Space hotel says it's on schedule to open in 2012
dump...@hotmail.com
hotel in space says it is on target to accept
its first paying guests in 2012 despite critics
questioning the investment and time frame
for the multi-billion dollar project.
The Barcelona-based architects of The
Galactic Suite Space Resort say it will cost
3 million euro ($4.4 million) for a three-night
stay at the hotel, with this price including an
eight-week training course on a tropical island."
See:
By 2012? Sounds rather fishy.
Sylvia Else
Three days?
If Virgin galactic's weightless experience is too short, I can't help
feeling that three days is too long. Once the novelty of microgravity
has worn off, you've seen umpteen sunrises, and looked at every visible
part of Earth from at least 450km away, boredom's going to set in.
Sylvia.
Dave U. Random
a001d4...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> "A company behind plans to open the first
> hotel in space says it is on target to accept
> its first paying guests in 2012 despite critics
> questioning the investment and time frame
> for the multi-billion dollar project.
>
> The Barcelona-based architects of The
> Galactic Suite Space Resort say it will cost
> 3 million euro ($4.4 million) for a three-night
> stay at the hotel, with this price including an
> eight-week training course on a tropical island."
>
Yeah right.
My advice to afluent people would be this: get a brochure, maybe even
reserve a seat...but don't hand over a PENNY of your money until
they've actually flown someone to the hotel and returned him to the
Earth safely. I have a feeling it will be many years (2020) before a
space hotel is actually up and running. And it won't be a hotel per se,
more like camping on the Artic with no creature comforts to speak of.
Frogwatch
wrote:
> <dumpst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:29304102-4830-4ccf-a303-
>
> a001d4620...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
As soon as the first "zero g porn" shows up on the net, they will be
booked solid. For $4.4 mill, they should have beautiful personal
"assistants" aboard the space hotel. Maybe they will have those on
the tropical island.
Eric Chomko
> dumpst...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > "A company behind plans to open the first
> > hotel in space says it is on target to accept
> > its first paying guests in 2012 despite critics
> > questioning the investment and time frame
> > for the multi-billion dollar project.
>
> > The Barcelona-based architects of The
> > Galactic Suite Space Resort say it will cost
> > 3 million euro ($4.4 million) for a three-night
> > stay at the hotel, with this price including an
> > eight-week training course on a tropical island."
>
> > See:
>
>
> > By 2012? Sounds rather fishy.
>
> Three days?
>
> If Virgin galactic's weightless experience is too short, I can't help
> feeling that three days is too long. Once the novelty of microgravity
> has worn off, you've seen umpteen sunrises, and looked at every visible
> part of Earth from at least 450km away, boredom's going to set in.
>
More likely sickness. And being sick is boring to say the least!
Jeff Findley
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:006bbbbc$0$26922$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Three days?
>
> If Virgin galactic's weightless experience is too short, I can't help
> feeling that three days is too long. Once the novelty of microgravity has
> worn off, you've seen umpteen sunrises, and looked at every visible part
> of Earth from at least 450km away, boredom's going to set in.
Speak for yourself. I've flown many times and every time I fly I spend
every minute of the flight with my eyes glued to the window. The exception
is when the cloud cover is so dense you just can't see *anything*. In LEO,
the earth goes by fast enough that excessive cloud cover shouldn't be a
problem for more than several minutes. ;-)
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
Glen Overby
>If Virgin galactic's weightless experience is too short, I can't help
>feeling that three days is too long. Once the novelty of microgravity
>has worn off, you've seen umpteen sunrises, and looked at every visible
>part of Earth from at least 450km away, boredom's going to set in.
Everything I've read by shuttle astronauts, they never get bored of the view.
I get the same impression from ISS astronauts. I'm not sure that you really
do get to see every visible part of earth in that little time.
Maybe this trip isn't for you? But don't keep others from making the trip.
Entity
> dumpst...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > "A company behind plans to open the first
> > hotel in space says it is on target to accept
> > its first paying guests in 2012 despite critics
> > questioning the investment and time frame
> > for the multi-billion dollar project.
>
> > The Barcelona-based architects of The
> > Galactic Suite Space Resort say it will cost
> > 3 million euro ($4.4 million) for a three-night
> > stay at the hotel, with this price including an
> > eight-week training course on a tropical island."
>
> > See:
>
>
> > By 2012? Sounds rather fishy.
>
> Three days?
>
> If Virgin galactic's weightless experience is too short, I can't help
> feeling that three days is too long. Once the novelty of microgravity
> has worn off, you've seen umpteen sunrises, and looked at every visible
> part of Earth from at least 450km away, boredom's going to set in.
>
> Sylvia.
A 4.4 million $ case of ennui... ho hum... there's the earth again...
that old thing? *yawn* Gawd this weightlessness is tedious! oh, I
broke a nail, damn!
Rick Jones
> More likely sickness. And being sick is boring to say the least!
And yet people keep piling into cruise ships to get the latest
rotovirus.
rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Derek Lyons
>Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>If Virgin galactic's weightless experience is too short, I can't help
>>feeling that three days is too long. Once the novelty of microgravity
>>has worn off, you've seen umpteen sunrises, and looked at every visible
>>part of Earth from at least 450km away, boredom's going to set in.
