AIRS: Weeknights 7 p.m. ET / 4 p.m. PT

In the Crossfire

Space tourism as 'high-tech bungee jumping'

(CNN) -- An aspiring space tourist and a skeptical college professor joined CNN Crossfire hosts Tucker Carlson and James Carville for a frank discussion on whether NASA should send paid passengers into space. The tumultous talkfest came hours after the second paid tourist went into orbit aboard a Russian spacecraft. Here are excerpts from the Thursday show.

CARLSON: Twenty-eight-year-old Mark Shuttleworth, a South African, is headed for a brief stay on the international space station. It's an expensive vacation. Shuttleworth, like businessman Dennis Tito before him, shelled out $20 million for the trip.

Both men have said it's well worth the price, but it is safe for the rest of the crew? And should the rich but inexperienced be allowed to buy their way onto scientific expeditions?

An ethereal topic, earthly questions that form our debate tonight. Please welcome aspiring space tourist and former NASA official Lori Garver and University of Maryland professor Robert Park.

CARVILLE: How you doing? Lori, I want to get this straight. You're going to pay $20 million to get on a Russian-built spacecraft and go up to space?

GARVER: To have the dream of a lifetime.

CARVILLE: How about -- you couldn't pay me $20 million to get on something Russian-built and go into space. I bet you couldn't pay me $20 million to get on Russian-built elevator.

GARVER: That is great. I don't need any more competition. That is fabulous that you don't want to go too. You're a little big for the spacecraft also.

CARVILLE: Well, why shouldn't she? What's the problem with her going up there?

PARK: Well, this is high-tech bungee jumping. And we paid a lot of money for our space station, and this guy is going to take up space on it. I mean, we were going to do things up there, or at least that's what they said. I think this kind of reveals what the problem was all the time. Nobody has figured out what the space station is for.

CARLSON: Well, but Mr. Park, to be fair, there have been dogs and monkeys spent into space. Now, Lori Garver wants to go up. So does Lance Bass, a guy who sings for a band called 'NSYNC, a boy-band. Now, a guy from a boy band can do probably better than a dog, at least as good as the monkey. I mean, how truly -- I mean, there's a low threshold here, right?

PARK: The threshold is low, but what are we doing with this thing? I mean, what is the space station for?

GARVER: Well, the bottom line is the space station is really our foothold to the cosmos. We are going into space. We are explorers just like we were in the West.

CARVILLE: We ain't going anywhere. You may be going, but we are staying right here on old terra firma, I'll guarantee you that right now!

PARK: What's with exploration stuff? They're in low-earth orbit. They're about as far away as New York City.

GARVER: And we can't go further until we learn what happens to us in space.

CARVILLE: Well, let me ask you a question. Suppose you get caught up there. How much money should we spend going to rescue you? I mean, suppose we have got to spend $25 million. Would you say, just leave you up there and rotate around?

GARVER: One great thing about the space tourist is that we do pay our own way.

CARVILLE: I understand.

GARVER: And the government otherwise would have to spend this money.

CARVILLE: If I go out in Annapolis and I get caught in a storm, the Coast Guard will come get me. If you get caught up there, who is going to go get you and how much is it going to cost and who is going to pay for it?

CARLSON: Well, the space guard, obviously.

GARVER: What we launch in is a Soyuz rocket, which is the escape vehicle. And so, if our escape vehicle can't come back, frankly, there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to get us. So I don't think that's a concern.

We go up in the vehicle that the astronauts will come down in on the space station if there is a problem. Space shuttles take months to prepare for flights. So that is not going to be an issue.

CARLSON: Mr. Park, you say what is the point of all of this? And part of the point has got to be, apart from fulfilling a lifelong dream, part of the point has got to be raising money and awareness of the space program. I want to read you a quote from Buzz Aldrin, former American astronaut, of course.

PARK: I'm sure he's in favor of this.

CARLSON: Space tourism, quote, "is the only vehicle that will generate the high-volume traffic that will ultimately reduce the cost of space access." Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

PARK: I wonder just how big this market is. I mean, how many people are willing to fork out $20 million for a high-tech bungee jump?

CARLSON: Well, you have got Lance Bass. You've got Lori Garver. There's two.

GARVER: Well, clearly, the price has to be reduced through development of new reusable launch vehicles and the market will, we hope, drive investment in those vehicles so that that can happen and more people can have this experience.

PARK: Well, now, Lori, tell me, in the U.S. budget, what is the budget for the shuttle?

GARVER: $4 billion.

PARK: OK. And how many shuttle missions do we get a year?

GARVER: I think there were six this year.

PARK: You want to divide that into $4 billion and tell me what that number is? I mean, that's what a launch costs. These aren't cheap. This guy isn't paying his way. He isn't paying anything like his way.

GARVER: Oh, he absolutely is. The Soyuz craft costs $3 to $4 million and he's paying $20 million. He's not only paying his way, but if the U.S. had to pay this to the Russians, it would be your tax dollars going.

CARVILLE: I think a commercial airliner costs like $30 million. And you're saying the Soyuz craft costs $3 million? So, wait, if I go from Washington to New York, I'm on a $30 million airplane. And you're going up in space on the $3 million craft?

GARVER: And somebody went today safely.

CARLSON: Now, Mr. Parks, what -- I mean, you obviously consider this confusing and vulgar. But consider the options here. I mean, there is a $4.5 billion cost to overrun at NASA. So obviously we are going to need to think of new ways to generate revenue. Do you think it's out the realm of possibility that at some point, NASA is going to say, why not put McDonald's ads, say, on the space shuttle or find commercial ways to raise money.

PARK: Well, it's come very close to that.

CARVILLE: The point is, when (a space launch vehicle) is in the public domain, shouldn't qualification as opposed to money determine who gets to go?

GARVER: Well, on a government program like the space shuttle, absolutely. They're not even really contemplating sending tourists on that. This is a Russian vehicle, which actually they are commercializing.

To the extent there are new vehicles are developed that are commercial, absolutely. The people who can buy the seats are going to get to go. That's the American way.

CARLSON: But, in fact, it hasn't always been, James, as you know, the most qualified. Dr. Parks, I mean, there was of course a teacher famously on the Challenger when it exploded. There is going to be another teacher going up. I mean, I think, frankly, I would come down on the side of the boy band singer before a teacher. I mean, it's not clear that one is more qualified to go into space than the other. It's not meritocracy.

PARK: I have to question why we're sending anyone at this point, in -- I mean, we're sending them into low-earth orbit, to go on a little circle around the Earth, as I say, about as far away as New York is from Washington. And what are they learning in low-earth orbit?

GARVER: Well, they're learning all about how to live and work in space. That is going to allow us to go further. We as a...

CARVILLE: Why not send robots up there?

PARK: I'll tell you, we're not going further. And we're not going further because -- by the time we could get to where we could send a human being to Mars, our robots will have done the job. There won't be anything left to learn.

CARLSON: What robots?

GARVER: Would we have sent -- would Jefferson have sent robots to explore the West. We need to go as a people. We're part of exploring.

CARLSON: Right.

CARVILLE: Well, he couldn't send a robot.

CARLSON: No, but if Lewis and Clark were robotic, it would have been an entirely different trip. You must admit.

CARVILLE: Who can work longer and harder, a robot or a human being?

PARK: Robots don't stop for lunch. They don't complain about the cold at night.

CARLSON: And they're not as charming, though. Unfortunately, we are going have to leave it there. And you two are both very charming. Lori Garver, thank you very much. Robert Park, thank you for joining us.