Bad Astronomy got all upset. When an Russian hit a golf ball off of the space station. NASA Turns It's nose up at the Russians selling rides to the station < only to people that completed the training program>
All this Helps keep the Russian space program alive and funded. I think it's a great way to fund science and space program. Look how much Tang. Made off the space program in the first years. How much do you think <Coke, Pepsi,
Ford,etc> would pay to put their logo on the Shuttle Fuel Tank.
How many Mission that are now in the planning. But may never go past the planning. Only because there is no funding.
How many mission could be funded by selling off the right to put an logo on the shuttle fuel tank.

I also dont understand why the American press and NASA seem to look down on Russia for incorporating advertising and paying tourists into their program.

Seems bizzarely hypocritical since America was so against communism.

As long as NASA refuses to do advertising, it helps boost Russias advertising revenue. Maybe it's a kind of space foreign aid?

So the dirty comments are just part of their gracious plan?

yea, perhaps mcdonalds could fund the millitary too.
fatten up school kids to fund a patriot missile, makes great sense.

Exactly. They get to feel righteous and the Russians get to make money. Everyone benefits.

They could sell ad space on soldiers' uniforms. It would serve as camouflage since advertisements are everywhere else.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

I'm opposed to space tourism because we can't get enough qualified scientists up there, and taking one of them out so someone who just happens to have a lot of money can go instead strikes me as a bad idea.

As to advertising, maybe we can run it a la PBS--this space shuttle was brought to you by Pepsi, Barnes & Noble, and taxpayers like you?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

How about if each space tourist paid enough to send two scientists?

But I wouldn't really worry. The scientific papers written on discoveries made by humans in space are very few. Machines that send infomation to earth by themselves seem to be where they scientific payoff is. Put the number of papers resulting from human performed experiments in space in one hand and papers resulting from the use of the Hubble telescope alone in the other. I imagine the weight difference would be quite large. If each space tourist paid for a hunk of machinery to be put in space science would probably come out far ahead.

Searching using the advanced Google scholar rotion on "Apollo" and "lunar", "Space Shuttle", "International space station", "Mir space station", spacelab", "Skylab" and " Salyut" reveal more than 7000, 11,000, 7000, 5,000, 6000, and 1,000 papers respectively.

Even allowing for news and policy items being included in this list, and overlap between some categories, it is patently obvious that there have been 10's of thousands of scientific papers due to human space flight. It is utterly untrue say otherwise.

Jon

I have obviously been talking about something I know nothing about. My apologies.

Could I bother you to ask for a few quick examples of disoveries made by humans in space beside medical studies and Apollo? I am drawing a blank.

No worries! Just some random examples....

Solar astronomy on Skylab was a major advance in our understanding of the sun, especially in the X-ray wayelengths, but also in UV and visible light. The station also gave the first clear pictures of coronal mass ejections.

The SRTM mission (STS-99) provided the best digital elevation model of the whole Earth currentlyavailable (3 and 1 arc second resultion). The group I work for uses SRTM data on a daily basis. It is invaluable for catchment modelling, groundwater studies, geohazard prediction, mineral exploration, netoectonics, geomorphology, soil science and conservation planning, etc. In terms of immediate practical applications, This must rate as one of the most effective space missions ever.

There has been a lot of materials research as well that has, I believe generated some interesting results. They include: critical point phase change behaviour, formation of homogenous alloys, colloidal behaviours and polymer precipitation, coatings studies for materials resistant to heat, light, high energy radiation, oxygen plasma, etc., and studies of surface crystallization. These were carried out on Spacelab, Mir, and Salyut, as well as the ISS.

Likewise on these missions there has been important studies of the behaviour of liquids and gases in zero G, including experimental verification of plume physics and model development , capillary flow, combustion, and crystal growth. The research required on the spot supervision and operation and, while hardly glamorous is very useful for the developments of improved design, construction, and operation of all spacecraft, whether manned and unmanned, and their components.

Jon

Thanks. I remember the solar observatory on Skylab now, and pictures of ancient river beds beneath the Sahara from a shuttle mission.

Hmm... to address the OP; I think NASA is probably worried about more than just funding. As soon as you start taking money from one group, you have to start modifying your goals to include thier interests. They probably prefer to stay "pure". Just guessing, it's not like I secretly work for NASA...

...yeah, like i said, i don't secretly work for NASA. I sell insurance. And don't flame me with reasons why the above way of thinking is stupid or wrong, i'm not saying i agree or disagree. just offering what thier point of view might be.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"

I was upset not that the Russian Space Agency is trying to make money-- if you read what I wrote, I said they should do that -- but that they were doing a dangerous stunt to make money.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

The Sahara rivers were imaged during the first Shuttle Imaging radar mission (SIR-A) back in 1981 (STS-2). The mission also discovered the network of Mayan irrigation channels in Guatemala. Later Shuttle radar missions before the SRTM the SIR-B and two SIR-C missions, I seem torecall there was German microwave radar on one of the Spacelab missions.

Jon

Go commercial
Go private
Go government
Go all possibles ways

But just go, now, today, and where is my boarding pass?

So OK I see only a few reason. Why Bad Astronomy and It's likes. Are against funding Astronomy and space missions from capitalist sources.
One was the danger. Well anyone going into space private person or NASA snob. "sorry" NASA scientist. should know well the risks.
An where the risk in putting an company logo on the shuttle tank. An getting large amounts of money that can pay for mission that other wise would never get off the ground.
the other major reason i see listed above. Is that a private person <one that paying his /her way. Would take a seat that could be used by a real sweetest.
My reply to that is. There has yet to be a shuttle mission. That carried the max number of people the shuttle is able to lift.

I was just looking over the load range of my Ford F-150. Oh I know I know, tie it together man. It's amazing how much load capacity you can gain by loosing two people. I would imagine that the number of people put into orbit is figured out by payload, duration, orbit and personal needed. Not just there are x amount of seats so fill em or take up a passenger.

OH come now Mclean, lets get real. Comparing an ford pick up to the space shuttle.O:-> LOL But funny as that maybe, your telling us that the shuttle is "alway" max out on it's lift compactly. or even most of the time.
Let ME ask this would you rather have an moon base name by a company, which help pay for the moon base or no moon base out side of the scfi.
also let me ask. Would you rather let some company name the first man mars ship. Or have no man mission to mars.

Tuero you seem to be consciously ignoring what the BA posted...why is that??

Why the "sorry"...you obviously meant what you posted or you wouldn't have posted it...

...so what do you mean by "snob"??