I wholeheartedly agree with Peter Diamandis here:

Diamandis said that the wealth of individuals is rapidly increasing thanks to the evolving power of the Internet, and very shortly through breakthroughs in nanotechnology. Billionaires and multi-billionaires are making their own future happen, he said.

“At the same time the number of millionaires and billionaires are very rapidly increasingly…the price for getting into space is coming down. We’re at that crossing point right now,” Diamandis said.

Once private operators routinely gain access to orbit, the momentum forward is unstoppable, Diamandis said. “We cannot depend upon on the government to do this.”

While wishing NASA and its new leader, Mike Griffin, good luck, Diamandis said, the space agency is subject to Congressional start-stop, start-stop funding. The fact that there are four to six human flights to orbit a year “is pathetic…and pathetically small.”

"Pathetically small" is a very apt description of the level of activity NASA actually plans to carry out the president's vision. And as long as it remains so, it will remain unaffordable, at least in terms comprehensible to everyday people and, ultimately, unsustainable, just as it was during Apollo.

On the demand side, I read in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago that the number of $10 millionaire households tripled in the span of about 5 years. It now stands at something like a half million in the US alone.

Yes, the major idea for space tourism has always been the idea that payloads are already produced, low-tech, in sufficient quantities and ready to fly. Thats all nice and good.
But when we start speaking about space tourism to orbit and beyond, there's one even bigger market for low-tech, high-volume and ready to fly payloads. Thats rocket propellant, on orbit, inevitably. I see a huge opportunity for minimum-cost-design ELVs here.

Space travel won't do most of us any good if it becomes the realm of billionaires. How useful would commercial aviation be if a JFK-Heathrow flight cost $100,000?

It's reasonable to assume that early private space travel will be the playground of the very wealthy. But, if there's no incentive to drop the cost and the ticket price, then what?

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to understand how the private sector is going to make money putting people in space to do exploration.

But, if there's no incentive to drop the cost and the ticket price, then what?

Then the price won't drop. But there is an incentive--to expand the market and sell more tickets.

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to understand how the private sector is going to make money putting people in space to do exploration.

I'm trying to understand why you think that "exploration" is the only reason that people will want to go into space.

It's reasonable to assume that early private space travel will be the playground of the very wealthy. But, if there's no incentive to drop the cost and the ticket price, then what?

There's incentive to drop the cost and ticket price. After all, space tourism operators would want more profits so reducing costs is a no brainer. There's incentive to drop the ticket price because that means more demand especially if you undercut competitors when you do that. This is elementary economics.

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to understand how the private sector is going to make money putting people in space to do exploration.

If you get payed more to put people into space than you spend in development, launch costs, etc, then you are making money. Not much to understand here.

Space travel won't do most of us any good if it becomes the realm of billionaires. How useful would commercial aviation be if a JFK-Heathrow flight cost $100,000?

Why are you expecting that space travel will stop at this point? As has been pointed out many times in these hallowed p.a.g.e.s, many technologies started as playthings of the rich, but they didn't stay that way. I don't see what's going to make space travel so different from the rest.

Space travel won't do most of us any good if it becomes the realm of billionaires. How useful would commercial aviation be if a JFK-Heathrow flight cost $100,000?

I guess by most of us, you don't include engineers, fabricators, pilots, ground handlers, inspectors, traffic controllers, etc...

Let's also not forget same day intercontinental postal service.

I was a bit disappointed by Transformational Space's CXV (presented at ISDC). I went to the company's website (www.transformspace.com). Lots of cool graphics and white papers. But a little digging leads you to their proud discovery of the hammock. It only took them 3 months to develop and can rapidly turn 180 degrees to reorient the crew to the effects of gravity.

Sorry guys, but that really is not impressive.

Let's also not forget same day intercontinental postal service.

I'm looking forward to it. I can't wait for the day when I can kvetch because FedEx Orbital's 'same day service' can't deliver my mission critical part from the depot in Malyasia to Chicago before noon.

Leland, the t/Space hammock weighs considerably less than the orbiter seats and was essentially free to develop. Big aerospace would have charged tens [hundreds?] of millions of dollars for a seat that can quickly reverse position. The light weight reduces total mass (i.e. cost) to orbit.

Things t/Space nails:

- - Air launch avoids the need for an escape tower, saving weight;

- - Air launch minimizes the need for a complex rocket engine, the propane self pressurizes minimizing moving parts and lowering the cost to manufacture;

- - Air launch offers countless operational advantages such as weather and launch window issues;

- - The Corona style capsule with off the shelf ablative heat shield tiles is simple but effective;

- - No wings reduces weight and manufacturing cost and simplifies heat shield design;

I found the t/Space concept both simple and elegant, solving many of the Earth-to-LEO challenges without the need for very expensive engineering.

It reminds me of Zubrin's current rant: "Are you about getting to LEO cheaply & efficiently or selling rope?" t/Space is a disaster for the rope sellers.

But in addition, t/Space may very well crush other alt-space orbital start-ups simply by delivering a much better, safer, cheaper ride to LEO.

>"But a little digging leads you to their proud discovery of the hammock. It only took them 3 months to develop and can rapidly turn 180 degrees to reorient the crew to the effects of gravity.

Sorry guys, but that really is not impressive."

Well, the seat was developed by a bunch of college kids for pennies on big aerospace's dollar. Thats pretty good. Would you like to do better?

Rand: Did I say I think exploration is the only reason to be in space? Are you saying that if no one can do something profitably, it isn't worth doing?

Karl: Thank you for the unnecessary economics lesson. To be specifc, how do you see, for example, the initial human exploration of Mars making a profit? Also, show me where I said I am "expecting" that the price of space travel would always be exorbitantly high? I said it won't do most of us any good if the price remains exorbitant and suggested commercial air travel would have been stillborn if the same thing had happened there. Do you disagree? Finally, like other technologies, I hope the price of space travel drops to something akin to air travel. But, hoping and casting about with analogies are no guarantees.

Leland: Unless you're suggesting that space travel will be funded by people purchasing tickets for approximately the equivalent of a full year's salary, I don't see your point.

Did I say I think exploration is the only reason to be in space?

If not, then what is the point of your question?

Are you saying that if no one can do something profitably, it isn't worth doing?

No, but it's also not necessarily worth taking others' money involuntarily to do. The National Geographic Society is a non-profit organization that seems to do quite a bit of "exploration" without taxpayers' money.

I look forward to the day when private space exploration becomes possible. We have a multitude of private institutes that explore the oceans and they constantly send out ships on research expeditions. Here's one example :

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

http://www.whoi.edu/home/marine/index.html

"But in addition, t/Space may very well crush other alt-space orbital start-ups simply by delivering a much better, safer, cheaper ride to LEO."

This would not be a bad thing at all. It would become obvious that if they can do it, others can do it, and actually get investors behind their efforts.

BTW, "exploration" obviously cannot generate profit by itself ( hey, even resource prospecting doesnt generate revenue directly, only if you strike gold, oil or something _and_ decide to harvest it )
But there are ideas on how to do "exploration" with net profit too:
http://www.permanent.com/m-1stmis.htm , scroll to chapter "How would this first mission make money?"

As I understand it, the National Geographic Society is mostly just a media outfit these days.

Some thoughts;

1) If the ticket price to get into space is expensive, others will enter the market and the price will drop
2) 0.5 million (households) * 10 million (per household) = 5 trillion. That's a lot of money, and there are only so many cars etc you can buy - a trip into space is something 'out there' (for now)
3) The very earliest JFK-Heathrow flights effectively *did* cost $100,000 (in 'our' money). But people wanted to be in JFK, or LHR - and were willing to pay the price.
4) Crossing the (English) channel was beyond the wildest dreams of most people, say, 300 years ago. Now, for $200k I can fly into space. This is a good thing...

billg:
Yep, I think people are willing to spend the equivalent of my yearly salary to travel into space. Concorde roundtrips were over $10,000. I don't see $100,000 for space travel being a fantasy. Certainly out of my budget, but some have those bucks, yet would never make into the NASA astronaut corps.

billw:
I agree, the hammock was designed by college kids. I give lots of credit to that. But its still not innovative. Some people thought the Stardust recovery was innovative (speaking of Corona...) and it ended up digging a hole. I don't see the hammock being very safe in an atmospheric environment (if they were, then airlines would certainly like to reduce weight too). In LEO or beyond, I don't see the need for a seat at all. Neither has NASA.