View Single Post
  #9  
Old December 3rd 17, 11:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Tourist flights

Alain Fournier wrote:

Le Dec/3/2017 à 6:34 AM, Fred J. McCall a écrit*:
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

I wanted to follow up with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CST-100_Starliner I was reading this
earlier
tonight and came across

"As of 2014, the CST-100 was to include one space tourist seat, and
the
Boeing contract with NASA allows Boeing to price and sell passage to
low-Earth orbit on that seat."

and

"Part of the agreement with NASA allows Boeing to sell seats for space
tourists. Boeing proposed including one seat per flight for a space
flight
participant at a price that would be competitive with what Roscosmos
charges
tourists.[32]"

This leads to:
https://www.reuters.com/article/boei...0RI2XY20140917


Makes sense, and I'm all for it. If NASA doesn't need the seat, why not
let the commercial crew provider sell the seat to someone else?


Does SpaceX also get this deal or just Boeing? Since Dragon V2 can be
configured to carry up to seven people, just what would allowing
'spare' seats to be sold to tourists mean?

You'd think the deal would (eventually) apply to both suppliers. I
don't see how NASA could allow Boeing to do this yet deny SpaceX the
same deal if they requested it.


I haven't seen anything about SpaceX other than they may fly with fewer than
7 simply for more upmass payload.


What I recall reading was that NASA was going to impose a four seat
maximum on any flights for NASA, regardless of what the vehicle COULD
do.


But it does open the question and changes my mind. It does appear NASA has
accepted the concept of tourists visiting ISS again.


But only one and only if one of their pet contractors (Boeing)
delivers them.


(which means time to add another Bigelow module ;-)


What they have now isn't a real Bigelow module; it's a closet being
used for testing. Time to add a REAL Bigelow module.


I'm not quite sure about that. It's only the word "add" that I'm not
sure about. Wouldn't it be better to have a Bigelow module independent
from ISS? You know, a space-hotel. So long as it's a module attached
to ISS, you will have space agencies from multiple countries arguing
about what is permissible to do in the module.

A real Bigelow module attached at ISS would be nice. But I think that
an independent space-hotel would be better.


Sure, but a stand-alone hotel requires a lot more than just attaching
a B330 module to ISS would. You'd need a 'hard' module that included
docking ports and propulsion, for example. The B330 was apparently
redesigned so that it is independent insofar as power and life support
go, so you don't need a separate module/power buss for that anymore.

Start small. Stick a full sized module up there to replace BEAM and
see how it does.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw