Commercial Space
For a good reason there is a huge and very public priority focused on safety for Spaceship2. Someday a $200k per seat suborbital flight could go horribly wrong and that would likely end the whole SpaceshipX adventure — maybe not overnight, but enough to dry up long term investment in that industry. Flying to 100km is not essential, and once seen as clearly dangerous, it would quickly lose its panache.
In short: space tourism is only one accident away from oblivion.
In contrast, GEO comsats and commercial earth-imaging satellites have been profitable for a generation. These business models tolerate occasional failures. Insurance is purchased. Claims are routinely paid. Setbacks don’t get anyone killed.
Somewhere in the middle so-called ‘commercial flights’ launching NASA astronauts under contract might be less of a risk to this corporate business model than first imagined. In practice, NASA would be signing off and accepting a large chunk of responsibility. If astronauts are killed aboard a SpaceX rocket, NASA won’t go out of business — nor will SpaceX for that matter, as long as they don’t clearly violate the terms of their contract or make a habit of killing astronauts.
Most of this is smoke an mirrors. NASA writes checks to aerospace companies all the time, and with respect to SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, nothing has changed in this regard. If funding originates from the government, it’s not ‘commercial’ space — its government contracting. For something to be considered ‘commercial’ it must involve a self-sustaining income apart from government support.
Space tourism could be seen this way. It is ‘commercial space’ — it just isn’t enough to see this as anything beyond a side-show. Once a hundred (or maybe a thousand) people have flown to 100km on their own dime, the novelty will end and number of people willing to pony up the money will trail away. Space tourism is not an industry any more than hobbyists who build and dive their own submarines. No matter what, it will always be viewed as conspicuous consumption by the rich — and like other services consumed this way, little will add to the overall economy like we see in today’s money makers.
For now, and into the foreseeable future, the only serious money in space will surround comsat data, geo-spacial services and government contracting (including science missions, military applications and astronauts floating around inside a giant space station).
If we discover a new way to make a ton of money in space, it will be obvious in the amount investment and the number of heavy-hitters involved.
Regarding the details of SpaceX and Orbital Sciences ferrying NASA astronauts and cargo to low earth orbit (LEO), there is nothing particularly special about private firms developing and selling new launch capability. The United Launch Alliance (ULA) has been selling similar capability for years with their Atlas and Delta vehicles. By providing launch services instead of delivering launch vehicles with NASA logos painted on their sides, companies like SpaceX are only followed the ULA example.
All things factored in, once the smoke and mirrors are set aside, newly minted commercial launch services coming on line will operate and cost about the same as present day services — maybe not on day-one, but eventually.
[Looking at the launch capacities of ULA rockets, I keep wondering why we don't just qualify these as NASA 'man' rated -- but that's a topic for another day.]
In the great congressional debate over flying NASA astronauts to LEO aboard launchers from SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, we are merely witnessing a re-framing of terms — not anything fundamentally new in how contracts are awarded and cargo flown.
…well… maybe -ONE- exception: For twenty-nine years the US space shuttle has been launching cargo at $25k per kilogram — 2 1/2 times the cost of most uncrewed expendable launch vehicles. If we are going to argue over dollars — simply retiring the American Shuttle Transportation System (STS) will be a major step forward in affordable space merely by returning NASA to a more typical cost of $10k per kilogram to LEO.
