Space Planes to Meet 'Big Demand' For Tourism

Mab_Mass writes "Widespread space tourism is getting closer to reality, reports the BBC. In fact, Aerospace company EADS sees that sector of the tourism market being so lucrative that it will need a 'production line' of rockets to satisfy the needs of rich travelers. '[EAD's] market assessment suggests there would be 15,000 people a year prepared to part with some 200,000 euros (£160,000) for the ride of a lifetime. [EADS subsidiary] Astrium anticipates it be will be producing about 10 planes a year.'"

Safety

[able1234au]

I think safety concerns are the biggest issue. What happens when the first crash happens.

Re:Safety

[Ngarrang]

I think safety concerns are the biggest issue. What happens when the first crash happens.

I think this was said when the car, train and airplane were first built. Safety is always an issue and crashes will eventually happen to ANY form of transport. That is no reason not to march forward, though.

Re:

[Rei]

The first cars and airplanes tended not to instantly kill their passengers on impact. On the first cross-country airplane race, the pilot crashed several dozen times, and had even strapped crutches to the wings [centennialofflight.gov] as a precaution.

They also didn't have the potential to take out an entire city block upon crashing. Nor were these "tourists" expecting a safe ride. Nor were they largely people with enough money that I think you'd have to be an idiot to think that a simple waiver would be a open-and-shut way to

Re:

[junner518]

One of my favorite stories about railroads is the first locomotive (http://http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephenson's_Rocket [http]), which ended up killing a member of the British parliament on its maiden voyage, going a lean and mean 12 mph

Re:

[bandmassa]

Plane and car crashes still happen, space crashes will be inevitable. Nobody stops driving (or calls for it to be outlawed) because car crashes might happen.

Frankly, in the early days the conflict will be between adventure tourists wanting to do risky things (like "space travel"), and the space lines wanting to minimise risk to maximise reputation.

The passengers are rich, who cares?

[VampireByte]

I imagine the kids of rich people will be encouraging their parents to do this so they can get the trust fund payout. "Mummy, Datty, wouldn't you love to go into space? You really must experience this before everyone else has already done it shouldn't you? It would be such a stunning topic to introduce at the polo match. That would make me ever so proud. It would be such a disappointment if Biff and Muffy's mummy and datty were to do it first."

Re:

[x1n933k]

Which is exactly why I'm going to wait for Version 2.0.

[J]

EasyRocket.com

[sakdoctor]

Click here to offset your carbon emissions.

Re:

[TapeCutter]

I get the joke, but it's also an interesting question.

IIRC the high end of estimates under the 'cap and trade' system is $100/ton, WP [wikipedia.org] says this thing weighs 18tons all up.

Considering just the rocket stage: Lets be pessimistic and say 15 tons of GHG at 200eu/ton gives 3000eu, divided by (say) 15 passengers is 200eu 'carbon tax' on top of a 200keu sticker price.

Re:

[mlk]

4 passengers with the plane in TFA.

Re:

[TapeCutter]

Well spotted, I was in danger of RTFA but ended up counting the windows on the plane in the 'artist impression' and assumed 2 hidden rows. Still 0.05%.

Attract thrill seekers with the mundane?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I used to travel to Hawaii for vacation a lot. This was back in the old days before Waikiki was this huge tourist development. Back then those of us who ventured that far for vacation were greeted with island hospitality and lush greenery and a "get-back-to-nature" type of laid-backedness that was desperately missing from mainland life.

Unfortunately, they found that they could make more money by attracting more visitors. And they did. But in the process they built tons of highrise hotels and turned quiet surftown Waikiki into the bustling tourist trap it now is. In order to attract more visitors, they destroyed the reason to be a visitor in the first place.

I'm sure someone will want to ride an over-priced airplane comfortably into space. But I'm not sure that those people are the same ones who would shell out millions to fly in today's ramshackle space carts.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand your comparison. Space is big. It'll take a shitload of tourist ships before cheap access starts to "ruin" the experience of others going there.

