Canceled: SpaceX F9 : Space Adventures private Dragon flight

[FutureSpaceTourist]

This flight has been canceled.

https://twitter.com/spaceadventures/status/1229768605115600896

Space Adventures announces agreement with @SpaceX to launch private citizens on Dragon spacecraft spaceadventures.com/space-adventur…

Space Adventures Announces Agreement with SpaceX to Launch Private Citizens on the Crew Dragon Spacecraft

Mission profile provides opportunity to break a world record

February 18, 2020 — Building on the success of Crew Dragon’s first demonstration mission to the International Space Station in March 2019 and the recent successful test of the spacecraft’s launch escape system, Space Adventures, Inc. has entered into an agreement with SpaceX to fly private citizens on the first Crew Dragon free-flyer mission. This will provide up to four individuals with the opportunity to break the world altitude record for private citizen spaceflight and see planet Earth the way no one has since the Gemini program.

If interested parties are secured, this mission will be the first orbital space tourism experience provided entirely with American technology. Private citizens will fly aboard SpaceX’s fully autonomous Crew Dragon spacecraft launched by the company’s Falcon 9 rocket, the same spacecraft and launch vehicle that SpaceX will use to transport NASA astronauts to the International Space Station.

“This historic mission will forge a path to making spaceflight possible for all people who dream of it, and we are pleased to work with the Space Adventures’ team on the mission,” said Gwynne Shotwell, President and Chief Operating Officer, SpaceX.

“Creating unique and previously impossible opportunities for private citizens to experience space is why Space Adventures exists. From 2001-2009 our clients made history by flying over 36 million miles in space on eight separate missions to the ISS. Since its maiden mission in 2010, no engineering achievement has consistently impressed the industry more than the Dragon/Falcon 9 reusable system. Honoring our combined histories, this Dragon mission will be a special experience and a once in a lifetime opportunity – capable of reaching twice the altitude of any prior civilian astronaut mission or space station visitor,” said Eric Anderson, Chairman, Space Adventures.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Target date late 2021 to mid 2022. Up to 5 days flight duration. A few weeks training.

[quasarquantum]

Up to five days with three others in a Dragon... not sure i would prefer that to a short visit to the ISS. Altitude record or not

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1229787820040052737

Although the financial terms of the deal between SpaceX and Space Adventures were not disclosed, it's worth remembering that Bigelow Aerospace had a deal with SpaceX last year to fly customers to the space station for ~$52 million per person.

[Tomness]

Up to five days with three others in a Dragon... not sure i would prefer that to a short visit to the ISS. Altitude record or not

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1229787820040052737

Although the financial terms of the deal between SpaceX and Space Adventures were not disclosed, it's worth remembering that Bigelow Aerospace had a deal with SpaceX last year to fly customers to the space station for ~$52 million per person.

BIGELOW BEAM & Crew Dragon Team Up?

[whitelancer64]

Up to five days with three others in a Dragon... not sure i would prefer that to a short visit to the ISS. Altitude record or not

*snip tweet*

Although the financial terms of the deal between SpaceX and Space Adventures were not disclosed, it's worth remembering that Bigelow Aerospace had a deal with SpaceX last year to fly customers to the space station for ~$52 million per person.

BIGELOW BEAM & Crew Dragon Team Up?

There's no way a BEAM and a Crew Dragon could dock, so no.

[Prettz]

Target date late 2021 to mid 2022. Up to 5 days flight duration. A few weeks training.

So with that as the hoped-for target date, what's a more realistic date for this?

Up to five days with three others in a Dragon... not sure i would prefer that to a short visit to the ISS. Altitude record or not

Honestly, I would think you'd be so excited to be weightless and in space you wouldn't care. Dragon has a decent toilet facility, right?

[Kansan52]

The BEAM is berthed to the ISS so it's berthing port could not dock the the Crew Dragon. Of course, this would be a new build BEAM so that could be changed.

The problem (to me) is that it took longer than five days for BEAM to expand at the Station (if memory serves). You would make the mission much more difficult  (read dangerous) and the BEAM might not be usable for most of the mission. Best stow the seats for the flight.

[Confusador]

Target date late 2021 to mid 2022. Up to 5 days flight duration. A few weeks training.

So with that as the hoped-for target date, what's a more realistic date for this?

Given that there's no hardware development required, they could tell me they're planning to launch later this year and I'd believe it.

On the other hand, since the number of passengers isn't set they may have booked this without having anyone lined up.  If they don't get enough customers this may end up the same way as lunar Dragon.  Especially if Starship ends up being cheaper (likely) and available for crewed flights in the next few years (possible, but less likely).

[jadebenn]

"If interested parties are secured," huh? Welp. I'm not holding my breath.

Hope I'm proven wrong!

[Phil Stooke]

"There's no way a BEAM and a Crew Dragon could dock, so no. "

Dock elsewhere and transit to BEAM?  Lots of ways to do things...

[HeartofGold2030]

"If interested parties are secured," huh? Welp. I'm not holding my breath.

Hope I'm proven wrong!

Considering how many of Space Adventures’ more recent endeavours have ended up, your wise to breathe freely...

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Yes, I too think the target date will in practice be driven by demand, not supply.

Having said that, I suspect NET late 2021 is when SpaceX are comfortable they'll have have a gap in their manifest and an available (flight proven?) Dragon. Several days is not a typical mission and lots of Starlink flights to go first to get to a viable network ASAP.

This mission is a nice stepping stone though for SpaceX, between ISS crewed Dragon ops and the circumlunar Starship flight.

I think price will be the big issue for what the demand is. A few days in a capsule is rather different from a week or more on the ISS. Not sure the higher altitude of this Dragon flight will be a big draw, although the drastically reduced training time (weeks not months) may bring in a number of people who baulk at the time needed to prepare to visit the ISS.

Will be very interesting to see how this pans out.

[abaddon]

Target date late 2021 to mid 2022. Up to 5 days flight duration. A few weeks training.

So with that as the hoped-for target date, what's a more realistic date for this?

Given that there's no hardware development required, they could tell me they're planning to launch later this year and I'd believe it.

On the other hand, since the number of passengers isn't set they may have booked this without having anyone lined up.  If they don't get enough customers this may end up the same way as lunar Dragon.  Especially if Starship ends up being cheaper (likely) and available for crewed flights in the next few years (possible, but less likely).

Lunar Dragon had customers, it just got moved to Starship.  The big distinction there being Lunar Dragon required further development effort (a lot) where this service does not.  A better comp might be Dragonlab, which used an existing capability, but never materialized due to customer disinterest.

Spaceflight Adventures has a track record and has actually booked and flown tourists (seven of them!), although none more recently than 2009.  Worth noting that the retirement of the Space Shuttle put a premium on Soyuz seats and it is possible this depressed the market.  Those were ISS flights, and this is not, but this should also be reasonably cheaper.  So hard to know how that combination affects things.

This seems significant, but there is clearly work still to be done by both parties before anything can happen.

[Comga]

What I find very interesting is the other "record" that would be broken.

Fly further from Earth than anyone in the last 50 years".

That would be a world altitude record for a grammatical error in the 21st century.  It should be "farther".

But seriously....
The highest the Shuttle went was 620 km when servicing Hubble.
So the flight is planned to over 620 km.
An interesting choice for a flight under one week.

This would probably land in the ocean, like Dragon 2 missions to the ISS will have by then.
But could they land in the desert, using SuperDracos and coming to rest directly on the heat shield?

[ugordan]

The highest the Shuttle went was 620 km when servicing Hubble.
So the flight is planned to over 620 km.

The statement was 2x ISS altitude, no? So that would mean around 800 km top altitude. I'm thinking an elliptical insertion with that kind of apogee, not a circular orbit at 800 km.

[rpapo]

The highest the Shuttle went was 620 km when servicing Hubble.
So the flight is planned to over 620 km.

The statement was 2x ISS altitude, no? So that would mean around 800 km top altitude. I'm thinking an elliptical insertion with that kind of apogee, not a circular orbit at 800 km.

They could do what's already been done with several manned and unmanned flights (Apollo, Gemini): launch into an elliptical orbit like a GTO (though not quite so high).  That would almost definitely set a record.  The danger would be the radiation belts.  And it would give the heat shield quite a beating on the way back.

[Tomness]

The BEAM is berthed to the ISS so it's berthing port could not dock the the Crew Dragon. Of course, this would be a new build BEAM so that could be changed.

The problem (to me) is that it took longer than five days for BEAM to expand at the Station (if memory serves). You would make the mission much more difficult  (read dangerous) and the BEAM might not be usable for most of the mission. Best stow the seats for the flight.

NASA made Bigelo inflate it the long way,  it had canisters in it to inflate it's self. Nasa told then not to because they sat for to long waiting on the mission.

FLY BEAM on top of Dragon. It's free-flyer so you can do what ever.  Discard before landing.

