PmWiki.CATS History
Hide minor edits - Show changes to markup
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.
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. The conceptual vehicle for these hopes: exovivaria.
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. 1 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.
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.2 That was probably not true even then, but the number of phoneless world citizens might still be as high as 25% as of 2010.3 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.
Although Project Persephone success would help make comsat-mediated "access to space" cheaper for the world's poor, at least as a side benefit of promoting space development in general, that's not the Project's main thrust. 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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
Consider what might be called "U-Turn Space Access" -- 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.
Consider what might be called "U-Turn Space Access" -- through a 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 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 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.
Since 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 very rich. 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 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. Space access that costs less per beneficiary 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.
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.
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.
Geosynchronous orbital slots probably come closest to our ordinary sense of a "place" beyond Earth, short of going to the Moon or another planet. Such slots are akin to property -- 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 only 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 submarine4,5, 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.6 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.7 SpaceX might push launch costs to the neighborhood of $1000/lb. So far, however, nobody has demonstrated costs that low.
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 appearances can deceive. A German satellite, KOMPAS-2, was launched for a few hundred dollars per pound, from a Russian submarine8,9, 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.10 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.11 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.12
In the longer run, however, more space access, and in particular more personal involvement in space, depends on making physical access cheaper. This will almost certainly require a dramatic increase in demand for such access -- i.e., making space launch cheaper through greater 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.13 And launches are to specific orbits for specific purposes - if the orbit doesn't match your needs, you might as well be sending the payload to a junkyard.
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.
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, perhaps around 100km, to experience a few minutes of weightlessness and black sky. 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 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.)
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 change orbital planes, but still end up at the same altitude, it can be more economical to first go further up, then change direction, then fly back down (which, also somewhat counterintuitively, means expending as much energy as was 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.14
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.15
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.
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.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Orbit.svg/240px-Orbit.svg.png 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 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.)
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.
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.
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 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.
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 remote sensing missions. There is a Project Persephone effort that follows this strategy, specifically with a focus on the humanitarian benefits of putting remote-sensing satellites into low equatorial orbits, which could potentially yield lessons for the design of similar 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Alcantara_Base_4.PNG/120px-Alcantara_Base_4.PNG
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 submarine16,17, 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.18 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.19 SpaceX might push launch costs to the neighborhood of $1000/lb. So far, however, nobody has demonstrated costs in that low.
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 submarine20,21, 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.22 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.23 SpaceX might push launch costs to the neighborhood of $1000/lb. So far, however, nobody has demonstrated costs that low.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Iss020e007312.jpg/120px-Iss020e007312.jpg
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.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Ekarma_-_Landsat_7.jpg/120px-Ekarma_-_Landsat_7.jpg 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 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.
Since 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 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.
Since 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 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.
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 submarine24,25, 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.26 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.27 SpaceX might push launch costs to the neighborhood of $1000/lb. So far, however, nobody has demonstrated costs in that low.
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 submarine28,29, 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.30 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.31 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.
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.
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.32
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.
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.
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.33
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.
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.
What counts as "space"?
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 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.
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.
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.
"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.
"Cheap" is clearly relative to one's purchasing power. A billionaire might not blink at a price of $20 million for orbital space tourism, perhaps considering the opportunity cost incurred in 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, although 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.34
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.
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.35
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 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.
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.
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 submarine36,37, 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.38 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.39 SpaceX might push launch costs to the neighborhood of $1000/lb. So far, however, nobody has demonstrated costs in this range.
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 submarine40,41, 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.42 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.43 SpaceX might push launch costs to the neighborhood of $1000/lb. So far, however, nobody has demonstrated costs in that low.
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.44
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.45
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. 46 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 notoriously claimed that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 47 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.
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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 48 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 once said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 49 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 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.
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 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 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 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.
Since 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 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 submarine50,51, 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.52 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.53 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 submarine54,55, 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.56 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.57 SpaceX might push launch costs to the neighborhood of $1000/lb. So far, however, nobody has demonstrated costs in this range.
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 submarine58,59, 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.60 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.61 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.
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 submarine62,63, 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.64 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.65 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.
Since 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 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.
Since 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 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 submarine66,67, 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.68 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.69
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Mark-shuttleworth-iss-thinkpad-big.jpg/120px-Mark-shuttleworth-iss-thinkpad-big.jpg Since 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 teleoperated and autonomous) might even mean 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. 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 submarine70,71, 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.72 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.73 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.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Iss013e84312.jpg/240px-Iss013e84312.jpg Since 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 teleoperated and autonomous) might even mean that opportunities for astronautical and mission-specialist careers will begin to dwindle.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Mark-shuttleworth-iss-thinkpad-big.jpg/120px-Mark-shuttleworth-iss-thinkpad-big.jpg
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 teleoperated and autonomous) might even mean that opportunities for astronautical and mission-specialist careers will dwindle.
Since 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 teleoperated and autonomous) might even mean that opportunities for astronautical and mission-specialist careers will begin to 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.74
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.75
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 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.76
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 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.
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.77
And what counts as "access"?
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.78
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.79
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.80
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.81
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 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.82
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 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 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.83
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.8485, 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.86 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.87
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 submarine88,89, 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.90 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.91
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.9293 However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to LEO are more typical.94
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.9596, 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.97 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.98
To clarify matters, let's be sure we understand the range of meanings for "cheap" and for "access". These will depend, after all, on where you stand and what you want. For that matter, regarding space as a single place is conceptually suspect. For example, changing orbits can be very expensive. And different orbits have different uses. Using a larger rocket to get to space more cheaply may limit the choice of orbits you can reach.
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.99
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.100
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.
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.101
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.
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 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.
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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 102 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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 103 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.104105 However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to LEO are more typical.106
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.107108 However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to LEO are more typical.109
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.110111 However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to LEO are more typical.112
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.113114 However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to LEO are more typical.115
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.116117 However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to LEO are more typical.118
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.119120 However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to LEO are more typical.121
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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 122 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.
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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 123 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.
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.
The main problem is how to sustain, and increase, the demand for putting things into LEO. 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.
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.
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 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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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 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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.124125 However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. $3,000-$5,000 per pound to LEO is more typical.126
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 teleoperated and autonomous) will probably mean 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.127128 However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. Costs of $3,000-$5,000 per pound to LEO are more typical.129
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 teleoperated and autonomous) might even mean that opportunities for astronautical and mission-specialist careers will 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 teleoperated and autonomous) will probably means 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 teleoperated and autonomous) will probably mean that opportunities for astronautical and mission-specialist careers will begin to dwindle.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/TeleNepal.jpg/120px-TeleNepal.jpg | Homemade dish, Nepal
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.130131 However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. $3,000-$5,000 per pound to LEO is more typical.132
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.133134 However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. $3,000-$5,000 per pound to LEO is more typical.135
"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.
"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.
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 teleoperated and autonomous) will probably means that opportunities for astronautical and mission-specialist careers being 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 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 about $500 per pound, from a Russian submarine.136 $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 teleoperated and autonomous) will probably cause astronautical and mission-specialist careers 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.137138 However, that launch was subsidized as part of Russian naval exercises. $3,000-$5,000 per pound to LEO is more typical.139
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 teleoperated and autonomous) will probably means that opportunities for astronautical and mission-specialist careers being 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.
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 teleoperated and autonomous) will probably cause astronautical and mission-specialist careers to dwindle.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Trident_II_missile_image.jpg/240px-Trident_II_missile_image.jpg
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.140 $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 teleoperated and autonomous) will probably cause astronautical and mission-specialist careers to dwindle.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Chimney_pots_and_satellite_dish%2C_Burgess_Road_-_geograph.org.uk_-_991987.jpg/120px-Chimney_pots_and_satellite_dish%2C_Burgess_Road_-_geograph.org.uk_-_991987.jpg
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 teleoperated and autonomous) will probably cause astronautical and mission-specialist careers 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. 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 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.
Consider what might be called "U-Turn Space Access" -- 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.
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.
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.
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 teleoperated and autonomous) will probably mean that astronautical and mission-specialist careers will, if anything, dwindle in significance.
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 teleoperated and autonomous) will probably cause astronautical and mission-specialist careers to dwindle.
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 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.
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 teleoperated and autonomous) will probably mean that astronautical and mission-specialist careers will, if anything, dwindle in significance.
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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 141 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.
"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.
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 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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 142 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.
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.
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 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.
What counts as "cheap"?
And what counts as "access"?
Project Persephone as path to CATS
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.
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.
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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 143 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.
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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 144 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.
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.
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.
"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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 145 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.
"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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 146 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 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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 147 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.
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 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 "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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 148 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.
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, 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.
Facing Inescapable Realities
Project Persephone's agenda grows out of several conclusions about what it will take to bring space access costs down to Earth: future space applications must meet the criteria of being commercially attractive, involving a large user base, fostering (but not requiring) human presence in space, and being environmentally sustainable. In more detail:
- Be commercially attractive
- Involve a large user base
- Foster -- but don't require -- human presence in space
- Be environmentally sustainable
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.
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.
First Steps on the Thousand-Mile Journey
Project Persephone's current key effort is assessing the prospects for orbital terraria (exovivaria). User studies will focus on how to make them
- a compelling educational and recreational experience for earthbound users in developed nations, and
- a source of income for users in developing nations.
The effort is currently focused on how to provide realistic computer simulations of the user experience for a range of exovivaria designs, while researching how tele-operated robots might be enjoyably used in existing (terrestrial) vivaria.
A secondary Project Persephone effort is assessing the prospects for building projectile space launch infrastructure in equatorial alpine regions. Any such infrastructure would naturally enable lower-cost expansion of exovivaria, if they prove viable and popular, since the basic ingredients of vivaria (structural materials, mechanical components, seeds, ova, spores, microbes, soil, water, micronutrients) can be packaged to survive high-acceleration launch and be assembled by telebots. Such a launch style would also enable almost any other use of outer space, directly and indirectly, since most uses depend one way or another on similarly packageable elements. This Project Persephone effort includes surveying the current state of the art in projectile launch, exploring interim commercial uses of the rudiments of such infrastructure, evaluating candidate sites (probably in equatorial alpine regions for building launch infrastructure, and studying how Project Persephone goals can dovetail with programs for improving the lives of natives in regions around candidate sites.
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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 149 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.
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 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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 150 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.
1 Clay Shirky, Half the World, June 30, 2002 ⇑
2 Clay Shirky, Half the World, June 30, 2002. ⇑
3 As of 2012, perhaps 75% of the globe has access to a mobile phone: http://www.itnewsafrica.com/2012/07/three-quarters-of-worlds-population-have-mobile-phone-access/ ⇑
4 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
5 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
6 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
7 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
8 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
9 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
10 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
11 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
12 See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
13 See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
14 See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
15 See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
16 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
17 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
18 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
19 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
20 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
21 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
22 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
23 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
24 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
25 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
26 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
27 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
28 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
29 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
30 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
31 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
32 See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
33 See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
34 See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
35 See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
36 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
37 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
38 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
39 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
40 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
41 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
42 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
43 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
44 See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
45 See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
46 Clay Shirky, Half the World, June 30, 2002 ⇑
47 Clay Shirky, Half the World, June 30, 2002 ⇑
48 Clay Shirky, Half the World, June 30, 2002 ⇑
49 Clay Shirky, Half the World, June 30, 2002 ⇑
50 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
51 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
52 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
53 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
54 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
55 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
56 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
57 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
58 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
59 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
60 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
61 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
62 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
63 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
64 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
65 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
66 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
67 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
68 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
69 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
70 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
71 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
72 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
73 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
74 See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
75 See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
76 John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
77 See, for example, John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
78 John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
79 John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
80 John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
81 John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
82 John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
83 John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
84 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
85 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
86 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
87 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
88 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
89 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
90 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
91 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
92 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
93 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
94 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
95 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
96 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
97 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
98 Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000, September 6, 2002 ⇑
99 John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics ⇑
100 John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2005-6620 (Sept 2005) ⇑
101 John Jurist, Sam Dinkin, David Livingston, "When Physics, Economics and Reality Collide: The Challenge of Cheap Orbital Access", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics ⇑
102 http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html ⇑
103 Clay Shirky, Half the World, June 30, 2002 ⇑
104 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
105 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
106 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
107 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
108 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
109 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
110 "Kompas (Compass)", http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm ⇑
111 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/ | GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
112 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
113 Gunter Krebs, "Kompas (Compass)" ⇑
114 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
115 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
116 "Kompas (Compass)", http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm ⇑
117 http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm ⇑
118 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
119 "Kompas (Compass)", http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm ⇑
120 "Shtil Launch Vehicle", [[http://www.globalsecurity.org/ | GlobalSecurity.org ⇑
121 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
122 http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html ⇑
123 http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html ⇑
124 "Kompas (Compass)", http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm ⇑
125 http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm ⇑
126 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pdf ⇑
127 "Kompas (Compass)", http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm ⇑
128 http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm ⇑
129 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 ⇑
130 "Kompas (Compass)", http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm ⇑
131 http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm ⇑
132 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pdf ⇑
133 "Kompas (Compass)", http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm ⇑
134 http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm ⇑
135 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pdf ⇑
136 http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm ⇑
137 "Kompas (Compass)", http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm ⇑
138 http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/shtil.htm ⇑
139 "Changing the low-cost launch game", AIAA, Feb 2005 http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/croftfebruary04.pdf ⇑
140 http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kompass.htm ⇑
141 http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html ⇑
142 http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html ⇑
143 http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html ⇑
144 http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html ⇑
145 http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html ⇑
146 http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html ⇑
147 http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html ⇑
148 http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html ⇑
149 http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html ⇑
150 http://www.shirky.com/writings/half_the_world_old.html ⇑
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.
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.
However, even this kind of "ATS" is not "C", for the world's poor. In 1994, MCI executive Greg Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 1 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.
However, even this kind of "ATS" is not "C", for the world's poor. In 1994, MCI executive Greg Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 2 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.
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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call.3 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.
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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call. 4 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.
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.
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. That's probably not true anymore (assuming it was true even then), but it might still be as high as 25%.
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 Le Vert? said that half the world had yet to place a phone call.5 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 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.
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. 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. 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%.
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.
Facing Inescapable Realities
Project Persephone's agenda grows out of several conclusions about what it will take to bring space access costs down to Earth: future space applications must meet the criteria of being commercially attractive, involving a large user base, fostering (but not requiring) human presence in space, and being environmentally sustainable. In more detail:
- Be commercially attractive
- Involve a large user base
- Foster -- but don't require -- human presence in space
- Be environmentally sustainable
First Steps on the Thousand-Mile Journey
Project Persephone's current key effort is assessing the prospects for orbital terraria (exovivaria). User studies will focus on how to make them
- a compelling educational and recreational experience for earthbound users in developed nations, and
- a source of income for users in developing nations.
The effort is currently focused on how to provide realistic computer simulations of the user experience for a range of exovivaria designs, while researching how tele-operated robots might be enjoyably used in existing (terrestrial) vivaria.
A secondary Project Persephone effort is assessing the prospects for building projectile space launch infrastructure in equatorial alpine regions. Any such infrastructure would naturally enable lower-cost expansion of exovivaria, if they prove viable and popular, since the basic ingredients of vivaria (structural materials, mechanical components, seeds, ova, spores, microbes, soil, water, micronutrients) can be packaged to survive high-acceleration launch and be assembled by telebots. Such a launch style would also enable almost any other use of outer space, directly and indirectly, since most uses depend one way or another on similarly packageable elements. This Project Persephone effort includes surveying the current state of the art in projectile launch, exploring interim commercial uses of the rudiments of such infrastructure, evaluating candidate sites (probably in equatorial alpine regions for building launch infrastructure, and studying how Project Persephone goals can dovetail with programs for improving the lives of natives in regions around candidate sites.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
CATS - Cheap Access To Space.
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.