Slashdot Mirror
Space Planes to Meet 'Big Demand' For Tourism
Mab_Mass writes "Widespread space tourism is getting closer to reality, reports the BBC. In fact, Aerospace company EADS sees that sector of the tourism market being so lucrative that it will need a 'production line' of rockets to satisfy the needs of rich travelers. '[EAD's] market assessment suggests there would be 15,000 people a year prepared to part with some 200,000 euros (£160,000) for the ride of a lifetime. [EADS subsidiary] Astrium anticipates it be will be producing about 10 planes a year.'"
I think safety concerns are the biggest issue. What happens when the first crash happens.
Click here to offset your carbon emissions.
I used to travel to Hawaii for vacation a lot. This was back in the old days before Waikiki was this huge tourist development. Back then those of us who ventured that far for vacation were greeted with island hospitality and lush greenery and a "get-back-to-nature" type of laid-backedness that was desperately missing from mainland life.
Unfortunately, they found that they could make more money by attracting more visitors. And they did. But in the process they built tons of highrise hotels and turned quiet surftown Waikiki into the bustling tourist trap it now is. In order to attract more visitors, they destroyed the reason to be a visitor in the first place.
I'm sure someone will want to ride an over-priced airplane comfortably into space. But I'm not sure that those people are the same ones who would shell out millions to fly in today's ramshackle space carts.
It will be fun to be the first, but after that who would want to
pay to fly in the vomit comet ?
Umm, don't astronaunts have to go through a series of tests to make sure they can function in space? How do you expect a bunch of rich people who are likely in their 40s and above to actually be preparred for something like going into space
I want to visit some volcanoes
It's a good first step, but none of the plans mentioned in the story really advance anything. They're basically glorified Vomit Comets with no ability to orbit, which would really be a stepping stone to things further out. After all, once you're out of the gravity well, you're halfway to anywhere else in the solar system. I guess the best hope is that the number of "spaceplane" providers will compete against each other for new perks, thus pushing someone to provide a true orbital experience.
.. but four and a half g's in deceleration, even shortly, would run the risk of a red out for those not inclined to physical fitness. The number of people who would buy into this would be further limited by the idle rich who realize their bodies may not agree with the effects of gravity. As far as tourism goes, having to wear a high g-force suit just to get a good look out the window without risking your health seems like an overlooked detail.
The Concorde SST had massive government subsidies from both Britain and France and because of lack of demand still couldn't produce a decent return on investment Well, other than being a jobs program.
And yet any ticket for a near future spaceplane will likely cost a hundred times more than did a Concorde seat. Increases in fuel costs might make it even more expensive than that. And just think of the even more stringent security screening bullshit passengers will have to endure.
Summary: Show me a commercially viable SST first. Then we can talk about a spaceplane that's not a welfare program for the aerospace industry.
Some of them pull up to 6 gees, and all they have is a height restriction and warning notice! Yes, it's for a shorter time, but 4.5 gees seems high - ISTR the STS only gets up to 3.5 gees.
Its market assessment suggests there would be 15,000 people a year prepared to part with [...] Astrium anticipates it be will be producing about 10 planes a year.
So, that is 1500 people per plane? Seems there is some magic going on with their projections (market assesments)...
The fundamental problem is that all these private space ships only have a fraction of the energy required to achieve orbital flight. As the rocket equation shows the energy cost of any self-propelled space vehicle is exponential. The only way to solve this problem is to create a propulsion system that doesn't have to accelerate its own fuel. The only plausible solutions that I can think of right now are:
- Space elevator
- Huge acceleration ramp that shoots into the sky
- Big freaking laser gun and mirrors
I realize that these are still in the realm of sci-fi at the moment, but until the private companies start working on these solutions there is no future for tourism in space. Period.I know that it is needed, but there is about to be a number of other joy rides. It would actually be far more useful if they would focus on getting into LEO with cheap access. That could use many times more crafts than the joy ride will. Of course, the argument is baby steps first. That is the same as scaled composites, while spacex is seeking direct access to LEO. Hopefully EU decides to pursue cheap access quickly.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Sure, staring down at this big blue rock while floating around in microgravity sounds fun, but what else is there? There's no 'space culture' to observe, no funny hats and clay statues to buy, and actually leaving the ship (in a big, bulky suit) would likely be deemed a safety (lawsuit) hazard. If we're going to have tourists up there, more comfortable, flexible space suits, as well as something like a lunar 'hotel' would help a lot. Also, judging by the number of 'shifting stars' I can see at night, I'm assuming there's a hell of an eyesore floating up there.
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
1. Well, I might even join you in damning the Concorde, if it weren't for one small detail: after it was built, everyone decided that they'd rather not have supersonic stuff flying overhead and being very loud. Which limited the possible routes for the Concorde massively, and thus hit their demand _hard_. You know, since you're moaning about lack of demand for them, now you know why.
