Tourist Module - MoComments. Also a comment on the space pen which NASA did not pay to develop

Al Globus Wrote:
> These 'short-sighted congresscritters' have been funding the space
> program at about $14 billion per year. By comparison, NSF -- which does
> most of the non-medical-defense-space science funding in the US -- get's
> about $4.8 billion. Thus, congress thinks space development is about
> three times more important than all basic science (except medical).
> Seems like the aerospace lobby is doing just fine .

I was under the impression that universities did most basic science.

panamabob Wrote:
> proof is that wealthy individuals have opted to fly the old work horse soyuz.

Could have a little bit to do with it being the only one they're allowed to fly
on.

Al Globus Wrote:
> No. It was a military funded project. The Universities did much of the
> work under grants from DOD.

The idea for the ARPAnet also came from the pentagon. WWW of course came from
CERN.

panamabob Wrote:
> hehe but suppose you slow down a bit from orbital speed in the relatively air

> free high altitude?

Either you do it high enough for friction to slow you down and have to deal
with the stresses or you do it with engines above the atmosphere where friction
can't tear the craft apart. Either way you'll either lose the craft or have to
carry so much fuel it can't make it to orbit in the first place.

panamabob Wrote:
> defacto safety or perhaps the markets perception of safety is already shown
by
> the purchase of ruskie space seats....

Not really. Safety is only shown by how many blow up and that's what the
market will react to over the long term.

Just because people climb Everest doesn't mean that people think it's safe.
The same will be true for space tourism until it's an almost everyday thing.

gardener1_98 Wrote:
> if we can string telephone cables across 3,000 miles of ocean, then surely,
> surely we can string one from here to LEO.

I can see a slight problem with that in that you wouldn't get any orbital
velocity from the cables. Besides it'll just fall down unless you can get it
in tension or make it very rigid (both unlikely if it only goes to LEO).

Brett Sargeant Wrote:
> I was thinking along the lines of having the whole module where the tourists
> sit eject, You wouldn't necessarily have to have the cargo doors, as you
could
> build the module to sit in the bay and take their shape, but is just an idea
:)

Probably not such a good idea as they also have the radiators on the inside of
the cargo bay doors. If you don't bring the radiators with you the shuttle
will only last about 8 hours in orbit before it overheats. This is why they
always have the cargo bay doors open when they're in space.

As for building the radiator into the tourist module and getting rid of the
doors I wouldn't recommend it because the radiators would probably not survive
a launch given that they're quite flimsly and also having a system to allow
them to be extended from the tourist module is likely to be rather complicated
if it can be done at all.

The escape system you mention for the crew is the one I've heard of. It's not
even close to good enough. In reality they should have an F-111 like ejection
capsule.

panamabob Wrote:
> Again i give you the NASA space pen vs. the Ruskies space pencil :-)

The space pen story is an urban legend with no basis in fact.

I suggest you don't use it. Also have a look at
http://www.snopes2.com/business/genius/spacepen.htm

> We're making plans for a space pad anyways with the island project...so I'll
> be more than happy to host the launches. Where we are we have no hurricanes,
> so that will help a bit :-) and we are around 8' above equator which will
> help get up to speed for equitorial track.

Island project? Anywhere I can get information on what you're doing?

As for 8' do you mean 8 degrees or 8 minutes of degree? Either one would be
good.