Space Tourism

Miguel · Post by **Miguel** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:29 pm

I personally think we should start exploring the universe and colonizing. I believe the NASA space Agency should begin space tourism. This would be cheap and efficient space planes that would carry us between countries and possibly worlds. As for space elevators...Pfft not in my lifetime. What do you think we should do for exploring space.

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:45 pm

Hmm having colonies, that would be awsome. But then we would have earth fighting the colonies like in zone of the enders and killzone.

Miguel · Post by **Miguel** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:48 pm

The United States of America would be the first to set up a colony on the moon,at least in my lifetime. Following would be, Russia,China,Japan,and ESA or European Space Agency. We could have sattilites monitoring the opposing colonies.

outwarddoodles · Post by **outwarddoodles** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:14 pm

I think it may be cool, but then people don't go to the moon that often. Nonetheless are we going to have people living there for long soon. It would be a looonnngg time before thres towns of people living on the moon - or atleast I think so. I think of it as when people explored America, eventually people started to live there, though this is a whole nother entire planet, with no air to breath or anything else for that manner.

I don't know who would do something like this first. I'm thinking Amerca, but then I'm not. Imagine the money that would have to be used in trying to create such a thing, that would be money from Tax payer's expence. I do not want alot of money that can be used on our country on something as expensive as living on the moon, and something that may not even ever happen. Alot of people may dislike that, and thus it may not happen.

Miguel · Post by **Miguel** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:17 pm

If it was to happen.Key word=if. It would most likely be used for research. If such a thing could happen it would be amazing. However the estimated price would be 7.8Billion dollars just to colonize and another billion for supplies.

Kzinistzerg · Post by **Kzinistzerg** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:11 pm

Oh, my god. Can't you people ell that this planet of ours is fragile, extremly fragile? it's not permanent. We NEED space travel.

BUT:

how does this sound:

put a moonrover on the moon. it's remote controll. If you pay X amout of dollars, you get Y amount of time actually controlling it. you can win, in lotteries, the chance to be able to write your name, or whatever, on the moon. or variants; use mars, too. This type of idea oculd easily finance NASA.

as for who gets a colony on the moon first, it proabbyl won't be america, due to the humerous amounts of epople who seem to think it's not worth it. ugh.

Miguel · Post by **Miguel** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:24 pm

That is a great idea. I think we should try somthing like that. When you think about it,I think you are right. We probably will be third. The russians put space exploration to good use and use it as if it was rare and fragile.

Prowler · Post by **Prowler** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:53 am

Didn't the Virgin company announce plans for tourist space flights and a american buisness guy "donated" to the NASA fund and got to take a space flight awhile back.

23Jarden · Post by **23Jarden** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:03 am

The moon deals with our tides and changing it's mass probably isn't a good thing. What about Mars? Nobody cares about Mars.

Set · Post by **Set** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:29 pm

Mars is too far away. It would take years just to get there. Besides, you don't get sandstorms on the moon. You do on Mars.

outwarddoodles · Post by **outwarddoodles** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:32 pm

Oh, my god. Can't you people ell that this planet of ours is fragile, extremly fragile? it's not permanent. We NEED space travel.

What makes the moon more livable? If we have the technology to make the moon livable, producing air and food, then we would surely be able to improve the earth, which already does have air, has minerals, and water. To live on the moon we'd be making a whole new place out of scratch, while for the earth we just need to improve it, or atleast stop hurting it.

Figarou · Post by **Figarou** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:39 pm

Shadowblaze wrote:Oh, my god. Can't you people ell that this planet of ours is fragile, extremly fragile? it's not permanent. We NEED space travel.

Really? The earth has been here longer than humans. There is nothing we can do that'll damage it.

Sure, we can pollute the oceans, or have nuclear fall out from atom bombs in some places. But nature has a way of cleaning all that up.

Its called "time."

Miguel · Post by **Miguel** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:27 pm

Mars has a atmosphere that is unhealthy for us. The moon however can be used as a advantage. We would colonize the moon first than Mars and so on. Unfortunately I don't think i'll see the planet mars occupied by tourists in my lifetime

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:50 pm

Miguel wrote:Mars has a atmosphere that is unhealthy for us. The moon however can be used as a advantage. We would colonize the moon first than Mars and so on. Unfortunately I don't think i'll see the planet mars occupied by tourists in my lifetime

Well...the moon has no atmosphere at all, which is a great Dis-advantage (being a complete vaccum and all), but otherwise I think you are right.

As I understand it, either a Moon-Base or an advanced (or upgraded) version of the International Space Station would be the true starting point for any "deep space" missions that take place in the future. This would be an advantage becasue if the mission starts from there, then the energy and fuel needed to escape the earths atmosphere would no longer be part of the equation. Building, fueling and launching a "deep space" craft from the moon would require much less fuel (and thus, a lighter, more efficient ship), and launching from an Oribital station would be even More efficient.

I'm not sure about the idea of "space tourism" right now though. "Cheap and Reliable" unfortunately, are NOT words that can currently be applied to current-generation "Space Age" technology. It is doubtful that any of us will be able to buy a ticket to the moon in this Century...if even in our lifetimes at all. (well...some of us may live to see the year 2105...maybe...)

