4 ms·

I don't think the aim is for New Shepard to be a sustainable business, you only need maybe a dozen or two launches to gain experience and knowledge to pump back

I don't think the aim is for New Shepard to be a sustainable business, you only need maybe a dozen or two launches to gain experience and knowledge to pump back into the New Glen project. If they can have a tourist soak up $200k of the cost, then that's great because the astronaut doesn't actually do a whole lot on these trips, save for being a human guinea pig to send vitals back down. Once New Glen starts launching in 2020, they want to quickly move past human certification, so practicing with New Shepard is less costly in terms of critical-path length and probably financially too-- bigger rocket, bigger spend per test.

godelski 8y ago
I don't think a lot of people get this. These "space tourist" companies don't have an end goal as space tourism. The problem with launch vehicle companies (launch PROVIDERS) is that they don't always have something to launch (provide). To sustain your company you need to launch often. Rather, to sustain the low price on your vehicle you need to launch often. You also need to get to a high TRL for confidence from contractors. People are more willing to take risks than someone sending up $100m+ satellites or vehicles. Those successful human missions get you to a TRL 9 pretty quickly. But many of these companies have much bigger aims than tourism. Tourism is part of it, but more like orbital hotels, lunar hotels, etc. Not a short trip. But also mining. There's A LOT of money in mining once the vehicles get cheap enough. Which they aren't if you're flying a few times a year (like how most things come down in price when you manufacture at scale). Nit pick: The point of the ride isn't to get 0 gravity. IT IS TO GO TO SPACE! That has a value much higher than that 5k 0g rides. Sure, 0g is part of it, but that's not why ANYONE is buying a ticket.
- outworlder 8y ago
  > Nit pick: The point of the ride isn't to get 0 gravity. Yeah, not to mention that this is actually an impossible goal. And if it's the weightlessness sensation you are after, just get a new vomit comet. You need an airplane for that, not a rocket. > IT IS TO GO TO SPACE! Yeah, you need a rocket for that. A very small one. Oh, you mean to stay in space? Yeah, now you need a pretty big one.
- rory096 8y ago
  >Nit pick: The point of the ride isn't to get 0 gravity. IT IS TO GO TO SPACE! This is an incredibly important and underrated point. People aren't going (just) for the roller coaster ride. They're chasing the overview effect, the perspective-altering thrill of seeing the Earth from space. I suspect a lot of people will pay handsomely for it. If they do (and it works despite the trip's brevity), prices will steadily drop as design and build costs get amortized away to nothing. Eventually it could be accessible to the majority of people (in developed countries), at least at a level where if you saved up you could get to space once in your lifetime — a sort of secular pilgrimage for the 21st century. Given the apparent change in the worldviews of those who experience this effect, if we're lucky it might even help make the world a little bit better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect https://www.overviewinstituteaustralia.org/the-overview-effect https://www.overviewinstituteaustralia.org/the-overview-effe...
  - Retric 8y ago
    8 people out of 536 that have gone to space report the overview effect. That's not necessarily a huge impact.
    - rory096 8y ago
      The eight examples mentioned in the Wikipedia page are far from an exhaustive list. They don't include many examples from the original Frank White book, to start. (White also defines it quite broadly, to include the feeling you get in an airplane when watching tiny cars moving along the ground.) Even if the hit rate is low, that doesn't necessarily deter thrill-seekers. 4,800 people have successfully climbed Mt. Everest (8,300 times[0]) at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars ($45k-70k[1], $11k for the royalty alone[2]), and the very real risk of death (375 deaths). The success rate is about half,[3] up from under 30% before 2006.[4] [0] http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2017/12/17/everest-by-the-numbers-2018-edition/ http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2017/12/17/everest-by-the-nu... [1] https://www.alpineascents.com/climbs/mount-everest/price-schedule/ https://www.alpineascents.com/climbs/mount-everest/price-sch... [2] Down from $25k before 2014 https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140219-mount-everest-nepal-climbing-fees-adventure/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140219-moun... [3] https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-attempt-to-climb-Mt-Everest-annually https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-attempt-to-climb-Mt-Ev... [4] https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/everest-by-the-numbers/index.html https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/everest-by-the-numbers/in...
- fpoling 8y ago
  This is really a good point about going to space. People pay 20K USD to fly MIG-25 in Russia. One does not get zero g on those flights, so money covers the thrill of observing Earth at 25 km at 1750 mph.
  - lokopodium 8y ago
    You can get perhaps a minute of zero g on a MiG-25, that's just not what people ride it for.
- wefarrell 8y ago
  In that case the smart money would be in orbital transfer. The oversupply of capacity to get to low earth orbit will create a demand to go further.
greglindahl 8y ago
If the object really is > a dozen or two launches to gain experience and knowledge to pump back into the New Glen project then it's probably cheaper to never fly a tourist. It's not great if the revenue from tourists is smaller than the opportunity cost of making the thing safe for tourists.
dogma1138 8y ago
Indeed, I think one important factor that is overlooked is that they are gaining experience in manned launches, sub orbital or not once you put a person on a rocket it’s a whole new ball game. This is can in the long run give them an advantage over SpaceX depending on how fast SpaceX can actually shift towards manned launches.

