Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Politics Without Geopolitical Boundaries? 205

Posted by Cliff from the why-can't-we-leave-this-crap-on-the-ground dept.
ParticleGirl asks: "Dennis Tito's flight to the ISS is scheduled for the same time that the Canadian Space Agency (CSA)'s robotic arm is supposed to be installed. Speaking for the CSA, Marc Garneau did an interview with Space.com. Now that Canada has come out against Tito going into space, it'll be interesting to see what kind of a compromise will be reached. Until now, this has been a sort-of standoff between Russia and the United States, but now other countries are entering the fray. Should this dude have access to the space station just because he's got the cash? He did work for NASA, and he seems to be intelligent and capable. On the other hand, he's not a trained astronaut and could plausibly be a liability if there is some sort of emergency. Will this be our first extra-orbital international incident?" While the article at Space.Com downplays any possibility of such an occurence, I can see reasons for both sides, here: Russia should be able to run their own space program, without any interference from the US, however Tito's presence on the ISS affects more than Russian interests. If the issue is a matter of training, however, I'm sure that Tito will need to pass some form of certification for space travel. Another thing to remember: the Russians have been at this space-travel thing longer than the US has. As always, feel free to share your thoughts on this issue.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Politics Without Geopolitical Boundaries? More

Politics Without Geopolitical Boundaries?

Comments Filter:
  • But he is going up instead of someone else (they bumped some scientist) and if he is allowed to go up more will follow suit and create a growing headache for nasa
  • Tito is going up on a Soyuz, the Canada arm goes up on STS. They're not going up together. My understanding is that the shuttle crew will be mostly responsible for installing the arm and the ISS crew for check out and such.

    Oh well. International partnerships bring interesting problems to the table. At some point the problem will be solved. Though probably not to everyone's liking
  • During the bad old days during the moon race, they lost an entire rocket on the ground including the cosmonauts and ground crew. They have also had fatalities on landing (parachute failures, oxygen leaks). After the Soviet Union fell alot of documentation became available. Small details like Yuri Gragarin not being the first Cosmonaut in space, just the first one in good enough shape to parade. Overall, the Soviet space program had many more fatalities than US program.

  • NASA really not opposed? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    According to this cnn article [cnn.com] NASA isn't opposed to him going... they just don't want him to go now. What I want to know is, why does he insist on going -now-? The reasoning NASA gives seems pretty solid. They know he has had Russian training, but does that mean he knows about the U.S. modules? Nope. They are willing to train him, and want him to postpone until october, but yet he insists he wishes to go now.

  • Re:What is Russia's body count? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How many NATO soldiers died in Balkans? Very little, right? Does that make big and balky NATO superior to small fighter groups? I'd say no, it makes it more vulnerable.

  • Re:What is Russia's body count? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The USA sends up more manned missions than Russia.

  • half truths at best (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The space station became politically viable after the Russians joined on, not technically or financially viable. In truth we have paid them for most of their hardware, which does not live up to the standards NASA has. Beyond the initial stages of the space station, Russia really does not participate at all in the construction of the station... most of the launches are shuttle launches. Safety and reliability should be put in terms of total number of missions, and total number of human occupants lofted to orbit. The statement that their safety record is better than ours is simply not true.

  • A Double Standard? (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Nasa sure had no qualms about sending up a school teacher or a 70year old senator. Suddenly, they are worried about someone without NASA approved training.

  • US vs. Russian arrogance (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30, 2001 @10:35AM (#326517)

    Just because you do something first doesn't make you better at it.

    and because you have bigger missiles, you can do anything?

    Let's see...

    The US can ...

    * cancel a treaty [yahoo.com] it signed because daddy's oil boy owes his buddies some old favors.

    * execute a Canadian after promising not to do so (under a treaty).

    * bomb countries whenever it feels like it, without UN approval.

    * have the world's largest inventory of chemical and biological weapons while prohibiting others from doing the same.

    * manipulate the UN without paying its fees for years

    and...it's complaining about the Russians wanting to carry aboard someone who paid them for it and who is willing to undergo training?

    Let me tell you something, buddy. When it comes to having a smug attitude, the rest of the world can't even hold a candle to the US.

    And you wonder why we think the US is a bully. Give the guy a ride.
  • If this was a mission on a Russian rocket, then the Russians could launch whomever they wanted.

    It's not. It's an American launch system, funded by Americans. The mission is a joint US/Canadian/Russian mission. Two of the three partners are against this payload, one of the partners owns the launch system and then other partner has one billion dollars worth of hardware going up.

    Two to one vote...the payload should not go. This should not even be an arguement. If the Russians are so fired up to get this man in space, they should have contacted all the partners involved in the ISS long ago and figured out a plan. But they didn't. Too bad.
  • The reports that I have read said that NASA didn't want to completely ground him, they wanted to make sure he had the proper training on NASA's side of the station. Unfortunately, that training wasn't available until October.

    This didn't fit with Tito's schedule. He wanted to go NOW and didn't want to wait since he wanted to get back to his business.

    When he showed up at NASA last week for training, he brough 5 bodyguards a long with "in case there was trouble". How money do you have to have that warps your mind so much it makes you concerned that Barney working the gate at the Houston Space Center is going to rough you up for not being on the list.

    I think he's being given way too much slack for being a "self-made-man". I think he's one of those people that get a little money and thinks that should grease all of the wheels to get what he wants.
  • They'll train him in October. That doesn't meet with his schedule so he's whining in public.
  • Also consider the ammount and variety of dialects and accents of English that an American is expected to understand:

    Standard English
    African American English
    British English
    Australian English
    West Indian English
    And all the accents of recent immigrants to the US.

    In total, I'd say that gives the average American command of enough different words, phones, and grammatical structures to consider him at least bilingual.

  • Gee, I'm not "the gardener" and I know German....

    Seems to be some non-Americans are of the opinion that they are better than Americans because they think Americans don't learn other languages.

    The reality is Americans do learn other languages, but are not normally in a position to use them frequently enough to stay fluent. I could travel for days and still be where English is the predominate language.

  • Sure monetary contribution from Russia is lower then US, but things look very different if you consider amount of hardware. So whose fault it is if Russian aerospace workers are more productive? And no, lower salaries do not explain everything. They indeed spend much less hours for the same job. Compare time needed to prepare Zenit (Sea Launch) and Titan-IV, for example. Would you count Titan launch equivalent to launch of 8 Protons because it costs that much or equivalent to launch of 1 Proton because payload to LEO is pretty close?

    About delays. Russia is going through crisis much worse then US in thirties. Still delays for Russian hardware were just couple of months longer then for US hardware while US was going through one of the highest economical booms in its history. At some point Boeing started to
    worry that if Russian modules are not delayed any longer the software delays for Node 1 will become evident for public, because US would have to ask Russia to postpone its launch.

    Looks like the least reliable partner at this point is US who was recently planning to significantly cut its contribution.

    Tito, BTW, had more training then John Glenn unless you count 40 years old experience.

    Tell me why I have to defend american in front of other americans who call him incompetent moron?
  • Yeah, sure. You guys built the stuff we could not (find out how much FGB replacement would cost and why US still can not build crew return vehicle) and now please step aside and let serious folks stay in control. And we will tell you which crew to send to ISS, who should run Russian Space Agency and which president you should elect.

    If this is US attitude, I'd say --- screw it. I hope russians will have guts just undock russian modules (propulsion and life support) and watch remainder of ISS slowly drift into Pacific. And if US wants to send some astronaut to the Russian half make them pay $20 millions/person.

    A joke, of course. You can not really undock it easily.

    But even if Russia is not a superpower anymore (what a relief actually --- no need to care about rights of Mumba-Yumba religious minorities in South Pacific, for example), it does not mean it should not be treated as a partner.

    Please remember --- there would not be ISS without Russia --- it almost got killed on Capitol Hill in 1993 and Russian contribution was the only reason to save it. Which can not be said about Canada, Japan, Italy or any other country (with all due respect to Canadian robot arm designers, unsurpassed by anyone and other fine folks from other countries). While without USA, ESA and Japan Russia could build Mir-2 (after all, Russian modules for ISS were designed for Mir-2) and have its own space station not so capable as ISS but where they would be able to send anyone without NASA being able to say anything.
  • He has something far more important than cash: a contract. Specifically (well, semi-specific), he has a contract with NPO Energia, one of Russia's largest aerospace corps, for a flight into orbit, a stay in a station, and a return flight. The contract was originally for a flight to Mir, but when Energia and Rosaviacosmos deorbitted her, the contract fell back to ISS.

    On top of a legal contract with Energia, he also has 6 or 7 months of training in Star City, already completed. He knows how to use a Soyuz, climb into and use an Orlan spacesuit, and operate the basic systems in the Russian modules of ISS.

    NASA is simply allergic to the idea that anyone but a gold-plated, square-jawed, government-employed Astronaut (tm) can fly in space, because "Space is hard!" They are in for one bad PR thrashing over this, it is time, has been time, for citizen tourists in space. And citizen explorers. The hue and cry over Tito's flight shows exactly how scared the NASA bureaucrats are of anyone but their annointed few going into orbit.

    Space is a place, not a program.
  • EILLE ASTIE DE TETE CARRÉE

    What you are saying here is completely stupid. People from Québec can understand people from France, Belgium, Africa or Haiti without any problem.

    "People from texas cannot understand people from new york". that's stupid hey? same thing.

    Take your Sheila Copps Flags and choke yourself with it please.

    VIVE LA LIBERTÉ, VIVE L'INDÉPENDANCE!

  • That's a stereotype.

    Girls from Québec shave.

    In fact, it's in Québec that you'll find the cutest girls.

    That's the only thing from Québec that interests ROC (rest of Canada), that and hockey player.

    Travel in Ontario and you'll see nude dancers bar advertising "Québec Girls".

  • Two russian missions have ended in the death of the crew. One American mission has ended in the death of the crew.

    The Soviet Union/Russia has a worse safety record than the US. Get over it.
  • Want to count the number of dead?

    OK, HERE WE GO:

    Russians:

    Soyuz 1: 1 guy. His parachute failed to open, and in the time between the failure and the splat, he loudly cursed the people who rushed that spacecraft into production. Hey! Take a look at the splat. [friends-partners.org] Poor Komarov, may he RIP.

    Soyuz 11: oops! no air! 3 guys dead.

    Total: 4 in the air.

    Americans:

    Challenger: kaboom, 7 killed.

    Total: 7 in the air.

    --- on the ground---

    Russians:

    1960: Nedelin disaster. General Nedelin and 200 other rocket experts killed on the ground when the rocket blew up.

    Total: 201 on the ground

    Americans:

    Apollo 1: Test goes bad when fire kills three astronauts inside the capsule.

    Total: 3 on the ground.

    ---

    So there you go. The Russian space program is STILL worse when you consider the safety record.

  • And what? We just recently saw a few civilians playing with a BIG NUKE SUBMARINE for a miserble amount of money... The result was seen all over the world.

    And note, Tito is a ex-NASA man. Maybe he is quite far from piloting ships. But he is an insider anyway...

  • NASA- Nuke America's Space Actions (Score:4)

    by Ektanoor ( 9949 ) on Friday March 30, 2001 @09:18AM (#326531) Journal
    What is happening with Denis Tito is, from my point of view "unthinkable". And American citizen, who worked for years in America's Space Program. A man who managed to become a "self-made-man", one of those so publicized values of America. A man who wanted to fulfill a dream and tries, as a typical son of his country to achieve it. He doesn't find a chance in his country to do it so he comes here and pays big money for it. And then NASA starts a weird campaign. First it issues worries all over about Mir's state. Ok, Russians agree with them, sunk Mir and transfer Tito into one of their missions on ISS. And what we get here? Suddenly Russia is a bad partner, it takes unilateral decisions, it blows up the Space Program and puts in cause the security of ISS...

    No Russian Agency as ever asked about the competency of the American astronauts sent to Mir. No one has ever asked anyone else about the competency of scientists or even military personel that was sent on Shuttles, Soyuz, Salyuts, or Mirs, ISSs and similars. Russia has even sent politicians to Space (there was one Mr. Baturin, an ex-minister btw). Not counting that it had to deal with biologists, doctors and several other people who barely know anything about a spaceship.
    And suddenly it comes one Mr. Tito and everything blows up... In face of NASA's past this is an afrontation to everyone who remembers the Challenger. Who is NASA to value to dangers and chances for civilians? Who is NASA to question Russia's experience.

    Intersting to see NASA acting as a typical soviet ministry...

  • Russia deorbited Mir at the request of NASA. And this is the Russian space program, they're the ones running the launch. I fail to see why anyone but Russia would have any say in this, the only money he's using is Russia's. It's not like the ISS is crowded or anything. Russia can stick someone up there if they feel like, and they knows how to operate the equipment enough not to blow up the station or open the airlocks or something. Which this guy does.

    -David T. C.
  • So...because something's international, anyone involved in it has the right to kick out anyone they don't like? So, what's to stop the Russians from kicking out all the American astronauts?

    And don't start mentioning training, he tried to get training and was turned away by NASA.

    The people in charge of the launch are supposed to decide the payload, hamans and otherwise. That's how it works. This is shown by the fact the only lame excuse NASA can come up with is the training they didn't give him. Countries can't just decide who gets put on the ISS by other countries' space programs.

    Obviously there is some sort of limit here, implied or explict. If Russia wanted to send up fifty people, they are issues of supplies and crowding, and no one would fault anyone else in the program for complaining. But not one guy who, by all accounts has actually designed some of the stuff up there. It's not like he's going to eject the warp core or run into a fishing satellite.

    -David T. C.

  • Actually I read he was training with the crew in both Russia and in Texas. That was part of the deal.

    It's not like he's completely unaware of the functions of the space station. I have a feeling he probably is going to have some responsibilities up there, too. Even though he's paying, the Russians need to get productive work from the guy.

  • I think (Score:3)

    by Ravenscall ( 12240 ) on Friday March 30, 2001 @08:53AM (#326535)
    That this will be a major breakthrough in space travel. For the first time, a Civilian will go into space for commercial purpouses. I feel that this could possibly open doors do a larger civilian presence in space in the future if he goes through with it. As far as the money, well I disagree with the principle of buying a ride to space, but I feel it is a precedent that needs to made.

  • Costs and an explanation? (Score:3)

    by apsmith ( 17989 ) on Friday March 30, 2001 @09:49AM (#326536) Homepage
    Launch costs per pound are available here [spaceref.com]. Assuming Tito (plus accessories) is under 200 pounds, his direct launch costs to near earth orbit in a Soyuz are at most $0.5 million. Maybe $1 million counting food etc. The full cost of a Soyuz launch is $35-40 million, so he's paying the Russians for about 1/2 of one launch. Now, granted, he's not paying NASA anything, but it seems to me the fee is more than enough to cover his costs. And NASA has been subsidizing the Russian Space program for a while, why not let somebody else help subsidize it?

    There doesn't seem to be any good rational explanation for the NASA (and ESA) opposition - so in one sense or another this must boil down to some kind of politics. Is it because Tito, a Republican, helped raise funds for "W" to get elected, and NASA's Goldin can't stand him for that? Or is it just typical inter-organizational squabbling?
  • Let him go. If there was anyone qualified as a tourist, Tito is it.

    The American's are really throwing up a false smokescreen on the safety issue. None of the Russians has been through the training for the American stuff, they all started at the same point, nothing to prevent Tito following along. Then the rediculousness about being reimbursed for training costs. After $20 million don't they think Tito will be happy to pay a couple of G's? I think this actually is an indicator of just how tenuous the American position is.

    The third seat is free on the progress, so this impacts little scientific research, and unfortunatly I suspect tourism is really the future for space, which NASA seems unwilling to accept.

    Tito is rich as hell (not many will pay $20 million), has trained for months with the Russians who consider him equal to the task.

    Looking of the research they will be doing on the now slimmed down ISS (which removes much of the research components) for the amount of money they are spending practically screams for another business model to get and keep space development and efforts going.

  • 700 HOURS? To sit in a seat? That is incredible...
  • I find some of the remarks to this as, well, interesting given the fervor of discussions on /. on Freedom. Freedom to write code, freedom to write code from other's code, freedom to download music, freedom to do what-ever you want basically.

    I'm not saying Tito should or should not be allowed to go into space. I'm just noting how easy it is for this group to want to restrict another's freedom while at the same time requiring everyone else to grant them theirs.
  • Imagine being the team leader up on the space station. You live in a tiny space with people you've been training with for over 6 months.

    You know who get's testy on a lack of sleep, who panics in an emergancy, who snores, etc.

    Now imagine that someone you've never met before is going to come up and live with you in your tiny (I've had closets bigger) space station. You have no idea what he's like, you have no idea how he would act in any given situation.

    It's not that he can't do the job, it's just that he's an unknown. And when you're stuck in space, you want as few unknowns as possible.

    So from what I read in the article, his skills aren't the problem. The crews familiarity with him is the problem. Hell have him hang out with the next crew going up for 6 months. Then he can go.
  • Nonsense. How much tax money comes from the telecommunications industry, whose overwhelming growth is a direct consequence of space exploration and technology? Compare that to NASA's annual budget, and stop whining. If you think you'd get money back from the gov't. if NASA went away, think again.

    As poorly run as NASA is these days (not surprising considering their pathetic budget), they still accomplish some amazing feats. It's one of the few parts of the government that actually works as designed.
  • Oh damn...more people might go into space as tourists...and someone might realize there's a MARKET for space tourism...and it'll get more popular...and it'll get cheaper...and OH MY GOD people will be able to go into space for $1M, then $500K, then $100K, then...one day...you'll be able to go to space for only a few thousand, including a couple day's accomodation in an orbital hotel!

    Yeah, we've got to put a stop to this now.

  • Just because the path to reasonably affordable space tourism could be long implies that we shouldn't take the first step?

  • Gradeschool teachers? (Score:5)

    by Shotgun ( 30919 ) on Friday March 30, 2001 @10:54AM (#326544)
    How much training did they give to a gradeschool teacher that they couldn't give to this guy?

    Make no mistake about it, NASA's problem with this is all about PR. They want/need to be the heroes/heroines. Putting civilians in space was cast as 'NASA defeating space'. Letting a civilian buy his way into the same program robs NASA administrators of the pleasure of being the high priest that hands down the word of God.

    The problem is that the executives of NASA have spent too much time reading their own press. They are on a great mission to keep space pristine and pure. But as happens in all religious movements, they get their own goals confused with those of God.

  • Just because the guy has a lot of money doesn't mean that he should get a ride to the ISS. Russia's space program has a lot of problems right now but think about how many problems they would have if one of their rockets blew up and killed an American millionare.

    As far as I'm concerned though, so long as he doesn't float foot into the ISS it shouldn't matter if he's along for the ride.
  • I've got over 100 hours in a Cessna as Pilot In Command, an engineering degree and I read "Aviation Week & Space Technology" cover to cover every week. I could swing $20K (as well as the cost of flying a fighter for an hour) to learn how to safely eject and I'm a quick study and should be able to remember what buttons not to push.

    By Tito's and the Russian's arguments, I would be "Practically a Fighter Pilot". Yet, if I were to seriously suggest this I would get chucked out on my ass.

    I feel badly for Dennis Tito, he paid for a shot and the world changed on him. I would hope that once the station has been built and guidelines for tourists have been established that he be given the first seat going up. But until then, he should just look up like the rest of us.

    If what I wrote above isn't true, maybe somebody could give me the URL where I can sign up to fly a Tomcat. Off the Reagan would be preferred.

    myke
  • One huge difference you are completely not mentioning is that we are still BUILDING the ISS. Mir had been up and running for 12 years (about 9 or 10 years past its design life) before they sent non-scientists up. I have no qualms about sending this guy up when we are just doing science, but we are installing new pieces to it (the Canadian arm for one) and still getting all the little kinks worked out. Can you imagine what would happen politically if a civilian were up there when an oxygen scrubber goes out or air conditioning units stop working or the toilets don't work? There would be a backlash against NASA for having a non-working station up there even though it is still being built.

    As for the US astronauts not getting special training before going up on Mir... do you not know that our astronauts are trained for YEARS before ever being assigned a mission? Though I'm not sure about this, I think most (if not all) of the US astronauts sent to Mir had already been on a Shuttle mission. That sounds like relevant training to me. The Mir is also one country's station and not twelve country's. Canada doesn't want this guy going when we install the arm. The US doesn't want him going when we install our stuff. I'm sure none of the other countries really want this guy up there when their stuff is being installed and tested.

    About the guy who was on Mir during the fire: yeah, he stayed out of the way while the trained guys fixed things. Wouldn't it have been nice to actually have another trained and helpful person up there fixing problems instead of just "staying out of the way?"

    NASA does have to pay to train this guy and that is where we are putting our foot down. He is part of a Russian crew and we have to train that crew to do certain tasks. If we have all of our procedures based around three members and now it is only two, can we really successfully accomplish a safe mission without redesigning the mission? Even if we didn't have to train him and didn't have to worry about his safety and didn't have to worry about the safety of the mission, we would still be paying an opportunity cost for not having a trained scientist or engineer up there (though he is an engineer, he would need training to help with science experiments).

  • Tito's paid a heck of a lot more in taxes than you or I ever will. That's not a valid point, anyway. Have *you*, personally, put up $20M of your own money to fly in space?

    I thought not.

  • astronauts and cosmonauts adjust and repair classified satellites, and both space agencies shoot up spy satellites in unmanned missions on behalf of national security.

    Actually, no, none of this happens. Most spy satellites are in orbits the shuttle can't reach, either polar orbits, which have too high an inclination, or geosynchronous orbits, which are far too high for the shuttle to reach. The Hubble is the only satellite which is serviced with any sort of regularity, and there's a substantial proportion of the community that regards that as a waste - it would quite possibly have been cheaper to plan on a series of telescopes, a new one every five years or so, since the costs of a shuttle mission to do repairs are, well, astronomical. The shuttle has been used to launch military satellites, but not repair them, and the launch market since Challenger has largely gone to unmanned lift vehicles like the Titan and Atlas.

    There were plans originally for a shuttle launch facility in Vandenburg, CA, which would have allowed the shuttle to reach retrograde polar orbits for spy sat launches, but the air force was already losing its interest in the shuttle by '86 and used the Challenger disaster as an excuse to drop the whole program. It's a shame, too, because several major design decisions were made in the shuttle to allow it to meet the requirements for these military missions - the wing design in particular could have been simplified substantially without the cross-range requirement for once-around landings.

    And as for shooting down spy sats, this only happens in James Bond movies. Oh, the US is working on developing the capabilities to do so, and we've done target practice on one of our *own* sats, but don't for a minute think that anyone could actually do this without starting a major international incident.

    No, you can't say that it goes on our there anyway, just in secret and we don't know about it. This is all happening up in the sky, after all, and it's quite visible. Amateur satellite hunters have identified the orbital parameters for pretty much all the classified hardware up there. There's just no good way to hide something when it's sitting up in the sky glowing like a star.

  • Moreover, NASA has refused Tito admittance to the astronaut training facilities in Houston. They're making a big stink about it for no real reason other than an institutional desire to squash space tourism and keep the high frontier for themselves.

    A few relevant facts:

    • When the shuttle-Mir dockings were going on in the mid 90s, shuttle astronauts did not receive any special training on visiting Mir. They got a briefing or two on the ground, and then when they got there in orbit, the cosmonauts gave them a 2 hour tour and safety lesson. And that's all that was needed.
    • The Russians have been flying non-professional cosmonauts to Mir for years, including various members of the media and government officials. They certainly have the experience to know how much training is necessary. Tito has taken all of their training and passed with flying colors.
    • One of NASA's big objections has been that Tito poses a danger to the crew in the event of an emergency. There was in fact a guest aboard Mir in '97 when one of the fires broke out. His duties in the event of an emergency were "put your oxygen mask on and stay out of the way of the cosmonauts fixing stuff." He succeeded in carrying out these orders quite well, thankyouverymuch. And NASA thinks that Tito, who is widely acknowledged to be an extremely smart and capable man, couldn't do likewise?
    • $20 million bucks is approximately 10% of the Russian Space Agency's entire annual budget. Tito's flight is going to have a major effect on their bottom line, and in their ability to continue developing their half of the space station.
    One of NASA's biggest problems is their desire to be the space agency, rather than just a space agency. They're control freaks, and this has hurt the private launch market, and now it's hurting the start of the space tourism market. Trying to block Tito's flight is one of the dumbest things they've done lately. (Well, except for Dan Goldin's mad quest to eradicate all the old worm-style logos...) The ability for private citizens to fly into space would, I think, get people a lot more excited about space travel in general, would generate public support for NASA and ISS, and would pump a lot of money into the system.

    Two passengers a year, on the every-six-month Soyuz changeout missions which are scheduled anyway, would bring in $40M/year to the Russian Space Agency, which desperately needs the cash, at practically no cost to NASA or any of the other international partners. It's a win-win-win situation, and it's a damn shame that NASA's being so stubborn about it. If there really was a substantial risk to the station, then they'd have a point, but the Russians have proven before that they can safely fly non-professionals, and they can do it again.

  • I'd say that you had a good idea, except my whole message was completely tongue-in-cheek and I figured that everyone would pick up on the sarcasm... especially with the last line... but of course, this is Slashdot, and since no humor stories have been posted in the last 24 hours, no one is in that frame of mind at all...

    No, I don't think everyone should be shot into space, put behind the wheel of a submarine, etc... although if such things would deter kids from seeking the lesser thrill of shooting up their high school and planning a military takeover, I'll support them...
  • Yes I did. Now where's my space ride?

    :-P

  • Paid to go into space? (Score:3)

    by brianvan ( 42539 ) on Friday March 30, 2001 @09:06AM (#326553)
    I've seen a lot of good arguments for him going into space, and a couple of highly convincing ones for him not to go...

