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."

Comments

typical

[curtlewis]

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. :)

NASA's approval?

[arth1]

Forgive me if I ask something stupid, but why would this need NASA's approval?

Re:Does anyone else

[SkArcher]

Money is money, if more money can be raised for scientific research by sending rich idiot tourists up in space, then so be it.

And if you are that concerned, consider that the other option is more of your tax dollars going up in space.

And it probably isn't any more dangerous than having a small child strapped into the back seat of a car.

Space travel needs this

[xtal]

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.

Re:Space travel needs this

[Moofie]

The astronauts on the space station are a PR stunt.

I am the world's biggest proponent of space exploration. I wish NASA would actually start to do it again.

Re:Does anyone else

[Moofie]

This is the only way that those vaunted taxpayers would ever be able to experience the fruits of their dollars first-hand.

NASA has for many years made space travel the purview of the technological elite. Now it's within the realm of the financial elite, which is a step in the right direction. (Specifically, the directon of allowing more people to experience space travel)

Re:Tito got a grudging approval...

[Mondoz]

NASA knows that the Russians need money for their space program and will probably tolerate this guy as well.

NASA also knows they need the Russian launch vehicles to take up the slack of the grounded Shuttles...
And Russia is milking that for all it's worth...

Re:Fsck NASA's approval

[Mac Degger]

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.