2nd Space Tourist To Visit ISS In April 2002 184
Anonymous Coward writes "Another continent is represented in space: It has just been announced that Thawte founder Mark Shuttleworth is in the final stages of securing a seat on the next Soyuz launch in April. Press Release says he plans to do a lot of Science up there, with a whole bundle of other stuff. SpaceDaily seems to have broken it first of the commercial news, haven't seen it anywhere else yet. Go, Africa, Go! (Oh, and he reads Slashdot religiously ... Good Luck Mark!)" Looks like it's getting cheaper, too. I think it's time for a Slashdot staff meeting in space...
geeks in space should be broadcast there (Score:1)
I so want to slashdot a server in space
Geeks in space??? (Score:1)
Why is this news? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, I'm envious, but until the cost comes down to maybe the price of a luxury cruise, then I could care less.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually I think that this is a better way to fund space technology than selling the results of weighlessness experiments to companies.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't the eventual goal to have "average Joes" go to space?
Yes, and considering NO average Joes will go until a LOT of rich folks do (think cars, airplanes, etc, etc, etc)... I'd say it is NOT going to happen overnight.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2)
How much of their own money were they supporting it with? (I think spending taxpayers' money on space is a good thing (within limits), and having politicians as representatives of the taxpayers getting rides to see it being spent isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I don't think they are in the same class as "paying customers" paying with their own money).
When will everyone be there (Score:4, Funny)
And when it does happen, we can look forward to:
The first Domino's Pizza delivery in space, "Hey, the toppings are stuck to the top of the box!"
_Real_ scien-terrific 'spiriments, "Oh, man, he puked and it came straight out!"
Mothers equiped with instant cameras will line everyone up for a group picture over the Grand Canyon.
New anti-gravity sports leagues will be developed.
and inevitably, the below-average Joe's will arrive to make space totally egalitarian...
Rednecks in space -- "Dang! I haid th' gol-dang yard all fixed up with space junk and them nassa varmints are tryin't swipe it again. Maw! Git muh laser arn! Ahm agonna blast 'em."
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2)
1) Proving that the service is worth providing, and that people want it.
2) Forcing the ISS folks to start making the station safer for "average folk".
3) Providing funding.
I think the next step is that space agencies will start to see these ``tourists'' as sources of revenue. So then you start to see the ads show up in the Robb Report.
After that, commercial enterprises will be able to demonstrate a market and secure the funding they need to do it themselves, and cheaper, and then leave the poor scientists alone.
Effectively, the count down to watching an earth-rise from the moon has begun. =)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:1)
Wait for this to be verified, then... (Score:3, Interesting)
But wait first.
Re:Wait for this to be verified, then... (Score:3, Informative)
If you can't wait, then here's a recent online chat with him, from a South African TV show [mnet.co.za].
Regards,
-Jeremy
Re:Wait for this to be verified, then... (Score:1)
Re:Wait for this to be verified, then... (Score:1)
But wait first.
That's what I thought, except I reckon it should be after (or for extra geekiness, during) the space visit.
Go Africa Go? (Score:1)
Re:Go Africa Go? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Go Africa Go? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Go Africa Go? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmmm. I think its pretty reasonable for someone to be patriotic, don't you?
Re:Go Africa Go? (Score:2)
patriot - one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests.
Last time I checked, Africa was not a country, it was more of a continent on which several contries have set up shop.
Re:Go Africa Go? (Score:1)
No (Score:2)
Re:No (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course, locals never know what they're talking about, right?
What Nonsense (Score:2, Informative)
To the rest of the world America includes Canada, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Chile etc etc etc etc., because most other countries don't see the USA as all important, more as a large country with a predilection towards violence and aggressive politics.
Re:What Nonsense (Score:1, Funny)
'Nonsense' right back a'cha (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly, the USA is commonly referred to as 'America' because it is, to the best of my knowledge, the only country on these two continents that includes the word 'America' in its title. People would quickly grow tired of calling us "United States of Americans" or "YouEssAyans" instead of just "Amercians". This is the only descriptor I've run across, in my fairly wide travels anyway, for people from these United States. All of the Australians, Brits, Chinese, and Japanese I know refer to the American continents as "The Americas", and would never assume that 'America' includes countries north and south.
Secondly, oh yes, our 'predilection towards violence' and aggression is so unique in the world. The countries of Africa, Asia and Europe are just flower carrying peace lovers compared to America. Every country has their violent little toys, and likes to use them. Just because America can afford the most and the best right now doesn't make them any worse or better than any country of the often parental 1st world on down.
Re:'Nonsense' right back a'cha (Score:1)
AMES IOWA!!! (Score:1)
Go, Ames, Iowa, Go!
looking forward to the day..... (Score:1)
someone like well.... ME
sincerely
lordDarcy
Slashdot meeting in space? (Score:3, Funny)
Learn to spell?
Re:Slashdot meeting in space? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Slashdot meeting in space? (Score:1)
Dave
Re:Slashdot meeting in space? (Score:1)
Not that I'd say no to sex in any other kind of gravity, but still...grrrrr....
Re:Slashdot meeting in space? (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot meeting in space? (Score:1)
:D
Uhh (Score:2, Funny)
Shuttle...worth...ugh.
Through Haggling, Space (Score:5, Insightful)
The difficulties appear to have been resolved though, and through the magnificent power of over $20 million, a just about anyone can get into space.
But please, don't by claim that now we have "geeks in space" - the original Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo astronauts were the original ueber-geeks, and their hacks saved many missions from failure.
Re:Through Haggling, Space (Score:4, Informative)
The difficulties appear to have been resolved though, and through the magnificent power of over $20 million, a just about anyone can get into space.
True, almost. To avoid the problems that Dennis Tito had with NASA (he's a safety risk because of lack of training etc.), Mark went through a much more rigorous and thorough training program. It has been reported that he could in fact be considered as a fully trained cosmonaut.
Also, this will not be a purely recreational trip. He's hoping to make the trip pay for itself by conducting some experiments in space that could later have some commercial value.
There also seems to be some confusion here at /. about the "Go, Africa go" bit in the post. Mark Shuttleworth is a South African. So am I, so : "Go, Mark go"
Re:Through Haggling, Space (Score:1)
i propose to do some "science" (Score:4, Funny)
I volunteer to go up into space and conduct a scientific experiment to determine whether a 2 week vacation in space increases or decreases the productivity of an opensource programmer upon return to earth.
control (Score:2)
To make that more towards the realm of science, you'd need a control person or group. Depending on what you're testing, lack of human interaction, some sort of weightlessness impacting code openness, typing speed, who knows... you'd want your control group to experience something similar only without that which you are testing. So, if you're going of the weighlessness impacts coding, you'd need to lock some people up in a small place, limit their diet to things rehydrated, limit their interaction with outsiders.... oh wait, that sounds like most coders lives I know... drat.
Re:control (Score:2, Funny)
Re:control (Score:1)
I think you misspelled "outside of". Though it could be fun to have 'em inside and just pressurize and depressurize the airlock a few times a day. Costs a lot of money to lift a pound of M$ employee to orbit, probably shouldn't waste it all in one go.
The favoritism runs rampant (Score:3, Insightful)
However, it seems as though most nations' space programs don't feel the same way about that egalitarian vision. They don't think space is the final frontier for everyday citizens; they don't want space travel to become commoditized. NASA, and now the Russian space agency, want to use space as a perk to sell to very wealthy businessmen. They want money, influence with politicians, or both. Regardless, these agencies are using taxpayer money to pamper the rich, and it is high time to stop this abuse.
Mind you, I am not against rich people. My brother has a net worth of over three million dollars. I am simply against letting the government use its considerable power to reward those who have already been rewarded by the capitalist system. Why reward people twice for the same deed? I don't win an award or see the government kissing my behind every time I collect a paycheck. Why should really rich guys be any different?
Astronauts are hired because of their physical strength and courage, their technical abilities, and their personalities. They should not be selected on the basis of their bank account balances. We should work toward letting astronauts do their jobs, without interference from wealthy joy-riders who feel like they have to ride into space before they die, just because they can.
df
Re:The favoritism runs rampant (Score:3, Insightful)
Indulging a few rich people their fancy is the ticket for travel to space to become affordable. We don't try to get people into space much now because no profit can be made doing it. If a profit can be made doing it, there will be strong financial incentive to do it more and more cheaply, and eventually it probably won't cost too much more than a transcontinental airline flight.
That's the logic that's driven the semiconductor revolution to incredible advances in speed and minaturization. Mark up your advanced products, and sell them to rich people who want them, use the money to design the next batch to be better and cheaper.
