What can we do?

> 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@... |