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 ;)
Second Space Tourist Won't be Given 'Ultimate Souv
by
anthony_dipierro
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Mark Shuttleworth, the world's second space tourist, has said he will return to his native South Africa with his spacesuit, but without the ultimate in souvenirs - the Russian Soyuz capsule that brought him back to Earth.
The 28-year-old Internet magnate, who paid $20 million for his 10-day adventure into space, told journalists in Moscow Tuesday, that the trip was worth the cost many times over.
Mr. Shuttleworth said he expressed interest in buying the space capsule, which he nicknamed "Betty," but was not able to reach agreement with the Russian space agency.
Sergei Gorbunov, a spokesman for the agency, said the capsule is federal property, adding the Soyuz is considered space technology and the legal procedures for exporting it would be long and complicated.
Mr. Shuttleworth said he hoped to have a replica of the vehicle built, which he could take to South Africa and display to school children to interest them in space exploration.
He also thanked his two crew mates, Russian commander Yuri Gidzenko and Italian pilot Roberto Vittori, for their help during his stay on the International Space Station and during the fiery descent to earth.
The Soyuz capsule landed safely in Kazakhstan Sunday.
Story from VOANews. Some information in this article provided by AFP.
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.
I'd buy it but....
by
GOD_ALMIGHTY
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I don't think I have cinder blocks big enough to put it on. It was hard enough finding some for that Mercury capsule I caught in my crab trap.
-- Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
of course he'll want one
by
Xaoswolf
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Tom Cruise has been suggested in particular
So that when Xenu returns to Teegeeack, he'll be far from those pesky H-bombs...
Kick in another million and they'll throw in some decaying nuclear war-heads.
LOL, if they can find them. I can see it now:
Russian Op> Hello, warhead distribution?
Caller> Yea, I sent in my free warhead certificate months ago, and still haven't received it.
Russian Op> Hmm, we shipped it out 2 months ago. Guess it got "lost" in the mail. That has been happening a lot lately. Anyways, let me get your address and we will send another one, plus a free one to make up for it.
Caller> 911 Kabul Drive.
Russin Op> Ok, we will get that right out to you. Don't forget to check our website at www.discountrussianwarheads.com
Hey Man, Imagine Cruising in This!
by
NeuroManson
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Install a thumping sound system, some crushed velvet interior fabrics, a hydraulic lift system to make it jump, and of course the prerequisite chromed chain steering wheel, and you can be a gangsta in STYYYYLE!
-- Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right.
Shoes for industry!
Re:Delivery fees
by
arivanov
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
er.... How to put it politely... er... get a clue...
Buran is too heavy for any US cargo jet.
Just to remind you US cargo jets suck rocks in the heavy bulk cargo business. For example the "problematic chinese incident" plane (you know which one) had to be carried to the US by a british company subcontracting to Antonov's construction bureau using an AN 124 Anthei. This was for a reason. The fuselage of the plane did not fit in any of the Galaxy series.
The only thing that can lift a Buran intact is a AN 224 Mria which has recently been brought back from being mothballed. Subcontractable through the same UK company (forgot the name, based in Scotland). It will be more expensive then several thousands because it is a special purpose flight.
A Jumbo cannot lift a Buran off. It is heavier then the US shuttles. Dunno exactly how much. But enough to exceed both take off weight and undercariage structural limits on Boeing 747.
-- Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
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.
Re:Delivery fees
by
bob_jordan
·
· Score: 5, Funny
If after paying for it, the Russians ask for a grid reference for your house, whatever you do, ask to confirm the exact method of delivery.
Bob.
Private space travel?
by
theolein
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
While the idea of some Hollywood start having one of these is ridiculous, the idea of selling one to a private enterprise company would be a huge boost for breaking the monopoly that governments hold on space travel. I'm sure that in the US it should not be too difficult for a space industries startup to gather $6 million from investors. The problem of course would be infrastructure (boosters, fuel, launchpads, tracking stations) but it would be a lot further down the road than current efforts are.
The Buran actually flew and according to most reports is very reliable compared to the space shuttle (12 years of testing, can fly automatically).
The ability for smaller firms to get into space would surely be paid back in terms of travel, industry etc.
Stolen? NOT!
by
Fenris2001
·
· Score: 5, Informative
OK, for those of you who think this is just a rip-off of NASA's Shuttle: It's not
Most importantly:
The American shuttle design was studied intensively by Russian rocket scientists, but important aspects of it were rejected based on Soviet engineering analysis and technology.
