Re: [Mpat][michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] SpaceShipOne

["Patrick Q. Collins"<collins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for that, Sam.

Of course it should not be about whether it's in Nasa's
own interest - it should obey the law!  And Congress
should make it.

	Patrick


> Hi Patrick!
> 
> Actually that commercialization phrase was added to NASA's charter in 1988,
> with the help of NSS and some of my SFF friends.
> 
> It really is not in NASA's interest to promote space tourism.  They just
> want a vehicle to do their scientific research and support ISS.  But, if a
> private company builds a dual-use vehicle, or one that can be easily
> modified for commercial use, then you got something that can be used for
> everyone.  That is how Boeing got funding for the 707.
> 
> Check out Futron's latest study.  They recently released it for free:
> 
> http://www.futron.com/spacetourism/downloadreports.htm
> 
> Here is some quick data from the report:
> 
> Potential Sub-Orbital Customers--
> Average age: 55
> Gender: 72% Male; 28% Female
> Fitness: 46% have above
> average fitness or better
> Vacations: 48% spend
> a month+ on
> vacation annually
> Employment status:
> 41% work full-time;
> 23% retired
> 
> Potential Orbital Customers--
> Average age: 53
> Gender: 89% Male; 11% Female
> Fitness: 60% have above
> average fitness or better
> Vacations: 37% spend
> a month+ on
> vacation annually
> Employment status:
> 57% work full-time;
> 14% retired
> 
> 各utron restricted the respondent pool to people with a household income of
> at least US$250,000 annually, or a minimum net worth of US$1 million.
> Hope this is not redundant information.
> 
> Sam Coniglio
> --Currently in Mojave
> 
> On 10/14/04 6:23 PM, "Patrick Q. Collins" <collins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I'd like to take up a couple of points you make.
> > 
> > You write:  
> > "Are we to expect that flights into space will be as common as commercial
> > airflights?  
> > That would be nice... but I doubt it - the scale of the job is just too
> > immense."
> > 
> > I think they will - because when asked, MOST people say they'd like to take a
> > trip
> > to space, and because the most careful studies to date - such as that by the
> > Japanese
> > Rocket Society - show that the cost could come down to about
> > $20,000/passenger.
> > And at that price, eventually most people will go, I guess. I don't think the
> > job is 
> > "too immense" - it's a direct extension of air travel, which is nearly $1
> > trillion/year 
> > worldwide.  I don't see anything that aerospace companies can't do - orbital
> > hotels, 
> > zero-G sports centres, stadiums on the Moon, the lot.  But if governments
> > won't even 
> > give passenger space travel the help they give to passenger air travel, even
> > more 
> > decades are going to be wasted.  Spending $20 billion/year on "any space
> > activity 
> > except passenger travel" as space agencies do today, is a double-standard, and
> > is 
> > economically very wasteful.
> > 
> > 
> > You also write:
> > "NASAs' job has always been to be the technology front-runner and they've done
> > that pretty well.  Are they to blame if private enterprise hasn't taken up the
> > challenge up until now?"
> > 
> > Nasa is required by its founding legislation in 1958 to:  "...encourage, to
> > the 
> > maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space."
> > Nasa has used about $1 trillion of US taxpayers' money so far (measured in
> > current values) - and it has NOT done that, nowhere even near.  Most US
> > citizens have no idea of how badly they've been let down - they still
> > believe what Nasa says - like that ". . .a small tourist module might be
> > conceivable in 2040" (!!)  In that case Nasa would get another $600 billion
> > before US citizens would get to go (!!)
> > 
> > I've tried to catalogue this problem in a number of papers, including
> > referencing the direct lies by Nasa administrator and deputy
> > administrator etc, but for various reasons most journalists don't seem
> > to like to "tell it as it is" when it comes to space.
> > 
> > If the US government were to insist that Nasa does what it is legally
> > required to, then space tourism would boom - not through Nasa operating
> > "spacelines" of course, but by helping it to happen in the many ways it
> > could - and as recommended in detail in Nasa's own report on the subject:
> > www.spacefuture.com/archive/general_public_space_travel_and_tourism.shtml
> > But Nasa hides that - it's only the most economically valuable report Nasa
> > has ever published!  :-)
> > 
> > Patrick Collins
> > 
> > 
> >> Friends -
> >> 
> >> What is in question?
> >> 
> >> That SpaceShipOne has won a competition by reaching a defined height using
> >> private finance and new technology that they have developed at a fraction of
> >> the 
> >> cost of the government sponsered space programmes?
