Boeing aims for space tours by 2015

Boeing

An artist's conception shows the Boeing Co.'s CST-100 craft approaching the International Space Station.

The Boeing Co. and Virginia-based Space Adventures today unveiled the outlines of their deal to market passenger seats on orbital spaceships. The deal, which was telegraphed in advance last week, would broaden Space Adventures' clientele from millionaire "citizen explorers" to non-governmental agencies and corporations, and even federal agencies other than NASA.

Boeing's vice president and general manager for space exploration, Brewster Shaw, said the deal was in line with his company's heritage. "One of our stated goals in our division is to become the Boeing commercial aircraft of human space commerce," he told journalists during a teleconference conducted from Boeing's offices in Arlington, Va.

The deal calls for flying paying passengers alongside NASA astronauts to and from the International Space Station, and eventually other, as-yet-unspecified destinations as well. But neither Boeing nor Space Adventures were ready to answer the bottom-line question: How much will a ticket cost? The best they could say was that the price would be competitive with the cost of a ride on a station-bound Russian Soyuz craft, which is currently pegged at $40 million a seat.

Boeing's commercial space capsule, known as the CST-100, is expected to be operational by 2015. The craft's main purpose will be to service the space station after the space shuttle fleet is retired. Boeing expects there to be open seats on the CST-100 space taxis — which should be able to seat seven, albeit under tighter conditions than those that exist on the shuttle. Space Adventures will be given the task of marketing those extra seats to non-NASA customers once the capsule comes online.

In the past, Space Adventures has arranged with the Russians to fly seven millionaires to the space station — most recently, Cirque du Soleil founder Guy Laliberte, almost a year ago. The price tag for such flights has been escalating, from an initial ballpark figure of $20 million to Laliberte's $40 million fare. But with the expansion of the station's capacity and the phase-out of the shuttles, NASA needs more seats for its own astronauts. The result is that the supply of seats available for paying passengers on Russia's Soyuz craft has dried up, at least for the next couple of years.

The deal with Boeing provides Space Adventures with another potential supplier, which will provide more competition in the orbital transport market. If the Russians have seats available to sell in the years ahead, there'll be competitive pressure to keep the price low. And if you have any hope of going into outer space yourself, competition is a good thing: That's the only way to bring the cost of a trip to orbit not only within the budget of a millionaire, but within the budget of less welll-heeled travelers as well.

Competition in the spaceflight market
During today's teleconference, executives from Boeing as well as Space Adventures said it was too early to talk about pricing.

"Certainly a lot of that comes from the launch vehicle choice," said Eric Anderson, Space Adventures' chairman. "There are a lot of other factors that play into it, including what the destination is, what the experience is. We'll see. I think it's definitely fair to say that it will be competitive with what's out there, and I just think we'll have to leave it at that for now."

Another source of competition could be Las Vegas-based Bigelow Aerospace, which has already partnered with Boeing and aims to launch commercial space stations starting in 2014 or 2015. That would provide an alternate destination for space travelers and researchers. Anderson said his company had no arrangement with Bigelow but added that he would "love to work" with the company. He also hinted that Space Adventures might market passenger seats for other space destinations but declined to be more specific.

"The price, when it's in the right range, should be less emphasized than things like the safety and the reliability of the team providing the experience," Anderson said. "Other factors turn out to be a lot more important at this stage of the game."

NASA paying out $18 million ... and more to come?
Boeing is one of several companies that is receiving money from NASA for the development of orbital space systems. So far, NASA has committed $18 million to the project, and about two-thirds of that money has been paid out, Elbon said. Boeing has built a structural test article for the CST-100 and has begun a variety of tests.

The current plan calls for the space taxis to be launched from Cape Canaveral in Florida — perhaps atop the United Launch Alliance's Atlas 5 or Delta 4, or SpaceX's Falcon 9. When they head back to Earth from the space station, the airbag-cushioned taxis would land at White Sands in New Mexico, Edwards Air Force Base in California or some other similarly out-of-the-way location. Boeing's specifications call for each taxi to be used at least 10 times, with a turnaround time of 6 months between flights, Elbon said.

Elbon said NASA's continued financial support is an essential piece of Boeing's business plan. "We wouldn't be able to close the business case" if NASA discontinued its funding, he said. The 2015 start of operations is based on the assumption that funding would continue at a tempo that matched the projected development schedule.

He said Boeing has the equivalent of 80 to 100 full-time employees working on the project.

"We are hopeful that Congress puts a budget in place that will allow a follow-on Space Act Agreement to pick up as early as Nov. 1, so that we can maintain the team that we have and keep progress on schedule," Elbon told me. "The dates that I gave you are a function of that happening. If that doesn't happen — if there's a continuing resolution, for example, that doesn't enable commercial crew [development] to continue — that will create a gap in our development program."

The deal is also based on the assumption that Boeing will actually end up providing crew transport services to NASA in the post-shuttle era, which is not a foregone conclusion.

Despite that uncertainty, Anderson doesn't intend to wait until 2015 to start selling seats.

"Regarding when Space Adventures is able to begin marketing seats under the agreement, the answer is now," he told me, "with the caveat that marketing initially really involves discussions with serious parties and entities. We need to flesh out things like pricing and schedule. And obviously we are awaiting clarity with regard to the level of commercial crew funding."

As it happens, a fight is brewing on Capitol Hill over NASA funding: The House version of an authorization bill would allocate less money than the Senate version for space commercialization — and if an agreement isn't reached within the next few weeks, Boeing and other spaceship developers may be left hanging in legislative limbo.

Elbon was asked whether today's deal was timed to influence Congress. "It wasn't a conscious effort to announce this week," he replied, "although maybe it'll turn out to be a fortuitious situation."

I'd love to hear what you have to say about the situation for future spaceflight, as it's shaping up for next month as well as for 2015 and beyond. Feel free to leave your comments below. For the record, here's the full news release, which you can also find on Boeing's website:

"The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] and Space Adventures, Ltd. have established a memorandum of agreement regarding the marketing of anticipated transportation services to destinations in low Earth orbit (LEO) on Boeing commercial crew spacecraft.

"Under this agreement, Space Adventures will market passenger seats on commercial flights aboard the Boeing Crew Space Transportation-100 (CST-100) spacecraft to LEO. Potential customers for excess seating capacity include private individuals, companies, non-governmental organizations, and U.S. federal agencies other than NASA. Boeing plans to use the CST-100 to provide crew transportation to the International Space Station (ISS) and future commercial LEO platforms.

"'By combining our talents, we can better offer safe, affordable transportation to commercial spaceflight customers,' said Brewster Shaw, vice president and general manager of Boeing's Space Exploration division. 'To date, all commercial flights for private spaceflight participants to the ISS have been contracted by Space Adventures. If NASA and the international partners continue to accommodate commercial spaceflight participants on ISS, this agreement will be in concert with the NASA administrator's stated intent to promote space commerce in low Earth orbit.'

"Boeing and Space Adventures have not yet set a price per seat for spaceflight participants, but will do so when full-scale development is under way. Boeing continues to advance its design for the CST-100 spacecraft under NASA's Commercial Crew Development Space Act Agreement. The spacecraft, which can carry seven people, will be able to fly on multiple launch vehicles and is expected to be operational by 2015.

"'We are excited about the potential to offer flights on Boeing's spacecraft,' said Eric Anderson, co-founder and chairman of Space Adventures. 'With our customer experience and Boeing's heritage in human spaceflight, our goal is not only to benefit the individuals who fly to space, but also to help make the resources of space available to the commercial sector by bringing the value from space back to Earth.'

"Space Adventures has successfully contracted and flown seven spaceflight participants on eight missions to the International Space Station.

"Space Adventures, headquartered in Vienna, Va., is the only company that provides orbital spaceflight opportunities to the world marketplace. The company offers a spectrum of programming that ranges from terrestrial weightless flights to orbital missions, flights to the edge of space, and a historic return to the Moon. Space Adventures' clients have spent over 2,000 hours in space, traveling over 35 million miles.

"A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world's largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $34 billion business with 68,000 employees worldwide."


This report was last updated at 11:27 p.m. ET. Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."

Discuss this post

Cool. I can't wait for them to turn the ISS into an orbiting casino/hotel. Perhaps by the time the renovations are complete I'll have won the lottery so I can afford the trip.

    Reply#1 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 12:28 PM EDT

    Yes, in fact Eric Anderson mentioned the possibility of a spaceflight lottery a long time ago. That goes back so far (mid-2003) that my story about the idea has fallen off our site due to redesigns. But here's a follow-up item from late 2003:

    http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/13/State/Space_jaunt_flops_wit.shtml

    Today Eric said that the possibility of a lottery could come back on the table, if (as he expects) more orbital seats become available.

    • 1 vote
    #1.1 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:38 PM EDT

    Threat imagined or not, I think I've seen one too many Russian disaster films on History channel to board the Soyuz.

    I wonder what the physical requirements of the passengers will have to be? Obviously a 400 lbs. man isn't going up to the station. Will they have to go through several weeks of training before taking flight? I'd imagine so if not only to learn how to properly use the toilet in zero gee..

    • 1 vote
    #1.2 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:40 PM EDT

    R Typo6, ISS isn't suited for this, nor are its owners likely give it up.

    And that's okay. The technology exists to create something designed from the start to be an orbiting hotel, or other commercial facility...starting with being placed in a lower inclination orbit than ISS is. That 51.6 degree orbit was largely to satisfy the Russian access, which is not an issue here. If they want to reach it on their own, let 'em launch from a lower latitude outside of their country...which they're not that far from being able to do.

      #1.3 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:35 PM EDT
      Reply

      "The company offers a spectrum of programming that ranges from terrestrial weightless flights to orbital missions, flights to the edge of space, and a historic return to the Moon" Space Adventures is going to the moon??? Really? I have to look into this... I'll post my findings.

        Reply#2 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 12:55 PM EDT

        Maybe this will help you in your research ;-)

        Company to sell trips around moon (from 2005)
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8898582/

        • 1 vote
        #2.1 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:33 PM EDT

        THANK YOU ALAN!!! This has me so jazzed! This trip has always been a dream of mine. Ever since I heard as a child that men had made this trip I too wanted to make the journey. Only 27 men have made this trip.

        I am so happy that this kind of program even exists. Even if I never get to go on this fantastic space tour I am just so glad that we live in a world, in a time, when this kind of thing is possible!

        I am wondering about the health issues that would go along with a journey of this kind.

        I have contacted Space Adventures and asked for any and all information that they can give me on the cirumlunar trip. I can't wait to hear back!! If I get some info that is pertinent I will be sure to share it with the group here. (I really can't stop talking about it!)

        This is SO COOL!!

        • 1 vote
        #2.2 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:25 PM EDT

        I'll applaud and cheer while watching from the comfort of my studio! (-after I put down my art tools-) Maybe I'll sculpt something atmospheric-? Fantastic!

          #2.4 - Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:21 PM EDT
          Reply

          Space tourism is the key to dramatically increasing demand for manned spaceflights in order to substantially reduce the cost of space travel. Boeing and Bigelow are headed in the right direction!

          • 2 votes
          Reply#3 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 12:59 PM EDT

          Space Adventures actually is planning on sending private citizens into lunar orbit! I had to see it to believe it. Anyone with enough scratch can buy a trip to the moon!!! OH MY GLORIOUS WET DREAM OF SPACE TRAVEL~~ Here is the (surprisingly brief) mission outline from their website...

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

          ..."You will begin your journey to the far side of the moon by first launching aboard a Soyuz spacecraft. Then, a subsequent launch will occur of an unmanned rocket booster. 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. Once the firing of the booster is complete, the two systems will separate and you will continue on your majestic journey."

          I can't believe this. I would love to read the contract they make people sign releasing them from liability if something should go wrong. I have often wondered what service these companies provide in flight... If I'm going to spend millions on this trip do I get champagne and a couple of massages?

          but in all seriousness, this is amazing and I REALLY wish I could float the bill, I would go in a heartbeat, no doubt about it.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#4 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:03 PM EDT

          Yeah right.  Boeing can't get the 787 sorted out and now their going to have commercial space flights in 2015.  Not without massive government funded cost overruns.  The only thing from Boeing reaching into space will be the CEO's pay and bonuses he gets when layoff more American workers and has the Chinese build the spacecraft on the cheap.

          • 1 vote
          Reply#5 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:03 PM EDT

          tell us how you really feel.

          ;-P

          As a citizen of Washington state I know exactly what you're talking about. But the fact of the matter is they will get a lot of money from the government for this and that will be a huge driving factor to actually produce a usable product.

            #5.1 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:12 PM EDT

            "Boeing can't get the 787 sorted out"

            More specifics, please. Yes, it's behind schedule, and they were doing a lot of new things, especially with composites, to make it work as advertised.But, with nothing but their own money in it, they have every incentive to do so.

            In any event, it's no Spruce Goose. We already know it does fly, and more than once. That first takeoff, with live TV coverage, was treated almost like a space launch, itself.

            And (assuming a successful flight and return of the next Dragon and F9) does Boeing really want to be in the position of saying they can't do something that less-experienced SpaceX can...?

            I'm thinking not.

              #5.2 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:47 PM EDT
              Reply

              How is this thing gettin ginto space.. Human rated delta4 heavy??? Or are they going to buy a few SpaceX falcon 9's

                Reply#6 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:46 PM EDT

                As I understand it (and I could be wrong) all of the space tourist flights have gone up on Russian rockets. Russia is using their space program to make as much cash as possible (hence their new deal with NASA to ferry our guys to the ISS, and hence the reduction in seats available for near future space tourist seats.)

                  #6.1 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:30 PM EDT

                  I'll answer this in the rewrite for the item (which I will do as soon as I get a couple of other things off my plate. But the short answer is that the Delta 4, Atlas 5 and Falcon 9 are being considered. The craft is designed just to go to LEO and spend just 48 hours in space, so don't be thinking this will be going to the moon or anything like that. It's purely a space taxi.

                    #6.2 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:09 PM EDT

                    good question...

                    The CST-100 would be compatible with multiple launch vehicles, including the Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CST-100

                    • 1 vote
                    #6.3 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:53 PM EDT

                    I wish there were more information available about that Moon Mission mentioned in the news release.

                    eagerly awaiting the update. :-)

                      #6.4 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:58 PM EDT
                      Reply

                      Well, I contacted Space Adventures by email and they responded. I was sent the following:

                      "Pricing for our spaceflights over the next several years ranges from $20,000,000 up to $100,000,000. There are many factors that impact pricing, including the year of launch, mission duration (4-21 days) and the mission profile, which could be to earth orbit and then include a visit to the International Space Station, a spacewalk or a trip around the moon.

                      As far as our Suborbital spaceflight program, prices start from $110,000 if you pay the full amount upfront (that also guarantees inclusion in our Top 100 list). Should you decide to pay a deposit and make annual payments instead, the price will be $120,000. Both options include cancellation protection plan. If you are interested in buying a seat, I will be happy to discuss the program details and conditions with you."

                      as you can see this did not answer really any of my questions about the moon trip they offer. So, I've sent them a further email asking specifically more about the moon missions they offer.

                      They did send me a couple brochures. One was for Orbital missions, the other for Suborbital missions. (I didn't receive the one I wanted - the moon mission.)

                      This is all so very exciting!

                        Reply#8 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 4:19 PM EDT

                        Not going to lie. When humanity becomes a space race, it will be awesome.

                        • 2 votes
                        Reply#9 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:10 PM EDT

                        I've never actually thought about it like that but that is awesome Jeff! Humanity IS the space RACE.

                        I dig it.

                          #9.1 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:54 PM EDT
                          Reply

                          What ever happened to Richard Bransens "Virgin Galactic" ?

                            Reply#10 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 6:30 PM EDT

                            They made their first crewed testflight in July. http://www.virgingalactic.com/

                              #10.1 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:02 PM EDT
                              Reply

                              Why don't they just focus on getting the oft-delayed Dreamliner built and delivered first?????????

                              • 2 votes
                              Reply#11 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 6:32 PM EDT

                              Who says they aren't? These are not the only two projects on the company's plate. There are enough engineers and technicians there to go around. Boeing can walk and chew gum at the same time...

                                #11.1 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:03 PM EDT
                                Reply

                                Not so fast, this is getting way out of hand now.

                                Is it ethical and more important should it be legal for an average site seeing passengers to create such a hugh carbon footprint every time they launch to space? Regardless of what they are willing to pay.

                                I thought (very foolishly) that the universal goal is to reduce the carbon footprint for every living soul on the planet? Or was that a science fiction movie?

                                  Reply#12 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:48 PM EDT

                                  Taken to the extreme, Oaktree, it becomes hard to justify doing much of anything...

                                  However, it takes about as much energy to get to orbit, as to fly the same mass from one side of the US to the other. Which one happens more often? Are all those NYC to L.A. passengers on urgent carbon-justifying business? How important does a traveler's business have to be, to be ethical or legal? Who decides? (and could any airline operate profitably on those smaller numbers?) What of those places whose economies are heavily dependent on 'sightseeing tourists' who aren't arriving on foot or bicycle What do you do, instead? Where do you start?

                                  And while reducing one's carbon footprint is a desirable thing...

                                  "I thought (very foolishly) that the universal goal is to reduce the carbon footprint for every living soul on the planet?"

                                  ...I don't think I've ever heard it phrased quite like that, or ever seen any international agreements with wording quite as dramatic as that.

                                    #12.1 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:19 PM EDT

                                    Horse manure,

                                    Your point is based on your belief that the carbon footprints of space launchers are comparable to commercial airlines, prove it? I know it is not true and you can visit Cape Kennedy and checkout the wildlife population for miles and miles around the pads, including the dead coral shelves.

                                    And for the "universal goal", it is just that a universal goal, an "end" so that the nations can draft tenable treaties. For sure, countries like US, China, Russia, and the rest of the big shots, will tell everyone else to go to hell. And that is precisely the problem, these dominating nations have had it their way for much too long. To hear Boeing say that they are in the space tourism industry is very insulting to the millions who are suffering in polluted areas.

                                    I think the solution is, yes go ahead and create larger carbon footprints but pay for it. And that money should go in R&D for better energy management and improve the standard of living for the third world.

                                      #12.2 - Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:43 PM EDT

                                      "Your point is based on your belief that the carbon footprints of space launchers are comparable to commercial airlines, prove it? I know it is not true and you can visit Cape Kennedy and checkout the wildlife population for miles and miles around the pads, including the dead coral shelves."

                                      Have you paid attention to a rocket launch? Regardless of their fuels, they depart from the vertical very quickly, and gain altitude rapidly downrange, dropping a stage thousands of miles away.

                                      Tell me how this has any effect on coral off KSC, an assertion I've not heard until now? Does this phenomenon also exist offshore of coastal airports (where planes don't burn all their fuel in one spot, either) that are active at a rate that spaceports won't match for the better art of a century? Are you asserting that there's a localized increase in atmospheric CO2 in these places that damages coral? And that normal weather patterns don't average it out in short order? (yes, that's still increasing total atmospheric CO2, but it's you that's making a localized connection) Are you certain that nothing else coming off the Florida coast is causing this alleged damage?

                                      At any rate, here's a supporting reference for my statement (emphasis mine):

                                      "One important consideration in planning space power is the expense of putting a satellite into orbit. Right now, it costs a thousand times more to put an object into space than to fly it across country by commercial airliner, even though the two jobs require roughly the same amount of energy--about 10 kilowatt-hours per kilogram of payload. Two factors account for the extra cost: the army of engineers and scientists required for a successful space launch, and the practice of discarding much of the launch vehicle after each flight."

                                      Full text to be found here:

                                      http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/beam_it_down_how_the_new_satellites_can_power_the_world.shtml

                                      Or this:

                                      "It takes no more energy, total, to get to orbit than a 747 does dragging its weight through the atmosphere halfway around the world — and you get to, say, Sydney, in under an hour instead of over 20."

                                      From here: http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3192 and...

                                      "(6) Before anything else, we need affordable and routine access to LEO. It needs to be done like an airliner. Airliners do not use a whole lot more energy in going cross country than they would need to use to go into orbit."

                                      From here: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/10/moving-on-to-ne.html

                                      I don't make this stuff up, Oaktree. Now, if you think there's something in the manufacture of spacecraft, that increases their total carbon footprint compared to aircraft (which mostly use the same materials...aluminum and, increasingly, composites), please specify.

                                      "To hear Boeing say that they are in the space tourism industry is very insulting to the millions who are suffering in polluted areas."

                                      Yet they're in the air tourism industry from day one. You're making a leap of logic here, that makes no sense. Are any of these people near an aircraft or spacecraft manufacturing plant? No? If it's just a matter of the total carbon footprint of all aerospace manufacture and use, and you fear yet one more reason for production, then it goes back to my question of what is important enough? (and don't exclude ground transportation...space launch is in the noise of total fossil fuel consumption, and will be, for a long time)

                                      And you still can't tell me what you do consider sufficiently important travel, if tourism is to 'trivial' for this.

                                      Also note that some rockets burn hydrogen and oxygen, No CO2 there. Unfortunately, it's currently easier to get H2 from natural gas, than to break it from water. A solar-driven process to do that would be perfectly fine with me, and many people are pursuing it. Look it up.

                                      But until then...

                                        #12.3 - Sun Sep 19, 2010 5:43 PM EDT
                                        Reply

                                        OK, just dreaming here I suppose, but how about a high altitude equatorial launch across the wide Pacific? Biglow, China interested? A 3 person capsule similar to Apolo with less ablative material and modern life support (less time in space per person) means less rentry velocity so safer I would think. LOX,h2 similar to the shuttle, at 3g acceleration from many miles high would achive orbit in a reasonable time and a small retro for deorbit. A large H2 dirigible (Don't think Hindenburg, think very low carbon footprint.) with posible reuse could achieve 15 or more mile launch altitude. Don't dismiss this too quickly, the LOX/H2 could stay in LEO for future construction of large 'space hotels'. My two finger typing is tiring, love to see constructive responce.

                                          Reply#13 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:02 PM EDT

                                          Ernie, the weights would be impractical, especially at those altitudes (high altitude research and weather balloons allow for considerable expansion...rigid airships don't), and even more strongly dependent on good weather than a conventional rocket launch. And how you got into orbit, changes nothing about the aerobraking requirements to get back down.

                                          Besides, today, most hydrogen production comes from breaking it from natural gas, not water. Find a practical, preferably solar-powered way to do the latter, and the world will beat a path to your door...

                                            Reply#14 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:28 PM EDT

                                            Hello,

                                            Boeing have win big points... I don't know what EADS will do in this sector but Boeing take great contrat for this...

                                              Reply#15 - Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:15 AM EDT

                                              You people aren't going anywhere. The government will never allow it. You can't even fly to Boston without extensive searches & queries. All for your protection of course.

                                              Do you honestly think that they will EVER allow you or your children to leave this planet without passports, visas, or whatever new permission slips they decide to issue?

                                              Quit dreaming and get back to work. If, When, or Until we get the government chained down like the slave it should be, we will be the ones in chains. Don't ever forget it.

                                                Reply#16 - Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:35 PM EDT

                                                pahalik, first, a space station (or part of it, in the case of ISS...this has already been an issue with the first tourist there. Then-administrator Dan Goldin opposed it, the Russians said they'll limit Dennis Tito to their module if necessary, but they will fly him) that's owned by the US Government (and quite probably one belonging to a US owned entity) is an extension of US territory. Though you must pass through international waters/airspace to get there, you don't need a passport to go to Hawaii from the other states, right?

                                                Second, so what? Searches are purely for security. You got no weapons, contraband, or warrants on you you will get to Boston...or LEO. And once in some other nation's jurisdiction (including their space stations), it's at least technically possible to go wherever you darn well please from there.

                                                No? Then keep in mind that US citizens, by law, generally can't go to Cuba...but many have done so by going first to Canada, or other countries with no such limitations.

                                                Clever, resourceful and determined people can do almost anything, my friend. And the more common space travel becomes, the more ways to 'beat the system' there will be.

                                                But fundamentally, I don't share your concern that 'the government' (by which I assume you mean the government of the United States, the country people literally risk death to get into, but anyone can leave, anytime they want) is going to 'prevent' people from leaving for the rest of the solar system, any more than it stops them from walking straight over the border into Canada or Mexico (I've done the former, many times, but not recently. Lack of a passport, not required until a few years ago for that border, now makes it more difficult to come back in. Customs doesn't ask for one on the way out. That's the other guy's problem when you reach their customs.)...

                                                Tell me why it should or would be made any different for access to territory (the rest of the Universe) that belongs to no one on Earth?

                                                  Reply#17 - Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:22 PM EDT

                                                  well, its a smart idea, and of course boeing will need to get on board the commercialization bandwagon. Boeing is a good company, and they should focus on creating useful space products. I would be very interested in a moon visit for 100,000,000 dollars. not that I can afford it, but its a step in the right direction. that is what will lead to moon bases is tourism and things like that.

                                                    Reply#18 - Sat Oct 2, 2010 2:25 AM EDT

                                                    By 2013 the whole program will be dead, In classic fashion the liberals in government will declare space flight a "fundamental human right" and corporations will be bankrupted by government mandates to give free flights to the poor.

                                                      Reply#19 - Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:28 PM EDT

                                                      You want to cut spending,cut the space program

                                                        Reply#20 - Sat Mar 5, 2011 8:22 PM EST
                                                        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.