from suborbital space tourism to commercial personal spaceflight 2010 acta astronautica

7/23/2019 From Suborbital Space Tourism to Commercial Personal Spaceflight 2010 Acta Astronautica

1/8

From suborbital space tourism to commercial personal spaceflight

Walter Peeters

International Institute of Space Commerce (IISC), Douglas, Isle of Man, International Space University (ISU), Strasbourg, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 27 May 2009Received in revised form

15 October 2009

Accepted 19 October 2009Available online 4 December 2009

Keywords:

Space tourism

Commercial spaceflight

Point-to-point

Product life cycle

Customer requirements

a b s t r a c t

Excellent essays have been recently published on the profitability and the future of

space tourism. This paper is intended to supplement the considerations in this field andemphasizes the further potential evolution of commercial personal spaceflights. Indeed,

based upon work done at the International Space University (ISU) the oligopolistic

character of suborbital space tourism has been linked to marketing and product life

cycle (PLC) considerations and has led to the thesis that space tourism as a profitable

sector will require a follow-on strategy. Orbital space tourism, on one hand, could

become an extension of the PLC but, on the other hand, it is assumed that point-to-point

(P2P) commercial space transport will become the long term sustainable market.

Without ignoring technical challenges, this paper will mainly concentrate on marketing

and commercial aspects of personal spaceflight.

& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Let us examine the parallelism between the develop-

ment of commercial air transport and the emerging

development of commercial spaceflight. Although first

flights of some 300 m with Avion III were performed by

Clement Ader in 1897, these early attempts were less

publicly known as they were performed under strict

terms of military secrecy. More publicly known is The

Flyer, the first motorized plane constructed by the Wright

Brothers, which made its first memorable flight in Kitty

Hawk on 17 December 1903. On 15 September 1908 the

first passenger, E. Zens, was taken on board of the Flyermodel A, a bi-passenger plane developed for the US Signal

Corps.1 Already in 1909 the first piloting school was

established in Pau, France, graduating the first private

pilots in early 1910.

Certainly the threatening world conflict accelerated

the development of aviation considerably and in 1914,

only a decade after the first flights took place, a

considerable number of planes and pilots were already

present, as can be noted from Table 1.

Production rates rapidly increased during the next few

years under war conditions, reaching e.g. productions of

more than 1000 DH-4 aircraft monthly in USA alone, with

plans to double this production rate after 1918[1, p. 125

a.f.]. Already France on its own, at that time the leading

aircraft nation, is reported to have produced nearly 68,000

aircraft during WW1, from which not less than 52,640 are

recorded to have been lost!

2

Evidently, the availability of this large surplus of

aircraft, trained pilots and airports from 1919 onwards

led to the birth of the first commercial passenger flights.

Many military pilots offered short duration air trips to

passengers as a side activity to stunt flying (also known as

flying circuses and barnstorming). An interesting paral-

lelism to note also is that many of the first point-to-point

(P2P) air-routes were the result of Prizes, such as the 1919

Contents lists available atScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro

Acta Astronautica

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0094-5765/$- see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.10.026

Tel.: +33388655024; fax: +33388655447.

E-mail address: [email protected] It is worth mentioning that this plane was developed under an

incentive contract for a Heavier-than-Air-Flying Machine, whereby the

target speed was stipulated at 40 mph. As the Flyer reached a speed of

42.68 mph a premium of 5000$ (20%) was awarded in accordance with

the incentive scheme[2]. 2 See www.century-of-flight.net

Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 16251632
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aahttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.10.026mailto:[email protected]://www.century-of-flight.net/http://www.century-of-flight.net/http://www.century-of-flight.net/http://www.century-of-flight.net/http://www.century-of-flight.net/mailto:[email protected]://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.10.026http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aahttp://-/?-http://-/?-


2/8

Northcliffe Prize (to Ireland) or the 1927 Orteig Prize for

the transatlantic ParisNew York crossing.

The first regular service offered by the Farman

company between Paris and London, starting as early as

1919, proved not to be financially viable due to the high

ticket prices. However, soon after government support

was provided for such routes and from 1920 commercial

passenger flights took off with, among others, the then

reputed Franco-Romaine group with LondonParisCon-

stantinople routes.

So even if we can note a number of interesting

parallelisms there are also a number of considerable

differences between airflight and spaceflight develop-

ments:

Difference in timeline: If we consider the evolution in

technological know-how it is rather remarkable that it

took only 15 years between the first experimental

aircrafts and a commercial passenger service. With the

first human spaceflight in 1961, it took until 2002

(more than 40 years) before the first paying passenger,

Dennis Tito, could participate in a spaceflight.

Government support: Most analysts agree that the

birth of commercial air traffic would not have taken

place without considerable PPP (publicprivate-part-

nership) type governmental support. Besides some

isolated attempts, such as the US-DOD supported DC-X

development and minor ESA and NASA technology

development contracts, the same impetus has not

taken place in the space era.

Customer orientation: The aforementioned Farman

Company fitted the interior of its F60 Goliath planes

in accordance with tourist requirements. As one can

see, e.g. fromFig. 1, the (five) front seat passengers in

particular had an excellent and undisturbed view.

Similar customer considerations have only been

recently introduced in commercial space tourism

projects.

2. Customer requirements for personal spaceflight

Ignoring the customer requirements has very often led

to commercial failures. Recently, the space sector has

become increasingly aware of the necessity of this and, in

particular under impulse from very customer oriented

companies such as Richard Bransons Virgin Galactic, we

note increased emphasis in the design phase of commer-cial oriented spacecraft.

The potential size of the market for public space travel

will depend, in part, upon the attractive features

which designers of spaceflight experiences incorporate

into their spacecraft and related operations. Until re-

cently, the question had not been asked what do

passengers require and how can we adapt our planes to

these desiderata?.

Several market surveys have been undertaken and

several opinions have been presented[3,4]. In general, the

expectations of future space passengers include:

viewing space and the earth;

experiencing weightlessness and being able to float

freely in zero gravity;

experiencing astronaut training and other sensations;

communicating from space;

being able to discuss the adventure in an informed

way; and

having astronaut-like documentation and memora-

bilia.

These objectives need to be combined withsometimes

conflictingconstraints such as:

guaranteed safe return;

limited training time; and

minimum medical restrictions.

The first group of objectives requires adapted interior

design but also some additional features. Fig. 2 shows

some of the potential solutions as envisaged at ISU [5]

whereby we note:

the chairs are designed to adapt/move in accordance

with different g-loads in the different phases of travel.

windows are foreseen to ensure visibility at all phasesand seating positions;

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. Model of Farman F60 passenger plane (1919) (Source: Musee de

lAir, Le Bourget).

Table 1

Number of aircraft and planes in 1914[1].

Country Aircraft Trained pilots

France 260 171

Russia 100 28

Germany 46 52

Great Britain 29 88

Italy 26 89Japan 14 8

United States 8 14

W. Peeters / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 162516321626


3/8

a safety bar is designed to assist passengers back into

chairs before re-entry;

communication devices are built into the individual seats;

cameras on board, to be operated by the co-pilot, to

record the different phases; and

wearing of astronaut-type suits and helmets to mini-

mize potential injury.

Medical considerations are particularly important.

Whereas the traditional astronaut-selection philosophy

was based upon select-in principles, a paradigm shift will

be needed to concentrate on select-out approaches (since

all selection criteria will influence the eligible market).

This has influence on, amongst others [6]:

the pre-medical check, to be concentrated on select-

out criteria (whereby psychological issues will play a

paramount role), as covered by the FAA guidelines[7];

the medical facilities on board, such as an adapted

medical kit; and

telemedicine support. In view of the necessity of anastronaut like suit (mainly for marketing reasons), this

could be combined with built-in telemedicine (and

GPS) sensors.

Also in the case of training for the participants, the

technical aspects of the training are not the only

consideration. Spaceflight participants will also wish to

be fully informed. The educational dimensions of the

experience will therefore be important as well.

Last but not least a number of legal issues will need to

be considered well in advance, such as:

liability aspects and informed consent forms;

regulatory issues on certification and licensing (see

first FAA drafts);

environmental aspects (propellant pollution and sound

pollution); and

export control issues.

just to quote a fewy

Increased use of space for commercial transportationwill even lead to more advanced regulations such as the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. Interior design proposal (Doule, ISU).

W. Peeters / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 16251632 1627


4/8

ones proposed in Space Traffic Management (STM)

proposals[8].

An attempt to merge the market requirements and thedesign consequences is summarized in Table 2.

A number of these assumptions have been studied in

detail in ISU and evidently can be contested by other

approaches; just to highlight a few of these items:

astronaut suits and helmets are suggested not only as

memorabilia but also to add safety related equipment

as well as to reduce chances for injuries (helmets);

also from a liability point of view substantial training is

suggested emphasizing on safety aspects such as

egress under different emergency conditions. More-

over this period may be used for medical examinations

and observation as well as the necessary familiariza-tion with the spaceflight and plane (responding to the

requirement of candidates to be well informed parti-

cipants, not only passengers); and

the short flight will reduce the need for extensive

medical aid on board, but for injuries and emergency

situations, a limited small medical kit is proposed to be

used by the co-pilot, trained to handle medical

emergencies.

3. Commercial evolution and outlook

3.1. The product life cycle (PLC) concept

The product life cycle (PLC) is a marketing theory

explaining the expected phases which each product and

service will pass, from design to obsolescence.

The PLC indicates that products have four things in

common: (1) they have a limited lifespan; (2) their sales

pass through a number of distinct stages, each of which

has different characteristics, challenges, and opportu-

nities; (3) their profits are not static but increase and

decrease through these stages; and (4) the financial,

human resources, manufacturing, marketing and purchas-

ing strategies that products require at each stage in thelife cycle varies[9].

Whereas many sectors are used to this cycle and have

adopted their strategy to it (think of model philosophy in

the automobile sector), more technological oriented

sectors have sometimes ignored this reality and failed to

prepare for successor products.

A typical PLC is depicted inFig. 3and consists of four

phases

In the introduction phase the product or service sales

are growing slowly in view of the fact that customers are

unfamiliar with the quality. In this phase, due to the need

to amortise the investments made in the developmentphase, there will be basically no profit.

In the growth phase, sales are booming if the market

accepts and appreciates the product, and profits are rising.

In many cases, in particular when technological products

are concerned, the market leader will have a competitive

advantage as any market followers will first need to

acquire the technological and production know-how.

Unavoidably this is followed by a maturity phase. New

competitors will enter the market, attracted by the profit

margins. This does not only mean that the market will

have to be shared between more parties, but it also often

leads to forced price reductions due to competition. As an

overall result the net profit will start to decline. Importantto note is also the fact that competitors may have learned

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Space tourism marketing/system interrelation.

Phase Market requirement System consequence

Medical selection Allow maximum number of candidates Medical select-out criteria with waivers

Training Minimum duration Remote familiarization phase, tailored 10-days training

Informed passenger Appropriate introduction using astronaut-like material

Insurance Solid cross-waiver of liability and commercial insurance Reliability assessment and development of consent forms

Spaceport Safe and touristy attractions Location and infrastructureEasy access Good connection to major airports

Minimum of cancellations Location in terms of weather conditions

Minimum interference Distant from commercial airline routes

Flight Experience acceleration Trajectory, propulsion, admissible g-loads

Viewing possibilities Window design, also in relation to different positions

Experience microgravity Free floating space, easy unstrap/strap mechanism

Safety on board Fixation handles, medical kit, helmets, easy strapping

Documentation Filming on board. Positioned cameras

Communication Communication devices, possibly built in the seats

Return Memorabilia Astronaut suit, filming material, certificate

Fig. 3. Typical product life cycle curve (source: Perrault, William D. Jr. &

E. Jerome McCarthy, Essentials of Marketing, 7th Edition, 1997. Chicago:

Richard D. Irwin Company.)

http://-/?-http://-/?-


5/8

from the market leader and may come up in this phase

with improved products.

At the end, during the decline phase, sales tend to

reduce very rapidly. This can be due to the fact that the

market/consumer behaviour has changed but in many

cases it is the result of a new product with improved

features. In this phase remaining stocks often have to be

sold at strongly reduced or even dumping prices.We should not fail to mention here that technology is

playing a paramount role in these cycles. Products can

become rapidly obsolete e.g. after the introduction of a

superior standard, as we witness presently in the case of

video standards, photography and IT products.

For some of these technological driven products we

should rather use the technological life cycle (TLC)

concept[10].

3.2. The PLC and suborbital space tourism

Let us apply these principles to our present Space

Tourism scenario. As a starting assumption we can

assume that we will follow a rather traditional PLC and

not as much a TLC approach, as the development of new

technologies will not happen rapidly.

As in any product life cycle, we have to assume a

strong reduction in profitability after a few years of space

tourism operation. There are two particular reasons for

this:

Ticket price reduction: All forecasts show that only the

first group of customers will be prepared to pay the

relatively high ticket price of, say 200,000 USD. Futron[3]

suggests a reduction to 175,000 USD after 3 years ofoperation, followed by a further reduction to 150,000 USD

2 years later and a continued gradual decline in the real

price to 50,000 USD over time as shown inFig. 4.

Competition: Depending on the strategies for market

development adopted by the first operators, in a mono-

polistic or oligopolistic environment, profits may be

rather high during the first years as shown in simulations

based upon the Hopper and Kankoh Maru projects [11].

Every product life cycle then comes into a phase ofsaturation when other competitors will enter the market,

putting pressure on prices.

This risk is rather high in our specific case. With some

16 known projects at the time of writing this article, some

of them funded by financially strong Business Angels, we

can reasonably assume that more than a few will enter

the market rapidly one after the other. It is evident that

not all competitors will have the cash-flow capacity to

sustain operations, but four or five likely ones will

certainly influence the ticket price structure.

3.2.1. Resulting PLC effectThe combination of a declining market, which will

require ticket price reductions, and the increasing com-

petition, may lead to a point where declining profitability

of this suborbital tourism product results in a shake-out of

the market, as can be observed in the early years of other

new industries. We can therefore assume that we are

dealing with a highly profitable but potentially volatile

market in the mid-term.

Estimating the points in a PLC is very difficult, unless

historical benchmark data are available (like the average

lifetime of a car model).

An attempt was made in ISU using standard economic

concepts measuring the market structure. In particularthe MES factor was used as a key indicator, whereby MES

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 4. Forecasted declining ticket price[3].



6/8

stands for minimum efficient scale, defined as the

smallest output level where long run average costs

minimized [12]. Developing a tailored simulation model

for this specific case this exercise concluded[13]:

maximal return is reached with a capacity of 2000

passengers per year;

maximum profits are assumed between 5 and 7 yearsof operation (end of growth phase in Fig. 3); and

the market will then have evolved from a monopolistic

to an oligopolistic structure.

As with each product and service, the next step will

therefore be to look for further evolution and diversifica-

tion. Whereas in the exclusive segment orbital flights can

be assumed to be the next market segment, point-to-

point suborbital transport seems the next logical step

after the initial market boom. Note that this will also be in

line with the evolution in the aeronautical sector, where-

by the first flights were event oriented before evolving to

regular point-to-point travel.

4. Point-to-point (P2P) space travel: a sustainable

market

4.1. The P2P space travel concept

In order to evaluate the feasibility of the market, an

extensive study was made in ISU on the different

parameters. As a starting point Concorde flights were

taken in terms of time savings and potential markets. The

results of the study[14]can be summarized as follows:

only distances of minimum 3500 km shall be consid-

ered for suborbital flight patterns. Formore econom-

icballistic flights this minimum distance starts from

7000 km onwards;

flight apogees shall be limited to max. 500km height to

avoid radiation exposure;

vehicles and trajectories shall be designed to reduce g-

loads for passengers;

the triangular trajectory New YorkLondon/Paris

Tokyo is presently considered as the most promising

one, although other links could be considered as

evolutive, as shown inFig. 5; planes to cover this trajectory require high develop-

ment cost (SUBORB-TRANSCOST calculation: 4.3B$,

unit cost 680M$) with ticket pricing in the order of

75; 000$;

a market of 50 passengers per day is assumed (based

upon Concorde equivalence), on the prime trajectory

LondonNew YorkTokyo (New YorkTokyo: 90 min.

flight time);

a viable cargo market will be limited to specific items,

for which the time value is high (such as transplants);

extensive work is needed on environmental propulsion

and noise level reduction, compliant with departures

and arrivals at conventional airports close to urbanregions; and

hybrid bilateral agreements are recommended, before

full ICAO standards are in place.

Special emphasis needs to be given to the spaceport

operations in the case of P2P travel.

Dedicated spaceports will certainly have the advantage

of being more independent from commercial interfer-

ences but risk being further from town centres for

environmental reasons. Moreover they will require addi-

tional airport to airport transfer in the case of an

additional hub. Such additional time constraints willmake this solution rather non-compatible with the time

driven business model described hereafter.

This leaves the preferred option of using conventional

airports. However, in order to have a competitive

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 5. Prospective routes for P2P travel [14].



7/8

approach linked to the value of time saving, a dedicated

check-in and disembarking/custom clearance service (like

was done with Concorde flights) will therefore have to be

envisaged.

4.2. Towards a P2P business model

It is important at this stage to point out that there is a

considerable difference between space tourism and P2P

space travel. The first category of activities falls under the

category of adventure tourism, defined as[15].

A variety of self-initiated activities utilizing an interaction

with the natural environment that contain elements of real

or apparent danger, in which the outcome, while uncertain,

can be influenced by the participant and circumstance.

Hence, space tourism:

is a once-in-a-lifetime experience;

will attract people who are not risk averse;

the trip may have some level of discomfort as part of

the experience;

will require a separate spaceport infrastructure (high

class hotels, simulators,y);

tourists want to be a part of the astronaut experience

and are willing to undergo (limited) training; and

the ticket price will be strongly supply oriented (no

competitive offering).

For commercial space travel, however

time saving will be the paramount factor;

the trip shall be comfortable and without risks;

connections to other airports and business centre

infrastructures are important (hence landing at com-

mercial main airports);

the space aspect is of interest but not the main

motivator; and

the ticket price will need to be competitive withalternative transport means (like private jets).

The latter difference brings us to the business case aspect.

If we assume in a first iteration that the passengers will

be present first class travellers with, in most cases,

additional VIP service facilities (check-in/out), we may

conclude that the time savings will be merely the flight

time difference, not the on-ground processing.

Table 3 provides a comparison between normal

(present) flight durations and the calculated suborbital

flight durations[14].

The situation becomes even more expressive if we

consider, e.g. a LondonSydney route, which requires astop-over and therefore travel times in the order of 22 h.

The target market group we are considering are time-

poor, cash-rich people, who are obliged to travel, such as:

top executives;

board members;

sports stars (golf, tennis, formula-1); and

celebrities (movie stars, musicians).

Evaluation of the first two categories result in hourly cost

figures (in terms of opportunity cost, i.e. the alternative

income generated by other options than travel time) in

the order of 4500$, with the latter two categories evenreaching levels of 30,000$/h[16].

It is clear that for the second category a trade-off,

purely based upon the time savings, can easily be reached,

whereby other factors such as the effect on physical

fitness will add a distinct but less tangible advantage.

The first category of travellers represents the more

frequent user group, and is therefore important for a

sustainable market, hence could be used as a prime basis

for a business model approach.

Let us base our assumptions on the New YorkTokyo

trajectory.

We can compare for this specific case:

the present, normal flight including a first class ticket

at 11,800$3; and

an alternative spaceflight with a time saving over 11 h

at 4500$/h opportunity cost.

Resulting in a theoretical break even space ticket price of

49,5004+11,800=61,300$.

Hence, based upon the previously estimated ticket

price of 75,000$ we are reaching equitable levels, but with

the intangible asset of having at the same time y been in

space as an extra bonus!

Evidently, in cases where stop-overs are presently

involved, the case for a direct P2P space trip will be even

stronger due to the additional time savings.

An additional comfort element can be illustrated as per

Fig. 6. P2P flights between London (or Paris) and New York

would allow the executive to leave around 10 am in

London (or Paris), have a 4 h meeting in New York and be

back the same day, around 11pm in London/Paris.

Certainly this will be a real asset for frequent travellers.

It seems evident that many aspects, in particular

technical ones, will require a debugging phase before we

can implement this business case, in particular in the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Comparison of flight durations.

Route Distance (km) Aircraft duration (h) Suborbital duration (av. min.) Time saving

London-New York 5900 7 h 30 70 6 h 20

London-Singapore 9560 11 h 30 76 10 h 14

New York-Tokyo 10,900 12 h 50 83 11 h 27

3

BA ticket in January 2009, according to website.4 Conservative 11 h timesaving at 4,500$/hr.

http://-/?-http://-/?-


8/8

fields of flight comfort and safety. In many cases a number

of elements will be the same and it is assumed that the

suborbital flight experience will provide us with strong

feedback.

It would therefore be an added advantage for the

market evolution if the present design of suborbital

vehicles could to some extent be coherent with the

ultimate goal to develop a new generation of P2P space-

craft. The present EADS design (seeFig. 7) is undoubtedly

a first step in such a direction.

5. Conclusion

There is no doubt that the present plans for suborbital

space tourism will result in a flourishing market over the

next few years. The large number of potential competitors

and the limited market will most probably result in

reaching maximum profitability after some 57 years of

operation.

Entering, in terms of the product life cycle, in to the

maturity phase, orbital space tourism can then extend the

lifecycle considerably.

The real sustainable market, in analogy with what

happened in the aeronautical sector will be point-to-point

(P2P) regular space travel, whereby the relatively high

ticket prices will be compensated by the considerable

time savings, important for a select but tangible time-

poor, cash-rich target public.

However, this market segment will have higher safety

and comfort requirements compared to the previous,

more adventure tourism targeted group. It is therefore

important that the suborbital space tourism experience is

mirrored towards the later phase of space travel and

assists in debugging the early problems by appropriate

design and operational experience.

References

[1] I.B. Holley, Ideas, Weapons, Yale University Press, 1998, p. 29.[2] H.J. Herten, W.A. Peeters, Incentive contracting as a project

management tool, International Journal of Project Management 4(1) (1986) 3439.

[3] FUTRON Corporation, Suborbital Space Tourism Demand Revisited,Futron, Bethesda, 2006.

[4] G. Crouch, J. Laing, Space tourism attributes and implications forconsumer choice, in: Conference on Cutting Edge Research inTourismNew Directions, Challenges and Applications, Universityof Surrey, UK, June 69, 2006, ISBN 1-84469-012-1.

[5] O. Doule, Passenger Safety on Personal SpaceflightSpacecraftInterior Concept Design, IAC, Glasgow, 2008 IAC-08-B3.2.-D2.7.5.

[6] S. Adebola, Emergency Medicine for Human Suborbital Flight,Personal Assignment, ISU, 2008. Available from /www.iisc.imS.

[7] FAA, Guidance for medical screening of commercial aerospacepassengers, Federal Aviation Administration, Report DOT/FAA/AM-61/1, January 2006.

[8] K.-U. Schrogl, Space traffic management: the new comprehensiveapproach for regulating the use of outer space. Results from the2006 IAA cosmic study, Acta Astronautica 62 (2008) 272276.

[9] P. Kotler, K.L. Keller, Marketing Management, 12th ed., PearsonEducation, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2006.

[10] W. Peeters, Space Marketing, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2001.[11] R. Goehlich, A ticket pricing strategy for an oligopolistic space

tourism market, Space Policy 21 (4) (2005) 293306.[12] G.N. Mankiw, Principles of Economics, third ed., Ohio, South

Western, 2004.[13] J. MacLeod, Estimating suborbital market structure, Personal

Assignment, ISU, 2008. Available from /www.iisc.imS.[14] ISU, Great expectations: an assessment of the potential for

suborbital transportation, MS08 Team Project, ISU, Strasbourg,2008. Available from /http://www.isunet.eduS.

[15] J. Naisbitt, Global Paradox, Avon, New York, 1994 p. 163.[16] C. Druce, Business planning considerations for successful commer-

cial point-to-point sub-orbital space travel operations. Paperpresented at IAA Symposium, Ref. AA-1-2008-044, Arcachon,France, May 2008.

[17] C. Iwata, Pricing of suborbital PTP using opportunity cost, PersonalAssignment, ISU, 2009. Available from /www.iisc.imS.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 6. Possible travel schedule London/ParisNew York[17].

Fig. 7. Artist impression of the EADS suborbital spacecraft (Source:

EADS).

http://www.iisc.im/http://www.iisc.im/http://www.isunet.edu/http://www.iisc.im/http://www.iisc.im/http://www.iisc.im/http://www.iisc.im/http://www.iisc.im/http://www.isunet.edu/http://www.iisc.im/http://www.iisc.im/http://www.iisc.im/http://www.iisc.im/http://www.iisc.im/http://www.iisc.im/http://www.iisc.im/http://www.iisc.im/

from suborbital space tourism to commercial personal spaceflight 2010 acta astronautica

Documents