Re: [Mpat][michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] SpaceShipOne
Patrick:
Welcome to the world of politics!
Sam
On 10/14/04 7:17 PM, "Patrick Q. Collins" <collins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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_04100
>>>> 6.
>>>> 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".