Space Tourism?

Cave_Monster wonders: "With the successful return to earth by Gregory Olson, the US businessman who allegedly paid around £11m for his trip, what are people's thoughts on continuing with this trend? It is definately favourable towards generating extra funds for space programs, and with Mr. Olson preferring to be labeled as a 'flight participant' rather than a tourist, it definately begs the question as to how much input can these paying people have in space research? Experiments that he participated in included further investigation into how the human body deals with weightlessness and the possible causes to lower back pain and nausea, yet are these activities simply carried out so as to 'entertain' or is there real scientific purpose behind them? With the next 'tourist' expected to be Japanese businessman Daisuke Enomoto, should paying people have a real scientific background or is money simply enough?"

Comments

In a capitalist society...

[dethl]

It doesn't matter whether or not your intentions for space flight are for science or not. All you need is enough cash and noone will care.

Fly me to the Moon...

[Doc Ruby]

If the space program can accomodate it and want the extra money, the extra passengers need contribute nothing more than money to the mission. If they meet the requirements of any other tasks in the mission, perhaps they should get a discount, or extra charges for the "extra fun". Whichever the mission planners can accomodate and negotiate. The exciting news is that we've reached a stage of space industry development where we have enough "discretionary resources" and minimized risks that we have the flexibility to engage in substantial nonessential mission components. Which means frivilous Moon trips are now in sight.

Funding

[ozTravman]

Space travel is expensive. No space agency has all the money they need to accomplish their goals. We no longer have the public support we had in the 60's so private enterprise is required to help send us further. If the revenue from these tourists helps fund further space missions then it is justified.

Re:Funding

[Myopic]

Not just that, but space tourism is a fantastic idea. One way to look at it is simple economics: there is a demand for space flight, and there is an incredibly limited supply, which of course increases the price to astronomical heights, if you'll pardon the pun; but so long as the exchange is 'profitable' to the 'supplier', which in this case it is, it will naturally lead to an increase in supply. Maybe in a few years it will only cost a million dollars. That will be in the price range of a lot of people. Not you and me, but a lot of people.

Re:Funding

[the morgawr]

If you think about it, you only have demand, the war just changes who decides how it is spent:

War -> paid for by government spending -> comes from taxes -> would have been spent as consumer demand.

Is money enough? What?

[LeonGeeste]

Do we make sure anyone who wants to bankroll the first commercial car knows enough about cars' scientific purposes before we deign to allow him to use one?

Of course you should "let" rich people buy access that later funds democratization of the new technology.

Tickets to space

[Nerdposeur]

Should paying people have a real scientific background or is money simply enough?

That should be up to whoever is behind the trip. Maybe if the tourists are completely useless, they'll have to pay more to make up for their dead weight. But we're not talking about buying your way into heaven or something. Sure, traveling to the moon was a big step for mankind, and it takes on mythic, almost religious significance for us for someone to go into space. But bottom line, it's just a new place we can go.

If you've got a rocket and I've got a sack of cash, why shouldn't we be able to make an arrangement? You can't do your science without funding anyway. There's no need to be elitist.

Re:DISGUSTED!

[shmlco]

What are you smoking? So he pays $20M. That money goes, maybe, to buy boosters, which PEOPLE at some company make. They take home their booster paychecks. Buy clothes and food at the store. Store people have jobs. People who supply the clothes and food have jobs. They buy cars. Car peopl have jobs. And so on.

It's not as if he handed someone a check for $20M and they shredded it right there. Same for ANY luxury item. People make 'em. Others sell 'em. People supply materials to make them and they get paid. Other people supply the suppliers and they get paid.

I suppose you yourself live in a one room hovel, and own no car, computer, cell phone, ipod/cd player, television, books, music, DVDs, extra clothes or shoes. Never eat out. Never see a movie.

If not, then for shame. Why are you spending money on yourself?