The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-05 18:35:48

But extrapolation from conventional airliners makes no sense, its apples vs oranges...

Airliners quite simply have a much lower probability of failure, SS1 almost became a white smudge in the desert if not for backup control surface systems.

Airliners are not tourist joyrides

Airliners carry, frankly, few rich people by comparison

Airliners oft have large teams of lawyers and millions of dollars behind them "just in case." Tourism startups will not.

Suceeding family members are going to come down a heckuvalot harder on a little "today SO tourism, tomorrow solar sail space liners to Jupiter!!!" startup dreamer geek boys than businessmen airline operators for "doing this" to their deceased.

The list goes on... your question is unreasonable Anti.

PS: You also seem to place a great deal of weight on extrapolation of examples, particularly ones where any guess produced couldn't even be labeled a "ballpark" figure.

Lars_J · 2004-07-05 20:57:22

My thinking in favor of sub-orbital passenger flights is as following:

1. As noted earlier billionaires rarely make stupid investment. But we've already had Paul Allen sink $20+ million into Scaled, and he has now set up a company with Rutan called "Mohave Aerospace" which owns the copyrights and intellectual property that went into the SS1/WK designs. This indicates that he is nowhere close to being done puring cash into that "hobby" of his. (And it would make no sense for him to stop after winning the X-prize, since that would have put him $10+ million in the red) In addition, Richard Branson (of Virgin fame) is rumored to be lining up to invest some of his $$$ into this same company, and he has definately been talking up space tourism.
- Also note that Allen invested all this before SS1 flew, which IMO will or already has opened up the gates to more investments. People from XCOR and TGV (X-prize competitor) have talked about how much new interest there is in investments in the suborbital/low-end space market. We space nuts all knew that reaching 100km was clearly possible - but the fact that Rutan did it and made it look so easy (relatively) has opened up the eyes of a lot of non-space-buff people all around the world.

2. Ok, so lets say you are flying sub-orbital missions. Is there any other decent profit potential in 100+ km hops outside of space tourism? Because I really don't see it...
- Ultra-fast parcel delivery? Not a chance - and you need a lot more infrastructure in lots of cities to handle that, and a whole lot more performance than 100km and Mach 3.
- Microgravity research? Give me a break - If Shuttle/Mir/ISS microgravity research hasn't yielded large breakthroughs, 3-5 minutes of flaky microgravity isn't going to either.
- High atmosphere research? Already cheaper with sounding rockets and parachute recovery.
- What remains? Space tourism.

(If one is able to scale up to higher to orbital or near-orbital, more sources of revenue become available. But if one plans to just dabble with small sub-orbital hops, there aren't a whole lot of profit-generating activities to do with it)

Now will space tourism be massively popular and kick-start a real space industry, or just be a minor blip on the radar for a few rich and adventurous? That remains to be seen. But I believe we will see some form of sub-orbital space tourism soon.

JimM · 2004-07-06 02:03:35

But I believe we will see some form of sub-orbital space tourism soon.

I believe you may well be right, although flights will be pretty infrequent, I'd guess. This is perhaps the space equivalent of barnstorming by otherwise redundant pilots in redundant WWI aircraft in the 1920s.

The costs involved and the risk exposure are or can be made to be very much less than orbital flight.

Orbital space tourism really is a whole different ball game--very many times more expensive and far, far riskier.

The only other use I can think of for sub-orbital hops is astronaut training in zero gee.

As for ultra-fast parcel delivery (or indeed people delivery) I think that apart from any other issues here, your vehicle is going to be difficult for a future Star Wars defence system to differentiate from an incoming ICBM.

Rxke · 2004-07-06 02:58:40

As for ultra-fast parcel delivery (or indeed people delivery) I think that apart from any other issues here, your vehicle is going to be difficult for a future Star Wars defence system to differentiate from an incoming ICBM.

Why? Assuming this Hyper-UPI thing would be done, there will be sheduled launches, from a restricted number of predetermined places, with predetermined trajectories... To predetermined locations. Just e-mail the launch-list to the NORAD folks, and you're done...
Government will likely tax the flights for costs this will induce, surely, but it's not a real issue, IMO.

JimM · 2004-07-06 03:27:13

As for ultra-fast parcel delivery (or indeed people delivery) I think that apart from any other issues here, your vehicle is going to be difficult for a future Star Wars defence system to differentiate from an incoming ICBM.
Why? Assuming this Hyper-UPI thing would be done, there will be sheduled launches, from a restricted number of predetermined places, with predetermined trajectories... To predetermined locations. Just e-mail the launch-list to the NORAD folks, and you're done...

First: Scheduled launch times would defeat the point of such super-fast delivery, which must happen now, or could have waited for conventional (and much cheaper) delivery anyway.

Second: Predetermined launch and arrival points would similarly defeat the point.

It would all be rather like going by taxi instead of bus.

Third: So emails can't be faked? I don't think an email would cause many fingers to retreat from Star Wars launch triggers -- especially if the 'missiles' were 'aimed' at or close to cities, as most would be.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-06 04:02:27

But extrapolation from conventional airliners makes no sense, its apples vs oranges.Airliners quite simply have a much lower probability of failure, SS1 almost became a white smudge in the desert if not for backup control surface systems.

Yes it does. A company only has to pay compensation when it is provable in a court of law that they are at fault. A company also only has to pay out what the courts deem reasonable. By looking at past airline/skydiver/etc cases we can establish the legal boundaries of fault, responsability, and what is and is not reasonable compensation. This will allow us to make reasonable of how much 'stupid relatives' insurance a spaceliner would need for any given crash rate.

Besides, if JimM was confident enough of his case to start this, I presume he has more on his side than 'I think so'. In which case I'd like to see it...

Tourism startups will not.

What makes you think that a company that can design, build, test, get government approval for, and then successfully advertise a sub-orbital system is going to be run by poor people who also happen to be very stupid?

- Microgravity research? Give me a break - If Shuttle/Mir/ISS microgravity research hasn't yielded large breakthroughs, 3-5 minutes of flaky microgravity isn't going to either.

Don't knock it too quickly. It costs a lot more than $10k or $100k to run a 5 minute experiment on ISS. Many sounding rockets also have limits on size/mass/time of cargo. (Heavier the cargo less zero G you get.) Forget the details but a large tower was built a few years back specifically so scientists could drop experiments down it and watched how things behaved in a second or two of freefall. This was a large white concrete structure, so I assume it wasn't done for only a few meaningless tests and that a few minutes zero G would be even more useful by comparison.

The costs involved and the risk exposure are or can be made to be very much less than orbital flight.

I think you over estimate the safety of early aircraft, and under estimate the costs involved. I'd also say this was more like the pre-WWI stage. Good WWI type planes could be expected to last hundreds of flights as long as they weren't shot down. Though that level of reliability is possible with today's technology, it has yet to be demonstrated.

ANTIcarrot.

Ian Flint · 2004-07-06 08:15:29

The only other use I can think of for sub-orbital hops is astronaut training in zero gee.

Of course! Astronauts hate the old Vomit Comet. If I recall correctly, they only get 30 seconds of freefall at a time, then have to climb again. They will love a five minute ride in zero-g. And this way they all get their astronaut wings whether or not they get to ride in a Shuttle or stay on the Station.

John Creighton · 2004-07-06 08:52:00

I was watching a movie not long ago about an air plane crash. The guy how owned the plane said the cost of a life is 2 million dollars. So if that number is reasonable, a 0.1% failure rate reduces the average settlement cost to $2000 per flight which is less much less then the 50-100 thousand dollar ticket. Grated the settlements may be higher and people may not fly on a ride that has a 0.1% failure rate but maybe suborbital flight can be made much safer then a failure rate of 0.1%

P.S. I am talking about suborbital flights per now. One step at a time.

JimM · 2004-07-06 09:05:39

Besides, if JimM was confident enough of his case to start this, I presume he has more on his side than 'I think so'. In which case I'd like to see it...

NOTE-- I started this thread with a quote from someone else about this cost. I did not invent the problem.

(This was my response to a similar question -- actually about SSTO -- on another forum a few days ago. Here I have turned the litigation/compensation risk into insurance premium; it's the only sane way to quantitise it. But since then I now believe that 1% --used below-- is far too low. I'm told it could be as high as 5%, or even insurers would refuse the risk. That would have a truly devastating effect on the whole project if true.)
-----
You talk of an orbiting ship that can take about 10,000 pounds payload up, and do it for probably 3 times fuel costs or about $3 million a flight, or $300 a pound to orbit.

Two points.

First:
If it takes $2 billion (you say) to develop an SSTO and $0.5 billion to build three units, with finance costs of , say, $1.1 billion, the full commercial cost of each vehicle if no more were built would be $1.2 billion.

Assuming mean time between failure (vehicle write-off) is a generous 500 trips and the direct incremental flight cost is as you say $3 million, the total cost per trip would be $3 million plus $(1,200/500) or $5.4 million/trip. However, don’t forget insurance on vehicle and cargo. Assume 10,000 lbs cargo is valued at $10,000/lb and a replacement vehicle costs $150 million and the insurance premium is 1%, then the insurance premium cost per trip is going to be some $2.5 million. So let’s say we end up at $8 million/trip or $800/lb ($1,800/kg) of payload. But then you want to make a reasonable but modest profit/risk premium; so the selling price becomes $1,000/lb ($2,200/kg) That’s not so cheap after all.

Second:
Assuming the vehicle is unmanned, it can deliver 10,000lb (4,500kg) to LEO. What use is that? Almost all the business today for commercial launchers is destined for GEO, not LEO—and the typical delivered payload to GEO is about 20,000lb (9,000kg) However, to boost the SSTO’s 10,000lb LEO payload to to GEO will use up half its mass in the form of a transfer vehicle, so the actual payload deliverable to GEO would be more like 5,000lbs (2,200Kg)—which is well-nigh useless. In any case, there are less than 100 commercial space ‘missions’ per year these days. The SSTO is ruled out of GEO delivery missions as we see, which does not leave much. I suspect it would be lucky to garner five or ten delivery trips to LEO/year. With 500 trips/vehicle, three vehicles, and 10 trips/year, the fleet will still be flying in 150 years time. Or to put it another way, one vehicle is enough, but then all development cost ends up on its head and cost/trip rises to something like $1,250/lb ($3,600/kg).

Now suppose the SSTO is manned. It would seem to me that the best it will be able to manage with 10,000 lbs available for payload, and considering that flight duration could hardly be less than two or three days, would be one crew (pilot) and two, perhaps three passengers. Assuming people are worth more (especially if there is litigation) per lb than inanimate cargo, insurance cost will rise. There are other costs associated with carrying people, but for the moment let’s say one passenger (if there are three) costs the equivalent of 4,000lb cargo at $1,000/lb, or $4,000,000. Add a modest profit/risk premium and we are looking at a ticket price of $5 million.

Now of course there are people who will pay that much for such a trip. But assuming a fleet of three vehicles and one such trip per week, can you be certain of finding 150 paying passengers per year, every year for 30 years, at that price? That’s 4,500 billionaires, remember.

Sorry, but I don’t think this business plan will fly.

I wish it would.
-----

John Creighton · 2004-07-06 09:49:32

JimM you make it sound like you must spread all the insurance costs over one flight. Cleary this isn’t the case, there would need to be some reasonably low failure rate, 1% 0.1% 0.01%, 0.001%, I am not sure what would be acceptable. Besides that your numbers are reasonable, but the development cost will fall over time as technology advances. Lets start with suborbital flights first. So we all agree that a passenger represents around 2-4 million dollars of liability in the event of a crash?

clark · 2004-07-06 11:15:20

If it takes $2 billion (you say) to develop an SSTO and $0.5 billion to build three units, with finance costs of , say, $1.1 billion, the full commercial cost of each vehicle if no more were built would be $1.2 billion.

Finance costs of 1.1 billion? That's 44% on the principle. Me thinks you might need a better loan, not a better plan. Please don't break my legs if I don't make the vig. :laugh:

Let's say 10,000 lbs per trip. Let's say 500 flights over the lifetime of the vehicle. That's a grand total of $240 per pound (assuming a 1.2 billion dollar price tag for the first three vehicles... which also assumes a 44% interest on the principle)

That works out to 2.4 million per flight (10,000 lbs at $240 per/lbs). Of course, there is the litany of insurance, which raises the prise per pound... so let's just jump to the final number:

. So let’s say we end up at $8 million/trip or $800/lb ($1,800/kg) of payload. But then you want to make a reasonable but modest profit/risk premium; so the selling price becomes $1,000/lb ($2,200/kg) That’s not so cheap after all.

1,000 per pound means you end up with a $10,000,000 per flight. So tell, me how many people we sending up?

2 people is 5 million per. 4 is 2.5 million per. 10 is a million bucks each.

Like the airline industry, it's a volume business. A lot of this insurance stuff can be resolved with binding waivers that free the company of any personal liability. If people are rich enough, they can insure themselves (if they want, and this might be a nice side business for the sub/orbital business in question).

This can happen in America too- just create laws, or weaken some, to protect this industry from litigation. Put a cap on personal libaility costs, which in effect will limit what the insurance carriers can charge. Set up a minimum standard for human rating- meet this, and Uncle Sam will insure you. Spend some of that profit on some good lobbyists, and you can do just about anything. :laugh:

Oh yeah, get a better loan.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-06 12:23:38

Hmm.

Two billion for an SSTO? That's optimistic even by my standards! It *might* be possible - with a very healthy dose of luck. The Atlas rocket was practically an SSTO. If you had taken the mercury capsule off the top it *would* have been an SSTO, just with a very small payload. Ditto for the Saturn-IV stage (NASA study) or the shutle ET with a few SSMEs underneith it. But it won't carry much, and it won't be reusable. Anyways...

$5.4M per trip for 10klb. $540/lb. Sounds good. Unfortunately I must disagree from this point on.

It is unfair to compare launch+insurance costs (for the SSTO) to publiched commercial launch costs - which IIRC, do not include the costs of insurance for the payload. In fact I would question whether the published costs include development. Somehow I doubt it.

If payload launch costs were significantly lower, satellites could be made for lower costs, since it wouldn't be nearly as expensive to replace or repair one. (I must also note that if the development cost is absorbed by the first three rockets, then SSTO #4 will fly at $3M/flight, which will alter all your subsiquent sums.)

Assume 10,000 lbs cargo is valued at $10,000/lb and a replacement vehicle costs $150 million and the insurance premium is 1%, then the insurance premium cost per trip is going to be some $2.5 million.

Remember that only part of that insurance covers launch costs. Some of it is for if the satellite fails in orbit. If launch cost were as cheep as $540/lb I'd question whether insurance would be that high at all. Assuming it drops in line with launch cost then it would be $5k/lb. And assuming one loss per 500 (which you already assumed at the start;) insurance costs will ammount to $1.1M.

So I work out lunch + insurance costs to be $6.5M for the first three SSTOs and $1.6M for #4 onwards. So true cost is $650/lb for the first three, and $160/lb for #4 onwards. Adding your reasonable profit and you get costs of $850 & $360 per lb - and profits of $2M per flight.

say one passenger (if there are three) costs the equivalent of 4,000lb cargo at $1,000/lb,

Let's not shall we? The shuttle does not carry 14 tons of food and water for seven astranauts. Soyuz does not carry 6 tons for it's three cosmonauts. If there's 10,000lbs cargo and three passengers, then *surely* each person will be the equivolent of 3,333lb. And surely if the SSTO is reusable then the capsule will also be reusable, in which case much of that 3,333lb per passenger can be spread over many flights. So £2M is the upper price of a ticket by my math. Before person insurance. Cargo insurance value of 150lb person = $750,000.

A person only needs about 500lb of supplies to sustain them for a few hours to a day. Presumably the SSTO is actually taking them somewhere? Down to $180k. Again before person insurance. Of course this is all based upon numbers which as far as I can see are very silly indeed.

Neither of our answers is right or wrong. It's all a matter of assumptions made. And of course you are quite right in saying that the commercial market doesn't exist yet for such a vehicle.

But it could be done for government purposes. As as shuttle replacement for example. Or as comission to Boeing from a corporation wishing to try and build an SPS or space tug. Which is on the verge of profitability, when you consider that bulk cargo (SPS girders/solar panels) practically won't need insurance. The likelihood of this is debatable I grant you but still possible.

* * *

And even after all that you still haven't answered my question! :bars2: Under what circumstances do you think a spaceline would have to pay out compensation to next of kin and what amount of payout would you consider reasonable?

'Explosive writeoff' isn't good enough. Companies only have to pay up if they could have reasonably prevented the accident or it's consiquences. EG: If you ride on space mountain with a bad back you can't complain afterwards, because Disney did everything reasonable to prevent your injury.

ANTIcarrot.

Edit: Ugh. Forgot to account for financing. Oh well - it's was unreasonably high as clark said. I'll just have to sell advertising space to compensate. ^.^

JimM · 2004-07-06 14:10:28

JimM you make it sound like you must spread all the insurance costs over one flight. Cleary this isn’t the case, there would need to be some reasonably low failure rate, 1% 0.1% 0.01%, 0.001%, I am not sure what would be acceptable.

Sorry if I did not make myself clear. The insurance costs quoted are repeated with each flight.

And on failure rate, I said:

Assuming mean time between failure (vehicle write-off) is a generous 500 trips...

In the way you present it, that would be 0.002% I think that's actually rather optimistic.

...the development cost will fall over time as technology advances.

In fact, all development cost is assumed to happen up front.

JimM · 2004-07-06 14:33:58

Finance costs of 1.1 billion? That's 44% on the principle.

The assumption is that borrowed capital is paid off in 10 years. This means that the average annual interest payment would be about $110 million, or about 5% on the capital. (It's more complex that that, but this gives you the general idea.) I think that's quite reasonable.

That works out to 2.4 million per flight (10,000 lbs at $240 per/lbs)

You're ignoring the incremental operating costs, stated to be $3 million. Otherwise, we're in agreement so far.

2 people is 5 million per. 4 is 2.5 million per. 10 is a million bucks each.

Hang on. You've got 10,000 lbs of payload to play with, including accomodation for the crew (one pilot) and a really crowded passenger compartment of three people (which really I think is over-opemistic) People require more care than cargo, and are more expensive to 'replace' than cargo, so the insurance cost, among other things, goes up.

Ten passengers? Come on! That's not a serious possibility. And we've already got a rather good loan, See above.

clark · 2004-07-06 14:51:53

The assumption is that borrowed capital is paid off in 10 years.

It's an assumption you didn't share. So if we have ten years here, I'm pretty certain we can take some tax ride offs here, no? Depreciation of assests? R&D development as a tax ride off? 110,000,000 is 4.4%, which is a pretty good deal.

What about doing an IPO after you've made the first three? That might raise a couple billion to pay off the loan, and to purchase more (and cheaper) flight units. Now we have some more math to do.

Let me see- you wouldn't have to pay for production until after the development- which is 1.5 billion that you don't need to pay interest on. That would come out to 88 million a year for what, the first five years of development?

okay, so by the time you're ready to start building the things, you've spent 2.4 billion. Isn't this all a tax ride off since you haven't even made a dime? What about related spin-off technologies from your program? You're going to have some patents- i would imagine some of those are worth a penny or two.

You're ignoring the incremental operating costs, stated to be $3 million. Otherwise, we're in agreement so far.

I'm ignoring made up numbers. Justify the overhead of $600,000 per flight, then we can talk. :laugh:

Hang on. You've got 10,000 lbs of payload to play with, including accomodation for the crew (one pilot) and a really crowded passenger compartment of three people (which really I think is over-opemistic)

Who said we need a pilot? Where is that a requirement? I said as much, tell me how many people we're sending up. I assume more than one person is going per ride, and the more the better. Just like if only a couple people flew on an airplane (like Concorde) it would cost an arm and a leg.

What we base estimates on are Soyuz, right? Well Soyus is a different beast- it needs to stay on orbit for 90 days. Chuck that. It needs to have all these other requirements related to that. Chuck it. Strip it down to a bare minimum. It can fit 3 people now, but the Clipper is slated for 6.

Change the requirement for SSTO to TSTO with recoverable rocket. It reduces overhead, and will probably be easier to.

People require more care than cargo, and are more expensive to 'replace' than cargo, so the insurance cost, among other things, goes up.

I gave solutions to insurance costs, tell me why they wouldn't work. a billion dollar sattelite requires care. Sensitive electronic equipment require care. They've been doing this for years. People are not much different than a lot of the cargo they've been putting up- for years.

Ten passengers? Come on! That's not a serious possibility. And we've already got a rather good loan,

What is the tonnage requirement per person? I don't know, but would love to hear if you have an answer.

JimM · 2004-07-06 15:17:56

Two billion for an SSTO? That's optimistic even by my standards!

I agree. But this was part of a longer discussion, and $2 billion had been settled on for the sake of argument.

In fact I would question whether the published costs include development. Somehow I doubt it.

I think you're right for all existing launch systems. Here we were talking about a truly private enterprise SSTO, where 'fares' would have to set to absorb the cost of development.

And assuming one loss per 500 (which you already assumed at the start;) insurance costs will ammount to $1.1M

Well, for a start that's a little under half of what I'd estimated, so that's not a vast difference. Especially when you take on board the note I made that later information suggests my assumed 1% permium was far too low, and it could be as high as 5%--that is, 5 times the previous estimate. So even if your $1.1 million was right before, it becomes $5.5 million in the worst case; but if my $2.5 million was right, that would then soar to $12.5 million.

