Well, we'll see...
If you've never read Greg Klerkx book "Lost in Space"
http://www.gregklerkx.com/lost-in-space/ you really should get it from the local library system and give it a read. It's the really interesting history of how NASA did everything possible during the late 80's and 90's to keep civilian "independent" spaceflight from becoming a reality, even while the letter of the law said they were supposed to "support" it. Their efforts culminated in NASA conspiring with the Russians to prevent the space station Mir from becoming a commercial space station, as efforts and overtures to the Russians were being made to obtain the use of the station from the Russians by a group of independent commercial operators. NASA saw that as a direct threat to their plans and purposes for the ISS, and deliberately "bribed" the Russians to torpedo the deal.
I'm not convinced that there's going to suddenly be some "big New Space Age" just because Blue Origin, SpaceX, and whatever others have succeeded in developing "reusable" rockets. If one reads the history of the Space Shuttle, and particularly the much-maligned "Mathematica Report" that jumped to some pretty ridiculous conclusions in order to 'justify' developing a reusable Space Shuttle system, which basically assumed "build it and they will come" sort of thinking, and then used that false assumption to justify whatever enormous launch rates were necessary to get the shuttle program to "pencil out", regardless of how unrealistic those launch rates were, and how ridiculously underestimated their cost estimates were... Basically the shuttle was the main reason the US launch industry was set back by over 20 years... and what led to the ascension of ESA and the Russians, and later the Chinese and Japanese space launch capabilities-- we developed the shuttle based on these flawed assumptions, then "mandated" that "everything possible" fly on the shuttle to justify it, despite the fact that it drove launch costs through the roof. This created a "niche" for the Europeans to lure away commercial launches that would have been serviced by US providers had the shuttle not basically hobbled the entire US launch industry and held it captive for a decade or more. The Europeans heavily subsidized their launch industry to get the business in the short term, knowing it would "pay off" long term. By the end of the 80's the Russians saw their golden opportunity and basically did the same thing, undercutting the Europeans price in order to lure away business, as did the Chinese and Japanese in roughly the same time frame, or shortly thereafter. It took the Challenger disaster to reveal that the shuttle as an "airliner/cargo truck to space" was a faulty premise and by then the US launch industry was on life support-- it took a decade to get it back to where it was before the shuttle, basically...
HOPEFULLY, SpaceX and Blue Origin will manage to bring costs down to the point that they can win that business back from the overseas competitors. Even if the cost of space launch comes down appreciably, there will only be "so much" additional demand... it's like the price of milk-- just because the price of milk is cut in half doesn't mean suddenly people buy twice as much... People can only drink "so much" milk... In the same way, lower costs will undoubtedly bring SOME additional space launch requirements because projects that WOULD have been done but for the expense of launch will then become feasible... but I think a LOT remains to be seen as to exactly how much additional launch that will generate...
I've heard all this "whole new era in spaceflight" stuff before... Remember the X-Prize and SpaceShipOne? Everybody said then it would usher in a whole new era in spaceflight-- suborbital tourism, which would generate revenue and research to fulfill the demand for orbital tourism, which would open up new possibilities for low cost space launch, commercial endeavors in LEO, the works. Here we are over a decade later, and NONE of it has come to pass... they're still tinkering with SpaceShip2 at a snail's pace, and the supposed "demand" for suborbital tourism is still "smoldering" in that it's supposedly there, but nothing seems to be being done about it.... I've always considered the "space tourism" thing to be more hype than reality... according to the press, the demand is a mile wide... BUT, look below the surface, and it's only an INCH DEEP... (IMHO).
Now, if SpaceX or Blue Origin could design a similar vehicle that could get you from LA to Sydney or Tokyo in say 45 minutes to an hour, and do it safely and repeatably, then they'd REALLY have something. I think it might be possible to do that with their existing technology, if it was suitably adapted. Nobody seems to really be working on it though... Course, then there's the COST... if it costs 10X what a transpacific airline ticket costs for a flight that lasts 22 hours, well, what's the cost in time versus money worth??
At any rate, I think it remains to be seen how and if commercial space unfolds. I can see the advantages of orbital micro-gee factories and such turning out alloys or medicines that are producible in no other way... I think that may be where the main drive for commercial space will be. Space tourism, in time, may be something to follow that, in some degree or other... once commercial vehicles get the capability of launching humans into orbit for gubmint agencies, then the door will be open to space tourism... if anybody can afford it enough to create any kind of sustainable customer base. I think mining asteroids or lunar metals or helium 3 or any of these other things are at least several decades away, if then. I could see that to support lunar or deep space infrastructure, but for return to Earth?? Well, costs and ease of transport will have to be at least an order of magnitude easier than it is today.
So far, SpaceX and Blue Origin BOTH are VERY reliant on gubmint contracts to fund their space efforts... SpaceX with its COTS contract and CCDEV (commercial crew to ISS), and Blue Origin with their BE-4 engine contract with Orbital ATK for new indigenous engines for their Antares rocket. (Which, yes, it's technically "one company to another" but basically the deal is hip deep with the Air Force and NASA, who demanded Orbital develop new engines after the Russian engine explosion last year). Ultimately it's the AF and NASA paying the bill; the money is coming from them, just going through Orbital ATK's hands as the middleman. SpaceX is pretty well on their way to developing a good customer base for their Falcon 9 launch services, apart from NASA (though they are working HARD to get the Air Force as a customer). Orbital ATK is also wooing the Air Force with everything they have, and NASA as well. SO, it remains to be seen just how much "independent" spaceflight takes place APART from NASA/AF requirements, and how much influence they'll bring to bear on how that pans out.
It's an interesting topic, to be sure. We have a long way to go to be sure, and I don't think it's possible to say exactly how it'll unfold, in what time scale, or who the winners and losers will be... We're sorta at the level of the DC-3... which is a LONG way from modern air travel as we know it...
Later! OL J R
My MUNIFICENCE is BOUNDLESS, Mr. Bond...
