totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[SOXBLOX]

I certainly trust Boeing a lot less than Lockheed. Lockheed is still very reliable, though. They've managed to stave off most of the internal corporate bureaucracy which is dampening the capabilities of the brains at Boeing to innovate. Definitely don't knock these guys; they've been pushing the limits of aerospace for the number one aerospace customer, the American military, for the last 80 years. They appear to move slowly only because they can't waste taxpayer dollars. Congress is ruthless in its spending cuts (absolutely not a political comment, just a fact) and will crush them if they don't know exactly what they're doing.

As for the Space Force, they're looking for a small, cheap launcher which can launch unpredictably using minimal infrastructure, i.e. any convenient air base, during a near-peer conflict. I would guess that this doesn't apply to SS. SS would also make a very juicy target for ASAT weapons. That would mess up the economies of reusability a bit.

As for the launch costs of Starship, we cannot possibly have any hard numbers yet, seeing as how they haven't actually built and flown it. The aerospace industry has a time-honored tradition of running into unexpected technical problems (read: bigger costs), and something as novel as Starship will likely see more than its share of gremlins.

As for tourism, ahhhh... Yeah. Not a very sustainable market by my guesses. But who knows...

[tater]

15 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

I certainly trust Boeing a lot less than Lockheed. Lockheed is still very reliable, though. They've managed to stave off most of the internal corporate bureaucracy which is dampening the capabilities of the brains at Boeing to innovate. Definitely don't knock these guys; they've been pushing the limits of aerospace for the number one aerospace customer, the American military, for the last 80 years. They appear to move slowly only because they can't waste taxpayer dollars. Congress is ruthless in its spending cuts (absolutely not a political comment, just a fact) and will crush them if they don't know exactly what they're doing.

I have a lot more respect of LockMart these days than Boeing.

Quote

As for the Space Force, they're looking for a small, cheap launcher which can launch unpredictably using minimal infrastructure, i.e. any convenient air base, during a near-peer conflict. I would guess that this doesn't apply to SS. SS would also make a very juicy target for ASAT weapons. That would mess up the economies of reusability a bit.

They want unpredictability. The infrastructure doesn't matter, frankly, and an ASAT needs to know where to shoot. A SS could be operated on a single orbit vs a target, and if the payload was a camera (with an ~8m mirror) they'd be imaging the target long before anyone could establish the orbit. On top of that, with a huge mirror, they could fly it into a pretty wide range of orbital altitudes (payload won't mass much), and they'd have props for doglegs, etc. SS is the perfect NRO vehicle for bespoke deployment.

 

Quote

As for the launch costs of Starship, we cannot possibly have any hard numbers yet, seeing as how they haven't actually built and flown it. The aerospace industry has a time-honored tradition of running into unexpected technical problems (read: bigger costs), and something as novel as Starship will likely see more than its share of gremlins.

To be sure it's a huge ? what costs will be. All we know are numbers we have heard. 2 million a flight is launch costs (propellant, and some ground ops). It;s designed to be turned around like an aircraft (no refurb at all). So if it works (huge if), then the launch cost is basically a couple million, plus the amortized cost of the vehicle. Musk said in numbers, SS would cost 5 million. With an M. Yeah, ridiculously cheap. If he's off by an order of magnitude? Also ridiculously cheap. 2 orders of magnitude? OK, if it was expendable, no longer cheap, but even at 500M$ per SS, if it was reusable only 10 times... cheap. They have a lot of room here.

Again, if it works.

Quote

As for tourism, ahhhh... Yeah. Not a very sustainable market by my guesses. But who knows...

I am not one who thinks crew versions for tourists are coming soon, it's incredibly hard. For real "tourism" vs "adventure travel for risk-seeking gazillionaires" the safety would have to be airline level, even if only 1960s airline level safety. Long, long pole. That said, IF they could make it "airline safe," then tourism is not only sustainable, but the largest market for space launch by a wide, wide margin, IMO. The base capability for this to be possible though is stunningly hard (airline level safety for space travel).

Also:

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by tater

[SOXBLOX]

2 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

One word answers all your questions: Starlink. Or is that two? Anyways...

