Space Tourist Discusses His Vacation 111
mooneyguy writes: "In a report on cnn.com, the world's first paying space tourist is now saying that astronauts and cosmonauts spent too much time on mundane tasks and too little time on real research. Dennis Tito said, "Most science in space is being conducted by unmanned vehicles. In my view, there is limited amount of science that takes place on the international space station..." It reads as a rather sweeping condemnation of human presence in space, based on a very brief glimpse of life on a structure still under construction. Oh yeah, he's still publically feuding with NASA, too."
Babysitting (Score:1)
In fact his pretentiousness is rather astonishing. In the article he says that he saved them six hours of work by serving meals. Doesn't he realize that if he were not up there, "listening to opera music and taking pictures out the window," there would have been room for an additional cosmonaut, who could have done dozens of hours of work himself?
It may even be that he is trying to justify space tourism by saying that scientific research is better conducted by unmanned missions, and so manned missions should be used for tourism. Whether or not he means to imply this, he overlooks the important fact that the physiological study of humans in zero gravity is itself an important experiment. When John Glenn became a semi-tourist, he, like many other astronauts, was used as a subject in these studies. Tito was not.
As many others have remarked, the space station is still in its early stages of construction. There are many sponsored experiments being prepared but NASA is waiting until more of the station is complete before shipping them with a mission specialist.
Re:I actually think you're right (Score:1)
And god forbid they should be researching something that might offend some religious group, or anything that made the general public uncomfortable. Corporate money would dry up fast, and the corporate money whores in charge would have to get those pesky scientists back in line.
Nobody wants Goldin's job (Score:1)
Funny. Really funny. (Score:2)
I see all these postings about how Tito's just some old rich fart who's sooo selfish and whining because Nasa wouldn't put him up there.
Tell me, if you had the money to burn, would you go up there?
I sure as hell would. Maybe Tito's not accurate. Maybe he's barking up the wrong tree into what the problems are.
But Nasa needs to get it's act together. Look at how old our freakin' shuttles are. When was the last time we did something really impressive, like land a man on the moon?
Spacestations aren't impressive anymore. Mir's been there and done that, well over it's life expectency, even through a few major problems (fires, the one time whatever it was hit the one module, drunken cosmonauts hiding the Smirnoff from the next batch of crew, etc.)
Why do we even have a space station up there now? It's not like it's going to be a launching platform for missions that are farther out.
What happened to Mars, 2005? Or did that become Mars, 2010. Or 15. Or never?
I hope more countries start space programs. Then, maybe our own would get the picture that, maybe, just maybe, we should be doing something worthwhile in space.
Frankly, I think putting a rich old geezer in space for a few days vacation was the most worthwhile thing we've done in a long time.
it IS and experiment (Score:4)
Tito is not the first space tourist. (Score:5)
The people that foot the bill for Glenn's vacation in space were the American people.
You may remember at the time, he supposedly was going to study the "effects of aging in space." Did anyone buy this? Does anyone have ANY idea what kinds of rigerous tests were done on Mr. Glenn, or why this powerful Senator (who had been lobbying NASA for years for a last ride) was the most qualified "old guy" in the United States for these important experiments?
In case you think this is partisan-- I'm a lifelong Democrat, but if Glenns' trip was any kind of science, it was the science of PR for NASA. I said as much at the time, and even some NASA PR guy on one of the CNN chats kinda admitted it.
In short, considering a powerful Senator could get himself launched into space for no reason-- and even get the taxpayers to foot the bill-- NASA has no right to get on Tito's case.
Re:Limited amount of science... (Score:1)
Re:Whatever (Score:1)
ISS is Research (Score:4)
I know thats hard for alot of people to understand, but thats what the ISS is, it's a test bed for future construction and components that will be used later on. If someday we wanted to send men to Mars, or large unmanned probes to the outer planets or nearby solar systems, there needs to be background knowledge of how to build these things in orbit.
(Yea, I know I said nearby solar systems and I know how long it'll take for probes to get there, but it is a recently stated "vision" of NASA that in the near future we will send probes to the nearby stars.)
Do you think the first Intel CPU fabs were cheap and easy to build? Do you think they were constructed on time and on budget? The IIS is like any new contruction, over budget and over time.
Yes, probes are cheaper, but there is something about having a human there...that can't be equaled by a mechanical probe.
As for Tito, he sounds like a typical rich SOB that didn't get the treatment he wanted on his vacation.
