How Far and Fast Can the Commercial Space World Grow?

coondoggie writes "The development of the commercial space industry has in the past been slow and deliberate, but that seems like it's about to change with a whirlwind of developments that could shape or break its immediate future. Today the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics is holding a hearing to go over the Federal Aviation Administration's 2012 budget request, which includes close to $27 million — nearly a 75% increase over 2010 — in the budget for the group tasked with overseeing commercial space development. They're also evaluating the need for a longer regulatory ban. Also this week the Government Accountability Office issued a review of the issues the commercial space industry and the FAA face (PDF) going forward "

Comments

Sky is the ....

[W1sdOm_tOOth]

Oh, wait....

Re:Sky is the ....

[molecule1]

this business is really taking off. opportunities are out of this world.

What will commercial space companies do?

[petes_PoV]

So far the only areas commercial space outfits have been able to turn a profit is communications and TV satellites. There's not a whole lot in the way of raw materials they've been able to exploit. Not that much in terms of tourism/leisure - apart from a few bored billionaires. And no space-based manufacturing or processes that would come close to break even.

So the speed of development seems to be limited by companies' ability to find things in or about space that can be commercially exploited. It's still not clear what else there is out there that would be a profitable venture.

Re:What will commercial space companies do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Commercial communication satellites have been very marginal in terms of profit for years. There is a glut of manufacturing capability compared to the demand.

(AC because I work in the industry)

Re:What will commercial space companies do?

[jafac]

Yes. This was a hard-sell item to Queen Isabella, too.

Nor was Spain able to monopolize all the profits. Can you imagine how to even calculate what the "value" of those profits is? We're talking about the "New World".

Now - this is not going to happen in our "Isabella" lifetimes. Whether we ever break Faster Than Light travel or not.
But multiply that above "value" times tens, or hundreds of thousands of worlds.

The word "Profit" seems trite.

Re:What will commercial space companies do?

[khallow]

It's worth noting that both SpaceX and Scaled Composites both earned profit on designing and flying new launch vehicles. There's also a growing imaging satellite market.

Re:What will commercial space companies do?

[khallow]

The word "Profit" seems trite.

It means you get more out of an activity than you put in. The moral connotation is just a distraction.

Re:What will commercial space companies do?

[CrimsonAvenger]

They thought they knew approximately how long the sea route would be based on Earth's circumference

Yes, they did. Which is why everyone thought Columbus was a crackpot - everyone knew that the distance from Europe west to China was close 15000 miles.

Note that Columbus was a distinct minority in thinking that China was close enough to reach with the ships of the day.

Note also that Flemish fishermen had been drying fish in Newfoundland before Columbus ever sailed. And that Columbus probably knew this, since he was a sailor himself.

But why?

[MrQuacker]

The real question is why do we need to go up there in the first place?

Communication and physics research satellites seem to be the only thing people are launching. Until more tech that is space-only is developed, we really have no reason to go up there.

Supply and demand. We have no demand, so therefore there is no supply.

What we should be focusing on is how to create the demand.

Re:But why?

[h4rr4r]

Tourism is a huge demand. You get it down to $10k and I will take a ticket right now. Lots of other folks would be buying at $100k.

Re:But why?

[0123456]

Tourism is a huge demand. You get it down to $10k and I will take a ticket right now. Lots of other folks would be buying at $100k.

One of the space tourism guys was saying recently that there's a surprising amount of demand for spaceflight in the million-dollar range, where people who could afford to fly on Soyuz can't afford the time required for the training (AFAIR Soyuz passengers have to train as crew, whereas a true tourist flight would only take a small amount of training).

Re:But why?

[c0d3g33k]

The real question is why you don't have enough imagination to figure out reasons why we might want to go up there. We wouldn't have those satellites in orbit at all if people approached things with your attitude. The opportunities always seem obvious in hindsight, but it takes a pioneering spirit to seek new ones out and make them real.

Re:But why?

[h4rr4r]

There are probably millions/hundreds of thousands willing to pay that price. Safety is not an issue for many. I am willing to take the same risk as a soyuz trip presents at that price.

Re:But why?

[VortexCortex]

http://xkcd.com/893/ -- note especially the alt text:

The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.

I mean -- its not like our space faring civilization will ever just build itself us.

I mean -- It's not like theres ever been another dominant life form that's now utterly extinct due to one or two slightly above average asteroids striking the Earth -- You can be complacent because you're ancestors were not dinosaurs... I suppose you believe Mammals are impervious to extinction events since we're so prevalent and adaptable (tell that to the anaerobic life that was killed off in the great origination catastrophe --- hint: our oxygen levels drop a bit more, we won't be having this discussion, it'll be the anaerobes' turn again).

In short: Life on Earth finally got decent brains! Let's not flippin' waste them due to insignificant BS and artificially important economic issues -- Anything less than advocating space exploration is burying your head in the sand (and ignoring the fossil record found there).

Those that don't know their history are doomed; There is no second chance to repeat it for some species.

Re:But why?

[14erCleaner]

If 10,000 people go at $10K each, you've almost recovered the costs of development. Personally, I don't think the market is that big, since the tourism guys aren't really talking about going to "space", just to 100 kilometers sub-orbital. Coincidentally, the first American sub-orbital flight was 50 years ago yesterday. Not exactly a cutting edge accomplishment.

Re:But why?

[Orange Crush]

Launch costs are the killer right now. Com sats and government funded programs are the only things that can afford to get there right now. If SpaceX and others like it really manage to cut launch costs down to $1,000/lb, it opens the doors for a LOT of interesting uses that never would've been funded at today's costs to orbit.

Re:But why?

[Americano]

"Space tourism" is not a sustainable market. Once you've shot your wad and everybody with the money and interest to pay 10k for a couple hours in space has gone (and I think you'll find that the number of people both interested & wealthy enough to do this are much smaller than you seem to think)... what then?

There's still nowhere to go up there, it's a joyride. Yay, you went WAY UP IN THE AIR, got a couple lovely panoramic views as the craft inverted, and then came back down. Now what? How many people will do that more than once? It's a small fraction of the people who would do it once for the novelty of seeing it. So you built out this fleet of spaceships... and launched them a thousand times... and now... we're back where we started, with maybe a few launches a year to cater to the sustained demand - and at a few launches a year, you can bet that the price of each ride is going to go right back up into the hundreds of thousands of dollar range.

If the observation deck of the Empire State Building were the only thing to do in New York City, they'd have a lot of trouble keeping their hotels filled.

Re:But why?

[youn]

I think it is actually that big... they are just creaming the market... why charge 10k when you have enough people willing to pay 200k to get you started and test out the system... when you have grown enough, decrease price gradually... it is a more sound business plan... if you ask me though, if they can get the price to $100, it is even is better :)

Re:But why?

[khallow]

Because that's where the money is. Doesn't mean it'll always be that way.

Re:But why?

[Confusador]

I think there's a critical mass of technology that is required before we can effectively create the demand, and that is what these companies are working on (launching satellites to pay the bills in the meantime). Working backwards here: I don't think that we're going to be able to do much in space manufacturing (etc) until we close the life support loop; sending supplies up constantly is just too expensive. Bigelow is working on that problem, but are currently constrained by launch costs. SpaceX, Virgin, Armadillo, et al are working on lowering those costs via various strategies. Once we get launch costs low enough, we'll be able to do more testing on life support, and once we have that we'll be able advance other technologies to sell back here on earth.

These companies are making a long bet, but it's not irrational.

Re:But why?

[Americano]

The enduring popularity of tourism markets in general is the fact that there are things to do and see once you get there. There is none of that in space, and we are long, long years away from any sort of "cruise ship in space" experience. If you have no destination to go to, and nothing to do while you're there, "space tourism" is simply not sustainable. Even if-and-when there are "private space stations" the economics of building living facilities in space will keep it a novelty experience for the ultra-rich. Just like you and I don't get to stay in the penthouse of the Trump Tower for 3 months at a time when we visit New York, we'll find that "2 hours of flight with 15 minutes of zero g and the opportunity to take some photos of the earth from orbit" are the tourism experiences that will be within reach of the "common man" - and by "common man," I mean upper middle class.

