Author Topic: Paris Hilton buys SS2 ticket (Read 26228 times)

J Britt RSA · « **Reply #20 on:** 08/29/2006 05:00 am »

Grace Park and Trisha Helfer from BSG would get my vote.

PurduesUSAFguy · « **Reply #21 on:** 08/29/2006 11:50 am »

STDs in space! LOL

kevin-rf · « **Reply #22 on:** 08/29/2006 12:53 pm »

If you open space up to the masses who do you think will buy tickets. Those with globs of disposable money (Hollywood types, and rich space lovers).

Just because every last person on this list would sell a major organ for a ticket, does not mean we should make fun of those who pony up the money. It's one thing to be jealous of those who get money dumped on them for no reason, but to slander them no matter how big a bimbo is another thing.

No tax money is being used as far as I can tell...

I think we will be seeing tons of these 'press' releases once virgin actually starts flying.

stargazer777 · « **Reply #23 on:** 08/29/2006 04:11 pm »

You are absolutely right! These are the people (actors, rock stars, models, wealthy business men and women, artists, etc.) with the huge disposable incomes who will bring attention and acceptance to space tourism when it finally becomes more broadly available -- and make it economically viable. And then, who knows....

vt_hokie · « **Reply #24 on:** 08/29/2006 04:37 pm »

Quote

kevin-rf - 29/8/2006 8:40 AM

No tax money is being used as far as I can tell...

That is true, unlike the case of $20 million Soyuz flights being sold so that a taxpayer funded space station can become a playground for the ultra-wealthy.

Rocket Ronnie · « **Reply #25 on:** 08/29/2006 06:44 pm »

Stick her on the test flight. Watch her squeel

kneecaps · « **Reply #26 on:** 08/29/2006 08:01 pm »

Quote

Stowbridge - 28/8/2006 8:54 PM

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17635404&method=full&siteid=62484&headline=paris-a-real-space-cadet--name_page.html

As a longtime resident of the UK, I would advise you to beleive very little this newspaper says...its a bit like the 'National Inquirer'

Rutan p*sses me off...well not the man himself, the global reaction to him and his Spaceship One etc etc, making out like he invented the wheel...not even topping what was done by Vostok and Mercury nearly 50 years ago.....*RANT* *RANT*.

meiza · « **Reply #27 on:** 08/29/2006 08:09 pm »

I'm not very excited about all these suborbital launcher. On the face of it, it doesn't provide any real usefulness to anyone, it's just a wasteful play by the super-rich.

Maybe eventually it leads to reusable and reliable rocket engines and some systems that can then be used for space exploration and science and ultimately making launch to LEO cheap, enabling extraterrestrial resource use.

But Branson using essentially one-use hybrid rocket motors doesn't sound to advance the state of the art much...

zinfab · « **Reply #28 on:** 08/29/2006 08:27 pm »

Virgin Galactic meets Paris Hilton?

There are too many paradoxes to parse here. My brain hurts.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #29 on:** 08/29/2006 08:30 pm »

Acually I am more excited about these up starts (Rutan,Virgin,SpaceX,Orbital,ect). They are using someones money to go after a nich that may or may not open up a section of space for the people. The big national prestige programs do the things needed to advance knowledge and security of the people, but are not designed for us the tax payer to play in. It is the difference between a pickup game in an abondoned lot and watching a pro baseball game on the tube.

(not to be construed as a slam of big national programs, Several aspects are critical, save lives, save natual resources, and should never be cut). I really feel the national programs are geared towards research bases (manned and unmanned) and not colonization, tourism, growth.

So Chris how about a section for organs we are willing to sell to pay for a ride ;-)

aero313 · « **Reply #30 on:** 08/29/2006 08:38 pm »

Quote

kevin-rf - 29/8/2006 8:40 AM

No tax money is being used as far as I can tell...

Tell that to the residents of New Mexico...

stargazer777 · « **Reply #31 on:** 08/29/2006 08:57 pm »

You are right that NASA isn't going into the space tourism business anytime in the forseeable future -- if ever. If its going to happen it will have to be the up-starts you described. We are too far from colonization to draw any conclusions, but certainly the first permanent bases and their attandant staffs will be from NASA or its equivalents in Europe, Russia, China or other aspiring space faring nations. Private firms will trail considerably behind in this effort in terms of capabilities for quite a while.

meiza · « **Reply #32 on:** 08/29/2006 09:01 pm »

I wouldn't lump SpaceX into the same as Virgin. The other builds real orbital rockets, the other flies rich tourists to 100 km, which is more like a high airplane ride except you burn a lot of rubber.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #33 on:** 08/29/2006 09:30 pm »

Quote

meiza - 29/8/2006 3:48 PM

I wouldn't lump SpaceX into the same as Virgin. The other builds real orbital rockets, the other flies rich tourists to 100 km, which is more like a high airplane ride except you burn a lot of rubber.

Virgin is building a step, if the step works they might build another step that could lead to a real commerial LEO flight. Who knows...

SpaceX is looking at everything everyone has ever done and thinks they could do it better to get to LEO. They are trying to redo the economic side of the rocket equation. Will they suceed, I don't know. Just look at the other threads for the debate on that one.

There are several niches in commercial space and what has attracted most of the money to date is GEO com sats. The other markets have not been developed. Look at the guys selling rides on a commercial vomit comet, or those that sell MIG 25 rides, or the tycoon paying to test inflatable structures, or the guys who keep buying launch services to test a solar sail design. SpaceX and Virgin are just part of the developing picture. That is what excites me, and information is so hard to come by on all these projects.

Yes it is ashame that other commercial attempts have fizzled. Iridium/Globe Star never met the market expectations, XM/Sirrius are still spending more money than they are taking in, GEO imaging companies are not raking in globs of money either.

Same token, Comm Sats, Sat. TV rake in gobs of money...

... The great thing about these programs is because they are raising private money (mostly) they are free to try what ever nich they want as long as they can find sponsors.

Is the NM funding, real money or tax breaks. That gets into the great tax debate of should you provide tax benifits and money for infrastructure so as to reap other economic benifits. It is a trend that quite debatable.

astrobrian · « **Reply #34 on:** 08/29/2006 09:41 pm »

Commercial LEO has been one of Burt Rutans ideas for a while now. Tier 1 is his suborbital and Tier 2 is LEO. Tier 3 is pretty obvious

I would think with VG in on Burts design for sub orbital he would be in on the LEO as well, so it is just a matter of time.

meiza · « **Reply #35 on:** 08/29/2006 09:59 pm »

Quote

kevin-rf - 29/8/2006 10:17 PM

Quote
meiza - 29/8/2006 3:48 PM

I wouldn't lump SpaceX into the same as Virgin. The other builds real orbital rockets, the other flies rich tourists to 100 km, which is more like a high airplane ride except you burn a lot of rubber.

Virgin is building a step, if the step works they might build another step that could lead to a real commerial LEO flight. Who knows...

...

There are several niches in commercial space and what has attracted most of the money to date is GEO com sats. The other markets have not been developed. Look at the guys selling rides on a commercial vomit comet, or those that sell MIG 25 rides, or the tycoon paying to test inflatable structures, or the guys who keep buying launch services to test a solar sail design. SpaceX and Virgin are just part of the developing picture. That is what excites me, and information is so hard to come by on all these projects.

Yes it is ashame that other commercial attempts have fizzled. Iridium/Globe Star never met the market expectations, XM/Sirrius are still spending more money than they are taking in, GEO imaging companies are not raking in globs of money either.

Now you're talking even about vomit comets and Mig 25 rides. A guy named Fred J. McCall said this:

Quote

I don't count suborbital trips as 'launch services'. Launch services
put things in orbits.

If anything counts, a trampoline manufacturer is building 'launch
systems'. You go suborbital - for a very small definition of
'suborbital'.

I don't see those or even Rutan's hybrid shuttlecocking spaceships that much paving a way to space. Maybe they can be, maybe not. What are the technical advancement that spaceshipone gives? As far as I know, the approach is just not scalable to make any difference to orbital launches. Not the rocket motor, not the re-entry form. Not the huge dead weight. What is left?

astrobrian · « **Reply #36 on:** 08/29/2006 10:06 pm »

I dont think the design for orbital will or even can be the same. And it is not so much the ground breaking technology or what have you, it is about giving you a chance to go up into space. sure it is still right now for the rich, but with a little luck the prices will come down as more options and competitiion flurishes.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #37 on:** 08/29/2006 10:13 pm »

Quote

kevin-rf - 29/8/2006 5:17 PM

Is the NM funding, real money or tax breaks. That gets into the great tax debate of should you provide tax benifits and money for infrastructure so as to reap other economic benifits. It is a trend that quite debatable.

Indeed, it is debatable. I think that for things such as highway infrastructure, passenger rail infrastructure, emergency services, etc it's clear that taxes should provide the necessary subsidies. But for professional sports arenas that are owned by private concerns, or for something like this, I'm not so sure. Why should New Yorkers' tax dollars go toward a new Yankee stadium while the franchise pays Alex Rodriguez $25 million a year? Likewise, why should taxpayers have to subsidize any part of someone's joyride to the (more or less arbitrary) edge of "space"?

stargazer777 · « **Reply #38 on:** 08/30/2006 03:04 am »

Yes, but building rockets without customers is a business model for oblivion. They must have customers like Virgin willing to risk substantial capital to get this started. If suborbital has even limited success, that will provide enough encouragement for one or more companies to build the necessary orbital vehicles -- and for some commercial services like Virgin to take a risk and buy them. There will be many attempts and failures before a consistent and profitable commercial passenger and cargo service to orbit (and one day beyond I hope) finally emerges. History shows us that the first groups through the door are rarely the ones who emerge victorious. Sad but true.

stargazer777 · « **Reply #39 on:** 08/30/2006 03:16 am »

If you are looking for historical parallels, check the histories of the Suez and Panama Canals, the first trans-Atlantic communications cables, the English Channel tunnel, and the first attempts to build trans-continental railroads in the US. They all went bust the first several times. This kind of change never comes easy and it never comes cheap.