I'm not convinced that mining itself will be a boon to investors. However, I think that space mining as an offshoot of space manufacturing may be profitable. Low gee and vacuum manufacturing might become big business and at that point fetching iron from asteroids might be easier or cheaper than shooting it up from earth surface (unless they find iron on the moon in sufficient quantities).

I'm still not convinced that energy production will be profitable enough. If a big energy crunch comes I think people may well change their mind about fission facilities earthside. Electric and electric-hybrid vehicles running off of a nuclear grid might prove cheaper than microwave beaming and distribution of solar space energy. A lot of people aren't going to want MW antennae farms in their backyard because of bad science and aesthetics. If you build it in the middle of nowhere then who will it service? Electricity can be pushed down a transmission line only so far. What we need is not more baseline power, but more peak power and, most importantly, portable power. Once we have automotive hydrogen fuelcell storage and distribution systems working, we can beam spacemade MW to seaside or offshore electrolysis facilities.

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

Don't mean to sound pesimistic here but as far as I can see, there really isn't anything out there that would give any kind of real return to potential venture capitalists and they are, after all, the people that will ultimately put most of the money up.

Mining asteroids or moon rock is all very well, but there isn't any material that we know of in the realistic vicinity of earth that couldn't either be mined or manufactured on earth for a fraction of the cost.

There certainly is potential for scientific research into areas which would be impossible to carry out on earth (either for physical or political reasons) but unless we discover 'unobtainium' buried on the moon or some new manufacturing process that greatly benefits mankind that can only be performed in space then private industry is most likely going to be resticted to sightseeing.

I'm not saying we shouldn't get out there and start looking though. :wink:

__________________
God: I refuse to prove that I exist. For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.
Man: But the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. Q.E.D.

Davros, you are correct that there is not much (or maybe anything) out there worth the venture capital as space travel exists today. The technology is simply to expensive. But the whole idea in the letter is that it will be private organizations finding a way to make space travel more affordable in order to profitably exploit new or easier to make resources only found in space. With companies, like Virgin, creating their own space branch and contracting for a 'fleet' of space ships, private corporations must think they have something worth while to pursue.

__________________
Photons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic.

Well, Virgin Galactic is one of Branson's companies and some of his other companies are involved with entertainment and telecommunications which could profit from his space adventures. Take a look at his recent tv commercial with volvo. Rutan makes airplanes and SS1 is publicity as much as anything else. I don't mean to minimize their accomplishments, but a few tens of millions to coast to the edge of space is nowhere near the hundreds of billions needed to develop a real space economy. SpaceShip One and the Ansari X-Prize was a cheerleading mission, akin to Lindburgh's solo Atlantic flight. Now we need the space equivalent of NY-to-London Jumbo Jet passenger and freight services.

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

You're quite right, while what they are currently persuing is the expansion of "Space Tourism", a seemingly niche market, there has been no shortage of interest from members of the public. I for one would give up my life savings for a ticket to space and a set of astronaut wings.

I suppose this could potentially lead to making other ventures less expensive as one good method of making expensive things cheaper is massive parralellism. Suppose space toursim really took off (if you pardon the pun), this could result in, as you state, "fleets" of spacecraft and all the infrastructure needed to fuel, repair and generally support their operation.
This could reduce the overall cost of a single flight in much the same way as massive parralell production has reduced the cost of semiconductor products. (we all remember how much computers used to cost right? look how much cheaper they are now despite being much more advanced.)

If space access does eventually become cost effective then expect to see more people willing to put their money in. Let's just hope that this current "space tourism" thrust isn't a flash in the pan.

Fingers crossed

__________________
God: I refuse to prove that I exist. For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.
Man: But the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. Q.E.D.