Re:But why?

[Americano]

What happens if you stay in orbit for a week? A month? A year? Are you sure that you can't do that again?

Pray tell, what will you do in orbit for a week? A month? A year? What wonderful sights and experiences will you have while you're there, and where will you have these wonderful experiences - on your launch vehicle? For a month? I'm really hard-pressed to think of anybody who would consider a year floating in circles above the earth in a single seat in the space shuttle to be much of a "vacation".

How many people do you think would like to be part of the first hundred folks who have gone past the Moon

Not enough to make it a sustainable market.

How about being named the "first person in the 21st Century to orbit the Moon"?

Not enough to make it a sustainable market.

There certainly are some folks have egos that large, and even bank accounts to afford it.

Exactly, there are some folks with egos & bank accounts. Those folks will never be numerous enough to make "space tourism" a sustainable venture for regular folks. "Space tourism" is, and will continue to be - barring signficant advances in the economics of survival in space - a novelty marketed to the very wealthy. The ONLY "space tourism" that will be within reach of the "regular" people (i.e. upper middle class, nobody below that will ever be able to afford it) will be the couple-hour joyride with some photos and a few minutes of zero gravity.

Folks have been into orbit through purely private efforts (non-subsidized by government agencies) and it will continue. It won't be just for the view.

Yes, it will be just for the view. What else is there to do up there, for a "tourist"? Float around in zero-g for a month? That would appeal to about 30 Slashdotters, and I'm pretty sure that doesn't make a sustainable market. Space tourism is simply a big "Observation Deck," and unless you make significant changes in the economics of survival in space, that's all it will be. And as I said, if the Observation Deck at the Empire State Building was literally the ONLY THING you could do in New York City as a tourist, then NYC would have a lot fewer tourists.

I get the feeling reading these comments that people think we're going to be launching to some massive space station in earth orbit which is some sort of Battlestar Galactica-style pleasure ship, complete with blue-skinned Alpha Centaurian courtesans. There IS NO facility in space for tourism to be anything more than "up, look around, down." Anything else will have to be built, i.e. launched from earth and assembled in space, and constantly resupplied and operated for YEARS with perfect safety while handling a steady stream of cargo & human traffic moving to it from the earth's surface.

The ISS, designed for a crew of 6, has an estimated cost of between 35 and 160 billion dollars. How many tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars will it take to build something that could handle an operational crew of 20, and 20-30 guests at a time? And you think this is somehow a feasible economic reality within the reach of a large market of people?

Re:But why?

[CRCulver]

You're assuming that the longterm survival of the species is a strong motivator for the average person. While an catastrophic asteroid is a possibility, the probability of it happening in our lifetime, our children's lifetime, or our great grandchildren's lifetime is small. Beyond the immediate next few generations, I don't think people care so much. What matters is our immediate happiness. So why is space so urgent? Slashdotters often speak as if the conquest of space is inevitable, as does much of the science fiction canon. But I increasingly suspect that an intelligent race would more likely not go into space. Interesting possibilities I've heard speculated are that it would ultimately commit mass suicide, feeling existence is pointless, or withdraw into a virtual reality world on its own planet, which has its own opportunities for exploration and longer lifespans without the unprofitability and dangers of space.

Re:But why?

[DerekLyons]

The real question is why you don't have enough imagination to figure out reasons why we might want to go up there.

No, the real question is why buzzword filled drivel like yours gets modded insightful. The OP made a valid point - which you failed to address at all.
 
Jingoism is no substitute to actual thought.
 

The opportunities always seem obvious in hindsight, but it takes a pioneering spirit to seek new ones out and make them real.

Hogwash. LEO is a physical place just like Manhattan or Des Moines. We know to a fair degree what physically can or cannot be done there - and how much it costs to get there to do what can be done. The calculations to determine if money can be made from those activities, given the known inputs, are something any first year accounting student can do.
 
Yet despite all the years the input data has been done, and all the years a lot of people have been thinking about the data... the best we've got is blind jingoism. To any rational person that indicates that there is Problem with a capital 'P'.

Re:But why?

[DerekLyons]

I mean -- It's not like theres ever been another dominant life form that's now utterly extinct due to one or two slightly above average asteroids striking the Earth -- You can be complacent because you're ancestors were not dinosaurs..

I'm not complacent - but I'm also not ignorant. Going into space today to escape a dinosaur killer is like walking into an auto body shop to buy a pizza. It's not only pointless, it's stupidly silly - because it's going to be centuries at best before anything off planet has sufficient infrastructure, population, and capital to survive the loss of Earth.

Re:But why?

[FatLittleMonkey]

90 minutes, from anywhere with a space-port to anywhere with a recovery team. $10k a seat would be an easy sell.

Re:But why?

[CRCulver]

We live in a democracy. The purpose of leaders is not to "think intellectually" but to carry out the will of the people. If voters feel that space exploration is not an important issue, then government cannot pursue. Private industry cannot bring humanity into space yet -- or possibly ever -- so massive government subsidy is the only option, and society just doesn't want it. Comparing space exploration to humans leaving Africa is risible. Slowly following game through a succession of same or similar climates is trivial compared to getting out of Earth's orbit and surviving in a total vacuum.

Re:But why?

[Big Nemo '60]

You're assuming that the longterm survival of the species is a strong motivator for the average person. [...] What matters is our immediate happiness. [...] I increasingly suspect that an intelligent race would more likely not go into space. Interesting possibilities I've heard speculated are that it would ultimately commit mass suicide, feeling existence is pointless, or withdraw into a virtual reality world on its own planet [...]

Geoffrey Miller's take on Fermi's Paradox:

I suggest a different, even darker solution to the Paradox. Basically, I think the aliens don’t blow themselves up; they just get addicted to computer games. They forget to send radio signals or colonize space because they’re too busy with runaway consumerism and virtual-reality narcissism. They don’t need Sentinels to enslave them in a Matrix; they do it to themselves, just as we are doing today. Once they turn inwards to chase their shiny pennies of pleasure, they lose the cosmic plot. They become like a self-stimulating rat, pressing a bar to deliver electricity to its brain’s ventral tegmental area, which stimulates its nucleus accumbens to release dopamine, which feels... ever so good.

Why We Haven’t Met Any Aliens
Geoffrey Miller

Re:A real question: Who the fuck is Matt Welsh?

[c0d3g33k]

Ah, young padawan AC.

You should know Matt from his O'Reilly book: Running Linux (now in it's 5th edition).

If you want to know more, go to http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~mdw/

Humurous comments aside

[Colourspace]

I have worked in the electronics (and space qualified electronics) industry for some time, from the component to the system manufacturer level, for some time now. I have seen a lot of progress in the FPGA sector in particular. Silicon now seems to be running 'out of steam', though I don't doubt Intel and the like will continue to squeeze the tech for some time and continue to amaze us. On a personal level I wonder how close I am to my (hypothetical granddads) level when steam was close to its dying days, I don't know. But space really seems to be on an upward curve now. Only yesterday I sent my closest friends links to the Virgin Galactic site as although I have been no fan to date, the pictures I saw yesterday actually made me think that our long promised space age might finally be getting here. I hope so, we need to get off this rock. (and nuke it from space, it's the only way....)

Meaningless growth

[wcrowe]

As someone pointed out recently, our brightest minds in computer science are laboring at ways to get more people to click on links. Similarly, the commercial space industry will develop quickly, but it will be focused on putting enormous ads in the sky, or something equally useless.

$10k is

[FatLittleMonkey]

Lamely replying to myself....

Commercial vomit comet flights are $5000 per person (plus tax.) For a couple of minutes of interrupted zero-g (15 parabolas of 30 seconds each, spread over an hour.)

$10k for a ten minute sub-orbital flight would sell like hotcakes. $10k for 90 minutes in orbit would have a waiting list of years.