20 MINNO (05): NewSpace: Delivering on the Dream

NewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 1Darmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011

NewSpace – Delivering on the Dream

David J. Salt9th March, 2011

(by changing the paradigm)

A Finmeccanica CompanyNewSpace Presentation to ESOC Slide 2Darmstadt, Germany – 9th March, 2011

… a sustainable and evolving human presence in space!

What was “The Dream”?

“The Dream” as foreseen in 1968…


• It’s not the Rocket Science … we have the technology– all key technologies required to travel to/from space and

work there were demonstrated by the Apollo lunar program

• We have much better supporting technologies than we had 50 years ago, when Apollo began

– manufacturing processes and computer hardware/software have made huge advances and become cheaper!

• Nevertheless, commercial space activities are limited to working with ‘photons’ rather than ‘atoms’ because of the space launch dilemma

– current launch costs are ~$10000/kg to LEO– new venture need < $1000/kg to LEO to close the business

case, so require fully Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs)– BUT current markets are insufficient to justify RLV funding!

What’s the Problem?


• The current ‘space paradigm’ is stagnating!– space activities are still dominated by government

programmes supported by ‘commercial’ contractors– all programmes take longer and cost more than planned– future programmes face cut-backs and/or cancellation due

to major constraints on government discretionary spending

The bad news… and the good news

• Evidence suggests we are witnessing the beginning of a major shift towards a new ‘space paradigm’

– new entrepreneurial ventures are developing commercial systems to serve existing and new markets in novel ways

– all of these new ventures are founded by individuals from outside the established space industry

– their ultimate aim is to establish a sustainable and evolving human presence in space!


• Many current NewSpace ventures are focusing their initial efforts on sub-orbital reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) instead of orbital RLVs because they…

– are less technically challenging– require significantly less funding– can be developed and tested quicker– offer many potential evolutionary paths to orbit

• NewSpace ventures adopt a ‘Skunk Works’ approach to development to meet rapidly evolving markets

– investment range is limited to between $10m to $200m– they employ existing systems and technologies, whenever

possible, in order to reduce development risk– use small teams evolving designs in small but rapid steps

(build, test, correct …)

NewSpace rationale and approach


Armadillo - Mod

Virgin Galactic - SpaceShipTwo

Blue Origin – New Shepard

XCOR - Lynx

Masten - Xoie

Who is trying to change the paradigm?


Computer networks (Cisco)Dave MastenMasten Space

Media and commercial servicesSir Richard BransonVirgin Galactic

Hotels (Budget Suites)Robert BigelowBigelow Aerospace

Internet services (PayPal)Elon MuskSpaceX

Intel chip developer (Pentium)Jeff GreasonXCOR

Games developer (Doom/Quake)John CarmackArmadillo Aerospace

Internet services (Amazon)Jeff BezosBlue Origin

Prior Businesses DomainFounderCompany

Leading NewSpace Venture Founders

Where did they get their money?

Dave Masten

Sir Richard Branson

Robert Bigelow

Elon Musk

Jeff Greason

John Carmack

Jeff Bezos

Founder

Computer networks (Cisco)

Media and commercial services

Hotels (Budget Suites)

Internet services (PayPal)

Intel chip developer (Pentium)

Games developer (Doom/Quake)

Internet services (Amazon)

Prior Businesses Domain


• Several entrepreneurial ventures are very likely to be flying vehicles capable of carrying “space tourist” passengers on sub-orbital flights into space within the next 2 years

BUT revenue earning passenger flights will not begin until thenecessary levels of safety and reliability are demonstrated

• The first revenue earning flights will therefore carry science and engineering payloads instead of “space tourist” passengers

these flights will also demonstrate frequent (i.e. 4 flights per day) and low ‘cost’ (i.e. <$10k/flight) operations capability

• Preliminary indications suggest these new markets could be as significant as space tourism and may be sufficient to justify the business case alone!

Will they be safe, frequent & low cost?


• Routine daily flights above 100km into the near-space environment, with accompanying short periods of weightlessness, will likely stimulate new markets

Stimulating the new markets

• NASA initiative to stimulate the interest of researchers and other groups to exploit such nascent services is being led by NASA Ames called the Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research(CRuSR) Program Established in 2009 by the

Obama administration Congress recently authorised

$15m/year from 2011-2016 to buy initial demonstrator flights


– Sensing– Climaterics–– Vertical Atmospheric Vertical Atmospheric

SamplingSampling– Gene Expression – Fluids– Physiology– Emergency

Procedures– Countermeasures – Inner Ear Neural

Signal – Dust Particle

Agglomeration – Metal Alloy Phase

Separation– Glovebox

Investigations– Combustion– IR and NIR Optics

• New sub-orbital markets for science and engineering R&D…

It’s not just “Space Tourism”!

…and even “extreme sports” …


• Unfortunately, the limited performance of sub-orbitalvehicles prevents them from serving orbital markets!

• So, how can sub-orbital vehicles evolve into orbital vehicles?

– Energetic difference between sub-orbital (~4Mn) and orbital (~25Mn) missions is a factor of ~40, but for a rocket this just means using more propellant…

– Unfortunately, orbital vehicles also require better/lighterengines (T/W), structures, thermal protection, power and control systems, life support…

– BUT such capabilities can be added incrementally as vehicle design evolves and its flight envelope expands

From sub-orbital to orbital


Modified version of Lynx suborbital vehiclewith an expendable upper stage

Clusters of Mod suborbital vehicleare used to form a reusable booster and expendable upper stage

Armadillo’s orbital launch concept

XCOR’s orbital launch concept

First steps into orbit


• An example of how a suborbitalvehicle design can “evolve” into a fully reusable orbital system

Evolving towards full reusability


• Nevertheless, COTS will also boost the business case for commercial space stations in Earth orbit

– operating initially as space business parksfor both government and industry research

– then later as hotels for space tourists• Moreover, if COTS can demonstrate a significant

demand for these new markets it will serve to boost the business case for commercial RLVs

• In parallel with sub-orbital developments, NASA is promoting Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) for International Space Station for both logistics re-supply and crew transportation after Shuttle retirement

• However, the cost of space access will still be high due to their reliance on ELVs

Bigelow Commercial Station

SpaceX Dragon Capsule

NASA orbital initiatives also help


Reusable suborbital services for passenger~2014

Commercial space station & ELV support

+ COTS crew rotation to ISS

~2015

2nd generation RLVs for ISS cargo and GEO satellite launch

~2018

~2020

~2013

2011Year

2nd generation RLVs for passenger services to ISS and commercial stations

Small satellite launch services into low Earth orbitvia suborbital RLV boosters

Reusable suborbital services for payloads

+ COTS payload services to ISS

Milestones

Steps towards a NewSpace paradigm

2011 Reusable suborbital services for payloads

+ COTS payload services to ISS~2013 Small satellite launch services into low Earth orbit

via suborbital RLV boostersReusable suborbital services for passenger~2014

2nd generation RLVs for ISS cargo and GEO satellite launch

~2018

Commercial space station & ELV support

+ COTS crew rotation to ISS

~2015

~2020 2nd generation RLVs for passenger services to ISS and commercial stations


• Small entrepreneurial ventures are attempting to change the current space access paradigm by building sub-orbital vehicles to service new markets and, in particular, to enable large numbers of people to become involved in space related activities & commerce

• Although there is good reason for cautious optimism, it would bebetter to regard these ventures as experiments within a process of Darwinian evolution rather than milestones of an overarching space programme because many are likely to fail due to the enormity of the business and technology challenges they face!

• Nevertheless, given the current number of NewSpace ventures and their success to date, it seems reasonable to believe that some will “boot-strap” themselves to orbit in the next decade and so begin to deliver on the dream of opening the space frontier

Concluding remarks


Supplementary/back-up slides


Half a Century of Spaceflight

• 1950’s/60’s: Defence/National Security issues ensure BIG budgets– Apollo was a National Security Programme!

• 1970’s: Economic constraints force slow-down of pace– Shuttle helped conserve industrial base– Commercial potentials of space emerge

• 1980’s: Military, political and commercial programmes grow– SDIO, GPS, SSF, Commercial Space Launch Act, PanAmSat, etc.

• 1990’s: Military/government “rationalisation” but commercial growth– EELV, ISS, VSATs, SkyTV , Iridium, Teledesic, etc.– NewSpace [1st wave – Kistler, Kelly Space, Rotary Rocket, etc]

• 2000’s: Commercial “rationalisation” and government re-invention– Iridium, Galileo, VSE/Constellation, ORS, COTS, CRuSR, etc.– NewSpace [2nd wave – Armadillo, Masten, SpaceX, XCOR, etc.]

How did we get here?


• Space access is expensive… the price to get into low Earth orbit is on the order of $10000/kg because current launcher vehicles are extremely expensive to operate

– expendables (e.g. Ariane 5) throw away expensive hardware

– reusables (i.e. Shuttle) take too much time/effort to turn-around

• Fully reusable launchers with airline-like operationscould lower the cost of space access by at least an order of magnitude (less than $1000/kg) but…

– the estimated cost to develop such vehicles is $10-20 billion

– current markets are insufficient to reach flight rates that would justify such a cost because… space access is expensive!

The Space Access Dilemma


Perspective:The Global space revenue was $251 billion in 2007, which is a little less than the annual revenue of a single large commercial company (e.g. Wal-Mart)

=> World airline revenues in2007 were $470 billion

=> Lufthansa’s revenue in2007 was $37.0 billion

Space Foundation publication “The Space Report 2008”

Question:Without a major government initiative like Apollo, how can we create/encourage the necessary space markets ?

How much do we spend?


• A recent paper** predicts that soot from commercial sub-orbital flights will change global temperatures, with severe climatic impacts

– Assumes 10 tonne propellant/launch and 1,000 launches/year using 'hybrid' engine burning synthetic hydrocarbon with nitrous oxide

– Models show black carbon ‘soot’ emissions would persist high in stratosphere, potentially altering global atmospheric circulation and distributions of ozone

– Simulations show changes to Earth's climate could increase polar surface temperatures by 1 °C, and reduce polar sea ice by 5–15%

** Ross, M., M. Mills, and D. Toohey (2010), Potential climate impact of black carbon emitted by rockets, Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2010GL044548

• Authors acknowledge that many uncertainties exist and that theirresults are very sensitive to assumptionsresults are very sensitive to assumptions

– Assumes propellant loads well in excesswell in excess of most suborbital vehicles– Use of liquid hydrocarbon/oxygen hydrocarbon/oxygen burning engines reducesreduces assumed black

carbon emissionsemissions by several orders of magnitudeseveral orders of magnitude– Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates the quantity of soot (IPCC) estimates the quantity of soot

already in stratosphere is many times greater than the hypothesialready in stratosphere is many times greater than the hypothesized emissionszed emissions– Seems not to have included carbon particles put into the stratosphere by other

sources (e.g. natural processes such as meteorite dust)

• Although such concerns should not be ignoredshould not be ignored, there seems to be no justifiable reason to base any future policy upon this assessment

Impact on environment & climate

Technology

20 MINNO (05): NewSpace: Delivering on the Dream