 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Space Forum » Space hotel says it's on schedule to open in 2012... |
|
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Eric Chomko... |
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 4:06 pm, Rick Jones <rick.jo... at (no spam) hp.com> wrote:
[quote]Eric Chomko <pne.cho... at (no spam) 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.
[/quote]
Amazing isn't it! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rick Jones... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dan Birchall <djb at (no spam) naoj.org.remove_to_reply> wrote:
[quote]dumpster4 at (no spam) hotmail.com (dumpster4 at (no spam) 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.
[/quote]
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
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... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sylvia Else... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jeff Findley wrote:
[quote]"Sylvia Else" <sylvia at (no spam) not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:004ef3ee$0$16794$c3e8da3 at (no spam) news.astraweb.com...
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia at (no spam) not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:006bbbbc$0$26922$c3e8da3 at (no spam) 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. 
There's a limit to how much you can see from that distance. It wouldn't be
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.
[/quote]
If you're content to look at pictures, why go at all?
Sylvia. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dan Birchall... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dumpster4 at (no spam) hotmail.com (dumpster4 at (no spam) hotmail.com) wrote:
[quote]"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.
[/quote]
I'd like to further question whether they have a contingency plan in
place to address the problem of vermicious knids.
--
djb at (no spam) | 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric Chomko... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 7:24 pm, Sylvia Else <syl... at (no spam) not.at.this.address> wrote:
[quote]Jeff Findley wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <syl... at (no spam) not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:004ef3ee$0$16794$c3e8da3 at (no spam) news.astraweb.com...
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <syl... at (no spam) not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:006bbbbc$0$26922$c3e8da3 at (no spam) 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.
There's a limit to how much you can see from that distance. It wouldn't be
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.
If you're content to look at pictures, why go at all?
Sylvia.
[/quote]
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sylvia Else... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Eric Chomko wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 7:24 pm, Sylvia Else <syl... at (no spam) not.at.this.address> wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <syl... at (no spam) not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:004ef3ee$0$16794$c3e8da3 at (no spam) news.astraweb.com...
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <syl... at (no spam) not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:006bbbbc$0$26922$c3e8da3 at (no spam) 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.
There's a limit to how much you can see from that distance. It wouldn't be
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.
If you're content to look at pictures, why go at all?
Sylvia.
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
[/quote]
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jeff Findley wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Same here; the view is magnificent, particularly approaching a major
city at night which looks like you are flying over a galaxy.
The exception
[quote]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.
[/quote]
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Derek Lyons wrote:
[quote]It probably helps that they don't actually get much time to enjoy the
view...
[/quote]
Thunderstorms at night would be fun to watch.
Also, spotting ships at sea and aircraft contrails?
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sylvia Else wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Pat Flannery" <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote in message
news:R-qdncyHqY6c5GXXnZ2dnUVZ_g0AAAAA at (no spam) posted.northdakotatelephone...
[quote]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.
[/quote]
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
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider)... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:1a4df$4af88ad7$927a2cda$31804 at (no spam) FUSE.NET...
[quote]
"Pat Flannery" <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote in message
news:R-qdncyHqY6c5GXXnZ2dnUVZ_g0AAAAA at (no spam) 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.
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
[/quote]
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jorge R. Frank... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jeff Findley wrote:
[quote]"Pat Flannery" <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote in message
news:R-qdncyHqY6c5GXXnZ2dnUVZ_g0AAAAA at (no spam) 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.
[/quote]
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sylvia Else... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Pat Flannery wrote:
[quote]Jorge R. Frank wrote:
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
[/quote]
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred J. McCall... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sylvia Else <sylvia at (no spam) not.at.this.address> wrote:
:
:Just for the record, guys, the correct term is nauseated. Nauseous is
:the adjective that describes something that causes nausea.
:
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.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:47 am
|
|