I'll play opera music and let him take pictures out my window and let him do the dishes at my place for alot less than 20 million dollars.
Re:Tito is not the first space tourist. (Score:2)
Glenn got his second ride because his first, while vastly more important from a Cold War national pride standpoint, was pretty boring by astronaut standards. He sat strapped in a capsule for a couple of hours and then splashed down. The only excitement was the speculation of whether he'd die or not on re-entry because of heat shield damage.
Sometimes, you give old heroes special treatment. I have no problem with that.
Don Negro
Re:Private funding is good for controversial proje (Score:2)
Re:Whatever (Score:2)
Goldin isn't neccesarily averse to selling rides-- it's just that his price would probably be about 60 million dollars-- whether this is more economically justifiable is beyond me. Of course, his largish price tag would be undercut by the Russians, who operate under different economic constraints.
Goldin has also been, strangely supportive of James Cameron, obstensibly because the director is not particularly pushy about a launch date. Of course, it is likely that Cameron will direct/produce a film stemming from his experience, both enhancing the reputation of NASA, and encouraging the profitable commercialization of space.
Pasting "billboards" on the space station isn't neccesarily crass-- after all, ceratin functional components already bear the logos of their manufacturer, but it is rather unimaginative. It promotes the idea of space as an exotic tourist destination, rather than as a a research and development center. Nasa has a website [nasa.gov] dedicated to commercialization.
That still reduces the crew to 6 (Score:2)
Perhaps as more modules are added to the station they won't really need instant evacuation capability for every astronaut... but can you imagine the PR nightmare if something did happen? Or the morale torpedo of deciding before each crew exchange who would be the one to "go down with the ship"?
Re:it IS and experiment (Score:1)
Call me silly, but I think the World War II alliances, both Axis and Allied, were a bit more far-reaching in scale, as far as experiments in international cooperation go.
Re:Tito isn't a genuis (Score:1)
Re:Limited amount of science... (Score:1)
And shuttles are by far the most expensive way to move cargo/materials into orbit.
Re:He should know better... (Score:1)
And the CRV won't happen. Who the heck wants to spend billions of dollars developing the dang thing when the Russions already have something with the same exact functionality designed and in production. Yeah, so the Soyuz can't hold as many people, just bolt another Soyuz onto the ISS.
$300 tax refund or Russia + better station (Score:2)
Re:ISS is Research (Score:3)
The decreased costs of building them on the moon (because some of the materials are there already and can be mined instead of shipped, and because people can work longer and harder with gravity and a flat surface under their feet) more than offsets the increased costs of pulling out of the moon's meager gravity well, so an orbiting space station makes no sense at all until we have a functioning moonbase.
And no, the space station doesn't help us get to the moon. It's a complete waste of taxpayer's money, and will probably set us BACK on a Mars mission, not help us.
-
unwritten rule of manned space (Score:4)
I think, deep down, we all know that the real reason that we have astronauts and cosmonauts in space is to keep manned spaceflight alive.
Really. Politics and economics need a reason for us to be up there. But those are fallacious mechanisms we place on ourselves. we want people in the far reaches, wherever that might be. It makes us feel comfortable as a species - being able to do what the other beasts can not. That's really what this is all about.
I for one think that Tito's vacation was a very necessary distraction from the notion of science in space. We'd all speculated and maybe even fantacized of a vacation in space. Tito did what needed to be done. He demonstrated that there is tangible market demand for space tourism.
Think back to the 50's if you can (lord knows I can't. Correct me if I'm wrong). Air travel, especially on a jet, was for the rich. Look at the newsreels. How many yokels do you see? Thought so. But over the years, it became accessible to the common man. I can book a flight from San Francisco to LA for $40. You can't even take a family of 4 to a movie for that much nowadays.
So it will be with space. the market for space tourism and travel will increase. As such, spacecraft will be mass produced, and prices will be cheaper. Corporations, seeking more bang for the buck, will drive prices down even cheaper.
And as such, the price of research will drop. Dennis tito might have cost us a week of research, but he may have saved us billions in research costs.
The inability to recognize this long term trend is a black eye for NASA. They are smart people, they should have seen how this would further their cause. Instead, they chose to take it personally, and for that, they get negative brownie points in this voter's book.
NASA has gotten so entrenched in it's scientific mission as a survival strategy that it has forgotten why we even started a space program: People look up at night and know that the universe has more to offer than this planet, and they want to be part of it. If they grasp and nourish that simple fact, there's no telling the scale by which humanity can progress.
Slashdot (Score:3)
What was the point of the Gemini project? To learn how to operate in space because we were heading to the moon. The Gemini astronauts learned how to dock with stuff and live for a couple days in a space capsule. They collected enough information to allow the Apollo engineers to devise a program that would get a couple of guys from sea level on Earth to the Sea of Tranquility on the moon. After Apollo everyone figured we'd be living on the moon by now with plans to head to Mars. Then Skylab ended up crashing into Australia and then almost a decade later Challenger turned into a fireball. A space platform where we're supposed to learn to live in space and a method for getting us into space cheaply both end up back on Earth. NASA has had to start all over.
Freedom (the original ISS idea without the international aspect) was supposed to be our Mars/Moon testbed. It would be coupled with a shuttle replacement and be a nice local platform to attach experiment modules to before we started any harcore progra mto get o Mars. Then for political reasons NASA has to get buddy buddy with the rest of the space faring community and join in the the ISS. Now most of our efforts human exploration efforts are being retarded because the ISS is costing way too much fucking money and too many aspects of it are being controlled by outside interests.
Re:$300 tax refund or Russia + better station (Score:1)
<SIG>
I think I lost my work ethic while surfing the web. If you find it, please email it to me.
Tito WAS a rocket scientist (Score:2)
I also find it interesting that the Russians put him up there cheaper and easier than NASA could have, in fact their whole space program seems more money efficient. I think the problem NASA has at the moment, is that is used to having too much money, and have learnt mostly just how to burn money.
I predict that serious commercial colonisation of space will take place mainly with Russian technology, as they seem to manage budgets better and have more incentive to make their program work with commercial interests.
I just got back.. (Score:2)
And what I thought was 'Damn.. there's a lot of Ferarri's here!'........... and Porsche's like they were volkswagens....
The restaurant was terrible. Took an hour to take our order, and my Paille was overcooked, and IMHO not worth the price. No more hanging out in Marbella for me.
Re:Tito is not the first space tourist. (Score:1)
Glenn was not the first Congressman to ride the Shuttle. I beleive there were two others (who did not even pretend to be doing research). There was also the Saudi prince.
Re:It's true. (Score:2)
It's actually the recent cancellation of the habitation module that reduces crew size from 7 to 3, but the end result is the same.
In Goldin's April congressional testimony he was asked how NASA could do any science on the space station if the crew was reduced to 3 and it took 2.5 people full time to just maintain the thing. His response was: "That is the challenge before us".
Goldin gets a paycheck from NASA, but he works at the pleasure of the president. He does not look out for NASA's or the public's best interest. In his own words, "My job is to promote the policies of the administration, not defend them". I'm not sure that there is any "NASA Leadership" with the vision to do what is right.
Re:$300 tax refund or Russia + better station (Score:1)
USA-Democracy is 270 million YESes and NOes a day, not one every four years
Unfortunately, you live in a democratic republic, not a democracy.
Simon
The mundane tasks are what this station is about! (Score:2)
Yeah, it'd be better if the CRV, SSTO, and other things hadn't been proxmired out of the budget.
I suspect Tito is probably in more or less agreement with this, but I wouldn't be surprised if he finds the chance to tweak NASAs nose difficult to resist, after the full-blown tantrum worthy of a spoiled 2-year-old NASA management pitched about his trip. It's going to take NASA a while to overcome the PR hit they've taken from that -- assuming they ever figure out that they have taken a PR hit from their tantrum, and take steps to overcome it. Evidence that they have a clue is yet to become evident.
Re:Whatever (Score:1)
If the NASA guys needed to have meals served to them by Tito, it sounds as if they were the ones being baby-sitted. You'd have thought that with the millions of tax dollars that go into training these guys that they would have learned where the pantry is.
Re:This is also true: (Score:1)
Re:Whatever (Score:2)
Considering the Phallic shape of a rocker, I'd like to see a 40' high Trojan ad on the outside
Re:Ummm, you rate a -1 on that d00d. (Score:4)
Re:Future manned mission to Mars? (Score:1)
tourists were on the nuclear (sounds scary doesn't it;) submarine USS Greenville, tourists were on the nuclear (sounds scary doesn't it;) USS Abe Lincoln during ORSE (a naval nuclear program audit, drills are run, paperwork is examined, ...)
Being in space is probably a lot like being in the Navy underway ... you do your job, eat, go to sleep, ... as Tito said "An adult doesn't need months of training to be told 'Don't push that button'
BTW, NASA should get a clue and stop going for the flyboys as astronauts ... former submarine crew members are better qualified than any flier.
Maintain a questioning attitude
Re:Tito is not the first space tourist. (Score:1)
Glenn sold his impeachment vote and/or cooperation to Bill (Rapist [pdq.net]) Clinton.
Maintain a questioning attitude
Re:Science is happening... (Score:2)
BTW, where is the ANALYSIS of the pictures? Where are the CONCLUSIONS?
Just collecting data is not science. You have got to analyze the data and draw conclusions. Otherwise, every tourist to the Grand Canyon is doing geological science (they took pictures ;-).
Maintain a questioning attitude
Can Slashdot try to interview him? (Score:1)
Limited amount of science... (Score:1)
It's an interesting read, though. To be fair, he actually makes a few pretty good points.
Yeesh! He shoulda stayed in space! (Score:2)
Yikes! Did you catch that picture [cnn.com] of Tito that went with the story? Now that gravity can work its ravages on him again, he looks twenty years older than he did floating around that space station!
There's the real killer app for the space program. Have rich, old geezers pay to fly in space as orbital servants (Tito said he served meals for the crew!) while trying to extend their own lives by escaping gravity.
million dollar redundancies (Score:3)
To be fair, he actually makes a few pretty good points.
To quote an above posting, the article was rather bland and could have been written up by someone who didn't even ask Dennis questions, being that only 3 or 4 sentences were quoting him.
Now for my rants on the redundancies, most of the work is pre-determined for most astronauts before they go to space, so on most missions such as the one to attach an arm to the shuttle, it should be common sense to all that nothing more needs to be done, or is going to be done, once their initial tasks are complete.
Placing man on the space station is a costly job for NASA, and it's surprising no one raises a stinker about how much of it is actually overkill. NASA should stop beating around the bush, it seems one of the main reasons they likely didn't want Tito up there is because they kno(e)w he would raise questions about the lack of actual science NASA is doing. Meaning if he showed them up, on how much wasteless money they're spending, they'd likely go through budget cuts or something.
Personally I'm glad he went through the Russians since it boosts their economy when needed. Jealousy is a bitch and NASA it seems is nothing more than a jealous bunch of kids angered by the facts that they can't be the sole space travelers.
So what do you do when you can get away with it? Simple send an astronaut to the moon at the rate of a couple million, ask for more money and pocket it. If the government is too lack to notice the overblown amount of money being budgeted for these programs then that's their problem, however I wish they'd find a way to halt from using my tax dollars on such bullshit.
Re:Future manned mission to Mars? (Score:1)
Good point.
I'm not an astronaut ... (Score:1)
-Dennis Tito
Future manned mission to Mars? (Score:2)
I'd say this is pretty damned valuable if you expect someone to spend 600 days hurling through space in a tin can under the same conditions. Some of the most valuable research on the station is conducted on its inhabitants, not by them.
Tito is an armchair astronaut at best -- five days in space no more qualifies him to judge the space program than weekend touch football qualifies the average schmuck to coach an NFL team. For being an ex-rocket scientist he seems rather dense.
Treasure your snapshots, Dennis, and bore your friends with your home movies. I am sorry you did not get an "I went to the ISS and all I got was this crappy t-shirt" shirt, but the final design is still under negotiation between Energia, ESA, and NASA for future tourist missions, and the astronauts have not finished rehearsing their musical floorshow. This is the price you pay for being first.
Re:Future manned mission to Mars? (Score:2)
What makes zero g medical studies different from one station to another are the adaptation techniques, exercizes, etc. Krikalev has an endurance record, but how useful was he afterwards?
In the near future we will be asking a crew to spend two or three hundred days in weightlessness and then function in planetary gravity for a several months with no extensive ground facility available to rehabilitate them -- they'll have to arrive at Mars with most of their stamina and strength intact.
Wasn't Krikalev was taken out of his reentry capsule on a stretcher?
Re:Tito is not the first space tourist. (Score:1)
Anyway, you're forgetting Senator Alan Cranston, Christa McAuliffe (okay, attempted space tourist...), and probably a few others.
Re:Whatever (Score:3)
Re:And what's wrong with boredom? (Score:3)
His comments are that people aren't doing the research that Dan Goldin promised they would be doing. The reason? Because NASA has decided to cut funding to the CRV that would allow 7 people (enough to do science) to live on the station.
It's true. (Score:5)
Working backwards chronologically, these are some of the big mistakes made:
1. Goldin's public tantrums about Tito. He needs to do anything he can to attract US public support for space, even if it means whoring himself to celebrity. He's not a congressman who can operate on principle, he has a job: make space work.
2. The recent cancellation (oh, they say it's just on hold, but it's cancelled) of the X-38 derived CRV. Without this, there can never be more then 3 permanent crew on the station. WITH it, the crew increases to 7. 3 crew is just about what it takes to maintain the station. If there were 7, you could maintain the station AND do science.
3. Deleting the free-flying science module. You cannot do precision zero-g experiments on a rattling station that has to support a group of breathing, moving astro/cosmo-nauts. You need to be able to deploy a science platform and retrieve it as needed.
4. Not using the Russians enough. No matter how often clueless people rant about how inept the Russians are, the numbers are clear: They have cheaper, more reliable boosters with faster turn around times. We need to utilize this to its fullest, and if that means using some hard cash once in a while, so be it. Our relations are hamstrung by the need to 'barter' for everything.
5. The failure to push for developing our own heavy lift infrastructure. Cancelling the OMV and the Shuttle-C removed our ability to fly a true world class station.
These are not the sort of things that are only visible in 20/20 hindsight. This is all well known in the space community, and NASA leadership has shown an extraordinary skill for disregarding the obviously correct path at times.
a typical russian tito joke (Score:4)
what russian words dir you learn up there?
da, nyet, uberi svoi ruki nahuj otsuda*
*yes, no, get your damn hands off it
um.. yeah (Score:1)
---
Re:And what's wrong with boredom? (Score:1)
Probably a good 60 to 120 seconds before you pass out. COurse at that point you are kind of at the mercy of whoever may still be alive and able to help you.
As for tito....
kind of makes me picture a CEO visiting the construction site where their new office building is still being built. Climbing up girders to the 10th floor, pointing at an area that will someday be a conference room and asking a worker "so how many meetings have they had in there since this building started"
Yes its an absurd scene. However, its no more absurd than this tito guy crisitcizing the research being done on the incomplete space station.
Though, I doubt he is a dumb man. I bet he is shrewd. Maybe its the cynic in me but, I have a feeling he has something planned. Perhaps he has just bought himself some media attention with this stunt for something else?
Then again, maybe he just needed attention.
-Steve
the solution (Score:2)
The face of citizen explorer Dennis Tito looms over his son Brad as the younger poses a question at a conference in Atlanta
"That relieved them of about six hours of mundane work they would have done themselves," he said.
The solution is obvious: NASA needs to send more tourists up to space relieve to astronauts of their mundane tasks, so that the astronauts can spend more time doing science.
Uh... (Score:1)
Most of those "routine duties" are in place to keep the astronauts/cosmonauts alive. They should have left him up there.
-Legion
Re:Tito WAS a rocket scientist (Score:1)
Designing rockets is far different from studying how to keep humans alive in space. Had Tito been an actual astronaut he would have some qualification.
I agree with you that the USSR/Former Union of Soviet Socialist States/whatever they're calling themselves these days is doing things much cheaper than NASA these days. Hopefully NASA will take a clue from them and start working toward better efficiency.
-Legion
2001, Space... uuuhhh... tourist (Score:1)
No Pan-Am shuttle. Well, no Pan-Am.
A very underfunded, undermanned space station. No big wheel.
NASA's attempting to go to... earth.
Somebody's going to space, but it damned sure won't be the Unite Staes of America. Probably better that way.
What an arsehole! (Score:1)
Dennis Tito: das ubermensch! (Score:1)
/sarcasm
Re:Excuse me, But..... (Score:2)
Tito isn't a genuis (Score:2)
---=-=-=-=-=-=---
Re:Tito isn't a genuis (Score:2)
---=-=-=-=-=-=---
Re:Ummm, you rate a -1 on that d00d. (Score:2)
A doof that just happens to be a former NASA rocket scientist. Maybe you should be doing a little bit more thinking before you go condemning someone you know little to nothing about.
Re:Excuse me, But..... (Score:1)
Compare the budgest of the ISS and the Mars program and tell me which one returns more interesting science (not fair for now since the station is still not complete, but the experiments they've got lined up are trivial when you compare them with the other things NASA is doing. Well, I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm right no NASA insider is going to say this on the record. So it is nice to see an intelligent outsider who seems genuinely concerned with the fate of research get so close to the actual work of NASA and then have the spine to say they are screwing up.
