not so sure i'd go that far. India, Russia, China, Brazil, EU, even Japan and S. Korea are kicking off space programs. ive read a bunch of thrillers that say that with their vast oil wealth its only a matter of time till Saudi Arabia turns to space exploration to try and corner the precious metals market if oil ever runs out.
we're leading now and will have to work hard to maintain the lead. if we don't others will charge ahead without a doubt.
American private industry is building the Falcon 9, which, if the landing capability bears fruit (and it should), could drop launch prices from $54 million to $7 million, or 1/12th the cost of the cheapest Soyuz.
There is an important difference here between the US and Russian launch programs. The US is not using Cold War era systems. Atlas V and Delta IV are modern launch vehicles. Russia by contrast relies on Proton, Soyuz, Zenit, which are all vintage Soviet rockets. Sure they have been upgraded since the 1980s (to a limited degree), but they still blow up on the launch pad among other failures. The troubled Proton system has, for example, suffered 5 failures in 4 years. Soyuz had five in the past six (thankfully no crewed one yet).
Russia knows it has a problem, which is the impetus behind the Angara program, which is basically the Russian version of the DoD's EELV program - one family of rocket in different shapes around a common core that can be strapped together with flexibly sized boosters, additional cores, or a larger upper stage. The new problem is Antares right now is a pipsqueak of a launch system, and due to lack of funds by the time it arrives as EELV-class in the 2020s, Falcon 9 (which will be landing and reusable) and the ULA/Blue Origin successor rocket, will have driven the price of launch down so far that Angara, built along the logic of the then retired Delta IV and Atlas V, will be unaffordable.
Russia plainly needs to get rid of it's Proton, Soyuz and Zenit families. But frankly, I don't think it will. It is just like how Russia was supposed to switch to mass procurement of the T-50 Stealth Fighter, and instead that got delayed until mid-next decade and they went out and bought three dozen more SU-27 upgrades (Soviet fighter). Or how they abandoned the T-95 tank program for yet-another T-72 family upgrade. For whatever political or economic reasons, it's stuck with the the stuff it's always had rather than cleansheet building stuff it should have.
The problem here though is that the Russian space program is so dependent on the commercial launch industry to pay for it's existence, that the clock is ticking as to their relevancy. What happens in 2024 when they offer an 15,000kg Angara launch for $80 million and Space X offers a reusable Falcon 9 for $4-7 million? How does it keep it's doors open?
Angara is a troubled program itself, plauged by major design issues, antiquated technology and a marketplace it might be too expensive to exist it. The Russian space sector relies on commercial launches to finance itself. The SpaceX Falcon 9 is already more capable and substantially cheaper than Angara. If Falcon 9 successfully lands in its next few launches, as is expected, it will be the effective beginning of the end of Russian commercial spaceflight as it would change Falcon 9 launch costs from $59 million per launch to around $7 million. Without landing technology, no launch system would be able to compete.
And that's just Falcon 9. American temporary reliance on commercial vendors is a choice to contract low earth orbit operations to the commercial sector, where it belongs, while NASA finishes designing and launching the Space Launch System + Orion. Orion launches on top of a Delta IV in December. The SLS Block I will launch between December 2017 and May 2018. Anyone, American or otherwise, lamenting the fact the US wisely chose to retire the aging and obsolete Space Shuttle to focus it's money and energy in developing an entirely new, much more capable successor system, is going to start feeling like a damned fool, in about a month.
I mean, let's be clear about the trajectory of the Russian Space program. By the time Angara can launch what an Atlas V can, Falcon 9 Heavy will have been launching for several several years, hauling over twice the mass of Angara at a fraction of the price, and SLS will have sent Americans in the Orion capsule + ESA ATV Service Module to an asteroid captured in lunar orbit.
I found a price for a launch today between 54 and $59 million dollars but where have you seen a price of $7 million dollars if it's reused? Even $10 million dollars seems pretty incredible.....
Will see, so far Falcon has a long way to go while Soviet era rockets have 2K lauches behind them and It seems Angara engines are good enough for Orbital Sciences (60 engines on order for OSC )and Korean rockets
One day crewed Dragon will fail, one day Falcon carrying that crewed Dragon will fail - but thats normal. US should seriosly start realizing,talking about : one way trip to Mars, the fact that space exploration will continue growing, accidents will occur and people will die. Its just a proffesional hazard that, as much as we`d like to, cant be avoided.
But just like NASA of 60s - if SpaceX wont do it - make LEO low-cost , no one else will. And with that in mind - the question isnt IF, its rather WHEN.
I cheer for our own ESA, Korean, Japanese allies but they dont have the human and technological capital to catch up.
China is still far behind and Russia, hate to break it, is a ghost of its former past.
Besides, while Soviet/Russian designes have been proven as trustworthy - for how long can one still be driving that old,moraly outdated car? You know, RAF doesnt fly Spitfires and US Navy isnt going to ressurect Enterprise class carriers.
Besides, the costs is what will determine that future of space exploration.
That just silly argument to support your SpaceX obvious bias.. the hostility toward anything russian showed in your post.
as for 7 millon per launch cost , that's the most BS thing i ever read, especially for an unproven platform and unproven system like having the 1st stage soft landing on hard surface..
there's no point in going to mars for USA , they should just flood mars with probe/drone swarm which intelligently work with each other, instead of wasting $$$ just to put a few astronauts that wont even stay for a month..
NASA should pursue the manned moon exploration and exploitation.. make the Space industry pay itself..
The future of LEO and higher flights!
