×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

242 comments

More important... (1)

ChodaBoyUSA (2532764) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544271)

How the heck did she get that kind of money???

Re:More important... (3, Informative)

slackware 3.6 (2524328) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544347)

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/singers/sarah-brightman-net-worth/ [celebritynetworth.com]
It would seem she can't afford to go to space.

Re:More important... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41544401)

I don't see a date on that site, so who knows how accurate it really is. And it doesn't seem entirely unlikely that she might have a deal worked out with someone to help cover the costs (for future work/royalties/something else????)

Re:More important... (3, Interesting)

blackest_k (761565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544513)

times rich list she has around $52 million , her ex husband $1.2 billion. Maybe he is paying the bill.

Re:More important... (1)

magarity (164372) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545687)

$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.

Re:More important... (2)

NinjaTekNeeks (817385) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544351)

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"

Re:More important... (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544587)

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

Re:More important... (5, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544673)

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.

Re:More important... (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544725)

That might make sense if the Russian Freighter weren't booking these passengers into YOUR Vacation Home, and paying nothing for the privilege.

Re:More important... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41544889)

Here is a bold idea, build your own freighter. NASA has had plenty of time.

7 October 1958 Project Mercury approved.
15 December 1965 First docking in space with Gemini 6.
Time elapsed: 7 years and 69 days

26 August 2003 Columbia Accident Investigation Board released which required the decommissioning of the Space Shuttles.
~2017 CCDev program allows NASA to contract to send crews to the ISS
Time elapsed: ~14 years

~2019 Orion spacecraft becomes manrated (NASA regains the ability to send people into space without contracts)
Time elapsed: ~16 years

Re:More important... (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545219)

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.

Re:More important... (1)

farble1670 (803356) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544899)

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.

Re:More important... (3, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545459)

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.

Re:More important... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41544699)

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.

If NASA was smart, they would have had the replacement launch program ready by now. Instead, it will be another 5 years or so. NASA built most of a space station that they have no capability of getting people up to. Don't be angry at the Russians, be angry at the US government for having fucked up priorities and making stupid commitments.

Re:More important... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41545203)

Yeah... But NASA probably saw the irony if they were to complain about the commies using a free market to maximize their profits.

Re:More important... (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544353)

Remember to feel sorry for those poor starving artists when the RIAA hits you with a multi-million dollar lawsuit for downloading a CD.

Re:More important... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41544585)

No feel sorry for Sineo Frantelli instead. Never heard of him? Oh.

Re:More important... (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545473)

To be fair, I've never heard of "Sarah Brightman" either.

Re:More important... (1, Interesting)

rwa2 (4391) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545609)

She did the space opera in Fifth Element

Re:More important... (1, Offtopic)

rwa2 (4391) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545637)

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.

Re:More important... (1)

asdbffg (1902686) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544887)

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.

Re:More important... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545035)

Where did you learn that? The data I have disagrees [imgur.com]: 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?

Re:More important... (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545319)

Where did you learn that? The data I have disagrees [imgur.com]: 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.

Re:More important... (1)

Alien Being (18488) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544979)

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.

Re:More important... (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545057)

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.

Re:More important... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41545343)

The Russian rockets are using petrol now? Wow, they really are in hard times now!

Re:More important... (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545389)

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.

Re:More important... (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545665)

It doesn't have the punch of hydrogen

Yeah, the 7.65 million pounds of hydrogen powered peak thrust from the Saturn V rocket [youtube.com] was truly something to see. It was like nothing else either before or since.

Re:More important... (1)

Alien Being (18488) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545629)

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.

Re:More important... (1, Insightful)

sveinungkv (793083) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545275)

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?

Re:More important... (1)

multiben (1916126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545279)

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.

Re:More important... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41544627)

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.

Re:More important... (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544753)

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.

Re:More important... (1)

farble1670 (803356) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544925)

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?

Re:More important... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41544945)

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.

Re:More important... (2)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544863)

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'.

Re:More important... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41545053)

Or with $51 million dollars you could give everyone on the planet 7/10 of a cent. Or everyone in the U.S. about 16 cents.

Re:More important... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41544643)

How the heck did she get that kind of money???

By divorcing Andrew Lloyd Webber.

That purty mouth of hers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41544865)

...ain't just for singin', if ya know what I mean.

so hot! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41544273)

She, and that, are so hot!

Sounds like it came from The Onion (1)

maroberts (15852) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544295)

$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?

Re:Sounds like it came from The Onion (1)

SoCalChris (573049) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544491)

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?

Opera singer ? (1)

epSos-de (2741969) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544469)

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.

Re:Opera singer ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41544511)

No one will hear their screams. Muahahahaha!

Re:Opera singer ? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544589)

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.

Re:Opera singer ? (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544607)

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.

Re:Opera singer ? (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545579)

She's no Linda Eder [youtube.com] 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.

How the hell can you bump NASA? (1)

penglust (676005) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544529)

How the hell can you bump NASA from a space mission? What a fucked up world.

Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41544569)

And this is how the world is sold - not with a bang but with a bidding war.

Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? (1)

RocketAcademy (2708739) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544571)

NASA does not own space. They don't even own the International Space Station (note the name). They certainly don't own Soyuz.

Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41544595)

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.

Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? (1)

RocketAcademy (2708739) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544647)

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.

Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41544655)

1) The USSR decided to abandon it fairly early, i.e. some time around Stalin;

2) If it at first you don't succeed...

You might as well argue that capitalism has "failed" just because we haven't had it since limited liability corporations, let alone abandonment of the gold standard.

Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41544879)

Yeah, let's try the whole egalitarianism thing again. We have 7 billion people on Earth, we can afford to kill a few hundred million.

Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41545411)

I find it funny that people who say Socialism failed in the Soviet Union always seems to forget that Capitalism failed everywhere except a few countries.

Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41545229)

The need to spend money on military contractors outweighs the US's need for it's own space program.

Now that NASA is shut out of space it opens the way for corporations to lay claim to space assets.
"NASA can't do it. Please congress let us loose. If US corporations dont exploit the everything we can see those bad guys from will."

Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? (2)

farble1670 (803356) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544973)

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.

Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545103)

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.

Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? (1)

RocketAcademy (2708739) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545525)

ISS was not "built for science in the first place." It was built for foreign-policy reasons -- "midnight basketball for the Russians."

Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? (1)

Riddler Sensei (979333) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545137)

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.)

Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? (1)

RocketAcademy (2708739) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545497)

"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?

Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? (5, Insightful)

confused one (671304) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545191)

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.

Re:How the hell can you bump NASA? (5, Insightful)

Rik Rohl (1399705) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545215)

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?

In Soviet Russia... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41544573)

.... Capitalism Defeats America?

Re:In Soviet Russia... (4, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545225)

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.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41545539)

so true, and yet many still labor under the impression that capitalism is synonmous with democracy.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545667)

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**

Impossible. Her net worth is 45M. (1)

Mekkah (1651935) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544605)

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

Re:Impossible. Her net worth is 45M. (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544659)

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. (1)

Mekkah (1651935) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544689)

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.

Re:Impossible. Her net worth is 45M. (1)

RocketAcademy (2708739) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544797)

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.

thinking about this the wrong way... (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year and a half ago | (#41544733)

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.

Re:thinking about this the wrong way... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41545199)

Don't you get it? There is no "NASA seat" in the Soyouz. Seats cost $51million and NASA's just another customer.

Re:thinking about this the wrong way... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545233)

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?

Re:thinking about this the wrong way... (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545467)

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.

Re:thinking about this the wrong way... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545519)

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.

Re:thinking about this the wrong way... (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545547)

Not if the NASA/SpaceX relationship fully matures.

Re:thinking about this the wrong way... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545567)

Yes, hence the (yet). But I don't think RK looks that far ahead.

Re:thinking about this the wrong way... (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545623)

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.

Giving up on space (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41544861)

Hmmm.... so gutting NASA, getting out of manned space flight, and essentially planning to bum a ride off the Russians whenever we need to get to the ISS wasn't a good idea? Who would have thought....?

And The RICH win again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41545039)

So all this does is set the bar that ONLY the rich will obtain a seat to space and will take another 50-100yrs before the rest of us can actually get the twinkle in our eye to save for it.

Since when does Slashdot use adverbs in titles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41545147)

Shouldn't this state:

A) Singer Outbids NASA for Space Tourist's Seat!
B) Did A Singer Outbid NASA for Space Tourist's Seat?

I'm confused by the apparent professionalism by not using a (possibly) false statement or a tile which falls under Betteridge's Law.

Terrible article. (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545477)

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?

Np. 90% docking fee. (3, Insightful)

Maudib (223520) | about a year and a half ago | (#41545663)

Thats cool. Now lets talk about Nasa's new 90% tax on commercial docking commercial flights to ISS...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...