What do you think the medium term future of space exploration will be like?

[tater]

I honestly think tourism is the "killer app" for space as a business, actually.

The idea of something like BFS flying many, many times, to build an operational safety record (or if BO or Skylon ever does something similar) is profoundly important. At current risk levels, it's "adventure" tourism on par with being short-roped up Everest (actually, it's likely safer than that). If they can get it to early airline safety, then I think that it's a bottomless market.

I don't think that such a market is an impossible goal within the next 100 years.

[DDE]

9 hours ago, DAL59 said:

This might be true for some tourists, but there are definitely a significant amount who will like the adventure.  

Yes, but how many of those would be willing to fork out enough cash? Because the shallower your client pool gets, the higher the ticket price becomes, which is yet another vicious circle.

9 hours ago, tater said:

The idea of something like BFS flying many, many times, to build an operational safety record (or if BO or Skylon ever does something similar) is profoundly important.

And this is where it gets difficult. You’d either have to fly them full of ballast at your own expense, or you’d have to somehow find massive payloads that don’t exist.

A theory of mine is that we’ve reached long-term equilibrium in the annual payload mass launched, and further advances in rocketry are simply unwarranted.

Edited November 16, 2017 by DDE

[KSK]

5 hours ago, DDE said:

And this is where it gets difficult. You’d either have to fly them full of ballast at your own expense, or you’d have to somehow find massive payloads that don’t exist.

A theory of mine is that we’ve reached long-term equilibrium in the annual payload mass launched, and further advances in rocketry are simply unwarranted.

I thought BFS was meant to be the one size fits all launcher that's (allegedly) going to bring launch costs down to Falcon 1 levels. I have no idea how optimistic (or otherwise) that is but if SpaceX can even get the costs of a BFS launch down to current Falcon 9 prices then I don't see any need for a steady cadence of massive payloads to build up that operational record - they can just continue launching the same kind of payloads that they're launching right now. Sure the thing is vast overkill for most of that but if it's cheap enough to run it really doesn't matter if it's flying largely empty most of the time.

With that said I'd expect that SpaceX would want to fly it fully laden a few times, just to prove that it does work as expected. Again, if it does turn out to be as cheap to run as they hope, then they'll probably absorb the costs. Or, more speculatively, I can imagine any number of awesome Mars science missions that NASA could fly on BFS. SpaceX get a dry run at their proposed mission architecture (including a lot of refilling flights in LEO, which nicely builds up their operational record with fully laden BFS) and NASA get to park a metric shedload of science hardware in orbit around Mars or conceivably, on the surface. Or something even crazier that I haven't thought of. SpaceX is pretty good at parlaying paid-for flights into free R&D opportunities.

Man, I can just imagine a BFS in orbit around Mars deploying a swarm of mass produced (relatively speaking) Pathfinder II style landers, complete with airbag landing systems and Sojourner II rovers.

If (and that's a very big if) BFS turns out to be everything SpaceX hopes it will be, then it'll be a complete game-changer precisely because all the current notions of matching launcher capability (and cost) to payload mass go right out of the window.

[tater]

5 hours ago, DDE said:

And this is where it gets difficult. You’d either have to fly them full of ballast at your own expense, or you’d have to somehow find massive payloads that don’t exist.

A theory of mine is that we’ve reached long-term equilibrium in the annual payload mass launched, and further advances in rocketry are simply unwarranted.

The idea is that launch cost becomes propellant cost, plus the pro rated vehicle production cost per launch. The props are less than 1 M$. If you fly 10 times, the cost/launch is on the order of 20 M$, if you fly 100 times, it's 10X less. That means all launches are BFR/BFS for them. At a couple million a launch-ish, they can do Vector style launches and be competitive for single smallsats.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, tater said:

The idea is that launch cost becomes propellant cost, plus the pro rated vehicle production cost per launch. The props are less than 1 M$. If you fly 10 times, the cost/launch is on the order of 20 M$, if you fly 100 times, it's 10X less. That means all launches are BFR/BFS for them. At a couple million a launch-ish, they can do Vector style launches and be competitive for single smallsats.

This and not the BFR will not be cheap as an passenger plane to service, it will be far more expensive than the B2 bomber to operate. 
Another change is that the satellite weight restrictions is out the window. If you put an satellite in polar orbit so you can can not bundle them, price will be the same for 1 or 10 ton satellites. 
Just an example: could you shield the electronic? to reduce cost, yes you could use lead for this. 

