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
  #1  
Old December 2nd 17, 02:25 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,597
Default Tourist flights

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? In the
long run, it helps keep the commercial crew provider profitable and
successful (hey, it's the capitalist way). Presumably another country
could buy the seat for their own "astronaut", making it appear much less
like a "tourist" flight.

And before anyone gets sanctimonious about such "important" spots being
wasted on tourists, NASA used to give away "payload specialist" seats on
the space shuttle all the damn time. They often went to government
contractors, foreign dignitaries, US politicians, and even one
overweight and aging Russian cosmonaut that surely raised the eyebrows
of the NASA medical teams.

Free US Government give-aways were more egregious than paid tourists,
IMHO.

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.
Ads
  #2  
Old December 3rd 17, 01:17 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,660
Default Tourist flights

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?


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
  #3  
Old December 3rd 17, 02:17 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,597
Default Tourist flights

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.

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.
  #4  
Old December 3rd 17, 03:27 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 593
Default Tourist flights

"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.

Jeff


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

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

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


--
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/

  #5  
Old December 3rd 17, 11:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,660
Default Tourist flights

Jeff Findley wrote:

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 can see how they could quite easily. How can they give one
contender millions more in funds than the other?


--
"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
  #6  
Old December 3rd 17, 11:34 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,660
Default Tourist flights

"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.


--
"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
  #8  
Old December 3rd 17, 06:35 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 316
Default Tourist flights

Le Dec/3/2017 Ã* 6:34 AM, Fred J. McCall a écritÂ*:
"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.


Alain Fournier
  #9  
Old December 3rd 17, 10:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,660
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
  #10  
Old December 3rd 17, 10:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 593
Default Tourist flights

"Alain Fournier" wrote in message news

Le Dec/3/2017 Ã* 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.


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


Ultimately I agree. And I expect it to happen.


Alain Fournier


--
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/

 




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 10:14 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.