However, orbital space tourism is a relatively low-volume niche market at the moment, with uncertain prospects. The more routine (or perhaps even despised) it becomes, the less it is [[a world worth talking about]], which is a precondition for any real economic opportunity. It currently depends on transportation and accommodation shared among space-faring super-powers with sometimes-difficult relations. CATS must be enabled by some new market that increases launch demand significantly, and the world's rich and highly adventurous are not likely to do that. Project Persephone aims to explore the recreational possibilities that orbit might offer to "the rest of us" who are earthbound, as well as what sort of economic opportunities those recreations could open up for people in the developing world.

Most users of comsat services consider them reasonably priced.  However, that's because those users can (by definition) afford them. Even if one considers satellite communications a kind of "access to space", it is not cheap for the world's poor.  In 1994, MCI executive [=Greg LeVert=] notoriously claimed that half the world had yet to place a phone call.  [^[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shirky | Clay Shirky]], [[http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html | Half the World]], June 30, 2002^] That was probably not true even then, but the number of phoneless world citizens might still be as high as 25% as of 2010.  In places like southern Somalia, a satellite TV broadcast of a soccer game in Europe is more likely to be seen in a movie theater than at home. People there can afford some recreational "access to space" in some expanded sense, though it will be only occasional, temporary, shared, one-way, and indirect.

Although [[Project Persephone]] will help make comsat-mediated access cheaper, at least as a side benefit of promoting space development in general, that's not the Project's main direction. Wherever terrestrial communications options are cheaper than orbital ones, it will use them. Communicating ''through'' a piece of equipment in orbit will not, in itself, promote space development very much. For one thing, cheaper terrestrial substitutes continue to make inroads on the communications market. For another, improvements in comsat technology are reducing the amount of electronics to be orbited, which (all other things being equal) reduces launch demand and therefore helps to keep launch costs high.

However, orbital space tourism is a relatively low-volume niche market at the moment, with uncertain prospects. It currently depends on transportation and accommodation shared among space-faring super-powers with sometimes-difficult relations. CATS must be enabled by some new market that increases launch demand significantly. Project Persephone aims to explore the recreational possibilities that orbit might offer to "the rest of us" who are earthbound, as well as what sort of economic opportunities those recreations could open up for people in the developing world.

Although [[Project Persephone]] will help make comsat-mediated access cheaper, at least as a side benefit of promoting space development in general, that's not the Project's main direction. Wherever terrestrial communications options are cheaper than orbital ones, it will use them. Communicating ''through'' a piece of equipment in orbit will not, in itself, promote space development very much. Cheaper terrestrial substitutes continue to make inroads on the communications market, for one thing. For another, improvements in comsat technology are reducing the amount of electronics to be orbited, which (all other things being equal) reduces launch demand and therefore helps to keep launch costs high.

However, orbital space tourism is a relatively low-volume niche market at the moment, with uncertain prospects, and not least because it currently depends on transportation and accommodation shared among space-faring super-powers with sometimes-difficult relations. CATS must be enabled by some new market that increases launch demand significantly. Project Persephone aims to explore what sort of recreational possibilities orbit might offer those on the ground, and what sort of business opportunities those recreations might open up for people in developing nations.

Consider what might be called "U-Turn Space Access" -- [[satellite communications | communications satellite]].  Is a satellite TV dish antenna providing "access to space"?  Yes, albeit one-way and indirectly.  It provides access, through space (as a communications medium), to a resource in space: the satellite.  What about a long-distance call that goes through a satellite link?  Insofar as it actually causes something to happen (however briefly) in the satellite itself, and must provide real-time (two-way) response, it's somewhat more direct.  But it's also more expensive because of that.

Since [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Tito | Dennis Tito]]'s landmark voyage to [[ISS]] on a Soyuz in 2001, [[orbital space tourism]] has stoked hopes for a significant recreational market for orbital adventures. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anousheh_Ansari | Anousheh Ansari]]'s major contribution to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari_X_Prize | X Prize]] purse pushed the idea of [[suborbital space tourism]] toward realization. For the foreseeable future, however, such recreations will not be affordable for any but the richest citizens of developed nations. The prospects for the less wealthy to get a chance to work in space, to cover the costs of transportation to orbit and a life in flight, are hardly better.  Progress in space robotics (both [[telebots | teleoperated]] and autonomous) might even mean that opportunities for astronautical and mission-specialist careers will begin to dwindle. If economies of scale are the solution to high launch costs, the problem of how to get higher scale is not likely to be solved by sending more people.

[[Project Persephone]] aims to bring the benefits of space development -- and especially the benefits of personal involvement in it -- to more people, particularly to people in some of the poorer places in the world. Space access that costs less per person benefited can help.

[[Project Persephone]] aims to bring the benefits of space development -- and especially the benefits of personal involvement in it -- to more people, particularly to people in some of the poorer places in the world. Making space access less expensive per person can help.

Geosynchronous orbital slots probably come closest to our ordinary sense of a "place" beyond Earth, short of going to a planet. Such slots are akin to property, as they are directly above places on Earth, and have legal assignees. If the area around the equator can be considered a single (circular) "place", low equatorial orbits might also be considered "places in space", since spacecraft in those orbits fly over that terrestrial band.

If you define "access" as going to space, or putting things there, ''cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal. Some launches look cheap, but looks can deceive. A German satellite, KOMPAS-2, was launched for a few hundred dollars per pound, from a Russian submarine[^[[http://www.skyrocket.de/ | Gunter Krebs]], [[http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm | "Kompas (Compass)"]]^],[^[[http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm | "Shtil Launch Vehicle"]], [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/ | GlobalSecurity.org]]^], perhaps setting the record for low launch costs. However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to [[LEO]] are more typical.[^[[http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pd | "Changing the low-cost launch game"]], AIAA, Feb 2005^] The Space Shuttle designers promised $200/lb to orbit in the 1970s. In the end, the now-retired Shuttle was hardly competitive in this respect, orbiting payloads at around $5,000/lb.[^[[http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf | Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002]]^] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX | SpaceX]] might push launch costs to the neighborhood of $1000/lb. So far, however, nobody has demonstrated costs that low.

In the longer run, however, enhancing the benefits of space access, and particularly increasing the benefits of personal involvement, will depend on making physical access cheaper. This will almost certainly require a fairly dramatic increase in the demand for such access -- i.e., making space launch cheaper through economies of scale, both in vehicle/payload manufacturing and in launch operations. Rocket launch is not something that can divided so finely, however. Each launch is an event, and often a big one. It has been repeatedly argued, in fact, that bigger is better, at least for rocket launch.[^See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, [[http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/When%20Physics%20Economics%20and%20Reality%20Collide.pdf | "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access]]", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005)^]

Space is different things to different people. A cosmologist might look to the furthest reaches, 40 billion light years or more: perhaps only the most powerful telescope would be adequate "access to space" for that purpose. Suborbital [[space tourism]] sets the altitude bar relatively low: flying up high enough to get a few minutes of weightlessness and black sky, perhaps around 100km. In the early years of concerns about global [[sustainability]], people like Buckminster Fuller and Barbara Ward pointed out that we're already astronauts, and already in space -- we're "crewmembers" on [[Spaceship Earth]]. In that sense, our distance to space is already zero.

Many people see space, once reached, as a kind of freeway -- once you're there, it doesn't take much time or effort to get elsewhere. But space actually has its own problems of "how to get there from here". A launch to geosynchronous equatorial orbit ([[GEO]]) costs up to twice as much as a launch to [[LEO]]. Counterintuitive "long-way-around" orbital dynamics means that if you want to [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination_change | change orbital planes]], but still stay at the same altitude, it makes sense to first go further up, then change direction, then fly back down (which, also somewhat counterintuitively, means expending as much energy as used on the way up.)

Enhancing the benefits of space access in the long run, however, and particularly increasing the benefits of personal involvement, will depend on making physical access cheaper. This will almost certainly require a fairly dramatic increase in the demand for such access -- i.e., making space launch cheaper through economies of scale, both in vehicle/payload manufacturing and in launch operations. Rocket launch is not something that can divided so finely, however. Each launch is an event, and often a big one. It has been repeatedly argued, in fact, that bigger is better, at least for rocket launch.[^See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, [[http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/When%20Physics%20Economics%20and%20Reality%20Collide.pdf | "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access]]", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005)^]

Geosynchronous orbital slots probably come closest to our ordinary sense of a "place" beyond Earth, short of going to a planet. They are akin to property, they are directly above places on Earth.

Space is different things to different people. A cosmologist might look to the furthest reaches, 40 billion light years or more: perhaps only the most powerful telescope would be adequate "access to space" for that purpose. Suborbital [[space tourism]] sets the altitude bar fairly low: flying up high enough to get a few minutes of weightlessness and black sky, perhaps around 100km. In the early years of the environmental movement, many pointed out that we're already astronauts, and already in space -- we're "crewmembers" on [[Spaceship Earth]]. In that sense, our distance to space is already zero.

Consider a broad definition of "access" that includes access to benefits -- even for beneficiaries who don't necessarily realize that the benefits are coming from orbit. One way to reduce space access costs per person (a very indirect way, and not personally very involving for most beneficiaries) is to divide these conventional benefits more finely and distribute them more widely -- as is often the case for [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_sensing | remote sensing]] missions. There is a Project Persephone effort that follows this strategy, specifically by first focusing on the humanitarian benefits of remote-sensing satellites in low equatorial orbits, potentially yielding lessons for the design of satellite missions in other orbits. This effort is very much in line with the Project's goal of [[meeting the SPEC]].

Space is different things to different people. A cosmologist might look to the furthest reaches, 40 billion light years or more: perhaps only the most powerful telescope would be adequate "access to space" for that purpose. Suborbital [[space tourism]] sets the altitude bar fairly low: getting up high enough to get a few minutes of [[microgravity]] and black sky, perhaps around 100km. In the early years of the environmental movement, many pointed out that we're already astronauts, and already in space: we're "crewmembers" on [[Spaceship Earth]]. In that sense, our distance to space is already zero.

Space is different things to different people. A cosmologist looks to the furthest reaches: perhaps only the most powerful telescope would be adequate "access to space." Suborbital [[space tourism]] sets the bar fairly low: getting up high enough to get a few minutes of [[microgravity]] and black sky. In the early years of the environmental movement, many pointed out that we're already astronauts, and already in space: we're "crewmembers" on [[Spaceship Earth]].

Consider a broad definition of "access" that includes access to benefits -- even for beneficiaries who don't realize that the benefits are coming from orbit. One way to reduce space access costs per person (a very indirect way, and not personally very involving for most beneficiaries) is to divide these conventional benefits more finely and distribute them more widely -- as is often the case for [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_sensing | remote sensing]] missions. There is a Project Persephone effort that follows this strategy, specifically by first focusing on the humanitarian benefits of remote-sensing satellites in low equatorial orbits, potentially yielding lessons for the design of satellite  missions in other orbits. This effort is very much in line with the Project's goal of [[meeting the SPEC]].

If you define "access" as going to space, or putting things there, ''cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal. Some launches look cheap, but looks can deceive. A German satellite, KOMPAS-2, was launched for a few hundred dollars per pound, from a Russian submarine[^[[http://www.skyrocket.de/ | Gunter Krebs]], [[http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm | "Kompas (Compass)"]]^],[^[[http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm | "Shtil Launch Vehicle"]], [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/ | GlobalSecurity.org]]^], perhaps setting the record for low launch costs. However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to [[LEO]] are more typical.[^[[http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pd | "Changing the low-cost launch game"]], AIAA, Feb 2005^] The Space Shuttle designers promised $200/lb to orbit in the 1970s. In the end, the now-retired Shuttle was hardly competitive in this respect, orbiting payloads at around $5,000/lb.[^[[http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf | Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002]]^] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX | SpaceX]] might push launch costs to the neighborhood of $1000/lb. So far, however, nobody has demonstrated costs in that low.

One way to reduce space access costs per person (a very indirect way, and not personally very involving for most beneficiaries) is to divide the conventional benefits more finely and distribute them more widely. There is a Project Persephone effort that follows this strategy, specifically by first focusing on the humanitarian benefits of  satellites for remote-sensing and emergency communications in low equatorial orbits, then taking the lessons learned from those missions and applying them to the design of satellites with similar missions in other orbits. This effort is very much in line with the Project's goal of [[meeting the SPEC]].

Since [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Tito | Dennis Tito]]'s landmark voyage to [[ISS]] on a Soyuz in 2001, [[orbital space tourism]] has stoked hopes for a significant recreational market for orbital adventures. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anousheh_Ansari | Anousheh Ansari]]'s major contribution to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari_X_Prize | X Prize]] purse pushed the idea of [[suborbital space tourism]] toward realization. For the foreseeable future, however, such recreations will not be affordable for any but the richest citizens of developed nations. The prospects for the less wealthy to get a chance to work in space, to cover the costs of transportation to orbit and a life in flight, are hardly better.  Progress in space robotics (both [[telebots | teleoperated]] and autonomous) might even mean that opportunities for astronautical and mission-specialist careers will begin to dwindle. If economies of scale are the solution, the problem of how to get scale in the near future is not likely to be solved by sending more people.

If you define "access" as going to space, or putting things there, ''cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal. Some launches look cheap, but looks can deceive. A German satellite, KOMPAS-2, was launched for a few hundred dollars per pound, from a Russian submarine[^[[http://www.skyrocket.de/ | Gunter Krebs]], [[http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm | "Kompas (Compass)"]]^],[^[[http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm | "Shtil Launch Vehicle"]], [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/ | GlobalSecurity.org]]^], perhaps setting the record for low launch costs. However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to [[LEO]] are more typical.[^[[http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pd | "Changing the low-cost launch game"]], AIAA, Feb 2005^] The Space Shuttle designers promised $200/lb to orbit in the 1970s. In the end, the now-retired Shuttle was hardly competitive in this respect, orbiting payloads at around $10,000/lb.[^[[http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf | Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002]]^] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX | SpaceX]] might push launch costs to the neighborhood of $1000/lb. So far, however, nobody has demonstrated costs in that low.

One way to reduce space access costs per person (very indirect, and not personally very involving for most beneficiaries) is to divide the conventional benefits more finely and distribute them more widely. There is a Project Persephone effort that follows this strategy, specifically by first focusing on the humanitarian benefits of  satellites for remote-sensing and communications in low equatorial orbits, then seeing if the lessons learned from those missions might extend to the design of satellites with similar missions in other orbits. This effort is very much in line with the Project's goal of [[meeting the SPEC]].

