Most of our friends aren't too afraid of risk. We worry about what investors will do when accidents kill people, but we SHOULD worry about that, right? The usual solution is to engage in good engineering practices and buy insurance to deal with the rest of it.

The hardest thing we face is the legal environment. I can't talk to people outside the US without risks regarding ITAR regulations. Flight licensing issues are improving, but the pace is glacial for an investor.

Finally, the biggest hurdle is that the people who would be customers are the ones disinclined to take risks. That means the market niches are relatively small and suppliers fight over very few 'unattached' customers.

__________________

-al

now if only legislation was passed prohibiting an employer from forcing any employee NOT to take such transportation....

droooooool



`Hey Boss the fax machines broken and this letter HAS to be in london in 2 hrs or we lose the contract'
fly it there then you *&$&&%

ok-no problems....

hehe(should i tell him its unplugged-nahhhhh.)
hehe

__________________
Surely if you are going to start a conspiracy theory it is best to start with something that might have a grain of truth or reality in it. To start with the preposterous and go downhill from there is just stupid. steve(primus) (Avatar)

How hard would it be to lift via small rocket a balloon out of orbit, and do all the acceloration once outside the atmoshpere?
-MT

I've got a few friends trying an approach like that. It comes in many variations ranging from static lift to the stratosphere and then launching to dynamic lift using a wing shaped balloon and as little rocket thrust as needed to complete the job of getting to orbit.

As far as I am concerned, the big rockets are commercially self-limiting. How many people enjoy getting on something with the potential to go boom? Balloon assisisted flight minimizes that potential.

Having said this, though, I have to finish by saying the rockets are the easy part.

__________________

-al

That would be JP Aerospace, right--with the ATO concept?

That's one group. I'm not with them anymore. I am associated with General Orbital nowadays.

The rockoon has been looked at my a number of people. ATO is a tough road that will probably look much different tomorrow than it does today as certain points get proven and others surrendered.

__________________

-al

I believe the Western Hemisphere was initially explored by entrepreneurs seeking natural resources with private and government funding, and occasionally religious/political refugees (who were not tolerated or who would not tolerate others). Once profit was established then governments quickly got into the act and spent a few centuries defending and dominating their turf with military forces.

As has been pointed out, exploration will not take off until a viable benefit or livability can be found. So far the exploration of Earth-space has taken place initially for curiosity, then for profit, but increasingly for military security as we realize our vulnerability on the ground from space-based threats, and our need to protect our investments and turf in space. Therefore I predict that security will continue to be a primary motivation for the future.

We don't want enemy nations establishing bases in space which could offer them an advantageous access to the Earth's surface, or later mining or weapons sites through the solar system. Eventually we will achieve some measure of colonization as we develop livable habitats. These habitats will grow (human nature being what it is) around major scientific and economic bases, and therefore need to be defended by military bases.

There is a move afoot to support the HOT EAGLE concept--but that could undermine the heavy-lift we need.

Dr Greg Olsen Speaks To ESA's ISS Business Club
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iss-05zzzzzd.html
Since returning from his 10-day mission to the International Space Station on 11 October 2005, Dr Olsen will be making his first appearance in front of a European audience. In his keynote speech "Science and Technology – An Easy Way Up", Dr Olsen will not only touch on the experiences he made during his stay in space, but also emphasise that science and technology form a solid basis for a successful career.
Under an agreement with ESA, Dr Olsen participated in the research programme on board the ISS where he acted as a test subject for three experiments.
These aimed to study the response of the human body to the microgravity environment and were designed to shed light on processes that cause discomfort and pain to millions, such as nausea, lower back pain, and changes to the body's bacterial flora.
"As an entrepreneur and a scientist who visited the ISS to conduct experiments, Dr Olsen is a real pioneer. We are very glad that he accepted to support ESA's research into human physiology," says Maurizio Belingheri, Head of ESA's Commercialisation Division for the ISS.

The Chinese are proposing a new launch vehicle as you know--in fact, they have done a great job of reaching for the stars. A much better job, in fact, than China's only private astronaut--a merchant by the name of Wan-Hoo. And we all know what happened to him.

That made me reflect upon ancient attempts to reach for the heavens.
I was reading a nice book the other day, on this subject:

The MOON: Earth's Natural Satellite
by Franklyn M. Branley

And stumbled across this quote:

"In the time of Alexander the Great...a method for reaching the moon was suggested...to harness two griffins...Their continued efforts would carry the passenger to the moon..."

