[dopa42365]

Before LEO internet constellations, even the leading nations had just ~20-25 launches per year each, and a good chunk of those were for ISS services.

Other than the occasional GNSS, weather, scientific, broadcast and surveillance satellite, there's not all that much worth sending into space.

[squidbeak]

This really isn't true. Infrastructure build outs, space mining, the power generators and datacenters needed by the world's current best funded and most energetic sector all depend on more launches and larger cargo holds.

[fragmede]

I, and I'm not alone, would pay a giant pile of money to go into space for a holiday.

[verzali]

And yet space tourism ventures consistently struggle to be viable. Even SpaceX barely bothers with that market.

[laughing_man]

People have been pointing to space tourism for decades, but I've never thought it viable. You quickly run out of people with enough money to pay what it costs to run the service.

Beyond that, it's got to be the lousiest way to spend a couple days. Weightlessness is really uncomfortable -- you're most likely going to be motion sick for a day or two. But beyond that your body requires gravity for proper distribution of fluids. The reason astronauts look so puffy in photographs is their faces are swelling from excess fluid.

[fragmede]

Having a computer in your pocket that's connected to a world wide web of other devices wasn't viable until the technology too support it was there. If it cost the same as a family vacation to another continent, I'm sure there's no shortage of people that want to experience the weightlessness of space. Think of having drinks (alcohol or not) in space. A simple thing as that would be such an experience. It wouldn't be for everybody, just like cruise ships aren't for everybody, yet that industry manages to stay afloat.

[illiac786]

That ought to be the most CO2 heavy holiday I can think of. I wish it could be made illegal, but I am certain there will always be one country allowing it.