Space is My Limit

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Neil Armstrong's Secret Star Trek Wish

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Reusable Spacecraft

The main benefit of a reusable vehicle is of course its reusability, a quality which theoretically should reduce the cost of each launch. The purpose behind building a reusable vehicle was precisely to lower the costs for payload deliveries, and also to contribute to the commercial launch systems. Reusable space craft would be profitable if they would perform regular and multiple trips to LEO. A reusable vehicle such as the space shuttle has the advantage of being able to carry a larger crew. Another benefit of a reusable vehicle is the flight experience provided for future research and improvement of space flight both in terms of practicality and safety. Commercially speaking, a reusable vehicle would be a great contributor to business development in LEO, yet another benefit of such a vehicle. One important advantage that the space shuttle presented was the ability to service satellites in LEO. Let us not forget that without the space shuttle, the Hubble Space Telescope would have been space junk right after its launch. With the space shuttle being the most sophisticated space craft ever built, having a fleet of reusable vehicles assures a leadership position in the field of space exploration. No other nation than the US has managed to build a successful reusable vehicle yet. While the Soviet Union failed with Buran, India promises to build such a vehicle by 2030, but if we look at the long and complicated history of reusable vehicles in the US and how many had to fail to have a successful space shuttle, such a deadline could remain simply a dream. Finally, it is not the reusable machines that are not profitable at the moment, but rather it is the mission, or what they are used for that makes them undesirable financially. It is the mission of these vehicles, together with their turn-around capability that needs some improvement. A larger market would require more trips which in turn would reduce the costs of each launch. These are indeed wonderful and complex machines, and they require a larger market in order to become profitable and do the job at their real capability.

I do not believe that at least at the moment, any of the benefits of a reusable spacecraft outweighs the current costs of such a vehicle, simply because with our limited endeavors into space, the expandable vehicle can do as good a job as the reusable one and at lower costs. However, in the future, if our activity in LEO increases and there will be a need for lots of launches per month, it makes sense to have reusable vehicles with quite a fast turn-around and for which maintenance would not require such a long amount of time as for STS. But for now I am in favor of using expandable vehicles during this decade and probably the one to come, mainly because they seem more reliable, and although the reusable spacecraft may be lower cost in the long run, for the time being using the expandable ones would be more cost-effective. An excellent reusable vehicle with an outstanding performance and profitable financially is yet to be designed, and while engineers and designers work on this, it is best to rely on expendable launch vehicles.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Privatization of Space

Industry has been a part of space flight for quite some time. Let us not forget the big role companies such as Boeing or Lockheed Martin play in space flight since decades. I was fortunate to visit the ULA factory in Decatur, Alabama this summer and I was honestly impressed. ULA – United Launch Alliance is a joined venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and it is the manufacturer of Delta II, Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V. I witnessed the manufacturing of both Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V on the factory floor at ULA and I could say that was state of the art work. ULA’s main customers are NRO, Air Force, and NASA of course, and they were sold out seven years in advance at the time I visited the factory. From this perspective, I found privatization of space flight really useful. I will not mention SpaceX in my post for this week because I simply do not consider SpaceX to be an example of a private company, with NASA funding 80% of its endeavors ($800 million).

I would say that privatization of space can be beneficial if a couple of factors are considered into this equation. First of all, the industry will never focus on ideals such as NASA did to beat the Soviet Union to the moon in the Sixties. The industry will always focus on profit only. As long as space flight could be profitable, private companies will jump in. Since I used as an example ULA, I would mention that such an endeavor is a recipe for success: ULA makes rockets, customers buy the rockets; ULA makes money, customers fulfill their needs.

Second of all, for space flight to be profitable on a large scale, the market must be expanded. At the moment, the market offered to commercial space is only transfer to ISS. However, rational investors will not put their money into this, because the market is too small and it will not last long enough. Here is where the role of government is important. For example, if NASA goes to the moon, something that could work better in the long run for the industry would be lunar cargo. Delivering only cargo to the moon, having no crew would also mean no risk, so private companies could develop their capability to deliver. The value of payload would lay in its location (the moon) and not the content, so they can risk losing it without any serious consequences. Lunar market would be big, governable, and long-term. Once the government goes to the moon, the industry can come up with many ideas: providing electricity, habitat etc., and therefore other and larger commercial activities could happen. But it is probably only a matter of time until such enterprises will occur.

Image source: spaceflight.com