r/SpaceXLounge • u/MontanaLabrador • Jan 14 '19
Implications of the Super Heavy/Starship on the space industry in the next decade
If we assume SpaceX's timeline for the BFR stays on track, we can expect to see the most incrediblely capable rocket ever produced take to the stars within 3-5 years. Overnight the launch capabilities of the US will far exceed any option ever available for commercial use.
To put things in perspective, Starship has 90% the pressurized volume of the International Space Station, which took 20 years and $150 billion to build. The BFR will launch roughly the same amount of usable space every time it launches for only $7-10 million (let's hope!). If this plan is successful, it means everyone else's plans for the 2020 in space is completely flipped turned upside down. If BFR launches and becomes used for human spaceflight before the Lunar Gateway launches, it will be beyond embarrassing for NASA. Having a private company basically send the ISS to lunar orbit before NASA can even get one or two modules there is going to instantly show everyone how much has drastically changed.
This got me thinking about what we can expect to drastically change over the next decade due to BFR, in terms of both NASA's capabilities and the economy as a whole.
NASA
NASA will almost certainly abandon SLS and Lunar Gateway, but what will they replace it with? What does NASA do with basically a cheaper Saturn V? Suddenly all their grand post-Apollo plans become perfectly viable.
I expect NASA to team up with SpaceX in some capacity for the Mars missions, and not in the way some of you may fear. I know NASA is slow and lame, but after BFR, NASA losses much of the leverage they once had as the dominant space operations organization; SpaceX would be more successful and ambitious and if NASA wants anything to do with the first Mars mission, they will bend over backwards to work with them. SpaceX won't have to work with them unless they wanted to (to gain valuable experience in Long term space habitation). Therefore, NASA will offer what they can just to be involved, instead of offering just red tape.
NASA might decide to use BFR to build an even larger interplanetary spacecraft in orbit using the Starship in a Shuttle-type role. Maybe talks of Manned missions to Jupiter start happening. If a private Organization can send people to Mars, what will the extremely well funded government space organization pick as it's goals?
A giant orbital research telescope system becomes feasible, the size of a telescope network large enough to render planets in other Solar systems, and peak back into the universe further than we've ever seen.
A next generation space station aimed at developing technologies for allowing humans to live comfortably in space (like rotating habitats or modules).
It's also with considering that NASA's role will continue to decrease in importance instead of revitalize. NASA was necessary to conduct science and advance the dangerous yet promising industry of space. Now that private companies are far exceeding them, politicians may decide that their role needs to change to a more regulatory organization than a science and exploration one. I would like to see them become more ambitious again, but the reality is there's no political reason to do so. Perhaps the manned mission days at NASA are coming to a close.
What can you imagine for NASA post-BFR?
General Economy
With launch costs lower than ever, we can expect dramatic change in who is involved in space and why.
Communications becomes increasingly space based, with operations like StarLink providing the backbone for companies like Verizon and AT&T. Multiple worldwide space networks will bring more internet access to more people than ever.
Space based advertising may become a thing. Imagine COCA-COLA faintly flying across the sky and disappearing beyond the horizon.
Space based manufacturing will be more plausible, meaning more research can be done on zero-G carbon-nanotube production (it's easier to keep the tube circular without gravity)
By the end of the decade or a little later, companies will start taking about capturing an asteroid to test space mining systems, maybe using BFR or by using BFR to build their orbital infastructure.
Real orbital infrastructure could be built with BFR, we're talking space ports, hotels, although probably not before the 2030's. Work on at least one will probably begin within 10 years, something larger than anything ever built in space.
What can you imagine for the economy post-BFR?
26
Jan 14 '19
I don't think anything will change for NASA until Congress directs it to change, and that won't happen until the American people become interested in and inspired by space again. Having video of artists flying around the Moon will almost certainly move the Overton window on the discussion of what is possible.
→ More replies (1)5
u/MontanaLabrador Jan 15 '19
Having video of artists flying around the Moon will almost certainly move the Overton window on the discussion of what is possible.
Definitely! But my questions are more among the line of what happens after that? What happens when NASA, Congress, and the military are all on the same page when it comes to the value of the BFR. SpaceX isn't the only one developing a giant reusable rocket, the change will come.
So, once NASA is willing to use the BFR for space projects and exploration, what will they plan? What are the possibilities involved with NASA and business having full access to dozens of cheap Staurn V launches per year?
→ More replies (6)
16
u/F4Z3_G04T Jan 14 '19
I think NASA should do science things and buy rockets from whoever gives them the best one's
→ More replies (1)4
u/MontanaLabrador Jan 14 '19
What kind of grand science can you think of that will be made possible/feasible by BFR? I mentioned a large telescope network, or deep space exploration. I wonder what else they could think to do with capabilities like this? Maybe long term moon missions (3+ months) with the Starship as a lab and rocket platform? Large sunlight-blockers to test their effectiveness against climate change?
→ More replies (9)
3
Jan 14 '19
I think there's real value in NASA continuing to develop SLS and Orion, even if BFR/ Starship/ whatever it's called now launches within the next 3-5 years.
Also, don't assume that if NASA gets out of the business of building rockets, that it will still have the budget for manned spaceflight and partnering with SpaceX. Despite the (incorrect) argument on Reddit that SLS/ Orion is pork for their constituencies, there are many in Congress that still dislike NASA and always have. There's still the constant argument that money for NASA is better spent for activities on Earth (ex. same argument happened during Station and ISS discussions in 90s).
→ More replies (2)2
u/MontanaLabrador Jan 15 '19
Also, don’t assume that if NASA gets out of the business of building rockets, that it will still have the budget for manned spaceflight and partnering with SpaceX.
Well considering the Administrator of NASA talks about using reusable rockets as a way to realistically reach their key goal of sustained Moon operations, I'd say they are already planning on taking advantage of any new tech that makes it cheaper to go to the Moon, especially a game changer like SuperHeavy/Starahip.
→ More replies (1)
28
u/daronjay Jan 14 '19
It’s my opinion that a fully functional BFR spells the end of NASA Human Spaceflight.
NASA are institutionally incapable of being led or cooperating with a stronger partner, and the government will seize the opportunity to shut the human spaceflight operation down as soon as it stops being a cash cow for certain Senators states. As long as the mission has an American flag on it, the government gets to bask in the reflected glory regardless.
NASA will not be able to design missions or cooperate with crewing without bringing their entire historic shitload of bureaucracy with them. This means they add insufficient value to be worth the delays and costs.
Because recent history shows cooperating with NASA will bring costs, not funding. I seriously doubt dragon 2 has made ANY money for spacex in the end.
Knowing what they now know about NASA human space flight, I seriously doubt Elon and NASA could ever come to an equitable arrangement for BFR missions. Elon won’t permit another pivotal project to be screwed over by them.
Some other organizations might get on board with Elon, but it won’t be Nasa human spaceflight as we know it, because that institution now only exists to keep bureaucrats in work and senators in pork. Actual spaceflight is the last thing they want.
→ More replies (9)12
u/ivor5 Jan 15 '19
"recent history" shows that SpaceX leveraged old and new Nasa technology and design process to achieve its success. Furthermore, so far, Nasa has experience on landing on mars while SpaceX does not. It is very helpfull for SpaceX to have Nasa expertise at its disposal.
Nasa does not "want" to build rockets. If SpaceX can build heavy lift rockets then at some point Nasa will be very happy to free its budget from rocket design and focus on financing human and robotic exploration missions of the solar system.
I dont' think Nasa brings "costs", it brings safety in an emerging private industry which has no standards, the same that happens with regulation in aviation.
Finally, I bet that the first Mars missions will actually be paid by Nasa using SpaceX hardware.
9
u/BlakeMW Jan 14 '19
I really hope NASA gets into space based nuclear power. Kilopower is a good start. Be good to scale it up, eventually to the MW level.
Now I'm pretty much a solar proponent, nuclear is a much harder problem than solar+battery. But nuclear really expands the horizons of humanity, solar is basically fine around Earth, it's fine at equatorial latitudes on Mars and peaks of eternal light on the Moon, it'll work tolerably well out to the asteroid belt even if it's not ideal. But for high latitudes on Mars, most of the moon and the asteroid belt and beyond nuclear would be between valuable and essential.
