Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Far and Fast Can the Commercial Space World Grow?

Posted by Soulskill on from the in-direct-proportion-to-the-benjamins dept.

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 "

10 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. Sky is the .... by W1sdOm_tOOth · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh, wait....

    --
    If you're not confused, you're not paying attention
  2. What will commercial space companies do? by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  3. But why? by MrQuacker · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    1. Re:But why? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:But why? by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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).

    3. Re:But why? by c0d3g33k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:But why? by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    5. Re:But why? by Americano · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:But why? by Americano · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

  4. Humurous comments aside by Colourspace · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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....)