Antarctic Vacations -- Some Data Points
Cathy Mancus
Lonely Planet has come out with a guide to visting Antarctica.
Some of the prices and visitation rates have implications for
space tourism.
Cruise ships are the predominant form of vacation there. Some
typical prices:
14 days $5385 |
16 days $6385 | 100-passenger ship, number of trips per year
17 days $6885 | not known
19 days $8015 |
25 days $8890 | 164-passenger ship
10 days $3720 |
15 days $5025 | 400-passenger ship
25 days $7298 |
These are just samples. No less than 13 different operators are listed.
Typical operations seem to only own one or two ships.
Aerial trips to the south pole last 10 days and cost $21K. The tourist
typically spends less than 24 hours at the pole.
The implication of all this is that there is indeed a market
for at least a few thousand people at these prices, and the market
is growing every year.
--Cathy Mancus <man...@vnet.ibm.com>
Jim Kingdon
> Cruise ships are the predominant form of vacation there. Some
> typical prices:
Those prices are below most of the ones which are generally considered
in space tourism studies, and the technological guesses I have seen of
how cheap one might hope to be able to make space launch if such a
market seemed to be there.
> Aerial trips to the south pole last 10 days and cost $21K. The tourist
> typically spends less than 24 hours at the pole.
Now that is starting to sound like a bit more of an analogy. But if
memory serves the number of customers for this is lower than the
cruises.
> The implication of all this is that there is indeed a market
> for at least a few thousand people at these prices
Well, if we are talking 10,000 trips at $8000 each, that is only $80
million a year. If that were the size of the space tourism market, it
would not be big enough to fund the development of new launchers, and
would be tiny compared with communications and other markets.
I don't think that any of the data I have seen really gives us much
idea of what the space tourism market is like, but there is a huge
gulf between the existing thousands of trips a year to Antarctica and
the 500,000 annual trips which the space tourism studies claim.
Rand Simberg
On 10 Mar 1997 16:50:34 -0500, in a place far, far away,
kin...@harvey.cyclic.com (Jim Kingdon) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>I don't think that any of the data I have seen really gives us much
>idea of what the space tourism market is like,
Agreed.
>but there is a huge
>gulf between the existing thousands of trips a year to Antarctica and
>the 500,000 annual trips which the space tourism studies claim.
Well, unfortunately, there is also a huge gulf between the experience
offered from a trip to Antarctica and one to space<g>. While there
are some analogies, there are also significant differences (g-level
being a biggie, variety of views another) The similarity really only
lies in the remoteness.
************************************************************************
sim...@interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1391 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
CONPUTE
Cathy Mancus (JHOLL4@) wrote:
: Lonely Planet has come out with a guide to visting Antarctica.
: Some of the prices and visitation rates have implications for
: space tourism.
: Cruise ships are the predominant form of vacation there. Some
: typical prices:
: 14 days $5385 |
: 16 days $6385 | 100-passenger ship, number of trips per year
: 17 days $6885 | not known
: 19 days $8015 |
: 25 days $8890 | 164-passenger ship
:
: 10 days $3720 |
: 15 days $5025 | 400-passenger ship
: 25 days $7298 |
:
: These are just samples. No less than 13 different operators are listed.
: Typical operations seem to only own one or two ships.
: Aerial trips to the south pole last 10 days and cost $21K. The tourist
: typically spends less than 24 hours at the pole.
: The implication of all this is that there is indeed a market
: for at least a few thousand people at these prices, and the market
: is growing every year.
: --Cathy Mancus <man...@vnet.ibm.com>
Just picked up the latest issue of Yatching March 1997,
Special Charter Issue.
Starting at page 80 some pricing - All for one week, with food, fuel
bar, and other expenses are extra!
E.C. Power - Ship 142 sleeps 12 cost $80,000 US
E.C. Sail - Ship 152 sleeps 10 cost $63,000 US
Med. Power - Ship 246 sleeps 22 cost $350,000 US!
W.C. Power - Ship 173 sleeps 12 cost $105,000 US
....there are many more of these boats out there!
Some-one out there has money. You may argue if enought people will want
to fly to space. But you can't argue that they can't afford to go at
$15,000 to $20,000 each.
Earl Colby Pottinger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
: Internet Direct. Have you heard about our :
: (416)233-2999, 1000 lines Do-It-Yourself Webserver? :
: T3 bandwidth, 9600-33,600bps+ISDN http://web.idirect.com :
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Vince Bitowf
Cathy Mancus <JHOLL4@ > wrote in article
<5g1t0u$1h...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>...
> The implication of all this is that there is indeed a market
> for at least a few thousand people at these prices, and the market
> is growing every year.
How does the existance of a market for $21,000/ten day vacations predict a
market for $21,000/<1 day vacations? Or are you suggesting that a tour
operator would be able to design build and operate an orbital resort for
the $21,000 per head, in addition to designing and building a fleet of
SSTOs?
Vince Bitowf
Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote in article
<3325819b....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> Well, unfortunately, there is also a huge gulf between the experience
> offered from a trip to Antarctica and one to space<g>. While there
> are some analogies, there are also significant differences (g-level
> being a biggie, variety of views another) The similarity really only
> lies in the remoteness.
This is where I think the space tourisim argument really stumbles. The
space experiance: You get to see a view that you have seen a thousand times
already, microgravity that you could experiance for one percent the price
in an aircraft flying a balistic flightpath, and a high-g launch which
would be neat, but would be as likely to turn away as many customers as it
attracts.
Vince Bitowf
CONPUTE <con...@idirect.com> wrote in article
<3328a...@lagoon.idirect.com>...
> Just picked up the latest issue of Yatching March 1997,
> Special Charter Issue.
>
> Starting at page 80 some pricing - All for one week, with food, fuel
> bar, and other expenses are extra!
>
> E.C. Power - Ship 142 sleeps 12 cost $80,000 US
> E.C. Sail - Ship 152 sleeps 10 cost $63,000 US
> Med. Power - Ship 246 sleeps 22 cost $350,000 US!
> W.C. Power - Ship 173 sleeps 12 cost $105,000 US
> ....there are many more of these boats out there!
>
> Some-one out there has money. You may argue if enought people will want
> to fly to space. But you can't argue that they can't afford to go at
> $15,000 to $20,000 each.
>
> Earl Colby Pottinger
The only problem is that your prices are clearly for chartering the entire
ship, not a per-person price.
David Anderman
The ProSpace managed "March Storm" congressional briefing campaign is now
officially over. By the end of the campaign, over 200 House of
Representatives offices had been briefed, most of the Senate, and Dan Goldin
himself traveled to the Hill to meet with the March Storm volunteers (and
engaged in a rather vociferous debate on policy).
Although I didn't participate in the March Storm, due to other business, I
did see the volunteers on the Hill, and was impressed by their numbers, their
committment, and their superb organization. It was fairly obvious that this
campaign made a big difference, and one got the feeling that we are indeed on
our way to opening the space frontier.
Now, if we can only get the rest of the people on sci.space.policy to
likewise get out into the real world and help make space development a
reality, we would open that frontier a lot sooner ..............
David Anderman
Eric Dahlstrom
David Anderman wrote:
> The ProSpace managed "March Storm" congressional briefing campaign is now
> officially over. By the end of the campaign, over 200 House of
> ...
> Now, if we can only get the rest of the people on sci.space.policy to
> likewise get out into the real world and help make space development a
> reality, we would open that frontier a lot sooner ..
This was my first time I participated in the March Storm. I thought it
went very well. In 20 years supporting the development of space, I feel
this past week was the most effective I have been in advancing our
vision. We were able to express our long range vision and then focus on
near term activity - including support for commercial space legislation.
The congressional staff were most impressed that we were there on our
own time. (I live in the area, so my visit was not as impressive as
those people who had flown in.) There was one meeting where the staff
member kept the Lockheed Martin delegation waiting in the hall because
he wanted to hear how citizens felt on these issues. I would say the
only thing more powerful than visits to Washington would be for *you* to
visit the local office of your congressman and tell them how you feel
about space activities.
All congressional offices have to deal with these issues when the bills
come up. Some offices told us they thought we had good ideas, but "we
have no evidence there are _any_ space supporters in our state". With a
little effort, you can change their mind, and change the future.
- Eric
* Eric Dahlstrom * Space Development Consultants * +1 202 737 1551 *
* er...@clark.net * 425 8th St NW #938 Washington DC 20004-2114 USA *
pat
In article <332AD5...@clark.net>, er...@clark.net says...
I'd agree here, anyone who wants to lobby the home office on X-33,
X-37 or the commercial space bill should get abriefing packet
and talk to the local office.
David Anderman
Forwarded from NSS Director Alan Wasser:
I've just come back from the 1997 "March Storm" in Washington, and I am
still glowing. It was a really terrific experience.
I've been involved in many different space activities in the last 18
years, but in all that time I don't think I've ever been part of any
space event more effective ... or better run ... than March Storm.
And it was a lot of fun.
More than 60 space activists came to Washington, DC to brief congressional
staffers about the need to open the space frontier.
We talked with them about the need to commercialize space, including the
station once it is built; build X vehicles (especially the X33, the proposed
X37 and military space plane); get NASA to focus on cutting edge technologies
and exploration including the moon and Mars rather than routine operations
in LEO which could be turned over to private industry; and improve the
regulatory climate for the small companies trying to build reusable launch
vehicles.
On Monday and Tuesday alone we had well over 200 appointments, and although
those were the most intense days, there were some volunteers who stayed all
week. My team (two to four people, usually including NSS volunteer George
Smith) had seven appointments Monday (staffers for four Congressmen and three
Senators) and five on Tuesday (one Congressman, staffers for three Senators
and another Congressmen's staffer).
But before anyone went to the hill, we all spent Sunday in a full day of very
well organized practical training.
The most important thing the trainers stressed was the need to communicate
our vision to the staffers. First they had all 60 of us line up, facing each
other, and had each of us explain to the person opposite us (in 30 seconds)
why we had felt it worthwhile to spend our own money and time coming to
Washington to do this. Then we moved down the line and did it again, over and
over.
Then they put on scripted skits showing things like: how to work together as
teams, how to brief a congressional staffer, what not to do, how to handle
the various types of reactions we might run into, and how to take careful
notes about what the staffers said (to be used in future campaigns).
Finally, the more experienced volunteers took turns playing the role of
staffers, giving everyone a turn to practice briefings.
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher's space aide Jim Muncy, NSS Director David
Anderman and others discussed the issues with the volunteers and answered
their questions.
On Monday, we met at 7:30am in the House's Rayburn Building cafeteria for
breakfast and to get final corrections to our appointment schedules and more
information about the Members of Congress who's staff we would be seeing. By
9 am we were all at our first appointments.
It didn't take long before I realized just how much we were accomplishing.
Although the staffers see plenty of professional lobbyists, including some
from the big aerospace companies, they were generally very impressed to learn
that we were all private citizens who had come on our own time, at our own
expense, even though we had no financial stake in the issues.
Time after time legislative assistants who are in charge of space policy for
key legislators started out knowing practically nothing about our issues
("what's an X-Vehicle"?) and ended up saying things like "what you're saying
makes a lot of sense. I'll try to get my boss to co-sponsor the Space
Commercialization Bill."
Former NSS Director Ben Muniz and the rest of the leadership team all did a
great job, but Susan Heney did an absolutely miraculous job setting up all
those appointments so each team went to the offices of the legislators from
their own or nearby states, met with the right people and had almost no
wasted time.
One reason we had fewer appointments on Tuesday was that we all took time out
for a meeting with Dan Goldin and Congressman Rohrabacher in the House
Science Committee hearing room. Among those attending were Jim Muncy and
ex-NSS Executive Director Lori Garver, who now sports an impressive looking
NASA id badge. Although there were a few points of disagreement of how to
implement space commercialization, generally the NASA Administrator seemed to
me to be agreeing with 90% of what we were saying.
Each evening we all met at a convenient restaurant to hand in our reports
and compare notes and have a good time.
Although March Storm is organized by Charles Miller's ProSpace
(chaze...@aol.com), an off-shoot of the Space Frontier Foundation, just
about every volunteer I talked with was (or had been) a member of NSS.
Unfortunately, although "Chaz" Miller wanted NSS involvement, he had been
unable to reach an agreement with Bob Zubrin to have NSS cooperate.
Personally, I think that is a shame, and I sincerely hope that NSS will be
able to play an active part in supporting next year's effort. But whether
or not it does, I most strongly urge every NSS member to plan to come and
participate, if at all possible, in March Storm 1998.
If you are going to do just one thing for space next year, this should be
it.
Alan Wasser
Jim Benson
dav...@cwo.com (David Anderman) wrote:
>The ProSpace managed "March Storm" congressional briefing campaign is now
>officially over. By the end of the campaign, over 200 House of
>Representatives offices had been briefed, most of the Senate, and Dan Goldin
>himself traveled to the Hill to meet with the March Storm volunteers (and
>engaged in a rather vociferous debate on policy).
As a software company owner, and member of the American Electronics
Association (AEA - one of the largest and most effective lobbying
forces to visit DC), I had some experience in trade association
lobbying. However, the training and appointments prepared through
prodigious amounts of ProSpace volunteer efforts made this the best
organized and effective Congressional lobbying I have ever
participated in. My time was utilized effectively, and I will not
hesitate to recommend ProSpace to others, nor to participate again
next year.
It was *fun* and a great opportunity to meet a *lot* of dedicated,
well-informed space activists, and our reception in the 14 meetings in
which I participated indicated that both the House and the Senate
staffers are interested in our issues, and willing to listen, and to
act on the behalf of this "citizen space agenda.".
>Although I didn't participate in the March Storm, due to other business, I
>did see the volunteers on the Hill, and was impressed by their numbers, their
>committment, and their superb organization. It was fairly obvious that this
>campaign made a big difference, and one got the feeling that we are indeed on
>our way to opening the space frontier.
>
>Now, if we can only get the rest of the people on sci.space.policy to
>likewise get out into the real world and help make space development a
>reality, we would open that frontier a lot sooner ..............
I have been looking at posting statistics, and have seen over 2,000
people post to this group in about 90 days. Most live in the USA. Even
half of this number taking an active role in the development and
implementation of a rational space policy would change forever the way
our tax dollars are spent, the programs NASA runs, and the prospects
for massive commercial activities by civilians in space, all in our
lifetimes. As I may have said before: if you are not part of the
solution, you are part of the problem ;)
Jim Benson
Chairman, President
Space Development Corporation
>David Anderman
pat
If each American citizen, who reads and posts to this newsgroup
would take 10 minutes to read the Pro-space web page,
http://www.space-frontier.org and then calling their
congressperson, and two senators to say you support
1) pro-space, 2) X-33, 3) X-37 and 4) Commercial space bill.
if we can get 2-3,000 congressional calls, in the next week,
we will get the space bill and the X-33 and X-37.
pat
In article <332cd318....@dreamweaver.com>, J...@SpaceDev.Com
says...
Rand Simberg
On 14 Mar 1997 11:54:01 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Vince
Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> showered us with his wisdom, as we stood
here desperately with umbrellas:
>This is where I think the space tourisim argument really stumbles. The
>space experiance: You get to see a view that you have seen a thousand times
>already
I have never seen the earth from a couple hundred miles above it.
When have you? <SARCASM>And of course it never changes. No day, no
night, no weather, no sunrises or sunsets, no changing seasons. Yup,
seen one view, seen 'em all.</SARCASM>
>microgravity that you could experiance for one percent the price
>in an aircraft flying a balistic flightpath
There's a big difference between twenty-five seconds of weightlessness
that one never has time to acclimatize to, and indefinite freefall.
When did you experience both, to have become such an expert on the
lack of difference between them?
>and a high-g launch which
>would be neat, but would be as likely to turn away as many customers as it
>attracts.
It doesn't have to be all that high-g.
Craig Kerr
In article <5gjtl5$q...@clarknet.clark.net>, pat <p...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>If each American citizen, who reads and posts to this newsgroup
>would take 10 minutes to read the Pro-space web page,
>http://www.space-frontier.org and then calling their
>congressperson, and two senators to say you support
>1) pro-space, 2) X-33, 3) X-37 and 4) Commercial space bill.
I thought X-33 was destined for failure? If you think it is such a poor
project, why are you trying to convince people to support it? Because it is
the only game in town?
I don't mean this as an attack, I am just curious to find out why you are
asking people to support a project that you apparently do not like.
Craig
Michael K. Heney
In article <5gk55s$d...@news.tamu.edu>,
The Space Frontier Foundation and ProSpace both support X-33. Neither group
has suggested that it is destined for failure. As far as we know, at this
point in time, X-33 is on track to fly as scheduled.
I chatted with Gene Austin at the ASA reception in Washington last week;
there are concerns about making their weight targets right now, but they're
in the early stages of fabrication, and some issues that need work are
expected. If they had to fly *right now*, they'd come in overweight, and
probably max out at Mach 13.5, but the point of R&D is to learn how to do
the things they're trying to do; they expect to handle the weight problem.
And, there's apparently a significant milestone payment for achieving
Mach 15; they're going to work hard to get that payment.
Edward Wright
In article <5gk55s$d...@news.tamu.edu>, cra...@eagle.tamu.edu says...
>I thought X-33 was destined for failure? If you think it is such a poor
>project, why are you trying to convince people to support it? Because it
>is the only game in town?
>
>I don't mean this as an attack, I am just curious to find out why you are
>asking people to support a project that you apparently do not like.
I can't speak for Pat. However, my impression is that most critics of X-33
believe it is still possible to get something useful out of the project,
given a few mid-course corrections. They simply don't believe in the
Lockheed/NASA vision of X-33 as the prototype for Shuttle II.
The debate is not really about X-33 vs. something else, but rather whether
X-33 is The One True Way or simply one possible solution among many to be
tried out.
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
pat
In article <5gkped$6...@news.microsoft.com>, edwr...@microsoft.com says...
>
>In article <5gk55s$d...@news.tamu.edu>, cra...@eagle.tamu.edu says...
>
>>I thought X-33 was destined for failure? If you think it is such a poor
>>project, why are you trying to convince people to support it? Because it
>>is the only game in town?
>>
>>I don't mean this as an attack, I am just curious to find out why you are
>>asking people to support a project that you apparently do not like.
>
>I can't speak for Pat. However, my impression is that most critics of X-33
>believe it is still possible to get something useful out of the project,
>given a few mid-course corrections. They simply don't believe in the
>Lockheed/NASA vision of X-33 as the prototype for Shuttle II.
>
>The debate is not really about X-33 vs. something else, but rather whether
>X-33 is The One True Way or simply one possible solution among many to be
>tried out.
Speaking on the record :
While teh odds of X-33 succeeding are low, given the internal program
structure as understood, it is still incumbent to protect useful,
small R&D programs.
at $1G, X-33, is relatively cheap, and will test and qualify a number
of component items. X-33 may also kill the VTHL mindset that prevails,
due to the obviously murderous structural inefficiencies, compared to
VTVL.
failing to support the X-33 funding will show that NASA is unable to
allow high risk research projects to fail, and will allow the STS
success at any lie mindset to instead prevail.
Also, the X-33 does have some chance to succeed, and is the only game
in town.
Finally, X-33 was on the Pro-Space agenda, and weak as it is,
i did agree to support the agenda, and was thus honor-bound to
include it in the action item list.
pat
CONPUTE
Vince Bitowf (vin...@primenet.com) wrote:
: CONPUTE <con...@idirect.com> wrote in article
: <3328a...@lagoon.idirect.com>...
So! If charter the entire ship they can't charter an entire spacecraft???
Look at ship 246 again. $350,000 plus food plus fuel plus expenses is
most likely equal $400,000 plus taxes - never forget taxes :)
So the person(s) who chartered the boat could just as easily charter a
space shot. Second check out the charter services, I have. For the
British Virgin Islands and other places I can arrange to share a charter,
IE. I call Moorings and say I want a 1 week sailing charter on a small
boat (4 people, 6, 12 people - I give a size), I give them my VISA and
date I want to sail, and they call me back in a day or two with the go
ahead.
If fact there a number of charter companies out there to make all the
arrangements to share expensive ships with multiple couples and singles.
Most of these cruises cost between $3500 to $7000 per person per week.
And the charter companies are still boasting 85%+ use of thier boats.
The other point is that $350,000 is most likely rented by a group
of people sharing expenses. But at other times it will be rented
by a single person or company to show off, prize trip for best sales
person or other reasons.
Again, my point is THERE IS MONEY OUT THERE! There are people, prize
giving companies, charter companies and groups of people who can get the
money to rent/pay for the tickets for rocket trips.
I don't think this as the only source of money. The same rocket that can
give 10 minutes of zero-g to rich trill seekers, can do a zero-g
experiment the next week, and do a rush delivery of goods the week after.
IE. If you have a fleet of ten ships, they don't all have to make money
taking people into space. And if you can reach orbit at less than $25,000
per person then all bets are off. You got it made.
Earl Colby Pottinger
----------------------------------------------------
: Come play Realms of Despair! http://www.game.org :
----------------------------------------------------
Frank Crary
In article <332fd...@island.idirect.com>,
CONPUTE <con...@idirect.com> wrote:
>: > Just picked up the latest issue of Yatching March 1997,
>: > Special Charter Issue.
>: > Starting at page 80 some pricing - All for one week, with food, fuel
>: > bar, and other expenses are extra!
>: > E.C. Power - Ship 142 sleeps 12 cost $80,000 US
>: > E.C. Sail - Ship 152 sleeps 10 cost $63,000 US
>: > Med. Power - Ship 246 sleeps 22 cost $350,000 US!
>: > W.C. Power - Ship 173 sleeps 12 cost $105,000 US
>: > ....there are many more of these boats out there!
>: > Some-one out there has money. You may argue if enought people will want
>: > to fly to space. But you can't argue that they can't afford to go at
>: > $15,000 to $20,000 each.
>: The only problem is that your prices are clearly for chartering the entire
>: ship, not a per-person price.
>So! If charter the entire ship they can't charter an entire spacecraft???
>Look at ship 246 again. $350,000 plus food plus fuel plus expenses is
>most likely equal $400,000 plus taxes - never forget taxes :)
>So the person(s) who chartered the boat could just as easily charter a
>space shot.
I disagree. Chartering a spacecraft is probably going to be much
more expensive than $400,000. Also, very few people charter ships.
