On Dec 17, 4:47 pm, Ian Parker wrote:
On 17 Dec, 19:55, Eric Chomko wrote:



On Dec 16, 4:04 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Ian Parker wrote:

:
:Basically the viability of SPS depends on transportation.
:

It depends on much more than that. It depends on all sorts of
resource costs, development costs, etc.

:
:If you are saying that it will be enormously easier with asteroid
:material, you are of course right. What I was trying to work out was
:the establishment of a market of some description.
:

You can't work out the establishment of a market until you can talk
about costs and prices.

:
:I do not believe there will be enough tourists for a killer market.
:"Killer" here refers to the market that justifies the costs and drives
:it.
:

I don't believe we'll get to space at all if we're waiting for the
proverbial 'killer app'. Think 'small bites'.

The term "Killer App" (which I think is beyond silly), conjurs up
thoughts of the Hindenburg disaster when applying it to manned
commercial spaceflight.

Rand used the Grand Canyon as an analogy. I bet he has not read the
very popular book, "Death in the Grand Canyon". It basically speaks
about the fact that many people die in the GC due to not using common
sense.

Eric- Hide quoted text -

Just one quick point of information "Killer app" was coined in
computer science for the application that would pay for a new
generation of computers, operating system etc. Perhaps though you are
right, it is a silly term.

I am a computer professional and well aware of where the term "killer
app" comes from. Gates started using it and it took off from there.


The question of risk in space travel is not however a trivial point.
We were also told the Shuttle would be "safe". It wasn't. I think
there may well be a moral question here. If you are a professional
astronaut you take risks, you have to to get the job done. If you are
a tourist you are risking your life for no really good purpose.

No doubt commercial spaceflight related to tourists in space will have
accidents. It is inevitable.

My experience of tourism and risk is of going round an empty Krak (and
other places like Ugarit and Palmyra). It was nice. I could just trail
behind everyone else and get clear shots with my camera.. There the
risk was very low - only the CIA claims there was any at all. Krak des
Chevaliers is every bit as magnificent in its way as the grand canyon.
But people don't go there.

I am inclined to feel thast when this question of risk comes up people
will back off. I am not sure in my own mind how much tourism is to be
encouraged. OK in a free society you cannot stop people, but this
consideration is always at the back of my mind.


No one expects to get hurt in a man-made fortress, though Syria is not
a friendly country. I can't help thinking about the group of Greek
tourists killed in Egypt about a decade ago. However, people get the
wrong idea about the wilderness. No one expects people to kill other
people in a national park. On the same token a NP isn't Disneyland
either where someone is always present to rescue people in trouble.
The rangers at NPS do as best they can but they can't guarantee safety
especially where someone doesn't use common sense. Don't climb past a
barrier for a better view. I mean the damn fence or barrier is there
for a reason but sure enough every few years some fool simply must
have a better view and bamm, over the edge... Also, a 4 year old girl
fell over the edge, just this past October, due to her parents paying
more attention to the canyon than their daughter.

Space tourism will have its own set of challenges with saftey. Some
idiot is simply bound to see if he can survive in a vacuum with no
equipment, that is one you can count on.