Boeing To Take Space Tourists On Its CST-100 Spacecraft To the ISS

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Boeing To Take Space Tourists On Its CST-100 Spacecraft To the ISS

Posted by timothy on Friday September 19, 2014 @11:18PM from the it's-a-free-world-baby dept.

MarkWhittington (1084047) writes "According to a Thursday story in Investment Business Daily, Boeing, whose CST-100 spacecraft was one of the two winners of NASA's commercial crew competition, will reserve one seat per flight for a paying tourist. For a price comparable to what space tourists now pay for trips on the Russian Soyuz, anyone will be able to take a jaunt to the International Space Station. The move places Boeing in direct competition with the Russians, who are working through a company called Space Adventures for their tourist space jaunts."

47 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Public access by GrahamJ · 2014-09-19 23:41 · Score: 2

Don't Americans pay for NASA? Maybe the seats should be given out in a lottery rather than to oligarchs.
1. Re:Public access by towermac · 2014-09-19 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah I was thinking the same.
  You used oligarchs though; I would not have. I'm not against making money, or even the rich.
  But I do want my cut, our cut. Which would be about the whole ticket price, wouldn't it, since we just shelled out 4ish billion for it?
2. Re:Public access by MasT3quila · 2014-09-20 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yes they pay about a half cent out of each tax dollar. This isn't about NASA it's about Boeing.
3. Re:Public access by UncleWilly · 2014-09-20 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  Am I missing something? Won't NASA pay (Boeing, or whomever) for uplifts aboard the CST-100? Or is NASA buying CST-100's, like the next shuttle.
4. Re:Public access by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  This reminds me of a news article I saw recently entitled Two Cosmonauts Find Icicle Hanging from an Air Pipe. After reading that article, I now know why rich folk seeking adventure would want to go to space. It isn't as extreme of an adventure as you may think; it's far more extreme. It's the kind of vacation that you literally can't find here on Earth. You'll see things you never expected to see. You'll feel feelings you've never felt before. You'll be one among a small handful of people who have done things and been places and seen things that even the most well-traveled Earth tourist has never experienced. That is the allure of space. That is what extreme tourism is all about.
5. Re:Public access by confused+one · 2014-09-20 00:34 · Score: 2
  
  Although NASA is helping fund the development of the vehicle, to meet their safety specifications, NASA is buying seats on a CST-100, as a service, not buying CST-100s. Think of it as NASA buying seats on a commercial airliner. The vehicle has 7 seats. The way I read the story, NASA is requiring 1 seat for a NASA pilot on the test flight and 4+ seats per launch to ISS. That leaves empty seats...
6. Re:Public access by confused+one · 2014-09-20 00:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You haven't paid for anything yet... The 4 billion is for development and infrastructure. You're paying for the pad modification/construction, manufacturing of first articles, flight certification and testing. Normally, if this were a commercial airliner, Boeing would pay for this themselves. They would recoup the cost over the couple hundred planes they constructed and sold. Since there is no business case with and end result allowing them to recoup the cost, they're having the primary customer (NASA) pay the Non Recoverable Engineering costs (NRE). This is standard practice in industry (any and all industry).
  Once certified, NASA, as a customer, will be buying seats on the CST-100, as a service. They're not buying the rocket for their exclusive use; think of it as buying seats on a commercial airliner. NASA will be the primary customer initially; but, not the only customer. Same thing happened with the commercial airliner industry -- in the very early days, one of the major customers was the government and a buyer of cargo space was the U.S. Mail service.
  ISS is not going to be the only destination in the future. Bigelow Aerospace plans to launch a habitation module or two in the next few years. They already have a contract with Boeing to use CST-100 as a transport. It's just the beginning...
7. Re:Public access by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 01:12 · Score: 0
  
  No, as far as I know, NASA does not get a discount per empty seat, they are not paying a per seat rate. If empty seats are sold, it should be NASA doing it, not Boeing. Boeing is getting such excessively high payments for this that it is completely offensive for them to try to grab even more. Greedy god damn assholes.
8. Re:Public access by rossdee · 2014-09-20 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  While Boeing would like NASA to buy the craft, I don't think Congress would give them the budget to do that. Instead they will probably be leased or hired.
9. Re:Public access by thrich81 · 2014-09-20 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Two issues with this: TFA (one of them) states that the destination for these tourists will be the ISS -- the US taxpayers have already paid north of $70 billion for that plus the ongoing logistics -- maybe Boeing has worked out a compensation for that, but I doubt it. And 2) It isn't a given that Boeing can just use the result of government paid NRE for their own commercial uses; certainly when there is NRE on a product developed by one commercial company for another there can be severe restrictions on the use of the intellectual property developed via NRE; that's all defined in the contract. So the US taxpayer has already paid for the initial destination and will be paying the cost of development of the CST-100 -- I agree with the OP, Joe Taxpayer should get a cut of those seats which Boeing intends to sell.
10. Re:Public access by DerekLyons · 2014-09-20 02:18 · Score: 2
  
  These aren't NASA flights - they're seats on bus (or airplane if you prefer) routes which NASA has bought from Boeing (or SpaceX). Thus Boeing (or SpaceX) is free (in theory) to do whatever the hell they want with any spare capacity.
11. Re:Public access by LVSlushdat · 2014-09-20 02:24 · Score: 2
  
  Bigelow Aerospace plans to launch a habitation module or two in the next few years.
  Umm.. They've had two up there since 2006-2007...Genesis I was launched on July 12, 2006, by a converted Russian Dniepr ICBM, and the Genesis II was launched on June 28, 2007, again by the Russians.. According to the Bigelow webpage they're still up there, waiting for visitors... http://bigelowaerospace.com/
  
  --
  THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
12. Re:Public access by LVSlushdat · 2014-09-20 02:32 · Score: 2
  
  Screw going to the ISS.. Boeing (and SpaceX for that matter) need to get together with Bigelow Aerospace, one of our local companies here in Las Vegas, and set up a couple of Bigelow's Expandable spacecraft, two of which have been in orbit since 2006/2007 http://bigelowaerospace.com./ Then these "extreme adventure" trips would be totally of a commercial nature.. No government involvement. From the looks of these structures, they'd make a fantastic "space-hotel", and from what I see of the Genesis II, its got a fair percentage of the open space of the ISS..
  
  --
  THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
13. Re:Public access by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  Ha ha! Isn't it true that Boeing has yet to build it while SpaceX's Falcon 9 / Dragon spacecraft is already resupplying the ISS? SpaceX has only to become "human-rated".
  I won't lold my breath for Boeing; might start saving my pennies for a SpaceX trip though ;)
14. Re:Public access by currently_awake · 2014-09-20 03:12 · Score: 2
  
  And what about the space station? Boeing didn't pay for that, and there are real costs associated with visiting (scrubber modules for the life support, if nothing else).
15. Re:Public access by JaredOfEuropa · 2014-09-20 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Will the tourists stay on the ISS, or just ride the taxi to it, and come back down on the same flight?
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
16. Re:Public access by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  Just buy a regular lottery ticket with a sufficiently large jackpot, and if you win then buy a seat.
17. Re:Public access by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  Americans don't pay for anything. The national debt is $17.7T. There is no amount of war, whining, spying, or any other type of government sponsered fraud that can overshadow this fact. This debt is insurmountable. The average Slashdotter is pretty comfortable with the Tera prefix, and can imagine losing a Terabyte of data. Try doing that with dollars.
18. Re:Public access by jayrtfm · 2014-09-20 06:11 · Score: 2
  
  nope, they were proof of concept, incapable of letting anyone enter.
19. Re:Public access by khallow · 2014-09-20 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. As I said of the corresponding Russian scheme, putting tourists on the ISS adds considerable value to the station both by demonstrating space tourism works and by providing a service that someone is actually willing to pay their own money for.
20. Re:Public access by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  certainly when there is NRE on a product developed by one commercial company for another there can be severe restrictions on the use of the intellectual property developed via NRE; that's all defined in the contract.
  
  If you are talking about patents, you have to pay a lot extra to get control of those when you contract engineering firm, especially if you are going to contract out the manufacturing to them too. For designs in general that don't have any new patents, you really have to twist some arms and pay to make that exclusive, and it can get kind of complicated to enforce. Plenty of times a project I worked on approached a company to design and build a custom part, and it was cheap because they just recently designed something similar and could tweak it for our use instead of doing work from scratch. Other times, we needed to pay for something from scratch because they have nothing like it and don't see enough of a market to create a new off-the-shelf product.
21. Re:Public access by Teancum · 2014-09-20 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  None the less, they are real spacecraft that have life support systems which have been operating as if they could be occupied. One of them had some biological specimens (I think some insects) and it was definitely pressurized in the interior volume, not to mention that Bigelow has gained the experience of operating these modules over a long period of time.
  Bigelow Aerospace is currently slated to send up a vehicle next year on a Falcon 9, and supposedly a Falcon Heavy has also been sold but not on the manifest right now. With the current launch rate that SpaceX has been pounding out lately, this seems pretty likely to happen unless it is Bigelow who isn't ready.
22. Re:Public access by Teancum · 2014-09-20 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  NASA is only paying for the flight slots. Both Boeing and SpaceX plan on reusing their respective spacecraft, although for this particular CCtCAP contract I'm pretty sure they are supposed to be all brand-new vehicles.
  The CST-100 is more like the Space Shuttle so far as it needs some refurbishment that takes a little bit of time, but it is still supposed to be just a couple of months turn around time from a landing to a new launch. SpaceX is aiming for "commercial aircraft" style of reuse where they want to relaunch the vehicle potentially within the same day it lands.
  Even the Dragon spacecraft which is going up tomorrow (Sunday, Sept 21st) is merely sold for the mission, and SpaceX gets that vehicle to use for its own purposes. At the moment, SpaceX is using the opportunity to take the Dragon apart to study the engineering issues that have shown up on each mission, but that will soon end.
23. Re:Public access by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 16:42 · Score: 0
  
