Elon Musk - Gatekeeper to Space

[Oersted]

After the bombshell of the Lunar slingshot, I got around to thinking about this seemingly evermore plausible scenario:

In a couple of years Elon Musk may control the only safe and affordable opportunity for well-off people to buy a trip into LEO. With reusable Dragon 2's and Falcon 9's perhaps piling up, there should be plenty of opportunity for SpaceX to earn serious money on space tourism. Every successful flight would only make the order books grow I imagine. When Los Angeles sees one of its own providing a comfortable and safe way to space, how many Hollywood celebs wouldn't want a ride?

How will it change our idea of space to see it becoming accessible like that? Will it be demystified, banalized, perhaps tarnished? - Or will the sense of wonder increase when we get to experience it vicariously through the eyes of exceptional communicators wearing VR gear?

Will trips in Dragon 2's become wedding presents or lottery wins? - Will the media lose interest after the first few flights with paying passengers? (Until a mishap, of course, when they'd gather like locusts again...)

Will Elon be able to use this capacity as a bargaining chip in all sorts of endeavours? Providing a Dragon 2 ride as the ultimate "extra" in negotiations with the worlds' gazillionaires?

If SpaceX can get a proper conveyor belt of flights going I imagine that it could become a main source of income. Just one more reason for locking down the designs (Falcon 9, Dragon 2) and start earning money on them. Money for the BIG project...

[Jcc]

If the object is just orbital tourism, why not launch from Vandenberg in a polar orbit and land back in California?

[Oersted]

Absolutely, good point. And again, if SpaceX gets up to a good clip, with regular, "boring" launches, then three different launch sites will of course be great for business. Vandy being a military base might pose a problem, though...

[Darkseraph]

Doesn't look likely that SpaceX will be the only option for wealthy people to purchase a flight into space any time soon. Blue Origin will be flying customers to suborbital space next year and plan to start flights of their Orbital vehicle in 2020. Virgin Galactic could be entering the suborbital market in around the same time frame. With the anouncement of Virgin Orbital, it may even develop an orbital passenger vehicle. Boeing plans to sell seats to private customers on CST-100. After the launch of NASA astronauts returns to US vehicles, the prices of Soyuz seats is likely to go down and spare capcity may be sold through Space Adventures at a compeitive rate. Dream Chaser will likely become a human rated vehicle in the near future and put on a number of boosters.

In any case, any hypothetical attempt by SpaceX to monopolize access to space will likely spurn on competitors and new startups to undercut them.

[Oersted]

For sure SpaceX won't try to monopolize access to space, but when it comes to LEO (Low Earth Orbit) they pretty much seem the only show in town with seats for sale for the foreseeable future. CST-100 I don't think will fly very much beyond Gov't contracts, and the Russians, well... they are struggling.

[Robotbeat]

Bezos is super rich. I think Blue Origin will be a significant player in a few years. It won't be just SpaceX.

[Norm38]

If the object is just orbital tourism, why not launch from Vandenberg in a polar orbit and land back in California?

For lunar tourism, doesn't one need the equatorial launch advantage?

[Jim]

For sure SpaceX won't try to monopolize access to space, but when it comes to LEO (Low Earth Orbit) they pretty much seem the only show in town with seats for sale for the foreseeable future.

Not really.
This and the first post are over the top hype.

[BobHk]

SpaceX cant monopolize space... ffs

[Oersted]

No need for the "ffs", please. Keep it civil.

Of course SpaceX cannot monopolize space: nobody said so. This thread is about safe and affordable access to LEO.

Blue Origin is still far away from anything that can go to LEO, let alone be reusable, which is a precondition for *affordable* access. Same with the Russians, Boeing, the Chinese, etc.

The others have some capability but lack all the necessary parts of the equation. To be both safe and affordable you have to be a commercial entity
1) with a certain track record,
2) with a proven willingness to "sell seats" and
3) fly reusable to keep the price down.

"Commercial entity" because it is the best guarantee that they will want to sell seats (Notwithstanding the cash-strapped Russians, most state actors - NASA, ESA, the Chinese - are not really offering seats for sale).

"With a certain track record" to substantiate the required level of safety.

"Willing to sell seats": SpaceX' recent announcement shows that they are in the game.

"Flying reusable", obviously to keep the price within reason for the many multi-millionaires who would be interested in a LEO flight. 

Only SpaceX will soon reunite all of those requirements. No other actor gets anywhere near in the foreseeable future.   

[Darkseraph]

^

Two of those criteria layed out above, SpaceX would right now flunk. Its safety record is currently below other launch providers and below that demonstrated for other human launch systems (Soyuz, Shuttle). It has yet to reuse a launch vehicle, never mind demonstrate it is safe and economical to do so with Falcon 9. Blue Origin is somewhat ahead on reuse, but again: Business case for this is not yet proven.

I absolutely hope SpaceX achieves economical and safe transport of people into space as soon as possible, but the hyperbolic projection above is counting one's Dragons before they hatch. As it stands, they're losing payloads to other launch providers because they can't meet their own schedules.

