Discussion:
"The space race is over and SpaceX won"
Add Reply
Lynn McGuire
2018-04-06 20:36:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"The space race is over and SpaceX won"

https://www.cringely.com/2018/04/06/the-space-race-is-over-and-spacex-won/

"The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently gave SpaceX
permission to build Starlink — Elon Musk’s version of satellite-based
broadband Internet. The FCC specifically approved launching the first
4,425 of what will eventually total 11,925 satellites in orbit. To keep
this license SpaceX has to launch at least 2,213 satellites within six
years. The implications of this project are mind-boggling with the most
important probably being that it will likely result in SpaceX crushing
its space launch competitors, companies like Boeing and Lockheed
Martin’s United Launch Alliance (ULA) partnership as well as Jeff Bezos’
Blue Origin."

Impressive, very impressive. However, I think that Cringely is a bit
premature. The space race will be ongoing for many years, nay decades,
to come.

Lynn
Lynn McGuire
2018-04-06 20:45:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
"The space race is over and SpaceX won"
https://www.cringely.com/2018/04/06/the-space-race-is-over-and-spacex-won/
"The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently gave SpaceX
permission to build Starlink — Elon Musk’s version of satellite-based
broadband Internet. The FCC specifically approved launching the first
4,425 of what will eventually total 11,925 satellites in orbit. To keep
this license SpaceX has to launch at least 2,213 satellites within six
years. The implications of this project are mind-boggling with the most
important probably being that it will likely result in SpaceX crushing
its space launch competitors, companies like Boeing and Lockheed
Martin’s United Launch Alliance (ULA) partnership as well as Jeff Bezos’
Blue Origin."
Impressive, very impressive.  However, I think that Cringely is a bit
premature.  The space race will be ongoing for many years, nay decades,
to come.
Lynn
"Communication with a geostationary satellite has a minimum theoretical
round-trip latency of no less than 239 ms, but in practice, current such
satellites offer latencies of 600 ms or more. Starlink satellites would
orbit at 1/30 of geostationary orbits, and thus offer a practical
latencies around 25 to 35 ms, comparable to currently existing cable or
fiber networks.[39]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)

Wow, Starlink is actually going to be usable. a 1 gpbs connection with
a 35 ms latency is very usable.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2018-04-07 00:30:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 15:36:38 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
"The space race is over and SpaceX won"
https://www.cringely.com/2018/04/06/the-space-race-is-over-and-spacex-won/
"The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently gave SpaceX
permission to build Starlink — Elon Musk’s version of satellite-based
broadband Internet. The FCC specifically approved launching the first
4,425 of what will eventually total 11,925 satellites in orbit. To keep
this license SpaceX has to launch at least 2,213 satellites within six
years. The implications of this project are mind-boggling with the most
important probably being that it will likely result in SpaceX crushing
its space launch competitors, companies like Boeing and Lockheed
Martin’s United Launch Alliance (ULA) partnership as well as Jeff Bezos’
Blue Origin."
Impressive, very impressive. However, I think that Cringely is a bit
premature. The space race will be ongoing for many years, nay decades,
to come.
SpaceX is using a different business model from the competition. The
competition's business model is based on selling rockets. SpaceX's
business model is selling launches.

And if BFR goes anything close to the way it's planned, then by the
time the "competition" gets into the 2018-vintage game SpaceX is going
to be so far ahead that they'll never catch up.

Of course this assumes that Tesla doesn't fail and take SpaceX down
with it.
Dan Tilque
2018-04-07 11:18:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
SpaceX is using a different business model from the competition. The
competition's business model is based on selling rockets. SpaceX's
business model is selling launches.
Blue Origin is going for space tourism, not selling rockets. And
eventually for orbiting space colonies, but that's further out.

Virgin Galactic is also going for tourism, so they're in competition
with Blue Origin. And there was a recent announcement that someone is
planning a space hotel. No doubt they'll be trying to get both VG and BO
to be able to dock. It may be interesting to see how that works out.
--
Dan Tilque
J. Clarke
2018-04-07 11:58:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
SpaceX is using a different business model from the competition. The
competition's business model is based on selling rockets. SpaceX's
business model is selling launches.
Blue Origin is going for space tourism, not selling rockets. And
eventually for orbiting space colonies, but that's further out.
That's their story. So far their only customer is United Launch
Alliance which wants to buy engines for the rockets they sell. When
they are actually putting payloads in orbit on their own hardware get
back to me.
Post by Dan Tilque
Virgin Galactic is also going for tourism, so they're in competition
with Blue Origin. And there was a recent announcement that someone is
planning a space hotel. No doubt they'll be trying to get both VG and BO
to be able to dock. It may be interesting to see how that works out.
Virgin Galactic isn't competition. Their main objective is what
amounts to a glorified amusement park ride. They aren't working on
anything that can achieve orbit. They spun off their "small
satellite" business into a separate company that is using throwaway
boosters and has yet to fly anything--in any case they're talking $12
million for 600 pounds in orbit. SpaceX is talking 7 million to put
300,000 pounds in orbit. So even in their small satellite business
they're pretty much DOA.

As for the space hotel, the "space hotel" is about the size of a
bizjet cabin. SpaceX's next generation booster will be able to fly a
couple of those "hotels" as cargo.

As for being able to dock, everybody except the Chinese who is
actually doing manned spaceflight has docking equipment compatible
with ISS. One hopes that this "space hotel" is also compatible.

Sorry, but at this point SpaceX doesn't _have_ competition.
Dan Tilque
2018-04-07 17:16:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Blue Origin is going for space tourism, not selling rockets. And
eventually for orbiting space colonies, but that's further out.
That's their story. So far their only customer is United Launch
Alliance which wants to buy engines for the rockets they sell. When
they are actually putting payloads in orbit on their own hardware get
back to me.
Their initial tourism product is going to be suborbital flights. They've
already sent up one such unmanned test. The rocket even landed back on
the pad. They may send up a manned flight later on this year.

Suborbital flights aren't nearly as exciting as going into orbit, so I
expect the number of customers will not be terribly high. They are
working on a larger rocket that should go into orbit, but I don't know
when they figure it'll be ready. They're not exactly forthcoming with
future plans, but since they only have a single investor, they don't
have to be.
--
Dan Tilque
J. Clarke
2018-04-08 15:08:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Blue Origin is going for space tourism, not selling rockets. And
eventually for orbiting space colonies, but that's further out.
That's their story. So far their only customer is United Launch
Alliance which wants to buy engines for the rockets they sell. When
they are actually putting payloads in orbit on their own hardware get
back to me.
Their initial tourism product is going to be suborbital flights. They've
already sent up one such unmanned test. The rocket even landed back on
the pad. They may send up a manned flight later on this year.
A glorified amusement park ride. No competition.
Post by Dan Tilque
Suborbital flights aren't nearly as exciting as going into orbit, so I
expect the number of customers will not be terribly high.
"Exciting"? SpaceX isn't selling excitement to bored rich people,
they're selling a service to businesses and governments. The
"tourism" model is pretty much a nonstarter unless they can get the
price down to a level that ordinary people can afford. SpaceX is
trying to do that, the others are trying to fleece a few bored
billionaires.
Post by Dan Tilque
They are
working on a larger rocket that should go into orbit, but I don't know
when they figure it'll be ready. They're not exactly forthcoming with
future plans, but since they only have a single investor, they don't
have to be.
Whenever it's ready, it's likely to be competing with SpaceXs _third_
generation. They don't really seem to have a plan or the kind of
motivation SpaceX has. SpaceX exists because the entire rocket
industry pissed off Elon Musk by refusing to sell him a launch. So
he's already undercutting their prices and he's determined to undercut
them by a lot more.
Lynn McGuire
2018-04-08 22:03:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Blue Origin is going for space tourism, not selling rockets. And
eventually for orbiting space colonies, but that's further out.
That's their story. So far their only customer is United Launch
Alliance which wants to buy engines for the rockets they sell. When
they are actually putting payloads in orbit on their own hardware get
back to me.
Their initial tourism product is going to be suborbital flights. They've
already sent up one such unmanned test. The rocket even landed back on
the pad. They may send up a manned flight later on this year.
A glorified amusement park ride. No competition.
Post by Dan Tilque
Suborbital flights aren't nearly as exciting as going into orbit, so I
expect the number of customers will not be terribly high.
"Exciting"? SpaceX isn't selling excitement to bored rich people,
they're selling a service to businesses and governments. The
"tourism" model is pretty much a nonstarter unless they can get the
price down to a level that ordinary people can afford. SpaceX is
trying to do that, the others are trying to fleece a few bored
billionaires.
Post by Dan Tilque
They are
working on a larger rocket that should go into orbit, but I don't know
when they figure it'll be ready. They're not exactly forthcoming with
future plans, but since they only have a single investor, they don't
have to be.
Whenever it's ready, it's likely to be competing with SpaceXs _third_
generation. They don't really seem to have a plan or the kind of
motivation SpaceX has. SpaceX exists because the entire rocket
industry pissed off Elon Musk by refusing to sell him a launch. So
he's already undercutting their prices and he's determined to undercut
them by a lot more.
Elon Musk - the Walmart of the skies.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2018-04-08 22:15:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 17:03:22 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Blue Origin is going for space tourism, not selling rockets. And
eventually for orbiting space colonies, but that's further out.
