Slashdot Mirror


Orbital Resort to Launch by 2010

Neil Halelamien writes "Popular Science has a cover feature on self-made billionaire and space enthusiast Robert Bigelow (who's been mentioned before on Slashdot). The article has new info on Bigelow's plans to launch a 'CSS Skywalker' orbital resort by 2010 and sell space habitats to others, such as scientists, manufacturers, Hollywood producers, and countries. The habitats will be made of inflatable modules with multilayered kevlar-like walls. A prototype habitat will be launching on a SpaceX Falcon V next year. To help ensure cost-effective access to the station, Bigelow is also running the $50 million America's Space Prize. In the long run, he plans to use the modules as the basis for space yachts and moon cruisers."

338 comments

  1. Can't wait by turtled · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can't wait for the day I get a chance to get to space. Hopefully in my lifetime it will be affordable... and by affordable, I mean like SouthWest Airline's $79 one way to Vegas from Chicago.

    Space amazes me, and good luck to Robert Bigelo.

    --
    "I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
    1. Re:Can't wait by dauthur · · Score: 0

      Watch, the kid who wins that $50 Million Space thingamajigga will end up getting killed in reentry, and then people will flip their lid about the whole program.

      And I think they had you in mind when they made the airline price so low, considering you were coming from Vegas.

    2. Re:Can't wait by Drew05 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "ONLY $79 from Chicago to The Moon! (reentry fees apply)"

    3. Re:Can't wait by jericho4.0 · · Score: 4, Funny
      That's OK, I brought my own heat shield.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    4. Re:Can't wait by shri · · Score: 2, Funny

      >> SouthWest Airline's $79 one way to Vegas from Chicago.

      Earth to Moon - $79
      Back to Earth - $7,900,000

    5. Re:Can't wait by noidentity · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can't wait for the day I get a chance to get to space. Hopefully in my lifetime it will be affordable... and by affordable, I mean like SouthWest Airline's $79 one way to Vegas from Chicago.

      One way trip to Vegas: $79
      One way trip to the moon: $79
      Return trip: Priceless

    6. Re:Can't wait by turtled · · Score: 1

      What happens on the moon, stays on the moon...

      Talk about the ultimate outpost.

      --
      "I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
    7. Re:Can't wait by colmore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not a rich person, and I don't really plan on ever being one, but for a chance for a multi-day trip into space, I'd cough up thousands. For a trip to the moon, tens of thousands. This is even if there's a 5% chance of catastrophic failure. Who cares if my retirement evaporates? I'd die a happier man.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    8. Re:Can't wait by Angstroem · · Score: 1
      Earth to Moon - $79
      Back to Earth - $7,900,000
      Habitat on the dark side of the moon - priceless.
    9. Re:Can't wait by Elranzer · · Score: 1

      All this technology yet we still can't get good video drivers or Airport Extreme support for Linux?

    10. Re:Can't wait by Spacejock · · Score: 1

      Nah, Earth to moon is $7,900,000 but the trip back is free - They just push you out the airlock and let gravity take its course...

    11. Re:Can't wait by Begossi · · Score: 1

      There is no dark side of the moon ;)

      --
      Friend of the Wise, Brother of the Brave.
    12. Re:Can't wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll pass. Viewing pr0n in space could be a bit tricky and unpredictable.

    13. Re:Can't wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. It's just a 2x4 and canvas mockup. The back of the moon isn't there at all. They didn't need to build it 'cause we never see it.

    14. Re:Can't wait by Begossi · · Score: 1

      no silly.
      There is no dark side of the moon.
      There is only the far side of the moon, which gets as much sun-light as the other side ;)

      --
      Friend of the Wise, Brother of the Brave.
    15. Re:Can't wait by Xorath · · Score: 2, Funny

      It better not be one of those home made aluminum foil ones!

    16. Re:Can't wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is only US$79 one way. It's the other one way ticket that cost US$3,999,921.

    17. Re:Can't wait by Newander · · Score: 1

      Dude, it'll work. I promise.

      --

      Jesus saves and takes half damage.

    18. Re:Can't wait by Newander · · Score: 1

      Sure there's a dark side. It's just not alway the same side.

      --

      Jesus saves and takes half damage.

    19. Re:Can't wait by Xorath · · Score: 1

      If it works you'll have to lend it to me!

    20. Re:Can't wait by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

      'Matter of fact, it's all dark.

      --

      +++ATH0
  2. Pretty cool... by agraupe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Given that this structure has been receiving more support and interest lately, why has no government (especially NASA) looked at it for building a space station? I would think it would be a good deal cheaper than the method they are using now. Would it be cheaper to finish the ISS or to build one of these new structures of comparable price? I, for one, feel that this merits some more detail, and at least a cursory examination from international space agencies.

    1. Re:Pretty cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They got the technology from NASA in the first place. It was called "TransHab"

    2. Re:Pretty cool... by DarkMantle · · Score: 1

      I think the problem could be the fact that all of the computer terminals would make these very difficult to build easily.

      With current methods, they can put the circuitry between layers of the shell. As well as oxygen tanks and the like. I'm sure that this design would need a more "stable" centre for the Oxygen tanks, and filters etc...

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    3. Re:Pretty cool... by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      I'm certain there are lots of interested people at NASA, unfortunately the heads of the monolithic beast are more worried about broken fingernails than space. This is the roadblock. I'm sure there are more than a few at NASA thinking 'well hell, if it were me in charge we'd be doing...'

    4. Re:Pretty cool... by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      Simple. If there's a cheaper and more efficient way of doing things, it's definitely not being done by the U.S. Government.

    5. Re:Pretty cool... by Tergenev · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, the 2nd major revisioning of the International Space Station included a transhab module as one of two options to expand the occupancy of the station from 3 to 7. An actual inflatable module was built and tested using multi-layer kevlar skin, but the more conservative minds in NASA remained skeptical of the whole idea all along. They didn't think it could survive a direct hit by a meteor or space debris. In the end, it didn't matter, because even before the loss of the 2nd shuttle, the Bush Administration had applied their usual tactic to programs they don't deam politically useful . . . "The Great Ignore". The ISS has been essentially abandoned by the U.S. agency for over 4 years now, so the TransHab module became simply pointless.

    6. Re:Pretty cool... by ciroknight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe because it won't work, or is incredibly dangerous, and they can't get any of their lawyers/insurance agencies to insure it.

      It seems like a good idea when you read about it, but it's really got no structural rigidity, and almost everything we've built in space so far has been first and foremost a floating ROCK. Recently we've added more composite materials due to their strenght and relative weight reduction, but even these materials aren't seen very often.

      There are also a lot of other considerations. For one, what about radiation? This is basically a shopping bag filled with air, floating in space; what's to stop the millions of rads coming from the sun from ripping what ever organism inhabits them to shreads? Next, what about micrometeor impact? One constant in our space voyages is that we've left more and more garbage in orbit, lots of which are nothing but small flecks of paint or a nut or a bolt that's came off of a bulkhead (or a shearing body, like in Apollo's shear-away stage bolts). What about the heat expansion/contraction from when the module's in front of the sun vs behind the Earth?

      But it's not all negative. I love the idea of in-space inflation/construction, and I did read that they plan on using water for radiation shielding, and licensed some NASA patents to help out, and they have put some thought into micrometeorites and presurization, but the fact still remains that a system like this just hasn't been tested yet, and that generally with these kinds of hazards, one should over-design rather than under. I'm just a skeptic, and think that, while this is a novel idea, it won't lead to "Space Yachts" in our life time.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    7. Re:Pretty cool... by iamlucky13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's structural rigidity comes from the interior air pressure. They're talking about filling them at 10 psi, which means 1440 pounds of force on every square foot. That's fine for something that stays in orbit, like the initial versions. A low earth orbit also offers a great deal of protection from radiation. They've already done tests firing small particles at high velocities at the fabric and say the the performance is similar to that off NASA's modules. If a bolt head hit the module (extremely low probability) they'd basically have to model it after an Abrams tank to protect themselves. In that case, it would probably be better to have something thin that the projectile would go straight through without expending much energy, leaving a small hole that can be patched and without creating any spalling. Since it's flexible, heat expansion shouldn't be a problem, except perhaps near windows and hatches, but they're already addressing that as an issue with folding and unfolding.

      I personally think this has great potential to lead to, if not space yachts, at least space time shares or something similar within our lifetimes. Paul Allen, for example, might think to himself, "If I apply the law of diminishing marginal utitily, I realize I would get more enjoyment out of having one yacht in the Puget Sound and a share in this space cabin thingy than I would from having two yachts."

    8. Re:Pretty cool... by iamlucky13 · · Score: 3, Informative
      but the fact still remains that a system like this just hasn't been tested yet,
      Oops, forgot to add this. Development and testing is the entire market right now. Although they are offering free use of volume in their upcoming launches to interested parties as part of the proof of concept, they are not really marketing hab modules yet. They plan to launch a relatively small (8 ft x 10 ft) "Genesis" test module near the end of the year, and another one next year. Following those, two "Guardian" modules will carry prototype life support systems. The goal is to launch a pair of full size, but unmanned "Nautilus" modules by 2008 and possibly dock the two together. These will have a total volume of 330 cubic meters, which is about equivalent to an 1100 sq. ft. house. By the time these 6 modules are thoroughly tested, they should have enough data to make a call whether they're safe for human occupancy or not.
    9. Re:Pretty cool... by CactusCritter · · Score: 1

      I"m pleased that somebody jumped on the safety problems immediately. Remember the shuttle which disintegrated and killed it's seven-person crew because no one has ever tested what effect a piece of booster insulation would have on the shuttles heat shield material? And when some presumably half-assed computer program indicated that there shoudn't have been any damamge, that management wouldn't allow anyone to even try to determine via telephoto photography whether there was underside damage?

      Will the civilians be more rigorous? They'll have to test, test, and test some more. Let's hope.

      Anyone else think that 2010 sounds much too optimistic?

    10. Re:Pretty cool... by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yes, the 2nd major revisioning of the International Space Station included a transhab module as one of two options to expand the occupancy of the station from 3 to 7. In the end, it didn't matter, because even before the loss of the 2nd shuttle, the Bush Administration had applied their usual tactic to programs they don't deam politically useful . . . "The Great Ignore". The ISS has been essentially abandoned by the U.S. agency for over 4 years now, so the TransHab module became simply pointless.
      Sadly, your political rant is unsupported by facts. TransHab was deleted from NASA's budget by Congress back in 1999. Niether Bush the Elder or Bush the Younger had any hand in it all. (In fact, Transhab was never anything more than a powerpoint possibility. It was never anything but a possible future option.)

      What actually killed TransHab was a systematic annihilation (across the 1990's) by Congress of any technology that might prove significantly helpful to a lunar or Martian expedition.

    11. Re:Pretty cool... by bleckywelcky · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was at the JPL facility in Pasadena last Fall (2004) and they had a 1/3 scale model of Bigelow's inflatable module on their largest shaker table. Now this wasn't a NASA project or anything, when JPL doesn't have a current project on deck they sell time on their shaker table and space chambers to industry companies. However, this would indicate that the modules are nearly ready for prime time because they're testing a full-up model. When I was talking to the director of the environmental labs I believe he said the 1/3 scale model was the largest they could fit on the shaker table, so they would be using that data to predict the full scale model's behavior. And really, the design of the modules is simplified and much of it is based on COTS aerospace technology. So, it should be pretty easy to get a module built successfully. The problem has always been getting the module into orbit and, once in orbit, getting people to and from the module. Both of these maneuvers are still extremely expensive.

  3. CSS resort.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...should be great, as long as you don't try using IE there.

    1. Re:CSS resort.... by cujo_1111 · · Score: 1

      And Mozilla's claws will rip a hole in the side of the balloon turning its occupants into open sauce :)

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    2. Re:CSS resort.... by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      Seriously, what does the "CSS" here stand for? Personally, I'd use "TSS" for "Terran Space Ship".

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    3. Re:CSS resort.... by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      CSS == Commercial Space Station

    4. Re:CSS resort.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RFTA, A.

  4. Sounds like a Grand Day Out by ArmorFiend · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's like no cheese I've ever tasted, lad.

    1. Re:Sounds like a Grand Day Out by martinoforum · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you pack the right trousers and have a close shave before liftoff?

    2. Re:Sounds like a Grand Day Out by Skater · · Score: 1

      And don't forget to take the emergency brake off when launching the rocket.

      (That scene had my girlfriend at the time and I rolling on the floor laughing.)

    3. Re:Sounds like a Grand Day Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just don't forget the crackers...

  5. So? by WindozeSux · · Score: 4, Funny

    So is this like those Moon Walk things you see at birthday parties and fairs?

    --
    Fallout 3 will suck.
    1. Re:So? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you want to be inside the thing rather than bouncing on it (and exploding while you're at it).

    2. Re:So? by Agent_9191 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but these are more fun...because you're in space...and when you get tired, you just fall asleep right there because it's your bedroom also!

  6. I like this guy by TheKidWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if some of his plans are a bit crazy, he at least has the guts to try to innovate!

    And since this is a private enterprise, it should come out much cheaper then anything NASA can dream of(probablly not as safe though, but NASA's stuff is very safe so its kinda hard to compete with them on that front.)

    1. Re:I like this guy by ravenspear · · Score: 1

      NASA's stuff is very safe so its kinda hard to compete with them on that front

      While historically this has been the case, things may be changing. Some of NASA's biggest safety failures have come from the weight of its bureaucracy weighing down projects so heavily that small problems can no longer be seen. Private enterprise can be much more efficient and give a lot more attention to detail. That can be an important advantage, especially in a relatively new market like space tourism which NASA has little experience in.

    2. Re:I like this guy by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 1

      Private enterprise also is less concerned with saftey.

      The same beauracracy that keeps many small problems buired, also delays projects until they are relatively sure that it's not going to kill someone. The same cant be said for private entities. Witness for example, the Vioxx/Celebrex problem in the pharm. field.

    3. Re:I like this guy by FuturePastNow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most entrepreneurs fail, so I don't know how well this will turn out. Still, most innovators are a bit nuts, and crazy rich people built this world, so more power to them.

      On the safety side, deaths from civilian spaceflight are inevitable. I doubt it will be much less safe statistically than NASA, though if successful on a large scale, civilian launches could easily surpass the number of humans put into space by governments (around 500 or so, I think).

      Governments and insurance companies will want to regulate this business. Only time will tell how the public will react after a passenger shuttle blows up or burns up. Crashes haven't stopped the airline industry, though they have hurt its bottom line.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    4. Re:I like this guy by ravenspear · · Score: 1

      Private enterprise also is less concerned with saftey.

      Yes but if we are going to make space travel an important priority, there are going to be risks involved. Nothing is going to perfectly safe and people will have to accept that in the short term. If the pioneers of early aviation 100 years ago were too afraid of dying (and some did) to develop powered flight, commercial air travel would not be what it is today. The same will be said of commercial space travel 100 years from now.

    5. Re:I like this guy by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Still, most innovators are a bit nuts, and crazy rich people built this world, so more power to them.
      That's debateable. In any case, you don't just need a CRP to finance this deal, you need a lot more CRPs to actually pay to go to the station. Doesn't strike me as a sustainable business model.
    6. Re:I like this guy by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      True, but I think the idea is that if enough CRPs actually pay for something, the price will eventually come down to something moderately well-off Crazy People can afford.

      So I guess the question is, are there enough Crazy People with enough $$$ to sustain this? Safety may play a role in determining that- if this thing kills a few CRPs, the rest might get less crazy all of a sudden.

      Even if the space hotel fails, a (relatively) very very cheap reusable launch vehicle might be of interest to anyone with a satellite.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    7. Re:I like this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      NASA's stuff is very safe

      Safe? Even people with a vague knowlege of the space program knows NASA shit blows up all the time. Why do you think the shuttles are grounded?

    8. Re:I like this guy by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      In the long run I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

      Everyone involved should be made aware of the risks and rewarded appropriately.

      I think at this stage it's better to "just do it" rather than trying to develop some non existant risk free system.

    9. Re:I like this guy by killjoe · · Score: 1, Interesting

      According to this link http://www.solcomhouse.com/poverty.htm

      The top 3 richest people in the world have wealth greater than the combined Gross Domestic Product (the value of all goods and services) of the world's 48 poorest nations.

      And that the world's richest 225 people have combined assets equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorest people.

      This tells me that something is out of whack. This guy could probably singlehandedly wipe out hunger in the world instead he wants to spend all that money trying to build a hotel in space.

      To each his own I guess.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    10. Re:I like this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The problem with singlehandedly wiping out hunger is that the governments in charge of the world's most hungry people won't cooperate. So, to actually do it you'd have to finance a private army and conquer half the world, killing hundreds of thousands in the process. That would probably piss off the global police, and nobody's as rich as the US government. I think this guy's better off blowing his money in space than starting wars.

      On the other hand, I do agree that something is out of whack.

    11. Re:I like this guy by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      then you have to look at the contributions to society that those 225 have made compared to the 48 poorest countires and the worlds 2.5 billion poorest people and then it kind of starts to make sense yah know?

    12. Re:I like this guy by slowtech · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but if you read the article you know that he is getting a lot of help from NASA. That is a government subsidy.

      As an added comment about "provate enterprise", watch the spin in this article. They say things like his micro-meteorite protection is as good as what NASA has done, but cheaper. Of course - what NASA has now is better / cheaper than what they used to have. That is the nature of progress in engineering. And this is developed with the help of NASA scientists, so I don't really understand how this is a big deal. Crediting "private enterprise" seems a bit premature, and leaves out a lot of other factors.

      --
      "Well it's not Victory - but then it's not Death either."
    13. Re:I like this guy by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      No, what we need is more research in primary science and low-level engineering.

      Fusion reactors + ion engines could propel ships with the speed and power needed to make inner solar system travel routine, as well as make interstellar travel possible. Ramscoops would be an interesting add-on for interstellar ships, allowing them to refuel from interstellar hydrogen.

      Advanced space mining tech would allow us to make massive ships, and to use heavier (but far more abundant) metals like Iron and Aluminum to build large, solid spaceships instead of the flimsy weight-constrained dinghies we have today.

      Launch craft powered by earth-based lasers show promise also, because they don't have to carry their propellant and allow for the massive accelerations needed to leave Earth orbit.

      Of course, primary research will always be helpful to refine our theories of physics and to possibly discover new possibilities.

      To do all this, not a single person has to venture into space. Computer simulation can handle most of the gritty work, with robotic spacecraft to actually test the theory and make sure the simulations are accurate.

      The explorers and pioneers of the 16th century had the tech they needed. We don't, so what we need is research, not space tourism (which will never be cost effective without some serious tech breakthroughs).

    14. Re:I like this guy by Nyrath+the+nearly+wi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I like Bigelow as well. Some have compared him to Delos D. Harriman from the Robert Heinlein classic THE MAN WHO SOLD THE MOON.

      According to the Popular Science article, Bigelow wanted to develop space from the time he was a young man. He studied business in college with the specific goal of earning enough money to fund space expansion.

      For a similar vision of a viable business plane for space, read The Rocket Company

    15. Re:I like this guy by ravenspear · · Score: 1

      The explorers and pioneers of the 16th century had the tech they needed. We don't

      I've got to disagree with you there. If Burt Rutan can build a suborbital vehicle for $20 million, much more complicated things can be achieved if private enterprise had the budget of say NASA to work with. A lot of research has already shown that space tourism is a potential billion dollar industry. With that kind of coin, a lot of amazing things could be built.

    16. Re:I like this guy by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      To keep this in perspective, after a long time (once all the research is amortized, essentially) a trip to space should cost no more than a trip to Australia from Chicago. The energies are about the same - just the technology required is different. The technology to do this exists, but is currently too expensive. In twenty years, all the current patents expire - so the prices will come down through simple competition.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    17. Re:I like this guy by fm6 · · Score: 1
      True, but I think the idea is that if enough CRPs actually pay for something, the price will eventually come down to something moderately well-off Crazy People can afford.
      Perhaps. More likely we'll see one or more of the following scenarios: (a) the resort is popular until the first fatal accident; (b) people realize that being locked in a tiny airtight box is not the most fun vacation; (c) it turns out that there are just not enough people sufficiently crazy and/or rich; (d) the next silly fad comes along, and people lose interest in vacationing in space.

      I remember a time when backers of space travel talked in terms of serious economic development: zero-g manufacturing, orbital power collectors, asteroid mining. Now we're reduced to junkets for the overprivileged. Pathetic.

    18. Re:I like this guy by klik · · Score: 1

      maybe he should change his name to Reid Malenfant? ...look out for blue rings...

      --
      open your mind too much and your brain falls out!
  7. Excellent news! by mi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    He may also find room for Hubble's replacement there somewhere, and a way for it to be serviced at 10% (or 1%?) of the current prices...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  8. First thought: by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll believe it when I see it....

    Not to say it cant be done.. but 2010 ? Gotta love the marketing departments.. oh wait, no.. they put impossible demands on us...

    1. Re:First thought: by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      Well, that's only nine years late for the orbital hotel. Too bad Pan-Am is gone.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    2. Re:First thought: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Too bad Pan-Am is gone.

      Maybe by the time the orbital resort is online, Pan Am might be back.

    3. Re:First thought: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:First thought: by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      Heh. "Now serving the East Coast and the orbital hotel."

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    5. Re:First thought: by KinkifyTheNation · · Score: 1

      And the ISS was supposed to be finished when?

  9. orbital farms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    can't hardly wait to have my GM chickens grown all globular in zero G. Think of how tender they'll be with no gravity to stress the muscles! delicious.

    permaveal 3000
    chicken a 'la 'blimp.

    1. Re:orbital farms by cdelta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Without gravity, their muscle mass will be significantly less.

    2. Re:orbital farms by nate+nice · · Score: 1

      You got a +4 funny but I wouldn't suprized if you see things like that. It's hard to say crazier things have happened, but it's thoughts like yours that produce great things. Good idea perhaps! And you know soon enough there will be "organic" animals rasied outthere for their fabulous tenderness and taste. Of course it will costs $150.00/hamburger but that's actually realistic to some people. Case in point, I stayed at the Carlyle hotel in NY and everything was paid for, so I ordered one of the cheapest meals, an $85.00 hamburger. It came with handcut fries. It was good, but not $85.00 good.
      But, if that cow came from space, I would've paid $200 for it if only for a taste. Of course I would brag about how amazing it was to everyone else to build curiosity and eventually market saturation.

      --
      "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
    3. Re:orbital farms by misleb · · Score: 1

      Finally, my boneless chicken ranch and be a reality!

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    4. Re:orbital farms by turtledot · · Score: 0

      ..so instead of free range chickens we'll have free floating chickens?

    5. Re:orbital farms by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Funny
      You got a +4 funny but I wouldn't suprized if you see things like that.


      Absolutely! Imagine logging on to SpaceFriedChicken.com, punching in your latitude, longitude, and credit card number, and then holding a baseball glove out the window to catch the chicken thrown down from orbit. (The heat of re-entry sears in the juicy flavor!)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:orbital farms by glib909 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nothing a steady IV flow of growth hormone and steroids can't fix!

      --
      Suudsu, that stuff is G-E-W-D.
    7. Re:orbital farms by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Not if you stick them in a rapidly-spinning torus. :)

    8. Re:orbital farms by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

      Brings a new dimension to the old practical joke of net-ordering your victim tons of pizzas.

      Fast food with a blast radius!

    9. Re:orbital farms by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Yes - that is funny. But you know what is hilarious? It has been studied! (Well, sort of...)

      http://yarchive.net/space/science/g_tolerance.html

      The precious quote:

      There was the hyper-G work done on chickens, for example, by Arthur Hamilton ("Milt") Smith in the 1970s. Milt Smith was a gravity specialist at the University of California at Davis who wanted to find out what would happen to humans if they lived in greater-than-normal G-forces. Naturally, he experimented on animals, and he decided that the animal that most closely resembled man for this specific purpose was the chicken. Chickens, after all, had a posture similar to man's: they walked upright on two legs, they had two non-load-bearing limbs (the wings), and so on. Anyway, Milt Smith and his assistants took a flock of chickens -- hundreds of them, in fact -- and put them into the two eighteen-foot-long centrifuges in the university's Chronic Acceleration Research Laboratory, as the place was called.

      They spun those chickens up to two-and-a-half Gs and let them stay there for a good while. In fact, they left them spinning like that day and night, for three to six months or more at a time. The hens went around and around, they clucked and they cackled and they laid their eggs, and as far as those chickens were concerned that was what ordinary life was like: a steady pull of two-and-a-half Gs. Some of those chickens spent the larger portion of their lifetimes in that goddamn accelerator.

      Well, it was easy to predict what would happen. Their bones would get stronger and their muscles would get bigger--because they had all that extra gravity to work against. A total of twenty-three generations of hens was spun around like this and the same thing happened every time. When the accelerator was turned off, out walked . . .GREAT MAMBO CHICKEN!


      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  10. now ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if we could only put a telescope on it, we could replace Hubble!

  11. Colonising Space with Pron by Essef · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If the rise of internet commerce is anything to go by, we can expect that the only reasons people will go to space will be to smoke Weed, Gamble the kids' college fund away, and of course have weighless sexual escapades.

    1. Re:Colonising Space with Pron by iwan-nl · · Score: 1

      Nah. Except for the weighless part, we've already got Amsterdam for all that. For those who have never been there: Amsterdam is the real-life version of the internet.

      I guess the main market for space tourism would be the rich and famous. They have money to burn and a big desire to go somewhere *really* exclusive.

      --
      I'm trying to improve my English. Please correct me on any spelling/grammar errors in this post.
  12. Robert Bigelow by OneArmedMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Space Gigolo........

    1. Re:Robert Bigelow by EowynRune · · Score: 1

      Ha hahaha lmao

      --
      *It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt* -some Homo sapien-
  13. A Giant Leap for Bigelow by prakslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Robert Bigelow gained his fortune from owning Budget Suites of America - a discount motel chain.

    Only in America could someone go from renting rooms at 49 dollars a night to building a Space Resort.

    Pretty Cool.

    1. Re:A Giant Leap for Bigelow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Only in America could someone go from renting rooms at 49 dollars a night to building a Space Resort.

      Why is that?

      You see lots of very rich entrepreneurs from China; yet 0 of them have their own space program. You get a few of guys that got rich off of .com&computer gold in America (Musk, Bezos, Carmack, Allen) and they're all on the leading edge of the new commercial space race.

      It seems for all the barriers here (litigious bastards and huge beuracracies), it's still a far far better place for entrepreneurs with a vision than any other country in the world.

    2. Re:A Giant Leap for Bigelow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      renting rooms at 49 dollars a night

      That's a >=3 star over here so it's not that cheap.

    3. Re:A Giant Leap for Bigelow by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Do you think that might be because you don't live in China but in a society which has much closer links to the US, maybe you are American ?

  14. Bigelow by name773 · · Score: 0, Troll

    does this fellow happen to own a corporation with a specialisation in tea?

    1. Re:Bigelow by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Tea, as in "tea, Earl Grey, hot."

    2. Re:Bigelow by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      I swear the moderators are all reatarded, and hope I get to metamoderate this one.

      Troll? Come on, it's a sensible question! Bigelow Tea exists!

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
  15. I know what's next... by a+man+named+bob · · Score: 4, Funny

    We're whalers on the moon,
    We carry a harpoon,
    For they ain't no whales
    So we tell tall tales
    And sing our whaling tune.

    1. Re:I know what's next... by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Once again, I have to lodge a complaint with the Slashcode team regarding the absence of a "+1 On-Topic Futurama Reference" moderation option. It would, of course, be complemented by a "-1 Simpsons Did It" option.

  16. Maybe it's just me, by b00m3rang · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Am I the only one who would hesitate to be the first resident of an inflatable Vectran habitat in space? I'll wait 'till V2.0, thanks.

    1. Re:Maybe it's just me, by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      Yeah and after all that overkill in design of the version 1, engineers shave off the excess plastic bits to save a few grand, and bam, version 2 out the door :-)

    2. Re:Maybe it's just me, by b00m3rang · · Score: 1

      Yup, and at that point I'll trust it.

    3. Re:Maybe it's just me, by Meumeu · · Score: 1

      V2? I wouldn't like to live in a V2, those things explodes too often for me...

    4. Re:Maybe it's just me, by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      I'd volunteer to be the first resident. After all, the worst that could happen would be a slow, painfully drawn out death. It'd be like being alive, only shorter.

    5. Re:Maybe it's just me, by b00m3rang · · Score: 1

      (golf clap) Very nice :)

  17. Now cut that out! by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    Do you realize how much soda, squirting from my nose, burns?

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  18. Also... by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does the idea of inflatable modules make anyone else nervous ?

    I dunno about you, but I'd really like the walls around me that contain my breathing air and keep me warm and from exploding into the void of space made of something nice and hard... like reinforced steel. Maby it's some sort of expandable material over a hard superstructure, but then there are some other issues:

    The article mentions:

    "lightweight but extremely strong and long-lived inflatable "soft goods" to form modules made of proprietary advanced aerospace materials"

    Maby i'm just a traditionalist holding back the frontier, but man, that sounds like a bubble just waiting to be punctured by one of those little paint chips zipping around the earth at a million miles an hour (from old missions, etc). Support structure or no, if you puncture that balloon it vents, and I'm inside, and i will NOT be a happy camper.

    Also, I'm wondering what kind of radiation protection these things provide. These materials sound "thin and lightweight" which is what they want for good launch weight, but thin often means poor radiation blocking ability.

    My opinion ? Keep the crew in something nice and solid.. keep supplies in these inflato-things, and make sure they can be quickly locked down from the rest of the ship/station/whatever.

    1. Re:Also... by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, before anyone asks.. I have read the article and the parts about the water-based rad shields and the 5 layer micrometeorite shields.

      For the meteorites: The problem is that those shields can fail, and when they do, I'd rather that the paint embed itself in hull of steel than a easily puncturable hull of some organic chemistry polymer (sorry, I'm a chemist).

      For the radiation: User-installable water based rad shields? Lets just hope we dont "forget" to install them, hmm ? Plus, the weight of the water must add significantly to the overall weight cost, I hope they're factoring that in. It takes a good amount of water to shield you from cosmic radiation I think (feel free to correct me here, but last time i knew, water wasnt the greatest gamma rad stopper). Also, there is of course, the initial radiation expsosure while they're installing the shields. And lets hope those water bags dont leak, too.

      I dont tend to like to trust my life to something I see dissolve nearly instantly every day in a drop of acetone, thats all I suppose.

    2. Re:Also... by gordboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      The print article has a nice cutaway drawing of the "18-inch-thick shield of alternating woven graphite composite and foam to protect against orbital debris." Apparently, this layered foam shield is more protective than "aluminum three inches thick" and "no rigid spacecraft design can match this performance." (from the text of the article) It sounds like NASA's decision not to use the TransHab inflatable design was politically motivated and the program was axed before it could actually be tested.

    3. Re:Also... by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1
      I had a research class once that explored the practicle and impracticle nescessities of going to Mars and an inflatable crew habitat was one of the ideas that actually made sense. Now I didn't read the article, but the Trashab system was supposed to have been a test module on the ISS. I think its been scrubbed now by NASA but was very interesting.

      I do believe the idea was to fill the transhab's outer layer with water (from lunar ice) as it acts as a good radiation shield and should be found on the mooon.

      Now micromedeorites do pose a hazard, but some of the more creative solutions have been automated robots that could sow and patch holes, etc.

      I thought the Transhab idea was novel, but I think in our final report and conculsions we voted on constructing a LEO robotic space dock and then sending the ship up in modules to be constructed along with nuclear rocket for thrust and power. Remember also something about LOX fuel and ION propulsion powered by nuclear material, and Americanium research and Israel too.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    4. Re:Also... by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Actually, it'd be pretty interesting to put things like that up into orbit just for the purpose of catching all the little junk that's been whizzing around up there. Then, just let it crash into the atmosphere. Or, retrieve it, dig out the debris and sell the toothbrushes and other random bits.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    5. Re:Also... by zoeith · · Score: 1

      This is an important point. It is answered in the article. There is also a radiation protection measure proposed in the article too. But at a glance... I didn't know water was such a good substance for stopping radiation?

      --
      Zoeith
    6. Re:Also... by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      Kind of a serious question - what sort of forces are on the hull of a spacecraft while in orbit - have searched the net but only find star-trekish drivel. (Not that that is uninteresting either)

    7. Re:Also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, testing shows that the stuff is better able to withstand hits from small objects than a solid shell could. think about it, do you REALLY think they have reinforced steel up there for the ISS? be kinda heavy don't you think? so yeah, id actually prefer a more flexible kevlar material than some hard but thin aluminum shell, and if i remember correctly this stuff can take what 3 inches of aluminum can't.

      as for nasa looking into this, well nasa STARTED the idea of the inflatable habitat, and then it got axed. thats how bigelow got some of the engineers, he literally just took them from that project and continued on working.

    8. Re:Also... by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      Gravity and, unless your orbit is high enough, air resistance. The real concern, however, is micrometeorites.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    9. Re:Also... by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Water is on of the best.

    10. Re:Also... by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      I was more wondering about from the vacuum on the hull, than forces from friction or earths graviation.

    11. Re:Also... by Xzzy · · Score: 1

      Which would be equivalent to soaking up the oceans with a single q-tip.

      That junk is up there to stay, it's not something we can undo. Meteorites are "when not if" situation anyways so instead of trying to clean space up, energy should be invested in absorbing them.

    12. Re:Also... by turtledot · · Score: 0

      >"Or, retrieve it, dig out the debris and sell the toothbrushes and other random bits."
      Yo!
      Considering all the $$ that earth junk gets nowadays on e-bay, selling space junk should fetch enough to pay for the trip!
      (figure *100 premium if a religious figure is impressed on the object...)

    13. Re:Also... by Fjornir · · Score: 1

      Mmm... Didn't you just answer your own question then? If not, clarify and I'll get back to you.

      --
      I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
    14. Re:Also... by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      1 atmosphere is about the same relative pressure as the inside of a soccerball.

    15. Re:Also... by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      I know this makes me look like I'm stupid. (And I probably am)

      Thanks for the answer.

    16. Re:Also... by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      feel free to correct me here, but last time i knew, water wasnt the greatest gamma rad stopper

      What are you trying to shield from gammas for? Are you trying to survive a gamma-ray burster or something?

      Also, what makes you think that the extremely thin walls on the Shuttle or ISS do any better of a job at blocking anything than this will do? The current state of the art in space radiation protection is basically, "we don't stay up too long and we're inside the magnetosphere, so we'll just grin and bear it".

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    17. Re:Also... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Both items have problems of breaking down in a vacuum environment. They are using something like Kevlar, which in tests conduced by the FBI back in the 1970's (and continue to present) show that it is actually stronger than a plate of steel for stopping projectiles.

      At very high velocities (like you find in space), the particles and paint chips don't just embed into the material, but rather vaporize so completely that it becomes a form of radiation.

      As far as getting water into space, most water is a "waste" product from the fuel cells, and is a common supply item for resupplying the ISS. Basically, while expensive simply because getting anything up to space is expensive in general.

      As far as water as a shield, it is very commonly used in nuclear reactors as well as for radioactive waste repositories. One really nice thing about water is that the secondary radiation issues are not nearly so much of an issue (gamma rays hitting water and then bumping parts of water molucules to become a collection of other stuff). The other nice thing here is that the water can be used for other things besides purely radiation shielding, like energy storage (doing electralisis to generate hydrogen and oxygen), temperature regulation, mass regulation (more important in a ship rather than an orbiting space station), and being able to simply drink the stuff (assuming it isn't too radioactive).

      Regarding leaking bags, I take it you havn't seen a waterbed? Good storage bags can be made to withstand quite a bit of physical abuse, be plyable, and still keep water just where it needs to be. This is totally a non-issue, and besides, in space the water would just "ball up" instead of flowing to the "basement". Even a ball of free water outside of a bag would not be that big of an issue in space, and easily something to deal with by astronauts.

    18. Re:Also... by bhima · · Score: 3, Informative
      Fiber ceramic composites have an advantage over aluminum for use in spacecraft hulls in that they create less secondary particles when exposed to cosmic rays. As you claim to have read the article you should know that the proposed hull less easily punctured than a metallic aluminum hull. Where did you get this steel idea? Do you realize how much steel weighs compared to how strong it is? I don't think steel has been a major component to anything that has ever been launched. Being that there aren't great clouds of acetone in low earth orbit I think the project is pretty safe.

      Also I think by the phrase "User Installable" the operator is meant, not the guest.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    19. Re:Also... by uberdave · · Score: 1

      There, there. The only stupid question is the one not asked.

    20. Re:Also... by Saeger · · Score: 1
      I've read a couple of your other posts that went along similar lines of "I just don't trust this wimpy balloon! Give me good ol' steel any day!" and I just gotta get off my chest: FUCK, your attitude irritates me!

      What you need to do is to reevaluate your romantic notions of the superiority of tincan capsules, since tests have shown that these inflatable habs are MORE than capable. IMO, you've just got a bad case of unknown risk aversion and perception-reality misalignment. It's all in your head.

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    21. Re:Also... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      They don't always use Water in reactors. I thought they used 2H2O, as it was very inert, and absorbed radiation readily.

      If that is so, and they use that, half of what you suggest cannot be done with it.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    22. Re:Also... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      2H2O is much better. Not water, i think it's called Deuterium.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    23. Re:Also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There are no stupid questions, just stupid people."

      BTW, that's not meant to be an insult, just to be funny.

    24. Re:Also... by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
      For the radiation: User-installable water based rad shields? Lets just hope we dont "forget" to install them, hmm ?

      No problem, have robots put it all together in orbit and then look it over to make sure it isn't malfunctioning. Robots don't get cancer or radiation sickness, though their circuits can get fried.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    25. Re:Also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Alright! Who slipped me the "Becky Blowup" portion of the ship?"

    26. Re:Also... by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      I used to think that too, until I saw what happens when you shoot something thin (like 1/4 polycarbonate) with a high-powered rifle. The bullet just passes right through, no popping or shattering. Those 'paint chips' are moving at similar or higher speeds to a bullet from a 30.06, so their effects would be the same.

      Sandwich some goo between layers of kevlar that hardens on exposure to air. When something penetrates it's automagically sealed.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    27. Re:Also... by sirenbrian · · Score: 1

      Why make it any thicker or heavier than you have to? The Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) used by NASA for the moon landings had skin not much thicker than aluminum foil in some places. Go here and scroll down to Science Moment. Two one-thousandths of an inch...that's damned thin!

      --
      Brian Smith "Jokers and aces, bruisy and blackfern" - Steve Kilbey, Day of the Dead.
    28. Re:Also... by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      by 2H2O I assume you mean H2O2, as that's about the only interpretation of your statement that makes sense.
      My question is this: Why would use use spacecraft fuel (H2O2, or hydrogen peroxide has been used as an oxidizer in liquid-fueled engines) to contain radiation? hydrogen peroxide is not inert, it reacts with several things and breaks down into water, so after some time and impurities all you would have is water protecting your radioactive materials.

      Sorry that's not very coherent, but I'll assume you can somehow decipher my meaning.

    29. Re:Also... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      No, it is very ordinary H2O. The same water that makes up 90% of your body.

      You might be confused with "heavy water" that truly does weigh more, due to the fact that it is composed of deuterium and tritium, and for some nuclear research these heavier isotopes of hydrogen are used.

      The problem with the water moderators of nuclear power plants is that water is a very corrosive substance, and will dissolve just about anything, including uranium and radioactive waste. Because of that, the water that is in containment areas of a nuclear power plant generally isn't flushed into the city sewer.

      The water that is used in nuclear power plants is also of extraordinary purity, where it goes through a desalinzation process many time more exacting than what is needed for public drinking water or farming. Indeed, if you drink the water straight out of a power plant, it actually starts absorbing minerals from your body as you are drinking it... unhealthy because it is too pure to drink. This is done mainly to avoid calcification of the pipes and other mineral deposits, like what happens to the inside of a water heater in your home over time.

      Every thing that I mentioned and more is possible with just ordinary water, and it does indeed have many uses in space. To see an interesting book that describes this in more detail check out "The Return"> written by none other than Buzz Aldrin, the second astronaut to step foot on the moon. While this is fiction, Mr. Aldrin's credentials for having experienced real spaceflight are undisputed. In this book he describes an interesting threat to manned spaceflight that before hand I never even thought about, and in it the space shuttle had to be modified with water radiation bags to do a rescue mission to the ISS.

      Really, ordinary water does offer a bunch of neat advantages and really is used for radiation shielding.

    30. Re:Also... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Sandwich some goo between layers of kevlar that hardens on exposure to air.

      Exposure to what air?

    31. Re:Also... by Newander · · Score: 1

      The article says that they will be inflated to 10 psi.

      --

      Jesus saves and takes half damage.

    32. Re:Also... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yes, i was thinking of Heavy Water. I didn't think it was made of anything but hydrogen and water, though. Well, i know a lot more now.

      Are you in the field, or are you just interested in it(radioactive materials)? I'm facinated by the subject, but I don't have the education down to understand half of it (still going through my first year of college)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    33. Re:Also... by Dan+D. · · Score: 1
      It sounds like NASA's decision not to use the TransHab inflatable design was politically motivated and the program was axed before it could actually be tested.

      God love the privatized space program giving the finger to politics. It seems like normalized space travel might actually exist in my life time. Only downside is the test of whether I actually have the cojones to try it... I could have gone without that emasculation.

      --
      People who quote themselves bug the crap out of me -- Me.
    34. Re:Also... by NardofDoom · · Score: 1

      The air inside the structure that will be leaking through the hole.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    35. Re:Also... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm the son of a nuclear engineer, and I've also had more than a year's worth of engineering-level college physics, so I have had to learn a little bit more about the subject than the average joe. I have also met and talked at length with people from the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory where they have done some very incredible research. This is also where the first nuclear power electric generating plant in the world was built (not the first nuclear reactor, however).

      If you want to see something that is a terrible waste of fantastic technologies due to raw politics, try to research what happened to the Breeder Reactor program at INEL. They have effectively found a way to build a nuclear fision reactor that can actually consume radioactive waste from other reactors and turn it into something harmless. If this research was to continue, there would be absolutely no need for Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

      The dark side of this research is that the same reactor can effectively make better than bomb-grade Plutonium using the same techniques, and there are some other national security issues that turns this into a political mess. Also, I think there are members of the United States Senate who really want to spread large quantities of radioactive waste all over America. It has to be deliberate, because the useful benefits to our country far outnumber the risks that this research could lead us to.

      Of course the Farnsworth Fusor technology has been equally neglected, but that is another story.

    36. Re:Also... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I do not know how I made such a simple mistake.

      If we ever should meet, I owe you lunch.

  19. Two words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuckin' A.

  20. Inflatable Space Resort Guest Rule #1 by prakslash · · Score: 4, Funny


    Playing Darts is Strictly Forbidden!

    1. Re:Inflatable Space Resort Guest Rule #1 by LighthouseJ · · Score: 1

      The first rule of the Inflatable Space Resort is that we do not talk about the Inflatable Space Resort! The second rule is that we do not talk about the Inflatable Space Resort!

    2. Re:Inflatable Space Resort Guest Rule #1 by aztec1430 · · Score: 1

      It'll need to be a pretty big dart... travelling fairly fast...

      TransHab tested their inflatable space station by firing a 1cm ball bearing at it, at 7km/s - which is near enough to orbital velocity... It survived intact...

    3. Re:Inflatable Space Resort Guest Rule #1 by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 1

      The bearing , or the wall ?

