Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Excalibur Almaz To Offer Commercial Orbital Flights

Posted by kdawson on from the big-circle-in-the-sky dept.

xp65 alerts to the plans of an international consortium called Excalibur Almaz Limited to open up a new era of private orbital space flight for commercial customers. The group, consisting of Russian, US, and Japanese companies, will use a formerly top-secret Soviet re-entry vehicle called Almaz to carry paying research crews on one-week missions into Earth orbit by 2013. This ambition represents a large step beyond the sub-orbital flight market so far targeted by most other private space companies. "Excalibur has raised 'tens of millions of dollars' to initiate what will become a several hundred million dollar program, [CEO] Dula tells Spaceflight Now. He has spent more than 20 years eying this specific Almaz program... He also says 'the business plan closes' generating profits within a few years. His surveys have found research and science customers for space missions that are not tourist hops, but less demanding than ISS operations."

76 comments

  1. Excellent! by natehoy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll go buy myself a ticket as soon as the proceeds from my uncle's estate come in, which should be any day now. Who knew, I had a Nigerian prince for an uncle. Small world, eh?

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    1. Re:Excellent! by BobZee1 · · Score: 0

      I think we are related. Pick me up on your way to the airport.

      --
      dumber people are doing harder things everyday
    2. Re:Excellent! by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll go buy myself a ticket as soon as the proceeds from my uncle's estate come in

      Why wait? I'm gonna book my flight now using my Visa card. Yeah, it's over my limit and I'll never be able to pay it back, but so what? It works for Washington and Wall Street ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With this new tech we can have DUNE COONS IN SPACE!

    4. Re:Excellent! by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Oh, well, if you're contributing to space flight, then your bailout check is on the way. I figure my uncle was (according to the estate executor) worth about 120 trillion dollars. I can afford to buy a few flights here and there.

      Oh, what the hell, spaceflights all around! If I can afford to borrow $400,000 and send it to the executor for bribe money to speed up delivery of my money, I can afford to borrow a little more to buy a few people some seats on a simple spaceflight.

      I'm sure the Russian guy I borrowed the money from will front me some more cash once the guaranteed delivery letter arrives tomorrow, and I gotta go visit my family in his villa anyway, to make sure they are enjoying their stay. Something about "cool lateral" or something - it was all technical talk and I don't really understand it, but I can pay them the million for "random sums" or whatever they called it soon, and they promised to show them a good time.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    5. Re:Excellent! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Dear Sir or Madam,

      the Chinese Government would like to express its gratitude for your support in ultimately destroying its enemies and their despicable capitalistic system.
      While we found it impossible to oppose their militarily forces, your self-imposed debt system emerged as the most hidden and powerful weapon ever conceived.
      For this special occasion we would like to offer you another free Visa card with a special "pay in 10 years" option with every lead-based toy or child clothing item you order.

      With our sincerest admiration,

      Dick Cheney et. al.
      on behalf of
      The Chinese Government

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  2. Nice if this was true by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    But I really doubt it. In fact, my bet is that if it was true, the first flight would be after 2015, which would be too late. By that time, spacex, scaled's SS3, Orion Lite, and bigelow BA-330 will be the place to be.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Nice if this was true by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is there any particular reason though why it would need to take until 2015? I imagine the development process is much simplified since the basic hardware they're using has already been developed and flight-tested, and they're just inserting in modern electronics and redesigning the service module. I'm guessing they (like SpaceX's Dragon) will probably want a few cargo flights before manned flights, of course, but I can't think of any show-stoppers.

    2. Re:Nice if this was true by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is there any particular reason though why it would need to take until 2015? I imagine the development process is much simplified since the basic hardware they're using has already been developed and flight-tested, and they're just inserting in modern electronics and redesigning the service module.

      Most "formerly top-secret Soviet re-entry vehicles" were designed to sit on top of ICBMs, and provide a ride that only a nuke would tolerate (heating, deceleration, no atmosphere, etc). On the plus side I heard some were lightly armored to discourage the star wars missile defense plan, provide some limited maneuverability on re-entry, and they are probably very reliable and stable.

