What can we do?

>
> > 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