Author Topic: Will mass space tourism become a reality in the next 25 years?  (Read 40122 times)

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Randy:
Quote
The "potential" does not equal a viable market unfortunatly so again that is NOT a plausible "reason" to go and develop the fully  reusable launch architecture that's going to be needed.

I have to disagree with you, people looking to develop a new product determine if a viable market exists for that product by surveys of potential customers, with a product that has high start-up costs, that may mean not providing potential customers with trial samples.
Yes which has been DONE, (a point I keep trying to make) but the VIABLE 'potential' market is so far removed from current "viable" pricing as to be a non-starter. At this point "trail" samples are not even a viable option since we can't find a "way" to get from where we are now to where we can even begin to seriously consider orbital tourism on a "mass-market" basis.
Quote
But rather than just going round and round, what's your solution to proving whether or not a viable market exists for space tourism?
"I" dont' have one, we've discussed that already remember :)

However, I see people who ARE begining to gather the needed data and experiance to be able to at least give a basis for discussion :)

While I'm NOT going to count on getting good data from folks like Virgin Galactic (far to much "noise" in the economics from the whole resort/experiance process to seperate out the operations and costing of the vehicle portion of the formula) XCOR on the other hand is "operating" a fast-turn-around, multi-flights a day (possible) vehicle that is a VERY good "start" on the process.

Extension of THAT data can begin to make the case for larger, more capable suborbital vehicles and if one can actually be patient and "wait" for extension of those capabilities it will eventually get to orbital travel capability.

On the other hand the "25-year" question has shown some folks are rather impatient for "real" tourism to begin NOW so it also would be well to consider alternatives to the current cost paradigm of Orbital travel.

Space-X and the Dragon are an example of what is possible NOW, as are the Atlas-V and Delta-IV with possible combinations of things like the Dream-Chaser, Boeing capsule, etc. "Costing" data relevent enough to use for serious business proposals is sketchy to say the least so that is going to be an issue. Also none of the vehicles being discused are actually "designed" for space tourism so serious work has to be done on defining the "Mission" for "Space Tourism" is going to be needed first and formost.

Ok, "Space-Tourism" as defined for THIS thread is taking people to orbit.... But THEN what? Taking them to the ISS is probably "out" as an alternative simply because of all the various "hassles" involved. (NASA is reluctant to "allow" tourists because they have never actually been "authorized" by Congress as to how they should be handled, so they are pretty much NOT allowing them. Then there is "competing" with the Russians who would not look kindly on "tourists" THEY didn't bring up...)

Bigelow may or may not have "rooms-for-rent" but in most cases we can't simply "assume" an orbital destination because we have no way of making a business case for costing it out at this time.

So basicly we're looking at flying people around the Earth a couple of dozen times and then landing them back on Earth.

We need to start looking at a business case from that stand-point. I don't really "see" it being all that "viable" at the moment but there ARE possible ways to at least get started. (Ask Me :) )

Randy:
Quote
Unfortunatly it does NOT PROVE THAT HUMANS ARE NEEDED IN SPACE, it still only proves that humans are needed for HSF.
Quote
Are Humans needed in America, other than to service human needs?
Are Humans needed on Earth, other than to service human needs?

Obviously not.
Nope not at all :) But there isn't any realistic "comperison" between space and any point terrestrial so the analogy fails which is where I was going with that point.

We are STILL stuck with the 'FACT' that the only current "justification" for humans in space is HSF.

Quote
Hey what do you know! I also work with robots! Mine KILL people on a daily basis. They also take observations, fly themselves, and take a huge load of data of of humans by making a large amount of their own decisions regarding the missions they are given and how to excute them.
Quote
But you do use real people to fix your robots.

ONLY because the "human" infrastructure is already IN-PLACE and PAID for, it is by far NOT the same thing in space. (My MAIN point with that statement is that "working" with robotics, automation, etc isn't going to get the commenters a "ok-your-an-expert-so-you-know-everything" pass on the discussion. It doesn't really MATTER that any of us work on or with robots, the point is that automation and robots are already ESTABLISHED as the most economical and practical way to exploit space and planetary bodies and that humans are neither needed or wanted at this point. What needs to be focused on is how to change that. Simply continuing to point out that humans are needed for HSF is pointless. Even suggesting how to increase humans presense in space by lowering access costs is dicey because if you lower the cost for HSF you ALSO lower the cost for putting up automated or robotic vehicles... In MOST cases anyway :) )

So MY point(s) is/are that there is a REAL need to FIND a "reason" for putting humans into space that makes BOTH economic AND practical sense which can be used for justification of the work that needs to be done for getting lots of humans into space.

