A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

U.S. space tourism set for takeoff by 2014, FAA says



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2  
Old March 24th 12, 03:30 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 197
Default U.S. space tourism set for takeoff by 2014, FAA 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.

Space tourism is all about ego, Branson et all want to be first
and make a name for themselves, just like all the passengers.
That's not a business plan, it's how the rich-and-famous
masturbate~

How many facials...ah..I meant...how many take off and
landings can you 'squeeze' out of the rich-and-famous?

Atlanta Intl Airport handled 976,000 take off and landings
in 2006.
http://www.natcamembership.org/media...enumbers.msp#1

Airlines can connect you to almost anyplace on Earth, that's
a very valuable service for just about any person or any cargo.
What need or valuable service will space tourism provide?
Until the burning question of space travel is answered, which is
creating a ...valuable reason for people and bulk cargo to go
there, commercial space travel isn't going much beyond
the current satellite industry.

Imagine a business plan for the Concorde, except it doesn't
take you anywhere, it's only a ...joyride. Business plans
are all about potential for growth.

If history is a guide, it was the government paid bulk cargo
called the US mail which jump-started commercial aviation.
Then the passengers followed.

Space Solar Power could be that government paid cargo.
It not only provides a burning public need, but the room
for growth is enormous, energy is the second largest
industry on Earth. Several zeros larger than even
....commercial aviation.

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.




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




  #3  
Old March 27th 12, 04:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default U.S. space tourism set for takeoff by 2014, FAA says

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. 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.

Space tourism is all about ego, Branson et all want to be first
and make a name for themselves, just like all the passengers.
That's not a business plan, it's how the rich-and-famous
masturbate~

How many facials...ah..I meant...how many take off and
landings can you 'squeeze' out of the rich-and-famous?

Atlanta Intl Airport handled 976,000 take off and landings
in 2006.
http://www.natcamembership.org/media...enumbers.msp#1

Airlines can connect you to almost anyplace on Earth, that's
a very valuable service for just about any person or any cargo.
What need or valuable service will space tourism provide?
Until the burning question of space travel is answered, which is
creating a ...valuable reason for people and bulk cargo to go
there, commercial space travel isn't going much beyond
the current satellite industry.

Imagine a business plan for the Concorde, except it doesn't
take you anywhere, it's only a ...joyride. Business plans
are all about potential for growth.


The destinations of space tourism would include orbital hotels and
eventually lunar bases and even possibly asteroids and other planets.
It all depends on how far costs eventually drop.

Look at today's ocean going cruise liners. Sure they stop at tourist
traps during the day, but the big attraction is the way that the
passengers travel. Space travel will be similar, only the draw there is
zero gravity as well as the ability to "look out the window" at the
scenery. You can't see the stark black of space contrasted with the
undistorted pinpoints of light which are the stars without going there.
You can't experience zero gravity for more than a few minutes at a time
without being at least as far as LEO.

If history is a guide, it was the government paid bulk cargo
called the US mail which jump-started commercial aviation.
Then the passengers followed.


True, but that's not what made the airlines what they are today. It was
the infant air travel market that only the rich could afford. No doubt
the cargo market will play an initial role, but, as you say, the current
market has a large passenger component. Companies like SpaceX and
Boeing who are developing "commercial" vehicles which can be used for
cargo *and* passengers have a head start over those who are focusing
only on cargo (e.g. Orbital).

Space Solar Power could be that government paid cargo.
It not only provides a burning public need, but the room
for growth is enormous, energy is the second largest
industry on Earth. Several zeros larger than even
...commercial aviation.


Possibly, but due to the high costs, this might be limited to the
military providing their space based assets with 24/7 beamed power.
I've yet to see a truly convincing case that beamed power from space can
compete with terrestrial based power.

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.

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
  #4  
Old March 27th 12, 06:09 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 685
Default U.S. space tourism set for takeoff by 2014, FAA says

Jeff Findley wrote:
You're ignoring history. Again, look at airlines. 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 we are looking to history, then who/what are taking the place of
the barnstormers, bringing aviation to the "plain folks" at $5 a head?

rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
  #5  
Old March 28th 12, 07:01 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 197
Default U.S. space tourism set for takeoff by 2014, FAA says


"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



  #6  
Old March 30th 12, 03:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 197
Default U.S. space tourism set for takeoff by 2014, FAA says


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan" wrote:


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


In an effort to once again inject a little reality into Jonathan's
usual insanity, I'll simply point out that Virgin Galactic has already
sold $100,000,000 in tickets.



The new hangar they're building in N Mexico costs $200 million.

And they've sold 430 tickets. With the deposit being 20k each
which translates to advance booking of $8.6 million.
http://www.virgingalactic.com/booking/






--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn



  #7  
Old March 30th 12, 03:33 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default U.S. space tourism set for takeoff by 2014, FAA says



"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
"Jonathan" wrote:


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


In an effort to once again inject a little reality into Jonathan's
usual insanity, I'll simply point out that Virgin Galactic has already
sold $100,000,000 in tickets.



The new hangar they're building in N Mexico costs $200 million.


Source for that number? That sounds like a pretty expensive hanger.


And they've sold 430 tickets. With the deposit being 20k each
which translates to advance booking of $8.6 million.
http://www.virgingalactic.com/booking/






--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn





--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

  #8  
Old March 31st 12, 07:29 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 197
Default U.S. space tourism set for takeoff by 2014, FAA says


"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
m...


"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
. ..
"Jonathan" wrote:


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


In an effort to once again inject a little reality into Jonathan's
usual insanity, I'll simply point out that Virgin Galactic has already
sold $100,000,000 in tickets.



The new hangar they're building in N Mexico costs $200 million.


