Big Sky Debate Page
CLAIMS OF WELL-DEVELOPED SPACE TOURISM ARE UNREALISTIC-Freeland ‘10
Download 1.49 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- THERE ARE ENORMOUS RISKS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SPACE TRAVEL-Freeland ‘10
- DEBRIS THREATENS SPACE TOURISM-Staples ‘06
- NONE OF THE THREE CRITICAL COMPONENTS THAT DRIVE TOURISM ARE IN PLACE FOR SPACE-Launius and Jenkins ‘07
- LAUNCH COSTS MAKE INTEREST IN SPACE TOURISM IRRELEVANT-Goehlich ‘07
- THERE ARE MANY HUMAN FACTORS WHICH MUST BE OVERCOME BEFORE SPACE TOURISM IS VIABLE-O’Neil ‘98
- ORBITAL SPACE TOURISM IS DECADES AWAY WITHOUT A A TECH BREAKTHROUGH-Launius and Jenkins ‘07
- ADVOCATES FOR SPACE TOURISM IGNORE THE ENORMOUS DIFFICULTIES AND EXPENSE INVOLVED-Launius and Jenkins ‘07
- THE NUMBER OF LAUNCHES IS DECREASING. THERE IS NO MODEL FOR DECREASED LAUNCH COSTS-Launius and Jenkins ‘07
- SPACE TRAVEL IS NOT A REALISTIC TOURISM DOMAIN TODAY-Klemm and Markkanen ‘11
- A FATAL ACCIDENT WOULD CRUSH THE SPACE TOURISM INDUSTRY-Klemm and Markkanen ‘11
- SPACE TOURISM WON’T HAPPEN IN THIS LIFETIME-Cronian ‘09
- SOLVENCY: TOO EXPENSIVE/FOCUSED ON ELITES LAUNCH COSTS ARE A VERY SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM AND CONCERNS COULD LEAD TO DANGEROUS COST CUTTING-Sawaya ‘04
- SPACE TOURISM DEPENDS ON A MIRACULOUS, NON-EXISTENT TECHNOLOGY TO DECREASE LAUNCH COSTS-Launius and Jenkins ‘07
- IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT LAUNCH COSTS WILL DECREASE ENOUGH-Launius and Jenkins ‘07
- THE COSTS OF SPACE TOURISM MAKE IT IMPRACTICAL-Livingston ‘02
- THERE IS A VERY SMALL MARKET FOR SPACE TOURISM-Sawaya ‘04
- GOVERNMENTS AND CORPORATIONS SHOULD FOCUS ON PROFITABLE VENTURES BEFORE TOURISM-Sawaya ‘04
CLAIMS OF WELL-DEVELOPED SPACE TOURISM ARE UNREALISTIC-Freeland ‘10 [Steven; Professor of International Law, University of Western Sydney; Fly Me To The Moon: How Will International Law Cope with Commercial Space Tourism; Melbourne Journal of International Law; 2010] One commentator has gone so far as to suggest that a traffic level of five million space passengers per year by 2030 is achievable and represents only a conservative estimate of the known demand among potential tourists. His vision for an attainable model contemplates a sophisticated space tourism infrastructure including over one hundred co-orbital hotels and orbital sports centres, as well as daily scheduled lunar flights to a series of lunar orbit and lunar pole hotels.[13] Certainly at this stage, however, such claims look to be unrealistic. They highlight the fact that, no matter the form in which it ultimately eventuates, the prospect of commercial space tourism gives rise to some conceptually difficult legal issues. As technology is developed to make widespread space tourism a reality, it is incumbent on the law itself to develop in order to meet the demands for proper regulation of such activities. Of course, this phenomenon of ‘technology encouraging law’ or, as might be more accurate in the case of outer space regulation, ‘law chasing technology’, is not confined solely to the area of space-related technology.[14] In the case of space tourism, however, it is obviously an important consideration, even more so given that it will involve humans engaging in what is an inherently ‘risky’ activity. THERE ARE ENORMOUS RISKS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SPACE TRAVEL-Freeland ‘10 [Steven; Professor of International Law, University of Western Sydney; Fly Me To The Moon: How Will International Law Cope with Commercial Space Tourism; Melbourne Journal of International Law; 2010] The stark images of the February 2003 Columbia Shuttle disaster highlighted both the hazardous nature of space travel and the need for the highest possible (and practical) standards of safety regulation for future commercial human space travel. If the space tourism industry is to develop, every reasonable effort must be taken to ensure the safety of those on board space tourism vehicles, not only in an effort to attract paying passengers but also to minimise the possibility of disaster. Of course, this should already be the case with all current human space travel activities. Yet, the law of averages suggests that the greater the number of human space flights that take place, the greater the probability that there will be an accident. Nothing can ever be guaranteed to be completely safe. Nonetheless, it would be unacceptable to even begin embarking on the development of a commercial space tourism industry without giving the greatest consideration to the implementation of proper safety standards. Within this context, however, there are enormous costs associated with trying to address every foreseeable or possible contingency that may arise. The provision of additional protective equipment on a space shuttle, for example, is costly, heavy and may adversely impact on its payload capacity. The reality has thus far been that human space travel has involved a trade-off between the design of the safest possible space vehicle (within the limitations of existing technology), and what are (or should be) deemed as ‘acceptable’ risks, given the very significant amounts of money that are involved.
[Sarah; staff writer; Junk threatens space tourism: Some 9,000 fragments of man-made objects pose hazard to spacecraft; Vancouver Sun; 20 Jan 2006] The junk pile in the sky is growing, and it poses a serious threat to future satellite launches and plans to send tourists into space, U.S. scientists have found. "Space junk" -- bits of rocket, shuttle and satellite waste -- has been proliferating since the launch of the first satellite, Russia's Sputnik 1, in 1957. Circling the Earth are an estimated 9,000 fragments of man-made objects that are 10 centimetres in size or larger and collectively weigh in at about five million kilograms. The debris is concentrated mainly in so-called "near-Earth orbit" at an altitude of 200 to 2,000 kilometres. The future commercialization of space could be jeopardized as the amount of debris is expected to rise dramatically after 2055, say the authors of a new U.S. Space Agency computer simulation published in Friday's edition of the journal Science. NONE OF THE THREE CRITICAL COMPONENTS THAT DRIVE TOURISM ARE IN PLACE FOR SPACE-Launius and Jenkins ‘07 [Roger, Division of Space History, National Air and Space Museum and Dennis, Verville Fellow, National Air and Space Museum; Is It Finally Time for Space Tourism?; Astropolitics; Volume 4, Issue 3, 2007] At a basic level, tourism at any time and place in human history has required three major components: (1) a discretionary income available for leisure travel; (2) ample leisure time to spend on both preparations for and taking the trips themselves; and (3) an infrastructure supporting tourism that offers accommodations, food and amenities, transportation systems, and attractions to see and do at the place visited. None of these three components are available in abundance for space tourism, although all exist to a small degree. They will have to be created or expanded to achieve the goal of opening space to the public. This will be a challenging task involving significant investment, especially in infrastructure, and either a significant reduction in the costs of space tourism to broaden the market or a greater attraction for those with enormous fortunes to spend on their leisure activities. LAUNCH COSTS MAKE INTEREST IN SPACE TOURISM IRRELEVANT-Goehlich ‘07 [Robert; Trends and Issues in Global Tourism; 2007; pg. 224] This market analysis suggests that a significant potential market does indeed exist, with individuals and companies willing to pay for space tourism activities. However, given current costs for a rocket launch, it is unlikely that mass access to space will occur in the near future. Many business opportunities might develop when space tourism becomes a global activity. Almost every market niche would demand large quantities of products, from food to high technology devices. THERE ARE MANY HUMAN FACTORS WHICH MUST BE OVERCOME BEFORE SPACE TOURISM IS VIABLE-O’Neil ‘98 [Daniel; General Public Space Travel and Tourism-Volume 1 Executive Summary Volume I; 1998; http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/general_public_space_travel_and_tourism.shtml#Recommendations; retrieved 01 Aug 2011] The "human" issues and problems associated with public space travel and tourism are no less important than the technological challenges of getting them to/from space. There is the need to identify the accommodations that will be required to support the general public; the need for experienced crew and attendants and their likely functions; the need for life support equipment that will be required in passenger vehicles and habitats; space sickness, its effects, and its countermeasures and their implications; flight and hull insurance -- all, hopefully, at an early moment. Numerous issues must be resolved and actions taken before safe, large scale, comfortable and routine general public space travel and tourism can begin. ORBITAL SPACE TOURISM IS DECADES AWAY WITHOUT A A TECH BREAKTHROUGH-Launius and Jenkins ‘07 [Roger, Division of Space History, National Air and Space Museum and Dennis, Verville Fellow, National Air and Space Museum; Is It Finally Time for Space Tourism?; Astropolitics; Volume 4, Issue 3, 2007] In the next few years, there seems good reason to believe that sub-orbital space tourism will become a reality. It will remain the province of wealthy thrill-seekers, essentially the same class of those who climb Mount Everest, rather than the masses who dominate the current terrestrial tourism industry. A tiny elite of multi-millionaires may continue to fly aboard Soyuz capsules to Earth orbit, but the reality is that orbital space tourism is many decades away absent a major breakthrough in space access. Until that happens we will be able to count the number of orbital space tourists on our fingers for years to come. ADVOCATES FOR SPACE TOURISM IGNORE THE ENORMOUS DIFFICULTIES AND EXPENSE INVOLVED-Launius and Jenkins ‘07 [Roger, Division of Space History, National Air and Space Museum and Dennis, Verville Fellow, National Air and Space Museum; Is It Finally Time for Space Tourism?; Astropolitics; Volume 4, Issue 3, 2007] A review of many space tourism proposals reveals a common thread; few acknowledge the most difficult problems presented by the technology, economics, and politics of spaceflight. They also tend to overstate flight rates and reliability, while understating costs. Some of this is understandable since real numbers, particularly concerning costs, are often difficult to obtain. At the same time, overcoming the fog of rhetoric present in the mainstream media has proven difficult. For instance, an article in the Torrance, California, Daily Breeze on December 19, 2005, proudly announced that “Low-cost rockets also could spur an age of space tourism.” The “low cost” rocket they are discussing is the Falcon 1 being developed by Elon Musk and his company Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) by using more than $100 million of Musk's own money. In reality, the Falcon 1 is anything but low cost since while the quoted $6.7 million launch cost is much lower than other launch vehicles such as Delta or Atlas, the 1,256-pound maximum payload is also much less. Half a ton does not buy much space tourism. 58 Moreover, if you measure launch costs by the normal “price per pound” standard, then Falcon 1 is an expensive launcher, some $5,330 per pound. Comparable to the Delta 7920/5 at $5,461 per pound ($61 million to launch 11,330 pounds) or Atlas IIAS at $5,768 per pound ($109 million to launch 19,000 pounds), and it is far higher than Soyuz ($2,731 per pound) or Long March ($2,771). THE NUMBER OF LAUNCHES IS DECREASING. THERE IS NO MODEL FOR DECREASED LAUNCH COSTS-Launius and Jenkins ‘07 [Roger, Division of Space History, National Air and Space Museum and Dennis, Verville Fellow, National Air and Space Museum; Is It Finally Time for Space Tourism?; Astropolitics; Volume 4, Issue 3, 2007] Second, the actual number of space launches per year has been declining overall, in no small measure because of the increased longevity of the satellites being built, the ability to deploy multiple payloads on a single launch vehicle, and competition from ground-based systems for long-haul telecommunications that had previously been a mainstay of the satellite market. As the Futron Corporation concluded in a 2001 report: There are year-to-year variations, with the total number of launches increasing in some years and decreasing in others. While the cyclical nature of the launch industry goes back well before 1996, one can also see that for the period 1996–2002, there is a modest downward trend in total launches. There is a fairly dramatic decrease projected in 2001—over 20%, which is the most significant percentage change during the period. 47 From a peak of about 45 launches per year worldwide in the latter 1990s, according to another study, projections are that “launch demand is expected to drop off and remain reasonably steady at an estimated 25–28 [commercial] launches per year between 2001 and 2010.” 48 It appears unlikely that the number of launches will dramatically increase in the near term, thereby eliminating any incentive for the marketplace to field new low-cost launchers.
