Travel to the moon for $1.5 billion

A new firm has been formed promising trips to the moon for $1.5 billion. There initial target demographic will be nations who are interested in national prestige, but they concede that there are billionaires who might be willing to pay anything for the chance in a lifetime.

Guy Laliberté, the Canadian circus billionaire who founded Cirque du Soleil, paid $35 million for the chance to go to space. I think Bill Gates might consider the option, and I am almost sure that Lawrence Ellison would consider it worthwhile. Larry Page and Sergey Brin are collectively worth $36 billion. I think they might both want to go. The Sultan of Brunei has probably already spent more than that on airplanes. The UK might want to send Prince Harry.

Would you pay $200 for a 1 in 10 million chance to go to the moon? Would you pay $200 for a 1 in 12,000 chance to simply go into space on a suborbital ride?

Quote: Pacomartin

Would you pay $200 for a 1 in 10 million chance to go to the moon? Would you pay $200 for a 1 in 12,000 chance to simply go into space on a suborbital ride?

$200, unfortunately, is a lot of money for me. Way too much to spend on what is essentially a lottery ticket.

But if they need a test pilot/subject/flying monkey, hit me up. I'll do it for the low, low price of FREE =D

doesn't seem to me they could promise it would be safe enough and keep a straight face.

makes me wonder, though, how the strategy [and that's what it involves] would differ from Apollo days.

Quote: odiousgambit

doesn't seem to me they could promise it would be safe enough and keep a straight face.

makes me wonder, though, how the strategy [and that's what it involves] would differ from Apollo days.

What's the record for the moon? 15 were sent and 12 made it, 3 near deaths saved by a miracle? .800's good for a hitter, bad for a goalie, and I gotta think horrendous for an "airline".

Quote: Face

What's the record for the moon? 15 were sent and 12 made it, 3 near deaths saved by a miracle? .800's good for a hitter, bad for a goalie, and I gotta think horrendous for an "airline".

Don't be a hero. Or this hero anyway.

Quote:

The final words of doomed Russian cosmonaut, Vladimir Komarov, were picked up by U.S. intelligence, according to a new book.

As Komarov hurtled towards earth and certain death in the stricken Soyuz 1 craft, he could be heard screaming and cursing the 'people who had put him inside a botched spaceship.'

Amazingly there's a picture of an open casket ceremony on that page of his remains. (picture in your head, ' I burned something really badly in the oven')


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367857/US-intercepted-Russian-cosmonaut-Vladimir-Komarovs-final-words-rage.html#ixzz2EdjU68mw

Quote: odiousgambit

doesn't seem to me they could promise it would be safe enough and keep a straight face.

makes me wonder, though, how the strategy [and that's what it involves] would differ from Apollo days.

I think that the chief difference is that 40 years later you would do it more as a two stage operation. An orbiting space station would presumably bring in millions in revenue. If people are willing to spend $200K for a suborbital flight, then they will happily shell out millions for orbital flights.

People shell out lots of money to do incredibly dangerous things. Beside climbing Everest, think of the dangers of doing technical diving (i.e. caves, deep water, gases, exploration of hulls, etc.).

The USA went from the first manned orbit of the earth to the manned orbit of the moon in 6.5 years. I can't believe that orbiting the moon (without a landing) would be that technical of a problem given the advances in computers in 4 decades.

Quote: Pacomartin

I can't believe that orbiting the moon (without a landing) would be that technical of a problem given the advances in computers in 4 decades.

You don't need better computers. You need better rockets and better manufacturing techniques. There's really very little maneuvering done in space. Consider. In a car you make adjustments to your course on a ner constant basis, even when just traveling in a straight line. In an airplane, under normal conditions, this is less frequent. In a spaceship it's done once on a trip to the Moon, maybe twice on a trip to Mars (assuming direct orbital paths).

On the other hand, you need a sustained, controlled explosion of highly energetic and volatile substances to just get you out of this planet. The vast majority of of the mass of any rocket is fuel. Not that the fuel is that expensive (essentially it's split water), but it takes sepcial handling as it's cryogenic and you need a LOT of it.

Clarke's analogy works very well still: imagine if the Queen Elizabeth II could carry only three passengers and some cargo, and make the round trip from England to New York only once. How expensive would transatlantic travel be?

Quote: Nareed

On the other hand, you need a sustained, controlled explosion of highly energetic and volatile substances to just get you out of this planet. The vast majority of of the mass of any rocket is fuel. Not that the fuel is that expensive (essentially it's split water), but it takes sepcial handling as it's cryogenic and you need a LOT of it.

So much fuel is needed that nothing can be lifted into orbit without doing it in stages or using boosters that can be discarded.

HOWEVER one untried theory [apparently around since the 60s] is that lifting some of the oxygen is unnecessary since the atmosphere has plenty; so you jet to a certain point and then fire your rockets. The below link claims a substantial payload can be brought up without having to discard any rocket stages or boosters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_%28spacecraft%29

Quote: Face

Quote: odiousgambit

doesn't seem to me they could promise it would be safe enough and keep a straight face.

makes me wonder, though, how the strategy [and that's what it involves] would differ from Apollo days.

What's the record for the moon? 15 were sent and 12 made it, 3 near deaths saved by a miracle? .800's good for a hitter, bad for a goalie, and I gotta think horrendous for an "airline".

Also, three died on the launch pad in Apollo 1. I would put this on the "risky" list. Not that it isn't possible, but space is unforgiving, since small problems, are big problems. It's not like you can pull over to the shoulder, and call for a tow.

Quote: Nareed

On the other hand, you need a sustained, controlled explosion of highly energetic and volatile substances to just get you out of this planet. The vast majority of of the mass of any rocket is fuel. Not that the fuel is that expensive (essentially it's split water), but it takes sepcial handling as it's cryogenic and you need a LOT of it.

My whole point was that once space tourism reaches the orbital stage of the earth, I don't think it is a big technological hurdle to orbit the moon. With much better computers you can control that section of the voyage by using very little fuel.


I also believe that people will pay 50-100 times as much for an orbital voyage vs a suborbital, and 50-100 times again to orbit the moon.

Reaction engines Ltd is showing promise of developing an engine that operate at Mach 5. It could be access to space without rockets.


Skydive onto North Pole for $8000 from Moscow . I think people will pay almost anything.