First citizen explorers to orbit

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

spacy600

Guest
Will they ride on:<br /><br />Taurus II, F9, or Atlas?<br /><br />or maybe Ares I
 
V

venator_3000

Guest
I think some of them have already ridden on Soyuz.<br /><br />v3k <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
Actually, all <b><i>six</i></b> of them rode on Soyuz. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Will they ride on: <br /><br />Taurus II, F9, or Atlas? <br /><br />or maybe Ares I"</font><br /><br />If I had to place a bet, I'd say Falcon 9, though I'm not sure what you're asking.<br /><br />No way will private citizens fly on Ares I...at least any time soon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
S

spacy600

Guest
Yeah it was phrased wrong.<br /><br />What I am asking is witch launch vehicle will<br />fly people first. <br />Atlas with Bigelow<br />or<br /><br />NASA with F9 or Taurus II<br /><br />And how big of a embarrassment will it be for NASA?
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Not much of an embarassment at all, since they are not in that market, by law. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"What I am asking is witch launch vehicle will <br />fly people first. <br />Atlas with Bigelow <br />or <br /><br />NASA with F9 or Taurus II"</font><br /><br />OK, that's what I figured.<br /><br />I'd still put my money on SpaceX. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">"And how big of a embarrassment will it be for NASA?"</font><br /><br />What MW said.<br /><br />There might be some who would consider it embarrassing to NASA for private industry to achieve human spaceflight before NASA's Ares I launches its first crew, but keep in mind that Ares I is being developed for flights beyond LEO, whereas the private companies are only working to access ISS which is in LEO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
the very question is a bit of an oxymoron. Define "explorers" ?
 
S

spacester

Guest
Well, 'explorers' works in terms of private folks <i>exploring </i>an experience previously only available to elite government employees.<br /><br />But I think the term most have settled on,for now, is "Private Space Adventurers". "Private Astronauts" or "Private Space Scientist" would also apply in some cases: for the former, referring to the guy(s) pushing the buttons and operating the controls; and the latter for those who conduct their own personal science experiments while up there.<br /><br />I expect the Science angle will become increasingly important as the market develops. You don't have to be into it 100% to do a few science experiments and elevate your status above a "simple" adventurer.<br /><br />To answer the question:<br /><br />In Dragon atop Falcon 9 to a Sundancer or BA-330. They will be Bigelow employees, possibly including personnel from client companies. <br /><br />2886 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

rfoshaug

Guest
Well, define "elite"... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />So far every space tourist has been a billionaire. And so it will remain for quite some time to come. The day when "ordinary folk" can get a ride into orbit for only a month's salary (or even a year's) is very far into the future.<br /><br />Spaceflight is expensive and dangerous, and will remain so for as long as we use vertically launched chemical rockets to get into orbit (which we will use for the foreseeable future since it is the only practical way with today's technology).<br /><br />There will be huge amounts of chemically stored energy in large tanks that can rupture. There will be powerful engines with turbopumps that can let go (or as with Falcon, a great many small engines with a large number of turbopumps and other moving parts). There will be guidance and computer systems that can malfunction. So all of these parts need to be produced to the highest standard of quailty combined with redundancy where possible. And you need lots of measuring equipment and telemetry to confirm that all these parts work before liftoff. All of this means that launching a manned vehicle into orbit is a complicated task. You don't just strap in and turn the starter key. Complicated means expensive. Expensive means elite, either government employees or very rich people, or employees from very rich organizations etc.<br /><br /><br />There are 3 types of manned launch vehicles:<br />1: those that are expensive and safe<br />2: those that are cheap and unsafe<br />3: those that are expensive but still unsafe<br /><br />If someone tries to sell me a ticket for a ride on a cheap and safe launch vehicle, I'll say no thanks, because such a thing doesn't exist the way I see it. Of course things can probably be done cheaper than NASA's vehicles, but still not cheap enough so that launching, say, 8 or 10 of us "common folk" (who are not billionaires) can become economically viable.<br /><br />I think. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
TBH, there hasnt been much "exploration" in manned spaceflight for quite some time, at least in the commonly used meaning of the word "exploration".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts