Remember, it wasn't so long ago that the first paying passengers flew in an aircraft. To them, it was miraculous. The same will happen in space tourism.
Twotter54 Nah I’m not smart enough :( however, I’m aspiring to become a psychologist with a teaching degree and a psychology degree so I can become a psychologist for astronauts / martians who feel isolated :)
Yes! Same! Currently finishing highschool and I am so happy with my grades since I received the motivation to get a great job and earn enough to take a trip to space.
That's because stable internet use cables on the other hand mobile uses straight electro magnet force which is more difficult to achieve therefore expensive
Yeah, I agree. I mean it's not exactly a boring concept, but it literally just goes straight up really far, then right back down. lol. I think that's why Elon Musk was irritated when people would compare his Falcon 9 to Blue Origins New Shepard just because they both were rockets and they both used propulsive landings. But that's really the only thing they have in common. *- While the New Shepard* does _technically_ reach a higher altitude (100km, as opposed to the highest altitude of a single F9 booster which was ~75km), it does that because it literally just goes straight up, then falls back down. *- The F9 on the other hand* goes at an angle to help get the payload into orbit, then turns back around and autonomously navigates itself to the designated landing site, then lands propulsively. So those are two very different flight profiles. The New Shepard may reach a higher altitude, but it's still considered a sub-orbital rocket, and is _far_ less advanced (and frankly, very boring in comparison to the Flacon 9).
@@superiorcalico3587 For sure, I can see how they may seem somewhat similar to a very casual or uninformed viewer, but in reality, they're about as different as they can get.
Starship is looking at a price of $20,000 to as little as $2,000 per person to orbit, why would anyone buy a trip to space for 3 minutes for 200,000 dollars when you can just wait a few years and go to space for 4 hours for 1/100 the price!
@@jhyland87 People pay to go on a plane that flies straight down just to experience weightlessness. Going for a ride on a rocket is infinitely cooler. That would be an experience like no other. You would be doing something that humans a thousand years ago wouldn't have even dreamed about. You would reach a height that people used to only attribute to the heavens. It is as far from boring as you could get. It would be one of the most intense things ever, leaving the earth and coming back. How can you downplay that to "but it literally just goes straight up pretty far, then right back down." I mean come on, you ever been to an amusement park?
Because it's not $4Bn - it was $1.4Bn in 2019 down from $1.5 Bn in 2018 ( www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/afr19_508_tagged_reassembled_v2.pdf pg. 33 ). $1.1Bn are allocated for operations and maintenance ( www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy19_nasa_budget_estimates.pdf ). If you look at why it's expensive, here's a few hints: • under "Major Contracts/Awards" you'll find but one entry - "U.S. on-orbit segment Sustaining Engineering Contract" - and guess who's got the job? *The Boeing Company* • ISS Research accounted for "only" ~$350M in 2019; Guess who got the top spot under "MAJOR CONTRACTS/AWARDS"? - It's "Vehicle Sustaining Engineering Contract" awarded to our good friends at *The Boeing Company* • There's an additional $2.1Bn allocated for the crew and cargo program, which not only includes SpaceX (F9/Dragon) and Northrop Grumman (Antares/Cygnus), but also our good friends *The Boeing Company* as major contractors. While both SpaceX and Orbital ATK (Northrop Grumman) are routinely delivering cargo to the ISS without major hick-ups, one of the three doesn't really do all that well, yet keeps getting fed money for some reason... Curiously, the FY 2020 budget request didn't include any updates w.r.t. milestones in the commercial crew program, still having the latest figures date back to 2018 when Boeing had 74% of milestones completed compared to 63% of SpaceX. I wonder why that might be...
@@ozzyfromspace Don't hold your breath. Keep in mind that Boeing is also the primary contractor for the absolute farce that is the Orion program. They received *18 billion dollars* (adjusted for 2018) from 2006 through 2018 and the capsule still isn't ready... For comparison, the ESA-sponsored service module was built under a fixed-price 390 million € contract. And, as you do, the primary contractor Airbus Space and Defence, simply had the Germans built the thing and be done with it. And done with it they are: development started in 2014 and the flight-ready module was delivered to NASA in 2018 and has been sitting there idle ever since. Meanwhile at Boeing... crickets...🤣 *18 BILLION DOLLARS AND COUNTING* I'm everything but a SpaceX fanboy and sure as heck not a member of the Elon Musk-cult, but with that amount of money and in 14 years time, Musk (and even Bezos) would've built a whole *fleet* of fully reusable launchers including crew vehicles and a complete space station as a little bonus!
