What will the impact of inexpensive access to space be?

[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?