Anti-Space Tourism Defeatism From ESA Alumni

I am afraid that they are correct in saying that affordable orbital space tourism is a long way off. Right now the price for a Soyuz ride is $20-50M. The next credible manned spacecraft which might sell rides would be the Falcon 9 Dragon combination. The Falcon 9 price is $45M, the Dragon spacecraft would probably cost more than $35M, so the cost for 7 people would be at least $10-20M apiece. The existence of two vehicles from two completely different organizations with similar seat prices argues against a 100:1 price reduction in the near future.

Steve
Flometrics

Wow, they are obviously not AMERICANS or Indians or Chinese. Their level of defeatism is why their continent is referred to as the "OLD WORLD". While the figures they submit are valid TODAY, its a stretch to extend them to tomorrow, as they are unknown unknowns. They sound like scientists from before the Wright Brothers took flight who lived in a stale unchanging world. They most definitely have a CAN"T DO Attitude. More power to them.

Libel much?

These guys do themselves and all space-oriented efforts a serious disservice. Thanks for the in-fighting.

Well... I do agree that their tone is a bit over the top. But Euro scientists do have a tendency towards this (not to stereotype or anything). However, I must support their cautions and reality-check about suborbital flights. It is important to make sure that the non-technical (or mildly-technical) general public keep their eyes wide open, and not be mislead, when it comes to these expensive, short, joyrides.

Part of the ritual I go through with all freshman in my ARO 101 course is getting them to formulate and ask questions about aerospace. Almost every year since Rutan's SS1 flights, I have gotten variations on the following question: "Why does the Space Shuttle need all those heat shield tiles when SS1 can go into space and come back without them?" I actually applaud the students for asking the question, because it gives a good period of time to inform the newbies about orbital velocities and the difference between suborbital and orbital flight.

And before anyone bites my head off, yes I realize these flights are seen as "stepping stones" for the likes of Virgin Galactic and others who some day hope to offer orbital flights. I am simply agreeing that it is not a bad thing to make the public fully aware of the limitations of suborbital flights of fancy.

Hey, you can call them "defeatists" but I prefer the term "realists"! What they say about CHEMICAL propulsion systems is THE REALITY! Until there is a breakthrough (and I wouldn't discount it within, say, 20-30 years) with something like anti-matter, anti-gravity, microwave beamed energy (where you leave the energy on the ground and somehow "bent-pipe" the energy required through the rear-end), or fusion, or space elevators, or whatever, what they say IS the REALITY. And, BTW, even with such a breakthrough for the up-leg, the down-leg, i.e., the entry and landing and all the safety aspects involved,is no piece of cake! As for "suborbital", even Burt Rutan admitted several years ago that he isn't even close to orbital---whole different ballgame! So, all you optimists out there,where are your BREAKTHROUGHS to make these guys "pessimistic defeatists"?

Hello,

what they would have said. It is not just a developing task to go from suborbital- to orbital manned space flight. You need a completely different vehicle. If you will make suborbital tourism space flight, that is one thing. If you will make orbital tourism space flight, that is another thing.

Lets be crystal clear, space tourism is in its infancy and only Government developed systems have been capable of delivering tourists at an exorbitant price up to now. But to state "To conclude, commercially balanced space tourism is neither for today, nor tomorrow, nor the day after tomorrow." and rule out even the possibility in the future as they do, is DEFEATISM period. Its that sort of blindness that would have kept us in the cave had it not been for visionaries and those that are willing to challenge the status quo. That is why AMERICA has achieved what it has, because of the entrepreneur who is willing to take a risk.

I think its clear that the space tourism industry needs a much simpler rocket. That's why I've advocated that NASA develop a Jupiter-SSTOV (Jupiter without the SRBs).

Such an expendable single stage to orbit rocket booster should be much safer, simpler, and cheaper to utilize by private industry than a multi-stage rocket. Such a booster should be capable of launching a 6 crew 22 tonne Orion CEV into low Earth orbit. And it could probably be compatible with a Sea Launch type of equatorial launch operation which could mean that any coastal city in the world could become a base for assembling rockets and sending them off to sea to be launched from equatorial orbit.

