8 ms·

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

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.
      - mulmen 5y ago
        How do rockets eliminate car traffic at the destination? Every proposal for rocket transport I have seen basically puts an airport outside of town, so the traffic is a wash, no?
        jedberg 5y ago
        When I arrive in space I don't need a car to get around, and even if I did, the pollution wouldn't affect the Earth. :)
        mulmen 5y ago
        Ohh, ha! I thought you meant replacing flights directly to Earth destinations. So instead of taking a 787 from Seattle to Taipei I would take a Starship. Yes, there are environmental benefits to putting the actual destination in space, I hadn’t really considered that.
      - croes 5y ago
        Have you considered the secondary effects from higher altitude? Planes have less emissions per passenger and kilometer than cars but the advantage is completely cancelled by secondary effects because of the high altitude. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 And rockets need special start locations to reduce the amount of fuel to reach the desired altitude, additionally the landing places must be way outside of your flight location, so you need extra transportation to your destination too.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    The idea that we have a system that mints billionaires with outsized power, who we then must shoot into space in order to help them gain sufficient perspective to not want to see the planet destroyed makes me think of Rube Goldberg.
    - pope_meat 5y ago
      We're in the part of the Rude Goldberg machine where every single domino that falls is triggering a new biblical plague.
  - pantalaimon 5y ago
    That can be had cheaper with a dose of LSD
  - jimbilly22 5y ago
    this argument is used to justify literally every climate hypocrisy, from pro skiers to billionaires on down "i do X high-carbon thing to bring awareness to the plebs"
    - rurp 5y ago
      So your argument is that anyone concerned about the planet should kill themselves, as that will do the most to directly minimize their climate impact? It seems obvious to me that climate activists can use leverage, like anyone else. In other words it's perfectly reasonable to produce a small amount of carbon in pursuit of making the sweeping changes necessary. Climate change isn't going to be solved by parts of the population choosing to fly a little less often.
      - jimbilly22 5y ago
        the argument is simply that going to the farmer's market for local produce, then going on a ski trip to Chile doesn't equal out, doesn't make you a climate warrior, and doesn't make you better than anyone else -- even if you repost Greta Thurnberg on Twitter. That's just a mathematical fact. The reality of solving climate change is a separate topic. 70% of emissions come from large corporations -- that's where the impact is and always was going to be made.
quijoteuniv 5y ago
I hope people have better dreams. That is my dream.
- RIMR 5y ago
  For real, people straight up fetishize the experience of "going to space", but the reality is that you're crammed in stinky tin can for a while, and eat preserved food. The real magic of human spaceflight for me is the science that is done up there. Sending a bunch of untrained rich people into space for the fun of it is not especially inspiring. The idea of getting crammed like sardines into a giant rocket so I can experience this with the masses is just not a great dream.
  - Ajedi32 5y ago
    Space is inspiring to a lot of people because it represents both the the peak of human achievement, and humanity's future. Space is the final frontier; the next logical step in humankind's unending quest to explore the universe. For me personally? I just want to mess around in 0G for a day or two. That seems like it'd be a rather unique experience; well worth a few thousand bucks and a couple hours packed shoulder to shoulder in a ship with a thousand other people.
  - mam3 5y ago
    If you cant dream beyond what you eat and the distance you can go in each direction its totally fine but dont impose it to other people
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  I actually think space tourism for the rich is very important. We are entering an age of global techno oligarchy I want my masters to see the earth from space. Get a feel for the stakes, see the delicate ribbon of air, the vastness of space. See it as the rare jewel we spent a short time on, and the obligation to treat it well
  - rurp 5y ago
    I don't know why this is being downvoted since it makes total sense to me. It's not a good thing that the mega rich have an absurd amount of power over society, but it's a fact for the foreseeable future. There is precedent for people becoming much more conscientious about the planet after returning from space, so it's certainly possible that billionaires playing with rockets will have some positive second order effects.
samstave 5y ago
But for a $10k vacation, you get to sleep in a bed, order room service, go outside, go golfing, see a show, etc. 10k in space will get you what? --- Random thought: If they were able to get enough water into space such that one could swim through a sphere of water in a weightless environment, what would the sensation of being encapsulated in water while weightless feel like (clearly needing scuba or some other air connection..)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bdjk68hsk 5y ago
  > But for a $10k vacation, you get to sleep in a bed, order room service, go outside, go golfing, see a show, etc. And what if you’ve already done all that? Private jets (well, fractional ownership) gets boring after a few years.
- awrence 5y ago
  Random reply: Or you can stay here on earth, go scuba diving and experience the exact same weightlessness... :)
  - colordrops 5y ago
    It's not the same - that's buoyancy, not weightlessness. Gravity still exerts force on your body and internal organs, and you feel orientation, i.e. up and down. It's a very different feeling.
    - samstave 5y ago
      That's why I was asking! What would the difference in sensation be for one who is submerged on earth, versus one who is encapsulated in a floating sphere of water...
      - _moof 5y ago
        There’s no buoyancy without weight so it wouldn’t feel like anything until you moved. Then you’d have the same drag forces you would on Earth. It’s unlikely the sphere would stay together very long with nothing to hold it together.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
1000 passengers, really? Just imagine the possible loss of life if something goes wrong. We are still counting 100 successful launches in a row as an unprecedented success - whereas in commercial airplane flights airlines with less than 1 incident per 5000000 flights are considered 'poor safety record'.
- Ajedi32 5y ago
  There aren't many rocket designs in use right now that have had more than 100 flights _total_. It's hard to properly evaluate the safety of a system when it only gets tested once a month. As the cost of spaceflight comes down and launch frequency goes up, I suspect we'll start seeing reusable launch systems emerge that have had thousands of launches across dozens of rockets. Once that happens I think spaceflight's safety record will improve significantly.
mesozoic 5y ago
Cheaper and safer to just drop some acid.

