1. 1
ON THE EMERGENCE OF COMMERCIAL, SUBORBITAL
POINT-TO-POINT FLIGHTS
Presented at the 2006 Annual International Space University Alumni Conference
Enrico Palermo
enrico.palermo@ssp06.isunet.edu, enricopalermo@hotmail.com
Space Systems Analysis & Design Department
Summer Session Program 2006, International Space University
ABSTRACT
When SpaceShipOne successfully secured the Ansari X-Prize in October 2004, it demonstrated
that low-cost, frequent access to space is feasible. This paper explores the emergence of
commercial, suborbital point-to-point space flights – a natural progression from the short duration
tourism flights planned by a new breed of space entrepreneurs. Intercontinental flights less than
one hour in duration are a technical innovation – an inflection point in the market. Will a fleet of
ultimate business jets develop or will a major transformation occur, to a new global passenger
travel industry? Either way, it is likely that suborbital operators or ‘spacelines’ must safely
integrate their craft into existing aviation systems and regulations.
1. INTRODUCTION
High speed aerospace transportation from
one point to another has been referred to as
the ‘holy grail’ of the suborbital industry
(FAA/AST 2005). When SpaceShipOne
successfully secured the Ansari X-Prize in
October 2004, it demonstrated that low-cost,
frequent access to space is feasible. With a
combined market development and systems
analysis perspective, this preliminary study
explores the emergence of commercial,
suborbital point-to-point flights from this initial
triumph.
Suborbital flight is spaceflight that does not
involve putting a vehicle into orbit. Due to
insufficient horizontal speed, the trajectory
intersects the earth before a complete orbit is
achieved. Suborbital flight technology is not
new. A commercial suborbital space travel
industry could have started over 30 years ago
during the Apollo project with the X-15
experimental rocket-plane (Collins 2005).
Emerging and long-term markets for
suborbital flight, as identified by the Federal
Aviation Administration’s Office of
Commercial Space Transportation (FAA/AST
2005), are listed in Figure 1.
The emerging Tourism and Adventure Travel
market differs significantly from the High
Speed Aerospace Transportation market at
the focus of this study. Significantly different
customer sets demand that they are treated
differently. The first set of customers desire
unique, challenging and fun experiences of
space travel (McAlister & Trash 2004), while
the latter set is motivated by the ability to
Fig. 1: Emerging and long-term suborbital markets
identified by FAA/AST (2005).
Tourism and
Adventure Travel
Science and High-
Speed Research
Microsatellite
Orbital Insertion
Microgravity
Research
Media, Advertising
and Sponsorship
Hardware
Qualification
Commercial
Remote Sensing
Military
Surveillance
Space Diving
Fast Package
Delivery
High Speed
Aerospace
Transportation
Emerging Markets Long-Term Markets

2. 2
rapidly travel around the globe for business or
leisure purposes.
To evaluate the emergence of the long-term
suborbital transportation market, a two step
approach was employed:
1. Understand the factors affecting the
adoption of point-to-point suborbital
flights by the mainstream customer and
identify the optimal distribution (sales)
channel.
2. Using this information, analyze the effects
of the introduction of a fleet of suborbital
vehicles on the travel industry and its
associated systems.
It is not the primary aim of this study to define
the technical requirements of a suitable
suborbital vehicle. However, the significant
obstacles to overcome in designing a multi-
passenger vehicle for point-to-point flights
should not be underestimated (Coleman et al
2006, FAA/AST 2005). The assumption is
made that an appropriate vehicle or fleet of
vehicles can be designed, for which
interactions with other systems can be
analyzed.
2. TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION LIFECYCLE
Various models exist for the acceptance and
diffusion of new products in a market. One
model is the technology adoption lifecycle
described by Moore (1999), which partitions
the market into distinct personality types,
each with their own purchasing attitudes and
product requirements (Figure 2):
- Innovators or ‘Technology Enthusiasts’
who pursue new technology aggressively.
They are responsible for ‘starting the fire’.
- Early Adopters or ‘Visionaries’ are
individuals who buy into new concepts
very early in their lifecycle. They do not
rely on well established references in
buying decisions. The first suborbital
tourism passengers and investors in new
suborbital ventures, who see a strategic
advantage, can be considered as part of
this group.
- Early Majority or ‘Pragmatists’ are often
referred to as the ‘rest of us’. They want
to see well established references and
competition before investing. In the case
of suborbital flights they want a safe,
reliable service that is easy to purchase.
