New Space Race - Market Capitalism and Competition

>>7807017
I just hope in the dystopian capitalistic future a poorly vetted disgruntled space miner doesn't kill his coworkers in the darkness of space, one by one, and then hurtle the nickle-iron-palladium minor planet he works on into the Earth.

File: rocket.jpg (183KB, 930x1133px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 930x1133px

You'll never see investments and strides on the scale of the cold war again in your life-time

Expect it to be very slow long process for private space programs to actually go anywhere

>>7807057

That sounds awesome though

>>7807057

where do I sign for space mining battle royale
edition?

>>7807057
Blue Origin and SpaceX are just the beginning. Other companies will join in- Google, Alibaba, etc. It'll be expensive at first but competition and market capitalism will lead to lower prices in the end, just like with the aviation industry.

>>7807057
''Dystopian capitalistic future''
What are you some sort of socialist? A Star Trekkian future will never happen. The basic foundations of government don't allow it. Governments are inherently ineffective and incredibly costly because a) the structure is completely different b) they don't have to worry about going bankrupt in the same way companies do and c) There's no competition anymore and if we had a 1 world government there would be no competition to start with.

>>7807060
You're a pessimist and you have nothing to back up your facts. Everywhere the private industry has made incredible technological breakthroughs, through competition. Look at the automobile industry, aviation industry and computer industry. The process will be much faster then if it were to be done by governments. Within 50 years we will have space tourism on mars. Mark my words.

>>7807017
Nope, it's too expensive with too little room in the market for profit in anything but the longest of long terms. A play now won't see significant profits for 50-100 years. Few have the money to play with those time scales and almost none of those who do want to.
>>7807085
>just like with the aviation industry.
You realize that the only reason the aviation industry still exists is that it's propped up by governments, right?

>land on a barge
>Crash
>land on a barge
>crash
>land on ground
>land
>land on barge
>crash

wtf is spacex doing? land that shit on the turf not the surf.

>>7807095
Previously they weren't allowed. For the most recent launch the Vandenberg landing pad isn't finished.

>>7807017
>I am talking about SpaceX and BlueOrigin. Both of them are creating re-usable rockets.
It's a shame they're both completely shit at it

>>7807093
> aviation industry still exists is that it's propped up by governments

only in USA though...

>>7807093
Yeah, without government subsidies and crony capitalistic entities like defense contractors, government funded research there would be no hope for space travel.

Market forces work really well, but they are all optimized for short run gain. They run companies from quarter to quarter trying to survive against their competitors, a project that won't return a profit for 100 years would never be done by a for-profit firm and would never survive to fruition even if they tried.

>>7807095
>30% of earth's surface is land
>70% is water

>>7807017

Reusable rockets are good but you still have things like:

>Having to rebuild an engine after a single mission
>Having to completly change the heatshield after every reentry.
>Still no SSTO...

these things are as important as reusable rocket(maybe the SSTO is more important but I would have to see a real one first to judge it's defects)

Also, when are going to have nuclear rockets?

>>7807095
Landing on water is safer than landing on the ground. Also the latest barge landing would have failed on the ground too, a landing leg failed to lock, so after a perfect landing, the rocket slowly tipped over before RUD. It is a new anomaly that they will want to address before trying again.

>>7807115
nuclear rockets are really only safe if you build and launch it from space. You don't want a nuclear rocket exploding in the atmosphere.

>>7807115
>Having to rebuild an engine after a single mission

If you have to do that, the rocket isn't reusable. The whole *point* of a reusable rocket is to reuse the engine - that is, by far, the most expensive component, and it's not something that can be simply bolted on to an existing stage with a broken engine.

When people talk about reusable rockets, they're talking, more than anything, about reusable rocket engines.

Anyway, long-term reliable rocket engines are absolutely possible. XCOR's done some pretty impressive work on that front, if you look past their floundering attempts at building a full vehicle.

>>7807115
SSTO is vastly *less* important than reusability. DSTO, and 3STO with an aircraft as the first "stage", are also viable for efficient and rapid reusability so long as you can fly back and reattach all the stages without a large delay or refurbishing.

>>7807115
SSTO is a fucking MEME that only exists because people don't understand basic physics
They think you can have some space plane that flies a mission every day to orbit or something, putting payloads up there, like an airplane.

Maybe it's a possibility with that tri fuel engine those brit-shits are looking at.

