Space Tourism Predictions?

[Space Ghost 1962]

Make one of my rare predictions (one on the average every five years - not big on prognostication) here - feel free to call me on it.

The first/only space tourism (in the next ten years) will be to the vicinity of the moon.

add:
(NB - this was an "after the fact" thread that started in the Blue Origin News and Update one, as an oblique comment.)

And Coastal Ron correctly added definition's of "tourism" and "adventurer" further down, from which I've abstracted:

... tourism is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as:

"Tourism is travel for pleasure or business; also the theory and practice of touring, the business of attracting, accommodating, and entertaining tourists, and the business of operating tours."

I have advocated that the two people that will orbit the Moon in a SpaceX Dragon are not tourists, but adventurers. And Dictionary.com defines "adventure" as:

1. an exciting or very unusual experience.
2. participation in exciting undertakings or enterprises: the spirit of adventure.
3. a bold, usually risky undertaking; hazardous action of uncertain outcome.
4. a commercial or financial speculation of any kind; venture.

So to me someone that participates in an adventure is not a tourist, and is not engaging in tourism.

From that standpoint I would say that the sub-orbital rides that Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin plan to offer fall into the "tourism" category, but the two people paying for the first-of-it's-kind round the Moon trip are "adventurers".

Given those definitions, recast my casual prediction as meaning "space tourism" is really "space adventurism", and "tourism" stands way in the future.

[high road]

Bold statement indeed. Does that include NS?

Edit: given the redefined goal posts: I personally expect plenty (YMMV) of adventures in short hops, next to no adventures lasting longer than a single orbit due to no infrastructure for tourists and other infrastructure remaining insanely expensive, and even less tourism to the moon.

Sounds pessimistic? Opening up new commercial markets happens in steps, and despite the hype, we're only taking the second step (commercial satellites and now lower launch costs) of a series that is bound to be much, much longer.

[guckyfan]

Bold statement indeed. Does that include NS?

I would rather ask. Does it include Soyuz to the ISS? Because that can conceivably happen.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Just what was said as in "all".

NS - revenues/regulatory issues mean those potential ~$100M flights of sats matter more.

Soyuz/ISS - closer to matter, on the edge of happening. But again the costs to maintain the capability (in this case training and the displaced revenue of Soyuz seats screw up the cash flow too much). Best case to restart tourists to ISS would be if a) Russian sanctions lifted and/or b) Starliner/Dragon start flying crew to ISS - cannot predict those effectively to rule out entirely. But still unlikely.

Also, sense of the customer base for such is that once a "Apollo moment" enters the field, the calibration for this "extreme sport" appears to be altered. Keep in mind that they climb Everest and have no stomach for K2.

[envy887]

Make one of my rare predictions (one on the average every five years - not big on prognostication) here - feel free to call me on it.

The first/only space tourism (in the next ten years) will be to the vicinity of the moon.

So you don't think Blue and VG will be in position to fly paying customers in the next 2 years? They both seem to be getting pretty close, and neither is likely to run out of money or simply give up. So why wouldn't they fly?

[Space Ghost 1962]

The first/only space tourism (in the next ten years) will be to the vicinity of the moon.

Are you including all of the potential sub-orbital players in this prediction?

Yes.

E.G., you're saying that Virgin Galactic's architecture is flawed beyond any design redemption after 12 years of development and despite currently flying hardware?

Not quite.

The issue is the way in which the accident with VG's Eve has altered the environment for such a business, in manifold ways I refuse to detail further.

As to VG's "overly greedy" (too much payload for the "technology") architecture, there are many ways to "fix" it. However, have little confidence that they will do so, soon. Goals are set wrong.

And that despite access to unlimited financing, they will never have a joyride with paying customers? 

They do not, and never had "unlimited financing". The operation is and has been significantly under financed.

Mister Moneybags here is frugal on novel business opportunities, and not well advised IMO.

At least Whitesides is now talking like a CEO instead of an Branson ad man:

"Now, the newest incarnation of SpaceShipTwo is deep into its second attempt to be certified as safe for passengers. When will that happen? “When we’re ready,” says Virgin Galactic CEO George Whitesides. This is how they’ll get there."

Yes, an improvement.

But it will take a restructuring and a different "approach" to recover from Branson's needless idiocies.

Except for VG, I'd tend to agree with you otherwise. I don't think NS will fly any more than Falcon 1 did, and there are no signs the other companies will fly before they run out of money, IMHO.

Falcon 1 is an apt analogy. And a lot of finance that was chasing deals here were chastened by the accident.

As to VG, it's not that they can't but that they won't. Rolls up to undoing Branson's misperception dating back to SS1. He's driven like all businessmen, and so injures his own ventures by finding it hard to come to terms with.

Bezos makes similar mistakes elsewhere.

So you don't think Blue and VG will be in position to fly paying customers in the next 2 years? They both seem to be getting pretty close, and neither is likely to run out of money or simply give up. So why wouldn't they fly?

Doubt either will fly paying customers, for different reasons.

VG because they cannot rescope due to Branson's flaws. Blue because it's too great a distraction from NG and both an actual revenue as well as being able to do in space industrial development. Bezos has a taste for a real space adventure and sees no need to suffer for smaller game.

Others because the floor has been removed below them.

Perhaps Musk, because he offers to place wealthy adventurers where govt superpowers cannot. That suits those egos as worthy of a life's risk.

edit: typos. (Time to get another keyboard again, this one's dropping letters from wear)

[savuporo]

How about none of those are going to fly tourists. However, China will fly one to orbit right after their robot lands on the far side of the moon

[gongora]

NS - revenues/regulatory issues mean those potential ~$100M flights of sats matter more.

NS still seems to fit with the overall vision of Blue Origin, even if the potential profits from it may be small or nonexistent.  They intend for human spaceflight to be a core competency of their organization.

[Space Ghost 1962]

NS - revenues/regulatory issues mean those potential ~$100M flights of sats matter more.

NS still seems to fit with the overall vision of Blue Origin, even if the potential profits from it may be small or nonexistent.  They intend for human spaceflight to be a core competency of their organization.

Correct.

But at the moment, it's role likely is as a learning exercise, booster recovery, capsule evaluation, and capsule escape test.

They've gotten what they needed out of it to step up to orbital flight, with a recoverable booster unmanned payloads but with the means to support HSF subsequently.

Closer to competing with SX for possibly ISS CRS/CC missions long term.

Now, if you discover you can't outspeed SX on flight cadence (Musk claims he's moving to 24hr as a goal), and your downrange-only orbital recovery always puts you behind SX RTLS, where does that leave you?

It means that your "bread and butter" is larger payloads, where your more powerful single stick LV picks off these less frequent missions. Two advantages over Musk's vision - less wear/tear/reprocessing/recovery loss, and a hydrolox US for high C3 missions (Moon, Mars, ...).

None of this is helped by further NS, which either is abandoned or shuffled off to another business unit, for marginal return.

Back to OT - the issue is on the marketing side (wealthy joyrides for "extreme sports" legacy) and on the total cost (fixed+regulatory+liability). They are willing to risk life for one-shot fame, and the market size doesn't grow large enough with volume to compensate for the growing costs.

Space tourism is a very acute shaped market pyramid. The "needle top" is all the value one can get at the moment. If Musk does ITS successfully, he turns this tip into another market entirely, and that's his bootstrap for populating planets.

Likely it's Bezo's also to similarly exploit in a different way.

It is unclear what this means for NS, VG, and Branson. Perhaps too much of a "carnival ride", where the economics are unstable.

[tater]

Still, the "first/only" prediction requires that BO flies not even one tourist on NS, and it is simply discontinued as a crew vehicle (outside of any internal testing with employees).

That seems far-fetched to me. I understand that Bezos might not be wed to sunk cost notions, but Bezos said their model is to operate NS with rapid turn arounds to provide operational experience. The idea that they wouldn't get even one taker seems unlikely, even though I agree that suborbital spaceflight won't be much of a thing unless the price becomes far lower than any of us currently imagine it to be.

[Coastal Ron]

Make one of my rare predictions (one on the average every five years - not big on prognostication) here - feel free to call me on it.

The first/only space tourism (in the next ten years) will be to the vicinity of the moon.

I like to define things before I speculate, especially when not everyone agrees with what a word might mean. For instance, tourism is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as:

"Tourism is travel for pleasure or business; also the theory and practice of touring, the business of attracting, accommodating, and entertaining tourists, and the business of operating tours."

I have advocated that the two people that will orbit the Moon in a SpaceX Dragon are not tourists, but adventurers. And Dictionary.com defines "adventure" as:

1. an exciting or very unusual experience.
2. participation in exciting undertakings or enterprises: the spirit of adventure.
3. a bold, usually risky undertaking; hazardous action of uncertain outcome.
4. a commercial or financial speculation of any kind; venture.

So to me someone that participates in an adventure is not a tourist, and is not engaging in tourism.

From that standpoint I would say that the sub-orbital rides that Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin plan to offer fall into the "tourism" category, but the two people paying for the first-of-it's-kind round the Moon trip are "adventurers". Which to me is a big difference.

Does that help clarify the discussion going forward?

[tater]

At the risk of going down a rabbit hole, I would say that for the purpose of this conversation a tourist is any human going to space who is not doing so as part of their work. It gets complicated if you think of teachers, or government officials who have flown on Shuttle, so perhaps a requirement that the flight be paid for by an entity that is not a government.

I'm not specifically addressing the best word for the people in question, just the pigeonhole to put the type of flight into. In that sense even if we stipulate "adventurer" for 2 SpaceX moon travelers, they still fall under "space tourism" as far as I see this conversation.

To go much further, I think we'd need to set some training limit to call someone a tourist. When I get on a plane to Italy with my family, the sum total of training required is to pay attention to the safety notice at the beginning of the flight. I suppose at some point, the label "tourist" might require a similarly nonexistent level of vetting and training.

[Jim Davis]

I have advocated that the two people that will orbit the Moon in a SpaceX Dragon are not tourists, but adventurers.

"Adventurer" works better than "tourist" but I think "joyrider" works better yet. All are much better than the sterile, legalistic "spaceflight participant".

And Dictionary.com defines "adventure" as:

The most memorable definition of "adventure" I've come across is "Terror and misery in retrospect." I've been trying off and on to find the person who came up with it without success.

[Svetoslav]

Throwing my two cents here : I think that there every human being going to space who is not doing so as part of their work is a space tourist.

And any human being going 20kms above the surface is a near-space tourist

[Darkseraph]

Defining the passengers of the SpaceX Lunar Mission as adventurers is splitting hairs. With all these activities, including suborbital tourism, there is significant danger and it's far from the ordinary. Those on board are not pilots or flight engineers and for all intents and purposes can just sit back and enjoy the ride. I don't see the problem with calling them tourists.

Now for some predictions:

Blue Origin flies the first paying suborbital tourists in Q4 2018
Virgin Galactic flies paying customers second in Q2 2019
SpaceX Lunar Mission happens NET Q4 2019, but more likely 2020.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Thank you Coastal Ron for the worthy addition.

A little background. Have professionally analyzed the "space tourism" market. As a professional, you don't have the option to rename/redefine.

The key point to stress is the reasons one would do such activity. Even have members of my extended family who have climbed Everest (and many other similar mountains, considering K2 as well), as well as ones who are considering such "adventures" well above the Kármán line. As well as having certain "elevated" experiences myself when young and too stupid to have fully appreciated the risks ...

So access to those in the market segments is real and immediate.

(I'll share an amusing aside. The aerospace engineers and space/planetary ones are adversive to all of these endeavors, although entirely encouraging of others doing so. They also tend to fly the more reliable transportation providers and aircraft, and can tell you why they are reliable.)

Back to tourism - its part of the "hospitality market", where events, even stressful ones, are usually in some way attached to resorts/hotels.

So Ron, suggest that Bigelow would likely be the best authority on actual "space tourism" (and when it'll happen).

Because a "space resort" as a hub/destination for such would be the "magnet" for such. Imagine eventually some kind of "space Disneyland" as the ultimate direction, way beyond Space Mountain. Or perhaps a hotel on the Moon, with scenic mountains illuminated by earth shine.

Back to adventurism:

The point is a worthy and lifelong accomplishment. For those of extreme wealth, there is a "power" aspect to it as well, to trade in the risk of life.

Those on board are not pilots or flight engineers and for all intents and purposes can just sit back and enjoy the ride. I don't see the problem with calling them tourists.

Have you ever trained for spaceflight? Been in a hyperbaric chamber, without a mask? Do you know what it's like to prepare for Denali/K2? Neither is jump in and sit back and enjoy the ride.

You're either ignorant, sarcastic, or attempting humor unsuccessfully. Either way not helpful.

And while there are a herd of paying idiots attempting a peculiar form of suicide on Everest in the Ice Falls, the ones likely for that moon ride is nothing of the kind.

Blue Origin flies the first paying suborbital tourists in Q4 2018

If so, they are running behind on certain activities/filings by about 1.5 years.

There's always the theory of a waiver from a sympathetic ear I suppose.

Virgin Galactic flies paying customers second in Q2 2019

They are 3.5 years behind to that. Even more dubious, because they haven't caught up to where they were, prior to the fatal accident. Also, Scaled is no longer in the picture.

SpaceX Lunar Mission happens NET Q4 2019, but more likely 2020.

Look at FH, Dragon 2, and RD programs for likelihood of meeting that. More like 2022 by current rate of closure.

But this one most likely.

[Coastal Ron]

Back to tourism - its part of the "hospitality market", where events, even stressful ones, are usually in some way attached to resorts/hotels.

I disagree with that completely. You don't have to rent a room to be a tourist.

So Ron, suggest that Bigelow would likely be the best authority on actual "space tourism" (and when it'll happen).

Not sure why, since Bigelow's initial market is sovereign states, not space hotels - at least the last time I heard.

Because a "space resort" as a hub/destination for such would be the "magnet" for such. Imagine eventually some kind of "space Disneyland" as the ultimate direction, way beyond Space Mountain. Or perhaps a hotel on the Moon, with scenic mountains illuminated by earth shine.

My observation on tourism is that it is an outgrowth of industry and commerce, not a leader. For instance, Disneyland could not have been built without the surrounding area already being developed and a ready supply of workers who had reasonably affordable & comfortable places to live.

A resort in space any time in the near future is going to resemble a cruise ship, in that it will have to be completely self-sufficient. But here on Earth cruise ships can pull up to a pier in a well developed port city and completely change out the crew and resupply in less than a day. And if there are any issues with the ship there are large amounts of technical people nearby that can swarm the ship and fix things quickly.

I just don't see that being able to be duplicated in space until we have a large population in space - which won't happen anytime soon.

Back to adventurism:

The point is a worthy and lifelong accomplishment. For those of extreme wealth, there is a "power" aspect to it as well, to trade in the risk of life.

I'm reminded of a conversation in the movie Jurassic Park:

John Hammond: All major theme parks have delays. When they opened Disneyland in 1956, nothing worked!

Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but, John, if The Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists.

I think the difference between tourism and adventurers is that tourism has little risk. Sure, you could die on a roller coaster, but the odds are probably lower than you dying from many other routine things like getting hit by a car in the parking lot of the theme park.

For an adventurer though there is far more risk, especially if they are doing something not yet proven by others. That's why I view activities like Virgin Galactic sub-orbital rides are tourism, but at least the first private flyby of the Moon as being done by adventurers.

[tater]

A little background. Have professionally analyzed the "space tourism" market. As a professional, you don't have the option to rename/redefine.

So what is the precise definition, or at least precise enough for this conversation? Anyone not professionally going into space, anyone in space who is not specifically contracted or employed by a national space program?

I think any such definition is fine, but it might be best if everyone is on the same page.

Question: If employees of a company like BO were to ride NS into space, would they be tourists? Would they be if they were not actively functioning as test pilots---is there anything such crew could do, even if they were "on the clock," since the entire flight is automated?

I think that BO is likely to send a few people up on NS at the very least, which would necessarily happen before they get NG up and running.

[Darkseraph]

^
In an admittedly blunt way, I am pointing out those who pay for these trips are not professional astronauts. Training aside, they're essentially just passengers and won't be responsible for either piloting or repair of these systems. The criteria that one must have trained for spaceflight to have a valid opinion on this is admittedly a very high bar (exceedingly few of the global population has had that luxury) and it would almost certainly rule out the majority of people on these boards from participating in further discussions.

Spaceflight remains an incredibily risky endeavour, but there is no real need to attach a more lofty term to space tourists just because the level of risk is higher than other forms of tourism. It is also very unlikely to catch on given most of the media is happy to call them space tourists for the past two decades. If a new name must be used, call it Extreme Tourism much like the term used for higher risk sports.

[tater]

That's why a precise definition is useful (even if one just for the content of this thread).

If the definition requires effectively zero vetting or training (like getting on any airliner, or warnings posted at certain amusement park rides), then I agree with Space Ghost 1962, I suppose, as any flights within the next decade will include more training and vetting than "none." If the definition is any broader than that, then I disagree.

That said, NS is likely pretty close to no training---and that training might have more of a marketing purpose, since it extends the "vacation" to X hours of training, instead of paying a small fortune for 12 minutes, or however long the flight lasts.