[Gregor, and Sini; The Long Tail of Tourism; 2011; pg. 99] Space travel today is not a real tourism domain. The market is divided into simulations with space-like conditions inside the Earth's atmosphere, and orbital space missions which only the super-rich can afford. The most promising emerging segment is sub-orbital space travel, for which a considerable demand exists. However, this is also to be considered a premium market, as initial prices will be between $100,000 and $200,000 for a flight of 15 to 30 minutes. When prices decrease as operations expand and competition increases, personal space flight will become accessible to a broader public. Companies should use the price skimming approach in order to reap the maximum possible profits. Several studies have been conducted to segment the potential target market, and to analyse how different scenarios will affect the consumers' attitude towards booking a space flight. The surveys revealed that 40-80% of the interviewees were generally interested in space travel. The degree of interest varied depending on age, gender, and nationality of the respondents, but generally they were willing to pay a one to three months' salary for the experience. 10-20% of all interviewees would even disburse the income of an entire year to take part in a spaceflight. A FATAL ACCIDENT WOULD CRUSH THE SPACE TOURISM INDUSTRY-Klemm and Markkanen ‘11 [Gregor, and Sini; The Long Tail of Tourism; 2011; pg. 99] The competitive edge of authentic space tourism lies in its ability to satisfy status needs and the desire for a very unique experience: personal space flight will Iikely become the 'ultimate vacation', and thus play in a league of its own, even though other products, such as "underwater resorts", or "submarine cruises" might target a similar market (Holjevac, 2003). While direct competition will probably occur between different types of authentic space tourism in the future, probably no other segment will be able to compete with sub-orbital space f1ights - let alone orbital travel. It is unclear whether the other players in the market will succeed in joining Virgin Galactic's efforts to build, test, and operate thei r own space ships. The main barrier is the acquisition of capital necessary for the development or purchase of technology. As mentioned by Billings, space tourism-related projects were abandoned before due to a lack of funds, so there is reason to believe that not all of the recently founded space travel companies will survive. The increasing unwillingness to invest in risky business in times of financial turmoil is thus likely to exacerbate the situation for these companies at this point in time. But even if sufficient funds are made available, the risk involved in space travel is much larger than in other fields of tourism. Although medical hazards can be avoided by careful training and passenger-friendly technology, "we cannot hope to reach the reliability of commercial aircraft, where the risk is about 1 in 2,000,000 flights" (Penn et al., 1999). A fatal crash would probably mean bankruptcy for a small space travel company because it would result in a drastic drop in demand, but also incur huge insurance premiums as a space vehicle is a very expensive asset - and a prerequisite for operating, at least for small companies that can afford only one vessel or carrier aircraft. SPACE TOURISM WON’T HAPPEN IN THIS LIFETIME-Cronian ‘09 [Darren; Travel Consumer Advocate; Space tourism will never take-off; Travel Rants; 16 July 2009; http://www.travel-rants.com/2009/07/16/space-tourism-takeoff/; retrieved 14 August 2011] Everyone keeps blabbing on about space tourism but I think we need to get realistic here; most tourists will not be either able to afford it, or not fit enough to travel into space. Also tourists cannot look after Earth, never mind taking a trip in to Space. Forget about queuing up at check-in, going through security, or waiting in the departure lounge, if you want to venture up into space then you’ll have three days pre-training at the spaceport. Sorry, but I cannot take space travel seriously and I do not think we’ll see it happen in my lifetime. SOLVENCY: TOO EXPENSIVE/FOCUSED ON ELITES
[David; research assistant at OECD; Space Tourism: Is It Safe? OECD Observer; Mar 2004; http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/1242/Space_tourism:_Is_it_safe_.html; retrieved 01 Aug 2011] Launch costs have remained essentially stagnant since the beginning of space flight in the late 1950s, but what would the market result be if ticket prices dropped to US$1 million per launch into orbit? At this price, the market is much larger and using the same assumptions as above, there would be approximately 72,500 paying participants. A lot, but certainly not enough for a mass revolution. Not everyone shares this scepticism. Take the X Prize foundation, which is seen by many as the bellwether of space tourism. The foundation will award US$10 million to the first team which builds a vehicle capable of taking three passengers to a suborbital altitude of 100 km and repeating the feat within a week. Perhaps this more open, competitive, model could achieve progress at a fraction of current costs. Indeed, some speculate that such ventures could open the way to sub-orbital joyrides at around US$100,000 a ticket. But there are obvious dangers, not least of which is the risk of corner cutting on safety to make that fast turnaround and ultimately running the risk of another disaster. SPACE TOURISM DEPENDS ON A MIRACULOUS, NON-EXISTENT TECHNOLOGY TO DECREASE LAUNCH COSTS-Launius and Jenkins ‘07 [Roger, Division of Space History, National Air and Space Museum and Dennis, Verville Fellow, National Air and Space Museum; Is It Finally Time for Space Tourism?; Astropolitics; Volume 4, Issue 3, 2007] Almost all of the space tourism proposals assume the availability of low-cost transportation to orbit. In many cases, this is expressed as an assumption—“The fare per passenger should be around $5,000”—while other proposals include detailed, but questionable, concepts for reusable launch vehicles that support the required economic case. 42 On the other hand, costs associated with various launch vehicle proposals put forth by the pro-space community are usually based upon an assumed market of hundreds, or in some cases, thousands of launches per year to serve the space tourism market. The theory is that if you launch often enough you drive the price down. 43 This represents the classic Catch 22 of spaceflight—to get launch costs down you need a large market, but to build the large market envisioned launch costs must come down. It has driven the challenge associated with space access throughout the space age, with tourism being only one of the aspects that it influences. At a fundamental level, this conundrum informs how the marketplace unfolds. In essence, demand for a product changes as the price changes. This “price elasticity of demand” has motivated virtually all discussions of the space launch industry, believing that lower launch costs will stimulate demand for launches. This effort to lower launch costs has been the “holy grail” of almost every major launch project since the 1960s. A problem exists, however, for as Futron demonstrated in a 2003 study, “analysis proved conclusively that Existing Commercial and Government Markets are inelastic—meaning demand does not increase significantly when launch costs are reduced, even when the reduction is substantial.” Indeed, Futron found that even a 75% reduction in the cost of launch brought only “a negligible increase in the number of launches.” In such an environment, will space tourism increase significantly, as a new market, should launch costs be significantly reduced? How might one analyze these issues? At face value, most of the space tourism cost estimates offer little reason to believe they are realizable. That is probably the largest problem with most space tourism studies. So far, most analyses remind one of the old cartoon where a scientist is standing at a blackboard with an equation on the left side, a desired answer on the right, and in the center a statement, “and then a miracle occurs.” What the space tourism industry, indeed all of the larger space community, seems to be waiting for is a technical miracle that would lead to reliable, inexpensive, safe access for ordinary people.