A much larger number simply buy tickets for ships traveling between
scheduled destinations. That's the market people are thinking of
when they talk about space tourism. There is a market for a dozen
friends chartering a ship for $20,000 each, but there isn't much of
market for $20,000 tickets for a scheduled cruise. (I suppose
first class tickets on a _very_ luxurious ship might cost that
much, but they don't sell many tickets at that price...) So you
can't really compare the cost of, and market for, a chartered
ship to that of a simple ticket on a spacecraft.
>Again, my point is THERE IS MONEY OUT THERE! There are people, prize
>giving companies, charter companies and groups of people who can get the
>money to rent/pay for the tickets for rocket trips.
Sure. The real question is how much they would be willing to pay,
what they would expect for their money, and how many would be willing
to pay. In terms of time on vacation and luxury, they would get
far less for a ticket on a rocket, as opposed to chartering a
ship, for their money. The experience would be very different,
but that doesn't mean it would attract more customers: It isn't
clear that they people interested in chartering ships would
be interested in a brief trip into space, or that the people
who would be interested would be rich enough to afford the
price. You aren't selling the same service, so you can't expect
the same market.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Vince Bitowf
Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote in article
<332d8ba8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> I have never seen the earth from a couple hundred miles above it.
> When have you? <SARCASM>And of course it never changes. No day, no
> night, no weather, no sunrises or sunsets, no changing seasons. Yup,
> seen one view, seen 'em all.</SARCASM>
No I have never seen a picture from a satelite <sarcasam>.
> There's a big difference between twenty-five seconds of weightlessness
> that one never has time to acclimatize to, and indefinite freefall.
> When did you experience both, to have become such an expert on the
> lack of difference between them?
When did you? I am no the one claiming that a significant number of people
will pay $25,000 for the experiance.
> It doesn't have to be all that high-g.
Depends on what you mean. It will have to be greater than an airliner.
Vince Bitowf
CONPUTE <con...@idirect.com> wrote in article
<332fd...@island.idirect.com>...
> So! If charter the entire ship they can't charter an entire
spacecraft???
> Look at ship 246 again. $350,000 plus food plus fuel plus expenses is
> most likely equal $400,000 plus taxes - never forget taxes :)
The IRS won't let me forget them! But that still only works out to about
$1626 per passenger
> So the person(s) who chartered the boat could just as easily charter a
> space shot. Second check out the charter services, I have. For the
> British Virgin Islands and other places I can arrange to share a charter,
> IE. I call Moorings and say I want a 1 week sailing charter on a small
> boat (4 people, 6, 12 people - I give a size), I give them my VISA and
> date I want to sail, and they call me back in a day or two with the go
> ahead.
Sure, I have never denied that space tourisim was technically possible. My
point is that it is going to be too expsneive to be economically practical
unless you use unrealistically low launch costs.
> If fact there a number of charter companies out there to make all the
> arrangements to share expensive ships with multiple couples and singles.
> Most of these cruises cost between $3500 to $7000 per person per week.
> And the charter companies are still boasting 85%+ use of thier boats.
Sure, but the fact that people are willing to spend $7,000 for a week long
vacation doesn't really imply that they are willing to spend $20,000 for a
joy ride of a few hours.
> The other point is that $350,000 is most likely rented by a group
> of people sharing expenses. But at other times it will be rented
> by a single person or company to show off, prize trip for best sales
> person or other reasons.
But how many people can you fit into an orbital vehicle that you can build
and launch at a per-trip cost of $350,000?
> Again, my point is THERE IS MONEY OUT THERE! There are people, prize
> giving companies, charter companies and groups of people who can get the
> money to rent/pay for the tickets for rocket trips.
Sure, if you can make it cheap enough. The problem is that you would have
to have a HUGE number of people willing to put down these large sums of
money to justify the costs of developing a purpose designed vehicle, and
you would need that demand for years. Not only that, you would need to be
sure of it in advance, and you would need to be able to convince investors
of it in order to get the start up capital.
> I don't think this as the only source of money. The same rocket that can
> give 10 minutes of zero-g to rich trill seekers, can do a zero-g
> experiment the next week, and do a rush delivery of goods the week after.
The problem here is that you would still need to charge enough to pay the
incramental costs of each launch, unless you are willing to take a loss on
the space tourisim.
> IE. If you have a fleet of ten ships, they don't all have to make money
> taking people into space. And if you can reach orbit at less than
$25,000
> per person then all bets are off. You got it made.
I am questioning that. I don't think there is a large market out there at
that price.
Rand Simberg
On 21 Mar 1997 07:45:01 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Vince
Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> I have never seen the earth from a couple hundred miles above it.
>> When have you? <SARCASM>And of course it never changes. No day, no
>> night, no weather, no sunrises or sunsets, no changing seasons. Yup,
>> seen one view, seen 'em all.</SARCASM>
>
>No I have never seen a picture from a satelite <sarcasam>.
Oh. I see. You have an Ansel Adams calendar on your wall, so there's
no point in visiting Yosemite. You can see pictures of Thailand in
National Geographic, so why would anyone actually ever go there?
Do you really believe that looking at pictures is an equivalent
surrogate for the real thing? (If so, I won't ask what binary
newsgroups you hang out in <g>).
>> There's a big difference between twenty-five seconds of weightlessness
>> that one never has time to acclimatize to, and indefinite freefall.
>> When did you experience both, to have become such an expert on the
>> lack of difference between them?
>
>When did you? I am no the one claiming that a significant number of people
>will pay $25,000 for the experiance.
I didn't, but you are claiming that there is no difference. Any
astronaut would strongly disagree.
>> It doesn't have to be all that high-g.
>
>Depends on what you mean. It will have to be greater than an airliner.
So does a roller coaster. Do you have a point?
Allen Thomson
In article <3332c905....@nntp.ix.netcom.com> sim...@interglobal.org (Rand Simberg) writes:
[snip]
[concerning watching the Earth from orbit vs looking at satellite pix]
>
>I didn't, but you are claiming that there is no difference. Any
>astronaut would strongly disagree.
>
[etc.]
Why not do some market research and ask as many cosmonauts and
astronauts (who have, as you say, had the opportunity to watch the
Earth roll by and generally experience space) as you can find how much of
their own money they'd pay for the experience? Would they recommend the
experience to a North American friend who was trying to decide between a
month's vacation in, say, France and a month (or a week) in orbit,
assuming CATS made the two trips comparably priced?
Tom Abbott
J...@SpaceDev.Com (Jim Benson) wrote:
>dav...@cwo.com (David Anderman) wrote:
>>The ProSpace managed "March Storm" congressional briefing campaign is now
>>officially over. By the end of the campaign, over 200 House of
>>Representatives offices had been briefed, most of the Senate, and Dan Goldin
>>himself traveled to the Hill to meet with the March Storm volunteers (and
>>engaged in a rather vociferous debate on policy).
>As a software company owner, and member of the American Electronics
>Association (AEA - one of the largest and most effective lobbying
>forces to visit DC), I had some experience in trade association
>lobbying. However, the training and appointments prepared through
>prodigious amounts of ProSpace volunteer efforts made this the best
>organized and effective Congressional lobbying I have ever
>participated in. My time was utilized effectively, and I will not
>hesitate to recommend ProSpace to others, nor to participate again
>next year.
Jim, I think we owe a lot of the Congressional support we enjoy
today to this kind of lobbying. Without a doubt one of the most
effective things we can do today to advance space development.
Tom Abbott
External Tank space station Web page:
http://www1.primenet.com/multimedia/space
http://www.sandiego.sisna.com/fitch/text/et_orbit.htm
Space Studies Institute Web page:
http://www.astro.nwu.edu/lentz/space/ssi/
e-mail s...@ssi.org
National Space Society: http://www.nss.org
External Tank pictures: http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/et/et.htm
Rand Simberg
On Fri, 21 Mar 1997 23:19:13 GMT, in a place far, far away,
thom...@netcom.com (Allen Thomson) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
> Why not do some market research and ask as many cosmonauts and
>astronauts (who have, as you say, had the opportunity to watch the
>Earth roll by and generally experience space) as you can find how much of
>their own money they'd pay for the experience? Would they recommend the
>experience to a North American friend who was trying to decide between a
>month's vacation in, say, France and a month (or a week) in orbit,
>assuming CATS made the two trips comparably priced?
That has been done, at least informally. I've never met an astronaut
who would hesitate to recommend a space trip to any other experience,
at a given cost level. How much they would pay themselves for the
experience is more problematic, since they've already done it. You
have to couch the question carefully, e.g., "Given that you know what
it is like from your experience, how much would you pay to go, *if you
hadn't actually already gone*? This should be a different answer than
"How much would you pay to do it again?" Particularly if they are
already slotted to do it on a repeat NASA mission <g>.
CONPUTE
Vince Bitowf (vin...@primenet.com) wrote:
: Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote in article
: <332d8ba8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
: > I have never seen the earth from a couple hundred miles above it.
: > When have you? <SARCASM>And of course it never changes. No day, no
: > night, no weather, no sunrises or sunsets, no changing seasons. Yup,
: > seen one view, seen 'em all.</SARCASM>
: No I have never seen a picture from a satelite <sarcasam>.
Damn it! There goes the entire tourist industry!!!!!!! Just send for
pictures instead. (incase you don't get it, that was a joke)
Come on now! I have seen video shots taken manned space craft on PBS too,
and on the BIG IMAX screen in Toronto and they just make me want to see it
for real so much more.
: > There's a big difference between twenty-five seconds of weightlessness
: > that one never has time to acclimatize to, and indefinite freefall.
: > When did you experience both, to have become such an expert on the
: > lack of difference between them?
: When did you? I am no the one claiming that a significant number of people
: will pay $25,000 for the experiance.
No, but you come across as claiming that *YOU KNOW* that they will not!
: > It doesn't have to be all that high-g.
: Depends on what you mean. It will have to be greater than an airliner.
1.5g to 2g! If that is a problem, then we will have to shut down half the
rides in fairgrounds around the world! How many customers has Disney Land
lost to the G stress of thier rides?????
CONPUTE
Vince Bitowf (vin...@primenet.com) wrote:
: CONPUTE <con...@idirect.com> wrote in article
: <332fd...@island.idirect.com>...
: > So! If charter the entire ship they can't charter an entire spacecraft???
: > Look at ship 246 again. $350,000 plus food plus fuel plus expenses is
: > most likely equal $400,000 plus taxes - never forget taxes :)
: The IRS won't let me forget them! But that still only works out to about
: $1626 per passenger
What?????? How many passengers are we talking about? The ship carries 22
at that price IE $400,000/22=$18,181 dollars per person! What boat are
you talking about. The point is, if some-one is willing to spend $18K per
person to rent a holiday trip on a boat, then they have to money to spend
$18K per person for a rocket shot. I am not saying that they will, just
that the money is out there!
: > So the person(s) who chartered the boat could just as easily charter a
: > space shot. Second check out the charter services, I have. For the
: > British Virgin Islands and other places I can arrange to share a charter,
: > IE. I call Moorings and say I want a 1 week sailing charter on a small
: > boat (4 people, 6, 12 people - I give a size), I give them my VISA and
: > date I want to sail, and they call me back in a day or two with the go
: > ahead.
: Sure, I have never denied that space tourisim was technically possible. My
: point is that it is going to be too expsneive to be economically practical
: unless you use unrealistically low launch costs.
But how low? Face it, if twenty years ago you were to told everyone that
people will spend $100 to $250 to jump off a bridge with a rope tied to
thier feet would anyone believe you? Most people would have said that
getting business insurance would be impossible and no-one is going to
spend $100+ for a five second thrill!!
As for Sub-Orbital rockets why should not costs be low? You don't use
that much in fuel, the engines don't need to be and should not be
red-lined, and you use the same rocket over and over. Sorry if this comes
over like an insult, but you sound like a person at the beginning of this
century saying that fair-ground joy rides in biplanes can't work because
the same planes can't fly from New York to London non-stop!
: > If fact there a number of charter companies out there to make all the
: > arrangements to share expensive ships with multiple couples and singles.
: > Most of these cruises cost between $3500 to $7000 per person per week.
: > And the charter companies are still boasting 85%+ use of thier boats.
: Sure, but the fact that people are willing to spend $7,000 for a week long
: vacation doesn't really imply that they are willing to spend $20,000 for a
: joy ride of a few hours.
I agree! No it does not! What it does imply is that there are a lot of
people out there with a lot of money to spend to enjoy themselves. I am
not saying that you can sell enought tickets at $100,000 or $50,000 and
maybe even $15,000 is too expensive to sell. I don't know what the costs
to run the rocket will be, I also don't know at what price point large
numbers of people will start buying tickets. But it seems that a number
of people think everyone is as poor/debt-ridden as themselves and can't
possiblely afford a $10K ticket period!
: > The other point is that $350,000 is most likely rented by a group
: > of people sharing expenses. But at other times it will be rented
: > by a single person or company to show off, prize trip for best sales
: > person or other reasons.
: But how many people can you fit into an orbital vehicle that you can build
: and launch at a per-trip cost of $350,000?
Orbital??? We were talking about Sub-Orbital before! Remember? I just
read what you said above "a few hours". I think we are talking diffirent
markets! By the way if you get them into orbit, I would expect them to
want to stay atleast a full day. You will need a space-hotel then. Costs
would $20K+ in that case.
: > Again, my point is THERE IS MONEY OUT THERE! There are people, prize
: > giving companies, charter companies and groups of people who can get the
: > money to rent/pay for the tickets for rocket trips.
: Sure, if you can make it cheap enough. The problem is that you would have
: to have a HUGE number of people willing to put down these large sums of
: money to justify the costs of developing a purpose designed vehicle, and
: you would need that demand for years. Not only that, you would need to be
: sure of it in advance, and you would need to be able to convince investors
: of it in order to get the start up capital.
: > I don't think this as the only source of money. The same rocket that can
: > give 10 minutes of zero-g to rich trill seekers, can do a zero-g
: > experiment the next week, and do a rush delivery of goods the week after.
: The problem here is that you would still need to charge enough to pay the
: incramental costs of each launch, unless you are willing to take a loss on
: the space tourisim.
: > IE. If you have a fleet of ten ships, they don't all have to make money
: > taking people into space. And if you can reach orbit at less than $25,000
: > per person then all bets are off. You got it made.
: I am questioning that. I don't think there is a large market out there at
: that price.
I disagree. Check out Eco-Tours. Some are very expensive, and all you
live in are tents. Again, some people will spend money to see some thing
very diffirent.
Earl Colby Pottinger
----------------------------------------------------------------
: Stop on by the Internet TeleCafe! telnet://telecafe.com:9000 :
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vince Bitowf
Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote in article
<3332c905....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> Oh. I see. You have an Ansel Adams calendar on your wall, so there's
> no point in visiting Yosemite. You can see pictures of Thailand in
> National Geographic, so why would anyone actually ever go there?
Not for $20,000, no. Besides, the ideas for Space tourisim I have seen and
heard of are more comparable to flying at high altitude over Thailand than
visiting it.
> Do you really believe that looking at pictures is an equivalent
> surrogate for the real thing? (If so, I won't ask what binary
> newsgroups you hang out in <g>).
No, my point is that the experiance would be quite limited unless you also
have provisions for things like space walks and such.
> I didn't, but you are claiming that there is no difference. Any
> astronaut would strongly disagree.
No, I am claiming that the difference in experiance is not likely to
justify the difference in cost in the minds of most potential passengers.
> So does a roller coaster. Do you have a point?
Obviously. There are plenty of people who won't ride a roller coaster, or
an airliner for that matter.
Vince Bitowf
Allen Thomson <thom...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<thomsonaE...@netcom.com>...
> Why not do some market research and ask as many cosmonauts and
> astronauts (who have, as you say, had the opportunity to watch the
> Earth roll by and generally experience space) as you can find how much of
> their own money they'd pay for the experience? Would they recommend the
> experience to a North American friend who was trying to decide between a
> month's vacation in, say, France and a month (or a week) in orbit,
> assuming CATS made the two trips comparably priced?
The problem is that with the proposals I have seen, you are looking at a
few hours in orbit rather than a month or a week.
Rand Simberg
On 22 Mar 1997 09:51:02 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Vince
Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> Do you really believe that looking at pictures is an equivalent
>> surrogate for the real thing? (If so, I won't ask what binary
>> newsgroups you hang out in <g>).
>
>No, my point is that the experiance would be quite limited unless you also
>have provisions for things like space walks and such.
Well, one could provide for that, but please point me to your market
research that says it is necessary. I am always interested in new
data.
>> I didn't, but you are claiming that there is no difference. Any
>> astronaut would strongly disagree.
>
>No, I am claiming that the difference in experiance is not likely to
>justify the difference in cost in the minds of most potential passengers.
Well, that's a new claim.
Here is your quote. "microgravity that you could experiance for one
percent the price in an aircraft flying a balistic flightpath"
A reasonable person would infer from this that these are similar
experiences, but one was much cheaper than the other. And I say they
are not similar. Do you agree or disagree?
Now as to your new claim, again, please provide the market research
data that allows you to make the statement with such confidence. We
all await enlightenment.
>> So does a roller coaster. Do you have a point?
>
>Obviously. There are plenty of people who won't ride a roller coaster, or
>an airliner for that matter.
And there are plenty of people who will. So, unless you believe that
a market cannot be addressed unless it achieves a hundred percent
penetration, I still fail to see the point.
Rand Simberg
On 22 Mar 1997 09:53:01 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Vince
Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>The problem is that with the proposals I have seen, you are looking at a
>few hours in orbit rather than a month or a week.
I don't know what proposals you've "seen," but most of the serious and
interesting ones have not been "seen," at least not by members of the
general public, and certainly not in Popular Science or Mechanics.
One of the things that is irritating about your posts is that you make
incorrect statements with such an authoritative tone. Why do you
believe (and I can only infer that you believe this from the tenor of
your messages) that your knowledge is complete and infallible in the
area of space tourism?
Rand Simberg
On 22 Mar 1997 09:51:02 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Vince
Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> Do you really believe that looking at pictures is an equivalent
************************************************************************
Vince Bitowf
CONPUTE <con...@idirect.com> wrote in article
<3333e...@lagoon.idirect.com>...
> What?????? How many passengers are we talking about? The ship carries 22
> at that price IE $400,000/22=$18,181 dollars per person! What boat are
> you talking about. The point is, if some-one is willing to spend $18K
per
> person to rent a holiday trip on a boat, then they have to money to spend
> $18K per person for a rocket shot. I am not saying that they will, just
> that the money is out there!
I thought 246 was the number of passengers. You might as well claim that
if someone has $200,000 to spend on a house theen he has $200,000 to spend
on a ride in an amusement park. If you look at the plans for space
tourisim that are out there, you will find that they are planing on selling
short rides, not vacations. It is not clear that someone would spend as
much on a short sight seeing trip as they would on a vacation. In fact, it
is highly unlikely.
> But how low? Face it, if twenty years ago you were to told everyone that
> people will spend $100 to $250 to jump off a bridge with a rope tied to
> thier feet would anyone believe you? Most people would have said that
> getting business insurance would be impossible and no-one is going to
> spend $100+ for a five second thrill!!
Not really comparable, since $100 is not a major outlay. I have spent that
much on impulse buys.
> As for Sub-Orbital rockets why should not costs be low? You don't use
> that much in fuel, the engines don't need to be and should not be
Because the technology isn't developed to that point yet.
> red-lined, and you use the same rocket over and over. Sorry if this
comes
> over like an insult, but you sound like a person at the beginning of this
> century saying that fair-ground joy rides in biplanes can't work because
> the same planes can't fly from New York to London non-stop!
And you sound like someone from the same era predicting 707s by 1940.
As I have said, I don't claim it can't be done, I am saying that there
aren't enough people willing to pay the money it would take to develop a
specialized craft or to pay the costs of chartering a cargo vehicle such as
a VentureStar to support a space tourisim industry.
I think that is really a good analogy. People claim that the technology
for cheap reuseable spacecraft has existed for years, but in reality it
only exists to the extent that the technology for a jet airliner did in
1940. Jets, all metal construction, preasurized cockpits all existed, but
most of that technology had not been developed to the point where it was
ready for inclusion in an airliner. Even after those technologies were
developed at government expense, and dispite the fact that the 707 was
derived from a tanker funded by a government contract, Boeing had to make a
large investment in 707 development. In fact, Boeing risked bankruptcy had
the 707 project failed for some reason.
I think we will see space launchers that can carry tourists into space for
two or three times the price of an airline ticket, but not before 2030 or
so, possibly later.
When it does happen, it will be after the technology has been developed by
NASA, since high risk projects like this have tremendous diffuculty
attracting investment capital. For instance, the American SST, the
Concorde and the TU-144 all needed government support. I don't know of any
private SSTO designer who has the funds to actually build his vehicle.
As for the "NASA designed the Space Shuttle and it's a piece of crap"
argument, you could say that about the first of just about anything. The
first jet airliner was a failure, the first car was no improvement over a
horse, the first firearms were inferior to the bows of the time.
> : Sure, but the fact that people are willing to spend $7,000 for a week
long
> : vacation doesn't really imply that they are willing to spend $20,000
for a
> : joy ride of a few hours.
>
> I agree! No it does not! What it does imply is that there are a lot of
> people out there with a lot of money to spend to enjoy themselves. I am
> not saying that you can sell enought tickets at $100,000 or $50,000 and
> maybe even $15,000 is too expensive to sell. I don't know what the costs
> to run the rocket will be, I also don't know at what price point large
> numbers of people will start buying tickets. But it seems that a number
> of people think everyone is as poor/debt-ridden as themselves and can't
> possiblely afford a $10K ticket period!
That is not my argument, although I would question whether there are tens
of thousands of people who could afford a $10,000 ticket(I certainly
couldn't, and I make more then the median income for US residents). You
would need tens of thousands of people to get the flight rates that many
supporters of space tourisim claim are possible.
Part of the problem is the studies that people base these claims on. I
haven't seen one yet that was scientific, and one was just a web page that
invited visitors to take a survey! Since this was on a space tourisim web
page it was about as meaningful as a poll on social security taken in
retirement homes.
> : > The other point is that $350,000 is most likely rented by a group
> : > of people sharing expenses. But at other times it will be rented
> : > by a single person or company to show off, prize trip for best sales
> : > person or other reasons.
>
> : But how many people can you fit into an orbital vehicle that you can
build
> : and launch at a per-trip cost of $350,000?
>
> Orbital??? We were talking about Sub-Orbital before! Remember? I just
> read what you said above "a few hours". I think we are talking diffirent
> markets! By the way if you get them into orbit, I would expect them to
> want to stay atleast a full day. You will need a space-hotel then. Costs
> would $20K+ in that case.