[[Project Persephone]] aims to bring the benefits of space development to more people, particularly to people in some of the poorer places in the world. Making space access cheaper per person can help. One way to reduce space access costs (a very indirect way) is to divide the conventional benefits more finely and distribute them more widely. There is a Project Persephone effort that follows this strategy, specifically by first focusing on the humanitarian benefits of  satellites for remote-sensing and communications in low equatorial orbits, then seeing if the lessons learned from those missions might extend to the design of satellites with similar missions in other orbits. This effort is very much in line with the Project's goal of [[meeting the SPEC]].

Enhancing the benefits of space access in the long run, however, will depend on making physical access cheaper. This will almost certainly require a fairly dramatic increase in the demand for physical access -- i.e., making space launch cheaper through economies of scale, both in vehicle/payload manufacturing and in launch operations. Rocket launch is not something that can divided so finely, however. It has been repeatedly argued, in fact, that bigger is better, at least for rocket launch.[^See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, [[http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/When%20Physics%20Economics%20and%20Reality%20Collide.pdf | "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access]]", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005)^]

Space is different things to different people. A cosmologist looks to the furthest reaches. Suborbital [[space tourism]] sets the bar fairly low: a few minutes of microgravity and black sky. In the early years of the environmental movement, many pointed out that we're already there: we're "crewmembers" on [[Spaceship Earth]].

[[Project Persephone]] aims to bring the benefits of space development to more people, particularly to people in some of the poorer places in the world. Making space access cheaper per person can help. One way to reduce space access costs is to divide the conventional benefits more finely and distribute them more widely. There is a Project Persephone effort that follows this strategy, specifically by first focusing on the humanitarian benefits of  satellites for remote-sensing and communications in low equatorial orbits, then seeing if the lessons learned from those missions might extend to the design of satellites with similar missions in other orbits. This effort is very much in line with the Project's goal of [[meeting the SPEC]].

[[Project Persephone]] aims to bring the benefits of space development to more people, particularly to people in some of the poorer places in the world. Making space access cheaper per person can help. One way to do this is to divide the conventional benefits more finely and distribute them more widely. There is a Project Persephone effort that follows this strategy, specifically by first focusing on the humanitarian benefits of  satellites for remote-sensing and communications in low equatorial orbits, then seeing if the lessons learned from those missions might extend to the design of satellites with similar missions in other orbits. This effort is very much in line with the Project's goal of [[meeting the SPEC]].

"Cheap" is clearly relative to one's purchasing power. A billionaire might not blink at a price of $20 million for [[orbital tourism]], perhaps considering the time spent in astronaut training to be the true expense. However, with a more flexible definition of "access", certain kinds of access are already affordable even for the very poor, though they might still consider it expensive in their own terms.

[[Project Persephone]] aims to bring the benefits of space development to more people, particularly to people in some of the poorer places in the world. Making space access cheaper per person can help. One way to do this is to divide the conventional benefits more finely and distribute them more widely. There is a Project Persephone effort taking that approach, specifically by first focusing on the humanitarian benefits of  satellites for remote-sensing and communications in low equatorial orbits, to see if the lessons learned from those missions might extend to the design of satellites with similar missions, in other orbits.

Enhancing the benefits of space access in the long run, however, will depend on making physical access cheaper. This will almost certainly require an increase in the demand for physical access -- i.e., making space launch cheaper through economies of scale, both in vehicle/payload manufacturing and in launch operations. Rocket launch is not something that can divided so finely, however. It has been repeatedly argued, in fact, that bigger is better, at least for rocket launch.[^See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, [[http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/When%20Physics%20Economics%20and%20Reality%20Collide.pdf | "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access]]", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005)^]

[[Project Persephone]] aims to bring the benefits of space development to more people, particularly to people in some of the poorer places in the world. Making space access cheaper per person can help. One way to do this is to divide the conventional benefits more finely and distribute them more widely. There is a Project Persephone effort taking that approach, specifically by first concentrating somewhat narrowly on the humanitarian benefits of remote-sensing and communications satellites in [[LEO | low Earth orbit]] around the equator, to see if the lessons learned from those missions might extend to the design of satellites with similar missions, in other orbits.

If you define "access" as going to space, or putting things there, ''cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal. Some launches look cheap, but looks can deceive. A German satellite, KOMPAS-2, was launched for a few hundred dollars per pound, from a Russian submarine[^[[http://www.skyrocket.de/ | Gunter Krebs]], [[http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm | "Kompas (Compass)"]]^],[^[[http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm | "Shtil Launch Vehicle"]], [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/ | GlobalSecurity.org]]^], perhaps setting the record for low launch costs. However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to [[LEO]] are more typical.[^[[http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pd | "Changing the low-cost launch game"]], AIAA, Feb 2005^] The Space Shuttle designers promised $200/lb to orbit in the 1970s. In the end, the now-retired Shuttle was hardly competitive in this respect, orbiting payloads at around $10,000/lb.[^[[http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf | Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002]]^] [[SpaceX]] might push launch costs to the neighborhood of $1000/lb. So far, however, nobody has demonstrated costs in this range.

Enhancing the benefits of space access in the long run, however, will depend on making physical access cheaper. This will almost certainly require an increase in the demand for physical access -- i.e., making space launch cheaper through economies of scale, both in vehicle/payload manufacturing and in launch operations. Rocket launch is not something that can divided so finely, however. It has been repeatedly argued,in fact, that bigger is better, at least for rocket launch.[^See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, [[http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/When%20Physics%20Economics%20and%20Reality%20Collide.pdf | "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access]]", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005)^]

Most users of comsat services consider them reasonably priced.  However, that's because those users can (by definition) afford them.  Even if one considers satellite communications a kind of "access to space", it is not cheap for the world's poor.  In 1994, MCI executive [=Greg LeVert=] once said that half the world had yet to place a phone call.  [^[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shirky | Clay Shirky]], [[http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html | Half the World]], June 30, 2002^]  That's probably not true anymore (assuming it was true even then), but the number of phoneless world citizens might still be as high as 25% as of 2010.  In a place like southern Somalia, a satellite broadcast of a soccer game taking place in Europe is more likely to be seen in a movie theater than at home. People there can afford some "access to space" in an expansive sense, though it will be only occasional, temporary, shared, one-way, and indirect.

Most users of comsat services consider them reasonably priced.  However, that's because those users can (by definition) afford them.  Even if one considers satellite communications a kind of "access to space", it is not cheap for the world's poor.  In 1994, MCI executive Greg LeVert said that half the world had yet to place a phone call.  [^[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shirky | Clay Shirky]], [[http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html | Half the World]], June 30, 2002^]  That's probably not true anymore (assuming it was true even then), but the number of phoneless world citizens might still be as high as 25% as of 2010.  In a place like southern Somalia, a satellite broadcast of a soccer game taking place in Europe is more likely to be seen in a movie theater than at home. People there can afford some "access to space" in an expansive sense, though it will be only occasional, temporary, shared, one-way, and indirect.

[[Project Persephone]] aims to bring the benefits of space development to more people, particularly people in some of the poorer places in the world. Making space access cheaper per person can help. One way to do this is to divide the conventional benefits more finely and distribute them more widely. There is a Project Persephone effort taking that approach, specifically by first concentrating somewhat narrowly on the humanitarian benefits of remote-sensing and communications satellites in [[LEO | low Earth orbit]] around the equator, to see if the lessons learned from those missions might extend to the design of satellites with similar missions, in other orbits.

