David Portree has some ill-informed speculation about the NewSpace (which he misspells) industry and space tourism. I was going to respond, but Jeff Foust and Clark Lindsey have already done so more than adequately in his comments section. As Clark notes, it would be nice if people who call themselves "space historians" would educate themselves about what is actually going on instead of embarrassing themselves, and potentially misleading others, in blog posts.

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/06/a_remarkably_ig.html

Rand

Just saw this from the Huntsville Times about EADS and a tourist vehicle.

http://www.al.com/newsflash/international/index.ssf?/base/international-23/118176276917200.xml&storylist=international

"A space voyage to low-Earth orbit would be a joyride, not something anyone needs to do."

Even if true, what's his point? Disney, Six Flags, and assorted other theme/amusement parks have made money from 'joyrides' for a very long time...

"If it becomes recognized that there is a high probability that people will die, then few will want to make the trip."

...and yet, with a far higher fatality probability, so many people keep going to Mt. Everest, that special steps have been taken recently to clean it up.

"For that matter, when the word gets out that half the people who travel into space spend a week or more being sick, it will discourage many potential customers."

Sounds more like an opprotunity for motion-sickness phamaceuticals...

"Newspace people like to use the early days of aviation as an analogy, but it doesn’t make sense. Aviation worked because it provided a better way of accomplishing something people wanted done; that is, traveling quickly to and from cities and countries where they had business."

True enough, in that there was a clear point-to-point transportation market that already existed (and many early critics that insisted that airplanes would never be a practical means to service them). Bit while I acknowledge that this isn't a business plan, sometimes people don't know what they really 'want,' until it's actually presented to them. (and even so, the notion of 'tour' buses, boats, aircraft that allow you to see something new and/or unique (at least to you), then return to your point of departure is nothing new in busines...

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said 'faster horses.'"
- Henry Ford

Wow, it looks like David Portree deleted all the comments from Keith Cowing and banned him from posting. Granted, Keith's comments were kind of inflammatory, but still...

Yes Rand David Portree has indeed deleted two posts of mine - the ones he seems to be referring to in his own postings. One was simply posting the news about Astrium's announcement today - talk about trying to avoid facts that conflict with one's argument!

I tried posting this on Portree's blog but I am blocked.

====
What happened? Suddenly everything went dark - and I was all alone. And then Rand reached across the void to pull me back into the light - and here I am.

Thanks Rand!

...the notion of 'tour' buses, boats, aircraft that allow you to see something new and/or unique (at least to you), then return to your point of departure is nothing new in business...

That's not in question. What's in question is the extent to which that has been an economic driver for cost reduction and technology development -- rather than (as I'd argue) a niche that historically flourishes only after other, much larger markets have made operations with buses, boats, aircraft etc routine and reliable.

Portree goes too far in flatly dismissing the "barnstorming" market. Any new source of demand for space access is a good thing, and even barnstorming will provide valuable experience with aircraft-like operations and business models. But he's right about the big economic differences between early aviation and where we are in space. The great expectations in some quarters about how far and fast space tourism will take us is a sign less that there's a huge boom a-coming than that we're starting from such a low baseline.

Translation: "David Portee has not drunk the Kool-Aid and thus lacks the True Faith".

Nah, I never banned Keith's postings. Unless people use obscenities or try to use my blog to sell something, I don't ban anything. I explained to Keith repeatedly that I didn't intentionally delete anything, that I don't do that, and that everything I got that he posted was restored as soon as I discovered the problem, but he seems bent on making a mountain out of a molehill.

His posts don't say much that's substantive, and don't do him credit. Check out all the "Banned from Posting" and "Another Banned Poster" comments - those are all his, posted through proxy servers.

Keith doesn't care for me much. Which is funny, because he used to praise my work on his NASA Watch blog. He went off the deep end when I asked him about his sources for his history of the VSE decision. That's a perfectly normal thing for an historian to do - sources are everything. Since then, he sends me harrassing personal emails when I post to various lists. I'm not alone in this regard.

He called his post "A Remarkably Ignorant Comment by a Former NASA Writer." I am a current NASA writer. I have written history for NASA since 1992, in fact. As for whether my posting on the Earth & Sky blog is "remarkably ignorant," that's up to the reader to decide. I welcome your comments.