20 MINNO (05): NewSpace: Delivering on the Dream


Published on

'The dream ' as foreseen in 1968; a sustainable and evolving human presence in space.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

20 MINNO (05): NewSpace: Delivering on the Dream

  1. 1. NewSpace – Delivering on the Dream (by changing the paradigm) David J. Salt 9th March, 2011NewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 1Darmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  2. 2. What was “The Dream”? “The Dream” as foreseen in 1968… … a sustainable and evolving human presence in space!NewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 2 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  3. 3. What’s the Problem? • It’s not the Rocket Science … we have the technology – all key technologies required to travel to/from space and work there were demonstrated by the Apollo lunar program • We have much better supporting technologies than we had 50 years ago, when Apollo began – manufacturing processes and computer hardware/software have made huge advances and become cheaper! • Nevertheless, commercial space activities are limited to working with ‘photons’ rather than ‘atoms’ because of the space launch dilemma – current launch costs are ~$10000/kg to LEO – new venture need < $1000/kg to LEO to close the business case, so require fully Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs) – BUT current markets are insufficient to justify RLV funding!NewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 3 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  4. 4. The bad news… and the good news • The current ‘space paradigm’ is stagnating! – space activities are still dominated by government programmes supported by ‘commercial’ contractors – all programmes take longer and cost more than planned – future programmes face cut-backs and/or cancellation due to major constraints on government discretionary spending • Evidence suggests we are witnessing the beginning of a major shift towards a new ‘space paradigm’ – new entrepreneurial ventures are developing commercial systems to serve existing and new markets in novel ways – all of these new ventures are founded by individuals from outside the established space industry – their ultimate aim is to establish a sustainable and evolving human presence in space!NewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 4 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  5. 5. NewSpace rationale and approach • Many current NewSpace ventures are focusing their initial efforts on sub-orbital reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) instead of orbital RLVs because they… – are less technically challenging – require significantly less funding – can be developed and tested quicker – offer many potential evolutionary paths to orbit • NewSpace ventures adopt a ‘Skunk Works’ approach to development to meet rapidly evolving markets – investment range is limited to between $10m to $200m – they employ existing systems and technologies, whenever possible, in order to reduce development risk – use small teams evolving designs in small but rapid steps (build, test, correct …)NewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 5 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  6. 6. Who is trying to change the paradigm? XCOR - Lynx Virgin Galactic - SpaceShipTwo Masten - Xoie Blue Origin – New Shepard Armadillo - ModNewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 6 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  7. 7. Where did they get their money? Company Founder Prior Businesses Domain Virgin Galactic Sir Richard Branson Media and commercial services Blue Origin Jeff Bezos Internet services (Amazon) Armadillo Aerospace John Carmack Games developer (Doom/Quake) XCOR Jeff Greason Intel chip developer (Pentium) Masten Space Dave Masten Computer networks (Cisco) SpaceX Elon Musk Internet services (PayPal) Bigelow Aerospace Robert Bigelow Hotels (Budget Suites) Leading NewSpace Venture FoundersNewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 7 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  8. 8. Will they be safe, frequent & low cost? • Several entrepreneurial ventures are very likely to be flying vehicles capable of carrying “space tourist” passengers on sub-orbital flights into space within the next 2 years  BUT revenue earning passenger flights will not begin until the necessary levels of safety and reliability are demonstrated • The first revenue earning flights will therefore carry science and engineering payloads instead of “space tourist” passengers  these flights will also demonstrate frequent (i.e. 4 flights per day) and low ‘cost’ (i.e. <$10k/flight) operations capability • Preliminary indications suggest these new markets could be as significant as space tourism and may be sufficient to justify the business case alone!NewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 8 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  9. 9. Stimulating the new markets • Routine daily flights above 100km into the near-space environment, with accompanying short periods of weightlessness, will likely stimulate new markets • NASA initiative to stimulate the interest of researchers and other groups to exploit such nascent services is being led by NASA Ames called the Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research (CRuSR) Program  Established in 2009 by the Obama administration  Congress recently authorised $15m/year from 2011-2016 to buy initial demonstrator flightsNewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 9 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  10. 10. It’s not just “Space Tourism”! • New sub-orbital markets for science and engineering R&D… – Sensing – Climaterics – Vertical Atmospheric Sampling – Gene Expression – Fluids – Physiology – Emergency Procedures – Countermeasures – Inner Ear Neural Signal – Dust Particle Agglomeration – Metal Alloy Phase Separation – Glovebox Investigations – Combustion – IR and NIR Optics …and even “extreme sports” …NewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 10 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  11. 11. From sub-orbital to orbital • Unfortunately, the limited performance of sub-orbital vehicles prevents them from serving orbital markets! • So, how can sub-orbital vehicles evolve into orbital vehicles? – Energetic difference between sub-orbital (~4Mn) and orbital (~25Mn) missions is a factor of ~40, but for a rocket this just means using more propellant…  – Unfortunately, orbital vehicles also require better/lighter engines (T/W), structures, thermal protection, power and control systems, life support… – BUT such capabilities can be added incrementally as vehicle design evolves and its flight envelope expandsNewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 11 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  12. 12. First steps into orbit Armadillo’s orbital launch concept XCOR’s orbital launch concept Clusters of Mod suborbital vehicle are used to form a reusable booster and expendable upper stage Modified version of Lynx suborbital vehicle with an expendable upper stageNewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 12 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  13. 13. Evolving towards full reusability • An example of how a suborbital vehicle design can “evolve” into a fully reusable orbital systemNewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 13 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  14. 14. NASA orbital initiatives also help • In parallel with sub-orbital developments, NASA is promoting Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) for International Space Station for both logistics re-supply and crew transportation after Shuttle retirement • However, the cost of space access will still be high due to their reliance on ELVs SpaceX Dragon Capsule • Nevertheless, COTS will also boost the business case for commercial space stations in Earth orbit – operating initially as space business parks for both government and industry research – then later as hotels for space tourists • Moreover, if COTS can demonstrate a significant demand for these new markets it will serve to boost the business case for commercial RLVs Bigelow Commercial StationNewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 14 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  15. 15. Steps towards a NewSpace paradigm Year Milestones 2011 Reusable suborbital services for payloads + COTS payload services to ISS ~2013 Small satellite launch services into low Earth orbit via suborbital RLV boosters ~2014 Reusable suborbital services for passenger ~2015 Commercial space station & ELV support + COTS crew rotation to ISS ~2018 2nd generation RLVs for ISS cargo and GEO satellite launch ~2020 2nd generation RLVs for passenger services to ISS and commercial stationsNewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 15 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  16. 16. Concluding remarks • Small entrepreneurial ventures are attempting to change the current space access paradigm by building sub-orbital vehicles to service new markets and, in particular, to enable large numbers of people to become involved in space related activities & commerce • Although there is good reason for cautious optimism, it would be better to regard these ventures as experiments within a process of Darwinian evolution rather than milestones of an overarching space programme because many are likely to fail due to the enormity of the business and technology challenges they face! • Nevertheless, given the current number of NewSpace ventures and their success to date, it seems reasonable to believe that some will “boot-strap” themselves to orbit in the next decade and so begin to deliver on the dream of opening the space frontierNewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 16 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  17. 17. Supplementary/back-up slidesNewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 17 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  18. 18. How did we get here? Half a Century of Spaceflight • 1950’s/60’s: Defence/National Security issues ensure BIG budgets – Apollo was a National Security Programme! • 1970’s: Economic constraints force slow-down of pace – Shuttle helped conserve industrial base – Commercial potentials of space emerge • 1980’s: Military, political and commercial programmes grow – SDIO, GPS, SSF, Commercial Space Launch Act, PanAmSat, etc. • 1990’s: Military/government “rationalisation” but commercial growth – EELV, ISS, VSATs, SkyTV , Iridium, Teledesic, etc. – NewSpace [1st wave – Kistler, Kelly Space, Rotary Rocket, etc] • 2000’s: Commercial “rationalisation” and government re-invention – Iridium, Galileo, VSE/Constellation, ORS, COTS, CRuSR, etc. – NewSpace [2nd wave – Armadillo, Masten, SpaceX, XCOR, etc.]NewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 18 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  19. 19. The Space Access Dilemma • Space access is expensive… the price to get into low Earth orbit is on the order of $10000/kg because current launcher vehicles are extremely expensive to operate – expendables (e.g. Ariane 5) throw away expensive hardware – reusables (i.e. Shuttle) take too much time/effort to turn-around • Fully reusable launchers with airline-like operations could lower the cost of space access by at least an order of magnitude (less than $1000/kg) but… – the estimated cost to develop such vehicles is $10-20 billion – current markets are insufficient to reach flight rates that would justify such a cost because… space access is expensive!NewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 19 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  20. 20. How much do we spend? Perspective: The Global space revenue was $251 billion in 2007, which is a little less than the annual revenue of a single large commercial company (e.g. Wal-Mart) => World airline revenues in 2007 were $470 billion => Lufthansa’s revenue in 2007 was $37.0 billion Question: Without a major government initiative like Apollo, how can we create/encourage the Space Foundation publication “The Space Report 2008” necessary space markets ?NewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 20 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011
  21. 21. Impact on environment & climate • A recent paper** predicts that soot from commercial sub-orbital flights will change global temperatures, with severe climatic impacts – Assumes 10 tonne propellant/launch and 1,000 launches/year using hybrid engine burning synthetic hydrocarbon with nitrous oxide – Models show black carbon ‘soot’ emissions would persist high in stratosphere, potentially altering global atmospheric circulation and distributions of ozone – Simulations show changes to Earths climate could increase polar surface temperatures by 1 °C, and reduce polar sea ice by 5–15% ** Ross, M., M. Mills, and D. Toohey (2010), Potential climate impact of black carbon emitted by rockets, Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2010GL044548 • Authors acknowledge that many uncertainties exist and that their results are very sensitive to assumptions – Assumes propellant loads well in excess of most suborbital vehicles – Use of liquid hydrocarbon/oxygen burning engines reduces assumed black carbon emissions by several orders of magnitude – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates the quantity of soot already in stratosphere is many times greater than the hypothesized emissions – Seems not to have included carbon particles put into the stratosphere by other sources (e.g. natural processes such as meteorite dust) • Although such concerns should not be ignored, there seems to be ignored no justifiable reason to base any future policy upon this assessmentNewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 21 A Finmeccanica CompanyDarmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011