Any reason why a non-US space agency couldn't buy a crewed BFR mission?

[envy887]

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

First we will see national space programs develop reusable launch vehicles. Then they will shift to more in-space tech dev.

ESA is already doing this with a Merlin/Falcon analogue.

[Ekramer]

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.

I expect SpaceX is counting on other existing and new space agencies being major customers, and will not be able to fulfill it’s Mars goals without funding provided by other countries.  This probably includes “ footprints and flags” missions as well as longer term orbital missions.  For various reasons many countries do not want to join the “ballistic missile” club, and don’t want to be deeply involved with the American government, but would pay a company for a ticket to the Solar System. 

[ValmirGP]

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.

Due to unrelated and shameful politics in my country (which is off topic and I will refrain from debating it here), there could be an opening for America/American Companies to use the Brazilian Launch site in Alcantara.

There had been multiple news here about a flirting between the current government and the US State Department about this, and SpaceX had previously had talks with government here. But in the last courtship talks, SpaceX did not sent representatives in a visit with other American companies due to the then imminent launch of Falcon Heavy.

If things go the way the news are telling (which currently I think is unlikely and I personally hope to not go as being reported) ITAR would not be an issue. And the place is better than Kourou. Again, PAD's would need to be built.

But on the other hand, the site has a long, sad history, and knowing the kind of people usually in representative positions around here, I would not bet it to ever take place.

[JamesH65]

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.

[woods170]

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.

Big if indeed. But even if it would work out that way Kourou would still not be available. It will remain dedicated to ESA's policy of "assured access to space", which will require a European rocket to remain in service to be launched from CSG.

[Jim]

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

Arianespace only sells rides on Soyuz.  Russians still do the actual work.

[Archibald]

ITAR prevents selling technology stuff like ICBMs to whatever nationality.

Or the MTCR treaty (the one which deals with ballistic missile proliferation, since 1987) ?

[Nibb31]

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.

[DistantTemple]

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...

[envy887]

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.

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.

[groundbound]

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

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.

[VulcanCafe]

Mr. Musk can simply hold an auction for the first foot on Mars.

I can definitely see multiple places SpaceX can find full funding for their goals.

Given the reforms currently being made, can you imagine the social impact if the first person on Mars is a Saudi woman? Only requires a $10 billion check...

[Nibb31]

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.

ESA has most of the technology to build their own manned spacecraft. They could combine an ATV-derived service module with a capsule based on the ARD or even the IXV.

There is no saving face. There is no political motivation from any of the member states to have an autonomous manned space program.

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.

That would be a non-sequitur for ESA member states. The idea that "it needs to be our spacecraft" is essential.

Its not just flags and footprints if it facilitates Europeans participating in the coming developments in space... manufacturing, habitats...

ESA could do it alone if they had the political mandate. They don't, so they won't.

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.

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 ?

[yoram]

What would those countries prove, other than they can afford to buy a ticket ?

For example if they use BFR to build a moon or mars base, they would prove that they can build and operate a moon or mars base.

That's a significant feat on its own and has plenty of opportunities to demonstrate European space technology. The French and European space industry could still make a lot money on the bases.

I don't see why this couldn't fly politically, as long as the cost of the BFR transport is low enough.

Likely they would still work on an own transport system longer term of course.

[envy887]

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.

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).

Or ESA can launch a space station, and pay Airbus or Thales to arrange crew transport.

[Electric Paint]

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.

Gwynne Shotwell stated on The Space Show that SpaceX will never sell its technology to other entities, under any circumstances. She said it in reference to Falcon class vehicles and Dragons, but her point was that SpaceX sells services, not vehicles. There are dedicated crews of people that are well trained on in-house hardware, and to hand off the responsibility of operating a Falcon to an outside entity probably opens up a slew of liability issues. Also, ITAR would get in the way when it comes to foreign buyers.

[groundbound]

What would those countries prove, other than they can afford to buy a ticket ?

Why would any nation-state ever fund a science mission of any sort at all? Oh that's right, it happens all the time.

But for smaller entities the barrier to entry has always been pretty high. If we are honestly about to see dramatically lower launch prices and a launcher glut, more entities can come to the table. Science missions on the cheap (esp relative to JWST or even TESS) are what I was thinking of, but there could be lots of other possibilities.

[JH]

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).

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.

[Survtech]

I understand Elon has plans to use BFR for point to point travel on Earth. That alone would require launch and landing capabilities worldwide. Wouldn't that be basically the same as launching to space?

[Nibb31]

Why 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.