Author Topic: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...  (Read 7793 times)

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« on: 04/08/2007 12:37 am »

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!

"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline sammie

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 553
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #1 on: 04/08/2007 01:29 am »
This has just 'Atlas Shrugged' feeling to it, if you know what I mean. Time to show some support through CNN, thanks for the heads-up
"The dreams ain't broken downhere, they're just walking with a limp"

Offline Suzy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • RuSpace - my Russian spaceflight website!
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 187
RE: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #2 on: 04/08/2007 01:58 am »
Not all "Socialist sorts" oppose spaceflight!

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
RE: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #3 on: 04/08/2007 02:05 am »
Yeah, I know. But it's often neo-Marxists who complain about such 'capitalist wastes of money'. In my country, New Zealand, complaining is absolutely rife about most expensive undertakings of a business or professional sports variety.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline DMeader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #4 on: 04/08/2007 11:39 am »
I have to wonder, tho, if that is the best possible use of a vacant seat on that spacecraft.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #5 on: 04/08/2007 11:56 am »
Quote
DMeader - 8/4/2007  10:39 PM

I 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:
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #6 on: 04/09/2007 12:05 am »
Quote
DMeader - 8/4/2007  7:39 AM
I have to wonder, tho, if that is the best possible use of a vacant seat on that spacecraft.
The price of that seat is something like 1/7th the total Russian space budget.  I wish they'd do it more often to spread costs around.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline sammie

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 553
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #7 on: 04/09/2007 12:16 am »
1/7th is a hyperbole, but OK, nevermind. I've spend some time going through the Q&A on Charles Simonyi's blog next to some great questions by kids there were questions about carbon footprint and whether its a good thing to spend $20mln on the flight. He answered them quite convincingly, but Im not sure if its going to convince the 'nay-sayers' .
"The dreams ain't broken downhere, they're just walking with a limp"

Offline Dana

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #8 on: 04/09/2007 01:06 am »
I've always wondered how much money the people who complain about such expenditures actually donate themselves to the causes they champion. "There are starving people in Africa!!!! HOW DARE YOU!!!" OK, sparky, exactly how much of your money do YOU donate every year? According to a lot of these folks, it sounds like they want everybody to give everything to the starving people. Yet here they themselves are, living in what the starving folks would no doubt consider absurd wealth, driving cars (or at least shelling out for mass transit), wearing suits, getting haircuts, buying computers, living in expensive cities, etc. IMO unless they donate it all to charity and live in cardboard air-conditioner boxes, walk everywhere and scrounge the woods for food, sacrificing all for others, they're a bunch of spoiled, whining hypocrites.

The fact is that a lot of the rich people they despise so much probably give TONS more money to the needy than they ever will.
"Don't play dumb with me! You're not as good at it as I am!"-Col. Flagg

"'Second Place' is just the first loser."-Bobby Allison

Offline ccappy

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #9 on: 04/09/2007 01:29 am »
Here'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).

Let's face it: Mr. Simonyi would NOT be aboard Soyuz tonight if he didn't have the $ 20 mil required by the Russians to help pay their bills; NASA has had to tolerate this unsavoury (tip of the hat to Chris Bergin here ) arrangement because NASA is retiring the shuttles in 2010, and will have only the Russians as a governmental entity to ferry astronauts and cargo to the ISS until at least 2015 (at this point, anyway).

As 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.

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. For example, they should have selected "Joe Blow" who is regularly employed as a reporter for the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, "Jane Doe" accountant from Miami, "Bill Jones" police officer from Phoenix, Arizona - you get the picture; train them in 6 months and have them be "guinea pigs" for medical experiments, or whatever. But, at least Americans would have felt connected to a space program that was less about elitism and more focused on including the average American. You may "pooh-pooh" this, but, if Sen. Jake Garn and Sen. (then Rep.) Bill Nelson could be turned around for space flight in short order, than a relatively intelligent citizen could have been expected to rise to the task, as well.

In conclusion - yes, HIS money, but at an ever-increasing cost of disenfranchising the American taxpayer, MANY who will never even see sub-orbital flight, much less a trip to ISS. Is it any wonder why NASA budgets are now in shrink mode, and target dates for Orion are already starting to slip by almost a year? I welcome reasoned comments and continuing debate on this very important topic.      

 :)

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #10 on: 04/09/2007 01:50 am »
ccappy, I don't see it. NASA packs every Shuttle flight and the Shuttles involve a lot of risk and skill to use. Putting people on them who displace astronauts and aren't sufficiently well-trained to stay out of the way. That just doesn't work. Instead, I see things going in a natural direction. We're going from no space tourism to tourism for only those who pony up ~$20 million (or whatever the cost actually is). That cost will continue to go down (in my humble opinion). We don't need NASA to dillute its efforts.
Karl Hallowell

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37446
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #11 on: 04/09/2007 02:02 am »
Quote
ccappy - 8/4/2007  9:29 PM

1.   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.

1.  It will have little if any impact.  do do happens.  The numbers (total number of astronauts) were going to catch up with them (starting to look like the general population).  Other select groups (Military officers, etc) are not free from human frailities.

2.  NASA did have this program and it was ended by Challenger, many Joe Blows did fly.  There wasn't enough room for guinea pigs since then.  Except John Glenn

Offline texas_space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 393
  • Ex Terra, Scientia
  • Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #12 on: 04/09/2007 02:11 am »
Quote
MATTBLAK - 8/4/2007  6:56 AM

Quote
DMeader - 8/4/2007  10:39 PM

I 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:

All the more reason for the Russians to sell Soyuz seats while they can.  While they are derided for doing so, the Russians are actually helping to start the space tourism industry.  Even if it is the uber-rich going, actually sending "tourists" (bad moniker IMO) inspires others (e.g. Rutan) to go out and pursue the market.  Eventually more people will fly.  Nobody flew on airplanes for travel at first either.  Yes, space is more complicated, but that just makes it all the more interesting.  :)
"We went to the moon nine times. Why fake it nine times, if we faked it?" - Charlie Duke

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #13 on: 04/09/2007 02:26 am »
I've never criticised them for flying 'tourists' on Soyuz, but I realise that the time to fly them from now on is finite. For U.S. ESA etc Astronauts to fly to ISS in sufficient quantities the number of Soyuz spacecraft & boosters will have to increase from 2 per year to 3 and, at least one extra Progress per year to help with logistics. All these spacecraft and boosters will have to be paid for by the U.S. & other partners.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline ccappy

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #14 on: 04/09/2007 02:36 am »
Jim and khallow:

Please don't misread what I am saying here ...

I don't believe that the recent astronaut scandal was THE cause of the NASA budget reduction, but it didn't help any, either.

Yes, the astronaut corps was starting to look a LITTLE more like the general population, but NOT by much; applicants were still required to attain a superhuman standard (not necessarily a bad thing if you're launching people into space) and commit to NASA for 5 years.

Even one average "John or Jane Doe" on each flight since Challenger and Colombia would have been, what? 80 people who would have normally not flown in space if not NASA astronauts? 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?

As for funding issues, Jim, I respect your position from one who seems to be involved in the business of launching rockets. As for me, I am a U.S. government employee (BTW, I do NOT speak for the USG or my employer here) who happens to be attuned to the public policy politique both in Washington and outside the Beltway. IMHO, based upon what I am hearing, the average American - with an Iraq war soaring into the HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars, other geopolitical uncertainties (e.g. Iran, North Korea and Syria, to name a few), gas prices up the wazoo, a collapsing housing market, illegal immigration costs and other maladies, ad nauseum - is NOT too interested in funding a program that does NOT have any apparent benefit in their daily lives other than the occassional pretty picture on the TV screen of a shuttle stack roaring to orbit. Yes, yes ... I know what the space program has given Americans and the world over the years, but MOST Americans are dumb, fat and happy - they want to make sure they have their cheeseburger, a cold beer, a Sunday football game and that the pay money is in the bank every 2 weeks - and that's all they know or want to know. The sight of seemingly elitist rocketeers making their way to the launchpad to a $ 2 billion vehicle at $ 500 mil a launch is getting real old, real fast when people see THEIR version of the American dream evaporating like that low interest rate they were promised and their jobs being outsourced to China or India.

Again, no disrespect here, it's just how I see and hear it. IMHO, support for NASA and the manned spaceflight program is eroding fast - NASA had better think of something to keep the average American interested, or I can see even more budget cuts and target dates for Constellation falling even further behind.

Offline texas_space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 393
  • Ex Terra, Scientia
  • Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #15 on: 04/09/2007 02:40 am »
Matt,
My comment about "tourists" wasn't aimed at you; that just seems to be the epithet that most of the press uses.   You're right though, the time for paying passengers is running out once the Shuttle retires and the Soyuz is the ONLY way to the ISS for people.
"We went to the moon nine times. Why fake it nine times, if we faked it?" - Charlie Duke

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #16 on: 04/09/2007 03:09 am »
Quote
sammie - 8/4/2007  8:16 PM
1/7th is a hyperbole, but OK, nevermind.
Thanks for calling me on that one.  Forced me to check my numbers.  $20M was 1/7th back when Tito flew.  Now the whole budget is $11B over 10 years.  So $20M is closer to noise now.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline sammie

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 553
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #17 on: 04/09/2007 03:21 am »
Antares, its extremly hard to determine the Russian Space budget. Here are a couple of complicating matters, first promised money rarely arrives in full and on time. Second, there are two budgets, one for military space applications and one for civil space applications, the military budget is shrouded in secrecy, which complicated matters. Because you don't know which sources is used for which end. Then there is the problem that 1mln rubles will buy you a lot less in 10 years then now. Of course there are also state companies that receive funding outside the state budget. If you could give me a link the 1/7th claim that would be great, Im always hunting for some evidence on Russia's real space budget

"The dreams ain't broken downhere, they're just walking with a limp"

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #18 on: 04/09/2007 08:20 am »
Sorry, ccappy I don't see the value. NASA isn't a space tourism operator. Keep in mind that your list of political space tourists includes John Glenn (and an unusual opportunity to fly someone well above the usual age limits), the other legislator, Senator Jake Garn flew in 1985 before the Challenger accident, and the Saudi prince was the official representative and payload specialist for an organization which deployed a satellite via te Shuttle.

My take is that the Shuttle would have been far better protected if it had been more useful, but I've talked about that before. Having said that, funding for NASA has remained pretty steady for decades despite your assertion that it is "eroding fast" and it appears to me to be remarkably well supported given what it actually does.
Karl Hallowell

Offline mr.columbus

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #19 on: 04/09/2007 09:01 am »
Quote
MATTBLAK - 7/4/2007  8:37 PM
I 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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37446
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #20 on: 04/09/2007 11:24 am »
Quote
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?

That was before Challenger.  Hasn't been the same environment since then

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
RE: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #21 on: 04/09/2007 12:01 pm »
Quote
mr.columbus - 9/4/2007 8:01 PM

Quote
MATTBLAK - 7/4/2007 8:37 PM
I 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 original context, which I tried to not be too 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... Er, 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 would 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 do? 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/you are, er... 'Space Warriors?'

Er... Whatever...

'Waste of money' should always be 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 all those really, really crappy movies!! Spaceflight budgets are nothing compared to all that. Why, just the other day, I saw 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 there are 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? Though on second thoughts, Libertarians probably wouldn't comment on Simonyi's right to spend his money as he sees fit! ;)
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline mr.columbus

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #22 on: 04/09/2007 12:11 pm »
Quote
MATTBLAK - 9/4/2007  8:01 AM

Quote
mr.columbus - 9/4/2007  8:01 PM

Quote
MATTBLAK - 7/4/2007  8:37 PM
I 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?  ;)

I agree on the above. I just wanted to make clear that (a) I did not agree on your statement of choosing space flight over eliminating poverty (even though this was just a theoretical choice) and (b) liberalism or social liberalism is not the ideology that people are adhering to, who criticise Simonyi personally of paying 20 million for a trip to the ISS.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #23 on: 04/09/2007 12:14 pm »
Quote
Jim - 9/4/2007 10:24 PM

Quote
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?

That was before Challenger. Hasn't been the same environment since then

CNN's Miles O'Brien revealed months ago that before the loss of Columbia, negotiations were going on that might have seen him fly on a Shuttle as the first American journalist in space. I e-mailed him to ask if that were true and he confirmed it!!
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
RE: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #24 on: 04/09/2007 12:22 pm »

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!! ;)

"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

  • Guest
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #25 on: 04/09/2007 03:10 pm »
While we're feeding all the starving children in Africa, let's tally up how much Americans spend every year to watch cars go round in a circle at NASCAR races.  Or how much is spent on American Idol.  Or Starbucks.  Or video games.  Or text messaging.  Or any of the other mindless things we blow our money on.  I say if someone wants to spend $25million to do what so very, very few have ever done, more power to them.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #26 on: 04/09/2007 07:23 pm »
To those critics of Simonyi paying for a trip to space, I'd just ask if they preferred he instead spent his $20-$25m buying a $15m mansion in S.California plus a private jet to commute between several homes. There's dozens of people (wealthy businessmen, actors, athletes, entertainers) who do things like that every year. Why aren't they constantly pitching a fit over those people, too?
Or is it just because it involves space travel? Sounds like shades of hypocrisy to me.

