The Observer view on the future of space travel
The sight of the giant Falcon Heavy rocket roaring into space after its launch last week will have brought, if nothing else, a nostalgic tear to the eyes of many experienced space hands who had gathered to witness the blast-off.
From the same Kennedy Space Center launch pad that saw Apollo rockets soar towards the moon, a new launcher, built by Elon Musk’s SpaceX company and currently the most powerful in the world, made its dramatic maiden flight. Hopes that the great pioneering days of US space flight, in the 1960s and 1970s, would soon return were suddenly rekindled. The fact that Falcon Heavy’s cargo was ferrying an electric sports car, built by a different Musk company, Tesla, to Mars only added spice to an already extravagant event.
Musk had made it clear that Falcon Heavy’s launch should be a fun event and there was certainly an irreverent aspect to the aiming of a sports car at a distant planet. But we should be careful not to dismiss the proceedings as being more about drama and entertainment than it was about serious technological development. In fact, last week’s launch represents a very important step in the progress of space flight. For the first time, an entrepreneur showed what could be achieved with a bit of imagination and boldness.
Just consider the construction of the Falcon Heavy. Unlike previous space launchers, its lower stages, after using up their fuel, were not dumped in the upper atmosphere and allowed to break up over the oceans. Instead, they were gently returned to Earth using retro rockets for subsequent reuse on other launches, a procedure that Musk has already pioneered on lighter versions of his Falcon rockets.
It was a highly sophisticated operation and typical of the technological fixes that Musk is employing in order to slash launch costs and bring him close to his dream of making spaceflight affordable and accessible.
And that is a laudable goal. For decades, humanity has struggled to find a role for itself in deep space (as opposed to near Earth space where telecommunications, meteorological and environment satellites provide direct enrichment of lives). A few great deep-space missions have been achieved, it should be stressed, such as the Cassini probe that flew to Saturn and the Hubble space telescope. But all were vastly expensive. Only governments could afford the cost of their construction.
That may soon change, however. In the wake of Falcon Heavy’s success, Musk has said he will soon offer launches for around $90m (£65m) for major payloads, a figure significantly lower than the $300-400m (£217-290m) price tag offered by Falcon Heavy’s nearest rivals.
At such costs, a slew of missions, including probes to study the sun, to hunt planets orbiting other stars and to seek life in the icy moons of Jupiter and Saturn, suddenly look feasible. It remains to be seen if Musk can maintain the success of his Falcon Heavy rockets, of course, but most space analysts place considerable faith in his SpaceX company.
Nor is Musk the only businessman who is threatening to transform the space industry. Others include Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, whose company, Blue Origin, has its eyes on lunar colonisation, and Richard Branson, whose Virgin Galactic aims to carve a tourist market by flying holidaymakers into space for brief trips. Others have their eyes on mining asteroids for rare metals while some seek to build orbiting hotels.
Only time will tell which of these space visionaries will succeed. What is important is that private industry takes on a far greater role in space exploitation in the near future and stops acting merely as contractors that follow government agency wishes.
In this way, they will be following the paths of entrepreneurs who opened up aviation to the masses and who took the emerging science of computing technology and gave us smartphones and tablets. It is an enticing prospect that offers rich rewards to entrepreneurs – and to society.
Since you’re here …
… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.
I appreciate there not being a paywall: it is more democratic for the media to be available for all and not a commodity to be purchased by a few. I’m happy to make a contribution so others with less means still have access to information. Thomasine F-R.
If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps fund it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as £1, you can support the Guardian – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.
View all comments >
comments (238)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
Surely, the billions poured in by the taxpayer, laying all of the groundwork helped Musk slightly.
Let's not pretend this is the result of red in tooth and claw capalism.
As for Branson? Do me a favour.
"As for Branson? Do me a favour."
In order to denigrate Branson and not be a hypocrite, surely you must have achieved more. What have you?
I have a sense of vertigo about this. The giddy feeling that things I once dreamed of might after all be on the way. When I compare the footage from 100 years ago (mainly top-hatted amateurs trying to get Tiki-torch-sized contraptions above the tree canopy) to the outrageous ballet of the stage one boosters alighting back on Earth... I am staggered at how fast we became so good.
It makes me irredeemably glum, though, to recall that space is so insufferably, uselessly big.
SpaceX relies on resources from NASA and the US Air Force's 45th Space Wing, to launch its rockets.
Musk had made it clear that Falcon Heavy’s launch should be a fun event and there was certainly an irreverent aspect to the aiming of a sports car at a distant planet.
What does NASAs Planetary Protection Officer have to say about this blatant case of space-litter?
The mission of the Office of Planetary Protection is to promote the responsible exploration of the solar system by implementing and developing efforts that protect the science, explored environments, and Earth. The objectives of planetary protection are several-fold and include:
Preserving our ability to study other worlds as they exist in their natural states; Avoiding the biological contamination of explored environments that may obscure our ability to find life elsewhere – if it exists; and To ensure that we take prudent precautions to protect Earth’s biosphere in case life does exist elsewhere.
https://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/about
Not much.
"What does NASAs Planetary Protection Officer have to say about this blatant case of space-litter?"
Do you have any idea of how big space is? If you think of 1 speck of dust in the world's oceans, the Tesla is an infinitely smaller proportion relative to space.
I love all the comments below from Brits who think their point of view is of interest to a dog.
The British government of both hues abandoned serious space research in the late 60s and early 70s and tried, quiet callously and deliberately, to force the end of European collaboration in the process. Typical Brit. Fortunately (as with Concorde) the French saw it coming and their departure cost the dozy Brits a fortune. But that was a secret, never to be told.
You do not have a view. You opted out.
Tough!
Do readers now begin to understand why the EU has been so alarmingly prepared for the Brits to do a Brexit? It's called 'learning from experience'.
I love all the comments below from Brits who think their point of view is of interest...
Doubtless the Russians love what Obama did to NASA
6 hours ago
The planned launch of the Progress 69 cargo spacecraft at 3:58 a.m. EST (2:58 p.m. local time) from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan has been scrubbed. A backup launch date is under review. To learn more about the space station and its crew, visit https://www.nasa.gov/station.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html
The tragedy is that the United Kingdom is the only country to have successfully developed and then abandoned a satellite launch capability.
We had it in the 1960s.
And then we threw it away.
What is he looking for in space? Fortunately he's not a Brit. If so, he probably would be in search of spacecake, to eat and to have "until mold does us part".
Only time will tell when Musk will fatally fail. Don't follow that delusional clown.
And since the last attempt to save money with reusable space craft failed so miserably and customers ask Musk to rather use his rockets one-way and launch more cargo that way, I first need to see honest numbers on the theory that this old idea has been successfully implemented this time.
Ouch!! What did Elon beat you at a maths contest or something? 'Delusional clown' is a rather interesting way to describe someone who sets some pretty out there targets, but still hits them [even if it takes a little longer than initially estimated]. I'm guessing the past efforts at reusability you are referring to is the SLS or space shuttle? SpaceX are taking a very different approach to achieve reusability, turn around it much quicker than the with the SLS and cost is far far less. SpaceX has already been reusing some of their first stages [the side boosters for the Falcon Heavy launch this week had both previously been flown]. As for profitability SpaceX has stated that they estimate re-use of 1st stages will reduce costs by around 30%. The fact that they are already re-using 1st stages for paying customers suggests its already paying off. The Falcon heavy can lift x2 as much to LEO than the next most powerful rocket for around 1/3 of the list price. And the BFR currently in development will apparently be able to transport cargo and people to LEO without a first stage, making it even less expensive. So perhaps instead of being such a sour puss why don't you let a little light into your life. You don't need to become a Musk fan boy but no one littles the grumpy guy especially when they are wrong.
Even if this is the last minute of his empire, he has still done so far more in his life than I will ever achieve even if I chug along for another 200 years.
Just trying to work out what perspective you use for "fail".
The technology may now be more advanced but Elon Musk faces the same negative social challenges that the pioneers of the Railways faced two centuries ago.
If the pessimists always got their way we would still be living in caves.
Read up on the challenges faced by those that fought to open the first commercial passenger railway. The Manchester to Liverpool was a groundbreaking initiative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opening_of_the_Liverpool_and_Manchester_Railway
Dan Snow made a very informative documentary with the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01q16wj/episodes/guide
SpaceX has demonstrated that it is possible to invigorate the enthusiasm about space flight and achieve great things in relatively short time.
Space flight is one of the very few things, aside from war, that can capture the hearts and minds of so many across scientific and engineering disciplines and thus achieve unparalleled cooperation toward a common goal.
And in contrast to war with a comparably very small amount of death and suffering and considerably cheaper.
Now that is a very uplifting assessment of the potentialities of humanity.
Either war or pointless space colonisation it is then. Really?
It is not an either/or situation, is it?
But there are very few things like those, so my preference is to go with one of those which are not war.
In the early 21st century science and more particularly the technology that made it possible is owned and controlled by the ruling class. It is they who will see most of the benefits and not the rest of society. Regarding the car, it doesn't make up for a small dick.
Not necessarily.
Many modern technologies are open to far greater participation and enable essentially anyone to achieve great things.
There are of course attempts to wrestle it back, some unfortunately quite successful, if people would be more engaged the playing field could be kept more open than during the past.
For example the Internet is a technology that provided an unparalleled opportunity, but people often considered it just a convenience and allowed cooperation to take back control.
E.g. the recent attack on net neutrality in the USA should have sparked a nation wide outrage, but it didn't.
I'm not going to argue against Marx or the increasing corporate control of the 'commanding heights' that continues in too many places around the world.
But Musk's companies such as SpaceX and Telsa do not enforce their patents and Muck has talked about how important it is for knowledge to be shared and acts on this by making all patens open source.
the technology that made it possible is owned and controlled by the ruling class
The world is full of Iphones and other smartphones that are direct descendants of the electronics developed for the moon project of the 60's and 70's. Perhaps you haven't noticed but these are not the preserve of the ruling class.
Credit Musk his vision and his accomplishments but I'm sceptical about Mars colonization,hyperloop etc.I hope he succeeds but I'm much more confident about Jeff Bezos' more patient and practical plans.
Sign in or create your Guardian account to recommend a comment