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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"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
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!
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
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.