Slashdot Mirror
Politics Without Geopolitical Boundaries?
ParticleGirl asks: "Dennis Tito's flight to the ISS is scheduled for the same time that the Canadian Space Agency (CSA)'s robotic arm is supposed to be installed. Speaking for the CSA, Marc Garneau did an interview with Space.com. Now that Canada has come out against Tito going into space, it'll be interesting to see what kind of a compromise will be reached. Until now, this has been a sort-of
standoff between Russia and the United States, but now other countries are entering the fray. Should this dude have access to the space station just because he's got the cash? He did work for NASA, and he seems to be intelligent and capable. On the other hand, he's not a trained astronaut and could plausibly be a liability if there is some sort of emergency. Will this be our first extra-orbital international incident?" While the article at Space.Com downplays any possibility of such an occurence, I can see reasons for both sides, here: Russia should be able to run their own space program, without any interference from the US, however Tito's presence on the ISS affects more than Russian interests. If the issue is a matter of training, however, I'm sure that Tito will need to pass some form of certification for space travel. Another thing to remember: the Russians have been at this space-travel thing longer than the US has. As always, feel free to share your thoughts on this issue.
Nasa sure had no qualms about sending up a school teacher or a 70year old senator. Suddenly, they are worried about someone without NASA approved training.
Just because you do something first doesn't make you better at it.
and because you have bigger missiles, you can do anything?
Let's see...
The US can
* cancel a treaty it signed because daddy's oil boy owes his buddies some old favors.
* execute a Canadian after promising not to do so (under a treaty).
* bomb countries whenever it feels like it, without UN approval.
* have the world's largest inventory of chemical and biological weapons while prohibiting others from doing the same.
* manipulate the UN without paying its fees for years
and...it's complaining about the Russians wanting to carry aboard someone who paid them for it and who is willing to undergo training?
Let me tell you something, buddy. When it comes to having a smug attitude, the rest of the world can't even hold a candle to the US.
And you wonder why we think the US is a bully. Give the guy a ride.
If this was a mission on a Russian rocket, then the Russians could launch whomever they wanted.
It's not. It's an American launch system, funded by Americans. The mission is a joint US/Canadian/Russian mission. Two of the three partners are against this payload, one of the partners owns the launch system and then other partner has one billion dollars worth of hardware going up.
Two to one vote...the payload should not go. This should not even be an arguement. If the Russians are so fired up to get this man in space, they should have contacted all the partners involved in the ISS long ago and figured out a plan. But they didn't. Too bad.
Standard English
African American English
British English
Australian English
West Indian English
And all the accents of recent immigrants to the US.
In total, I'd say that gives the average American command of enough different words, phones, and grammatical structures to consider him at least bilingual.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Seems to be some non-Americans are of the opinion that they are better than Americans because they think Americans don't learn other languages.
The reality is Americans do learn other languages, but are not normally in a position to use them frequently enough to stay fluent. I could travel for days and still be where English is the predominate language.
Two russian missions have ended in the death of the crew. One American mission has ended in the death of the crew.
The Soviet Union/Russia has a worse safety record than the US. Get over it.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Want to count the number of dead?
OK, HERE WE GO:
Russians:
Soyuz 1: 1 guy. His parachute failed to open, and in the time between the failure and the splat, he loudly cursed the people who rushed that spacecraft into production. Hey! Take a look at the splat. Poor Komarov, may he RIP.
Soyuz 11: oops! no air! 3 guys dead.
Total: 4 in the air.
Americans:
Challenger: kaboom, 7 killed.
Total: 7 in the air.
--- on the ground---
Russians:
1960: Nedelin disaster. General Nedelin and 200 other rocket experts killed on the ground when the rocket blew up.
Total: 201 on the ground
Americans:
Apollo 1: Test goes bad when fire kills three astronauts inside the capsule.
Total: 3 on the ground.
---
So there you go. The Russian space program is STILL worse when you consider the safety record.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
And what? We just recently saw a few civilians playing with a BIG NUKE SUBMARINE for a miserble amount of money... The result was seen all over the world.
And note, Tito is a ex-NASA man. Maybe he is quite far from piloting ships. But he is an insider anyway...
What is happening with Denis Tito is, from my point of view "unthinkable". And American citizen, who worked for years in America's Space Program. A man who managed to become a "self-made-man", one of those so publicized values of America. A man who wanted to fulfill a dream and tries, as a typical son of his country to achieve it. He doesn't find a chance in his country to do it so he comes here and pays big money for it. And then NASA starts a weird campaign. First it issues worries all over about Mir's state. Ok, Russians agree with them, sunk Mir and transfer Tito into one of their missions on ISS. And what we get here? Suddenly Russia is a bad partner, it takes unilateral decisions, it blows up the Space Program and puts in cause the security of ISS...
No Russian Agency as ever asked about the competency of the American astronauts sent to Mir. No one has ever asked anyone else about the competency of scientists or even military personel that was sent on Shuttles, Soyuz, Salyuts, or Mirs, ISSs and similars. Russia has even sent politicians to Space (there was one Mr. Baturin, an ex-minister btw). Not counting that it had to deal with biologists, doctors and several other people who barely know anything about a spaceship.
And suddenly it comes one Mr. Tito and everything blows up... In face of NASA's past this is an afrontation to everyone who remembers the Challenger. Who is NASA to value to dangers and chances for civilians? Who is NASA to question Russia's experience.
Intersting to see NASA acting as a typical soviet ministry...
Actually I read he was training with the crew in both Russia and in Texas. That was part of the deal.
It's not like he's completely unaware of the functions of the space station. I have a feeling he probably is going to have some responsibilities up there, too. Even though he's paying, the Russians need to get productive work from the guy.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
That this will be a major breakthrough in space travel. For the first time, a Civilian will go into space for commercial purpouses. I feel that this could possibly open doors do a larger civilian presence in space in the future if he goes through with it. As far as the money, well I disagree with the principle of buying a ride to space, but I feel it is a precedent that needs to made.
You say you want a revolution....
Launch costs per pound are available here. Assuming Tito (plus accessories) is under 200 pounds, his direct launch costs to near earth orbit in a Soyuz are at most $0.5 million. Maybe $1 million counting food etc. The full cost of a Soyuz launch is $35-40 million, so he's paying the Russians for about 1/2 of one launch. Now, granted, he's not paying NASA anything, but it seems to me the fee is more than enough to cover his costs. And NASA has been subsidizing the Russian Space program for a while, why not let somebody else help subsidize it?
There doesn't seem to be any good rational explanation for the NASA (and ESA) opposition - so in one sense or another this must boil down to some kind of politics. Is it because Tito, a Republican, helped raise funds for "W" to get elected, and NASA's Goldin can't stand him for that? Or is it just typical inter-organizational squabbling?
Energy: time to change the picture.
700 HOURS? To sit in a seat? That is incredible...
Oh damn...more people might go into space as tourists...and someone might realize there's a MARKET for space tourism...and it'll get more popular...and it'll get cheaper...and OH MY GOD people will be able to go into space for $1M, then $500K, then $100K, then...one day...you'll be able to go to space for only a few thousand, including a couple day's accomodation in an orbital hotel!
Yeah, we've got to put a stop to this now.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
Just because the path to reasonably affordable space tourism could be long implies that we shouldn't take the first step?
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
How much training did they give to a gradeschool teacher that they couldn't give to this guy?
Make no mistake about it, NASA's problem with this is all about PR. They want/need to be the heroes/heroines. Putting civilians in space was cast as 'NASA defeating space'. Letting a civilian buy his way into the same program robs NASA administrators of the pleasure of being the high priest that hands down the word of God.
The problem is that the executives of NASA have spent too much time reading their own press. They are on a great mission to keep space pristine and pure. But as happens in all religious movements, they get their own goals confused with those of God.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
As for the US astronauts not getting special training before going up on Mir... do you not know that our astronauts are trained for YEARS before ever being assigned a mission? Though I'm not sure about this, I think most (if not all) of the US astronauts sent to Mir had already been on a Shuttle mission. That sounds like relevant training to me. The Mir is also one country's station and not twelve country's. Canada doesn't want this guy going when we install the arm. The US doesn't want him going when we install our stuff. I'm sure none of the other countries really want this guy up there when their stuff is being installed and tested.
About the guy who was on Mir during the fire: yeah, he stayed out of the way while the trained guys fixed things. Wouldn't it have been nice to actually have another trained and helpful person up there fixing problems instead of just "staying out of the way?"
NASA does have to pay to train this guy and that is where we are putting our foot down. He is part of a Russian crew and we have to train that crew to do certain tasks. If we have all of our procedures based around three members and now it is only two, can we really successfully accomplish a safe mission without redesigning the mission? Even if we didn't have to train him and didn't have to worry about his safety and didn't have to worry about the safety of the mission, we would still be paying an opportunity cost for not having a trained scientist or engineer up there (though he is an engineer, he would need training to help with science experiments).
IANAL, but I play one on
Actually, no, none of this happens. Most spy satellites are in orbits the shuttle can't reach, either polar orbits, which have too high an inclination, or geosynchronous orbits, which are far too high for the shuttle to reach. The Hubble is the only satellite which is serviced with any sort of regularity, and there's a substantial proportion of the community that regards that as a waste - it would quite possibly have been cheaper to plan on a series of telescopes, a new one every five years or so, since the costs of a shuttle mission to do repairs are, well, astronomical. The shuttle has been used to launch military satellites, but not repair them, and the launch market since Challenger has largely gone to unmanned lift vehicles like the Titan and Atlas.
There were plans originally for a shuttle launch facility in Vandenburg, CA, which would have allowed the shuttle to reach retrograde polar orbits for spy sat launches, but the air force was already losing its interest in the shuttle by '86 and used the Challenger disaster as an excuse to drop the whole program. It's a shame, too, because several major design decisions were made in the shuttle to allow it to meet the requirements for these military missions - the wing design in particular could have been simplified substantially without the cross-range requirement for once-around landings.
And as for shooting down spy sats, this only happens in James Bond movies. Oh, the US is working on developing the capabilities to do so, and we've done target practice on one of our *own* sats, but don't for a minute think that anyone could actually do this without starting a major international incident.
No, you can't say that it goes on our there anyway, just in secret and we don't know about it. This is all happening up in the sky, after all, and it's quite visible. Amateur satellite hunters have identified the orbital parameters for pretty much all the classified hardware up there. There's just no good way to hide something when it's sitting up in the sky glowing like a star.
A few relevant facts:
- When the shuttle-Mir dockings were going on in the mid 90s, shuttle astronauts did not receive any special training on visiting Mir. They got a briefing or two on the ground, and then when they got there in orbit, the cosmonauts gave them a 2 hour tour and safety lesson. And that's all that was needed.
- The Russians have been flying non-professional cosmonauts to Mir for years, including various members of the media and government officials. They certainly have the experience to know how much training is necessary. Tito has taken all of their training and passed with flying colors.
- One of NASA's big objections has been that Tito poses a danger to the crew in the event of an emergency. There was in fact a guest aboard Mir in '97 when one of the fires broke out. His duties in the event of an emergency were "put your oxygen mask on and stay out of the way of the cosmonauts fixing stuff." He succeeded in carrying out these orders quite well, thankyouverymuch. And NASA thinks that Tito, who is widely acknowledged to be an extremely smart and capable man, couldn't do likewise?
- $20 million bucks is approximately 10% of the Russian Space Agency's entire annual budget. Tito's flight is going to have a major effect on their bottom line, and in their ability to continue developing their half of the space station.
One of NASA's biggest problems is their desire to be the space agency, rather than just a space agency. They're control freaks, and this has hurt the private launch market, and now it's hurting the start of the space tourism market. Trying to block Tito's flight is one of the dumbest things they've done lately. (Well, except for Dan Goldin's mad quest to eradicate all the old worm-style logos...) The ability for private citizens to fly into space would, I think, get people a lot more excited about space travel in general, would generate public support for NASA and ISS, and would pump a lot of money into the system.Two passengers a year, on the every-six-month Soyuz changeout missions which are scheduled anyway, would bring in $40M/year to the Russian Space Agency, which desperately needs the cash, at practically no cost to NASA or any of the other international partners. It's a win-win-win situation, and it's a damn shame that NASA's being so stubborn about it. If there really was a substantial risk to the station, then they'd have a point, but the Russians have proven before that they can safely fly non-professionals, and they can do it again.
I'd say that you had a good idea, except my whole message was completely tongue-in-cheek and I figured that everyone would pick up on the sarcasm... especially with the last line... but of course, this is Slashdot, and since no humor stories have been posted in the last 24 hours, no one is in that frame of mind at all...
No, I don't think everyone should be shot into space, put behind the wheel of a submarine, etc... although if such things would deter kids from seeking the lesser thrill of shooting up their high school and planning a military takeover, I'll support them...
Yes I did. Now where's my space ride?
:-P
I've seen a lot of good arguments for him going into space, and a couple of highly convincing ones for him not to go...
But my point is, you argue that this guy paid to go into space, so he should go? That his monetary contribution to the International Space Station (or the Russian space program in general) entitles him to a ride sooner or later?
I mean, at that rate, we all pay taxes. We should ALL go into space. For that matter, we should all get a couple of minutes to drive around in a tank, fly an Army Helicopter, sit in the copilot seat of the Stealth Bomber, and command a nuclear submarine...
No, wait, civillians aren't apparently too good at doing a couple of those things.
should have a destination built for that. The group which is involved in creating the ISS didn't create it so that tourists can come up and dork around, no matter how much money they have.
... unless of course, it's some sort of wierd money-making venture by the government ... but that's bad.
I would assume that the proper way to handle this situation is to either demand that whichever country desires to put people in space for money also builds their own property in space to place them or to create another international endeavour for that purpose, without using taxpayer money
Don't go crapping all over your roommates quarters seems like a pretty simple philosophy.
As my father lik@(munch munch)...
I understand that the main reason Tito is unacceptable to NASA is because he's affiliated with the WRONG political party, i.e. the one opposite to the current head of NASA. This is the latest from an Artemis Society mailing list. If you're interested in finding out more, goto http://www.moonsociety.org/.
d4,...,Nf3, or maybe I should use a Ratfaced Mcdougal?
4 Cosmonauts have died in flight. 7 US astronauts have died in flight.
The US has a safety record worse then the Soviet Union/Russia. Get over it.
Geopolitics is a doulb edged sword. If everything is done right, it can be a great an wonderful thing, but if anything goes wrong... well I'm preaching to the choir here. I just think we should be careful what we wish for.
We've been sending non-satronauts into space for quite awhile ourselves. We call them "mission specialists."
The most famous beign the school techer we sent up in the ill fated challenger flight.
Frankly if we can risk lives and send up non-astronauts for political purposes I don't see why the russians should be prevented from doing the same for economic reasons.
At least this gent soudsn liek hes has soem kind of background in the field...
While $20 million for a ticket hardly makes a dent in the costs to launch the shuttle, the PR is worth much more.
They could even do a nationwide lottery...$5 per ticket and the winner goes to the space station! I'm sure there are laws against it --- but this is the natural evolution of space travel.
I also find it hard to believe that this guy would be getting in the way. With all the space available there now, I'm sure he can find a quiet corner.
What would be humorous would be if there WAS some kind of mishap while he was onboard and he managed to save the whole station from destruction by using a burst of thaleon particles from the main deflect...Oh wait, this is serious space flight business! No room for fun or trying new things, says NASA.
I can think of one billionaire I'd love to see shot into space.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
The best solution is to let whoever can afford to go into space do it, so long as it does not pose a threat to those back on Earth. This will speed technological development, which will open space to those aforementioned underdeveloped countries.
"Some things are best left under state control" my ass.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Just because you do something first doesn't make you better at it. The russians built a space station. The US went to the moon several times. That is like saying that because my grandparents have been driving longer than me, I should take there advice when I buy a new car. This is a new space station, an INTERNATIONAL one. Russia stepped out of their boundaries by promising this schmuck a ride in exchange for money.
It's just like everything else -- money will let people buy their way into just about anything. If you can buy your way into politics, why shouldn't you be able to buy your way into the space program? Both should require special training, but.. Not that I'm a proponent of using money like this, just making an observation.
If i remember correctly. (i don't recall where i saw this) but the guy has had enormous amounts of training. He's been in the program for years and working hard to achieve all he's done. I for one say let him go. What's wrong with having a qualified person in there station. Shit if something goes wrong whether he's there or not won't make too much of a difference will it? My guess would be that he would be asked to 'stand aside' while the real players get busy. Let space travel be attainable if you are up to the challenge; physically, mentally and in the bank account!
4.
Soyuz 1 entered an uncontrollable spin. The spin lasted through reentry, and tangled the parachute shrouds when they deployed. The single occupant died on impact.
Souyz TM-1 (Soyuz 11) vented the internal atmosphere in orbit. This happened due to a bad valve setting when separating from the service section just prior to reentry. All three occupants suffocated.
Oh, and those rumors of earlier Soviet deaths are total B.S. I talked this over with a coworker whose job was watching the Soviet space program during the cold war. His work is now declassified. We know of all the fatalities during spaceflight - USSR 4, US 7.
We pressured the Russians, hard, to de-orbit Mir.
They basically did it to please us so they could devote more resources to the ISS.
They could have told the ISS to screw itself and maintained Mir - they went from be a leader to a partner.
Let the Russians send the guy up. It's the least we can do for them.
It's a mistake to treat the Russians with disrespect - we can a learn a lot from them if we get rid of our arrogant attitudes.
This space tourism is different though. The ocean is aready commercialized. Up in space there arent many trawlers to crash into. And this guy is gonig to be essentially a passenger- not a pilot.
So the sub incident has no bearing.
NASA thinks its OK for them to send school teachers into space and get them killed, but not for a civilian to sign a disclaimer and finance his own trip?
This could even be a good thing- leading to more space tourism. If there isnt enough room for a civilian or two on every trip- then we could simply make more stations.
Can anyone think of a good reason not to commercialize space? I'm perplexed.
If he has 700 hours and is practically a professional cosmonaut, russia should make him one and assign him to a mission on Mir. I mean it is not like NASA can tell Russia what cosmonauts they can use!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Read This article at cnn.com, and you will see that Dennis Tito has over 700 HOURS of training, and is "practically a professional cosmonaut" in the words of Pyotr Klimuk, head of the cosmonaut-training base.
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY
a) NASA is really scared of losing another civilian after last time. Really, really scared. Last time there was a significant risk of closing them down entirely. If NASA screws up and kill Tito in the ISS they are in big, big trouble. And its not all that unlikely; space stations are much more fragile than you might suppose. Fire in space is BAD news for example.
b) Canada doesn't or shouldn't care about whether there is a civilian aboard or not. It doesn't materially affect the chances of a successful mission. Did NASA put them up to this? Does a fish swim? Does a British Prime Minister support every American president at every turn? You betcha.
c) the only reason that Tito isn't trained is because NASA refused to let him be trained. To turn around and state that he hasn't been trained and therefore can't launch is tantamount to NASA saying: "we decide who goes up and who doesn't, don't bother arguing". Yeah right. International, Space Station. Real international. Under the rules team member is chosen exclusively by the country of origin.
d) NASA can't actually physically stop him going up. The Russians have the launch vehicle and he is to launch from Russia. If he gets to the ISS NASA has ackowledged that he will NOT be stopped from going anywhere in the ISS.
e) if NASA actually succeed in forcing Tito to step down or whatever they will NEVER live it down. What kind of example of a supposedly capitalistic country does this make? Aren't NASA supposed to represent the aspirations of America at all? Sorry, you can't go because you've worked hard and you're rich.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"It is sort of similar to the Problem of the US Navy submarine submarine hitting the tourist boat, because of the civilians on board.
but in a more ordinary context, the sysadmins can relate to this. Under what conditions would you allow a user into the server/router closet to twiddle with the knobs and watch the flashing lights? Even if it was a paying customer of the company, and the system also doubled as a kick ass gaming lan.
How long before things like this are treated only as somebodies toy to ride? I grant some PR value, but ...
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
They sold a trip to Mir, that was the agreement. They owned Mir. They don't own the ISS. It is being planned, manufactured, and financed by several different countries. The truth is, Russia isn't shouldering an equal share of the cost.
I'm sure this situation was never planned for during the initial discussions with other countries before they committed to building the station. Since it was never planned for, it should not be allowed. All countries involved should remain in full compliance with their initial plans for construction, in the name of cooperation. To me this is Russia's problem to deal with. They sold something they could not provide in the end. They should refund the money.
