Quote from: QuantumG on 09/10/2014 12:42 amThey "can", yes. I'm saying they won't, because SpaceX doesn't care for space tourism.SpaceX doesn't care. But SpaceX will take the money. I'm sure Space Adventures has talked to SpaceX.
They "can", yes. I'm saying they won't, because SpaceX doesn't care for space tourism.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/10/2014 01:38 amQuote from: QuantumG on 09/10/2014 12:42 amThey "can", yes. I'm saying they won't, because SpaceX doesn't care for space tourism.SpaceX doesn't care. But SpaceX will take the money. I'm sure Space Adventures has talked to SpaceX.I know they have..
Quote from: Oli on 09/09/2014 02:14 pmOh dear, another conspiracy theory . MirCorp ran out of money, simple as that.It's a fact that NASA intervened in the MirCorp deal with Russia and said Mir had to go before they would talk on ISS.
Oh dear, another conspiracy theory . MirCorp ran out of money, simple as that.
Quote from: QuantumG on 09/10/2014 02:34 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/10/2014 01:38 amQuote from: QuantumG on 09/10/2014 12:42 amThey "can", yes. I'm saying they won't, because SpaceX doesn't care for space tourism.SpaceX doesn't care. But SpaceX will take the money. I'm sure Space Adventures has talked to SpaceX.I know they have..Yes, and (as expected) they got stone-walled.
Quote from: QuantumG on 09/09/2014 09:23 pmQuote from: Oli on 09/09/2014 02:14 pmOh dear, another conspiracy theory . MirCorp ran out of money, simple as that.It's a fact that NASA intervened in the MirCorp deal with Russia and said Mir had to go before they would talk on ISS. Source please.
Quote from: Oli on 09/10/2014 01:26 pmQuote from: QuantumG on 09/09/2014 09:23 pmQuote from: Oli on 09/09/2014 02:14 pmOh dear, another conspiracy theory . MirCorp ran out of money, simple as that.It's a fact that NASA intervened in the MirCorp deal with Russia and said Mir had to go before they would talk on ISS. Source please.Ed Hudgins wrote about it 2001. I'm sure you can find the reference. If not, there's dozens of others, numerous in print. Here's Seth Borenstein writing about it in 1998! Any other historic facts you'd like to argue over? Perhaps you'd like to dispute that Nixon proposed cancelling Apollos 16 and 17?
As I expected. NASA wanted Russia to fulfill its obligations with regard to the ISS. Russia could not afford to operate MIR and ISS and MirCorp ultimately could not afford to take over operation from Russia. There's no need to spin that into a NASA-hating conspiracy theory.
Quote from: Oli on 09/11/2014 02:55 amAs I expected. NASA wanted Russia to fulfill its obligations with regard to the ISS. Russia could not afford to operate MIR and ISS and MirCorp ultimately could not afford to take over operation from Russia. There's no need to spin that into a NASA-hating conspiracy theory.No-one did, except you.
Quote from: Pipcard on 05/13/2014 07:05 pmI keep seeing this argument for reusable vehicles: "you'll save money by not throwing the vehicle away and having to make a new one"But I also keep seeing this argument against them: "flight rates aren't high enough to justify the development and maintenance costs of reusable spacecraft"Depends on the cost to build a new vehicle, and the cost to refurbish a vehicle that has just returned from a flight.For Dream Chaser it's pretty straightforward, since they said they have built it for reusability with regard to consumables. And if the heat shield works as planned and they don't have to do any maintenance between flights, then reusability makes sense.For the two capsules, if they land in water it's a tougher calculation, but both Dragon and CST-100 are supposed to be able to land on terra firma. Both Boeing and SpaceX have said they plan to reuse their vehicles up to 10 times, so for now we'll have to take them at their word that they understand the issues involved.QuoteSo my questions are:- How frequently are these commercial vehicles (e.g. Dream Chaser, reusable Dragon/DragonRider) going to fly?- What would they do to justify that frequency?Because right now, Soyuz is flying about four times per year to the ISS, carrying 3 astronauts per flight (a total of 12/year). Is that enough? Space tourism (to a Bigelow hotel) might be an idea, but is there a sufficient market of millionaires/billionaires for orbital space tourism? (the number of space tourists/private space travelers that have gone into orbit is a single digit)Depending on the launch vehicle situation for both CST-100 and Dream Chaser (i.e. Atlas V availability), it may be that demand initially will be low. But considering that they use an existing launch vehicle, their overhead to maintain the services won't be extremely high depending on how they staff.For SpaceX, being the low cost leader has advantages, and I think they will see demand beyond just the normal ISS support. But they too can likely weather low demand at first, especially since they can spread their labor base over both the Dragon Crew and the Dragon Cargo versions.
I keep seeing this argument for reusable vehicles: "you'll save money by not throwing the vehicle away and having to make a new one"But I also keep seeing this argument against them: "flight rates aren't high enough to justify the development and maintenance costs of reusable spacecraft"
So my questions are:- How frequently are these commercial vehicles (e.g. Dream Chaser, reusable Dragon/DragonRider) going to fly?- What would they do to justify that frequency?Because right now, Soyuz is flying about four times per year to the ISS, carrying 3 astronauts per flight (a total of 12/year). Is that enough? Space tourism (to a Bigelow hotel) might be an idea, but is there a sufficient market of millionaires/billionaires for orbital space tourism? (the number of space tourists/private space travelers that have gone into orbit is a single digit)
If you want to dream about space tourism its better to avoid the wild far future stuff (full re-usability, etc) and stick with more near term dreaming.
People would need training and logistics along with profit for the broker (SpaceX wont be organized this stuff). Say $500k per person for training.
Quote from: Mariusuiram on 03/10/2015 05:56 amPeople would need training and logistics along with profit for the broker (SpaceX wont be organized this stuff). Say $500k per person for training.Why would training cost this much? How much training is really needed? You're not talking about people going to the ISS, and it's not like they're going to need to go to Russia to to study with cosmonauts for it. For a tourist going to a Bigelow module for a week, or just spending a couple days in orbit, shouldn't need more than a couple of week, if that - emergency procedures, what to expect, how to use the facilities.I think the perception of the amount of "training" needed, and what screening should be done, will change drastically as the number of people spending time in space and the frequency of their trips increases. Recall that the first astronauts and cosmonauts were subject to what are now considered extreme and unnecessary requirements and levels/types of training, because it was a completely unknown field.
If you want to dream about space tourism its better to avoid the wild far future stuff (full re-usability, etc) and stick with more near term dreaming.If F9 + Dragon 2 costs about US$150 million. Say 6 people + "Crew" so US$25 million per person. People would need training and logistics along with profit for the broker (SpaceX wont be organized this stuff). Say $500k per person for training. Say another $1.5 million for profit / operations for Space Adventures or whoever.Now in this price range people would probably want to do more than go up in a cramped Dragon and orbit a few times. They need a station (and the ISS isnt offering), so probably need to assume a Bigelow module.Whats that cost to put up? And what would be the charge for say a 2 week stay? Its more like an operating asset, so hopefully cheaper than the launch costs, but still maybe around US$10-12 million per person.So for 35-40 million you could spend 2 weeks in space. The market size is probably still in the 1,000s, but I bet there would be a business there.
It will be two or three years before Boeing or SpaceX launches NASA astronauts from Florida to the International Space Station, but they’re already looking to what comes after the station.(...)“Post-space station, we do need additional destinations to go to,” added Barry Matsumori, SpaceX’s senior vice president for sales and business development. “There’s a lot of development work to do, but it’s certainly a demand that exists.”(...)NASA hopes to begin flights to the ISS by late 2017. SpaceX has targeted a test flight with a crew early in 2017, and Boeing by middle of that year.(...)Bigelow Aerospace figures to play a major role in both companies’ opportunities for commercial crew flights to destinations other than the ISS, and for customers other than NASA.
Bigelow is flying the BEAM habitat this year. > Hopefully.SpaceX will human-rate the Dragon this year, too.> Doubtful.
