Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4768 posts, RR: 9 Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7560 times:
Quote: Russia currently charges NASA about $51 million per seat for a ride on its Soyuz spacecraft. The price goes up to $56 million in 2013.
So, space tourists pay half as much as astronauts ? Furthermore, they use a taxpayer paid facility (the ISS, for which a lot of people have paid, not just the US and Russia) !
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10241 posts, RR: 40 Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7424 times:
This will be big competition to Virgin Galactic. EADS ASTRIUM are also developing their own Space vechicle. They might laucny out of Kourou in Guyana.
I don't think the Boeing craft will be suited to take paying passengers to the ISS. Those high-end flyers like Laliiberté would still have to go in the Soyuz if they can pay to spend time in the ISS.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8417 posts, RR: 13 Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7392 times:
Three questions:
1. Will they be able to compete with Virgin Galactic on price (currently $200,000 per person)
2. Will they be able to provide as complete of an experience (both before and after the flight) as Virgin Galactic is planning to provide?
3. Will Boeing actually follow through with this concept? Right now all we have is a proposal.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14311 posts, RR: 26 Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7366 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 1): Furthermore, they use a taxpayer paid facility (the ISS, for which a lot of people have paid, not just the US and Russia) !
I think that the development of spacecraft is parallel to the development of aircraft. Much of the early development of aircraft was done at the behest of the government and early airlines in the US were almost completely reliant on government mail contracts, passengers were secondary. It wasn't until the 1920s and 1930s that airliners could support themselves.
Eventually, space will become profitable and private companies will make inroads into the market. Until then government research and funding will be necessary to push the boundaries.
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 2): I don't think the Boeing craft will be suited to take paying passengers to the ISS.
The article says low earth orbit with seven people, so I think the ISS may be possible, especially with less payload and depending on launch vehicle.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14311 posts, RR: 26 Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7320 times:
Quoting MD-90 (Reply 3): 1. Will they be able to compete with Virgin Galactic on price (currently $200,000 per person)
Probably not. The CST-100 seems to be much more heavy duty and capable of making orbit. The Virgin Galactic flights will be suborbital and I think if I'm not mistake that the SpaceShipTwo can only reach orbit with a greatly reduced payload.
Quoting MD-90 (Reply 3): 2. Will they be able to provide as complete of an experience (both before and after the flight) as Virgin Galactic is planning to provide?
I think that it would be a rather different experience than with Virgin Galactic.
Quoting MD-90 (Reply 3): 3. Will Boeing actually follow through with this concept?
That probably depends at least partially on whether or not the idea of having NASA contract out their transport comes to pass.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6996 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5): The Virgin Galactic flights will be suborbital and I think if I'm not mistake that the SpaceShipTwo can only reach orbit with a greatly reduced payload.
It will have no orbital capability what-so-ever. There is speculation that WhiteKnightTwo will have the capability of air launching orbital spacecraft along the lines of Orbital Sciences L-1011 Stargazer.
Quoting Aesma (Reply 1): So, space tourists pay half as much as astronauts ? Furthermore, they use a taxpayer paid facility (the ISS, for which a lot of people have paid, not just the US and Russia) !
The Russian Soyuz and American Space Shuttle use decades old technology that are complicated vehicles and expensive to operate. The purpose of the CST-100 and the other commercial crew transports in development are to use the latest technology to drive down the cost of reaching space. It is far from certain if this can be accomplished. If it can, NASA will likely be one of the first customers.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4): Much of the early development of aircraft was done at the behest of the government and early airlines in the US were almost completely reliant on government mail contracts, passengers were secondary. It wasn't until the 1920s and 1930s that airliners could support themselves.
That's essentially what is happening now with commercial crew transports. Many of the vehicles in development were designed as bids to win NASA's commercial cargo contracts to the ISS, such as the SpaceX Dragon.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14311 posts, RR: 26 Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6982 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6): There is speculation that WhiteKnightTwo will have the capability of air launching orbital spacecraft along the lines of Orbital Sciences L-1011 Stargazer.
