Space Adventures Looks to the Future While Reflecting on the Last 10 Ten Years o

[jacqmans]

Space Adventures Looks to the Future While Reflecting
on the Last 10 Ten Years of Private Human Spaceflight

Vienna, Va. – May 5, 2011 – Today, Space Adventures, the only company that has provided human space missions to the global marketplace, outlined a forecast for commercial orbital spaceflight and announced details of how additional living space will be made available during the company’s planned circumlunar mission.

“As we celebrate the 10 year anniversary of Dennis Tito’s pioneering orbital spaceflight, and the seven other private spaceflight missions that have launched since, we need to stay focused on the future.  As always, I remain optimistic; but, there will only be a robust market when there is more than one commercial launch provider and more than one destination for private missions in low-Earth orbit,” said Eric Anderson, Chairman of Space Adventures.  “We must credit Dennis Tito for helping to create the business model for space tourism.  If it were not for him, the commercial spaceflight industry would not have progressed as far as it has to date.”

 

As part of a market sizing exercise for NASA’s Commercial Crew Development bid, submitted on behalf of the Boeing Company, Space Adventures estimates that by 2020 approximately 140 more private individuals will have launched to orbital space.  These participants would include private individuals, corporate, university and non-profit researchers, lottery winners and journalists.  Destinations would include the International Space Station, commercial space stations and orbital free-flys.

 

“The next 10 years will be critical for the commercial spaceflight industry with new vehicles and destinations coming online,” continued Mr. Anderson.  “But, in order to truly develop the industry and extend the reach of humanity over the course of time, there will need to be breakthrough discoveries made and innovative propulsion systems designed that will bring the solar system into our economic sphere of influence.”

 

In working towards the goal of extending private space exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, Space Adventures continues to pursue its planned circumlunar mission.  After consultation with Rocket Space Corporation Energia, modifications to the Soyuz TMA configuration have been agreed upon.  The most important of which is the addition of a second habitation module to the Soyuz TMA lunar complex.  The additional module would launch with the Block DM propulsion module and rendezvous with the Soyuz spacecraft in low-Earth orbit.

 

“Space Adventures will once again grace the pages of aerospace history, when the first private circumlunar mission launches.  We have sold one of the two seats for this flight and anticipate that the launch will occur in 2015,” said Richard Garriott, Vice-Chairman of Space Adventures.  “Having flown on the Soyuz, I can attest to how comfortable the spacecraft is, but the addition of the second habitation module will only make the flight that more enjoyable.”

 

Space Adventures, the company that organized the flights for the world's first private space explorers, is headquartered in Vienna, Va. with an office in Moscow. It offers a variety of programs such as the availability today for spaceflight missions to the International Space Station and around the moon, Zero-Gravity flights, cosmonaut training, spaceflight qualification programs and reservations on future suborbital spacecraft. The company's advisory board includes Apollo 11 moonwalker Buzz Aldrin, Shuttle astronauts Sam Durrance, Tom Jones, Byron Lichtenberg, Norm Thagard, Kathy Thornton, Pierre Thuot, Charles Walker, and Skylab/Shuttle astronaut Owen Garriott.  For more information, please visit www.spaceadventures.com.

###

[Scia]

My main question is if the Russians can do lunar flybys why haven't they?

[ugordan]

What would the point of that be?

[Downix]

My main question is if the Russians can do lunar flybys why haven't they?

They did, check out the Zond program.  They did not bother sending a man onboard after we beat them to the punch with Apollo 8.

[Space Pete]

These participants would include private individuals, corporate, university and non-profit researchers, lottery winners and journalists.  Destinations would include the International Space Station, commercial space stations and orbital free-flys.

I think NSF should send a crew of journalists to the ISS - Chris B and Chris G. I can be the Soyuz pilot - there are some manuals on L2.

[Scia]

My main question is if the Russians can do lunar flybys why haven't they?

They did, check out the Zond program.  They did not bother sending a man onboard after we beat them to the punch with Apollo 8.

then why not do it after Apollo?

They would have more capability then us at that point.

[hop]

then why not do it after Apollo?

They would have more capability then us at that point.

How quickly people forget... The official line after they lost the moon race was that they were never in a race to start with.

They would have more capability then us at that point.

Zond style flyaround is basically a dead end stunt. Since the collapse of the USSR, the Russians have had more pressing things to spend their money on.

[Ben the Space Brit]

My main question is if the Russians can do lunar flybys why haven't they?

They did, check out the Zond program.  They did not bother sending a man onboard after we beat them to the punch with Apollo 8.

then why not do it after Apollo?

They would have more capability then us at that point.

By that point they had different ideas of how to demonstrate space leadership, to wit the Salut space station program.  Historically, it gave them decades of long-duration human spaceflight experience (including half a decade of exclusive human spaceflight) that not only overhauled NASA but that NASA has yet to match.

It earned them more, in international prestige, science and goodwill (from selling seats to the astronauts of friendly powers) than a few trans-lunar fly-around flights ever could.


[edit]
Corrected error

[npuentes]

I'd still like to understand the business model for this. With two $150M customers, that's $300M. Does Russia expect this upfront, or will they front the money before being "paid back?" Furthermore, is $300M all that is needed, including tests? I doubt it. Therefore, the government will need to front even more cash and hope that additional tourist flights pay it back. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a very exciting concept, but wonder if it is really financially feasible.

