Slashdot Mirror


Study Shows Large Space Tourism Market

HobbySpacer writes: "A serious market study has finally been done on space tourism and it shows a substantial market, even for brief sub-orbital flights. The Futron/Zogby study of high income individuals found that 19% would pay $100k for a sub-orbital flight. Furthermore, 7% would pay $20M to go to the Space Station (if they had the money.) The percentages go up if the prices could come down, especially with availability of private orbital facilities. With around 30 million high-net-worth households ($500,000+) in the US, this indicates a market of several million for suborbital on the short term and eventually for orbital. We can hope that like previous expensive luxuries, e.g. jet travel and ocean cruises, the wealthy will pull the prices down to a level reachable by the rest of us."

69 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. The X-Prize - Cheap Access To Space by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Getting to space in the first place is the key to space tourism. That's where the X-Prize comes in...

    1. Re:The X-Prize - Cheap Access To Space by Gorobei · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to the current price on Ideosphere, the X-prize will be won around Feb 2005. See the XPRIZE claim for the full bidding history.

      I personally think Feb 2005 is way optimistic, especially given the reusability requirement: the same craft must fly twice in a 14-day period. A private effort to get a single manned launch is tough enough -- 14 days to test, re-prep, and relaunch? Even NASA would have a tough time.

    2. Re:The X-Prize - Cheap Access To Space by Gorobei · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, blew that first link -- it's Ideosphere

    3. Re:The X-Prize - Cheap Access To Space by Thing+1 · · Score: 2
      Sorry, blew that first link

      Heh, I think you just invented (or possibly, used) a new karma-whoring technique.

      Me, I'd pay good money to visit a (Chinese) moon base -- but not the ISS. It's too cramped in there. A moon base would have the "luxury" of being able to spread a little more (either under a roof or dug into the ground). It's not zero-G, but sex would still be a little more ... energetic. ;-)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    4. Re:The X-Prize - Cheap Access To Space by Winged+Cat · · Score: 2

      Actually, most of the funding for the X-Prize was spent on promoting the X-Prize. From what I hear, there actually isn't that much prize money left...unless X-Prize can find a new funder, of course.

  2. But How? by drinkeycrow · · Score: 2, Funny

    would one open those little bottles of booze they give you in 0-G??

  3. If only I had the money... by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Funny

    Furthermore, 7% would pay $20M to go to the Space Station (if they had the money.)

    If I "had the money", I'd pay $3B for my own private space shuttle. Duh.

    1. Re:If only I had the money... by CharlezManning · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'd feed the starving billions, I'd travel the world, ......

      Talk is cheap. If people really had the money I bet far fewer would actually follow through with the doallars.

    2. Re:If only I had the money... by 56ker · · Score: 2

      I'd buy slashdot. :o)

    3. Re:If only I had the money... by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      I don't think you need money for that...

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  4. Hmmm... by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 4, Funny

    Was this study perchance done by the Center For Figuring Out Really Obvious Things? People want to see space? Whouda thunk it...

    --

    Shift happens. Fire it up.
  5. Who will pilot the ships? by dosun88888 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The same Captain Obvious who came up with this earth-shattering observation?

    I'm sure Admiral No Fucking Shit has his own 2 cents to contribute. Maybe he'll figure out now that people think that it would be cool to go back in time too.

    I'd give my left nut for a space ship. More interesting would be a study of which body parts people would be willing to trade for the ability to take a weekend excursion to Mars.

    ~D

    1. Re:Who will pilot the ships? by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 5, Funny
      I'd give my left nut for a space ship.

      And if I had a space ship, I wouldn't take your left nut (or anyone else's) in exchange for it. I strongly suspect that I don't value your nuts anywhere near as much as you do.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    2. Re:Who will pilot the ships? by Coward,+Anonymous · · Score: 2

      A LONG time ago I saw a movie where this guy would place bets of various types where the prize was something welthy if he lost and the person's finger if he won.

      Sounds like Man From the South

    3. Re:Who will pilot the ships? by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Hell, I'd volunteer for a one-way mission to Mars. I'd be accomplishing more on this suicidal mission than most people accomplish in their whole life, so it'd be worth it.

      Ditto. Strap me into the ship with a bunch of DVD-ROMs full of geology textbooks. By the time I land, I'll be a decent enough geologist to know what rocks to look for. One human with a pick-axe and a week's supply of oxygen could accomplish the work of a hundred probes.

