What will the impact of inexpensive access to space be?

[Robotbeat]

Inexpensive access to LEO = Infrastructure. Infrastructure = everthing else.

What type of infrastructure makes space not an astonishingly lethal hard vacuum filled with more ways to die than are imaginable by physicists or addressable by modern engineering? Fast data rates? Solar power? Mines on the moon? What is it?

The foreign (to us) nature of stable, hard vacuum doesn't actually make it that difficult engineering-wise, compared to the lethal and highly variable conditions that we find on Earth.  Examples are the increasing pressure with depth (one atmosphere per approx 10m) under the sea, life draining cold and dehydration (plus distances/things that eat you) on much of its surface, Antarctic winter cold/wind/dark, Mountain top 'thin' air/vertical drop/variable weather -- for all of which we have engineered solutions.  (In other words, if you really want a broad menu of ways to die, stay on earth.)

Infrastructure doesn't change the hard vacuum engineering problem, but does help avoid the necessity of taking everything you'll need for the round trip with you in the launch vehicle and betting your life on each item working every time.

Megastructures can be infrastructure. A colony's dome (if that's how you chose to do it, just to take a typical example from scifi) would count as infrastructure, like a dike keeping the Netherlands dry, it protects you from the vacuum of space (and hard UV, etc).

[joek]

"Spaceflight Participants" have historically been AS trained as the "Astronaut" crew if not for as long a period/career and is LEGALLY "just" to define the difference between "career" astronauts and those who are not?) will in many cases be doing as much as a "crew" member,

The distinction between "crew" and "spaceflight participant" as defined by the FAA is quite specific and unrelated to whether one is a career astronaut or level of training.  Crew must have a specific contractual relationship with the provider (among other things), and as a rule, spaceflight participants may not legally perform crew activities unless an exception is granted by the FAA.

edit: That said, there is a long-standing precedent that bets are off (greater freedom of action allowed) in the case of an emergency and public safety.  To paraphrase the FAA's position, "We'd rather everything turned out well rather than everyone stick to the letter and end up in a smoking crater".   However, that is very different from the FAA saying that spacecraft participants (aka, "non-crew") may, as a matter of normal operations, be considered crew and perform crew functions.

[AncientU]

Inexpensive access to LEO = Infrastructure. Infrastructure = everthing else.

What type of infrastructure makes space not an astonishingly lethal hard vacuum filled with more ways to die than are imaginable by physicists or addressable by modern engineering? Fast data rates? Solar power? Mines on the moon? What is it?

The infrastructure of ISS allowed Shuttle crews to get their ride inspected and repaired, though not needed in fact after the practice started, while sipping on something 'not quite entirely unlike tea.'  And hard vacuum wasn't the threat...

[dante2308]

Inexpensive access to LEO = Infrastructure. Infrastructure = everthing else.

What type of infrastructure makes space not an astonishingly lethal hard vacuum filled with more ways to die than are imaginable by physicists or addressable by modern engineering? Fast data rates? Solar power? Mines on the moon? What is it?

The foreign (to us) nature of stable, hard vacuum doesn't actually make it that difficult engineering-wise, compared to the lethal and highly variable conditions that we find on Earth.  Examples are the increasing pressure with depth (one atmosphere per approx 10m) under the sea, life draining cold and dehydration (plus distances/things that eat you) on much of its surface, Antarctic winter cold/wind/dark, Mountain top 'thin' air/vertical drop/variable weather -- for all of which we have engineered solutions.  (In other words, if you really want a broad menu of ways to die, stay on earth.)

Infrastructure doesn't change the hard vacuum engineering problem, but does help avoid the necessity of taking everything you'll need for the round trip with you in the launch vehicle and betting your life on each item working every time.

I wasn't implying that vacuum was the problem with space, though it sort of implies a lack of in-situ oxygen resupply opportunities. It is merely the setting for all the uncountable ways you can die in space. The dangers of a simple bolt intersecting your orbit far outweigh the dangers one would expect to face in the Antarctic. I don't know how one could expect to compare how cold or dark (or hot and bright) space is to Antarctica or a mountain climb and I would expect some training would be in order for that as well.

I still haven't heard the answer to high energy particles except to try to get to your destination as fast as possible before you take too much damage. Space infrastructure makes it so you don't have to bet your life on everything working? How many failing parts would infrastructure replace? How does one have a failing spacecraft and have hope of being in any useful proximity to this infrastructure? What exactly is this thing we can put in space that makes it safer?

e infrastructure of ISS allowed Shuttle crews to get their ride inspected and repaired, though not needed in fact after the practice started, while sipping on something 'not quite entirely unlike tea.'  And hard vacuum wasn't the threat...

The ISS allowed them to repair the shuttle? No it did not. The point of the last shuttle flights was to travel to the ISS. The ISS provided nothing but a camera view of the belly of the shuttle and the same could have been accomplished by the shuttle's own arm. The only reason it needed to be done at all is because a slight defect in those tiles would kill everyone and it wouldn't be because of vacuum. And no, they weren't relaxing and sipping tea, they were running through procedures they drilled for quite a while as if their life depended on it. I sincerely hope that you consider more than vacuum if you ever find yourself in space or designing a ride to space.

[Robotbeat]

The ice is always changing in Antarctica (on the ice sheets, like the South Pole). Covering buildings so they have to be built on stilts. Opening invisible chasms underneath your path as you drive in your snowcat, possibly swallowing the entire vehicle. No sun for long stretched of the year, forcing you to rely on trekking fuel for 1000 miles over those invisible ice chasms.

It's awesome that you have oxygen and pressure in Antarctica. But other than that, wintertime at the South Pole is nearly as harsh as Mars, and in some ways it'd be more difficult to colonize than Mars would be (lack of a solid surface on the ice, need to constantly move structures up on stilts or be slowly crushed by the ice and snow, etc... Inability to have a permanent structure there makes it very difficult to imagine colonization, even when compared to Mars.). The parts of Antarctica with solid ground and nearby volcanic geothermal heat may be good places to colonize, though. And both Argentina and Chile do have Antarctic colonization projects in progress right now with some families permanently located there.

[dante2308]

Orbit =/= Mars. Mars =/= Space. Stilts =/= Space Colony.

[jeff.findley]

This company is working on providing training for (commercial) suborbital and orbital flights. 

http://waypoint2space.com/

Look at how many days their courses (will) take on their pricing page:

http://waypoint2space.com/programs/pricing/

7 days for "spaceflight fundamentals" followed by 8-12 weeks for orbital flights.  Considering their location, and the detailed listing of "courses",  I'd guess they plan on following a very traditional training approach.  So even then, we're "only" talking about 2 to 3 months of training for (commercial) orbital spaceflight.  If we assume this as a "baseline" starting point, I'd expect that number to go down as launch rates increase, operations are streamlined, and spaceflight becomes more "routine". 

[Elmar Moelzer]

Great find Jeff! Yes 2 to 3 months sounds a lot more like it than 18 months and as you say, that number is more likely to go down rather than up!

[Jim]

This company is working on providing training for (commercial) suborbital and orbital flights. 

http://waypoint2space.com/

Look at how many days their courses (will) take on their pricing page:

http://waypoint2space.com/programs/pricing/

7 days for "spaceflight fundamentals" followed by 8-12 weeks for orbital flights.  Considering their location, and the detailed listing of "courses",  I'd guess they plan on following a very traditional training approach.  So even then, we're "only" talking about 2 to 3 months of training for (commercial) orbital spaceflight.  If we assume this as a "baseline" starting point, I'd expect that number to go down as launch rates increase, operations are streamlined, and spaceflight becomes more "routine". 

The company is making bogus claims, see NASA Watch.  They are in no position to set precedence or policy.

[llanitedave]

In the 1970's, I was a missile technician on the crew of a Poseidon missile submarine.   Training consisted of 6 weeks of submarine school, and some 30 combined weeks of 'A' and 'C' schools which were focused almost exclusively on the work involving the missiles themselves.

Once assigned to a boat, all crew members are expected to "Qualify", which means knowing the basic operation, safety cutoffs, and emergency equipment of all the gear on the boat, those spaces where one would very rarely visit.  The maximum time alloted to qualify was two patrols, which works out to about 5 months of actual sea time.  Many crew members succeeded in qualifying within a single patrol.

