Slashdot Mirror
Come on Up (to the ISS) You're the Next Contestant
Ender writes "The Voice of America and the NY times (Free registration, yetti, yatta ...) are running articles informing us that the Russian space Agency Rosaviakosmos has an agreement with Moscow to send a TV contest winner to the International Space Station. All contestants would train for space flight during the programs and this would show the audience how cosmonauts are trained prior to their space flight." Boy bands are ineligible.
Y'know, maybe I'm biased, but having such a unique "grand prize" makes me think that losing would be devastating, in a way other "survivor"-esque shows aren't. If you're optimistic you think *maybe* this isn't "once in a lifetime", if we manage to make space travel a little less unique, but still.
...huh. I meant that to be funny, but now it just seems like a depressing commentary on the state of space exploration by the USA.
And how ironic is it that its the formerly communist governments that are making this stuff possible? I'm sure a scifi writer from the 1950s would still have the game show by those wacky Americans, but would probably soom that we'd do the space travel side as well...
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Degrading? This is what we want, the whole point is to make space travel common place. The point of building space stations, ships, etc. Would you really rather that only the elite few could ever go to space?
:)
If Survivor ISS will get more money into the space program im for it. Plus, tell me you wouldn't wanna see a porno filmed in zero g?
One would hope that, in this sue-happy society, the Russians have considered the ramifications of a situation where something bad happens. Sure, sure, it's unlikely. But there have been enough situations where space launches have gone awry to make one think about it. (Challenger was one, but then again, that was NASA, not the Russian space program). Maybe the winner gets to sign one of those lovely "release of liability" forms? Just a thought.
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
Y'know, maybe I'm biased, but having such a unique "grand prize" makes me think that losing would be devastating, in a way other "survivor"-esque shows aren't. If you're optimistic you think *maybe* this isn't "once in a lifetime", if we manage to make space travel a little less unique, but still.
I'd argue that that's part of the price of playing. If anybody goes into this program without *expecting* that they're not going to be picked, I have little sympathy for them (ditto people who put winning the lottery into their budget).
Why haven't we been back to the moon?
:P
Where's the ships travelling to Mars?
We've done jack since going to the moon. We only went there because 'We can't let the Russians beat us!'
You know, I'd like to travel beyond Earth before I die. The Russians seem to be the only ones who have figured out the fact that I'm not alone in that wish. If not for them, I'm sure we won't have viable space tourism for a few hundred years.
In these modern times, where money can control everything, it is not uncommon to see a former communist government letting this happen and supporting. Perhaps this is a downside to capitalism and reality TV that we want to shoot desperate competitive into space. Reality TV is already loosing a lot of its luster in the United States of America so I assume that this show will be marketed in other area's where the demand is still high.
Also is this a setback for NASA? Possibility, but I think there is a larger issue for NASA here. Some Stories from Scientific American I believe shed light on the issue Has the Space Age Stalled? and Lost in Space.
A larger issue that is discussed in both articles is that many young Americans are loosing their attachment to NASA and the space race. This could be a costly mistake. This prize winner wont help NASA, but I don't think they are going to kill the space program.
Medevo
NASA has already sent up people who don't really belong. Politicians, for example. OK, they had some training. But, then, so do the people in the $20 million category. It's not like they're selling tickets on a Soyuz like, for example, airlines sell tickets on 747s. A hell of a lot of training goes with that ticket.
When Dennis Tito went up, I and others thought NASA's objections were at best disingenuous, at worst outright lies. The man had been an aerospace engineer and had received months of training before his trip. Yet NASA proclaimed how difficult his trip made things for them. I thought, what if something unexpected went wrong on the station not connected to that little trip? If the system was that fragile, it was a disaster waiting to happen.
NASA needs to develop technologies that are more robust. The country needs space technologies that are able to recover from at least minor problems. The Russians have done that to some extent.
And, of course, with each of these tourists Russia earns some badly needed hard money for their struggling program.
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
That's one small step for television, but one giant leap for degrading space travel.
Degrading? NASA and its cronies have the bizarre idea that the only people who should go into space are those with the "right stuff" but what I see is a bunch of people playing with expensive toys and not producing anything that advances manned space exploration.
The people who deserve to go into space are anyone and everyone who can justify their place there economically. Whether that's a scientist doing product development, a tourist spending money earned on earth, an industrialist mining asteroids or a porn star shooting videos, all have a better claim on space than some astronaut who commutes to NEO and back just for the sake of it, on the taxpayer's dime.
The key to getting the people to invest in expensive space exploration and development programs is in keeping them interested. It's sad that NASA has to learn a lesson from the Russians on this one.
You cannot get funding for a program if it doesn't capture the hearts of those paying for it. NASA had that with the moon landings, but they've let the public's imagination slip away to the point that most people don't consider space exploration worthwhile.
They can send NSync, the Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears up all at the same time for a weightless concert, who cares if it gets other more vital projects necessary funding? If the ISS isn't kept in the public's view, if they're not reminded on a daily basis how important and exciting it is, then it'll end up just another SkyLab with it's most noteworthy event being it's fiery re-entry.
I can think of 20 million good reasons why the Russians are doing this.
The space industry needs cash, and it needs popular, populist acceptance and "buzz," so that it can get still more cash. Increase the number of flights -- for whatever reason, 'cause Lance Bass wants to write a sonnet, who cares? -- and the science will follow naturally.
"Every Tom, Dick and Harry... incompetent civilian... making a mockery... compromising the amount of scientific work that can get done..."
Your post reeks of elitism. The faster we can re-populate the space program's labcoat dilletantes with hard-hatted journeymen, the faster scientific work -- or any work of lasting value -- will get done. Arachnologists may be irritated by this, but one boy band singer is worth 12 Zero Gravity Spider Web Exepriments.
My daughter is four years old. She wants to be an astronaut when she grows up. If we all do our part to de-geekify space travel, her dream is much more likely to come true.
It's like Linux in a way (Kee-rist, I don't believe I'm saying this...). It will only ever enjoy popularity on the desktop rivalling that of MS or even Apple if it is marketed as something other than a "geek thang," if it becomes cool not because it is safe and reliable, but because celebrities use it and the media trumpets it. Of course, "we geeks" then lose one of "our own," but like any child whom we nurture through young and difficult years, the final proof is in its introduction to the "rest of the world."
The Space Program is moving out of its parents' basement. God Speed!
Might one argue that this is the opposite of the problem NASA has? It ISN'T thinking about the bottom-line - it is thinking of its pride!
Just think - if Bill Gates is willing to pay his way for a ride into space, why SHOULDN'T NASA let him do it? Now, it should definitely not cost the public a single dime - he should pay for all costs associated with the trip. However, to say that he shouldn't be allowed simply because it doesn't advance science is just pride. Basically you're saying that his money isn't good enough for you.
The Russians have opened space to the public. Sure, most people can't afford it - but most people can't afford a $14,000 plasma HDTV either... The Russians aren't afraid to make money on space travel, and neither should NASA.
If NASA wants to factor in the cost of lost opportunities (due to having room for one less scientist) or wear and tear on the shuttle, or any number of other costs - fine. But the cost shouldn't be "not gonna do it for any price"...
Besides, stuff like this makes space travel more appealing to the public, and probably would boost their funding anyway. (As if John Glenn's journey was really just for scientific value!)
90% of what Hollywood makes about any country (including USA) is pure crap.
People who read this are probably familiar with computers to the degree that they can see how much nonsense the Hollywood depiction of, for example, a hacker is. As a matter of fact, any area in which I have special interests are treated with the same massive flood of factual incorrectness. Given this record, do we have any reason to believe that any of the subjects we know less about are treated with any accuracy?
Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati