Slashdot Mirror


2014 Will Be a Big Year For Commercial Space Travel

An anonymous reader writes "Getting into space is a difficult prospect. The commercial space industry has been making steady progress over the past decade, and they're finally getting to the point where they can be relied upon to transport people and important cargoes. This article makes the case that 2014 will be a turning point for commercial space travel, the year that a nascent industry comes into its own. 'We should — finally — start to see the first flights into space by Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo, and perhaps the first commercial flights of that vehicle as well, depending on how well their test program proceeds. In addition, we should also see the first test flights, although not necessarily into space, of XCOR's Lynx vehicle in 2014, and possibly even commercial flights by the end of the year if all goes well,' said Jeff Foust, editor of The Space Review. 'If these companies achieve those long-awaited, and sometimes long-delayed, major milestones, it will go far to erase any lingering doubts that suborbital space tourism is a real market, while also enabling opportunities for using those vehicles in other applications, like suborbital research and technology demonstration.'"

7 of 61 comments (clear)

  1. Don't forget to define your terms first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Commercial "space travel" sounds so exciting! Star Trek! Warp Drives! Aliens!

    Reality: A cramped tin can, 10 minute ride to the upper atmosphere, sub-orbital joyride. No aliens, no warp drives, no class-M planets. You're still in the atmosphere, you're still using rockets with the same elements as on the periodic table, no fictional elements or forces. You're not even getting out of the tin can and you're landing right back where you came from.

    So sorry. We don't even have the Concorde anymore and I'm supposed to cheer for the thrill rides of people who've somehow managed to game the system to make money while my real wages have been going down for 10 years?

  2. Missing the obvious by guanxi · · Score: 2

    If these companies achieve those long-awaited, and sometimes long-delayed, major milestones, it will go far to erase any lingering doubts that suborbital space tourism is a real market

    How does a successful test of a prototype tell you anything about the demand for it? Silicon Valley landfills are filled with successful prototypes of products you've never heard of.

    They need someplace to go and something to do up there. Until consumers can spend a weekend in orbit doing entertaining activities, it's hard to imagine many people willing spend six figures (?) on the trip.

    (I'm all for commercial space flight, by the way, I just don't see much consumer demand for it.)

    1. Re:Missing the obvious by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If I remember correctly, Virgin have several hundred deposits from customers already. Last I remember, they were talking about getting the cost down to $50,000 within a decade, at which point I'd seriously consider it myself.

      There's clearly demand for these trips. The only question is whether there's enough demand to justify the investment in operating them.

  3. i bet you... by Infestedkudzu · · Score: 2

    lots of articles from 2013 said the same thing

  4. Has to be done in order by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

    The "big year for commercial space travel" will come right after the "big year for Linux on the desktop".

    First things first, after all.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. Re:Nonsense! by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    So the Year of Linux on the Desktop... in spaaaace?

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  6. Re:Flights to Nowhere by clovis · · Score: 2

    There's something fundamentally wrong with an operation that provides incredibly expensive distraction (for the rich only) by polluting the atmosphere and failing to provide any socially redeeming value whatsoever.

    Nope, there's nothing wrong with that. You describing almost every form of entertainment. (Television uses electricity which means burning more coal)

    For another example, consider NASCAR:
    There's something fundamentally wrong with an operation that provides incredibly expensive distraction by polluting the atmosphere and failing to provide any socially redeeming value whatsoever.

    Oh, wait I left off the "(for the rich only)". Is it OK to pollute the atmosphere for sport if it's enjoyed by the Everyman?
    Or are you saying that we can only pollute the atmosphere if it has a socially redeeming value, like book-burnings?