World’s First Spaceport Taking Shape in the Desert

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
The dream of space travel for the common folk is getting closer every year. When I say common folk, I’m referring to those who have an extra $200K to spend on a sub-orbital flight into space. The terminal is expected to be completed in 2013 and flights will commence shortly afterward.
 
Hopefully by the time I retire the price of space flight will have dropped considerably so that I can go on a retirement cruise of the solar system.

But honestly I hope they invent teleportation or the time machine before I die. Maybe if I have enough money I will put myself in cyrostasis for 100 years and see how far technology has increased.
 
Virgin Galactic is also in the process of testing Space Ship 2, that will carry the tourists. The last time I checked, the tests were going well.
 
I can't say I wouldn't be interested, but I'll let some other folks go first.
 
niconx said:
Does sub orbital flight even qualify as space flight?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, no. However, the legal boundary of space is 100km. Space Ship 2 should fly to an altitude of about 160km.

Then again, if you said suborbital spaceflight is not real spaceflight, then you'd basically saying that Alan Shepard's flight was not true spaceflight.
 
That's just outside Truth or Consequences. Worked as an EMT there for awhile.

Middle of nowhere is an accurate description. The lake nearby is pretty awesome though.
 
People seem to have lost a lot of ambition in the last 50 years. Flying around the world, even at extremely high altitude is not space travel. Actual space travel would involve going somewhere else in space. Wake me up when they go to the moon or Mars.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
People seem to have lost a lot of ambition in the last 50 years. Flying around the world, even at extremely high altitude is not space travel. Actual space travel would involve going somewhere else in space. Wake me up when they go to the moon or Mars.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be that excited about NASA, the ESA, or Russia's space agency.

I would be midly interested in Virgin Galactic, ULA, Boeing, the Chinese space program, and a few others.

I am very interested in SpaceX and Bigelow, especially SpaceX.

If you were to ask me now who would be top dog in space travel in the next 25 years, my best guess to you would be SpaceX.
 
Personally I'm still not convinced that there's any motivation for the private sector to develop a space transportation capable of taking men to Mars and back.

A trip to ISS or taking cargo into orbit is one thing, there's a constant demand for it and so there are money to be made. But can we say the same about a trip to Mars?

If there's no profit to justify the cost of putting men on Mars for these company, then I don't think any of them will focus on it.
 
Hornet said:
Personally I'm still not convinced that there's any motivation for the private sector to develop a space transportation capable of taking men to Mars and back.

A trip to ISS or taking cargo into orbit is one thing, there's a constant demand for it and so there are money to be made. But can we say the same about a trip to Mars?

If there's no profit to justify the cost of putting men on Mars for these company, then I don't think any of them will focus on it.
Click to expand...

The money is to be found in mining.

As supplies of valuable minerals become more scarce on Earth, these other, untouched planets will look far more attractive. Eventually, as the minerals become more expensive and the technology needed for space travel less so (after factoring in the increased cost of mineral resources) the proposition won't look so unfavorable. When that happens, you'll see some real, rapid development in space travel- entirely so that some corporation can lay claim to valuable mineral deposits on other worlds before its rivals.

Mars is rich in iron, for instance. When Earthbound iron becomes more scarce, that will be worth the effort of obtaining.
 
A place for the rich to go on one last roller coaster ride before they run the planet into the ground in the name of profit. Screw this nonsense theme park ride.

Give more money to NASA and let them continue to make magic happen, instead of choking them of funds to make it rain for the military industrial complex to put out blunder after blunder.
 
Afti said:
The money is to be found in mining.

As supplies of valuable minerals become more scarce on Earth, these other, untouched planets will look far more attractive. Eventually, as the minerals become more expensive and the technology needed for space travel less so (after factoring in the increased cost of mineral resources) the proposition won't look so unfavorable. When that happens, you'll see some real, rapid development in space travel- entirely so that some corporation can lay claim to valuable mineral deposits on other worlds before its rivals.

Mars is rich in iron, for instance. When Earthbound iron becomes more scarce, that will be worth the effort of obtaining.
Click to expand...

Space mining won't be required for a long, long time. And, it won't be the private industry who's research coattails will be rode on. Privatizing profits, and socializing losses. This is currently just sub-orbital joyriding, anyways. NASA probably wipes their ass daily with plane and rocket designs a hundred times better than the private industry struggles to build. The R&D to put people onto other planets will be funded at the tax payers expense, while giving them none of the profits of the endeavors, as usual, unless society wakes the fuck up and learns to progress.
 
stealthy123 said:
why is it shaped like a stingray?
Click to expand...

Not sure if it's just because I woke up, feeling a little groggy... First thing that leaped into my mind was that it looked like a glowing blue vagina. But now that you pointed it out, I can see a stingray too.. lol. :D
 
I need to make more money.

I can't wait till they make space casino/resorts. Now THAT is space tourism.
 
niconx said:
Does sub orbital flight even qualify as space flight?
Click to expand...

Yeah it does, the sub-orbital part simply means they didn't complete one revolution of the Earth (i.e. didn't ORBIT) you basically go up and come back down. Definitely go into space, if you want to harp on the definition of the word flight, then yeah you take off and land in the same vehicle that's a flight (fun fact, technically Yuri Gagarin wasn't the first person who went on a space flight, since he ejected out of his ship and didn't land in the ship :D)


That said, and I know its simply a concept drawing and the finished product won't look anything like it, but that's a bad ass looking space port!
 
sfsuphysics said:
Yeah it does, the sub-orbital part simply means they didn't complete one revolution of the Earth (i.e. didn't ORBIT) you basically go up and come back down.
Click to expand...

Orbiting (as described in spaceflights anyway) is a bit more than circumnavigating the planet. You have to get to orbital velocity (about ~20 times the speed of sound at sea level), or you are coming back to Earth. Hit that magic number, and you stay up nearly forever (minute air friction will eventually bring you down) and appear to be in zero gravity (you still have gravity, otherwise you would float free of the Earth), but you are effectively in freefall.

The difference in what Yuri Gagarin did (merely in terms of rocket performance) is so far above what you get for this ticket as to not be worth the name "space travel".

- PS. I'm pretty sure that Neil Armstrong got his space "wings" on an X-15 flight that qualified the same way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top