You may be talking sub orbital, but I am not. It isn't important, since
sub-orbital operations will certainly require a purpose designed vehicle to
realize and improvment in efficiancy and then you are talking about an even
shorter period of time. A sub orbital flight would likely last less than
one hour, and you are going to have an even more difficult time finding
people willing to pay large amounts of money for that.
> I disagree. Check out Eco-Tours. Some are very expensive, and all you
> live in are tents. Again, some people will spend money to see some thing
> very diffirent.
But how many? I doubt that it would be enough to pay the development costs
of a launch vehicle.
pat
In article <01bc3606$678e1640$c137...@primenet.primenet.com>,
vin...@primenet.com says...
>> There's a big difference between twenty-five seconds of weightlessness
>> that one never has time to acclimatize to, and indefinite freefall.
>> When did you experience both, to have become such an expert on the
>> lack of difference between them?
>
>When did you? I am no the one claiming that a significant number of people
>will pay $25,000 for the experiance.
>
Society Expeditions, the adventure travel company says so.
The Commercial Space Transportation study says so.
(This was a joint effort by 6 major aero-space companies).
The japanese do, in a study they published.
So what makes vince bitowf such an expert? we hear lot's of
scoffing and sarcasm from Vince Botwif, what is your experience.
>> It doesn't have to be all that high-g.
>
>Depends on what you mean. It will have to be greater than an airliner.
so's a roller coaster, doesn't stop people from riding these.
pat
pat
In article <thomsonaE...@netcom.com>, thom...@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <3332c905....@nntp.ix.netcom.com> sim...@interglobal.org
(Rand Simberg) writes:
>
>[snip]
>
>[concerning watching the Earth from orbit vs looking at satellite pix]
>>
>>astronaut would strongly disagree.
>>
>
>
> Why not do some market research and ask as many cosmonauts and
>astronauts (who have, as you say, had the opportunity to watch the
>Earth roll by and generally experience space) as you can find how much of
>their own money they'd pay for the experience? Would they recommend the
>experience to a North American friend who was trying to decide between a
>month's vacation in, say, France and a month (or a week) in orbit,
>assuming CATS made the two trips comparably priced?
And if you asked charles lindbergh if people would pay money
to fly over the atlantic as opposed to taking a nice
vacation in the adirondacks, what would he have said in 1930?
pat
Allen Thomson
In article <01bc36e1$6274e220$d137...@primenet.primenet.com> "Vince Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> writes:
>
>
>Allen Thomson <thom...@netcom.com> wrote in article
><thomsonaE...@netcom.com>...
>
>> astronauts (who have, as you say, had the opportunity to watch the
>> Earth roll by and generally experience space) as you can find how much of
>
>> their own money they'd pay for the experience? Would they recommend the
>> experience to a North American friend who was trying to decide between a
>> month's vacation in, say, France and a month (or a week) in orbit,
>> assuming CATS made the two trips comparably priced?
>
>few hours in orbit rather than a month or a week.
>
Is that good or bad? ;-)
pat
In article <01bc36e1$14cdbba0$d137...@primenet.primenet.com>,
vin...@primenet.com says...
>> So does a roller coaster. Do you have a point?
>
>Obviously. There are plenty of people who won't ride a roller coaster, or
>an airliner for that matter.
funny, i don't see amusement parks going out of business, dust hanging
over the roller coasters or airline stocks going flat.
So vince, do you have any more bits of business wisdom?
I want to know so i can go against it.
pat
Allen Thomson
In article <5h20fi$1...@clarknet.clark.net> p...@clark.net (pat) writes:
>In article <thomsonaE...@netcom.com>, thom...@netcom.com says...
>>
>>In article <3332c905....@nntp.ix.netcom.com> sim...@interglobal.org
>(Rand Simberg) writes:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>[concerning watching the Earth from orbit vs looking at satellite pix]
>>>
>>>I didn't, but you are claiming that there is no difference. Any
>>>astronaut would strongly disagree.
>>>
>>
>>[etc.]
>>
>>astronauts (who have, as you say, had the opportunity to watch the
>>Earth roll by and generally experience space) as you can find how much of
>>their own money they'd pay for the experience? Would they recommend the
>>experience to a North American friend who was trying to decide between a
>>month's vacation in, say, France and a month (or a week) in orbit,
>>assuming CATS made the two trips comparably priced?
>
>
>to fly over the atlantic as opposed to taking a nice
>vacation in the adirondacks, what would he have said in 1930?
>
Well, your idea of fun may differ, but when I fly over the
Atlantic it's in order to get to someplace on the other side and to
do things there. Somehow, I imagine the same would have been true in 1930.
Not that I don't enjoy looking out the window on the way, but that's
not the reason I buy a ticket. Now maybe the experience of floating
in front of a spacecraft window and watching the Earth is worth several
months' to a couple of years' income -- but that's the question the
market research question was meant to address.
pat
In article <01bc3725$88b656a0$cd37...@primenet.primenet.com>,
vin...@primenet.com says...
>
>
>
>CONPUTE <con...@idirect.com> wrote in article
><3333e...@lagoon.idirect.com>...
>
>> What?????? How many passengers are we talking about? The ship carries 22
>> at that price IE $400,000/22=$18,181 dollars per person! What boat are
>> you talking about. The point is, if some-one is willing to spend $18K
>per
>> person to rent a holiday trip on a boat, then they have to money to spend
>> $18K per person for a rocket shot. I am not saying that they will, just
>> that the money is out there!
>
>I thought 246 was the number of passengers. You might as well claim that
>if someone has $200,000 to spend on a house theen he has $200,000 to spend
>on a ride in an amusement park. If you look at the plans for space
Boy that's an amazingly stupid comparison, even for you vince.
>tourisim that are out there, you will find that they are planing on selling
>short rides, not vacations. It is not clear that someone would spend as
>much on a short sight seeing trip as they would on a vacation. In fact, it
>is highly unlikely.
Based, solely uupon your common sense, right? then how come the CSTS,
society expeditions, Harry stine, amongs others say different?
>
>> But how low? Face it, if twenty years ago you were to told everyone that
>> people will spend $100 to $250 to jump off a bridge with a rope tied to
>> thier feet would anyone believe you? Most people would have said that
>> getting business insurance would be impossible and no-one is going to
>> spend $100+ for a five second thrill!!
>
>Not really comparable, since $100 is not a major outlay. I have spent that
>much on impulse buys.
and for really rich people, $20K is an impulse buy. My dad, used to
drop 30K in an afternoon, just for kicks. Take a look at any of the
high stakes tables in Vegas sometimes. Then come back. I've watched
people put 50K on a dice roll, and that's only 10 seconds.
>
>> As for Sub-Orbital rockets why should not costs be low? You don't use
>> that much in fuel, the engines don't need to be and should not be
>
>Because the technology isn't developed to that point yet.
who says? Burt rutan thinks otherwise, Walt Kistler thinks otherwise.
chrysler thoght otherwise, 25 years ago.
>
>> red-lined, and you use the same rocket over and over. Sorry if this
>comes
>> over like an insult, but you sound like a person at the beginning of this
>> century saying that fair-ground joy rides in biplanes can't work because
>> the same planes can't fly from New York to London non-stop!
>
>And you sound like someone from the same era predicting 707s by 1940.
and with a little more R&D, the 707 would have been flying in 1940.
the whittle engine was already up and running in 1935, structural
engineering was already good enough to make large bombers in 1940.
the only problem was lack of will, which WW2 provided in large quantities.
>
>As I have said, I don't claim it can't be done, I am saying that there
then how come up above, you are claiming the technology isn't ready?
>aren't enough people willing to pay the money it would take to develop a
>specialized craft or to pay the costs of chartering a cargo vehicle such as
>a VentureStar to support a space tourisim industry.
What makes you say this?
>
>I think that is really a good analogy. People claim that the technology
>for cheap reuseable spacecraft has existed for years, but in reality it
>only exists to the extent that the technology for a jet airliner did in
>1940. Jets, all metal construction, preasurized cockpits all existed, but
>most of that technology had not been developed to the point where it was
>ready for inclusion in an airliner. Even after those technologies were
>developed at government expense, and dispite the fact that the 707 was
>derived from a tanker funded by a government contract, Boeing had to make a
>large investment in 707 development. In fact, Boeing risked bankruptcy had
>the 707 project failed for some reason.
sure, and most of that investment was in factories, not research.
>
>I think we will see space launchers that can carry tourists into space for
>two or three times the price of an airline ticket, but not before 2030 or
>so, possibly later.
you should marry marcus.
>
>When it does happen, it will be after the technology has been developed by
>NASA, since high risk projects like this have tremendous diffuculty
>attracting investment capital. For instance, the American SST, the
>Concorde and the TU-144 all needed government support. I don't know of any
>private SSTO designer who has the funds to actually build his vehicle.
Kistler, kelly, hudson, clapp are all pushing for this.
I think George is working on a SSTO expendable.
>
>As for the "NASA designed the Space Shuttle and it's a piece of crap"
>argument, you could say that about the first of just about anything. The
>first jet airliner was a failure, the first car was no improvement over a
>horse, the first firearms were inferior to the bows of the time.
the british comet was a failure, mostly due to that wonderful british
management style. the 707 did just fine coming out only a year behind
the comet.
Define first car?
the first firearms were considered vastly superior to the bow, solely
because of the reduced training requirements.
>
>> : Sure, but the fact that people are willing to spend $7,000 for a week
>long
>> : vacation doesn't really imply that they are willing to spend $20,000
>for a
>> : joy ride of a few hours.
>>
>> I agree! No it does not! What it does imply is that there are a lot of
>> people out there with a lot of money to spend to enjoy themselves. I am
>> not saying that you can sell enought tickets at $100,000 or $50,000 and
>> maybe even $15,000 is too expensive to sell. I don't know what the costs
>> to run the rocket will be, I also don't know at what price point large
>> numbers of people will start buying tickets. But it seems that a number
>> of people think everyone is as poor/debt-ridden as themselves and can't
>> possiblely afford a $10K ticket period!
>
>That is not my argument, although I would question whether there are tens
>of thousands of people who could afford a $10,000 ticket(I certainly
>couldn't, and I make more then the median income for US residents). You
obviously you aren't a good investor and spend too much.
>would need tens of thousands of people to get the flight rates that many
>supporters of space tourisim claim are possible.
in a global economy, ten thousand patrons is small change. this is
about the number of people visiting a small exclusive resort island
per year. Try signing up to climb everest, it will cost $50K, and
you will wait 3 years. Try buying a harley, that's a 2 year wait
and $30K.
>
>Part of the problem is the studies that people base these claims on. I
>haven't seen one yet that was scientific, and one was just a web page that
>invited visitors to take a survey! Since this was on a space tourisim web
>page it was about as meaningful as a poll on social security taken in
>retirement homes.
try reading the CSTS, and define scientific market research?
>
>
>
>> : > The other point is that $350,000 is most likely rented by a group
>> : > of people sharing expenses. But at other times it will be rented
>> : > by a single person or company to show off, prize trip for best sales
>> : > person or other reasons.
>>
>> : But how many people can you fit into an orbital vehicle that you can
>build
>> : and launch at a per-trip cost of $350,000?
>>
>> Orbital??? We were talking about Sub-Orbital before! Remember? I just
>> read what you said above "a few hours". I think we are talking diffirent
>> markets! By the way if you get them into orbit, I would expect them to
>> want to stay atleast a full day. You will need a space-hotel then. Costs
>> would $20K+ in that case.
>
>You may be talking sub orbital, but I am not. It isn't important, since
>sub-orbital operations will certainly require a purpose designed vehicle to
only if an incompetent chief engineer, was in charge.
harry stine says an orbital SSTO can easily operate sub-orbital
and make money. So does Bob Zubrin, who is building a space-plane,
unlike you.
>realize and improvment in efficiancy and then you are talking about an even
>shorter period of time. A sub orbital flight would likely last less than
>one hour, and you are going to have an even more difficult time finding
>people willing to pay large amounts of money for that.
this is easier, actually.
>
>> I disagree. Check out Eco-Tours. Some are very expensive, and all you
>> live in are tents. Again, some people will spend money to see some thing
>> very diffirent.
>
>But how many? I doubt that it would be enough to pay the development costs
>of a launch vehicle.
enough to make a major market. Do you think sales to cab drivers
pays for the chevy impala? Do you think sales to bread companies
pays for panel vans? it's not one market that pays for the vehicle,
it's all of them.
so, you obviously don't know much about business, investing or marketing.
what do you know about?
pat
CONPUTE
Frank Crary (fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: In article <332fd...@island.idirect.com>,
: CONPUTE <con...@idirect.com> wrote:
: >: > Just picked up the latest issue of Yatching March 1997,
: >: > Special Charter Issue.
: >: > Starting at page 80 some pricing - All for one week, with food, fuel
: >: > bar, and other expenses are extra!
: >: > E.C. Power - Ship 142 sleeps 12 cost $80,000 US
: >: > E.C. Sail - Ship 152 sleeps 10 cost $63,000 US
: >: > Med. Power - Ship 246 sleeps 22 cost $350,000 US!
: >: > W.C. Power - Ship 173 sleeps 12 cost $105,000 US
: >: > ....there are many more of these boats out there!
: >: > Some-one out there has money. You may argue if enought people will want
: >: > to fly to space. But you can't argue that they can't afford to go at
: >: > $15,000 to $20,000 each.
: >: The only problem is that your prices are clearly for chartering the entire
: >: ship, not a per-person price.
: >So! If charter the entire ship they can't charter an entire spacecraft???
: >Look at ship 246 again. $350,000 plus food plus fuel plus expenses is
: >most likely equal $400,000 plus taxes - never forget taxes :)
: >So the person(s) who chartered the boat could just as easily charter a
: >space shot.
: I disagree. Chartering a spacecraft is probably going to be much
: more expensive than $400,000. Also, very few people charter ships.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Have you looking in a Vacation Magazine lately????? Moorings has 631
ships world wide, Sun Sail about 400, Seven Seas about 700. If you really
want me to I can get a list of all major rental companys.
Yes, in the short run $400,000 may sound low, but at a cost of less than
$75 per pound it is reachable.
: A much larger number simply buy tickets for ships traveling between
: scheduled destinations. That's the market people are thinking of
: when they talk about space tourism. There is a market for a dozen
: friends chartering a ship for $20,000 each, but there isn't much of
: market for $20,000 tickets for a scheduled cruise.
I see your point. The fix schedule/destination reduces the value of
the trip. A good point I missed. Applies to both Sub-Obital and
Orbital trips.
: >Again, my point is THERE IS MONEY OUT THERE! There are people, prize
: >giving companies, charter companies and groups of people who can get the
: >money to rent/pay for the tickets for rocket trips.
: Sure. The real question is how much they would be willing to pay,
: what they would expect for their money, and how many would be willing
: to pay. In terms of time on vacation and luxury, they would get
: far less for a ticket on a rocket, as opposed to chartering a
: ship, for their money.
The question I think is important, is how many customers do you need to
run a space business. First, figure how many $20,000 tickets you need
to survive as a business, then do a market reality check.
: Frank Crary
: CU Boulder
Earl Colby Pottinger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
: Internet Direct (416)233-2999 1000 lines SLIP, 9600 - 33,600 bps :
---------------------------------------------------------------------
l...@tour2space.com
In article <01bc3605$d5045aa0$c137...@primenet.primenet.com>,> <332fd...@island.idirect.com>...
>
>
> > IE. If you have a fleet of ten ships, they don't all have to make money
> > taking people into space. And if you can reach orbit at less than
> $25,000
> > per person then all bets are off. You got it made.
>
> I am questioning that. I don't think there is a large market out there at
> that price.
This has been an interesting thread. But Vince, I think you have lost
the marketing part of your argument. There does seem to be some rather
convincing evidence that there is a sizeable space tourism market at
$25,000 -- let's say for a one-week stay at a suitably appointed space
hotel. However, I thought that the other part of your argument was that
it can't be done for $25,000 per passenger (or guest). I'm inclined to
side with you on at least the extreme difficulty of delivering for that
price. This is not the first time that marketeers have made life
difficult for us engineers. I'm short by about a factor of five.
There is a good chance for making up part of this deficiency with
pleasant surprises with respect such things as rocket engine maintenance.
Rocket engines are basically simpler that turbojet engines. The engines
in the first jet fighter that I flew were good for only 20 hours between
overhaul. Now overhaul times as so large as to have lost their meaning.
The hotel doesn't have to be a killer. I calculate that the space hotel
only doubles costs -- IF you have an RLV to build the hotel. I don't
think we need new technology -- unless it's in the area of maintenance.
It may be that getting a DC-3 and really learning how to operate it could
close the gap.
Right now, most of us feel compelled to make generous allowances for the
great uncertainties now present with respect to maintenance and
operations. Less than this makes a space tourism business plan even
harder to sell. However, if investors would be willing to accept this
additional risk for perhaps a $billion investment, then I think they
might get a pretty good run for their money after all.
Regards,
Len Cormier
l...@tour2space.com
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
David L. Burkhead
p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:
[ 8< ]
:>>> It doesn't have to be all that high-g.
:>>
:>>Depends on what you mean. It will have to be greater than an airliner.
:>so's a roller coaster, doesn't stop people from riding these.
SpaceCub is designed around three g's and I'm figuring the same
for later, orbital, follow-ons. I've, personally, ridden in amusement
park rides that produce more than that--right next to my grandparents
(and _I'm_ in my mid-thirties).
David L. Burkhead "If I had eight hours to cut down
dav...@dax.cc.uakron.edu a tree, I'd spend seven sharpening
FAX: 330-253-4490 my axe." Attributed to Abraham
SpaceCub Lincoln
http://GoZips.uakron.edu/~david8
Vince Bitowf
l...@tour2space.com wrote in article <8591739...@dejanews.com>...
> This has been an interesting thread. But Vince, I think you have lost
> the marketing part of your argument. There does seem to be some rather
> convincing evidence that there is a sizeable space tourism market at
> $25,000 -- let's say for a one-week stay at a suitably appointed space
> hotel. However, I thought that the other part of your argument was that
> it can't be done for $25,000 per passenger (or guest). I'm inclined to
> side with you on at least the extreme difficulty of delivering for that
> price. This is not the first time that marketeers have made life
> difficult for us engineers. I'm short by about a factor of five.
Actually, I was assuming a few orbits (or sub orbital) and no space
station, which I still don't think is viable. My main point is that you
can't assume that people will spend the same amount for a ride that they
will for a vacation. If you could provide an entire week in space for that
price, that is a different matter.
> There is a good chance for making up part of this deficiency with
> pleasant surprises with respect such things as rocket engine maintenance.
> Rocket engines are basically simpler that turbojet engines. The engines
> in the first jet fighter that I flew were good for only 20 hours between
> overhaul. Now overhaul times as so large as to have lost their meaning.
> The hotel doesn't have to be a killer. I calculate that the space hotel
> only doubles costs -- IF you have an RLV to build the hotel. I don't
> think we need new technology -- unless it's in the area of maintenance.
> It may be that getting a DC-3 and really learning how to operate it could
> close the gap.
This raises a lot of interesting questions. Assuming the X-33 program
meets it's goals and can provide transport for 1/10 current ELV prices, do
you think you will be able to build
> Right now, most of us feel compelled to make generous allowances for the
> great uncertainties now present with respect to maintenance and
> operations. Less than this makes a space tourism business plan even
> harder to sell. However, if investors would be willing to accept this
> additional risk for perhaps a $billion investment, then I think they
> might get a pretty good run for their money after all.
Isn't it likely that you will have to wait until a RLV is operational, with
an established record for reliability to attract that investment capital?
Vince Bitowf
CONPUTE <con...@idirect.com> wrote in article
<3333e...@lagoon.idirect.com>...
> Damn it! There goes the entire tourist industry!!!!!!! Just send for
> pictures instead. (incase you don't get it, that was a joke)
> Come on now! I have seen video shots taken manned space craft on PBS
too,
> and on the BIG IMAX screen in Toronto and they just make me want to see
it
> for real so much more.
Sure, but the question is at what price?
> No, but you come across as claiming that *YOU KNOW* that they will not!
Sorry you feel that way, but my position is that:
1. It isn't likely that a large number of people will pay $20,000 for a
few hours in space.
2. That space tourisim isn't likely to finance cheap access to space,
because cheap access to space will have to come first.
3. That the fact that people pay large amounts of money for days or weeks
in places like Antartica doesn't imply that they will spend similar
amounts for hours or minutes in space.
> 1.5g to 2g! If that is a problem, then we will have to shut down half
the
> rides in fairgrounds around the world! How many customers has Disney
Land
> lost to the G stress of thier rides?????
The G forces are higher than that on the Shuttle. Maybe they can be made
less with a newer vehicle.
Vince Bitowf
Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote in article
<33344af8....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> Well, one could provide for that, but please point me to your market
> research that says it is necessary. I am always interested in new
> data.
I would appreciate it if you would point to any market research.
> Well, that's a new claim.
Is it? I have heard of plans to sell balistic flights on airliners, so it
can't be all that new.
>
> Here is your quote. "microgravity that you could experiance for one
> percent the price in an aircraft flying a balistic flightpath"
>
> A reasonable person would infer from this that these are similar
> experiences, but one was much cheaper than the other. And I say they
> are not similar. Do you agree or disagree?
They are similar, that is why they are used for astronaut training. They
are not identical experiances but a Honda isn't identical to a Mercedes
either. Guess who sells more cars.
> Now as to your new claim, again, please provide the market research
> data that allows you to make the statement with such confidence. We
> all await enlightenment.
Ah, you are trying the same "you can't prove it's not so" argument that UFO
enthusiasts use. Where is some market research sugesting there is a
market? (especially it has been claimed that space tourisim has been
possible for years, but it has never happened. Where is the financial
backing if you have all this evidence that it would be profitable?)
We all await enlightenment.
> And there are plenty of people who will. So, unless you believe that
> a market cannot be addressed unless it achieves a hundred percent
> penetration, I still fail to see the point.
No, but I question that it will be economically viable. Only a certain
percentage of people have $20,000 to spend on a vacation, only a fraction
of those will spend it on a flight that last a few hours or less, only a
small fraction of those will be willing to ride a rocket, that isn't likely
to be as safe as an airliner, at least not the first generation vehicle.
The question is: How many does that leave? And how many do you need to
make a profit?
Vince Bitowf
pat <p...@clark.net> wrote in article <5h20ij$1...@clarknet.clark.net>...
