E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Curacao is known for its Caribbean beaches, Dutch colonial history and luxurious resorts, but now the island territory in the Netherlands Antilles is hoping it'll be known as a tourist launch pad as well.
Today, Space Experience Curacao and California-based XCOR Aerospace jointly announced that they've signed a memorandum of understanding that could lead to suborbital space tourism flights in 2014. The deal follows up on intentions by the Curacao government and airport authority to encourage spaceport operations on the island.
The deal is structured as a "wet lease," an arrangement that's often used in the aviation and maritime industries. The Curacao venture would lease XCOR's Lynx rocket plane, pay for the fuel and run the tourist operation. But XCOR would hold onto responsibility for piloting the craft, maintaining it and perhaps giving customers their spaceflight training. XCOR worked out a similar arrangement last year for a South Korean space tourism project.
The idea is that such a leasing arrangement would make it easier for the U.S. government to approve spaceflight operations in a foreign country, since Americans would retain control of the plane and the technology. Like the Korean deal, the Curacao agreement is dependent on U.S. government approvals.
XCOR is developing a two-seat Lynx Mark I aircraft that should be capable of reaching altitudes in excess of 38 miles (61 kilometers). Flight tests are due to begin next year. The Lynx Mark II space plane would follow up on the Mark I, flying to heights above 62 miles (100 kilometers). That's the internationally recognized boundary of outer space. The ticket price? $95,000 ... which is less than half of the $200,000 cost of flying on Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo, and a bit less than Armadillo Aerospace's $102,000 price point.
As long as we're talking about numbers ... The Lurio Report quotes executives behind the deal as saying that it's worth $23 million to $25 million "if all the options are considered." Check out XCOR's news release for more details and quotes.
Visit the brand-spanking-new Cosmic Log page on Facebook and hit the "Like" button. You can also follow @boyle on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
I have a feeling that lottery sales are gonna jump a bit. That is a lot of cabbage, I wonder how large the bean counters said the market is. I bet it is big but for that kinda money, it better be first class. Really, till you can set off from bwi or la guardia or lax it will be anything but REALLY BIG....I would like to see a map with all the real,proposed, existing, under construction, etc. spaceports...that would be an interesting map.
I think the current plan is: Fly to one of the spaceports and then from there you'll be ferried into space. There is too much air traffic at a normal airport like LAX or La Guardia. And I believe another concern is in a possible crash landing or runway miss they don't want these things landing on someones house or building. So they build in the middle of nowhere. Spaceport America, Mojave Spaceport, Spaceport Sweden are just a few of the places one can for sure put on your map.
Xcor is putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps they should actually FLY their craft and prove they're capable of reaching space before they go setting up marketing deals. I smell a failure coming. Right now, all of these former Xprize competitors are YEARS behind Scaled Composites and I refuse to get excited about any of them until I see them reach sub-orbital space at a minimum.
I wouldn't say that about XCOR. I've been watching those guys since the beginning, and they have been making slow, steady, quiet progress the whole time. Their engines are the best in the industry, and the rest of the vehicle is pretty much off-the-shelf. At this point I would not be at all surprised if they beat Virgin to the punch.
Curaçao has been looked at before by many governments and space agencies for its geographic position as well as its weather scenario. Being close to the equator means burning less fuel. Being out of the hurricane belt is extremely desirable. With a constant North East Trade-wind blowing and nearly constant temperature and constant cloud conditions means that the landing windows of opportunity to be ideal. With its 11188 feet of runway and constant head-on trade-winds also mean horizontal take-offs should be a breeze.
"Being close to the equator means burning less fuel."
Which is irrelevant for sub-orbital flight...
Maybe so but it is still one of the many reasons why Curaçao has been looked at by many companies and governments for vertical and or horizontal launches not to mention their excellent weather conditions.
When does a foreign country need Americas permission for Space flight? Last time I checked it was a free world!
Since america can blow anything they send up out of the sky.
Because XCOR is a California based company (and they are the one's that need the US government's permission). "free world" is not exactly the case in a global economy.
I would like to go, but I don't have and extra $95,000 to spend; probably because I'm not working hard enough...
Space will become the new Palace of Versailles, a castle for the Rich; a place where the rich and powerful can escape form the hoard, the masses and the mediocrity.
Perhaps. So? They can't do it by themselves. A lot of non-rich people will make a living making it happen for them.
Or are you under the impression that everyone that provides a high-end premium product or service are themselves wealthy? I suspect the guy on the assembly line for Cadillacs and Lincolns makes as much as the guy making sub-compacts...but would he benefit, if GM or Ford stopped making this product because it's only for 'The Rich?'
I've also heard that there was once a Massachusetts luxury tax that reduced business for yacht-makers there. When made more expensive, rather than getting more tax revenue, those who were wealthy enough to buy them, simply chose not to. And those who make the product are mostly middle-class Joes and Janes like you and I.
So I don't care that initially it will be only affordable by 'The Rich.'. Somebody has to build and maintain the castle for them...
Why do we have the attitude that there's something ethically wrong, if you can't buy it off the shelf of WalMart the first day it's introduced? 'Joyrides for the wealthy,' is a phrase that keeps getting thrown around. Well, I say 'joyride' away. Even if I can't afford to fly aboard it, I still like the idea of working in something that can honestly be called a 'spaceport.'
Once the technology is proven and more companies get into the business the prices will drop. By mid century it won't cost much more than a standard airline ticket. It's the amenities you'll pay for. The resort, the space training, the souvenir T-shirt, etc. By 2050 sub-orbital will be for the masses, true orbital flights of perhaps a days duration will be the thing for the rich and famous. And by 2100, as we truly begin to reach for the stars. (assuming we havn't killed each other first) orbital flights will be like a trip to Disney World, in fact Disney World will probably offer a package deal involving their new park on the moon.
The time line seems a bit too long for what I've seen. At space adventures you can CURRENTLY buy a trip to orbit THE MOON!! http://www.spaceadventures.com/
I actually contacted them asking for a brochure. It supposedly costs 100 million dollars. But they only talk about the mission in person (probably so they can verify that you're rich.) But they are more than happy to send you a brochure for their orbital and suborbital flights. The orbital flight currently takes you to ISS and they actually put you to work on a science mission that you can help design. It's VERY interesting. I wish I was rich for a lot of reasons but going to space is a big one.
hello from west vancouver,bc,canada-we have been actively doing business in curacao since 1998-the pulationgovt is sepataiting from holland in october-i have been advised-the island has about 800,000 visitors annually-zero crime situation-zero drug situation-popracaoulation predomitly [sp]catholic,huge numbers venezuelans tour curacao-they cant wait to exit their country,colunmbian visitors are active more so,the crime situation under control there,there are ""retirementretreats""in curacao,excellent banking operations[scotiabankcanada]airport is modernized,from jdenishuggard in canada
ZERO DRUG situation?? are you serious? there isn't a place on the planet that fits that criteria!
You need to go back and check your facts about Curcao... A zero drug situation SURELY does not exist on this island, as it is so close to South America. It's actually a cocaine smuggling point, and used to be one of the larger ones at that. Drugs are also easily obtainable by the general consumer as well, at least when I was there about 5 years ago.
As far as zero crime, well the locals basically told me to make sure that I was in before dark and do not wander around the island after dark. When I went to nightclubs and such you had to ensure that you had transportation back to your resort, as the taxi service on the island quit running after midnight as well due to crime. During the day you were totally fine, and at night I was told be wary of the Surinamese expats.
I never had any trouble on this island though, even at night. However, if you're not used to international travel and such you could have problems. Especially, if you stick out like a tourist.
i think this is pretty cool but hwo much would it cost in 4,5, or 6 years?
Just a guess here but if it costs 100k on the low end now, I'd say it'll probably cost around 20k or less in 6 to 10 years.
but that is purely a guess.
I would be more interested in visiting Curacao to catch a flight to space, than to visit the "Spaceport America" in New Mexico which officially started launching suborbital flights in October, 2009.
I think a lot of folks would agree with that. Equatorial Caribbean Island vs. desert in southwestern U.S. ... hmmm that's a toughy. But either way you're going to space.