SpaceX needs SS for Starlink, and Starlink will fund everything else.
 

If it’s successful, Starship will be a radical change to the existing paradigm, such that it’s difficult for some people to even see.

 If that’s even possible at all, I guarantee you’ll have no trouble finding volunteers, even if that pool declines as price goes up.

Starlink will be a market, but not the way you think. Once those starlink sats have died and become hypervelocity impactors, they will have to be removed in order to de-Kesslerize Earth. I wonder what launch vehicle could pull that off...  Oh yeah,... Starship, coincidentally made and flown by the same government -subsidized corporation that made the mess in the first place. And also coincidentally, because not all the space trash up there is SpaceX 's, then it will be perfectly justifiable to pay SpaceX to remove it.

Difficult to see, you say? I presume you mean me, but I'll ignore this.

If Starlink is proves itself to be so wonderful, then it will naturally create competition. Competition launched by other companies, of course. If there is no other competition, they run into anti-monopoly regulations.

Do you think rich, prosperous millionaires and billionaires want to leave their mansions and coastal resorts for a highly regimented community with strict laws living in a fragile tin can, again, in muscle -destroying low G? Not likely.

Not that I hate SpaceX, but 100 years from now, i think whoever invents a mass-production technique for C nanotubes will be laughing at Elon's plans to colonize Mars with a steel tube.

Edited April 29, 2020 by SOXBLOX

[SOXBLOX]

They want minimal infra because it allows them to launch from anywhere-ish. This keeps our adversaries guessing. And no, you are quite wrong on how hard it would be for, say, China to spot and track SS. BMEWS, or the Chinese version thereof, could find it seconds after it appeared, and fire a shot from a system like a small version of GBSD. More resolution from orbital cameras is hardly necessary; 8m is past the point where aperture increases make headway against atmospheric interference. So no, I don't see a vast military potential for Starship. 

Even if the military could use it, it is only useful in war, when corporations are essentially forced to cut their profits to nigh-zero or appear to be capitalizing on the suffering of many, many people. This tiny market would last only a year or two, at most, due to the way even a near-peer  conflict would be fought.

Edited April 29, 2020 by SOXBLOX

[CatastrophicFailure]

8 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Starlink will be a market, but not the way you think. Once those starlink sats have died and become hypervelocity impactors, they will have to be removed in order to de-Kesslerize Earth. I wonder what launch vehicle could pull that off...  Oh yeah,... Starship, coincidentally made and flown by the same government -subsidized corporation that made the mess in the first place. And also coincidentally, because not all the space trash up there is SpaceX 's, then it will be perfectly justifiable to pay SpaceX to remove it.

You're presuming large numbers of Starlinks will simply fail with zero control, I find that unlikely, specifically because they know that's a risk. Unusable sats will get controlled de-orbits, as we're already seeing, IIRC they'll even do it autonomously, and the entire constellation will be turned over every 5 years or so. Kessler syndrome really isn't the boogeyman some people seem to think.

12 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

If Starlink is proves itself to be so wonderful, then it will naturally create competition. Competition launched by other companies, of course. If there is no other competition, they run into anti-monopoly regulations.

Like the ones already limiting Time-Warner, Comcast, and all those other ISPs people love to hate? Starlink will be launching right into competition, and getting fat off the scraps the big guys ignore. If One Web or Amazon's thing plays out, all the better. Competition is good, and Musk himself has said this.

13 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Do you think rich, prosperous millionaires and billionaires want to leave their mansions and coastal resorts for a highly regimented community with strict laws living in a fragile tin can, again, in muscle -destroying low G? Not likely.

You're presuming only the uber-rich will be able to afford the trip. The entire point is to reduce the cost enough that that doesn't happen. Get it down even as much as the value of an average house, and again you'll have no shortage of people willing to sell their homes and go up, young man. Whether this is a good idea belongs in that other thread, but the desire is there.

15 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Not that I hate SpaceX, but 100 years from now, i think whoever invents a mass-production technique for C nanotubes will be laughing at Elon's plans to colonize Mars with a steel tube.

Only the way we "laugh" (in nervous terror) at people heading out to fall of the end of the world in rickety wooden sailing ships today.

[tater]

It's important to realize what the point of SpaceX is, regardless of whether or not anyone thinks the goal makes any sense (economic, or otherwise). It's colonizing Mars.

The point of Blue Origin (what Bezos says is his "most important work") is "millions of people living and working in space." Bezos is an O'Neil kinda guy, which for living in space actually makes more sense to me.

These two guys are making money to further those goals. Not building the spacecraft to make money as a primary goal—if they can make money as part of colonizing space, they both will, obviously, as that's also part of the goal—an economy in space.

 

10 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

They want minimal infra because it allows them to launch from anywhere-ish. This keeps our adversaries guessing. And no, you are quite wrong on how hard it would be for, say, China to spot and track SS. BMEWS, or the Chinese version thereof, could find it seconds after it appeared, and fire a shot from a system like a small version of GBSD. More resolution from orbital cameras is hardly necessary; 8m is past the point where aperture increases make headway against atmospheric interference. So no, I don't see a vast military potential for Starship. 

Even if the military could use it, it is only useful in war, when corporations are essentially forced to cut their profits to nigh-zero or appear to be capitalizing on the suffering of many, many people. This tiny market would last only a year or two, at most, due to the way even a near-peer  conflict would be fought.

Seeing is more of an issue up vs down, but the point of a large aperture is not just angular resolution. Light gathering also matters, as it reduces exposure times, which is likely an issue with image smearing (spacecraft is moving fast, so tracking becomes less important than pointing). Being at the seeing limit at higher alts, means you're at a higher alt (possibly escaping some ASATs if that was a thing to worry about, which would be a full scale war, so no).

Shoot it down with an ASAT? Sorry, that's only after a war has started. Wars don't start because a Keyhole flies over. The point is as an intelligence asset, the target doesn;t have to be China. Are adversaries more likely to actually be engaged going to spot it? Some non-state actor camp? Those guys are going to know that an NRO asset is flying over in 5 minutes? I think not.

Edited April 29, 2020 by tater

[Ultimate Steve]

12 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

2 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

 

Starlink will be a market, but not the way you think. Once those starlink sats have died and become hypervelocity impactors, they will have to be removed in order to de-Kesslerize Earth. I wonder what launch vehicle could pull that off...  Oh yeah,... Starship, coincidentally made and flown by the same government -subsidized corporation that made the mess in the first place. And also coincidentally, because not all the space trash up there is SpaceX 's, then it will be perfectly justifiable to pay SpaceX to remove it.

I'm under the impression that as of right now at least, the plan is to put most of the starlinks in low orbits where they will decay fairly quickly if they fail.

13 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Do you think rich, prosperous millionaires and billionaires want to leave their mansions and coastal resorts for a highly regimented community with strict laws living in a fragile tin can, again, in muscle -destroying low G? Not likely.

I don't think many people think that at all. As dubious as the Mars plans are, there will likely be many, many volunteers. Look at how many people signed up for Mars One, which was pretty much a 100% one way trip. If all goes well, with this plan there is the availability of a return even though that isn't really the intent.

Someone talked about the tourism killer app earlier, this is what I'm most excited about personally. It's highly probable that the market will be far bigger than those wanting to go to Mars. If they can get the price per seat down to something reasonable for a once-in-a-lifetime trip, you have a lot of people who would pay up. If we assume 5 million dollar flight cost and 50 passengers (more pessimistic than the current numbers), that's 100k per passenger. Tough to save, yes, I'm panicking over the same-order-of-magnitude amount I'll need for college, but unless we fall into economic ruin (sadly a possibility) it is a doable amount for the space-obsessed.

[SOXBLOX]

I still say any long-term colonization scheme by a company like SpaceX is doomed to failure. It would be a HUGE net loss that would A) Force Elon to shell out Starshiploads of cash to maintain or B) Force the colonists themselves to finance the voyage, infrastructure, etc. 

Starlink, once complete, shouldn't take many flights per year to keep running, due to the massive payload touted by SpaceX. This means it spends a lot of time sitting around doing nothing. This, coupled with the need to maintain the maintenance capabilities, leads to a problem like what Electric Boat experienced; paying smart people to twiddle their thumbs until the rare time they're needed. This makes it more efficient (more efficient, maybe not cheaper; there's a difference) to just use a smaller LV, like Falcon.

