Tito In Space 130
SanLouBlues writes: "This story has the scoop on Dennis Tito in space. He is up there now and will be for the next 6 days "with his video camera and CD player." whee."
trolebus contributes links to coverage on CNN and on Reuters.
It's been a long, strange story -- the optimisic Tito was originally planning on going to Mir, but looks like he got an upgrade. I hope he's savoring this trip for $20 million worth of memories. Don't forget, there is a cheaper version of space tourism on the horizon, too.
Re:Cost of this trip (Score:1)
Such a formula doesn't even hold for airplane ticket prices.
Re:We need to get the whole world out in space (Score:1)
Re:What worries me most... (Score:1)
Re:What really pissed off NASA (Score:1)
Except that I'M PAYING FOR NASA AND THE ISS fool! (Score:1)
Otherwise why don't the feds take a billion dollar bribe from Bill Gates and let him run his monopoly with impunity. There is a higher responsibility in the world than to the almighty dollar. We must obey the law first.
Tito is a mockery to all tax payers. Who's paying for his safety and the resources (material and of staff) that he's consuming up there. You. Me. All of us pay.
Re:oh yeah that proves something: NASA deserpation (Score:1)
Tito should have been shot into space... (Score:1)
Re:What worries me most... (Score:2)
we should have kept mir up there, then we could send people there and they could flip switches!
This is really really awesome! (Score:2)
Oh, I thought it said TITS in space. Nevermind.
Ha ha, self important NASA twits! (Score:2)
Maybe we need a civilian review committee up there to over see activity on the ISS and make sure nothing illegal or unethical is being done.
And build some space hotels. The $20,000,000 can be driven way down if we start getting more people and more private industry and business up there.
Christie McCalliuf? (Score:2)
Better Alpha than Greeneville (Score:2)
Re:What worries me most... (Score:2)
No, the big red button labeled 'De-orbit Spacestation. Do not push!' will trigger an airtight compartment to form around the immediate area, which will depressurize, killing anyone foolish enough to disregard it. The actual 'De-orbit' button will be labeled 'Human waste disposal', or some such.
Sheesh, that's like Rule 9 [eviloverlord.com]. Foolish mortals.
--
AC
I'd pay it (Score:3)
I bet the beautiful blue-white-hazel view from the window is worth twice 20 M USD. It's our home, seen from a distance. We all live there. And still we fight wars and picker about things.
Re:Tourists in space- serious thoughts (Score:3)
Very good post but you are wrong about one thing. The Russians are riding a new Soyuz up there and coming back in the old one that is currently docked to the ISS. They will do this every six months regardless of any research that they will be performing. It only takes two people to drop off a Soyuz but it has three seats. They are not giving up anything by bringing Tito along.
Tito in space for $20 million. No way. (Score:3)
Tito in space (space...space...) (Score:4)
Space hotels! (Score:4)
"The payload capability for the same satellite deploy mission with a 57-degree inclination is 41,000 pounds."
Assuning an average weight of 150 pounds (68kg) for people (some will weigh more, some less), that's enough for 273 people. So spread that $20,000,000 cost over a few hundred passengers and that cost starts to come down. We're at $73,000 per person now.
Couple this with more flights, corporate sponsoring, casinos, etc., and you could whittle this down to under $20,000 easy. Still a high price, but not so much for the jet set or for business to send some staff up. And for sure radio stations and such will buy tickets and give them away to contest winners.
The age of the common man in space may be nearer than you think.
Dennis Tito Billed for ISS Server Crashes (Score:4)
Cost of this trip (Score:5)
3,333,333 $ per day
138,889 $ per hour
2,315 $ per minute
39 $ per second
Look at your bank account balance, and see how much time in space you can afford. :-)
Re:This shouldn't happen again (Score:5)
This is just NASA trying to keep their current near monopoly on manned space flight. They have to pretend that only people who work for them are competent to leave the atmosphere.
This actually reminds me of the fuss the Russians raised when Mir went down about leaving only the US with a significant manned space presence. This was dismissed as nationalist propaganda by the western news services that covered it, and they were largely correct, but perhaps there is some nuget of truth in the Russian's fears. Although the ISS is international, I don't think anyone will deny that NASA is the dominant player.
