A low cost, all European, manned launcher.

[Urwumpe]

It's possible to do better. You can do it cheaper than $70 million per seat.

Can we?

 

[Alfastar]

And after all we have a man-rated economical launcher... The R-7. Now that we have the launchpad in Kourou, it's a matter of buying a TMA and painting it white with some European stickers

That would give ESA a very large PR boost, and everybody hails ESA then

It's possible to do better. You can do it cheaper than $70 million per seat.

I don't say such a rocket has to be done by one country. It could be a European conglomeration, for instance supported by the EU.
We're clearly not going to agree on SpaceX. On my side of the argument, Orbital Sciences also cut the cost of launchers by 80% to 90% by the commercial space approach.

Bob Clark

Well, I surely you 'less for $70 million dollars per seat' argument points to SpaceX. But the fact is still that the seat cost is very unsure by SpaceX.

I see you point on Orbital science, but is ESA not already a mix of government space agencies and private space agencies?!

But, are the launch costs also so high because most parts are build in Europa, but need to be transported to South America (French Guiana) ? :shrug:

 

[Urwumpe]

But, are the launch costs also so high because most parts are build in Europa, but need to be transported to South America (French Guiana) ? :shrug:

No, that is not really expensive, they are transported by a special ship to CSG, which generally does a lot of transportation for Arianespace.

SpaceX builds their rockets in Los Angeles and transports them by truck, it seems, to the launch site, which is much more expensive for almost the same distance from LA to KSC.

 

[Capt_hensley]

SpaceX builds their rockets in Los Angeles and transports them by truck, it seems, to the launch site, which is much more expensive for almost the same distance from LA to KSC.

Space X Hires a logistics carrier and the carrier determins what mode (land/air/sea) will be used. To date a mix has been used to get the rockets to KSC. I saw a very large section flown on a super guppy yet another went by Rail. Flip a coin, I'll bet the cheapest method is used on any given day, but still has costs like any other logistics.

PS I prefer Rail, I'm a railfan.

 

[Urwumpe]

PS I prefer Rail, I'm a railfan.

I am an ocean-faring guy there. :lol: Nothing against railways, but ships feel special.

All pictures I had found so far had been SpaceX transporting stages by truck, so maybe I missed the super guppy. But a ship transport was not yet observed, LA to KSC by ship might be quite a distance, AFAIR the only way to get from Pacific to Caribbean is by panama channel.

 

[Capt_hensley]

I am an ocean-faring guy there. :lol: Nothing against railways, but ships feel special.

All pictures I had found so far had been SpaceX transporting stages by truck, so maybe I missed the super guppy. But a ship transport was not yet observed, LA to KSC by ship might be quite a distance, AFAIR the only way to get from Pacific to Caribbean is by panama channel.

Falcon 1 partial stage by Supper Guppy to Huston Tx, then Interstate, don't know why supper guppy was used, the F-1 is a very small diameter rocket. maybe was a shaddy deal to get the jet to Texas so NASA could use it. Seems like overkill to use such a huge plane for such a small rocket.

If sea were to be used, probably would go by truck from Cali to Galviston, then by barge to KSC, I read it somewhere on the Space X site. Most direct route without using the cannal.

Never been on a ship, just a fishing boat, 12 footer on Lake Willamena Ark. Great catfish and crapi. But we digress...

I'd like to see the ATV improvised Space Station, all sent up with a man rated rocket. A-5 or A-6 whatever, so long as ESA does the work. JMTC :thumbup:

 

[N_Molson]

Ship transport is by far the cheapest. As long as you fill the cargo ship, it's all good.

 

[RGClark]

...
But, if you ask, then the best would be a company like Orbital science. There are a company who known how to make profit, how to commercialism spaceflight in a realistic way, and don't spend almost everything towards non-profit missions.
But, why you think development and launch costs of a commercial spaceflight company is always cheaper? On what for fact you got that argument?

Aside from SpaceX, Orbital Sciences was also able to cut drastically the development costs that had to be financed by government in producing a new launcher:

Orbital Sciences development costs increase.
By: ZACH ROSENBERG WASHINGTON DC 06:09 30 Apr 2012

Documents filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reveal that Orbital Sciences' development costs for the Antares rocket are estimated at $472 million.
"Under the COTS agreement, as amended, as of March 31, 2012, NASA has agreed to pay us $288 million in cash milestone payments, partially funding our program costs which are currently estimated to be approximately $472 million," reads the 10-Q. "We expect to complete this program in the second half of 2012."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/orbital-sciences-development-costs-increase-371291/

This is for a 5 metric ton class launcher. As mentioned in the article under the usual fully government financed approach, such a launcher might cost in the billions that had to be paid by the government. Witness the constant wrangling over the billion dollar development cost of the Ariane 6 for example. Such high start up costs are what are limiting the further expansion of space access.

In any other industry, cutting costs by 80% to 90% would be something hailed for decades as a revolutionary achievement. But because space flight is government and politically controlled the extent of the success in cutting costs by NASA's commercial spaceflight program is only mentioned in hushed tones by NASA.

Any industrialized country could afford to pay a few hundred million dollars to develop their own orbital launch system under the cost sharing of the commercial space approach.

Commercial space is finally what will make space flight routine.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

As mentioned in the article under the usual fully government financed approach, such a launcher might cost in the billions that had to be paid by the government.

Wrong actually. The article cites NASA studies comparing commercial approaches with fixed cost contracts with the old classic cost plus contracts, that are traditionally used.

Cost plus contracts are simple. You have a base planned cost for a project. If you stay below it, it is your gain. If you exceed it, the government still pays the bill and carries the risk up to the maximum where the project is terminated by external forces.

The NASA study is often cited only by the worst case value, which can be easily 3.6 billion for such a launcher. A few changed requirements, and all is ruined.

But why should you then have cost plus contracts at all? Because they are more flexible.

For a fixed cost contract, the requirements have to be defined completely before you sign the contract. Any changes are a new contract.

With cost plus, you only need to know the basic requirements and can afford changes, since you pay them anyway.

Of course, if you as cost plus contractor don't monitor your subcontractors, your subcontractors will drive the costs to the maximum. It makes no sense for them to be faster. The base costs for the cost plus contract are always calculated extremely low for getting the contract (but not too low, since the base costs define the maximum costs for controlling), the "plus" part compensates this later.

Also, the most expensive task in the Antares development had been paid by NASA already... the Aerojet engine tests and modifications.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Commercial space is finally what will make space flight routine.

Commercial space is what will make space flight to appear routine.

There is nothing routine (particularly when you talk of sending humans into space) about sending our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters into what is one of the harshest environments in which we could ever expose ourselves.

 

[Capt_hensley]

Human Flight was once thought of as impossible, and insanity. It's now routine!

If you do some thing often enough, a certain rythym sets in. This becomes routine. The fact that it's dangerous and expensive also becomes routine.

Getting a manned european system is hard at first, but once the barrier has been broken, it will become routine. Danger and Expense will tag along, followed by experience, and finaly reduced cost with improved safety.

Lets just hope that complacency and lack of imagination do not rear thier ugly heads again.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

I see your point, and can agree, to a certain extent...

95% of the work I do at a nuclear plant is repetitive, but not routine. With routine and repetition comes complacency. And that's not something that can be acceptable with nuclear power or spaceflight.

Particularly when humans are riding what can be described as something provided by the lowest bidder.

 

[RGClark]

Wrong actually. The article cites NASA studies comparing commercial approaches with fixed cost contracts with the old classic cost plus contracts, that are traditionally used.
...
Also, the most expensive task in the Antares development had been paid by NASA already... the Aerojet engine tests and modifications.

Actually every launch system this size or larger costs in the billion of dollars before the commercial space program. It's no accident that the Ariane 6 will also cost billions of dollars under the usual governmental financing procedures. That is the expected development cost for a fully government financed launcher.

The fact that the engines needed, whether hydrogen or kerosene fueled, are already developed is an important fact that gives further reason why following the commercial space approach orbital launchers can be developed for a few hundred million dollars.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Routine is the biggest danger in many professions. You have to be so good at things, that you can do them in your sleep, but you should never sleep while you do them.

It might be routine for you to sit in a plane and be hauled from A to B. But it should never be routine for the pilot to fly you around. Too much routine causes accidents, because you start to ignore the differences to the normal situation.

---------- Post added at 03:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:34 PM ----------

Actually every launch system this size or larger costs in the billion of dollars before the commercial space program.

No. Commercial is not magic. Quite contrary. It is only "letting other people pay it and hide my true costs".

The European VEGA rocket did cost 710 million Euro, including many technological firsts, that SpaceX or Orbital Sciences have avoided (VEGA is the first european launcher with large graphite filament-wound SRM cases). If you would do it "the commercial way", VEGA would have cost around 200 million Euro for Arianespace and 500 million for ESA to develop the technology before Arianespace even reacts.