>>7807884
>The whole *point* of a reusable rocket is to reuse the engine
I don't agree with this. Some engines can be very simple, particularly pressure-fed ones, and because they can be compact, they can be produced on small machines and easily stockpiled and transported.

If you look at OTRAG, the pressure-fed engines were simply pipes filled with molded ablative material, with a couple of valves installed. Steering was accomplished by differential throttling of multiple engines.

A pistonless pump engine wouldn't need to be much more complex.

>it's not something that can be simply bolted on to an existing stage with a broken engine.
That depends on the design. There's no reason why an engine can't be replaced as easily as changing a tire, if that's the design.

The avionics, fuselage, and tanks are also worth recovering, and recovering engines that are unsuitable for reuse means that you are free to use scarce and costly materials in them because you will at least recover them for recycling.

The essential feature of cost-effective reuse is that the overall vehicle can be made ready to fly again in a short time and at small expense. Single-use engines aren't necessarily incompatible with that.

>>7807109
There is short term profit to be had by sending up small satellites and cubesats. No to mention space tourism

File: SKYLON.jpg (105KB, 1024x487px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1024x487px

>>7808163
>mfw Ameriburgers being uneducated near me

It's called the SABRE engine, and you will be hearing a lot more about it soon enough

>>7808242
>It's called the SABRE engine, and you will be hearing a lot more about it soon enough
Yes, you'll be hearing things like, "Why isn't it working?", "Why is it costing so much?", and "What is even the point of this when the Americans have made good reusable rockets without these exotic engines?"

>>7808242

The US Air Force is investing in this technology because officials see the potential it has.

>>7808250
The US Air Force is investing in this technology because they think they'd get away with using hypersonic cruise missiles for the things they'd like to use ballistic missiles for, but can't because ballistic missiles are assumed to carry nuclear weapons and would provoke a nuclear response.

It hasn't really got anything to do with orbital launch, for them.

bump not letting it die

what are your thoughts about those Bigolow inflatable modules? They have already had 2 test modules in space for like 10 000 orbits and one is going up to the ISS on the next re-supply mission.

File: TheExpanse_gallery_106FunFacts_03.jpg (805KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

805KB, 1920x1080px

>>7807057
A man's gotta stand up.

>>7809492
I wonder what space debris would do to it.

File: Pad_39_A_Falcon_Heavy_Artist_Cropped.jpg (1MB, 1549x2273px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1549x2273px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter

>>7809655
but thats not a MCT......

>>7809625
same here, but having read about the whole design idea, it seems like its on the same level as a "normal" space-station module, impact-wise

>>7808235
I'd like to see someone break up a small mineral rich asteroid with a missile, knock some debris down to earth, and then collect the rewards.

File: Bigelow_Aerospace_facilities.jpg (2MB, 4256x2832px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4256x2832px

>>7809838
I've also looked a bit into myself and I've gotten quite enthusiastic about them. They're models look really good and their interior also.

>>7810035
Why not attach thrusters to the asteroid and direct it to a dedicated crash area on earth (sahara maybe) then collect it.

File: bigelow2.jpg (216KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 960x640px

Bigolow and SpaceX should team up.
But Bigolow's marketing sucks. Their product is awesome and they could become really popular if they made pop-sci / sci fi video's to promote their product like spaceX is doing. That gets really well with the reddit crowd. Get a good Morgan Freeman like sounding narrator and talk about securing the existence of the human race to space and what not and every nerd will be drooling for you and ready to donate and others will invest. With private space industry marketing is incredibly important.

>>7810035
>>7810221
and how do you not fuck that up?

>>7811284
JUST

>>7807099
Its not that they haven't built a landing pad. For Polar Launches from Vandenberg there's no place to put a pad. The Falcon-9R lacks the cross range capability needed to land on solid ground. And that's not even going for a landing on US soil.

>>7807017
>w-welcome to the c-c-club

Said while being completely upstaged.

>>7811353
Doesn't matter. Rocket technology competition between such big billionaires is always good. Let em hate each other

>>7811753
>>7811353
This is true though. The moment we start working together is when everything stagnates. When there is competition there is drive. Look at Soviet Union vs USA. It was incredible. Now the same thing is happening between these upcoming private space enterprises. I just hope they never join each other and create a monopoly that would be the death of advancement.

Your "market capitalist" space industry would be virtually non-existent if it wasn't for state contracts, with the money coming from the state budget.

The state should buy up successful space companies and keep the personnel (the CEOs and leaders etc.) which make them successful as to avoid profits from being accumulated in a few hands.