Since [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Tito | Dennis Tito]]'s landmark voyage to [[ISS]] on a Soyuz in 2001, [[orbital space tourism]] has stoked hopes for a significant recreational market for orbital adventures. [[Anousheh Ansari]]'s major contribution to the [[X Prize]] purse pushed the idea of [[suborbital space tourism]] toward realization. For the foreseeable future, however, such recreations will not be affordable for any but the richest citizens of developed nations. The prospects for the less wealthy to get a chance to work in space, to cover the costs of transportation to orbit and a life in flight, are hardly better.  Progress in space robotics (both [[telebots | teleoperated]] and autonomous) might even mean that opportunities for astronautical and mission-specialist careers will begin to dwindle. If economies of scale are the solution, the problem of how to get scale is not likely to be solved by sending more people.

If you define "access" as going to space, or putting things there, ''cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal. Some launches look cheap, but looks can deceive. A German satellite, KOMPAS-2, was launched for a few hundred dollars per pound, from a Russian submarine[^[[http://www.skyrocket.de/ | Gunter Krebs]], [[http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm | "Kompas (Compass)"]]^],[^[[http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm | "Shtil Launch Vehicle"]], [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/ | GlobalSecurity.org]]^], perhaps setting the record for low launch costs. However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to [[LEO]] are more typical.[^[[http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pd | "Changing the low-cost launch game"]], AIAA, Feb 2005^] The Space Shuttle designers promised $200/lb to orbit in the 1970s. In the end, the now-retired Shuttle was hardly competitive in this respect, orbiting payloads at around $10,000/lb.[^[[http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf | Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002]]^] [[SpaceX]] might push launch costs to the neighborhood of $1000/lb. So far, however, nobody has demonstrate costs in this range, much less the much lower price range once promised for the Shuttle.

If you define "access" as going to space, or putting things there, ''cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal. Some launches look cheap, but looks can deceive. A German satellite, KOMPAS-2, was launched for a few hundred dollars per pound, from a Russian submarine[^[[http://www.skyrocket.de/ | Gunter Krebs]], [[http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm | "Kompas (Compass)"]]^],[^[[http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm | "Shtil Launch Vehicle"]], [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/ | GlobalSecurity.org]]^], perhaps setting the record for low launch costs. However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to [[LEO]] are more typical.[^[[http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pd | "Changing the low-cost launch game"]], AIAA, Feb 2005^] The Space Shuttle designers promised $200/lb to orbit in the 1970s. In the end, the now-retired Shuttle was hardly competitive in this respect, orbiting payloads at around $10,000/lb.[^[[http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf | Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002]]^] [[SpaceX]] might push launch costs to the neighborhood of $1000/lb. So far, however, nobody has demonstrate costs in this range, much less what was promised with the Shuttle.

Since [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Tito | Dennis Tito]]'s landmark voyage to [ISS]] on a Soyuz in 2001, [[orbital space tourism]] has stoked hopes for a significant recreational market for orbital adventures. [[Anousheh Ansari]]'s major contribution to the [[X Prize]] purse pushed the idea of [[suborbital space tourism]] toward realization. For the foreseeable future, however, such recreations will not be affordable for any but the richest citizens of developed nations. The prospects for the less wealthy to get a chance to work in space, to cover transportation and housing costs, are hardly better.  Progress in space robotics (both [[telebots | teleoperated]] and autonomous) might even mean that opportunities for astronautical and mission-specialist careers will begin to dwindle.

The CATS challenge is not to make going to space cheap, but rather to make space ''more'' accessible, ''more'' affordable, to produce more value, for more people, for the large amount of money spent.

If you define "access" as going to space, or putting things there, ''cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal. Some launches look cheap, but looks can deceive. A German satellite, KOMPAS-2, was launched for a few hundred dollars per pound, from a Russian submarine[^[[http://www.skyrocket.de/ | Gunter Krebs]], [[http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm | "Kompas (Compass)"]]^],[^[[http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm | "Shtil Launch Vehicle"]], [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/ | GlobalSecurity.org]]^], perhaps setting the record for low launch costs. However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to [[LEO]] are more typical.[^[[http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pd | "Changing the low-cost launch game"]], AIAA, Feb 2005^] The Space Shuttle designers promised $200/lb to orbit in the 1970s. In the end, the now-retired Shuttle was hardly competitive in this respect, orbiting payloads at around $10,000/lb.[^[[http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf | Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002]]^]

%lfloat% http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Mark-shuttleworth-iss-thinkpad-big.jpg/120px-Mark-shuttleworth-iss-thinkpad-big.jpg
Since [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Tito | Dennis Tito]]'s landmark voyage to [ISS]] on a Soyuz in 2001, [[orbital space tourism]] has stoked hopes for a significant recreational market for space travel. For the foreseeable future, however, such recreations  will not be affordable for any but the richest citizens of developed nations. The prospects for the less wealthy to get a chance to work in space, to cover transportation and housing costs, are hardly better.  Progress in space robotics (both [[telebots | teleoperated]] and autonomous) might even mean that opportunities for astronautical and mission-specialist careers will begin to dwindle.

For the foreseeable future, recreational space travel will not be affordable for any but the richest citizens of developed nations. The prospects for the less wealthy to get a chance to work in space, to cover transportation and housing costs, are hardly better.  Progress in space robotics (both [[telebots | teleoperated]] and autonomous) might even mean that opportunities for astronautical and mission-specialist careers will dwindle.

Enhancing the benefits of space access in the long run, however, will depend on making physical access cheaper. This will almost certainly require an increase in the demand for physical access -- i.e., cheaper space launch through economies of scale in vehicle/payload manufacturing and in launch operations. Rocket launch is not something that can divided so finely, however. It has been repeatedly argued that bigger is better, at least for rocket launch.[^See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, [[http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/When%20Physics%20Economics%20and%20Reality%20Collide.pdf | "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access]]", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005)^]

[[Project Persephone]] aims to bring the benefits of space development to more people, particularly people in some of the poorer places in the world. Making space access cheaper per person can help. One way to do this is to divide the conventional benefits more finely and distribute them more widely. There is a Project Persephone effort taking that approach, specifically by first concentrating somewhat narrowly on the humanitarian benefits of remote-sensing and communications satellites in [[LEO | low Earth orbit]] around the equator, to see if the lessons learned from those missions might extent to the design of similar satellites in other orbits.

Making space access cheaper in the long run, however, will depend on making physical access cheaper. This will almost certainly require an increase in the demand for physical access -- i.e., cheaper space launch through economies of scale in vehicle/payload manufacturing and in launch operations. Rocket launch is not something that can divided so finely, however. It has been repeatedly argued that bigger is better, at least for rocket launch.[^John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, [[http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/When%20Physics%20Economics%20and%20Reality%20Collide.pdf | "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access]]", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005)^]

!!! And what counts as "access"?

