Re: Orbiter shape.

From: Rand Simberg (newsgroups_at_transterrestrial.com)
Date: 07/22/04 

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:11:16 GMT

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:

>>>>You apparently don't understand anything about the economics of spaceflight.
>>>
>>>Still learning about that. But I do understand the difference between
>>>making progress and maintaining momentum.
>>
>>If you're opposed to space tourism, apparently you don't.
>
>
> Hmmm. So let me see if I understand the logic. Your market research
> shows that there are plenty of high wealth individuals that will spend
> big bucks for the conspicuous consumption of the ultimate in amusement
> park rides.

There are plenty of individuals, period.

Your foolish denigration of it as an "amusement park ride" shows how
little you understand the motivation. Think adventure travel instead.

> Those bucks will pay the development costs of a new generation of low
> cost lift capability, as well as paying for the operational costs of the
> fun part. Of course, those operational costs are just wasted money as
> a step toward MY idea of progress, which, to be specific, is, say, a few
> dozen large scale robotic sample-return missions to near earth asteroids.
> But, what the hell. Who CARES if it is wasted money? I'm not paying for
> that tourism.

You're not paying for anything, apparently.

> But perhaps the development costs of the amusement park ride will actually
> help to achieve my goal. Let us examine how. Hmmm. Maybe some of the
> R & D for the tourism can be used in my program. Better rocket fuels, perhaps?
> Unlikely. Maybe better engine design? Also unlikely to happen.

Why would you say such a stupid thing?

> Operational
> economies? But those are unlikely to translate to my very different mission
> profile. But perhaps I can simply use some of the already developed and now
> presumably-mass-produced hardware from the amusement ride for my mission.
> Yeah. Thats the ticket!
>
> I'll just strap the pieces-parts for my asteroid mission into the passenger
> seat of the amusement ride, pay the (quite reasonable!) price for the SSTO
> lift(s), and then assemble my mission in orbit! (Note to Joe Strout -
> I am being ironic here, not stupid. Get some sleep. ;-)
>
> Or perhaps I am missing something.

You are, again, because you are ignorant of the economics of space launch.

   What is your scenario for how orbital
> space tourism is necessary and (hopably) sufficient for eventually achieving
> space settlement?

Because low cost of access to orbit are necessary to doing anything else
there in a cost-effective manner, and the only route to low cost of
access to orbit is a large amount of traffic. There's only one market
that can provide that right now, which is the millions of people who
would pay to go if someone offered them the opportunity.

Quantcast