At that time Starship could be already on Orbit.They will be able to dock it and spend 5 days in bigger place..
Quote from: woods170 on 02/19/2020 06:17 pmIt 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.
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.
Quote from: raketa on 02/19/2020 10:13 pmAt 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.
Quote from: Star One on 02/19/2020 01:03 pmIt states here the price is likely to be $10-15 million.https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-will-fly-space-tourists.htmlThe 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."
It states here the price is likely to be $10-15 million.https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-will-fly-space-tourists.html
Quote from: QuantumG on 02/19/2020 10:18 pmQuote from: raketa on 02/19/2020 10:13 pmAt 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.
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...
Thanks. It definitely said the lower price in the version I read, so it must have been an error on the writers part.
...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.
Suboptimal Space TourismI 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.
Steve Jurvetson FollowOrbital 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.
Quote from: alang on 02/20/2020 12:45 pmSounds 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.
Quote from: QuantumG on 02/19/2020 09:52 pmQuote from: woods170 on 02/19/2020 06:17 pmIt 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.
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.
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.”
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.
Quote from: Comga on 02/20/2020 03:38 pmQuote from: alang on 02/20/2020 12:45 pmSounds 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%.
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/1230540247433265152Quote Suboptimal Space TourismI 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.Quote 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.
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.
Quote from: woods170 on 02/20/2020 10:54 amQuote from: QuantumG on 02/19/2020 09:52 pmQuote from: woods170 on 02/19/2020 06:17 pmIt 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#msg1954582Has that changed?
