American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics092407

1

A Critical Analysis of the International Space Station as aSpace Tourism Destination

Dirk C. Gibson1 and Breanna Jaramillo2

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87131-1171, USA

Silvia Noemi Anaya3 and Fatima McKenzie4

Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA

The International Space Station (ISS) serves important scientific and operationalpurposes, advancing our understanding of how to live in space and accumulating a practicalbody of knowledge. Another function has been served by the ISS, that of destination forspace tourists. This study examines the suitability of the ISS as a recreational venue. Wefound that there is a sufficient demand for commercial space tourism services, and that atpresent there is no alternative destination to the ISS. Unfortunately, a number ofimpediments might make the ISS a suboptimal space tourism venue. In addition, severalpotentially serious consequences would result from allocation of ISS time and resources toserving as a hotel.

I. IntroductionHE International Space Station (ISS) represented the best collective human space development experience. Asthe first serious attempt at international space development cooperation, it was beset with political, financial,

managerial and construction difficulties and incessant delays. As of January, 2008, the ISS was not yet complete.

“Currently, the only existing orbital destination for space travelers is the ISS,” concluded the Futron Corporationstudy of space commercialization in general and space tourism in particular in 2002.1 Indeed, there was no spacetourist accommodation or destination besides the ISS. The viability of commercial space tourism may depend on theavailability of recreational and lodging options, which at the present time are quite limited. This explains the presentstudy, which explores space tourism accommodation alternatives to the ISS, ISS limitations as a resort destination,and the problems likely to result from ISS use as a tourist destination.

II. Research Questions

The intrinsic ability of the ISS to serve as a space tourism travel and tourism asset is the specific focus of thepresent study. In order to arrive at an enhanced understanding of our subject, five research questions will bepresented and investigated.

Research Question # 1: Is there a sufficient market to justify a commercial space tourism industry?

Research Question # 2: Is the existence of space hotels an important factor in the promotion of commercialspace tourism?

Research Question # 3: Are there orbital space destination alternatives to the ISS?

1 Associate Professor, Department of Communication & Journalism, MSC03-2240; AIAA Associate Member2 Undergraduate Student, Department of Communication & Journalism, MSC03-22403 Undergraduate Student, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences4 Undergraduate Student, Department of International Studies

T

AIAA SPACE 2008 Conference & Exposition9 - 11 September 2008, San Diego, California

AIAA 2008-7677

Copyright © 2008 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics092407

2

Research Question # 4: What are the limitations and impediments to use of the ISS as a space tourismdestination?

Research Question # 5: What problems and unintended negative consequences might result from use of the ISSas a space tourism destination?

III. Research MethodsA. Data Collection

Information concerning the International Space Station, space hotels, space tourism profitability, and the pastand current status of the industry was gathered systematically using several redundant information sources. AnInternet search was conducted using three search engines. Major American metro daily newspapers were surveyedfrom 2005 through the present time. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics trade publicationAerospace America was perused monthly. Each contemporary book published in English between 1985 and thepresent time on salient space subjects was examined.

B. Analysis Methods

Once gathered, the data was analyzed. Historical/critical methods were used to define, code and categorize theinformation on the International Space Station, space hotels, space tourism profitability, and the state of the art ofthe space tourism industry. Then basic descriptive research methods were used to quantify and categorize the salientinformation.

IV. Results

A. Projected Demand for Orbital Space Tourist Destinations

If the results of a few recent studies are accurate, space tourism orbital destination facilities are significant asnecessary aspects of the travel and tourism experience. For instance, a study conducted by Andrews Space andTechnology quantified consumer demand at two pricepoints, perhaps corresponding to suborbital and orbitalexperiences. One hundred space tourists annually could be expected if the price were one million dollars, but at aticket price of $10,000 to $20,000, the demand swells to one million passengers each year.2

Another study, this one conducted under the auspices of the Space Launch Initiative program on behalf ofNASA, quantified estimated space tourism demand at 10,000 passengers annually, if the pricepoint was in thevicinity of $400,000.3 Yet another research project examined suborbital and orbital space tourism separately. Itconcluded that there would be sixty orbital space tourists each year, and as many as 15,000 suborbital passengersannually by the year 2021.4

Virgin Galactic has purchased five spacecraft for $120 million from space pioneer Burt Rutan, and expects tobegin operations in 2008. Virgin Galactic sources claim that 38,000 people have paid deposits towards the $120,000ticket, and that ninety passengers have paid in full in advance.5 According to another report, it “aims to eventuallylaunch 10,000 passengers into space each year.”6 One recent account noted that, “Virgin Galactic already has 100people who have paid $200,000 apiece for flights, which the company says it hopes to begin in 2008 from aspaceport to be built in southern New Mexico.”7 According to the Denver Post, “Branson has said that 38,000people from 126 countries have paid a deposit for a $200,000 spaceflight from a proposed spaceport in NewMexico.”8

Space Adventures, like Virgin Galactic, is already accepting deposits for space tourism services. “So far, over ahundred companies and individuals have signed up and made cash deposits for a ride with Space Adventures,” VanPelt noted.9 According to another report, Space Adventures has received more than 200 deposits of $5000 apiece asdown payment for space tourism flights costing $98,000 per person.10

By 2020 there might be 430 such flights annually, according to one study, creating $550 million to one billiondollars in local revenue and 4,000 jobs. This estimate excludes the employment of 2,500 construction workers

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics092407

3

generating about $350 million in local spending during the building of the spaceport.11 “The earth-based spacetourism market and community will experience significant growth by 2010,” Spencer and Rugg predicted.12 EdwardL. Hudgins, one of the most esteemed individuals involved in outer space activity, concluded that “Space tourismindeed seems to be a potential ‘killer application’ that will offer opportunities and incentives to the private sector todevelop low-cost space access and places in orbit for private adventurers to go.”13 Two commercial firms,Rocketplane Ltd. of Oklahoma and California-based Sprague Aeronautics, believe they will be “ready to startcommercial suborbital operations as early as 2007.”14

B. Necessity of Space Tourism Destinations

The mere presence of space hotels would stimulate space tourism demand, according to one study. “An increasein demand would result from having both the ISS and a commercial on-orbit facility available, yielding a total of553 passengers over the forecast period—a 32 per cent increase over the baseline,” the Futron Corporation study ofspace tourism concluded.15 And there has been important corroboration of these Futron Corporation findings.

“It seems reasonable to conclude that, in the absence of orbital accommodation enabling people to stay a fewdays, demand for space tourism will not reach its full potential,” concluded recent research by Collins, Stockmanand Malta.16 And another study confirmed the initial two pieces of research, “However, to enable large-scale marketexpansion, orbital residential facilities will be needed. The technologies being developed today (i.e., for theInternational Space Station) represent a good starting point, but clearly more work is needed to reduce the cost ofhuman habitation in space by a large factor.”17

C. Alternatives to the ISS

This section of the manuscript will report on any viable space tourist destination alternatives to ISS. Accordingto an October 2002 Sophron Corporation report, “In September of 2001 MirCorp announced that it had reached anagreement with the Russian Aviation and Space Agency (Rosaviakosmos) and Energia to build Mini-Station I, anorbital facility that could handle three people for up to thirty days at a USSR building.”18 At this point we willconsider a number of other space hotel ventures, spanning a variety of stages of development.

Some of the alternatives for space hotels, aside from the ISS include Shimuzu, Bigelow Aerospace and Hilton toname a few. Shimuzu has already made plans as to how big and how fast their lodging will be, and the variety ofactivities people will experience in the hotel. Bigelow Aerospace, on the other hand, has offered money to the firstcompany that can build a space vehicle that can take tourists into orbit. Along with the above companies, there aremany additional companies that are planning space hotels, resulting in an arms race for space tourism destinations.

1. A Japanese construction company, Shimizu Corporation, has put forth several ideas as to how a space hotelwould operate. Shimizu possibly has “the most famous concept for a space hotel” according to Anders Lindskold ofthe Lunar Resources Company. The hotel that will orbit 279 miles above the Earth will contain 64 rooms and havea gravity level of 0.7 G. This will enable the hotel to properly use showers and rest rooms. Several different areasof the hotel for the guests will include a lobby, restaurant and gravity-free areas for the enjoyment of the tourists.Another area will be for the solar panels and batteries that will provide the energy needed for the hotel. It isexpected that the hotel will be in orbit by 2020.19

2. A vastly different idea as to how to build a space hotel comes from the Space Island Group that is located inCalifornia. The group plans to build a hotel that will orbit 400 miles above Earth and is made of used space shuttlefuel tanks. The tanks are comparable in size to a 747 jet airliner. Space Island Group plans to use 12 of them,joined together, to lodge 400 to 600 people. The group intends not only to have one hotel, but two. “Gene Myers,president of Space Island Group, estimates that the first hotel would cost about $10 billion and the second $5billion.”20

3. Hans-Jurgen Rombaut, from the Rotterdam Academy of Architecture, designed a space hotel that does not orbitthe Earth, but is stationed on the moon. Rombaut plans to use materials from the moon and will take advantage ofits low gravity to construct his slender structures with suspending teardrop-shaped quarters. Not only is this notionof a structure on the moon different from the others, but it seems that Rombaut is the only one that has thought ofthe possible muscle deterioration that occurs when in space for a period of time. To aid in the prevention of the

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics092407

4

muscle deterioration, the guests will climb to restaurants that are located on the top of the towers. The restaurantswill also be accessible by elevators.21

4. Wimberly, Allison, Tong & Goo (WAT & G) is a luxury resort architectural firm based in Hawaii. Along withdesigns for zero-gravity areas, WAT & G plans for areas that have gravity as well. Aside from their fantasy-likedesigns that are considered exceedingly detailed, “[WAT & G] is one of the most visible and highly credentialedcompanies working on space design,” according to Paula Berinstein.22

A vivid description of the WAT&G proposed lodging was provided by Time in 2000, “The architectural firmWimberly Allison Tong & Goo of Honolulu envisions a space resort in low earth orbit that would accommodate 100guests dining on hydroponically grown foods, playing zero gravity games, taking spacewalks, and perhaps visitingthe International Space Station. The firm says the space hotel could be up and running by 2017.”23

5. Even though MirCorp was given a proposal by a couple to start hotels in space for those who had just beenmarried, it has serious plans for launching a space hotel. The hotel that will orbit Earth, named Mini Station 1, willaccommodate three tourists for up to 20 days. “It is to have a lifetime of more than 15 years and will be serviced byboth Soyuz crewed transports and uncrewed Progress cargo spacecraft,” according to Van Pelt.24

6. Robert Bigelow, a hotel entrepreneur in Las Vegas, Nevada, started Bigelow Aerospace and is very interested inthe concept of the space hotel. He intends to give $50 million to a company able to build a spacecraft to carrypassengers to his space hotel. The hotel Bigelow intends to build will orbit the earth and be made of inflatablemodules.

There is reason to believe that Bigelow Aerospace is the company closest to the finish line in the space hotelrace. “A converted missile blasted off Wednesday carrying an experimental inflatable spacecraft for an Americanentrepreneur.”25 Thus far, Bigelow Aerospace is the first and only company to have hotel modules in place in space.In June of 2007 a Russian ICBM propelled the inflatable space module Genesis 2 into space. “Along with Genesis 2,Bigelow now has two commercial space modules in approximately 480-km orbits.” Douglas called the Bigelowdevelopments, “a large step forward in the future of entrepreneurial, private sector-driven space habitats.”26

7. While Bigelow Aerospace is making space hotels a reality, Hilton, another popular hotel chain, is struggling tomake their dream a reality. Hilton may be one of the last companies to come up with a design for their space hotel.So far, there is no real evidence of any design plans that will take Hilton into space.27

8. Aldrin and Jones have designed a space hotel that uses recycled space items. For instance, large reusable liquidboosters would wrap around existing, modified space shuttle external tanks. The tourists would stay in an areapositioned on top of the boosters. A significant difference between the other companies and Aldrin and Jones, isthat they would position their hotel to continuously cycle between the Moon and Mars.28

9. A Spanish Firm

An unnamed Spanish architectural group has claimed space hotel aspirations. According to The ArizonaRepublic, “A Spanish architectural firm plans to build the first hotel on the moon by 2011. The ‘Galactic Suite’would cost $4 million dollars a night and features an 80-minute trip around the world.” However, some problemshave been anticipated, “The biggest hurdle for the project is configuring bathrooms in zero gravity.”29

D. ISS Limitations and Impediments as a Space Tourism Destination

What are the limitations of the ISS as a travel and tourism destination? Are there impediments to serving as anorbital destination inherent in the design and structure of the ISS? This section of the present study will investigate,identify and document such factors.