> funny, i don't see amusement parks going out of business, dust hanging
> over the roller coasters or airline stocks going flat.
>
> So vince, do you have any more bits of business wisdom?
> I want to know so i can go against it.
Sure, don't charge $20,000 for a rolller coaster ride or an airline ticket.
And don't buy Beta Max.
If you are such a master of investment, why is it that there is no space
tourisim industry already? I have been reading about how we have the
technology for low cost access to space and how private industry was going
to take us there since the seventies. Well why don't you apply your
awesome business intelect to explaining why it hasn't come anywhere near to
happening?
If it is so easy and cheap to build a launch vehicle why can't Connestoga
do it? Why couldn't OTRAG? If there is such convincing market research
showing that space tourisim is profitable, why don't you show me the line
of investors?
There aren't any? What does that tell your business oriented intelect? It
must be that people with money to invest don't know as much as about
business as you, right?
Vince Bitowf
Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote in article
<3334450e....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> I don't know what proposals you've "seen," but most of the serious and
> interesting ones have not been "seen," at least not by members of the
> general public, and certainly not in Popular Science or Mechanics.
Well, that makes it difficult doesn't it.
> One of the things that is irritating about your posts is that you make
> incorrect statements with such an authoritative tone. Why do you
Really? What incorrect statements are those?
> believe (and I can only infer that you believe this from the tenor of
> your messages) that your knowledge is complete and infallible in the
> area of space tourism?
Well, I think I can infallably say that no one has managed to get such an
operation off the ground so far.
Organizations that have made moneyin space in the past don't seem to be
rushing to embrace the concept of space tourisim.
Those companies which want to develop it don't seem to be getting enough
investment capital to take a shot of it.
So, am I wrong? If so show me.
Vince Bitowf
Allen Thomson <thom...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<thomsonaE...@netcom.com>...
> Is that good or bad? ;-)
I guess that would depend on your suceptability to space sickness, or maybe
how well the zero g toilet worked! Seriously though, I do think you would
have to provide an amount of time comparable to one of these $20,000
cruises to charge comparable prices.
Vince Bitowf
pat <p...@clark.net> wrote in article <5h20cr$1...@clarknet.clark.net>...
> Society Expeditions, the adventure travel company says so.
> The Commercial Space Transportation study says so.
> (This was a joint effort by 6 major aero-space companies).
> The japanese do, in a study they published.
I would be interested in reading those studies. I haven't been able to
find the Shimuzu study with a search engine. So do they assume a
sub-orbital flight, orbital or a space motel.
> So what makes vince bitowf such an expert? we hear lot's of
> scoffing and sarcasm from Vince Botwif, what is your experience.
Kind of ironic coming from you.
I have experiance listening to predictions such as yours, and seeing them
fail to come to pass. So what makes you such an expert? If space tourisim
is practical now, where is it?
Allen Thomson
be comparable. I can't really refute the hypothesis that, for some
people, the experience of a few hours in orbit would be more desirable
than a month in Provence. It isn't clear, however, just how many such
people exist.
pat
In article <5gvivm$i...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...
>
>J...@SpaceDev.Com (Jim Benson) wrote:
>
>>As a software company owner, and member of the American Electronics
>>Association (AEA - one of the largest and most effective lobbying
>>forces to visit DC), I had some experience in trade association
>>lobbying. However, the training and appointments prepared through
>>prodigious amounts of ProSpace volunteer efforts made this the best
>>organized and effective Congressional lobbying I have ever
>>participated in. My time was utilized effectively, and I will not
>>hesitate to recommend ProSpace to others, nor to participate again
>>next year.
>
> Jim, I think we owe a lot of the Congressional support we enjoy
>today to this kind of lobbying. Without a doubt one of the most
>effective things we can do today to advance space development.
>
>Tom Abbott
>
One interesting thing, ProSpace was lobbying against the X-38 and
shuttle upgrades, I suspect that will in future include
HLV-Shuttles.
pat
In article <01bc384c$b32be6c0$ca37...@primenet.primenet.com>,
vin...@primenet.com says...
>
>> Well, one could provide for that, but please point me to your market
>> research that says it is necessary. I am always interested in new
>> data.
>
>I would appreciate it if you would point to any market research.
Ah, so you haven't read the commercial space transportation study,
or any of Harry Stines studies.
>
>> Well, that's a new claim.
>
>Is it? I have heard of plans to sell balistic flights on airliners, so it
>can't be all that new.
yeah, rand has been involved in this.
>
>>
>> Here is your quote. "microgravity that you could experiance for one
>> percent the price in an aircraft flying a balistic flightpath"
>>
>> A reasonable person would infer from this that these are similar
>> experiences, but one was much cheaper than the other. And I say they
>> are not similar. Do you agree or disagree?
>
>They are similar, that is why they are used for astronaut training. They
>are not identical experiances but a Honda isn't identical to a Mercedes
>either. Guess who sells more cars.
guess who makes more money per unit. Guess which company is older?
Guess which company is in danger of dying?
>
>> Now as to your new claim, again, please provide the market research
>> data that allows you to make the statement with such confidence. We
>> all await enlightenment.
>
>Ah, you are trying the same "you can't prove it's not so" argument that UFO
>enthusiasts use. Where is some market research sugesting there is a
>market? (especially it has been claimed that space tourisim has been
>possible for years, but it has never happened. Where is the financial
>backing if you have all this evidence that it would be profitable?)
try reading some ofthe existing studies.
>
>We all await enlightenment.
the financial backing is going into faster returning areas like
communications, sensing or electronics.
>
>> And there are plenty of people who will. So, unless you believe that
>> a market cannot be addressed unless it achieves a hundred percent
>> penetration, I still fail to see the point.
>
>No, but I question that it will be economically viable. Only a certain
>percentage of people have $20,000 to spend on a vacation, only a fraction
>of those will spend it on a flight that last a few hours or less, only a
>small fraction of those will be willing to ride a rocket, that isn't likely
>to be as safe as an airliner, at least not the first generation vehicle.
>
>The question is: How many does that leave? And how many do you need to
>make a profit?
Enough and some. the typical business answers.
Vince Bitowf
pat <p...@clark.net> wrote in article <5h3kq4$s...@clarknet.clark.net>...
> Boy that's an amazingly stupid comparison, even for you vince.
That is the point, comparing a week long vacation to a 30 minute
sub-orbital ride ,or even an orbital ride of a couple of hours, doesn't
make much sense.
> Based, solely uupon your common sense, right? then how come the CSTS,
Well, someone has to supply some.
> society expeditions, Harry stine, amongs others say different?
Why are there people who think the pyramids were built by space aliens?
They want to believe.
> and for really rich people, $20K is an impulse buy. My dad, used to
> drop 30K in an afternoon, just for kicks. Take a look at any of the
> high stakes tables in Vegas sometimes. Then come back. I've watched
> people put 50K on a dice roll, and that's only 10 seconds.
I am sure of it, but how many people are there in the world who fit in that
category? I am questioning whether there are enough people in that
category to make space tourisim a paying business. In particular I am
questioning the idea that space tourisim will or can be the driving force
behind the comercialization of space.
> >Because the technology isn't developed to that point yet.
>
> who says? Burt rutan thinks otherwise, Walt Kistler thinks otherwise.
> chrysler thoght otherwise, 25 years ago.
Then where is it? I think it would be more accurate to say that he hopes
some investor will come along and give him the money to develop the
technology.
> and with a little more R&D, the 707 would have been flying in 1940.
No it wouldn't. The jet engines of that period didn't have anywhere near
the thrust or the reliability. It took years of development before they
did. No one except for the Germans even had swept wings figured out yet.
> the whittle engine was already up and running in 1935, structural
> engineering was already good enough to make large bombers in 1940.
> the only problem was lack of will, which WW2 provided in large
quantities.
No, the technology wasn't there. There is a HUGE difference between the
origional Whittle jet and the engines of the sixties. The early jets were
notoriously un-reliable. No one knew *how* to make a reliable engine.
Metal fatigue was not fully understood, which in fact is what led to the
failure of the Comet, the first jet airliner.
> then how come up above, you are claiming the technology isn't ready?
It isn't. It can be developed, but it will cost money and take time.
Doing something and doing it cheaply are two different things.
> >aren't enough people willing to pay the money it would take to develop a
> >specialized craft or to pay the costs of chartering a cargo vehicle such
as
> >a VentureStar to support a space tourisim industry.
>
> What makes you say this?
I have been through this, but I will summarize again. In the case of a
cargo vehicle such as the VentureStar, you are limited in the number of
people you can fit into the vehicle. If you assume 5 sq. ft per passenger,
including space for life support equiptment and an asile, you can carry 135
people in a VentureStar. If you assume a cost of $10,000,000 per flight
(which is a very low estimate) you are talking about a cost of $74,075 per
person. Just to break even, assuming 100% occupancy, and not counting
things like the cost of designing and building a passenger module,
insurance, advertising, operating costs for the business, etc.
For a purpouse designed vehicle it is more difficult. You can get lower
incramental costs per passenger, because you can have a larger cabin, but
you have to have enough passengers to pay the cost of designing and
building the vehicle. In other words, you have to have high ridership for
years on end. The Concorde only reciently broke even for it's operators.
> sure, and most of that investment was in factories, not research.
No, it was in designing the aircraft. I don't think you realize how
complex an airliner is, or how many man hours go into designing one, and
working out the tooling to produce one. Developing an airliner is a major
investment, that is why there has been so much debate over designing a
super-jumbo-jet. Designing an airliner is a huge investment, even if the
technology is already developed. No one is going to build one unless they
are SURE a market is there. That is why I don't see specialized tourist
carring space craft happening until well after cargo carrying SSTOs are
operating cheaply and reliably.
> you should marry marcus.
I don't think people who are in touch with reality are quite THAT rare.
> Kistler, kelly, hudson, clapp are all pushing for this.
> I think George is working on a SSTO expendable.
But do they have the funds to build it?
> the british comet was a failure, mostly due to that wonderful british
> management style. the 707 did just fine coming out only a year behind
> the comet.
The Comet failed because they came apart in mid-air.
> Define first car?
Benz Tricycle of 1885.
> the first firearms were considered vastly superior to the bow, solely
> because of the reduced training requirements.
No they weren't. The first firearms were metal tubes with no sights that
were fired by holding a coal or a flamable cord to a touch hole. They
didn't even replace the bow for over a hundred years. The first historical
reference to gun powder in Europe was in 1249, the first firearms were made
sometime in the 1300's, but it wasn't until the development of the
matchlock that they really became popular.
> in a global economy, ten thousand patrons is small change. this is
> about the number of people visiting a small exclusive resort island
> per year. Try signing up to climb everest, it will cost $50K, and
> you will wait 3 years. Try buying a harley, that's a 2 year wait
> and $30K.
How many people climb mount everest per year? A motorcycle lasts for years
and is not comparable. It is ironic you would make that comparison after
claiming that I was stupid to make a similar one involving a house.
> try reading the CSTS, and define scientific market research?
Where is it? Any sort of scientific polling requires that you poll a group
that is representative of your target segment of population. For instance,
if you were trying to predict the outcome of a presidential election, you
would have to question people from different social and economic
backgrounds, as well as from different geographic regions. If you simply
have visitors to your space tourisim web site take a survey, you are simply
finding out what space enthusiasts think, since that is who is likely to
visit such a site. You wouldn't have a sample that was representative of
the general public.
> only if an incompetent chief engineer, was in charge.
> harry stine says an orbital SSTO can easily operate sub-orbital
How operating a VS on a sub-orbital trajectory make the cargo bay larger?
Or were you going to pack them in like a Japanese subway car?
> and make money. So does Bob Zubrin, who is building a space-plane,
> unlike you.
I doubt he is building one any more than I am. How much of it does he have
assembled? When does he plan to make the first flight? How has he managed
to avoid media attention if he has a partially built space plane?
> >realize and improvment in efficiancy and then you are talking about an
even
> >shorter period of time. A sub orbital flight would likely last less
than
> >one hour, and you are going to have an even more difficult time finding
> >people willing to pay large amounts of money for that.
>
> this is easier, actually.
Really? If I had that kind of money to spend on a flight, I would
certainly not be willing to pay as much for a sub orbital flight as I would
for an orbital flight.
> enough to make a major market. Do you think sales to cab drivers
> pays for the chevy impala? Do you think sales to bread companies
> pays for panel vans? it's not one market that pays for the vehicle,
> it's all of them.
Obviously not, since the Impala is an off the shelf buy for a taxi company,
but the claim has been made in this thread that space tourisim would
involve a purpose designed vehicle. The problem with using a transport
like the VentureStar is that people are a high bulk/low weight cargo,
because you can't stack them togeather like boxes. If you put passengers
in a VentureStar, you would likely run out of room before you hit the
maximum capacity of the vehicle (assuming you made the passenger pod as
light as possible).
> so, you obviously don't know much about business, investing or marketing.
> what do you know about?
Who are you to judge? Given the state (of non-existance) ofthe private
launch vehicle industry, I must know more about all three than you, because
reality certainly doesn't fit your beliefs.
Rand Simberg
On 24 Mar 1997 05:38:01 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Vince
Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote in article
><3334450e....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>> I don't know what proposals you've "seen," but most of the serious and
>> interesting ones have not been "seen," at least not by members of the
>> general public, and certainly not in Popular Science or Mechanics.
>
>Well, that makes it difficult doesn't it.
Makes it difficult to do what?
>> One of the things that is irritating about your posts is that you make
>> incorrect statements with such an authoritative tone. Why do you
>
>Really? What incorrect statements are those?
One example that jumps immediately to mind is that "space is expensive
because the energy requirements are so high." Another is that "no one
is investing in space tourism."
>> believe (and I can only infer that you believe this from the tenor of
>> your messages) that your knowledge is complete and infallible in the
>> area of space tourism?
>
>Well, I think I can infallably say that no one has managed to get such an
>operation off the ground so far.
True. Again, do you have a point? Everything has to be done for a
first time.
>Organizations that have made moneyin space in the past don't seem to be
>rushing to embrace the concept of space tourisim.
Organizations that have made money on space in the past (i.e.,
cost-plus government contractors) are ill-suited to address that
market.
>Those companies which want to develop it don't seem to be getting enough
>investment capital to take a shot of it.
Again, you don't know that. "seem to be" and "aren't" are two
different things.
>So, am I wrong? If so show me.
I'm working on it.
Rand Simberg
On 24 Mar 1997 05:14:01 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Vince
Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> Well, one could provide for that, but please point me to your market
>> research that says it is necessary. I am always interested in new
>> data.
>
>I would appreciate it if you would point to any market research.
I'm sure you would, but *my* market research is proprietary. I'll be
happy to provide it if you want to pay for it. My point is, I've done
some--you have not.
>> Well, that's a new claim.
>
>Is it? I have heard of plans to sell balistic flights on airliners, so it
>can't be all that new.
Since you snipped the claim, I'll just point out that this appears to
be a complete non-sequitor.
>> Here is your quote. "microgravity that you could experiance for one
>> percent the price in an aircraft flying a balistic flightpath"
>>
>> A reasonable person would infer from this that these are similar
>> experiences, but one was much cheaper than the other. And I say they
>> are not similar. Do you agree or disagree?
>
>They are similar, that is why they are used for astronaut training. They
>are not identical experiances but a Honda isn't identical to a Mercedes
>either. Guess who sells more cars.
A Honda is much more like a Mercedes than a parabola is like an orbit.
Again, ask an astronaut.
>> Now as to your new claim, again, please provide the market research
>> data that allows you to make the statement with such confidence. We
>> all await enlightenment.
>
>Ah, you are trying the same "you can't prove it's not so" argument that UFO
>enthusiasts use. Where is some market research sugesting there is a
>market? (especially it has been claimed that space tourisim has been
>possible for years, but it has never happened. Where is the financial
>backing if you have all this evidence that it would be profitable?)
>
>We all await enlightenment.
Actually, there is some secondary research in the CSTS study, and some
primary research was performed about a year and half ago by the
Japanese in the US and Canada. It indicated a potentially tremendous
market. Now again, what research do you have that indicates
otherwise?
>> And there are plenty of people who will. So, unless you believe that
>> a market cannot be addressed unless it achieves a hundred percent
>> penetration, I still fail to see the point.
>
>No, but I question that it will be economically viable. Only a certain
>percentage of people have $20,000 to spend on a vacation, only a fraction
>of those will spend it on a flight that last a few hours or less, only a
>small fraction of those will be willing to ride a rocket, that isn't likely
>to be as safe as an airliner, at least not the first generation vehicle.
Many question that, but the fact that some people won't do it (which
is all that you said) it is not relevant, unless you quantify it.
>The question is: How many does that leave? And how many do you need to
>make a profit?
Good questions. That's what market research is for. If you'd like to
help, instead of throw misaimed bricks, the National Space Society is
doing fund-raiser to do a study to answer those questions and others.
Vince Bitowf
pat <p...@clark.net> wrote in article <5h20fi$1...@clarknet.clark.net>...
> And if you asked charles lindbergh if people would pay money
> to fly over the atlantic as opposed to taking a nice
> vacation in the adirondacks, what would he have said in 1930?
Not a good question, since the Graff Zepplin made it's first commercial
flight in 1928.
It you specified a airplane, he would have said no, and he would have been
absolutely, 100% right. Safe transatlantic plane travel didn't exist then.
Vince Bitowf
Allen Thomson <thom...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<thomsonaE...@netcom.com>...
> Or, at least the recreational/educational/psychological rewards should
> be comparable. I can't really refute the hypothesis that, for some
> people, the experience of a few hours in orbit would be more desirable
> than a month in Provence. It isn't clear, however, just how many such
> people exist.
Certainly some do, but I don't think there are enough to support a major
industry right now. It seems to me that a space tourisim industry would
require a vehicle with a proven track record of reliability, and very low
operational costs. In other words, probably a second generation SSTO.
Also, I think it would develop slowly, with a "space resort" having to be
built to really attract a lot of people. In other words, about 2020-2030
before it becomes a reality.
Vince Bitowf
pat <p...@clark.net> wrote in article <5h6de9$o...@clarknet.clark.net>...
> Ah, so you haven't read the commercial space transportation study,
> or any of Harry Stines studies.
Nope.
> guess who makes more money per unit.
Not really relevant. Rolls Royce made more money than either, and didn't
break even. I am sure that Rockwell made more per shuttle that all the
Airanespace contractors combined make per Ariane 4.
> Guess which company is older?
Is that good?
> Guess which company is in danger of dying?
I didn't know Benz was in trouble. Honda certainly isn't, I think you have
it confused with Mazda.
> try reading some ofthe existing studies.
I have read some, and I will try to find the rest. The problem is that a
study is exactly what it sounds like, someone studied a problem and
rendered an opinion, which is why I am not going to be too impressed by
something from an activist.
> the financial backing is going into faster returning areas like
> communications, sensing or electronics.
That is precisely the point I am trying to make. I have said many times
that is it not technically impossible, the barriers are economic.
> Enough and some. the typical business answers.
I question that. Especially given that from what I have heard from other
posters, the studies you cite assume a space facility rather than a few
orbits.
Vince Bitowf
Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote in article
<3336a685....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> I'm sure you would, but *my* market research is proprietary. I'll be
> happy to provide it if you want to pay for it. My point is, I've done
> some--you have not.
"I have proof but I can't show it to you". Not very convincing, why did
you bother mentioning it?
> A Honda is much more like a Mercedes than a parabola is like an orbit.
> Again, ask an astronaut.
The difference in cost is less to.
> Actually, there is some secondary research in the CSTS study, and some
> primary research was performed about a year and half ago by the
> Japanese in the US and Canada. It indicated a potentially tremendous
> market. Now again, what research do you have that indicates
> otherwise?
The lack of significant activity on the area, the fact that no current
launcher can meet the cost requirements the studies you mention set forth.
As for the CSTS study, I found a summary of it, and it doesn't really
appear to support your position.
In particular:
"We have not been able to prove the commercial space market elastic enough
to enable the revenues per flight to be greater than the combined payback
and operations costs per flight for a completely commercially developed
system."
and
"To attract commercial investment it appears that some form of government
participation will be necessary"
I didn't even see a mention of tourisim directly.
> Good questions. That's what market research is for. If you'd like to
> help, instead of throw misaimed bricks, the National Space Society is
> doing fund-raiser to do a study to answer those questions and others.
What are the chances of a space activisim organization making anything
other than a rosy prediction?
Vince Bitowf
Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote in article
<3336a509....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> Makes it difficult to do what?
Makes it difficult to discuss them if they haven't been seen by the general
public.
> One example that jumps immediately to mind is that "space is expensive
> because the energy requirements are so high." Another is that "no one
> is investing in space tourism."
That one is correct. I did find the reference to the costs of traveling to
orbit being the same as travel to Australia. The only problem with the
argument was that they were comparing an SSTO with a payload of 20,000
pounds to an airliner. They didn't say what kind of airliner(almost
certainly a 747), but even compared to a 757, the SSTO would have to make
more than four trips to carry the same amount of cargo.
> >Well, I think I can infallably say that no one has managed to get such
an
> >operation off the ground so far.
>
> True. Again, do you have a point? Everything has to be done for a
> first time.
Sure, the idea has been around for a time, it does not seem to be making
progress. What is the reason for that? A business needs a market,
operating capital and a product, and none of those things are in place for
space tourisim. In order to get them, you will need investment capital (a
significant amount), a reliable vehicle, and (unless you can get the price
really low)a place to go.
In order to get enough investment capital, you are going to need a market
and a product.
In order to have a product, you are going to need a vehicle. In order to
design your vehicle, you are going to need capital.
In other words, unless you find some wealthy person who want's to see it
happen enough to make a high risk investment, you are caught in a catch 22
situation. Two really, since you are going to have to establish the safety
of the vehicle to attract passengers.
I can pretty much guarente you that most people won't buy into the "it's
just like an airliner" argiment, especially since they will have already
heard that one about the Shuttle.
The only solution I see it to wait until a vehicle establishes a record of
safety and economy launching satelites(which will take care of the
development cost). Unless the VentureStar surprises people with it's
economy, you may well have to wait for it's replacement.
> Organizations that have made money on space in the past (i.e.,
> cost-plus government contractors) are ill-suited to address that
> market.
That is not really true. Boeing dominates the highly competative airliner
market, having taken on other sucessful aircraft makers, and defence
companies are trying to find other markets since the end of the "cold-war".
Since a company would have to spend it's own money (the X-33 project isn't
going to pay the full cost of developing an operational vehicle) there is
strong motive to keep costs under control.
Before the 707 was built, there were people who questioned the ability of a
defense contractor who hadn't built a sucessful airliner in years to break
into the airliner market. They now have something like 80% of the world
airliner market outside of the former USSR.
And they beat an aliance of European aircraft makers to do it, along with
the established airliner makers such as Douglas.
The point is that times change, and they have changed a lot since 1986.
> Again, you don't know that. "seem to be" and "aren't" are two
> different things.
Sometimes they are, but not most of the time.
> >So, am I wrong? If so show me.
>
> I'm working on it.
Great, I'll be happy to see it.
David L. Burkhead
"Vince Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> wrote:
:>pat <p...@clark.net> wrote in article <5h3kq4$s...@clarknet.clark.net>...
:>> Boy that's an amazingly stupid comparison, even for you vince.
:>That is the point, comparing a week long vacation to a 30 minute
:>sub-orbital ride ,or even an orbital ride of a couple of hours, doesn't
:>make much sense.
:>> Based, solely uupon your common sense, right? then how come the CSTS,
:>Well, someone has to supply some.
When it comes to forcasting changes "common sense"-of the type
you've been employing--is of negative utility. "Common sense" is just
a way of saying that what happened yesterday will happen tomorrow.
It's a way of saying things will always be just like they are now.
Progress has always been in contravention of that kind of "common
sense."
:>> society expeditions, Harry stine, amongs others say different?
:>Why are there people who think the pyramids were built by space aliens?
:>They want to believe.
Cheap shot and non-sequitor. These folk are the ones who have
done the research (including market research). If anyone has a "want
to believe" in this, it's you. I _know_ what Harry Stine's
credentials are on the matter of space (both technical and market).
What are yours?
:>> and for really rich people, $20K is an impulse buy. My dad, used to
:>> drop 30K in an afternoon, just for kicks. Take a look at any of the
:>> high stakes tables in Vegas sometimes. Then come back. I've watched
:>> people put 50K on a dice roll, and that's only 10 seconds.
:>I am sure of it, but how many people are there in the world who fit in that
:>category? I am questioning whether there are enough people in that
:>category to make space tourisim a paying business. In particular I am
:>questioning the idea that space tourisim will or can be the driving force
:>behind the comercialization of space.
You're not "questioning." You're _denying_. There's a
difference.
:>> >Because the technology isn't developed to that point yet.
:>>
:>> who says? Burt rutan thinks otherwise, Walt Kistler thinks otherwise.
:>> chrysler thoght otherwise, 25 years ago.
:>Then where is it? I think it would be more accurate to say that he hopes
:>some investor will come along and give him the money to develop the
:>technology.
Things have to happen in a certain order: First the technology
has to develop to the level to allow something. Then, in its turn,
people have to believe that it's reached that point. Finally, after
that, someone comes along and does it. The time between the steps can
vary (and is not always short--and the jump from one step to another
may not happen at all) but they always have to happen in that order.
If Rutan & Co. are right then we are at the second stage. It's
possible that they're wrong, but I know what Burt Rutan's credentials
are wrt determining what can be done with things that fly. What are
yours?
:>> and with a little more R&D, the 707 would have been flying in 1940.
:>No it wouldn't. The jet engines of that period didn't have anywhere near
:>the thrust or the reliability. It took years of development before they
:>did. No one except for the Germans even had swept wings figured out yet.
I'll have to give you this one. However, no one is really asking
for the spacegoing equivalent of 747's. That's a strawman. Most are
asking for a DC-3, or even a Ford Trimotor. That's not an unreasonabl
request.
[ 8< ]
:>> then how come up above, you are claiming the technology isn't ready?
:>It isn't. It can be developed, but it will cost money and take time.
:>Doing something and doing it cheaply are two different things.
People who know a lot more about the subject than you have
demonstrated to know think that we're a lot closer than you appear to
think. Most of the pieces are already there. And, yeah, doing
something and doing it cheaply are two different things--the latter
will never be done by cost-plus government contracts.
[ 8< ]
:>> Kistler, kelly, hudson, clapp are all pushing for this.
:>> I think George is working on a SSTO expendable.
:>But do they have the funds to build it?
Not particularly relevant actually. Lots of good ideas never get
funding. And lots of bad ideas _do_ get funding. Whether or not
Kistler, Kelly, Hudson, Clapp (or me for that matter) get funding says
more about bureaucratic inertia and the ability of the folks involved
to _sell_ the ideas than about the merit of the ideas themselves.
While we'd all like to believe that good ideas will sell on their own
virtues that's not entirely true. It may be a little easier to sell a
good idea than a bad one, but not that much.
David L. Burkhead
"Vince Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> wrote:
:>CONPUTE <con...@idirect.com> wrote in article
:><3333e...@lagoon.idirect.com>...
[ 8< ]
:>> 1.5g to 2g! If that is a problem, then we will have to shut down half
:>the
:>> rides in fairgrounds around the world! How many customers has Disney
:>Land
:>> lost to the G stress of thier rides?????
:>The G forces are higher than that on the Shuttle. Maybe they can be made
:>less with a newer vehicle.
The Shuttle limits to 3 g's. I've _personally_ taken more than
that on amusement park rides which hundreds of people rode _every
day_. (And before you try to change tracks again and say something
like "at what cost" we're talking about how much of a problem the _g
forces_ will be.) One of the people riding that ride was my
grandmother (68 at the time).
G stresses are not going to be the problem you seem to think
they'll be.
Frank Crary
In article <5h3kq4$s...@clarknet.clark.net>, pat <p...@clark.net> wrote:
>>> But how low? Face it, if twenty years ago you were to told everyone that
>>> people will spend $100 to $250 to jump off a bridge with a rope tied to
>>> thier feet would anyone believe you? Most people would have said that
>>> getting business insurance would be impossible and no-one is going to
>>> spend $100+ for a five second thrill!!
>>Not really comparable, since $100 is not a major outlay. I have spent that
>>much on impulse buys.
>and for really rich people, $20K is an impulse buy. My dad, used to
>drop 30K in an afternoon, just for kicks. Take a look at any of the
>high stakes tables in Vegas sometimes. Then come back. I've watched
>people put 50K on a dice roll, and that's only 10 seconds.
Sure. Now look at the size of those markets. The number of people
willing to spend $100 for fun, or on impulse, is vastly greater
than the number of people willing to spend $20,000 in the same
way.
>>When it does happen, it will be after the technology has been developed by
>>NASA, since high risk projects like this have tremendous diffuculty
>>attracting investment capital. For instance, the American SST, the
>>Concorde and the TU-144 all needed government support. I don't know of any
>>private SSTO designer who has the funds to actually build his vehicle.
>Kistler, kelly, hudson, clapp are all pushing for this.
>I think George is working on a SSTO expendable.
If you mean George Herbert, he's working on multi-stage expendables.
His improvement over the current state of the art is low-cost
hardware, i.e. big dumb rockets.
>>As for the "NASA designed the Space Shuttle and it's a piece of crap"
>>argument, you could say that about the first of just about anything. The
>>first jet airliner was a failure, the first car was no improvement over a
>>horse, the first firearms were inferior to the bows of the time.
>the british comet was a failure, mostly due to that wonderful british
>management style. the 707 did just fine coming out only a year behind
>the comet.
>Define first car?
Say the steam cars of the late 1800s.
>the first firearms were considered vastly superior to the bow, solely
>because of the reduced training requirements.
Not quite. The training required for crossbows was no greater than
that required for early firearms, and crossbows were substantially
more reliable. Firearms didn't become a superior to crossbows until
centuries after they were invented. (However, it's worth noting
that cannons were superior to the alternatives, almost as soon
as they were invented, and there may have been some common
technologies involved. I.e. the technology that made firearms
viable may have been developed for cannons.)
>>> I agree! No it does not! What it does imply is that there are a lot of
>>> people out there with a lot of money to spend to enjoy themselves. I am
>>> not saying that you can sell enought tickets at $100,000 or $50,000 and
>>> maybe even $15,000 is too expensive to sell. I don't know what the costs
>>> to run the rocket will be, I also don't know at what price point large
>>> numbers of people will start buying tickets. But it seems that a number
>>> of people think everyone is as poor/debt-ridden as themselves and can't
>>> possiblely afford a $10K ticket period!
>>That is not my argument, although I would question whether there are tens
>>of thousands of people who could afford a $10,000 ticket(I certainly
>>couldn't, and I make more then the median income for US residents). You
>obviously you aren't a good investor and spend too much.
I'm not so sure about that... I'm not a bad investor, and finding
$10,000 to spend on a ticket would require selling more stock
than I'd like to. On the other hand, I do earn less than the
median income for US residents. (And on the third hand, I did
inherit a good fraction of that stock, so I'm probably not a
typical case...)
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
pat
In article <5h79bl$i...@lace.colorado.edu>, fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU
says...
that
>>>> people will spend $100 to $250 to jump off a bridge with a rope tied to
>>>> thier feet would anyone believe you? Most people would have said that
>>>> getting business insurance would be impossible and no-one is going to
>>>> spend $100+ for a five second thrill!!
>
>>>Not really comparable, since $100 is not a major outlay. I have spent
that
>>>much on impulse buys.
>
>>and for really rich people, $20K is an impulse buy. My dad, used to
>>drop 30K in an afternoon, just for kicks. Take a look at any of the
>>high stakes tables in Vegas sometimes. Then come back. I've watched
>>people put 50K on a dice roll, and that's only 10 seconds.
>
>willing to spend $100 for fun, or on impulse, is vastly greater
>than the number of people willing to spend $20,000 in the same
>way.
Sure, but given teh number of millionaires, it's large enough to
support a market.
there are adventure companies that sell rides on the Mig-29,
for about $10K, for about an hour or two of fun, and that requires
a big ride to moscow, first.
these companies make money.
>
>>>When it does happen, it will be after the technology has been developed by
>>>NASA, since high risk projects like this have tremendous diffuculty
>>>attracting investment capital. For instance, the American SST, the
>>>Concorde and the TU-144 all needed government support. I don't know of
any
>>>private SSTO designer who has the funds to actually build his vehicle.
>
>>Kistler, kelly, hudson, clapp are all pushing for this.
>>I think George is working on a SSTO expendable.
>
>If you mean George Herbert, he's working on multi-stage expendables.
>His improvement over the current state of the art is low-cost
>hardware, i.e. big dumb rockets.
Sorry, i can't remember allthese proposals.
>
>>>As for the "NASA designed the Space Shuttle and it's a piece of crap"
>>>argument, you could say that about the first of just about anything. The
>>>first jet airliner was a failure, the first car was no improvement over a
>>>horse, the first firearms were inferior to the bows of the time.
>
>>the british comet was a failure, mostly due to that wonderful british
>>management style. the 707 did just fine coming out only a year behind
>>the comet.
>
>>Define first car?
>
>Say the steam cars of the late 1800s.
okay, not real good, but the first steam locomotive was still better then
horse and carriage.
>
>>the first firearms were considered vastly superior to the bow, solely
>>because of the reduced training requirements.
>
>Not quite. The training required for crossbows was no greater than
>that required for early firearms, and crossbows were substantially
>more reliable. Firearms didn't become a superior to crossbows until
sorry, when you said Bow, i was thinking Welsh Long Bow.
>centuries after they were invented. (However, it's worth noting
>that cannons were superior to the alternatives, almost as soon
>as they were invented, and there may have been some common
>technologies involved. I.e. the technology that made firearms
>viable may have been developed for cannons.)
>
>>>> I agree! No it does not! What it does imply is that there are a lot of
>>>> people out there with a lot of money to spend to enjoy themselves. I am
>>>> not saying that you can sell enought tickets at $100,000 or $50,000 and
>>>> maybe even $15,000 is too expensive to sell. I don't know what the
costs
>>>> to run the rocket will be, I also don't know at what price point large
>>>> numbers of people will start buying tickets. But it seems that a number
>>>> of people think everyone is as poor/debt-ridden as themselves and can't
>>>> possiblely afford a $10K ticket period!
>
>>>That is not my argument, although I would question whether there are tens
>>>of thousands of people who could afford a $10,000 ticket(I certainly
>>>couldn't, and I make more then the median income for US residents). You
>
>>obviously you aren't a good investor and spend too much.
>
>I'm not so sure about that... I'm not a bad investor, and finding
>$10,000 to spend on a ticket would require selling more stock
>than I'd like to. On the other hand, I do earn less than the
you could afford it frank, like me, you won't spend the money, though.
I bet there are others in this newsgroup who will spend that money.
Rand Simberg
On 24 Mar 1997 18:10:06 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Vince
Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> I'm sure you would, but *my* market research is proprietary. I'll be
>> happy to provide it if you want to pay for it. My point is, I've done
>> some--you have not.
>
>"I have proof but I can't show it to you". Not very convincing, why did
>you bother mentioning it?
Well, I'm actually in the business. How convincing are your opinions?
>> A Honda is much more like a Mercedes than a parabola is like an orbit.
>> Again, ask an astronaut.
>
>The difference in cost is less to.
So, you're backing off on your comment that "microgravity that you
could experiance for one percent the price"? I agree the difference
in cost is less, obviously. The issue is whether the difference in
price is commensurate with it.
>> Actually, there is some secondary research in the CSTS study, and some
>> primary research was performed about a year and half ago by the
>> Japanese in the US and Canada. It indicated a potentially tremendous
>> market. Now again, what research do you have that indicates
>> otherwise?
>
>The lack of significant activity on the area, the fact that no current
>launcher can meet the cost requirements the studies you mention set forth.
So, since no current launcher can meet the requirements, there is no
point in trying to build one? I guess that Don Douglas was a fool for
building the DC-3.
>As for the CSTS study, I found a summary of it, and it doesn't really
>appear to support your position.
>"We have not been able to prove the commercial space market elastic enough
>to enable the revenues per flight to be greater than the combined payback
>and operations costs per flight for a completely commercially developed
>system."
As I said, that was secondary research. They really didn't spend any
significant resources on the problem. Also, they had assumptions for
the cost of the system that were, well, shall we say, not necessarily
a consensus?
>"To attract commercial investment it appears that some form of government
>participation will be necessary"
Did you expect any other result from government cost-plus contractors?
>> Good questions. That's what market research is for. If you'd like to
>> help, instead of throw misaimed bricks, the National Space Society is
>> doing fund-raiser to do a study to answer those questions and others.
>
>What are the chances of a space activisim organization making anything
>other than a rosy prediction?
The study will use established market research techniques, by a
recognized expert in the field, whose business relies upon providing
reliable results that businesses can take to the bank, and whose
intergrity is thereby on the line. Anyone will be able to draw their
own conclusions from the publicly-available results, regardless of NSS
spin.
You demonstrate, once again, that you don't *want* to believe that
tourism is a viable market, any possible facts be damned.
pat
In article <01bc38b9$2561c180$d337...@primenet.primenet.com>,
vin...@primenet.com says...><3336a685....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>> I'm sure you would, but *my* market research is proprietary. I'll be
>> happy to provide it if you want to pay for it. My point is, I've done
>> some--you have not.
>
>"I have proof but I can't show it to you". Not very convincing, why did
>you bother mentioning it?
>
I think Rand takes this to investors.
Rand Simberg
On 24 Mar 1997 17:35:04 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Vince
Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> Makes it difficult to do what?
>
>Makes it difficult to discuss them if they haven't been seen by the general
>public.
Well, if by discussion, you mean to parade one's personal uninformed
opinion before the world as indisputable fact, it actually seems to
make it easier, at least in your case <g>.
>> One example that jumps immediately to mind is that "space is expensive
>> because the energy requirements are so high." Another is that "no one
>> is investing in space tourism."
>
>That one is correct.
What do you mean? Are you *still* saying that the space is expensive
because the energy requirement is so high?
>I did find the reference to the costs of traveling to
>orbit being the same as travel to Australia. The only problem with the
>argument was that they were comparing an SSTO with a payload of 20,000
>pounds to an airliner. They didn't say what kind of airliner(almost
>certainly a 747), but even compared to a 757, the SSTO would have to make
>more than four trips to carry the same amount of cargo.
That's not the only reference. One can do an analysis independent of
payload (i.e., specific energy) that shows that the energy
requirements for both orbit and transcontinental flight are
comparable.
Here's a hint, Vince.
What percent of the cost of a Shuttle launch is propellant cost? What
percent of the cost of a Venture Star flight is projected to be
propellant cost?
Get back to me when you have the answer.
>Sure, the idea has been around for a time, it does not seem to be making
>progress.
Again, what seems to be, and what is are not identical.
>What is the reason for that? A business needs a market,
>operating capital and a product, and none of those things are in place for
>space tourisim. In order to get them, you will need investment capital (a
>significant amount), a reliable vehicle, and (unless you can get the price
>really low)a place to go.
I agree with all of this except for the need for the place to go.
Have you ever heard of price-demand elasticity? There is no such
thing as *a* space tourism market. There are many space tourism
markets, at varying levels of price and service, some of which are in
full operation now. One of them is going to visit the Space Coast in
Florida. Another is taking a ride on Star Tours. Moving up the
experience ladder, one can take a parabolic flight, or go to the edge
of space in a Mig-25. In two or three years, there will be vehicles
that can take paying customers into space, a la Alan Shephard. A few
years after that, there will be rides available to orbit. A few years
after that, there will be orbital resorts, and then lunar visits and
stays. Each of these experiences will have initially a small market
and high price, and each will experience a price drop and a market
increase as demand increases, improving the economies of scale (the
lack of which are the *real* reason that space is expensive, contrary
to the energy myth that you continue to promulgate).
>I can pretty much guarente you that most people won't buy into the "it's
>just like an airliner" argiment, especially since they will have already
>heard that one about the Shuttle.
You can pretty much guarantee, huh? I see you're not in any way
humbled yet. Yet another opinion masquerading as fact.
When was the Shuttle advertised as "just like an airliner"?
There are many credible arguments that can be made to a sophisticated
investor, some of which have been successful in raising money for such
ventures.
>The only solution I see it to wait until a vehicle establishes a record of
>safety and economy launching satelites(which will take care of the
>development cost). Unless the VentureStar surprises people with it's
>economy, you may well have to wait for it's replacement.
It is unlikely that a vehicle built only for the purpose of launching
satellites will be economical, at least economical enough for a
significant tourist market. Low costs come from high flight rates,
and there is not enough satellite market to provide those kind of
flight rates. You think that space tourism will result from low
costs. I think that low costs will result from space tourism, in a
phased manner. You are right, however, in that it is a chicken and
egg problem. BTW, don't hold your breath waiting for Venture Star to
even be built. I think it an unlikely event.
>> Organizations that have made money on space in the past (i.e.,
>> cost-plus government contractors) are ill-suited to address that
>> market.
>
>That is not really true. Boeing dominates the highly competative airliner
>market, having taken on other sucessful aircraft makers, and defence
>companies are trying to find other markets since the end of the "cold-war".
> Since a company would have to spend it's own money (the X-33 project isn't
>going to pay the full cost of developing an operational vehicle) there is
>strong motive to keep costs under control.
But Boeing Aircraft has no experience in space hardware. And Boeing
has a ready customer. They're called airlines. Perhaps, as the space
lines get going, the metal eaters will start to respond to that
market, but don't expect them to take any initiative.
>Before the 707 was built, there were people who questioned the ability of a
>defense contractor who hadn't built a sucessful airliner in years to break
>into the airliner market. They now have something like 80% of the world
>airliner market outside of the former USSR.
I agree, but as I said, they won't do it without a Juan Trippe.
pat
In article <01bc38b6$60c29720$d337...@primenet.primenet.com>,
vin...@primenet.com says...
>
>
>
>pat <p...@clark.net> wrote in article <5h6de9$o...@clarknet.clark.net>...
>
>> Ah, so you haven't read the commercial space transportation study,
>> or any of Harry Stines studies.
>
>Nope.
>
>
>> guess who makes more money per unit.
>
>Not really relevant. Rolls Royce made more money than either, and didn't
>break even. I am sure that Rockwell made more per shuttle that all the
>Airanespace contractors combined make per Ariane 4.
Rolls-Royce didn't make more money per unit, then.
>
>> Guess which company is older?
>
>Is that good?
>
>> Guess which company is in danger of dying?
>
>I didn't know Benz was in trouble. Honda certainly isn't, I think you have
>it confused with Mazda.
all the japanese companies are in danger.
>
>> try reading some ofthe existing studies.
>
>I have read some, and I will try to find the rest. The problem is that a
>study is exactly what it sounds like, someone studied a problem and
>rendered an opinion, which is why I am not going to be too impressed by
>something from an activist.
that's nice. So define a scientific market study?
>
>> the financial backing is going into faster returning areas like
>> communications, sensing or electronics.
>
>That is precisely the point I am trying to make. I have said many times
>that is it not technically impossible, the barriers are economic.
>
>> Enough and some. the typical business answers.
>
>I question that. Especially given that from what I have heard from other
>posters, the studies you cite assume a space facility rather than a few
>orbits.
well try reading some more.
Vince Bitowf
pat <p...@clark.net> wrote in article <5h7dpl$7...@clarknet.clark.net>...
> I think Rand takes this to investors.
Who aren't very impressed with the the implications of the research, given
the lack of investment.
Vince Bitowf
Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote in article
<3337eae7....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >That one is correct.
>
> What do you mean? Are you *still* saying that the space is expensive
> because the energy requirement is so high?
I am saying that it is a factor. My origional statement was that "a flight
to orbit will always be more expensive than a flight to Europe, because it
takes more energy to get to orbit." That stateent is correct even if you
substitute "Australia" for "Europe".
> What percent of the cost of a Shuttle launch is propellant cost? What
> percent of the cost of a Venture Star flight is projected to be
> propellant cost?
>
> Get back to me when you have the answer.
You are making a bogus argument. Just because fuel is not the primary cost
doesn't necessarily suggest that it is the same as an airliner. Even so,
the fuel/oxidiser load of a VS weighs more than an entire 747, and the
payload is certainly less. That is a major difference. You can certainly
lower the cost of orbital transport, but not all the way down to that of an
airliner.
> Again, what seems to be, and what is are not identical.
That has yet to be established in this case.
> >What is the reason for that? A business needs a market,
> >operating capital and a product, and none of those things are in place
for
> >space tourisim. In order to get them, you will need investment capital
(a
> >significant amount), a reliable vehicle, and (unless you can get the
price
> >really low)a place to go.
>
> I agree with all of this except for the need for the place to go.
Well, that is a change.
> Have you ever heard of price-demand elasticity? There is no such
> thing as *a* space tourism market. There are many space tourism
> markets, at varying levels of price and service, some of which are in
> full operation now. One of them is going to visit the Space Coast in
> Florida. Another is taking a ride on Star Tours. Moving up the
> experience ladder, one can take a parabolic flight, or go to the edge
This has come up before. I have made it clear that I am using the term
"space tourisim" in the sense of orbital and suborbital flights.
> of space in a Mig-25. In two or three years, there will be vehicles
> that can take paying customers into space, a la Alan Shephard. A few
That is one of the things that I am questioning.
> years after that, there will be rides available to orbit. A few years
> after that, there will be orbital resorts, and then lunar visits and
That's another. Do you honestly believe that there will be commercial
flights to the moon in 13 years? (It this indiputable fact, or your
opinion? I figure I had better ask, since you would accuse me of
misrepresenting my opinions as irrefutable fact if I said such a thing)
> stays. Each of these experiences will have initially a small market
> and high price, and each will experience a price drop and a market
> increase as demand increases, improving the economies of scale (the
The question is when will that initial market going to be large enough for
the operation to break even.
> lack of which are the *real* reason that space is expensive, contrary
> to the energy myth that you continue to promulgate).
There are several real reasons. The Cost of development of space vehicles
is one. Low launch rates are another.
> >I can pretty much guarente you that most people won't buy into the "it's
> >just like an airliner" argiment, especially since they will have already
> >heard that one about the Shuttle.
>
> You can pretty much guarantee, huh? I see you're not in any way
> humbled yet. Yet another opinion masquerading as fact.
Why should I be "humbled"? Obviously it is an opinion, I never claimed
that it is anything else. It is idiotic to claim hat it is presented as
indisputable fact. Do I really need to put a notice in each message
stating that for people who's aren't smart enough to figure that out for
them selves?
> When was the Shuttle advertised as "just like an airliner"?
Back in the seventies.
> There are many credible arguments that can be made to a sophisticated
> investor, some of which have been successful in raising money for such
> ventures.
Of which ventures? Balistic aircraft flights?
> It is unlikely that a vehicle built only for the purpose of launching
> satellites will be economical, at least economical enough for a
> significant tourist market. Low costs come from high flight rates,
That is something I have said before. That is why I my predictions for
space tourisim flights are so far in the future.
> and there is not enough satellite market to provide those kind of
> flight rates. You think that space tourism will result from low
> costs. I think that low costs will result from space tourism, in a
Precisely.
> phased manner. You are right, however, in that it is a chicken and
> egg problem. BTW, don't hold your breath waiting for Venture Star to
> even be built. I think it an unlikely event.
I realize that it has quite a few hurdles to overcome, but I think it is
the best bet in the near future.
> But Boeing Aircraft has no experience in space hardware. And Boeing
> has a ready customer. They're called airlines. Perhaps, as the space
> lines get going, the metal eaters will start to respond to that
> market, but don't expect them to take any initiative.
Yes, but that is just an example to demonstrate that involvement with Cost+
government contracts is not the kiss of death that a lot of people think it
is. Besides, not all defense contracts are cost pluss, there are dual
supplier competative arangements and fixed price contracts as well.
> I agree, but as I said, they won't do it without a Juan Trippe.
Maybe(is that incontrovertable fact, or an opinion?), but who can tell in
advance who will be?
Jim Kingdon
> Who aren't very impressed with the the implications of the research, given
> the lack of investment.
Oh, I don't know:
* $80 million in private money for the KSC Visitor Center,
* $50 million (not yet raised, so I guess we can't really count it)
for Casey Aerospace,
* smaller but nonzero expenditures for other markets like advertising
(Pepsi-Mir ad) and burial (Celestis).
None of these are thriving industries, yet, but I don't know if I'd go
so far as saying there is no investment.
CONPUTE
Vince Bitowf (vin...@primenet.com) wrote:
: pat <p...@clark.net> wrote in article <5h3kq4$s...@clarknet.clark.net>...
: > Boy that's an amazingly stupid comparison, even for you vince.
: That is the point, comparing a week long vacation to a 30 minute
: sub-orbital ride ,or even an orbital ride of a couple of hours, doesn't
: make much sense.
Sorry, but I compared it to a Bungee Jump that lasted 5 seconds, and Pat
pointed out that $20K is an impluse buy for some people. You are the one
trying to change what was said. Please reread what I said!
: > Based, solely uupon your common sense, right? then how come the CSTS,
: Well, someone has to supply some.
Yes, the market itself.
: > society expeditions, Harry stine, amongs others say different?
: Why are there people who think the pyramids were built by space aliens?
: They want to believe.
Pardon????? Society expeditions are going on right now this every minute
with real live people. Again, go to you local magazine rack and pick up
some vacation magazines and see what people are paying for.
: > and for really rich people, $20K is an impulse buy. My dad, used to
: > drop 30K in an afternoon, just for kicks. Take a look at any of the
: > high stakes tables in Vegas sometimes. Then come back. I've watched
: > people put 50K on a dice roll, and that's only 10 seconds.
: I am sure of it, but how many people are there in the world who fit in that
: category? I am questioning whether there are enough people in that
: category to make space tourisim a paying business. In particular I am
: questioning the idea that space tourisim will or can be the driving force
: behind the comercialization of space.
Me!, my present income is $32K a year that is it! But three years ago I
bought a $18,000 15.6 acres of land on pure impluse. I bought my second
property for $20K a year later. Guess what! I still am not broke. The
20K property which is a lovely waterfront which I and my girlfriend fell
in love with on site (pun and true) is 100% paid for. The first property
has only $6K left owning on it. My brother Paul makes $100K+ a year, and
paid $12,500 the waterfront beside me (cliffy). He came up to see my
property, loved the one beside it, walked into the sales office the next
day with a check, and made FULL PAYMENT the following week. Your problem
seems to be that is you have never lived in a GM town where even factory
workers make $50K and think nothing on spending $10-20K for fun. You
clearly have not read boating magazines where people drop $100K to $3
million to get the boat and thus the vacation they want. This is not one
or two people a year doing this - THIS IS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE PER YEAR.
: > >Because the technology isn't developed to that point yet.
: >
: > who says? Burt rutan thinks otherwise, Walt Kistler thinks otherwise.
: > chrysler thoght otherwise, 25 years ago.
: Then where is it? I think it would be more accurate to say that he hopes
: some investor will come along and give him the money to develop the
: technology.
Not develop it. In most cases you just need to buy and intergrate it. But
buying and intergrating (sp?) still costs money. Insurance still costs
money. Crew and fuel still costs money. Yes, they need money. But
sometimes the hardware is not as hard as you would like to make out.
: > and with a little more R&D, the 707 would have been flying in 1940.
: No it wouldn't. The jet engines of that period didn't have anywhere near
: the thrust or the reliability. It took years of development before they
: did. No one except for the Germans even had swept wings figured out yet.
: > the whittle engine was already up and running in 1935, structural
: > engineering was already good enough to make large bombers in 1940.
: > the only problem was lack of will, which WW2 provided in large
: quantities.
: No, the technology wasn't there. There is a HUGE difference between the
: origional Whittle jet and the engines of the sixties. The early jets were
: notoriously un-reliable. No one knew *how* to make a reliable engine.
: Metal fatigue was not fully understood, which in fact is what led to the
: failure of the Comet, the first jet airliner.
: > then how come up above, you are claiming the technology isn't ready?
: It isn't. It can be developed, but it will cost money and take time.
: Doing something and doing it cheaply are two different things.
He! That not what you said before. You said that only NASA could develop
the needed tech and that it would not be ready before the 2030's.
: > >aren't enough people willing to pay the money it would take to develop a
: > >specialized craft or to pay the costs of chartering a cargo vehicle such as
: > >a VentureStar to support a space tourisim industry.
: >
: > What makes you say this?
: I have been through this, but I will summarize again. In the case of a
: cargo vehicle such as the VentureStar, you are limited in the number of
: people you can fit into the vehicle. If you assume 5 sq. ft per passenger,
: including space for life support equiptment and an asile, you can carry 135
: people in a VentureStar. If you assume a cost of $10,000,000 per flight
: (which is a very low estimate) you are talking about a cost of $74,075 per
: person. Just to break even, assuming 100% occupancy, and not counting
: things like the cost of designing and building a passenger module,
: insurance, advertising, operating costs for the business, etc.
: For a purpouse designed vehicle it is more difficult. You can get lower
: incramental costs per passenger, because you can have a larger cabin, but
: you have to have enough passengers to pay the cost of designing and
: building the vehicle. In other words, you have to have high ridership for
: years on end. The Concorde only reciently broke even for it's operators.
First you dont start with an expensive design like VentureStar. Start
with RocketPlane or ROTON. I really like ROTON for Sub-Orbital designs.
Then you design it from day one to carry passengers, or cargo, or even
boosters. But you don't start with a specialized design and then try and
make it into another specialized design! You start with a generalized
design, then add modules for the specialized uses.
: > sure, and most of that investment was in factories, not research.
: No, it was in designing the aircraft. I don't think you realize how
: complex an airliner is, or how many man hours go into designing one, and
: working out the tooling to produce one. Developing an airliner is a major
: investment, that is why there has been so much debate over designing a
: super-jumbo-jet. Designing an airliner is a huge investment, even if the
: technology is already developed. No one is going to build one unless they
: are SURE a market is there. That is why I don't see specialized tourist
: carring space craft happening until well after cargo carrying SSTOs are
: operating cheaply and reliably.
True about the designing that is why I believe in one major idea.
KISS -- Keep It Simple Stupid.
One of the main reasons the STS is so bad is too many organizations were
pushing thier on needs into the design of the shuttle. And Cargo SSTOs
probably will appear first. But the design of the DC was for plug in
modules. First you fly cargo and then a year later after you have 50 to a
100 flights under your belt you plug in a crew module. And after another
50 to 100 flights plug in a tourist module. Please notice that you can
work on the design of the modules highly indepentant of the SSTO!
: > you should marry marcus.
: I don't think people who are in touch with reality are quite THAT rare.
????????????????????????
: > Kistler, kelly, hudson, clapp are all pushing for this.
: > I think George is working on a SSTO expendable.
: But do they have the funds to build it?
They are atleast trying to get the money.
: > the british comet was a failure, mostly due to that wonderful british
: > management style. the 707 did just fine coming out only a year behind
: > the comet.
: The Comet failed because they came apart in mid-air.
Our materials are better today. I can buy Carbon-Fibre cloth in a local
boat supply store TODAY. This is off the shelf. I can place an order for
high temp steel or ceramics (sp?) today, and even send an AutoCad file on
the shape and size if want made. Yes, I have to design the part, but back
then they not only have to design the part, but also the material, the
production process and as for shipping that is what UPS does today.
PS. I am working on my own air-breathing rocket engine this year. Ten
years ago it would have been hard to get parts or info. Twenty years ago
it would have been impossible to build my design because the materials did
not exist for the general public.
: > Define first car?
: Benz Tricycle of 1885.
Sorry, I can't remember was the a one or a two seater. We may disagree but
I think a car would need to be atleast a two seater to match the
discussion as we are taliking about passengers.
: > the first firearms were considered vastly superior to the bow, solely
: > because of the reduced training requirements.
: No they weren't. The first firearms were metal tubes with no sights that
: were fired by holding a coal or a flamable cord to a touch hole. They
: didn't even replace the bow for over a hundred years. The first historical
: reference to gun powder in Europe was in 1249, the first firearms were made
: sometime in the 1300's, but it wasn't until the development of the
: matchlock that they really became popular.
True, but they were still easyier to use than a Bow. And how many kings
and nobles keep using bowmen because they did not believe this new fangled
device could be a threat. 100 to 150 years sound about right for the gun
carrying armies wipe out the bowman armies. The real question should be,
In the early battles who won the Bows or the Guns?
: > in a global economy, ten thousand patrons is small change. this is
: > about the number of people visiting a small exclusive resort island
: > per year. Try signing up to climb everest, it will cost $50K, and
: > you will wait 3 years. Try buying a harley, that's a 2 year wait
: > and $30K.
: How many people climb mount everest per year? A motorcycle lasts for years
: and is not comparable. It is ironic you would make that comparison after
: claiming that I was stupid to make a similar one involving a house.
A memory lasts for a lifetime also, otherwise people would not bother
going on expensive vacations. And the above tend to be those 'once in a
lifetime' things people do not because they have to, but because they can.
The point is there is a market for climbing Mount Everest at 50K each, and
the market is so big that it is backlogged for 3 years. Damn can't be any
money in that market can there? :) People buy houses to live in. People
buy motorcycles for transportation. People buy Harleys because they are
Harleys. Don't think so? Tell a biker that you will replace his $30K
Harley with a $50K+ GoldWing and see what he says. :)
And PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE pick up a few vacation and boating and flying
magazines and see what type of money is out there in the hands of a lot of
people.
: > try reading the CSTS, and define scientific market research?
: Where is it? Any sort of scientific polling requires that you poll a group
: that is representative of your target segment of population. For instance,
: if you were trying to predict the outcome of a presidential election, you
: would have to question people from different social and economic
: backgrounds, as well as from different geographic regions. If you simply
: have visitors to your space tourisim web site take a survey, you are simply
: finding out what space enthusiasts think, since that is who is likely to
: visit such a site. You wouldn't have a sample that was representative of
: the general public.
A year ago I would agree, today no. The fact is WWW sites are being
visited by a very large range of people for a large range of reasons.
While WWW hits still don't represent the general population yet, it is
getting closer and closer every day.
: > only if an incompetent chief engineer, was in charge.
: > harry stine says an orbital SSTO can easily operate sub-orbital
: How operating a VS on a sub-orbital trajectory make the cargo bay larger?
: Or were you going to pack them in like a Japanese subway car?
Only you think we want VS for tourists. Please look at other designs.
: > and make money. So does Bob Zubrin, who is building a space-plane,
: > unlike you.
: I doubt he is building one any more than I am. How much of it does he have
: assembled? When does he plan to make the first flight? How has he managed
: to avoid media attention if he has a partially built space plane?
Nice try. One friend at work is building a house of his own design, guess
what? After three weeks there still is not one piece of lumber on his
property, he is busy with saving money, getting approval, having plans
drawn up and also approved. Using his time table the house will not start
going up till 1 year 3 months from now. But he still has to do the paper
work first. Same for my friend building her cabin across the lake from
me. She has been going over plans and buying supplies all this winter so
that the cabin will go up in 10 days of hard labour.
: > >realize and improvment in efficiancy and then you are talking about an
: even
: > >shorter period of time. A sub orbital flight would likely last less
: than
: > >one hour, and you are going to have an even more difficult time finding
: > >people willing to pay large amounts of money for that.
: >
: > this is easier, actually.
: Really? If I had that kind of money to spend on a flight, I would
: certainly not be willing to pay as much for a sub orbital flight as I would
: for an orbital flight.
But that is you. There are 6,000,000,000+ people in the world and you
don't represent them all.
: > enough to make a major market. Do you think sales to cab drivers
: > pays for the chevy impala? Do you think sales to bread companies
: > pays for panel vans? it's not one market that pays for the vehicle,
: > it's all of them.
: Obviously not, since the Impala is an off the shelf buy for a taxi company,
: but the claim has been made in this thread that space tourisim would
: involve a purpose designed vehicle. The problem with using a transport
: like the VentureStar is that people are a high bulk/low weight cargo,
: because you can't stack them togeather like boxes. If you put passengers
: in a VentureStar, you would likely run out of room before you hit the
: maximum capacity of the vehicle (assuming you made the passenger pod as
: light as possible).
FIRST YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE PUSHING VS.
Second, who said it needed a purpose built craft? A purpose modified
craft is all that is needed to start the industry, Once you show there is
a market, then you will find investment for a purpose built craft.
: > so, you obviously don't know much about business, investing or marketing.
: > what do you know about?
: Who are you to judge? Given the state (of non-existance) ofthe private
: launch vehicle industry, I must know more about all three than you, because
: reality certainly doesn't fit your beliefs.
No? But business reality is that those who see new markets when other
don't usually are the ones to control it in the future (atleast be a major
player).
Earl Colby Pottinger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
: Internet Direct. Have you heard about our :
: (416)233-2999, 1000 lines Do-It-Yourself Webserver? :
: T3 bandwidth, 9600-33,600bps+ISDN http://web.idirect.com :
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Fraering
> > So vince, do you have any more bits of business wisdom?
> > I want to know so i can go against it.
>
> Sure, don't charge $20,000 for a rolller coaster ride or an airline ticket.
> And don't buy Beta Max.
In the professional video editing field they're using a lot of
"Son-of-BetaMax" technology.
Got any other bright ideas?
> If you are such a master of investment, why is it that there is no space
> tourisim industry already? I have been reading about how we have the
> technology for low cost access to space and how private industry was going
> to take us there since the seventies. Well why don't you apply your
> awesome business intelect to explaining why it hasn't come anywhere near to
> happening?
Actually, in the 70's, and early 80's people were talking about how That
Wonderful Icon of Socialist Engineering, The Spacce Shuttle, was going to
do it;
Finally, it looks like we're over it... there's finally private investment
in significant new technologies. And believe it or not, they're targeting
markets you think are bunk.
> If it is so easy and cheap to build a launch vehicle why can't Connestoga
> do it?
In a significant way, Conestoga wasn't even trying; they were trying to
use minutemen stages, etc., to put a launch vehicle together with, using
all the same old methodologies, which are much _harder_ than the new ones.
> Why couldn't OTRAG?
I don't know.
But I do know that there isn't a convincing market for personal computers;
after all, look at what happened to Commodore. Right down the commode.
> If there is such convincing market research
> showing that space tourisim is profitable, why don't you show me the line
> of investors?
Because you're not asking for the money. If you had a serious plan, they'd
probably approach you.
> There aren't any? What does that tell your business oriented intelect? It
> must be that people with money to invest don't know as much as about
> business as you, right?
"If it's such a good idea, how come noone's done it already?"
If everyone used that argument, there wouldn't be a computer industry, or
a car industry, or even a buggy whip industry. ("That horse looks awfully
mean; trying to train it as a riding animal is probably more trouble than
it's worth, especially considering that the stew tastes a lot better!")
And as I pointed out, people _are_ investing. Kelly, Kistler, HMX/RRI, and
Pioneer all have funding now. So your argument's basic facts are wrong.
Phil
(And if you want me to see any followups, please email them).
Phil Fraering "This tiger is sprawled so still and so flat,
p...@acadian.net A question arises when glancing thereat.
Standard disclaimer, Is he asleep? To be perfectly frank,
Standard excuses. He looks more as if he was creamed by a tank!"
- Bill Watterson
Vince Bitowf
Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote in article
<33374fc3....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> Well, I'm actually in the business. How convincing are your opinions?
Apparently no less than yours, given the level of investment. (I am
assuming that your results show space tourisim generating profits).
> So, you're backing off on your comment that "microgravity that you
> could experiance for one percent the price"? I agree the difference
No, I clearly haven't.
> in cost is less, obviously. The issue is whether the difference in
> price is commensurate with it.
True, that is what I have been saying.
> So, since no current launcher can meet the requirements, there is no
> point in trying to build one? I guess that Don Douglas was a fool for
> building the DC-3.
No. No launcher that is likely to built in the near future is likely to
meet the requirements. I haven't heard Lockheed claim anything better than
1,000 per pound for the VentureStar, and that would translate into about
$40,000,000 per launch, assuming a 40,000 payload.
> Did you expect any other result from government cost-plus contractors?
Given the current lack of cost plus contracts, yes, assuming that another
result was correct.
> The study will use established market research techniques, by a
> recognized expert in the field, whose business relies upon providing
> reliable results that businesses can take to the bank, and whose
> intergrity is thereby on the line. Anyone will be able to draw their
> own conclusions from the publicly-available results, regardless of NSS
> spin.
Ah, you mean it will be done by an outside firm. I would like to see the
results of that.
> You demonstrate, once again, that you don't *want* to believe that
> tourism is a viable market, any possible facts be damned.
No, you demonstraye that you want to believe so bad, that you don't really
care about facts.
Vince Bitowf
pat <p...@clark.net> wrote in article <5h9005$j...@clarknet.clark.net>...
> Rolls-Royce didn't make more money per unit, then.
I suppose that depends on how you look at it. They certainly grossed more
per unit.
> all the japanese companies are in danger.
Really? Do you have any sources for that? (Just Honda, not all of them)
That is a very interesting statement.
> that's nice. So define a scientific market study?
I have answered this one before.
> well try reading some more.
What I have read so far doesn't really support your position. For
instance, the summary of the CSTS I read stated that development of launch
vehicles will continue to require government financial support.
Here's something for you to read:
Flaws in space tourisim market research:
http://www.cyclic.com/~kingdon/space/tourism.html
http://www.cyclic.com/~kingdon/space/numbers.html
This one didn't even consider space tourisim important enough to mention:
http://www.dot.gov/faa/cst/reports/#policy
David L. Burkhead
"Vince Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> wrote:
:>Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote in article
:><3337eae7....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
:>> >That one is correct.
:>>
:>> What do you mean? Are you *still* saying that the space is expensive
:>> because the energy requirement is so high?
:>I am saying that it is a factor. My origional statement was that "a flight
:>to orbit will always be more expensive than a flight to Europe, because it
:>takes more energy to get to orbit." That stateent is correct even if you
:>substitute "Australia" for "Europe".
The statement is incorrect because it does _not_ take more
energy. This has been pointed out to you numerous times.
[ 8< ]
:>You are making a bogus argument. Just because fuel is not the primary cost
:>doesn't necessarily suggest that it is the same as an airliner. Even so,
:>the fuel/oxidiser load of a VS weighs more than an entire 747, and the
:>payload is certainly less. That is a major difference. You can certainly
:>lower the cost of orbital transport, but not all the way down to that of an
:>airliner.
Go calculate the _energy_ requirement sometime. Reaching Europe
from the US is a flight of about 3000 miles (about 4800 km). Thrust
required (per pound of aircraft) is equal to the reciprocal of the L/D
(L/D of 17 is a good value many airliners) and power required is a
function of flight speed, exhaust velocity, and thrust. Come back
with the answer.
Rand Simberg
On 25 Mar 1997 13:41:02 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Vince
Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> What do you mean? Are you *still* saying that the space is expensive
>> because the energy requirement is so high?
>
>I am saying that it is a factor. My origional statement was that "a flight
>to orbit will always be more expensive than a flight to Europe, because it
>takes more energy to get to orbit." That stateent is correct even if you
>substitute "Australia" for "Europe".
Let's try this again. Here is your statement.
>No SSTO will ever match the cost of an airliner to Europe
>without some breakthrough like antigravity. It simply takes more energy to
>reach orbit than it does to reach Europe, and thus more fuel.
A reasonable person would infer from this that a) it takes more energy
to deliver a kilogram to Europe than to orbit and that b) this is the
major reason why we will never see launch costs comparable to air
fares. (a) is demonstrably false, and (b) is definitely arguable. If
the only cost of launch were propellant, it would cost anywhere from
five to twenty bucks per payload pound to get there, depending on
propellant combinations and vehicle efficiency. At the five dollar
mark, that translates into less than a thousand dollars for a ticket.
Sounds comparable to Europe to me. Even for airliners, fuel costs are
not the dominant factor in ticket prices.
>> What percent of the cost of a Shuttle launch is propellant cost? What
>> percent of the cost of a Venture Star flight is projected to be
>> propellant cost?
>>
>> Get back to me when you have the answer.
>
>You are making a bogus argument. Just because fuel is not the primary cost
>doesn't necessarily suggest that it is the same as an airliner. Even so,
>the fuel/oxidiser load of a VS weighs more than an entire 747, and the
>payload is certainly less. That is a major difference. You can certainly
>lower the cost of orbital transport, but not all the way down to that of an
>airliner.
It depends on many other factors, and in fact may be quite possible.
>> >What is the reason for that? A business needs a market,
>> >operating capital and a product, and none of those things are in place
>for
>> >space tourisim. In order to get them, you will need investment capital
>(a
>> >significant amount), a reliable vehicle, and (unless you can get the
>price
>> >really low)a place to go.
>>
>> I agree with all of this except for the need for the place to go.
>
>Well, that is a change.
No, it's not.
>> Have you ever heard of price-demand elasticity? There is no such
>> thing as *a* space tourism market. There are many space tourism
>> markets, at varying levels of price and service, some of which are in
>> full operation now. One of them is going to visit the Space Coast in
>> Florida. Another is taking a ride on Star Tours. Moving up the
>> experience ladder, one can take a parabolic flight, or go to the edge
>
>This has come up before. I have made it clear that I am using the term
>"space tourisim" in the sense of orbital and suborbital flights.
>
>> of space in a Mig-25. In two or three years, there will be vehicles
>> that can take paying customers into space, a la Alan Shephard. A few
>
>That is one of the things that I am questioning.
If you were merely questioning, I'd have no problem. I also am
questioning. But you think you already know the answer, in the
absence of data or research.
>> years after that, there will be rides available to orbit. A few years
>> after that, there will be orbital resorts, and then lunar visits and
>
>That's another. Do you honestly believe that there will be commercial
>flights to the moon in 13 years? (It this indiputable fact, or your
>opinion? I figure I had better ask, since you would accuse me of
>misrepresenting my opinions as irrefutable fact if I said such a thing)
I honestly believe that there may be commercial flights to the moon in
13 years. And no, that's not an opinion--it's a clear and unambiguous
statement of my belief <g>.
>The question is when will that initial market going to be large enough for
>the operation to break even.
Indeed it is.
>> lack of which are the *real* reason that space is expensive, contrary
>> to the energy myth that you continue to promulgate).
>
>There are several real reasons. The Cost of development of space vehicles
>is one. Low launch rates are another.
>
>> >I can pretty much guarente you that most people won't buy into the "it's
>> >just like an airliner" argiment, especially since they will have already
>> >heard that one about the Shuttle.
>>
>> You can pretty much guarantee, huh? I see you're not in any way
>> humbled yet. Yet another opinion masquerading as fact.
>
>Why should I be "humbled"? Obviously it is an opinion, I never claimed
>that it is anything else. It is idiotic to claim hat it is presented as
>indisputable fact. Do I really need to put a notice in each message
>stating that for people who's aren't smart enough to figure that out for
>them selves?
You put implicit notices into all of your messages that this is the
World According To Vince, and anyone who thinks otherwise just isn't
clued in.
>> When was the Shuttle advertised as "just like an airliner"?
>
>Back in the seventies.
And to how many current investors was this pitch made, and what
evidence (contrary to the contemporary experiences of current launch
vehicle entrepreneurs) do you have that it's poisoned the well for
space investment.
>Of which ventures? Balistic aircraft flights?
Yes, but also suborbital flights, and orbital rockets. See Kistler,
Kelly, Pioneer, Rotary Rocket, et al.
>> It is unlikely that a vehicle built only for the purpose of launching
>> satellites will be economical, at least economical enough for a
>> significant tourist market. Low costs come from high flight rates,
>
>That is something I have said before. That is why I my predictions for
>space tourisim flights are so far in the future.
This doesn't follow.
>> and there is not enough satellite market to provide those kind of
>> flight rates. You think that space tourism will result from low
>> costs. I think that low costs will result from space tourism, in a
>
>Precisely.
So you agree that tourism is will produce low costs, instead of vice
versa? That seems to be a new position.
Frank Crary
In article <01bc3846$f528f6e0$ca37...@primenet.primenet.com>,
Vince Bitowf <vin...@primenet.com> wrote:
>> try reading the CSTS, and define scientific market research?
>Where is it? Any sort of scientific polling requires that you poll a group
>that is representative of your target segment of population. For instance,
>if you were trying to predict the outcome of a presidential election, you
>would have to question people from different social and economic
>backgrounds, as well as from different geographic regions. If you simply
>have visitors to your space tourisim web site take a survey, you are simply
>finding out what space enthusiasts think, since that is who is likely to
>visit such a site. You wouldn't have a sample that was representative of
>the general public.
True, but there is some value to that sort of survey (if you care to
call it a survey...) If a thousand people visit the site and say
they are willing to pay $10,000 for a ticket on a sub-orbital vehicle,
you do know you could sell 1000 tickets (assuming all the people
involved were telling the truth.) That means you could expect $10
million in income from this sort of space tourism. That's a reasonable
conclusion which isn't affected by the sampling bias. What you could
_not_ do is say that 1000 out of 10,000 people who visited the site
would be willing to pay, and therefore 10% of the general public would
be willing. That is an incorrect conclusion for exactly the reasons
you point out.
>...The problem with using a transport
>like the VentureStar is that people are a high bulk/low weight cargo,
>because you can't stack them togeather like boxes. If you put passengers
>in a VentureStar, you would likely run out of room before you hit the
>maximum capacity of the vehicle (assuming you made the passenger pod as
>light as possible).
I'm not so sure about that. Most of the mass for (current) commercial
space payloads is rocket fuel, and if it uses hydrogen, that's a
high bulk/low mass cargo. Take the Space Shuttles: Their payload
bay is about 5 meters wide and 15 meters long, and the mass limit
is around 20 tonnes, if memory serves. That comes out to 68 kg/m^3,
overall. So the Shuttle can handle very low density payloads (note
that carrying water would involve a bulk density of 1000 kg/m^3.)
I'm not sure about VentureStar, but if they are thinking of
payloads with an upper stage, especially if it uses hydrogen as
the fuel, then they are probably designing for payload densities
similar to that of a passenger module.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Frank Crary
In article <3337c...@lagoon.idirect.com>,
CONPUTE <con...@idirect.com> wrote:
>: > and for really rich people, $20K is an impulse buy. My dad, used to
>: > drop 30K in an afternoon, just for kicks. Take a look at any of the
>: > high stakes tables in Vegas sometimes. Then come back. I've watched
>: > people put 50K on a dice roll, and that's only 10 seconds.
>: I am sure of it, but how many people are there in the world who fit in that
>: category? I am questioning whether there are enough people in that
>: category to make space tourisim a paying business. In particular I am
>: questioning the idea that space tourisim will or can be the driving force
>: behind the comercialization of space.
>Me!, my present income is $32K a year that is it! But three years ago I
>bought a $18,000 15.6 acres of land on pure impluse. I bought my second
>property for $20K a year later. Guess what! I still am not broke. The
>20K property which is a lovely waterfront which I and my girlfriend fell
>in love with on site (pun and true) is 100% paid for. The first property
>has only $6K left owning on it...
Let's do a reality check here. In three years, you earned $96,000,
and spent $32,000 plus interest on property. That means you were
spending about a third of your income on real estate, and living on
about $23,000 per year. That's certainly possible (I live on under
$20,000 per year and save the rest) but I think this is very unusual
for people with incomes in this range.
>...Your problem
>seems to be that is you have never lived in a GM town where even factory
>workers make $50K and think nothing on spending $10-20K for fun.
Probably irrelevant: Highly paid, blue-collar workers are a small fraction
of the population. Most people making over $50,000 expect a higher
standard of living than factory workers do, so they don't have an
extra $10,000 or so lying around for impulse spending. Most people
earning less don't have that kind of money lying around for more
obvious reasons.
>clearly have not read boating magazines where people drop $100K to $3
>million to get the boat and thus the vacation they want. This is not one
>or two people a year doing this - THIS IS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE PER YEAR.
Which means you could get $100 million to $3 billion worth of capitol
for space tourism _if_and_only_if_ you could get _all_ of those
people to spend their money on short, possibly sub-orbital, trips
into space rather than longer vacations on a boat. It is certainly
not clear how much of this market space tourism could tap into, and
I suspect you would need over 10% of it if you wanted to fund a
sub-orbital vehicle on this alone.
>: > the first firearms were considered vastly superior to the bow, solely
>: > because of the reduced training requirements.
>: No they weren't. The first firearms were metal tubes with no sights that
>: were fired by holding a coal or a flamable cord to a touch hole. They
>: didn't even replace the bow for over a hundred years. The first historical
>: reference to gun powder in Europe was in 1249, the first firearms were made
>: sometime in the 1300's, but it wasn't until the development of the
>: matchlock that they really became popular.
>True, but they were still easyier to use than a Bow. And how many kings
>and nobles keep using bowmen because they did not believe this new fangled
>device could be a threat. 100 to 150 years sound about right for the gun
>carrying armies wipe out the bowman armies. The real question should be,
>In the early battles who won the Bows or the Guns?
The bowman. Guns were around for Agincourt and Cercy. Guns played no
significant role in those battles, and bowman won both. Later crossbows
were extremely effective, while guns were not. The early guns had three
major problems. They were expensive to make, so bowman were more
common despite the greater training required. They were unreliable,
sometimes not firing at all and impossible to fire in coordination
(i.e. if a hundred people tried to fire at the same time, they would
actually fire over a period of perhaps half a minute.) They had a
nasty habit of exploding in people's hands. (In _Henry_VII_, there
is a nice line on the subject, to the effect that charging into
battle without a weapon was probably safer than using a pistol.)
That's three factors that seem very relevant to the commercial use
of new technologies for spacecraft: Expense, reliability and safety.
> : > try reading the CSTS, and define scientific market research?
>: Where is it? Any sort of scientific polling requires that you poll a group
>: that is representative of your target segment of population. For instance,
>: if you were trying to predict the outcome of a presidential election, you
>: would have to question people from different social and economic
>: backgrounds, as well as from different geographic regions. If you simply
>: have visitors to your space tourisim web site take a survey, you are simply
>: finding out what space enthusiasts think, since that is who is likely to
>: visit such a site. You wouldn't have a sample that was representative of
>: the general public.
>A year ago I would agree, today no. The fact is WWW sites are being
>visited by a very large range of people for a large range of reasons.
>While WWW hits still don't represent the general population yet, it is
>getting closer and closer every day.
I strongly disagree. WWW _access_ is more common, and perhaps it's getting
to the point where the people who _could_ visit web sites is approaching
a representative sample of the public. But this is not true of any
specific web site. Personally, I don't visit web sites about pets,
although I certainly could. People visiting a space-related web
site are inherently people interested in space. That would still
be true if 100% of the population had WWW access. The statistical
bias noted above is an old one, and has nothing to do with the
people who _could_ respond. Send out a letter to all members of
union, and ask them to reply with their opinions: Most of them
will throw it out as junk mail, and you will only get replies from
the (potentially) small number of people who are interested enough
to write back. That's a biased sample because you aren't getting
responses from everyone, despite the fact that everyone has the
ability to respond.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Frank Crary
In article <5h7djj$7...@clarknet.clark.net>, pat <p...@clark.net> wrote:
>>>and for really rich people, $20K is an impulse buy. My dad, used to
>>>drop 30K in an afternoon, just for kicks. Take a look at any of the
>>>high stakes tables in Vegas sometimes. Then come back. I've watched
>>>people put 50K on a dice roll, and that's only 10 seconds.
>>Sure. Now look at the size of those markets. The number of people
>>willing to spend $100 for fun, or on impulse, is vastly greater
>>than the number of people willing to spend $20,000 in the same
>>way.
>Sure, but given teh number of millionaires, it's large enough to
>support a market.
That isn't obvious to me. You'd need 5000 people willing to pay
$20,000 for a short trip into space, to generate $100 million
in capitol. There are certainly 5000 people who _could_ afford
to pay that much, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence
that there are 5000 people who _would_. (Note that your example
of $10,000 joy rides on a Mig involves a vehicle that it already
built and paid for, so they can make a profit without worrying
about design and development costs.)
>>>Kistler, kelly, hudson, clapp are all pushing for this.
>>>I think George is working on a SSTO expendable.
>>If you mean George Herbert, he's working on multi-stage expendables.
>>His improvement over the current state of the art is low-cost
>>hardware, i.e. big dumb rockets.
>Sorry, i can't remember allthese proposals.
I think that's a good sign: It means there are a large number
of different ideas for cheap access to space, which people are actually
working on.
>>>>As for the "NASA designed the Space Shuttle and it's a piece of crap"
>>>>argument, you could say that about the first of just about anything. The
>>>>first jet airliner was a failure, the first car was no improvement over a
>>>>horse, the first firearms were inferior to the bows of the time.
>>>Define first car?
>>Say the steam cars of the late 1800s.
>okay, not real good, but the first steam locomotive was still better then
>horse and carriage.
Not exactly. The locomotives could only go where the rails led. For
some purposes, that was better. But for others it was worse.
>>>the first firearms were considered vastly superior to the bow, solely
>>>because of the reduced training requirements.
>>Not quite. The training required for crossbows was no greater than
>>that required for early firearms, and crossbows were substantially
>>more reliable. Firearms didn't become a superior to crossbows until
>sorry, when you said Bow, i was thinking Welsh Long Bow.
Even in that case, bowman were more effective than troops using
guns for at least 200 years after guns were available. Guns existed
about that long before Agincourt, but there weren't any troops
using guns at that battle. Expense of manufacture and poor reliability
made the longbow a common and effective weapon, long after gun-armed
troops were theoretically possible.
>>>>That is not my argument, although I would question whether there are tens
>>>>of thousands of people who could afford a $10,000 ticket(I certainly
>>>>couldn't, and I make more then the median income for US residents).
>>>obviously you aren't a good investor and spend too much.
>>I'm not so sure about that... I'm not a bad investor, and finding
>>$10,000 to spend on a ticket would require selling more stock
>>than I'd like to...
>you could afford it frank, like me, you won't spend the money, though.
But that's the whole issue. It doesn't matter how many people could
afford it. You can only expect to make money from those who would
actually buy a ticket. I'd love to get to orbit, but I wouldn't
spend a quarter of my life's savings on a short trip to orbit. So
if that would cost $10,000, I'm not part of the market for space
tourism.
>I bet there are others in this newsgroup who will spend that money.
Probably. I suspect George Herbert would: He's making serious
money these days, not spending alot more than he was while
in college, and quite interested. But George isn't typical of
the general public, and the real question is how many people
would be willing to pay that much. Simply saying that some,
uncertain, number of people would buy a ticket for $10,000
does not prove that a viable market exists.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Rand Simberg
On 25 Mar 1997 12:50:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Vince
Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> So, you're backing off on your comment that "microgravity that you
>> could experiance for one percent the price"? I agree the difference
>
>No, I clearly haven't.
>
>> in cost is less, obviously. The issue is whether the difference in
>> price is commensurate with it.
>
>True, that is what I have been saying.
False, it's not what you've been saying. You said that it was the
same experience at a much higher price.
>> So, since no current launcher can meet the requirements, there is no
>> point in trying to build one? I guess that Don Douglas was a fool for
>> building the DC-3.
>
>No. No launcher that is likely to built in the near future is likely to
>meet the requirements. I haven't heard Lockheed claim anything better than
>1,000 per pound for the VentureStar, and that would translate into about
>$40,000,000 per launch, assuming a 40,000 payload.
Frankly my dear, what Lockheed says about it is irrelevant, since they
have no business interest in reducing cost. They have much more to
gain from the status quo.
>> Did you expect any other result from government cost-plus contractors?
>
>Given the current lack of cost plus contracts, yes, assuming that another
>result was correct.
Lack of cost-plus contracts? Have you heard of the Titan program?
How about USA?
>> The study will use established market research techniques, by a
>> recognized expert in the field, whose business relies upon providing
>> reliable results that businesses can take to the bank, and whose
>> intergrity is thereby on the line. Anyone will be able to draw their
>> own conclusions from the publicly-available results, regardless of NSS
>> spin.
>
>Ah, you mean it will be done by an outside firm. I would like to see the
>results of that.
So would we all, but it takes funding.
>> You demonstrate, once again, that you don't *want* to believe that
>> tourism is a viable market, any possible facts be damned.
>
>No, you demonstraye that you want to believe so bad, that you don't really
>care about facts.
And how do I demonstrate that, and what facts (like "it takes more
energy to get to orbit than Europe") don't I care about?
Rand Simberg
On 25 Mar 1997 19:52:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Vince
Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>What I have read so far doesn't really support your position. For
>instance, the summary of the CSTS I read stated that development of launch
>vehicles will continue to require government financial support.
You might want to read the actual report rather than the summary.
Also, consider the source.
>Here's something for you to read:
>Flaws in space tourisim market research:
>http://www.cyclic.com/~kingdon/space/tourism.html
>
>http://www.cyclic.com/~kingdon/space/numbers.html
>
>This one didn't even consider space tourisim important enough to mention:
>http://www.dot.gov/faa/cst/reports/#policy
That is likely to be rectified after the report comes out from the
recent NASA workshop on space tourism. DOT reps were there.
Vince Bitowf
Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote in article
<33393bc8....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> You might want to read the actual report rather than the summary.
> Also, consider the source.
I would like to read it, but I have been unable to find it. If you have a
link, I would appreciate it if I could have a look.
> That is likely to be rectified after the report comes out from the
> recent NASA workshop on space tourism. DOT reps were there.
I look forward to seeing that.
pat
In article <01bc3851$c46b3d00$ca37...@primenet.primenet.com>,
vin...@primenet.com says...
>
>
>
>pat <p...@clark.net> wrote in article <5h20cr$1...@clarknet.clark.net>...
>
>> Society Expeditions, the adventure travel company says so.
>> The Commercial Space Transportation study says so.
>> (This was a joint effort by 6 major aero-space companies).
>> The japanese do, in a study they published.
>
>I would be interested in reading those studies. I haven't been able to
>find the Shimuzu study with a search engine. So do they assume a
>sub-orbital flight, orbital or a space motel.
Try reading Stine's book.
>
>> So what makes vince bitowf such an expert? we hear lot's of
>> scoffing and sarcasm from Vince Botwif, what is your experience.
>
>Kind of ironic coming from you.
>
>I have experiance listening to predictions such as yours, and seeing them
>fail to come to pass. So what makes you such an expert? If space tourisim
>is practical now, where is it?
>
Lack of appropriate vehicles. There was no decent air-tourism market
until the 747 made inter-continental flight cheap and practical.
Build a good tourist vehicle and it will sell seats.
pat
In article <01bc3850$2284d100$ca37...@primenet.primenet.com>,
vin...@primenet.com says...
>
> (and I can only infer that you believe this from the tenor of
>> your messages) that your knowledge is complete and infallible in the
>> area of space tourism?
>
>Well, I think I can infallably say that no one has managed to get such an
>operation off the ground so far.
>
are you arguing it can't be done?
>Organizations that have made moneyin space in the past don't seem to be
>rushing to embrace the concept of space tourisim.
>Those companies which want to develop it don't seem to be getting enough
>investment capital to take a shot of it.
>
Does this mean anything? IBM didn't invest in PCs either.
pat
In article <01bc3955$ad2ad4c0$c937...@primenet.primenet.com>,
vin...@primenet.com says...
>
>> Well, I'm actually in the business. How convincing are your opinions?
>
>Apparently no less than yours, given the level of investment. (I am
>assuming that your results show space tourisim generating profits).
>
>> You demonstrate, once again, that you don't *want* to believe that
>> tourism is a viable market, any possible facts be damned.
>
>No, you demonstraye that you want to believe so bad, that you don't really
>care about facts.
>
There are companies making money selling micro-G rides on IL-76's
and 727's and KC-135s(NASA rented this).
Therefore there is a market for entertainment in zero-G, the only question
is at what price this service can be supplied.
Are you arguing a market issue or a technology issue?
If you are arguing a technology issue, please demonstrate at what price
point the market can be supplied at and what constrains that price
level.
pat
In article <01bc3a24$ce49ada0$cf37...@primenet.primenet.com>,
vin...@primenet.com says...
>
>
>
>> Frankly my dear, what Lockheed says about it is irrelevant, since they
>> have no business interest in reducing cost. They have much more to
>> gain from the status quo.
>
>now.
>
Half-heartedly working on X-33, and if VS takes off it wipes out their
investments in Atlas, Titan, Proton.
>> Lack of cost-plus contracts? Have you heard of the Titan program?
>> How about USA?
>
>Have you heard of the end of the "cold war"? Elimination of projects like
>the A-12, projects such as JSF that are doing what would have been done
>with a number of projects in the past?
JSF is a cost-plus contract, EELV isn't changing things.
>
>> And how do I demonstrate that, and what facts (like "it takes more
>> energy to get to orbit than Europe") don't I care about?
>
>For starters, the fact that there is plenty of investment in projects that
>wouldn't have any hope of competing with the super low costs you feel are
>just around the corner. Why are the member nations of AiraneSpace
>investing so much in the Ariane V? Why is Boeing spending on the Sealaunch
>system?
There were people investing in dirigibles in the 1930's too.
inertia is a terrible thing. people invested in Canals duringt he railrpoad
era too.
Vince Bitowf
Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote in article
<3338a1ef....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >True, that is what I have been saying.
>
> False, it's not what you've been saying. You said that it was the
> same experience at a much higher price.