My expectation is that the price of a suborbital flight will fall quickly, but there are many people who, because of age, won't want to risk waiting a few years for the price to come down.
If they want to fly in space, they have to do it soon, before they can not physically withstand the four gravity stress of re entry on Lynx, or the seven gravities on VG.
Twenty thousand dollars is an optimistic number. XCOR might make that, depending on a number of factors. Others, I doubt can do so, based on their per flight cost structure.
I'm sorry, but I believe that the private space ventures could happen A LOT quicker. US government regulation is more than likely the immediate problem, along with government funding that tends to make companies work at a snail's pace (if they're using any.)
Maybe I am being optimistic in this approach as well, but I also think the research and development could be going faster as well. After all, if the private ventures cannot move faster than NASA, what's the point? When these private companies were announced, I actually thought that this would mean that we would get there quicker.
Seriously, NASA has been going into space for about 50 years now. Additionally, the first people sent into space were sent in a rocket with the computing power of a common desk calculator. Avionics, computers, and technology in general are miles ahead of where we were in 1960. It should be relatively easy to design, engineer, and test an actual orbital craft.
What does suborbital get us any way? Hasn't the US Air Force been flying sub-orbital craft for a while now? (Think recon flights...SR71... etc...) The mark, at minimum, should be orbital. You never heard the ESA, JAXA, or the Chinese program making a fuss about a sub-orbital flight.
Does anyone know if NASA and the US government have an agreement to share the past 50 years worth of R&D to these private spaceflight companies? If not, I am sure this would help.
NASA put the shuttles up for sale, should we reverse engineer a shuttle and make it better/safer instead of re-inventing the wheel? I am sure the rather sizable cargo bay on the shuttle could be turned into a lavish suite or two for travelers. There's already companies out there that could be contracted to run an SRB and ET program for an advanced evolution of the shuttle. Basically, think of the shuttle as an orbital Greyhound.
Realistically, it's 2010. NASA went to the moon for the first time over 40 years ago. NASA engineered the whole moon landing and moon project in less than 9 years. Why can't this be done today?
After 50 years of space exploration, the common citizen should be going into space and perhaps even doing flybys of the moon. Why are we not doing this now?
"What does suborbital get us any way?"
Have you done it personally? It's not about whether a deep-pocketed government agency can do it.
"Hasn't the US Air Force been flying sub-orbital craft for a while now? (Think recon flights...SR71... etc...) The mark, at minimum, should be orbital. You never heard the ESA, JAXA, or the Chinese program making a fuss about a sub-orbital flight."
See above. They're not doing it commercially. You can't buy a ride from any of those guys.
When the Concorde was operational, no one said; "Big deal. Supersonic flight's been happening since 1947." After all, you couldn't ride the X-1, if you weren't Chuck Yeager or someone like him. But if you had the money, you could fly to Paris or London at Mach 2.2.
Would you reject a ride above 100km if it was offered for free, because 'it's been done?' If not, then at what price point would you say no?
Many (non-native) people have been to Hawaii since James Cook discovered it...yet that doesn't stop people from going there, because it's still new to them. Like most tourism, it's about personal experience, not first-time exploration, or bleeding-edge aerospace engineering...
That is what those space agencies are for.
"Does anyone know if NASA and the US government have an agreement to share the past 50 years worth of R&D to these private spaceflight companies? If not, I am sure this would help."
Darn right. That's one of the reasons NASA exists at all. This is from their charter:
"(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space."
Full text here:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html
"NASA put the shuttles up for sale, should we reverse engineer a shuttle and make it better/safer instead of re-inventing the wheel? I am sure the rather sizable cargo bay on the shuttle could be turned into a lavish suite or two for travelers."
But the Space Shuttle is utterly uneconomical to operate in a commercial manner. It won't happen, because no private company wants it. Simple as that. If it were that good, we'd still be planning to continue flying it.
"After 50 years of space exploration, the common citizen should be going into space and perhaps even doing flybys of the moon. Why are we not doing this now?"
Stay tuned:
http://www.spaceadventures.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=lunar.welcome
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/12/21/22187.aspx
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20311.60