If I may, I am personally very excited for more people, especially wealthy people, to go into space so that many of them experience the overview effect.[0]
> The overview effect is a cognitive shift in awareness reported by some astronauts during spaceflight, often while viewing the Earth from outer space.
> It is the experience of seeing firsthand the reality of the Earth in space, which is immediately understood to be a tiny, fragile ball of life, "hanging in the void", shielded and nourished by a paper-thin atmosphere. From space, national boundaries vanish, the conflicts that divide people become less important, and the need to create a planetary society with the united will to protect this "pale blue dot" becomes both obvious and imperative.
If it becomes cheap enough, it’ll eventually be a thing CEOs do to give meat to their motivational speeches and brag about how accomplished they are, much like climbing Everest. I fear it being less of a “I’m going to try to understand the world more after going to space”, and more of a “I understand the world more because I went to space and you didn’t.”
Conceptually, I agree with your idea. I would like a lottery to emerge for anyone to get a space flight to experience the overview effect -- something I think that could reinvigorate interest in science and the planet.
Now I wonder if the Overview Effect can be addictive...
Gotta say though, I think the overview effect is its own form of delusion. Whether you think other strangers' conflicts are petty or not is immaterial to whether or not they should continue. You can't just not conflict, it's simply not an option. From the extremely privileged (not to downplay the incredibly hard work and model perseverance of astronauts) perspective of an astronaut, of course other people's kinds of lives seem trivial, because you have no idea how other people live.
At a glance, it looks less about space tourism and more about enabling private companies to begin manufacturing and development in LEO or conduct experiments that NASA themselves don't need to be directly involved in.
In fact it seems to specifically call out that private astronauts are only allowed if they enable the allowed "activities".
Also, it looks like they are looking to have a dedicated "commercial" section of the ISS, and long term they want to have multiple commercial destinations in LEO!
I imagine this is pushed forwards by the advances in in-orbit production of optical fibre. From what I gather microgravity helps producing much better optical fibre, at a cheaper price than producing high quality optical fibre on earth, with a prototype production unit being shipped to the ISS [1].
Of course to further develop this commercially and gather funding you would need some assurance that there is actually a viable way to produce things in orbit without setting up an entire space station yourself. And that's exactly what NASA is announcing.
That is cheaper than the multi-room suites on board the A380. It's cheaper than renting many boats.
Or maybe this is a trick. How long is a "night" on space station? Only an hour or so iirc. Maybe they get back to earth and get a surprise Expedia bill on their cc.
$35K per night is oddly cheap, yeah. I think the ISS operates in the neighborhood of $6M per crewmember-day (where a day is 24 hours).
You're correct that there's no real night on the ISS. It sits in low earth orbit (LEO) and circles the Earth every 90 minutes. 45 minutes of sunlight, 45 minutes of shade.
I love that they are doing this, but I am worried it may not be enough to keep the ISS up past 2024, but it is a good first step.
Some context for those that haven’t been following closely:
It costs NASA over 4 billion a year to maintain the ISS. [0]
While the vast majority of that cost is transportation to/from the ISS (around 2.4 billion), there is a sizeable chuck that if they could “offload” to the private sector, may allow NASA to keep the ISS in orbit longer than currently planned.
The problem is, at least until they grow a true market, that market isn’t big enough to support that maintenance.
So, I believe the strategy (which makes sense) is try and get a true market/interest in the ISS going. If they can do that successfully, it should lower the cost for everyone, potentially allowing for even more things to happen in LEO.
So we will see, but I will note one of the biggest risks for SpaceX/Blue Origin/others doing commercial resupply is that once ISS disappears, there is no ready customer/market for their commercial offerings for crew. No way faster to kill the infant commercial crew space industry than to starve it of revenue.
The previous space tourism was operated by the Russian space agency out of the Russian section of the ISS. NASA didn't particularly like this at the time but weren't in a position to do much about it.
Most people talk about 1) tourism and 2) research which makes sense, but I can see a lot of benefit for marketing and branding. Imagine promo videos of someone using your gadget in space. A private company could fly up a few models/actors, a few of the latest brands goods, and get shots looking back at earth or floating around.
Luxury goods like watches and pens have already capitalized on this (Fisher Space Pen, Omega Moonwatch). I could see other high margin luxury brands snagging a seat:
- Sneakers (Air Jordans -> Space Jordans?)
- Jewelry (Diamond industry could play up a diamonds/stars theme)
- Fashion (play up the weightless/effortless aspect)
Any brand could get in on it if someone figured out the economics of a testing service. Small brands and Kickstarter projects could pool resources and fly up a few hundred toys and say they were 'tested in space'.
More like 1, even for the biggest brands. This is going to be way expensive.
I think you are onto a good idea, except I get the impression NASA will prioritize missions that contribute to commercial or science R&D and/or production.
Given that ISS belongs to multiple countries (US / Russia / Japan / Canada / UE), is NASA allowed to sell tickets to travel there and get keep the benefits of the sell for itself ?
