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.

[guckyfan]

So I think Blue just might get a fully reusable orbital launch system first.

New Glenn is also not planned to be fully reusable, only the booster.

The likelihood of ITS being the first fully reusable system is still high.

[corneliussulla]

SpaceX has about 5 years start in reusable boosters over BO. By the time New Glenn is flying Falcon 9 will have something like 7 years flying and been enhanced through numerous iterations. Dragon 2 will have been flying for probably 2 years whereas BO has no development at all going on on Man rated spaceship such as Orion or Dragon 2. Meanwhile Musk isn't standing still. He has 4000+ engineers etc working on moving the goal posts. I don't fancy BO chances of catching up any time soon.

[Kryten]

Dragon 2 will have been flying for probably 2 years whereas BO has no development at all going on on Man rated spaceship such as Orion or Dragon 2.

Blue's track record should have already shown people that them not having announced something doesn't mean they're not working on it. We do in fact know that they're working on an orbital crewed capsule, it's repeatedly mentioned in the launch site planning application.

[Coastal Ron]

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?

Musk is not part of Hollywood, and those in Hollywood don't try to copy each other.

Also, why are you thinking only people from Hollywood would be interested in flying in space?  Of the 7 space tourists we've had so far, 5 made their money in tech, one made their money in money, and one is in performance art  - in Canada.

How will it change our idea of space to see it becoming accessible like that? Will it be demystified, banalized, perhaps tarnished?

Likely very few (if any) of the people on NSF will be able to afford to $$$$ to go, so why does it matter what we think?  We'll have to wait for version 8.0 or so, where it will be inexpensive enough to merit putting a dent in the retirement fund.

Or will the sense of wonder increase when we get to experience it vicariously through the eyes of exceptional communicators wearing VR gear?

A friend of mine is a professional diver, and I would never go where he goes because I think the risk would be too high - despite the beauty I see in his pictures and videos.  And so it is with space travel at this point in our history.

But there will be a proliferation of VR "experiences" that we'll all have access to, so we'll be able to see how utterly UNAPPEALING floating around in a small aluminum for 6 days can be.

If SpaceX can get a proper conveyor belt of flights going I imagine that it could become a main source of income.

My prediction is that tourism will only be a supplemental income for SpaceX, not their main source.  The market for space tourism at this price, especially once everyone watches the documentary on the first one, will be very small.

[TomH]

For sure SpaceX won't try to monopolize access to space,

SpaceX cant monopolize space... ffs

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

Of course SpaceX cannot monopolize space: nobody said so.

You said they will not try, which actually assumes it is possible. As for the ffs, I merely see that as mirroring Jim's saying that your comments have been over the top.

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.

That does imply that Musk is going to have a monopoly for an extended period. Steve Jobs revolutionized computers with microcircuitry and GUI, but it took very little time for Bill Gates to prevent an Apple monopoly. Underestimating Bezos, Branson, and others is a mistake. It is akin to counting Tom Brady out when he is behind 28-3 in the Super Bowl. As they say, It ain't over 'till the Fat Lady sings.

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.

That is way too dramatic and reflects a shallow knowledge of the history of science and technology. The Wright brothers were eclipsed from the get/go. Henry Ford revolutionized auto production with the assembly line, but other car makers copied him immediately. De Havilland jumped out into the lead with commercial passenger jets, but catastrophic failures from pressurization metal fatigue doomed them; Douglas jumped ahead, but it was quickly overwhelmed by Boeing. In the late 50s/early60s the USSR was the first to orbit, first to put an animal up, first manned orbit, first space walk. The uninformed masses panicked that we were hopelessly behind in all of technology. Our scientists and engineers knew that was incorrect and within a few short years it was apparent who had The Right Stuff and who didn't. This is not like China keeping the silk worm secret for centuries. People know what Musk's plans are, how his technology works, and cannot only copy it, but might even leapfrog it. In the 1980s, Japan was planning a new television broadcast standard that was based on advanced analog technology. The US decided simply to leapfrog the Japanese and go to digital. The Japanese plan never got off the ground. Thinking Elon has it made is naïve. If this lunar tourist thing literally blows up, or the tourists get Lost in Space, that could be a crippling blow. To stay ahead, he will have to never take the stance you are taking, but rather constantly innovate, yet still avoid and rebound from setbacks. Even then, underestimating Bezos, Branson, et. al. is a serious mistake. The Patriots won the Super Bowl; that is something one ought not forget.

[ChrisWilson68]

For sure SpaceX won't try to monopolize access to space,

SpaceX cant monopolize space... ffs

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

Of course SpaceX cannot monopolize space: nobody said so.

You said they will not try, which actually assumes it is possible.

No, that definitely does not assume it's possible.

I won't try to build a faster-than-light warp drive, but my not trying doesn't assume it's possible.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

My prediction is that tourism will only be a supplemental income for SpaceX, not their main source.  The market for space tourism at this price, especially once everyone watches the documentary on the first one, will be very small.

I have to disagree with the last point. Have people stopped climbing Everest or doing a host of other riskier/adventurous activities because it's no longer new/original?  There will always be people who want to experience it for themselves.

I can see space tourism, including circumlunar trips, becoming a major source of SpaceX income depending on just how much SpaceX can lower the price. (Safety matters too but given how many people die on Everest etc a relatively high level of risk will be expected/accepted.)

[Zed_Noir]

My prediction is that tourism will only be a supplemental income for SpaceX, not their main source.  The market for space tourism at this price, especially once everyone watches the documentary on the first one, will be very small.

I have to disagree with the last point. Have people stopped climbing Everest or doing a host of other riskier/adventurous activities because it's no longer new/original?  There will always be people who want to experience it for themselves.

I can see space tourism, including circumlunar trips, becoming a major source of SpaceX income depending on just how much SpaceX can lower the price. (Safety matters too but given how many people die on Everest etc a relatively high level of risk will be expected/accepted.)

In theory, Dennis Tito's Inspiration Mars flyby mission can be carried out in 2021 after the ECLSS systems get some shakedown Lunar free return trips. Of course the accommodations will be a bit Spartan with a small hab module. Someone will probably be willing to inspired SX with wads of green to be the first human(s) to loop around Mars. IIRC the 2021 mission date requires a flyby of Venus first (a bonus side trip).  There can only be first human flybys of Venus & Mars once after all. Think of the glory if successful and the historical footnotes if not.

[wes_wilson]

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.

I agree but see the moonshot as creating an intermediate step on their path to mars that didn't exist before.  With ITS under construction, there was no profitable use for it between now and flights to Mars.  However, if they can load it up with 100 people for Mars they may be able to carry 200 or 300 people for a shorter week long trip around the moon.  Much like a week long cruise that many people buy for vacations with the accompanying cost reduction of sharing the cost among so many passengers. 

They may quite literally be creating a market to shake out ITS before Mars flights.  And ITS will be much like a cruise ship given people will travel on it for 6 months. 

[Jim]

My prediction is that tourism will only be a supplemental income for SpaceX, not their main source.  The market for space tourism at this price, especially once everyone watches the documentary on the first one, will be very small.

I have to disagree with the last point. Have people stopped climbing Everest or doing a host of other riskier/adventurous activities because it's no longer new/original?  There will always be people who want to experience it for themselves.

I can see space tourism, including circumlunar trips, becoming a major source of SpaceX income depending on just how much SpaceX can lower the price. (Safety matters too but given how many people die on Everest etc a relatively high level of risk will be expected/accepted.)

Ron is right.

[envy887]

My prediction is that tourism will only be a supplemental income for SpaceX, not their main source.  The market for space tourism at this price, especially once everyone watches the documentary on the first one, will be very small.

I have to disagree with the last point. Have people stopped climbing Everest or doing a host of other riskier/adventurous activities because it's no longer new/original?  There will always be people who want to experience it for themselves.

I can see space tourism, including circumlunar trips, becoming a major source of SpaceX income depending on just how much SpaceX can lower the price. (Safety matters too but given how many people die on Everest etc a relatively high level of risk will be expected/accepted.)

I'd wager that climbing Everest is more about the personal accomplishment than the view, for most people. Maybe flying in a can for a week gives the same sense of accomplishment? I can't say.

At this price point the market is absolutely very small. There aren't many people who can and will drop $100M on a week trip. Launching and operating commsats has far more revenue potential, and like tourism can also grow substantially with lower launch costs.

[mme]

Shouldn't the announcement of New Glenn have made this thread completely moot?

I know they haven't announced an capsule for it yet but it's not like they can't/won't develop one. The stated goal of Blue Origin is to get 1000s of humans working and living off of Earth.  In a pinch, what about a collaboration with Sierra Nevada or Boeing?

Sorry, anytime someone suggests that only one company will dominate spaceflight I get twitch like when Chief Inspector Dreyfus hears Clouseau's name.

[Jim]

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?

Nonsense, Spacex is not or going to be the Taco Bell of spaceflght.

[TrevorMonty]

Shouldn't the announcement of New Glenn have made this thread completely moot?

I know they haven't announced an capsule for it yet but it's not like they can't/won't develop one. The stated goal of Blue Origin is to get 1000s of humans working and living off of Earth.  In a pinch, what about a collaboration with Sierra Nevada or Boeing?

Sorry, anytime someone suggests that only one company will dominate spaceflight I get twitch like when Chief Inspector Dreyfus hears Clouseau's name.

Blue were working on crew capsule as part of CC. A 6-7 crew capsule would be undersized for LEO if using NG, I'm guessing it will be BLEO capable. Along with 3rd stage would enable DSH missions.

Blue would also use it for LEO missions while developing a larger version to make most of NG lift capabilities. The larger version maybe 20-30 passengers, probably sized for a reusable 2nd stage.

If larger capsule is BLEO capable then it could fly on NA to lunar orbit.

With fully reusable NG and 20-30 passengers a flight, $5m seats are possible.

This is all conjecture but it would follow Bezo's step by step philosophy.

[Zed_Noir]

Shouldn't the announcement of New Glenn have made this thread completely moot?

I know they haven't announced an capsule for it yet but it's not like they can't/won't develop one. The stated goal of Blue Origin is to get 1000s of humans working and living off of Earth.  In a pinch, what about a collaboration with Sierra Nevada or Boeing?

Sorry, anytime someone suggests that only one company will dominate spaceflight I get twitch like when Chief Inspector Dreyfus hears Clouseau's name.

The New Glenn will not be entering service until NET 2020. Then Blue will have to developed an orbital capable crewed spacecraft to match the Falcon 9/Dragon 2 combo. Seems like NET mid 2020's for Blue to put a manned orbital spacecraft of their own on top of a New Glenn.

So it does looks like the folks from Hawthorne will dominate human spaceflight to LEO & cos-Lunar for at least a few years.

IMO, the only way for the Boeing Starliner & the Dreamchaser to be on top of the New Glenn is if Blue acquired them. From historical Amazon behavior with competitors.

[AncientU]

Shouldn't the announcement of New Glenn have made this thread completely moot?

I know they haven't announced an capsule for it yet but it's not like they can't/won't develop one. The stated goal of Blue Origin is to get 1000s of humans working and living off of Earth.  In a pinch, what about a collaboration with Sierra Nevada or Boeing?

Sorry, anytime someone suggests that only one company will dominate spaceflight I get twitch like when Chief Inspector Dreyfus hears Clouseau's name.

The New Glenn will not be entering service until NET 2020. Then Blue will have to developed an orbital capable crewed spacecraft to match the Falcon 9/Dragon 2 combo. Seems like NET mid 2020's for Blue to put a manned orbital spacecraft of their own on top of a New Glenn.

So it does looks like the folks from Hawthorne will dominate human spaceflight to LEO & cos-Lunar for at least a few years.

IMO, the only way for the Boeing Starliner & the Dreamchaser to be on top of the New Glenn is if Blue acquired them. From historical Amazon behavior with competitors.

You mean acquired that tiny piece of Boeing, not Boeing in total, right?
Not a ULA asset.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Elon wants to revolutionize access to space.

He is not after a monopoly.

He wants others to follow his lead and even to compete successfully with him. In this last point the goal to revolutionize access to space will be realized.

The revolution/transformation of the access to space has started. The costs are on a downward trend. The methodologies being pushed forward allows for the increase in reliability (when you get your hardware back you can find what is marginal and what is robust in your design).

Costs are decreasing.
Reliability at worst will remain the same or get better.

But the result is that new demand will be created due to the lowering costs and increase in reliability. This is the revolution. Elon realizes it and so does Bezos and even Tory Bruno (ULA CEO).

[DOCinCT]

[snip]

I have to disagree with the last point. Have people stopped climbing Everest or doing a host of other riskier/adventurous activities because it's no longer new/original?  There will always be people who want to experience it for themselves....(Safety matters too but given how many people die on Everest etc a relatively high level of risk will be expected/accepted.)

According to Wikipedia  Over 280 people have died trying to climb it and in the last few decades, fatalities have occurred every year.  Note: there were 22 fatalities in 2015.

[macpacheco]

I'm quite positive there's plenty of people that just want the experience of seeing the moon up close or even landing on the moon, staying there for a few days, making an EVA and a moon walk and coming back with the pics and 4k BluRay to prove he/she done it.

As well as tens of thousands would love to stay a couple of weeks in LEO at a space hotel, including a couple EVAs just for fun. That's if the price is low enough.
Like under a million USD.

But here's the conundrum. The economic tipping point for that only happens after ITS is flying, able to carry hundreds to space at a time.
Also, people won't go if they see yearly deaths in space. And space tourism might shutdown for a while after each death.
Its an elective activity after all.

SpaceX will never have a monopoly at access to space. There's Blue Origin, REL/Skylon, the Russians, Ariane, ULA, Indians, Chinese. I think at least 3 options will remain worldwide at all times. Space is a strategic avenue. Even the US government wouldn't accept a SX monopoly (and Musk clearly doesn't seek one, but lowering the cost of access to space by 2 orders of magnitude will certainly kill a bunch of competitors due to their own inability to compete).

My bet is after SX achieves routine booster reuse (and start to offer prices half off Ariane V) the Europeans will freak out and put a few billion on REL. Perhaps Ariane will purchase REL outright and make it their mini Apollo program.

[Darkseraph]

My bet is after SX achieves routine booster reuse (and start to offer prices half off Ariane V) the Europeans will freak out and put a few billion on REL. Perhaps Ariane will purchase REL outright and make it their mini Apollo program.

I wouldn't bet on that after Brexit happens. Skylon is a very expensive long term proposition and not the fastest path to a comparable capability. It is more likely Prometheus/Callisto gets a significant shot in the arm and that the European Space Agency begins to give relatively small amounts of money to some european launch startups.

[mme]

Shouldn't the announcement of New Glenn have made this thread completely moot?

I know they haven't announced an capsule for it yet but it's not like they can't/won't develop one. The stated goal of Blue Origin is to get 1000s of humans working and living off of Earth.  In a pinch, what about a collaboration with Sierra Nevada or Boeing?

Sorry, anytime someone suggests that only one company will dominate spaceflight I get twitch like when Chief Inspector Dreyfus hears Clouseau's name.

The New Glenn will not be entering service until NET 2020. Then Blue will have to developed an orbital capable crewed spacecraft to match the Falcon 9/Dragon 2 combo. Seems like NET mid 2020's for Blue to put a manned orbital spacecraft of their own on top of a New Glenn.

So it does looks like the folks from Hawthorne will dominate human spaceflight to LEO & cos-Lunar for at least a few years.

IMO, the only way for the Boeing Starliner & the Dreamchaser to be on top of the New Glenn is if Blue acquired them. From historical Amazon behavior with competitors.

The premise of this thread is that SpaceX will gain some sort of long term advantage is the "Gate Keeper" to LEO and will maintain that advantage into the foreseeable future.  A few years "domination" is nothing in the scheme of things. Especially because I don't see SpaceX focussing on even trying to create some huge LEO market and it will take longer than 5 years for there to be more than a few such flights.

CommX is the golden goose for SpaceX, not space tourism. IMHO.

I also would not assume that Bezos would not gladly launch CST-100s and Dreamchasers if the opportunity presented itself.  It's not like that locks them into anything or prevents them from developing their own capsule.  Amazon sells iPads, AppleTVs, and everything else under the sun even when it "competes" with Amazon.

Edit:

IntoTheVoid pointed out that Amazon no longer sells AppleTVs. But they use to and I imagine they would be willing to use other company's spacecraft until they have one of their own. Either way, SpaceX won't be the only game in town for long.

[IntoTheVoid]

... and everything else under the sun even when it "competes" with Amazon.

That's not true. Amazon specifically stopped Chromecast and Apple TV to reduce competition for it's Amazon Fire devices.

http://fortune.com/2015/10/02/amazon-chromecast-apple/

[Zed_Noir]

.....

....

IMO, the only way for the Boeing Starliner & the Dreamchaser to be on top of the New Glenn is if Blue acquired them. From historical Amazon behavior with competitors.

You mean acquired that tiny piece of Boeing, not Boeing in total, right?
Not a ULA asset.

Thought that "Boeing Starliner" is clear enough to meant just whatever assets is associated with that spacecraft program from Boeing.

And I didn't mention ULA in my post.

[ZachF]

Shouldn't the announcement of New Glenn have made this thread completely moot?

I know they haven't announced an capsule for it yet but it's not like they can't/won't develop one. The stated goal of Blue Origin is to get 1000s of humans working and living off of Earth.  In a pinch, what about a collaboration with Sierra Nevada or Boeing?

Sorry, anytime someone suggests that only one company will dominate spaceflight I get twitch like when Chief Inspector Dreyfus hears Clouseau's name.

The New Glenn will not be entering service until NET 2020. Then Blue will have to developed an orbital capable crewed spacecraft to match the Falcon 9/Dragon 2 combo. Seems like NET mid 2020's for Blue to put a manned orbital spacecraft of their own on top of a New Glenn.

So it does looks like the folks from Hawthorne will dominate human spaceflight to LEO & cos-Lunar for at least a few years.

IMO, the only way for the Boeing Starliner & the Dreamchaser to be on top of the New Glenn is if Blue acquired them. From historical Amazon behavior with competitors.

The premise of this thread is that SpaceX will gain some sort of long term advantage is the "Gate Keeper" to LEO and will maintain that advantage into the foreseeable future.  A few years "domination" is nothing in the scheme of things. Especially because I don't see SpaceX focussing on even trying to create some huge LEO market and it will take longer than 5 years for there to be more than a few such flights.

CommX is the golden goose for SpaceX, not space tourism. IMHO.

I also would not assume that Bezos would not gladly launch CST-100s and Dreamchasers if the opportunity presented itself.  It's not like that locks them into anything or prevents them from developing their own capsule.  Amazon sells iPads, AppleTVs, and everything else under the sun even when it "competes" with Amazon.

Edit:

IntoTheVoid pointed out that Amazon no longer sells AppleTVs. But they use to and I imagine they would be willing to use other company's spacecraft until they have one of their own. Either way, SpaceX won't be the only game in town for long.

I would not be surprised in the least if Bezos has designs for his own Amazon constellation. New Glenn would be an almost perfect LV to maintain such a constellation.