Why hasn't space transportation caught on???

[u2rocksbaby]

When the Wright Brothers first discovered flight, there were public airlines within the decade. What I don't understand is that even today, when in 2004 SpaceshipOne managed to surpass the Karman line (the official border of outer space) for 1/1000th of the cost it took Yuri Gargarin to reach it, the private industries, and indeed NASA as well, has almost completely neglected to advance the travel industry in space. Not only is it obviously faster due to the lack of atmospheric drag to go from point-to-point (which wouldn't even necessitate the cost of low-orbital velocities), but it is also the ONLY way space travel will make a profit in the near future, while missions today generate almost $0 in revenue. Why haven't people taken advantage of this technology? The payoff would be immense, given the potential for demand, not just for travel, but for being, you know, IN SPACE! Who doesn't want that?

EDIT: Okay, obviously I wasn't clear on what my suggestion is referring to. There is a huge untapped market for sub-orbital space flights acting as a transportation industry from point A to point B that would cover distances in a fraction of the time that airlines would take. The myth that space is some sort of money sink obtainable only through massive funding from a governmental superpower is the very pervading issue that I don't understand exists. Why aren't private industries doing more to abolish that fantasy and make it a reality with easy potential for profit, just as they did with flight a century ago? And let's not forget, in the early 20th century, airlines were far more dangerous than they are today, and the industry still flourished.

 

[ZeroMachine]

Because what would be the point of traveling into space when there's no where we can currently go?

Not only is it costly, we don't have the sort of tech we'd need to colonize even the moon or Mars.

So all we'd be doing right now is putting more people in space only to have them come back after a short span of time.

It'll get there. It will. It'll just take some time.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Probably because most people use airlines to get from point A to point B. With space it's point A to point Somewhere-in-the-ocean. If we had colonies to get to then it would probably become commercialised, but until then, not much point.

Also it's still pretty expensive, dangerous, and you need to be in pretty good condition or face some side-effects from being in that environment.

 

[Utrechet]

Nice double post. I answered for you on the other one.

 

[Veylon]

Zero has it right: there's nowhere to go. All you can do is go up and come back down, a trip solely for those of immense wealth seeking novelty.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The answer is that, even if it's cheaper than it used to be, it's still a whole heck of a lot more expensive than a traditional flight. Although, you might want to look into some of those experimental planes that the industry is working on, which don't actually go into orbit, but do travel through the upper atmosphere at supersonic speeds. In either The DaVinci Code or Angels and Demons (can't remember which), the protagonist gets to ride one. Dan Brown didn't make the whole thing up; it's a real concept that is being worked on, but for whatever reason is not yet ready to be marketed.

 

[Jadak]

Most of your argument seems to be relying on the idea that using sub-orbital transport would actually have a payoff. I'm not really sure that's true, now granted I know nothing of the specific costs involved in either conventional air travel or space travel, I am under the understanding that the thrust needed to get much of anything to those altitudes is rather expensive to produce, far more so than simply flying from point A to point B.

Now, for far enough flights I will accept that it could feasibly be faster, but the expense of doing so would mean it would limit it to those with wealth, who would only bother if they were in a hurry. And then, such limited usage would prevent space flights from being scheduled frequently enough to be a viable option for anybody unless they got lucky on the times.


So basically, all you would be doing is duplicating an existing travel system with a more expensive, exclusive one for the benefits of somewhat quicker times and even that's probably only true when dealing with destinations on opposing sides of the world. When something is of limited benefit, expensive both in operation and incredibly so in startup costs, and would only appeal to an exclusive market anyways, commercialization is not all that appealing to most private companies.

 

[Layz92]

Mostly because it would have to have a massive initial investment for a service that is not really needed and might very well not pay off. You use the example of human flight being worked out but it is a much different case. With planes it went from days to get from point to point plus buses/staff cars/trains etc etc to a few hours in the sky. A massive improvement and a game changer. Going from a few hours to a few minutes lets say, while impressive, is a service people would like but not really need outside high profile government and business people. With that fact people would have to get over their fear of the new and pay more for a service they don't even really want/need. On top of that companies would have to hire employees with different specialities on top of the current workforce.

 

[Esotera]

Put it like this way, you wouldn't get on a coach for 24 hours to some far away city, then just have a quick look through the window and turn back round. There's not really much you can do in space besides having no gravity, and its effects can really mess up your body in the long-term.

If humanity seriously wants to pursue long-term space exploration, we need to get some form of gravity on our ships, protect the astronauts from cosmic radiation, and make it really really cheap. The privatisation of the industry by cutting Nasa's shuttle program is supposed to achieve this, and will be either the best or worst idea in the history of space travel, depending on how it turns out.

Also have you any idea how hard it is to build and launch a rocket the way we're doing it these days?

 

[MorphingDragon]

Because the Illuminati can't control you in the moon.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I guessing it's because it risking to invest alot of money and time just to test if it's possible. Even when it proven to be safe they would have lost alot of money and have to spend more to convince people to give it a go.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Maybe because airlines don't want to expose their passengers to space radiation; The biggest reason why we won't be seeing interstellar travel for a long time.

 

[Megacherv]

When the Wright Brothers first discovered flight, there were public airlines within the decade. What I don't understand is that even today, when in 2004 SpaceshipOne managed to surpass the Karman line (the official border of outer space) for 1/1000th of the cost it took Yuri Gargarin to reach it, the private industries, and indeed NASA as well, has almost completely neglected to advance the travel industry in space. Not only is it obviously faster due to the lack of atmospheric drag to go from point-to-point (which wouldn't even necessitate the cost of low-orbital velocities), but it is also the ONLY way space travel will make a profit in the near future, while missions today generate almost $0 in revenue. Why haven't people taken advantage of this technology? The payoff would be immense, given the potential for demand, not just for travel, but for being, you know, IN SPACE! Who doesn't want that?

EDIT: Okay, obviously I wasn't clear on what my suggestion is referring to. There is a huge untapped market for sub-orbital space flights acting as a transportation industry from point A to point B that would cover distances in a fraction of the time that airlines would take. The myth that space is some sort of money sink obtainable only through massive funding from a governmental superpower is the very pervading issue that I don't understand exists. Why aren't private industries doing more to abolish that fantasy and make it a reality with easy potential for profit, just as they did with flight a century ago? And let's not forget, in the early 20th century, airlines were far more dangerous than they are today, and the industry still flourished.

It...is? Virgin Galactic are doing it just that.

 

[SckizoBoy]

snip

It...is? Virgin Galactic are doing it just that.

News to me, though I don't think they'll ever go commercial, and here's why:

OT: I'll precis this by recommending that everyone watch PlanetES.

Now, the problem with space travel is not the cost of the travel itself, but the cost of everything that comes with it. (Everything here is simplified to maintain brevity.)

1. Clean-up
2. Industrial regulation
3. Emergency services
4. Ground support & maintenance
5. Crew selection & training
6. Mechanical design & development

For the pay-off, sure it'll be high, but all of the above (and probably a whole load I've missed, e.g. security, and something that I just forgot) will have obligatory costs that are prohibitive at the best of times, rendering the whole concept unworkable.

1. Clean-up (hence my recommendation of PlanetES) - Do you realise how much space debris there is around the planet?! There are tonnes of the crap, and you can't fly through it without a dedicated clean-up service. The problem is that because of a lack of gravity, shit just floats about (unlike in atmospheric conditions, where it just falls and pilots have nothing to worry about above a couple thousand metres with regard to trash), and with craft flying through/past at super/hypersonic speeds, a washer will fuck up a flight in less than the space of a heartbeat.

2. Industrial regulation - Sure, it'll take a financial bomb to start up a company and most likely if it ever happens, it'll be a monopoly, but big businesses will compete in attempts to curtail cornering the market (which may or may not prove to be profitable) and certain aspects of the industry will demand quality control and regulation of flight paths. (I'm unsure on this one, so correct away.)

3. Emergency services - I think this should be quite self-explanatory, but every flight will pretty much have to have medical personnel onboard, because of the greater inherent risks and the much higher stresses of re-entry/latter stages of the flight (at least with current technology). Moreover, it'll take a fucking age for support craft to get to stricken craft that have some sort of failure, which will most likely be software related. I can guarantee that the onboard computer will be doing virtually all the flying, not the pilot (I think the Eurofighter and a few other 5th gen fighters are impossible to fly without the computer... again, correct away) and if that fucks up, there can be remote support, but I just don't really see it... because you have to combine it with point 1 and any competent physicist can tell you that even minute changes to momentum will cause shit to hit a fan. *points at self* Not a competent physicist.

4. Ground support & maintenance - Same as for any airline, but it'll have to be dedicated as the hardware will be of a generally different ilk. And unlike airlines, maintenance will have to be done to a much higher degree (at least that'd be the kneejerk first instinct) and after every flight.

5. Crew selection & training - Again, rather self-explanatory, but I'm thinking more of the cost. Almost all pilots will effectively be ex-military (or outright military) because they need that physical fitness to do the job. I'm not sure what NASA's requirements are on their crews, but I'd imagine that they'd be high (understatement). Cabin crew would need to have similarly intense training to deal with emergency situations.

6. Mechanical design & development - Go figure... this alone will negate any and all profit you get from commercial sales, unless you sell tickets for 7+ figure sums. There is a lot that needs to go into the design of the vehicle, because one must consider contingencies, safety features, the fact that it would need at least three hulls, the engines, software, materials, fuel compositions and so on.

Um, so... no?

 

[Dexiro]

Commercial space travel is cheaper than most other space missions but it's still bloody expensive. And it's worth mentioning that it's purely for leisure; you go into space, look at the earth and then go back down. Probably not worth the £100,000's it would cost.

Going to the moon would be a lot more costly, and people might not necessarily enjoy spending weeks stuck inside a little spaceship just to walk on what is essentially just a big desert.

 

[Dexiro]

EDIT: Okay, obviously I wasn't clear on what my suggestion is referring to. There is a huge untapped market for sub-orbital space flights acting as a transportation industry from point A to point B that would cover distances in a fraction of the time that airlines would take. The myth that space is some sort of money sink obtainable only through massive funding from a governmental superpower is the very pervading issue that I don't understand exists. Why aren't private industries doing more to abolish that fantasy and make it a reality with easy potential for profit, just as they did with flight a century ago? And let's not forget, in the early 20th century, airlines were far more dangerous than they are today, and the industry still flourished.

Wait what? I think you've been playing too many sci-fi games man, you clearly don't understand any of this very well.

Firstly how would space flights be quicker than airlines in getting from point A to point B? And how would that be more cost effective in any sense? Then we have massive issues such as space junk and the fact that we'd essentially have to be drifting through orbit.

Unless I'm misunderstanding and you're just proposing a Concorde that goes a bit higher up, in which case you can probably get a list of things that went wrong with that from google in like 10 seconds.

 

[Joccaren]

Because it is still too expensive for your average joe, and technology in it isn't fully ready for that scale of deployment.

Most people ATM can't afford to fly overseas, let alone on a spaceflight. Whilst spaceflight is far cheaper now than it ever has been, it is still out of reach of most average peoples wages. airflight is cheaper, and generally people don't mind that bit less comfort for a lower cost flight (Why people book economy class instead of first or business). There are companies working on lowering the cost of spaceflight to something anyone can afford, but we are not there yet, and until we are, there will be little point to spaceflight travel when planes will do the same job for cheaper.

In addition, things such as the exploding shuttles put people on edge about spaceflight. It is dangerous. There are a million things that can go wrong. It is less tested than other forms of transportation, and people see it as more dangerous because of such. Whilst things like Star Trek, Star Wars, Mass Effect, ect. give people some sense of Starlust, historical Spaceflight failures will likely be the first thing that comes to their minds when hearing about a spaceflight industry; "Could it happen to me?"

Until a company creates a spacecraft that people can fly on for an equal or lesser price than an aircraft, and manages to convince people that spaceflight is very safe, it is not a viable business. Hell, I'm pretty sure there are some companies that send people into Low Earth Orbit, it is still extremely expensive. Once technology advances a bit further, then we may see some spaceflight, but not at the moment.

 

[Ghengis John]

There's not a lot drawing people to travel or improve the travel. Mines will likely be the first step towards fixing that.

 

[viranimus]

I really dont think it is the expense thats the prohibitive element. If it were worth it, they would spend that money. Industry has yet to pick up on it because there is essentially nothing we know of that we need from out there. For things we need that are out there, traditionally we have them here and again its not that the cost of the flight is prohibitively expensive, its because it is infinitely cheaper to get it from terrestrial sources.

Why drop 100 billion on a mining expedition looking to mine coal from the asteroid belt when we can set up dozens of mining operations at 1/10th the cost.

When we have reason to go there, we will. Once we find that special Rarium 16 that serves as a plentiful fuel source that is more efficient, or the special Mcguffindust that cures cancers, or anything else we cant get here for cheaper first, were not going until the sources here become tapped, or we have to wait a decade or ten before the space flight technology catches up to the point its cheaper than traditional air travel. Either way, theres a logical explanation for it.

 

[Something Amyss]

EDIT: Okay, obviously I wasn't clear on what my suggestion is referring to. There is a huge untapped market for sub-orbital space flights acting as a transportation industry from point A to point B that would cover distances in a fraction of the time that airlines would take. The myth that space is some sort of money sink obtainable only through massive funding from a governmental superpower is the very pervading issue that I don't understand exists. Why aren't private industries doing more to abolish that fantasy and make it a reality with easy potential for profit, just as they did with flight a century ago? And let's not forget, in the early 20th century, airlines were far more dangerous than they are today, and the industry still flourished.

No demand from the public? Even Concorde was shut down, and that was almost a decade ago. there isn't a demand for supersonic, rapid transportation, so why do you honestly think there's feasible money for developing sub-orbital trips?