Study Shows Large Space Tourism Market 189
HobbySpacer writes: "A serious market study has finally been done on space tourism and it shows a substantial market, even for brief sub-orbital flights. The
Futron/Zogby study of high income individuals found that 19% would pay $100k for a sub-orbital flight. Furthermore, 7% would pay $20M to go to the Space Station (if they had the money.) The percentages go up if the prices could come down, especially with availability of private orbital facilities. With around 30 million high-net-worth households ($500,000+) in the US, this indicates a market of several million for suborbital on the short term and eventually for orbital. We can hope that like previous expensive luxuries, e.g. jet travel and ocean cruises, the wealthy will pull the prices down to a level reachable by the rest of us."
The X-Prize - Cheap Access To Space (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The X-Prize - Cheap Access To Space (Score:3, Informative)
I personally think Feb 2005 is way optimistic, especially given the reusability requirement: the same craft must fly twice in a 14-day period. A private effort to get a single manned launch is tough enough -- 14 days to test, re-prep, and relaunch? Even NASA would have a tough time.
Re:The X-Prize - Cheap Access To Space (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The X-Prize - Cheap Access To Space (Score:2)
Heh, I think you just invented (or possibly, used) a new karma-whoring technique.
Me, I'd pay good money to visit a (Chinese) moon base -- but not the ISS. It's too cramped in there. A moon base would have the "luxury" of being able to spread a little more (either under a roof or dug into the ground). It's not zero-G, but sex would still be a little more ... energetic. ;-)
Re:The X-Prize - Cheap Access To Space (Score:2)
500 x $20 million a year (Score:2)
Sky high prices (Score:1)
Unless you're going to be up there for a while, it's really not as interesting as you'd think. They sure won't let you press any buttons.
But How? (Score:2, Funny)
If only I had the money... (Score:5, Funny)
If I "had the money", I'd pay $3B for my own private space shuttle. Duh.
Re:If only I had the money... (Score:2, Informative)
Talk is cheap. If people really had the money I bet far fewer would actually follow through with the doallars.
Re:If only I had the money... (Score:2)
Re:If only I had the money... (Score:2)
Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Tell NASA ... please! (Score:2)
Re:Tell NASA ... please! (Score:2)
Count me in.... (Score:1)
Who will pilot the ships? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure Admiral No Fucking Shit has his own 2 cents to contribute. Maybe he'll figure out now that people think that it would be cool to go back in time too.
I'd give my left nut for a space ship. More interesting would be a study of which body parts people would be willing to trade for the ability to take a weekend excursion to Mars.
~D
Re:Who will pilot the ships? (Score:5, Funny)
And if I had a space ship, I wouldn't take your left nut (or anyone else's) in exchange for it. I strongly suspect that I don't value your nuts anywhere near as much as you do.
Re:Who will pilot the ships? (Score:1)
A LONG time ago I saw a movie where this guy would place bets of various types where the prize was something welthy if he lost and the person's finger if he won.
Maybe there is a sicko out there that likes to show off a collection of left nuts.
Re:Who will pilot the ships? (Score:1)
Re:Who will pilot the ships? (Score:2)
Sounds like Man From the South [roalddahlfans.com]
Re:Who will pilot the ships? (Score:1, Interesting)
They can send a bunch of shit with me so I can setup a camp for the next batch of people to come around. Maybe some stuff for generating oxygen, or exploring for water sources, or whatever. It'd be a helluva way to go.
Re:Who will pilot the ships? (Score:2)
Ditto. Strap me into the ship with a bunch of DVD-ROMs full of geology textbooks. By the time I land, I'll be a decent enough geologist to know what rocks to look for. One human with a pick-axe and a week's supply of oxygen could accomplish the work of a hundred probes.
Heck, build two or three identical ships (the cost is in designing the ships, not building the parts). Lob the ships into orbit via unmanned boosters, and fuel them in orbit from tanks filled at ISS. Lob the contestants up on a Shuttle flight for a week of media interviews on ISS. Then detach the ships from ISS and head for mars en masse.
Defray the cost of the additional ships by selling advertising space on a 1-year series called "Survivor: Mars".
Approaching funding the right way (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Space research programs are strapped for cash.
2. Rich people have lots of cash.
3. Space research has long-term, not-very-tangible goals.
4. People who have lots of cash generally made it by focussing on short-term, tangible goals. Therefore, they are not likely to spend money on space research.
5. However, "going into space" is immediate and extremely tangible, not to mention fun.
6. So rich people will spend their cash on space tourism. And the profits will go to space research. Great!
Re:Approaching funding the right way (Score:2)
Sounds more like a consumer mindset to me. After all, in your own model, it's this attitude which is pushing these people to spend on something with no solid possibility of future finacial return.
Everything I've ever read on becoming rich recommends relatively long-term planning over instant gratification, be it a liberal plan (relatively short-term trades in the stock market over a longer period of time, real-estate investing, riskier business venues such MLM, etc) or a conservative plan (long-term investing starting with high-return items moving into lower-risk venues as you age, maybe starting a a more traditional business, so on and so forth). Heck, even get-rich-quick schemes usually don't promise becoming a billionaire overnight.
The rich might enjoy being able to do more things now instead of later, but I don't think there's any evidence that the majority of the rich "got rich quick."
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Approaching funding the right way (Score:1)
And no, inheritance of any sort, in the broadest sense of the term imaginable, does not count. This eliminates gambling, gifts, death of a family member, marriages in certain states and under certain conditions, etc.
You could argue that some people became rich "overnight" when some sort of asset they owned went up dramatically in value. Unless they just started investing and made a miracle trade, such an event would occur within the context of a larger plan, hence they would have really become rich over a longer period of time.
Of course, if you do know a way to make a couple million in the next twenty-four hours starting with only nominal capital, I'd love to hear it. SW needs a new pair of sandals, and the EFF could always use another donation.
Still time (Score:1)
Re:Still time (Score:3, Insightful)
Time (Score:1)
at last.... (Score:1)
Like all industries, first for the superrich, then for the rich, and then for the rest of us.
Expect things to go through several false starts first though.
I'll go.... (Score:2)
Bid on Ebay (Score:2)
Re:Bid on Ebay (Score:1)
Re: Bid on Ebay (Score:2)
Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it this way: Most people's equity is in their house, which, for "wealthy" families, usually costs around 500K.
So maybe they have their mortgage half-paid-off (which is uncommon). That leaves 250K-750K of money. Again, most, i'd say 75% or so, of that is in a retirement account, or some other form of non-liquid asset.
So you have somewhere between 60K and 190K of liquid assets. Do you really want to spend half-to-all of your assets on a sub-orbital flight lasting several minutes, at most?
In my book, you'd have to be insane.
The "wealthy people" discussed here are probably in double digits of million dollars of assets, or at least $5M or so.
Either that, or the "researchers" just asked "would you do this if you had the cash?" which is, pretty much, a bull-shit question. Its like saying "would you buy 30 houses, if you had the cash?" The people who *actually* have the cash still don't consider themselves "rich" enough to have it, as wealthy people tend to invest their money.
As noted in the excellent book "The millionaire next door," high income, and especially high expenditures and consumption, or a "rich" lifestyle, almost never correlate to a large amount of assets. People who live such a lifestyle usually never save up enough to maintain a large amount of assets.
Still am sure there are thousands of people who would pay for this stuff. But it is definately NOT the incredibly large amount of people they make it out to be.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
If you're making 10% in the stock market, then you make that much in a year.
So, if you're 40 years old and in that situation, I'd say GO FOR IT. By the time retirement comes at 75 years of age, you'll have had 35 years to make back what you spent on the trip of your life.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
Ah, but a more frugal use of that money would be to invest it for ten years.
You're still only 50, but your $100K gets you an hour in zero-G instead of a 10-minute suborbital hop.
The early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
Sounds like this is exactly what happened. Junk polling but probably good enough to land on CNN, and I hope that happens. This may be about as sound as the silly online political opinion polls we see everyday but stories like this might start to really regenerate some grassroots interest in lower cost spaceflight.
The average Joe American might start to buy into these dreams, because he believes that he's got a shot at being rich one day (this is why so many people are in favour of repealing the "death taxes" that only affect about 1% of the population).
I'd personally love to see public (and corporate) interest swing back to funding advances in space exploration and travel. Maybe a little razzle dazzle PR like this will help. It probably can't make things much worse.
well (Score:3, Interesting)
So anyways back to the dinner, i had just read a story about the Russian 100k sub-orital trip deal, and asked him what he thought. I was pretty surprised to hear how interested he was in it, no doubt he wouldn't risk his life on some crackpot ride... but if there was one available with a fairly proven track record i now know he would jump on the opportunity.
This is a very well educated and well informed person when it comes to space flight, and he loves the idea. It doesn't surprise me one bit that it's a fairly common view.
What we really need is a space lottery. (Score:5, Interesting)
Finally!! A lottery a self-respecting geek can play without feeling like a mouth-breathing idiot!
Re:What we really need is a space lottery. (Score:2)
Re:What we really need is a space lottery. (Score:2)
Hey! Watchit there buddy!
There is a well established correlation between allergies and mathematical aptitude (ie geeks).
-
History, and new travel methods (Score:1)
Only the rich can afford to take advantage of new travel methods for the purpose of leisure.
Countries send people off to do new things, for national pride like the US and USSR space programmes in the 50's and 60's, then comes a time where it is for scientific advancements only, then come the rich people who can afford the high cost for personal pleasure, then it becomes a commodity available to the masses.
Comparison With Cars (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Comparison With Cars (Score:1)
Re:Comparison With Cars (Score:2)
Tim
Flying the porcelain Space Shuttle (Score:1)
I only hope someone invents "Extra Strength Dramamine" by then!
Flawed methodologies. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Flawed methodologies. (Score:2)
Damn! We aren't going to that planet? I was already signing up. The green chick looked a lot like Yvonne Craig, the actress who played Batgirl. She was the inspiration of many wet dreams and self-exploration sessions...
Yummy!
Eonly 20 million... (Score:2)
fsck.
Whaddya Know... (Score:3, Interesting)
I found this [ebay.com] while I was reading NASA Watch [nasawatch.com] (a slashdot like site with space as it's main focus). It seems that they are Ebay auctioning off a trip to the International Space Station. Last I checked it was at $19 mil and hadn't quite met the reserve. Sounds like a market to me...
Re:Whaddya Know... (Score:1)
Re:Whaddya Know... (Score:1)
The auction is probably totally bogus. The current high bidder has previously been mostly buying cell phone cables and faceplates for $5-$60. Doesn't really look a serious buyer to me.
WTF? (Score:1)
So you get a 1 year window of opportunity for who knows what the final bid is (my guess is the reserve is atleast 25mil) of which the profits (it's 20mil according to the spaceadventures.com site, so say 5mil profit) goes to benefit a foundation that supports a fund, that really supports a specialized unit that's purely dedicated to support patients (in the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY ONLY) that suffer with a very specific diseas.
WTF ARE THEY SMOKING, AND CAN I BRING SOME OF THAT TO THE ISS WITH ME!?!?!?
Re:WTF? (Score:1)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Just another day.
--Blair
Re:Whaddya Know... (Score:2)
completely flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, $500k isn't a high net worth, that's not even upper-middle class, it's just plain middle class. $500k is a guy with a house, a car, and not much else.
Secondly, the study itself was of people with $1m net worths, or $250k annual salaries, where did the submitter get that $500k figure anyway?
Lastly, a higher percentage of people said they'd pay $20m than is possible. Fewer than 7% of all people with a net worth > $1m have a net worth that would allow $20m to be spent on a vacation, which is contrary to what this study shows.
Who fucking cares?
Re:completely flawed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:completely flawed (Score:2)
Re:completely flawed (Score:1)
Re:completely flawed (Score:2)
Now, if you want your value to follow cost-of-living, you need to reinvest half of that, so now you only have a steady income of $25k/year.
Now we assume that this person is in an upper tax bracket, let's say 39% federal, 5% state, 3% local, for a total of 48% tax (very realistic). Your $25k/year is only about $13k/yr after taxes.
Thus, while $500k sounds like a lot of money, if you want to be responsible with it, it only provides about $13k/yr.
$500k per year (a touch that you added, i specifically stated otherwise), would still only get you about $260k/year, and odds are good if you have that salary, you're well aware how to spend that without any issue.
Re:completely flawed (Score:2)
Yeesh.
Kintanon
Re:completely flawed (Score:1, Flamebait)
that's why you're poor.
Re:completely flawed (Score:2)
Kintanon
Re:completely flawed (Score:2)
This I agree with. My in-laws have WAY over 250K worth of assets, but they are in CC debt up to their ears...
Kintanon
Re:completely flawed (Score:2)
The really foolish time to be investing is when everyone is really overheated and the market has been climbing for a long time, everything is overvalued, and people are buying on the premise that they'll be able to unload the stock onto another sucker at a higher prices in just a little bit. I.e., a year ago.
Everyone knew that the stocks were overpriced. Everyone. But people just kept buying anyway. Amazon hadn't made a profit, but was selling for hundreds of times as much as some fairly profitable stable businesses. This was clearly insane. Everyone knew it. Anyone who got burned from buying then deserved what happened. I'm glad that Red Hat survived, and I really wish that VALinux hadn't gone public. A privately held stock corporation would (I speak as an ignorant outsider, who doesn't know any problems they might have been having) have been a wiser choice. But it wouldn't have promissed as much. OTOH, the company wouldn't have been hurt as much by the collapse, which everyone could see was coming.
Here's an older study (Score:3, Interesting)
On the same subject, Discovery or TLC ran a documentary last year that said commercial airliners within the next 30 years will be designed to fly to about 40-50,000 feet, refuel from a tanker, then climb steeply out of the atmosphere and coast to a landing. Passengers will be strapped in, no snacks, no potty break. Max trip time to anywhere in the world: 45 minutes. Now that's my kind of space travel.
So think twice before shelling out $98K for a suborbital flight. You'll be able to get your 20 minutes of weightlessness on a routine flight to Hawaii.
Re:Here's an older study (Score:2)
Sounds like the National Aerospace Plane of the Reagan era. Ben Rich, head of the Lockheed Skunk Works and designer of the SR-71's powerplant, insisted that Lockheed no-bid that contract. He points out that the SR-71 is friction-heat limited, not engine-power limited. "We used titanium. You know something stronger?" The Shuttle uses ceramic tiles, but those are a giant headache and fragile; the Shuttle can't fly through rain.
Space travel is trapped between the limits of what materials can do and what chemical fuels can deliver. Things haven't improved much in the last 30 years on either of those items. Unless we get something like antimatter propulsion or gravity control, space travel will remain marginal.
market study (Score:4, Funny)
How much are you willing to pay for a sub-orbital flight?
o Up to $10,000
o Up to $50,000
o Up to $100,000
o Pay? I didn't even pay for my OS!
o I wanna fly with CowboyNeal!
You messed up that last option (Score:2)
Re:market study (Score:1)
It will end (Score:1)
Re:It will end (Score:1)
flawed logic (Score:2)
Re:flawed logic (Score:2)
>
> I'd like to buy the nicest house in town, but the price just keeps going up, year after year. Many millions of people would like to eat regularly and have an adequate supply of drinking water. For years, rich people have been enjoying fine dining and knocking back Perriers to little or no avail.
Right now, that cheap little $100K clapboard outfit - with cable TV, central air, central heating, fiberglass insulation, electric stove, flush toilets, and water from a tap that doesn't need boiling, provides anyone with about a $25K/year burger-flipping job with a standard of living better than anything available to billionaire John D. Rockefeller in 1878.
The evidence indicates that it is your grasp of economic progress that is flawed.
Re:Study Shows Large Space Tourism Market (Score:1)
This is good news for Joe Normal (Score:1)
Count me in!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Got 1) Money, and 2) A desire to see space (Score:1)
Lots of really rich folks are pretty old, though -- was the study limited to respondents who are healthy enough to go?
a little comparison... (Score:2)
the problem, if cindy doesn't want you all up in her business, then the money doesn't matter.
NASA is not going to want tourists in their space station. cindy is not going to want CmdrTaco up in the puntang.
Cindy Crawford analogy (Score:2)
(OT) I just saw Cindy in a commercial today. What a classy woman, she puts all these new waifs to shame
Re:a little comparison... (Score:2)
And just like NASA, Cindy Crawford has stringent physical requirements...
--T
Double standards (Score:2)
"If I had the money" (Score:1)
Perhaps if they *won* the money. Or, if they had the money to waste because they had so much of it. Really, if you gave these people $20M do you really think they would just go on the shuttle?
People say a lot about when they have the money. But if they got it, they'll realize the importance of money even more, and it is doubtless that their atitude will change.
Why the ISS? (Score:2)
Isn't it wonderful that so many governments of the world have harmoniously combined to build us a novelty hotel for everyone to visit in a prime piece of real estate?
Oh, wait. What was that massively blown out investment supposed to be for again?
$500k net worth != $100k spare (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd guess that the a lot of the 7% say they would do it if they had 100k, but if they really had it, they'd think of something more fun, or useful.
Someone doesn't read very well (Score:1)
Re:Someone doesn't read very well (Score:2)
Millionaires - especially if you include home equity as wealth - are a dime a dozen, and without liquidity the term is meaningless. It's the Inflation That Dares Not Speak Its Name.
Laughable... (Score:1)
Brilliant!
In other news, 100% of those surveyed would have sex with Pamela Anderson (if they could meet and seduce her)
Also, 100% of those surveyed would assasinate /bin/laden (if they had a sniper rifle and were 40 ft from him)
Re:Laughable... (Score:1)
Re:Laughable... (Score:2)
Hey - I wouldn't have sex with Pam Anderson! How come no one ever asks me for my opinion?
On the other hand, I would kill /bin/laden with a sniper rifle -- if my hours playing UT don't gimme the clue I need, hell, at 40 ft I'd go beat the sonofabitch with it.
Change Pam to Angelina Jolie and throw in a trip on the Shuttle and you might get me on the bandwagon ;-)
Why Space Tourism? (Score:2)
I mean, seriously. What's actually interesting about this? No doubt many people looked forward eagerly to the idea of going up in a plane. But what does it mean now? You sit for a while in a cramped seat in a long skinny room that vibrates. If you have a window seat, you might get a few nice sights. Few people look forward to it.
Space tourism will be the same. Once they get past the basic novelty and the nice views, most people are going to be bored in space. The interior of a spaceship will be a considerably less interesting place for a tourist than a cruise ship. And the food will suck, too.
There is already college courses for this... (Score:1)
Space tourism (Score:2, Interesting)
Sounds pretty cool (Score:2)
Space is available, but it's filling quickly.
Much more likely to be right than.... (Score:2)
Of course.
sub-orbital flight for $1000 (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Retirement homes on the moon (Score:2)