Adeline concept for Ariane 6

[Albert VDS]

Sure, but we're talking about a huge investment of which launch costs will only be a tiny part; and it's still going to be a niche for a small amount of über-rich, not for the masses. Most people will still prefer to spend their week on a cruise ship or in a luxury resort on Earth for a fraction of the price.

Send them to space in groups of 6 + 1 "pilot" on a F9 Dragon V2 for $26.5 million per seat, or $159 million in total.

You can rent a Bigalow BA 300 for $25 million 60 days.

You wouldn't want to spend more than 2 weeks, let's say 2 weeks comes to $15 with personal and other costs.

Now I'm guessing that food is not included in this, so you'll need a supply mission: F9 Dragon $133 million.

Let's say(guess) that's enough for 3 months, so $22 million for 2 weeks.

So the total cost of 2 weeks in space for 6 people is $196, which is $32,7 million per person, or $2,34 per person per day.

There are more than 1600 billionaires in the world and more than 63000 have more than $100 million.

If 1% of those 64600 people would buy a ticket then they would make $126.616 million within 5 years.

What about VR goggles in a Zero-G Airbus? Drug-induced auto-suggestion? Neuronal connections? Seriously, we have no idea what kind of VR tech will be around in 20 or 30 years. For all we know, we might be living underground in Matrix-style vats by then, and space exploration will be the least of our worries.

I like the VR googles in a Zero-G Airbus idea, let's start up that company.

But unless we can tap into the brain and control it, we wont have any realistic VR. I also doubt that would be legal.

Again, a massive investment, with or without reusable rockets. And with no identifiable return on investment, it's simply not gonna happen.

It has to start somewhere. The space tourism could path the way for cheaper habitation modules.

Agreed. All we need is to figure out a way to make money.

My suggestion: Maybe one day we'll figure out a viable use for all the stuff we've done to explore space. Until then, let's just keep on exploring and doing science in order to advance technology and our knowledge of the universe. There is no rush.

Why not do both?

[Kryten]

As mentioned later in the post - instead of building just one $500 million satellite that you lose, build two for $200 million. This makes the satellite itself cheaper, and eliminates most insurance cost - as the insurance would be paying out for lost revenue and replacing the satellite, the former of which is drastically reduced, and the second of which is non-existent, though will re-emerge at much lower value if the second has to be launched.

The problem with this argument is it doesn't fundamentally have anything to do with reuse-there's nothing stopping satellite operators from already purchasing cheaper sats and putting them on somewhat smaller, cheaper launchers like Zenit or Proton. They don't do it because smaller sats make little sense due to the cost of GEO slots and the cost of high-end transponders-a $200 million sat isn't going to match the capability of a $500 million one regardless of how much redundancy you remove.

[AngelLestat]

No demand increase? Saying this is equal to ignore all logic, history, predictions and current facts.

You already forget the google and spacex agreement to launch 4000 satellites just for one internet system? Which as first step now google owns the 10% of spacex.

How much time it will take to launch 4000 satellites with the current launch rate? And that is just for one system... who knows how many other system or new space applications may arise?

Anyone was able to predict 10 years ago all possible uses and applications that smartphones have today?

If you are not able to imagine a new use for space, it does not mean that anyone else in the world can´t either.

Launch cost determine all the other costs. More satellites you launch, the satellites parts becomes more standarize and cheap, you can even forget to design the hardware... just launch common hardware to the space, maybe using better shielding (extra mass) or redundancy.

The software also becomes more reusable. The operation more automatic. How many gopro cams we see today in space?

What about a personal real time eye network in space? just paying 100$ for month to be able to use it, like google maps but in real time.

Or a satellite net-pattern which between all acts as a giant telescope?

Time back gps or satellite images were mostly avariable for military or goverments, now everyone can use them.

And I can think in many other uses just by my self.. what about the rest of the world?

Edit: I have a new idea, what about a satellite network to calibrate the orbits of all the other satellites without using proppelent?

You will need several networks at different orbit heights, then you can use lasers or magnetic fields to push other satellites already designed to use this system.

Edited June 10, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Kryten]

You already forget the google and spacex agreement to launch 4000 satellites just for one internet system? Which as first step now google owns the 10% of spacex.

Depends on the size of the sats... SpaceX already have a launch manifested with a grand total of 90 sats, for example. We're talking in the 100s of kg each range to LEO, a few hundred could likely fly on a Falcon heavy.

[AngelLestat]

But remember that each satellite needs to be in a special orbit, so you need a lot of proppelent to adjust each orbit, that decrease the amount that you can launch each time, and you will need to maintaince this network.. remplacing those who fail or updating with new ones to allows higher bandwidth.

[Kryten]

Every plane is going to be doable in a single launch without much effort, that's already how e.g. O3B functions. There are 43 planes, so doable in 43 launches. Possible in a few years with only slight expansion of existing launches in that class.

[Nibb31]

There are more than 1600 billionaires in the world and more than 63000 have more than $100 million.

If 1% of those 64600 people would buy a ticket then they would make $126.616 million within 5 years.

Good luck with that business plan.

I like the VR googles in a Zero-G Airbus idea, let's start up that company.

But unless we can tap into the brain and control it, we wont have any realistic VR. I also doubt that would be legal.

I dunno... When we're talking space colonies, we're talking 22nd Century at the earliest, so I don't think it's that far fetched...

- - - Updated - - -

You already forget the google and spacex agreement to launch 4000 satellites just for one internet system? Which as first step now google owns the 10% of spacex.

Launching a constellation is a cool contract, but those are small LEO sats. It can probably be done in a dozen launches, which is a great deal for SpaceX but hardly a sustainable increase of global launch rates.

Anyone was able to predict 10 years ago all possible uses and applications that smartphones have today?

If you are not able to imagine a new use for space, it does not mean that anyone else in the world can´t either.

There are plenty of people imagining new applications, but until now, none of them are viable or meet an actual demand.

Launch cost determine all the other costs. More satellites you launch, the satellites parts becomes more standarize and cheap, you can even forget to design the hardware...

This is only true if you have an application that requires a constellation of mass produced satellites like the one above.

Note that GSO comsats are already standardized on common satellite bus platforms, common transponders, common antennas. Yet they are still expensive.

just launch common hardware to the space, maybe using better shielding (extra mass) or redundancy.

They already do this. Yet comsats are still several hundreds of millions of dollars.

[Kryten]

How do you even live your life, constantly thinking "we can never do this" and "we can never do that."

Nobody is saying that, we're just pointing there are major economic, political and technological factors that favour the rough status quo. If having 'cheap access to space' or 'becoming a spacefaring species' was as easy as SpX fanboys seem to think, it would already have been done, by Beale or Kistler or Hannah.

[Pipcard]

(oops, I had just deleted that post. But it's okay.)

But anyways, our lives are only temporary, and I want to experience great things happening in my lifetime.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Pipcard

[Kryten]

(oops, I had just deleted that post)

But anyways, our lives are only temporary, and I want to experience great things happening in my lifetime.

And I want to ride a unicorn.

[sojourner]

Nobody is saying that, we're just pointing there are major economic, political and technological factors that favour the rough status quo. If having 'cheap access to space' or 'becoming a spacefaring species' was as easy as SpX fanboys seem to think, it would already have been done, by Beale or Kistler or Hannah.

Beale, Kistler, and Hannah had poor business plans and ran out of funds before they could make an impact.

[Kryten]

If Beale had a bad business plan, then so does Musk.

[Agate]

If Beale had a bad business plan, then so does Musk.

Musk's business plan has an extra step that makes all the difference:

1) Start with ridiculous amounts of money.

[sojourner]

If Beale had a bad business plan, then so does Musk.

Do I need to define the word "fund" for you?

[AngelLestat]

Launching a constellation is a cool contract, but those are small LEO sats. It can probably be done in a dozen launches, which is a great deal for SpaceX but hardly a sustainable increase of global launch rates.

I already answer this.. maybe they can launch 5 or few more in each launch, but you will still have for sure more than 500 launches.

There are plenty of people imagining new applications, but until now, none of them are viable or meet an actual demand.

It does not matter how much people fail trying to being original, what it matters is how much new usefull apps appear each year.

This is only true if you have an application that requires a constellation of mass produced satellites like the one above.

False.. You really need a new kind of computer to run a different software or different devices?

Also if everyone launchs satellites all the time, it will be more easy to find common parts.

Note that GSO comsats are already standardized on common satellite bus platforms, common transponders, common antennas. Yet they are still expensive.

Because if you do not use the best of the best, you are wasting money. Because you need to be sure that the satellite will work by at least 10 years and it will be still usefull (speed), that requires the best materials, the best hardware, the best tests, costly operation (because it will be old stuff with the time)

But if you can launch a satellite that will last only 4 years, then the radiactive requirements or hardware speed or everything; it will be a lot more cheaper.

In case it fails, you can rebuild the sat and launched just in 15 days. Not years like it will take today.

They already do this. Yet comsats are still several hundreds of millions of dollars.

They dont.. You have launch list delay with at least 2 years of preparation and launch cost who cost millons.

Time is money.

