supplement and does not supersead or replace the original definition. It really isn't that "different" at all, even according to the examples you cite.

FAA
Space flight participant means an individual, who is not crew, carried aboard a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle.

"Government"
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight participants are individuals (e.g. commercial, scientific and other programs; crew members of non-partner space agencies, engineers, scientists, teachers, journalists, filmmakers or tourists) sponsored by one or more partner(s). Normally, this is a temporary assignment that is covered under a short-term contract.

While you cited the "ISS" definition it also applies to those who rode the Space Shuttle and is directly in-line with the FAA definition which applies to "commercial" space flight participants in particular.

To continue this conversation productively, we need: (1) clarity on whether the context is commercial, government, or both; (2) clarity around whether the context is transportation, destination, or both; and (3) more precision as to the definition of a spaceflight participant (i.e., non-crew or "not a career astronaut").

To review we were discussing the "context" on how you managed to arrive at the assumption that future ISS "commercial" operations were to be fully automated or ground controlled thereby freeing commercial "space flight participants" from performing any "crew" or support related duties. I pointed out that it was NOT under any circumstances forseeable that "operations" on the ISS were headed in that direction and nothing in the FAA definition of "space flight participant" changes that. In regards to the ISS specifically, a Space Flight Participant can be both "non-crew" AND "a non-career astronaut" and still be required and expected to perform maintenance, support, scientific and/or other "duties" while there.

The FAA definition does not in any way preclude a commercial "Space Flight Participant" from having to train for and possibly assist in normal or emergency flight operations of an LV or reentry vehicle. Nor does the "government" definition mandate such requirements. They both only "define" who a "Space Flight Participant" is.

In "context" is doesn't matter if the Space Flight Participant is government, commercial, in-transport, or going to a destination. If they are going to the ISS on a Russian or American spacecraft they will be required to meet the training criteria for that organization. (That includes a "commercial" transport spacecraft such as the Dragon as well.This is especially true if the "trip" is under government/NASA contract) If they are flying on a "commercial" orbital Dragon flight then they will have to meet the training requirements established for the organization that is sponsoring that flight.

I'm not trying to "overload," "conflate," or "muddle" existing and clearly established terms and definitions in any way. I am however continuing to point out that the FAA definition does not conflict with or supersede the already established "definition" and neither does it restrict nor expand upon that already existing definition except to make clearer an established "seperation" of "crew" and "space flight participant" for commercial space flight purposes. It does not in any way relate to or establish training requirements for those groups.

Randy

[Elmar Moelzer]

To review we were discussing the "context" on how you managed to arrive at the assumption that future ISS "commercial" operations were to be fully automated or ground controlled thereby freeing commercial "space flight participants" from performing any "crew" or support related duties. I pointed out that it was NOT under any circumstances forseeable that "operations" on the ISS were headed in that direction and nothing in the FAA definition of "space flight participant" changes that. In regards to the ISS specifically, a Space Flight Participant can be both "non-crew" AND "a non-career astronaut" and still be required and expected to perform maintenance, support, scientific and/or other "duties" while there.

I think the automation and ground control operations argument was made for potential commercial space stations (like a Bigelow station), not for the ISS.

[RanulfC]

To review we were discussing the "context" on how you managed to arrive at the assumption that future ISS "commercial" operations were to be fully automated or ground controlled thereby freeing commercial "space flight participants" from performing any "crew" or support related duties. I pointed out that it was NOT under any circumstances forseeable that "operations" on the ISS were headed in that direction and nothing in the FAA definition of "space flight participant" changes that. In regards to the ISS specifically, a Space Flight Participant can be both "non-crew" AND "a non-career astronaut" and still be required and expected to perform maintenance, support, scientific and/or other "duties" while there.

I think the automation and ground control operations argument was made for potential commercial space stations (like a Bigelow station), not for the ISS.

Still has the same issue though, we're not near a point where you CAN perform maintenance and support from the ground. However he DID indicate the ISS "commercial" Ops in the original post which is what I questioned specifically:

What in the heck are you two (RanulfC, Elmar Moelzer) arguing about?  The current ISS commercial crew conops won't even have a "crew"; everyone will be "spaceflight participant",  with some of those participants trained for some crew-like tasks in the event of an emergency.  Any nominal mission should be handled by autonomous systems or remote control, and require no intervention on the part of the on-board participants.

Note the bold. As I've already pointed out the "majority" of people who have been asked want a "destination" and one other than the ISS is prefered. You're still going to need someone to maintain and support the systems "on-orbit" and that's where it gets complicated. You either need a dedicated crew, of the "space flight participants" are going to have handle it. Likely it will be a combination of both.

Randy

[Robotbeat]

ISS is actually in a pretty good inclination for views of the vast majority of the Earth's surface.

[MikeAtkinson]

Lately I've been thinking of the consequences of a MCT being able to carry 80-100 people to Mars. A similar size vehicle could carry about 300 to LEO. This is because the amount of volume per person depends on the spaceflight duration.

Considering mass, if the Falcon X launcher is the size it is then there is about 150kg per passenger above the mass of the MCT vehicle itself - although this is a bit low, it does not seem out of the question is the duration is only a few orbits until docked with a space station. A Falcon X of the size some on these forums think (and more in line with Elon's remark about dwarfing the Saturn V) would allow 500+ kg/person over and above the MCT structural mass.

Obviously this would be a different design to MCT, the systems would be different and a launch abort system would probably be needed, but the outer mold line might be the same (or at least similar). My point is that if SpaceX can do an MCT then they can also do a people carrier of a similar size.

For a completely reusable system I'm guessing at basic launch cost of $50M and another $50M for the upkeep of a Space Hotel, training, profit, etc. that would put a ticket price at about $300K. A weekly flight would launch 15,000 people a year into space for a price of $5B/year. There are about 100,000 ultra high net worth individuals (over $30M) and about 3,000,000 individuals with over $5M in assets (not including their principal home).

What strikes me from these optimistic (although I think just about possible) number is how little revenue would be generated, this is about what the 2nd rank of airlines have in revenue.

[Robotbeat]

...
What strikes me from these optimistic (although I think just about possible) number is how little revenue would be generated, this is about what the 2nd rank of airlines have in revenue.

This. It's important to realize that this isn't going to be a behemoth of a corporation if it's realistic.

[joek]

To review we were discussing the "context" on how you managed to arrive at the assumption that future ISS "commercial" operations were to be fully automated or ground controlled thereby freeing commercial "space flight participants" from performing any "crew" or support related duties.

I never stated or suggested ISS on-orbit operations (destination) would be fully automated and ground controlled.  (Again, you are conflating and confusing use of the term "crew" and not being clear as to transportation or destination.)  I did state that normal transportation operations (i.e., spacecraft) should be automated and ground controlled.  That is based on current legal constraints and proposed CTS conops.  With respect to ISS transportation (not ISS on-orbit operation), that is a concern NASA and the FAA continue to work.

As to training, I continue to point out that training does not, a-priori, mean you hold a position.  Training may be necessary to fulfill a position, but is not sufficient.  What position you hold is also dependent on other factors, including legal constraints and whether you are talking about destination or transportation (see below).

I think the automation and ground control operations argument was made for potential commercial space stations (like a Bigelow station), not for the ISS.

Partly, but it applies to both; for sake of clarity:*
- Station-crew, applies to destination, e.g., ISS (see ISS definition in previous post).
- Spacecraft-crew, applies to transportation, e.g., pilot (see FAA definition in previous [pst).

With respect to future commercial stations, there has been little visible work done on the rules and regulations with respect to station-crew (with very few exceptions, FAA doesn't deal with on-orbit activities, only the transportation piece of getting there and back).  With respect to the ISS, consider:
1. ISS station-crew must be staff or sponsored by one of the international partners.
2. CTS spacecraft-crew must be an employee/contractor of the licensee (e.g., Boeing, SpaceX, SNC).

Can a person satisfy both (1) and (2)?  Yes, but that doesn't fit in the current CTS conops.  To satisfy both requirements, some members of the CTS spacecraft-crew would be required to qualify and serve as ISS station-crew (e.g., sponsored by NASA and trained for ISS on-orbit operations).

A simple analogy, consider a flight crew delivering crew to a ship. 
1. In flight, "crew" are those qualified and designated to operate the aircraft; i.e., members of the flight crew.  Unless otherwise provided for, "ship crew" hold no standing as "flight crew", ragardless of experience.
2. On ship, "crew" are those qualified and designated to operate the ship; i.e., members of the ship crew.  Unless otherwise provided for, "flight crew" hold no standing as "ship crew", ragardless of experience.

Or... You are a licensed and type-certified 777 pilot employed by American Airlines.  You take a flight on a United Airlines 777.  That makes you a passenger, regardless of your training, experience, or certification.  You hold no legal standing as crew or to act as such, whether piloting the aircraft, issuing orders, etc.  (Again, however, such passengers have assisted the crew or acted as such in emergency situations.)

Getting back to the original topic... When access to space is cheap, the taxi model is the norm, and flight crew is easily and clearly differentiated from non-crew (as with current commercial aviation transportation), then there won't be an iissue.  In the interim, seats are scarce, and projected ISS CTS conops does not yet allow for a taxi model, or for "crew" on the spacecraft.


* edit: just to be clear: for transportation to-from station, not on-station activities.

[joek]

Still has the same issue though, we're not near a point where you CAN perform maintenance and support from the ground. However he DID indicate the ISS "commercial" Ops in the original post which is what I questioned specifically:

What in the heck are you two (RanulfC, Elmar Moelzer) arguing about?  The current ISS commercial crew conops won't even have a "crew"; everyone will be "spaceflight participant",  with some of those participants trained for some crew-like tasks in the event of an emergency.  Any nominal mission should be handled by autonomous systems or remote control, and require no intervention on the part of the on-board participants.

Note the bold. As I've already pointed out the "majority" of people who have been asked want a "destination" and one other than the ISS is prefered. You're still going to need someone to maintain and support the systems "on-orbit" and that's where it gets complicated. You either need a dedicated crew, of the "space flight participants" are going to have handle it. Likely it will be a combination of both.

Ahhh... I see where we might have parted ways.  Unfortunately in jumping to that conclusion you skipped the context, which is the sentence preceding your bold: The current ISS commercial crew conops won't even have a "crew"; everyone will be "spaceflight participant".  That is, there will be no spacecraft crew members (transportation) present on ISS crew member (destination) CTS flights, according to the current FAA rules and ISS conops.

I make no statement or implication of ISS on-station (destination) activities or other future commercial stations, or whether they will be automated, remote, or otherwise.  That is a matter for the destination providers and whatever regulatory agency (currently undefined), not the transportation providers.  That is at best still a work in progress.

[MikeAtkinson]

What will the impact of inexpensive access to space be?

A change (clarification) in FAA rules as regards to crew/non-crew on launches.

New rules for crew/non-crew on space stations, moon bases, etc.

It is not clear that FAA rules (or similar) would be used for launches from other countries or the operation of space stations owned by other countries. Why would a Skylon launched from Australia, flying to a Bigelow station launched from Kourou and owned by Saudi Arabia used FAA rules?

There will need to be very different levels of training for:
 
 

*	tourists who take a couple of orbits of the Earth
*	tourists who spend a few nights in an on orbit hotel
*	tourists who go BEO
*	researchers, or other employees who go into space to work (but not to maintain the station) for a few weeks/months
*	long term residents
*	crew, maintenance staff, tour guides, etc.

I think it likely that cheap access to space is going to lead to much more complex standards as regards to training and qualification.

edit: tried adding bullets to the table

[francesco nicoli]

Just to summarize some applications that others have mentioned and add a few of my own:

(...)
• Asteroid mining? Anyone think this is viable?

(...)

Nope. The ideal situation for asteroid mining is expansion of space activities without decreasing of launching costs. a small decrease in launching costs enabling a market expansion may be positive; however, after a certain point, when the cost of access to space decreases, the business case for asteroid mining decreases as well, because it becomes much cheaper to bring essential stuff (like water) from the ground. The price of basic stuff in space equals the launching costs. Of course, this is valid as long as we consider LEO, because beyond LEO asteroid mining is positively correlated with decreasing launching costs (this because decreasing launching costs increase demand for BEO without moving prices of goods in BEO
below the minimum necessary for sustaining mining).

Let's make an example. You have an established mining firm that provides water to LEO. the price of your water is just cheaper of the cost of sending it from the ground (otherwise nobody would buy it). if the prices fall, your profits equally fall, as the cost of water in LEO decreases- water from the ground is now more competitive and the average price decreases. Of course, this would trigger a market expansion, so you still sell your water, at lower costs and larger quantities. This implies also that you have to scale up your infrastructure, which presupposes huge capital investments.
If you sell 100 units of water for a cost of 10,  and If the costs is reduced by 50% (from 10 to 5) either you are able to sell 200 units or you face big troubles. This implies both that demand doubles, and that you are able to scale up in time and without costs. good luck.

(again, this is valid in LEO: beyond that, things are totally different)

[AdrianW]

Just to summarize some applications that others have mentioned and add a few of my own:

(...)
• Asteroid mining? Anyone think this is viable?

(...)

Nope. [...]

You're forgetting two aspects in your analysis:

1) Asteroid mining, once it's working, has the potential to make itself cheaper: by bringing fuel mined from asteroids back from BEO to LEO (using some of the fuel to do this), you have to get additional mining equipment only to LEO, not BEO, where it can refuel and fly to other asteroids. This way, a smaller and cheaper rocket is required for the same payload.

2) Mining valuable metals for use on earth. The lower the launch costs, the more attractive this becomes.

[Lar]

You're forgetting two aspects in your analysis:

1) Asteroid mining, once it's working, has the potential to make itself cheaper: by bringing fuel mined from asteroids back from BEO to LEO (using some of the fuel to do this), you have to get additional mining equipment only to LEO, not BEO, where it can refuel and fly to other asteroids. This way, a smaller and cheaper rocket is required for the same payload.

2) Mining valuable metals for use on earth. The lower the launch costs, the more attractive this becomes.

Good analysis re point 1. Regarding point 2, isn't it technically the *reentry* cost that matters ? 

This is arguably driven by the launch cost to be sure... unless once you have very large infrastructure capability you are manufacturing reentry vehicles that you didn't have to loft from Earth.  c.f. the grain barges in Harsh Mistress[1] that were made from lunar steel and other bits, magnetic catapulted into reentry trajectories and used retros to reenter safely... one could envision making reentry vehicles from asteroidal materials if you have a pretty sophisticated industrial base available. But clearly not early stage.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress  Yes, I referenced an SF book.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress  Yes, I referenced an SF book.

NASA was created to turn science fiction into science fact.

[AdrianW]

Regarding point 2, isn't it technically the *reentry* cost that matters ?

Technically yes, but the reentry requirements for raw material would be pretty basic: don't burn them up, don't scatter them over a large area, and don't drop them in the sea/some city/your competitors backyard.

Planetary resources have talked about inflatable heat shields or very low-density platinum foam balls (or "space balls"^TM) which can reenter without a heatshield.

[guckyfan]

Regarding point 2, isn't it technically the *reentry* cost that matters ?

Technically yes, but the reentry requirements for raw material would be pretty basic: don't burn them up, don't scatter them over a large area, and don't drop them in the sea/some city/your competitors backyard.

Planetary resources have talked about inflatable heat shields or very low-density platinum foam balls (or "space balls"^TM) which can reenter without a heatshield.

There were also tests with a very basic space made regolith heatshield.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/heatshieldtestresults.html

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Here is some info on one of the items discussed that is a driver for increased and cheaper access to space.
http://spacecoalition.com/blog/new-study-big-growth-in-small-satellites

Projections based on both announced and anticipated plans of developers indicate 2,000 – 2,750 nano/microsatellites will require a launch from 2014 through 2020.

If the cost of launching decreases significantly expect this growth rate currently of an average of 23% per year to be more like the 52% for the increase between 2013 and 2014.

With a growing demand for a specific type of cheap launch, what will that do to drive lower launch costs which will feedback into more demand?

[Space Ghost 1962]

Here is some info on one of the items discussed that is a driver for increased and cheaper access to space.
http://spacecoalition.com/blog/new-study-big-growth-in-small-satellites

Projections based on both announced and anticipated plans of developers indicate 2,000 – 2,750 nano/microsatellites will require a launch from 2014 through 2020.

If the cost of launching decreases significantly expect this growth rate currently of an average of 23% per year to be more like the 52% for the increase between 2013 and 2014.

With a growing demand for a specific type of cheap launch, what will that do to drive lower launch costs which will feedback into more demand?

I asked Pete Worden this myself at NIAC last week. He said that the total cost to cubesat on orbit will drop below $200-100k and that the threshold was significant for the number and character of who would attempt to fund cubesats.  That a broader market of institutional and industrial interests will in effect "take the plunge" with a "toe in the water".

So what makes the 10^5 bucks per pop any different? Well, the capital markets are able to do 100x more deals at higher risk levels, and they have been devoid of hardware deals for a number of years.

Yet what has typically held this off is the incredible smell of desperation for funding that is still also visible at NIAC. So drenching that it extinguishes funding interest. It was sad seeing Stanford aerospace students absorbed into such black holes.

Where access to capital markets for grow to aerospace occurs is in traditional sectors attempting non traditional approaches - right now that’s sensor technologies that are given global reach at creation rather than through the long foodchain of percolation through integrators and ultimately winning the interest of satellite operators - they become the operators all at once atomically.