Re:Future manned mission to Mars? (Score:1)
Great. Have you ever heard of Mir? If the billions of dollars was for mere exposure to weightlessness and radiation we would have been much smarter to just look at the Russian data. No ISS crewmember will stay in space longer than Krikalev has. By your lights, Tito is then doing research too, just be hanging out.
Not Relevant (Score:1)
Not relevant. Most science on Earth is also conducted by unmanned machines. A lot of them are called computers
The purpose of human space travel is to Go Somewhere Else, not do research.
Re:Whatever (Score:1)
http://www.bootyproject.org [bootyproject.org]
Re:Whatever (Score:2)
http://www.bootyproject.org [bootyproject.org]
So true..... (Score:2)
________
Re:Babysitting (Score:1)
I love my country, but if I were on the first mission to Mars I would rather have, oh, let's say, 3 Americans and about 7 Russians than the other way around.
Tito is the first person to come back with a description of what it's really like up there that I can accept as "real".
Re:Limited amount of science... (Score:2)
I'm more than happy to help pay for humanity learning the skills of day-to-day existence in space, as those skills will serve us well down the line. And if any science gets done in the meantime -- bonus!
Typical short-sighted American, that Tito, doesn't like anything without instant gratification. And I can say that, because I'm an American, so save yer flames.
(on a posting frenzy tonight)
Re:It's true. (Score:2)
So true. Goldin is a fool. (I used to work at JPL and MAN, that guy was detested.) What I am most upset about is our total lack of meaningful progress in creating new systems to get us to orbit. The shuttle is great, but what are we going to do when the fleet is 50 years old? That's how long they expect them to last, but if we started NOW we'd have a hard time building a replacement, with how things get done these days. Sad.
I did not realize that the crew was capped at 3 because of vehicle issues. That really bums me out.
I love space, but following the news on it is just depressing.
Re:Limited amount of science... (Score:2)
It's called "hyperbole," pinhead -- exaggeration for the sake of making a point.
Re:Whatever (Score:3)
NASA is alternately brilliant and incompetent. They can do great stuff, like say a space station... but then their charter is written so that they may not make a profit.
I'd gladly see Pizza Hut ads on all our rockets if it PAID FOR MORE MISSIONS. It's not like the scientific results are tainted by commerical money.
Frankly I think NASA needs to start whoring itself out. I'd love to see a tourist on the station all the time... at $20M a pop it would pay for another Mars trip, or something... Film Coke ads in there, anything. Film an episode of Friends in there. Make money, become visible to the public, become relevant, even if it's in a "silly" commercial way.
This is also true: (Score:1)
While Tito was happily flying and floating in his unquestionably trendy and snobby vacation resort, NASA ordered other astronauts to reschedule planned experiments and research so that they could take care of Tito and make sure his journey was a complete success (read: NASA BUDGET-PR). This statement he's made is like a tourist on the costa del sol saying "damn there's a lot of hotels here". It's totally fucked up and he need to get his head checked for sure. Space research is important not just because of the research up there, but because of the innovations on earth they bring, regardless whether even the tiniest bit of craft was launched or not.
Re:I just got back.. (Score:1)
Tito is just a stupid tourist. Ofcourse the pictures will be great, but to know that the food ain`t been that great either.. 8-).. that`s like.. so ordinarily normal..
Re:This is also true: (Score:1)
Think again: Why would nasa rather not have spacetourists on THE (not "it's") international spacestation in the fist place? Because it's annoying and hinders work. If you were a space agency and someone is coming onboard, against your own will, someone who will probably fuck up anything if not your schedule, what would you do? Do you think it's possible to pretend he's not even there and just work onwards? Probably not. How would that look to the outside world, not just taxpaying america? It's obvious Nasa can't afford any bad PR, because in the long run that would mean it doesn't get the required budgets from the American government. I understand as a taxpayer that you'd be upset about the little vacation trip some idiots are allowed to afford these days, and I don't approve it either, but I think Nasa had little choice but to eat the cookie and play nice. Regardless whether you agree with the budgets it gets or not. So no, I don't think they were lying.
20M$ for Nasa is peanuts. For the russians who were on the brink of losing their spaceprogram completely, it was a much appreciated guesture (though they still need a lot more of these kind of gestures) which saved the day for a while anyway, and probably the Russian space era, so that it might assist (read: relief) other nations involved in the ISS project...
