
Space Tourism Isn’t Frivolous, or Impossible - austinz
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/opinion/space-tourism-isnt-frivolous-or-impossible.html?ref=opinion
======
32faction
Aerospace Engineering major here. People may be quick to dismiss space travel,
and overall innovations and advancements in space technology due to its high
cost and (seemingly) dangerous tests that companies do to test new
technologies. Take the very recent Antares launch failure and Virgin
Galactic's tragic crash. But don't dismiss it too soon. There are an
astounding amount of safety checks, safety factors, test runs, check runs, and
more safety checks before an actual launch or test flight is performed.

But these tragedies and tests were experienced in the early stages of within-
the-atmosphere flight. While we are still learning about creating a safer and
more efficient airliner, we had some bumps and tragedies we had to overcome in
the past to get it to where it is now. Take for example the De Havilland Comet
aircraft. It was the very first production jet airliner, but within a year of
its commercial service, it had tragic accidents that led to 13 crashes with
about 440 deaths total. We later learned that the stress in the edges of the
square windows compromised the structural integrity of the fuselage which led
to catastrophic failure.

This is why the windows on your 737, 747, etc are now rounded.

But through these tragedies and innovation, we not only gained knowledge on
how to build a better aircraft, ticket prices also decreased substantially in
price.

Space travel right now is right where the air travel industry used to be when
it was just starting out: we are still working out the kinks, and to quote Sir
Branson, "Space flight is hard, but worth it".

~~~
drzaiusapelord
>This is why the windows on your 737, 747, etc are now rounded.

This always sounded apocryphal to me, considering ships have had round windows
for ages before planes even existed.

~~~
davvolun
It's already been noted but:

> A year after entering commercial service the Comets began suffering
> problems, with three of them breaking up during mid-flight in well-
> publicised accidents. This was later found to be due to catastrophic metal
> fatigue in the airframes, not well understood at the time. The Comet was
> withdrawn from service and extensively tested to discover the cause; the
> first incident had been incorrectly blamed on adverse weather. Design flaws,
> including dangerous stresses at the corners of the square windows and
> installation methodology, were ultimately identified. As a result, the Comet
> was extensively redesigned with oval windows, structural reinforcement and
> other changes. Rival manufacturers meanwhile heeded the lessons learned from
> the Comet while developing their own aircraft.
> [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet)]

Perhaps (nautical) ships had round windows, but it was for an entirely
different reason, and clearly _some_ planes used square windows and found out
a good reason _not_ to use square windows.

------
ck2
Except what Virgin is doing isn't "spaceships" or "space tourism".

It's just a high flying plane.

Its max altitude is still within the outer limits of the earth's atmosphere
for pete's sake.

It can only hit 100km (62 miles):

 _International law defines the lower boundary of space as the lowest perigee
attainable by an orbiting space vehicle ..._

 _Due to atmospheric drag, the lowest altitude at which an object in a
circular orbit can complete at least one full revolution without propulsion is
approximately 150 km_

~~~
melling
Sure it is. It's a company selling a trip to "space". If they succeed they can
reinvest the revenue into R&D to build better "spaceships", and so on.
Additionally, other people will see a profitable company and try to enter the
market.

There's a whole snowball effect. Tesla is doing the same thing with the
electric car.

By the way, outer space does begin at 100 kilometers.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kármán_line](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kármán_line)

~~~
ck2
What part of "atmosphere up to 150km" makes 100km space?

At 100km it is dark and cold but there is atmosphere.

That's not "space" in my book.

~~~
msl
The International Space Station, orbiting at around 420km is dragged down by
atmosphere[1], so I'm going to call that 150km limit an arbitrary one. Also,
the Wikipedia article on the subject[2] doesn't appear to consider it worthy
of even mentioning.

You are, of course, entitled to define "space" however you want in your own
book, but be adviced that a lot of people will disagree with your definition.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Glider_mode](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Glider_mode)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth)

------
sanxiyn
It isn't frivolous, or impossible, but it _is_ not ready to take customers.
Rocket launch failure rate is about 5%.

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/11/spa...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/11/space-
tourism-still-not-ready-for-flight.html)

~~~
Shivetya
Its wholly frivolous at the current time, there is no destination other than
up. How more frivolous can you get.

Once there are orbital and lunar destinations where you can stay more than a
few days with a reasonable number of other people then it might get past
frivolous.

~~~
ecopoesis
The destination isn't the point. Yes, some rich folks go to go to almost
space, and that's awesome for them. But what's awesome for the rest of us is
the rich folks are subsidizing research into spaceplanes, and some day
stepping into a spaceplanebto go to the Lunar colony will be just like
stepping onto a 747 to go to London is today.

~~~
dghf
Pretty much exactly what I came to say.

Also, as well as ponying up the cash, they will also be risking their skins.
We need human guinea pigs, and the super-rich are volunteering.

------
dreamweapon
Whether space tourism is frivolous or not is question of personal taste and
values.

But this opinion piece is definitely very frivolous indeed, in that it misses
(by light years) the main argument against space tourism -- the amount of
energy and resources needed (both in flight, and in on-ground support), is far
greater than that of land-based travel, and will necessarily always be so
(whatever improvements may be seen in terms of industrial efficiency, a
gravitational well is still a gravitational well).

The article doesn't even _mention_ carbon footprint, in fact. As if the author
is unaware of the fact that even regular air travel is seen by many experts as
an essentially unsustainable industry, in terms of carbon impact (on the scale
that it exists, and in the unrestricted, no-penalties sense as we know it
today).

~~~
pavel_lishin
Can't space tourism be seen as an investment? Sure, the carbon footprint is
huge, but the money spent on space tourism is going towards the space
industry, which could result in cleaner sources of energy. (Imagine huge solar
collectors beaming power down to surface collectors in the desert. Doesn't get
much cleaner than that, after everything is manufactured and launched - unless
I'm grossly underestimating the maintenance.)

~~~
dreamweapon
Yeah, one can imagine various piggybacking effects or other tradeoffs by which
luxury space travel might be more feasible. But what got me was the the
opinion piece didn't consider environmental impact _at all_. It was just
"C'mon, it's the human spirit! Ya gotta believe!"

------
coldtea
Well, tourism is "frivolous" in itself, so...

------
Thlom
How much carbon emission does one trip to space generate (I have no idea)?

~~~
lmm
In a hydrogen-burning rocket, zero (at least directly).

(SpaceX has some sort of plastic-fuelled hybrid rocket though).

~~~
ceejayoz
Virgin uses the plastic hybrid, not SpaceX.

------
mzl
Recent tweet from Hans Rosling on space tourism: "Thoughts from Liberia: Space
tourism is like Ebola; it's lethal, it's costly and the world is better
without it!"
([https://twitter.com/HansRosling/status/528308903873089538](https://twitter.com/HansRosling/status/528308903873089538))

Personally I'm all for space exploration, but space tourism seems like a non-
needed luxury.

~~~
Ntrails
Luxury? This isn't government funded, and it's no more of a luxury than
private jets, or a supercar or whatever else you spend hundreds of thousands
of dollars on.

Most of the first world live their lives based on non-needed luxury and it
just seems mad to try and suddenly impose "need" as a requirement of a
product.

~~~
avz
Time and again, the luxury of one era becomes a basic need of the next. Legal
protection, education, electricity, health care...

~~~
morsch
And time and time again they don't: Having your own tiger petting zoo, milk
baths, private chef... So now we know that luxuries may or may not turn out to
be considered basic needs.

~~~
bencoder
Not disagreeing with the overall point of your comment, but:

> private chef

I can purchase a pre-prepared meal and heat it up in my microwave by pressing
two buttons. That's pretty close!

~~~
morsch
Agreed, and a similar point can be made regarding private zoos (first world
citizens have access to zoos) and milk baths (most of us could afford it but
we have even better hygiene products).

Some past luxuries were just fads and go out of fashion, others address a
lasting need but fail to scale up and remain extravagant luxuries only
available to the ultra rich, others still also address a lasting need and are
transformed into something that works on a societal level.

------
wahsd
Edit: Seems people don't like being faced with reality. Screw it. Let's burn
this mother down, we only have one, right. YOLO \----

It may not be impossible, albeit debatably frivolous, but it sure as hell is
dangerous as it will increase exponentially more damaging pollution and
degradation of the upper atmosphere. I don't think people quite appreciate the
risk with which we really are frivolously toying. Understand, there is no
fall-back, no fail-safe, no do-overs, no mulligans. Once the atmosphere is
damaged, once the already engaged process of global climate change is
exasperated by millionaires and billionaires who want to fly into space simply
to take a looksie at the planet from high up because of their narcissistic
impulse for exclusivity and domination is blind and self-destructive; there is
a point of no return, where the system of a human habitable ecosystem starts
collapsing. There will be no god to save us, no god to fix anything. Once it's
done, it's done. Finished, Fin, Ende, Finito.... Game Over... no lives left.

Some people claim, well, we'll just populate other planets. Again, a
psychopathic and narcissistic mentality. So billionaires will ruin this planet
and then jet off to another planet, leaving this one do wither and die along
with the billions of people who you will surely also belong to? Is that the
plan?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news that pops your fantasy dream bubble.
Reality is that this whole idea of space tourism and inter-planetary travel
and terra-forming is really the equivalent of a cat hoarder living in a
squalid shit and trash smeared shack venturing out to figure out how to take
on a predatory loan to buy a nice new car. The priorities are so delusional
and screwed up, it's incomprehensible to anyone with any bit of a level head.

~~~
eksith
Their problem may not be with what you said, but how you said it.

I fear the particular "brand" of space tourism offered by Virgin is probably
frivolous in that it's at a level not too far removed from the "Vomit Comet"
that astronauts, and paying customers, frequently use.

Space tourism that does reach Low Earth Orbit is probably a play-thing for the
rich as well, but I see that as a stepping stone to a greater voyage in our
solar system and beyond.

We're getting better at recycling our waste products and there is already a
ton of research coming from the ISS on long-duration living in space. These
alone have already contributed immensely to our understanding of the world
around us and have lead to new technologies that are already in use or are
about to enter the market soon. Likewise, space tourism will bring its share
of productive advances.

Let's not forget that it took millennia after the invention of sailing to get
to flight. Although it only took decades from flight to space travel, it's
unrealistic to expect such exponential advances in the next phase of our
exploration. I doubt we'll have humans landing on Mars in my lifetime, but I
wouldn't put it past the lifetime of the next generation.