ReplyDeleteExciting indeed - revolutionary technology and approach that will grant US as the one being on the vanguard of human space colonization,
not so sure i'd go that far. India, Russia, China, Brazil, EU, even Japan and S. Korea are kicking off space programs. ive read a bunch of thrillers that say that with their vast oil wealth its only a matter of time till Saudi Arabia turns to space exploration to try and corner the precious metals market if oil ever runs out.
Deletewe're leading now and will have to work hard to maintain the lead. if we don't others will charge ahead without a doubt.
American private industry is building the Falcon 9, which, if the landing capability bears fruit (and it should), could drop launch prices from $54 million to $7 million, or 1/12th the cost of the cheapest Soyuz.
DeleteThere is an important difference here between the US and Russian launch programs. The US is not using Cold War era systems. Atlas V and Delta IV are modern launch vehicles. Russia by contrast relies on Proton, Soyuz, Zenit, which are all vintage Soviet rockets. Sure they have been upgraded since the 1980s (to a limited degree), but they still blow up on the launch pad among other failures. The troubled Proton system has, for example, suffered 5 failures in 4 years. Soyuz had five in the past six (thankfully no crewed one yet).
Russia knows it has a problem, which is the impetus behind the Angara program, which is basically the Russian version of the DoD's EELV program - one family of rocket in different shapes around a common core that can be strapped together with flexibly sized boosters, additional cores, or a larger upper stage. The new problem is Antares right now is a pipsqueak of a launch system, and due to lack of funds by the time it arrives as EELV-class in the 2020s, Falcon 9 (which will be landing and reusable) and the ULA/Blue Origin successor rocket, will have driven the price of launch down so far that Angara, built along the logic of the then retired Delta IV and Atlas V, will be unaffordable.
Russia plainly needs to get rid of it's Proton, Soyuz and Zenit families. But frankly, I don't think it will. It is just like how Russia was supposed to switch to mass procurement of the T-50 Stealth Fighter, and instead that got delayed until mid-next decade and they went out and bought three dozen more SU-27 upgrades (Soviet fighter). Or how they abandoned the T-95 tank program for yet-another T-72 family upgrade. For whatever political or economic reasons, it's stuck with the the stuff it's always had rather than cleansheet building stuff it should have.
The problem here though is that the Russian space program is so dependent on the commercial launch industry to pay for it's existence, that the clock is ticking as to their relevancy. What happens in 2024 when they offer an 15,000kg Angara launch for $80 million and Space X offers a reusable Falcon 9 for $4-7 million? How does it keep it's doors open?
Angara is a troubled program itself, plauged by major design issues, antiquated technology and a marketplace it might be too expensive to exist it. The Russian space sector relies on commercial launches to finance itself. The SpaceX Falcon 9 is already more capable and substantially cheaper than Angara. If Falcon 9 successfully lands in its next few launches, as is expected, it will be the effective beginning of the end of Russian commercial spaceflight as it would change Falcon 9 launch costs from $59 million per launch to around $7 million. Without landing technology, no launch system would be able to compete.
And that's just Falcon 9. American temporary reliance on commercial vendors is a choice to contract low earth orbit operations to the commercial sector, where it belongs, while NASA finishes designing and launching the Space Launch System + Orion. Orion launches on top of a Delta IV in December. The SLS Block I will launch between December 2017 and May 2018. Anyone, American or otherwise, lamenting the fact the US wisely chose to retire the aging and obsolete Space Shuttle to focus it's money and energy in developing an entirely new, much more capable successor system, is going to start feeling like a damned fool, in about a month.
I mean, let's be clear about the trajectory of the Russian Space program. By the time Angara can launch what an Atlas V can, Falcon 9 Heavy will have been launching for several several years, hauling over twice the mass of Angara at a fraction of the price, and SLS will have sent Americans in the Orion capsule + ESA ATV Service Module to an asteroid captured in lunar orbit.
I found a price for a launch today between 54 and $59 million dollars but where have you seen a price of $7 million dollars if it's reused? Even $10 million dollars seems pretty incredible.....
DeleteWill see, so far Falcon has a long way to go while Soviet era rockets have 2K lauches behind them and It seems Angara engines are good enough for Orbital Sciences (60 engines on order for OSC )and Korean rockets
ReplyDeleteThey will fail.
DeleteA lot.
One day crewed Dragon will fail, one day Falcon carrying that crewed Dragon will fail - but thats normal.
US should seriosly start realizing,talking about : one way trip to Mars, the fact that space exploration will continue growing, accidents will occur and people will die.
Its just a proffesional hazard that, as much as we`d like to, cant be avoided.
But just like NASA of 60s - if SpaceX wont do it - make LEO low-cost , no one else will.
And with that in mind - the question isnt IF, its rather WHEN.
I cheer for our own ESA, Korean, Japanese allies but they dont have the human and technological capital to catch up.
China is still far behind and Russia, hate to break it, is a ghost of its former past.
Besides, while Soviet/Russian designes have been proven as trustworthy - for how long can one still be driving that old,moraly outdated car?
DeleteYou know, RAF doesnt fly Spitfires and US Navy isnt going to ressurect Enterprise class carriers.
Besides, the costs is what will determine that future of space exploration.
That just silly argument to support your SpaceX obvious bias.. the hostility toward anything russian showed in your post.
Deleteas for 7 millon per launch cost , that's the most BS thing i ever read, especially for an unproven platform and unproven system like having the 1st stage soft landing on hard surface..
there's no point in going to mars for USA , they should just flood mars with probe/drone swarm which intelligently work with each other, instead of wasting $$$ just to put a few astronauts that wont even stay for a month..
NASA should pursue the manned moon exploration and exploitation.. make the Space industry pay itself..