To get more humans into space we need more crewed space transportation systems. It is risky to put all one’s hopes into Starship, or even Starliner and Soyuz. Even if all those systems work perfectly and quickly (they aren’t and won’t), we will still need more transportation to becoming truly spacefaring. Competition is the best way to ensure this outcome.
Therefore, the research department at Curious Cosmonaut Plaza have started digging into how to build a new crewed transportation system. Here are the broad requirements:
Be a capsule / parachute-reentry system like Soyuz, Crew Dragon, etc. Why? Not only is this design more proven but there are lots of people in the industry building systems like this, as opposed to other crew systems like lifting bodies. This will accelerate hiring and reduce the development costs.
The capsule will launch on an existing or soon-to-be existing human-rated launcher. Our designers like the Rocket Lab Neutron as the capsule’s booster. Neutron will be human-rated, ready by 2024, and likely cheaper than other human-rated launchers (Falcon 9, Vulcan, Soyuz).
Replicate the Gemini program but at far lower cost. The Apollo command and return module cost $39 billion to develop, and SpaceX essentially replicated that system for less than $1 billion. Gemini cost $8 billion to develop, we will basically replicate the Gemini model for $500 million.
SpaceX replicated the Apollo Command Module. What if someone replicated the Gemini project to build a new crewed transportation system?
So what does that get us? A human-rated capsule and launch system that can take two people to space at least once a month starting in, say, 2027. Let’s assume Starship is taking people to and from space starting in 2030. That gives us 3 years of revenue service where we are basically only competing with SpaceX Crew Dragon. So we can charge $45 million per seat and still undercut Crew Dragon by at least $5 million per seat. Starliner will be more expensive (flying on Vulcan) and Soyuz will be perceived to be too dangerous. We’re not counting the Chinese or potential Indian crewed vehicles because we assume most customers would prefer to fly on / be limited to flying on (for geopolitical/legal reasons) a Western- developed launch vehicle.
If our system flies 12 times / year starting in 2027, that’s $1,080 million/ year in revenue, and $360 million / year in earnings.
Our “New Gemini” system could generate $360 million in profit starting in 2027.
How can $500 million be raised to develop the system? By leveraging public markets via the SPAC process. See summary below.
After raising $500 million, the system will need at least another three years to build and test before entering revenue service in 2027. Once revenue service begins there will be $360 million / year in profit for at least another three years i.e. before Crew Starship comes online and presumably undercuts us. Even with Crew Starship online one can hope for another $120 million / year in profit for the next ten years. This is because Starship is really, really big and thus not suited for all missions. Starship is the 747, our system is the Cessna. Having a smaller crewed system that undercuts Falcon will be useful in niche markets for a long time.
An investor in the SPAC round might expect a 94% return over 13 years. Similar to launch companies today.
That revenue stream ($2.28B over 13 years) at a 6% discount rate gives us a net present value of a little over $875 million. That’s a 94% return, or a 5.25% annualized return on the $450 million raised in the SPAC round. Not amazing but not bad either, especially for an investment in space hardware. Most launch companies going SPAC today can expect similar post-SPAC returns, or worse.
What is most exciting about this idea, however, is how it might accelerate the space station industry. More crewed transportation systems will lead to more space stations, and more space stations mean more people living in space. And the more people living in space gets us that much closer to becoming truly spacefaring.