Re:The favoritism runs rampant (Score:2)
However, I think that if NASA is the one doing it, such commercialization would be a Bad Thing. Instead, it should be handled by private "space tourism" companies.
Re:The favoritism runs rampant (Score:2)
Where would the computer industry be if the government had decided to regulate computer use through a single agency? If there had been a "NCA" that was in charge of providing computing power to those who needed it, would that have prevented the private computer industry from forming? I mean, since all the computer engineering know-how would have been under government control, then any private venture that was trying to build computers would have inferior products at high prices when they started up, while the government agency would be covering its development costs with taxpayer money.
What I'm getting at, is if we shouldn't have the government in the rich-guys-in-space business, should we have them in the rich-corporations-putting-satelites-in-space business? Would a ban on ESA and NASA launches of private satelites spur private space development? Certainly if the NASA and ESA stopped, it wouldn't reduce the demand for orbital insertions. Everybody and his brother wants to put things in orbit. Get Arien and NASA out of the loop, and private corporations would step into the void.
Right now, the private companies that are developing things like SSTO (Single Stage to Orbit) and similar technologies are not getting much capital funding because, why develop a cow when the government gives you milk for free?
I've heard a great deal of talk about NASA supporting itself with private space launches, but should we be thinking the other way around?
I'm just thinking out loud here.
Of course, a counter-example is the air-passenger service industry. This actually formed from government contracted air-mail carriers adding rich, high-paying passengers to their mail flights. If we'd said, "No you can't do that, because its a waste of taxpayer funds" where would the airline industry be today? I'd certainly have to drive 1000 miles to see my family at christmas, which would suck.
Re:The favoritism runs rampant (Score:2)
NASA could be self supporting next week, if the US.GOV would stop glomming all the developments that NASA comes up with and not paying them back for it.
The list of things invented for the SPace Program that have become public domain is immense.. there used to be an entire magazine dedicated to it called "spinoff". However, NASA, and their affiliated agencies, make no money off these inventions once they are released from "top secret" status.
Just think.. one penny from the sale of anything that has Teflon on it would do quite a bit of good for NASA. How bout all those anti-fog window treatments? NASA developed the specific technology that makes them work. The list goes on and on..
Lets stop NASA from being a boondoggle by allowing it to make some money, and maybe we can stop shooting worn out space-planes up to the ISS, and maybe we can afford to build it right the first time.. without having to rely on Russian and ROC to handle components that come in late, grossly overbudget, and flawed.
Lets start putting 1/3 of the money into NASA that we put into the development of a new gun for to kill people with.
Alas, it will never happen, because so many people think A) the whole thing is fake, or B) we have no reason to be in Space, or C) there is no point to studying space, because no good can come of it.
(ALL WRONG, imho)
Maeryk
Re:The favoritism runs rampant (Score:1)
OF course the problem with the Russians is not the technology, but the funding. And who's ROC? The only ROC I can think of off the top of my head is the Republic of China, AKA Taiwan. Is Taiwan or the PRC associated with the ISS?
Re:The favoritism runs rampant (Score:2)
I am also against governments rewarding anyone who has not done something to earn that reward. However, you have not made the case that this guy is being rewarded in any real way. Every indication is that these guys are paying a fair sum for the extra costs of sending them up with a mission that's going up anyway. The extra costs associated with their presence is offset not by government favoritism, but by the money that these guys actually pay. That's not immoral in the slightest, unless you feel that anyone who pays for something that most cannot afford is immoral, in which case, I guarantee that your millionaire brother should have his Lexus confiscated forthwith, and probably your Jetta, too.
Now, if you don't believe that these guys have paid enough money to cover the expenses they incur, that's a different story, but has nothing to do with the capitalist system. Capitalism is all about charging enough to cover your own expenses, so if governments don't do it, then they should be showered with derision.
As for government not kissing your butt for getting a paycheck, well, actually they do. You can go to a national park any time you want. Poor people rarely do, but the middle class partake often. Do you like space? Have you ever been to the Air and Space museum? I have. Its cool. Its government funded. Do you think that the government would have funded it if only the unemployed were interested? Hell no.
they don't want space travel to become commoditized.
The simple fact of only allowing people who spend big bucks be early adopters of space tourism technology is hardly evidence that they are attempting to exclude the poor from space. Early cars were only affordable to the rich. They were impractical toys. But now if you post a flyer at any college campus you can find somebody getting rid of their car for under a thousand bucks.
This helps ease overcrowding of Earth, and helps people experience new living environments.
Unfortunately, space will never be a viable solution to overcrowding. Certainly not within the next few centuries. The number of people removed from the population will be a drop removed from the ocean compared to the population of the earth. The only folks for whom it might relieve overcrowding would be those who actually left. The ones remaining would not be any better off.
BTW, Moding this guy's post as flaimbait veers toward the ri-damn-diculous. It might be poorly argued, it might be a crazy liberal or crazy libertarian screed. But while there are undoubtedly jackasses out there who'll flaim it (and this response) this is more reasoned and less flaimworthy than your average Katz article. Lighten up.
Let's polish up my resume... (Score:1)
It's time? (Score:1)
--
Geeks In Space... In space! (Score:1)
or not.
Dont let Katz go (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dont let Katz go (Score:4, Funny)
Just with a one-way ticket.
Re:Dont let Katz go (Score:2)
Re:Dont let Katz go (Score:2)
Re:Dont let Katz go (Score:1)
It's all Apple Notebooks up there!
I'm just not in the know... (Score:2)
First I find that everyone just knows "I had a candle light dinner with Ashley Judd on Film" Wil Wheton is a reader. Now some Anonymous Coward knows a millionaire in the news for being the next space tourist religiously reads slashdot.
I must be on the B list. No, make that the R list.
Re:I'm just not in the know... (Score:3, Informative)
hehehe! geeks in space! (Score:4, Funny)
if the slashdot team ever had a meeting in space, i would surely try my best to depressurize their capsule and watch everyone explode.
Re:Typing ROT13 from memory (Score:1)
*chuckle* Now that's funny. :-)
Rich People and Space (Score:1, Flamebait)
I say let the rich people build their own space program if what they want are "vacations and joy rides".
Come to think of it why doesn't Microsoft with all its money not dabble more in the communication industry, particularily satellites and other space ventures, if they really want to be innovative I think this is where its at...
Re:Rich People and Space (Score:2)
Potential Profit x Prob of Profit > Potential Loss x Prob of Loss
That must evaluate to true for a company to realisticly consider doing something (it gets even uglier with present values etc thrown in, so think of it like that).
The result is that capitalism encourages firms to drink cautiously from the river of innovation rather than jumping in. It takes socilized capitalism (much like Japan) to encourage the sink or swim approach.
Re:Rich People and Space (Score:1)
Space is unlikely to pay off??
That must be the stupidest thing I've read here (and keep in mind, this is Slashdot). One nickel asteroid from the belt would pay for all the expenses many times.
Of course, not if we do it the NASA way - step by step, and don't dare to take another step until everything possible has been done on the first.
For a realistic view of a possible space future check out How To Save Civilization and Make A Little Money [space.com] by Larry Niven. The full text is available in "N-Space" - the link is just a piece of Niven's mind on the topic.
I mean, come on, USA went to the moon in a glorified bath tub and now, 30+ years later with ten times the tech all we can do is one lousy space station?
If only Bill Gates had a desire for space besides the desire for money - we'd be booking our seats on Microsoft Mars Express right now.
Yan
* Origin: (2:380/110)
Re:Rich People and Space (Score:2)
I was talking about private ventures in space. I never said that it was unlikely to pay off, I said that the risks involved made it such that the payoff times the probibility of success were not sufficiently greater than the potential loss times the probibilty of failure. That's not all a corporation cares about. If there's an earthside venture which has better odds than the space side ones that's where the money will go.
Oh, and this has nothing to do with NASA. NASA (in case you forgot) is a government operated cost center (as opposed to a profit center). NASA seeks only to keep its costs below its budget. Either by lowering costs (bad) or increasing budget (good).
Re:Rich People and Space (Score:1)
ok, let's both raise the tone a bit so we'll understand each other
I understand the economic factors involved in a business decision but still believe that a corporation with, say, 10 billion USD could fund a succesful space-tourism venture.
I angrily replied to you because you didn't seem to understand that the possible benefits of space are virtually LIMITLESS and therefore worth a lot of risk. This is not a vacant lot we're talking about that can make 1 mil as a parking space or at the max 5 mil as a business center - this is INFINITE SPACE we're talking about.
Why isn't it space tourism and industry happening? Because the general public has gotten an idea that "space is for scientists", largely a fault of NASA (lately) and US Administration. One of the first heads of NASA, Von Braun, was actually actively involved in promoting further space exploration and quit in disgust after two years of unsuccessful persuasion of US Govt officials who thought that everything's been seen and done by going to the Moon.
Since then, NASA has pursued a "science only" view of space. Kinda like the Internet was in the beginning, but it was not until the general public wanted to come and play, too, that the medium truly blossomed. (insert obligatory AC goatse.cx reply here)
I blame the current space stand-still on a NASA decision to explore space safely. Exploration is _never_ safe. The USA, as you know, was reasonably hostile to the first European settlers and it took centuries for the world to get the benefits that it brought. Lives will be lost - let's accept it and get on with it.
Oh, and before you tell me to put my money where my mouth is, if I am offered a trip to space that involves a, say, 10% chance of getting killed, I'd go in a flash - especially if they could promise me that I'd die on the return journey.
Yan
* Origin: (2:380/110)
Re:Rich People and Space (Score:2)
First off, no one goes on vacation to a hotel for the view. You need stuff to do there, so we expand the concept to a space resort. No big deal, just larger facilities, which as you pointed out, doesn't eactly effect rent costs.
That being said there's a plethora of considerations for a space resort. Most importat to them is staff. How many people does it take to run a hotel? You'll need those people at your space resort. Many of those people will have to be permanant staff, that means a HUGE space station. We're talking 11 kilometers across (ring shaped of course) to allow rotation and thus artificial gravity (wouldn't want those bones to deteriorate would we?).
Then there's the matter of providing food. It's not economicly feasable to ship food up there for any sort of serious commercial venture. So blue green alge it is. Now you've got to find ways to make this into something palletable, which isn't that hard (it's really good with Vodka, try some time).
Shielding is a problem too. Most plans include large bands of water storage tanks which ring the damn thing. That's where you grow the algee of course.
Overall my point is that a space based hotel whatever is more expensive precisely because it's not for science. A small facility operated on occasion can be left alone for a lot of the time and it doesn't matter. Supplies needed for habbitation can be transported to the station and consumed. It does not need to be a closed system.
A commercial hotel scheme must be a closed system. Space is energy rich and stuff poor. You need to make sure that no matter leaves the station. You also need to make sure the station is self sufficient. Part of making this profitable is having it ready to go whenever and keeping it running all the time. To do that you need the infrastrucuture to build an 11 kilometer ring spacestation.
That's a hell of a project, no matter who you are.
Re:Rich People and Space (Score:1)
Bill Gates and his "rich buddies" *are* dabbling in the communication industry -- specifically satellites.
I know this has been covered by Slashdot several times in the past, but I guess it can't hurt to bring it up again:
Teledesic [teledesic.com] is the company that Gates, McCaw, Motorola and several others started to build a global satellite system, similar to what Iridium tried to do. The Teledesic FAQ [teledesic.com] has a little information about Gates's investment. The FAQ doesn't mention how much money he invested, but I seem to remember reading that it was something like 12 billion of his personal dollars...
Re:Rich People and Space (Score:1)
Secondly, if all these individual companies decided to form their own space agency NASA would probably have to shut down. A good percentage of the money that NASA gets is to launch private satellites for companies or even go up there to fix a satellite. If another company was offering to do it for cheaper, greater competition. Hey, NASA has a monopoly on this and the only way they'll survive is to maintain a monopoly. Lastly, (I think someone else already responded to this) but Bill Gates (or MS..don't remember) has invested in a network of communications satellite that will span the continental US. I haven't heard any more news on this though...
Re:Rich People and Space (Score:2)
But don't take my word for it; listen to what Beal said:
Beal Aerospace closes [bealaerospace.com]
Mark In Space (Score:3, Funny)
Looks like a good guy, too... (Score:2, Interesting)
At least according to Slashdot's values...
In a recent chat-room interview in ZA:
Scurra: Hiya. How does Russian software development differ from the software development that you've done. I mean, do they program in Cyrillic? Are the Russians keen on something like Linux?
I have a question... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I have a question... (Score:1)
Re:I have a question... (Score:1)
Incorrect Story (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Incorrect Story (Score:2)
Re:Incorrect Story (Score:2)
Senator Jake Garn [nasa.gov] on STS-51D [nasa.gov]
Bill Nelson on STS-61C [nasa.gov]
This is from some previous
He is funding research too.. (Score:2, Informative)
Research (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Research (Score:1)
It's the "How long will we be solvent" game! (Score:1, Funny)
Interview with Mark Shuttleworth (Score:3, Interesting)
A few quotes :
"I realise that I'm not going on a joyride, this is not just a question of getting into space. We are kick-starting an African space programme. It is not good enough to simply take Russian experiments; we must give South African scientists an opportunity."
"Of course there is a personal reward, but at the same time the trip will do a tremendous amount for South Africa in the international arena. Also the money I'm spending on this project is not disappropriate to the money I have already spent on other people and that I gave away."
Quiz Show (Score:1)
Civilians in space (Score:4, Insightful)
the Russians, perhaps without meaning to, are again getting average people comfortable with the idea of civilians in space, which might not be such a bad thing - they don't have the stigma of the Challenger tragedy to deal with, and their efforts might foster increased interest in space programs here in the States.
Shuttle Worthy (Score:1)
Re:This isn't about making space profitable. (Score:2, Insightful)
And the PR is great. This guy is quite obviously doing something a huge number of people want to do, and he's doing something useful whilst he's there. Which is of course irrelevant, but true. Now the point is that he's not an idiot; he's likely to have a slant on what he sees there which is both different to the average selected astronaut, and useful. Clearly he's good at making money.
I don't see the problem, unless it's that certain Slashdotters just can't keep their elitism down. Personally, I'd like to congratulate this guy, and eventually do just what he's doing now.
Re:This isn't about making space profitable. (Score:1)
Re:This isn't about making space profitable. (Score:1)
Re:This isn't about making space profitable. (Score:1)
Re:This isn't about making space profitable. (Score:1)
I can accept this guy going up, because (hopefully) he will do some experiments that will be useful for people. However, people like the last guy that went up (I'm too lazy to look up his name) really bothers me! He simply polluted the planet ALOT for his own pleasure.
I hope that space tourism never grows big! The pollution would be soo big... it's not worth it!
Re:This isn't about making space profitable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This isn't about making space profitable. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you need to look a lot more carefully at Mark Shuttleworth. While his motives aren't altruistic (if I was an unemployed, ex .com'er, and had $575mil in my pocket, I'd also be going into space), he nearly didn't get to go because he insisted on being allowed to conduct scientific experiments, and held a competition in South Africa to find the best experients. NASA's primary complaint is that they didn't want him doing experiements... It was OK if he just sat there and enjoyed the view.
I'd hardly call his trip wasting the precious US investment (which would have been a lot less if the Russians had built it, because they don't squander money like NASA).
Regards,
-Jeremy
Making NASA look bad (Score:2)
Maybe NASA should step aside in the interests of space research, and sell their ISS spot to Russia who it appears can not only pay for it commercially, but also get science done (pretty damn cool that a competition winner is going to get his/her experiment on the ISS!).
Re:This isn't about making space profitable. (Score:2)
I'm not saying either program is fundamentally better, merely that they each have their strengths and weaknesses. And yes, the Russian space program is all about flying coach, without which, I'll never get to see the blue earth below me.
Cheers,
-l
Re:This isn't about making space profitable. (Score:2, Informative)
No money is being wasted here. Mark will go up as a fully trained astronaut. This does not cost any more or less than sending up any other trained person. Please note that Mark went through full cosmonaut training together with normal prospective cosmonauts. The only difference is of course that he paid for his own training..
From the press release :
[He] will be a fully certified member of the Soyuz crew, responsible for some Soyuz systems during the flight
He is by no means just a space tourist like Dennis Tito was.
Re:This isn't about making space profitable. (Score:1)
Come to think About it, they're probably not making money off "American tax money" either, but rather off Russian tax money.
Oh God, we're not Americans, we're not worthy... Sheesh! Bloody arrogant Git!
Re:This isn't about making space profitable. (Score:1)
So, by your same argument, when the US sent astronauts to MIR before we had an ISS, that was graft, because the Americans were getting a free ride on Russian Taxpayer money, eh?
Re:An awful lot of money? (Score:1)
Re:Hang On ... (Score:2)
SO, when are you giving me a shell acct on your box? Its obvious you have something I dont have, therefore it is my RIGHT to have access to something you own, simply cause I dont got it and you do.
Maeryk