The success of Space Tourism depends on two things; money and technology. The technology must cover three areas: first you need to be able to transport people safely to and from space, or from one place in space to another; next, you need someplace to go, a destination; and finally you need heavy lift support to get destinations and supplies into space. With the possible exception of the passenger/personnel transportation, all the technology exists today.
During World War II, research and development of aircraft was at an all time high. Similarly, there was a renaissance in the methods of ship construction. Thirty years later the air is filled with both commercial and private planes and the sea is full of very large commercial ships. Many of the private planes today were home built. Long after a similar event in space development from the ‘40s through the ‘60s only one “home built” spacecraft has been successfully flown. The answer to the question, “Why?” seems to be based more on perception than technology or finance. Burt Rutan is responsible for publicly debunking that perception. A leading rocket scientist stated that a Skunk Works approach to passenger service (responsible for the SR71 that was built by less than two dozen engineers and flew within one year of its conception), could build five SST Style, 100 passenger space planes for as little as five billion dollars, about three times the cost of a 747. The technology to make this dream come true could be as short as five years. Once in production, the cost would fall to forty percent. The plans could make daily flights to space or fly halfway around the world in 45 minutes.
Mutual Space has designed a multi purpose space station (space hotel, science laboratories, and manufacturing facilities) which can be built using the design first proposed by Wernher von Braun, the inflatable “Wheel in Space.” Von Braun proposed covering the station with armor once it was inflated, but with materials such as Kevlar, the process is not necessary. The technology is well proven by NASA in their testing and design of the “Crew Habitat Module” which, if launched, will provide primary protection from meteorite storms for the ISS Crew. Such a station can provide a closed system for both water and oxygen regeneration. A space hotel with 1,000 rooms can built and deployed for eight to ten times the cost for the same size cruse ship. Large areas can be dedicated to microgravity manufacturing, such as pharmaceuticals. The real beauty of such a design is that once the outside is inflated the interior can be assembled in a “shirt sleeve” environment using ordinary tools. Another key feature of this design is that the larger you build it the more cost effective it becomes. Also, you can develop the station is stages, building up opposing areas as needed and leaving large sections open to future development. It should also be noted that there are two available technologies that will act as radiation shielding that, when used together, will provide as much protection as we enjoy here on Earth. The stations, once completed, can be relocated anywhere, to L1, Lunar orbit or beyond. A smaller version could be the vehicle of choice for a long duration mission to any of the planets with full or partial gravity throughout the journey; it could become Buzz Aldrin’s Mars Express.
In 1999, Mutual Space asked a leading rocket manufacturer to reexamine the work of Bob Truax’s 1963 Big Dumb Booster Program. They concluded that boosters could be built to deliver 1,000,000 pounds of payload to Low Earth Orbit in a single shot. The boosters would be parachute recovered and could be serviced and relaunched ten times a year with a ten year lifespan, or 100 launches each. The cost of payload to LEO was well under $500 per pound (this includes amortized and reoccurring costs). The boosters could be built using current technology in two to three years at a cost of $500,000,000 per vehicle. The current cost of placing objects to LEO is between $10,000 and $20,000 per pound. There are hundreds of proposed projects that require a cost per pound below $1,000. Many require large scale assemblies launched in one piece (simply not possible today).
This may be the primary source of revenue for first
development of such a project. Every item in the station or used in its
construction may become a sponsor, such as Craftsmen Tools, Kohler
Tubs, or American Standard. I can envision a Maytag Washer
and Dryer aboard the station, the camera zooms back through a porthole and
back to Earth where we see the Maytag Repairman gazing at the station through a
telescope. He turns to his dog and says, “Just one more place I will
never get to go!” From Martha Stuart Linens to china on the
tables, from furniture to beds, or windows to floor coverings, there are
literally thousands of possibilities. In return each sponsor will be
provided with giveaway tickets to space. Maybe Charmin will
include a prize ticket in every roll of toilet paper. There can be hundreds of
ways to promote space and provide travel to those who ordinarily would never be
able to otherwise go to space. Guest services might be provided by robots
(by Honda or
The operations of each segment of the project could be handled by third parties: that is, Virgin Galactic might operate the passenger service, while Royal Caribbean Cruse lines (whose current slogan is “Get Out There!”, there old slogan was, “Like No Vacation On Earth”) might be the operator of the space hotel (might also be of great assistance in the internal design). The full cost of the station might be immediately transferred to Royal Caribbean or a leasing partner.
The real goal, and this is very possible, would be to collect enough sponsorships to pay for the infrastructure and the first full year of operation. This would allow us to spend up to one year to pay back all the sponsors and prove the viability of our operation. To help facilitate the marketing of these companies and to promote our involvement, Mutual Space has secured a number of space related domain names. Almost all of the names are dotcoms. It has been estimated that, properly developed, the sites could be worth up to $100,000,000 or more within five years. The list includes the following:
AnasaziStation.com
BigDumbBooster.com
BeyondTheSolarSystem.com
CivilianSpaceStation.com
FederationSpace.com
FlyMeToTheMoon.com
FromTheEarthToTheMoon.com
GrissomStation.com
JourneyToTheMoon.com
LikeNoVacationOnEarth.com
LunarArchaeology.com
LunarArcheology.com
LunarTelescope.com
MissionTo2003ub313 (a.k.a. Xena)
MissionToCeres.com
MissionToCharon.com
TheMarsExpress.com
MissionToDeepSpace.com
MissionToDeimos.com
MissionToEarth.com
MissionToEuropa.com
MissionToGliese581.com
MissionToHydra.com
MissionToIo.com
MissionToJupiter.com
MissionToMars.org
MissionToMars.com*
MissionToMercury.com
MissionToNeptune.com
MissionToNewEarth.com
MissionToNix.com
MissionToPhobos.com
MissionToPlanetEarth.com
MissionToPluto.com
MissionToPluton.com
MissionToProteus.com
MissionToSaturn.com
MissionToTheMoon.com
MissionToTheSun.com
MissionToTitan.com
MissionToUranus.com
MissionToVenus.com
MissionToXena.com
MoonMarsAndBeyond.com
PassportToPluto.com
RaceToTheRedPlanet.com
ReturnToTheMoon.com
RevealingMars.com
SingleStageToOrbit.com
SpacecraftTrailblazers.com
SpaceFederation.com
TargetTitan.com
UpIsGo.com
UtopiaStation.com
VonBraunStation.com
VoyageToTheMilkyWay.com
VoyageToTheMoon.com
VoyageToThePlanetsAndBeyond.com
WinATripIntoSpace.com
WinATripIntoSpace.net
WinATripToSpace.com
WinATripToSpace.net
WinATripToOuterSpace.com
WinATripIntoOuterSpace.com
*(Note: In the six weeks just prior to the July 4th, 1999 landing of the Mars Pathfinder, the URL “MissionToMars.com” received over one million unique visitors.) It should be noted here that a Google search of “mission to Mars” ranked MissionToMars.com 31 out of 28.6 Million WITH NO CONTENT. At the same time, Yahoo ranked the site 17th of 18,000,000 using the same search, again with no content on the site. We have begun to add content to MissionToMars.com and its ranking continues to climb. View http://www.MissionToMars.com/investors for more information about current ratings.
The question remains, “How do you fund a private space program?” Again, referring to the funding of the Los Angeles Olympics, marketing will open the door but may be far from sufficient to fully fund a program. So what options remain? It may be helpful to reflect on the past and look at the early aviation evolution, particularly as it pertains to civilian air travel. After WWII, there was some interest in converting military aircraft into civilian transportation planes. This proved successful for the rich and famous (a.k.a.: rich), but left out the masses. Which brings us to a similar situation we face today—how to take a very expensive, limited technology and make it available to a very large segment of the world at a reasonable rate? Answer this question and you have solved the problem of making space tourism a reality, provide the basis of space colonization, and the infrastructure for very cost effective interplanetary and deep space missions.
So how did the airline industry solve this same problem? Although there were many different solutions, the main reason was Boeing and its unique relationship with its wholly owned subsidiary United Airlines. United was gaining confidence in air transportation and beginning to understand the market and the needs of its customers. Because of their close relationship with Boeing, they were able to provide purchase orders to Boeing for new planes which Boeing then turned into loans based upon the purchase orders. No better example was the Boeing 747. This monumental, expensive and highly risky project was funding by United Airlines purchase orders for the first ten of fifteen planes—money Boeing used for research and development. As the prototype neared completion, other airlines sent their purchase orders and more after first flight.
It has been my contention that using existing technologies is a very cost effective development, it may be possible to develop and deploy a heavy lift vehicle, space shuttle (personnel only), and a space hotel for as little as $10B ($10,000,000,000). But even if the actual amount is several times this amount, the problem is less about the cost but more about the payback on that cost. Unlike NASA, private businesses want to make a return on its investment. There are some studies that predict that there are 10,000 people willing to spend $1,000,000 (total of $10B) to travel to space and 1,000,000 people will to spend $100,000 (a total of $100B). So what does all this mean and how does anyone take advantage of this future market? The answer is for someone to act as the middleman and bring all the pieces together. To that end, Mutual Space wants to act as the general contractor to fund (using marketing and web based revenue) three studies to determine with some certainty the cost of the three projects proposed earlier (heavy lift vehicles, personnel space shuttle, space station/hotel). Upon completion of said studies, “sell” the completed projects to existing or emerging industries. For example, sell the space station to one of the largest cruse lines. They can purchase the product without incurring costs with a purchase order for the finished product. Meanwhile they can promote this activity and pre-sell vacations aboard such a vessel. These POs will allow Mutual Space to obtain loans to fund the construction and deployment of each element of the project. The same is true for the new space plane to a company like United Airlines for use to and from the space station or transcontinental flights. And a major logistics company for the heavy lift vehicles.
As pointed out at the beginning of this paper, the outside bag of the Goodyear Blimp at 187 feet long by 50 feet in diameter, the bag would still fit (deflated) in the back of an average size passenger van. It is possible, for a promotional stunt, to build a full size mockup of a space station. I could be made of rubberized Kevlar (which would actually make it suitable to be converted to a real space station, just as the prototype of the space shuttle “Enterprise” was suitable for conversion to a working space shuttle) or rubberized polyester if it is just for the promotional aspect. A “Von Braun” styled wheel in space with an overall diameter of 350 to 375 feet could be manufactured and launched for about $20M. At 240 miles it would appear to be about 1/14 to 1/15 the diameter of the Moon. Given its reflective qualities and proximity to Earth, it would easily be the second brightest object in the night sky, second only to the Moon. It would be clearly visible during daylight hours. Just as the world stopped to watch Neil and Buzz walk on the Moon, this new object in the sky would be visible to anyone and everyone on Earth that could see and cared to look. You will never find a bigger advertisement and will go a long way to support our subcontractors, our end users and our marketing campaign.
Just as the winning cities of the Olympic Games were almost certainly doomed to bankruptcy before the 1984 Los Angeles Games, a fresh and innovative approach to space travel and tourism will fundamentally change the profitability of aerospace, not just for Mutual Space but for the industry as a whole—a revolution comparable to the current airline industry from a few government owned airplanes.