[Nibb31]

I already answer this.. maybe they can launch 5 or few more in each launch, but you will still have for sure more than 500 launches.

Let's see, at 100 kg per satellite, with a payload capacity of 8 tons, that's 80 in one launch. You can launch the whole constellation in 20 Falcon 9 launches. Much less if you put them on a Falcon Heavy.

It does not matter how much people fail trying to being original, what it matters is how much new usefull apps appear each year.

So how many viable new commercial applications for space have appeared this year? Or even in the last 10 years?

[AngelLestat]

Nobody knows the mass of the satellites yet, now I read and is estimate between 100kg to 500kg... tthey are lighter than I thought, but of course you choose 100kg..

You need to carry proppelent to adjust the orbit of each satellite, this adds more mass, so more proppelent. Sure it will be xenon for ion engines, but it will need solar panels and a mother structure to deploy them.

That mother structure needs to burn in earth atmosphere when is done, all satellites will need also some kind of deorbit system to not contribute to the space junk problem, maybe an electrodynamic tether..

Lets estimate that each satellite mass is 250 + 50kg (this includes all mentioned), so 300kg by satellite.

If they recover the first stage, they will be able to launch aproximate 7 tons to 1100 km orbit, which gives us 20 sats by launch. This will require close to 200 launch in 3 or 4 years plus all other commercial launch they adquire.

Even if is less, they will need to launch at least 50 by year... And you always said that demand will not increase..

Only 1 year past from we started this discussion, and all the evidence points that my predictions were correct (in just 1 year).

About how much commercial application for space appeared this year.. well you can count this one.. the sat factory is already develope in seattle.

But only 1 year pass and launch cost dint decrease so much.. So imagine what would happen with higher launch cost reductions.

[sgt_flyer]

with 4000 'low cost' satellites, some of the sats are going to fail much faster than expected.(guess the constellation would have a lot of redundant satellites to be able to wait until a new launch is made)

Why not go to the extreme in simplicity then ? Digital solid state propulsion electric solid fuel thrusters would have less ISP, but no need for any kind of pressurized fuel tank. (Btw, how is spinsat doing since it has been released from ISS ? )

Nevertheless, operating such a constellation will still not be cheap once it has been launched. In LEO even if they will be placed in higher orbits than ISS, you're going to have more reboosts needed to maintain your orbits. (And with virgin galactic planning to do the same, those orbits are going to be veery crowded)

So they'll need a huge workforce (+ all the administration around it) to constantly calculate & apply to the satellite the needed corrections. When some of those satellites fail, as they'll have redundancy in numbers rather than reliability, you're going to need to replacd those lost satellites sooner or later (component problem, fuel exhaustion, debris impact), needing again launch costs, however cheap they might be, it's still going to be a hefty sum. (And you still need to pay for all ground launch operators !)

Afterwards, other companies with other costlier satellites, will also have an increased orbit surveillance to maintain (and even risk more failure rates, due to the increased amount of potential debris)

There's, as of 2014, around 1100 active satellites in various orbits (LEO and GEO) and 2600 inactive ones. To that, you add the staggering amount of estimated debris in orbit.

So adding such constellations of microsats is going to be maybe cheap to launch, but a true nightmare to operate (and not only for spaceX or virgin)

Space debris disposal is not yet operational, while musk wants to launch his first sats by 2016 (i doubt F9R will be fully operationnal by then)

[Rune]

Let's see, at 100 kg per satellite, with a payload capacity of 8 tons, that's 80 in one launch. You can launch the whole constellation in 20 Falcon 9 launches. Much less if you put them on a Falcon Heavy.

So how many viable new commercial applications for space have appeared this year? Or even in the last 10 years?

That comment about Falcon Heavy is horse manure. With a single launch, you can only cover a single orbital plane, so no matter how many million satellites you can cram in one launch, you still need at least one launch per orbital plane. The constellation being 4,000 birds, if evenly spaced, would mean a lot of orbital planes, so launcher capacity is irrelevant.

Rune. Feel free to answer any of the other comments I directed your way at your own pace.

[Nibb31]

That comment about Falcon Heavy is horse manure. With a single launch, you can only cover a single orbital plane, so no matter how many million satellites you can cram in one launch, you still need at least one launch per orbital plane. The constellation being 4,000 birds, if evenly spaced, would mean a lot of orbital planes, so launcher capacity is irrelevant.

We don't have any details about how the constellation is to be set up. We don't know how many of them are redundant, how it's going to operate, how heavy each sat is going to be, or even how Musk aims to make money on a constellation that big.

