Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Next Space Tourist Announced To Fly To The ISS  
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Posted (1 year 10 months 19 hours ago) and read 5073 times:

and the winner is...

Singer Sarah Brightman

 Wow!

ABC News has learned that singer Sarah Brightman, of "Phantom of the Opera" fame, will be the next tourist in space, sometime in 2014 or 2015. To get her seat she had to pay the Russian space agency more than the $51 million NASA budgets on average to send its astronauts to the station.

To maintain its presence in orbit when Soyuz seats are limited, NASA had to agree to commit at least one of its astronauts to spend a year in space, instead of the six months they currently stay. Brightman's trip will be announced in Moscow on Oct. 10.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/spa...at-russian-soyuz/story?id=17384120

The cost has gone up... to almost double... the former tourists had to pay from $25M up to $35M for their 12 days voyage. Now it's gone up to over $51M.

I don't really know who this woman is. I don't follow show biz much.

I wonder if Sarah Brightman has passed all the physicals before the announcement was made. How can they bump Astronauts to send "artists" and other wealthy people in Soyuz ships when serious work has to be accomplished up in the Station?

Other than blogging, taking pictures and videos and participating to simple experiments, it seems that the Virgin Galactic suborbital flights (even if extended) would seem more appropriate for these non-scientists.

It is sad to see that NASA could not outbid a singer to send one of their valuable astronauts to the ISS.

What do you think?

      Wow!

[Edited 2012-10-04 04:11:47]


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 4994 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter):
I don't really know who this woman is. I don't follow show biz much.

I wonder if Sarah Brightman has passed all the physicals before the announcement was made. How can they bump Astronauts to send "artists" and other wealthy people in Soyuz ships when serious work has to be accomplished up in the Station?

Sarah Brightman is a very well known singer/songwriter who has had a career both as a concert artist and also with various staged operas/plays. She was at one time married to Andrew Lloyd Webber ("Jesus Christ Superstar").

$51M ?? Wow. Although, had I the funds, I would pay.

The Russians can bump astronauts and scientists since they view the space tourism business as a way to help fund their overall space program. And it gives them a good warm fuzzy PR image all over the world.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 10 hours ago) and read 4978 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter):
How can they bump Astronauts to send "artists" and other wealthy people in Soyuz ships when serious work has to be accomplished up in the Station?

The problem is that without the cash these folks bring to the table, the Soviet program would likely have one fewer launch per year.

Rather than look at it as taking one seat away from a qualified astronaut, it is more that the 'tourist' allows two additional qualified astronauts to fly to the ISS.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 8 hours ago) and read 4958 times:

Look at it this way...

some lucky astronaut gets a whole year on the ISS!


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4894 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 1):
$51M ?? Wow. Although, had I the funds, I would pay.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 2):
it is more that the 'tourist' allows two additional qualified astronauts to fly to the ISS.

If I had the funds, I would pay for my own seat -- not only that -- but I would also pay the seats for the astronauts sharing my Soyuz flights both ways. I am not a selfish kind.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 3):
some lucky astronaut gets a whole year on the ISS!

I would be more than happy to take up the "ISS cleaner and cook" job for a whole year and help out with whatever experiments. I would take it up for 2 or 3 years even.

     ]

[Edited 2012-10-05 01:41:12]


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4863 times:

I would have gotten on the NASA space shuttle the day after the Challenger disaster if offered the opportunity.

I distinctly remember the predictions that folks of my generation would be able to fly commercially to the moon during our lifetimes. Having my 60th birthday last Tuesday - I'm still waiting. Somebody better get busy.


User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 605 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4836 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 5):

You still have a chance. Take your pick in hitching a ride from either China or India; both of whom have announced intentions for manned lunar missions in the 2020s.  



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4819 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 5):
I distinctly remember the predictions that folks of my generation would be able to fly commercially to the moon during our lifetimes. Having my 60th birthday last Tuesday - I'm still waiting. Somebody better get busy.

Want to go?

Here's your chance. There is a seat for sale. No price tag listed.

» Make history as the world's first private lunar explorer.
» Witness Earth rise as you emerge from the far side
of the moon.
» Become a catalyst for humankind's expansion into space.

The first private expedition to the moon.
Space Adventures invites you to join us for the most significant private expedition of our time - launching the first private mission to circumnavigate the moon.

http://www.spaceadventures.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Lunar.welcome

How will we get you there?
You will begin your journey to the far side of the moon by first launching into space aboard a Soyuz spacecraft. A second rocket will launch a Lunar Module comprising of an additional habitation module and a propulsion module. Your spacecraft will rendezvous with this additional system in low-Earth orbit. The engagement of the two will provide your spacecraft with the required propellant to travel to the moon. The propulsion module will fire and you will start your majestic journey around the moon.

http://www.spaceadventures.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Lunar.Details

You can do better than Sarah Brightman!

        



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4813 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 7):
The first private expedition to the moon.
Space Adventures invites you to join us for the most significant private expedition of our time - launching the first private mission to circumnavigate the moon.

Is this the one using the now discarded ex-Soviet Almaz spacecraft ? Not a chance in hell I'd try that. I want to come back alive.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4798 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 1):
Sarah Brightman is a very well known singer/songwriter who has had a career both as a concert artist and also with various staged operas/plays.

OK... Now I know who she is...

Sarah Brightman & Andrea Bocelli - Time to Say Goodbye 1997
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl9WMIPzd6w&feature=related

She did Andrea Bocelli's hit song in English as a duet with him and brought it to world fame
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVUHHW1tJYA

Just that song alone probably got her all the money she needed to pay for her space adventure.

She will have to give up much of her sophistication when she gets inside that Soyuz ship... no more fancy hair style, make-up, jewelry and couture clothing and get to some serious training.

  



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4792 times:

What I would like to know is if Ms Brightman would consider doing a concert from the ISS ? Can you imagine the sales potential ? Acoustics and sound quality would very likely be "sub-optimal" but the novelty of it would be very appealing.


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2314 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4738 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter):
The cost has gone up... to almost double... the former tourists had to pay from $25M up to $35M for their 12 days voyage. Now it's gone up to over $51M.

Well, what Roskosmos is charging NASA for a seat on a Soyuz has basically doubled over the last few years as well (in 2007 NASA was paying about $38m per seat, NASA recently contracted a dozen seats in 2013-2014 for $63m each). Nice to have a monopoly...


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4714 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 11):
Nice to have a monopoly...

The U.S. should have kept at least one of the Space Shuttles flying... At least Endeavour... no matter what cost... She was a young Ship with only 25 missions... the prestige and capability to tell the world they still managed their own flights to the ISS and did not have to totally depend on the Russians for sending their astronauts to the Station.

It will be a while until Space X or others can create a human fitted capsule... that can take astronauts to the Station... they will have to create it and test it... It will be a while until they send their first astronauts with a Shuttle replacement...

I think Roscosmos has got many good years ahead of them carrying US and international astronauts to the ISS along with the eventual "tourist"... Soyuz is old technology for sure but so efficient and safe... cross fingers...

The Mrs Sarah Brightman will have the time of her life blasting off from Baikonur in the Soyuz... I would love to go and see that launch for sure... as I will certainly not be able to be a part of the flight!!!

Lucky woman!!!!

        

[Edited 2012-10-06 02:02:26]


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineeksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1295 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4693 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 12):
The U.S. should have kept at least one of the Space Shuttles flying... At least Endeavour... no matter what cost... She was a young Ship with only 25 missions... the prestige and capability to tell the world they still managed their own flights to the ISS and did not have to totally depend on the Russians for sending their astronauts to the Station.

...and what about the cost? To keep only one orbiter going, the STS launch cost would not go down dramatically ( as the number of launches would go down, the price per launch may actually go up). The costs of a STS launch has always been a point of debate. Numbers as low $350 million to high as $1 billion depending on what is included. So if you take just the low number and divide it by 7 (standard complement), you get $50 mil a seat. The cargo is thrown in. So with one orbiter flying, it would not be a stretch to have the number easily double or more.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 11):
Well, what Roskosmos is charging NASA for a seat on a Soyuz has basically doubled over the last few years as well (in 2007 NASA was paying about $38m per seat, NASA recently contracted a dozen seats in 2013-2014 for $63m each). Nice to have a monopoly...

market dynamics. Capitalism at work  



World Wide Aerospace Photography
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4678 times:

Quoting eksath (Reply 13):

I know I can trust your judgement as you have been working right there close to the missions at KSC.

Still... i was thinking... when you consider that NASA has to pay for the Soyuz seats to send their astronauts to which they have to add the cost of sending cargo load with the Space X "Dragon" to the ISS...

I still wonder if the cost of the two is higher than having maintained the youngest Space Shuttle in the fleet in 100% flying condition.

The remaining Space Shuttle would have taken both NASA astronauts (and the eventual space "tourist)" and also cargo in the payload bay, the same cargo that they now have to send via Space X (which is still a young company) with a risk of losing the argo should any mishap happen --- taking into account that it is insured of course but the lost cargo would still be damaging to the missions... the same if a Progress vehicle or ATV/HTV would have the mishaps.

What is your answer to this? Is the Soyuz/Space X really a win/win for NASA?

    

[Edited 2012-10-06 07:18:11]


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineeksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1295 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4658 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 14):
I still wonder if the cost of the two is higher than having maintained the youngest Space Shuttle in the fleet in 100% flying condition.

I have spent 10 years with the shuttles i.e up close with them. Heck, i still spend time with them...well ..now down to Altantis as off two weeks ago. I think they were magnificent BUT they were also deeply flawed hence the haste by NASA to retire them before the next big catastrophic incident.

They were very work intensive hence they were very costly.NASA threw a lot of money into the problem i.e. to fly them safely post Challenger and Columbia. It still left areas of tremendous concern which became even more apparent post Columbia. Throwing more and more money at that i.e. taking the risk out was a case of "throwing good money after bad". Hence the retirement which was announced by George W. Bush in January 2004!

The STS program became a a big lead weight hanging around the neck of NASA as the agency struggled to swim.

The orbiters would/could have continued to fly if they had been recertified (a lot more money) but when the opportunity arose for a new direction i.e. a new paradigm NASA took it. It is the best path to move forward. No looking back!  


As much as i love the orbiters and the ops, i sincerely believe the new launch systems and new paradigm of exploration (i.e. moving beyond LEO) represents "the best bang for the buck" to the American taxpayer.

A few days ago, i sat in Atlantis for the last time before the cabin gets sealed. I made sure i sat in every seat on the flight deck and the mid deck for the last time . I will miss them all very much.

Bob Cabana - a man I have a lot of respect for- said it well: " It is time to move on!"



World Wide Aerospace Photography
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2314 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4652 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 12):
The U.S. should have kept at least one of the Space Shuttles flying... At least Endeavour... no matter what cost... She was a young Ship with only 25 missions... the prestige and capability to tell the world they still managed their own flights to the ISS and did not have to totally depend on the Russians for sending their astronauts to the Station.

The cost different between maintaining one flightworthy Shuttle or three would have been insignificant. Maintaining *any* flightworthy Shuttles would have required maintaining the entire infrastructure, which is where most of the cost was. Further, refurbishment costs on the Shuttles themselves were largely per-flight - ongoing maintenance of a shuttle not flying was minimal (unless NASA would have decided to through a major hardware upgrade in there, and the major cost of that would have been the R&D, not the application to the second and third Shuttles).

Further, NASA mission rules since Columbia required the ability to mount a rescue mission, so you'd need at least two Shuttles anyway.

And as for prestige... As soon as you start funding that out of the vainglory part of the budget instead of the science budget, I'll stop complaining that the manned program produces tiny results compared to the immense amount of money spent on it. Heck, NASA still can't articulate a clear purpose for ISS... Or the manned program in general...


User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2967 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4636 times:

If I had the funds, I'd do it.

No question about it.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3739 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4615 times:

Mixed feelings.

It's a bit sad to see such a valuable round trip ticket 'wasted' on someone who will bring zero scientific return from it, but on the other hand, if it helps democratizing space and eventually allowing for a cheaper pound-to-orbit price and more frequent trips, why not.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4389 times:

The $51 Million she is paying will probably finance the whole flight - not only herself.

  

Note how the Daily Fail can't even spell Soyuz properly...

  

Starlight Express: Sarah Brightman confirms she will be a space tourist aboard 2014 Suyuz rocket... after outbidding Nasa for seat
...
The singer will complete her training in an intensive five-week period before blasting off.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Suyuz-rocket-outbidding-Nasa.html

  

I like the comment on the breast implants LOL

[Edited 2012-10-11 01:05:01]


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4326 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 12):
The U.S. should have kept at least one of the Space Shuttles flying... At least Endeavour... no matter what cost... She was a young Ship with only 25 missions... the prestige and capability to tell the world they still managed their own flights to the ISS and did not have to totally depend on the Russians for sending their astronauts to the Station.

With only one shuttle available, no rescue capability, which would violate NASA rules. And, for one shuttle or three, you'd need the whole pipeline of maintenance capability. So not much to be saved there.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 12):
It will be a while until Space X or others can create a human fitted capsule... that can take astronauts to the Station... they will have to create it and test it... It will be a while until they send their first astronauts with a Shuttle replacement...

I believe SpaceX are looking at late 2016 or early 2017. Boeing will be slightly later than that.

Quoting eksath (Reply 15):
They were very work intensive hence they were very costly.NASA threw a lot of money into the problem i.e. to fly them safely post Challenger and Columbia. It still left areas of tremendous concern which became even more apparent post Columbia. Throwing more and more money at that i.e. taking the risk out was a case of "throwing good money after bad". Hence the retirement which was announced by George W. Bush in January 2004!

The STS program became a a big lead weight hanging around the neck of NASA as the agency struggled to swim.

Not to be forgotten is that the shuttles were built around late 60s/early 70s technology and design philosophies. Hence the mx heavy cost of refurbing each orbiter after each mission. Basically rebuilding them.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 16):
Further, NASA mission rules since Columbia required the ability to mount a rescue mission, so you'd need at least two Shuttles anyway.

Per above statement.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Next Space Tourist Announced To Fly To The ISS
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
I Used To Think The Space Shuttle Was Huge! posted Sat Aug 20 2005 15:53:06 by ACAfan
Saturn V: Cheaper To Launch Than The Shuttle? posted Tue May 17 2011 16:50:42 by Thrust
Which Fighter Is The Easiest To Fly? posted Sun May 1 2011 13:23:31 by Chamonix
Silent Eagle Sale To Rokaf In The Works? posted Thu Nov 4 2010 14:27:00 by Lumberton
Vulcan To Fly At The Royal International Air Tatto posted Wed Jul 7 2010 09:00:16 by readytotaxi
Rafale To Take The Nuclear Alert On July 1 posted Wed Jun 30 2010 13:35:34 by Flagon
Congress To USAF-Plan To Keep The 144th At Fresno posted Sat Oct 7 2006 07:34:33 by FATFlyer
Modified C-5 To Airfreight The Aurora? posted Thu Jul 20 2006 00:25:54 by BOE773
Long Island To Honor The F-14 posted Wed May 24 2006 23:44:18 by Dragon-wings
US Navy To Sink The USS America posted Fri Mar 4 2005 03:30:32 by Boeing4ever

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format