talmy@randvax.UUCP (Shel Talmy) (02/20/89)
A company in Los Angeles called Orbit Productions has been formed to stage the first ever concert from space. A large portion of the proceeds from this venture is to be donated to various charities. The following is a letter that was sent to Mikhael Gorbachev that explains the current position to date. Chairman Mikhael Gorbachev The Kremlin Moscow, Russia Dear Chairman Gorbachev: We have organized a company in the U.S.A. whose main goal is to produce the first ever musical concert broadcast from space. To that end, we are in negotiations with some of the most famous musical stars in the world, many of whom have expressed an interest in performing while orbiting high above the earth. We of course, have been in touch with NASA, and while they are receptive to the idea, are not booking civilians on shuttle flights for the foreseeable future. We would like to explore the possibility of booking passage for our "star", on one of your spacecraft with a view towards broadcasting the concert live from your space station while a pre-rehearsed band plays the accompaniment on earth from a yet to be determined venue. The boldness of the concept provides a unique opportunity to further stimulate international harmony between our nations, where the artist would be American, but the stage would be Soviet. Our aim is to do this concert as close to Christmas of 1990 as possible. We would appreciate learning what are the available launch dates. We are prepared to pay any price within reason. We intend to donate a portion of the proceeds to further research into the cure of Retinitis Pigmentosa, the World Wildlife Fund and others. We would also be happy to donate some of the proceeds to a charity of your choosing. We await your favorable reply. Yours sincerely, Stanley Ralph Ross Martin Genis Directors -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stanley Ralph Ross would appreciate any technical suggestions that will make this "space concert" better. Please direct all your suggestions or questions to Stanley Ralph Ross, Orbit Prods., 7865 Willoughby Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90046, FAX #213-656-6446.
maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu (George W. Herbert) (02/22/89)
And possibly peter gabriel. george
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (02/23/89)
In article <1885@randvax.UUCP> talmy@randvax.UUCP (Shel Talmy) writes: >A company in Los Angeles called Orbit Productions has been formed to >stage the first ever concert from space. A large portion of the proceeds >from this venture is to be donated to various charities. I usually applaud activities designed to promote charity and I don't really want to spoil anyone's fun, but it seems to me that our space program (and that of the Soviets) has suffered egregiously from people who want to turn it to some nonscientific purpose. The shuttle program suffered a spectacular setback, not just because astronauts died, but because certain politicians wanted to turn it into a real media event. There is no justification whatever for sending Senators, teachers, and singers into orbit. The Soviet Union shouldn't be sending up astronauts from different nations just to score political points. There is more than enough work up there for scientists and professional astronauts. Countries such as the US and the USSR use up huge resources to keep these activities going, and it is a shame that people can't understand the worth of the investment without a sugar coating. Perhaps we need these kinds of activities to keep the space program alive, but I think that people would be much more receptive to it if our leaders tried to promote the space program from loftier motives--e.g. the advancement of science and the destiny of the human race. I apologize to Shel and others in her company for being such a curmudgeon. It is just my personal opinion that we are not yet at a point where the activity that they contemplate is justifiable. -- Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik
jackson@adobe.COM (Curtis Jackson) (02/24/89)
In article <1885@randvax.UUCP> talmy@randvax.UUCP (Shel Talmy) writes: }Dear Chairman Gorbachev: }We have organized a company in the U.S.A. whose }main goal is to produce the first ever musical concert broadcast }from space. To that end, we are in negotiations with some of the You have friends who are in desperate financial state and incredibly low on morale, and you go to their house and say, "Yo, Fred! How's about you let us use your car to go to Tahoe -- and you pay the gas money. We're gonna visit an old folk's home there, and we need wheels and we can't pay you for the use of your car. Oh, you stay here and tell your old lady and the kids why they can't use the car for the weekend." Sound crass? It's not much worse than this concert crap. Mikhail Gorbachev is trying to reform his country. He is facing enormous budget deficits, rampant alcoholism and food shortages, gang and Mafia-style activity crippling his production and making his streets unsafe, and is quite literally in danger of being deposed, offed, or "disappeared" on a daily basis. He has pissed a lot of people off. Now you want him to tell the people of his country that he is going to spend the megabucks necessary to launch the shuttle just so some Americans and Russians can broadcast a concert from space to radios and TVs his own people don't have, can't get, and even if they could get couldn't afford? This is the height of liberal altruistic bad taste. And since I are a liberal myself I'm quite embarrassed by it. Perhaps your next little venture will be to ask the spiritual leader of your local black ghetto if you can boot them out of their church for a Sunday so you can go in there and sell beautiful imported chocolates they can't afford -- with all proceeds going to Muscular Dystrophy, of course. I find the arrogance of Americans as a group very annoying these days. "Mr. Gorbachev, do this because *we'll* like you more for it, and that is of course what you want." Gorbachev wants technology to help feed and cloth his countrypersons and bring them into the mid-twentieth century, and glasnost is strictly a vehicle to make that possible. I applaud him for trying to do his job -- make the USSR a better place to live. I do not and cannot applaud the lack of tact shown by Shel and Co. in this matter of the concert. Follow-ups have been directed to talk.politics.misc, since this is a political issue -- not a musical or shuttle one, and certainly not a headline I've seen lately. -- Curtis Jackson @ Adobe Systems in Mountain View, CA (415-962-4905) Internet: jackson@adobe.com uucp: ...!{apple|decwrl|sun}!adobe!jackson
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/25/89)
In article <10325@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes: >>A company in Los Angeles called Orbit Productions has been formed to >>stage the first ever concert from space. A large portion of the proceeds >>from this venture is to be donated to various charities. > >... There is no justification whatever >for sending Senators, teachers, and singers into orbit. The Soviet Union >shouldn't be sending up astronauts from different nations just to score >political points... They aren't any more; all future foreign cosmonauts will be paying passengers. It would surprise me greatly if Orbit Productions got a free ride. Almost certainly they will be asked to pay the commercial price for their trip. What, pray tell, is wrong with carrying people into orbit for a fee? The airlines carry senators, teachers, and singers into the sky all the time. "Things that make profits don't have to make excuses." You should not need permission from government bureaucrats to go into space for purposes *you* consider worthwhile, assuming that you can pay the fare and that there's a vacant seat. It's truly mind-blowing that to book a spaceliner seat in the "Free" World you need a very good reason, years of patience, and approval from 57 layers of bureaucrats, while to book one behind the Iron Curtain you just need the fare in hard currency. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
brooke@ingr.com (Brooke King) (02/25/89)
In article <10325@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes: | I apologize to Shel and others in her company for being such a | curmudgeon. It is just my personal opinion that we are not yet | at a point where the activity that they contemplate is | justifiable. See talk.politics.theory for why I don't think Rick owes Shel or anyone else an apology for being a "curmudgeon." | Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com | uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik -- brooke@ingr.com uunet!ingr!brooke W+1 205 7727796 H+1 205 8950824
brooke@ingr.com (Brooke King) (02/26/89)
In article <1989Feb24.175109.11738@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: | You should not need permission from government bureaucrats to go into | space for purposes *you* consider worthwhile, assuming that you can pay | the fare and that there's a vacant seat. It's truly mind-blowing that | to book a spaceliner seat in the "Free" World you need a very good reason, | years of patience, and approval from 57 layers of bureaucrats, while to | book one behind the Iron Curtain you just need the fare in hard currency. I guess this would be truly mind-blowing if Mr. Spencer did not correctly have to put quotation marks around the 'Free' in 'Free World.' Some countries in the "Free" world are freer than they have been. Some are less so. Certainly, the USA is an example of the latter, but I currently would not want to call any other place home. ("Sweet Home Alabama" and "Oh Fair New Mexico" really appeal to me!) The Iron Curtain launchers are simply facing the reality of their need for hard currency and the results of the (until recently) reality of the US government's foolish, all-the-eggs-in-one- expensive-shuttle-basket, monopolistic launch policy. They oughtn't be credited with any love of free enterprise. | The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology | our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu -- brooke@ingr.com uunet!ingr!brooke W+1 205 7727796 H+1 205 8950824
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (03/10/89)
In article <1989Mar8.181638.1769@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Why [are space flights] "priceless"? The Soviets have had no hesitation in >putting a price on it. They seem to feel that they have enough flights available that >they can afford to sell a few. They're right. Soviet politicians, like ours, wish to exploit the space program to achieve short term political goals. Right now, it tickles their fancy to have the appearance of routine space flights when our program is in disarray. They aren't just selling flights. They are broadcasting a propaganda message. How much profit do you think they make by 'selling' their flights to to Westerners? This is not a commercial exercise. It is a propaganda exercise. And Soviet science suffers from these kinds of shenanigans. (The CPSU has a long history of trashing science in the interest of politics.) Each space flight is priceless because we can only afford to support a limited number. We know so little about space and its effects on humans that we need every opportunity to expand our knowledge. We are still in the stage of trying to find commercial value in