Existing operators have manageable growth that can temporarily exploit lower launch costs and higher launch tempo. But for that alone, volume will not make up for the drop in costs by far. So we will go through a valley. If the new crop of operators / applications don't sustain, there will be a fallout,  some survivors, and launch costs will float high again. A launch services "bubble" needs something to keep it inflated.

A cubesat "surge" is in the making. Meaningless in itself, as are most secondary payloads. Does it "seed" future primary payloads and is it the case that enough market growth sustains a low enough, frequent enough launch services landscape that can remain elastic enough (as the past one wasn't) to accommodate future such "surges" that successively grows the market without stalling.

I didn't like Pete's bland answer. Too much "build it and they'll come". And while I like the spirit of NIAC and ideas in general, knowing how spectacularly bad aerospace is tone deaf to actual businesses and their need, in the heart of Silicon Valley where finely honed pitches need to be sung on key perfectly for even the first dollar, was jarring. Ideas are not limiting factor. Arrogance and ignorance still is.

The key flaw is still the special purpose transportation issues of launch services. If I want LHe or exotic solvents or something else that may bring risk ... I still need to have a way to fly it for cheap. Not wait for SWORDS to make it feasible. So launch services must become indifferent to risk, but this goes directly against the economic doctrine of "assured access" through extreme cost. As if the origins of national security in launch services have locked out economic exploitation of space by contradiction.

[Jim]

Not wait for SWORDS to make it feasible.

SWORDS isn't going to happen

[Robotbeat]

Here is some info on one of the items discussed that is a driver for increased and cheaper access to space.
http://spacecoalition.com/blog/new-study-big-growth-in-small-satellites

Projections based on both announced and anticipated plans of developers indicate 2,000 – 2,750 nano/microsatellites will require a launch from 2014 through 2020.

If the cost of launching decreases significantly expect this growth rate currently of an average of 23% per year to be more like the 52% for the increase between 2013 and 2014.

With a growing demand for a specific type of cheap launch, what will that do to drive lower launch costs which will feedback into more demand?

I asked Pete Worden this myself at NIAC last week. He said that the total cost to cubesat on orbit will drop below $200-100k and that the threshold was significant for the number and character of who would attempt to fund cubesats.  That a broader market of institutional and industrial interests will in effect "take the plunge" with a "toe in the water".

So what makes the 10^5 bucks per pop any different? Well, the capital markets are able to do 100x more deals at higher risk levels, and they have been devoid of hardware deals for a number of years.

Yet what has typically held this off is the incredible smell of desperation for funding that is still also visible at NIAC. So drenching that it extinguishes funding interest. It was sad seeing Stanford aerospace students absorbed into such black holes.

Where access to capital markets for grow to aerospace occurs is in traditional sectors attempting non traditional approaches - right now that’s sensor technologies that are given global reach at creation rather than through the long foodchain of percolation through integrators and ultimately winning the interest of satellite operators - they become the operators all at once atomically.

Existing operators have manageable growth that can temporarily exploit lower launch costs and higher launch tempo. But for that alone, volume will not make up for the drop in costs by far. So we will go through a valley. If the new crop of operators / applications don't sustain, there will be a fallout,  some survivors, and launch costs will float high again. A launch services "bubble" needs something to keep it inflated.

A cubesat "surge" is in the making. Meaningless in itself, as are most secondary payloads. Does it "seed" future primary payloads and is it the case that enough market growth sustains a low enough, frequent enough launch services landscape that can remain elastic enough (as the past one wasn't) to accommodate future such "surges" that successively grows the market without stalling.

I didn't like Pete's bland answer. Too much "build it and they'll come". And while I like the spirit of NIAC and ideas in general, knowing how spectacularly bad aerospace is tone deaf to actual businesses and their need, in the heart of Silicon Valley where finely honed pitches need to be sung on key perfectly for even the first dollar, was jarring. Ideas are not limiting factor. Arrogance and ignorance still is.

The key flaw is still the special purpose transportation issues of launch services. If I want LHe or exotic solvents or something else that may bring risk ... I still need to have a way to fly it for cheap. Not wait for SWORDS to make it feasible. So launch services must become indifferent to risk, but this goes directly against the economic doctrine of "assured access" through extreme cost. As if the origins of national security in launch services have locked out economic exploitation of space by contradiction.

Good post.

$100,000 is very cheap. I've designed and integrated computer systems that cost a little more than that. It's firmly in the small business side of the equation. So if you have a way to extract value from a cubesat that's $100k, you may have lots of businesses. But again, that's not a real argument... It's a "build it and they will come" argument, I haven't actually identified what could produce a bunch of demand at that level.