I've said it before and I'll say it again: we all want to go to space, we
all want to see the human race develop a "space-faring nation" (or whatever
you want to call it). We merely disagree on the specifics. And the almost
universal consensus as to what is prohibiting steady, quicker progress is
access. It costs way too much to get there.

It's a little difficult to justify any industry in space if it costs (the
oft-quoted) $10,000 per pound to reach LEO and beyond. Access costs of that
magnitude reduce almost every single idea economically prohibitive and
until access costs can be reduced very little progress will be made. Do you
not agree?

The lack of a market has also been identified as a sticking point. No
market seems to equate to little progress on reducing access costs. I mean,
what makes more money for aerospace companies - a single RLV with it's
amortized costs or multiple ELVs that must built from scratch (and resold)
after each launch? If I am an aerospace company, what motivation do I have
to develop RLV's for a market that doesn't exist yet? I can rake in big
money making ELV after ELV for an already established market (primarily,
satellite deployment).

These days everyone seems to think tourism will solve the problem. I think
that's preposterous, but that's a can of worms I see no value in opening.
Believe as you will, I don't see it happening.

To repeat my previous claim: The single most important breakthrough for
advancing the development of space is the invention or discovery of ANY
product whose cost-effective production is significantly more favorable in
the space environment. Does anyone disagree with that statement?

Assuming that to be true, and I do, how can we provide for the "invention
or discovery of ANY product whose cost-effective production is
significantly more favorable in the space environment" within the
constraints imposed by current circumstances? Can we do so using launch
systems currently available? Can we do so using only existing technologies?

It was this thinking that lead to the MUOL concept I have described
previously (see Earth-Moon Network and MUOL threads). Regardless, what are
the requirements for realistic projects under current circumstances? As I
see it, there are three:

1. It must be able to utilize existing launch systems.
2. It must be able to utilize existing technologies.
3. It must be affordable.

Right?

Jack

>
> It's a little difficult to justify any industry in space if it costs (the
> oft-quoted) $10,000 per pound to reach LEO and beyond. Access costs of that
> magnitude reduce almost every single idea economically prohibitive and
> until access costs can be reduced very little progress will be made. Do you
> not agree?
>

Difficult ? Yes. Impossible ? No.

Space communications and Space Tourism make a profits even at these lift rates.

> The lack of a market has also been identified as a sticking point. No
> market seems to equate to little progress on reducing access costs. I mean,
> what makes more money for aerospace companies - a single RLV with it's
> amortized costs or multiple ELVs that must built from scratch (and resold)
> after each launch? If I am an aerospace company, what motivation do I have
> to develop RLV's for a market that doesn't exist yet? I can rake in big
> money making ELV after ELV for an already established market (primarily,
> satellite deployment).
>

You are ignoring the effects of competition between launch vehicle supliers.

They are competing to reduce costs and steal market share
from competitors.

Right now the huge investment for building an RLV cannot be
sold to private investors because there is not enough market data to support
the need for one.

> These days everyone seems to think tourism will solve the problem. I think
> that's preposterous, but that's a can of worms I see no value in opening.
> Believe as you will, I don't see it happening.
>

What is your basis ? Given the fact that it is already
profitable. It is simply a matter of how fast the market
will expand.

If we extrapolate from existing markets it is that much easier
to get venture capital. Investors like to see real numbers for
an existing amrket, and realistic expectations for market
expansion. Space tourism is an excellent candidate for this
kind of pitch to VC's.

> To repeat my previous claim: The single most important breakthrough for
> advancing the development of space is the invention or discovery of ANY
> product whose cost-effective production is significantly more favorable in
> the space environment. Does anyone disagree with that statement?
>

Me me me me me, I disagree, uhuh uhuh

I believe services will open the high frontier, not manufacturing.

Services such as tourism, communications, energy, remote
sensing.

> Assuming that to be true, and I do, how can we provide for the "invention
> or discovery of ANY product whose cost-effective production is
> significantly more favorable in the space environment" within the
> constraints imposed by current circumstances? Can we do so using launch
> systems currently available? Can we do so using only existing technologies?
>

As a matter of pure research you might be able to persuade
a govt agency, eg. NASA, DARPA, NSF to give some funding
to build some stuff, fly it and experiment.