Making space access cheaper in the long run, however, will depend on making physical access cheaper. This will almost certainly require an increase in the demand for physical access -- i.e., cheaper space launch through economies of scale in manufacturing and launch operations. Rocket launch is not something that can divided so finely, however. It has been repeatedly argued that bigger is better, at least for rocket launch.[^John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, [[http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/When%20Physics%20Economics%20and%20Reality%20Collide.pdf | "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access]]", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005)^]

Making space access cheaper in the long run, however, will depend on making physical access cheaper. This will almost certainly require an increase in the demand for physical access to space -- i.e., cheaper space launch through economies of scale in manufacturing and launch operations. Rocket launch is not something that can divided so finely, however. It has been repeatedly argued that bigger is better, at least for rocket launch.[^John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, [[http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/When%20Physics%20Economics%20and%20Reality%20Collide.pdf | "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access]]", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005)^]

[[Project Persephone]] aims to bring the benefits of space development to more people, particularly people in some of the poorer places in the world. Making space access cheaper per person can help. One way to do this is to divide the existing benefits more finely and distribute them more widely. There is a Project Persephone effort taking that approach, specifically by first concentrating a little narrowly on the humanitarian benefits of remote-sensing and communications satellites in [[LEO | low Earth orbit]] around the equator, and then extending the lessons learned from those missions to other orbits.

Making space access cheaper in the long run, however, will depend on making physical access cheaper. This probably depends on increasing the demand for physical access to space -- cheaper space launch. Space launch is not something that can divided so finely. There are persuasive arguments, in fact, that bigger is better, at least for conventional rocket launch.[^John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, [[http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/When%20Physics%20Economics%20and%20Reality%20Collide.pdf | "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access]]", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005)^]

If you define "access" as going to space, or putting things there, ''cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal. Some launches look cheap, but looks can deceive. A German satellite, KOMPAS-2, was launched for a few hundred dollars per pound, from a Russian submarine.[^[[http://www.skyrocket.de/ | Gunter Krebs]], [[http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm | "Kompas (Compass)"]]^][^[[http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm | "Shtil Launch Vehicle"]], [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/ | GlobalSecurity.org]]^], perhaps setting the record for low launch costs. However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to [[LEO]] are more typical.[^[[http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pd | "Changing the low-cost launch game"]], AIAA, Feb 2005^] The Space Shuttle designers promised $200/lb to orbit in the 1970s. In the end, the now-retired Shuttle was hardly competitive in this respect, orbiting payloads at around $10,000/lb.[^[[http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf | Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002]]^]

If you define "access" as going to space, or putting things there, ''cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal. Perhaps setting the record for low launch costs, a German satellite, KOMPAS-2, was launched for a few hundred dollars per pound, from a Russian submarine.[^[[http://www.skyrocket.de/ | Gunter Krebs]], [[http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm | "Kompas (Compass)"]]^][^[[http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm | "Shtil Launch Vehicle"]], [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/ | GlobalSecurity.org]]^] However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to [[LEO]] are more typical.[^[[http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pd | "Changing the low-cost launch game"]], AIAA, Feb 2005^]

Making space access cheaper in the long run, however, will depend on making physical access cheaper. This probably depends on increasing the demand for physical access to space -- cheaper space launch. Space launch is not something that can divided so finely. There are persuasive arguments, in fact, that bigger is better, at least for conventional rocket launch.[^John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, [[http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/When%20Physics%20Economics%20and%20Reality%20Collide.pdf | "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access]]", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics^]

Making space access cheaper in the long run, however, will depend on making physical access cheaper. This probably depends on increasing the demand for physical access to space -- cheaper space launch. Space launch is not something that can divided so finely. There are persuasive arguments, in fact, that bigger is better, at least for conventional rocket launch.

[[Project Persephone]] aims to bring the benefits of space development to more people, particularly people in developing nations. Making space access cheaper per person can help. One way to do this is to divide the existing benefits more finely and distribute them more widely. Making space access cheaper in the long run, however, will depend on making physical access cheaper. This probably depends on increasing the demand for physical access to space -- cheaper space launch. This is not something that can divided so finely. There are persuasive arguments, in fact, that bigger is better, at least for conventional rocket launch.

Most users of comsat services consider them reasonably priced.  However, that's because those users can (by definition) afford them.  Even if one considers satellite communications a kind of "access to space", it is not cheap for the world's poor.  In 1994, MCI executive Greg LeVert said that half the world had yet to place a phone call.  [^http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html^]  That's probably not true anymore (assuming it was true even then), but the number of phoneless world citizens might still be as high as 25% as of 2010.  In a place like southern Somalia, a satellite broadcast of a soccer game taking place in Europe is more likely to be seen in a movie theater than at home. People there can afford some "access to space" in an expansive sense, though it will be only occasional, temporary, shared, one-way, and indirect.

If you define "access" as going to space, or putting things there, ''cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal. Perhaps setting the record for low launch costs, a German satellite, KOMPAS-2, was launched for a few hundred dollars per pound, from a Russian submarine.[^Gunter Krebs, [[http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm | "Kompas (Compass)"]]^][^[[http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm | "Shtil Launch Vehicle"]], [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/ | GlobalSecurity.org]]^] However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to [[LEO]] are more typical.[^[[http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pd | "Changing the low-cost launch game"]], AIAA, Feb 2005^]

If you define "access" as going to space, or putting things there, ''cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal. Perhaps setting the record for low launch costs, a German satellite, KOMPAS-2, was launched for a few hundred dollars per pound, from a Russian submarine.[^"Kompas (Compass)", http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm^][^[[http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm | "Shtil Launch Vehicle", [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/ | GlobalSecurity.org]]^] However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to [[LEO]] are more typical.[^[[http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pd | "Changing the low-cost launch game"]], AIAA, Feb 2005^]

If you define "access" as going to space, or putting things there, ''cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal. Perhaps setting the record for low launch costs, a German satellite, KOMPAS-2, was launched for a few hundred dollars per pound, from a Russian submarine.[^"Kompas (Compass)", http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm^][^http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm^] However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to [[LEO]] are more typical.[^[[http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pd | "Changing the low-cost launch game"]], AIAA, Feb 2005^]

Most users of comsat services consider them reasonably priced.  However, that's because those users can (by definition) afford them.  Even if one considers satellite communications a kind of "access to space", it is not cheap for the world's poor.  In 1994, MCI executive Greg LeVert said that half the world had yet to place a phone call.  [^http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html^]  That's probably not true anymore (assuming it was true even then), but it might still be as high as 25% as of 2010.  In a place like southern Somalia, a satellite broadcast of a soccer game taking place in Europe is more likely to be seen in a movie theater than at home.  People there can afford some "access to space" in an expansive sense, though it will be only occasional, temporary, shared, one-way, and indirect.

The main problem is how to sustain, and increase, the demand for putting things in space. Having wealthy customers for [[orbital space tourism]] right now is helpful.  It redistributes wealth in a way that sustains and promotes space development. If the market for such recreation develops, it should also help make it cheaper for other paying passengers coming along later, even if the more recent price trend has been upward.

Although [[Project Persephone]] will work to make comsat-mediated access cheaper, at least as a side benefit of promoting space development in general, that's not the Project's main direction.  Wherever terrestrial communications options are cheaper than orbital ones, it will use them.  Communicating ''through'' a piece of equipment in orbit will not, in itself, promote space development very much.  Cheaper terrestrial substitutes continue to make inroads on the communications market, for one thing. For another, improvements in comsat technology are reducing the amount of comsat equipment to be orbited, which (all other things being equal) reduces launch demand and therefore keeps launch costs high.

The main problem is how to sustain, and increase, the demand for putting things in space.  Having wealthy customers for [[orbital space tourism]] right now is helpful.  It redistributes wealth in a way that sustains and promotes space development.  If the market for such recreation develops, it should also help make it cheaper for other paying passengers coming along later, even if the more recent price trend has been upward.  However, orbital space tourism is a somewhat uncertain, relatively low-volume niche market at the moment, not least because it currently depends on transportation and accommodation shared among space-faring super-powers with sometimes-difficult relations.  CATS must be enabled by some new market that increases launch demand significantly.  Project Persephone aims to explore what sort of recreational possibilities orbit might offer those on the ground, and what sort of business opportunities those recreations might open up for people in developing nations.

"Cheap" is clearly relative to one's purchasing power. A billionaire might not blink at a price of $20 million for [[orbital tourism]], perhaps considering the time spent in astronaut training to be the true expense. However, with a more flexible definition of "access", certain kinds of access are affordable even for the very poor, though they might still consider it expensive in their own terms.

The CATS challenge is not to make goint to space cheap, but rather to make space ''more'' accessible, ''more'' affordable, to produce more value, for more people, for the large amount of money spent.

"Cheap" is clearly relative to one's purchasing power -- a billionaire might not blink at the ticket price for [[orbital tourism]], perhaps considering the time spent in training to be the true expense.  However, with a more flexible definition of "access", certain kinds of access are affordable even for the very poor, though they might still consider it expensive in their own terms.

"Cheap" is clearly relative to one's purchasing power -- a billionaire might not blink at the ticket price for orbit, thinking that the time spent in training was the true expense.  However, with a more flexible definition of "access", certain kinds of access are affordable even for the very poor, though they might consider it expensive in their terms.

Rather, the CATS challenge is to make space ''more'' accessible, ''more'' affordable, to produce more value, for more people, for the large amount of money spent.

If you define "access" as going to space, or putting things there, ''cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal. Perhaps setting the record for low launch costs, a German satellite, KOMPAS-2, was launched for a few hundred dollars per pound, from a Russian submarine.[^"Kompas (Compass)", http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm^][^http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm^] However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. $3,000-$5,000 per pound to [[LEO]] is more typical.[^"Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pdf^]

For the foreseeable future, going into space will probably not be affordable as a recreation even for citizens of developed nations. The prospects for working in space, to cover transportation and housing costs, might not be any better.  Progress in space robotics (both [[telebots | teleoperated]] and autonomous) will probably mean that opportunities for astronautical and mission-specialist careers will begin to dwindle.

For the foreseeable future, going into space will probably not be affordable as a recreation even for citizens of developed nations. The prospects for working in space, to cover transportation and housing costs, might not be any better.  Progress in space robotics (both [[telebots | teleoperated]] and autonomous) will probably means that opportunities for astronautical and mission-specialist careers will begin to dwindle.

If you define "access" as going to space, or putting things there, ''Cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal. Perhaps setting the record for low launch costs, a German satellite, KOMPAS-2, was launched for a few hundred dollars per pound, from a Russian submarine.[^"Kompas (Compass)", http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm^][^http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm^] However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. $3,000-$5,000 per pound to [[LEO]] is more typical.[^"Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pdf^]

"Cheap" is clearly relative to one's purchasing power -- a billionaire might not blink at the ticket price for orbit, and might consider that the time spent in training was the true expense.  However, with a more flexible definition of "access", certain kinds of access are affordable even for the very poor, though they might consider it expensive in their terms.

For the foreseeable future, going into space will probably not be affordable as a recreation even for citizens of developed nations. The prospects for working in space, to cover transportation and housing costs, might not be any better.  Progress in space robotics (both [[telebots | teleoperated]] and autonomous) will probably means that opportunities for astronautical and mission-specialist careers being to dwindle.

If you define "access" as going to space, or putting things there, ''Cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal. Perhaps setting the record for low launch costs, a German satellite, KOMPAS-2, was launched for about $500 per pound, from a Russian submarine.[^http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm^] $5,000 per pound is more typical.

For the foreseeable future, going into space will probably not be affordable as a recreation even for citizens of developed nations.  The prospects for working in space, to cover transportation and housing costs, might not be any better.  Progress in space robotics (both [[telebots | teleoperated]] and autonomous) will probably cause astronautical and mission-specialist careers to dwindle.

Although [[Project Persephone]] will work to make comsat-mediated access cheaper, at least as a side benefit of promoting space development in general, that's not the Project's main direction.  Wherever terrestrial communications options are cheaper than orbital ones, it will use them.  Communicating ''through'' a piece of equipment in orbit will not, in itself, promote space development very much.  Cheaper terrestrial substitutes continue to make inroads on the communications market, for one thing.  For another, improvements in comsat technology are reducing the amount of comsat equipment to be orbited, which (all other things being equal) reduces launch demand and therefore keeps launch costs high.

If you define "access" as going to space, or putting things there, ''Cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal. For the foreseeable future, going into space will probably not be affordable as a recreation even for citizens of developed nations.  The prospects for working in space, to cover transportation and housing costs, might not be any better.  Progress in space robotics (both [[telebots | teleoperated]] and autonomous) will probably cause astronautical and mission-specialist careers to dwindle.

If you define "access" as physical access, ''Cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal.  For the foreseeable future, going into space will probably not be affordable as a recreation even for citizens of developed nations.  The prospects for working in space, to cover transportation and housing costs, might not be any better.  Progress in space robotics (both [[telebots | teleoperated]] and autonomous) will probably cause astronautical and mission-specialist careers to dwindle.

Consider what might be called "U-Turn Space Access" -- satellite communications.  Is a satellite TV dish antenna providing "access to space"?  Yes, albeit one-way and indirectly.  It provides access, through space (as a communications medium), to a resource in space: the satellite.  What about a long-distance call that goes through a satellite link?  Insofar as it actually causes something to happen (however briefly) in the satellite itself, and must provide real-time (two-way) response, it's somewhat more direct.  But it's also more expensive because of that.

The problem is how to sustain, and increase, the demand for putting things in space.  Having wealthy customers for [[orbital space tourism]] right now is helpful.  It redistributes wealth in a way that sustains and promotes space development.  If the market for such recreation develops, should also help make it cheaper for other paying passengers coming along later, even if the more recent price trend has been upward.  However, orbital space tourism is a somewhat uncertain, relatively low-volume niche market for the foreseeable future, not least because it currently depends on government space transportation and accommodation shared among space-faring super-powers with sometimes-difficult relations.  CATS must be enabled by some new market that increases launch demand significantly.  Project Persephone aims to explore what sort of recreational possibilities orbit might offer those on the ground, and what sort of business opportunities those recreations might open up for people in developing nations.

If you define "access" as physical access, ''Cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal.  For the foreseeable future, going into space will probably never be affordable as a recreation even for citizens of developed nations.  The prospects for working in space, to cover transportation and housing costs, might not be any better.  Progress in robotics (both [[telebots | teleoperated]] and autonomous) will probably mean that astronautical and mission-specialist careers will, if anything, dwindle in significance.

''Cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal.  For most people on Earth, going into space will probably never be affordable as a recreation.  Progress in robotics (both [[telebots | teleoperated]] and autonomous) will probably mean that working in space to cover transportation and housing costs in space will be only for the very few (and very skilled) who must be actually be present.  Rather, the CATS challenge is to make space ''more'' accessible, ''more'' affordable, to produce more value, for more people, for the large amount of money spent.

"Cheap" is also relative to one's purchasing power.  Consider what might be called "U-Turn Space Access" -- satellite communications.  Is a satellite TV dish antenna providing "access to space"?  Yes, albeit one-way and indirectly.  It provides access, through space (as a communications medium), to a resource in space: the satellite.  What about a long-distance call that goes through a satellite link?  Insofar as it actually causes something to happen (however briefly) in the satellite itself, and must provide real-time (two-way) response, it's somewhat more direct.  But it's also more expensive because of that.

Most users of comsat services consider them pretty cheap.  However, that's because those users can (by definition) afford them.  Even if one considers satellite communications a kind of "access to space", it is not cheap for the world's poor.  In 1994, MCI executive Greg LeVert said that half the world had yet to place a phone call.  [^http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html^]  That's probably not true anymore (assuming it was true even then), but it might still be as high as 25% as of 2010.  In a place like southern Somalia, a satellite broadcast of a soccer game taking place in Europe is more likely to be seen in a movie theater than at home.  People there can usually afford only occasional, temporary, shared, one-way, indirect access to space.

Although [[Project Persephone]] will work to make this kind of comsat-mediated access cheaper, at least as a side benefit of promoting space development in general, that's not the Project's main direction.  Wherever terrestrial communications options are cheaper than orbital ones, it will use them.  Communicating ''through'' a piece of equipment in orbit will not, in itself, promote space development very much.  Cheaper terrestrial substitutes continue to make inroads on the communications market, for one thing.  For another, improvements in comsat technology are reducing the amount of comsat equipment to be orbited, which (all other things being equal) reduces launch demand and therefore keeps launch costs high.

The problem is how to sustain, and increase, the demand for putting things in space.  Having wealthy customers for [[orbital space tourism]] right now is helpful.  It redistributes wealth in a way that sustains and promotes space development.  If the market for such recreation develops, should also help make it cheaper for other paying passengers coming along later, even if the more recent price trend has been upward.  But orbital space tourism is a somewhat uncertain, relatively low-volume niche market for the foreseeable future, not least because it currently depends on government space transportation and accommodation shared among space-faring super-powers with difficult relations.  CATS can only be made possible by a new market that increases launch demand significantly.  Project Persephone aims to explore what sort of recreational possibilities orbit might offer those on the ground, and what sort of opportunities those possibilities open up for people in developing nations.

The problem is how to sustain, and increase, the demand for putting things in space.  Having wealthy customers for [[orbital space tourism]] right now is helpful.  It redistributes wealth in a way that sustains and promotes space development.  It should also help make it cheaper for other paying passengers coming along later, even if the more recent price trend has been upward.  But orbital space tourism is a somewhat uncertain, relatively low-volume niche market for the foreseeable future, not least because it currently depends on government space transportation and accommodation shared among space-faring super-powers with difficult relations.  CATS can only be made possible by a new market that increases launch demand significantly.

Most users of comsat services consider them pretty cheap.  However, that's because those users can (by definition) afford them.  Even if one considers satellite communications a kind of "access to space", it is not cheap for the world's poor.  In 1994, MCI executive Greg LeVert said that half the world had yet to place a phone call.  [^http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html^]  That's probably not true anymore (assuming it was true even then), but it might still be as high as 25% as of 2010.  In a places like southern Somalia, a satellite broadcast of a soccer game taking place in Europe is more likely to be seen in a movie theater than anywhere else.  They can usually afford only occasional, temporary, shared, one-way, indirect access to space.

The problem is how to sustain, and increase, the demand for putting things in space.  Having wealthy customers for [[orbital space tourism]] right now is helpful -- it redistributes wealth in a way that sustains and promotes space development, and helps make it cheaper for others coming along later.  But orbital space tourism is a somewhat uncertain, relatively low-volume niche market for the foreseeable future, not least because it currently depends on government space transportation and accommodation shared among space-faring super-powers with difficult relations.  CATS can only be made possible by a new market that increases launch demand significantly.

"Cheap" is also relative to one's purchasing power.  Consider what might be called "U-Turn Space Access" -- satellite communications.  Is a satellite TV dish antenna "access to space"?  Yes, albeit one-way and indirectly.  It provides access, through space, to an orbital resource.  What about a long-distance call that goes through a satellite link?  Insofar as it actually causes something to happen (however briefly) in the satellite itself, and must provide real-time response, it's somewhat more direct, but it's also more expensive because of that.

Most users of comsat services consider them pretty cheap.  However, that's because those users can afford them.  Even if one considers satellite communications a kind of "access to space", it is not cheap for the world's poor.  In 1994, MCI executive Greg LeVert said that half the world had yet to place a phone call.  [^http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html^]  That's probably not true anymore (assuming it was true even then), but it might still be as high as 25% as of 2010.  In a places like southern Somalia, a satellite broadcast of a soccer game taking place in Europe is more likely to be seen in a movie theater than anywhere else.  They can usually afford only occasional, temporary, shared, one-way, indirect access to space.

''Cheaper'' access would be a more realistic way to express the goal.  For most people on Earth, going into space will probably never be affordable as a recreation.  Progress in robotics (both [[telebots | teleoperated]] and autonomous) will probably mean that most people wouldn't be able to work to pay their passage.  The challenge is to make space ''more'' accessible, ''more'' affordable, to produce more value, for more people, for the large amount of money spent.

"Cheap" is also relative to one's purchasing power.  Consider what might be called "U-Turn Space Access" -- satellite communications.  Is a satellite TV dish antenna "access to space"?  Yes, indirectly: It provides access to an orbital resource, albeit one-way.  What about a long-distance call that goes through a satellite link?  That's also indirect, but it's still a kind of access.  And most users of these services consider them pretty cheap.

However, even considering satellite communications as "access to space" is not cheap for the world's poor.  In 1994, MCI executive Greg LeVert said that half the world had yet to place a phone call.  [^http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html^]  That's probably not true anymore (assuming it was true even then), but it might still be as high as 25%.  In a place like southern Somalia, a standard satellite TV dish is a shared resource for paying customers in a movie theater -- they can afford ony temporary, shared, one-way, indirect access to space.

Although [[Project Persephone]] will work to make this kind of comsat-mediate U-turn Access to Space more affordable, at least as a side benefit, that's not the Project's main direction.  In fact, wherever terrestrial communications options are cheaper than orbital ones, it will use them.  Communicating ''through'' a piece of equipment in orbit will not, in itself, promote space development very much.  Cheaper terrestrial substitutes continue to make inroads on the communications market, for one thing.  For another, improvements in comsat technology are reducing the amount of comsat equipment to be orbited, which (all other things being equal) reduces launch demand and therefore keeps launch costs high.

No, if anything, the problem is how to sustain, and increase, the demand for equipment in orbit.  Rich customers for [[orbital space tourism]] right now is good -- it redistributes wealth in a way that sustains and promotes space development, and helps make it cheaper for others coming along later.  But that's a somewhat uncertain niche market for the forseeable future, not least because it currently depends on government space transportation and accommodation shared among space-faring super-powers with difficult relations.

