11 ms·

The thing that amuses me is that if SpaceX can make Starship and the Heavy booster work, they could actually come up with a tourism/joyride that would blow thes

The thing that amuses me is that if SpaceX can make Starship and the Heavy booster work, they could actually come up with a tourism/joyride that would blow these piffling jumps by Branson and Bezos into irrelevance. If you can send 50-100 people on an actual orbiting jaunt, perhaps a night in 'space rocket hotel', rich folk would gladly pay millions, which makes the business case a lot more compelling. Then they'd just need to get environmentally-friendly methane production going and we can all be a bit happier.

BurningFrog 5y ago
You can also land on the other side of the planet within... I want to say an hour?
- detritus 5y ago
  I must admit, that's the usage scenario for Starship that I don't particularly see much benefit in. I may well be short-sighted, but given how far away from cities the launch centres for these things would need to be, it strikes me that traditional travel infrastructure suffices. Now, the US military, on the other hand? Starship as a somewhat-disposable space truck makes a lot of sense. Then it comes down to how cheaply SpaceX can manufacture the things.
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    Yeah I don't think it makes much sense, at least not for a long time. Odds of a plane crashing are on the order of 1 in 10^7. On the other hand, it was a major accomplishment that the Falcon 9 was able to perform 100 successful missions in a row. Rockets have to be safer by many orders of magnitude before they move from the realm of thrill seeking to commercial travel.
  - kiba 5y ago
    I am more concerned about nuclear war as a result of mistaken identity since it's the same technology used to launch ICBMs.
    - detritus 5y ago
      Not sure why you were downvoted - for sure, we have alert systems these days so that test ICBMs and rocket launches aren't misinterpreted by foreign actors, and we would in any future where there were tens, hundreds, thousands of launches a day - but as-equally, it would be a lot easier to mask nefarious intentions in such traffic. Irrespective of nukes, I shudder to imagine what the impact of an out of control de-orbiting Starship would do at ballistic reentry over a populace... .
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    If I'm paying for a space tourism joyride, I would definitely be extra thrilled if we took off from California and landed in Fiji within the hour. Presumably, since I'm stinking rich to begin with, I'd have a fancy resort booked there for the next week. I agree it's not a replacement for commercial jet flights.
    - pie420 5y ago
      You make the mistake of assuming the uber-rich want to get to Fiji as soon as possible, when in reality they would rather spend the 8 hrs in their private Gulfstream in a cocaine fueled orgy while the pilot does barrel rolls and loops. Flying is one of the few times that the Uber rich can really disconnect and be alone and relax, why would they want to get to Fiji in an hour in a super stressful flight?
    - dolmen 5y ago
      Well, this raises the cost of capsule reuse because of transport back to the launch point.
      - pantalaimon 5y ago
        Why not also have a launch facility at fiji? You could even book a return trip.
        sneak 5y ago
        I imagine the geopolitical efforts involved in coordinating to allow passenger ICBM launches at major cities in the industrialized west is on the same order of the effort involved in designing and building starship itself.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Ballistic free path is 45 minutes. A single LEO is 90 minutes, no place on Earth is more than a half-orbit distant. A ballistic point-to-point tragectory is an orbit which intersects the surface.
Ajedi32 5y ago
That's the dream; affordable space tourism for the masses. If Starship manages to hit the price and performance targets Musk has set for it (~$2 million/launch[1], max of 1000 passengers[2]) you could get a ticket to orbit for around $2000. Throw in some extra for profit margin, a stay at an orbital space hotel, and a few additional expenses, and it might well be possible to take a vacation in space for less than $10k. I really hope that happens within my lifetime; it'd be amazing to experience. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/06/elon-musk-says-spacexs-starship-could-fly-for-as-little-as-2-million-per-launch/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/06/elon-musk-says-spacexs-sta... [2]: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1144004310503530496 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1144004310503530496
- croes 5y ago
  Good place to watch the decay of the human species because of climate change. Space tourism will accelerate it.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    Or perhaps, the passengers will be galvanized by the experience and end up taking environmental issues more seriously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect The carbon emissions of Starship already pale in comparison to the reforms we need to pass, but lack the political will to do so.
    - croes 5y ago
      At the moment there are only infrequent rocket launches, if the numbers go up because of space tourism the damage becomes greater, especially if space tourism reaches the price level parent was talking about.
      - jedberg 5y ago
        Airplanes are pretty common and don't account for much of the overall pollution. According to the EPA, transport accounts for 29% of total emissions, and of that, only 10% are airplanes. On the other hand 75% comes from cars and trucks. If rockets became commonplace, they would most like replace leisure travel on airplanes and would eliminate car traffic once you arrive at your destination. The CO2 emission of the current SpaceX rockets is about the same as one full plane across the Atlantic. So if you could take 300 people in one launch, you'd probably take those 300 people away from an airplane flight and it would actually be better for the planet.
gist 5y ago
> rich folk would gladly pay millions, which makes the business case a lot more compelling. I would say some would but keep in mind that a few other things have to come together. a) Willing to take the risk (non trivial example I would not do this no chance) b) Your family/spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend has to buy into the risk even if it's just you going into the orbit. c) Potential negative publicity as in 'look how they are spending their money' since early adopters would most likely be publicized in some way. d) Guilt maybe spending millions for a trivial short ride vs. other things you can spend money on. Keep in mind with 'd' other things are considered more acceptable and have social proof. This seems (to me anyway) the ultimate extravagance and I am wondering if there is the classic difference between what people say they would do if given the chance and what they would actually do.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  The publicity aspect would deter some, but it would attract others. By the time even 20 people have gone up, it won't be newsworthy, and then it will just be like buying a yacht. There are about 1.5 million people in the US worth $10 million or more, which is about where you need to be to comfortably afford this type of thing now, and another 10 million or so single digit millionaires, many of whom would take a significant hit to net worth to go up. So I think the odds that you can get > 10K takers just in the USA are pretty much 100%. If you can put 10K people up with a solid safety record, then that number would probably go up to 100K to 1 million potential customers. The economy of scale at that level would probably drop the price to where most of the upper middle class is a potential customer. So I think this can work. Safety record is the key.
  - pie420 5y ago
    The economics are just silly. 4 passengers at $250k each is only $1M in revenue per flight. Between fuel costs, rocket costs (even assuming 10x reuses per rocket, you'd need to build the rocket for significantly under $10M to have a chance at profitability, could you imagine building a rocket for under 10M?), engineer and employee salaries and benefits, advertising, liability, etc. Add in the fact that you have a very viable competitor in Virgin Galactic and SpaceX who could leapfrog both and provide even better experiences, and I don't see how Blue Origin will ever be viable without government funding
bob1029 5y ago
Out of all of these space-faring corporations, SpaceX has orders of magnitude more aerospace infrastructure and assets to work with. Their entire ethos since inception was getting humanity to Mars, not sending a handful of wealthy people into suborbital trajectories. Elon/SpaceX have certainly participated in a lot of PR throughout, but it always seemed to be along an engineering axis, not some feel-good emotional axis (although many were moved by witnessing double booster landings regardless). The construction of a massive space port in one of the more desolate places in America is a pretty damn good starting point. Doesn't take a magician to round that out with an airport, hotels, convention centers, restaurants, etc. I believe there is already an uptick in real estate on South Padre Island and talks about some bridge to better connect the island.
- notJim 5y ago
  Not sure a tiny island that’s 6-7’ above sea level is such a genius investment these days.
  - thepasswordis 5y ago
    Do you think the ocean is going to rise SEVEN FEET?
    - DougBTX 5y ago
      Maybe! > A number of later studies have concluded that a global sea level rise of 200 to 270 cm (6.6 to 8.9 ft) this century is "physically plausible".[8][2][9] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
    - Pixelbrick 5y ago
      Obligatory XKCD https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
    - eloff 5y ago
      Yes. Much more, even by very conservative estimates. Just probably not in our lifetimes. The maximum sea level rise will be hundreds, even thousands of years from now. In the absolute worst case scenario where all the ice melted, sea level would rise 230 feet. If we did nothing at all about climate change and kept burning fossil fuels until we ran out, that's actually a likely outcome. It has happened in the past when the earth was much warmer. It won't happen to us, because we're taking action. The final sea level rise would depend how we do with actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere, as it will keep rising long after we stop using fossil fuels. 7 feet by the end of this century is not impossible, but not in the conservative estimate. So far we've been tracking the aggressive estimates, not conservative ones.
gvb 5y ago
There is a SpaceX private Crew Dragon mission scheduled: https://spacenews.com/inspiration4-announces-crew-for-private-spacex-crew-dragon-mission/ https://spacenews.com/inspiration4-announces-crew-for-privat... "Launch is scheduled for no earlier than Sept. 15, slightly earlier than the original announcement of the fourth quarter of this year. The spacecraft will remain in orbit for three days, flying in an orbit at the same inclination as the International Space Station — 51.6 degrees — but in an orbit as high as 540 kilometers, more than 100 kilometers above the station."
agloeregrets 5y ago
The best part is that while these two billionaires do their 'space hop', Elon is laughing the whole time and probably texted Jeff Bezos asking 'Hey have you seen my car? NVM, sorry, you probably were not close enough to see it.' Edit: To be clear, I'm referring to the obvious feud with Jeff Bezos, I know he is friends with Richard.
- simonh 5y ago
