Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

A $100 Million Trip to the Moon 451

Kyusaku Natsume writes "Russia's federal space agency will offer a $100m trip to the moon. From the UK Guardian's article:" "We've had the necessary technology for many years, the only problem will be finding someone prepared to pay that much." "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A $100 Million Trip to the Moon

Comments Filter:
  • by Arthur B. ( 806360 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @11:32AM (#13176475)
    It may not be easy to find someone willing to pay 100M$ for a trip around the moon. Isn't it waay easier to find 10M people in the world willing to pay 10$ to perhaps win a trip around the moon ? I know I would.
  • by SamSim ( 630795 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @11:35AM (#13176510) Homepage Journal
    The thing about space travel is that while obviously it furthers science and allows us to discover stuff, it is currently entirely unclear what, if any, profit it will generate. For a government this is less of an issue, but for a private company, this is the only issue.
  • If you decide to... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Neticulous ( 900423 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @11:38AM (#13176555)
    If you intended on paying the 100m, would you need to take one of those physical tests (the simpsons comes to mind...) that would make sure you were able to withstand the forces that come with space travel? I would think that it would be a prerequisite to go through tons of tests in order to actually go on a shuttle.

    Either way, thats a shitload of money, but its also a once in a lifetime opportunity. (atleast if you are getting old already!) Some of us young folk will probably be able to take some "tours" for around 1 million or so within 20-30 years I assume (and hope). By then it will be safer as well, even if I had the money, I doubt I would do this, but give it 30 years or so and space travel will be a *bit* safer, and there may be actual tour shuttles available. so what are the limits? can a 70 year old man willing to pay 100mill do this? what about an obese 25 year old thats just waiting for a heart attack? do you have to be very physically fit? Inquiring minds want to know...
  • by cfsmp3 ( 774544 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @11:40AM (#13176569)
    "We've had the necessary technology for many years"

    I assume this means they want to fly people using technology that is many years old...
  • by Chairboy ( 88841 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @11:45AM (#13176610) Homepage
    That's not... completely accurate.

    The Soyuz capsule was designed to travel to the moon as the Zond variant. The system was tested in the late 1960s, using the same type of Proton boosted soyuz capsules to orbit the moon and return, and did so with animals aboard that survived.

    But yes, other then being wrong in almost every other respect, you are correct when you say "They posted this idea before".
  • by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @11:50AM (#13176656) Journal
    Good point. And some company will offer this. "Buy a 12$ raffle ticket."

    10$ (up to 50 million) goes to Russia. $1 per ticket goes to the company. The rest goes to charity? I would buy a ticket. And hey, they could also say "If we get enough for two trips, then there will be two winners."

    I don't know...that sounds a bit altruistic of me. More likely some company will sell the tickets for 15/pop and pocket any profits above the 50 mil.
  • by Ced_Ex ( 789138 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @11:53AM (#13176692)
    Larry Ellison is a wuss.

    I'd say Richard Branson is more likely to go before Larry.
  • by ThosLives ( 686517 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @11:56AM (#13176716) Journal
    If I had $100 million, I'd probably design and build and fly my own rocket, not pay someone else to do it. I'd have much more fun doing it that way.

    I still don't think it's as difficult as people think it is to get into orbit - or to the moon - it's just difficult to do it and not get sued to death. If you're flying yourself, with your own money (not the public's or some investors'), you only really have to answer to yourself (assuming you can get clearance to launch without getting shot out of the air by some country's air force).

  • by Banner ( 17158 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @11:56AM (#13176724) Journal
    During the Cold War, the Soviets would have done this in a heartbeat, no matter what the cost, if they had the capability. Saying they can do it now, for only a hundred million dollars, when they have never done it before, just sounds untrue.

    Yes the Russians build one of the best throw away capsules ever made. Yes they have done some wonderful things in space. But there is a big difference between Earth orbit and going to the Moon. Even if you're not landing there.
  • by natron 2.0 ( 615149 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `97sretepdn'> on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @01:00PM (#13177304) Homepage Journal
    Oh, and by the way,

            "There is no dark side of the moon really...matter of fact it's all dark."

                    Pink Floyd,
                    Dark Side of the Moon


    that quote on the album came from a doorman for abbey road studios. He did a recorded interview with the band so that they could use the audio for the album.
  • by Teancum ( 67324 ) <robert_horning&netzero,net> on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @01:15PM (#13177458) Homepage Journal
    Actually, this is a neat idea on the whole. A time-limited lotto that was run by some formal lottery organization (not some random joe internet user like yourself... I'm sorry, but I have know idea who you are at the moment) where if not enough money was raised to cover the costs of the launch would then be donated to some "worthy" cause, or even a more conventional lotto drawing would occur + a trip to space (to orbit if $10 million were raised, or on Virgin Galactic if > $1 million were raised) if not enough money were raised through something like this.

    Lotteries of this nature were proposed by many early Science Fiction authors, including Heinlein and Asimov. The trick is to figure out how to tell the scam artists from legitimate operations.
  • by Ransak ( 548582 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @01:21PM (#13177545) Homepage Journal
    No, you wouldn't be the first [space.com].

    Most people aren't aware of this due to the illogical sex taboos in the US.

  • Re:China and ESA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Teancum ( 67324 ) <robert_horning&netzero,net> on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @01:42PM (#13177779) Homepage Journal
    China, while having the ability to send astronauts to orbit (don't get me on the taikonaut issue), don't have the man-rated heavy lift experience that the Russians have. The ESA doesn't even have manned spaceflight experience at all, unless you count the joint ESA/NASA flights of the Space Shuttle... and even that was largly American infrastructure that put them into orbit.

    So far, in order to pull something like this off, it is either the Russians or NASA. 10 years from now that may be a totally different story, but there is a huge leap to go from sub-orbital (like Scaled Composites) to orbit, and an even larger leap to go from LEO to lunar orbit.

    The neat thing is that going from LEO to lunar orbit is not nearly as complex as going from sub-orbital to LEO. And lunar orbits to lunar landings are not too much more complex either.
  • $100 lottery tickets (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stevef ( 5539 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @01:52PM (#13177919)
    I bet they could find 1 million people willing to pay for a $100 lottery ticket. Or 5 million who would pay for a $20 lottery ticket. Sounds like a good deal to me... I'd have a better chance of orbiting the moon that winning the state lottery.
  • Re:a small snag. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by M1FCJ ( 586251 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @01:53PM (#13177936) Homepage
    Zonds they shot to space in late 60s went around the moon and landed at Indian ocean in one piece. Zonds were identical to Soyuz crafts but unmanned. Conspiracy theorists claimed that they were actually manned Soyuz crafts but cosmonauts had expired on the way. See here [nasa.gov] or just google zond and moon.
  • by Deadstick ( 535032 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @02:46PM (#13178528)
    150-200 years ago many many many babies were still dying in child birth or young children were dying from disease.

    My maternal grandmother was born circa 1890. When she was a young woman, two women meeting for the first time would exchange two pieces of information early in the conversation: (1) how many children each had had, and (2) how many lived. When I was a kid in the late Forties, my mom was just beginning to ask her not to do that any more.

    rj

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @02:47PM (#13178534)
    actually that is quite accurate:

    a few years ago a miami strip club owner was working with drug kingpins to buy one.

    when he made contact with someone that could sell the submarine the only question he was asked was "would you like that with missiles or without"

    the russian mob has balls
  • by arbitraryaardvark ( 845916 ) <gtbear @ g m a il.com> on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @03:01PM (#13178680) Homepage Journal
    Yours is the most practical proposal seen here.
    Titanic cost 100M to make and generated about a billion in sales.
      Honeymooners II - Pow right to the moon alice!
      Silent Bob's Voyage to the Dark Side...

    They want 100M, maybe they'll take 50M.
    Corporate sponsorship - the Verison Moon Rocket.
    National sponsorship - just tell Saudi Arabia they're bidding against Isreal.
    A raffle - for $100 a ticket, you might win an audition to star in a movie in which you are the first person to have sex in space with a couple hot cosmo-nauts.
    It starts to look pretty doable.
    Action figures, happy meals, residuals.
    Have your people call my people.

    First they ignore you, then they mod you +1 Funny, then they mod you down, then you win.
  • by drsquare ( 530038 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @04:43PM (#13179821)
    I don't know if you have children. But I would ensure that, upon my passing, they would: -have enough money to ensure that they do not live in want of anything -have enough money to donate to charities or to support ideas of their own choosing -have enough cash flow to maintain the estates I will leave them

    In other words you want to raise another Paris Hilton? Not for me thanks, if I have kids I want them to be decent human beings who earn their own way in life, not spoilt brats living on trust funds, living the high life without having earnt it. It's the 21st century now, not Medieval Feudalism. I come from a country where people even inherit power, never mind estates.

    I'm all in favour of a 100% inheritance tax over a certain amount, say 100k. And throw the Royal family out on the street.

    As for your friends and family, they'll soon lose interest in you once the gravy train dries up.
  • by Stween ( 322349 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2005 @07:35PM (#13181355)
    What's interesting to note is that they interviewed quite a few people, in the final days of recording Dark Side of the Moon. Just random stuff, easy stuff to begin with, which built up to questions like "Have you ever been in a fight?" and "Were you in the right?" (Which prompted the "was definitely in the right, that geezer was cruising for a bruising!" comment).

    They interviewed Paul McCartney, as the Beatles were recording in Abbey Road around the same time. Paul, already being in the media spotlight, was a lot more careful about his answers that none of his were good/amusing/interesting enough for use on the album :)

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Working...