Historical comparisons

Obviously historical comparisons have their weaknesses, but with that
caveat, what does the commercial passenger space industry look like to
you? More like the begining of the airline industry, or more like the
development of the supersonic aircraft by the US,Europe and Russia in
the 60's and 70's? Obviously one industry turned out fairly sucessful
while the other died a slow lingering death. Or perhaps you think a
totally differant historical scenario is appropriate, or none at all.
Thoughts?

On 25 Feb 2006 15:38:50 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Chance"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Obviously historical comparisons have their weaknesses, but with that
caveat, what does the commercial passenger space industry look like to
you? More like the begining of the airline industry, or more like the
development of the supersonic aircraft by the US,Europe and Russia in
the 60's and 70's?

Neither.

Obviously one industry turned out fairly sucessful
while the other died a slow lingering death. Or perhaps you think a
totally differant historical scenario is appropriate, or none at all.
Thoughts?

The problem is that there are really no historical analogies, given
that the world has grown so much richer with the end of the dominance
of the socialist paradigm, and the acceleration of technology. What
many will want is experiences, and they'll be willing and able to pay
for them. That means that space travel will have a large market.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 25 Feb 2006 15:38:50 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Chance"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Obviously historical comparisons have their weaknesses, but with that
caveat, what does the commercial passenger space industry look like to
you? More like the begining of the airline industry, or more like the
development of the supersonic aircraft by the US,Europe and Russia in
the 60's and 70's?

Neither.

Obviously one industry turned out fairly sucessful
while the other died a slow lingering death. Or perhaps you think a
totally differant historical scenario is appropriate, or none at all.
Thoughts?

The problem is that there are really no historical analogies, given
that the world has grown so much richer with the end of the dominance
of the socialist paradigm, and the acceleration of technology. What
many will want is experiences, and they'll be willing and able to pay
for them. That means that space travel will have a large market.

I don't really think the experience of zero gravity is going to drive a
great wave of expansion. The reality is that space is just an
inhospitable enviornment for human beings. It will never make a lot of
economic sense to bring too many humans there; this given the fact that
humans will be outperformed by thier technological creations sometime
in the next half century.

Of course, I could imagine machine intelligence bringing some humans to
populate a terraformed Mars as a kind of humorous experiment... like a
22nd century TV show. What are the humans doing today, 35RE3? ...Look
at that kid ride his rover! Personally I'm rather partial to the idea
of populating the galaxy with various levels of intelligence, including
unmodified human intelligence. This makes no economic sense, but it
would have the merit of being a lot of fun. We could populate Europa
with mermaids (just kidding).

Obviously historical comparisons have their weaknesses,
but with that caveat, what does the commercial passenger
space industry look like to you? More like the begining
of the airline industry, or more like the development of
the supersonic aircraft by the US,Europe and Russia in the
60's and 70's? Obviously one industry turned out fairly
sucessful while the other died a slow lingering death. Or
perhaps you think a totally differant historical scenario
is appropriate, or none at all. Thoughts?

There are similarities to the beginning of the commercial
air transportation industry - but differences. There is an
apparent market for adventurous people who might have to
decide between scaling Mount Everest or getting their
(commercial? tourist?) astronaut wings.

But there will apparently be few space passenger firms, and
when airlines started there were many companies in many
countries. Many of them started with surplus military
aircraft. What is going to be the result of the first
accident or two? The world is so less tolerant of error now.
There are going to be no surplus spacecraft (on the market).

My guess is that the market will slowly accelerate (so to
speak) but that they will make it. The trip into space will
certainly take less time away from your primary pursuits
than will an ascent of Mount Everest or similar adventure
travel.

The market will not be motivated by the old Cold War
competition, it will be a commercial competition. But it is
going to take some time for the companies to break even.

Certainly Paul Allen will not get his money back - he seems
to have made a massive donation to get the industry started.
I hope he gets to fly in space a couple of times - just to
reward him.


Charles Phillips
"Drink Upstream Of The Herd, Get A Macintosh"
note feeble anti-spam attempt on Reply-To address

Chance wrote:
Obviously historical comparisons have their weaknesses, but with that
caveat, what does the commercial passenger space industry look like to
you? More like the begining of the airline industry, or more like the
development of the supersonic aircraft by the US,Europe and Russia in
the 60's and 70's? Obviously one industry turned out fairly sucessful
while the other died a slow lingering death. Or perhaps you think a
totally differant historical scenario is appropriate, or none at all.
Thoughts?

Asked "What do you think about the American Revolution", Vietnamese
general Giap said "It's too soon to tell.".

The aerospace movement is one seamless continuum. Nature doesn't see
the distinctions you portray. There was no moment that dinosaurs became
birds -- they became ever more birdlike and ever less dinolike until
what you see is birds but no dinosaurs.

People observing birds flew kites, then made man-carrying kites, then
engine powered kites. There was no moment when man transcended kites to
airplanes. Kites became more planelike and less kitelike, although
there are plenty of flying powered kites still today, and unpowered
manlifting kites as well still seen in the skies.

Catapults threw rocks, then flaming objects, then bombs. Flaming
objects became self-propelled and catapulted themselves. Fireworks and
pyrotechnics used gunpowder to push themselves, then push objects like
bullets and cannonballs. The fireworks and pyrotechnics didn't turn
into guns and cannons, they still exist every 4th of July.

Jets and rockets came into existence due to expansion, not displacement
of their predecessors. Jets and rockets are only really different in
that one is air-breathing and the other carries it's oxidizer. Jets,
cruise missles and ballistic rockets were all developed at once, while
cloth-covered wooden planes still flew, and cloth-covered wooden planes
still fly.

The expansion of diversity does not require extinction of the earlier.
Crocadillians and sharks watched the dinosaurs come and then watched
them go.

There is no commercial passenger space industry but every person who
ever got their astronaut/cosmonaut wings has been a space tourist.
Space is a harsh, demanding, unforgiving environment. There never has
been a time when non-working travellers were welcome there and there
isn't any prospects that they will be welcomed soon, if ever. There may
never be a time when human deadweight is welcome in space. If you have
nothing to contribute while in orbital space then there aren't any good
reasons to lift you there.

Sub-orbital joyrides of 15 minutes is another diversification, not a
displacement of anything. It is not appropriate to even call it
"commercial passenger space industry".

It is doubtful that sub-orbital jaunts will become more orbital-like
and less amusment-park ride-like.

SSTO requires a rethinking that is more fundamental than any of the
plans posted in public to date. None of these can morph into the kind
of orbital docking and re-entry vehicles that will provide the ladder
to the planets and stars. If anything they are money sponges sucking
dry the funding sources and a distraction from what will work.

"triples" wrote in news:4401e8de.548.41
@news2:

Certainly Paul Allen will not get his money back - he seems
to have made a massive donation to get the industry started.
I hope he gets to fly in space a couple of times - just to
reward him.

IIRC, Paul Allen already got his money back. Half by winning the X-Prize,
the rest (and more) from the deal with Virgin Galactic.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Space capable rockets can double as strategic weapons systems. That's
because any rocket system that can place a payload in orbit around the
Earth, can also place that payload reliably on any point ON the Earth.

Also, tthe same technology that makes lightweight space reactors, and
nuclear rockets possible also allows the construction of nuclear
weapons systems.

So, any space faring technology is also simultaneously capable of
building WMDs and delivering them to any point on planet Earth.

We live in an era where missile proliferation is controlled along with
controls on nuclear weapons and nuclear material processing
technologies.

This need to contain iknowledge, information and skills hurts the
natural development of space faring technologies by business.

One outcome of this control regime is the adoption by governments of
cost-plus contracting for space launch systems. This virtually
guarantees that commercial space systems will be subsidized and gives
the government ultimate control over these systems. This is a good
thing if all you want to do is contain the proliferation of missile
technologies.

So, if we desire the commercialization of space travel we must first
change the control paradigm and methods for missile and nuclear
technologies.

We would also do well to allow the ownership of space based assets and
resources by people and business.

Once these changes are in place I believe industry will discover what
they must do in order to make commercial use of interplanetary
resources and assets.

Generally speaking what they must do is invest in rocket propulsion
technology to reduce the cost of imparting momentum to payloads. With
an exponential decrease in the cost of momentum achieved by business we
will see vast changes in what we do in space.

Since the Earth's surface bears a nearly fixed momentum relation to
other pointsin the solar system, we can even predict the broad outline
of development possible.

1) small suborbital payloads - ICBMs
2) small orbting payloads - satellites
3) large cislunar payloads - manned spaceflight

And we've stopped there.

But we can see,

4) very large interplanetary payloads

and beyond that, we traverse this arc again, but at far lower costs,

5) privately owned suborbital ballistic travel
6) spaceship in every garage
7) space homes orbiting the Earth
8) interplanetary space homes

Since the bulk of humanity will reside on Earth until steps 6 and
beyond, the development of space faring technologies by commercial
entities will result in a range of global services. These include;

1) ICBMs - world peace - end of large global conflicts
2) satellites - world communication and information - internet
3) early manned spaceflight - world view - environmental movement

Right now we are developing ever more sophisticated satellite systems.
We went from point to point satellite communication to systems that
broadcast from a single point to many recievers (XM, Sirius, etc.) and
eventually will have systems that will carry out multipoint
communications - (satellite telephone, satellite broadband)

Development of large space launchers like the old Nova rocket plans,
but at low cost in reusable form, could make solar power satellites a
reality.

Future developments include the use of nuclear pulse propulsion systems
to deflect asteroids from collision with Earth, and the use of the same
technology to move rich asteroids into Earth orbit. Once there, these
asteroids can be used as feedstockfor orbiting industries, manned by
remotely controlled robots directed from workers anywhere on Earth,
with products made in space and delivered to any point on Earth in
minutes. Nulcear Pulse spacecraft will launch large factory systems
into orbit and very large power systems into orbit as well as carry out
construction of cities throughout the solar system - cities supported
by the same system of space production developed for Earth's
population.

Very low cost rockets, made of propulsive skins and powered by space
borne laser systems, will put a flying machine in every garage capable
of suborbital travel to any point on Earth in a matter of minutes.
Extension of this technology will permit easy attainment of orbit.

Space factories over time will grow to build large pressure vessels at
low cost and these will be used as farms to grow food and fiber for
humanity. These vessels will also be adapted to space homes. With the
low cost availability of luxurious space homes with areas approaching
that of a small county, people will flock to space developments while
continuing to work the factories remotely, but from space.

The production of very large solar pumped laser arrays from solar laser
cells orbiting inside the orbit of Mercury, will allow the capture of
vast quantities of solar energy at extraordinarily low cost. This
beamed energy will power industry throughout the solar system, and give
wing to the space homes orbiting Earth. This will permit laser
propelled homes to fly throughout the solar system with ease.

Penultimately, these payloads will use vast solar pumped laser energy
to power laser light sails on interstellar journeys. Laser arrays
around other stars will power space homes and factories there as well.


Ultimately, once human settlements have spread to the nearby stars,
laser light sail spacecraft will be operated together from different
star systems to create a high energy high mass collider of monumental
proportions. Iron 56 shaped into appropriate forms will be collided at
greater than 1/3 light speed at a predetermined point and time. The
colliding masses will compress to create ultra dense materials. These
engineered black holes will be made in collections and be caused to
interact. These interactions will be studied. Ultimately, there will
be a new sort of engineering possible. The engineering of black hole
dusts. These dusts will be charged and discharged and interact
gravitically and magneticaly and electrically - and a new sort of
device will be possible. One that can distort and affect time and
space directly. With this technology is may be possible to tap zero
point energy, to build time violating regions, and perhaps make copies
of devices created from zero point energy directly. If the last becomes
possible, these devices could become quite common. Otherwise, they'd
be quite rare. The difference this last bit of knowledge would make,
if it exists, would be like the difference between finding and tending
fires and being able to start a fire yourself.

With the ability to affect space and time directly it may be possible
that superluminal travel and time travel is possible. In that case
humanity would be able to fill all of space and time - and all parallel
spaces and times - if the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory
are correct.

If such is possible that may explain where everyone is - answering
Enrico Fermi's paradox. Rising living standards mean lower birth
rates, and space technology means larger range - together this means
lower density of human numbers.

"H2-PV NOW" :

Sub-orbital joyrides of 15 minutes is another diversification, not a
displacement of anything. It is not appropriate to even call it
"commercial passenger space industry".

It is doubtful that sub-orbital jaunts will become more orbital-like
and less amusment-park ride-like.

SSTO requires a rethinking that is more fundamental than any of the
plans posted in public to date. None of these can morph into the kind
of orbital docking and re-entry vehicles that will provide the ladder
to the planets and stars. If anything they are money sponges sucking
dry the funding sources and a distraction from what will work.

Here you fell into your own trap. By *you* adding the requirement that
orbital craft must be SSTO *you* made the jump from sub-orbital to orbital
design into a tough job. But infact a number of the sub-orbital designs are
single stage as they are planned and adding a booster (second stage) will the
next logical step to making these designs into orbital craft. Other
suborbital designs are already planning to be using two stages and may just
require a bigger booster to reach orbit.

Yes, I know about the major problems for return.

But what I am doing is showing that you had set up your own strawman
agruement when you try to slip in the requirement that the craft be SSTO.
CATS does not need SSTO, it needs frequent flights.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
Cruising, building a Catamaran, Rebuilding Cabin, New Peroxide Still Design,
Writting SF, Programming FOSS - What happened to the time?

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 25 Feb 2006 21:57:57 -0800, in a place far, far away, "H2-PV NOW"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Sub-orbital joyrides of 15 minutes is another diversification, not a
displacement of anything. It is not appropriate to even call it
"commercial passenger space industry".

Of course it is. It's an industry that takes passengers into space,
for pay.

Especially as most of the protagonists want to develop the model
further.

It is doubtful that sub-orbital jaunts will become more orbital-like
and less amusment-park ride-like.

Actually, it's doubtful that they will not.

Just about the first commercial use for aeroplanes was for passenger
joyrides.

SSTO requires a rethinking that is more fundamental than any of the
plans posted in public to date.

And people who think that SSTO is necessary for low-cost reliable
launch need to do some rethinking themselves.

People do get fixated about this for some reason. Space travel is very
new, and the eventual configuration eventual lower cost access to orbit
is difficult to predict. The SSTO model certainly seems to require some
significant technological advances in materials science at the very
least before it becomes viable.

On 25 Feb 2006 20:02:25 -0800, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Obviously one industry turned out fairly sucessful
while the other died a slow lingering death. Or perhaps you think a
totally differant historical scenario is appropriate, or none at all.
Thoughts?

The problem is that there are really no historical analogies, given
that the world has grown so much richer with the end of the dominance
of the socialist paradigm, and the acceleration of technology. What
many will want is experiences, and they'll be willing and able to pay
for them. That means that space travel will have a large market.

I don't really think the experience of zero gravity is going to drive a
great wave of expansion.

Neither do I. Nice plump strawman, though.

The reality is that space is just an
inhospitable enviornment for human beings. It will never make a lot of
economic sense to bring too many humans there;

That's not "the reality." It's merely your (uninformed) opinion.

Millions of humans disagree with you, if market research is any guide.