Space tourism, and the unspoken US victory in space

>I've wondered for years why we can't do something like this.
> > After all, the shuttle is already kind of a "space bus", why not make
> > it so in reality.

NASA seems quite stuck in their ways. They were instructed by Washington in
the mid-1990's to begin to open up for more corporate involvement, and have
dragged their feet. I saw an article on the web that was hotly critical of
their response to a Congressional order to come up with conditions for
putting STS operations out for corporations to bid on. The contractual
restrictions they placed on putting the shuttle under corporate control were
so onerous no corporation has bid for them. NASA still wants their finger
in so many aspects of the operation it's as if they were charging for all
the shuttle but only giving away half of it. Their resistance to ISS space
tourism was well documented, and was only defeated by the fait accompli that
the RSA handed them.

They just don't seem like a fertile area for passenger flights. Maybe it's
their Apollo-era mindset. In many ways NASA is just like us: ardent space
explorers. They probably despise the idea that all their science and
engineering expertise might be harnessed for theme park operations for a
zero-G Disneyland.

>There are safety reasons not to do this. Something about no escape system
>being possible in a tourism module.

Ask Christa McAuliffe.

>Of course the Buran went into space unmanned and even did the landing with
>no
>one on board. See if the shuttle can do that?
>
>I think the reason Buran wasn't flown any more was more to do with not
>being
>enough money to run it then it not being any good. It's probably a little
>better then the STS.

The Russians have a long history of getting the plans and specs for Western
high-tech gadgetry then copying it, giving them the benefit of the item
without the R&D costs. It seems to me that with the STS/Buran they chose a
lemon to copy in the first place. No wonder they can't afford to fly
it--it's a wonder we can. We shouldn't have to either, but there is too
much invested in it. Let's hope NASA can do better with the next generation
reuseable launchers now in design/competition phase.

On the subject of junkyard spacecraft, my impression is that the tiny
margins for error and the quality testing required just to build a jet
aircraft make it a horribly expensive proposition for a garage mechanic.
Things like weld integrity, quality of air seals, vibration tolerance,
structural strength requirements and the weight restrictions make designing
a jet aircraft a massively complex undertaking. It's really a near-miracle
of engineering. And jetliners only have to achieve 1/20th the velocity that
spacecraft do, which would mean spacecraft have to be more than 20 times
stronger and more reliable than your average 727.

I'm not trying to discourage an off-the-shelf program. I'm enthusiastic and
hopeful about the X-Prize competition ($10 million for the first
non-goverment people orbiter). But be realistic about the requirements.

Dad astra