  He was actually at the Virgin Galactic launch and is good friends with Richard Branson. He was having fun, but not for the reason you suggest.
  - agloeregrets 5y ago
    I'm mostly referring to Jeff, who he has an extremely public feud with.
    - pie420 5y ago
      No he doesnt
      - martyvis 5y ago
        I'm pretty sure Elon thinks Jeff's Blue Origin is impotent in delivering the technology needed to progress the return to the Moon https://twitter.com/kchangnyt/status/1386787651412451329?s=19 https://twitter.com/kchangnyt/status/1386787651412451329?s=1...
- dev_tty01 5y ago
  https://www.whereisroadster.com https://www.whereisroadster.com
dev_tty01 5y ago
Yeah, the sub-orbital is a harder sell. When you are the only one or one of a few, the benefit/cost is perceived to be higher. After a dozen or so of these flights much of the cachet will be gone. Can they (Bezos/Branson) bring the cost down fast enough to transition to a sustainable model? In 2000, Dennis Tito paid $20M for 11,400 minutes in space or about $1750/minute ($2765 in 2021 dollars). The Branson and Bezos models 20 years later are much more expensive per minute and are so short there is no real time to absorb the experience.
- simpleguitar 5y ago
  I think a lot of people might be willing to pay for 4 days in orbit for $2M. My version would have blackjack and hookers, obviously.
- samstave 5y ago
  Honestly, I wish Branson and Bezos would have just put their dicks back in their pants and just fully got behind spaceX I absolutely dont care about Bezos or Branson being able to do these stunts - SpaceX already docked with the IIS ffs. It's like McClaren winning the Gran Prix, and then Toyota and Ford showing that their CEOs can finish a few laps in Monaco.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - lttlrck 5y ago
    Doesn't blindly ceding to the industry leaders ultimately result in stagnation? The VG and BO launches were both underwhelming for me - but it's still exciting to see the different engineering approaches, it's like hedging a bet, and I am sure each of them will pay dividends - one way or another.
    - samstave 5y ago
      Jeasus fn christ HN users are so FN pedantic... Sure innovation IS good -- but in this case - we have LITERALLY THREE people on the planet attempting this endeavor, and I just think its a waste of duplicate resources in this case. AT THIS TIME If its so fucking important that we come to be multi-planetary as Musk believes, then these guys (who honestly arent going to be around forever, unless they are off-planeting organs and blood-boys (Hey peter thiel), should be focusing the initial endeavor to figuring out the reusable launch vehicles, fuels, lifting, getting materials to space... etc. I just fundamentally disagree with JB and RB - I think they are ego driven and musk is vision driven. There is a difference. Get to the point of understanding the human race as a single race and not a market competition without the vision.... fuck space capitalism. --- I love it when I get downvoted on HN, as its like "I am going to downvote you because I think you are wrong, but I am not going to tell you why! because I am so much smarter than your lame opinion" In my ~14 years on this site or whatever it is I literally almost NEVER downvote. If I disagree, I explain... Fuck space capitalism. Again, and let me tell you why: Human economies are incapable of dealing with the aftermath of the things they create to make a profit. Look at the space junk? Look at the Ocean gyers? Look at the plastic industry, coal, oil, etc etc etc etc.... Everyone on here wants to praise the creation of a new space industry, just like any other industry... Yet - there is no true exit, waste, impact, ripple-effect management strategy built into any of these systems. Look at plastics. It is the cancer of the planet. We implemented not-even-a-half-assed solution to that... heck the CRV fund was robbed and many of the plastics produced are not recyclable. We implemented "gas tax to fund roads" -- Have you seen the state of roads in the US, esp California? Did you know that we are now fighting over a ~multi-Trillion dollar "infrastructure plan"? We implemented a financial lottery to fund schools -- when was the last time you heard anything about that, as opposed to the last time you heard about the last time a teacher was underfunded and was buying either supplies or food for students. So fuck that. We funded telcos to build high-speed internet, they stole that money and didnt build shit. (In FN SILICON VALLEY, we were some of the last people to get "high speed cable modems from COX and other providers) We have MASSIVE e-waste out of every single high-tech company that you have ever heard of. ALL we do is pollute... You think that Bezos Branson and Musk are going to rectify the inertia of the above WRT space? If anyone may, it would be musk. Bezos FN sends tiny items in huge boxes from AMAZON all the time - there are tons and tons of pics of over packaging from amzn online.... So yeah - I am angry - because shit like this is a waste when done in such a ludicrous disjointed fashion. You are too concerned with the novelty of the engineering, and I am calling out the FN lamness of the long-term vision of the impact in 50 years.
alexashka 5y ago
> they could actually come up with a tourism/joyride that would blow these piffling jumps by Branson and Bezos into irrelevance. We've had tourism that blows all these attempts into irrelevance, for thousands of years. Take 5 grams.
bitL 5y ago
There will be an inevitable crash/failure resulting in a mass casualty event where many industries will lose their leaders (the only people that could afford a spaceflight for fun), and that's very bad for PR and could sink the whole company as a result.
- notatoad 5y ago
  >the only people that could afford a spaceflight for fun i suspect the market will be less corporate leaders and more the family of corporate leaders (and saudi royals)

BurningFrog 5y ago

You can also land on the other side of the planet within... I want to say an hour?

detritus 5y ago
I must admit, that's the usage scenario for Starship that I don't particularly see much benefit in. I may well be short-sighted, but given how far away from cities the launch centres for these things would need to be, it strikes me that traditional travel infrastructure suffices. Now, the US military, on the other hand? Starship as a somewhat-disposable space truck makes a lot of sense. Then it comes down to how cheaply SpaceX can manufacture the things.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  Yeah I don't think it makes much sense, at least not for a long time. Odds of a plane crashing are on the order of 1 in 10^7. On the other hand, it was a major accomplishment that the Falcon 9 was able to perform 100 successful missions in a row. Rockets have to be safer by many orders of magnitude before they move from the realm of thrill seeking to commercial travel.
- kiba 5y ago
  I am more concerned about nuclear war as a result of mistaken identity since it's the same technology used to launch ICBMs.
  - detritus 5y ago
    Not sure why you were downvoted - for sure, we have alert systems these days so that test ICBMs and rocket launches aren't misinterpreted by foreign actors, and we would in any future where there were tens, hundreds, thousands of launches a day - but as-equally, it would be a lot easier to mask nefarious intentions in such traffic. Irrespective of nukes, I shudder to imagine what the impact of an out of control de-orbiting Starship would do at ballistic reentry over a populace... .
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  If I'm paying for a space tourism joyride, I would definitely be extra thrilled if we took off from California and landed in Fiji within the hour. Presumably, since I'm stinking rich to begin with, I'd have a fancy resort booked there for the next week. I agree it's not a replacement for commercial jet flights.
  - pie420 5y ago
    You make the mistake of assuming the uber-rich want to get to Fiji as soon as possible, when in reality they would rather spend the 8 hrs in their private Gulfstream in a cocaine fueled orgy while the pilot does barrel rolls and loops. Flying is one of the few times that the Uber rich can really disconnect and be alone and relax, why would they want to get to Fiji in an hour in a super stressful flight?
  - dolmen 5y ago
    Well, this raises the cost of capsule reuse because of transport back to the launch point.
    - pantalaimon 5y ago
      Why not also have a launch facility at fiji? You could even book a return trip.
      - sneak 5y ago
        I imagine the geopolitical efforts involved in coordinating to allow passenger ICBM launches at major cities in the industrialized west is on the same order of the effort involved in designing and building starship itself.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Ballistic free path is 45 minutes. A single LEO is 90 minutes, no place on Earth is more than a half-orbit distant. A ballistic point-to-point tragectory is an orbit which intersects the surface.