Well the cheapest way to get into space would possibly be the 'space elevator' idea. The Red/Green/Blue Mars books use it and the asteroid they use as the counterweight is consumed to make the cable. Bringing in more modern concepts the most efficient way to do it would be using thick long wires of carbon nanotubes and using their magnetic properties to lift vehicles. But again this would require us to have efficient means of travelling in space unless we captured Cruithne, its next closest point to earth is 2285 but it is still a lot closer than the asteroid belt. (not sure if it's big enough though)

We would have an Earth-to-Geostationary passenger and freight service, once in geosat orbit it only takes a small amount of thrust to be able to get out of orbit so ion drives, VASIMR drives, etc that don't provide enough thrust to physically get off Earth would be able to leave Earths orbit with ease.

That depends on your timeframe. A space elevator would cost how much, hundreds of billions of dollars, and take how long to build, tens of years.. a century or more? The Rocket-A-Day concept may make more short term sense. Right now I think the short term is where we should be looking. Once we establish short term profitablity investors will be willing to look at longer term projects. We need to have something worth getting to before building an expensive freeway to get to it.

I have several short term commercial concepts that would be profitable, but the establishment of the infrastructure is not itself profitable in that short term. We need government to front the money like governments have always done for colonization and commercial outreach programs. We need the governments to construct colonies and science stations as public works projects. Then, investors can set up businesses that can provide items and services not easily made on earth. Imagine huge verneuil rubies made of lunar aluminum and oxygen at low gee bigger than possible on earth. Imagine better metal alloys that make automobiles stronger, lighter, cheaper to operate, and above all, safer. Imagine the cultivation of plant species that produce huge fruits and vegetables bigger than the alaskan wonders. Imagine faster or even multi-dimensional computer chips built in vacuum or low gee. Imagine all the opportunities for recreation. None of these reasons are good enough to take us there, but all of them are good reason to stay there once farsighted government builts the facilities and can lease them for low subsidized rates to enterprising businesses.

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

Well to start off with virgin galactic have supposedly between 7,000 and 11,000 potential customers with $200,000 a ticket.
Lets do the math 7,000 x $200,000 = $1,400,000,000 - costs

So in the conservative estimate they'll be making a lot of money and there is even proposals of people being able to rent out the whole craft. As said here.
And here
So i think Virgin is going to have the head start in things and Branson is a fun loving guy, he wanted to buy and run Concorde to a loss. It would have been good advertising but also a big money loss, just looks like he got a better advertising campaign and this time it'd make money. He's done the ballooning around the world things etc.

Personally i feel comfortable with him leading the front compared to anyone else other than a government controlled project. Also with it being entertainment based i feel it will 'quickly' move to fixed orbital, if people are willing to pay $200,000 for a short trip to space how much would they pay for a night in orbit? How much would they pay for a weekend, week, fortnight. Think how much rental would be with the views!!!!!!

Hey and if that living for 1,000 years pans out maybe i'll get a job up there

But like you said once in orbit with everything established, even just a hotel companies would pay to rent out the thing and get some research going. Now the most efficient strength structure is honeycomb, imagine if everything was made out of microscopic honeycomb structures providing more flexibility and durability and strength for less weight. Problem is in 10m/s^2 gravity it'd take years to build into the macroscopic but in microgravity it would be an easier process as it couldn't well collapse.

The need for permanent accommodation possibly without trips from surface to station for long periods of time could possibly call for the need of food grown in space. Then that would require material shipping etc but on a large scale it would become cheaper to get the materials in space it could also help set up a space economy with station to station trade. Possibly space efficient to build one big hydroponics farm than lots of little ones forcing interstation trade.

Edit: Also i meant to say that i agree the 'space elevator' idea would specifically be a long term project but in the long long run would be the possible most efficient form of transportation to space.

But how long does it take to realize that revenue? Using the projected fleet of 5 ships capable of carrying 5 passengers per flight with the rumored task21 turnaround time (20 weekly flights and one week downtown it appears to be).

50 flights * 5 spacecraft * 5 passengers = 1250 ticket sales for about $250M per anum.

