# Space Tourism.



## Dave (May 12, 2001)

Someone emailed me this...........

A multi-millionaire American pays $20 million to the Russians to become the first tourist on a space ship to the Space Station. During his stay he does not touch any buttons, handle any controls or conduct any experiments, but was only be sitting behind a window in the Space Station photographing mother Earth about 250 miles down. He also helped with some housekeeping tasks.

Only the U.S objected to this. The same U.S who allowed scores of lawyers, green-grocers, housewives and other "members of the public" aboard a nuclear submarine, and even let them handle the controls and surface the submarine, ramming a boat full of Japanese schoolchildren.


----------



## Neo (May 12, 2001)

i voted a good thing .. asi would love to go into space... so if it became available i would do it


----------



## padders (May 12, 2001)

definite a good thing. US only pissed because they didn't do it first. Space tourism will be a big industry in 20 years or so. I would imagine there are good hundred maybe thousand people out there who would pay $1 million to go into space. When it can be done for $100,000 it will be popular. I know i would go if i could afford it.

guess who owns www.space-holidays.com ? well i should have bought a few more, like spaceholidays.com but when i bought that i was a bit naive in the ways of domain names


----------



## mr.pointy (May 12, 2001)

well america said that the american was a traitor going 2 russia 2 go 2 space but he did ask NASA 1st but they said no and russia only get a $60,000 income a year 4 space exploration so they needed the money so if america said no then y not russia???

NASA ain't happy cos they r insecure about russia getting in front in n e fing space exploration, weapons, money...u name it tthey wanna be better than russia at it


----------



## padders (May 12, 2001)

$60,000 a year. You are kidding arn't you? there budget is in the billions of $. (and so it should be)

I doubt that NASA care or the people who matter at NASA care (ie not the buerocrats) most people who work at NASA are interested in space and want to promote its exploration. Space tourism is probably a way of financing this and other developments in cheaper, reusable flight systems all of which NASA will benefit from (and probably develop). The problem i imagine is the worry of security aboard the international space station more than anything else.


----------



## mr.pointy (May 12, 2001)

i not kidding at all padders, russia is losing a lot of money, they don't have a high incum as they used 2


----------



## Akula (May 12, 2001)

Space tourism is not a bad thing, but the thing that really made NASA mad was the fact that russia did not ask anybody else who owns the ISS for permission, they just decided to do it.  They placed billions of dollars, and lot of lives at risk.  By the way one of NASA's biggest objections was concern over his health.


----------



## padders (May 12, 2001)

oh that is fair enough. The liability things he must have had to sign, wow that would probably require a $million in laywers fees just to arrange that. You see a company can't just waive liability by saying "if you sign here.. you disclaim etc.." those pieces of paper are often not worth the paper they are written on when it comes to a court of law. If something did go wrong would have been one legal nightmare i would think.

Still, i want to go


----------



## Akula (May 12, 2001)

Yea, can you imagine the lawsuits that a huge piece of flaming space station hitting a building would generate.


----------



## padders (May 12, 2001)

yup.. and it will happen one day. As space use gets done more, removing the waste and debris we are putting in earth orbit is going to be something that needs to be done.


----------



## Akula (May 13, 2001)

Hey, how about we start a space garbage removal service, that way we'll be able to go to space, be doing a "community" service, and we should be able to make a decent amount of money.  Most of those satellites are made with rather expensive materials.


----------



## Neo (May 14, 2001)

yer... spacegarbage.com

Like the sound of that...

Padsders have u really bouth the domain names for space travel.com... and spaceholidays.com

Sounds pretty good if u have


----------



## padders (May 14, 2001)

now i only bought space-holidays.com which was stupid. I should have got a lot more but had no money at all in those days.


----------



## little star (May 15, 2001)

*RE: Dennis Tito*

*DENNIS TITO GETS THE CHANCE TO REALIZE A BOYHOOD DREAM OF FLYING NTO ORBIT BECAUSE HE IS A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE*

Anyone following this news story in earnest will know that it was not only the U.S. who opposed Tito's flight.  While NASA was the most vocal critic, the European, Japanese and Canadian space agencies also opposed his joyride.

As I understand it, these agencies are not opposed on principle to making money off wealthy space travelers, but wanted to wait until certain guidelines for training/liability are in place.

The opposition was based on the fact that Tito was not properly trained, could play no role in normal operations, and  could not respond in an emergency situation. His presence put lives and expensive equipment at risk.  In short, his only purpose was to be a rich American babysat in space.

The idea of making money off space tourists has been around for awhile----it is not especially innovative.  The general consensus has been that we are not advanced enough for space travel to be commonplace, like an airplane ride, just yet.  There are still a lot of things that can easily go wrong---this is not Star Trek, etc. just yet.

As for Russia, their primary concern was not ushering in a new age of space exploration/travel for the masses.  They are responsible for providing two Soyuz vehicles per year and do not have the money to do so.  Accepting Tito's offer was simply a convenient,short-sighted solution.

Russian space executives are also supposedly looking into accepting money from American media executives who are interested in creating "reality tv" programs along the lines of 'Survivor-in-Space'. (And the advancement of humanity marches on...I guess our society only has two concerns---1) money and 2) entertainment.

If anyone has $20 million to throw around, and wants to be the next Dennis Tito, Space Adventures is looking for you!  Go to www.spaceadventures.com or call 1.888.85.SPACE.  Book your space adventure today!

little star :star:


----------



## little star (May 15, 2001)

*P.S.*

My vote would be a third choice---A good thing, but not yet.

 

little star :star:


----------



## little star (May 15, 2001)

*RE: Space garbage removal*

Debris in earth orbit is a real concern.  This does not just include big chunks of our space garbage.  Even objects as small as a few millimeters can cause serious damage to satellites or space stations (and therefore risking the safety of those working aboard such space stations).  Mir and  the International Space Station must make maneuvers to avoid the space junk.  The Russians even went as far as expressing concern that if things continue as they are, Earth could develop a Saturn-like ring of space trash (that could put a serious cramp in their burgeoning space tourism business!).

The International Commitee on Space Contamination acknowledges that the problem is serious.

The solution appears to lie not in going and cleaning up the space junk, but in redesigning our space devices to ensure they return to Earth.  This will require a big input of money (changing carrier rockets so that their waste stages descend to lower orbits, providing additional fuel for each satellite to come down to the atmosphere).  So far, no one is in a hurry to spend the money required to ensure space travel has a promising future (too concerned with coming up with ways to make a fast buck off it _right now!!_).

little star :star:


----------



## Dave (May 15, 2001)

I like the idea of space litter-picking or space conserving! Thanks for making this an interesting thread.

Apparently, NASA's quoted position was that space tourism eroded the 'heroic' image of astronauts. Surely, it's now time to move on from space travel as a pioneering effort, to space travel as an everyday occurence, and I would have thought it was in NASAs interest to back that. NASA is also quoted as saying that it hopes to make access to space cheaper, safer and more reliable. My guess is that they are still too rattled by the 'Challenger' disaster to send up passengers, yet.

The legal and safety aspects would be enormous, and it would still only be the very rich who could go. On the age aspect, many people have pointed out how, John Glenn went back into space in his 70's, however he was a fit, trained astronaunt and pilot. Denis Tito did do some training with the Russians, and he was an retired rocket engineer.

In 1993, the first market research on the demand for space tourism was conducted in Japan.
This revealed that 70% of those under age 60 and more than 80% of those under age 40 stated they would like to visit space at least once in their lifetime, and most would pay up to three months salary for a trip to outer space. I would love to go myself. 

To really get space tourism moving, we need to first build some better spacecraft. We almost have the technology to build the sort of rocket-ships seen in 1930-1950 Scifi books and serials, which only stopped when we began putting men on the top of big fireworks instead.
These would require an air-breathing rocket, which sucks in oxygen from the atmosphere and therefore does not need to carry oxidizer. No oxidiser, means less weight, which means a smaller craft, and in turn, even less weight. At liftoff, the air-breather rocket engine gets its initial flow of oxygen from specially designed rockets inside the craft's intake ducts. At twice the speed of sound, the rocket switches to atmospheric oxygen to burn the hydrogen fuel propelling the craft.

There would then be no difference between a spacecraft and commercial airliner, and we could take scheduled flights from one side of the Earth to the other, in an hour or so. There must be a demand for that kind of travel, even just among businessmen, but there also has to be a political will to build them, as the development is too expensive for companies or individuals.

Another idea for a transportation system which could be built to carry passengers into space for tourism is the "space elevator". It's futuristic only in that it has not been built yet. It does not rely on warp drive or any other magic technology, but rather adapts concepts developed or proposed for NASA activities.
A space hotel in low Earth orbit, would suspend a space dock 160 miles above the Earth, via a hanging tether. Passengers and cargo would be brought to the dock by a new suborbital reusable launch vehicle, and would travel up the tether via a space elevator. The launch vehicle latches onto the dock, and is carried back to the launch site.  The dock moves at only 79% of orbital velocity, which quadruples the payload capacity of the launch vehicle.

Travel to planets is more difficult, we would need to first build a moonbase where we could construct and assemble larger vehicles. Travelling to other planets is what I would really like to do.


----------



## padders (May 15, 2001)

the elevator to space is a nice idea and apparently might be practical although there are some serious concerns with it, the first being finding a material strong enough, diamond is apparently the only thing with the strength needed but it does not stretch enough for use. There are some goods books about these, the Mars triology by Kin Stanley robinson and i think fountains of paradise by Arthur c clarke although i am not sure if that is the one, the ACC book has a lot of technical information in an appendix as well about it which is quite interesting.


----------



## Neo (May 15, 2001)

I read somewehere that we are already able to go into space comercially instead of traveling on airoplanes.  I think it was if u travel straight up so far and then come down you will get to wherever in half the time it would take on a plane...

I also read that the air industry was some how putting it a stop on it .... casue it would kill there industry,,,


----------



## padders (May 15, 2001)

sounds a bit like a "conspiracy theory" to me ....


----------



## Neo (May 15, 2001)

sure does


----------



## Dave (May 15, 2001)

I saw designs for such things a few years ago, (I think it was in 'New Scientist'). Most of the best designs were British, but I was just reading today on Space.com that NASA doesn't expect to built that kind of thing until 2040, so either it must still be theoretical, or NASA is behind everyone else.(unlikely!)

Surely, it would be the airlines who would fly these things commercially, so why would they stop it. The fact that 'Concord' could still make money, even though it uses many more times fuel than a Jumbo, means that there is a demand for quick flights.


----------



## Neo (May 15, 2001)

i did not know that.... Nasa i assume is well ahead of everyone else so there fore it must be untrue


----------



## Dave (May 15, 2001)

This is a link to what I was reading: The future of spacecraft.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/advanced_projects_000621.html


----------



## markpud (May 15, 2001)

i would love to go into space, and i'm convinced it will be affordable in my lifetime. That link only reinforces that belief....

There will surely be some kind of space hotels, "would you like earth view or moon view"  and the inevitable race to open the first burger king/mcdonalds in space...


----------



## Dave (May 16, 2001)

This is a link to an article from BBC News. I found it and didn't know where to post it. I guess here is OK because anyone going on a space trip should be aware of it...........

Spacecraft on their way out of our solar system are not behaving as expected. They are being pulled off course by a mysterious force. Do not adjust your TV, we have entered The Twilight Zone:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1332000/1332368.stm


----------



## markpud (May 16, 2001)

wow  spooky!!


----------



## Dave (Mar 12, 2002)

*US Airways and Space Adventures to Offer the Ultimate Destination: Space*

US Airways and Space Adventures, Ltd., have formed an exclusive new exclusive business agreement where US Airways' Dividend Miles members will have the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to earn and redeem frequent flyer miles for travel to the ultimate tourist destination -- outer space. US Airways is the world's first airline to offer mileage accrual and redemption for space travel.

In addition to an actual flight to space, US Airways' Dividend Miles can be earned and redeemed for Space Adventures' zero gravity and supersonic high-altitude jet flights, as well as astronaut-led shuttle launch tours.

"US Airways and Space Adventures have created an incredible opportunity that only can be imagined by most people today," said US Airways Senior Vice President of Marketing B. Ben Baldanza. "We are delighted to join with Space Adventures in this exciting new out-of-this-world endeavor."

"We are proud to have US Airways as Space Adventures' official domestic airline," said Eric Anderson, President and CEO of Space Adventures. "We look forward to taking their passengers farther and higher than they have ever gone before."

_Sub-Orbital Space Flights:_ Space Adventures will offer Dividend Miles members a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to go to space! Participants will be able to climb aboard a sub-orbital spacecraft and fly to an altitude of 62 miles (100 km), experience several minutes of weightlessness and see the planet from space. Upon return to Earth, participants earn their astronaut wings! Flights are planned for 2004-2005.

Space Adventures is the company that has been arranging trips to the ISS. One small problem though, they don't actually have a sub-orbital craft yet. 2005?? Don't air miles have blackout dates that will expire before then? And can you use *air miles* to travel into space, which is a vacuum?


----------



## padders (Mar 12, 2002)

Wicked 

One thing I just read in this thread is NASA being upset about Space not being a pionerring effort any more. This is perhaps true, I don't think a Mars landing today would get as much of a sense of wonder as something like the moon landings did, but that is probably because NASA consistantly underperforms now, in fact pretty much nothing substantial has been achieved in the eyes of the public bar a little robot that walked around for 100 meters on Mars, very cool but hardly that impressive 40 ish years on from landing on the Moon.

NASA has lots of other uses of course but the manned exploration of space seems to be priority #2323432 at the moment. If they want the heroic bit of space exploration to come back then this priority has to change. Space exploration is not just about the science, learning new things although that is clearly incredibly important but it is part of testing humans and see what we can achieve as a species.

I really do hope that commercial interest in space takes off. At the moment the 3 most likely uses for space that I can see would be:

i) space tourism
ii) micro g industry (Pentirum X's !)
iii) mining of the asteroids.

and probably in that order of development. There are probably more uses from capturing solar energy and beeming it down to earth (dangerous perhaphs) and eventually even terraforming a planet (an amazing achievement that I doubt anyone here will even see the begging of unfortunatly).

If I was bill gates this is what I would be doing, spending half my surplus money building infastructure in developing countries be it trains, electricity connectons, roads, house, hospitals and the other half in space research.


----------



## Dave (Mar 13, 2002)

> _ Originally posted by padders _
> * I really do hope that commercial interest in space takes off. At the moment the 3 most likely uses for space that I can see would be:
> 
> i) space tourism
> ...



I totally agree with that order of development, but it could change in the future, dependent upon new discoveries and technology, which I cannot predict. 

The financial incentives to live and work in space have lagged behind the unrealistic expectations of rapid growth, and the impression given by the Moon landings that space was no longer a wilderness, but already a new frontier. 

Until geologists survey the Asteroids we donâ€™t know exactly what they are made of, but most meteorites are Carbonaceous Chondrites â€“ carbon and iron rich, but not highly concentrated in rare elements. My personal opinion is that we wonâ€™t find magnetic monopoles, new elements that arenâ€™t already in the periodic table, Dilithium crystals or Naquada. That is the stuff of â€˜Fantasyâ€™. If the asteroids do get mined it will have more to do with the economics of mineral extraction on Earth, increasing environmental concerns regarding that extraction, and the cost of transporting the ores to the processing sites.

There are not just mineral resources in space to exploit. Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) space have a number of resources available: vacuum, micro gravity, isolation and position. In LEO "position" in the form of bandwidths for telecommunication satellites is already being exploited.

Many micro g processes would work as well on the moon; it would be cheaper to maintain a Moon base than an orbital satellite. Once that is established, it will be cheaper to use raw materials sourced from the Moon, and then to use it to build and launch spacecraft from the lower g there. Other associated industries will be attracted there, with opportunities for entrepreneurs, and the settlement will grow in size.

I think these commercial interests are not interdependent. I canâ€™t see a hotel being built on the Moon, before a settlement already exists there, otherwise there would be little to do other than a quick Moon buggy ride; and no business travellers, only tourists who tend to spend less. Once it was built, then gambling and Las Vegas type developments would also follow. Also the cost of transporting ore from the asteroids to the Moon would be considerably less than to Earth because of the lower g, so a Moon base would make that more likely too.

As for getting any further out: Manned Space flight is going to be severely limited if we are going to rely on chemical rockets as a power source. We need to build more advanced propulsion systems, so that we arenâ€™t stuck forever in low-Earth orbit. Long and slow journeys in space are bad for people. It is debilitating to bones and muscles, and radiation from the solar wind and cosmic rays result in cancer.  In this article http://www.techreview.com/articles/hickam030802.asp Homer Hickam argues that we need nuclear fission powered rockets to do it.


----------



## squire (Mar 13, 2002)

Personally, I think its a bad thing. Well, not so much BAD just, its not fair. Its not fair for the hard working astronauts who have have to study ALL their lives to go into space. Then some rich guy comes along, pays a whole heap of cash, and bingo, he's there. 
Which means, now the astronauts have more work to do. To make sure that this 'tourist' doesnt touch anything or do anything. So ya know, heres the astronauts trying to do their job, which theyve been studying their whole lives for, but theyve now also got to show their 'tourist' what things do and all that. I mean, if you were to go into a space shuttle, you would like to know what all the little buttons and all that do.I think they have more to worry about than explaining stuff to this tourists.
But hey! Thats just me!

Squire


----------



## padders (Mar 13, 2002)

Perhaps but that $20 million he paid will enable more astronauts to go and fly up on missions but as space becomes commercalised astronauts will beomce less and less of the dream job as it becomes relegated to that of a pilot. At the moment astronaut = test pilot but that will eventually change.

Totally agree about the power source problem Dave, that is probably the major change that is needed, and thanks for the link to that article


----------



## Dave (Mar 17, 2002)

This is the sub-orbital craft that 'Space Adventures' hope to take you up to space in:

http://www.spaceadventures.com/press/031402.html

The Cosmopolis XXI Aerospace System (C-21) is designed specifically for sub-orbital space tourist flights. The full-scale model of the reusable launch vehicle (RLV) was unveiled this week at the Zhukovsky Air Base outside of Moscow, Russia.

Can anyone lend me some money?


----------



## Gaia (Mar 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Dave _
> *Can anyone lend me some money? *



<<<<turns pockets inside out>>>>  oops, dave...don't think that is gonna get you there...<<<<lightbulb>>>>  why don't yo start a "please send dave to space" collection thread?  i'm sure if you promised to give ascifi a step-by-step report maybe together we could make your dream come true???


----------



## Dave (Mar 20, 2002)

I promise to write up a review after I return


----------



## Dave (Apr 6, 2002)

Another man, Mark Shuttleworth, is reported to have paid $20 Million to be taken to the ISS.

Russia is ready to sign on a third "space tourist" who will follow in the footsteps of American Dennis Tito and South African Mark Shuttleworth, a space agency official said on Tuesday.
"There are volunteers. Their numbers are even greater than we could expect, considering the cost of such an outing," Russian Space Agency spokesman Sergei Gorbunov told ITAR-TASS.

NASA meanwhile have produced new ISS guidelines for visitors. These require them to speak English (and basic Russian if arriving with them) and to train for 12 months in advance. The Code of Conduct prevents experimentation on guests, selling of souvenirs for profit, and includes a list of unwelcome guests.


----------



## Neo (Apr 7, 2002)

$20 million.... Its disgusting that people have this much money to throw away when we have disease and poverty in our world..


----------



## Dave (Apr 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Neo _
> *$20 million.... Its disgusting that people have this much money to throw away when we have disease and poverty in our world.. *



That is another subject entirely, and I agree!

But given that some individuals do have that much money, and that they are entitled to spend it anyway they wish, is it "throwing it away" to put it towards building the ISS?

Throwing big celebrity parties, racing motor cars or horses, flying hot air balloons on pointless long distance flights -- these all seem more like "throwing it away" to me?

And don't governments have a bigger responsiblity towards resolving the inequality in our world. Aren't they "throwing it away" too, by spending it on space research instead?


----------



## Dave (Apr 26, 2002)

*2nd Tourist launched.*

_Whether we agree or not, Space Tourism is now an established part of the setup. This report says that the Russians would be crippled without this western money to supplement their own._

(from Space.com)
*Soyuz Rocket Launches Shuttleworth into Orbit, Space Station Next Stop*

By Mara D. Bellaby
Associated Press

BAIKONUR, Kazakhstan (AP) -- The world's second space tourist lifted off Thursday on a Russian rocket from the Baikonur launchpad in Central Asia, heading for the International Space Station. 

The Soyuz-U rocket blasted off at 2:27 a.m. EDT (0627 GMT) carrying Mark Shuttleworth, a 28-year-old South African Internet magnate, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gidzenko and Italian Air Force pilot Roberto Vittori on a 10-day mission.  

The launch went smoothly and as scheduled, and the rocket reached orbit about eight minutes later, officials at mission control outside Moscow announced immediately after liftoff. 

The 161-foot (49-meter) Soyuz-U booster delivered the Soyuz TM-34 spacecraft into an orbit that will lead to a docking with the frontier outpost Saturday at 3:57 a.m. EDT (0757 GMT). The docking will be carried live on NASA TV. 

Shuttleworth paid $20 million for the journey, which began from the same cosmodrome in now-independent Kazakhstan where the Soviet Union inaugurated the space race, sending up the world's first satellite in 1957 and the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, four years later. 

The money will be paid in installments that will be complete only after the team returns to Earth on May 5. 

Shuttleworth admitted to feeling a bit jittery about his voyage into orbit, a trip that he's been dreaming about since childhood. 

"I have some nervousness and some anxiety _ I am not a professional astronaut,'' Shuttleworth said on the eve of the launch. 

This team's mission, named "Marco Polo,'' is to drop off a fresh Soyuz spacecraft to the space station. A Soyuz is kept docked as a lifeboat and replaced every six months. 

"We are ready. We are sure of ourselves and our hardware,'' flight commander Gidzenko, the only one on the crew with space experience, told journalists Wednesday. 
Shuttleworth is following in the footsteps of American businessman Dennis Tito, who became the first space tourist last year when he went to the international station on a Russian rocket. But Shuttleworth is determined that the world consider him more than just a passenger. 

He has spent eight months in grueling training with the other cosmonauts, learned Russian so he can communicate with mission control outside Moscow and attended one week's worth of lessons at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. 

Shuttleworth also received lessons from a South African scientist who needs his help to conduct experiments on how sheep and mice stem cells react in zero-gravity. 

Stem cells are the body's master repair cells, and they can develop into a wide variety of different cell and tissue types that researchers are working to develop as treatments for various diseases. 

Shuttleworth wore a patch Wednesday on his blue spacesuit bearing the red ribbon symbolizing the fight against AIDS, saying that he hoped some of the experiments will in "some small way'' help in the battle. 

Struggling to keep alive their once world-leading space program, the Russians began exploring alternative sources of funding after the breakup of the Soviet Union. In addition to offering seats to paying riders, the Russians have courted Western companies eager for a chance to work in the world's oldest space facility. 

"The Russians were near starving. Five or 10 years ago it looked like they were all going to disappear, but now Western money has come in and things are looking brighter,'' said James Oberg, a U.S. expert on the Russian space program. 

Shuttleworth said he is grateful for the chance the Russians offered him. 

"I believe we are stretching the boundaries of the cosmos and in the next few years, I believe we will make the cosmos even more accessible,'' he said.


----------



## Technomage (Apr 26, 2002)

I think it's a good thing, too, as the money he is paying the Russians is helping to keep them afloat. I think the Americans should be grateful that it isn't them who are having to bail the Russians out.

Actually, I don't think the Americans *are* upset by it, but they have to make disapproving noises so they aren't bombarded by people wanting to do the same.


----------



## Dave (May 23, 2002)

Were you aware that there had been symposiums on space tourism?

I found this article which suggests a model for the development of space tourism along the lines of cruise ships, and concludes that cruise ship companies should quickly get in on the act.

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/space_hotels_the_cruise_ship_analogy.shtml


----------



## sidewinder (Jun 10, 2002)

its a nice dream but until the launch costs can be lowered it will remain a dream.


----------



## Dave (Aug 14, 2002)

*This is how it will happen!*

I don't think it is that much of a dream, if this is built it would be fairly easy to get people into orbit, and from there the costs of travel to the moon and planets is much lower.

*Going up? Space elevator wins support*



> Canadian National Post. Tuesday, August 13, 2002 -- The fantastic notion of a space elevator -- a concept that first appeared in a Russian technical journal in the early 1960s and then crept into the works of science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke in the 1970s -- could be a reality before long.
> 
> Seattle-based HighLift Systems is hosting a conference this week to meet with investors and other parties potentially interested in a device that could open the final frontier to the masses within 15 years because of the space elevator's relatively low costs and extremely high traffic volume.
> 
> ...


----------



## sidewinder (Aug 14, 2002)

thats a great idea but as Arthur C Clarke said the on biggest problem with the space elevator is the orbiting space junk so space would have to be cleaned up first.


----------



## EmilyH (Aug 15, 2002)

I'd love to go, but I probably wouldn't be able to do the zero-G training without getting sick to my stomach.

I think the reason NASA is against it is cause they don't want rich folks going up and getting in their way and not being really trained to do anything, not for any political reasons or anything.


----------



## Tabitha (Aug 15, 2002)

I read that the other day too.  But I think the source I read was somewhat unreliable as they said that the elevator could itself stretch to mars.  Seems unlikely to me 

interesting stuff, though.  Money is the root of all the problems of the space programs, maybe these kind of solutions might make space travel more of a likelihood for the near future.


----------



## sidewinder (Aug 16, 2002)

the elevator idea would only work if the other end was attached to an object moving at the same speed as the earth that why attching it to another planet or even the moon would not work


----------



## padders (Aug 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by sidewinder _
> *the elevator idea would only work if the other end was attached to an object moving at the same speed as the earth that why attching it to another planet or even the moon would not work *



why does it need to be attached to anything? think of holding an orange or something like that with a piece of string stuck to it and then spin the orange around yourself, the string would stick out straight if you span it fast enough. This, i believe, is the idea behind the elevator "tail".


----------



## sidewinder (Aug 16, 2002)

the original idea was to capture a near earth asteroid and attach the tower to the end of it as this would be use not only to keep the tower up but also straight.


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Aug 18, 2002)

A good thing as it will open up the tourism industry a bit more


----------



## sidewinder (Aug 20, 2002)

thats the idea.

has anyone here heard of the X prize


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Aug 21, 2002)

No, what is it any way?


----------



## sidewinder (Aug 21, 2002)

its a prize for a team of ppl to build a reusable rocket to carry three ppl into space on a suborbital flight bit like the early NASA flights and it has to return to earth and be relaunched in something like three weeks to do the same flight with the same ppl this has to be done without company backing and the prise is like $1,000,000.


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Aug 22, 2002)

Sounds interesting & good luck 2 the teams who have entered


----------



## sidewinder (Aug 22, 2002)

there going to need it as most of the early designs seem to like self distructing at takeoff


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Aug 23, 2002)

Thta is not at all good


----------



## sidewinder (Aug 24, 2002)

its all part of the learning curve


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Aug 24, 2002)

I know it is & let's hope that they get over that problem as soon as they can


----------



## duokilla (Aug 24, 2002)

I really would like to go into space but you need all that training and everything.


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Aug 24, 2002)

I wouldn't mind going up in 2 space either, but it would also cost a fair amount aswell


----------



## sidewinder (Aug 27, 2002)

one of the x prise ppl have created there own space training facility to train ppl to become astronoghts (sp?) within 4 weeks and for a lot less money than what it cost NASA


----------



## Texane (Aug 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by padders _
> *I doubt that NASA care or the people who matter at NASA care (ie not the buerocrats) most people who work at NASA are interested in space and want to promote its exploration. Space tourism is probably a way of financing this and other developments in cheaper, reusable flight systems all of which NASA will benefit from (and probably develop). The problem i imagine is the worry of security aboard the international space station more than anything else. *


You said it exactly right, Padders.  Americans didn't care specifically because it seemed that good 'ole capitalism was at work: the guy bought himself onto a great ride to the stars, and any one of us who had the money would do the same thing.

I understand the security issue; even so, more power to him!  :star:


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Aug 28, 2002)

It would be good though 2 be able 2 have a holiday in space, don't you think?


----------



## sidewinder (Aug 28, 2002)

sounds good to me


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Aug 28, 2002)

I know as it would be a very unique experience indeed


----------



## sidewinder (Aug 28, 2002)

that it would be.


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Aug 28, 2002)

Also something 2 talk about gro ages 2 come aswell


----------



## sidewinder (Aug 28, 2002)

?


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Aug 28, 2002)

I meant 2 talk about for ages 2 come side, sorry!  :blush:


----------



## sidewinder (Aug 28, 2002)

ok then now i get it.


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Aug 28, 2002)

That's good :rolly2:


----------



## sidewinder (Aug 28, 2002)

how about the Moon for a hoilday resort


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Aug 28, 2002)

Be different & interesting, don't you think?


----------



## sidewinder (Aug 28, 2002)

i figured why not after all long term zero G does not do the body any good so for longer stays the moon would be ideal


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Aug 28, 2002)

True it certainly would be


----------



## sidewinder (Aug 28, 2002)

even with SSTO it would be still quite expensive to go there and would take a while but worth it.


----------



## Texane (Aug 29, 2002)

*ya gotta be kiddin' me . . .*

this morning it was announced on numerous radio stations that (I'm serious; is this SciFi, or what?) Lance of N Sync has been approved by the US government to go over to Moscow and train for the next Russian launch to the International Space Station . . . and yes, boys and girls, he ponied up the $20 million dollars.


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Aug 29, 2002)

Wow!

That sure is a lot of money though!


----------



## Dave (Sep 9, 2002)

I heard that he has been turned down because he couldn't come up with enough money.
---------------------------------------------------

Once we get into space on the elevator, these are the ways we might get to other planets...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/09sept_spacepropulsion.htm?aol736141


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Sep 9, 2002)

Crickey! 

No wonder if it costs that much!

:blush:


----------



## Dave (Sep 17, 2002)

*It had to happen eventually.....*

Now comes the *Space Tourist Quiz Show*

Pepsi are in negotiation with the Russian Space Authority to give a flight to the ISS as a prize on a gameshow... something along the lines of *Who wants to be an Astronaunt?* I expect!

I guess it is the logical next step, but it is beginning to make me think twice about my original 'Yes' vote in this poll.

I expect the applicants will all have to have strict health checks, and there will be clauses built in to the contracts, but it is going too far.


----------



## padders (Sep 17, 2002)

Why? IMHO any money that gets used to fund space research and the building of space infastructure is good; and the publicity is no bad thing either. Probably the best thing for space tourism would be some very famous person going into space. Personally I am all for it; and it is great that companies can see the potential of marketing such things.


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Sep 18, 2002)

Goo grief!, what will they think of next?

:blush:


----------



## Dave (Sep 18, 2002)

*Why?*

A number of reasons "why not" were given at the start of this thread. I agree with you about the publicity being helpful, and the Russians do seem to be in desperate financial need, but the difference I see now is that they could screen Denis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth, and check their health and fitness, whereas this seems to be giving a blank ticket to anyone who wins.

But, they will probably do all the checks on the applicants before they enter the quiz, and they can always refuse if they discover later that they work for al-Qaeda.

Also maybe the tests will include some physical fitness section, like the "Krypton Factor" TV show did, so maybe it's not such a problem.


----------



## padders (Sep 18, 2002)

Do you really need to be "that" fit to go into space? While you have to manage the high g on take off what other things require you to be fit? They had a 70 year old up there, i think most people are going to be ok.


----------



## Chicky Babe (Sep 18, 2002)

I really don't agree with the whole space tourism thing 'cos sure it would be awesome but its exploitation and if u got enough money to do that u r tooooooo rich and should spend it on better things.  A lso I think NASA have better things to do with their time... eg saving us from getting hit by asteroids :s


----------



## Dave (Sep 18, 2002)

By '70 year old', do you mean John Glen? He is a very fit and healthy individual, having been a WWII Navy pilot before becoming an astronaunt. I don't think you can compare him with 'coach potatos' who sit watching TV gameshows. 

If they don't want to pay out life assurance, then health and fitness must be a consideration. There are many physiological changes that take place in weightlessness, although if the flight doesn't last that long they may not be so important:

Space motion sickness causes less gastrointestinal motility, and hepatic (Liver) metabolism is different so drugs act differently, and drug absorption is different too -- most middle aged, or elderly people take some kind of medication. 

Women's hormonal and menstrual function is changed. This can result in some severe hormonal imbalances, leading to wasting of bones. 

There is also a greater strain on the heart, and heart attacks would be more common.


----------



## Bayleaf48 (Sep 19, 2002)

It's beginning 2 sound like this psace tourism is a bad idea after all  

:blush:


----------



## Dave (Sep 19, 2002)

Not at all, I want Space Tourism to succeed, if only because I'd like to go myself.

I've been thinking about the medical problems all day, and I've decided that sending the game show winner is no different to someone paying to go. If it ever became a fare-paying service then they couldn't really refuse someones money without very good cause. I'm sure that medical science will find cures for the various ailments, and to do that they need more people to go, so that they have a larger sample for tests.

That only leaves the security problems. I think sending people to the ISS is different to sending people to 'a space hotel', were it ever built. The ISS is meant to be a scientific laboratory, not an amusement park. But, other than that, I've returned to my yes vote again.


----------



## sidewinder (Oct 6, 2002)

the medical issue here is not as bigger problem as you might think as with the x-prise a few ppl with minimal training can be lunched into a sub orbital flight without too many problems.
you might need a bit more training and be fairly healthy for a long stay in space. As the most difficult part of the whole space travel thing is on take off and landing where the human body is subjected to moderate g force of around 6 G's.


----------



## padders (Oct 17, 2002)

The medical issues would certainly be a problem if they were going to stay in space for exteneded periods of time, but I doubt that is going to be the case (especially if this starts to become more regular). Sure it is risky but so are a lot of things  Having someone die up there would however be a problem in space tourisms development so I hope they do do some research on how fit you really need to be.

Yeah the security issues are a big thing, the amount of damage someone could do up there is just too much to think about.


----------



## Texane (Oct 18, 2002)

Space hotel?  How about a space prison?  No where to go . . . fewer jail breaks . . .


----------



## sidewinder (Oct 25, 2002)

nice idea, you would probably still get some nutter who would try to escape


----------



## Dave (Jun 16, 2004)

*Virgin Spaceflights*

I'm resurrecting this thread since it is in the news again.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,14493,1235926,00.html

*Branson reaches for the stars* 

_Jane Perrone
Thursday June 10, 2004 _



> Sir Richard Branson aims to bring space travel within the reach of ordinary people by pioneering space flights at affordable prices.
> 
> The thrill-seeking entrepreneur told Guardian Unlimited that Virgin was investing money in "trying to make sure that, in the not too distant future, people from around the world will be able to go into space". He said he hoped to be a passenger on one of the first tourist space flights into space.
> 
> ...


_from Guardian Unlimited_
AND...

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/body.htm

*Our message at the April 18th 2003 unveiling of the Tier One program *



> Flight research has always been Scaled Composites' forte. For the 21 years since Scaled's founding, we have designed, built and flight tested 23 unique manned research aircraft types and developed over 40 unmanned products. Counting the homebuilt and milestone aircraft developed earlier by Rutan Aircraft Factory, 38 different types of Rutan-designed manned aircraft have flown research test programs. None have had a significant accident or pilot injury during flight test activity. Our flight safety approach of "question, never defend" has allowed us to take courageous steps by safely flying new ideas and new performance envelopes. We are now focusing on the big step of developing a high-altitude supersonic light aircraft. This program, if successful, will result in the first non-government manned space flight (above 100 km altitude).
> 
> Sub-orbital manned space flights have been done before by Redstone - Mercury in 1961 and by the B-52 - X-15 in 1963. Even though the experience, as described by Alan Shepard, Gus Grissom and Joe Walker was awe-inspiring, sub-orbital space flights were ignored for the next 40 years. The view from the apex of a sub-orbital flight is similar to being in orbit, but the cost and risk is far less.
> 
> ...


_from Scaled Composites_

When I started this thread this was all science fiction, now it sounds like a reality, in only a couple of years.


----------



## Dave (Sep 28, 2004)

*Latest News...*

Yesterday, Sir Richard Branson (Virgin Galactic) signed a Â£14 million licensing deal with Paul Allen, the Microsoft billionaire who funded _SpaceShipOne _, for the technology to build passenger versions of the craft. 

Virgin Galactic then announced plans to be the worldâ€™s first space tourism operator, charging Â£115,000 for a two-hour private flight from the Mojave Desert in California. Passengers are promised a window seat with a view stretching from Mexico to Canada, plus the opportunity to experience weightlessness for about five minutes, reports â€˜The Timesâ€™.

In June 2004, _SpaceShipOne_, designed by Burt Rutan, became the first manned and privately owned vehicle to escape the bounds of the Earthâ€™s atmosphere. Tomorrow, Mr Rutanâ€™s team will attempt to win the X-Prize, the $10 million (Â£5.5 million) reward for the first three-man vehicle to reach the sub-orbital height of 62 miles twice in two weeks.

Construction is due to begin before Christmas and Virgin will begin to take deposits for the first trips in January 2005. It would need to complete between 50 and 100 test flights before seeking certification by the US Federal Aviation Administration. Flight-testing is scheduled to begin in 2006 with the first inaugural flight in early 2007.


----------



## Stryker (Oct 16, 2004)

Spaceshipone has stirred everones interest in private space travel.

Now they have up the stakes on the prize for a larger version for space tourism.

If I ever get the money              I am going for a ride  

Stryker


----------



## Dave (Mar 29, 2006)

I'm not sure if this was just an advertising stunt by an insurance company, it doesn't really have anything new that isn't already in this thread, but it is the first time I've read the word 'Touronaut'.


> _Evening Standard
> 25 March 2006_
> 
> *Space tourism may cost Â£500,000*
> ...


----------



## philoSCIFI (Apr 8, 2006)

For some reason I see question marks in front of the estimated figures. Is that dollars, euros, or...?


----------



## Dave (Apr 8, 2006)

I see Â£ not ?, but it said Â£575,000 for the full flight in the future, and $ 200,000 dollars (Â£115,000) for a sub-orbital space flight in 2008.

Are you saving then,  philoSCIFI?


----------



## philoSCIFI (Apr 8, 2006)

Hmm... You're post came out as:

I see ?(question mark) not ?(still question mark), but it said ?(question mark)575,000 for the full flight in the future, and $ 200,000 dollars (?115,000) for a sub-orbital space flight in 2008.

But I think I get the gist either way.  :rolly2:
 Thanks.

As for:
Are you saving then, philoSCIFI?

 That's hilarious Dave. No, I'm not saving for a space flight or even a sub-orbital space flight. I feel no need for space travel in my future. Perhaps my grandchildren or great grandchildren (or even later generations), but for me personally at anytime in my future? No thanks. No need and no passion for it. *shrugs*

I like the idea, but I don't seem to have any reason to go. Aside from that, I've read and/or heard about the affects of prolonged times in space and... well... I like being able to stand (walk, jog, run, skate, and snowboard as well    ).


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 18, 2006)

Broken poll - closing thread.


----------

