Singer Reportedly Outbids NASA for Space Tourist's Seat

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Singer Reportedly Outbids NASA for Space Tourist's Seat

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday October 3, 2012 @11:25AM from the money-well-spent dept.

RocketAcademy writes "ABC News is reporting that Phantom of the Opera singer/actress Sarah Brightman outbid NASA for a seat on a Soyuz flight to the International Space Station. Brightman reportedly paid more than $51 million. If that story is true, there may be some interesting bidding wars in the future."

194 of 242 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

More important... by ChodaBoyUSA · 2012-10-03 11:29 · Score: 1

How the heck did she get that kind of money???
1. Re:More important... by slackware+3.6 · 2012-10-03 11:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/singers/sarah-brightman-net-worth/
  It would seem she can't afford to go to space.
2. Re:More important... by NinjaTekNeeks · 2012-10-03 11:36 · Score: 2
  
  According to Wikipedia: "She is often credited as the creator of this genre and remains among the most prominent performers, with worldwide sales of more than 30 million records and 2 million DVDs, establishing herself as the world's best-selling soprano of all time"
3. Re:More important... by Dunbal · 2012-10-03 11:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Remember to feel sorry for those poor starving artists when the RIAA hits you with a multi-million dollar lawsuit for downloading a CD.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
4. Re:More important... by Githaron · 2012-10-03 11:52 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  That is what credit is for!
5. Re:More important... by blackest_k · 2012-10-03 11:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  times rich list she has around $52 million , her ex husband $1.2 billion. Maybe he is paying the bill.
  
  --
  Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
6. Re:More important... by icebike · 2012-10-03 12:10 · Score: 2
  
  No doubt she make good money selling records, but its also no doubt she's making pennies on the dollar for those record sales. 30 million records does not come close to 30 million dollars. Which is why so many Aging Rockers are still playing Indian Casinos these days.
  More worrying is that NASA, a MORE THAN EQUAL partner in the ISS, having built 7 of the 10 modules of the station, is being shut out of seats by Russia simply as a money grab.
  Total estimated costs:
  U.S.: $100 billion plus 38 billion to build the Shuttle.
  Europe: $14 billion
  Japan: $10 billion
  Russia: Unknown, but estimated at 45 billion, mostly launch vehicles.
  Canada: $2 billion
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
7. Re:More important... by user32.ExitWindowsEx · 2012-10-03 12:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  ex-husband...so that means the round trip price is $102 million
  
  --
  "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
8. Re:More important... by hawguy · 2012-10-03 12:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No doubt she make good money selling records, but its also no doubt she's making pennies on the dollar for those record sales. 30 million records does not come close to 30 million dollars. Which is why so many Aging Rockers are still playing Indian Casinos these days.
  More worrying is that NASA, a MORE THAN EQUAL partner in the ISS, having built 7 of the 10 modules of the station, is being shut out of seats by Russia simply as a money grab.
  Total estimated costs:
  U.S.: $100 billion plus 38 billion to build the Shuttle.
  Europe: $14 billion
  Japan: $10 billion
  Russia: Unknown, but estimated at 45 billion, mostly launch vehicles.
  Canada: $2 billion
  Maybe NASA should have planned ahead to make sure they'd have a launch vehicle to reach their expensive ISS?
  It's like building a beautiful vacation property on a remote island, then you find out that your 30 year old yacht is too unreliable and expensive to get there. You've been paying a Russian freighter for rides to your island, but when someone else pays them more for your seat, you realize that maybe you should have purchased a more modern yacht before you retired your old one.
9. Re:More important... by icebike · 2012-10-03 12:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That might make sense if the Russian Freighter weren't booking these passengers into YOUR Vacation Home, and paying nothing for the privilege.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
10. Re:More important... by hawguy · 2012-10-03 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  More more importantly... where can I get 0.32% of this kind of money? It would make me debt free and radically change the lifestyle (health, stress, etc.) for my family right now. Hell, 0.1% as an interest free lone would do the same thing but take about 5-6 more years to complete the transition. Straight out giving the 0.1%: 3-4 years.
  TLDR; 0.1% of the cost of this joyride could completely change the lives of a family in fairly short order.
  Some may find such news items interesting and even exciting, whereas I (and likely the rest of the 97+%) find it extremely depressing.
  One way would be to work for a company that is developing a launch vehicle that can take passengers to orbit. Offer to work for little to no wage for now, and take equity in the company instead of salary compensation. If the company succeeds then you'll have your money.
  I bet that $50M will enhance the lives of more Russian families than it would if it were split among American families. Much of that $50M is spent on labor to build the spacecraft, extract raw materials, refine rocket fuel, etc. Most Americans can earn the amount you're asking for ($160K) in less than 5 years. It would take a Russian earner 15 - 20 years to earn the same.
  While it may seem like an extravagant expense for a single person, thousands of average workers benefit. Competition has helped drive the price of a Soyuz seat up from $25M to the current $50M, so it's been good for the Russian space program.
11. Re:More important... by plover · 2012-10-03 12:35 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Oh, snapski!
  
  --
  John
12. Re:More important... by M0j0_j0j0 · 2012-10-03 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Ahah she must be a real pain in tha ass, the ex husband is sending her to space!!!
13. Re:More important... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2012-10-03 12:51 · Score: 2
  
  TLDR; 0.1% of the cost of this joyride could completely change the lives of a family in fairly short order.
  That is not how money works.
  Start by reviewing the studies of what happens to lottery winners.
  Finish by worrying more about the contents of your own bank account and less about other peoples'.
14. Re:More important... by sumdumass · 2012-10-03 12:54 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Maybe her husband is banking on it being an effective one way trip and saving money in the long run?
15. Re:More important... by asdbffg · 2012-10-03 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  I would be careful here. While there very much is a rich "1%" of the creative class, there is also a rapidly shrinking low/middle income creative class that is affected by things like downloading.
  
  I'm not necessarily commenting on the ethical implications of downloading or even the ethical implications of the RIAA suing you, but it's worth pointing out that there most professional musicians probably shouldn't be lumped in with mega rich artists.
16. Re:More important... by farble1670 · 2012-10-03 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe NASA should have planned ahead to make sure they'd have a launch vehicle to reach their expensive ISS?
  that's ridiculous. if the US is contributing almost 2x the cash of all the others together it should buy them something. if they're going to be denied seats over a few million, screw the ISS ... we might as well build our own space station.
  and also screw sarah brightman.
17. Re:More important... by jd2112 · 2012-10-03 12:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If the artist is starving it's probably the RIAA's fault.
  
  --
  Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
18. Re:More important... by farble1670 · 2012-10-03 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  you seem to forget the ISS wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the US's contributions (which are nearly 2x everyone else put together). how many russian workers benefited from jobs related to the ISS?
19. Re:More important... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 13:02 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I bet that $50M will enhance the lives of more Russian families than it would if it were split among American families.
  In practical terms, though, I bet $50M given to the Russian space agency will go to about 3-4 families who combined already probably have half the net worth or Russia.
20. Re:More important... by machine321 · 2012-10-03 13:08 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  To the moon, Sarah!
21. Re:More important... by Alien+Being · 2012-10-03 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. $50 million could build hundreds of homes for humanity. I guess it's more important to blow the money hauling her worthless ass into orbit. I hope she gets spacesick and dies.
22. Re:More important... by icebraining · 2012-10-03 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  Where did you learn that? The data I have disagrees: income from recorded music is falling, but live shows more than make up for that, leaving artists better off in total.
  Do you have contradictory data?
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
23. Re:More important... by MightyYar · 2012-10-03 13:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What's this obsession with charity? The $50 million can also pay for hundreds of jobs in the Russian aerospace industry. Those people can then use their salaries to buy houses. Granted, she's quite literally going to be burning a lot of the money, but it's not like it will all just disappear from the economy. Even the rocket fuel is employing oil industry workers.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
24. Re:More important... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah... But NASA probably saw the irony if they were to complain about the commies using a free market to maximize their profits.
25. Re:More important... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-10-03 14:07 · Score: 2
  
  I think that the whole notion of "paying for the privilege" is precisely the kind of attitude that you don't want here - it moves the entire discussion into who owes whom what, exactly, and I very much doubt that the agreement as it stands would be in US favor. More likely Russia can send whomever it wants as part of its missions - i.e. it could send one extra cosmonaut, but in this case chose to send a tourist instead.
  The situation is idiotic regardless of money issues, though. The purpose of ISS was not to be a lucrative destination for tourists - it was to do useful research. That Roskosmos wants to charge for the ride, even with some extra to recoup its other losses, is reasonable, but they should just stick to one flat fee, and provide NASA (and other organizations with legitimate scientific missions) a priority. To make an auction out of it is reprehensible.
26. Re:More important... by sveinungkv · 2012-10-03 14:18 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The time you used writing your post could have been spent earning money you could have spent feeding a starving child. Do you hope you get cardiac arrest and die or are you a hypocrite?
  
  --
  Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
27. Re:More important... by multiben · 2012-10-03 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  What a bunch of bullshit. You hear about one artist with that kind of money and make a gross generalisation to support your desire to pirate stuff. Most artists don't have squat let alone enough to fund a trip to the ISS. Pathetic flamebait argument.
28. Re:More important... by camperdave · 2012-10-03 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  Where did you learn that? The data I have disagrees: income from recorded music is falling, but live shows more than make up for that, leaving artists better off in total.
  ...if they do live shows.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
29. Re:More important... by MightyYar · 2012-10-03 14:44 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, rocket fuel. It's like a form of kerosene. It doesn't have the punch of hydrogen, but it is much more stable. The Merlin engine used on the Falcon 9 uses the same fuel.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
30. Re:More important... by hawguy · 2012-10-03 15:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Maybe NASA should have planned ahead to make sure they'd have a launch vehicle to reach their expensive ISS?
  that's ridiculous. if the US is contributing almost 2x the cash of all the others together it should buy them something. if they're going to be denied seats over a few million, screw the ISS ... we might as well build our own space station.
  and also screw sarah brightman.
  If it's true that NASA is missing out on a seat that they need over a few million dollars, they should just pay the few million dollars. A space shuttle launch cost $450M ($1.5B if you count the cost of the shuttles themselves). Assuming a 7 person crew, that's $64M/person. But since a typical ISS crew rotation flight only carried 3 ISS crew members, it's closer to $150M per person to get someone to the ISS (granted, there were other mission specialists and equipment/experiments on the flight). So if you look at the per-person cost of sending astronauts on the space shuttle versus Soyuz, NASA is saving money even at $50M/person.
  
  we might as well build our own space station
  If it's true that it cost $175B to build the ISS in the first place where do you think NASA is going to come up with another $175B to build their own? That's almost 10 years of 100% of NASA's current budget. And NASA still has no proven heavy lift capability to launch components into space.
  Is spending the next decades NASA budget on a low earth orbit space station really a good use of their money? I'd rather see more exploration farther from the planet.
31. Re:More important... by Seumas · 2012-10-03 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, I've never heard of "Sarah Brightman" either.
32. Re:More important... by rwa2 · 2012-10-03 15:37 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  She did the space opera in Fifth Element
33. Re:More important... by Alien+Being · 2012-10-03 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's hundreds of people working just to put one rich person in space. It's beyond extravagant. It's an obscene waste of time, effort and natural resources.
  I'm not obsessed with charity, I'm just illustrating the economics of this little joyride.
34. Re:More important... by rwa2 · 2012-10-03 15:48 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Oops, no, wait, she didn't... it was some Albanian soprano with a French actress doing the blue Diva thing.
  Geez, it's like I'm some sort of repository of common misconceptions on the internet lately...
  OK, I'm with you... I have no idea who Sarah Brightman is. But I do have one of her albums "Harem". It's not very interesting compared to Tori Amos or even the real middle eastern stuff I listen to.
35. Re:More important... by CodeBuster · 2012-10-03 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't have the punch of hydrogen
  Yeah, the 7.65 million pounds of hydrogen powered peak thrust from the Saturn V rocket was truly something to see. It was like nothing else either before or since.
36. Re:More important... by magarity · 2012-10-03 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  $51M space ticket > Net worth of $45M . Someone was listening to another wild internet rumor when they submitted this story.
  Heck, $45M may sound like a lot but you could only get the third biggest Gulfstream for that and then you'd be tapped out.
37. Re:More important... by kellymcdonald78 · 2012-10-03 16:17 · Score: 2
  
  The first stage of the Saturn V was fuelled by RP-1 (kerosene). Only the second and third stages were hydrogen
38. Re:More important... by kellymcdonald78 · 2012-10-03 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  Guess the US should have thought about it as they wasted billions on multiple cancelled projects trying to develop a replacement for the shuttle, knowing full well that the Shuttle program as winding down. Right now Russia is in the drivers seat when it comes to ISS.
39. Re:More important... by mysidia · 2012-10-03 16:28 · Score: 2
  
  The situation is idiotic regardless of money issues, though. The purpose of ISS was not to be a lucrative destination for tourists - it was to do useful research. That Roskosmos wants to charge for the ride, even with some extra to recoup its other losses, is reasonable, but they should just stick to one flat fee, and provide NASA (and other organizations with legitimate scientific missions) a priority. To make an auction out of it is reprehensible.
  Agreed... they should simply ban tourists on the ISS, by requiring anyone visiting it have a scientific reason, certain training, and proper credentials, until such time as there is no contention between scientists and would-be tourists for seats on craft bound for it.
40. Re:More important... by mysidia · 2012-10-03 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  If it's true that NASA is missing out on a seat that they need over a few million dollars, they should just pay the few million dollars.
  They can't, the Russians decided to "auction" it, and the auction is done, with Brightman having won.
  Their last bid might have been a few million dollars less, but that does not mean that they would have won if they placed a bid for a few more million.
  It's possible Brightman was willing to pay 10, 20, 30, 40 more million.
41. Re:More important... by burning-toast · 2012-10-03 16:32 · Score: 2
  
  If they don't... are they still considered to be working to earn their living?
  I still wish I could be paid residuals for doing a job once... for the rest of my life...
  - Toast
42. Re:More important... by mysidia · 2012-10-03 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  It is a seat on the flight, not a position on the space station. The Russians can do whatever they want with their launch program. The ISS is different.
  Yeah, but the point of the flight, is those on it will have access to the ISS. So... restrict access to step aboard the ISS to scientists, and suddenly, the "tourist" demand for seats on the flight should be zero
43. Re:More important... by Jafafa+Hots · 2012-10-03 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it's more like if you are in the 1%, you get records made and make money on them.
  If you are in the next 2 or 3 percent, you get records made but don;t make any money or even end up owing a label in the end.
  If you are in the rest of the 95+% of musicians, you play bars - if you're lucky.
  
  --
  This space available.
44. Re:More important... by mysidia · 2012-10-03 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's hundreds of people working just to put one rich person in space. It's beyond extravagant. It's an obscene waste of time, effort and natural resources.
  Those hundreds of people who are getting paid to do the work, might beg to differ. It might be extravagant, but Brightman's extravegance means that they get to work and put food on their table, possibly some of those people would be hungry, looking for a job if not for the "beyond extravaganct" person's huge cash purchase....
  Actually, that X million spend, means that the US will be spending those millions on something else. Hopefully something useful.....
45. Re:More important... by mysidia · 2012-10-03 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  Start by reviewing the studies of what happens to lottery winners.
  Are you referring to what lottery winners choose to do with money?
  Because you would not be talking about how money works at all, but human behavior.
  Currency is very simple, and obeys basic laws of arithmetic, that is, unless you are a Government or Bank, where you can leverage the money, make virtual money out of thin air, and V2P in the amounts required.
46. Re:More important... by cobraR478 · 2012-10-03 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, that 95% of musicians aren't really worth listening to (compared to the best) and most of that other 5% aren't either. The fact that any musician is able to become fantastically rich is a bit of a modern phenomenon that exists due to modern technology making their music available to billions around the world. Considering that, it's not surprising that most of the money ends up in the hands of top musicians. Why listen to mediocre song, when you can listen to the best?
47. Re:More important... by cobraR478 · 2012-10-03 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  Typo in there, should read: Why listen to a mediocre FILL_IN_GENRE_HERE song, when you can listen to the best?
48. Re:More important... by notsoanonymouscoward · 2012-10-03 17:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No its ridiculous (and yet another example of the idiotic entitlement mentality destroying this once great nation) to think that somehow the US deserves seats on the Soyuz because we helped build the ISS. We (the US) had a ride to space. It was our own pimped out space taxi. We no longer have that ride... by choice, by design, by policy, yada yada. It's not Russia's job to drive us to work just because we decided to scrap our old ride BEFORE building a new one. You want to do something (possibly) productive? Write to your representatives in .gov and tell them NASA needs more $.
  
  --
  I ate my sig.
49. Re:More important... by lyuden · 2012-10-03 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to forgot that USA never has orbital stations. USSR has several and has technology and experience. We forgo our Mir station to focus on ISS.
50. Re:More important... by lyuden · 2012-10-03 17:41 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, but the point of the flight, is those on it will have access to the ISS.
  As far as I know, previous space tourists had no access to American part of ISS, only russian one. NASA controls only part of station.
51. Re:More important... by wonkey_monkey · 2012-10-03 18:20 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  we might as well build our own space station.
  With blackjack! And hookers!
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
52. Re:More important... by Alien+Being · 2012-10-03 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  They would have the work anyway except they would be doing it for something more useful than pleasing some twit. All she did was deprive NASA of the ability to do science and ensure that the seat will be for naught. You're just trying to rationalize her selfish and wasteful behavior.
53. Re:More important... by CodeBuster · 2012-10-03 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  You're quite correct. I stand corrected sir. Still, who wouldn't have wanted a ticket to ride that train? It's a shame that spaceflight isn't "cool" like that anymore, it really was a hell of thing back in the day.
54. Re:More important... by CodeBuster · 2012-10-03 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  The tsar bomba's energy output was over 50 terawatt hours (210 petajoules), which equals global electricity generation output for an entire day.
  Did this bomb have moving parts? A cleverly assembled explosive device may or may qualify as a machine, depending upon one's definition of the word, but I doubt that this bomb contained any mechanical mechanisms as complex as the turbopumps on the rocket engines for example.
55. Re:More important... by chrismcb · 2012-10-03 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  Find a different job to do.
  The fact is people appreciate what she did and are willing to pay for it.
56. Re:More important... by Alien+Being · 2012-10-03 18:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I'm $10 guilty and she's $50,000,000 guilty.
57. Re:More important... by cheesybagel · 2012-10-03 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  That's not quite right since the "Russian Freighter" docks in the Russian side of the ISS and paying passengers typically are restricted to the Russian segment of the ISS. The fact is those Russian modules originally were built for Mir-2, which would have gone up anyway, but they ended up being re purposed for the ISS with the agreement to built a joint station. The US was originally supposed to do Shuttle flights or similar to help support a 6 man crew to the ISS. The Shuttle was supposed to have been replaced by the Space Launch Initiative, then by OSP, then by CEV, now by CCDev. In typical American fashion it was replaced by nothing and it was itself canceled. In fact I suspect that were the Russians not part of the project the ISS would have ended up in the drink already much like Skylab did.
  The thing is the Russians think of space as a strategic long term investment and they keep funding it even if their economy is doing less well. The US does not.
58. Re:More important... by cheesybagel · 2012-10-03 19:05 · Score: 2
  
  Actually CCDev could be done sooner if the safety requirements were relaxed somewhat. The SpaceX Dragon capsule is mostly finished and only lacks life support. Assuming there aren't any teething issues, and since the first flight was successful, the US could send someone to the ISS using it in months. This is not done because the safety requirements mandate the use of a launch escape system, something Shuttle did not have, in the new vehicles. That needs to be build and tested.
59. Re:More important... by mwvdlee · 2012-10-03 19:11 · Score: 1
  
  As a ratio of net worth, that probably makes you more guilty than her.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
60. Re:More important... by cheesybagel · 2012-10-03 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  It's a limited market and demand vastly outstrips supply, so why should it have a fixed price? It's not like people die if they don't go to the ISS. If the Russians had more money they could build better systems to put more people into space. It may be only a couple of tens of million dollars but that is a lot of rubles.
61. Re:More important... by icebike · 2012-10-03 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's not quite right since the "Russian Freighter" docks in the Russian side of the ISS and paying passengers typically are restricted to the Russian segment of the ISS.
  You state this as if you had some actual knowledge. Quit posing. You have no idea where they spend their time.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
62. Re:More important... by cheesybagel · 2012-10-03 19:24 · Score: 2
  
  Well had NASA wanted to build a more reasonable smaller station using more automation it could be done with a couple of Delta IV Heavy launches. The Russians launched their segments with Proton and that rocket has slightly less payload capacity than the Delta.
63. Re:More important... by cheesybagel · 2012-10-03 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  They have since like forever. The Soyuz is based on the same rocket family that put Gagarin and Leonov in space and they all use LOX/Kerosene propellants.
64. Re:More important... by cheesybagel · 2012-10-03 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  If the US never invested on their segment the Russians would be flying Mir-2.
65. Re:More important... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-10-03 19:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The reason why it should be a fixed price because it's not a fucking commercial enterprise, it's not supposed to be about profit and supply and demand to begin with. If it were, we'd have corporations doing it, not government. But it wasn't corporations that built ISS in the first place, so...
  And if you think that this extra money will really be used to "build better systems", you're very naive - and I'm saying this as a Russian.
66. Re:More important... by bsercombe72 · 2012-10-03 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  and also screw sarah brightman.
  With pleasure.
67. Re:More important... by cheesybagel · 2012-10-03 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's plainly obvious you know nothing about it since you called Soyuz a "Russian Freight". Progress capsules do most of the cargo carrying to the Russian segment of ISS so those are the "Freight". Soyuz capsules are transportation vehicles with minimal cargo capacity. Nitwit.
68. Re:More important... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  You've fallen victim to the broken window fallacy. You should ignore the money, and look at what's happening with real resources (materials, expertise...): they're being used to put someone in space rather than to build houses.
  I happen to think that the practice at putting people in space will have a long-term payoff that justifies it, but your justification doesn't work.
69. Re:More important... by cheesybagel · 2012-10-03 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  There are corporations working on it precisely because they now know there is a market. Virgin Galactic (suborbital flight), SpaceX, Boeing (orbital flight), Bigelow (orbital habitats), etc. Sure they don't do it at the moment but I have little doubt knowing people are willing to pay so much for a space flight helped provide the drive to do it.
  The Soyuz rocket has had multiple upgrades including full digital avionics and the capsule was modified to carry 3 large passengers (the Soviet Union had limits on cosmonaut height so they could carry more of them). The money had to come from somewhere. Even if this just saves the cost of a single flight it was worth it. Sure there is endemic corruption on any system where there is no effective democratic term limit. If you keep the same people for too long on the same position it is inevitable that abuses of power will happen. However I think it is overly cynical to think all the money will be diverted to something other than the Russian space program.
70. Re:More important... by thegarbz · 2012-10-03 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  Except they'd be doing it for less. That's kind of how a bidding process works.
  But hey maybe one day when you have some money you too can realise your dream and some other sore loser on the net can bitch and moan about you being a drain on society simply because you can afford to do something.
71. Re:More important... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  I don't suppose we can take this as an example of why we shouldn't ever pay someone whose job is singing or acting or something else that doesn't matter enough money to fuck something like this up?
  You realize this dumb bitch bidding up the price of a seat like this is going to force NASA to outbid her, costing the taxpayers (who provide NASA with the money they're going to need to spend to outbid her,) millions of dollars just so she can go play astronaut for a few days. There's a simple solution of course, and that is arrest her, charge her with... whatever, I'm sure she's done drugs at some point... and freeze or confiscate her assets, and then we (the People of the United States,) won't have to try to outbid her.
  OR, just fine her the difference between what NASA ends up paying and what they would have paid. Solved.
72. Re:More important... by hughk · 2012-10-03 22:45 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, the Russian Space industry is linked closelty to the military so where the money actually goes is secret.
  However after such "ticket-sales" expect a few higher ups to suddenly enjoy an upgrade to their lifestyles.
  
  --
  See my journal, I write things there
73. Re:More important... by isorox · 2012-10-03 22:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I don't suppose we can take this as an example of why we shouldn't ever pay someone whose job is singing or acting or something else that doesn't matter enough money to fuck something like this up?
  You realize this dumb bitch bidding up the price of a seat like this is going to force NASA to outbid her, costing the taxpayers (who provide NASA with the money they're going to need to spend to outbid her,) millions of dollars just so she can go play astronaut for a few days. There's a simple solution of course, and that is arrest her, charge her with... whatever, I'm sure she's done drugs at some point... and freeze or confiscate her assets, and then we (the People of the United States,) won't have to try to outbid her.
  OR, just fine her the difference between what NASA ends up paying and what they would have paid. Solved.
  It's called capitalism. Russia is a hotbed of capitalism.
  If you don't like it in the communist states of america, start your own space program.
74. Re:More important... by Joce640k · 2012-10-03 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  Um, what "research" have they actually done?
  
