Investment in Space Tech

[Jonfliesgoats]

This is a dated article from the LA times discussing the uptick in private investment in space.  Still it's pretty neat.  Are the smartest people in finance predicting a new golden age of commercial spaceflight or are we in a 21st century version of tulip-mania?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-qa-space-investment-20160707-snap-story.html

[fredinno]

On 2016-12-08 at 6:22 PM, Jonfliesgoats said:

This is a dated article from the LA times discussing the uptick in private investment in space.  Still it's pretty neat.  Are the smartest people in finance predicting a new golden age of commercial spaceflight or are we in a 21st century version of tulip-mania?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-qa-space-investment-20160707-snap-story.html

Probably both. QE has given investors WAYY too much to spend without doing anything for the economy as a whole.

Plus, there's a saying how the easiest way to become a millionaire is to be a billionaire and buy an airline.

 

On the other hand, NewSpace is more viable than ever now due to more favorable conditions.

[Wjolcz]

Do you guys feel like we are experiencing some sort of 'spaceflight boom'? More and more of my friends ask me to send them some websites about space so they can read them. They are getting really interested in all of this.

Some people say that the spirit of '60s is coming back, but I think it's something different. Back then the spacecraft were one-offs and differed so much from one another that they could be considered prototypes. Now the industry starts to lean towards mass production and even space mining which IMO is the way to go.

Even though I'm in my twenties and I don't remember the Old Space I feel like some new era is about to happen with all these billionaires investing in spaceflight like never before.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Veeltch

[ShotgunNinja]

It's Mars that is calling us.

Edited December 11, 2016 by ShotgunNinja

[Kryten]

1 hour ago, Veeltch said:

Do you guys feel like we are experiencing some sort of 'spaceflight boom'?

It's similar to what we had in the 90s, nothing new. It was an accessory to the dotcom bubble, and it's pretty much the same situation now.

[Jonfliesgoats]

I think a good point has been made about quantitative easing and the ability of sham programs to sap some of that fresh, available capital.  That said, I think we have the groundwork for a spaceflight boom.  When we start seeing rapid reductions in launch cost driven by competition, it will be on.  The next ten years will be interesting in that regard.

 

[Bill Phil]

Believe it or not public approval of the space program is at a high right now. Higher than the 60s, even, where it wasn't as high as you'd think.

[Nibb31]

6 hours ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

When we start seeing rapid reductions in launch cost driven by competition, it will be on.  The next ten years will be interesting in that regard.

The problem is that it's a market that lacks demand, not offer. The launch market is already saturated.

What we need are actual applications for space other than comsats, not more/cheaper launchers.

[Jonfliesgoats]

What do you think of withdrawing from the Outer Space Treaty?  

Without that, we could lay claim to celestial objects and the private sector could exploit them.  The obvious cost is future weaponization of the moon, a prospect that isn't just for bad sci-fi, but something genuinely destabilizing in the medium and long term.

Of course, conflict has driven advances since we first learned how to bash each other's heads in with rocks.  Others would say that weaponization of space and claiming celestial objects is inevitable.

 

[Steel]

The OST doesn't actually prohibit private companies from claiming things, just sovereign states, so the OST is certainly not what is holding back the private sector from leaping into space.

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

What we need are actual applications for space other than comsats, not more/cheaper launchers.

That's true, but with easier and cheaper access there also come the customers.

I don't know if it will be a good comparison, but think about cars. They were a luxury thing in the beginning. People didn't need to own one. They either had a horse or just walked. Once they got cheaper everyone could afford one + they could transport things faster. A local shop would have fresh milk every morning because the owner of the shop also had a car instead of a sluggish horse or a boat. The same shop owner would get more customers and get rich faster bringing the prosperity to the region.

Same could happen with spaceflight. First it will be the space miners that use these cheap, mass-produced rockets to bring some shiny, otherwise rare on Earth metals. Next space hotels and eventually maybe even private space stations (not sure what kind of paperwork business you could run in space though, but then do all these billionaires need these T-Towers?). I know it all sounds like very distant future, but it has to happen some day. And I hope it soon will because I want to see it.

[Steel]

Just now, Veeltch said:

That's true, but with easier and cheaper access there also come the customers.

