...although let me say, first, that I *really* appreciate the amount of work that you've put into this. The space activist community needs more people like you.

However, in this case, I can see two deal-breakers.

The first is safety. The Shuttle is, *intrinsically*, not a safe vehicle. It is simply not fault-tolerant: most of the survivable abort scenarios are kind of a joke, being far less probable than the plethora of non-survivable failures. This is a problem: any amount of plush leather seating, in-flight movies, and low-G re-entries will NOT coax me into sacrificing an extra "9" of safety, especially when there are very few to begin with. And I'm not a particularly risk-adverse person. If the Shuttle were the only way for me to get to orbit, I'd do it. But given the choice between the shuttle and a Soyuz, the Soyuz wins hands down. Not only is the booster exquisitely reliable, as Larry pointed out, but a catastrophic accident is also *survivable*, which counts for a lot. Since the shuttle *will* be in competition with the Soyuz, under your scenario, I see this as a possible deal-breaker.

The second deal-breaker is that, if there is a proven and established market for this kind of service, then it would be very, VERY easy to undercut the Shuttle. I've long predicted that the first real tourist-liner will be a Soyuz derivative -- think of something like a "Big Gemini" capsule, using as much Soyuz-legacy hardware as possible (to minimize R&D), and a Fregat-based Inflatable Re-entry Shield for a low-G re-entry and re-usability. Launch it on top of an Angara with dual flyback boosters, and you've got a HELL of a tourist vehicle, capable of as much luxury as the Shuttle, but with much greater safety, at a far lower cost ($10 million per person, easy), and with the possibility of many more flights per year.

The problem is that developing this system would be *cheap*, and everyone in the industry knows it. With a bit of cleverness, it could probably be done for $300 million, in collaboration with the Russians. In *any* case (including really bad management), it could ABSOLUTELY be done for $1 billion, no question about it. As a point of comparison: in terms of size and complexity, it would be a good deal easier than the X-38 -- being a similar size, but using a much more conventional airframe and landing system, without the requirement for huge cross-range, auto-pilot, long-term on-orbit storage, and so forth. Therefore, I estimate that it would be far cheaper to develope than the X-38.

The other problem is that using the Soyuz or even Gemini hardware as the basis for such a craft, it could be developed QUICK, with a sufficient influx of cash. I estimate that it would be no more than 3-4 years between the "go" signal, and the start of commercial operations. Any privatized tourist-flying Shuttle would be quickly undercut by such a vehicle -- a fact that I suspect most potential investors would discover upon doing their due dilligence.

Those are the two deal-breakers that I can see. Perhaps you can refute them, but if not, keep trying! This problem needs crunching from every angle.

Cheers,

Nathan.