@@totalermist >Boeing is also the prime contractor for the absolute farce that is the Orion program Wrong Boeing has nothing to do with Orion Lockheed Martin and Airbus are the prime contractors for Orion > *18 billion* Apollo CSM cost 25+ billion for development and it was an arguably inferior spacecraft 18 billion is no small amount but it's not unexpected considering historical examples >And the capsule still isn't ready >has been sitting around iddle ever since The Orion spacecraft for Artemis 1 has been fully assembled and is almost finished on final pre flight tests They are shipping the spacecraft to KSC in the next few weeks for LAS encapsulation and fueling www.flickr.com/photos/nasaorion/49581386463/
I really liked this video and this format. It flowed a lot better than the original format and the script never repeated itself. Good job Primal Space.
Nice video, but not a word or one second of video of a Falcon Nine rocket landing? SpaceX has been the biggest player in bringing the cost of space travel down. Seems like this is a commercial for Blue Origin and Bigalow
Just last week, SpaceX announced they were going to start space tourism, possibly later this year! And a major point the video was making was bringing down costs with reusability. 😁
Omg thank you so much for making this video! I was going to draw a comic on space travel in the year 2040 and cuz of you I have an idea on where to start! :D
@Anonymous are you chinese. btw it will be cheap for him too! in 2035 ish we can go to outer atmosphere , we can already fly planes there are jets who can get launched mid air andd launch to space
Interesting video, Also mention that SpaceX signed a contract with space adventurers in order to allow 4 crew to LEO and NASA also signed a contract to allow the construction of a new space station by Axiom Space, also could be used by tourists
why would you want to go to space? They don't even have weed in space yet its all here on earth. If they had space weed or moon hash I might go. But probably not. Do you like girls?
2:45 I'm sorry to nitpick, but you kind of missed the point of the cost savings of reusable rockets. You said that if they make rockets sufficiently reusable then customers will only have to pay for crew and fuel costs. This is not true. Firms don't just ignore fixed costs (e.g. the cost of the rocket itself) when figuring out what they'll charge their customers. It's just that if they can convert variable costs into fixed costs they can allocate a greater portion of their total costs over a greater number of units produced, achieving economies of scale. Variable costs are easily traceable on a per unit basis b/c you incur them every time you produce a unit. The units in this case being rocket launches. The point of reusability is to reduce variable costs and increase fixed costs. If you never reuse a rocket, the amounts you spend on rockets (excluding the original design costs) are entirely variable costs. If you discard or refurbish rockets every 5 launches the associated materials and labor costs of manufacture are more fixed w/ respect to the number of launches. So if you can get 100 commercial launches a year, by the end of the year you'll have paid for 20 rockets' worth of materials and labor rather than 100. Let's say your rocket design needs 1,500 metric tons of materials (avg = $2,000 per MT) and 6,500 hours of labor (avg = $5,000 per hour) your manufacturing costs (materials and labor) = $35.5 million per rocket = 1,500*2,000+6,500*5,000. I ignore price volatility b/c it's immaterial for the sake of proof of concept. If you're expecting to launch 100 rockets this year and this design isn't reusable, total manufacturing costs for the year = $3.55 billion. Your original rocket cost $1.5 billion to design. Non-manufacturing variable costs total $500 million for 100 launches; est. total average costs = (500M + 1.5B + 3.55B)÷100 ~ $55.5 million per launch. Your materials suppliers may offer bulk discounts, but you'd save more money on material in total if you bought fewer total materials. To buy fewer total materials you need to make fewer rockets. The way you make fewer rockets is designing for reusability. You invest another 1.5 billion designing a rocket recovery system while reducing weight to offset the added weight of the recovery system, allowing a modest 5 launches per rocket (20 rockets per 100 launches), your estimated variable manufacturing costs for the year are now only $710 million. The new calculation: (500M + 3B + 710M)÷100 = $42.1 million. This calculation demonstrates immediate savings which often isn't the case. Incurring greater fixed costs, like R&D costs, may increase your total average cost per unit ([total fixed + total variable]/ total units produced) in the short term, but your since fixed costs are fixed relative to production, converting variable costs into fixed costs will make everything cheaper in the long term. A major problem w/ aerospace & defense is all these companies have their own contractors that do different jobs w/in the processes of designing, manufacturing, and maintaining spacecraft. This means no vertical integration, and no ability to convert take advantage of economies of scale. Of course the reason they don't do this in the first place is b/c they have a blank check. Realistically, the Gov't doesn't care that much about cost overruns (the govt can't technically go bankrupt in a reasonable amount of time), and so neither do the contractors.
