AHC: Routine Space Tourism

The 1960s was filled with predictions about the future of Space Tourism. Afterall it had only been 35 years from Lindberg to Yuri Gagarin. Many space TLs have been focused on continueing human missions to the Moon after Apollo or contininueing space stations after Skylab or Manned missions to Mars. But I haven't seen a single timeline that has really investigated the possibility of orbital or even suborbital space tourism becoming a low-cost routine activity. 50 years after the first airflight, airtravel was relatively routine for the general public, 50 years after Vostok 1 and space travel is still limited to government astronauts or millionaires and billionaires.

It would certainly require a massive drop in the cost of sending payloads into space. There have been many proposals.

Proposals in 1969-1971 called for a fully reusable TSTO Space Shuttle. The estimated cost per kg for one design (produced by Grumman & Boeing) was only $585/kg (1999 dollars).

There's also Philip Bono's SASSTO study from 1966. This vehicle, based on the S-IVB stage but with aerospike engines added, was a Vertical Takeoff Vertical Landing SSTO. It had a payload capacity of 3,629kg to a 185km orbit and an estimated launch cost of $0.03 million in 1968 dollars (roughly $200,000 in 2014 dollars when I run it through an inflation calculator). It was designed to launch a Gemini capsule or other small payloads.

There were also numerous proposals for low-cost space launchers in 1990s aswell including Black-Horse/Blackcolt, X-33/Venturestar, the X-34, the DC-X etc. Most of these ideas however died with the begining of the Millenium.

The DC-Y was a full-orbital version of the DC-X, No government sponsor could be found for the concept and the $ 5 billion development cost was never funded. If it had been funded in 1991, the first DC-Y suborbital flight was predicted for 1995, and a first orbital mission in 1997. The total cost of developing the first flight certified Delta Clipper was to be comparable to or less than the development of a new commercial airliner. Total cost for the development of the DC-Y prototype program was estimated at $5.06 billion, including production of four flight vehicles. The ticket price for early versions of the Delta Clipper, if it met cost goals, could be less then the price for a round-the-world cruise on the QE2 ($40,000 to $140,000). A second generation vehicle could further reduce this cost. Once fully operational the Delta Clipper was to be as safe as flying on a typical commercial airliner.

Also what cost target low enough for "routine" space tourism (thousands of passengers per year) and also realistic to achieve.
$500,000
$250,000
$100,000
$50,000?

As of 2015, Space Tourism is still limited to $20-50 million tickets on the Soyuz to the ISS or (hopefully) in a year or two suborbital flights lasting just six minutes in space for $250,000.
 
Yep, SpaceX is working on it aswell. But I'm talking about Alternatehistory here not futurehistory (although I hope your right).
 
Yep, SpaceX is working on it aswell. But I'm talking about Alternatehistory here not futurehistory (although I hope your right).

It seems like the SABRE engine, which has been tested and works, is the way to ensure cheap reliable access to space, so the question is how do you get someone to think of something along the lines of Skylon 40 years ago?
 
It was estimated that the S-IVB stage developed as the third stage of the Saturn V had a mass ratio that allowed reusable SSTO operations. There's also the DC-Y concept and many others. Skylon isn't the only low-cost space vehicle that has been designed (although next to the reusable Falcon 9 it may be the only that actually gets developed).
 
It was estimated that the S-IVB stage developed as the third stage of the Saturn V had a mass ratio that allowed reusable SSTO operations. There's also the DC-Y concept and many others. Skylon isn't the only low-cost space vehicle that has been designed (although next to the reusable Falcon 9 it may be the only that actually gets developed).
Both SASSTO and DC-Y, digging into them, seem to have wildly optimistic structural mass assumptions. For instance, SASSTO was supposed to mass in at only 6.7 tons dry, compared to the 14 tons of the SIVB--a dramatic improvement in dry mass despite going with dramatically less structurally efficient tanks, then also relied on freezing as mush as 50% of the LH2 to create slush instead of simple liquid. Simply put, if you take away that optimism, you can't make orbit SSTO.

The complications added by TSTO aren't dramatic--I worked at a job once where a team of three guys would put a large jet engine on test stand fixture and have it serviced for operation within 8 hours, and about the same to take it back off after the test, and in a well-thought out TSTO design, there's actually less that needs to cross the stage interface than between a jet engine and the pylon. In exchange, though, you get the ability to make a fully-reusable vehicle without demanding any...optimistic technological developments, and one with a much better mass fraction--one comparable to what Skylon achieves with fancy, untested Mach 6+ airbreathing.
 
There one point in equation mostly neglect: The labor cost !

Not only in construction of space craft
also work force to it put on launch pad and make it ready and launch it
then refurbishment of Launch pad for next rocket.
For Reusable spacecraft comes additional work, recover the Craft and refurbish it for next flight.

more people work on that, higher are cost on program
best example is Space Shuttle that had small army of workers to keep flying.
so far i know it was also reason why the Titan rocket production was stop
to expensive, big work force to launch it and refurbishment of Launch pad burned off by big solid booster.

ESA try to keep the cost low and damage on Launch pad to minimum.
while SpaceX goes allot automation, minimal Launch pad and aim for Automatic recover of stages.
if they manage that they could drop drastic the Launch cost, if the refurbishment cost stay low
 
To open up more routine space tourism you have to achieve this.

quote-you-need-to-be-in-the-position-where-it-is-the-cost-of-the-fuel-that-actually-matters-and-.jpg
 

Archibald

Banned
But I'm talking about Alternatehistory here not futurehistory
I don't think SSTO was / is feasible with 1960 - 2010 technology.
- 1997 Venture Star needs very optimistic mass fraction
- 1986 X-30 Orient Express: scramjets are thermal nightmare and lack thrust
- 1986 HOTOL didn't worked, hence Skylon: dunno. Will liquefaction work someday ? it all hangs to the heat exchanger...

Now as E of pi said, TSTO are not that bad - either the Kistler K-1 or the Falcon 9R.

Otherwise there is still the untried, outrageous suborbital refueling concept that I'm very fond of. :D:D

But I haven't seen a single timeline that has really investigated the possibility of orbital or even suborbital space tourism becoming a low-cost routine activity
I'm slowing writting that very TL (730 pages so far), and yes, suborbital refueling plays a key role. My opinion is that it works well enough for an alternate history TL :)
In fact I have a Titan II = Falcon 9R fully reusable TSTO for heavy payloads, and a suborbital refueling "space airliner", both technically feasible.
 
Last edited:
Top