It's either this, or pull a market out of thin air in a matter of years. Ain't happenin'. What besides Starlink  will fly on this?

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, zolotiyeruki said:

 

You make a good point about abort modes, but I have two counter arguments for the points above:

1) There are no missions right now that require the full capabilities of Starship.  However, that doesn't mean Starship woould be useless.  It could be used for basically every mission that every current launch platform services, at a lower cost.  Sure, smaller payloads won't use all of SS's capabilities, but it'll still be cheaper than any of the expendable launch platforms.  Who cares if the launch vehicle can handle 10x the size of your payload, if they're still cheaper than a competing platform that's sized to match your payload?
2) Boeing isn't exactly covering itself in glory lately when it comes to....well, just about anything they're involved with, and "low cost" doesn't exactly come to mind when it comes to any defense contractors, so I'll remain skeptical of Boeing and Lockmart's ability to produce a price-comipetitive launch platform, to say nothing of their desire.

Agree about abort for manned missions, yes it has more abort modes than the shuttle but still. 
Note that cargo missions also has more abort modes than the shuttle. 

And yes no 100 ton to LEO missions exists as you can not launch 100 ton to LEO today. However its pretty easy to come up with missions, take any interplanetary ones, add an 100 ton kick stage and an braking stage to speed things up. 
Obviously starlink and with an so cheap launch capability you get more options like an space station orbiting the moon start making sense. 

[Flavio hc16]

3 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

What I mean is that there are no missions for Starship to fly. NASA isn't about to fund anymore JWST-sized scopes, and certainly not any planet-imagers, in the near-future. The NRO is quite content already, and would much prefer to launch on proven launchers. Gateway is the only conceivable destination outside of low-earth orbit, and it may not even be built. Launches to specialty orbits are so expensive only because the current launchers are so limited; Starship would eat up the very small amount of demand there is, and would fail to make money regardless. Five sats per launch? Congrats, you just cut the price to a fifth (or less) of the original. As for colonizing Mars, Starship could *maybe* do it, but it would be losing money all the way. Keeping even an unrealistically tiny Earth-to-Mars supply chain open for any useful duration would rapidly bankrupt SpaceX. There's no money being made by a Mars colony for the first few years at least, it just eats cash. A 100 ton payload is impressive, but serves no practical purpose. What serious endeavour requires this launch vehicle?We could switch the electric grid to solar, but we don't because the effort would be a net monetary loss. We could build a maglev train system covering the continental United States, but we don't because there is no profit to be made on any realistic timescale. Even if we had all the necessary tech to put a colony on Mars today or in the next decade, we wouldn't unless there was a real economic incentive to justify the necessary effort. Elon Musk is no idiot, but at heart he is a businessman. When Starship continually fails to make money, he will retire it.

Furthermore, flying this thing with crew would be risky. When it fails (and statistically it will surely fail, being so complex) and 100 civilian passengers die on it, then what? Could the Starship program, or even SpaceX itself, recover? It would provide a massive boost to all the other launch providers, that's for sure. 

Many SpaceX fanboys don't realize it, but ULA has enormous resources behind it from its parent companies, Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Both are aerospace and defence tech giants, with access to tech far beyond anything SpaceX has developed. If they put together a Skunk Works style team, they could build an equal or better launcher, and do it faster and cheaper. They haven't, and won't for the foreseeable future, mainly because it isn't a solution to a problem anyone is serious about solving. 

So, until there is a viable economic incentive for colonizing space or using super-heavy launchers, Starship is an answer to a question nobody is asking. By the time that question is asked, and there is a market more solid than "It's cool, so of course people will fly on it", SS will be obsolete, and rusting in a museum somewhere.

you know, you talk a lot like those in 1995 who said that "internet was useless"

or those in 2007 who said " the iphone is useless and nukia will crush them"

or those that right now say " Elettric cars have no future! Ford and GM will kill them".

