Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/16/2016 10:59 PMCapsule scaling is interesting.If you can get 7 people in a capsule that has a 3.66m diameter then enlarge it to 7m while maintaining all aspects the volume for the passengers increases by a factor of 7 such that you could actually house 49 people in that capsule. But here are the caveats:Although the structural weight of the vehicle increases by only the square of the diameter increase such that a 6mt 3.66m diameter capsule structure would be a 22mt structural weight for a 7m diameter vehicle, the weight added per passenger does not change. This is an estimated .56mt per passenger for the passenger+equipment+supplies. So on a 40mt max payload limited flight the number of passengers is only 32.This then gives a range of the number of passengers a larger 7m capsule on a NG of 30<[Number of passengers]<49.Next is what is the cost of a NG and capsule per flight. Based on the $9M per BE-4 engine price:- a derived 1st stage manufacture cost of $126M- a derived second stage manufacture cost of $18M- a 1st stage refurbishment /flight cost of $10M- all other launch costs of $20M- a life of 25 flights- a profit margin of 20%Yields a $64M/flight price.Actually more appropriate would be to express this in a range from this best case to the worse case:$64M<Flight Price<$100M (As a pure expendable it would be $200M/flight). Interestingly the cost of manufacture of the 1st stage is not the dominating costs for the flight costs but the refurbishment cost. A less expensive to manufacture 1st stage would not effect much change in the per flight price.This range yields a range of the per seat price to LEO of $1.3M<seat price<$3.4M. But now you must add the costs associated with the capsule. Estimate of manufacture cost of the 7m capsule comes out to 4 times that of the smaller capsule again a function primarily of weight. Making the cost of $200M to $300M. If each is reused 10 times and costs $20M to refurbish between flights this increases the seat price by $.8M to $1.7M giving a final seat price range of $2.1M to $5.1M.From a business case such a larger capsule to gain a 10x cheaper seat price is in line with BO goals. So this is a viable business case for tourism to LEO vs the >$20M /seat of the CC program.But that is not the end. The smaller 7 person size capsule very similar to the CC designs but made as a BEO vehicle would be a good starting point for the 3 stage NG. But the per seat price on such flights would be at best about $20M and worse case possible >$50M. It is a mater of market. The number of customers increase more rapidly than the decrease in price. Such that for every 1 BEO flight of 7 passengers there could be 2 or 3 LEO flights of 30 to 40 passengers.The remaining item of consideration for the sizing of a larger capsule is that if you make it the correct size that it is a LEO craft on a NG but can be a BEO craft on a NA the advantages is saved engineering development costs is tremendous.The few space tourists on Soyuz were paying on the order of $20M so your estimates are an order of magnitude lower price. That ought to break into more demand if it exists. The only "Minimum Viable Product" test was Virgin Galactic taking several hundred reservations for flights that are another order of magnitude cheaper around $200k and they never tested how firm they were. I don't think it's clear there is much of a market for SpaceTourism at a couple million dollars a ticket. There isn't really any precedent for selling experiences at that price. Your analysis sets up the challenge. Could you sell 30-40 tickets? If you could, how long before you could do it again? I'm kinda skeptical that there is any sustained market for space tourism at the necessary price point.

Capsule scaling is interesting.If you can get 7 people in a capsule that has a 3.66m diameter then enlarge it to 7m while maintaining all aspects the volume for the passengers increases by a factor of 7 such that you could actually house 49 people in that capsule. But here are the caveats:Although the structural weight of the vehicle increases by only the square of the diameter increase such that a 6mt 3.66m diameter capsule structure would be a 22mt structural weight for a 7m diameter vehicle, the weight added per passenger does not change. This is an estimated .56mt per passenger for the passenger+equipment+supplies. So on a 40mt max payload limited flight the number of passengers is only 32.This then gives a range of the number of passengers a larger 7m capsule on a NG of 30<[Number of passengers]<49.Next is what is the cost of a NG and capsule per flight. Based on the $9M per BE-4 engine price:- a derived 1st stage manufacture cost of $126M- a derived second stage manufacture cost of $18M- a 1st stage refurbishment /flight cost of $10M- all other launch costs of $20M- a life of 25 flights- a profit margin of 20%Yields a $64M/flight price.Actually more appropriate would be to express this in a range from this best case to the worse case:$64M<Flight Price<$100M (As a pure expendable it would be $200M/flight). Interestingly the cost of manufacture of the 1st stage is not the dominating costs for the flight costs but the refurbishment cost. A less expensive to manufacture 1st stage would not effect much change in the per flight price.This range yields a range of the per seat price to LEO of $1.3M<seat price<$3.4M. But now you must add the costs associated with the capsule. Estimate of manufacture cost of the 7m capsule comes out to 4 times that of the smaller capsule again a function primarily of weight. Making the cost of $200M to $300M. If each is reused 10 times and costs $20M to refurbish between flights this increases the seat price by $.8M to $1.7M giving a final seat price range of $2.1M to $5.1M.From a business case such a larger capsule to gain a 10x cheaper seat price is in line with BO goals. So this is a viable business case for tourism to LEO vs the >$20M /seat of the CC program.But that is not the end. The smaller 7 person size capsule very similar to the CC designs but made as a BEO vehicle would be a good starting point for the 3 stage NG. But the per seat price on such flights would be at best about $20M and worse case possible >$50M. It is a mater of market. The number of customers increase more rapidly than the decrease in price. Such that for every 1 BEO flight of 7 passengers there could be 2 or 3 LEO flights of 30 to 40 passengers.The remaining item of consideration for the sizing of a larger capsule is that if you make it the correct size that it is a LEO craft on a NG but can be a BEO craft on a NA the advantages is saved engineering development costs is tremendous.

Although the structural weight of the vehicle increases by only the square of the diameter increase such that a 6mt 3.66m diameter capsule structure would be a 22mt structural weight for a 7m diameter vehicle, the weight added per passenger does not change.

Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/16/2016 10:59 PMAlthough the structural weight of the vehicle increases by only the square of the diameter increase such that a 6mt 3.66m diameter capsule structure would be a 22mt structural weight for a 7m diameter vehicle, the weight added per passenger does not change. Is this scaling law true? I'd think that structure mass of a capsule would be driven primarily by the pressure vessel, and for a given pressure, don't pressure vessels tend to scale fairly linearly with volume? While the surface area goes up with the 2nd power of radius and volume goes up with the 3rd power of radius, the wall thickness goes up linearly with radius, so the tank volume (surface area times thickness) usually scales pretty linearly.Or am I missing something obvious (I screw around more with rockets than with capsules so that's totally possible).~Jon

So basically if you get 1 tourist per year at $20M, then at $2M you would get 30 tourists per year. The difference is that at $20M the revenue is only $20M.And at $2M the revenue is $60M.

At some point the value of $1M per seat may become feasible such that 3 or more 30 seat flights to orbit per year would be just tourists. If there is a requirement to have on orbit 1 person for every 2 to 3 that visit per flight then you will need an extra flight per year to handle the every 6 month crew rotations. So instead of just 3 flights there would be 4 flights per year (once a quarter) with 5 on-orbit rotation crew and 25 tourists per flight. The station would need an occupancy capacity for the tourist industry just in LEO of 40 (10-15 crew and 25 tourists).In number of BA330's you would need 7 of them. And also you would need provisioning/replacement equipment for the station and the permanent crew (10-15) of 1 flight per year. So now you are up to 5 flights per year just for tourist industry in LEO. That is if the total price per flight becomes as low as $30M. It will take a lot of work and experience/upgrades to LV and capsule to get to that point. May require a fully reusable LV to reach that price point.

Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/23/2016 02:58 AMSo basically if you get 1 tourist per year at $20M, then at $2M you would get 30 tourists per year. The difference is that at $20M the revenue is only $20M.And at $2M the revenue is $60M.Also, you have to factor in that those populations posted above are probably increasing by about 2-3% per year adjusted for inflation.

Quote from: ZachF on 09/23/2016 07:47 PMQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/23/2016 02:58 AMSo basically if you get 1 tourist per year at $20M, then at $2M you would get 30 tourists per year. The difference is that at $20M the revenue is only $20M.And at $2M the revenue is $60M.Also, you have to factor in that those populations posted above are probably increasing by about 2-3% per year adjusted for inflation....maybe even faster. World real GDP growth has hovered around 4%, plus or minus ~1%, since at least 1999 (with the exception of 2009). http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=xx&v=66(...which would mean almost a billion millionaires (in real terms) by the end of the century)

<snip>So we need as many people as we can to be as rich as possible for spaceflight to work.

One thing I noticed is New Glenn is about the perfect size to lift a space plane the size of the HL-42.http://www.astronautix.com/h/hl-42.htmlEven though it was down played in an earlier post partnering with SNC could be one way BO could close the gap with Spacex and Boeing.

Quote from: Patchouli on 10/01/2016 05:45 AMOne thing I noticed is New Glenn is about the perfect size to lift a space plane the size of the HL-42.http://www.astronautix.com/h/hl-42.htmlEven though it was down played in an earlier post partnering with SNC could be one way BO could close the gap with Spacex and Boeing.The Dreams Chaser is based on HL-20/42. Blue are using Biconic capsule last they released any info commercial crew.