> >> 
> >> No. You can't take that away from them. What Burt Rutan and his team have
> >> done is a remarkable, amazing triumph and they deserve all the pats on the
> >> back 
> >> they are getting.
> >> 
> >> But is the new blueprint for human exploration of space? That is the real
> >> question!
> >> 
> >> Using the X Prize analogy to Lindeburghs' prize-winning trans-Atlantic flight
> >> doesn't exactly hold water. The conquest of the air has always had private
> >> enterprise pioneers in fact they have made nearly all the early breakthroughs
> >> from the Wright brothers onward. Are we to expect that flights into space
> >> will 
> >> be as common as commercial airflights?
> >> 
> >> That would be nice ... but I doubt it - the scale of the job is just too
> >> immense. Perhaps a better analogy is the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch & English
> >> exploration of the world. Just about all of these were bankrolled by their
> >> respective governments - remember how Columbus had to get the Queen to
> >> finance him? 
> >> In this case they did it to expand their political & trading empires and
> >> private ventures followed, like Sir Walter Ralieghs expedition to Virginia.
> >> 
> >> NASAs' job has always been to be the technology front-runner and they've done
> >> that pretty well. Are they to blame if private enterprise hasn't taken up the
> >> challenge up until now? In my opnion that is what we are seeing now. NASA has
> >> done the "Proof Of Concept" work - they have shown that man *can* get into
> >> space and work there. What Burt Rutan has done has been to show that a
> >> private 
> >> Research & Development programme can develop and build a vehicle that can do
> >> the same thing as Alan Shepherds' Redstone ...
> >> 
> >> ... and do it again within weeks
> >> 
> >> ... and do it cheaper!
> >> 
> >> The next step? America's Space Prize ...
> >> <
> >> http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/spaceprize_techwed_041006.
> >> html> 
> >> ... Does this mean the rest of the world is not included? That seems rather
> >> short-sighted. Another spin-off is the WTN [The World Technology Network] X
> >> PRIZES ...
> >> <http://www.wtnxprize.org/>
> >> 
> >> America's Space Prize is *not* a replacement for NASAs' manned space
> >> programme - but it could be the start of commercial and private space travel
> >> to orbit. 
> >> You *can* have both.
> >> 
> >> Kirok of L'Stok 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi - just to add some thoughts.
> > 
> > For me, much the most important point about SpaceShipOne
> > is its LOW COST. Space Agencies have spent $1 trillion since
> > Gagarin's flight - but his rocket, developed 50 years ago,
> > is still the cheapest way to get to space.
> > 
> > This amazing fact has at least two major implications:
> > 1) space agencies have made no effort to reduce the cost
> > of getting to space - they're largely busy with government
> > "missions".
> > 2) with 40+ years' of fast technology development since
> > Gagarin, it MUST be possible to reduce the cost a LOT.
> > 
> > "Just theory" say all the space agency people.  And then
> > along comes SpaceShipOne and shows that the same flight
> > as Alan Shepard did at a cost of tens of millions in 1961
> > now costs about 1/1,000 of that - since the cost/flight
> > of a reusable vehicle is a tiny fraction of an expendable.
> > The total project cost - which could have been done 30
> > years ago if space agencies were serious about contributing
> > to the economy, as they are legally required to - was what
> > Nasa spends every day before lunch.
> > This is a first bit of real evidance about how much costs
> > could come down due to 2) above.  About 99.9% it seems.
> > 
> > Whether the same factors will apply to orbital vehicles
> > remains controversial - with space agency people of
> > course saying they won't and taxpayers should go on
> > paying $20 billion + per year for them to continue doing
> > what they want.  
> > 
> > I incline to the other view, that the same factors will
> > apply - and orbital flight costs can indeed come down to
> > tens of thousands of dollars/head - as those who have
> > designed passenger vehicles - like the Japanese rocket
> > society - conclude.
> > 
> > Where the money will come from, and what role governments
> > will play are the big questions.  But I consider SpaceShipOne
> > to have played a massively important role in putting some
> > facts on the table that space agencies have obscured for
> > 40 years.
> > 
> > Patrick Collins
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Space Future        | To unsubscribe send email with the subject "unsubscribe"
> www.spacefuture.com | to "sf-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx".
> 


-- 
Space Future        | To unsubscribe send email with the subject "unsubscribe"
www.spacefuture.com | to "sf-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx".