space tourism

[Loverboy]

Quote from Burtakus:

I think that the SS1 concept is a good long-term investment opportunity. However even with the advancse in technology a private venture could not build a space shuttle counterpart without being subsidized by the government. Now, I do agree that a smaller less capable craft that is only marginally better than the SS1 could be built by private industry. And yes falling form 65 miles like the SS1 is drastically different than falling from 220 miles like the shuttle.

Without trying to sound condescending, have you ever taken a physics class?

Physics class: Yes, but that was a long time ago. However, I cannot see what the physics classes I've taken ("one ball falls to earth - see it bounce") could have taught me that could convice me that private corps can't better develop a shuttle replacement than the government from now on, something that can lift enough stuff into space for mankind to start conquering the solar system (just for starters, in the next 500 years, beyond that I dunno, the closest star is what - 4 lightyears away?). If I want expert advice, I'll call an expert. I'm just the visionary that tells ppl what the future may look like if the engineers do their jobs properly.

Anyway you do not need to take a physics class to see the commercial potential in something like this, even in the nano-timeframe (10 years). I'm not too hung up on SS1 as such, I'm talking second generation vessels that Scaled may or may not in the very near future announce plans for developing. And third generation, and fourth... What happens when Boing and Airbus wants in? And I'm talking engine-R&Ders like Spacedev and component manufacturers.

BTW what's your background since you seem to know alot about this especially that private corps cannot develop spaceships that will leave the shuttles looking like the Cutty Sark, a B17 or a Bismark?

 

[Covertibility]

Quote from Loverboy:

1. Visionaries like Allen and Branson, the former has invested already and Branson has publicly stated that he will invest. Does this indicate something? 2. Scaled has spent just peanuts, and successfully developed a craft that sent man to the edge of space. Mankinds technological prownes is somewhat better today than 40 years ago. 3. Business opportunities. A) Tourism, ppl are willing to pay a premium for an extraordinary experience. B) Mini/micro satelite launch and possibly repair (industries that do not yet exist) at dramatically lower cost points than existing alternatives (US, Russian or Chinese government launches). And of course, all other opps that I am just too dumb to spot.

Am I the only one seeing this as an inv opp?

There is this rule about Allen: you can admire the guy but don't follow him investment wise. His investments don't exactly payoff (excluding Microsoft). Branson is more show than anything else. I wouldn't call them visionaries. They just have deep pockets.

At last look NASA has some X or Z plane that will replace the shuttle eventually. While the free marketeers are happy to even get off the ground, NASA is already looking to return to the moon, establish bases and beyond.

 

[damir00]

Quote from Loverboy:

SS1 has also 'fallen' some 60 miles and landed in one piece, does that count for something?

sure! but you must admit it would have been more impressive if other people hadn't already been doing it for nearly 1/2 a century.

So if I understand you correctly you're saying the shuttle is the way to go from here.

i never said any such thing. personally i think all of NASA should be scrapped given the current federal fiscal situation.

 

[damir00]

Quote from Loverboy:

Visionaries like Allen and Branson

this is the classic matching of the immovable object against the irresistable force. Allen doesn't know how make money, and Branson doesn't know how to lose it. will be interesting to watch...

 

[Burtakus]

Quote from Loverboy:

BTW what's your background since you seem to know alot about this especially that private corps cannot develop spaceships that will leave the shuttles looking like the Cutty Sark, a B17 or a Bismark?

As for making the Shuttle look like the cutty shark, several things need to happen. The three biggest are: 1) advances in propulsion - the SSMEs are still 25 years after being developed the most effecient rocket engines ever made. 2) Advances in materials - een with todays lightweight composites consturction materials weigh too much to develop a truly revolutionary vehicle that will make the shuttle look like a model T. 3) support staff - the sheer number of persons required to suport a project like the shuttle is astronomical. Granted that coule be reduecd somewhat in the near future through automation and so forth. However if you were to build a vahicle that has all of the capabilities of the shutle you would still need a rather large team of engineers to not only develop it but to sustain and operate it.

Beyond those three major technical items there lies the economic problem. Form what I've heard Paul Allen spent upwards of 20 million just to build a toy rocket. This places the unit cost at 20 million. Assume that future models can be built cheaper thereby lowering the unit cost. There might be an expanding market for those who want to pay $200,000 for a thrill ride but the market for services like the shuttle typically belong to governments and large sattelites. Last time I checked the heavy launch market wasn't dong to well which leaves the government to fully fund the shuttle. I will admit that in hindsight there are ways to reduce the cost but then again that is hindsight and hopefully it will be applied to the CEV. Even with applying the lesson learned form the Shuttle and previous progrmas wer are talking about tens of billions of dollars, not 20 million. no company will risk billions for a shaky market that in the past has only survived from government subsidy.

I do think that work that the work that Rutan and others are doing is extremely importnat and perhaps some of the achievemnts will help advance the realm of heavy launch vehicles with much larger mission capabilities. In my opinion the shuttle concept is flawed because it was built to be everything to everybody. It might be a better approach to build several differnet variants with each having a specific role. that would be cheaper because man rating a launch vehicle is many more times expensive than a non man rated vehicle.


As for my background I have a BS in Physics and an MS in systems engineering and work in the space program (the private corp side, not a civil servant).

 

[Burtakus]

Quote from damir00:


i never said any such thing. personally i think all of NASA should be scrapped given the current federal fiscal situation.

Damir,

NASA has its problems but scrapping it because of the gavernments fiscla situation is not such a good idea. Do you know how much the NASA budget is and whats its percentage of the overall budget is?

It's about as big as a fly on an elephants ass.

 

[Loverboy]

Burtakus, thanks for sharing your insights, this is interesting stuff.

 

[maxpi]

Quote from Covertibility:

There is this rule about Allen: you can admire the guy but don't follow him investment wise. His investments don't exactly payoff (excluding Microsoft). Branson is more show than anything else. I wouldn't call them visionaries. They just have deep pockets.

At last look NASA has some X or Z plane that will replace the shuttle eventually. While the free marketeers are happy to even get off the ground, NASA is already looking to return to the moon, establish bases and beyond.

Like a lot of things in life, it's about the funding. Funding attracts good managers, good managers and funding attracts the talent. Rutan and his crew is definitely talent so here we go.

I am really getting elated about the prospect of flying in that thing. I have to start working out so I can pass the physical!! It must be the NoDoz..... gotta start cutting those pills in half.

Rutan is in my back yard actually, I know people that know him or his crew, could not quite wrangle a pass to see the first flight but......... man, I really want to go on that thing, take some amateur radio gear and be the first to make contacts from the first commercial flight into space............ It's doable. Gotta get back to work on the systems....... Friqqing goody-goody astronauts, you gonna have to put up with my s^&t baby.

Max

 

[damir00]

Quote from Burtakus:


NASA has its problems but scrapping it because of the gavernments fiscla situation is not such a good idea. Do you know how much the NASA budget is and whats its percentage of the overall budget is?

It's about as big as a fly on an elephants ass.

since the federal budget situation is about as messy as the ass of a diarrehtic elephant, every fly helps. its either NASA or Iraq or Social Security or...gasp...much higher taxes.

take your pick. it's all the same to me.

 

[Burtakus]

Iraq war 200 billion, SS too many billions to count, NASA budget 15 billion. I would say that ROI for NASA is very high over the long haul.

Loverboy, thanks for the comment but I am just one of many who have some insight to the space program. Many more have a much better insight than I do but share the same views. Hopefully NASA will take its lessons learned from the Shuttle and ISS and apply them to the exploration program if it gets funding.