On Dec 18, 2:37*pm, Ian Parker wrote:
On 18 Dec, 18:55, Eric Chomko wrote:

Space tourism will have its own set of challenges with saftey. Some
idiot is simply bound to see if he can survive in a vacuum with no
equipment, that is one you can count on.- Hide quoted text -

I wasn't talking about deliberate stupidity, I was thinking about the
basic unreliability of launchers and reentry + the radiation received.
Solar flres etc.

We were told the Shuttle was going to be safe and cheap. It was
neither.

Safe and cheap compared to what? Apollo? 17 missions, 1 disaster and a
failed mission with all astronauts surviving. In my book that is 1 in
17. The shuttle has had 2 disasters, period. According to wiki,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle, the shuttle has had 120
launches. So, that is 1 in 60 vs. 1 in 17 with Apollo. The shuttle is
more safe than was Apollo.

Cost? Again, compared to what?

Folks can make all the claims about what the shuttle wasn't but have
no idea what they are talking about given that it is what it is.
Period. Can we do better? Sure, I am certain. Did some folks promise a
better performance? Again sure, but that was before we actually even
flew the thing! To act like the shuttle has been some sort of failure,
you just don;'t have any numbers to back it up. Do you think the
Russians have done better with Soyuz? If so, then please explain
how...

Eric