Slashdot Mirror


First Commercial Space Tourism Company

uberdave writes "The Canadian Arrow team (one of the contenders for the Ansari X-Prize) has joined forces with Dr. Chirinjeev Kathuria, a leading American entrepreneur, to form a new corporation called Planetspace. The goal of the company is to make space flight available to the public within 24 months. Geoff Sheerin, President of Canadian Arrow, says that Planetspace has entered final discussions with partners who will establish a reality television show set in space, and with a company to hold an international lottery with space flight prizes. Planetspace expects to fly almost 2,000 new astronauts in the first five years of flying. Fares will start at USD $250,000 for a suborbital flight, including fourteen days training."

117 comments

  1. What about Virgin? by Total_Wimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This may be interesting, but these guys are definately not the first.

    TW

    1. Re:What about Virgin? by peculiarmethod · · Score: 0

      really? I can't find my space lotto ticket anywhere.. do you have the numbers of the last drawing?

      *grumble*

      I always lose the paper..

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    2. Re:What about Virgin? by peculiarmethod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      incidentally.. you should know that America's finances during it's inception were secured thanks to a lotto. That, and extreme trust in the value of the newly printed money. (they gave up relying on english monies for various reasons, including taxation and govt control) Lottos are the very reason gambling is next to legal in most states these days. It's very profitable, and it WILL ensure the survival of this company if they can secure the safety in technology and insurance. Watch.

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    3. Re:What about Virgin? by oniony · · Score: 3, Informative

      Virgin Galactic was founded sometime last year.

      http://www.virgingalactic.com/en/

      --

      Powered by onion juice.

    4. Re:What about Virgin? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative
      This may be interesting, but these guys are definately not the first.

      Virgin Galactic was founded sometime last year.

      And MirCorp (who organized Tito's flight) sometime quite before that.
    5. Re:What about Virgin? by jfoust · · Score: 1

      And MirCorp (who organized Tito's flight) sometime quite before that.

      Actually, Dennis Tito's flight to the ISS was brokered by Space Adventures, not MirCorp. (Tito originally signed on with MirCorp, which was to fly him to Mir, but had to change plans when Russia decided to scuttle Mir. There is still some dispute between the two companies as to who should get credit for the deal.) Space Adventures also arranged Mark Shuttleworth's ISS flight a year later. The company has been around since the late 90s.

  2. Hot Air? by guyfromindia · · Score: 1

    The amount of hot air that this 'news' has, is enough to give space tourism a big boost! :) *laugh*

    1. Re:Hot Air? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah!! this is so funny - I mean, how many trips have they had so far?.....

      I can almost see one of our sales guy's saying this (and it has'nt been pretty in the past)...

  3. Better Things to do with $250,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Better Things to do with $250,000, Like buy a fricking house.

    1. Re:Better Things to do with $250,000 by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1

      man I can't even get a condo for that kinda money...

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    2. Re:Better Things to do with $250,000 by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of the ridiculously rich that can't spend their money fast enough, and if going on a little rocket trip gives them a trill, then more power to them. Not really sure if there enough with the desire for something like this to fill 400 seats a year, not to mention that once it's been done the desirability would definitely plummit among the uber-rich (why go on a sub-orbital flight if 1200 of your peers already have? Instead you'd pooh pooh it and say that's so last year).

      Imagine what life insurance costs to cover a trip like this though - I would imagine that a million dollar policy would have about a $250,000 premium.

    3. Re:Better Things to do with $250,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine what life insurance costs to cover a trip like this though - I would imagine that a million dollar policy would have about a $250,000 premium.

      If you're that rich, I don't think life insurance is something you have to worry about. :)

    4. Re:Better Things to do with $250,000 by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Im my area of UK, hardly a garden shed... :(

    5. Re:Better Things to do with $250,000 by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you've got the cash to consider dropping $250k for this, you've already got the house. And the beach house. And the Aspen condo.

    6. Re:Better Things to do with $250,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      How could that possibly be called informative. Anyone considering those spaceflights undoubtably already have whatever house they want.

      A better response would have been "two chicks at the same time".

    7. Re:Better Things to do with $250,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > A better response would have been "two chicks at the same time".

      Last time I tried it, $250K only got me half a chick.

  4. Available to the public within 24 months by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Notice they didn't say which planet these 24 months were measured from.

    1. Re:Available to the public within 24 months by blippy · · Score: 1

      Interesting little factoid: Venus is the only planet in our solar system whose day is longer than it's year. http://www.jas.org.jo/cont3a.html

  5. Reality Show in Space by Greg+Hullender · · Score: 1

    Since these are suborbital flights, this may have the distinction of being the *quickest* reality show in history! (But maybe that's a good thing.)

    1. Re:Reality Show in Space by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
      Since these are suborbital flights, this may have the distinction of being the *quickest* reality show in history!
      I think that that's preferable to the inevitable moral questions that would arise the first time someone is voted "off the space station". ("Put him out the airlock!" "No, no! ARRrrgh ...")
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  6. Richard Branson by taskforce · · Score: 1

    of Virgin Atlantic/Cola/Radio/Records/Megastores/Trains/What ever has already started a company called "Virgin Galactic."

    --
    My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
    1. Re:Richard Branson by peculiarmethod · · Score: 1

      the more competition, the better. You DO want it to become affordable before your grandchildren die, don't you?

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    2. Re:Richard Branson by kosmicki · · Score: 1

      I believe the company is simply known as Virgin. Though they did start off as a mail order record company.

    3. Re:Richard Branson by taskforce · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually no, he's sold the various different areas of the company off bit by bit and they are no longer owned by him or related at all except for branding.

      --
      My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
    4. Re:Richard Branson by Dan-DAFC · · Score: 1

      He still owns the airline and the train company I believe (or at least sizeable chunks of them).

      --
      Suck figs.
    5. Re:Richard Branson by Afrosheen · · Score: 3, Funny

      Their nearest competitor, who is steadily gaining ground with the men in the lucrative 18-34 age bracket?

      Whore.

      Thank you, I'll be here all week.

  7. At my salary.... by JWeinraub · · Score: 1

    Lets see, with the pennies I earn, I should be ready to afford one in about 8½ years assuming I don't spend any of my money....

  8. Yeah and by 77Punker · · Score: 4, Funny

    You will be able to play Duke Nukem Forever on the Phantom game console during flight!

  9. Re:Whatabout? by AnObfuscator · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, Virgin Galactic may be the first company *founded*, but this will be the first one to *operate*, if all goes as planned.

    --
    multifariam.net -- yet another nerd blog
  10. Total cost of space flight by mothlos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, if space flight really is becoming something consumers can do, what is the extra cost of all of the high atmospheric pollution and space junk? How are we going to keep low orbit from becoming the riskiest dodgeball court around?

    1. Re:Total cost of space flight by Rei · · Score: 1, Informative

      There are two possibilities:

      1) You define "space flight" in relation to what they're currently doing. I.e., suborbital "couple minutes on an unscalable aerial rocketsled" as opposed to real space flight. There's no space junk, because if the craft isn't going to orbit, neither is the junk.

      2) You define "space flight" the way it has historically been viewed, as LEO or higher. No companies are offering this at this point, and won't be until costs can go way down.

      Craft like Canadian Arrow and SpaceShipOne, as they aren't built like real, scalable spacecraft, won't do much to lower costs; however, craft like the Falcon (if they can pull it off... here's to hoping!) will. The concept of an American rocket launching payloads far cheaper than not only other US rockets, but Russian, Chinese, and even Indian rockets, is pretty darn impressive if they can achieve it. Of course, I won't get my hopes up just yet - companies like SpaceX have a pretty high failure rate.

      --
      I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
    2. Re:Total cost of space flight by emandres · · Score: 1

      Pollution? Last I checked the space shuttle used hyrdrogen fuel ( = no pollution). Unless of course you want to start arguing that water vapor is harmful to the atmosphere.

      --
      The only way to tell the difference between a hamster and a gerbil is that the hamster has more white meat.
  11. http://www.planetspace.org/ by Neo's+Nemesis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it just me, or does the website look like 12-yr old's first try with HTML? does that mean i'm in good hands?

    1. Re:http://www.planetspace.org/ by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1
      meta name="Generator" content="SiteDesigner"

      What does that tell you?

    2. Re:http://www.planetspace.org/ by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
      Is it just me, or does the website look like 12-yr old's first try with HTML? does that mean i'm in good hands?

      Yes, the site design is atrocious. But nobody else is promising to take people to Jupiter for $250,000.

      Okay, I'm being silly. What they should do with the site before they make any other much-needed changes is take away the Jupiter closeup, cause the passengers aren't going to be seeing that. They should put a big, beautiful, suborbital shot of Earth up on the front page, and carefully insert a digital image of their rocket. In short, they should make it look like an airline advertisement.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    3. Re:http://www.planetspace.org/ by emandres · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't even think that's human created code. Look's awfully typical of a WYSIWYG editor to me. Unless of course the person has never ever looked at a decent piece of HTML code before. Case in point, every line has a new tag on it. Grr... That's the reason that microsoft is crap: bloated code. And while I'm deviating, I guess I'll share my experience with a publisher exported web page. The page was no longer than 2 normal screen lengths, which would normally be about 2kb of code. The size of this page? Nearly a megabyte of useless CSS code that is never ever ever used in the page. I'd hate to see what the OS code is like...

      --
      The only way to tell the difference between a hamster and a gerbil is that the hamster has more white meat.
  12. point? by TheScorpion420 · · Score: 1

    I don't really see the point in this, granted there are a lot of people in the world with that much disposable income but that can't seriously be enough to make this be a profitable venture. I didn't RTFA but how many people fit into this spacecraft?

    --
    If you pay your taxes you support terrorism!
  13. Space Adventures is the first by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 1

    Space Adventures helped broker the $20mil Space Station rides for Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth. They are also partnered with a number of rocket companies and are ready to provide passengers to the first one with an operating system.

    http://www.spaceadventures.com/intro

  14. So let me get this straight... by DaedalusLogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A company that hasn't put anyone... anyone at all... into space, is starting a company to put people into space.

    One step at a time guys...

    If the guys financing hem have money to burn... I've got a company with a real product taat could use some investment.

    1. Re:So let me get this straight... by Greg+Hullender · · Score: 1
      If the guys financing hem have money to burn... I've got a company with a real product taat could use some investment.

      I hope it's not a spelling corrector!

    2. Re:So let me get this straight... by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dont be silly and look at his name, obviously its some sort of human powered flying contraption. I believe the company is especially interested in hiring someone to fill the Icarus position to replace the previous incumbent who left the company in rather unfortunate circumstances.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
  15. Yes, this looks do-able by anubi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    But should we?

    Given the present condition of the supply of energies we have available and our rates of consumption, is this yet another luxury for the few that will needlessly deplete our supply of fuels?

    Yes, I know the rich can easily afford it.

    And with yet more demand on a the growing scarcity of petrochemical fuels powering the whole shebang, I guess we just watch fuel costs for everybody step up another notch. Economics. Supply and demand.

    Sometimes I wonder where our head is at when we choose to expend limited resources so frivously.

    But then, I have wondered that for a long time on other matters... its a wonder to me that America is still a "superpower" given the way we squander our resources.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    1. Re:Yes, this looks do-able by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      I expect more petroleum will be used for packaging of Hot Wheels cars and Playstation games for the upcoming Christmas season than would be used for a years worth of flights for this.

      Your point?

    2. Re:Yes, this looks do-able by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      necessity is the mother of invention

    3. Re:Yes, this looks do-able by aldoman · · Score: 1

      This is a huge boon for spaceflight.

      I'd guess another 500 flights/year could come because of this. This is going to mean a huge infrastructure will spring up because of this.

      That is going to mean it's going to be much easier to build more spacecraft, the cost of launching per tonne will go down, meaning things like helium extraction from the moon could become viable, along with space-based power collection (set up a solar panel fab in space and get the needed raw materials from space).

    4. Re:Yes, this looks do-able by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rockets don't usually use oil-derived fuels (basically, refined kerosene). They normally use cryogenic (liquid hidrogen, liquid oxygen, etc) or hypergolic (eg:hidrazine) liquid propellants or some of the darn cheap solid propellants available.

      I admit not having RTFA, but I simply doubt they use kerosene (RP-1, to be precise) at all.

      Just my 2 cents worth.

    5. Re:Yes, this looks do-able by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, no. Most launches worldwide use kerosene-based fuels reacted with LOX, at least for the lower stages. Lower stages of LOX/LH (like the shuttle (excepting the boosters) and Arianne are actually relatively rare. Hydrazine is rarely used (off the top of my head, all I can think of present day for getting to orbit is the optional 4th stage to the Pegasus). Solids are usually only used on boosters and ICBMs, although there are a few systems (for example, Pegasus) that use them to get to space itself.

      Even if that weren't the case (which it is), LOX is produced using electricity (mostly generated through fossil fuels), LH is produced from petroleum and compressed/chilled with electricity, etc.

      And furthermore, you missed the fundamental error in the GP's post, which is that rocket fuel consumption is somehow relevant. It isn't. The world consumes 71.7 million barrels (3 billion gallons - about 24 billion pounds) of oil per day. If you can shove even close to that much oil into production of rocket fuel in a decade, I'll be impressed.

      The shuttle (a large launch vehicle), for example, burns about 1.6 million pounds of hydrogen with every launch (corresponding to about 4 million pounds of oil, plus, say, a million pounds of oil for producing solid fuels and LOX). So, you'd have to launch five to six thousand shuttle launches in that decade to make up for one *day* of oil consumption.

      --
      I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
    6. Re:Yes, this looks do-able by shayera · · Score: 1

      Well considering this 'shebang' like the original design it is 'inspired' by, flies on liquid oxygen and alcohol.. No petrochemicals are harmed in the process..

      --
      Venlig Hilsen / Regards
      John Hinge - shayera / .sPOOn.
      "Buffy I love you... Please God No!" S
    7. Re:Yes, this looks do-able by znu · · Score: 1

      SpaceshipOne does, in fact, use kerosene, as do quite a few other small low-cost designs. It's easier to work with than liquid hydrogen.

      Of course, even if the idea of selling suborbital flights to rich people is wildly more successful than anyone remotely expects, total usage will be absolutely tiny compared to the global oil market.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    8. Re:Yes, this looks do-able by anubi · · Score: 1
      And just what energy source powered the synthesis of the liquid oxygen and alcohol. Granted we could probably distill the alcohol from plants, but what is powering the compressors that manufacture the liquid oxygen?

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    9. Re:Yes, this looks do-able by anubi · · Score: 1
      You have a very valid point.

      Useless packaging is another of my pet peeves.

      I often see more energy put into packaging than in the product. And it grieves me to see our resources being squandered so.

      If the rest of the world sees America as a pig, even as an American citizen, I feel they are justified.

      I am reminded of our wastefulness every Monday morning, which is trash day, and I see what I have for the trash man. 99% useless packaging.

      A simple paper box would have sufficed nicely, and if made right ( no chemicals / disintegrates when wet ), I could have used it to mulch my garden. I have no problem with the glass and cans as long as they make it back to the recycle chain. Its that landfill crap thats gotta go. Land is just way too valuable to tie up as a garbage dump.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    10. Re:Yes, this looks do-able by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just what energy source powered the synthesis of the liquid oxygen and alcohol. Granted we could probably distill the alcohol from plants, but what is powering the compressors that manufacture the liquid oxygen?

      Well, here in the Northwest US, that would be electricity - from hydroelectric dams or nuclear reactors.

    11. Re:Yes, this looks do-able by Moofie · · Score: 1

      If you look at America's pollution versus GDP, we don't look nearly so piggish.

      Yes, America is one of the biggest polluters. America is also one of the biggest producers.

      But, of course, that doesn't make for a nice self-loathing sound bite, so it's never going to matter, will it?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    12. Re:Yes, this looks do-able by jfoust · · Score: 1

      SpaceshipOne does, in fact, use kerosene

      No. SpaceShipOne used a hybrid rocket engine, with a solid fuel (HTPB, rubber) and a liquid oxidizer (nitrous oxide). Apparently, SpaceShipTwo (the vehicle that Scaled Composites is developing for Virgin Galactic) will also use a hybrid engine.

    13. Re:Yes, this looks do-able by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      But should we?

      Yes.

      Given the present condition of the supply of energies we have available and our rates of consumption, is this yet another luxury for the few that will needlessly deplete our supply of fuels?

      Only to those with limited scope, vision, and foresight. By increasing access to space, you eventually lead to the lower cost of said access, and the increasing likelihood of it becomming a commodity.

      These are necessary to future energy needs of the human race. Examples include future fusion fuel (moon, Jupiter), as well as orbiting power satellites to name but a few energy related ones. Manufacturing should eventually move to space for things that are environmentally risky and capable of being done in space. These will make use of off-planet energy sources, be they nuclear, solar, or some combination therof or something else entirely.

      Both of these eventualities of space tourism will solve many of the problems you believe we have here on Earth.

      And with yet more demand on a the growing scarcity of petrochemical fuels powering the whole shebang, I guess we just watch fuel costs for everybody step up another notch. Economics. Supply and demand.

      You really should try reading the articles. The rocket is powered by alcohol and oxygen, not petro-chemicals.

      But then, I have wondered that for a long time on other matters... its a wonder to me that America is still a "superpower" given the way we squander our resources.

      What you consider squandering is actually an economic driver. We have the resources to do things other nations can not do. We have the resources to try things and fail, then try something else. What amazes me is the mass of people who fail to realize such things.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  16. Where are we going? by Neo's+Nemesis · · Score: 0, Troll

    since this came after Ansari X Prize, it didnt quite baffle me that much. but still was enough to make me think whether its morally right or not.

    this would imply that anybody with enough of gold could easily become an astronaut without giving the least s**t about it.

    sometimes they pitch for spending $1 for a poor kid in Africa and at the same time they talk of a leisure activity that costs $250,000.

    1. Re:Where are we going? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying being an astronaut is some special name reserved for only a few? Shit. I remember when you were usually smart when you posted on /., but I don't bitch anymore.

      Sometimes, some people decide to take matters into their own hands and change/adapt, as opposed to sitting around waiting for handouts.
      The world doesn't owe *anyone* a favour, even the kid in Africa.

    2. Re:Where are we going? by nickptar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've thought some on this before, and here's my view:

      Technological progress helps social progress.
      Many new technologies start out as luxuries, then due to economies of scale become widely available.
      Therefore, no luxuries, less technological progress, less social progress, less ways to help the poor.

      Of course, that means you need concrete applications of space technology for non-luxury use... hmm:
      - various spinoff technologies
      - orbiting solar power generation
      - doing polluting/dangerous things in space instead of on Earth

    3. Re:Where are we going? by Neo's+Nemesis · · Score: 1

      see, there are opposing philosphies

      one professes that we should move on as a whole. without the populace reaching a particular average level, our aims of achieving more and more seem disastrous.

      the other meanwhile says that we should continue to grow on single thread we have. this means that there is no turning back or moderating our singly-focused work for the weak ones.

      people usually decided between the two. i see that my government has.

  17. god bless them... by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

    lance will finally fulfill his dream of being a space cowboy.

  18. 24 months? by Zayin · · Score: 1

    The goal of the company is to make space flight available to the public within 24 months.

    Is that like two twelvemonths? That is just so cool, imagine being able to say happy new twelvemonth and watch the fireworks from space!

    --
    "I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy"
  19. Re:Completely Offtopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are ads on slashdot?

  20. Sadness by MynockGuano · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...and today, a new standard of total sadness was achieved as it was announced that the first commercial venture to put humans in space will be in the form of a reality television show.

  21. I hate to break it to you by Timesprout · · Score: 0

    But charging 250,000 dollars for something is not bringing it to the public, its bringing it to a wealthy elite.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:I hate to break it to you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, son.

    2. Re:I hate to break it to you by mollymoo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But charging 250,000 dollars for something is not bringing it to the public, its bringing it to a wealthy elite.

      Yeah, because rich people aren't people are they?

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    3. Re:I hate to break it to you by nickptar · · Score: 1

      Economies of scale. Once this becomes popular, the infrastructure, research, demand, and the like will allow it to become cheaper. Lots of technologies start as toys for the rich, and then get bootstrapped into everyday use this way.

    4. Re:I hate to break it to you by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course they are people, but they are not the community or people as a whole which is what public means.

      If you are in a position to be able to drop a quarter mill on a trip then good for you but dont try and market it as something available to the public when clearly it is beyond the means of all but a tiny elite.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    5. Re:I hate to break it to you by Dannon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You gotta start charging high if you're gonna raise the capital to develop the technology to make it available to everyone.

      And it's when you can start making it available to everyone that you can start making serious money.

      Look at refrigerators, microwaves, cars. All of them originally rich peoples' toys, but nowadays, they're nothing special at all.

      And none of it was made a bit easier by class warfare games.

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
    6. Re:I hate to break it to you by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Yeah, those people who build companies and have busted their asses to get rich (or are the beneificiaries of those who busted their asses to make themselves and their children rich) don't deserve to spend that money on anything! They should be obligated to give it away to the poorer among us, who use our average incomes to buy playstations and toys to decorate our cubicle office.

      Yeah, fuck those stupid entrepranuerial cocksuckers! HOW DARE THEY!

    7. Re:I hate to break it to you by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 1
      This may be a new concept for you, so bear with me: Rich people can do things that poor people can't, and they tend to be able to do things before poor people can. This is a fact of life.

      However, bear in mind that once a company is formed that can make a profitable round-trip to space for $250,000, they will have the funding to research and make the next generation of space vehicles that can do it for $200,000. Then $100,000.

      Think of the first automobiles. Only a few 'wealthy elite' could buy them, but after a few decades, enough profit had been made off of those people, and enough money had been put back into research that soon pretty much everyone was able to get a car.

    8. Re:I hate to break it to you by Total_Wimp · · Score: 1

      Hate to break it to you, but by that definition air travel isn't really available to the public. After all, a welfare mom isn't really able to aford a $300 trip across the country without impacting her electric bill.

      Many of the working poor can't afford to buy a new car, or even a decent used one, especially if you factor insurance, gas and maintenance into the deal.

      I get your point, that only an elite few will be able to afford space travel. Please try to get my point that a decent percentage of Americans, and most people in many third world nations, cant even afford Earth-bound travel. By your definition, the "public" can't afford to go anywhere.

      You're probably (like me) a relatively rich guy, when measured on a world scale. You complaining about even richer folks traveling in a style you can't afford is just a little bit hypocritical.

      TW

  22. this might help end global warming... by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

    Ok, all these experts say we'll run out of fossil fuels in about 50 years at our current consumption.
    When we run out of crap to burn, no more CO2, thus global warming will brought to an end.
    Sure, our economy will be doomed but, our kids can worry about that. They'll have some crazy national debt to deal with anyway.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    1. Re:this might help end global warming... by Atryn · · Score: 1
      Ok, all these experts say we'll run out of fossil fuels in about 50 years at our current consumption.
      It was recently posited to me that the military will likely solve the fuel problem within the 50 years needed. How can I be so sure? Well, we know that the fuel is running out. We know that other countries (such as China) are securing long-term access to these limited resources. It becomes a strategic imperitive to ensure our military can function on a limited supply.

      Now, I'm not big fan of the military (as an organization, not the individuals) but there is one thing they tend to be good at -- coming up with technological solutions to enable them to remain effective. This alone might ensure that funding for the discovery of new sources of energy becomes a national priority even if DARPA leads the way instead of the DoE...

      Here's some examples... The DoE's role in "National Security" is here. Alternatively, projects at DARPA here, here, here and here.
      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
  23. Short term venture to make a buck by Che+Guevarra · · Score: 1

    "Eventually, our goal is to make PLANETSPACE a public company," said Mr. Sheerin

    Uh, yeah. Because there's no other reason for it. $250,000 for zero g? How much to tandem jump? Lot's of problems here. Buyer beware.

    1. Re:Short term venture to make a buck by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's just zero g, man. I've read Shuttlesworth's description of his space flight, and if this becomes a reality (and I my retirement stays on track), I'll be saving up for this.

    2. Re:Short term venture to make a buck by Che+Guevarra · · Score: 1

      Based on marketing segmentation tactics, I have no problem with this company. I thought maybe people with interest could find better ways to spend the money. Honestly, they're truely not doing anything wrong.

  24. I'm Certified! by Pedrito · · Score: 1

    I'm already a certified space cadet. Do I get a discount?

  25. Accidents by mollymoo · · Score: 1
    Somewhat morbid, but it's a sure-fire bet that sooner or later (my guess is sooner) one of these things is going to crash and burn. There may be a lot of excitement now and people queing up to thrown money at private spaceflight, but I wonder how big the market will be after the first few wealthy folks are burnt to a crisp on re-entry or make thier very own crater in the desert?

    I'm surprised Virgin have staked their brand on something so risky.

    --
    Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    1. Re:Accidents by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      You gotta start somewhere. This has a lot in common with the worldly exploring our kind has been doing for 200,000 years (give or take).

    2. Re:Accidents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this crossing the Atlantic Ocean in little wooden boats may be fun and exciting now (1500's) but sooner or later oneof them will sink and then the reality of the risk will set in and all this sillyness will stop.

    3. Re:Accidents by limon.verde · · Score: 1
      The same way accidents in commercial airliners have not grounded commercial flying, a small percentage of accidents in spaceflight will not stop people from going to space.

      However, I think this will start as a rich person "extreme sport" analogue, which is done knowing the risks involved, just like bungee jumping, parachuting or cave diving.

  26. Re:Completely Offtopic by no+soup+for+you · · Score: 1
    Did anyone else see the stupid Microsoft Visual Web Developer Express Edition Ad?

    Well, no, not until you mentioned it, and got me (and others) to view it, increasing the awareness of this product. So, Microsoft or no, seems to be an effective ad.

    --
    If you blog it...
  27. I can see it now... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Funny

    "...discussions with partners who will establish a reality television show set in space..."

    Captain: Do you see any signs of intelligent life on that planet?

    Science officer: Most definitely not, sir!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  28. Really.... by imsabbel · · Score: 1

    "Planetspace expects to fly almost 2,000 new astronauts in the first five years of flying"

    Those guys will be as much astronauts as i am a pilot when im flying to vacation.

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:Really.... by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      No, if I'm remembering the definition correctly an astronaut is anyone that's travelled into space. (The exact definition of that varies - above 100km for most people, about 50 miles for the US, if memory serves). There's also the issue that different countries call their astronauts different things, and I'm not sure if cosmonauts/taikonauts(sp?) etc. count as astronauts - probably depends on who you ask.

      When you fly in a plane you are not a airplane pilot, you are however an "aeronaut" (I think that's a real word... a little ourdated prehaps). When you fly in a spacecraft you are not a spacecraft pilot, but you are an astronaut.

    2. Re:Really.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, way to completely miss the point! Let me be the first to say, "No shit, Sherlock!"

  29. I'm sure I speak for most people.... by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...when I say: SCREW SUB-ORBITAL FLIGHT.

    If I want a quick rush I'll get on a damn roller-coaster.

    Put me in orbit for a week, and bring me back safely.

    --
    Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
    1. Re:I'm sure I speak for most people.... by Buster+Chan · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. I want to actually go into space, not "sub orbital space" ... but actual space, and I want to stay there for a while. Sub-orbital flight, especially at $250000 a pop, is a rip-off. I wouldn't pay that price for space flight, but I'd pay that price for the chance to do grunt-work for scientists who secretly work on top secret projects throughout the solar system. I'd pay to work!

      --
      "I am a fictional character."
  30. And who will their customers be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have on average ~15 in the bank, with a considerable amount more invested in property and businesses. And aparently i'm their targeted customer area? Whatever... I would consider $250k an investment opportunity rather than something to play with. What else can you buy with $250k that is a lot more profitable? 1. Shares or other form of investment in an up and coming business. 2. A nice house in a fairly popular area, rent it out for 10 years then re-sel.. a nice profit (albeit long-term). 3. Pay companies to benchmark your products until you find one that somehow prooves you're better than everybody else. Anyway, for a once in a lifetime experience I think it could be worth it.. but 25 years from now it will have advanced a fair amount (if prooven to be a profitable venture), so are we now targeting the 70+ year old millionares? So.. 250k and then how much for insurance etc.?

    1. Re:And who will their customers be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $15 is enough for a lottery ticket.

    2. Re:And who will their customers be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So with 15 in the bank, you have, what, like 100 in businesses and property? Wow, you're a financial baron! What are you doing wasting your time on /.? You should be out there making your money work harder. Why, I'll bet that in no time, you'll have that 15 turned into a cool 20!

  31. Someone bring out the dustpan... by pyr0r0ck3r · · Score: 1

    Well, one advantage of this form of travel is that if the plane malfunctions, there's no meddlesome debris to deal with. On a more serious note, would a black-box like recording system be plausible for this? I.e. wouldn't it burn up in re-entry if the plane blew up? Or does sub-orbital imply that there isn't enough atmosphere?

    --
    theres no place like 127.0.0.1
    1. Re:Someone bring out the dustpan... by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      The black box would be made out of something that wouldn't burn up. You can't make rockets out of such stuff because it's too heavy and you'd never get off the ground, but a black box is small enough to make it practical.

      I believe the space shuttle has such a black box and they found the Columbia's one shortly after it burned up.

  32. not extensible by deathguppie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is basically a single stage booster system based on 50 year old technoligy.

    In order to move to higher "orbital" flights the cost of design and equiptment goes up in multiples using this old school rocketeering tech. It means that the average cost per person will go from $250,000 to more like $1.5M and that makes it highly unlikely that we will see anything more than suborbital shots from this. It's a cheap thrill ride but says nothing of our future space exploration.

    --
    once more into the breach
    1. Re:not extensible by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      This is basically a single stage booster system based on 50 year old technoligy.
      In the same way that the 2005 Honda Prius is based on technology a century old - I.E. not really. The aerodynamics are different, the structure is different, the control system is different, the materials are different... It's a two stage vehicle vice one stage of the original, it incorporates recovery systems not present in the original...

      That being said; one wonders how much hype is involved here. For a vehicle that's planned to fly in commercial service 'within 24 months', very little testing has been accomplished, and no sign of flight hardware is visible.

    2. Re:not extensible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is an understatement. Forget commercial service, what about a vehicle that can demonstrate a flight or two. You've got folks selling trips starting in 2006. That's less then 12 months away. Without a single bolt bolted to a single piece of metal.

      If this was so easy, why didn't these folks pick up a quick $10 million with the X-Prize?

    3. Re:not extensible by uberdave · · Score: 2, Informative

      They've done engine tests, and capsule recovery tests, and they've got plenty of signs of flight hardware. It was recently touring Chicago. These are not photoshopped pictures. The rocket is a real thing. I've seen it.

    4. Re:not extensible by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      It's a cheap thrill ride but says nothing of our future space exploration.

      No, it bridges the mental gap between what people think we CAN do and what we really CAN do. Right now people tend to believe anything beyond airliners is unreasonably hard and the sole domain of governments. When that barrier is broken down, investment for further fights and trips become more available.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  33. rocket? yeah! by grumpyman · · Score: 1

    Uh.. with it's original design based on a V2 rocket. I hope it does not carry any warhead :)

  34. Re:Completely Offtopic by VelocityBoy09 · · Score: 1

    Hey, it crashed, didn't it?

  35. 50 year tech good enough by khallow · · Score: 1
    In order to move to higher "orbital" flights the cost of design and equiptment goes up in multiples using this old school rocketeering tech. It means that the average cost per person will go from $250,000 to more like $1.5M and that makes it highly unlikely that we will see anything more than suborbital shots from this. It's a cheap thrill ride but says nothing of our future space exploration.

    The real obstacles to space tourism aren't technology but economic and political. As you noted, it is feasible to send people up in suborbital flights with 50 year old technology. And when a market is established in volume, then the technology can be advanced to whatever level is sufficient for orbital manned flight.

    My point is even if this is a "cheap thrill ride" (I certainly hope it is!), but that it's a bridgehead in establishing a manned presence in space. This is a stepping stone to more sophisticated markets. That will "say something" of our future presence in space (and probably space exploration as well).

  36. Re:Whatabout? by khallow · · Score: 1

    Heh, if all goes according to plan, we'll have several ways to experience suborbital space flight by 2008. That's good enough for me.

  37. Re:Completely Offtopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That doesn't necessarily make it effective. Remember the .com sock puppet? Yeah, probably. Did it get you to buy whatever it was selling from whatever companies it was pitching? Didn't think so.

  38. That's all find and dandy by Torontoman · · Score: 2, Funny


    Now all they need is a working rocket!

    *cough Vaporware cough*

  39. De vinci and Canadian Arrow and Hot Air by augustz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First the daVinci project made a TON of noise about their October 2004 launch plans. Did those ever happen?

    Then we have aera corp, which is selling tickets for rides NEXT YEAR. They are ALREADY selling these. This is without demonstrating anything, or even having an engine, much less a space vehicle that can support a crew of humans. They have THIRTY flights scheduled for 2007.

    "We're using such plain-vanilla technology that very little detailed testing is required," Sprague said.

    MOTHER OF GOD!

    Now we have this Canadian Arrow group. I mean, NONE of these guys has even gone to space ONCE with even a test pilot! I guess I'd just be a little cautious going up in things from these operations, hopefully folks considering this get some good advice before signing up.

    The one contender I have some faith in is Burt Rutan and the Virgin Galatic effort.

    These guys actually test, have actually gone to sub-orbital space and back with real live people inside their vehicle. Solid history building actual flying machines that don't kill people, and met some folks with great things to say about the group.

    Curiously, I also noticed they don't have as many hot air releases.

    So, while some folks seem to get tons of PR and are ALREADY selling tickets, I'd keep the eyes away from the Golden Palance Casino Davinci Project, Aerea Corp or Canadian arrow, and on Burt Rutan and his gang.

  40. Interesting technology by p3d0 · · Score: 1
    It's a two-stage rocket. The first stage is reusable, which is nice, since it should keep costs down.

    What worries me is that the second stage is propelled by four solid-fuel rockets. Suppose one of these babies doesn't work for some reason. The other three will fire, giving asymmetrical thrust, causing the second stage to spin. Being solid rockets, they can't be stopped once they are lit, so you'll just keep spinning faster and faster until the fuel runs out, at which point (aside from having passed out from the g-forces) you'll be in no position to try to land because you'll have nowhere near the necessary attitude.

    However, I'm speaking as a rank amateur. Does anyone who actually knows what they are talking about have any insight into this?

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  41. MODS - where are we going??? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    How is the PP a troll? They are simply pointing out the fact that the "space tourist" could feed 1/4Million malnourished kids for a couple of days as opposed to taking a joy ride around the planet for a couple of hours. It may be simplistic and idealistic but moderating it as a troll puts the moderator in a bad light not the poster.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  42. not quite by AVIDJockey · · Score: 1

    From Wikipedia:

    The propellant mixture in each SRB motor consists of ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer, 69.6 percent by weight), aluminum (fuel, 16 percent), iron oxide (a catalyst, 0.4 percent), a polymer (a binder that holds the mixture together, 12.04 percent), and an epoxy curing agent (1.96 percent).

  43. timothy is an idiot moderator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This about the fourth commercial space company.

  44. Re:Completely Offtopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and why are you not using Adblock again?

  45. chicken or egg? by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

    A company that hasn't put anyone... anyone at all... into space, is starting a company to put people into space.

    One step at a time guys...


    Most companies start up doing something they haven't done yet. Very few companies start up doing something they've already done. Arguably, no companies do.

    How many companies have put people in space?
    Zero. Only governments have put people into space (assuming "space" is LEO or better). And you are suggesting no companies do so until they have done so.

    Worse than that you got modded insightful for asking for the impossible.

    --
    My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.