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

[envy887]

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.

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.

[envy887]

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.

Right. But SpaceX will certainly take the fastest and cheapest way to get something they want. If that's a barter arrangement, so be it - it's a good way for them to translate something they are experts in (launch) into something they are not experts in (e.g. nuclear or whatever).

Also, SpaceX gets lots of stuff from outside suppliers. If ESA has to do barter, they can buy rocket widgets from a European company and give them to SpaceX in return for a ride. The money and jobs and technology base stays in Europe, SpaceX gets their rocket parts (perhaps at a substantial discount which is effectively a markup for the roundabout way of doing things), ESA gets their cheap ride to orbit, and everyone is happy.

[su27k]

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.

By this logic no foreign government would ever buy a launch from SpaceX, this is clearly not the case.

Also ESA is not the be all and end all of European space, we have seen European government payloads on SpaceX manifest.

[Archibald]

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.

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 ?

[woods170]

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.

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 ?

That's the whole point: ESA is NOT buying Soyuz seats from the Russians. NASA does that for them. The ESA use of ISS, including the Soyuz seats for ESA astronauts, is offset (payed for if you will) via a barter agreement in which ESA supplies the service module for Orion.
And before that there was a previous barter agreement that had ESA launch five ATV's to ISS to offset (pay for) their use of ISS.
Something similar was arranged for Columbus. In return for ESA providing the Columbus module, to be part of the ISS, NASA would launch it.
Just about every arrangement between NASA and ESA is a barter deal. No exchange of funds. Only exchange of services and/or goods.

However, ESA can most decidedly BUY (as in exchanging funds) services and/or goods from contractors. For example: ESA buys launches from Arianespace for ESA satellites.
And ESA could just as easily BUY a ride on BFR/BFS from SpaceX. They can't buy the ship, but they can buy a ride.

[matt_ellis]

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.  And don’t forget oil co’s who are used to deep sea operations and already know how to select and manage crews to work in remote and extremely inhospitable locations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Semmel]

If 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.

[rosbif73]

If 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.

[Tulse]

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?

[e of pi]

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?

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.

[DistantTemple]

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?

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.

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.

[aero]

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.

[Robotbeat]

If 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.

Indeed. The case for water mining as some highly profitable venture seems way over-played if you've got reusable rockets. Probably still needed, but primarily as assistance for transporting more valuable cargo around, such as platinum group metals (if any high concentrations are found).

EDIT: We're off-topic.

[philw1776]

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.

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.

[aero]

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.

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.

Sorry, this is really off topic. Iron (steel?) is what's available outside the gravity well.

[DistantTemple]

If 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.

Planetary Resources', whole reason for existence is to mine asteroids... admittedly at first for water for fuel. They are it seems queuing up first in line. They have satellites planned. And as space law solidifies, the first to survey or mine an asteroid, may "claim" it. So getting in there first is a massive benefit. Their timing will probably match BFR being online. Because of the lead time, miners need to expand and explore the foreseeable future -  and mould it to their liking.

Links in my earlier post:

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.

[Tulse]

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.

I'd be interested in seeing the actual numbers run on that.  I just have a hard time believing that launching tons of mining gear into space, remotely operating it, and returning the product from space, would be cheaper than extracting metals from, say, sea water, or deep sea mining, or various other exotic terrestrial mining techniques, much less conventional mining.

[Ludus]

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.

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.

There are countries that might consider starting national space programs that don’t have them now. For example Saudi Arabia under MBS is interesting in jump starting national high tech industries, not necessarily building rockets. Norway has a trillion dollar sovereign wealth fund and the interest. Other countries that do have conventional Space programs like India or Japan might continue to support rocket R&D for defense purposes but separately invest in more advanced Space industries and use SpaceX for transport. Any of those countries could contract for their own dedicated Flag BFS operated by SpaceX within ITAR.