[gist]

> rich folk would gladly pay millions, which makes the business case a lot more compelling.

I would say some would but keep in mind that a few other things have to come together.

a) Willing to take the risk (non trivial example I would not do this no chance)

b) Your family/spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend has to buy into the risk even if it's just you going into the orbit.

c) Potential negative publicity as in 'look how they are spending their money' since early adopters would most likely be publicized in some way.

d) Guilt maybe spending millions for a trivial short ride vs. other things you can spend money on.

Keep in mind with 'd' other things are considered more acceptable and have social proof. This seems (to me anyway) the ultimate extravagance and I am wondering if there is the classic difference between what people say they would do if given the chance and what they would actually do.

[fallingknife]

The publicity aspect would deter some, but it would attract others. By the time even 20 people have gone up, it won't be newsworthy, and then it will just be like buying a yacht. There are about 1.5 million people in the US worth $10 million or more, which is about where you need to be to comfortably afford this type of thing now, and another 10 million or so single digit millionaires, many of whom would take a significant hit to net worth to go up. So I think the odds that you can get > 10K takers just in the USA are pretty much 100%. If you can put 10K people up with a solid safety record, then that number would probably go up to 100K to 1 million potential customers. The economy of scale at that level would probably drop the price to where most of the upper middle class is a potential customer. So I think this can work. Safety record is the key.

[pie420]

The economics are just silly. 4 passengers at $250k each is only $1M in revenue per flight. Between fuel costs, rocket costs (even assuming 10x reuses per rocket, you'd need to build the rocket for significantly under $10M to have a chance at profitability, could you imagine building a rocket for under 10M?), engineer and employee salaries and benefits, advertising, liability, etc.

Add in the fact that you have a very viable competitor in Virgin Galactic and SpaceX who could leapfrog both and provide even better experiences, and I don't see how Blue Origin will ever be viable without government funding

[meepmorp]

I think BO's game plan has been to become something along the lines of a traditional aerospace contractor, and SpaceX has made that very hard.

I think the timing of the launch isn't coincidental - iirc, the investigation into the HLS decision is going to be done in early August, and it undoubtedly looks better for BO's case to have had a successful launch with humans onboard one of their rockets.

[dcow]

I suspect their end goal is other funding whilst using the consumer space to launch their program and establish credibility.

[samstave]

I'm surprised we haven't heard of that scammer Blizarian trying to get on one of these flights yet...

[dorfsmay]

How many amateurs pay a lot of money to be able to say they went to the top of mount Everest, which is probably a lot more risky?

[gist]

Good point but a bit different. People view climbing Everest as an achievement as opposed to going up in a rocket which even though you need to prepare seems less daunting and a different type of risk.

Not that it matters but I wonder which of these buys more social capital?

[bronco21016]

Exactly. As a pilot, I find both of these rides uninspiring. Now if I could strap myself to the top of a Titan II in a Gemini capsule and do some piloting… now that would be an experience.

[dolmen]

Keep in mind that the fortune of those millionaires might collapse if they die in the adventure. Or insurance cost might might make the trip much more expensive than just the ticket.