Re:Attract thrill seekers with the mundane?

[fantomas]

Has it crossed your mind that you might have been the people that 'ruined' Waikiki?

I don't understand the moral superiority that some people have when they declare it's ok for them to visit places, but not other people. A bit like people who insist on calling themselves "travellers" rather than "tourists". You're all outsiders visiting a place. Perhaps if you and your friends hadn't visited Waikiki a local guy (or another outsider) wouldn't have had the brainwave to throw up the first highrise hotel. By you going there such folks realised more money could be made.

I'm not necessarily saying it's a good or bad thing you or other people visit out of the way places (in many cases locals might be happy for people to visit and spend money) but I question this moral high ground angle that somehow your actions were positive whereas everybody else's visit is negative. Seems like snobbery to me.

Re:

[dollargonzo]

I think your point is valid, but at the same time different people enjoy different kind of tourism/traveling/whatever your want to call it. I know plenty of people who enjoy staying in those high rise hotels with 17 pools on the property and 3 shitty restaurants, whereas others prefer a more humble setting. Yes, the locals thought they could make more money, but they get those ideas from people who make comments like "it would be nice if your property had a nice pool and a restaurant on property" as opposed

Re:

[DerekLyons]

Ah yes, the naive locals - so unsophisticated that it would never occur to them on their own to increase the attractiveness of their locale to increase business.

Re:

[SpecTheIntro]

Has it crossed your mind that you might have been the people that 'ruined' Waikiki? I don't understand the moral superiority that some people have when they declare it's ok for them to visit places, but not other people.

While I happen to agree with your sentiment, and your annoyance at the moral superiority the "I was here first, man, before it was popular" BS with which I am too oft assaulted, there is something to be said for the natural human inclination to ruin whatever "lost paradise" we find. And i

Re:

[ashitaka]

That sounds like a great place! I must go with all my buds and hang out on the beach!

Said in complete jest, of course. I enjoy the simple pleasure of a tiny Ryokan or Minshuku over the mega onsen resort hotels which is the Japanese domestic equivalent of Waikiki. One of my best trips included sharing a bottle of sake with a small ryokan proprietor beside the traditional fireplace near the genkan.

Chichijima is probably on the path of the July 2009 total eclipse so I wouldn't doubt it's going to get crowde

Re:

[SpecTheIntro]

Yeah, when I was an Aruki-henro for Hachi-Jyuu-Hakkashou, I spent a lot of time in ryokan and minshuku, and zenkonyado as well, and the experience was absolutely phenomenal. It's a shame that those little inns and bed-and-breakfasts are slowly dying out.

Re:

[Sheen]

I've never been there ( heck, I've never been on the American continent ), but I assume that tourism is the main source of income for those parts, and the people we SHOULD be thinking of here are the people who actually live on the islands in question, not the tourist or 'travelleres' who wants to visit them. Who would pay for little joe-island-boy's hospital bill if joe-mainland wont overspend on some diving trip? I say the same thing when people here bitch about people from my country ruining Spain a

Re:

[syousef]

Joe-mainland probably owns the resorts on the island so joe-island-boy is shit out of luck if he's in hospital because he won't see a cent of that tourism cash. Joe-mainland will be happy to employ Joe-island-boy for minimum wage (or less if he can find a way around it!) but only if Joe-island-boy is fit and healthy. Sorry no health benefits.

Re:

[TapeCutter]

The Eagles were great [azlyrics.com], eh pops? ;)

Re:

[octal666]

The advantage with space is that while space flights cheapen, the kind of peaple that nowadays pay millions for a space flight may invest millions in a lunar visit, and when moon-flights cheapen, they will want to go to Mars. It's not the same as in Hawaii.

Re:

[Rei]

These sort of "space" flights do almost nothing [daughtersoftiresias.org] to advance actual, orbital rocketry. The best you could argue is that they might come up with ways to reduce the cost of working with composites, which could indirectly help some aspects of the rocketry industry -- although companies like Boeing are probably doing a lot more to that regard than the entire rocketplane joyride industry will ever do.