space research. We don't find out anything by sending entertainers into orbit. All we do is lose an opportunity to learn more about a very hostile environment. I believe that the survival of the human race is ultimately at stake. We might survive the damage to our biosphere and the depletion of our non-renewable resources if we learn how to colonize space. Perhaps polluting industries can be moved off-planet. Perhaps new sources of energy and raw materials can be developed. There is always the danger that space flight will be ended permanently because we can no longer afford the resources to sustain it. I hope that we can make manned space flight commercially viable before that happens. Send the singers up later--when we really can justify the extravagance. We are still trying to bootstrap our space program. >The Soviets already have a policy to the effect that the price is negotiable >if the passenger will be doing experiments that are of interest to them, so >in effect any full-fare passenger is paying a premium for displacing science. Even Jake Garn did some 'useful' things. But there is enough work up there so that it is more cost-effective to let scientists perform the experiments. They, at least, know what they are doing. >Agreed that this was reprehensible. However, it's totally irrelevant to >what I was saying. Senators do not get free rides on airlines. Really? You've never heard of political junkets? :-) What you mean is that the airlines don't reimburse the government for our perpipathetic pols. >>... The space program is not, and never was, a profit-making enterprise. >>We all wish that it could be, but it is still a research program. The viable >>commercial uses of space do not include public transportation and media >>extravaganzas at this time... >Speak for your own country, comrade. :-) Truly spacefaring nations (there >is currently one on Earth) can afford to use space for many purposes. You insist that the space program turns a profit? Do you have an estimate on how much money it brings into the national treasury? How much do you think the Soviets are making? This is indeed good news. >Please read the following sentence very carefully. The USSR is selling >commercial flights into space, today. This is a verifiable fact; call them >up and ask them. Call up who? Pravda? The Soviet Embassy in Washington? The State Bureau for Never Lying to the Public? That's a branch of the KGB. :-) >At one time, there were people who were interested in taking it over and >operating it as a commercial venture. It's become a bit less attractive >since, but US government policy has a lot to do with that. (An airliner >crash does not shut down an airline for 2-3 years.) The 2-3 year shutdown took place, in part, because our politicians had turned the event into a media spectacle. We've had astronauts die before. Their deaths are as tragic as anyone's, but they're paid to take risks. The point of putting a civilian teacher up there was to demonstrate the safety and competence of our space program. The public really had their attention focused on that flight. Do you really think that this is the time to send up a bunch of entertainers? Another disaster with them, and you can kiss our space program goodbye. The idea of getting people to "take over" our space program, operating it as a commercial venture, went out the window because it was impractical. It was dreamed up by people who thought that the free market was the answer to everything. Right now, space is a venture for governments, not private industries. We all look forward to the day when that changes, if it ever gets a chance to change. -- Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (03/11/89)
From article <10644@bcsaic.UUCP>, by rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik): "... Send the singers up "later--when we really can justify the extravagance. We are still trying to "bootstrap our space program. What's 'bootstrapping', Rick? When you expend resources in such a way as to gain more resources, right? The space program will be voted more money by congress when congressmen think it will make them popular to do that. Then the way to bootstrap is to spend on public relations and promotion so that space begins to sound fun, because that's what our citizens value. You're a serious minded person -- if most voters were like you, that wouldn't be an appropriate strategy. But arguing for more funds on the grounds that it will increase the chance we will have colonies before we make our planet unlivable, which we surely will sooner or later, is just not going to work. I would favor a strategy that works over one that sounds high-minded. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (03/14/89)
In article <3436@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: >... But arguing for more funds on the grounds that it will >increase the chance we will have colonies before we make our planet >unlivable, which we surely will sooner or later, is just not >going to work. I would favor a strategy that works over one that >sounds high-minded. We disagree (as usual, my friend :-) over tactics. I, too, favor policies that work. Unlike you, I believe that such policies are not inconsistent with ones that sound high-minded. You and I both remember an era--under John Kennedy--when high-mindedness got things done. I consider your tactics to be pandering, and ultimately self-defeating. The public can always be fed bread and circuses. But if it is treated as capable of making responsible and intelligent decisions, it might begin to behave as if it could. Treat the public like a child that needs to be coddled, and it will behave like one. -- Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik