RE: starship-design: Finances

["L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>]

Coming in late here so bear with me if I screw up...

Tourism will never sustain space travel in and of itself. It can however,
become the highest source of revenue AFTER the infrastructure is in place.
The only way to get the infrastructure in place is industry. Not having read
the original post using airplanes as an analogy, I will pick airplanes again
and describe it as I see it:

When airplanes were first invented they were terribly complicated and very
unreliable as a means of transportation, kind of like spacecraft today. No
one in the Wright brothers day would have intuitively envisioned the
passenger airlines of today. On the other hand, the implications for
military science and industry were immediately apparent. After many years of
fighters, bombers and mail haulers (freight) passengers were gradually added
to the mix. All of these things hold true for space flight today.

Today's occasional tourist is really nothing more than an expensive version
of a barnstormer giving rides for a dollar. Today's airlines handle a LOT of
passengers. They handle even more freight though. It was freight that let
them develop to the point where passengers became a viable alternative.
Today, it is passengers that sustain the airlines, but without the
industry's need for freight, it wouldn't have happened.

Where the analogy breaks down of course is the differences in time and cost
between the two. Which is why I don't think that tourism, or pure passenger
travel will ever become the sustaining force behind space travel. When the
costs in fuel and equipment are so high, dense, valuable cargoes are worth
far more than a passenger. Things like manufactured goods and raw materials
become much more attractive. The more so, because in space, there are no
railroads, steam ships, bus lines or interstate highways to compete with the
spacecraft, hence, the demand is high, the supply is limited and the cost
will be exorbitant.

Lee