One comment

• Edward

  June 22, 2023 at 1:19 pm

  Robert,
  You discussed in the interview the delays of the Axiom space station modules.

  I am still in mourning that we lost Bigelow Aerospace, which was practically ready to put manned space stations (space habitats) into orbit when the company stopped business and disappeared. At one point, they were about to offer a prize (similar to the X-Prize) for developing a commercial manned spacecraft launched to one of their space stations by 2015. It is too bad the they didn’t, because it wasn’t until 2014 that NASA issued contracts for the same service to their International Space Station. Bigelow was very far ahead in the race for commercial space stations, and they probably would have won it by now, but they ran out of money waiting for a commercial solution to their transportation problem. However, as you mentioned, Robert, there are so many other companies now making their own space stations that they all are in competition for who will be first.

  This is the list that I have regarding companies working toward their own commercial space stations.
  NASA’s Commercial Low Earth Orbit Destinations (CLD):
  – Axiom Space (converted multipurpose logistics module),
  – Sierra Space & Blue Origin (Orbital Reef),
  – Voyager Space & Airbus (previously Voyager Space & Lockheed Martin) (Starlab)
  – Northrup Grumman (Cygnus conversion + HALO),

  Others:
  – Vast (Haven-1) ( https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/billionaire-wants-to-build-spinning-space-station-for-testing-artificial-gravity/ ),
  – Gravitics (StarMax),
  – Above Space (nee Orbital Assembly),
  – Bigelow (other than its cobweb-site, no signs of life)

  Space News, in June, had an article on this topic — which appears to not yet be online:
  From One, Many: The Race to Develop Commercial Space Stations and the Markets For Them.

  From the Space News article:

  The biggest challenge for those companies is likely not going to be technical, but instead economic. Both NASA and the companies involved acknowledge it’s unclear how big of a market there is beyond NASA for commercial stations from other governments, companies or space tourists, creating uncertainty about how many companies can close their business cases.

  I don’t know. Axiom just took three astronauts from foreign governments (not foreign companies) to the ISS. This does not seem like a small demand for this kind of service. It seems that the limiting factor is the availability of space on the space station, not the demand for travel there. A major reason for countries to have joined the ISS project was to have an opportunity to send their own astronauts there. Many countries have started their own space programs, including training astronauts, without the intention of building their own rockets and spacecraft, and with a limit on the number of slots on American, Russian, and Chinese rockets, their intention must be to hire commercial companies to fly them to space and to provide their citizens and their governments with a way to do space experiments.

  Companies acknowledge uncertainty about the sources of demand for commercial space stations and their size. “I don’t fundamentally believe there is a market yet,” said Tejpaul Bhatia, chief revenue officer of Axiom Space, during a Space Symposium panel in April. His company is, for now, going after “low-hanging fruit” from individual countries and companies that have expressed interest.

  “Is there a market? I think that is what we are all racing to figure out,” he said. “It’s not racing to see who develops the first commercial space station. The question is, is it sustainable from a business standpoint.”

  What I have noticed, however, is that before SpaceX’s Crew Dragon, all the Russian space tourist flights have been tourists. All the SpaceX Crew Dragon commercial space tourist flights have been people who have done their own experiments in space — work to perform, not just a joy ride.

  You said in the interview that when the Shuttle stopped launching, the people at Kennedy and in Florida thought the economy was going to collapse. “Instead, what Jay’s pictures show is that Cape Canaveral is booming, right now. … It’s much better off than it was under the Shuttle, because it’s more exciting, what’s going on.”

  Space News, in March, had an article on this topic:
  Cape Congestion: The World’s Most Active Launch Site Is In Danger of Becoming a Victim of Its Own Success
  https://spacenews.com/cape-congestion-worlds-busiest-spaceport-stretched-to-its-limits/

  … a bigger and more fundamental issue emerged: the infrastructure at spaceports, especially at the Cape, to handle increased launches.

  “Congestion is becoming a huge challenge for us,” [deputy director of launch and range operations for the Space Force’s Space Systems Command Col. James] Horne said. “All of our mechanisms that we use to manage this business area are starting to show strains.”

  Neither NASA nor the Space Force were prepared for so much success of the commercial launch market. They were willing to plod along like always, getting very little done in space, advancing knowledge, technology, and the number of craft in space as a rate that was as slow today as in the 1960s. However, We the People have had big dreams and expectations for space ever since Walt Disney got together with Werner von Braun to show the country what could be accomplished there. That was two-thirds of a century ago, before the space race even began.

  If NASA and the Space Force don’t get their acts together, then commercial space companies may have to build their own orbital spaceports to compensate for the government’s lack of vision and lack of competence at getting hardware, men, and materiel into orbit. Government is falling down on its job.

  Camden Georgia and Boca Chica Texas have shown that governments are far less than eager to support the commercial space industry, despite what they may say. Their actions speak volumes, much louder than their words.

  Floating platforms may be the spaceports of the future. This wouldn’t be so bad, either. Why should government supply all these facilities? Why shouldn’t commercial companies handle the launch sites? Why shouldn’t they handle the airports, for that matter.

  I think we would be better off with less government investment in launch sites and more commercial investment. They could react faster to the changing conditions, which is the problem the Eastern Range is facing today.

  “We have outmoded legislative authorities and funding mechanisms,” [Horne} said. That includes the “excess capacity” approach where federal ranges support commercial launches only when not being used for government activities, even as commercial launches dominate the use of the ranges. “it’s completely the opposite of the dynamic we’re operating in today.”

  Another challenge is a lack of funding dedicated to spaceport infrastructure. “Traditionally, our country has provided some kind of federal financial support for infrastructure for all of our modes of transportation,” said George Nield, former FAA associate administrator for space transportation, as Space Mobility. All modes, he noted, but space. “That’s something we need to fix.:

  Or maybe not fix. As noted, government is the problem, not the solution. It may be time for the space industry to take a lesson from the railroad industry and fund its own way. Railroads did not get as much financial support as Nield suggested, and those companies are the reason that we were able to expand across the continent so easily and quickly. Over the centuries, Europe did not expand across its continent as quickly, but their own railroads made it easy to get people and goods from place to place. Everywhere that railroads went, growth boomed, both in population and in economics. Cities suddenly grew and industry spread everywhere.

  Nield must have been thinking of governments building roads and airports, which supported busing, trucking, airlines and air cargo. This governmental support for these modes of transport caused great problems for the self-funded railroads, as it eased the ability of them to compete with the railroads (which were hard pressed to make a profit from passenger traffic — passenger trains were a railroad’s status symbols, not profit centers).

  The space industry may have a better time of it than the railroads did, because there aren’t alternate ways of getting around in space — no roads, no trucks or busses, no airliners supported by government infrastructure (freeways and airports). As the space industry is already learning by using government facilities for launch, there are limitations that come with the convenience. Rocket Lab learned that one for two years in Virginia.

  Rather than support space financially, what we really need is for government to just get out of the way. Lead, follow, or get out of the way is a good philosophy, in this case. The government is a poor leader in space. It isn’t following the commercial companies but it is getting in their way. Virgin Orbit learned that one the hard way, too.

  SpaceX’s solution to the Human Landing System for Artemis is a perfect example. SpaceX is eager to continue its Starship development program, but it is hindered by continual governmental interference, delaying testing by years. How much farther along would they be had they been allowed to fly test flights a year and a half ago, when they seemed finally ready to launch (but not yet land) the integrated rocket?

  We pay a lot in taxes, but we don’t get our money’s worth.