This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
ISS News

This Is Why We Built The International Space Station

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 24, 2016
Filed under ,

Keith’s 4:38 pm Update: Well, if nothing else, PeTA finally got a protester inside the International Space Station. As readers of NASA Watch know, I am all for making the ISS relevant to the public in new ways and for making childish jokes at NASA’s expense whenever possible. But given the immense cost of the ISS, its untapped potential for research, and complaints from potential users that there is not enough upmass or crew time, I have to wonder why NASA goes out of its way to highlight such stuff – especially when people like Sen. Grassley already criticize some of the real science done on ISS.
I did not hear back from NASA PAO on my initial request so I sent the following questions to NASA PAO. Someone will tell me to go file a FOIA request and then NASA will try to weasel out of answering that request. But if they can spend money flying a gorilla suit into outer space then they can waste some more time explaining why they did it. The answer may well be simple and routine but NASA will make the process as complicated as they possibly can.
– Can you tell me what the Gorilla suit is made out of i.e. what kind of material(s)?
– Is this Gorilla suit COTS (where was it purchased?) or was it specially made? How much did it cost?
– Was the Gorilla suit subjected to standard outgassing, flammability, microbial, and particulate standards? Did it meet those requirements or was a waiver granted?
– How much does the Gorilla suit weigh and how much volume did it use inside the cargo vehicle that carried it up?
– Is the suit considered “crew preference”, “crew clothing”, or “education and outreach”?
– Will the Gorilla suit remain on the ISS after Kelly leaves? If so where will it be stored?
– Did the shipping of the Gorilla suit to orbit bump anything off the manifest – if so, what was bumped?
– Was this manifested by JSC or CASIS?
– Who approved of the shipping of the gorilla suit to the ISS? Was NASA HQ involved in the decision making process?
Keith’s 6:23 pm update: ULA says that it charges something around $100 million for an Atlas V launch. ULA also says that it charges $164 million for a Atlas V launch. Lets go with the lower number. The most recent Cygnus OA-4 carried 7,745 pounds of cargo. Lets not even bother to include what it cost to build the Cygnus. Assuming a $100 million launch cost simple math shows a per pound cost of $12,911. If you use the higher number its $21,174 per pound. This amazon.com gorilla suit weighs 4.3 pounds. Lets assume that the gorilla suit in space is a generic gorilla suit. That means that NASA probably spent between $55,517 and $91,052 to ship a gorilla suit to the ISS that will probably only be worn once – and only for an hour or two. In other words it will probably end up as trash at some point and be thrown away. Then, of course, there was the personnel cost to certify that it could fly safely, pack it, etc. etc. So the real cost goes up a lot – certainly close to $100,000. Scott Kelly has already completed more than 99% of his mission. He could have waited another week to wear the gorilla suit and saved NASA a lot of money. Just sayin’
Keith’s 24 Feb 2016 8:07 pm update: Still nothing from NASA.
Keith’s 25 Feb 2016 4:04 pm update: Still nothing from NASA.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

95 responses to “This Is Why We Built The International Space Station”

  1. JadedObs says:
    0
    0

    OK so first off, how do you know its a suit? Doing comparative primate research is probably a good idea.
    More to the point, give Scott Kelly some slack – he’s probably bored as hell by now! Maybe this will help keep him sane!

    • montagna_lunga says:
      0
      0

      Stultifying. Far better men’s careers have been killed for less. You really ARE jaded aren’t you?

      • JadedObs says:
        0
        0

        I guess if we live in a world where people’s careers get ended for this, then its best to be jaded (or cynical).
        If we have to be 100% straight arrow serious on every mission all the time, we are never going to get to Mars except possibly in a straight jacket.

  2. TMA2050 says:
    0
    0

    This kind of sums NASA HSF up nowadays.

  3. Graham West says:
    0
    0

    The gorilla suit I have is polyester (I think) and latex. Weighs at most 5lbs and takes up about 1.5 cubic feet, could probably squash to 1 cubic foot or even less. Cost about $70 15 years ago.

    I’d love to know their answers. It seems a dumb thing to ship to the ISS. Are they using max load to the pound and cubic inch on, say, a Dragon?

    • TMA2050 says:
      0
      0

      I mean at least get it right and get a Star Wars: TFA costume up there for a promo. Gorilla’s in Space? Gimme something more that that!

      • Ball Peen Hammer ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
        0
        0

        Yep, and they should have had pizza hut logos on the shuttle wings.

        NASA misses so much in product placement opportunities.

  4. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    I’m surprised, if it went up recently, that they could afford the upmass given all the launch failures of the last year. Maybe they used the Gorilla suit as packing material in place of packing foam or clothing? give the astronauts a break-they need a little time off, even in orbit.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Right – and its acceptable to you to spend $100,000 in tax dollars for a stunt? Really? Or maybe it was shoved in at the last minute since there was spare mass/volume? I have asked NASA. They haven’t responded.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Well, that depends. How much does an hour of an astronaut’s time on ISS cost? If, after months on orbit, a joke makes them more relaxed and more able to work efficiently, then an occasion joke might be a good idea. Spending some money on that isn’t obviously stupid. But I agree that bragging about it is thick as a brick.

      • Littrow says:
        0
        0

        I think Nanoracks sells a “cube” on ISS, which includes all services: pre-flight safety and integration, launch and on-orbit, for $15000. Maybe a gorilla suit fits in a cube? If it was used as packing material, which is done with some clothing, then you do not need to itemize launch cost.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Well, yes and no. Those guys get some personal up-mass, after all. How much does it cost to send a CD to the station? A lot I imagine.

      • Jonathan Miller says:
        0
        0

        You are quoting the $100,000 figure as gospel when in fact that is your made up number without any vetting by NASA. As other posters have pointed out not all mass to orbit is created equal. Every cargo mission ever launched has ballast and packing material and support equipment. I used to work these cargo accommodations and we were lucky if 30% of the result was actual useful cargo to orbit. These items serve a valid useful purpose even though they do not continue to be used after launch. Does that mean rockets should not have ballast and packing material and support equipment? Of course not. Until we can get smart enough to design rockets that no longer need these items then there will always be mass that ends up not being as useful as that basket of fruit the crew consumed.
        Also, you need to acknowledge that the crew are human beings and they are allotted personal items for a valid reason. If you disagree with that policy then take that argument forward, but to grouse about the gorilla suit is a bit silly.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          When did I call it “gospel”? I did the math (see above). I asked NASA how this suit was sent up and did so with multiple questions. NASA still has not replied. As for your demand that I “acknowledge that the crew are human beings” when did I say that they were not human? Or are you still confused by the guy in the gorilla suit?

          • Jonathan Miller says:
            0
            0

            Your math is simply your math. It does not in any way mean that it’s realistic or accurate. Yet you mislead the reader into thinking that it represents a fact that NASA spent $100,000 dollars of taxpayer money to launch a gorilla suit when that is not a fact. Until I see an invoice with a NASA meatball on it it’s just hearsay. It is very disingenuous to mislead your readers to think everything you say is fact. Just because you put it into print doesn’t make it true. I guess it makes you feel really big to nit pick everything NASA does. And I’m sure PAO has better things to do than answer every question you happen to throw at them. You have a very argumentative and divisive way of communicating that turns off a lot of people. If you came at it from a truly inquisitive manner you might get the answers you are seeking.

  5. FoghornKeghorn says:
    0
    0

    We retire the Shuttle well before it’s time (Plenty of flights left in Atlantis, Endeavour and Discovery’s airframes…they were designed for over 100) kill Constellation, SLS is going to maybe possibly get man-rated and fly astronauts somewhere at some point in the future…maybe. We have to beg the Russians for rides to and from space, we have no functioning man-rated launch vehicle since the end of Apollo, planetary orbiters and rovers that NEED to fly to places like Mars, Titan, Enceladus, Europa. The Hubble Space Telescope has been left for dead in orbit, good only as long as it’s instruments last, it could die tomorrow (theoretically), no further repairs.

    And THIS is what NASA thinks we want to see and reassure the public that our tax dollars (what little that are left that actually go to NASA) are not being wasted.

    Unbelievable.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      Can you show me any documentation of a representative of the United States Federal government “begging” Russia for flights?

      Russia is SELLING flights to ANY paying customers… no begging involved by anyone.

      Man-rated? Have you heard of the Falcon 9?

      • FoghornKeghorn says:
        0
        0

        It’s a figure of speech. Russia controls seats on their rockets the same way NASA controlled seats on Shuttle flights.

    • Arthur Hamilton says:
      0
      0

      You do realize that Soyuz has been the emergency escape vehicle of choice since Expedition 1. NASA paid Russia to have the Soyuz made a little larger to accommodate American and European astronauts( Soyuz TMA: Anthropometric). In a sense it’s the first commercial crew vehicle.

      • FoghornKeghorn says:
        0
        0

        Oh, of course. We cancelled a crew lifting-body type spacecraft that was eventually supposed to serve that purpose that has been revived in the private Dream Chaser project. Soyuz became commercial the instant the Iron Curtain fell out of necessity. The Shuttle was designed to be a government / commercial project from the outset. The initial pressure from that partnership lead to Challenger because of the pressure to stay on a tight launch schedule.

  6. Beavers205 says:
    0
    0

    This is the same outfit took out the ejection seats for the shuttle because they needed first aid kit.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      No, the e-seats were removed because NASA declared it “operational” after the very short orbital test flight program. That and they believed their own propaganda that it would be far safer than any previous spacecraft, which turned out to not be the case. That and the fact that they couldn’t support larger crew sizes and still have e-seats for everyone and not eat into the (already lower than planned) payload capacity.

      • Ball Peen Hammer ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
        0
        0

        However they did later decide that it was possible to have replaced those seats with a bail-out system capable of serving the entire crew.

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          A bail-out system which would only work successfully if the orbiter was in a stable subsonic glide. That would cover a very narrow part of the orbiter’s flight envelope (much more narrow than e-seats).

          • Ball Peen Hammer ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            True, it did have its limitations – but it was something for the entire crew, which wasn’t practical with ejection seats due to the layout of the cabin.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            Its limitations relegated its usefulness to a very tiny range of possible failure modes. In other words, the orbiter had to be crippled enough it could not reach a runway, but intact enough that it could still maintain a stable glide. How likely would that have been in the real world?

            Agreed that within the constraints of the system at the time, the engineers did the best they could. But, this just highlights the flawed initial assumption that escape systems were not needed on the orbiter.

  7. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    I thought I had heard that this was part of Kelly’s personal allotment. Should he not be allowed to bring personal items up, provided they meet safety requirements?

  8. Joe Denison says:
    0
    0

    Look I found this to be a little weird but c’mon Keith. This was a part of Scott Kelly’s personal baggage. He is allowed to bring up items that he likes. Chris Hadfield brought up a guitar, Reid Weisman brought some of his kid’s toys. How is this any different?

    These people have to do a full day’s work in microgravity and have to stay up there for 6 months to a year away from family and friends. Just because they are in a national lab does not mean that they should be required to work 24/7/365. No human being can work constantly.

    Stop nitpicking.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      And its OK to spend $100,000 of taxpayer money on a prank?

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Possibly. I don’t know where that $100,000 number came from. But if that is the cost of an astronaut’s personal gear, I don’t see a huge problem. The personal allocation is about what the astronauts want and need to keep functional on a long stay at a remote place. I’m not going to complain about their choice, as long as it stays within the approved mass and volume restrictions. If he sent the costume up in that manner, I’d say that’s his choice. If NASA sent it up for other reasons, I’d have a very big problem with this.

      • Joe Denison says:
        0
        0

        So I guess you want to stop all personal items from being sent to the ISS because some violate your definition of useful? Stop being so judgmental. You and I would probably lose our minds up there if all we could bring were science experiments.

      • Earl Blake says:
        0
        0

        I think we’re making a mountain out of a molehill. I don’t think we include the cost to bring it too the ISS because it was flown up using unused capacity. As far as personnel costs, these people get paid no matter what. It’s not like someone was hired to do all the testing on the suit.
        The real increase in expenditures was most likely the one hundred bucks for the gorilla suit. If that’s a problem I’ll gladly pay it out of my own pocket.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      Agree with Joe. Personal items are just that, personal. You let one guy bring up a guitar (isn’t listening to MP3s on an iPod far more mass efficient?) so what’s the argument for banning a gorilla suit? One guy’s deeply personal item is another guys “waste of mass and space”.

    • Rob Conley says:
      0
      0

      I agree, if you going to allocate the astronauts a personal baggage limit and they have over 5 lbs of allowance who are we to second guess that they use 4.3 lbs of it for a gorilla suit?

      Of course provided it is safe for the ISS environment.

      According to this you are allowed to bring up five kilograms of personal articles on the Soyuz so probably they have a similar amount on the supply flights. This works to about 11 pounds. Enough to ship up a gorilla suit as unusual as it was.

      http://space.stackexchange…..

      But I guess then people will bitch about giving each astronaunt $250,000 of space on each flight to the ISS.

    • Miklós Cifka says:
      0
      0

      Absolutely agree. It’s a great joke, generate many new newspaper and internet article, places, where never mentioned Scott Kelly name before.
      I can’t imagine how unpleasant life can have someone, who only see the bill in such event…

  9. Bill Housley says:
    0
    0

    Seems to me that the resources could have been better used. They are saying that one additional crew member per mission will double the amount of research time on the station. That efficiency ratio is enlightening in the context of NASA goofing around with a gorilla suite. Will future space station designs be more efficient?

    • Ball Peen Hammer ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      Is it realistic to expect the astronauts to work 24/7 and not have *any* personal break time? I don’t remember heavy concerns over Chris Hadfield taking time to shoot a music video.

      • chuckc192000 says:
        0
        0

        He could easily have had a LOT of personal break time that a) didn’t cost the taxpayers money and b) didn’t have the potential to cause a public relations nightmare.

        • tutiger87 says:
          0
          0

          Most of the public could give a rip….About the gorilla suit or much else for that matter….You folks need to lighten up…

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            Several congressional staffers think differently. Stay tuned.

          • tutiger87 says:
            0
            0

            In honor of your desire not to get political discussions involved, let’s not even get started about opinions regarding the thinking of Congressional staffers. But I darn sure think they have more important things to focus on than how a gorilla suit got on ISS.

            John Young’s corned beef sandwich…Alan Shepard’s 9 iron…The wheel of Camembert (or was in Muenster) that was in a SpaceX capsule… I’m sure there are a bunch of non-essential items that have made their way to space one way or another. A conundrum about this is seriously ridiculous.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            Sorry – I make the rules. Several staffers are annoyed because NASA has been telling them that upmass for research has been limited – but wait they can fly a gorilla suit. Not the sort of thing that is helpful when NASA is trying to sell the utility of ISS and the necessity of commercial cargo.

          • Dave Runta says:
            0
            0

            I suspect that if we were to ask Al Shepherd or Pete Conrad about this, their reaction might be something along the lines of “Lighten Up, Francis.” Only with more bad words.

          • djschultz3 says:
            0
            0

            Alan Shepard’s golf shot on the moon did cause a certain amount of criticism, in the form of “we paid billions of dollars to play golf on the moon?” by those who saw no other purpose in going there. Heck, the guy risked his life to go to the moon, if he wants to hit a golf ball while he’s there, more power to him.

            Both the golf shot and the gorilla suit send the message to the public that our astronauts are real people with a sense of humor, not robots.

            The economics of space flight are not as simple as multiplying the cost per kilogram of upmass times the mass of the gorilla suit. If the gorilla suit is the last item to go in before the hatch is sealed, it probably doesn’t add any cost to the resupply flight, unless there was some other research project that was left behind to make room for it.

            What was the upmass of Chris Hadfield’s guitar? NASA probably got more PR for his rendition of David Bowie’s Space Oddity than it gets from most of its science projects, and let’s not forget that the manned space program is more about public relations than it is about research, and always has been. The use of valuable astronaut time to do media interviews and answer questions from school children fits into this category too.

  10. Rich_Palermo says:
    0
    0

    I hate every ape I see,
    From chimpan-A to chimpan-Z.
    No you’ll never make a monkey out of me!

  11. SouthwestExGOP says:
    0
    0

    This should be allowed under psychological support! A bit of fun helps the crew to relax, they are not machines. They do have some time off you know.

    JSC has a bit of history of people running around in gorilla suits – back in the early 1980s an astronaut, dressed in a gorilla suit, rappelled off of JSC Building 1. Other gorilla sightings may have occurred.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      “Time off”. Right – and $100,000 of tax money was paid to fly a gorilla suit? Really? Do all astronauts have a $100,000 budget for pranks?

      As for the astronaut rapping off of Bldg 1 – actually it was astronaut Jim Bagian and he was wearing a Spiderman suit. I wrote about it in Climbing magazine here: http://www.cowing.com/evere

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        I’d still like to know where the $100,000 number comes from. But I wouldn’t be shocked if an astronaut could cover that. That, if I have the salaries right, is something like half to a third of an astronaut’s annual salary. It would be a bit of a pinch, but for something to keep me going, on a twelve month, isolated tour of duty? I might be willing to spend a third of my annual salary. Of course, if I did that for a Gorillas suit which was only good for a single joke, well… I might start wondering if I’d gone around the bend. But it sounds personally affordable for a high-end luxury in a very lonely situation.

