Slashdot Mirror


Motel 6... Hundred Miles Up

SatelliteBoy writes: "Robert Bigelow, the tycoon behind Budget Suites of America, has founded Bigelow Aerospace. He just announced plans to launch a space station. He claims it can go up within 30 months. Let's see what this costs to visit..."

183 comments

  1. Re:Start saving now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Already been done, sorry.

    Reckoned the first were Russian cosmonauts some years ago, while apparently NASA experimented with a married couple a while back.

    You're supposed to need restraints to link you to the wall or you tend to float off into the distance rather quickly...

  2. no risk, no reward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    to quote al pacino in "heat" - you could get killed walking your doggie!.

  3. Re:why bother with the FAA? by Don+Negro · · Score: 2
    There's a very nice one in Brazil, ~3 degrees of the equator.


    Don Negro

    --

    Don Negro
    Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall

  4. Re:why bother with the FAA? by hawk · · Score: 2
    >..and of course there are absolutely no customers
    >outside the US


    ahah! At long last, we've found the rumored developer of commercial BeOS applications. "If it sells just one ticket . . ."


    :)

    > and the US has absolutely no gun-toting
    > warlords of its own. and the US has absolutely > no gun-toting warlords of its own.


    1) she wan't a warlord, but had a legal office.
    2) She left town with Bill & Co. in January


    hawk

  5. Noises? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

    Actually, the ISS is quite noisy. At one point, background noise levels on the Zvezda module were on average, 70-75 dB. So, you may not hear this:

    "Honey, we're going to have to use more straps. I just cant get enough friction."
    "That's because you keep floating away from me."

    But you will hear the incessent drone of hydraulic pumps and fans and dust collectors. Ah, how romantic!

  6. Tito didn't ride on a shuttle... by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1
    [NASA] probably resisted to Tito's space journey due to the fact Tito is untrained as an astronaut and could have caused catastrophic damage to the space shuttle, possibly killing the crew, even unintentionally.

    Tito rode Russian vehicles; he didn't ride on a shuttle -- not on the way up, and not on the way down.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  7. Re:Summer Vacation in Outer Space by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 2

    Think about what happens with spillover in a zero-gravity environment.

    "Honey, the regs say you have to swallow..."

  8. Re:Las Vegas, what a surprise... by rho · · Score: 2

    Ross Perot's based out of Texas, not Nevada.

    Hillary Clinton's in New York/Washington D.C.

    Besides, what makes Bigelow a crazy megalomaniac? Because he's got money and wants to build a space station?

    --
    Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
  9. Re:Marketting campaign. by garcia · · Score: 2

    I wonder if they move it closer to the sun if they will need to leave the light on for you at all...

  10. Re:What about.... by Goonie · · Score: 2
    the months of rigorous training astronauts go through before they go into space.

    It takes years of training to learn to fly a 747. It takes five minutes to run through the safety briefing for passengers . . .

    As to the health demands of space, they've sent up large numbers of middle-aged and even a few elderly people. Aside from space sickness (which apparently affects both young and old equally), and the G's of the launch (a rollercoaster probably applies more acceleration, and certainly more unpredictably), space is quite fine health-wise for a short-term visit.

    Go you big red fire engine!

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  11. Re:why bother with the FAA? by revnight · · Score: 2

    Probably because Bigelow Aerospace is a defense contracter, and he'll probably manage to make more doing it this way. If the feds try to keep him from doing it, he'll likely look elsewhere.

    --
    "The things we wizards have to put up with."--Jethro Bodine
  12. Bigelow aerospace??? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
    Bigelow aerospace???

    No deuce!!!!

    --

  13. Re:Summer Vacation in Outer Space by elmegil · · Score: 1
    obviously you've never had sex in space.

    Spoken like a true armchair expert. So tell us, what was YOUR direct experience of sex in space like?

    --
    7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  14. Re:Nor should there be. by funkman · · Score: 2
    This is under the FAA jurisdiction if the flight originates or terminates in US airspace.

    So begin and end the flight in a different country.

    Of course, what about the hotel flying/hovering "above the US". At what height does jurisdiction end?

  15. Re:NASA by ethereal · · Score: 1

    Well, that's just NASA funding though, those states will still get other federal funding for roads, health programs, etc. The total will be more than 6%.

    Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

    --

    Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

  16. Re:Just what you need on a holiday... by ethereal · · Score: 1
    You could grow it in a mini-centrifuge; at one point NASA was going to try this (well, not with pot obviously :), I don't know if they have or not.

    Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

    --

    Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

  17. Re:Summer Vacation in Outer Space by rvr · · Score: 1

    Now thats a $65,000 question: Who was the first person to have sex (with another person) in space? Well, actually, the first to have any sex in space would be a milestone too.

  18. Re:PORN by rde · · Score: 1

    They've already had a, ahem, head start. Check out The Uranus Experiment. Shot on the vomit comet, it promises (and delivers) the world's first zero-g cum shot.
    Okay, it's not space per se, but boldy coming on the comet is surely the first step.

  19. Would you ride a Liberian cruise ship? by paul7e · · Score: 1
    For the same reason that although oil tankers are usually registered in fun-loving, safety-conscious places like Liberia, cruise ships still tend to be registered in the U.S., Norway and other Western countries.

    People like to have a certain amount of trust in the organization that puts them on top of a Saturn V...

    --
    Silly Rabbit, sigs are for kids.
    1. Re:Would you ride a Liberian cruise ship? by ASCIIMan · · Score: 1

      IIRC, because of the number of US regulations on things like cruise ships and such, only about 2-3 are actually registered in the US. The rest are registered in the Bahamas (a lot), Norway, Netherlands, etc..

  20. Re:Bullshit Hoax? by apsmith · · Score: 2

    It's not a hoax. I know some of the technical team involved. They're pretty serious about it. And $500 million ain't chicken feed.

    Why has nobody else done it? I dunno, but somebody's got to be first in anything. Now's the right time for this to happen; and Bigelow's in the right place. Should be interesting!

    --

    Energy: time to change the picture.

  21. Don't forget the Russians by apsmith · · Score: 2

    There are Russian launchers for both cargo (Proton, not to mention Energiya) and people (Soyuz) that can easily handle what Bigelow needs, for 1/5th to 1/10th Shuttle prices. It'd be nice to have American companies that can do it too, but I think Bigelow's plans on this are pretty realistic if he can make use of the Russian hardware.

    --

    Energy: time to change the picture.

    1. Re:Don't forget the Russians by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      I didn't forget the Russians. Nor did I include the Shuttle.

      Using Proton means developing an automated docking system, which raises many serious problems. Energiya *does not exist*, there is no flight hardware, no production line, and the engineering team is long disbanded. Restarting all that will be little cheaper than starting from scratch.

      Soyuz? Get real. The Soyuz has *48 hour* service life. It must dock to a station in that time, or return to earth. It's a narrow margin, and more than one Soviet mission failed to dock and had to abandon the mission. It cannot carry any significant cargo, and has no really effective spacewalk capability. Soyuz is often the darling of space enthusiasts, but it's a Yugo with many real drawbacks.

      At some point, fairly early on he (Bigelow) is going to have to do, or pay for, some pretty serious booster and vehicle engineering, it won't be cheap, and $500 mill won't be enough.

  22. Re:Nor should there be. by bobdehnhardt · · Score: 4
    From the Outer Space Treaty, entered into force on 10 October, 1967:

    (Article I Excerpt) Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.


    and

    (Article II) Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.


    and finally,

    (Article VI) States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization.


    The US doesn't own "everything around the Earth". But per the Outer Space Treaty, the US is responsible for the actions in space of any US-based "entities". Thus, proper govenmental clearance must be obtained before any activities can take place.
  23. hmm... budget by complex · · Score: 2

    i definitely don't want to hear the words 'budget' and 'space travel' in the same sentence.

    here we are, sir. your neoprene scuba suit, a heavy winter jacket, two pairs of mittens, and a motorcycle helmet. ask your bunkmate to tie you down with this twine, and enjoy your flight!

    complex

  24. Will there be an AARP Discount? by FatSean · · Score: 1

    'Cause I'll be ancient by the time this thing actually comes together. I just hope I survive the liftoff.

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Will there be an AARP Discount? by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      God, I hope not. I'd hate to have to stay in quarters that had Old Man Stink lingering from their previous occupant.

      The only place old people have in space is to provide food for the rest of us... courtesy of the Soylent Corporation, of course! Otherwise they can move to Florida to die, like they do now.

      ~Philly

  25. Re:Nor should there be. by schporto · · Score: 2

    Last time I checked - 60,000 feet. There's airspace classes. If you pass through these airspaces you must have permission of the FAA to do so. There is a layer from 18,000 ft(???) to 60,000 feet. I think those numbers are right. FAA has control over those spaces. So the floating hotel should be fine. The flying through us airspace is gonna get tricky. As for being in other countries they will have regs too. Oh and then on return you have to come through cutoms. For FAA details on this stuff see here.
    -cpd

  26. It's not undooable by Catmeat · · Score: 1
    The space station would be fairly basic. No need for life support that can keep people alive for months, smallish solar arrays because there's no need to supply power hungey scientific experiments. Perhaps he could even buy one of the spare Mir hulls the Russians still have.

    The big bottleneck is getting people there. Assuming you still use Soyuz's, you could carry two passangers and one professional Cosmonaut. That'd split the fare Dennis Tito paid in half but that's still a lot of money. Are there enough people who can:

    (a) Afford it

    (b) Are fit enough (rich people are often old)

    (c) Can spare the time to train (rich people are usually busy)

    to make the whole thing worthwhile. Still, I hope this goes ahead.

  27. Re:Start saving now! by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 1

    So why launch out of the US?

    A launch pad will have to be constructed. Why not do it somewhere else? I bet there are quite a few coastal South American countries that would like a few bucks to locate the launch facilities there.

    I mean if you are going to space, why not take a nice cruise first.

    I see the US space program starting to loose out on highly profitible ventures if they don't losen up a little bit. If you take a billionare up on every time you can basicly make the flight for free.

    --

  28. Re:why bother with the FAA? by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 1

    Like I was saying in another post...

    Just buy up some coastal land in South America. Fix everything up all nice. Then offer as part of the space launch an ocean cruise.

    --

  29. Re:why bother with the FAA? by austad · · Score: 2
    he should have to deal with the FAA and the US government at all.


    Oops, I meant to type "shouldn't".

    --
    Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
  30. why bother with the FAA? by austad · · Score: 5

    Why is he even bothering with the FAA and United States legal BS? If he launches from some other country, like one near the equator to decrease the amount of fuel needed to get into orbit, he should have to deal with the FAA and the US government at all.

    Isn't there already a launchpad in some african country near the equator, or didn't russia just make some deal to put one there?

    --
    Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
    1. Re:why bother with the FAA? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      "Isn't there already a launchpad in some african country near the equator..."

      I believe that the French have a launch facility on the north coast of South America, very close to the equator. It's where their old penal colony was. Watch the great Steve McQueen movie Papillon for more details on the prison.

      -B

    2. Re:why bother with the FAA? by fingal · · Score: 1

      ...and of course there are absolutely no customers outside the US and the US has absolutely no gun-toting warlords of its own. Nice to see we've got our nicely packaged world view all sorted out...

      --

      The only Good System is a Sound System

    3. Re:why bother with the FAA? by fingal · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. If I was looking for reliable backup for my space missions, then I would be more likely to go and talk to our friends over in Russia who have over 1600 successful launches with Soyuz and have a nice production line turning them out at a rate of knots. Exactly how many clean launches with any single comparative platform can NASA claim?

      --

      The only Good System is a Sound System

    4. Re:why bother with the FAA? by fantomas · · Score: 1

      Hmm, lots of rich people in Europe would find Russia/ Ukraine a lot quicker and easier to get to. Very much the case for shipping the constructed launch modules as well.

      Unless of course you wanted to go with the Americans. Personally, I'd prefer to go with the Russians and Ukrainians, they have a lot more experience at this space business ;-)

    5. Re:why bother with the FAA? by Crixus · · Score: 2
      Isn't there already a launchpad in some african country near the equator, or didn't russia just make some deal to put one there?

      ESA has a launch complex in French Guyana.

      Rich...

      --
      Ignore Alien Orders
    6. Re:why bother with the FAA? by Yoru-Hikage · · Score: 2

      Why is he even bothering with the FAA and United States legal BS? If he launches from some other country, like one near the equator to decrease the amount of fuel needed to get into orbit, he should have to deal with the FAA and the US government at all.

      Presumably because he's looking for a customer base among wealthy Americans first, and it wouldn't "look good" to have to go through what the elite probably view as a dirty, third-world country to get to an orbital hotel.

    7. Re:why bother with the FAA? by Shadox+Tsurien · · Score: 1

      Because if he deals with us, and follows our rules, he will be better accepted by American organizations and government. That way, if he ever had a technical problem and needs to be bailed out by NASA (or NASA ever needs to be bailed out by him) they are more likely to help, and more likely to help more and help sooner.

      Considering the dangers of spaceflight, this seems to be a sound decision; it's better not to shun the FAA and NASA when you might need a rescue mission from them someday, for example if the return vehicle failed or the launch facilities were damaged.

    8. Re:why bother with the FAA? by Docrates · · Score: 3

      *SIGH* I saw this coming from miles away...

      Are you so arrogant as to think that the US is the only acceptable place for classy millionaires with space travel wishes? well I'll tell you what, pretty much ANY classy millionaire would accept living in a whole lot of places outside the US. Argentina, France, Australia, Canada, etc., and in fact many of them do.

      And that only speaks of your lack of knowledge, but I also have a problem with your judgement. I would suspect that any marker research done to establish the demand for space tourism will throw out numbers that would contradict your statement. The Denis Titos and James Camerons of the world wouldn't mind traveling to, say, Brazil, to get on a rocket heading for a space station. Believe me, it is not in Brazil that they will encounter an unconfortable, unsafe environment, it will be in space.

      Now I do agree that they'll rather do the whole thing in the states, in spite of all the legal hurdles. Why? well because it's cheaper, to the point where it seems to be feasible. Most of the technology required to go to space, and the knowledgeable people that make it work, are in greater supply in the US. Furthermore, if you read the article, they are counting on someone else to develop a cheaper way of taking people to earth orbit, and most projects heading that way are either in the US or Canada.

      I can only think of Russia, France, Japan and maybe Brazil, as viable alternatives, due mainly to the fact that those countries have space launch infrastructure (and I'm sure I left some out). Still I would think that it would be cheaper to do it in the US because of the greater availability of engineers specialized in the field.

      But you know what? since I haven't seen the BP for this enterprise, I can't be certain. Unlike you, who seem to know it all...

      --

      There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
    9. Re:why bother with the FAA? by mblase · · Score: 2

      I would think there would be several advantages to being able to keep your launchpad inside the USA -- convenience for your customers, for one, not to mention the lack of gun-toting warlords. And moving away from "United States legal BS" only means that you have to move to some other country's legal BS instead.

    10. Re:why bother with the FAA? by cyberformer · · Score: 1
      Because if doesn't get permission from the most trigger-happy country in the world, Bush might mistake it for a missile and try to shoot it down.

      Son of Star Wars won't work, of course, but the threat alone might put off more than a few customers.

    11. Re:why bother with the FAA? by kachuik · · Score: 1
      IIRC, part of the U.N. Space Treaty makes the launching nation reponsible for any damage caused by a "oops". Rocket launches have to be OK'd by some nation, preferably one that could afford to pay the bill if the rocket slams into something important, hence the reference in the article to insurance. There was another law/rule/regulation set up back in the 80's that gave NASA the duty to check anything going into space that was associated with the USA. It was supposed to "discourage" using ESA rockets. I hope this has changed.

      No matter where you launch, local airspace traffic control is needed so you don't bump into an airliner. The FAA is pretty good at that.

      A FAA certified passenger rocket would be a lot cheaper to insure, and when you have paying passengers who can afford fleets of lawyers, you WILL have insurance.

    12. Re:why bother with the FAA? by lucifuge · · Score: 1

      Sure, you could launce the satellite from somewhere else (I believe the pad you are referring to is in French Guiana), but you still have to get people and supplies there. It's probably cheaper in the long run to do those things from the US, where I'm sure the majority of the customer base will be.

    13. Re:why bother with the FAA? by asspipet2000 · · Score: 1

      what about Aeroflot? they have 235688583 aircrashes a year, and even more accidents/planes falling apart. i dont think most people would feel as safe about russian regulated spacecraft/stations. (do they even have regulations?)

  31. Sorry... by Squirrel+Killer · · Score: 2
    From the very site you cite:
    NAME: Anna L. Fisher, (M.D.)
    NASA Astronaut
    PERSONAL DATA:
    Born August 24, 1949, in New York City, New York, but considers San Pedro, California, to be her hometown. Married to Dr. William F. Fisher of Dallas, Texas. They have two children. She enjoys snow and water skiing, jogging, flying, scuba diving, reading, photography, and spending time with her daughters.
    Note: My emphasis above

    Not that that proves that no one's ever "done it" in space. Cecil Adams of Straight Dope fame, however, throws water on the idea that anyone ever has "done it".

  32. What about atrpophy by sporty · · Score: 1

    And what happens when muscles go into atrophy? Or at least start? This doesn't sound fun.

    ---

    --

    -
    ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    1. Re:What about atrpophy by Genoaschild · · Score: 1

      This is why their must atleast be some emulation of gravity, so muscles don't do this. On the softer side, if your muscles do go into atrophy, as long as your in space, you're fine. It's when you leave free fall is when the problem occurs.
      ----

      --
      Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
  33. This guy is a crackpot... by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 1

    ...If the story is for real, that is.

    I especially like this part of the article:
    "They are asking us for patience and for a
    lot of details,'' said Bigelow, who formed Bigelow
    Aerospace in 1999 and has promised to spend $500
    million on his effort over the next 15 years.
    "The papers and forms don't exist for an
    application like this.''


    ...Um, $500 million? Considering that the United
    States alone is spending some $95 billion on the
    ISS, I don't quite understand. Is he going to put a
    cardboard box up there?

    --
    www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
  34. Re: Swimming in 0G by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2
    Even worse, one of the things that makes real-life swimming (in a pool, not deep-diving) easy is that one always floats up. Normally I swim until my lungs are bursting, then just hold off inhaling until I've floated up and my head's out of the water--I don't have the oxygen in my system left to swim up and out.

