Vacation on the ISS?

[cytg111]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48560874

This is fantastic, space is back on the map.
I for one is already saving up for a part in a vacation home on the moon.
My inner child is so very encouraged by this direction, not only of NASA, but SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic etc. '
For something going in the direct opposite direction this is going to change geopolitics forever.

 

[dawp]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48560874

This is fantastic, space is back on the map.
I for one is already saving up for a part in a vacation home on the moon.
My inner child is so very encouraged by this direction, not only of NASA, but SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic etc. '
For something going in the direct opposite direction this is going to change geopolitics forever.

I'm not so sure this is a good idea, especially if it interferes with the ongoing science.

I'd say just wait until the commercial endeavors reach orbit, which isn't too far behind.

 

[cytg111]

I'm not so sure this is a good idea, especially if it interferes with the ongoing science.

I'd say just wait until the commercial endeavors reach orbit, which isn't too far behind.

I think NASA needs the publicity and getting the public "on board" is the make it or break it of the second space race.
A sole privatized endeavour, IMO, will lack a proper vision for the project.

 

[Paratus]

I'm not so sure this is a good idea, especially if it interferes with the ongoing science.

I'd say just wait until the commercial endeavors reach orbit, which isn't too far behind.

This is part of the commercial endeavor.

NASA is going to pay SpaceX and Boeing for X number of seats to the ISS each year. If I remember correctly each commercial provider should have 1 seat leftover each year during crew handovers to do with as they want.

The new rules would require SpaceX and Boeing to pay something like $11K-$22K per day for a private astronaut to use the ISS facility.

Back when we we’re flying astronauts to the ISS on the Shuttle and weren’t paying for so many Soyuz seats the Russians did this a few times because they contractually had an extra seat to the ISS that they could do what they want with.

The new rules also allow use of the forward hatch to dock a commercial laboratory, as well as science and manufacturing that require the unique capabilities of the ISS and are aligned with NASAs generic research and space development goals.

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-astronauts-on-the-iss-for-11250-22500-a-day/

 

[Greenman]

For $35k a night, the room service better be good.

 

[cytg111]

For $35k a night, the room service better be good.

Dude, weightlessness is something we normally experience for like one tenth of a second, riding a swing or whatever... tell me you dont like that moment at the top...

 

[UglyCasanova]

I think it’s neat people are getting to travel there. The ISS though is a colossal waste of money though and we could get so much more done for so much less money if we focussed on unmanned.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

For $35k a night, the room service better be good.

Half of that is for the air you breathe.

 

[Paratus]

I think it’s neat people are getting to travel there. The ISS though is a colossal waste of money though and we could get so much more done for so much less money if we focussed on unmanned.

 

[UglyCasanova]

How am I wrong? Unmanned is where the true science and exploration gets done. Much more cost effective and robust.

 

[brycejones]

How am I wrong? Unmanned is where the true science and exploration gets done. Much more cost effective and robust.

And boring, unmanned doesn’t get off this rock.

 

[UglyCasanova]

It’s not boring. The average American I’m sure could name more unmanned space probes than they could astronauts (past or present). By not having to lug all of that life support structure up there it saves plenty on weight/fuel. Computers/robotics/tech have got to the point where we don’t need humans. Having to keep something alive is just a hindrance.

 

[Thebobo]

Do the bunks have HBO?

 

[cytg111]

How am I wrong? Unmanned is where the true science and exploration gets done. Much more cost effective and robust.

10000000000000000000 studies of how shit behaves in 0g ... but fuck that right?

 

[cytg111]

It’s not boring. The average American I’m sure could name more unmanned space probes than they could astronauts (past or present). By not having to lug all of that life support structure up there it saves plenty on weight/fuel. Computers/robotics/tech have got to the point where we don’t need humans. Having to keep something alive is just a hindrance.

Dude .. you cant have moon and mars without the ISS ... The ISS is where we cut our teeth so to speak.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Do the bunks have HBO?

They have unfettered access to all and any media that has satellite distribution.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Dude .. you cant have moon and mars without the ISS ... The ISS is where we cut our teeth so to speak.

I don’t find any reason to send humans to the moon or mars.

 

[Paratus]

How am I wrong? Unmanned is where the true science and exploration gets done. Much more cost effective and robust.

It’s not boring. The average American I’m sure could name more unmanned space probes than they could astronauts (past or present). By not having to lug all of that life support structure up there it saves plenty on weight/fuel. Computers/robotics/tech have got to the point where we don’t need humans. Having to keep something alive is just a hindrance.

The ISS is a national lab and also produces basic science like the unmanned missions do but more broadly and in other areas (astronomy, life science, earth observation, combustion, material science, engineering, etc)

You’re also discounting the other areas that the ISS and manned space flight contribute. The commercial space flight market (i.e. SpaceX) is a direct result of the ISS. Manned space flight also drives more kids into engineering and STEM.

 

[UglyCasanova]

If we took the ISS fund in and focused it on unmanned instead SpaceX would still exist and there would be much more science going on than what’s currently being done aboard the iss. Don’t get me wrong it’s better than nothing, but unmanned is the much more durable and efficient approach. We have the technology to do so. Until a much cheaper method of launch into space is developed it simply doesn’t make sense to rely on humans.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Wow that is actually cheap relatively speaking. I think they've always unofficially allowed tourists but the cost is in the millions and you need to go through serious training first.

I think in the near future, private space hotel/resorts will be a thing, where they build purpose built rockets and space station for tourism and entertainment. It will be expensive at first, but you'll be able to go with only minimal training and it will be designed for tourists. I can see it eventually be like any resort on Earth where you pay like 10-20k and it's an all inclusive vacation.

 

[Paratus]

Do the bunks have HBO?

They have unfettered access to all and any media that has satellite distribution.

Not quite. If I remember correctly they do however have access to a repository of movies and shows. An astronaut Netflix if you will.

However if you are on board I wouldn’t expect to spend much time watching videos.

I also wouldn’t expect a bunk unless someone flys another module.

There’s 4 on the US side and 2 on the Russian side for a normal crew of 6. For others they’ll have to set up their sleeping bags elsewhere.

 

[Paratus]

If we took the ISS fund in and focused it on unmanned instead SpaceX would still exist and there would be much more science going on than what’s currently being done aboard the iss. Don’t get me wrong it’s better than nothing, but unmanned is the much more durable and efficient approach. We have the technology to do so. Until a much cheaper method of launch into space is developed it simply doesn’t make sense to rely on humans.

SpaceX would have gone bankrupt back on 2008 if I recall without the money from their commercial resupply contract.

The fact that we had the ISS has directly lead to cheaper launch prices.

Although if you want to pull a few billion from the military or tax cuts for the rich to pay for more unmanned probes I’m all for it.

 

[UglyCasanova]

There would have been many other projects SpaceX could have launched for if the money wasn’t going to the ISS. I’m not saying donaway with the ISS and do nothing. I’m saying divert that money to way more worthwhile projects. Space telescopes, probes, etc. And most importantly propulsion tech, find better/cheaper ways to orbit.

 

[Paratus]

There would have been many other projects SpaceX could have launched for if the money wasn’t going to the ISS. I’m not saying donaway with the ISS and do nothing. I’m saying divert that money to way more worthwhile projects. Space telescopes, probes, etc. And most importantly propulsion tech, find better/cheaper ways to orbit.

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-be-no-spacex-and-its-brilliant-boat-landing/

I think you need to brush up on your SpaceX history.


In his excellent book Elon Musk, author Ashlee Vance recounts the most dramatic of NASA's saves. From 2006 to 2008, SpaceX endured three failed launches of the Falcon 1 rocket. The fourth, in September 2008, finally succeeded. Still, the company appeared poised to go bankrupt as it struggled to meet payroll in late 2008. Even as its cash ran out, SpaceX was in the midst of capital-intensive transition from the single-engine Falcon 1 rocket to the much more complex Falcon 9 rocket. Moreover, to earn business from NASA to supply the ISS, it would also need to build a delivery capsule.

That fall and early winter marked the darkest hours for the cash-strapped Musk, as both SpaceX and Tesla spent hundreds of millions of dollars on development, with little revenue to show for it. "I could either pick SpaceX or Tesla or split the money I had left between them," Musk told Vance in the book. "That was a tough decision. If I split the money, maybe both of them would die. If I gave the money to just one company, the probability of it surviving was greater, but then it would mean certain death for the other company." The economy worsened that fall, and by December, Musk's money had run out and he'd tapped all the loans he could.

Then, two days before Christmas of 2008, NASA announced it was awarding commercial cargo contracts to Orbital Sciences for 19 flights and SpaceX for 12 flights. The contract was valued at $1.6 billion for SpaceX.

Musk has famously spoken of his tears upon learning this news. He was dating the English actress Talulah Riley at the time, and he hadn't bought her anything for Christmas. "I went running down the fucking street in Boulder, and the only place that was open sold these shitty trinkets, and they were about to close. The best thing I could find were these plastic monkeys with coconuts—those 'see no evil, hear no evil' monkeys."

That contract allowed SpaceX to finish the Falcon 9 rocket and build the Dragon spacecraft. The Falcon 9 has become the company's workhorse rocket, which offers launches at a steep discount to competitors. With the cargo contract, SpaceX also positioned itself to win a lucrative $2.6 billion contract from NASA to deliver crews to the ISS beginning as early as next year. During most of his tenure as NASA administrator, Charles Bolden has been a steady ally, continually advocating for more commercial cargo and crew funding for private companies.


Commercial crew and cargo has also provided money for Oribtal/ATKs Cygnus resupply vehicle, Sierra Nevada, and owing Starliner.

 

[UglyCasanova]

If NASA had unmanned missions it needed SpaceX could have launched those too. There could be even more activity in space, not less, because we don’t have to worry about life support.