I just saw a New York Times article about a commercial spaceport.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/national/14virgin.html I'm inclined
to guess that sub-orbital tourism won't really do that much to move us
toward a real space-based economy. It will generate some useful
technical experience, but that may be offset by the effect it has on
the public image of spaceflight.
I tend to agree. On the technical side, there is a
huge difference between going 5g's and 25g's. But the
change in public perception of space being attainable
outside of government agencies will be priceless.
> I just saw a New York Times article about a
> commercial spaceport.
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/national/14virgin.html
But do you think this preception will really help, or hurt? I've talked with many people that couldn't care mutch less about space, and knew about virgin galactic. What I'm worried about is thies people now think orbital flight is as easy as it is on startrek with shuttle craft that never seem to use any fuel.
huge difference between going 5g's and 25g's. But the
change in public perception of space being attainable
outside of government agencies will be priceless.
--- In spacesettlers, Michael Persohn-Costa wrote:
> talked with many people that couldn't care mutch less about space,
> and knew about virgin galactic.
The people who couldn't care much less about space cannot be won over.
SpaceShipOne, Virgin Galactic, suborbital, full orbital, none of it
will help with them. The people who will be effected by this are
those who always wanted to go into space, but thought that only highly
gifted, highly trained astronauts could make the trip. They felt that
it was a beautiful party, but that they were forever uninvited. If
suborbital can change this perception, then yes, it is, in the words
of the TV commercial: Priceless.
> What I'm worried about is thies people now think orbital flight is
> as easy as it is on startrek with shuttle craft that never seem to
> use any fuel.
Those who want to go into space will seek out the real information,
while those who do not won't be with us whether they know the details
of fuel usage or not.
I think widespread public perception of space matters. Governments
may not be the ones doing the actual colonization, but they will be
involved in a lot of ways, so the politics will matter. Even with
corporations, public image matters. So does the receptiveness of
venture capitalists who aren't interested in the projects they fund
for their own sake but are just looking for investments of
particular risk/return profiles. Then there are the parents,
friends, and other mentors of kids who grow up to be involved.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers, Michael Persohn-Costa wrote:
>
> > But do you think this preception will really help, or hurt? I've
> > talked with many people that couldn't care mutch less about
space,
> > and knew about virgin galactic.
>
> The people who couldn't care much less about space cannot be won
over.
> SpaceShipOne, Virgin Galactic, suborbital, full orbital, none of
it
> will help with them. The people who will be effected by this are
> those who always wanted to go into space, but thought that only
highly
> gifted, highly trained astronauts could make the trip. They felt
that
> it was a beautiful party, but that they were forever uninvited. If
> suborbital can change this perception, then yes, it is, in the
words
> of the TV commercial: Priceless.
>
> > What I'm worried about is thies people now think orbital flight
is
> > as easy as it is on startrek with shuttle craft that never seem
to
> > use any fuel.
>
> Those who want to go into space will seek out the real information,
> while those who do not won't be with us whether they know the
details