Captain Kirk is finally going into space for real. Along with 7000 other people. If those numbers are right, then that's about one and a half billion dollars in pledges. Not bad for a planned investment of a couple hundred million on Branson's part.

So much for the giggle factor about space tourism.

Here's one Enterprise captain who probably won't be going, though. And he spouts the usual idiocy:

In an interview with BBC World Service radio, Stewart said he backed unmanned missions such as Nasa's Mars rover Opportunity and the UK's Beagle 2 mission.

But he said he did not believe the human race was ready to begin thinking about beaming down on other planets.

"As I get older my unease at the time and the money that has to be spent on projects putting human beings back to the moon, and on to another planet, is so enormous," he said.

"And it would take up so many resources, which I personally feel should be directed at our own planet."

Interviewed by the World Update programme, he added: "Humankind has just not simply become sufficiently evolved to now leave this planet, take itself out to space and began establishing more of us out there.

"I would like to see us get this place right first before we have the arrogance to put significantly flawed civilisations out on to other planets - even though they may be utterly uninhabited."

I wonder when he'll think that we're sufficiently evolved? Perhaps after we've become socialists, as apparently the federation had become by the time of The Next Generation.

And once again it is proven that Kirk > Picard. :)

Shatner was at the first test flight of Spaceship One. No press junket, just a member of the audience.

Jon Acheson

And so much for the "there isn't a lot of interest in going to space" naysayers in the various sci.space groups.

[channeling Kirk]

"Stewwwwarrrrrt!!!"

I shake my head and wonder why. Picard may have been a better fictional captain than Kirk, but apparently Patrick the actor doesn't get it.

This has been Stewart's line about real space travel for a number of years. What do you expect from a Brit actor playing a French spaceman.

Rand,

To be fair, the article you brought up is about two years old. Back then the giggle factor was still alive and well, and all but the most well informed of us space nerds figured that the odds of them ever visiting space in their lifetime was effectively 0.

However, most people tend to change their minds over time when confronted with new experiences, data, etc. I'm sure that looking at things from a NASA-centric pre-SS1 worldview could easily give one the impression that human spaceflight is a waste of money and resources. It'd be interesting to see though what Stewart's opinions are now, now that a private company has made it into space on a fairly shoestring budget.

One shouldn't ridicule people who hadn't gotten it yet back when almost nobody else had either.

Yes, it was a couple years ago, but I've seen nothing to indicate that his mind has changed, nor have there been any events that might change them, given his mindset.

Why would he now think that space is no longer a waste of money, just because some rich people want to go?

Rand,

I did a quick google search, and apparently the comments you were quoting from Stewart (which weren't in the link you posted) were actually made earlier this year (back in February). So they were definitely a lot more recent than I had thought.

That said still, a lot has changed in the past six months in this field, and trotting out old stupidities to poke fun at someone at such a time just seems a little immature. Allow people time to change.

Well, actually, I did have the link, but due to an html typo, it wasn't showing up. It's there now.

I think the comments are fair game. When he retracts them, or shows some change of heart, I'll stop criticizing him, but I don't expect that to happen.

There are two problems with Stewart's bone headed statement. First, waiting to go into space until all of our problems are solved is saying that we will never go into space, as there will always be problems no matter how many we address. Second, solutions to some of the world's problems (energy shortages for example) lay beyond the Earth.

With an attitude like that - a variation on the old "we are too evil/stupid/rapacious to spread our terrible ways into space" meme - I doubt much of anything can change his mind. I was shocked he actually said it in the first place. Whatever else you may say about Star Trek, it stands for a generally optimistic future, with space development and exploration being a key factor. I would bet he ticked off a LOT of Star Trek fans. No doubt he received plenty of letters.

I hope Shatner makes it to space. It just feels right.

You folks might enjoy this. It's an indepth study of the orbital and sub-orbital Space Tourism markets; its from 2002 but it is still very timely and excellent. It used to be several thousands to purchase but now it is available for free: http://www.futron.com/pdf/SpaceTourismMarketStudy.pdf

Actually, I think Patrick Stewart's position is consistent with Jean-Luc Picard's. ST:TOS was a stunning pioneer in its day. Remember its peers were pedestrian fluff like "Lost In Space" and "Bonanza". TOS broke much new ground, including being the first space show that relegated gee-whiz hardware to the background, the first to use modern notions of sex and race job equality, the first "nation-building" use of a quasi-military force, first non-xenophobic portrayal of aliens, and so on and so forth. It took serious chances with the social mythology then prevailing in 1967.

On the other hand, ST:TNG was the product of a mature industry of spaceship fantasy media. It was conservative and broke little ground. It hewed very closely to the PC spirit of its day.

So I am not surprised that Shatner is a loose cannon adventurer and Stewart a well-behaved conservative (in the small "c" sense of the word) with all the proper opinions.