        • anwatkins says:
          0
          0

          So you think an astronaut makes $200,000-$300,000 per year? You do know they are usually civil servant right? They are typically GS-11 to GS-14, meaning from about $62,000 to abut $140,000 per year depending on their base location (usually Johnson). And to be specific, Scott Kelly is a GS-15 making about $150,000 per year (and this is all public knowledge using the Data Universe portion of Asbury Park Press in New Jersey). Military astronauts are all still active duty and maintain their current rank pay and benefits. I am sorry, but they do not make nearly what you think they do.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          NASA paid to ship it with your tax dollars. You can not just write a check to NASA to fly a gorilla suit on a ISS cargo flight unless you have an agreement with NASA to do so. For all we know it was used as ballast or packing material. But NASA refuses to answer my questions. Until they do ….

      • Ball Peen Hammer ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
        0
        0

        Funny, I didn’t see this kind of outrage over Chris Hadfield’s guitar or Samantha Christoforetti’s Star Trek uniform.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          She wore the shirt as clothing and the guitar continues to have uses. The gorilla suit?

          • Ball Peen Hammer ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            The astronauts all received Christmas presents from family this year, sent as cargo. NASA did not disclose what those presents were, as they were personal gifts. Were they all vetted to be certain they would “continue to have uses” before they were allowed, or only to be sure they would be safe in the enclosed environment?

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            I’m still laughing!

  12. Arthur Hamilton says:
    0
    0

    Considering some of the items that have been flown on government aircraft, during the past that wasn’t part of the official mission, I’d say leave it alone. At least he isn’t getting drunk and trashing the station.

  13. tutiger87 says:
    0
    0

    Geez…cant put a price on fun. Dude is there for a year. A YEAR. Give it a rest…

  14. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    It’s f.u.n.

  15. Chris Marshall says:
    0
    0

    What’s a $100,000 when you look at how much is being wasted on SLS/Orion!!!!

  16. Ball Peen Hammer ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
    0
    0

    Sure, it’s not as if there is any psychological benefit to allowing the astronauts to bring a limited supply of personal items with them to the ISS, or receive care packages from friends and family with things like Christmas presents while they are confined in a space on par with a double-wide mobile home for a year – that’s less space than the prisoners in a super-max federal pen get to move around in….

    And what about the pentagon spending all that money to ship care packages to troops overseas from APO/FPO addresses stateside? Is this why the taxpayers fund the department of defense?

  17. UDbmas says:
    0
    0

    I would imagine that suit will be sold for far more than it cost once Kelly and the suit return to earth. It may even become part of a Science/Technology exhibit at a museum and generate fresh interest (and paid admissions) at that museum. Lighten up, not only is it camp and obviously a boredom reliever/morale booster for a year spent in the isolation of space, but it also may inspire a younger generation of would-be scientists, engineers and astronauts when they see they don’t have to give up having fun.

  18. SJG_2010 says:
    0
    0

    Every launch payload I have ever worked on required significant amount of ballast weight. You have a target mass that the upper stage is expecting. Every subsystem has mass margin in their back pocket, and when you weigh the payload it (almost) always comes in under weight.
    So to bring the payload up to weight (and balance it) we typically add Tungsten ballast weights. IIRC Kepler had HUNDREDS of pounds of ballast. On ANY OTHER payload you have no option but to add tungsten ballast weight. For a supply mission, you have other options, like add more snacks, or personal items, or gorilla suits. I would bet that this suit was not part of the original manifest but a “shipment of opportunity” to offset what might have otherwise been tungsten ballast weights.

  19. J C says:
    0
    0

    I agree with the “lighten up” comments, but for a reason. No one except the handful of people who have completed long-duration space missions really knows what they need for their long-term psychological health. Kelly’s been there a year; we haven’t. He at least has had the option of coming home if the length of the stay started affecting him psychologically. Astronauts headed to Mars or other deep space destinations won’t have that luxury. Some “planned silliness” is probably going to be a necessity for the long-term health of those astronauts. If ISS is really a laboratory for permanent space habitation, then all kinds of human needs have to be considered, including play time. The cost is just part of the cost of being in space. Which would be more expensive, flying a gorilla suit to Mars, or having the mission commander crack under stress at a critical moment because someone groused about the cost of his personal items?

