The frequent flight catch 22

[willpittenger]

If you fly a spacecraft often, you save money. However, because people see it fly less, they care less. We just don't like putting money into something that happens "routinely." So how do we solve that problem? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[j05h]

The solution is not just flight frequency, but taking spaceflight out of just the government arena and building a new paradigm of personal, commercial spaceflight. The public continues to show minimal interest in govt.space, because it is boring, expensive and produces nothing tangible to Joe Sixpack. "Hey, Joe, want to fly to the edge of space for $100,000?" gets a much more positive response. People understand the idea of paying for a service, especially tourism. People love space (especially kids, but adults, too) they are just bored with the national agencies.<br /><br />Flight frequency also requires more and cheaper payloads - be it water, com-sats or people. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I dunno; Joe Public also tends to get pretty blase about commercial aviation, so I'm not convinced the public will care more if it's private. And I don't think flying to the edge of space for $100,000 will excite much of the public. Remember, most of the public considered Concorde a rich man's extravagance, and wasn't particularly bothered by its retirement. For most people, $100,000 is every bit as unattainable as $10 million, and it would be ludicrous to spend such sums on what amounts to a short joyride, given that most people can't buy a cheap car without taking out a loan.<br /><br />Ultimately, however, we *do* need private spaceflight. I'm just skeptical that the public will care much more at that point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Wasn't the price of low orbital flights supposed to come down after a certain number of sales? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacelifejunkie]

Calli, I agree with you to a point. Joyrides to space, however, will be cheaper than $100,000 in less than a decade. Armadillo estimates they can get the price down to $10,000. Even if they are 100% off and the price is $20,000 that is still quite a reduction. BTW, there are A LOT of people who could afford the 100 Grand trip. And the number is growing. However, going to LEO often and making that profitable is the key to CATS. It can be routine and exciting if enough of the public is doing it. Imagine if celebrities were going to Bigelow orbital hotels ten years from now and what that would do to the public's perception of space. <br /><br />Willpittenger, there is nothing boring about 3-6 g's and a view of the whole earth at 17,500 mph!!! Never gettin' tired of that.<br /><br /><br />SLJ

 

[j05h]

Concorde was significantly more complex than the proposed suborbitals. IIRC seat price was around $5,000 at the end of the Concorde flights. For suborbitals, that $10,000 price tag would be when they are attached to large amusement parks (Disney launches) and the various US spaceports are mostly servicing orbital flight. I'm not sure if 10 years is enough time for such prices, but Armadillo among others largely have the technology in place. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The solution is not just flight frequency, but taking spaceflight out of just the government arena and building a new paradigm of personal, commercial spaceflight.<br /><br />The public continues to show minimal interest in govt.space, because it is boring, expensive and produces nothing tangible <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I agree with Calli that the private sector can only do so much. The idea of suborbital flight has an "amusement value" right now, but not sure how many more people will pay $100,000 after others have "... been there, done that...". Maybe the first few hundreds will pay for it. All it takes is one crash out of hundred(s) to kill the entire business. There are a lot easier ways to make $10M on earth these days than operating a suborbital flight business.<br /><br />The government's challenge is for <font color="yellow">science & human space exploration </font> That is a far-cry from how to make money from running a profitable commerical venture. The government takes on the risks that no private ventures want to take on, e.g., the expensive part of unknown technologies, where it may cost human lives. <br /><br />The government mission is go explore. The private venture mission is go make money. There's no money to be made if there's no demand for such services. Right now, there is not exactly evidence of demand for vacational hotspots on the surfaces of moon.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Unfortunately, the comparison of spaceflight to commercial aviation only goes so far. If I want to travel to Chicago (from Peoria, IL), I won't bother flying. By the time I get through security, I could drive there for less as it is only 150 miles or about 3 hours. Now, if I had a flight to catch in Chicago, I might want to take advantage of Peoria's shorter securities lines. However, I might skip that too. United commonly has jets going to Denver. Allegiance flies direct to Orlando and Vegas. The probably of a jet going direct to either Chicago or St. Louis (same distance, but in the opposite direction) is rather low. In one case, I had a jet when I bought the ticket, but a prop plane showed up.<br /><br />I know there are people that would rather drive even long distances. When I moved to Oregon in 2000, I could have flown and had my car shipped. That's what happened when I moved back. But I drove the 2000 miles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[vulture2]

>>The government mission is go explore. The private venture mission is go make money. <br /><br />Long ago, the government mission was to develop the technology that private ventures need to make money. Today, it is said, NASA can't afford to fund the development of new technology because it needs the money to fly missions.<br />