17 ms·
Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel
- MicahKV 5y agoI don't see the bizarre part. Wikipedia says Barron was born in 1927 when we were still figuring out the basics of aviation, and just a few decades later he was making these plans in the midst of the space race. Considering the rate of progress he had witnessed in his time, it's not very surprising that he expected us to aggressively colonize space in his lifetime. Maybe I have overly romanticized notions of what could have been, but I feel like humanity lost out big time when the space shuttle was chosen over a manned mission to Mars.
- JKCalhoun 5y agoWould a manned Mars mission really have been feasible? Is it feasible now? I have no idea, myself. The shuttle might have been fine if it weren't twisted into the boxcar-like thing the Air Force insisted upon. And if the other parts came along with it: space tug, lunar-orbiting station, etc. Instead we got a starter salad and then were shown the door. Perhaps it was a lack of money. The U.S. worrying so much about (South)East Asia meant money went to war and things like the DynaSoar X-20 and MOL were nixed.
- adrianN 5y agoMars missions are feasible now. See for example the missions described my Zubrin, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
- TMWNN 5y ago>Would a manned Mars mission really have been feasible? Is it feasible now? I have no idea, myself. No less than Michael Griffith, *the NASA Administrator*, said in 2007 that the shuttle was a mistake (<https://aviationweek.typepad.com/space/2007/03/human_space_exp.html https://aviationweek.typepad.com/space/2007/03/human_space_e...>), and that NASA should have instead continuing launching Saturn rockets: >If we had done all this, we would be on Mars today, not writing about it as a subject for "the next 50 years." We would have decades of experience operating long-duration space systems in Earth orbit, and similar decades of experience in exploring and learning to utilize the Moon.
- JPLeRouzic 5y agoThanks for your link about a NASA administrator saying "the shuttle was a mistake". As someone who was a pre-teen during the Apollo area, this warms my heart. However, even is Saturn V was an extraordinary engineering feat, to explore space we needed something much less expensive, much less polluting, much more secure. Perhaps SpaceX fills better this niche, but I hope that we simply become a space species with most jobs and people at least in orbit around Earth or Moon.
- nasmorn 5y agoWhy would we ever put most people in orbit? Of the sun sure but then it is just called a planet.
- JPLeRouzic 5y agoHilton's plan was for an hotel in orbit. It's a nice idea, but it means it would have been for a short stay, assuming some space tourism. It would be better if we have several good reasons to stay permanently in orbit.
- Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago> much less polluting Isn't the SpaceX Merlin a fuel-rich RP-1 engine too, just like the Rocketdyne F-1? Or is it another source of pollution that you have in mind?
- JPLeRouzic 5y agoRP-1 is much less toxic than Hydrazine, but toxicity is not the same thing than pollution. One is qualitative, the other both qualitative and quantitative. Burning a huge amount of kerosene is polluting. For comparison a Boeing 747 (4 engines) consume 2,8 kg per second, while a Saturn V 1 first stage burns 13,600 kg per second, nearly 5000 times the amount of the Boeing 747. I hope for a breakthrough in rocket engines, but I am quite sure it will not happen. We need something new.
- mattowen_uk 5y ago> Would a manned Mars mission I think you mean 'crewed Mars mission'.
- JKCalhoun 5y agoI'm showing my age, I hope not any bias.
- adrianN 5y agoUntil we figure out a way to make lots of money from deep space missions, progress will be slow. The space race was, imo, mostly a race to optimize nuclear warhead delivery systems.
- runevault 5y agoWe probably would need to somehow uncover massive deposits of rare "earth" elements or similar to convince people to push for reaching to space seriously again.
- adrianN 5y agoMining some Unobtainium from the asteroid belt seems to be the most plausible thing we can do in deep space that we can't do in LEO or right on the ground.
- aphroz 5y agoPeople who are saying that is not possible and that it does not make sense economically speaking have won. We are now in hands of managers, not dreamers.
- lordnacho 5y agoBureaucrats, not engineers. The difference being that bureaucrats are there to pour glue over something to stabilise it, whereas engineers are meant to try new things.
- grp000 5y agoI never thought about bureaucrats that way, it makes sense and it's refreshing.
- gibolt 5y agoA company or government reducing quality and effectiveness over time is not stabilization, but erosion of core principles. Engineering is innovation and maintenance. Bureaucrats slow good change while pushing to cut corners.
- amelius 5y agoI'd say the difference managers vs dreamers is better. Musk is a dreamer. He is not really an engineer.
- helsinkiandrew 5y agoIt is possible, perhaps even 10 or 20 years ago, But it isn't economically feasible. You could build or refurbish the ISS into something that looked a Japanese capsule hotel 'fairly cheaply', but getting there still costs millions, we are thousands or 10s of thousands of spacecraft away from making them cheap to produce and run. Hotels on earth aren't exactly money spinners and apart from the zero gravity and looking at the earth the novelty of being in space would probably wear off after a day or two. Projects like Virgin Galactic - for a 'near space' fun ride will probably be more lucrative in the short term. Getting (government funded) astronauts and satellites into orbit is where the money is right now.
- perl4ever 5y agoAs it mentions, 2001: A Space Odyssey came out about a year later with a Hilton in a space station, so that pretty much portrays the vision at the time.
- lordnacho 5y agoYeah there's nothing bizarre about it. Moore's law could as well be applied to space travel, why shouldn't you expect that a field that was new would reduce costs exponentially over the next few decades? Turned out to hit a wall but there were reasons to be optimistic at the time. And the demand side of that business is still there. Who wouldn't book a hotel in space for a few days if the price came down to an annual salary, then a monthly?
- oldgradstudent 5y agoWhy would you expect a Moore's law in a new field? Gordon Moore only stated his thesis almost two decades after the start of the semiconductor era. It was an empirical observation based on the history of integrated circuits. Why would you assume a Moore's law in fields that have never shown anything resembling Moore's law?
- lordnacho 5y agoMaybe not the constant but the idea that things will get cheaper. Like batteries.
- loloquwowndueo 5y agoLike gold. We are constantly mining more of it, stands to reason it would become cheaper over time. /s
- dang 5y agoOk, we've taken the bizarre part out of the title above.
- iamgopal 5y agoAnd we have achieved what ? 99 other ways to share naked women’s photos. I hope young people get bored with this stupidity real soon and dream about the bigger space future. Elon is on right path with that one too.
- scrollaway 5y agoYou're using the internet wrong. I'd say if you're watching star trek or some other sci-fi show from earlier than the 90s, we may not have achieved FTL or teleportation, but the whole "magic device that contains all knowledge and can communicate with anyone at any time" thing we actually did pretty well on.
- xwdv 5y agoI remember reading Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy when I was young and thinking how amazing it’d be to have a such an all knowing device that could look up anything, but didn’t think it was possible, never imagined everyone would have one in their pocket someday.
- zepto 5y ago> that could look up anything As long as you can find a sci-hub mirror that hasn’t been taken down.
- jahnu 5y agoSome prominent people involved feel Apollo was the mistake if the goal is to colonize space and other worlds asap https://twitter.com/ZachWeiner/status/1402314414515273728?s=19 https://twitter.com/ZachWeiner/status/1402314414515273728?s=...
- orbital-decay 5y agoThe original idea of the first step in outer space exploration by Korolev & co was a mission to circumnavigate Venus (before the surface conditions were known) or Mars. The N family or rockets, the concept of which had been studied before R-7 ever flew, was envisioned as a tool to assemble the large modular interplanetary spaceship in LEO. Moon wasn't terribly popular among Soviet space engineers because orbital construction was seen as necessary tech, and a single launch mission would have accomplished nothing towards it. But the party decided to participate in the moon race so the largest rocket in the family, N-1, which was never optimized for TLI missions, has been selected and repurposed for this task (and never flew since the concept itself turned out to be flawed in several regards unlike R-7). Hard to say whether this vision was right - too many unknowns, and they would probably have finished in early 80s at best - but the outcome of that idea was the modular space station tech.
- jahnu 5y agoI guess it's really impossible to know for sure but imagining an alternative history of the space race is always fun. I really liked how For All Mankind did it.
- forgingahead 5y ago"Bizarre" seems a bit strong - anyone remember reading Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator by Roald Dahl? I remember reading it as a kid, and the concept of the "Space Hotel USA" seemed a little fantastical, but not out of the realm of possibilities. That was published in 1972.
- Simon_says 5y agoㄸ ㄷ
- bryanrasmussen 5y agoJust because something was commonly accepted at one time does not mean it cannot seem bizarre in retrospect.
- dkh 5y agoExcellent, more [real-life] context for something [fictional] that happened on “Mad Men.” “When I say I want the moon, I expect the moon.”
- rdiddly 5y agoIt has to be "bizarre" or I won't click on it, is that the deal?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dr_dshiv 5y agoMoon is the spot for tourists. It's only a day a way! But, the real money maker on the moon is televised sports. Moonball is going to be awesome to watch.
- caslon 5y agoThis comment immediately brought to mind the underwater Blitzball opening cinematic from Final Fantasy X. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOmsorZ1Y1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOmsorZ1Y1U
- rajlego 5y agothat's a cool video thanks for posting link
- BelenusMordred 5y agoLow Earth Orbit training for athletes in 2G will be a thing once it's cheap enough. They'll come back to earth absurdly strong.
- justinclift 5y agoWonder if the added strain (eg on heart?) would reduce their likely life expectancy though?
- ansgri 5y agoThis doesn’t seem to be stopping e.g. American football. Many people would gladly trade 20 years from 60-80 for a chance to live a decent life 20-40.
- dukoid 5y agoWouldn't it be straightforward to produce 2G on earth in a rotating ring (combining forces similar to superelevation in rail tracks)?
- 5y ago
- someperson 5y agoAnother billionaire hotel operator, Robert Bigelow (owner of Budget Suites of America) has his own space hotel ambitions with Bigelow Aerospace. They licensed and further developed NASA's inflatable habitat technology. They actual have a module on the International Space Station right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Expandable_Activity_Module https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Expandable_Activity_Mo...
- NDizzle 5y agoGreat timing on this article, as my kids had a discussion about an outer space hotel in the car yesterday!
- askvictor 5y agoI was just re-watching 2001: A Space Odyssey last night and noticed the Hilton in the space station.
- ctdonath 5y agoRecent take on the concept: https://voyagerstation.com/ https://voyagerstation.com/
- jillesvangurp 5y agoThe only bizarre thing is that after having people on the moon fifty years ago, nobody bothered to go back. The natural progression would have been to keep on launching more and bigger rockets and put more stuff up there. Eventually going to Mars (the moon rockets were actually over-engineered on purpose to eventually allow that). However, that never happened and NASA settled for some cheaper successes in low orbit. The Russians kind of checked out of the whole thing after failing to get there first and after they got bogged down economically due to the cold war. And having more or less won that by the eighties, the US dialed down spending as well. It's only now that we have some commercial companies making serious attempts to make space travel more cost effective that we are contemplating going there again. A commercial hotel starts making a lot of sense as soon as you have wealthy tourists going up there or highly skilled people traveling there for "work" that have Ph. Ds, rich employers, etc. Classic target audience for hotels. They'll want comfy accommodation, nice food & beverages, etc. Still a great business plan as soon as somebody figures out how to get stuff up there cost effectively. Millionaires are lining up to visit ISS. E.g. Tom Cruise is going there apparently. But ISS is not a hotel of course. It also lacks a lot of things that people might want to pay for. Like toilets you don't have to share with others, privacy, air that isn't foul smelling (a big thing apparently), etc.
- mncharity 5y ago> The only bizarre thing is that after having people on the moon fifty years ago, nobody bothered to go back. The natural progression Natural progression? :) Contemporaneous with the dream of "we will settle space", was one of "we will settle the continental shelves". The progression? Skylab-like habitats, abandoned, nothing ISS-like, and now only temporary work camps. A tourism of many brief shallow visits, and a few shallow subs and hotels. Military subs. No large commercial subs, a few semi-submersibles. Limited shallow seabed mining. Very limited floating towns. Drift nets and bottom trawling. No bases and cities under the sea. No commercial divers looking around at the seafloor and thinking, "I want to raise my family here someday". Lessons? Find some space resource extraction, for which robots are inadequate, and with better economics than seabed mining. Militarize space. Encourage recreational high-altitude ballooning, parachuting, and suborbital. "We will settle the Antarctic"? Science bases grew a bit, got prettier. Little commerce, no industry, no extraction, no settlement. Some tourism, visiting ships, and tear-down-each-season hotels. Emphasis on preservation. So a planetary protection "Mars international-park planet: take only photographs, leave only footprints"? "We will colonize the air"? Societal emphasis on safety cripples innovation? Clear-eyed investors deny funding? (Early railroads and canals often operated profitably... after a bankruptcy or three disposed of the cost of making them.) No floating cities. Few aerostats. Enormous ratio of paper dreams to metal. Lessons... ? "We will settle the deserts"? Cairo's cities in the sand? Diversely poor, industrial, and gated. China's ghost cities? So focus on incentivizing developers, and then move something there to attract people? So many natural progressions to choose from. :)