Winning their business is vital, as they
typically represent a third of the market.
- Late Majority or ‘Conservatives’ are
individuals who wait for an established
standard. They want lots of support and
tend to buy from large well-established
companies. They do not typically support
high price margins.
- The final group, Laggards or ‘Skeptics’
will buy a technological product only when
Fig. 2: Technology adoption lifecycle (Moore 1999) with examples of Innovators and Early Adopters for the
suborbital flight market. (Strictly speaking, Tito and Shuttleworth were placed into orbit, but they contributed
to ‘starting the fire’ for suborbital travel services). The high-technology market is developed by working the
bell-shaped curve from left to right, maximising penetration in each group before proceeding to the next.
Fig. 2: Technology adoption lifecycle (Moore 1999) with examples of innovators and early adopters for the
suborbital flight market. (Strictly speaking, Tito and Shuttleworth were placed into orbit, but they contributed
to ‘starting the fire’ for suborbital travel services). The high-technology market is developed by working the
bell-shaped curve from left to right, maximising penetration in each group before proceeding to the next.

3. 3
it is buried deep inside another product
and are not worth pursuing on any other
basis. They are the group of people who
will likely never purchase suborbital travel
services.
However, Moore asserts that there are
inadequacies with this model. Gaps appear
between the groups that represent an
opportunity for marketing to lose momentum
and miss transition to the next segment
(Figure 3). The most perilous gap or ‘chasm’
is between the early adopters and early
majority. It is a gulf between distinct market
places for technology products and is the
area where most products and companies fail
to realize their potential.
To cross the chasm Moore suggests it is
necessary to:
- Target a specific niche market (the
‘beachhead’) and focus all resources on
achieving the dominant leadership
position in that segment.
- Secure a distribution channel into the
mainstream market with which the
pragmatist customer is comfortable.
- Make products easier to buy rather than
easier to sell.
Applying this basis to the suborbital flight
industry, one could draw the following
conclusions:
1. The niche market or ‘beachhead’ for
suborbital point-to-point flights is the
emerging short duration suborbital
tourism market. This market is a test bed
for vehicles and is an opportunity for
operators to demonstrate to regulatory
bodies, pragmatists and airport operators
that the vehicles are safe and reliable
enough for large volume, point-to-point
passenger flight.
2. The most effective distribution channel for
selling to the pragmatist customer is the
existing civil aviation system with its
worldwide network of major hubs, global
booking systems and well defined
regulatory framework. That is, having
scheduled suborbital flights landing and
taking off from major regional hubs. The
pragmatist customer is familiar with this
network and most importantly it is
something they already ‘feel comfortable’
with. There is no need for them to travel
to remote spaceports and they are
supported by the numerous industries
servicing the civil aviation industry.
3. SYSTEM INTERFACES
Having identified the existing civil aviation
system as the optimal distribution channel for
this market, a systems interface diagram
showing the main interactions was developed
(Figure 4). Some of these interacting
systems must adapt to the introduction of
commercial suborbital point-to-point flights.
Fig. 3: Gaps in the technology adoption lifecycle appear, representing an opportunity for marketing to lose
momentum and fail to transition to the next segment. The most perilous gap, the ‘Chasm’, is between the
market of early adopters and the mainstream market of pragmatists and conservatives.

4. 4
Conversely, the strong interconnections
influence the design of the next generation of
suborbital vehicles.
a) Airport infrastructure
The aviation industry historically has been
quite accommodating to changes in aircraft
design. For example, the current
modifications taking place in airports
worldwide in anticipation of the Airbus A380.
Airports electing to be regional hubs for
suborbital point-to-point flights will need to
upgrade and add facilities for servicing these
new vehicles – including fuel loading and
storage, maintenance capability and
passenger/cargo loading and unloading
systems.
Altering runways is expensive and sometimes
not feasible in crowded airfields. The next
generation of vehicles should be designed to
land with an appropriate speed and mass
comparable with existing aircraft.
Air Traffic Control schedules, monitors and
controls traffic in the air and during taxiing on
the ground. To accommodate suborbital
spacecraft, a combined air and space traffic
control has been proposed (ISU 2000).
Systems such as Automatic Dependent
Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) have the
capability of providing a more accurate
depiction of air traffic than radar and is
effective at very high altitudes where there is
no radar coverage (ISU 2000).