>>7811768
False. SpaceX is a privately funded space transportation company. It developed its first launch vehicle—Falcon 1—and three rocket engines—Merlin, Kestrel, and Draco—completely with private capital. SpaceX contracted with the US government ONLY FOR A portion of the development funding for the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, which uses a modified version of the Merlin rocket engine. SpaceX is developing the Falcon Heavy launch vehicle, the Raptor methane-fueled rocket engine, and a set of reusable launch vehicle technologies with PRIVATE CAPITAL.

In January 2015, SpaceX raised $1 billion in funding from Google and Fidelity, in exchange for 8.333% of the company, establishing the company valuation at approximately $12 billion.

When it comes to MISSIONS, however, you are right to a degree. In August 2012, SpaceX signed a large development contract with NASA to design and develop a crew-carrying space capsule for the "next generation of U.S. human spaceflight capabilities", in order to re-enable the launch of astronauts from U.S. soil by 2017. Two other companies, Boeing and Sierra Nevada Corporation, received similar development contracts. As of May 2012, SpaceX had operated on total funding of approximately $1 billion in its first ten years of operation. Of this, private equity provided about $200M, with Musk investing approximately $100M and other investors having put in about $100M (Founders Fund, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, ...).[48] The remainder has come from progress payments on long-term launch contracts and development contracts. As of April 2012, NASA had put in about $400–500M of this amount, with most of that as progress payments on launch contracts.

>The state should buy up successful space companies and keep the personnel (the CEOs and leaders etc.) which make them successful as to avoid profits from being accumulated in a few hands.

Musk won't let the government buy his company. I don't see why Bezos would do it either.

And it's not really competition which sparked huge advancements in the space industry. The aspirations of building a proper socialist system did, which sadly failed. Space was seen as a way of showing the dominance of the socialist system.

Should a proper socialist system which doesn't suffer from inefficiencies of a centralized planned economy be established (such as a democratic market socialist one), the space industry could flourish again.
The reason why, is because the state would have more resources to spend on space under a socialist system, due to the fact that it would have access to the profit of the entire economy.

>>7811782
Yeah, let's forget the $4.5 in subsidies SpaceX received from the state budget. A huge portion of SpaceX's funding comes from the state. Not only that, the entire private space industry would fail to develop should it not be for the state which handed out contracts and subsidies like candy when the Obama administration came to office.

File: cocktail.jpg.w300h300.jpg (16KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x300px

>>7811782
Lying by omission is so typical of market capitalists.
"Look at how successful the market capitalist system is! Oh, don't mind this distribution of wealth."
"What did you say? Maybe we should keep democracy and the market system but put the property in the hands of the majority (democratic market socialism)? [Switches topic]"

>>7807115
SSTO is less than worthless unless it is also reusable, sure it gets to space in a single stage, which by definition is less fuel efficient than multi stage, and requires a vehicle with even smaller tolerances and with funky engines that are good at ground level and in orbit. but then you throw it away, fuel is not the most expensive part of this problem the vehicle itself is.

solid core rockets will never work on the ground as their thrust to weight ratio is too low like 7:1 on its own, when rp-1 lox engines can be like 100:1, they would be useful for mars/moon stuff tho, and should be reusable, only need cryogenic turbopumps and a nuclear core.

liquid and gaseous core nuclear rockets are nothing more than the wet dream of aerospace engineers right now, and i doubt they would be developed in our lifetimes let alone launched.

>>7811790
If you want to own a piece of SpaceX then fucking buy a stock. That is the only collective of the means of production that has ever existed. If you want to own a piece of oil then buy an oil stock. Or if you want to own a piece of farm then buy a farm stock. Happy now?

Socialism is fucking dead. It never worked. It never will. Government can't provide food. If you are referring to socialism in a social democracy kind of way- expect no funding for space. The budgets simply don't allow it.
Where are you going to find these angles who will organise society for us?

>Oh, don't mind this distribution of wealth.
This is typical of socialists. Of course the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is because rich parents teach their kids how to be financially literate and responsible, how to invest in stocks and bonds etc. While poor parents never learned to be financially responsible. Poor parents are never financially and economically literate. And when they do get money to buy all these liabilities that raise their debts. And then they need more money so they work harder. The problem lies with the family itself. The primary difference between the Have's and the Havenots is that the Have's now that your assets must exceed your liabilities and not the other way around. They understand that a job is a short term solution to a long term problem. Don't work for the money, let the money work for you.

