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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space The Almighty Buck

Russian Cargo Ship Docks At ISS, Preps For Tourist 166

Posted by Zonk from the back-to-business dept.
christchurch writes "Russia unmanned cargo ship Progress M-54, carrying food and supplies, docked at the International Space Station safely yesterday. A two-man replacement crew is scheduled to head to the station on 1st of October, along with an American scientist-businessman, Gregory Olsen, who is paying the Russian space agency $20 million for a weeklong visit."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russian Cargo Ship Docks At ISS, Preps For Tourist More

Russian Cargo Ship Docks At ISS, Preps For Tourist

Comments Filter:

  • So... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cruithne ( 658153 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @02:53PM (#13533166)
    The food and supplies arrive just in time for the current crew to leave in a few weeks...

    If I were them, I'd eat all the space ice-cream before I had to leave :D

  • 2 Mil!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11, 2005 @02:56PM (#13533175)
    For 2 million dollars I could buy a 100 floating Russian nuclear powerplants!
    • no, you could buy 10 at the typo'd price of $200,000 - it apparently was in reality $120 mil. Also, the ticket to space is $20 mil, not $2 :)

      So, every number in your post is wrong, including the 2, Funny.
    • In Soviet Russia, a floating nuclear powerplant buys you!

  • 20 million for a week? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PierceLabs ( 549351 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @02:56PM (#13533178)
    I wonder how much it actually cost the Russian space agency to put him there and bring him back (safely) a week later. Could it be that the Russian space agency has established a decent tourism business for space where they are actually turning a decent profit?

    • Re:20 million for a week? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Cruithne ( 658153 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @02:58PM (#13533189)
      I'm fairly certain the answer is yes - I believe one of the reasons for implementing the program was to offset some of the cost of missions.

    • Re:20 million for a week? (Score:5, Funny)

      by tabacco ( 145317 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @03:02PM (#13533212)
      Well, once he's up there they spring the "Oh, you want a RETURN trip? That's going to be $50 million." trick on him :)

    • I wonder how much it actually cost the Russian space agency to put him there and bring him back (safely) a week later.

      Nobody outside of Russia knows, and it's often suspected that the Russians don't know either. (There's actually about 5 agencies/companies/enterprises involved, all tangled in a gordian knot.)

      Could it be that the Russian space agency has established a decent tourism business for space where they are actually turning a decent profit?

      That's highly unlikely considering the prices they ha

      • But at the same time, it's not like he's the only reason the Soyuz is going up. He's just tagging along for the ride, resulting in slightly less cargo capacity and increased resource consumption for a week.

        When you look at it that way, it's almost all profit - or at least, loss reduction.

        Now, if you started launching only for taking tourists up, that's a different proposition.
    • Well, a decent profit-returning tourism business or not, it is still $20 million dollars they didnt have before...

      The demand is there for $20 million dollars. It probably isnt for the actual costs... And they are launching at capacity (1 or 2 a year scheduled, 1 every other year actual...)

  • UNMANNED? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by s388 ( 910768 )
    the russians have unmanned cargo spacecraft?

    and one just docked successfully with the ISS?

    do i live under a rock?

    i think i'm impressed.

    i suppose umannedness eliminates all logistical problems of life support on a craft bound for the ISS, but still i'm impressed.

    • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Cruithne ( 658153 )
      Not to slight Russia, but with all of their economic troubles, its troubling that their space program is comparable to ours in many ways... and in some cases, like this one, actually ahead.

      I wish the American public had some national pride and a desire to explore :(

      • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:4, Funny)

        by Propagandhi ( 570791 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @03:21PM (#13533296) Journal
        Pfft, what are you talking about? Every day millions of Americans demonstrate their desire to explore by searching their couch cushions for the remote!

      • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @03:22PM (#13533300)
        Like I contributed some time ago, "never trust the Russians." These guys are technologically gifted. They achieve so much with very little, and with no fanfare at all. If it were we the Americans, all major networks would be carrying this story as if we have no troubles of our own.

        There was a saying that if the Russians had not participated in the ISS. I will never forget the day I came up-close to an Antonov-124. I have never seen a bigger aircraft.

        Years when the US air-force was trumpeting the stealth fighter as unstoppable, the Russians said there is nothing that takes in air and dissipates heat that cannot be detected. This was proven when one of our fighters was downed in the Balkan's war. The air-force attributed the downing to a technical fault. Of course this was not correct.

        There is also this piece: When time came to retire the MIR, we put a spin on where its fragments would fall - mostly negative. But not only did MIR's fragments land in the correct spot, they landed with an accuracy we as Americans can only dream of for an un-manned craft. There is so much these guys can do. I wish we could emulate some of their achievements.

        • There is so much these guys can do. I wish we could emulate some of their achievements.

          Maybe as time goes on, and our relations improve, we will. Hopefully, ideologies won't get in the way again and I wish the same for other parts of the world and other cultures.

          Kumbayha, my lord, Kumbayha ... sorry, I was getting kind of sappy there.

        • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:2, Interesting)

          by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )
          Years when the US air-force was trumpeting the stealth fighter as unstoppable, the Russians said there is nothing that takes in air and dissipates heat that cannot be detected.

          I never really understood the point of the stealth fighter. There are four major ways of detecting an aircraft; optical, sonic, IR and RADAR. The stealth fighter is invisible on one of these, and has a huge profile on two of them. Coincidentally, the one it is invisible to is the one it costs the most to build sensors for.

          • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            You are incorrect. The F-117 also incorporates technology (I believe it's called the Platypus tail) to diffuse its IR signature. Sound is countered by flying at subsonic speeds. And as for visual, the black paint scheme works well at night, though not so well during the day. That's why they use careful mission planning.

            And as for the parent, talking about the 117 shot down during the Balkan war, that's likely because the weapon hatch was open for a while, and there is no RAM (radar absorbing material) i
            • The F-117 lost in the Balkans was purely luck; they knew the plane was overhead, but couldn't detect it, so they just started throwing everything they had into the air, much like over Baghdad during the Gulf War.

              Only this time, one hit the air craft. The F-117 isn't invincible; it's just very hard to see with any kind of technology. As much of the plane was still intact when found, it's very likely that the aircraft was only clipped in one of the wings by a SAM or artillary fire. The pilot had time to ma
              • The F-117 lost in the Balkans was purely luck; they knew the plane was overhead, but couldn't detect it, so they just started throwing everything they had into the air, much like over Baghdad during the Gulf War.

                It was not _pure_ luck, from what I've heard -- US pilots and mission planners were so SURE that it is "invisible" that it ran the same route day after day. And, of course, given enough time even very small signals can be detected over averaged-out noise... They knew when and where it was coming and
                • Of course it does not beat using $100 microwave ovens with broken door block to lure $1,000,000 anti radar station missiles...

                  Kind of obvious in hindsight, but still that is bloody funny!

                  "Sergi, now is not the time during an airstrike to be making coffee in the microwa..."

              • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:3, Insightful)

                by tftp ( 111690 )
                it's very likely that the aircraft was only clipped in one of the wings by a SAM or artillary fire.

                SAM warheads don't hit the target "head on". Instead they explode near the target, and then the schrapnel downs the airplane. This approach was used as early as World War II. The F-117 could be mostly intact, with the only exception of one little hole where it mattered.

          • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by tftp ( 111690 )
            I can think of least one very simple way to find a stealth aircraft with a radar-guided warhead. It was described in many sci-fi (or fantasy) books. Program the rocket to climb high, point its antenna down and then see where the reflections from the ground disappear. Since the rocket and the target both move, the ground reflections average out quickly, giving you a smooth "white" background and a moving "black" spot. Even though the ground reflections are not uniform (forest / lake / city) these irregular
            • I guess even during WWI aircraft had blueish belly and greeninsh top...

              Just make it stealth only on the bottom and your attack can be prevented!

              Paul B.
              • It will be visible to the warhead above regardless of whether it absorbs RF or not. Any ground pattern that does not autocorrelate using a given pair of offsets must be the target. The same software will work both cases.
                • Thought of it as well -- but the software would have to be more evolved (2D autocorreleation) rather than performing simple accumulation/averaging and shooting for "white" instead of "black".

                  Paul B.
                  • but the software would have to be more evolved

                    Hardware correlators do exist, and they are nicely synthesizable in an FPGA. Even university students do it [ritsumei.ac.jp].

                    shooting for "white" instead of "black"

                    The abs() function might be of use :-)

                    • Hardware correlators do exist, and they are nicely synthesizable in an FPGA. Even university students do it.

                      Sure they do! And they do, just not on MIL-spec FPGA hardware... ;-)

                      The abs() function might be of use :-)

                      Assuming that for some strange reason you decide to use signed arithmetics! Hmm, maybe your radar reflection is taken with +1 weigth, while background EM waves are taken with -100 weight...
                      How else would you get signed values?