Re:What worries me most... (Score:4)
Re:Borders in the Stellar Theme Park?? (Score:2)
I find it ANNOYING that more and more often I see statements like this. You saw one person say one thing, and a different person say something else, then you used the faulty logic that because they both posted on a common website that there's only one person (!) with two contradicting views.
And even if you do manage to find an individual who can't think clearly enough to make statements without contradicting themselves, this doesn't mean all "Slashdotters" think the same way.
I'm getting sick of the "Slashdot people think this" or "Slashdot people are this" stupidity. I don't want my individuality erased because you're too lazy to use your common sense.
Conspiracy Theory (Score:1)
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
Getting his money's worth (Score:5)
Re:Tito in space (space...space...) (Score:5)
I guess we should let more tourist on Navy submarines as well. They could not possible do any harm there. Err... - ooops.
Oh the *irony*! (Score:5)
More power to the Russians.
Next month's headline (Score:5)
Good for him.... (Score:5)
Yeah, Yeah, I know he is rich and the Russians are poor etc...
However, I saw a picture of that old man looking like a kid with his first bike and for some reason it made me feel good.
Good for him.
Re:Airlines (Score:1)
My guess is: airplanes have more fiddly bits to get scrambled. Radar, fancy control electronics, engine computers, etc. While a rocket during the launch phase is just a long thin explosion with some people sat on top. 'sides, they build spacecraft to take hard gamma-radiation from the sun, so a palm pilot ain't gonna do much.
--
Price of immortal fame... (Score:5)
Something that nobody is really discussing is how this man's life is going to be once he returns. Dennis Tito is going to be everywhere, he may be a millionaire, but he isn't an astronaut. The majority of humanity has more of what it takes to become a millionaire than an astrounaut anyday.
So think about it, the speaking tours, the talk shows, the morning news shows, the endorsements, it will be non-stop. Let's not forget the book deal about his ordeal. I am not saying that he did it for the fame, but he will be able to afford a lot more trips after he gets back.
I am going to open up a history book in ten years and see this man's name.
Just my 2 cents
Re:Space hotels! (Score:2)
---
Re:Space hotels! (Score:3)
---
Re:Cost of this trip (Score:4)
$=nD+x
Where n being days in space.
D, being the cost of a day in space.
X would be $10 million or so.
---
Re:Tito in space (space...space...) (Score:2)
Re:The article is misleading (Score:1)
So the space station can't yet handle two docked spacecraft at once? Anyone know when that capacity will be available?
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Re:It's not just memories he's buying (Score:2)
The problem is that it isn't an industry (yet) - it's just the governments of a few countries doing research. What we really need is to allow and even encourage private space ventures (i.e. allow companies and individuals to have their own space programs). Private funding of government programs is also good (like the infamous Pizza Hut logo) because it provides more incentive to push forward into space.
It's time to realize and consciously acknowledge the fact that space exploration affects the entire human race - NOT merely individual countries! Yes, it's true that companies will probably keep more things secret (in regards to space research at least), but there would be a much higher level of competition. In fact, companies keeping things secret from each other would probably result in research progressing along different lines of thought, and thus different approaches to similar problems (something which may prove to be sorely lacking in multi-national goverment-run space ventures)
Yes, having space research performed only by governments gives a sense of altruistic cooperation, but said governments have little incentive to push forward when money gets tight (unless they're in competition with other countries' governments, which is also a bad thing due to the destructive potential of space technology!)
Re:Oh the *irony*! (Score:2)
Re:The article is misleading (Score:2)
Not reckless, just not at all afraid to die or try something new without going trough a committee. We were like that once, now we're too scared to even launch a shuttle with some cloud cover. The Russians don't look at space as some silly science experiment where everything must be controlled and no danger is there at all. They look at it as a frontier where we need to explore. You see it in their ship and rocket design. Everything is minimal and simple. Able to work in the coldest Siberian nights to the warmest Caspian days. The Mir wasn't completely designed as much as just built as needed. Just add things on as they went, and as long as nothing went wrong ( and even if it did) just went about their business. I say let the russians dock. We'll need to figure out if it can be done eventually, so it's better late than never! We can learn a lot more from them than they can learn from us.
Re:So Fly up a quantity of liquid oxygen w shutle. (Score:1)
really though. those were just a few problems that came to mind immediately. there would be several others...
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
Re:Space hotels! (Score:2)
next is the landing. normally when a shuttle goes up with 40kips it gets rid of it. now you have to land with that much more weight.
a few thoughts.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
Send Bill Gates into space (Score:4)
I only hope this will catch on to high profile guys in Microsoft such as Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. A rocket with computers entirely runned and guided by Microsoft products would definitly convince them that a trip into space would just be worth all their money.
I bet these guys are actually so stupid that they would buy such a trip. This would be a memorable moment for the rest of the world. The inventors of the BSOD lost in space desperatly trying to reboot their computers.
//Pingo
What I find amusing about NASA bitching... (Score:1)
This sets an interesting precedent for the Russian Space Agency - @ 20 million / Tourist, and 10 million / Soyuz, and, say, 12 Soyuz flights a year, they won't be doing too shabbily... Maybe they can use the proceeds to fund Mir2??? LOL
Seriously, how much would it cost to build a tourist capsule and attach it to the ISS where you could take tourists and they could have their own private window and just watch the planet whiz by and NASA could stop bitching about Tito potentially breaking shit.
Cyano
My god, I gave up moderation privs to write that. <sigh>
It's not just memories he's buying (Score:5)
Yes, space missions are hard, especially the likes we've had in the past. But there's no reason we can't enter a new era where the physical and mental demands on the space traveller aren't much less severe than they've been.
Space tourism is going to be a boon to the industry and Tito is going to demonstrate that.
I guess I CAN afford to go to space then (Score:1)
Seriously, it can't be linear. They'd have to allocate so many $ for training and preparation in order to take you for any flight; so many $ for the launch and return; and only after that, so many $ per minute, with the caveat that you just can't bug one minute, because you can't just deorbit on split second demand - there are only certain places you can land.
Re:Cheap Space Flight For All? I Won't Hold My Bre (Score:2)
Um, check that article [chron.com] again. It's 3 hours.
Re:Tito in space (space...space...) (Score:2)
With the training he has gone through, concerns about safety aren't much of a reason for NASA not wanting to let Tito into space.
The article is misleading (Score:5)
ok (Score:5)
Re:Space hotels! (Score:5)
The space shuttle budget for 2001 was 3.28 billion dollars. Divide that by the scheduled 7 flights and you get 468 million per flight. Even if you could cram people in without seats or life support, you are talking about ~2 million a person. Unfortunately actually cargo capability of the space shuttle is significantly less because of mass and balance constraints for abort. And people need seats and life support.
The cost of a Soyuz flight is on the order of 6 million. The cost of a Proton flight with similair cargo capabilities to the shuttle is on the order of 10 million. (of course, you can't buy it at that price. However, you can buy them for something on the order of $2000/lb) The nice thing about a Soyuz is you can probably find 3 people who are willing to pay millions of dollars to go into space while it would be much more difficult to find hundreds of people to do the same. In '99 the budget for the Russian space program was $99 million, of which 50-70% was funded.The side note to all of this is the foreign currency reserve situation in Russia. The Russian government prints money and lives with the inflationary consequences. However, undertakings of technical complexity such as the space program require significant outlays of dollars. Tito's flight probably provides all of the foreign currency reserves to operate the Russian space program this year.
Ultimately, however, unique markets such as space tourism will demand unique vehicles. The theory, in some circles, is the elasticity of space tourism will pay for the development of such vehicles. The few people you launch for $20million a pop will finance the development of vehicles to launch thousands for $100k a pop and millions for $10k a pop. Of course only time will tell.
The long term importance of this is that citizen exploration of space has to take place before citizen space settlement. As government has shown no willingness (or reason, or responsibility for the involved risks) for space settlement, this is the most important context of space tourism.
-Jay Thomas
http://www.jay.cxRe:This shouldn't happen again (Score:2)
America, where dreams come true... (Score:3)
Re:Borders in the Stellar Theme Park?? (Score:5)
Anybody who aruges otherwise simply has no clue what it was designed for to begin with. Contrary to popular belief, Alpha was designed to house several lab modules- from the United States, Japan, Russia, and the ESA to name a few. The fact that they aren't in orbit yet is the only real argument that can be made.
I suppose it never occurs to many that a great many of the research projects in Alpha are related to human physiology, and how it reacts in space. Such as finding how to reduce or eliminate the loss of bone density while in space, microgravity orientation, heart and nervous system changes-
Not to mention the myriad of other technologies that are being put to the test - such as a VR robot that will take the place of a human spacewalk- extension of this technology, when fully developed, will allow remote sugery from anywhere in the world.
Air filtration, water purification, waste removal and disposal- also vital bits of science that Alpha is already experimenting with, and have very clear ramifications on earth- the time is not far off that it will be clean water that is more precious and sought after than oil. Being able to purify water from sewage at low cost is vital. Air filtration is already becoming an important issue in many metropolitan areas.
And, of course, there's launch costs - the single most expensive aspect of spaceflight. Dealing with Alpha requires the development of ever-more inexpensive methods of launching cargo into orbit.
And, lastly- whatever the environmentalists say about saving the Earth doesn't matter; even if all pollution was immediately stopped, mankind would be doomed in a few centuries anyway - humanity simply cannot support itself on the resources of Earth alone. Its population is already considered too large for the earth to support - and the human population is growing rapidply.
I find it unsettling that Slashdotters have the mentality of 'free or die' and 'bad, bad profit-mongers!' and still end up saying "You can't fund such a project unless you can be sure you will make a profit" - This amounts to arguing that the government should fund Microsoft's researchers, then letting Microsoft sell the results of the government sponsored research be sold, with exclusive rights going to MS.
It's a solid fact (US. Treasury statistic) that for each and every dollar spent on the space program - NASA, or otherwise, the government gets over seven dollars' worth of research, and actual worth in return, making the space program the most 'profitable' of anything any government has done.
Station Alpha is about serious work; some is done in space - the majority is done on Earth. There really is nothing political about Alpha, save that NASA has to convince several of the world's governments that it is a worthwhile effort. The fact that NASA launched and built most of the station is one reason why NASA gets so much of a say as to what happens there. Italy, for example, wants to add its own hab/science modules to Alpha - and if/when they do, they get rights to whatever happens in their module. The current state of Alpha is really no different; tito is allowed in the 'international' secions of the station, and not the modules considered 'US Owned.'
NASA's primary concern was always the timescale - it's just too dangerous, espescially with the current computer problems Alpha is having. It's also a rather well-documented case that the Russians have historically been far more cavalier about safety than the US is-- sometimes to the point of recklessness. Much of the conflict is NASA's safety policies clashing with Russia's.
MIR nearly killed its crew a great many times. NASA doesn't want to make the same mistakes, or have the same problems.
Re:The cost of the ISS: $4billion (Score:2)
Re:oh yeah that proves something: NASA deserpation (Score:2)
Re:What worries me most... (Score:2)
Eh? He's from California. Read the BBC's profile [bbc.co.uk] of him and you'll see that he worked in NASA in the 60s for 5 years.
Re:This shouldn't happen again (Score:2)
Re:The article is misleading (Score:3)
It's the most useful experiment on the ISS I bet. (Score:2)
Cheerio,
Link.
Re:What worries me most... (Score:3)
That having been said, I'd give my left testicle to go into space. That'd be so cool... Oh well, I guess I'll have to wait for the flying cars and stuff to take me. :(
-------
Re:Cost of this trip (Score:3)
Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. I wouldn't be surprised if the first few minutes of the Soyuz launch was more than 80% of the cost.
Need XML expertise? crism consulting [maden.org]
Re:Space for the rest of us! (Score:2)
Re:Tito - selfish bastard (Score:4)
________
Irony. (Score:4)
Ironic, that NASA, a creation of a nation which espouses capitalism, would complained about the historic milestone in the commercialization of space. I would have expected them to welcome Tito with open arms and maybe fund a few of their own tourists. Imagine the extra flights they could have made to build the ISS.
Anyway, about the "dangers" of civilians breaking things : that didn't stop the submarines commanders to let civilians sit in consoles during a mock emergency surfacing drill. Of which I believe, is so much more dangerous letting some guy who is at least trained to float around a mostly automated station.
First Jackson in space (Score:2)
Mmmm...Sacrelicious!
Cheap Space Flight For All? I Won't Hold My Breath (Score:4)
I hope he's savoring this trip for $20 million worth of memories. Don't forget, there is a cheaper version of space tourism on the horizon, too.
When it comes to space exploration, I think of Russia (USSR) and the United States as the countries that have actually done anything fairly significant outside of our atmostphere. The idea that Japanese companies are going to form some group to take untrained humans into space for 3 days and $26000 seems quite far-fetched.
Re:What worries me most... (Score:2)
Another thing to consider my friends is that we have to deal with the fact that we're not getting to go up into space and play around in near zero-gravity environments. Is this fair? I think not. Either we all go, or only the astronauts go.
Okay, what I have to say probably has already been said but.... you do realise Tito has been faulr y well trained (was it 10 months or a bit less?) beforehand, right? Could you, in 10 months be trained not to touch the wrong switch per chance? I'm quite sure Mr Tito, who after all was a rocket scientist for NASA in the 60's would have a good idea what he was doing.
Maybe it's not fair we dont get up there, but hey, this guy is groundbreaking for us. Now he's done it maybe other agencies will start realising there is a shitload of money to be made - 20 million is a lot in any language. How much does a shuttle mission cost in total? I would say put a turist in each launch, train em and give them their money's worth.
I say good on him. He's putting his money where he wants it to be and he's the first of what I hope are many tourists. Remember, someone has to be first. Maybe the day we get to go up there will be bought closer to us by his actions.
Re:the realy question (Score:5)
hehe they have to, what region are they in?
hold on comrad we just came over the US, we need to change disks and players back to region one. Sirgi put the player from japan back in the locker......
________
Re:oh yeah that proves something: NASA deserpation (Score:2)
--
Mister Tito and his American Flag patch. (Score:2)
Looking at a Sky News (U.K.) broadcast of Mister Tito heading out... I did notice that he is wearing a U.S.A. Flag emblem on his left shoulder.
Does this mean that all American citizens heading outwards whether this be from the continental United States or domimions or territories are also allowed to wear the Flag on their left shoulder to wherever they go or for whatever reason and whenever?
(Not being a prick here about this... I thought that the wearing of the "flag" on the left shoulder denoted an "official" responsibility...? maybe I am wrong).
cheers
front
The cost of the ISS: $4billion (Score:5)
The rocket: $5 million
The look on Dan Goldin's face: priceless!
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4)
Yes! (Score:3)
Borders in the Stellar Theme Park?? (Score:3)
This is not Disney Land he's going to, but a space station devoted to serious work. What benefit to mankind is he performing up there, checking to see if his CD player spins right in zero G? All he's getting is a place in the history books and getting in the way of the planet's business for a week.
I'm all for Space tourism, but this is not the place for him to be. If we are to get into the business of space tourism, then a platform for that purpose needs to be put up there. I'm sure more people would be willing to pay if you had an airtight cabin with a bed and plumbing that people could just go up to for a few days so they can have their joy at saying they went up.
At any rate, what does disturb me is that the ISS is being "zoned" and that at one point he was not being allowed into the American module. Either he goes up or he doesn't go up. If NASA had objections, they should have stuck by them, otherwise it's just a circus act. And the Russians have taken Tito's money to send him up, but it's their money; how much of that $20mil goes to the other nations of the ISS? Is this an new economic sphere in orbit? Will we see anarchist protest groups storming the space station from the Rainbow Warrior II space capsule to speak out against space commercialism?
Re:Tourists in space- serious thoughts (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it seems like you are correct. Whenever anyone points out the great "benefits" of having a space station, it almost solely results in an argument for "great scientific/medical experiments and discoveries in zero gravity". However, I have not seen anyone yet show any concrete scientific/medical result of having humans aboard a space station for the past ~20 years or so.
Sure, we've learned a great deal more about living in space but that doesn't help much (at the moment) to us who plan to remain on our planet for the foreseable future. The only benefit of having a space station that I can see is research in future space exploration (yeah, we'll have to learn how to survive in space for long period of time eventually), but at the moment we aren't even close to having the technology to have these long interplanetary voyages where this research would be extremely helpful.
So there really wasn't any rush to building this expensive station NOW, instead of waiting a few decades when space travel technology can be more efficient and cheaper to use. But I guess starting early has its benefits too...
Airlines (Score:5)
Bryguy
Tomorrow on Fox News! (Score:5)
What really pissed off NASA (Score:3)
Re:Cost of this trip (Score:2)
Good for him (Score:5)
If NASA were broke... (Score:5)
Re:the realy question (Score:3)
I can see tito with napster, a burner and a list of tracks from 2001."
Actually, there are already illegal (as per the DMCA and by applying the DeCSS case) DVD players on the ISS... They have region-free players that will play any disc.
Long Live Tito, the Man of the Hour (Score:2)
Unless we (humanity) revolutionize our physical sciences, we are doomed because our teeming masses are fast exhausting the natural resources of our world. This in turn leads to all sorts of unpleasantness such as ecological disasters, diseases, societal friction and devastating wars. We need room to expand. We are certainly not going to colonize the solar system with our primitive chemical propulsion systems (and cockamamie contraptions like solar sails) let alone the star systems beyond. Even if we could move at the speed of light, mass migration to other stars is out of the question. And we do not have much time to find a solution. The ecological and societal clocks are ticking. We can't wait another one or two hundred years for the spacetime physics establishment to realize its errors. We need a plan of action and we need it now!
We need to revolutionize out space transportation science and technology so that a trip to an orbiting station is no more expensive and inconvenient than a trip from Los Angeles to San Diego.
Re:Tourists in space- serious thoughts (Score:4)
Musabayev, Baturin and Tito - hence a hypothetical other third crew member, had the latter not flown - are only staying a week or so. They are on a "taxi mission", to change the Soyuz lifeboat, which is only certified for six months in space. You can't lose much more than a few days' worth of research.
Re:It's not just memories he's buying (Score:5)
Calm down. Umberto Guidoni is an ESA astronaut, he trained hard for this mission, and if you look at his biography [nasa.gov], you'll see that it's his second space flight. He's not the one to compare with.
That said, I fully agree that people much less qualified than Dennis Tito have been sent on shuttle missions for purely political reasons. I don't see any reason why he shouldn't have flown.
On the other hand, the Russians haven't been too nice either, presenting all their partners with a fait accompli, totally disregarding those of NASA arguments which were valid (Canadarm2 testing is not exactly the best time for a tourist visit), not to speak of their attitude before the Service Module launch...
Re:Borders in the Stellar Theme Park?? (Score:5)
He's rebuffing that NASA myth that normal people can't fly in space, despite MsMcAuliffe's tragic death. While other people, equally or even less qualified, have already flown, that's the picture the media are sending.
As for the ISS' "serious work", well, one could argue that the main job being done there is politics. That station hasn't been designed with science in mind, nor can it be considered a "stepping stone" for future missions. So...
I agree. However, you can't fund such a project unless you can be sure you will make a profit, that is, people will want to pay and go, but you can't see that before people do pay and go, etc. Bootstrapping the process fits perfectly into the governmental space agencies' missions, IMHO.
Re:The article is misleading (Score:5)
Yes. But three is more troublesome.
Let's see... If I'm not mistaken, there are at least two Soyuz/Progress docking ports: Zvezda's aft port, to which a Soyuz is currently attached, and Zarya's nadir port, at which the next Soyuz is to dock; other ports may be available (maybe on Zvezda) but apparently they are never used for docking (maybe thay are not equipped for automatic docking?)
Furthermore, there are two shuttle docking ports, one on Destiny, where Endeavour currently is, and another on Unity's side, but I don't think it's really usable.
So, in the current configuration (see NASA's diagram [nasa.gov]), if a Soyuz is to dock at Zarya's nadir port while a shuttle is there, it has to pass within a few meters of the shuttle's tail. Nobody really knows how this would affect the docking radars and so on.
Needless to say, the reckless Russians say it's not a problem, while paranoid NASA is scared to death of anybody even trying.
What is so sensitive he can't see? (Score:2)
I am still wondering why that is. Do they really think he will come running in with a bag of chips ala Homer in Space to screw up their experiments? Or are they conducting experiments too sensitive for him to see?
Re:This shouldn't happen again (Score:5)
It seems to me that the majority of the people that ride the shuttle into space since its inception aren't "real astronauts" in the Right Stuff sense. So what? The only difference between this guy and anyone else that has ridden into space is that he *paid* for his seat and he's there as a tourist and not as a researcher.
So, NASA bitches and moans about how this guy might get in the way because he's not a "trained astronaut." So what? NASA has a well established background of sending non-astronauts into space anyway. Recall the challenger incident? McAuliffe's *only* real purpose of being on that mission was for PR. She was going to teach a few classes to her students from space.
Re:It's not just memories he's buying (Score:3)
International "guest" Astronauts and Cosmonauts have been flying since the eighties at least. Right now there is a Canadian, a Russian, and an Italian on Board the Shuttle. The Italian guy has never been in space, and is only there to "over see" unloading of Italian Rafaello module. It seems the only difference between Umberto Guidoni and Titto is ideological, they have about equal training, with the excpetion of the training that NASA refused to Mr. Titto.
If it is OK to fly political "guests" why not bussiness "guests"?
Todays event, is an event we will remeber. (Maybe not quite as well as Gagarin flight, but that was first for man, not bussinesman.)
Re:What worries me most... (Score:5)
First off, Tito isn't some moron who doesn't knew his ass from a hole in the ground.
Second, comparing this to your electronics course is rediculous; you people were *told* to mess around and push the pretty buttons. It was part of the course. AND, nobody thought pushing a button was going to kill people and cost billions of dollars.
Sheesh.
Now, if you're referring to possible future space tourism, it's just as rediculous. Airplanes have all sorts of potentially dangerous pretty buttons. Do passengers cause crashes? No! They aren't allowed to play in the cockpit. Obviously, before space tourism takes off, the space station or whatever has to be designed with that in mind. A place for pilots and such, and a place for tourists. Simple.
Do you really think that your average joe is so incredibly stupid as to run around a multi-billion dollar craft where he isn't allowed, pushing buttons at random? Do you really think the 'De-orbit' button is some big red thing labeled 'Push Me!'? Come on...
--
Damn it Jim, that's my sphincter, not a jelly donut!!!
Re:Borders in the Stellar Theme Park?? (Score:2)
While the various things that are being studied on ISS are beyond question important, it is not clear that it is an efficient way to study them.
Argument by historical analogy is dangerous, but up to and in the Apollo era, NASA would devote major resources to an experiment in technology only if it was critical to moving forward with NASA's larger goals, or in the context of another mission. The problem with ISS is that we're spinning our wheels gathering more data on a set of questions that, while important, do not warrant stopping the manned space program in its tracks to answer. Thus a lot of other stuff is on hold.
We can test (I should attribute this point to Bob Zubrin, by the way) the effects of long-term weightlessness, for instance, in the context of a mission to Mars, as opposed to prior to that mission, since we already have enough data to confirm that it is not a showstopper for the mission. Similarly, we know that we can build life support systems well enough. Rather than spending 10 years and $60 billion running some life support experiments in orbit, we can do more work on the ground and then improve as we go while accomplishing other missions.
The argument that we will be forced to lower launch costs to use ISS effectively is true of any other, more vaulable space mission; further, it's really an argument against ISS, since NASA has essentially no current plan to lower launch costs!
'ISS is not political': the primary motivator, at least as presented to Congress, for including and then funding the Russians in the program, was political. That's not necessarily such a bad thing, but let's keep ourselves honest.
'US owned modules': this is not the basis under which the deals governing ISS were constructed. If it were, it would get awfully awkward to do anything on the station, after all.
'NASA's concern was the timescale'- not six months ago when they barred Tito from their training facilities, it wasn't. NASA has had ample opportunity to set whatever training, safety and scheduling requirements they wanted on Tito's flight. Tito would obviously have been willing to comply, and the Russians had no reason to care. They have instead remained absolutely opposed to his flight under any circumstances, from the beginning.
