The only question is how long will it be until these guys pull the plug on these hair-brained ideas? But then again, they have lot's of cash to blow.

If the price of success is a little patience, it's well worth it...

Jon, Given ones already succeeded, I'd say it'll be a while

As one of them actually has functioning hardware in orbit, and the other's first attempt failed for readily identified and corrected reasons, it would be interesting to know what the problem might be with hirsute gray matter.

The Missouri Test ('Show me' working hardware) is being passed.

If one expects 2001-ish space stations and similar commercial access to spring into being overnight, fully formed from the head of Zeus, one is in the wrong Universe. Again, patience. The early 8-bit microprosessors in consumer hands may have seemed 'hair-brained' at the time, as well.

My suspicions have now been confirmed. Human spaceflight, even only a hundred kilometers or so above the earth, has become a pop religion.

We now have defenders of the faith coming forth to defend this sacred mission.
I know my post will offend some of you. Mostly the starry-eyed true believers. Trust me, it is not my purpose to offend anyone. I am only trying to bring some rational discourse to this subject.

There are major problems with space tourism. First, despite what you may have heard, there is no business plan that has been worked out. They are making it up as they go. Second, except for a handful of very rich people there is no market for this. I know, the true belivers think that as space travel becomes more common cost will come down. The only problem with this is that it will not happen. Not now not ever. After nearly fifty years of spaceflight, the cost is if anything going up. This is a matter of physics not free market economics. Bigelow, Rutan, Sir Richard Branson, and others are not going to change this.

Another issue that the space flight dreamers never want to talk about, is the safety factor.

Sitting inside a rocket that is heading for space, is and always will be highly dangerous. I expect that if these schemes get under way in the next few years, there will be death. Yes, space rocket-plane passengers are going to die. This is a certain as the sun rising in the eastern sky tomorrow. These joy-rides will be far from safe. And signing a waiver is not going to help these companies once the lawyers pile on them. Also, there is the problem with falling debris. Remember Columbia over Texas? The FAA is going to have to step in to regulate these ventures.A

Your dreams of space travel are just that ... dreams.

The only question is how long will it be until these guys pull the plug on these hair-brained ideas?

Yeah, people said the same thing about this sites parent company too. Yet here we are, you with a $0 market cap, and them with $270B.

Jon,

I suggest you look at things a little more closely

1 - Yes, this is a brand new industry.  Thus, many of the business plans, the markets, are being developed as we go along.  That doesn't mean that they are wishful thinking, without any sort of hard-nosed business thinking, or without any sort of careful engineering behind it.  Having looked at more than one (specifically 3) business plan, there is clear, deleberate planning.

2.  Concerning the market - The handful you refer to, implying there isn't much, has been measured with a market study by Futron.  And it's a large enough market to be a practical buisness.  But more important, if you look at any of the proposed companies,most of them have already identified more than one revenue stream.  In fact, for any sub-orbital company, there are eight revenue streams that are readily apparent right now, with no further developments either engineering wise, or political wise.  With some advances either on the engineering front or political front, even more open up.  And this doesn't even consider orbital flight.

3.  Physics only dictates that you need a certain amount of energy to get to orbit.  I'd figure it right now for you, but it's 3 in the morning where I am, so you'll have to forgive me for not figuring it right now.  How we get and use that energy is very much a matter of economics.  

4.  Most important when it comes to cost, I suggest you read Jon Carmack's post over at Armadillo Aerospace.  Heres the link

http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/
Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=344

The important part is in paragraph eight.  Here, I'll quote

It is interesting to note that we just don’t do short flight tests anymore, every flight is at least a 90 second propellant load. That might be different if we could still do test flights behind our shop, but we have been testing at the Greyson County Airport, which is a little over an hours drive from our shop, and the packing and unpacking add a couple hours more. We are paying $6.50 / gallon for our 90% ethanol, and $570 for a six-pack of helium. I don’t know our lox costs off hand, but it is the least expensive of the three consumables. Counting crane truck rental and facility fees, it winds up being about $3000 to do a pair of flight tests. Full up

