Space tourism resurgence and manifest

[trimeta]

Majority of Americans don't want to travel to the Moon

Private human spaceflight has advanced tremendously in the last year, but many ordinary people aren't ready to visit the Moon themselves, according to a new Axios/Momentive poll.

Why it matters: Private space tourism today caters to an ultra-rich clientele, but eventually, the companies making a business out of sending people to space want to widen their reach to many more people.

Driving the news: The new poll found 61% of adults surveyed wouldn't be interested in taking a trip to the Moon even if money weren't a factor.

Actually 39% (or 37% if you read the bar chart) wanting to go to the Moon sounds like a pretty good number.

A comment I read elsewhere pointed out that if you asked people if they want to go to the top of Mount Everest if money weren't a factor, you'd probably get a much lower number, despite that being a thing you already can do with probably a lesser or equal amount of training (Inspiration4 got six months of training just to be in orbit for three days). I suppose Everest is less cool, but I wonder how many of those 37-39% are making certain assumptions about "a trip to the Moon" that wouldn't bear out.

[su27k]

A comment I read elsewhere pointed out that if you asked people if they want to go to the top of Mount Everest if money weren't a factor, you'd probably get a much lower number, despite that being a thing you already can do with probably a lesser or equal amount of training (Inspiration4 got six months of training just to be in orbit for three days). I suppose Everest is less cool, but I wonder how many of those 37-39% are making certain assumptions about "a trip to the Moon" that wouldn't bear out.

I mean climbing a mountain is a lot of physical work, it's intimidating to a lot of people. I think it's safe to assume a Moon trip wouldn't be physically challenging. Inspiration4 got a lot of training because they're the first, I believe SpaceX officials said they're actively working on reducing the amount of training needed.

[DigitalMan]

The video Hektor posted in the SpaceX Crew-1 updates thread is from the World Extreme Medicine conference, and has a lot of details on physical conditions for various spaceflight activities.

I would suggest everybody watch it, really great information.

Mountain climbing used to be my thing. One of the things it has in common is, you are out of range of emergency medical help in many cases. Physical training is a must, rescue training is generally dependent on conditions (like ice, ravines, etc), and other training may be needed depending on how technical a climb may be.

When I lived in NH I climbed Adams every Saturday one spring/summer/fall. I recall Inspiration 4 climbed Rainier, which is nice mountain. For a 3 day flight like Inspiration 4, you probably can find a subset of training that is necessary, compared to what Victor describes as training for the ISS mission I would think.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Polaris Dawn now included in orbital manifest post. Main mission thread is: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55805.0

I’m assuming that SpaceX are covering the costs of their two crew members and so I’m not counting them as commercial astronauts.

I’ll add placeholders for the 2nd and 3rd Polaris flights later.

[su27k]

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1512414175628300296

The Axiom-1 crew launches today—are these guys tourists, astronauts, or what? The reality is that they are something new: an important part of the transition from spaceflight as primarily a government-led activity to one led by commercial space companies.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/the-axiom-1-crew-launches-today-are-these-guys-tourists-astronauts-or-what/

[daedalus1]

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1512414175628300296

The Axiom-1 crew launches today—are these guys tourists, astronauts, or what? The reality is that they are something new: an important part of the transition from spaceflight as primarily a government-led activity to one led by commercial space companies.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/the-axiom-1-crew-launches-today-are-these-guys-tourists-astronauts-or-what/

Anyone travelling in space is an astronaut.
That extra tag you use (if any) is the question.

[kevinof]

When I go scuba diving I’m called a diver once I put on the gear and get in the water. Same as the instructor teaching a bunch of new divers 50M from me.  He or she is a professional diver and  I’m not… but we are both still divers.

My view is anyone that goes into orbit is an astronaut (and I don’t class sub orbital as astronauts but that’s just my preference).

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1512414175628300296

The Axiom-1 crew launches today—are these guys tourists, astronauts, or what? The reality is that they are something new: an important part of the transition from spaceflight as primarily a government-led activity to one led by commercial space companies.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/the-axiom-1-crew-launches-today-are-these-guys-tourists-astronauts-or-what/

Anyone travelling in space is an astronaut.
That extra tag you use (if any) is the question.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Some of my personal definitions. Also that because of the definitions the result is that there has emerged 4 types of astronaut.

My Definitions:

astronaut  -  Someone who has orbited the Earth several times or has traveled beyond Earth orbit (BEO).

Government professional astronaut  -  Someone who is trained and sent to orbit and those costs covered by a government to perform professional space tasks to achieve goals for that government.

Government tourist astronaut  -  Someone who is trained and sent to orbit and those costs covered by a government as a  guest visitor in space under a government political goal.

Commercial professional astronaut  -  Someone who is trained and sent to orbit and those costs covered by a non-government entity to perform professional space tasks to achieve goals for that entity.

Commercial tourist astronaut  -  Someone who is trained and travels to orbit and those costs covered personally or by a non-profit non-government entity as a guest visitor in space.


There is a blurring as to where the designation of professional and tourist is divided. And that can cause some confusion. So if you stick to Government Astronaut vs Commercial Astronaut it is more straight cut. This blurring of professional vs tourists is most pronounced when the person is sponsored and trained to perform in space tasks that achieve goals for the sponsoring organization. Recent history of the Inspiration 4 and the Axiom 1 missions have produced significant blurring since both crews have or will perform significant space tasks for achieving goals for other entities besides themselves.

[freddo411]

Majority of Americans don't want to travel to the Moon

Private human spaceflight has advanced tremendously in the last year, but many ordinary people aren't ready to visit the Moon themselves, according to a new Axios/Momentive poll.

Why it matters: Private space tourism today caters to an ultra-rich clientele, but eventually, the companies making a business out of sending people to space want to widen their reach to many more people.

Driving the news: The new poll found 61% of adults surveyed wouldn't be interested in taking a trip to the Moon even if money weren't a factor.

Actually 39% (or 37% if you read the bar chart) wanting to go to the Moon sounds like a pretty good number.

Here's my off the cuff reactions to that stat.

Not to bad, considering it's entirely hypothetical ... there is no specific mechanism for someone to go to the moon, so it's entirely imaginary.  One person can image flying business class there and staying in a Hilton ... while another might imagine being in a spacesuit and mercury capsule for 10 days and using a diaper.

Roughly 50% of the people I know would not travel to Asia, mostly due to their imagination of conditions in a non-first world country. A much higher percentage would avoid travel to actual third world conditions.    Point being that a poll of random people can be very much against something, but that something can be very rewarding for millions (billions?) of other people.

Perceptions in such polls can radically change if/when people see movies/TV/celebrities/advertising showing things as glamorous or desirable.   This is mostly completely discounted with any reality of the situation


And on a more general note, I'm very, very happy and excited to see that space tourism is seeing massive growth in the 2020s

[SpeakertoAnimals]

Some of my personal definitions. Also that because of the definitions the result is that there has emerged 4 types of astronaut.

My Definitions:

astronaut  -  Someone who has orbited the Earth several times or has traveled beyond Earth orbit (BEO).

Government professional astronaut  -  Someone who is trained and sent to orbit and those costs covered by a government to perform professional space tasks to achieve goals for that government.

Government tourist astronaut  -  Someone who is trained and sent to orbit and those costs covered by a government as a  guest visitor in space under a government political goal.

Commercial professional astronaut  -  Someone who is trained and sent to orbit and those costs covered by a non-government entity to perform professional space tasks to achieve goals for that entity.

Commercial tourist astronaut  -  Someone who is trained and travels to orbit and those costs covered personally or by a non-profit non-government entity as a guest visitor in space.


There is a blurring as to where the designation of professional and tourist is divided. And that can cause some confusion. So if you stick to Government Astronaut vs Commercial Astronaut it is more straight cut. This blurring of professional vs tourists is most pronounced when the person is sponsored and trained to perform in space tasks that achieve goals for the sponsoring organization. Recent history of the Inspiration 4 and the Axiom 1 missions have produced significant blurring since both crews have or will perform significant space tasks for achieving goals for other entities besides themselves.

Plus this mission is also hauling cargo for ISS.

[TrevorMonty]

Majority of Americans don't want to travel to the Moon

Private human spaceflight has advanced tremendously in the last year, but many ordinary people aren't ready to visit the Moon themselves, according to a new Axios/Momentive poll.

Why it matters: Private space tourism today caters to an ultra-rich clientele, but eventually, the companies making a business out of sending people to space want to widen their reach to many more people.

Driving the news: The new poll found 61% of adults surveyed wouldn't be interested in taking a trip to the Moon even if money weren't a factor.

Actually 39% (or 37% if you read the bar chart) wanting to go to the Moon sounds like a pretty good number.

Only need 50-100 that can afford the trip to make it via business for 4-6 man crew vehicle. Thats enough trips to justify setting up ISRU plant to dramatically reduce needed tanker launches and mission costs.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[meekGee]

Majority of Americans don't want to travel to the Moon

Private human spaceflight has advanced tremendously in the last year, but many ordinary people aren't ready to visit the Moon themselves, according to a new Axios/Momentive poll.