    4. Re:Inflatable Space Resort Guest Rule #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up

    5. Re:Inflatable Space Resort Guest Rule #1 by aztec1430 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's the guff:

      http://www.chron.com/cgi-bin/auth/story.mpl/cont en t/interactive/space/iss/1998/980824.html

      "Never mind that all this luxury would be in a balloon that would be in an Earth orbit littered with dangerous space junk.

      The 1-foot-thick shell would be "bulletproof" in space, de la Fuente says. The 17 or so layers would be made of ceramic fabric, polyurethane foam, polymer film and Kevlar, a tough material used in police vests, and be better than metal.

      "This is very different from a child's balloon," de la Fuente explains as he shows off samples of padding. "This is much more like a football. You can drive a nail into a football and it doesn't just pop."

      Like a football, the 40-foot-long, 27-foot-diameter Transhab would have a bladder system that holds in the air. The shell encompassing Transhab would have three bladders, in fact, for redundancy.

      Outside these thin-film bladders would be Kevlar webbing and then sheets of ceramic fabric, each separated by 3 inches of foam. It's this ceramic, called Nextel, that would protect against micrometeoroids and other orbital clutter zooming by at tens of thousands mph.

      In ground tests, aluminum marble-sized balls fired into the Transhab padding at orbital speed were pulverized by the outer ceramic layers before reaching the air-containing bladders.

      Even skeptics were impressed.

      "Once they see our micrometeoroid and orbital debris shots ... they begin to realize, 'Hey, this isn't a bad thing at all,'" de la Fuente says.

      "You also have to remember that the aluminum (space station) module is a balloon, too. Any pressure vessel is truly a balloon. Just because it's made out of aluminum you still get the same pressure stresses."

      Indeed, when identical balls were shot at 1-1/2-inch-thick aluminum plates, 3-inch-wide craters emerged and the shock waves ripped chunks of metal off the back of the plates. "

    6. Re:Inflatable Space Resort Guest Rule #1 by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1

      Do Nerf darts count?

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    7. Re:Inflatable Space Resort Guest Rule #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... called Nextel...

      DONE

    8. Re:Inflatable Space Resort Guest Rule #1 by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I'm long term, going up and down a gravity well is expensive.

      Why does this habitat have to orbit the earth? Couldn't a series of these be 'pushed' to other places of interest?

  21. Assume this happens by nate+nice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My grandmother, who is about 80 or so, will have seen it all I figure by the time she takes an infitie space yacht cruise. I mean when she was born, her idea of high tech was the radio. She probably heard about the mysteries of radar and soon saw TV and was definitly blown away. Cars became more and more "modern" and soon computers came out and even people, gasp!, in space! Not to mention the countless things I haven't mentioned, like the Internet, and now she has a chance to take a space cruise before she dies. That is considering this happens.

    There is no way if she had to write a paper back in her school days, about the future, that if she mentioned this, se would be told she has such a creative mind but not realistic.

    Obviously I am not the first person to say we;ve come a long ways in X years (and in some ways we haven't moved!), but this is insane.

    It makes the future more exciting for those of us younger because we cannot even imagine how quickly we are going to see new technology become realities.

    At this rate I say why stop at the moon? I'm saving my cash for a trip to Mars!

    --
    "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
    1. Re:Assume this happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well golly gee Nate, imagine how much farther we'll go once you learn how to spell 'definitely'. Gee Whiz!

    2. Re:Assume this happens by nate+nice · · Score: 1

      I thought vowels are optional.

      --
      "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
    3. Re:Assume this happens by Coryoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no way if she had to write a paper back in her school days, about the future, that if she mentioned this, se would be told she has such a creative mind but not realistic.

      Sure, but had you asked a schoolkid from 1969 to write a paper about space travel in the year 2005 and the kid managed predict it accurately he/she would have been given an F by the teacher for being completely, unreasonably, pathetically pessimistic (and possibly expelled for being a subversive communist when they write that all US orbital launch capability in 2005 was bought from Russia and Europe!)

      Back then most people expected us to have a permanent moon base by now. Manned missions to Mars would have been assumed as well. Somewhere in there we seriously lost momentum.

      Jedidiah.

    4. Re:Assume this happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (and possibly expelled for being a subversive communist when they write that all US orbital launch capability in 2005 was bought from Russia and Europe!)

      You mean human launch capability. Delta and Atlas family rockets continue to work fine. As do Peacekeeper and Minuteman III for that matter, though they are of course not for orbital launch, but intercontinental.

      Of course, Atlas V will use engines designed in Russia. :-)

      And the last Peacekeepers will be taken off active alert by the end of this year, but that's a good thing.

    5. Re:Assume this happens by Saeger · · Score: 1
      ...we cannot even imagine how quickly we are going to see new technology become realities.

      Sure we can, if you've got a mind that's not easily shocked:

      You see, advancing technology is an evolutionary process, and, as with any evolutionary progress, it proceeds exponentially.

      So read up about the Law of Accelerating Returns & Singularity. Grandma ain't seen nothing yet (assuming she lives long enough to reach the crossover point).

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    6. Re:Assume this happens by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Sigh.

      Not so. The probem is that the average Joe has NO idea what space is like. There is no concept of the actual costs and distances and realities. Overexposure to Buck Rogers and such things do not help either.

      The problem is not momentum, it is cost. It is way, way, way, way more expensive and complex to put a man on Mars than to put one on the moon.

      An unmanned spacecraft basically gets alive and requires energy around any body it orbits and is thrown by gravity between them.

      For all practial reasons dead in the transit between the planets. The spaceship does not require energy to fly between the planets because it coasts on Gravity. During the trip it does not require any energy to function except for some housekeeping. So the distance between the planets DOES NOT MATTER.

      For a human it does matter. A manned ship requires constant energy input the whole mission because you have to keep him, well, alive. And there lies the rub. Space is big. Mars is maaaany times farther from earth than the moon.

      With current tech we as a society simply cannot afford to go there, whether we like it or not.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    7. Re:Assume this happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, that the real progress has stopped somewhen in the seventies. The theoretical physics is the most obvious example (current best theory of elementary interactions still being the Standard Model, with little perspective of replacing it with a better theory in any forseeable future), but even in computers -- look: last important new things in programming languages were LISP, smalltalk and C. Last important thing im operating systems was Unix. And the Internet is still based on TCP/IP protocol, with IPv6 bringing only cosmetical improvements. All invented in the seventies or before. This was also the time people landed on the moon.

      What we keep seeing, and probably will see for some time to come, is but the popularization of the applications of the ideas thirty years old.

      Of course, it's possible that some new big thing emerges. Obvious candidates are genetic engineering, quantum computers and nanotechnology. But we cannot be sure that it will happen. It's equally possible that the period of growth is over, and now the thousand years of stagnation will come. It wouldn't be anything new in the history of mankind.

    8. Re:Assume this happens by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Absolutely correct in spirit - but there is no "crossover point". That is the wierd thing about exponential growth - now matter how far you zoom in or out, the curve looks the same.

      In other words, if you plot the curve of technology from 0 - 100 AD, it will look the same at the curve from 0 - 1000 AD, and 0 - 2005 AD, etc. (This assumes that the zero technology point is chosen to be at year zero, of course).

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  22. Nice idea, but... by The+Grey+Clone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about gravity? Granted, I just had a quick glance over the article, but I don't see any mention of gravity. Zero Gravity might be fun for several hours, a day, maybe. But I wouldn't want to spend a vacation completly without gravity. With the space-yacht ideas, it looks almost like a cruise in space. But that pesky no-gravity thing is really gonna come up and bite em.

    1. Re:Nice idea, but... by Fjornir · · Score: 1

      If there's g, I aint going. If there's g I could shut myself in a room at the embassy suites instead.

      --
      I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
    2. Re:Nice idea, but... by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      Nah, if you don't want to go float around in space for a week nobody is putting a gun to your head. If I can afford it, I'll be up there, without any complaints regardless of how horrible the amenities might be. It's space, man! I'll take your spot if you don't want it. If in some kind of lottery, I won a trip up to a barely-tested version 0.8 of this station, I'd prepare a will and start packing.

    3. Re:Nice idea, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how far up you'd have to be before you are considered in "international waters" and can start gambling. However, I'm thinking there might be some problems with craps and roulette in zero G.

      Atrivis

    4. Re:Nice idea, but... by Democratus · · Score: 1

      Dude. Three words.

      Zero...gee...sex!

    5. Re:Nice idea, but... by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Then lock yourself in your shed for a week. I think the whole point is the "out of this world experience".

  23. falcon???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when do I get my yt-1300?

  24. Is society ready? by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You know, the big problem with all these prizes in the past was that one heck of a lot of people got themselves killed attempting to win them. Culturally it wasn't such a big deal back then, in fact it was considered noble, courageous and daring.

    But society has changed. Our values have changed. I can just imagine the great cry WHEN (not if) some of these spacecraft start failing, and people start dying. That's what happens when you rush to compete for a prize that other competitors also want - shortcuts get taken, like they did historically, and people get killed.

    Now, way back when, it wasn't such a big deal if a plane dropped into the atlantic, or crashed on some farm somewhere. The density of our population has increased a bit since then and although our planet is still primarily ocean, there's a greater chance of having the remains of some failed launch or deorbit falling on a populated area than before. Or if a space station design fails to meet some contingency or other, causing all inhabitants to perish. Ooops we forgot about that...

    Are we ready for this? Is it a risk that we are each willing to take in a personal sense - in order to fully open up travel to space? Or is everyone going to whine at the first accident, causing all this pioneering to get legislated and regulated to oblivion?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Is society ready? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1
      I wish I had mod points for yah...but already posted elsewhere, but I think fundamentally your right.

      To this day, more people have died chasing the sound barier than going into space. When Apollo 1 happened, they paused, had the funerals, and were back to work on monday trying to figure out what went wrong and fix it.

      Today we think that going into space is routine and even mondane. I am sure people are going to die. I just sure hope it doesn't derail privately funded space concepts.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    2. Re:Is society ready? by Art+Tatum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's a good question but I don't think there's a need for worry. There will always be a small minority of adventurous people willing to take the risks. What's important to realize is that this is the way it *always* was. We just don't hear much about the vast majority of people who were were afraid to try sailing all the way around the world.

      A lot of them were probably even skilled sailors. Heck, Chuck Yeager turned down the opportunity to sit on top of a "tin can" and be shot into space. And they don't come any better than Chuck Yeager.

    3. Re:Is society ready? by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      It's a good question but I don't think there's a need for worry. There will always be a small minority of adventurous people willing to take the risks.

      But what if others, such as Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn), wish to pass laws preventing others from taking those risks?

    4. Re:Is society ready? by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      I don't think it has any chance of happening in the current climate. There are enough libertarians (note the little 'l') that any such idea would be DOA. And hey, if it did pass, some other less squeamish nation would be willing to take the risks AND to reap the benefits.

      Of course, if this silly "International Law" thing goes far enough, nobody would be safe from bad laws. But I don't forsee that happening in the near term either.

    5. Re:Is society ready? by NardofDoom · · Score: 1

      Car crashes kill way more people than plane crashes. Where's the outcry against cars? Why isn't every car crash reported on the news? Because a car crash generally doesn't kill hundreds of people in a massive fireball. Not to mention that plane crashes are rare specifically because of all the regulation that's placed on them.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
  25. He doesn't need to succeed. by Dylan+Thomas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd be impressed if he was successful, but he doesn't need to succeed. He just needs to get closer than anyone else ever has. The first person who can demonstrate the possibility of commercial gains in space will be doing us all an enormous favor.

    I've always felt that the non-exploitation pact--that international agreement that says it's a Bad Thing to stripmine on Mars--was a really bad idea. Taking the possibility of commercial gain out of space travel is an excellent way to ensure that all space travel is done by governments and universities. I don't trust governments to do the job efficiently, and I doubt many universities could pull it off without strings-attached grants and funding.

    The best way to ensure, over the long run, maximized efficiency and high-level accountability is to leave the job to private enterprise. Companies competing for a profit will find ways to do things cheaper, faster and safer. The trade-off is that there are more likely to be some really bad ideas getting launched, and in space, no one can hear you scream... but that's another detail. Private enterprise might be more willing to take the risks that a post-Challenger United States (for example) is not.

    But private enterprise won't even bother if there's not a bottom line. So I say, encourage the strip-mining of Mars (hell, better Mars than one's hometown, don't you think?). Encourage orbiting vacation spots for the wealthy. Encourage claim-staking and competition.

    Once we're already up there and comfortable, then we can let the galactic treehuggers cry foul. But let's get up there first.

    --
    What he wants is more important that what I want. What he wants is also more important that what you want.
    1. Re:He doesn't need to succeed. by norkakn · · Score: 1

      planets just seem a bit extreme. Can't we just strip mine the asteroid belt?

      I might want to retire to mars, I don't think I'll miss a few megatonne asteroids... especially if they make iron cost .00001$/lb

    2. Re:He doesn't need to succeed. by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      But private enterprise won't even bother if there's not a bottom line.

      I'm not sure I'm completely agree. The way I see it, there's going to be three different types of space endeavours in the future:

      * Government-run: Pretty much mostly what we have now. Governments sending things up for science, prestige, and military purposes.

      * Private for-profit (commercial): Right now this is mostly satellites, but should expand to things like space tourism, mining, orbital power satellites, shipment, manufacturing, space porn, etc.

      * Private non-profit (altruism): This is the one which everyone seems to overlook, mostly because it really hasn't been done so far. These are done for prestige, to attract more donations, to assure a place in history, to advance mankind, to pad one's ego, etc.

      This last one I think has a lot of potential. The best near-term examples is the Planetary Society's Cosmos I, which will launch the first solar sail spacecraft lin April of this year. It'll also be the first-ever space mission by a non-profit group (I think).

      Another example I often cite is Elon Musk, who had a "Mars Oasis" project for launching an experimental greenhouse on the surface of Mars. There wouldn't be any direct payback from this -- just an entry in the history books and the knowledge that he'd advanced mankind. However he put this on hold when he did a thorough analysis and found that launch costs would be the dominant part of the price tag. Instead, he's invested his efforts in SpaceX; hopefully once he gets launch costs down he'll return to the Mars Oasis project.

    3. Re:He doesn't need to succeed. by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Whenever I bring up environmentalists getting their panties in a bunch over people spoiling the environment on Mars or the Moon, I usually get blank stares from just about everybody I talk to.

      This is an issue that will become a major item in the 21st Century, particularly if substantial commercial development occurs in space. IMHO, I think they are nuts, and let's worry about trying to help mankind out 1st. I would agree that it would be far better to strip-mine Mars than it would be to strip-mine Wyoming.

      BTW, the property rights issues in space are going to be very interesting. International law denies UN member nations and signatories to the Outer Space Treaty (just about everybody who can get to space right now, including India, China, and France) from claiming extra-terrestrial territory. On the other hand, private ownership is allowed, and indeed the wording of the treaty is such that private companies can own pieces of extra-terrestrial real estate. Just who the registration authority is will be another story, however.