You understand?  For a 90 second flight (or longer), it's about $3000.  This isn't cost estimates - or idealistic theory - this is the actual cost to operate Pixel (or it might be Texel).  Now, that doesn't factor everything in, since Carmack isn't currently paying people (although he only has 10-12 people involved), nor has head added a crew compartment.  But, since the rocket he is using is only a slight derivative of his Quad (the rocket we are talking about) He has a rocket that can put significant payload into space, for roughly 3000 dollars.  If we figure a 4 fold increase to cover the rest of his stuff, that's still only $12,000.  And the really nice thing is that his plan is translatable into an orbital rocket.  Read more up on his stuff to learn about it.  

And I am not convinced his is the only one.  Many people I've talked to believe they can see similar prices for flights.

5.  Safety factor - countrary to never wanting to talk about it, there are major discussions going on about it.  What level should be considered safe, how to regulate it - all of those things are being discussed on many levels.  There was a recent article over at the Space Review that discussed this.  And yes, the fact is an accident will happen sooner or later.  In fact, the industry has already had one accident that, while it didn't go into space, did cost the lives of people (and none of us are over looking Apollo 1, or the first crew to stay at Saylut 1, or Apollo 13, or Challenger, or Columbia).  But that doesn't mean that the danger is such that every person, or even most people, will die on flights.  Look at things like Skydiving - thats rather dangerous, people die in that often enough, and yet still people do it.  

Also, yes, it will always be somewhat dangerous, but, as I said, the question is what is the level of danger.  80 years ago, flying across the Atlantic in a plane was considered sucidial.  Today, millions of people do it per year.  The danger of a crash hasn't gone away,  but we have been able to reduce the risk to a point of being practical.  Finally, with regard to the FAA, in actual fact, they are already involved.  The FAA has issued 3 flight permits with regaurds to private spaceflight, and with things like the Commerical Space Act of 2003, a regulatory enviroment has been established.  

So much for simply ideal dreaming.  

Richard Branson at some point, plans to dake delivery of a number of tested (still a requirement for commercial use), suborbital vehicles, currently SpaceShipTwo for paying passengers. Merely because he's not seen fit to show his business plan to you or I, doesn't mean one does not exist. The same can be said for any other entrepreneur trying to actually accomplish something in this area.

Googling 'space tourism survey,' however, will generate quite enough hits to show that a market exists, depending on the price charged. (That they might have to be 'very rich,' is irrelevant. What's important is, are there *enough* for a profitable market? If I build yachts, that's what would matter to me, not that there would be a category of people who might not be able to afford it.)

The Russians seem quite comfortable with selling an occasional empty Soyuz seat to a paying customer at US$20 million. (it may not offset their entire launch costs, I don't know. But those costs are lower than you might think, and it logically is worth the trouble to them.)

That virtually any mode of transportation's costs come down with increased operating rate, is no suprise. Aircraft in hangars, ships at dockside, trucks in garages make no money. (And all of them must be sized appropriately for their loads and traffic.  A 747 that carries only 10 passengers, makes no money on that flight, and sits unprofitably on the ground, if the demand is so low that it can get a nearly full load only once a week. A much smaller plane would be more appropriate there. We're very clearly not at the 747 stage of space...yet.)

Manned space programs over the last fifty years have been mostly politically driven. And based on systems (ballistic missiles) that were mostly not optimized for space launch, and much of that design philosophy gets carried over into systems that were never originally a weapons system (like the Saturn series of launchers) NASA is mostly a research and development agency that also tends not to think of maximizing re-use and commercial spplications over the next 'new' technology. Merely because they aren't doing things a particular way, doesn't mean it can't be done.

Jet engines were also finicky, unreliable beasts initially. There's no law of physics that says rockets can't be engineered to the same level of safety and reliability we currently enjoy in air-breathing systems. Again, if you only design expendable rockets, you don't give serious attention to reuseable engines.

