Hi Nathan! Thanks for your points. The stuff I've gotten on this board is exactly the kind of input I'm looking for, much better than over at the crusty old Space Policy Digest BBS.

Let's look at your points:

"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."

Agreed. That's why the scenario relies more on the skill and commitment of the ground crew to fly the safest vehicle possible than on an endless stream of design developments to try and craft a 100% safe vehicle, and an endless stream of documentation showing such. Remember, the Venture is going to be hiring the best of the best that have worked on the shuttle over the last thirty years. I'd trust my life to human skill over a pile of documentation any day.

Nevertheless, your point is taken.

"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."

The key word is IF. Business folks are not going to be assured of a proven market based on two tourist flights per year with the Russians. The point of this Venture is to show that there is a market, flying 45 passengers per year in addition to a handful (five or so) of scientists. It would be the vehicle that proves and establishes the market. I wouldn't want the shuttle to fly in perpetuity. I would want competitors (PLEASE, PLEASE build more tourist vehicles).

I question though how many tourists you could get to orbit with the Soyouz/Gemini alternatives you mention. The general consensus is that the Russians are not recouping the total or even pproportional costs of the flights with what they charge. Loss leaders are okay to develop a market, which the Russians are at least trying to do, but in the end you can't lose money on each flight forever. Additionally, I do think it a waste of resources to launch a whole rocket with just one or two folks on board, especially if the passengers are ultra-rich. I can just see Greenpeace and other environmental groups licking their chops on that one - "Don't destroy our ozone for the rich!", etc.

Personally, I'd go with a Soyouz as well. I trust the hearty Russian engineering. But if I had to wait five years for a Soyouz flight or a year and a half for a shuttle flight I'd go with the shuttle. Remember, Americans are addicted to instant gratification.

Good points, and I'll keep them in mind as I continue.

Thanks,
Kadet Ken