That's their story. So far their only customer is United Launch
Alliance which wants to buy engines for the rockets they sell. When
they are actually putting payloads in orbit on their own hardware get
back to me.
Their initial tourism product is going to be suborbital flights. They've
already sent up one such unmanned test. The rocket even landed back on
the pad. They may send up a manned flight later on this year.
A glorified amusement park ride. No competition.
Post by Dan Tilque
Suborbital flights aren't nearly as exciting as going into orbit, so I
expect the number of customers will not be terribly high.
"Exciting"? SpaceX isn't selling excitement to bored rich people,
they're selling a service to businesses and governments. The
"tourism" model is pretty much a nonstarter unless they can get the
price down to a level that ordinary people can afford. SpaceX is
trying to do that, the others are trying to fleece a few bored
billionaires.
Post by Dan Tilque
They are
working on a larger rocket that should go into orbit, but I don't know
when they figure it'll be ready. They're not exactly forthcoming with
future plans, but since they only have a single investor, they don't
have to be.
Whenever it's ready, it's likely to be competing with SpaceXs _third_
generation. They don't really seem to have a plan or the kind of
motivation SpaceX has. SpaceX exists because the entire rocket
industry pissed off Elon Musk by refusing to sell him a launch. So
he's already undercutting their prices and he's determined to undercut
them by a lot more.
Elon Musk - the Walmart of the skies.
Perhaps. Right now he's more like Jack the Giant-Killer.
Technologically he's not doing anything that wasn't within the means
of NASA 50 years ago. What's different is that he's not in thrall to
the lobbyists of Big Aerospace who have a vested interest in selling
throwaway rockets.
Kevrob
2018-04-09 01:44:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 17:03:22 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Blue Origin is going for space tourism, not selling rockets. And
eventually for orbiting space colonies, but that's further out.
That's their story. So far their only customer is United Launch
Alliance which wants to buy engines for the rockets they sell. When
they are actually putting payloads in orbit on their own hardware get
back to me.
Their initial tourism product is going to be suborbital flights. They've
already sent up one such unmanned test. The rocket even landed back on
the pad. They may send up a manned flight later on this year.
A glorified amusement park ride. No competition.
Post by Dan Tilque
Suborbital flights aren't nearly as exciting as going into orbit, so I
expect the number of customers will not be terribly high.
"Exciting"? SpaceX isn't selling excitement to bored rich people,
they're selling a service to businesses and governments. The
"tourism" model is pretty much a nonstarter unless they can get the
price down to a level that ordinary people can afford. SpaceX is
trying to do that, the others are trying to fleece a few bored
billionaires.
Post by Dan Tilque
They are
working on a larger rocket that should go into orbit, but I don't know
when they figure it'll be ready. They're not exactly forthcoming with
future plans, but since they only have a single investor, they don't
have to be.
Whenever it's ready, it's likely to be competing with SpaceXs _third_
generation. They don't really seem to have a plan or the kind of
motivation SpaceX has. SpaceX exists because the entire rocket
industry pissed off Elon Musk by refusing to sell him a launch. So
he's already undercutting their prices and he's determined to undercut
them by a lot more.
Elon Musk - the Walmart of the skies.
Perhaps. Right now he's more like Jack the Giant-Killer.
Technologically he's not doing anything that wasn't within the means
of NASA 50 years ago. What's different is that he's not in thrall to
the lobbyists of Big Aerospace who have a vested interest in selling
throwaway rockets.
He's landed reusable boosters. NASA hasn't managed that. Other
than the reusable solid ones used on the shuttle, everything else
has been throwaway. That's one technological advance.

