CEV to be made commercially available

wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

If you look back at Apollo, public interest was dropping like a stone once
Apollo 11 made it home safely. Only the chance of astronauts dying in space
made the public wake up during Apollo 13. The same thing will happen with
Apollo 2.0. After a couple of missions, the public will quickly lose
interest.

Then you should get on the phone *right* *now* to Virgin Galactic,
XCOR, Bigelow, etc. and tell them that the public won't be interested
in spaceflight.

No, no, Scott -- this is the core of what you have wrong. The public
doesn't care a fig about HERO-ASTRONAUTS unless there is a hint of
blood and gore (a bit like NASCAR). What VG, XCOR, Bigelow are selling
is PERSONAL SPACE TRAVEL, and quite a few more people are interested in
that.

/dps

snidely wrote:

No, no, Scott -- this is the core of what you have wrong. The public
doesn't care a fig about HERO-ASTRONAUTS unless there is a hint of
blood and gore (a bit like NASCAR). What VG, XCOR, Bigelow are selling
is PERSONAL SPACE TRAVEL, and quite a few more people are interested in
that.


Here's your problem: the public tends to identify more with astronauts
than bajillionaires. 99.99999% of the public will not only never go to
space, they'll never have the *option* of going to space. So while Joe
Billionaire spends his five million for a week on the LEO Hilton, Joe
Hero goes to the moon and represents The Best Of America.

"Personal space travel" is decades away. "Rich guy space travel" is,
hopefully, just a few years away. It will capture the public for a
while, and then it will fade. Hopefully, the rich will keep flying and
paying so that it will actually become affordable for schmoes like the
most of us, but it'll be a while.

" wrote in
message ups.com...

snidely wrote:

No, no, Scott -- this is the core of what you have wrong. The public
doesn't care a fig about HERO-ASTRONAUTS unless there is a hint of
blood and gore (a bit like NASCAR). What VG, XCOR, Bigelow are selling
is PERSONAL SPACE TRAVEL, and quite a few more people are interested in
that.


Here's your problem: the public tends to identify more with astronauts
than bajillionaires. 99.99999% of the public will not only never go to
space, they'll never have the *option* of going to space. So while Joe
Billionaire spends his five million for a week on the LEO Hilton, Joe
Hero goes to the moon and represents The Best Of America.

Yet TV shows like The Osbornes, Survivor, Big Brother, The Bachelor, and
etc. get good ratings. When there is finally a LEO Hilton, how many reality
shows will set up shop in LEO? How many people who are bored watching an
astronaut perform an EVA would actually be interested in seeing a couple of
reality show contestants making out in zero gravity? Not to mention zero
gravity porn...

"Personal space travel" is decades away. "Rich guy space travel" is,
hopefully, just a few years away. It will capture the public for a
while, and then it will fade. Hopefully, the rich will keep flying and
paying so that it will actually become affordable for schmoes like the
most of us, but it'll be a while.

Yet some successful TV shows are little more than TV cameras following rich
people around. What makes these shows interesting isn't necessarily the
setting, but the way people interact. Zero gravity will put a bit of a
twist on how these sorts of people interact, and I'll bet someone with a
camera will be waiting to make a buck off filming non-astronauts in LEO.

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

Jeff Findley wrote:

Yet TV shows like The Osbornes, Survivor, Big Brother, The Bachelor, and
etc. get good ratings.

Are any of these shows still on???

When there is finally a LEO Hilton, how many reality
shows will set up shop in LEO?

Dunno. Probably at least one, for a season or three.

How many people who are bored watching an
astronaut perform an EVA would actually be interested in seeing a couple of
reality show contestants making out in zero gravity? Not to mention zero
gravity porn...

While all true, none of this has anything to do with cancellation of
ESAS. How many people were glued to their sets during the last flight
of Columbia? And yet, Shuttle had been flying and boring the public for
two decades by that point.

Yet some successful TV shows are little more than TV cameras following rich
people around.

Yes, like Richard Branson's "The Rebel Billionaire." What time is that
on, again?

Shows like this come in spurts. A few years ago, "Real World" style
reality shows about vapid morons with pathetic personal issues were all
the rage. Then Regis Philbin's "Millionaire" show was on every fifteen
minutes until the public got bored overnight. Next year it could be
"Weathermen Gone Wild" on every network. Who knows?

What makes these shows interesting isn't necessarily the
setting, but the way people interact. Zero gravity will put a bit of a
twist on how these sorts of people interact, and I'll bet someone with a
camera will be waiting to make a buck off filming non-astronauts in LEO.

Yes, for a few seasons at most (probably). How does that equate to
long-term?

Jeff Findley wrote:
" wrote in
message ups.com...

snidely wrote:

No, no, Scott -- this is the core of what you have wrong. The public
doesn't care a fig about HERO-ASTRONAUTS unless there is a hint of
blood and gore (a bit like NASCAR). What VG, XCOR, Bigelow are selling
is PERSONAL SPACE TRAVEL, and quite a few more people are interested in
that.


Here's your problem: the public tends to identify more with astronauts
than bajillionaires. 99.99999% of the public will not only never go to
space, they'll never have the *option* of going to space. So while Joe
Billionaire spends his five million for a week on the LEO Hilton, Joe
Hero goes to the moon and represents The Best Of America.

Yet TV shows like The Osbornes, Survivor, Big Brother, The Bachelor, and
etc. get good ratings. When there is finally a LEO Hilton, how many reality
shows will set up shop in LEO? How many people who are bored watching an
astronaut perform an EVA would actually be interested in seeing a couple of
reality show contestants making out in zero gravity? Not to mention zero
gravity porn...

"Personal space travel" is decades away. "Rich guy space travel" is,
hopefully, just a few years away. It will capture the public for a
while, and then it will fade. Hopefully, the rich will keep flying and
paying so that it will actually become affordable for schmoes like the
most of us, but it'll be a while.

Yet some successful TV shows are little more than TV cameras following rich
people around. What makes these shows interesting isn't necessarily the
setting, but the way people interact. Zero gravity will put a bit of a
twist on how these sorts of people interact, and I'll bet someone with a
camera will be waiting to make a buck off filming non-astronauts in LEO.

Regardless of the interesting space twist, I live in eternal hope that
Reality TV shows are slowly going to fade as people get bored of yet
more variations on a theme.

Dave

On 10 Nov 2005 13:12:06 -0800, in a place far, far away,
" made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


snidely wrote:

No, no, Scott -- this is the core of what you have wrong. The public
doesn't care a fig about HERO-ASTRONAUTS unless there is a hint of
blood and gore (a bit like NASCAR). What VG, XCOR, Bigelow are selling
is PERSONAL SPACE TRAVEL, and quite a few more people are interested in
that.


Here's your problem: the public tends to identify more with astronauts
than bajillionaires.

What difference does it make whether or not the public identifies with
bajillionaires? That doesn't keep them from buying yachts.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 10 Nov 2005 13:12:06 -0800, in a place far, far away,
" made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


snidely wrote:

No, no, Scott -- this is the core of what you have wrong. The public
doesn't care a fig about HERO-ASTRONAUTS unless there is a hint of
blood and gore (a bit like NASCAR). What VG, XCOR, Bigelow are selling
is PERSONAL SPACE TRAVEL, and quite a few more people are interested in
that.


Here's your problem: the public tends to identify more with astronauts
than bajillionaires.

What difference does it make whether or not the public identifies with
bajillionaires?

Simple: the claim here was that people don't care about astronauts,
they care about "personal space travel." "PST" is all about
bajillionaires, and will be for a while. But astronauts... people like.

On 22 Nov 2005 14:10:44 -0800, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

No, no, Scott -- this is the core of what you have wrong. The public
doesn't care a fig about HERO-ASTRONAUTS unless there is a hint of
blood and gore (a bit like NASCAR). What VG, XCOR, Bigelow are selling
is PERSONAL SPACE TRAVEL, and quite a few more people are interested in
that.


Here's your problem: the public tends to identify more with astronauts
than bajillionaires.

What difference does it make whether or not the public identifies with
bajillionaires?

Simple: the claim here was that people don't care about astronauts,
they care about "personal space travel." "PST" is all about
bajillionaires, and will be for a while. But astronauts... people like.

Again, so what? People do care about personal space travel, if
they're the ones personally space traveling. Those who can afford it
will do so and build the industry, and it doesn't matter what the rest
of them think.

Rand Simberg wrote:

Again, so what? People do care about personal space travel, if
they're the ones personally space traveling.

And they won;t be.

Those who can afford it
will do so and build the industry, and it doesn't matter what the rest
of them think.


WRONG. The point under discussion here was not whether the space
tourism industry will get going, but whether the voters will get bored
with ESAS. So it matters greatly what "the rest of them" - which
almost certainly includes YOU, Rand - think.

On 22 Nov 2005 14:41:38 -0800, in a place far, far away,
" made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Those who can afford it
will do so and build the industry, and it doesn't matter what the rest
of them think.


WRONG. The point under discussion here was not whether the space
tourism industry will get going, but whether the voters will get bored
with ESAS.

They will. Well, actually, they won't, because it probably won't last
long enough for that to happen.