A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

'New port of call' installed at space station



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 22nd 16, 02:04 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default 'New port of call' installed at space station




'New port of call' installed at space station

https://www.mojahedin.org/newsen/48814
  #2  
Old August 23rd 16, 10:57 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default 'New port of call' installed at space station

In article ,
says...

'New port of call' installed at space station

https://www.mojahedin.org/newsen/48814

I hate all the euphemisms that the press (or NASA PAO) comes up with.
It's a new type of docking port.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #3  
Old August 24th 16, 01:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default 'New port of call' installed at space station

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 1:04:40 PM UTC+12, jonathan wrote:
'New port of call' installed at space station

https://www.mojahedin.org/newsen/48814


If NASA wants to sell its interest, and Russia is reducing crews, the only way forward is for private initiatives to take up the slack.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08...te_enterprise/

Bigelow modules launched on SpaceX Falcon Heavy rockets - docked with a privatised Space Station - provide core capabilities.

https://bigelowaerospace.com

Two B330 modules launched on a Falcon Heavy attached to the space station provide 3 suites for up to 12 people. (3 suites in each B330 module) - serviced by a Dragon Capsule carrying 6 people + 1 crew each.

Terrestrial hotels run between $50,000 and $90,000 a night and are quite luxurious.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/18/tr...e-hotel-rooms/

B330 modules, not so much, but you'd be surprised what can be achieved if you try! Luxury yachts don't compare to the best hotels, but they do compare with quite good ones.

Charging $1,000,000 a night, for a 7 night stay, for a shared room, is not beyond the pale, especially if the ticket to get to the station costs several millions of dollars.

With six B330 modules attached, four with a total of a dozen suites for 24 people, and two for services, such as a full service five star restaurant in one and a zero gee gymnasium in the other - permits $24 million to be earned by the station proper, and likely another $16 million to be earned selling additional services and products. $40 million a day.

That's $14.6 billion a year. This is about $12 billion more than NASA's estimate and $9 billion more than OAG and GAO estimates of future costs for the ISS.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/new...rly-optimistic

I don't think such plans would pass muster in large publicly traded companies like Boeing or Lockheed. In fact, they'd likely charge the government to run ISS. So, if the government wants to get out from under these costs, a private company like Musk's SpaceX or Robert Bigelow's Bigelow Aerospace are the only serious candidates capable of seriously stepping up to the challenge. The big risk is that a future administration may order the station demolished as a hazard to space commerce. This is why I promoted the idea a few years back of moving the station out of harm's way putting it into Lunar orbit. There is a lot to recommend this. But, this is something that might be done after ten years or so, to revitalise the operation.

Is the market for multi-million dollar joy rides large enough to support development of the core techniques used to settle Mars in a few decades?

Well, 24 people a week, multiplied by 52 weeks is 1,248 people a week spending $40 million - That's a lot of money. It's what a significant home costs in the English countryside.

http://www.architecturaldigest.com/g...s-for-sale/all

Still its less than many luxury yachts, or a BBJ which people spend very little time on.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/bbj/

Many of these are chartered - so, one might imagine a fractional ownership plan.

Here's the view from the cockpit of an aircraft that is available for charter near where I live

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mxmFCw-Dig

Market pentration of about 5% is reasonable in whatever it is you're selling so, we're talking about 25,000 people as your target population and a 12 year product life cycle before the bottom falls out of the market. (60% ultimate market penetration at 5% per year) This should be enough to make the upgrades discussed above pay. If the people involved have the money to spend.

The point is, this sets the price.

How many are there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_...rth_individual

There are 211,275 people worth $30 million or more who control $29.7 trillion in liquid assets. There are 2,325 billionaires ($1,000 million or more) who control $7.3 trillion in liquid assets. Both cohorts are at the extreme end of the wealth spectrum, so their distribution is exponential at this point. So, numbers can be estimated by;

N = b * exp( a * W ) --- N = 242,894 * exp( -0.004648907* W)

So, someone who would spend on the order of $100 million for a week in space would likely have a net work of $250 million or more. There are likely 75,975 persons with this level of wealth. This is more than 3x the figure needed to get the volume called for.

In fact we can use the inverse of this function, to determine that we should pitch to people who are worth $489 million and above only - to get the target population required. This is an interesting figure in that $40 million for a week on orbit - is less than 10% of their net worth.

Another fun fact, people routinely spend $100 million or more for luxury yachts, and spend $100,000 per week or more to operate them. While they're nowhere near the price called for in the first generation space hotel, they do demonstrate that absolute luxury is not a requisite (though these yachts are quite luxurious, I looked at purchasing Mustang Sally from the owner of Subway a few years back) That is the accomodations on orbit won't be as good as the best accomodations on Earth, but they will be equal to that of the best luxury yachts.

http://www.yachtmustangsally.com

People who are worth more than $489 million generally have vital businesses and see a significant rate of growth, although today's economic downturn, growth has fallen below the double digits on average (though not in Asia)

https://www.worldwealthreport.com/Gl...ealth-Expanded

A growth of 4.2% per year means these individuals add $20 million per year to their asset base on average. If we take the top 5% - they add more than the $40 million they may spend.

This means that if new adventures may be provided at this price point, they will be purchased at this price point every few years, which fits well with the synodic period to Mars!

In fact, an investment programme through a major brokerage house can be imagined that attract and cater to this $489 million and more club - and arrange to manage their affairs so that the purchase price is relatively painless.

The advantage to companies like SpaceX and Bigelow, is that they can be assured of clients and they don't have to enter the conventional advertising market in ways that clients may find troubling. That is, privacy can be assured and publicity controlled.

That is, you don't see advertising on TV or in the media for BBJ or luxury yachts the way you do Toyota SUVs and fishing boats.

The revenue is used to develop advanced life support, and biosuits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbazOdEQxuE

Beyond LEO - a Dragon Capsule, outfitted with a kick stage consisting principally of hypergolic propellant tank plumbed to the landing engine, take seven people (1 crew and six passengers) to the vicinity of the moon, from the space station.

Once in Lunar Orbit, crew and passengers hop down to the lunar surface and back to orbit, using rocket belts. This is the way to get the most bang for the buck. A B330 module may be part of this adventure. Equipped and readied at the space station, and moved into Trans Lunar Injection with a boost from Dragon Capsule rocket.

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/lunar-flying-units-1969/

This would be awesome! Wingsuit training, training at the ISS in LEO and diving from orbit to the surface, would all be fabulously popular - and set the stage for expanded lunar exploration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnvvsjstveM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHtvDA0W34I

And a trial run for a Mars mission.

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/t..._company.shtml

Arriving at Diemos, and using a rocket belt to land on the red planet and return to the mission module in Mars orbit - providing multiple landings at multiple sites - that are of real interest to travelers.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/...the-Red-Planet

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/...urface-of-Mars

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...rees-Mars.html

  #4  
Old August 24th 16, 02:11 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default 'New port of call' installed at space station

"William Mook" wrote in message
...

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 1:04:40 PM UTC+12, jonathan wrote:
'New port of call' installed at space station

https://www.mojahedin.org/newsen/48814


If NASA wants to sell its interest, and Russia is reducing crews, the only
way forward is for private initiatives to take up the slack.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08...te_enterprise/

Bigelow modules launched on SpaceX Falcon Heavy rockets - docked with a
privatised Space Station - provide core capabilities.


What benefit does SpaceX or Bigelow get from docking to the current ISS?
They're far better off launching to their own station, in a better orbit,
with newer equipment.

The rest of Mook Math snipped.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

  #5  
Old August 24th 16, 02:46 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default 'New port of call' installed at space station

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
web.com...

On 2016-08-23 21:11, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

What benefit does SpaceX or Bigelow get from docking to the current ISS?
They're far better off launching to their own station, in a better orbit,
with newer equipment.


Think IP. SpaceX gets rights to CBM specs/designs, the ECLSS
technologies that have been developped and debugged, debris shelding,
toilet etc. All this happens to be very valuable if you intend to goto
Mars (or hopefully gosub Mars).


Huh? IP? You realize NASA is a public agency. Pretty much everything it
does is public information.

As for CBM, considering that's being replaced (that's what this new port is)
that doesn't help SpaceX. And guess what? SpaceX already HAS the specs on
the new IDA. It has to because it's what Dragon will be docking at! And
there's no way they'd get the "rights" to it.

Debris shielding is pretty well known.
As for toilets, from what I understand, they'd want to talk to the Russians
for a better one.


And if SpaceX gets to commercially operate the US facilities, then it
gets to control the CBM and docking ports, giving itself priorioty for
shipments of cargo and humans. So if any nation wnats to send
astronauts/experiments to the US segment, they would have to deal with
SpaceX, Orbital would likely lose much business. (And Boeing).


Or... that nation or company simply goes to the Russians, buys a few cans
from them. Or goes to Bigelow and buys a balloon from them.


Remember that SpaceX would likely have to cater to its customers, the
other non-USA member of the ISS who will still want to make use of the
facility. So SpaceX runs the "hotel" and transportation services to
allow nations to do experiements in their modules or on a SPaceX module
such as Destiny.


No, since micro-g science and tourism really don't mix well.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

  #6  
Old August 24th 16, 04:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 'New port of call' installed at space station

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-08-23 21:11, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

What benefit does SpaceX or Bigelow get from docking to the current ISS?
They're far better off launching to their own station, in a better orbit,
with newer equipment.


Think IP. SpaceX gets rights to CBM specs/designs, the ECLSS
technologies that have been developped and debugged, debris shelding,
toilet etc. All this happens to be very valuable if you intend to goto
Mars (or hopefully gosub Mars).


Buying a car doesn't give you access to or rights to the IP in the
car. If it's about IP, you buy the IP, not the car. In addition,
since ISS is NASA the IP is already public. Most of the IP isn't what
you want for a Mars trip anyway.


And if SpaceX gets to commercially operate the US facilities, then it
gets to control the CBM and docking ports, giving itself priorioty for
shipments of cargo and humans. So if any nation wnats to send
astronauts/experiments to the US segment, they would have to deal with
SpaceX, Orbital would likely lose much business. (And Boeing).


They get that by putting up their own station, too, only better. ISS
is in a horrible orbital plane. This was done deliberately so that
Russian launchers can reach it. SpaceX would want a station (if they
want a station) in a much lower inclination orbit.


Remember that SpaceX would likely have to cater to its customers, the
other non-USA member of the ISS who will still want to make use of the
facility. So SpaceX runs the "hotel" and transportation services to
allow nations to do experiements in their modules or on a SPaceX module
such as Destiny.


Which brings us back to the question of why? What advantage does
SpaceX get out of this? I don't see one.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #7  
Old August 24th 16, 05:58 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default 'New port of call' installed at space station

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
b.com...

On 2016-08-24 11:54, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Buying a car doesn't give you access to or rights to the IP in the
car. If it's about IP, you buy the IP, not the car. In addition,
since ISS is NASA the IP is already public. Most of the IP isn't what
you want for a Mars trip anyway.


Ok, then, perhaps the value is in running the thing for a few years to
get experience on how to run an "expedition ship". Right now, SpaceX has
0 experience in manned spaceflight.


So.. they can take over a station build and designed in the 80s, 90s and
00s.....

Or, like they have with everything else, start with a fresh slate and build
something designed to their needs.

SpaceX has basically been successful from ignoring many of the "lessons" of
the past (such as LH2 main stage engines)


The IP may be public domain, but the experience on how to operate such a
ship can only be gained by running it. A lot of knowledge transfer would
happen if SpaceX also gets to transfer ISS employees to SpaceX.


They get that by putting up their own station, too, only better.


Putting up its own station will work a lot better if SpaceX will have
had experience running the ISS, finding out what its advantages and
pitfalls are. Just as the USA did with Mir before designing ISS with
bigger doors etc.


Except now, SpaceX can simply HIRE the people with the experience and have
them design it here on Earth.