      So, they don't have to bother with the aerodynamics, materials science, and control/navigation/guidance systems. Well maybe the guidance systems will need updating, unless you want to end every mission with a landing on the whitehouse lawn, downtown NYC, or Montana.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Nice if this was true by JAlexoi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hm.. Nice final destination - The White House lawn

    4. Re:Nice if this was true by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      A capsule that has not produced in 30 years as well as a new service module, and you think that in 4 years, they will have FLYING PAYING CUSTOMERS? Heck, the thing weighed 20 tonnes, not including the weapons that were on it (cannon and later missiles; Interesting about that).

      2015 will be the absolute EARLIEST that it has a passenger. And even then, I seriously doubt it. I think that by 2013, SpaceX and Orion Lite will be running passengers to a BA space station. The reason is that when Augustine is done, we will see either Ares I dead, or slowed WAY up, and we will see 1, possibly 2 B allocated for private ventures. That will mean that we pay to speed up Orion Lite, Give Cots-D to SpaceX, and I am guessing that both Northrup/Scaled with SS3 and SpaceDev with DreamChaser will have money allocated to get their entries going. Finally, Bigelow will be given money so that there is a NEAR GUARANTEE for these private companies to have a paying destination, other than just NASA.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Nice if this was true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Let me correct you on a few points.

      > A capsule that has not produced in 30 years

      The last flight of TKS spacecraft - and VA capsules are the part of it, it's those capsules which EA bought - was after Chelomey's death, in 1985. So, about 24 years.

      > as well as a new service module

      If you read the sources, you'll find that the capsule doesn't need the service module to get launched into space. Saves money, too.

      > Heck, the thing weighed 20 tonnes

      That was for the full TKS, not the VA capsule. VA was about 7 tons at launch, under 4 tons at landing (massive escape system, which jettisoned in flight, among other things...). The rest of TKS was FGB - which was used as the basis for many Mir modules and Zarya, the first ISS module.

      To launch only capsule into space, the rocket doesn't need to be Proton - in fact, the article mentions Soyuz launcher as a possible option.

      > not including the weapons that were on it (cannon and later missiles; Interesting about that).

      Aw c'mon, not too many spacecrafts carried weapons ;) especially massive ones.

      > I think that by 2013, SpaceX and Orion Lite will be running passengers to a BA space station.

      SpaceX Dragon's isn't proven to be reusable, is it? And a capsule which flies 10 times instead of just one (a particular instance of VA flew 3 times to orbit during testing phase) could turn costing less.

      > And even then, I seriously doubt it.

      Here I have to agree :( . The guys still have a long and winding road ahead of them. Will watch 'em tho'.

    6. Re:Nice if this was true by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      SpaceX Dragon's isn't proven to be reusable, is it? And a capsule which flies 10 times instead of just one (a particular instance of VA flew 3 times to orbit during testing phase) could turn costing less.
      Actually, from what I understand, I believe the idea is to use the capsule once for a human launch, then for a cargo launch, then for a science launch (with no return). I do have to say though, that it seems like that is likely to change. One thing about Musk is that he is a salesman and tells you the BEST case (and yes, I am a big fan of his, but fair is fair). Though to be fair, he all of his endeavors have interesting ideas behind and through them.

      Here I have to agree :( . The guys still have a long and winding road ahead of them. Will watch 'em tho'.
      Likewise. I think that having more competition is a good thing. I really would like to see them succeed. But I have a sneaking feeling that Augustine's panel will be rolling the dice and it will be geared l-mart, northrup(scaled), spaceX and MAYBE SpaceDev. In addition, it is possible that Direct will shine in this, but ......

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:Nice if this was true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not including the weapons that were on it (cannon and later missiles; Interesting about that).

      The almaz space stations (commonly known as salyut 2-3 and 5) did carry weapons, the mision aboard Salyut-3 infact included test firing of the cannon. These capsules however, have no mention of being armed.

    8. Re:Nice if this was true by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      Is there any particular reason though why it would need to take until 2015?