Just because they both deal with "space" doesn't mean that they're optimizing toward the same thing. These joyrid

Re:

[rufty_tufty]

Depends how you look at it. In a purely technical point of view yes SS1 is at approximately the capabilities of the X1 project. Still I think you'd agree that the X1 was an important project.

But I don't believe the important thing here is the technical point - the ability to build orbital vehicles exists in the public sector because NASA's and others orbital rockets are built by public companies.
What is important here is the marketing and the market.

If they can turn a profit from getting people to the edge

Re:

[Rei]

In a purely technical point of view yes SS1 is at approximately the capabilities of the X1 project.

No, it is not. With a cryogenic biprop liquid propellant the X1's engine, at the very least, was far more capable of scaling to orbit (although even the X1 essentially required starting over. It was, for the most part, a data gathering project). SS1's entire propulsion system, which makes up the majority of the craft, would have to undergo a complete from-scratch redesign (unless they wanted to OTRAG it, w

Re:

[rufty_tufty]

This is why I've almost given up on slashdot, every sentence has to be fully qualified and backed up or someone jumps down your throat - try and explain everything fully and you end up waffling.

I really was trying to say it's technical capabilities and specification rather than it's technology per-se, as you point out its engine does have issues in that scaling, however my understanding is that the spaceframe is significantly more advanced than the X1 - and it's capable of carrying more passengers. So there

Re:

[Rei]

if you view SS1 as the same thing then I'm sure they've collected lots of data about how supersonic vehicles behave in that part of the atmosphere at those speeds etc.

The data is *already gathered*. The proper term is, "reinventing the wheel".

Even if it doesn't the sum total of human knowledge is going up by this endeavour.

In what regard? There's no new knowledge being generated by having, proportionally, a very *gentle and easy* flight envelope. If you think that each company has to reinvent the wheel f

Re:

[rufty_tufty]

Well it's re-inventing the wheel in the same way that people throughout the ages have re-invented the wheel when they discover that stone/wood/steel/aluminium is not always the best building material. Each time new technology comes along or a new development is tried you have to re-invent the wheel to some extent.

"that's what you hire experienced rocketry engineers for."
not if:
1) they've all retired
2) Their experience don't apply to your technology/aims
3) They have a set of presumptions that mean that they

Re:

[Rei]

"There's absolutely nothing new about carbon fiber tanks or flying up to ~100km with minimal delta-V."

Really? Because the X33 was such a success with it's carbon fibre tanks? Name me one sucessful carbon fibre tank or even a carbon fiibre support structure used in an orbital vehicle.

1) The X33's problem with carbon fibre tanks was that they had to be built *exceedingly light*. These weren't ordinary tanks; they were an extremely fine honeycomb structure, nothing at all like what SS1 used.
2) What was being

Re:

[ultranova]

Just because they both deal with "space" doesn't mean that they're optimizing toward the same thing. These joyrides have a lot more to do with supersonic airplanes than they do with orbital rockets. So, mind you, kudos to them for helping advance low-end supersonic aircraft flight. But don't look to them for anything related to orbit or beyond.

Except, of course, that supersonic aircraft flight is the first step towards air-breathing rockets. Being able to use the atmosphere as reaction mass and perhaps

Re:

[Rei]

Complete nonsequitur. Virgin Galactic is doing absolutely nothing related to airbreathing rocket flight.

Re:

[ultranova]

Complete nonsequitur. Virgin Galactic is doing absolutely nothing related to airbreathing rocket flight.

As I said, supersonic aircraft flight is the first neccessary step towards airbreathing rockets. If Virgin Galactic is doing something related to supersonic aircrafts, it is doing something related to airbreathing rockets. An airbreathing rocket is indistinguishable from a hypersonic airbreathing aircraft.