 

You fail to understand that a disruption on the level of Spacex change everyhing, it creates some multi billions dollar markets that we cannot even thinks of ( using the examples above: internet adds, apps, robotaxis)

It opens the market to something that right now might be stupid: 

-spacex could build his own JWST or even luvuoir, probably in 1/3 rd of the time and 20 times cheaper and just rent it to science organizations,

and if you say, your numbers don't make sense,I will just point you out on what has been said  during tha falcon heavy launch :

Quote

"Seven years ago, the Augustine commission said that NASA's Moon program had to be cancelled because the development of the necessary heavy lift booster would take 12 years and 36 billion dollars. ( nd, how much is sls develepment cost again?)

SpaceX has now done that, on its own dime, in half the time and a twentieth of the cost. And not only that, but the launch vehicle is three quarters reusable....."

 

[tater]

What was the market for online sales/businesses in 1983 when I was using my first email address?

Right, none to speak of.

What about 10 years later? Some number >$0, I suppose.

Another 10 years?

Today?

The point is that there are possible business opportunities that don't exist because there is no cost effective way for them to exist. Asteroid mining as I said above being a prime example. Dunno what I think the actual market for that might be, but I know that the requirement for a really expensive, bespoke high C3 launch means that no one can really noodle around with it, and even if they tried, the spacecraft would have to be tiny and optimized, when for a mining test rig, clunky might be better (easier when mass is effectively not a concern).

 

6 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

I still say any long-term colonization scheme by a company like SpaceX is doomed to failure. It would be a HUGE net loss that would A) Force Elon to shell out Starshiploads of cash to maintain or B) Force the colonists themselves to finance the voyage, infrastructure, etc. 

Like I said, I'm not a fan of colonizing Mars, but some people are interested in it... my buddy (we agree on the Mars thing) thinks the first settlement should be called "New Donner."

All that said, it would be cool if it worked (worked being simply "everyone doesn't die.").

SS with refilling could be used as a crew vehicle for cislunar activities quite easily. If crew is a concern for launch/landing on Earth, fly crew on an existing crew vehicle. They then use SS to go to the Moon, then back to LEO. This could enable really substantial lunar activities with ongoing costs much more similar to the ISS. The crew launches to LEO would cost more than landing base building supplies that would be a substantial % of the ISS mass per flight. Still the same government contracts (international), but a decent use of capability.

 

[Ultimate Steve]

Another thing I haven't seen mentioned right now: Starship may be inexpensive enough to make asteroid mining feasible.

[Flavio hc16]

@Ultimate Steve, @tater,

we went at it all at the same time

i forgot asteroid mining though

[SOXBLOX]

The whole point of a rapid, unpredictable launch is to surprise the enemy and REPLACE WARTIME LOSSES. This assumes a war has started, and that it is one involving peer state competitors with ASAT capabilities. If you think the military wants to fly really fast over a target an photograph it, sorry, but we had a plane that could do that. We never designed a successor because it was not useful enough. Even if it were, a new hypersonic aircraft would be better than SS, it could be stealthed. Oh, wait, we already have recon drones that can do this sort of thing. Nevermind that entire market opportunity...

As for Mars One, how many people were actually serious, or really knew what they were asking for? My guess is not many.

If someone wants to pay 100k to fly a little higher, that's their choice. But really, most folks won't, and probably not those with families, as they would want to bring the kids along. If they can't bring the kids, they probably won't go. And really, it only takes on failure of a manned flight before the government slaps so many regulations on space tourism and launch vehicles that Starship becomes an anachronism. Anyhow, human-rating that steel tub will take a while, even once (if) it's built.

But whatever. As long as Musk isn't wasting my tax money on this, he can do what he wants.

 

[RCgothic]

12 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

But whatever. As long as Musk isn't wasting my tax money on this, he can do what he wants.

He isn't, so he will.

[SOXBLOX]

Ah, yeah, the asteroids. That's a whole new pile of engineering challenges.

12 minutes ago, Flavio hc16 said:

you know, you talk a lot like those in 1995 who said that "internet was useless"

or those in 2007 who said " the iphone is useless and nukia will crush them"

or those that right now say " Elettric cars have no future! Ford and GM will kill them".