>>7811827
wait, does SpaceX have stocks for sale?

>>7811790
>>reddit

>>7811819
they did have working NERVA-designs running for hours combined back in the 60's and 70's, so it seems like most of the technical stuff was worked out back then. The only thing holding us back is money and politics, it seems

Thirty year old who still doesn't know what "subsidy" means, reporting in.

>>7811879
No. Tesla however does. Elon said SpaceX will have stocks for sales after the MCT.

>>7811887
might get me some of those.....just 4 shits&giggles

File: Capture.png (67KB, 608x351px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 608x351px

>>7807095
Because higher altitude = higher velocity = impossible to return to the landing site.

>>7811819
>SSTO is less than worthless unless it is also reusable, sure it gets to space in a single stage, which by definition is less fuel efficient than multi stage
This assumes that the depleted rocket itself is not considered useful.

Consider the "wet workshop" concept for a space station, where the depleted fuel tank becomes a habitable volume.

>>7811884
Free money from the government. So basically, its welfare.

>>7812018
It might make some sense to just develop the cheapest SSTO (or stage-and-a-half engine-dropper) possible made out of materials you want in space, and consider any additional payload as a bonus.

>>7807085
>Blue Origin and SpaceX are just the beginning.

No, Scaled Composites and Virgin Group were the beginning, but that's not working out so well, so you automatically erased that group from your collective minds.

There's a reason why the Virgin effort is failing, but none of you virgin-nerds will admit it. It's failing since the entire effort is highly uneconomic, like when Paul Allen spent $25 million on a spacecraft just to win a $10 million X-Prize. It's all wasted money.

Humanity will be setting manned spaceflight aside permanently within our lifetimes. There's no economic model that supports such things.

>>7807060
Buran was superior tbqh

>>7812213
>what are extraterrestrial resources

>>7812213
>>Blue Origin and SpaceX are just the beginning.
>Scaled Composites and Virgin Group were the beginning
Oh, bullshit. They weren't the only X Prize competitors, and SpaceX was already around when SpaceShipOne flew and Virgin Galactic was founded.

Anyway, when somebody says, "X is just the beginning!" they mean, "There will be a lot more than X!" not "X was the first thing!"

>Humanity will be setting manned spaceflight aside permanently within our lifetimes. There's no economic model that supports such things.
Your schizophrenia is showing again, VSG.

>>7812213
>Humanity will be setting manned spaceflight aside permanently within our lifetimes. There's no economic model that supports such things.

Still crying that the Soviet Union fell? Fucking cynic, cry yourself to sleep babby. Grown ups have taken over now. Don't forget SpaceX got a highly potential hyperloop coming.

>>7811819
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket

File: 1450472316087.jpg (46KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x375px

>>7807060
>posts a failed government project that took 20 years to develop and costs hundreds of billions of dollars that achieved literally nothing new besides killing the most astronauts
>guys private space is going to be slow

spacex has done more for spaceflight in 10 years than NASA in the past 30

>>7812843

I was trying to point out that your starters aren't starting. The craft went into museums. Then Scaled Composites got out of the venture. Now Virgin is scaling back SS3; it's a suborbital jaunt now.

The issue is that there just aren't enough rich people to sustain this silly UNECONOMIC exercise. I told you fools that long ago, and I keep repeating it. Any general venture that relies on specific participants to keep it going, is by definition UNECONOMIC.

I hate that you virgin-nerds can't be bothered to brush off the Cheetos dust from your semen-stained fingers long enough to see all this propaganda for what it is. Hope is your religion, and that's fairly odd since you basement-dwellers keep insisting how logical and rational and oh-so-scientific you all are. You're retards and hypocrites, in truth. And con men like Musk and Rutan know it.

I'm probably going to live for 30 more years. And I predict that 30 years from now, I'll still be (feebly) typing on some blog about how all of you momma's boys keep falling for the same propaganda.

>>7815627
>What? "Colonialism"? Pah, there's nothing in the New World, it's simply UNECONOMIC.

>>7815627
>your starters aren't starting. The craft went into museums.
Yeah, man. SpaceX is going nowhere.

Let me guess, you're living on disability benefits, with a psychiatric diagnosis, and you just spend all day going around from forum to forum trying to feel like you actually understand the world better than everyone else.

Give up on that. Stop escaping into fantasies of being relevant to the big picture and work harder on your own life. You can make something of that, if you focus on it.