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.
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.
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
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.
I get the joke, but it's also an interesting question.
IIRC the high end of estimates under the 'cap and trade' system is $100/ton, WP says this thing weighs 18tons all up.
Considering just the rocket stage: Lets be pessimistic and say 15 tons of GHG at 200eu/ton gives 3000eu, divided by (say) 15 passengers is 200eu 'carbon tax' on top of a 200keu sticker price.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
'No wireless, less space than a nomad, Lame.'
Tourists won't care about orbital flight, they just want to see the world from space, and experience weightlessness - from the bookings for Virgin Galactic etc, it seems there are enough people interested to make it viable. Orbital will come much later because it's much more expensive, but will probably be paid for with the proceeds of this kind of thrill ride.