What we do know is that a Falcon9 launch costs $60 million. If Musk gives himself a 50% discount (which assumes his margins on a launch are unrealistically high), 200 launches is going to cost him $6 billion. Add the cost of the ground stations, the logistics of operating such a constellation, and the unit cost of each satellite, and you'll be lucky if the global investment is under $8 billion. With that investment, they are going to have to compete against 4G/LTE, broadband, cable, and other sat operators (Orbcomm, ViaSat) who already have a wide user base or other new players (OneWeb). There are still many places with poor coverage, but unfortunately, those places tend to also be poor markets, developing countries, low density areas or niche markets (ships, aircraft, etc...). As such, they are really just a niche in terms of market volume. In fact, the main reason people don't have Internet today is affordability, not access technology.

The complexity of setting up a communications business (including billing, customer support, legal stuff) that covers every country in the World, including developing countries, is going to be daunting. The market is already highly competitive. Making money out of that investiment is going to be hard. So no, it can't possibly work if it requires 200 launches. My guess would be more something like 100 sats on 40 orbits at 10 launches per year.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Nibb31

[Rune]

We don't have any details about how the constellation is to be set up. We don't know how many of them are redundant, how it's going to operate, how heavy each sat is going to be, or even how Musk aims to make money on a constellation that big.

What we do know is that a Falcon9 launch costs $60 million. If Musk gives himself a 50% discount (which assumes his margins on a launch are unrealistically high), 200 launches is going to cost him $6 billion. Add the cost of the ground stations, the logistics of operating such a constellation, and the unit cost of each satellite, and you'll be lucky if the global investment is under $8 billion. With that investment, they are going to have to compete against 4G/LTE, broadband, cable, and other sat operators (Orbcomm, ViaSat) who already have a wide user base or other new players (OneWeb). There are still many places with poor coverage, but unfortunately, those places tend to also be poor markets, developing countries, low density areas or niche markets (ships, aircraft, etc...). As such, they are really just a niche in terms of market volume. In fact, the main reason people don't have Internet today is affordability, not access technology.

The complexity of setting up a communications business (including billing, customer support, legal stuff) that covers every country in the World, including developing countries, is going to be daunting. The market is already highly competitive. Making money out of that investiment is going to be hard. So no, it can't possibly work if it requires 200 launches. My guess would be more something like 100 sats on 40 orbits at 10 launches per year.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted me saying.

But on that note, as you said, we don't know the details of the constellation, including it's business plan and future sources of revenue, if any, or the launch calendar. We do know that the CEO has been quoted several times saying that said constellation will be thousands of satellites strong, from a thousand to four thousand, and that they will provide internet services on a global scale from medium polar orbits, and that's pretty much it. We have no idea about what the launch campaign will be, how long it'll take, or how it will be funded. About the only thing we can say is that you can't fill more than one orbital plane in a single launch, so there have to be many launches involved. Also, having more satellites per plane than the total number of planes is pretty inefficient, since you won't decrease the gap between planes at the equator. Conclusion? As you are very fond of saying, you are just pulling numbers out of your back end. Not that I mind that much, I usually do so myself.

Rune. Weren't we talking about RLVs, BTW?

[magnemoe]

That comment about Falcon Heavy is horse manure. With a single launch, you can only cover a single orbital plane, so no matter how many million satellites you can cram in one launch, you still need at least one launch per orbital plane. The constellation being 4,000 birds, if evenly spaced, would mean a lot of orbital planes, so launcher capacity is irrelevant.

Rune. Feel free to answer any of the other comments I directed your way at your own pace.

You can do multiple deployments, they obviously plan on it, 4000 launches will not be economical, for one I assume they will have satellites evenly spaced in one orbit. in this case you can deploy from an lower orbit, however falcon heavy would not be practical here, falcon 9 would work nice and would probably fill one of this planes.

[Rune]

You can do multiple deployments, they obviously plan on it, 4000 launches will not be economical, for one I assume they will have satellites evenly spaced in one orbit. in this case you can deploy from an lower orbit, however falcon heavy would not be practical here, falcon 9 would work nice and would probably fill one of this planes.

Oh, I assume multiple deployments on every launch is a given. My point is, there is an upper limit to the number of satellites you can cram in a single launch, that being the number you want on each plane. And at 100-500kgs according to Musk, that means F9H as a launcher is out. Probably even F9 is overkill, but F9R might merit a dedicated launch.

Rune. Also offering great economies for multiple launches, I think it will be the baseline launcher, but you know, just IMO.

[DiamondExcavater]

My own craft I made using a few mods

[MajorTomtom]

Hi, sorry to dig old posts, but according to this : https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/05/21/ariane-6-and-beyond/

Adeline concept is "financially not interesting", so I guess it is abandonned