We have come a long way from those days of yore.

Today, we don't require two Griffins to reach the moon.

We need only listen to the one.

(Whoops--double-post!)

November 16, 2005
"...SpaceDev Dream Chaser(TM)...a six-passenger human space transport system based on the ten-passenger HL-20 Personnel Launch System developed by NASA Langley...believes can meet the needs of the rapidly emerging commercial space tourism market, and NASA needs for routine, safe and affordable crew access to the International Space Station..."

New Mexico - Rutan & Branson

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4625150.stm
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10907842/
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/...0097390259.txt

Russia is also planning more space tourism

Well, that was anti-climactic.

The first article was interesting because it was mainstream media putting a realistic view on gravity.

The second article just re-hashed everything we've heard before. Yawn, nothing new (unless I missed something)

The third one is a month old, and discussed before. Is there a reason for posting it?

Please let us understand why you're posting this. There may be something very interesting that you're thinking, but unless you say something, it just comes across as just the same dribble.

I'm not a fan of sub-orbital journeys but

some people think this could be a massive cash maker, and it may help get the public's attention back to support new space plans,
there have been reports of celebs Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt getting in line for jumping on board on the space ship planned by Richard Branson and Burt Rutan from scaled.

I don't believe that. It is a very limited market at best.

If I want to **really** go to space, I'll get on an R-7.
If I just want to fly high and fast, I'll ride a Mig 25.

If I want to wind up like John Denver, I'll do SS2.

I'm keeping one eye on Bigelow Aerospace's space station concept. It has some interesting possibilities, if all goes well.

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

This seems an awfully political discussion for this board. Seeing as who started it though, can't really argue.

The people? I would hardly call a few thousand people out of the entire human race, who are able to spend a hundred grand on a 15 minute sightseeing tour 'the people'. The whole thing is a very expensive gimmick. It has no use beyond allowing a bunch of bored rich people claim to be astronauts. And I wouldn't call a sub-orbital hop a major triumph when people have been going into orbit for over 40 years.

Seeing as the private sector has yet to put a single man into orbit, this is quite an extrordinary claim, and its lacking extrordinary proof. Especially seeing as he doesn't elaborate as to how this LEO industry is going to materialise and what exactly its going to do that will make back the huge amount of cash spent putting it there.

This one has been discussed at length here, hasn't it? From what I remember, both sides of the argument had merit. The answer is probably to have the choice between large and small launchers. Limiting yourself to one might make what this guy is describing harder.


My main question with the article is - how can space be privatised, seeing as no government owns it? (and the governments that can actually get into space have signed treaties to that effect, iirc). These space libertarians naively assume is that property is a natural concept in the universe. Their spacecraft designs always miss off the armour plating and missiles they would need the first time another aspiring exploiter of space set their sights on the same piece of extraterrestrial real estate.

The human race has demonstrated it can't share the resources of one planet without fighting, so presuming that we could share the resources of an entire solar system is sheer fantasy.

__________________
"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 a few thousand more people than with the government only programs.
That's your opinion, not mine.

Except this isn't an expensive government program.


Well, we'll just have to see, won't we? This is why I don't argue this too often: Either it will work out or it won't and it doesn't matter one bit what you or I say about it. Yes, some overstate the achievements but others understate them. At least, for the very first time, there actually is something to real, private space. It isn't just talk and paper designs. Getting to orbit privately will depend on the economics, not the technology - that already exists.

What I do know is that I'm never going to get into space with the government "business as usual" program. Some people want to climb mountains, I've always wanted to go into space. I would spend a very substantial part of my net worth to go into orbit. Unfortunately, I'm no Dennis Tito, but if private space works out, I won't need to be.


What article are you referring to? What "space libertarians" are you referring to? Anyway, you certainly aren't going to stop government regulation in space, the point is to have a significant private launch infrastructure.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I find the idea of space becoming privatized to be oddly anthropogenic, now that I think about it. Space has been privatized to some extent since Telstar went up. Manned spaceflight has been considered a government endeavour, since prior to Spaceship One, only governments have had the infrastructure, permissions, and financing to breach the atmosphere.

Now thats changing, and whether you happen to appreciate it or not, private spaceflight is taking the same babysteps into space that the government did.

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