NASA, The ISS & Space Tourism....

[MeteorWayne]

Didn't Jake Garn? fly, too.<br />I seem to remember him being a politician.<br /><br />Could be wrong though. <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>

 

[yevaud]

Yes he did. First member of Congress to fly on the Shuttle (as a payload specialist), in 1985. <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>

 

[oscar1]

That is a good question indeed, for qso1 may quote here the level of the annual NASA budget, but NASA does more than only shutteling between Earth and the ISS. In addition, I can't really see a US not having/financing NASA, for the mere thought that Europe has ESA and Ariane, are there the Russians and the Chinese, as well as the Japanese, would be unacceptable to the majority of Americans. So if one deducts the expenses (call them scientific investments if you wish) of all outside the Shuttle, and also the 'prestige', as well as (real and/or assumed) military applications, what would be the cost of the average Shuttle launch factually?

 

[themanwithoutapast]

The best approach to calculate per launch cost of the Shuttle is to take a long enough period of operation and divide it the costs incurred through the number of flights. If you do that for the last 25 years you get to the suprising result that launch costs are USD 1.3 billion per flight. If we are nice enought to exclude costs for the non-flight periods after Challenger and Columbia we get to USD 1 billion.

 

[docm]

That $1.3bn number fits nicely into the low end of the GAO's estimate for the cost of a Hubble servicing mission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vulture2]

NASA has occasional Shuttle flights with only six crew, where a tourist could be carried at a very small marginal cost (food, cleaning the suit, etc.) so there would be some profit to be made. But more realistically, NASA could be providing more support to the companies planning space tourism by contracts to develop and demonstrate elements of technology for fully reusable spacecraft and launch vehicles.

 

[yevaud]

I agree. The one thing we shouldn't expect is that NASA tries to be all things for all people. They are specialists, and to engage in tourism would be morphing in generalists.<br /><br />Supporting and assisting commercial tourism, however, is a winner, I think. <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>

 

[green_meklar]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Yes he did. First member of Congress to fly on the Shuttle (as a payload specialist), in 1985.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Again, before anyone had ever died in a space shuttle.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA has occasional Shuttle flights with only six crew, where a tourist could be carried at a very small marginal cost (food, cleaning the suit, etc.)<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />A very small cost compared to the cost of flying six people, maybe. But you have to consider that the tourist will be filling a seat that could be used by some engineer or scientist who would really add something to what the mission could do. In economic terms, you're dealing with a high opportunity cost. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>

 

[j05h]

> We fly only 6 on occasion because the added weight of the 7th crewman and his gear takes the vehicle weight above the allowable weight. <br /><br />On top of this, NASA is not a space tourism company, they are not allowed to sell seats and are not in "business". NASA exists as a research and exploration agency, their interactions with business involve enabling new technology, not operating hotels and tour flights. This is exemplified by the recent success of Zero-G Corp, who fly commercial versions of the old Vomit Comet. It's successful, takes over where NASA left off, improves on the experience and everybody is better for it. <br /><br />The first poster that says "but NASA is kind of like a business" gets pimp-slapped. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[ysl007]

Hey johns805 i apologize for starting a post that has the discussion with your current thread Hence my post "Should NASA get into Space Tourism?" has been deleted from the Forum by me . Thanks for your kind note on it and have a nice day ahead !

 

[j05h]

<i>>> they are not allowed to sell seats and are not in "business".<br /><br /> /> Why? NASA is a civil agency, not military...</i><br /><br />NASA is a government agency, they aren't allowed to engage in profit-making enterprises. NASA has no mechanism for raising either venture captial (Red Planet VC aside, that's new) and are specifically prohibited from competing against private enterprise. An analogy: A church might hold bake sales, but can't open a "Mega Church Enterprises" store without threatening their non-profit status. Maybe not the best analogy, but I hope it helps convey the point. Basically, NASA isn't allowed to make money, nor should it be able to: it's a research and exploration agency, not a hotelier. <br /><br />Even if NASA had a mechanism for selling things to raise money, the resulting cash would go straight into the general fund for Congress to do with as it pleased. <br /><br />The other side of this is that NASA is supposed to help private enterprise in opening the frontier, per their charter.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spacester]

Copy that.<br /><br />At one point, before Dennis Tito's ISS visit, I felt like a lone voice in the wilderness here on supporting space tourism. So you'd be hard pressed to find someone more supportive of, ahem, "Private Space Adventure Participants" ;-) than me.<br /><br />But NASA has NO business whatsoever getting into the, uh, business, for the reasons JO5H mentions. The steps taken recently by NASA, thanks to my hero Mike Griffin, to support private LEO access, are the correct ones.<br /><br />I'm posting to reiterate why private human space flight (OK fine, Space Tourism), is seen by many of us as critically important. <br /><br />ONLY thru the discipline of the marketplace can the cost of humans to LEO be brought down to a point where the chicken/egg dilemma we've seen for decades be transformed into a "virtuous cycle" of lower costs and thus higher flight rates and thus lower costs and thus . . . <br /><br />It ain't about putting filthy rich folks up there so they can brag to their peers. It's about re-investing the money filthy rich folks will pay to boot-strap a whole industry. <br /><br />I'm stating the obvious for many folks, but I didn't want it to go un-said. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

> It seems I understood. I also understood why many and many americans have been loosing any interest to space-related stuff. Researching and development ...and NO chances that results of these R&D would be applied to change life of an average Joe <br /><br />People have lost interest in (government) space exploration because NASA is BORING. The general collapse in scientific understanding and "endarkenment" (opposite of enlightenment) has created a public as likely to believe in ghosts, goblins and Faces on Mars as it is to understand the latest Hubble image. People seem more interested in pseudo-science or no science, and our culture/economy is suffering for it. Your average American denies the basic existance of biology and geology (ie. creationist garbage), you can't expect "us" to have much interest in outer space, exploration or discovery on the new frontier.<br /><br />NASA is supposed to do R&D, it's in their charter. They are also supposed to share basic research with industry, to help spread the technology around. Our tax dollars pay for it, and they are supposed to maximize the resulting knowledge. That NASA has the marketing skills of an autistic 4-year-old is a problem we (space community) all have to deal with, because no matter our opinion our fates are tied to that agency in the public eye. You say "space geek" and the person you're talking to is immediately going to bring up either NASA or "wasting money". We all need to be able to handle it rhetorically, even firebrands like Rick Tumlinson. <br /><br />Instead of asking how NASA can get around it's own charter to fly tourists, we should ask ourselves how to represent both NASA and New.Space in such a way that the general public (friends and family) will be able to appreciate both and understand the difference between them.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

The problem is real, but I don't think it's fair or accurate to blame NASA for it. NASA is not to blame for Americans being disinterested in science and exploration. In fact, NASA has one of the best publicity teams in the entire government. Seriously. Just contrast people's opinion of NASA with their opinion of NOAA. Heck, NASA's PR is so good, people think they're the only agency doing anything in space at all, which isn't true. Fact is, spaceflight retains a certain cool factor which non-NASA fields lack. Kids instantly recognize NASA's name, and know that it's related to space. How many of them know about the National Science Foundation, NOAA, the FAA, or even the Parks and Wildlife Service? How often do you hear kindergarteners say they want to be an astronaut when they grow up? And how many do you hear say they want to be a molecular biologist?<br />.<br />No, NASA doesn't have bad PR. They actually have very good PR. The problem isn't NASA failing to sell itself. It's a much bigger problem than could ever be blamed on NASA or any single government agency. It's a cultural problem. We as a society do not value science. And you can't expect the government to fix that because we *are* the government. "By the people, of the people, for the people." If the majority doesn't give two hoots, neither will Uncle Sam.<br /> <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>

 

[j05h]

I couldn't blame NASA for the slide in American scientific knowledge. They are one of a few shining lights in that regard. I criticised them for making space boring, especially human spaceflight. That has little to do with endarkenment. Knowledge is power.<br /><br />Josh<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

In case anyone wonders about the KSC Visitors' Centre which charges something like $50 for admission, sells collectibles etc, it is entirely self-supporting and all the income is used to improve the visitors' centre. And I think they're doing a pretty good job.<br /><br />Not sure if the visitors' centres at the other facilities do the same but I would expect so.

 

[mrmorris]

Well -- one might also note that the KSC Visitor's Center is ***not*** run by NASA. Instead, it's run by Delaware North Companies hospitality management group. I don't know the financial details of the contract, but I'm confident NASA sees no dollars from the ticket sales. I <b>believe</b> the primary NASA benefits are NULL benefits -- namely they don't have to pay to maintain the visitors complex, or pay to have tour guides, or advertise the center, etc. Beyond that -- the only NASA benefit I'm aware of is free PR.

 

[barrykirk]

That is sad to hear that most people consider the PR to be bad.

 

[llivinglarge]

Meh, just pressurize the shuttle payload area and pack in a dozen or two rich people.

 

[henryhallam]

Well I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to the visitors' center. But maybe I have my tour guide to thank for that <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[ldyaidan]

I agree. NASA has good PR. We just have to get the public excited about science and space. But, whenever we need something figured out, NASA is who we expect to do it. Most people see NASA (to borrow a phrase) as having "a bunch of people sitting around, figuring stuff out." That seems like pretty good PR, as well as a lot of faith in the agency. <br /><br /><br />Rae<br />