Third Space Tourist is Set

Sgt York writes "Space Adventures announced yesterday that Gregory Olsen will be their next private space tourism client. He paid $20M to hop on a Soyuz, sometime by 2005, and go spend some time on the ISS. The cool thing is, he's not just playing tourist. He's the CEO of Sensors Unlimited, has a MS in physics, and a PhD in materials science. He's planning on using the trip to 'help inspire today's youth to dream big' and conduct a few experiments, including testing out some of his company's equipment. SA is billing him as his own 'private space program.'" There's also a space.com story.

Comments

risky

[Chuck Bucket]

I think it's still too risky. think about it, someone going up that's not an astro flowing around accidentally kicking some switch on a panel breaking something. I know it's prob not *that* unsecure, but still, the point is the ISS is supposed to be this great nation-free project, but the Russian's are trying to milk it for some rubles by gambling that this "tourist" won't break anything.

call me pariod it you wish, but the stakes are too high for this.

CVb

Re:risky

[ttsalo]

Simply put, Russia cannot afford to keep sending Soyuz up there time after time again.

I don't think that's a problem now that the shuttle is grounded and they have the only vehicle in the world capable of flying to ISS at all.

And by the way, some have claimed that the whole ISS is just a way of keeping the russian rocket scientists working on peaceful projects in Russia, not on ICBMs in "rogue nations"...

--

Re:Is this news?

[insanecarbonbasedlif]

The more the merrier though. In a theoretical capital market, if there are enough buyers, the producers will make more, enabling more people to buy, and maximizing profit. It's newsworthy in that it's another step closer to non-government sponsored space flight. Personal space travel will come eventually, but maybe market forces can accelerate the process.

Sure it's a big adventure..

[ackthpt]

What could be more exciting than to go to the ISS, which has as many faults as the average Disney Theme Park. Space exploration really is becoming a farce. Too bad private industry can't seem to come up with the loot necessary to run a full-scale space program itself.

Rockets by SpaceX and others are all well and good, but not even Bill Gates has the cash to fully fund a competent space program. Assume private enterprise could and did, would it be any better than what's happening these days?

"Did you remember to close the door?" "Didn't need to, it fell off and drifted away."

Re:This is the best chat-up line ever!

[tjmsquared]

I think a guy with $20 million to spend (waste?) on a venture like this would have little trouble picking up "exceedingly pretty but easily charmed women" whether he is going into space or not.

Newsworthy

[Thanatopsis]

This is a newsworthy story as the this guy is going to be one of the first to use ISS to test crystal growth (which should have a clear advantage in a ISS's microgravity setting), his company's infrared cameras. It really is a business expense for him. As opposed to the first space tourists which were just that tourists. He's testing ISS as the prototype for a space based manufacturing facility.

US Reaction more laid back...

[larsoncc]

Did you notice that this time, the US reaction is more laid back? Perhaps the US will begin to take up tourists of their own (eventually).

Frankly, it surprises me that the Russians are the first to realize the profit potential.

So, here's a question... If the US and Russia started to compete for space travellers (and you had the money), which agency would you trust? Why?

It seems one is gathering experience catering their programs to the rich folks, yet the other would have some "whiz bang" technology. Tough call, really.

Re:US Reaction more laid back...

[metlin]

I think I would go with Russia. If I'm not mistaken, they have a better record for safety than the US (I could be wrong).

But more than anything, their equipments and technologies have often proved to be far more resilient and robust than the American counterparts.

American would be more cooler and comfortable, am sure. But the Russian one would be robust and interesting ;-)

Re:US Reaction more laid back...

[WolfWithoutAClause]

The records show that Soyuz is as safe as the Shuttle- about a 1.7% fatality rate per launched person. In fact, the latest manned version of the Soyuz has had NO fatalities whatsoever- they've had some injuries though. Even if you include the whole of the Soyuz program, then less astronauts have died per launched astronaut; but there's nothing much in it (it's not statistically significantly better than the Shuttle.)

Ironically though, Soyuz has had more missions that failed (the early Soyuz's were known to be a bit iffy so they launched less astronauts on them; they've hopefully got the bugs out now- and so they launch an extra person.) One mission had a launch pad fire that meant that the cosmonauts had to use an escape system- note that the Shuttle doesn't have an escape system.

So bizarrely, Soyuz is about as safe (or safer), but less reliable.

Re:Profit?

[WolfWithoutAClause]

The Soyuz costs about $15-25 million to launch. Of course they charge a lot more than that- 60 million for the whole rocket IRC.

So the tourists are paying most of the unit costs of the rocket- and the Russians get to send along 2 more astronauts (cosmonauts) as well.

Yes, the Soyuz rocket really is that cost effective (the Russians use this amazingly hi-tech special technology called a 'production line' and the rocket is designed from the ground-up to be cheap/rugged- unlike in the West where it is designed to be 'high performance'.) It's a very different mindset.

I remember one of the American astronauts was asking one of the technicians wearing an ordinary white coat, standing next to the rocket he was about to launch on about whether the nozzles can swivel. "Oh yes up to 30 degrees! Watch"- *wrench* (bonk- hit's the stops), *wrench* (bonk- hit the other stops). Astronaut starts sweating. (Apparently in the west they tend to go with a clean-room attitude to their rockets and treat everything gently like it is made of glass- the Russians are more pragmatic about something about to see the brutality of a launch environment.)

And of course, on the day it worked perfectly.

Re:Space Tourism

[TigerNut]

Getting in the news equals free airtime, which equals funding dollars from the government. The profit angle is bunk, because it would take several thousand tourists to recoup the billions of dollars pumped into the space program as a whole.

At $20million a pop, the current crop (is three a crop?) of space tourists would have made a much bigger impact on the space industry by putting their money into John Carmack's, Rutan's, or one of the other X-prize ventures.

Re:Profit?

[Thud457]

More like the comparison of a Ferrari to a Ford F-150. Which do you think hauls more for cheaper?

Re:Well, at least he's not...

[ericspinder]

What was the reason for using my money to send him into space again-to study the effects of weightlessness and the elderly? That seems like a useful study at this point in our space program.

Shoving John Glenn into orbit wasn't the only reason for that flight. They did a lot of studies on microgravity, you can see it in the press kit for that mission. You can bitch and moan about it, but it wasn't a bad mission. It worked on many levels, good science, good press, and a second flight for NASA's first man in Space. As for sending up the rich, well, more power to them. If I had $200 million, I'd buy a ticket for 10% of it. Hell, there are apartments which cost more than that.