What if they made a cabin whose only job is to orbit the earth like a satellite, which would be pretty cheap from my understanding, since it will maintain its speed once it has been 'installed'. And then only have a small capsule / aircraft transferring passengers between earth and the cabin. So only the transport to the cabin is the complicated and expensive part, if the cabin doesn't need any fuel and doesn't need to be steered. I guess the problem would be the docking / letting passengers inside the cabin part.
Whilst I think it is a brilliant idea, I think that the problem with inflatable space hotels is that since they have less mass for their surface area than the ISS they would be decelerated more quickly by the atmosphere and would need more frequent boosts to stay at their orbit. Space Debris is also more dangerous for these but I think maybe the flexible nature of the membrane might actually help it absorb Kinetic energy better?
Bigelow's space 'hotels' - hostel might be a better term - would just be for ultra-wealthy. Very limited number of people could be accommodated, which would itself mean that price must be very high.
If you use a methane engine like SpaceX, you can literally extract your rocket fuel from the air. It's a chemical reaction called the "Sabatier process", & it means that your rocket fuel can be totally neutral regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
@@IrishAnonymous01 I don't know. That being said, there is very promising research going on right now on batteries that would have _significantly_ better charge density than is available right now. It's well within the realm of possibility that we will see solid state batteries within the next 10 years that are light enough to realistically power commercial airplanes.
3:11 Starship should cost 5 millions to build for 1100 cubic meters, so maybe starship 2.0 is around 40 millions for 8800 cubic meters? That would be an awesome space station. Using starship (2000$ per ticket) to go to the station would make it quite affordable.
Update: Bigelow Aerospace is, as of March 2020, effectively out of business. They've laid off their entire workforce, and have ceased operations at their research and production facility in North Las Vegas, Nevada. No plans to restart operations have, as yet, been announced.
First space tourists will be on short flights into the lower levels of the stratosphere, Virgin Galactic plans the first flights this year, Space X also plans a tourist trip this year, neither of these companies are mentioned in this video, they will be the first, so why focus on Origin only?
I like SpaceX vehicles like starship the best personally since the biggest cost savings will come from cheaper $/kg to orbit, but Bigelow modules are likely the future for much of space habitation since they're poised to make the most efficient use of increased payload capacity. Also Robert Bigelow is a super open minded guy!
imagine a day when no human has to toil to eat and his purpose is to explore the universe not as an immigrant or searching for better life but simply as a tourist. that’s the future!
In 2024, the space station will be decommissioned and will burn through reentry. Shouldn't we have a replacement before talking about space tourism and other big projects, like deep space venture?
I know this seems petty, but why do you keep using the verb "are"? For example, at 1:40: "Blue Origin are..." and 4:30: "Bigelow Aerospace are...". Interesting video, though
Hi Gabe, I can't speak for the makers of this video, but this could come down to regional variations. In British English, groups (collective nouns) are often referred to in the plural, whereas in American English we use the singular.
Mostly Musk atm though, both in absolute terms and especially in proportion to what they could be committing to it in money/time. Bezos is an afterthought for now imo, until blue origin has a reusable orbit capable launcher at least comparable to F9, by which point SpaceX may very well have starship up and running.
للخروج من الغلاف الجوي كم السرعه 🙄او قوة الأندفاع للتخلص من الجاذبيه 🤣كثير فلا يمكن لأي احد كما يقولون يتحمل حتى بتغيير الوضع 😊ماعندي معطيات لأحسب ....بل عند اقلاع الطائره العاديه وتبدء٢٥٠ تقريبا لها تاثير اما ضحك عليه دكتور القلب😂😂😂في مقدمة الطائره ومأخرتها حتى لو قلنا ١ من مليون فيه فارق قال الله يعين 😁درجة ا...في المقدمه حسابي على ذمة مصطفى محمود وتاثير ذالك على الدوره الدمويه .....لا تروحون يضحكون عليكم طائره حسابيا🤗🙄ما تخرج من الغلاف الجوي...ماتجي
@@quisqueyanguy120 Oh boy. You missed some good drama. You should grab some popcorn and read the entire twitter thread of Yusaku Maezawa's dating show announcement.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
I would pay an entire trip to some flat earthers to go to space, but if the earth is round, they can't return.
