Slashdot Mirror
Russia Announces End to Space Tourism in 2010
epsas writes "On Cosmonaut's Day (April 12th 2008) the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roskosmos) announced that they will cease it's $40,000,000-a-flight space tourism enterprise. Vitaly Perminov, the head of Roskosmos, elaborated on this statement by citing national criticism of the space tourism project; all the while reiterating Roskosmos's focus on the International Space Station and the new launch site at Vostochny Cosmodrome: 'Vitaly Lopota,
the president of the Energia space rocket corporation, said he believes
space tourism is a forced measure compensating for insufficient
financing of the Russian space program.' This statement (made the day before) by Vitaly Lopota follows another announcement that 'Energia is ready to send missions to the Moon and Mars if told to do so by the government.'"
And this is bad...why?? If space programs are languishing in funding for either development or research, why not charge rich suckers (with dreams just like us) huge amounts of money to fund it? If you have the infrastructure, it sounds lucrative. And I'd be willing to bet that the market would support even more ridiculous prices than $40 mil.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
From TFA:
...
"Tourism is a forced activity. I am sorry, but we have built the
ISS [the International Space Station] not for space tourists but for
serving the needs of the people of Earth," Lopota said.
Ah finally! It's nice to have confirmation from officials that tourists are, in fact, not people. Now if only i could get that hunting permit
I think this is a good refocussing of their efforts-maybe in twenty years for 40 mill we can go chill on mars :D
I don't care if they call it the Pepsi Cosmodrome and sell seats that defray the costs. I actually hope they get YouTube to sponsor streaming video of the entire operation, with product placement, endorsements, memorabilia, space scouts and the rest of "The Man Who Sold The Moon" experience. What I care about is that they go, and keep going.
The Russians pioneered manned spaceflight and it's not for us to tell them how to do it. If they like capitalism, so much the better.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The space tourist was paying most of the cost of the Soyuz booster/capsule while allowing the RSA to continue meeting its commitments to the project. This is a step backwards for space, government funding doesn't have the same potential for long term growth that commercial money does. Look at the airplane, for instance. Government funding did big things, but the real growth and expansion came with private funds.
Is this good or bad? The media show of the few immeasurably rich going into space has brought good attention to the space programs, but at times, it has been humorous in a sad sort of way.
More money on robotic research, best bang for the buck in outer space, IMHO.
Also, why do we need to go back to the moon in order to go to Mars? I see no rhyme or reason in that stupidity except thats what GW Bush wants, which means that it will probably disappear in a year or two.
www.effectiveelectrons.com "chips that work" Analog, RF, Mixed Signal
I really don't care who sees them as prideful creatures and who doesn't. That's just tabloid talk. The main issue is that the Russian govt is now going to make up for the funding shortfall that forced them to get by on tourism. But hey, the silver lining in the meantime was that ordinary civilians got access to space, even if they were rich types. There is a market demand for going into space, and the Russians tapped it. Now that they want to resume big science, that's great - I'm not going to knock them for it.
I'm not really seeing the problem with that. Personally, I think that if politicians and world leaders (I'm looking at you over there in the Whitehouse) could stop their idiocy and work together on a few things, we might find resources (not jut money) to do things like exploit^H^H^H^Hore the solar system a bit, perhaps go finding things like more room to live, more minerals, and perhaps some mysterious substance that helps us to manage global climate change.
The more that we all sit here on this rock arguing about stupid stuff, the longer the Borg has to get here before we are ready, god damnit!
Seriously, the more we learn about space, the solar system, universe etc. the more prepared we will be to better care for this little rock we call home. I do not believe that there is any one country that has the resources to do this alone. I believe it will take huge cooperative efforts to find the answers that humankind actually needs.
Right now we are starving people for the chance to make weak fuel out of corn. When you look at the facts of biofuel, it seems astoundingly stupid to do what we are doing as a group. I think that if we are going to find something that will help serve our energy needs we will have to keep exploring. Only through exploration do we find things that change life as we know it.
Sadly, if Vladimir Smith found out how to create a zero point module (go Stargate) next week, it would be kept a secret and not released to the public until some whistle-blower feels guilty on their deathbed. ZPMs and other such 'free energy' systems/devices and those that do not make anyone any money will be hidden from sight. A sad fact, and not to seem socialist but if we don't all try cooperation to solve some of the very urgent problems, Armageddon sans god is all that is left us. Nuclear energy might become safer with new discoveries lately, and I'm all for it. If you are not using it, safety and discoveries to make it safer are hardly on the radar of those who need to be inventing stuff like that. With nearly free electricity we can carry on with electric vehicles.
The space agencies around the globe really need to work together as has been shown, space tourism really isn't going to foot the bill for the kind of exploration that we need to be doing.
Solar and wind power are not THE answer to the energy needs of the human race and the planet Earth. We need to expand technologically beyond what we have so far. Look at Monsanto? GM foods and people are still starving around the globe. If we don't get some socialist ideas in action soon, we're headed for a scifi nightmare ending. Space exploration thus far has embodied all that is generally good in humankind: Exploration, advancement, betterment, working for the common good. Even if it was a space race for bragging rights or dominance of the domain, it was done in a way that has helped us all in one way or another. We need much more of it.
Yes, you can believe the book "The day after Roswell" http://www.amazon.com/Day-After-Roswell-Philip-Corso/dp/067101756Xif you like, but the way that space exploration has changed our lives is without comparison. I hope that this is one thing that we, as the human race, end up getting right.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
The moon is quite important to a mars trip. Getting from earth to the moon uses a lot of fuel. Going to mars from the moon is easier, especially if you send some extra fuel and supplies to the moon before you get there. Going to the moon also gives you a chance to test out your equipment in a harsh environment while you are still close to home.
"announced that they will cease *it's* $40,000,000-a-flight space tourism enterprise"
It's = conjunction for it is.
They will cease it is $40,000,000?
It should read:
"announced that they will cease *its* $40,000,000-a-flight space tourism enterprise"
I see this mistake all the time, and it drives me crazy!
Also, why do we need to go back to the moon in order to go to Mars?
Because we need to develop and test technologies we'll need to get to and remain on Mars, and the Moon makes a good testbed. If anything goes wrong, the Moon's only 2 days flight time from Earth.
I can't decide which error to bitch about first.
I bet this is just marketing.
sort of like how disney keeps saying that they are going to lock such and such title up in their vault for 50 years and not ever let it see the light of day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Nonsense. It takes a huge amount of energy to drop back down the gravity well to Mars three days out of Earth, and another huge amount to get back up and back onto a trans-martian orbital trajectory. Secondly the martian environment is massively different from the moon. For example, a lunar lander isn't going to work on Mars, what with the much higher gravity, much higher arrival speed, oh yes and the atmosphere. There's no benefit whatsoever in stopping at the moon on the way, and anyone who says different either doesn't know what they're talking about or is a moron.
I'm actually wondering if maybe part of the reason for the announcement is to spare them from having to compete head-to-head with the SpaceX Dragon in the commercial sector, which will likely be carrying crew to orbit in the 2010 timeframe at a lower per-person price than the Soyuz. It'd be kind of humiliating for Energia to be out-done in the commercial space sector by a US startup company, but they can save face if they announce ahead of time that they're exiting the industry due to reasons of national pride.
What about resources that can be mined from the moon? At the very least, wouldn't it make sense to take off from Earth as lightly as possible and pick up heavier resources (water, building materials) on the way? Of course that relies on an established lunar infrastructure to be in place first, but once that's up and running...
Tourism really needs to continue. I have seen kids that have noticed it and think that it is interesting. They are learning that you do something other than shoot for being an astronaut and still make it into space
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Why would robots need water? I notice that the earlier missions to Mars (Spirit/Opportunity/etc) didn't need to stop off for supplies - why would future missions?
End of Russian space tourism - more bucks to private space programs.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
They are inking a deal with russia in spite of their just telling congress several days ago that they were not going to? Do not get me wrong. I would like to see us continue some level. But it would be even better if congress would spend a bit more NOW and fund spacex and perhaps another to create a human rated space craft. Of course, the issue with that, is that it will show congress that it could be done quickly.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That's true, I was thinking more in the context of manned missions.
Now that Russia has oil money due to high oil prices, they can afford to fund their space program without the need for tourism. I doubt tourism was profitable. They probably did it keep the space program alive and space workers employed during hard times. But with the oil money, they can end that practice.
Table-ized A.I.
They were no doubt concerned about an incident between paid visitors and ISS personnel resulting in the headline: "In Soviet Russia Tourists Space You!".
[Insert pithy quote here]
...space tours you!
Wow, I must have missed the news article on that.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Okay, so it's maybe not quite totally at the same level, but there are other groups who are certainly looking at exploiting a good level of cash in people wanting to get into space:
Nothing wrong with making money off it according to Richard Branson
http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=70139&pt=n
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
As several posters have pointed out, Russia's fortune's have shifted and oil is making them serious rubles. We on the other hand might want to think about supplementing NASA with some tourists since we are broke.
Now I have a deadline to raise $40,000,000...
In soviet Russia the Space has a time limit!
(sorry I couldn't resist..)
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
By 2010 virgin galactic will have several flights, and a decent track record offering flights at a much cheaper rate(Virgin flights are only $200,000), and better suited for civilians (3 days training). It wouldn't make much sense to try to compete against them, and we all know how the Russians love business competition. Personally I'm not going to be too excited until we start getting flights to the moon, and really there's a ton of way cooler places on Earth you can go for a lot cheaper.
Sir Richard, if you perchance read Slashdot, this may well be your (and my) last chance for the Soyuz!
I apologize to you, sir, for the rather base familiarity in my tawdry but very sensible Soyuz plea to you , and would beg that you please reconsider this ill-thought Virgin Galactic nonsense!
I regret the price I gave you-$25M - was a tad understated, but still, $40M is surely not beyond our purse-strings, is it?
I await your kind reply, sir, and if it is not soon forthcoming, I shall resume the following ill-thought-out negotiations with the those more progressive gentlemen Sergy and Larry!
yours, etc, etc,
.
- aqk
F U
I feel like this is a good thing. I wouldn't want the final frontier to suffer the same consequences as other tourist spots. Space is not something that should be exploited for commercial purposes, at least until we all have spaceships and can go wherever we want at will.
If history repeats itself, why can't we study the future?
I wonder what an idiot one can be to agree to fly to the Moon. Also sending an idiot to Mars for $$$$$$$$$$$ is too expensive. Better off with a simple gun. :)
What resources, rocks? I've got news for you, spacecraft thrusters don't run on rock. And as you say, a huge iraq-war scale investment would be required to set up that infrastructure anyway. Believe me, people cleverer than you and I have thought about this, which is why the official NASA Mars mission template/ design study is a straight-to-Mars design and has been for thirty years or more.
$40 and nill cents. Pretty cheap.
PS. Stop using "," as thousand seperators! You're confusing people outside the US (which, as we all know, is a small minority...).
China is in it in a BIG way. The west is not. Yet. But of course, we have started. Do you really think that the anti-missile system is being set-up against Iran or even Russia? We have locations on American/Canadian DEW line, South Korea, and Japan (all south of russia, so would be useless). America is working closly with India and trying to keep Pakistan as a close friend. We are trying to get Russia to partner, and we are building to the west of Russia. DOD is pushing us to the moon as well.
There are more defenses that are going in, but it is thought not to be enough.
Isn't 2010 the year they're supposed to take Heywood Floyd and Walter Curnow to Jupiter?
Agreed - no good reason to stop at the moon to get to Mars - except perhaps to dump the politicians out. You want to assemble and gather things - do it in LEO (low earth orbit) and then get out of LEO for Mars.
www.effectiveelectrons.com "chips that work" Analog, RF, Mixed Signal
I think the space expansion will happen first, but the way global warming's going antarctic cities don't look that unlikely either. Once they find the vast oil and coal reserves there it's all over.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Omitting this non-essential objective from the mission is what makes it do-able.
I'll bet you think I'm kidding. I'm not.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Then we have to work out what's more efficient, sending a spaceship and fuel to the Moon, then to Mars, or going straight to Mars. Unless you're assuming that the fuel and spaceship get to the Moon by magic.
From the summary: they will cease it's $40,000,000-a-flight
"its".