View Single Post
  #12  
Old December 4th 17, 03:45 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Tourist flights

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

"Alain Fournier" wrote in message news

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.


I fully expect that within 6-8 years.

BUT, this discussion was in the context of what to do with the tourists
that
apparently will be flying to the ISS.

NASA would ideally like to keep them out of the way. So a full size
Bigelow
module a few windows a little privacy, and they're all set.


This would actually be a great way to manage it. A single B330 would
allow almost doubling the crew of ISS from 6+1 to 12+1 and increase
pressurized volume of the station by around 35%. The module contains
all the support required for a crew of 6, so the only additional drain
on station resources would be for the additional supplies required. A
commercial provider could simply build that cost into the price of the
tourist 'ticket' and bring up the extra supplies on its own money.


Yeah, and since NASA already plans on not getting much micro-g science done
during dockings and recrewing/cargo work, it's not going to impact the
science that much.

And, it gives NASA more room when tourists aren't there and an additional
shelter if something happens to an existing module.

It's pretty much a win/win all around.


All that being said, Bigelow may have gone to the Dark Side, having
made a partnership agreement with ULA.


I hadn't heard that. Interesting.




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/