I do expect to see an Astronaut (or Cosmonaut?) set foot on Mars within my lifetime though. Perhaps even within the next 10-50 years. (...maybe...)

A Moon-Base...now that I think about it, likely won't come for a least a decade or three after the historic Mars Mission. (or maybe not untill after 2105).

It's hard to say for sure though. Plans are allways being made...but which ones will go through and which ones get dropped is not allways clear.

Remember "2001: A Space Oddesey"? When that was first made, it was thought that we might be that advanced in space technology allready...four years ago. We're not.

I think the "future" in "Back to the Future" was also supposed to take place right about now. I don't see any flying cars or hoverboards yet...

Projections of what "may" be possible within the next few decades are very often Over Enthusiastic.

(Man...I am such a pessamist...

)

Miguel · Post by **Miguel** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:54 pm

I completely agree with you. There has been a lag in tech advances. It is sad how our lives are running out,but mabe out younger cousins and kids will see it happen. Who knows it may not happen until 2200.I just want to see a man set foot on mars.

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:48 pm

Miguel wrote:If it was to happen.Key word=if. It would most likely be used for research. If such a thing could happen it would be amazing. However the estimated price would be 7.8Billion dollars just to colonize and another billion for supplies.

The government can afford this, beleive me.

Scott Gardener · Post by **Scott Gardener** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:48 pm

NASA is mired in bureaucracy; my former roommate in medical school used to be an engineer for them. He said that when he started, he was very proud because of the prestige--to be able to say that you're an engineer at NASA looks great on a resume and impresses a lot of people. But, as he worked there, he became disappointed and frustrated with the bureaucracy, and with the blatent disregard for science and facts over force of personality. Things got done because the big heads ordered it, not because it was the best solution. He pointed out problems with the space shuttle program back in the late 1990s that were pretty much on par with what was said recently about the program following the Columbia tragedy and the later investigation when the shuttles were grounded again following the Discovery falling foam bit.

By comparison, guys like Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites and their rivals in the X Prize race have made rapid progress. Virgin Galactic is gaining momentum as well. And, while NASA is putting funds into concept programs like the Space Elevator, these programs are ultimately independent of NASA.

If any government program remains a major player in near-Earth space, it most likely will be Russia, because they're getting involved in the private enterprise sector. It's Russia that's accepting money from millionaire tourists, taking them into space, and funding their visits to the International Space Station. If I had $1.6 million to spare and wanted to go into space with it, Russia would be where I'd go to do it.

It's ironic that Russia is the one doing this, as it's a very capitalist thing, and during a major portion of the space race, they were the dominant portion of the Soviet Union, the superpower of Communism. In the 1950s with Sputnik, they were leading the space race. The United States shot ahead in the late 1960s with the moon landing, and appeared to keep the upper hand, in spite of the technological superiorities of the Russian space shuttle Buran, which unfortunately only flew once before being mothballed due to budget problems within the overtaxed USSR and post-Soviet Russia.

(Unfortunately, the Buran orbiter was destroyed when its hanger collapsed, killing 13 maintainance workers. However, its major design advantage, the Energia booster, remains a viable superior alternative to the problematic booster array for the American shuttle fleet. None-the-less, NASA has virtually ignored Energia in spite of numerous fan web sites suggesting its potential use for lunar or Mars flight.)

Today, however, the venerable Soyuz capsule design is filling in while the American shuttle fleet continues to experience problems. But, what gives Russia the edge is their involvement of the private sector and Capitalism. The American Way is winning, but in Russia.

The European Space Agency right now is relying heavily on the U.S. and Russia; they engineer components for use in space, but so far, they do not appear to have been that involved in designing launch vehicles. However, Europe is very forward-thinking; perhaps they might trump America in getting involved with future concepts like the Space Elevator.

China is running its own space program, though their capabilities are about where the U.S. and Russia were in the early 1960s. However, remember that that by the end of that decade, the moon landing happened, something that no one right now can achieve at this moment using today's technology. Perhaps having communists in space will motivate those of us here in the United States to aim for the moon again. Bush has already pushed for a "Moon, Mars, and Beyond" initiative--perhaps regarded by some as a good idea at the wrong time; I'll avoid going into the politics of cost. Suffice it to say, on the one hand, there are plenty of bigger wastes of tax dollars in government, but on the other hand, with a national debt well above six trillion, one wonders whether we can afford to take a cruise beyond the shores of the cosmic ocean until we've paid the bills.

But, in 50 years, the concept of government will be less important, with globalization being that much further along. Governments will still be their usual overbearing selves, of course, but they won't be quite so all-powerful, as we'll be 50 years closer to world unification, and around then, multinational corporations will be that much more powerful.

The Space Elevator is a very plausible concept. It consists of a 26,000 mile cable that runs from the Earth surface to a space station at the far end, using the rotation of the planet to sling it out, with the far end being past geosynchronous orbit, so that centrifugal forces keeps the cable tight. Most engineering problems are solvable already, and the main problem, a strong enough material for the cable, has recently been found with the development of carbon nanotubules--this in fact has been the thing that has made engineers take the idea seriously. Budget estimates, around $10 billion, are high, but less than other projects already in development or in motion. If the thing sounds too fantastic, consider that transatlantic cables were laid before 1900. If the Space Elevator were built, then a three-story-tall lift platform could go up into space about twice a week, carrying each time perhaps the same cargo load as the American space shuttle, or perhaps half a dozen tourists.

By 2200, several elevators could be in place around the equator, with both upstream and downstream cables in regular use, rendering most conventional launch vehicles of today obsolete. With enough ambition, a space highway system could be built, consisting of a ring around Earth at geosynchronous level, plus numerous spokes running from equatorial land, through the ring, and out into post-orbital space. If sufficient size makes enough traffic possible, most polluting engineering processes could be done at the post-orbital level, allowing products such as radioactive waste from nuclear fission to be dropped into space. Likewise, large solar power arrays could provide supplimental power for such a construct. If not for the science and engineering advantages of an Earth / space highway system, the tourism would be fantastic. Wouldn't you like to take the 9:20 to Tranquility Bay to tour the Apollo 11 site?

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:52 pm

Dont forget almost all of the weapons and vehocles used in the military were originaly made by russians.

Miguel · Post by **Miguel** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:54 pm

It is quite sad how we are relying on other countries so much.

Terastas · Post by **Terastas** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:48 pm

I think it's less of a question of wether we could colonize the moon and more a question of wether we should. Right now we wouldn't have any other purpose other than to prove it could be done. And, since America currently has a foreign war, a fuel crisis and a crumbling economy, I doubt very many people would support a multi-billion dollar venture just for the sake of proving that something can be done.

It'll only be if and when it is proven that the moon has resources that would make a moon colony a profitable venture that the USA will re-enter the space race. Until then, Russia will have control of the tourist trade.

Kzinistzerg · Post by **Kzinistzerg** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:01 pm

Hehe. I think my previous post was a bit voerstated. I do't remember what mood I was in at the time, But i think I was a bit angry... Andyways, a planet is very fragile, when you look at it on a comsmic scale.

As for a new space program, it should be left to private investors, elminiating some of teh red tape.

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:20 pm

Hey, I was just wondering. Who owns the moon? We were there first, so does that mean it's ours?

Granted, some people will say that the moon can't be owned, but by that token, land cannot be owned either. But nobody is disputing whether or not the U.S. owns the territory on which it is built.

So anyway, yeah. Does anyone know the answer to this question? Or maybe nobody owns it....

Lupin · Post by **Lupin** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:45 pm

Excelsia wrote:Hey, I was just wondering. Who owns the moon? We were there first, so does that mean it's ours?

Granted, some people will say that the moon can't be owned, but by that token, land cannot be owned either. But nobody is disputing whether or not the U.S. owns the territory on which it is built.

So anyway, yeah. Does anyone know the answer to this question? Or maybe nobody owns it....

Due to treaty, it's treated the same way as international waters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Outer_Spa ... ty_of_1967

There is also the Moon Treaty, however it has neither been signed nor ratified by any spacefaring power, so it's of little consiquence.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty

Edit: Whoops, wrong link.

Vilkacis · Post by **Vilkacis** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:46 pm

Excelsia wrote:Hey, I was just wondering. Who owns the moon? We were there first, so does that mean it's ours?

Granted, some people will say that the moon can't be owned, but by that token, land cannot be owned either. But nobody is disputing whether or not the U.S. owns the territory on which it is built.

So anyway, yeah. Does anyone know the answer to this question? Or maybe nobody owns it....

A little bit of Googling turned up the following:

1979 U.N. Moon Agreement

1967 U.N. Outer Space Treaty

And a couple other things (for example, there's someone named Dennis Hope who claims to own the moon and all celestial bodies).

So, basically, there are U.N. treaties, which state that because the moon is so important to space exploration and all that good stuff, it doesn't belong to anyone and can be used by all the countries involved in the treaty. A common resource, in other words.

The complex answer is that whoever takes control of it and can keep control owns it. Isn't that how it has always worked? The only reason these treaties have any weight is because the participants are the only ones who have a say right now anyway.

-- Vilkacis

Scott Gardener · Post by **Scott Gardener** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:16 pm

Ever read the kid's book "The Little Prince?" It's about a young boy prince who leaves his tiny moon and explores Earth. On his way, he encounters several other eccentric worlds, and on one of them, an accountant is frantically at work tallying and labelling the universe, because he owns it all. The accountant character ultimately is found to be pretty pathetic, since his claim of ownership over the universe is not enforcable by any stretch of the imagination, and the person quite delusional.

Still, one has to take seriously reported claims of ownership for the sake of the future, lest we make the same mistake the Native Americans did, forking over land after land, with the idea that owning land is an absurd notion. Absurd as it may be, it can be used against us by the minds of someone technologically more advanced but philosophically backwards. And that's what humans excel at being.

THE PACK Message Boards

Space Tourism

Space Tourism

These are the voyages of the private enterprise...