Jay Manifold has done some depressing googling. I guess it is up to the blogosphere.

[Tuesday morning update]

Jay has a follow-up post in response to comments here.

In another thread, Rand writes:

"If we can't do that, then just shut the thing down now, so we can take the billions that it costs to keep the standing army sitting around and apply them to something useful. As it is now, we have the worst of all worlds, with wasted money and time, and continuing uncertainty as to whether or not we'll get any value out of the wasted money and time. Let's just do it or get off the pot."

Funny thing, soon after President Bush gave his January 14th speech, Professor Jeffrey Bell wrote a piece saying that this might very well mark the beginning of the end of America's manned spaceflight program. Rand and other Bush-backers ridiculed that interpretation as absurd.

Hmmm. . . Maybe our good Dr. Bell wasn't so nuts after all.

He's nuts. Don't assign a broken clock credibility simply because it is capable or producing accurate time twice a day.

Unless "googling" (lower-case) is a generic term for all searching, what I actually did was a depressing LexisNexis search, plus a bit of depressing browsing of the Gallup site. ;)

Having said that, there's just not a lot of data to go on. The print media may lag actual public opinion/interest, and I couldn't find any poll data on SpaceShipOne or the Gregory Olsen announcement. There may be a lot of people out there who think that this stuff is both interesting and important.

But we shouldn't count on it. Space activity -- public or private, manned or unmanned, scientific or commercial -- is still politically risky. A doubling (or more) of American living standards since the Apollo era has done nothing to quiet the solve-problems-on-Earth-first meme. Another 9/11, or an unrelated conflict, could divert that much more attention (of which there is a finite supply) to national-security concerns. And the behavior I've seen among space enthusiasts has left me with the impression that they're not exactly the most effective possible evangelists for the cause.

What we can do is 1) become better salespeople and 2) prepare to take advantage of fortuitous astronomical events, like a 2004 FH-type flyby that's a bit easier to observe (I fantasized about such an occurrence here).

Warning: 1), above, may require getting out from behind our computer keyboards and almost certainly requires becoming easier to get along with.

You may now return to the flame war in progress ...

I was using it generically (and yes, I know that Google hates that--pardon me while I wipe my eyes with a kleenex...).

As for the "...end of of America's manned spaceflight program," if the plans we're seeing from NASA are the best they can do, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but I think that what he really means is the end of NASA's manned spaceflight program. Individual human space activities will flourish in the private sector in the coming decades regardless.

A few comments;

First, kudos to Mr. Manifold for doing some original research. I actually think there is real value to doing this kind of popular literature search. I did the same thing with the "trillion dollars for Mars" cost estimate and discovered some interesting things.

Second, I agree with his assessment that the public attitude has not changed much _and_ that another terrorist attack could further divert attention.

Third, assuming that Rutan actually pulls it off, I expect that there will be a lot of positive publicity, including a lot of "why can't NASA do this?" questions. I used to be highly skeptical of the whole space tourism business/advocaccy, or whatever you want to call it. I'm now moderately positive, but still slightly skeptical. My concern is actually that all the positive publicity I expect it to get will dramatically oversimplify the issues (I don't believe in simplicity). But just wait--especially if it happens in a slow news month (August), the publicity will gush and you'll see a lot of positive editorials.

Finally, Mr. Manifold wrote:
"And the behavior I've seen among space enthusiasts has left me with the impression that they're not exactly the most effective possible evangelists for the cause."

I agree with this sentiment, but I'm wondering if Mr. Manifold would like to elaborate.

I look at things like this through my own personal lense of experience with how the Internet developed. I was involved with Internet standards back in '91 and watched it be 'discovered' by the rest of the world throughout the last decade.

Most people won't pay attention until it actually starts affecting their lives directly. The Internet was still used only by technocrats well into '97. But that's when it started appearing on TV. That's when there started to be consequences to not being on it. That's when people started getting odd looks at parties when it became known they didn't have an email address.

But a lot of that was gated by the media. And by different sections of the media depending on their consitutuency. Wired wasn't even sure about the Internet when it came out. It took over a year for the Wired staff to realize that all of its readers used the Internet but that no one at Wired did.

