Paying Passengers

[den]

"Yes, astronauts have been flying into space for over thirty years,"Tumlinson acknowledged. "But they were government employees, operating within a narrow and often short term government agenda. Whether for national prestige, as when we went to the Moon, or for science or advanced research, this is different. Rutan and the others following him have a far different goal in mind. They want to really open the frontier to all of us."

The big thing being discussed all over the media is that now paying passengers can go into space. They can pay less than $100,000 to ride a space-plane into weightlessness for a few minutes. It's not like you can get out and go for a walk but you get a few minutes of weightlessness and a terriffic view.

To me, that seems really trivial. It reminds me of a coach tour. "If this is Tuesday, we must be in Belgium." You may be spending an order of magnitude less than if you went up with NASA or the Russians, but you're still a bloody tourist.

Comments

[hedgegoth.livejournal.com]

what's wrong with being a tourist?

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

That depends on why you go somewhere, and how much in the way you are.

[hedgegoth.livejournal.com]

I go to look at stuff and take pictures of course :)

[http://users.livejournal.com/killjoy_/]

What if aforementioned tourism funds loftier ventures?

[level-head.livejournal.com]

In the same vein, a tourist from Los Angeles can pay $69 -- about $100 Australian -- to climb into a hundred ton machine and rip through the air for an hour at nearly the speed of sound -- to touch down hundreds of kilometers away for business or pleasure, returning that night to sleep in her own bed.

But a government-only program would have this restricted to Air Force Jocks and other exotic personnel -- and air travel would serve one ten-thousandth of the population it does now.

Let's do that again for space.

===|==============/ Level Head

[tropism.livejournal.com]

This is, hopefully, only the first step.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

If those "tourists" can fund the R&D necessary for me to be able to pay $5,000 and have a weekend on the Moon in 20 years, then I'm all for it. Because I'd be a tourist too; it's just that I want a bit more ROI than that.

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

Lately Rutan's been fairly open about his plans to get that $100,000-to-suborbit figure down to a far lower to-orbit figure. Tourism first, and then useful stuff like industry or habitats.

Dismissing things because the first step isn't a big deal is shortsighted, remember; the Wright brothers didn't set out planning airliners after Kitty Hawk.

[hobbitblue.livejournal.com]

The average joe doesn't "get" space travel though, has no desire for moonbases or colonisation or exploration or any of those things and thus sees no point in "wasting money" on the most exciting thing ever. Sell him on the tourism aspect, a novel experience and a new vacation spot, and the money will come pouring in, which will fund the important stuff, hopefully. People with more money than sense will pay millions ot be the first to do a space walk in their hawaiian shirt and flip flops or whatever - and their cash can be used to get the other programs rolling.

[kamau-d-lyon.livejournal.com]

While I think the tourist angle will help to provide funds for more useful and long lasting space goals I'm not willing to lay down money for a suborbital flight. When we can get into orbit I'll start thinking about it but until then I can't see doing it myself. Thankfully there are enough people for whom the 'quick trip' will suit them fine. That means money should start flowing and money is what really fuels space travel.