Offline astrobrian

  • NSF Photographer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2922
  • Austin Texas
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 112
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #27 on: 04/09/2007 09:24 pm »
I know if I had 25 million under a pillow somewhere I'd be trying to go up to the ISS too :)

Offline spaceflight101

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 230
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #28 on: 04/10/2007 01:07 am »
NASA simply has too much to do and so little time to do it in that there is no room for experimenting with the Homer Simpsons among us...not that anyone here wouldn't go if they asked them.

I've learned to filter out the naysayers, or the "nattering nabobs of negativity" as someone once said. Their viewpoint boils down to one word:

Jealousy.

They're jealous because (1) they don't have the money, and (2) you're not spending your money on them or their pet cause. So they sit there on the world stage and ask irrelevant questions about carbon footprints.
Sheesh! As Shatner once said, "Move out of your parent's basements and get a life!"

Once the STS is history, I'll have to wait for the Enterprise to come by to get into space. $25M won't get it done. At 6'4" and 250 lbs, Soyuz is not an option!

Not so long ago, Simonyl's people and mine were commonly referred to as "dumb Hunkies".
But not today...go, Charlie, go!

Offline texas_space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 393
  • Ex Terra, Scientia
  • Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #29 on: 04/10/2007 01:33 am »
Quote
astrobrian - 9/4/2007  4:24 PM

I know if I had 25 million under a pillow somewhere I'd be trying to go up to the ISS too :)

No kidding.  C'mon on Texas Lottery!
"We went to the moon nine times. Why fake it nine times, if we faked it?" - Charlie Duke

Offline E_ E_ H

  • Fascinated
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
  • Southampton, UK
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #30 on: 04/10/2007 10:30 am »
I don't want to offend anyone here, but why the hell should I, if I am a self made millionaire, give all my hard earned money to someone else? I am not a millionaire, of course. otherwise you'd be reading about me going to the ISS... Instead I go to work every sodding day and earn my money. I am fortunate that I live in a western democracy with a powerful economy, but with respect that is just the way the cookie crumbles. I do not make my money by bashing Africans round the head, or stealing their food off their table. I work, I earn, I buy food and what little is left I spend how I want to. I EARNED the right to do that. I do give to charity, but only what I can afford. I do not see why Simonyl should give his money to someone else any more than I should have to.
Ground control to Major Chris....

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #31 on: 04/10/2007 11:09 am »
You got it, mate! Your sentiments are certainly echoed by some and it doesn't mean we're mean and don't care about the poor.

Far. From. It.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Duff

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #32 on: 04/10/2007 01:55 pm »
mmmmmmmmmmm

lets 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 life

or

give 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

  • Guest
RE: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #33 on: 04/10/2007 02:15 pm »
Quote
Duff - 10/4/2007  8:55 AM

mmmmmmmmmmm

lets 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 life

or

give 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


mmmmm   - can I build a strawman that will make me feel better about some billionaire spending his money on a space vacation instead of helping the poor?

Let's see - I can overlook the corruption of the Russian oligarchy and harp on the pitfalls of an Africa in turmoil, ignoring all the good work done there by CARE, World Vision, Save the Children, et al...    yes, that makes me feel better.


This sort of argument is not even necessary.  A billionaire doesn't have to rob Peter to pay Paul.  I'm sure he is as extravagant in his charity as he is in his personal life.  Or one would hope, anyway.








Offline Gene DiGennaro

  • Armchair Astronaut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Baltimore, Md
    • Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 16
RE: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #34 on: 04/10/2007 02:54 pm »
Quote
ccappy - 8/4/2007  8:29 PM

Here'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).

SNIP

As 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

  • Guest
RE: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #35 on: 04/11/2007 01:32 am »
Quote
Gene DiGennaro - 10/4/2007  9:54 AM

Quote
ccappy - 8/4/2007  8:29 PM

Here'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).

SNIP

As 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

I saw a show the other night on the Hindenberg.  Only 25 passengers, and the cost of a one way ticket would buy a new car.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
RE: The Usual Suspects, Slamming Space Tourism...
« Reply #36 on: 04/11/2007 01:59 am »
Quote
ccappy - 8/4/2007  8:29 PM

As 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.

How can suborbital tourism "disenfranchise" the public? They were never "enfranchised" in the first place! What we are really seeing is that a small group of people are being "enfranchised" for the first time, and as the price goes down, more and more will be "enfranchised."

Quote
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.

I'd bet against it, and I'd win. Big time. The scandal had absolutely nothing to do with the budget. Anyone paying close enough attention to the budget situation saw this coming since last fall.
--
JRF
JRF

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1