Space Tourism-should we wait a bit longer or is it the right time?

5SNYMC1m.jpg
 
if we don't let the billionaires have their expensive flights, how is there going to be the required development/competition to reduce prices to the point where normal people can afford it?
 
I'm told that tourism causes a lot of environmental damage already, so perhaps extending that into space with those massive fuel-burning rockets should wait until there are carbon-neutral spacecraft... In fact, I'd suggest waiting until we have a dozen life-supporting planets cleanly and safely colonised, before we go burning Earth up in the name of tourism.
 
ttaskmaster said:
I'm told that tourism causes a lot of environmental damage already, so perhaps extending that into space with those massive fuel-burning rockets should wait until there are carbon-neutral spacecraft... In fact, I'd suggest waiting until we have a dozen life-supporting planets cleanly and safely colonised, before we go burning Earth up in the name of tourism.
Click to expand...

a fair point, i mean what's the point of a holiday if there's nowhere interesting to go?
 
This is pretty much a once in a lifetime opportunity for very few people.

I see a lot of salty people going on in comments section of articles and facebook about rich people and ego's blah blah.

I would JUMP at the chance to take an orbit or partial orbit. What an experience.
 
ttaskmaster said:
I'm told that tourism causes a lot of environmental damage already, so perhaps extending that into space with those massive fuel-burning rockets should wait until there are carbon-neutral spacecraft... In fact, I'd suggest waiting until we have a dozen life-supporting planets cleanly and safely colonised, before we go burning Earth up in the name of tourism.
Click to expand...

Not sure if serious?
 
1664kronenbourg said:
We have Space X and Virgin competing for the first passengers to fly into space for commercial travel but should we wait a bit longer or do it now?

I think we should wait a bit longer to give more people a chance when it becomes more affordable.
Click to expand...
Well we've fixed the climate and the economy, so what harm could burning tons of fossil fuel to put people at the edge of space for a few minute's jollies possibly do?
 
We won't get environmentally friendly space travel at the start. But eventually it will come.

Elon says that he expects people to be able to sell their house and live on Mars. So hopefully in the not to distant future I can at least visit the moon.
 
Zefan said:
Not sure if serious?
Click to expand...
Why not serious?
A bunch of rich ***** firing giant disposable pollutant-towers off into space just for 30 seconds of playing Astronaut whenever they feel like it, not even going to the moon or anything useful... you're happy to add all the pollution from the fuelling and manufacture of that lot to our already knackered planet, without any sort of back-up for when the planet finally keels over and dies?

Various arguments exist around just how much space rockets pollute, though they are limited in scope and often do not factor in manufacture of either craft or production of the fuel, but even those assert that it's certainly not helping the environment.

Eurofighter said:
We won't get environmentally friendly space travel at the start. But eventually it will come.
Click to expand...
Eventually, perhaps, but how much damage will be done beforehand, and will it be too much?
 
Eurofighter said:
We won't get environmentally friendly space travel at the start. But eventually it will come.

Elon says that he expects people to be able to sell their house and live on Mars. So hopefully in the not to distant future I can at least visit the moon.
Click to expand...
Only a fringe group of nutters are going to sell up and go live on Mars :p Outside of trained astronauts, that is. Who probably won't be permanently living on Mars. Because they're sane.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Why not serious?
A bunch of rich ***** firing giant disposable pollutant-towers off into space just for 30 seconds of playing Astronaut whenever they feel like it, not even going to the moon or anything useful... you're happy to add all the pollution from the fuelling and manufacture of that lot to our already knackered planet, without any sort of back-up for when the planet finally keels over and dies?

Various arguments exist around just how much space rockets pollute, though they are limited in scope and often do not factor in manufacture of either craft or production of the fuel, but even those assert that it's certainly not helping the environment.


Eventually, perhaps, but how much damage will be done beforehand, and will it be too much?
Click to expand...

Doesn’t NASA return more value to science and tech than it costs to run it?


  • NASA spinoff technologies provide an impact on American lives beyond dollars and jobs. The agency has recorded more than 2,000 spinoffs since 1976. For example, engineers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory developed, in just 37 days, a ventilator specifically for coronavirus patients and, after securing an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration, made the design available to select manufacturers at no cost.
  • Scientific research and development – which fuels advancements in science and technology that can help improve daily life on Earth and for humanity – enjoys the largest single-sector impact, accounting for 16% of the overall economic impact of NASA’s Moon to Mars program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom