Jeff Foust has an interesting column at The Space Review today about use of the word “tourist” to apply to private citizens traveling into space.

Unlike Rick Tumlinson, I’ve never minded the term all that much–it captures a lot of what we’re trying to accomplish in a single word, and clearly differentiates it from the NASA astronaut paradigm. And as Jeff points out, it’s easier to criticize it than to come up with an alternative that people will readily use. In the nineties, when Dan Goldin’s NASA could be cajoled or pressured into paying any attention to the subject at all, they resisted using the word, preferring the phrase “public space travel.”

But Jeff makes a point that I’d never previously considered. If the resistance to the new launch legislation allowing space passenger travel without heavy FAA regulation for passenger safety arose from the use of the word, perhaps we do need to come up with substitute, at least in a formal sense. Clearly, the early flights for the next few years are not going to be for the masses, expecting airline-like safety, but if Reps DeFazio and Oberstar had the mistaken impression that they were, due to the t-word, it may be time to give it more thought.

How about “space adventurer”?

Costs of the robotic Hubble repair mission have been skyrocketing.

The estimated price tag of a robotic rescue mission — between $1 billion and $2 billion — is raising eyebrows and questions about whether Hubble is worth the investment amid tight budgets and periodic reports of technical woes that could cripple the spacecraft before the robot gets there.

I’ve never taken this mission seriously. I don’t think that NASA ever really intended to do it. The initial studies were just a fig leaf to distract attention from the fact that they weren’t willing to send a Shuttle to it, and assuage Hubble fans. The problem that they have now is that just safely deorbiting the thing is going to be impossible to do for a reasonable amount of money. I still think they should do the Shuttle servicing mission, because the marginal cost of that is the absolute cheapest thing they can do, and the risk is overblown (though even if it’s as dangerous as some think, it’s still one of the few things that Shuttle could do that would actually be useful).

By the way, they (like almost everyone) gets this part wrong:

If the cost hits $2 billion, that’s three to four times what it would cost to send astronauts to do the job as they have four times before and as NASA planned before the Columbia disaster.

That’s not what it would cost to send the Shuttle. The marginal cost of a Shuttle flight is somewhere between a hundred and hundred fifty million dollars. They’re basing this assessment on the average cost, which is more than half a billion, but that’s not the number one would properly use to make that decision.

On this busiest shopping day of the year, Alan Boyle has a good roundup of gifts for space geeks.

Jim Oberg says that it’s possible. It’s certainly technically doable, and a cool idea. The big question, I think, is the market at the price that it’s doable for. As they point out, though, it’s certainly within the capability of many governments to do it, if they just want the prestige. I’m not sure that it could be justified scientifically. Unfortunately, the Soyuz capsule is too small to fit someone like this.

[Disclosure: I’ve done some consulting for Constellation Services in the past, and may in the future, but I was previously unaware of this.]

I haven’t (yet) commented on the American Physical Society’s little screed against human exploration, but the membership should be embarrassed over this. Keith Cowing is being threatened with a slander suit (why slander? Why not libel–it was published on his web site?) for criticizing it.

I think that they need to get someone for their public affairs office who knows how to actually deal with the public. Professor Lubell is not as bad as this guy (yet), but he shows promise. And now I suppose he’ll send me a threatening email, too.

Mark Whittington contrasts the President’s space initiative with that of his father. Suffice it to say that the current one has much better prospects for success, or at least lasting beyond his term.

Keith Cowing notices a curious lack of enthusiasm.

Glenn has a piece at his MSNBC site wrapping up last week’s arguments over safety and the coincidental passage of the new launch regulation legislation by the House. It’s a good roundup, but when he writes:

That’s how we took aviation from an expensive and risky activity, mostly the province of governments, to a safe and reliable means of transport.

He’s mistaken. Actually (and fortunately), aviation has never been mostly the province of governments, starting from the beginning with the Wrights. Had it been, we’d probably still be arguing about whether to build National Air Transportation System II (after the necessary technology had been proven out), or whether to just increase the fleet size of the current, dangerous “Air Shuttle” from three to five…

He also says that the legislation passed on Friday afternoon. Actually, it didn’t happen until Saturday.

I know that this proposal by Greg Zsidisin isn’t serious, but it does demonstrate just how deranged some otherwise intelligent people have become at the prospect of Democrats no longer being in power. It’s not particularly clever satire. I think it’s just sad.

And by the way, Greg, perhaps in your conspiratorial dreamworld in which the new Inquisition with corporate sponsorship by Enron and Halliburton will start any day, Tom Delay is a senator, but in this universe, he’s the majority leader of the House.

Things were a little too frenzied in the past few days to actually spend much time analyzing the legislation, but now that the shouting is over, Nathan Horsley has an analysis of the legal effects of the launch legislation passed by the House this weekend. I agree with it, and share his concern that the compromise language inserted in the bill may cause the good people at FAA-AST to be more (and possibly too) concerned about passenger safety, to the detriment of a fledgling industry.

As Nathan says:

Well, shouldn