 

You fail to understand that a disruption on the level of Spacex change everyhing, it creates some multi billions dollar markets that we cannot even thinks of ( using the examples above: internet adds, apps, robotaxis)

It opens the market to something that right now might be stupid: 

-spacex could build his own JWST or even luvuoir, probably in 1/3 rd of the time and 20 times cheaper and just rent it to science organizations,

and if you say, your numbers don't make sense,I will just point you out on what has been said  during tha falcon heavy launch :

 

Those were markets leveraging mainly services that common people could use, whether by owning their own PC or learning how to code. I really don't see a Starship parked in front of every house, ever. An iPhone os inherently useful, combining a large number of functions which already existed. None of your points are valid, as Starship would exist in a technological vacuum. It would have no defining, lasting purpose. With your line of reasoning, we should all be flying helicopters to work. Though technically feasible, we don't do it because not enough people want it.

 

I've gotta get to bed: it's 2:00 AM here. I've greatly enjoyed the discussion, and I'll check in later this morning. 

[Flavio hc16]

8 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

The whole point of a rapid, unpredictable launch is to surprise the enemy and REPLACE WARTIME LOSSES. This assumes a war has started, and that it is one involving peer state competitors with ASAT capabilities.

 

in case of war with a major power, you could have al the tanks, satellite, airpower in the world, it doesn't matter, because everyone would nuke each other. Talking of major war, as in 2020, it's just plain idiotic, it's something that only americans do so they can say that they have it bigger....the arsenal

8 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

If you think the military wants to fly really fast over a target an photograph it, sorry, but we had a plane that could do that. We never designed a successor because it was not useful enough. Even if it were, a new hypersonic aircraft would be better than SS, it could be stealthed. Oh, wait, we already have recon drones that can do this sort of thing. Nevermind that entire market opportunity...

laugh in sr72 aurora https://www.rebellionresearch.com/blog/lockheed-martin-confirms-the-sr-72-son-of-blackbird-will-reach-anywhere-in / https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/170463-lockheed-unveils-sr-72-hypersonic-mach-6-scramjet-spy-plane

8 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

As for Mars One, how many people were actually serious, or really knew what they were asking for? My guess is not many.

then free rock climbing wouldn't be a thing, or even subs for the matter, or every extreme sport or even stuff that idiot do everyday just to have some "likes" on social media ( i think at selfies at the top of skyskrapers)

8 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

If someone wants to pay 100k to fly a little higher, that's their choice. But really, most folks won't, and probably not those with families, as they would want to bring the kids along. If they can't bring the kids, they probably won't go. And really, it only takes on failure of a manned flight before the government slaps so many regulations on space tourism and launch vehicles that Starship becomes an anachronism. Anyhow, human-rating that steel tub will take a while, even once (if) it's built.

same could be said by planes 100 years ago

3 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Ah, yeah, the asteroids. That's a whole new pile of engineering challenges.

with earning so gigantic that is not even funny when it get craked open ( same could be said 100 years ago for offshores oil rigs)

3 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Those were markets leveraging mainly services that common people could use, whether by owning their own PC or learning how to code. I really don't see a Starship parked in front of every house, ever. An iPhone os inherently useful, combining a large number of functions which already existed. None of your points are valid, as Starship would exist in a technological vacuum. It would have no defining, lasting purpose. With your line of reasoning, we should all be flying helicopters to work. Though technically feasible, we don't do it because not enough people want it.

 

ehhhh no, if the cost of going to space goes down 2/3 orders of magninutes we will arrive at the point that even common people could want to launch stuff into space, stuff that might be even their own coffin

[mikegarrison]

What are people supposed to be mining from asteroids, anyway? We live right on top of a giant iron rock already.

[Ultimate Steve]

1 minute ago, mikegarrison said:

What are people supposed to be mining from asteroids, anyway? We live right on top of a giant iron rock already.

If I remember correctly, there are several known large asteroids out there with lots of precious metals readily accessible. Granted, how economical it would be would be questionable if the influx of resources crashed the market, but if we get to the point where we can make stuff in space, asteroid-mined materials *can* be easier to access than materials launched from Earth in the right circumstances, if it is cheaper to get from space than from Earth.

Granted, this requires an economy of stuff built in space, which is admittedly dubious and several steps beyond the barriers we are talking about.

[kerbiloid]

Looking at the delta-V requirements and presumed minerals, it's hard to not start falling the tears.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining#Potential_targets

2 hours ago, tater said:

I have a lot more respect of LockMart these days than Boeing.

Lock is fusing, Boeing isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor

Btw, it's also the lunar helium project killer. It turns Li → T (so, → ³He if required).

Edited April 29, 2020 by kerbiloid

[SOXBLOX]

Lots of raw materials? Privyet, Siberia. By the time you've set up a supply chain infrastructure in SPAAAACE! you will not be making much more money than trucking Earth rocks around. Asteroid mining also does not require the colonization of space.

As for the major powers nuking each other, the balance is changing. 30 years ago, there was a research program called Star Wars by the public. The military has things so classified that it would blow your mind. Now, we have the capabilities to make the SDI a reality. We are also at least 20 years ahead of the world in this field. Even if you disregard that, the nature of any future conflict is so far removed from WWII that you cannot have any conception of it without a significant rethink of your assumptions. Most likely, a war between China and America (an example, no more) would be over in just weeks. No nukes need be exchanged. Not the forum for this topic, though.

Yes, the SR 72 just proves my point. A capability no one needs. The AF isn't interested.

32 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

What are people supposed to be mining from asteroids, anyway? We live right on top of a giant iron rock already.

Exactly. And you folks want to get off our big iron rock to go to a bunch of iron pebbles. Trust me, we'll go once there is a real economic incentive to go. It will be permanent and much more meaningful that way.

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by SOXBLOX

[kerbiloid]

6 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Now, we have the capabilities to make the SDI a reality. We are also at least 20 years ahead of the world in this field.

Quote

Dark Lord of Dres

(Getting frightened...)

[SOXBLOX]

Starship and regular aircraft don't compare. This is another example of someone underestimating how utterly different space is. Starship will be carrying people to completely barren, literally alien locations, where there is nothing to do until you make something to do. It does not serve the same purpose as an airliner; so comparing the two is like comparing blue and Tuesday, it does not make sense.

 

18 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

(Getting frightened...)

 *cackles maniacally*

Edited April 29, 2020 by SOXBLOX

[Wjolcz]

Guys, I feel like there has been some really good FACTS presented and my anxiety is kicking in.

[Codraroll]

1 hour ago, SOXBLOX said:

Ah, yeah, the asteroids. That's a whole new pile of engineering challenges.

Not all of which would be needed to solve at once, though.

I think there already is a market to be tapped into there, given a cheap enough way to get a spacecraft up: prospecting. Sending a bunch of probes to various promising rocks and having a good look at what they're made of. Then build a database, and sell the data at exorbitant prices to the guys who are developing spaceborne excavators. Each company would then need to develop less tech and carry a smaller risk. If you have good prospecting data, you can make money even if there is no excavator. If you're building an excavator, you can use the prospecting data to know where to send it. 

It's probably a process that can be broken down further too. Say your little rocket company develops a great space tug that can take a decently-sized payload from Earth orbit to the asteroids. The prospecting companies would love to use your services to get their ground-penetrating radars to the most promising rocks. You're making money without having to deal with the hassle of mission control. They might even have bought the radars from somebody else, who specialize in geological survey equipment but don't want to run their own space mission. The prospecting company would have the probe assembled by another company with a clean room. Mission control services could probably be contracted as well.

The challenge with space is that a lot of tech development and a bunch of lengthy processes with various required expertise is needed to do things. It's expensive as heck. But given easier access to space, the challenge can be split into many fragments, each small enough that the required tech development, infrastructure and expertise is manageable for a single company, lowering the risk far enough that it doesn't take a lot for the venture to become profitable. You wouldn't need to build a whole space program to get anything done, but buy the services off somebody else and add your own special ingredient to create a unique product. Most involved companies wouldn't run their own missions, but deliver a product or service to be used by somebody else.

Put another way: It would be impossible to run a profitable taxicab company if you had to build cars and lay down roads.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Codraroll