                      Paul B.
              • You mean make the plane radar visible to defeat anti-stealth technology?

                That would just make it in even easier to spot.

          • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:4, Informative)

            by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @04:21PM (#13533525)
            What the FUCK are you talking about?

            The US air force KNEW that their stealth fighter fleet needed to be invisible, so they engineered it with ALL the aspects of stealth in mind.

            The F-117 is RADAR invisible, virtually indetecable in the night sky, flies too slow to make a audible detection (no sonic boom), and produces a very low heat signature by using a dove-tail section on the rear with protective tiles that absorb heat and disappate it just like the space shuttle tiles.

            The F/A-22 was engineered to be RADAR stealthy, but it's engines still produce a considerable amount of heat, and isn't coated with the same kind of RAM; but the F/A-22 was designed to be a true air-to-air combat fighter. The F-117, though called a fighter, is truely a light, stragetic bomber.
            • What the fuck are YOU talking about?

              The F-117 is NOT invisibile to radar. Notice how the USAF calls it a "stealth" bomber and not an "invisible" bomber? If an F-117 or a B-2 gets close enough to a radar, eventually a solid return WILL come back and it will be detected. Sure, the stealth technology drastically decreases the range at which this will happen, but it is still possible.

              Furthermore, the wake turbulence of the F-117 can still be detected, by a radar such as the Jindalee OTH Radar [wikipedia.org]. So the Russ
              • Okay sure, the F-117 has the radar cross section equivalent to that of a small bird (quoting the US DOD on the subject). This means it's virtually invisible until you are sitting on top of it.

                Secondly, Stealth is a strategic technology: nobody's gonna fly a stealth aircraft right through the middle of a fire fight or an area lit up with radar 8 ways from Sunday. It's dumb.

                Lastly, I'm not disputing the Russkies. I'm pretty sure they actually can detect these aircraft, but the question is when, how ofte
        • IIRC the stealth fighter that was downed in Serbia was hit by random AA fire (according to my news sources at the time anyway). The Serbians just started shooting wildly in the air during raids and it got them lucky once in the entire campaign, no more, no less.

        • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:5, Informative)

          by PPGMD ( 679725 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @04:14PM (#13533501) Journal
          Years when the US air-force was trumpeting the stealth fighter as unstoppable, the Russians said there is nothing that takes in air and dissipates heat that cannot be detected. This was proven when one of our fighters was downed in the Balkan's war. The air-force attributed the downing to a technical fault. Of course this was not correct.

          *sigh* This is what the second time that I have corrected this myth on Slashdot. The F-117 and B-2 are not invincible, they are designed for low observability. They use multiple attack route, surprise, the vastly lower detectability to achieve their mission.

          With that being said what allowed the F-117 to be shot down was simple human stupidity. On normal missions the F-117 fly at over 10,000 ft AGL because that is the limit of ground based IR guided missiles, and AAA. It also doesn't normally fly below the clouds because it would stick out like a sore thumb. On top of that it never flies the same route twice.

          During the war in Bosnia they violated all three of those rules, thanks to "wonderful" European weather the F-117's were forced to fly below the clouds to hit their targets (GPS guided JDAMs were not in use then, they were using the laser guided Paveway III's which are not useable through most cloud layers). That forced them below 10,000 ft into the range of AAA. They also flew over the same route 3 times before the shoot down, so the Serbians were able to position AAA along the route and shoot the F-117 down, guided by the Mark I eyeball.

          The technology isn't at fault, when you fly outside it's envelope of protection. It would be like me blaming Linux because my computer failed, when I threw it in the pool.

          • They also flew over the same route 3 times before the shoot down, so the Serbians were able to position AAA along the route and shoot the F-117 down.

            That's the same reason them Russkies managed to down the U-2. They flew the same route twice, and the second time around, the Russians were ready for them with their big SAMs.

          • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:5, Funny)

            by alan_dershowitz ( 586542 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @05:24PM (#13533825)
            It would be like me blaming Linux because my computer failed, when I threw it in the pool.

            It's logo is a penguin, so I just assumed...

          • Just a small correction if anyone cares: it wasn't the war in Bosnia. That one ended in 1995 and this one was the conflict between Serbia (Yugoslavia at the time) and NATO in 1999.
          • as far as i know the f-117 was downed by a mig-21 which has neared the f-117 without being seen.

        • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by adavidw ( 31941 )
          There was a saying that if the Russians had not participated in the ISS.

          There was a saying that if the Russians had not participated in the ISS, what?

          • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by demachina ( 71715 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @05:22PM (#13533810)
            "There was a saying that if the Russians had not participated in the ISS, what?"

            If the Russian had not participated in the ISS it probably would have never flown, and if it had flown it would have been abandoned when the Columbia broke up.

            The Russians Soyuz and Progress flights are the only thing thats kept it manned and supplied for the last 2 1/2 going on 3+ years, while the Shuttle has been grounded since the U.S. has no backup. Russia has been doing this at their own expense since the Congress prohibited NASA from paying Russia for its services over Russia's support for Iran's nuclear program. NASA has been freeloading off Russia for the duration of the Shuttle grounding. I thought the Russian's had said enough is enough and was going to refuse to fly any more missions with NASA astronauts or supplies though it appears they are throwing NASA a bone with continued missions now that the Shuttle is indefinitely grounded again.

            The Russians built the two key modules in the ISS, Zarya [wikipedia.org] and Zvezda [wikipedia.org], using designs that were basically planned to be Mir-2. For a litany of reasons the U.S. squandered billions of dollars and more than a decade, creating nothing but artists conceptions. Its open to debate if NASA could have built a long duration space station that would have worked since the only experience they had was the relatively short duration Skylab missions 30 years ago. The Russians by comparison had decades of practical experience and proved working designs from Mir and Salyuts.

        • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by JourneyExpertApe ( 906162 )
          There was a saying that if the Russians had not participated in the ISS.

          You left off part of that sentence. It should read, "... then we wouldn't have rich assholes up there performing pretend experiments and advertising their companies on government property that cost billions to build."
      • I know, me too.

        That's one thing that the Russians have over the Americans. True national pride.

        (Although its not actually "national" pride, since 99% of the people there hate and have always hated the goverment. It's more like pride in Mother Russia no matter what stupid goverment happens to be running it at the time.)

        Over there, space exploration is a matter of pride and so nobody even thinks to suggest stopping it no matter how much money is being spent on it.

        Plus, there's more of a sense of adventure and

        • That's one thing that the Russians have over the Americans. True national pride. (Although its not actually "national" pride, since 99% of the people there hate and have always hated the goverment. It's more like pride in Mother Russia no matter what stupid goverment happens to be running it at the time.)

          I don't know how different that is than American pride. A lot of people love America, the ideal, the cultures, the general way we do things in the American civilization....but don't really like the gove

          • That's true, but probably not to the same extent.

            The concept of America here is tied into the government because it is the only one that has existed here.

            In Russia though, only 15 years ago there was a different government. Hell, the old grandparents can even remember living in Czarist times.
            • There is no need to talk to grandparents because too many classical russian books are set in Czarist times, 18th or 19th century. For example, the "War and Peace" is set around 1812. Those books are a required reading for students.

            • The concept of America here is tied into the government because it is the only one that has existed here.

              Not true, not true at all. You must be ignorant of history.

              During the Revolution, when the ideas of "American" and "United States of America" were first taking shape, we were governed by the old Colonial governments...and the Continental Congress. A rather weak provisional government.

              After the Revolution, we established the Articles of Confederation. This government also called itself the United St

              • Okay, true. I know that, you know that. We even know that George Washington wasn't really the first president.

                Does anybody else here know that. I would bet that 99.99% don't.

                Compare that to Russia where 99.99% do know about the previous governments.

                That's my point.

        • Plus, there's more of a sense of adventure and risk-taking. An accident? A few cosmonauts died? It's tragic, but they knew the risks. Lets celebrate their glorious memory, and send some more people up there.

          A nice soundbite - but the reality is both fatal accidents (Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11) resulted in lengthy stand downs before they tried again. I.E. pretty the same thing as the US does.

          Equally, when three of three Zond lunar flights failed to some degree - they didn't send Cosmonauts on the fourth, the pr

      • Actually, the "economic troubles" occurred about 10 years ago, and are long forgotten (in Russia, but apparently not on /.) The end of troubles, however, does not mean that the government has some infinite cash to burn.

