Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Space Planes to Meet 'Big Demand' For Tourism

Posted by Zonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 02:34 AM
from the infinity-and-beyond dept.
Space Businesses Science
Mab_Mass writes "Widespread space tourism is getting closer to reality, reports the BBC. In fact, Aerospace company EADS sees that sector of the tourism market being so lucrative that it will need a 'production line' of rockets to satisfy the needs of rich travelers. '[EAD's] market assessment suggests there would be 15,000 people a year prepared to part with some 200,000 euros (£160,000) for the ride of a lifetime. [EADS subsidiary] Astrium anticipates it be will be producing about 10 planes a year.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Space planes to meet 'big demand' by Mab_Mass (903149)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Space Planes to Meet 'Big Demand' For Tourism 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Safety (Score:2, Interesting)

    by able1234au (995975)
    I think safety concerns are the biggest issue. What happens when the first crash happens.

    • Re:Safety (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ngarrang (1023425) on Tuesday March 18 2008, @07:57AM (#22782110) Journal

      I think safety concerns are the biggest issue. What happens when the first crash happens.
      I think this was said when the car, train and airplane were first built. Safety is always an issue and crashes will eventually happen to ANY form of transport. That is no reason not to march forward, though.
      • The first cars and airplanes tended not to instantly kill their passengers on impact. On the first cross-country airplane race, the pilot crashed several dozen times, and had even strapped crutches to the wings [centennialofflight.gov] as a precaution.

        They also didn't have the potential to take out an entire city block upon crashing. Nor were these "tourists" expecting a safe ride. Nor were they largely people with enough money that I think you'd have to be an idiot to think that a simple waiver would be a open-and-shut way to

  • EasyRocket.com (Score:3, Funny)

    by sakdoctor (1087155) on Tuesday March 18 2008, @02:38AM (#22780842)
    Click here to offset your carbon emissions.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TapeCutter (624760)
      I get the joke, but it's also an interesting question.

      IIRC the high end of estimates under the 'cap and trade' system is $100/ton, WP [wikipedia.org] says this thing weighs 18tons all up.

      Considering just the rocket stage: Lets be pessimistic and say 15 tons of GHG at 200eu/ton gives 3000eu, divided by (say) 15 passengers is 200eu 'carbon tax' on top of a 200keu sticker price.
        • Well spotted, I was in danger of RTFA but ended up counting the windows on the plane in the 'artist impression' and assumed 2 hidden rows. Still 0.05%.
  • I used to travel to Hawaii for vacation a lot. This was back in the old days before Waikiki was this huge tourist development. Back then those of us who ventured that far for vacation were greeted with island hospitality and lush greenery and a "get-back-to-nature" type of laid-backedness that was desperately missing from mainland life.

    Unfortunately, they found that they could make more money by attracting more visitors. And they did. But in the process they built tons of highrise hotels and turned quiet surftown Waikiki into the bustling tourist trap it now is. In order to attract more visitors, they destroyed the reason to be a visitor in the first place.

    I'm sure someone will want to ride an over-priced airplane comfortably into space. But I'm not sure that those people are the same ones who would shell out millions to fly in today's ramshackle space carts.

    • Re:Attract thrill seekers with the mundane? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fantomas (94850) on Tuesday March 18 2008, @05:55AM (#22781384)
      Has it crossed your mind that you might have been the people that 'ruined' Waikiki?

      I don't understand the moral superiority that some people have when they declare it's ok for them to visit places, but not other people. A bit like people who insist on calling themselves "travellers" rather than "tourists". You're all outsiders visiting a place. Perhaps if you and your friends hadn't visited Waikiki a local guy (or another outsider) wouldn't have had the brainwave to throw up the first highrise hotel. By you going there such folks realised more money could be made.

      I'm not necessarily saying it's a good or bad thing you or other people visit out of the way places (in many cases locals might be happy for people to visit and spend money) but I question this moral high ground angle that somehow your actions were positive whereas everybody else's visit is negative. Seems like snobbery to me.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dollargonzo (519030)
        I think your point is valid, but at the same time different people enjoy different kind of tourism/traveling/whatever your want to call it. I know plenty of people who enjoy staying in those high rise hotels with 17 pools on the property and 3 shitty restaurants, whereas others prefer a more humble setting. Yes, the locals thought they could make more money, but they get those ideas from people who make comments like "it would be nice if your property had a nice pool and a restaurant on property" as opposed

      • Has it crossed your mind that you might have been the people that 'ruined' Waikiki? I don't understand the moral superiority that some people have when they declare it's ok for them to visit places, but not other people.

        While I happen to agree with your sentiment, and your annoyance at the moral superiority the "I was here first, man, before it was popular" BS with which I am too oft assaulted, there is something to be said for the natural human inclination to ruin whatever "lost paradise" we find. And i

        • That sounds like a great place! I must go with all my buds and hang out on the beach!

          Said in complete jest, of course. I enjoy the simple pleasure of a tiny Ryokan or Minshuku over the mega onsen resort hotels which is the Japanese domestic equivalent of Waikiki. One of my best trips included sharing a bottle of sake with a small ryokan proprietor beside the traditional fireplace near the genkan.

          Chichijima is probably on the path of the July 2009 total eclipse so I wouldn't doubt it's going to get crowde
    • The Eagles were great [azlyrics.com], eh pops? ;)
    • The advantage with space is that while space flights cheapen, the kind of peaple that nowadays pay millions for a space flight may invest millions in a lunar visit, and when moon-flights cheapen, they will want to go to Mars. It's not the same as in Hawaii.
      • These sort of "space" flights do almost nothing [daughtersoftiresias.org] to advance actual, orbital rocketry. The best you could argue is that they might come up with ways to reduce the cost of working with composites, which could indirectly help some aspects of the rocketry industry -- although companies like Boeing are probably doing a lot more to that regard than the entire rocketplane joyride industry will ever do.

        Just because they both deal with "space" doesn't mean that they're optimizing toward the same thing. These joyrid
    • Ah, living up to your moniker again! But before I rebut you, let's explore where you might be right...

      Let's see, we are talking about EADS, so this would mean most likely expanding the ESA launch site at Kourou to allow for the bigger people-carriers. More tourism to get to the launch site, perhaps more resorts for the entourage such a rich tourist would bring, paparazzi, and so on. So much for the little tropic location.

      What about space junk? That could also ruin a tourist flight if it meant pollution from
  • Umm, don't astronaunts have to go through a series of tests to make sure they can function in space? How do you expect a bunch of rich people who are likely in their 40s and above to actually be preparred for something like going into space
    • They don't have to be functional in space; they're sight-seeing passengers. They're not going to be conducting scientific experiments under funky conditions. They're going to be sitting in their seats, snapping pictures and drooling about how awesome it is. The more enterprising of them will be collecting and selling said "space drool" for thousands of dollars an ounce.
  • I want to visit some volcanoes

  • Nice first step (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TFer_Atvar (857303) on Tuesday March 18 2008, @02:54AM (#22780884) Homepage
    It's a good first step, but none of the plans mentioned in the story really advance anything. They're basically glorified Vomit Comets with no ability to orbit, which would really be a stepping stone to things further out. After all, once you're out of the gravity well, you're halfway to anywhere else in the solar system. I guess the best hope is that the number of "spaceplane" providers will compete against each other for new perks, thus pushing someone to provide a true orbital experience.
    • It only depends on what you want to call a "good first step".

      Talking about energy efficiency and carbon footprint, this would rather be a "very good backward step".
      Anyway, I'm sure some dumbass wil have the idea to put biofuel in it, add 2m of photovoltaic panels and call it "the first green rocket ever!"
    • At 100Km and 3,500 Km/h you are hardly out of the gravity well. Accelerating to LEO or escape velocity (out of the gravity well) is one thing - you just need a bigger, more (a whole lot more) powerful rocket. Painfully hard to do, but possible. De-accelerating back to a more or less normal landing is a bitch - using atmosphere and friction is, to say the least, dangerous. Carrying fuel is prohibitively expensive. There are no easy solutions for that one.

      Hopefully this technology will bring high-altitude hig
      • Clearly you've never seen SpaceShipOne launch. It went to space, which means that it's only a small step from there to reaching orbit. As we all know from the Sci-Fi channel, space=orbit, or something close to that. And I mean, SS1 was in space already, after all. They'll just make the engine a little bigger, and bam, they're in orbit!

        (Huh? What are these terms, "ISP", "TPS", "many times the delta-V", "payload fraction", and "geometric size scaling" of which you speak? That's not how rockets in any TV
  • .. but four and a half g's in deceleration, even shortly, would run the risk of a red out for those not inclined to physical fitness. The number of people who would buy into this would be further limited by the idle rich who realize their bodies may not agree with the effects of gravity. As far as tourism goes, having to wear a high g-force suit just to get a good look out the window without risking your health seems like an overlooked detail.
    • Some of them pull up to 6 gees, and all they have is a height restriction and warning notice! Yes, it's for a shorter time, but 4.5 gees seems high - ISTR the STS only gets up to 3.5 gees.

