3 ms·

“then the frontier would open as the great railway to orbit supplanted the first generation wagon trains“ Except the frontier had fertile lands and vast potent

“then the frontier would open as the great railway to orbit supplanted the first generation wagon trains“ Except the frontier had fertile lands and vast potential. It was not a cold barren emptiness. You could also make access to Antarctica cheap and affordable at scale. It wouldn't suddenly make it economically sensible to go there I'm skeptical there is a huge amount of pent up demand that is just itching for lower launch costs. It's just a bunch of telescopes looking up and look down at every possible wavelength and then a bunch of telecommunications equipment.. There are some serious diminishing returns at play here Tourism.. more telecommunications (ex: starlink).. what else is there to do up there? I don't see it being a huge market. Definitely not enough to fund a colony on Mars or anything like that

jessriedel 3y ago
The issue you're point out is real, but keep in mind the global tourism industry is ~$8 trillion, out of a total world GDP of $100 trillion. $1T per year on space tourism is possible.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  If you were to limit tourism to those fit enough to be allowed anywhere near a space launch, do you still think you'd reach that number? Not to mention, space tourism being an eighth of the total tourism market is obviously insane. The total tourism market is gigantic, space tourism would do wonderfully if it it were 0.01% of it (so, 8 billion or so? Probably not enough to warrant an assembly-line approach).
  - jessriedel 3y ago
    > If you were to limit tourism to those fit enough to be allowed anywhere near a space launch, do you still think you'd reach that number? Yes. The majority of the population can handle 3Gs. John Glenn was 77. > Not to mention, space tourism being an eighth of the total tourism market is obviously insane. I don't think space tourism becoming an eighth of total tourism is insane. I'd guess the fraction of tourism dollars that are spent on travel reached by plane is a lot higher, maybe about a third or half.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      > John Glenn was 77. He was in exceptionally good health. > I don't think space tourism becoming an eighth of total tourism is insane. I'd guess the fraction of tourism dollars that are spent on travel reached by plane is a lot higher, maybe about a third or half. The cost of a plane ticket is typically less than, say, a quarter of the total spending on a holiday (including hotel, food, attractions, souvenirs). Also, people go to certain destinations to spend time there, they don't go for the plane ride - which is all space tourism can be. Just think about the number of civilian airports in the world, and compare to the number of locations where rockets can be launched from. There'll be more money to make in taking people to see the rocket launches than in actually putting tourists on rockets, I can guarantee that. The only way space tourism might catch a break is if a space plane is ever actually successfully designed. That gets rid of many of the problems of rockets. But even then, it's a once in a lifetime experience, not something people would do every year like actual tourism.
      - jessriedel 3y ago
        > He was in exceptionally good health. Yes, but he was nevertheless more fragile than the majority of the overall population (all ages), which was the original concern you raised. > The cost of a plane ticket is typically less than, say, a quarter of the total spending on a holiday (including hotel, food, attractions, souvenirs). Agreed for LEO flights, but (1) I don't see why that difference matters much and (2) the cost breakdown of Mars tourism will similar to international travel now, i.e., 5-30% spent on transportation, and the rest spent on location. > The only way space tourism might catch a break is if a space plane is ever actually successfully designed. I don't really see why a space plane would be make a big difference here. Are you thinking of cost or the physical rigors? Space planes still require ~3 gees on launch (unless you're talking about something really exotic like JP Aerospace's Airship to Orbit").
        tsimionescu 3y ago
        Mars tourism makes no sense, as there will be nothing whatsoever on Mars that you could even see for the next hundred years or more. An actual colony on Mars is way beyond our current technology, despite what some "futurologists" claim. And even IF a colony on Mars is ever created, the amount of tourism it could ever imaginably sustain would be tiny compared to, say, New York or Tokyo or Paris - and neither of those, nor even all three together, are 1/8 of global tourism. Not to mention, a colony on Mars would just be tunnels in a desert (except it's a very very cold and highly radioactive dessert). Only a tiny handful of people would even be conceivably interested in spending months on a cramped rocket to visit it.
Earw0rm 3y ago
The frontier was, in large parts, already full of people. Or at least had been until they died of smallpox. Then we spent the next 150 years conveniently writing them out of history.
Self-Perfection 3y ago
I hope there might be some manufacturing process that will greatly benefit from microgravity. Maybe 3d printing of artificial organs for transplantation? Something that needs undisturbed crystallization?

