Slashdot Log In
British Man Trades Frequent Flyer Miles for Space Shot
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Sep 30, 2006 05:28 AM
from the how-underwhelming dept.
from the how-underwhelming dept.
lvmoon writes "Start saving up your airline miles. Alan Watts, a British businessman, was able to use his 2,000,000 frequent flyer miles for a space flight, a ticket aboard a 2009 Virgin Galactic space flight." From the article: "Electrician Alan Watts said he flew to and from the United States on Virgin Atlantic flights more than 40 times in the past six years, earning him enough miles to take the trip into space with Virgin's space wing, London's The Sun newspaper reported Friday. The trip cost 2 million frequent flier miles, compared to the 90,000 miles required for a first-class flight from London to New York." Besides being funny, does this say anything about space travel in the 21st century? Is space is no longer the final frontier? I'm pretty sure Roddenberry didn't have frequent flier miles in mind when he came up with the Enterprise.
Related Stories
[+]
Virgin Galactic to Launch from Scottish Base? 50 comments
Lancey writes "The BBC reports that Richard Branson wants to launch Virgin Galactic space flights from a Royal Air Force base in Moray, Scotland, as early as 2010." From the article: "We are designing it so that we will be able to tour it around the world. So we will have a main base in New Mexico and we are looking at three bases outside there to be able to operate from."
[+]
Virgin Galactic Unveils SpaceShipTwo 129 comments
BoulderDad writes, "Richard Branson presented a mock-up of the new SpaceShipTwo in New York. From the article: 'Future passengers aboard Virgin Galactic spaceliners can look forward to cushioned reclining seats and lots of windows during suborbital flights aboard SpaceShipTwo, a concept interior of which was unveiled by British entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson Thursday.' The video is worth watching; the spaceport details are more concept than reality, but the depiction of the phases of space flight is very good."
[+]
Stephen Hawking Receives Copley Medal 118 comments
smooth wombat writes "Stephen Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, has been awarded the Royal Society's 275th Copley medal for his contribution to cosmology and theoretical physics. Other notables to receive the award, established by Stephen Gray in 1731 'For his new Electrical Experiments', include Charles Darwin, Louis Pasteur and Albert Einstein. In his remarks, Professor Hawking reiterated his previous comments that man must colonize other planets. The medal presented to Professor Hawking was sent into space onboard Space Shuttle Discovery and spent some time on the International Space Station in July of this year. Hawking has expressed an interest in going into space and commented, 'My next goal is to go into space, maybe Richard Branson will help me.'"
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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Hyperinflation in the Airmiles currency (Score:5, Interesting)
He's lucky too because he's got this free ticket in before the much expected hyperinflation in the air-miles currency.
This surprises some people but in fact, air-miles are a form of currency. They can be exchanged for real world goods and services and therefore have an intrinsic real world value. The problem is that the vast majority of air-miles go unspent. Since a constantly increasing amount of currency is chasing a limited amount of goods the value of the currency is constantly falling.
The fact that this guy was able to accrue two million air-miles doing a normal job tells you that inflation has already crippled the currency. I soon expect air-miles to be practically worthless.
Simon
Re:Hyperinflation in the Airmiles currency (Score:5, Informative)
At two million frequent flier miles for a $200k ticket, they gave him ten cents value a piece today, as well. I haven't looked, but I would guess the cost to buy miles hasn't changed either (or even kept pace with inflation). What has changed is discount airlines pulling prices down, so the disconnect between the price you're "paying" for FF miles and the vlaue you get back isn't as good since its trivial to find non-peak price seats on flights.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet he asked his airline team 'who has the most airmiles?' and set the tarrif at that price point.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Chance to shoot for a ride to space??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, instead of making fun of his name, his parents, his loong nose and cribbing about Virgin, let us behave like adults and congratulate him for being the first tourist to exchange miles for space. (literally).
Way to go Watts !
Re: (Score:2)
I want to know if they will give him frequent flyer points for the Virgin Galactic flight.
Calculated vertically, of course.
Uhm... he did more than fly... (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering a circumnavigation of the equator is only 25k miles and London->Los Angeles is only about 5500 miles, it would take a LAX-LHR round-trip every two weeks without fail for six years to truly earn all that in real air miles. Obviously dude got most of that mileage by racking up credit-card miles as no sane person, regardless of business requirement, would keep up a travel schedule that ridiculous for that long without a break.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try http://www.flyertalk.com/ [flyertalk.com]. Some of those people fly that much just to earn the miles.
By around the fifth round trip he'd earn elite status
"The Sun" is British gutter press (Score:5, Insightful)
That newspaper is the lowest of the low, the gutter press. Their normal faire consists of entirely fabricated stories and their conduct is entirely unethical. Do not place ANY credence to stories printed in this paper.
Re:"The Sun" is British gutter press (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:"The Sun" is British gutter press (Score:4, Funny)
Jim Hacker: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country. The Times is read by people who actually do run the country. The Daily Mirror is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who own the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country. The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about people who read the Sun.
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.
Parent
Don't be so pessimistic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
A) They won't be going to space in the sense that astronauts (and especially some cosmonauts) have been. It's just a few minutes of staying at a considerable height...
B) The virgin spaceship is not a rocket. Takeoff should not be a bad experience.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Its hard to get professionals to do that if they're all stuck doing things at governmental levels.
Besides, the comparison to Columbia is completely inapt. The shuttles' method of delivery has been compared to stacking TNT to the height of a street lamp pole just to launch a nut into space.
The Virgin method is much closer to traditional aviation
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Funny)
Dude. If you think this is any less reason to go to space than the other three, you are nuts!
Parent
Exact opposite is true: a great future in space (Score:5, Insightful)
You have that back to front. The current difficulty of doing space travel is temporary, because it is the result of poor strength of materials and poor energy usage.
Materials technology is improving at an extraordinary pace, and there is now a whole industry dedicated to manufacturing nanotubes of one form or another, despite this being only the beginning of work on nanoscale materials. Much greater things are on the way. And with stronger, lighter materials you can build much better space-worthy craft, not only hugely safer in the hostile medium but also able to withstand greater dynamic forces more safely. And more cheaply!
Then we come to energy. Contrary to the daily propaganda of environmentalists, there is no shortage of energy on the planet --- the surface of the Earth receives about 150 thousand times more energy from the sun than mankind is forecast to need by the year 2020. Our "energy problems" simply reflect our poor ability to harness that near-zero-cost energy, currently.
But that can change, especially in the context of space flight.
For a start, we can rise up through the bulk of the atmosphere almost without any energy cost at all, and many outfits are already experimenting with that [jpaerospace.com], to the very edge of space.
And secondly, once up there, solar energy is freely available, and as long as there is still residual atmosphere around you, this gives you matter which you can use for propulsion, slowly building up speed as you skip through the upper layers. A relatively small amount of extra reaction mass is needed to boost the orbit out the final few dozen miles once you have close to orbital speed.
In due course then, on materials and energy grounds there is every reason to forecast a very bright and buoyant future for space travel. NASA-type costs are not required, as long as you're not in a hurry.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil [wikipedia.org]
There will have to be something very valuable in space to justify the energy required to get there. Probably the military domination required to ensure access to the remaining oil supplies. The Outer Space Treaty? Not worth the paper it's written on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Switch to nuclear and run vechiles with hydrogen, batteries or vegetable oil. The anti-nuclear morons will complain, but they will anyway no matter what you do. Or drill a deep hole in the ground, drop some water there and watch geothermal heat turn it to steam. Or build tidal or wave harnesses in coastal regions to harness sa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, of course it has. The question though is would it be cheaper to kill a few million people in a neighbouring country or to go searching through space for water and minerals.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Earth is increasingly short of fresh water....
Eh? The Earth has the same amount of fresh water it's always had and always will. It's a ">closed system [slashdot.org] and any water you see/drink/urinate now has been around pretty much doing it's thing since forever.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not exactly. More preciselly "The Earth has the same amount of [word removed] water it's always had and always will".
The water cycle is indeed a closed cycle, so no water is gained and no water is lost.
However the closed water cycle does not in any way guarantee the availability of non-poluted, low salt-
Re:Off the top of my head... (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? Short of fresh water? There's a whole ocean of it, and it covers 71% of the planet! Oh, you mean it's salty? So what, do you think we can just drink whatever we find in space, without cleaning it up first?
Regarding minerals. Yes they are out there. But we are living on a pretty big rock ourselves. The minerals in space, are probably going to be most important for projects in space (if we ever get to that level of sophistication). Bringing them down to earth probably isn't worth the expense.
Unfortunately, at this time, automated robots are only useful for a very small minority of manufacturing tasks. And while orbiting factories sound like a neat idea, remember how much infrastructure is needed to keep just one factory running on earth. Given todays technology, we can't just build a factory in space. We would have to build thousands of factories, in order to make them support each other. Among the things that need to be produced, are: air, water, food, energy, fuel, space rockets, human habitats and clothing, as well as replacement parts for everything that's in orbit (which includes screws, plastic bags, pencils, ball bearings, microprocessors, aspirin, etc...)!
Sorry, that's just not compareable. America was fertile farm-land, just waiting to be colonized. Once you had paid your ticket for transportation, and brought enough money and supplies for surviving a year (worst estimate, many did well with less), you would be able to survive by farming your own land. People fled to America, just to get an opportunity to live there.
In contrast; You can't just fly off to space and live off the land. In order to survive in space, you need a huge expensive infrastructure, and a constant reshipment of supplies, where supplies even consists of such elementary stuff as air, water, and food. It is possible to imagine that future technologies will make this easier, but as of now, we don't have such future technologies. People fled to America, but if someone started a colony in space, asked colonists to pay their own ticket, and to pay for all supplies that will be shipped in later, no sane people would move there.
In any foreseeable future, space can only get colonized through massive government subsidies, and there's no payoff in sight. Which is probably the reason why we haven't colonized it yet.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm off topic?