Slashdot Mirror


Getaway to Club Mir

Willie_the_Wimp writes "A venture capitalist is turning Mir into a vacation getaway. I thought this story was really interesting. With all the Silicon Valley millionaires sprouting like poppies, I bet they will have a waiting list a mile long. I know the risks, but sign me up! "

27 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. Threat to ISS by jkovach · · Score: 2

    NASA doesn't really like all these attempts to save Mir because they are concerned that Russia can't build enough rockets to satisfy their commitment to ISS as well as Mir. Although ISS can be supplied via the space shuttle, crews have to be launched on Soyuz rockets. This is because the shuttle can only stay in space for a couple of weeks and NASA won't leave astronauts on the space station with no way of getting down. The Soyuz capsules can stay in space for extended periods of time to provide an emergency exit for the station, so NASA decided to use them for ISS crews. I believe that the Soyuz is also necessary to reboost the station. NASA is developing a 7-person crew return vehicle, but they have to use Soyuz rockets until the new CRV is ready. See a NASA Watch/SpaceRef editorial on this here.

  2. Okay, here's what CmdrTaco is *really* thinking... by Guppy · · Score: 2

    Just a coincidence this story was posted last month? Naaahh...
    Sex in Space

    So, now we know where all that Andover IPO money will be going...

  3. Re:Mir is decomissioned... no? by DHartung · · Score: 2

    Close. The last Mir crew departed several months ago, closing down systems and bringing back essential equipment. There have always been contradictory statements about whether any return flights would be financially feasible, but returning was always a technological option; Mir is still in a safe orbit for some time. Russia never intended to just let it "crash and burn"; it's far too large, and crosses too many populated areas, to risk that (remember Skylab?). The intent was always to send up a final Proton flight to de-orbit it somewhat more safely over the Pacific. NASA, as well, would prefer this.
    ----

    --
    lake effect weblog
    {Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
  4. Gold $ Appel holding company? by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

    Walt Anderson isnt an anagram for Hagbar Celine is it?

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    1. Re:Gold $ Appel holding company? by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

      Whoops, replace & with $.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  5. Predictions by griffjon · · Score: 2

    This and the Hilton-space hotel will open up a new market. Not for space hotels, no, but for zero-g porn. sure, 40M is a bit over budget for most outfits, but think of the strength of the investment--the first, EVER, weightless porn flick. Anyone wanna join in a business venture??

    --
    Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
  6. First vacation station in the *solar system*?!? by Wee · · Score: 2
    Do they know something we don't:
    Anderson, Energiya and other investors are forming Mir Corp. Ltd. in Bermuda to run what they hope will be the first for-profit space station in the solar system.
    What about the rest of the galaxy? Are there more for-profit space stations that they aren't telling us about? I smell conspiracy. Someone knows something about space stations outside the solar system, and I think we oughtta make them fess up before we hang our hats on Mir. I wanna see if a vacation on the alien one would be better...

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

  7. Re:I don't believe it... by Audin · · Score: 2

    Soyuz is probably a good deal safer then the shuttle...it has an escape system. Soyuz boosters have exploded before, but they've never killed their crews. The last Soyuz fatality was over 20 years ago.

  8. SkeptiNews URL by mTor · · Score: 2

    What is the URL for SkeptiNews? Sounds like my kind of news ;)


    --
    GroundAndPound.com News and info for martial artists of all styles.

  9. Its about time by rueba · · Score: 2
    Although at 40 million dollars a pop it IS a wee bit steep. I'd say only someone with a net worth of more than 1 billion dollars would spring for this. Which gives a customer base of around 1000 people world wide.(According to Fortune magazine).


    Still maybe if they can get 10 people a year they might be able to make the thing work financially.


    I wonder what makes space travel so expensive? Is it the fuel (liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen I believe), the cost of the vehicle itself (the various booster stages and so on) or the maintenance costs(engineers, repairs and general upkeep).


    Why haven't we developed cool spacecrafts like they had in Star Wars:TPM that can go straight into the atmosphere? It would seem to be more an economic issue as opposed to a technological issue. I guess they can't develop quite enough thrust to escape the Earth's gravity without using those huge rockets. Oh well ... Time to work on that Warp Drive (Yeah I know this would only help once you are in orbit but Warp Drives are pretty damn cool)

    --
    The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
    1. Re:Its about time by Pahroza · · Score: 2

      When commercial industries realize there's money to be made, the pace and development of the technologies will rise. More companies will spring up to compete with eachother, resulting in lower prices, higher demand. All we need is an incentive for industry to get rolling on this. I think Robert Anton Wilson gave a good example of this in Schroedinger's Cat or the Illuminatus! Trilogy, can't remember which one offhand.

    2. Re:Its about time by spaceorb · · Score: 2

      Why haven't we developed cool spacecrafts like they had in Star Wars:TPM that can go straight into the atmosphere?

      Actually, during the 1960's, the US developed a plane that could travel at the edge of space. Since then, NASA has been looking for a cheap way to get into space, and has created a contest among the various aerospace companies to produce such a plane. There was a show on either TLC or Discovery, and it showed that several of the companies were working on a craft that does exactly what you said.

    3. Re:Its about time by SEWilco · · Score: 3
      Well, you probably know about the X-15 which went to the edge of space.
      "...It was a stepping stone to later developments - either an X-15 launched atop Navaho G-26 boosters, an X-15 scramjet version, or the X-20 - that would lead to manned orbital spaceflight. This stepping-stone approach was abandoned and the crash programs of Mercury and Apollo initiated instead..."
      For that matter, you can read a paper here which estimates a low end of $5,221 per passenger on an X-33 derivative.
    4. Re:Its about time by Ertai · · Score: 3

      The VentureStar is the next generation space shuttle being developed by Lockheed Martin and NASA. It is designed to go to orbit in a single stage. You can get info on the VentureStar here: http://www.venturestar.com. The X-33 is an unmanned prototype for the VentureStar. Unfortunately the X-33 has suffered delays especially due to test failures of its liquid hydrogen fuel tank. It's doubtful that the test flight of the X-33 originally scheduled for July will actually take place this year. Here's some info on that: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000114/sc/space_ plane_1.html

      --
      "There is no shot you can take that I cannot simply deny." - Ertai, wizard goalie
    5. Re:Its about time by DHartung · · Score: 4

      According to this Expendable Launch Vehicle Cost Comparison, Soyuz is actually one of the cheapest ways to orbit at US$18M a pop. (It's those 27 years to depreciate base manufacturing costs that helps.) And each flight could presumably carry one cosmonaut and two passengers. I'm not sure anyone has a good way to estimate Energia's numbers, though: Russia's financial situation is such that cold hard American cash is worth far more than its paper conversion value, and they've probably run flights at a worse loss basis for the Russian government. Besides, this will help subsidize a running production line (more vehicles == cheaper costs), as well as advertise their satellite launch services.

      I wonder what makes space travel so expensive? Is it the fuel (liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen I believe), the cost of the vehicle itself (the various booster stages and so on) or the maintenance costs(engineers, repairs and general upkeep).

      Fuels differ. LOX/LH is what the shuttle rockets use, but Soyuz uses a LOX/Kerosene fuel in all 3 stages. Figure 30 cents/kg for the combination, and you'll need something like 270,000 kg., but that's less than $100,000. The Soyuz crew vehicle is theoretically reusable, but they tend to land hard and space-rating afterward would be tricky. In practice Energia probably salvages what they can and sticks it back in the assembly line. What you're looking at are the overall costs of running the infrastructure. The shuttle has basically the same problem: if you look at pure materials and other "just this time" costs, you can come up with ridiculously low numbers (say, $60-100 million); but when you have 5 launches in a year and pay $5 billion for the privilege, you know there's more to it than that.

      Soyuz launch vehicles (the type that go to Mir).

      Why haven't we developed cool spacecrafts like they had in Star Wars:TPM that can go straight into the atmosphere? [you mean out of?] It would seem to be more an economic issue as opposed to a technological issue. I guess they can't develop quite enough thrust to escape the Earth's gravity without using those huge rockets.