jessriedel 3y ago

The issue you're point out is real, but keep in mind the global tourism industry is ~$8 trillion, out of a total world GDP of $100 trillion. $1T per year on space tourism is possible.

tsimionescu 3y ago
If you were to limit tourism to those fit enough to be allowed anywhere near a space launch, do you still think you'd reach that number? Not to mention, space tourism being an eighth of the total tourism market is obviously insane. The total tourism market is gigantic, space tourism would do wonderfully if it it were 0.01% of it (so, 8 billion or so? Probably not enough to warrant an assembly-line approach).
- jessriedel 3y ago
  > If you were to limit tourism to those fit enough to be allowed anywhere near a space launch, do you still think you'd reach that number? Yes. The majority of the population can handle 3Gs. John Glenn was 77. > Not to mention, space tourism being an eighth of the total tourism market is obviously insane. I don't think space tourism becoming an eighth of total tourism is insane. I'd guess the fraction of tourism dollars that are spent on travel reached by plane is a lot higher, maybe about a third or half.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    > John Glenn was 77. He was in exceptionally good health. > I don't think space tourism becoming an eighth of total tourism is insane. I'd guess the fraction of tourism dollars that are spent on travel reached by plane is a lot higher, maybe about a third or half. The cost of a plane ticket is typically less than, say, a quarter of the total spending on a holiday (including hotel, food, attractions, souvenirs). Also, people go to certain destinations to spend time there, they don't go for the plane ride - which is all space tourism can be. Just think about the number of civilian airports in the world, and compare to the number of locations where rockets can be launched from. There'll be more money to make in taking people to see the rocket launches than in actually putting tourists on rockets, I can guarantee that. The only way space tourism might catch a break is if a space plane is ever actually successfully designed. That gets rid of many of the problems of rockets. But even then, it's a once in a lifetime experience, not something people would do every year like actual tourism.
    - jessriedel 3y ago
      > He was in exceptionally good health. Yes, but he was nevertheless more fragile than the majority of the overall population (all ages), which was the original concern you raised. > The cost of a plane ticket is typically less than, say, a quarter of the total spending on a holiday (including hotel, food, attractions, souvenirs). Agreed for LEO flights, but (1) I don't see why that difference matters much and (2) the cost breakdown of Mars tourism will similar to international travel now, i.e., 5-30% spent on transportation, and the rest spent on location. > The only way space tourism might catch a break is if a space plane is ever actually successfully designed. I don't really see why a space plane would be make a big difference here. Are you thinking of cost or the physical rigors? Space planes still require ~3 gees on launch (unless you're talking about something really exotic like JP Aerospace's Airship to Orbit").
      - tsimionescu 3y ago
        Mars tourism makes no sense, as there will be nothing whatsoever on Mars that you could even see for the next hundred years or more. An actual colony on Mars is way beyond our current technology, despite what some "futurologists" claim. And even IF a colony on Mars is ever created, the amount of tourism it could ever imaginably sustain would be tiny compared to, say, New York or Tokyo or Paris - and neither of those, nor even all three together, are 1/8 of global tourism. Not to mention, a colony on Mars would just be tunnels in a desert (except it's a very very cold and highly radioactive dessert). Only a tiny handful of people would even be conceivably interested in spending months on a cramped rocket to visit it.

Earw0rm 3y ago

The frontier was, in large parts, already full of people. Or at least had been until they died of smallpox. Then we spent the next 150 years conveniently writing them out of history.

Self-Perfection 3y ago

I hope there might be some manufacturing process that will greatly benefit from microgravity. Maybe 3d printing of artificial organs for transplantation? Something that needs undisturbed crystallization?