[CraigD]

CraigD, on 13 October 2011 - 05:27 AM, said:

– something like US$60,000,000 for a 5-day orbital stay! –

Qfwfq, on 18 October 2011 - 01:40 AM, said:

Actually, the video says a million a night, though it doesn't say how much to get up and down. Where do you get that figure from?

From this CBS news article which Samantha originally provided:

A vacation to the "Space Hotel" would not come cheap, at least to start with, says Orbital CEO Sergei Kostenko. The flight would run about $50 - $60 million, which is the same price RKK now charges to fly astronauts to the International Space Station.

Quote

If perchance one could have a 1 day stay in actual orbit for a million or so, it is maybe a better bargain than Virgin's mere suborbital flight.
For those with enough spare change, that is.

Alas, all the cost appears to be from the Soyuz mission it takes to get up and down, so shortening the stay would only knock a few million off the price. This is pretty much how spaceflight cost works in all missions: a huge cost to build and launch a disposable or expensive-to-recondition reusable vehicle, followed by fairly cheap time in orbit and return.

Until a dramatically cheaper means of reaching orbit is invented, the person-to-orbit cost will remain around RKKs Soyuz’s US$50,000,000-60,000,000. My impression is that, after the wild start of a “cheap to orbit” boom and bust period coinciding roughly with the 1995-2005, that saw the coming and going of such companies as Rotary Rocket (one that sparked my interest in its idealistic, conceptual days ca. 1999), has given way to increasingly mature design not much different than the 1960s and earlier. Exciting, innovative concepts are, not unexpectedly to many knowledgeable folk, but sadly to me, giving way to prohibitively expensive business as usual

[Sunshine 2118]

What an interesting thread! Thanks to all who contributed to it.

[Deepwater6]

Here is a BBC article about the China launch. It's going to attempt a docking with a previously sent up module. If the link doesn't work it's the BBC news website under "Sci/Enviroment". The article also tells of their intentions to send humans up for two week stints.

Craig D. I was curious if you know, what would be the rule about the "right of way" if two space stations were to come too close to each other? Is there an agreement with the UN or some other international body that would regulate that to some point? It's not that big of an issue right now, but in the future I would think countries would all want the path with the least amount of space junk and other space stations to maneuver around.

I suspect if China's economic growth continues they will be a user of more than one orbit. They also seem have the ability and resources to have the largest space program (in roughly 30yrs). America should be careful China's space program may accelerate faster than ours did in the 60's. China may end up passing the USA like frieght train passing a HOBO.






http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-15523123

[Deepwater6]

Well once again CraigD it looks like you were correct, a safe launch of two Russians and one American into space. In addition to their safe trip I'm glad to see ISS get resupplied and hope the other 3 have a safe trip home.




http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-15715260

[CraigD]

Deepwater6, on 01 November 2011 - 09:07 AM, said:

Craig D. I was curious if you know, what would be the rule about the "right of way" if two space stations were to come too close to each other? Is there an agreement with the UN or some other international body that would regulate that to some point?

I don’t think there’re any explicit right of way rules for Earth orbit, nor much need for them, because the space around Earth is very large, and spacecraft comparatively small and few. It’s technically challenging to intentionally get 2 spacecraft to collide, much less so to avoid collisions.

The Space Liability Convention, a treaty adopted by many states in 1972, addresses obligations to pay for damage due spacecraft, though it applies mostly to reentering spacecraft damaging life, limb, or property on the ground, and has never actually been invoked.

The main practical challenge at present is tracking defunct but still orbiting spacecraft and large (bigger than about 1 cm) pieces of debris that could catastrophically penetrate an operational spacecraft. This information is used to maneuver spacecraft like the ISS to minimize the likelihood of such an impact.

There’s not much to determining the rules of right of way for these situations – since only the operational spacecraft is capable of maneuvering, it’s the vessel that must give way. To date, radar and computer orbit tracking and threat communication by a cooperative of military and private companies has been fairly effective. However, it failed when, on 10 Feb 2009, a defunct Russian Kosmos communication satellite and a private US Iridium satellite phone communication predicted to miss one another by about 500 m collided at a speed of about 11700 m/s, creating a large debris cloud. Though much of the debris reentered the atmosphere shortly after the collision, as with most such collision, much of it will remain in orbit, and as a hazard, for many years.

Long term, it’s important to avoid increasing the amount of space junk in orbit. Satellites must be designed and operated to reliable leave orbit and reenter the atmosphere at the end of their reliable service life or park themselves in safe, “graveyard orbits”. Experiments like China’s 2007 ASAT test not be done, or be designed better, so that target debris reliable reenters the atmosphere shortly after it’s hit.

The doomsday scenario for Earth-orbiting spacecraft safety, described in 1978, is known as the Kessler syndrome. In this scenario, an initially small number of collisions create more debris, and more collisions, in a runaway cycle that quickly and unexpectedly makes spacecraft operation nearly impossible. Let’s all hope this remains in the realm of science fiction.

Quote

It's not that big of an issue right now, but in the future I would think countries would all want the path with the least amount of space junk and other space stations to maneuver around.

A problem with space junk is that much of it is in unusual orbits that intersect many others, so there’s not really “safe” and “unsafe” orbitals, the general exception being that high orbits are generally safer than low.

Quote

I suspect if China's economic growth continues they will be a user of more than one orbit.

Every satellite essentially has its own orbit, and we are far launching enough satellites to worry yet about overcrowding.

Quote

They also seem have the ability and resources to have the largest space program (in roughly 30yrs). America should be careful China's space program may accelerate faster than ours did in the 60's. China may end up passing the USA like frieght train passing a HOBO.

Though, not being the “space race” that the US and Russian (then USSR) programs were in the '60s, appears to be advancing in a slow, careful manner, it has ambitious goals, and is backed by a very wealthy government. Just as China has eclipsed nations like the US in manufacturing, I expect it will the US, Russia, and the European nations in spaceflight in the next decade.

I believe the appropriate response is I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords. However, I think it’s important to note that, while the Chinese space program is proceeding well, it’s very conventional, in many ways simply a slightly modernized remake of the Soviet program of 50 years ago. Via private companies, countries like the UK continue to pursue profoundly new spaceflight technology. My favorite, one that continues to become accepted as legitimate, and secure money for continued development, is the Skylon SSTO spacecraft concept, which recently tested (successfully, we’re left to gather) of a prototype of a key part of its motors, the intake/cooling system designed to cool incoming air with evaporated liquid hydrogen to generate liquid oxygen. (see http://www.space.com...ngine-test.html)

Deepwater6, on 14 November 2011 - 07:52 AM, said:

Well once again CraigD it looks like you were correct, a safe launch of two Russians and one American into space. In addition to their safe trip I'm glad to see ISS get resupplied and hope the other 3 have a safe trip home.

I love successfully predicting good things Let’s hope my optimism for the Skylon is as well vindicated.

[Deepwater6]

http://www.space.com...on-docking.html


This (Space.Com article) article describes how busy the space staion will be in the coming weeks. If all goes well it should also erase my original concern of NASA not having back-up to reach the station if needed. although this launch will not have anyone on board, I am elated that these companies are so close to reaching their goal. It was a long wait.

Craig D Where does the Skylon project stand? Any news on this lately?

[Deepwater6]

http://www.space.com...s-progress.html

This article has a list of ten private companies that are working toward space in some way or another. There are some interesting ideas on this list. When you open the link scroll to "10 Private Spaceships Headed for Reality" and it will bring up an artists rendition of each.

[Turtle]

Deepwater6, on 23 April 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

http://www.space.com...s-progress.html

This article has a list of ten private companies that are working toward space in some way or another. There are some interesting ideas on this list. When you open the link scroll to "10 Private Spaceships Headed for Reality" and it will bring up an artists rendition of each.

you might be encouraged by this too deepwater.

Google Billionaires Fund Asteroid Mining Company

David Angotti said:

Google billionaires Eric Schmidt and Larry Page have decided to provide funding for an interesting space exploration start-up named Planetary Resources. The new company, which is focused on natural resources and space exploration, plans to mine natural resources from asteroids and add trillions of dollars to the global GDP.

In addition to the Google executives, the startup will also be funded by Microsoft’s former Chief Software Architect Dr. Charles Simonyi, Perot Group Chairman Ross Perot Jr., and Avatar movie director James Cameron. According to a recent press release, the new venture will be formally announced at the Museum of Flight in Seattle on Tuesday morning. The press release also promised to redefine natural resources and create a new industry:
...

[Deepwater6]

Yes very encouraging, thank you Turtle, you da man. There seems to be a few of these mega-wealthy tag teams attempting to get into space. Most with slightly different angles on how they are going to go about it which will speed our knowledge of what works and what doesn't. This group however seems to have some heavy hitters in there. Money won't be a problem with these guys with the article saying some will use there own money not just the company money.

[Deepwater6]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-17864782

This article gives updates as to where the status of the Skylon project is.

[Deepwater6]

CraigD, on 14 November 2011 - 10:30 AM, said:

I don’t think there’re any explicit right of way rules for Earth orbit, nor much need for them, because the space around Earth is very large, and spacecraft comparatively small and few. It’s technically challenging to intentionally get 2 spacecraft to collide, much less so to avoid collisions.

The Space Liability Convention, a treaty adopted by many states in 1972, addresses obligations to pay for damage due spacecraft, though it applies mostly to reentering spacecraft damaging life, limb, or property on the ground, and has never actually been invoked.

The main practical challenge at present is tracking defunct but still orbiting spacecraft and large (bigger than about 1 cm) pieces of debris that could catastrophically penetrate an operational spacecraft. This information is used to maneuver spacecraft like the ISS to minimize the likelihood of such an impact.

There’s not much to determining the rules of right of way for these situations – since only the operational spacecraft is capable of maneuvering, it’s the vessel that must give way. To date, radar and computer orbit tracking and threat communication by a cooperative of military and private companies has been fairly effective. However, it failed when, on 10 Feb 2009, a defunct Russian Kosmos communication satellite and a private US Iridium satellite phone communication predicted to miss one another by about 500 m collided at a speed of about 11700 m/s, creating a large debris cloud. Though much of the debris reentered the atmosphere shortly after the collision, as with most such collision, much of it will remain in orbit, and as a hazard, for many years.

Long term, it’s important to avoid increasing the amount of space junk in orbit. Satellites must be designed and operated to reliable leave orbit and reenter the atmosphere at the end of their reliable service life or park themselves in safe, “graveyard orbits”. Experiments like China’s 2007 ASAT test not be done, or be designed better, so that target debris reliable reenters the atmosphere shortly after it’s hit.

The doomsday scenario for Earth-orbiting spacecraft safety, described in 1978, is known as the Kessler syndrome. In this scenario, an initially small number of collisions create more debris, and more collisions, in a runaway cycle that quickly and unexpectedly makes spacecraft operation nearly impossible. Let’s all hope this remains in the realm of science fiction.


A problem with space junk is that much of it is in unusual orbits that intersect many others, so there’s not really “safe” and “unsafe” orbitals, the general exception being that high orbits are generally safer than low.


Every satellite essentially has its own orbit, and we are far launching enough satellites to worry yet about overcrowding.


Though, not being the “space race” that the US and Russian (then USSR) programs were in the '60s, appears to be advancing in a slow, careful manner, it has ambitious goals, and is backed by a very wealthy government. Just as China has eclipsed nations like the US in manufacturing, I expect it will the US, Russia, and the European nations in spaceflight in the next decade.

I believe the appropriate response is I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords. However, I think it’s important to note that, while the Chinese space program is proceeding well, it’s very conventional, in many ways simply a slightly modernized remake of the Soviet program of 50 years ago. Via private companies, countries like the UK continue to pursue profoundly new spaceflight technology. My favorite, one that continues to become accepted as legitimate, and secure money for continued development, is the Skylon SSTO spacecraft concept, which recently tested (successfully, we’re left to gather) of a prototype of a key part of its motors, the intake/cooling system designed to cool incoming air with evaporated liquid hydrogen to generate liquid oxygen. (see http://www.space.com...ngine-test.html)


I love successfully predicting good things Let’s hope my optimism for the Skylon is as well vindicated.

This article gives an update on the Skylon project that you are looking forward to CraigD.

http://www.space.com...e-progress.html