Randy:QuoteThe "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.
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.
But rather than just going round and round, what's your solution to proving whether or not a viable market exists for space tourism?
Unfortunatly it does NOT PROVE THAT HUMANS ARE NEEDED IN SPACE, it still only proves that humans are needed for HSF.
Are Humans needed in America, other than to service human needs?Are Humans needed on Earth, other than to service human needs?Obviously not.
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.
But you do use real people to fix your robots.
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.
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.
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).
QuoteAre 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.
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 from: RanulfC on 07/29/2011 07:10 pmQuoteAre 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.
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 really is quite large.
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...
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
Quote from: 93143 on 07/30/2011 12:54 amQuote from: RanulfC on 07/29/2011 07:10 pmQuoteAre 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.
Quoterobots 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.QuoteYou're overreaching.Nope, but I think this discussion is, and you sure are given:QuoteIIRC, 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?
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.QuoteYou're overreaching.
First of all we've managed quite well with "teleoperation" between the Earth and Mars let alone the Moon.
Quote from: joek on 07/28/2011 11:13 pmFor 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.
Apologies if you've already addressed this, RanulfC, but what are your opinions about the sovereign client market?
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.
{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
Quote from: RanulfC on 08/01/2011 09:40 pm{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.
Worse yet I wonder if the analogies actually do harm by reducing the issues and differences of space versus the analogies too much.
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.
"Colonization" isn't even a consideration at this point, and not at all what I'm talking or thinking about per this particular thread.
I also work with robots! Mine KILL people on a daily basis.