      SSTO (Single Stage to Orbit) vehicles have been on the drawing board since the earliest days of NASA, but none has ever been built. The closest prototypes from recent years have suffered from the existence of the shuttle and other working launch systems. The DC-X was a promising vehicle, but it was damaged during a hard landing. The VentureStar project is billed as a next-generation shuttle, but since STS will be around for at least another 15-20 years it's not imminent. The X-33 is a prototype of some of its technology, but it's been delayed by problems of its own. The X-38 is a similarly-shaped (flying wing) vehicle, that would be a lifeboat for an ISS crew of up to 7; but it's an orbit-to-ground vehicle only.

      Meanwhile, the non-governmental "space launches for profit" crowd has a number of possibilities close to reality. Kistler Aerospace has a two-stage reusable design, and Rotary Rocket uses an innovative rotor design to land a cone-shaped vehicle straight up (just like those 50s sci-fi flicks). The main obstacle remains a robust launching industry, with competition keeping the prices of expendable rockets low. Boeing and LockMart pretty much have this market sewn up; in fact there are more launches than can be accomodated at American facilities. A company called SeaLaunch partners with Boeing and Ukraine to orbit satellites from a floating oil-derrick-platform that lives in Hawaii. Launch facilities are being worked on in Canada and Alaska (to serve the polar orbit market), while India and China beef up their launch facilities. Indonesia and the Phillipines are proposing launch sites. It's really a wide-open market, as long as you're not talking about people yet. Give some of these systems a couple of years to mature and lower costs, and you'll have $1000/pound to earth orbit. That's when launching people will become easy.

      http://www.space.com/business/launching/new_rock ets_wg.html
      ----

      --
      lake effect weblog
      {Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
  10. Mir is decomissioned... no? by mindstrm · · Score: 2

    I find this strange, as from what I know of Mir.. it is now a) Abandoned b) Never to be used again c) Going to crash and burn later this year?

  11. What a vacation...(note sarcasm) by jconley · · Score: 2

    Oh yay! I just can't wait to spend a week in the lovely run down Mir Space Station. Sure, its a fixer-upper, but thats what makes it fun!! Please bring your own toolkit to make minor repairs...
    Next: Vacation to Mars!!! Cost $125 million, chance of actually landing on Mars: 0%!!!
    Sign up now!!!
    J

  12. Leaking off the earth by Kukester · · Score: 2

    This is just great. Commercialism starts leaking
    off the earth and begins to polute the solar
    system.

  13. I don't believe it... by ronfar · · Score: 2
    .. I mean, I want to see civilians going into space someday, but this story seems far fetched. Now, to be fair, there are important elements of the current Russian power structure who would probably be willing to do something like this for that kind of money. However, I think the PR risk is too great, imagine:

    Visionary Internet tycoon Steve Case died today on route to the Russian space station Mir when the craft carrying him exploded. This devastating tragedy has sent shock waves around the world, we now go to Wolf Blitzer to see if the technology stocks will be able to survive this loss....

    Replace Steve Case with your .com or computer billionaire of choice and you'll see what I mean. I mean, I've always wondered if the Challenger explosion would've set back NASA's image as much as it did (I still think that MTV's abandonment of the moon flag logo was a sign of a downturn in NASA's pioneering image) if the member of the crew were all hardened soldier types and didn't include a perky school teacher. Not that we can afford to lose hardened soldiers, just that the public perception might have been different if these were professional soldiers who might just as easily have risked death in Somalia and the Persian Gulf.

    --
    All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
  14. Mir by p0d · · Score: 2

    The money should be steered to shipping the Russian module for the ISS over here so we can launch it. Or the companies could finance a 'tourist' module on the ISS :)

    1. Re:Mir by Ertai · · Score: 4
      Interesting that you should mention an ISS tourist module because the idea has, in fact, been proposed. Check out the details here:

      http://www.msnbc.com/news/335153.asp

      --
      "There is no shot you can take that I cannot simply deny." - Ertai, wizard goalie
  15. More Prizes, Please by Baldrson · · Score: 2
    IMHO (and I do mean "humble" since I'm not putting up the money here) Anderson's ~$1/4M CATS Prize is probably more important to the goal of space tourism than his multimillion $ investment in Mir reported in this article. But I'm glad to see someone calling NASA's bluff on its self-serving "ditch Mir" rhetoric.

    BTW -- anyone can get into the act.

  16. Profitable? Plus a whine by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2
    The whine: This is old news. I submitted the same story back on Thursday, but Hemos rejected it. Possibly he thought it was a hoax.

    I wonder how many people will be staying at a time. A launch is awfully damned expensive. IIRC it cost about $250 million to put a satellite in geosynchronous orbit. Obviously, boosting a relatively light payload into a low orbit is not quite so expensive. But suppose you're putting 4 people up at a time. At $20 million apiece, that's only $80 million for the trip. Does that do much more than cover costs, especially when you figure in the cost of renovating Mir?

    Despite all the talk about "Silicon Valley millionaires", $20M is still a whole lot of money. There aren't going to be all that many folks who can just drop a wad of cash that size on a lark. This sounds really interesting, but I begin to doubt that it'll ever get off the ground.

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  17. lawyers guns and money... by Vis · · Score: 2

    or, in my case, engineers, bongs and a welder... wouldn't it be worth the adventure? I mean, I don't think I'd be spending $25mil for a trip yet, but I've got myself a a bunch of friends with technical backgrounds, and I can weld... why not? would be a fun weekend project, I think. This all needs to get happening sometime, why not start now? First of all, where better to learn what we really need to do to build a reliable space station than in the environment itself? Yes, we can design and build great things here on earth, but this is not where they are going to be implemented. Why not work on the thing in /its/ working environment. Yeah, the mir will probably end up killing a few people, and it might not last very long, but it's the kind of grassroots thing we need to get a bigger, better, faster, whatever we want space thing sometime down the road. And the Mir is probably the best thing to start with. American sense of adventure, "We'll do anything, as long as we have a security rope." Russian sense of adventure, "We'll do anything, as long as there's vodka." Rock on russia.

    --
    -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
  18. Space by crayz · · Score: 3

    There are lots of independent companies and organizations who are salivating at the chance to get into space.

    Some I know of(post any I miss, there are tons that I haven't saved the URLs for):

    http://asi.org
    http://www.rotaryrocket.com/(really cool)
    http://www.space.com
    http://www.marssociety.com/(with a petition)
    http://www.space-frontier.org/
    http://bigelowaerospace.com/

  19. Ground-to-Space being worked on by SEWilco · · Score: 3
    We've been able to build ground-to-space aircraft for a while, we just haven't tried to do it. To have enough fuel in orbit, the easiest would have been to actually carry the spaceplane up with another aircraft. But fully self-contained is just a little harder.

    NASA doing development with X-33 and X-34. The X-33 will be flying this year. It's a test ship, so will not be reaching orbit.

  20. Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia! by Tackhead · · Score: 5
    From the article:
    "through his Bermuda-based holding company Gold & Appel,"
    ...at which point I promptly spewed coffee all over my desk.

    Anyone who's read the Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea should be rolling on the floor now in peals of giddy laughter. Given that Anderson is on the board of Roton, I'd say the Mir effort is probably serious, and I applaud him for the wonderful in-joke he's playing on fnord NASA and the rest of the "government fnord space bureaucracy" with his whimsical choice of names.

    But then again, maybe that's just what the Illuminati fnord want you to believe.

    The following was shamelessly stolen from SkeptiNews:

    Just when you thought the continuiiiiing story of "Mir in Space" couldn't get any weirder, another Western business partner has emerged to save Mir and convert it into that anti-news stalwart "an orbiting space hotel for billionaires". This time, who should it be but Gold & Appel Transfers, of the Cayman Islands. Yup, "Gold & Appel Transfers": last observed in Shea and Wilson's ILLUMINATUS! trilogy as the front organisation for neophile outlaw Hagbard Celine and his Legion of Dynamic Discord. Terrifyingly for the few who still believe that book to be fiction, G&A is a real company with funds of over $300 million. President Walt Anderson made his money as co-founder of Esprit Telecom, and is now a major investor in the Space Frontier Foundation and the Roton, the orbital transfer system that looks like a beanie. G&A have already offered $21 million to the Russian govt to maintain Mir in a serviceable orbit, with more, they say, to come. It's unclear whether the group of investors can really rustle up the huge cash needed to maintain Mir; but wouldn't it be nice if, when the ISS finally boots in the 22nd century, NASA found that a bunch of Discordians had beaten them to it? http://mercurycenter.com/premium/front/docs/mir13. htm

    (Fnords? What fnords? I don't see any fnords!)