Source for that number? That sounds like a pretty expensive hanger.



Isn't everything about space travel incredibly expensive?
$200k to experience 6g's and 5 minutes of weightlessness?
http://www.virgingalactic.com/overview/spaceport/

Pictures of the site
http://www.spaceportamerica.com/cons...on-status.html

Oh, and Ashton Kutcher just bought a ticket. How much
would it cost not to bring him back?

A half dozen celebrities spread all over the desert? How long
will they search for Angelina Jolie's left arm, will they confuse it
with Paris Hilton's right leg? Is that Brad Pitt's head or
Tom Hank's? (They've all bought tickets btw)

The news will go ape-**** for months over something like that, and
poof go the ticket sales.

The spaceport went up another $7 million just ...yesterday.

"Obviously safety has to be at the highest level, especially when
you're talking about commercial passenger service," he said."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/a...n-okd-16034400


s





And they've sold 430 tickets. With the deposit being 20k each
which translates to advance booking of $8.6 million.
http://www.virgingalactic.com/booking/






--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn





--
Greg D. Moore
http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net




  #9  
Old March 31st 12, 04:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.military.naval
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 197
Default U.S. space tourism set for takeoff by 2014, FAA says


"Rick Jones" wrote in message
...
Jeff Findley wrote:
You're ignoring history. Again, look at airlines. 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 we are looking to history, then who/what are taking the place of
the barnstormers, bringing aviation to the "plain folks" at $5 a head?



A surplus Curtis Jenny back then probably didn't cost the annual
salaries of a few hundred thousand people, or involve multi-mach
speeds. The comparisons to commercial aviation just aren't valid
except for ...one aspect, which is to find the space version of the
huge and virtually unlimited profit potential of aviation.

How can space activity provide direct and substantial benefits to
almost EVERY person and business on the planet? That's why
we have 80,000 flights a day in the US alone. Nothing niche
about it.

If you want to ignite a 'gold rush' for space, and usher in the
kind of space future everyone wants, and the planet ..deserves
then you have to look around the world and find the very LARGEST
and most PRECIOUS market which .../space/..can TRANSFORM!

It's not a very difficult max/min equation. Minimum effort that
provides the maximum potential effect.

What's the /single idea/ which can save the /world/ ?

There's only one market that has all those qualities; the shear
dollar size appropriate to space travel, the level of connectivity
to almost every other market that exists, and is also within our
current technological ability.

And the answer is so obvious, I shouldn't even have to
mention which market it is. But of course I will anyway~


Executive Summary

NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Space
Solar Power (SSP) Exploratory Research and Technology
(SERT) program1 was charged to develop technologies needed
to provide cost-competitive ground baseload electrical power
from space-based solar energy converters. In addition, during its
2-year tenure, the SERT program was also expected to provide
a roadmap of research and technology investment to enhance
other space, military, and commercial applications such as satellites
operating with improved power supplies, free-flying technology
platforms, space propulsion technology, and techniques for
planetary surface exploration.

NASA focused the SERT effort3 by utilizing the definition of a
"strawman" or baseline SSP system that would provide 10 to
100 GW to the ground electrical power grid with a series of
1.2-GW satellites in geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO).
For each of the major SSP subsystems, NASA managers
developed top-level cost targets in cents per kilowatt-hour
(kW-hr) that they felt would have to be met to deliver baseload
power at a target of 5 cents/kW-hr."


GEE, I wonder what happened to this program? It seemed to
literally drop off the face of the planet almost overnight?
Any one care to speculate if it was cost or technology issues?

OR POLITICAL? Read below, the answer should be obvious
even to a child.


"The SERT program was established in FY 1999 and continued
through FY 2000 by U.S. congressional appropriation. An additional
appropriation was also funded for SSP Research and Technology
(SSP R&T) for FY 2001. Decisions on internal NASA budget
allocations for FY 2002 were pending during review and publication
of this report."
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1


Hmm, what happened in late 2001? And how devoted to solar power
would you suspect our new President, Texas Oilman George W Bush
was at the time? Wasn't the 2002 budget the first he was responsible
for? Oh yes that would be correct.

And if anyone was around this ng back then, exactly 3 weeks after
I started ranting about SSP here, NASA took down their long standing
SSP web page, and expunged virtually every reference to SSP throughout
all their pages, I checked. They were all gone the ...same day.

I knew at that moment it was the better goal before I could barely spell
space solar power. It was plainly obvious the powers that be were so
worried about the concept derailing their new plans, they ordered a
Soviet style purge of the idea.

Considering what has happened to NASA since then, I'd say the
decision hasn't stood up to the test of time.

But it's never too late, a good idea has a way, and these days
a good idea can go viral at almost any time, and from even
from a few voices.



s


s




rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...






  #10  
Old March 31st 12, 04:52 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 197
Default U.S. space tourism set for takeoff by 2014, FAA says


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan" wrote:



Like deaths have killed the mountain climbing business, no doubt. Oh,
wait just a moment, that hasn't happened at all!



Maybe you're correct, the United States of America should convert
it's flagship scientific research goal to well-heeled thrill seekers.

Why did I just get a mental image of Louis XVI playing croquet
and in between bites of Haute Cuisine, turning to Marie and asking
"what's that noise in the distance?"


s




--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Space Telescope Three (3) Times The Size Of Hubble To Replace ItIn 2014 (30-09-10) John[_29_] Misc 4 October 5th 10 03:05 PM
Space shuttle for space tourism and first stage of a TSTO. The Big DP[_2_] Space Shuttle 1 January 11th 10 11:59 PM
Space shuttle for space tourism and first stage of a TSTO. Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)[_632_] Space Shuttle 1 January 10th 10 04:14 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.