Popular Culture, Social Commentary, Technology and Society

Next Stop, Space

44 Comments

This underwater hotel in Fiji looks pretty neat. I think that a lot of its clientele would love a room with an earth view.

One thing I see missing, though — no (obvious) curtains on the windows. I’ve heard that there have been problems with underwater hotels in the past, because the dolphins liked to voyeuristically look in the window and watch couples engaged in amorous activities.

44 thoughts on “Next Stop, Space”

  1. Read the info, it is addressed. There is apparently a dimmable film on the inside of the glass.

  2. I think this hotel resides in the imaginations of creative people only, though I could be mistaken.

    Idea for a goofy comedy movie: at the grand opening, the CEO pops a champagne cork. It cracks the glass.

  6. I feel like a hull breach in this underwater hotel would be potentially more dangerous and catastrophic than one in a space station.

  7. The problem with space hotels is not lack of demand, its being able to build and operate them for a profit.

  8. Looks like they’re planning to open in September 2009. I’m not holding my breath – unless I have to swim for it. 😉

  11. Didn’t someone once suggest here that settling space would require launching a nuclear sub full of crew into orbit? er… something like that?

    Then of course there’s the dolphin club.

  13. Ken,

    G. Harry Stine wrote back in the early 1960’s in Analog Magazine that if the Dean Drive was real all you would need to do is attach it to a nuclear submarine and would have an interplanetary spacecraft.

  14. Don’t think that a nuke sub would actually work.
    The hull would make a fine “capsule”, but the rest of the systems are pretty much a non starter….

    Space has a remarkable shortage of cooling water.
    As well as salt water to extract fresh water and oxygen from.
    Not even sure the hatches would seal with the pressure going the wrong way….

  15. G. Harry Stine … Dean Drive

    I’m well aware. Emdrive is the latest. If only.

    The problem with space hotels is not lack of demand, its being able to build and operate them for a profit.

    In the next decade we shall see if that’s true. I find it hard to see how they will not profit, especially since ‘hotel’ is not really the demand that will drive them. In any case, they are just stepping stones and part of a much larger space economy.

    Don’t think that a nuke sub would actually work.

    Why so timid Paul? They certainly would not work; however, the fact that we operate such nuclear vehicles (at less than natural radiation human environment no less) suggests we could do a lot more in space if we had both the will, vision and resources focused on it.

    Thanks to free enterprise (and the realization that space is therefore more than self financing) space is one of the few areas I really feel hopeful about. Settlements in the next few decades will be a huge game changer. I just hope people do it the right way. Thomas’ nightmare is all too possible (but not exactly for the reasons he gives.)

  16. Ken,

    The problem is the for the last 40 years folks have been focused on the easy part of the space settlement challenge, the launch system. The hard part which folks have mostly ignored is the challenge of designing and building the mostly self-contained automatic life support system needed. NASA contractors have done some work in connection with the ISS, but it is still dependent on Earth for supplies and monitoring.

    Until you have reliable, automatic life system systems that only require energy and some basic ISRU components human will just be tourists, not settlers.

  17. the easy part …yet, they’ve been telling us it’s so hard only government can do it.

    life support …definitely an area where we need to see improvement. However, you are wrong to say we can’t be settlers with current technology.

    self-contained automatic life support system …is a red herring. Initially, life support will need to be provided. Even without recycling that not a showstopper. We do however have recycling and that can be improved.

    We don’t have an automatic life support system on earth except for air. That doesn’t make us tourists here. No different anywhere else. Where ever people live they will need to go after life support no matter how good our recycling is.

    Next excuse…

  18. The problem with space hotels is not lack of demand, its being able to build and operate them for a profit.

    Interesting admission.

    Just a short while ago, you claimed there was no demand for hotels — or any industry — in Earth orbit. The only possible industry was mining, on the Moon. No evidence to support your claim, of course, just your usual godlike certainty.

    If you were wrong about that, what makes you so certain that it’s impossible to build and operate hotels at a profit. I don’t suppose you have any facts and figures to back up this claim, do you?

  19. The hard part which folks have mostly ignored is the challenge of designing and building the mostly self-contained automatic life support system needed.

    Hardly. Paragon, for example, is already working on such systems. There are more things in heaven and earth, Tom, than are dreamt of in your ivory tower.

  20. the easy part …yet, they’ve been telling us it’s so hard only government can do it.

    Yep. And didn’t Tom tell us cheap access to space was so hard it had to wait until after NASA (or his mythical International Socialist Lunar Development Corporation) had spent hundreds of billions building a full-blown mining colony on the Moon?

    And, gee, wouldn’t Tom’s mining colony require the same sort of life-support system, which he now implies is impossible???

    Of course, if we had worked on the “easy part,” instead of the Bush Moon Rush, we would be much closer to returning to the Moon today. But that was heresy to the Moonie Church, and remains so.

  21. Paragon looks like they’re doing some cool real world stuff. Thanks for pointing them out Ed.

  22. Of course, if we had worked on the “easy part,” instead of the Bush Moon Rush, we would be much closer to returning to the Moon today.

    There’s no reason you couldn’t do both at the same time, there could be great synergy. The mode of transportation, using an HLV, especially an SDHLV, was the problem, not the destination.

  23. Elon’s goal is mars settlement, but that doesn’t mean Dragon isn’t going to make a nice SSTO lunar lander. Even before adding the LES it may be safer than the shuttle and more capable in many ways. I’m wondering if the LES doesn’t also allow mars ascent? I sent an email to SpaceX inquiring about the predicted delta V once they add the LES and hope for an interesting reply.

    He’s talking about sending Dragons beyond Pluto as well. The cost of space is coming down. NASA, even with a declining budget is going to be able to do a whole lot more if they just stop wasting money on what the private sector does better.

    Somebody better get a general purpose ship in orbit soon or they’re going to miss out on all the fun.

  24. There’s no reason you couldn’t do both at the same time

    Perhaps in some imaginary world, which has an infinite supply of money. In the real world, NASA couldn’t afford the Moon Rush. It certainly couldn’t couldn’t afford the Moon Rush plus another goal (even if the other goal cost 17 cents).

    The mode of transportation, using an HLV, especially an SDHLV, was the problem

    Well, you need *some* mode of transportation. If you start with the assumption/dogma that “NASA proved cheap access to space is impossible,” then it’s Hobson’s choice.

  25. The choice’s are not, either/or, or, take it or leave it. The right path, is less expensive and expands both our economy and capabilities.

    1) NASA needs to face reality. Their budget is for missions and research. They should not get to make any equipment the private sector can provide (better, sooner, and for less cost.) To emphasize the point, they don’t get any derived design. They get what exists. Even Zubrin has figured that out (ok, he’d still like a Saturn V, but he’s beginning to see other possibilities.)

    2) Those missions should be for incremental expansion of capabilities. If not, nothing is the preferred choice. Pick a goal that has incremental steps. Take those steps but avoid doing anything just to do them (unless it is to test a critical path item.) I’m saying that settlement is the only worthwhile goal and has lots of good baby steps we have to do to get there.

    3) If they have a rover design that works (15x their designed life) they should contract them to private businesses that can put them on an assembly line. A standard mobile chassis can have different modules for new science experiments. Instead of making new toys all the time, do real science with economies of scale.

    4) Uncle Sugar can provide business with money for projects, but the best thing they could do would be get the hell out of the way. That means regulation ends BEO (but also before BEO as much as possible.) We are at the point where a business case can be made and implemented. Lot’s of companies are seeing the light. It goes a lot farther than rockets and ships.

  26. Hi Ed,

    I see you are back with the usual misinformation and fantasies.

    So tell me how 1960’s capsules on ELVs represents the great leap forward to CATS?

  27. Ken,

    The beauty of the OST is that you have to comply with U.S. regulations if you are a U.S. firm. There are 200 odd other nations to incorporate in.