Russian safety attitudes: Well, they've killed rather fewer than we have. Russia's problems with Soyuz were a pretty good parallel to ours with Apollo- we were probably the stupider ones there- and their Mir troubles (which have endangered the crew exactly TWICE, that I can think of, in the course of a great many more man-hours than we've ever logged) are pretty similar to Challenger (they were probably a bit stupider there) in that both unnecessarily pushed envelopes that people thought they could get away with. The mistakes are quite well-understood. Mir's problems got some bad press in the US; they were always rather specific and limited, having to do with some bad choices by controllers, an aging air-fixing system, some ergonomic and noise level stuff, and a bunch of garbage on board from when the Progress flights started running short. It's been played up as an orbiting scrap heap because it makes a better joke.
Re:It's not just memories he's buying (Score:3)
Well, the Russians have something of an axe to grind; NASA, caught between the fact that the Russians just don't have the money to fulfill their ISS obligations, and the refusal of Congress to keep handing out more money for the (*cough* nearly useless *cough) station, has been trying to run the whole russian space program for years, and sometimes succeeding. So they've gotten rather prickly about their independence. Classic bad diplomacy on all parts.
Tourists in space- serious thoughts (Score:5)
There have been a few misguided statements here, so hey-
Astronauts, regardless of NASA's instructions, should have no need to babysit Mr. Tito. Tito was a spaceflight engineer during the salad days of the sixties before turning to business, and has undergone nine months of Russian training. It is possible, of course, that this is insufficient. But NASA's current stand appears to be that no set of qualifications to board the station, other than being a 'professional', exists- a haphazard and arrogant approach that won't serve for an international station. So three years from now, the Italians want to fly a scientist who NASA thinks is underqualified- are we back in the same debacle? Standards would be quite easy to determine.
NASA doesn't have unilateral authority to control who goes on the station. We don't have sole ownership, you see. The rather poorly defined treaty structure and the act of including a cash-strapped, aging Russian space program on the critical path to the station were probably bad ideas- but at any rate, we made the deals; they read 'do such and such, you get so many crew members for so much time.' If we wanted dictatorial control over the thing, we should have build it ourselves. Congress wasn't prepared to pay for that and various parts of the government wanted to make the station a tool of international diplomacy. That's fine- but then you don't get everything you want.
The Russians are giving up a substantial chance to do science and engineering research; the operation of the station isn't expected to be delayed despite being a crewman short, as it were, for months... Doesn't this suggest something? The one objection NASA hasn't been able to raise is that the station is being put to much waste, because the station has so little utility in the first place!
The sad truth is that the station is a debacle, a plan first drafted in the early 1980's that has gotten progressively less and less useful ever since. We've built an enormous, expensive platform to conduct rather vaguely defined research that could have been accomplished much more easily in any number of ways- because the goal, really, that NASA set themselves was to build a station, regardless of what use it was. To my mind, low-earth-orbit station building and tourist launches are essentially ready to be a commercial enterprise; but the entire space industry is tied up in a NASA-oriented mindset, and alternative ventures can't find the capital to get off the ground, as it were. NASA's role for the US isn't control-of-all-activities-in-space; it's groundbreaking research to enable the use of space by others.
One might add that space flights have been sold to civilians previously, by both NASA and the Soviets, John Glenn being only the most recent example; up until Sharon Christa McAuliffe and Challenger, it was an almost common practice. [And understand, I mean to cast no aspersions whatsoever on her memory.] It's just that they were sold for political influence or publicity or other such prices, and so could be semi-concealed.
Enough rant already. For more along these lines, visit the Space Frontier Foundation [space-frontier.org]. I don't always agree with the SFF- I think they have too much faith in the virtues of capitalism- but they understand very well which businesses NASA should and shouldn't be in.
Space for the rest of us! (Score:3)
Re:Send Bill Gates into space (Score:2)
It's really a shame they're being such hypocrites at NASA.
Re:What worries me most... (Score:2)
Some might argue that because he didn't go up in the Space Shuttle that it doesn't affect us. The consequence is though that there are three people there, consuming products that are up there rather than two. .
Definitely is too bad that Mir isn't around to take people and let them play...
Re:Next month's headline (Score:2)
Re:Ha ha, self important NASA twits! (Score:2)