On a sidenote I wonder why my previous post was nailed down as flamebait, but I don't care. Basicly what I said was Nasa is doing a good job and Tito's statements don't make any sense, but maybe
Re:Tito WAS a rocket scientist (Score:1)
Don't forget the europeans. Most comercial space flights right now are done using ariane rockets. And that dominance of the comercial markets seems not to go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So true..... (Score:1)
Re:Babysitting (Score:1)
Don't you realize that his $20M actually paid the whole trip, so due to him, 2 cosmonauts were up there and could do dozens of hours of work!?
Undoubtedly (Score:2)
And for one thing, tourists are certainly not those you would spend a lot of resources launching.
So, while Tito is probably correct, he shouldn't have been there.
Re:need help... (Score:1)
...and now for the on-topic bit...
Who's this guy think he is anyways? He appears to be some sort of Megalomaniac. First of all he pays all this money to go into space once, probably lacking adequate trainging and a technical background. Then he comes back as some sort of Scientific Expert about research in 0 G??
Re:it IS and experiment (Score:1)
there is a wonderful scientific experiment going on up there and it involves the whole station and the thousands of people making it possible.
All true, but it points out that the space station is a solution looking for a problem.
Looking at the objectives of the space program and the technology that supports it makes one think that the project is somewhat ahead of its time.
The cost of the missions and the risk involved to the astronauts is out of all proportion to what can be gained, even allowing for some progress in international co-operation.
NASA should be looking for ways to drastically simplify the launches to make them cheaper and safer. Some international co-operation in that area would be more productive than in simply co-ordinating the current approach.
If in fact few useful experiments are being performed in space, it would be better to launch robotic devices, which would be cheaper, return more data, risk no lives and still provide the benefits of increased international co-operation that will one day be necessary for a manned program with a real mission.
Not entirely (Score:1)
Not corrupt, but distracted.
Most marketable applications of science are based on basic research that was carried out something like ten years earlier. Now, if the scientists have to start looking for a quick buck, for instance in order to fund all their research, they'll drop producing new information and hash old articles instead. Sure, that's not a short term problem but in the long run the lack of basic research will also kill application of science.
A great example of this is what happened to the antibiotics research. For a long time there was no commercial incentive to go on looking for better antibacterial drugs and the basic research was basically killed. Now people are dying of antibiotic resistant bacteria and drug companies can't develop new drugs because the information just isn't there.
Re:It's true. (Score:3)
So you're trying to imply that a government run program is being mismanaged and not doing it's job correctly?
I don't believe it!
Whatever (Score:1)
Re:Limited amount of science... (Score:1)
The space station may not be very exciting, but it is valuable for learning zero-g construction and studying the long-term effects of living in space. Knowledge of both will be required to make any expedition to the moon, or any planet, feasible. Its better to make mistakes 1,000 miles away from home than 100,000 miles away.
In addition, any permanent or semi-permanent installation on an off-world site will require large amounts of materials. It would be much more cost effective to depot the materials at the ISS and move it in bulk to wherever it may be needed, rather than sending shuttles directly to the off-world sites from Earth.
Re:Not surprising (Score:1)
I am sure most things are in baggies and you just toss it into the "nuker," ... but who knows...
Exactly. In all books about space flight that I've read meals they eat are described as precooked and ready to eat. So - it's just a bag to put into an oven (if you want it hot) or eat right away. No bread to slice, no potatoes to cook etc. 6 hours is quite long if you take that into account.
But leaving this particular example aside - if we are sending people somewhere to perform a task (here: space, scientific research) and some "mundane tasks" are seriously in their way - then something should be done about it, don't you think?
Not surprising (Score:3)
Since all space missions so far have been financed by a state (be it US or Russia or whatever) the astronauts are just state office workers. If everything is financed by the state (so the money is anonymous and no one would really ask how it was spent) and controlled by huge administration (the way NASA runs space flight) then there is no push for performance or real results. That's why no one thought that for example it might be a good idea to do something about just serving meals - 6 hours to prepare them is quite a time, even in space.
I think Tito's observations are very interesting, because he is really the first man in space who can openly talk about what he saw - he paid for his ticket, he has no obligations whatsoever towards a "space agency" for sending him there.
