Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Two Radically Different Approaches to Private Access to Space (gizmag.com)

Posted by timothy on from the embryos-fly-free dept.

Zothecula writes: Commercial spaceflight company World View came a step closer to carrying tourists to the edge of space with a successful test flight last weekend. At Page, Arizona, a one-tenth scale replica spacecraft was carried by high-altitude ballon to a height of 100,475 ft (30,624 m) to demonstrate the technology that is intended for use in a full-size version slated to begin commercial flights next year. And with a note on the other end of the size spectrum for private access to space, reader Habberhead writes: As reported first by Wired Magazine and followed on by others including Discovery News, start-up company ThumbSat is aiming to provide turn-key access to space for students, experimenters and citizen scientists with a new femto-satellite and creative business model. Small payloads and experiments in space for $20k, including the launch? Sign me up!

44 comments

  1. Private access to space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Space Nutter fantasy: the human species will colonize the galaxy!
    Reality: A tin can barely skips to the upper atmosphere and comes right back down. That'll be 50000$ please.

    1. Re:Private access to space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tourism != Colonization

      Someone is already working on luxury accommodations, gourmet space food sticks and setting up the duty free shop at the end of the rainbow.

    2. Re:Private access to space? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      That sounds right up there with "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." in terms of predictions. Just because something is not possible today or is horrendously expensive does not mean that future advancements will make it cheap and commonplace.

      That quote was made about 70 years ago when computers were in their infancy, kind of like commercial space flight is right now. My mind can not even comprehend what we might accomplish in the next 70.

    3. Re:Private access to space? by Rei · · Score: 1

      SpaceX is commercial spaceflight. OSC is commercial spaceflight. Cheapo rockets that pop nearly straight up to 100km then fall back down aren't anything like commercial spaceflight. They're built around a very different flight envelope, very different performance characteristics, and consequently don't share much more in common than needing a pressure vessel. These things are joy rides for the wealthy.

      I care about companies working to bring down actual access to space - that is, reaching orbit. These toys are not steps in that direction.

      To point out the difference: These things go to just over 100km, because that's defined as the boundary of space. Actual low-earth orbit is more like 300-400km. But getting up is the easy part. Getting to a velocity of 7800 m/s / 17500 mph / 28000 kph that's the hard part - it takes 10 times as much energy as the getting-up part in an ideal situation (7-8 times in practice due to aerodynamic and gravity losses). Basically, they're doing ~30% of the task that makes up 15% of the actual task of getting to orbit, which is pretty much the bare minimum that matters for anything but upper atmospheric research. Given that the demands on rockets scale exponentially with the required delta-V (both in terms of thrust as well as other factors such as surviving reentry when you've got such high potential energy to burn off), it quickly becomes obvious that something in the sort of flight envelope of these joyrides isn't even touching on the actual challenges of spaceflight. They get away with cheap, easy materials and cheap designs with low-ISP propellants and far less weight-optimized designs because, well, they can. And when you only play around with the "easy stuff", you're not pushing the state of the art on the "hard stuff" forward.

      To put it another way: we shoot tons of bottle rockets off every year, but they don't do a darn thing to make launching spacecraft to Mars any cheaper.

      --
      "Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
    4. Re: Private access to space? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Not sure that I would agree that non-orbiting flights do not lower the costs. Basically, it builds up manufacturing lines for sealed crafts, with same seats, suits, life support, etc. However, I would argue that these companies will build up interest in space flight and gives the wealthy a taste of what space flight has to offer. In fact , it might be useful for billionaires to use this for training.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re: Private access to space? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Basically, it builds up manufacturing lines for sealed crafts, with same seats, suits, life support, etc

      "Airtight craft" are FYI anything but new and anything but rare. And as covered extensively above, when you're given way, way more mass you can throw around, you're never going to choose the difficult solution that actually going to orbit requires, you're going to pick some cheap solution for your "sealed craft", your "seats", your "suits" (most plans either call for no suits or jet pilot suits), your life support (also made far, far easier because they're going up for such short periods of time - even a scuba diver's "life support system" is more complicated), etc.

      They're not pushing new ground for rocketry any more than making bottle rockets is.

      --
      "Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
  2. None of this is access to space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taking a balloon up to the Karman line? Sending up postage-stamp-sized payloads up to the Karman line? What a joke.

    1. Re:None of this is access to space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Space Nuttery is a joke. It's over, finished, done. The Space Age, like the Victorian era, belongs in the history books. Let's solve the actual problems 7 billion people have right here, because that's all we can really do.

    2. Re:None of this is access to space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There aren't any meaningful problems "down here". People live for a while, then they die one way or another, end of. If we're just going to sit here and find marginally better ways of doing that on this one planet, then we might as well just be cows.

    3. Re: None of this is access to space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have it on good authority that we are just cows. Slashdot tells me so every day!

    4. Re:None of this is access to space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      What a stupid, childish, misanthropic, Gothic, melodramatic, depressed, simple-minded, juvenile, and moronic sentiment.

      Please tell me about these exciting problems you think you'll solve floating around in a deadly vacuum towards empty hostile rocks. That's better?

      Only Space Nutters look at a planet teemng with life and water nad air and think they have to leave, but look at empty, hostile, dry, barren, radiation-blasted Hells and think "abundant water".

      You fucking psych cases.

    5. Re:None of this is access to space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trouble is this planet seems to be overrun with fuckwits, and while I'd consider it an acceptable solution to simply wipe you all out and start again, there seems to be less resistance to the space travel option.

    6. Re:None of this is access to space by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please tell me about these exciting problems you think you'll solve floating around in a deadly vacuum towards empty hostile rocks. That's better?

      Recycling of resources is the obvious huge one. Extracting space resources for use on Earth is another.

      Only Space Nutters look at a planet teemng with life and water nad air and think they have to leave, but look at empty, hostile, dry, barren, radiation-blasted Hells and think "abundant water".

      That teeming life also means Earth is poorly suited for a lot of industrial uses. Doing heavy industry in desolate places of space means we can get those benefits without the usual consequences of doing them on Earth (like massive pollution).

    7. Re:None of this is access to space by Dins · · Score: 1

      Please tell me about these exciting problems you think you'll solve floating around in a deadly vacuum towards empty hostile rocks.

      99% sure you're just a troll, but whatever. How about getting us off this rock before we're wiped out by an asteroid? Or getting us off this rock before our population expands to the point where it can no longer sustain us?

      In the early days of exploration, you'd be the guy sitting in his cottage railing against explorers and their new-fangled "new world" when we have a "perfectly good" cow pasture right here.

    8. Re:None of this is access to space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please name the meaningful problem "a one-tenth scale replica spacecraft was carried by high-altitude ballon to a height of 100,475 ft " solved.

    9. Re: None of this is access to space by TimSSG · · Score: 2

      I have it on good authority that we are just cows. Slashdot tells me so every day!

      So, you have been cowed into thinking you are a cow.
      Your post failed to moove me at all in rating your post as funny!
      Tim S.

    10. Re: None of this is access to space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sexconker is never a good authority.

    11. Re:None of this is access to space by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about getting us off this rock before we're wiped out by an asteroid?

      I'm not sure if anyone's told you, but there are asteroids in space, too.

      Space nutters are going to cheat death by having an asteroid kill them on Mars instead of in their nice warm beds on Earth.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:None of this is access to space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point on the doll to where the vacuum touched you, QA.

    13. Re:None of this is access to space by Kjella · · Score: 1

      "Space nutters" are far more likely to die on launch, in space, on landing/impact and by any major malfunction of the base. Humanity is hedging its bets, the space travelers are most certainly not. There's plenty good arguments against it like that we totally lack the technology to create and sustain a colony independent of earth, you don't need to make up shitty and false ones. In fact many have volunteered for a one-way trip that would probably lead them to an early grave, that's as far from cheating death as possible.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    14. Re:None of this is access to space by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      Several hundred years ago a bunch of men nailed together a bunch of dead trees, left their warm beds, and set sail across a barren, desolate, hostile ocean. They left behind real, tangible, and local problems in the hope of adventure, gold, glory, and a better life.

      Today we celebrate their bravery (bravado, whatever) and glorify their achievements. We named an entire continent after one of them.

      Exploration is not about immediate returns. We do these things not because they are easy, but because we can. I few weeks ago I launched a weather balloon for a group of elementary and preschool kids. We zip tied a toy to an ice chest, sent it to 80,000 ft, and then gave it and the pictures back to the kids. They loved it. They went home and tied helium balloons to random things round their houses trying to get stuff to fly away.

      I don't know how to make the entire world a better place all at once, but I do know a bunch of kids who had one hell of day because some space nutters decided to tie a toy to a balloon for them and I do know that we can make our parts of the world better. Perhaps what we learn will be useful. Perhaps what we will kill ourselves. Perhaps we will fuck up our experiment and discover penicillin.

    15. Re:None of this is access to space by khallow · · Score: 1

      Please name the meaningful problem "a one-tenth scale replica spacecraft was carried by high-altitude ballon to a height of 100,475 ft " solved.

      It's a step towards the full scale version. They're testing manufacture techniques, technologies, telemetry, and launch procedures.

    16. Re:None of this is access to space by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Space nutters

      Damn, Pope; when you're not posting insightful stuff (which you admittedly do, on occasion), you're really quite the douche.

    17. Re:None of this is access to space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barren and desolate is not quite how Charles Darwin described the ocean in the "Voyage of the Beagle", but, nice try. While securing the naming rights for the discovery of an already populated continent must certainly count for something, I do not quite see the relevance to space, notable for such attractive features as low temperatures, zero g, and easy access to a hard vacuum.

    18. Re:None of this is access to space by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Several hundred years ago a bunch of men nailed together a bunch of dead trees, left their warm beds, and set sail across a barren, desolate, hostile ocean. They left behind real, tangible, and local problems in the hope of adventure, gold, glory, and a better life.

      Leaving millions of dead native Americans.

      Exploration is not about immediate returns.

      And commercial space travel is not about "space exploration".

      I don't know how to make the entire world a better place all at once

      I don't think that leaving it is how you make the world a better place.

      Actually, I take that back.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re:None of this is access to space by erice · · Score: 1

      How about getting us off this rock before we're wiped out by an asteroid?

      Apart from the area directly under the splat, Earth immediately after a dino-killer asteroid strike will still be more habitable by a large margin than anywhere else in the solar system.

      Or getting us off this rock before our population expands to the point where it can no longer sustain us?

      This argument has more merit. The biggest threat to humans is almost certainly other humans and one sure fire way to get humans to behave badly is to cut off their resources so they end up fighting each other over what remains.

      The trouble is: Earth has an awful lot of easy accessible resources. Flowing water works to separate minerals into rich veins that just don't exist elsewhere. It is hard to find resources that are available in space that can be compete with even the "difficult" and "unprofitable" sources on Earth especially when you factor in the enormous transportation costs.

      Solar power and Helium 3 are about the only resources that stand a good chance and we don't actually have the tech to make use of Helium 3.

    20. Re:None of this is access to space by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I am a big fan of hedging my bets but, at the same time, I'm not sure I want humans spreading out to the galaxy like cockroaches. The reality is that we will eventually be hit by some extinction event that eliminates all human life on this planet. This is not optional, it will happen. There is no (realistic) way around this.

      Now, I'm almost okay with that but let's pretend that I'm not a raging asshole (if only for the sake of argument). I don't think I'm a space nutter to implicitly state that we need to get off this rock in a meaningful way. This does not mean going to Mars. It means finding a way to ensure that long-term travel, in space, is viable. At which point, it no longer matters where we go nor which worlds we inhabit.

      If we want the species to survive longer than Sol then we need to get off this rock - there is no other choice. I am also of the mind that, by the time we realize that we need to do this (as a society) we'll have also reached the point where we've depleted the resources too greatly to accomplish this. And, as stated, I'm kind of okay with the idea of humanity going extinct due to its own ignorance, hubris, and petty politics. I'm not sure that I'd wish our species on the rest of the galaxy.

      Humans suck. I'm glad that I'm not one of them. Also, stop picking on the kids! "Hey, teacher, leave them kids alone."

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    21. Re:None of this is access to space by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The reality is that we will eventually be hit by some extinction event that eliminates all human life on this planet.

      I'm pretty sure human beings are going to be their own extinction event.

      I'm not against space exploration, but the private sector isn't about space exploration. And they're certainly not looking to hedge your bets or my bets or anyone's bets besides their own. And they're not doing it because they're worried about any asteroid.

      I'm crabby tonight because my fantasy football team is in the toilet and my wife's friends came for dinner and drank up the last of my slivovitz. I had to pretend to be hospitable, all like, "Oh, don't worry, I can get more the next time I go to Belgrade. We have it so that you can enjoy it," while I'm thinking if I can get the shop by the Danube where I bought it to deliver some to me by drone before the weekend. It's the perfect beverage for cool autumn evenings.

      I don't hate people, I just feel better when they're not around. AND NOT DRINKING MY SLIVOVITZ.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re:None of this is access to space by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I just want to say... I understand.