ISS
is in a horrible orbital plane. This was done deliberately so that
Russian launchers can reach it. SpaceX would want a station (if they
want a station) in a much lower inclination orbit.


Unless the trip to Mars will be an international venture and they also
want Russians to participate. (Russia may be a "bad boy" right now, but
that gets quickly forgotten after change of president).


SpaceX will have NO desire to work with Russia.


Without a vehicle such as the Shuttle, the ISS becomes a fully equipped
garage to build a new ship. Complete with power, arms, ECLSS and taxi
service, software to get ships to it and station keep next to it etc
which makes starting assmebly of new vehicle really easy.


No, it's a lousy station for that. If you want that, design it from
scratch. Even NASA understands that.


Yeah, high inclination means lower payloads and more launches. But you
get to start with real assmebly righta way because the ISS is already
fully equipped, so you save on some flights early on until the new ship
has enough autonomy that it no longer requires ISS support.


So how did we build ISS again? Oh right, not with another station right
there.

Give me a Falcon Heavy launch and I'm pretty confident I can get something
up there that can be autonomous until my next launch.


Which brings us back to the question of why? What advantage does
SpaceX get out of this? I don't see one.


I can see some advantages. Whether they are worth it is another question.

There could be "ego" involved too. SpaceX winning contract to run the
IUS side of station would be a blow to Boeing and others and give SpaceX
much international stature/recognition.


Yes, because SpaceX is all about the ego.

That may help it get the contract to get to Mars over the other guys.


"get the contract"

Umm, I'm pretty sure Musk is going regardless of any contract.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

  #8  
Old August 24th 16, 09:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 'New port of call' installed at space station

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-08-24 11:54, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Buying a car doesn't give you access to or rights to the IP in the
car. If it's about IP, you buy the IP, not the car. In addition,
since ISS is NASA the IP is already public. Most of the IP isn't what
you want for a Mars trip anyway.


Ok, then, perhaps the value is in running the thing for a few years to
get experience on how to run an "expedition ship". Right now, SpaceX has
0 experience in manned spaceflight.


The only way experience gained from ISS would help is if your
'expedition ship' is built out of ISS parts. It won't be.


The IP may be public domain, but the experience on how to operate such a
ship can only be gained by running it. A lot of knowledge transfer would
happen if SpaceX also gets to transfer ISS employees to SpaceX.


The only way that experience helps is if you need experience on
operating ISS. SpaceX doesn't, since whatever they build won't be
ISS. Why in the hell would they want to 'transfer employees'? They
aren't slaves, you know. If SpaceX wants them, they'll just hire
them.


They get that by putting up their own station, too, only better.


Putting up its own station will work a lot better if SpaceX will have
had experience running the ISS, finding out what its advantages and
pitfalls are. Just as the USA did with Mir before designing ISS with
bigger doors etc.


What are you gibbering about now? Mir had nothing to do with ISS, was
never operated by NASA to 'gain experience' that you seem to think is
so crucial.



ISS
is in a horrible orbital plane. This was done deliberately so that
Russian launchers can reach it. SpaceX would want a station (if they
want a station) in a much lower inclination orbit.


Unless the trip to Mars will be an international venture and they also
want Russians to participate. (Russia may be a "bad boy" right now, but
that gets quickly forgotten after change of president).


Why in the **** would SpaceX want to partner with Russia?


Without a vehicle such as the Shuttle, the ISS becomes a fully equipped
garage to build a new ship. Complete with power, arms, ECLSS and taxi
service, software to get ships to it and station keep next to it etc
which makes starting assmebly of new vehicle really easy.


No, it doesn't make it "really easy" at all, because you're expending
resources to maintain and operate an old and decaying station instead
of building what you need.


Yeah, high inclination means lower payloads and more launches. But you
get to start with real assmebly righta way because the ISS is already
fully equipped, so you save on some flights early on until the new ship
has enough autonomy that it no longer requires ISS support.


Why do you think SpaceX will build ANYTHING in orbit? Have you even
looked at Musk's Mars plans?


Which brings us back to the question of why? What advantage does
SpaceX get out of this? I don't see one.


I can see some advantages. Whether they are worth it is another question.


If they're not 'worth it' then they are not 'advantages'. In that
case they are DISadvantages, which is all I see to your approach.


There could be "ego" involved too. SpaceX winning contract to run the
IUS side of station would be a blow to Boeing and others and give SpaceX
much international stature/recognition.


What 'contract to run'? NASA wants to SELL the thing because they
have no budget to operate it anymore. If they have no budget to
operate it, they have no budget to pay someone else to operate it. So
you're asking someone to BUY ISS plus spend over $2 billion a year of
their own money to operate and support it for 'ego'.


That may help it get the contract to get to Mars over the other guys.


NASA currently spends around $2.3 billion per year on ISS. It'd be
cheaper for SpaceX to just spend that money on going to Mars instead
of waiting for a 'contract' to go.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #9  
Old August 25th 16, 03:17 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default 'New port of call' installed at space station

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:46:29 AM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"JF Mezei" wrote in message
web.com...

On 2016-08-23 21:11, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

What benefit does SpaceX or Bigelow get from docking to the current ISS?
They're far better off launching to their own station, in a better orbit,
with newer equipment.


Think IP. SpaceX gets rights to CBM specs/designs, the ECLSS
technologies that have been developped and debugged, debris shelding,
toilet etc. All this happens to be very valuable if you intend to goto
Mars (or hopefully gosub Mars).


Huh? IP? You realize NASA is a public agency. Pretty much everything it
does is public information.


Obviously you know nothing about the subject of IP and NASA.

https://www.nasa.gov/ames-partnershi...ties/licensing


As for CBM, considering that's being replaced (that's what this new port is)
that doesn't help SpaceX.


http://space.stackexchange.com/quest...-mechanism-cbm

http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design...35.ISS_CBM.pdf

The CBM is used as a berthing mechanism for the unmanned Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV), SpaceX Dragon, and Orbital Sciences' Cygnus spacecraft. These spacecraft feature a PCBM, and are berthed to one of the station's open ACBMs using the station's robot arm.

And guess what? SpaceX already HAS the specs on
the new IDA. It has to because it's what Dragon will be docking at! And
there's no way they'd get the "rights" to it.


IDA stands for International Docking ADAPTER. That is this mechanism is attached to existing ports so that they may be used by CBM compliant spacecraft like the SpaceX Dragon.


Debris shielding is pretty well known.


Its proven in the ISS. That's the point.

As for toilets, from what I understand, they'd want to talk to the Russians
for a better one.


They're proven in flight. New ones aren't. So, until they've gained experience with the new ones, having the old ones around is useful for a time.

The point is, there is a sound basis for considering NASA's offer.


And if SpaceX gets to commercially operate the US facilities, then it
gets to control the CBM and docking ports, giving itself priorioty for
shipments of cargo and humans. So if any nation wnats to send
astronauts/experiments to the US segment, they would have to deal with
SpaceX, Orbital would likely lose much business. (And Boeing).


Or... that nation or company simply goes to the Russians, buys a few cans
from them. Or goes to Bigelow and buys a balloon from them.


Those are all separate deals that can be pursued independently of what NASA is offering.


Remember that SpaceX would likely have to cater to its customers, the
other non-USA member of the ISS who will still want to make use of the
facility. So SpaceX runs the "hotel" and transportation services to
allow nations to do experiements in their modules or on a SPaceX module
such as Destiny.


No, since micro-g science and tourism really don't mix well.


Cite?


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA seeking ideas for use of space station docking port Jeff Findley[_6_] Space Station 7 July 30th 16 07:05 PM
Space port/dock/ship yard location Space Cadet[_1_] Policy 3 August 27th 08 06:39 PM
Minnesota and Wisconsin students call Space Station Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 February 4th 05 06:47 PM
Appalachia students call space station Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 December 3rd 04 12:46 AM
Appalachia students call space station Jacques van Oene News 0 December 3rd 04 12:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.