As for getting commercial funding ? Without some real
numbers for market data, costs and stuff, there will be no
investment forthcoming.

At this point I think your best bet is to work with governments and academia on a pure
research program. You do not seem to have the kind of
hard financial data that commercial investors demand.

> It was this thinking that lead to the MUOL concept I have described
> previously (see Earth-Moon Network and MUOL threads). Regardless, what are
> the requirements for realistic projects under current circumstances? As I
> see it, there are three:
>
> 1. It must be able to utilize existing launch systems.
> 2. It must be able to utilize existing technologies.
> 3. It must be affordable.
>
> Right?
>

1) and 2) are a given for a commercial investor. But for
academic or government based research, heck, they might be happy to let
you develop new technology and play around with it.

But as for 3), you just do not have the market data to
define what affordable means. You cannot define this until you have
some specific products, and a more detailed idea of the market.

No private investor will pay you do do that, except possiubly
some kind of charitable research foundation.

If you set yourself up as a non-profit pure research foudnation,
you might be able to get donations from benefactos and grants
from governments / schools.

But there is really no point in trying to pitch this as a commercial venture
right now.

Hope this helps.

Charles R.

> These days everyone seems to think tourism will solve the problem. I think
> that's preposterous, but that's a can of worms I see no value in opening.

You opened it though :)
Tourism is interesting because an established demand exists. This opens
the door for modest improvements in launch costs, which in turn lowers
the bar for other types of businesses. The tiny minority who see tourism
as the whole solution are nuts. Most of us see it as one way the market
can be expanded, leading to possible synergies and nonlinear interactions
between businesses that open the frontier still further.

> To repeat my previous claim: The single most important breakthrough for
> advancing the development of space is the invention or discovery of ANY
> product whose cost-effective production is significantly more favorable in
> the space environment. Does anyone disagree with that statement?

I disagree with the premise that a breakthrough is needed. I'm of the
opinion that the breakthrough has already happened, back when Apollo
11 landed on the moon (or more properly, when it splashed down with
all occupants alive :). We are in the incremental development stage,
composed of multiple little steps - "microbreakthroughs" if you will.
From here on out, it's not quantum leaps that are needed, but little
baby steps. Major breakthroughs would be nice, but are not a necessity.

> Assuming that to be true, and I do, how can we provide for the "invention
> or discovery of ANY product whose cost-effective production is
> significantly more favorable in the space environment" within the
> constraints imposed by current circumstances? Can we do so using launch
> systems currently available? Can we do so using only existing technologies?

There is a proposal to extend the life of GEO comsats using an orbital
tug. Neat idea. Coincidentally, this opens the path towards an on-orbit
market for propellants...

If launch costs come down, other market opportunities open up. For now
I find myself hoping that launch costs stay high enough that somebody
decides to try an NEO mission to return propellants to GEO for
stationkeeping.

> It was this thinking that lead to the MUOL concept I have described
> previously (see Earth-Moon Network and MUOL threads). Regardless, what are
> the requirements for realistic projects under current circumstances? As I
> see it, there are three:
>
> 1. It must be able to utilize existing launch systems.
> 2. It must be able to utilize existing technologies.
> 3. It must be affordable.

In order to advance the state of spacefaring it must also fulfill a
fourth requirement:
4. It must be scalable in such a way that reductions in launch costs
improve profitability or expand the market.

......Andrew

Andrew Case
acase@... |

> > It's a little difficult to justify any industry in space if it costs (the
> > oft-quoted) $10,000 per pound to reach LEO and beyond. Access costs of
> that
> > magnitude reduce almost every single idea economically prohibitive and
> > until access costs can be reduced very little progress will be made. Do
> you
> > not agree?
> >
>Difficult ? Yes. Impossible ? No.

Ok. If not impossible, then why hasn't it occurred? What is "industry"
waiting for?

>Space communications and Space Tourism make a profits even at these lift
>rates.

Space Tourism isn't making any profit.

> > The lack of a market has also been identified as a sticking point. No
> > market seems to equate to little progress on reducing access costs. I
> mean,
> > what makes more money for aerospace companies - a single RLV with it's
> > amortized costs or multiple ELVs that must built from scratch (and resold)
> > after each launch? If I am an aerospace company, what motivation do I have
> > to develop RLV's for a market that doesn't exist yet? I can rake in big
> > money making ELV after ELV for an already established market (primarily,
> > satellite deployment).
>
>You are ignoring the effects of competition between launch vehicle supliers.

No, I am not. That is far too much to infer from one short post.

>They are competing to reduce costs and steal market share
>from competitors.

ELV's are, but they do not provide the sort of heavy-lift capabilities
needed to truly provide the necessary access for industry in space.

>Right now the huge investment for building an RLV cannot be
>sold to private investors because there is not enough market data to support
>the need for one.

Which is what I said.

> > These days everyone seems to think tourism will solve the problem. I think
> > that's preposterous, but that's a can of worms I see no value in opening.
> > Believe as you will, I don't see it happening.
> >
>What is your basis ?

Common sense.

>Given the fact that it is already
>profitable. It is simply a matter of how fast the market
>will expand.

Already profitable? I disagree. Both tourists (there have only been two in
America - there was also a Russian woman who responded to a radio
"contest"/advertisement and a Japanese reporter who hated his experience -
both went to MIR) paid US $20M to take one seat on the shuttle and go to
the ISS. $40M doesn't even come close to profitability. How much did each
shuttle launch cost? How much did it cost for the shuttle to be readied
between flights? How much did the ISS cost? Etc, etc. Not even close to
demonstrating profitability. Merely a theory extrapolated from Earth-based
adventure tourism.

And just how fast would the market have to expand, anyway? At $20M per
person, per flight, it certainly wouldn't expand very fast would it?

>If we extrapolate from existing markets it is that much easier
>to get venture capital. Investors like to see real numbers for
>an existing amrket, and realistic expectations for market
>expansion. Space tourism is an excellent candidate for this
>kind of pitch to VC's.

I agree. You might (heavy emphasis on might) get venture capitalists to
invest. That doesn't automatically translate into the bootstrapping most
proponents of space tourism contend.

> > To repeat my previous claim: The single most important breakthrough for
> > advancing the development of space is the invention or discovery of ANY
> > product whose cost-effective production is significantly more favorable in
> > the space environment. Does anyone disagree with that statement?
> >
>Me me me me me, I disagree, uhuh uhuh
>
>I believe services will open the high frontier, not manufacturing.

Services? For what? There's nothing there but a poorly planned, poorly
deployed, over-priced space station (that would take eons to pay for via
tourist industry), a bunch of debris, and satellites, mostly
communications. What service do you believe will open up the high frontier?

If you've read my MUOL posts, you know my answer to that question. Yes,
there are services that have the potential to open up the frontier. And
yes, services supporting a tourist industry can help. But it is not all
that. Manufacturing, in my opinion, has the greatest potential. Compare the
contributions to earth-based economies of manufacturing industries to
tourist industries and you'll see what I mean.

>Services such as tourism, communications, energy, remote
>sensing.

Oh, these services. Well, tourism is a joke, in my opinion, communications
satellites have been used for 40 years now and have done very little to
open the frontier, ditto for remote sensing, and as for energy, I can only
assume you mean SPS, right? Well, we need a lot more infrastructure in
place before large solar-powered satellites can provide energy to an energy
hungry world.

> > Assuming that to be true, and I do, how can we provide for the "invention
> > or discovery of ANY product whose cost-effective production is
> > significantly more favorable in the space environment" within the
> > constraints imposed by current circumstances? Can we do so using launch
> > systems currently available? Can we do so using only existing technologies?
> >
>As a matter of pure research you might be able to persuade
>a govt agency, eg. NASA, DARPA, NSF to give some funding
>to build some stuff, fly it and experiment.
>
>As for getting commercial funding ? Without some real
>numbers for market data, costs and stuff, there will be no
>investment forthcoming.
>
>At this point I think your best bet is to work with governments and
>academia on a pure
>research program. You do not seem to have the kind of
>hard financial data that commercial investors demand.

Baa, humbug! Translation: I disagree.

> > It was this thinking that lead to the MUOL concept I have described
> > previously (see Earth-Moon Network and MUOL threads). Regardless, what are
> > the requirements for realistic projects under current circumstances? As I
> > see it, there are three:
> >
> > 1. It must be able to utilize existing launch systems.
> > 2. It must be able to utilize existing technologies.
> > 3. It must be affordable.
> >
> > Right?
> >
>1) and 2) are a given for a commercial investor.

So, you're saying tourism will bootstrap space industry using existing
launch systems (US space shuttle) and existing technologies? Please explain
how tourism can be anything more than a footnote in the early history of
space exploration using the US space shuttle.

Jack

>
> > These days everyone seems to think tourism will solve the problem. I think
> > that's preposterous, but that's a can of worms I see no value in opening.
>
>You opened it though :)

Indeed, I did, so I will give you learned folks the opportunity to convince
me. I thought it would be seen as too significant an oversight to not
mention it. And we're off . . .

Ok, so it currently costs $20M to be a "tourist in space", right? When will
that price fall? Because at that price, the market is too minuscule to
matter one iota. $20M won't make a dint in this problem, because if it
would we wouldn't be having this discussion.

What vehicle are we going to use for tourists, anyway? The US Space
Shuttle? The Russian Soyuz (is that the right name for their heavy-lift
vehicle?)? Aren't those the only two capable of carrying humans to space?
Both cost too much to make tourism viable.

So, we need another, cheaper vehicle, right? Surely we all agree that
tourism will not be profitable using either of the current two options?
Designing a new vehicle will require billions of dollars. Billions with a "B".

But let's say they do just that. We now have a vehicle capable of carrying
tourists to LEO at a significantly reduced fee that will have to pay for
it's development and use by chartering tourists. Let's say we reduce the
fare to a modest $100,000 per person, per flight. Well outside my budget,
but not outside the budgets of many in "middle" America (yeah, right).

Ok. So now where are you going to take these tourists? ISS? Not enough room
to support all these tourists. You just going to fly up into space and
back? For $100,000? That might work for a while, but eventually the market
WILL demand more for their money. And you're having to pay the development
and usage costs of a new rocket ship to carry these tourists. You can't
afford the to lose your market. And I GUARANTEE the market will demand more
before the cost of that ship is covered.

So, now someone has to build some sort of tourist destination in space.
Boy, if you thought it cost a lot to build a new vehicle, you don't even
want to imagine the price tag for this "space hotel". And, again, sooner or
later the market will want more than just a trip to a hotel.

This is my problem with tourism. The costs to support tourists far exceed
the value of the tourists themselves, a value that diminishes with each
"space vacation". Space tourism has the POTENTIAL to be a valuable cog in
the wheel, but the wheel will have to consist of a hell of a lot more than
just tourists.

>Tourism is interesting because an established demand exists. This opens
>the door for modest improvements in launch costs, which in turn lowers
>the bar for other types of businesses.

I disagree. We need much more than modest improvements before "other types
of businesses" can get involved. We've had modest improvements in launch
costs before.

>The tiny minority who see tourism
>as the whole solution are nuts.

Thank you! At last, confirmation that the whole space advocacy community
hadn't gone mad!

>Most of us see it as one way the market
>can be expanded, leading to possible synergies and nonlinear interactions
>between businesses that open the frontier still further.

This I can see, but we have to keep it in perspective.

> > To repeat my previous claim: The single most important breakthrough for
> > advancing the development of space is the invention or discovery of ANY
> > product whose cost-effective production is significantly more favorable in
> > the space environment. Does anyone disagree with that statement?
>
>I disagree with the premise that a breakthrough is needed.

I never said a breakthrough is needed, though I disagree with you that one
is not. What I said is a breakthrough is possible. Such a
discovery/invention could very well advance the development of space and
that is what we all want. At least, that is what I hope we all want.

>I'm of the
>opinion that the breakthrough has already happened, back when Apollo
>11 landed on the moon (or more properly, when it splashed down with
>all occupants alive :).

That was a breakthrough, but not THE breakthrough. Not the breakthrough we
need to advance the development of space. Just one of the most important steps.

>We are in the incremental development stage,
>composed of multiple little steps - "microbreakthroughs" if you will.
> >From here on out, it's not quantum leaps that are needed, but little
>baby steps.

I completely agree we need to move in baby steps and incrementally work up
to full-scale, space-based industries.

>Major breakthroughs would be nice, but are not a necessity.

Reducing launch costs by a factor of 10 or more wouldn't be a major
breakthrough to you? And that is exactly what has to happen for full-scale,
space-based industries to develop. Launch costs must come down and
dramatically so.

> > It was this thinking that lead to the MUOL concept I have described
> > previously (see Earth-Moon Network and MUOL threads). Regardless, what are
> > the requirements for realistic projects under current circumstances? As I
> > see it, there are three:
> >
> > 1. It must be able to utilize existing launch systems.
> > 2. It must be able to utilize existing technologies.
> > 3. It must be affordable.
>
>In order to advance the state of spacefaring it must also fulfill a
>fourth requirement:
>4. It must be scalable in such a way that reductions in launch costs
>improve profitability or expand the market.

Excellent addition, Andrew. I agree. We now have a fourth requirement.

Jack

>
> >Difficult ? Yes. Impossible ? No.
>
> Ok. If not impossible, then why hasn't it occurred? What is "industry"
> waiting for?
>

It is already happening. Space communications has been
profitable for over 40 years, for example.

> >Space communications and Space Tourism make a profits even at these lift
> >rates.
>
> Space Tourism isn't making any profit.
>

Incorrect.

> > > These days everyone seems to think tourism will solve the problem. I think
> > > that's preposterous, but that's a can of worms I see no value in opening.
> > > Believe as you will, I don't see it happening.
> > >
> >What is your basis ?
>
> Common sense.
>

???

> >Given the fact that it is already
> >profitable. It is simply a matter of how fast the market
> >will expand.
>
> Already profitable? I disagree. Both tourists (there have only been two in
> America - there was also a Russian woman who responded to a radio
> "contest"/advertisement and a Japanese reporter who hated his experience -

Non, wrong. The "Russian woman" you are thinking of was
British, her names is Helen Sharman. And she was not a tourist
at all. When her corporate sponsors fell through the
cost of her flight was paid by a Russian bank.

> both went to MIR) paid US $20M to take one seat on the shuttle and go to
> the ISS. $40M doesn't even come close to profitability. How much did each

The $20 M is a lot mroe than the cost of flying the Soyuz
mission. Hence it made a profit.

That's it.

The ISS time is an interesting question. At one point NASA
saidf they would charge the Russians for the ISS time.
But that seems to have been an idle threat from Dan Goldin.

Now that Dan is gone, NASA seems happy to accept the visitors for free.

Of course your argument is about the cost of the Space Station
time. Well, we do not actually need any ISS time at all,
you can fly on a Soyuz and return without visiting ISS,
but it would be a short uncomfortable trip.

The ISS represents "free" infrastructue for now.

It will be interesting to see if NASA can ever figure
out the delta cost of having an extra visitor on board.

Could an entire space station be paid for by fee paying
passengers ? Quite possibly. Not today perhaps, but
"real soon now" :-)

> shuttle launch cost? How much did it cost for the shuttle to be readied
> between flights? How much did the ISS cost? Etc, etc. Not even close to
> demonstrating profitability. Merely a theory extrapolated from Earth-based
> adventure tourism.
>

No Shuttle cost was associated with the two toursit missions.

> And just how fast would the market have to expand, anyway? At $20M per
> person, per flight, it certainly wouldn't expand very fast would it?
>

Well that depends on your defintion of fast.

For the first forty years of space flight there were no toursts
at all. Then in the last two years we have had two.
That represents a pretty dramatic expansion if you look
at it that way.

If enough customers showed up the Russians could easily fly
a dozen Soyuz missiosn a year, maybe more. By building more launch
pads and increasing their mass production throughput there is
no limit. The limitation become the number of docking
ports on the ISS. With one week crew rotations and two toursits
per flight on a single docking port, that would be about a hundred toursits per year.

>
> I agree. You might (heavy emphasis on might) get venture capitalists to
> invest. That doesn't automatically translate into the bootstrapping most
> proponents of space tourism contend.
>

You lost me.

> Services? For what? There's nothing there but a poorly planned, poorly
> deployed, over-priced space station (that would take eons to pay for via
> tourist industry), a bunch of debris, and satellites, mostly
> communications. What service do you believe will open up the high frontier?
>

Tourism for one. ISS has been paid for, the delta cost of
sending tourists is so small that so far NASA has been
unable to calculate it.

ISS was not designed for tourism.

A simple tin can space station would be cheap. There are
spare parts from Mir that could be used to put one
together and launch it fairly cheaply, say $200 million.

> If you've read my MUOL posts, you know my answer to that question. Yes,
> there are services that have the potential to open up the frontier. And
> yes, services supporting a tourist industry can help. But it is not all
> that. Manufacturing, in my opinion, has the greatest potential. Compare the
> contributions to earth-based economies of manufacturing industries to
> tourist industries and you'll see what I mean.
>

Possibly. But so far there is no data to base a busines plan.

For space tourism I can give the VC's all the numbers they need.

> >At this point I think your best bet is to work with governments and
> >academia on a pure
> >research program. You do not seem to have the kind of
> >hard financial data that commercial investors demand.
>
> Baa, humbug! Translation: I disagree.
>

Good luck :-)

A serious suggestion for you, go talk to your local office
of SCORE (Service Corp of Retired Executives). They will
be happy to help you write a business plan for free, and
they will tell you precisely the numbers you need to put in.
They are a free service, funded by the US Small Business Administration.

> So, you're saying tourism will bootstrap space industry using existing
> launch systems (US space shuttle) and existing technologies? Please explain
> how tourism can be anything more than a footnote in the early history of
> space exploration using the US space shuttle.
>

Where did I mention the Space Shuttle ?
You can ground the fleet so far as I am concerned and it
would not hurt space development one bit.

The Shuttle is completely irrelevant, we can do it all
much more cheaply with Russian hardware.

Cheers,

Charles R.

> Ok, so it currently costs $20M to be a "tourist in space", right? When will
> that price fall? Because at that price, the market is too minuscule to
> matter one iota. $20M won't make a dint in this problem, because if it
> would we wouldn't be having this discussion.

$20 million is the current cost for an orbital stay at ISS, delivered by
soyuz. This covers the whole marginal cost of the launch, so the
Russians reap a "profit" of free delivery of two of their astronauts
to ISS. Obviously this doesn't cover amortization of the development
costs.

> So, we need another, cheaper vehicle, right? Surely we all agree that
> tourism will not be profitable using either of the current two options?
> Designing a new vehicle will require billions of dollars. Billions with a "B".

For orbital capabilities with current development paradigms, a few
billion is probably right. That's why it's very encouraging that
tourism is providing incentives to fund suborbital vehicles. These
serve both as revenue generators and as testbeds for refinement of
high flightrate technologies and methodologies. It also brings new
players into the game, companies that are leaner and more aggressive
than existing aerospace dinosaurs. These companies will be able to
get those costs down enough to be viable in the orbital market. It's
necessarily a long process.

> But let's say they do just that. We now have a vehicle capable of carrying
> tourists to LEO at a significantly reduced fee that will have to pay for
> it's development and use by chartering tourists. Let's say we reduce the
> fare to a modest $100,000 per person, per flight. Well outside my budget,
> but not outside the budgets of many in "middle" America (yeah, right).

Well, America is famous for having a middle class that goes from guys
living under bridges to Bill Gates :) the *real* middle class won't
be flying, but the guys in the next economic tier might. The demand
is there even at the level of a few million bucks, though. For suborbital,
people already pay $30,000 per flight for a rather pitiful suborbital
lob in a MiG.

> So, now someone has to build some sort of tourist destination in space.
> Boy, if you thought it cost a lot to build a new vehicle, you don't even
> want to imagine the price tag for this "space hotel". And, again, sooner or
> later the market will want more than just a trip to a hotel.

The hotel is pretty far down the road, but eventually it will be there.
By that stage, IMO, the major battle will already have been won, namely
serious reductions in launch costs.

> This is my problem with tourism. The costs to support tourists far exceed
> the value of the tourists themselves, a value that diminishes with each
> "space vacation". Space tourism has the POTENTIAL to be a valuable cog in
> the wheel, but the wheel will have to consist of a hell of a lot more than
> just tourists.

The major role for tourism is, IMO, in the 5-10 year timescale, when they
help pay for the development of suborbital vehicles that serve as proving
grounds for the techniques needed to build and operate very low cost
orbital vehicles.

......Andrew

Andrew Case
acase@... |

> >
> > >Difficult ? Yes. Impossible ? No.
> >
> > Ok. If not impossible, then why hasn't it occurred? What is "industry"
> > waiting for?
> >
>It is already happening. Space communications has been
>profitable for over 40 years, for example.

But does nothing to increase commercial activity in space beyond it's own
uses. That is my point. Yes, the market for satellites is a good, positive
first step, but alone does very little to "bootstrap" space ventures.

> > >Given the fact that it is already
> > >profitable. It is simply a matter of how fast the market
> > >will expand.
> >
> > Already profitable? I disagree. Both tourists (there have only been two in
> > America - there was also a Russian woman who responded to a radio
> > "contest"/advertisement and a Japanese reporter who hated his experience -
>
>Non, wrong. The "Russian woman" you are thinking of was
>British, her names is Helen Sharman.

Ahh, that explains the english accent. I thought she was an immigrant.

>And she was not a tourist
>at all. When her corporate sponsors fell through the
>cost of her flight was paid by a Russian bank.
>
> > both went to MIR) paid US $20M to take one seat on the shuttle and go to
> > the ISS. $40M doesn't even come close to profitability. How much did each
>
>The $20 M is a lot mroe than the cost of flying the Soyuz
>mission. Hence it made a profit.

And it did not cost less than $20M to launch those two people to MIR on the
Soyuz.

>The ISS time is an interesting question. At one point NASA
>saidf they would charge the Russians for the ISS time.
>But that seems to have been an idle threat from Dan Goldin.
>
>Now that Dan is gone, NASA seems happy to accept the visitors for free.

I am not talking about paying for time spent on the space station. I am
talking about the cost of it's construction.

>Of course your argument is about the cost of the Space Station
>time. Well, we do not actually need any ISS time at all,
>you can fly on a Soyuz and return without visiting ISS,
>but it would be a short uncomfortable trip.
>
>The ISS represents "free" infrastructue for now.

Free! I'm sorry? Free? That's crazy. There is nothing free about the ISS.

>It will be interesting to see if NASA can ever figure
>out the delta cost of having an extra visitor on board.
>
>Could an entire space station be paid for by fee paying
>passengers ? Quite possibly. Not today perhaps, but
>"real soon now" :-)
>
> > shuttle launch cost? How much did it cost for the shuttle to be readied
> > between flights? How much did the ISS cost? Etc, etc. Not even close to
> > demonstrating profitability. Merely a theory extrapolated from Earth-based
> > adventure tourism.
> >
>No Shuttle cost was associated with the two toursit missions.

Sorry Soyuz, not shuttle. My mistake. And there was a great deal of cost
associated with launching the soyuz on those two missions.

> > Services? For what? There's nothing there but a poorly planned, poorly
> > deployed, over-priced space station (that would take eons to pay for via
> > tourist industry), a bunch of debris, and satellites, mostly
> > communications. What service do you believe will open up the high frontier?
> >
>Tourism for one. ISS has been paid for,

No it hasn't. It's in the hole for that amount. That's like saying an
investor gave me $5M for an idea, I spent that money on the idea and so now
the idea is paid for. I still owe that money. The idea isn't paid for until
I make enough money from that idea to pay back the original investment. The
idea isn't turning a profit until I make enough money from that idea to pay
back more than the original investment.

