All things are done with purpose - great or small, trivial or profound.
Old Space
The national space program of the United States began in earnest in 1957. Its purpose was not to open space to civilization, rather, its purpose was to demonstrate without delay the nation's ability to gain an enviable military high ground, earth's moon.
Science research and technological spin-offs were very valuable and, arguably, sufficient reasons for the public to support continued spending on the program. Both, however, were incidental results of the driving effort. One clue to the fact it was an unsustainable effort was seen posted at contractor facilities at the time: "Waste anything but time".
The political goal was met in 1969, some 500 million people around the world were witness. It was, then, over. The nationally-funded efforts in space changed direction, away from ideological one-upmanship to pragmatic authority over a newly opened dominion. The tremendous mechanism that actualized men on the moon was scaled back, but not eliminated, focusing now on the strategic ground in between called earth orbit.
It is unfortunate that so many starry-eyed "space cadets" were allowed to believe that the national space program was gearing up for a "Spage Age" of civilization. In reality, no matter what scenarios have been published suggesting otherwise, it was and is predominantly about maintaining control of an area.
Statutes, regulations, treaties and cost create very high economic and political barriers to entry of the "space markets", thus assuring continued control. Since such control is enabled by political actions, and the United States is a republic, there is a continuous need to present a "public face" to the national space program. This "face" has taken the form of interplanetary probes, commercialization of space, earth resource management and astronauts. These are not sinister "fronts", nor are they the reason that a space program exists. In the social structure of the United States, they are necessary but secondary to the primary duty of the national space program - to maintain authoritative control over the high ground.
The "commercial space industry" exists and has existed since day one; representatives of Boeing/Northrup/Lockheed will not hesitate to remind anyone of that fact. The Air Force doesn't build planes and NASA doesn't build spacecraft. Non-governmental corporations are contracted to build launch vehicles, satellites and other systems for NASA and Space Command (Air Force). The distinction between old space and new space could be as simple as the transition away from contracting with the taxpayer for national interests to contracting with other private companies for commercial interests. If this is a reasonable statement, then some existing business has already been in "new space" - in particular, private corporations who enter contracts with other corporations to design and build satellites for commercial use. We need to see if an entirely private commercial infrastructure can be self-sufficient, without financial obligation to the nation, in its serving private-sector customers. If that is the case, then "new space" is viable.
New Space
The catch phrase is "cheap access to space", the new motto could be: "Waste anything but money." It is believed by many that the way to assure economic efficiency is to create a system using only private-sector, "free market", funding.
It is also believed that, having developed such an economically efficient means of accessing space, customers will immediately sign up in sufficient numbers to satisfy the payback required by investors.
However, the Commercial Space Transportation Study, a comprehensive assessment of space market elasticity by six major aerospace firms in 1993, concluded that they " ...have not been able to prove the commercial space market elastic enough to enable the revenues per flight to be greater than the combined payback and operations costs per flight for a completely commercially developed system. To attract commercial investment it appears that some level of government participation will be necessary." If the reader accepts the models and assumptions on which the report is based, then it is sound but now somewhat dated. Dr. Bruce Dunn wrote commentary on the report in 1995, then updated his paper in 2001.
Further insight into hurdles facing those who would dramatically lower the cost of space access can be found in a workshop summary, "Big Dumb Boosters: A Low-Cost Space Transportation Option?" recorded by the Office of Technology Assessment in 1989. One of the attendees, Mr. Arthur Schnitt, published "must-read" commentary on the web about that report. Concluding his commentary, he states "It isn't clear from the CSTS study itself what is thought by the CSTS participants to be the development cost of the 'completely commercially developed system' - the Conclusion merely state that such a system isn't economically feasible." Mr. Jim Kingdon also provides us with a concise and relevant view of the space market in general on his website.
The supposition that "if you build it, they will come" won't hold true for low-cost space launch vehicles alone. Neither will it hold true for satellites or launch facilities alone. In fact, "new space" won't be created without a full, vertically integrated approach to creating a sustainable, private, commercial space market.
Question
Let's return now to the question at hand: for what purpose cheap access to space?
To be distruptive, by itself for whatever reason, is change for change's sake. Not likely to result in something viable but it has purpose. Knocking the status quo off-kilter could cause a healthy re-examination of some sort. It certainly does not create a market, sustainable or otherwise.
A currently popular reason is to enable a space tourism market. While it is being pursued by some, it can be only part of the equation of viability. Orbital launch services for hardware tests are being contracted from existing suppliers, though desire for low-cost options is expressed. The suborbital joy-ride has been demonstrated by purely private means, however. A Futron report, referenced in a Desert Exposure article, projects a tourism market of at least $1 billion in revenue by 2026. Markets of that magnitude appear regularly and are burdened by much less risk, including consumer video telephony, online ads in Korea, and information quality management.
Rapid commercialization of technology spin-offs are posited as a sufficient market. However, changing the mechanisms of space access to lower costs should be expected to lower the cutting-edge research and development that would render such potentially valuable spin-offs.
Some may say that space access allows betterment of mankind's condition on earth. But, one must ask, where's the economic return in altruism? With narrow focus, and a decidedly profit-oriented view, earth observing has enhanced the human condition, through natural resource management especially.
Others are convinced that humanity must escape from the biosphere we're crowding or destroying. Even furher from economic viability, this is an unhealthy view doomed to be owned only by fatalists who have chosen not to be part of a solution. To service this market would require substantial growth of a population of like-minded individuals.
Still others say that exploration is a necessary hallmark of humanity which must continue into space, the final frontier. Analogous to technology spin-offs, but not dependent on technological advancements, this reason has historical precedent as potentially viable. Satisfying the non-economic yearning to explore brought trade and exploitation of new reources here on earth. It is, unfortunately, very demanding of the long term view and carries an inherently high risk of uselessness.
What's Left?
The purpose, or purposes, of cheap access to space have yet to be defined. Fanciful projections of markets based on the lining of the hat from which they were pulled should be discouraged. The public has been suffering speculations in the guise of "plans" for decades; patience has surely grown thin.
Our first task is to own the understanding that no markets exist for cheap access to space.
No amount of complaining about unfairness will turn any competent investor into a sympathetic angel capitalist who, by the way, isn't a "market."
Groups of individuals who can create technical designs, graphics, animations and websites do not cause markets to appear.
The "military-industrial complex" of defense/aerospace contractors and the national government are not evil. They have their institutions, won to them over decades of investment and refinement, that have served, and will continue to serve, their and our appropriate purposes well.
Commercial entities exist to serve a market, that's their purpose. So the clarion call is this: An advocate for cheap access to space must define distinct and sufficient markets for commercially funded, developed and utilized cheap space access.
A "cheap" space launch vehicle is all well and good, but a private commercial system won't rely on national assets for launch or flight operations. Even if the launch facilities are part of the commercial system, economically efficient payloads for a "cheap" space launch vehicle are grossly different than those from "old space" suppliers. Must the new "cheap" suppliers attract customers completely new to space operations? Or might some "old space" payload owners be willing for an adventure in "new space"?
Exactly what will be sufficient to bring about utilization of cheap space access at levels required for profitable operation? Will it be necessary to court institutional investment for startup or might there be ways to privately fund? Any business plan offered should be a model of comprehensive and consistent pragmatism. Wishful thinking cannot support this effort, yet the territory of private space-based business is uncharted and, thus, presents unique challenges to reason through.
Personally, I have faith (yes, a belief not supported by facts) that private-sector, commercial cheap access to space could be achieved soon and that such access can serve a sufficient number of new markets to be economically feasible. Such capability, I believe, could serve some existing markets with efficiencies not possible by adapting existing systems. I am called to action as I hope you are too.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
For What Purpose Cheap Access to Space?
Saturday, October 13, 2007
A Sense of Responsibility
Isn't it interesting how groups can act with myopic irresponsibility?
A recent action by the Chinese has increased the risk to any property or lives on orbit around the earth for thousands of years to come. Yet these same people have stated their intent to establish a permanent space station as well as visit the moon quite soon.
According to an article in Aviation Week & Space Technology, published January 18, 2007, an aging weather satellite was the successful target of a "kinetic kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile." David Wright, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, as reported by MSNBC, stated that the target satellite could have created nearly 40,000 fragments between 1 and 10 centimeters in size. Mr. Wright also made a statement to New Scientist, in an article published January 20, 2007, that this action has doubled "the amount of debris of that size at similar altitudes". It should be no surprise to learn that, as reported by New Scientist, that this action "may also have created 2 million fragments wider than 1 millimetre across".
This debris-spewing folly occurred only one month before NASA pulled the plug on an experiment called LAD-C. To have been conducted onboard the International Space Station, LAD-C sought to "characterise the environment" in earth orbit with regard to micrometeorites (including man-made versions). As reported by New Scientist in an article published February 12, 2007, the Chinese "test" also created "more than 900 objects larger than 10 cm across", that the "debris spread throughout low-Earth orbit, from altitudes of 200 to nearly 4000 kilometres" and that (some of) the debris is "expected to stay in space for hundreds of thousands of years."
To those who may be unfamiliar with the threat of space debris, the size range from 1 millimeter to 1 centimeter is very dangerous. Impacting anything at velocities up to 7,500 meters per second is going to be a problem. A single 1 millimeter speck of aluminum could pack quite a wallop - equivalent to a round from an AK-47 assault rifle (around 1500 J). Space suits and (most) spacecraft are not designed to resist shots from an assault rifle.
To have over 2 million of these things suddenly let loose in a popular area is irresponsible. Typical of nations, China wanted to demonstrate their ability to command at least part of the military high ground. Jeez, couldn't you have just done something spectacular that didn't screw up the highway of the future?
On top of all that, a cloud of uncountable sub-millimeter particles were also created. Even they are nothing you would want to reckon with in space. J. C. Liou, a member of the LAD-C experiment team, pointed out that the Space Shuttle usually requires a couple of their quartz windows to be replaced after a flight - because of impacts with sub-millimeter particles. In the same article referenced earlier, Mr. Liou also pointed out that the now-dead LAD-C experiment was to create a base of knowledge that we could use to appropriately design the space hotels and lunar bases so many have said we're poised to do. Soon. Maybe.
So here we return to responsibility. Responsibility to yourself, your own people and to the world and all of its people. While this test was, no doubt, viewed as a magnificent success in the halls of Chinese government, it was a dismal failure on the world stage. A demonstration of proving technology didn't require such deadly pollution to be rendered, but it certainly was an expedient way to make a statement with emphasis. The short term, as so often is the case, outweighed the long term considerations.
What's In A Name?
he·li·o·space (ˈhē-lē-oˌ-spās), n. [neologism based on the ancient greek helios, mythological sun god, and outer space] 1. The volume populated with objects in orbit around our sun. 2. The space beyond earth's atmosphere and within the solar system. 3. All elements and systems that compose the volume influenced by the sun. -- SYN. "everything and everywhere under the sun".