Starlink looks pretty cool. too. They have competition in that
niche, which should drive improvements.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/29/17178126/spacex-satellite-broadband-internet-fcc-approval-license-starlink-spectrum

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2018-04-09 05:44:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 17:03:22 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Blue Origin is going for space tourism, not selling rockets. And
eventually for orbiting space colonies, but that's further out.
That's their story. So far their only customer is United Launch
Alliance which wants to buy engines for the rockets they sell. When
they are actually putting payloads in orbit on their own hardware get
back to me.
Their initial tourism product is going to be suborbital flights. They've
already sent up one such unmanned test. The rocket even landed back on
the pad. They may send up a manned flight later on this year.
A glorified amusement park ride. No competition.
Post by Dan Tilque
Suborbital flights aren't nearly as exciting as going into orbit, so I
expect the number of customers will not be terribly high.
"Exciting"? SpaceX isn't selling excitement to bored rich people,
they're selling a service to businesses and governments. The
"tourism" model is pretty much a nonstarter unless they can get the
price down to a level that ordinary people can afford. SpaceX is
trying to do that, the others are trying to fleece a few bored
billionaires.
Post by Dan Tilque
They are
working on a larger rocket that should go into orbit, but I don't know
when they figure it'll be ready. They're not exactly forthcoming with
future plans, but since they only have a single investor, they don't
have to be.
Whenever it's ready, it's likely to be competing with SpaceXs _third_
generation. They don't really seem to have a plan or the kind of
motivation SpaceX has. SpaceX exists because the entire rocket
industry pissed off Elon Musk by refusing to sell him a launch. So
he's already undercutting their prices and he's determined to undercut
them by a lot more.
Elon Musk - the Walmart of the skies.
Perhaps. Right now he's more like Jack the Giant-Killer.
Technologically he's not doing anything that wasn't within the means
of NASA 50 years ago. What's different is that he's not in thrall to
the lobbyists of Big Aerospace who have a vested interest in selling
throwaway rockets.
He's landed reusable boosters. NASA hasn't managed that.
He isn't using any kind of magic to do it. At one point the Saturn
first stage was going to be reusable but for whatever reason NASA
decided not to pursue that, then they took a wrong turn with the Space
Shuttle--whatever possessed them to try to create a reusable payload
when they didn't have a reusable booster to launch it with is beyond
my capacity.
Post by Kevrob
Other
than the reusable solid ones used on the shuttle, everything else
has been throwaway. That's one technological advance.
It's only a "technological advance" in the sense that Musk didn't
just talk about it, he went ahead and did it. SDIO was close in the
'90s but the program got transferreed to NASA at which point it died
of Not Invented Here.
Post by Kevrob
Starlink looks pretty cool. too. They have competition in that
niche, which should drive improvements.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/29/17178126/spacex-satellite-broadband-internet-fcc-approval-license-starlink-spectrum
Yep. Would be nice to have another alternative--Frontier is slow as
crap and Cox is getting flaky.
Christian Weisgerber
2018-04-09 11:14:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
It's only a "technological advance" in the sense that Musk didn't
just talk about it, he went ahead and did it.
That's Musk in a nutshell, isn't it? Tesla, Space X, Hyperloop.
It's all stuff that has been _talked_ about for decades.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Kevrob
2018-04-09 11:38:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by J. Clarke
It's only a "technological advance" in the sense that Musk didn't
just talk about it, he went ahead and did it.
Which is no small thing, IMNSHO.
Post by Christian Weisgerber
That's Musk in a nutshell, isn't it? Tesla, Space X, Hyperloop.
It's all stuff that has been _talked_ about for decades.
Kevin R
J. Clarke
2018-04-09 11:45:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by J. Clarke
It's only a "technological advance" in the sense that Musk didn't
just talk about it, he went ahead and did it.
Which is no small thing, IMNSHO.
I agree with this. My point is that NASA wasted vast amounts of money
on dead ends when it _could_ have been doing what SpaceX is doing.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christian Weisgerber
That's Musk in a nutshell, isn't it? Tesla, Space X, Hyperloop.
It's all stuff that has been _talked_ about for decades.
Kevin R
Joe Pfeiffer
2018-04-09 13:58:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
He isn't using any kind of magic to do it. At one point the Saturn
first stage was going to be reusable but for whatever reason NASA
decided not to pursue that, then they took a wrong turn with the Space
Shuttle--whatever possessed them to try to create a reusable payload
when they didn't have a reusable booster to launch it with is beyond
my capacity.
While most of the Shuttle design strikes me as a big bundle of mistakes,
that's the one thing they tried to get right -- the SRBs were reusable,
and the expensive part of the booster (the engines) was reusable.
Peter Trei
2018-04-09 13:08:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 17:03:22 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Blue Origin is going for space tourism, not selling rockets. And
eventually for orbiting space colonies, but that's further out.
That's their story. So far their only customer is United Launch
Alliance which wants to buy engines for the rockets they sell. When
they are actually putting payloads in orbit on their own hardware get
back to me.
Their initial tourism product is going to be suborbital flights. They've
already sent up one such unmanned test. The rocket even landed back on
the pad. They may send up a manned flight later on this year.
A glorified amusement park ride. No competition.
Post by Dan Tilque
Suborbital flights aren't nearly as exciting as going into orbit, so I
expect the number of customers will not be terribly high.
"Exciting"? SpaceX isn't selling excitement to bored rich people,
they're selling a service to businesses and governments. The
"tourism" model is pretty much a nonstarter unless they can get the
price down to a level that ordinary people can afford. SpaceX is
trying to do that, the others are trying to fleece a few bored
billionaires.
Post by Dan Tilque
They are
working on a larger rocket that should go into orbit, but I don't know
when they figure it'll be ready. They're not exactly forthcoming with
future plans, but since they only have a single investor, they don't
have to be.
Whenever it's ready, it's likely to be competing with SpaceXs _third_
generation. They don't really seem to have a plan or the kind of
motivation SpaceX has. SpaceX exists because the entire rocket
industry pissed off Elon Musk by refusing to sell him a launch. So
he's already undercutting their prices and he's determined to undercut
them by a lot more.
Elon Musk - the Walmart of the skies.
Perhaps. Right now he's more like Jack the Giant-Killer.
Technologically he's not doing anything that wasn't within the means
of NASA 50 years ago. What's different is that he's not in thrall to
the lobbyists of Big Aerospace who have a vested interest in selling
throwaway rockets.
He's landed reusable boosters. NASA hasn't managed that. Other
than the reusable solid ones used on the shuttle, everything else
has been throwaway. That's one technological advance.
NASA also relanded, and reflew, the Shuttles, far more times than Musk has
reflown boosters.