Will it be perfectly safe? Of course not. Few human activities are. Can it be made *as* safe as we currently accept in air travel, and other modes of commercial application? The onlly proof (and what seperates this from 'religion,') is in making the actual atempt to design, test and operate these systems, and be proven right...or wrong.

...and consider this:

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/simberg.htm

Some things are not done, because they're just not possible. Others are not done because no one has seriously tried.

"I confess that in 1901, I said to my brother Orville that man would not
fly for fifty years...Ever since, I have disrusted myself and avoided all
predictions."
- Wilbur Wright,  1908

"Man who says it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it."
- Chinese Proverb

Thanks for your reviews in this area, they're informative, useful, and interesting. On space travel I feel very much like Alan Kay who once opined (1984) that "...the future is not laid out on a track. It is something that we can decide, and to the extent that we do not violate any known laws of the universe, we can probably make it work the way that we want to." History tells is unambiguous in telling us that if we survive and prosper through this cycle of history that the real romance in space travel is out ahead and yet to come. We're back in the Model T days and just like the computer revolution, the space travel revolution hasn't started yet!

As imaginations fire and business models are worked out, so too will the space travel revolution in everything from new ways to get around to different ways of looking at the familiar. For instance, we still have the macho view of getting up and out from Earth and landing on another world (Moon, Mars, Titan, et al) whereas I often think that outfits like Bigelow might imagine different approaches. Like, for example, building orbital habitats that build orbital habitats that build orbital habitats. And including in them drives so you can put a new habitat building habitat into, say, lunar orbit and then run shuttles that never land between Earth-Moon habitats while using them as orbital bases from which to directly and expensively (humans) and indirectly and inexpensively (robots) project one's presence onto the new world.  

We would get to and back from Mars (or the Moon) a lot faster, cheaper, more frequently, relaxedly, and probably more safely if we didn't constrain ourselves to thinking that we have to land there the first time we go, and if we took our orbital habitats with us.

Absent a world war, an asteroid strike, a lethal global 'black' plague, aliens landing to tell us the solar system is off limits, or our various governments revealing they've already sold out to extra-terrestrial interests, I fully expect that we'll successfully take the next step along the road of taking our human family safely out amongst the stars  and into the wider universe.

First I wish to thank the posters who have taken the time to respond to my scribblings. I know this is an emotional subject for many. I'am happy to see most response has been civil.

However, the reality of the situation remains. Space travel with humans along for the ride will never become routine or inexpensive. Simply do to the energies and materials involved. If nasa and the russian space programs could not find a "cheap" way into space, Sir Richard B., Rutan,and Bigelow, certanly are not going to find it. The reports one poster mentioned concerning cost is published by a space flight enthusiast. Hardly an unbiased source of information.

As for safety. The idea that this will become as routine as a flight across the Atlantic ocean is just delusional beyond belief. Somewhat dangerous? No, very dangerous. Make sure your life insurance is paid before you board one of these death-traps. And once again I'am going make it clear as I can. There is no market for this idea of civil space travel. Alot of emotional support yes. But reality will begin to set in over the next few years.

Which brings me to another point I wish to make. The none too secret long term plan of the "space movement" is the notion that humans can and will move out into space to live on other worlds of the solar system, and beyond. My question, for what purpose? Talk about past centuries and exploration from those times. (Lewis&Clark, Columbus etc.) are not valid in the twenty-first century. Space is not a natural habitat for human beings, and never will be. In the end however, there is no need to argue this anymore.

Two main reasons these space travel dreams will remain only that. One, simple economics. We cannot afford it. Two, cosmic background radiation, cosmic rays, along with solar radiation, are going to be show-stoppers. There are no practical solutions to these problems.There are many other reasons, too many to go into right now.

I know it is sad to give up a dream. But as someone once said, that's life.    

Jon, I am going to respond this time, but if you don't actually respond to the points made, then I'd think most people would be forced to question whether you actually want to debate this, as opposed to making broad unsubstantiated pronouncements.

In any case.