    But my point is, you argue that this guy paid to go into space, so he should go? That his monetary contribution to the International Space Station (or the Russian space program in general) entitles him to a ride sooner or later?

    I mean, at that rate, we all pay taxes. We should ALL go into space. For that matter, we should all get a couple of minutes to drive around in a tank, fly an Army Helicopter, sit in the copilot seat of the Stealth Bomber, and command a nuclear submarine...

    No, wait, civillians aren't apparently too good at doing a couple of those things.
  • is going to happen eventually, and opportunities like this one are irrestible to the cash-strapped Russian space program. I think NASA is opposed because they're desperately trying to protect their position that the space station is a purely scientific resource worth all the money we've spent on it. Quite frankly, I rather doubt it; the spin-offs will almost certainly be more valuable, like they were for the Apollo program, and commercial travel to space will be one of them.

    -_Quinn
  • should have a destination built for that. The group which is involved in creating the ISS didn't create it so that tourists can come up and dork around, no matter how much money they have.

    I would assume that the proper way to handle this situation is to either demand that whichever country desires to put people in space for money also builds their own property in space to place them or to create another international endeavour for that purpose, without using taxpayer money ... unless of course, it's some sort of wierd money-making venture by the government ... but that's bad.

    Don't go crapping all over your roommates quarters seems like a pretty simple philosophy.
  • This is not the first troublesome thing to come out of Canada, let us not forget Bryan Adams.
  • So the Russians want to get funding for their space agency by sending some goob on a joy ride. How is this different from what NASA did in sending a senator into space? Oh, except that in Glenn's case, the US public paid the bill.
  • How much difference can there be between a passenger who is paying cash and a customer who is being rewarded for political loyalty. It is widely acknowledged that the only reason Glenn was on a shuttle mission was as a payoff for his defending Clinton. At least Tito's cash is actually going to help the Russian space agency, and not just another example of political corruption.
  • I understand that the main reason Tito is unacceptable to NASA is because he's affiliated with the WRONG political party, i.e. the one opposite to the current head of NASA. This is the latest from an Artemis Society mailing list. If you're interested in finding out more, goto http://www.moonsociety.org/.
  • Yah I can just see it now, the Russians have their marked off side of the station and the USA theirs.

    The bathroom will of course be on the Russian side and they will charge a tax for the Americans to use it. That's good, it will help them pay for their part of the ISS costs.

    Hopefully we will all be able to setup an UN peacekeeping force to keep the quite...
  • Wealthy people are traditionally early adopters. They subsidize development and research costs so that the rest of us can hopefully one day enjoy the benefits of new technology.

    If this guys wants to pay for a space vacation, excellent. Just make he gets trained, covers his expenses. Maybe it'll catch on.

    If we can make space vacations a trendy get away for the rich we get several benefits:
    1) The coolness factor of space will increase. Can you imagine People magazine introducing the concept? I suspect that most Americans only know space as the thing between their ears. More exposure can only help space exploration

    2) It will create a definite justification for commercial space exploration. Hilton in space has been proposed before, but this could make it real.

    Just my $.02
  • If Russia contributes an equal amount of time, money, and supplies, then they should get an equal share in it. Russia should actually have less of a share than America, because we've had to save its ass a few times just to get a decent living space for the crews up there.
    ---------------
  • My understanding was that he wanted to get up there soon and move on with his life. I can't remember where, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that he didn't want to push his visit back so that he could go through several additional months of training.
  • 4 Cosmonauts have died in flight. 7 US astronauts have died in flight.

    The US has a safety record worse then the Soviet Union/Russia. Get over it.
  • Geopolitics is a doulb edged sword. If everything is done right, it can be a great an wonderful thing, but if anything goes wrong... well I'm preaching to the choir here. I just think we should be careful what we wish for.
  • We've been sending non-satronauts into space for quite awhile ourselves. We call them "mission specialists."

    The most famous beign the school techer we sent up in the ill fated challenger flight.

    Frankly if we can risk lives and send up non-astronauts for political purposes I don't see why the russians should be prevented from doing the same for economic reasons.

    At least this gent soudsn liek hes has soem kind of background in the field...

  • NASA has for years been trying to reduce the cost of spaceflight and increase the public's interest in their programs. I can see no better way to do this than to embrace the idea of civilians in space.

    While $20 million for a ticket hardly makes a dent in the costs to launch the shuttle, the PR is worth much more.

    They could even do a nationwide lottery...$5 per ticket and the winner goes to the space station! I'm sure there are laws against it --- but this is the natural evolution of space travel.

    I also find it hard to believe that this guy would be getting in the way. With all the space available there now, I'm sure he can find a quiet corner.

    What would be humorous would be if there WAS some kind of mishap while he was onboard and he managed to save the whole station from destruction by using a burst of thaleon particles from the main deflect...Oh wait, this is serious space flight business! No room for fun or trying new things, says NASA.

  • I can think of one billionaire [microsoft.com] I'd love to see shot into space.
  • Given that we've already been essentially funding the entire ISS, giving even more money to the contries that still can't finish their ISS modules for double what it cost us to build ours seems pretty stupid.

    The best solution is to let whoever can afford to go into space do it, so long as it does not pose a threat to those back on Earth. This will speed technological development, which will open space to those aforementioned underdeveloped countries.

    "Some things are best left under state control" my ass.

    The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.

  • Russians travelling through space longer? (Score:4)

    by bobhope ( 118008 ) on Friday March 30, 2001 @08:51AM (#326581) Homepage
    Just because you do something first doesn't make you better at it. The russians built a space station. The US went to the moon several times. That is like saying that because my grandparents have been driving longer than me, I should take there advice when I buy a new car. This is a new space station, an INTERNATIONAL one. Russia stepped out of their boundaries by promising this schmuck a ride in exchange for money.
  • It's just like everything else -- money will let people buy their way into just about anything. If you can buy your way into politics, why shouldn't you be able to buy your way into the space program? Both should require special training, but.. Not that I'm a proponent of using money like this, just making an observation.
  • If i remember correctly. (i don't recall where i saw this) but the guy has had enormous amounts of training. He's been in the program for years and working hard to achieve all he's done. I for one say let him go. What's wrong with having a qualified person in there station. Shit if something goes wrong whether he's there or not won't make too much of a difference will it? My guess would be that he would be asked to 'stand aside' while the real players get busy. Let space travel be attainable if you are up to the challenge; physically, mentally and in the bank account!
  • 4.

    Soyuz 1 entered an uncontrollable spin. The spin lasted through reentry, and tangled the parachute shrouds when they deployed. The single occupant died on impact.