Another consideration is that competition for
already scarce runway occupancy time is
growing as passenger demand continues to
increase (Wilkins 2003). Maximizing
passenger carrying capacity is crucial in
securing approval to operate at major, busy
hubs.
b) Regulatory Framework
With no current precise definition of the
difference between an aircraft and a
spacecraft, there is ongoing confusion with
regards to the applicable regulatory
framework (Oduntan 2003, ISU 2000). Using
the functional definition of delimitation,
airspace extends to the maximum altitude
attainable for aircraft, while outer space starts
at the lowest point where a spacecraft can
orbit the Earth. Suborbital vehicles which
operate in a similar fashion to conventional
aircraft, just at higher altitudes, potentially
blur this definition and hence the applicability
of treaties such as the Chicago Convention.
The formation of FAA’s Office of Commercial
Space Transportation (AST) in the United
States lays the foundation for a closer merger
of aviation and outer space law in the future.
In 2004, the Commercial Space Launch
Amendments Act was passed. The act
specifies AST as the regulating authority for
suborbital spaceflight, establishes a permit
system for reusable launch vehicles, and
extends the existing liability regime to cover
commercial flights, including those carrying
passengers (FAA/AST 2005).
The elimination of informed consent waivers
is necessary in moving from an early market
of accredited passengers to a mainstream
market of pragmatists and conservatives.
Accredited passengers are those qualified to
choose to undertake risks that are greater
than those of scheduled airline flights (Collins
& Diamandis 1999). However, the early
majority is less likely to appreciate the
benefits and associated risks of suborbital
space flight. The pragmatist customer
desires a similar reliability and safety record
for suborbital vehicles as for modern aircraft
(Goehlich 2004).
c) Environmental Aspects
Upon introducing commercial suborbital
flights the following effects on the
environment should be considered:
- Vehicle emissions affecting global
warming or ozone depletion.
Fig. 4: Interface diagram for a fleet of suborbital
point-to-point vehicles integrated into civil
aviation. Four main ‘systems of systems’ were
identified: Airport Infrastructure, Passengers,
Regulatory Framework and Environment.
Suborbital
point-to-point
vehicle fleet
Airport Infrastructure
• Fuel loading and storage
• Maintenance systems
• Passenger/cargo loading
• Runway design
• Runway occupancy time
• Air Traffic Control
• Scheduling and booking
Airport Infrastructure
• Fuel loading and storage
• Maintenance systems
• Passenger/cargo loading
• Runway design
• Runway occupancy time
• Air Traffic Control
• Scheduling and booking
Environment
• Vehicle Emissions
• Noise
• Wildlife
• Fuel handling
Environment
• Vehicle Emissions
• Noise
• Wildlife
• Fuel handling
Regulatory Framework
• Airspace or Outerspace?
• Civil Aviation Regulations
• International Space Law
• Insurance
• Waivers
Regulatory Framework
• Airspace or Outerspace?
• Civil Aviation Regulations
• International Space Law
• Insurance
• Waivers
Passengers
• Adaptation to µ-g
• Radiation exposure
• Training requirements
Passengers
• Adaptation to µ-g
• Radiation exposure
• Training requirements

5. 5
- Sonic boom noise pollution from
suborbital vehicles during ascent and
descent in populated areas.
- Potential hazards to and from wildlife.
FAA/AST is currently preparing technical
studies on these topics (FAA/AST 2006).
d) Passengers
Unfortunately, as it currently stands, space
travel is not for everyone. The stress of
launch and reentry, exposure to microgravity
and confinement can all challenge the well
being of the healthiest individual (McAlister &
Trash 2004). Initial suborbital travelers (early
adopters) will have to meet some minimum
health and training requirements to withstand
the stresses and physiological changes of
spaceflight.
However, for mainstream adoption by
pragmatists and conservatives, purchasing
suborbital flights must be as straightforward
as purchasing scheduled airline flights. That
is, tickets are purchased and flights are
taken. This is perhaps the largest obstacle in
mainstream, high volume adoption. There is
a risk that pragmatists will become
disenchanted by onerous training and health
check requirements (Goehlich 2004).
Fortunately, the short duration of suborbital
flights mitigates some of the physiological
effects of exposure to microgravity such as
bone and muscle loss. The principle
concerns for the suborbital operator are
stresses during launch and reentry and space
motion sickness.
The best way to address these concerns is
probably through improved vehicle designs
that reduce stresses on passengers and
restrict movements known to aggravate
space motion sickness.