So there we are: Insurance could cost anything from $1.1 million to $12.5 million per flight. You pays your money and takes your choice.

The shuttle does not carry 14 tons of food and water...

Nope. But apart from food and water, it provides each astronaut with a pressure suit, a chair-cum-couch-cum-bed, an environmental maintenance system (air, for example) a zero-gravity toilet, an airlock, etc., etc., etc. Oh! And a pilot, complete with all the above, plus of course all he needs to fly the thing.

That's why I say four people, including the pilot, is the maximum--it's just 2,500 lbs each. And that's pushing it.

If you ride on space mountain with a bad back you can't complain afterwards, because Disney did everything reasonable to prevent your injury.

Are you sure? How much did that woman get awarded for Mcdonalds selling her hot coffee that she was foolish enough to spill over herself? $1 million? More?

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-06 16:23:19

Nope. But apart from food and water, it provides each astronaut with a pressure suit

True... On the other paw a space-suite doesn't weigh that much, and it's perfectly capable of keeping the astranaut alive and well for a number of hours. With spare oxygen tanks and batteries you could keep them alive for far longer. And if they're going to a space hotel, unmanned low cost bulk-supplies can be sent up on a flight with a lower insurance premium.

Are you sure? How much did that woman get awarded for Mcdonalds selling her hot coffee that she was foolish enough to spill over herself?

Ah, but here's the difference! Disney has signs up saying, 'Going on this ride if you have a bad back could harmyou' and McDonald didn't have a sign up saying, 'This drink could injure you if you spill it'.

By that logic, all we need to do is have a prominant sign up saying, 'Rockets sometimes explode! If you're onboard when this happens, you could get hurt.' ^.^

ANTIcarrot.

JimM · 2004-07-07 02:00:32

On the other paw a space-suite doesn't weigh that much...

I had always imagined a space-suite would be in a space-hotel...

More seriously, I have already posted some of the far more extensive list of things needed than just a space suit.

And where did I say this trip was going to a space hotel? The presumption was that it was a stand-alone couple of days orbiting and return trip.

In any case, even if it was going to a space hotel, it might well require a flight time of up to a couple of days, not hours, to rendezvous. And fail-safe would require the endurance to return safely to earth after a failed rendezvous.

Fact is, now I come to think of it, the vehicle would need the ability to keep those on board alive long enough for a rescue mission to reach them, in the event of engine failure preventing re-entry...

McDonald didn't have a sign up saying, 'This drink could injure you if you spill it'.

Well, clearly you're a more frequent McDonalds customer than I, as I've not noticed this notice. In any case, I've got a friend who is a lawyer (yes I know, but I've known him since before he became one) who took his kids to McDonalds one day. The floor had just been washed and there was one of these signs up warning people about the danger of slipping on the wet floor. His 10 year-old-daughter got up to get a tissue or something and slipped on the wet floor. He wrote to McDonalds threatening to sue and by return McDonalds forked out several thousand.

JimM · 2004-07-07 02:38:59

The assumption is that borrowed capital is paid off in 10 years.
It's an assumption you didn't share. So if we have ten years here, I'm pretty certain we can take some tax ride offs here, no? Depreciation of assests?

There are a lot of assumption about this model I have not 'shared'. It was used on another forum, and it has a long history I've not got time to go into now.

As for tax write-offs, if the operation was based in Sumatra (say), what tax?

You're ignoring the incremental operating costs, stated to be $3 million. Otherwise, we're in agreement so far.
I'm ignoring made up numbers. Justify the overhead of $600,000 per flight, then we can talk.

If we ignore all made up numbers, there is nothing left. Nada. Nix. This whole exercise consists of nothing but made up numbers.

But while we're taliking of made-up numbers, what about this "overhead of $600,000 per flight" that I've never heard of before?

Who said we need a pilot? Where is that a requirement?

Can you imagine two or three billionaires, struggling to get into their spacesuits or whatever, and NO CREW on hand to help? NO PILOT to fly the thing, even if the computer could do the job in theory. After all, a 747 does not require a crew, on the same basis, but I've not noticed many actually flying around with a load of passengers but no crew. Have you?

What we base estimates on are Soyuz, right? Well Soyus is a different beast- it needs to stay on orbit for 90 days. Chuck that. It needs to have all these other requirements related to that. Chuck it. Strip it down to a bare minimum. It can fit 3 people now, but the Clipper is slated for 6.
Change the requirement for SSTO to TSTO with recoverable rocket. It reduces overhead, and will probably be easier to.

Now you are wanting to redesign the vehicle from first principles. I'm not going to go down that endless, and endlessly forking, road. And no, we don't base estimates on Soyuz.

What is the tonnage requirement per person? I don't know, but would love to hear if you have an answer.

I already said this: 2,500 lbs.

clark · 2004-07-07 09:01:52

There are a lot of assumption about this model I have not 'shared'. It was used on another forum, and it has a long history I've not got time to go into now.

What are we, you're wall to throw the red rubber ball at? It's okay, but we can hardly be expected to carry on a conversation about this if you keep pulling rabbits out of your hat.

As for tax write-offs, if the operation was based in Sumatra (say), what tax?

Export laws will kill you. This is a silly idea. Makes for good fiction though. :laugh: Sumatra does not have the infrastructure nor the expertise to field something like this. Sure, a company can build it and bring it, but then they end up footing the bill. And investors really hate 3rd world countries on the off chance they might nationalize everything.

If we ignore all made up numbers, there is nothing left. Nada. Nix. This whole exercise consists of nothing but made up numbers.

Then we can talk about any numbers, right?

But while we're taliking of made-up numbers, what about this "overhead of $600,000 per flight" that I've never heard of before?

The difference between my calculations and yours- you guesstimate 3 million. I figured 2.4 million. The difference would be your confusion.

Can you imagine two or three billionaires, struggling to get into their spacesuits or whatever, and NO CREW on hand to help?

Why do they need spacesuits? Put them in a pressurized cabin and be done with it. You don't need an airlock (as you mentioned earlier) because no one is going outside. Having crew on the ground is one thing- I said no pilot. So if the rich guys can't figure out how to put on a basic pressure suit of nothing mroe than zippers, someone on the ground can help them.

After all, a 747 does not require a crew, on the same basis, but I've not noticed many actually flying around with a load of passengers but no crew. Have you?

It's a brave new world, and you're not in the cockpit to see the sleeping pilots. The planes used to fly with several people at the helm- now two. On the Shuttle, the Astronauts had one job to land the bird- flip a switch for the landing gear. Everything else was automated and could be controlled by the computer or the ground.

And no, we don't base estimates on Soyuz.

Then what is your baseline for this entire imaginary exscursion?

I already said this: 2,500 lbs.

Based on what?

JimM · 2004-07-07 10:02:45

I already said this: 2,500 lbs.
Based on what?

If you'd been following this up to now, you'd know the payload allowance (including for people) was 10,000lb. One pilot+3 passengers = 4 people. 10,000 divided by 4 = 2,500lbs.

Most of the rest of your questions are equally stupid.

I am not beholden to you or anyone else to answer them as if I was facing a court of law on trial for my life. You are making me regret I introduced information from another study to illustrate a point about insurance. You are demonstrating a degree of unobservance of what has already been said which beggars belief. For instance,

But while we're taliking of made-up numbers, what about this "overhead of $600,000 per flight" that I've never heard of before?
The difference between my calculations and yours- you guesstimate 3 million. I figured 2.4 million. The difference would be your confusion.

No, the difference would be your confusion.

A $3 million running cost was a stated given. $2.4 million was my estimate of the development cost that would be allocated to each flight, plus financing etc. (before insurance.) so the cost per flight (before insurance) was ($3+$2.4)million = $5.4million.

I do not have the time or inclination to answer any more of your stupidities.

clark · 2004-07-07 10:23:25

Pity. Your voice will be missed.

I'll talk to the electronic wall then, shall I?

Electronic wall says:

If you'd been following this up to now, you'd know the payload allowance (including for people) was 10,000lb. One pilot+3 passengers = 4 people. 10,000 divided by 4 = 2,500lbs.

Ah, I see. So nothing here is wedded in reality? We can send up 10,000 pounds- the basic premise, and from there, we start this flight of fancy. So each person is allotted 2500 lbs each, even if they don't need that much? What if they need more?

My real point here is this (as in capacity) is an unknown, made more so by your due diligence to not use any kind of exsisting orbital vehicle as a baseline. Considering that the airplane industry is used as a model in this discussion, it might make sense to strengthen that analogy by discussing how the various models are simmilar, and different.

In this case, volume is an integral part of the discussion that seems to be run over without a second glance. You say 10 people up is too many- based on what? Your own assumption that only four people can go up? Which is based on what? Nothing but what you think, with no technical baseline to support your assumptions. Don't you see a problem here?

I am not beholden to you or anyone else to answer them as if I was facing a court of law on trial for my life.

Not on trial? Then why are you grandstanding?

You are making me regret I introduced information from another study to illustrate a point about insurance.

Another study? I thought this was from another discussion on another internet forumn somewhere in the electronic ether that you can't be bothered to explain. Well, if it's a study, might we have a link or a publication ID?

A $3 million running cost was a stated given. $2.4 million was my estimate of the development cost that would be allocated to each flight, plus financing etc. (before insurance.) so the cost per flight (before insurance) was ($3+$2.4)million = $5.4million.

Ah, and that 3 million comes from where? 2.4 million is the cost of launching the bird into orbit. It seems you're adding in twice that, why?

Just more stupid questions I suppose. tata :laugh:

Ian Flint · 2004-07-07 10:31:54

I'll have to go with clark on this one, Jim. You sound very incoherent. Maybe you could start a new thread with links and all the bells and whistles

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-07 12:48:03

You've posted nine times since I asked you my question and you've yet to answer it. Maybe I'll get lucky on post ten.

In three easy BBC bite-sized chunks:
1) What circumstances do you believe a theoretical spaceline would have to pay out compensation?
2) What amount do you believe would be legally reasonable?
3) What makes you think this beyond your opinion?

Since you started this the onus is on YOU to provide some evidence or proof or a link to a similar case. In your own good time please.

ANTIcarrot.

JimM · 2004-07-07 14:35:58

Ah, I see. So nothing here is wedded in reality? We can send up 10,000 pounds- the basic premise, and from there, we start this flight of fancy. So each person is allotted 2500 lbs each, even if they don't need that much? What if they need more?

I see your questions are not becoming any less dumb. How the blazes are we supposed to know if the passengers are fat or thin, male or female, adult or child ... the only way to do this is to estimate the needs for an 'average' adult. Any more would be spectacularly stupid for this sort of a paper study. Maybe you're daft enough to try but I'm not.

My real point here is this (as in capacity) is an unknown, made more so by your due diligence to not use any kind of exsisting orbital vehicle as a baseline.

(Career advice: never take a job that involves any sort of estimating. You have not got a clue.)

I never said I was using any existing vehicle as a baseline. That is a complete red herring you have dragged out of some fetted corner of your seriously addled excuse for a brain.

Not on trial? Then why are you grandstanding?

Not so--I actually don't give a damn what other people think. Never have, never will.

It's just that I find it difficult to suffer fools gladly and you're coming over here as a 100% Grade-A fool, so you're learning what I actually think of what you have to say. I don't care if others are reading what I say to you or not.

Another study? I thought this was from another discussion on another internet forumn

If you'd bothered to read all I have said, you'd have gathered long ago that this was lifted from a PRIVATE discussion or study on the net. Period.

Ah, and that 3 million comes from where?

So now you reach new depths of dumbness. This question of yours followed immediately on from my telling you...

A $3 million running cost was a stated given.

How often do things have to be repeated to you before they go in? Do they ever?

Just more stupid questions I suppose

You said it.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-07-05 18:35:48

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#27 2004-07-05 20:57:22

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#28 2004-07-06 02:03:35

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#29 2004-07-06 02:58:40

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#30 2004-07-06 03:27:13

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#31 2004-07-06 04:02:27

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#32 2004-07-06 08:15:29

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#33 2004-07-06 08:52:00

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#34 2004-07-06 09:05:39

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#35 2004-07-06 09:49:32

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#36 2004-07-06 11:15:20

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#37 2004-07-06 12:23:38

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#38 2004-07-06 14:10:28

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#39 2004-07-06 14:33:58

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#40 2004-07-06 14:51:53

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#41 2004-07-06 15:17:56

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#42 2004-07-06 16:23:19

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#43 2004-07-07 02:00:32

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#44 2004-07-07 02:38:59

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#45 2004-07-07 09:01:52

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#46 2004-07-07 10:02:45

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#47 2004-07-07 10:23:25

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#48 2004-07-07 10:31:54

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#49 2004-07-07 12:48:03

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

#50 2004-07-07 14:35:58

Re: The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine

Board footer