Author Topic: Any reason why a non-US space agency couldn't buy a crewed BFR mission? (Read 12343 times)

EnigmaSCADA · « **on:** 04/08/2018 05:23 pm »

Is there any law, contract, or whatever else that would prevent a space agency other than NASA from buying a crewed launch on BFR?

Let's say JAXA or ESA decided that they wanted to do they're own HSF mission and it just made too much sense to call up SpaceX and pay for a BFR launch/mission. Any reason that isn't possible?

I realize such a mission would likely need to be launched from a SpaceX/US pad and that the whole notion of this would likely be politically impossible due to domestic aerospace contractors (domestic to the space agency considering a BFR ride) throwing a fit. But in theory, is it possible under currently existing laws/bylaws/treaties/whatever?

Seems like a cost effective way to get into HSF without development risks, costs, and time.

envy887 · « **Reply #1 on:** 04/08/2018 05:44 pm »

If it's not a NASA mission then it would need to be licensed by the FAA OST as a crewed commercial flight. As long as SpaceX meets the FAA requirements for such a flight it doesn't really matter who is paying for it.

joek · « **Reply #2 on:** 04/08/2018 05:59 pm »

To expand on envy877's response... Does not matter if it is a foreign space agency or a domestic-foreign private agency-individuals. If they are contracting with SpaceX, and SpaceX is operating the launch under US jurisdiction (which presumably it will for the foreseeable future), then all that is required is FAA approval.[1]

NB: FAA does not at this time "certify" spacecraft for commercial carriage (as in equivalent certification of aircraft) . Only NASA does that for NASA's own cargo-crew.

[1] edit: And it is not a barter arrangement between NASA and a foreign agency (in which case it would be considered a NASA mission).

Archibald · « **Reply #3 on:** 04/08/2018 06:53 pm »

I think a case could be make that Musk objective with BFR/BFS is to create a space DC-3 or 747 in the sense that any (space) airline can buy it, whatever its nationality. Either buy the spacecraft and create a fleet, or apply the charter economic model.
nobody in his right mind would stand across Boeing selling airliners to foreign countries.

philw1776 · « **Reply #4 on:** 04/08/2018 07:09 pm »

Quote from: Archibald on 04/08/2018 06:53 pm

I think a case could be make that Musk objective with BFR/BFS is to create a space DC-3 or 747 in the sense that any (space) airline can buy it, whatever its nationality. Either buy the spacecraft and create a fleet, or apply the charter economic model.
nobody in his right mind would stand across Boeing selling airliners to foreign countries.

ITAR prevents selling technology stuff like ICBMs to whatever nationality. BFR is more like an iCBM than a 767.
Selling rides should just be FAA approval as stated previously.

speedevil · « **Reply #5 on:** 04/08/2018 07:33 pm »

In some cases internal politics may make it impossible too.
ESA, for example, a _lot_ of people would be fighting against it, and making arguments around ariane 6, however little sense it'd make for HSF.

The case for some other agencies differs.
Japans space agency, for example, has no real launcher, and might find using BFR for HSF or even conventional launches interesting.

niwax · « **Reply #6 on:** 04/08/2018 07:40 pm »

Arianespace also launches Soyuz, so there are definitely some options there.

joek · « **Reply #7 on:** 04/08/2018 07:46 pm »

Quote from: Archibald on 04/08/2018 06:53 pm

nobody in his right mind would stand across Boeing selling airliners to foreign countries.

Is there any indication SpaceX wants to sell vehicles as opposed to rides? There is a significant difference, and will likely be significant resistance and barriers, to selling vehicles as opposed to rides.

speedevil · « **Reply #8 on:** 04/08/2018 08:22 pm »

Quote from: Archibald on 04/08/2018 06:53 pm

Nobody in his right mind would stand across Boeing selling airliners to foreign countries.

They'd get quite upset indeed if Boeing started trying to sell V22s, even without armament.

Bob Shaw · « **Reply #9 on:** 04/08/2018 09:04 pm »

Could SpaceX fly from Kourou? Even more upmass, but new pads required...

Jcc · « **Reply #10 on:** 04/08/2018 09:17 pm »

Quote from: Bob Shaw on 04/08/2018 09:04 pm

Could SpaceX fly from Kourou? Even more upmass, but new pads required...

Near and medium term, I don't think they would fly from Kourou to avoid export requirements. Longer term, if they want to fly 1000s of BFS to Mars, they are going to have to launch from a lot of places.

Especially for tanker flights, they will want to get all the up mass they can to LEO, and if they are launching from different parts of the world it's going to be good weather somewhere, no waiting for weather.

As far as the OP, if BFR flights are as cheap as envisioned, a lot of countries would probably want to do it.

speedevil · « **Reply #11 on:** 04/08/2018 09:36 pm »

Quote from: Bob Shaw on 04/08/2018 09:04 pm

Could SpaceX fly from Kourou? Even more upmass, but new pads required...

The upmass improvement from going from 28N to 0N is almost zero for non-equatorial orbits.
The eastward change is some 40m/s extra.
At best, from 150 to 153 tons.

For inclinations steeper than a few degrees or so, there is no benefit.

For launches into GEO, either with the satellite doing the burn, or BFS, the gain is not quite trivial, but not large.

In any case, if you're talking about lots of upmass, with cargo transfer, fuel and operations costs may start to matter more than technical delta-v arguments.

Ludus · « **Reply #12 on:** 04/09/2018 06:32 am »

Quote from: philw1776 on 04/08/2018 07:09 pm

Quote from: Archibald on 04/08/2018 06:53 pm
I think a case could be make that Musk objective with BFR/BFS is to create a space DC-3 or 747 in the sense that any (space) airline can buy it, whatever its nationality. Either buy the spacecraft and create a fleet, or apply the charter economic model.
nobody in his right mind would stand across Boeing selling airliners to foreign countries.

ITAR prevents selling technology stuff like ICBMs to whatever nationality. BFR is more like an iCBM than a 767.
Selling rides should just be FAA approval as stated previously.

Nothing to prevent a long term contract and national paint job on a BFS that’s operated by SpaceX. It wouldn’t be necessary for countries to own, operate, or violate ITAR for SpaceX to offer White Label space programs.

woods170 · « **Reply #13 on:** 04/09/2018 08:42 am »

Quote from: speedevil on 04/08/2018 07:33 pm

In some cases internal politics may make it impossible too.
ESA, for example, a _lot_ of people would be fighting against it, and making arguments around ariane 6, however little sense it'd make for HSF.

The problem with ESA is not the launcher, but the (lack of) spacecraft.

If there was any reason for ESA to buy a manned ride on BFR/BFS there is nothing that the entrenched European aerospace industry could do to prevent it. Simply because there is no European manned spacecraft. The last time CNES and ESA tried to develop (in earnest) a manned spacecraft (Hermes) it failed miserably for political reasons.

But, it is much more likely that ESA would barter a ride via NASA. Which could be a ride on Orion, as well as on Crew Dragon. And if NASA would ever buy a ride on BFR/BFS it is likely that ESA would barter to share in that ride.

woods170 · « **Reply #14 on:** 04/09/2018 08:47 am »

Quote from: Bob Shaw on 04/08/2018 09:04 pm

Could SpaceX fly from Kourou? Even more upmass, but new pads required...

Under the current political situations politics will prevent SpaceX from ever launching from Kourou.

CSG is wholly owned by the French space agency CNES, and is thus a French government facility. "Not invented here" is something that has a lot of play in French politics, as well as ESA politics (only marginally less so).
SpaceX is a direct competitor to Arianespace and that makes SpaceX, from the perspective of both ESA and CNES, an entity to NOT grant access to CSG.

Bob Shaw · « **Reply #15 on:** 04/09/2018 09:15 am »

Interesting thoughts! Thanks!

Nibb31 · « **Reply #16 on:** 04/09/2018 11:34 am »

The main purpose of a national space program is to provide jobs to domestic scientists and engineers and to develop domestic technology and knowledge. Purchasing off-the-shelf launch services or hardware from a foreign country goes against the whole point.
That's why ESA typically contributes to international projects through barter arrangements, where its money is injected into European industries or research organizations (on a pro-rata basis), rather than purchasing from a foreign supplier or contributing financially to the project.

su27k · « **Reply #17 on:** 04/09/2018 12:15 pm »

On the other hand, NASA is paying hundreds of millions of dollars per year to Russia to purchase Soyuz seats, so every rule has its exception.

Lar · « **Reply #18 on:** 04/09/2018 01:00 pm »

We may see national space programs shifting from launchers to actual in space tech development. Maybe. Not that likely but maybe.

woods170 · « **Reply #19 on:** 04/09/2018 01:34 pm »

Quote from: su27k on 04/09/2018 12:15 pm

On the other hand, NASA is paying hundreds of millions of dollars per year to Russia to purchase Soyuz seats, so every rule has its exception.

Courtesy of the USA deliberately having done away with its own manned space transportation system before its replacement was ready. Not a unique situation though. The USA has done it before (Apollo -> STS).