
The New Space Race - kartikkumar
https://www.alumni.hbs.edu/stories/Pages/story-impact.aspx?num=5152
======
ChuckMcM
I think the more important step is that SpaceX has broken the "credibility
ceiling" for private space ventures. When they started competing for the CRS
and Commercial Crew contracts a number of important voices in Congress were
amused but not convinced, and when it became clear they were going to deliver
something on their promise they actively campaigned against such "risky"
ventures, and trusting someone other than NASA & the original space
contracting collective (Lockheed, Boeing, Aerojet, Etc.) with the ability to
actually launch. There were the incredibly bogus "export licenses" which were
code for regulating launches, there were outsized estimates of risks, amazing
requirements for "proof" of competency. But now we're on the other side of
that cloud and SpaceX, Orbital, and perhaps soon Blue Origin will be part of
the "club". Pretty exciting times for the new kids, scary as heck for the
previous club members (like ULA).

~~~
aptwebapps
I was going to chime in that even Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan were opposed
to it but it turns out that may not have been the case. [0]

0\. [https://www.quora.com/Why-were-Neil-Armstrong-Eugene-
Cernan-...](https://www.quora.com/Why-were-Neil-Armstrong-Eugene-Cernan-and-
Neil-DeGrasse-Tyson-all-opposed-to-SpaceX)

~~~
rz2k
I also remember reading or hearing one of the original astronauts being
ideologically resistant to private companies rather than civic supported
programs being at the forefront of space exploration. However, here is the
closest I can find, from Buzz Aldrin in a Reddit iAMA:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2a5vg8/i_am_buzz_aldr...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2a5vg8/i_am_buzz_aldrin_engineer_american_astronaut_and/cirs2i0?context=3)

~~~
aptwebapps
That's interesting, but a distinctly different topic. In the 60 Minutes show
referenced in my Quora link, which is where I got the idea in the first place,
Armstrong and Cernan were portrayed as being against private development in
the manner of SpaceX because the profit motive would undermine safety.

------
flashman
This is a bit off-topic, but the section on asteroid mining reminded me to
recommend 'The Expanse' on Syfy:
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3230854/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3230854/)

------
avmich
> In fact, if Earth were 50 percent larger, with a correspondingly stronger
> gravitational pull, no form of chemical propulsion would contain enough
> energy to launch a spacecraft into orbit.

This is quite a strange statement. Not even with multiple stages? Not even
Saturn-V would be able to lift a cubesat - with necessary extra stages? I'd
like to see numbers which support that.

~~~
qrendel
As I understand it, it's a practicality issue: with enough extra stages you
can always escape, but the payload size rapidly approaches zero. (See:
[http://space.stackexchange.com/a/5383](http://space.stackexchange.com/a/5383))

The size, complexity, and costs of extra stages make it impossible once you
add in the actual real-world constraints. As said in Terr_'s link: " _Rockets
at 85% propellant and 15% structure and payload are on the extreme edge of our
engineering ability to even fabricate (and to pay for!). They require constant
engineering to keep flying._ "

~~~
avmich
Thank you for your reply - and thank all the others who replied.

This is a link on a NASA website :) and that organization is known to err in
questions related to space. Seriously, guys - Don Pettit wrote it for general
audience, and skimming the article I spotted this -

> Hydrogen-oxygen is the most energetic chemical reaction known for use in a
> human rated rocket. Chemistry is unable to give us any more.

This can be understood in a certain way - but also can be argued, as here -
[http://yarchive.net/space/rocket/fuels/hydrogen.html](http://yarchive.net/space/rocket/fuels/hydrogen.html)

> The highest measured Isp ever achieved with chemical propellants was with
> LH2/LF2/LLi (yes, liquid lithium), at 542s in vacuum.

Next, 15% structure certainly doesn't apply to some first stages -
particularly recent Falcons from SpaceX.

The point which I was trying to make is I doubt that big of a difference.
Sure, it's pretty hard to get to orbit from, say, Jupiter-like planet. However
orbital speed for a planet with constant density is linear by the planet
radius, and to get to New Horizons' ~16 km/s delta V as orbital speed the
Earth would have to be 2 times bigger - 8 times heavier. And New Horizon's
ain't cubesat either.

And, on top of that, we still have other readily available tricks up our
sleeve. So I think even with rather large variations of Earth size we'd get in
time to the stars.

------
kartikkumar
Being in the midst of all of this, I can vouch for the palpable excitement
within the industry: at least if you stay away from talking to traditional
prime contractors. There's a real sense that disruption is right around the
corner. The biggest problem is that there have been no significant exits to
prove investors right. This makes it difficult to raise capital.

Also, traditionally, external capital has sought out downstream opportunities.
We've been focussing on upstream tech and it's much harder to prove the case
given the long time horizon.

I've seen some incredible applications being pitched, but I think the real
test will be whether they are able to generate significant exits. I, for one,
hope that the next five years spells a period of immense productivity in the
sector, generating profitability all along the value chain. If we're able to
ride that wave, I think that there are many more applications that will pop up
that make use of space infrastructure.

~~~
lsseckman
What areas are these applications in? Mining keeps getting tossed around but
nobody's put out a clear roadmap / business model for it

~~~
kartikkumar
A lot of applications are much closer to home. For instance, I've seen a few
teams pitch the idea of building a robust, small-satellite network to serve as
a platform for Machine-2-Machine messaging. I think enabling the global IoT
industry is really going to unleash some spectacular applications. Internet
everywhere is of course a popular idea that's being worked on. I particularly
like the low-data rate, low monthly charge model that I've seen pitched. Seen
teams pitch internet anywhere for as low as a couple of bucks a month.

------
jharohit
I had expected more due-diligence before publishing the article by HBS - sadly
they have included a promising piece on Escape Dynamics without bothering to
check that it has already closed down!
[http://escapedynamics.com/](http://escapedynamics.com/)

~~~
larrydag
Looks like we are decades away from using external energy and propulsion
sources. Looks like chemical propulsion is the way to go in the near future.

~~~
jharohit
I don't think so. It seems like it was not because of lack of technology that
failed a startup like escape dynamics but rather unwilling investors who were
concerned about near term financial gains. Also, ground based for microwave
driven IMHO is not the way to go if you are looking for reduced cost per kg
per launch. No offense to the team, but they should be looking at orbital
based techniques for similar power transfers - relyin on reduced atmospheric
interference and much stronger power generation from direct sunlight.