This means Virgin Galactic would go through their potential client list in 6-9 years. How many repeats do you think theyll get.

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

I've been to the same theme park over 15 times i forget how many to be exact. Every time it was fun, every time i knew i wanted to go again. £50 is a bit of a different ticket price to £100,000 but i think the same principal applies, if its fun they'll want to do it again and after all where on earth could you experience zero-g?

Once they start expanding on the trips and what you can do i think they will be getting even more customers. But the key question is what is their profit margin, but with the fuel being rubber and laughing gas i don't think the fuel costs are going to be 'astronomical'.

IIRC they stated that it costs about $20,000 dollars to re-fuel and turn around Space Ship One after each flight. The new Virgin Galactic Fleet is based on the same technology but scaled up so we can't be talking big money, maybe $50,000? Factor in your other overheads like staff, logistic support etc and you're still looking at a pretty healthy profit margin which presumably would b e pumped into expansion.

__________________
God: I refuse to prove that I exist. For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.
Man: But the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. Q.E.D.

Anywhere you have a few feet of elevation and some spare time...

Don't get me wrong, I hope they are successful, and brilliantly so. I want them to prove everyone wrong. However, I am still not sure that we can draw an evolutionary line between suborbital tourism and orbital and lunar industrial colonization without government involvement or subsidies. I can see a line between suborbital craft and transorbital aerospacecraft (I have a few designs myself), but I wonder if the economic incentive will be large enough and sustainable to garner real capital (likely hundreds of billions over a few decades).

The only organizations that have shown an ability to take on long term projects without immediate profits are governments and religious institutions. Now, we can't rule out a rich revivalist spacechurch going into orbit, but I think government might be the ace in the hole for long term space infrastructures.

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

Just keep in mind that the first aircraft stayed aloft for about 12 seconds and evolved into an industry that changed everything. If you build a vehicle, someone will come along and apply it. We're looking at this from a very narrow view here, what's to say the next evolutionary step for SS1 and SS2 is a fully orbital craft? Why not suborbital airlines? A direct flight from New York to Hong Kong that spends part of the time in floating in space? Get it up high enough, and you can cut the engines and coast in midflight. Power up for the final approach and land normally. I guarantee that will draw some people.

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

Well you have me there Somehow i find it strange i'd preffer sub-orbital zero-g to jumping off a cliff, just a longer fall if things go wrong

I agree that governments are the likely ones to be the ace for long term infrastructures but they may also be the joker, governments generally take a long time about doing good things but short times about bad things. I doubt the church doing anything though, but you never know.

I do however find Doodler's point is very good one, a sub orbital air-line would be like the next Concorde. With it being the only airline that does it they could charge extortionate prices and still have people rolling in time after time. It would be perfect for a moneymaking scheme and once they get enough money to expand to go orbital they drop the prices on the sub orbital so the right go for the orbital and expand it that way.

I expect a lunar orbit will come before a station but i would still pay a lot more for a trip around the moon then a night in the hotel and as Branson goes it would be a worth while trip, probably better than a hotel room anyway

I agree that a suborbital spaceplane high speed transit system would be a good idea. However, it would need to be scaled up quite a bit. I can see people paying for a tourist trip in the near term, but a long distance shuttle service would almost nix the idea of suborbital tourism. Once the novelty wears off and the transit service becomes commuter and business oriented the price will need to come down.

Furthermore, new craft would need to be designed. The SS1 and probable SS2 designs will still use carry-craft to lift them to altitude. I don't know if this would be feasible for larger capacity craft, but if it were, then you'd need at least one of these support craft per airport. The sonic boom caused by suborbital flights might also limit the number of airports willing to accept them.

I have a feeling that we will see parallel evolution of suborbital and transorbital aerospacecraft along with appropriate support facilities.

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

Any sonic boom over land would almost certainly be a killer for this. (It certainly didn't do any favours for Concorde.)