Slashdot Mirror
US Senate Allows NASA To Buy Soyuz Vehicles
arc.light writes "According to a report at Space.com, the US Senate voted to allow NASA to buy Russian Soyuz vehicles for the purpose of servicing the International Space Station. Because Russia continues to assist Iran with its nuclear energy and ballistic missile programs, NASA would otherwise not be allowed to buy Russian hardware by the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000. The US House of Representatives still needs to give its approval before NASA can make such a purchase."
I mean why dont we just take Apollo back up there while we are at it, they where both built around the same time and seem to be better off than the shuttle is now :/
There HAS to be a better solution than these old 60s relics that doesnt cost a are and a leg like the flying deathtrap the shuttles are.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Is it really worth the cost to purchase a spacecraft which, by Russian admissions, are outdated and slated to be replaced? Unless NASA believes it has something to learn from the nature of the spacecraft, this is a stupid purchase. The funds would be better vested in performing research on MODERN technology.
So it seems that after Russia sends the last obligatory shuttle to the space station, we are left the with the options of a.) buying Russian gear to send our own folks or b.) paying the Russians to do it for us?
Whatever, if it saves money, I'm sure the government will do it. I'm pretty sure they can use extra cash wherever they can find it now.
Often it is a very good idea to buy the highest quality technology. Indeed, that is what NASA needs to do right now considering their extremely awful image in the eyes of the public (following the Challenger and Columbia disasters). Any more disasters and NASA is fucked. At least by purchasing this former Soviet equipment they can blame the Russians for any problems. Faulty manufacturing and engineering done by the Russians, and not by NASA, for instance. Considering NASA's current position, they have very little option but to prevent further incident, even if it means resorting to Soviet technology.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I remember one US plane that had to be transported from China in a Russian Antonov-124. The US did not have any aircraft that was up to the task! How long shall we have to rely on so called "third world economies" to achieve our goals?
Why doesn't this [Bush] administration pay Americans to build these Soyuz like crafts instead of simply buying?
Some members of the Slashdot community have called for Zonk to be replaced by TripMaster Monkey.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
So....
IT is outsourced to India
Manufacturing is outsourced to China
High tech going to Russia
U.S. will supply the world's managers?
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Somehow I'd expect NASA would be much too arrogant to consider purchasing Russian equipment. If this idea is not rejected for stupid political 'national pride' reasons, I think it speaks pretty well for NASA ...
Indeed. There is quite a difference between European and American engineering. Perhaps that's because of cultural differences.
Europe has, for the most part, suffered from limited access to resources. America, on the other hand, has for its history had nearly unlimited access to natural resources.
European engineers have for centuries been forced to use the minimal amount of material, and to come up with designs that just plain work from the very beginning. They don't have the resources to waste on the actual product, let alone on testing models that may be destroyed or rendered useless.
Indeed, it may very well be these resource constrains that lead to European-engineered items being of supreme quality.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
> Iran is *not* evil, nor is Chavez
I have Venezuelan friends who say that Chavez is a power-hungry, greedy wannabe dictator. Not necessarily evil, but just another politician who doesn't deliver on his promises, stirs up public opinion (mostly the poor) and points to some villain du jour (the U.S.) to blame for all his country's ills, instead of doing something to make his people's lives better. Funny, that sounds a lot like some guy who lives in public housing on Pennsylvania Ave. in zip code 20500.
Are you suggesting that a Soviet-style collapse of the American republic is soon to follow? Indeed, that assertion may not be so far from the truth. With the natural disasters in the central southern states, many there may be willing to leave the Union. And their leaving may open the door for the more liberal east and west coast states, also tiring of incompetent federal rule, to leave as well.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Your "near 100% perfect operation since inception" includes two missions that ended in the deaths of their crews. Out of 97 manned Soyuz missions, that's pretty darned close to the same record as the shuttle (two lost out of 114 flights).
But they don't have any choice. Either they purchase this equipment, or they become irrelevant. This purchase is necessary for their very survival, even if it bruises a few egos.
Sometimes one is forced to choose between a shitty choice or death. In this case they're chosen the shitty situation which may allow for their survival.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I don't mind if you do! Thanks!
Can you tell us more about your experiences working with the NASA engineers? Did they ever talk about the possibility of relying on Soviet technology if their designs failed?
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
We have waaay too much "incompetent federal rule" going on these days. Too much dependence on out-of-touch beltway blowhards with more money than brains and a penchant for "doing something".
Read this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
This is just in the nick of time, because Crazy Ivan's Space Capsule Clearance House announced a sale for next week.
"Components. American components, Russian Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!"
wrote a while back during the last shuttle scare that this would be a good idea to keep america in space till they get a new launch vehicle sorted out, glad they finally did it.
Soyuz is one of the safest and most reliable space vehicles in existence, and considering the shuttles are grounded for god knows how long, we need a system to service and supply the iss.
Yeah I know it has limited cargo capacity, but it costs roughly 1/10 the cost of the shuttle to launch, if that, can be launched far more often, and its cargo capacity can be augmented by elv's like the delta or titan.
Plus side, we are less likely to lose astronauts, and can actually keep the iss supplied enough to do science beyond plugging the leaks with their fingers, and hopefully launch astronauts twice as often if it scales up well.
win/win from my pov.
ps. my "confirm i'm not a script" word is cannabis. Cool.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
The other difference is that as Americans, we celebrate every shuttle launch and landing with lots of fanfare, The Russians do nothing of the like; to me, this suggests that we are probably not sure the shuttles will perform, right?
I remember some interview in which astronaut Michael Foale (who was on the Mir space station) had some very kind words to say about the Soyuz and explained how well the completely automated docking functioned - until it was dismantled to reduce costs. At the time the ground facility it required was in Ukraine (IIRC - outside Russia but in a former Soviet state anyway) and Russia couldn't afford to pay for the use of it and decided that commanders should perform the docking manually and the accident when a Soyuz collided with Mir was a consequence of this (the manual docking went wrong). I also remember that there was some commentary in the same documentary stating that the commander performing the docking got the blame and not mission control even though all other cosmonauts that afterwards tried to perform the same manoeuver several times in a simulator failed too until one finally succeded when he didn't follow the instructions by mission control exactly.
When a shuttle is launched or is to return to earth, there is a lot of fanfare...as if to suggest that there was a sizable chance that things could go all wrong. No wonder we are now looking to Russians for some help.
I'm not totally against zonk, but I'd def vote for trip to get editor privs.
His british jedi PM comment made the washington post, full cited quote. Sartre would be pleased.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
Why doesn't this [Bush] administration pay Americans to build these Soyuz like crafts instead of simply buying?
Trade Union labor and NASA bureaucrats would become involved, and the quality would go to shit.
Come on, don't let mediocrity take over EVERYTHING.
resigned
Why doesn't this [Bush] administration pay Americans to build these Soyuz like crafts instead of simply buying?
Because it would cost several billions to design and several years to build, and why do that when you can buy it at a fraction of what it cost to launch one shuttle
Visit my site @ http://www.madtorrent.com
I think that's a flawed way of thinking under the circumstances. Russia has technology that works. Why not utilize that? Otherwise, you'll spend much, much more money on the R&D, testing, etc. in addition to not having an immediate fix to the problem. In terms of what is financially responsible/feasible in this case, I think NASA's making a good move.
Going into the nit-pickiness... how much more modern do you think you can get? Most of the time, "upgrades" to existing technology are nothing more than new, fancy packaging around the same old junk. So you have a car with a CD-player and a GPS system and powered windows, but it's still a car and it serves the same function as the one you would have used twenty years ago without the CD-player, GPS, and powered windows. It gets you where you need to be. The rest of the stuff is just icing on the cake.
the old saying "If it's not broken, don't fix it"
Soyuz has been successfully sending stuff into space for an awful long time and as far as we know has a very impressive safety record.
The space shuttle was a compromise design built by the lowest bidder.
In Soviet Russia...
We fly the Americans to space.
If only you were involved in hiring of techies, as I am, you'd know the answer already. United States does not produce [enough of] good engineers. You can't hire anyone competent, or nearly competent. And one out of a hundred who knows his trade wants $200K/yr and benefits and stock, and your firstborn too if he is hungry.
So you can't hire fools because they are useless, and you can't hire that rare skilled guy because he will bankrupt you. So what do you do? Good question. Many businesses just hire a few mediocre performers and hope for the best.
The really interesting question is to whom will they outsource lawenforcement and national defense?
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
It's akin to buying a clunker when your primary SUV breaks. Either you can limp along with something old and small, or you can walk to work while you save up for a new car.
And what will happen a couple years after that when the economies of India and China mature to the point where they trump those of America and Europe several times over?
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
And SpaceX has flown how many orbital missions, exactly?
Interestinglty enough, there can be no unmanned shuttle flight, so, they are risking human lives (and taking additional weight) even when all that's needed is a cargo lift.
If you factor in the unmanned cargo flights, Soyuz and Soyuz-derived vehicles have a much better success ratio. Of course the unmanned Progress ships burn in the atmosphere, so we may well count that as somewhat less important successes, but it is possible because their systems allow them to function without humans.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Actually it does. The clause in NASA's budget stopping them from buying Russian made soyuz capsules in the first place is there because Russia sold nuclear reactor technology to Iran, and congress got mad. So it is politics, just a different kind.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
Don't forget that the two fatal accidents were near the begining of the Soyuz program, several decades ago. Meanwhile the latest Shuttle accident was about two and a half years ago. Another way to put this, there hasn't been a fatality since the 11th mission (giving almost 90 launches since then). The records aren't the same.
Yeah ok, I'll just get my 4 guys together, pull the parts list off the internet and roll out a few FUCKING SPACESHIPS!
... a real fucking lot, and still didn't fill half of it's original mission profile. Originally it was supposed to be a single piece to orbit vehicle, no boosters or external fuel tank or nothin'.
How complicated to build and design do you think these things are? How much money do you think we have?
No we don't have an An-124, it's the largest plane currently flying, built by the russians partly as an expression of national pride, and it cost shitloads. Only flies a few times a year btw, not a lot of people need that much lifting power.
We don't (always at least) blow money on giant phallic symbols of economic domination, it takes money away from real economic domination, and apparently you are too much of an idiot with regards to finance to understand that.
Global free-market economics is based on specialization, ie. everybody doesn't do everything, but everyone finds something to be good at, and if someone else needs to do it too you pay that guy to help you. It's why we make most of the movies in the world and kashmir makes all the nice knit sweaters, and columbia makes all the cocaine, specialization has oppurtunity cost.
Even if we decided today to make a cheaper soyuz-type launch vehicle, expect one ready to fly in about 8-10 years, counting design, validation, testing, certification, etc. That is unless you want a bunch of astronauts to jump into a tin-can, strap a giant rocket to their ass and hold their breath.
The shuttle took nearly 2 decades to become flight ready, and cost
Unlike most things, this is rocket science, and logistics, and economics, and like 900 other things, and is much harder than throwing together a toaster.
Btw, Russia has had about 3 space stations in orbit during the 70's, 80's and 90's, including mir which was a surprising success. They are much MUCH better and more experienced at space than we are, which is why we had them help us with the ISS, just like we ripped off all of germany's experience when we started nasa and wanted icbm's. America is not the holy god of all everything, superior to all other countries in every way, though we do generally run the tables in most things. A lot of the time our experience and success comes from finding other countries that are very skilled at various fields, and ripping off their scientists and techologies, ie stealing britain's machinery expertise in the 19th century to build our own industrial revolution, or getting einstein, niels bohr (they had to call him nick during ww2 because niels was "too german"), werner van braun (warner brown), and everyone else from germany to build our atomic techonology, and space technology, and everything else.
Calling Russia a third-world economy is insulting and arrogant, and shows your ignorance/youth.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
I am really surprised that americans are not buying cheap chinese soyuz-clones, hell, I am surprised they are not hiring chinese astronaut.
Uhh - last I checked, Russia has a trade surplus, while the USA has been running a trade deficit for longer than anyone can remember. Large parts of the USA is extremely backward and large parts of US cities are decaying (or now, covered in mud and water). Don't believe everything you see on CNN regarding other countries. CNN is not even reality television, it is more like show wrestling...
Oh well, what the hell...
As I said when I was young and more prone to believe the system might work:
The Soviet government's effectiveness in space activities can, in general, be attributed to the fact that while our private sector is more effective than the Soviet public sector, our public sector is LESS effective than the Soviet public sector. Why this is so becomes obvious when you consider that the Soviet public sector has no private sector to tax -- any costs are born by itself, directly, whereas in the US (and other relatively free market economies) the governments have the luxury of becoming fat and lazy at the expense of the private sector.
It is a simple matter of accountability, the US private sector is most accountable for its costs, the Soviet system is next most accountable for its costs and the US government is least accountable for its costs.
Seastead this.
Now for a real shock, let's compare how many times each has flown. The total is 850 for Soyuz and 113 for Shuttle, but that's going back before the Shuttle existed. I wasn't able to find how many Soyuz launches since 1981, but I'll be it's at least twice as many.
Reliabity? Track record?
Soyuz has a very long and distinguished one.
SpaceX? Have they launched to leo yet? Will they be around in 10 years? 1?
How many successful launches have they had? What are their launch capabilities? Launch windows? Possible orbit packages?
It's rocket science, you go with what you know works, especially when you've got 2 shuttles out on a full count and the pitcher is a lefty.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
If the states around you seceded, you'd probably secede. Especially during or before a possible war. Read: North Carolina(which is actually where I live) during the Civil War(which is a misnomer, but that's another story).
Although I think CyricZ's scenario is actually referring to the entire US collapsing, since that's what would happen if the liberal states plus the South left. The remaining states would probably not be able to hold themselves together.
Oh, and I'd say that the US government is quickly turning into what the Founding Fathers said to overthrow.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I didnt imagine the US and NASA have it in them to be humble enough to admit it has failed to produce a usable space vehicle. The NASA had really good tech but abandoned it for the cooler looking but useless space shuttle. Looking back the space shuttle must be the stupidest decision ever made in human space exploration history. Hopefully this meens no more dead americans and perhaps NASA can shape up and make rockets instead of flying PR machines.
HTTP/1.1 400
Looks like NASA is giving another step further to achieve the moon by 2018. :)
Wouldn't it be a veeery big irony going to the moon by the means of russian technology?
probably not.
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
Geez. Will some of you take up reading already? 1,600 successful launches makes the Soyuz the sturdiest vehicle Homo Sapiens has going. We'll have Klipper, and the CEV up soon. Until then Soyuz is a perfect choice. Quit yer bitchin'.
kulakovich
Does this thing have a setting lower than mute? --Brian the dog..
See in the end what we were good at was high profile single purpose missions because we convinced ourselves we could spend and do whatever it took to get there. But now we see that the Amerikanskis are rather bad at the utilitarian aspects of space engineering.
AFAIK, the Antonov-124 is owned and operated by a private firm. Using it for trasnsporting our plane is no different than the government hiring a private contractor for construction work. The fact that it was made in Russia is only a coincidince. Why would the administration hire American workers, when it has already been done (with a proven success rate) by someone else?
I, for one, welcome our new karma-whore sig writing overlords
"A Nuclear Iran will be a nightmare for Israel, Europe, and the US in that order. Trading for support to maintain the ISS is to high of a price."
.... "
... and the next highest is ... Iran. Add to that that the US currently has troops in half a dozen of countries around central asia and the Caucases, you can see how russia and china feel that they are being slowly and surely surrounded by American troops.
And what about a nuclear Israel? Isnt that a nightmare for Iran and pretty much everybody else since Israel are not even a party to any of the treaties or negotiations meant to limit nuclear dangers? And how do you convince Iran to stop nuclear development when they have Israel right next to them with their nuclear weapons?
"Russia and China are doing this because they know that Iran will cause more trouble for the West
Russia and China have absolutely no interest in causing trouble for the west. Russia has been trying to join the EU forever, while China's economy essentially relies on high consumer spending from the west. So does Russias. So neither of these countries is hoping for anything that may weaken consumer demand in the west.
The reason both Russia and China are helping Iran is because of the USs ever increasing aggressiveness in trying to assert control over the whole world. So while it is doubtfull they really want to hurt the US they do want to stop the US from asserting any control in or around their spheres of interst.
The attack on Iraq badicaly meant the US has decided to take over the gulf's oil resources. They already have control of saudi arabia, they attacked iraq which had the next highest ammount of oil
Well Russia and China just do not want another US puppet government in Iran. I am sure they are not crazy about the Ayatollahs but at least they are quite confident that the Ayatollahs are not and will never be US puppets.
As far as nuclear dangers, the Bush government could have done several things that would have prevented a nuclear Iran. The first and most obvious thing was to get the nuclear test ban treaty which Clinton signed approved by the republican congress. Obviously they did not do that, and in fact did everything possible to encourage Congress to kill the treaty. The other thing was to stop all aid for Israel, until they admit that they have a nuclear arsenal and join the treaties which guarantee that countries with nuclear weapons will never sue them against countries that do not have nuclear weapons. Now this would derive Iran from any politically acceptable reason for developing nuclear weapons. Of we know that this will never happen. And finally Bush can just stop with their attempts to take over the world. Russia and China do not like the Ayatollahs and would not be helping them if there wasnt the american incursion in what they consider their spheres of interest.
The new design of NASA's next (or second-next) manned program is going back to more of a capsule design anyway...so really why not use Soyuz vehicles until our own capsules are ready to go? NASA has already basically admitted the capsule idea is safer and cheaper anyway for our level of tech.
Personally, I would much rather be sent to the ISS in a Soyuz than go up in a Shuttle. The ride might not be as comfortable and roomy, but my chances of surviving are far higher. It might be a bit cramped, but that's far better than flying apart on re-enrty due to having a too-complex system.
I watched some C-SPAN where NASA was talking about the new safety measures they implemented with all the cameras and such. Honestly, it's cause people to freak out more than it does to pacify due to the ability to see all the little problems that occure during lift-off that normally aren't seen. NASA had to explain a dozen times that "that's normal wear-and-tear, people" because the press was worried about all the little problems no one have ever really looked at before because of the new camera system. The good news is that most of the manuevers they did to fix it all are brand-new and never before done, and has given NASA much needed experience in dealing with space-based repair.
Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
Even if a law were to be passed that required the job to be done by American hardware, the American firms would just stare at the job at hand - shameful! Very soon, other countries will be in position to put sanctions on us.
Off hand, I would say that you are trolling. This story has NOTHING on it that is troll. It is purely about us having an alternative way into space. This story fits into space better thananything else. In addition, zonk (or the submittor) provides a quick background (why the senate voted to ban doing business with Russia).
/., nuke your account.
If you posted logined, I would suggest that
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Look again...
The US-built C-5 Galaxy has a maximum takeoff weight of 840,000lbs, vs. the An-124's 893,000lbs, and the C-5 has a longer range and faster top speed, to boot. I would definitely consider this a rival to the An-124. As far as the An-225 is considered, it was really more of a specialty cargo carrier designed for carrying the Shuttle Buran back from its landing area (similar to the modified 747 used by the U.S.). Its actual interior cargo capacity is much smaller than that of the C-5 or An-124.
I, for one, welcome our new karma-whore sig writing overlords
It is the USA managers and CEO that have placed america where it is today. I seriously doubt that any none american company wants that. Here is a HINT of how our leaders are doing:
who is the top CEO that ran up a large deficit at the only company that ran, and had to be bailed out by Saudia Arabia, and now has THE top post and is again running up the world's and historical largest deficit? That is where managers are leading us today. Also check out United, US Airways, Delta, Northwest, The steel industry, shortly Boeing, clothing manufactuers, etc. About the only ones doing OK is big tobacco, and big oil. And I think that both are about to change.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I guess this really does define who has won the space race. When you have to go buy the other guy's space ships to keep flying, you really are conceding defeat. Not really any different to buying Japanese cars or Chinese cordless drills. They do it better, cheaper and more reliably. Not meant to be a troll, just a statement of (sad) fact.
The Soyuz record is "Near 100%", true. But that's not 100%. Neither record is 100%.
/. such as "nasa's core competencies whish seem to be killing astroanuts in groups of seven" is glib and gratuitously derisive.
We had Apollo 1 on the pad (3 dead) - they had R-16 on the pad (over 90 dead).