Essentially, the amount of training not involving the actual skilled operation of a submarine and it's specialized equipment, that required simply to behave safely and respond to emergencies, comes out to twenty-six weeks as a maximum.  Much of this is self-study, and much of it is group training.  Comparatively little is actual one-on-one  simulation and demonstration.

I'd think a non-operating set of passengers on a space ship could get by with a bit less.

[jeff.findley]

This company is working on providing training for (commercial) suborbital and orbital flights. 

http://waypoint2space.com/

The company is making bogus claims, see NASA Watch.  They are in no position to set precedence or policy.

O.K.  Sounds like Keith takes offense at their website giving the appearance they work closely with JSC, when apparantly that's not the case. 

While being critical of this company on NASA Watch, Keith mentions that he's had some spaceflight training from NASTAR:

http://www.nastarcenter.com/aerospace-training/space/passengers

NASSTAR's trainings are measured in days (cut and pasted from the above website):

Basic Suborbital Space Training
   Price: $3,000.00
   This two day foundational course...

Advanced Space Training
   Price: $4,000.00
   This two day course...

Space Payload Specialist Training
   Price: $1,000.00
   This one day supplemental specialty course...

Space Suits and Systems Training
   Price: Call for Price – 1-866-482-0933
   This one day supplemental specialty course...

[RanulfC]

Say what? ... I'd love to see some citation to support this.

For context see here and then here.

"Context" assumptions don't support the argument as "fact"actually. For one thing you appear to have taken "space flight participant" totally out of "as-used" context. "Space Flight participant" simply means someone who is not a "career" astronaut. They CAN be someone who works as a ISS "crew" member in duties but is not directly attached to, or employed by the Russian or American space program. There are no "plans" to replace the crew or duties on the ISS with automation or remote equipment those "on-board" are still going to have to be trained in and perform the duties as "crew" even if they are defined as "space flight participants." This is really no different than Shuttle Mission Specialists who were not "crew" but "space flight participants".

Randy

[RanulfC]

"Spaceflight Participants" have historically been AS trained as the "Astronaut" crew if not for as long a period/career and is LEGALLY "just" to define the difference between "career" astronauts and those who are not?) will in many cases be doing as much as a "crew" member,

The distinction between "crew" and "spaceflight participant" as defined by the FAA is quite specific and unrelated to whether one is a career astronaut or level of training.  Crew must have a specific contractual relationship with the provider (among other things), and as a rule, spaceflight participants may not legally perform crew activities unless an exception is granted by the FAA.

edit: That said, there is a long-standing precedent that bets are off (greater freedom of action allowed) in the case of an emergency and public safety.  To paraphrase the FAA's position, "We'd rather everything turned out well rather than everyone stick to the letter and end up in a smoking crater".   However, that is very different from the FAA saying that spacecraft participants (aka, "non-crew") may, as a matter of normal operations, be considered crew and perform crew functions.

The FAA definition "suplements" but does not replace the original and still valid definition. A "space flight participant" CAN be a working "non-crew" member or just a "Passenger" it will depend on the mission, flight mode, vehicle and other parameters but being a "space flight participant" does not mean they will NOT be required to train as extensivly at say Shuttle Mission Specialist did. How much and how long will be up to the people who set the training and again that will greatly depend on factors we don't have access to yet. What we do have is history and that comes down as training almost as hard as the "crew" itself.

I doubt it will REMAIN that way as has been noted, too much time spent training will lose business, but not enough will compromise safety.

Randy

[Elmar Moelzer]

According to this article the FAA is OK with Waypoint at least for their training (the article is a bit ambiguous).
http://www.gizmag.com/waypoint2space-faa-approval/30680/

[RanulfC]

The ice is always changing in Antarctica (on the ice sheets, like the South Pole). Covering buildings so they have to be built on stilts. Opening invisible chasms underneath your path as you drive in your snowcat, possibly swallowing the entire vehicle. No sun for long stretched of the year, forcing you to rely on trekking fuel for 1000 miles over those invisible ice chasms.

It's awesome that you have oxygen and pressure in Antarctica. But other than that, wintertime at the South Pole is nearly as harsh as Mars, and in some ways it'd be more difficult to colonize than Mars would be (lack of a solid surface on the ice, need to constantly move structures up on stilts or be slowly crushed by the ice and snow, etc... Inability to have a permanent structure there makes it very difficult to imagine colonization, even when compared to Mars.). The parts of Antarctica with solid ground and nearby volcanic geothermal heat may be good places to colonize, though. And both Argentina and Chile do have Antarctic colonization projects in progress right now with some families permanently located there.

Ya kinda just invalidated your whole "argument" there with that last bit (It helps that while both Argentina and Chile ORIGINALLY signed the Antarctic Treaty neither of the "present" governments feel they need to adhere to it The "problem" is that you still have access to O2-pressure and enough "infrastructure" on-hand to support those "families" year round. It's hard but once you're off the "ice" shelves Antarctica is just another "continent" with all that implies. Space is not, Mars is not, The Moon is not, etc...

Like "space" you need to bring the majority of your "infrastructure" with you anywhere you go on Antarctica, AND you have to have a pretty hefty "support" infrastructure to continue to supply you with what you need to continue living. You need that even more in space because (despite ISRU "claims" to the contrary you don't get ANYTHING for free there. Once you "have" ISRU you get some materials "easier" and "cheaper" but only to the extent where it "cost" you to build it up in the first place.

Once you have inexpensive access to space it becomes "easier" to ship materials, which makes it easier and cheaper to ship in the needed equipment and materials for ISRU and other support infrastructure...

On the "other" hand "cheap" access means that you don't necessarily HAVE to build up such things as ISRU and infrastructure as it MAY be almost easier and cheaper to just keep shipping in supplies rather than "invest" large amounts of money, equipment and time into effective "colonization" efforts

It really depends on your "long-term" goal

(Ask yourself is it a "colony" if Argentina and Chile have people there but are not building up infrastructure to make them self supporting and capable of growth? )

Randy

[RanulfC]

This company is working on providing training for (commercial) suborbital and orbital flights. 

http://waypoint2space.com/

Look at how many days their courses (will) take on their pricing page:

http://waypoint2space.com/programs/pricing/

7 days for "spaceflight fundamentals" followed by 8-12 weeks for orbital flights.  Considering their location, and the detailed listing of "courses",  I'd guess they plan on following a very traditional training approach.  So even then, we're "only" talking about 2 to 3 months of training for (commercial) orbital spaceflight.  If we assume this as a "baseline" starting point, I'd expect that number to go down as launch rates increase, operations are streamlined, and spaceflight becomes more "routine". 

The company is making bogus claims, see NASA Watch.  They are in no position to set precedence or policy.

As Jim notes they are in no position to "set" policy or precedence and in fact none of the 'training' companies are. The have no "standards" to train to or examples to go by. Right now it's "pay-your-money" but you have nothig to actually "base" the certificate (or whatever) on. NASTAR is probably something of a "minimum" while waypoint2space would be a maximum, I don't see how either can actually "qualify" anyone for space flight participant in anything more than a "general" manner. When something is in existance that allows civilian/commercial "space flight participants" the training will be relevant to that basis, not before.

Great find Jeff! Yes 2 to 3 months sounds a lot more like it than 18 months and as you say, that number is more likely to go down rather than up!

I'll "remind" you mister that it was YOU who had a problem with "months" of training! Just because you "assumed" 18 months doesn't meant it was what I meant and "I" didn't! the waypoint2space program is "about" what I was figuring for a maximum. As I said above I'd consider the NASTAR program a "minimum" but neither is actually "relevent" at the moment

Randy

[Elmar Moelzer]

I'll "remind" you mister that it was YOU who had a problem with "months" of training! Just because you "assumed" 18 months doesn't meant it was what I meant and "I" didn't! the waypoint2space program is "about" what I was figuring for a maximum. As I said above I'd consider the NASTAR program a "minimum" but neither is actually "relevent" at the moment

I don't know who brought up the 18 months of training originally (it was not me), but that was what I was objecting to. 8 weeks sounds a lot more reasonable. It is technically still "months" but not 18 months...
So I guess we are all good

[RanulfC]

According to this article the FAA is OK with Waypoint at least for their training (the article is a bit ambiguous).
http://www.gizmag.com/waypoint2space-faa-approval/30680/

The FAA isn't in a position to be critical of any training as there is no set standard. NASTAR makes a claim that they are "FAA approved" but that means nothing since the FAA is in no position to "approve" or "disapprove" of anyone at this point There are a couple of other "companies" out there that offer "training" but it's all the same problem, the "training" may or may not be "relevant" to whatever "space flight participant" participation you end up involved in!

IIRC there are a couple of companies that were or are planning on offering "certification" courses for flight CREW for suborbital vehicles! One would feel that it would be difficult considering those vehicles don't as of yet exist...

Randy

[RanulfC]

I'll "remind" you mister that it was YOU who had a problem with "months" of training! Just because you "assumed" 18 months doesn't meant it was what I meant and "I" didn't! the waypoint2space program is "about" what I was figuring for a maximum. As I said above I'd consider the NASTAR program a "minimum" but neither is actually "relevent" at the moment

I don't know who brought up the 18 months of training originally (it was not me), but that was what I was objecting to. 8 weeks sounds a lot more reasonable. It is technically still "months" but not 18 months...
So I guess we are all good

It was mentioned that was the Russian requirement for Soyuz/ISS tourists. As long as we're all on the same page now? Yes? (Come-on ya'll big-group-internet-hug! )

Randy

[joek]

"Context" assumptions don't support the argument as "fact"actually. For one thing you appear to have taken "space flight participant" totally out of "as-used" context. "Space Flight participant" simply means someone who is not a "career" astronaut. ...

The two prevalent formal definitions are very context dependent (see below), and are unfortunately often mixed or confused.  They are quite specific and have rules, regulations and laws associated with them.  The FAA definition does not "supplement"; it is different as the FAA's focus is transportation--not what happens after you reach your destination.

To continue this conversation productively, we need: (1) clarity on whether the context is commercial, government, or both; (2) clarity around whether the context is transportation, destination, or both; and (3) more precision as to the definition of a spaceflight participant (i.e., non-crew or "not a career astronaut").

Feel free to pick your own terms and definitions, but please don't overload, conflate or muddle existing and clearly established terms and definitions.  For the record...

FAA (U.S. commercial) -- from FAA Title 14 CFR Chapter III — Commercial Space Transportation §401.5 Definitions.

Crew means any employee or independent contractor of a licensee, transferee, or permittee, or of a contractor or subcontractor of a licensee, transferee, or permittee, who performs activities in the course of that employment or contract directly relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of or in a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle that carries human beings. A crew consists of flight crew and any remote operator.
...
Space flight participant means an individual, who is not crew, carried aboard a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle.

ISS (government) -- from Principles Regarding Processes and Criteria for Selection, Assignment, Training and Certification of ISS (Expedition and Visiting) Crewmembers.

Professional Astronaut/Cosmonaut
A professional astronaut/cosmonaut is an individual who has completed the official selection and has been qualified as such at the space agency of one of the ISS partners and is employed on the staff of the crew office of that agency.
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight participants are individuals (e.g. commercial, scientific and other programs; crew members of non-partner space agencies, engineers, scientists, teachers, journalists, filmmakers or tourists) sponsored by one or more partner(s). Normally, this is a temporary assignment that is covered under a short-term contract.
Expedition (Increment) Crewmembers
Expedition crewmembers are the main crew of the ISS and are responsible for implementing the planned activities for an increment. The right of a partner to have its candidates serve as expedition crewmembers is allocated in accordance with Article 11.1 of the MOUs. As part of this allocation, it may be possible to have spaceflight participants as part of an expedition once the ISS has a crew complement of more than 3 persons.
Visiting Crewmembers
Based on experience to date with visiting vehicles to the ISS, visiting crewmembers travel to and from the ISS, but are not expedition crewmembers. Consequently, the visiting crewmembers do not count as a use of a sponsoring agency’s allocation of flight opportunities or crew time on-orbit rights as defined in Article 11.1 and Article 8.3.c of the MOUs. They may be either professional astronauts/cosmonauts or spaceflight participants.
Sponsoring Agency
A sponsoring agency is one of the five ISS partners (CSA, ESA, NASA, GOJ, and Rosaviakosmos) that provide the crew flight opportunities.