Airlines And Other Private Companies Going Into The Space Industry

[Photon Guy]

In the movie 2001 the now defunct airline company Pan Am had gone from the airline industry into the space industry. We know that won't happen now since Pan Am went out of business in 1991 but I've been thinking of the possibility of other airline companies and private businesses in general going into the space industry. To the best of my knowledge in the USA the only organization that sends people into space is NASA which is entirely government funded. It would be better if private companies would take up the space industry since that way the space program wouldn't rely entirely on government funding and there would be more opportunities for people to go into space not to mention more opportunities to develop technology used in space. 

[zapatos]

Quote

The private sector has become increasingly involved in space exploration. Companies like Virgin Galactic, SpaceX and Blue Origin are taking people to space in their own private spacecrafts. And NASA is increasingly partnering with private companies to accomplish its missions.

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/07/20/americans-views-of-space-u-s-role-nasa-priorities-and-impact-of-private-companies/#:~:text=The private sector has become,companies to accomplish its missions.

[RomanRodinskiy]

It seems to me that in the future the boundary between upper-atmosphere flight, which is already considered space, will be erased. For example, this is indicated by the transition of some state air forces to air-space forces. As spaceflight technology becomes cheaper and more widespread, the boundary defined by commercial flights will rise. Nevertheless, let us remember that earlier attempts have been made to fly mediocre flights in near-space by airlines to reduce the cost of conventional commercial flights. Such programs failed, but this is a rather mediocre example.

[Photon Guy]

On 10/5/2023 at 11:11 AM, zapatos said:

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/07/20/americans-views-of-space-u-s-role-nasa-priorities-and-impact-of-private-companies/#:~:text=The private sector has become,companies to accomplish its missions.

Well that's good. While Im a really big fan of space exploration, I am not a fan of NASA. I don't really trust how NASA is run and I wouldn't mind if NASA was completely dissolved, or at least greatly down graded, and the space industry was taken up by private businesses. 

On 10/5/2023 at 4:42 PM, RomanRodinskiy said:

It seems to me that in the future the boundary between upper-atmosphere flight, which is already considered space, will be erased. For example, this is indicated by the transition of some state air forces to air-space forces. As spaceflight technology becomes cheaper and more widespread, the boundary defined by commercial flights will rise. Nevertheless, let us remember that earlier attempts have been made to fly mediocre flights in near-space by airlines to reduce the cost of conventional commercial flights. Such programs failed, but this is a rather mediocre example.

So by upper atmosphere I take it that means the Thermosphere. I've never heard of airplanes flying that high. 

[Sensei]

Private business does it to make money. The government doesn't necessarily.

 

You haven't shown what private companies are supposed to make money on in space.

 

The business of launching and managing satellites is carried out by private companies. However, it does not require any human assistance in space.

Rockets are small because they don't need to carry 90 kg of human body x number of crew + all the stuff needed to keep them alive = tons. They just need to carry a few kilogram satellite. The cost of a rocket launch is counted in millions, not billions of dollars.

 

Asteroid mining?

1 billion dollars / 1800 usd/gold ounce = 555555 ounces * 31.1 g/ounce = 17277777.8 g / 19.3 g/cm^3 = 895221 cm^3 = 0.89 m^3

i.e. to get even for every 1 billion of launch costs they would have to find 100% gold asteroid with size near 1m^3

Finding too much of it (which is really doubtful), could destabilize the earth's stock market (just as gold from America did to Spain and Western Europe hundreds years ago).

Gold mining on Earth is 4,000 tons per year.

On Earth, it is easier and less risky.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Sensei

[TheVat]

Unless we go to Clarkeian space elevators or rockets using some exotic propulsion that drastically drops payload costs, I would see privatized space travel as mostly creating a playground for the wealthy.  Even if there were asteroid mining or similar profit ventures, very few people would physically go up, as automated processes (without expensive life support systems and radiation shielding) would be far cheaper - engineers and other technical staff would likely run such operations from the ground while robots dug out the minerals.

[exchemist]

On 10/5/2023 at 4:04 PM, Photon Guy said:

In the movie 2001 the now defunct airline company Pan Am had gone from the airline industry into the space industry. We know that won't happen now since Pan Am went out of business in 1991 but I've been thinking of the possibility of other airline companies and private businesses in general going into the space industry. To the best of my knowledge in the USA the only organization that sends people into space is NASA which is entirely government funded. It would be better if private companies would take up the space industry since that way the space program wouldn't rely entirely on government funding and there would be more opportunities for people to go into space not to mention more opportunities to develop technology used in space. 

What about Space X? Or Jeff Bezos's Bellend One?

There is no bar to private companies getting into the business. The reason there are not more is the high cost and risk, which are easier for government to sustain than private companies, backed by commercial banks. And as it is NASA, ESA and the Russian and Chinese programmes compete to offer launches for satellites on a commercial basis, so not all their funding is from government by any means.    

But it's true that it is a freight rather than passenger business. There are obvious reasons for that. It's very expensive, the life support systems for people would add further cost.  And what's the point? There's nowhere to go once you're up there.

 

Edited October 7, 2023 by exchemist

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

I don't really trust how NASA is run

Can you please expand on which aspects of NASA you find untrustworthy?

[Photon Guy]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

Can you please expand on which aspects of NASA you find untrustworthy?

It's the management of NASA that I don't like. It's because of how careless and impatient the managers can be that we had disasters such as Challenger and Columbia. With Challenger the engineers knew there was something wrong, they knew about the faulty 0-ring and they warned management but management decided not to listen to them and went ahead with the launch anyway. One of the engineers even knew that Challenger was going to blow up before it happened but management wouldn't listen to him. Just to satisfy their own egos and impatience they decided to throw safety out the window and it cost lives.

With Columbia they knew that some of the crucial heat shielding had been damaged and they could've launched a rescue mission with Atlantis or they could've even allowed some of the crew members to do a spacewalk and repair the damage but they didn't, and that too cost lives. 

So that's what I don't like about NASA, how they can be so utterly careless and ignore danger and as such it leads to disaster. 

[StringJunky]

18 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

It's the management of NASA that I don't like. It's because of how careless and impatient the managers can be that we had disasters such as Challenger and Columbia. With Challenger the engineers knew there was something wrong, they knew about the faulty 0-ring and they warned management but management decided not to listen to them and went ahead with the launch anyway. One of the engineers even knew that Challenger was going to blow up before it happened but management wouldn't listen to him. Just to satisfy their own egos and impatience they decided to throw safety out the window and it cost lives.

With Columbia they knew that some of the crucial heat shielding had been damaged and they could've launched a rescue mission with Atlantis or they could've even allowed some of the crew members to do a spacewalk and repair the damage but they didn't, and that too cost lives. 

So that's what I don't like about NASA, how they can be so utterly careless and ignore danger and as such it leads to disaster. 

This wouldn't happen in a private company, with profit as it's core motive?

[Sensei]

Private companies have even less patient managers..

 

[zapatos]

23 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

It's the management of NASA that I don't like. It's because of how careless and impatient the managers can be that we had disasters such as Challenger and Columbia. With Challenger the engineers knew there was something wrong, they knew about the faulty 0-ring and they warned management but management decided not to listen to them and went ahead with the launch anyway. One of the engineers even knew that Challenger was going to blow up before it happened but management wouldn't listen to him. Just to satisfy their own egos and impatience they decided to throw safety out the window and it cost lives.

With Columbia they knew that some of the crucial heat shielding had been damaged and they could've launched a rescue mission with Atlantis or they could've even allowed some of the crew members to do a spacewalk and repair the damage but they didn't, and that too cost lives. 

So that's what I don't like about NASA, how they can be so utterly careless and ignore danger and as such it leads to disaster. 

That was two decades ago. What do you know about them today?

[Photon Guy]

8 hours ago, StringJunky said:

This wouldn't happen in a private company, with profit as it's core motive?

If a disaster such as Challenger happened with a private company the backlash against the company would be so severe that it would go out of business. As such, a private company would not take such a risk. 

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

That was two decades ago. What do you know about them today?

I know that today they are a government funded and government run organization just as they were back then. 

[zapatos]

55 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

I know that today they are a government funded and government run organization just as they were back then. 

So is the National Park Service. If you distrust an agency simply because they are government funded and run you are probably not making a fair assessment.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

If a disaster such as Challenger happened with a private company the backlash against the company would be so severe that it would go out of business. As such, a private company would not take such a risk.

LOL

History is rife with examples of corporations causing environmental damage, and harming (even killing) people, without going out of business as a result. Union Carbide India Limited killed thousands in Bhopal in 1984, paid a settlement and renamed itself. Still in business. Exxon, Shell and ARCO are still around, despite serious incidents. TEPCO, owner of the Fukushima reactor, is still there.

[Sensei]

8 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

If a disaster such as Challenger happened with a private company the backlash against the company would be so severe that it would go out of business. As such, a private company would not take such a risk. 

When you have virtually a monopoly on the market, almost nothing can throw you out of it. Your company is the market.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Sensei

[Genady]

9 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

a private company would not take such a risk.

E.g., OceanGate Inc. did not take such a risk.

[Photon Guy]

On 10/8/2023 at 12:51 AM, zapatos said:

So is the National Park Service. If you distrust an agency simply because they are government funded and run you are probably not making a fair assessment.

The National Park Service does not send people into space, which can be very risky. If the space industry was run by private businesses they would be far less likely to take unnecessary risks that can result in people being killed, because they wouldn't want the backlash. 

On 10/8/2023 at 6:00 AM, swansont said:

LOL

History is rife with examples of corporations causing environmental damage, and harming (even killing) people, without going out of business as a result. Union Carbide India Limited killed thousands in Bhopal in 1984, paid a settlement and renamed itself. Still in business. Exxon, Shell and ARCO are still around, despite serious incidents. TEPCO, owner of the Fukushima reactor, is still there.

Well a private corporation would be far more reluctant than a government organization to take unnecessary risks which would jeopardize people because they wouldn't want the backlash which would result in, if not the company going out of business at least the loss of lots of money, especially if they're competing with other private corporations. 

 

The company of Remington that makes guns, there was a time they were making faulty products that were unsafe, some of their guns would even fire without the trigger being pulled. To the best of my knowledge thankfully nobody was killed as a result but they did lose lots of business and as such they had to take certain actions such as firing some of their higher up managers. 

On 10/8/2023 at 8:18 AM, Sensei said:

When you have virtually a monopoly on the market, almost nothing can throw you out of it. Your company is the market.

That's why a single company should not hold a monopoly in the space industry, there should be multiple companies just like it is with airlines. 

[zapatos]

30 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

The National Park Service does not send people into space, which can be very risky. If the space industry was run by private businesses they would be far less likely to take unnecessary risks that can result in people being killed, because they wouldn't want the backlash. 

Perhaps you con make a complete and concise argument rather than moving the goalposts every time I question your statements. You are making me dizzy.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Photon Guy said:

Well a private corporation would be far more reluctant than a government organization to take unnecessary risks which would jeopardize people because they wouldn't want the backlash which would result in, if not the company going out of business at least the loss of lots of money, especially if they're competing with other private corporations. 

The evidence disagrees with the hypothesis. Repeating the hypothesis doesn’t make it true.

Backlash is why they have a public relations budget. 

1 hour ago, Photon Guy said:

The company of Remington that makes guns, there was a time they were making faulty products that were unsafe, some of their guns would even fire without the trigger being pulled. To the best of my knowledge thankfully nobody was killed as a result but they did lose lots of business and as such they had to take certain actions such as firing some of their higher up managers. 

This doesn’t support your hypothesis, though. If your idea was correct, they would not have dared to sell faulty products in the first place.  As you proposed, “a private company would not take such a risk”

As it stands, they lost business, which is an expected consequence of making a crappy product. They didn’t do sufficient testing to ensure the product was safe, likely because it wasn’t deemed to be worth the cost. A risk they were obviously willing to take.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Aircraft manufacturers haven't become the major airline operators; they sell/lease aircraft to other businesses, that operate airlines. lf a viable sub-orbital aircraft that can operate much like an aircraft (take off and land on runways and not require major refurbishing each flight) were developed by the major manufacturers I would expect airlines to be the ones to operate them. And use them on existing heavily trafficked routes, which can expect to make profits.

Space? It needs destinations with sufficient traffic as well as the vehicles - or need the availability of vehicles to make the destinations. So far the companies making rockets aren't selling them to others to operate, but are operating them themselves, I expect because they are not yet reliable enough. They appear to require their own dedicated launch facilities and operators and such operations remain complex endeavors that are yet to achieve the stage of being frequent, regular and routine.

Apart from space tourism with very high ticket prices the only available destination is the ISS - and but for rare, expensive exceptions, those trips and the destination are all paid for by taxpayers.

[Photon Guy]

Like it or not space exploration is going the way of the private sector. As it's been mentioned in this thread there's companies such as SpaceX and Bellend One and no doubt in the future there will be more private space companies still. That's how its always happened with travel and exploration throughout history, it starts out as something that is government funded and then goes the way of the private sector and more and more people are able to do it. 

[sethoflagos]

1 hour ago, Photon Guy said:

Bellend One

Have you considered investing in this bold new venture?

Edited February 6 by sethoflagos
irony

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Have you considered investing in this bold new venture?

If this becomes its unofficial name I shall be highly gratified.

 

It does resemble its creator, rather: Bezos should avoid roll-neck sweaters at all costs.😄 

 

[Phi for All]

11 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

Like it or not space exploration is going the way of the private sector. As it's been mentioned in this thread there's companies such as SpaceX and Bellend One and no doubt in the future there will be more private space companies still. That's how its always happened with travel and exploration throughout history, it starts out as something that is government funded and then goes the way of the private sector and more and more people are able to do it. 

Right. Private corporations can't handle the R&D necessary. They're weak in that department, extremely weak. They need to show their stockholders that there will absolutely be a return on the investment, and they've almost always fallen down in efforts where they need to pioneer the knowledge and technology available. 

But look what the government did with the Postal Service! No private company was able to deliver letters to 50 states for the same rate, so the government made it happen. And now private interests want to swoop in and buy it all up for pennies so they can raise the rates like they did when they began taking over our utilities (oh gosh, I shouldn't get started on the stupidity of letting corporations manage our power structure).

And NASA managed to take us offplanet in the ultimate pioneering effort. Personally, I think you read about the Challenger disaster and passed judgement on the whole program, which is very naive, imo. NASA has done more to fill in the gaps in our knowledge of space than any private company, and they did it without needing to make a profit. I'm very biased about the program. I'm friends with one of Buzz Aldrin's biographers, and the same guy made me aware of the problems with orbital debris, so I've studied quite a bit about how we deal with outer space as a country and a planet.

I think what you're suggesting will be the downfall of our entire species if we don't stop trusting the private sector to regulate themselves. If we allow the private sector to have access to the resources available offplanet, we can expect every evil thing that's ever happened in science fiction. I don't think you understand how ruthless private interests can be if they aren't heavily regulated, and if you give them the ability to bring asteroids close enough to Earth to mine, you give them unfettered control over all of us.