In terms of their ultimate space vehicles, it makes perfect sense. I believe Shatner -- and Jim Kirk -- would ride to space on top of an experimental patchwork of explosives, LEGOs and hope. I believe Stewart -- and Jean-Luc Picard -- would wait until the trip can be made
as safely and undramatically as an airplane trip.

Speaking of which, I wonder if Stewart feels the airplane should not have been developed. After all, in 1900 railroads and steamships were a perfectly sensible way to get about, and there were even worse social and environmental problems to solve than we have. If Stewart could send a time-machine message back to his great-grandparents' generation, I wonder if he would suggest they stop squandering resources on newfangled incredibly expensive travel machinery like aeroplanes and focus instead on the pressing social problems of the day?

And does he really believe that the world would be a better place now if they had?

You would think Shatner could get a better rate by shopping priceline!

Eh, maybe he was too busy learning his lines to think about what he was saying...I'm of the opinion that a big part of figuring out how to get this place right is going out there and spreading. What me mean by 'this place' is *where humans are*, and that's the key for me.

Cheers,
M@

I'm going to take an unpopular stand here.

IMHO...Space Science is best done by robots. Not because a robot is as good as a human, but because you can send a bucketload of robots (10? 100? 1000? 10,000?) for the cost of sending a human there and back. A human can do things a robot can't. But a thousand robots can do things a human can't.

Caveat: Without sending a man, you may only get the money for one robot, not 10, or 100, etc. Reversing the old saying, No Buck Rogers, No Bucks.

So we should abandon manned space, right? Er, no. We should stop pretending people are primarily there to do science, and emphasise settlement. The one aspect of space science that one human can do better than 10,000 robots is to find ways of living off-Earth. And should we learn how to do closed-cycle, or near-closed-cycle environments with high efficiency and feasible cost, that will do wonders for the environment down here.

That's why I prefer a "Moon First" approach, rather than going off to Mars. Given a choice between an Apollo-like "A few expeditions went to Mars, then nobody for 50 years" or a Kubrickian "Clavius Base 30 years late", I know which I'd choose. And I think that's the choice, if we're lucky. If not, we get neither.

I'd also prefer my 3-year-old son not to need a Chinese visa if he goes up there, but frankly, that's a relatively minor issue as long as *someone* does it.

I rather like Shatner, but how exactly does his statement diminish the giggle factor? It strikes me as if this is the kind of statement that lots of comedians could have a field day with because it feeds into the stereotype that space tourism is a geeky, fantasy idea rather than a legitimate business. If you think that endorsement by a prominent celebrity is important, then Tom Hanks would probably be a better choice.

""And so much for the "there isn't a lot of interest in going to space" naysayers in the various sci.space groups.""

How does one comment by one actor refute that basic premise? The numbers issue is relative, not absolute--one famous person saying they want to buy a ticket does not guarantee financial success.

I didn't say his statement diminishes the giggle factor. It's the one and a half billion dollars worth of reservations that does so.

Stewart is a planetary luddite.

> Space Science is best done by robots. Not because a robot is as good as a human, but because you can
> send a bucketload of robots (10? 100? 1000? 10,000?) for the cost of sending a human there and back.

Not necessarily. Earlier this year, NASA was talked about spending $1.5 billion on an unmanned lunar mission. That's actually more than it would cost to send a human, if we did it with Soyuz and other off-the-shelf hardware.

And if we developed cheap access to space, a lot of humans could go to the human for $1.5 billion.

The claim that robots are cheaper holds only within a certain set of assumptions. The choice between expensive human missions and cheap robots represents inside-the-box thinking. The correct answer is neither.

What I want to know is, why is there human exploration of Antarctica? I mean, it gets real cold there, and with that hole in the ozone, it's probably radioactive and stuff. And people actually died on expeditions, so we know it isn't safe. I think we should let robots explore Antarctica from here on in, and make people stay up where it's nice and warm. What can a guy in a fur suit do that a robot can't, anyway?

Whether robots do better science in space or not is a red herring. Where is it written that the only acceptable reason to lay out money to go to space is for science? Why not go just because it's fun? Surely we are not so sickeningly Puritan that we can't do a damn thing unless it would make our Sunday School teacher proud.

It never made sense to me, letting a little french guy drive a starship.

Speaking of giggle factor...Fox News referred to this on their ticker this weekend, with the giggle-inspiring phrasing "William Shatner to ride the Virgin Galactic".

Given his Star Trek character's ways, it conjured up pulp sci-fi images entirely unrelated to the Branson venture.

As one of the nay sayers from sci.space.X I'm still going to wait and see, and as I've said soooooo many times before, which is often ignored, I'll be happy to be wrong.

So, apparently, according to Branson his wife isn't interested... hmmm... that sounds familiar.