Commerical Suborbital Point-to-Point

[simonbp]

Since it came up in the XCOR thread, but wasn't really relevant there, this deserves it's own thread.

IMHO, you could pull it off for transoceanic flights, where you don't have to worry about shocks and can economically limit yourself to a small number of hub airports (thus limiting the ground infrastructure). To make it profitable, you'd want a pretty large aircraft (think 777-class, 300-400 seats) that could fly at least once per day. There's nothing fundamentally impossible about this, but it's like no vehicle that has ever flown, or is even in serious planning.

Plus, as Jon noted on the other thread, there would be serious regulatory hurtles. Transoceanic flight are somewhat better for this, as they can take off under jets, ignite the rocket over water, and then slow to subsonic before making landfall. But it would still be an entirely new regulatory regime...

[go4mars]

Like if the second stage on a stratolaunch rocket was a passenger unit instead? 

Would the passenger compartment be a glider?  Nearly wingless and propulsively landed? 

[Robotbeat]

Only chance is to market it to those who are crazy rich. Of course, then you'd need incredible safety, as well.

[A_M_Swallow]

To make it profitable, you'd want a pretty large aircraft (think 777-class, 300-400 seats) that could fly at least once per day. {snip}

That seems a bit large.  There may only be 40-50 people a day who can afford the fare.  The number of people flying first class and business class may give an estimate.

[dcporter]

The main trouble I've heard with point to point suborbital is that the dV required for any decent down range capacity is close enough to orbital that you might as well be trying to go to LEO. So it might work out, but not for a while, and not at prices significantly lower than launching the same mass.

(This is what I've heard.)

[Blackjax]

The main trouble I've heard with point to point suborbital is that the dV required for any decent down range capacity is close enough to orbital that you might as well be trying to go to LEO. So it might work out, but not for a while, and not at prices significantly lower than launching the same mass.

(This is what I've heard.)

I have no opinion on whether Commerical Suborbital Point-to-Point is feasible, but I do wonder if the fact that you don't need some systems required in LEO but not for a brief suborbital trip would help loosen the requirements some.  You don't need multi day ECLSS or heat shielding among other things.  How would that, combined with at least a slightly lower fuel load translate to wiggle room in the difficulty of making a vehicle?

[Robotbeat]

The main trouble I've heard with point to point suborbital is that the dV required for any decent down range capacity is close enough to orbital that you might as well be trying to go to LEO. So it might work out, but not for a while, and not at prices significantly lower than launching the same mass.

(This is what I've heard.)

I have no opinion on whether Commerical Suborbital Point-to-Point is feasible, but I do wonder if the fact that you don't need some systems required in LEO but not for a brief suborbital trip would help loosen the requirements some.  You don't need multi day ECLSS or heat shielding among other things.  How would that, combined with at least a slightly lower fuel load translate to wiggle room in the difficulty of making a vehicle?

You would need something approaching a heat shield at the delta-vs needed for significant distance point-to-point (i.e. 5-6km/s or more).

[Kaputnik]

Is SOPTP supposed to be a joy-ride, or a viable means of rapid transport?
If the latter, surely the test of whether it has any utility is in whether it can delvier a person to their destination faster than alternative methods.
To achieve that, you need to avoid hours of turnaround time with passengers strapped in and awaiting launch. You need flights directly to useful destinations. And you need flights to be happening often enough that your customers don't just get on the next conventional airliner instead.

[douglas100]

As always, it comes down to whether there will be a market for it. The fact that  proposed supersonic bizjet projects have yet to succeed suggests that presently there is not enough demand for personal high speed travel. This may change of course.

I think commercial suborbital point-to-point is more likely to succeed starting small and targeting niche markets (as was suggested on the XCOR thread.) I think 777 sized vehicles are a completely unrealistic starting point.

Suborbital mass passenger travel also could potentially face serious competition in the medium term from hypersonic vehicles like LAPCAT if they are ever developed.

[go4mars]

The fact that  proposed supersonic bizjet projects have yet to succeed suggests that presently there is not enough demand for personal high speed travel.

As far as I know, the only credible biz-jet proposals were limited to about mach 1.7, didn't provide the novelty of several weightless minutes, were relatively limited range, and sonic booms were still a constraining issue for route choices because they couldn't bypass the atmosphere between take-off town and landing-land.  Not a useful comparison imo. 

[douglas100]

I think it's a correct comparison. If developers of supersonic bizjets are unable to bring their aircraft to market currently, then I suggest there is insufficient demand for faster passenger flight at the present time.

The sonic boom issue is not a show stopper if the SST flies high enough. I don't think that is what is preventing the introduction of such aircraft.

Commercial point-to-point is not about providing the novelty of weightlessness, it's about delivering people or goods rapidly around the planet. Weightlessness as a selling point is part of space tourism for which the market demand is currently being addressed.

There are regulatory hurdles to be overcome for suborbital vehicles as Jon Goff pointed out in another thread. Flying them out of commercial airports is problematical.

If you think there will be a large demand for suborbital passenger services in the near future, I would like to hear your arguments.

[simonbp]

To make it profitable, you'd want a pretty large aircraft (think 777-class, 300-400 seats) that could fly at least once per day. {snip}

That seems a bit large.  There may only be 40-50 people a day who can afford the fare.  The number of people flying first class and business class may give an estimate.

Well that's the point. Most of the cost of operating the aircraft is in the fixed infrastructure and fuel. If you have the passengers to support it, you want the largest aircraft possible. A 747 is not cheap per flight, but it is cheap per seat, and that's what makes transatlantic travel affordable.

This is not a new analysis; the American response to the Concorde was the Boeing 2707, which had about 300 seats (and probably closer to 350 in a modern configuration). This was because Boeing did the math and realized that that was the minimum size that could be expected to be profitable (Concorde maxed out at 128 passengers).

The reason I focused on transoceanic flights is because they do have the traffic to easy fill many large suborbital transports daily. Even if the only suborbital service you had was New York-London, there would be enough passengers to justify 5-10 400-seat transports (depending on how much maintenance downtime they need). Add New York-LA and LA-Tokyo and you've just cornered a large sector of the world's long-distance market.

[mrmandias]

If this happens, it will be high-value cargo with a time crunch first: rare medicines, organs, critical replacement parts for factories, documents where you have to have the originals for legal reasons, etc.  The military may also have an interest in maintaining a standby fleet of point to point vehicles capable of delivering certain kinds of "cargo"*

Passengers are more complicated.

*which, incidentally, points up some of the regulatory/legal problems with suborbital point-to-point.  How to make sure that it isn't an ICBM or illicitly used for a surprise nuclear and/or EMP attack?

[clongton]

As always, it comes down to whether there will be a market for it. The fact that  proposed supersonic bizjet projects have yet to succeed suggests that presently there is not enough demand for personal high speed travel. This may change of course.

On-Demand Commercial Sub-orbital Point-to-Point transoceanic transportation will see its first *successful* use in the military and diplomatic corps, not the commercial market. The price per seat is less of an issue than the rapid transport point to point often needed by such personnel.

So the military will adopt it first, then the diplomatic corps will make use of it and finally commercial will slowly fall in step. That's when the price will begin to come down to reasonable levels, and not before.

I fully expect to see this capability become a reality, and the above scenario is how I think it will come to be.

[Robotbeat]

How much is it worth to place (within a matter of less than an hour) a well-trained special-ops guy at the scene of a crisis with some diplomat being held hostage? Pretty high, perhaps millions of dollars.

How high would the annual demand for such flights be? It could be a very, very low number.

[go4mars]

Oil field parts to remote locations where rig time can be into 6 figures per hour.

[A_M_Swallow]

Oil field parts to remote locations where rig time can be into 6 figures per hour.

That market requires the plane to land at ordinary and small airports.

[go4mars]

If you think there will be a large demand for suborbital passenger services in the near future, I would like to hear your arguments.

Okay.  New York to London.  That's usually about 7 hours.  Add 2 hours for the front end, and another 30 minutes on the back for taxi and disembark, and wander Heathrow looking for an exit.    9.5 hours. 

Now if you are in a biz jet that goes almost twice the speed for 2/3rds of the flight, that shaves off 2.5 hours of flight time.  But the rest stays the same, so it's a 7 hour travel day instead of a 9.5 hour travel day.     Is that worth an extra few thousand bucks more than a 1st class slower ticket to a business person's schedule?  No.  They are likely to plan a whole day for travel anyways.   Who wants a bunch of meetings after that? 

If the flight time could be chopped from 7 hours to perhaps 90 minutes, then it gets a whole lot more interesting as an early morning or evening proposition.  Potentially 3.5 or 4 hours of traveling time (less if there is the equivalent of a NEXUS pass).  For a lot of frequent business-class flyers, an added day of productivity is worth a few thousand dollars.        That = potential for increased demand.  Unlike a mach 1.6 type scheme.

[go4mars]

That market requires the plane to land at ordinary and small airports.

Most drill ships don't have those.  I mean to imply propulsive landing on their heli-pads at sea. 

[douglas100]

For a lot of frequent business-class flyers, an added day of productivity is worth a few thousand dollars.        That = potential for increased demand.  Unlike a mach 1.6 type scheme.

(My bold.)

Remember I said near future and large demand. A suborbital flight for a few thousand dollars is completely unrealistic. Likewise, the operation of suborbital vehicles out of large suburban airports is completely unrealistic in the near future. Suborbital point-to-point will start as a small, infrequent, extremely expensive service.

Clongton's,  Robotbeat's and mrmandias's scenarios make more sense.

[krytek]

If the flight time could be chopped from 7 hours to perhaps 90 minutes,

VG's spaceships Mach 3, that's maybe 3 times faster than a jet.
Assuming it goes sufficiently high for the thin air to negate sonic booms,
90 minutes seems like a realistic target for a specially designed craft.

[go4mars]

Remember I said near future and large demand. A suborbital flight for a few thousand dollars is completely unrealistic.

Why is it unrealistic?  These could potentially be used several times more often than a sub-sonic aircraft (because of their greater speed).  That means capital costs get back even sooner.  And I mean that the time for an average business class traveler (who is paying 5-10k for a day long travel) is probably worth at least that.  So these tickets could reasonably be $10-20k.  20k times 200 people x 8 flights per day = $32 million in daily revenue per unit.  Sure some of that is costs for methane and oxygen.  If there were 65 maintenance days in a given year, that's $9.6 billion in annual revenue for just one unit.         Probably optimistic projections, but even cut that in half or a third and that's still a descent pile by year end. 

Likewise, the operation of suborbital vehicles out of large suburban airports is completely unrealistic in the near future.

Why?  If several hundred test flights were safely made in the course of a year or two, without incident, then why would this be blocked?  I rather think a lot of cities would clamour to be first when they understand the potential revenue and increased business. You would have Toronto competing with New York, London competing with other european cities.  Some types of businesses would base their office wherever this form of transportation was available. 

Suborbital point-to-point will start as a small, infrequent, extremely expensive service.  Clongton's,  Robotbeat's and mrmandias's scenarios make more sense.

Likely.  But I think the pace of growth from there will be relatively brisk.  Big money will get pushed into commercializing it once the four R's (rapid reliable rocket reusability) has been established. 

[Cinder]

Very short average joe intuitive comment:

For some reason it seems like SOPTP would work better if the rest of the air transport system was more of a P2P swarm as Burt Rutan described in his BigThink video.
http://bigthink.com/users/burtrutan#!video_idea_id=18881

[krytek]

Great interview, thank you.
Interesting how he says an increase in cruise speed is not what's gonna make a big difference in total travel time.

*edit*  Just watched the last part.
Sounds like he thinks suborbital p2p isn't practical.

[mrmandias]

That means capital costs get back even sooner.  And I mean that the time for an average business class traveler (who is paying 5-10k for a day long travel) is probably worth at least that.  So these tickets could reasonably be $10-20k. 

Who knows what the future will bring.  But I doubt that the average transatlantic traveler’s time is wroth $5-$10k per 7 hours.  That translates to something like $ 1.2-2.5 million a year.  Your argument also assumes that the transit time is completely wasted, but with laptops and smartphones  and netbooks that’s not true either.

[Bob Shaw]

Did not Rotary Rocket at one point do a deal with FedEx (my memory is slightly dim as to the players involved) which involved the ability to not just do sub-orbital package deliver across the Pacific but also to deliver *the day before* the item was posted? They were going to use the International Date Line, and yes, it was a stunt - but boy, what a stunt! 'We deliver yesterday!' (some added charges apply)

Rocketmail has been around since the days of black powder and remains popular with water-jet rocketeers - I wonder what the commercial realities of the sub-orbital philatelic market would actually be? I have a first day cover carried aboard Challenger in a GAS canister on STS-8, and a similar cover from the Columbus-500 flight. Both cost about $35, and you could easily get a couple of thousand in a cubic foot.

This might be a good Kickstarter project...

[Robotbeat]

Did not Rotary Rocket at one point do a deal with FedEx (my memory is slightly dim as to the players involved) which involved the ability to not just do sub-orbital package deliver across the Pacific but also to deliver *the day before* the item was posted? They were going to use the International Date Line, and yes, it was a stunt - but boy, what a stunt! 'We deliver yesterday!' (some added charges apply)

Rocketmail has been around since the days of black powder and remains popular with water-jet rocketeers - I wonder what the commercial realities of the sub-orbital philatelic market would actually be? I have a first day cover carried aboard Challenger in a GAS canister on STS-8, and a similar cover from the Columbus-500 flight. Both cost about $35, and you could easily get a couple of thousand in a cubic foot.

This might be a good Kickstarter project...

XCOR's EZ-Rocket delivered US mail in 2005. A stunt, of course, but still interesting.

I sort of imagine a scheme where small packages in a protective shell are sent on a suborbital trajectory, then captured mid-flight (after reaching terminal velocity) by some sort of quadrotor drone near the destination. High-precision, fully-dense metal parts 3d-printed at some centralized location could deliver a needed part to any part of a major city (or any place where such a terminal delivery drone was located) within an hour or so of it being printed (the drone taking care of "terminal" delivery). Also could work for rare treatments of diseases, or immediate responses to 911 calls in case of serious, life-threatening illnesses. Lots of holes in that plan, but it's nice to think outside the box.

[douglas100]

Remember I said near future and large demand. A suborbital flight for a few thousand dollars is completely unrealistic.

Why is it unrealistic? 

Because the technology to build such a vehicle does not currently exist.

We are not talking about just scaling up Lynx. We are talking about a winged vehicle with air breathing engines and rocket engines or some combined cycle engine like Skylon. The noise of pure rocket engines at a suburban airport is unacceptable. We are talking about a single stage vehicle with the performance of an ICBM.

It will need thermal protection which is robust enough to fly through adverse weather and needs little maintenance, and can be turned around almost immediately to get the utilisation you were talking about. The Shuttle TPS cannot meet such requirements. It will need new technology.

To get the performance needed, the vehicle will need a high mass fraction. It will be like flying a space launch vehicle fully loaded with propellant from a populated area. It will have much less engineering margin than an aircraft. An air liner crashing in a suburban area is bad enough: a crashing suborbital vehicle would be worse.