The potential biological effects of radiation at
higher altitudes can be quite severe.
However, due to the short duration of
suborbital flights, passengers should have
limited exposure to radiation per trip. It has
been estimated that a 1 hour suborbital flight
would result in a lower radiation dose than an
existing transcontinental airplane flight (ISU
2000). To avoid acute exposures from solar
particle events, it may be necessary to
impose flight restrictions based on advice
from early warning systems.
4. CONCLUSION
The most dangerous point in the
development of a new market lies in the
transition from an early market dominated by
eager, visionary customers to a mainstream
market dominated by a large block of
customers who are predominantly
pragmatists in orientation (Moore 1999).
To develop a sustainable and successful
suborbital point-to-point market does not just
require well-designed suborbital vehicles but
also improvements in the overall
infrastructure and a clearer definition of the
regulatory framework. Integrating a fleet of
suborbital point-to-point vehicles into the
existing civil aviation industry was suggested
as the optimal distribution channel to the
mainstream market. The extent to which
these can be integrated will ultimately
determine the potential of the suborbital
point-to-point market.
A necessary precursor to suborbital point-to-
point travel is the emerging suborbital tourism
market. This is an invaluable testing ground
for proving the reliability of technologies for
large scale suborbital point-to-point travel, as
well as clarifying the regulatory framework.
The triumph of SpaceShipOne sparked the
same public excitement that Charles Lindberg
generated for air travel in 1927 by flying from
New York to Paris and claiming the $25,000
Orteig Prize (Jones 2005). This resurgence
in interest promises not only exciting
opportunities for current and future
generations, but also lays the foundation for
the development of a high speed aerospace
transportation market.
5. REFERENCES
1. Coleman, G., Chudoba, B. & Huang, X. 2006,
‘Assessment of current space access vehicle
tourism regulations and their implications on
design’, in 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, January
2006.
2. Collins, P. 2003, ‘Potential Importance of
Passenger Space Travel Services’, Journal
of Space Technology and Science, vol. 19,
no.1 pp. 17 – 26. (revised 2005 – available at
http://www.spacefuture.com/pr/archive/the_p
otential_importance_of_passenger_space_tr
avel_services.shtml (accessed July 2006)
3. Collins, P. & Diamandis, P. 1999, ‘Creation of
an accredited passenger regulatory category
for space tourism services’, in 1st STA
Conference on Space Tourism, June 1999.

6. 6
Available from:
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/creation
_of_an_accredited_passenger_regulatory_ca
tegory_for_space_tourism_services.shtml
[July 2006].
4. Federal Aviation Administration / Office of
Commercial Space Transportation. 2005,
Suborbital Reusable Launch Vehicles and
Emerging Markets, FAA/AST, USA.
5. Federal Aviation Administration / Office of
Commercial Space Transportation. 2006, A
Review of Environmental Requirements and
Planning, FAA/AST, USA.
6. Goelich, R.A. 2004, ‘A representative
scenario for developing space tourism’,
Space Technology, vol. 24, no. 2-3, pp.109-
118.
7. International Space University (ISU). 2000,
Space Tourism: From Dream to Reality,
Summer Session Program Project Report,
Chile.
8. Jones, T. D. 2005, ‘Coming soon – Ticket to
ride?’, Aerospace America, vol. 43, no. 2,
Feb. 2005, pp. 16-18.
9. McAlister, P. R. & Thrash, T. A. 2004, ‘Future
Markets and Economics of Suborbital Space:
Can it Reach Orbit’, in Space 2004
Conference and Exhibit, San Diego CA, USA,
28-30 Sept 2004. pp. 1 – 20.
10. Moore, G.A. 1999, Crossing the Chasm:
Marketing and Selling Technology Products
to Mainstream Customers, 2nd edn,
Capstone Publishing Ltd, England.
11. Oduntan, G. 2003, ‘The never ending
dispute: legal theories on the spatial
demarcation boundary plane between
airspace and outer space’, Hertsfordshire
Law Journal, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 64-84.
Available from:
http://perseus.herts.ac.uk/uhinfo/library/i8991
8_3.pdf (accessed August 2006).
12. Wilkins Jr, R.R. 2003, ‘Airspace and
operating infrastructure of the future of
vertical flight’, in AIAA/ICAS International Air
and Space Symposium and Exposition: The
Next 100 Years, Dayton, OH, July 2003.