>>1301146>tourist.Space tourism from Russian stand point is using excess capacity of some Soyuz launches to get some cash. They haven't launched a tourist in a long time. Tourists have paid 'em between 20 and 35 million in cash. In recent years they have billed NASA and ESA around 80 million per launched astronaut.
>astronauts are cheap.Challenger disaster.
>>1301805They would have needed to develop new launch vehicles. Titan IIIM and/or Saturn INT-20. Titan IIIM was larger evolution of Titan III with larger solid rocket boosters than earlier variants. Basically almost same thing that was manufactured as Titan IV-A couple decades after IIIM was cancelled. Probably most interesting Titan IV related plan was to use excess article Apollo capsule and lander for another moon landing in early 80's. They would have launched lander and crew with shuttle and followed by capsule on modified Titan IV built with light weight aluminium–lithium alloys, do orbital assembly on low earth orbit before going to moon.
Saturn INT-20 was essentially 1st and 3rd stages of Saturn V with slight modifications and new interstage meant for earth orbit operations. Most major modification would have been modular engine configuration variant of S-IC for different mission configurations and to cut costs. Basically lower payload versions would have used less engines on first stage. Saturn INT would have probably made more sense out these options. Hardware cost of full Saturn V adjusted for inflation, not including R&D would be around 115 million. More launches over the years with derived designs would have probably lowered that cost due to economies of scale and R&D expenses being spread on more launches.
>>1301946Most of its R&D had already been paid by USAF as Gemini B aka Manned Orbital Laboratory. That was essentially manned recon satellite.
>>1302008Nothing wrong with no launch escape system or odd pieces of insulation falling from fuel tank to leading edge of wing.