      Well, they can send you up immediately. They just can't promise that you will return safely until 2013.

      Sure, it seems simple to just do a little electronics and design work, but then you have to check everything every way possible on the ground. Then you have to flight test it. And if there are any failures, even unmanned, you lose your investor funding...

      Personally, I would not want to be one of the early paying customers on any of the commercial space carriers, because people are definitely going to die. The fatality percentages range from 1-4% between NASA and Russia, and you can bet that for-profit organizations are going to be cutting the safety margins a little closer because the investors can always cut and run.

    9. Re:Nice if this was true by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      A capsule that has not produced in 30 years as well as a new service module, and you think that in 4 years, they will have FLYING PAYING CUSTOMERS? Heck, the thing weighed 20 tonnes, not including the weapons that were on it (cannon and later missiles; Interesting about that).

      I'm betting they chose the terminology of "revenue flights" rather than "manned flights" for a reason. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, I think it's likely that they'll be aiming for unmanned cargo/science flights at first, which of course don't need quite as many assurances as the manned flights do. This is the same pattern the SpaceX Dragon is following. Also, as another commenter noted, the service module likely won't be necessary for the cargo flights and initial manned flights.

    10. Re:Nice if this was true by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      The reason is that when Augustine is done, we will see either Ares I dead, or slowed WAY up, and we will see 1, possibly 2 B allocated for private ventures.

      An interesting bit of trivia: Excalibur Almaz's VP of Technical Operations is former astronaut Leroy Chiao, who was also one of the Augustine Panel members. Of course, that doesn't (or at least shouldn't) increase the odds of EA getting a COTS or CCDev contract, but it's still interesting to note.

    11. Re:Nice if this was true by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      OUCH. I saw that he was VP, but I totally missed the fact that he is on the panel. THAT may make a BIG difference in what will happen shortly. In particular, I am fairly certain that another round of "COTs" will be done (obviously different, but same effect). I would have bet on l-mart, scaled, and possibly scaled/northrup (ss3) as well as SpaceDev would have the inside tracks on lots of interesting item. Having that clout in there, MIGHT make a difference esp. when opposed to SpaceDev (though a lot to be said about Western or just American made).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    12. Re:Nice if this was true by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, I totally agree. From what I watched, it seemed that the consensus of the committee (esp. Bohdan Bejmuk) was that commercial transport contracts should definitely be open to the non-"NewSpace" companies like l-mart. It'll be interesting to see what happens now that Michael Griffin is no longer around to pressure the l-mart CEO into not participating. ;)

      One thing I've heard though is that there's apparently something in the EELV contract the ULA has with the DOD which either prevents bidding on COTS-like contracts, or makes it much more difficult. Do you happen to know anything about this?

    13. Re:Nice if this was true by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      One thing I've heard though is that there's apparently something in the EELV contract the ULA has with the DOD which either prevents bidding on COTS-like contracts, or makes it much more difficult. Do you happen to know anything about this?
      Nope. But I have friends who work for ULA (I live in Highlands Ranch, CO), so will ask. As a SWAG, I would have to guess that they are prevented from taking major business risks with ULA money (currently, they are a monopoly; that will change when Falcon 9 is successful), or possibly it is just DOD's attitude toward NASA (DOD DESPISES NASA, esp the new space command) and said no. Sadly, there is SO much politics that goes on between NASA, DOD, and politicians. Heck, I was just thinking about the later. Nixon killed the moon colonization plans, Clinton killed the collider, W killed X-33 (and denied DOD the right to finish the project), and now Obama is looking to kill the moon shot (though it is fair to say that NASA has been severely underfunded for this for the last 5 years).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  3. Gemini variants still exist by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting
    A Gemini with a hatch in its heat shield is in the Air Force Museum in Dayton. At the Udvar-Hazy museum at Washington Dulles airport, there is a non-space-capable Gemini practice vehicle that was built to hang under a Rogalo wing and has runway landing gear. The intent was that they'd hang-glide the Gemini to a precision landing.

    Reviving a 30-year-old Russian capsule which lost out to Soyuz sounds risky.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re:Gemini variants still exist by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Reviving a 30-year-old Russian capsule which lost out to Soyuz sounds risky.

      If it's revamped and passes modern qualification testing, I don't see any reason not to reuse it. Also, unlike the Gemini, the tooling apparently still exists to construct new ones (unless I'm misreading). From what I've read, it seems that the reason the Almaz was ended didn't have anything to do with technical problems with the capsule, but more that the Soviet Union decided that having armed military space stations probably wasn't the best investment:

      http://www.astronautix.com/project/almaz.htm
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz

    2. Re:Gemini variants still exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well who knew, Bruce Perens is a space enthusiast :-)

    3. Re:Gemini variants still exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > Reviving a 30-year-old Russian capsule which lost out to Soyuz sounds risky.

      Not on the technical ground, mind you; on political one. Energia, the Soyuz maker, didn't want Chelomey's company to be their rival in manned spacecrafts, and Energia was powerful enough to get the project closed after Chelomey's death.

      TKS development started in late 1960-s, while Soyuz spacecraft development started in 1960. And that decade have seen a huge advancement in rocketry.

  4. MAKS by superphysics · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They're displaying their craft at the MAKS Air Show in Russia. They must be hoping to inveigle some multi-million dollar passengers. How many passengers do you suppose they need to break even with that price tag? Too bad they can't demonstrate it at the MAKS too.

    --
    Life is too good to waste... Read!
  5. Just curious... a question for space people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is it easier to get something in a CIRCULAR orbit around earth, or is it easier to launch something to impact the moon.
    Getting to the moon seems like just getting escape velocity and proper aiming, but getting a proper circular orbit means achieving velocity AND THEN adjusting to get a proper orbit.
    If this is true, why aren't we seeing more moon shots?

    1. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

      Going to the moon is a big elliptical orbit. The Apollo missions had an abort of just letting the vehicle pass the moon and head back to earth. I think one of the early missions used it, and Apollo 13.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    2. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by argent · · Score: 2, Informative

      Circular velocity is less than escape velocity.

    3. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      As far as I know, you don't need anything close to escape velocity to get into a stable orbit (Circular or otherwise)

      LEO only needs a speed of ~7km/s, and GEO is only ~3km/s (but is much higher than LEO) - ES is more like ~11 km/s

    4. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is it easier to get something in a CIRCULAR orbit around earth, or is it easier to launch something to impact the moon. Getting to the moon seems like just getting escape velocity and proper aiming, but getting a proper circular orbit means achieving velocity AND THEN adjusting to get a proper orbit. If this is true, why aren't we seeing more moon shots?

      No, it's simply not true. The "skill" required to enter an orbit was mastered almost five decades ago. It's relatively negligible. The main restriction on going places in the solar system is fuel. It takes a lot more fuel to go to the moon.

      Here's the simplified picture of what goes on to get in a circular orbit around earth:
      1.) 1 burst of fuel to reach orbital altitude
      2.) 1 burst of fuel to reach orbital velocity

      Here's what it takes to land on the moon:
      1. and 2. from above
      3.) 1 burst of fuel to escape earth orbit
      4.) 1 burst of fuel to enter lunar orbit
      5.) 1 burst of fuel to land on the moon
      6.) 1 burst of fuel to leave the moon surface
      7.) 1 burst of fuel to leave the moon's orbit and return to earth


      Also keep in mind that fuel usage is exponential. i.e. you need to carry more fuel earlier in the trip to propel the fuel you will need later in the trip. Thus expense to Mars >> expense to Moon >> expense to Low Earth Orbit > expense to suborbital hop

    5. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by buback · · Score: 1

      When going to the moon you are not leaving the earth's gravity well, so you aren't actually escaping.

    6. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bruce, why is your perens.com weblog (bottom of your home page) filled with spam? Did you get hacked?
      A "View Source" on any of your weblog articles shows stuff like:

      cute cell phone accessories
      free online search for unlisted phone numbers
      hearing impaired phones
      mobile phonetools software cd
      tracing phone numbers
      etc. etc. etc

    7. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by natehoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ridiculously oversimplified response:

      Once you achieve orbital velocity, you've "hit" orbit. If you have too much power, your orbit will be higher than you planned. If you have too little power, your orbit is lower than you planned (possibly not achieving orbit, of course). Your orbit will continue as long as you have momentum, which is eaten up by the miniscule amounts of atmosphere and space junk bouncing off you as you orbit. To come back to Earth, slow down and you'll fall out of orbit and end up on the planet somewhere. A Geosync circular orbit can be achieved approximately 26,000 miles up. So, roughly put, you figure out how much fuel you need to reach a given speed at 26000 miles, and you're largely good.

      To get to the Moon, you have to hit a moving target whose distance averages about 239,000 miles from Earth. Or, roughly put, you have to go nine times as far and you have to hit a teensy tiny little moving target at that distance.

      >>>>Getting to the moon seems like just getting escape velocity and proper aiming, but getting a proper circular orbit means achieving velocity AND THEN adjusting to get a proper orbit.

      Getting to the moon is achieving a lot more velocity than an orbit, THEN adjusting to get a proper orbit around the Earth to match the Moon's orbit THEN adjusting that orbit to achieve an orbit around the Moon so you can control the descent of your landing vehicle from a stable orbit (or maybe you meant "impact" literally - grin). THEN you can start working out the maths to land your instruments on the Moon.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    8. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of sending terminally ill people and politicians on one-way only trips to the moon....

      Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    9. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Is it easier to get something in a CIRCULAR orbit around earth, or is it easier to launch something to impact the moon.

      Its more complicated to calculate a moon orbit versus an earth orbit so I am pretty sure its going to take more resources to do a moon orbit.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    10. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by 32771 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you want to try it yourself check out orbiter:

      http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

      At least getting into earth orbit is simple, especially with the high powered experimental rocket plane they have.

      You may actually need another burn to circularize your orbit if you want to get into earth orbit. It is called apogee burn.

      This is not quite child's play but they offer you some nice tools while flying to actually get to the moon and planets.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    11. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by vlm · · Score: 1

      Getting to the moon seems like just getting escape velocity and proper aiming

      Don't forget, at a precise instant. At each instant, your aim and desired delta-V vary. And a minor nit-pic that your delta-V can be somewhat less than escape velocity... After all you only need to match orbit w/ the moon, and if the moon were "orbiting" at escape velocity, it would have escaped.

      getting a proper circular orbit means achieving velocity AND THEN adjusting to get a proper orbit.

      You mean, getting any-ole vaguely circular orbit that doesn't dip below the atmosphere is no big deal. And yes you do need two burns because any delta-V change you make more or less results in a delta-position change at the other end of the orbit.

      Download a copy of Orbiter (its free) and play around:

      http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    12. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Bruce, why is your perens.com weblog (bottom of your home page) filled with spam?

      It looks like someone figured out how to inject a page containing search optimization links into Wordpress. You only get it if your URL has a trailing slash. I'll flush it.

      It's my fault for using Wordpress. I like a more lightweight blogging solution.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    13. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also keep in mind that fuel usage is exponential. i.e. you need to carry more fuel earlier in the trip to propel the fuel you will need later in the trip. Thus expense to Mars >> expense to Moon >> expense to Low Earth Orbit > expense to suborbital hop

      The rest of your post is accurate, if simplified, but the exponential growth of propellant mass is not necessarily true at all! For the forseeable future we are stuck with chemical rockets for launch. However, once orbital altitude is reached it is possible to use other propulsion technologies like ion drives or VASIMIR engines. Though they do require a propellant, they have much higher specific impulses than chemical rockets and thus propellant mass grows much slower than chemical rockets. Some forms of ion drives have been used in real spacecraft like Deep Space 1, so it isn't just theoretical.

      Of course for a multi-person interplanetary spaceship, both ion drives and VASIMIRs would need a small nuclear generator to provide sufficient electricity to travel between planets in a reasonable amount of time. Yet that is a political problem, not a technical one.

    14. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      In terms of fuel, it is harder to reach the Moon because it requires more fuel than to orbit the Earth.
      In terms of accuracy, it is easier to impact the Moon than to reach a specific Earth orbit because of the Moon's gravity and its large size, so aiming is a little easier.
      However, if you want to impact a specific part of the Moon, then reaching Earth orbit is easier.

      (For some reason people are answering as if you want to land on the Moon, not impact it.)

    15. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Because... it's not true.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    16. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by Burdell · · Score: 1

      The early Apollo flights to the Moon (Apollo 8, 10, 11, and IIRC 12) used a trajectory that would return them to the Earth with no additional engine firing; this was call the "free-return trajectory". Apollo 13 did _not_ use the free-return trajectory; they were on a path to orbit the Moon, and had to fire an engine (the lunar lander descent engine, since they were not sure about the state of the command module engine) to get back to a free-return trajectory.

  6. Flights in 2013; astronaut Leroy Chiao is VP by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nice submission, although here's a few more details from my own submission:

    Excalibur Almaz has come out of stealth mode and unveiled their reusable spacecraft capable of carrying a crew of three and/or cargo to orbit for up to a week. According to VP (and former NASA astronaut) Leroy Chiao, the spacecraft are designed to be launched on a variety of rockets, and are modernized versions of vehicles developed and flight-tested for the Soviet Union's military space station program (the company has also purchased some of the space stations for potential future use). EA plans to begin flight tests in 2012, with revenue flights starting in 2013. The company will likely be competing with the SpaceX Dragon and Bigelow Aerospace's recently-announced "Orion Lite" for a chunk of the emerging commercial orbital transportation market.

    An interesting bit of trivia is that the original Soviet Almaz space station carried a rapid-fire cannon and performed a successful test-firing on a target satellite. I'm assuming the space stations which Excalibur Almaz bought don't have the cannons anymore. :(

    1. Re:Flights in 2013; astronaut Leroy Chiao is VP by mrsquid0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I suspect that there are people who would pay extra for a flight where they had the opportunity to shoot something down.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    2. Re:Flights in 2013; astronaut Leroy Chiao is VP by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The USSR's later experiments in space-based weapons were even crazier, and looked incredibly badass when mounted on the rocket.

      Fortunately, a software glitch (probably intentional) prevented the spacecraft from making orbit.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    3. Re:Flights in 2013; astronaut Leroy Chiao is VP by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Great kid! Don't get cocky!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  7. Beware putting down a deposit... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    Lot's of people can *say* they will offer space travel - and have. But the reality is a long way away. Beware putting down a deposit...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  8. It seems to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that the spacecraft and the project are mainly driven by Vodka.

  9. slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope their space ship is more reliable than their web server.

    1. Re:slashdotted by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      I hope their space ship is more reliable than their web server.

      Hmm...

      The reusable Russian hardware purchased to initiate the venture was built more than 30 years ago

      Maybe not.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  10. Give Me Back MY U.S.A. : +1, Informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and put some money into N.A.S.A. instead of Iraq and Afganistan.

    If you don't, Grandma will deal with you.

    Yours In Flight,
    K. Trout

  11. formerly top-secret Soviet re-entry vehicle by icebike · · Score: 2, Funny

    How does a pathetic rip off of a Gemini design qualify as a top secret re-entry vehicle?

    What was secret about it? Which Nasa subcontractor they paid ?

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  12. Almaz means diamond in Russian by billlava · · Score: 1

    Just an interesting tidbit. And if you believe the signage on city streets, you can buy and sell them in pawn shops every couple of blocks in the former Soviet Union.

  13. More hype, look at the XPrize for other examples by fantomas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More hype and a misleading Slashdot headline, what's new? How many of the X-Prize teams ever got a person more than 100 metres off the ground?

    "Excalibur Almaz To Offer Commercial Orbital Flights" - perhaps more like Excalibur Almaz *hopes* to offer commercial orbital flights. Early days of space exploration and all that but more hype than activity right now. Wake me up when they've done their first test flights with their own technical staff. I wish them and all the other commercial companies the best of luck - I so want it all to be successful and the prices to drop so an average guy like me might get up there one day - but it's mostly hype at the moment.

  14. Re:More hype, look at the XPrize for other example by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Excalibur Almaz To Offer Commercial Orbital Flights" - perhaps more like Excalibur Almaz *hopes* to offer commercial orbital flights. Early days of space exploration and all that but more hype than activity right now. Wake me up when they've done their first test flights with their own technical staff.

    Excalibur Almaz has apparently already raised a significant amount of money, which they've used to purchase several Almaz reentry capsules and have contracted with the Russian manufacturer to make the necessary modifications. They're well past the vaporware stage by this point, with flight-tested hardware in their possession.

  15. But what science? by CompressedAir · · Score: 1

    Wow, Almaz. Never thought I'd hear that name again.

    I wonder, what science do they think people will be using this for? I guess it could replace some of the Shuttle-only payloads we used to fly, but for anything else the ISS is a much more capable research laboratory. I should know, keeping them doing science is my job these days.

    I guess it might have better downmass? Usually, though, you only want to bring it home if you think the long term exposure effects are interesting. This won't be very long term.

    All that said, very cool, and the more the merrier!

    1. Re:But what science? by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Informative

      I wonder, what science do they think people will be using this for? I guess it could replace some of the Shuttle-only payloads we used to fly, but for anything else the ISS is a much more capable research laboratory. I should know, keeping them doing science is my job these days.

      I guess it might have better downmass? Usually, though, you only want to bring it home if you think the long term exposure effects are interesting. This won't be very long term.

      My understanding is that a large part of the problem is that it takes a terribly long time to get anything launched to the ISS and you have to go through a substantial amount of red tape. Currently, you need a lead time of years to fly an experiment on the ISS, which makes it really difficult to do meaningful science in the fast-paced scientific environment. Heck, a grad student putting together an experiment would be lucky to have the experiment results back before they finished their PhD. Hopefully the more rapid access from commercial providers (SpaceX Dragon, Bigelow Aerospace's Orion Lite, and now Excalibur Almaz) will help change that picture.

    2. Re:But what science? by CompressedAir · · Score: 1

      That's a good point.

  16. Excalibur? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just because some watery tart lobs a spaceship at you is no basis for a space program.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  17. Very interesting, Bruce, the AC is right by spun · · Score: 1

    Seems fishy, or is it some sort of SEO for a friend or business partner? The name Ruben Bouso ring any bells? I thought the AC was just link spamming, but those are on your site.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  18. Deck gun by eples · · Score: 2

    Are they taking the deck gun off for the tourist flights? No, I'm serious - the Almaz had a 23mm aircraft cannon mounted to its underside to shoot at american targets (maybe the MOL?)

    A recent NOVA episode interviewed a couple of former cosmonauts who said the only time it was fired was a test just before they decommissioned (de-orbited) the last one.

    --
    I'm a 2000 man.
    1. Re:Deck gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i made this point before in the thread, but i figure this post needs nipping in the bud too,

      The Almaz SPACE-STATION, had weapons, this is an almaz capsule, which shares the name because it is the same program, it would be like confusing the LEM with the apollo CSM because they both are from the apollo program...

  19. Reproductive Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, Almaz. Never thought I'd hear that name again.

    I wonder, what science do they think people will be using this for? I guess it could replace some of the Shuttle-only payloads we used to fly, but for anything else the ISS is a much more capable research laboratory. I should know, keeping them doing science is my job these days.

    I guess it might have better downmass? Usually, though, you only want to bring it home if you think the long term exposure effects are interesting. This won't be very long term.

    All that said, very cool, and the more the merrier!

    EOM

  20. Dear Space People, I have more questions by spun · · Score: 0

    Is it true that no one can hear you scream? What about sex? Except for the lack of screaming, zero G sex sounds like fun! I bet stuff is extra bouncy bouncy up there. Is it still okay to call you space people, or do you prefer 'people of space' now?

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  21. Long way to go before this is real by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

    They have raised maybe 10-20% of the money they will need to make it to the FIRST Launch. How long have they been doing this "in the dark"? Something tells me your deposit is as secure with them as your 401K was with Bernie Madoff. I doubt your insurance pays off if something happens on your "trip" due to poorly designed Russian hardware. You think the US program is risky and we all know we've had fatalities but the Russians are far ahead in cosmonuat deaths, many which were never recognized as occuring during the Cold War. I think I'll wait until Bert Rutan gets his craft ready for business.

  22. All "top secret" exUSSR tech was sold off in early by alexmin · · Score: 1

    Everything remotely useful, at least.

    USSR lost in technology war and that was for a reason - because our tech sucked. Yes, that's "ours" 'cause I helped to desing it too (electronics anyway), for military/space program as well. And I would guess, US did not exactly do nothing in the field of electronics and material sciences since USSR is no more.

    If someone is willing to trust your life to inferior control systems and 30+ year old mechanics - that's his problem. Me, I'd pass.

  23. You Obviously Are Unaware Of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stealth
    Technology

    Please mod the above as "Troll".

    Yours In Novosibirsk,
    K. Trout

    1. Re:You Obviously Are Unaware Of by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Funny

      So you argument against soviet "tech" sucking is that they were dumb enough to not notice that one of their physicist/mathematicians had laid out a great way to do stealth and instead of doing it let the Americans stumble across his work 20 years later and do it.

      That seems like an argument against their "tech" if anything.

  24. Yea, ideas are dime a dosen by alexmin · · Score: 1

    "laid out a great way to do stealth" - but what is the name of the country which actually _build_ first stealth plane (hint - no USSR or Russia)

    1. Re:Yea, ideas are dime a dosen by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Which is what I said, but without the stupid hinting because I'm too embarrassed of being wrong to state what I think.

  25. Launch vehicle? Beuller? Beuller? by LuckyJ · · Score: 1

    Possession of a capsule capable of orbit is great. Making it work is another. It's sort of like buying a cool bucket seat with a six-point harness, and saying you are on your way to the Indy 500. You are, but...

    In any case, I wish these guys the best of luck.

  26. It May Be Apples To Oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But isn't it lovely how private companies are now building reliable orbital vehicles for several hundred million when NASA required 35 billion (6.744 billion inflation adjusted from 1971) to develop the Shuttle.

  27. Tippy Top Sekrit by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    "He has spent more than 20 years eying this specific Almaz program."

    A lot of people have been watching it that long. Here's the bibliography from the Almaz article in Encyclopedia Astronautica. The earliest article is 1991:

    # Pauw, H, Spaceflight, "New Facts About Soviet Space Stations", 1994, Volume 36, page 89.
    # Haeseler, Dietrich, Spaceflight, "Original Almaz Space Station", 1994, Volume 35, page 342.
    # Kidger, Neville, Spaceflight, "Almaz - A Diamond Out of Darkness", 1994, Volume 36, page 86.
    # Chugunova, Nina, Ogonyok, "Kosmonavti Chelomeya", January 1993, No. 4-5, page 24.
    # Afanasyev, I B, Neizvestnie korabli, Kosmonavtika, Astronomiya, Znanie, 12-91..
    # Melnik, T G, Voenno-Kosmicheskiy Siliy, Nauka, Moscow, 1997..

    Not much of a "top secret" for the last 20 years anyway. It was slightly secret when it was first launched, April 1973, under the name Salyut 2.

    Oh, and the cannon referred to in an earlir response was a Nudelman cannon, and not specifically intended for Almaz. It was originally on Soyuz 6.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  28. aside: wordpress by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    BlogSpot is about as low maintenance as you can get, and you can point it to your own custom domain, now. It's possible that you have other requirements (open source, various plugins, non-commercial, whatever) which is fine, but if you just want to reduce the maintenance load, it's an option.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.