Space Tourist Standards 301
Snuffleupagus writes: "I found an interesting story at cnn.com about NASA's new standards for civilian space travel. It looks like if you have a history of drinking, lying and cheating you won't be going into space anytime soon, no matter how much money you have. Looks like I'll be stuck here on Earth for awhile." The guidelines for future space tourists are on NASA's site.
not true (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course if I say to NASA "I'll give you a billion dollars to send me into space, I have a funny feeling they wouldn't care much either.
Re:not true (Score:2)
to say a NASA standard will prevent anyone from going into space is ludicrous, and I was just pointing that out. sheesh.
Fluent in english? (Score:2)
Re:Fluent in english? (Score:2, Informative)
Who then? (Score:3, Funny)
That kills the potential CEO and politician markets...
Re:Who then? (Score:2)
Yay! No Bill Gates in Space!
Oh, maybe that could have been a good thing!
--jeff
Re:Who then? (Score:2)
If I had bill gates $, i'd be philanthropic.. I'd just be extremely careful how that money is spent.
"I'll give $x Billion for research and development of technology to go back to the moon"
In my mind, we should go back just because its -there-, and america needs something to feel good about now.
Though Gates has done some good things with his money.. He's opened/equipped a library in TN, to start with.
I just wish we could robin hood ol' ellison. The man needs to be knocked off his high horse. But you won't see me in tights anytime soon.
(We're men.. we're men in tights.. (MANLY MEN!) we roam around the forest looking for fights..)
Re:Who then? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, cause good ol' Bill isn't [bbc.co.uk] philanthropic [idg.net] enough [unfpa.org]...
Re:Do the math. (Score:2)
Re:Who then? (Score:3, Interesting)
Gates has done a hell of a lot more then that... He's spent more money tackling things like AIDS and vaccinations in africa and other poor parts of the world then most tech CEOs are worth.
Not that he isn't a bastard, but I don't think he would really want to spend money sending people to the moon, it dosn't really help anyone and it's already been done.
Re:Who then? (Score:2)
I think they are just scared that some terrorists will pay, and then de-orbit the ISS into the pentagon... now that _would_ be funny
Fuck NASA! (Score:2)
Re:Who then? (Score:2)
Hell, that kills *all* the markets.
You don't get $30 million by being a nice guy.
Sorry Alabama (Score:2, Funny)
They should also include the ban on people who cannot figure out the presidential ballots. so, that cuts out flordia as well.
I'm from Alabama (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Sorry Alabama (Score:4, Redundant)
Re:Sorry Alabama (Score:2)
Hey if Dufus could not be bothered to show up at his base to fly really kewl military fighter jets what makes you think he would be interested in going into space?
Besides they recently added a pretzel test to the medical. If you have a dodgy ticker the last thing you should be doing is going in for unnecessary G-forces.
lying (Score:4, Funny)
Re:lying (Score:2)
Bill Gates? Kenneth Lay? Ted Kennedy?
Running out of smart ass one-liners,
Ken Lay? haha (Score:2)
Re:lying (Score:2)
Profiling (Score:1, Flamebait)
And more interestingly, will they hold up once space is commercialized?
Re:Profiling (Score:2)
I think we get a little too anxious around here to start ranting about our rights and "the man."
You don't have a God-given right to fly on the ISS, and NASA runs the program.
Re:Profiling (Score:2)
Yeah, Right (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you are a baseball player.
Re:Yeah, Right (Score:1)
Space Nazis (Score:5, Funny)
Not News for me (Score:1)
Sure! Leave all the scum on earth! (Score:2, Funny)
NASA's new social engineering department...
Re:Sure! Leave all the scum on earth! (Score:2)
Realistically though, where in hell would I come up with $20meg? Maybe the Fed or NASA should hold a lottery and one US citizen a year gets to go up. 'Bout the same chance as getting rich that way at least. Certainly more chance than I've got right now.
Re:Sure! Leave all the scum on earth! (Score:2)
One small step for...no one (Score:2, Funny)
Well thank GOD that's a new policy, as those traits fit just about every Mercury-Gemini-Apollo astronaut!
The Future (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Future (Score:5, Insightful)
This really only amounts to someone in NASA trying to justify their job and trying to make policy that is pretty much silly and un-warrented.
Re:The Future (Score:2)
Or to put it another way, it's NASA acting as they have done for the last 30 years.
Re:The Future (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The Future (Score:2, Informative)
Scenario 1:
American tourist billionaire who happens to be an alcoholic enters space station with contaband. Get's slaughtered. Accidentally destroys an experiment by throwing up over it(being drunk in a weightless environment I'd image is quite different to being drunk on Earth). Bits of vomit infest critical systems.
Cost of clean up... shit loads. New materials and shipping costs to relaunch the experiment, time spent restraining drunk passenger, time and material (and shipping) to fix/clean critical systems.
Who's at fault? Who would pay for the cost of cleanup... the people responsible for the unruly tourist or the people who have had their equipment damaged? Not to mention the physical risks involved.
Scenario 2:
Russion mobster accidentally pushes button and vents the propellant to be used to counteract orbital decay. Tells nobody. The next thing they know a piece of debris from a lower orbit which they have just entered and damages the station.
Again, who is responsible?
At all times you must remember that the station is an international effort with partners from all over the world. It is in the interests of all involved to exclude 'tourists' who may pose a physical or financial threat to themselves
IMO such exclusions make sense: do you really want to put people who have psychological traits which may lead to unacceptable behaviour (alcoholism, drug abuse)? Do you really want people who's honesty has brought into question in the past to the point of criminal fraud?
In the future, when the environment is safer, perhaps. In reality, these measures are there to protect the staff who are on board the station, the station itself and the financial and scientific commitments which have been made by the partners.
Would you want to be on a space station, an environment where stupidity is easily fatal for yourself and others around you, with someone who you cannot completely trust?
Ian Woods
You missed something (Score:2)
This probably isn't a document saying what qualifications you must meet to get onto the space station.
This is something saying what qualifications you must meet to get on the space shuttle going to and from the space station (which is also NASA property). This means they effectively do control tourists to the entire space station, not just the US modules.
Until, of course, another country starts up in the space tourism industry. . .
Re:The Future (Score:2)
No vodka for you, Komrade!
Re:The Future (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember when we used to say that about the internet too.
Give it time.
Re:The Future (Score:2)
sounds like a lot of people (Score:2)
Gee, sounds like Billy Gates, Sun, HP, the Govt themselves, Adobe, even slashdot, wont be headed to space. Any others?
Yep... These won't change... (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on. By the time you and I get into space (if we aren't too old), these rules will be changed over 100 times. Think about it.
Re:Yep... These won't change... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yep... These won't change... (Score:2)
No vodka for you (Score:5, Funny)
Uh, yeah, we wouldn't want to have anyone who uses "intoxicating beverages to excess" to be on a space station with a bunch of Russians.
Re:No vodka for you (Score:2)
Well, someone needs to be sober enough to drive home.
Re:No vodka for you (Score:2)
It's doing it without making too large a crater that's the hard part...
Re:No vodka for you (Score:2, Funny)
They come in two flavors: Black Russian and White Russian. Personally, I like 'em both.
Rules out congress (Score:4, Redundant)
Congress may hold funding for NASA until there is an exception made for them.
Re:Rules out congress (Score:5, Funny)
Better yet...
"and membership or sponsorship in organizations which adversely affect the public's confidence in the space station or its partners. "
NASA != Space (Score:4, Insightful)
Commercial spacelines wouldn't be using NASA facilities anyway; they're too expensive.
everyone here won't be allowed to go.... (Score:4, Interesting)
membership or sponsorship in organizations which adversely affect the public's confidence in the space station or its partners.
We have been saying for years that NASA is screwy...guess none of us will get to go.
So... (Score:2)
--
Evan "Cheap Joke" E.
Here's an interesting thing (Score:4, Interesting)
"membership or sponsorship in organizations which adversely affect the public's confidence in the space station or its partners."
Does that mean that a millionaire with a passion for space might be banned for... say... being a member of Greenpeace, because they might think badly of McDonell Douglas for its role as an arms manufacturer?
Maybe I'm being overly alarmist, but the implications that this clause can diqualify anyone who is even loosely related to anyone that does not wholeheartedly support large corporate power is a little disconcerting.
Re:Here's an interesting thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Flat Earth Society exposé (Score:2)
The bureaucratically vague wording is troubling, but the alternative (allowing them to arbitrarily reject candidates for unstated reasons) are worse.
Re:Flat Earth Society exposé (Score:2)
and possibly a safety threat if they think that the "vacuum" outside of the ISS is also fake.
That's easy enough to deal with. As soon as you get into orbit, put the guy outside the shuttle and tell him to take his helmet off if he doesn't believe that space is a vacuum. He'll either change his mind, or he'll be space debris. Either way he's not gonna cause any damage.
Think Chinese, not US (Score:2)
What you have here, though, is pretty standard diplomatese used in most high-profile joint ventures involving less-than-friendly major powers, for "we understand that some of our partner *states* frown on on concepts such as freedom, so in order to avoid a diplomatic row over issues unrelated to our space agenda, we will avoid sending up Taiwanese politicians, Tibetan lamas residing in India, Chinese slave labor opponents, etc." China refers to such people as "criminals who negatively impact confidence in the State and threaten public order," and the wording of this reflects their sentiments.
It will almost certainly also prohibit people closely identified with any political cause, US or non-US, that is highly controversial (abortion, Israel vs. Palestine, etc.). To do otherwise risks having a bunch of activists protesting NASA over non-technical issues, and they have a hard enough time staying out of trouble as it is without asking for it.
We should be doing the opposite..... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:We should be doing the opposite..... (Score:2)
Again?
-OR-
That's how we got in this mess in the first place.
Now why ... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Now why ... (Score:2)
Re:Now why ... (Score:2)
If you fail to meet NASA's moral standards... (Score:2, Funny)
>looks like if you have a history of drinking, lying and cheating you won't be going into space anytime soon, no matter how much money you have.
Sounds like a slap in the face of George W. Bush. I *knew* NASA was full of liberals and hippies!
socially engineering space (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting.
Taking this thing to its logical extreme, one could easily imagine civil rights lawsuits regarding space access. I can just imagine the public debate on the Space Tourism Freedom act of 2020.
The restrictions are, of course, meaningless, because the bottom line is that money is the only thing that will get you into space.
This could make for an interesting precedent once we start deciding who can board the "ark" that we'll one day have to build to escape planetary catastrophe.
Well, this was interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
So, how about membership in the National Rifle Association? Veterans of Foreign Wars? Republican Party? Roman Catholic Church?
If you've ever publicly criticised NASA, you're SOL.
I mean, this single paragraph allows them to deny you for any or no reason at all.
I don't believe it (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I don't believe it (Score:2)
drinking (Score:2, Funny)
Doesn't that leave out the entire Russian population?
uh oh. (Score:2, Funny)
i sure hope they have different rules when it comes time to colonize...otherwise we'll have a hell of a time setting up a gov't on mars..."
dude.
Phew! I'm safe! (Score:2)
NASA==worthless (Score:2)
Hmmm... (Score:2)
Space credentials (Score:2, Insightful)
However, as with a security clearance, the fact that you smoked a bit of weed and took some mushrooms along the way probably won't hurt. If you have a history of abuse ala Tyson, then perhaps they won't want to include you in a crew that gets to spend weeks in a sardine can together. It just makes good sense.
Sometimes you really just want the wheat
I always skip over the subject (Score:2)
It's amazing, free markets ALWAYS increase demand, but all big organizations fight free markets every chance they get...
Hmmm... (Score:3)
Yes, another crazy idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, another crazy idea (Score:2)
Have the drawing once a year. I know I'd probably buy a few hundred tickets over the course of a year.
If the lottery pool isn't enough, you could always auction off the winning ticket!
Re:Yes, another crazy idea (Score:2)
Re:Yes, another crazy idea (Score:2)
Sorry to burst some people's bubble, but obese people almost certainly cannot go into space, not when you're paying by the pound. Incredibly tall/wide people probably still can't fit into seats/suits/you name it (this was a major issue with early Astronaut selection).
I'm also pretty sure that NASA wouldn't want to send up anyone with intense psychopathic tendencies (to use hyperbole, but I can think of dozens of mental health issues that would keep people out of space).
NASA would pretty much have to set up a 'pre-selection' session for the lottery - otherwise, you'd have huge numbers of entirely unsuitable candidates winning (offhand, the obesity rate in the US is at least 20%.. never mind every other factor) who would then be disqualified and the draw re-done. And who would want to pay the cost of the physical/mental checkups required? Me and most of Slashdot I'm sure, but your average Joe?
Haha (Score:2)
Found My Loophole (Score:3, Funny)
I'm gonna stake my claim on the boolean "and". I haven't cheated anyone.
It's a moot point.... (Score:2)
Considering that 99.5% of us are automatically ruled out because we don't have 20 Mil. of disposable income to plunk down for the ultimate joy ride.
Hmmm, "Ultimate Joy Ride" sounds like fodder for a future
The original 7 astronauts wouldn't qualify! (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh please... (Score:3, Insightful)
They look up your police records and military records, interview you, and some of your (earlier) employers, family, and so on, to try to determine if you are a responsible person. If you aren't, then they won't risk the lives of other astronauts, important space research, huge amounts of money, etc, just to get you into space.
This is nothing but common sence. You shouldn't trust untrustworthy people. I fail to see the logic behind allowing Osama bin Laden on the space shuttle just because he has enough money.
This isn't MTVs Real World in Space (Score:2)
Folks, this isn't MTVs "Real World in Space!" At least initially, anyone who goes up into a space station is going to part of a pretty small and isolated human community. It's going to be important that members of that community get along. Lying can be big impediment to that. Cheating on a spouse says that you're willing to break pretty some big promises. And while alcohol can provide some great bonding moments (camraderie from shedding some inhibitions, and later, maybe even sharing vomit and hangovers. I know people who've hooked up because of shared vomiting experiences), it also impairs judgement, sometimes makes people much more volatile than they'd normally be, and carries a temptation for abuse that's too strong for many people (especially when in isolated and stressful situations).
There's no guarantee, of course, that honest, sober, and relatively chaste people are going to get along. But it doesn't seem that odd to me that NASA would consider the human dimension of a space community and try to select out traits they think might doom a community to disintegrations.
Not just NASA (Score:3, Informative)
But how much is too much? (Score:2)
Successful capitalists need not apply either... (Score:2, Funny)
security clearance guidelines (Score:3, Interesting)
Form of convincing youth to be more moral? (Score:2, Interesting)
Just thought I'd submit this possibility for consideration.
Doesn't matter (Score:2)
Breeding (Score:2)
Re:FP ! (Score:1)
Re:Russians anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
And I guess that rules out most of America...
Interesting . . . (Score:2)
One thing that comes to mind is a story by Richard Feynman where he was having a hard time coming up with a new idea to research, so he stopped trying to come up with a new idea. He saw someone throw a frisbee and that it wobbled a certain way. He decided to analyze the factors that influence the way that a frisbee wobbles based on rotation and other variables. This indirectly led to some more significant discoveries by Feynman (which I'm not familiar with since I'm not a physicist).
Re:Interesting . . . (Score:2)
One thing that comes to mind is a story by Richard Feynman where he was having a hard time coming up with a new idea to research, so he stopped trying to come up with a new idea. He saw someone throw a frisbee and that it wobbled a certain way. He decided to analyze the factors that influence the way that frisbee wobbles based on rotation and other variables. This indirectly led to some more significant discoveries by Feynman...
I'm fairly sure it was a spinning dinner plate during a food fight in the Cal Tech cafeteria, rather than a frisbee, which kicked off the train of thought that lead his work on electron spin. If my memory is correct Feynman talks about the incident in his book Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! [amazon.com] .
Al.Re:I guess that leaves Bill Clinton Out (Score:2)
Re:Makes it easy for NASA (Score:2)
You cannot ABUSE alcohol or drugs, and you cannot be notoriously untruthful. It says they are going to do a background check, which means they ask people you know about your character, check the official records, etc.
If you don't have a bunch of DUIs, didn't go to the hospital for an overdose, didn't check into any drug treatment programs, and have friends that don't tell NASA all about those wild college parties then you don't have a drug or alcohol problem.
If you weren't in the papers for some atrocious crime then you probably satisfy the requirements for upstanding character.
And since the requirements are open for interpretation my guess is that large contributions of cash will guarantee that NASA doesn't check too carefully.