Well, the first major press release for Mission: Space has been released, and personally I'm quite disappointed with it. It dwells on the fact that the experience is so "real" that it even induces nausea. Now I know this "feeling" has been experienced by some guests, and even some of us here on the forums, but there are tons who feel just fine afterwards, including myself. What also irritates me is that it is painfully obvious that the author of the article has yet to ride this attraction, since he never once mentions how "he" felt about the ride. The article does at least praise the attraction for its realism, but I don't think the title had to convey the notion that it is a "sickening" ride, unless of course they are using reverse psychology to make people think: wow, I've got to try this. Here's a copy and link to the article from Rueters, I 've taken the liberty to highlight important things 
ORLANDO (Reuters) - Walt Disney World's newest attraction, which opened on Thursday, cost $100 million to build and delivers a remarkable simulation of a rocket launch and spacecraft landing, right down to the nausea and brief moment of weightlessness.
Mission: Space even has its own national television ad campaign, the first time Disney Corp. has done that for a single attraction, the company said. It could easily be the most expensive single attraction ever to open .
It is also part of a trend that finds major theme parks spending like never before on new attractions. Expansion has always been part of the business -- you can't bring 'em back if you don't offer something new -- but the money being spent now is especially noteworthy since park gates have never recovered from the economic and security traumas of 2001.
Vivendi's Universal Studios Orlando is dropping $100 million on three new rides based on Universal movie franchises -- The Mummy, Shrek and Jimmy Neutron -- and Disney plans to spend $75 million at its Disneyland park in Anaheim, California, on a Twilight Zone Tower of Terror.
The days when theme parks were giant cash cows driving profits for the corporations that owned them are over, and so are the days when parks had to compete only with one another.
Now, theme parks have to compete against summer movie blockbusters, video game releases or anything with a big opening, said Brad Rix, Disney's vice president for Epcot, one of four parks at Disney World and the one hosting Mission: Space.
"We've had to get a lot more sophisticated," Rix said. "When you get on Mission: Space, you get a physical experience that can't be simulated by a video game or summer movie. That's what we have to deliver."
Mission: Space really is a giant leap beyond the dark-room rides and merry-go-rounds that were for years the staple of theme parks. The technology is the same used to train NASA (news - web sites) astronauts at the Johnson Space Center in Houston.
A centrifuge delivers more than two Gs of force during the simulated liftoff, pinning guests deep into their seats while space views are projected through the windows of the simulated flight deck.
"It felt very familiar," said NASA astronaut Dan Barry, who was on hand for the opening. "And just like the sims (simulators) we use to train, it's never a perfectly smooth ride."
More than a few tourists had another experience familiar to many astronauts: Their first ride left them more than a little queasy. At one point, Disney workers had to send for more towels to clean the floor.
ORLANDO (Reuters) - Walt Disney World's newest attraction, which opened on Thursday, cost $100 million to build and delivers a remarkable simulation of a rocket launch and spacecraft landing, right down to the nausea and brief moment of weightlessness.
Mission: Space even has its own national television ad campaign, the first time Disney Corp. has done that for a single attraction, the company said. It could easily be the most expensive single attraction ever to open .
It is also part of a trend that finds major theme parks spending like never before on new attractions. Expansion has always been part of the business -- you can't bring 'em back if you don't offer something new -- but the money being spent now is especially noteworthy since park gates have never recovered from the economic and security traumas of 2001.
Vivendi's Universal Studios Orlando is dropping $100 million on three new rides based on Universal movie franchises -- The Mummy, Shrek and Jimmy Neutron -- and Disney plans to spend $75 million at its Disneyland park in Anaheim, California, on a Twilight Zone Tower of Terror.
The days when theme parks were giant cash cows driving profits for the corporations that owned them are over, and so are the days when parks had to compete only with one another.
Now, theme parks have to compete against summer movie blockbusters, video game releases or anything with a big opening, said Brad Rix, Disney's vice president for Epcot, one of four parks at Disney World and the one hosting Mission: Space.
"We've had to get a lot more sophisticated," Rix said. "When you get on Mission: Space, you get a physical experience that can't be simulated by a video game or summer movie. That's what we have to deliver."
Mission: Space really is a giant leap beyond the dark-room rides and merry-go-rounds that were for years the staple of theme parks. The technology is the same used to train NASA (news - web sites) astronauts at the Johnson Space Center in Houston.
A centrifuge delivers more than two Gs of force during the simulated liftoff, pinning guests deep into their seats while space views are projected through the windows of the simulated flight deck.
"It felt very familiar," said NASA astronaut Dan Barry, who was on hand for the opening. "And just like the sims (simulators) we use to train, it's never a perfectly smooth ride."
More than a few tourists had another experience familiar to many astronauts: Their first ride left them more than a little queasy. At one point, Disney workers had to send for more towels to clean the floor.
Oh well. Its advertising MS, and for many, when there hear about this, only makes them wanna ride it even more badly
