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.'"
I think safety concerns are the biggest issue. What happens when the first crash happens.
Click here to offset your carbon emissions.
I used to travel to Hawaii for vacation a lot. This was back in the old days before Waikiki was this huge tourist development. Back then those of us who ventured that far for vacation were greeted with island hospitality and lush greenery and a "get-back-to-nature" type of laid-backedness that was desperately missing from mainland life.
Unfortunately, they found that they could make more money by attracting more visitors. And they did. But in the process they built tons of highrise hotels and turned quiet surftown Waikiki into the bustling tourist trap it now is. In order to attract more visitors, they destroyed the reason to be a visitor in the first place.
I'm sure someone will want to ride an over-priced airplane comfortably into space. But I'm not sure that those people are the same ones who would shell out millions to fly in today's ramshackle space carts.
Umm, don't astronaunts have to go through a series of tests to make sure they can function in space? How do you expect a bunch of rich people who are likely in their 40s and above to actually be preparred for something like going into space
I want to visit some volcanoes
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.
The Concorde SST had massive government subsidies from both Britain and France and because of lack of demand still couldn't produce a decent return on investment Well, other than being a jobs program.
And yet any ticket for a near future spaceplane will likely cost a hundred times more than did a Concorde seat. Increases in fuel costs might make it even more expensive than that. And just think of the even more stringent security screening bullshit passengers will have to endure.
Summary: Show me a commercially viable SST first. Then we can talk about a spaceplane that's not a welfare program for the aerospace industry.
Some of them pull up to 6 gees, and all they have is a height restriction and warning notice! Yes, it's for a shorter time, but 4.5 gees seems high - ISTR the STS only gets up to 3.5 gees.
No magic. They estimate that the market size is 15000 people per year. They never said they would fly 15000 people per year. Most likely the 10 planes/year is a constraint imposed either by manufacturing or available money.
'No wireless, less space than a nomad, Lame.'
Tourists won't care about orbital flight, they just want to see the world from space, and experience weightlessness - from the bookings for Virgin Galactic etc, it seems there are enough people interested to make it viable. Orbital will come much later because it's much more expensive, but will probably be paid for with the proceeds of this kind of thrill ride.
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.
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.