What will the impact of inexpensive access to space be?

[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.