No, if anything, the problem is how to sustain, and increase, the demand for equipment in orbit.  Rich customers for [[orbital space tourism]] right now is good -- it redistributes wealth in a way that sustains and promotes space development, and helps make it cheaper for others coming along later.  But that's a somewhat uncertain niche market for the forseeable future, not least because it currently depends on government space transportation and acommodation shared among space-faring super-powers with difficult relations.

''Cheaper'' access would be a more realistic goal.  Direct tranportation to space will probably never be cheap.  The challenge is to make it more accessible, more affordable, to produce more value for more people, for the money spent.

"Cheap" is also relative to your purchasing power.  Consider what might be called "U-Turn Space Access" -- satellite communications.  Is a satellite TV dish antenna "access to space"?  Yes, in a way: It provides direct (albeit one-way, and relay-style) communication to an orbital resource.  How about a long-distance call that goes through a satellite link?  That's more indirect, but it's still access.  And most users of these services consider them pretty cheap.

However, even this kind of "'''ATS'''" is not "'''C'''", for the world's poor.  In 1994, MCI executive Greg LeVert said that half the world had yet to place a phone call.  [^http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html^]  That's probably not true anymore (assuming it was true even then), but it might still be as high as 25%.  In a place like southern Somalia, a standard satellite TV dish is a shared resource for paying customers in a movie theater -- they can only afford it temporarily, and as part of an audience.

Although [[Project Persephone]] will work to make that comsat-mediate U-turn Access to Space more affordable, at least as a side benefit, that's not the Project's main direction.  In fact, where terrestrial communications options are cheaper than orbital ones, it will use them.  Communicating ''through'' a piece of equipment in orbit will not, in itself, promote space development very much.  Cheaper terrestrial substitutes continue to make inroads, for one thing, and improvements in comsat technology are reducing the amount of equipment to be orbited, all other things being equal.

No, if anything, the problem is how to sustain, and increase, the demand for equipment in orbit.  Rich customers going on space adventures now is good -- it redistributes wealth in a way that sustains and promotes space development, and helps make it cheaper for others coming along later.  But that's a somewhat speculative niche market for the forseeable future, and it currently depends on government space transportation and housing.

However, even this kind of "'''ATS'''" is not "'''C'''", for the world's poor.  In 1994, MCI executive Greg LeVert said that half the world had yet to place a phone call.  [^http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html^]  That's probably not true anymore (assuming it was true even then), but it might still be as high as 25%.  A standard satellite TV dish is a shared resource for paying customers in a movie theater, in a place like southern Somalia.

Realistically, access to space will probably never be cheap.  The challenge is to make it more accessible.  Is a satellite TV dish antenna "access to space"?  How about a long-distance call that goes through a satellite link?  Even this kind of "'''ATS'''" is not "'''C'''", for the world's poor.  | In 1994, MCI executive Greg LeVert said that half the world had yet to place a phone call.[^http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html^]  That's probably not true anymore (assuming it was true even then), but it might still be as high as 25%.

Although [[Project Persephone]] will work to make that sort of electronic-U-turn Access To Space more affordable, at least as a side benefit, that's not the Project's main direction.  In fact, where terrestrial communications options are cheaper, it will use them.  Communicating ''through'' a piece of equipment in orbit will not, in itself, promote space development very much.  Cheaper terrestrial substitutes continue to make inroads, for one thing, and improvements in comsat technology are reducing the amount of equipment to be orbited, all other things being equal.

Realistically, access to space will probably never be cheap.  The challenge is to make it more accessible.  Is a satellite TV dish antenna "access to space"?  How about a long-distance call that goes through a satellite link?  Even this kind of "'''ATS'''" is not "'''C'''", for the world's poor.  [[http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html | In 1994, MCI executive Greg LeVert said that half the world had yet to place a phone call]].  That's probably not true anymore (assuming it was true even then), but it might still be as high as 25%.

-> Only some new, growing market will increase launch rates.  Higher launch rates are key to fostering the economies of scale (in production and operation) required to spur investment in lower-cost, higher-volume space launch infrastructure.  Orbital space tourism remains a recreation for the few who are motivated enough go through astronaut training, brave enough to take the trip, and rich enough to afford it.  It has been hosted so far only via governmental space programs (Russian manned launch, [ISS]].)  The market for [[suborbital flight]] looks promising, but remains somewhat speculative; if successful, it may whet appetites for orbital tourism, but the technologies involved for suborbital flight do not go far toward solving the much more difficult problem of low-cost ''orbital'' space access.  Something new is needed.  And it has to be popular.

Although [[Project Persephone]] will work to make that sort of communicative Access to Space more affordable, at least as a side benefit, that's not the Project's main direction.  In fact, where terrestrial communications options are cheaper, it will use them.  Communicating ''through'' a piece of equipment in orbit will not, in itself, promote space development very much.  Cheaper terrestrial substitutes continue to make inroads, for one thing, and improvements in comsat technology are reducing the amount of equipment to be orbited, all other things being equal.

Realistically, access to space will probably never be cheap.  The challenge is to make it more accessible.  Is a satellite TV dish antenna "access to space"?  How about a long-distance call that goes through a satellite link?  Even this kind of "'''ATS'''" is not "'''C'''", for the world's poor.  Someone once said, "half the world has yet to place a phone call."  That's probably not true anymore, but it might still be as high as one-third.

Realistically, access to space will probably never be cheap.  The challenge is to make it more accessible.  Is a satellite TV dish antenna "access to space"?  How about a long-distance call that goes through a satellite link?  Even this kind of "ATS" is not "C", for the world's poor.  Someone once said, "half the world has yet to place a phone call."  That's probably not true anymore, but it might still be as high as one-third.

Realistically, access to space will probably never be cheap.  The challenge is to make it more accessible.  Is a satellite TV dish antenna "access to space"?  How about a long-distance call that goes through a satellite link?  Even this kind of "ATS" is not "C", for the world's poor.

Although [[Project Persephone]] will work to make that sort of Access to Space more afforable, as a side benefit, that's not the Project's main direction.  In fact, where terrestrial options are cheaper, it will use them.  Communicating ''through'' a piece of equipment in orbit will not, in itself, promote space development very much.  Cheaper terrestrial substitutes continue to make inroads, for one thing, and improvements in comsat technology are reducing the amount of equipment to be orbited, all other things being equal.

No, if anything, the problem is how to sustain, and increase, the demand for equipment in orbit.  Rich customers going on space adventures is a good thing -- it redistributes wealth in a way that promotes space development.  But that's a somewhat speculative niche market for the forseeable future, and it currently depends on government space transportation and housing.

Realistically, access to space will probably never be cheap.  The challenge is to make it more accessible.  Is a satellite TV dish antenna "access to space"?  How about a long-distance call that goes through a satellite link?  Even this kind of ATS is not C, for the world's poor.

Although [[Project Persephone]] will work to make that sort of Access to Space more afforable, as a side benefit, that's not the Project's main direction.  Communicating ''through'' a piece of equipment in orbit will not, in itself, promote space development very much.  Cheaper terrestrial substitutes continue to make inroads.

No, if anything, the problem is how to sustain, and increase, demand for equipment in orbit.  Rich customers going on space adventures is a good thing -- it redistributes wealth in a way that promotes space development.  But that's a somewhat speculative niche market for the forseeable future, and it currently depends on government space transportation and housing.