      Actually, the young lady has never been to Europe and we were talking about going. I've got to get down to Florida and out to Nevada and then back to Maine first. I'm still in Buffalo. I have no excuses. *sighs*

      However, if I get over to that area - I'll smuggle back a few bottles. You probably think I'm kidding but, no... I just might. Two for my cabinet and one to send by mail. ;-) I'd like to revisit the former Yugoslavia area. Good people but I don't speak *any* of the language. I can usually get drunk in any language, not so Eastern Europe. I don't drink (much) any more - never more than two. I do like a good sipping drink though and Slivovitz fits the bill IIRC. (I was probably drunk and most anything does the trick after a certain point.)

      Anyhow, no... These companies aren't going to do a damned thing useful except, maybe, make some tech cheaper. That's a big maybe. That's one of the reasons I don't think I quite qualify as a space nutter. Close, I mean I dream of it, but no... I figure we're going to screw it up just like we've screwed everything else up. To err is human. My Latin is fuzzy... Est Erratas Humanas? Something like that. I'm too lazy to look and I've nobody to impress. Not even the lady is impressed with butchered Latin, I don't believe. I doubt she knows the difference but I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter.

      She's not much interested in space, either. We do, kinda, need to get off this planet if we want to actually keep the species going. I'm not sure why we're concentrating on going places. Anywhere that's interesting enough to warrant visiting is so far away that we'll need to figure out long term space travel. If we can go that distance then we really don't have to land anywhere. We can just keep tooling along in our rusty Chevrolet or something. Maybe stop at various planets and collect knickknacks and bumper stickers. Maybe collector spoon sets... I don't think we're that enlightened. We'd probably try to sex the aliens, rape their minerals, and pillage their underwear drawers.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    23. Re:None of this is access to space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly this.

  3. Odd choice of name... by Zarquon · · Score: 1

    Not to be confused with the state of the art WorldView series of commercial imagery satellites...

    --
    "'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
  4. Obligatory Zoolander quote? by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Funny

    At Page, Arizona, a one-tenth scale replica spacecraft was carried by high-altitude balloon

    What is this, tourism for ants?! It has to be at least...3 times bigger than this!

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Obligatory Zoolander quote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, they're gonna shrink everyone for greater efficiency, productivity and profit. I'm already lining up the funding for the next big thing, it's re-sizing the tiny little space tourists once they've made it back to earth!

      Additionally, there will be a new market for 3D-VR Full-Motion Simulators that will be used to let people have the experience without every leaving the troposphere. No need for extensive liability waivers, just lots of dramamine.

    2. Re:Obligatory Zoolander quote? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      It's only a model.

    3. Re:Obligatory Zoolander quote? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Yes. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  5. "Sign him up..." by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

    You people offering to pay to launch him into space are really mean.

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
  6. Not even close to the Karman line by RoverDaddy · · Score: 2

    100,000ft is nowhere near 100km. About 30%. But still, if this is an experience people are willing to pay for, good for them.

    --
    RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
    1. Re:Not even close to the Karman line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been dreaming of the possibility of launching a rocket from a floating platform for ages
      will it be possible to launch an amateur type rocket to orbit from a balloon at 100000 feet?
      or maybe design a balloon capable to rise a commercial low payload rocket high enough so the saving in weight and combustible make the launch very cheap?

  7. rockets easier to design than spaceplanes? by peter303 · · Score: 1

    SpaceShipTwo is having a hard time becoming commercial. At least six years so far beyond their announced launch date. Perhaps too much new technology, too many parts ...

    1. Re:rockets easier to design than spaceplanes? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      SpaceShipTwo is having a hard time becoming commercial. At least six years so far beyond their announced launch date. Perhaps too much new technology, too many parts ...

      The big problem with SS2 is that it was a quick kludge to win the X-Prize, and the design just hasn't scaled up the way they expected it to... new technology might well have made it more likely to succeed.

  8. bit3h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    of BSD/OS. A That they si3eline Needs OS. Now BSDI and building is

  9. If you can float in the air, it is NOT space by XXongo · · Score: 2

    one-tenth scale replica spacecraft

    it's not a spacecraft! It's not going to space!

    was carried by high-altitude ballon to a height of 100,475 ft (30,624 m)

    30 km is not space!

    Memorize this: if you can float in the air, you are still in the air.

    So, if you can float in the air, it's not space.

  10. Helium for tourists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like squandering a critical resource in short supply

  11. Bigelow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck these guys, bigelow is where it's at.