The only supersonic aircrafts currently in service are the military ones, and the design goals

Re:

[Rei]

If Virgin Galactic is doing something related to supersonic aircrafts, it is doing something related to airbreathing rockets.

No, it isn't. It is doing *absolutely nothing* relative to airbreathing rockets. I'm doing as much relative to airbreathing rockets by driving my car as Virgin Galactic is doing.

An airbreathing rocket is indistinguishable from a hypersonic airbreathing aircraft.

Which Virgin Galactic *is not*.

Re:

[Saint Fnordius]

Ah, living up to your moniker again! But before I rebut you, let's explore where you might be right...

Let's see, we are talking about EADS, so this would mean most likely expanding the ESA launch site at Kourou to allow for the bigger people-carriers. More tourism to get to the launch site, perhaps more resorts for the entourage such a rich tourist would bring, paparazzi, and so on. So much for the little tropic location.

What about space junk? That could also ruin a tourist flight if it meant pollution from

It's fun to be first ... but ?

[giorgist]

It will be fun to be the first, but after that who would want to
pay to fly in the vomit comet ?

Re:

[JATMON]

The Zero Gravity Corporation ( http://www.gozerog.com/ [gozerog.com]) alone has had over 4000 passengers on their vomit comets. I know that it is not sub orbital or orbital flight. But it does show that people will pay even if they are not the first. After the first person dished out $10-20 million to take a ride on the Soyuz spacecraft and visit the ISS, it hasn't stopped other people from doing the same. Also, Virgin Galactic (http://www.virgingalactic.com/ [virgingalactic.com]), who does not even have the plane built yet, is already taking

Can you hear me Major Tom?

[Sterrance]

Umm, don't astronaunts have to go through a series of tests to make sure they can function in space? How do you expect a bunch of rich people who are likely in their 40s and above to actually be preparred for something like going into space

Re:

[The Evil Couch]

They don't have to be functional in space; they're sight-seeing passengers. They're not going to be conducting scientific experiments under funky conditions. They're going to be sitting in their seats, snapping pictures and drooling about how awesome it is. The more enterprising of them will be collecting and selling said "space drool" for thousands of dollars an ounce.

Re:

[umghhh]

They go through tests because they have a job to do and they have to fly those things. Besides that you miss the rich people health factor. It is the poor that is sick (and fat).

Re:

[mlk]

I would guess that the 3 or so minutes you spend in space looking out of windows and enjoying zero-g sex is not going to do that much harm.

Where as astronaunts spend days in space, doing something that one hopes (given the costs involved) is at least somewhat important.

I hope they look like DC-8s

[__aavhli5779]

I want to visit some volcanoes

Re:

[joaommp]

I was kind of looking at Venus as a warm and cozy place...

Re:

[VampireByte]

So "Major Tom" is Tom Cruise?

Nice first step

[TFer_Atvar]

It's a good first step, but none of the plans mentioned in the story really advance anything. They're basically glorified Vomit Comets with no ability to orbit, which would really be a stepping stone to things further out. After all, once you're out of the gravity well, you're halfway to anywhere else in the solar system. I guess the best hope is that the number of "spaceplane" providers will compete against each other for new perks, thus pushing someone to provide a true orbital experience.

Re:

[BlackPignouf]

It only depends on what you want to call a "good first step".

Talking about energy efficiency and carbon footprint, this would rather be a "very good backward step".
Anyway, I'm sure some dumbass wil have the idea to put biofuel in it, add 2m of photovoltaic panels and call it "the first green rocket ever!"

Re:

[Davey McDave]

Actually, all you need for that is a bucket of paint.

Re:

[BlackPignouf]

ahah

Re:

[shadowofwind]

You can't get out of the "gravity well" with a "spaceplane". Where does the energy come from? That's what the big booster rockets and gigantic hydrogen tank on the shuttle are for.

If anyone is inclined to mod me a troll for contradicting facts well established in "Star Trek", please at least have integrity to respond with a counter-argument.

Re:

[Rei]

Clearly you've never seen SpaceShipOne launch. It went to space, which means that it's only a small step from there to reaching orbit. As we all know from the Sci-Fi channel, space=orbit, or something close to that. And I mean, SS1 was in space already, after all. They'll just make the engine a little bigger, and bam, they're in orbit!

(Huh? What are these terms, "ISP", "TPS", "many times the delta-V", "payload fraction", and "geometric size scaling" of which you speak? That's not how rockets in any TV

Re:

[rbanffy]

At 100Km and 3,500 Km/h you are hardly out of the gravity well. Accelerating to LEO or escape velocity (out of the gravity well) is one thing - you just need a bigger, more (a whole lot more) powerful rocket. Painfully hard to do, but possible. De-accelerating back to a more or less normal landing is a bitch - using atmosphere and friction is, to say the least, dangerous. Carrying fuel is prohibitively expensive. There are no easy solutions for that one.

Hopefully this technology will bring high-altitude hig

Not to ruin the ride..

[Karl Emmert]

.. but four and a half g's in deceleration, even shortly, would run the risk of a red out for those not inclined to physical fitness. The number of people who would buy into this would be further limited by the idle rich who realize their bodies may not agree with the effects of gravity. As far as tourism goes, having to wear a high g-force suit just to get a good look out the window without risking your health seems like an overlooked detail.

Don't go on a roller coaster then...

[afc_wimbledon]

Some of them pull up to 6 gees, and all they have is a height restriction and warning notice! Yes, it's for a shorter time, but 4.5 gees seems high - ISTR the STS only gets up to 3.5 gees.

Re:Not to ruin the ride..

[TFer_Atvar]

The sorts of G-forces expected on the ride will be less than those experienced on many modern rollercoasters [local6.com]. Granted, the G-forces onboard a spaceplane might be a bit longer in duration, but until we have details on the mission profile, it's difficult to tell. You might end up getting greater G-forces from some of the more extreme rollercoasters out there, and given the physical fitness of a lot of roller coaster riders, I wouldn't worry too much.

Re:

[Chris Burke]

.. but four and a half g's in deceleration, even shortly, would run the risk of a red out for those not inclined to physical fitness.

Eh... I doubt it. If you're sitting up when the craft is level, then when its rocketing towards space you'll be lying on your back. 4.5 gees isn't all that much in that direction. While others pointed out that rollercoasters have more gees, clearly it's going to be a much longer experience what with the craft traveling at least a hundred kilometers instead of half a mile.

Remember the Concorde

[SystemFault]

The Concorde SST had massive government subsidies from both Britain and France and because of lack of demand still couldn't produce a decent return on investment Well, other than being a jobs program.

And yet any ticket for a near future spaceplane will likely cost a hundred times more than did a Concorde seat. Increases in fuel costs might make it even more expensive than that. And just think of the even more stringent security screening bullshit passengers will have to endure.

Summary: Show me a commercially viable SST first. Then we can talk about a spaceplane that's not a welfare program for the aerospace industry.

Re:

[TFer_Atvar]

Most of these programs aren't receiving government subsidies on any level remotely comparable with the Concorde program. What you're seeing are a bunch of smaller aerospace companies that see a niche they think can make them money. It's entirely possible that niche won't be as big as they think and a lot will go bankrupt trying to compete for the few hundred thousand people willing to spend $500,000 for a 30-minute trip into suborbital space.

Different Economic Models

[StCredZero]

The economic models are different, which is why many of these guys aren't getting government subsidies. Private individuals think that the market is there. Also, the technology will enable other markets. Additionally, other markets just weren't the same in the early days of the Concorde. Now, there are a lot more people with a compelling reason to deliver something overnight to/from China to the US. Many think this market can be huge. Also, a craft like the EADS can be a fully reusable first stage for

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[arpad1]

Pay for your own hobbies. If it's done on the public dime it ought to have substantive public benefits.

The Concorde, and the U.S. lunar program, were done for reasons of national pride. Among piss-poor reasons to spend government funds, that's got to be near the top. Britain and France would've been better off in every way if not for Concorde and the commercialization of space probably would've occurred in the 1970's if not for the the U.S. lunar landing program. I don't think any other political response w

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[emilper]

"To go where no man has gone before" is a nice, romantic tag-line for a cheesy television program but it's not what drives exploration and discovery. The motivating force for exploration has always been the all-mighty buck and you can see in the stagnation of the exploration of space how pivotal the profit motive is. No profit, no warp drives.

mod this true +42 please, or at least insightful +1 if no true +42 button gets installed in the meantime

And let's get rid of the moronic "Outer Space" treaty so there would be an incentive to actually explore the outer space, not just "search for life on other planets" and "go where no man has gone before".

Re:

[PachmanP]

The Concorde, and the U.S. lunar program, were done for reasons of national pride. Among piss-poor reasons to spend government funds, that's got to be near the top.

eh I'd rather pay for that than to send YOUR kids to school or YOUR cancer treatment or to pay the social security that the old people I know use to go to Hawaii every year.

Think about that Mr. "Wah wah it could be used for Ed or Health or bettering humanity" Man! (Apologies if you are just generally against Gov spending)

Re:

[rufty_tufty]

Actually I think national pride is a damn good reason to build something even if its value is questionable.

For a start too much of the British identity these days seems to be ASBOs and Big Brother and Asylum seekers and house price rises.and other rubbish. American identity seems to be gung-ho invade-istan Jingoism, or flat out racism and segregation.
However look at something like the gulf states and they're building some impressive things for national pride (that ridiculously tall hotel on the beach spring

Re:

[tsotha]

American identity seems to be gung-ho invade-istan Jingoism, or flat out racism and segregation.

Talk about rubbish. Have you ever been to the US? I don't know anybody who's thrilled about the wars in the Middle East, and even supporters (which include myself) view the Iraq war as a necessary evil. I see a lot more "blame America first" people than people you'd consider Jingoists.

Of course there's side benefits of this sort of thing, developing SST gives you advances in other areas, not least in terms of

Re:

[rufty_tufty]

"I don't know anybody who's thrilled about the wars in the Middle East, and even supporters (which include myself) view the Iraq war as a necessary evil. I see a lot more "blame America first" people than people you'd consider Jingoists."

Well I can only look from the outside in since I am not american, but the impression I get is of a country that does look at the atrocities it commits (Iraq and guantanamo bay spring to mind) and doesn't learn - they see these as a necessary evil rather than seeing it as so

Re:

[westlake]

Occasionally it's just nice to see something was done purely as a technical achivement rather than putting a financial value on it

Nice spin there. But the SST was promoted as a commercially viable aircraft with a short turn-around. It was to make flights to Asia and the Pacific convenient and affordable and the North Atlantic a commuter run.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Concorde was not finished "because they can". It was started out that way but the realities set in quickly. Both Britain and France saw what a turkey SST was when the costs spiralled out of control, and both secretly wanted to cancel the project. It became a huge game of chicken because the penalties cancelling the contract had an even higher cost than continuing. They had to give away half the production run at $1 a machine. And for what? So the millionaires can save a few hours of flight time.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[rbanffy]

"Sometimes it's nice to see the bean counters in suits being totally ignored and just seeing something done because it's there."

Not only because it's there, but because it's beautiful and inspiring. Machines like the Apollo, the Saturn V and the Concorde are very effective statements of what Man can achieve.

Re:

[MyGirlFriendsBroken]

... and because of lack of demand still couldn't produce a decent return on investment

That is debatable, BA used Concorde to get corperate accounts by agreeing to a certain number of upgrades to it, these are the people who ar booking flexible business class tickets and so generate huge profits for the airline. Of course it is very difficult to put a quantive figure on how much of an effect this had

Re:

[timmarhy]

I demand you show me that there is a commercially viable reason for you posting dribble on slashdot before anymore posts are allowed.

whats that, you do it because you can? thank you very much you just answered your own question.

It's not that simple

[Moraelin]

1. Well, I might even join you in damning the Concorde, if it weren't for one small detail: after it was built, everyone decided that they'd rather not have supersonic stuff flying overhead and being very loud. Which limited the possible routes for the Concorde massively, and thus hit their demand _hard_. You know, since you're moaning about lack of demand for them, now you know why.

So "commercially viable" is a bit mis-leading, when the only thing that made it non-viable was "not in my back yard" regulatio

Re:

[SystemFault]

Not the best of form to reply to one's own comment, but...

The Concorde had a pair of sisters: the US SST by Boeing and the Soviet Tu-144 by Tupolov. The former was canned after an incredible expenditure of taxpayer dollars, and the latter never made any kind of a profit. Although, the Tu-144 may have fared better if the effort hadn't been hindered by the British and French (allegedly) passing known bad technical data to Soviet industrial spies.

The point is not that a spaceplane is undesirable; the point i

Re:

[khallow]

And just think of the even more stringent security screening bullshit passengers will have to endure.

Why would passengers be screened more? I imagine in a lot of cases, the only type of "security screening" will be a form absolving the vehicle operator from most forms of liability and maybe a few days of training.

Numbers?

[Psychotria]

Its market assessment suggests there would be 15,000 people a year prepared to part with [...] Astrium anticipates it be will be producing about 10 planes a year.

So, that is 1500 people per plane? Seems there is some magic going on with their projections (market assesments)...

Re:

[KokorHekkus]

No magic. They estimate that the market size is 15000 people per year. They never said they would fly 15000 people per year. Most likely the 10 planes/year is a constraint imposed either by manufacturing or available money.

Re:

[dpilot]

Looks like a real boom shaping up in sub-orbital tourism.

Now let's just wait for the ensuing bust.

It may be relevant that there have actually been no sub-orbital tourists yet. So far they're all expecting a "space voyage", and I don't think that the realism has set in yet that this is Alan Shepherd scale, not John Glenn. They're paying a pile of bucks for only a few minutes of real flight and weightlessness - while strapped into a seat.

I'd save any investment until we see how word-of-mouth evaluations loo

Re:

[Richard_at_work]

Uhm, they will fly each plane more than once...

Ok, let's get this straight

[qazsedcft]

All these private "space flights" are nothing but airplanes thrown up very high and falling back. I don't think many people are going to pay 200,000 euros for a 15 minute long vomit comet ride.

The fundamental problem is that all these private space ships only have a fraction of the energy required to achieve orbital flight. As the rocket equation [wikipedia.org] shows the energy cost of any self-propelled space vehicle is exponential. The only way to solve this problem is to create a propulsion system that doesn't have

Re:

[Serious Callers Only]

I realize that these are still in the realm of sci-fi at the moment, but until the private companies start working on these solutions there is no future for tourism in space. Period.

'No wireless, less space than a nomad, Lame.'

Tourists won't care about orbital flight, they just want to see the world from space, and experience weightlessness - from the bookings for Virgin Galactic etc, it seems there are enough people interested to make it viable. Orbital will come much later because it's much more expensive

Re:

[shmlco]

"No wireless, less space than a nomad, Lame."

Do you think CmdrTaco cringes every time that's repeated?

Re:

[timmarhy]

the space elevator is not plausible in the slightest. end of story.

Re:

[Rei]

"If a relevant percentage of the cost of your orbital rocketry is the cost of your propellants, you're doing something *right*."

Rockets are not expensive because of the energy costs. That's the cheap part. They're expensive because of parts and especially all of the labor [thespacereview.com] -- both for reusable and disposable stages. Labor can indeed be reduced through proper system design. That's why SpaceX's launch pricing is so low. From start to finish, a major driving principle was, "how can we design our rockets an

Yeah, but the 2 are not incompatable

[WindBourne]

In particular, the DOD is Low Level funding an idea that uses a circular track to accelerate a package up to speed, and then throw it upwards. Due to the approach, the packages will be small (below 1000 KG), and must withstand sustained high G-forces. IOW, this will not be launching live crews. The idea is to use it to launch fuel, water, and of course, small sats (not in DOD's style, but could be very useful in the right situation). The idea is to have next to none labor costs and of course little to no fu

Re:

[Chris Burke]

I don't think many people are going to pay 200,000 euros for a 15 minute long vomit comet ride.

No, because there's no way I or many people could afford that even if they thought it was worth every Euro-cent. But at a quite substantial but at least feasible cost of say $20k US, personally I'd start saving up the coin. And if the small number of people willing to pay EU 200k allows further cost reductions, it may happen.

The fundamental problem is that all these private space ships only have a fraction of th

Re:

[shmlco]

"But at a quite substantial but at least feasible cost of say $20k US, personally I'd start saving up the coin."

Probably have to save a bit more than that. Heck, you need $20K just for a MIG-29 flight.

The sad part is that these are joy rides.

[WindBourne]

I know that it is needed, but there is about to be a number of other joy rides. It would actually be far more useful if they would focus on getting into LEO with cheap access. That could use many times more crafts than the joy ride will. Of course, the argument is baby steps first. That is the same as scaled composites, while spacex is seeking direct access to LEO. Hopefully EU decides to pursue cheap access quickly.

Re:

[DavidKlemke]

The major point here is that although there will be a number of companies peddling the same product this will then lend itself to more competition in the area. This then leads onto innovation so that they can get the competitive edge and so on. The more companies we have in the sub-orbital space tourism market the quicker we will get to cheap orbital space tourism. If you watch the Discovery channel program "Black Sky - The Race for Space" you'll see that Burt Rutan already has some designs for SpaceShipThr

Well,....

[WindBourne]

I believe that Spacex will be sending ppl before 2011. I know what we see on his re-scheduling, but I believe that he is trying to be conservative in his estimates. Of course, the next Falcon I( in june) and the first Falcon 9 (end of 3Q or early 4Q) will really determine whether this is going to happen. But assuming that these both happen without another hitch, then it is certain that he will try to launch all 3 dragons in 2009. The earliest that Burt is going to send ppl is 2012, and more likely 2013. IOW

Tourism to where?

[Nullav]

Sure, staring down at this big blue rock while floating around in microgravity sounds fun, but what else is there? There's no 'space culture' to observe, no funny hats and clay statues to buy, and actually leaving the ship (in a big, bulky suit) would likely be deemed a safety (lawsuit) hazard. If we're going to have tourists up there, more comfortable, flexible space suits, as well as something like a lunar 'hotel' would help a lot. Also, judging by the number of 'shifting stars' I can see at night, I'm as

Re:

[Em Adespoton]

Funny thing is, a UK private enterprise is planning this when, according to another of today's /. articles points out that the UK space agency has a ban on putting people in space. At least they're reconsidering... otherwise, one of these planes via private venture might be the best shot UK would-be astronauts have at xpace.

Terrific...

[sixtyeight]

Al-Qaeda is probably already looking up at the Moon with jihad in its eyes, rubbing its hands and cackling evilly.

+3/-5 G's: sounds like an exclusive club

[gelfling]

The graphic in the article shows a +3G phase and a -4, -5G phase. There aren't too many tourists who can take that.

Oblig: Freeside Rental

[gazelam]

I have a suite in Villa Straylight available for long-term lease to the first person who can cover my rewiring costs at the clinic in Chiba.

this is not a SST analogy

[zelik]

SST is great and I wish they were the norm so my trans-pacific flights were a lot faster but they are NOT the same thing as a rocketplane carrying you into space. The Concorde was great (I wish I had a chance to ride it) but it did not offer enough value for the cost to the consumers. It just offered faster transport. Your flight on the Concorde was not your main reason for riding it. It was, by all means, designed to be a faster form of transportation from A to B and the reason you rode it was to hop t