Even if they went into space they would still deny reality. That's their game.
I am a "flat earther". Please book a space flight for me so that you can prove me "the earth isn't flat." I'm O.K. with the no return part as well. (;
@@TitleTheTitle no, I dont think I will
@@k-osmonaut8807 Aight, tried my luck anyways.
@@TitleTheTitle You want to stay in space forever?
Remember, it wasn't so long ago that the first paying passengers flew in an aircraft. To them, it was miraculous. The same will happen in space tourism.
I hope 🤞
The only reason why I'm working my butt off in school is so I can afford the Virgin Galactic space flights
Or better, work in space and get paid!
Twotter54 Nah I’m not smart enough :( however, I’m aspiring to become a psychologist with a teaching degree and a psychology degree so I can become a psychologist for astronauts / martians who feel isolated :)
New Shepard flight is better.
Yes! Same! Currently finishing highschool and I am so happy with my grades since I received the motivation to get a great job and earn enough to take a trip to space.
Nah man, wait till you can get on an actual space station
MrBeast: spending 24 hours in space...
Shashwat Agrawal ruclips.net/video/A3b5nNeoIj8/видео.html
Shashwat Agrawal “last one to go back in the capsule wins 100000 dollars”
“Last to leave space gets $100.000” ...
*chandler secretly sneaks into a Soyuz*
Lmao
$50/GB internet is still cheaper than my mobile data
That's because stable internet use cables on the other hand mobile uses straight electro magnet force which is more difficult to achieve therefore expensive
@@stratoskonstantoudakis9245 horrible
@@stratoskonstantoudakis9245 🙄
Canada vibes
That's $50 per day, not per month.
Nobody:
Nobody ever:
"Hey family want to go spend 1.2m this Friday going into space for 3 minutes?"
Yeah, I agree. I mean it's not exactly a boring concept, but it literally just goes straight up really far, then right back down. lol.
I think that's why Elon Musk was irritated when people would compare his Falcon 9 to Blue Origins New Shepard just because they both were rockets and they both used propulsive landings. But that's really the only thing they have in common.
*- While the New Shepard* does _technically_ reach a higher altitude (100km, as opposed to the highest altitude of a single F9 booster which was ~75km), it does that because it literally just goes straight up, then falls back down.
*- The F9 on the other hand* goes at an angle to help get the payload into orbit, then turns back around and autonomously navigates itself to the designated landing site, then lands propulsively.
So those are two very different flight profiles. The New Shepard may reach a higher altitude, but it's still considered a sub-orbital rocket, and is _far_ less advanced (and frankly, very boring in comparison to the Flacon 9).
J H I agree, falcon 9s for life
@@superiorcalico3587 For sure, I can see how they may seem somewhat similar to a very casual or uninformed viewer, but in reality, they're about as different as they can get.
Starship is looking at a price of $20,000 to as little as $2,000 per person to orbit, why would anyone buy a trip to space for 3 minutes for 200,000 dollars when you can just wait a few years and go to space for 4 hours for 1/100 the price!
@@jhyland87 People pay to go on a plane that flies straight down just to experience weightlessness. Going for a ride on a rocket is infinitely cooler. That would be an experience like no other. You would be doing something that humans a thousand years ago wouldn't have even dreamed about. You would reach a height that people used to only attribute to the heavens. It is as far from boring as you could get. It would be one of the most intense things ever, leaving the earth and coming back. How can you downplay that to "but it literally just goes straight up pretty far, then right back down." I mean come on, you ever been to an amusement park?
+Primal Space, I have a video suggestion: *Why is the International Space Station so expensive to operate?*
$4B seems crayy
Because it's not $4Bn - it was $1.4Bn in 2019 down from $1.5 Bn in 2018 ( www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/afr19_508_tagged_reassembled_v2.pdf pg. 33 ).
$1.1Bn are allocated for operations and maintenance ( www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy19_nasa_budget_estimates.pdf ).
If you look at why it's expensive, here's a few hints:
• under "Major Contracts/Awards" you'll find but one entry - "U.S. on-orbit segment Sustaining
Engineering Contract" - and guess who's got the job?
*The Boeing Company*
• ISS Research accounted for "only" ~$350M in 2019; Guess who got the top spot under "MAJOR CONTRACTS/AWARDS"? - It's "Vehicle Sustaining Engineering
Contract" awarded to our good friends at *The Boeing Company*
• There's an additional $2.1Bn allocated for the crew and cargo program, which not only includes SpaceX (F9/Dragon) and Northrop Grumman (Antares/Cygnus), but also our good friends *The Boeing Company* as major contractors. While both SpaceX and Orbital ATK (Northrop Grumman) are routinely delivering cargo to the ISS without major hick-ups, one of the three doesn't really do all that well, yet keeps getting fed money for some reason...
Curiously, the FY 2020 budget request didn't include any updates w.r.t. milestones in the commercial crew program, still having the latest figures date back to 2018 when Boeing had 74% of milestones completed compared to 63% of SpaceX. I wonder why that might be...
@@totalermist Boing scamming out the ISS, can't say I didn't saw it coming.
@@totalermist thanks buddy, I was really confused. *Our good friends the Boeing company.* I'm just waiting for Darwin to catch up with them.
@@ozzyfromspace Don't hold your breath. Keep in mind that Boeing is also the primary contractor for the absolute farce that is the Orion program. They received *18 billion dollars* (adjusted for 2018) from 2006 through 2018 and the capsule still isn't ready...
For comparison, the ESA-sponsored service module was built under a fixed-price 390 million € contract. And, as you do, the primary contractor Airbus Space and Defence, simply had the Germans built the thing and be done with it. And done with it they are: development started in 2014 and the flight-ready module was delivered to NASA in 2018 and has been sitting there idle ever since.
Meanwhile at Boeing... crickets...🤣
*18 BILLION DOLLARS AND COUNTING*
I'm everything but a SpaceX fanboy and sure as heck not a member of the Elon Musk-cult, but with that amount of money and in 14 years time, Musk (and even Bezos) would've built a whole *fleet* of fully reusable launchers including crew vehicles and a complete space station as a little bonus!
@@totalermist
>Boeing is also the prime contractor for the absolute farce that is the Orion program
Wrong
Boeing has nothing to do with Orion
Lockheed Martin and Airbus are the prime contractors for Orion
> *18 billion*
Apollo CSM cost 25+ billion for development and it was an arguably inferior spacecraft
18 billion is no small amount but it's not unexpected considering historical examples
>And the capsule still isn't ready
>has been sitting around iddle ever since
The Orion spacecraft for Artemis 1 has been fully assembled and is almost finished on final pre flight tests
They are shipping the spacecraft to KSC in the next few weeks for LAS encapsulation and fueling
www.flickr.com/photos/nasaorion/49581386463/
I really liked this video and this format. It flowed a lot better than the original format and the script never repeated itself. Good job Primal Space.
Blue origins plans is, lol, just to create the world large tower drop coaster
Just use the zero g plane
@@air_ It doesn't go to 100km
Nice video, but not a word or one second of video of a Falcon Nine rocket landing? SpaceX has been the biggest player in bringing the cost of space travel down. Seems like this is a commercial for Blue Origin and Bigalow
The video is called The Future of Space Tourism. I love SpaceX but they aren’t really interested in tourism so why would they star in this video.
yeah cant believe he brought up blue origin, and what about the BFR thats going to go around the moon??!!??
Just last week, SpaceX announced they were going to start space tourism, possibly later this year! And a major point the video was making was bringing down costs with reusability. 😁
@@2KOOLURATOOLGaming they are by far the most interested and the closest to it!
Once again a great video!
I'm calling it now... We already have the "Vomit Rocket" so the The Blue Origin craft should be called the "Puke Pod"
lmao This deserves more likes.
Looooooooooooool ikr
This MIGHT put an end to the Flat Earth nonsense.
i`m afraid not...most people who think the earth is flat have the IQ of donald trump
@@hermanvandendries7458 don't make it political, those who make it political have lower iq
@@asefjamilajwad well at least this flat earth stuff will die of slowly as more and more people go to space.
Herman van den Dries funny how Donald Trump “has low iq” but he earned billions
Trump lost billions he was given he's the biggest loser ever.
