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.
and to think i just spent my life savings on a pair of shoes... better start saving up again
Forgive me if I ask something stupid, but why would this need NASA's approval?
I don't see it on Expedia
See, this is the perfect way to get rid of Senator Hatch and his "I'm going to destroy your PC" brigade.
I would like to see a copy of the disclaimer on that trip ... we will not be held liable for your luggage melting on re-entry... nor yourself.....
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.
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
Man: Excuse me stewardess, what is the in flight movie?
Stewardess: Apollo 13, sir.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Holy shit.
Las Vegas odds makers are giving 2-to-1 that NASA will find a way to much it up
Hmm, the shuttle aint launching for another 6 months, at best. I'm guessing they'll be a crew changeover before then - and Nasa needs to stay in Russia's good books.
Of course, for $20 million a person, you could launch 7 people - the compliment of a shuttle - for $140m. The average shuttle flight costs $500m.
It's "Rosaviakosmos", not "Rosoviakosmos".
Learn about what you're talking about before you speak.
Congress determines what NASA will do. NASA has a charter created by the government that dictates what NASA can and can't do.
Profiting falls neatly into the can't column.
In fact, NASA is obligated by its charter to give away all the technology it develops. UV sunglasses, pacemakers, velcro, and hundreds of other major scientific breaktrhoughs are a result of NASA research. But NASA is prohibited from making money off of them. If Congress would let them, NASA would take over the world.
/sig
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)
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
...He can always sit in the Soyuz (not set foot on/in/onto(?)) the Station until it's time to go home. Oh, wait, THAT Soyuz will stay docked to the Station for six months...
He/She will be the first orbital hermit.
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...
/sig
I find that far less disgusting than having media companies monopolize the public airwaves, or energy companies corrupting our government. As far as taxpayer money wasted on private projects goes, it is also far less significant.
If you still don't like it, just think of it as "foreign aid". We are quite stingy anyway when it comes to foreign aid, so a little more money going to the Russian space program through this indirect route seems pretty defensible to me.
Mile high club? That is soooo 20th century. I suggest that the next module to be attached to the ISS should be the Space Erogenous eXperiment module. For the very reasonable price of USD 50M, you and your partner get a round trip ticket and a week's stay in the luxurious and private S.E.X. module on the ISS. (Meals and port fees are included.)
This is the kind of development that makes the budget woes of the ISS go away. If it costs <pinky> one Billlllion dollars </pinky> to put the thing up there, you've roughly broken even after 20 bookings. So be pessimistic and say that it takes 40 bookings. If they fly passengers 6 times a year, the module is "in the black" inside of 7 years. After that, it's generating revenue for the program and funding the science operations. How many other ISS modules could lay claim to that? I know I'd certainly welcome any structure that reduces the amount of money that the ISS sucks out of my wallet.
UV sunglasses, pacemakers, velcro , and hundreds of other major scientific breaktrhoughs
Dammit, we all know that the Vulcans introduced velcro to earth. Enterprise taught me that. Anything else is revisionist propaganda.
Disclaimer:
You may die. poihnt in fact if anything goes wrong, you will die. If you cause something to go wrong, and though some miracle people don't die, you will be ejected nto space, and you will die.
If you do not want to die, put the pen down and leave.
Do you accept that you will probably die and agree you or you estate will not hold anybody who own or come in contact with anything that is in anyway connected to space travel?
If you do die(and probably will) taco bell promises to name a taco after you, if your body hits a target they specify.
Good luck, spave traveller.
Please kiss you loved good by.... forever.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Upon completion, the station was to support a 7 man crew. However, Bush decided that the station didn't really need the escape vehicle and sleeping quarters required to support 7 people, so he cut the funding for those two modules.
The station's new 'complete' status will only support 3 people... about the number required for absolute minimal science and maintenance.
Blame Bush. He took away the funding.
/sig
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
UV sunglasses, pacemakers, velcro, and hundreds of other major scientific breaktrhoughs are a result of NASA research. Umm...I know Americans are supposed to hate the French and all, but just because the Swiss invented Vel(our)Cro(chet) has a French name is no reason to use revisionist tactics on it =P (btw a French textile plant guy helped the Swiss inventer get Velcro to market when nobody believed him and thought he was nuts)
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