Re:Limited amount of science... (Score:1)
But seriously, ISS is more of a pollitical symbol than an acctuall scientific project. The economist has a story on this subject http://vh1.economist.com/editorial/justforyou/4-10 -97/st4370.html [economist.com]
Space travel in it's current form is a pollitical symbol and a romantic dream, not a well designed scientific program. Nasa knows this, and that's why they are so strongly opossed to Tito's paid visit.
Tito's stroke of wisdom. (Score:1)
It's what scientists know already (Score:1)
Which is why most scientist would prefer unmanned space missions for scientific experiments. They are much cheaper, because they don't suffer from the huge overhead of life support and enhanced security concerns, and they allow much more precise measurements, because there are less disturbing factors (air, movements, temperature and humidity fluctuations).
The only scientific experiments for which manned missions are good are experiments with human beings themself (e.g. life support in space, or whatever). Everything else is just politics.
Excuse me, But..... (Score:1)
This is Ridiculous. Where does this guy get off telling others how to do their job?
I think our space program has a pretty good safety record thus far....(at least where PEOPLE are concerned)....and that "mundane" tasks are needed.
Imagine If Bill Gates Watched you code and compile for a few days and had the nerve to tell you that you spent too much time on mundane and boring things like security and stability, and not enough time on research and GUI development....
in this guy's mind, his space trip should have been like Star Trek.....
I also have to wonder how much of this is in retaliation to NASA for not their protest....
He should know better... (Score:2)
That's because *nothing went wrong*. If there was an meteor hit, or an oxygen valve broke, or a fuel tank ruptured, or a million other things that could go wrong, you can bet his training would be useful.
Tito said he asked one of the residents how much research she had conducted since arriving at the space station months ago.
"'About two days,' was the answer," Tito told participants at a CNN World Report conference in Atlanta on Tuesday.
Of course. A) the damn thing's still under construction, and B) it's established that three crew members are needed to maintain the thing, that's why the final crew manifest will be seven.
And the CRV will happen, the Europeans are too heavily involved for it to just fall by the waysite due to US budget restrictions:
[spaceref.com]
Yes, there are numerous things that NASA does wrong, and yes, there's a lot of space science that unmanned probes can do, but it's hard to learn about life sciences and what's it really like living in space without having people up there. And that's difficult, dangerous, and expensive.
--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
Corrected link (Score:2)
--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
Re:And what's wrong with boredom? (Score:2)
Er, the CRV wouldn't be ready in 3 or 4 years, anyway, so I'm not sure what your point is. No one was expecting to do much research at this stage of construction. (Except, apparently, Tito.)
--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
And what's wrong with boredom? (Score:1)
Re:And what's wrong with boredom? (Score:1)
ISS is the reason for the Shuttle (Score:4)
But come the early - mid 70's and the money dries up. The remaining Apollo rockets were turned into lawn ornaments and the shuttle program was stretched out. The space station became Skylab. Mars? Forget it.
When the shuttle finally flew, it had no mission and it turned out to be a lot more expensive to launch than expected.
Eventually we get to SDI and the closing days of the Cold War. Finally a reason to build space station Freedom That will keep the commies from taking over low earth orbit. Toss in some more money problems and redesigns and, oops, down comes the wall and the cold war is over. Name change to International Space Station. Invite other countries to participate. Eventually it starts to get built.
OK, Now the "Mars mission supply" shuttle is used to build the international "stop the commies" space station which is used by the Russians as a hotel for "filthy capitalist running dogs" to raise the money to pay their rocket people so they don't go and work for Sadam & company.
Now what was that about doing science in space?
hope this helps (Score:1)
So then:
Human Immunodeficiency Virus does cause AIDS (see centers for disease control http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/cause.htm ), but there are treatments which can delay the development of HIV into AIDS for a long time, if not indefinitely. However, you have to know you have HIV in order to get the treatments, which is why you HAVE to tell anybody you've had sexual (or other potentially transmissive) contact with, ESPECIALLY your bf. No matter how painful it may seem at the time, it's infinitely better than not telling them. If you care about any of the people you may have put at risk, you'll tell them immeadiately. One of them gave it to you, and may be continuing to spread it without knowing.
I feel like I'm all alone here and I just don't know what to do
You're not. There are plenty of ways to get information and support. Nationial institutes of health might be a good place to start (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/help/hiv.h
Maybe I would be better off just saving myself all the suffering that is coming... Never. There's always a better option. Treatments can help you live _many years_. Many people live full and productive lives with HIV. Talk to someone and get help.
Offtopic, but still... (Score:2)
Hell, no! (Score:2)
--