Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Technology

Orbital Resort to Launch by 2010 338

Posted by samzenpus from the gravity-free-service dept.
Neil Halelamien writes "Popular Science has a cover feature on self-made billionaire and space enthusiast Robert Bigelow (who's been mentioned before on Slashdot). The article has new info on Bigelow's plans to launch a 'CSS Skywalker' orbital resort by 2010 and sell space habitats to others, such as scientists, manufacturers, Hollywood producers, and countries. The habitats will be made of inflatable modules with multilayered kevlar-like walls. A prototype habitat will be launching on a SpaceX Falcon V next year. To help ensure cost-effective access to the station, Bigelow is also running the $50 million America's Space Prize. In the long run, he plans to use the modules as the basis for space yachts and moon cruisers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Orbital Resort to Launch by 2010 More

Orbital Resort to Launch by 2010

Comments Filter:

  • Can't wait (Score:5, Funny)

    by turtled ( 845180 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:12PM (#11696602)
    I can't wait for the day I get a chance to get to space. Hopefully in my lifetime it will be affordable... and by affordable, I mean like SouthWest Airline's $79 one way to Vegas from Chicago.

    Space amazes me, and good luck to Robert Bigelo.

    • Re:Can't wait (Score:3, Funny)

      by Drew05 ( 848035 )
      "ONLY $79 from Chicago to The Moon! (reentry fees apply)"

    • Re:Can't wait (Score:3, Funny)

      by shri ( 17709 )
      >> SouthWest Airline's $79 one way to Vegas from Chicago.

      Earth to Moon - $79
      Back to Earth - $7,900,000

    • Re:Can't wait (Score:4, Funny)

      by noidentity ( 188756 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @12:10AM (#11696935)
      I can't wait for the day I get a chance to get to space. Hopefully in my lifetime it will be affordable... and by affordable, I mean like SouthWest Airline's $79 one way to Vegas from Chicago.

      One way trip to Vegas: $79
      One way trip to the moon: $79
      Return trip: Priceless

    • I don't understand why people want to go to space? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by michaeldot ( 751590 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @02:03AM (#11697366)
      I mean, a formative childhood of Buck Rogers / Star Trek / Battlestar Galactica aside, what's so great about space? The real thing is not like that.

      It has an enormous impact on the body from the G force, gamma rays, muscle atrophy, and long term consequences. (Doesn't NASA advise astronauts to have children before going into space, due to the impact on reproductive DNA?)

      And when you're up there, aren't you just going to see what going to an IMAX theatre could show you, just in rather less comfort?

      I don't know, maybe I'm being unadventurous. Pioneering is cool and I wholeheartedly support the professionals going up there, but "space tourism," I'm just not sure I get it.

      I'm quite happy for the Neils and Buzzes of our time to do it for me.
      • Ok.
        How's this then: put up your habitat, then give it about 1/6th G equivalent spin.
        Many, many people have thought it likely that reduced gravity will extend the human lifetime signifigantly, like maybe even a 50% increase.
        Reduced gravity would also make some of the problems the elderly face less of a bother; getting around would be MUCH easier.
        If someone puts something like this up, I can easily see the upper-class elderly (who are capable of making the trip) putting there $$$ into a trust to pay for their living in orbit.
        And, when their money runs out, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to send them back to 1 G, so you can just shove 'em out the airlock.

      • Re:I don't understand why people want to go to spa (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I don't understand why people want to go to space?

        For the same reasons Europeans colonized the Americas:

        1. Economic. Asteroids contain tons of minerals. The Moon's surface contains large quantities of He3 (although an efficient method of mining it as yet to be invented), and its low (relative to Earth) gravity well and lack of atmosphere makes it easier to get things into space. (The first Space Elevator may be built from the Moon to (actually, through) the Earth-Moon Lagrange point (L1, I think) out of
      • Three words: Zero. Gravity. Sex.

        Of course, I wouldn't expect the average slashdotter to understand that, either.

    • Re:Can't wait (Score:3, Interesting)

      by colmore ( 56499 )
      I'm not a rich person, and I don't really plan on ever being one, but for a chance for a multi-day trip into space, I'd cough up thousands. For a trip to the moon, tens of thousands. This is even if there's a 5% chance of catastrophic failure. Who cares if my retirement evaporates? I'd die a happier man.