This video makes me so happy..
Omg thank you so much for making this video! I was going to draw a comic on space travel in the year 2040 and cuz of you I have an idea on where to start! :D
I hope it gets cheaper during my lifetime
@Anonymous 30
@Anonymous are you chinese. btw it will be cheap for him too! in 2035 ish we can go to outer atmosphere , we can already fly planes there are jets who can get launched mid air andd launch to space
@Anonymous oh ok rmb is chinese money so.
@Anonymous ok..? Damn
@Anonymous ok
The price could drop to 200-
😁
-thousand dollars
🤯
the way explaining each and every video is really good..........
Interesting video,
Also mention that SpaceX signed a contract with space adventurers in order to allow 4 crew to LEO and NASA also signed a contract to allow the construction of a new space station by Axiom Space, also could be used by tourists
oh man wat coolest we got in upons.
I feel like once we get a colony on a planet, we should have people with skills going to it. So we move a lot of people off of earth
I’m 15. Do you think it will be possible for me to go to space in my life time? Cause if so that would be dope and I would pay every penny I have!
Sal Coscino definitely in your 30s-40s
Sal Coscino no we all die before that
Sal Coscino big chungus will eat us alive
why would you want to go to space? They don't even have weed in space yet its all here on earth. If they had space weed or moon hash I might go. But probably not. Do you like girls?
voidremoved first yes I’m straight. 2 because it would cool to experience weightlessness
Hope bright future for space tourism
Great video. I'm ok with not going to space, but! I need 1) high-res images of Earth-like planets and 2) proof of extraterrestrial intelligence.
I just need a TV show where they send flat earthers into space.
Man I would just like to witness the mars landing/manned moon landing 2024
I wouldn't mind longer videos, they are very well done .
BRILLIANT.
Tbh, I will get bored in space after a while because I would want to go outside
Over 20% of self-commercializing. Bravo, new record.
2:45 I'm sorry to nitpick, but you kind of missed the point of the cost savings of reusable rockets. You said that if they make rockets sufficiently reusable then customers will only have to pay for crew and fuel costs. This is not true. Firms don't just ignore fixed costs (e.g. the cost of the rocket itself) when figuring out what they'll charge their customers. It's just that if they can convert variable costs into fixed costs they can allocate a greater portion of their total costs over a greater number of units produced, achieving economies of scale. Variable costs are easily traceable on a per unit basis b/c you incur them every time you produce a unit. The units in this case being rocket launches. The point of reusability is to reduce variable costs and increase fixed costs. If you never reuse a rocket, the amounts you spend on rockets (excluding the original design costs) are entirely variable costs. If you discard or refurbish rockets every 5 launches the associated materials and labor costs of manufacture are more fixed w/ respect to the number of launches. So if you can get 100 commercial launches a year, by the end of the year you'll have paid for 20 rockets' worth of materials and labor rather than 100. Let's say your rocket design needs 1,500 metric tons of materials (avg = $2,000 per MT) and 6,500 hours of labor (avg = $5,000 per hour) your manufacturing costs (materials and labor) = $35.5 million per rocket = 1,500*2,000+6,500*5,000.
I ignore price volatility b/c it's immaterial for the sake of proof of concept. If you're expecting to launch 100 rockets this year and this design isn't reusable, total manufacturing costs for the year = $3.55 billion. Your original rocket cost $1.5 billion to design. Non-manufacturing variable costs total $500 million for 100 launches; est. total average costs = (500M + 1.5B + 3.55B)÷100 ~ $55.5 million per launch.
Your materials suppliers may offer bulk discounts, but you'd save more money on material in total if you bought fewer total materials. To buy fewer total materials you need to make fewer rockets. The way you make fewer rockets is designing for reusability. You invest another 1.5 billion designing a rocket recovery system while reducing weight to offset the added weight of the recovery system, allowing a modest 5 launches per rocket (20 rockets per 100 launches), your estimated variable manufacturing costs for the year are now only $710 million. The new calculation: (500M + 3B + 710M)÷100 = $42.1 million. This calculation demonstrates immediate savings which often isn't the case. Incurring greater fixed costs, like R&D costs, may increase your total average cost per unit ([total fixed + total variable]/ total units produced) in the short term, but your since fixed costs are fixed relative to production, converting variable costs into fixed costs will make everything cheaper in the long term. A major problem w/ aerospace & defense is all these companies have their own contractors that do different jobs w/in the processes of designing, manufacturing, and maintaining spacecraft. This means no vertical integration, and no ability to convert take advantage of economies of scale. Of course the reason they don't do this in the first place is b/c they have a blank check. Realistically, the Gov't doesn't care that much about cost overruns (the govt can't technically go bankrupt in a reasonable amount of time), and so neither do the contractors.
