Collins expertly describes the benefits while ignoring the costs. A nice explanation of why space tourism is attractive but does not make the case for why it will succeed. We’ll just have to wait and see. I’m glad we have a few outfits willing to find out.
I think there might be a reason #3 somewhere in here.
I thought Eileen covered that when she said “Put your face up against the window, arch your back, and stretch out your arms. “
She leaves out the only truly important reason: because there are rich people who will sign up for it. One serious casualty, though, will likely put a stop to it.
That’s very unlikely. I don’t know why people imagine that the space tourism industry is unique among all that a single accident could kill it. People die climbing mountains, wingsuiting, free diving, yet no one thinks that the sports will end with “a serious casualty.” Because it doesn’t
The cost to climb Mount Everest is about $30,000 to $70,000 and at least 230 people have died making the attempt. Rich people still flock to the mountain despite the risks, paying a lot of money and stepping over dead bodies on the way up. Without the deaths it probably wouldn’t be so popular, and now the climb has such long lines and heaps of trash that it’s becoming a problem.
It depends of course on how serious the casualty, but in any case, your analogies limp. Space flight is not a sport, it is a service. That makes a huge difference. Killing the -one can hardly call it an ‘industry’- could require only one failure, for it could be very public, involve important people and their lawyers, innocent bystanders, and of course, the FAA.
Not to mention: insurance companies, vendor stockholders, and local municipalities. It is too young, and there are too few vendors to truly call it an industry. It is, altogether, in a very fragile, embryonic state.
Space flight is not a sport, it is a service.
Of course it’s a sport, or at least a recreation, unless you’re doing research. That someone else helps you participate in it doesn’t make it not a sport, any more than a sherpa makes mountain climbing not a sport, or a dive boat makes diving not recreational.
Rand, stop beating that dead horse!
Divers and mountain climbers bear their own risks. Space tourism offers a vendor-supplied service more analogous to an airplane flight. You’re just a passenger. You still haven’t addressed any of the substantive issues -legal and financial risks- raised by the proposed service.
If spaceflight is ever to become a genuine industry, and not just a hole into which taxes or wealthy “visionary” dollars are poured, a way must be found to make it profitable -a market here for something from there- or nothing will ever happen on an industrial scale.. If, for example, asteroid-mining could provide metals more cheaply than recycling junk, then it would take off. I just don’t see that happening any time soon. At best, at this point I can only see people finding ways to do more cheaply what we already do, still none of which returns an actual monetary dividend. There needs to be a profitable “bridge” between earth and sky that will open space to exploitation. Even if it is successful, and not destroyed by the many traps that lie in wait, I don’t see space tourism providing that.
Collins expertly describes the benefits while ignoring the costs. A nice explanation of why space tourism is attractive but does not make the case for why it will succeed. We’ll just have to wait and see. I’m glad we have a few outfits willing to find out.
I think there might be a reason #3 somewhere in here.
I thought Eileen covered that when she said “Put your face up against the window, arch your back, and stretch out your arms. “
She leaves out the only truly important reason: because there are rich people who will sign up for it. One serious casualty, though, will likely put a stop to it.
That’s very unlikely. I don’t know why people imagine that the space tourism industry is unique among all that a single accident could kill it. People die climbing mountains, wingsuiting, free diving, yet no one thinks that the sports will end with “a serious casualty.” Because it doesn’t
The cost to climb Mount Everest is about $30,000 to $70,000 and at least 230 people have died making the attempt. Rich people still flock to the mountain despite the risks, paying a lot of money and stepping over dead bodies on the way up. Without the deaths it probably wouldn’t be so popular, and now the climb has such long lines and heaps of trash that it’s becoming a problem.
It depends of course on how serious the casualty, but in any case, your analogies limp. Space flight is not a sport, it is a service. That makes a huge difference. Killing the -one can hardly call it an ‘industry’- could require only one failure, for it could be very public, involve important people and their lawyers, innocent bystanders, and of course, the FAA.
Not to mention: insurance companies, vendor stockholders, and local municipalities. It is too young, and there are too few vendors to truly call it an industry. It is, altogether, in a very fragile, embryonic state.
Space flight is not a sport, it is a service.
Of course it’s a sport, or at least a recreation, unless you’re doing research. That someone else helps you participate in it doesn’t make it not a sport, any more than a sherpa makes mountain climbing not a sport, or a dive boat makes diving not recreational.
Rand, stop beating that dead horse!
Divers and mountain climbers bear their own risks. Space tourism offers a vendor-supplied service more analogous to an airplane flight. You’re just a passenger. You still haven’t addressed any of the substantive issues -legal and financial risks- raised by the proposed service.
If spaceflight is ever to become a genuine industry, and not just a hole into which taxes or wealthy “visionary” dollars are poured, a way must be found to make it profitable -a market here for something from there- or nothing will ever happen on an industrial scale.. If, for example, asteroid-mining could provide metals more cheaply than recycling junk, then it would take off. I just don’t see that happening any time soon. At best, at this point I can only see people finding ways to do more cheaply what we already do, still none of which returns an actual monetary dividend. There needs to be a profitable “bridge” between earth and sky that will open space to exploitation. Even if it is successful, and not destroyed by the many traps that lie in wait, I don’t see space tourism providing that.