[Norm38]

I'd stay out of the belts, but an elliptical orbit would be cool for tourists.  Get to see the Earth get smaller, get that full Blue Marble view, then come back in close, lower than ISS for the "I can see my house!" closeups.

[Comga]

The highest the Shuttle went was 620 km when servicing Hubble.
So the flight is planned to over 620 km.

The statement was 2x ISS altitude, no? So that would mean around 800 km top altitude. I'm thinking an elliptical insertion with that kind of apogee, not a circular orbit at 800 km.

Anderson said

… capable of reaching twice the altitude of any prior civilian astronaut mission or space station visitor,

. 
"capable of reaching", not "going to"
So we have an upper and lower bound.
One of our analysts can use real numbers and equations to tell us what the limits are on circular and elliptical orbits for Dragon 2 on Falcon 9 assuming RTLS or ASDS.

[freddo411]

What I find very interesting is the other "record" that would be broken.

Fly further from Earth than anyone in the last 50 years".

That would be a world altitude record for a grammatical error in the 21st century.  It should be "farther".

But seriously....
The highest the Shuttle went was 620 km when servicing Hubble.
So the flight is planned to over 620 km.
An interesting choice for a flight under one week.

This would probably land in the ocean, like Dragon 2 missions to the ISS will have by then.
But could they land in the desert, using SuperDracos and coming to rest directly on the heat shield?

My guess is they will not land on land.   

If they do return to land, and use thrusters, then they have difficult potential contamination issues right outside their spacecraft.    They won't have any experience with this issue prior to these commercial tourist flights; seems like that might be a good reason not to do that.

I'm hoping I'm wrong.   I'm hoping that the improved experience is worth the investment

[QuantumG]

heh, so they lost their fight to get private astronauts on the ISS.

What a surprise.

[wannamoonbase]

Been waiting to see this become a real thing.

[Phil Stooke]

Off topic I know, but you can safely ignore the grammar lesson.

"Fly further from Earth than anyone in the last 50 years".
"That would be a world altitude record for a grammatical error in the 21st century.  It should be "farther"  "

The two words are synonyms when referring to distance.  Further has other meanings (more, additional etc.) which are not synonymous with Farther, but in this case either will do. 

Of course, there is always the dad joke about the young boy and his elderly relative on the bus.  As more people got on the driver called 'please move farther down the bus'.  The boy replied 'It's not Father, it's grandfather'.  But the driver could have said 'further' and avoided further embarrassment.

[Dante2121]

Does dragon even have a good toilet?

[joek]

Does dragon even have a good toilet?

Heh; I'll take that as a humorous counterpoint.  And if not... define "good".  Apollo and Gemini crews managed; if you can't handle it, you should not be on this mission.

[ThePonjaX]

Well apart from the very interesting toilet question, some other questions:
Is going to be a new dragon or a refurbished one?
I think the rocket is going to be a flight proven, to low the cost.
Are they going to do just 1 orbit, 2, or 3 , more?

[armchairfan]

Some of the above questions are answered on the Space Adventures LEO webpage:

The Dragon low-Earth orbit spaceflight will fly a similar mission profile to the Gemini XI mission. Gemini XI was a NASA mission flown in 1966. Astronauts Pete Conrad and Richard Gordon spent 3 days in low-Earth orbit completing 44 orbits of the Earth. The spacecraft flew an elliptical orbit, with an altitude of 300 km as its closest point to Earth, and 1,350 km at its highest.

The price for this mission is in the same range as past private orbital spaceflights.

Expected launch: Late 2021 - Mid 2022 from Cape Canaveral
Flight duration: up to 5 days
Training: a few weeks conducted in the USA
Spacecraft: SpaceX Crew Dragon

No doubt the elliptical orbit was chosen in part for the dramatically different views of the earth at various altitudes. Here's a set of Gemini XI pics that they show on their website.

[freddo411]

Well apart from the very interesting toilet question, some other questions:
Is going to be a new dragon or a refurbished one?
I think the rocket is going to be a flight proven, to low the cost.
Are they going to do just 1 orbit, 2, or 3 , more?

For 20 million bucks a person ( speculative price ), they will orbit for days.

[high road]

This mission is a nice stepping stone though for SpaceX, between ISS crewed Dragon ops and the circumlunar Starship flight.

I think price will be the big issue for what the demand is. A few days in a capsule is rather different from a week or more on the ISS. Not sure the higher altitude of this Dragon flight will be a big draw, although the drastically reduced training time (weeks not months) may bring in a number of people who baulk at the time needed to prepare to visit the ISS.

By the time this mission actually launches, they'll probably be thinking about (sub)orbital hops with StarShip. Spread the costs over many more seats. So I doubt this will be a recurring thing.

[M.E.T.]

OK, might as well use Dragon while it’s around - which won’t be long once Starship is operational. Other than for legacy customers like NASA with their archaic capsule based flight requirements.

[nuukee]

From the Spaceflight now article (https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/02/18/space-adventures-announces-plans-to-launch-private-citizens-on-spacex-crew-capsule/):

"Eric Anderson, chairman of Space Adventures, suggested on Twitter that the price per seat could be less than $50 million.

Responding to a question on Twitter about a possible price tag of $52 million per seat, Anderson tweeted: “Per seat price for a full group of four not quite that much (not dramatically less, but significant enough to note). Definitive pricing confidential, and dependent on client specific requests, etc.”"

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Here’s the tweet and another of interest:

twitter.com/beatsbykana/status/1229814778111000576

Now I just need to borrow 52 million dollars and I'm set

https://twitter.com/ec_anderson/status/1229840671856615424

Per seat price for a full group of four not quite that much (not dramatically less, but significant enough to note). Definitive pricing confidential, and dependent on client specific requests etc

So 40 to 50m a seat?

https://twitter.com/ec_anderson/status/1229821309087100929

Several potential customers already. It’s a new concept, as ppl become more familiar and educated more qualified candidates will emerge. Firm commitments likelier after first crew launch in a couple months.

https://twitter.com/ec_anderson/status/1229819192871964674

Dragon in this profile allows up to 5 days. 3 days is probably ideal, 40-50 orbits or so.

[TrevorMonty]

While NASA only wants new ones for its crew missions doesn't mean SpaceX can't use used Crew Dragons for private missions.

If it works out they could place 2nd dragon in same orbit as mini station to give future missions a bit more living space. With extra space could fly 6-7 passengers per mission. Also acts as backup return and rescue vehicle.

[M.E.T.]

How about putting a Starship up there for living space, presuming that Starship human flights will take much longer to qualify than its initial cargo capability?

So put a Starship up there as an alternative space station, and then fly tourists up there for extended visits via Dragon.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

twitter.com/anoushehansari/status/1229933350414176256

Hummmm sounds really intriguing May be there is a frequent flyer discount

https://twitter.com/ec_anderson/status/1229937517329174529

It's hard to say no to you Anousheh

https://twitter.com/thaddeusces/status/1230116377517793280

I’m in!  How does that discount work?

[TrevorMonty]

How about putting a Starship up there for living space, presuming that Starship human flights will take much longer to qualify than its initial cargo capability?

So put a Starship up there as an alternative space station, and then fly tourists up there for extended visits via Dragon.

Can also double as rescue and backup return vehicle. Not sure on its in orbit life. With 2 dragons they can be rotated.

Ideally launch Dragon on SS then SpaceX get 3 for 1
LV
Space habitat
Backup crew vehicle.

[M.E.T.]

How about putting a Starship up there for living space, presuming that Starship human flights will take much longer to qualify than its initial cargo capability?

So put a Starship up there as an alternative space station, and then fly tourists up there for extended visits via Dragon.

Can also double as rescue and backup return vehicle. Not sure on its in orbit life. With 2 dragons they can be rotated.

Ideally launch Dragon on SS then SpaceX get 3 for 1
LV
Space habitat
Backup crew vehicle.

Yes, considering that Starship might be ready to go to orbit in a couple of years, but might take 5 or more years to be safe enough to reliably land with humans aboard.

So it is just taking humans up and down safely that will require Dragon for the foreseeable future. For the time they spend in space and to get the hardware and cargo up there cheaply, Starship will be available soon.

[M.E.T.]

It states here the price is likely to be $10-15 million.

https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-will-fly-space-tourists.html

Highly unlikely to be profitable at that price. Not with Dragon thrown into the mix.

[mandrewa]

It states here the price is likely to be $10-15 million.

https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-will-fly-space-tourists.html

The article you linked to has been updated this morning.  It now gives $35 million for the last person to pay for a trip on the Soyuz to the ISS, and says that prices are expected to be in "the same range."

[abaddon]

It states here the price is likely to be $10-15 million.

https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-will-fly-space-tourists.html

The article you linked to has been updated this morning.  It now gives $35 million for the last person to pay for a trip on the Soyuz to the ISS, and says that prices are expected to be in "the same range."

Worth noting that the current price (to NASA) for an ISS seat is reported to be $85 million, so $35 million seems like a pretty reasonable price given the difference in the experience.

[Macsen]

The BEAM is berthed to the ISS so it's berthing port could not dock the the Crew Dragon. Of course, this would be a new build BEAM so that could be changed.

The problem (to me) is that it took longer than five days for BEAM to expand at the Station (if memory serves). You would make the mission much more difficult  (read dangerous) and the BEAM might not be usable for most of the mission. Best stow the seats for the flight.

Yeah, BEAM does not have its own separate docking mechanism. It was designed to use an ISS berthing port, not a docking port. Crew Dragon uses the IDAs at Harmony forward or Harmony zenith.

While NASA only wants new ones for its crew missions doesn't mean SpaceX can't use used Crew Dragons for private missions.

If it works out they could place 2nd dragon in same orbit as mini station to give future missions a bit more living space. With extra space could fly 6-7 passengers per mission. Also acts as backup return and rescue vehicle.

SpaceX is currently planning on also re-using Crew Dragons as Cargo Dragons under CRS-2.

[soltasto]

SpaceX is currently planning on also re-using Crew Dragons as Cargo Dragons under CRS-2.

No. This isn't going to happen anymore per Jessica Jensen comments on a last year CRS press conference.

[hektor]

Which simplification / enhancements could be foreseen by foregoing the rendez vous and docking.

Deletion of docking mechanism and rendezvous sensors

Simplification of propulsion ?

Deletion of the hinged docking cover ?

Replacing docking mechanism by a vistadome ?

Any idea ?

[whitelancer64]

SpaceX is currently planning on also re-using Crew Dragons as Cargo Dragons under CRS-2.

No. This isn't going to happen anymore per Jessica Jensen comments on a last year CRS press conference.

To add, that same press conference confirmed that Cargo Dragon 2 will be a separate build without SuperDracos.

[whitelancer64]

Which simplification / enhancements could be foreseen by foregoing the rendez vous and docking.

Deletion of docking mechanism and rendezvous sensors

Simplification of propulsion ?

Deletion of the hinged docking cover ?

Replacing docking mechanism by a vistadome ?

Any idea ?

Any kind of modification would make the capsule / tourist trip much more expensive. It would be cheaper and easier to just fly a "stock" Crew Dragon 2. Even cheaper if it's reusing one that has already flown crew to the ISS.

[hektor]

I suspect a docking mechanism and hatch is complex and expensive. Replacing it by a simple closing structure is probably saving money.

[whitelancer64]

I suspect a docking mechanism and hatch is complex and expensive. Replacing it by a simple closing structure is probably saving money.

That would entail taking the Crew Dragon apart, designing a "closing structure," testing it with the pressure vessel, installing it, performing integrated tests, etc.

Way more expensive than just using a Dragon 2 as it is.

[Comga]

Which simplification / enhancements could be foreseen by foregoing the rendez vous and docking.

Deletion of docking mechanism and rendezvous sensors

Simplification of propulsion ?

Deletion of the hinged docking cover ?

Replacing docking mechanism by a vistadome ?

Any idea ?

Any kind of modification would make the capsule / tourist trip much more expensive. It would be cheaper and easier to just fly a "stock" Crew Dragon 2. Even cheaper if it's reusing one that has already flown crew to the ISS.

I agree, but that last idea is intriguing.
The docking mechanism may be one SpaceX plans on reusing from mission to mission,. 
The interface is probably designed for removal via a good number of bolts.
They could replace it with a plate with a window.
It probably wouldn't be whatever a "vistadome" might be, like the cupola on the ISS, but it could be a window somewhat larger than the two on the DM-2 capsule.
There were also the two additional window locations that are not seen on the DM-1 or DM-2 capsules. 

[whitelancer64]

heh, so they lost their fight to get private astronauts on the ISS.

What a surprise.

Not necessarily. This could be in addition to that.

[whitelancer64]

Does dragon even have a good toilet?

Yes, it does.

[Alexphysics]

The docking hatch has a window, one could use that as an extra view of the outside. Just saying...

[woods170]

heh, so they lost their fight to get private astronauts on the ISS.

What a surprise.

It took you 11 years to figure that out?

Space Adventures effectively lost that fight in 2009 when NASA began buying each-and-every available Soyuz seat due to the impending retirement of the Space Shuttle.

[Craftyatom]

Which simplification / enhancements could be foreseen by foregoing the rendez vous and docking.
[...]
Deletion of the hinged docking cover ?

Disregarding arguments of cost and commonality and the like, this one is (as far as I know) a non-starter.  Not only is that cover an important aerodynamic element on the way up (even if the docking mechanism were removed), it also needs to open to uncover a star tracker once on orbit.  Sure, the tracker won't be needed for precision docking, but from a safety perspective, the spacecraft should maintain that navigation aid.

Again, saying nothing about whether other design changes actually make sense here.

[Cheapchips]

Does dragon even have a good toilet?

Yes, it does.

Isn't it behind a curtain?  If they go as a group of four it'll be, erm, intimate.

[ncb1397]

Who wants to bet this never happens?

Red dragon?
lunar dragon?
dragon lab?

All of them never happened.

[whitelancer64]

Does dragon even have a good toilet?

Yes, it does.

Isn't it behind a curtain?  If they go as a group of four it'll be, erm, intimate.

Yep, there's a privacy screen of some sort.

[QuantumG]

It took you 11 years to figure that out?

Space Adventures effectively lost that fight in 2009 when NASA began buying each-and-every available Soyuz seat due to the impending retirement of the Space Shuttle.

They've been fighting NASA to allow private astronauts to ride side-by-side with NASA astronauts to the ISS. There was some hope that the change in administration and the approaching beginning of service would change things. The Russians are still offering space on their side of the station, but NASA has veto over who can dock with the station - ruling out a separate flight to the ISS.

[ThePonjaX]

heh, so they lost their fight to get private astronauts on the ISS.

What a surprise.

It took you 11 years to figure that out?

Space Adventures effectively lost that fight in 2009 when NASA began buying each-and-every available Soyuz seat due to the impending retirement of the Space Shuttle.

Seems Spacex getting all the business from Roscosmos not only the NASA seats the private ones too.

Who wants to bet this never happens?

Red dragon?
lunar dragon?
dragon lab?

All of them never happened.

Well I thought the same but for each case a better project replaced the older one. Invest in Starship is better but on this case I think it has a greater opportunity to happen. Not new hardware, not special efforts, just the rocket and capsule developed for NASA.
And of course: they'll be the first private company on do that. Another first for Spacex.

[raketa]

At that time Starship could be already on Orbit.
They will be able to dock it and spend 5 days in bigger place..

[QuantumG]

At that time Starship could be already on Orbit.
They will be able to dock it and spend 5 days in bigger place..

There's better options than going to the ISS, I agree.

Personally I'm for building /much/ bigger facilities... but there's people ready and willing to pay for space on the ISS and the Russians are willing to supply the room. NASA should get out of the way.

[jak Kennedy]

At least they may find out the amount of interest in private flights. With enough interest maybe even Bigalow will pull his finger out and fly a B330(?) but I doubt it.

[woods170]

It took you 11 years to figure that out?

Space Adventures effectively lost that fight in 2009 when NASA began buying each-and-every available Soyuz seat due to the impending retirement of the Space Shuttle.

They've been fighting NASA to allow private astronauts to ride side-by-side with NASA astronauts to the ISS. There was some hope that the change in administration and the approaching beginning of service would change things. The Russians are still offering space on their side of the station, but NASA has veto over who can dock with the station - ruling out a separate flight to the ISS.

That veto right is what NASA acquired when they made the deal with the Russians in 2009 to buy all available Soyuz seats. In return the Russians got to ask premium prices for the seats. And NASA was gladly willing to pay those prices just to keep "tourists" away. Folks like Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth were much more annoying to NASA than most people realize. NASA detested that the Russians sold surplus seats to Space Adventures.

[woods170]

At that time Starship could be already on Orbit.
They will be able to dock it and spend 5 days in bigger place..

There's better options than going to the ISS, I agree.

Personally I'm for building /much/ bigger facilities... but there's people ready and willing to pay for space on the ISS and the Russians are willing to supply the room. NASA should get out of the way.

Given that NASA owns roughly 70 percent of the ISS I don't think it is reasonable to aks NASA to "get out of the way".
But that's just me.

[Star One]

It states here the price is likely to be $10-15 million.

https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-will-fly-space-tourists.html

The article you linked to has been updated this morning.  It now gives $35 million for the last person to pay for a trip on the Soyuz to the ISS, and says that prices are expected to be in "the same range."

Thanks. It definitely said the lower price in the version I read, so it must have been an error on the writers part.

[Star One]

At that time Starship could be already on Orbit.
They will be able to dock it and spend 5 days in bigger place..

There's better options than going to the ISS, I agree.

Personally I'm for building /much/ bigger facilities... but there's people ready and willing to pay for space on the ISS and the Russians are willing to supply the room. NASA should get out of the way.

Given that NASA owns roughly 70 percent of the ISS I don't think it is reasonable to aks NASA to "get out of the way".
But that's just me.

Not just you. The OP’s statement was really unhelpful other than re-iterating an anti-NASA bias.

[alang]

Sounds like a great way for SpaceX to get other people to pay for more advanced testing of the Dragon 2 heat shield.
Maybe they can get some other heat shield technology testing done as well for a discount...

[Comga]

Sounds like a great way for SpaceX to get other people to pay for more advanced testing of the Dragon 2 heat shield.
Maybe they can get some other heat shield technology testing done as well for a discount...

Orbital velocity is not dramatically greater for reentry from 700 km altitude than from the ISS’s 400 km altitude.
11,500 m/s vs 10,400 m/s assuming 100 km perigee for the reentry “orbit”, or about 25% more kinetic energy.
The heat shield has been said to be good for several reentrys, so there is plenty of margin.
And while everything generates new data, they probably won’t consider it, and certainly not call it, heat shield testing with passengers onboard.

[abaddon]

Thanks. It definitely said the lower price in the version I read, so it must have been an error on the writers part.

It's an interesting question, because it's probable the writer doesn't know the price either, so both their earlier version and this version are presumably (educated) guesses.  Which begs the question of why the writer revised the article; was it due to rethinking and possibly reading other public information, or did they get a more official communication?

In any case, $35 million seems pretty reasonable from a cost/profit perspective, assuming a full flight and reused dragon/booster.

[billh]

I imagine that the training for a free-flying Dragon mission will be much shorter than training for a flight to the ISS. No doubt NASA would require lots of safety training for anyone who would enter the ISS. That would make it harder for busy billionaires to fit a trip into their schedule.

[punder]

...Folks like Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth were much more annoying to NASA than most people realize. NASA detested that the Russians sold surplus seats to Space Adventures.

I remember watching the video of Tito boarding the station. Each astronaut got a big hug from the current crew as they came through the hatch. Except for Tito. They just sort of left him floating there. It was a deliberate, planned insult.

[Rocket Science]

If they could reuse the second stage, they could probably reduce the price somewhat...

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Steve Jurvetson clearly thinks suborbital tourism isn’t worth it. He neglects to mention the (current) 2 orders of magnitude difference in price between suborbital and orbital. So I don’t see his points meaning that SpaceX will be taking business off Blue Origin or Virgin Galactic. So in my view the market for this Space Adventures mission remains to be seen.

https://twitter.com/futurejurvetson/status/1230540247433265152

Suboptimal Space Tourism

I just posted a critique of suborbital 🚀 tourism, and why it won't afford the breathtaking perspectives extolled by the astronauts of yore. If you take a suborbital launch from New Mexico, you'll see a small part of New Mexico.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/49559158658/

Steve Jurvetson Follow
Orbital vs Suborbital Space Tourism

Why are some of our space dreams so suboptimal?
 
Back in 2012, I wrote a blog post on my space-faring dreams — specifically, a space-walk in a very-low orbit around the moon, with an unfettered view, soaring like superman just above the lunar landscape. But, I mainly wrote about why I have no interest in suborbital rocket tourism, especially compared to the alternative experiences out there (zero-g flights and high altitude balloons).
 
Now in 2020, suborbital tourism has become even less appealing (shorter flights and lower altitudes), and I have to wonder if people are imagining that these suboptimal flights are something that they are not — something akin to the magical experiences astronauts had over the past 50 years.
 
I was reminded of this when Space Adventures announced their 2021 orbital tourism offerings yesterday, going to the same heights as Gemini XI… 16x higher than the suborbital hoppers. Their photo strip of the views at different altitudes are very different from the photos I have seen from our amateur rockets and balloons. So, I added them below for contrast.
 
Let’s consider the ostensible selling points for suborbital tourism:
 
1) VIEWS: If you launch from New Mexico, expect to see a small part of New Mexico surrounding the launch site. And maybe some clouds. Not America. Not Earth. Not a dramatic curvature of the Earth (the photos from this altitude that appear to show that are a distortion artifact of wide-angle lenses, like a GoPro camera). Yes, the blackness of space, but not more than what your eye can discern from high-altitude balloon flights or military jet flights available today. And you won’t have much time to reflect and take photos versus the alternatives.
 
For a sense of the “new perspective” on Earth from 51 miles up, imagine looking out at a 45° angle, like the photo above. You’ll be looking 51 miles out in any direction. That’s it — 51 miles away from the launch site. You can see more, but it not that different from high-altitude flight. As you raise your eyes to the horizon, it’s mostly a blur of clouds fading to blue and black.
 
So, what’s the breathtaking perspective we keep hearing from astronauts? It is magical up there. But that comes from the lateral movement —17,500 MPH around the Earth, in orbit. The point of view difference between an orbital versus suborbital rocket is like the different views from an airplane versus a skyscraper. They call it a suborbital “hop” for a reason. Up and down, like a big trampoline jump.
 
It’s all about the motion, the experience that is unlike anything else on Earth. The Apollo 11 astronaut, Michael Collins, described his Gemini orbit (250 miles up, same as the ISS) so beautifully in his autobiography, Carrying the Fire:
 
“This is the best view of the universe that a human has ever had. We are gliding across the world in total silence, with absolute smoothness; a motion of stately grace which makes me feel God-like as I stand erect in my sideways chariot, cruising the night sky.”
 
“The view is absolutely breathtaking! I will try to explain it. First some arithmetic. At two hundred miles above a sphere whose radius is four thousand, we are just skimming along one twentieth of a radius above the surface. The atmosphere itself is ridiculously thin, thinner than the rind on an orange, and we are just barely above it.”
 
“Our much higher orbital velocity is balanced out by our higher altitude, so the angular changes (the most important visual cues of speed) are still within the realm of the commonplace. Although the sky is absolute, unrelieved black instead of blue, the colors below look about the same as they would from an airplane.”
 
“Then what is so impressive, what makes it different? Supertourist is up, and what a feeling of power! Those aren’t counties going by, those are continents; not lakes but oceans!”
 
“I think nirvana must be at an altitude of 250 miles… I am in the cosmic arena, the place to gain a celestial perspective; it remains only to slow down long enough to capture it, even a teacup will do, to last a lifetime below.”
 
None of that happens on a suborbital flight.
 
2) WEIGHTLESSNESS: Having done zero-g flights on a specialized plane, I highly recommend the weightless experience, and those parabolic flights are so much more accessible and affordable today than a suborbital flight. It’s not an extended period of zero-g, but in 30-second episodes (and 60 seconds for lunar and Mars gravity simulation), you can play in weightlessness for a lot longer per dollar spent. For $5K, you can get 12 of those episodes, a longer period of weightless time at a 40x cost advantage to suborbital rockets. To be fair, it is broken up into many pieces, but that gives you time to learn, plan and set up for the next one before it’s all over. There is definitely a learning curve for weightless play time.
 
But the comparison worsens on compare quality. The available space for movement is much, much greater in the airplane than a suborbital rocket (where the best of them might let you get out of the seat for a bit to bumble about in a small cabin, but you have to get back and buckled in for reentry with plenty of time to spare).
 
On a zero-g plane, in contrast, you can do “superman” flights over 30 foot stretches. You can build inverted human pyramids or “play ball” tossing someone in the fetal position back and forth. You can do various experiments with spin stabilized bananas or water droplets. We did all that on my first flight.
 
On a suborbital rocket ride, the zero-g play time trades off with window time. You only have a few minutes for both.
 
3) BRAGGING RIGHTS: For some, there are other critical factors, so it’s worth acknowledging that, even if they don’t appeal to me personally. Some are thrill seekers, and like being on the cutting edge of dangerous activities. Some are enthralled with the coolness of the technology – a suborbital rocket flight is a better bar story than a parabolic zero-g plane flight. Symbolism and bragging rights can also be uniquely special for some people, like being the first person from a small nation to voyage in space. I see how that can be exciting back in the home country… and being able to say you’re an astronaut, if only for a few minutes. But ironically, all of these factors fade away when the product is safe and routine, both prequisites for any business success. It will be widely understood that you took an overpriced aerospace ride, like a passenger in a plane.
 
----
 
P.S. In contrast, consider Space Adventures to 840-mile high Gemini orbit:
 
"The first mission of its kind will attempt to break the altitude record for private citizen spaceflight. Participants will see planet Earth the way no one has since the Gemini program. Up to four private citizens can fly on this mission, which will be the first orbital space tourism experience provided entirely with American technology. The Crew Dragon has been designed to fly completely autonomously, and this means that the training time commitment for participants will be less than for other spaceflight experiences." Promo Video.

[envy887]

Sounds like a great way for SpaceX to get other people to pay for more advanced testing of the Dragon 2 heat shield.
Maybe they can get some other heat shield technology testing done as well for a discount...

Orbital velocity is not dramatically greater for reentry from 700 km altitude than from the ISS’s 400 km altitude.
11,500 m/s vs 10,400 m/s assuming 100 km perigee for the reentry “orbit”, or about 25% more kinetic energy.
The heat shield has been said to be good for several reentrys, so there is plenty of margin.
And while everything generates new data, they probably won’t consider it, and certainly not call it, heat shield testing with passengers onboard.

11.5 km/s is a hyperbolic entry, and even 10.5 km/s will result in an apogee above GEO.

A 100x400 orbit has a perigee velocity of 7932 m/s, while a 100x700 orbit has a perigee velocity of 8015 m/s. The energy difference is only 2%.

[yg1968]

It took you 11 years to figure that out?

Space Adventures effectively lost that fight in 2009 when NASA began buying each-and-every available Soyuz seat due to the impending retirement of the Space Shuttle.

They've been fighting NASA to allow private astronauts to ride side-by-side with NASA astronauts to the ISS. There was some hope that the change in administration and the approaching beginning of service would change things. The Russians are still offering space on their side of the station, but NASA has veto over who can dock with the station - ruling out a separate flight to the ISS.

That veto right is what NASA acquired when they made the deal with the Russians in 2009 to buy all available Soyuz seats. In return the Russians got to ask premium prices for the seats. And NASA was gladly willing to pay those prices just to keep "tourists" away. Folks like Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth were much more annoying to NASA than most people realize. NASA detested that the Russians sold surplus seats to Space Adventures.

NASA announced less than a year ago that it would allow two private missions to the ISS per year:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48301.msg1954582#msg1954582

Has that changed?

[Nehkara]

https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1230545409266896901

Tweet Contents:

Space Adventures says it expects firm commitments from paying passengers for a private Crew Dragon flight in Earth orbit will be more likely after the capsule’s first launch with astronauts.

Price per seat? Less than $52 million, officials say.

Excerpt from the article:

Responding to a question on Twitter about a possible price tag of $52 million per seat, Anderson tweeted: “Per seat price for a full group of four not quite that much (not dramatically less, but significant enough to note). Definitive pricing confidential, and dependent on client specific requests, etc.”

[abaddon]

Steve Jurvetson clearly thinks suborbital tourism isn’t worth it. He neglects to mention the (current) 2 orders of magnitude difference in price between suborbital and orbital. So I don’t see his points meaning that SpaceX will be taking business off Blue Origin or Virgin Galactic. So in my view the market for this Space Adventures mission remains to be seen.

Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic have flown exactly as many astronauts as SpaceX has - zero.  Right now both markets are quite speculative.

I do agree that we're talking about different groups of people for the most part.

[Comga]

Sounds like a great way for SpaceX to get other people to pay for more advanced testing of the Dragon 2 heat shield.
Maybe they can get some other heat shield technology testing done as well for a discount...

Orbital velocity is not dramatically greater for reentry from 700 km altitude than from the ISS’s 400 km altitude.
11,500 m/s vs 10,400 m/s assuming 100 km perigee for the reentry “orbit”, or about 25% more kinetic energy.
The heat shield has been said to be good for several reentrys, so there is plenty of margin.
And while everything generates new data, they probably won’t consider it, and certainly not call it, heat shield testing with passengers onboard.

11.5 km/s is a hyperbolic entry, and even 10.5 km/s will result in an apogee above GEO.

A 100x400 orbit has a perigee velocity of 7932 m/s, while a 100x700 orbit has a perigee velocity of 8015 m/s. The energy difference is only 2%.

Oops
You are correct.
Of course those are excessively high
Have to check why those nonsensical numbers were generated. 
Serves me right for going to a new online calculator with odd unit choices.  I bet it's a units problem.

So the difference is even smaller,

"Engineering is done with numbers.  Everything else is opinion"
Except sloppy engineering.  That's done with invalid numbers.   

[Comga]

Steve Jurvetson clearly thinks suborbital tourism isn’t worth it. He neglects to mention the (current) 2 orders of magnitude difference in price between suborbital and orbital. So I don’t see his points meaning that SpaceX will be taking business off Blue Origin or Virgin Galactic. So in my view the market for this Space Adventures mission remains to be seen.

https://twitter.com/futurejurvetson/status/1230540247433265152

Suboptimal Space Tourism

I just posted a critique of suborbital 🚀 tourism, and why it won't afford the breathtaking perspectives extolled by the astronauts of yore. If you take a suborbital launch from New Mexico, you'll see a small part of New Mexico.

 
P.S. In contrast, consider Space Adventures to 840-mile high Gemini orbit:
 
"The first mission of its kind will attempt to break the altitude record for private citizen spaceflight. Participants will see planet Earth the way no one has since the Gemini program. Up to four private citizens can fly on this mission, which will be the first orbital space tourism experience provided entirely with American technology. The Crew Dragon has been designed to fly completely autonomously, and this means that the training time commitment for participants will be less than for other spaceflight experiences." Promo Video.

Actually, from 100 km suborbital passengers should be able to see out over 1000 km, well outside of New Mexico.
As opposed to over 3000 km from 840 km altitude. 
An order of magnitude more ground area, but not two or three.

I agree with the rest of his arguments.

There is a discussion over in the VG threads about how that justifies (or doesn't justify) VG/SPCE market cap being a good fraction of the valuation of SpaceX or the market cap of Tesla.

While this is not SpaceX's business, they might make a decent profit from a few Space Adventures Dragon flights until Starship is established.  Something to help out until Starlink revenues begin.  And given how little additional the development costs there will be, SpaceX will make a lot more new profit than VG.

[woods170]

It took you 11 years to figure that out?

Space Adventures effectively lost that fight in 2009 when NASA began buying each-and-every available Soyuz seat due to the impending retirement of the Space Shuttle.

They've been fighting NASA to allow private astronauts to ride side-by-side with NASA astronauts to the ISS. There was some hope that the change in administration and the approaching beginning of service would change things. The Russians are still offering space on their side of the station, but NASA has veto over who can dock with the station - ruling out a separate flight to the ISS.

That veto right is what NASA acquired when they made the deal with the Russians in 2009 to buy all available Soyuz seats. In return the Russians got to ask premium prices for the seats. And NASA was gladly willing to pay those prices just to keep "tourists" away. Folks like Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth were much more annoying to NASA than most people realize. NASA detested that the Russians sold surplus seats to Space Adventures.

NASA announced less than a year ago that it would allow two private missions to the ISS per year:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48301.msg1954582#msg1954582

Has that changed?

No, it has not. The difference this time is that those missions will happen under terms set by NASA, instead of being throttled by the Russians like last times.

[Kansan52]

No numbers, just opinion. You must reach a destination and participate in activities to be a tourist. So trips to the ISS could be tourism the rest just seem like fancy roller coasters.

[Comga]

No numbers, just opinion. You must reach a destination and participate in activities to be a tourist. So trips to the ISS could be tourism the rest just seem like fancy roller coasters.

There are tourist flight in passenger airplanes across the North and South Poles.
There are cruises to see solar eclipses from the middle of oceans.
Many things can be considered “tourist destinations” that are not specific locations.
Then there are certain roller coasters that ARE tourist destinations.....😁

[tonyq]

I’m a little surprised we have five pages of comments, and no-one has really mentioned the ‘people’ aspects of this plan.

I’m not a psychologist, but I’d have thought putting four strangers, of an unknown mix of ages and genders, into a taxi-sized vehicle for five days, comes with all sorts of challenges and issues. And that’s before you shoot them all into Space!

Where are the professional astronauts to fly this vehicle coming from?

Who is going to vet these passengers, and who will train them? Not NASA. Not Roscosmos.

Who is going to determine if they are suitable to work as a team?

Considering that their main qualification will be access to vast sums of money, and a big ego, what could possibly go wrong....

This whole thing has the makings of a great psychological drama-come-disaster movie.

[envy887]

I’m a little surprised we have five pages of comments, and no-one has really mentioned the ‘people’ aspects of this plan.

I’m not a psychologist, but I’d have thought putting four strangers, of an unknown mix of ages and genders, into a taxi-sized vehicle for five days, comes with all sorts of challenges and issues. And that’s before you shoot them all into Space!

Where are the professional astronauts to fly this vehicle coming from?

Who is going to vet these passengers, and who will train them? Not NASA. Not Roscosmos.

Who is going to determine if they are suitable to work as a team?

Considering that their main qualification will be access to vast sums of money, and a big ego, what could possibly go wrong....

This whole thing has the makings of a great psychological drama-come-disaster movie.

Might I suggest you read up on what Spaceflight Adventures, Inc. does?

And Dragon is a robo-taxi, it doesn't need professional astronauts to fly it. The professionals in charge will be on the ground.

[tonyq]

I’m a little surprised we have five pages of comments, and no-one has really mentioned the ‘people’ aspects of this plan.

I’m not a psychologist, but I’d have thought putting four strangers, of an unknown mix of ages and genders, into a taxi-sized vehicle for five days, comes with all sorts of challenges and issues. And that’s before you shoot them all into Space!

Where are the professional astronauts to fly this vehicle coming from?

Who is going to vet these passengers, and who will train them? Not NASA. Not Roscosmos.

Who is going to determine if they are suitable to work as a team?

Considering that their main qualification will be access to vast sums of money, and a big ego, what could possibly go wrong....

This whole thing has the makings of a great psychological drama-come-disaster movie.

Might I suggest you read up on what Spaceflight Adventures, Inc. does?

And Dragon is a robo-taxi, it doesn't need professional astronauts to fly it. The professionals in charge will be on the ground.

Don’t patronise me. I suspect that I know a good deal more about Space Adventures track record, and history, than you do!

You should perhaps do a little reading yourself. Space Adventures do not have any direct experience, or competence, in the areas I have mentioned. To date, they have merely acted as a broker, between rich people, and Roscosmos. The latter have provided all the services I’ve mentioned.

They are moving into wholly new territory here.  The questions I’ve posed, still stand. Who is going to examine and certify these people?

Regarding the ‘astronauts on the ground’ aspect, I would doubt very much that the FAA, or other competent authorities, would sanction such a flight, without a qualified astronaut onboard, and in command.

[matthewkantar]

They are not babies, they are grownups who can sign waivers in the presence of lawyers and cameras. Let the folks with the money decide wether they (and fellow travelers) are fit for flight.

[abaddon]

Regarding the ‘astronauts on the ground’ aspect, I would doubt very much that the FAA, or other competent authorities, would sanction such a flight, without a qualified astronaut onboard, and in command.

People will sign waivers and the FAA will only care if there is a risk to the general population.  Not a problem.

Blue Origin's suborbital capsule will also be fully autonomous without an "astronaut commander" for another example of this model.

[envy887]

I’m a little surprised we have five pages of comments, and no-one has really mentioned the ‘people’ aspects of this plan.

I’m not a psychologist, but I’d have thought putting four strangers, of an unknown mix of ages and genders, into a taxi-sized vehicle for five days, comes with all sorts of challenges and issues. And that’s before you shoot them all into Space!

Where are the professional astronauts to fly this vehicle coming from?

Who is going to vet these passengers, and who will train them? Not NASA. Not Roscosmos.

Who is going to determine if they are suitable to work as a team?

Considering that their main qualification will be access to vast sums of money, and a big ego, what could possibly go wrong....

This whole thing has the makings of a great psychological drama-come-disaster movie.

Might I suggest you read up on what Spaceflight Adventures, Inc. does?

And Dragon is a robo-taxi, it doesn't need professional astronauts to fly it. The professionals in charge will be on the ground.

Don’t patronise me. I suspect that I know a good deal more about Space Adventures track record, and history, than you do!

You should perhaps do a little reading yourself. Space Adventures do not have any direct experience, or competence, in the areas I have mentioned. To date, they have merely acted as a broker, between rich people, and Roscosmos. The latter have provided all the services I’ve mentioned.

They are moving into wholly new territory here.  The questions I’ve posed, still stand. Who is going to examine and certify these people?

Regarding the ‘astronauts on the ground’ aspect, I would doubt very much that the FAA, or other competent authorities, would sanction such a flight, without a qualified astronaut onboard, and in command.

Sorry, many people post first and read later. I'm certainly not immune.

In this case, Space Adventures will do what they have always done: connect rich people with those who know how to vet, train, and approve them. In this case, they are probably paying SpaceX to do those things. I'd also be interested in more details on the training if anyone can find them.

The FAA rules on commercial spaceflight are very clear: only 1) informed consent and 2) an appropriate vehicle test program are required. They say nothing about needing a babysitter onboard. SpaceX will have already conducted the vehicle test program to meet NASA requirement, so as far as the FAA is concerned they will be allowed to launch anyone who signs on the dotted line.

[su27k]

And Dragon is a robo-taxi, it doesn't need professional astronauts to fly it. The professionals in charge will be on the ground.

This does raise the question: What about the manual controls? For example the abort lever, or the deorbit now button.

[envy887]

And Dragon is a robo-taxi, it doesn't need professional astronauts to fly it. The professionals in charge will be on the ground.

This does raise the question: What about the manual controls? For example the abort lever, or the deorbit now button.

Somebody should write "How to Fly a Dragon For Dummies"

[woods170]

And Dragon is a robo-taxi, it doesn't need professional astronauts to fly it. The professionals in charge will be on the ground.

This does raise the question: What about the manual controls? For example the abort lever, or the deorbit now button.

People here seem to assume that the four rich folks will be the only ones onboard such a solo-flight of Crew Dragon.

Here's news for you: wrong assumption.

[envy887]

And Dragon is a robo-taxi, it doesn't need professional astronauts to fly it. The professionals in charge will be on the ground.

This does raise the question: What about the manual controls? For example the abort lever, or the deorbit now button.

People here seem to assume that the four rich folks will be the only ones onboard such a solo-flight of Crew Dragon.

Here's news for you: wrong assumption.

I thought Dragon was limited to 4 by seat position change due to NASA requirements for landing impact forces on the crew. Will they redesign the interior for a private flight to seat a 5th professional crewmember, and are the impact loads no longer an issue?

[tonyq]

And Dragon is a robo-taxi, it doesn't need professional astronauts to fly it. The professionals in charge will be on the ground.

This does raise the question: What about the manual controls? For example the abort lever, or the deorbit now button.

People here seem to assume that the four rich folks will be the only ones onboard such a solo-flight of Crew Dragon.

Here's news for you: wrong assumption.

Don't include me in that number! I thought it was frigging obvious that at least one professional, experienced, astronaut would be onboard and in command.

Some of the language being used on here suggests that some posters see this venture like an extreme theme park ride. They are wrong too.

As such, the process of choosing people will not be done by bankers and lawyers, with waivers and indemnities, but by aerospace professionals, doctors and psychologists, whoever they may work for.

For safety, and success, money will only be a part of the picture.

[woods170]

And Dragon is a robo-taxi, it doesn't need professional astronauts to fly it. The professionals in charge will be on the ground.

This does raise the question: What about the manual controls? For example the abort lever, or the deorbit now button.

People here seem to assume that the four rich folks will be the only ones onboard such a solo-flight of Crew Dragon.

Here's news for you: wrong assumption.

I thought Dragon was limited to 4 by seat position change due to NASA requirements for landing impact forces on the crew. Will they redesign the interior for a private flight to seat a 5th professional crewmember, and are the impact loads no longer an issue?

That four seat limitation is for NASA Crew Dragon. People need to stop assuming that the Crew Dragon for private missions is identical to NASA Crew Dragon.

There will be differences.

[CorvusCorax]

Warning:
You have pulled the abort lever.
This will terminate your space mission prematurely. There will be no refund.
Abort is a high G maneuver. SpaceX is not to be held liable for any damages or injury resulting from a passenger initiated abort.
Are you sure you want to abort?

<yes get me out of here>        <no, continue flight>

[su27k]

Warning:
You have pulled the abort lever.
This will terminate your space mission prematurely. There will be no refund.
Abort is a high G maneuver. SpaceX is not to be held liable for any damages or injury resulting from a passenger initiated abort.
Are you sure you want to abort?

<yes get me out of here>        <no, continue flight>

  I was thinking they may want to disable the manual controls if it's just 4 rich folks flying alone.

[punder]

I’m a little surprised we have five pages of comments, and no-one has really mentioned the ‘people’ aspects of this plan.

I’m not a psychologist, but I’d have thought putting four strangers, of an unknown mix of ages and genders, into a taxi-sized vehicle for five days, comes with all sorts of challenges and issues. And that’s before you shoot them all into Space!

Where are the professional astronauts to fly this vehicle coming from?

Who is going to vet these passengers, and who will train them? Not NASA. Not Roscosmos.

Who is going to determine if they are suitable to work as a team?

Considering that their main qualification will be access to vast sums of money, and a big ego, what could possibly go wrong....

This whole thing has the makings of a great psychological drama-come-disaster movie.

Just what exactly do you think these individuals, all of whom would have to be highly motivated and disciplined to have reached this point, all of whom spent a great deal of money to get here, and who have probably trained together... are going to do? Riot at the first fart? Come on.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Dragon 2 is designed to carry up to seven astronauts. From a 2011 version of its website! That $20M per seat price would be $23M today, accounting just for inflation.

"By comparison, Dragon is designed to carry seven astronauts at a time for an unparalleled $20 million per seat."

https://web.archive.org/web/20120503032852/http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20111020

[ncb1397]

...Folks like Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth were much more annoying to NASA than most people realize. NASA detested that the Russians sold surplus seats to Space Adventures.

I remember watching the video of Tito boarding the station. Each astronaut got a big hug from the current crew as they came through the hatch. Except for Tito. They just sort of left him floating there. It was a deliberate, planned insult.

Three people walk into walmart. 2 are walmart employees and get hugs from other walmart coworkers. The third one is a customer and doesn't get a hug. Seems normal to me.

[Alexphysics]

Dragon 2 is designed to carry up to seven astronauts. From a 2011 version of its website! That $20M per seat price would be $23M today, accounting just for inflation.

"By comparison, Dragon is designed to carry seven astronauts at a time for an unparalleled $20 million per seat."

https://web.archive.org/web/20120503032852/http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20111020

Ah yes, when they thought Crew Dragon missions would cost like Dragon 1 missions then the seat price went to $31M for a full capsule with 7 astronauts. With reuse integrated into it and with less requirements to meet than for a NASA mission it can realistically get to around $20M but not precisely because of Crew Dragon being as cheap as they thought it would be back then.

[Comga]

With the latest design review approved by NASA, SpaceX can now start building the hardware at the heart of its innovative launch abort system. The SpaceX design incorporates the escape engines into the side walls of Dragon, eliminating a failure mode of more traditional rocket escape towers, which must be successfully jettisoned during every launch. The integrated abort system also returns with the spacecraft, allowing for easy reuse and radical reductions in the cost of space transport. Over time, the same escape thrusters will also provide Dragon with the ability to land with pinpoint accuracy on Earth or another planet.

What a delightful trip down Memory Lane, Steven.
Thank you.
It all seemed so straight forward in 2011.
Things have been so much more difficult, but better in many ways. However those prices almost comic.

I don’t know how many times these private flights have been touted, but some of us can hope this one succeeds.   

[ChrisC]

Note: above quote is from this 2011 SpaceX press release that Steven P linked to yesterday.

[MattMason]

"There's no way a BEAM and a Crew Dragon could dock, so no. "

Dock elsewhere and transit to BEAM?  Lots of ways to do things...

BEAM was a technology demonstrator, intended to be disposed of after its 2-year test of its radiation, pressure and micrometeoroid qualities.

It passed those tests so spectacularly that NASA chose to keep the module aboard semi-permanently--as a storage closet.

BEAM has no windows and cannot be used for habitation as it possesses no means of life support, cooling or heating. The hatch to it is normally closed with only a ventilation hose between it and the station.

Any Bigelow module for habitation will be built specifically for that--but Bigelow waived on that with the ISS and Axiom Space is going forward with commercial ISS modules under a NASA agreement.

[TrevorMonty]

While NASA may not allow propulsive landing of their Dragon missions, it doesn't mean SpaceX can't use it for commercial missions. For tourism flights its worth working on as it would save lot money and time turning around a Dragon.

[Comga]

While NASA may not allow propulsive landing of their Dragon missions, it doesn't mean SpaceX can't use it for commercial missions. For tourism flights its worth working on as it would save lot money and time turning around a Dragon.

While I have suggested something like this in the past, you don’t know if any of your statements are true.
SpaceX would have to test a major change like dry land landing at least once before putting people on it.
We don’t know the costs of a test flight, which expends at least the second stage and trunk, vs one or more retrieval runs off the coast of Florida with their dedicated ships.

Edit: It would also expend at least the heat shield. There are no legs under Dragon 2.

[yg1968]

Space Adventures Inc. of Vienna, Virginia, also has teamed up with SpaceX. Planned for late next year, this five-day-or-so mission would skip the space station and instead orbit two to three times higher for more sweeping views of Earth. The cost: around $35 million. It’s also advertising rides to the space station via Boeing Starliner and Russian Soyuz capsules.

https://apnews.com/e57b0241cac209caad4f16b88a2b6377

https://twitter.com/ec_anderson/status/1269448731570532352

A new era of amateur astronauts: @SpaceAdventures also has teamed up with @SpaceX. Planned for late next year, this five-day-or-so mission would skip the space station and instead orbit two to three times higher for more sweeping views of Earth.

[DistantTemple]

And Dragon is a robo-taxi, it doesn't need professional astronauts to fly it. The professionals in charge will be on the ground.

This does raise the question: What about the manual controls? For example the abort lever, or the deorbit now button.

People here seem to assume that the four rich folks will be the only ones onboard such a solo-flight of Crew Dragon.

Here's news for you: wrong assumption.

I thought Dragon was limited to 4 by seat position change due to NASA requirements for landing impact forces on the crew. Will they redesign the interior for a private flight to seat a 5th professional crewmember, and are the impact loads no longer an issue?

That four seat limitation is for NASA Crew Dragon. People need to stop assuming that the Crew Dragon for private missions is identical to NASA Crew Dragon.

There will be differences.

If up to 4 billionaires are paying somewhere between 20 and $60M for a ride in a Dragon, whether it is to the ISS or "just" to orbit, it makes sense that there is a SpaceX "customer services attendant" (pilots have come down in the world, as have butlers) to smooth their experience.
This is not just guarding the big red button (ok little black buttons behind a safety panel) but seeing to the expoditionists' food and comfort as well as being their private science, engineering, and geography correspondant and their tour guide. Also that operative will be the "cook" and cleaner. You have to be an expert, to provide (a high class... better than) an airline like meal in zeroG having disappeared the packaging etc!!!! (tubes of goo will be for emergencies only I think at this price)

Anyone going without such a member of the SpaceX "workforce" would need much more extensive training, and have to do without such mollycoddling! They would have to be skilled campers! But would get privacy. Obviously a team could carefully craft a programme, and experience, at this price, not just blast them into deprived solitude for a week!

The "spacecraft manager" (pick your designation) will be the heart of discretion, decorum, .......... etc.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

With the definet support of NASA for capsule reuse. These adventurer flights could use used (refurbished) capsules and used boosters to lower the cost/price of a crew flight to as low as $90M. With a full complement of 7. One SpaceX employee and 6 customers that is $15M each. At complement of 4 with only 3 customers that is $30M each.

For most customers having more room is probably worth the extra $15M. It also means no modification from that of a NASA used capsule other than the customized seats adjusted for size per person.

[TrevorMonty]

Place Dragon XL in orbit permanently as destination and they would have room to carry 7. Use XL for sleeping and livibg space with D2 providing bathroom and life supply. Keep all comsumerables on visiting Dragon.

NB could do it now refurbished cargo Dragon.

[Oersted]

And it would give the heat shield quite a beating on the way back.

Just the SpaceX way of doing things: experiementing on other people's money.  :-)

[Zed_Noir]

Place Dragon XL in orbit permanently as destination and they would have room to carry 7. Use XL for sleeping and livibg space with D2 providing bathroom and life supply. Keep all comsumerables on visiting Dragon.

NB could do it now refurbished cargo Dragon.

Well the Dragon XL will need an upgraded docking port first to be able to received a docking attempt.

After that, wouldn't be that hard to installed a 3 or 4 segment pressurized module derived from the Cygnus PCM with a cupola on top of the Dragon XL. SpaceX need to test out the extended payload fairing and Dragon XL after all.

[Comga]

This is becoming “what can SpaceX cobble together as a private space station” instead of a discussion of the announced Space Adventures Flight about a year and a half from now.
There must be a better thread for that.

[JAFO]

Still going to have to poop and be space sick in an area the size of a VW camper bus in zero G with little privacy. Wonder who will be willing to do that vs bragging rights?

[darkenfast]

Still going to have to poop and be space sick in an area the size of a VW camper bus in zero G with little privacy. Wonder who will be willing to do that vs bragging rights?

The same kind of adventure-oriented wealthy person who goes up Mount Everest.  It'll cost more but be a lot easier physically.

[Zed_Noir]

From post in the "Upcoming Talks - SpaceX Related" thread
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43154.msg2093611#msg2093611

In interview podcast done by Aviationweek's Irene Klotz with Gwynne Shotwell.

Shotwell stated that SpaceX will unlikely to have it's own astronaut aboard the crewed Dragon due to lack of seats.

She later said that SpaceX is thinking of have one of the passengers in each of the upcoming private Dragon flights trained to a higher level. To be the vehicle operator/commander IMO.

So who pays to get the more qualified passenger in a private Dragon flight trained? 

[Lars-J]

From post in the "Upcoming Talks - SpaceX Related" thread
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43154.msg2093611#msg2093611

In interview podcast done by Aviationweek's Irene Klotz with Gwynne Shotwell.

Shotwell stated that SpaceX will unlikely to have it's own astronaut aboard the crewed Dragon due to lack of seats.

She later said that SpaceX is thinking of have one of the passengers in each of the upcoming private Dragon flights trained to a higher level. To be the vehicle operator/commander IMO.

So who pays to get the more qualified passenger in a private Dragon flight trained?

The company that charters the flight - Axiom or Soave Adventures - I would think.

They (and SpaceX) will likely poach astronaut talent from NASA, or hire recently retired ones.