    • Re:Not to ruin the ride.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TFer_Atvar (857303) on Tuesday March 18 2008, @03:57AM (#22781042) Homepage
      The sorts of G-forces expected on the ride will be less than those experienced on many modern rollercoasters [local6.com]. Granted, the G-forces onboard a spaceplane might be a bit longer in duration, but until we have details on the mission profile, it's difficult to tell. You might end up getting greater G-forces from some of the more extreme rollercoasters out there, and given the physical fitness of a lot of roller coaster riders, I wouldn't worry too much.
    • .. but four and a half g's in deceleration, even shortly, would run the risk of a red out for those not inclined to physical fitness.

      Eh... I doubt it. If you're sitting up when the craft is level, then when its rocketing towards space you'll be lying on your back. 4.5 gees isn't all that much in that direction. While others pointed out that rollercoasters have more gees, clearly it's going to be a much longer experience what with the craft traveling at least a hundred kilometers instead of half a mile.

  • Remember the Concorde (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SystemFault (876435) on Tuesday March 18 2008, @03:35AM (#22780988)
    The Concorde SST had massive government subsidies from both Britain and France and because of lack of demand still couldn't produce a decent return on investment Well, other than being a jobs program.

    And yet any ticket for a near future spaceplane will likely cost a hundred times more than did a Concorde seat. Increases in fuel costs might make it even more expensive than that. And just think of the even more stringent security screening bullshit passengers will have to endure.

    Summary: Show me a commercially viable SST first. Then we can talk about a spaceplane that's not a welfare program for the aerospace industry.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TFer_Atvar (857303)
      Most of these programs aren't receiving government subsidies on any level remotely comparable with the Concorde program. What you're seeing are a bunch of smaller aerospace companies that see a niche they think can make them money. It's entirely possible that niche won't be as big as they think and a lot will go bankrupt trying to compete for the few hundred thousand people willing to spend $500,000 for a 30-minute trip into suborbital space.

    • Re:Remember the Concorde (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pandrijeczko (588093) on Tuesday March 18 2008, @04:04AM (#22781072)
      The Concorde SST had massive government subsidies from both Britain and France and because of lack of demand still couldn't produce a decent return on investment Well, other than being a jobs program.

      Occasionally it's just nice to see something was done purely as a technical achivement rather than putting a financial value on it - we British can be proud for inventing things like the jet engine and Concorde (with the French) just like the Yanks can be proud for getting the first man on the moon.

      Sometimes it's nice to see the bean counters in suits being totally ignored and just seeing something done "because it's there".

      • Occasionally it's just nice to see something was done purely as a technical achivement rather than putting a financial value on it

        Nice spin there. But the SST was promoted as a commercially viable aircraft with a short turn-around. It was to make flights to Asia and the Pacific convenient and affordable and the North Atlantic a commuter run.

        • What do I care? I could never have afforded to go on it anyway.

          But it was pretty cool seeing it flying at airshows & having spent some time living in the Heathrow flight path, nice to go out in the garden occasionally and watch it fly over.

      • Concorde was not finished "because they can". It was started out that way but the realities set in quickly. Both Britain and France saw what a turkey SST was when the costs spiralled out of control, and both secretly wanted to cancel the project. It became a huge game of chicken because the penalties cancelling the contract had an even higher cost than continuing. They had to give away half the production run at $1 a machine. And for what? So the millionaires can save a few hours of flight time.
        • Yes and many thanks for the verbal Excel accounting spreadsheet.

          However, my point is that it felt pretty good watching the thing fly just like it felt pretty good watching Armstrong walk on the moon and seeing the space shuttle orbiter take off and land that first time.

          My taxes get wasted in far more boring ways & I doubt very much that with the absence of Concorde, I would now be paying any less tax.

          So just let me get my little pleasures my own way, okay?

      • "Sometimes it's nice to see the bean counters in suits being totally ignored and just seeing something done because it's there."

        Not only because it's there, but because it's beautiful and inspiring. Machines like the Apollo, the Saturn V and the Concorde are very effective statements of what Man can achieve.
        • I've no idea where you personally are located but if you do happen to be in the UK then you'll already be fully aware that compared to the amount that was spent on the development of Concorde, there is already a hideous waste of our public taxes due to inefficiencies in just about every government-driven organisation - whether it's the health service, schools, roads, etc, not to mention the fact that 25% of all that money goes straight into the pension funds of civil servants.

          So someone who is in the UK a

        • "To go where no man has gone before" is a nice, romantic tag-line for a cheesy television program but it's not what drives exploration and discovery. The motivating force for exploration has always been the all-mighty buck and you can see in the stagnation of the exploration of space how pivotal the profit motive is. No profit, no warp drives.

          mod this true +42 please, or at least insightful +1 if no true +42 button gets installed in the meantime

          And let's get rid of the moronic "Outer Space" treaty so there would be an incentive to actually explore the outer space, not just "search for life on other planets" and "go where no man has gone before".

    • ... and because of lack of demand still couldn't produce a decent return on investment

      That is debatable, BA used Concorde to get corperate accounts by agreeing to a certain number of upgrades to it, these are the people who ar booking flexible business class tickets and so generate huge profits for the airline. Of course it is very difficult to put a quantive figure on how much of an effect this had

    • 1. Well, I might even join you in damning the Concorde, if it weren't for one small detail: after it was built, everyone decided that they'd rather not have supersonic stuff flying overhead and being very loud. Which limited the possible routes for the Concorde massively, and thus hit their demand _hard_. You know, since you're moaning about lack of demand for them, now you know why.

      So "commercially viable" is a bit mis-leading, when the only thing that made it non-viable was "not in my back yard" regulatio
  • Its market assessment suggests there would be 15,000 people a year prepared to part with [...] Astrium anticipates it be will be producing about 10 planes a year.

    So, that is 1500 people per plane? Seems there is some magic going on with their projections (market assesments)...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by KokorHekkus (986906)
      No magic. They estimate that the market size is 15000 people per year. They never said they would fly 15000 people per year. Most likely the 10 planes/year is a constraint imposed either by manufacturing or available money.
      • Looks like a real boom shaping up in sub-orbital tourism.

        Now let's just wait for the ensuing bust.

        It may be relevant that there have actually been no sub-orbital tourists yet. So far they're all expecting a "space voyage", and I don't think that the realism has set in yet that this is Alan Shepherd scale, not John Glenn. They're paying a pile of bucks for only a few minutes of real flight and weightlessness - while strapped into a seat.

        I'd save any investment until we see how word-of-mouth evaluations loo
    • Uhm, they will fly each plane more than once...

  • The sad part is that these are joy rides. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Tuesday March 18 2008, @05:27AM (#22781292) Journal
    I know that it is needed, but there is about to be a number of other joy rides. It would actually be far more useful if they would focus on getting into LEO with cheap access. That could use many times more crafts than the joy ride will. Of course, the argument is baby steps first. That is the same as scaled composites, while spacex is seeking direct access to LEO. Hopefully EU decides to pursue cheap access quickly.
  • Sure, staring down at this big blue rock while floating around in microgravity sounds fun, but what else is there? There's no 'space culture' to observe, no funny hats and clay statues to buy, and actually leaving the ship (in a big, bulky suit) would likely be deemed a safety (lawsuit) hazard. If we're going to have tourists up there, more comfortable, flexible space suits, as well as something like a lunar 'hotel' would help a lot. Also, judging by the number of 'shifting stars' I can see at night, I'm as
    • Funny thing is, a UK private enterprise is planning this when, according to another of today's /. articles points out that the UK space agency has a ban on putting people in space. At least they're reconsidering... otherwise, one of these planes via private venture might be the best shot UK would-be astronauts have at xpace.
  • The graphic in the article shows a +3G phase and a -4, -5G phase. There aren't too many tourists who can take that.

    • I realize that these are still in the realm of sci-fi at the moment, but until the private companies start working on these solutions there is no future for tourism in space. Period.

      'No wireless, less space than a nomad, Lame.'

      Tourists won't care about orbital flight, they just want to see the world from space, and experience weightlessness - from the bookings for Virgin Galactic etc, it seems there are enough people interested to make it viable. Orbital will come much later because it's much more expensive

    • "If a relevant percentage of the cost of your orbital rocketry is the cost of your propellants, you're doing something *right*."

      Rockets are not expensive because of the energy costs. That's the cheap part. They're expensive because of parts and especially all of the labor [thespacereview.com] -- both for reusable and disposable stages. Labor can indeed be reduced through proper system design. That's why SpaceX's launch pricing is so low. From start to finish, a major driving principle was, "how can we design our rockets an

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JATMON (995758)
      The Zero Gravity Corporation ( http://www.gozerog.com/ [gozerog.com]) alone has had over 4000 passengers on their vomit comets. I know that it is not sub orbital or orbital flight. But it does show that people will pay even if they are not the first. After the first person dished out $10-20 million to take a ride on the Soyuz spacecraft and visit the ISS, it hasn't stopped other people from doing the same. Also, Virgin Galactic (http://www.virgingalactic.com/ [virgingalactic.com]), who does not even have the plane built yet, is already taking

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.