Slashdot Mirror

The Russians have sent tourists to the ISS, so why not Virgin Galactic?

The company to look at is Bigelow Aerospace. FYI, this company is partnering with Boeing to build a spacecraft that will carry passengers at a fraction of the price that Space Adventures is currently charging for that opportunity.

As for a microgravity lab, note that NanoRacks already provides this service. They are literally open to anybody willing to use their checkbook to purchase a flight spot. This is no longer the time for theoretical rants, but a time to act and do something as the opportunity is here. At best, all you can do now is to find cheaper ways to get these things to happen or simply take advantage of the opportunities that exist.

Hall effect thrusters have a good specific impulse and a great reliability record, but they have thrust in the milliNewton range, which means 6 months to a year or so to get to the Moon. Now, you could imagine putting a whole bunch of them together to get a higher thrust, but then, where is Excalibur going to get the 100 megawatts or so they would need for reasonable trip times?

Excalibur would be better off trying to get some of the flight qualified NERVA rockets refurbished, or do what Space Adventures plans, and fly a new Zond around the Moon.

SpaceX will be first on both the moon and Mars. Musk has repeatedly said he intends the manned version of the Dragon capsule to be capable of propulsive landing on both bodies, and he expects it to be flying by sometime around 2015. By that time he may very well also have his "Grasshopper" reusable Falcon launchers working, which would cut the cost by a couple orders of magnitude, but leave that aside for now. Even with a disposable Falcon, the availability of a human-rated Dragon will bring the cost of a lunar landing mission well below half a billion. Given that Space Adventures has already sold one of two $100M tickets for a free-return "slingshot" ride around the moon, how many would line up for a cheaper ride to the lunar surface?

I fully expect to see a privately funded human mission to the moon, using SpaceX hardware, within the next 10 years, probably by the end of the decade. I can't think of a single entity on the planet, public or private, in a better position to reach the moon faster than SpaceX.

As for Mars, that's a lot harder to predict. But again, at this point in time, who is in a better position than SpaceX? China's the only one even claiming to try at the moment. There are plenty of others in the US and elsewhere who are "working on" various aspects of Mars exploration and settlement, but to my knowledge, Elon Musk and China are the only two contenders for actually getting there first.

Yup, I think you did.

See: http://www.spaceadventures.com/

I think that "spaceadventures.com" just leased a spot on a government space ship.

That's not quite the same thing as "private industry sending a human into orbit". The spacecraft was not privately built or flown or funded.

That's like me buying you a ticket on Amtrak and telling people I run a railroad.

private citizens have been able to get into space and even orbit

When has there been a private project which put a human into orbit? Did I miss a week's worth of headlines?

Yup, I think you did.

See: http://www.spaceadventures.com/

For future "private" spaceflights, see also: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/elon-musk-and-spacex-are-launching-a-new-era-of-private-spaceflight

If you'd also first spend few billions for a spacecraft capable of that (& rocket cost becoming quite small part of each launch)... plus "most certainly" is too strong of a word, seeing crew to mass ratios of existing spacecraft; 30 would be a safer bet. Especially since it might very well be beyond the practical sizes of capsules, so you need a lifting reentry with all its mass waste brought by airframe (yes, something a bit like Shuttle, which essentially wastes that way most of its launched to LEO mass... its size looks almost fine for this "100"... ups, two times too massive for F9H-class launcher)
Realities for rockets are very different than for airliners; the launch mass of the latter isn't 95% fuel, and the small fuel they have isn't used up in less than 10 minutes.

Generally, such scifi-inspired scenarios are... unimaginative. Give me a medium launcher, and I can send now probably at least a thousand people to any place of our system. Deep hibernation of miniaturized humans is routine...

Also, you don't need heavy rockets for many missions, like that circumlunar one (and BTW, Russian lunar lander was the only fully flight qualified part of their Moon effort - it did few simulated test flights in LEO). In a spacecraft which we have few decades of experience with.

Oh, and "less than a billion dollar in R&D" is a PR, don't believe it. NVM a) when was the last time SpaceX delivered something on time? b) where's the flaunted reusability / why they call their rockets like that? c) they merely are finally in the range of other inexpensive launchers. Most importantly... they're build on massive R&D investment from the past / talent / infrastructure (even using existing one). Saying "see, it took private industry just few hundred million dollars!" is an incincere BS, which stalinist libertarians and teabaggers want you to believe and propagate.
(and that was of course THE POINT of past NASA investment in r&d, education, infrastructure)

In the meantime, Russia works for few decades on a sustainable (vs. crash projects in the style of Apollo) means of deep space travel. BTW, ISS is a part of that work...

Heck, they have few decades of experience operating a manned spacecraft essentially capable of beyond-LEO operation (have $100 million? Get yourself a ride around the Moon - those are people behind almost all "orbital tourists"), a spacecraft which was the first to carry a macroscopic life beyond LEO (...around the Moon) and back, as Zond.

The technology which allowed them early lead in space was probably also largely a consequence of geopolitical reality and established US lead, in other field - huge bomber force. With "bomber gap" being just a myth, jumping on the next step was only reasonable for something perceived very much as a defense - so they had the first operational ICBM, R-7 Semyorka (not like "missile gap" wasn't a myth too - with just few rockets ready for launch a day later, and only if the policy of storing rockets and warheads separately was breached...). Not very good as an ICBM, not very practical. But - partly by chance, partly probably by the genius of Korolev & others involved - it turned out to be a fabulous launcher family; the most reliable ... most frequently used launch vehicle in the world (and one of least expensive ones).

It launched Sputnik ; gave us the first photograph of far side of the Moon, first lunar flyby, first spacecraft reaching the escape velocity of the Earth & on circumsolar orbit; first lunar impact, soft landing + photos from the surface some time later; first flyby of another planet and atmospheric probes (well, and reaching the surface... crushed)

Also Gagarin. In fact, after Yuri, it launched every manned Soviet and Russian spacecraft (plus all "orbital tourists"). A century of service seems within its grasp (with new - yet unused - launchpad in Kourou...)

(BTW, will we ever drop the politically-motivated & quite absurd astronaut?)

From what we know about our universe, it's very unlikely any survey ships will be coming back. Also, archetypal "dark ages" are largely a myth, a fabrication of following era - those were also times of immense progress.

Generally, it's possible that such grandiose inspirations do at least quite comparable amounts of harm and good. STS (and how it provoked ignorant Soviet generals into pushing for "strategic counterpart" for nonexistent advantage, when their engineers wanted to do different things, also outside LEO...) can be easily seen as a great contribution to the possibility of near Earth orbit being the final frontier of manned space exploration in our lifetime [1]. Unsustainable crash projects in the style of Apollo (not that STS was very different) also aren't the way (BTW, please remind me - what happened with public attention soon after July 20, 1969?). Overall, be careful for those "boldly going beyond the reaches of our imagination" minds to not fall out of their skulls (as one saying with being "open minded" goes) - for one example at hand: it's quite possible that designers and decisionmakers of the STS were raised by pop scifi from 30s, 40s and 50s - scifi with many dreams (nightmares, it turns out?) of "spaceplanes", no doubt inspired by rapid advances in airplane technology during that time. Kinda like those airplanes from "our times" - no doubt influenced by rapid advances in marine tech (and we can even build them! Take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy) - vs. what reality dictates as a good idea (for airplanes! Not launchers and spacecraft... unless you want something analogous to Catalina at best, Spruce Goose at worst)

(BTW, why is the Enterprise counted as a Space Shuttle, as an orbiter, anyway? Equivalent in Buran program was called "Buran aerodynamic analogue"...)

1. It's not very likely though. Have $100 million? Get yourself a ride (those are the people responsible for almost all orbital "tourists")

Here, get yourself a ride (those are people cooperating on almost all private spaceflights so far); also in Soyuz, it would seem - only apt, considering how it was the first spacecraft to carry macroscopic life (turtles) beyond LEO (around the Moon) and return it safely, on a Zond 5 mission.

Funny how, out of both sides involved in Lunar Race, it is Russia who now has few decades of experience with a spacecraft essentially capable of beyond-LEO operation.

This one's nice too:

How about having a few decades of experience with operating a manned spacecraft essentially capable of beyond-LEO operation? Soyuz was actually the first spacecraft to carry macroscopic living creatures (most notably - turtles :p ) beyond LEO (around the Moon, to be exact) and bring them back safely (via the more complex profile of skip reentry), on a Zond 5 mission.

If you have $100 million, you can get yourself a ride (those are the folks so far responsible for all private orbital flights, except the first one to Mir around 1990)

And their lander reached a flight tested & operational status...

I agree. Why should you have to pay tax dollars on this?

But at the same time, why should you prevent me through silly regulations (hint, ITAR... look it up if you like) and government policies that explicitly keep me from experimenting with or even attempting to build rockets on my own dime. The question isn't that somebody like you needs to be able to pay for me to go into space, but rather that there are people (perhaps you aren't one of them) that explicitly want to keep me down on this rock at gunpoint and will sabotage any efforts I make in regards to getting off of this rock.

Organizations like NASA are quickly becoming a relic of the past, where the money is merely a way to have a bunch of bureaucrats spin their wheels and keep some disenchanted aerospace engineers and munitions workers busy when a war isn't going on. I certainly wouldn't cry too hard if NASA was completely de-funded and disbanded by Congress.... as if they have been making any sort of relevant progress towards cost-effective spaceflight at any time over the past 40 years anyway. Doubling the NASA budget is only going to double the number of bureaucrats working in Houston, Texas. It isn't going to get anybody off of this rock in a meaningful way.

On the other hand, there are many different private spaceflight companies with real hardware that can get people into space. We don't need a government agency to get that accomplished. Yes, government grants are nice, but it isn't needed to get this task accomplished.

For myself, if government is going to get involved at all, I'd rather they simply give a "tax holiday" for all federal taxes (corporate and personal income taxes... and other kinds too) by companies directly engaged in putting equipment into space. It would certainly be far and away more cost effective than doubling the current NASA budget, and perhaps something would actually be flying beyond Low-Earth orbit too. I definitely think that such a move would cause private space investment to roar into life in a manner that has never been seen before. The loss in taxes would be minor, and I could argue that the taxes raised from support industries would by far and away more than make up for any "lost" tax receipts to such companies.... and certainly be quite a bit less than going through the appropriations meat-grinder of the U.S. Congress.

Don't be too suprised if the next mission beyond LEO will be essentially a private one.

Those are people responsible for every independently financed human spaceflight to date (excluding the first one, to Mir around 1990, IIRC) - now, consider they are not only relying on proven record of manufacturer of Soyuz (a spacecraft which was the first to carry large biological payload beyond LEO; we have few decades of experience with it; andit's still essentially capable of beyond - LEO operation), but also that Lunniy Korabl lander actually reached the status of flightworthy qualification.

I addressed protecting from asteroids... (and "rogue black hole" is such a remote possibility to be really insignificant - we are quite sure how small the chances of them disrupting star systems are, there are too many old binary star systems for that to be a threat; and direct impact is whole lot of orders of magnitude lower than that)

It's one thing to dream about it, but another thing to actually do it (or work towards some goal in a sensible way). We won't be able for a long time. OK, thousands of individuals, to carry on the species, might be doable - within the confines of our system; but in this case it's better in almost all cases to simply save millions underground. If outside the system - we aren't going anywhere without new physics, even something as fundamental as the basic structure not surviving the journey / containers leaking everything stored inside will stop us. The only plausible scenario with a tech that's certainly within our reach is a colonization using embryos. But in this case nobody would be strictly "saved" anyway (as far as perceptions of people are concerned - even "those will be our children" probably would hardly work, such biological drives work mostly on the basis of "now and here"), giving huge problems with motivating people towards that goal (and there would be surely so called "moral issues" in sending (and training for it, perfecting how those surrogate mother robots work) such automated ships routinely, which would be required for them to succeed; NVM that one every decade or two would be still a very severe strain on the resources of humanity)

NASA and ESA don't have "proper"(*) funding because doing most things is space is not viable in comparison with doing them here; sad, sure, but was really the point.

And we do have the capability of manned crafts leaving LEO - Russia has few decades of experience operating a manned vehicle essentially capable of beyond-LEO operation. Hell, if you have 100 million bucks you can have a ride (those are people responsible so far for all private orbital spaceflight, except the first one to Mir around 1990). Doesn't seem to be much of a rush.

(*) issue here isn't "proper" as far as roughly defined current goals go - I agree that NASA and ESA should get more funding towards them, especially since that's rather easy. But the issue here was about vastly different goals.

Well, an unfortunate effect of popular fiction. But no one thinks about flying boats in the style of Catalina when they hear "aircraft"... (it's a good analogy of what Shuttle is in relation to "spaceship") Nobody thinks about those supposedly ancient Indian aircraft (interestingly very boat-like, too...), which were also a work of fiction before reality set in.
But finding inspiration in fiction is not necessarily a good thing in advanced engineering (who knows how much Shuttle suffered because of this...after all, it was approved, financed and designed by a generation raised on "spaceplanes" in fiction - a phenomena which was in itself no doubt fuelled by breathtaking advances in aircraft back then...but which doesn't translate well to space, as our experiences clearly show)
Look at this depiction from late XIX century of aircraft from "our" era, looking more like open fishlike submarines (again, boat...). We can build them (take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy); but it's impractical. Spaceplane was a similar dream.

I'm not only technically correct, I'm historically correct - it's just that one (and how many others are there?) spacecraft captured public imagination (easy and attractive - that one specific spacecraft relates to their experiences with air travel...). I suspect future history won't change that much, too (except for very specific vehicles, LEO military ones for example). Check out BCC Space Odyssey: Voyage to the Planets (don't get US version, it's castrated), that's probably closer to how "spaceships" will look like for quite some time.

Soyuz was designed as the Soviet mothership (ok, I'm teasing you now ;) ) for Moon mission. Soyuz was the first spacecraft which carried macroscopic Earth creatures (most notably - turtles ;> ) beyond LEO. Around the Moon, to be more specific. And brought them back safely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zond_5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-L1

Yes, Russia now has few dacades of experience with using a spacecraft essentially capable of beyond LEO operation. And the company responsible for, so far, all private spacecraft participant missions says you can have a ride for $100 million

Wow, must suck to be insightful on Slashdot, I've stopped doing it.

You ask a good question, currently there are no private efforts to go to the Moon, in the US. Energia is offering an Apollo 8-style flyby of the Moon for $100M. Here is the details:

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

There has been no announcement of interested parties yet.. but that is typical of Orbital space tourism, so I don't see why they would announce that they have received funding just yet, even if they had.

Once a market has been established for this service, they will likely offer a surface mission..

The Russians are ahead of the curve. SpaceX is developing manned launch capability, with or without COTS-D funding, and their Dragon vehicle has been built for a lunar flyby mission (PICA heat shield, wall thickness, 9 day on-orbit, consumables stowage). But none of this will happen within the time frame that NASA is planning to return to the Moon in.

At least with a car, there is an MSRP that says what it is worth.

Sure, some millionaire might pay $25 million for it, but how much would the average Joe pay.

If you told the "typical" American that NASA doesn't launch any spacecraft, including the shuttle, they would generally try to contridict you. Yes, you are technically correct that the people doing the launches are not NASA employees but rather NASA subcontractors, but that is really splitting hairs. The people doing the launches just go through a different heirarchy of management than through the Federal Government civil service appointments, and a few for-profit companies get to milk the Federal money cow a little bit more. Just more graft and corruption, IMHO, but that doesn't matter.

In terms of general voter support, most ordinary citizens still do support NASA, which is why there is still incredible desire on the part of people to view space launches (the Florida space coast always has its hotels fill up before a manned launch) and huge ratings for television networks that cover those launches for its news programming. That is some sort of support. As far as the P.R. stuff I was talking about... this is perception from ordinary folks, not to those informed about the real community. And yes, speeches by John F. Kennedy, LBJ, and even Nixon did indeed promise that eventually ordinary Americans would eventually go into space thanks to the pioneering efforts of the original astronauts. That is a failed promise by NASA, and one they don't want to talk about, and was a part of the sales job to convince voters to have several percentage points of the GDP going into the space program back in the 1960's. You can argue that it was to help fuel military spending as well, but that was not the bill of goods sold the the American public.

As far as actual revenue from "space-tourism", the best current example I can come up with is Space Adventures, which has indeed sold several flights into space.

Zero-G Adventure has been booking flights as well. Just for the "Vomit Comet" style free-fall experience, people are willing to pay about $4000 per flight, and they don't seem to be hurting for customers at the moment. Indeed, they are expanding into many other areas with more planes, and in particular Las Vegas seems to be the next major city they will be flying out of. Maybe they are Baby Boomers and greying Gen-X'ers who want to be "Buck Rogers" in their own mind, but these are still people with a passion that want to get into space.

And right now manned space exploration is indeed "non-existant". With an average of one launch per year, that is hardly anything to get excited over, even if it is an improvement over the past couple of years. That is even hardly the workaday grind stuff, but rather mismanagement to an extreme degree. Going into LEO was well established and perhaps could be argued even perfected with the Gemini program. The most ambitious manned spaceflight program that seems to be in the future of NASA is more going back to Gemini, with perhaps a return to the "Big-G" spacecraft that never got built in the 1970's except as a mock-up. If that isn't a step backward, I don't know what is. That is not exploration, nor is it pushing into new frontiers and gaining any new knowledge. Apollo did push technology, and indeed did discover some incredible things about the Moon and in turn more about the Earth itself. That there was some show about it, and perhaps it could have been more science oriented than it was is true, but real science did happen there and back elsewhen.

Or you can get a ride on a Mig 25 to 80,000 ft. where the sky is black. That only costs $21k, somewhat more economical compared to this trip where that would only cover the initial deposit.

And MirCorp (who organized Tito's flight) sometime quite before that.

Actually, Dennis Tito's flight to the ISS was brokered by Space Adventures, not MirCorp. (Tito originally signed on with MirCorp, which was to fly him to Mir, but had to change plans when Russia decided to scuttle Mir. There is still some dispute between the two companies as to who should get credit for the deal.) Space Adventures also arranged Mark Shuttleworth's ISS flight a year later. The company has been around since the late 90s.

Space Adventures helped broker the $20mil Space Station rides for Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth. They are also partnered with a number of rocket companies and are ready to provide passengers to the first one with an operating system.

http://www.spaceadventures.com/intro

http://www.forbes.com/2003/04/22/cz_jc_0422feat.ht ml

http://www.incredible-adventures.com/migs/planes.h tml

Google. It's a tool for finding info on the web. I suggest you learn how to use it.

The brazilian branch of Volkswagen already gave a ticket to a suborbital flight earlier this year (through Space Adventures). The winner is a 24-year old woman. Links: here [www.spaceadventures.com] and here [www.vw.com.br]. I remember the promotional TV spots were very cool, and almost made me wish to buy a VW car. :-) I am sure other companies worldwide will follow suit.

It is my understanding that he plans to sell these craft to different operators to take people not only as tourists, but also as rapid transit round the world flights. There was some discussion on this a few months back, that an orbital/sub-orbital craft could get to altitude within maybe an hour, go somewhere and come down, could get from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world in about 3-4 hours. NYC to Sydney : 4 hours. Tokyo-London : 4 hours. Sell tickets at $100k/seat and you have uber-business class.

It's not that simple. Proper diet and exercise help alleiviate some of the symptoms, but it does not correct all of them. Simply saying "It's bad for you, don't do it" could be applied to exposure to vaccuum as well. But we came up with solutions. Furthermore, there are spinoffs. Examining the effects of the environment not only helps us better prepare people for exploration, but it also helps with normal earthbound physiology. We have learned volumes about circulation, respiration, wound healing, and inflammatory responses because of the microgravity experiments, many done on ISS. And there are equally large volumes of questions raised by that research. We have learned a lot, but have a LOT more to learn; we are not relearning the same stuff.

But you're right on one point. We probably have enough physiology info to go to Mars somewhat safely.

As for exclusivity, there are the crystal growth experiments. These take weeks to months to do properly, and some crystals that simply cannot be grown on earth do grow in space. As for automation, ask any structural biologist. Crystal growth is 75% art, 25% science. You can't automate it effectively. And, as I said, I have seen articles about the benefits of other technologies as well, but I am in no way informed enough to defend them. Maybe someone else reading this thread is.

The tourism angle is a very long term thing. You can't look at annual P&L reports to see it. Besides, NASA is not in the business of business.

Would a kid (or adult) rather go to Mars or ISS? What do you think? If you compare Mars to Epsilon Erandi, or the Crab Nebula which one wins?

Is it even remotely possible for someone to go to Mars right now? No. To make a tourism splash, what you propose must be possible. Therefore, ISS gets it. How long until we can sell tickets to Mars or the Moon? How long until we can sell tickets to ISS, or orbit? One step at a time. We're just taking too long at this step.

Both Scaled Composites and XCOR Aerospace (the two leading competitors in the X-Prize competition) currently fly out of Mojave Airport.

Scaled Composites is taking part in the X-Prize competition, but XCOR is not. They are developing their products to break into a market of suborbital payloads and microsatellites, as well as the passenger market (they are currently under contract with Space Adventures to provide the space travel experience to "adventure travelers" for $98,000 when the technology is ready). You can read more about their goals on their website.

The X-Prize website hosts a list of the teams competing for the X-Prize.

Well, American Express is already offering a suborbital flight as a membership reward (only 20,000,000 points!) through Space Adventures. Neither Rutan nor Scaled Composites appear to be involved in this venture.

Will Space Adventures and Sensors Unlimited be able to claim the bandwidth bill after the slashdotting as a business expense? Hell, will he still be able to afford to go after the slashdotting?

I'm really surprised that noone else made this joke yet ;) What's the world coming to?

Will Space Adventures and Sensors Unlimited/a> be able to claim the bandwidth bill after the slashdotting as a business expense? Hell, will he still be able to afford to go after the slashdotting?

I'm really surprised that noone else made this joke yet ;) What's the world coming to?

Did anyone looking at the Space Adventures website notice the press release stating that they are currently "aggressively seeking a location" to build a spaceport?

Not only does Space Adventures accept cash payments for travel into space, they also allow you to cash in your American Express points for travel!

A nice picture and more information on the plan are in astronautix.com.

The 14.5 tonne reusable lifting body would be used as a space station ferry and lifeboat, or could operate independently to shuttle tourists to space.

This is mainly based on proven technology, so there is a chance it may actually be built. Space tourism is also getting quite hot lately. They are planning to use another Russian designed spacecraft.

A nice picture and more information on the plan are in astronautix.com.

The 14.5 tonne reusable lifting body would be used as a space station ferry and lifeboat, or could operate independently to shuttle tourists to space.

This is mainly based on proven technology, so there is a chance it may actually be built. Space tourism is also getting quite hot lately. They are planning to use another Russian designed spacecraft.

I disagree.

The aircraft used to give rich people thrill-rides first entered service in the Soviet air force back in 1970.

As for the missile required to do the trick, I'm sure one of these could be modified sufficiently to home in on the telemetry transmissions...

Its in the summary: Space Adventures. You don't think they are doing this for free, huh?

The biggest problem with achieving orbital space flight isn't getting there but getting back (as the Columbia shuttled disaster demonstrated) in one piece. If stuff like heat shielding weren't a concern, Elon Musk's satellite launchers would probably be enough to rocket a suicidally minded space nut into outer space.

I don't know of any private entity seriously attempting a crewed orbital class spacecraft.

Link to their website. :) More Q&A about XCOR suborbital stuff on our site: here.

geeky --> /. science Or how about a Space Adventure? Maybe too late?

You don't need to imagine. The price has already been fixed by the Russians for $20 million.

There are lots of companies planning the future of space. Space Island Group plans to construct several space stations before the end of the decade. Space Adventures is going to offer flights into space for $98,000 a person. And I've seen several proposals to plan the mining of Helium-3 from the moon that could serve as a long term power source for earth. It's good to see the private sector getting involved here, we definitely need it to improve the cost and feasibility of long term projects. We just aren't going to get it from govt. funding that is capable of spending $600 for a toilet seat.

Wow, I asked the same thing. I mean, maybe in the US or UK airspace considerations might be a problem. But what about, say, international waters? Peru? Or how about Russia right? They seem pretty lax about most things. I wouldn't imagine launching oneself (or ones monkey) into space would be much of a problem. given that you are far enough away from everyone and everything that is - I revisit the russia/international water argument. But despite my thoughts and assumptions "anonymous coward" tells me. "Yes you do [need a license/permmision]. You can't legally launch things up randomly in the sky. Hitting a plane at the present time would brand you as a terrorist. The difference is that space angencies "owns" their portion of the sky.". Ohh well, there's always the russians

try these guys

A russian company is already offering a few minutes of weighlessness on an aeroplane for a decent price.

As a matter of fact, it is a lot cheaper. The same company offers Zero Gravity trips for $5400.

From my reading it sounds like the capsule only does a single burn. It doesn't have to do a burn to return from orbit into the Earth's atmosphere as it never acheives orbital velocity. Its trajectory would resemble that of a ballistic missile, like a SCUD, or a V2.

Here's another space tourism site run by some UVA graduates and endorsed by several astronauts. Space Adventures

Hmmm, if we're dreaming, I have a few ideas....

I'll stay away from the usual "HARDWARE, HARDWARE, MORE HARDWARE!!!" wish list. I'm sure that one's going to be quite busy. ;) These are more...experiential.

1) Zero-G Parabolic Flight.
Sure, you have to go to Star City, Russia to do 'em (along with floating around in an old Il-76), but that's a small price to pay to float around in a non-chemically-induced experience.
Price: $4980

2) All-expense paid holiday party at the Tech Museum of Innovation, San Jose CA.
Where else can you pilot an MMU toward a satellite with a beer in your hand? Play with robots! See how all this nifty computer stuff gets made in the factory! They also have good catering. :)
Cost? Don't ask....

3) Dogfights. Aerobatics. Nomex.
Try a visit to Air Combat USA -- normally I'd recommend another company, but I hear they had a mishap. Anyway, Air Combat can hook you up with a parachute, a helmet, and an opponent in another Real Airplane, for your shootin' pleasure. The bullets are simulated, but the adrenaline is real. Sweet.
Price: Starting at $795 per person...

4) Liberty Bell 7 Restoration Crew T-Shirt
Don't go forgetting the Right Stuff during the holidays... Anyone can find a huge boat under a couple thousand feet of water. It takes real skill to find a space capsule in over ten thousand feet of water over an uncertain surface area. ;)
Cost: $25