Slashdot Mirror
Russian Cargo Ship Docks At ISS, Preps For Tourist
christchurch writes "Russia unmanned cargo ship Progress M-54, carrying food and supplies, docked at the International Space Station safely yesterday. A two-man replacement crew is scheduled to head to the station on 1st of October, along with an American scientist-businessman, Gregory Olsen, who is paying the Russian space agency $20 million for a weeklong visit."
The food and supplies arrive just in time for the current crew to leave in a few weeks...
:D
If I were them, I'd eat all the space ice-cream before I had to leave
For 2 million dollars I could buy a 100 floating Russian nuclear powerplants!
I wonder how much it actually cost the Russian space agency to put him there and bring him back (safely) a week later. Could it be that the Russian space agency has established a decent tourism business for space where they are actually turning a decent profit?
the russians have unmanned cargo spacecraft?
and one just docked successfully with the ISS?
do i live under a rock?
i think i'm impressed.
i suppose umannedness eliminates all logistical problems of life support on a craft bound for the ISS, but still i'm impressed.
I think space constipation would prove a greater challange with weakened muscles.
Yes, Russia is having to pay to get him there, but Russia is pretty much treating this multi-national scientific endeavor as a high priced hotel. Why not let Hilton or someone pop for a hotel module and start funding some of the space program, since there doesn't seem to be a shortage of millionaires wanting to go to space. Maybe then we could fix the hubble or some other meaningful science.
Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/
Is the crew welcoming their new $20 million carrying overlords properly?
Well p0rn helped power the internet's expansive growth and lead to great advances in online payment processing methods so maybe turism will help power the space race and resulting fields. We can all benefit from the technology that will come from these missions. And if they become frequent enough enough maybe some lasting benefit to land lovers will result. Heck I wouldn't mind going into space. Beats Hawaii. When money is spent in an innovative sector it always helps all the underlying affiliations. If rap stars were sent into space I bet there would be more money spent on space technology. I don't know why they couldn't get backing to send that pop star in space. I think the space agencies should have helped this venture along. Once the masses are interested so comes eyes and traffic and then so comes capital.
that's what I would hit first! Then again, after drinking it, I would be using the toilet paper to clean up the puke - oh, well.
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
Maybe as time goes on, and our relations improve, we will. Hopefully, ideologies won't get in the way again and I wish the same for other parts of the world and other cultures.
Kumbayha, my lord, Kumbayha ... sorry, I was getting kind of sappy there.
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
the USSR did not fell because of a lack of money(think of corruption first and revival of national movments of some of the now formerly soviet republics), and even if it would have - $20 mil. per flight is not that significat to a country the size of the former Soviet Union
As any Tourist at DisneyWorld could tell you $33.06 per second "seems" about average these days.
And they say Russians are cheap? These guys are the live-wire for ISS. U.S, who claim the most of ISS are reluctant to launch a shuttle after Katrina. I dont see reason. Russians whose economy is much on the brink are doing the save-the-day-job for the ISS. I think U.S never thanked Russia for their support in the project-ISS and the fact that Russians are feeding those abandoned astronauts in the ISS.
cheaper?
I suspect that if you can afford the ticket a few extra million isn't the issue. How often do you hear of russia failing to get their "cargo" back to earth in one piece
The F-117 lost in the Balkans was purely luck; they knew the plane was overhead, but couldn't detect it, so they just started throwing everything they had into the air, much like over Baghdad during the Gulf War.
;-)
It was not _pure_ luck, from what I've heard -- US pilots and mission planners were so SURE that it is "invisible" that it ran the same route day after day. And, of course, given enough time even very small signals can be detected over averaged-out noise... They knew when and where it was coming and were shooting for it.
Of course it does not beat using $100 microwave ovens with broken door block to lure $1,000,000 anti radar station missiles...
Why, yes, I WAS trained as a Soviet air-defence officer!
Paul B.
I guess even during WWI aircraft had blueish belly and greeninsh top...
Just make it stealth only on the bottom and your attack can be prevented!
Paul B.
I feel a reality TV show coming on. Space Station makeover or vote an astronaut out? - Earl
Thought of it as well -- but the software would have to be more evolved (2D autocorreleation) rather than performing simple accumulation/averaging and shooting for "white" instead of "black".
Paul B.
Moreover the $20 million per flight may not even cover the whole cost of the mission (it's very difficult to get hard numbers, but a Soyuz booster launch alone sells for more than that, never mind the spacecraft)
It is very likely only 'profitable' in the sense that they are getting $20 million toward a mission they were going to fly anyway. Note that the ESA astronauts who fly on these flights are also paying customers. Americans currently ride free due to barter agreements, but that is set to end this year.
There are also persistent rumors that none of the current tourists have actually paid the full price. $20 million is the opening bid.
Why doesn't he sell his Ferrari, donate the money to Katrina and just go to the dealership to live his dream. Why doesn't he sell his malibu beachhouse, donate the money to Katrina and just live as a bum on the beach. It's his money and it's not your position to criticize what he does with the money he spent long hours of hard work earning.
I wish I had $20 million! I've always wanted to go into space. I watched way too much Star Trek as a kid (as if there is such a thing as too much Star Trek) and now I'm also hooked on Star Gate (SG1 and Atlantis. McKay rocks!). Irrelevant, yes. Anyway, I can think of a lot of things to do in a zero-gravity environment!
As the developed world collectively wets themselves pondering the future effects of peak oil, continuing overpopulation, and the ineveitable fall of modern living standards, I'm wondering why is it that the International "Space Station" seems to have been designed to fall apart at the seams without regular re-supply missions?
More importantly, if the goal of ISS is not to help establish a *permanent*, self-sustaining presence in space, and to benefit mankind with the technological improvements that such an endeavour would produce, what the hell is it good for?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Moderation -2
100% Troll
TrollMods just keep blasting away. Why not post a counterargument? Because doing so would reveal my original post is no Troll, but rather a cogent criticism, composed of facts and logic? And that TrollMods have no argument for that? I thought so.
--
make install -not war
I'll bite. I am in a charitable mood today.
The most probable reason is that they considered your "contribution" to be so far out as to not warrant a reply. While there are wacky moderators here, trolls are far more numerous. And then there is the particular species of American-centric troll who believes that the whole world (and possibly the Universe itself) is/was/is-to-be saved from doom at US taxpayers expense, had divine US knowledge granted to them (and thus all their pitiful attempts at technology or science are "stolen" or "derrivative"), and generally mooched off the oh-so-benevolent US taxpayer tit, followed by being belligerently ungrateful snakes who refuse to acknowledge the Divine Light bestowed upon them by the inhabitants of the Chosen Land of the US of A. Or something along these lines.
Point in case: the US taxpayer was not funding the Russian space program to any significant degree. There was contract work done on many things, like long-term zero-g habitiation components of ISS with which NASA had next to zero experience. Russia is involved in many commercial ventures, some of them funded indirectly by the US government but that is because ... they are the best bang for the buck. US taxpayers are actually saving money on those deals (like for example the various payload agreements and lauch facilities use deals). The total amount spent on all of that stuff is about 4-5 shuttle launches worth over the last decade.
Russians are actually at this point sustaining the NASA's ISS activity by ferrying US astronauts to and from the station at no charge, way past their original obligation, ever since the Shuttle is effectively kaput.
There, perheaps this should clarify a thing or two.
I always prefer an explicit disagreement to an anonymous suppression - because I get a chance to learn something.
:) position. I appreciate your actually engaging in a disagreement. If you can convince me of your statement, that we're getting a fair deal from our Russian "partners" (not just a good offshore investment deal that cheats our ROI), I stand a chance to finally learn something new about the ISS operation.
I have not seen new numbers on any possible reversal of ISS expenses between US & Russian budgets since the Shuttle was grounded a few years ago. Until that time, the US had heavily subsidized the Russian efforts, paying not only for US work on the ISS, but also paying a great deal into Russian budgets. Which produced work that missed specs and schedules, bottlenecking the entire project. I'd like to see that the Russians have now taken the lead, while circumstances favor their positions. Some citations.
However, I won't be heartened if the numbers show the US is "saving money" by investing it in the Russian space industry rather than our own. Our space program spins off manifold its cost in benefit to our economy, not to mention our national pride. I don't mind producing science and engineering knowledge the rest of the world also gets secondhand. In fact, that's one of the benefits to the US: we're valuable to other countries. It's one of the social benefits from the essentially transnational scientific community that has been possibly the most civilizing force in our species for hundreds of years. But I don't want us getting it secondhand from other countries at our expense. I want us investing in our own space industry, which also grows our own commercial aerospace industry (those huge contracts go to aerospace corporations, not just relatively small NASA units). So we can stay competitive, even with the extremely experienced Russians and their cheaper economy.
So hopefully that clarifies my (nontroll
--
make install -not war
For example, here. But you should really google yourself. Russian space agency budget is mere $130 million in total per year. That is why $20 million for a paying customer is a big deal. Note that a single Shuttle launch costs around $400-500 million. Presently the Russians are not receiving even the contract work they used to due to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 as the US law forbids it.
However, I won't be heartened if the numbers show the US is "saving money" by investing it in the Russian space industry rather than our own. Our space program spins off manifold its cost in benefit to our economy, not to mention our national pride.
What I was pointing out is that the total amount is miniscule by comparison to the NASA budget.
I don't mind producing science and engineering knowledge the rest of the world also gets secondhand. In fact, that's one of the benefits to the US: we're valuable to other countries. It's one of the social benefits from the essentially transnational scientific community that has been possibly the most civilizing force in our species for hundreds of years. But I don't want us getting it secondhand from other countries at our expense.
It all depends by what do you mean at your "expense". The zero-g Russian experience from two decades of operating orbital facilities would be very expensive to obtain otherwise. Or are you suggesting that the US should have not built the ISS with the rest of the world and made a new Skylab (NASA's last orbital habitat experience was 30 years old)?
I want us investing in our own space industry, which also grows our own commercial aerospace industry (those huge contracts go to aerospace corporations, not just relatively small NASA units). So we can stay competitive, even with the extremely experienced Russians and their cheaper economy.
As I said, you are making an issue from some spare change on the fringes of the American space activities.
Just a small correction if anyone cares: it wasn't the war in Bosnia. That one ended in 1995 and this one was the conflict between Serbia (Yugoslavia at the time) and NATO in 1999.
Er, 1967, actually. It has undergone some modifications since, but it was still a cheapish 3-person craft back then.
Me (Blog)
...you can be the first person to have the shit beat out of you by the crew of the ISS for getting to space without having had to work yer ass off to do it.
The issue is not so much the money, it's who's getting what it buys. And it's really not the proceeds from this single passenger, to which I did not refer, though that amount is not insubstantial. $20M of a $400M Shuttle mission is 5%, which is a pretty substantial amount.
What's at issue is that the Russians are getting the experience of launching civilians, and the US (or any US launcher) is not. The expense I complained about is not the $20M from the passenger - he's a private individual, and can subsidize whatever he wants. It's the billions the US has spent subsidizing the ISS, which the Russians have always had a disproportionate share in. While that subsidy was keeping Russian scientists from getting jobs with proliferators like Iran, it was worth the money in the bad deal. But now that subsidy has (in part) enabled the Russians to circumvent the Iran nonproliferation treaty, as you point out. So the US is subsidizing the Russians, who are thereby able to offer technology to Iran. Who is threatening the US with nuclear missiles (as soon as they have them). That sounds like a terrible investment for US taxpayers, regardless of the cost.
In short, the issue is not the price, it's what it buys, from whom, at whose expense. I don't like the deal.
--
make install -not war
The US got the 20 years worth of Russian orbital habitat experience on the cheap. I still do not understand your point.
And it's really not the proceeds from this single passenger, to which I did not refer, though that amount is not insubstantial. $20M of a $400M Shuttle mission is 5%, which is a pretty substantial amount.
You gotta be kidding. NASA budget in 2005 alone is around $16 billion. The $20 mil may be "substantial" to the Russians with their laughable (and yet sufficient to compete with NASA) $130 million yearly budget. But not to the US.
What's at issue is that the Russians are getting the experience of launching civilians, and the US (or any US launcher) is not.
"Launching civlians" is the easiest part of that deal. You get one, get him simplified training and stick his ass into the Soyuz. There is no "experience" to be gained from this, other then how many barf bags to bring along.
It's the billions the US has spent subsidizing the ISS, which the Russians have always had a disproportionate share in.
As I keep explaining, the major motivation was to purchase the Russian experience, which NASA did not posses.
While that subsidy was keeping Russian scientists from getting jobs with proliferators like Iran, it was worth the money in the bad deal. But now that subsidy has (in part) enabled the Russians to circumvent the Iran nonproliferation treaty, as you point out. So the US is subsidizing the Russians, who are thereby able to offer technology to Iran.
Actually, no. You see, as I keep pointing out, the Russians had already acquired all that experience in the Soviet days, at the expense of the ole USSR. NASA was merely purchasing it. The missile experience was there already, and will remain there for an indefinite future. As to Iran, we are talking about 60 year old missile and nuclear tech and I think the US is completely bonkers to believe that Iran will not get the stuff sooner or later, from somewhere. Pakistan, that industrial and scientific "giant", got it. North Korea, who cannot manage to feed its people and keep their apartament complexes lit and heated, still managed to get (or get near to) nukes on its own. Etc, and so on.
Who is threatening the US with nuclear missiles (as soon as they have them). That sounds like a terrible investment for US taxpayers, regardless of the cost.
That view is not very convincing. You seem to be in the camp which believes that any foreign expenditure is counter-productive as some of the money will always, inevietably, meander its way somewhere where you would not like. As to Iran threatening the US with nukes, I would like to point out to you that Iran's nuclear ambitions did not gain frantic, panic steam until the oh-so-diplomatic "axis of evil" musings of a certain high-placed individual, followed by some adventures in Iraqi sand. And that is remarkable since Israel has been menacing the whole region with both nukes and missiles to carry them for many decades now. Your view is completely one-sided and unreastically US-centric as I charged originally.
You are not getting it, because you are not thinking about my points, only your own.
Again, the $20M isn't to be compared with the US $20B expenses. I never complained about the US "losing $20M to the Russians" or anything like that. I complained about the $billions the US has spent on the ISS, from which the Russians have benefitted disproportionately. Which underwrites this mission of theirs, from which they get all the benefit. Including treatment of space tourists. Let me tell you, British Airways does a lot more than hand out barf bags, which is why their experience keeps them competitive in a global market.
NASA has not "bought" the superior Russian experience. It's "rented" it, because we don't actually increase our experience with what we bought. In fact, we have paid the Russians to increase their experience, while leaving our own atrophied. Which is the opposite of investing in our own, which is the actual purpose of our government space program.
Another point that you fixate on is your invention of "isolationism" on my part. I have not said we shouldn't work with other countries, and in fact have repeated that we should in every message in this thread. You are the one fighting that strawman, not me.
The example of Iran, which you raised, is very clear. Russia can't get US money directly because it's trading with Iran, which is proliferating nuclear weapons. So Russia gets an American to give them 14% of their operating budget to tag along on a mission, rather than stop helping Iran proliferate. Russia's $150M budget is operational in part due to the US subsidy of their program, including the ISS. So US subsidies, and even private expenses, pay to develop the Russian space program, which helps Iran get nuclear missiles. Regardless of how Iran, Russia and the US got to that point, US investment in increasing that threat is obviously bad for the US. This is not some "inevitable meander", this is a very direct enabling/causality of a specific threat. Like the Reagan/Bush investment of $5M in "agricultural loans" in the 1980s that Saddam used to develop "the world's biggest gun", which would have been pointed at US troops in 1991, not to mention Iraq's neighbors upon whose stability we depend (to our severe disadvantage).
As for how we get to those investments, you're guessing wrong about my viewpoint again. You'd be hardpressed to find a more vocal opponent of Bush and his criminal adventures in Iraq, Israel, Iran and elsewhere. Bush's whole government is built on Iran/Contra, which has been supplying Iranian missile and military developers since their Revolution. I'm not going to get into the whole "Israeli nuclear missile menace", mostly because it's pretty far from the scope of US subsidies of Russian space development that aids our enemies. But I mention it because it reveals your own political agenda, which I believe is obscuring your ability to focus on even just the disagreements we actually have, rather than other issues you've introduced that I haven't claimed, and which are irrelevant.
For example, are you American, a US taxpayer? And do you know that the nukes you talked about, Pakistani, North Korean and Iranian, were all the work of a specific Pakistani, AQ Khan, whose espionage could not have enabled all those nuclear threats without (unwilling) US subsidy? Do you realize that all Iran has to do to strike "the US" with a nuclear missile now is to launch one at a US desert outpost in Iraq? Do you realize that running our space program the way we are is increasing the nuclear threats from these unstable countries, with little to lose, which make public threats to nuke people? Do you work for the Russian space agency? Because your arguments on this are completely consistent with their interests, and at odds with the interests of the scientific, economic and security welfare of the US. Which of course is bad not just for the US, but for the entire international community within which the US operates.
--
make install -not war
Except that the Russians are not in any tourist "business", they are doing it as a stop-gap desperation funding shortage measure. The "space tourism" idea is universally hated at all levels of the Russian space agency and will be promptly abandoned as soon as the monetary need is no longer there. We are really talking about the barf bag level of effort here. They are doing nothing whatsoever to make it easier on the "tourist", unlike British Airways who does not (last time I heard) require you to pay for your own pressure suit and sit around with an oxygen mask on while the plane performs high-g rapid manouvers to make it easier for the airline to fullfill other, more important, prorities.
I complained about the $billions the US has spent on the ISS, from which the Russians have benefitted disproportionately.
I understand what you are saying, and right here is your hangup: the Russians did not "benefit disproportionately" in any of this. They already had the experience, the tech and the people. The US had no orbital habitat experience to speak of. Enter a cash transaction, the Russians get coin, the US the experience to peruse, at 1/100th of the real price.
NASA has not "bought" the superior Russian experience. It's "rented" it, because we don't actually increase our experience with what we bought.
That is not true. The major part of the deal was for NASA to have complete access to the manufacturing processes, engineers, documentation and a whole other range of that Soviet experience. What NASA will do with that, is another discussion.
Another point that you fixate on is your invention of "isolationism" on my part. I have not said we shouldn't work with other countries, and in fact have repeated that we should in every message in this thread. You are the one fighting that strawman, not me.
Actually no, the "strawman" appearance originates from the fact that you are self-contradicting yourself. On one hand you say that international cooperation and funding of foreign research is a good thing and on the other that it is counter-productive and gets the US taxpayer nothing. While I keep pointing out that the particular ISS deal was actually a downright thrifty purchase for NASA.
So Russia gets an American to give them 14% of their operating budget to tag along on a mission, rather than stop helping Iran proliferate ... So US subsidies, and even private expenses, pay to develop the Russian space program, which helps Iran get nuclear missiles. Regardless of how Iran, Russia and the US got to that point, US investment in increasing that threat is obviously bad for the US.
There you go. "Helping Iran to proliferate". Never you mind that so far the Russians did nothing to actually help Iran build nukes, only to get their civilian program working, to which Iran is entitled under the non-proliferation treaties. Never you mind that the tech is already there from the days of Uncle Stalin. Never you mind that ISS or other space budgets have absolutely nothing to do with any of that Iranian activity. What do you really mean is to put Iran in the dog-house, where the US wants it, and thus for the Russians to be extorted into losing a major customer, who will then get his civilian stuff from somewhere else, regardless? Irrespective of which Iran will get their defense program going one way or another. A rather legitimate defense stuff to begin with. Look, the world does not revolve around US's ass. Iran is not getting nukes to level New York pre-emptively, they are getting them because they are scared shitless of US nuking Teheran pre-emptively, for that mad policy of pre-emption is now empirically evident for all to see in, say, Iraq and there are US senators on the record with ideas like "nuking Mecca" in response to any "terrorist att
Sorry...sex has already been done in space. It has ? By whom ? Proof of concept ? You'd need 40 million - or maybe by pre-selling the video ...
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
Weren't we talking about orbital sex then ? Must be different in a weightless environment.
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
I don't need proof. It's a given. There have been numerous coed missions in space, and given that all the astronauts have to be physically fit, and that human curiosity towards sex is strong, I have no doubt that at least one nasty has been performed in space already. It's probably an off-camera regular occurance.
Quite see your point. Given the facility and the oppertunity, its fun so its going to happen. The facility (or do I mean feasibility) is a given with the "coed" missions. The opertunity must be a given also, since the whole living space can hardly be under video surveillance (or can it ? for they maybe just don't show us the film). It is the weightless, gravityless aspect that I can't quite see. I must admit to a certain curiosity though.
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
I'm sure they'd have figured it out. (I would have, ^..^).
But still, they could just secure themselves down or use handholds I suppose. People sleep and play in space, so sex is not that far off from possible.
Maybe they have the "Armstrong" position?
Oh I'm sure that they've figured it out, too. I certainly would have tried. Your idea is good - secure themselves down - but no handholds; hands being otherwise occupied. I see a kind of sleeping-bag with six to eight fixation points, rather like a tent. At one end you'd need to fix a kind of adjustable pillow so that the heads could be firmly but comfortably restrained. At the other end you'd need just a small but very firmly fixed step. And there you'd have it "Just one small step for man ...." - the Armstrong position. Yep, that would work I think. Experiment needs finance, though. Cheers
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
Just a note, they already have sleeping-bag things for astronauts in space. Aside from the sleeping "cubicles" they use, some of them actually sleep in cloth "bags" that they attach to a place and crawl inside.
Thanks for your note - but is there room for 2 inside those bags ? How firmly are they attached ? Are they attached all the way round the circumference, like a tent ? Are they fitted with "a small step for man" ? I think that some design improvements may be required.
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
If you can get 2 people in a 1-person camping sleepingbag, you can get 2 people in a sleep sack on the shuttle.
Logical, I must admit. In practice and with European sleeping-bags, I have discovered that you need to zip 2 1-person sleeping bags together just to get two average size people inside. Once inside, there isn't quite enough room to roll around. Is there enough room in an American 1-person model? If so, how do you keep warm if you're by yourself? If this works, where can I get one - I'd rather carry one than two. Cheers
How many beans make five, anyhow ?