      Heck, build two or three identical ships (the cost is in designing the ships, not building the parts). Lob the ships into orbit via unmanned boosters, and fuel them in orbit from tanks filled at ISS. Lob the contestants up on a Shuttle flight for a week of media interviews on ISS. Then detach the ships from ISS and head for mars en masse.

      Defray the cost of the additional ships by selling advertising space on a 1-year series called "Survivor: Mars".

  6. Approaching funding the right way by seldolivaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Space tourism is a great idea.
    1. Space research programs are strapped for cash.
    2. Rich people have lots of cash.
    3. Space research has long-term, not-very-tangible goals.
    4. People who have lots of cash generally made it by focussing on short-term, tangible goals. Therefore, they are not likely to spend money on space research.
    5. However, "going into space" is immediate and extremely tangible, not to mention fun.
    6. So rich people will spend their cash on space tourism. And the profits will go to space research. Great!

    1. Re:Approaching funding the right way by SocialWorm · · Score: 2
      4. People who have lots of cash generally made it by focussing on short-term, tangible goals. Therefore, they are not likely to spend money on space research.

      Sounds more like a consumer mindset to me. After all, in your own model, it's this attitude which is pushing these people to spend on something with no solid possibility of future finacial return.

      Everything I've ever read on becoming rich recommends relatively long-term planning over instant gratification, be it a liberal plan (relatively short-term trades in the stock market over a longer period of time, real-estate investing, riskier business venues such MLM, etc) or a conservative plan (long-term investing starting with high-return items moving into lower-risk venues as you age, maybe starting a a more traditional business, so on and so forth). Heck, even get-rich-quick schemes usually don't promise becoming a billionaire overnight.

      The rich might enjoy being able to do more things now instead of later, but I don't think there's any evidence that the majority of the rich "got rich quick."
      --
      My Blog: http://nic.dreamhost.com/
  7. I'll go.... by Ooblek · · Score: 2

    ...but only if they let me have the controls on re-entry. I would love to buzz the neighborhoods where a few people from my past live.

  8. Bid on Ebay by ttyp0 · · Score: 2
    1. Re: Bid on Ebay by ttyp0 · · Score: 2

      I was taking a look at that myself. In fact, I looked at the previous auctions of many high bidders. Most purchases were under $20. And these are the people who have a disposable 20 million?

  9. Actually... by Qwerpafw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most people with worths between 500K and 1000K would be insane to pay 100 grand for a sub-orbital flight.

    Think about it this way: Most people's equity is in their house, which, for "wealthy" families, usually costs around 500K.

    So maybe they have their mortgage half-paid-off (which is uncommon). That leaves 250K-750K of money. Again, most, i'd say 75% or so, of that is in a retirement account, or some other form of non-liquid asset.

    So you have somewhere between 60K and 190K of liquid assets. Do you really want to spend half-to-all of your assets on a sub-orbital flight lasting several minutes, at most?

    In my book, you'd have to be insane.

    The "wealthy people" discussed here are probably in double digits of million dollars of assets, or at least $5M or so.

    Either that, or the "researchers" just asked "would you do this if you had the cash?" which is, pretty much, a bull-shit question. Its like saying "would you buy 30 houses, if you had the cash?" The people who *actually* have the cash still don't consider themselves "rich" enough to have it, as wealthy people tend to invest their money.

    As noted in the excellent book "The millionaire next door," high income, and especially high expenditures and consumption, or a "rich" lifestyle, almost never correlate to a large amount of assets. People who live such a lifestyle usually never save up enough to maintain a large amount of assets.

    Still am sure there are thousands of people who would pay for this stuff. But it is definately NOT the incredibly large amount of people they make it out to be.

    1. Re:Actually... by PD · · Score: 2

      If you've got a million in the bank, and I mean the BANK, with a shitty savings account, then you would get $100,000 in 5 years of interest.

      If you're making 10% in the stock market, then you make that much in a year.

      So, if you're 40 years old and in that situation, I'd say GO FOR IT. By the time retirement comes at 75 years of age, you'll have had 35 years to make back what you spent on the trip of your life.