Another idea of mine is to use the passenger version for satellite launches First you use it unmanned just to qualify it, then you do tourist trips on top of the satellite delivery. 

Another tricks might be an reusable upper stage for higher orbit, Put satellite in orbit then return and dock with BFR. 
And yes you could use that to recover satellite to but that would require that satellite and transfer stage could dock. Adding the port on satellite would be a smart insurance 

[tater]

Yeah, I don't see the point to point as being a thing, but I could see it launched a large number of times. 

B-2s cost about $130,000/hr to operate. A complete mission might be a couple million bucks if they have to commute tot he other side of the planet and back. This is partially because it involves multiple aircraft and crews (refueling).

[DAL59]

14 hours ago, DDE said:

You’d either have to fly them full of ballast at your own expense, or you’d have to somehow find massive payloads that don’t exist.

NASA would be happy to launch a couple dozen 9 meter telescopes...

6 hours ago, tater said:

Yeah, I don't see the point to point as being a thing, but I could see it launched a large number of times. 

B-2s cost about $130,000/hr to operate. A complete mission might be a couple million bucks if they have to commute tot he other side of the planet and back. This is partially because it involves multiple aircraft and crews (refueling).

If the only cost er trip is fuel, then at current methane prices, it wouldn't be that expensive.

[DDE]

7 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

If the only cost er trip is fuel

Which is about as probable as the Hyperloop having operating costs of 0$.

I think that following every interplanetary trip we're going to see something very familiar:

[tater]

1 minute ago, DDE said:

Which is about as probable as the Hyperloop having operating costs of 0$.

I think that following every interplanetary trip we're going to see something very familiar:

 

I think that after an interplanetary trip, you'd indeed see it worked over. But I don't see a Mars round trip as anything in the terribly near future. I think LEO, and the Moon are a different matter, and the whole point is to avoid the above image.

It's important to remember how many hands had to touch every single tile, and ever gap between tiles on the Shuttle.

[DAL59]

18 minutes ago, DDE said:

I think that following every interplanetary trip we're going to see something very familiar:

Actually, the point of the ITS is to not do that.   

[DDE]

6 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Actually, the point of the ITS is to not do that.   

...but I highly doubt it will damage. Interplanetary flights are no joke. I’m not sure the bulk of the parts would last more than one roundtrip, let alone a thousand.

Edited November 17, 2017 by DDE

[tater]

32 minutes ago, DDE said:

...but I highly doubt it will damage. Interplanetary flights are no joke. I’m not sure the bulk of the parts would last more than one roundtrip, let alone a thousand.

I'm not sure why.

The engines only run a few minutes over the entire journey. How carbon fiber deals with time in vacuum I am uncertain, but there have been many ISS modules up for a LONG time, so I'm sure there is data on how various material age in space. EDL is obviously the stressful part.

BTW, Musk said that the BFS (ITS is not a thing!) wouldn't be 1000 flights. The BOOSTER (BFR) that never gets above what, 2.5 km/s, that would be 1000 flights. The BFS is only good for 100 flights (Earth EDL, only), and he said that for a Mars trip, that number would likely drop to 10. The principal stress was said to be Mars EDL, since it's moving pretty fast, and doesn't slow very well there.

[kerbiloid]

10 minutes ago, tater said:

Musk said that the BFS (ITS is not a thing!) wouldn't be 1000 flights. The BOOSTER (BFR) that never gets above what, 2.5 km/s, that would be 1000 flights. The BFS is only good for 100 flights (Earth EDL, only), and he said that for a Mars trip, that number would likely drop to 10.

I'm still waiting when the Falcon will be shuttling up and down flight by flight, and the Dragon will be following a plane-like schedule...

[tater]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

I'm still waiting when the Falcon will be shuttling up and down flight by flight, and the Dragon will be following a plane-like schedule...

It's never going to be like that. NASA doesn't need that sort of turn around, and F9 doesn't need to fly hundreds of times a year. As a result, it is not designed for that.

They are aiming for a 24 hour turn around on the booster---not for operational use on that timeframe, but to reduce labor on turn around.

[Nibb31]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

I'm still waiting when the Falcon will be shuttling up and down flight by flight, and the Dragon will be following a plane-like schedule...

Never gonna happen. With BFR on the horizon and powered landing out the door, Dragon 2 is pretty much a dead end at this point.

Dragon 2 will only fly half a dozen times for NASA. There is one circumlunar flight booked (we have yet to see if that ever materializes). Once they get confident with it, they might refly a Dragon 2 one or two times, but that'll be it.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Nibb31

[PB666]

38 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Never gonna happen. With BFR on the horizon and powered landing out the door, Dragon 2 is pretty much a dead end at this point.

Dragon 2 will only fly half a dozen times for NASA. There is one circumlunar flight booked (we have yet to see if that ever materializes). Once they get confident with it, they might refly a Dragon 2 one or two times, but that'll be it.

And that is the problem, there first of anything is more or less a prototype, and prototypes are quickly abandoned for production. Minimally they need to replace the engines every few cycles, and docking clamps and other parts need to be examined for wear and tear. If we are just looking at the F9s non-expendables the suffer quite a bit of wear upon landing, eventually they are going to have inflight failures as a consequence of that wear.

There is a marginal utility of gain on recycling, if you recycle something 2 or 3 times you actually get most of the gain.

No recycle  save 0
recycle once (save <50% per flight)  dS/df = 50%
recycle twice (save <66% per flight) dS/df = 16.6%
recycle three (save <75% per flight) dS/df =  8.33%
recycle four times (save <80% per flight) dS/df = 5%
recycle five times (save <83.3% per flight) dS/df = 3.333%

If the total other cost of the vehicle is high then you may not want to recycle more than 5 times if the risk incurred by increased recycling exceeds the added savings for one more recycling.

And there are other concerns, for instance the original engines on the B707 and B727 had to be replaced because they failed to meet pollution and noise standards that evolved. DC6 and DC7 where state of the art commercial airliners when completed, their production practically came to a full stop when the B707 was introduced. Most but not all of the original engines on the B747 have been replaced . . . . . . . .

[tater]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Never gonna happen. With BFR on the horizon and powered landing out the door, Dragon 2 is pretty much a dead end at this point.

Dragon 2 will only fly half a dozen times for NASA. There is one circumlunar flight booked (we have yet to see if that ever materializes). Once they get confident with it, they might refly a Dragon 2 one or two times, but that'll be it.

Seems like they will fly it as long as NASA pays them to. Is that only 6 flights?

[DAL59]

Yes, but they don't really have enough option, unless the Dreamchaser is cheaper.  

[tater]

6 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Yes, but they don't really have enough option, unless the Dreamchaser is cheaper.  

They have 2 options, and all the ISS flights will be CST-100, or D2. I suppose that might be 6 flights (or each) before 2024. That's 1 flight a year, times 2 vehicles. Dream Chaser is on for cargo, but likely doesn't fly crew unless ISS is extended.

[DAL59]

I really don't see why they would destroy the ISS.  Recycling the modules or giving them to the russians is arguably fine, but how could literally burning 100 billion dollars ever be a good idea????

[tater]

1 minute ago, DAL59 said:

I really don't see why they would destroy the ISS.  Recycling the modules or giving them to the russians is arguably fine, but how could literally burning 100 billion dollars ever be a good idea????

Because it's kind of an old piece of junk? (that's too harsh, but it's OLD)

The costs of continuing the ISS project need to be weighed against the cost of simply building a replacement, if a LEO station is a goal.

[DDE]

51 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

but how could literally burning 100 billion dollars ever be a good idea????

I dunno? Having been pushed for more than a decade past it planned operational life, how many near-disasters had Mir suffered?

[Nibb31]

8 hours ago, tater said:

Seems like they will fly it as long as NASA pays them to. Is that only 6 flights?

Dragon starts flying in 2019. ISS is retiring in 2024. CCrew is divided between Dragon2 and CST-100, typically every 6 months. CCargo is divided between Dragon 1, Dragon 2, Cygnus and DreamChaser. I'd say 6 flights of D2 is optimistic.

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

I really don't see why they would destroy the ISS.  Recycling the modules or giving them to the russians is arguably fine, but how could literally burning 100 billion dollars ever be a good idea????

We've discussed it plenty of times. Hardware has a shelf life. It's government property and all control equipment is in Houston and can't be transferred. End of life is a normal part of a lifecycle. Gotta deal with it.

[tater]

Yeah, I ballparked that after I posted.

They said that the CRS missions would switch to D2 as well, I thought, though.

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

I really don't see why they would destroy the ISS.  Recycling the modules or giving them to the russians is arguably fine, but how could literally burning 100 billion dollars ever be a good idea????

Because they've already gotten some return on it. It wasn't really designed or intended to be the kind of station that you keep forever.