That might have been what I read.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6): That's essentially what is happening now with commercial crew transports.
I think this is the beginning of a slow migration of space ventures to the private sector. The industry is in its infancy, but I believe it will grow considerably.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
md80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2622 posts, RR: 11 Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6416 times:
Anything Boeing is talking about will be 98% airplane and perhaps 2% spacecraft. No one will be docking with the ISS any time soon. "Space" flights will consist of brief ballistic trips featuring some "weightlessness" and then back down you go.
BlueJuice From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 205 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6316 times:
I bet in 40 years, people will harken back to the "golden age of spaceflight" when:
- People wore G-suits instead of t-shirts and shorts
- Unlimited cannisters of premium O2
- Enough room to tumble in zero gravity
- Complimentary motion sickness bags
- First 25 kilos of luggage free instead of $825 for the first 10 kilos and $20 each additional
- Kraft Tang 1982 (or similar vintage) as a prelaunch drink
- Nomex glove service
- Meals rehydrated to your liking served on real carbon fiber reinforced plastic plates
- No charges for airlock door row seating
- More nonstops to Saturn, Jupiter and Neptune rather than being connected through Mars
- Less "hoi polloi" at spaceports
Then again, once factored for inflation, a flight to the moon will be $5,000 roundtrip and take 8 hours.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14311 posts, RR: 26 Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6070 times:
Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 10): Anything Boeing is talking about will be 98% airplane and perhaps 2% spacecraft. No one will be docking with the ISS any time soon.
I think a lot of space tourism will be like that, but if you go look at the CST-100, it is definitely more than 2% spacecraft.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
trent1000 From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 421 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5431 times:
Wouldn't it be better to build a relatively large craft that flew people high enough to let the earth rotate under so we could travel much further & faster in one go than we can now?
It depends what you mean by 'space tourism': that is, just departing point A, going into space and coming back to point A again a short time later, or staying up there for a prolonged experience.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14311 posts, RR: 26 Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5400 times:
Quoting trent1000 (Reply 13): Wouldn't it be better to build a relatively large craft that flew people high enough to let the earth rotate under so we could travel much further & faster in one go than we can now?
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16803 posts, RR: 57 Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5324 times:
My mother has, in the bank vault, tickets for the first Pan Am flight into space.
pylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1391 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5218 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6): The Russian Soyuz and American Space Shuttle use decades old technology that are complicated vehicles and expensive to operate. The purpose of the CST-100 and the other commercial crew transports in development are to use the latest technology to drive down the cost of reaching space. It is far from certain if this can be accomplished. If it can, NASA will likely be one of the first customers.
This is true.
But the problem is absence of new fundamental breakthroughs in science - which only can make space travel (suborbital, orbital and beyond) something more than exotic tourism.
If you have applicable knowledge - please share.
They may think that doing this work itself will lead to those discoveries.
But it I can't see how working on the mentioned projects can preceed scientific breakthoughs, like: new propulsion systems, new fuels - and all the way to gravitation and going beyond the Einstein's laws.
The fundametal problem in the last 40- 50 years is stagnation of science and declining ethics of scientists.
Antoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1503 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5200 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15): My mother has, in the bank vault, tickets for the first Pan Am flight into space.
She could make a mint selling them on eBay.
Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
centrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3597 posts, RR: 21 Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4689 times:
I thought Boeing's CST-100 is partly going to be used in cooperation with Bigelow Space's hotel. Sounds far fetched but Bigelow has already did extensive orbital tests and is ready to launch a full facility. In fact NASA was looking at Bigelow's operation and considered for a time of adding on inflatable unit to the ISS to add extra space. The Asteroid mission now in the works also has some notes regarding Bigelow inflatable units.
Bigelow was originally going to use an Orion Lite project with Lockheed but decided to go with Boeing.
NASA will benefit from Orion being used as the life-boat but also still being pushed for use on deep space missions, Boeing privately going forward with their spacecraft and Space-X's Dragon. NASA could order all three and have a nice fleet of spacecraft that can be launched on various launchers and do different missions.
I always thought it silly that NASA only uses one manned spacecraft. Imagine if the NAVY or Air Force depended on just one aircraft for all their missions.
The 767 has a government model number. Why can't spacecraft?
Oh and not to be a prick or anything but why is this not in Military & Space? Personally I think it is getting more attention here than in the other forum.
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10241 posts, RR: 40 Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4666 times:
If Boeing builds an orbital Space "plane" aimed at general flying and has a viable company operating it, it will be the end off Virgin Galactic and their sub-orbital joy rides. Boeing are serious business. They long worked with NASA and could have the keys to a lot of things. They established their reputation with the millions of aircrafts they sold. Their only true competitior will be EADS ASTRIUM with equal technology and access to the Kourou Space Center for launch Also, Japan will come up with their own Space vehicle, it's in the plans I am not sure if short or long term. I always had this dream of going on a round the globe orbital flight. I hope I will be able to do it before I leave for the other dimension.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
falstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 5670 posts, RR: 29 Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3481 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 1): Furthermore, they use a taxpayer paid facility
just like airlines. Airlines don't operate their own airports, government bodies of some sort usually do.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14311 posts, RR: 26 Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2684 times:
Quoting centrair (Reply 18): I thought Boeing's CST-100 is partly going to be used in cooperation with Bigelow Space's hotel
I think that is a factor in whether or not there is a good business case for the CST-100.
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 19): it will be the end off Virgin Galactic and their sub-orbital joy rides.
How many people's first flight was a 5 cent ride at the county fair? Just because Virgin Galactic will be operating sub-orbital joy rides does not mean that they are not making meaningful technical achievements.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
voar From Canada, joined Jul 2008, 95 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2442 times:
I think Boeing will be providing a different experience that Virgin Galactic. Boeing will have more of a true astronaut ride with a possible stay at the ISS or Bigelow's station, whereas Virgin's is just a sub-orbital joy ride. As has been said before, it's the initial slow progress that will lead to further development and reduced costs for space travel. We all can only gain.
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3666 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2426 times:
I just wish someone would develop an SST that would be economical and deal with the sonic boom issue over land so that it doesn't take 6 hours to fly from NYC to LAX/SFO anymore.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16803 posts, RR: 57 Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2413 times:
Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 17):
She could make a mint selling them on eBay.
I'm hoping she doesn't notice that, since I stand to inherit them.
25 474218: Amazing!!!! Boeing is predicting that paying customers will fly on the CST-100 spacecraft before a paying customer may fly on a 787 airliner!
26 Aloha717200: This is amazing! I didn't know Boeing was tossing their hat into the ring! It truly feels like the pioneering days of aviation must have felt, where a
27 MadameConcorde: I know I want to be on the first inaugural intra-Japan 787 flight with NH and ready to buy the ticket. Now if Boeing will trade me that ticket at no
28 Aesma: I was not talking about the future tourists, but the current ones. They pay 20-35 millions for a seat on a Soyuz and on the ISS. Whereas NASA, accordi
29 BMI727: Boeing, and more specifically McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell, and Hughes have a long history developing spacecraft, including the Space Shuttle and Delt
30 Antoniemey: I won't tell her. That would be an awesome piece of history to own... but I'd personally rather put the money it would take to buy them towards savin
31 Aloha717200: I know that. What i mean is, into the space tourism ring.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Jul 2008, 95 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4768 posts, 
From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10241 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8417 posts, 
I think this is the beginning of a slow migration of space ventures to the private sector. The industry is in its infancy, but I believe it will grow considerably.
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 421 posts, 
From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1391 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