1 - You have yet to provide proof to your arguement that it has to be expensive to find a way into space.  Simply saying "Nasa and russian can't do it" doesn't actually prove anything.  And on top of that, both my post, and the article that Frank Glover linked to, deal directly with the idea "if nasa and RSA can't do it, no one can".

2.  More importantly, the numbers I linked to weren't cost estimate - they were actual costs.  Now, I don't deny that they come from a company whose product spaceflight.  But that doesn't mean that they aren't valid - the numbers are estimates - they are actually measured - or do you think Carmack is lying about how much it costs to fly Pixel?  Because really, there aren't too many way to look at this - Either he's telling the truth, or he's lying, and, if you think he is lying, whats your proof of it, and whats the motive?

3.  I go back - do you honestly want to claim that flights across the atlantic were particlarly safe between 1903 and 1927?  So why is it common today?  And whats your evidence that the same sort of advances in technology can't be made in space technology?  

4.  Have you actually read the Futron study?  I'll give you the link, since I am assuming you don't have it.

 http://www.futron.com/resource_center/
space_tourism/download_form.htm

Read that, and then actually provide critisim.  And, for future reference, saying "There's no market" espcially in the face of that study, isn't proof

5.  To answer your question, for what purpose - why do you not consider past discussion about settlement and colonization to be invalid?  And yes, I grant all the horrible things that got done in the process - that doesn't mean colonization in of itself is bad.  Humanity needs new prespectives.  We are at a cross-roads - we can either follow vhemt, which writes off the entire idea of intellegence as a monumental failure and deadend.  Or we can look for new perspecitves, which is what space colonization will give us.  Less philosophically, and more practically, there is the what has been called the space option.  You can read about it

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/
why_implementing_the_space_option_
is_necessary_for_society.shtml

6.  Concerning space not being a natural habitat - the fact is, most of earth isn't infact our natural habitat - our natural habitat is tropical latitudes in Africa.  Clothing isn't natural, and never has been - its technology that allows us to live in different climates.  There is no reason we can't embrace the space habitat much like we've embraces arctic, sub-arctic and temperate climates.

7.  How many more ways can we address the economics issue?  I'll only add that when a liberal and a Staunch conservative both argue for space colonization, well, you can afford it.  I don't honestly think I need to say anything more on that.  As for radiation - there is actual work going on about this.  And we can already do some basic shielding.

On a personal note - lose the condescention - passive aggressiveness doesn't serve you, and is disingenuous.

I'm young, so I'm going to save. Just hope the cost comes down a bit before so =D. $200,000 is easy compared to $20,000,000 but what a cost =O

Aaron, I am in no way trying to belittle anyone. And I'm sorry to see this thread is turning into a flame war. This was not my purpose.

You still don't seem to understand what I have been saying. Space is not now and will never be a natural enviroment for humans to live in. This a fact, not my opinion. Yes tropical Africa was indeed are original home. Yes man moved to other regions of the Earth. The point being, these other places are all on Earth. Not in space. There is no valid comparison between the deserts of Earth or its polar regions to outer space. Mankind evolved on Earth. Over millions of years. We are finely tuned for life on Earth. Man can venture for short periods and leave the Earth for short jaunts into space. Nobody denies this. However, the notion we can live there permanently is absurd. As the late Dr. James Van Allen said, "It's weird".

As for Mr. Carmack. No I don't think he is a liar. However I beleve he is using a form of wishful thinking. As far as I know, there has not been a independent study concerning the true cost of these ventures. I think that the numbers Mr. Carmack and his company are cranking out, will be found to be wildly off the mark. Time will tell.
As for his motive? I can't say. However this man's major accomplishment in life, is the creation of a very popular computer game. Which has made him very wealthy. This does not make him an authority on transportation cost. What it shows me, is that his main concern has been in the fantasy world of computer gaming.