Problem was, the refurbishment was so complex and expensive, it betrayed all
the promises that re-use would quick and cheaper than throwaways.

pt
Joe Pfeiffer
2018-04-09 03:34:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Blue Origin is going for space tourism, not selling rockets. And
eventually for orbiting space colonies, but that's further out.
That's their story. So far their only customer is United Launch
Alliance which wants to buy engines for the rockets they sell. When
they are actually putting payloads in orbit on their own hardware get
back to me.
Their initial tourism product is going to be suborbital flights. They've
already sent up one such unmanned test. The rocket even landed back on
the pad. They may send up a manned flight later on this year.
A glorified amusement park ride. No competition.
Post by Dan Tilque
Suborbital flights aren't nearly as exciting as going into orbit, so I
expect the number of customers will not be terribly high.
"Exciting"? SpaceX isn't selling excitement to bored rich people,
they're selling a service to businesses and governments. The
"tourism" model is pretty much a nonstarter unless they can get the
price down to a level that ordinary people can afford. SpaceX is
trying to do that, the others are trying to fleece a few bored
billionaires.
Post by Dan Tilque
They are
working on a larger rocket that should go into orbit, but I don't know
when they figure it'll be ready. They're not exactly forthcoming with
future plans, but since they only have a single investor, they don't
have to be.
Whenever it's ready, it's likely to be competing with SpaceXs _third_
generation. They don't really seem to have a plan or the kind of
motivation SpaceX has. SpaceX exists because the entire rocket
industry pissed off Elon Musk by refusing to sell him a launch. So
he's already undercutting their prices and he's determined to undercut
them by a lot more.
Elon Musk - the Walmart of the skies.
I don't like buying from Walmart, but I buy a lot there. Cheap, and the
same quality I can get elsewhere.
Joe Pfeiffer
2018-04-09 03:33:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Blue Origin is going for space tourism, not selling rockets. And
eventually for orbiting space colonies, but that's further out.
That's their story. So far their only customer is United Launch
Alliance which wants to buy engines for the rockets they sell. When
they are actually putting payloads in orbit on their own hardware get
back to me.
Their initial tourism product is going to be suborbital flights. They've
already sent up one such unmanned test. The rocket even landed back on
the pad. They may send up a manned flight later on this year.
A glorified amusement park ride. No competition.
Post by Dan Tilque
Suborbital flights aren't nearly as exciting as going into orbit, so I
expect the number of customers will not be terribly high.
"Exciting"? SpaceX isn't selling excitement to bored rich people,
they're selling a service to businesses and governments. The
"tourism" model is pretty much a nonstarter unless they can get the
price down to a level that ordinary people can afford. SpaceX is
trying to do that, the others are trying to fleece a few bored
billionaires.
To agree with you, suborbital not only isn't as exciting, it isn't
nearly as hard. The leap from "suborbital" to "orbiting space colonies"
is hugely greater than the leap from Alan Shepard to the ISS. If Blue
Origin comes up with an engine ULA actually uses, that'll be a roaring
success.
Cryptoengineer
2018-04-08 15:42:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
SpaceX is using a different business model from the competition. The
competition's business model is based on selling rockets. SpaceX's
business model is selling launches.
Blue Origin is going for space tourism, not selling rockets. And
eventually for orbiting space colonies, but that's further out.
Virgin Galactic is also going for tourism, so they're in competition
with Blue Origin. And there was a recent announcement that someone is
planning a space hotel. No doubt they'll be trying to get both VG and
BO to be able to dock. It may be interesting to see how that works
out.
I wonder how the pool of 'people willing to pay for, and go through
the training for, a space vacation' increases as the price goes down.

