The age of space tourism is beginning

[ToSeek]

Passengers Queue For Out Of This World Flights (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/tourism-04f.html)


Around 125 hard-line space junkies have already paid more than 100,000 dollars for tickets for a short trip on the world's first commercial spaceliners, years before the first passengers will be ushered aboard.

This is how it begins: first the rich, then the rest of us as the technology is mastered, and the costs come down.

[Swift]

Well $12,500,000 (plus the $10 million from the prize money) should give Virgin and Scale Composites a little working capital. Not to mention the t-shirt sales (I'm only kidding a little about the t-shirts).

[Glom]

Go T-shirts! Woo hoo!

[Wally]

Yeah, I can see them now. . .

"My Grandparents went to Outer Space, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt!!!"

:lol:

[Swift]

From CNN.com...
Space Tourism Faces Regulatory Hurdles (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/10/07/space.tourism.regulation.ap/index.html)

The rules that will govern the industry in the United States remain under discussion between federal regulators and rocket developers, and legislation is still before Congress.

The pace of negotiations and the ultimate shape of the regulations could determine whether the sky-high enthusiasm for space tourism -- fueled by the historic suborbital flights of SpaceShipOne -- grows or wanes, especially among investors.

[Wally]

From CNN.com...
Space Tourism Faces Regulatory Hurdles (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/10/07/space.tourism.regulation.ap/index.html)

The rules that will govern the industry in the United States remain under discussion between federal regulators and rocket developers, and legislation is still before Congress.

The pace of negotiations and the ultimate shape of the regulations could determine whether the sky-high enthusiasm for space tourism -- fueled by the historic suborbital flights of SpaceShipOne -- grows or wanes, especially among investors.


Oh yeah. . . Gub'mint involvement. Nothing but good things came come of this!

(sniff sniff. . . yep, I smell sarcasm!)

[Doodler]

What worries me more than the government are the pansy-butt whiners who will invariably complain that its too dangerous or the REAL morons who will use the tired arguements about investing money in some worthless charity to feed people starving in a desert somewhere.

One of the USA's worst flaws right now is the ability to shove your opinion down someone's throat by crying loud enough in front of a camera to Congress.

[ToSeek]

Geeks in Space (http://news.com.com/Geeks%2Bin%2Bspace/2100-1026_3-5399507.html?tag=nefd.lede)


What is it with deep-pocket geeks and space?

Whether you blame the Apollo moon landings, Isaac Asimov, "Star Trek" or the sheer giddiness of all that instant money, it's clear that wealthy tech celebrities have the space bug. The list of IT veterans turned space junkies includes Allen, Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, PayPal founder Elon Musk and Id Software's John Carmack, to name a few.

[Candy]

Greenspace :o

[Glom]

Another NRC? What is this new devilry?

[ToSeek]

... if Congress doesn't mess it up. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6201543/)


Just days after SpaceShipOne's prize-winning flight opened the world's eyes to the prospect for private spaceflight, legislation that might have opened the way for paying passengers to get on board has sunk into a congressional black hole — at the urging of space entrepreneurs who were once its biggest supporters.

Those one-time boosters say the compromise version that emerged Thursday from a House-Senate "preconference" would actually kill off private spaceflight by holding the industry to an unmeetable safety standard for passengers and crew members.

[Bawheid]

If the US Congress is the problem my friends, I have the one word answer. Uzbekistan. Friendly government, cheap labour and a space background. That is how private enterprise works.

[Andromeda321]

Or any other country in the world desperate for a bit of economy. I'm sure there are quite a few that would jump at the chance to have a spaceport within their borders.

[Ilya]

If the US Congress is the problem my friends, I have the one word answer. Uzbekistan. Friendly government, cheap labour and a space background. That is how private enterprise works.

Actually, Baikonur spaceport is in Kazakhstan. But your point is well taken.

[Kaptain K]

If the U.S. government puts up enough roadblocks, those with the money to support private spaceflight will simply take their money to a place that is eager for the golden eggs that will it will produce.

[Gerrsun]

Of course the chance to be a member of the 60 mile high club should draw a specific crowd as well. :o

[Bawheid]

If the US Congress is the problem my friends, I have the one word answer. Uzbekistan. Friendly government, cheap labour and a space background. That is how private enterprise works.

Actually, Baikonur spaceport is in Kazakhstan. But your point is well taken.

That is what they want you to think.......... :o

Ok, it was late, I was drunk, and I couldn't be bothered checking.

[Emspak]

Before we all start jumping on "the government" (whatever that means in this case) for thinking about a regulatory scheme that would fit, I would argue that it is better the people in congress -- whatever their flaws -- start thinking about this now rather than later, when a mess of ad hoc rules might drive costs up.

It isn't like someone gets up in the morning and says "Hey, I want to make life tough for X industry, so I will come up with a new rule."

Nor does it mean, by the way, that I don't wish Rutan luck. I hope he gets this off the ground as a business. I even suggested on another thread a way to make it work, following the path of the early airline industry. (cargo might be better).

I just get burned when people talk about the evils of regulatory involvement and then sit by as some industry or other cries to Congress for billions in bailouts when their business plan turns out to be untenable. I still recall Lee Iacocca begging to Congress, or more recently the airlines that still have the most complicated and opaque pricing structure of any industry. You believe in free enterprise? So do I. Get ye gone, United Airlines.

But on private space flight, if anything, various governments need to get together now to figure out what the rules would be for things like overflights, landing rights, and even things like noise. The sooner all that stuff is sussed out the better. And we all have a say in it in this country (the US). Standards might, you know, drive more efficient technologies. It's been known to happen. (Compare your car of 1999 to one made in 1960).

It reminds me of people who complain about local zoning laws and don't show up to the board meeting. Same applies to Congress -- they are a public body, and responsive to you folks who presumably voted them into office. Call or write or make suggestions. Think about this stuff a little more carefully. Or vote for someone else.

People in Kazakhstan don't get a vote. Piensalo!

[Bawheid]

The CIA (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kz.html)think Khazaks get a vote. Other than that I agree with you, by and large. Overflights etc. are covered by the Warsaw Conventions (I think) I'll check.

They also say Baikonur and surrounding area are leased by Russia for another 10 years or so.

[Kaptain K]

Emspak,

While I agree with you about United Airlines (and airlines in general), the problem is who will get burned and who won't if they go belly up. If United (or one of the other big airlines) goes broke:

1) The taxpayers will take a hit because the pensions are covered by federal pension insurance (which is already underfunded).

2) Current retirees will see their income cut, because the insurance does not cover them 100%.

3) Current employees may not get any retirement at all.

The only group that will not get hurt in any way are the executives who made the decisions that got them in this mess, because they have a separate pension plan that is fully funded!

[Emspak]

Kaptain K/Bawheid--

It is true, people in Kazakhstan have formal voting rights, but on a number of important issues the local government has been less than responsive. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have put it on their "watch these guys" list, and speaking as a journalist, I can say that Kazakhstan is one of the less safe countries to operate in, as a few colleagues of mine have found out. It's nowhere near what neighboring Uzbekistan or Tajikstan is, though, so in that sense Bawheid is right.

Kaptain -- you are also on the money that if the airlines go belly up the execs are usually fine. When I am in my law-and-order mode, I always say that if you believe in the death penalty as deterrent, we should impose it for corporate fraud. After all, they hurt a lot more people longer than any single murder could. But that's just me being :evil:

I realize that airlines going belly up would be a Bad Thing. My point is that the private sector does not operate in a vacuum (no pun intended) and that there hasn't been a case of any industry in modern history becoming a force to be reckoned with without government help -- and lots of it. Airlines already get huge subsidies (a shout out to fuel tax and publicly-funded airports), even without loan guarantees. Your car is subsidized indirectly through road-building (which was for a long time done at the expense of other transportation modes). Tax breaks are routinely given at the local level for big-box stores, which then demand they be able to hold the leases and prevent new tenants from letting the space even when the store itself is an empty hulk. (Often the tax advantage is retained this way, so the land costs nothing but denies the locals the tax revenue, and the company gets to write it off. There is a wonderful account of this tactic in the Wall Street Journal).

Recognizing this, Rutan will likely need the same kind of help that was extended to the airline industry. It's no sin for that to happen. But let's recognize why we are doing it (it is our money, after all) and what we hope to accomplish, and decide how we want to go about it. That's a big part of what a democracy is about -- collective decision making.

So if you have ideas on how to make a space transport industry work, now is the time to write your Congressman or local candidate and tell them why you want it, what you think it will do, and how you think we should do it.

I want Rutan's venture to succeed. But it means I have to say to myself "Why is that? Why do I think it is important? How would it fit with other things people need and want to do? How do we fit it in with the ordinary business of living?"

Anyhow, this is all very OT in its way. Sorry.

[Bawheid]

Khazakstan being on Human Rights Watch radar means it simply is on a par with the US and the UK. Today's top story (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/12/usint9463.htm)on their website, today's top european story. (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/06/uk9459.htm)

Most countries (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1231089,00.html) can find reasons to treat journalists badly.

And others murder lawyers. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3683206.stm)

Editted to make post less abrasive.

[Maksutov]

[edit]I still recall Lee Iacocca begging to Congress, or more recently the airlines that still have the most complicated and opaque pricing structure of any industry. You believe in free enterprise? So do I. Get ye gone, United Airlines...

Somehow I get the feeling you're going to hear from Candy if she reads this. 8)

[Bawheid]

[edit]I still recall Lee Iacocca begging to Congress, or more recently the airlines that still have the most complicated and opaque pricing structure of any industry. You believe in free enterprise? So do I. Get ye gone, United Airlines...

Somehow I get the feeling you're going to hear from Candy if she reads this. 8)

I thought she would have been here by now, but I didn't like to tell her. 8-[

[Maksutov]

Kaptain K/Bawheid--

It is true, people in Kazakhstan have formal voting rights, but on a number of important issues the local government has been less than responsive. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have put it on their "watch these guys" list, and speaking as a journalist, I can say that Kazakhstan is one of the less safe countries to operate in, as a few colleagues of mine have found out. It's nowhere near what neighboring Uzbekistan or Tajikstan is, though, so in that sense Bawheid is right.

Kaptain -- you are also on the money that if the airlines go belly up the execs are usually fine. When I am in my law-and-order mode, I always say that if you believe in the death penalty as deterrent, we should impose it for corporate fraud. After all, they hurt a lot more people longer than any single murder could. But that's just me being :evil:

I realize that airlines going belly up would be a Bad Thing. My point is that the private sector does not operate in a vacuum (no pun intended) and that there hasn't been a case of any industry in modern history becoming a force to be reckoned with without government help -- and lots of it. Airlines already get huge subsidies (a shout out to fuel tax and publicly-funded airports), even without loan guarantees. Your car is subsidized indirectly through road-building (which was for a long time done at the expense of other transportation modes). Tax breaks are routinely given at the local level for big-box stores, which then demand they be able to hold the leases and prevent new tenants from letting the space even when the store itself is an empty hulk. (Often the tax advantage is retained this way, so the land costs nothing but denies the locals the tax revenue, and the company gets to write it off. There is a wonderful account of this tactic in the Wall Street Journal).

Recognizing this, Rutan will likely need the same kind of help that was extended to the airline industry. It's no sin for that to happen. But let's recognize why we are doing it (it is our money, after all) and what we hope to accomplish, and decide how we want to go about it. That's a big part of what a democracy is about -- collective decision making.

So if you have ideas on how to make a space transport industry work, now is the time to write your Congressman or local candidate and tell them why you want it, what you think it will do, and how you think we should do it.

I want Rutan's venture to succeed. But it means I have to say to myself "Why is that? Why do I think it is important? How would it fit with other things people need and want to do? How do we fit it in with the ordinary business of living?"

Anyhow, this is all very OT in its way. Sorry.

I understand where you're coming from. A certain level of regulation is a good thing where the public welfare is concerned. I know, I've been in the Quality field for more than a quarter century.

But it appears the concern of most folks here is regulations driven by a Nader-type mindset, i.e., the only acceptable risk is none, zero probability. That kind of mindset drove the commercial power-generation nuclear industry into the ground in the US, and has had a negative impact on many other industries.

As long as the regulations are created and approved by people that realize that there's always a risk factor, and don't unreasonably drive it toward zero such that the resulting costs kill the industry in the bud, then those regulations can do nothing but help when the folks within the industry get too focused on the corporate goal to the exclusion of all else.

[ToSeek]

After the X Prize (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/xprize-04zk.html)


It's not enough to be flying once a week or even once a day, X Prize Foundation head Peter Diamandis told United Press International. We need ships flying every hour - dozens of times a day.

In order to bring such a prospect to reality, Diamandis emphasized the need for a competitive market. We need to have not only the Apple, but the Dell and Gateway and HP of space, he said.

[Candy]

Get ye gone, United Airlines. :o

[ToSeek]

Space tours pique public's interest (http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004b/spacestoryN1018SPACETOURISM.htm)


SpaceShipOne might have opened the door to space tourism, but others also are striving to leap into what could be a billion-dollar-a-year business.

First to market likely will be British entrepreneur Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, which aims to build spaceliners to fly tourists on suborbital shots within three years.

Close behind could be a handful of start-ups that competed for the $10 million Ansari X Prize and other more established companies that also are eyeing the market.

[ToSeek]

Fledgling 'space federation' fears over-regulation (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6996)


The growth of the commercial space-flight industry could be stifled by over-regulating it, space tourism entrepreneurs warned US government officials on Wednesday.