Ajedi32 5y ago

That's the dream; affordable space tourism for the masses. If Starship manages to hit the price and performance targets Musk has set for it (~$2 million/launch[1], max of 1000 passengers[2]) you could get a ticket to orbit for around $2000. Throw in some extra for profit margin, a stay at an orbital space hotel, and a few additional expenses, and it might well be possible to take a vacation in space for less than $10k. I really hope that happens within my lifetime; it'd be amazing to experience. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/06/elon-musk-says-spacexs-starship-could-fly-for-as-little-as-2-million-per-launch/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/06/elon-musk-says-spacexs-sta... [2]: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1144004310503530496 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1144004310503530496

croes 5y ago
Good place to watch the decay of the human species because of climate change. Space tourism will accelerate it.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  Or perhaps, the passengers will be galvanized by the experience and end up taking environmental issues more seriously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect The carbon emissions of Starship already pale in comparison to the reforms we need to pass, but lack the political will to do so.
  - croes 5y ago
    At the moment there are only infrequent rocket launches, if the numbers go up because of space tourism the damage becomes greater, especially if space tourism reaches the price level parent was talking about.
    - jedberg 5y ago
      Airplanes are pretty common and don't account for much of the overall pollution. According to the EPA, transport accounts for 29% of total emissions, and of that, only 10% are airplanes. On the other hand 75% comes from cars and trucks. If rockets became commonplace, they would most like replace leisure travel on airplanes and would eliminate car traffic once you arrive at your destination. The CO2 emission of the current SpaceX rockets is about the same as one full plane across the Atlantic. So if you could take 300 people in one launch, you'd probably take those 300 people away from an airplane flight and it would actually be better for the planet.

gist 5y ago

> rich folk would gladly pay millions, which makes the business case a lot more compelling. I would say some would but keep in mind that a few other things have to come together. a) Willing to take the risk (non trivial example I would not do this no chance) b) Your family/spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend has to buy into the risk even if it's just you going into the orbit. c) Potential negative publicity as in 'look how they are spending their money' since early adopters would most likely be publicized in some way. d) Guilt maybe spending millions for a trivial short ride vs. other things you can spend money on. Keep in mind with 'd' other things are considered more acceptable and have social proof. This seems (to me anyway) the ultimate extravagance and I am wondering if there is the classic difference between what people say they would do if given the chance and what they would actually do.

fallingknife 5y ago
The publicity aspect would deter some, but it would attract others. By the time even 20 people have gone up, it won't be newsworthy, and then it will just be like buying a yacht. There are about 1.5 million people in the US worth $10 million or more, which is about where you need to be to comfortably afford this type of thing now, and another 10 million or so single digit millionaires, many of whom would take a significant hit to net worth to go up. So I think the odds that you can get > 10K takers just in the USA are pretty much 100%. If you can put 10K people up with a solid safety record, then that number would probably go up to 100K to 1 million potential customers. The economy of scale at that level would probably drop the price to where most of the upper middle class is a potential customer. So I think this can work. Safety record is the key.
- pie420 5y ago
  The economics are just silly. 4 passengers at $250k each is only $1M in revenue per flight. Between fuel costs, rocket costs (even assuming 10x reuses per rocket, you'd need to build the rocket for significantly under $10M to have a chance at profitability, could you imagine building a rocket for under 10M?), engineer and employee salaries and benefits, advertising, liability, etc. Add in the fact that you have a very viable competitor in Virgin Galactic and SpaceX who could leapfrog both and provide even better experiences, and I don't see how Blue Origin will ever be viable without government funding