No, you just have poor reading skills. Show me the message where I said it
was exactly the same.
> Frankly my dear, what Lockheed says about it is irrelevant, since they
> have no business interest in reducing cost. They have much more to
> gain from the status quo.
They do have an interest. They are in fact working on such a vehicle right
now.
> Lack of cost-plus contracts? Have you heard of the Titan program?
> How about USA?
Have you heard of the end of the "cold war"? Elimination of projects like
the A-12, projects such as JSF that are doing what would have been done
with a number of projects in the past?
> And how do I demonstrate that, and what facts (like "it takes more
Rand Simberg
On 26 Mar 1997 13:33:02 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Vince
Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> >True, that is what I have been saying.
>>
>> False, it's not what you've been saying. You said that it was the
>> same experience at a much higher price.
>
>No, you just have poor reading skills. Show me the message where I said it
>was exactly the same.
Here is the quote--let others judge.
>You get to see a view that you have seen a thousand times
>already, microgravity that you could experiance for one percent the price
>in an aircraft flying a balistic flightpath,
Nowhere in the above did you either say or imply that the experience
is any different, and I would infer that you believe them to be
equivalent, since you make such a big deal about the price difference.
>> Frankly my dear, what Lockheed says about it is irrelevant, since they
>> have no business interest in reducing cost. They have much more to
>> gain from the status quo.
>
>They do have an interest. They are in fact working on such a vehicle right
>now.
No, they are working on an X-vehicle, with mostly government money.
And it is of great advantage to them to make sure that *they* are
working on it, so that their competition isn't. Whether they actually
have an intent to build an operational version is questionable,
particularly when one reads their "business plan."
>> Lack of cost-plus contracts? Have you heard of the Titan program?
>> How about USA?
>
>Have you heard of the end of the "cold war"? Elimination of projects like
>the A-12, projects such as JSF that are doing what would have been done
>with a number of projects in the past?
Yes, and with the end of the Cold War came a lot of consolidation in
the industry, so there isn't a need for as many cost-plus contracts.
Most of the competition for existing gummint business has been, shall
we say, assimilated. If you look at Lockmart's and Boeing's backlogs,
they are hardly hurting for business. They have no current motivation
to go low-cost commercial space.
>> And how do I demonstrate that, and what facts (like "it takes more
>> energy to get to orbit than Europe") don't I care about?
>
>For starters, the fact that there is plenty of investment in projects that
>wouldn't have any hope of competing with the super low costs you feel are
>just around the corner. Why are the member nations of AiraneSpace
>investing so much in the Ariane V?
Because they are government bureaucracies making idiotic decisions.
A5 will be Europe's Shuttle, and they will deeply regret it soon (if
they don't already).
>Why is Boeing spending on the Sealaunch
>system?
Because it's a great near-term opportunity, with very low risk. In
any event, when did I say anything was just around the corner? Or
perhaps we have to define the distance to the corner.
Michael P. Walsh
pat wrote:
>
>
> Does this mean anything? IBM didn't invest in PCs either.
---
---
This is not relevant to the space discussion, but yes
they did. They did not pioneer the field, but after
smaller outfits with CPM operating system machines and
Apple showed there was a market then IBM jumped
right in and became the leader in the field.
Of course, they aren't the leader right now, but
where did you think the term "IBM compatible"
came from?
Mike Walsh
Rand Simberg
On 26 Mar 1997 13:38:02 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Vince
Bitowf" <vin...@primenet.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>I would like to read it, but I have been unable to find it. If you have a
>link, I would appreciate it if I could have a look.
I doubt if it's on line--if it were, Mr. Kingdon would already have a
link to it <g>. You might contact Bill Piland at Langley for a copy.
Vince Bitowf
Phil Fraering <p...@stiletto.acadian.net> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.95.97032...@stiletto.acadian.net>...
> In the professional video editing field they're using a lot of
> "Son-of-BetaMax" technology.
>
> Got any other bright ideas?
Well pointing out that "son of betamax" used in video editing doesn't make
the origional BetaMax a success is a prety bright idea.
> Actually, in the 70's, and early 80's people were talking about how That
> Wonderful Icon of Socialist Engineering, The Spacce Shuttle, was going to
> do it;
Otrag, Conestoga.
> If it is so easy and cheap to build a launch vehicle why can't Connestoga
> > do it?
>
> In a significant way, Conestoga wasn't even trying; they were trying to
> use minutemen stages, etc., to put a launch vehicle together with, using
> all the same old methodologies, which are much _harder_ than the new
ones.
>
>
> > Why couldn't OTRAG?
>
> I don't know.
>
> But I do know that there isn't a convincing market for personal
computers;
> after all, look at what happened to Commodore. Right down the commode.
Because of competition from other computer makers. What competition did
OTRAG have, other than Cost plus contractors.
> Because you're not asking for the money. If you had a serious plan,
they'd
> probably approach you.
I am not asking about people looking for investors, I am asking about the
people actually doing the investing.
> "If it's such a good idea, how come no one's done it already?"
No, if it is such a good idea, why isn't there more investment.
> If everyone used that argument, there wouldn't be a computer industry, or
> a car industry, or even a buggy whip industry. ("That horse looks awfully
> mean; trying to train it as a riding animal is probably more trouble than
> it's worth, especially considering that the stew tastes a lot better!")
True, but no one is using that argument.
> And as I pointed out, people _are_ investing. Kelly, Kistler, HMX/RRI,
and
> Pioneer all have funding now. So your argument's basic facts are wrong.
Do they?
Vince Bitowf
Frank Crary <fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU> wrote in article
<5h9vci$9...@lace.colorado.edu>...
> True, but there is some value to that sort of survey (if you care to
> call it a survey...) If a thousand people visit the site and say
> they are willing to pay $10,000 for a ticket on a sub-orbital vehicle,
> you do know you could sell 1000 tickets (assuming all the people
You can't make that assumption. While most are likely well intentioned,
they may be hoping to have a spare $10,000 in the future, or they may feel
thatit s worth $10,000 despite the fact that they can't acctually spend
that much.
Would you spend $900 milion to build an SSTO? Assuming you aren't opposed
it, you might say yes, without that mplying that you acctually plan on
spending $900,000,000.
> I'm not so sure about that. Most of the mass for (current) commercial
> space payloads is rocket fuel, and if it uses hydrogen, that's a
> high bulk/low mass cargo. Take the Space Shuttles: Their payload
> bay is about 5 meters wide and 15 meters long, and the mass limit
> is around 20 tonnes, if memory serves. That comes out to 68 kg/m^3,
> overall. So the Shuttle can handle very low density payloads (note
> that carrying water would involve a bulk density of 1000 kg/m^3.)
> I'm not sure about VentureStar, but if they are thinking of
> payloads with an upper stage, especially if it uses hydrogen as
> the fuel, then they are probably designing for payload densities
> similar to that of a passenger module.
I didn't say that it couldn't handle them, I said that they would not be as
efficient. The payload pay of the VS is anticipated to be 45' X 15'. The
reason thay would not be carrying a partial cargo, limited by the fact that
only a limited number of people could be fit into the cargo bay.
Vince Bitowf
pat <p...@clark.net> wrote in article <5hc4ce$k...@clarknet.clark.net>...
> There are companies making money selling micro-G rides on IL-76's
> and 727's and KC-135s(NASA rented this).
Sure, I have mentioned them.
> Therefore there is a market for entertainment in zero-G, the only
question
> is at what price this service can be supplied.
>
> Are you arguing a market issue or a technology issue?
Interesting question. I don't think you can argue one without the other.
The problem is that to estimate the cost you would have to charge, you have
to know what it will cost you to provide your service, and launch cost is
the single biggest factor.
If you want to design a vehicle too, then it gets harder, because you have
to have enough ridership to pay development costs and you have to have
capital up front.
> If you are arguing a technology issue, please demonstrate at what price
> point the market can be supplied at and what constrains that price
> level.
The main constraint on pricing is launch cost. I don't think we are going
to see launch costs in a man rated vehicle much below $500/lb for a couple
of decades. (I know you disagree, but we have been through that)
So, you are looking at about $ 200,000 per passenger for launch costs alone
assuming 400/lb per passenger.
Vince Bitowf
CONPUTE <con...@idirect.com> wrote in article
<3337c...@lagoon.idirect.com>...
> Pardon????? Society expeditions are going on right now this every minute
> with real live people. Again, go to you local magazine rack and pick up
> some vacation magazines and see what people are paying for.
Yes, but I have pointed out that the two are not comparable.
> Me!, my present income is $32K a year that is it! But three years ago I
> bought a $18,000 15.6 acres of land on pure impluse. I bought my second
> property for $20K a year later. Guess what! I still am not broke. The
> 20K property which is a lovely waterfront which I and my girlfriend fell
> in love with on site (pun and true) is 100% paid for. The first property
> has only $6K left owning on it. My brother Paul makes $100K+ a year, and
> paid $12,500 the waterfront beside me (cliffy). He came up to see my
> property, loved the one beside it, walked into the sales office the next
> day with a check, and made FULL PAYMENT the following week. Your problem
> seems to be that is you have never lived in a GM town where even factory
> workers make $50K and think nothing on spending $10-20K for fun. You
> clearly have not read boating magazines where people drop $100K to $3
> million to get the boat and thus the vacation they want. This is not one
> or two people a year doing this - THIS IS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE PER YEAR.
Again, not comparable. That is like my comparison to buying a house. Like
a house, someone could reasonably expect a boat tolast many years. I would
not spend $20,000 on a vacation, but I would on a boat. I just spent
nearly that on a car.
> Not develop it. In most cases you just need to buy and intergrate it.
But
> buying and intergrating (sp?) still costs money. Insurance still costs
> money. Crew and fuel still costs money. Yes, they need money. But
> sometimes the hardware is not as hard as you would like to make out.
I don't know. I think it is harder than most people think.
> : It isn't. It can be developed, but it will cost money and take time.
> : Doing something and doing it cheaply are two different things.
>
> He! That not what you said before. You said that only NASA could develop
> the needed tech and that it would not be ready before the 2030's.
No, that is what I said before. I said that it will take federal financial
support. I also predicted that it would be around 2030 before it actually
happens. I don't see how you can interpret the above statement as
contradicting that.
> First you dont start with an expensive design like VentureStar. Start
> with RocketPlane or ROTON. I really like ROTON for Sub-Orbital designs.
> Then you design it from day one to carry passengers, or cargo, or even
> boosters. But you don't start with a specialized design and then try and
> make it into another specialized design! You start with a generalized
> design, then add modules for the specialized uses.
It is debatable that designs that are cheaper than VS will be available.
In fact, it isn't certain that VS will be built.
> KISS -- Keep It Simple Stupid.
Possibly. There is a school of thought which states that there is an
inverse relationship between development costs and operational costs.
> One of the main reasons the STS is so bad is too many organizations were
> pushing thier on needs into the design of the shuttle. And Cargo SSTOs
> probably will appear first. But the design of the DC was for plug in
That is also true of the VentureStar, and probably the Rockwell design too.
> modules. First you fly cargo and then a year later after you have 50 to
a
> 100 flights under your belt you plug in a crew module. And after another
> 50 to 100 flights plug in a tourist module. Please notice that you can
> work on the design of the modules highly indepentant of the SSTO!
Here you are back to the question of cost. The VS is supposed to be a bit
under $1,000 per pound. Assume 400lb/passenger and you have
$200,000/passenger as costs for launch alone.
> They are at least trying to get the money.
I realize that, but I have questioned whether they can get enough to design
their vehicles. It looks as though Kelly can, but it is recieving some
federal funds, and it's vehicle appears too small to carry passengers.
> Our materials are better today. I can buy Carbon-Fibre cloth in a local
> boat supply store TODAY. This is off the shelf. I can place an order for
> high temp steel or ceramics (sp?) today, and even send an AutoCad file on
> the shape and size if want made. Yes, I have to design the part, but
back
> then they not only have to design the part, but also the material, the
> production process and as for shipping that is what UPS does today.
Yes, but if I recal the message you are referring to, my point was that
just because the space shuttle didn't work out as expected doesn't mean the
the VentureStar won't.
> PS. I am working on my own air-breathing rocket engine this year. Ten
> years ago it would have been hard to get parts or info. Twenty years ago
> it would have been impossible to build my design because the materials
did
> not exist for the general public.
Sounds interesting.
> Sorry, I can't remember was the a one or a two seater. We may disagree
but
> I think a car would need to be atleast a two seater to match the
> discussion as we are taliking about passengers.
My point was simply that often the first of something isn't that great.
> True, but they were still easyier to use than a Bow. And how many kings
> and nobles keep using bowmen because they did not believe this new
fangled
> device could be a threat. 100 to 150 years sound about right for the gun
> carrying armies wipe out the bowman armies. The real question should be,
> In the early battles who won the Bows or the Guns?
The early guns were basically metal tubes tied to poles. No way of aiming
them except in a general way. I don't know of any army that even attempted
to use them to replace bows at this stage, and they would have lost if they
had. A good bowman could get off 15 or so shots in the time it took to
load a gun. At this point, guns were used for psycological impact.
> A memory lasts for a lifetime also, otherwise people would not bother
> going on expensive vacations. And the above tend to be those 'once in a
> lifetime' things people do not because they have to, but because they
can.
> The point is there is a market for climbing Mount Everest at 50K each,
and
> the market is so big that it is backlogged for 3 years. Damn can't be any
> money in that market can there? :) People buy houses to live in. People
> buy motorcycles for transportation. People buy Harleys because they are
> Harleys. Don't think so? Tell a biker that you will replace his $30K
> Harley with a $50K+ GoldWing and see what he says. :)
>
> And PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE pick up a few vacation and boating and flying
> magazines and see what type of money is out there in the hands of a lot
of
> people.
The problem here is not that don't believe you, it is the relevance of a
market for vacations to the market for a short flight.
A two hour flight is not the same thing as a two week vacation which in
turn isn't the same thing as a boat or a house.
You were using a DC-X which would be comparable.
> Only you think we want VS for tourists. Please look at other designs.
The problem with that is that you have to assess the likelyhood of those
other designs being built and the cost they will be able to perate at.
> Nice try. One friend at work is building a house of his own design,
guess
> what? After three weeks there still is not one piece of lumber on his
> property, he is busy with saving money, getting approval, having plans
> drawn up and also approved. Using his time table the house will not
start
> going up till 1 year 3 months from now. But he still has to do the paper
> work first. Same for my friend building her cabin across the lake from
> me. She has been going over plans and buying supplies all this winter so
> that the cabin will go up in 10 days of hard labour.
Nice try yourself, but not really comparable. A house is what the airforce
would call a non-developmental item. There is far less risk of a design or
materials flaw causing the project to run over budges, and no need to
convince customers that it is safe enough. Not the same risks.
> : Really? If I had that kind of money to spend on a flight, I would
> : certainly not be willing to pay as much for a sub orbital flight as I
would
> : for an orbital flight.
>
> But that is you. There are 6,000,000,000+ people in the world and you
> don't represent them all.
So if there is evidence that people will pay $20,000 for an orbital ride,
that you can be sure they will be just as eager to pay just as much for a
sub orbital ride? Do the charter boats in your magazines charge the same
amount for a month as they do for a week?
> FIRST YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE PUSHING VS.
I am not pushing it, I just think thatit has a much greater chance of being
reliable enough to do the job and a greater chance of being built in the
first place.
> Second, who said it needed a purpose built craft? A purpose modified
> craft is all that is needed to start the industry, Once you show there is
> a market, then you will find investment for a purpose built craft.
A number of people have.
> No? But business reality is that those who see new markets when other
> don't usually are the ones to control it in the future (atleast be a
major
> player).
Sure, but business reality is also having a product that costs more to
manufacture than anticipated, runnin ut of money before your product takes
off. Edsels, De Lorians, amphibious cars and Pintos. It isn't always as
easy to tell what fits into what category as it seems.
Vince Bitowf
Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote in article
<33385467....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >No SSTO will ever match the cost of an airliner to Europe
> >without some breakthrough like antigravity. It simply takes more energy
to
> >reach orbit than it does to reach Europe, and thus more fuel.
> A reasonable person would infer from this that a) it takes more energy
> to deliver a kilogram to Europe than to orbit and that b) this is the
> major reason why we will never see launch costs comparable to air
> fares. (a) is demonstrably false, and (b) is definitely arguable. If
I disagree with (a).
> the only cost of launch were propellant, it would cost anywhere from
> five to twenty bucks per payload pound to get there, depending on
> propellant combinations and vehicle efficiency. At the five dollar
> mark, that translates into less than a thousand dollars for a ticket.
> Sounds comparable to Europe to me. Even for airliners, fuel costs are
> not the dominant factor in ticket prices.
The only cost is not propellant. You are trying to compare the fuel cost
(only) of transporting 1 Kg to orbit to the _entire_ cost of flying to
Europe. Fuel, crew, landing fees, taxes, liability etc. Unless you have
something like anti-gravity, you are going to have those non-fuel costs for
a space vehicle too. Assuming the same non-fuel costs for an SSTO, the
cost to orbit will be higher.
Read it again. No where did I say that the cost of fuel _alone_ would be
more.
> It depends on many other factors, and in fact may be quite possible.
So may antigravity.
> If you were merely questioning, I'd have no problem. I also am
> questioning. But you think you already know the answer, in the
> absence of data or research.
No, I am stating my opinions in the same way that you or anyone else does.
Ovbiousl, think Iknow the answer on many points or I wouldn't have an
opinion. And the claim that I lack data or research is totally false. I
have given plenty of data and done research to get it.
You are the one who is simply asserting things as though you expect to be
taken as an authority.
> I honestly believe that there may be commercial flights to the moon in
> 13 years. And no, that's not an opinion--it's a clear and unambiguous
> statement of my belief <g>.
Can I make those too, or do I need a disclaimer?
> You put implicit notices into all of your messages that this is the
> World According To Vince, and anyone who thinks otherwise just isn't
> clued in.
Not any more than you do. For instance, you claim that it is absurd and
"demonstrably untrue" that it takes more fuel to get to orbit than to
Europe, but you can't demonstrate it. You claim that "years after that,
there will be rides available to orbit. A few years after that, there will
be orbital resorts, and then lunar visits and". So to paraphrase you, "You
put implicit notices into all of your messages that this is the World
According To Rand, and anyone who thinks otherwise just isn't clued in".
Being a True Beliver, it may seem obvious to you, but assuming that these
super low launch costs that are projected are a certainty, or are even
likely, why is it that the people most in a position to evaluate the
likelyhood of them acctually happening (the people who are already in the
launch industry) are not shaking in their boots. Not only do they not seem
worried, they continue to invest in launch technology that couldn't
possibly compete?
> And to how many current investors was this pitch made, and what
> evidence (contrary to the contemporary experiences of current launch
> vehicle entrepreneurs) do you have that it's poisoned the well for
> space investment.
Around 100 million, guessing at the number of tax payers back then.
> Yes, but also suborbital flights, and orbital rockets. See Kistler,
> Kelly, Pioneer, Rotary Rocket, et al.
I have looked at the Kelly page, and I don't see anything about tourisim,
and Kelly only expects to deliver prices reduced by half over current
prices. It also mentions that they are developing a vehicle with a
government contract, as a satelite launcher.
http://www.kellyspace.com/kstnl.html
> >That is something I have said before. That is why I my predictions for
> >space tourisim flights are so far in the future.
>
> This doesn't follow.
That depends on how much difficulty you think people designing passenger
spacecraft are going to have.
I have barely touched on issues like liability.
> >> and there is not enough satellite market to provide those kind of
> >> flight rates. You think that space tourism will result from low
> >> costs. I think that low costs will result from space tourism, in a
> >
> >Precisely.
>
> So you agree that tourism is will produce low costs, instead of vice
> versa? That seems to be a new position.
It would be, except that I was agreeing with your assesment of my position.
I think low costs will have to come first.
Vince Bitowf
pat <p...@clark.net> wrote in article <5hc4jn$k...@clarknet.clark.net>...
> Half-heartedly working on X-33, and if VS takes off it wipes out their
> investments in Atlas, Titan, Proton.
Look at how much of the market they hold with those launchers.
> JSF is a cost-plus contract, EELV isn't changing things.
Yes, but JSF is taking the place of multiple aircraft. It is to replace
the Harrier, the F-16, and the F-18 at least. In the past, that would have
meant three contracts.
> There were people investing in dirigibles in the 1930's too.
> inertia is a terrible thing. people invested in Canals duringt he
railrpoad
> era too.
Dirigibles died out because of the Hindenburg accident. A lot of people
believe that there is a market for lighter than air vehicles (myself
included).
Vince Bitowf
Rand Simberg <sim...@interglobal.org> wrote in article
<333994e8....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> Here is the quote--let others judge.
>
> >You get to see a view that you have seen a thousand times
> >already, microgravity that you could experiance for one percent the
price
> >in an aircraft flying a balistic flightpath,
>
> Nowhere in the above did you either say or imply that the experience
> is any different, and I would infer that you believe them to be
> equivalent, since you make such a big deal about the price difference.
Well you would infer wrong. You can buy a Mercedes that will take you to
the exact places that a Yugo would, but that does not mean that a Yugo is
the same thing as a Mercedes.
> No, they are working on an X-vehicle, with mostly government money.
> And it is of great advantage to them to make sure that *they* are
> working on it, so that their competition isn't. Whether they actually
> have an intent to build an operational version is questionable,
> particularly when one reads their "business plan."
They are working on a half scale prototype of an operational vehicle.
> Yes, and with the end of the Cold War came a lot of consolidation in
> the industry, so there isn't a need for as many cost-plus contracts.
> Most of the competition for existing gummint business has been, shall
> we say, assimilated. If you look at Lockmart's and Boeing's backlogs,
> they are hardly hurting for business. They have no current motivation
> to go low-cost commercial space.
Then why the X-33? You said to keep the competition from working on it,
but that doesn't make any sense.
> Because they are government bureaucracies making idiotic decisions.
> A5 will be Europe's Shuttle, and they will deeply regret it soon (if
> they don't already).
Well, we will have to wait and see. They seem enthusiastic enough now.
> Because it's a great near-term opportunity, with very low risk. In
> any event, when did I say anything was just around the corner? Or
> perhaps we have to define the distance to the corner.
We need to define "just around the corner".
Vince Bitowf
pat <p...@clark.net> wrote in article <5hc4tg$k...@clarknet.clark.net>...
> Build a good tourist vehicle and it will sell seats.
Agreed assuming that the price can be made low enough. We will simply have
to agree to disagree about that.