NASA I believe gets a certain number of slots and will be giving up an astronaut slot for each of these tourist flights. When Dragon and Starliner finally start flying though they'll be able to increase the number of people able to be on the station at once so net they're probably no worse off than before. Currently only 6 people (up to 9 but only briefly during a handover) can be on board at once because each Soyuz can only carry 3 people. Crew Dragon can hold up to 7 but most of the time will be flying with less, iirc 3-4.
It's Americans who are inconsistent with acronyms. Do you write LASER or RADAR? If it's pronounceable as a word, it's written as such. If it's pronounceable as letters, it's written how you would expect.
> @Space_Station is open for commercial business! Watch @Astro_Christina talk about the steps we're taking to make our orbiting laboratory accessible to all Americans.
They are only allowing a very small number of people to go aboard, so I don't think it's that bizarre that a US agency is only picking Americans for the initial program.
Could this be because of similar reasons why SpaceX can’t hire non US citizens due to their rockets qualifying as ICBMs? I remember Elon mentioning this in a press conference.
> Nasa's announcement on Friday is part of a move towards full privatisation of the ISS. US President Donald Trump published a budget last year which called for the station to be defunded by the government by 2025.
I had no idea that the ISS was going to be de-funded. Does that even make sense?
>"Plans to privatize the ISS made headlines earlier this year when NASA revealed The White House intended to pull the plug on federal finances in 2025. This isn't the first time privatization murmurs have surfaced for the space station, but a recent NASA audit suggests a conversion to private operation may not be feasible."
>"According to NASA forecasts, there are two main options the ISS could take to stay afloat pending a lack of federal funding. The first proposition involves larger private sector investment, and the agency readily acknowledges it's already taken baby steps to increase commercialization."
The ISS has a limited life due to thermal cycling and such. (One hot/cold cycle every 90 minutes). Think airliner cycles. The first part was launched in 1998.
ISS was actually supposed to be deorbited in the 2015 timeframe under Bush II (to make funds available for the Constellation program), later extended to 2020 and then 2025.
I think most expect ISS to stay in orbit until 2028 or maybe a little later, so some extension is likely to happen regardless of what Trump's policy is (same as how Obama extended ISS). 30 years is a really long time for safety-critical space hardware, and ISS absorbs an astronomical amount of funding. It's not hyperbole to say that the Trump Moon shot would have plenty of funding if ISS wasn't around. We're talking about an additional $4-5 billion per year.
I never heard this before and it doesn't pass the sniff test.
Not giving NASA as much money as they and the public would like is one thing, every congress and administration since probably LBJ does that. Specifically "de-funding" one of their flagship projects would cause massive public backlash. Besides, congress writes the budget. Anything Trump "publishes" is just political posturing without much meaning. Therefore I suspect that this is just some out of context or misrepresented tidbit that worked its way in after the author googled around to figure out the recent history of privatization of space. Then again, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Trump published a wish list budget and literally forgot to put NASA on it. I'm betting reality is probably more nuanced than the one sentence the author distilled it down to.
Really off-topic and nit-picking: if you are going to editorialize the title to capital letters for every words (tourists -> Tourists) then do it at least for `NASA`.
In British English, it is common that only the initial letter of an acronym is capitalized if the acronym is read as a word, e.g., "Unesco", "Nasa", "Nato". The BBC in particular has this as an explicit editorial policy.
[+] [-] consumer451|6 years ago|reply
> The overview effect is a cognitive shift in awareness reported by some astronauts during spaceflight, often while viewing the Earth from outer space.
> It is the experience of seeing firsthand the reality of the Earth in space, which is immediately understood to be a tiny, fragile ball of life, "hanging in the void", shielded and nourished by a paper-thin atmosphere. From space, national boundaries vanish, the conflicts that divide people become less important, and the need to create a planetary society with the united will to protect this "pale blue dot" becomes both obvious and imperative.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect
[+] [-] fiblye|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dpflan|6 years ago|reply
Now I wonder if the Overview Effect can be addictive...
[+] [-] microcolonel|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kodz4|6 years ago|reply
Americans and their weird need to turn everything they feel into something marketable more like it...
[+] [-] ketozhang|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Klathmon|6 years ago|reply
At a glance, it looks less about space tourism and more about enabling private companies to begin manufacturing and development in LEO or conduct experiments that NASA themselves don't need to be directly involved in.
In fact it seems to specifically call out that private astronauts are only allowed if they enable the allowed "activities".
Also, it looks like they are looking to have a dedicated "commercial" section of the ISS, and long term they want to have multiple commercial destinations in LEO!
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-opens-international-...
[+] [-] wongarsu|6 years ago|reply
Of course to further develop this commercially and gather funding you would need some assurance that there is actually a viable way to produce things in orbit without setting up an entire space station yourself. And that's exactly what NASA is announcing.
1: https://upward.issnationallab.org/the-race-to-manufacture-zb...
[+] [-] hanniabu|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sandworm101|6 years ago|reply
That is cheaper than the multi-room suites on board the A380. It's cheaper than renting many boats.
Or maybe this is a trick. How long is a "night" on space station? Only an hour or so iirc. Maybe they get back to earth and get a surprise Expedia bill on their cc.
[+] [-] dontbenebby|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inamberclad|6 years ago|reply
You're correct that there's no real night on the ISS. It sits in low earth orbit (LEO) and circles the Earth every 90 minutes. 45 minutes of sunlight, 45 minutes of shade.
[+] [-] m463|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agotterer|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minitoar|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aerophilic|6 years ago|reply
Some context for those that haven’t been following closely: It costs NASA over 4 billion a year to maintain the ISS. [0]
While the vast majority of that cost is transportation to/from the ISS (around 2.4 billion), there is a sizeable chuck that if they could “offload” to the private sector, may allow NASA to keep the ISS in orbit longer than currently planned.
The problem is, at least until they grow a true market, that market isn’t big enough to support that maintenance.
So, I believe the strategy (which makes sense) is try and get a true market/interest in the ISS going. If they can do that successfully, it should lower the cost for everyone, potentially allowing for even more things to happen in LEO.
So we will see, but I will note one of the biggest risks for SpaceX/Blue Origin/others doing commercial resupply is that once ISS disappears, there is no ready customer/market for their commercial offerings for crew. No way faster to kill the infant commercial crew space industry than to starve it of revenue.
[0] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2018...
[+] [-] kawfey|6 years ago|reply
Space Adventures [1] has been doing it since 2001, but it seem they haven't had any recent trips.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Simonyi [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Adventures
[+] [-] makomk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmancini|6 years ago|reply
Luxury goods like watches and pens have already capitalized on this (Fisher Space Pen, Omega Moonwatch). I could see other high margin luxury brands snagging a seat:
- Sneakers (Air Jordans -> Space Jordans?)
- Jewelry (Diamond industry could play up a diamonds/stars theme)
- Fashion (play up the weightless/effortless aspect)
Any brand could get in on it if someone figured out the economics of a testing service. Small brands and Kickstarter projects could pool resources and fly up a few hundred toys and say they were 'tested in space'.
[+] [-] jackfoxy|6 years ago|reply
More like 1, even for the biggest brands. This is going to be way expensive. I think you are onto a good idea, except I get the impression NASA will prioritize missions that contribute to commercial or science R&D and/or production.
[+] [-] vkou|6 years ago|reply
Corny as hell, and we can just film it on a greenscreen in LA.
Also, people look really freakin' goofy in zero-G.
[+] [-] perfmode|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jorge-d|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rtkwe|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rory096|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukeqsee|6 years ago|reply
It also appears the vast majority of the expense (99%) will be in the ferrying fees paid to SpaceX or Boeing.
[+] [-] PunksATawnyFill|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mratzloff|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] captn3m0|6 years ago|reply
https://spacenews.com/house-joins-senate-in-push-to-extend-i...
[+] [-] jakebaker|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ggregoire|6 years ago|reply
> @Space_Station is open for commercial business! Watch @Astro_Christina talk about the steps we're taking to make our orbiting laboratory accessible to all Americans.
Why is it limited only to Americans?
[+] [-] obmelvin|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] busymom0|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jedberg|6 years ago|reply
Security clearances. You can't even visit an aerospace company without being a US citizen or getting special clearance from the government.
[+] [-] pkaye|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] droithomme|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callumprentice|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eutropia|6 years ago|reply
I had no idea that the ISS was going to be de-funded. Does that even make sense?
[+] [-] inflatableDodo|6 years ago|reply
>"According to NASA forecasts, there are two main options the ISS could take to stay afloat pending a lack of federal funding. The first proposition involves larger private sector investment, and the agency readily acknowledges it's already taken baby steps to increase commercialization."
https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/31/nasa-expresses-doubts-ov...
[+] [-] Robotbeat|6 years ago|reply
ISS was actually supposed to be deorbited in the 2015 timeframe under Bush II (to make funds available for the Constellation program), later extended to 2020 and then 2025.
I think most expect ISS to stay in orbit until 2028 or maybe a little later, so some extension is likely to happen regardless of what Trump's policy is (same as how Obama extended ISS). 30 years is a really long time for safety-critical space hardware, and ISS absorbs an astronomical amount of funding. It's not hyperbole to say that the Trump Moon shot would have plenty of funding if ISS wasn't around. We're talking about an additional $4-5 billion per year.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|6 years ago|reply
Not giving NASA as much money as they and the public would like is one thing, every congress and administration since probably LBJ does that. Specifically "de-funding" one of their flagship projects would cause massive public backlash. Besides, congress writes the budget. Anything Trump "publishes" is just political posturing without much meaning. Therefore I suspect that this is just some out of context or misrepresented tidbit that worked its way in after the author googled around to figure out the recent history of privatization of space. Then again, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Trump published a wish list budget and literally forgot to put NASA on it. I'm betting reality is probably more nuanced than the one sentence the author distilled it down to.
[+] [-] riffic|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnchristopher|6 years ago|reply
While I Am At It, I Do Dislike random Capitalization :) and those rules https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/capitalization/rules-for-...
[+] [-] jessriedel|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kye|6 years ago|reply
See also: laser, scuba, radar, modem.