Poll of the Day > Space tourism

(+) Yeah! (+)

Space tourism

---

I don't mind if folk want to do it and it became a thing. I know I certainly wouldn't do it though.

---

Probably not but sign me up

---

We'll all likely be dead before it ever becomes a thing for anyone other than the richest humans on Earth, so it's not like it matters to any of us.
---

Whatever excuse to get our asses closer to the stars

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

We'll all likely be dead before it ever becomes a thing for anyone other than the richest humans on Earth, so it's not like it matters to any of us.

Well already those willing to throw a few million dollars at space travel can get up there right now. I think another 40-50 years will make it more accessible but still we are probably talking $15-20k per person at the very least.

I think the biggest reason we haven't seen a large push is because for the most part, there is not much of a point to it beyond the novelty and it being cool to be out in space. Once we have more reasons to go into space that will open it up more to being a more normal thing. Like if on Mars there was cool sites to see etc.. and getting there wasn't too complicated or time consuming. The reason why people travel for fun is to see shit, you go to Paris to see the Eiffel Tower, you go to NYC to see the State of Liberty. Right now going up in space beyond checking out earth from a distance isn't much.

Not for a long while.

---

Monopoman posted...

Well already those willing to throw a few million dollars at space travel can get up there right now. I think another 40-50 years will make it more accessible but still we are probably talking $15-20k per person at the very least.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

We'll all likely be dead before it ever becomes a thing for anyone other than the richest humans on Earth

If space travel qualitatively advances at all (and there's no guarantee it will), the focus will almost certainly be on industrial exploitation and technological benefits. Even a robust private space program isn't likely to prioritize recreational tourism except as a novelty reserved for the very, very wealthy.

I don't really see tickets for "legit" space travel (as opposed to simple upper atmosphere flights) being available for less than a million before most of the current population is long dead.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

If space travel qualitatively advances at all (and there's no guarantee it will), the focus will almost certainly be on industrial exploitation and technological benefits. Even a robust private space program isn't likely to prioritize recreational tourism except as a novelty reserved for the very, very wealthy.

I don't really see tickets for "legit" space travel (as opposed to simple upper atmosphere flights) being available for less than a million before most of the current population is long dead.

I said it would be in the $15-20k range of today's dollars by 40-50 years from now. By the time 40ish years passes despite what you say a lot of us will be alive in 40-50 years. It would be one thing if no company was trying to get this shit done but we have multiple companies working to make space travel more feasible.

At 15k plenty that want to do it will make it happen, I mean shit people save up for stuff like sex change operations or boob jobs and those can cost just as much. There was a time when computers took up entire high school gymnasiums and cost tens of thousands of dollars. At that time most would have scoffed at anyone ever owning a computer for personal use or a day when a phone could have more power than that computer by a factor of 1000's.

Monopoman posted...

I said it would be in the $15-20k range of today's dollars by 40-50 years from now.

Why do you think it would be that low?
---

They should build a big fake mountain thats flat on top to launch rockets off of, that way it takes less fuel

or a space elevator or something

---

Mead posted...

or a space elevator or something

This is a nice idea. But where does it go? I don't think people would like taking an elevator that just shoots them into a random spot in space until the're ready to die...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Why do you think it would be that low?

Because even air travel used to be stupidly expensive until they made a more modern plane. 40-50 years is a fuck ton of time in the modern world. Shit 50 years ago we didn't have any of the following.

Cell Phones and Smart Phones
Game Consoles
The Internet
Personal Computers
Smart Phones
Tablet Computers
Floppy Discs
VHS
DVD
GPS
Blu-Ray
Streaming
Microwaves for personal use
etc...

So yeah, if you were transported 50 years into the future right now you would likely not even recognize the technology created in that time.

Monopoman posted...

Because even air travel used to be stupidly expensive until they made a more modern plane.

Sure. But why do you think it would start that low? Wouldn't it start off insanely expensive first?

Monopoman posted...

So yeah, if you were transported 50 years into the future right now you would likely not even recognize the technology created in that time.

Maybe. Maybe not. The problem is still if there was a reason to go up, and if it was common or not yet. They wouldn't need to make space travel affordable if there still wasn't a reason to go up, I would think...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Sure. But why do you think it would start that low? Wouldn't it start off insanely expensive first?

It already has started off insanely expensive right now it takes millions to get up there. Also I said $15-20k in todays dollars with inflation that will likely be 3-4 times more when converted into 2070 dollars.

Monopoman posted...

It already has started off insanely expensive right now it takes millions to get up there.

Yeah. But who's to say they are working on making it affordable right now? Or that the price will drop that quickl?. Or even be available in 40-50 years?
---

LinkPizza posted...

Yeah. But who's to say they are working on making it affordable right now? Or that the price will drop that quickl?. Or even be available in 40-50 years?

https://www.virgingalactic.com/

There are multiple companies with the goal of making space travel feasible for the average person. NASA is not the only entity in America that have the ability to get into space.

Monopoman posted...

https://www.virgingalactic.com/

There are multiple companies with the goal of making space travel feasible for the average person. NASA is not the only entity in America that have the ability to get into space.

That does mean they are going to make it in time. There are so many things that still can go wrong. And cost that will have to be covered. And the fact that it has to be affordable for what it is. Many people would want to see or go somewhere. If there is still nowhere to go, then the affordable price drops. That being said, I don't really see $15-20k range as affordable. Just because people can save up that much doesn't mean it's affordable. But I also don't see it dropping to that price. Or the 2070 equivalent...
---

LinkPizza posted...

That does mean they are going to make it in time. There are so many things that still can go wrong. And cost that will have to be covered. And the fact that it has to be affordable for what it is. Many people would want to see or go somewhere. If there is still nowhere to go, then the affordable price drops. That being said, I don't really see $15-20k range as affordable. Just because people can save up that much doesn't mean it's affordable. But I also don't see it dropping to that price. Or the 2070 equivalent...

If you are waiting for the day it can match regular air travel in price you are talking more like 2100-2120 or later, most likely I mean right now I can get to NY for about $500 from where I live if I wanted a ticket to get me there in a few days. I said $15-20k is feasible for someone that has a life goal of wanting to do it, far better than the $1-2 million or more it is right now. It's the same as getting a sex change operation that is a huge waste of money for most of us but someone that wanted their entire life to be the opposite sex it's worth it.

I never said $15k was nothing and people would do it for fun at that price. Shit even in the year 2120 it will likely still be cheaper to use regular air travel just do to the nature of the travel. I mean right now it's cheaper to walk somewhere then get on a plane, but that doesn't mean people use walking to get to places far away. It can also be cheaper to drive somewhere then fly assuming you drive there straight on and don't add to the expense with hotel stays etc..

I wanna go into space so bad man

---

Monopoman posted...

If you are waiting for the day it can match regular air travel in price you are talking more like 2100-2120 or later, most likely I mean right now I can get to NY for about $500 from where I live if I wanted a ticket to get me there in a few days. I said $15-20k is feasible for someone that has a life goal of wanting to do it, far better than the $1-2 million or more it is right now. It's the same as getting a sex change operation that is a huge waste of money for most of us but someone that wanted their entire life to be the opposite sex it's worth it.

Sure. It's more affordable. But more affordable doesn't exactly mean affordable. I feel the same about the sex change operation. It's more affordable than it was, but I still wouldn't call it affordable. Many people do struggle with making enough to get it.

Monopoman posted...

I never said $15k was nothing and people would do it for fun at that price. Shit even in the year 2120 it will likely still be cheaper to use regular air travel just do to the nature of the travel. I mean right now it's cheaper to walk somewhere then get on a plane, but that doesn't mean people use walking to get to places far away. It can also be cheaper to drive somewhere then fly assuming you drive there straight on and don't add to the expense with hotel stays etc..

Most people probably wouldn't make it walking somewhere. And it could be more expensive as you would probably have to take more time off. Walking across the country to visit my family would cost me more than both flying or driving. That being said, would that be more of a convenience of traveling somewhere. But space travel would be just going to space, right? So not just traveling to another place. Nor would most people pay to have a layover in space. Plus, you can really walk or drive to space, so Idk...

The reason I bring up the price is because I remember reading about Americans having like no savings. Or like how most of them had less than like $1000 in savings. Which makes me think that even in the price range you stated, it wouldn't be affordable for most...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Sure. It's more affordable. But more affordable doesn't exactly mean affordable. I feel the same about the sex change operation. It's more affordable than it was, but I still wouldn't call it affordable. Many people do struggle with making enough to get it.