At the moment, with the cost of the ticket in the high 7 to low 8
digits, and requiring months of training, its damn few. If they can
get it down to, say, $100,000, theres a *lot* of people who'd be
tempted.

Mush thinks he can get a million people to pay 2-300,000 for a one
way trip to Mars.

pt
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-04-08 17:09:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
SpaceX is using a different business model from the
competition. The competition's business model is based on
selling rockets. SpaceX's business model is selling launches.
Blue Origin is going for space tourism, not selling rockets.
And eventually for orbiting space colonies, but that's further
out.
Virgin Galactic is also going for tourism, so they're in
competition with Blue Origin. And there was a recent
announcement that someone is planning a space hotel. No doubt
they'll be trying to get both VG and BO to be able to dock. It
may be interesting to see how that works out.
I wonder how the pool of 'people willing to pay for, and go
through the training for, a space vacation' increases as the
price goes down.
At the moment, with the cost of the ticket in the high 7 to low
8 digits, and requiring months of training, its damn few. If
they can get it down to, say, $100,000, theres a *lot* of people
who'd be tempted.
Mush thinks he can get a million people to pay 2-300,000 for a
one way trip to Mars.
Or, at least, he thinks he can make a lot of (probably taxpayer
subsidized) money telling people that.
--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
J. Clarke
2018-04-08 17:20:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 10:42:21 -0500, Cryptoengineer
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
SpaceX is using a different business model from the competition. The
competition's business model is based on selling rockets. SpaceX's
business model is selling launches.
Blue Origin is going for space tourism, not selling rockets. And
eventually for orbiting space colonies, but that's further out.
Virgin Galactic is also going for tourism, so they're in competition
with Blue Origin. And there was a recent announcement that someone is
planning a space hotel. No doubt they'll be trying to get both VG and
BO to be able to dock. It may be interesting to see how that works
out.
I wonder how the pool of 'people willing to pay for, and go through
the training for, a space vacation' increases as the price goes down.
At the moment, with the cost of the ticket in the high 7 to low 8
digits, and requiring months of training, its damn few. If they can
get it down to, say, $100,000, theres a *lot* of people who'd be
tempted.
Mush thinks he can get a million people to pay 2-300,000 for a one
way trip to Mars.
BFR is supposed to be configurable to have the same passenger capacity
as an Airbus 380. That gets the per seat price down to under
$10,000.. And why would some kind of special training be needed to
sit in a seat?

He's talking New York to Tokyo in under an hour.

Note that that would not be the capacity going to Mars--you can't
expect people to sit in the same seat for months at a time.
Cryptoengineer
2018-04-09 01:09:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 10:42:21 -0500, Cryptoengineer
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
SpaceX is using a different business model from the competition.
The competition's business model is based on selling rockets.
SpaceX's business model is selling launches.
Blue Origin is going for space tourism, not selling rockets. And
eventually for orbiting space colonies, but that's further out.
Virgin Galactic is also going for tourism, so they're in competition
with Blue Origin. And there was a recent announcement that someone
is planning a space hotel. No doubt they'll be trying to get both VG
and BO to be able to dock. It may be interesting to see how that
works out.
I wonder how the pool of 'people willing to pay for, and go through
the training for, a space vacation' increases as the price goes down.
At the moment, with the cost of the ticket in the high 7 to low 8
digits, and requiring months of training, its damn few. If they can
get it down to, say, $100,000, theres a *lot* of people who'd be
tempted.
Mush thinks he can get a million people to pay 2-300,000 for a one way
trip to Mars.
BFR is supposed to be configurable to have the same passenger capacity
as an Airbus 380. That gets the per seat price down to under
$10,000.. And why would some kind of special training be needed to
sit in a seat?
He's talking New York to Tokyo in under an hour.
With inflation, that's quite a bit cheaper than a trans-atlantic
Concord ticket used to be.

pt
Loading...