Michael López-Alegría already works for Axiom, so I would consider his participation in the first Axiom mission as very likely. SpaceX also has Garret Reisman, who worked for the but still does consulting with them, he could be a potential candidate for a near future mission. I’m sure there are others.

[smisamore]

From post in the "Upcoming Talks - SpaceX Related" thread
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43154.msg2093611#msg2093611

In interview podcast done by Aviationweek's Irene Klotz with Gwynne Shotwell.

Shotwell stated that SpaceX will unlikely to have it's own astronaut aboard the crewed Dragon due to lack of seats.

She later said that SpaceX is thinking of have one of the passengers in each of the upcoming private Dragon flights trained to a higher level. To be the vehicle operator/commander IMO.

So who pays to get the more qualified passenger in a private Dragon flight trained?

The company that charters the flight - Axiom or Soave Adventures - I would think.

They (and SpaceX) will likely poach astronaut talent from NASA, or hire recently retired ones.

Michael López-Alegría already works for Axiom, so I would consider his participation in the first Axiom mission as very likely. SpaceX also has Garret Reisman, who worked for the but still does consulting with them, he could be a potential candidate for a near future mission. I’m sure there are others.

Actually, didn't Garret kind of already... "volunteer"?? 

Image credit :
Walter Scriptunas II on Twitter.  @scriptunasphoto

[tonyq]

From post in the "Upcoming Talks - SpaceX Related" thread
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43154.msg2093611#msg2093611

In interview podcast done by Aviationweek's Irene Klotz with Gwynne Shotwell.

Shotwell stated that SpaceX will unlikely to have it's own astronaut aboard the crewed Dragon due to lack of seats.

She later said that SpaceX is thinking of have one of the passengers in each of the upcoming private Dragon flights trained to a higher level. To be the vehicle operator/commander IMO.

So who pays to get the more qualified passenger in a private Dragon flight trained? 

I only picked up on Shotwell's comments today, and reviewing the transcript, what she actually said is:-

"We'll fly Dragon 2 autonomously and we'll opt to work on ensuring that, uh, at least one of the astronauts -- one of the private passengers -- are trained up enough to be in charge."

This seems to say, that one of the paying passengers will be given additional training to be 'in charge'. They're not looking for, or expecting to use, ex-astronauts for this role. Ex-astronauts who would probably want paying. By training a paying passenger, the overall economics of such mission would look rather different. Presumably, that 'passenger in charge' would have some appropriate background, and core skills, for the role.

Some of you may have previously seen my 'blog' about an Austrian/German pilot, Johanna Maislinger, who has been on Space Adventures books, as a would-be client for their Soyuz mission, also in late 2021. It is beyond any doubt that she is a client, and in continuing negotiations with Space Adventures, although the source of her funding remains opaque.

https://spacesleuth2.blogspot.com/2019/01/could-this-pilot-be-europes-next-woman.html

If Space Adventures were looking for a paying client with the mix of skills to be 'in charge' an experienced commercial pilot, with a medical degree, and a background in engineering, would surely be a almost ideal candidate.

Perhaps Space Adventures will look to steer Johanna Maislinger towards this role, rather than the Soyuz visit to the ISS?

Of course, in throwing this speculation out there, I have no knowledge of how many other clients Space Adventures may have, in the overall mix.

[zubenelgenubi: tonyq corrected the blogspot link.]

[scr00chy]

Today's announcement means SpaceX now has 4 private space tourism missions on the books:

Q4 2021 — Inspiration4 free flyer
Q1 2022 — Axiom's AX-1 to the ISS
2022 — Space Adventures' free flyer
2023 — Yusaku Maezawa's @dearmoonproject on Starship

(emphasis mine)

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1356376011563282434

[hektor]

Is this project still active or given Inspiration 4 success, potential Space Adventures customers now negotiate directly with SpaceX ?

[wheedude]

Is this project still active or given Inspiration 4 success, potential Space Adventures customers now negotiate directly with SpaceX ?

I imagine any contractual agreement between Space Adventures and their customers will still have to be honored, unless both parties mutually agree to dissolve it.  I don't see Space Adventures giving up their piece of the pie. 

With that, I do wonder how keen Spacex is to continue directly booking passengers.  They have deals with Axiom and Space Adventures to use their ship on private missions... was Inspiration4 simply a one off?  We know DearMoon was directly negotiated because of Maezawa's heavy investment in Starship.  Maybe at the end of the day, Spacex really doesn't care and will treat anyone like a customer... I could see services like Axiom and Space Adventures taking a role of a travel agent... simplifying everything for the end customer, creating trip itineraries, creating actual destinations. 

[Jarnis]

I see Space Adventures as a broker. Buyers who can't afford to pay for a whole flight and do not want to do the mess of sub-dealing the other seats to other customers and potentially taking risks on one of the parties reneging before flight. Instead Space Adventures has found four interested parties who can pay for a single seat, they bundle that to a full mission and take a small commission from the transaction.

[Comga]

It's kind of fun to review this thread in light of the Inspiration 4 flight.

Who will pay for such a flight?

These adventurer flights could use used (refurbished) capsules and used booster

Where are the professional astronauts to fly this vehicle coming from?

Participants will see planet Earth the way no one has since the Gemini program.

People here seem to assume that the four rich folks will be the only ones onboard such a solo-flight of Crew Dragon.
Here's news for you: wrong assumption.

(Here's new for you: It is wrong, but because they weren't all "rich folks".  )

Does dragon even have a good toilet?

The docking hatch has a window, one could use that as an extra view of the outside. Just saying...

Replacing docking mechanism by a vistadome?

It probably wouldn't be whatever a "vistadome" might be, like the cupola on the ISS, but it could be a window somewhat larger than the two on the DM-2 capsule.

(That was me!  Foolish me.)
and

Who wants to bet this never happens?

Red dragon?
lunar dragon?
dragon lab?

All of them never happened.

[Jarnis]

So, SpaceX lifting ideas from NSF forums confirmed? 

(replacing docking adapter with an extra window / dome)

[hektor]

I was the vistadome guy and I must say that in retrospect (my post was in Feb 2020) I am pretty happy with myself.   

What is a Vista Dome?

[hektor]

Simca Versailles ad. My grand dad had such a car. In retrospect I think I had an unconscious childhood reminiscence when I made this post.

Simca Versailles ad

[eeergo]

So, SpaceX lifting ideas from NSF forums confirmed? 

(replacing docking adapter with an extra window / dome)

Not unless that idea was conceived here pre-2008 (picture is by Rob Coppinger, from that year):

EDIT: Wrong interpretation: the picture shows a polished, reflective metal bottom that "turned out that way" when they built that prototype.

[ethan829]

So, SpaceX lifting ideas from NSF forums confirmed? 

(replacing docking adapter with an extra window / dome)

Not unless that idea was conceived here pre-2008 (picture is by Rob Coppinger, from that year):

I don't think that's a window. Looks like the polished bottom of a Dragon pressure vessel.

[eeergo]

So, SpaceX lifting ideas from NSF forums confirmed? 

(replacing docking adapter with an extra window / dome)

Not unless that idea was conceived here pre-2008 (picture is by Rob Coppinger, from that year):

I don't think that's a window. Looks like the polished bottom of a Dragon pressure vessel.

Why would it be so polished when the rest of the structure isn't, and moreover curved? This view shows clearly the bottoms are not curved. Admittedly the 2008 picture probably shows a prototype, so it might have a different design... but it's difficult to understand why they'd polish the bare metal so much, and then again if it's an early prototype it might have had a top tunnel design that resembled the bottom structure for construction commonality reasons.

It might be reflective rather than transparent either because of the lighting, coatings, double panes...

EDIT: Nevermind, just found the original source and the caption shows that indeed it's a shiny metal bottom: https://www.seradata.com/pictures_flight_five_falcon_1/

Here is part of the Dragon qualification article. It is the lower portion of the pressurised section. Standing next to it is SpaceX Falcon 9 programme integrator John Insprucker III who gave me the factory tour. He said there is no requirement for the base to be that shiny, it just turned out that way. Gives you a good view of the former Boeing 747 factory in its reflection anyway

[gongora]

https://japantoday.com/category/features/travel/us-firm-sees-'exciting'-moment-as-space-tourism-booms1

In early 2020, Space Adventures announced a partnership with SpaceX to send four people into Earth's orbit, reaching an altitude higher than the ISS, but there were few updates since.

"Ultimately our reservation with SpaceX expired and that's not a mission that we are going to be executing in the immediate future," Shelley said, but did not rule out future partnerships with the company.

[thirtyone]

I have this feeling this is related to a few notes earlier in the thread - why go through Space Adventures for a shared flight when you can work with SpaceX directly? There's probably just too small of a market of people who want to go into orbit but not the ISS, and can afford to pay for 1/4 of a very expensive spaceflight with people you don't know, vs. paying for 100% of it with buddies you're comfortable with for a yearlong training series.