Bet 27
By the year 2020, the tickets to space travel - at the least to Moon, will be available over the counter.
Prediction 27
Duration 18 years (02002-02020)
Predictor
Hemant Sharma
Challenger
TBA
Add your voice to a conversation with the bettors:
Bookmark this bet, and share it with friends:
Twinkle twinkle little star. How I wonder what you are! Man has always yearned to know about and reach out to stars. So when Neil Armstrong took those famous steps on moon in the '60s, it was indeed a giant leap for mankind. In the decades since then, technology, particularly the microtechnology, has taken gaint strides itself. The next two decades will see man master the critical nano and biotechnology needed to make space travel possible and affordable for all humans. Extrapolating the progress of the last five decades, I'm positive that the know how will be with us to enable any one willing to travel to the moon with minimum resources. One would be able to go out and buy a ticket on a space cruise the way you buy air tickets to San Francisco today.
Sign in to challenge Hemant Sharma to a bet on this prediction!
By the year 2020, the tickets to space travel - at the least to Moon, will be available over the counter.
The current state of low cost high reliability RE USABLE space flight options is so pathetic it defies belief.Progress has been made in so many technologies over the last 40 years and yet the intractable problems of human transit in space are still being worked on in labs and on peices of paper instead of sending anything out there. The physics space travel now a days seem too difficult and too costly to be politically viable.
Humans even touching the moon, let alone taking a romantic long weekend break there is unfortunately not going to happen.
I will happily give anyone 10 quid if they can prove me wrong...... Oh and also 1 return ticket please.
I'll raise the last poster's bet - I'm happy to put up $30 (Australian) that there won't be a manned lunar landing by the year 2020.
The only major player here is NASA, and they simply aren't trying very hard in this regard - they have other priorities, and their response to Denis Tito (the millionaire who had a trip to the ISS) shows that the very idea of commercialisation somehow offends them.
What we need is a visionary a la Don Harriman (and if you haven't read Heinlein's 'The Man Who Sold the Moon' you should) who realises that the massive commercial potential in space, and puts the investment in needed to get there. But I don't see it happening in the near future, sadly enough.
Robert
(All my own opinion, nothing to do with my employer)
The problem isn't so much political, or even cost. The main hinge that is hindering comercial space flight is the physical stresses involved. Not only on the equitment, but on the people. Airlines routinly deny passage on their aircraft because of physcial heal issues, it's not pretty to see a pregnant women give birth on an airplane...
The physical stress impossed on a human body during acceleration is tremendous. And only people in good physical condition can be expected to survive the process unharmed. Unfortunatly, most people aren't in good physical condition.
Also, you should be aware that there are, to my knowledge, 4 "companies" trying to make this happen. Space flight I mean. One of them is predicting operational "low orbit space tours" by the year 2005. I hope it happens. Better hit the gym.
Unfortunately no – at least if you mean physically going there. Virtual trips via timeshared remote rovers may well be very popular; but humans are very expensive to maintain in space. The current price for space tourism seems to be $20 million. The price would have to drop to $10,000 or so ( roughly the current price for a cruise to the Antarctic) to have enough demand for OTC tickets. This is a drop in price of a factor of 1000 in 18 years. Even PC/electronic prices are only dropping by a factor of 10 every 5 years and they have geometry on their side. Now if you could just shrink a human by a factor of 1000 then it might well be possible.
I am very tempted to match the wager since this bet seems virtually impossible in the specified timeframe. Having tickets OTC would imply that there is a vacation/leisure infrastructure on the moon. We don't even have a functional space station!
I hope you do step up to the bet.
You need to use your true name, rather than an abreviation, to make a Long Bet.
I am unclear about the phrasing of the bet. The first part "tickets to space travel" could include currently planned hypersonic flights to the extreme upper atmosphere, while the second seems to imply it must be to a body other than the earth. Is the distance to the moon a limiting factor? What about orbiting stations? These will be much closer to the earth than the moon. In anything other than upper atmosphere flights, there is no way you can lose if you take this bet. I would take it in an instant if I had $1500 for charity.
Are you kidding me? People live on earth. The moon is for aliens.
This is almost the only bet that I feel I can bet against (I agree with almost all others). Through I see great advances to come to computing/ robotics/ genetics in the next 18 years I don't see the flight to the moon over the counter there.
In order for us to freely travel to the moon many new technological advances would have to appear. For example we would have to use totally new propulsion system - one that is cheap to build and use and is at the same time safe and powerful. the only thing that comes to my mind right now is a fusion based engine, perhabs a modified electric engine. Electric engines are in their infancy and we don't have fusion yet. Even if we had it overnight we still need to test it out, build (first design) engine that uses it, then some more tests then build experimental space ship used first for scientific/ military purposes and then for commercial ones. Its not over there -- we still would need the commercial price to drop a lot in order for the ticket to be sold over the counter (many people would want to go -- need many ships (need to build them)). Thus for 18 years that is very, very tight schedule which I think is not too probable, I would say 1:100 odds.
See http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=5d3d12e8.0206061229.4475ad42@posting.google.com&lr=&hl=en
Partial Quote "FWIW My company now offers trips to the moon's surface and return to Earth to anyone who wants them. I have a sketch of the vehicle available to anyone who asks for it - I'll send you a jpeg by email.
To reserve a lunar trip (starting in fall 2007) merely desposit $60 million into an escrow account I have established for that purpose.
Seats are assigned on a first come first served basis."
The original poster might want to re-phrase the bet.
Or, the bet might have a taker in Paul Blay...
as opposed to the summary at the top of the thread.
"One would be able to go out and buy a ticket on a space cruise the way you buy air tickets to San Francisco today."
this is rather more difficult to meet than
"tickets to the moon will be available over the counter"
as the former has the strong implication that such flights _are taking place_ while the latter only states that tickets are available (As is already the case).
I happen to work in the space industry (although I'm no rocket scientist) and I am certain that 2020** is too soon for such to be correct. However I'm not really interested in taking a bet that is such a 'sure thing'. I'm not willing to wait up to 18 years to say 'well, gee what a surprise - no moon flights'.
* As I should have done in the first place :-P
** I think there is a fair chance that the next manned trip to the moon of any sort will not take place before 2030***. A paid for flight to the moon I'd _guess_ as >2050.
*** As part of my work I keep track of planned future space missions up to around about 2015, and I don't believe that 'nanotech' is going to work that well, in that area, that fast.
I have been offering trips to Mars for 4 years already. See my site at: http://www.androidpubs.com/
Sure, however there is a strong implication in the main bet text that flights need to actually be already taking place. Unless this is cleared up as _not_ needing to be the case I think there is little hope for a yes vote.
Thing is, there is nothing on the Moon that can be dug up and brought back to make a profit, so sustainable travel to the Moon just won't happen. Same with Mars, same with the rest of the solar system and beyond. We had the technology for a moonbase since 1969 and haven't built one not because technology is lacking but because it was recognized that there just wasn't anything on the Moon worth having.
"Thing is, there is nothing on the Moon that can be dug up and brought back to make a profit"
True
"so sustainable travel to the Moon just won't happen"
Not necessarily.
It's not the raw materials being brought back that (may) make trips to the Moon[1] common[2]. It's what can take place on the Moon that (may) make trips to the Moon common.
Self sustaining existance off Earth is theoretically possible. Therefore it is theoretically possible that some culture will make the long term effort to bring this about. Given humanity off-Earth and on-Earth at the same time, some degree of transport between is inevitable. However that is not to say that the time limit of this bet will be met.
[1] Or popular off-Earth destination of your choice.
[2] Dubious speculation about Deuterium to one side.
"there is nothing on the Moon that can be dug up and brought back to make a profit, so sustainable travel to the Moon just won't happen"
Bringing stuff back for profit isn't where the value lies. Using the resources that are there will be a huge boon to the space industry. They have found that there is quite a lot of ice on the moon in the permanently dark areas. This ice can be processed to produce hydrogen for rocket fuel. Being able to refuel on the moon (or better yet, at a space station supplied by hydrogen from the moon) gives our vehicles a vastly greater range than if they have to carry all of their fuel out of the Earth's atmosphere.
A rocket planning to land on Mars with humans aboard will need enough fuel to leave Mars and return to Earth. That more than doubles the required fuel capacity of such a mission. (MORE than doubles because the fuel needed for a safe landing on Mars.) But, if you refuel your vehicle and also take along a fuel container to park in Mars orbit, then you have enough for a safe landing. Then, after the takeoff for the return trip you can refuel from your container in Mars orbit and head back to Earth.
This sounds exotic, but is a much cheaper way to go than to lift humongous amount of fuel out of the Earth's atmosphere.
With all the above being the case, support trips to and from the moon will become routine for those who work at the hydrogen plants. And when such trips are routine, there will be public interest in tagging along. Since most of this will be done by provate enterprise instead of NASA, the hydrogen companies will happily take people's money provided they are fit enough to survive the trip.
With all that said, an OTC ticket by 2020 is unrealistic. By 2020 they will start building hydrogen plants on the moon. By 2030 rich people will be able to go in the same ways that they can today go to orbit. By 2040 or 2050 the OTC tickets will become available. And I'll be too old to go.
Wayne Zeller
I think it would be overly optimistic to expect a transportation revolution of this magnitude within a time span of less than two decades, especially when you consider how little the world of commercial aviation has changed in recent years.
Apart from a few scattered experimental vehicles still years away from development, the most advanced commercial plane you can fly in is the Concorde and the most advanced spaceship you can ride into orbit is the Space Shuttle. Both of these were in widespread use before 1984 (18 years ago) and both have remained virtually unchanged in that time. Is it really reasonable to expect that in that same span of time aerospace firms will implement mass transit to other bodies of the solar system?
Im am certainly a believer that cheap spaceflight will be here before 2020. Many people say, "Hey, no way. Look at where we are now!" All I have to say is that money is an unnecessary barrier that exists in our world today. If anything, we all have to work together to remove this from our society. It is so very hard for me to grasp the subject on how a rich kid from California gets to go to space because he thought it would be a cool thing to do. What about the poor young man in South Africa who has dreamt about going to space for his entire life? Just because he does not have the money to buy his way into space, knowledge is restricted to him, and also to a vast majority of us. It is this key concept that I feel drives our motivation to find an affordable way to reach space. The purpose is not to start a lucrative business or to advance in our technology. The sole purpose, as I see it, is to open up the cosmos for all to enjoy and study. I am probably not the only one who feels this way and this works to build a strong basis for our technological development. These are my beliefs. But then again, what do I know? Im just a high-school student.
Quote "I am certainly a believer that cheap spaceflight will be here before 2020."
However you say nothing as to how cheap spaceflight will be developed. Money (or lack of it) may be a 'barrier' but it isn't one likely to disappear in the next 18 years.
If youre so sure, then just take the bet. Don't say 'I don't have the money', because if you think you're absolutely correct then you have nothing to lose.
And if _you_ actually read the terms of the LongBet organisation you'd realize that you put up the money _first_ and the charity gets it when the bet is settled.
Well, I too believe that in the next century people will begin to travel around Solar system. It is prediction many have made, Japanese (who are well known by their long term planning) plan to open first space hotel in the year 2042. Well... that is their estimate. Space tourism, if it is to come about, is going to accelerate the exploration of space, since there are a lot of people who would be willing (and able) to pay 10.000, or 100.000 $ for a trip like this. We can say that this era has already begun, with few space tourists and tickets - well, just 20 million $. Of course, that is not an industry, and it is good only for popularization purposes (and to feed the starving Russian space budget).
I strongly doubt, however, that anything like the mass space tourism (at prices of order 100.000$) will become a reality by 2020. The space industry is, as far as I know, the one where people plan well in advance, say 10 or even 15 years at least for the tentative plans. There is nothing to indicate that space tourism could develop so soon. The Moon becomes interesting again, and China plans to go there by 2015. In the next 10 years, noone will seriously consider space tourism, or comercial use of Moon. The price per kg of launching (for satelites) currently is arround 20.000 $, and is unlikely to fall below 5.000$ in the next 10-15 years. The new space race with China, EU and Japan becoming players in the game, will probably put this price down and something as commercial use of Moon can come only AFTER preliminary landings for research purposes. There is a cheap experimental SMART 1 module by EU, which is to be launched next year, and which is going to examine Moon's south pole (among other things) where there is suspected frozen water, and also a mountain which is 90% of the time on the sunny side, and makes an ideal place for a colony. So, the preliminary steps are there, but it will take at least 2 decades from now for these preliminary steps to take place, before people start going to Moon more frequently and it starts to comercialize. Once it does comercialize, industry will I suspect grow rapidly, and the price will fall down. But give it at least 30 years.
"There is a cheap experimental SMART 1 module by EU, which is to be launched next year, and which is going to examine Moon's south pole (among other things) where there is suspected frozen water, and also a mountain which is 90% of the time on the sunny side, and makes an ideal place for a colony."
A lunar mountain nearly always sunny! I hadn't heard of it before. It certainly does sound like a tourist destination, along with its potential practicalities.
"Extrapolating the progress of the last five decades, I'm positive that the know how will be with us to enable any one willing to travel to the moon with minimum resources. One would be able to go out and buy a ticket on a space cruise the way you buy air tickets to San Francisco today."
The first sentence is likely patently false. Minimum resources??? No way, not before 2020! Not before 3000! The wording of this bet precludes serious "no" takers. Hence "no takers".
Just out of curiousity, and correct me if I am mistaken, didn't Pan Am offer eventual flights to the moon after Armstrong's moon landing? That was, what, 40 years ago? Look where Pan Am is now. I'm not entirely sure that regular space flights to the moon are going to be something happening that soon. Now, not unlike Pan Am, you might be able to buy tickets for a "lunar cruise" again, but I would doubt if it would be anything more than a novelty.
The Columbia explosion will set us back a couple years, but with the time table of this bet it may not have a major impact. I think the biggest variable in the equation is funding. If NASA can get and keep people interested in space and get better funding, I think that going on a lunar vacation for under $10,000 per person (in 2003 dollars) might be possible. I didn't crunch numbers to come up with this number. It's just a guess.
Another variable will be how commercially exploitable the moon is. If we find that there is gold in them thar' hills, or something else of high value, mining ventures might bring down the cost, if you are willing to sit in a room next to excavation equipment.
I'm amazed that so few people support this prediction. Chartered space flights (effectively) are already available to those to whom money is no object. Seventeen years is a long time. How long did it take for computers to go from something astronomically expensive, that only governments and big corporations could afford, to something that anyone with a bit of disposable income can buy over the counter?
Demand is the key, and the demand is there. Governments may have no particular plans to return to the moon in the near future, but for many people it will always be a dream. Once the price drops to say 5 figures, they will be queueing up for tickets.
Russell E. Clarke said, in part: How long did it take for computers to go from something astronomically expensive, that only governments and big corporations could afford, to something that anyone with a bit of disposable income can buy over the counter?
In a relevant sense, maybe twelve years? But manned spaceflight to the moon started around the same time as powerful business computers became something of an industry standard. It's now roughly twenty-five years later. Computers are everywhere; human travel to the moon is nowhere.