Why it matters: Private space tourism today caters to an ultra-rich clientele, but eventually, the companies making a business out of sending people to space want to widen their reach to many more people.

Driving the news: The new poll found 61% of adults surveyed wouldn't be interested in taking a trip to the Moon even if money weren't a factor.

Actually 39% (or 37% if you read the bar chart) wanting to go to the Moon sounds like a pretty good number.

Only need 50-100 that can afford the trip to make it via business for 4-6 man crew vehicle. Thats enough trips to justify setting up ISRU plant to dramatically reduce needed tanker launches and mission costs.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

I don't see the logical step to setting up an ISRU plant.

Did you put numbers on the cost of setting up and operating an ISRU plant of sufficient capability?  How dramatic is the reduction in cost?

Me thinks you'll achieve a reduction in Earth-side launches (which at that point are cheap due to full reusability) and pay for a very expensive lunar infrastructure that in itself will require support launches and probably personnel.

It'll take a lot more than some tens of tourist flights to make it a profitable proposition.

[TrevorMonty]

Majority of Americans don't want to travel to the Moon

Private human spaceflight has advanced tremendously in the last year, but many ordinary people aren't ready to visit the Moon themselves, according to a new Axios/Momentive poll.

Why it matters: Private space tourism today caters to an ultra-rich clientele, but eventually, the companies making a business out of sending people to space want to widen their reach to many more people.

Driving the news: The new poll found 61% of adults surveyed wouldn't be interested in taking a trip to the Moon even if money weren't a factor.

Actually 39% (or 37% if you read the bar chart) wanting to go to the Moon sounds like a pretty good number.

Only need 50-100 that can afford the trip to make it via business for 4-6 man crew vehicle. Thats enough trips to justify setting up ISRU plant to dramatically reduce needed tanker launches and mission costs.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

I don't see the logical step to setting up an ISRU plant.

Did you put numbers on the cost of setting up and operating an ISRU plant of sufficient capability?  How dramatic is the reduction in cost?

Me thinks you'll achieve a reduction in Earth-side launches (which at that point are cheap due to full reusability) and pay for a very expensive lunar infrastructure that in itself will require support launches and probably personnel.

It'll take a lot more than some tens of tourist flights to make it a profitable proposition.

For 10t lander 360ISP need 12t of fuel ( 2.64t CH4 +9.36 LOX) for 2.78km/s ie Gateway to surface.
39t fuel for round trip. Allows a little for boiloff.
With ISRU LOX (9.36t) refuelling on surface the down mass fuel is 17.5t + 2.64t CH4 for return. That 20.14t to earth fuel needed compared to 39t without ISRU. The fuel savings would be greater than that as tanks are about half size so reducing dry mass considerably.

10t LOX a year isn't that big an ask of a ISRU and only needs access to regolith not ice.

Things get better for hydrolox lander and ISRU water. Can even consider fuelling most of round trip from LEO by lunar fuel. This using OTV for LEO -Gateway-LEO trip.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[meekGee]

Majority of Americans don't want to travel to the Moon

Private human spaceflight has advanced tremendously in the last year, but many ordinary people aren't ready to visit the Moon themselves, according to a new Axios/Momentive poll.

Why it matters: Private space tourism today caters to an ultra-rich clientele, but eventually, the companies making a business out of sending people to space want to widen their reach to many more people.

Driving the news: The new poll found 61% of adults surveyed wouldn't be interested in taking a trip to the Moon even if money weren't a factor.

Actually 39% (or 37% if you read the bar chart) wanting to go to the Moon sounds like a pretty good number.

Only need 50-100 that can afford the trip to make it via business for 4-6 man crew vehicle. Thats enough trips to justify setting up ISRU plant to dramatically reduce needed tanker launches and mission costs.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

I don't see the logical step to setting up an ISRU plant.

Did you put numbers on the cost of setting up and operating an ISRU plant of sufficient capability?  How dramatic is the reduction in cost?

Me thinks you'll achieve a reduction in Earth-side launches (which at that point are cheap due to full reusability) and pay for a very expensive lunar infrastructure that in itself will require support launches and probably personnel.

It'll take a lot more than some tens of tourist flights to make it a profitable proposition.

For 10t lander 360ISP need 12t of fuel ( 2.64t CH4 +9.36 LOX) for 2.78km/s ie Gateway to surface.
39t fuel for round trip. Allows a little for boiloff.
With ISRU LOX (9.36t) refuelling on surface the down mass fuel is 17.5t + 2.64t CH4 for return. That 20.14t to earth fuel needed compared to 39t without ISRU. The fuel savings would be greater than that as tanks are about half size so reducing dry mass considerably.