So "commercially viable" is a bit mis-leading, when the only thing that made it non-viable was "not in my back yard" regulations against it. You can make _anything_ non-viable that way. Heck, pass the same kind of legislation for mobile phone masts (and God knows the "electrosensitives" try to) and it will make mobile telephony a non-viable business overnight.
Or have you heard about those brownouts in the USA some years back? That was government regulation making it commercially non-viable to build new power plants there. There you go.
2. At any rate, you'll _also_ notice that noone else is even trying to build supersonic passenger planes any more. Partially because of the same problem, but anyway: it's a bit funny to single out the Concorde program, when noone else is doing any better either.
It's a bit like sneering at the USA for not having cold-fusion power-plants yet. We don't have it either, but let's not let that get in the way of a good sneer.
3. Even if they end up used for supersonic transportation, that would be just trying to overcome the regulation problem mentioned in point 1. You know, sorta like making an air route to link two cities, if you can't get approval to build a railroad between them. Insisting that they stick with the problem where regulation made it non-viable, is pretty stupid, _if_ a different approach is more viable.
4. But that's probably irrelevant anyway, since they'll probably be used as a rich guy's penis-size... err... status-symbol roller coaster. I.e., it's a different product, for a different market. Exactly how's it relevant whether they make a supersonic plane first? It's a bit like saying, "bah, before you try to make a 4 core CPU, show me you can make a fusion power plant first." I mean, hello? How's one relevant to the other?
5. But even that is less relevant, once you've pinned the blame on lack of demand. Because that's what you blame, right at the start. Well, here's the funny part: giving up on markets that lack demand, and doing the stuff where there is a demand instead, is what capitalism is all about. You know, going all the way back to Adam Smith, that's the whole idea. If there's not enough demand for home-grown English wine, but there's a demand for wool, cut down that vineyard and raise sheep instead.
So asking that they stay in a market that lacks demand, solves what? Exactly what would they prove? That they have no economic sense?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Al-Qaeda is probably already looking up at the Moon with jihad in its eyes, rubbing its hands and cackling evilly.
The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
The graphic in the article shows a +3G phase and a -4, -5G phase. There aren't too many tourists who can take that.
I have a suite in Villa Straylight available for long-term lease to the first person who can cover my rewiring costs at the clinic in Chiba.
I imagine the kids of rich people will be encouraging their parents to do this so they can get the trust fund payout. "Mummy, Datty, wouldn't you love to go into space? You really must experience this before everyone else has already done it shouldn't you? It would be such a stunning topic to introduce at the polo match. That would make me ever so proud. It would be such a disappointment if Biff and Muffy's mummy and datty were to do it first."
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
One step closer to my namesake becoming a reality.
SST is great and I wish they were the norm so my trans-pacific flights were a lot faster but they are NOT the same thing as a rocketplane carrying you into space. The Concorde was great (I wish I had a chance to ride it) but it did not offer enough value for the cost to the consumers. It just offered faster transport. Your flight on the Concorde was not your main reason for riding it. It was, by all means, designed to be a faster form of transportation from A to B and the reason you rode it was to hop the pond faster. Space rocket/planes offer something completely different: your paying not just for transport, your paying to go to space and experience weightlessness, see views of the Earth and whatever else you may experience. Plus the bragging rights (which I'm sure some of those who can afford purchasing tickets seek) of having been to space. This is, by all means, not transport but a means to experience something never available before. The rocket/planes ARE the tourist attraction.
The economic models are different, which is why many of these guys aren't getting government subsidies. Private individuals think that the market is there. Also, the technology will enable other markets. Additionally, other markets just weren't the same in the early days of the Concorde. Now, there are a lot more people with a compelling reason to deliver something overnight to/from China to the US. Many think this market can be huge. Also, a craft like the EADS can be a fully reusable first stage for a mostly reusable TSTO orbital delivery system.
I believe that Spacex will be sending ppl before 2011. I know what we see on his re-scheduling, but I believe that he is trying to be conservative in his estimates. Of course, the next Falcon I( in june) and the first Falcon 9 (end of 3Q or early 4Q) will really determine whether this is going to happen. But assuming that these both happen without another hitch, then it is certain that he will try to launch all 3 dragons in 2009. The earliest that Burt is going to send ppl is 2012, and more likely 2013. IOW, another 5 years. of course, he just sold the company to northup, so maybe they will invest heavily to start SS3.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In particular, the DOD is Low Level funding an idea that uses a circular track to accelerate a package up to speed, and then throw it upwards. Due to the approach, the packages will be small (below 1000 KG), and must withstand sustained high G-forces. IOW, this will not be launching live crews. The idea is to use it to launch fuel, water, and of course, small sats (not in DOD's style, but could be very useful in the right situation). The idea is to have next to none labor costs and of course little to no fuel (they may put a small booster on it so that track can run at lower speed). Of course, this is a very specialized situation.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.