Space hardware is notoriously NOT modular - a design that works on American solid-fuel boosters doesn't work on Russian liquid-fuel boosters. Furthermore, and more importantly, all of the control systems on Buran were designed and built solely by the Soviets. This allowed Burtan to do something the US Shuttle can't - fly to space and back unmanned.
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
Mark Shuttleworth, the world's second space tourist, has said he will return to his native South Africa with his spacesuit, but without the ultimate in souvenirs - the Russian Soyuz capsule that brought him back to Earth. The 28-year-old Internet magnate, who paid $20 million for his 10-day adventure into space, told journalists in Moscow Tuesday, that the trip was worth the cost many times over. Mr. Shuttleworth said he expressed interest in buying the space capsule, which he nicknamed "Betty," but was not able to reach agreement with the Russian space agency. Sergei Gorbunov, a spokesman for the agency, said the capsule is federal property, adding the Soyuz is considered space technology and the legal procedures for exporting it would be long and complicated. Mr. Shuttleworth said he hoped to have a replica of the vehicle built, which he could take to South Africa and display to school children to interest them in space exploration. He also thanked his two crew mates, Russian commander Yuri Gidzenko and Italian pilot Roberto Vittori, for their help during his stay on the International Space Station and during the fiery descent to earth. The Soyuz capsule landed safely in Kazakhstan Sunday. Story from VOANews. Some information in this article provided by AFP.
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?
I don't think I have cinder blocks big enough to put it on. It was hard enough finding some for that Mercury capsule I caught in my crab trap.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
So that when Xenu returns to Teegeeack, he'll be far from those pesky H-bombs...
Xaotik Designs
Wow, first they steal the US shuttle design, and now they're trying to sell it back! Those guys are learning the ways of capitalism pretty quick!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Kick in another million and they'll throw in some decaying nuclear war-heads.
LOL, if they can find them. I can see it now:
Russian Op> Hello, warhead distribution?
Caller> Yea, I sent in my free warhead certificate months ago, and still haven't received it.
Russian Op> Hmm, we shipped it out 2 months ago. Guess it got "lost" in the mail. That has been happening a lot lately. Anyways, let me get your address and we will send another one, plus a free one to make up for it.
Caller> 911 Kabul Drive.
Russin Op> Ok, we will get that right out to you. Don't forget to check our website at www.discountrussianwarheads.com
Install a thumping sound system, some crushed velvet interior fabrics, a hydraulic lift system to make it jump, and of course the prerequisite chromed chain steering wheel, and you can be a gangsta in STYYYYLE!
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
er.... How to put it politely... er... get a clue...
Buran is too heavy for any US cargo jet.
Just to remind you US cargo jets suck rocks in the heavy bulk cargo business. For example the "problematic chinese incident" plane (you know which one) had to be carried to the US by a british company subcontracting to Antonov's construction bureau using an AN 124 Anthei. This was for a reason. The fuselage of the plane did not fit in any of the Galaxy series.
The only thing that can lift a Buran intact is a AN 224 Mria which has recently been brought back from being mothballed. Subcontractable through the same UK company (forgot the name, based in Scotland). It will be more expensive then several thousands because it is a special purpose flight.
A Jumbo cannot lift a Buran off. It is heavier then the US shuttles. Dunno exactly how much. But enough to exceed both take off weight and undercariage structural limits on Boeing 747.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
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
If after paying for it, the Russians ask for a grid reference for your house, whatever you do, ask to confirm the exact method of delivery.
Bob.
While the idea of some Hollywood start having one of these is ridiculous, the idea of selling one to a private enterprise company would be a huge boost for breaking the monopoly that governments hold on space travel. I'm sure that in the US it should not be too difficult for a space industries startup to gather $6 million from investors. The problem of course would be infrastructure (boosters, fuel, launchpads, tracking stations) but it would be a lot further down the road than current efforts are.
The Buran actually flew and according to most reports is very reliable compared to the space shuttle (12 years of testing, can fly automatically).
The ability for smaller firms to get into space would surely be paid back in terms of travel, industry etc.
Most importantly:Space hardware is notoriously NOT modular - a design that works on American solid-fuel boosters doesn't work on Russian liquid-fuel boosters. Furthermore, and more importantly, all of the control systems on Buran were designed and built solely by the Soviets. This allowed Burtan to do something the US Shuttle can't - fly to space and back unmanned.
---------------
Vpered na Mars!
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.