If you include the 400 million that ESA will pay for making the first five VEGA flights cheaper and attract customers on a new rocket, it is still only 1.1 billion Euro. Launch costs for VEGA are 23 million Euro with a low rate of two flights per year, which is pretty poor for European rocketry, but then, the flight rates are not much better for SpaceX or Orbital Sciences currently.

 

[RGClark]

Commercial space is what will make space flight to appear routine.
There is nothing routine (particularly when you talk of sending humans into space) about sending our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters into what is one of the harshest environments in which we could ever expose ourselves.

Flying at stratospheric altitudes at near supersonic to supersonic speeds is nearly as deadly. Once cabin integrity is lost, you lose consciousness in seconds and death follows soon thereafter.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 09:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 AM ----------

...
No. Commercial is not magic. Quite contrary. It is only "letting other people pay it and hide my true costs".

The European VEGA rocket did cost 710 million Euro, including many technological firsts, that SpaceX or Orbital Sciences have avoided (VEGA is the first european launcher with large graphite filament-wound SRM cases). If you would do it "the commercial way", VEGA would have cost around 200 million Euro for Arianespace and 500 million for ESA to develop the technology before Arianespace even reacts.

It's not magic, simply cheaper. Even in your example, as you describe it, it's still less that has to be paid by the ESA.
In actuality, the point of the matter is the total cost would also be less under the commercial space approach.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

No, absolutely wrong: There is a bill, and it has to be paid. Even if you go so far to claim, that only foreign customers will buy the rocket, then still the tax payer will pay, what the foreign customers don't.

The big advantage of commercial approaches in spaceflight is flexibility and a stronger incentive to work cost-efficient - but no automatism to be cost-efficient, and thus there are many ways to avoid it the economic forces and as you can see today, let the tax payer still pay the show and take the risks, without being asked.

That is what makes me pretty disappointed with commercial spaceflight: It is only commercial by the name now. The risks and losses are socialized, the gains kept private.

 

[Alfastar]

Any industrialized country could afford to pay a few hundred million dollars to develop their own orbital launch system under the cost sharing of the commercial space approach.

Commercial space is finally what will make space flight routine.

Bob Clark

Spaceflight is already a routine. And look already how the Soyuz-rocket family shows how a good mix between quality and quantity, with a high success rate. What I mean is that you don't need a commercial spaceflight company for making good, cheap rockets.

It's not magic, simply cheaper. Even in your example, as you describe it, it's still less that has to be paid by the ESA.
In actuality, the point of the matter is the total cost would also be less under the commercial space approach.

Well, why you still think the label 'commercial' makes everything cheaper? Because governments got a 'non-profit view'? Well, that would be a wrong argument. If you give them a goal to make a new, cheaper rocket under 5 Billion US dollars for development, then there try to do that. No matter of its a government space agency or not.

That is what makes me pretty disappointed with commercial spaceflight: It is only commercial by the name now. The risks and losses are socialized, the gains kept private.

That's the same what makes my disappointed. The gains stays in the company, but the non-grains become for the government.

What I see at this moment is a bubble of spaceflight companies. Its a bit like the internet bubble in the early 2000's. I don't be surprised if in 2020 we see only a very few private spaceflight companies active. Its now hip to have a private spaceflight company, but almost nobody of them got serious profit plans. And in the private world, the basic rule is profit, and not non-profit projects and high risky plans.

 

[RGClark]

Spaceflight is already a routine. And look already how the Soyuz-rocket family shows how a good mix between quality and quantity, with a high success rate. What I mean is that you don't need a commercial spaceflight company for making good, cheap rockets.

By routine I mean every industrialized nation in the world can afford to have their own, independent manned spaceflight program by following the commercial space approach.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

By routine I mean every industrialized nation in the world can afford to have their own, independent manned spaceflight program by following the commercial space approach.

Bob Clark

Just like every industrialized nation can build aircraft...hey wait a minute... looks like a few more conditions are to be fullfilled there.

 

[RGClark]

...
That's the same what makes my disappointed. The gains stays in the company, but the non-grains become for the government.

Producing a 5 metric ton launcher class for only $288 million that has to be paid by the government is a great gain for the government.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 07:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 PM ----------

Just like every industrialized nation can build aircraft...hey wait a minute... looks like a few more conditions are to be fullfilled there.

Very many do when they only cost a few hundred million dollars in development cost, such as for international, privately financed business jets or for countries developing their own small military aircraft.
It's when such aircraft development cost in the billions of dollars range that you need the Boeings and Airbuses to develop them.

Bob Clark