Yes, there is. Space Adventures has sold eight Soyuz seats to private individuals at a price of $20-35 million each. That’s something in the neighborhood of $240 million in revenue. On top of that, an unknown number (at least to me) of individuals have provided Space Adventures with $5 million reservations to have priority on future flight opportunities.

There’s both a market and unmet market demand for private human space flight. It’s certainly arguable whether that market is large enough to support multiple providers and at what price points and whether the market will be sustainable going forward. But it’s no longer factually correct to claim that there is no private human space flight market.

FWIW…

“Market Studies” you refered to don’t mean jack shit. I’ve read “studies” on HSF markets for more than 20 years. They all have resulted in either NASA contracts, or the compost. Mostly the later.

Still, I contest – there is no market for HSF. Spit, or swallow. Put up or shut up.

Read my post above about the plan by NASA. You should be happy?

“Too many unknowns and fears associated with nukes.”

Excuse me, there’s ready historical in-space use in one form or another of nuclear use.

If you’re looking for a ‘politically correct’ propulsion system of increasing space access, I don’t think in the near term that’s gonna work out. You end up with a limited space program beholden to only a small interest group.

In order to demonstrate effective, efficient, affordable and safe usage
you have to commit to develop and mission the technology either fish-or- cut-bait .

“Advanced In-Space Propulsion: NASA will work with partners in industry as appropriate, to conduct foundational research to study the requirements and potential designs for advanced high-energy in-space propulsion systems to support deep-space human exploration, and to reduce travel time between Earth’s orbit and future destinations for human activity. These technologies could include nuclear thermal propulsion, solar and nuclear electric propulsion, plasma propulsion, and other high-energy and/or high-efficiency propulsion concepts. One or more concepts may mature to the level of a demonstration on a robotic precursor or Flagship mission.”

I am not saying no one can do it. I am saying today with what it would take to do it it is near impossible. Politically. Too many unknowns and fears associated with nukes. Some one has to show there is a way to do it and so far as I know no one did. Only armwaving stuff about it’s what we need etc. I don’t know how you go around or modify international treaties, how you woo the environmentalists, how you build a system that’d be safe to launch. I have some foolish idea of what we might be able to do, possibly to alleviate those issues. For example: Assume the Moon base so many people would love to see built, bring centrifuges and other stuff there to make your necessary fuel and start building the nuke there away from Earth, or build a deep space station far off in space and do the same. But the cost??! The COST???

I can be “crazy” too despite common sense…

…without a doubt.

I’m not going to pretend to know exactly why NASA chooses to mute the technology which seems like an weak ban on NTP use. My suspicions are it complicates the political side of this debate for NASA and DOE.

NTP has it’s detractors and it proponents, it has a history of development and it has demonstrated this tool successfully it’s key to future space access and development one need only search the documentation to see my point. Leaving the duopolistic nature of U.S. politics aside there are leaders in both the Republican and Democratic parties that have a eye to future space in this period of heated debate under economic stress. Mr. Shelby is the obvious most vocal. Any space mission begins at the launch pad without a clear and committed system most future HSF efforts will be in doubt.
Even NASA’s partner RSA and it’s Russian political leaders have expressed keen interest in NTP development for civil space use.

The elephant is in the space capsule and eventually people need to acknowledge its potential in space for both private and public investment ventures.

If you want to get a reference frame courtesy of NASA/Glenn and FJ&A visuals view here:

http://www.frassanito.com/work/animations/animation_pages/Mars/Mars.html

Look… all I’m saying is; people are working behind the scenes in NASA, ESA and RSA on this tech. To claim that no one can do this stuff is unfair.

Unfortunately none of this nuclear space technology is simple I have to spend time self educating so I can article.

So stay tuned…

“As Bolden said in his committee meetings, we don’t scrap everything, you should actually listen to what he said. There are things that can be utilized, like thermal protection and the launch abort system. ”

I have said that all along and I am glad Charles Bolden says it as well. Do you have by any chance a link to his statements about LAS and TPS (and more)? Just for my own benefit

Thanks.

It is not about denial it about armwaving. Instead of saying we must/should do this and that in particular with nuclear technologies, please show us even simply how you bring the country and possibly the rest of the world together to build and send a nuclear reactor to space. Don’t just say we will do this. We won’t! Provide us with a path forward. Not the gibberish about Ares I and Ares V third stage stuff… If you really think it’s the way then work it out!

Darn!

That is the entire point. It is not that NASA does ONLY the wrong things, it is that NASA is not a business and not driven by the same things that other people will be driven by. NASA is not about raising advertising revenue, or is it about doing reality television shows in space, or doing tourism, or trying to do any of the 100’s of commercial things that can be tried in space.

For me, this is nothing more than a transportation issue and not a NASA issue at all. We can not even begin to imagine what will develop from routine, lower cost, access to space.