Private space flight

[Australian Sloth]

With SpaceX getting permission to launch their Dragon capsule in less than a month we are on the edge of private space flight becoming a commonality.

But I want to know what you, the masses think.

I\'m personally for private space flight. Think of the jobs it will create when it really starts booming and it will ease demand on government, possibly allowing for a development in rocketry through competition.

But like any industry, I think it will need to be regulated, there\'s already quite a lot of space junk and private industry will need to be held accountable for the debris it creates. Possibly an international watchdog will be needed.

That\'s enough from me, what\'s your say?

[Ascensiam]

We need to address the following issues first, though:

- Pollution

- Economic crisis

- Nationalization

- A valid target since only Earth is \'\'colonized\'\' with human life

- Realistic supply

[Thiel]

- Pollution

LOX/LH2 ascend stage. The only by product should be water.

- Economic crisis

That\'s kinda the reason why we\'re pursuing private launches.

- Nationalization

I\'m not following. We\'re talking about private ventures here.

- A valid target since only Earth is \'\'colonized\'\' with human life

There\'s plenty of things to do in outer space that doesn\'t involve colonization.

- Realistic supply

[Australian Sloth]

Agreed.

Until now, the only way to send people into space was with a nation\'s space program, namley Russia\'s or U.S.A\'s.

And Thiel, H20 is actually a pretty potent greenhouse gas.

Prehaps we need someone in the industry or with knowlege to give an answer

[Ydoow]

Water would precipitate out eventually though, right?

I don\'t exactly foresee a lot of job creation. Maybe I don\'t have the foresight though.

I see the immediate need for engineers, pilots, mathematicians and such. But I don\'t see much else.

What exactly would the goal be? Joy rides for civilians?

I\'m all for it, space is epic. Those are my questions, however

[Agamemnon]

With SpaceX getting permission to launch their Dragon capsule in less than a month we are on the edge of private space flight becoming a commonality.

- no, you can call one flight hardly a commonality

- spacex is not the first company to develop and build a spacecraft/launcher with help from a national agency

- there is already several private companies that make profit with launching payloads (and no, spacex is not one of them) to LEO (and beyond)

Think of the jobs it will create when it really starts booming

for it to start booming the price for launching a payload to orbit has to go down a few orders... this will not happen with spacex launching cargo to iss (not for now, not until someone comes with new propellant or completely new tech for engines)

But like any industry, I think it will need to be regulated

iirc, in the us, the faa has the authority over the private launchers (spacex\'s falcon, orbital\'s antares)

Until now, the only way to send people into space was with a nation\'s space program, namley Russia\'s or U.S.A\'s.

and this stays as such for several more years (just now the two nations able to launch humans are russia and china)... spacex or ula perhaps will change this status but only several years from now (lets say 2017 - that\'s the guestimation by nasa and/or nasa administrator gen. bolden - IF money for ccdev will NOT be cut - as the congress is suggesting)

few my thoughts:

- private launch providers are necessary, but i think they will not bring any big turnaround...

- for a turnaround to happen you need new tech, new propellant (metalic hydrogen? or something else - currently unknown? very far in the future) or perhaps new philosophy (skylon?)

- at the moment, spacex is not even the cheapest launch provider (both in absolute prices and in prices for kg)... this means the prices will not go down as some people hope/think (maybe reusability will help, but you need much higher flight rate than it is today)

so, it is nice that spacex will fly to iss, but expect nothing special... just one more launch provider in what is quite a big pool already (worldwide), and not even the cheapest one... or the most techn. advanced...

[RichieD76]

LOX/LH2 isn\'t such a bad substance when it\'s burned. It\'s the gas/oil/coal/nuke you need to use to get the energy to get the LOX/LH2 from water in the first place. And to keep in refrigerated. It\'s like cement..not so bad to use but causes its mass in Co2 when produced.

Personally I hate how it\'s called 'private' space travel because none of them would have come close without government backing. There whole business models are based around NASA effectively giving them all there commercial contracts. I love spaceX, master, armadillo and more...but even they have to admit they got a big help.

[khyron42]

For the record - SpaceX\'s Falcon 9 uses LOX and kerosene (RP-1), not LH2. That reduces cost and pollution to produce & store the fuel, but adds all the normal pollutants of any hydrocarbon during the launch itself.

My take on SpaceX and some of the other new space companies is that they aren\'t aiming to make money. They\'re aiming to broaden the scope by putting market pressure on the big companies to match their capabilities. By looking really likely to start privately built manned-to-ISS launches within a few years, it makes Boeing dust off their 1990\'s plans for the same. If they pull it off, they\'d love to have 3 other companies fighting for those launches, because the people who invested in it are more interested in building the industry than getting rich.

As far as the 'private spaceflight' thing - SpaceX fully privately funded the Falcon 1 launcher (Thanks, PayPal.) Falcon 9 has been built with partial NASA funding. They\'re kind of in a grey area.

[Endeavour]

The companies can say they aren\'t aiming to make money, but in reality the goal of every corporation (excluding non-profits) is to make a profit. I don\'t think SpaceX is non-profit, so if something isn\'t profitable, they won\'t do it.

[khyron42]

I should have made an even longer post, I guess.

If company A, which is managed and 2/3rds owned by single highly motivated individual, only cares about making enough money to cover costs & salaries plus 5% to pay the other 1/3rds owners some profits - they can operate a lower-efficiency rocket for cheaper than company B(oeing), which has a tried-and-true lower-cost launcher but also expects to rake in about 20% profit per launch for their shareholders. Company A might even force B to lower cost-to-orbit by improving their design further or dropping it to 15% profit-per-launch.

[TwoHedWlf]

The companies can say they aren\'t aiming to make money, but in reality the goal of every corporation (excluding non-profits) is to make a profit. I don\'t think SpaceX is non-profit, so if something isn\'t profitable, they won\'t do it.

Many small startup companies have no real intention of making money themselves. I wouldn\'t be surprised if SpaceX\'s plan is to become moderately successful at putting ships/satellites into orbit and then be bought by Boeing. Or maybe Google.

[Kryten]

But they do have a unique product coming up-falcon heavy. The only thing close to it that could exist in anything like the same timeframe is Angara A7, and even that\'s pretty much just a concept right now.

[GOOMH]

Isn\'t SpaceX a privately owned company? So it really doesn\'t matter if there profit margins are minimal since they have no share holders to answer to except Mr. Musk himself. Of course NASA and Russia paved the way and develop the tech for them but eventually these guys might start treading into new territory.

[Guest GroundHOG-2010]

What is the good things about Private Space Flight

1. Lowers the price of spaceflight

2. Progresses Technology

What are the bad sides that could come from it.

1. Its a company, so its for profit before not only the consumer, but the environment (Look at EA for consumer).

I am neutral to it, its good, but its got some things that need to be solved.

[Agamemnon]

What is the good things about Private Space Flight

1. Lowers the price of spaceflight

2. Progresses Technology

for now, it is: no and mostly no

[Thiel]

What are the bad sides that could come from it.

1. Its a company, so its for profit before not only the consumer, but the environment (Look at EA for consumer).

That comparison fails on so many levels.

EA makes its money selling low value products to untold thousands of individuals. As a result they can loose entire market segments without feeling it.

A private space company deals with a small number large companies that have more lawyers than EA has customers. Failure to live up to a contract is going to be very expensive, if it doesn\'t kill the company outright.

[Endeavour]

I am personally for private space flight, but i feel that government space programs will always be needed to take on the jobs that are not profittable enough for the companies. The government space programs can take risks that a company can\'t because they are funded differently. I feel that things such as exploration will always require government run space programs.