1. Inadequate Communications Structure

Inadequate communications infrastructure may be one such limitation. According to the D.F.I. Internationalstudy, “The communications infrastructure on ISS is just as important as the media products it enables. This

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics092407

5

infrastructure is the transportation vehicle for the research and entertainment applications of the present and thefuture.” The study concluded, “For many current commercial applications, however, this infrastructure does nothave a sufficient amount of available bandwidth. These issues are caused by a variety of technical issues related tohardware, architecture and physical limitations.”30

A 2008 study concurred with these initial findings. According to Sorokin and Markov’s publication in TheJournal of Spacecraft & Rockets, “Insufficient capacity of communications channels on the Russian segment and alack of Russian relay satellites also have [taken] a toll on the RS ISS utilization program. Investigators have limitedcontrol capability of their research hardware with regard to the status control and downlink of telemetry andscientific data.”31

2. Orbit Adjustment

On April 25, 2008, the first of four re-boost maneuvers to increase the orbital speed and readjust the position ofthe ISS occurred. It was performed by Europe’s Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) cargo supply ship andsuccessfully increased the station’s altitude by 4.6 kilometers and increased the speed by 2.65 meters per second.The purpose of the re-boost was to make up for Earth’s gravity and ensure successful dockings.32 If suchreadjustments are necessary while space tourists are en route to the ISS, it could create navigational problems.

3. NASA Money Needed

As with all large-scale governmental undertakings, the monetary resources that can be expended by the UnitedStates on the ISS are limited. In the 2008 budget, “There was a cut of $18 million in ISS reserves and $2 million inISS cargo crew services.”33 Although this is not much in relation to the total amount of money already dedicated tothe project, these minor budget adjustments could potentially hinder the scheduled completion of America’scontribution.

United States Congressman Dave Weldon explained the effects of NASA budget cuts on the ISS, “These cutscould also reduce NASA’s ability to meet all of its international partner commitments and potentially place ISS atgreater risk in terms of operational status after the space shuttle retires.”34 NASA has not been able to guarantee pastpledges of ISS assistance, “Twice since the ISS program began, shuttle accidents have diverted billions fromNASA’s human spaceflight program to pay for return-to-flight design modifications. The second of these accidents,the 2003 Columbia disaster, took place in the midst of the station’s assembly, rendering the planned completionsequence obsolete.”35 Facts such as these led space analyst Frank Sletzen Jr. to conclude that “One by one, shrinkingNASA budgets have yielded a shrinking station.”36

4. Requires Expensive Re-Supply

The European Space Agency has accepted the role of sending re-supply ATVs to the ISS once every 18 months.In return for this service, European astronauts will be guaranteed positions in the six-month long research periods.37

This assumption of responsibility for ISS resupply has been invaluable as shuttle launches have dwindled. “Thereduction in shuttle flights has effectively offloaded some station outfitting and resupply tasks to other vehicles,”according to a recent report in Aerospace America.38

Why is ISS resupply an issue for space tourism planners? Simply out, almost everything needed for the crew ofthe ISS has to be flown up from the Earth, and the more people on board, the more resupply is required. NASA chiefMichael Griffin explained the linear link between ISS visitors and the necessity for resupply, “I hope that the ATVswill be able to supply the station when the shuttle will no longer be in service. The more astronauts aboard thestation, the more supplies it will need.”39

5. Russian Contributions Not Guaranteed

Not only are the Americans suffering from insufficient funds to maintain their portion of the ISS project, theRussians are also struggling to secure the finances needed to complete their component of the project on time. Ifthey are unable to come up with the necessary funds, the completion of their contribution will be delayed five yearsand an extension of the ISS program until 2020 will be requested.40

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics092407

6

This issue is a significant one, because of the Russian role in the recent history of the ISS. As AerospaceAmerica noted, “The Russians continue to provide the bulk of ISS logistical support.”41

6. Space Access Limited

The only vehicles able to access the station from 2010 to 2015 are the ATV and Soyuz/Progress system. As of2015, the Aires/Orion rocket system is planned to initiate flights to the station. After the retirement of the spaceshuttle fleet, access to space will be very limited for several years.

7. Requires International Communication

On April 10, 2008, the first South Korean space traveler and two cosmonauts docked at the station after beingdelivered by a Russian Soyuz capsule. The South Korean joined an already existing crew composed of Americanand Russian astronauts.42 The international nature of the ISS residents will require intercultural communicationawareness and ability.

8. Space Suit Repairs

On April 8, 2008, an issue with an astronaut’s space suit zipper that caused a temporary loss of pressure wascorrected before launch.43 In space, of course, proper protective clothing is more than a matter of fashion, it can be amatter of life and death. Even a minor flaw or imperfection in a space tourist’s garb could be fatal.

9. Oxygen

A spare Russian Elektron oxygen generator was recently delivered to the ISS to accompany the currentlyoccasionally malfunctioning installed generator.44 There are also a sufficient number of backup oxygen “candles”and extra 02 gas supplies. The oxygen supply on the ISS is controlled by computers charged by solar panels.Because of the reliability issues with the Elektron machine, extra gaseous oxygen has been delivered to the station.45

“The current Elektron/Progress combination cannot supply oxygen for more than three crew members,”observed Aerospace America in 2006.46 The oxygen inspired by space tourists would be unavailable to scientists,trained astronauts and other professionals.

10. Energy

Solar panels provide the energy that powers the computers which run many of the essential life sources on theISS. As of March 2008, the station’s level of electricity was increased to 42 kW of power.47 Further increases wouldbe unlikely, and thus the amount of available energy limits astronaut and space tourist activity.

11. Limited Space

The ISS will be making a switch from a full-time three-person crew to a full-time six-person crew in 2009. Inorder to prepare for the shift, it is necessary to send all of the required gear for a six-person crew on the STS-126.When the ISS is fully staffed, there will be even less room for space tourists than has been the case to date.

Space is very limited on the ISS. In fact, when a recent European Space Agency cargo space vehicle visited theISS on a resupply mission, the ISS crew asked that it remain longer than planned, because “The extra room from theAutomated Transfer Vehicle’s (ATV) ‘is apparently appreciated by station astronauts, who made a special request touse the spacecraft as an extra sleeping space, as well as bathing and washing’.”48

12. Food and Water

The ESA launched its first ATV, the Jules Verne, in May 2007, in order to replenish the food and water supplyon the ISS. This ATV was able to send triple the amount of supplies as its predecessor the Progress.49 Nevertheless,food and water supply might be a major limiting factor affecting space tourism opportunities.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics092407

7

The ISS lacks space for storing perishable supplies. “The station is stocked with enough food and water to lastfive and eight months, respectively,” noted a recent media report.50 And resupply ships lack the room for sendingmore than a modest amount of food, “A small stash of food and vegetables” was all that a recent Progress flightcould manage.51

13. 2016 ISS De-Orbit

Originally, the ISS was scheduled to stop receiving shuttles and be de-orbited in September 2010. However,astronauts have begun to research the ability to sustain life on other planets, and the ISS is now set to de-orbit in2016.52 That means the ISS will only be available as a tourist destination for eight years, at the writing of this paperin mid-2008.

14. Re-Supply Contract Requirements

NASA is contracting with commercial suppliers to deliver goods to the ISS between 2010 and 2015. In order forthese suppliers’ spaceships to dock on the ISS, they must first perform on-orbit tests on their first delivery mission.NASA’s selection of which suppliers will be chosen will take place on November 28, 2010.53

15. Repairs

Despite initial problem-free performance, technical failures on the ISS eventually plagued its engineers andspace controllers. A US-manufactured control moment gyroscope failed in 2002, reducing attitude control marginsuntil replaced during a spacewalk in 2005.54 In order to prevent issues with the station, some of the station’sastronauts have admitted to overmaintaining the station, making unnecessary preventive repairs that limited theamount of time they were able to allot to research.55 Regular scheduled maintenance and unexpected emergencyrepairs might pose a problem for space tourists.

The ISS toilet has posed maintenance problems and necessitated repairs. There is only one, and it hasmalfunctioned recently. According to the AIAA Daily Launch, “The AFP (6/4) adds, ‘The crew . . . will not have toevacuate the outpost if the repair fails, NASA said Tuesday. According to one official, ‘Even in the worst-casescenario we don’t believe that the ISS would be forced into a de-crewing situation for this.’ Another AFP reportcontradicts this with a statement by Russian officials to Interfax on Tuesday. According to them, ‘Toilet troubles onthe International Space Station (ISS) could force Russian cosmonauts to return to Earth early’.” Another issue of theDaily Launch referred to “the troublesome toilet aboard the International Space Station.”56

E. Potential Problems Resulting From ISS as an Orbital Destination

1. Potential Legal Liability

The lack of regulatory protection may be one such negative side-effect of the ISS as destination. One study ofspace tourism explained it this way, “This is a critical issue for near-term space tourism experiences, because someof them occur entirely within the atmosphere and, if provided by the U.S., must therefore operate under current FAAaviation rules.” But according to the same source “First, there is no bright legal line between in and out of theatmosphere. The International Space Station is clearly out of it.”57

2. Exacerbation of Space Debris

Human activity generates a large volume of waste material. Vacationers and tourists in particular enjoypurchasing and using a variety of consumer products, and they frequently bring packaged material resulting in thegeneration of a tremendous amount of garbage. Incredible as it may seem, in light of our knowledge of the dangersposed by space debris, the ISS plan for dealing with the solid waste management problem is to simply throw refuseoverboard.

The station’s orbital replacement units “were designed from the beginning to be both replaceable andrepairable.” However, “But with the reduced number of shuttle flights, that maintenance plan was abandoned.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics092407

8

Instead, a ‘launch and burn’ approach was established . . .the older units would be literally thrown over the side ofthe station.”58

3. Resource Trade-Offs

Because of the expense associated with breaking the Earth’s gravity and traveling to outer space, it is safe to saythat passenger and cargo space on contemporary space missions is at a premium. There is an opportunity costresulting from the allocation of this limited spacecraft space, in that each pound of cargo is sent to space at theexpense of alternative entities, persons or things. And there are other trade-offs, too, resulting from limited materialand electricity, for instance.

We have already learned that the power supply of the ISS is quite limited, as is the water supply. This means thatthe presence of each space tourist deprives a scientist or other mission specialist the opportunity to travel to spaceand perform their oftentimes critical research and space operations. Sorokin and Markov noted in June of 2008 that“There are other constraints that impede more intensive utilization of the ISS and SSs in generals. Such constraintsinclude limited power available for science hardware, data throughput, mass and volumes of payloads, and kits withthe experimental result to be returned to the Earth.”59

The ISS has faced a number of resource and capability constraints. Unfortunately, it has been learned that it isdifficult to successfully add equipment or mission capability incrementally, as was planned, “However, even theISS, which is considered to be the most sophisticated SS in history, has also been facing certain resource constraintsso far. In addition, the incremental approach of modular space station buildup that seemed to be so efficient createda new challenge for integrating the SS assembly with utilization planning and implementation.”60

4. Crew Overload

Astronauts stationed aboard the ISS have a number of important professional tasks to perform on a regular basis.There are special payload missions, scientific research projects, regular ISS maintenance, unexpected or emergencyrepairs, and other chores. These professional space sojourners are so heavily tasked that there is literally no room forthe addition of any added responsibilities. That was the conclusion reached by Sorokin and Markov, who noted that“The analysis of the ISS crew time spent on maintenance tasks shows that at the moment, all reserves supporting anincrease in research activities and conduct of experiments with the existing number of long-term crew membershave been exhausted. Any further increase will definitely impact ISS crew members’ daily routine.”61

The initiation of regular space tourism trips to the ISS would inevitably add at least some time to crew members’tasks. And history tells us that the result would be a very tired, overloaded ISS crew, “To perform these additionalmaintenance operations, crew time was diverted from other scheduled activities, such as sleep.”62

5. Reduced Scientific Research

Scientific research is one of the top priorities of the ISS. The accumulation of knowledge on critical issues inchemistry, physics, biology and other basic sciences might result in life-saving medicines and medical technologyand therapies. The primacy of research was illustrated in the official list of ISS priorities, ”It is possible to identifythe following current priority areas of SS utilization: 1) fundamental and applied scientific research programs andexperiments and production of high-tech samples in space; 2) development and optimization of advanced utilizationhardware and techniques for effective space applications aboard manned and robotic SV; 3) creation of scientific,technological and engineering outposts for realization of perspective (sic) projects targeting moon and Marsexploration; and 4) provision of high-tech and advertising services in space including flights of space tourists andimplementation of educational and humanitarian projects.”63

While it is gratifying to observe that space tourism was included in the top four ISS priorities (in fourth place), itis clearly considered a lesser mission than scientific ones. The problem is that there is not currently enough time forscience, a problem likely to increase if space tourism chores are added. Sorokin and Markov observed this fact,“One of the most serious challenges, probably typical of all SS, is lack of crew time to conduct SS research. In thisrespect, the ISS differs in no way from its predecessors.” They concluded that “Research activities on the ISS have

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics092407

9

appreciably less crew-time allocation than expected, because of a much higher priority attributed to serviceoperations such as personal care and habitat maintenance.”64

6. Material Will Become Misplaced

Everyone loses things from time to time. Keys, books, sometimes even students’ homework mysteriouslyvanishes, sometimes from plain sight. The ISS is particularly susceptible to misplacement, and the consequencescould be problematic or even lethal.

The internal configuration of the ISS is completely inflexible; what is in place will remain so of necessity. Onestudy explained this phenomenon, “The more new equipment that is delivered, the more difficult it is to integrate itinto the structure of the existing SS, primarily because of volume constraints. In fact, it is impossible to removestationary hardware installed earlier.”65

The probable consequence of this logistic nightmare? Things will become lost. As one analysis noted,“Consequently, another challenge arises; that is, the inevitable littering of a station due to accumulation of unusedhardware and kits in storage locations. To track hardware, most advanced technology and techniques are being usedon the ISS. Nevertheless, some pieces, including experimental results, may be lost, to be found only by accidentmonths later. It is quite difficult to estimate how much valuable time the crew will waste in search of somemisplaced hardware they may need.”66

V. Conclusion

The suitability of the ISS as a space hotel catering to space tourists was the focus pf the present study. We foundthat there was probably a sufficient market for space tourism services, and that the availability of space destinationsand accommodations would considerably increase the size of the likely clientele. It also became apparent that thenotion of the ISS as hotel was problematic.

One study concluded that the ISS has regularly hosted space tourists. “Commercialization is a unique feature ofmodern astronautics. In the case of the RS ISS, commercialization is realized, for instance, by rendering high-techservices to various customers: commercial visiting expeditions, conduct of experiments, commercial advertisement,and special actions. Flights of space tourists have become an area of steady business and proved to be a newdirection of SS utilization,” Sorokin and Markov contended in 2008.67

A series of impediments to ISS success in hostelry were noted. Resource limits, space constraints and limitedaccess to space were identified, among others. In addition, we discovered a series of disadvantages to making a hotelout of the ISS. These included exacerbation of the space debris, resource trade-offs and crew endangerment.

References

1Futron Corporation, Space Tourism Market Study: Orbital Space Travel & Destinations with Suborbital Space Travel,Bethesda, Maryland: Futron Corporation, October, 2002, p. 60.

2D.F.I. International, Market Opportunities in Space: The Near-Term Roadmap. Contract No. GS-10F-0184J. Office ofSpace Commercialization, U.S. Department of Commerce, December, 2002, p. 19.

3D.F.I. International, Market Opportunities in Space, p. 17.4D.F.I. International, Market Opportunities in Space, p. 18.5Radliffe, H., “The New Space Race,” cbsnews.com. [online database], URL: http://www.cbsnews.com., January 1, 2006,

p. 3. Accessed on March 3, 2006.6Webb, A., “Spaceport’s Next Step: Roundhouse,” Albuquerque Journal, January 14, 2006, p. A1.7Schneider, M., “Into the Beyond and Out of This World,” Albuquerque Journal, February 21, 2006, p.B5.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics092407

10

8Vuong, A., “In This State, Space Tourism May Stay a Distant Dream,” DenverPost.com. [online database], URL:http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=3545301, February 25, 2006, p. 1.Accessed on March 9, 2006.

9Van Pelt, M., Space Tourism: Adventures in Earth Orbit and Beyond, 1st ed., Praxis Publishing, Ltd., New York, 2005,p. 31.

10Spencer, J., and Rugg, K.L., Space Tourism: Do You Want to Go?, 1st ed., Apogee Books, Burlington, Ontario, Canada,2004, p. 64.

11Webb, “Spaceport’s Next Stop: Roundhouse,” p. A2.12Spencer and Rugg, Space Tourism, p. 56.13Hudgins, E.L., (ed.), Space: The Free-Market Frontier, 1st ed., The Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., 2002, p. xxi.14MSNBC.com, “Key Year in Space Tourism Timeline: 2008. Transportation Secretary Says His Agency is Ready to

Issue Test Licenses,” [online database], URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11260973/print/1/displaymode/1098/, February9, 2006, p. 1. Accessed on March 3, 2006.

15Collins, P., Stockman, R., and Malta, M., “Demand for Space Tourism in America & Japan, and It’s Implications,” AASPaper # AAS 95-605, AAS Vol. 91, 1995, pp. 601-10.

16O’Neil, D., Bekey, I., Mankins, J., Rogers, T.F., and Stallmer, E.W., “General Public Space Travel & Tourism,”Executive Summary, NASA/STA, NP-1998-03-11-MSFC, 1998, p. 13.

17Futron Corporation, Space Tourism Market Study, Washington, D.C.: Futron Corporation, October, 2002, p. 62.18The Sophron Foundation, Near-Term Prospects for Space Tourism, June 8, 2000, p. 7.19Linders, A., “Space Tourism and its Effects on Space Commercialization.” Unpublished MA Thesis, International

Space University, 1998/99, p. 9.20Berinstein, P., Making Space Happen, 1st ed., Plexus Publishers, Medford, New Jersey, 2002, p. 76.21Berinstein, Making Space Happen, p. 77.22Berinstein, Making Space Happen, p. 77.23”Travel 2000: Destination Outer Space,” Time, October 30, 2000, p. 37.24Van Pelt, Space Tourism, p. 145.25Chang, A., “Private Inflatable Spacecraft Launched in Russia: Nevada Businessman Wants to Build a Space Station,”

Business Outlook, July 13, 2006, p. 11.26Clancy, D.J., Granda, N., and Singh, L., “Guidance, Navigation and Control,” Aerospace America, Vol. 45, # 12,

December, 2007, p. 21; Douglas, J.P., “Space Operations and Support,” Aerospace America, Vol. 45, # 12, December, 2007,p. 93.

