Rand Simberg Credibility - Space Tourism

Some time ago I had an online discussion with Rand Simberg about space
tourism.

I said that I believed that a suborbital space vehicle for tourist purposes
would
cost over $500 million and I had read nothing about anyone with deep pockets
really ready to finance it.

Rand said this was in progress and said the probable size was a 5 passenger
vehicle that would come in at a much lower price than what I estimated.

Just coincidentally, now Paul Allen and Branson seem to be proceeding toward
a 5 passenger plus a pilot tourist vehicle using Space Ship 1 as a
proto-type.
The estimated cost for producing I believe a system of 5 vehicles is about
$100 million.

Since Rand's report was so close to the current reality I have to believe
that he had early knowledge of what was going on but could not comment
in anything but general terms because of a non-disclosure agreement.

I have to give him credit for a high degree of credibility on this
particular point.

I will say that I don't believe they can do the proposed job for
$100 million, but even they run over a bit they still have quite a bit
of margin over my estimate.

In the past I estimated it would take about $100 million for someone to
win the X-Prize. I admit I was calling it high to get comments, and in
my mind was thinking about $50 million. I assumed that the X-Prize
couldn't be won by somebody new to the field for the $10 million of
the prize and that it would have to be one by someone who was planning
to do something else with the vehicle.

The estimates I have read on the cost of Space Ship 1 have run from
$20 to $30 million so on my $100 million estimate I was off by a factor
of 3.5 to 5. If the suborbital operational system comes in as predicted
by Branson then I will have been off by a factor of 5.

OK, my original estimate was based on what it has cost the government
to accomplish similar things. Len Cormier and George Herbert have
consistently claimed well engineered private projects could beat the
government costs by a factor of 5 to 10.

Note: Giving Rand Simberg credibility for some of his comments on
space tourism is not to be construed as giving him any credit for
validity of his political views and comments.

Mike Walsh

October 3, 2004

Mike Walsh wrote:

Note: Giving Rand Simberg credibility for some of his comments on
space tourism is not to be construed as giving him any credit for
validity of his political views and comments.

Who needs credibility here?

This is the usenet.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

"Mike Walsh" wrote in message
...
The estimates I have read on the cost of Space Ship 1 have run from
$20 to $30 million so on my $100 million estimate I was off by a factor
of 3.5 to 5. If the suborbital operational system comes in as predicted
by Branson then I will have been off by a factor of 5.

OK, my original estimate was based on what it has cost the government
to accomplish similar things. Len Cormier and George Herbert have
consistently claimed well engineered private projects could beat the
government costs by a factor of 5 to 10.

To me, this is absolutely the most important thing that SS1 has
demonstrated.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:08:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Mike
Walsh" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Some time ago I had an online discussion with Rand Simberg about space
tourism.

I said that I believed that a suborbital space vehicle for tourist purposes
would
cost over $500 million and I had read nothing about anyone with deep pockets
really ready to finance it.

Rand said this was in progress and said the probable size was a 5 passenger
vehicle that would come in at a much lower price than what I estimated.

Just coincidentally, now Paul Allen and Branson seem to be proceeding toward
a 5 passenger plus a pilot tourist vehicle using Space Ship 1 as a
proto-type.
The estimated cost for producing I believe a system of 5 vehicles is about
$100 million.

Since Rand's report was so close to the current reality I have to believe
that he had early knowledge of what was going on but could not comment
in anything but general terms because of a non-disclosure agreement.

I'm always loathe to reply to threads with my name in the title, but
no, I had no particular knowledge of these particular plans. My
belief was based on my general experience in the industry
(particularly in the alt-space industry).

I have to give him credit for a high degree of credibility on this
particular point.

OK, my original estimate was based on what it has cost the government
to accomplish similar things. Len Cormier and George Herbert have
consistently claimed well engineered private projects could beat the
government costs by a factor of 5 to 10.

Exactly. That was your error.

Note: Giving Rand Simberg credibility for some of his comments on
space tourism is not to be construed as giving him any credit for
validity of his political views and comments.

Of course. There's no relationship between the two. It's quite
possible to believe the same things about space, and have
diametrically opposite beliefs on non-space issues.

I should add that you are consistently a gentleman in this newsgroup,
Mike, even if you're occasionally (often?) wrong. I'm hope that
you're happy to be mistaken in this case.

Not bad. A turn around time of what, 4 days to relaunch the spaceship? A $50
million dollar spaceship. I suppose a larger verson that is mass produced might
cost the same and might be launched 50 times a year at about $1 million per
launch. A 10 passenger spacecraft would bring the ticket price to $100,000
dollars. A 30 minute suborbital flight could take a spacecraft 1/3rd of the way
around the planet. That would be a worthy next goal. If a spaceship stays in
spacve for 30 minutes, it has time to do something, such as space launch a
small satellite. Perhaps it could even undercut traditional satellite launch
services for certain categories of satellites. One side benefit might be
cheaper satellite com services such as satellite phones. The market for such
would drive investment towards even cheaper launch services and put it in the
hands of commerical developers rather than the US government. As a
side-benefit, the US government could use these services to assemble vehicles
in orbit that can reach the Moon and Mars.

Tom

"Tkalbfus1" wrote in message
...
Not bad. A turn around time of what, 4 days to relaunch the spaceship? A
$50
million dollar spaceship

What was the minimum turn around on the X-15?

.. I suppose a larger verson that is mass produced might
cost the same and might be launched 50 times a year at about $1 million
per
launch. A 10 passenger spacecraft would bring the ticket price to $100,000
dollars. A 30 minute suborbital flight could take a spacecraft 1/3rd of
the way
around the planet. That would be a worthy next goal. If a spaceship stays
in
spacve for 30 minutes, it has time to do something, such as space launch a
small satellite. Perhaps it could even undercut traditional satellite
launch
services for certain categories of satellites. One side benefit might be
cheaper satellite com services such as satellite phones. The market for
such
would drive investment towards even cheaper launch services and put it in
the
hands of commerical developers rather than the US government. As a
side-benefit, the US government could use these services to assemble
vehicles
in orbit that can reach the Moon and Mars.

Tom

October 5, 2004

Dave O'Neill wrote:

What was the minimum turn around on the X-15?

Ever heard of Google?

http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltr...-93-tm4453.pdf

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

"Mike Walsh" wrote in message ...

OK, so now Mike Walsh cracked.

Is Derek Lyons next?

(hahahahahaha)

Tom

On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:41:01 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Mike
Walsh" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

OK, so now Mike Walsh cracked.

Is Derek Lyons next?

(hahahahahaha)

Tom

Well, I indeed was wrong.

I somewhat object to being regarded as "cracked". :}

I think it was a verb, not an adjective.

"Tom Merkle" wrote in message
om...
"Mike Walsh" wrote in message
...

OK, so now Mike Walsh cracked.

Is Derek Lyons next?

(hahahahahaha)

Tom

Well, I indeed was wrong.

I somewhat object to being regarded as "cracked". :}

Mike Walsh