Hercules has no justification as a simple cargo lander. It will not be economically competitive to privately developed landers which will provide all the functionality required by customers. In other words, an SLS program for landing vehicles. Not in terms of size but simply in execution of schedule and cost control.
You are assuming a lot without taking into account Hercules' purpose and the support system it provides. But yes lets JUST focus on the payload to the surface of mars which is between 20Mt and 30Mt in a reusable single-stage landind vehicle.
Price always drives business. Chinese products are not sold due to excellence in build quality or brand reputation. An operator with a $Billion dollar satellite will still appreciate a $Million dollar savings and Spacex is offering much better than that. Saying 2+2=4 over and over isn't helping so this is the end of my inputs on this subject. It is beyond me that any of this should be difficult to grasp.
It's not difficult to grasp at all, while satellite operators may 'appreciate' saving some millions of dollars on space launch it isn't being seen in the market share for SpaceX for the reason that saving a few million is not as important to their business model as it might seem. They key you're looking for is to pretty much ignore the satellite launch market, (as it applies to economics) because it only reprsents a share, (granted currently a large one but in the future we're arguing satellite launch would be an after-thought at best) of the overall space flight support market.
Regarding space tourism, here are some numbers:
Not really, see I read the same studies you did and I actually paid ATTENTION to the apedix's with the actual number in them. I'll add the numbers then.
-10 million people in surveys have said they would spend a year's savings to go to space
Space or orbit there is a difference even in the survey's. The majority of those responding indicated that they would spend a "years" savings/salary as long as the cost was less than $5,000 dollars all inclusive with about a third of that willing to go as high as $10,000 dollars. And keep in mind to get there the "trip" has to include:
- A destination, (not the ISS but preferably an existing commercial station)
- Expected to stay up ot a week at least, (with services and several different scheduled "experiances" such as EVA's and other activities)
- Required certain support and convincence infrastructure to be provided including meals, entertainment and other activities
- Required a certified and "safe" means of accessing and returning from space
- Required no more than a few weeks to only a few days being 'trained' for space flight and on-orbit living
-most respondents in a survey said they would spend 3 months salary to go to space
Again the above restrictions and requirements apply and the 3 months salary again equates to less than $10,000 dollars for the majority of respondents.
-if space launch tickets drop to $10,000, 1 million people per year would want to go to space
Less than $50.00 dollars a "pound" for a one person, no frills ticket to orbit and back? As long as they stayed in orbit at least two days, preferably at an orbital destination other than the ISS, with amenitites and services. You can get the higher numbers if you offer a ticket for $1-2,000 dollars for a "once-around" no-frills joy-ride AND the turn-around time on passenger throughput is sufficient you might actually make a profit on the venture.
-even at $250,000 per ticket, a fully established suborbital tourist industry can expect 15,000 passengers per year
Actually less than 2,000 passengers per year at that price. In order to get above that line the price has to drop to $100,000 dollars and then over 5 years to around $50,000 dollars where you may see an increase to around 4,000 to 6,000 passengers a year. Note all these price point assume at least a two-week "training" at a luxury resort hotel with all the services and a few voluntary 'daily' briefings on the flight and operations. Assuming price stays around the same after around 10 years you should see a sharp rise in passngers so that you'd reach around 15,000 in 20 or so years. Actually most survey's the price has to continually drop with prices reaching less than $5,000 dollars per flight to come near the 15,000 passengers a year level. Considering all you need to do a suborbital flight is a high performance jet aircraft with a small rocket to 'bump' you over the Karman Line ...
For decades, the dream of low cost space launch has been $100/pound to orbit. This gets you close to the $10,000 ticket price.
$100/pound and assuming an 'average' person/spacesuit combo at 200lbs equals a $20,000 dollar ticket with no baggage, no 'frills', no destination, (that adds to the cost) and "maybe" two days on orbit in increasing discomfort. Using the same metrics a similar $10,000 dollar ticket reflects a base price of $50/pound.
The Spacex Starship operating as a world transport hopes to eventually achieve a ticket price of $1000 per person. This would expose passengers to suborbital space travel.
And we'll keep our fingers crosssed that SpaceX has better luck than companies with far more 'real' reasons to need/want suborbital point-to-point travel which found the idea un-econmical and keep shelving it. (And they used MUCH more practical transport vehicles as well)
As an aside, the Falcon Heavy costs $90M and puts ~70 tons into LEO. That's ~$650/pound. You can argue that in reusable mode it won't lift as much but compare that price/pound to anything else. Especially SLS (assuming launch cost is on the "low" side of $1Billion plus rather than some much higher numbers I've seen).
Musk stated $90M, but the price quoted by the customers was $90M to 95M for a fully expendable launch (which there hasn't been one yet) and assumes at least a few prior flights for the boosters. Pricing is looking to be around !$100M per launch on average with a possilbe 30% savings available from allowing the use of re-used boosters by the customer.
But you're barking up the wrong tree if you think I'll defend SLS in any way
I'm not happy that our state represenatives were "happy" to have required NASA build a 130ton payload launch vehicle simply because "experts assured them" that such would require the use of SRBs to be made in Utah. Hercules has an official NASA component to the design team so of course it will 'baseline' the SLS as the likely launch vehicle.
Luckly it can be launched, partially fueled, on an FH and probably New Glenn. Unfueled it can be lofted by Falcon 9, Ariene 6, and Vulcan so it's not dependent on the SLS. THE point to take into consideration though is its operations planning (as an assumption under the NASA "ISRU To The Max" study Mars Base/Colonization plan, which may explain why we'd heard so little of this concept when it was first brought up in 2016*) was based on the "assumed" SLS launch rate of 2 per year with a possibility of 3 during a '"surge" year. It's also clear that the plan uses commercially available launch as much as possible as well. (That depends on Congress though)
So far this issue, along with a flat budget, has meant that any planned return to the Moon and/or Mars mission has to be as 'efficeint' as possible which has meant multiple vehicle stages optimized for performance rather than sustainablity and economy. But that changed in the last few years, specifically starting in 2016. (And yes I give kudos to SpaceX and Musk for hinting ITS planning and the strategy outlined therein) Suddenly there was a bit of 'freedom' from the performance at all costs model and ideas like Lockheed's "Mars Base Camp" and Hercules/Base-First came out. The main idea is not to send people first but to build up infrastructure and base elements, (the "expendable" Hercules lander freighters) so that any manned Mars stay can use existing resources and infrastructure to both stay longer and do more.
Using a combination of SLS and commercial launch vehicles it builds up both orbital and surface infrastructure in a rapid fashion. It is very much an ITS-style mission architecture.
Randy
*= Being also over-shadowed by the original BFR/ITS announement that same year and 'tied' to the SLS as it was