>
>Everything I've read by shuttle astronauts, they never get bored of the view.
It probably helps that they don't actually get much time to enjoy the
view...
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Sylvia Else
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:006bbbbc$0$26922$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> Three days?
>>
>> If Virgin galactic's weightless experience is too short, I can't help
>> feeling that three days is too long. Once the novelty of microgravity has
>> worn off, you've seen umpteen sunrises, and looked at every visible part
>> of Earth from at least 450km away, boredom's going to set in.
>
> Speak for yourself. I've flown many times and every time I fly I spend
> every minute of the flight with my eyes glued to the window. The exception
> is when the cloud cover is so dense you just can't see *anything*. In LEO,
> the earth goes by fast enough that excessive cloud cover shouldn't be a
> problem for more than several minutes. ;-)
>
> Jeff
There's a limit to how much you can see from that distance. It wouldn't
be like a real-life Google Earth.
Sylvia.
Derek Lyons
>From orbit, the night sky must be as colorful as it is
>awe inspiring
Wrong again!
Jeff Findley
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> Jeff Findley wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>> news:006bbbbc$0$26922$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>> Three days?
>>>
>>> If Virgin galactic's weightless experience is too short, I can't help
>>> feeling that three days is too long. Once the novelty of microgravity
>>> has worn off, you've seen umpteen sunrises, and looked at every visible
>>> part of Earth from at least 450km away, boredom's going to set in.
>>
>> Speak for yourself. I've flown many times and every time I fly I spend
>> every minute of the flight with my eyes glued to the window. The
>> exception is when the cloud cover is so dense you just can't see
>> *anything*. In LEO, the earth goes by fast enough that excessive cloud
>> cover shouldn't be a problem for more than several minutes. ;-)
>
> like a real-life Google Earth.
With the naked eye, yes, but who said that tourists would be limited to the
naked eye? Have you seen some of the shots of the earth the ISS astronauts
have done with the hand held DSLR's that they've got up there? It's not as
high resolution as Google Earth (that takes huge telescopes), but you can
still get some pretty impressive shots with the lenses they're using. This
is exactly the sort of thing a space tourist could do and would easily
occupy days worth of time. A professional DSLR, big honking lens, and a
crap load of SDHC cards would be a fraction of the total cost for the trip.
Whenever I take a week long trip, I come back with maybe 1000 digital
pictures. On a "trip of a lifetime" like this, I'd expect that number would
be much higher, even if I'm limited to three days.
Yama
: Everything I've read by shuttle astronauts, they never get bored of the view.
: I get the same impression from ISS astronauts. I'm not sure that you really
: do get to see every visible part of earth in that little time.
Norm Thagard has said that on Mir he actually got somewhat bored at the view - at
first he was excited as on Shuttle flights there was little time to admire the
Earth, but as months dragged by and his experiments didn't arrive, it soon
became "meh, I've seen that before..."
But he was there for almost 4 months straight, I think three days is quite
manageable...
Eric Chomko
> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > More likely sickness. And being sick is boring to say the least!
>
> And yet people keep piling into cruise ships to get the latest
> rotovirus.
>
Amazing isn't it!
Sylvia Else
If you're content to look at pictures, why go at all?
Sylvia.
Dan Birchall
> "A company behind plans to open the first hotel in space says it
> is on target to accept its first paying guests in 2012 despite
> critics questioning the investment and time frame for the
> multi-billion dollar project.
I'd like to further question whether they have a contingency plan in
place to address the problem of vermicious knids.
--
djb@ | Dan Birchall, Night Operation Assistant, Subaru Telescope/NAOJ.
naoj | Views I express are my own, certainly not those of my employer.
.org | Oh wicked, bad, naughty, _evil_ Dan! He is a _naughty_ person.
Rick Jones
> dump...@hotmail.com (dump...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> > "A company behind plans to open the first hotel in space says it
> > is on target to accept its first paying guests in 2012 despite
> > critics questioning the investment and time frame for the
> > multi-billion dollar project.
> I'd like to further question whether they have a contingency plan in
> place to address the problem of vermicious knids.
You implying the thing is to be launched from Loompaland?-)
rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
Eric Chomko
Because he can't stay there and wants to have a reminder of what he
saw when he was actually there.
I hike the Grand Canyon a lot and understand his point of view because
I can't always be there. And if you think I am talking about getting
pictures of what every tourist sees over the rim forget it, you can
never really experience the GC until you have walked down into it.
Eric
Sylvia Else
The point at issue was whether there was enough to see. The response was
that the tourists would not be constrained to use their naked eye, but
could use cameras to obtain higher resolution.
People may take pictures of the grand canyon to remind themselves of
their visit, but few would do so in the expectation of seeing stuff in
the photographs that they couldn't see while they were there.
I wonder how many people actually review their holiday snaps after other
than immediately after downloading them or getting them developed.
Mostly the function of such photographs is the bore the living daylights
out of one's friends, who are too polite to say anything (and will
reciprocate in due course anyway).
Sylvia.
Pat Flannery
> Speak for yourself. I've flown many times and every time I fly I spend
> every minute of the flight with my eyes glued to the window.
Same here; the view is magnificent, particularly approaching a major
city at night which looks like you are flying over a galaxy.
The exception
> is when the cloud cover is so dense you just can't see *anything*. In LEO,
> the earth goes by fast enough that excessive cloud cover shouldn't be a
> problem for more than several minutes.
You might run into a problem with getting dizzy if you try to use
binoculars to watch things pass on the ground due to the perceived
speed of movement, somewhat like you get by scrolling microfilm past a
viewer at high speed.
Pat
Pat Flannery
> It probably helps that they don't actually get much time to enjoy the
> view...
Thunderstorms at night would be fun to watch.
Also, spotting ships at sea and aircraft contrails?
Pat
Pat Flannery
> Three days?
>
> If Virgin galactic's weightless experience is too short, I can't help
> feeling that three days is too long. Once the novelty of microgravity
> has worn off, you've seen umpteen sunrises, and looked at every visible
> part of Earth from at least 450km away, boredom's going to set in.
What's going to set in for the first day or two is the space sickness.
To get completely past that is going to take around a week's stay.
Pat
Jeff Findley
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:R-qdncyHqY6c5GXX...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
It doesn't affect everyone, but if you're one of the unlucky, spending your
first few days blowing chunks wouldn't be a lot of fun.
Then again, I can't tell you how many times I've left amusement parks
feeling terribly nauseous. I know what rides tend to make me sick, but I
still keep going back for more. The one at King's Island that really kills
me is called Delirium.
This is Delirium (a Giant Frisbee):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisbee_%28ride%29
Back in the day, the ride called Skylab was the worst.
This was Skylab (expanded version of the HUSS Enterprise):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_%28ride%29
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:1a4df$4af88ad7$927a2cda$31...@FUSE.NET...
I got nauseous WATCHING my wife on that ride. (heck, right now I can taste
the bile in the back of my throat).
To be I don't do great on rides like that. And I had just been on that ride
where you are in a cylinder and it spins, pressing you against the wall. Of
course I always feel compelled to turn my head and other stuff which makes
things worse. Combine that with diesel fumes, being hungry and I was green.
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Jorge R. Frank
> "Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
> news:R-qdncyHqY6c5GXX...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> Three days?
>>>
>>> If Virgin galactic's weightless experience is too short, I can't help
>>> feeling that three days is too long. Once the novelty of microgravity has
>>> worn off, you've seen umpteen sunrises, and looked at every visible part
>>> of Earth from at least 450km away, boredom's going to set in.
>> What's going to set in for the first day or two is the space sickness.
>> To get completely past that is going to take around a week's stay.
>
> It doesn't affect everyone, but if you're one of the unlucky, spending your
> first few days blowing chunks wouldn't be a lot of fun.
There are effective anti-nausea drugs for this. Astronauts don't take
them because it hinders their response in an emergency. But there's no
reason passengers couldn't take them.
Pat Flannery
> There are effective anti-nausea drugs for this. Astronauts don't take
> them because it hinders their response in an emergency. But there's no
> reason passengers couldn't take them.
Here we go with that again.
They do indeed take them if they become nauseous; in fact they are the
most commonly used drugs in their medical kit:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10417009
Pat
Sylvia Else
Woody Allen has a lot to answer for.
Just for the record, guys, the correct term is nauseated. Nauseous is
the adjective that describes something that causes nausea.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
> :
> :Just for the record, guys, the correct term is nauseated. Nauseous is
>
> Not in this country. Note the very first definition...
>
> nau�seous [naw-shuhs, -zee-uhs] Show IPA
> �adjective
> 1. affected with nausea; nauseated: to feel nauseous.
> 2. causing nausea; sickening; nauseating.
> 3. disgusting; loathsome: a nauseous display of greed.
>
Just means the compilers have been too quick to accept a new usage.
Sylvia.
Pat Flannery
>> nau�seous [naw-shuhs, -zee-uhs] Show IPA
>> �adjective
>> 1. affected with nausea; nauseated: to feel nauseous.
>> 2. causing nausea; sickening; nauseating.
>> 3. disgusting; loathsome: a nauseous display of greed.
>>
>
> Just means the compilers have been too quick to accept a new usage.
I've been hearing that usage for it for over 40 years.
Pat
Sylvia Else
Yes, that's probably about how long ago it was that Allen was using it
in his films.
Sylvia.
Eric Chomko
> that the tourists would not be constrained to use their naked eye, but
> could use cameras to obtain higher resolution.
>
> People may take pictures of the grand canyon to remind themselves of
> their visit, but few would do so in the expectation of seeing stuff in
> the photographs that they couldn't see while they were there.
Unless time was an issue and the tour bus was off to Vegas in 20
minutes!
>
> I wonder how many people actually review their holiday snaps after other
> than immediately after downloading them or getting them developed.
> Mostly the function of such photographs is the bore the living daylights
> out of one's friends, who are too polite to say anything (and will
> reciprocate in due course anyway).
>
What are in-laws for if not to be bored by, or bore them! :)