I don't know if it will be a good comparison, but think about cars. They were a luxury thing in the beginning. People didn't need to own one. They either had a horse or just walked. Once they got cheaper everyone could afford one + they could transport things faster. A local shop would have fresh milk every morning because the owner of the shop also had a car instead of a sluggish horse or a boat. The same shop owner would get more customers and get rich faster bringing the prosperity to the region.

Same could happen with spaceflight. First it will be the space miners that use these cheap, mass-produced rockets to bring some shiny, otherwise rare on Earth metals. Next space hotels and eventually maybe even private space stations (not sure what kind of paperwork business you could run in space though, but then do all these billionaires need these T-Towers?). I know it all sounds like very distant future, but it has to happen some day. And I hope it soon will because I want to see it.

I wouldn't say cars are a good example. As you said, there was a cheaper but slower alternative to taking a car (i.e walking or riding a horse),there is no cheaper but slower alternative for getting to orbit. A closer metaphor would be if the alternative to owning a car and driving places was to never leave the house, so the only way to ever get outside was to pay the extrodinarily large amount of money to buy one.

Also I see this space miner argument for the economics of space flight a lot, but how cheap do we have to get before going into space for a mineral is cheaper that going to a large pit somewhere like Australia of China? It's certainly a few orders of magnitude from where we are right now.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Steel

[Jonfliesgoats]

2 hours ago, Steel said:

The OST doesn't actually prohibit private companies from claiming things, just sovereign states, so the OST is certainly not what is holding back the private sector from leaping into space.

I know the OST doesn't prohibit mineral extraction, but what about security of such a large investment?  If Rocket Inc. starts exploiting some resource, what stops Imperial Afterburner Ltd. from simply flying up and exploiting the same field of resources with a fraction of the investment?  

International Law is weak so, either we need national claims to blocks of celestial real estate, or we need an international governing body with teeth enough to enforce its laws.  

I suspect national claims are more likely than an international body that is respected and capable of enforcing law.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Jonfliesgoats

[Jonfliesgoats]

Communications, Reconnaissance and Navigation can't be underestimated, though.  They are supremely valuable.  Getting beyond those applications requires either mining or space borne combat.

Look at the aviation advances made between 1914 and 1918.  Do we need to start killing each other in space?

[Nibb31]

6 hours ago, Veeltch said:

That's true, but with easier and cheaper access there also come the customers.

Yeah, "build it and they will come". I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

Or an Interplanetary Transport System.

6 hours ago, Veeltch said:

I don't know if it will be a good comparison, but think about cars. They were a luxury thing in the beginning. People didn't need to own one. They either had a horse or just walked. Once they got cheaper everyone could afford one + they could transport things faster. A local shop would have fresh milk every morning because the owner of the shop also had a car instead of a sluggish horse or a boat. The same shop owner would get more customers and get rich faster bringing the prosperity to the region.

Except that there was always a demand for quick land transportation, even before cars existed. In your example, the car was an enabler for other business models. Your local milk shop was in the business of selling milk, not driving cars.

By your analogy, we already have cars. What we don't have is the milk shop owner who needs a car.

6 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Same could happen with spaceflight. First it will be the space miners that use these cheap, mass-produced rockets to bring some shiny, otherwise rare on Earth metals.

Next space hotels and eventually maybe even private space stations (not sure what kind of paperwork business you could run in space though, but then do all these billionaires need these T-Towers?). I know it all sounds like very distant future, but it has to happen some day. And I hope it soon will because I want to see it.

Those business models have yet to be proven to be viable. There is no indication that they are, and launch cost is only one of the factors.

4 hours ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

I know the OST doesn't prohibit mineral extraction, but what about security of such a large investment?  If Rocket Inc. starts exploiting some resource, what stops Imperial Afterburner Ltd. from simply flying up and exploiting the same field of resources with a fraction of the investment?  

The same principle that prevents Esso from blowing up Shell oil rigs in the North Sea. International law condemns piracy. Any company that does business in space will be operating out of an actual country and subject to the laws of that country.

4 hours ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

International Law is weak so, either we need national claims to blocks of celestial real estate, or we need an international governing body with teeth enough to enforce its laws.  

Do we need an international governing body to prevent maritime piracy. Maritime law was elaborated for exactly that reason. There is no reason why it can't be extended to space.

 

[Jonfliesgoats]

Great observations, Nibb!

Actually, I was thinking about maritime law when I raised my previous question.  In the North Sea, you have a single, large, political entity with friendly satellite states working in an uncontested sea in the presence of decently powerful navies which can exert rule of law.

In the South China Sea or, better yet, the Straits of Malacca, we see continued piracy, murder, etc.  The Chinese Coast Guard attacks foreign fishing boats in contested waters while other governments remove Chinese crews and destroy their vessels caught fishing in those same waters.  Recently the Chinese towed a rig built by the Vietnamese out of position, so now a Vietnam is engaging in its own dredging and island building program.  On a strategic level, the 9-dash line flaunts international maritime law, but the West will be hard-pressed to directly challenge Chinese claims despite interntantional court rulings against the 9-dash line.

My point is that peace at sea only exists when there is little political contest for those waters and/or a single, powerful navy can enforce a particular set of laws.

In space, as soon as something valuable enough to justify investment is proven viable, you see unclaimed objects and no space presence powerful enough to enforce rule of law.  The stage is set for legal conflict and industrial or military shenanigans.  The moon could become the next South China Sea if anything valuable enough was discovered there.

Speaking of which, has anyonen figured the energy price point required to justify extracting helium 3?

Edited December 12, 2016 by Jonfliesgoats

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

Great observations, Nibb!

Actually, I was thinking about maritime law when I raised my previous question.  In the North Sea, you have a single, large, political entity with friendly satellite states working in an uncontested sea in the presence of decently powerful navies which can exert rule of law.

In the South China Sea or, better yet, the Straits of Malacca, we see continued piracy, murder, etc.  The Chinese Coast Guard attacks foreign fishing boats in contested waters while other governments remove Chinese crews and destroy their vessels caught fishing in those same waters.  Recently the Chinese towed a rig built by the Vietnamese out of position, so now a Vietnam is engaging in its own dredging and island building program.  On a strategic level, the 9-dash line flaunts international maritime law, but the West will be hard-pressed to directly challenge Chinese claims despite interntantional court rulings against the 9-dash line.

My point is that peace at sea only exists when there is little political contest for those waters and/or a single, powerful navy can enforce a particular set of laws.

In space, as soon as something valuable enough to justify investment is proven viable, you see unclaimed objects and no space presence powerful enough to enforce rule of law.  The stage is set for legal conflict and industrial or military shenanigans.  The moon could become the next South China Sea if anything valuable enough was discovered there.

Speaking of which, has anyonen figured the energy price point required to justify extracting helium 3?

South China sea is disputed, probably because the borders was drawn by colonial powers then China was weak. 
China has an strategic interest in securing the sea as its important for trade westward, this includes south east Asia and India. 
Somebody blocking Straits of Malacca would be to China like somebody blocking the Panama channel for the US.

However asteroid mining is more like north sea. its an very small number of actors who can play this game. 
They talk pretty well, add that its an pretty unlimited resource. It would be far cheaper to pay for an cut in the pie than trying fool play. And no you can not do an black op, see discussion about stealing an satellite, this would be magnitudes harder. 
Another issue is fishing in international water. This is also contested as its limited how much fish you can harvest each year for long term stability, still its safe outside of pirate areas and areas someone see as theirs. 

[Finox]

I'm not sure I would call what we're seeing a boom, but as the article says the very fact that SpaceX publishes it's price and performance figures changes peoples perception of doing business in space.   I think what we're seeing here is all the creative energy that had, until now, been restrained by government monopolies on space access being unleashed for the first time.   Where all of it goes is hard to say, but whenever a good, like transportation, becomes cheaper the result is usually that more uses are thought of for that good.

[AeroGav]

On 11/12/2016 at 9:50 PM, Nibb31 said:

The problem is that it's a market that lacks demand, not offer. The launch market is already saturated.

What we need are actual applications for space other than comsats, not more/cheaper launchers.

So, what is the future of space exploration in your opinion?    You may well be correct,  but you appear to be saying there will not be any growth of spaceflight in our lifetimes.

Breaking your views down :

• lower cost to orbit will not be realised because the market is too small to recoup the R&D on a launcher that tries to be more COTS/Mass Produced/Re-usable
• the market is too small for competition to lower costs
• even if someone did make a success of flyback boosters/air launch/whatever   and lower costs,  there would not be a significant increase in demand for commercial payload

If that is the case,  we are wasting our money

• trying to develop large lifters, closed loop life support for Mars missions because we are not going to be going there in the f foreseeable  future
• Moon base to IRSU rocket fuels for interplanetary missions ?  Orbital fuel depots ? see above
• With this in mind, missions such as ISS are also a road to nowhere

What do you advocate?    Save up the yearly budget to spend on once a decade Apollo style missions?  Abandon the manned program altogether and send swarms of probes, cubesats?

Even the current Comsat market could be under threat from relay drones/balloons/fibre optic?

[kunok]

12 minutes ago, AeroGav said:

• closed loop life support for Mars missions because we are not going to be going there in the f foreseeable  future
• Moon base to IRSU rocket fuels for interplanetary missions ?  Orbital fuel depots ? see above

Nobody is developing any of this, so no money wasted. And I don't think @Nibb31 is proposing any of this. Why people keep focusing in the launcher? Is not that the problem, is just a transport device

[YNM]

On 12/12/2016 at 6:53 AM, Veeltch said:

That's true, but with easier and cheaper access there also come the customers.

I don't know if it will be a good comparison, but think about cars. They were a luxury thing in the beginning. People didn't need to own one. They either had a horse or just walked. Once they got cheaper everyone could afford one + they could transport things faster. A local shop would have fresh milk every morning because the owner of the shop also had a car instead of a sluggish horse or a boat. The same shop owner would get more customers and get rich faster bringing the prosperity to the region.

Same could happen with spaceflight. First it will be the space miners that use these cheap, mass-produced rockets to bring some shiny, otherwise rare on Earth metals. Next space hotels and eventually maybe even private space stations (not sure what kind of paperwork business you could run in space though, but then do all these billionaires need these T-Towers?). I know it all sounds like very distant future, but it has to happen some day. And I hope it soon will because I want to see it.

The problem is, current means to space is just like having a very, very expensive disposable bottle for standard mineral water. And I suspect it's not going to go anywhere much in coming years.

This is certainly going to be the most steepest grade men have to climb - the easy things are expensive while the cheap things comes after a great price.

[tater]

There are countless delivery systems capable of cost-effectively landing people in Antartica. They are vastly cheaper that getting people even to LEO, much less Mars. While I know someone who just took a vacation to Antarctica, it's a pretty tiny subset of people going there, it's not some sort of new, Antarctican economy. If there's not a reason to go there, as this discussion always devolves to, what's the economic motivation for space? Earth orbit offers maybe a few more launches than we have now for a private venture to grab up, but many are going to always be "national" launcher missions.

Investment requires a return on that investment, otherwise it's just lighting money on fire.

Edited December 17, 2016 by tater

[AeroGav]

12 minutes ago, kunok said:

Nobody is developing any of this, so no money wasted. And I don't think @Nibb31 is proposing any of this. Why people keep focusing in the launcher? Is not that the problem, is just a transport device

One of the main purposes of the ISS is to give us practical experience of/test out  closed loop life support systems we'd need in an infrastructure heavy future.    If that's never going to happen,  an the only future space is either apollo style or unmanned, it is a waste of effort.

@Nibb31 has been very consistent in arguing against re-usable/partially re-usable/any kind of hyped up revolutionary new launcher  in other threads and in reality checking folk when they start getting all sci fi fanboyish. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by AeroGav

[tater]

So far the evidence that reusing spacecraft is cost effective consists of zero data points*.

I'm certainly open to that changing, but very optimistically, knowing the answer to that question is a few years off, and might be subject to agreeing with however they decide to do the accounting (though presumably there is some standard practice here to compare against---not in my wheelhouse).

*not really zero, there are 130 data points showing exactly the opposite is true (5 orbiters, 135 missions (first mission is not a reuse)).

Edited December 16, 2016 by tater

[kunok]

9 hours ago, AeroGav said:

One of the main purposes of the ISS is to give us practical experience of/test out  closed loop life support systems we'd need in an infrastructure heavy future.    If that's never going to happen,  an the only future space is either apollo style or unmanned, it is a waste of effort.

ISS is a set of experiments of 0g, one of them is the """close""" life support, nothing to do with real close life support in martian 0,38g. And ISRU equipment is just not being done in anywhere. That what I was saying. Is not a waste of effort, research is good by itself, just is not for unrealistic "cool" ends.

Then again, the launcher is not the problem. If we tomorrow have a launcher that makes 20 tons to LEO for only 5 million, it wont change that much. Space goods are already a lot more expensive than the rocket that launch them