Most people probably wouldn't make it walking somewhere. And it could be more expensive as you would probably have to take more time off. Walking across the country to visit my family would cost me more than both flying or driving. That being said, would that be more of a convenience of traveling somewhere. But space travel would be just going to space, right? So not just traveling to another place. Nor would most people pay to have a layover in space. Plus, you can really walk or drive to space, so Idk...

The reason I bring up the price is because I remember reading about Americans having like no savings. Or like how most of them had less than like $1000 in savings. Which makes me think that even in the price range you stated, it wouldn't be affordable for most...

My point was just because something is technically cheaper doesn't make it the best. Shit if people used a bicycle to get around town they would save money on gas, and upkeep on a car but you see people choose to drive mostly. Even when traveling less than a few miles people mostly don't use a bicycle to get there unless their goal is to get exercise.

Also $15-20k is irrelevant to some and a fortune to others, that is just the nature of the world. I sure as fuck couldn't afford a Rolex watch but for some people they could buy that thing on a whim.

Monopoman posted...

My point was just because something is technically cheaper doesn't make it the best. Shit if people used a bicycle to get around town they would save money on gas, and upkeep on a car but you see people choose to drive mostly. Even when traveling less than a few miles people mostly don't use a bicycle to get there unless their goal is to get exercise.

I never said cheaper made it better. I'm not actually sure where you got that from, tbh... My problem with the price is being affordable. You mentioned it would get cheaper in the future. But I was saying that more affordable doesn't mean affordable.

Also, the reason most people wouldn't ride bicycles anywhere isn't for only saving money on gas. They probably base it on multiple things. Like the time it will take to get someone, the amount of time they have, It they are picking up another person, if they are picking up items (like grocery shopping), etc. So, it's not only about price, but everything else, as well...

For space travel, the reason the price is important is because it's not the same as choosing how to get to a location, AFAIK. You can choose to walk or drive there. And if there is only one way, the price becomes important because of that. But in the end, all I'm saying is more affordable doesn't mean actually affordable...

Monopoman posted...

Also $15-20k is irrelevant to some and a fortune to others, that is just the nature of the world. I sure as fuck couldn't afford a Rolex watch but for some people they could buy that thing on a whim.

True. But probably a fortune to most if it's true that most people have $1000 or less in their savings accounts... Especially if they are trying to take a family on a spacation...
---

LinkPizza posted...

I never said cheaper made it better. I'm not actually sure where you got that from, tbh... My problem with the price is being affordable. You mentioned it would get cheaper in the future. But I was saying that more affordable doesn't mean affordable.

Also, the reason most people wouldn't ride bicycles anywhere isn't for only saving money on gas. They probably base it on multiple things. Like the time it will take to get someone, the amount of time they have, It they are picking up another person, if they are picking up items (like grocery shopping), etc. So, it's not only about price, but everything else, as well...

For space travel, the reason the price is important is because it's not the same as choosing how to get to a location, AFAIK. You can choose to walk or drive there. And if there is only one way, the price becomes important because of that. But in the end, all I'm saying is more affordable doesn't mean actually affordable...

True. But probably a fortune to most if it's true that most people have $1000 or less in their savings accounts... Especially if they are trying to take a family on a spacation...

Well it is a unique thing I mean right now it's super exclusive to say you have been in space, I think some might do it just to tell others they did. Anyways I stand by the fact that 15-20k is reasonable for some, again it's based on how much that person makes if they are bringing in $250k a year 15-20k is not a big deal if they are making $30k a year it's a lot more.

Obviously over time it will get more feasible for the average american but if someone saved up for it for a decade or so even with a moderate income of say $30k they could get it done. The only person that would save for it that long though would really really want to go up there it would be a big deal to them.

Monopoman posted...

Well it is a unique thing I mean right now it's super exclusive to say you have been in space, I think some might do it just to tell others they did.

True. Some probably would...

Monopoman posted...

Anyways I stand by the fact that 15-20k is reasonable for some, again it's based on how much that person makes if they are bringing in $250k a year 15-20k is not a big deal if they are making $30k a year it's a lot more.

True. But that's kind of like saying a 2020 Mercedes-Benz S 560 is only $104,450. Thar's expensive for some, but like nothing for others. Like I said, when most people have trouble saving $1000, which would be good for important stuff, then it seem unlikely that many will be able to save up $12-20k for a space vacation. Not to mention that while most people have under $1000 in savings, the ones that have more might still have trouble saving that much. Not only that, but it becomes harder when those families do have multiple people wanting to go. Like an SO, or children, or whoever else...

Monopoman posted...

Obviously over time it will get more feasible for the average american but if someone saved up for it for a decade or so even with a moderate income of say $30k they could get it done. The only person that would save for it that long though would really really want to go up there it would be a big deal to them.

It also depends on if they could save that much. Which depends on things like income vs expenses. It could take a decade, or it could take longer. It also depends on when they get it working and affordable. It could be in 50 years. Or it could be in 150 years. We'll have to wait to find out. And the only people that would be going up before there's a reason are either the very wealthy, or super hardcore fans. And even some hardcore fans might wait until they can actually do something. Meaning it's a very small percentage who would probably pay the $15-20k. And even some of the hardcore fans that would pay it have to be in the group where they actually can pay that, as well...
---

Something else I forgot to mention. Being affordable or not also depends on something else. And that how much we'll be making in the future. What I mean is, will minimum wage increase to where people can actually make enough to afford to live? Or will is stay the same meaning that even more people will have less in their savings? Or some people want UBI. But it would be hard to save money when you're making basically only enough to live. Especially since many would be forced out of jobs at that point... So, it also depends on what happens in the future to money, people, and their pay... And other stuff, of course...
---

Monopoman posted...

I said it would be in the $15-20k range of today's dollars by 40-50 years from now.

Yes, and I'm strongly disagreeing with that premise.

Speaking as someone who lived through the slow and inevitable collapse of the space program in the US through the 80s and 90s, I'm far more cynical about the idea that "progress" is always an upward curve that forever advances. There are stops, starts, and often development lines that are cut off forever. Successes today don't necessarily equate to successes tomorrow, nor do advancements and improvements today guarantee a steady increase over time.

People in the 60s and 70s were predicting moon bases and by the year 2000. From their perspective, the constant gains of the space program ("Hey, we've got a space station now!") were inevitably going to lead to a future where space became extremely accessible. They were wrong, too.

Development is almost always motivated by external benefits - NO ONE invests billions into a space program "just because" or "well, space travel would be cool." If privatized space industry continues to advance over the next few decades, it will be motivated by the need to get/keep satellites into orbit (and possibly finding ways to clear orbit to prevent the Kessler Effect from locking us out of space entirely), and by the desire to find ways to mine resources in space (mainly asteroids and comets) for greater profit than can be obtained at home. Neither of which are conducive to space tourism as anything other than a niche luxury.

Casual space-flight is potentially centuries away, assuming it ever happens at all. People don't really understand how vast and empty space is, or how much of a discouragement to effectively leaving our own planet that is.

No one from Europe would have found the "New World" (let alone colonized it) if it took 17 years to cross the Atlantic.



Monopoman posted...

By the time 40ish years passes despite what you say a lot of us will be alive in 40-50 years.

The youngest users here are all generally in their mid-20s. Some are closer to their mid-40s. Most fall somewhere in-between, and a number of people are even older.

Even assuming 50 years (which I'm explicitly disputing), that would mean the youngest people here would be in their 70s, while the majority would be in their 80s, 90s, or even higher. Based on current health trends (and taking into account the sort of people posting here are general fairly sedentary in terms of lifestyle), a significant percentage of the userbase here will absolutely be dead in 50 years. And many of the ones who aren't would be too physically impaired to really take advantage of space tourism even if it was established.

But the point is more, I'd argue we may not even be at the point of "space tourism" (and again, I don't really see "short upper atmosphere flights" qualifying as legit space tourism) as a distinct industry within the next 100 years. And I'm pretty sure EVERYONE here will be dead by then. Unless we've got some secret vampire posters.



Monopoman posted...

It would be one thing if no company was trying to get this shit done but we have multiple companies working to make space travel more feasible.

Very few of which are seriously working on the idea of recreational or casual space flight as anything other than a publicity stunt or a niche luxury.

Almost every company focusing on improving space travel as a concept is mainly focused on short-range business/industry (mainly launching satellites), with a long-term focus on industrial operations in space (ie, mining).

It's the equivalent of saying that because we have the technology to build oil-rigs now, people will be living on massive man-made islands in the middle of the ocean 50 years from now. While one could theoretically help lead to the other, the lack of strong motivation to implement the latter means there won't be much research or development along those lines in the short-term.



Monopoman posted...

At 15k plenty that want to do it will make it happen, I mean shit people save up for stuff like sex change operations or boob jobs and those can cost just as much.

The difference between those two comparisons is so vast that your attempted analogy is absolutely worthless in pretty much every way.



Monopoman posted...

There was a time when computers took up entire high school gymnasiums and cost tens of thousands of dollars. At that time most would have scoffed at anyone ever owning a computer for personal use or a day when a phone could have more power than that computer by a factor of 1000's.

Yes, and there was always a distinct and obvious advantage to smaller, more powerful computers, which is why research continued to improve computer technology to produce smaller, more powerful computers.

But when it comes to space travel, there really ISN'T a strong and obvious short-term advantage (which there needs to be for businesses to invest in it) to transport of people from place-to-place when there's no real place for them to transport TO.

If we ever got to the point of having active moonbases or bases on Mars or mining colonies or a larger space-station, there might be more motivation to develop personal travel for its own sake.

Compare how long after we developed ships capable of crossing oceans before cruise industry came into being. There is generally a long period between when technology is reserved for military and industrial uses before it becomes standardized for casual frivolous public use.

And space travel is magnitudes more complex and dangerous than almost anything else we've ever done as humans. No plausible scenario really exists where a company like Space X finally perfects extra-orbital flight, and then establishes leisure tours a week later.
---

Mead posted...

They should build a big fake mountain thats flat on top to launch rockets off of, that way it takes less fuel

or a space elevator or something

The problem is, for real optimal fuel consumption, we'd have to establish that sort of mountain as close to the Equator as possible. This is actually why some people in NASA wanted the US to establish stronger ties with Guyana to allow for shuttle/rocket launches from there.

As for the space elevator, the problem is that we basically have to invent a material with a tensile strength of like 8000x greater than anything we've ever manages to produce up to this point. We basically need something like flexible ultra-diamonds to even begin to approach feasibility.



LinkPizza posted...

This is a nice idea. But where does it go? I don't think people would like taking an elevator that just shoots them into a random spot in space until the're ready to die...

The usual premise is that the top of the space elevator is a minor satellite/space station tether point in geosynchronous orbit, which would keep it above the same point all the time. You take the elevator up, disembark at the station, then board a ship there to take you elsewhere.

The main point is that you don't need to use up all of the fuel/energy on launch to travel through the atmosphere to escape Earth's gravity, because the elevator handles that (and the energy it costs to power it up the line can mostly be recovered in various ways when the elevator comes back down via gravity). And ships that remain permanently in orbit would use minimal rocket power to adjust trajectory and thrust because the relative lack of gravity and atmosphere in upper-orbit would vastly reduce drag.

The problem (aside from finding material strong enough to build it) is that it doesn't really make sense to HAVE a space elevator unless you have something in space that is significant enough to require it. Whether that be moonbases or Mars bases or mining colonies or a massive space-station, you need a reason to be constantly shipping things up (or down).

And while the IDEA of having massive orbital platforms or moonbases or whatever up there and a space elevator to make travel to them easier, unless there's a specific REASON to have those things (one that almost certainly has to revolve around how much profit can be made), no one is going to be willing to invest to build them in the first place.

Post moon landing, most Americans were firmly in favor of defunding NASA because they felt like most space research was a waste of time and money (because it didn't have obvious short-term gains). As the IDEA of Mars colonies or massive space stations or the like tended to dwindle due to the sheer magnitude of the distances involved and the effort and money that would be required, people stopped caring.

The main reason why poor people were willing to climb into boats and spend months at sea to get to the New World in the Colonial Era is because they knew they were going to a land that was suitable for human life (and in some cases, was more prosperous than the land they were leaving behind). But if the trip took years instead of months, and the land on the other side of the ocean was a vast desert that could kill you in minutes unless you were wearing a full body life-support suit, the general consensus probably would have been closer to "Nah, fuck that."

The idea of space travel and colonization is incredibly romantic and inspiring, but we're nowhere near the level of tech we'd really need to feasibly do it in any meaningful way.

In Civ terms, we're like a dozen steps down the tech tree, and need to keep researching our way up before we can launch to Alpha Centauri.
---