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Right. He couldn’t wait less than a week to wear it on Earth? Without it he would be psychologically unfit? Please.

      • J C says:
        0
        0

        C’mon now, deflection doesn’t become you. Kelly is obviously not on the verge of cracking up. (OTOH, maybe this is a sign he already has!) You know the point I am making is that recreation, play, stress relief, humor, etc., are and will be important on long space missions. One guy’s guitar is another one’s gorilla suit, and if we’re going to study the best way to keep people healthy for months in a spacecraft, both may turn out to be important. Besides, I notice another poster has pointed out the need for ballast mass, so your worries about Koko’s drain on the NASA budget may be unfounded. Maybe Kelly opted for the gorilla suit vs. one of his Aunt Bertha’s famous Christmas sweaters.

      • Shaw_Bob says:
        0
        0

        If he wore it on Earth he might well have been deemed psychologically unfit. My wife certainly thinks I am when I slip the surly bonds of humanity and put on something less comfortable…

      • LoredoB says:
        0
        0

        Um…I’ve got to wonder if perhaps it was the knowledge that he HAD a gorilla suit that helped keep him psychologically fit so long. Having that nugget in my back pocket would probably be enough to keep me going an extra few months as I waited out the perfect moment for it. But by now we all know that it was the astronaut’s personal payload, which can include whatever he/she determines will provide mental or physical support. In this case, it appears to achieve both. Not to mention drawing countless people, who’d otherwise have very little awareness of this mission, into a spirited discussion about weights, measures and the complex critical-mission decisions required of space travel. Win-win. In any case, I just sent a small donation to NASA to help cover the cost. Keeping astronauts sane and fostering international relations up there that appear to be failing down here rank kind of high on my own priority list.

  20. mrjawright says:
    0
    0

    “End up as trash and be thrown away”? hardly.
    it’s the only recorded gorilla suit to fly in space.
    if it doesn’t end up on ebay, I will be surprised.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      So …. the Kelly brothers use government funds to fly a gorilla suit up to (and back from) the ISS and then try to sell it on eBay? Right. Who gets the proceeds? The Kellys? No. Before you answer its not going to be NASA. Donate the proceeds? They needed to have that agreement in place before – not after the fact – and NASA has never done that before.

  21. Shaw_Bob says:
    0
    0

    I quite like the idea of the gorilla suit staying aboard the ISS after he leaves, ready for use. A bit like the guitar on Mir, but far more sensible.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      True, but it is only funny once and unless it is made out of material approved as “clothing” I doubt it can be used for routine use.

      • Shaw_Bob says:
        0
        0

        Nothing wrong with routinely dressing up as one of our cousins, says I! Now, if they’d launched a giant blow-up banana, that would have been *silly*. Just sayin’..

  22. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    If if was personal weight there isn’t any story. Humans must take our humor with us as we go or else we might as well keep humans on the ground and only send emotionally dead mechanical life.

  23. GregB says:
    0
    0

    Perhaps if they wanted to do something a little more high-toned and intellectual they could have done a take-off of the man-apes in “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

  24. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    I have no problem with enabling the crew to unwind but this strikes me as being a bit… well… silly. Are they really that starved of useful work to do with the ISS?

  25. TMA2050 says:
    0
    0

    Comedy just doesn’t travel well.

  26. Tritium3H says:
    0
    0

    This is why we can’t have nice things!

  27. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    Keith, you are making an erroneous assumption that upmass is a constraining resource. It isn’t, particularly with respect to utilization or payloads. Instead you should look into why the ISS program has such a hard time finding, integrating, and operating payloads. That would be a real eye opener especially given that RISE has concluded that the integration process turns most payloads away thanks to its five year schedule and 70% redundant and superfluous integration documentation. Its great they are finding these things out and are now intending to correct the situation, but in the meantime the program has wasted at least ten years of the system’s lifespan. That is criminal and the result of organizational and management problems.

  28. Gene DiGennaro says:
    0
    0

    Was the gorilla suit made of beta cloth?! Inquiring minds want to know!

  29. Gene DiGennaro says:
    0
    0

    Next time the Russians make a suitsat, might I suggest a gorilla suitsat!

  30. Robert Rice says:
    0
    0

    So you are allowed 11 pounds of personal items?

    A blow up doll must way far less than a gorilla suit…and is probably far more useful

    You know…companionship and all. Lol

  31. Granit says:
    0
    0

    Haters gonna hate……