  The majority of the US is debt is owed by the US Government to the US Government. We were in worse debt after WW2, we reduced that debt relative to GDP with an economic growth strategy and an inflation rate above the interest base rate. It didn't cost a dime of taxpayers' money.
24. Re: Public access by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-21 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  Well, yes. Somebody can go to those, but only if they are dead. They are the size of coffins.
Putin on the hits by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 23:53 · Score: 0

what is russia known for again? misery?
1. Re:Putin on the hits by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  That's quite odd considering the infinite benefits a space program is supposed to have. Wasn't Russia first in space? Hmmm.
2. Re:Putin on the hits by shokk · 2014-09-20 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Being first does not mean they continue to do it for those same reasons or even have anyone's best interests in mind. The benefits they are likely looking for involve an easier time targeting smaller countries.
  
  --
  "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
3. Re:Putin on the hits by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  No, that was never part of the equation. I've been assured multiples times that space has infinite benefits, end of story. You put an orange into orbit, boom, benefits.
will the tourist get a room in the ISS? by turkeydance · 2014-09-20 00:23 · Score: 1

it hasn't been cleaned in years.
Boeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 00:41 · Score: 0

Doesn't that mean it'll be 20 years late and 5000% over budget and won't work very well?
1. Re:Boeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  The trip always costs 5000% more than I could ever afford.
this seems fair by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 00:47 · Score: 0

they pitch for the fuel, they get to ride along.
1. Re:this seems fair by rossdee · 2014-09-20 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think pitch would make a good rocket fuel - not enough power per weight.
2. Re:this seems fair by PPH · 2014-09-20 03:50 · Score: 2
  
  Bumper sticker on the CST-100: Gas, grass or ass. Nobody rides for free.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
tears in the sky bringing outer space in to us? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 00:56 · Score: 0

no need to go as far out now? http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-change-geoengineering-and-environmental-modification-techniques-enmod/5357966 jet's stream http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561 rockets red glare baby's bursting in air causing carbon overdose..... all the moms crying for us all the time now... must be the 'weather'?
same device could provide world with free energy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 01:06 · Score: 0

if it was used according to it's inventor's wishes? http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=telsa+energy instead we go back to looking like monkeys? https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+morgellons+weather hurting our good neighbors http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUeNtM6qakk & leaving us in mutation mode https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nazi+zion+experiments while dissing genuine useful stuff https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stem+cell+therapy are we daft? rock on /. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLO3NmGJuHg boeing boeing gone?
ISS now a stinky Hotel by Virtucon · 2014-09-20 02:16 · Score: 1

The ISS has now jumped the shark. Yes there have been a few space tourists but now it would seem that instead of doing real science aboard the ISS its now about tourism. I guess that means logically any future manned missions should allow for a paying guest but I don't think astronauts who've trained for years want turndown service added to their mission statement.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
1. Re:ISS now a stinky Hotel by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  The ISS was never about real science.
In Soviet USA by MarcosYXY · 2014-09-20 02:43 · Score: 1

"We are the People" pay for oligarchs' space voyages.
1. Re:In Soviet USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  You also pay for their wars and their failed business bailouts...
Ben Bova was on to something... by jpellino · 2014-09-20 05:15 · Score: 1

Years ago he gave a talk in which he suggested one of the shuttles be fitted with a pressurized bay, double decker. The top layer of seats were (over)paid for by well-heeled people, with top-facing portholes, the lower deck with standard jetliner style windows and available for free on a lottery.

--
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Some of the space tourists by jpellino · 2014-09-20 05:18 · Score: 1

have at least enough tech savvy to be brought in and allowed to follow a defined plan, but I'd heard from at least one NASA staffer that several of them were told to do only certain things and beyond that don't touch a %$@!*^ that thing you're not asked to.

--
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
1. Re:Some of the space tourists by Virtucon · 2014-09-20 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  so you fly up there and sit on your hands looking out a window. What a waste of resources.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
2. Re:Some of the space tourists by Teancum · 2014-09-20 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  Everybody who has paid for their own trip to the ISS so far has gone through cosmonaut training at Star City (at least a six month training effort where they learn all of the sub-systems of the Soyuz spacecraft) and have become fully qualified astronauts in their own right. They usually have been involved with experiments done on the ISS as well, and usually bring up something to do. They are also responsible for performing "chores" while at the station.
  About the only thing these "private astronauts" don't perform is an EVA to do repairs on the outside of the ISS.
  I would imagine that when Boeing or SpaceX does the same thing, a similar kind of training is going to be required. If anything, because they are American companies needing to work with NASA a whole lot more, they will be required to be much more active in regards to NASA experiments (the previous astronauts were guests of the Russian Federation). The most certainly won't be merely floating in space and staring out windows.
Hi bloody tourists! by Mister+Liberty · 2014-09-20 07:41 · Score: 1

Bye, difficult science.