Until then we are working under a serious handicap...

Randy
« Last Edit: 07/29/2011 07:12 pm by RanulfC »
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Stop CAPITALIZING every OTHER word IN your POST. ;)

(I've been guilty of this, myself, at times!)

I find italics easier to read (though that requires more work).
« Last Edit: 07/29/2011 07:26 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
While I don't think we are likely to see "mass space tourism" in 25 years (at least in the same sense as "mass market" or "mass produced"), tourism is the most concrete and potentially largest space market I've seen suggested.
Thanks for bringing this up as THIS is part of what needs to be addressed to define "Space Tourism" :)

For what it's worth "MY" take on the issue is that I haven't actually SEEN a good business case for "Tourism" in or to Space. Most everyone keeps talking about increasing access or lowering launch costs but what is needed is a discussion on the WHOLE package that IS "tourism" rather than JUST how to get people there.
Quote
For reference: Disney parks and resorts division 2010 revenue was $10.7B (over 3x the commercial launch market).  Worldwide international tourism runs to hundreds of millions of visits per year and several hundred $B/yr.  Worldwide tourism (domestic and international) is estimated at 10% of world GNP.  Niche markets such as exotic vacations or expeditions can easily run into the tens of thousands of $, and luxury yacht charters can easily run to hundreds of thousands of $/week.

For reference:
There are NO parks or resorts in space! No luxery "Space-yachts" either.

So the total "revenues" for space tourism would be reduced by the amount of INFRASTRUCTURE needed to be bought and built before any revenue can be figured.

This is the BIGGEST "hurdle" to space-tourism being considerd a "viable" market. Dennis Tito did NOT spend $20-million dollars to orbit the Earth several times in a Soyuz capsule, neither did he "pay" (really) for the work and construction done on the ISS in order for it to BE there for him to stay at. He also did not "pay" for the "sunken" costs of the development of the Soyuz, its booster rocket, the cost of development and research on his space suit.... I can go on.

ALL of these are going to have to be fitted into (or ways to exclude the costs) a "Space-Tourism" business plan.

Right now Virgin Galactic is using a "plan" that is based around the "space-trip" being just a single, (and actually very SMALL) part of what amounts to a two-week vacation stay at a resort.

XCOR on the other hand has deals with restorts to offer suborbital "rides" as part of peoples stays at certain resorts.

VGs plan subsumes the "actual" costing of their "tourism" operations and maintenance costs within the overall costs of the resort stay, but in the end the $200,000 dollar "ticket" price will be much more overall I'm sure because of the "extra" costs of the whole "experiance" being offered.
(Which is why it is going to be hard to figure their actual costs for the services)

XCOR on the other hand is going for a business model with costing not related to the "guests" stay at the resort so their model should be closer to just operations costs.

This should be a good indicator of which type of tourism model to use, however it does not address the lack of infrastructure.

That is an issue that still needs to be addressed.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Stop CAPITALIZING every OTHER word IN your POST. ;)

(I've been guilty of this, myself, at times!)

I find italics easier to read (though that requires more work).
Ok, hOw aBoUt eVeRyOtHeR lEtTeR iNsTeAd?
(No that's harder... though more annoying ;) )

Seriously, I've noted before that I'm used to "typing-like-I-talk" so emphisis get CAPITILIZED, but I'll try and 'fix' that with alternatives from now on :)

(That was harder than I thought it'd be too :) )

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Hey lookie here! (Ok it's from 1999 but still it is a pretty complete study and reference!)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010032279_2001045062.pdf

Specifically it has the "Tourism-for-fun-and-profit" paper attached which is one of my favorite hard-to-find references :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
While we are about it on this subject I'll point out this thread as NEED-TO-READ (see? Didn't cap ever other word ;) )
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26248.0

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Online 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
Are Humans needed in America, other than to service human needs?
Are Humans needed on Earth, other than to service human needs?

