Another Space Tourism Effort

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

radarredux

Guest
I wasn't sure if this was mentioned before...<br /><br />Space Adventures (who organized the trips to the ISS of the first tourists), The Ansari family (who helped fund the X Prize, ne the Ansari X Prize), the United Arab Emerites (sp?), and the Russian Myasishchev Design Bureau are spending $265 million to develop a private spaceport (initially for suborbital flights) in the UAE. Virgin and Scaled has some competition.<br /><br />http://www.spaceadventures.com/media/releases/2006-02/346<br />http://www.spaceadventures.com/media/releases/2006-02/347<br />
 
Q

qso1

Guest
That they do, and that is what has the best potential to open the door to spaceflight for everyone who wants to go and has the bucks to do it.<br /><br />Of course, in time the price would come down as the industry expands. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
A

askold

Guest
Oh, so this is why we absolutely, positively have to keep flying the broken-down shuttle to finish the ISS - so Space Adventures has someplace to go. Great.<br /><br />Am I being negative again??
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Who says the shuttle has to be kept flying to do this? If its to finish ISS. Once ISS is done. We should at least get our moneys worth out of it by operating it for a decade or so beyond shuttles retirement. Shuttle won't be required once ISS is done. And yes, you have to have somewhere to go to justify orbital tourism eventually. Until Bigelow proves his system will work. ISS is what we have but one thing to consider. I know of no plans to use ISS as a tourist destination.<br /><br />As for shuttle:<br />Expensive...yes.<br /><br />Dangerous...Depends on how one looks at it.<br /><br />Broken down...Down, but hardly broken, or have you forgotten the successful flights.<br /><br />Negative...depends on who you ask I suppose, I just consider it your opinion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
pointlessly negative, yes. this effort has zilch to do with ISS or STS or anything NASA. read before you write.<br /><br />Its suborbitals.<br /><br />Once their suborbital business grows big enough so they have enough capital to go orbital, the ISS wont probably be there anymore, which isnt a problem anyway because ISS is by far not the most comfortable sky hotel imaginable and its expensive to get to.<br />
 
S

shoogerbrugge

Guest
Hmmm, this is not completly fair I'd say. Myasishchev Design Bureau was also one of the competitors for the orginal Ansari X-prise. Now that the X-prize has been won, Ansari starts supporting one of the competitors, thats kinda strange.<br /><br />Anyway, I don't know if the X-prize website still features a list of the original competitors. Myasishchev Design Bureau entered the competition with a design much like the SS1. It is a two stage to suborbit system, the first stage is the M-55 high altitude aircraft designed and build by Myasishchev. The suborbital vehicle was a scaled down version of the MAKS they developed. <br /><br />On a side note, I believe Myasishchev Design Bureau is also in the Cliper competition with an airlaunched vehicle closely resembling the already mentioned MAKS.<br /><br />Anyway, its good to see that some of the oil dollars are being invested into space. And competition is a good thing off course.
 
S

shoogerbrugge

Guest
ah well, this is the design to be flown in UAE, here is the link <br /><br />The M55-Geophysica is manufactured by the Myasishchev Design Bureau (MDB). The aircraft can carry heavy payloads in the order of 1500kg and can operate at an altitude of up to 21-22 km for about five to six hours. The cruising ground speed is about 750 km/h.<br /><br />
 
A

askold

Guest
What on Earth does this thread have to do with the shuttle and ISS? - you ask.<br /><br />Here's the answer, from Space Adventure's own web site - <br />http://www.spaceadventures.com/flight/orbital<br /><br />"Now, in conjunction with the Russian Aviation and Space Agency (Rosaviakosmos) and Rocket Space Corporation Energia (RSC Energia) Space Adventures has organized a new joint effort to conduct private spaceflights to the International Space Station (ISS)."<br /><br />So, I've heard on this forum that we need to keep the shuttle flying in order to keep our commitments to finish and maintain the ISS, etc.<br /><br />More from Space Adventures: "...providing exclusive and unprecedented opportunities for Space Adventures' orbital clients flights to the ISS through our agreement with the space agencies and their contractors." Are these the "space agencies" we made promises to, that we now can't break - so they can fly tourist to the ISS?<br /><br />It makes me angry that we're spending billions, cutting science programs and risking live in order to build a Club Med in space. I'm sorry if this conflicts with your world view. I believe I make sensible, well thought out and well documented points. If you can't engage in an adult discussion about this, then perhaps you should go to another board where the standards are lower.
 
S

shoogerbrugge

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Think "new generation U-2", <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />As a big fan of Russian aviation I kinda get a bad taste when I read this. The U-2 and M-17/55 are very different designs, just the same kind of mission. Although the M-17 never was used for flights over CONUS. The U-2 is merely an F-104 with lots of upgrades, the M-17/55 is a complete new design.
 
N

no_way

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So, I've heard on this forum that we need to keep the shuttle flying<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />this forum does not equal this thread<br /><br />the fact that you apparently have a gripe against given company's ( Space Adventures ) other activities is pretty irrelevant to this thread.<br /><br />this thread appears to be created for discussion on their current activities in suborbital spaceflight topics. Like building spaceports all across the world, finding capital and even financing development of new suborbital vehicles. <br />This all will generate much more public awareness of private spaceflight, bring the prices down, foster growth in the sector and attract more capital. <br />What precise problem do you have with that ?
 
S

soyuztma

Guest
They have also announced they are planning to open a spaceport in Singapore.<br />Space Adventures Announces An Integrated Spaceport Offering Suborbital Spaceflights, Astronaut Training and Interactive Visitor Center<br />Spaceport Singapore<br />But i think they will have some serious trouble getting the Singapore Spaceport going. Where are they going to find some free airspace? And which airport are they going to use? Finding an airport who's operations aren't going to be too much affected is going to be difficult.<br />And the mass budget for the Explorer seems to be extremely tight. I read that the M-55 can lift 1500 kg. But Spaceshipone weighted at least 3000 kg, and it could only get three people to space. They will have to increase the power of the engines of the M-55 or these Russian engineers are very good at building light spaceships. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mlorrey

Guest
I wonder what the US DoD thinks about an arab state getting its hands on high altitude and suborbital vehicle technology. Could it be dual-purposed to attack Israel or Iran? Is Russia and UAE doing this with US approval as a cover for an ability to strike Iranian nuclear assets?<br /><br />I agree that the persian gulf is a key market for space tourism. Oil rich arabs seem to be rather profligate with their money, given the number of rolls royces sitting around abandoned in the desert in those parts. There is a lot of trade going on with the US and UAE these days, there was just a deal signed for an emirate company in Dubai to manage 6 US seaports (with lots of people howling about security).
 
D

drwayne

Guest
"About the only thing that the U-2 family shared with the F-104 was the Lockheed name"<br /><br />That is somewhat at odds with what Ben Rich indicated in his book, and I had been told previously - at least in the first generation U2's.<br /><br />He indicated that there were many common parts from the nose to the cockpit.<br /><br />This of course doesn't make the U2 and upgraded 104.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
S

shoogerbrugge

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The M-55 looks VERY practical for Earth Science, and don't be shocked to see Europe, (and NASA?,) want to operate some, budgets allowing. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The M-55 and M-17 have been loaned by various countries for research in the upper atmosphere, Australia and a couple of Scandinavian countries come to mind.<br /><br />I've always doubted that the 1500kg to 20km altitude wouldn't be enough for a serious space shot attempt. Production has come virtually to a stand still for over a decade although it could be restarted as the Smolensk Production facility has indicated. So maybe they can twitch the design some more for a higher payload.<br />
 
D

drwayne

Guest
I don't have the book here, but I do recall him mentioning tooling being used.<br /><br />But as you say, things can be modified between the writer and the paper.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
M

mlorrey

Guest
Well, depends on what you mean by 'space shot'. You could certainly put something in orbit, likely about 150-225 kg. 20km alt. and 600 mph velocity reduces mass fraction requirements by about 5%.<br /><br />A 1500 kg vehicle could also be a suborbital passenger vehicle, along the lines of SS1.
 
S

spacefire

Guest
the 'Explorer' , based on the Cosmopolis, will haul 5 people and a pilot, which means the weight will HAVE to be more than 1500kg.<br />Seems like there are serious plans for this craft.<br />In all honesty, the Cosmopolis looks a lot more like a spacecraft than SS1, and converting it to an orbiter should be a more of an upgrade than a complete redesign, as with Rutan's designs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
<font color="yellow">" $265 million to develop a private spaceport (initially for suborbital flights) in the UAE"</font><br /><br />What a pisspoor ethical choice for a spaceport. I don't want any spacebucks making their way into pockets of hideously rich sheiks organising night camel races with real kid jockeys <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
Well, not perfect either but at least they hang just murderers and drug trafficers instead of gays, adulterers and rape victims. Isn't Singapore pretty packed already, where do they plan to fit a spaceport, on top of some sky scraper?
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
Dubai is one of my favorite cities, certainly one of the most cosmopalitan. I'd rank it up there with Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, but it's smaller in population. Having it being a spaceport is a logical choice, I bet a lot of the first space tourists going up to space hotels will launched out of Dubai. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mlorrey

Guest
Six people should come out to 600 kg, max payload. That means 900 kg for the vehicle.<br /><br />I suspect they'll simply reengine the mothership with something with more thrust and/or fly the rocket to a lower altitude.
 
R

ragnorak

Guest
<br />The Russian Cosmopolis may well have under gone lots of development but its never flown while Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo precursor, SpaceShipOne has. The Russians have great engineers and they're going to be cheaper than Burt Rutan's but I'll believe this Explorer when I see it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts