a. fuel price rise, b. expenditure rise, c. needs are rising, d. technology advancement is growing, e. more easy access facilities for space visits, (like vergin galactic..etc.)

can a common man think to visit the space at once in his whole life span.!!, will it be feasible to lift-off a common man in space. ? can we show him his earth from there.?

When they will enjoy the zero gravity. !!

or this is a unimaginable question here. Ofcourse he will not be able to do constructive work in the space, nor any experiments he will do there. Just for a joy, he can hold the trip forever in his mind, that once upon a time he visited the giant space.

There's plenty of astronaut farmers out there right?

__________________
All moderations in purple.

You ain't nobody 'til you've been banned.

I can has zero-gravity?

When Planet X hits us in 2012 lots of people will get blasted into space.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

World per capita GDP about $8,500.
World growth, about 5%.
Cost of a suborbital trip according to space tourism dude, about $100,000

So, about 65 years before the common person can afford a space trip with less than a year's income.

Note this is only a very crude back of the envelope calculation.

great calculation by you, I appreciate this kind of calculation, because it is so much perfect and to the tune of matching with the current inflationary situation, people today wants to win the bread because the food inflation is also in pipe, later who says water inflation may be in the pipeline.

We have a Science Discovery Center here in my country where they have this spaceship look a like thingy because when you entered inside and sit and the show starts , you 'll feel like you are in space ! and with no gravity!

That's the Power of Technology.

To be honest, I think 65 years is optimistic given the current state of things. I want to know what energy source can support a society hurling millions of averages Joe's into space. If its nuclear, then sufficient capacity probably won't be ready in 65 years. If its fossil fuels - LMAO. If its renewables, have fun with subsistence agriculture and stop dreaming of space because you will never go there.

I also have a high degree of scepticism about the whole space tourist industry. I've just seen pictures of where Scaled Composites are building their newest space ship, and I can't say I'm exactly reassured about the quality of work they are doing.

__________________
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive." - Carl Sagan, 1995

I really doubt the "Common Man" will ever visit space, given the amount of resources need to put a man there.

__________________
All moderations in purple.

You ain't nobody 'til you've been banned.

I generally think Damburger is overly pessimistic -- in particular, he greatly underestimates IMO the resilience and adaptability of modern technological society, -- but here I agree completely. I expect that 65 years from now main source of energy will be fission, and not in sufficient quantities to "hurl millions of averages Joe's into space". Thousands, maybe, but then by definition they will not be "average".

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

Most "average Joes" wouldn't go into space if you paid them!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

A quote from Armageddon, "Talk about the wrong stuff".

__________________
All moderations in purple.

You ain't nobody 'til you've been banned.

The energy is easy is small potatoes. Look at what the US goes through. Most of us can afford enough LOX and kerosene to launch ourselves into orbit. Or LOX and hydrogen. The reusable, safe, suborbital space plane is the expensive part.

I disagree. A truly reusable space plane would need labour more than anything, as the physical components would last multiple flights. Lack of people is not a problem society is likely to face in the future. So it is a fuel problem.

Kerosene is obviously out, because the last thing we need as we edge towards peak oil is to start burning it off by the tonne sending millions of people on vanity trips into space. LOX comes from liquefied air and so is heavily dependent on electricity - which is getting more expensive by the day. Most hydrogen today is derived from fossil fuels, so expect the price to go up a bit when it has to come from electrolysis instead.

If you have electricity, getting hydrogen and oxygen isn't a problem. But there really is no capacity for such a surge in personal consumption.

__________________
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive." - Carl Sagan, 1995

Check out the fuel cost of a shuttle mission compared to the overall cost of a shuttle mission.

I can think of many stupid things people use oil for today. Making ethanol for one thing. I don't think people will suddenly stop being stupid. But kerosene could certainly be too expensive compared to alternatives.

The overall trend has been for electricity to get cheaper. Of course, high coal and natural gas prices have resulted in an upswing lately.

The US used to add over 7% to its generating capacity per year. Now it adds less than 4% a year. There is no reason why it could not increase the growth in generating capacity if it wanted to. Shooting people into space should be less of a hassle than the growth in air conditioning due to its ability to use off peak power.