Obviously not.
Nope not at all :) But there isn't any realistic "comperison" between space and any point terrestrial so the analogy fails which is where I was going with that point.

No, you completely blew past his point and missed it entirely.  If you believe that there is inherent value in the existence of humans on Earth, then you'd need some pretty convoluted logic to deny that there is inherent value in the existence of more humans living off Earth - this is an argument for colonization, not tourism.

Or I could be reading something into his post that isn't there...  but the argument stands anyway.

Quote
robots are already ESTABLISHED as the most economical and practical way to exploit space and planetary bodies and that humans are neither needed or wanted at this point.

I think you're overreaching.

IIRC, the head of the MER program was asked if he still thought that humans were needed on Mars, and he just about blew up.  (His answer was yes, just so we're clear.)

It's hard to teleoperate effectively even as far as the Moon due to the lightspeed delay, and robots won't be anywhere near smart enough for autonomous exploration on a human level for a very long time.  Robots are an admitted pain in the rear for tasks like geology.  And humans are surprisingly cost-effective science-return-wise if you don't charge the whole $200B development project to only one mission (since you don't have to spend it again to send the second mission, or the third...) - the capability gap in terms of planetary surface exploration really is quite large; it isn't enough to cite the cost gap by itself, as if that proves robots are more cost-effective (I see that a lot on here).

I know you said exploitation, not exploration, but exploration needs to precede exploitation, and as far as I know we aren't exploiting any planetary bodies other than Earth yet.

And of course, robots are completely beside the point as regards colonization, which I know I'm not the only proponent of.  Unfortunately commercial companies are not likely to see a market in colonizing space any time soon...
« Last Edit: 07/30/2011 01:33 am by 93143 »

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Ok, let me "clear-the-air" a bit here:
Perhaps my use of "robotics" and "automation" is the problem here. My "interpretation" in using those words points not to advanced semi-autonomous robots being developed in labs, or automated hunter-killer drones. Simply put every commercially (money-making) satellite is an "automated-robot" vehicle in the sense I'm using.
-They don't need people in space (Not in the sense we're talking about)
-People can't economically compete with them
-They are the current "standard" for space operations
- It is where we are now, and getting beyond this "point" is going to take a lot more than just making "access" cheaper.

Quote
Are Humans needed in America, other than to service human needs?
Are Humans needed on Earth, other than to service human needs?

Obviously not.
Nope not at all :) But there isn't any realistic "comperison" between space and any point terrestrial so the analogy fails which is where I was going with that point.

No, you completely blew past his point and missed it entirely.  If you believe that there is inherent value in the existence of humans on Earth, then you'd need some pretty convoluted logic to deny that there is inherent value in the existence of more humans living off Earth - this is an argument for colonization, not tourism.

Or I could be reading something into his post that isn't there...  but the argument stands anyway.
No it doesn't stand unfortunately, and it's also the reason I expanded on the comment. Space (anywhere) is not Earth and that basic fact alone has NOTHING to do with "inherent-value" of human or not and most certainly does involve our "existence" in any way, shape, or form.

Humans exist on "Earth" because (as far as we know to the extent we can know) we began here. We live everywhere on Earth (including America) because we can easily survive here. We can meet our needs for shelter, food and other things we need to "live" pretty easily by just foraging in our surroundings. If all our "tech" was suddenly taken away some humans would still be able to survive.

NONE of this is true in space!

This has nothing what-so-ever to do with any "belief" you or I might have concerning human "manifest-destiny" or "inherent-value" it is simply the most basic fact about space itself.

I am beginning to get the suspicion that we crossed a couple of wires here.

Quote
robots are already ESTABLISHED as the most economical and practical way to exploit space and planetary bodies and that humans are neither needed or wanted at this point.
Quote
You're overreaching.
Nope, but I think this discussion is, and you sure are given:
Quote
IIRC, the head of the MER program was asked if he still thought that humans were needed on Mars, and he just about blew up.  (His answer was yes, just so we're clear.)
Ok now what does this have to do with Space Tourism specifically and the commercial cost effectiveness of current commercial satellites vis-a-vis humans?

Quote
It's hard to teleoperate effectively even as far as the Moon due to the lightspeed delay, and robots won't be anywhere near smart enough for autonomous exploration on a human level for a very long time.  Robots are an admitted pain in the rear for tasks like geology.  And humans are surprisingly cost-effective science-return-wise if you don't charge the whole $200B development project to only one mission (since you don't have to spend it again to send the second mission, or the third...) - the capability gap really is quite large.
First of all we've managed quite well with "teleoperation" between the Earth and Mars let alone the Moon. Second of all we weren't discussing "exploration" we were talking about economics pure and simple. Thirdly automation fully fulfills the commercial and economic requirements so well that there is NO chance of humans replacement anytime in the foreseeable future.

Lastly, robots won't pay for Space Tourism so that at least is one niche that humans can be fit into, however:
Lowering the cost of human access to space also enhances the cost-effective nature of the current "automated" space-market paradigm which is a point that is going to need to be addressed when we look to expand human presence in space.

I apologize if I've been unclear about that point in the discussion.

Quote
And of course, robots are completely beside the point as regards colonization, which I know I'm not the only proponent of.  Unfortunately commercial companies are not likely to see a market in colonizing space any time soon...
"Colonization" isn't even a consideration at this point, and not at all what I'm talking or thinking about per this particular thread. Which is why I think we crossed up somewhere along the way.

Human "utility" or "cost-effectiveness" is not an issue at the moment, automated weather, communications, and scientific satellites do everything we need in the commercial sector having to do with space.

None of this however effects Space Tourism on a level we need worry about because Space Tourism requires (per the OP and updated) in the context we're discussing putting humans into space.

Ok, that's a given, however it needs to be specifically pointed out because as noted keeping humans alive in space takes a lot of effort, a lot of tech, and (unfortunately again) a lot of money.

And even more unfortunately I need to point out that the entire "term" of Space Tourism, despite what we've discussed so far is still lacking in hard definition.

(more in a bit have to make dinner) :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457

Humans exist on "Earth" because (as far as we know to the extent we can know) we began here. We live everywhere on Earth (including America) because we can easily survive here. We can meet our needs for shelter, food and other things we need to "live" pretty easily by just foraging in our surroundings. If all our "tech" was suddenly taken away some humans would still be able to survive.

NONE of this is true in space!


Randy

No offense but that is one of the worst anti space arguments I have ever heard.

Humans cannot survive anywhere but the tropics without at least shelter,warm clothing and fire.
Winter is esp deadly if one does not have the skills and resources to deal with it.

For primitive humans learning to live in different climates or crossing the oceans was far higher risk then space flight is for us today.

Heck a Mars mission even some of the more spartan examples would be a luxury cruise compared to even what the Pilgrims endured.

If our tech was taken away and we were left with stone age tech about 95% of the human population would die off in the first few months.

The rest would kill each other in fights over resources.

Actually just a single space rock about 1KM in size could destroy civilization and would stand a very good chance of wiping out humanity right now.

But if we had largely self sufficient colonies off world even things like a nuclear war or the impact of a dino killer class asteriod on Earth would not destroy civilization.

A single space colony is more vulnerable then Earth but hundreds of such colonies spread across the solar system is collectively much more secure then a single planet.

Of course from a preserving civilization stand point it would be colonies plus Earth vs just Earth.
So even a few colonies would greatly increase the chances civilization would survive a catastrophe.

Once a civilization becomes truly space faring it goes from something that is very fragile to something nearly immortal.

The dinosaurs had no space program and look at what happened to them.

A truly space fairing civilization could divert and maybe even decide to mine such a rock.

If they missed one those on the colonies would survive with their technology base intact and could recolonize the Earth once the dust settled out of the atmosphere.
Thus avoiding a dark age and maybe even extinction.

I'd go farther and have some colonies setup as arks to keep wildlife safe so species that were wiped out can be reintroduced getting the biosphere back up and running as soon as possible.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2011 02:49 am by Patchouli »

Online 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
Are Humans needed in America, other than to service human needs?
Are Humans needed on Earth, other than to service human needs?

Obviously not.
Nope not at all :) But there isn't any realistic "comperison" between space and any point terrestrial so the analogy fails which is where I was going with that point.