The second question is demand. There are nearly 100,000 people on this planet worth over $30 million bucks. Poles suggest that at least 7% of the wealthy wouldn't mind spending $20 million plus to travel into orbit. That's 7000 people. With 4 passenger seats per Orion, that's 1750 space launches. Even if only 5% of this group decided to fly into space per year, that would be over 87 manned launches per year (NASA's had five manned space launches this year and 4 last year). That's easily enough launch capacity for over 10 private manned space flight companies.

But this doesn't include unmanned satellite launches (there are about 20 satellite launches per year world wide) which could significantly add to a company's annual launch volume and commercial viability. And it doesn't include the possibility of a billion dollar a year international space lotto system that might add an additional 10 manned flights (40 average Joes and Janes) per year for space lotto winners who desire to travel into space.

Marcel F. Williams

I wonder why these so called engineers aren't taking in to account the effect of learning to operate a rocket motor at such a high frequency or running and maintaining rocket motors en mass. The combustion engine and the jet engine have benefited from this same process to the point that they can be manufactured cheaply and operated safely. This in my mind is the really pay-off from sub-orbital tourism.

I wouldn't tar all of ESA, or Europeans, with this piece. I've known folks there who thought pre-Apollo - that there shouldn't be computers in S/C, but I also know folks at ESA who are way ahead of the technology curve inside NASA or other space agencies, too. It's a very diverse community, and there's a lot less pressure to tow a given organization-wide line. That means that some divisions in opinion are played out in quite a public fashion, as is often the European way. These folks are probably in the former line. That said, they may make a good point when it comes to folks paying companies for future orbital flights. At this stage, that should probably be bank loans and venture capital funding. However, as others point out, even though it's magnitudes more capability to get to orbit, increasing the range of users and reliability of human-rated spaceflight tech in the suborbital domain will reduce cost.

I don't think these guys know what they are talking about, maybe I'm missing something here. They claim, "Let us be clear: These tickets concern flights into Earth orbit — not 20-minute jumps to high altitude, which is something else, and not, as some claim, a precursor to orbital spaceflight."

Excuse me, but show me one company that is selling tickets for orbital space tourism for $20,000 to $200,000 per seat. These advance ticket sales are for suborbital flights, which are not only possible, but have already been accomplished in test flights. In fact, more people have earned their astronaut wings from Scaled Composites than from ESA, for whom these yahoos used to work.

Everyone knows that orbital flight is orders of magnitude more difficult and is a generation or two away from being affordable for tourists, but it will happen one day. No thanks to nay-sayers like these. "Experts" used to claim a powered ship could never cross the Atlantic. You could never carry enough fuel, and as you make a bigger ship to carry more fuel, it takes more fuel and a bigger ship, etc. But it happened and nobody remembers the names of the idiots that made the claim that it couldn't be done. Just like no one will remember these guys in another 100 years. But they will remember those who make their fortune from space tourism when it happens.

These guys just aren't capable of thinking outside the box. They claim you can't reach orbit without staging. That's true for vertical launches where thrust-to-weight ratio must be more than one. But you can get away with a T/W ratio well under one if you utilize lift from the atmosphere and you could keep the vehicle size way down using oxygen from the atmosphere instead of carrying it onboard all the way from the ground. With technology that is well within our reach, it would be possible to develop a plane with a hybrid jet/ramjet/scramjet/rocket engine that could carry enough fuel to get to subsonic speeds by jet, then supersonic by ramjet, and then hypersonic by scramjet, all using oxygen from the atmosphere. It could then use liquid oxygen carried onboard with what is left of the fuel for the final kick to orbital speeds. The problem is there is no one in the world spending money on the propulsion and materials research to develop the engines, lightweight structures and thermal protection necessary to make this possible, even though it is within our reach. We're too busy giving all our money to bloated space companies to build overly expensive throw-away rockets in a glorified jobs program. In spite of all this, orbital tourism will one day be in the cost range that this article falsely claims is being offered today. I'm disappointed that Space News published such jibberish.

"The problem is there is no one in the world spending money on the propulsion and materials research to develop the engines, lightweight structures and thermal protection necessary to make this possible, even though it is within our reach."

Actually ESA is: "Skylon spaceplane gets cash boost" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7898434.stm

OK it's chicken feed compared with NASA's billions but here in the UK it's big potatoes!

The spirit of Frank Whittle still lives!