Author Topic: Hot cargo? (Read 2904 times)

Maxwell · « **on:** 10/03/2008 05:16 am »

http://www.space.com/news/081002-virgingalactic-rejected-sexvideo.html

With the goal being to make space profitable by any means possible, isn't it too early for vendors to be standing on principle?

Then again, I'd also imagine the pilot would find it rather awkward to concentrate while theres some tawdry scene playing out just inches behind his chair. Making it a safety issue.
There may also be difficulty in the mechanics of... doing ones duty, under pressure of a time limit, g forces. Assuming everything that matters will still function in zero gravity.

mrmandias · « **Reply #1 on:** 10/03/2008 01:27 pm »

This is a definite potential market for Bigelow too. Question is whether Bigelow wants it or not. From a moral and commercial standpoint, I think Bigelow would be better off trying to establish their habs as more reputable destinations. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a good part of their market turned out to be very rich people curious about sex in space and having porn videos filmed there would tend to plebianize the experience and make it more tawdry. This would probably enhance the appeal for some but overall I think it would shrink the market.

Ronsmytheiii · « **Reply #2 on:** 10/03/2008 01:46 pm »

I think doing anything like this would tarnish the reputation of any firm that agrees, and would hurt long term viability. Virgin Galactic is catering to a high class clientele that would frown on such acts, while Bigelow is concentrating on the space industry and research rather with passengers a small part.

glanmor05 · « **Reply #3 on:** 10/03/2008 03:40 pm »

I think this was likely a purely business decision. $1m, might cover the cost of the flight for the cast and film crew (depending how many participants there are), but what about the clean up (he, he)??

kevin-rf · « **Reply #4 on:** 10/03/2008 05:48 pm »

Quote from: glanmor05 on 10/03/2008 03:40 pm

I think this was likely a purely business decision. $1m, might cover the cost of the flight for the cast and film crew (depending how many participants there are), but what about the clean up (he, he)??

But would the $1 million cover the US goverment getting squirmish about said operations and revoking use of any goverment owned facilities (ranges) and services (tracking) for such operations.

Goverment resources being used to film a porno would not sit well in congress .... I think lynching would be a better word... I don't doubt it will adventually happen, but I can imagine the result, especially if the launch occured at a US spaceport or used US tracking assets.

It is a smart move on Vigin's part to decline.

iamlucky13 · « **Reply #5 on:** 10/03/2008 06:37 pm »

Quote from: Maxwell on 10/03/2008 05:16 am

With the goal being to make space profitable by any means possible, isn't it too early for vendors to be standing on principle?

Absolutely not. No one should be trying to make space profitable by any means possible. They should be trying to make space profitable by any means within their principles. You don't abandon them simply because it makes something easier.

Others may disagree with the specific principle, but that does not change diminish the value of maintaining principles.