Now none of this changes the fact that I think spending good money to be shot into space is a bloody stupid idea. If you want zero gee you are better off flying in a vomit comet. And if you want a spectacular view of the earth from orbit buy a high definition TV. If you both at the same time then put a TV in a vomit comet. Or if you just want to float and see stars there are chemicals that will let you experience that at very low cost.

Most parts of the shuttle aren't truly reusable are they? The orbiter has to be pretty much rebuilt every other flight.

Even stupidity gets smacked down by thermodynamics. You won't be able to get hold of enough kerosene for spaceflight when people are demanding the last scraps of oil to run agricultural machine. Hopefully.

Electricity is going to get a lot more expensive. The production capacity we have now and are planning is going to be strained past breaking point when we start using it for things we currently use fossil fuels for. Electrolyzing rocket fuel is going to be fairly low on the list of priorities unless we start taking energy seriously (well, unless we did start taking energy seriously about 20 years ago).

Its a little more complex than that. The next generation of nuclear power plants are having trouble already because there is a certain type of steel needed for the reactor vessel that is only manufactured in one place (in Japan IIRC) seeing as people stopped building reactors for a while, just about the time they were getting very safe and efficient.

Oh, I agree on the economy of exploring inner space rather than outer space, but it would still be nice to think that our children might be able to go into space without being millionaires (although that term will not have the same impact by the time my children are earning money of course). I just think that our societies have placed too much blind faith in the market (or convinced everyone else to whilst a small elite cleans up) and have thus failed to adequately prepare for a sharp drop in energy production coupled with a sharp increase in demand.

__________________
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive." - Carl Sagan, 1995

China doubled their generating capacity in five years from 2000-2005. The United States has doubled its electricity generating capacity within a decade in the past. Due to the greater efficiency of electric motors electrifying all US cars and trucks would increase electrical consumption very roughly by a third. If the US expanded its generating capacity at roughly the same rate it did in the 60s it would take about three years to expand capacity by a third.

Note I'm not saying I think this will happen, I'm pointing out that it did happen in the past and I'll mention that during the time it happened electricity prices fell in real terms.

I don't know about the US, but China doubled its capacity by exploiting cheap coal. When that runs out, they are in pretty serious trouble. IMHO, for the sake of the environment and the Chinese population we ought to be sending our best reactor technology their way so they can develop and modernise without relying on dirty and very finite fossil fuels. They've already got the bomb so there is no proliferation issue. But that is an aside.

I've done some quick calculations, taking the world energy consumption to be 80.29 million barrels per day, one barrel of oil to be 6.113 gigajoules, and current global nuclear energy capacity at 300 gigawatts:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=((6.113*10^9+*+80.290+*+10^6)+joule s%2Fday)%2F300+gigawatts+*+100&btnG=Google+Search& meta=

By that calculation, nuclear energy needs to expand globally by 1894% to meet just the demands of the current population, at their current level of consumption. Even doubling every 5 years (which would be a lot harder with nuclear than coal of course) that would take over 20 years. By which time the worlds population will be much larger and the populations of India and China will be demanding more energy to allow them to enjoy a western standard of living.

(I'm focusing on nuclear power as I have serious doubts as to whether the huge amount of energy we require can be found from renewables such as wind and solar)

Given the scope of the challenge I don't think I am being alarmist, and to bring it back to the topic of this thread; its going to make mass space travel extremely difficult. To put people into orbit and beyond on a regular basis and in large numbers will require extra capacity on top of what is needed. However, if we meet the challenge of supplying enough energy for the human race to survive and prosper, perhaps we can use the momentum of such a project to expand our capacity to allow an interplanetary civilisation to function.

__________________
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive." - Carl Sagan, 1995

An understatement, if I ever heard one!

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

despite the hundreds of obvious instances of impossible physics I still like that movie.

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross

I still think "Armageddon" is a great drinking movie. Every time you see something impossible or ridiculous, you take a shot of vodka.

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

have you ever seen the end of the movie?

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross

I don't remember.

Seriously, I did see the end of the movie. But only the first time, at a theater. I don't recall ever seeing it again...

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

Any scientist worth a damn would need their stomach pumped after trying that.

__________________
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive." - Carl Sagan, 1995

that's the effect of vodka - or maybe intentional mind numbness after all of the first half.

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross

same here , I liked that movie . I can watch it again and still like it .

I liked the last parts where the battle begins .