Blue Origin sets its price: $1.4m minimum for trip into space
- Reference: 1621495692
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/05/20/blue_origin_price/
- Source link:
Earlier this month Blue Origin [1]announced it will auction off a seat on a July 20 trip beyond the Kármán line, the 100km or 62-mile point above sea level that is a recognized boundary between Earth and space. Following a round of sealed bids, the minimum you now need to offer is $1.4m, and Blue Origin warns it's had a lot of interest.
"We’ve seen more than 5,200 bidders from 136 countries," the space rocket biz told The Register .
[2]
[3]
[4]
The final auction for one of the seats on the flight will be held on June 12. Should you win, what will you get for your money? Well, not much as it turns out.
You'll be sharing a capsule, atop a Blue Origin booster, with as many as six people – presumably that includes some folks who know how to operate the thing. The craft will be taken beyond the Kármán line whereupon the capsule will detach. After three minutes of free fall, and presumably a lot of selfies and possibly not a little vomit, the capsule will return to Earth using parachutes and landing rockets.
[5]If you're the 1% and have 10 mins to spare this July, bid for a place on first Blue Origin space tourism launch
[6]Blue Origin sends Mannequin Skywalker aloft again, testing out comfier capsule for future space tourists
[7]Not so fast, SpaceX: $3bn NASA Moon landing contract blocked by rivals' gripes
[8]I've got way too much cash, thinks Jeff Bezos. Hmmm, pay more tax? Pay staff more? Nah, let's just go into space
Free fall experience is relatively easy to come by. Commercial outfits, such as the Zero Gravity Corporation, will give you more time floating around than that offered by Blue Origin for $6,700 plus tax, albeit in short bursts. That's [9]achieved using parabolic flights to allow people, Stephen Hawking [10]included , to float around the cabin as though they were in space.
But that's not really what Blue Origin is selling. It's giving people an ultra-rare view of the Earth from high up. And, most importantly one suspects, the bragging rights to call yourself an "astronaut."
Legal niceties
And that's down to a scientific equation. The Kármán line was proposed as the border between the point where atmospheric flight is impossible and space flight begins. But there's a huge difference between that and the profession, or even the expensive hobby, of being an astronaut.
Professional astronauts are people who dedicate their lives to the quest for space. They are usually highly skilled in multiple professions – piloting craft, multiple-language proficiency, engineering, software skills, science and/or medicine. They eschew higher-paying roles that their skills could win them and wait years for the chance to get into space and do something useful in the void.
The International Space Station pioneered space tourism, where those who had enough cash could buy themselves some time in orbit, but even then visitors need three months of training before they could make the jump some way out of the gravity well and onto mankind's extraterrestrial outpost.
[11]
Blue Origin, and Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, are working on a different model. If you're the right height and weight, can get yourself in and out of a seat, then you're pretty much good to become what is technically an astronaut.
It's the equivalent of calling yourself a hunter when you sit in a covered hutch and shoot those feeding on bait, or a racing driver because you bought some track time. Let's call it what it is: space tourism.
Of course, the companies involved are careful to avoid the T word. But for all intents and purposes, it's a fairground ride for the 0.1 per cent. One wonders what good that money could do if was used to solve problems here on Earth or develop serious ways to [12]get us off this rock.
[13]
An increasingly resource-hungry world is starving in the midst of plenty. We are surrounded by resources in orbiting space rocks and planets to plunder that could solve humankind's resource problems.
Maybe space tourism will provide some of the funds to do this, but your humble vulture has his doubts. This looks more like a roller-coaster for the super-well-off, a carnival for the mega-rich. ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/06/blue_origin_passenger/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YKYzO@hZr8N663o9ekNvkQAAAM4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YKYzO@hZr8N663o9ekNvkQAAAM4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YKYzO@hZr8N663o9ekNvkQAAAM4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/06/blue_origin_passenger/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/15/blue_origin_test/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/04/nasa_moon_contract/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2018/05/03/bezos_billions_space/
[9] https://www.airzerog.com/zero-g-flights-how-it-works/
[10] https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-43430023
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YKYzO@hZr8N663o9ekNvkQAAAM4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2013/02/16/space_asteroid_impact_inevitable/
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YKYzO@hZr8N663o9ekNvkQAAAM4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: "One wonders what good that money could do"
A million seems an obscene waste because it's just one person.
Meanwhile each day millions of people "waste" 10, 30, maybe even 50 quid on funfare rides.
Just think what we could do with all the cash if only people stopped spending it on enjoying themselves...
It's not as if a million is a significant contribution to Blue Origins costs - it's just a drop in the ocean. Meanwhile (US) taxpayers hand over billions to Boeing.
Re: "One wonders what good that money could do"
Agreed. At this point in time, it may well seem to be a waste, but we should take into account the fact that, if we want space travel as a species, we want it safe, and to be safe we have to do a lot of it before making a shuttle ride the same thing as a bus ride.
I am willing to let the 0,1% fund that out of their own pockets for a change, and be the guinea pigs.
Have fun. I'll be watching the news when you go boom.
Re: "One wonders what good that money could do"
"Whilst I have some (limited) sympathy with that argument, it is probably worth remembering that aircraft started off as "toys" for the super-rich, who then put lots of money into their development."
And look at the damage they have done...
Re: "One wonders what good that money could do"
... and the benefits they have brought.
Is your main concern climate change? Yes? Good, it should be! Luckily, jet fuel is just kerosene of high purity, and it can easily be made from vegetable oil (at a slight increase in ticket price, which I am happy to pay).
p.s. I wouldn't suggest biofuels for all vehicles because that would compete with land for food. Ships can use hydrogen, cars can use batteries, trucks can use either batteries or hydrogen, aeroplanes need very high energy density with low weight which means hydrocarbons which means biofuel.
Re: "One wonders what good that money could do"
The state sponsored manned missions have been in a rut for 30 years, sending people into space to just go round and round in circles doing "science", which is largely researching the effect of zero G on people, to help the next batch of people who will go round and round in circles researching the effects of zero G for the next batch, and so on. Most of the other experiments they do not involving people could easily be automated and sent to space for far less, if it was important.
Meanwhile, we've seen amazing stuff done by unmanned probes. The mars rovers (especially the landings) and the helicopter and potential submarine missions to some solar system moons are far more interesting.
If taking $1.4m from super-rich helps develop manned space travel without government money, and maybe one day get it to the point where the development can be fully justified by private enterprise, then I am all for it.
I'd love to see people walk on Mars in my lifetime, or even a manned moonbase.... something that pushes things further. I was born as the last astronauts were walking on the moon in 72, and since then manned spaceflight has been endlessly disappointing to this kid who was promised we'd be going to the planets for our holidays.
Re: "One wonders what good that money could do"
A waste in as much at all that money comes out of the pocket of a billionaire and goes into an organisation that is doing research and employing scientists, engineers and all manner of other staff?
I see nothing wrong will Blue Origin turning billionaires upside down and shaking them a bit. A lot of Bezos' fortune, or what's flowing out of Amazon's "tax efficient" business model is also being pushed through this venture.
Re: "One wonders what good that money could do"
aircraft started off as "toys" for the super-rich, who then put lots of money into their development.
Not true.
Aviation started with enthusiast engineers who wanted to fly. The industrial success of the first aircraft companies was because of the military use and was propelled by WW1.
I wonder what an individual's carbon footprint is for that three minutes in 'space'?
That depends on how the hydrogen for the main engines is produced; it has the potential to be quite low, but...
Some approximate numbers
Blue do not publish many numbers but [1]Redditers estimated 24000kg of propellant with a mixture ratio of 5.5:1. This works out as 3692kg of hydrogen. Getting that much hydrogen from steam reformation of methane produces about 20,000kg of CO2. There are other energy costs from liquifying the propellants, training and operating a launch and recovery. There would be a much bigger cost for building the rocket and capsule but both of those get divided by an unknown number because they are reused.
An average American produces green house gasses equivalent to approximately [2]20,000kg of CO2 per year. New Shepard seats 6 (5 Tourists + 1 crew) so a ride to space is a bit more that 0.2 average American person years of CO2.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/3u8m2h/estimated_masses_and_dimensions_of_the_new/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita
Yes... and no
Whilst I agree that this is space tourism, plain and simple I do still feel there is scientific validity in some of what Virgin Galactic is (or was - I haven't checked lately) offering. One of their plans was to offer science flights where you will get 5 or 6 minutes of "high quality" weightlessness (*) with your experiment. I don't know if BO is planning on offering something similar though
If you are a scientist and you actually get to sit next to your experiment and drive it for those 6 minutes there is a _lot_ that you can get done. And for the price of flying it to the ISS and training an astronaut to use it you could buy a huge number of 6 minute VG flights...
Obviously difficult to decide if the zero-G research is useful to humanity as a whole (vs. the carbon, etc. costs of the flights) but I generally err on the side of "more research is good" and the carbon foot print of such flights is still probably tiny compared to launching stuff to the ISS.
(*) I think the "vomit comet" flights are good for training and filming space movies but I don't think they provide a stable enough zero-g to compare with the ISS environment and they will always be susceptible to aerodynamic turbulence no matter how accurately they fly the parabola. Because VG and BO will basically get out the atmosphere for those few minutes they should be able to provide something much close to "true" zero-g.
"One wonders what good that money could do"
Whilst I have some (limited) sympathy with that argument, it is probably worth remembering that aircraft started off as "toys" for the super-rich, who then put lots of money into their development.