Often times you'll hear people say we should concentrate on Moon/Mars/asteroids etc because we've "done" low earth orbit (LEO), meaning that ~500+ people have been there.To me that really underestimates the commercial potential of LEO as a destination, not just for tourism (although that's what I'll concentrate on here), but for support of ongoing expansion into the solar system. It may only be a few hundred km from the surface, but it's nearly to the other end of the biggest gravity well we have to overcome in the near future.My question is: how do the economics change in the scenario where hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people have been to LEO or beyond, and travel to LEO is simply a more exotic method of travel around the world? (since where you land is largely a matter of departure timing). I'm not an economist/accountant, so this is largely spitballing, I would like to hear more educated assessments of the potential.
I think the lesson here is that the world needs updated data on what people/organizations would pay for "spaceflight participation" aka tourism. Both your data (1999) and my data (2001) are woefully out of date. Those surveys were taken pre-9/11 pre-Great Recession pre-lots of stuff. Until the data are revised I think we are spitting into the wind.
In December, 2014, Monmouth University asked 1,006 U.S. adults "If you won a free trip on a private company’s rocket ship into space, would you take the trip, or not?" Only 28% said yes, and only 3% were undecided. The other 69% were certain they would turn down the trip.Interestingly, Americans had a similar attitude toward space travel in 1960s during the space race. Only 17% said they would be interested in traveling to the moon themselves, according to a Gallup Poll from 1966.Neither poll offers much insight into why Americans feel so hesitant about space travel, whether it's fear of the trip itself or the belief that it's not worth the cost it takes to get people into space.
Quote from: thisorbitallife on 08/31/2016 12:54 pmI think the lesson here is that the world needs updated data on what people/organizations would pay for "spaceflight participation" aka tourism. Both your data (1999) and my data (2001) are woefully out of date. Those surveys were taken pre-9/11 pre-Great Recession pre-lots of stuff. Until the data are revised I think we are spitting into the wind.I'm guessing that's why this survey had these results (highlighted for emphasis):Quote In December, 2014, Monmouth University asked 1,006 U.S. adults "If you won a free trip on a private company’s rocket ship into space, would you take the trip, or not?" Only 28% said yes, and only 3% were undecided. The other 69% were certain they would turn down the trip.Interestingly, Americans had a similar attitude toward space travel in 1960s during the space race. Only 17% said they would be interested in traveling to the moon themselves, according to a Gallup Poll from 1966.Neither poll offers much insight into why Americans feel so hesitant about space travel, whether it's fear of the trip itself or the belief that it's not worth the cost it takes to get people into space.I'm also guessing that the October 2014 SpaceShipTwo accident was a factor. It's very unfortunate.
Wait what basis do you have to say that fewer Europeans wanted to emigrate to America, it sounds like baseless speculation as I doubt you have a link to a survey. I think we can be fairly confident that at certain times and places like the Irish potato famine the rates of emigration were far higher then that.According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_diaspora in the year 1890 a full 40 percent of people born in Ireland were living outside it. Now obviously Ireland is a special case but collectively a total emigration of 60 million left Europe between 1815 to 1932 per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_diaspora, and that's out of a population that was growing from about 200 to 300 million over the same period, we don't know what percentage of every generation was emigrating but their were more that wanted to emigrate then actually could due to financial barriers.So we have no basis to say that a trip to LEO is more popular then emigration from Europe was.
I'd guess an occasional Dragon2 flight would pretty much satisfy demand for orbital SpaceTourism in the million dollar plus range.
Quote In December, 2014, Monmouth University asked 1,006 U.S. adults "If you won a free trip on a private company’s rocket ship into space, would you take the trip, or not?" Only 28% said yes, and only 3% were undecided. The other 69% were certain they would turn down the trip.
In December, 2014, Monmouth University asked 1,006 U.S. adults "If you won a free trip on a private company’s rocket ship into space, would you take the trip, or not?" Only 28% said yes, and only 3% were undecided. The other 69% were certain they would turn down the trip.
Quote from: Ludus on 09/06/2016 03:31 pmI'd guess an occasional Dragon2 flight would pretty much satisfy demand for orbital SpaceTourism in the million dollar plus range.Agreed that people who get that rich don't do so by spending money on frivolous things, but the spaceflight participants that have already gone have worked out ways to make money from their trips too (iirc Richard Garriot has stated that he made nearly 40% of the cost of his flight back from activities he did whilst up there, proving that it need not be a loss-making exercise).
We know that one end of the curve has had 8 takers for orbital flights at ~$50 million (some paid less). A price tag of $1.8 million is a lot less than that though, and I still think your proposed occasional Dragon2 wouldn't satisfy even a fraction of the demand at that price.
