|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |