Quote from: Jim on 10/06/2017 04:55 pmIt has nothing to do with technologies. It is the market place. Other than making money off of communications, what other reasons to go into space that will make money. Tourism is not it. Why is tourism "not it"? This is a market that has never been truly tested because of a lack of supply. The only flights so far were on Soyuz but now both Boeing and SpaceX are developing manned spacecraft that will actually fly.
It has nothing to do with technologies. It is the market place. Other than making money off of communications, what other reasons to go into space that will make money. Tourism is not it.
Quote from: DreamyPickle on 10/06/2017 08:34 pmQuote from: Jim on 10/06/2017 04:55 pmIt has nothing to do with technologies. It is the market place. Other than making money off of communications, what other reasons to go into space that will make money. Tourism is not it. Why is tourism "not it"? This is a market that has never been truly tested because of a lack of supply. The only flights so far were on Soyuz but now both Boeing and SpaceX are developing manned spacecraft that will actually fly.There was always Soyuz and the option to build a commercial station. It may have something to do with the numbers on the attached picture. Reliability is obviously also a concern for tourism.But according to some BFR will be the highest-performing, cheapest and most reliable spacecraft ever and solve all those issues.
Which problems? It probably won't solve the problem of how much NASA spends for hardware for political reasons.
$980M Orion (crew to Cis-Lunar) Production Only. An estimate @ 1 unit a year. If @ 2 flights a year, $654M/unit. Scenario if Orion less than 1 flts/year thru 2046 = $1,672M/unit
This chart is astounding -- and conveniently answers the OP:Q: After Rockets, Next Bottlenecks?A: Wasteful spending for political expediency
For same kind of money, what space tourism can possibly provide? A glorified tin can cramming with a handful of people? A small window to look through, a self-serving minibar and toilet behind a curtain? Can that compete with air and sunshine of Bahamas? I think space tourism will limit to sub-orbital joyride, if that ever happens, in the foreseeable future.
Quote from: tdperk on 10/08/2017 02:26 pmWhich problems? It probably won't solve the problem of how much NASA spends for hardware for political reasons.Are you saying that NASA spends more on CST-100 and Dragon 2 for political reasons? After all those were competitive bids.
Quote from: Jim on 10/06/2017 04:55 pmQuote from: sanman on 10/06/2017 02:14 amWhat are then the next critical set of technologies/capabilities that need to be focused on, in order to make the Space Economy take off?It has nothing to do with technologies. It is the market place. Other than making money off of communications, what other reasons to go into space that will make money. Tourism is not it. In space manufacturing might be important, but it's basically a hope on a gamble and isn't likely to be big.Yeah, Jim's right: communications is where it's at. But that's a huge market.
Quote from: sanman on 10/06/2017 02:14 amWhat are then the next critical set of technologies/capabilities that need to be focused on, in order to make the Space Economy take off?It has nothing to do with technologies. It is the market place. Other than making money off of communications, what other reasons to go into space that will make money. Tourism is not it.
What are then the next critical set of technologies/capabilities that need to be focused on, in order to make the Space Economy take off?
I think the next bottleneck after launch prices is long term habitability. We'd need to solve radiation protection, near-closed life support and microgravity sicknesses for humans to be able to stay in space for long periods without suffering, and do so with lightweight solutions.
Zero g sports.