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.
    - mulmen 5y ago
      How do rockets eliminate car traffic at the destination? Every proposal for rocket transport I have seen basically puts an airport outside of town, so the traffic is a wash, no?
      - jedberg 5y ago
        When I arrive in space I don't need a car to get around, and even if I did, the pollution wouldn't affect the Earth. :)
        mulmen 5y ago
        Ohh, ha! I thought you meant replacing flights directly to Earth destinations. So instead of taking a 787 from Seattle to Taipei I would take a Starship. Yes, there are environmental benefits to putting the actual destination in space, I hadn’t really considered that.
    - croes 5y ago
      Have you considered the secondary effects from higher altitude? Planes have less emissions per passenger and kilometer than cars but the advantage is completely cancelled by secondary effects because of the high altitude. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 And rockets need special start locations to reduce the amount of fuel to reach the desired altitude, additionally the landing places must be way outside of your flight location, so you need extra transportation to your destination too.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  The idea that we have a system that mints billionaires with outsized power, who we then must shoot into space in order to help them gain sufficient perspective to not want to see the planet destroyed makes me think of Rube Goldberg.
  - pope_meat 5y ago
    We're in the part of the Rude Goldberg machine where every single domino that falls is triggering a new biblical plague.
- pantalaimon 5y ago
  That can be had cheaper with a dose of LSD
- jimbilly22 5y ago
  this argument is used to justify literally every climate hypocrisy, from pro skiers to billionaires on down "i do X high-carbon thing to bring awareness to the plebs"
  - rurp 5y ago
    So your argument is that anyone concerned about the planet should kill themselves, as that will do the most to directly minimize their climate impact? It seems obvious to me that climate activists can use leverage, like anyone else. In other words it's perfectly reasonable to produce a small amount of carbon in pursuit of making the sweeping changes necessary. Climate change isn't going to be solved by parts of the population choosing to fly a little less often.
    - jimbilly22 5y ago
      the argument is simply that going to the farmer's market for local produce, then going on a ski trip to Chile doesn't equal out, doesn't make you a climate warrior, and doesn't make you better than anyone else -- even if you repost Greta Thurnberg on Twitter. That's just a mathematical fact. The reality of solving climate change is a separate topic. 70% of emissions come from large corporations -- that's where the impact is and always was going to be made.

quijoteuniv 5y ago

I hope people have better dreams. That is my dream.

RIMR 5y ago
For real, people straight up fetishize the experience of "going to space", but the reality is that you're crammed in stinky tin can for a while, and eat preserved food. The real magic of human spaceflight for me is the science that is done up there. Sending a bunch of untrained rich people into space for the fun of it is not especially inspiring. The idea of getting crammed like sardines into a giant rocket so I can experience this with the masses is just not a great dream.
- Ajedi32 5y ago
  Space is inspiring to a lot of people because it represents both the the peak of human achievement, and humanity's future. Space is the final frontier; the next logical step in humankind's unending quest to explore the universe. For me personally? I just want to mess around in 0G for a day or two. That seems like it'd be a rather unique experience; well worth a few thousand bucks and a couple hours packed shoulder to shoulder in a ship with a thousand other people.
- mam3 5y ago
  If you cant dream beyond what you eat and the distance you can go in each direction its totally fine but dont impose it to other people
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
I actually think space tourism for the rich is very important. We are entering an age of global techno oligarchy I want my masters to see the earth from space. Get a feel for the stakes, see the delicate ribbon of air, the vastness of space. See it as the rare jewel we spent a short time on, and the obligation to treat it well
- rurp 5y ago
  I don't know why this is being downvoted since it makes total sense to me. It's not a good thing that the mega rich have an absurd amount of power over society, but it's a fact for the foreseeable future. There is precedent for people becoming much more conscientious about the planet after returning from space, so it's certainly possible that billionaires playing with rockets will have some positive second order effects.

samstave 5y ago

But for a $10k vacation, you get to sleep in a bed, order room service, go outside, go golfing, see a show, etc. 10k in space will get you what? --- Random thought: If they were able to get enough water into space such that one could swim through a sphere of water in a weightless environment, what would the sensation of being encapsulated in water while weightless feel like (clearly needing scuba or some other air connection..)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bdjk68hsk 5y ago
> But for a $10k vacation, you get to sleep in a bed, order room service, go outside, go golfing, see a show, etc. And what if you’ve already done all that? Private jets (well, fractional ownership) gets boring after a few years.
awrence 5y ago
Random reply: Or you can stay here on earth, go scuba diving and experience the exact same weightlessness... :)
- colordrops 5y ago
  It's not the same - that's buoyancy, not weightlessness. Gravity still exerts force on your body and internal organs, and you feel orientation, i.e. up and down. It's a very different feeling.
  - samstave 5y ago
    That's why I was asking! What would the difference in sensation be for one who is submerged on earth, versus one who is encapsulated in a floating sphere of water...
    - _moof 5y ago
      There’s no buoyancy without weight so it wouldn’t feel like anything until you moved. Then you’d have the same drag forces you would on Earth. It’s unlikely the sphere would stay together very long with nothing to hold it together.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

1000 passengers, really? Just imagine the possible loss of life if something goes wrong. We are still counting 100 successful launches in a row as an unprecedented success - whereas in commercial airplane flights airlines with less than 1 incident per 5000000 flights are considered 'poor safety record'.

Ajedi32 5y ago
There aren't many rocket designs in use right now that have had more than 100 flights _total_. It's hard to properly evaluate the safety of a system when it only gets tested once a month. As the cost of spaceflight comes down and launch frequency goes up, I suspect we'll start seeing reusable launch systems emerge that have had thousands of launches across dozens of rockets. Once that happens I think spaceflight's safety record will improve significantly.

mesozoic 5y ago

Cheaper and safer to just drop some acid.