Quote from: Pipcard on 09/07/2016 03:12 amQuote In December, 2014, Monmouth University asked 1,006 U.S. adults "If you won a free trip on a private companys rocket ship into space, would you take the trip, or not?" Only 28% said yes, and only 3% were undecided. The other 69% were certain they would turn down the trip.A quick google reveals that as of 2014, there are ~15 million, millionaires in the world, and let's assume that the number of people interested in an orbital space flight goes up to 28%, once cost becomes comparable to any other adventure holiday. So perhaps the "130 million people interested in a $50k orbital flight" I used in my example above, is way too high... but surely 28% of the 15 million; 4.2 million millionaires would still be willing to spend up to 1% (~$12.5k) of their net worth on such a trip - and use that to estimate a curve (heck, I spent that much on my adventure holiday some years back).
Quote In December, 2014, Monmouth University asked 1,006 U.S. adults "If you won a free trip on a private companys rocket ship into space, would you take the trip, or not?" Only 28% said yes, and only 3% were undecided. The other 69% were certain they would turn down the trip.
In December, 2014, Monmouth University asked 1,006 U.S. adults "If you won a free trip on a private companys rocket ship into space, would you take the trip, or not?" Only 28% said yes, and only 3% were undecided. The other 69% were certain they would turn down the trip.
Assuming the derivative of the slope is constant (reduction in cost proportional to increase in interest), #participants drops to ~32% for every doubling in price.>snip<So yes, even now using relatively conservative estimates when looking at trips in the $1-2 million ticket price range, we are still looking at demand from 1000-3000 people ($2-3Billion dollar industry). Trying to satisfy that sort of demand with a few Dragon2s/BA330s ain't going to cut it
Ok ok so we've beat up the original poster pretty bad during the course of this thread.
I'm writing tongue in cheek but the bottom line is until cost to orbit is drastically, drastically cheaper developing space will be really really hard.
Does anyone know anything about selling real estate options - perhaps a plucky space station developer could fund the development of a station by pre-selling condos in orbit?! I know that's nuts but I want this just as bad as the original poster. Willing to entertain all ideas.
While I like the LEO habitat notion, IMHO the biggest issue is what's the economic plan. Sure, tourism is a possibility, but that doesn't populate a habitat. If it's going to be anything more than a hotel or possibly cruise ship, there has to be some kind of economic basis. Unfortunately, thus far, there's been nothing that it makes sense to produce in space, manufactured goods or services, that require human presence or even provide a plausibility argument.
Ok ok so we've beat up the original poster pretty bad during the course of this thread. The terrestrial tourist model is not likely to bootstrap development of large space stations or space settlements any time soon, barring major technological advancements.So what will kickstart large space stations and, subsequently, space settlement? My thoughts:1. Government. Investors build a rotating 1/3g "Mars practice" space station and convince/persuade Congress to give NASA a bunch of money to pay the investors to practice living in 1/3g before spending hundreds of billions and several years (and probably the lives of some brave astronauts) to do it on Mars. 2. Philanthropy. Convince/persuade some bazillionaire to build you your station without the need for turning a profit. Maybe it can be a seed bank or genetic library outside of the biosphere in case of apocalypse.I'm writing tongue in cheek but the bottom line is until cost to orbit is drastically, drastically cheaper developing space will be really really hard. Does anyone know anything about selling real estate options - perhaps a plucky space station developer could fund the development of a station by pre-selling condos in orbit?! I know that's nuts but I want this just as bad as the original poster. Willing to entertain all ideas.
So what will kickstart large space stations and, subsequently, space settlement? My thoughts:1. Government. Investors build a rotating 1/3g "Mars practice" space station and convince/persuade Congress to give NASA a bunch of money to pay the investors to practice living in 1/3g before spending hundreds of billions and several years (and probably the lives of some brave astronauts) to do it on Mars. 2. Philanthropy. Convince/persuade some bazillionaire to build you your station without the need for turning a profit. Maybe it can be a seed bank or genetic library outside of the biosphere in case of apocalypse.os in orbit?! I know that's nuts but I want this just as bad as the original poster. Willing to entertain all ideas.
Presenting... the DEployable Spin Gravity Array. Folded form is tall and narrow, deployed form is a wide torus.Still a work in progress (doesn't deploy and fold up cleanly yet), but since I showed the models above, I thought you guys might be interested to see the 3D print.
Unfortunately, thus far, there's been nothing that it makes sense to produce in space, manufactured goods or services, that require human presence or even provide a plausibility argument.
What about a base for processing precious metals mined from near-earth asteroids?
All that is needed is commercially minable water in space.The quantities needed to mine are about 1000 tons of water per year.
These hypothetical very rich people wanting to have a vacation spot in LEO are not going to expect to microwave their own meals and maintain their own toilet. There has to be a support staff. Cruise Ships operate with between 1 and 2 crew for every 3 passengers. And the passengers are not going to be travelling alone.But space-going support staff are going to have be be much more highly trained and paid than the people working on ships.