Even among those who knew what the Internet was the conventional wisdom was that it could never become the Information Superhighway everyone was expecting to be built from scratch.

The media is an event driven entity. And for 99% of them the events have to be planned ahead of time. That even goes for editorials. The reason Burt's flights get so little coverage is that they aren't pre-announced. There are no releases until long after the event (and thus long after the news cycle for that day is done). They also feel that if you aren't willing to make a big splash about something then why should they?

So, I'm not the least bit suprised at the lack of coverage. Things will change after someone wins the Xprize, but it won't change overnight. IMHO, it will take two events: the Xprize being won and the first crop of paying customers going up.

And even then, things won't really change until you start meeting astronauts at your neighborhood block parties or one of your co-workers brags about the killing he made in the stock market off of XCor's IPO. For most American's the Internet really didn't become relevant until Netscape's IPO made their geek neighbor down the street into a millionaire.

Moore's "Crossing the Chasm" has some good insight here.

Assuming that Rutan pulls it off, and I'm pretty sure at this point that he will, there will be a fair bit of positive publicity. I'm just not sure how long that will last.

We know, as enthusiasts that this is sub-orbital, but I know from conversations held recently with people just in my office that they don't see the distinction. People will expect that this means trips into space, and I don't think the majority will see a 100km as that, they think of orbit. That troubles me, as we're probably still a decade (or more) away from an orbital vehicle - even with my most optimistic hat on.

Few of the real space enthusiasts who make it onto TV come over very well. In the UK, mostly manned space flag waving gets a few words from someone like Patrick Collins - he doesn't necessarily make for a strong message outside the community. Every time I come back from an evening with my local Space Discussion Society, and chat to my wife about what we talked about I normally get yanked back down to Earth with a hefty thump.

I've become terribly cynical about space development over the last 20 years and I wish there were some easy answers. Sadly I don't think the communities stock, "if you build it, they will come", argument works too well. I suspect that people aren't that arsed.

Is the distinction between suborbital and orbital that clean? The AST's definition of suborbital, "the intentional flight path of a launch vehicle whose vacuum instantaneous impact point does not leave the surface of the earth" (assuming I'm reading it right), includes what many of us here would consider orbital since it doesn't seem to exclude multiple trips around the earth, just as long as you eventually come back in.

But even if it doesn't, the distinction only really means something to engineers. Don't get wrapped around a pole about it. The customers aren't going to be orbital mechanics experts, they will just want to know how high, how fast and how long. And the fact that they don't care about the distinction is a good thing. It gives you the ability to sell a large range of products and very different price points without some arbitrary definition defining product/market segmentation for you.

And it isn't "build it and they will come". Space Adventures has built successful products at almost every altitude increment. And they have a long waiting list of people who've signed contracts to go suborbital. Its more like "they've already come, now we have to build it".

I suppose part of my problem is the current market is specialist and niche - and you can make a good living of specialist and niche. But its not necessarily going to make the transition to a mass market, or even large scale market.

Space Adventures has built successful products at almost every altitude increment. And they have a long waiting list of people who've signed contracts to go suborbital. Its more like "they've already come, now we have to build it".

The first question I have to ask, is are the customers bonded to pay, or can they withdraw?

I'd also want to clarify "long" - if you can only fly 3 people every couple of weeks then "long" can be a few hundred people.

Now, I'm not saying that the market will not expand in the way other tourist markets have, I'm just not convinced that as many people are interested in space as, for example, are in flying to Spain for a weekend of cheap booze, easy sex and sun. While that is not necessarily a problem, the market may well be big enough - but I fear that there is a huge selection effect at work, especially within the space related Blog community which tends to focus on data to support an argument, rather than really critically getting into a proper SWOT analysis of the business proposition.

You perceive the market as a niche one but that isn't the case anymore than aviation was ever a niche market. A niche market is one that stays small regardless of the economics. This one expands as economies of scale are applied and costs decline. There are direct market surveys to support that.

As far as the robustness of Space Adventures customer pipeline, I can't really say since that's proprietary, but the market survey's suggest that the vast majority of customers are waiting to see the first few customers successful complete a safe trip.

I've done many different SWOT studies on products and a SWOT itself is almost useless (usually just organizing information that's already known). The really useful information comes from the market sizing analysis (price point vs market segment size).

(For the business development challenged, SWOT stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. SWOT is used as an organizing tool to ensure that you are looking at all of the important issues surrounding a particular market and your ability to provide products to that market.)

And as far as that tourist flying to Spain for a weekend of cheap booze, sex and sun, he isn't anywhere near the target market segments for any Space Tourism company. The number of affluent people interested in extreme experiences is much larger than you think. The next time you're at a book store pick up a copy of the Robb Report and see what kind of extremely healthy businesses are supported by the very wealthy and the very bored.

Good comments all. Rather than clutter up Rand's comment area with a lengthy response, I've just written another post for Arcturus, which you may find here.

I don't much care how much publicity they are getting at the moment - though I sure see a lot more on X-prize than the DC-X program (which was almost completely ignored, even when NASA destroyed it).

What matters is if they develop a market. That is the only thing that will get real space development moving. I give the current attempts about a 40-50% chance for somebody to develop an ongoing business that will lead to something more.

But, at least if nothing else, PEOPLE ARE TAKING IT SERIOUSLY. This isn't a game anymore. Laws are being put in place, real money is being spent. Real development with NEW ideas is taking place. Sure, most won't work out, so what?

I'd pretty much resigned myself that I would die without getting a chance to go to space, given the government glacial space program. I won't be surprised if it doesn't work out, but I'm starting to hope again, and that's a pretty wonderful feeling.

First off, I'd completely disagree with your comments on SWOT analysis myself, there is more to market analysis than sizing and price point(even though these are vital too). I know from bitter experience that it can be very very easy to underestimate the risks in any venture and I've found that a good SWOT helps clarify the perspective on those. However, even in well understood and defined markets it is still easy to stuff up.

And as far as that tourist flying to Spain for a weekend of cheap booze, sex and sun, he isn't anywhere near the target market segments for any Space Tourism company.

Then I have issues with what you percieve as your market. You mention that aviation was a niche market until the economics changed - but that brings us back to mass holiday transport. That's been the real killer app for the aviation business, moving millions of people to places they want to go; either for family (due to previous waves of colonisation), business or for the 3 S's previously mentioned. Space has a problem for at least 2 of these, and there is a chicken and egg factor for business travel.

The number of affluent people interested in extreme experiences is much larger than you think. The next time you're at a book store pick up a copy of the Robb Report and see what kind of extremely healthy businesses are supported by the very wealthy and the very bored.

Sure, I'll not disagree that this is a sizeable niche, but its not enough to support the type of market and infrastructure that Patrick Collins touts in his work on space tourism.

I think there is potential for a market comparable to people who go to Antartica, or Terria Del Feugo or take rides in Jet Fighters - but these are not massive and nor do they draw huge public attention.

I'm agnostic on whether or not the price will drop enough to make a price point difference. There are other technology factors which concern me. You might find a cheap way of getting people to and from space, but find that serious cargo remains, due to engineering constraints to be prohibatively expensive - which could make space habitat construction inpractical.

Just like the engineering issues involved leave us pootling around this planet at 550mph rather than 1400+ - having just spent the majority of the last 24 hours in various planes crawling around I can see the benefits of 60 minutes Heathrow-Hong Kong. However, unless it will cost the $1000 my ticket cost me, I don't see it becoming much of an option, because while my time is money, it isn't that much money.

The important thing about the rich-bored-adventure-seeker market is not the revenue it can generate by itself - although that revenue is important to be sure.

What suborbital tourist flights have the potential to do is to change a mindset that has existed for so long it is rarely questioned - that is, that space is _so_ dangerous that only near-superhuman people can possibly go there (note that it is to NASA's advantage to maintain this meme).

Suborbital tourism would mean that for something between the cost of a car and a house, anyone could go to space.

This is comparable to the shift that occurred with the introduction of the Apple computer - suddenly, computers weren't gigantic machines handled delicately only by guys in lab coats, but was something that anyone could put on a desktop.

Of course, that's assuming that the X prize gets won. I really can't fault the media for not paying lots of attention to the X prize - they won't have reason to do so until the first privately-funded suborbital flight.

If two or more competing teams do their first flight within a few days of each other, then you will see LOTS of media attention on a race to a second flight.