No, you completely blew past his point and missed it entirely.  If you believe that there is inherent value in the existence of humans on Earth, then you'd need some pretty convoluted logic to deny that there is inherent value in the existence of more humans living off Earth - this is an argument for colonization, not tourism.

Or I could be reading something into his post that isn't there...  but the argument stands anyway.
No it doesn't stand unfortunately, and it's also the reason I expanded on the comment. Space (anywhere) is not Earth and that basic fact alone has NOTHING to do with "inherent-value" of human or not and most certainly does involve our "existence" in any way, shape, or form.

The point stands.  It doesn't interact much with the thread topic, as you correctly point out, but it is most certainly a valid philosophical point, relevant to the wider issue of motivation for HSF.

Quote
Quote
robots are already ESTABLISHED as the most economical and practical way to exploit space and planetary bodies and that humans are neither needed or wanted at this point.
Quote
You're overreaching.
Nope, but I think this discussion is, and you sure are given:
Quote
IIRC, the head of the MER program was asked if he still thought that humans were needed on Mars, and he just about blew up.  (His answer was yes, just so we're clear.)
Ok now what does this have to do with Space Tourism specifically and the commercial cost effectiveness of current commercial satellites vis-a-vis humans?

You're the one that brought up "exploit[ation of] ... planetary bodies".  Which is why I said you were overreaching.

Quote
First of all we've managed quite well with "teleoperation" between the Earth and Mars let alone the Moon.

Define "quite well".  As I just got through pointing out, a rather prominent member of the robotic exploration community has expressed sentiments that seem to clash with that assessment...

It turns out there's a large efficiency penalty involved in attempting to 'teleoperate' a robot across a half-hour lightspeed lag, on top of the robot's reduced capabilities compared with a human.

Of course, from a commercial perspective, this too is irrelevant, because there's no money to be made exploring Mars.  Yet...
« Last Edit: 07/30/2011 05:09 am by 93143 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
For reference: Disney parks and resorts division 2010 revenue was $10.7B (over 3x the commercial launch market).  Worldwide international tourism runs to hundreds of millions of visits per year and several hundred $B/yr.  Worldwide tourism (domestic and international) is estimated at 10% of world GNP.  Niche markets such as exotic vacations or expeditions can easily run into the tens of thousands of $, and luxury yacht charters can easily run to hundreds of thousands of $/week.
For reference:
There are NO parks or resorts in space! No luxery "Space-yachts" either.

Obviously.  The point is that people spend a huge amount of money on tourism.  A cursory analysis of tourism market data suggests that if space was accessible (affordable, safe, easy), that the potential market is enormous.

Quote
So the total "revenues" for space tourism would be reduced by the amount of INFRASTRUCTURE needed to be bought and built before any revenue can be figured.

You appear to mean profit.  Building infrastructure is part of the cost equation.  Revenue is part of the profit equation.
    Profit = Revenue - Cost
Obviously a sustainable enterprise must be profitable.

Offline Diagoras

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 99
Apologies if you've already addressed this, RanulfC, but what are your opinions about the sovereign client market?
"It’s the typical binary world of 'NASA is great' or 'cancel the space program,' with no nuance or understanding of the underlying issues and pathologies of the space industrial complex."

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Apologies if you've already addressed this, RanulfC, but what are your opinions about the sovereign client market?
I don't think we've touched that in the thread yet, then again I'm not sure how it would relate to Space Tourism in general :)

Bigelow seems to think it's a viable market. My opinion is "maybe" because it depends on having both destinations and transportation where as Space Tourims requires transportation but may or may not have destination(s).

Quote from: joek
The point is that people spend a huge amount of money on tourism.  A cursory analysis of tourism market data suggests that if space was accessible (affordable, safe, easy), that the potential market is enormous.
"Maybe" :) See one thing is that the Zogby/Futron report that most people are familiar with seem to miss something. There were more people who said they "might" pay for an orbital trip if they were given another choice of places to stay on-orbit other than the ISS. While the possible prices they were willing to pay at that point were still "high" (up to the quoted price of $20 million per person) the expections for what they would "recieve" for that money was changed.

