Sci-Fi vs SB&T

[cavesofmars]

If one wanted to characterize posters in the SB&T forum one could say that they prefer to focus on the near-term future and on deployable technologies with a realistic chance of happening. The past two decades have been somewhat depressing for these folks because NASA has been so slow in making the transition beyond the space shuttle. NASA's successes have been with its explorer and astronomical spacecrafts. Looked at optimistically, these robotic vehicles have generated a vast amount of scientific information which will provide the foundation of future space travel.

Those with more of a Sci-Fi bent prefer to focus on timeframes beyond the immediate decade. Although their visions can be pessimistic on occasion, they are more often able to see reasons for optimism in major trends which are quite visible in the present time. They allow the Bigelows and Musks of the future to see what will be possible a decade or two hence and to see how they can take advantage of those possibilities. Businesses building airliners today at a cost of 10 million will be able to build space liners two decades hence for 10 billion. If this seems too expensive today, it will be chicken feed for space corporations with 100 billion net profits in 2030.

 

[wick07]

If one wanted to characterize posters in the SB&T forum one could say that they prefer to focus on the near-term future and on deployable technologies with a realistic chance of happening. The past two decades have been somewhat depressing for these folks because NASA has been so slow in making the transition beyond the space shuttle. NASA's successes have been with its explorer and astronomical spacecrafts. Looked at optimistically, these robotic vehicles have generated a vast amount of scientific information which will provide the foundation of future space travel.

Those with more of a Sci-Fi bent prefer to focus on timeframes beyond the immediate decade. Although their visions can be pessimistic on occasion, they are more often able to see reasons for optimism in major trends which are quite visible in the present time. They allow the Bigelows and Musks of the future to see what will be possible a decade or two hence and to see how they can take advantage of those possibilities. Businesses building airliners today at a cost of 10 million will be able to build space liners two decades hence for 10 billion. If this seems too expensive today, it will be chicken feed for space corporations with 100 billion net profits in 2030.

Here's the difference between SB&T and SciFi: business.

For example, in the above post you talk about space corporations making 100 billion net profits. $100B doing what? What's in space that we need? Right now there is nothing in space that we can't produce cheaper and more easily than on Earth.

Could that change by 2030? Sure. But for SB&T you have to present what will be different, not just state that it is.

I am for space flight as much as, and probably more than, the next guy. You'd probably be hard-pressed to find anyone on this site that isn't pro-space. (see the name!) But, as much as I hate to admit it, right now space is simply a hobby for mankind; like owning a sailboat or an airplane. We enjoy it, spend money on it, but we've yet to find a way to make it a career.

Until we find a way to produce or gather something in space that we just can't get on Earth, and the demand for that thing is high enough to justify the cost, we won't have $100B space corporations.

Now excuse my while I go get a drink and try to banish this feeling that I'm a traitor to my cause. :?

 

[danhezee]

If one wanted to characterize posters in the SB&T forum one could say that they prefer to focus on the near-term future and on deployable technologies with a realistic chance of happening. The past two decades have been somewhat depressing for these folks because NASA has been so slow in making the transition beyond the space shuttle. NASA's successes have been with its explorer and astronomical spacecrafts. Looked at optimistically, these robotic vehicles have generated a vast amount of scientific information which will provide the foundation of future space travel.

Those with more of a Sci-Fi bent prefer to focus on timeframes beyond the immediate decade. Although their visions can be pessimistic on occasion, they are more often able to see reasons for optimism in major trends which are quite visible in the present time. They allow the Bigelows and Musks of the future to see what will be possible a decade or two hence and to see how they can take advantage of those possibilities. Businesses building airliners today at a cost of 10 million will be able to build space liners two decades hence for 10 billion. If this seems too expensive today, it will be chicken feed for space corporations with 100 billion net profits in 2030.

Who is going to pay for a seat on the spaceliner?
How much is it going to cost per seat since your hypothetical company is making 100 billion in profit not revenue?
Am I right to assume that is $100 billion dollars?
How often are they going to fly and where are they going?

The bulk of the reasons why people fly today is for business trips. How much activity in space do you foresee that justifies $100 billion dollars in profits for multiple space corporations?

Also, in another post of yours on another topic you claim the future exponential growth of information technology directly correlates to the exponential growth of the space industry. That's a good idea, but I.T. has been exponentially growing since the days of the apollo program, why if we haven't seen the correlation in the past would we see it in the future?

Saying all that I love your enthusiasm. I am even share the big dreams.

 

[samkent]

I think your optimism is getting too far ahead of reality. Lets use your numbers for a second when we calculate the cost of a ticket. Lets assume it’s a 10 passenger version.

When you own an aircraft you have two different type of expenses. Direct cost and Indirect costs.

Indirect costs are the ones you will pay even if your space plane becomes a hanger queen. Meaning it doesn’t fly very often.
Purchase price: 10 billion or 41.6 million per month over 20 years.
Interest on the loan: 6% or 2.5 million per month
Insurance: 100,000 per month
Leasing fees: Buildings, On board equipment, Off board servicing equipment.
Subscription fees: Data for GPS and other.
Taxes: Yes it’s a business and you have to pay taxes on physical items.

Direct costs are the ones incurred as a result of flying.
Fuel: A 747 costs $225000 today. Your space ship in 10 years, 1mil per flight. 30 mil per month.
Maintenance: An oil change for a single engine prop plane cost $200 for every 50 hour of flight time. Your space ship $100K per month. That’s an optimistic figure using the NASA method of crossing fingers.

The numbers I can come up with are putting the daily cost at 2.5 million per day excluding the ones I can’t. You could be looking at 3-4 mil per day for 20 years. That puts the ticket price at 500K+. Who is going to have that much disposable income? Remember you have to fill 10 seats every day for 20 years. Wage inflation rate over the past two decades wouldn’t begin to come close in the next two decades.

Try putting a price tag on your dreams the next time. The business with SS2 will give us a clue as to the practicality of private space travel.