Frequent Flyer Miles Take You to Space?

An anonymous reader writes "Pan Am might be gone and there isn't a Hilton in space yet, but you will soon be able to use your frequent flyer miles to at least come close to the final frontier. This article on SpaceRef.com details a new Space Adventures and US Airways partnership, where US Airways dividend miles may be cashed in for Space Adventures programs, most notably their sub-orbital flights that are expected to begin by 2005. Cost: only 10,000,000 miles. More reasonable totals can get you a zero-g parabolic flight, or a Mach 2.5 flight on a MiG-25. Space Adventures is the outfit that's been arranging trips to the ISS. One small problem though, is that they don't actually have a sub-orbital craft yet."

Comments

10,000,000 miles?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Miles usually expire after a couple of years if you don't use them. For a two-year window, you'd have to fly over 13000 miles a day to earn 10,000,000 miles. Pilots don't get that much time in the air.

Tourism In Space Will Never Work

[PhysicsGenius]

I want to visit space. I want to walk on the moon. I want to drink beer in a Martian bar. But I never will.

Why not? Because space tourism is unworkable. Sure, there's a big cost--that can be brought down (though not free, it takes a minimum of 400 gigajoules to lift 100 kg to 100 km above Earth). And it is complicated, but that can be simplified (although it will likely only become more and complex, think of the airline industry).

No, the real problem is health. In order to survive launch astronauts hhave to be in peak physical condition. More importantly, to avoid bone loss and fluid redistribution problems they also have to exercise rigorously during their entire trip. Is the average, fat, camera-wielding, mickey-mouse hat-wearing American tourist(TM) going to pass either of these requirements? No.

And until Joe Blow can take a "Space Cruise" the price and complexity won't fall enough for me to visit there either, even though I am a prime physical specimen.

Re:Tourism In Space Will Never Work

[ZigMonty]

In the very early days of flight people were making similar claims to the ones you're making now. "Flying across the atlantic will only be for the very rich and then only if they're fit."

In order to survive launch astronauts hhave to be in peak physical condition.

You do realise that there is no fundamental reason why launches have to be so hard on the astronauts. It's just cheaper to make the acceleration more violent and get into space more quickly.

More importantly, to avoid bone loss...

You're assuming that once in space they would be in constant zero g. You could always spin the craft tethered to its booster and just give them a taste of zero g rather than enduring it for the whole trip. I think I'd go up for the view mostly and just the thrill of being in space. If I wanted zero g, I'd book a flight on the vomit comet.

I think 2005 is a little optimistic. I'd say that by ~2015, space tourism will be in full swing. IMHO, it'll take one of the big players (ie. Boeing) to make it happen.

Miles

[Registered Coward v2]

Other than the space flight, the other awards aren't that unreasonable - @250K for a "zero-g" flight, that's in the realm of a FF's single year total (assuming 125k of actual miles and the 100% bonus miles for being chairman's perferred). Delta has had similar premium offers - tyopically high end vacations or a chance to fly a 757 simulator. Since FF programs are intended to attract and retain the most profitable segement of the flying public, most airlines offer their top tier fliers special opportunities.

burning karma

[lubricated]

because of crap like this
I'm burning my karma and leaving forever

Re-check your information source.

[Christopher Thomas]

It would seem that your source is in error about a few of these points:

Sure, there's a big cost--that can be brought down (though not free, it takes a minimum of 400 gigajoules to lift 100 kg to 100 km above Earth).

Energy to lift something to a given altitude (not orbit) is force * distance. 100 kg feels 1000 N from the Earth's pull. 100 km is 1.0e5 metres. Energy required to lift 100 kg to 100km (and stationary above Earth's surface) is 100 megajoules - or what you'd get from about $5 US worth of gasoline (or less) at perfect efficiency.

Energy to put something into orbit fairly close to Earth's surface (LEO) is the binding energy (half the gravitational potential energy of an object on the Earth's surface). GPE is -m1m2G/r, or 6e24 * 6.7e-11 / 6.5e6 = 62 MJ/kg for an object sitting on the Earth's surface. This gives a theoretical minimum of 31 MJ/kg to put something in low earth orbit, or 3.1 gigajoules for a 100kg object.

You'd get this by burning around $150 US worth of gasoline at perfect efficiency and magically imparting all of the resulting energy to the cargo.

Space travel is expensive because our rockets a) lift their fuel with themselves and b) impart a lot of energy to the outgoing exhaust instead of to the craft itself. At perfect efficiency, getting into space would be quite cheap.