"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article 11aa0b36-4c0d-4949-a1ff-
, says...

Better to have an industry built around hauling
cheap cargo into orbit, rather than the richest
and most famous.

no we need tourists for seed money. it will be a big industry if its
reasonably safe

And for a good definition of "reasonably safe", I'd look at the
historical example of early airline travel. Smallish markets, only the
very rich could afford to fly, yet this was not as safe as airline
travel today. Anyone who asserts that space tourism *needs* to be as
safe as today's air travel is needlessly ignoring history.


The future of space travel, built upon the backs of the
rich-and-famous thrill seekers? A business plan depending
upon a pricey novelty? And a joyride that's mostly a
combination of shear terror, followed by gut-wrenching
space sickness? Will the lead story show Angelina Jolie
kissing the ground as she departs from the first flight?

That type of novelty oriented business starts out big, then
quickly starts declining. So the first big problem immediately
kills the business. Why pour good money into bad? That's what
happens to a declining business. Poof! The investors flee before
the story even hits the paper.

You're ignoring history. Again, look at airlines.


That's not a valid analogy at all. Airlines take people
and cargo places, it provides a very valuable service
to a large potential market. Atlanta Intl had 976,000
take off and landings in one year, that's a scale of
economy space tourism can only dream about.

Space Tourism, since it doesn't take anyone or thing
anywhere, it ends where it began, doesn't have any
value or potential to speak of. The proper analogy
would be a very upscale version of an amusement
park ride.

Money can be made on amusement park rides, but
to compare that to the airline industry is absurd.

And even if it was proper, the airline industry was
jump started by a government contract for bulk
cargo, the US mail.



There were other
ways to travel long distances (rail and ocean going passenger liners).
The airlines started out small, catering to the rich with lavish service
aboard the smallish aircraft. But as safety and efficiency increased,
costs came down. This broadened the market.

If your assertion were true, then the middle class (including business
travelers) wouldn't be routinely flying to vacation and business
destinations.


And do you think space travel will replace airlines anytime
soon? When will we have 80,000 orbital flights a day?
Making plans for something that far out in the future
is entirely irrational, how can anyone possibly predict
what'll be profitable or needed fifty or a hundred years
from now?

This's the same underlying problem with all of NASA's
recent goals. Colonies here and there and all that.
Look what happened just in the last 15 years they've
been building the ISS. Along comes 9/11 and our
priorities dramatically shifts.


..

Space travel is very hard and expensive, you have
to think BIg to make it happen, like saving the planet
with ever cheaper energy, not sMALL as with space
tourism.



I completely disagree. The history of air travel has proven otherwise.


Why would anyone expect a much faster and more expensive version
of the Concorde would have a larger potential, or a happier ending?
Please cite why this new business plan will succeed while the other
one failed? Higher ticket prices? Longer waiting periods?
Faster speeds? More training needed? More physically exerting?
More dangerous? Fewer destinations?

What is the aspect which will make this business succeed?
If history is to our guide, the analogy needs to be accurate.




s


Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker