Slashdot Mirror
Russian Cargo Ship Docks At ISS, Preps For Tourist
christchurch writes "Russia unmanned cargo ship Progress M-54, carrying food and supplies, docked at the International Space Station safely yesterday. A two-man replacement crew is scheduled to head to the station on 1st of October, along with an American scientist-businessman, Gregory Olsen, who is paying the Russian space agency $20 million for a weeklong visit."
The food and supplies arrive just in time for the current crew to leave in a few weeks...
:D
If I were them, I'd eat all the space ice-cream before I had to leave
For 2 million dollars I could buy a 100 floating Russian nuclear powerplants!
I wonder how much it actually cost the Russian space agency to put him there and bring him back (safely) a week later. Could it be that the Russian space agency has established a decent tourism business for space where they are actually turning a decent profit?
the russians have unmanned cargo spacecraft?
and one just docked successfully with the ISS?
do i live under a rock?
i think i'm impressed.
i suppose umannedness eliminates all logistical problems of life support on a craft bound for the ISS, but still i'm impressed.
Yes, Russia is having to pay to get him there, but Russia is pretty much treating this multi-national scientific endeavor as a high priced hotel. Why not let Hilton or someone pop for a hotel module and start funding some of the space program, since there doesn't seem to be a shortage of millionaires wanting to go to space. Maybe then we could fix the hubble or some other meaningful science.
Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/
the USSR did not fell because of a lack of money(think of corruption first and revival of national movments of some of the now formerly soviet republics), and even if it would have - $20 mil. per flight is not that significat to a country the size of the former Soviet Union
As any Tourist at DisneyWorld could tell you $33.06 per second "seems" about average these days.
And they say Russians are cheap? These guys are the live-wire for ISS. U.S, who claim the most of ISS are reluctant to launch a shuttle after Katrina. I dont see reason. Russians whose economy is much on the brink are doing the save-the-day-job for the ISS. I think U.S never thanked Russia for their support in the project-ISS and the fact that Russians are feeding those abandoned astronauts in the ISS.
The F-117 lost in the Balkans was purely luck; they knew the plane was overhead, but couldn't detect it, so they just started throwing everything they had into the air, much like over Baghdad during the Gulf War.
;-)
It was not _pure_ luck, from what I've heard -- US pilots and mission planners were so SURE that it is "invisible" that it ran the same route day after day. And, of course, given enough time even very small signals can be detected over averaged-out noise... They knew when and where it was coming and were shooting for it.
Of course it does not beat using $100 microwave ovens with broken door block to lure $1,000,000 anti radar station missiles...
Why, yes, I WAS trained as a Soviet air-defence officer!
Paul B.
It will be visible to the warhead above regardless of whether it absorbs RF or not. Any ground pattern that does not autocorrelate using a given pair of offsets must be the target. The same software will work both cases.
I think the Russians figgured out KISS while NASA figured out pork. Sometime we might get ourselved out of LEO and maybe some of those working Nuke rockets till then the Russians seem to have the best working technology lets use it and get things done.
No sir I dont like it.
I'll bite. I am in a charitable mood today.
The most probable reason is that they considered your "contribution" to be so far out as to not warrant a reply. While there are wacky moderators here, trolls are far more numerous. And then there is the particular species of American-centric troll who believes that the whole world (and possibly the Universe itself) is/was/is-to-be saved from doom at US taxpayers expense, had divine US knowledge granted to them (and thus all their pitiful attempts at technology or science are "stolen" or "derrivative"), and generally mooched off the oh-so-benevolent US taxpayer tit, followed by being belligerently ungrateful snakes who refuse to acknowledge the Divine Light bestowed upon them by the inhabitants of the Chosen Land of the US of A. Or something along these lines.
Point in case: the US taxpayer was not funding the Russian space program to any significant degree. There was contract work done on many things, like long-term zero-g habitiation components of ISS with which NASA had next to zero experience. Russia is involved in many commercial ventures, some of them funded indirectly by the US government but that is because ... they are the best bang for the buck. US taxpayers are actually saving money on those deals (like for example the various payload agreements and lauch facilities use deals). The total amount spent on all of that stuff is about 4-5 shuttle launches worth over the last decade.
Russians are actually at this point sustaining the NASA's ISS activity by ferrying US astronauts to and from the station at no charge, way past their original obligation, ever since the Shuttle is effectively kaput.
There, perheaps this should clarify a thing or two.
I always prefer an explicit disagreement to an anonymous suppression - because I get a chance to learn something.
:) position. I appreciate your actually engaging in a disagreement. If you can convince me of your statement, that we're getting a fair deal from our Russian "partners" (not just a good offshore investment deal that cheats our ROI), I stand a chance to finally learn something new about the ISS operation.
I have not seen new numbers on any possible reversal of ISS expenses between US & Russian budgets since the Shuttle was grounded a few years ago. Until that time, the US had heavily subsidized the Russian efforts, paying not only for US work on the ISS, but also paying a great deal into Russian budgets. Which produced work that missed specs and schedules, bottlenecking the entire project. I'd like to see that the Russians have now taken the lead, while circumstances favor their positions. Some citations.
However, I won't be heartened if the numbers show the US is "saving money" by investing it in the Russian space industry rather than our own. Our space program spins off manifold its cost in benefit to our economy, not to mention our national pride. I don't mind producing science and engineering knowledge the rest of the world also gets secondhand. In fact, that's one of the benefits to the US: we're valuable to other countries. It's one of the social benefits from the essentially transnational scientific community that has been possibly the most civilizing force in our species for hundreds of years. But I don't want us getting it secondhand from other countries at our expense. I want us investing in our own space industry, which also grows our own commercial aerospace industry (those huge contracts go to aerospace corporations, not just relatively small NASA units). So we can stay competitive, even with the extremely experienced Russians and their cheaper economy.
So hopefully that clarifies my (nontroll
--
make install -not war
For example, here. But you should really google yourself. Russian space agency budget is mere $130 million in total per year. That is why $20 million for a paying customer is a big deal. Note that a single Shuttle launch costs around $400-500 million. Presently the Russians are not receiving even the contract work they used to due to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 as the US law forbids it.
However, I won't be heartened if the numbers show the US is "saving money" by investing it in the Russian space industry rather than our own. Our space program spins off manifold its cost in benefit to our economy, not to mention our national pride.
What I was pointing out is that the total amount is miniscule by comparison to the NASA budget.
I don't mind producing science and engineering knowledge the rest of the world also gets secondhand. In fact, that's one of the benefits to the US: we're valuable to other countries. It's one of the social benefits from the essentially transnational scientific community that has been possibly the most civilizing force in our species for hundreds of years. But I don't want us getting it secondhand from other countries at our expense.
It all depends by what do you mean at your "expense". The zero-g Russian experience from two decades of operating orbital facilities would be very expensive to obtain otherwise. Or are you suggesting that the US should have not built the ISS with the rest of the world and made a new Skylab (NASA's last orbital habitat experience was 30 years old)?
I want us investing in our own space industry, which also grows our own commercial aerospace industry (those huge contracts go to aerospace corporations, not just relatively small NASA units). So we can stay competitive, even with the extremely experienced Russians and their cheaper economy.
As I said, you are making an issue from some spare change on the fringes of the American space activities.
The US got the 20 years worth of Russian orbital habitat experience on the cheap. I still do not understand your point.
And it's really not the proceeds from this single passenger, to which I did not refer, though that amount is not insubstantial. $20M of a $400M Shuttle mission is 5%, which is a pretty substantial amount.
You gotta be kidding. NASA budget in 2005 alone is around $16 billion. The $20 mil may be "substantial" to the Russians with their laughable (and yet sufficient to compete with NASA) $130 million yearly budget. But not to the US.
What's at issue is that the Russians are getting the experience of launching civilians, and the US (or any US launcher) is not.
"Launching civlians" is the easiest part of that deal. You get one, get him simplified training and stick his ass into the Soyuz. There is no "experience" to be gained from this, other then how many barf bags to bring along.
It's the billions the US has spent subsidizing the ISS, which the Russians have always had a disproportionate share in.
As I keep explaining, the major motivation was to purchase the Russian experience, which NASA did not posses.
While that subsidy was keeping Russian scientists from getting jobs with proliferators like Iran, it was worth the money in the bad deal. But now that subsidy has (in part) enabled the Russians to circumvent the Iran nonproliferation treaty, as you point out. So the US is subsidizing the Russians, who are thereby able to offer technology to Iran.
Actually, no. You see, as I keep pointing out, the Russians had already acquired all that experience in the Soviet days, at the expense of the ole USSR. NASA was merely purchasing it. The missile experience was there already, and will remain there for an indefinite future. As to Iran, we are talking about 60 year old missile and nuclear tech and I think the US is completely bonkers to believe that Iran will not get the stuff sooner or later, from somewhere. Pakistan, that industrial and scientific "giant", got it. North Korea, who cannot manage to feed its people and keep their apartament complexes lit and heated, still managed to get (or get near to) nukes on its own. Etc, and so on.
Who is threatening the US with nuclear missiles (as soon as they have them). That sounds like a terrible investment for US taxpayers, regardless of the cost.
That view is not very convincing. You seem to be in the camp which believes that any foreign expenditure is counter-productive as some of the money will always, inevietably, meander its way somewhere where you would not like. As to Iran threatening the US with nukes, I would like to point out to you that Iran's nuclear ambitions did not gain frantic, panic steam until the oh-so-diplomatic "axis of evil" musings of a certain high-placed individual, followed by some adventures in Iraqi sand. And that is remarkable since Israel has been menacing the whole region with both nukes and missiles to carry them for many decades now. Your view is completely one-sided and unreastically US-centric as I charged originally.
Except that the Russians are not in any tourist "business", they are doing it as a stop-gap desperation funding shortage measure. The "space tourism" idea is universally hated at all levels of the Russian space agency and will be promptly abandoned as soon as the monetary need is no longer there. We are really talking about the barf bag level of effort here. They are doing nothing whatsoever to make it easier on the "tourist", unlike British Airways who does not (last time I heard) require you to pay for your own pressure suit and sit around with an oxygen mask on while the plane performs high-g rapid manouvers to make it easier for the airline to fullfill other, more important, prorities.
I complained about the $billions the US has spent on the ISS, from which the Russians have benefitted disproportionately.
I understand what you are saying, and right here is your hangup: the Russians did not "benefit disproportionately" in any of this. They already had the experience, the tech and the people. The US had no orbital habitat experience to speak of. Enter a cash transaction, the Russians get coin, the US the experience to peruse, at 1/100th of the real price.
NASA has not "bought" the superior Russian experience. It's "rented" it, because we don't actually increase our experience with what we bought.
That is not true. The major part of the deal was for NASA to have complete access to the manufacturing processes, engineers, documentation and a whole other range of that Soviet experience. What NASA will do with that, is another discussion.
Another point that you fixate on is your invention of "isolationism" on my part. I have not said we shouldn't work with other countries, and in fact have repeated that we should in every message in this thread. You are the one fighting that strawman, not me.
Actually no, the "strawman" appearance originates from the fact that you are self-contradicting yourself. On one hand you say that international cooperation and funding of foreign research is a good thing and on the other that it is counter-productive and gets the US taxpayer nothing. While I keep pointing out that the particular ISS deal was actually a downright thrifty purchase for NASA.
So Russia gets an American to give them 14% of their operating budget to tag along on a mission, rather than stop helping Iran proliferate ... So US subsidies, and even private expenses, pay to develop the Russian space program, which helps Iran get nuclear missiles. Regardless of how Iran, Russia and the US got to that point, US investment in increasing that threat is obviously bad for the US.
There you go. "Helping Iran to proliferate". Never you mind that so far the Russians did nothing to actually help Iran build nukes, only to get their civilian program working, to which Iran is entitled under the non-proliferation treaties. Never you mind that the tech is already there from the days of Uncle Stalin. Never you mind that ISS or other space budgets have absolutely nothing to do with any of that Iranian activity. What do you really mean is to put Iran in the dog-house, where the US wants it, and thus for the Russians to be extorted into losing a major customer, who will then get his civilian stuff from somewhere else, regardless? Irrespective of which Iran will get their defense program going one way or another. A rather legitimate defense stuff to begin with. Look, the world does not revolve around US's ass. Iran is not getting nukes to level New York pre-emptively, they are getting them because they are scared shitless of US nuking Teheran pre-emptively, for that mad policy of pre-emption is now empirically evident for all to see in, say, Iraq and there are US senators on the record with ideas like "nuking Mecca" in response to any "terrorist att