10t LOX a year isn't that big an ask of a ISRU and only needs access to regolith not ice.

Things get better for hydrolox lander and ISRU water. Can even consider fuelling most of round trip from LEO by lunar fuel. This using OTV for LEO -Gateway-LEO trip.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Just to make sure, you want to support 1 landing a year, by producing 10t/yr of oxygen, yes?

How much regolith do you need to process, how much power is needed? 

I'm trying to understand how little of a deal it is.

For example if you need to process 100 tons of rock (just a guess), you need to gather some 300 kg per day.

You're envisioning a remote controlled front loader type of device? And a kiln, reaction chamber, gas separation, compression and liquification, yes?

And some way to get the 10t of lox to the lander?

It just seems like a lot in order to save an Earth-side launch or two.

[TrevorMonty]

Majority of Americans don't want to travel to the Moon

Private human spaceflight has advanced tremendously in the last year, but many ordinary people aren't ready to visit the Moon themselves, according to a new Axios/Momentive poll.

Why it matters: Private space tourism today caters to an ultra-rich clientele, but eventually, the companies making a business out of sending people to space want to widen their reach to many more people.

Driving the news: The new poll found 61% of adults surveyed wouldn't be interested in taking a trip to the Moon even if money weren't a factor.

Actually 39% (or 37% if you read the bar chart) wanting to go to the Moon sounds like a pretty good number.

Only need 50-100 that can afford the trip to make it via business for 4-6 man crew vehicle. Thats enough trips to justify setting up ISRU plant to dramatically reduce needed tanker launches and mission costs.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

I don't see the logical step to setting up an ISRU plant.

Did you put numbers on the cost of setting up and operating an ISRU plant of sufficient capability?  How dramatic is the reduction in cost?

Me thinks you'll achieve a reduction in Earth-side launches (which at that point are cheap due to full reusability) and pay for a very expensive lunar infrastructure that in itself will require support launches and probably personnel.

It'll take a lot more than some tens of tourist flights to make it a profitable proposition.

For 10t lander 360ISP need 12t of fuel ( 2.64t CH4 +9.36 LOX) for 2.78km/s ie Gateway to surface.
39t fuel for round trip. Allows a little for boiloff.
With ISRU LOX (9.36t) refuelling on surface the down mass fuel is 17.5t + 2.64t CH4 for return. That 20.14t to earth fuel needed compared to 39t without ISRU. The fuel savings would be greater than that as tanks are about half size so reducing dry mass considerably.

10t LOX a year isn't that big an ask of a ISRU and only needs access to regolith not ice.

Things get better for hydrolox lander and ISRU water. Can even consider fuelling most of round trip from LEO by lunar fuel. This using OTV for LEO -Gateway-LEO trip.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Just to make sure, you want to support 1 landing a year, by producing 10t/yr of oxygen, yes?

How much regolith do you need to process, how much power is needed? 

I'm trying to understand how little of a deal it is.

For example if you need to process 100 tons of rock (just a guess), you need to gather some 300 kg per day.

You're envisioning a remote controlled front loader type of device? And a kiln, reaction chamber, gas separation, compression and liquification, yes?

And some way to get the 10t of lox to the lander?

It just seems like a lot in order to save an Earth-side launch or two.

Regolith by MASS (Edited. not volume) which I edited is approaching 45% oxygen. There are a couple companies building pilot plants to do electrolysis of regolith,. Oxygen is near term product with metal being byproduct for construction in long term. See link below for one example.

https://www.space.com/esa-oxygen-from-lunar-regolith-demonstration.html

Google Electrolysis of Lunar Regolith for others. Most have some government funding.

As rough rule of thumb 10kwh  of power will produce 1kg of Hydrolox from lunar ice. Electrolysis of regolith should be similar for 890gm of LOX. (LOX from kg of ice).


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[meekGee]

Majority of Americans don't want to travel to the Moon

Private human spaceflight has advanced tremendously in the last year, but many ordinary people aren't ready to visit the Moon themselves, according to a new Axios/Momentive poll.

Why it matters: Private space tourism today caters to an ultra-rich clientele, but eventually, the companies making a business out of sending people to space want to widen their reach to many more people.

Driving the news: The new poll found 61% of adults surveyed wouldn't be interested in taking a trip to the Moon even if money weren't a factor.

Actually 39% (or 37% if you read the bar chart) wanting to go to the Moon sounds like a pretty good number.

Only need 50-100 that can afford the trip to make it via business for 4-6 man crew vehicle. Thats enough trips to justify setting up ISRU plant to dramatically reduce needed tanker launches and mission costs.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

I don't see the logical step to setting up an ISRU plant.

Did you put numbers on the cost of setting up and operating an ISRU plant of sufficient capability?  How dramatic is the reduction in cost?

Me thinks you'll achieve a reduction in Earth-side launches (which at that point are cheap due to full reusability) and pay for a very expensive lunar infrastructure that in itself will require support launches and probably personnel.

It'll take a lot more than some tens of tourist flights to make it a profitable proposition.

For 10t lander 360ISP need 12t of fuel ( 2.64t CH4 +9.36 LOX) for 2.78km/s ie Gateway to surface.
39t fuel for round trip. Allows a little for boiloff.
With ISRU LOX (9.36t) refuelling on surface the down mass fuel is 17.5t + 2.64t CH4 for return. That 20.14t to earth fuel needed compared to 39t without ISRU. The fuel savings would be greater than that as tanks are about half size so reducing dry mass considerably.

10t LOX a year isn't that big an ask of a ISRU and only needs access to regolith not ice.

Things get better for hydrolox lander and ISRU water. Can even consider fuelling most of round trip from LEO by lunar fuel. This using OTV for LEO -Gateway-LEO trip.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Just to make sure, you want to support 1 landing a year, by producing 10t/yr of oxygen, yes?

How much regolith do you need to process, how much power is needed? 

I'm trying to understand how little of a deal it is.

For example if you need to process 100 tons of rock (just a guess), you need to gather some 300 kg per day.

You're envisioning a remote controlled front loader type of device? And a kiln, reaction chamber, gas separation, compression and liquification, yes?

And some way to get the 10t of lox to the lander?

It just seems like a lot in order to save an Earth-side launch or two.

Regolith by volume is approaching 45% oxygen. There are a couple companies building pilot plants to do electrolysis of regolith,. Oxygen is near term product with metal being byproduct for construction in long term. See link below for one example.

https://www.space.com/esa-oxygen-from-lunar-regolith-demonstration.html

Google Electrolysis of Lunar Regolith for others. Most have some government funding.

As rough rule of thumb 10kwh  of power will produce 1kg of Hydrolox from lunar ice. Electrolysis of regolith should be similar for 890gm of LOX. (LOX from kg of ice).


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Volume is a finicky metric, since it's not well defined for loose gravel, or for a gas (under what pressure/temperature) - so let's go with mass.

I suspect some rocks have a rather high Oxygen content by mass, but what you scavenge at the surface is going to be a mixed bag.  Also the process will have a yield that's way lower than 100%.

Whatever the final numbers, it's tens to hundreds of tons of rocks processed, tons of LoX transported and refuelled  and quite a bit of power.

The infrastructure to do all of this is going to be many times those 10 tons.

It may be a good thing to do for the future, but it won't be a sensible investment to support one or even ten launches a year.

[TrevorMonty]

Edited my post should be 45% by mass not volume so 30t should easily yield 10t.

Doesn't take to many trips for ISRU to start paying for its self. The initial plant is most expensive, with follow on ones becoming cheaper as they can use fuel from first one to reduce transport costs. If ISRU fuel becomes cheap enough its possible to partially refuel  US in LEO to help with reentry. This maybe fuel for landing and water or LH to cool heatshield during reentry.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1554446208629891073

NASA will require private missions to the ISS to be commanded by former NASA astronauts, something Axiom Space was already doing for its initial missions (but had talked about flying customers only in later missions.)

https://spacenews.com/nasa-revises-requirements-for-iss-private-astronaut-missions/

NASA details are here:

https://sam.gov/opp/23b1521f8c154f1caa2f3b2b0e551f28/view

[Robotbeat]

Sounds like something the Astronaut Office would lobby for to ensure their post-retirement career was more lucrative.

[butters]

And they're careful about specifying that it has to be a flown NASA government astronaut, since NASA's official definition of "astronaut" doesn't require them to have actually flown on a mission in space. So, for example, Anil Menon can't quit the NASA astronaut corps and command a Crew Dragon mission to the ISS for Axiom or SpaceX, he has to wait for NASA to fly him.

But I do know somebody who would be perfect. What could be more reassuring to the US segment crew than receiving a visiting vehicle commanded by none other than NASA Administrator and genuine government astronaut Bill Nelson himself!

This is all cute and everything, and totally within NASA's prerogative as owner-operator of the ISS. But I suspect the Commercial LEO Destinations bidders are less excited by the prospect of NASA telling them who can and cannot command private missions to their stations. They won't be able to pull this crap in the future. Enjoy it while it lasts, I guess.