    I imagine that the pool would actually be a room filled with water; the swimmers would use air tanks. The advantage to floating in a normal 0G environment would be that one can swim much more easily through water than air. In fact, I can even foresee that it might make sense to fill certain spaces of a ship with water for exactly that reason. OTOH, the downside would be that one would need to store a lot of air.

  35. Re:Not Even Close by CSC · · Score: 1
    My question is, why do Americans think the rest of the world has no technology?

    My question is, why do so many non-Americans believe all Americans think alike?

    My possible answer: because most Americans think alike, and most Americans voice their opinions loudly.

    --
    -- Colin
  36. Re:Why NASA is pissed. by SpinyNorman · · Score: 2

    The Shuttle is a complete failure if you measure that by it's ability to meet it's objectives. When it was designed, it was expected to cost $50M per launch, not the current $500M+. The cheapest way to put stuff in space is still big fireworks.

  37. FOR SALE by revscat · · Score: 1

    In an effor to raise funds for my trip to the spotel, I am selling off some excess inventory. All are in good condition and have been well-maintained.

    1976 Caucasian Wife, low mileage, good in bed

    1979 Caucasian Mistress, high mileage, nicer titties.

    One Kidney, redundant system unneeded

    One Right Arm, redundant system mostly unneeded

    1971 Caucasion Soul, mostly unused but has a tendency for occasional evil.

    $500,000 OBO.

    - Rev.
  38. Re:Nor should there be. by gorilla · · Score: 2
    Funny enough, that's exactly what AT&T found when they proposed the first Telstar satellite.

    Despite all the hype, NASA & the US government aren't really very good at practical planning ahead.

  39. The other side of the coin by ColaMan · · Score: 1

    Oh, I don't know - you could also present the argument that if ther *was* an accident with another space group, that NASA would get a fair bit of extra work out of it ("Those NASA fellows know their safety" etc etc)

    Anyway, most people have a fair idea that space is hazardous. Anyone who tells me that accelerating to orbital velocity on the top of a gigantic chemical reaction is safe will get the "keep smiling, don't make eye contact, back away slowly" treatment from me.


    ** Windows has detected a mouse movement.

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
    1. Re:The other side of the coin by alcmena · · Score: 1

      I remember hearing that during the Apollo missions, the mission to the moon was almost scrapped. This was because of the one which caught fire. Congress had hearings on it and started wondering if it was all worth it.

      If memory serves me (and at 1am, it may not), it was a letter from one of the people who died onboard which persuaded congress to continue. Something along the lines of he knew the risk and would not want his death to impede our space program in any way.

      Point? NASA had a close brush with institutional death. Challanger was another one. With how NASA's budget is being slashed already by W, it's not hard to understand why they fear a disaster. My guess is that in today's economy, one disaster with human life would be the end, or near end, of NASA.

  40. We'll turn the lights on for you... by Flounder · · Score: 2

    and if your credit card comes back denied, we'll throw you into the airlock and put your lights out for you.

    --

    No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova

  41. Re:Why NASA is pissed. by thogard · · Score: 1

    It was designed for 12 shuttles at a cost of $500 mil each. Taht got cut to 6 at a billion each. The systems were designed for 20 shuttles and a luanch every two days.

  42. Re:Start saving now! by wmoore · · Score: 1


    NOT A CHANCE! this thing will be so tied up in regulatory red tape that it would be lucky if it could launch from the US in 10-15 years, much less 2 and ahalf like he's talking about. Hell, it takes the FAA longer than that to even certify an airplane for commercial sale. Not if the get smart and go from some other country ... maybe.

  43. Re:Oh, slashdot, our home of trolls and flamebait by anticypher · · Score: 2

    Its not good to reply to bait, but I'll do it anyways.

    Getting to orbit is one problem, what to do once you are there is another. Bigelow is the first to announce a solid plan for a civilian space station which can be used for tourists and cheaper scientific studies.

    Tito is untrained as an astronaut

    Tito paid for his training, and spent 9 months of his life working at the cosmodrome to become a fully fledged cosmonaut.

    There are other *naut training programs on this planet besides NASA. The russians have one, the European Space Agency has one. The Japanese are creating one, and China has claimed to have one. One of those would love to earn the money from setting up a "civilian" school to train hotel station crew. I know of several commercial airline pilots who would love to spend a couple years of their life as space hotel crew.

    Imagine putting on your CV that you worked in a space station, and have logged 17 million flight miles. Earthside jobs might be kind of boring after that. :-)

    no space oriented engineers working on it

    Why couldn't they get space oriented engineers working on it? There certainly are enough with experience who would jump at the chance to leave NASA's stifling bureaucracy and work in the private sector. There are probably thousands who have already made the jump, and the Russian program would also be a good recruiting ground.

    he could cause the death of hundreds of people

    At most, with 3 habitation modules, the space hotel could only support 12 or so people. A captain, 3 crew, 2 scientists, and 6 guests. With hundreds of people ready to put up a million US dollars for a short stay in orbit, the hotel could pay for itself with an active 10 year life span. There would also be a steady revenue from scientific companies who can't afford NASAs outrageous payload requirements. TV reality shows already have huge budgets, and someone would love to pay-per-view the first sex in space.

    If Bigelow can sustain the capital flow to get regulatory approval, certainly there are launch sites that can put up his modules. They can be launched from Khazakstan or Sea Launch, and avoid most of the NASA/FAA BS.

    Tito was the first leak in the dike NASA has imposed, and I'd expect the dam to start to leak more and more soon. There are at least a dozen viable commercial re-usable LEO launcher programs under development. Tito showed all of us dreamers that space can be had by merely throwing money around. Bigelow obviously saw the same thing, and has the capital to act on this Next Big Thing.

    the AC

    --
    Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
  44. Re:What about.... by anticypher · · Score: 2

    You are using the 1960's technology space shuttle as the basis for all the stress astronauts encounter during launch.

    There are at least a dozen programs under way to create a low-cost civilian earth-to-LEO launch system. Either launch simple rockets or planes from baloon platforms at 100,000 feet, or use a cargo plane to get to 50,000+ feet and drop from the wing, or SSTO, and the list goes on. The one most likely to be successful will allow just about anyone in reasonable physical shape to get to orbit without violent stresses.

    But you are right on the rich part, but you would be surprised how many rich, adventurous people are out there. And don't forget corporations, especially entertainment companies, who could afford to send 3 couples, a cameraman and producer up for a reality based show. Brings whole new meaning to voting someone off the station :-)

    the AC

    --
    Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
  45. Why things cost so much by trenton · · Score: 2
    Sure, you can bring the costs down, if you allow more risk. Right now, after the recent Better, Faster, Cheaper problems, NASA takes very little risk. To be sure, after all the bad publicity they recieved after the Challenger launch, they're willing to spend more money to avoid damagning their image... and killing people.

    Once we start sacrificing safety, things will get cheaper. All regulated US transportation industries are much safter than those that are not. Compare airplanes and trains to cars, or even to semis. But, if space has a fatality rate close to the 41,800 per year in the US (1.6 per 100 million vehicle miles), I don't think many people would want to go.

    --
    Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
  46. Re:Summer Vacation in Outer Space by bungalow · · Score: 2

    It would seriously suck to be housekeeping up there. I imagine maids have interesting stories down here, but I can't imagine everything they'd run into up there.

    Think about what happens with spillover in a zero-gravity environment.(define spillover as you wish).

    I know the hotel would probably have some technique to create artificial gravity, but still there will be areas (as crowdpleasers) where zero-gravity can be experienced. People will find a way to experiment with this in every way you can or cannot imagine, and in ways you wish you couldn't imagine. eww.

  47. Re:I wonder by bungalow · · Score: 4

    I wonder if they will have a swimming pool. That would be odd in zero G. a big sphere of water hovering in the middle of the room.

    This sounds extremely dangerous; Water containment would be the first challenge; I don't know how surface tension differs, but it would stand to my reason that , a "big sphere" would react to newtonian physics as well - if everyone jupmed in on one side, using the walls as a push point or whatever, then the mass of water would be pushed around quite easily. And break. Then you have perpetual zero-grav percipitation, not a pool.

    The bigger challenge I see is orientation and buoyancy. IN a 10' deep pool, most people know to swim "up". In a zero-grav environment, especially where pressure is significantly lower than what people are used to, one would easily become quite disoriented. Without unfamiliar buyancy charqacteristics, people could suffocate themselves by swimming "in" instead of "out".

    I'm not saying I'd never swim in outerspace; it sounds like a bit of fun, actually. But I'd want a few lessons beforehand.

  48. Re:Las Vegas, what a surprise... by doormat · · Score: 1

    Whats worse is there is a building on the University of Nevada-Las Vegas campus named for this guy.

    Robert L. Bigelow Physics Building #50 (ironic eh?). I had a class in there last semester too...

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
  49. Re:Yeah, but... by stevey · · Score: 2

    Do you have any idea just how expensive it is to fly to third-world countries

    A damn sight cheaper than to fly into space, I bet ... ;)


    Steve
    ---
  50. Re:Start saving now! by xinu · · Score: 2
    "We were promised this decades ago."
    Hmm, who was it that promised this to you. I'll go beat them up for you for breaking their promises.
  51. Re:Why NASA is pissed. by dolanh · · Score: 3

    The US and Russia have very different economies. You can't compare what it costs to do business in one country with what it costs in another. Chances are many of the subcontractors that NASA uses are paid 10x yearly what the Russian workers make. That adds up quickly.

