Should We Launch a Kid to Space?

[insert_name]

8 minutes ago, Pawelk198604 said:

 

And who said about 6 months? 
On full day a weak at best, in my country one crippled teen (now adult)  made trip to North Pole and South Pole in less than a year and survived  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Mela

 

http://v1.explorapoles.org/UK/Gazette_UK/dia/com_2005/kaminski.htm

 

So why the Spaceflight would be any difference? 

You are not sending someone up to orbit for one week, Soyuz generally stay up there for 6 months also training is usually longer than that

[Pawelk198604]

13 minutes ago, insert_name said:

You are not sending someone up to orbit for one week, Soyuz generally stay up there for 6 months also training is usually longer than that

But when my country send with Soviet help our first and so far only one Polish Cosmonaut mr. Mirosław Hermaszewski into Salyut 6 in 1978 he stayed there just one weak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirosław_Hermaszewski

 

[insert_name]

5 minutes ago, Pawelk198604 said:

But when my country send with Soviet help our first and so far only one Polish Cosmonaut mr. Mirosław Hermaszewski into Salyut 6 in 1978 he stayed there just one weak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirosław_Hermaszewski

 

that was the seventies, now most ISS expeditions last over a hundred days, excluding training, which would take significantly longer for a child as they have little space related skills.

[Pawelk198604]

2 minutes ago, insert_name said:

that was the seventies, now most ISS expeditions last over a hundred days, excluding training, which would take significantly longer for a child as they have little space related skills.

What about "spaceflight participant" AKA space tourists they usually stay there for a weak. 

[insert_name]

2 minutes ago, Pawelk198604 said:

What about "spaceflight participant" AKA space tourists they usually stay there for a weak. 

that was back when the shuttle could ferry crew, since then all space tourist flights have been postponed indefinitely.

[Pawelk198604]

10 hours ago, insert_name said:

that was back when the shuttle could ferry crew, since then all space tourist flights have been postponed indefinitely.

This is because the Russians rent both space for NASA and ESA, because these agencies do not have their own space vehicle, it may change when the first Orion or Dragon capsule  

[p1t1o]

Lets get one thing straight.

Sending a child to space for a few days as an observer is one thing.

Sending a child to the ISS for a full 100 day tour is another thing entirely. Would the child be expected to be a functioning crewmember, with all of the training requirements that would infer? 

It makes a ridiculous idea seem like actually a joke.

 

[kerbiloid]

Kids can do this both at home and in space.

Spoiler

Pay attention to artificial gravity.
(Cheap and easy replacement of the cancelled centrifuge module)

Spoiler

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by kerbiloid

[Pawelk198604]

3 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Lets get one thing straight.

Sending a child to space for a few days as an observer is one thing.

Sending a child to the ISS for a full 100 day tour is another thing entirely. Would the child be expected to be a functioning crewmember, with all of the training requirements that would infer? 

It makes a ridiculous idea seem like actually a joke.

 

The first thing it could be enlightening trip and experience for the kid and be perfect human space medical scientific experiment like 2nd flight of John Glenn, such kid would be very much "Laika" for scientists  

I'm of course joking  

Edited August 24, 2017 by Pawelk198604

[YNM]

15 hours ago, insert_name said:

that was the seventies, now most ISS expeditions last over a hundred days, excluding training, which would take significantly longer for a child as they have little space related skills.

It's all about timing. If they could somehow "speed up" the shift between the expeditions and possibly have someone left for longer up there (so in conjunction with "one year in space" or something I presume), the one short-stay guy could launch in one Soyuz and land back in the older one in a week plus more or something. They could even launch extra flights if it's justifiable, so return whenever it was meant to return. AFAIK ISS is nominally designed to have three crews in most of the time, so generally they don't want six guys up there too long anyway, three must go home as soon as they're done. All the "space tourist" were done that way (probably bar John Glenn if he's ever considered ?), they launch in one Soyuz and lands in the closest one to land. No Shuttle flight have involved any officially-described "space tourist".

Regarding the children itself... well I could see if it's some clean-sheet teenage (so pre-cadets or something), they could help with some things, but for a random children I can't think how it could happen in the current setup and unwillingness from us to give such chances.

But again, if travelling is unavoidable, travelling with minors would follow suit being unavoidable as well. So at one point we'll be compelled to do them anyway.

Edited August 24, 2017 by YNM

[Pawelk198604]

1 minute ago, YNM said:

It's all about timing. If they could somehow "speed up" the shift between the expeditions and possibly have someone left for longer up there (so in conjunction with "one year in space" or something I presume), the one short-stay guy could launch in one Soyuz and land back in the older one in a week plus more or something. They could even launch extra flights if it's justifiable, so return whenever it was meant to return. AFAIK ISS is nominally designed to have three crews in most of the time, so generally they don't want six guys up there too long anyway, three must go home as soon as they're done. All the "space tourist" were done that way (probably bar John Glenn if he's ever considered ?), they launch in one Soyuz and lands in the closest one to land. No Shuttle flight have involved any officially-described "space tourist".

Regarding the children itself... well I could see if it's some clean-sheet teenage (so pre-cadets or something), they could help with some things, but for a random children I can't think how it could happen in the current setup and unwillingness for us to give such chances.

Pre-cadet what that means? 16-18?

And why the heck on send random teen kid?

[YNM]

2 minutes ago, Pawelk198604 said:

Pre-cadet what that means? 16-18?

And why the heck on send random teen kid?

Well, someone on track to being in the military or so.

The later is just a generalization (I know till this day not even everyone can be an astronaut).

Also, I should add that the ISS is never left empty of people. So for the ones already up there be able to get back down, the replacement must be up first.

Edited August 24, 2017 by YNM

[KerikBalm]

On 8/22/2017 at 10:49 AM, KerikBalm said:

Also, "inspiring" kids can be bad if you give them unrealistic goals. The world doesn't need 100 million kids in the next generation all trying their hardest to become astronauts, just like it doesn't need 100 million history majors. Many college graduates are left regretting their major once they realize that there is a huge gap between the number of people with degrees in a certain field, and the number of jobs available in that field.

On 8/23/2017 at 1:31 PM, p1t1o said:

The hard part is that there are far, far fewer positions available in the field than there are people interested in it.

But that is another issue. Suffice to say, space exploration/budget, is NOT limited by the number of applicants!

17 hours ago, Pawelk198604 said:

you said "The hard part is that there are far, far fewer positions available in the field than there are people interested in it." and i'm partially agree with you, i'm graduated in Library Science bachelor degree with good average grade yet i cannot find employment with my specialization  
I get Job in fast food restaurant KFC, and sometime i think that this whole higher education was waste of time, but at least in my country we have free higher education   

Well, we all seem to be in agreement on this point. I've got a PhD in cell biology, and its still really hard to find a job in my field (after >1 year searching, I've made it to the 3rd round of selection [1st round hundreds >  selected 15; 2nd round of those 15> selected 6; 3rd round of those 6 > selected 3] for a really good job, and I'll find out next week if I got it). Trying to get more people into a field then there are jobs is not a good idea. NASA's last selection round had tens of thousands of applicants. They selected people like navy seal medical doctors ... They don't need people who are experts in orbital mechanics, they need people with various scientific expertise for experiments (these things fly themselves now). 

For rocket design and construction, no kid is going to see a kid in space and think that (s)he wants to be the schmuck on the ground that designed/built the rocket that sent the kid up there - they will want to be on that rocket, they will want to be the kid sent up into space. It won't inspire them to do anything useful.

Getting people interested in real science in general rather than stupid stuff like sports or american idol/britain's got talent/ various pseudoscience comic books/etc would be good, but I don't think a kid in space is the way to do it.

 

20 hours ago, insert_name said:

Another factor no one seems to have mentioned is that spending 6 months in space would likely interfere with the child's education and social life

Well, Going to space doesn't mean going there for 6 months (maybe there was a more detailed 6 month ISS stay proposal, but if we're just talking about the concept in general it doesn't matter). The kid wouldn't do anything of any value. (S)he could go up and come right back down during a crew rotation.

 

[55delta]

As far as I know, back when they were selling tourist seats on the Soyuz, each of the tourists only stayed a week. I won't know if they could keep to that schedule these days.

Regardless, I wouldn't send a kid to the ISS. It frankly isn't provisioned for children.

When tourists were going to the ISS, they had to go through a series of medical qualification followed by a significant training course. I imagine it involved going through the rather thick document that is all the contingency modes. They also had to agree to participate in experiments with the crew while there. Not to mention a few of those tourists brought their own experiments for their own interests. Not something I would expect of a kid, maybe a teenager if they're real keen.

Also remember that you'd have to give up two seats, one for the child, one for whomever is attending them. No body would want them to be unattended, especially if they started to get bored later in the stay.

No, even if they could spare the space, the ISS is more a navy boat than a cruise ship.

New Shepard is a better place for kids. It's built with tourists in mind, there's room for kids and people to watch out for them, and it's more of a big (if expensive) thrill ride.

[Pawelk198604]

look what i found

 

[wumpus]

12 hours ago, Pawelk198604 said:

look what i found

Makes a lot more sense than Jessica Dubroff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Dubroff

I have to point out that I like to compare putting a kid in a barnstorming flight to the idea of a kid to the ISS.  I'd imagine that parents might regret not letting their kids go in such a flight (I think a few astronauts were inspired by such flights), but the danger is likely the same (granted, the danger for everything else is so much lower that modern safety precautions likely make sense).

[WinkAllKerb'']

it's  a must to do at some point ... so ...

[kerbiloid]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593

[WinkAllKerb'']

48 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593

irrelevant ; adult are much more often stupid than kids it's a fact:

nuclear: electricity // bomb ... find the glitch where some [insert age/etc. here] biped messed up with it's purpose ? the kids really ? ... pom pom pom just sayin'

[Pawelk198604]

On 27.08.2017 at 7:59 AM, WinkAllKerb'' said:

irrelevant ; adult are much more often stupid than kids it's a fact:

nuclear: electricity // bomb ... find the glitch where some [insert age/etc. here] biped messed up with it's purpose ? the kids really ? ... pom pom pom just sayin'

and kid still have adventurous spirit  

[p1t1o]

On 8/27/2017 at 6:59 AM, WinkAllKerb'' said:

irrelevant ; adult are much more often stupid than kids it's a fact:

hahahahaha strongly disagree! I did not get stupider as I aged, and neither will you.

Thats not to say there arent clever kids and stupid adults.

I would say they are less inhibited by experience, but that has some serious drawbacks.

[YNM]

On 8/27/2017 at 0:59 PM, WinkAllKerb'' said:

irrelevant ; adult are much more often stupid than kids it's a fact:

Tell that to the DVLA.

Clever ? probably. Steadfast choices ? Probably not.

Edited September 7, 2017 by YNM

[KerikBalm]

On 8/27/2017 at 7:59 AM, WinkAllKerb'' said:

irrelevant ; adult are much more often stupid than kids it's a fact:

That is not a fact. The only area that I can think of where that could be said to be true is language acquisition.

[WinkAllKerb'']

i m just askin what the difference between the cockpit and passenger area and what kind of individual your supposed to find in each area ?

now if in the cokpit there some individual that shouldn't be there, don't ask me who is responsible, because well, one word: o b v i o u s

and whose is as well an irresponsible elder , well another word, o b v i o u s as well

all in all this prove only one thing, you can be a totally irresponsible adult, parent (and/or elder) and still have a commercial flight license ...

you know the fun about kid in space, it's kinda like this
 and the bathroom, kitchen, garage and all.

it just has to be done wisely at some point, because §§§

Edited September 14, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[Helmetman]

As long as popularity and publicity doesn't make him the new astro Justin Bieber afterwards I'm fine with it. If they do I'm going to live on Venus.

Not lacking any sentiment here but I care more for the adventurous nature this kiddo gets to experience then for the possible dangers. Being smart and protective at a young age is good. I have the same sentiment to young people but I wouldn't be that type of daddy that would protect my kid from said adventure if I'm honest. People that includes children die by the masses each year, and nobody talks about that much hypocritically, because it's not your country or taboo or something I guess. Also people have sacrificed themselves for much more, Aztec savagery among other things.

Atleast now it's for a developing cause rather then some bogus south american cult festival. A step in the right direction if you ask me. The chances he/she lives is still greater then the potential of death.