Launching into space is far from solved - the costs are still way too high for any venture other than government funded research (satellites, probes, Mars rovers, ISS etc) and comms & broadcast satellites to take off.
This is why it's super important for Starship and other potentially game-changing launch systems to succeed - to enable affordable mass scale space tourism, asteroid mining, manned space exploration beyond LEO and other stuff that could be but is not done in space.
Traveling to space will always be expensive due to the physics involved. Naturally, lower prices are always positive. But I think that prices are already low enough to warrant interest in other areas. Using SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket you can already send cargo to space for $3000-4000 per kg. It is a lot of money, no doubt about it, but not so much that it is an effective barrier for well-financed entrepreneurs. SpaceX has promised that Starship will eventually bring launch costs below $1000 per kg. That would be welcome, but it is not really game-changing.
That would have been fantastic if it turned out to be true. And potentially game-changing. But I have my doubts.
$10 per kg is approximately the cost for fuel on Falcon 9. I assume kerosene (Falcon 9) and methane (Starship) are about the same price. Raw physics should make it impossible to lower these fuel costs in any meaningful way.
Incidentally, modern airlines have around 10% of their expenses as fuel expenses. The airline business is significantly more efficient than the orbital launch business but it should be possible for the launch businesses to reach the same proportions. Then the launch cost would be $100 per kg. Hopefully we will get there, but I think that point is still several decades away.
I definitely agree we need to do more stuff in space. And I think we are. It's possible for startups to launch satellites nowadays with just around a Series A investment, in a way it wasn't ten years ago. But it would still help for launch costs to come down. The cost of launch still dominates the cost of hardware for most applications, like communications satellites.
So it would be nice for SpaceX to have a real competitor, to keep it competitive. Sure, they have a lead for now, but is it really insurmountable forever? I doubt it. Eventually there will probably be at least one more successful company in the launch business.
This is my point (I think). Launch costs have tumbled so far that they are not really the issue anymore. Anyone with half-decent funding can launch things into space. What is lacking these days are not launch capacity or funding but rather ambition and competence. Serious entrepreneurs should focus their efforts where it is still possible to make a difference, which is in space rather than on the way to space.
Most of all I cannot understand Jeff Bezos. He is notionally uninterested in the launch business and solely focused on space colonization. He should just let go of the rocketry and concentrate on space habitats. I suppose it is some sort of sunk-cost fallacy. He just cannot let go of 20 years of investment. Which is sort of incomprehensible since he is supposed to be a smart guy.
Bezos I think is the best person to compete with SpaceX. Think of Amazon going into the cloud business. There were many competitors already, but Amazon managed to take a large chunk of the market and make good margins, by doing a lot of infrastructure things better.
There is some reason to what you are saying. I just do not think Bezos and Blue Origin have been very impressive so far. I assume SpaceX is more worried about the Chinese, who also keep up an impressively high number of orbital launches.
> If we intend to ever expand beyond this planet there are many things we need to do first. We need to send out probes to map our solar system in much greater detail.
Would I be correct in assuming that you're referring to the Kuiper Belt?
Why is a better map of the solar system necessary to leave the solar system?
I am mostly referring to the asteroid belt. Humanity has a decent understanding of all the planets and their moons. But it is in the asteroid belt that the most accessible resources are located. And we know only comparatively little about comparatively few asteroids. Before starting any resource extraction from the asteroids it would be wise to map the available resources in more detail. To make sure that the most easily accessible resources are extracted first.
Understanding the dynamics of the Main Belt will be important as well. Though I never studied the asteroids specifically for my physics degree, I do know there's quite a bit of churn, resulting in collisions and exchanges of energy that can change the mining potential of any asteroid.
It isn't hard to imagine carefully identifying a metal-rich asteroid in a vacuous area, only to find that, once you're in a synchronous orbital position, the asteroid has started spinning, or other asteroids have moved nearby, in a way that renders it unexploitable.
The problem is that there are literally astronomical numbers of asteroids in the asteroid belt. Especially of the 1-10 meter diameter which I think is most suitable for early extraction (you catch them and put them directly in the crusher, more or less). And since there is a lot of variance in asteroid orbital characteristics there will be some asteroids that are significantly easier to catch than others. Finding the right ones will require exploration on a whole different level than today.
As a side note I do not think that metal-rich asteroids will be the first target. In order to get that quick cashflow I think it is better to look for an icy (or rather hydrated) asteroid that can yield significant water resources. Water can be sold as fuel (hydrogen and oxygen) to Nasa and other space travelers. Sending humans to Mars will require lots of fuel. And since fuel sent from Earth's surface is exorbitantly expensive there is a market niche for providing space produced rocket fuel.
Launching into space is far from solved - the costs are still way too high for any venture other than government funded research (satellites, probes, Mars rovers, ISS etc) and comms & broadcast satellites to take off.
This is why it's super important for Starship and other potentially game-changing launch systems to succeed - to enable affordable mass scale space tourism, asteroid mining, manned space exploration beyond LEO and other stuff that could be but is not done in space.
Traveling to space will always be expensive due to the physics involved. Naturally, lower prices are always positive. But I think that prices are already low enough to warrant interest in other areas. Using SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket you can already send cargo to space for $3000-4000 per kg. It is a lot of money, no doubt about it, but not so much that it is an effective barrier for well-financed entrepreneurs. SpaceX has promised that Starship will eventually bring launch costs below $1000 per kg. That would be welcome, but it is not really game-changing.
Starship can potentially reduce the cost of launching to LEO to $10-$100 per kg (source: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/01/how-will-spacex-bring-the-cost-to-space-down-to-10-per-kilogram-from-over-1000-per-kilogram.html). If so, that will be game-changing.
That would have been fantastic if it turned out to be true. And potentially game-changing. But I have my doubts.
$10 per kg is approximately the cost for fuel on Falcon 9. I assume kerosene (Falcon 9) and methane (Starship) are about the same price. Raw physics should make it impossible to lower these fuel costs in any meaningful way.
Incidentally, modern airlines have around 10% of their expenses as fuel expenses. The airline business is significantly more efficient than the orbital launch business but it should be possible for the launch businesses to reach the same proportions. Then the launch cost would be $100 per kg. Hopefully we will get there, but I think that point is still several decades away.
I definitely agree we need to do more stuff in space. And I think we are. It's possible for startups to launch satellites nowadays with just around a Series A investment, in a way it wasn't ten years ago. But it would still help for launch costs to come down. The cost of launch still dominates the cost of hardware for most applications, like communications satellites.
So it would be nice for SpaceX to have a real competitor, to keep it competitive. Sure, they have a lead for now, but is it really insurmountable forever? I doubt it. Eventually there will probably be at least one more successful company in the launch business.
This is my point (I think). Launch costs have tumbled so far that they are not really the issue anymore. Anyone with half-decent funding can launch things into space. What is lacking these days are not launch capacity or funding but rather ambition and competence. Serious entrepreneurs should focus their efforts where it is still possible to make a difference, which is in space rather than on the way to space.
Most of all I cannot understand Jeff Bezos. He is notionally uninterested in the launch business and solely focused on space colonization. He should just let go of the rocketry and concentrate on space habitats. I suppose it is some sort of sunk-cost fallacy. He just cannot let go of 20 years of investment. Which is sort of incomprehensible since he is supposed to be a smart guy.
Bezos I think is the best person to compete with SpaceX. Think of Amazon going into the cloud business. There were many competitors already, but Amazon managed to take a large chunk of the market and make good margins, by doing a lot of infrastructure things better.
There is some reason to what you are saying. I just do not think Bezos and Blue Origin have been very impressive so far. I assume SpaceX is more worried about the Chinese, who also keep up an impressively high number of orbital launches.
> If we intend to ever expand beyond this planet there are many things we need to do first. We need to send out probes to map our solar system in much greater detail.
Would I be correct in assuming that you're referring to the Kuiper Belt?
Why is a better map of the solar system necessary to leave the solar system?
I am mostly referring to the asteroid belt. Humanity has a decent understanding of all the planets and their moons. But it is in the asteroid belt that the most accessible resources are located. And we know only comparatively little about comparatively few asteroids. Before starting any resource extraction from the asteroids it would be wise to map the available resources in more detail. To make sure that the most easily accessible resources are extracted first.
Understanding the dynamics of the Main Belt will be important as well. Though I never studied the asteroids specifically for my physics degree, I do know there's quite a bit of churn, resulting in collisions and exchanges of energy that can change the mining potential of any asteroid.
It isn't hard to imagine carefully identifying a metal-rich asteroid in a vacuous area, only to find that, once you're in a synchronous orbital position, the asteroid has started spinning, or other asteroids have moved nearby, in a way that renders it unexploitable.
The problem is that there are literally astronomical numbers of asteroids in the asteroid belt. Especially of the 1-10 meter diameter which I think is most suitable for early extraction (you catch them and put them directly in the crusher, more or less). And since there is a lot of variance in asteroid orbital characteristics there will be some asteroids that are significantly easier to catch than others. Finding the right ones will require exploration on a whole different level than today.
As a side note I do not think that metal-rich asteroids will be the first target. In order to get that quick cashflow I think it is better to look for an icy (or rather hydrated) asteroid that can yield significant water resources. Water can be sold as fuel (hydrogen and oxygen) to Nasa and other space travelers. Sending humans to Mars will require lots of fuel. And since fuel sent from Earth's surface is exorbitantly expensive there is a market niche for providing space produced rocket fuel.