NASA, The ISS & Space Tourism....

[johns805]

Hi: ....Why doesn't NASA get into space tourism too???<br />Perhaps there are elaborate reasons or excuses as to why NASA doesn't send tourists to the ISS on the shuttles...Since this is now the case, I'd like to see some discussion about the status quo....Obviously, the ISS has already accommodated four paying "nonessential" passengers without any apparent grumbling from the agency bigwigs...<br /> Until the private sector develops orbital tourism on its own, I think NASA ought to consider ferrying paying tourists on future flights to the ISS, especially when it's completed...One per trip isn't too much to ask....It'd be helpful esp. to the NASA budget if $15-20 million a pop came in to help create a little wiggle room to pay for the expenses...Discuss amongst ourselves? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />! ~JBK<br /><br />Yes! You can turn me on!<br />I'm on the radio!<br />Surf City Sounds Plus:<br />http://www.Live365.com/stations/johns805

 

[paul_bacon]

Im not too keen on the whole space tourism idea. Manned space missions are very dangerous, and the more missions happening just to give the lucky few a trip into space, the greater the potential risk.

 

[pathfinder_01]

Because it is a government agency and they would catch hell for sending a few rich tourists up with tax payer money. The Russian space agency on the other hand can do so because of Russian attitudes towards it. NASA must play safe with I comes to public opinion. <br /><br />Interestingly enough, the Russians probably don’t make a profit sending people up. They just use the cash to write off some of the expenses. <br /><br />

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Insurance is probably a large factor as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[yevaud]

True.<br /><br />They do get a modest public relations benefit from doing so, but when the first (Statistically inevitable) disaster occurs, they will take it on the chin. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[johns805]

.....Sending up to three ships across the ocean from Italy is very risky and dangerous....Who knows what would happen out there? Let's not do it! Etc., etc.... Life is risk, no guts, no glory....imho! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />!

 

[johns805]

When the first airplane crashed, which was statistically inevitable, people didn't stop flying......!

 

[johns805]

I don't see how there would be a complaint from taxpayers if rich tourists were paying their own way...NASA always has to fight for funds on a regular basis....I think NASA and space tourism would be a win/win. NASA wins with more money to meet expenses. Taxpayers win because they would be paying less for what NASA requests.....One tourist at a time is and has been doable... Of course, I think this would be a stopgap arrangement until private space tourism got more established....! ~JBK

 

[pathfinder_01]

The trouble is they don’t pay their way. Not even on the Russian system. The Russians know they are going to launch a Soyuz with 2 cosmonauts the launch is going to be paid for with tax payer money. The Soyuz had been upgraded from a two seat version to a 3 seat version per NASA request. However the Russians had no plans to launch more than two cosmonauts to the station at a time. So, they used the extra seat to generate a little extra cash. They were going to launch one way or the other why not fill the empty seat. <br /><br />NASA on the other hand would be accused to giving a few rich people a ride on tax payer money cause NASA would bear the full cost of the launch and in the west we have a view that the government should not be doing that sort of thing. NASA should not be doing the work of an airline. <br /><br /><br />

 

[themanwithoutapast]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The trouble is they don’t pay their way. Not even on the Russian system. The Russians know they are going to launch a Soyuz with 2 cosmonauts the launch is going to be paid for with tax payer money. The Soyuz had been upgraded from a two seat version to a 3 seat version per NASA request. However the Russians had no plans to launch more than two cosmonauts to the station at a time. So, they used the extra seat to generate a little extra cash. They were going to launch one way or the other why not fill the empty seat. <br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br /><br />The Soyuz system is a three seat spacecraft since its design in the 60s and has been flown that way for decades. A NASA request to 'upgrade' it to a 3 seat version is therefore ridiculous - you mean Kennedy in the 60s asked the Soviets to upgrade their Soyuz???<br /><br />The reason why Russia can have the third seat allocated to a paying space tourist is rather easy. They are currently only responsible for bringing two permanent crew members to the ISS (this will change in the future). The third seat is a non-permanent visitor spot that would either be allocated to a. a second Russian flight-engineer b. an astronaut from a parnter nation or c. a trained cosmonaut who is paying for the seat. What the Russians basically do is to have people paying for the third seat and the necessary training instead of paying for a Russian cosmonaut who would do the same job.<br /><br />NASA has no such spare seats in the Shuttle. The crew of the Space Shuttle has precise tasks for each mission (all of them). An additional paying passenger would have to train along the crew taking over the job of one of the mission specialists. 20 millions is not worth all the things to go through to make this work. And on the other hand, NASA has enough requests by its partner (ESA, JAXA, CSA, Israel, etc.) to acccomodate non-US mission specialists - they actual</p></blockquote></p></blockquote>

 

[subzero788]

"The Soyuz system is a three seat spacecraft since its design in the 60s and has been flown that way for decades."<br /><br />Actually that's not quite correct. True, the Soyuz was originally designed for 3 crew but after the Soyuz 11 tragedy (1971), in which the crew were killed by cabin depressurisation during re-entry, it was changed to a 2 seater so the cosmonauts could wear space suits during launch and re-entry. <br /><br /> The 3-man version was returned to with the upgraded Soyuz-T in the early 80's, way before Mir/ISS cooperation. So the ascertain that NASA pressured the Soviets to add a seat is also incorrect.

 

[qso1]

You say Blah, blah, blah but what themanwithoutapast is saying is true. <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>

 

[brellis]

The shuttle gives you a three-day descent with an airplane-style landing; the Soyuz gives you a three-hour plunge where you're praying the 'chutes work. Seems even scarier than the blast-off <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Research it then if you doubt it. <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>

 

[qso1]

What I meant was research the reasons that were stated by themanwithoutapast. Specifically fligh assignments and training. At $500 B dollars annually, and under constant criticism by the media and significant portions of the public, NASA has to justify every tax dollar it spends or funding might be further cut.<br /><br />I know the shuttle has proven its ability to carry passengers. But unfortunately, another truth was stated by someone else here. The U.S. space program and government in general is not in the tourism business and even when we were considering putting the everyday man up. Or in this case, the everyday woman. It came in the form of a school teacher who had lost her life on Challenger.<br /><br />Prior to 1986, there was serious buzz about the shuttle being eventually utilized in part to take tourists up. Challenger changed all that. Then just when the talk of sending another everyday woman started, teacher Barbara Morgan, Christa McCauliffes backup on Challenger.<br /><br />Columbia happened.<br /><br />NASA is not in a very good position to do space tourism on the shuttle. Especially with the public and Congressional criticisms of it as an agency that can't do anything, much less carry tourists safely into orbit. Even here at SDC, some folks consider Soyuz to be a better or at least safer system than shuttle.<br /><br />One things for sure, a seat on a shuttle flight costing a tourist $20 million dollars would barely dent the amount spent to actually get them up. A shuttle mission costs about $500 million per launch so NASA would have to charge quite a bit more than $20 million and few millionaires could probably afford anything over say, $100 million. Much less the full price were that to be what NASA charged.<br /><br />Having said all that, I personally wouldn't mind seeing a NASA shuttle tourist program. I think that would be great. But the reality is, most non space flight associated folks probably would be against it on safety/cost grounds. <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>

 

[oscar1]

I reckon that it is virtually impossible todate to calculate what the cost per mission really is; one can only work that out after the shuttle is sent to a museum, and the total cost of the program is divided by the number of missions. And it could also very well be somewhat like Gulf War I, where the US could present a till-slip to Germany and Japan, for products and services that were already long available for reasons other than selling them, i.e. the costs were very real indeed, but could also be seen as mainly phantom from another angle. Add political will and creative bookkeeping together, and I am sure that NASA could accommodate the odd wealthy tourist.

 

[qso1]

I wouldn't say its impossible. Basicaly NASA currently gets close to or just over $17 B dollars in funding annually. IIRC, $5B dollars or maybe $6B dollars for shuttle/ISS. The shuttle is calculated by dividing flight number with flite rate over one year. The post Columbia flight rate is low enough to incur costs well over $500 million per flight but averaging out the shuttles flight rate with better years brings it down. By the time the program is over, I would imagine the flight price will average $600-$650 million.<br /><br />If the wealthy have a demand, anyone will accomodate them. NASA certainly would, after all, they accomodated John Glenn. <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>

 

[mah_fl]

John Glen was not a tourist. He was a Senator and an older person who's bodies re-acation to space flight was extensively documented. ( That's of course what we were all told .....).

 

[oscar1]

Yes, that price tag can probably be affixed, but I don't think one has to/needs to calculate that way where a NASA is concerned. A taxi charges per mile, calculated on amortisation, gas, repairs and maintenance, wages, fees and fines, insurance, etc. of course, but a motorcar operated by a government garage (for royalty, presidents, officials and so on) is available following a different avenue of finance, namely that availability equals cost, period. A government garage vehicle can therefore take a hitchhiker along [at very little cost]; a taxi can not.

 

[docm]

I'm all for NASA doing space tourism, just as long as the tourists are politicians and there are no round trips <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Perhaps there are elaborate reasons or excuses as to why NASA doesn't send tourists to the ISS on the shuttles<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Because federal law prohibits them from doing so.<br /><br />Seriously.<br /><br />It was hard enough getting the neccesary exemptions to launch commercial satellites from the Space Shuttle. As a government agency, they are forbidden from competing in the private sector unless there is absolutely no private sector alternative. It is considered unfair to allow the government to compete with Joe Public, and frankly, it is unfair. SpaceShipTwo is going to be competing in a very rarified market -- fabulously wealthy people who actually want to fly into space for no real point other than to say they did it. Soyuz is already a substantial competitor to it. If Shuttle were also competing, I think it probably would hold private spaceflight back in the US. (Mind you, the fact that the industry is on the cusp of realizing private spaceflight is why I think this to be true. Twenty years ago, it wasn't true.)<br /><br />There are also practical limitations. The Soyuz taxi flight only requires two crew, so there's basically an empty seat going up. There aren't any Shuttle taxi flights. Every Shuttle flight needs to be fully utilized in order to complete the ISS within the ambitious schedule that lies ahead. There just isn't space/upmass for a tourist. So even if it were legal, it wouldn't be practical. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[green_meklar]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I'm all for NASA doing space tourism, just as long as the tourists are politicians and there are no round trips <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />LOL<br /><br />But seriously, do you think any politician would go up in a space shuttle? No way! They'll send astronauts up, but they themselves have to stay sitting at home where it's safe and comfortable. In fact, what I'd have fun seeing is someone giving whoever designed and okayed the space shuttle a choice between resigning from their job or being forced to take a space shuttle ride. It wouldn't be worthwhile, but it would be awfully funny. XD <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>

 

[green_meklar]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We have flown 2 politcians on a Shuttle on 2 different flights.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Who? Someone was talking about John Glenn being a senator, but of course he was already an astronaut before that. The other one I haven't heard of. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>

 

[green_meklar]

Well, that was before the Challenger disaster. At that point the space shuttle still had a mortality rate of 0%. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>

 

[thinice]

It is rather interesting how exactly NASA justifies every tax dollar it spends if the taxpayers do not have a slightest idea how much a shuttle mission costs.