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…
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.
Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel
51–60 of 77 posts
Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#53Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel
#54Earlier 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.
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…
The economic issues are more about how space flight has been funded than the underlying physics. The space shuttle for example had some terrible tradeoffs relating to which orbits it could achieve and needing to return cargo etc. SpaceX has dramatically lowered the cost to orbit, but they don’t have the funds to explore dramatically different designs.
Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
SpaceX’s starship and superheavy are planned to use Methane rather than RP-1. The exhaust is much cleaner. It’s not as clean as just using Hydrogen, but that’s quite difficult to store at cryogenic temperatures, far less dense, and not as suited to long duration missions.
Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel
#56Moon 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.
Who else is in the Moonball league? Other Moon teams?
Then, there will be the dirt biking on the moon dunes, which will also be gnarly.
Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel
#57It's only now that we have some commercial companies making serious attempts to make space travel more cost effective that we are contemplating going there again. A commercial hotel starts making a lot of sense as soon as you have wealthy tourists going up there or highly skilled people traveling there for "work" that have Ph. Ds, rich employers, etc. Classic target audience for hotels. They'll want comfy accommodation, nice food & beverages, etc. Still a great business plan as soon as somebody figures out how to get stuff up there cost effectively. Millionaires are lining up to visit ISS. E.g. Tom Cruise is going there apparently. But ISS is not a hotel of course. It also lacks a lot of things that people might want to pay for. Like toilets you don't have to share with others, privacy, air that isn't foul smelling (a big thing apparently), etc.
Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX’s starship and superheavy are planned to use Methane rather than RP-1. The exhaust is much cleaner. It’s not as clean as just using Hydrogen, but that’s quite difficult to store at cryogenic temperatures, far less dense, and not as suited to long duration missions.
Yes, this is the whole reason they designed Raptor and get methane via the Sabatier reaction [1]. If you want to get back from Mars, you won't find tanks of RP-1 but you can make methane from abumdant CO2 and water (with solar arrays) which is available on Mars [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is the whole reason they designed Raptor and get methane via the Sabatier reaction [1]. If you want to get back from Mars, you won't find tanks of RP-1 but you can make methane from abumdant CO2 and water (with solar arrays) which is available on Mars [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
Could it be used to could make cars based on hydrogen which while thermal, would be also without net carbon emission, isn't?
Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel
#60Moon 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.