CHOICE membership

Space tourism

accommodation

#1

For a future issue of Choice?

Only six years away. Wouldn’t want to miss out. Book now, avoid the rush!


It looks like each room comes with its own space shuttle. Not going to be cheap.


#2

At a guess, you will need to take everything you need for your stay with you.
Oxygen, water, food, waste collection bags, clean bedding, toothpaste, etc.
And then take it all back home with you on the return trip.

Need a 5 star experience with a butler and chef? While the stars outside are infinite, who can afford to take their own staff?

Fancy that special moment or honeymoon. There’s a big bright one out the window. Hopefully the rooms are not zero G. One sneeze and it will be everywhere!


#3

Evidently not:


#4

It looks like most of the accommodation is in the rim, presumably the wheel design is to create pseudo-gravity in the rim by spinning it round the hub. Maybe you pay extra for a night in the hub where you can fulfil that sf fantasy of zero G congress with that special person - as Arthur C Clarke had it “the nasa sutra”.


#5

I caved in and watched the linked YouTube presentations.

Not quite captivating given the authoritative tone of the marketing. I guess prospective guests need that kind of reassurance. Alongside each accommodation module is an emergency escape vehicle. More reassurance you won’t be left behind if that monster asteroid appears unexpectedly.

Cynicism and optimism:
I wonder what might be gained as opposed to spending the equivalent on fixing up things down here first.

A project that even in the first version (400 inhabitants) dwarfs the ISS in so many ways. And all up and running by 2025!

Is this really still at proof of concept stage, or is it just ‘pie in the sky’, oops, ‘intergalactic pixie dust’?

It appears you can send in your CV if you are interested in a job up there too! Hopefully Centrelink is onto it and has a que of job ready applicants to go! It looks like a great fit between their two business models and shared vision? :wink:

P.S. The marketing comes at the end of the spiel. An investment so good every billionaire will want to buy into the first real estate in space, and then just wait for the money to start flowing in.


#6

Some other options are discussed by the BBC Science Focus Magazine.

Options that appear less ambitious than the current ISS, while being labelled as still very expensive. The Gateway Foundation does not get a mention, although Nov 2018 is a year back. It should not be confused with a proposed joint NASA project using ‘Gateway’ in the project description.

The Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway being developed by NASA and other space agencies, including the European Space Agency (ESA) and Russia’s Roscosmos, will take humans further from home than ever before.

Note:
The ISS reportedly costs $US3B-$4B pa just to run and operate.


#7

Not a BYO linen deal then.

You’re keener than I am.

I see trouble ahead. Earth-bound problems could pale into insignificance.


#8

That isn’t a worry at all, it’s all the junk, much of it created by stupid weapons testing, blowing up spacecraft, unplanned spacecraft blowing up, a Hasselblad camera, nuts and bolts, etc, which is all whizzing around at ~8km/second.
A paint flake at that sort of relative speed has energy similar to a .22calibre bullet.

Their claimed time frame sounds like complete pie in the sky stuff, given how long it takes to prepare for space missions without crew.


#9

Reminds me of the Titanic remake.

I will eat my hat if it is up and running by 2025…let alone 2050. The private investment costs will also be prohibitive unless there is significant funding from governments/taxpayers. I am not sure if the taxpayers would be comfortable in writing off their taxes so that the extremely wealthy can tick off their bucket list.

Virgin Galatic is close(st) to offering paid tourist space travel…but this does not go into space but the uppermost reaches of the earths atmosphere.

I expect that travel insurance for such adventures, if and when they become available, will either be very expensive or near to impossible to obtain. Track record indicates that the higher one travels, the greater the risks and likelihood of fatality when a major failure occurs.


#10

Obviously not, given the marketing pitch calls out to our planets 1,000+ billionaires to make the investment of a life time.

Certainly daring a sequel, ‘The Titanic in Space’, if even a fraction of these take up the offer to be amongst the first paying customers. What could possibly go wrong?

And???

With a teenage driven interest in science fiction, why not? Travel and life in space has not looked more plausible and affordable, aside from the realistic and inspiring adventures aboard the ‘JMC Red Dwarf’? :roll_eyes:


#11

I can just imagine the exclusions. Do you get asteroid cover or not? What exceptions for events caused during a solar eclipse?


#12

I think there should be a new global rule: Fix up Earth before spending $$$billions ruining space.
There appears to be no end for products that can be sold to mega-rich people. They’ll just use space as a playground for one-up-manship - all while Rome & the rest of the planet burns.
Who will be crowned King of the selfish & greedy? (Actually, a crown might cover Trump’s ridiculous hair, so I reckon he could well be a worthy candidate, plus he has a huge resume in the selfish & greedy department.)


#13

Yes Earth first. Since the 1970s when Russia did a study they have known that Rockets punch long duration holes in the Earths upper atmosphere making it harder for the ozone layer to repair itself. But I guess if they build enough stations for the 1% who own much of everything and if only us servile tax payers would happily give our taxes over to subsidise this project we can rejoice in the knowledge that when life on earth becomes extinct our betters could be happily floating in space.


#14

The Space Shuttle created about half a million tons of acid rain each time it launched too. No good at all for those who will be left on Earth when the rich move into orbit!


#15

Which brings up the question of alternative ways to get off the planet. The obvious one is an elevator.

In 1895, inspired by the Eiffel Tower, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky proposed a tower to geosynchronous orbit. Following the Eiffel design, the base of that tower would have been wider than the diameter of the Earth. That’s a bit of a problem.

Present-day proposals centre on tension designs. A cable extends far enough beyond geosynchronous orbit that centrifugal force keeps it taught. That still requires a cable with a tensile strength so high that, for a while, the necessary material was known as “Unobtainium”. There are now several potential in candidate materials.

One could be built by the middle of this century.


Humming into orbit would be something of a disappointment compared to the sound and drama of a rocket launch.


#16

Am I just naive or eminently sensible in asking: WHY are researchers racing to make this science-fiction idea a reality? Surely they’ve got something better to do?

I suppose it’s like everything else in the world these days - science appears to be run by corporate dollars & the drive for corporate profits. Doing something useful is simply off the menu. Governments could set a different menu if only they had the will & guts.


#17

It’s not really researchers as such doing this, it is super-rich private individuals engaging in their fantasies.


#18

There are always other things to do. Which is “better” is a matter of opinion.

It depends on what you mean by “useful”. To a certain mindset, anything in which there isn’t an obvious (usually short-term) dollar is useless. That mindset commonly gets in the way of blue-sky research. There’s much to be said for doing things, just because the problem is interesting.


#19

Even Lonely Planet is getting a guide ready :laughing:


#20

If only science was directed toward civic enhancement, instead of being at the beck & call of big business/profit.

I defy anyone to argue that science is neutral. Governments have a role to play here, but they shirk responsibility, leaving it to “market forces”.