[BobHk]

No need for the "ffs", please. Keep it civil.

Of course SpaceX cannot monopolize space: nobody said so. This thread is about safe and affordable access to LEO.

Blue Origin is still far away from anything that can go to LEO, let alone be reusable, which is a precondition for *affordable* access. Same with the Russians, Boeing, the Chinese, etc.

The others have some capability but lack all the necessary parts of the equation. To be both safe and affordable you have to be a commercial entity
1) with a certain track record,
2) with a proven willingness to "sell seats" and
3) fly reusable to keep the price down.

"Commercial entity" because it is the best guarantee that they will want to sell seats (Notwithstanding the cash-strapped Russians, most state actors - NASA, ESA, the Chinese - are not really offering seats for sale).

"With a certain track record" to substantiate the required level of safety.

"Willing to sell seats": SpaceX' recent announcement shows that they are in the game.

"Flying reusable", obviously to keep the price within reason for the many multi-millionaires who would be interested in a LEO flight. 

Only SpaceX will soon reunite all of those requirements. No other actor gets anywhere near in the foreseeable future.

I object to the use of the word 'safe' when you ride a rocket...because you aren't safe.  You are depending on physics not being a bastard that day and every day after until you are on Earth again.  When you say safe what is your minimal loss of life per year?  On a long enough timeline with many launches it should be greater than 1...

[SweetWater]

I think there are two things that will prevent this kind of tourism from becoming a mainstay of the SpaceX business model in the immediate (the next ~5 years) future. One is safety. Another is schedule.

As others have pointed out, SpaceX currently has a safety record lower than that of either Soyuz or the shuttle - and, for what it's worth, the Long March 2F that China uses to launch the Shenzhou capsules, although that version of that particular rocket has only 13 launches total. A couple of billionaire adventurers is one thing. SpaceX will need to demonstrate a higher level of safety before they can support regular tourist flights.

Besides safety, there is also the issue of SpaceX's launch schedule. They've already got more launches booked for 2017 and 2018 than anyone but the most starry-eyed optimist really believes they can launch, and they're losing launches that have already been booked to other providers because the customers are sick of waiting. They need to demonstrate a steady and reliable cadence of launches this year and next. If they don't, they're going to have trouble keeping the commercial launches already on the books, let alone expand into other markets like tourism.

There's also another factor to consider: Does SpaceX want to try to exploit this particular market itself? Again, it's one thing to send a couple of billionaires around the moon because they cut a big enough check. It's another to organize a division of your company to directly and actively exploit the tourist market.

I don't see any evidence that Elon has any interest in having SpaceX do this. If another company approaches them and wants to contract transportation services for regular tourist flights, I'm sure SpaceX would be happy to negotiate for those services at a profitable price point. I don't see SpaceX actively pursuing the tourist market itself.

[Ludus]

There is very limited demand for orbital space tourism. The suborbital variety that Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic will cater to costs a couple hundred thousand dollars and is an easy 1 day amusement park ride sort of experience. That really is tourism. There are hundreds of people who put deposits down for this and it's likely a real if small market.

Orbital space tourism like SpaceX lunar flyby or past trips to space stations costs more than a hundred times as much and requires a much bigger commitment of time and attention.

There are only a few people who have the tens of millions of dollars to spend and the passion to go through the trouble involved. Calling them tourists is a put down and deceptive. They're millionaire adventurers. This isn't a vacation, it's a lot of work and risk and extremely expensive. There just aren't very many people waiting to do this.

The reward for doing it first is a place in history. Being the 15th person to do it not so much. This SpaceX moonshot is an opportunity to do something really historic. Some people may be motivated to repeat it, but that won't generate the same publicity. This will be the first time humans have left near earth orbit in decades and the furthest people have ever been from the earth. They will be the first people to leave NEO in the 21st Century. That's a huge opportunity, but doing the same thing repeatedly isn't.

[envy887]

I think there are two things that will prevent this kind of tourism from becoming a mainstay of the SpaceX business model in the immediate (the next ~5 years) future. One is safety. Another is schedule.

As others have pointed out, SpaceX currently has a safety record lower than that of either Soyuz or the shuttle - and, for what it's worth, the Long March 2F that China uses to launch the Shenzhou capsules, although that version of that particular rocket has only 13 launches total.

You're conflating LOM and LOC. Unlike with STS, a launch failure does not mean near certain LOC.

Soyuz has had a couple failed missions that did not result in LOC, and a couple that did result in LOC.

[Joffan]

I think there are two things that will prevent this kind of tourism from becoming a mainstay of the SpaceX business model in the immediate (the next ~5 years) future. One is safety. Another is schedule.

As others have pointed out, SpaceX currently has a safety record lower than that of either Soyuz or the shuttle - and, for what it's worth, the Long March 2F that China uses to launch the Shenzhou capsules, although that version of that particular rocket has only 13 launches total.

You're conflating LOM and LOC. Unlike with STS, a launch failure does not mean near certain LOC.

Soyuz has had a couple failed missions that did not result in LOC, and a couple that did result in LOC.

Indeed, this is a distinction between safety and success. The loss of vehicle during testing is not a blot on the safety record,  and even the loss of CRS-7 had the redeeming feature of the survival - from the main RUD - of the Dragon capsule. If safety is reasonably interpreted as being robust to even a very bad day, SpaceX actually has a good record.

SpaceX is not perfect, and neither is anyone else. But they're not terrible either, and their work on the cost equation is outstanding, with the non-trivial benefit that they know more about flown engines and flown stages that practically anyone ever.

Whether the world will forgive or recoil from a death on a space adventure, we will one day find out.

[mulp]

No need for the "ffs", please. Keep it civil.

Of course SpaceX cannot monopolize space: nobody said so. This thread is about safe and affordable access to LEO.

Blue Origin is still far away from anything that can go to LEO, let alone be reusable, which is a precondition for *affordable* access. Same with the Russians, Boeing, the Chinese, etc.

The others have some capability but lack all the necessary parts of the equation. To be both safe and affordable you have to be a commercial entity
1) with a certain track record,
2) with a proven willingness to "sell seats" and
3) fly reusable to keep the price down.

"Commercial entity" because it is the best guarantee that they will want to sell seats (Notwithstanding the cash-strapped Russians, most state actors - NASA, ESA, the Chinese - are not really offering seats for sale).

"With a certain track record" to substantiate the required level of safety.

"Willing to sell seats": SpaceX' recent announcement shows that they are in the game.

"Flying reusable", obviously to keep the price within reason for the many multi-millionaires who would be interested in a LEO flight. 

Only SpaceX will soon reunite all of those requirements. No other actor gets anywhere near in the foreseeable future.

I object to the use of the word 'safe' when you ride a rocket...because you aren't safe.  You are depending on physics not being a bastard that day and every day after until you are on Earth again.  When you say safe what is your minimal loss of life per year?  On a long enough timeline with many launches it should be greater than 1...

Is it more or less safe to "walk" to the moon?

In 2014, 4,884 people were killed in pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes, more than 12 people every day of the year (NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts). Though the number of pedestrian fatalities fell from 4,901 in 2001 to 4,884 in 2014, there were 65,000 reported pedestrian injuries in 2014; nearly one injury every 8 minutes.

After googling and finding nothing directly like VMT, I use SWAG to arrive at well over one pedestrian death per million miles walked.

Would walking be approved by the FAA/NASA as safe enough?

[Oersted]

Blue Origin is somewhat ahead on reuse, but again: Business case for this is not yet proven.

We can't say Blue Origin is ahead on reuse... The system they tested so far is infinitely less capable than a Falcon 9. Not comparable rockets. By that standard SpaceShipOne won the reuse prize more than ten years ago...

[BobHk]

No need for the "ffs", please. Keep it civil.

Of course SpaceX cannot monopolize space: nobody said so. This thread is about safe and affordable access to LEO.

Blue Origin is still far away from anything that can go to LEO, let alone be reusable, which is a precondition for *affordable* access. Same with the Russians, Boeing, the Chinese, etc.

The others have some capability but lack all the necessary parts of the equation. To be both safe and affordable you have to be a commercial entity
1) with a certain track record,
2) with a proven willingness to "sell seats" and
3) fly reusable to keep the price down.

"Commercial entity" because it is the best guarantee that they will want to sell seats (Notwithstanding the cash-strapped Russians, most state actors - NASA, ESA, the Chinese - are not really offering seats for sale).

"With a certain track record" to substantiate the required level of safety.

"Willing to sell seats": SpaceX' recent announcement shows that they are in the game.

"Flying reusable", obviously to keep the price within reason for the many multi-millionaires who would be interested in a LEO flight. 

Only SpaceX will soon reunite all of those requirements. No other actor gets anywhere near in the foreseeable future.

I object to the use of the word 'safe' when you ride a rocket...because you aren't safe.  You are depending on physics not being a bastard that day and every day after until you are on Earth again.  When you say safe what is your minimal loss of life per year?  On a long enough timeline with many launches it should be greater than 1...

Is it more or less safe to "walk" to the moon?

In 2014, 4,884 people were killed in pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes, more than 12 people every day of the year (NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts). Though the number of pedestrian fatalities fell from 4,901 in 2001 to 4,884 in 2014, there were 65,000 reported pedestrian injuries in 2014; nearly one injury every 8 minutes.

After googling and finding nothing directly like VMT, I use SWAG to arrive at well over one pedestrian death per million miles walked.

Would walking be approved by the FAA/NASA as safe enough?

Your stats are a barbells to grapes comparison.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

There is very limited demand for orbital space tourism.

At the current price point I agree. But reusability has the potential to reduce that price point sufficiently to significantly boost demand. I think Blue Origin could be key here, more than SpaceX. Primarily this is because Elon says he's not interested in full (including S2) reusability until ITS. So I think Blue just might get a fully reusable orbital launch system first.