Space buffs are forever pointing out that early aviation was not safe. True, it was not. Many people died. This is why we have an FAA. To say that we should duplicate the early reckless days of aviation is just stupid. It shows a callous disregard for human life. Aviation has a legitimate economic use. Of what use are expensive joyrides to sub-orbital or orbital space? Once again, there is no market for this. Just as there was little market for supersonic travel across the Atlanic. Too expensive it turned out. Now let's go one step higher to space. No market at all. Why? Economics. Fans of science fiction never want to deal with this reality. Oh, those are just details to be worked out, they say. Sigh!

This idea, that all we need do is turn space travel over to the private sector and they will find a way to "cheap" space travel, is bogus. The laws of physics are what they are. They cannot be circumvented by anyone. The cost of space travel is high, and will remain so for the forseeable future.

In 2017, just ten years from now. We will  be just as Eartbound as we are today. And this argument will not matter anymore.

Best regards, Jon

Jon,

The only person who could arguably turn it into a flame war is you - With comments like "Your dreams of space travel are just that ... dreams. " and "I know it is sad to give up a dream. But as someone once said, that's life. ", if you can't see the passive aggressiveness in that, then I suggest you try and learn.  

In any case

1.  Actually, we have substantial proof that we can survive in space for quite a while.  We can produce resources in space to produce oxygen, food, water - should gravity be definitely needed for long term survival, that can be created

2.  I understand what your saying, in that space isn't a natural enviroment for humans, espcially without technology.  But then, as I said, nether are large parts of the Earth.  I suggest you visit point Barrow alaska, au naturel (which means no technology whatsoever - that includes clothes, spears, clubs) and see exactly how long you'll survive.

3.  If you doubt Carmack, then can I suggest you write him, and ask for his numbers?  Instead of pontificating that he must be doing it wrong.  Show me numbers, a flow chart, something.  Carmack's built and flown the Rocket - the least you can do is provide something backing up your assertation.  

4.  Yes, early aviation wasn't safe.  Just as early space travel hasn't been that safe.  Your point?  I would prefer we try and prevent every accident we can, I really would.  But I also know that in the experiment of making the world better, people will die.  And this is true for any technology in the early stages of development.  Look at medicine - My grandfather drove something like 100 miles one night to get a medical miracle - the miracle?  Penicillin.  And yet, how many people died over the years during medicine's history?  We've already touched on Aviation.  How about trains and cars - lots of people were hurt and killed during the early days of that, and yet they are all around.  I guess the question is this (and I do want an answer to this) - Are we better off with planes, even given how many people have died? 

More to the point, we are trying to minimize risks and deaths.  That's why the FAA is involved in regulating this.  You can't just go out and fly any rocket of your choice if you have the money, even if you think that.  The FAA is empowered to regulate the industry - Read the commercial Space Act of 2003 - one of the few good pieces of legislation the 108th Congress enacted.

For economics - I am going to ask this again - HAVE YOU READ THE FUTRON REPORT??  I've provided a link.  And if so, what exactly do you find questioning?  As for other streams, as I've said, there are 8 independent revenue stream.  Space Sports has the potential to be huge - sub-orbital sciences is already something of an industry.  Companies like XCOR, and Masten will be able to undercut the current sounding rocket business.  Do you really think researchers will continue to use the curret rockets?  And with cheap  access like that, you can sell it to other markets - like K-12 students.  JP Aerospace already does something close to that with their pong sats.  I admit it doesn't provide any ground breaking science, but that kind of thing can turn someone onto long term careers.  And at that point, I've only talked about 3 of the 8 revenue streams.  There are other ones out there that are technically avaliable right now to, but have a regulation impediment (point to point globe travel is one example).  I admit this doesn't deal with orbital, but I am sure you can find translation for the business sense from sub-orbital to orbital (I seem to remember Jon Goff saying something about a particular type of composite that needs microgravity to be produced)

As for turning over space travel to the private sector, I am not arguing that.  What we need to do is let private enterprize have a go at it as well as letting the government have a crack at it.  We need all of society involved in space colonization.  And if you're so sure that it has to be expenesive, would you mind telling me what Rand got wrong (That's the link that Frank Glover provided)

Finally, on a personal note, I am curious as to why you feel it's so important to try and stop this?  You post something on a pro-spaceflight site that you must know would annoy people, with a passive aggressive tone. You pontificate about this being such a waste.  If that's so, then, why not just let them waste their money?  What exactly are you getting out of this?

Folks, I've been a bit liberal on allowing comments that are going back and forth on this question of how real the commercial space vision is ... frankly because I find Jon's perspective to be interesting and challenging. But I'm pretty sure no one wants to get into a flame war here, so I'd like to go back to the guideline that we should be focusing on the information, and not the person. Jon is free to respond to Aaron's message if he likes (with the usual courtesy, of course). I've been at a conference for the past few days where more than one person has remarked on how intelligent the people posting comments here seem to be -- and that makes me very proud. So thanks so much to all of you for really turning this into a great community. Please keep it up, and if you're tempted to warm up the flame thrower ... please resist that urge. ;-)

I was up late last night re-reading the Futron Report, Aaron. I remain unconviced. Until there is a valid independent study done on this matter, I will remain skeptical.
The only passive aggression I've seen here is from the true-believers in space tourism. Believe me when I say I am getting nothing out of this, accept that I am pleased that we live in a society that allows all views to be heard.

I know I'am not going to change anyone's mind. Mainly because this debate is more about faith and belief than cold hard facts. This is why I made the reference to religion way back in an early post.

Aaron, I don't know your age. But I am old enough to remember the '70's. Back then this same argument was going on. Back then there was a gentlemen by the name of Gerard O'Neill, who was a physicist at Princeton University. Mr. O'Neill was a advocate of space colonization. Perhaps you remember a group called the L-5 Society? L-5 is a reference to the point in space O'Neill wanted to place his colony. The point is, O'Neill and his staff cranked out the same type of feasibility reports that are coming from Carmack,Branson and others. It turned out that O'Neill's numbers were wildly optimistic. I think the same thing is happening again. His idea of space colonization faded into oblivion. Except now a new generation is trying to revive it. This mania will go on for sometime, until the reality of the siuation becomes clear again. Yes, we can live in alien enviroments with the use of elaborate and very costly machinery. However the belief that this will become routine and inexpensive is just unrealistic.

As I have said above. this same claim about the future of space travel was made thirty or more years ago. And in that time little has changed. This is still starry-eyed escapism at its worst. I say worst, because it won't be long before these ventures begin to fail financially. There will be calls to Congress to support these nascent firms. So no Aaron, it is not just a question of them spending their own money. And then there will be the inevitable human tragedy.

I just cannot understand why space buffs think it is so noble to die while riding in a rocket? There are no such feelings when it comes to cars, planes etc.

The answer I feel, is that Aaron and other ethusiast are caught-up in the romance of space travel. And they ignore the realities involved.

I know this because I was once one of you. I am now a recovering space enthusiast. :-) Like you I once believed are future was out among the stars. Human beings aren't going anywhere in space for a very long time, if ever. I know how heartbreaking it can be to give up a dream. I have had plenty myself.

I do support a space program. A vigorous plan of robotic exploration should go forward. We all benefit from these missions. And we can all go along on the mission in a virtual sense. Much more democratic than sending a few astronauts at great cost.

So once again, I am sorry if I have upset anyone in here. My purpose is to bring a different perspective to the conversation. Best regards, Jon

Real cost numbers:

We pay $3.26 / gallon for lox from TexAir Cryogenics, $6.50 / gallon for 90% ethanol from Brentag, and $440 / six pack for helium.from Discount Helium.  You lose a fair amount of lox due to boiloff and chilling, and a fair amount of helium is wasted due to bottle filling logistics, so the total consumable cost for us is about $7 / bulk propellant gallon, or around $1 / bulk propellant pound.  We do this all the time, and we have burned over twenty thousand pounds of propellant in the last year.

If we move to self pressurized lox / methane and buy in bulk, the consumable price will drop to around twenty five cents a pound.

How much propellant you need to burn to get to 100km depends on your engine efficiency and the dry weight of the vehicle.  A mass ratio of three to five, depending on aerodynamics and flight profile, is needed, so a vehicle that weighed 2000 pounds dry, which is big enough to include a person, would need at most 8000 pounds of propellant.

This is uncontestable physics and engineering -- the propellant to take you to 100km is under $10,000, and could be as low as $1000.

What is going to make it cost a lot more is all the other factors.

Transport equipment, range fees, on site safety crew, vehicle hangars, etc, all add costs.

Designs that use ablative engines can add tens of thousands of dollars to each flight even with cost effective designs.  Using a standard aerospace contractor can get you a $100,000+ bill for each chamber.

Early vehicles aren't going to have the life spans of modern aircraft.  If your vehicle is only good for 50 flights and costs $10 million to make, then you need to add $20,000 to the cost of each flight.  I'm not willing to bet on incredibly huge flight numbers to space, although we do have around 40 test flights on Pixel's airframe.  I push to make the vehicles relatively cheap to build, and they can be conservatively retired from manned service relatively early, then flown-to-death for data points.

If you have a staff of a hundred people, your fully burdened wage costs are going to be $10 million a year, and if you fly every week, the overhead cost is nearly $200,000 per flight.  This is the primary reason why the government space programs will never, ever be cost effective.  Much better to have a team of eight, and aim to fly several times a day.

If you actually want to make a real profit instead of just an operating profit, you need to recoup your development expenses.  If you dump $150 million into development, you aren't going to pay it off until you have made thousands of flights.  I have spent around $3 million so far, and it will probably take another $2 million or so before we have a vehicle and test history suitable for commercial service.  I want to be well in the black by the 100th passenger (if not sooner due to other non-passenger revenue flights).

Orbital is definitely harder, and while I have plenty of thoughts in that direction, I won't be able to speak with any authority on that for some time to come.

John Carmack

John Carmack,

Thanks for providing the numbers.  Very appreciative.

Moving on to Jon,

[...]

Futron isn't involved in the space tourism business - they aren't owner operators, they aren't builders, they aren't subcontractors.  They were brought in to provide an independent view point.

John already dealt with the financials.  Moving on.

You keep citing the danger - what exactly do you think the failure rate is going to be?  How many successful flights per catostrophic failures do you forsee?  Because, the rate at which you seem to be implying is something like most flights (something like 1 in 10 will be successes)

And I am still waiting on answer to the rest of my questions.  The rest of your post largely predicated on why someone would support space colonization, which has absolutely nothing to do with a debate on the technical and economic aspects of colonization.  So there's not much else to add

Aaron, the financials have not been dealt with. Mr. Carmack's post reads like a person who is hoping he is correct. He is not really sure what this is going to cost. If history has any bearing here, the cost are going to soar. There is not a insurance agency on Earth that is going to cover this at a resonable rate.

I keep bringing the safety issue up because people like yourself refuse to address it in a meaningful way. If you and Mr. Carmack cannot see that this is a suicidal quest you are on. Then we are not going to get anywhere.

As for what I think the safety record will be. Exact numbers are hard to say. However I believe it will be much worse than Nasa's Space Shuttle. Why? Because these tiny companies lack the funds for a real test program. They do not have the proper facilities to carry out proper testing. Nasa has Billions of Dollars in funding. Along with the best engineering team in the world. Yet they still have had disasters. Do you really think Carmack, Bigelow, Rutan, Branson are going to get away with this, without suffering any death and destruction?

What safety measures are going to aboard these homemade rocket vehicles? Parachutes, ejection seats, and so on? I doubt it, since these would raise the cost. Oh no, the space cadets say. They will sign a waiver. If you think that is going to keep the lawyers away, then you really are living in a dream world. So again when Black Armadillo, Pixel, SpaceShip2 blow up or spin out of control, we know what the results will be.

Which brings me back to the question. For what purpose is any of this? Is it a thrill-ride? An extreme sport? fantasy wish fulfillment? Since there is no practical use for any of this it must be one of these examples. If you want adventure, read adventure novels. If you want romance, read romance stories.

I brought up the subject of space colonization because this is the long-term goal of the "new" space movement. It is no secret that the space flight buffs aren't going to settle for a few minutes of zero-G sixty or so miles above the Earth. The next step they will want is orbital flight. Then, it's off to the Moon and Mars. All balderdash. Best regards, Jon  

Alan,

you'll probably censor a good portion of this post.  Since its effectively your blog, that's your right.  I ask you not to, since I think this is relevant, but ultimately you'll decide what to do.

Jon,

I really don't know how to respond here.  Every time I make a point, cite a source, remark on a study, you've just dismissed it out of hand.  Your claim that the Futron study isn't independent is based on, what, I have no idea - since they have a stack in the tourism game.  You've totally dismissed Carmack with literally 2 sentences, citing absolutely no sources.  

You keep claiming that none of these crafts have safety features, and yet I can point out things like SpaceX's escape tower on the Dragon, the pusher rocket on planetspace's silver dart, the escape tower (I think he's using an escape tower) that Bezos is using.  

I've counted at least 3 questions you've never even addressed, and then I ask you for a number when it comes to accidents, you don't even give me a number.  

The one bit of evidence you seem to cite is "Nasa and Russia/Soviet Union haven't done it, so you can't do it" and you cite it in every post.  And I don't deny that its a point, except that it has been dealt with more than once.  Provide some sources, some statistics, cite some research, provide a thought experiment - those are the hallmarks of debate.  

So, I am forced to conclude you don't really want to actually debate - you want to pontificate.  Which is fine as far as it goes, since everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion.  But having your opinion, and restating it a bunch of different ways doesn't make it a debate.  That is what is called blind faith.  And thats the very antithesis of rational debate.  

Aaron, I see we are just going to keep going back and forth here. Are readers are going to get bored with this. I feel I have made some legit points. However you do not have to accept them.

So let me just say this. If You ever find youself onboard one of these machines. I wish you a safe a successful journey. Best regards, Jon

I'm coming in awfully late to this discussion, but I thought there was a point of Jon's worth addressing.

"What safety measures are going to be aboard these homemade rocket vehicles? Parachutes, ejection seats, and so on?"

Can I point out that when you get on a commercial flight you're given a... lifejacket. No parachutes or ejection system to be seen.

I'm curious as to why he thinks the dangers of spaceflight will not be reduced to a manageable level or that the costs will continue to rise. History clearly isn't on his side with these assertions.

And what exactly is so inherently dangerous about a sub-orbital flight? The rocket? We could probably get some safety estimates with regards to rockets without too much trouble - how often does a solid rocket fail catastrophically? Is it 1 in 100, 1 in 1,000? I honestly don't know, but it begs the question; how safe is safe enough?

As for the commercial aspect of suborbital flights, can I point out that Virgin Galactic has recieved something in the order of 40,000 deposits for a flight - that equates to somewhere around $8 billion - and that's before they've even finished building the thing yet.

I think the appeal of suborbital flights is limited, it's ultimately just a rocket powered roller coaster after all. What we really need is a cheap way into orbit, but these suborbital ventures will provide the revenue streams to fund the research into low cost orbit flights.

Aviation isn't a good comparison to draw with the challenges facing spaceflight. In terms of our technology relative to the challenge seafaring is a better comparison.

When humans started venturing out to sea it was in crude vessels that were only good in calm weather, they couldn't carry much in the way of supplies and were human powered.

Wind power came next, and then coal powered. Construction material evolved from wood, to iron to steel and the powerplants became diesel or even nuclear powered.
It took the human race several thousand years to go from the canoe to the supertanker. Imagine a discussion taking place about the future of seafaring 500 years after the first canoe was launched. That's pretty much where we are now.

Spaceflight might be for dreamers but some people are about to get considerably richer because of those dreams.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):