Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Tourist-Class Soyuz Spacecraft Seats Open 191

brandido writes "Put another notch in the belt for space tourism - Space.com is reporting that: "If you're looking for the ultimate in get-up-and go, take note: Tourist-class seats will be available on a Soyuz spacecraft bound for the International Space Station in 2004-2005. This off-planet trek comes courtesy of a deal struck between Space Adventures, a U.S. adventure travel firm, Russia's RSC Energia and the Russian Space Agency (Rosoviakosmos)." However, NASA has yet to be officially notified or to give formal approval, so there are still some speed bumps in the road map."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tourist-Class Soyuz Spacecraft Seats Open

Comments Filter:
  • typical (Score:4, Insightful)

    by curtlewis ( 662976 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:01PM (#6239119)
    There's one problem and everyone freaks out (shuttle disaster) and there's a stop to everything for a while until it all settles down. After that, everything returns to normal.

    Space travel is dangerous. Explosions WILL happen. Review of procedures should be constant and thorough (that's a no-brainer). After any disaster, downtime should be minimal, not excessive due to overreaction and political correctness.

    With that said, I'm accepting VISA/MC (sorry, no Discover cards) for donations to my fund for a seat on the shuttle. :)

  • shoot... (Score:4, Funny)

    by LBArrettAnderson ( 655246 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:01PM (#6239120)
    and to think i just spent my life savings on a pair of shoes... better start saving up again
  • NASA's approval? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:01PM (#6239125) Homepage Journal
    Forgive me if I ask something stupid, but why would this need NASA's approval?
    • Well once you're up there, are they really going to make you sit in the Soyuz until they need to send it back? Don't those things usually stay up for a while to act as emergency vehicles or somesuch?
      • Depends on the mission, as there is usually a Soyuz already docked at the ISS. Sometimes the mission includes rotation of that soyuz, and the return crew come down in that one, while the new one remains, or sometimes the return crew return in the one that jsut docked.
    • Re:NASA's approval? (Score:5, Informative)

      by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:07PM (#6239172) Journal
      Forgive me if I ask something stupid, but why would this need NASA's approval?

      Because the International Space Station is just that - an international space station. NASA is one of the lead partners in the project and, as such, any missions/visits/whatever to the ISS must first be green stamped by NASA.

      It's a bit like a shared cabin in the country - you ask the permission of the other owners, as much out of courtesy as anything else, before you head down there for the weekend.
      • Re:NASA's approval? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by The_dev0 ( 520916 )
        Just out of interest, does NASA have to ask anyone's permission to visit the ISS? Do they give the other countries involved in the ISS the same courtesy?
        • Re:NASA's approval? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Mondoz ( 672060 )
          So far, all Shuttle passengers have been NASA Astronauts and Russian Cosmonauts, with joint NASA/Russian training.
          NASA hasn't tried to put someone up that Russia has had problems with yet...
          I'm sure that if NASA found a way to charge people for rides, Russia would throw a fit until they got a cut of the money.
        • Re:NASA's approval? (Score:2, Informative)

          by ndinsil ( 454614 )
          In a word, yes. All flights to the station are planned years in advance, even to which orbiter for Shuttle flights. The planning is coordinated among all involved space agencies. As long as the crew of manned flights (typically selected at least a year in advance) are all astronauts/cosmonauts, there isn't a problem with who exactly is going. Tourists are not a usual case and it's entirely reasonable to expect everyone to sign off on it. Since NASA has never tried to send a tourist, the case you describe is
      • To be honest, though, what are NASA going to do?
        NASA: 'No, sorry, we can't let you take paying passengers to the ISS.'
        Russians: 'You mean like your astronauts?'
    • Re:NASA's approval? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Mondoz ( 672060 )
      Forgive me if I ask something stupid, but why would this need NASA's approval?

      They're selling seats to go to the International Space Station. NASA owns much of it. It's an enclosed space, so the tourist would be using resources provided partially by NASA...

      The tourist could also do quite a bit of damage very easily... Without proper training by NASA, lots of bad stuff could easily happen...

    • Re:NASA's approval? (Score:2, Informative)

      by RazzleFrog ( 537054 )
      If you read the article it repeatedly refers to NASA and the other international partners. NASA just happens to be what is the largest and most well known space administration.

      No reason to start an anti-American thread for this.
    • and a frosty reception. [space.com]

      NASA knows that the Russians need money for their space program and will probably tolerate this guy as well.

  • by lseltzer ( 311306 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:02PM (#6239128)
    I don't see it on Expedia
  • by Goldberg's Pants ( 139800 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:02PM (#6239134) Journal
    See, this is the perfect way to get rid of Senator Hatch and his "I'm going to destroy your PC" brigade.
  • Does anyone else (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tmark ( 230091 )
    find it disgusting that companies and countries are sending people up for profit to a space station that was funded by taxpayer dollars intended ostensibly for research ? Does anyone find it disturbing that lives of astronauts could possibly be jeopardized by having relatively untrained personnel on board ?
    • by SkArcher ( 676201 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:06PM (#6239161) Journal
      Money is money, if more money can be raised for scientific research by sending rich idiot tourists up in space, then so be it.

      And if you are that concerned, consider that the other option is more of your tax dollars going up in space.

      And it probably isn't any more dangerous than having a small child strapped into the back seat of a car.
      • Money is money, if more money can be raised for scientific research by sending rich idiot tourists up in space, then so be it.

        Space tourist tickets have recently been selling for $2e+7. ISS cost ~= $1e+11. At those prices, you'd have to send up 50,000 tourists just to pay for the amusement park, ignoring the cost of gas and a ride.

        With the bloated costs of running the ISS, there is no way that the presence of an extra tourist on the ISS is not somehow costing the U.S. taxpayers more than what he paid

        • Space tourist tickets have recently been selling for $2e+7. ISS cost ~= $1e+11. At those prices, you'd have to send up 50,000 tourists just to pay for the amusement park, ignoring the cost of gas and a ride.

          Putting aside that the ISS isn't just an amusement park, you're off by an order of magnitude:
          1e+11 / 2e+7 = 10000e+7/2e+7 = 10000/2 = 5000

        • What is the point of sending probes all over the solar system? I, for one, would like to entertain the notion of actually going there and seeing it with my own eyes. I logically know that it is likely that this will not happen to me for a long time, if ever, but I can still _hope_ to go some day.

          What was the effect of all those accounts sent back by Lewis and Clark and other early European-decent explorers in North America? The more people found out, the more they wanted to go there. Lots of people

          • I'm all for sending a manned mission to Mars. If that's what we want to do, let's do it. Sitting in a tin can orbiting the earth with no explicit mandate to prepare for a Mars mission is not accomplishing anything, however.

            The current situation is as if Lewis and Clark set out from Philadelphia to explore the West, but then stopped on the Ohio border and sat on their butts doing nothing but spending government money for 10 years.

            • They would be accomplishing something (albeit small) if they had a decent crew on the thing. After all, you never know what experiments may come in handy. Most of the experiments probably won't be useful at all (and frankly I don't want to have spiders in a space station with me, even if I'm going to do some weird experiment with them), but NASA and friends would be building up a body of knowledge if they weren't such cowards.

              Personally, I've given up hope that NASA will do anything big or dramatic again,

    • by xtal ( 49134 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:12PM (#6239203)
      This will do a lot more good than harm. Space travel suffers from some extreme eliteism, justified or not - and if the average joe doesn't see people who don't have 50 initials after their name going up, they are and will lose interest in space exploration. One thing that gives hope is that maybe someday you'll have enough money to do that - because in the great USA, the almighty dollar speaks both last and loudest.

      Anything that drums up public support for space exploration gets a thumbs up from me. Honestly, I don't see how much this can jepordize anyone's life. Many/most of the systems onboard these craft are fully automated, and if shit hits the fan, there's pretty much zilcho anyone can do.

      So no, I don't find this disgusting at all.
      • Many/most of the systems onboard these craft are fully automated, and if shit hits the fan, there's pretty much zilcho anyone can do.

        That's not true at all. A very large percentage of the crew's time is spent on IFM tasks. (In Flight Maint.)

        Getting any other types of tasks on the timeline is very difficult, especially now that there's only two crewmembers up there.

      • You really need to read a copy of the space shuttle operator's manual. The astronauts have to do EVERYTHING, including program the computers while they're in space because they don't have enough storage to hold all of the software to operate the instruments. Now, perhaps the Russians have automated their spacecraft, but ours haven't changed at all since the space shuttles were first built.

        Really, the space shuttle isn't much more advanced than the Apollo capsule. Surely you don't think that the men on A
      • Maybe "in the great USA, the almighty dollar speaks both last and loudest" but remember what the I in ISS stands for? USA is just one player.
      • This will do a lot more good than harm. Space travel suffers from some extreme eliteism, justified or not - and if the average joe doesn't see people who don't have 50 initials after their name going up, they are and will lose interest in space exploration.

        You are exactly right. Imagine if a government banned private citizens from owning or operating cars, yet used their taxes to build roads and buy cars for the exclusive use of unelected government officials. That is exactly what NASA are their supporter
    • Not at all (Score:3, Insightful)

      by achurch ( 201270 )

      It's not as though the tourists would have anywhere else to go--where are you going to send them, the moon? And as others have pointed out, the more money rich folks pour into space programs, the less of your tax dollars are taken out for them.

      As far as "possibly jeopardizing the lives of astronauts", RTFA: This "extra mission" would fly two paying passengers that will have undergone months of training for the trip to the orbiting outpost. (emphasis added) Even Russia isn't stupid enough to send people

    • think the parent poster is bitter because he can't afford a space trip? I do.
    • Re:Does anyone else (Score:3, Informative)

      by mlong ( 160620 )
      find it disgusting that companies and countries are sending people up for profit to a space station that was funded by taxpayer dollars intended ostensibly for research ? Does anyone find it disturbing that lives of astronauts could possibly be jeopardized by having relatively untrained personnel on board ?

      I find it more disturbing that NASA has crippled the station. A three person crew who does nothing but maintenance. Little to no research. With my tax payer money. Yippe

      • Re:Does anyone else (Score:3, Informative)

        by Mondoz ( 672060 )
        I find it more disturbing that NASA has crippled the station. A three person crew who does nothing but maintenance. Little to no research. With my tax payer money. Yippe

        Upon completion, the station was to support a 7 man crew. However, Bush decided that the station didn't really need the escape vehicle and sleeping quarters required to support 7 people, so he cut the funding for those two modules.

        The station's new 'complete' status will only support 3 people... about the number required for absolute m

        • by sql*kitten ( 1359 )
          Blame Bush. He took away the funding.

          No, blame NASA for overspending earlier in the project. NASA wanted a blank cheque from the taxpayer. If NASA demonstrated the ability to bring large projects in on time and within budget, they'd find it a lot easier to get money from the appropriations committee. All Bush said was look, we can't keep giving you more and more money if you can't show us anything for it.
    • by Moofie ( 22272 ) <lee@ringofsat u r n.com> on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:39PM (#6239365) Homepage
      This is the only way that those vaunted taxpayers would ever be able to experience the fruits of their dollars first-hand.

      NASA has for many years made space travel the purview of the technological elite. Now it's within the realm of the financial elite, which is a step in the right direction. (Specifically, the directon of allowing more people to experience space travel)

    • by 73939133 ( 676561 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:56PM (#6239460)
      I find that far less disgusting than having media companies monopolize the public airwaves, or energy companies corrupting our government. As far as taxpayer money wasted on private projects goes, it is also far less significant.

      If you still don't like it, just think of it as "foreign aid". We are quite stingy anyway when it comes to foreign aid, so a little more money going to the Russian space program through this indirect route seems pretty defensible to me.
    • Oh puh-leeze....If we're ever going to get off this piece of crap we call Earth in a serious way we're going to need taxpayer dollars mailing bums to Mars eventually. The Russians are EXACTLY right, and probably the Chinese too once they get their program up and running. NASA as an institution has got all the know-how, but the American public just doesn't have the guts or ambition to send people into space really. All the other countries have better reasons to engage in their space programs, capital to keep
  • by SkArcher ( 676201 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:03PM (#6239141) Journal
    1) Oportunity
    2) ???
    3) Profit!

    Ultimately, if it puts cash into the space program, im all for some rich idiots paying stupid ammounts of cash for it.
  • 'However, NASA has yet to be officially notified or to give formal approval, so there are still some speed bumps in the road map.'

    Las Vegas odds makers are giving 2-to-1 that NASA will find a way to much it up...
    • Re:In other news.. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by isorox ( 205688 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:14PM (#6239224) Homepage Journal
      Las Vegas odds makers are giving 2-to-1 that NASA will find a way to much it up

      Hmm, the shuttle aint launching for another 6 months, at best. I'm guessing they'll be a crew changeover before then - and Nasa needs to stay in Russia's good books.

      Of course, for $20 million a person, you could launch 7 people - the compliment of a shuttle - for $140m. The average shuttle flight costs $500m.
  • Disclaimer (Score:5, Funny)

    by firehzd1 ( 682049 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:05PM (#6239151)
    I would like to see a copy of the disclaimer on that trip ... we will not be held liable for your luggage melting on re-entry... nor yourself.....
    • by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportlandNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @11:34PM (#6239615) Homepage Journal
      Disclaimer:
      You may die. poihnt in fact if anything goes wrong, you will die. If you cause something to go wrong, and though some miracle people don't die, you will be ejected nto space, and you will die.
      If you do not want to die, put the pen down and leave.

      Do you accept that you will probably die and agree you or you estate will not hold anybody who own or come in contact with anything that is in anyway connected to space travel?

      If you do die(and probably will) taco bell promises to name a taco after you, if your body hits a target they specify.

      Good luck, spave traveller.
      Please kiss you loved good by.... forever.

  • Life insurance? (Score:2, Interesting)

    This is certainly a lot more dangerous than going by airlines. I hope they give a good life insurance bonus plus full refund of your ticket money if you happen to be on the wrong shuttle and get blown up into smitherbits.

    -N
  • How much luggage do I get as a carry-on?

    It would be a great trip.

  • by Hogwash McFly ( 678207 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:13PM (#6239213)
    Man: Excuse me stewardess, what is the in flight movie?

    Stewardess: Apollo 13, sir.
  • Wow (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) * on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:13PM (#6239214) Journal
    You have to take a step back and realize just how far we have come in the past hundred and some odd years: steam powered engines to the integrated circuit to the internet to space tourism.

    Holy shit.

    • Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)

      by spike hay ( 534165 ) <{blu_ice} {at} {violate.me.uk}> on Thursday June 19, 2003 @01:09AM (#6240157) Homepage
      You have to take a step back and realize just how far we have come in the past hundred and some odd years: steam powered engines to the integrated circuit to the internet to space tourism.

      What I'm just as amazed at is how little we've come in the last 40 years.

      Early 1800's - Widspread use of steam powered locomotives.
      Early 1900's - First airplanes and widespread use of the automobile.
      1930's - Widespread air travel. Extremely advanced, maneuverable propellor driven fighters and bombers.
      1940's - Jet aircraft introduced. The V2, first ballistic missile, is created.
      1950's - Commercial jet travel introduced. Supersonic fighters introduced. ICBMs are introduced and the Sputnik is launched. The X-15 is first used.
      1960's - First manned spaceflight. Manned flight to the moon. Interplanetary probes are first launched. The SR-71, which still holds the speed record for an airbreathing craft, is developed.

      1970's-1990's - Here is where transportation advancement largely drops off. We've gotten more efficient jets. Rocket technology hasn't gotten any better. Cars have gotten more efficient. Other than some efficiency tweaks, we haven't advanced much at all in transportation since the exceedingly rapid advancements of the mid 20th century.
  • FYI (Score:5, Informative)

    by parkanoid ( 573952 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:15PM (#6239226)
    It's "Rosaviakosmos", not "Rosoviakosmos".
  • First it was a billionaire, then it was a pop star, now it's any tourist with money. Well hell I've got some shiny tin foil I will trade for a ride on the Soyuz.

    You want that boy? Sure ya do! Good boy! You want the shiny tin foil? It's worth more than your GDP! Good boy, fetch!

  • Oh boy ... (Score:2, Funny)

    by DaemonGem ( 557674 )
    ... here come all the non-paying rock bands.

    -Dae
  • Okay, so... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by psyconaut ( 228947 )
    1. Invesnt product
    2. Sell product
    3. Repeat (2)
    4. Profit
    5. Hitch a ride on Soyuz?

    If I had that sort of money, I'd be there in a heartbeat. I'm one of those people who doesn't believe it unless he's seen it, so to speak.

    As for NASA...meeehhhhhh! Is NASA's "approval" really relavent these days? I don't just mean the Space Shuttle disasters, but their slow-moving government oriented ways, way of accountability, etc.

    Seriously, I think the Russians and Chinese are far more commited to serious space programs th
  • Plus if you sign up now you get a 10% discount on Russian nukes!
  • by Migraineman ( 632203 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @10:59PM (#6239474)
    Mile high club? That is soooo 20th century. I suggest that the next module to be attached to the ISS should be the Space Erogenous eXperiment module. For the very reasonable price of USD 50M, you and your partner get a round trip ticket and a week's stay in the luxurious and private S.E.X. module on the ISS. (Meals and port fees are included.)

    This is the kind of development that makes the budget woes of the ISS go away. If it costs <pinky> one Billlllion dollars </pinky> to put the thing up there, you've roughly broken even after 20 bookings. So be pessimistic and say that it takes 40 bookings. If they fly passengers 6 times a year, the module is "in the black" inside of 7 years. After that, it's generating revenue for the program and funding the science operations. How many other ISS modules could lay claim to that? I know I'd certainly welcome any structure that reduces the amount of money that the ISS sucks out of my wallet.
    • The real money would be leasing it to porn studios.

      Talk live with our girls! watch them float by while sticking what ever you like into them!

      BOOBS IN SPAAAAACE!!!!!!!!!!!

      I could go on, but it only gets worse, or more 'in your face' as it were.
    • Re:Orbital Brothel (Score:3, Informative)

      by deblau ( 68023 )
      The Russians have done a lot of thought about this subject [space.com], and the general conclusion is that it's not practical or ethical. Besides which, it'd be damn hard to do. It takes about 30 minutes just to use the toilet [nasa.gov] up there, because of the lack of gravity-induced friction (traction) forces. Sex is all about friction. You'd need to strap one party down, and the other one would need hand- and foot-holds just to maintain contact. It would take 10 minutes just to get into position, not to mention the fact that
  • So who else saw Tourist-class and right away assumed it was an article about nethack?
  • Capitalism (Score:2, Insightful)

    by compjma ( 591836 )
    What I want to know is why the heck are we letting the Russians do this before us? This is just the kind of capitalism that will encourage the commercialization of space. Can you imagine a shuttle flight that actually showed a profit?

  • "road map"? I hate buzz words/phrases.

    The other one that really irritates me (especially as a researcher who goes to many seminars): the take-home message.

    First off, I hope I came to a talk that was sophisticated enough that you actually can't sum it up into a take-home message.

    Secondly, if I were dumb enough to need you to tell me you're summing your entire topic up into a 10 word phrase, then I'd need you to read directly from your Powerpoint slides...oh, I see you're doing that, too.

    [sniff, sniff]A
  • Does this mean we get another shot at punting Lance Bass into orbit? ;=)
  • Space for two! Now, you too (for a mere $40 million bucks) can join the 100 mile club!

    Even better if the tourist can help out with the house cleaning! But there is a dark part of me that wish that anyone who can afford this would just burn up on reentry.
  • So my lifetime goal of visiting space got one step closer...

    Now all I need is to register sendmetospace.com, and wait for 20 million $1 donations to my PalPal account.

    Better tell my fiancee to buy those bungee cords for the zero-G "research".
  • Gee... I wonder how long until we get the first Space's Mile High Club members...

BLISS is ignorance.

Working...