A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tourist flights



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 4th 17, 04:06 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,350
Default Tourist flights

"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.

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


--
"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
Ads
  #12  
Old December 4th 17, 03:45 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 562
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/

  #13  
Old December 4th 17, 05:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,350
Default Tourist flights

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

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

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.


I think they did it because right now Atlas is the only booster that
can put up a B330 module and Bigelow views a partnership as cheaper
than buying launches.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/bigelow-aer...in-forces.aspx


--
"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
  #14  
Old December 4th 17, 08:50 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 562
Default Tourist flights

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

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

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

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.


I think they did it because right now Atlas is the only booster that
can put up a B330 module and Bigelow views a partnership as cheaper
than buying launches.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/bigelow-aer...in-forces.aspx



Hmm, had to look it up but yeah apparently the B330 is more massive than I
thought.
That said, does look like Falcon FT (expendable) could handle it now (the
older Falcons definitely couldn't.)

Hmm, this is unfortunate. I'll have to push back my prediction of a fully
private space hotel mission then, if simply because of the cost of the Atlas
V.



--
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/

  #15  
Old December 8th 17, 12:26 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,398
Default Tourist flights

In article ,
says...

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

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

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

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.


I think they did it because right now Atlas is the only booster that
can put up a B330 module and Bigelow views a partnership as cheaper
than buying launches.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/bigelow-aer...in-forces.aspx



Hmm, had to look it up but yeah apparently the B330 is more massive than I
thought.
That said, does look like Falcon FT (expendable) could handle it now (the
older Falcons definitely couldn't.)

Hmm, this is unfortunate. I'll have to push back my prediction of a fully
private space hotel mission then, if simply because of the cost of the Atlas
V.


Falcon Heavy test flight ought to happen early next year (hopefully
January). Couldn't Falcon Heavy put a B330 into orbit? That may not
help the first B330, but could lower the (delivered) cost of subsequent
modules.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #16  
Old December 8th 17, 09:18 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,350
Default Tourist flights

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

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

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

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

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.


I think they did it because right now Atlas is the only booster that
can put up a B330 module and Bigelow views a partnership as cheaper
than buying launches.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/bigelow-aer...in-forces.aspx



Hmm, had to look it up but yeah apparently the B330 is more massive than I
thought.
That said, does look like Falcon FT (expendable) could handle it now (the
older Falcons definitely couldn't.)

Hmm, this is unfortunate. I'll have to push back my prediction of a fully
private space hotel mission then, if simply because of the cost of the Atlas
V.


Falcon Heavy test flight ought to happen early next year (hopefully
January). Couldn't Falcon Heavy put a B330 into orbit? That may not
help the first B330, but could lower the (delivered) cost of subsequent
modules.


I don't understand why, if an Atlas V can loft it, it couldn't go up
on Delta IV Heavy or Falcon 9 FT. Both of those vehicles can lift
more than Atlas V. Payload fairing?


--
"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
  #17  
Old December 9th 17, 05:39 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,398
Default Tourist flights

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

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

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

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

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.


I think they did it because right now Atlas is the only booster that
can put up a B330 module and Bigelow views a partnership as cheaper
than buying launches.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/bigelow-aer...in-forces.aspx



Hmm, had to look it up but yeah apparently the B330 is more massive than I
thought.
That said, does look like Falcon FT (expendable) could handle it now (the
older Falcons definitely couldn't.)

Hmm, this is unfortunate. I'll have to push back my prediction of a fully
private space hotel mission then, if simply because of the cost of the Atlas
V.


Falcon Heavy test flight ought to happen early next year (hopefully
January). Couldn't Falcon Heavy put a B330 into orbit? That may not
help the first B330, but could lower the (delivered) cost of subsequent
modules.


I don't understand why, if an Atlas V can loft it, it couldn't go up
on Delta IV Heavy or Falcon 9 FT. Both of those vehicles can lift
more than Atlas V. Payload fairing?


I'm really not sure. I suppose Atlas V is the only one that can launch
it *right now* since Delta IV Heavy is far too expensive and Falcon
Heavy hasn't been flight tested yet. But, lack of a flight test hasn't
stopped customers from booking flights on Falcon Heavy, repeating the
pattern that occurred with Falcon 9. Far cheaper launches really do
motivate at least a few customers.

At any rate, if it does go up and NASA allows it to be attached to ISS,
it will no doubt result in an increased number of both commercial cargo
and commercial crew flights to ISS. That's good for the industry all
around.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #18  
Old December 10th 17, 03:47 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,350
Default Tourist flights

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

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

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

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

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.


I think they did it because right now Atlas is the only booster that
can put up a B330 module and Bigelow views a partnership as cheaper
than buying launches.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/bigelow-aer...in-forces.aspx



Hmm, had to look it up but yeah apparently the B330 is more massive than I
thought.
That said, does look like Falcon FT (expendable) could handle it now (the
older Falcons definitely couldn't.)

Hmm, this is unfortunate. I'll have to push back my prediction of a fully
private space hotel mission then, if simply because of the cost of the Atlas
V.


Falcon Heavy test flight ought to happen early next year (hopefully
January). Couldn't Falcon Heavy put a B330 into orbit? That may not
help the first B330, but could lower the (delivered) cost of subsequent
modules.


I don't understand why, if an Atlas V can loft it, it couldn't go up
on Delta IV Heavy or Falcon 9 FT. Both of those vehicles can lift
more than Atlas V. Payload fairing?


I'm really not sure. I suppose Atlas V is the only one that can launch
it *right now* since Delta IV Heavy is far too expensive and Falcon
Heavy hasn't been flight tested yet. But, lack of a flight test hasn't
stopped customers from booking flights on Falcon Heavy, repeating the
pattern that occurred with Falcon 9. Far cheaper launches really do
motivate at least a few customers.


It doesn't need to go up on Falcon Heavy. Falcon 9 Full Thrust can
lift more than Atlas V. Falcon 9 FT is the one they're currently
launching things on.


At any rate, if it does go up and NASA allows it to be attached to ISS,
it will no doubt result in an increased number of both commercial cargo
and commercial crew flights to ISS. That's good for the industry all
around.


I think they're talking about launching them as 'free flyers'. That
was a big part of the reason for the redesign that eliminated the need
for a central power hub, giving each B330 its own independent power
production and environmental control capability.


--
"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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EADS going for sub orbital tourist flights Alex Terrell Policy 19 June 28th 07 03:11 AM
Another ISS tourist Pat Flannery History 13 September 23rd 06 12:32 PM
Outlaw Space Tourist!? [email protected] Policy 12 September 22nd 06 02:57 AM
Alternate tourist selected - MT Revision Space Station 0 August 23rd 06 01:48 AM
RocketPlane claiming to start tourist flights in 2007 Joe Strout Policy 2 October 7th 04 03:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.