Private orbital flight.

[cpcjr]

Sooner or later Space X or some one else will succeed in orbiting a privately owned and operated manned space craft.

When this happens what do you think will happen in this area.

[Kaputnik]

The Russians will drop their prices and force the newcomers out of the market... just my humble opinion!

[Comga]

Sooner or later Space X or some one else will succeed in orbiting a privately owned and operated manned space craft.
When this happens what do you think will happen ...

A few of us will get up out of our wheelchairs and cheer, only to be shushed by the rest of the old timers watching Wheel of Fortune.

Seriously, there is little evidence to support that assumption. 
And your question is a little inverted.  What happens will determine when it happens.

[cpcjr]

Sooner or later Space X or some one else will succeed in orbiting a privately owned and operated manned space craft.
When this happens what do you think will happen ...

A few of us will get up out of our wheelchairs and cheer, only to be shushed by the rest of the old timers watching Wheel of Fortune.

Seriously, there is little evidence to support that assumption.

Obviously you are extremely pessimistic about private manned spaceflight. There is evidence that it could occur in the next 10 years. Yes, Space X has had trouble developing their falcon 1 rocket but that  not a surprise.

You clearly think that if it happens it will be decades away, but unless they fail completely there is no reason to think Space X won't obit a manned dragon before 2020. Also Space X is not the only other company with its eye on manned orbital spaceflight.

Regardless of when, someday someone will break that bubble and my question what happens after that?

And your question is a little inverted.  What happens will determine when it happens.

You missed my point so let me rephrase that. What do you think will happen to space flight as a whole once private manned orbital flight has happed?

[stockman]

You missed my point so let me rephrase that. What do you think will happen to space flight as a whole once private manned orbital flight has happed?

It will be like the dawn of the airline industry - Others will join once they see the potential of the market for tourism and travel and it will boom. How long that takes is the real question - to me the result once it does break open is obvious.

[ChefPat]

Sooner or later Space X or some one else will succeed in orbiting a privately owned and operated manned space craft.

When this happens what do you think will happen in this area.

 Everything depends on what a corporation/consortium or other group can make a profit from.
 IMHO there is next to no chance that pure tourism will make private access to LEO profitable. It will be a small fraction of the business model of whomever gets started first.
 My bet is on Platinum mining to be the first profitable enterprise in space. Whether it will be from asteroids or the moon will be determined by whichever is the most cost effective.

[William Barton]

It's worth noting air travel didn't really "boom" in its first 40+ years. After the Wright Flyer flew, developments were along the experiment/stunt lines until WW1 drove technical innovation. After WW1, barnstorming happened because there were plenty of surplus biplanes to be had. Airlines existed, but tickets were expensive because the planes were little (even dirigibles only carried a couple of dozen passengers). Then WW2 drove another round of fast technical innovation, resulting in bomber-sized prop airliners and then jet airliners. What would have happened without the wars? Even if private space travel evolves as fast, does that mean if Dragon somehow flies in 2013, we won't see much in the way of regular commercial space travel much before 2060? I would not be surprised.

[ChefPat]

It's worth noting air travel didn't really "boom" in its first 40+ years. After the Wright Flyer flew, developments were along the experiment/stunt lines until WW1 drove technical innovation. After WW1, barnstorming happened because there were plenty of surplus biplanes to be had. Airlines existed, but tickets were expensive because the planes were little (even dirigibles only carried a couple of dozen passengers). Then WW2 drove another round of fast technical innovation, resulting in bomber-sized prop airliners and then jet airliners. What would have happened without the wars? Even if private space travel evolves as fast, does that mean if Dragon somehow flies in 2013, we won't see much in the way of regular commercial space travel much before 2060? I would not be surprised.

 Manned space travel has already been around for nearly 50 years already. IMO, the reason it has not taken off (pun intended) is because it is just about the most difficult & expensive activity that man can do.
 It absolutely has to be profitable before anyone will try it. We may very well be seeing the beginning of that profitable era.
 As for "regular, commercial" space travel, for the "Average Joe", I think we won't see that in our lifetimes at the very least.

[jabe]

I'm curious how the industry will react to crashes/accidents.  With litigation these days it would be different then when early plains crashed I'm sure.  I hope this won't kill the industry.. I figure it will get going sooner rather than later but lets hope accidents don't slow its growth to a crawl!!!
my 2 cents
jb

[Swatch]

Even if private space travel evolves as fast, does that mean if Dragon somehow flies in 2013, we won't see much in the way of regular commercial space travel much before 2060? I would not be surprised.

Are you comparing Dragon to the Flyer?  If so, I don't think that's a very accurate comparison.  The optimist will say Dragon is like a Boeing 707, but I think even a pessimist would compare it to the aviation of the late teens to early 20s.  However, I think its more reasonable to compare it to the Boeing Clipper IF commercial service were to be provided by the Dragon.

[William Barton]

Even if private space travel evolves as fast, does that mean if Dragon somehow flies in 2013, we won't see much in the way of regular commercial space travel much before 2060? I would not be surprised.

Are you comparing Dragon to the Flyer?  If so, I don't think that's a very accurate comparison.  The optimist will say Dragon is like a Boeing 707, but I think even a pessimist would compare it to the aviation of the late teens to early 20s.  However, I think its more reasonable to compare it to the Boeing Clipper IF commercial service were to be provided by the Dragon.

I can't imagine anyone would think I was making a serious comparison between technologies separated by a hundred years. The Wright Flyer was the first successful privately-developed HTA aircraft. If Dragon succeeds (and if it is first!), then it will be the first private manned orbital spacecraft. Comparing Dragon to the 707 is equally absurd. Commericial private airliners existed for decades beforehand. One of the big differences between air travel and space travel is, there was no huge government "air race" conducted in the 1850s from which the technology could develop. Ultimately, the biggest difference between commercial manned air travel and commercial manned space travel is, there's nowhere to go yet.

[William Barton]

It's worth noting air travel didn't really "boom" in its first 40+ years. After the Wright Flyer flew, developments were along the experiment/stunt lines until WW1 drove technical innovation. After WW1, barnstorming happened because there were plenty of surplus biplanes to be had. Airlines existed, but tickets were expensive because the planes were little (even dirigibles only carried a couple of dozen passengers). Then WW2 drove another round of fast technical innovation, resulting in bomber-sized prop airliners and then jet airliners. What would have happened without the wars? Even if private space travel evolves as fast, does that mean if Dragon somehow flies in 2013, we won't see much in the way of regular commercial space travel much before 2060? I would not be surprised.

 Manned space travel has already been around for nearly 50 years already. IMO, the reason it has not taken off (pun intended) is because it is just about the most difficult & expensive activity that man can do.
 It absolutely has to be profitable before anyone will try it. We may very well be seeing the beginning of that profitable era.
 As for "regular, commercial" space travel, for the "Average Joe", I think we won't see that in our lifetimes at the very least.

One of the big differences between then and now is space travel didn't have to wait 60 years between first principles and first flight, the way air travel did. Commercial space travel so far has more in common with LTA than HTA. Elon Musk isn't two bicycle mechanics working alone. He has a lot more in common with Ferdinand von Zeppelin. Let's hope it all doesn't wind up the same way. Imagine what a "Hindenberg" event would do to space tourism (say a SpaceShipTwo loaded millionaires distintegrating in the stratosphere on live TV).

[coach]

"Ultimately, the biggest difference between commercial manned air travel and commercial manned space travel is, there's nowhere to go yet."

Aaahhh, but there is!

 http://bigelowaerospace.com/


Coach

[William Barton]

"Ultimately, the biggest difference between commercial manned air travel and commercial manned space travel is, there's nowhere to go yet."

Aaahhh, but there is!

 http://bigelowaerospace.com/


Coach

Not yet, but it's a start. The point is, if you're Ferdinand von Zeppelin, you're not going to make much by running airship tours out to some little platform in the North Sea. You're thinking about the transatlantic luxury travelers currently going by ocean liner, who'd like to get there faster (sort of like the Concorde crowd). Unfortunately, our equivalent of North America is a freezing cold uninhabited red desert. On the other hand... I think Zubrin was the one made the point if you used the Mars Direct technology to ship four colonists a year to Mars, you'd be doing better than England did with its N.A. colonies in the 17th century. But first, we have to get started.

[Blappy]

One part of space travel that is being over look is traveling "through" space and not "to" it.

Several companies including Virgin Galactic and PlanetSpace have made mention of this more then once.  Who would like to get from the US to Japan, or Australia or China in under two hours including waiting time in the air(space?)port.

Point to Point Sub-Orbital travel for People and Cargo will likely be far bigger then traveling to a orbital destination or a tourist hop to nowhere (meaning you land where you started).

I think the NASA CRS COTS bid will be much like the USPS flying mail on airplanes.  That will be a big boost (yes, pun intended!) to orbit if someone can pull it off.

[HMXHMX]

One part of space travel that is being over look is traveling "through" space and not "to" it.

Several companies including Virgin Galactic and PlanetSpace have made mention of this more then once.  Who would like to get from the US to Japan, or Australia or China in under two hours including waiting time in the air(space?)port.

Point to Point Sub-Orbital travel for People and Cargo will likely be far bigger then traveling to a orbital destination or a tourist hop to nowhere (meaning you land where you started).

I think the NASA CRS COTS bid will be much like the USPS flying mail on airplanes.  That will be a big boost (yes, pun intended!) to orbit if someone can pull it off.

Those pronouncements have all overlooked a basic problem: the delta vee requirements for point-to-point are far higher (for practical and useful ranges) than for simple SS2 suborbital flight.  Basically, you are designing a reusable one-stage near-orbital vehicle, with delta vees in the 20-28K fps range.  And recall we are dealing with an e to the x function, so this is not an easy problem, at all.  In most respects, point-to-point will be harder than orbital, even for only trans- (not inter-) continental distances.  Heating on re-entry is worse, for one thing.

[William Barton]

One part of space travel that is being over look is traveling "through" space and not "to" it.

Several companies including Virgin Galactic and PlanetSpace have made mention of this more then once.  Who would like to get from the US to Japan, or Australia or China in under two hours including waiting time in the air(space?)port.

Point to Point Sub-Orbital travel for People and Cargo will likely be far bigger then traveling to a orbital destination or a tourist hop to nowhere (meaning you land where you started).

I think the NASA CRS COTS bid will be much like the USPS flying mail on airplanes.  That will be a big boost (yes, pun intended!) to orbit if someone can pull it off.

I don't think that's out of the question, provided it can be made price-comparable to intercontinental air travel. One of the reasons Concorde didn't quite work out was perceived value, I think. I can see a busy executive paying 6x to do London/Tokyo 12x faster, but not paying 24x, for example. In Bono & Gatland's "Frontiers of Space" volume from the 1960s, there's a suggestion a suborbital troup transport (deploying 1000 troups anywhere in the world in 1hr, and being able to VTOL on both ends, so it can bring them back same way) was a plausible first application. Other than a body of armed men, what kind of cargo needs that sort of speed? It's not like UPS using ICBMs yet.

[Jim]

We are ready have Point to Point Sub-Orbital travel for Cargo, they are called ICBM's

[stockman]

We are ready have Point to Point Sub-Orbital travel for Cargo, they are called ICBM's

hmmmm. I think the intent here Jim is to have the point to point cargo carrier arrive at its destination without going boom! 

[iamlucky13]

It's worth noting air travel didn't really "boom" in its first 40+ years. After the Wright Flyer flew, developments were along the experiment/stunt lines until WW1 drove technical innovation. After WW1, barnstorming happened because there were plenty of surplus biplanes to be had. Airlines existed, but tickets were expensive because the planes were little (even dirigibles only carried a couple of dozen passengers). Then WW2 drove another round of fast technical innovation, resulting in bomber-sized prop airliners and then jet airliners. What would have happened without the wars? Even if private space travel evolves as fast, does that mean if Dragon somehow flies in 2013, we won't see much in the way of regular commercial space travel much before 2060? I would not be surprised.

The post-WWII boom wasn't merely due to the new engine and manufacturing technology that there was suddenly ample funding for. Almost as big of a factor was the military building runways almost everywhere they went and working out the logistics of long-distance, large scale flight operations. And it created a lot of new destinations. For example, how many Americans had a reason to travel to Japan before the war? In 1945 we suddenly took on a huge committment to helping rebuild Japan that is not inseparable from our current trade with them.

It's tempting then to muse that the fastest way to get civillians into space is a space war (one that doesn't turn the surface of the earth into glass, that is).

[Comga]

We are ready have Point to Point Sub-Orbital travel for Cargo, they are called ICBM's

hmmmm. I think the intent here Jim is to have the point to point cargo carrier arrive at its destination without going boom! 

For once Jim is being the smart aleck,  AND making a good point.

There has been consideration of delivering some hugely time critical cargo by converted ICBM.  It never goes anywhere because it is wildly impractical. The packaging needed to ride an ICBM is so complex and constraining that is it simpler to carry it unpackaged on a plane.  Either that or the cargo has to sit on a missile at constant readiness.  Not exactly the FedEx business model.

Similarly, while SS2 might be able to move at great speeds,  it could only go a couple of hundred kilometers given the energy in the system.  For that , it spends an hour or so getting to altitude at a less than earth shattering speed.  And the current cost is $200K.   So you wind up with a very expensive short range transport with a mediocre average speed.  Lose, lose, lose.  Let's be practical.

[HMXHMX]

We are ready have Point to Point Sub-Orbital travel for Cargo, they are called ICBM's

...

Similarly, while SS2 might be able to move at great speeds,  it could only go a couple of hundred kilometers given the energy in the system.  For that , it spends an hour or so getting to altitude at a less than earth shattering speed.  And the current cost is $200K.   So you wind up with a very expensive short range transport with a mediocre average speed.  Lose, lose, lose.  Let's be practical.

$200K x nine, so $1.8M for a flight.  Thus even worse.  SS2 will never be used for such a thing, nor WK2.  That is not to say there can't be a design that closes the business case (see for example Lindey and Penn in one of more AIAA papers) but not with this architecture.

[Swatch]

I can't imagine anyone would think I was making a serious comparison between technologies separated by a hundred years. The Wright Flyer was the first successful privately-developed HTA aircraft.

Are you implying that there was a publically developed HTA aircraft before the Flyer?  (to me, the Flyer is Gemini/Soyuz and the Lilienthal gliders are Mercury/Vostok)

Comparing Dragon to the 707 is equally absurd. Commericial private airliners existed for decades beforehand.

Note, I did NOT say that only that some would.  I disagreed and said I would place it more in the realm of the Boeing Clipper.   (One of) The first commercial airliner(s) to make intercontinental flights a feasible business.

One of the big differences between air travel and space travel is, there was no huge government "air race" conducted in the 1850s from which the technology could develop.

You're right... about the 1850s.  But there's a certain Chuck that won a big prize that incouraged technological development of aircraft.  And there were government subsidies and contracts laid out in the teens, 20s and 30s that led to the development of the technology necesary for the Clipper and its ilk.

Ultimately, the biggest difference between commercial manned air travel and commercial manned space travel is, there's nowhere to go yet.

People said the same thing about aircraft when they were only for joyriding and a public novelty.  Those were the same people who thought ocean liners were the wave of the future.  But when you can do things such as orbit the earth in 90 min (less than your typical skip-hopper commuter flight), imagine how much faster point to point travel can be?  No, there may not be places to go into orbit yet, but there are plenty of places to get to on earth, and there are many entrepeneurs that would rather see this than than an industry based solely on tourism.
Admittedly (as stated in the comments above) there is not currently a system in place that makes this feasible, but who's to say some hotshot engineer won't come up with the right answer?  There is lots of work going on out there, just as there was in the dawn of the Aviation age.

[rpspeck]

Sooner or later Space X or some one else will succeed in orbiting a privately owned and operated manned space craft.

When this happens what do you think will happen in this area.

 Everything depends on what a corporation/consortium or other group can make a profit from.
 IMHO there is next to no chance that pure tourism will make private access to LEO profitable. It will be a small fraction of the business model of whomever gets started first.
 My bet is on Platinum mining to be the first profitable enterprise in space. Whether it will be from asteroids or the moon will be determined by whichever is the most cost effective.

I believe that "On Site Service" will become a profitable space industry far sooner than mining!  With several $ Billion a year going for GEO satellites (and 100 times that money dependent on the operation of the communications cluster), at lot is at stake.  Fixing a satellite, or even extending its lifetime by hooking  up an external “Propulsion Unit”,  could be worth >$100 Million (from the insurance company, if not from the parent corporation).

You can get a really good (and preferably compact, low mass) technician for $ 1 Million.  Many will do it for nothing but the free trip into space.  A fair number of these are adventurers who won't quibble about “flush toilets” or Wasabi for the food. Even with a cramped hole for a space capsule, and  just an even chance to make it back alive, you will get technicians willing to go. 

When you think in these terms you realize that a Falcon-1e  is big enough for the entire mission, including a <400 pound manned reentry unit and rockets for GTO, etc.

Beyond repair of existing systems, the POSSIBILITY of repair has a massive impact on design.  Slightly less conservative design – counting on a multi million dollar repair if necessary -  can enable doubled performance for the satellites!

People who loved to fly lived the rough, dangerous life of Air Show performers and Barnstormers, because that made possible the Euphoric Joy of flying!  The first “commercial” space operations will look at lot like those early days in aviation.