Denis Tito spent a couple of days on a cramped Soyuz, then a week and some change on the ISS, roughing it with the other crew members. The study question was something on the order of "Would you pay the same price he did to stay at a "hotel" on-orbit?"

While a good number of people said "yes" to that question there is a vast gulf of "assumptions" that are not addressed within the study or by clearification of what each person/party was "assuming" when they heard the word "hotel" in that question. The people being asked have probably never stayed at a "Motel-8" and would not assume normally that a "hotel" would make them make their own meals, clean their own rooms, or unplug their own toliet. Meanwhile "astronauts" from a "soveriegn" client probably WOULD "assume" such things :)

Hopefully this will show why I'm pointing out the "obvious" issues because we really need to narrow down the definition of what kind of "Space Tourism" people in general "assume" when the subject is brought up.

Would Dennis Tito have paid $20-million dollars to orbit the Earth several times stuck in his seat on the Soyuz and then come back? Probably not but that is very much a "probable" market that needs to be considered.

I don't see anyone looking at those type of models, instead they always seem to focus on the "transportation/destination" type models and while I hope Bigelow gets a space hotel up and running at some point, he's been pretty adement that he'd rather sell modules to someone who plans on opening up a space-hotel rather than doing so himself.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
{snip}

While a good number of people said "yes" to that question there is a vast gulf of "assumptions" that are not addressed within the study or by clearification of what each person/party was "assuming" when they heard the word "hotel" in that question. The people being asked have probably never stayed at a "Motel-8" and would not assume normally that a "hotel" would make them make their own meals, clean their own rooms, or unplug their own toliet. Meanwhile "astronauts" from a "soveriegn" client probably WOULD "assume" such things :)

Some of the space station designs have two BA330s, one for the customers and a second for the permanent crew.  The cook may be in the second section.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
{snip}

While a good number of people said "yes" to that question there is a vast gulf of "assumptions" that are not addressed within the study or by clearification of what each person/party was "assuming" when they heard the word "hotel" in that question. The people being asked have probably never stayed at a "Motel-8" and would not assume normally that a "hotel" would make them make their own meals, clean their own rooms, or unplug their own toliet. Meanwhile "astronauts" from a "soveriegn" client probably WOULD "assume" such things :)

Some of the space station designs have two BA330s, one for the customers and a second for the permanent crew.  The cook may be in the second section.
It's more that just the cook :)

But I have yet to see a serious "case-study" done of what services an "on-orbit" tourism hotel would have. What would people want for services? What as a minimum?

Then there is the question of what types of services and "experiance" base would be provided if there are NOT any on-orbit facilities? Is there a possible market for just going into orbit for a few hours? How big a vehicle would be needed? What type of vehicle? What would passenger expectations for a particular price point be?

If you're doing "transporting" to on-orbit locations/facilities then you want a vehicle that can carry as many people as possible per trip with little or no "experiance" comforts like room to play in free-fall, or outside views because your "model" is simply to get as many customers to the "on-orbit" location as possible as fast as possible.

On the other hand if you are not "transporting" people to and from destinations then you have to offer a vehicle with room to "play" and spectacular views because the trip IS the experiance.

It's part of why I keep saying that there needs to be more "definition" to qualify the term "Space Tourism" :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Quote from: Randy
Worse yet I wonder if the analogies actually do harm by reducing the issues and differences of space versus the analogies too much.

The analogies are inanimate ideas; they can do no harm by themselves.  Rather it is people taking the analogies, cherry picking the parts they like, disposing of the parts they don't like, then holding forth as if the analogy is proof or disproof of the concept being analogized.

I mean, I'd say.

Quote
The result is that there IS NO "PRACTICAL" REASON FOR HUMANS IN SPACE since they have no purpose and any function they can perform can be done cheaper and easier with automation.

This has been brought up many a time.  We go to space because we want to.

Quote
"Colonization" isn't even a consideration at this point, and not at all what I'm talking or thinking about per this particular thread.

This is the only point there is for humans in space, other than the search for intelligent life.

Quote
I also work with robots! Mine KILL people on a daily basis.

Yeah, but you gotta admit, that's easier than repairing the Hubble.  The drone that follows up with expert emergency care for the collateral victims would be sweet.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0