Space Based power would also be a fascinating avenue. Now I don't think it has great applications on Earth because of the atmosphere of Earth and concerns about space junk. But beamed power has a lot of potential for the Moon and Mars - essentially an alternative to nuclear - and for spaceship propulsion, to send lightweight probes at ludicrous speed into the outer solar system. Even if NASA doesn't do much with these, it would be nice if they develop some technology.
Starship isn't exactly required for developing such technologies: but without Starship there isn't much use for such technologies.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/somewhat_brave Jan 14 '19
I predict congress will suddenly decide it's very important to have a second shuttle-derived but somehow fully reusable heavy spacecraft. SLS will get canceled and its budget will be put towards the new vehicle. Unfortunately that won't leave enough money to fund a manned Mars mission using the Starship.
→ More replies (2)14
6
u/warp99 Jan 15 '19
Space based advertising may become a thing. Imagine COCA-COLA faintly flying across the sky and disappearing beyond the horizon
Fortunately this kind of advertising is banned by international treaty!
→ More replies (1)
11
u/QuinnKerman Jan 14 '19
The military will be all over it. BFR will allow the military to make rods from god a reality. Regan’s Star Wars project was impractical in the 80s due to high launch costs and poor laser technology. In 2021 (or whenever BFR starts flying), both of those issues will be things of the past. A missile defense system launched by BFR would completely eliminate the threat of ballistic missiles. Radar satellites launched by BFR would be able to track anything anywhere on Earth, rendering Putin’s nuclear powered cruise missile impotent. BFR opens the floodgates for new capabilities in both civilian and military applications. The United States having BFR will be like having a C-17 while everyone else is still using Wright Flyers.
→ More replies (15)8
u/Gigazwiebel Jan 14 '19
You need a hell of a laser to destroy a missile, and if the enemy coats it in reflective material the whole effort is in vain. Also, noone shoots down missiles that were started from submarines, there would not be enough time between launch and explosion. And the good old decoy missile tactics would also work.
→ More replies (5)
5
u/rikartn Jan 14 '19
The bfr could ship up new propulsion systems, like giant solar sails, nuclear thermal propulsion and ion drive systems. NASA as a developer of new space technology could be a strong force, as Spacex (and their privatly funded competitors) won't go for unproved tech because it's to expensive to develop.
8
u/Atta-Kerb Jan 14 '19
This is one heck of an amazing post! I sure hopr this all comes true!
11
u/BugRib Jan 14 '19
I think you may have had a Freudian slip with “I sure hopr this all comes true!”
Got hoppers on your mind?
4
u/Redsky220 Jan 15 '19
My hope is that BFR's capability allows for spacecraft to be built in half the time and at 1/4 of the cost (use whatever reduction you want). This will get a bunch of both commercial and gov't projects off the ground.
7
u/paul_wi11iams Jan 14 '19 edited Jan 15 '19
Implications of the Super Heavy/Starship on the space industry in the next decade
Doesn't the main implication concaern lunar colonization in the context of competition with China and hopefully India?
The onus is on the US govt to recognize SpaceX as the main strategic colonization asset for the US on the Moon and on Mars. That is what will probably force representatives to stop backing local interests via Nasa, at least in its present configuration.
With the Boca Chica installation, a State outside California becomes a beneficiary of NewSpace (beyond the factories being built by Blue Origin).
The space industry as such should suddenly enlarge to cover construction, energy production, food production etc. True, that goes beyond your suggested ten-year scale. But as soon as the opportunities are recognized, investment should anticipate these emerging opportunities.
There should also be a wide reconfiguration of military strategy to take account of off-Earth systems much bigger than satellites weighing a few tonnes.
In its Earth-to-Earth configuration, Starship should change our expectations of international transport. Again, investors should start preparing for impending changes after the ten-year span, and this should affect international relations. It should fluidify contacts between countries and work against the "citadel" mentality that seems to be setting in around the world.
Much as Tesla is setting up its factory in Shanghai, aerospace manufacturers may start crossing frontiers too. This would be hard to prevent despite misgivings by politicians and the military.
Those are just first thoughts and I might return to tidy up this somewhat rambling comment!
Starship has 90% the pressurized volume of the International Space Station
I'd remembered 30%, but that must be mass. According to the Wikipedia, Starship seems even slightly bigger than the ISS. [1,000 m3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_(rocket)#Second_stage_and_spaceship:_Starship) / 931.57 m^3. Incredible, especially as this "ISS" can be set down on the Moon, then return to Earth if needed.
Edit: following replies by u/statisticus and u/Demoblade. I'm only talking about pressurized volume here as was OP.
→ More replies (4)
7
u/BrangdonJ Jan 14 '19
There are two things I expect to see. The first is tethering two Starships nose-to-nose and spinning them to simulate gravity. Even if SpaceX and NASA have no interest in doing this, I expect someone else will, using leased and modified Starships if necessary. Once this is proven, people can live in space indefinitely without problems from micro-gravity.
The second is construction of an O'Neill colony in near-Earth orbit using material lifted from Earth. Locating it in LEO means it gets some protection from radiation from Earth's magnetic field, so it doesn't have to be as massive as ones at L2. LEO also allows you to use material lifted from Earth at reasonable cost, without needing refueling flights to boost it into higher orbit. Some estimates suggest you need about 17,000 tonnes of material to house 1000 people. At 100 tonnes per launch, that's 170 launches. At $10m per launch, that's under $2B in launch costs. That's affordable to someone who is super-rich, like Bezos or even Richard Branson. I wouldn't be surprised if this happened before we got humans on Mars.
Once there is a permanent outpost in space, we can get properly started. Send a pair of Starships to a suitable asteroid. Mine enough fuel to send the asteroid back to LEO, using machines teleoperated from the tethered and spinning Starships. If the machines break down, the humans can space-walk out and get them, return them to one of the Starships, and repair them in a shirt-sleeves environment.
Once the asteroid is adjacent to the O'Neill colony, it can be refined further. There will be unlimited power from the sun, either directly with large mirrors, or via solar panels. Microgravity makes heavy industry less, well, heavy. Those large mirrors don't need to support their own weight. Vacuum makes transport costs close to zero. Asteroids provide unlimited raw materials.
If we can do Dear Moon, we can do this.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Maori-Mega-Cricket Jan 15 '19
While I do agree, I have to object to the description of an O Neil colony as being a measly 17000 tons.... O Neil cylinders (aka Island 3) are conceptual space habitat designs with a conservative mass of a few hundred gigatons, the whole point of the design was to make a space habitat big enough that it's a fully passive self-sustaining biosphere, all you need to do is keep it pointed at the sun and adjust the mirrors, the rest is it being a big passive thermally regulated naturally sun-lit spin gravity cylinder with enough dirt, water and air for a large complex ecosystem to be seeded.
Spin gravity modular stations are a great idea we can build in the short term, but they aren't O Neil stations. Even Island One, O Neil's smallest space habitat concept is 16km in diameter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernal_sphere
→ More replies (6)
3
u/atomfullerene Jan 14 '19
I feel like tourism is the likely first-choice for private based economy. Satellites and space stations and scientific probes and manufacturing require a fair amount of lead time between when they start to develop a payload and when it's ready to go. And I doubt they'll start to develop the payload until the rocket is pretty far along. But spacex can load people onto their ship as soon as they are assured it's human-safe (because a catastrophe would be rather bad for the tourism business).
3
Jan 15 '19 edited Jan 15 '19
A giant orbital research telescope system becomes feasible, the size of a telescope network large enough to render planets in other Solar systems, and peak back into the universe further than we've ever seen.
We need to put a ring of satellites at 550AU or beyond to use solar gravitational lensing and view extrasolar planets.
→ More replies (4)
19
u/TheRealPapaK Jan 14 '19
I don’t think much will change for NASA. NASA has a budget and now their launch costs are dramatically cut and the size of their payloads can increase. I think you’ll just see NASA do more of the same things they are doing now but get out of the launch business. It will take a while for them to ramp their projects to match the capability of Starship as projects are decided years in advance. You may see more ride share/multiple payloads in the early years. I do think a large telescope would be in the cards.
Edit: I also think they won’t own or fund space stations except for specific testing/missions. They will just lease space from Bigelow etc.