    2. Re:Actually... by WEFUNK · · Score: 2

      Either that, or the "researchers" just asked "would you do this if you had the cash?" which is, pretty much, a bull-shit question. Its like saying "would you buy 30 houses, if you had the cash?"

      Sounds like this is exactly what happened. Junk polling but probably good enough to land on CNN, and I hope that happens. This may be about as sound as the silly online political opinion polls we see everyday but stories like this might start to really regenerate some grassroots interest in lower cost spaceflight.

      The average Joe American might start to buy into these dreams, because he believes that he's got a shot at being rich one day (this is why so many people are in favour of repealing the "death taxes" that only affect about 1% of the population).

      I'd personally love to see public (and corporate) interest swing back to funding advances in space exploration and travel. Maybe a little razzle dazzle PR like this will help. It probably can't make things much worse.

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
    3. Re:Actually... by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > So, if you're 40 years old and in that situation [$1M in the bank], I'd say GO FOR IT. By the time retirement comes at 75 years of age, you'll have had 35 years to make back what you spent on the trip of your life.

      Ah, but a more frugal use of that money would be to invest it for ten years.

      You're still only 50, but your $100K gets you an hour in zero-G instead of a 10-minute suborbital hop.

      The early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  10. What we really need is a space lottery. by eyegor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What about a Space lottery? You sell lottery tickets and the grand prize winner gets a space trip (assuming they qualify physically). Runners up get suborbital flights. The profits could fund other space programs.

    Finally!! A lottery a self-respecting geek can play without feeling like a mouth-breathing idiot!

    --

    Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
    1. Re:What we really need is a space lottery. by texchanchan · · Score: 2

      This is the one and only type of lottery ticket I would ever buy.

    2. Re:What we really need is a space lottery. by Alsee · · Score: 2

      geek can play without feeling like a mouth-breathing idiot!

      Hey! Watchit there buddy!
      There is a well established correlation between allergies and mathematical aptitude (ie geeks).

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  11. Comparison With Cars by ltsmash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It was only 80 years ago that "horseless carriages" were the "rich-man's toy".

    1. Re:Comparison With Cars by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2

      Better stop watching the TV and unplug your telephone since those satellites are so useless that I guess we will just let them deorbit.

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
  12. Flawed methodologies. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2, Funny

    Report fails to mention that 43% of those who responded favorably also thought that a trip to the planet where Kirk banged the green chick was part of the package.

    1. Re:Flawed methodologies. by ciurana · · Score: 2

      Damn! We aren't going to that planet? I was already signing up. The green chick looked a lot like Yvonne Craig, the actress who played Batgirl. She was the inspiration of many wet dreams and self-exploration sessions...

      Yummy!

      E
      --
      http://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
  13. only 20 million... by doooras · · Score: 2

    with my current financial situation, it looks like i'll be going to the space station pretty soon. if i save every penny i can (post bills et al) i can buy a ticket in about 200,000 months.

    fsck.

  14. Whaddya Know... by anzha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    well, it seems that in the same vein. I tried to submit this earlier, but I presume that this article is the reason that it was rejected. :D

    I found this while I was reading NASA Watch (a slashdot like site with space as it's main focus). It seems that they are Ebay auctioning off a trip to the International Space Station. Last I checked it was at $19 mil and hadn't quite met the reserve. Sounds like a market to me...

    --
    Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
    1. Re:Whaddya Know... by cmckay · · Score: 2

      Okay, maybe I'm just a weirdo, but I sure wouldn't bid US$6 mil when the seller has zero feedback!

  15. completely flawed by mosch · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This math is completely broken.

    First of all, $500k isn't a high net worth, that's not even upper-middle class, it's just plain middle class. $500k is a guy with a house, a car, and not much else.

    Secondly, the study itself was of people with $1m net worths, or $250k annual salaries, where did the submitter get that $500k figure anyway?

    Lastly, a higher percentage of people said they'd pay $20m than is possible. Fewer than 7% of all people with a net worth > $1m have a net worth that would allow $20m to be spent on a vacation, which is contrary to what this study shows.

    Who fucking cares?

    1. Re:completely flawed by Triskaidekaphobia · · Score: 2, Informative

      The numbers excluded houses. $500K means $500K of investable cash. Or wastable cash if spent on 10 minutes in a fancy plane.

    2. Re:completely flawed by mosch · · Score: 2

      even so, $500k isn't much cash, it's distinctly middle class. $500k only earns about $20k/year after taxes, and assuming 5% reinvestment. It's not exactly big bucks.

    3. Re:completely flawed by mosch · · Score: 2
      You start with $500k in the bank, and you invest it. Odds are that you'll average somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% return. This gives you an income of $50k/year.

      Now, if you want your value to follow cost-of-living, you need to reinvest half of that, so now you only have a steady income of $25k/year.

      Now we assume that this person is in an upper tax bracket, let's say 39% federal, 5% state, 3% local, for a total of 48% tax (very realistic). Your $25k/year is only about $13k/yr after taxes.

      Thus, while $500k sounds like a lot of money, if you want to be responsible with it, it only provides about $13k/yr.

      $500k per year (a touch that you added, i specifically stated otherwise), would still only get you about $260k/year, and odds are good if you have that salary, you're well aware how to spend that without any issue.

    4. Re:completely flawed by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      Umm, you completely misconstrued the entire premise of the survey. The people surveyed had 500K that they could spend. That's after taxes, etc... They also supposedly still have the income source from which they originally derived that 500k. So it's not like their lifetime networth is 500K and it's slowly bleeding out of them.

      Yeesh.
      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    5. Re:completely flawed by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Actually, this might be a good time to invest in the Nasdaq. If you pick your stock fortunately, you could get a real winner fairly cheaply. The problem is, "Which one?"

      The really foolish time to be investing is when everyone is really overheated and the market has been climbing for a long time, everything is overvalued, and people are buying on the premise that they'll be able to unload the stock onto another sucker at a higher prices in just a little bit. I.e., a year ago.

      Everyone knew that the stocks were overpriced. Everyone. But people just kept buying anyway. Amazon hadn't made a profit, but was selling for hundreds of times as much as some fairly profitable stable businesses. This was clearly insane. Everyone knew it. Anyone who got burned from buying then deserved what happened. I'm glad that Red Hat survived, and I really wish that VALinux hadn't gone public. A privately held stock corporation would (I speak as an ignorant outsider, who doesn't know any problems they might have been having) have been a wiser choice. But it wouldn't have promissed as much. OTOH, the company wouldn't have been hurt as much by the collapse, which everyone could see was coming.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:completely flawed by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      This is not about whether they should spend it, it's about whether they WOULD spend it. Wealthy people buy things like Yachts, million dollar mansions, and villa's in the Alps all the time. Tell me those aren't frivilous purchases? They certainly aren't investments! Wealthy people aren't living in 1 bedroom apartments eatting pasta and drinking kool-aid. They OBVIOUSLY are buying things that are frivolous. So why not a spaceship ride?

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    7. Re:completely flawed by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      And lastly, the fact of the matter is, $250k of assets (the guideline used by the people who conducted this study) is not rich. I stand by my assertion that it's not even middle class.



      This I agree with. My in-laws have WAY over 250K worth of assets, but they are in CC debt up to their ears...

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
  16. Here's an older study by serutan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This 1998 market study claimed a civilian space travel industgry was feasible. Lots of graphs.

    On the same subject, Discovery or TLC ran a documentary last year that said commercial airliners within the next 30 years will be designed to fly to about 40-50,000 feet, refuel from a tanker, then climb steeply out of the atmosphere and coast to a landing. Passengers will be strapped in, no snacks, no potty break. Max trip time to anywhere in the world: 45 minutes. Now that's my kind of space travel.

    So think twice before shelling out $98K for a suborbital flight. You'll be able to get your 20 minutes of weightlessness on a routine flight to Hawaii.

    1. Re:Here's an older study by Animats · · Score: 2
      commercial airliners within the next 30 years will be designed to fly to about 40-50,000 feet, refuel from a tanker, then climb steeply out of the atmosphere and coast to a landing.

      Sounds like the National Aerospace Plane of the Reagan era. Ben Rich, head of the Lockheed Skunk Works and designer of the SR-71's powerplant, insisted that Lockheed no-bid that contract. He points out that the SR-71 is friction-heat limited, not engine-power limited. "We used titanium. You know something stronger?" The Shuttle uses ceramic tiles, but those are a giant headache and fragile; the Shuttle can't fly through rain.

      Space travel is trapped between the limits of what materials can do and what chemical fuels can deliver. Things haven't improved much in the last 30 years on either of those items. Unless we get something like antimatter propulsion or gravity control, space travel will remain marginal.

  17. market study by doubtless · · Score: 4, Funny

    in the form of /. polls

    How much are you willing to pay for a sub-orbital flight?

    o Up to $10,000
    o Up to $50,000
    o Up to $100,000
    o Pay? I didn't even pay for my OS!
    o I wanna fly with CowboyNeal!

    --
    geek page at KY speaks
  18. flawed logic by I+Want+GNU! · · Score: 2
    We can hope that like previous expensive luxuries, e.g. jet travel and ocean cruises, the wealthy will pull the prices down to a level reachable by the rest of us."
    Just think about that again...many millions of people realistically want to go on space shuttles, and the cheaper it is the more want to go. But, look at supply. There is a very limited supply of space trips, with only 2 having been taken as of yet. High demand plus high supply would drive prices up, not down as the article suggests. Plus, it is very expensive to go into space and to build space shuttles, so I doubt it would go down /that/ significantly. It takes large amounts of energy to go into space and the shuttles won't want to copy the X-Box strategy of taking losses because there is no software to sell. :-)
    1. Re:flawed logic by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > > "We can hope that like previous expensive luxuries, e.g. jet travel and ocean cruises, the wealthy will pull the prices down to a level reachable by the rest of us."
      >
      > I'd like to buy the nicest house in town, but the price just keeps going up, year after year. Many millions of people would like to eat regularly and have an adequate supply of drinking water. For years, rich people have been enjoying fine dining and knocking back Perriers to little or no avail.

      Right now, that cheap little $100K clapboard outfit - with cable TV, central air, central heating, fiberglass insulation, electric stove, flush toilets, and water from a tap that doesn't need boiling, provides anyone with about a $25K/year burger-flipping job with a standard of living better than anything available to billionaire John D. Rockefeller in 1878.

      The evidence indicates that it is your grasp of economic progress that is flawed.

  19. Re:Still time by doooras · · Score: 3, Insightful

    maybe i just missed it, since it is a rather lengthy description, but i didn't see anything that mentioned actually GOING to the ISS. it just talks about training and simulators and the like. i sure as hell wouldn't pay $20M to fly on a plane that *feels* like 0-g

  20. a little comparison... by edrugtrader · · Score: 2

    if you did the same study, except a 'sub-orbital flight' = touching cindy crawfords tits and a trip to space station was all out sex with cindy, i'm sure you would get very similar results with your study.

    the problem, if cindy doesn't want you all up in her business, then the money doesn't matter.

    NASA is not going to want tourists in their space station. cindy is not going to want CmdrTaco up in the puntang.

    --
    MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
    1. Re:a little comparison... by SaturnTim · · Score: 2


      And just like NASA, Cindy Crawford has stringent physical requirements...

      --T

      --
      http://www.theMediaBunker.com
  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Tell NASA ... please! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

    NASA acts like a bunch of prurient old maid temperance saloon bashers -- space is serious stuff only, no tourists no lookieloos no rubberneckers omigodno. We could have had space station hotels and cheap orbital access by now if NASA would just get out of the way. But noooo, space is for serious professionals only.

    1. Re:Tell NASA ... please! by rodgerd · · Score: 2

      That's why the rich guys who have gone to space thus far went to Russia. NASA would rather use spare capacity to give jaunts to aging politicians.

  23. You messed up that last option by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

    It shoulda been SpaceCowboyNeal...

  24. Double standards by wadetemp · · Score: 2

    Wasn't it just a few months ago that we were bitching about the fact that a member of N'Sync was trying to get into space any way he could? Interestingly, he recently had minor heart surgery with a possible motivation to be prepping for training. Sure you'd pay millions to go... but would you also go under the knife?

  25. Why the ISS? by jesterzog · · Score: 2

    Furthermore, 7% would pay $20M to go to the Space Station

    Isn't it wonderful that so many governments of the world have harmoniously combined to build us a novelty hotel for everyone to visit in a prime piece of real estate?

    Oh, wait. What was that massively blown out investment supposed to be for again?

  26. $500k net worth != $100k spare by Penguinoflight · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Approximatly 10% of the population (30 million) have a household net worth of $500k, but I'm sure that includes their house, cars, etc. My guess is that even people who outright own their houses don't have 100k spare cash. And hey, wouldn't it be more fun to go on a year vacation than go for a suborbital flight for a hour or so?

    I'd guess that the a lot of the 7% say they would do it if they had 100k, but if they really had it, they'd think of something more fun, or useful.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  27. Cindy Crawford analogy by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 2

    What an utterly perfect, though vulgar, analogy. However, think of it this way: You may be willing to pay Cindy $100,000 to touch her tits, but she ain't selling. Now, you find out that, say, Gretchen Mol (here playing the part of "another country's space agency") WILL let you touch her tits for $100,000, but there's a good chance you won't enjoy it _nearly_ as much. Still interested? Hmm...

    (OT) I just saw Cindy in a commercial today. What a classy woman, she puts all these new waifs to shame :-)

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
  28. Re:Someone doesn't read very well by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2
    No kidding. Add to the fact that just about *every other home owner* in the Bay Area can be defined as having a 500K net worth just based on the market price of their home - although that doesn't necessarily put them into the high-income range. A family whose $40,000-in-1980 home is now worth $500,000 would still have to pay for a play to live after selling.

    Millionaires - especially if you include home equity as wealth - are a dime a dozen, and without liquidity the term is meaningless. It's the Inflation That Dares Not Speak Its Name.

  29. Why Space Tourism? by BinxBolling · · Score: 2

    I mean, seriously. What's actually interesting about this? No doubt many people looked forward eagerly to the idea of going up in a plane. But what does it mean now? You sit for a while in a cramped seat in a long skinny room that vibrates. If you have a window seat, you might get a few nice sights. Few people look forward to it.

    Space tourism will be the same. Once they get past the basic novelty and the nice views, most people are going to be bored in space. The interior of a spaceship will be a considerably less interesting place for a tourist than a cruise ship. And the food will suck, too.

  30. Space tourism by herraukuli · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I retire I want to move into a space colony. Might sound unlikely but hey, that will be in 2040 or something like that.

  31. Sounds pretty cool by quintessent · · Score: 2

    ...but I don't know about their puns:

    Space is available, but it's filling quickly.

  32. well by martissimo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I recently went to dinner with my father, he is a employee of Rocketdyne in California, he has spent the better part of his career working on things for the Shuttle. A few months ago when the launched he was invited to Canaveral to be honored for his work at the launch. To put it mildly he loves being onvolved with the shuttle project, and is very well off (but he doesn't break that 5 mill number you propose, maybe 2 or 3 at best).

    So anyways back to the dinner, i had just read a story about the Russian 100k sub-orital trip deal, and asked him what he thought. I was pretty surprised to hear how interested he was in it, no doubt he wouldn't risk his life on some crackpot ride... but if there was one available with a fairly proven track record i now know he would jump on the opportunity.

    This is a very well educated and well informed person when it comes to space flight, and he loves the idea. It doesn't surprise me one bit that it's a fairly common view.

  33. Much more likely to be right than.... by LadyLucky · · Score: 2
    WIld Speculation Shows Large Space Tourism Market

    Of course.

    --
    dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
  34. 500 x $20 million a year by peter303 · · Score: 2

    To pay for US space program. That doesnt even count for the two shuttle flights a weeke required to get everyone up there!

  35. Re:Retirement homes on the moon by vinnythenose · · Score: 2

    remain active? Depends on how you mean, because it has been proven that bones and muscles deteriate over the long term with little gravity.

    --
    --- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
  36. Re:Laughable... by dsoltesz · · Score: 2

    Hey - I wouldn't have sex with Pam Anderson! How come no one ever asks me for my opinion?

    On the other hand, I would kill /bin/laden with a sniper rifle -- if my hours playing UT don't gimme the clue I need, hell, at 40 ft I'd go beat the sonofabitch with it.

    Change Pam to Angelina Jolie and throw in a trip on the Shuttle and you might get me on the bandwagon ;-)

  37. Re:WTF? by blair1q · · Score: 2

    Something in Hollywood that doesn't smell right?

    Just another day.

    --Blair

  38. sub-orbital flight for $1000 by neurojab · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's right, I'm selling sub-orbital flights for only $1000. Please line up, I can only fly one at a time. You may get a little dizzy, and your arms and legs may be a little sore, but I guarantee the ride of a lifetime. Please no one over 150 lbs... my back is a little sore this week.