    But again the barrier is not launch, that is C.O.D. It’s having technology to live sustainably on the Moon, Mars or where ever. Launch costs cease to be a major barrier when all you need to launch are human emigrates.

  28. Perhaps in some imaginary world, which has an infinite supply of money. In the real world, NASA couldn’t afford the Moon Rush.

    Well, first of all I would have advocated a Flexible Path to the moon, not a Moon Rush or the moon as a first step on a Flexible Path to Mars. If they had developed an unmanned refuelable transfer stage, then a manned orbital lander precursor, then a full lander they could have left launchers and capsules to the market. I think they could have done that on the budgets they had.

    Well, you need *some* mode of transportation. If you start with the assumption/dogma that “NASA proved cheap access to space is impossible,” then it’s Hobson’s choice.

    I’m not starting from that dogma. We already have adequate launch vehicles. For government exploration that is, not for fully commercial manned spaceflight – yet. Provide a large and fiercely competitive propellant launch market, using as much of the Shuttle’s $3.5B/yr launch budget as possible, and market forces would take care of the rest.

  29. comply with U.S. regulations

    Mainly the OST is about not having nukes in space. “Common heritage of mankind” is meaningless language BS meant to tickle the ear. Article VI – The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space … shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty …might be the club they use to attempt control of private companies and individuals, but I see people asserting their historical and natural rights having little problem dealing with that. If you can afford space, you can afford good lawyers.

    Cost is dominated by getting enough fuel to LEO. Nothing else comes close. Even if the fuel were free it would still be the dominate cost (absolutely true, although not intuitive.) Developing tech. doesn’t make a dent in overall cost unless you do it the NASA way. Private companies have put the final nails in that coffin.

    how 1960′s capsules on ELVs represents the great leap forward

    Forgive me for jumping in here Ed, but Thomas can not be referring to the Dragon. The Dragon is not a 60’s capsule. Look closely at the Dragon and you will realize it is a huge forward leap. I speak more directly to CATS in a moment, but for Dragon…

    1) Manufactured for low cost and high quality control.

    2) Equal or better performance than any other vehicle I’m aware of because it’s designed to safely land almost anywhere in the solar system. It can be used by itself or as the landing (and ascent) vehicle for another ship.

    3) Several layers of redundant safety features. Already safer than the shuttle, Elon will not fly it with people until safety is much greater. With all systems out they can still safely do a water landing with crew. The parachutes can be manually deployed for example and the shape will automatically align the heats shields (two redundant layers) even if no thrusters function. Shuttle would just kill its crew and doesn’t have the ability to do long duration missions or land anywhere but certain runways on earth. Today, with no changes, they could use one Dragon (rather than two Soyuz) to bring ISS crew to earth. With planned improvements, almost anywhere else in the solar system.

    4) Spirit and Opportunity cost $820m. Dragon will be able to put 5 or 6 of those rovers on mars for under $200m (using FH.)

    Cheap Access To Space? That, in Elons words is, “Very hard but working on it.” FH will be 1/6th the cost which is progress.

    OST is a [wet] paper barrier.

  30. Ken,

    News flash. The Test Ban Treaty of 1963 already basically outlawed nukes in space.

    The specific purpose of the OST was to prevent the types of colonial land grabs that characterized the 18th and 19th Century, and the wars they triggered, especially since only the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were able at the time to do the grabbing.

    Also Ken, a back story, when I predicted on the old SFF Space Politics board back in 2002 when everyone was proclaiming the age of SSTO that after the Space Shuttle both commercial firms and the government in the U.S. would go back to using capsules since they made more sense and were safer. Ed jumped on it like he has the International Lunar Development Corporation, claiming ALL capsules were a throwback to the 1960’s no matter how new or advanced the technology was. This is reminding him of how wrong he was then. Unfortunately, SFF took that board down so its impossible to link to it now.

  31. Ken,

    Also, back in 2002 when I pointed out one advantage of water recovery was that it greatly increased the safety of capsules Ed pointed out no commercial firms could afford the fleets of ships needed to recover a capsule. I pointed that with modern technology you didn’t need a fleet of ships, just one rented salvage vessel, which is what SpaceX used to recovered Dragon. Pity that SFF took down that board.

  32. Tom, your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds. I never advocated putting capsules on expendable launch vehicles. That was George W. Bush and, um, you.

    I guess you’ve decided to go for the Pulitzer in fiction?

  33. I’m not starting from that dogma.

    But this discussion was nor about you. The Bush Admintration did start from that assumption, as did the Moonie Church. It still does. Just read any of the recent ramblings from Paul Spudis.

    As I’ve said, the Moonies are their own worst enemies.

  34. Reasoning from a single data again, Tom?

    I guess you forgot the stages that SpaceX lost at sea.

    This is akin to your ignorant statement that capsules have a “100% safety record” (ignoring all of the actual fatalities).

    Then, of course, there was your goofy prediction that Constellation would be carrying “hundreds” of astronauts to the Moon every year. 🙂

  35. Edward,

    Gee, what lies. Why is it impossible for you to tell the truth? I never said you advocated capsules, but opposed them because of your belief in SSTO.

    It’s folks like you that makes space advocates laughing stocks in the business world.

  36. capsules … made more sense and were safer

    They have their place. I’d like to see the genius of private enterprise explore every potential option.

    It’s much more likely for me to suggest someone evil before calling them a liar. That’s because I consider all of us partially evil. Calling someone a liar requires knowledge of intent which is a lot more iffy. Over time people can contradict themselves. This doesn’t make them a liar either because positions can evolve over time.

    …Test Ban Treaty… …and the OST were products of their times. My point regarding rules to control settlers is that the OST is not going to have much force. We know the statist hope so, but the people likely to want to settle will have a few attributes of their own that work strongly against that. They’re not going to let control freaks totally get there way in space. Economic laws trump political laws.

  37. Ken,

    [[[It’s much more likely for me to suggest someone evil before calling them a liar. ]]]

    Ed Wright has a long history of “mis-stating” what folks post and attributing things to them they never said. So this is not a one off for him, its his normal posting style.

  38. Ken,

    The key point is not all nations have signed the OST and so all you need to do is pick one that didn’t to incorporate in. Then, under the Vienna Treaty on Treaties (1986) its not a issue.

    http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_2_1986.pdf

    I always thought it strange Elon Musk would head quarter SpaceX in the U.S. when there are so many other options. True you wouldn’t be able to get federal contracts, but then why should a commercial firm worry about that?

  39. Thanks, Tom. There’s nothing like being lectured by a “professor of business” who’s never held a job outside of academia.

    Except maybe one who can’t even get tenure. Apparently, your own colleagues don’t take your trolling seriously.

    To be accused of lying by you is the highest of honors.

  40. I always thought it strange Elon Musk would head quarter SpaceX in the U.S.

    Musk is such a lousy can’t do businessman, isn’t he? China would have been such a smarter move really. I just don’t understand what he was thinking. When you make a point Thomas you really hit it out of the park.

    Frankly, being a citizen of a signatory will be just the thing to reveal the OST for the minor bump in the road it is. I’m getting my popcorn ready for that one.

  41. Ken,

    It’s the New Spacers that believe the OST is a barrier. I don’t and never have. It’s really a great framework for space commerce allowing private property rights without the burden of real property rights.

    Also I never mentioned China. There are many small nations like the Isle of Man that are well suited for space commerce. Just look of how global finance has leveraged island nations like the Grand Caymans and Bermuda.

  42. Tell me Edward, why do you have so much hate in your heart the you have to spread lies about people on discussion boards?

  43. I don’t [believe the OST is a barrier] and never have.

    I’m willing to accept your word on this. I’m not even going to check the record. People do tend to figure out how to get things done. I like that you support space even as we disagree here and there.

Comments are closed.