  • Pretty cool... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by agraupe ( 769778 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:12PM (#11696604) Journal
    Given that this structure has been receiving more support and interest lately, why has no government (especially NASA) looked at it for building a space station? I would think it would be a good deal cheaper than the method they are using now. Would it be cheaper to finish the ISS or to build one of these new structures of comparable price? I, for one, feel that this merits some more detail, and at least a cursory examination from international space agencies.

    • Re:Pretty cool... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They got the technology from NASA in the first place. It was called "TransHab"
    • I think the problem could be the fact that all of the computer terminals would make these very difficult to build easily.

      With current methods, they can put the circuitry between layers of the shell. As well as oxygen tanks and the like. I'm sure that this design would need a more "stable" centre for the Oxygen tanks, and filters etc...
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Pretty cool... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Tergenev ( 860189 )
      Yes, the 2nd major revisioning of the International Space Station included a transhab module as one of two options to expand the occupancy of the station from 3 to 7. An actual inflatable module was built and tested using multi-layer kevlar skin, but the more conservative minds in NASA remained skeptical of the whole idea all along. They didn't think it could survive a direct hit by a meteor or space debris. In the end, it didn't matter, because even before the loss of the 2nd shuttle, the Bush Administrati

      • Re:Pretty cool... (Score:3, Informative)

        by DerekLyons ( 302214 )

        Yes, the 2nd major revisioning of the International Space Station included a transhab module as one of two options to expand the occupancy of the station from 3 to 7. In the end, it didn't matter, because even before the loss of the 2nd shuttle, the Bush Administration had applied their usual tactic to programs they don't deam politically useful . . . "The Great Ignore". The ISS has been essentially abandoned by the U.S. agency for over 4 years now, so the TransHab module became simply pointless.

        Sadly, yo

    • Re:Pretty cool... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ciroknight ( 601098 )
      Maybe because it won't work, or is incredibly dangerous, and they can't get any of their lawyers/insurance agencies to insure it.

      It seems like a good idea when you read about it, but it's really got no structural rigidity, and almost everything we've built in space so far has been first and foremost a floating ROCK. Recently we've added more composite materials due to their strenght and relative weight reduction, but even these materials aren't seen very often.

      There are also a lot of other conside

      • Re:Pretty cool... (Score:3, Informative)

        by iamlucky13 ( 795185 )
        It's structural rigidity comes from the interior air pressure. They're talking about filling them at 10 psi, which means 1440 pounds of force on every square foot. That's fine for something that stays in orbit, like the initial versions. A low earth orbit also offers a great deal of protection from radiation. They've already done tests firing small particles at high velocities at the fabric and say the the performance is similar to that off NASA's modules. If a bolt head hit the module (extremely low probab

      • Re:Pretty cool... (Score:4, Informative)

        by iamlucky13 ( 795185 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:40AM (#11697299)
        but the fact still remains that a system like this just hasn't been tested yet,
        Oops, forgot to add this. Development and testing is the entire market right now. Although they are offering free use of volume in their upcoming launches to interested parties as part of the proof of concept, they are not really marketing hab modules yet. They plan to launch a relatively small (8 ft x 10 ft) "Genesis" test module near the end of the year, and another one next year. Following those, two "Guardian" modules will carry prototype life support systems. The goal is to launch a pair of full size, but unmanned "Nautilus" modules by 2008 and possibly dock the two together. These will have a total volume of 330 cubic meters, which is about equivalent to an 1100 sq. ft. house. By the time these 6 modules are thoroughly tested, they should have enough data to make a call whether they're safe for human occupancy or not.
    • (disclaimer) As I underatand it... (/disclaimer)

      NASA's budget is directly proportional to how much it thinks it'll need for whatever projects it has cooking - provided the current budget can sustain it (or not). In other words, if it's cheaper to build, their budget will be lowered, and what company wants less money?

      But correct me if I'm wrong!
    • Given that this structure has been receiving more support and interest lately, why has no government (especially NASA) looked at it for building a space station?

      According to this article [aviationnow.com], there have been some negotiations with the Chinese government. I believe the docking module is already being designed to fit with a Chinese Shenzhou spacecraft.

      From the article:

      China is eyeing participation in new privately funded U.S. space ventures, such as the Bigelow Aerospace inflatable habitat for biotech or oth

    • Re:Pretty cool... (Score:3, Informative)

      by bleckywelcky ( 518520 )
      I was at the JPL facility in Pasadena last Fall (2004) and they had a 1/3 scale model of Bigelow's inflatable module on their largest shaker table. Now this wasn't a NASA project or anything, when JPL doesn't have a current project on deck they sell time on their shaker table and space chambers to industry companies. However, this would indicate that the modules are nearly ready for prime time because they're testing a full-up model. When I was talking to the director of the environmental labs I believe he

  • CSS resort.... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...should be great, as long as you don't try using IE there.

  • Sounds like a Grand Day Out (Score:5, Funny)

    by ArmorFiend ( 151674 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:13PM (#11696607) Homepage Journal
    It's like no cheese I've ever tasted, lad.

  • So? (Score:4, Funny)

    by WindozeSux ( 857211 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:13PM (#11696608)
    So is this like those Moon Walk things you see at birthday parties and fairs?

  • I like this guy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheKidWho ( 705796 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:13PM (#11696610)
    Even if some of his plans are a bit crazy, he at least has the guts to try to innovate!

    And since this is a private enterprise, it should come out much cheaper then anything NASA can dream of(probablly not as safe though, but NASA's stuff is very safe so its kinda hard to compete with them on that front.)
    • NASA's stuff is very safe so its kinda hard to compete with them on that front

      While historically this has been the case, things may be changing. Some of NASA's biggest safety failures have come from the weight of its bureaucracy weighing down projects so heavily that small problems can no longer be seen. Private enterprise can be much more efficient and give a lot more attention to detail. That can be an important advantage, especially in a relatively new market like space tourism which NASA has little e
      • Private enterprise also is less concerned with saftey.

        The same beauracracy that keeps many small problems buired, also delays projects until they are relatively sure that it's not going to kill someone. The same cant be said for private entities. Witness for example, the Vioxx/Celebrex problem in the pharm. field.
        • Private enterprise also is less concerned with saftey.

          Yes but if we are going to make space travel an important priority, there are going to be risks involved. Nothing is going to perfectly safe and people will have to accept that in the short term. If the pioneers of early aviation 100 years ago were too afraid of dying (and some did) to develop powered flight, commercial air travel would not be what it is today. The same will be said of commercial space travel 100 years from now.
    • Most entrepreneurs fail, so I don't know how well this will turn out. Still, most innovators are a bit nuts, and crazy rich people built this world, so more power to them.

      On the safety side, deaths from civilian spaceflight are inevitable. I doubt it will be much less safe statistically than NASA, though if successful on a large scale, civilian launches could easily surpass the number of humans put into space by governments (around 500 or so, I think).

      Governments and insurance companies will want to reg
      • Licencing the name "Skywalker" and then having to deal with the fallout from Episode III.

        Oh and the inevitable "That's no moon! It's a space station!" jokes.
      • Still, most innovators are a bit nuts, and crazy rich people built this world, so more power to them.
        That's debateable. In any case, you don't just need a CRP to finance this deal, you need a lot more CRPs to actually pay to go to the station. Doesn't strike me as a sustainable business model.
    • At the time the materials did'nt exist to do doit. With all the advances in material science, these inflatible things will probably be just as safe as International spacestation which has cost billions.
    • This technology WAS developed by NASA during the 1990s. He bought the rights to in 2000.

      While I think that he can do what NASA no longer is allowed to do (take major chances with lives), you have to give the credit to who researched and developed it. This guy is simply moving to production with it. But I hope that he can really start the space drive.

    • I like Bigelow as well. Some have compared him to Delos D. Harriman [adastragames.com] from the Robert Heinlein classic THE MAN WHO SOLD THE MOON.

      According to the Popular Science article, Bigelow wanted to develop space from the time he was a young man. He studied business in college with the specific goal of earning enough money to fund space expansion.

      For a similar vision of a viable business plane for space, read The Rocket Company [hobbyspace.com]

  • First thought: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cyberfunk2 ( 656339 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:14PM (#11696615)
    I'll believe it when I see it....

    Not to say it cant be done.. but 2010 ? Gotta love the marketing departments.. oh wait, no.. they put impossible demands on us...

  • orbital farms (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:14PM (#11696617)
    can't hardly wait to have my GM chickens grown all globular in zero G. Think of how tender they'll be with no gravity to stress the muscles! delicious.

    permaveal 3000
    chicken a 'la 'blimp.

    • Re:orbital farms (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cdelta ( 590348 )
      Without gravity, their muscle mass will be significantly less.
    • You got a +4 funny but I wouldn't suprized if you see things like that. It's hard to say crazier things have happened, but it's thoughts like yours that produce great things. Good idea perhaps! And you know soon enough there will be "organic" animals rasied outthere for their fabulous tenderness and taste. Of course it will costs $150.00/hamburger but that's actually realistic to some people. Case in point, I stayed at the Carlyle hotel in NY and everything was paid for, so I ordered one of the cheapes

      • Re:orbital farms (Score:4, Funny)

        by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @12:37AM (#11697047) Homepage
        You got a +4 funny but I wouldn't suprized if you see things like that.


        Absolutely! Imagine logging on to SpaceFriedChicken.com, punching in your latitude, longitude, and credit card number, and then holding a baseball glove out the window to catch the chicken thrown down from orbit. (The heat of re-entry sears in the juicy flavor!)

    • Finally, my boneless chicken ranch and be a reality!

  • Robert Bigelow (Score:5, Funny)

    by OneArmedMan ( 606657 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:18PM (#11696641)
    Space Gigolo........

  • A Giant Leap for Bigelow (Score:5, Interesting)

    by prakslash ( 681585 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:19PM (#11696645)

    Robert Bigelow gained his fortune from owning Budget Suites of America - a discount motel chain.

    Only in America could someone go from renting rooms at 49 dollars a night to building a Space Resort.

    Pretty Cool.

  • I know what's next... (Score:4, Funny)

    by a man named bob ( 623932 ) * <brandon AT ebrandon DOT net> on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:21PM (#11696659) Homepage
    We're whalers on the moon,
    We carry a harpoon,
    For they ain't no whales
    So we tell tall tales
    And sing our whaling tune.

  • Maybe it's just me, (Score:4, Interesting)

    by b00m3rang ( 682108 ) * on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:21PM (#11696662)
    Am I the only one who would hesitate to be the first resident of an inflatable Vectran habitat in space? I'll wait 'till V2.0, thanks.

  • Also... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cyberfunk2 ( 656339 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:22PM (#11696666)
    Does the idea of inflatable modules make anyone else nervous ?

    I dunno about you, but I'd really like the walls around me that contain my breathing air and keep me warm and from exploding into the void of space made of something nice and hard... like reinforced steel. Maby it's some sort of expandable material over a hard superstructure, but then there are some other issues:

    The article mentions:

    "lightweight but extremely strong and long-lived inflatable "soft goods" to form modules made of proprietary advanced aerospace materials"

    Maby i'm just a traditionalist holding back the frontier, but man, that sounds like a bubble just waiting to be punctured by one of those little paint chips zipping around the earth at a million miles an hour (from old missions, etc). Support structure or no, if you puncture that balloon it vents, and I'm inside, and i will NOT be a happy camper.

    Also, I'm wondering what kind of radiation protection these things provide. These materials sound "thin and lightweight" which is what they want for good launch weight, but thin often means poor radiation blocking ability.

    My opinion ? Keep the crew in something nice and solid.. keep supplies in these inflato-things, and make sure they can be quickly locked down from the rest of the ship/station/whatever.

    • Nothing New (Score:3, Informative)

      by ravenspear ( 756059 )
      The lunar module in the Apollo missions had some parts of it's casing that were basically just aluminum foil. It can work if engineered right. In space conditions are much more uniform than on earth. You don't have to deal with high wind, precipitation, and a bunch of other stuff that can weaken structures easily.

    • Re:Also... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cyberfunk2 ( 656339 )
      Also, before anyone asks.. I have read the article and the parts about the water-based rad shields and the 5 layer micrometeorite shields.

      For the meteorites: The problem is that those shields can fail, and when they do, I'd rather that the paint embed itself in hull of steel than a easily puncturable hull of some organic chemistry polymer (sorry, I'm a chemist).

      For the radiation: User-installable water based rad shields? Lets just hope we dont "forget" to install them, hmm ? Plus, the weight of the w

      • Re:Also... (Score:4, Informative)

        by bhima ( 46039 ) <Bhima,Pandava&gmail,com> on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:38AM (#11697596) Journal
        Fiber ceramic composites have an advantage over aluminum for use in spacecraft hulls in that they create less secondary particles when exposed to cosmic rays. As you claim to have read the article you should know that the proposed hull less easily punctured than a metallic aluminum hull. Where did you get this steel idea? Do you realize how much steel weighs compared to how strong it is? I don't think steel has been a major component to anything that has ever been launched. Being that there aren't great clouds of acetone in low earth orbit I think the project is pretty safe.

        Also I think by the phrase "User Installable" the operator is meant, not the guest.

    • Re:Also... (Score:5, Informative)

      by gordboy ( 729817 ) <gordboy@ya3.14hoo.com minus pi> on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:41PM (#11696768)
      The print article has a nice cutaway drawing of the "18-inch-thick shield of alternating woven graphite composite and foam to protect against orbital debris." Apparently, this layered foam shield is more protective than "aluminum three inches thick" and "no rigid spacecraft design can match this performance." (from the text of the article) It sounds like NASA's decision not to use the TransHab inflatable design was politically motivated and the program was axed before it could actually be tested.
      • Actually, it'd be pretty interesting to put things like that up into orbit just for the purpose of catching all the little junk that's been whizzing around up there. Then, just let it crash into the atmosphere. Or, retrieve it, dig out the debris and sell the toothbrushes and other random bits.
        • Which would be equivalent to soaking up the oceans with a single q-tip.

          That junk is up there to stay, it's not something we can undo. Meteorites are "when not if" situation anyways so instead of trying to clean space up, energy should be invested in absorbing them.
    • I had a research class once that explored the practicle and impracticle nescessities of going to Mars and an inflatable crew habitat was one of the ideas that actually made sense. Now I didn't read the article, but the Trashab system was supposed to have been a test module on the ISS. I think its been scrubbed now by NASA but was very interesting.

      I do believe the idea was to fill the transhab's outer layer with water (from lunar ice) as it acts as a good radiation shield and should be found on the mooon

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • With a rigid structure like the ISS there is no 'give' if an object hits it... But with an 'inflatable' structure maybe it can absorb more of the impact? I'm no engineer but if you punch a wall your going to break your hand. But if you punch one of those inflatable houses that you see at fairs (the ones kids jump around in) your hand is going to sink in.

      Obviously an object the size of a quarter traveling at tens of thousands of miles an hour may be a different story but maybe you can design these things

    • The Merrits of Inflatable Habitats (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I am a mechanical engineering student at Texas A&M and have had Bill Schnieder (one of the former NASA engineers mentioned) as a professor. He hold a patent on inflatable space habitats, and was deeply involved in TransHab. I did a lot of work with inflatable space habitats while I was Dr. Scnieder's student for a year long senior design class. This is some amazing technology.

      An inflatable structure makes complete sense. For starters, it works around one of the major design constraints imposed by roc

  • Inflatable Space Resort Guest Rule #1 (Score:5, Funny)

    by prakslash ( 681585 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:25PM (#11696682)

    Playing Darts is Strictly Forbidden!

  • Assume this happens (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nate nice ( 672391 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:25PM (#11696685) Journal
    My grandmother, who is about 80 or so, will have seen it all I figure by the time she takes an infitie space yacht cruise. I mean when she was born, her idea of high tech was the radio. She probably heard about the mysteries of radar and soon saw TV and was definitly blown away. Cars became more and more "modern" and soon computers came out and even people, gasp!, in space! Not to mention the countless things I haven't mentioned, like the Internet, and now she has a chance to take a space cruise before she dies. That is considering this happens.

    There is no way if she had to write a paper back in her school days, about the future, that if she mentioned this, se would be told she has such a creative mind but not realistic.

    Obviously I am not the first person to say we;ve come a long ways in X years (and in some ways we haven't moved!), but this is insane.

    It makes the future more exciting for those of us younger because we cannot even imagine how quickly we are going to see new technology become realities.

    At this rate I say why stop at the moon? I'm saving my cash for a trip to Mars!

    • Re:Assume this happens (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @02:58AM (#11697481) Homepage Journal
      There is no way if she had to write a paper back in her school days, about the future, that if she mentioned this, se would be told she has such a creative mind but not realistic.

      Sure, but had you asked a schoolkid from 1969 to write a paper about space travel in the year 2005 and the kid managed predict it accurately he/she would have been given an F by the teacher for being completely, unreasonably, pathetically pessimistic (and possibly expelled for being a subversive communist when they write that all US orbital launch capability in 2005 was bought from Russia and Europe!)

      Back then most people expected us to have a permanent moon base by now. Manned missions to Mars would have been assumed as well. Somewhere in there we seriously lost momentum.

      Jedidiah.

  • Nice idea, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Grey Clone ( 770110 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:26PM (#11696687) Homepage
    What about gravity? Granted, I just had a quick glance over the article, but I don't see any mention of gravity. Zero Gravity might be fun for several hours, a day, maybe. But I wouldn't want to spend a vacation completly without gravity. With the space-yacht ideas, it looks almost like a cruise in space. But that pesky no-gravity thing is really gonna come up and bite em.
    • If there's g, I aint going. If there's g I could shut myself in a room at the embassy suites instead.
    • Nah, if you don't want to go float around in space for a week nobody is putting a gun to your head. If I can afford it, I'll be up there, without any complaints regardless of how horrible the amenities might be. It's space, man! I'll take your spot if you don't want it. If in some kind of lottery, I won a trip up to a barely-tested version 0.8 of this station, I'd prepare a will and start packing.

  • Is society ready? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dunbal ( 464142 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:30PM (#11696713)
    You know, the big problem with all these prizes in the past was that one heck of a lot of people got themselves killed attempting to win them. Culturally it wasn't such a big deal back then, in fact it was considered noble, courageous and daring.

    But society has changed. Our values have changed. I can just imagine the great cry WHEN (not if) some of these spacecraft start failing, and people start dying. That's what happens when you rush to compete for a prize that other competitors also want - shortcuts get taken, like they did historically, and people get killed.

    Now, way back when, it wasn't such a big deal if a plane dropped into the atlantic, or crashed on some farm somewhere. The density of our population has increased a bit since then and although our planet is still primarily ocean, there's a greater chance of having the remains of some failed launch or deorbit falling on a populated area than before. Or if a space station design fails to meet some contingency or other, causing all inhabitants to perish. Ooops we forgot about that...

    Are we ready for this? Is it a risk that we are each willing to take in a personal sense - in order to fully open up travel to space? Or is everyone going to whine at the first accident, causing all this pioneering to get legislated and regulated to oblivion?
    • I wish I had mod points for yah...but already posted elsewhere, but I think fundamentally your right.

      To this day, more people have died chasing the sound barier than going into space. When Apollo 1 happened, they paused, had the funerals, and were back to work on monday trying to figure out what went wrong and fix it.

      Today we think that going into space is routine and even mondane. I am sure people are going to die. I just sure hope it doesn't derail privately funded space concepts.

  • He doesn't need to succeed. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dylan Thomas ( 853299 ) <dylan@freespirits.org> on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:30PM (#11696716) Homepage Journal

    I'd be impressed if he was successful, but he doesn't need to succeed. He just needs to get closer than anyone else ever has. The first person who can demonstrate the possibility of commercial gains in space will be doing us all an enormous favor.

    I've always felt that the non-exploitation pact--that international agreement that says it's a Bad Thing to stripmine on Mars--was a really bad idea. Taking the possibility of commercial gain out of space travel is an excellent way to ensure that all space travel is done by governments and universities. I don't trust governments to do the job efficiently, and I doubt many universities could pull it off without strings-attached grants and funding.

    The best way to ensure, over the long run, maximized efficiency and high-level accountability is to leave the job to private enterprise. Companies competing for a profit will find ways to do things cheaper, faster and safer. The trade-off is that there are more likely to be some really bad ideas getting launched, and in space, no one can hear you scream... but that's another detail. Private enterprise might be more willing to take the risks that a post-Challenger United States (for example) is not.

    But private enterprise won't even bother if there's not a bottom line. So I say, encourage the strip-mining of Mars (hell, better Mars than one's hometown, don't you think?). Encourage orbiting vacation spots for the wealthy. Encourage claim-staking and competition.

    Once we're already up there and comfortable, then we can let the galactic treehuggers cry foul. But let's get up there first.

    • I've always felt that the non-exploitation pact--that international agreement that says it's a Bad Thing to stripmine on Mars--was a really bad idea. Taking the possibility of commercial gain out of space travel is an excellent way to ensure that all space travel is done by governments and universities.

      While I'm not entirely averse to it, I'm a bit skeptical about this point of view. I don't particularly trust governments either... they tend to have a bad record of dealing with new frontiers. But

  • Jurisdictions (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @11:32PM (#11696726) Homepage Journal

    Being off-world, will they legally be able to host space gigolos?

  • A lottery: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by RM6f9 ( 825298 )
    $5 per ticket/chance, one number drawn per year, he'll have all the funds he needs to bridge the gap between the wealthy-only model and making space-flight as common-place as air travel is today.
    I'd buy a few tickets for that drawing...
    (a royalty check for the idea would not be refused, hint, hint)
  • Space Stations? I think the HTML Skywalker would be a better name!

  • Private Transhab (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ducomputergeek ( 595742 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @12:13AM (#11696947)
    Idea isn't new. The article mentions TransHab, which was a module that was supposed to be tested on the ISS in 2010, but was scrubbed in 2001 or 2002. The concept has been around NASA for a while. Its just going to be his private enterprise that launches and tests the idea not NASA.

    In many respects, NASA already laid a lot of the ground work for his idea.

  • Let's call it the Villa Straylight instead.

  • Nuclear Rockets ! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug@@@geekazon...com> on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:03AM (#11697494) Homepage
    Good chance to slip in a plug for heavy lift rockets powered by Gas Core Nuclear Reactor engines. Here is a really interesting design [nuclearspace.com] for a fully reusable, non-polluting nuclear rocket based on the Saturn-V form factor, which could lift 1000 tons of cargo into Earth orbit (for comparison, the Space Shuttle can carry 30 tons) and return to a soft landing. It's a fully reusable spaceship that could haul up entire resort hotels (not just "inflatable modules") in a single trip.

    Another great use for GCNR rockets would be interplanetary trips such as a Mars mission. Their cargo capacity would allow for a tremendous amount of supplies and equipment. Transit time would be half that of a conventional ship, reducing the effects of prolonged zero-gee and cosmic radiation exposure, and a host of other problems. The ability to make a powered landing on Mars would eliminate the need for an aerobraking system, Apollo-style lander/return combination or other engineering. The crew could fly there, land, take off and return home in a single vehicle, just like in all those old black and white space movies.

  • popular comix (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GISGEOLOGYGEEK ( 708023 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:13AM (#11697526)
    Popular Science is the comic book of science magazines. Even their most realistic articles have only a very minimal amount of reality in them.

    Generally each story is written like a typical fox news sound bite ... to grab the attention of whatever dumbass will stop to stare at the dead puppies inside.

    The fact that its a lead story in this magazine pretty much gaurantees it wont be happening anywhere near as soon as what was written.

  • The real worry... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by argent ( 18001 ) <(peter) (at) (slashdot.2006.taronga.com)> on Thursday February 17, 2005 @06:20AM (#11697976) Homepage Journal
    I'm not worried about the strength of inflatable modules: any space station is basically an inflated balloon and if it gets a puncture bad enough to effect rigidity you've got bigger problems than wobbly walls ... like learning to breathe vacuum in a hurry.

    No, I'm worried about this sudden indtroduction of inflatable technology from the future. Doctor Schlock from Sluggy Freelance isn't involved, is he?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Pull the trigger and you're garbage." -- Lady Blue

Close