  52. Re:Summer Vacation in Outer Space by sconeu · · Score: 2

    re the title:

    Robin Williams once made a "Martian Haiku":

    Red Sand between my toes
    Summer Vacation in outer space

    That was a martian haiku, thank you


    From "Reality: What a Concept". Of course, it's not a haiku.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  53. Not Even Close by Louis+Savain · · Score: 2

    Face it, the US is the only country doing anything at all in space anymore.

    Not even close. The European Space Agency puts more heavy satellites in geo-synchronous orbit than any other space agency. AFAIK, French based Ariane-Space operates the space launch center in Kourou, French Guiana in South America. They have more launches in a year than anybody else, including NASA and the Russians. The Japanese have even sent a probe to the Moon and are planning to send another to Mars using their own rocket technology. Even India is getting in on the satellite launching business.

    My question is, why do Americans think the rest of the world has no technology?

  54. I think there is still to much danger. by jmccay · · Score: 1

    I think will open up too much of a can of worms. There still a lot we don't completely understand. To allow tourists into space now? Bad idea. Befor eyou know it, our skies will be cluttered with "space hotels" from the Los Vegas hotel billionares. I say give it 10 to 20 more years before atempting somehting like this. This will give us time to advance our technology--hopefully to a point where this woudl be safe.

    --
    At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
  55. Vomit floating in the Lobby! by Sleen · · Score: 1

    You know, I still don't understand how spaces can be qualified as fit for human habitation in outer space.

    You drill a hole in some metal, you get floating metal filings. You don't want to breathe that in! Someone vomits in their room and without decent air scrubbers; those airosols end up everywhere!

    Unless every space is designed with air evacuation in mind, you would end up with places that are not properly scrubbed. You would have to be wearing a mask.

    That said; all those sci-fi movies with people saying captain its breathable; are BS.

    Also, what agency determines that this place is fit for human habitation? NASA? Thats not their job...

  56. Re:Why NASA is pissed. by selectspec · · Score: 2

    some more perspective. While it will rank as one of the greatest achievements of mankind. During the first ten years of the Apollo moon program (up to the actual first man on the moon), cost 5% of the US gross national product for the period. For 10 years, 5% of the gross production of the US went to the moon program. Think about it. Kennedy had some serious balls.

    --

    Someone you trust is one of us.

  57. Re:Why NASA is pissed. by selectspec · · Score: 2

    I'm glad they did too. However, putting a man on the moon stirs up the spirit a bit more than that orbiting vegitable garden they have now (Internation Space Station). By the way, that zero-G brocolli experement takes up 6% of the annual US Budget. (Far more than the roughly 3% tax cut about to be passed).

    --

    Someone you trust is one of us.

  58. Re:Why NASA is pissed. by selectspec · · Score: 2

    Hate to argue, but I think your NASA figures are way off the charts. The AP reported that the shuttle costs upwards of 1 billion/mission including development costs. NASA quoted the number at 490 million/launch in 1999. The simple math is that the human flight budget plus mission support is budgeted for a bit over 8 billion FY2001 and they are planning 8 missions. This doesn't included NASA's non-shuttle costs, nor amorization of costs already spent.

    --

    Someone you trust is one of us.

  59. Re:NASA by selectspec · · Score: 2

    I could not agree with you any more. The bottom line, is that all government spending starts out with the best intentions (man in space, get to the moon). But once you spend, they can't stop. Look at NASA. Florida, California and Texas. Hmmm, like a politician is going to cut pork spending in one of those states? I mean, who needs FLORIDA to win an election? NASA will consume a little over 6% of the federal budget in 2002. Those three states get the bulk of that percentage. Think about that. Three states getting 6% of the federal budget. Ok, you are a Senator from Florida. You are getting some piece of 6% of the federal budget, just for NASA. Are you going to say, "Hold on one second, we need to drive these costs down!" I doubt it.

    --

    Someone you trust is one of us.

  60. Why NASA is pissed. by selectspec · · Score: 5

    For the same reason they hated Tito. NASA doesn't want anybody to build a space station for 500 million dollars, because it shows how rediculous their budget is. It was the same deal with Tito. Tito payed roughly 12 million to go into space (despite NASA's attempts to claim the number was really 20 million). The Russian crew was three including Tito. Assuming, that the 12 million was enough to cover the costs of a single crew member (why else would they do it), that suggests that it only cost the Russians at most about 36 million (I'm sure it was less). It costs NASA 600 million for each space shuttle launch ( = Space shuttle annual budget / number of launches). Now, if you are a NASA administrator, and some guys says he's going to spend 500 million on a space station, and you can't launch the shuttle for that, what are you going to say!

    --

    Someone you trust is one of us.

    1. Re:Why NASA is pissed. by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      Yes, its difficult to get exact figures, subtly different questions give you very big differences in the figures (e.g. yearly launch pad costs are they included per launch or not?). Let's suffice it to say that depending on how you cut it, the space shuttle costs somewhere between $100 million and $1.5 billion; mostly towards the top end of the range.

      Still, although I was trying to be fairly non controversial, in a fairly real sense, the comparison is unfair to the Russians as you can't buy a launch in the shuttle if you wanted to; but if you could it would seem reasonable for NASA to charge for profit ontop of the costs. Whereas the $85 million for a Proton V is all in.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    2. Re:Why NASA is pissed. by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 4

      Actually Tito probably more or less paid for the whole flight. The entire Russian space budget runs to under $200 million; the cost of each rocket is about $4 million (source: Gary Hudson of Rotary Rocket fame). There will be launch pad costs on top of that, but I doubt they will add up to more than $8 million.

      By comparison, the unit cost of a space shuttle launch is $100 million including pad maintenance; but not including development costs.

      The rocket that Tito went up on is much less capable of course. The more capable rocket the Russians have Proton V, which can carry a similar payload mass to the shuttle costs about $5 million. The Russians charge $85 million per launch cf $500+ million for the space shuttle.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    3. Re:Why NASA is pissed. by Valar · · Score: 1

      that is because the AP figure included the budget of all of the facilities associated with the shuttle. Well, duh, if you include the operating budget of every facility that uses even a fraction of its time in shuttle related tasks, you are going to get a very bloated number.

    4. Re:Why NASA is pissed. by CoreyG · · Score: 2

      How can you claim You can't compare what it costs to do business in one country with what it costs in another? This is the whole reason companies relocate factories or build parts in different locations throughout the world. Parts cost less, labor costs less. If you can launch your equipment cheaper in Russia, then you launch your equipment in Russia. Saying you can't compare costs because the economies are different is idiotic. If $12 million US in Russia gets your stuff into orbit that is by definition cheaper than the $600 million US it costs NASA, no matter how much NASA's subcontractors may charge. The cost, in the end once everything is up in space, is what you compare. Last time I checked, 12 million was indeed less than 600 million.

    5. Re:Why NASA is pissed. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      some more perspective. While it will rank as one of the greatest achievements of mankind. During the first ten years of the Apollo moon program (up to the actual first man on the moon), cost 5% of the US gross national product for the period.

      Some perspective:

      • It was only eight years from Kennedy's speech to the first manned landing
      • The peak year for Apollo funding was FY67, two years *before* the landing
    6. Re:Why NASA is pissed. by live+from+boston · · Score: 1

      For normal businesses you can compare, but not for the government. The government would rather have its contracting work done in the US because it's good for the market. After all, the money being spent is coming from the people, so why not give them jobs as a benefit?

    7. Re:Why NASA is pissed. by Genoaschild · · Score: 1

      some more perspective. While it will rank as one of the greatest achievements of mankind. During the first ten years of the Apollo moon program (up to the actual first man on the moon), cost 5% of the US gross national product for the period. For 10 years, 5% of the gross production of the US went to the moon program. Think about it. Kennedy had some serious balls.

      Back then, it was the cold war and people were willing to accept that number. They had to beat the commies and the pink blooded Americans to the moon and so, no price was too small. It also really helped the local economy(5% of the gdp going to 1% of the people, that is a lot of hamburgers)
      ----

      --
      Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
  61. Re:Summer Vacation in Outer Space by JEDi_ERiAN · · Score: 4

    obviously you've never had sex in space.

    E.


    -

    --

    -
    This Post has been brought to you by the letter "E".
  62. But... by sh4de · · Score: 1

    Will they play "Also Sprach Zarathrustra" during the docking procedure?

  63. Re:Just what you need on a holiday... by polymath69 · · Score: 1
    You'd have better results with a concentrated halucinate like Acid

    Yeah, wow, man, it feels like I'm floating! And hey, I'm seeing stars! Far out man!

    --

    --

    --
    I don't want to rule the world... I just want to be in charge of mayonnaise.
  64. Re:I wonder by polymath69 · · Score: 1
    Not going to happen remotely soon.

    If it were, it might be at one end of a chamber, clinging to the side by surface tension. With any vigorous swimming, it'd probably wind up with gobs of water and air flying around; but one huge ball of water in the center of the room would never stay there.

    But this won't happen for financial reasons. It costs about $5000 to boost a pound of payload into orbit. 8 pounds of water to a gallon, three gallons to the cubic foot, hundreds of square feet to a swimming pool, and this space pond costs 60 million dollars for a lousy 500 cubic foot pool. And that's before evaporation.

    Now, if they can harvest a passing comet and get the water out of that, they wouldn't have to pay for the delta vee and maybe this could be tried. But not soon.

    --

    --

    --
    I don't want to rule the world... I just want to be in charge of mayonnaise.
  65. err, that means two space ports by fantomas · · Score: 1

    Err, run that past me again dood?

    You don't want the hassle of getting a passport and a visa but you are looking forward to the Washington to Tokyo shuttle...

    Umm.... which Tokyo are we talking about? would it be the Japanese one?

  66. D'oh! by zpengo · · Score: 2

    I already bought tickets to Boston for our honeymoon. Zero-G would be lots more fun!

    --


    Got Rhinos?
  67. Re:Start saving now! by hexx · · Score: 1

    who will be the first to join the "100 miles high" club?

    So, how 'bout this:
    NASA Mission STS 51-A - if I remember correctly, Anna Fisher and Frederick Hauck were on the mission, and were (still are I believe) husband and wife.

    Odds are good they're the first.

  68. Re:Start saving now! by The_Messenger · · Score: 1
    Reckoned the first were Russian cosmonauts some years ago, while apparently NASA experimented with a married couple a while back.
    I thought they took a married couple so that there would not be any sex.

    --

    --

    --
    I like to watch.

  69. Re:What about.... by persist1 · · Score: 1

    Um, "me too" (applied to all of the other people who've been rebutting the "no Tom, Dick or Harries" comment).

    Thanks to the romanticization of spaceflight, we're the victim of 1950's mindsets... the whole point to astronaut/cosmonaut training is to get the "best of the best" which means someone of superlative intelligence, education, and physical conditioning.

    When you push the known limits of physiology, or you're doing bleeding-edge experiments in the sciences, these sorts of people are necessary.

    A balmy day on the Jersey Shore will make it clear that such standards cannot be applied to the rigors of taking a holiday.

    --
    ...When in doubt, think for yourself.
  70. Re:Start saving now! by swordgeek · · Score: 1

    Exactly like that! Although the only part of that description that makes it stupid is the 'vacation' aspect of it.

    Besides, is it worse than hang-gliding, bungee jumping, skydiving, or many other things that people do for vacation?

    *BOOM!*

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  71. Start saving now! by swordgeek · · Score: 2

    All I can say is that it's about bloody TIME!

    We were promised this decades ago. Now it's starting to happen. Maybe I'll see space tourism in my lifetime afterall.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    1. Re:Start saving now! by swordgeek · · Score: 2

      Would you? I'd appreciate it. I'll send you a long list of all of my teachers, the media, the governments, etc., who said, "Why, by the year 2000 you'll be taking vacations on the moon!

      Was it rhetoric? Of course, but I don't think anyone expected the space program worldwide to fall apart so badly.

      And dammit, I wanted to turn 30 in space! Well, maybe I'll aim for 40 or 50 now.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    2. Re:Start saving now! by swordgeek · · Score: 3

      Nah. I never said that Linux would be a huge commercial success. Financially, there's damned little model for producing, updating, or selling the thing.

      Nonetheless, Linux is out there, and used successfully in large commercial installations (Google!). In that sense, Linux IS big--bigger than one would have expected in 1997.

      Similarly, I'm looking at decades of space research (and for quite a while, neglect) coming to fruition now. The first paying passenger went into space a month ago. We have a permanent space station in orbit. Private interests have been talking space travel for three or four years, and are starting to put up the money.

      This is the thin edge of the wedge. Not space tourism yet, but it _is_ starting (and 'starting' is the key here) to happen.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    3. Re:Start saving now! by Ira-Waru · · Score: 1

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban

      Like, say, strapping yourself to 5000 tons of high explosives setting it off in an attempt to go on vacation?

      ;)

      --
      Such a price the gods exact for song: to become what we sing - Pythagoras
    4. Re:Start saving now! by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      "Maybe I'll see space tourism in my lifetime afterall."

      I'm happy to tell you; you already have! You can die happy! ;-)

      Ok, on a very much less flippant note. There are reasonably good reasons to think that the underlying costs to get into space are just a few thousand per person (if you look at the fuel costs which are much, much less than most people would suppose.)

      The Russians are only two orders of magnitude more than this, NASA is three.

      The nice thing about space is that the costs are likely to go down as the rate of launch goes up- right now most things are handbuilt and so costs are huge.

      Space launch is growing at about 15% a year. Wait 5 years and we will see an order of magnitude more stuff going up there. That's going to affect the price.

      I think within 15 years (if the trend continues) we will see large scale tourism.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    5. Re:Start saving now! by redcup · · Score: 3

      And it's only a matter of time before some sorority girls start up a "space cam" in their hotel room. Now the question is, who will be the first to join the "100 miles high" club?

      RC

      --

      RC
    6. Re:Start saving now! by PLBogen · · Score: 1

      The Soviet space program actively supported copulations between male and female cosmonauts for research purposes.

  72. Deuce Bigelow, Space Gigolo by damnnicks · · Score: 1

    I can hardly wait for the sequel :)

  73. Wrong on several counts by Galvatron · · Score: 1
    you felt like you were floating

    Zero g is not like floating. "Floating" would be if you could keep yourself in the air, despite one g of force pushing down on you. Zero g feels more like falling. Falling at 9.8 m/s^2, to be precise. That's why it's called "free fall," because you're just falling around the Earth perpetually when you're in orbit (like Douglas Adams' throwing yourself at the ground and missing). This is why space sickness lasts for hours. Besides, who wants to feel like they're floating? Maybe afterwards, but during that just sounds a little too passive for my tastes.

    find a wall to brace yourselves on, or push against And bounce right off it... If you've got her against the wall, the only thing you have to push against is the air behind you. So youd be flailing your arms crazily trying to essentially "swim" back and forth through the air. If you're against the wall, they you'll just push right off it on the first thrust. So, either you could bounce around the room, thrusting once every time you hit a wall, or you could find a narrow corridor, so you can push off the wall behind you, while pushing her into the wall behind her.

    Then you can tell your friends, In space, I could hear her scream....

    This is just stupid.

    The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.

    --
    "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    1. Re:Wrong on several counts by |_uke · · Score: 1

      I think everyone is missing a fairly important point... normally when people have sex they are not just sitting or laying on one another.. that would make sex in general rather hard. Instead one tends to hold on or curl parts of their body around eachother. You might have your legs (or a leg) wrapped around your partner.. Your fingers might be intertwined.. you might have your hands around your partners waist.

      besides.. two people swimming around trying (or avoiding) to have sexual context might actually be kinda fun...

      --
      Luke
    2. Re:Wrong on several counts by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the slam. Your right, but nevertheless, no matter what it is(with exception of MonM, no offense to anyone just my personal preference), how good it is, or even how bad it is sex, in space brings a whole new meaning to mile(s) high club.

      This is just stupid.

      And there is nothing stupid about that.

      Rehab is for quitters...

      --
      "It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
  74. Never read Pournelle by Galvatron · · Score: 1

    And I wasn't saying it would be impossible, just that it would be much more difficult. Sort of like having sex in the back seat of a car, it's certainly very doable, and fun besides, but most of us would much prefer a nice big bed.

    The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.

    --
    "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  75. Apparently it's overrated by Galvatron · · Score: 2

    I've heard it said (on what authority, I honestly have no idea) that the lack of gravity actually makes things a lot more difficult (you push, she just floats away). However, breasts in zero g would certainly be a sight to behold...

    The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.

    --
    "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    1. Re:Apparently it's overrated by Nyckname · · Score: 1

      the mechanics can be solved with well placed bungee cords. advantages: no ones arm goes to sleep; no wet spot (just a blob undulating in the direction of the air scrubber).

  76. Re:Oh... by Emnar · · Score: 1
    I hope that if this guy gets to go through with this that he at least uses some engineers with the proper training (NASA engineers that have lost their job, perhaps?)

    You don't think the best engineers work for government pay in a government bureaucracy, do you? They might work for contractors like Lockheed, but I guarantee you they're not settling for civil servant wages.

    If there's money, they'll be happy to follow it, just like in the IT industry.

  77. Whitepapers (Printed on ZigZags?) by rjamestaylor · · Score: 2
    Following the links to Commercial Space at Bigelow Areospace leads me to wonder about the true nature of the project:
    Another essay by Allen Tough, lists five promising strategies for How to Achieve Contact with other civilizations.

    --
    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  78. Motel 6's new ad campaign.... by Ronin+X · · Score: 3
    Motel 6 2003 ad campaign:

    We'll leave the life support on fer ya.

    --
    Ok my karma is maxed out. When do I become Enlightened?
  79. Yeah, but... by Colz+Grigor · · Score: 1
    Do you have any idea just how expensive it is to fly to third-world countries?!

    ::Colz Grigor

    --

  80. Re:why bother with the FAA? - Have To. by SatelliteBoy · · Score: 1
    FAA regulates space activity of US companies. If Bigelow is to do business in the US, regardless of where the spacecraft launch and/or land, they're regulated.

    Check out AST. These guys are the regulators of space acitvity in the US. It's a new group, and they're not clued in completely to commercial space yet. They're learning, but it will take time before they figure out a business-friendly stance

  81. Re:Just what you need on a holiday... by cuteduo · · Score: 1

    I would think that FDA jurisdiction is just like
    it is down here. If you want to import it to
    the US then you have to follow certain FDA
    guidelines. Just like when US drug companies
    want to export drugs to Europe or Canada they
    have to obey those country's regulations on top
    of what the FDA says. There is a standard that
    most EU countries are starting to follow for
    drug manufacturing which is ISO 14464. The
    canucks have their own drug agency but I don't
    recall what their name is. So it all boils down
    to where the drug manufactured in space will be
    headed to at the end of production.

  82. Las Vegas, what a surprise... by kalifa · · Score: 4

    Is it just me or did someone else notice that all these crazy megalomaniacs are always based in the most kitsch and megalomaniac city of this world?

    1. Re:Las Vegas, what a surprise... by Mad+Man · · Score: 1

      Nevada does not have a corporate income tax, so it would make sense for a venture like this to incorporate there.

      I've even heard radio ads here in Colorado urging people to incorporate their businesses in Nevada, regardless of where the company is physically located. (I don't know who was paying for the ads).

      Also, it would seem that the middle of a desert would be a good place to put a space port.

  83. Gigolo by bool · · Score: 1

    Welcome the the future... Gigolo Aerospace...

    ----------
    do { Work(); PayTaxes(); Eat(); Sleep(); } while (alive)

    --

    ----------
    while (alive) { Work(); PayTaxes(); Eat(); Sleep(); }
    Bool
  84. One thing bothers me... by Saint+Mitchell · · Score: 1

    A Las Vegas hotel tycoon is seeking permission from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to build a private space station

    Why should you even need permission? No one has claim to space, it's beyond any government agency. True you must launch from somewhere...so what. If someone has deep enough pockets to fund the brain power behind it then go for it.

    Sorry, this is one thing that just irks me to death. I've always hated the space industry being government run.

    1. Re:One thing bothers me... by Saint+Mitchell · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that it would not be in our best interests for things to bump into and destroy each other. I never said anything about not sharing information. I said you shouldn't have to ask permission. :)

    2. Re:One thing bothers me... by Zed2K · · Score: 1

      Yeah and no one has a claim to international air space on the earth either, but the air traffic control still needs to know where everyone is at at all times. I'd hate to see a private space station ram into the ISS and destroy both of them just because the private one didn't tell NASA they were going to be there.

  85. Re:Same problems... by oman_ · · Score: 1


    I'd be more worried about toxic MIR space fungus
    eating at my Space Shuttle parked outside...

    --
    Rats would be more funny if they could fart.
  86. Use for liquid immersion in space by albamuth · · Score: 1

    If high acceleration engines (10-50) are ever developed, people will have to be immersed and pressurized in liquid in order to survive the acceleration. I forget what sci-fi book I saw it in. Preferably breathable liquid. I'm not sure how many G's astronauts experience in conventional rockets (or rockets-with-wings), but I think it's around 4 or 5.

    --
    [pink beam of light]
  87. Re:What about.... by digitaltraveller · · Score: 1

    I doubt it. I think the rigorous training is merely circumspection/extra precautions on NASA's part. If you can fly an 80 year old U.S. senator (John Glenn) into space, you could fly your average 40 year old flabby millionare without too much difficulty. The most stressful thing is probably the "G" forces and a bit of physical training and "G" training in a simulator would probably acclimatize your average person. I'd guess medically it would probably be about as dangerous as smoking cigarette's. Probably no immediate danger (if you've had simulator training) but possibly a higher correlation in later life with some organ damage.

  88. Re:NASA by Valar · · Score: 1

    THREE STATES GETTING 6%!! I'm so offended! Oh wait, no I'm not, because 6 divided by three is 2, and two percent, oddly enough, is 1/50th of 100 percent.

  89. Space... in space? by piecewise · · Score: 1

    What happens when we run out of space... in space?

    I know little about it, but I know the earth's gravitational pull can carry on a LOT of baggage -- but seriously, after so many years, not only would there be problems with satellites colliding, but could this also have an affect on the ozone in any way? I ask because, although there is no real pollution, if it affects in any way the gravitational pull of the earth, does that no also affect our climate?

    I realize it would take a LOT to affect the earth... but looking out.

    Also, can you have additional layers of satellites? The closer you are, the faster the orbit. The further out you are, the slower -- but the outer layers also affect the inner layers.

    At some point, there will have to be international control of space traffic. As well as anti-satellite defense. Who controls protecting space traffic now? Is it international?

    I come with more questions than answers.

    --
    The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
  90. Hmm... by broody · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the "Space Island Group" has some competition for thier sex hotel in space.

    --
    ~~ What's stopping you?
  91. Re:PORN by Aloekak · · Score: 1


    What else do you think a "budget suite" in space would be used for?

  92. Re:Just what you need on a holiday... by cvd6262 · · Score: 2
    Sounds like a perfect holiday location....Nothing for miles except fellow tourists and drugs.

    You bring up an interesting point.... Does the FDA have juristiction in Space? I wonder how pot would grow in 0G.

    --

    I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.

  93. Re:What about.... by cnkeller · · Score: 1

    If Dennis Tito is an example of almost a flawless human specimen, I'll join another race...

    --

    there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

  94. Re:Apparently it's not overrated by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH · · Score: 1

    Yeah but how often can you say that the sex was so good you felt like you were floating. Also find a wall to brace yourselves on, or push against...

    Then you can tell your friends, In space, I could hear her scream....

    Rehab is for quitters...

    --
    "It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
  95. Why NASA is scared by doorbot.com · · Score: 3

    NASA also has to be concerned about the safety of the other missions. If a mission fails, and people are killed (which is probably more likely than mere injury), that can cause a very serious backlash against the space industry in general.

    "But is it safe?"
    "We need to make sure none of our boys/girls will get hurt."
    "Let's wait a few years and re-evaluate our current safety precautions/proceedures."

    And so on. You can imagine how much NASA would like to continue with their current plans of action, and not have to fend off safety concerns from the general public, people who historically have never understood these kinds of complex issues. All they know is that "something bad" happened and "how are we going to stop it from happening again."

    If the mission fails, there will be significant political/public opinion setbacks for NASA. They're worried, and rightfully so.

  96. Nothing goes up in 30 months by memyselfandme · · Score: 1
    Nothing goes into space in 30 months with so little to show for it by this point. With this much money (apparently) committed, something is possible, but most likely a test vehicle to pave the [paperwork] way. Certainly not a tourist destination!

    Launching from the US or, more likely, by a US launch company from somewhere else is smart because once through all the hurdles the whole operation will have credibility. But getting there? I don't see it...

    Ok, so NASA's ever-shrinking space station is a joke (I can't believe it was 1990 when I interviewed to work on a project for it - then only 'a year or two from launch'), but the technical hurdles are real. Sure NASA operates under tighter restrictions than private enterprise (don't take risks that could kill anyone, don't fire anyone), but they have some smart people.

    Wish I was there - but I went back to computer programming when I admitted reality...
    ---- westside.com - build a database web site in minutes

  97. Can on a String? by mizhi · · Score: 2

    I don't know how good I feel about the owner of a chain named "Budget Suites" attempting to put up a quick space station... The mental image I get in my head is 3 GIANT soda cans linked together with twine floating around the earth. =)

    --
    Humorless sig goes here.
  98. Call me Optimistic.... by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 2
    You're not too far off thinking the way you did about this. I remember one thing that had very little reaction for mankind as a whole and received only reactions such as "Neat" or "Cool, but I don't need it". That thing very quickly became a staple of life/business/education and it is tough to imagine only a short time ago, we even managed to live without it.

    I'm talking about the Internet. I feel that the analogy is or will be paralleled with space occupancy. We've set the foundation and I expect the life/business/education needs to require space habitation as a normal way of life.

    I predict by 2010 (no special reason for that year), the first regular families will be aboard a space station as workers in research and specialized manufacturing businesses will consider that home. No sense NOT living close to work and being close to your family.

  99. Re:I wonder by Deanasc · · Score: 1

    Why do you need a pool. Can't you just float around the capsule? It would be just like swimming.

    --
    I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
  100. Great Finincial Planning by Deanasc · · Score: 2
    On the one hand it's a brilliant concept, just build it and let someone else figure out how to cheaply deliver the tourists. The problem is it's useless until someone shows up looking for lodging for the night.

    That's why when selling Disney Land packages in Detroit they must always come with cheap airfare.

    The Russians are going to beat us up there. Our government just doesn't understand the free market like they do in Moscow.

    --
    I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
  101. Re:Just what you need on a holiday... by Deanasc · · Score: 2
    Plants need a certain amount of gravity to grow shoots up and roots down. There have been studies with magnets and super bright lights but the effect is sketchy with little survival rates (based on the number of seed needed to get a single viable offspring.) Most plants fail to bud. There is also the down side of when plants do grow they lack the mechanism (gravity) that keeps them from growing too long. You'd get super long stems. So what you'd have growing Pot in space is all stem no bud from a huge number (pounds) of seed you'd need to carry up for each crop.

    You'd have better results with a concentrated halucinate like Acid, 100 hits on a 20 gram blotter paper.

    --
    I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
  102. Nor should there be. by lazn · · Score: 5

    "The papers and forms don't exist for an application like this."

    Umm the FAA dosn't own space. Just go.

    (I am sure europe would be interested to know the american government seems to think it owns everything around the earth)

    ==>Lazn

    1. Re:Nor should there be. by Haglund · · Score: 1

      We already know that they think they own everything...

    2. Re:Nor should there be. by pjgunst · · Score: 1

      hey troll, last time I checked the ESA is 'doing' more in space than NASA.
      They are not nearly as cheap as the russians. They can't afford to make the any mistakes because they launch a lot of commercial and non-commercial satellites.

      The launch platform is ideally located, near the equator. They don't need zillion tons of fuel to get into orbit. If this hotel company gets permission from the european authorities (but I doubt they will), they would be able to save a few bucks by launching the modules from there (it's french territory I think). One would almost forget the japs have a space program too... and they would make an ideal partner in commercial space exploitation. A few years ago, they even presented plans for a hotel on the moon. Actually a city, but with a lot of private funding. Just plans though, I don't know if they are going through with it.

  103. Motel 6 by Lechter · · Score: 1

    Will they leave the light on for me there too?

    --
    credo quia absurdum
  104. space station *module* in 30 mos by foobar104 · · Score: 2
    Just a clarification: Bigelow says he expects to be able to launch the first module in thirty months. It's a long way from a single module to an inhabitable space station.

    Robert Bigelow, who made his fortune as owner of Budget Suites of America, said he anticipates that his Bigelow Aerospace division will be able to launch a full-size space station module into orbit within 30 months.

    It would take three such modules linked together to create a space station the size of the current International Space Station, he said.

  105. Same problems... by sdo1 · · Score: 1

    Great. Instead of roaches in your room now you get little alien bugs.

    At least in space no one will complain about their bed being too soft.

    -S

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
  106. Just what you need on a holiday... by abdulwahid · · Score: 3

    Bigelow said the private space station would be a destination for space tourists and could be used by drug firms.....

    Sounds like a perfect holiday location....Nothing for miles except fellow tourists and drugs. But hang on, when you're already floating around and are totally spaced out...who needs drugs?

    --
    perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
  107. Summer Vacation in Outer Space by ackthpt · · Score: 2
    Ok, I'll worry when the sun gets blotted out on Friday's after 3pm by the backup of traffic heading for a weekend in orbit.

    There was a pretty cool Hilton(?) commercial several years ago which painted a very romantacized version of a high class hotel in space. Other than they view, though, what the heck is there to do/see?

    --
    All your .sig are belong to us!

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  108. I wonder what the hourly rates are? by Hairy_Potter · · Score: 1

    In case I want to join the 100 mile high club (along with a few cosmonauts, a few married couples and few astronauts that swing both ways, buthey, what else are you going to do stuck in space for 300 days.).

  109. Because it has to be convenient... by bziman · · Score: 1
    Why is he even bothering with the FAA and United States legal BS? If he launches from some other country, like one near the equator to decrease the amount of fuel needed to get into orbit, he should have to deal with the FAA and the US government at all.

    Because he wants it to be convenient and viable and open to Americans. I'm much more likely to spend money and risk my life on a space ship that has been okay'd by American regulatory agencies, rather than okay'd by some Vegas tycoon's wallet. Furthermore, why would I want to have to get a passport and visa to fly for ten or fifteen hours before I can go into space.

    This isn't just about Earth-to-Space tourism. It's about opening up space travel for the masses. One of the major points of using space for travel is that it reduces intercontinental travel times -- Washington to Tokyo in less than four hours. If you only have one launch point and it's in Africa, it isn't going to be viable.

    --brian

  110. Club by goodhell · · Score: 3

    Now let's see how many chicks I can get to join the 100 mile high club!

  111. Interesting ideas for revenue streams... by hillct · · Score: 2
    Here's the excerpt that cought my eye:
    Bigelow said the private space station would be a destination for space tourists and could be used by drug firms and other manufacturers who benefit from a zero-gravity environment.
    The next paragraph says they don't yet have a way to get tourists into space. That's OK. I like the other revenue stream mentioned. Rent out lab space to drug companies. So there are a lot of companies that want to do zero G research, but the other advantage is, there's no clear information on which government has jurisdiction. Ah, here's a great place to do all those human closing experiments I've been meaning to do!

    In all seriousness, in light of that, why is Bigallow even bothering with the FAA? Why doesn't he go lease some small island and work with the Russian or Chinese space program or the up and coming Austrelian Space PRogram to get resources and transportation needed to construct his space station. After all, what yould the US government do? threaten to blow it out of the sky? Somehow I don't think the public would take to that vary well. As it is, I can Garuntee that if he gets the license he's seeking, one of the provisions of the deal will be that the space station will be governed by US law. Probably not the most ideal if youwant to rent out Lab space to pharmicutical companies...

    --CTH
    --

    --Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
  112. I wonder by bmongar · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they will have a swimming pool. That would be odd in zero G. a big sphere of water hovering in the middle of the room.

    --
    As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
    1. Re:I wonder by alcmena · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they add some spin to that room and keep some force on the water? It wouldn't have to be nearly 1g, but it could be greater than 0. That should help keep the water in, or close to, one spot of the room. Plus it would give people the similar orientation they are already used to.

      What I think would be really cool though is a cylinder shaped room with a docking tube in the dead center. The outer parts of the room are filled with water, and spinning to create some artificial gravity. People could enter the room through the docking tube, and the "pool" would be along the entire outer edge of the room. So you could in effect swim around the room in a big circle, and end up back where you started.

      Added bonus if there were a few windows on the outside walls so you could swim to the "bottom" of the pool and look out into space spinning by. Though, depending on the speed of the spin, that may be a very bad idea.

    2. Re:I wonder by alcmena · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the buoyancy of the person be the same under the spinning force as it would be under gravity? The force would push the person down, as gravity does here on earth, but the force of the water should push the person back up, as it does here on earth.

      Also, I meant vertical circles. There's just something cool sounding about being able to swim in a loop around the X axis instead of the Y.

    3. Re:I wonder by asspipet2000 · · Score: 1

      how would that give people a familiar orientation? wouldn't that just push them down deeper into the water (i.e. the opposite of what they're used to)? and also you can swim in big circles down here already. heh.sorry didnt mean to totally rip apart your post.

    4. Re:I wonder by asspipet2000 · · Score: 1

      ahh. i see. i still dont know if i think it would do that, but i have no real arguments. hopefully theyll build one and let us find out.

  113. Is this really worth a slashdot story ? by tempmpi · · Score: 1

    We have had many similar slashdot story in the past about privat persons and firms that want to do comercial spaceflights, hotels etc.
    But lets face it, this all is just hot air, there isn't anything behind it. Even very rich people like daydreaming, then something like this appears in the news.

    --
    Jan
  114. Canada and this guy by Omerna · · Score: 1

    They should really get together sometime. Between the two they'll have a 50 million dollar station ready to go in 6 months.
    --------------------------------------

    --


    No sig for you.
  115. Re:Big Brother by litheum · · Score: 1

    "The tribe has spoken. You will be required to leave the space station immediately."

    Ouch.

  116. NASA by Haglund · · Score: 1
    NASA has no bright future ahead of themselves, because they can't keep up being the leading explorers of space, pumping billions of dollars... and how much do they get back?

    Yes they have achieved a lot when it comes to technology and exploration of space, but for how long can they keep it up? The space station was proposed as an american-only project by Reagan, back in 1984 as a reply to Soviet MIR. It was delayed and delayed again, while the budget was steadily growing. Finally they had to bring in a lot of other countries, and the budget was still growing and the station was still delayed... while it wasn't getting any bigger.

    In the future, the only reason to pump in money in space industry, will be if you actually get something BACK from it. Private projects and enterprises have the future in space. They have plans on commercial low orbit space stations and hotels, moon bases, moon orbiters, Penn State are working on a container to keep anti matter... Governments will stay in the near space, but companies are the ones who will take us further out.

    Yeah I know, I've said this a few times now...

    1. Re:NASA by Try+thinking! · · Score: 1

      Ok i thought about it.
      Sorry to point this out, but you seem offended that Florida, California and Texas got getting 6% percent of the federal budget just for NASA. Well they do have 25% of the US population so what is your point? Maybe Ohio doesn't get alot of NASA spending for example but they sure get a hell of a lot of agriculture subsidies. In the interests of full disclosure i am not a resident of and of the states mentioned.

      --
      When all else fails and there is no one about to blame....
  117. Hilton Hotels on Slashdot by discovercomics · · Score: 3
    Rumors that Hilton hotels had been thinking along the same lines was discussed here on Slashdot back in September of 1999.
    This was revealed to be false several days later here on slashdot

    I doubt If I see it in my lifetime...

  118. Commercial influences. by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    This is getting interesting. It can take quite some years, but if you compare spaceflight with internet this comparison comes up: scientists build a fundation of the technology and once the basics are working and commercial companys step in, things will go faster.
    I just hope that these companies are seeing a general interest in the technology. I would hate to see one company to monopolize space technology.

    ---

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  119. Change core country? by Databass · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the trick is to establish residency in another country, such as the Principality of Sealand? What about countries who aren't members of this treaty? Are they free from the treaty or repressed by it?

  120. Bullshit Hoax? by kilgore_47 · · Score: 2

    I've been pondering this article for a while, and I'm pretty certain that its a hoax. Could the wealth of a huge motel chain put people in space? I'm sure this guy is rich, but there are richer people who arn't doing this!

    This is, however, getting "Budget Suites" mentioned all over the news, and portrayed as being modern, with it, cool, etc. Nice...

    -

    --
    ___
    The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
  121. Budget Suites Blows by kilgore_47 · · Score: 3

    I stayed at the budget suites in Las Vegas (they have several there, I was at the "Rancho" one) and it was horrible. The maid comes once a week if you get the weekly rate. Since I was there for seven days, I got my sheets changed ONCE. After our second day there they ran out of towels and just kept saying "were waiting on the laundry service". I was there with a decent sized group (for a paintball tournament) and several people outright lost their reservations for no good reason. Though they had previously promised that we could park a 20 ft trailer there, that turned out to be false. While I was trying to talk to the dumb inbred whitetrash bitch at the front desk, she took a call from her mom and started arguing with her about gambling debts. It was incredible!

    [end rant]

    Anyway, if they new "space hotel" is of enven remotely simmilar quality as their earth hotels, I won't be going anywhere near there!

    -

    --
    ___
    The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
  122. Oh... by Scoria · · Score: 2

    ... Bigelow (may I call you Deuce?), NASA views space as a monopoly? And that's why they resisted to Tito's entering space? I doubt that. They probably resisted to Tito's space journey due to the fact Tito is untrained as an astronaut and could have caused catastrophic damage to the space shuttle, possibly killing the crew, even unintentionally. They wouldn't let anyone else go up, so why make an exception for someone with money?

    Also, how safe would this thing be with no space oriented engineers working on it? Would it be redundant like a NASA or Russian Space Program creation? I wouldn't want to visit a flying deathtrap. And, given the right mistakes, that's what this thing would be. It'd make MIR in its final years look like a resort.

    I hope that if this guy gets to go through with this that he at least uses some engineers with the proper training (NASA engineers that have lost their job, perhaps?) Otherwise, he could cause the death of hundreds of people. I wouldn't visit it if there's such a thing as a "CAPTAIN'S ESCAPE POD" in the blueprints...

    --
    Do you like German cars?
    1. Re:Oh... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Scoria wrote:

      ... Bigelow (may I call you Deuce?), NASA views space as a monopoly? And that's why they resisted to Tito's entering space?

      Among other things the US was responsible for Tito's actions on orbit (by international treaty). In addition they are responsible to Congress for the hardware of the space station. Maybe they were a bit concerned about the liability issues.

      Tito wasn't at the time, and NASA didn't seem to want to take the time to train him,

      Sadly, you are incorrect. NASA offered multiple times to meet with Tito and the Russians to arrange for Tito's training. Tito and the Russians utterly refused to even discuss the issue. (Tito's showing up at the gates of JSC was a grandstanding publicity stunt.)

  123. Wait, though... by Scoria · · Score: 2

    ... That wasn't flamebait.

    Tito wasn't at the time, and NASA didn't seem to want to take the time to train him, even if he paid. Maybe they had other reasons...

    It wasn't toward Tito, but rather toward the guy who made such a statement toward NASA.

    Sorry if you thought it was flamebait, it wasn't intended that way. Later!

    --
    Do you like German cars?
  124. Marketting campaign. by dasmegabyte · · Score: 5

    At the end of the day, you're tired from space walking everywhere with the kids, the long ride in the station wagon shuttle on the way to Grandma's house on the moon, all you really want is some rest, clean atmosphere and a vaccuum you can pee into. Here at Space Station Six, we beleive in amenities like artifical gravity, free space suits for the kids and a complementary freeze dried continental breakfast.

    So come on down to Space Station 6 next time you're trekking across the cosmos. We'll leave the landing light on for you.

    --
    Hey freaks: now you're ju
  125. Hmmm. . . by C0D3X · · Score: 1

    There is a difference between announcing something, and actually doing it.

  126. Sounds like a dot-bomb plan to me... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
    This plan sounds more like that of a dot bomb than a serious proposal, there are some big problems and issues left unadressed in this press release;

    I wonder where he is going to get the launchers for the station modules?
    • Assuming the graphic here is the proposed hotel, and assuming the modules are ISS sized, I figure six to eight launches.

    • If the money he mentions is for developing launchers, that won't leave much over for the station. I doubt the money is for launcher development, because his statement is for the money to be spread over the next 15 years. Launcher development alone for ones in the class he'll need will be well in excess of $150 mill. (And there is little call commercially for launchers in that class.)

    • If he plans to buy the launches, then his budget is going to be eaten pretty rapidly by the associated costs.
    Construction is going to be the next problem;
    • When does it reach man tended capability? (Or does he plan on autonomous operations unless tourists are at the station? Not a bad idea, but there are some practical problems to be overcome.)

    • Given that none of the modules appear lie 'in line' with each other, automated docking is going to be difficult.
    The last holes all revolve around the same fact: No suitable manned transport is currently nor in the near term available. Rotary is dead, and the X-Van is nothing but viewgraphs. I find it unlikely that anyone will finace the development of a suitable vehicle simply because the station has been proposed.
    • How do construction, maintenance and operational personel reach the station?

    • How do the passengers reach the station?

    • How are supplies and waste handled?
    These are big, serious questions, and handwaving won't make them go away. Let's see what happens when the serious space media starts investigating. (Space.Com isn't really reliable or serious, they are USA Today or People, cheap, fast, flashy, fluff.)
  127. Big Brother by LeonPierre · · Score: 1

    Now the show Big Brother can go from being in a house to being in a hotel...in outer space. They could also put a Survivor spin on the show to attract more ratings.

    --
    "If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet"
  128. What about.... by JohnnyKnoxville · · Score: 2

    the months of rigorous training astronauts go through before they go into space. I think this is misleading because it implies any Tom, Dick or Harry can go into space. Not only will you have to be rich, but you will have almost a flawless human specimen to be able to up.

    1. Re:What about.... by kachuik · · Score: 1
      The months of training are on the misson objectives, not on how to sit in a chair during liftoff. All the medical tests are used to get the thousands of applicants down to a hadfull. They also reduce the chance that a mission has to be cut short due to a medical problem. NASA still gets its cash through good PR and a sick astronaut is the last thing they want.

      The space shuttle pulls 3 G's at max, which is less than a lot of roller coasters. They was no medical check or training session the last time I took a ride.

  129. Normally I wouldnt brag... by weetabix · · Score: 1

    about taking a hooker to a motel, but... hey, ya only live once :) (i wonder what the g's would do to her bewbz)

    --

    -- "It's tough to run with both feet stuck in your mouth" - Zoe's evil side

  130. budget tin can? by PorcelainLabrador · · Score: 2

    Crazy, but cool. Really the first thing they'll have to do is make the name more appealing - I don't think that too many people would be willing to orbit the world in a "Budget Suites" Tin Can... well, maybe I would.

  131. Road, anyone? by Aerog · · Score: 1

    In all honesty, something like this would be incredible if it could succeed, but the biggest problem I can see even in 30 months is the fact that it is still not a simple task to get a person up in space. Astronauts still have to go through training to get through the launch, let alone the occasional retired astronaut or rich American billionaire. The hotel may be up and running, but without an easier way to get people there, won't you eliminate a lot of your clientelle simply because they are not in the requisite physical shape to make the journey?

    It takes dedication to go through weeks of training just to go for a weekend (as well as a few hundred thousand a head to blow in transportation costs (but that's another post for another person))

    --

    - Relativistic? That's barely Newtonian!
  132. well now... by spacefem · · Score: 1

    Sweet! Not quite as cool as a dome on the moon or something, but still pretty interesting. And maybe the vacuum of space will help keep noises in the room across the ship from yours inaudible.

    But wait, how will I check my e-mail?

  133. PORN by newt_sd · · Score: 4

    ok the real question is how long till the adult industry starts exploring space. They seem to be the first in every other field and successful at that!!! Bring on the space hookers

    --
    ***I GOT NUTHIN***
  134. Smoking area by towaz · · Score: 1

    Even though i know this will not happen...wouldn't it be strange if they had a smoking area...instead of smoke rings you would just get smoke orbs.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
  135. Publicity stunt by MarkusQ · · Score: 3
    From the article:
    The station's viability also depends on developing a commercially practical way of transporting space tourists. Bigelow's company is not involved in that effort, but other companies are.

    This sounds like an advertising stunt to me; eventually, they will be told "no" by someone, or they will get everything ready and be "waiting for transportation to become available"...in the meantime, cheap advertising for the real hotels down here.

    --MarkusQ

  136. This is exactly what we need. by Genoaschild · · Score: 2

    The governments of the world can only project the space program so far because it is unprofitable. If someone can successfully create a profit in space, it will result in more interest in the project and thus, more private funds. The space race of the people and for the people is on.
    ----

    --
    Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
  137. It Can Be Done... by Minam · · Score: 2

    There was an excellent book written by John Barnes and Buzz Aldrin, called Encounter with Tiber. It was, in large part, a platform for Barnes and Aldrin to present methods in which today's technology could take people into orbit relatively inexpensively. I'm excited to see if Bigelow's space station comes to pass, because it might finally give commercial entities a reason to research and construct some decent ground-to-orbit ships.