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.
nobody in his right mind would stand across Boeing selling airliners to foreign countries.
Nobody in his right mind would stand across Boeing selling airliners to foreign countries.
Could SpaceX fly from Kourou? Even more upmass, but new pads required...
Quote from: Archibald on 04/08/2018 06:53 pmI 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.
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.
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.
We may see national space programs shifting from launchers to actual in space tech development. Maybe. Not that likely but maybe.
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.
Quote from: Bob Shaw on 04/08/2018 09:04 pmCould 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.
If* SpaceX does trash the existing launcher market, there might be some second hand launch sites coming up on the market....Kourou perhaps.* It's a big if.
Arianespace also launches Soyuz, so there are definitely some options there.
ITAR prevents selling technology stuff like ICBMs to whatever nationality.
And Arianespace is not a space agency but a launch service provider. The space agency is ESA. ESA will not purchase from foreign corporations.There have also been rumors about ESA buying DreamChaser to stick it on Ariane. The only way that would happen is if the entire tech and manufacturing is transferred to Europe as part of some barter arrangement where a European company gets the money and the jobs. ESA is not in the business of simply purchasing off-the-shelf vehicles from foreign suppliers because that goes against the whole purpose of ESA.I'm pretty sure other national space agencies have pretty much the same policy. There is nothing to gain from flags and footprints if all you did is buy a ticket and pack a suitcase.
If ESA were somehow able to use (human rated) Dream Chaser, that could facilitate MAINTAINING jobs on Ariane. ESA is no where near launching astronauts in their own spaceship, so this scenario would enable both continued jobs in Arriane, as well as participation of European astronauts. This would save face, maintain the ESA space programme, and show demonstrable progress.
Assuming DC is reusable many times, the "old fashioned" idea that "it needs to be our spacecraft" could loose significance. Sierra Nevada Corp. will have to overcome ITAR to succeed in using DC widely around the world. Would some kind of lease arrangement, with only SNC personnell servicing DC from local bases work? Technically there is no tec. transfer.
Its not just flags and footprints if it facilitates Europeans participating in the coming developments in space... manufacturing, habitats...
ESA exists to promote European science and exploration. They can do that without requiring a European launch vehicle. It's no different in theory than hiring a Boeing or Antonov to fly a satellite to Kourou.
Possibly more likely than you think if you include countries that have not made serious attempts to get into the launch business. Gulf states, ASEAN, and a couple of African and Latin American countries come to mind.
What would those countries prove, other than they can afford to buy a ticket ?
Quote from: envy887 on 04/10/2018 06:47 pm ESA exists to promote European science and exploration. They can do that without requiring a European launch vehicle. It's no different in theory than hiring a Boeing or Antonov to fly a satellite to Kourou.That is not how ESA is set up. ESA is basically common fund. Each member state puts a certain amount of money into ESA with the expectation that a proportional amount flows back into their countries' economy. For example, France contributes 24% of ESA's budget, so ESA is expected to spend 24% of its budget in French industry or research organizations.ESA doesn't pay NASA to send astronauts to the ISS. NASA trains and flies ESA astronauts in exchange for ATV flights and participations through Colombus and ESA experiments. That way, ESA only spends money in member states, and uses the technology to barter favors from other agencies. It's a win-win for ESA (less so for NASA, who actually ends up paying Russia to fly ESA astronauts on Soyuz, but that's why you should be careful what you agree to). The same principle applies to ESA experiments that are on Curiosity, ESA probes that fly on Russian launchers, or the Ariane launch of JWST. No ESA money was ever spent outside of an ESA member state.Stuff like renting an Antonov to ferry a satellite, is low profile, and below the radar of the member state ministers council (and ESA does sometimes use an Airbus Beluga instead). Starting a human space flight program from scratch by purchasing rides on foreign vehicles is something else altogether, and something that the French or German governments would veto.
Quote from: Archibald on 04/08/2018 06:53 pmnobody 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.
Barter is just another form of payment, one that SpaceX would undoubtedly accept if ESA had technology they wanted - e.g. long term ECLSS, or perhaps eventually nuclear powerplants for a Mars colony (some things are a lot easier if you're a nation-state).
Why would any nation-state ever fund a science mission of any sort at all? Oh that's right, it happens all the time.
Quote from: groundbound on 04/10/2018 09:30 pmWhy would any nation-state ever fund a science mission of any sort at all? Oh that's right, it happens all the time.As I said, they do it for many reasons, including to offer highly qualified domestic job opportunities, to maintain and develop domestic technological capabilities, to subsidize domestic research and development, and for international soft power credibility. None of those goals are served by purchasing a ride from SpaceX or any other foreign supplier.
Quote from: envy887 on 04/10/2018 08:24 pmBarter is just another form of payment, one that SpaceX would undoubtedly accept if ESA had technology they wanted - e.g. long term ECLSS, or perhaps eventually nuclear powerplants for a Mars colony (some things are a lot easier if you're a nation-state).I think that it is very unlikely that SpaceX would choose to rely on a national or supranational—in the case of ESA—space agency for critical technology if at all possible. Space agency programs tend to be slow and ESA programs, partly due to its members' insistence on exact proportional funding allocation, are often even slower. On the specific topic of nuclear power, ESA has been talking about and doing preliminary work on 241Am based power systems for around a decade, with little to show for it.
Quote from: Nibb31 on 04/10/2018 06:10 pmAnd Arianespace is not a space agency but a launch service provider. The space agency is ESA. ESA will not purchase from foreign corporations.There have also been rumors about ESA buying DreamChaser to stick it on Ariane. The only way that would happen is if the entire tech and manufacturing is transferred to Europe as part of some barter arrangement where a European company gets the money and the jobs. ESA is not in the business of simply purchasing off-the-shelf vehicles from foreign suppliers because that goes against the whole purpose of ESA.I'm pretty sure other national space agencies have pretty much the same policy. There is nothing to gain from flags and footprints if all you did is buy a ticket and pack a suitcase.Hmmm, well... I thought a lot of space agencies across the world get their astronauts to ISS buying Soyuz seats from the russians... not buying complete Soyuz ships, or setting a Soyuz production line... ESA is buying Soyuz seats from the Russians to get to ISS, why couldn't they do the same with a BFR ?
As far as the OP, if BFR flights are as cheap as envisioned, a lot of countries would probably want to do it.
If BFR flights are as cheap as envisioned, there are a few mining companies that will be queuing up.
Quote from: matt_ellis on 04/11/2018 05:58 pmIf BFR flights are as cheap as envisioned, there are a few mining companies that will be queuing up.I dont think so. In the foreseeable future space mining is only viable when launches are so expensive that its cheaper to mine asteroids than to launch stuff with rockets. And "stuff" pretty much is limited to fuel because any serious construction of complex parts is far more difficult than just "mining". If BFR is really as cheap as advertised, than mining is probably prohibitive expensive in comparison.
What bulk mined material could be valuable enough be both mined in asteroids and returned to earth via landing vehicles? Apart from the occasional speculation about He3, I just can't imagine any material that would be worth the huge investment in in-space infrastructure and the huge cost of transportation. Any candidates?
Quote from: Tulse on 04/12/2018 05:30 pmWhat bulk mined material could be valuable enough be both mined in asteroids and returned to earth via landing vehicles? Apart from the occasional speculation about He3, I just can't imagine any material that would be worth the huge investment in in-space infrastructure and the huge cost of transportation. Any candidates?Platinum group metals are often discussed. Iridium, for instance, sells for about $32,000/kg. There's a lot of room for that price to come down and still be profitable with even present-day launch costs, much less with an RLV-enabled launch cost under $2,000/kg.
Quote from: Semmel on 04/12/2018 06:26 amQuote from: matt_ellis on 04/11/2018 05:58 pmIf BFR flights are as cheap as envisioned, there are a few mining companies that will be queuing up.I dont think so. In the foreseeable future space mining is only viable when launches are so expensive that its cheaper to mine asteroids than to launch stuff with rockets. And "stuff" pretty much is limited to fuel because any serious construction of complex parts is far more difficult than just "mining". If BFR is really as cheap as advertised, than mining is probably prohibitive expensive in comparison.That logic applies in the case where the materials mined are then sent to Mars (or elsewhere off Earth). But there's also the case of mining materials that are valuable enough to be worth sending back to Earth. And for that, cheaper launches improve the viability.
Iron ships and iron men! If ships were to be made in space, say at a space dock, what would they be made of? No need to lift them out of the gravity well, just move from planet to planet or more likely, space dock to space dock. They could be quite massive and still be usable, no heat shields required. Of course, thrust to mass would still be a consideration, but not the deal breaker it is now.Add: Engines come up from Earth, propellant might be hydro-lox from water mined in space, fittings come from the most economical source.
Quote from: aero on 04/13/2018 01:32 amIron ships and iron men! If ships were to be made in space, say at a space dock, what would they be made of? No need to lift them out of the gravity well, just move from planet to planet or more likely, space dock to space dock. They could be quite massive and still be usable, no heat shields required. Of course, thrust to mass would still be a consideration, but not the deal breaker it is now.Add: Engines come up from Earth, propellant might be hydro-lox from water mined in space, fittings come from the most economical source.Why would you want massive iron ships in space? Rocket equation still applies. Minimal final mass gives exponentially better results in either or both travel time or tonnes of payload hauled.
One company has existing plans to send a bunch of prospecting satellites out to various asteroids they have identified as relevant: https://www.planetaryresources.com/ In a talk they explained the rationale. With SX going to Mars, and possibly the moon, and Bezos saying he wants to see thousands living and working in space, Planerary Resources has the long view: that in 10 years, they might start mining, in 20 years a market will develop... and they are placing themselves now. In 30 years? PR don't have to make a profit early on, just show there is a developing market for their products, and they will likely be cost effective. Once others catch on they will have a head start in surveying of asteroids, initial extraction experiments and therefore "ownership", experience with spacecraft, relationships with SX BO etc, spacecraft.If we do have a space industry, and space habitats, and easy commercial space travel, and EVAs etc Earth's gravity well will still be a big cost, whereas an asteroid will be just a time delay. If we don't descend into barbarism, maybe more of the earth will be as Bezos says, protected against exploitation, whereas asteroids will be ripe for obliteration. And if the iron is to be used in space, it won't need to be pulled out of a gravity well.
Platinum group metals are often discussed. Iridium, for instance, sells for about $32,000/kg. There's a lot of room for that price to come down and still be profitable with even present-day launch costs, much less with an RLV-enabled launch cost under $2,000/kg.
Quote from: Nibb31 on 04/10/2018 10:06 pmQuote from: groundbound on 04/10/2018 09:30 pmWhy would any nation-state ever fund a science mission of any sort at all? Oh that's right, it happens all the time.As I said, they do it for many reasons, including to offer highly qualified domestic job opportunities, to maintain and develop domestic technological capabilities, to subsidize domestic research and development, and for international soft power credibility. None of those goals are served by purchasing a ride from SpaceX or any other foreign supplier.Sure they are. The ride is not the mission, and the mission is not the ride. They CAN get all of the above by building in-space technology and asking SpaceX to launch it. Whether they realize that and chose to do so is another matter.