[Roger, Division of Space History, National Air and Space Museum and Dennis, Verville Fellow, National Air and Space Museum; Is It Finally Time for Space Tourism?; Astropolitics; Volume 4, Issue 3, 2007] The space tourism industry says it is economically viable as long as it can get people into orbit for roughly the cost of a first-class intercontinental airline ticket. The start-up launch industry says it can build cheap and safe rockets as soon as it begins launching many more times a year. Common sense says one needs to happen first. In reality, however, given current technology, neither is likely. Additionally, there is reason to question if even a significant reduction in launch costs will open the market significantly. This is true for two essential reasons. First, given the technological complexity of reaching Earth orbit, it is highly unlikely that launch costs will come down substantially barring some radical new technology. Given no technological improvement over conventional airliners, when flying, the supersonic Concorde cost as much as $10,000 per ticket and still could not sustain itself economically. British Airways and Air France operated them for more than 25 years as prestige programs, with large government subsidies, but the aircraft were finally phased out of service in 2003 because of a lack of commercial viability. THE COSTS OF SPACE TOURISM MAKE IT IMPRACTICAL-Livingston ‘02 [Dr. David; The Prospects for Space Commerce in the Aftermath of 9-11; Space Future; 10 Aug 2002; http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_prospects_for_space_commerce_in_the_aftermath_of_9_11.shtml; retrieved 05 Aug 2011] Yet another example comes from a Boeing study of commercial space tourism showing that the costs of developing a space tourism capability was currently impractical, according to Vice Chairman Harry C. Stonecipher. Boeing found that development of a two-stage commercial vehicle to provide 50 passengers with short orbital flights would cost at least $16 billion. Tickets would have to cost $150,000 each, and the vehicle would have to fly at least 800 times per year for the project just to break even. Stonecipher and other Boeingmanagers said they believe the $16 billion figure is itself seriously understated because it does not deal with costs associated with regulatory issues or other expenses. THERE IS A VERY SMALL MARKET FOR SPACE TOURISM-Sawaya ‘04 [David; research assistant at OECD; Space Tourism: Is It Safe? OECD Observer; Mar 2004; http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/1242/Space_tourism:_Is_it_safe_.html; retrieved 01 Aug 2011] Assuming there is a demand, just how big (or small) might that tourism market be? First of all, manned space flight is beyond the pockets of most ordinary people. There have been two space tourists, both multimillionaires, reportedly paying some US$20 million to fly aboard the Russian Soyuz rocket and spend 10 days aboard the International Space Station. There are not very many people in the world who are capable of paying this much. In fact, the market would only be about 100,000 people. And then, only a small percentage – experts say about 1% – of that number would be willing to pay for a space flight. GOVERNMENTS AND CORPORATIONS SHOULD FOCUS ON PROFITABLE VENTURES BEFORE TOURISM-Sawaya ‘04 [David; research assistant at OECD; Space Tourism: Is It Safe? OECD Observer; Mar 2004; http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/1242/Space_tourism:_Is_it_safe_.html; retrieved 01 Aug 2011] There are a number of steps that government and private space capitalists could take, though. First, they should stop thinking of space as a place for tourism, at least initially. The focus should be on other commercial endeavours, with tourism developing as a bonus. After all, in the automobile, railway and aviation industries, commercial needs drove mass production and cost reduction, which eventually paved the way for tourism. And there are plenty of commercial incentives for going into space, in particular the prospect of harnessing valuable resources, like Helium-3 on the moon, as well as the engineering and technical spinoffs of the R&D needed to get there. The possible discovery of water on Mars could pave the way for human exploration and eventual exploitation, since with water we can produce oxygen needed to breathe and hydrogen for rocket fuel. Directory: file -> fetch fetch -> 11 th Lit Semester 1 Final Study Guide!!! fetch -> Industrial Revolution Inventors fetch -> Analysis for Galveston Hurricane of 1900 fetch -> The Illuminators (Team 2) 1900 Galveston Hurricane Cycle a team Assignment fetch -> Team csi-utb ruth Reyes Jose Ferrer fetch -> Galveston Hurricane of 1900 Cycle a-teacher as a Problem Solver fetch -> Is Climate Change Starting a New Dust Bowl? Cycle A fetch -> What makes a storm a hurricane fetch -> The 1950s were the "Happy Days" because it was a time of economic prosperity, technology development, new entertainment, new fashion and family growth. The 1950s was a great time fetch -> Sputnik and The Dawn of the Space Age Download 1.49 Mb. Share with your friends:
|