Celebrities in space?

Teresa, SF Bay Area, CA — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:56:28 GMT

I wish it were easier for people that are truly interested in space exploration to go. It seems such a waste to have a celebrity who is most likely taking the trip for the joy ride factor. (I guess I would take the trip too, if I could afford it.) But most people don't even realize that there are humans living in space 24/7 as it is. I wonder how many celebrities pay any attention?

Celebrities in space?

Dennis McClain-Furmanski — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:04:53 GMT

Like many other space exploration devotee purists, I publicly decry the attention given to people made famous because of other public exposure, such as movie stars, or financial status, such as the very rich. They don't fit with our idea of "real" space people. However, I am coming to accept that the media attention, although based on a distinction completely outside space exploration, provides the positive public relations we need for space exploration to proceed in the hands of the people most likely to accomplish it -- those who can make it pay. It's this bottom line that we've long accepted, even though it was previously framed in terms of research results and manufacturing that can't be done on Earth, that is changing my mind. That, and the realization that I could, given the money, put together an equivalent to "The Astronaut Farmer" project using semi-off-the-shelf (made to order, but based on manufacturer's pre-published standards) and regularly commercially available new (not salvaged) equipment, and hiring minimal consultant expertise. A person could potentially earn their astronauts wings on a hobby. In thinking how I might be able to accomplish this, I came to realize that I'd gladly paint a large logo on my rocket, and make an announcement at apogee which amounted to a commercial, in order to have a company that can afford it provide me with the funds to acheive my dream. In the mean time, flying celebrities not only makes financial sense to those who've entered the commercial space market, it brings public light to bear on the dreams we've kept since watching Neil and Buzz (or Yuri and Al, for the real old timers). With more public acceptance, more will enter the field, and more chances will be available to all, at lower prices once competition can take hold. As for me, I'm still considering my grand project as a commercial (in the advertising sense) venture, as it will probably be the only way I will ever be able to make it outside earth's atmosphere, much less to orbit. Is it selling out, or buying in? Ask me whan I'm over 100 kilometers, and my "one small step" message back to Earth is something along the lines of "Can you hear me now? Good."

Celebrities in space?

Gaetano Marano - Italy — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:50:29 GMT

.

I feel that Bill thinks/prefers to fly (soon) on the AirForceOne rather than on the SpaceShipOne... ;)

.

Celebrities in space?

Jennifer Wilson, Maineville, OH — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:00:58 GMT

Allowing people who can pay is a good way to draw attention and to gain funds for space programs. It is a shame though, that some people who would dream of such an experience might never get the chance. It takes a lot of hard work, dedication, and experience to become an astronaut. We are still learning so much about our atmosphere. Sending inadequately trained and inexperienced people into space I believe is irresponsible. There are so many variables that we do not yet fully understand. We are playing with spontaneous situations. Having a person pay for a seat into outer space is a good idea for keeping space exploration going. However, once the market gets competitive the reason for exploration will be lost and the people who are drawn to the field will not be sincere. Space exploration will become nothing more than a recreational activity for those who an afford it.

Celebrities in space?

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:13:31 GMT

It's no secret that Shatner doesn't like to fly. He explicitly said that the nervous guy who saw a gremlin on the wing in a Twilight Zone episode, is much closer to the real him, than James Kirk.

The press would have been good if he had, but I'm surprised he showed any interest at all...

(I hear Sigourney Weaver's on the list of those wanting to literally 'go ballistic,' however...)

Celebrities in space?

Aaron Oesterle Mason Mi — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:47:13 GMT

Jennifer - we aren't (or at least shouldn't be) sending people into space for exploration (whether its from Nasa or private industry) - we are sending them into space for colonization. As such, we need to bring the difficulties of space travel down to the point that the average person can tap into it as well (both cost wise, as well as training wise). Now, thats not to say that the pilots and crew don't need training - pilot get extensive training before being able to pilot a plane - the same thing will apply to private spaceflight. As for not fully understanding the variables, the same was true when we started going into space to begin with, and they were no more true then than they are now - Of course prudent safety are a necissity, but to say there are too many variables to make it practical ignores history.

Celebrities in space?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:49:35 GMT

Jennifer, do note that no one is calling this 'exploration.' Nor will it fund any real exploring, except to the extent that these companies pay taxes on income, like anyone else, and thereby pay for any government sposored research. (increasing the tax base is a good thing in itself, though) Cruise ships don't support or demean that which ocenographic ships do. In principle, this is the same. What we need to do is get away from the idea that space (which is, after all, the entire Universe, other than inside Earth's atmosphere) *only* belongs to scientists. That's no more true than it is of the sea or air, either.

And in any case, we know all we really need to know about how the human body responds to suborbital space flight, and even extended stays in low Earth orbit. It'll be a while before tourism is an issue any farther than that (even though there is talk of circumlunar flights if you've got US$100 million to spend...)

To Gaetano: Being president of the US is, among other things, a government job that pays (only) about $400,000 per year...why should Bill take a pay cut? :)

Celebrities in space?

Jon, Ygn., OH — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:07:17 GMT

There is no exploration going on in space. That is no exploration with human crewed missions. Going around the Earth over and over is not exploration.

In fact it is high time we as a nation have a real discussion as to what it is we are trying to do in space.

The need for sending people into space has long since past. We have now come full circle. Nasa now wants to redo Apollo, forty years later. Sigh! The fact is we are out of ideas when it comes to manned space flight. Go back to the Moon. Why? Build a colony on Mars. For what purpose?

Astronauts are a burden to the space program. They long ago outlived their usefulness.

The future of space exploration is robots not spacesuits.

The next president elected(whoever that is), will cancel, the Vision for Space. As the ISS should have been, fifteen years ago. Along with the Shuttle too.

Sorry to be so blunt. However someone needs to to slap the space cadets in the face(figuratively speaking of course) This nation can ill afford more piloted missions in space.

So, let us end the manned program, and get on with real space exploration.

Celebrities in space?

Gaetano Marano - Italy — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:43:20 GMT

.

Frank,

you know that ALL politics of ALL countries never want of being deputy, senator, minister, secretary, president, etc. for a good salary but (exactly) for the "other things" you quote ...power, prestige, ideology, business, women... (the former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in an interview that "power is the best existing aphrodisiac"... :)

a few weeks ago I've seen the documentary movie "The Fog of War" about the life of the former US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that accepted his (hard and controversial) role in the Kennedy government while he was a top executive at the Ford Motor Company and one of the best paid managers of the world (losing a multimillion$ salary)

so, if Mr. Gates will run for President, surely it will be not for money... and the low presidential salary will be not a problem for him... :)

.

Celebrities in space?

Gaetano Marano - Italy — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:03:17 GMT

.

Jon,

it's true that all manned space programs are not "absolutely necessary", but...

1. "explore" (everything and everywhere) is part of the human nature (this is the reason why we don't life in caverns to-day)

2. the space exploration needs the best (and many brand new) technologies often used in everyday products (with great advantages for our life)

3. great part of the future spaceflights to LEO or Moon (and, maybe, "Mars and beyond") will be private and commercial (for tourism, research, business, mining, energy sources, etc.) and I think that everyone can go where he want (paying the travel with his own money)

4. the US Air Force have started new research to evaluate the launch of giant solar panels to LEO as energy sources for the earth since to-day's (low cost, low weight, high efficiency) solar cells may allow to build orbital power plants (simply) impossible just two decades ago

.

Celebrities in space?

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:43:23 GMT

Jon, never forget that there are people who aren't interested in spending money on *any* space exploration. That a given mission might (at least the way NASA does it...don't assume that to be a law of physics) be done for 1/10th the cost unmanned, won't impress them.

And as long as the speed of light limits communications (currently, that IS a law of physics), and AI doesn't approach human capability, there will be a need for humans in space.

Oh, and some people want to go, just for the experience. That's tourism. And it spends only its own dime. Let it. Even 'space cadets' believe in capitalism. Strangely, the Russians learned to, when they sell an empty Soyuz seat, and there *are* takers. One, even as I write.

Celebrities in space?

Aaron Oesterle, Ann Arbor, Mi — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:55:09 GMT

Frank, that's somewhat debatable that it's not exploring - we have this image that space exploration = space science. However, that point is debatable - exploration is not merely what can we find out from a scientific standpoint, but there is also exploration that is about, for lack of a better phrase, the human spirit. A painter is by no means a variation on being a scientist, and yet, their expressions explore an aspect of what it means to be human - whether we find that expression in the Mona Lisa, or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or any other painting.

And the same is true of many other human expressions. So this idea of exploration = science, I think, can be seen as somewhat of a false dichotomy.

That said, I also don't think the idea of sending 200 painters to the moon is necessarily what makes sense for society. However, at that point, I'd argue that what we really want is colonization, since that will allow for tangeble benefits to society (like access to off planet resources, such as minerals and energy) and yet will also allow for human expression of which we haven't seen.

Celebrities in space?

Jennifer Wilson Maineville, OH — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:55:20 GMT

Whether we send people or robots into space for research purposes, there is still much out there to be explained. Scientists are highly trained in gathering and analyzing delicate information. Once information is obtained it is shared with the rest of the world so that people can have a better understanding of our universe. I am not saying that the spontaneous situations lie within the human body and how it reacts to outer space, it lies in parts of the universe we have not explored yet. Sending robots and other mechanical devices into space is a good way to obtain information; however, robots can not react to spontaneous situations unless programmed for that specific instance, and it wouldn’t be considered spontaneous if we could prepare for it. This is why it is still necessary to send astronauts. Millions of people still wonder what is out there, are other planets really habitable for the humans race. This is what scientists are looking at and sending people in space shuttles out for a joy ride can ultimately in overtly damage any evidence that could come our way and be used to answer such questions. Colonization is far from happening. We are still exploring and need more concrete evidence before we can even think about putting untrained human beings into space to live. For the safety of those going into space and research that is being done, it is just not a good idea.

Celebrities in space?

Aaron Oesterle, Ann Arbor, Mi — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:03:21 GMT

Frank and Gaetano,

Jon isn't really interested in debating manned spaceflight - he's against it, and while he says he is simply skeptical about it becoming cheap, the fact is that it's not skepticism, but it's belief that manned spaceflight MUST always be dangerous and expesive. See the comments at http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/05/79389.aspx and you'll see what I am talking about.

Celebrities in space?

Frank Glover, Rochester NY — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:55:32 GMT

Aaron, my point is that people will go into space for as many reasons as they go to sea. Someone on a cruise ship doesn't assume at all to be doing exploration (though he might visit an area where exploration and/or research is being carried out...I know someone who did Antarctic tourism, and saw, though did not take part in, the science being done there. Those who pay to spend time on ISS via the Russians, are doing much the same thing, but would be just as content with a space station designed expresssly for that purpose...and it may be 'exploration' in the sense of going somewhere *you* have never gone before, but I don't want to strain the definition of the word too greatly. Never having been there, I could 'explore' the beaches of Hawaii (even if millions since James Cook have already done so).

Not every human who goes beyond the atmosphere will do so for basic research reasons (and that's fine...again, the Universe doesn't just belong to scientists), but just as a cruise ship and an oceanographic vessel will have many engineering aspects in common, developing better transportation to LEO will benefit everyone who will go there, regardless of their reasons.

That's what we really need to concentrate on. Once there, the Universe is big enough for whatever you may have in mind. If 200 painters can afford the ticket, and believe they'll find some insight in it, they don't *have* to justify it to me or the rest of society. I want to see that 'ticket price' become as low as practical. As on Earth, the initial explorers (yes, in many cases, some of them will be robotic...at first*) will be on the outer edge, but others will ultimately follow.

(* Though in the case of some asteroids or small moons, it's not hard to imagine the *very* first human artifact to touch them being a human spacesuit boot...not everything will require extensive remote analysis first, espically as experience is gained elsewhere)

Celebrities in space?

Aaron Oesterle, Ann Arbor, Mi — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:12:20 GMT

Frank,

I think we agree on most everything. I guess what I am trying to drive towards is for people to use a word that is more descriptive than exploration. As I said, much of the time, we've made this equation of space exploration = space science. But then we'll talk about exploration when we talk about base founding, as well as other things. I feel we serve each other better when we say "space science", "space tourism", etc. And when we are truely talking broadly about space and spaceflight, we then can use words like manned spaceflight, space development, and space colonization.

In essence, on some level, this is merely a semantic debate. However, there is the old point of words having power.

Celebrities in space?

Jon, Ygn., OH — Mon, 07 May 2007 19:02:40 GMT

If we insist on sending humans beyond the atmosphere, we will end up with no space program.

The manned space flight program is going to bankrupt the entire effort.

There are signs everwhere that this is the case. Talk to any KSC worker, and you will hear the growing pessimism around Nasa.

The funding is just not there. We cannot afford human crewed flights anymore. We can however explore the solar system with much less expensive robotic probes.

And that is what should be doing.

Trying to relive the glory of the Apollo era is just foolish.

Manned space travel is hideously expensive. We get little in return, and it is dangerous.

As for the private sector space program, space tourism etc. They are a joke. They have nowhere near the funding needed to be viable.

These are the hard facts. Time will show them to be true.

Celebrities in space?

Mario, Miami, FL — Fri, 25 May 2007 22:17:28 GMT

all celebrities should be blasted into outerspace--without oxygen!