    Souyz TM-1 (Soyuz 11) vented the internal atmosphere in orbit. This happened due to a bad valve setting when separating from the service section just prior to reentry. All three occupants suffocated.

    Oh, and those rumors of earlier Soviet deaths are total B.S. I talked this over with a coworker whose job was watching the Soviet space program during the cold war. His work is now declassified. We know of all the fatalities during spaceflight - USSR 4, US 7.

  • Toss Russia A Bone (Score:3)

    by The Breeze ( 140484 ) on Friday March 30, 2001 @08:55AM (#326591) Homepage
    We pressured the Russians, hard, to de-orbit Mir.
    They basically did it to please us so they could devote more resources to the ISS.
    They could have told the ISS to screw itself and maintained Mir - they went from be a leader to a partner.
    Let the Russians send the guy up. It's the least we can do for them.
    It's a mistake to treat the Russians with disrespect - we can a learn a lot from them if we get rid of our arrogant attitudes.

  • That was due to negligence coming from up high in the navy. The captain would have had to sacrifice his career to operate the mission properly.

    This space tourism is different though. The ocean is aready commercialized. Up in space there arent many trawlers to crash into. And this guy is gonig to be essentially a passenger- not a pilot.

    So the sub incident has no bearing.

  • Politics (Score:3)

    by Srin Tuar ( 147269 ) <zeroday26@yahoo.com> on Friday March 30, 2001 @09:56AM (#326593)

    NASA thinks its OK for them to send school teachers into space and get them killed, but not for a civilian to sign a disclaimer and finance his own trip?

    This could even be a good thing- leading to more space tourism. If there isnt enough room for a civilian or two on every trip- then we could simply make more stations.

    Can anyone think of a good reason not to commercialize space? I'm perplexed.

  • If he has 700 hours and is practically a professional cosmonaut, russia should make him one and assign him to a mission on Mir. I mean it is not like NASA can tell Russia what cosmonauts they can use!

  • Read This [cnn.com] article at cnn.com [cnn.com], and you will see that Dennis Tito has over 700 HOURS of training, and is "practically a professional cosmonaut" in the words of Pyotr Klimuk, head of the cosmonaut-training base.

  • Nope. Its a Russian launch system. And it's a joint US/Canadian/Russian/European space station. And the rules say that crew membership is decided by the source country. The Russians have chosen Tito. No votes, them's the rules.

    Stop whinging.

    The best NASA can do is try not to kill another civilian. One is careless. Two... Imagine the fuss there will be if Tito dies and it turns out that he died because NASA refused to train him.

  • Let's face a few facts here... (Score:3)

    by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Friday March 30, 2001 @12:50PM (#326605) Homepage
    a) NASA is really scared of losing another civilian after last time. Really, really scared. Last time there was a significant risk of closing them down entirely. If NASA screws up and kill Tito in the ISS they are in big, big trouble. And its not all that unlikely; space stations are much more fragile than you might suppose. Fire in space is BAD news for example.

    b) Canada doesn't or shouldn't care about whether there is a civilian aboard or not. It doesn't materially affect the chances of a successful mission. Did NASA put them up to this? Does a fish swim? Does a British Prime Minister support every American president at every turn? You betcha.

    c) the only reason that Tito isn't trained is because NASA refused to let him be trained. To turn around and state that he hasn't been trained and therefore can't launch is tantamount to NASA saying: "we decide who goes up and who doesn't, don't bother arguing". Yeah right. International, Space Station. Real international. Under the rules team member is chosen exclusively by the country of origin.

    d) NASA can't actually physically stop him going up. The Russians have the launch vehicle and he is to launch from Russia. If he gets to the ISS NASA has ackowledged that he will NOT be stopped from going anywhere in the ISS.

    e) if NASA actually succeed in forcing Tito to step down or whatever they will NEVER live it down. What kind of example of a supposedly capitalistic country does this make? Aren't NASA supposed to represent the aspirations of America at all? Sorry, you can't go because you've worked hard and you're rich.
  • Remember the last time a civilian was put behind the wheel of an expensive government vehicle?
    The nuclear sub that killed the Asian boat when it emerged underneith it... Keep that in mind...

  • Re:Russians travelling through space longer? (Score:3)

    by wsdorsey ( 179663 ) on Friday March 30, 2001 @09:06AM (#326612) Homepage

    My mother, who is a terrible driver, always insists that she is a better driver than I am simply because she has been driving for longer than I have.

    Just remember, a wealth of experience doesn't make up for a complete and total lack of ability.

    -Dorsey

  • In a weird way, I can see this from a geek view point.

    It is sort of similar to the Problem of the US Navy submarine submarine hitting the tourist boat, because of the civilians on board.

    but in a more ordinary context, the sysadmins can relate to this. Under what conditions would you allow a user into the server/router closet to twiddle with the knobs and watch the flashing lights? Even if it was a paying customer of the company, and the system also doubled as a kick ass gaming lan.

    How long before things like this are treated only as somebodies toy to ride? I grant some PR value, but ...

    Check out the Vinny the Vampire [clik.to] comic strip

  • They sold a trip to Mir, that was the agreement. They owned Mir. They don't own the ISS. It is being planned, manufactured, and financed by several different countries. The truth is, Russia isn't shouldering an equal share of the cost.

    I'm sure this situation was never planned for during the initial discussions with other countries before they committed to building the station. Since it was never planned for, it should not be allowed. All countries involved should remain in full compliance with their initial plans for construction, in the name of cooperation. To me this is Russia's problem to deal with. They sold something they could not provide in the end. They should refund the money.
  • John Glenn was trained as a NASA astronaut. He was trained for emergency situations on the shuttle and was also there as a mission specialist performing experiments as any other astronaut who's not a pilot or involved in some other specialized task might be. Tito, on the other hand, is not NASA trained to be of assistance if there is an emergency situation. If there is an emergency situation in orbit, there are very few people and there is very little space to maneuver. It's very important that everyone who is able knows exactly how to deal with that situation. Astronauts and cosmonauts alike are trained exhaustively for all sorts of bizarre possible scenarios. Tito was trained to visit MIR. He wasn't even given full cosmonaut training. If he is given the kind of extensive training that Glen had for the shuttle, or (more appropriately) the kind of training that the Alpha team has had before visiting the station, then more power to him. I think it's a tremendous breakthrough for a civillian to go to the ISS-- but I think it's a terrible risk to take unless he's properly prepared. He's paying for an incredible vacation, but this vacation necessarily comes with responsibilities. Lives are at stake, even if we discount the time, energy, and money that have gone into getting the ISS this far.
  • Actually, it's not the first time. In the early 90s, a Japanese reporter paid to go to Mir for a couple of weeks. Tito, assuming he'll get to go up, will only be the 2nd civilian to do this.
  • Although I don't exactly agree with sending John Glen, I do not think the situations are comparable. John Glen is, in a very significant sense, a hero. As a reward, we grounded him. Many years later we did what many people think was the right thing by allowing him one last trip. It was not the Moon, but it was the best we could do. Comparing a financier with no space experience to John Glen is stupid.

    On a less emotional note, John Glen was sent up on a relatively routine shuttle mission. We understand the problems, we have lost only one craft, and we have been training these folks for many years. OTOH, Tito is going to be sent up to a new station, with unknown problems. To make matters worse, he is going to be in the Professionals hair for two weeks. Again, anyone who has worked in a lab, or even a production environment, knows the worst thing is visitors or the boss interrupting the project.

    I wish Mir could have stayed up for another year or two. It was a known quantity with known problems. Russia could have sent up a couple tourists a month. If I had the money, I would pay to go. The fact that they crashed Mir shows their real commitment to tourism and the real value of this venture.

  • ...between paying to send up a satelite and paying to send up a human? I could hire the Space Shuttle to deliver a satelite into orbit for me. In doing so, I'm paying for my share of the cost of the hardware and the people to run it. If $20 million covers the expenses of getting this dude into space for a while, why not?

    Getting things into space for profit has been standard practice for quite some time. This is just a slightly different angle.

    ---

  • Russian resentment (Score:4)

    by w00ly_mammoth ( 205173 ) on Friday March 30, 2001 @10:52AM (#326633)
    I don't think you understand the situation. This is just a manifestation of simmering resentment from the Russians, over many issues.

    The US has claimed the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty is no longer valid and is violating it, which seriously pisses off [yahoo.com] the Russians.

    Americans have also been meeting rebels from Chechnya, which has upset the Russian administration. Add to it their conflicting views in Eastern Europe and the expelling of spies by the sack load, and you have plenty of trouble.

    From the Russian point of view, there's the wounded pride of a fallen superpower and resentment at a right-wing US president trying to revive the cold war. So naturally, they try to fight back in every way they can.

    Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has called the ABM treaty ``ancient history.''

    Surely you can't casually dismiss a ballistic missile treaty and expect them to hold on to their end of the bargain in carrying a tourist abroad?

    w/m
  • Actually, the reason the US is ticked off is because he wouldn't go to the training NASA demanded he go on.

    Uhmm.. last I read he was ticked because when he showed up for the NASA training they wouldn't let him through the gate [cnn.com].

  • Just an Astronaut (Score:5)

    by pcidevel ( 207951 ) on Friday March 30, 2001 @08:58AM (#326639)
    They should just treat Tito the same as any other russian astronaut. They shouldn't care how russia picks their people to go into space, either through some testing program, or large amounts of cash or by seeing who can run furthest through siberia naked. It's russian's space program and they should be able to do what they want. The ISS is a joint venture but the US isn't liable for who russia brings into space. I personally think it's about damn time to bring commericialism into space, this is exactly what NASA needs, to sparc up some interest amongst the civilians again.
  • Probably the CAF [confederateairforce.org] is just branching out.

  • How Larry Ellison will respond (with his massive ego) by offering to build his own personal japanese teahouse in the ISS. Then Bill Gates will want something, followed by Tiger Woods' personal 0-G putting green, Ted Turner's personal viewing room (with Jane Fonda workout room), etc. At some point, it'll look like they launched Times Square into orbit. Maybe Futurama isn't so far fetched after all. Better invest in anchovies.

    --

  • As much as Americam egotism hates to admit, other folks on the planet have expertise in spaceflight. Some more than we.

    Perhaps it represents a change in status for NASA that they don't want. With the advent of what is essentially chartered service, perhaps NASA views themselves as less worthy. After all, for years they were at the forefront of what was popularly known as science (yes, I know that a large part of it was actually engineering...) and maybe they fear that in allowing passengers they will eventually be regarded as "airline pilots" and "support crew" rather than an august scientific body.

    I think it is about time to separate the truly scientific parts of NASA away from the engineering pieces, commercialise the latter and get on with life. I think that the good folks in NASA management ought to realise that throughout the course of history, it was never the groundbreakers and explorers who wound up owning the resources, but those who commercialised the resources and transport.

    If you don't believe me, look around at all the bank and university admin. buildings, and see who's names are on them.

  • How is this different from what NASA did in sending a senator into space? Oh, except that in Glenn's case, the US public paid the bill.

    Glenn was not even the first US Senator to go into space... Jake Garn was on STS-51 in 1985. Ostensbily, he was "trained" as a Mission Specialist - he took peoples temperatures and made some pretty graphs or such. Realistically, his ride was just the ultimate political junket with no scientific value (Garn was on one of the NASA oversight committees) - NASA just wanted to help get their funding. His flight was met with much derision in the press at the time. In 1986 Florida Congresscritter Bill Nelson was flown aboard STS-61 as a payload specialist - I think he made sure that the seatbacks were in the upright and locked position before landing. So... NASA's attempt to interefere with Russia taking Tito into space due to his "lack of training" (though he has been training in Russia for over 8 months) is hypocritical at best and shameful at worst.

  • Russia is NOT an equal partner (Score:5)

    by thrasymachus ( 232855 ) on Friday March 30, 2001 @09:36AM (#326655)
    Russia isn't an equal partner in the International Space station. The United States bears the brunt of the cost of building the station. Also, the russians have been behind schedule on their modules the entire time. NASA guys had to prepare contingency plans because the early russian FGB power module almost didn't launch. Furthermore, the primary reason the russians are in this is political. Its really a symbol of post-cold war cooperation. We have the engineers and tech to do this ourselves, but we want to make it an international effort.

    I'm sure there's a waiting list a mile long to get onto that station, and we shouldn't bump up a rich tourist to the top of the list simply because he paid off the russians.

    1. the NASA mentality is that there is no margin for error. my dad works for NASA, and i can attest to atleast his crazy triple-backup contingency plan ways.

    2. sending people up in the space shuttle is different than the ISS, they've flown over a hundred shuttle flights... the ISS is a newer technology and initially we've got to prioritize science and engineering goals over tourism, if even just for the safety concerns... (that's why sending up john glenn is different from this guy)

  • Can he be more of a liability than John Glenn? (Score:3)

    by ABIGGUY ( 237764 ) on Friday March 30, 2001 @08:54AM (#326658)
    As long as Tito goes through the proper training regimen, and is certified by NASA, he can't be much more of a liability than John Glenn was when he went up a few years ago. Glenn, though trained as an astronaut, was way past his prime, physically, and might have been a liability in a crisis situation. Tito is younger and (I would guess) stronger, and would have less physical limitations. When Glenn's last flight returned to earth, the astronauts were not allowed to leave the shuttle right away, because Glenn had become sick in the cockpit and they didn't want to embarrass him.

    I can understand the Canadian's reticence to send Tito up with their robotic arm, as he wouldn't be able to help unless he was specifically trained on that mission, but he should be able to go at some point, having made the deal with Russia long ago.
  • We've already got that.

    As soon as we semi-privatized space developemtn we opened the door to this sort of thing.

    Space is not a military project though it does have national security aspects to it; astronauts and cosmonauts adjust and repair classified satellites, and both space agencies shoot up spy satellites in unmanned missions on behalf of national security.

    However, after the Cold War the priority of space went lower again. The the commercial cachet of space was one of the things that many space agencies around the world, but especially the Russians, used to raise funds for their ailing program.

    So, is space for war, or science, or money? Now that we have multiple agencies with different reasoning on this issue conributing to a single space station, we had better get a treaty together settling these issues as a matter of international law. And quick.

    I wouild think that the US, with its great plans for weapons in space (DUMB!!!), is probably the least likely to go for a more commercialized space program. Of course it's the best funded, too. Probably the best solution is to give more aid to developing countries so they can enjoy the benefits of space without having to sell them off to the highest bidder.

    Some things are better left under state control.

  • Remember, this is the same country where you can fly in a MiG-29 jet fighter. Sure, there is talk about screening to make sure you don't croak but from reviews of the experience its more of a formality. I'm not against people paying there way into space, but I don't know that the ISS is the right place for it. It's a scientific mission, and as we've seen with the recent U.S. submarine disaster civilians and expensive military or other hardware don't necessarily mix well.
  • No, no, no -- you've got to take Dubya, and Detroit too... ;)
  • And what's the ratio of manned missions? I'm guessing 5 or 10 to 1?
  • NASA is willing to train him??? He showed up for training a while back and was refused admittance.
  • They've been flying manned space missions for forty years. They damned well should have figured out how to handle ONE passenger by now.

    By comparison: 20 years after the Wright brothers first flight, you could get a brief joyride in an airplane for a few bucks at nearly any county fair. 30 years after the first airplane flight, Pan Am was running scheduled passenger service over much of the world, using airplanes designed for carrying passengers. NASA hasn't been advancing spaceflight, it's been holding it back by throwing obstacles in the way of free enterprise.

  • Re:Russians travelling through space longer? (Score:4)

    by mech9t8 ( 310197 ) on Friday March 30, 2001 @10:57AM (#326687)
    >> Just because you do something first doesn't make you better at it. The russians built a space station. The US went to the moon several times.

    Well, not the argue the 'stepped out of bounds' on the international station, which I agree with, but a very good case could be made the the russians have had a much more successful space program.

    The Russians
    - have a better safety record
    - have cheaper and more reliable expendable launch vehicles
    - have had multiple generations of space stations
    - have a highly reliable unmanned supply system (the Progress spacecraft)
    - have their own shuttle (the Buran shuttle, which flew once before being mothballed due to lack of funds) and a heavy-lift system (Energiya) which could be used to loft the shuttle or any other heavy components (a station the mass of Mir could be lifted in one shot)

    The americans, on the other hand, threw out pretty much everything they had a put all their eggs in the far-too-ambitious, far-too-expensive Space Shuttle. And after they did that, they threw billions in the far-too-ambitious, far-too-expensive Space Station program. And it wasn't until the Russians stepped in (close to 10 years and 10 billion dollars after the US Space Station program began) that the US station became viable.

    After the success of the Apollo program, the US apparently forgot that the best way to get to space is to start simple and work your way up. Their initial designs for the space station had freakin' hangars to repair satellites in. Looked cool, sure, but wholely impractical.

    The Russians have demonstrated a much better manned space program. If it wasn't for their whole economy collapsing, they'd have a 2nd-generation permanent station, a cheap and reliable launch and resupply system, a shuttle for when the capabilities of shuttles were needed, and a heavy-launch vehicle. The States would probably still be squandering billions on a station with no crew escape capabilities, no self-propulsion abilities, an enormously expensive resupply system (the shuttle) and increasingly reduced science capabilities.
    --
    Assume that there are valid arguments against your position.
  • The ISS was not sent up there to cater to the whims of rich folk. What about the real astronauts that are on in the queue to go up? Is it fair to them to be possibly bumbed because someone has paid a huge amount of money?
  • If the Canadian Space Agency's and NASA's scheduled operations on the International Space Station have the potential to be disrupted by a Russian grab for cash, I think everyone's worst fears about the Station are being realised. This sort of silliness just wouldn't be allowed to go on in any other government research ventures.

    When was the last time you saw the Los Alamos labs offering businessmen the opportunity to play with their equipment for a week if the price is right? Sensitive research ventures can't be the playpen of Wall Street, whether or not Wall Street has the cash to make it so.

  • I think NASA is still haunted by Christa McAuliffe's ghost. Before the Challenger explosion, NASA was putting Senators, Congressmen, princes, and other non-astronauts on shuttle flights. McAuliffe was the first non-political person to fly... the whole world was watching... and some idiot manager snaps, "My God, Thiokol! When do you want to launch? Next April?" and the SRBs leak gas and blow up the teacher in front of her class. Then again, the U.S. Navy, in an analagous situation, managed to sink a Japanese fishing boat, kill nine men, AND destroy several promising naval careers by having 16 DVs (Distinguised Visitors) on a sub. Perhaps Mr. Tito should make out a check to the Republican National Committee. Did NASA scream when they started adding Mission Specialists to the flight crew because they weren't all pilots? You can't lie to an airplane or to the sea. They'll kill you. But airplanes and ships carry passengers. As long as Mr. Tito doesn't sit on his ass and demand personal service from the crew of the ISS, and maybe does a few of the simpler tasks, it's okay to have him aboard.
  • It's worth noting that though Russia and the US both payed for components of the space station, many of the US components were actually built in Russia. Sure, it's rediculous that this guy is going into space, just because he's got money, but frankly, that's Russia's problem. If we are to maintain any sort of pretense of this being an "International" space station, we should let Russia make it's own (bad) decisions. If he posed a serious risk the station itself, or to the lives of Americans we would have a right to intervene. But he does not. We'd do better to shut our collective mouth and be glad Russia does the same when we select who we want to send into space.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's hard to think of you as the end result of millions of years of evolution.

Close