>Good luck :-)
>
>A serious suggestion for you, go talk to your local office
>of SCORE (Service Corp of Retired Executives). They will
>be happy to help you write a business plan for free, and
>they will tell you precisely the numbers you need to put in.
>They are a free service, funded by the US Small Business Administration.

Excellent idea, thanks.

> > So, you're saying tourism will bootstrap space industry using existing
> > launch systems (US space shuttle) and existing technologies? Please
> explain
> > how tourism can be anything more than a footnote in the early history of
> > space exploration using the US space shuttle.
> >
>Where did I mention the Space Shuttle ?
>You can ground the fleet so far as I am concerned and it
>would not hurt space development one bit.
>
>The Shuttle is completely irrelevant, we can do it all
>much more cheaply with Russian hardware.

More cheaply, yes. Turn a profit using Soyuz? Sorry, I don't believe that
at all.

Jack

>
> > Ok, so it currently costs $20M to be a "tourist in space", right? When
> will
> > that price fall? Because at that price, the market is too minuscule to
> > matter one iota. $20M won't make a dint in this problem, because if it
> > would we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>
>$20 million is the current cost for an orbital stay at ISS, delivered by
>soyuz. This covers the whole marginal cost of the launch, so the
>Russians reap a "profit" of free delivery of two of their astronauts
>to ISS. Obviously this doesn't cover amortization of the development
>costs.

And to truly claim a profit, shouldn't it? And since when is any launch
consider a marginal cost?

> > But let's say they do just that. We now have a vehicle capable of carrying
> > tourists to LEO at a significantly reduced fee that will have to pay for
> > it's development and use by chartering tourists. Let's say we reduce the
> > fare to a modest $100,000 per person, per flight. Well outside my budget,
> > but not outside the budgets of many in "middle" America (yeah, right).
>
>Well, America is famous for having a middle class that goes from guys
>living under bridges to Bill Gates :) the *real* middle class won't
>be flying, but the guys in the next economic tier might. The demand
>is there even at the level of a few million bucks, though.

Yes, but sooner or later you run out of millionaires. And I suspect you do
so long before you've paid for launch vehicle and in-orbit destination (if
you have one).

> > This is my problem with tourism. The costs to support tourists far exceed
> > the value of the tourists themselves, a value that diminishes with each
> > "space vacation". Space tourism has the POTENTIAL to be a valuable cog in
> > the wheel, but the wheel will have to consist of a hell of a lot more than
> > just tourists.
>
>The major role for tourism is, IMO, in the 5-10 year timescale, when they
>help pay for the development of suborbital vehicles that serve as proving
>grounds for the techniques needed to build and operate very low cost
>orbital vehicles.

Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. Wasn't the X-prize suppose to do that?
Wasn't everyone excited about the X-prize? By the way, is the X-prize still
going on?

Jack

> Wasn't everyone excited about the X-prize? By the way, is the X-
> prize still going on?
>
> Jack

Yes, it is.

> >The major role for tourism is, IMO, in the 5-10 year timescale, when they
> >help pay for the development of suborbital vehicles that serve as proving
> >grounds for the techniques needed to build and operate very low cost
> >orbital vehicles.
>
> Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. Wasn't the X-prize suppose to do that?
> Wasn't everyone excited about the X-prize? By the way, is the X-prize still
> going on?

The X-prize is chugging away just fine, and has triggered an explosion
of activity in reusable suborbital rocket development. The current leading
contender (IMO) is Armadillo Aerospace, and they expect to launch the
prize vehicle in 2-3 years. Before then they will launch a series of
smaller proof-of-concept vehicles. There are a couple of other credible
contenders waiting in the wings, but they are looking at slightly
longer timescales. The point is that lots of people are working on this
problem, and hardware is being built and tested. Look for serious test
launches in a few years.

......Andrew

Andrew Case
acase@... |