      Otherwise, ditto to your comment.

    4. Re:He doesn't need to succeed. by BuilderBob · · Score: 1

      Once we're already up there and comfortable, then we can let the galactic treehuggers cry foul. But let's get up there first.

      Wow.

      You really haven't learned anything, have you?

    5. Re:He doesn't need to succeed. by MadMoses · · Score: 1

      So I say, encourage the strip-mining of Mars (hell, better Mars than one's hometown, don't you think?).

      You've never played Red Faction, didya?

      --

      Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
    6. Re:He doesn't need to succeed. by jesterzog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've always felt that the non-exploitation pact--that international agreement that says it's a Bad Thing to stripmine on Mars--was a really bad idea. Taking the possibility of commercial gain out of space travel is an excellent way to ensure that all space travel is done by governments and universities.

      While I'm not entirely averse to it, I'm a bit skeptical about this point of view. I don't particularly trust governments either... they tend to have a bad record of dealing with new frontiers. But private corporations are, quite honestly, no better. Corporations have probably done at least as many stupid and destructive things in the past as governments.

      Historically, the fringes of modern society who get to new places first simply tear them up before the majority of people get there to enjoy what it used to have. It doesn't matter if it's a government or private citizens: they'll go in there to destroy it for as much short term gain as possible, because once everyone else turns up it'll be too late to make a profit. Initial european colonisation of the USA, for instance, was built on herding and killing the natives and taking their land. Pizarro did similar things through South America: almost single-handedly he wiped out a civilisation in a new land to take their gold and become rich.

      There aren't people on Mars, but there's a lot we could learn about it and a lot we could do with it that simply might not be possible after it's been seriously visited. The same goes for any other new place: I'd be devestated, for instance, if someone found an alternative reason to go to Europa and contaminated it in the process, eliminating many possibilities of finding life there.

      The main problem, with which I hope you'll agree, is developing technology to get to these sorts of places. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know exactly how to solve it. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that offering anyone the ability to abuse a new resource for short term gains at the expense of everyone who might have benefitted later, is the only way to do this.

      What it's conceding is that the only incentive we can come up with for people to go there is that normal rules and laws don't apply, so they can do what they want. If it's done this way, then the whole thing could quite easily end up rife with corruption, corporate/governmental sabotage, possibly wars, and enormous wastage at the expense of everyone who follows. Such an incentive doesn't really impress me, and to me it seems more destructive than useful.

      It might well be that Mars will be strip-mined in the future. I just hope that if and when it's done, it's done for reasons that benefit as many people as possible rather than a few profiteers at everyone else's expense.

    7. Re:He doesn't need to succeed. by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
      It'll also be the first-ever space mission by a non-profit group (I think).

      AMSAT has been putting up amateur radio satellites for a couple of decades now. Private, non profit. It's done 'because we can' and for the prestige of doing it. Up until now, the oscars normally hitch a ride on commercial launches, as ballast. There's going to be a plethora of wanna-be launch companies looking for guinea pig payloads in the near future, I do expect to see a few of them carry oscar payloads, simply because they have no other payload to carry on initial trial launches.

    8. Re:He doesn't need to succeed. by khallow · · Score: 1
      While I'm not entirely averse to it, I'm a bit skeptical about this point of view. I don't particularly trust governments either... they tend to have a bad record of dealing with new frontiers. But private corporations are, quite honestly, no better. Corporations have probably done at least as many stupid and destructive things in the past as governments.

      Well there's the matter of scale. Governments when they do stupid, destructive things, they tend to do it on a much larger scale than a business. The whole of businesses may cause more harm than a government, but not a single business. Second, businesses have significant restrictions. Ie, they need to turn a profit. Governments do not need to do anything though they usually strive to stay in power.

      What it's conceding is that the only incentive we can come up with for people to go there is that normal rules and laws don't apply, so they can do what they want. If it's done this way, then the whole thing could quite easily end up rife with corruption, corporate/governmental sabotage, possibly wars, and enormous wastage at the expense of everyone who follows. Such an incentive doesn't really impress me, and to me it seems more destructive than useful.

      What "normal" laws? Now that communism is dead, almost every place on Earth recognizes the concept of private property. But we actually have treaties (dating back, of course, to the era when communism had some pull) banning private ownership of property in space. These laws aren't "normal". Further, most of the world is rife with corruption, wars, espionage, etc. That's normal.

      Historically, the fringes of modern society who get to new places first simply tear them up before the majority of people get there to enjoy what it used to have. It doesn't matter if it's a government or private citizens: they'll go in there to destroy it for as much short term gain as possible, because once everyone else turns up it'll be too late to make a profit. Initial european colonisation of the USA, for instance, was built on herding and killing the natives and taking their land. Pizarro did similar things through South America: almost single-handedly he wiped out a civilisation in a new land to take their gold and become rich.

      European colonization strategies were a little more varied than that. Initial colonization of the US by England, for example, didn't involve "herding and killing". That probably was more because the Native Americans suffered serious population declines and because the European settlements had a higher population density. So the initial settlements didn't harm local Indians at first. My point here is that "tearing up" isn't automatically going to happen.

      Further, what is there to tear up? We have several candidates that we need to consider for protection. So let's protect those. The rest doesn't need protection. Eg, the Moon doesn't have an ecosystem. Your average 100 meter asteroid doesn't either. I heard an interesting idea for divying up nature resources in the Solar System. If it's big, say Mercury, Jupiter, Mars, Europa, etc, then make it the property of all mankind. Ie, set up a corporation that everyone owns a voting share of. This corporation would then do the actual selling of large scale property in the Solar System and distribute the profits as such to its shareholders. Hmmm, given the monopolistic nature, it would probably be better to set up competing corporations.

      Second, any property that is less than a certain size (let's say up to a 100 km or so), then allow private entities to lay claims (much as miners did in the US West) to the object, but they need to maintain a physical presence in order to keep the claim.

      Finally, if it's too small (eg, it's smaller than a breadbox), then it's free for the taking. No questions asked.

    9. Re:He doesn't need to succeed. by rpillala · · Score: 1

      The best way to ensure, over the long run, maximized efficiency and high-level accountability is to leave the job to private enterprise. Companies competing for a profit will find ways to do things cheaper, faster and safer. The trade-off is that there are more likely to be some really bad ideas getting launched, and in space, no one can hear you scream... but that's another detail. Private enterprise might be more willing to take the risks that a post-Challenger United States (for example) is not.
      Wait which is it? Safer or more risky? I agree with the cheaper and faster part though.
      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    10. Re:He doesn't need to succeed. by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Interesting ideas, but I don't think forming a company with everyone on earth getting one share would prevent many problems - that is sort of a definition of government. The problem is that when power is dispersed to widely, the actual power then becomes the ones that control the communication medium that feeds back success / failure fro the company.

      For example, say the CEO is old and wants to retire. Say also that he wants to pass the cushy job to his son. If he controls what people hear about the qualified candidates (and he is CEO, after all), he can pretty much force the issue.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    11. Re:He doesn't need to succeed. by khallow · · Score: 1
      Interesting ideas, but I don't think forming a company with everyone on earth getting one share would prevent many problems - that is sort of a definition of government. The problem is that when power is dispersed to widely, the actual power then becomes the ones that control the communication medium that feeds back success / failure fro the company.

      That is true. In hindsight, centralizing ownership in such a matter would probably be disastrous for the human race. Certainly, whoever ends up in control of such a company would be effectively a government with but a tenuous connection to real business.

  26. Jurisdictions by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Being off-world, will they legally be able to host space gigolos?

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Jurisdictions by ChiChiCuervo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      actually... it depends on the country of launch.

      See the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 which is international law.

      Jurisdiction is the responsibility of the launching state, accordingly.

    2. Re:Jurisdictions by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Being off-world, will they legally be able to host space gigolos?

      I guarantee there will be a casino on board...

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Jurisdictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw, that's no fun. I think jurisdiction should go to whatever country the space station is currently flying over. Just think, the travellers would get a new set of laws to follow every few minutes. :)

    4. Re:Jurisdictions by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Kinda like flying over Utah (where they stop serving drinks for a coupla hundred miles) ?

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  27. Nothing New by ravenspear · · Score: 2, Informative

    The lunar module in the Apollo missions had some parts of it's casing that were basically just aluminum foil. It can work if engineered right. In space conditions are much more uniform than on earth. You don't have to deal with high wind, precipitation, and a bunch of other stuff that can weaken structures easily.

    1. Re:Nothing New by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt it can work. I'm just saying i'm not sure i'd step in it.

    2. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some parts of it's casing

      "its".

  28. If I had that kind of money.... by ABeowulfCluster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    .. I'd spend it on women and booze.

    1. Re:If I had that kind of money.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that order?

  29. corssing my fingers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope the zero gravity doesn't make it too hard to refill the champagne bottles with water after using them.

  30. Nasa's had this idea in the 60's by big-giant-head · · Score: 1

    At the time the materials did'nt exist to do doit. With all the advances in material science, these inflatible things will probably be just as safe as International spacestation which has cost billions.

    --

    So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
  31. A lottery: by RM6f9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    $5 per ticket/chance, one number drawn per year, he'll have all the funds he needs to bridge the gap between the wealthy-only model and making space-flight as common-place as air travel is today.
    I'd buy a few tickets for that drawing...
    (a royalty check for the idea would not be refused, hint, hint)

    --
    Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
    1. Re:A lottery: by CuriousKangaroo · · Score: 1

      Buzz Aldrin is also a big proponent of lotteries for the "regular joe" to be able to get a flight on private space cruises.

      For example: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077906/

    2. Re:A lottery: by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The problem with this is that it must be done in places where lotteries are legal. And throughout most of the USA (at least) it is illegal, or at least only legal if it is state-sponsored.

      Now if it were done as a promotional sweepstakes (grand prize is a trip to orbit, lesser prizes include an Estes model rocket replica of the launch vehicle), it might be a little more acceptable. Since this is already being done with Virgin Galactic, I have no doubt you will see this for orbital travel in the future either.

      BTW, this is far from a new idea. In the story "The Man who Sold The Moon" by Robert A. Heinlein this was proposed by D. Delos Harriman as a way to help raise funds for his private lunar flight company.

      I think it was an old idea in SF even then. Sorry, you won't ever get a royalty check for this idea due to prior art. The only new thing is for somebody to actually do it now that private space flight is becoming something that can actually happen now.

  32. What do Cascading Style Sheets have to do with.... by TeeJS · · Score: 2, Funny

    Space Stations? I think the HTML Skywalker would be a better name!

  33. in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft announces Windows XP Space Edition...comes with new Zero G theme.

  34. okay, so building/leasing/renting orbital estates are all good fun.. but what about the fuel?

    I am mostly sure we're not going to use fossil fuel anymore for the traffic going up and down (or in and out, rather), but hydrogen and other alternatives still seem yet mature enough..

    I just hope we have found new (and potential) alternative fuel by the time space/orbital race traffic begins..

    1. Re:fuel by The+Grey+Clone · · Score: 1

      The first two thoughts that come to mind are Solar Energy and Nuclear Energy. We've really made great strides in Nuclear Safety, it should be easily deployable if they build encompassing it. However, Solar Energy seems like it would also be a good alternative. Because, you know... they're in space.

    2. Re:fuel by dthx1138 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      wtf are you talking about?

      Chemical rockets for spacecraft combine fuel (liquid hydrogen, hydrazine, kerosene, etc.) and oxidizer (liquid oxygen, n204, etc) to combust and produce thrust. These are not fossil fuels. they have nothing to do with petroleum.

      It sounds like you are talking about cars. Why the hell would we have cars in orbit?

      --
      I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
    3. Re:fuel by gordboy · · Score: 1

      That's a good point I haven't heard much talk about.

      OTOH I keep reading news about the space elevator http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57536, 00.html

      Carbon nanotubes may be the answer to ribbon strength and researchers keep coming up with ways to make them longer. Maybe by the time commercial space travel becomes viable we'll be spooling this stuff out like thread.

    4. Re:fuel by apostrophesemicolon · · Score: 1

      im talking about getting access to your said fuel ingredients when the need for them rises. With increased estates up there in the orbit, increased commute will be inevitable. What i was concerned about is the accessibility and availability of those things.

      If in fact these stuff are already available abundantly (or will be available abundantly--by 2010,according to the article), then pardon my ignorance.

    5. Re:fuel by dthx1138 · · Score: 1

      No, we aren't going to run out of hydrogen and oxygen any time soon.

      --
      I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
    6. Re:fuel by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Umm...kerosene is a petroleum product. Add to that, most hydrogen production comes from natural gas decomposition.

      Then, liquid oxygen is made in cryogenic plants that require electricity for compresors, and chances are thet energy comes from a fossil fuel powered station.

    7. Re:fuel by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Chemical rockets for spacecraft combine fuel (liquid hydrogen, hydrazine, kerosene, etc.) and oxidizer (liquid oxygen, n204, etc) to combust and produce thrust. These are not fossil fuels. they have nothing to do with petroleum.


      Kerosene is a fossil fuel, isn't it? And the other ingredients you mention are typically extracted using fossil fuels as ingredients and/or power sources... (not that that needs to remain the case forever)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    8. Re:fuel by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1
      wtf are you talking about?

      Chemical rockets for spacecraft combine fuel (liquid hydrogen... kerosene...

      Where do you think these come from in quantities large enough to launch a rocket?

      Hint: It's not derived from soy crops, geothermal power, tidal action generators, solar panels or windmills.
      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    9. Re:fuel by dthx1138 · · Score: 1

      yeah fine, kerosene is a fossil fuel, but hydrogen peroxide is not (also used as rocket fuel). and obtaining the liquid hydrogen through. "Commercial bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of natural gas" -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen yes, hydrogen is produced by using natural gas, which is more abundant than petrol products. the point is that launch vehichles are so low in consumption of these resources compared to the rest of the global economy that it makes no difference if we ramp us launch rates.

      --
      I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
    10. Re:fuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >These are not fossil fuels.

      I'm sure you're neither a geologist nor an organic chem professor.

    11. Re:fuel by dthx1138 · · Score: 1

      weak. how about a reply to my last post

      --
      I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
    12. Re:fuel by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      It's only a small fraction right now, but that's because space launches are exeedingly rare compared to plane trips or car trips. It does take millions of litres of fuel to launch a heavy rocket.

      Let's do the math if we have 2,500,000 space tourists a year (still limited to the upper class), and we manage to cram 25 people on a heavy rocket or heavy space plane (quite a stretch):

      That's 100,000 launches a year (plus maintenance launches). Let's say that each rocket takes about 2kT of fuel (not counting the oxidizer) to launch. 100,000 * 2kT = 200MT. A tonne is about 9 bbl (blue barrels, 42 US gallons), so that's about 1.8 billion barrels a year or about 5 million barrels per day. For reference, the US uses about 21 million barrels per day for all uses, and the world about 84 million barrels per day.

      Another way of looking at it is that a jumbo jet can hold about 100-200T of fuel, so a launch is about the same as 10-20 transcontinental jumbo jet flights. Per person, it's about 200-400 more fuel expensive.

    13. Re:fuel by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      The energy requirements are very similar to going from Chicago to Australia via jet. Currently, more than 2,500,000 people do that every year. Your example would be at least a $5B market, similar to the aforementioned route. I don't see that you have a point.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  35. It's all fun and games... by TheOriginalRevdoc · · Score: 1

    ...until it turns out to be a cover for a space-based laser system! Then he'll hold the world to ransom for... one meeellion dollars!

  36. It makes you wonder... by parasonic · · Score: 0, Redundant

    What happens if something goes wrong? How about a cloud of micrometeoriods zipping right through one of these inflatables? Could we be seeing our first recorded deaths in space?

    1. Re:It makes you wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Human deaths, plenty of animals were launched into space with no return.

    2. Re:It makes you wonder... by dthx1138 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      read the damn article. the skin is made of 18" thick woven materials like kevlar. micrometerorites will not penetrate it. and don't say "wouldn't a nice piece of metal work etc". look at bullet proof vests. are they made of slabs of steel?

      --
      I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
    3. Re:It makes you wonder... by dthx1138 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      just so you don't doubt me: "Ground-testing of Bigelow's MMOD has shown that it can stop impacts by 5/8-inch-diameter aluminum pellets fired at it at 6.4 kilometers a second, several times as fast as a rifle bullet. No rigid spacecraft design can match this performance, and it's one of the reasons Nautilus has an expected life span of at least 15 years."

      --
      I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
    4. Re:It makes you wonder... by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Informative
      How about RTFA?

      MicroMeteoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) shield - "Composed of five layers of graphite-fiber composites separated by foam spacers, the MMOD is the outermost section of Nautilus's hull. Schneider's crew's original TransHab design had more stopping power than did aluminum three inches thick. Ground-testing of Bigelow's MMOD has shown that it can stop impacts by 5/8-inch-diameter aluminum pellets fired at it at 6.4 kilometers a second, several times as fast as a rifle bullet. No rigid spacecraft design can match this performance, and it's one of the reasons Nautilus has an expected life span of at least 15 years."

    5. Re:It makes you wonder... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean by that. I would consider both the Columbia (7 dead) and Soyuz-11 (3 dead) "recorded deaths in space". Of course, you can quibble about definitions (i.e. is a death at launch a death in space?) - you might count as many as 22. This article is pretty definitive.

    6. Re:It makes you wonder... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >you might count as many as 22.

      Or as few as three, if you don't count launch accidents where the vehicle did not reach orbit, and don't count re-entry accidents where the vehicle is no longer in space at the time of the astronauts' death. And are we sure abut Soyuz-11?

      Not trying to be morbid or disrespectful at all, but it seems that space has been relatively safe, it's the stuff that happens near Earth and in the atmosphere that's dangerous.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    7. Re:It makes you wonder... by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1
      look at bullet proof vests. are they made of slabs of steel?
      Actually if you want a bullet proof vest rated to stop a rifle, yes. See Here
    8. Re:It makes you wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you citing a Wikipedia article from "Answers.com"? And note what the article itself says: "There has not been any in-flight natural death and only the crew of Soyuz 11 died while in space."

      On Answers.com: they describe themselves as

      Answers.com is a free, ad-supported, reference search service, created to provide you with instant answers on over a million topics. As opposed to standard search engines that serve up a list of links for you to follow, Answers.com displays quick, snapshot answers with concise, reliable information. Our editors take our content from over 100 authoritative encyclopedias, dictionaries, glossaries and atlases, carefully chosen for breadth and quality.

      Yeah, right. Looks to me as though they're just repackaging Wikipedia content and slapping ads on it.

    9. Re:It makes you wonder... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The article also mentions viewing the ocean and stars. What are the windows going to be made of? Seems like a significant weakness to me. I'll take along a "spare tire in a can", thanks.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  37. NASA already has by salemlb · · Score: 0, Redundant

    NASA looked into similar materials some time ago. In fact, I think this guy is using old NASA technology.

  38. THE GUY IS A WACKO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lunar tourism, sort of like nuclear fusion .. has always been 25 years away.

    It will never happen.

    1. Re:THE GUY IS A WACKO by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      unlike other wackos though, this guy actually has the cash to do it, he has the mock ups ready, and most importantly he has the desire to do it.

  39. Private Transhab by ducomputergeek · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Idea isn't new. The article mentions TransHab, which was a module that was supposed to be tested on the ISS in 2010, but was scrubbed in 2001 or 2002. The concept has been around NASA for a while. Its just going to be his private enterprise that launches and tests the idea not NASA.

    In many respects, NASA already laid a lot of the ground work for his idea.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    1. Re:Private Transhab by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

      "TransHab" was his. NASA was (or would have been) the customer, not the creator, of TransHab. They didn't "layout the ground work". It's like saying "That segway thing isn't so innovative--I read that the post office that almost bought a bunch of them."

      --MarkusQ

    2. Re:Private Transhab by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe Bigelow purchased the TransHab tech from NASA and hired several of their engineers. I could be wrong, though.

    3. Re:Private Transhab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA anyone? Oh that's right /. what am I thinking.

      Bigelow bought TransHab from NASA and has several exNASA/currentNASA engineers stopping by every few days/weeks/months to help out. The Project was dropped at NASA because of political motivations.

  40. Maybe it can absorb the impact by Stone316 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    With a rigid structure like the ISS there is no 'give' if an object hits it... But with an 'inflatable' structure maybe it can absorb more of the impact? I'm no engineer but if you punch a wall your going to break your hand. But if you punch one of those inflatable houses that you see at fairs (the ones kids jump around in) your hand is going to sink in.

    Obviously an object the size of a quarter traveling at tens of thousands of miles an hour may be a different story but maybe you can design these things so that they are strong enough to absorb the impact long enough to slow it down or 'push' you. Might be a bit bumpy in there but you might have a better chance of survival.

    Like I said, i'm no engineer.

    --
    "Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
    1. Re:Maybe it can absorb the impact by c4miles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The actual inflatable aspect of the habitat won't have any effect unless the incident object is travelling very slowly. It's only going to have 'bounce' if the walls have time to react during the collision, which is unlikely for most meteorite impacts - it's like that saying that water can be as hard as concrete if you hit it fast enough, there's no time for it to flow/deform away.

      On the other hand, the composite foam/graphite shield will provide a significant degree of protection - the kinetic energy of incident objects will be absorbed as those layers of foam and graphite are torn away from each other.

  41. Space Motel by Lurkey+Turkey · · Score: 1

    And now...(drum roll)... We bring you Levitt Station Town...
    "Where you get your ration of levitation"
    No pets allowed -- too messy...
    No picture hooks allowed -- too dangerous...
    A copy of "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" in every night table...

  42. I'm led to believe... by Valiss · · Score: 1

    (disclaimer) As I underatand it... (/disclaimer)

    NASA's budget is directly proportional to how much it thinks it'll need for whatever projects it has cooking - provided the current budget can sustain it (or not). In other words, if it's cheaper to build, their budget will be lowered, and what company wants less money?

    But correct me if I'm wrong!

    --

    -Valiss
  43. Moderate as Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are raining on my space parade.

  44. Doubtful by mixtape5 · · Score: 1

    I am a big Popular Science fan, I am even a subscriber. However, I dont think that this will actually happen. At least not by 2010. That is only 5 years away people.

    In each issue they have a "look at the old issues" section..errr page..many of those have talk of flying cars and the like, which still hasn't happend.

    I enjoy Popular Science and think they have interesting articles, but a lot of it is speculation and dreams. Both of which are good, but are not necissarily reality. One day we will have this kind of thing, but I highly doubt it will be in the next 5 years.

    --
    WoW: Scheod 70 orc warlock on Shadowmoon
    1. Re:Doubtful by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      However, I dont think that this will actually happen. At least not by 2010. That is only 5 years away people.

      The thing to keep in mind though is that Bigelow has been working on this already for several years. He already has full-scale structures built, tested, and currently sitting on the ground, and has already purchased launches for the smaller-scale prototypes.

  45. Anymore and she'll blow! by OmgTEHMATRICKS · · Score: 0, Funny

    Engineer: Cap'n, the engines have gone haywire and the navigational controls have hit the bucket! The nude orbital resort is floating towards URANUS!
    Captain: Engineer, if I wasn't busy getting a biometric distortion in my pants from staring at these naked green slave girls from Orion, I'd throw you out the airlock.

  46. I hereby nominate.... by imemyself · · Score: 1, Funny

    I hereby nominate Bill Gates and Darl McBride to test this first. In the mean time, lets put up some more space junk. :P

    --
    Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
  47. THE WHOLE POINT IS ZERO GRAVITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have enough gravity on the earth, leave to a pedantic /.'er to complain that there's no gravity on his space cruise.

  48. He has one big problem to sort out first by nounderscores · · Score: 2

    Licencing the name "Skywalker" and then having to deal with the fallout from Episode III.

    Oh and the inevitable "That's no moon! It's a space station!" jokes.

  49. Re:What do Cascading Style Sheets have to do with. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well... I guess it stands for Cascading Space Station.

  50. Skywalker? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    Let's call it the Villa Straylight instead.

    1. Re:Skywalker? by Jonathan · · Score: 1

      Freeside. Villia Straylight was in Freeside...

  51. Oblig. Star Wars by BashDot · · Score: 1

    That's no balloon... it's a space station!

  52. I'm glad he finally wised up. by flargleblarg · · Score: 1
    Popular Science has a cover feature on self-made billionaire and space enthusiast Robert Bigelow (who's been mentioned before on Slashdot). The article has new info on Bigelow's plans to launch a 'CSS Skywalker' orbital resort by 2010 and sell space habitats to others, such as scientists, manufacturers, Hollywood producers, and countries.
    I'm glad Bigelow finally wised up and ditched the name 'CSS Starkiller.'
    1. Re:I'm glad he finally wised up. by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      Is he from the south. doesn't CSS stand for Confederate State Ship.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  53. I don't understand why people want to go to space? by michaeldot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I mean, a formative childhood of Buck Rogers / Star Trek / Battlestar Galactica aside, what's so great about space? The real thing is not like that.

    It has an enormous impact on the body from the G force, gamma rays, muscle atrophy, and long term consequences. (Doesn't NASA advise astronauts to have children before going into space, due to the impact on reproductive DNA?)

    And when you're up there, aren't you just going to see what going to an IMAX theatre could show you, just in rather less comfort?

    I don't know, maybe I'm being unadventurous. Pioneering is cool and I wholeheartedly support the professionals going up there, but "space tourism," I'm just not sure I get it.

    I'm quite happy for the Neils and Buzzes of our time to do it for me.

  54. The Merrits of Inflatable Habitats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I am a mechanical engineering student at Texas A&M and have had Bill Schnieder (one of the former NASA engineers mentioned) as a professor. He hold a patent on inflatable space habitats, and was deeply involved in TransHab. I did a lot of work with inflatable space habitats while I was Dr. Scnieder's student for a year long senior design class. This is some amazing technology.

    An inflatable structure makes complete sense. For starters, it works around one of the major design constraints imposed by rocket launch, payload diameter. This enables you to create much higher working volumes inside your spacecraft. For a space hotel this is definitely a Good Thing.

    IIRC, Micrometeorite protection is better than on the current ISS modules. It works in a fundamentally different way. Several layers of a tough fiber are separated by expanding foam. When a projectile hits a layer of fibers, the fibers are so strong and hard that even though they break, they also break the projectile into smaller pieces. This dissipates a lot of energy. These pieces then move apart from each other and continue through the foam layer, hitting the next layer of fibers, but this time its several smaller, lower energy pieces each hitting a different part of the fabric, and being broken up again. This is ingenious, you essentially "divide and conquer" the incoming impact energy until your "bulletproof" fiber stop the projectile fragments completely.

    The vessel cannot (ok, should not) pop like a balloon. The bladder layer is made up of a very tough polymer that is not very notch sensitive. A hole does not mean a critical failure is immanent. The plastic will probably yield slightly around the hole, but should not tear catastrophically. This leaves a hole about the size of the debris, and a slow leak that can be repaired. The bladder is supported by a network of high strength straps that actually carry the load. Think about putting a huge garbage bag of water in a hammock and then filling it with water. Normally, the bag might break under the weight of the water, but the netting of the hammock is carrying the structural load, while the bag is primarily containing the fluid. Poke it with a pin and you would get a leak. Same principle with the inflatable space habitat.

    As far as radiation goes, semicrystaline polyethylene is actually pretty good at stopping the lower energy stuff. It would be comparable to what was on the lunar lander, and what is available for spacesuits. Add water, like they seem to suggest, and it can only get better. I would still probably want to hide from a solar storm, though.

  55. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by paganizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ok.
    How's this then: put up your habitat, then give it about 1/6th G equivalent spin.
    Many, many people have thought it likely that reduced gravity will extend the human lifetime signifigantly, like maybe even a 50% increase.
    Reduced gravity would also make some of the problems the elderly face less of a bother; getting around would be MUCH easier.
    If someone puts something like this up, I can easily see the upper-class elderly (who are capable of making the trip) putting there $$$ into a trust to pay for their living in orbit.
    And, when their money runs out, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to send them back to 1 G, so you can just shove 'em out the airlock.

    --
    Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
  56. NASA=16billion, DRUGS=1000billion by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    The amount of money spent on space/nasa etc. is real real real tiny, its pittyfull.

    Imagine if drugs were legal and we could tax the 1-2trillion industry to fund space (oh wait the politicos will just use it for more 'administration' buildings )

    But compared to other stuff thats wasted, defence+drugs = 100 years of nasa $$$$ per year.

    Where are the people with guts and glory? It seams like we have too much crud to pay for (old people + expensive insurance + medical costs) that suck up the usefull resource. If only lawyers+doctors+insurance+medical was much cheaper and better organized like other industries we could lower the costs.

    Maybe we should go back to old models where we made STUFF THAT LASTED, rather stuff that broke easy and its cheaper to replace it, maintance on a massive scale, road works etc... is sucking up the dollars that could be used better.

    We basically need to redesign society, since incremental changes just dont work. Theres too many people/industries in the loop getting kickbacks and commisions. Once 50% of the people in the loop are currupt, you cannot 'vote' for a change can you. Everyone is too greedy.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:NASA=16billion, DRUGS=1000billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like YOU are the one that spent 1000billion on drugs.

  57. living in florida is a bigger risk by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Dude, how many people live in florida when they know
    they get hurricanes every year that could really kill you. No one goes, "oh its too risky, lets live in the mountains".

    People drive to work, yet 50000 die each year.

    Wakeup, theres risk in everything, but as long as everything is checked and you are carefull, it should be fine, so big deal if an accident happens, you could have died in 12months due to some cancer anyway or slipped in the shower.

    Get over this "its too risky" sad ass pussys, stop being like a granny.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  58. Interstellar phone service? by mveloso · · Score: 1

    How are people going to make calls from there?

    Is there signal?

    Imagine what the per-minute rates will be.

    1. Re:Interstellar phone service? by I7D · · Score: 1

      Its a million dollars per ticket for the trip, I doubt anybody's going to complain too much about phone charges.

      --
      Neil is that you? Yeah yeah, it's me... Neil...
    2. Re:Interstellar phone service? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a fuck. I'm sold.

  59. Possibly the Chinese government by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Given that this structure has been receiving more support and interest lately, why has no government (especially NASA) looked at it for building a space station?

    According to this article, there have been some negotiations with the Chinese government. I believe the docking module is already being designed to fit with a Chinese Shenzhou spacecraft.

    From the article:

    China is eyeing participation in new privately funded U.S. space ventures, such as the Bigelow Aerospace inflatable habitat for biotech or other space-business endeavors.

    A Chinese role in these ventures could challenge the U.S. government to focus more attention on space cooperation with China. This is especially so, since the U.S. State Dept. would have to rule on such commercial cooperation. ...

    China Great Wall Industries managers recently visited Bigelow facilities in Nevada. They sounded out the company on the possible launch of Bigelow test or operational modules on Long March boosters or the in-orbit support of Nautilus by Shenzhou Chinese manned spacecraft.

    The Chinese are also planning to develop their own small space station, which could theoretically provide orbital infrastructure for the docking of a Nautilus inflatable.

    "We talked to the Chinese on a confidential basis, and they indicated they are thinking seriously of opening their program to space commercialization," said Robert T. Bigelow, president and founder of the company. ...

    An entrepreneur who made his fortune as the founder of Budget Suites of America, along with other real estate deals, Bigelow is personally financing the module development, costing several tens of millions of dollars. He has not had detailed discussions with the Chinese, and has talked more with the Russians about potential Soyuz in-orbit and launch support. But he also said there's an "opportunity for America" in cooperating with the Chinese space program, and he disagrees with what he regards as the current negative U.S. policy toward such cooperation.

  60. Nuclear Rockets ! by serutan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Good chance to slip in a plug for heavy lift rockets powered by Gas Core Nuclear Reactor engines. Here is a really interesting design for a fully reusable, non-polluting nuclear rocket based on the Saturn-V form factor, which could lift 1000 tons of cargo into Earth orbit (for comparison, the Space Shuttle can carry 30 tons) and return to a soft landing. It's a fully reusable spaceship that could haul up entire resort hotels (not just "inflatable modules") in a single trip.

    Another great use for GCNR rockets would be interplanetary trips such as a Mars mission. Their cargo capacity would allow for a tremendous amount of supplies and equipment. Transit time would be half that of a conventional ship, reducing the effects of prolonged zero-gee and cosmic radiation exposure, and a host of other problems. The ability to make a powered landing on Mars would eliminate the need for an aerobraking system, Apollo-style lander/return combination or other engineering. The crew could fly there, land, take off and return home in a single vehicle, just like in all those old black and white space movies.

    1. Re:Nuclear Rockets ! by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1
      Wow, that was a really really good and interesting article... if I had mod points I'd mod parent up.

      It's an awesome idea, but it'd cost so much to develop that no government would want to do it. Never mind the fact that once it gets built, it would make so much money hauling up cargo so fast that it'd pay for itself in no time.

      What kind of money are we talking about here? I'm guessing maybe $100 billion total, from development to prototype to working cargo-hauler. We should've just done that instead of going to Iraq........

    2. Re:Nuclear Rockets ! by wes33 · · Score: 1

      priorities are a funny thing: America evidently prefers to be bogged down in a long and intractable war in Iraq rather than securing exclusive and complete control of the Solar System!

    3. Re:Nuclear Rockets ! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      What would be an interesting play of diplomacy is if Iran started using this as a model to advance their own nuclear agenda. To take Islam into space, on nuclear rockets. Come to think about it, NASA is looking for some ways to test out dangerous experiments without alarming its tax base. This just might work to both countries advantage.

    4. Re:Nuclear Rockets ! by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      What kind of money are we talking about here? I'm guessing maybe $100 billion total, from development to prototype to working cargo-hauler.

      Coincidentally, that's also about how much the International Space Station has cost.

    5. Re:Nuclear Rockets ! by Sinner · · Score: 1

      You've just got one problem here. You used that word. The N-word. No, the other one. The one President Bush can't pronounce. You can't use that word. You need a nice, smiley, happy name for it. How about the iRocket?

      --
      fish and pipes
    6. Re:Nuclear Rockets ! by serutan · · Score: 1

      "I'm guessing maybe $100 billion total"

      I would guess more like 1/10th of that. Most of the technology already exists. But suppose it did cost $100 billion. Complying with the U.S. income tax system costs between $100 and $500 billion per year, depending on whose estimates you believe. That takes into account the IRS's 100,000+ employees and the veritable army of non-govt people whose careers revolve around paying and avoiding income tax. Given that we throw away that kind of money each and every year just on bookkeeping overhead, you wouldn't think a space program that spanned many years would cause a big stir.

  61. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't understand why people want to go to space?

    For the same reasons Europeans colonized the Americas:

    1. Economic. Asteroids contain tons of minerals. The Moon's surface contains large quantities of He3 (although an efficient method of mining it as yet to be invented), and its low (relative to Earth) gravity well and lack of atmosphere makes it easier to get things into space. (The first Space Elevator may be built from the Moon to (actually, through) the Earth-Moon Lagrange point (L1, I think) out of material mined from asteroids.

    2. Political. It used to be that one could get away from government interference by moving to a place on the Earth where there was no government. There is no place on Earth where that is the case any more. Once space travel becomes more commonplace, humans will be able to move to the asteroid belt, then to the Kipur Belt, to avoid governmental interference, or to set up their own governments without interference from more established governments. (My guess is that planets and moons will be brought under the control of large governments, and will thus be unsuited for colonization by freedom-loving peoples.)

    and, probably most important, from a human spirit point of view,
    3. Because it's there.

  62. Working Transhab Module by Teancum · · Score: 1

    What is really sad is that the module was actually built and tested by NASA. The only real reason why it won't go on the ISS is because NASA doesn't want to send the Shuttle mission up to put it there. I would agree that there are other modules that need to be added first, but this would make a huge difference to the quality of life for the astronauts that are there trying to man the ISS, and looks like it could be used even now at the moment to the benefit of the folks who are up there right now.

  63. popular comix by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Popular Science is the comic book of science magazines. Even their most realistic articles have only a very minimal amount of reality in them.

    Generally each story is written like a typical fox news sound bite ... to grab the attention of whatever dumbass will stop to stare at the dead puppies inside.

    The fact that its a lead story in this magazine pretty much gaurantees it wont be happening anywhere near as soon as what was written.

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    1. Re:popular comix by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Last year Aviation Week & Space Technology had a detailed article on Bigelow Aerospace. I don't believe I've ever heard somebody refer to them as a pulp rag by any means.

  64. Too bad, you should read more by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative
    This technology WAS developed by NASA during the 1990s. He bought the rights to in 2000.

    While I think that he can do what NASA no longer is allowed to do (take major chances with lives), you have to give the credit to who researched and developed it. This guy is simply moving to production with it. But I hope that he can really start the space drive.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Too bad, you should read more by tjic · · Score: 1, Insightful
      This guy is simply moving to production with it.

      I will never understand the mindset of someone who thinks that brainstorming is the hard part, and DOING something is "simple".

      I - like most other smart people I know - have dozens of ideas a day, and a really good one every week or month.

      ...yet, in the last decade, I've actually pushed three or so of these through to full implementation - business plan, customer base, capital, code release, etc.

      The Devil is in the details.

      I am not at all impressed by someone who "comes up with a great idea".

      I bow down before the person who IMPLEMENTS and DELIVERS.

      Tone down the "simply moving to production" ivory tower attitude.

    2. Re:Too bad, you should read more by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      NASA did more than idea stage. NASA built several of these and was moving to use these in space. One of the problems was that it was perceived to be competition for the space station. That is why is was all but givin away. Now bigelow is setting up manufactuering. That is, mass production. In addition, he will run it as a hotel business.

      Bigelow has made his billions building and running a motel chain. That means that he knows how to market and manage the operation once in orbit. He has also ran several manufactuering businesses, IIRC. Bigelow's only real issue was securing inexpensive access to space.

      I have worked on 6 start-ups. Several have been moderately successful while others died. It is hard to pull these off. In fact, I am working on my first one to do manufactuering. So I more than appreciate what Bigelow is up to. But you have to give the credit to NASA for what they did and continue to do.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Too bad, you should read more by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll bite. How does one buy rights to property that is owned by the people of the United States. My, Our taxes paid for it. Now if this guy wants to rent time at the 'Cape, that's a horse of a different nature.

    4. Re:Too bad, you should read more by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      NASA, under bush iirc, sold all the rights including patents to this, lock, stock, and barrel. Personally, I am fine with this asusming that he really gets it going. NASA, while loaded with huge talent, is loaded down with politicians. witness columbia and how long it has taken to come back. Even with apollo one, we were launching again in 9 months. Best thing that can happen is to privatize and allow NASA to do what it does best; Cutting edge research.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  65. actually yes... by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

    Bullet proof vests that resist rifle fire are made with a slab of steel. Kevlar vests alone are only good for handguns and indirect damage.

    Not that this has anything to do with space hotels.

  66. Safe nasa? by slashbart · · Score: 1

    2 lost space shuttles on some 100 flights isn't safe by any means.

  67. Re:BAEJKLALKFJKDFJ WJLKAH HAHAH AHA by Elranzer · · Score: 1

    Oh please, PLEASE.... just one "In Soviet Russia..." joke. Please!!

  68. So... by Yaro · · Score: 2, Funny

    So..... When are we going to visit the people on other planets and scare them off by randomly appearing in the sky ? :p

  69. Water bag leaks ... by DrJimbo · · Score: 1
    Also, there is of course, the initial radiation expsosure while they're installing the shields. And lets hope those water bags dont leak, too.

    You don't have to worry about the water bags ... they will be made by Dow Corning.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
  70. windows indeed! by rgravina · · Score: 1

    You'll find this listed as one of the technologies used in the inflatable modules: "Windows, a difficult integration and seal challenge." Yes, it certainly is!

  71. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You can only dream of political freedom in space colonies... parallel with euroamerican history is not in order - America had self-sustaining potential (and own native people who knew ways of survival in it) from the begining of the colonisation, while space colonies have to rely on some sort of "umbilical cord" (a "Space Bridge" operation) connecting them to Earth.

    When thinking Moon, think Antarctica, not America. Hypothetic Moon colony may make significant savings in space works for Earth, but it will never get to an breakeven point or become completely self-sustainable.

    Countries investing in building of Moon colony will not willfuly grant political independence to it and "the people of Moon" have everything to lose by isolating themself from "Mother Earth". Unlike Americans, they will not have enemy of their enemy to support them with contraband (as French did against English...ooups, there... I said it!).

    The history teaches us that there is no lastingly powerful nation without strong production of food (in the case of space souvereignities, this principle expands to all life-support nescecities: oxygen, water, food).

    We still don't posses technology to produce anything out there using only energy supply (which is logical choice of first problem to be solved) and whatever material there is.

    Even if that problems worked out, there is no way to support surface structures in the long run, not without atmospheric protection from small space objects hammering them. That means you cannot make greenhouses needed to recycle (complement) animal (human) life byproducts (CO2 and... whatever), because they will not last under frequent meteor hits. Burrying them to safe depth cuts off natural light supply, putting additional burden on power budget of the colony.

  72. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by uberdave · · Score: 1

    I agree with most of your post. However...

    While we do not have the tech now, we will never develop it unless we try. My first suggestion would be to bag a comet, literally. Find a smallish comet and wrap it in a giant plastic bag. Vent the gas released by the comet to bring it into a circular orbit. As the ices that make up the comet melt away, they can be refined into water, and propellant.

    As for meteor hits, and burying stuff to keep them safe, you can redirect sunlight with mirrors. Nothing critical needs to be exposed.

  73. The real worry... by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not worried about the strength of inflatable modules: any space station is basically an inflated balloon and if it gets a puncture bad enough to effect rigidity you've got bigger problems than wobbly walls ... like learning to breathe vacuum in a hurry.

    No, I'm worried about this sudden indtroduction of inflatable technology from the future. Doctor Schlock from Sluggy Freelance isn't involved, is he?

  74. Pros & Cons by mikehilly · · Score: 1

    Ok, no one is doubting the the view is great. But the commute definately sucks! This is a really cool idea, but for right now it is out of the reach of most people. Quoting everyone else, "Maybe by the end of my lifetime..."

  75. What will you pack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget to pack your inflatible doll to accompany you in your inflatible module.

  76. Re:What do Cascading Style Sheets have to do with. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have this sad feeling that there will be 70's era posters on all the cabins from the SW episodes IV, V, and VI.

    I suppose it could be set up to be a theme space hotel. How about your entertainment system being a HAL9000 look-a-like.

  77. Titanic? by lxt · · Score: 1

    "I'd be impressed if he was successful, but he doesn't need to succeed. He just needs to get closer than anyone else ever has."

    Do you remember the Titanic as:

    a) The largest steam ship of it's type at the time.

    b) The biggest sailing disaster of its kind at the time.

    c) A poor film ...I think most people remember the Titanic as a disaster, not as an engineering triumph...same with other transport ideas...

    1. Re:Titanic? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      You only think of the disaster. Some engineer saw it, looked at the problems that lead to the disaster, solved them, and built an even bigger ship that was safer.

      Even if this guy fails, someone else will come along and 'stand on the shoulders of giants' and succeed.

  78. What's a night? by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

    He is actively engaged in an effort to build the planet's first orbiting space hotel. Bargain-basement room rate: $1 million a night.

    The real question is what is a night? The 90 minute orbit in which the sun sets and rises for the module? Or a 24 hour period?

  79. So Retro by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    It just like the Popular Science cover of 50 years ago with the flying car on it!

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  80. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by Meumeu · · Score: 1

    Moon colonies would also have another big issue: as a moon day is 28 earth days, i'm not sure crops would like that, even if they do, you have to store energy during the day for the night.
    Actually an orbital space station with pseudo gravity is much more practical, there have several designs under study:
    Torus
    Cylinder
    Sphere
    And also some stuff from the NASA

  81. That's nothin' by Gadgetfreak · · Score: 1

    compared to my 89 year old secretary. I work at Electric Boat, where we design and build nuclear submarines. She's been here for every nuclear submarine built, not to mention bearing witness to all the other technological advancements.
    I doubt she'll live to see space habitation... but that's a pretty impressive run.

    And no, I'm not kidding. I'll post the desk phone number, if I have to.

    --
    "No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
  82. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by Xorath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would say it has a lot to do with the adventure of it. How many people who aren't professionals climb mountains and go kayaking down dangerous rivers? The sense of adventure and pioneering as you put it is alive and well in a great many people and I for one would love to simply have the chance to experience the beauty of seeing earth from space. A picture or an IMAX movie simple do not capture the grandeur and raw beauty.

    Some people never leave the town that they were born in; others barely stay long enough in one place to become familiar with it. There are all types on this ball of rock we call home and as soon as it's realistically possible people will want to leave here for space and beyond. It's not surprising that entrepreneurs are trying to make this a reality to make some money.

    That is of course ignoring the physiological benefits to extending life and ensuring the survival of the species by spreading to more than one planet.

  83. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by Vraylle · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.

    I simply HAD to respond to this sig. I mean, I thought I was the only one!

    --
    Mutant Freaks of Nature: "Frighteningly Addictive"
  84. Now for reality by amightywind · · Score: 1

    The habitats will be made of inflatable modules with multilayered kevlar-like walls. A prototype habitat will be launching on a SpaceX Falcon V next year.

    SpaceX progress to date on their Falcon booster is not consistent with launching a large space station in 5 years. We can start talking about this when they have lofted large payload to LEO, say 25000lbs. They haven't even launched a small rocket yet. Inflatable modules are a bad idea for space stations for the obvious reason that they can fail catastrophically if torn. Traditional rigid pressure vessels will not. After the experience 2 Shuttle disasters and near misses on the Mir space station. I hope rational engineering and design practices will be adhered to.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Now for reality by jeff4747 · · Score: 1
      Inflatable modules are a bad idea for space stations for the obvious reason that they can fail catastrophically if torn.

      RTFA.

      "Composed of five layers of graphite-fiber composites separated by foam spacers, the MMOD is the outermost section of Nautilus's hull. Schneider's crew's original TransHab design had more stopping power than did aluminum three inches thick. Ground-testing of Bigelow's MMOD has shown that it can stop impacts by 5/8-inch-diameter aluminum pellets fired at it at 6.4 kilometers a second, several times as fast as a rifle bullet. No rigid spacecraft design can match this performance, and it's one of the reasons Nautilus has an expected life span of at least 15 years."

      All spacecraft are inflatable modules, the only difference being how rigid their skin is. Rigid pressure vessels can be torn and fail castastrophically when struck by a meteorite. To demonstrate this on Earth, stab an empty aluminum can with a knife. You'll be able to easily tear the aluminum.

  85. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by NardofDoom · · Score: 2
    Three words: Zero. Gravity. Sex.

    Of course, I wouldn't expect the average slashdotter to understand that, either.

    --
    You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
  86. Family Guy Quote: by caveat · · Score: 1

    The guys are at a laser show with an atrium exhibit called "The Wonders of Technology", featuring exhibits like VR and meals-in-a-pill. One exhibit is titled "The Wonders of Electricity", and is just an old man standing by a lamp, switching it on and off.

    Old Man: "What, you people aren't amazed by this? When I saw this at the 1906 World's Fair, I almost crapped my pants!"

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  87. Not exactly pantyhose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Inflatable modules are a bad idea for space stations for the obvious reason that they can fail catastrophically if torn. Traditional rigid pressure vessels will not.

    They're not making them out of thin mylar or shear stocking nylon. And what makes aluminium any better? Never seen anyone tear an aluminum can? They've also got a ceramic layer. Same material they add to combat flack vests to stop rifle rounds.

    Go read the earlier post on the testing of the material where it fares much better against simulated strikes by orbital debris than the traditional aluminum space structures.

    1. Re:Not exactly pantyhose by amightywind · · Score: 1

      Can you say Hindenburg?

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    2. Re:Not exactly pantyhose by jeff4747 · · Score: 1
      Can you say Hindenburg?

      What does an airship that cought fire have to do with an inflatable space module?

      The Hindenburg burned. It did not explode. It's skin did not fail due to a puncture, it failed because it burned. It burned so intensely because the skin was waterproofed with a chemical later used for rocket fuel.

    3. Re:Not exactly pantyhose by amightywind · · Score: 1

      What does an airship that cought fire have to do with an inflatable space module?

      Hmm, Hindenburg was inflated, an inflatable space module is inflated. What could I have been thinking?

      The Hindenburg burned. It did not explode. It's skin did not fail due to a puncture, it failed because it burned. It burned so intensely because the skin was waterproofed with a chemical later used for rocket fuel.

      LOL! I wonder what you define as an explosion to be? So the gazillion cubic feet of H2 burned did it? H2 is the most powerful chemical rocket fuel known, numb nuts.

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    4. Re:Not exactly pantyhose by jeff4747 · · Score: 1
      Hmm, Hindenburg was inflated, an inflatable space module is inflated. What could I have been thinking?

      Obviously you weren't. A latex ballon at a birthday party is also inflated, and yet it has nothing to do with the Hindenburg, or an inflatable space module. In fact, a 747 is inflated too, we just use the term "presurized" instead. Yet it's got nothing to do with the Hindenburg.

      So the gazillion cubic feet of H2 burned did it?

      Yep, it did. Watch the footage sometime, and you can watch the H2 burn. It's the fireball ABOVE the airship, burning with far less intensity than the fabric of the airship. It's pretty hard to see since it's much more faint than the burning fabric, and rapidly rising out of frame.

      And no, burning H2 is not the most powerful rocket fuel. It just happens to be very efficient when used in a rocket for other reasons. There are other chemicals that release far more energy when burned. We call some of them "explosives".

      If H2 was as powerful as you think, then we'd all be driving H2-powered cars (not fuel cells, burning H2 in an internal combustion engine). Instead, we're burnging gasoline because it releases much more energy when burned per mole.

    5. Re:Not exactly pantyhose by argent · · Score: 1

      The Hindenburg burned [...] so intensely because the skin was waterproofed with a chemical later used for rocket fuel.

      Indeed.

      It was basically painted with thermite.

  88. Self-made? by cwgmpls · · Score: 0, Troll

    Is a person who makes billions of dollars in a society that passes tax breaks off to the wealthy while severely under-funding education and providing inadequate healthcare to the middle class truly "self-made"? Didn't his billions in wealth come about partly by denying basic social needs to low- and middle-class Americans? Is this how Americans want the wealth spent -- wealth that has been created by the hard work of all of us?

    1. Re:Self-made? by togofspookware · · Score: 1

      That is a good point, but at least this guy is doing something cool with his money instead of just buying 50 swimming pools.

      --
      Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
    2. Re:Self-made? by cwgmpls · · Score: 0

      I don't object to him accumulating wealth or care that much what he does with his money. But I object to characterizing his wealth as "self-made". The wealth he has accumulated has been made by all of us, not by him alone.

  89. Orbital Spaceflight's Killer App by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    The killer app for spaceflight and orbital hotels is sex, my friends. Zero G, bounce off of the ceiling and invent new positions sex.

    NASA is a collection of southern Methodists, historically. They NEVER talk about sex. We had a husband and wife team in orbit on the Shuttle over ten years back. Since there hasn't been any public record of Russians gettin' some on those long stays in the Salyut, the world record was ripe for the taking if the crew had given the couple some privacy. Never heard of it later, so I assume Americans kept their well-deserved title for Puritan respectabilty.

    The primary business model for orbital hotels is SEX SEX SEX. And I still haven't heard a peep from reporters about this. The record for first man-woman sex in orbit is open for the taking!

    1. Re:Orbital Spaceflight's Killer App by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The record is long taken. Another bit of the space race the Russians did first! Source

      Also, you do not need a woman for sex.

    2. Re:Orbital Spaceflight's Killer App by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      " The record is long taken. Another bit of the space race the Russians did first! Source"

      THANKS! I've always wanted some info about Sex in Space. However, it still begs the question as to anyone has claimed the hetero OR homosexual flag. The Russian man and woman in question were both married to other people, and would not confess the adultery, so no official record there. And no gay astronauts have leapt forward for the prize, either, so the Grand Prize of First Coupling in Space is still (publically and officially) open for all comers. Um.

      "Also, you do not need a woman for sex."

      I covered my ass thusly:
      "The record for first man-woman sex in orbit is open for the taking!"

  90. Hmm, I didn't know you... by caveat · · Score: 1

    ...had a fungineering degree!

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  91. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by igny · · Score: 1

    Actually, there should be people willing to pay lots of money for the marriage in space as well as the honeyweek.
    Don't captains of the ships (also spaceships) have an automatic right to marry people?

    --
    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
  92. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Funny
    Reduced gravity would also make some of the problems the elderly face less of a bother; getting around would be MUCH easier.

    Of course, that whole 8G launch thing might be hell on the ol' osteoporotic hips. I hope your space station includes an infirmary with "Below the waste amputations while you wait!" coupons.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  93. Lazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or maybe you're lazy like me. I'd gladly put up with one 4G space launch to spend the rest of my life in zero-G. You could eat a whole turkey with one hand, or lift a pony keg to your lips. I'm just about as fat as I can get at the bottom of this gravity well, but let me get into space and *WOOT!*

  94. oblig. CSS joke by LuxFX · · Score: 1

    CSS Skywalker: Jedi Style Sheets! Cool!

    You have a font-weight of bold...
    You have a background-color of #EEE...

    --
    Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
  95. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by Creepy · · Score: 1

    why would you go anywhere? I mean, I saw lots of pictures of the grand canyon before I went there, but I went there anyway.

    sometimes it makes sense to go somewhere else - I certainly enjoyed near-perfect weather in Hawaii last year when it was freezing cold at home, but I also road tripped to Arizona in the summer to sear in 105F+ (~41C) heat to see the aformentioned grand canyon (again, 'cause I saw it as a kid, too).

    What I got out of the article was basically this is a rich kid fantasy - $1 million per day (or was it per voyage? - article is slashdotted and my pop sci is at home) is a tad out of my league unless Lance Bass wants to spot me a few thousand Gs.

  96. You guys go first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll stay right here on earth. Get back to me in 20 years so I can examine you to see what the cosmic rays and other radiation has done to your body. Inflatable kevlar... sort of like using a brown paper bag to stop a bullet. A good blast from the sun and your toast.

  97. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

    two words:

    space sex

    c'mon- you know you want to try it. it'd beat the mile high club any day. and any girl who's willing to do it just might be geeky enough to dig slashdotters :)

    watch out for those bodily fluids floating around though... eeewwww!

  98. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by MindStalker · · Score: 1

    Well potentially you can find some government willing to trade food stuff for minerals. Though eventaully you may have a colony on a teraformed Mars that doesn't rely upon Earth whatsoever. Of course there will be huge fights over the fact that Earth governments spend X trillians of dollars Terraforming and they feel they own it then.

  99. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by cloakes · · Score: 2, Informative

    You are refering almost verbatum to Heinlein's novels: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls.

    The latter is about a geriatric couple living in a reduced G space environment while collecting pensions. While the former has much detail regarding traversing between 1G and 1/6 G environments.

  100. rather than a "simple" orbiting habitat ... by constantnormal · · Score: 1

    ... why not something a bit more grandiose?

    Let's take the basic notion of inflatable tubular balloons -- they need not be quite so sophisticated as those described in the article -- something on the order of 300 m long and 10 m in diameter would suffice.

    Take a number of these (say, a hundred or so) and tie them together using carbon nanotube "rope" into a sheet which is then rolled into a larger cylinder and the whole shebang spun to simulate microgravity. Now you've got a structure big enough to do something with.

    And instead of an orbiting habitat, a hotel for the super-rich, go ahead and make it a bit more mobile. It's going to require some sort of propulsion system to maintain/adjust its orbit. Why not go ahead and give it enough mobility to take a "slow-boat" orbit out around the Moon and back? Throw in a casino, and you have a really classy cruise liner.

    Think big -- like a government (or bigger yet, like a multinational corporation) -- it's not your money being spent, is it?

  101. Re:Orbital Spaceflight's Killer App- internet pr0n by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1

    With the kind of numbers they are looking at, using space for a new genre of internet porn should be viable in 5-15 years. The space prize Bigelow is funding is $50 million. That's less than the budget for spiderman 3.

  102. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by Vraylle · · Score: 1

    And my thanks for the person that modded this down as offtopic from it's unjustly lofty score of 1.

    --
    Mutant Freaks of Nature: "Frighteningly Addictive"
  103. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by paganizer · · Score: 1

    we're a persecuted minority; most people just don't understand it's possible to love the 1st and 2nd amendment equally, either.

    --
    Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
  104. Lets Consider the Math of This by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Is there a mathmatical model to represent a circular tube like object rotating in space that can simulate a 1/nth gravity? I'm thinking its a use of Interial Energy, but what is going to cause me to be 'pushed' to the 'floor' if I should happern to jump and inch or two? I'm thinking along the lines of velcro shoes to make this work.

    1. Re:Lets Consider the Math of This by Dastardly · · Score: 1

      Well, when you are on the floor you are moving in the direction the floor is spinning. So, when you jump up you continue to move in that direction and the floor is rotating in the same direction and up relative to you, so you will return to the floor. Depending on the radius of rotation and some other factors, you may noticeably not fall back to where you jumped. The trick isn't to jump up the trick is to jump in such a way that you cancel all the horizontal motion imparted to your body from your feet being on the rotating floor such that you hover while the floor moves under you. While an interesting thought experiment, since people typically live in rooms with walls contact with the wall could be somewhat violent.

  105. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by mapmaker · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It's all coming together for me now:

    1: Bush is pushing for expanded funding for NASA, even as he cuts all other domestic spending.

    2: Bush is claiming there is a Social Security crises because we'll soon have too many old people collecting and not enough young people paying.

    BUSH WANTS TO JETTISON ALL OUR OLD PEOPLE INTO SPACE!

  106. Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

    And, when their money runs out, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to send them back to 1 G, so you can just shove 'em out the airlock.

    Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.

    I'm a libertarian too, but this was just too funny to pass up.

    --
    In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  107. Proprietary advanced aerospace materials? by bcattwoo · · Score: 1
    lightweight but extremely strong and long-lived inflatable "soft goods" to form modules made of proprietary advanced aerospace materials

    I prefer to wait for the open source inflatable space station.

  108. Or, for star wars fans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That really is no moon!!