        With regard to the "national pride and a desire to explore", I doubt very much that russian people, on average, have any more of that than american people, also on average. But the important distinction here is that the leaders of Russia want to explore, while the leaders of USA are far

      • Quote: Not to slight Russia, but with all of their economic troubles

        you mean "troubles" like this [bbc.co.uk],& this [globalpolicy.org]?

        now, i'm the last person to support the IMF, to say nothing of Russia's choice to pay "them" off rather than focus such monies into social needs, but paying off early a 7 billion USD debt seems like there's some to go around. i agree it is tragic Russia doesn't use the money to take care of its inherit social problems, but perhaps they're modeling themselves after some other [commondreams.org] big country's [csmonitor.com] spe [unitedforpeace.org]

    • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      the russians have unmanned cargo spacecraft?

      and one just docked successfully with the ISS?

      do i live under a rock?

      Yes you do :)

      The first Progress (which is a modified Soyuz) was launched in 1978. While it was operational, Progress was used for bringing supplies to Mir, as it does now to the ISS.

    • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @03:17PM (#13533274) Journal
      the russians have unmanned cargo spacecraft? and one just docked successfully with the ISS? do i live under a rock?

      Either you do - or you are trying to be sarcastic. Progress [wikipedia.org], Soviet space freighter is in use since late 1970's. Basically it's just a stripped-down version of the manned Soyuz [wikipedia.org]. Both Soyuz and Progress fly to the ISS few times a year (you can check the timetable here [spacetoday.org]). Unlike the US-made space shuttles, Soyuz and Progress are not reusable. Soviet shuttle project was not exactly succesful, but as it sometimes happens with stop-gap solutions, Soyuz and Progress proved to be a quite reliable workhorse for their orbital stations. And it looks like it's the best solution right now for the whole planet Earth.
    • The Russians have been doing this for years (recall that about eight years ago, a Progress unsuccessfully docked with the Mir space station).

      Without the Progress, the ISS would have been abandoned and lost long ago.
    • the russians have unmanned cargo spacecraft?

      Since the first Progress in 1978.

    • They've had unmanned Progress supply ships for decades. They're derived from the Soyuz manned vehicles.

      It's really not that much of a stretch since the Soviet philosophy was always focused on control of the mission from the ground and automatic systems on the spacecraft, not from the cosmonauts. Just leave out the passengers and pack in more cargo, and you get an unmanned craft.

    • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:5, Funny)

      by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @03:28PM (#13533327) Journal

      I don't know why you think this is so special. It would be silly for any decent space program not to have an unmanned vehicle that could dock with the sta... oh... nevermind.

    • Re:UNMANNED? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by 6th time lucky ( 811282 )
      From what I've read, the Russians did almost everthing automated and robotic. Cosmonauts were often just ballast or a cheap sophisticated computer to get the mission done. Now, no disrespect to those people, but that is how the systems were built. That is, to be mostly idiot proof. When they work, they work (Progress, Soyez).

      Even the Russian shuttle, Burian, launched, orbited, and landed without onboard people controling it (was it fully automatic or remote controlled anyone?)

      A lot of people say that the re
    • They were already using unmanned Progress craft to re-supply their Mir space station for a really long time. I doubt the technology has changed much since then.

  • The other governments must be peeved (Score:4, Insightful)

    by confusion ( 14388 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @03:11PM (#13533248) Homepage
    Yes, Russia is having to pay to get him there, but Russia is pretty much treating this multi-national scientific endeavor as a high priced hotel. Why not let Hilton or someone pop for a hotel module and start funding some of the space program, since there doesn't seem to be a shortage of millionaires wanting to go to space. Maybe then we could fix the hubble or some other meaningful science.

    Jerry
    http://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org]
    • Yes, Russia is having to pay to get him there, but Russia is pretty much treating this multi-national scientific endeavor as a high priced hotel.

      Provided the Russians continue to send up people capable of doing the job, why do you care about the employee selection process? These people are fully trained and capable of doing the work necessary during their stay.

      NASA has also sent up plenty of people to political reasons, but since they performed the assigned tasks while there I don't think we can complain to
    • It's a free market - someone offers a service, someone offers the money - deal. What's wrong with that? Russia definitely can control who boards its spacecraft, and it owns a good deal of ISS share(s), and besides, none of that is done over standing objections of other partners.

      I'm sure NASA is welcome to send a tourist or two on one of its shuttles... not that any are expected now, not any time soon at least, from what I read these days. It might even be that the Shuttles will never fly again. The ST

    • I know russia was the soviet russia and so it is evil and all the stuff like that... but this is only space tourism [wikipedia.org], has the approval of all partners (ESA and NASA), and is being carried by russians instead of NASA since it's cheapper for the tourist to afford. NASA would probably accept a space tourist since it's being year after year harder to get a good budget.
      • cheaper?

        I suspect that if you can afford the ticket a few extra million isn't the issue. How often do you hear of russia failing to get their "cargo" back to earth in one piece

        • I think the Russians figgured out KISS while NASA figured out pork. Sometime we might get ourselved out of LEO and maybe some of those working Nuke rockets till then the Russians seem to have the best working technology lets use it and get things done.

    • I think that the over governments are sympathetic to the fact that Russia's space program has virtually no budget.

      If this is what they have to do to raise the funds necessary to operate, then so be it.
    • Fuck Science. It's this unhealthy obsession with "science" that is dragging the space program down. The goal for going into space should be commercial. We should be mining the moon for rare (on earth) metals. Astronauts should be fixing billion dollar satellites, not pressing buttons on automated space experiments.
    • ...there doesn't seem to be a shortage of millionaires wanting to go to space..

      I think you're right on the money (pun reluctantly intended) regarding the privatization of space projects, but no shortage of millionaires wanting to go into space? That's a bit of a stretch. For many with the moola, it's just a fleeing fancy. With the exorbitant price tag, exhaustive briefings and physical conditioning required even before they step onto a rocket, speak nothing of the safety risks, it's little wonder anyone wou
  • Is the crew welcoming their new $20 million carrying overlords properly?
  • Well p0rn helped power the internet's expansive growth and lead to great advances in online payment processing methods so maybe turism will help power the space race and resulting fields. We can all benefit from the technology that will come from these missions. And if they become frequent enough enough maybe some lasting benefit to land lovers will result. Heck I wouldn't mind going into space. Beats Hawaii. When money is spent in an innovative sector it always helps all the underlying affiliations.

  • Stupid Russians... (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by erroneus ( 253617 )
    ...if only they had realized sooner than later that they could have subsidized their failing economy with space tourism like this. From what I understand, the Soyuz capsules are the same ones they've used for more than what? 10 to 15 years? And there have always been bored American millionaires who would have taken the risk either way. Who knows if the USSR would still be around today if they had.

    • Re:Stupid Russians... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by 68k geek ( 573999 )
      the USSR did not fell because of a lack of money(think of corruption first and revival of national movments of some of the now formerly soviet republics), and even if it would have - $20 mil. per flight is not that significat to a country the size of the former Soviet Union
      • Moreover the $20 million per flight may not even cover the whole cost of the mission (it's very difficult to get hard numbers, but a Soyuz booster launch alone sells for more than that, never mind the spacecraft)

        It is very likely only 'profitable' in the sense that they are getting $20 million toward a mission they were going to fly anyway. Note that the ESA astronauts who fly on these flights are also paying customers. Americans currently ride free due to barter agreements, but that is set to end this yea

  • Rather competitive pricing actually (Score:5, Funny)

    by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @03:44PM (#13533389) Homepage Journal
    As any Tourist at DisneyWorld could tell you $33.06 per second "seems" about average these days.

  • And ? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gaanagaa ( 784648 )
    And they say Russians are cheap? These guys are the live-wire for ISS. U.S, who claim the most of ISS are reluctant to launch a shuttle after Katrina. I dont see reason. Russians whose economy is much on the brink are doing the save-the-day-job for the ISS. I think U.S never thanked Russia for their support in the project-ISS and the fact that Russians are feeding those abandoned astronauts in the ISS.
  • I feel a reality TV show coming on. Space Station makeover or vote an astronaut out? - Earl
  • I wish I had $20 million! I've always wanted to go into space. I watched way too much Star Trek as a kid (as if there is such a thing as too much Star Trek) and now I'm also hooked on Star Gate (SG1 and Atlantis. McKay rocks!). Irrelevant, yes. Anyway, I can think of a lot of things to do in a zero-gravity environment!
  • As the developed world collectively wets themselves pondering the future effects of peak oil, continuing overpopulation, and the ineveitable fall of modern living standards, I'm wondering why is it that the International "Space Station" seems to have been designed to fall apart at the seams without regular re-supply missions?

    More importantly, if the goal of ISS is not to help establish a *permanent*, self-sustaining presence in space, and to benefit mankind with the technological improvements that such an e

Slashdot Top Deals

"The medium is the message." -- Marshall McLuhan

Close