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.
The sorts of G-forces expected on the ride will be less than those experienced on many modern rollercoasters. Granted, the G-forces onboard a spaceplane might be a bit longer in duration, but until we have details on the mission profile, it's difficult to tell. You might end up getting greater G-forces from some of the more extreme rollercoasters out there, and given the physical fitness of a lot of roller coaster riders, I wouldn't worry too much.
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.
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.
Bearded Dragon