I will wait 20 years when the price goes down to 5000 a flight. Cant wait.
Caugh....spacex starship tourism🚀
What if they made a cabin whose only job is to orbit the earth like a satellite, which would be pretty cheap from my understanding, since it will maintain its speed once it has been 'installed'. And then only have a small capsule / aircraft transferring passengers between earth and the cabin. So only the transport to the cabin is the complicated and expensive part, if the cabin doesn't need any fuel and doesn't need to be steered. I guess the problem would be the docking / letting passengers inside the cabin part.
That's a great question.. what Would you actually do once/if you got To space?
Watch the scenery for example?
Blue origin plan is the same as my rocket flight in ksp career mode
Something like in the movie “Passengers” would be awesome if doable.
Whilst I think it is a brilliant idea, I think that the problem with inflatable space hotels is that since they have less mass for their surface area than the ISS they would be decelerated more quickly by the atmosphere and would need more frequent boosts to stay at their orbit. Space Debris is also more dangerous for these but I think maybe the flexible nature of the membrane might actually help it absorb Kinetic energy better?
i have to watch this for school
Je n’aime pas cette vidéo car j’ai un devoirs d’anglais dessus 🙃
Wow what a brilliant
-Flat earth:The earth is flat-
Reality:The earth curves
Can't wait for space tourism to be real man, the flat earth conspiracies will be gone for good :D
Yes, and why did I write this comment?
@@TheLuckierbruh xD
Bigelow's space 'hotels' - hostel might be a better term - would just be for ultra-wealthy. Very limited number of people could be accommodated, which would itself mean that price must be very high.
Biding products & services to the most wealthy customers is the most effective way to make them available to all income level someday or sooner.
I have a better idea:
Step 1: make an apollo era capsule and stuff it full of flatearthers and jettison them into space
our children will spend weekend go outsides on some distant places in universe far aways.
I know it's a step in the right direction, but "it will only satisfy the super rich" sounds dystopian as hell
Buy a ticket, i would sweep the floor for UBEr rich. And have fun!
@@jamisonbernard2624 😂
I HATE EDUCATION BUT THIS VIDEO IS COOL
Work hard at school kids, you can do anything if you work hard enough.
Will try this if I have the money..but looks impossible for me. .
Nice
I'm all for a holiday to space but why does no one talk about the flight emissions?
If you use a methane engine like SpaceX, you can literally extract your rocket fuel from the air. It's a chemical reaction called the "Sabatier process", & it means that your rocket fuel can be totally neutral regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
@@dr.zoidberg8666 Oh ok. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
@@dr.zoidberg8666 Can air travel companies utilise this?
@@IrishAnonymous01 I don't know. That being said, there is very promising research going on right now on batteries that would have _significantly_ better charge density than is available right now.
It's well within the realm of possibility that we will see solid state batteries within the next 10 years that are light enough to realistically power commercial airplanes.
3:11 Starship should cost 5 millions to build for 1100 cubic meters, so maybe starship 2.0 is around 40 millions for 8800 cubic meters? That would be an awesome space station.
Using starship (2000$ per ticket) to go to the station would make it quite affordable.
Update: Bigelow Aerospace is, as of March 2020, effectively out of business. They've laid off their entire workforce, and have ceased operations at their research and production facility in North Las Vegas, Nevada. No plans to restart operations have, as yet, been announced.
makes a video about the Brazilian space program
Well, RIP to Space Tourism for the next 10 years. *cough*
can you post a ksp video
"Thanks for brilliant... and jeff bezos for sponsoring this video..."
And I will get scared and probably have a breakdown
Pretty sure Bigelow is closing down
First space tourists will be on short flights into the lower levels of the stratosphere, Virgin Galactic plans the first flights this year, Space X also plans a tourist trip this year, neither of these companies are mentioned in this video, they will be the first, so why focus on Origin only?
??has any TEAM made so much interest and money for others!!, THANK U; ET, (Elon&Team) from everyone!!
whos here because of school?
At least for now, you got the dough, you get to go. 😂 😁 I think I like Bigelow best..
I like SpaceX vehicles like starship the best personally since the biggest cost savings will come from cheaper $/kg to orbit, but Bigelow modules are likely the future for much of space habitation since they're poised to make the most efficient use of increased payload capacity. Also Robert Bigelow is a super open minded guy!
He seen the curvature take that square earthers LOL
yup.
Flat earthers:lets pretend as if we did not see that
narrator: the cheapest way to space
Boeing has left the chat
Yeah pretty sure its not comfortable at all and won't be for a long time.
imagine a day when no human has to toil to eat and his purpose is to explore the universe not as an immigrant or searching for better life but simply as a tourist. that’s the future!
I’m not sure how you can create a video on Space Tourism without at least some discussion of Space X and Virgin Galactic?!
In 2024, the space station will be decommissioned and will burn through reentry. Shouldn't we have a replacement before talking about space tourism and other big projects, like deep space venture?
ruclips.net/video/laSDomsAa3c/видео.html
How long does a tank of personal oxygen last?
I know this seems petty, but why do you keep using the verb "are"? For example, at 1:40: "Blue Origin are..." and 4:30: "Bigelow Aerospace are...". Interesting video, though
Hi Gabe, I can't speak for the makers of this video, but this could come down to regional variations. In British English, groups (collective nouns) are often referred to in the plural, whereas in American English we use the singular.
New Shepard will be taking humans in 2134, can't wait!
Still cheaper than Toronto
This could help with world wide problems
2:31 200,000 USD???
i wanna do this soo so bad!!^^
^^
@0.25 where is that?
A hotel in "space"...
But and the space debri?
1:57 why is the rocket so phallic
It's just your imagination.
What happens if you dont get your seat belt back in time? lol
I would love to go to space... The moon, Mars and other plants in the universe ❤️❤️❤️...|
4:52
I’m going away for a break, I need ‘space’
So basically 50 to 100 years from now. Living on Mars is probably 200 years away
👍🏼👌🏽
35.000 per night i expect room service and a private chef
NASA: sure but the room service comes 2 years late and your flight is next year
I would much rather live on mars because of the less gravity
My wife said she would not will go, unless in space got shopping malls.
an inflatable space station is a kinda dumb idea when you thinking about space debris
it may be inflatable but its still 20 layers of kevlar... bigelows module even handle space debris better than solid ones...
space tourism people are gonna travel in starship from place to place through space.
Sup
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are heading us towards a multi planet species!
Mostly Musk atm though, both in absolute terms and especially in proportion to what they could be committing to it in money/time. Bezos is an afterthought for now imo, until blue origin has a reusable orbit capable launcher at least comparable to F9, by which point SpaceX may very well have starship up and running.
Inflatable? Nah fam im out.. those speedy debris can easily pen it..
First tourist to visit space should be flatearthers
Cool, holidays for the 0.0001% become available to the 0.001%.
I wonder if Boeing build space transport and fuck it up
للخروج من الغلاف الجوي كم السرعه 🙄او قوة الأندفاع للتخلص من الجاذبيه 🤣كثير فلا يمكن لأي احد كما يقولون يتحمل حتى بتغيير الوضع 😊ماعندي معطيات لأحسب ....بل عند اقلاع الطائره العاديه وتبدء٢٥٠ تقريبا لها تاثير اما ضحك عليه دكتور القلب😂😂😂في مقدمة الطائره ومأخرتها حتى لو قلنا ١ من مليون فيه فارق قال الله يعين 😁درجة ا...في المقدمه حسابي على ذمة مصطفى محمود وتاثير ذالك على الدوره الدمويه .....لا تروحون يضحكون عليكم طائره حسابيا🤗🙄ما تخرج من الغلاف الجوي...ماتجي
الجسم للمركبة الفضائية الخارجية يختلف عن الداخلي
Japanese woman needed for space tourism lol
Wait, what?
@@quisqueyanguy120 Oh boy. You missed some good drama. You should grab some popcorn and read the entire twitter thread of Yusaku Maezawa's dating show announcement.
@@spidermain Wasn't it canceled. Btw that was a weird announcement.
In America you go to space, in Soviet Russia space come to you.