bob1029 5y ago

Out of all of these space-faring corporations, SpaceX has orders of magnitude more aerospace infrastructure and assets to work with. Their entire ethos since inception was getting humanity to Mars, not sending a handful of wealthy people into suborbital trajectories. Elon/SpaceX have certainly participated in a lot of PR throughout, but it always seemed to be along an engineering axis, not some feel-good emotional axis (although many were moved by witnessing double booster landings regardless). The construction of a massive space port in one of the more desolate places in America is a pretty damn good starting point. Doesn't take a magician to round that out with an airport, hotels, convention centers, restaurants, etc. I believe there is already an uptick in real estate on South Padre Island and talks about some bridge to better connect the island.

notJim 5y ago
Not sure a tiny island that’s 6-7’ above sea level is such a genius investment these days.
- thepasswordis 5y ago
  Do you think the ocean is going to rise SEVEN FEET?
  - DougBTX 5y ago
    Maybe! > A number of later studies have concluded that a global sea level rise of 200 to 270 cm (6.6 to 8.9 ft) this century is "physically plausible".[8][2][9] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
  - Pixelbrick 5y ago
    Obligatory XKCD https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
  - eloff 5y ago
    Yes. Much more, even by very conservative estimates. Just probably not in our lifetimes. The maximum sea level rise will be hundreds, even thousands of years from now. In the absolute worst case scenario where all the ice melted, sea level would rise 230 feet. If we did nothing at all about climate change and kept burning fossil fuels until we ran out, that's actually a likely outcome. It has happened in the past when the earth was much warmer. It won't happen to us, because we're taking action. The final sea level rise would depend how we do with actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere, as it will keep rising long after we stop using fossil fuels. 7 feet by the end of this century is not impossible, but not in the conservative estimate. So far we've been tracking the aggressive estimates, not conservative ones.

gvb 5y ago

There is a SpaceX private Crew Dragon mission scheduled: https://spacenews.com/inspiration4-announces-crew-for-private-spacex-crew-dragon-mission/ https://spacenews.com/inspiration4-announces-crew-for-privat... "Launch is scheduled for no earlier than Sept. 15, slightly earlier than the original announcement of the fourth quarter of this year. The spacecraft will remain in orbit for three days, flying in an orbit at the same inclination as the International Space Station — 51.6 degrees — but in an orbit as high as 540 kilometers, more than 100 kilometers above the station."

agloeregrets 5y ago

The best part is that while these two billionaires do their 'space hop', Elon is laughing the whole time and probably texted Jeff Bezos asking 'Hey have you seen my car? NVM, sorry, you probably were not close enough to see it.' Edit: To be clear, I'm referring to the obvious feud with Jeff Bezos, I know he is friends with Richard.

simonh 5y ago
He was actually at the Virgin Galactic launch and is good friends with Richard Branson. He was having fun, but not for the reason you suggest.
- agloeregrets 5y ago
  I'm mostly referring to Jeff, who he has an extremely public feud with.
  - pie420 5y ago
    No he doesnt
    - martyvis 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure Elon thinks Jeff's Blue Origin is impotent in delivering the technology needed to progress the return to the Moon https://twitter.com/kchangnyt/status/1386787651412451329?s=19 https://twitter.com/kchangnyt/status/1386787651412451329?s=1...
dev_tty01 5y ago
https://www.whereisroadster.com https://www.whereisroadster.com

dev_tty01 5y ago

Yeah, the sub-orbital is a harder sell. When you are the only one or one of a few, the benefit/cost is perceived to be higher. After a dozen or so of these flights much of the cachet will be gone. Can they (Bezos/Branson) bring the cost down fast enough to transition to a sustainable model? In 2000, Dennis Tito paid $20M for 11,400 minutes in space or about $1750/minute ($2765 in 2021 dollars). The Branson and Bezos models 20 years later are much more expensive per minute and are so short there is no real time to absorb the experience.

simpleguitar 5y ago
I think a lot of people might be willing to pay for 4 days in orbit for $2M. My version would have blackjack and hookers, obviously.
samstave 5y ago
Honestly, I wish Branson and Bezos would have just put their dicks back in their pants and just fully got behind spaceX I absolutely dont care about Bezos or Branson being able to do these stunts - SpaceX already docked with the IIS ffs. It's like McClaren winning the Gran Prix, and then Toyota and Ford showing that their CEOs can finish a few laps in Monaco.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lttlrck 5y ago
  Doesn't blindly ceding to the industry leaders ultimately result in stagnation? The VG and BO launches were both underwhelming for me - but it's still exciting to see the different engineering approaches, it's like hedging a bet, and I am sure each of them will pay dividends - one way or another.
  - samstave 5y ago
    Jeasus fn christ HN users are so FN pedantic... Sure innovation IS good -- but in this case - we have LITERALLY THREE people on the planet attempting this endeavor, and I just think its a waste of duplicate resources in this case. AT THIS TIME If its so fucking important that we come to be multi-planetary as Musk believes, then these guys (who honestly arent going to be around forever, unless they are off-planeting organs and blood-boys (Hey peter thiel), should be focusing the initial endeavor to figuring out the reusable launch vehicles, fuels, lifting, getting materials to space... etc. I just fundamentally disagree with JB and RB - I think they are ego driven and musk is vision driven. There is a difference. Get to the point of understanding the human race as a single race and not a market competition without the vision.... fuck space capitalism. --- I love it when I get downvoted on HN, as its like "I am going to downvote you because I think you are wrong, but I am not going to tell you why! because I am so much smarter than your lame opinion" In my ~14 years on this site or whatever it is I literally almost NEVER downvote. If I disagree, I explain... Fuck space capitalism. Again, and let me tell you why: Human economies are incapable of dealing with the aftermath of the things they create to make a profit. Look at the space junk? Look at the Ocean gyers? Look at the plastic industry, coal, oil, etc etc etc etc.... Everyone on here wants to praise the creation of a new space industry, just like any other industry... Yet - there is no true exit, waste, impact, ripple-effect management strategy built into any of these systems. Look at plastics. It is the cancer of the planet. We implemented not-even-a-half-assed solution to that... heck the CRV fund was robbed and many of the plastics produced are not recyclable. We implemented "gas tax to fund roads" -- Have you seen the state of roads in the US, esp California? Did you know that we are now fighting over a ~multi-Trillion dollar "infrastructure plan"? We implemented a financial lottery to fund schools -- when was the last time you heard anything about that, as opposed to the last time you heard about the last time a teacher was underfunded and was buying either supplies or food for students. So fuck that. We funded telcos to build high-speed internet, they stole that money and didnt build shit. (In FN SILICON VALLEY, we were some of the last people to get "high speed cable modems from COX and other providers) We have MASSIVE e-waste out of every single high-tech company that you have ever heard of. ALL we do is pollute... You think that Bezos Branson and Musk are going to rectify the inertia of the above WRT space? If anyone may, it would be musk. Bezos FN sends tiny items in huge boxes from AMAZON all the time - there are tons and tons of pics of over packaging from amzn online.... So yeah - I am angry - because shit like this is a waste when done in such a ludicrous disjointed fashion. You are too concerned with the novelty of the engineering, and I am calling out the FN lamness of the long-term vision of the impact in 50 years.

alexashka 5y ago

> they could actually come up with a tourism/joyride that would blow these piffling jumps by Branson and Bezos into irrelevance. We've had tourism that blows all these attempts into irrelevance, for thousands of years. Take 5 grams.

bitL 5y ago

There will be an inevitable crash/failure resulting in a mass casualty event where many industries will lose their leaders (the only people that could afford a spaceflight for fun), and that's very bad for PR and could sink the whole company as a result.

notatoad 5y ago
>the only people that could afford a spaceflight for fun i suspect the market will be less corporate leaders and more the family of corporate leaders (and saudi royals)