Towards the era of privately funded science space missions.

[Exoscientist]

 

Rocket Lab plans launch of Venus mission as soon as late 2024
Jeff Foust
October 30, 2023
WASHINGTON — Rocket Lab expects to launch a highly anticipated privately funded mission to Venus as soon as the end of 2024, leveraging its experience from a mission to the moon.

Speaking at a meeting of the Venus Exploration Analysis Group, or VEXAG, Oct. 30, Christophe Mandy, lead system engineer for Rocket Lab’s interplanetary missions, said the company has set a launch date of as soon as Dec. 30, 2024, for the launch of the Rocket Lab Mission to Venus.
https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-plans- … s-mission/

This is great news since it shows privately financed science space missions can now be mounted. If you run the numbers expensive missions such as Mars Sample Return done by commercial space can be done for 1/100th the cost of the NASA financed approach: instead of costing ~$10 billion, it can be done for only ~$100 million as a privately financed mission. Then at prices this low, it can be fully financed by advertising alone:



Low cost commercial Mars Sample Return.

http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2023/07/low-cost-commercial-mars-sample-return.html

  Robert Clark

[SunlitZelkova]

I don’t understand why doing things privately is cheaper. Doesn’t that just mean NASA is full of excess costs for no reason, bordering on corruption?

Obviously SLS is, but I’m talking about science missions like Curiosity and JWST. Why does the private industry magically do things at a cheaper cost?

Didn’t Faster, Better, Cheaper do alright for NASA?

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Doesn’t that just mean NASA is full of excess costs for no reason, bordering on corruption?

NASA has a budget that - if they don't spend every single penny, will be slashed the next time budget appropriations come around. If it's corruption the entire US government is corrupt. Please don't comment on that as you basically can't without discussing politics. I'm trying to avoid it by hiding behind an "if" statement.

Private companies have budgets that - if they don't spend every single penny someone gets a fat bonus at the end of the year.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Superfluous J

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I don’t understand why doing things privately is cheaper. Doesn’t that just mean NASA is full of excess costs for no reason, bordering on corruption?

Obviously SLS is, but I’m talking about science missions like Curiosity and JWST. Why does the private industry magically do things at a cheaper cost?

Didn’t Faster, Better, Cheaper do alright for NASA?

Accountability and distance between decisions and consequences of decisions.  Private industry has tighter, less error prone, feedback loops.  Not politics, feedback system engineering really

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I don’t understand why doing things privately is cheaper. Doesn’t that just mean NASA is full of excess costs for no reason, bordering on corruption?

I don't know about NASA but I doubt they're rife with corruption. However, their budget depends on congress and senate approval and that is a different story. The budgets quickly get tagged with projects where money has to be spent in certain states. That adds complexity and extra costs.

In addition, those budgets are set in stone and take ages to get approved, so that adds to a lot of inflexibility. SpaceX toyed around with CF tanks, concluded "nah, that doesn't work" and is now building Starship out of stainless steel. That could never happen at NASA.

[DDE]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I don’t understand why doing things privately is cheaper.

 

1 hour ago, Superfluous J said:

NASA has a budget that - if they don't spend every single penny, will be slashed the next time budget appropriations come around.

Within a large enough corporation, budgets start working the same way. It's less about the private-public dichotomy (after all, the private sector worships the ground NASA project management experts walk on, or at least used to at some point) and more about recalcitrance or lack thereof.

NASA don't have

8 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

corruption

in its classical, overt fashion of "I outsourced building the launchpads to companies I own, whoops" but they certainly have to obey a ver6tain established notion for distribution of pork among constituencies (i.e. companies), et cetera et cetera, sometimes hidden under the veneer of "using off-the-shelf tech" and sometimes utterly blatant. We see similar results in the failed cost-cutting in ESA and Roscosmos. New Space gets to establish this distribution, or, as in case of SpaceX, vertically integrate.

 

Nevertheless, as to thread topic, I am very, very doubtful. It's a limited and unstable source of funding. Also, it will be completely shut down by the planetary protection people.

[Exoscientist]

2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

NASA has a budget that - if they don't spend every single penny, will be slashed the next time budget appropriations come around. If it's corruption the entire US government is corrupt. Please don't comment on that as you basically can't without discussing politics. I'm trying to avoid it by hiding behind an "if" statement.

Private companies have budgets that - if they don't spend every single penny someone gets a fat bonus at the end of the year.

  I’ve never seen it expressed so insightfully before. 
Thanks for that.

     Bob Clark

[Exoscientist]

 

 One of many proposed explanations about why the development cost is so much reduced by private financing is that government financed programs use a cost-plus process. This has been found to incentivize cost over-runs.

 In any case here’s an article discussing the fact private financing results in reduced development costs:

NASA Analysis: Falcon 9 Much Cheaper Than Traditional Approach
By Doug Messier
Parabolic Arc
May 31, 2011
https://parabolicarc.com/2011/05/31/nasa-analysis-falcon-9-cheaper-traditional-approach/

 

  Bob Clark

[Pthigrivi]

I guess I don't know why anyone would privately finance science missions that have no profit potential? Usually this kind of thing is a bait and switch. Investors act on what benefits them, not on what is good for society as a whole. I mean we've already turned healthcare, education, and housing into a giant money suck through which wealth is vacuumed out of the general population and into the hands of a few grotesquely wealthy people. We want to do that to science too?

Edited November 2, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[darthgently]

53 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I guess I don't know why anyone would privately finance science missions that have no profit potential? Usually this kind of thing is a bait and switch. Investors act on what benefits them, not on what is good for society as a whole. I mean we've already turned healthcare, education, and housing into a giant money suck through which wealth is vacuumed out of the general population and into the hands of a few grotesquely wealthy people. We want to do that to science too?

This kind of ignores the vast amount of money sucked into lobbyist, politician, union and other pockets since the department of education was formed, as an example.  Gov corruption tends to get a pass because we don't want to see it 

It also assumes that a bureaucracy is going to magically know the correct balance of risk and value in the future better than private investors.  This tends to not prove out

[magnemoe]

47 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I guess I don't know why anyone would privately finance science missions that have no profit potential? Usually this kind of thing is a bait and switch. Investors act on what benefits them, not on what is good for society as a whole. I mean we've already turned healthcare, education, and housing into a giant money suck through which wealth is vacuumed out of the general population and into the hands of a few grotesquely wealthy people. We want to do that to science too?

That is the main issue. Deep space probes don't make money unless some pays for the science. 

[AckSed]

Well, some few universities have pretty deep pockets. And the ability to send a probe to other planets for achievable amounts of funding is a niche Rocket Lab would be happy to advertise.

[Kerbart]

But, in this discussion, let’s not ignore the other side of the medallion that comes with free enterprise and quick efficient solutions driven by profit: cutting corners. SpaceX’s progress is fueled by a willingness to experiment and fail, but a company like OceanGate showed us what happens when you don’t have the rightchecks and balances built in.

[Exoscientist]

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I guess I don't know why anyone would privately finance science missions that have no profit potential? Usually this kind of thing is a bait and switch. Investors act on what benefits them, not on what is good for society as a whole. I mean we've already turned healthcare, education, and housing into a giant money suck through which wealth is vacuumed out of the general population and into the hands of a few grotesquely wealthy people. We want to do that to science too?

 The argument on my blog page about a commercial approach to Mars Sample Return was to finance it through advertising. That would be difficult to do if it cost the $10 billion of the NASA estimates. But what’s key is that it can be done for less than 1/100th that amount by the commercial approach, i.e., less than $100 million. This would be at the high end of the commercial space missions. Most could be done for a few tens of millions of dollars commercially. 

 The blog page is a technical discussion about how to accomplish the mission, but the argument on how it could be financed through advertising is in the section, “Financing a Commercial Approach to a Mars Sample Return Mission”.

  Bob Clark

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Kerbart said:

But, in this discussion, let’s not ignore the other side of the medallion that comes with free enterprise and quick efficient solutions driven by profit: cutting corners. SpaceX’s progress is fueled by a willingness to experiment and fail, but a company like OceanGate showed us what happens when you don’t have the rightchecks and balances built in.

Who is true, now SpaceX don't take risks then it comes to dragon flights.  Nor will I say they do with satellite launches outside of starlink. They break stuff then it makes sense like Starship who is cheap to produce and learning how to land first stages as they was just pollution until they managed to land them  reliable. 

Now say NASA or other paid an price for a sample return from an location on the moon, paid then the sample is returned as an excample would probably work well. 
If it fails its the companies problem, if it works the buyer get an cheap sample return. It might be worth to do multiple samples for redundancy and so you can sell the others. 

Edited November 2, 2023 by magnemoe

[Bej Kerman]

9 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

Please don't comment on that as you basically can't without discussing politics

This entire thread was made to discuss the politics of space missions.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[Pthigrivi]

3 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

 The argument on my blog page about a commercial approach to Mars Sample Return was to finance it through advertising. That would be difficult to do if it cost the $10 billion of the NASA estimates. But what’s key is that it can be done for less than 1/100th that amount by the commercial approach, i.e., less than $100 million. This would be at the high end of the commercial space missions. Most could be done for a few tens of millions of dollars commercially. 

 The blog page is a technical discussion about how to accomplish the mission, but the argument on how it could be financed through advertising is in the section, “Financing a Commercial Approach to a Mars Sample Return Mission”.

  Bob Clark

I don't know, call me skeptical that ad revenue is going to pay for much in the way of real science, most of which is incredibly boring for the general public. Universities are more likely, but again these are the same institutions which have sucked 2 generations dry with student loans, and now we're going to shunt the cost of space research onto those same kids? With 6 layers of rent-seeking middlemen in between? 

Honestly the entire premise that private finance is always more efficient than government spending is just wrong. It ignores the fact that for every SpaceX half a dozen other companies limp along on smoke and mirrors and failed business models until they fold. You can also look at how much Americans spend on healthcare for worse outcomes than most other first world countries. Both companies and governments can be run poorly or run well. When you're asking the question 'what way is more efficient' you also need to ask yourself 'efficient for whom.' 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[darthgently]

14 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Honestly the entire premise that private finance is always more efficient than government spending is just wrong. It ignores the fact that for every SpaceX half a dozen other companies limp along on smoke and mirrors and failed business models until they fold

No one said or believes that.  The point is that private failures are borne by the private investors who chose to take the risks.  The unwilling public isn't left with the bill as happened with the N1, Challenger, etc.  At least not until we arrived in the "too big to fail" crapitalist era 

[Pthigrivi]

22 minutes ago, darthgently said:

No one said or believes that.  The point is that private failures are borne by the private investors who chose to take the risks.  The unwilling public isn't left with the bill as happened with the N1, Challenger, etc.  At least not until we arrived in the "too big to fail" crapitalist era 

Yeah hard to talk about this without digging into the P word. Im just looking at total system efficiency and how the question 'who's paying?' affects what does and doesn't happen and who the real beneficiaries end up being.

[StrandedonEarth]

The major difference in costs between NASA and private is that NASA is researching and building new technology, from scratch. SpaceX got where it is by standing on the shoulders of NASA, hiring the engineers with the knowledge of how to build rockets (Tom Mueller honed his trade at TRW). Much of NASA's hardware (probes) are handmade, one-off creations, and their rockets are built by bloated govt contractors in the military-industrial complex who are used to charging inflated prices to fund black programs, funneling money around to keep congresscritters happy.

NASA learned the hard lessons, and as the original NACA was chartered to do, is spinning off their lessons to the private sector to do what they do best, which is find inexpensive ways to mass-produce equipment. The trick is having a market for the equipment.

Rockets were typically optimized for max performance and minimal mass, with little thought about cost. Private industry generally optimizes for low cost.

I imagine there's also an extra layer of possibly redundant quality control documentation at NASA to ensure mission success. 

But the main thing  is that private industry reaps large benefits from heavy spending on R&D at NASA

Sorry.  /ramble

 

 

[Superfluous J]

One thing that's important to note is that when NASA does a science project, they MUST tell us what happened and show us the pretty pictures of the far side of Jupiter and all that.

When a private company does a science project, it's generally in their best (read: financial) interest to keep it to themselves.

[kerbiloid]

16 hours ago, DDE said:

the planetary protection people

Btw.

"Objective: save the Venus from greenhouse effect."

Could last for ages, staying still relevant.

Edited November 3, 2023 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

12 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

 The argument on my blog page about a commercial approach to Mars Sample Return was to finance it through advertising. That would be difficult to do if it cost the $10 billion of the NASA estimates. But what’s key is that it can be done for less than 1/100th that amount by the commercial approach, i.e., less than $100 million. This would be at the high end of the commercial space missions. Most could be done for a few tens of millions of dollars commercially. 

 The blog page is a technical discussion about how to accomplish the mission, but the argument on how it could be financed through advertising is in the section, “Financing a Commercial Approach to a Mars Sample Return Mission”.

  Bob Clark

It seems the examples of missions with high traffic only came after the missions actually launched though. This commercial Mars sample return wouldn't have funding unless the private company does other space missions which people then watch and see ads.

But if the private space company has to do other missions, they will have to spend money just to get funding... at which point they might as well have just done the MSR out of pocket.

By the way, only space probes would make sense for trying to generate ad revenue. Satellite launches probably won't generate lots of views. I don't recall any major media reporting of things like the last Delta IV launch or the every other week Starlink mission, and thus it is unlikely those were watched by a lot of people.

[DDE]

16 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

One of many proposed explanations about why the development cost is so much reduced by private financing is that government financed programs use a cost-plus process. This has been found to incentivize cost over-runs.

I think this is a canard. Whether cost-plus is wasteful or not depends on what the "plus" is and what you're allowed to charge as "costs". A mildly off-topic discussion but one I've been privy to is the cost-plus pricing of the Russian defense industry... which usually drives manufacturers to sell at below costs. The legally mandated maximum "plus" of 20% (and in practice it's usually around 5%) is very quickly eaten away: for example, you're only allowed to include the region's average salary in your costs, and, well, good luck hiring good engineers, craftsmen and managers at average wage.

As far as I hear, it's very similar for US DoD subcontractors lower on the food chain.

[Blasty McBlastblast]