It will take a long time for a vehicle using such new technology to reach the standard of safety of modern aircraft. It will not happen in the near future.

And you haven't convinced me that it would ever be cheap enough compared with ordinary aviation to create a mass transportation market.

A specialized rapid delivery system for special personnel or very high value products, as discussed in some of the other posts on this thread is much more believable.

[grr]

Before doing humans, I would do cargo. Much easier to fly and more profitable.

In fact, with all of the drone technology, it might make sense to simply do an automated system (think spaceX's cargo and human version of falcon). Ideally, the system would be smaller for cargo, but could be scaled up later.

[simonbp]

Clongton's,  Robotbeat's and mrmandias's scenarios make more sense.

I agree that they're more likely to have someone try them, as they require less initial capital. But there just isn't a profitable market for them; if there were, it wouldn't be so hard to get investors behind supersonic bizjets. Small companies will try, and fail, and then noone will want to touch them afterwards...

If you want a *commercial* suborbital transport that actually make a profit, you have to go big and aim squarely at long-distance passenger transport. The actual market analysis behind both the Boeing 2707 and Reaction Engines LAPCAT have shown that, though actual mathematics, and the 747 is the subsonic existence proof.

Unless and until someone gets the funding to build a big suborbital vehicle, it's not going to happen at all. And unless some rich tech investor takes some interest in it, that won't be until well after orbital RLVs become common.

[HMXHMX]

Did not Rotary Rocket at one point do a deal with FedEx (my memory is slightly dim as to the players involved) which involved the ability to not just do sub-orbital package deliver across the Pacific but also to deliver *the day before* the item was posted? They were going to use the International Date Line, and yes, it was a stunt - but boy, what a stunt! 'We deliver yesterday!' (some added charges apply)

Rocketmail has been around since the days of black powder and remains popular with water-jet rocketeers - I wonder what the commercial realities of the sub-orbital philatelic market would actually be? I have a first day cover carried aboard Challenger in a GAS canister on STS-8, and a similar cover from the Columbus-500 flight. Both cost about $35, and you could easily get a couple of thousand in a cubic foot.

This might be a good Kickstarter project...

No,we didn't.  We talked to a lot of folks about a lot of things, but never signed any deals like that.  Personally, I don't really buy the P2P arguments.  The speed gain you get is negated by the time it will take to clear customs, plus the mismatch in departure/arrival times.  And that's if you can solve the cost/price issues and the technology challenges.

[go4mars]

The speed gain you get is negated by the time it will take to clear customs

It's not like someone can high-jack it en route to crash it into a building.  The trajectory is basically fixed.  That should highly streamline security concerns.  In my experience, customs has never been more than a 15 minute line followed by 3 minutes of questions (at least in "western" countries).  And I travel a LOT.   

plus the mismatch in departure/arrival times.

That just gets the 'jet-lag' adjustment started sooner.  It doesn't introduce something new. 

[Robotbeat]

...

plus the mismatch in departure/arrival times.

That just gets the 'jet-lag' adjustment started sooner.  It doesn't introduce something new. 

I think he means the mismatch between different customers.

[go4mars]

I think he means the mismatch between different customers.

I still don't understand.  What mismatch?  Like Larry has a 3:00 meeting in Timbuktu, but Bryan's isn't until 7:00? 

[Robotbeat]

I think he means the mismatch between different customers.

I still don't understand.  What mismatch?  Like Larry has a 3:00 meeting in Timbuktu, but Bryan's isn't until 7:00? 

That sort of thing, yes. If there's a big enough difference between those two times, then Bryan might as well take a conventional flight. The time difference problem lowers the number of seats you could profitably have per vehicle in a certain size market. A lower number of seats per vehicle will tend to increase the cost per seat, thus shrinking the market.

[HMXHMX]

I think he means the mismatch between different customers.

I still don't understand.  What mismatch?  Like Larry has a 3:00 meeting in Timbuktu, but Bryan's isn't until 7:00? 

That sort of thing, yes. If there's a big enough difference between those two times, then Bryan might as well take a conventional flight. The time difference problem lowers the number of seats you could profitably have per vehicle in a certain size market. A lower number of seats per vehicle will tend to increase the cost per seat, thus shrinking the market.

Exactly.

I once told the SUSTAIN folks that it didn't matter if they could get troops somewhere in two hours, because the National Command Authority would take two days dithering over actually making the mission a  "go."  In other words, they could be flown to the target by subsonic aircraft in comfort and at vastly lower expense.

P2P has similar problems.  Besides cost, external factors (inlcuding time zones, customs) marginalize its utility.

[Robotbeat]

Those externalities aren't all laws of physics, though. They could be changed.

I completely agree, though, that it's a pretty crappy market. Initially, at least.

[go4mars]

I don't see those as critical issues.  If the market is too small for frequent enough departure times, I think people would adapt to whatever the schedule is.  For example, if your "airline" had only one of these things (which is unlikely), you could have it leave New York area at 6:00 AM, perhaps 90 minutes later you would disembark in London at 2:30 PM.  Enough time for several hours of useful business there the same day. 

The same unit could depart from London at 5:00 PM, and land 90 minutes later in New York at 11:30 AM. 

At 2:00 PM, another flight could leave New York for London, arriving there at 10:30 PM (allowing travellers to check into a hotel for the night instead of having to sleep on an airplane).  Then they are more refreshed for their morning meetings. 

The same unit leaves London at 1:00 AM, arriving in New York at 7:30 PM, in time for them to check in for some shut-eye without having to sleep on a plane. 

This is all with just one unit!

Swap out city names and routes.  There are many such combinations. 


I travel enough to know that I don't rest well on airplanes even in business class (though it's certainly preferable to economy).  If the ticket price were within a few thousand dollars of business class prices, many business-class travellers would adjust their schedule to go on the far more novel and convenient trip above the air.  But that's just my guess based on my own experience and preference.  The fact that I'm on this forum probably means I'm somewhat more likely to be an early adaptor compared to the average person.           Regardless, I've never been handed a survey by an airline that asked the question.  The market size remains a question mark.  I still think that some tiny portion of the $700 billion/year airline industry would support this instead.  Somewhat analogous to "Jet-Setters" who paid more back in the day for speedier service.   

[A_M_Swallow]

I don't see those as critical issues.  If the market is too small for frequent enough departure times, I think people would adapt to whatever the schedule is.  For example, if your "airline" had only one of these things (which is unlikely), you could have it leave New York area at 6:00 AM, perhaps 90 minutes later you would disembark in London at 2:30 PM.  Enough time for several hours of useful business there the same day. 

The same unit could depart from London at 5:00 PM, and land 90 minutes later in New York at 11:30 AM. 
{snip}

This was tried by Concorde.  The aircraft was only sold to British Airways and Air France.  After the crash it normally flew half empty.

[Jim]

many business-class travellers would adjust their schedule to go on the far more novel and convenient trip above the air.

No,  Concorde experience says you are wrong

[Jim]

perhaps 90 minutes later you would disembark in London at 2:30 PM.  Enough time for several hours of useful business there the same day. 

No, because you are not going be doing anything business related before 4pm.  Hence there is no useful time left.  And if it was, then there wasn't enough justification to do the trip in the first place, it could be handle by videocon.

[go4mars]

No,  Concorde experience says you are wrong

No it doesn't. 
The concorde had sonic boom issues that limited route choices.
Concorde wasn't very novel or fast compared to a ballistic P2P.
The expansion of commerce and air traffic since concorde makes any market comparison fleetingly tenuous. 

