Space Tourism.

[little star]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Neo]

sure does

[Dave]

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]

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

[Dave]

This is a link to what I was reading: The future of spacecraft.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnol...ts_000621.html

[markpud]

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]

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...00/1332368.stm

[markpud]

wow spooky!!

[Dave]

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]

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]

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
ii) micro g industry (Pentium X’s!)
iii) mining of the asteroids.

And probably in that order of development.

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 don’t know exactly what they are made of, but most meteorites are Carbonaceous Chondrites – carbon and iron rich, but not highly concentrated in rare elements. My personal opinion is that we won’t find magnetic monopoles, new elements that aren’t already in the periodic table, Dilithium crystals or Naquada. That is the stuff of ‘Fantasy’. 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 can’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 aren’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.