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

"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.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Glen Overby wrote:
: Everything I've read by shuttle astronauts, they never get bored of the view.
: I get the same impression from ISS astronauts. I'm not sure that you really
: do get to see every visible part of earth in that little time.

Norm Thagard has said that on Mir he actually got somewhat bored at the view - at
first he was excited as on Shuttle flights there was little time to admire the
Earth, but as months dragged by and his experiments didn't arrive, it soon
became "meh, I've seen that before..."

But he was there for almost 4 months straight, I think three days is quite
manageable...

On Nov 3, 4:06*pm, Rick Jones wrote:
Eric Chomko 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.


Amazing isn't it!

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.

) 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.

--
djb@ | 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.

Dan Birchall wrote:
) 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.

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...

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.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"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. ;-)


I've spent countless hours under that stars with my old
Meade 10" scope. But nothing came close to the first
time I looked at the Large Magellenic Cloud at night
at 37,000 feet. Unlike on the ground, at altitude you
could see the colors as if it were a long exposure.
The cloud was bright red, which gave you some
depth perception. I could actually tell which stars
were inside or in front of the cloud. It was the most
spectacular view of the sky I've ever seen.

From orbit, the night sky must be as colorful as it is
awe inspiring




Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Jeff Findley wrote:
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.

Same here; the view is magnificent, particularly approaching a major
city at night which looks like you are flying over a galaxy.

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.

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