Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

edition.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#31

Post by JPLeRouzic »

Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #29
JPLeRouzic wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your link about a NASA administrator saying "the shuttle was a mistake". As someone who was a pre-teen during the Apollo area, this warms my heart. However, even is Saturn V was an extraordinary engineering feat, to explore space we needed something much less expensive, much less polluting, much more secure. Perhaps SpaceX fills better this niche, but I hope that we simply become a space species with most…

> much less polluting Isn't the SpaceX Merlin a fuel-rich RP-1 engine too, just like the Rocketdyne F-1? Or is it another source of pollution that you have in mind?

RP-1 is much less toxic than Hydrazine, but toxicity is not the same thing than pollution. One is qualitative, the other both qualitative and quantitative. Burning a huge amount of kerosene is polluting. For comparison a Boeing 747 (4 engines) consume 2,8 kg per second, while a Saturn V 1 first stage burns 13,600 kg per second, nearly 5000 times the amount of the Boeing 747.

I hope for a breakthrough in rocket engines, but I am quite sure it will not happen. We need something new.

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#32

Post by dukoid »

BelenusMordred wrote: post #27
dr_dshiv wrote: post #21

Moon is the spot for tourists. It's only a day a way! But, the real money maker on the moon is televised sports. Moonball is going to be awesome to watch.

Low Earth Orbit training for athletes in 2G will be a thing once it's cheap enough. They'll come back to earth absurdly strong.

Wouldn't it be straightforward to produce 2G on earth in a rotating ring (combining forces similar to superelevation in rail tracks)?

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#33

Post by JPLeRouzic »

nasmorn wrote: post #22
JPLeRouzic wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your link about a NASA administrator saying "the shuttle was a mistake". As someone who was a pre-teen during the Apollo area, this warms my heart. However, even is Saturn V was an extraordinary engineering feat, to explore space we needed something much less expensive, much less polluting, much more secure. Perhaps SpaceX fills better this niche, but I hope that we simply become a space species with most…

Why would we ever put most people in orbit? Of the sun sure but then it is just called a planet.

Hilton's plan was for an hotel in orbit. It's a nice idea, but it means it would have been for a short stay, assuming some space tourism.

It would be better if we have several good reasons to stay permanently in orbit.

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#34

Post by helsinkiandrew »

hutrdvnj wrote: post #23
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is possible, perhaps even 10 or 20 years ago, But it isn't economically feasible. You could build or refurbish the ISS into something that looked a Japanese capsule hotel 'fairly cheaply', but getting there still costs millions, we are thousands or 10s of thousands of spacecraft away from making them cheap to produce and run. Hotels on earth aren't exactly money spinners and apart from the zero gravity and looking…

And we need a transportation that is much more economical than rockets, otherwise it will always be very costly to lift a kilogram into space.

Actually rocket fuel although very old fashioned doesn't seem that costly.

Falcon 9 flight to LEO costs $200K in fuel but can lift 22,800Kg. If a person and their seat could be squeezed into 200Kg that's only $2K per person. I think the biggest cost is that the forces and extremes of temperature mean the 'rocket' needs to be engineered and maintained very well as any small failure is likely to be catastrophic - its very hard to abandon ship or divert to the the nearest airport.

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#35

Post by zizee »

hutrdvnj wrote: post #23
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is possible, perhaps even 10 or 20 years ago, But it isn't economically feasible. You could build or refurbish the ISS into something that looked a Japanese capsule hotel 'fairly cheaply', but getting there still costs millions, we are thousands or 10s of thousands of spacecraft away from making them cheap to produce and run. Hotels on earth aren't exactly money spinners and apart from the zero gravity and looking…

And we need a transportation that is much more economical than rockets, otherwise it will always be very costly to lift a kilogram into space.

Rockets aren't inherently expensive. Air travel would also be prohibitively expensive if the aircraft was disposed of at the end of each flight.

If SpaceX's Starship plans come to fruition, the $/kg to orbit cost will fall dramatically.

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#36

Post by someperson »

Another billionaire hotel operator, Robert Bigelow (owner of Budget Suites of America) has his own space hotel ambitions with Bigelow Aerospace.

They licensed and further developed NASA's inflatable habitat technology. They actual have a module on the International Space Station right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Expandable_Activity_Mo...

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#37

Post by cm2187 »

hutrdvnj wrote: post #23
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is possible, perhaps even 10 or 20 years ago, But it isn't economically feasible. You could build or refurbish the ISS into something that looked a Japanese capsule hotel 'fairly cheaply', but getting there still costs millions, we are thousands or 10s of thousands of spacecraft away from making them cheap to produce and run. Hotels on earth aren't exactly money spinners and apart from the zero gravity and looking…

And we need a transportation that is much more economical than rockets, otherwise it will always be very costly to lift a kilogram into space.

Not to talk about the environmental impact!

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#38

Post by Tabular-Iceberg »

JPLeRouzic wrote: post #31
Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> much less polluting Isn't the SpaceX Merlin a fuel-rich RP-1 engine too, just like the Rocketdyne F-1? Or is it another source of pollution that you have in mind?

RP-1 is much less toxic than Hydrazine, but toxicity is not the same thing than pollution. One is qualitative, the other both qualitative and quantitative. Burning a huge amount of kerosene is polluting. For comparison a Boeing 747 (4 engines) consume 2,8 kg per second, while a Saturn V 1 first stage burns 13,600 kg per second, nearly 5000 times the amount of the Boeing 747. I hope for a breakthrough in rocket engine…

Yes, but the Merlin engine doesn’t burn hydrazine, it burns RP-1 just like the F-1. I fail to see the environmental benefit.

Also, how energy efficient is the production of hydrazine? Non-fossil processes for making fuels tend to be pretty wasteful, take hydrogen from methane compared to hydrogen from electrolysis for instance.

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#39

Post by amelius »

lordnacho wrote: post #14
aphroz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who are saying that is not possible and that it does not make sense economically speaking have won. We are now in hands of managers, not dreamers.

Bureaucrats, not engineers. The difference being that bureaucrats are there to pour glue over something to stabilise it, whereas engineers are meant to try new things.

I'd say the difference managers vs dreamers is better. Musk is a dreamer. He is not really an engineer.

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#40

Post by oldgradstudent »

lordnacho wrote: post #17
MicahKV wrote: post #2

I don't see the bizarre part. Wikipedia says Barron was born in 1927 when we were still figuring out the basics of aviation, and just a few decades later he was making these plans in the midst of the space race. Considering the rate of progress he had witnessed in his time, it's not very surprising that he expected us to aggressively colonize space in his lifetime. Maybe I have overly romanticized notions of what cou…

Yeah there's nothing bizarre about it. Moore's law could as well be applied to space travel, why shouldn't you expect that a field that was new would reduce costs exponentially over the next few decades? Turned out to hit a wall but there were reasons to be optimistic at the time. And the demand side of that business is still there. Who wouldn't book a hotel in space for a few days if the price came down to an annual…

Why would you expect a Moore's law in a new field?

Gordon Moore only stated his thesis almost two decades after the start of the semiconductor era.

It was an empirical observation based on the history of integrated circuits.

Why would you assume a Moore's law in fields that have never shown anything resembling Moore's law?

Post reply on HN