The usual whining, whingeing Socialist sorts are answering a poll on CNN's 'Question Of The Day' -- If you could afford it, would you be a Space Tourist?Somebody answered; "Terrific! They've now invented the Ultimate SUV (Soyuz??) for rich people to create pollution and waste money".And several others, implying Charles Simonyi's trip to ISS is an immoral waste of money while there are starving and dying in Africa, and that he ought to be ashamed of himself etc, etc.Give me a gold-plated, bloody BREAK!!!I urge you guys reading this to bombard CNN with an alternative view to the moaners:
[email protected]
But it'll probably only work today, so get typing!!!
Too much is being made about the cost of Mr Simonyi's trip to space: It's HIS money, end of story!! Where do these whiners get off??!! Some people are using this as an excuse to bash wealthy people yet again. It's jealousy or over-the-top liberalism, you choose. Mr Simonyi has given millions to charity, give him a break!Are we going to criticize well-to-do people for visiting Antarctica or climbing Mount Everest, too? Their tourist trips create jobs. Mr Simonyi's fee is putting food on the tables of Russian Federation people, especially poor Kazakhstanis.His space trip is not taking ANY food from a starving person's mouth; to say that is wrong-thinking. I would rather live in a world that had poverty BUT we were reaching for the stars than a world with poverty and... Nothing else.No stars, no reaching upwards.Mr Simonyi's trip and his blog is inspiring many young children, who Simonyi has said have asked many intelligent questions. The kids are the future, not whining, weasel-worded woofters who bash any pastime. Next thing you know, those of us who have saved hard to go on an overseas trips will be picketed and spat-on at airports by extreme 'greenies', for daring to create a 'carbon footprint' (buzzwords) just for going on holiday!!! Don't think so? Wait for it...Pass me a bucket!
DMeader - 8/4/2007 10:39 PMI have to wonder, tho, if that is the best possible use of a vacant seat on that spacecraft.
DMeader - 8/4/2007 7:39 AMI have to wonder, tho, if that is the best possible use of a vacant seat on that spacecraft.
ccappy - 8/4/2007 9:29 PM1. I don't wish to chew old hat here, but you can bet that the recent scandal involving NASA astronauts had an impact on budget discussions and allocations behind closed doors in the House and Senate.2. NASA would have been well served to have considered a program of open applications from a diverse pool of Americans who would have been interested in a shot at a shuttle flight; they should have drawn from a large cross-segment of society in terms of education and careers.
MATTBLAK - 8/4/2007 6:56 AMQuoteDMeader - 8/4/2007 10:39 PMI have to wonder, tho, if that is the best possible use of a vacant seat on that spacecraft.You can bet that once the station is up to a crew of 6 capability (2009-ish), ESA and Japan are going to start demanding their long-delayed seats, especially when Shuttle stops flying and Soyuz is the only way there for 4-6 years. :frown:
sammie - 8/4/2007 8:16 PM1/7th is a hyperbole, but OK, nevermind.
MATTBLAK - 7/4/2007 8:37 PMI would rather live in a world that had poverty BUT we were reaching for the stars than a world with poverty and...
ccappy - 8/4/2007 10:36 PM Gee, we gave seats to a Saudi prince and 2 legislators (amongst others); what's wrong with a reasonably intelligent individual who just doesn't happen to have 5 years committed to NASA?
mr.columbus - 9/4/2007 8:01 PMQuoteMATTBLAK - 7/4/2007 8:37 PMI would rather live in a world that had poverty BUT we were reaching for the stars than a world with poverty and... While I cannot agree with that statement at all, it is true that people who criticise Simonyi are on the wrong track. The 20 million that he pays for his trip to the ISS pays, as you mentioned, for jobs at Energia and Krunishev and at Roskosmos (however not so much for people in Kazakhstan). It is no more or less "morally correct" than buying a villa in California, 3 ferraris and a yacht.Oh and by the way, I don't think people who criticise Simonyi are adhearing to liberalism (or social liberalism, which I assume you are referring to) as you suggest. If they were, they would not criticise Simonyi (because social liberals believe in individual freedom as a central objective), but the system that provides him with 20 million for his trip in the first place WHILE not providing for basic needs (food, education, housing, medical support, etc.) for all people in the world.
MATTBLAK - 9/4/2007 8:01 AMQuotemr.columbus - 9/4/2007 8:01 PMQuoteMATTBLAK - 7/4/2007 8:37 PMI would rather live in a world that had poverty BUT we were reaching for the stars than a world with poverty and... While I cannot agree with that statement at all, it is true that people who criticise Simonyi are on the wrong track. The 20 million that he pays for his trip to the ISS pays, as you mentioned, for jobs at Energia and Krunishev and at Roskosmos (however not so much for people in Kazakhstan). It is no more or less "morally correct" than buying a villa in California, 3 ferraris and a yacht.Oh and by the way, I don't think people who criticise Simonyi are adhearing to liberalism (or social liberalism, which I assume you are referring to) as you suggest. If they were, they would not criticise Simonyi (because social liberals believe in individual freedom as a central objective), but the system that provides him with 20 million for his trip in the first place WHILE not providing for basic needs (food, education, housing, medical support, etc.) for all people in the world.Let me clarify -- you might have missed my context, which I tried to not be verbose -- Eliminating poverty is one of the hardest things we will ever do in this world, but I REALLY hope we achieve it in my lifetime... Just like everyone else who probably hoped to in their lifetimes, too... But we wont eliminate poverty and disease by eliminating manned spaceflight, the passtime and profession that gives technical and inspirational benefits far and away beyond it's intitial dollar outlay. Even the largest space budget in the world - Nasa; is less than 0.6 percent of the U.S. GDP. So add on all the other countries space budgets too and it still add up to zip in the larger scheme of things. Space is picked on with knee-jerk, unthinking comments and wasted energy that says things like "How can they waste money on space when there are people starving etc, etc". Is that the best these naysayers can so? And we let them get away with it, unanswered? Space is a soft target and perhaps is not being defended enough. Maybe people like me are a, er... 'Space Warrior?' Er... Whatever...'Waste of money' is always contextual. Just think of how many starving could be fed with the money that, cumulatively, came from warfare, narcotics, porn, gambling, tobacco, junk food and really, really crappy movies!! Why, just the other day, I saw on the news footage of an 'old' hotel complex being detonated and demolished in Las Vegas to make way for a new $6.5 billion Hotel/Casino/Conference facility? Do they really need that, while so much of New Orleans still remains destroyed and damaged and so many people homeless? I realise that it's likely to be private investor money in that new complex, nothing to do with New Orleans and the surrounding areas, but isn't the principal the same? Why don't the people attacking space going after giant 'extravagances' like new Casinos etc? Why is Space always being picked on in the media and it's Q & A's?And finally, maybe we've actually been referring to a brand of Libertarians?
Jim - 9/4/2007 10:24 PMQuoteccappy - 8/4/2007 10:36 PMGee, we gave seats to a Saudi prince and 2 legislators (amongst others); what's wrong with a reasonably intelligent individual who just doesn't happen to have 5 years committed to NASA?That was before Challenger. Hasn't been the same environment since then
ccappy - 8/4/2007 10:36 PMGee, we gave seats to a Saudi prince and 2 legislators (amongst others); what's wrong with a reasonably intelligent individual who just doesn't happen to have 5 years committed to NASA?
Thanks, MrColumbus! I enjoy most of the exchanges on this amazing forum and together, maybe we can all make a difference. Still, if Dr. Jeff Bell, 'recovering space activist' were reading this exchange, he might roll his eyes and sigh; "Oh, those Space Cadets!"
(Where are you, Jeff? You've been quiet out there, man...)Well, I guess I'm recovering, too. But only a bit. I will NEVER stop caring about this subject, even though my participation may wax and wane over the coming years.Speaking of which, it's after Midnight down here and I've just got to get to bed.G'night, all!!
astrobrian - 9/4/2007 4:24 PMI know if I had 25 million under a pillow somewhere I'd be trying to go up to the ISS too
Duff - 10/4/2007 8:55 AMmmmmmmmmmmmlets see now do I give 20 million to Russia for a great trip into space and to the ISS, and the money in the end going to new projects, help keep the Russian space agengy going in which keeps thousands of people employed, and paying there way and enjoying a good lifeorgive to a Africa which has corrupt goverments and buisnessman , always at war, rich in oil reserves and minerals, has good soil and water yet there people are struggling. What ever money sent will be taxed, every dodgy buisnessman will take there share out of it, money will be sent to overseas accounts, used for wars, and in the end a small token of it will buy some food.Yes I know where I would want my hard earned 20 million to go too.Duff
ccappy - 8/4/2007 8:29 PMHere's the issue, as I see it (IMHO) ... The problem here is that many Americans now see space travel not just something that the government does, but also that which can be attained by only the very rich (or, at least, those with a nice amount of disposable income).SNIPAs for sub-orbital ventures, it's going to take $ 250,000 at least to "get on the bus" and try to live the dream of space travel - this is a sum of money that few people have as a reserve, and thus, again becomes an elitist venture that disenfranchises a large majority of the taxpaying American public from the U.S. space program.
Gene DiGennaro - 10/4/2007 9:54 AMQuoteccappy - 8/4/2007 8:29 PMHere's the issue, as I see it (IMHO) ... The problem here is that many Americans now see space travel not just something that the government does, but also that which can be attained by only the very rich (or, at least, those with a nice amount of disposable income).SNIPAs for sub-orbital ventures, it's going to take $ 250,000 at least to "get on the bus" and try to live the dream of space travel - this is a sum of money that few people have as a reserve, and thus, again becomes an elitist venture that disenfranchises a large majority of the taxpaying American public from the U.S. space program. However, think back only 40-50 years when jet travel was new. Remember the term "Jet Set"? Elites travelled by jet back then especially on Trans-Cons . Average "Joes" couldn't afford it. It took the jumbo jet to make international air travel affordable. Now think back 60 years, only the elitle travelled by air. Along a came a plane called the DC3 and more people flew. Go back nearly 100 years to the golden age of passenger rail travel. The average "Joe" did not ride in those posh parlor and pullman cars. There was a reason why they were called "Limiteds". Average "Joe" rode in old open wooden coaches.Space tourism is in the "Jet Set" or "Limited" age. Wealthy elites will go there at first. Then there will be people who must go into orbit because their job requires it. As space tourism courts this kind of "business traveller", it will become more affordable. Finally in time flying into space won't be any different than taking the family to the airport for a flight to Disneyworld. Space tourism will eventually have its DC3 or its 747, it's just too early now. As for guilt over spending one's own money, I didn't feel any when I dropped 4500 dollars to take my family to vacation in Disneyworld. Why should this be any different?Gene
ccappy - 8/4/2007 8:29 PMAs for sub-orbital ventures, it's going to take $ 250,000 at least to "get on the bus" and try to live the dream of space travel - this is a sum of money that few people have as a reserve, and thus, again becomes an elitist venture that disenfranchises a large majority of the taxpaying American public from the U.S. space program.
I don't wish to chew old hat here, but you can bet that the recent scandal involving NASA astronauts had an impact on budget discussions and allocations behind closed doors in the House and Senate.