Slashdot Mirror
Tourist-Class Soyuz Spacecraft Seats Open
brandido writes "Put another notch in the belt for space tourism - Space.com is reporting that: "If you're looking for the ultimate in get-up-and go, take note: Tourist-class seats will be available on a Soyuz spacecraft bound for the International Space Station in 2004-2005. This off-planet trek comes courtesy of a deal struck between Space Adventures, a U.S. adventure travel firm, Russia's RSC Energia and the Russian Space Agency (Rosoviakosmos)." However, NASA has yet to be officially notified or to give formal approval, so there are still some speed bumps in the road map."
There's one problem and everyone freaks out (shuttle disaster) and there's a stop to everything for a while until it all settles down. After that, everything returns to normal.
:)
Space travel is dangerous. Explosions WILL happen. Review of procedures should be constant and thorough (that's a no-brainer). After any disaster, downtime should be minimal, not excessive due to overreaction and political correctness.
With that said, I'm accepting VISA/MC (sorry, no Discover cards) for donations to my fund for a seat on the shuttle.
Forgive me if I ask something stupid, but why would this need NASA's approval?
find it disgusting that companies and countries are sending people up for profit to a space station that was funded by taxpayer dollars intended ostensibly for research ? Does anyone find it disturbing that lives of astronauts could possibly be jeopardized by having relatively untrained personnel on board ?
1) Oportunity
2) ???
3) Profit!
Ultimately, if it puts cash into the space program, im all for some rich idiots paying stupid ammounts of cash for it.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
This will do a lot more good than harm. Space travel suffers from some extreme eliteism, justified or not - and if the average joe doesn't see people who don't have 50 initials after their name going up, they are and will lose interest in space exploration. One thing that gives hope is that maybe someday you'll have enough money to do that - because in the great USA, the almighty dollar speaks both last and loudest.
Anything that drums up public support for space exploration gets a thumbs up from me. Honestly, I don't see how much this can jepordize anyone's life. Many/most of the systems onboard these craft are fully automated, and if shit hits the fan, there's pretty much zilcho anyone can do.
So no, I don't find this disgusting at all.
..don't panic
It's not as though the tourists would have anywhere else to go--where are you going to send them, the moon? And as others have pointed out, the more money rich folks pour into space programs, the less of your tax dollars are taken out for them.
As far as "possibly jeopardizing the lives of astronauts", RTFA: This "extra mission" would fly two paying passengers that will have undergone months of training for the trip to the orbiting outpost. (emphasis added) Even Russia isn't stupid enough to send people into space without adequate training.
NASA knows that the Russians need money for their space program and will probably tolerate this guy as well.
this sig deleted by another sig
What I want to know is why the heck are we letting the Russians do this before us? This is just the kind of capitalism that will encourage the commercialization of space. Can you imagine a shuttle flight that actually showed a profit?
The reason for that though is that NASA is funded by public money; you own all those patents anyway (if you're american, that is). But to avoid a hell of a lot of hassle, NASA just plonks it into the public domain.
Anyway, that's beside the point here; it's a fact that NASA is top-heavy, inefficient and basically just a money sink which doesn't do what it's supposed to do: open up space for the masses.
Personally I think it's a big shame on them that a private individual like Burt Rutan will (very likely) have a (commercial) re-usable shuttle service up in the air, sooner and for less cost than anything NASA has ever dreamed up. The NASA bigwigs should be begging to be bitchslapped for failure to do something similar.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
That's not NASA's mission. They are a research organization.
Anyone who thinks they are a just a money sink is either uninformed or blind. The number of world-changing technologies developed by NASA is staggering. Do a search sometime on 'NASA Spinoff' technologies. You'll be amazed at how many common everyday technologies were developed by NASA.
Personally I think it's a big shame on them that a private individual like Burt Rutan will (very likely) have a (commercial) re-usable shuttle service up in the air, sooner and for less cost than anything NASA has ever dreamed up. The NASA bigwigs should be begging to be bitchslapped for failure to do something similar.
Do you know anything of the multiple prototypes developed as a replacement for the Shuttle? Do you know anything of their history, or the fact that Congress terminated their funding?
Mr. Rutan will very likely be using a number of technologies developed by NASA to build his system, and put it towards a use that NASA is not allowed to do. The NASA bigwigs should be commended for doing as well as they are with the limited resources Congress gives them.
/sig
You have to take a step back and realize just how far we have come in the past hundred and some odd years: steam powered engines to the integrated circuit to the internet to space tourism.
What I'm just as amazed at is how little we've come in the last 40 years.
Early 1800's - Widspread use of steam powered locomotives.
Early 1900's - First airplanes and widespread use of the automobile.
1930's - Widespread air travel. Extremely advanced, maneuverable propellor driven fighters and bombers.
1940's - Jet aircraft introduced. The V2, first ballistic missile, is created.
1950's - Commercial jet travel introduced. Supersonic fighters introduced. ICBMs are introduced and the Sputnik is launched. The X-15 is first used.
1960's - First manned spaceflight. Manned flight to the moon. Interplanetary probes are first launched. The SR-71, which still holds the speed record for an airbreathing craft, is developed.
1970's-1990's - Here is where transportation advancement largely drops off. We've gotten more efficient jets. Rocket technology hasn't gotten any better. Cars have gotten more efficient. Other than some efficiency tweaks, we haven't advanced much at all in transportation since the exceedingly rapid advancements of the mid 20th century.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
A lottery is a good idea, and has been mooted before - though it has yet to get off the ground. Feel free to organise one - I'm sure Space Adventures would be just as happy to sell the tickets(s) to the organiser of a lottery as to any one else who has the money.
In the mean time, let the rich fly. They can afford it, and by paying to fly in space they show that there is a market for space flight. This will encourage private firms to start offering trips into space, and eventually make it cheap enough for the rest of us.
I am a Statistician. One false move and you are a Statistic
I know that NASA has developed a lot of new technologies. I also know where to find them (no, not nasa.gov :) ).
Thing is, NASA is a space agency, not a pure research agency. They do the research because they have (had) to, to get satelites into space. I think you mistake 'non-profit' for 'pure research organisation'.
Anyway, I know quite a bit about NASA's multiple idea's for shuttle folow ups. The fact that they have multiple should tell you something about the lack of efficiency there. The fact that they spent millions without actual prototypess should say more. The fact that an aussie built a scramjet for 10.000 dollars and actually flew it, whereas NASA, which had many more people and much more money on their scramjet, couldn't get theirs to fly is an even greater indication.
Face it; congress was absolutely right to cut funding for an effort which ran hugely over budget and didn't produce tangible goods, or even cost-savings.
But most telling of all is that many NASA people say the same thing; NASA is a beurocracy which is in the business of perpetuating itself more than doing actual science or innovating in their field. You should go read some scientific journals, and you'd know that.
Sure, they have done and still do amazing things...but how could you not with some amazing people and an amazing budget. But look at China, look at Japan, look at Russia even; all are doing much more to push the boundaries of human experience than NASA is now.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
What was the effect of all those accounts sent back by Lewis and Clark and other early European-decent explorers in North America? The more people found out, the more they wanted to go there. Lots of people died trying to get there and trying to make a living, but they kept coming and built a society like none before it.
science is a religion