To me, this suggests that these are not terribly comparable. There are certainly huge financial considerations with human travel to the moon, but there are also major legal and technological obstacles.
Right now, the X Prize hasn't even been claimed. Regardless of whether there's a market for such voyages, I could easily believe it'll be another ten years before a private company even sends a test craft (for passenger travel) to the moon.
Two $20 million Soyuz seats await space tourists
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/06/18/space/index.html
The commercial use of Russian space vehicles raises an interesting point, namely that companies wishing to commercialize space can sometimes operate outside of US liability laws by operating outside the US.
That could, potentially, speed up the advent of commercial flights to the moon. I still think 2020 is optimistic, though.
I'm going to date myself and answer the PanAm question:
Yes, PanAm DID sell "tickets" for an eventual lunar flight - as part of a product placement tie-in for "2001: a Space Odyssey" (and that was BEFORE Apollo 11).
Fans of the movie will recall that both the Earth-to-orbit ship and the space station-to-Moon lander shuttle were in PanAm livery (actually, I don't think that the lander had PanAm markings, but the stews on board were in PanAm uniforms).
PanAm's trouble, though, was unconnected with the Moon tickets - commercial aviation is just a risky business, as investors in Eastern, Braniff, and a number of other former airlines can attest.
Right now, just getting into orbit costs $5000 US a pound - and THAT's using NASA's economic models. It costs a deal more than that to get a whole human being into orbit - the canny Russian space program has pioneered space tourism by sending anyone into orbit with $20 million US to spend.
Doubtless, these figures could be improved on.
Doubtless, they won't be until there's a reason why.
We knew how (theoretically) to fly people around the world for tourism and business before World War II. However, passenger aviation was more of a curiosity than a economic fact of life before
- military experience in building multi-engine transports with high operating ceilings and high payloads;
- development of working jet engines - which allowed planes to fly higher and faster, and burn less fuel;
- World War II and the Cold War led to a whole new state of the art in aeronautical engineering and air logistics.
Getting from Soyuz/Shuttle technology to technology capable of not only getting tourists to the Moon but making a profit on the way to and back will require a huge infusion of cash and inventive energy unlikely to happen short of a protracted war - unfortunately, another World War is likely the only way of getting there from here.
Emigration is one of those unlikely ways that COULD work.
Freeman Dyson (in an interview for Kenneth Brower's "The Starship and the Canoe") pointed out that sailing across the Atlantic in the 1600s was similar economically to modern-day space travel - something done by national militaries and large commercial ventures for strategic military and mercantile reasons.
The great ideological issue riving Western Civilization then was Protestantism versus Catholicism. England in particular was ripsawed between Anglican, Catholic and Puritan political parties, eventually suffering civil wars
and great waves of political persecution.
People of unpopular religious persuasions began to look westward - at exactly the same time as wealthy investors began to wonder what profits might be made from plantations that worked land not already subject to rents from the nobility, worked by those who were more than anxious to live anywhere where they might worship God as they saw fit. And that's how the Plymouth Colony and those that came afterward came to be.
Emigration to the Moon might happen along those lines - say that China ceased trying to accommodate itself to capitalism, and that there were no other countries willing to receive yet another wave of Chinese refugees. Capitalists able to see the axe beginning to fall on their necks might be able to work out a way to get into space and bring enough capital with them in the way of closed loop life support, power generation - and production facilities - to become the nucleus of space's first permanent resident population.
They might not get to the Moon all at once - generations might grow up in Earth orbit - but if they were able to make enough money, emigrants into space might make a lunar colony happen.
Once they got there, they could make any number of things $5000 a pound more cheaply than they could be sent up from Earth.
"A couple of generations" means anything from 32 to 50 years. Sorry, but the most plausible scenario (to me, anyway) for anyone wanting to visit the Moon won't happen by 2020.
Mark Wojcik said:
"Russell E. Clarke said, in part: How long did it take for computers to go from something astronomically expensive, that only governments and big corporations could afford, to something that anyone with a bit of disposable income can buy over the counter?"
In a relevant sense, maybe twelve years? "
Hmmmm... quoting (paraphrasing for clarity only) from
http://icarus.brainerd.net/~kuck/history/mainfram.html
"UNIVAC -
Because of financial problems, (John) Mauchly and (J. Presper) Eckert sold out to Remington Rand, and with Rand's substantial financial resources, they completed their first project, the UNIVAC (Universal Automatic Computer).
(John) von Neumann's "stored memory" made UNIVAC "automatic," which meant it didn't require constant monitoring by engineers, and it was this computer that was delivered to the Census Bureau in March of 1951. "
So 1951 saw the first off-the-shelf electronic computer that we would recognize as a computer - something that could be programmed with "software" rather than by patching a number of wires together in the back of the thing like an old-time telephone exchange.
It was 1974-5 before people with a little too much money left over from rent and groceries could buy their very own computers, and a year later before Radio Shack introduced the first self-contained computer system packaged to be used by people who weren't advanced electronic hobbyists. The price was $400.
So make that 23-24 years from computers being large government and corporate playthings to their being readily available for the home.
Now, heck, it's hard NOT to own at least one or two computers - we just embed them in appliances these days, because a computer-controlled appliance is cheaper, safer, more efficient and just plain easier to use than a hard-wired one.
"Russell E. Clarke said, in part: How long did it take for computers to go from something astronomically expensive, that only governments and big corporations could afford, to something that anyone with a bit of disposable income can buy over the counter? In a relevant sense, maybe twelve years? "
I think it is a mistake to draw too many parallels between the rapid development of computer technology and the evolution of space travel. After all, we've already had manned space travel for over 40 years, and it's nearly as difficult for the average person to make it into orbit today as it was back in the early '60s.
Also, compare how the two industries have developed over the last 25 years or so: The computer revolution has changed almost every aspect of our daily life. By contrast, the manned space program still hasn't developed a replacement for the space shuttle we built back in the '70s.
Well if anyone reads this anymore, its pretty clear that we will not be sending civilians to the moon any time too soon. Considering the current administration has set as its goal the year 2020 just to put another astronaut on the moon, its all we can hope that they even make that deadline. What you have forgotten is that unlike the evolution of personal computers, space travel (for the time being) is run by the government, which is not known for moving quickly (with the exception of military developments). Anyways, without any settlement there would not be much to do up there anyways other than bounce around. I would guess a small number of trips for the very wealthy may become available by 2040 if there is authorization for private space shuttle companies, or if there is a government that really needs the money/publicity.
This prediction will not be happening in this short length of time. We haven't even sent that much poeple to the moon! Sending un-trained poeple is a huge risk, with safety AND monetary (money) issues. If anyone thinks this will happen, talk to NASA!
this is not going to happen at all, because if we haven't sent that many space ships to the moon. NO, THINK OF SOMETHING BETTER THEN THIS!
I totally and completely agree with you! This prediction is not VRAI (true)!!!
I agree that tickets won't be sold over the counter to go to the moon. It's happening too soon. This would be very dangerous to our economy.
True that true. this is bad.
You are SO SO SO SO SO SO right, I think we need to deal with global warming first. The only reason people should be going to the moon is for scientific tests. Maybe people should be able to fly up out of our atmosphere, but no way should they go to the moon! Can you say crazy?!?! But it is a fun idea to think of.
You guys are so right. I totally agree! Even though it would be so cool to travel to the moon!
Those tickets might be available in 2050 or later.
Try this websitehttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/27/virgin_space_flights/
1) space travel for the masses--talk about global warming...
2) given the route cuts by airlines, how will folks get to the launch pad?
3) where would a private launch pad be located???? huh?
2020? naw...2245? nope...2246 yes.
Please sign in to comment.