Moore's Law and space flight

I wrote about Moore's Law and the second half of the chessboard in a previous post. We've crossed the border between the first and second half and already we're seeing inventions such as the autonomous car, machines that scan legal documents better than humans and a car designed and crash-tested on computers from start to finish (the Tesla Model S).

Elon Musk's private space exploration company, SpaceX, is another company that relies heavily on computers to design and test their products. Among other things they're pioneering the reuse of launch vehicles to make space exploration more affordable. So far launch vehicles have been discarded after use which is like throwing a Boeing 747 airplane into the ocean after the maiden flight. Overall SpaceX has been successful so far and they have a multi-billion contract with NASA to deliver equipment and supplies to the International Space Station to prove it. SpaceX's supply vehicles have successfully reached the ISS, and it's only a matter of time before they perfect the re-usability of the launch rockets (the last test didn't go so well on account of not enough hydraulic fluid to steer the rocket as it landed). Here's an animation of what it would look like:

And here's a test flight of the actual rocket (although it takes the rocket just up to 1'000 meters, it serves as a powerful proof of concept). Also, SpaceX has already achieved substantial cost reductions compared to traditional companies:

Depending on a number of factors, mostly the size and weight of payload, the cost of a single launch ranges from $100 million to $260 million. SpaceX charged SES, a global satellite company, a mere $55 million for this launch. 

And this is just the beginning:

The cost of the Falcon 9 rocket alone is $54 million /.../ but it only burns $200,000 worth of fuel. If each rocket were reusable, and the only costs to launch a satellite were fuel and various ground support services, that would dramatically reduce the cost of getting to space. - this and the previous excerpt from Quartz

Of course, SpaceX is not the only privately funded space exploration company. In fact these days starting a commercial space company is the thing. Amazon's Jeff Bezos and Virgin's Richard Branson are names that come up often when commercial space flight is being discussed, but they have a lot of competition from less known companies.

Starting an aerospace company, unless you want to take humans to space, doesn't necessarily require deep pockets. The fact that you don't need billions of dollars and huge facilities to start a commercial space company is perfectly illustrated by Planet Labs. It's working on building a network of mini-satellites orbiting the Earth, with the aim of providing a live stream of the planet on demand. A technology like this is very helpful for emergency workers during a disaster, farmers can use it to monitor crops, scientists and authorities can use it to monitor the weather, environmental pollution, illegal logging and changes in the course of rivers. Some Wall Street analysts are even using satellite images to estimate the number of customers the likes of Wal-Mart have visiting their stores by the number of cars parked in their parking lots.

Nor will all the nanosats be looking downwards. Sensors facing sideways and upwards from low-Earth orbit will allow researchers to carry out a large number of experiments and to take measurements that have previously been too costly to consider. This includes detecting solar and cosmic radiation, interactions between magnetic fields and other forces which together make up what is called space weather. Measuring and predicting space weather could be used to protect billion-dollar satellites and prevent astronauts from receiving high doses of radiation.

And the cost advantages? To say that they're substantial would be an understatement:

Including the launch, a nanosat of CubeSat dimensions might cost $150,000-1m, rather than $200m-1 billion for a full-sized one. - this and the previous excerpt from the Economist

Planet Labs and other similar companies (read the Economist article for more on that) have been able to achieve these cost reductions, compared to large satellites, thanks to the break-neck speed at which smartphone technology, and consumer electronics in general, has advanced. They're actually building the satellites using smartphone components. All of this comes back to Moore's Law and the second half of the chessboard. Without improvements in microprocessors, memory capacity and cameras none of this would be possible. The nano-satellites are designed to last only a year or two in space, after which they will burn up in the atmosphere after re-entry. But that is all well since replacement satellites will benefit from Moore's Law, carrying with them improved chips, sensors, batteries, radios, memory etc. As if space exploration itself wasn't exciting enough, these technological and cost advances will make space exploration affordable to millions of people, possibly giving paving the way for new technological advances.

-

If you're interested in SpaceX and their innovative approach to space technology, I highly recommend you check out this video in its entirety.