Space hotel says it's on schedule to open in 2012

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
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.

On Nov 4, 7:24*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
.. .
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
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

Eric Chomko wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:24 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
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

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.

On Nov 5, 7:30*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:24 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
om...
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.


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.

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!