27Kingdom, J., “Space Tourism,” http://www.panix.com/~kingdom/space/tourism/html, p. 1. Accessed on January 4,2006.

28Berinstein, Making Space Happen, pp. 139-40.29”The Year’s Wackiest Workplace Stories,” The Arizona Republic, December 25, 2007, p. D2.30D.F.I. International, Market Opportunities in Space, p. 50.31Sorokin, I.V., and Markov, A.V., “Utilization of Space Stations: 1971-2006,” Journal of Spacecraft & Rockets, Vol. 45,

# 3, May-June, 2008, p. 606.32American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, “ATV Boosts ISS Orbit,” Daily Launch, May 1, 2008, p. 5.33Sietzen, F. Jr., “Conversations With Rep. Dave Weldon,” Aerospace America, Vol. 46, #2, February, 2008, p. 14.34Sietzen, “Conversations With Rep. Dave Weldon,” p. 14.35Aerospace America, Vol. 46, #3, March, 2008, p. 33.36Sietzen, “ISS: Countdown to Completion,” Aerospace America, Vol. 46, #3, March, 2008, p. 32.37American Institute for Aeronautics & Astronautics, “Jules Verne Module Headed to ISS,” Daily Launch, March 10,

2008, p. 1.38Aerospace America, Vol. 46, #3, March, 2008, p. 34.39American Institute for Aeronautics & Astronautics, “Jules Verne Module Headed to ISS,” p. 34.40American Institute for Aeronautics & Astronautics, ”Funding Issues Delay Russian ISS Component,” Daily Launch,

April, 2008, p. 5.41Aerospace America, May, 2006, p. 17.42American Institute for Aeronautics & Astronautics, “Soyuz Docks Successfully,” April 11, 2008, p. 4.43American Institute for Aeronautics & Astronautics, “Soyuz Launches With ISS Crew,” April 9, 2008, p. 1.44”Station Keeping: A Higher Meaning,” Aerospace America, May, 2006, p. 16.45American Institute for Aeronautics & Astronautics, “Progress Docks With ISS,” May 19, 2008, p. 4.46 “Station Keeping: A Higher Meaning,” Aerospace America, May, 2006, p. 17.47Aerospace America, May, 2005, p. 17.48Aerospace America, March, 2008, p. 35.49Jones, T.D., “The View From Here,” Aerospace America, May, 2006, p. 17.50”Station Keeping: A Higher Meaning,” Aerospace America, May, 2006, p. 16.51American Institute for Aeronautics & Astronautics, “Progress Docks With ISS,” Daily Launch, May 19, 2008, p. 4.52Aerospace America, March 2008, p. 33.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics092407

11

53American Institute for Aeronautics & Astronautics, “NASA Developing ISS Resupply Contracts,” Daily Launch, April22, 2008, p. 4.

54Jones, “The View From Here,” p. 17.55Jones, “The View From Here,” p. 18.56American Institute for Aeronautics & Astronautics, “ISS Toilet to be Repaired Soon,” Daily Launch, June 4, 2008, p. 2;

American Institute for Aeronautics & Astronautics, “Toilet Problem Solved at ISS,” Daily Launch, June 5, 2008, p. 3.57Sophron Foundation, “Near-Term Prospects for Space Tourism,” p. 7.58Aerospace America, March, 2008, pp. 34-5.59Sorokin and Markov, “Utilization of Space Stations,” pp. 605-6.60Sorokin and Markov, “Utilization of Space Stations,” p. 604.61Sorokin and Markov, “Utilization of Space Stations,” p. 605.62Sorokin and Markov, “Utilization of Space Stations,” p. 605.63Sorokin and Markov, “Utilization of Space Stations,” p. 601.64Sorokin and Markov, “Utilization of Space Stations,” p. 605.65Sorokin and Markov, “Utilization of Space Stations,” p. 606.66Sorokin and Markov, “Utilization of Space Stations,” p. 606.67Sorokin and Markov, “Utilization of Space Stations,” p. 601.