godelski 8y ago

I don't think a lot of people get this. These "space tourist" companies don't have an end goal as space tourism. The problem with launch vehicle companies (launch PROVIDERS) is that they don't always have something to launch (provide). To sustain your company you need to launch often. Rather, to sustain the low price on your vehicle you need to launch often. You also need to get to a high TRL for confidence from contractors. People are more willing to take risks than someone sending up $100m+ satellites or vehicles. Those successful human missions get you to a TRL 9 pretty quickly. But many of these companies have much bigger aims than tourism. Tourism is part of it, but more like orbital hotels, lunar hotels, etc. Not a short trip. But also mining. There's A LOT of money in mining once the vehicles get cheap enough. Which they aren't if you're flying a few times a year (like how most things come down in price when you manufacture at scale). Nit pick: The point of the ride isn't to get 0 gravity. IT IS TO GO TO SPACE! That has a value much higher than that 5k 0g rides. Sure, 0g is part of it, but that's not why ANYONE is buying a ticket.

outworlder 8y ago
> Nit pick: The point of the ride isn't to get 0 gravity. Yeah, not to mention that this is actually an impossible goal. And if it's the weightlessness sensation you are after, just get a new vomit comet. You need an airplane for that, not a rocket. > IT IS TO GO TO SPACE! Yeah, you need a rocket for that. A very small one. Oh, you mean to stay in space? Yeah, now you need a pretty big one.
rory096 8y ago
>Nit pick: The point of the ride isn't to get 0 gravity. IT IS TO GO TO SPACE! This is an incredibly important and underrated point. People aren't going (just) for the roller coaster ride. They're chasing the overview effect, the perspective-altering thrill of seeing the Earth from space. I suspect a lot of people will pay handsomely for it. If they do (and it works despite the trip's brevity), prices will steadily drop as design and build costs get amortized away to nothing. Eventually it could be accessible to the majority of people (in developed countries), at least at a level where if you saved up you could get to space once in your lifetime — a sort of secular pilgrimage for the 21st century. Given the apparent change in the worldviews of those who experience this effect, if we're lucky it might even help make the world a little bit better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect https://www.overviewinstituteaustralia.org/the-overview-effect https://www.overviewinstituteaustralia.org/the-overview-effe...
- Retric 8y ago
  8 people out of 536 that have gone to space report the overview effect. That's not necessarily a huge impact.
  - rory096 8y ago
    The eight examples mentioned in the Wikipedia page are far from an exhaustive list. They don't include many examples from the original Frank White book, to start. (White also defines it quite broadly, to include the feeling you get in an airplane when watching tiny cars moving along the ground.) Even if the hit rate is low, that doesn't necessarily deter thrill-seekers. 4,800 people have successfully climbed Mt. Everest (8,300 times[0]) at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars ($45k-70k[1], $11k for the royalty alone[2]), and the very real risk of death (375 deaths). The success rate is about half,[3] up from under 30% before 2006.[4] [0] http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2017/12/17/everest-by-the-numbers-2018-edition/ http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2017/12/17/everest-by-the-nu... [1] https://www.alpineascents.com/climbs/mount-everest/price-schedule/ https://www.alpineascents.com/climbs/mount-everest/price-sch... [2] Down from $25k before 2014 https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140219-mount-everest-nepal-climbing-fees-adventure/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140219-moun... [3] https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-attempt-to-climb-Mt-Everest-annually https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-attempt-to-climb-Mt-Ev... [4] https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/everest-by-the-numbers/index.html https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/everest-by-the-numbers/in...
fpoling 8y ago
This is really a good point about going to space. People pay 20K USD to fly MIG-25 in Russia. One does not get zero g on those flights, so money covers the thrill of observing Earth at 25 km at 1750 mph.
- lokopodium 8y ago
  You can get perhaps a minute of zero g on a MiG-25, that's just not what people ride it for.
wefarrell 8y ago
In that case the smart money would be in orbital transfer. The oversupply of capacity to get to low earth orbit will create a demand to go further.

greglindahl 8y ago

If the object really is > a dozen or two launches to gain experience and knowledge to pump back into the New Glen project then it's probably cheaper to never fly a tourist. It's not great if the revenue from tourists is smaller than the opportunity cost of making the thing safe for tourists.

dogma1138 8y ago

Indeed, I think one important factor that is overlooked is that they are gaining experience in manned launches, sub orbital or not once you put a person on a rocket it’s a whole new ball game. This is can in the long run give them an advantage over SpaceX depending on how fast SpaceX can actually shift towards manned launches.