RE: [Mpat][michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] SpaceShipOne
Hi All,
I urge all of you to listen to my interview on The Space Show with Mike
Lounge, former shuttle astronaut and key guy with SpaceHab, now of Boeing.
The interview was conducted Tuesday evening, Oct. 12 and is archived at
www.thespaceshow.com. During the interview, I asked Mike about
SpaceShipOne, the space entrepreneurs, space tourism, Boeing and it making a
passenger space tourism vehicle and more. I think all of you will find this
to be an interesting interview with interesting perspectives. You need
Windows Media Player for the program. You can also download it by right
clicking on the icon to hear it. The show is about 75 minutes.
Let me know if you have any questions or comments or if you would like to
ask a question of Mr. Lounge. I will be happy to forward your comments or
questions to him.
Dr. David Livingston, Host
The Space Show
www.thespaceshow.com
drspace@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Coniglio [mailto:spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 7:01 PM
To: sf-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Mpat][michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] SpaceShipOne
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
³Futron 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.²
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.sh
> tml 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".