[pathfinder_01]

I'd still like to understand the business model for this. With two $150M customers, that's $300M. Does Russia expect this upfront, or will they front the money before being "paid back?" Furthermore, is $300M all that is needed, including tests? I doubt it. Therefore, the government will need to front even more cash and hope that additional tourist flights pay it back. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a very exciting concept, but wonder if it is really financially feasible.

I thought it was two tickets for $300 million each. The company might throw in its own money to forward the idea. The hope is to make money on subsequent flights. They think the first two will be losses.

[hop]

I thought it was two tickets for $300 million each. The company might throw in its own money to forward the idea. The hope is to make money on subsequent flights. They think the first two will be losses.

No, the tickets are ~$150 million each. The market is limited (not just to people who have more $150 million, but are also physically fit enough, willing to spend months in Russia doing uncomfortable training etc), it's not obvious that space adventures can count on multiple flights. They only have one seat sold so far, although I suppose a successful flight could attract more customers.

I'm sure the Russians would require a large part up front, and aren't going to pay for dedicated test flights on their own dime. They might work testing into things they are already doing, but opportunities for that seem limited.

[mlorrey]

then why not do it after Apollo?

They would have more capability then us at that point.

How quickly people forget... The official line after they lost the moon race was that they were never in a race to start with.

They would have more capability then us at that point.

Zond style flyaround is basically a dead end stunt. Since the collapse of the USSR, the Russians have had more pressing things to spend their money on.

As I recall, the Zond capsules lost pressure and had other issues as well. If they'd sent cosmonauts, likely they'd have had some serious propaganda problems back then, even worse than claiming they were never in the race.

[Danderman]

As I recall, the Zond capsules lost pressure and had other issues as well. If they'd sent cosmonauts, likely they'd have had some serious propaganda problems back then, even worse than claiming they were never in the race.

The initial Zond flights had severe problems, followed by a phase where the missions would have been successful had a pilot been aboard, followed by successful missions.  In other words, they worked the bugs out.

That was followed by some 40 odd years of Soyuz flights. I suspect that the failures experienced during the 1960s are not relevant today.

[Moe Grills]

My main question is if the Russians can do lunar flybys why haven't they?

I'm assuming your question deals with the Russian space program
after the fall of the Soviet Union (1991).
Well? ...If that's the case, the answer is simple: M-O-N-E-Y.

If you remember that from 1991 to 2001 Russia, including its space
program, ALL suffered lack of money.  In those years, many Russian scientists and engineers were forced to work doing ANYTHING; including
sweeping floors.
   Under Yeltsin, Russia's space program came perilously close to collapse; the income provided by visiting (guest) cosmonauts
to the MIR space station (10 million dollars per guest back then I recall),
and the launch of international communication, weather, resource and science satellites by Protons & Soyuzs &  for PAYING foreign customers
helped to keep RKA afloat.
   Sending paying 'tourists' to the moon in the 1990's was an option
(Remember the defunct MIRCORP space-tourist company?), but
NOBODY who was rich back then was willing to pay for such a flight.

Even, today, one ONE of the seats on the PLANNED lunar-bound Soyuz
has been purchased; the Rusians won't do anything until TWO seats are sold.
 
 

[Lars_J]

As I recall, the Zond capsules lost pressure and had other issues as well. If they'd sent cosmonauts, likely they'd have had some serious propaganda problems back then, even worse than claiming they were never in the race.

The initial Zond flights had severe problems, followed by a phase where the missions would have been successful had a pilot been aboard, followed by successful missions.  In other words, they worked the bugs out.

That was followed by some 40 odd years of Soyuz flights. I suspect that the failures experienced during the 1960s are not relevant today.

Yes, but recent Soyuz problems sure are relevant. The frequency of off-nominal reentries is a severe concern if one wants to attempt reentry from lunar velocities where the margins are a LOT tighter.

[ugordan]

The frequency of off-nominal reentries is a severe concern if one wants to attempt reentry from lunar velocities where the margins are a LOT tighter.

I'm not sure how Zond and today's Soyuz heat shields compare, but didn't one Zond capsule execute a ballistic entry after a lunar return and survive?

[kch]

The frequency of off-nominal reentries is a severe concern if one wants to attempt reentry from lunar velocities where the margins are a LOT tighter.

I'm not sure how Zond and today's Soyuz heat shields compare, but didn't one Zond capsule execute a ballistic entry after a lunar return and survive?

The capsule did survive, but any human(s) aboard would have had a rough time of it (if they had survived -- a 20G reentry is nothing to sneeze at).  IIRC, that was one of the reasons circumlunar Gemini flights were not pursued.

[Downix]

The frequency of off-nominal reentries is a severe concern if one wants to attempt reentry from lunar velocities where the margins are a LOT tighter.

I'm not sure how Zond and today's Soyuz heat shields compare, but didn't one Zond capsule execute a ballistic entry after a lunar return and survive?

The capsule did survive, but any human(s) aboard would have had a rough time of it (if they had survived -- a 20G reentry is nothing to sneeze at).  IIRC, that was one of the reasons circumlunar Gemini flights were not pursued.

The Zond's HS material appears to be the same, but it is about 300kg heavier. (I'd add another 150kg for support weight and such if adding the material back onto Soyuz)  That appears to have been to buy the margin to allow such a re-entry.  With a more casual re-entry approach the stock Soyuz HS should survive.  That being said, if I were to do this, as the mission has the mass margin to allow for the heavier heatshield, I'd include it in order to buy margin.