John Glenn was trained as a NASA astronaut. He was trained for emergency situations on the shuttle and was also there as a mission specialist performing experiments as any other astronaut who's not a pilot or involved in some other specialized task might be. Tito, on the other hand, is not NASA trained to be of assistance if there is an emergency situation. If there is an emergency situation in orbit, there are very few people and there is very little space to maneuver. It's very important that everyone who is able knows exactly how to deal with that situation. Astronauts and cosmonauts alike are trained exhaustively for all sorts of bizarre possible scenarios. Tito was trained to visit MIR. He wasn't even given full cosmonaut training. If he is given the kind of extensive training that Glen had for the shuttle, or (more appropriately) the kind of training that the Alpha team has had before visiting the station, then more power to him. I think it's a tremendous breakthrough for a civillian to go to the ISS-- but I think it's a terrible risk to take unless he's properly prepared. He's paying for an incredible vacation, but this vacation necessarily comes with responsibilities. Lives are at stake, even if we discount the time, energy, and money that have gone into getting the ISS this far.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
On a less emotional note, John Glen was sent up on a relatively routine shuttle mission. We understand the problems, we have lost only one craft, and we have been training these folks for many years. OTOH, Tito is going to be sent up to a new station, with unknown problems. To make matters worse, he is going to be in the Professionals hair for two weeks. Again, anyone who has worked in a lab, or even a production environment, knows the worst thing is visitors or the boss interrupting the project.
I wish Mir could have stayed up for another year or two. It was a known quantity with known problems. Russia could have sent up a couple tourists a month. If I had the money, I would pay to go. The fact that they crashed Mir shows their real commitment to tourism and the real value of this venture.
Getting things into space for profit has been standard practice for quite some time. This is just a slightly different angle.
---
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
I don't think you understand the situation. This is just a manifestation of simmering resentment from the Russians, over many issues.
The US has claimed the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty is no longer valid and is violating it, which seriously pisses off the Russians.
Americans have also been meeting rebels from Chechnya, which has upset the Russian administration. Add to it their conflicting views in Eastern Europe and the expelling of spies by the sack load, and you have plenty of trouble.
From the Russian point of view, there's the wounded pride of a fallen superpower and resentment at a right-wing US president trying to revive the cold war. So naturally, they try to fight back in every way they can.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has called the ABM treaty ``ancient history.''
Surely you can't casually dismiss a ballistic missile treaty and expect them to hold on to their end of the bargain in carrying a tourist abroad?
w/m
They should just treat Tito the same as any other russian astronaut. They shouldn't care how russia picks their people to go into space, either through some testing program, or large amounts of cash or by seeing who can run furthest through siberia naked. It's russian's space program and they should be able to do what they want. The ISS is a joint venture but the US isn't liable for who russia brings into space. I personally think it's about damn time to bring commericialism into space, this is exactly what NASA needs, to sparc up some interest amongst the civilians again.
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
Probably the CAF is just branching out.
No relation to Happy Monkey
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Perhaps it represents a change in status for NASA that they don't want. With the advent of what is essentially chartered service, perhaps NASA views themselves as less worthy. After all, for years they were at the forefront of what was popularly known as science (yes, I know that a large part of it was actually engineering...) and maybe they fear that in allowing passengers they will eventually be regarded as "airline pilots" and "support crew" rather than an august scientific body.
I think it is about time to separate the truly scientific parts of NASA away from the engineering pieces, commercialise the latter and get on with life. I think that the good folks in NASA management ought to realise that throughout the course of history, it was never the groundbreakers and explorers who wound up owning the resources, but those who commercialised the resources and transport.
If you don't believe me, look around at all the bank and university admin. buildings, and see who's names are on them.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
Glenn was not even the first US Senator to go into space... Jake Garn was on STS-51 in 1985. Ostensbily, he was "trained" as a Mission Specialist - he took peoples temperatures and made some pretty graphs or such. Realistically, his ride was just the ultimate political junket with no scientific value (Garn was on one of the NASA oversight committees) - NASA just wanted to help get their funding. His flight was met with much derision in the press at the time. In 1986 Florida Congresscritter Bill Nelson was flown aboard STS-61 as a payload specialist - I think he made sure that the seatbacks were in the upright and locked position before landing. So... NASA's attempt to interefere with Russia taking Tito into space due to his "lack of training" (though he has been training in Russia for over 8 months) is hypocritical at best and shameful at worst.
Russia isn't an equal partner in the International Space station. The United States bears the brunt of the cost of building the station. Also, the russians have been behind schedule on their modules the entire time. NASA guys had to prepare contingency plans because the early russian FGB power module almost didn't launch. Furthermore, the primary reason the russians are in this is political. Its really a symbol of post-cold war cooperation. We have the engineers and tech to do this ourselves, but we want to make it an international effort.
I'm sure there's a waiting list a mile long to get onto that station, and we shouldn't bump up a rich tourist to the top of the list simply because he paid off the russians.
1. the NASA mentality is that there is no margin for error. my dad works for NASA, and i can attest to atleast his crazy triple-backup contingency plan ways.
2. sending people up in the space shuttle is different than the ISS, they've flown over a hundred shuttle flights... the ISS is a newer technology and initially we've got to prioritize science and engineering goals over tourism, if even just for the safety concerns... (that's why sending up john glenn is different from this guy)
As long as Tito goes through the proper training regimen, and is certified by NASA, he can't be much more of a liability than John Glenn was when he went up a few years ago. Glenn, though trained as an astronaut, was way past his prime, physically, and might have been a liability in a crisis situation. Tito is younger and (I would guess) stronger, and would have less physical limitations. When Glenn's last flight returned to earth, the astronauts were not allowed to leave the shuttle right away, because Glenn had become sick in the cockpit and they didn't want to embarrass him.
I can understand the Canadian's reticence to send Tito up with their robotic arm, as he wouldn't be able to help unless he was specifically trained on that mission, but he should be able to go at some point, having made the deal with Russia long ago.
We've already got that.
As soon as we semi-privatized space developemtn we opened the door to this sort of thing.
Space is not a military project though it does have national security aspects to it; astronauts and cosmonauts adjust and repair classified satellites, and both space agencies shoot up spy satellites in unmanned missions on behalf of national security.
However, after the Cold War the priority of space went lower again. The the commercial cachet of space was one of the things that many space agencies around the world, but especially the Russians, used to raise funds for their ailing program.
So, is space for war, or science, or money? Now that we have multiple agencies with different reasoning on this issue conributing to a single space station, we had better get a treaty together settling these issues as a matter of international law. And quick.
I wouild think that the US, with its great plans for weapons in space (DUMB!!!), is probably the least likely to go for a more commercialized space program. Of course it's the best funded, too. Probably the best solution is to give more aid to developing countries so they can enjoy the benefits of space without having to sell them off to the highest bidder.
Some things are better left under state control.
Goat sex free since 2001
Remember, this is the same country where you can fly in a MiG-29 jet fighter. Sure, there is talk about screening to make sure you don't croak but from reviews of the experience its more of a formality. I'm not against people paying there way into space, but I don't know that the ISS is the right place for it. It's a scientific mission, and as we've seen with the recent U.S. submarine disaster civilians and expensive military or other hardware don't necessarily mix well.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
No, no, no -- you've got to take Dubya, and Detroit too... ;)
And what's the ratio of manned missions? I'm guessing 5 or 10 to 1?
NASA is willing to train him??? He showed up for training a while back and was refused admittance.
The ISS was not sent up there to cater to the whims of rich folk. What about the real astronauts that are on in the queue to go up? Is it fair to them to be possibly bumbed because someone has paid a huge amount of money?
When was the last time you saw the Los Alamos labs offering businessmen the opportunity to play with their equipment for a week if the price is right? Sensitive research ventures can't be the playpen of Wall Street, whether or not Wall Street has the cash to make it so.
It's worth noting that though Russia and the US both payed for components of the space station, many of the US components were actually built in Russia. Sure, it's rediculous that this guy is going into space, just because he's got money, but frankly, that's Russia's problem. If we are to maintain any sort of pretense of this being an "International" space station, we should let Russia make it's own (bad) decisions. If he posed a serious risk the station itself, or to the lives of Americans we would have a right to intervene. But he does not. We'd do better to shut our collective mouth and be glad Russia does the same when we select who we want to send into space.
I do not have any arms or legs.