Slashdot Mirror
Space Planes to Meet 'Big Demand' For Tourism
Mab_Mass writes "Widespread space tourism is getting closer to reality, reports the BBC. In fact, Aerospace company EADS sees that sector of the tourism market being so lucrative that it will need a 'production line' of rockets to satisfy the needs of rich travelers. '[EAD's] market assessment suggests there would be 15,000 people a year prepared to part with some 200,000 euros (£160,000) for the ride of a lifetime. [EADS subsidiary] Astrium anticipates it be will be producing about 10 planes a year.'"
It's a good first step, but none of the plans mentioned in the story really advance anything. They're basically glorified Vomit Comets with no ability to orbit, which would really be a stepping stone to things further out. After all, once you're out of the gravity well, you're halfway to anywhere else in the solar system. I guess the best hope is that the number of "spaceplane" providers will compete against each other for new perks, thus pushing someone to provide a true orbital experience.
.. but four and a half g's in deceleration, even shortly, would run the risk of a red out for those not inclined to physical fitness. The number of people who would buy into this would be further limited by the idle rich who realize their bodies may not agree with the effects of gravity. As far as tourism goes, having to wear a high g-force suit just to get a good look out the window without risking your health seems like an overlooked detail.
I don't understand your comparison. Space is big. It'll take a shitload of tourist ships before cheap access starts to "ruin" the experience of others going there.
Most of these programs aren't receiving government subsidies on any level remotely comparable with the Concorde program. What you're seeing are a bunch of smaller aerospace companies that see a niche they think can make them money. It's entirely possible that niche won't be as big as they think and a lot will go bankrupt trying to compete for the few hundred thousand people willing to spend $500,000 for a 30-minute trip into suborbital space.
Occasionally it's just nice to see something was done purely as a technical achivement rather than putting a financial value on it - we British can be proud for inventing things like the jet engine and Concorde (with the French) just like the Yanks can be proud for getting the first man on the moon.
Sometimes it's nice to see the bean counters in suits being totally ignored and just seeing something done "because it's there".
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
They don't have to be functional in space; they're sight-seeing passengers. They're not going to be conducting scientific experiments under funky conditions. They're going to be sitting in their seats, snapping pictures and drooling about how awesome it is. The more enterprising of them will be collecting and selling said "space drool" for thousands of dollars an ounce.
The World's Worst Webcomic!
Uhm, they will fly each plane more than once...
I know that it is needed, but there is about to be a number of other joy rides. It would actually be far more useful if they would focus on getting into LEO with cheap access. That could use many times more crafts than the joy ride will. Of course, the argument is baby steps first. That is the same as scaled composites, while spacex is seeking direct access to LEO. Hopefully EU decides to pursue cheap access quickly.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Has it crossed your mind that you might have been the people that 'ruined' Waikiki?
I don't understand the moral superiority that some people have when they declare it's ok for them to visit places, but not other people. A bit like people who insist on calling themselves "travellers" rather than "tourists". You're all outsiders visiting a place. Perhaps if you and your friends hadn't visited Waikiki a local guy (or another outsider) wouldn't have had the brainwave to throw up the first highrise hotel. By you going there such folks realised more money could be made.
I'm not necessarily saying it's a good or bad thing you or other people visit out of the way places (in many cases locals might be happy for people to visit and spend money) but I question this moral high ground angle that somehow your actions were positive whereas everybody else's visit is negative. Seems like snobbery to me.
I think your point is valid, but at the same time different people enjoy different kind of tourism/traveling/whatever your want to call it. I know plenty of people who enjoy staying in those high rise hotels with 17 pools on the property and 3 shitty restaurants, whereas others prefer a more humble setting. Yes, the locals thought they could make more money, but they get those ideas from people who make comments like "it would be nice if your property had a nice pool and a restaurant on property" as opposed to people who say "wow, this place is so beautiful and unspoiled." so, although the people with the first kind of preferences aren't "worse" people, they certainly give the locals the ideas to ruin the place for the people with the second kinf of preferences.
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
The Zero Gravity Corporation (http://www.gozerog.com/) alone has had over 4000 passengers on their vomit comets. I know that it is not sub orbital or orbital flight. But it does show that people will pay even if they are not the first. After the first person dished out $10-20 million to take a ride on the Soyuz spacecraft and visit the ISS, it hasn't stopped other people from doing the same. Also, Virgin Galactic (http://www.virgingalactic.com/), who does not even have the plane built yet, is already taking reservations. This is just three examples that I know of. If I were to do any research, I bet I could find a bunch more example.
Bearded Dragon