Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the way-cooler-than-a-pillow-fort dept.
zootsuite writes "Space.com is reporting that a Russian space shuttle is on the auction block today. Minimum asking price: $6 million." Nothing says white trash like having
a multimilliondollar russian space shuttle rusting on your lawn! Better yet,
someone could buy it COD ;)
Delivery fees
by
Ars-Fartsica
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Getting this thing from Russia to your backyard is going to cost at least another million.
Russia's Space Program.
by
suwalski
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
In the last few years, Russia seems to be selling off/out much of it's space program. First (or maybe not first) their space shuttle program was cancelled and never flew (even though they had a better shuttle design than NASA), then MIR was decommisioned, then they started selling trips to space, and now they're selling the Buran. Perhaps this can be seen as a demise of their program, but it is offering more and more commercialization. Again, the Russians have beat the US to space by opening it up to the (rich) public.
Does anyone have any idea how Buran got transported? Was it using a similar way as the NASA shuttle with the AA 747, or more likely to have been by sea?
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
Waffle+Iron
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
First (or maybe not first) their space shuttle program was cancelled and never flew (even though they had a better shuttle design than NASA),
IIRC, they did do one successful unmanned orbital flight
of the Buran. I think the fact that they managed
to launch and land the thing on autopilot
on the first try was a pretty impressive feat.
The only stupid part was trying to replicate the
ill-conceived US shuttle in the first place.
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
badvictor
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
As many have pointed out the space shuttle program was cancelled because it was inferior to the currently existing methods of transportation. The whole "selling off" trend that you percieve is simply the equivalent of digging in your garage and seeing what old crap you can sell before it becomes totally worthless. MIR has outlived its original planned mission many times over -- it was time for it to go.
I think the Russian space program is simply streamlining -- getting rid of the old, useless things, and finding new streams of revenue, i.e. space tourism. Hardly the demise.
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
Guppy06
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"even though they had a better shuttle design than NASA"
How do you figure? The Buran seems to be inherently more expensive to operate than the STS. With the STS, all engines (both the STS main engines and the SRBs) are recoverable and resuable, and all you have to do is refuel the SRBs and make a new external tank. With the Buran, you have to build a new Engeria booster for every launch, and the Buran had no engines of its own.
"Does anyone have any idea how Buran got transported?"
From this article, it looks like they mostly used the An-225.
Re:Russia's Space Program.
by
BitMan
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"The only stupid part was trying to replicate the ill-conceived US shuttle in the first place."
I wouldn't expect a/.'er to know jack shit about the Buran. Although the "Orbiter" is similar in design, the Russian solid-LH/LO2 combo booster design was developed before NASA designed the shuttle! Have you even seen the Buran? It does not have any "liquid LH/LO2 engines" on the Orbiter because the engines are on the "tank" itself. I.e. It isn't just an "external fuel tank" like the US Shuttle!
As such, NASA copied the Soviet design when it came to the solid-LH/LO2 booster design. In fact, I'll argue it was stupid for NASA to put the main liquid fuel engines on the Orbiter! Hence the return to an "Orbiter" without engines on the new, proposed designs from LockMart, Orbital-Northrop and Boeing. The US Shuttle is more complex than it needs to be IMHO.
-- -- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Independent Author, Consultant and Trainer
Don't forget, you've got to buy the factory that makes the Energia boosters...
Russia has the right idea
by
GuyMannDude
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Perhaps this can be seen as a demise of their program, but it is offering more and more commercialization.
I don't agree that this trend represents any demise of their program. Rather the Russians are just doing whatever they can to get the funding they need. During the cold war, the space race was largely propaganda for both the US and USSR. The space agencies in both countries got the funding they wanted because politicians were eager to "show off" to the rest of the world. After the end of the cold war, politicians decided that science wasn't worth funding anymore. The Russian science program, eager to continue their work, simply looked for non-state-sponsered funding sources. They feel no shame in accepting an ad from Pizza Hut on the side of their rocket or selling defunct machinery. Most Russians probably think it's funny. In the meantime, the American space program still longs for the good ol' days when they were considered a source of national pride. For them, they simply cannot bear the thought of begging the public for money. They would rather get by with less but "maintain their pride". In the meantime, lots of important scientific work goes undone because of their refusal to swallow their pride and ask for money from the private sector.
I think the Russians have the right idea. It's time for NASA to realize that the glory days are over and they have to find new funding sources to continue their work.
The spinoff justification for space
by
alienmole
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Most people have no idea the kind of impact the space programs of the world have had on everyday life. Freeze dried foods, powdered drinks, plastics, computers, digital cameras, compsite materials, GPS, cell phones, long distance phone calls, satellite TV... The list goes on and on.
You're not making a distinction between direct and indirect spinoffs, though. GPS and satellite-based communication are not a side-effect of investment in space, they were one of the prime justifications for it. Freeze dried food and pens that write upside down, on the other hand, were a side effect.
I'm a unwavering supporter of space exploration and exploitation in general, but I don't think you can legitimately justify the space program or its cost based on its side effects. The side effects can be considered a form of indirect and partial cost recovery, but to justify the cost of the program, you'd have to show that the return on investment in space is greater than investment in some other area would be.
For example, instead of investing in a government agency with a monopoly on space, an equivalent investment in high-tech R&D grants to private industry might have yielded far greater technical innovation. Projects like that would also have been less likely to waste money in inefficient ways, as in the case of the space shuttle.
The spinoff argument can also come back to bite you, since it can be used to justify any large government program that involves research, such as a missile defense "shield".
Space exploration can quite easily be justified based on its direct impact, so I don't think it's necessary to introduce red herrings into the equation. The excessive cost of the space shuttle is a real issue which arises from questionably decisions by NASA in the past, which they became stuck with for political reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Getting this thing from Russia to your backyard is going to cost at least another million.
In the last few years, Russia seems to be selling off/out much of it's space program. First (or maybe not first) their space shuttle program was cancelled and never flew (even though they had a better shuttle design than NASA), then MIR was decommisioned, then they started selling trips to space, and now they're selling the Buran. Perhaps this can be seen as a demise of their program, but it is offering more and more commercialization. Again, the Russians have beat the US to space by opening it up to the (rich) public.
Does anyone have any idea how Buran got transported? Was it using a similar way as the NASA shuttle with the AA 747, or more likely to have been by sea?
Don't forget, you've got to buy the factory that makes the Energia boosters...
Perhaps this can be seen as a demise of their program, but it is offering more and more commercialization.
I don't agree that this trend represents any demise of their program. Rather the Russians are just doing whatever they can to get the funding they need. During the cold war, the space race was largely propaganda for both the US and USSR. The space agencies in both countries got the funding they wanted because politicians were eager to "show off" to the rest of the world. After the end of the cold war, politicians decided that science wasn't worth funding anymore. The Russian science program, eager to continue their work, simply looked for non-state-sponsered funding sources. They feel no shame in accepting an ad from Pizza Hut on the side of their rocket or selling defunct machinery. Most Russians probably think it's funny. In the meantime, the American space program still longs for the good ol' days when they were considered a source of national pride. For them, they simply cannot bear the thought of begging the public for money. They would rather get by with less but "maintain their pride". In the meantime, lots of important scientific work goes undone because of their refusal to swallow their pride and ask for money from the private sector.
I think the Russians have the right idea. It's time for NASA to realize that the glory days are over and they have to find new funding sources to continue their work.
GMD
watch this
You're not making a distinction between direct and indirect spinoffs, though. GPS and satellite-based communication are not a side-effect of investment in space, they were one of the prime justifications for it. Freeze dried food and pens that write upside down, on the other hand, were a side effect.
I'm a unwavering supporter of space exploration and exploitation in general, but I don't think you can legitimately justify the space program or its cost based on its side effects. The side effects can be considered a form of indirect and partial cost recovery, but to justify the cost of the program, you'd have to show that the return on investment in space is greater than investment in some other area would be.
For example, instead of investing in a government agency with a monopoly on space, an equivalent investment in high-tech R&D grants to private industry might have yielded far greater technical innovation. Projects like that would also have been less likely to waste money in inefficient ways, as in the case of the space shuttle.
The spinoff argument can also come back to bite you, since it can be used to justify any large government program that involves research, such as a missile defense "shield".
Space exploration can quite easily be justified based on its direct impact, so I don't think it's necessary to introduce red herrings into the equation. The excessive cost of the space shuttle is a real issue which arises from questionably decisions by NASA in the past, which they became stuck with for political reasons.