  --
  No sig today...
75. Re:More important... by nospam007 · 2012-10-04 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  "More worrying is that NASA, a MORE THAN EQUAL partner in the ISS, having built 7 of the 10 modules of the station, is being shut out of seats by Russia simply as a money grab."
  It's 15 pressurized modules and those not built by Europeans, Japanese or Russians were built by Boeing.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_the_International_Space_Station
76. Re:More important... by dywolf · 2012-10-04 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  Firstly, she's married to Andrew Lloyd Webber, no slouch in the money making process there.
  Second, she's a world famous singer in her own right. As such she doesnt make money off records, its all from performances, and top form operatic singers get a f-ton of money.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
77. Re:More important... by JasterBobaMereel · 2012-10-04 00:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ...So you want NASA a non-policing body, to arrest a Foreign national, for being involved in a transaction in a second foreign country, which is perfectly legal in all three countries ....
  Do the words "outside your jurisdiction" and "not illegal" mean anything to you?
  
  --
  Puteulanus fenestra mortis
78. Re:More important... by JasterBobaMereel · 2012-10-04 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  ...except if you remove all the US, European, Japanese etc parts from the ISS and just leave the Russian parts you have a perfectly serviceable space station
  The number of manned space stations launched by the USA alone is 1, the number by Russia/USSR is 7, and China 1 (so far)
  Skylab was manned for 171 days, Mir was manned for 4594 days (and Salyut 6 for 683, Salyut 7 861) ...
  Who's station is it again?
  
  --
  Puteulanus fenestra mortis
79. Re:More important... by FireFury03 · 2012-10-04 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  You realize this dumb bitch bidding up the price of a seat like this is going to force NASA to outbid her, costing the taxpayers (who provide NASA with the money they're going to need to spend to outbid her,) millions of dollars just so she can go play astronaut for a few days.
  Or, with the public willing to pay excessive amounts to go into space, maybe the russians will lay on more flights and this will essentially subsidise russian space exploration without costing NASA any seats... Just a thought...
  
  --
  http://blog.nexusuk.org
80. Re:More important... by Teancum · 2012-10-04 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  The current SpaceX Dragon capsule even has life support equipment, because it is being berthed to the ISS and needs that life support equipment in order to support the astronauts which go inside. The only thing really missing is a seat for the astronauts, and the fact that the Falcon 9 v 1.0 that is currently flying simply can't support that much extra mass that an astronaut plus all of the extra baggage would require. The launch escape system is also going to add some additional payload penalty that a cargo version of the Dragon doesn't need as well.
  The cool thing about the planned launch escape system that SpaceX is proposing though is that it will be an integrated system that can be used in other phases of the flight as well, including deorbit and landing situations (how SpaceX eventually plans on having the Dragon capsule land on a spaceport tarmac rather than in the ocean with a splashdown). They don't plan on jettisoning the launch escape system as is being planned by Boeing for the CST-100 and the Orion.
  The Falcon 9 is getting an upgrade with new engines and larger tanks that are going to be able to support more payload mass in the Dragon, but neither the last flight nor the upcoming flight this next week would be able to fly astronauts even if a safety requirement were waived. I suppose a hammock with an astronaut in a scuba suit might seem romantic, but it takes a little more to send people into space.
81. Re:More important... by JasterBobaMereel · 2012-10-04 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  ...Oh yes the Russian modules only provide power, life support, storage, docking, and a science module ... i.e. are a complete space station on their own ?
  
  --
  Puteulanus fenestra mortis
82. Re:More important... by Teancum · 2012-10-04 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't stop tourists stopping by McMurdo or even the Scott-Amundsen stations, or for that matter any of the other national laboratories.
  Besides, in order to go to the ISS on a Soyuz spacecraft you need to go through a six month course that qualifies you to be a cosmonaut and capable of flying that vehicle, so the only other credential would be a PhD in some scientific field. Russia got into that whole credential business when the other "space tourists" went to the ISS, classifying those "others" as employees of RKK Energia and "guest cosmonauts".
83. Re:More important... by krammit · 2012-10-04 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't have a chance to fact this stuff personally, but it looks like an impressive list.
  
  --
  "Watch your cornhole, bud."
84. Re:More important... by Teancum · 2012-10-04 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  What isn't a commercial enterprise? RKK Energia?
  That is as close to a commercial enterprise as I can imagine. That perhaps under the Soviet Union it wasn't a commercial enterprise is immaterial, they are very much a for-profit commercial enterprise at the moment and in fact are ramping up production of the Soyuz spacecraft and vehicles precisely because of the high demand for their vehicles. They are being cautious in a very Russian manner, but I don't see what the problem is for a company of that nature to sell their services in this manner.
  It also doesn't help that NASA doesn't want to commit to any long term contract because the U.S. Congress keeps cutting funds toward future space missions with American astronauts on the Soyuz, so in this case Roscosmos and RKK Energia are being precisely treated like a commercial enterprise in this case. That the Russian government may have other plans for the Soyuz spacecraft is indeed something that needs to be addressed by Russian space policy, but in this case the competition between a private commercial enterprise (Space Adventures) and a foreign government buying the same product (NASA) shouldn't make any bit of difference.
  Or would it make a difference if it was a paying customer from another government besides the USA?
85. Re:More important... by JMandingo · 2012-10-04 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Um, what "research" have they actually done?
  Hundreds of experiments listed here. I am not sure if these are ALL the experiments or just those conducted by NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/List.html
  
  --
  Vonnegut was right: Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are, "It might have been."
86. Re:More important... by MightyYar · 2012-10-04 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  It's not the broken window fallacy unless I break the rocket to build a new one. This is building a new window for new construction.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
87. Re:More important... by MightyYar · 2012-10-04 02:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Lots of things are a waste of time and resources - or worse. I drive automobiles, despite the horrific toll they take on the environment and our lives. And this is mostly just to improve my standard of living. I keep my house heated to about 70 degrees, when I don't need anywhere near that amount of heat to survive. I eat meat, which costs something like 7 times the amount of grain that is necessary for me to live comfortably. I run the A/C sometimes in the summer, for no reason other than comfort. Occasionally I take a boat ride, for no reason other than pleasure. I just re-did a perfectly livable room in my house because it looked "dated", and I'm going to pull out a perfectly serviceable bathroom for the same reason. I wash my clothes just so they smell nice. I have clothes that I only wear on special occasions. I buy toys that I don't really need. I use disposable batteries. I post on Slashdot. My engineering job is in the microelectronics industry, which is almost entirely composed of sales of consumer toys. You are playing with one of them right now. I waste resources all the time - who the hell am I to judge Sarah Brightman?
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
88. Re:More important... by LordSnooty · 2012-10-04 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Shouldn't have retired the Space Shuttle then, should you?
89. Re:More important... by TheLink · 2012-10-04 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Seems to me the most worthwhile experiments the ISS has been involved in so far are the Space Tourism experiments ;).
  
  Whether NASA likes them or not.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
90. Re:More important... by icebike · 2012-10-04 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Swoosh.
  Thread following fail!!!
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
91. Re:More important... by icebike · 2012-10-04 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  So you say. That's not what some who have been there say.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
92. Re:More important... by strikethree · 2012-10-04 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  That might make sense if the Russian Freighter weren't booking these passengers into YOUR Vacation Home, and paying nothing for the privilege.
  And that might make sense if NASA had built that home all on their own. Just sayin'.
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
93. Re:More important... by TheLink · 2012-10-04 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Seems to me a large number of those experiments are to deal with the _problem_ of weightlessness. Thus most of those experiments are a waste of money AND time. The solution to that problem is to have artificial gravity- just build a space station that rotates (whether using tethers or not). If you are ever going to have humans living and reproducing sustainably in space that's what NASA etc should be doing work on. Not wasting time and resources to find out how poorly a human does in weightless conditions.
  
  So unless someone can point out some noteworthy ones amongst the tons of crap to me I'll have to conclude that the most worthwhile and notable experiments the ISS has been involved in are the space tourism ones.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
94. Re:More important... by asdbffg · 2012-10-04 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  My data is largely anecdotal. I'm a TV/film/video game composer myself, and I'm networked in pretty hard with a lot of musicians/composers both on the work for hire side and on the recording artist side. Most of my closest associates are pretty dramatically in the middle class bracket, despite working on large projects that you've definitely heard of.
  
  Since I'm not really that active on the recording artist side of things, I can't say that things like downloading affect me too much. But anytime copyright discussions come up, I feel like I need to weigh; a lot of arguments that center around recording artists and copyright have dramatic legal implications for the work I do.
  
  As far as the chart you cited goes, it doesn't give separate data for different income brackets, so it's tough to take any conclusions from it. I can only say that, as a composer, I'm not out there playing live shows, so...
95. Re:More important... by icebraining · 2012-10-04 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  I can only say that, as a composer, I'm not out there playing live shows, so...
  One of the lines is "PRS revenue", being that PRS is "a society of songwriters, composers and music publishers."
  Fair point about income brackets, but I find it hard to believe that as labels get less money, big stars (high income brackets) get more. I could be wrong, though.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
96. Re:More important... by Algae_94 · 2012-10-04 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  NASA could build their own system to get into space. I think they might have tried it a couple of times before.
  
  No, that's silly. The US should clearly freeze and confiscate a British woman's assets. Or fine a British woman for outbidding NASA on a Russian trip to space. NASA might even consider not going on this trip.
  
  Her bidding this seat up is a great thing. It shows that there is money, lots of money, to be made in commercial space flight. This is just further motivation to develop the industry, which will have the longer term effects of lowering the cost AND allowing more people to go into space.
97. Re:More important... by Jafafa+Hots · 2012-10-04 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Miley Cyrus is the best?
  You are naive.
  
  --
  This space available.
98. Re:More important... by Yoda222 · 2012-10-04 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, a lot of the research are related to weightlessness. Like a lot of research pre-1500 was done on navigation and how to survive on a boat. Not usefull at all, except that the USA may still be a place to bowhunt bison if nobody looked at this not very usefull stuff (who needs to go on a boat when you could stay at home or go to theater ?)
99. Re:More important... by DirtyLiar · 2012-10-04 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  To the moon, Sarah!
  But Ralph....!
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
100. Re:More important... by DirtyLiar · 2012-10-04 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  And just how do you go about doing any of those things to a citizen of another country, living outside of the United States?
  Extraordinary Rendition? The rest of the world (Europe and Asia) might put up with the "extra-legal" (meaning outside the law, or simply illegal) abduction and "detainment" of a few dusty Arabs we suspect have killed bunches of our Citizens. But coming into THEIR back-yard and abducting THEIR law abiding and productive citizens, I think will be an entirely different story.
  What happened to your belief in the Free Market? Does that only apply when YOU have the deep-pockets? And we should just go and take what we want, when we want it, and civilization be damned?
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
101. Re:More important... by Imsdal · 2012-10-05 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  That's such a wonderful idea. I bet it would work in other places as well. In fact, I bet it works in most places. It clearly deserves a name. I will henceforth refer to this concept as a "tekram". But I may have it backwards.
102. Re:More important... by TheLink · 2012-10-05 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's more like research on how to survive long term on a boat without a roof. Dealing with sunburn, other exposure to the elements etc.
  
  Just do research on roofs for boats, build better boats with roofs and the problem goes a way.
  
  So as I said, build a spacecraft or space station with artificial gravity and the weightlessness problem goes away.
  
  We do not have easy access to infinite resources. But there's plenty of stupid stuff to do research on. Just because NASA et all are doing it doesn't make it less a waste of time and resources.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
103. Re:More important... by farble1670 · 2012-10-05 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  right, we *forced* $100M on the russians, and they *reluctantly* allowed us to cover over 1/2 the cost.
104. Re:More important... by farble1670 · 2012-10-05 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Your argument is basically that if you pay a million dollar for a glass of lemonade, you should somehow magically become co-owner of the lemonade stand. You Americans just don't grasp capitalism, do you?
  no, it's like footing the bill for over 1/2 the cost of the lemons, the stand, staffing, sugar, and cups and expecting to not be denied a glass of lemonade now and then.
  right, why would anyone expect a return on an investment? i think you are the one with troubles understanding capitalism. but don't let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric ...
  http://historical.whatitcosts.com/facts-space-station-pg2.htm
  U.S.: $100 billion
  Europe: $14 billion
  Japan: $10 billion
  Russia: Unknown, but estimate to be in the range of $40-50M
  Canada: $2 billion
105. Re:More important... by farble1670 · 2012-10-05 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  err ...
  Russia: Unknown, but estimate to be in the range of $40-50 billion
106. Re:More important... by farble1670 · 2012-10-05 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  well, i guess if US scientists can't get a seat on the way up, that wouldn't put them in any worse of a situation.
107. Re:More important... by farble1670 · 2012-10-05 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  We forgo our Mir station to focus on ISS.
  and that was an act of charity? it was an economic decision. you are the second largest funder of the ISS, but still only 50% of the US.
108. Re:More important... by farble1670 · 2012-10-05 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  i suspect nasa will think about it next to a "joint" project comes along where russia is involved.
109. Re:More important... by farble1670 · 2012-10-05 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  yes i was being facetious. what i really meant is that we shouldn't fund other people's projects if they aren't going to guarantee access. the money is better spent on things like curiosity.
110. Re:More important... by lyuden · 2012-10-05 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  and that was an act of charity? it was an economic decision. you are the second largest funder of the ISS, but still only 50% of the US.
  Again we had the tech. You didn't. There where projects of american space station. It where orders of magnitude more expensive than collaboration with Russia. So it was economic decision for you too. I don't think you would have had your own station, your strategy was focused on shuttles. And we probably would have had Mir 2 or even 3 by now. It would be much smaller of course.
  And don't even begin on "saving our space program". ESA and Japan made a lot more for that than NASA.
  And yes we are poor country, but with rockets. You know how much money got worker on facility which makes electronics for satellites just three years ago ? 500$ per month.
111. Re:More important... by Alien+Being · 2012-10-05 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  What she is doing is orders of magnitude beyond what you or I do. If Mother Theresa was on one end of the spectrum then Sarah Brightman is on the other. I can't believe that you don't understand that.
112. Re:More important... by MightyYar · 2012-10-06 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Of course I understand that, but the difference is means as much as it is magnitude. I cannot fly in a rocket, and so it is impossible for me to know how I would choose if I could. And frankly I probably would if I could.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
113. Re:More important... by JMandingo · 2012-10-10 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Building a space station with artificial gravity is prohibitively difficult. It has to be huge and very heavy to withstand the stress that all that centrifugal force will put on the frame. Heavy means expensive to put into orbit with our limited launch capabilities. Plus there are issues with keeping it balanced. For instance, if all the astronauts stand in one section at the same time it becomes unbalanced. So the frame has to be even stronger and heavier to account for that eventuality.
  
  --
  Vonnegut was right: Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are, "It might have been."
Music Video by PlastikMissle · 2012-10-03 11:31 · Score: 5, Funny

Now she can re-shoot "I Lost my Heart to a Starship Trooper" .... in space!
1. Re:Music Video by Aryeh+Goretsky · 2012-10-03 15:05 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Hello,
  
  Relevant: Sarah Brightman & Hot Gossip - I Lost My Heart To A Starship Trooper
  
  Warning: Extremely cheesy.
  
  Regards,
  
  Aryeh Goretsky
  
  --
  Dexter is a good dog.
2. Re:Music Video by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-10-04 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Warning: Extremely cheesy.
  Your warning is not sufficient. Side effects may include vomiting, diarrhea, night terrors, thoughts of suicide, loss of blood pressure, and liver damage.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Sounds like it came from The Onion by maroberts · 2012-10-03 11:31 · Score: 1

$50 seems close to Sarah Brightmans entire net worth.
It would be a laugh if she sang "I Lost My Heart to a Starship Trooper" while up there - she may even get her money back in royalties for that performance.
Anyway I think everyone's really being had, so where do I place a bet its a fake story?

--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
1. Re:Sounds like it came from The Onion by SoCalChris · 2012-10-03 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  I bet there's quite a few people who would spend close to their entire net worth to get to space. I probably would. What's the point of having so much money if you can't do something really cool with it?
Ooops by maroberts · 2012-10-03 11:32 · Score: 1

Missing the meellions off the $50.

--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
opera eh? by binarylarry · 2012-10-03 11:53 · Score: 1

I hope she has magical stones embedded in her body.

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
1. Re:opera eh? by Ogre332 · 2012-10-03 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  If thats the case then she'd be better off singing Lucia Di Lammermoor.
  
  --
  Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
Opera singer ? by epSos-de · 2012-10-03 11:54 · Score: 1

How is that possible that an opera singer can have 51 million USD. Does the crew of the space station like opera in the first place. What if she starts to sing high frequency in space. One bizarre world that we live in.

--
~ Best man at your service.
1. Re:Opera singer ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  No one will hear their screams. Muahahahaha!
2. Re:Opera singer ? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-10-03 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  From Wikipedia:
  
  After retiring from the stage and divorcing [Andrew] Lloyd Webber
  and
  
  She has now collected over 180 gold and platinum sales awards in 38 different countries.
  So she's like Elaine from Seinfeld, who got all the Seinfeld money on top of her daddy being a billionaire.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
3. Re:Opera singer ? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-10-03 12:14 · Score: 2
  
  Also, you may be the last generation of nerd who hasn't heard of her:
  
  In 2012 In conjunction with Virgin Galactic, The Brightman STEM Scholarship program was launched.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
4. Re:Opera singer ? by b4dc0d3r · 2012-10-03 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  She's no Linda Eder but she's relatively hot and probably got a lot of money from Weber. And as a non-fan I couldn't be happier for his loss. Phantom is the worst insult to music since someone farted Happy Birthday. Which may have gotten better reviews if it had been repeatable.
  Last time I transposed, that was a high F#, but if I got it wrong worst case it's an E.
  Either way, Russians will take the money and run. Let Congress explain how a Diva can out-bid the fucking "National Aeronautics and Space Administration".
  Seriously, ask your congresscritter what the hell happened here.
5. Re:Opera singer ? by firewrought · 2012-10-03 17:16 · Score: 2
  
  And as a non-Webber fan I couldn't be happier for his loss. Phantom is the worst insult to music since someone farted Happy Birthday.
  Phantom was the most successful show in history based on its own artistic merits... e.g., not as a result of some marketing trick, captive audience, vendor lock-in, or government-granted monopoly. Perhaps it is your definition of music (or the standards by which you judge it) that needs to be reassessed. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is wrong.
  (Though if you're feeling snobbish, you might want to dig up Harold Bloom's opinion piece on the Harry Potter novels, entitled "Can 35 Million Book Buyers Be Wrong? Yes.".)
  
  --
  -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
6. Re:Opera singer ? by Kickasso · 2012-10-03 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is wrong.
  Not sure about causation, but correlation is here.
How the hell can you bump NASA? by penglust · 2012-10-03 12:02 · Score: 1

How the hell can you bump NASA from a space mission? What a fucked up world.
1. Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? by RocketAcademy · 2012-10-03 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  NASA does not own space. They don't even own the International Space Station (note the name). They certainly don't own Soyuz.
2. Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? by RocketAcademy · 2012-10-03 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  I had a dream that we would leave that childish concept of ownership back on earth, and that in space everyone would be provided for according to need.
  So did the Soviets, until their economic system collapsed.
3. Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? by farble1670 · 2012-10-03 13:08 · Score: 2
  
  NASA does not own space. They don't even own the International Space Station (note the name). They certainly don't own Soyuz.
  except, NASA did primarily pay for the ISS. it wouldn't exist if they hadn't funded it.
  sure they don't own it, but something is very wrong if scientifically significant personel are bumped for a singer who will contribute *nothing* to the further the science for which the ISS was built in the first place.
4. Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? by icebraining · 2012-10-03 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's obviously not true. First, as a US citizen with at least $50M in assets (or, I suppose, credit) she pays a decent amount in taxes, which are what funds NASA itself (how much goes to it is not her decision). Secondly, she's paying $50M to a Space Agency that NASA nows depends upon, so she's helping fund the necessary traveling arrangements to perform that science.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
5. Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? by Riddler+Sensei · 2012-10-03 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  Still, there should be a little decency and humility applied. Just because you have the money to think, "Well...NASA could use that seat to further its long term space health effects research...OR I get to say 'Ooooooooh pretty blue ball!'" doesn't mean you should actually do it, let alone that you should be admired for doing it.
  So yeah, it's a bit more than egotistical and a lot fucked up. Besides, there other space tourism options out there that don't require bumping legitimate astronauts from doing research on the ISS.
  (Horrible analogy time! It's like if someone outbids someone else for a surgery slot just for the sake of it. The other person had genuine needs to go under, get cut open, and get worked on. You, however, are rich enough to outbid their slot and instead of actually getting surgery you end up just getting the morphine shot and riding out the high. The other person has to worry and begin frantically reworking their timetables/life while your useless rich ass sits in a hospital bed grinning like an idiot.)
6. Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? by confused+one · 2012-10-03 14:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's very simple... NASA offers $51 million. Another party offers several million more. U.S. wants Russia to embrace capitalism; so, they do. How can we argue with that? We'll just have to hitch a ride on the next bus. Remember when you were a kid and had to borrow your parents car? You don't like the rules, buy your own.
7. Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? by Rik+Rohl · 2012-10-03 14:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How?
  The wonders of capitalism, that's how.
  Shouldn't every American commenting in this thread be celebrating that communism is dead, and the invisible hand of the market is guiding the Russians?
  Or does that only apply when it benefits the US?
8. Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? by RocketAcademy · 2012-10-03 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  "Well...NASA could use that seat to further its long term space health effects research...
  It doesn't work that way. To do long-term health research, you need to stay in space long term -- i.e., rotate the crew *less* often.
  
  Besides, there other space tourism options out there that don't require bumping legitimate astronauts from doing research on the ISS.
  (Horrible analogy time! It's like if someone outbids someone else for a surgery slot just for the sake of it.
  Do you really believe someone is "illegitimate" just because she isn't a government employee? Are you going to drive on your next vacation instead of taking a plane? Because a surgeon might want to occupy that seat, so decency and humility require you to give it up? Or could the airline just sell the seat to whoever's willing to pay the most for it?
9. Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? by RocketAcademy · 2012-10-03 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  ISS was not "built for science in the first place." It was built for foreign-policy reasons -- "midnight basketball for the Russians."
10. Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? by cobraR478 · 2012-10-03 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  What? Pretty much every wealthy country currently in existence has an economic system that generally meets Wikipedia's high level definition of capitalism:
  Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit.[1] Other elements central to capitalism include competitive markets, wage labor and capital accumulation.
  China is currently bringing millions upon millions of its citizens out of poverty by moving to a more capitalist economy.
  Capitalism definitely has its problems. But as the saying goes, it's the worst system except for all the others that have been tried.
11. Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? by penglust · 2012-10-03 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  I fail to see what any of this has to do with communism or capitalism. Every rocket is expensive, uses alot of resources and spews a tremenous amount of crap into the atmosphere. I would not believe that 50 mil would pay for the cost of the trip into space for a joy rider.
  
  We have temporarily, or so I hope, given up our ability to get into space. We rely on the Russian's to supply the resources to the one effort we still have needs. Without us they would also no longer have a space program as we provide the continuing funds to keep it going. It has nothing to do with marketing but just plain stupidity.
12. Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? by mysidia · 2012-10-03 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  Remember when you were a kid and had to borrow your parents car? You don't like the rules, buy your own.
  It's more like: remember when you were a parent, your car broke down and you decided not to replace it, but on occasion you reached an agreement with your next door neighbor, to pay them to take you along on their trip and drop you off in town.
  But one day one of your teenaged kids offered to pay them more, and their car had only one seat available, so the kid won you didn't get to go where you needed to that day.
13. Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? by Riddler+Sensei · 2012-10-03 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't work that way. To do long-term health research, you need to stay in space long term -- i.e., rotate the crew *less* often.
  According to TFA NASA wanted to use that seat to send another astronaut up to the ISS for a year long stay. A year long stay seems to qualify for *less* often. It, however, doesn't mention how long this singer was planning on staying up there but I can't imagine she'll want the extended visit.
  
  Do you really believe someone is "illegitimate" just because she isn't a government employee? Are you going to drive on your next vacation instead of taking a plane? Because a surgeon might want to occupy that seat, so decency and humility require you to give it up? Or could the airline just sell the seat to whoever's willing to pay the most for it?
  That analogy is even worse than mine, and mine was about as off the wall as I thought it could get. You're likening a very thin source of transportation to some of the most abundant we have. If only one airplane leaves every many months, there are a very limited number of seats, and there is no other way to get there (the line about driving doesn't work here), then yes the surgeon gets the seat and not me who wants to go to New York for chuckles. Oh boy, it must suck to be me.
  You also seem to be projecting pretty hard, thinking that I'm "pro-gov". If a private sector space research and development group came up with the funds and research intent, then tough cookies NASA. Sending a random singer up to the ISS for the sake of vanity at the cost of research, however, seems to be betraying the spirit and intent of the ISS.
14. Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? by lyuden · 2012-10-03 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  > Without us they would also no longer have a space program Big talk. We couldn't have ISS station without USA that's true. But at some point of time there were ISS and Mir station out there. And US have nothing to do with Mir. US is nowhere near sponsoring our space flight program. You can see we spent money on ISS, it's nothing like NASA budget was used to build our GPS analog GLONASS, why they would do that in the first place.
15. Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? by Rik+Rohl · 2012-10-03 17:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is supply and demand in action. The Russians have been granted a (possibly temporary) monopoly on the supply of transport services to the International Space Station. They have in turn, decided to sell seats to the highest bidder. The Russians have been selling access to the ISS for some time now, and it is not their problem that NASA has decided to discard their manned spaceflight capabilities with no alternate method of getting there.
  I do not believe that the United States has any kind of say over who the Russians elect to send (though I am happy to be corrected on this if there is official rules to that effect), nor do i believe that they are required to give preferential treatment to NASA coming in at a lower price than what the market will bear, since if they did, they would have prevented other private passengers from doing this previously. They have voice their displeasure over private passengers, but have been unable to do anything about it.
  Also if NASA is thoroughly displeased about this situation then in the true nature of capitalism they can vote with their wallets, and attempt to procure their transport services elsewhere and cease to purchase any transport services from the Russians. What? There's no one else that can do this? Tough noogies.
  As to profit/subsidies etc, the Russians have been using the venerable Soyuz rocket for decades now and have always ran their space program on a shoestring budget. They are quite efficient at producing them and I would believe that they make a reasonable profit selling those seats off (people previously have paid $40 million for a ride) and wouldn't think that their is a subsidy provided by NASA, as going against their wishes and potentially losing that subsidy would not be a profitable move. Since neither of us have factual support to our respective arguments, we'll probably have to let that go.
  In short, if NASA wanted to procure that spot, they should have bid higher.
16. Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? by xeno314 · 2012-10-04 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Sort of like that, except that the parent had the money to replace the car, but decided to spend it elsewhere. Oh, and the parent evidently gave up their car without a sufficiently solid agreement with the neighbor about priority/etc. Oh, and they didn't just give up their car, they went out of their way to render it inoperable and shut down the entire auto industry.
  If the idiot parents in your analogy didn't foresee the rather obvious scenario of a teenager doing something obnoxious, then car ownership may not be the only thing that's out of their league.
Now see this is what happens by kiriath · 2012-10-03 12:05 · Score: 1

When you try to bid against people who actually have money...
In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 12:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

.... Capitalism Defeats America?
1. Re:In Soviet Russia... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-10-03 14:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In Capitalist Russia, we'll gladly take your money regardless of who you are. You wanted us to be capitalist, didn't you? Looks like we've learned well indeed.
2. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  so true, and yet many still labor under the impression that capitalism is synonmous with democracy.
3. Re:In Soviet Russia... by DigiShaman · 2012-10-03 15:59 · Score: 2
  
  Thank God for that too. Now everyone will realize just how profitable space can be. And SpaceX is right there to court the wealthy elite. What better way than to fund your R&D than from the rich which in turn pays for the engineers, scientists, all the other employees paychecks. Oh, and now you can grow the business too with an official spin-off of an entertainment division. It's sort of like the private sector taxing the rich, isn't it? **wink wink nod nod**
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
Impossible. Her net worth is 45M. by Mekkah · 2012-10-03 12:14 · Score: 1

Source - http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/singers/sarah-brightman-net-worth/ Even with help I find this unbelievable, at least with that figure.

--
~Mekkah
Re:Impossible. Her net worth is 45M. by Narcocide · 2012-10-03 12:22 · Score: 1

Well, if YOU had more money than NASA and wanted to rub someone's nose in it but didn't want to be caught doing so, who would YOU have paid to take that last seat?
Re:Impossible. Her net worth is 45M. by Mekkah · 2012-10-03 12:26 · Score: 1

If I had enough money not to miss 51M I may consider it, but I wouldn't spend ALL my millions it, let alone a portion have any magnitude. Even if they were willing to spend 50% of their fortune on it, this still seems incredibly unlikely in this instance unless she is actually Bill Gates hidden Goddaughter.

--
~Mekkah
thinking about this the wrong way... by wierd_w · 2012-10-03 12:32 · Score: 2

Clearly, there is a market for very wealthy socialites and starlets to go be pretty in outer space with some masterbating russian cosmonauts.
Nasa is currently facing severe budget cuts.
What nasa should do, instead of deploring this incident, is broker a deal with the russian space agency to split the profits from selling the occasiona NASA seat in the soyouz capsule to rich fucks.
Considering the teeny budgets (comparatively) of both agencies, doing this could more than pay for quite a few fantastic developments in space technology and research.
And, maybe some starlets will get to laugh at the lowly members of the mile-high-club, after losing their hearts to a starship trooper.
1. Re:thinking about this the wrong way... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 14:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Don't you get it? There is no "NASA seat" in the Soyouz. Seats cost $51million and NASA's just another customer.
2. Re:thinking about this the wrong way... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-10-03 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  What nasa should do, instead of deploring this incident, is broker a deal with the russian space agency to split the profits from selling the occasiona NASA seat in the soyouz capsule to rich fucks.
  But, er, it looks like there is no "NASA seat" as such. It's only NASA for as long as NASA pays for it more than anyone else. Why would Roskosmos want to split the profits, if they can just pocket the whole thing for themselves?
3. Re:thinking about this the wrong way... by wierd_w · 2012-10-03 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  The same reason you would lower the price to sell more units; price elasticity.
  NASA is a garanteed repeat customer. $VacuousStarlet is not.
  If russia can be assured that there will be a proscribed and agreed upon reduction in launch requests from NASA, as an inside deal to harvest money from the rich and famous, it would be financially lucrative to both agencies. In most publicly traded commoditis markets, this is known as collusion, and is the very thing that RICO act and pals are meant to prohibit, but being government agencies, they get to play with different rules.
  This could be especially useful if NASA and SpaceX land an equitable partnership, as then the policy of launching rich socialites (and splitting the profit) would allow the russian space angency to profit from NASA/SpaceX launches.
  SpaceX is already planning to be in the business of launching socialites and repeat customers like NASA anyway. It would not really detract from their business plan.
4. Re:thinking about this the wrong way... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-10-03 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  The same reason you would lower the price to sell more units; price elasticity. NASA is a garanteed repeat customer. $VacuousStarlet is not.
  But NASA is a guaranteed repeat customer regardless of how RK behaves - they simply have nowhere else to go (yet), and they're not going to close down their manned programs altogether because they don't get an occasional seat.
5. Re:thinking about this the wrong way... by wierd_w · 2012-10-03 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Not if the NASA/SpaceX relationship fully matures.
6. Re:thinking about this the wrong way... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-10-03 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, hence the (yet). But I don't think RK looks that far ahead.
7. Re:thinking about this the wrong way... by wierd_w · 2012-10-03 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  Quite. I am suggesting that NASA should discretely mention the prospects, in light of SpaceX being awarded a $1.6bn in launch contracts. Spin it as an opportunity to get in on the action.
Re:Impossible. Her net worth is 45M. by RocketAcademy · 2012-10-03 12:39 · Score: 1

The money may not all be hers. She may have sponsorship. Some of the citizen explorers who've visited ISS previously had sponsors.
Also, those celebrity wealth lists are not always accurate. Rich people don't provide financial disclosure forms unless they're running for public office.
News stories aren't always accurate, either.
maybe by M0j0_j0j0 · 2012-10-03 12:47 · Score: 1

This will be the needed bump for the real space race.
1. Re:maybe by cheesybagel · 2012-10-03 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. I think Dennis Tito paid $20 million, Guy Laliberté paid $35 million. If this is true then the price just went up and all those people saying the Russians were gouging NASA will be proven wrong. It's still a lot cheaper than a Shuttle seat was. >$50 million per passenger means a lot of other launch vehicles become useable. I mean for that price you can probably pay the Soyuz flight and still carry an additional passenger in addition to the pilot.
A sewing machine company in space by LaughingRadish · 2012-10-03 14:25 · Score: 2

At first I thought it was the Singer Sewing Machine Company who bought a seat.
Terrible article. by Seumas · 2012-10-03 15:07 · Score: 1

The person who wrote that article should be fired:

What's a rich space tourist to do? If you want to fly in space, seats are harder to find than a flight out of Chicago's O'Hare airport during a blizzard. So your only option is to bump an astronaut from a seat on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft going to the International Space Station.
I can't be the only one who found that to be one of the clumsiest, stupidest, most high-school-journalism-y opening paragraphs, ever?
1. Re:Terrible article. by cheesybagel · 2012-10-03 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  Welcome to the Web.
Np. 90% docking fee. by Maudib · 2012-10-03 15:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Thats cool. Now lets talk about Nasa's new 90% tax on commercial docking commercial flights to ISS...
1. Re:Np. 90% docking fee. by kellymcdonald78 · 2012-10-03 16:29 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That's OK, the Soyuz capsules dock on the Russian side of ISS (which is also the side with most of the command and control capability) Think of ISS as the self contained Mir 2 with US, European and Japanese modules attached. The Russian side is fully capable of operating without the other components, the US side not so much (as congress cut several key US modules)
2. Re:Np. 90% docking fee. by penglust · 2012-10-03 16:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yea congress cut them and funded the cost of the others. We still paid for it.
  
  We send our manufacturing to China.
  We send our space capabilties to Russia.
  The Rich send there money out of the country.
  We pimp our youth in the army to other countries.
  
  As long as the Rich can pay for their toys who cares.
  
  It's just plain sad.
The entire article is ridiculous by tooyoung · 2012-10-03 17:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

This article implies that http://www.celebritynetworth.com/ is inaccurate with their wealth estimates! How could that possibly be? If they were inaccurate, how could they possibly have that domain name and be quoted in highly moderated slashdot comments?
WTF is Sarah whatever ? by dargaud · 2012-10-03 17:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Never heard of her, and I don't care enough to google her. But I find it fucked up that singers, people who run after a ball and people who shuffle money between Excel cells are paid more than people who try to design fusion reactors or malaria vaccines. That is all.

--
Non-Linux Penguins ?
1. Re:WTF is Sarah whatever ? by mianne · 2012-10-03 18:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I agree with your sentiments, but the sad reality is that there's zero chance that you will sell 50,000 tickets at $150 a pop to any science fair or astrophysics lecture. Many ball games and concerts can easily generate that kind of revenue even before earnings from concessions and merchandise--and do it several times every year. Modern society places a much higher premium on being entertained than being informed. What's more, the scientist who develops the next wonder drug isn't going to earn lifelong royalties from it--those earnings will line the pockets of the pharmaceutical company which bought and patented it for several years though.
  
  --
  Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
2. Re:WTF is Sarah whatever ? by darkstar949 · 2012-10-04 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  Odds are you have heard her, but didn't know who it was a the time as she has been performing for a several decades now and has done some extremely high profile events.
  
  That said though, if she really did pay $51M for a ticket to space then there is a not insignificant chance that she is spending almost all of her fortune as it is only estimated to be around $52M.
3. Re:WTF is Sarah whatever ? by Thelasko · 2012-10-04 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with your sentiments, but the sad reality is that there's zero chance that you will sell 50,000 tickets at $150 a pop to any science fair or astrophysics lecture.
  That's why you charge $50,000 for 150 tickets!
  
  --
  One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
4. Re:WTF is Sarah whatever ? by incer · 2012-10-04 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's pretty simple: humans are a social species, and consequently those who manage to get at the top of the social pyramid are better off than the others. Human skills allow you to "use" other people to improve your position... If you can do a job very well, you can provide for yourself. If someone else is able to "use" your work for himself he can too, and can "use" multiple people's work as it requires less time than actual work, therefore multiplying his gain. That's how management works.
5. Re:WTF is Sarah whatever ? by dargaud · 2012-10-05 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I understand this social pyramid, but I fail to see why the people on top end up being singers or ball runners.
  
  --
  Non-Linux Penguins ?
mua ban xe oto gia re by nguyenanseo · 2012-10-03 17:43 · Score: 1

Maybe NASA should have planned ahead to make sure they'd have a launch vehicle to reach their expensive ISS? mua ban xe oto
Mod up! by ridgecritter · 2012-10-03 18:57 · Score: 1

Ignition is a fabulous read. I thought nobody else knew about it. Thanks.
Re:And The RICH win again by cheesybagel · 2012-10-03 19:55 · Score: 1

At least they are spending the money on something. If enough rich people did it there would be more flights by now.
so it has come to this by Torvac · 2012-10-03 22:29 · Score: 1

its bad enough that money with its the greed for profit influences the development of humanity. now rich people do it for fun, just because they can. there goes science.
Again a bad sumary... by DerekLyons · 2012-10-04 00:26 · Score: 4, Informative

Again, a bad summary... Sarah Brightman didn't "outbid" NASA, as they weren't in competition for the same seat. Nor did she "bump" a NASA astronaut from a bought-and-paid-for seat. She paid for a spare seat more than NASA does for it's scheduled seat, in the same way that someone who buys a ticket at the last minute pays more than someone who bought a ticket three months in advance.

So no, this is no indication that there are bidding wars on the horizon. Just more bad journalism and more bad summaries.
1. Re:Again a bad sumary... by RocketAcademy · 2012-10-04 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Source? You might be right -- likely are -- but it isn't a fact just because you say so, Derek. BTW, there are two M's in summary. Before you complain about bad journalism...
2. Re:Again a bad sumary... by strikethree · 2012-10-04 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  It is a shame that your comment is at the bottom of the page. Could have saved a LOT of heartbreak by a LOT of people.
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
3. Re:Again a bad sumary... by DerekLyons · 2012-10-04 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Read the article. I know it's hard work, and harder than making ignorant and snarky comments about spelling... But you could at least try to use your brain for something other than keeping your skull inflated.
4. Re:Again a bad sumary... by Algae_94 · 2012-10-04 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  This is awesome! I think /. has just jumped the shark for me. Finally a [citation needed] has the citation as TFA itself! Of course it's still not a fact because it's in the article, but it is the entire reason this page of comments exists.
whatchoo talkin' about Willis?! by Thud457 · 2012-10-04 02:39 · Score: 1

The number of manned space stations launched by the USA alone is 1, the number by Russia/USSR is 7, and China 1 (so far)
[ say what?! ]

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:whatchoo talkin' about Willis?! by colmmcsky · 2012-10-04 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong-1
Brightman by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · 2012-10-04 02:45 · Score: 1

Will she sing a sendoff song? "time to say goodbye"
I think I just had an aneurism by Thud457 · 2012-10-04 02:52 · Score: 1

to think that somehow the US deserves seats on the Soyuz because we helped build the ISS.
You didn't build that.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:I think I just had an aneurism by farble1670 · 2012-10-05 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  i stand corrected. we just paid for it. i guess funding as much as all other contributors put together doesn't count as "building" though.
  U.S.: $100 billion
  Europe: $14 billion
  Japan: $10 billion
  Russia: Unknown (but estimated to be $40-50 billion)
  Canada: $2 billion
re: modern society and priorities by King_TJ · 2012-10-04 03:57 · Score: 1

Obviously so, but let's be fair here.... Even the most intelligent, geeky, and interested in learning wants to be entertained regularly as "downtime". It's not really healthy or ultimately even possible to be "on" 24/7, trying to learn complex new things.
So yes, entertainment generates vastly more income than educational lectures or science fairs. I'm just pointing out that maybe that's actually an okay thing -- not something to complain about as reflecting poorly on the nation?
How much is she paying NASA... by braindrainbahrain · 2012-10-04 04:15 · Score: 1

...to host her on the ISS?