[go4mars]

No, because you are not going be doing anything business related before 4pm.  Hence there is no useful time left.  And if it was, then there wasn't enough justification to do the trip in the first place, it could be handle by videocon.

Sounds like you've never run a business.  You underestimate how much important business stuff happens over dinner and drinks.  Especially in the cities I noted.  If there wasn't a dinner and drinks component to business, then there would be no business class seats sold right now.  It could all be done over video conference and with spreadsheets.  That's not reflective of the real business world (in which boozed-up golfers agree to merge companies, swap assets, etc.).

[Jim]

No,  Concorde experience says you are wrong

No it doesn't. 
The concorde had sonic boom issues that limited route choices.

PTP will also have limited route choices due to other consideration and also sonic boom issues.  It will be more restricted than Concorde.

[Jim]

The expansion of commerce and air traffic since concorde makes any market comparison fleetingly tenuous. 

No, actually it is hasn't expanded that much and it is not exponential growth.  Anyways, increase in volume does not translate into need for speed.

As usual, you had overly unsubstantiated optimist view of progress.

[go4mars]

PTP will also have limited route choices due to other consideration and also sonic boom issues. 

True.  But potentially much more versatile than supersonic concorde.  For example, High-speed ocean-going launch pad/landing pad could load or unload people, cargo, while getting far enough away.   Other work-arounds for land-locked spots.  Not likely, but if too far from business core of a land-locked city, the passenger compartment can be detacheable once sub-sonic for mid-air grab and delivery by helicopter (with "just-in case" parachutes) or other systems.  Lots of options (and some aren't even Rube Goldberg options). 

[go4mars]

No, actually it is hasn't expanded that much and it is not exponential growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_GDP_per_capita_1500_to_2003.png

http://www.1001crash.com/index-page-statistique-lg-2.html

Face the facts.  Concorde's failure is not very relevant to this discussion. 

[clongton]

This was tried by Concorde.  The aircraft was only sold to British Airways and Air France.  After the crash it normally flew half empty.

No,  Concorde experience says you are wrong

Face the facts.  Concorde is not very relevant to this discussion.

A_M, Jim and Mars:

At full capacity Concord could carry 120 passengers. Before the crash, Concord flew nearly full every flight, averaging 85 to 90 passengers each flight. At half-full after the crash that means that Concord routinely carried 60 passengers on a regular basis. It is unlikely that any P2P suborbital passenger spacecraft could carry that many. Stretching it I would imagine it to top out at 20 passengers fully loaded. That means that the P2P would have to fly 3x as often just to keep up with the normal demand that was being filled by Concord. 27 years gentlemen of everyday flights. And now all those people, who preferred to cross the Atlantic quickly, are stuck with the much slower commercial jets. I think a significant number of them would fly P2P suborbital if it were offered.

The market is definitely there, otherwise Concord would not have been able to fly every day for 27 years carrying at least 60 passengers each time. Of those of those 60 passengers for each Concord flight I would not be surprised to see 1/3 to 1/2 of them fly P2P suborbital on a daily basis.

Mars: Concord is very relevant to this discussion. The Concord passenger list would form the core of the P2P commercial market. On a related note I just asked my wife, who is British, if she would fly P2P suborbital when she goes home to visit. She thought about it for a minute and said "they wouldn't fly it if it wasn't reasonably safe so yes, as long as I could afford the ticket I would do that". And trust me guys. This lady is really conservative with safety issues.

Edit: Added comment to Mars

[Jim]

No, actually it is hasn't expanded that much and it is not exponential growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_GDP_per_capita_1500_to_2003.png

http://www.1001crash.com/index-page-statistique-lg-2.html

Face the facts.  Concorde's failure is not very relevant to this discussion. 

What factss?

Your first graph is missing 10 years, that are very relevant.

The Concorde failure is as a revenue generator.

It was basically subsidized by the two national carriers.  It existed for national prestige much the space shuttle.

[mmeijeri]

I thought Concorde was only barely profitable, and then only on a sunk cost basis, the British and French governments having financed its development.

[A_M_Swallow]

The market is definitely there, otherwise Concord would not have been able to fly every day for 27 years carrying at least 60 passengers each time. Of those of those 60 passengers for each Concord flight I would not be surprised to see 1/3 to 1/2 of them fly P2P suborbital on a daily basis.

That is more like it, Simonbp was talking about 300-400 passengers.

IMHO it will be more like 3/4 than 1/3, the crash will have weeded the cowards out.  I would however advise someone to do some market research and check to see if it was 40 or 60 passengers.

With the rise of China business flights across the Pacific should have increased, so IMHO there is a market for a long range suborbital flights there.

[go4mars]

I thought Concorde was only barely profitable, and then only on a sunk cost basis, the British and French governments having financed its development.

I'm not an expert on concorde, but I heard that the financial efficiency of its development (and related "politics of jobs") was akin to Shuttle. 

[A_M_Swallow]

I thought Concorde was only barely profitable, and then only on a sunk cost basis, the British and French governments having financed its development.

Government owned organisations always have problems making a profit.  Doubly so in a competitive situation.

However your warning is a good one.  To make a profit the price of the tickets will have to be a high, will even millionaires pay the price?

[clongton]

I think there is a sweet spot for P2P suborbital wrt passenger capability.
In my opinion, I think a 20-passenger spacecraft flying at or near capacity is capable of making a profit. We all know the ticket price would be very high, but I do believe that there would be enough passenger base to make that nut. The key is to carry enough passengers to make it worthwhile without making the spacecraft bigger wrt passenger capability. Keep the spacecraft sized to the available market. Don't count on a growing market to fill empty seats. If the market builds, build more spacecraft.

[mmeijeri]

I'm not an expert on concorde, but I heard that the financial efficiency of its development (and related "politics of jobs") was akin to Shuttle. 

Neither am I, but as I understand it, Concorde was operated purely commercially after development was complete. Had it led to enough traffic to justify commercial development of a successor, then it would have been a smashing success, but alas that didn't happen.

[clongton]

To make a profit the price of the tickets will have to be a high, will even millionaires pay the price?

The majority of Concord's passengers were either very wealthy or had their passage paid for by their employers on business trips that the corporations deemed worth the expense. For business trips, the cost of transportation is a tax write-off so I believe that those corporations that sent their executives on Concord flights would not hesitate to book them on P2P. It doesn't come out of their pockets - they would simply write it off on their taxes. Instant market.

[ChefPat]

Businesses are in business to make a profit. If a ticket from LAX to Shanghai cost $1000 & takes 13 hours on a traditional flight & $25,000 & takes 2 or 3 hours, which do you think the shareholders are going want used?
As for being a write off. The IRS allows $0.XX per mile for certain businesses. If their vehicle gets mileage in that range, fine. If it doesn't they don't get to ask for a higher amount, they just have to eat it.

[RDoc]

Businesses are in business to make a profit. If a ticket from LAX to Shanghai cost $1000 & takes 13 hours on a traditional flight & $25,000 & takes 2 or 3 hours, which do you think the shareholders are going want used?
As for being a write off. The IRS allows $0.XX per mile for certain businesses. If their vehicle gets mileage in that range, fine. If it doesn't they don't get to ask for a higher amount, they just have to eat it.

Not to start a fight, but that's not actually how travel expenses work.

(For non-US readers, please forgive the tax rules discussion, it's kind of like discussing football (soccer) or the Tarot in the civilized world)

What you're alluding to is how business use of a personal vehicle is handled. Normal business travel, like air fare, is just a straight deduction in most cases. If it's an S-Corp, there might be some questions, but for a large, or publicly traded C-Corp, pretty much anything would be accepted if it were business related.

Back to Concorde for a moment. I worked for a company that paid for (and wrote off) Concorde travel regularly for a couple of executives traveling between the UK and the US. It was generally thought of throughout the company as just a mega-ego thing for a couple of super stars. The actual time savings was negligible due to all the security, connections, limited schedules, etc. Our guys had to go from London to NY to Boston rather than a direct flight London to Boston. Of course, they made the trip a couple of times a month and we paid for it, so BA did get a bunch of money.

One consideration for corporate rocket-borne travel would be perceived safety. If an executive were valuable enough to warrant hypersonic travel, the company would be very concerned for his/her survival. I'd guess that would be a much bigger issue than cost if the cost were only a small multiple of first class.

[douglas100]

But potentially much more versatile than supersonic concorde.  For example, High-speed ocean-going launch pad/landing pad could load or unload people, cargo, while getting far enough away.   Other work-arounds for land-locked spots.  Not likely, but if too far from business core of a land-locked city, the passenger compartment can be detacheable once sub-sonic for mid-air grab and delivery by helicopter (with "just-in case" parachutes) or other systems.  Lots of options (and some aren't even Rube Goldberg options). 

Mid air grab of a passenger compartment? Near a city? Get real.

[Jim]

   Other work-arounds for land-locked spots.  Not likely, but if too far from business core of a land-locked city, the passenger compartment can be detacheable once sub-sonic for mid-air grab and delivery by helicopter (with "just-in case" parachutes) or other systems.  Lots of options (and some aren't even Rube Goldberg options). 

Yeah right.  That is Thunderbirds and not reality.   You are just showing that it is more limited than Concorde by coming up with ridiculous schemes.  And the logistics of rejoining the pieces negates any business case.

[go4mars]

Yeah right.  That is Thunderbirds and not reality.   You are just showing that it is more limited than Concorde by coming up with ridiculous schemes. 

What's a realistic diameter for a sonic-boom trouble area where a capsule on a ballistic trajectory re-enters.  I'm guessing 4 miles radius at 60k feet growing to 8 miles radius when it gets subsonic at 12 or 15 thousand feet?   Traced out centered on a linear locus on the land.                  Does that seem about right?

[Jim]

Yeah right.  That is Thunderbirds and not reality.   You are just showing that it is more limited than Concorde by coming up with ridiculous schemes. 

What's a realistic diameter for a sonic-boom trouble area where a capsule on a ballistic trajectory re-enters.  I'm guessing 4 miles radius at 60k feet growing to 8 miles radius when it gets subsonic at 12 or 15 thousand feet?   Traced out centered on a linear locus on the land.                  Does that seem about right?

No, .5 psf as far away as 30 miles

[douglas100]

And it's not just the sonic boom. What about the noise of launching?

[go4mars]

And it's not just the sonic boom. What about the noise of launching?

What about it?  Inconsequential compared to 30 miles.

[douglas100]

Inconsequential? Not to the people living close to large airports. They have to tolerate enough noise already.

Concorde had a struggle to get into JFK because of the noise it made. There's no way a rocket powered vehicle would be allowed to operate from a suburban airport because of noise. If you argue that suborbital vehicles are going to be flown from spaceports away from population centres, then the "flexibility" you touted earlier disappears. And you would have a very large investment in new infrastructure. And there are countries which are just too densely populated to site such spaceports.

The only way you could operate from existing airports would be if the vehicle fitted the existing traffic patterns and noise limits. That means a winged horizontal take off, air breathing engines which are not too loud and a transition to rocket propulsion at altitude. It requires an advanced heat shield. In short, something like Skylon.

And also, it will not have a safety level comparable to present air travel. Current launch vehicles are nowhere near this level. It will take thousands of flights to achieve this.

All this for a market that is not at all assured.

[chrisking0997]

do not underestimate the power of the NIMBY

[Robotbeat]

I believe there very much would be a market for this. Provided it's cheap enough, SAFE ENOUGH, and as long as the NIMBY issues can addressed. Also, you'd have to streamline the boarding issues to make it worth it. But there are people who are so much richer than you and I can really grasp. CEO average compensation is ~$12.8 million a year. Some are compensated in the range of $200 million per year, which could well be enough to charter their own personal supersonic/suborbital aircraft (with dedicate pilot(s)).

Safety is really the most important issue. And it can be addressed with a high enough flight rate.

One of the most important points of this discussion, though, is that there is no way commercial suborbital point-to-point will be an early market for companies like XCOR. It will only happen after significant performance increases and a lot more mature systems, if it happens at all.

[go4mars]

Inconsequential? ...

You think the noise would be a problem from 30 miles away from launch? 

[go4mars]

...companies like XCOR. It will only happen after significant performance increases and a lot more mature systems,

But all this discussion about the limitations of it from a noise perspective really do lend more potential to a horizontal takeoff type of system.  Like a stratolauncher with a passenger section instead of a second stage. 

[Robotbeat]

...companies like XCOR. It will only happen after significant performance increases and a lot more mature systems,

But all this discussion about the limitations of it from a noise perspective really do lend more potential to a horizontal takeoff type of system.  Like a stratolauncher with a passenger section instead of a second stage. 

Increased operational costs and a lot longer time from passenger boarding to launch (since you have to wait for the Stratolauncher to slowly climb to altitude), defeating much of the point. This is why I suspect XCOR's vehicle will be significantly more cost-effective than Virgin Galactic's, in spite of the fact that XCOR's vehicle will have a lot less seating.

[go4mars]

...a lot longer time from passenger boarding to launch (since you have to wait for the Stratolauncher to slowly climb to altitude), defeating much of the point. This is why I suspect XCOR's vehicle will be significantly more cost-effective than Virgin Galactic's, in spite of the fact that XCOR's vehicle will have a lot less seating.

Good points, but isn't it possible that the rocket could be dropped and lit at a lot lower altitude?  Maybe just get up a few thousand feet about ground level and far enough from big cranky population bases.  That could be just ten minutes or so.  30k+ feet might not be mandatory.

[douglas100]

Inconsequential? ...

You think the noise would be a problem from 30 miles away from launch? 

That's not what I said. I said it would be a problem for people living near suburban airports, the people you dismissed as "big cranky population bases."

[douglas100]

I believe there very much would be a market for this. Provided it's cheap enough, SAFE ENOUGH, and as long as the NIMBY issues can addressed. Also, you'd have to streamline the boarding issues to make it worth it. But there are people who are so much richer than you and I can really grasp. CEO average compensation is ~$12.8 million a year. Some are compensated in the range of $200 million per year, which could well be enough to charter their own personal supersonic/suborbital aircraft (with dedicate pilot(s)).

I agree with all that, but I still doubt that there's much of a market presently. If there is a demand from the super rich that you cite, why is p2p not already in development?

[go4mars]

I didn't mean to brush you off by being flippant.  I put in bold the place where I think our communication broke down. 

No, .5 psf as far away as 30 miles

And it's not just the sonic boom. What about the noise of launching?

...Inconsequential compared to 30 miles.

Inconsequential? ...

You think the noise would be a problem from 30 miles away from launch?

That's not what I said.

[A_M_Swallow]

I believe there very much would be a market for this. Provided it's cheap enough, SAFE ENOUGH, and as long as the NIMBY issues can addressed. Also, you'd have to streamline the boarding issues to make it worth it. But there are people who are so much richer than you and I can really grasp. CEO average compensation is ~$12.8 million a year. Some are compensated in the range of $200 million per year, which could well be enough to charter their own personal supersonic/suborbital aircraft (with dedicate pilot(s)).

I agree with all that, but I still doubt that there's much of a market presently. If there is a demand from the super rich that you cite, why is p2p not already in development?

I suspect too expensive for a small firm and the large firms wanted a government contract.  There was never a personal supersonic jet.  Supersonic jet engines were sized for fighters or Concorde.

[RanulfC]

Couple of quick semi-technical notes

1) Any "sonic-boom" above 100,000ft never touches the ground, ie is not an issue.

2) At one point it was figured for the suggested V-Prize, (P2P America-to-Europe) that an average speed of around Mach-6 was the minimum requirement to meet the time suggested.

3) A "Skip-Glide" trajectory can get you the same range as a ballistic trajectory with less "initial" Delta-V required as you can use external burning along the fuselage using internal fuel but external oxidizer (air) to extend each "skip" step which requires less overall propellant than pileing on all the delta-V at that start of the flight.

4) While the interval between "skips" means that individual zero-gee portions are shorter the overall total zero-gee time is about the same if not longer than for a pure ballistic trajectory.

5) There are questions of passenger comfort for the multiple positive-g/negative-g portions of the flight.

Randy

[Robotbeat]

I believe there very much would be a market for this. Provided it's cheap enough, SAFE ENOUGH, and as long as the NIMBY issues can addressed. Also, you'd have to streamline the boarding issues to make it worth it. But there are people who are so much richer than you and I can really grasp. CEO average compensation is ~$12.8 million a year. Some are compensated in the range of $200 million per year, which could well be enough to charter their own personal supersonic/suborbital aircraft (with dedicate pilot(s)).

I agree with all that, but I still doubt that there's much of a market presently. If there is a demand from the super rich that you cite, why is p2p not already in development?

It is in development. Virgin Galactic has said it's working on it or sees it as one of the potential markets for their series of suborbital spacecraft/aircraft.

Now, the level of intensity of that development is another question. And I'm skeptical that it will be successful anytime soon. I suspect it will be a while. But there is demand for a safe, fast transport if someone can do it cheap enough (I'd guess it'll take at least a couple decades).

[douglas100]

Now, the level of intensity of that development is another question. And I'm skeptical that it will be successful anytime soon. I suspect it will be a while. But there is demand for a safe, fast transport if someone can do it cheap enough (I'd guess it'll take at least a couple decades).

I agree about the timescale.

[mrmandias]

To make a profit the price of the tickets will have to be a high, will even millionaires pay the price?

The majority of Concord's passengers were either very wealthy or had their passage paid for by their employers on business trips that the corporations deemed worth the expense. For business trips, the cost of transportation is a tax write-off so I believe that those corporations that sent their executives on Concord flights would not hesitate to book them on P2P. It doesn't come out of their pockets - they would simply write it off on their taxes. Instant market.

A write-off doesn't mean its free, it means the cost is reduced by the business' marginal tax rate.

[HMXHMX]

Couple of quick semi-technical notes

1) Any "sonic-boom" above 100,000ft never touches the ground, ie is not an issue.

2) At one point it was figured for the suggested V-Prize, (P2P America-to-Europe) that an average speed of around Mach-6 was the minimum requirement to meet the time suggested.

3) A "Skip-Glide" trajectory can get you the same range as a ballistic trajectory with less "initial" Delta-V required as you can use external burning along the fuselage using internal fuel but external oxidizer (air) to extend each "skip" step which requires less overall propellant than pileing on all the delta-V at that start of the flight.

4) While the interval between "skips" means that individual zero-gee portions are shorter the overall total zero-gee time is about the same if not longer than for a pure ballistic trajectory.

5) There are questions of passenger comfort for the multiple positive-g/negative-g portions of the flight.

Randy

Regarding (1) I've heard the Shuttle Orbiter double boom over the SF Peninsula, and I think it was at 200K ft. 

Regarding (5), Arthur Clarke had an amusing line about sub-orbital P2P: "Half the time the toilet is out of order and the other half the time it is out of reach."

[Jim]

Regarding (1) I've heard the Shuttle Orbiter double boom over the SF Peninsula, and I think it was at 200K ft. 

Long Beach for me.  Tampa heard it too.

[pathfinder_01]

Regarding (1) I've heard the Shuttle Orbiter double boom over the SF Peninsula, and I think it was at 200K ft. 

Long Beach for me.  Tampa heard it too.

Once Chicago. If it were not for the fact that it was very early morning and the fact that I knew it was incomming, would not have heard anything.

[Garrett]

Somebody mentioned that the applications of point-to-point suborbital flight will probably first be utilized by the military. But surely if it could be of any use to them, then they would have done it already. I mean, it's not as if they don't already have the capability. After all, isn't an ICBM a type of sub-orbital p2p vehicle?

You could argue they don't have the landing vehicles necessary, but if you just want to send extremely important cargo to a specific destination, then a Soyuz style ballistic capsule should do the trick.

To me, the military has already solved the problem of p2p transport: by placing army bases and aircraft carriers in strategic places around the world before a conflict situation arises.

[go4mars]

Somebody mentioned that the applications of point-to-point suborbital flight will probably first be utilized by the military. But surely if it could be of any use to them, then they would have done it already. I mean, it's not as if they don't already have the capability. After all, isn't an ICBM a type of sub-orbital p2p vehicle?

You could argue they don't have the landing vehicles necessary

As I understand it, G-force would be too high.  Aborts trickier with solids too.  Whole mode of thought is "expendible" as opposed to "reusable".     

[RanulfC]

Couple of quick semi-technical notes

1) Any "sonic-boom" above 100,000ft never touches the ground, ie is not an issue.

2) At one point it was figured for the suggested V-Prize, (P2P America-to-Europe) that an average speed of around Mach-6 was the minimum requirement to meet the time suggested.

3) A "Skip-Glide" trajectory can get you the same range as a ballistic trajectory with less "initial" Delta-V required as you can use external burning along the fuselage using internal fuel but external oxidizer (air) to extend each "skip" step which requires less overall propellant than pileing on all the delta-V at that start of the flight.

4) While the interval between "skips" means that individual zero-gee portions are shorter the overall total zero-gee time is about the same if not longer than for a pure ballistic trajectory.

5) There are questions of passenger comfort for the multiple positive-g/negative-g portions of the flight.

Randy

Regarding (1) I've heard the Shuttle Orbiter double boom over the SF Peninsula, and I think it was at 200K ft.

Regarding (1) I've heard the Shuttle Orbiter double boom over the SF Peninsula, and I think it was at 200K ft. 

Long Beach for me.  Tampa heard it too.

Once Chicago. If it were not for the fact that it was very early morning and the fact that I knew it was incomming, would not have heard anything.

Now that's quite ineresting as the "no-sonic-boom-above-100K" was directly quoted from several NASA/DoD reports I've read...

Hmmm...

Regarding (5), Arthur Clarke had an amusing line about sub-orbital P2P: "Half the time the toilet is out of order and the other half the time it is out of reach."

Depending on who I was reading at the time the skip/glide segments (peak-to-peak) can be up to a half hour long depending on how much of a "skip" is being performed. From what I gathered this can be a "good" thing for the "view/zero/micro-gravity" passengers and just damn annoying for those trying to sleep

Considering "I" tend to get a little green just looking at a roller coaster these days I somehow don't think this is going to work for me but I figured I'd put it out there

Randy

[RanulfC]

Somebody mentioned that the applications of point-to-point suborbital flight will probably first be utilized by the military. But surely if it could be of any use to them, then they would have done it already. I mean, it's not as if they don't already have the capability. After all, isn't an ICBM a type of sub-orbital p2p vehicle?

You could argue they don't have the landing vehicles necessary

As I understand it, G-force would be too high.  Aborts trickier with solids too.  Whole mode of thought is "expendible" as opposed to "reusable".     

The military has "thought" about it before, there was a nice article on types planned in one of the more recent "Aerospace Project Review" e-pubs. The considered "off-the-shelf" (at the time) redstones and such for rapid delivery of troops and/or supplies as well as "specialty" vehicles such as Icarus SSTO troop transports.

The main sticking point is the same as today: How do you "tell" if it's a troop/supply rocket of a nuclear warhead...

The Marine SUSTAIN program was looking at pretty much the same thing, but you have to figure you are pretty limited to what and how much you can deploy by this method along with other issues involved. How do you land? (Many methods) How does the landed "force" get back out again? (Many issues) Does the capability land enough "force" to have at least a reasonable chance of accomplishing the mission? (Large capabilty question) Most importantly how does everyone who CAN "see" the mission KNOW it's a squad of Marines and not a nuclear or other warhead?
(Same as above )

One of the reasons that SUSTAIN mandated an "orbital" loiter capability, (could manage to sustain several orbits) was that by going into orbit you sorta of "prove" it's not a nuke because that would violate the OST, and because it is a really, really lousy way to "attack" with an ICBM.
(Too much exposure, to much time between launch and impact, etc)

Of course that's NOT going to really "reassure" anyone as the Soviets actually developed and deployed a system using "orbital" nuclear weapons platforms called a "Fractional Orbital Bombardment System":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_weapon

(They avoided "violating" the OST by testing the system with no warhead, and the system was "operational" until directly addressed in the SALT-II treaty and dismantled in 1983)

Of course even so the ability today of tracking and monitoring any orbital body means that there is going to be no "surpise" as was envisioned when he system was developed. (Putting the warhead platform in orbit for a time allowed the "attack" to develop from the Southern Hemisphere instead of the North Pole where the majority of warning systems for the US are pointed) Still...

ICBMs make lousy passenger vehicles, (and not-so-good orbital ones BTW) because their trajectories and accelleration rates are optimized towards staying as "low" as possible for the majority of their flight. (While they fly outside the atmosphere they use a "powered" trajectory to keep their path as low as possible to stay below the "sensor" horizion of the target for as long as possible so as to give the minimum warning/reaction time. This leads to high "power" but also fast burn rates on the motors)

The military is still working on "P2P" delivery systems of course the latest being manuvering Reentry Vehicles and Knetic-Kill Vehicles but the problem remains for them as well as P2P personnel delivery; Everything pretty much LOOKS like an "attack" trajectory when it first comes over the horizon and the only way to be "sure" is to wait till it hits and/or lands and by then it's "too-late" if it WAS an attack. With the ABM treaty no longer in effect the world is going to a more aggressive "anti-missile" stance and that's going to be a serious issue AGAINST any type of P2P market.

I'll recommend a story again for those interested called "The First Cup of Coffee War"
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?966303
by James Cobb about a near-future terrorist attack on the US.

It's a good read and it tends to point up the coming issues of "easy" Sub-Orbital access and security.

Randy

[douglas100]

From RanulfC:

The main sticking point is the same as today: How do you "tell" if it's a troop/supply rocket of a nuclear warhead...

Good point.

[go4mars]

The main sticking point is the same as today: How do you "tell" if it's a troop/supply rocket of a nuclear warhead...

It seems to me that each country (if indeed it was an international route) could have an invigilator at the launch point, and they guys on the receiving end could check their schedule.  Airplanes could deliver something nasty too, yet international flights happen all the time. 

[mrmandias]

A write-off doesn't mean its free, it means the cost is reduced by the business' marginal tax rate.

Depending on where you are, it can be an expense directly subtracted from revenue.  There are various categories here anyways.   For example, "meals and entertainment" can only be deducted at 50% (eats into profit directly).  Transportation is 100%. 

A 100% deduction still only reduces the costs by the business' marginal rate of taxation.

Scenario 1: Business has $200 in profit, pays 30% marginal rate on that amount.  Profit after taxes equals $140.

Scenario 2:  Business has $200 in profit, but buys a $100 flight to Andromeda.  The $100 flight can be written off entirely (100%), so  profit is now $100 for tax purposes.  Marginal rate is still 30%.  Profit after taxes equals $70. 

In Scenario 2 the business netted $70 less, so that's the net cost of the transportation.  The $100 flight cost the business $70.

[mrmandias]

The main sticking point is the same as today: How do you "tell" if it's a troop/supply rocket of a nuclear warhead...

It seems to me that each country (if indeed it was an international route) could have an invigilator at the launch point, and the guys on the receiving end could check their schedule.  Airplanes could deliver something nasty too, yet international flights happen all the time. 

This adds a lot of cost and takes the point out of point to point.  Its now ID2P--inspection depot to point. 

[Robotbeat]

A write-off doesn't mean its free, it means the cost is reduced by the business' marginal tax rate.

Depending on where you are, it can be an expense directly subtracted from revenue.  There are various categories here anyways.   For example, "meals and entertainment" can only be deducted at 50% (eats into profit directly).  Transportation is 100%. 

A 100% deduction still only reduces the costs by the business' marginal rate of taxation.

Scenario 1: Business has $200 in profit, pays 30% marginal rate on that amount.  Profit after taxes equals $140.

Scenario 2:  Business has $200 in profit, but buys a $100 flight to Andromeda.  The $100 flight can be written off entirely (100%), so  profit is now $100 for tax purposes.  Marginal rate is still 30%.  Profit after taxes equals $70. 

In Scenario 2 the business netted $70 less, so that's the net cost of the transportation.  The $100 flight cost the business $70.

I think his point is that high-class transportation is a kind of executive compensation that isn't taxed. It's a status symbol, so having a high price isn't necessarily a huge drawback (otherwise no one would buy Rolexes). Stop thinking like a little person, and start thinking like a CEO.

Of course, safety is a huge priority. You need thousands of consecutive safe flights to prove it's safe enough for CEOs for business transportation. It'll be quite a while.

[douglas100]

From RanulfC:

The main sticking point is the same as today: How do you "tell" if it's a troop/supply rocket of a nuclear warhead...

RanulfC's point was about military p2p. An unannounced ballistic flight might look very similar to an ICBM launch to infrared warning satellites under certain circumstances. This could have unfortunate consequences.

As far as commercial p2p is concerned, I would expect a flight plan to be filed before the flight to avoid such difficulties. There seems no reason to have inspection at the launch point for commercial flights.

[go4mars]

his point is that high-class transportation is a kind of executive compensation that isn't taxed.

Exactly right.  Shareholders put up with paying for executive business jets for essentially the same reason.  Same with "company cars" that say Escalade, or using a limo service, or booking your conference at outrageously priced facilities.  There are much cheaper, less luxurious options.  But if the MO is to ride bikes to Denny's, or chat on the phone instead of face to face doing fun stuff, then clients are a lot less likely to call you back.

[grr]

This was tried by Concorde.  The aircraft was only sold to British Airways and Air France.  After the crash it normally flew half empty.

No,  Concorde experience says you are wrong

Face the facts.  Concorde is not very relevant to this discussion.

A_M, Jim and Mars:

At full capacity Concord could carry 120 passengers. Before the crash, Concord flew nearly full every flight, averaging 85 to 90 passengers each flight. At half-full after the crash that means that Concord routinely carried 60 passengers on a regular basis. It is unlikely that any P2P suborbital passenger spacecraft could carry that many. Stretching it I would imagine it to top out at 20 passengers fully loaded. That means that the P2P would have to fly 3x as often just to keep up with the normal demand that was being filled by Concord. 27 years gentlemen of everyday flights. And now all those people, who preferred to cross the Atlantic quickly, are stuck with the much slower commercial jets. I think a significant number of them would fly P2P suborbital if it were offered.

The market is definitely there, otherwise Concord would not have been able to fly every day for 27 years carrying at least 60 passengers each time. Of those of those 60 passengers for each Concord flight I would not be surprised to see 1/3 to 1/2 of them fly P2P suborbital on a daily basis.

Mars: Concord is very relevant to this discussion. The Concord passenger list would form the core of the P2P commercial market. On a related note I just asked my wife, who is British, if she would fly P2P suborbital when she goes home to visit. She thought about it for a minute and said "they wouldn't fly it if it wasn't reasonably safe so yes, as long as I could afford the ticket I would do that". And trust me guys. This lady is really conservative with sa

Edit: Added comment to Mars

First off, flying 85-90 with a capacity of 120 is a load factor of less than 75%.
For the last 20 years, the airlines have flown loads greater than 90%. And these days, the airlines are pushing it up to 96% (actually, pretty disgusting).

The last time that an airline could fly less 80% and be profitable, was when fuel on both sides of a trip is regulated and cheap. IOW, prior to Carter deregulating the airlines and oil. After deregulation, you need greater than 85% and normally more than 90% to be profitable. That is due to competition and the inability to charge what is needed to fly with lower loads.

IOW, concorde was NOT profitable at 75, let alone 85%. The reason is that the fuel costs were too high and ticket prices too low.

Now, if SS3 does PTP and there is minimal competition on a route within this class, then it is likely that it will be made profitable. Why? Because the craft will normally carry several passengers and loads of cargo. There are still plenty of cargo that NEEDS to transport in as short of a time as possible. The ppl that will take this will be executives, envoys, etc. They will do a day trip between London to Japan AND BACK in the same day.  They might even do London to LA to Japan to London, again, all in the same day. As such, I will be surprised if load factors are more than 50%.

BTW, somebody earlier mentioned customs. That is a NONE issue. The reason is that if somebody is paying 100-200K a ticket, then the space line will likely pay customs at each location to have a person available to them upon the flight landing or taking off. The spaceline will no doubt be ran the way I remember American Airlines back in the 60's. And coach in the 60's was about equal to business or even first  class today.

[Chilly]

As always, it comes down to whether there will be a market for it. The fact that  proposed supersonic bizjet projects have yet to succeed suggests that presently there is not enough demand for personal high speed travel. This may change of course.

I think commercial suborbital point-to-point is more likely to succeed starting small and targeting niche markets (as was suggested on the XCOR thread.) I think 777 sized vehicles are a completely unrealistic starting point.

Suborbital mass passenger travel also could potentially face serious competition in the medium term from hypersonic vehicles like LAPCAT if they are ever developed.

I work for a rather large business-jet operator, and believe there's plenty of market for an SSBJ. Bizjets that cruise in the M.90 range are quite popular. The potential customer base is big enough, but not if the bird can only fly certain routes.

So the long-pole-in-the-tent problem is regulatory. No matter how good a design concept might be (i.e. Aerion), if there aren't serious changes in airspace restrictions ahead of time, no one in their right mind will sink the development money into such a project in the hopes that overland supersonic flight will be allowed later. Otherwise any SSBJ will suffer the same fate as Concorde.

[Chilly]

On a side note, Virgin Galactic's expressed desire for suborbital P2P was in fact the inspiration for a novel I wrote titled Perigee. There were a couple of assumptions that seemed reasonable enough to satisfy the "willing suspension of disbelief".

First: If wealthy people are willing to pay almost a quarter-million bucks for a quick joyride in and out of Mojave, wouldn't they be willing to pay for a suborbital flight that actually took them somewhere?

Second: As someone posted earlier, the required d-V would be getting awfully close to what's needed for LEO. So, what's the worst that could happen?

I figured a really good story lurked somewhere therein.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but it may in fact be more sensible than an SSBJ (all things being equal - which they aren't yet). If the climb and descent sonic booms would be fairly localized, those issues can be dealt with through airspace design (launch/entry corridors). For the enroute segment, just get the thing up above the atmosphere and remove the issue entirely.

FAA is already studying P2P operational concepts: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/point_to_point.pdf

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
Perhaps I'm being naive, but it may in fact be more sensible than an SSBJ (all things being equal - which they aren't yet). If the climb and descent sonic booms would be fairly localized, those issues can be dealt with through airspace design (launch/entry corridors). For the enroute segment, just get the thing up above the atmosphere and remove the issue entirely.

As in both New York and Los Angeles are near oceans.

[ChefPat]

  There was never a personal supersonic jet. 

Aerion Supersonic Business Jet

[A_M_Swallow]

  There was never a personal supersonic jet. 

Aerion Supersonic Business Jet

That aircraft is still being developed.  $80M each.  I wish them luck.

[Chilly]

That aircraft is still being developed.  $80M each.  I wish them luck.
[/quote]

Boeing's done pretty well with bizjets near that price range, as has Gulfstream. I expect that the uber-wealthy buyers will pay another 10M or so for Mach 1+ speeds.

Not to mention the fractional-ownership companies will be all over this like flies on you-know-what. That'll sell a lot of them, if they ever get built.

[weasdown]

To make it profitable, you'd want a pretty large aircraft (think 777-class, 300-400 seats) that could fly at least once per day. {snip}

That seems a bit large.  There may only be 40-50 people a day who can afford the fare.  The number of people flying first class and business class may give an estimate.

Well that's the point. Most of the cost of operating the aircraft is in the fixed infrastructure and fuel. If you have the passengers to support it, you want the largest aircraft possible. A 747 is not cheap per flight, but it is cheap per seat, and that's what makes transatlantic travel affordable.

This is not a new analysis; the American response to the Concorde was the Boeing 2707, which had about 300 seats (and probably closer to 350 in a modern configuration). This was because Boeing did the math and realized that that was the minimum size that could be expected to be profitable (Concorde maxed out at 128 passengers).

The reason I focused on transoceanic flights is because they do have the traffic to easy fill many large suborbital transports daily. Even if the only suborbital service you had was New York-London, there would be enough passengers to justify 5-10 400-seat transports (depending on how much maintenance downtime they need). Add New York-LA and LA-Tokyo and you've just cornered a large sector of the world's long-distance market.

I think that if they are to succeed on short journeys, suborbital PTP transports are going to have to be very small (max. 20 seats) and that they will become more economical on longer range flights.
Although Concorde could carry 128 passengers, it typically only managed to fill 60-70 seats due to lack of demand.
However, if the distance was increased, say London to Tokyo or Sydney instead of New York, I think there would be more demand due to the larger time difference in travelling suborbitally compared with in conventional airliners, hence there would be more seats and the cost per passenger would decrease.

[Moe Grills]

If this point-to-point suborbital topic were to focus on altitude; not so much on horizontal destination, with altitudes over the Karman Line achieved, 3 minutes of zero-g experienced, then I suggest that you go over to my post at the "Advanced Concepts"  topic page and the "DLR LH/LOX spaceliner concept" thread.

I stated on that thread a selling point, among several,  from a concept I worked on, that if 100 passengers could experience 3 minutes of zero-G, altitudes over 63 miles, etc., at ticket prices between 15,000 - 25,000 dollars, then that is comparible to LUXURY cruise fares to Antarctic waters, etc., ranging upto and over 10,000 dollars per person.
How many go on those cruises? 1,000's?  10,000's of well-to-do tourists over the years?
Maybe SOME OF YOU have gone on those cruises.