Space Ship Two

Burt Rutan and Richard Branson unveiled "Space Ship Two" the other day, the space ship that will take the first space tourists into orbit in 2009 or 2010. First of all, creative name there guys - seems like it took a real burst of creativity to go from "Space Ship One" (the ship that won Rutan the X Prize a few years ago) to...that's right, "Space Ship Two." (What will the next one be called?) Anyway, Rutan made headlines a few years ago by leading the first privately-funded enterprise to put someone in space and return them safely. He and his financial partner Paul Allen won themselves a cool $10 million, and now Branson has spun off another Virgin company to capitalize: Virgin Galactic. Construction on the first ever spaceport is underway in the New Mexico desert.



As an established space enthusiast, I am often asked if I would want to go into space aboard a tour ship. I don't think I would -- I don't envision the experience being particularly fulfilling for those with the exploratory gene. It seems like cheating in a way; I think the real purpose of space flight is not the "gee whiz" factor of weightlessness, but rather the exploratory component, sense of mission, and scientific potential that lie beyond earth. A flight with Virgin Galactic costs $200,000, takes about 2.5 hours and includes a cool 2.5 minutes of weightlessness. Just to clarify, that's $1,333 per second of free fall (making the price of the local amusement park seem like a bargain!). I think Branson understands that this may ultimately become anticlimactic, and he's already thinking larger scale, about other benefits of space tourism. In the presentation the other day in New York, he mentioned that some of the biggest scientific breakthroughs of the future might happen through such journeys. Perhaps he wasn't quite so bombastic, but he was suggesting that his company will produce scientific results. I have trouble believing this, especially in the near term. NASA has been stuck in low earth orbit (quite a bit farther our that space ship two will be going) for decades trying to justify a science program of humans in space - it seems pretty likely that most of the worthwhile science has been done. And I have trouble seeing billionaire Bob taking an ion sputtering thin film depositor in his carry-on baggage to occupy his 150 seconds of space-time.

Even still, I think this is missing the point. The real promise of space lies in the destination, not the journey. Taking a ride on Virgin Galactic is like taking an afternoon boat ride a few miles off the coast of Spain in the 1500s. At that time, the real exploratory expeditions were focused on the New World, and it wasn't because they got months of time staring at the ocean -- it was the destination they sought. The New World was full of treasure and ensured riches for all who would make the trip (or so went the thinking). This seems like an obvious thing to say, but the true power of space exploration is where it can take you - the Moon, Mars, Europa, and elsewhere. I think we've been a little too enamored with the 'magic' of weightlessness, to willing to see space itself as the destination, to realize this.

So I'm a little skeptical of space tourism, but I do think the future of space exploration very well could be through private ventures. If NASA continues to be painfully risk-averse and some far-sighted company can be persuaded that an exploratory, science-based manned mission is worth their while, the first human mission to Mars might just be a corporate trip.