We had Challenger and Columbia, both fatal flights (14 dead), they had Souyz 1 and 11 - both fatal flights (4 dead).
We had a near miss on Apollo 13, they had one on Soyuz 5.
We each tossed a space station into the drink, arguably prematurely on both accounts.
Both have a full compliment of Charlie Foxtrot flight moments, and ground crew / training fatalities.
The usual rhetoric includes references here on
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Nobody should ever type that on a computer connected to the internet.
The world has real repression and political persecution, places where ever trying to type things like that would buy you a short trip to a painful execution (Talibanistan comes to mind).
Even the founding fathers would have been executed for that, under the heading of sedition against the state(=king) and treason. It's terribly fashionable and insanely cliche to say how much the government is screwing us and how badly we need to change it, but unless you plan to pick up a rifle and walk down to your state legislature, or file a damn petition or even distribute a pamphlet, your "hehe, fuck the govt, hehe yeah" bullshit attitude is a joke.
Have you read the constitution? Not like in school, but really? The best part of america right now, or really ever is the argument always continues. Federalist vs. Nationalist, Socialist vs. Liberatarian, Laisser-Faire vs. Regulatory, these fights have never been authoritatively settled, because there is no right answer, and as long as people keep fighting about it, we stay in the happy medium. If the country starts moving too far to one side, it suffers and inertia builds to push it the other way. That is the system the founding fathers built, and I imagine they'd be surprised as hell to see their delicate balance lasting 200 years and governing 300 million people, when most governments before lasted as long as the king survived, and governed maybe 10 million.
The founding fathers built a system that learns from experience and tends to promote successful thinkers in a way that no other system has been proven to do even remotely successfully. You want a place where your point of view always wins and never is contested? A place where your interests are always respected because you are the only person who really knows what's right? Go to Africa, become a tin-pot despot in charge of some democracy in name only.
America is the triumph of majority over the dissent of the individual, which is a lot more stable and evolutionarily successful than the reverse, and the only people who say otherwise are the people pushing you to hate and fear the rest of america so they can tell you "oh, but support me, and I'll make all your problems, caused by all those other evil people go away, I promise".
What the founding fathers would be pissed about is the shallowness of modern american politics, and that isn't the fault of the us government, it's because of the shallowness of the us citizenry.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
who blame everything on Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, or FDR (notice a pattern there?).
C, C, J, K, T, F...
C, C, J, K, T, F...
I don't see it.
Wait, maybe you mean numerical pattern:
68, 68, 74, 75, 84, 70.
Still don't see it.
Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, FDR..
Womanizer, Do-gooder, War President, Womanizer, Do-gooder, War President!!!
Was that it?
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
the best golfer is black,
the tallest basket ball player is chinese,
The best rapper is white,
and Germany doesn't want to go to war...
apocalypse now...
Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, FDR..
Womanizer, Do-gooder, War President, Womanizer, Do-gooder, War President!!!
Was that it? ROFLMAO. Thanx. That was funny.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The plan is that as the launch services of SpaceX and other commercial providers matures, they'll be able to compete for commercial contracts to deliver cargo (and eventually crew) to the International Space Station. In fact, besides the Centennial Challenges competitions, this is one of the key ways NASA Head Michael Griffin is planning on fostering a commercial space industry.
From SpacePolitics, quoting a transcript of Griffin's recent announcement:
NASA has not had at its upper levels a manager or an administrator more supportive of commercial enterprise than I. We are base lining in the out years past the retirement of the shuttle, we are base lining commercial service to the station. That is the only known and knowable, at this point, market for those entrepreneurs that I have to give. We are base lining the use of that market for them and are providing, will be providing this fall a new procurement to try to stimulate that market.
That said, at the end of the day, what commercial means is, that it is not government directed. So, I can provide the incentive and I can provide the market that I have and commercial providers will either emerge or not. It is not acceptable for a publicly funded program not to have a way of meeting its mission requirements in the event that commercial operators do or don't materialize. So, the architecture that we have advanced allows NASA to meet its mission requirements, but also allows NASA to concentrate its resources on other more advanced activities if commercial providers can emerge in the next five to seven years. That is exactly our intent.
Our fondest desire would be to keep NASA on the very frontier of space activity, letting commercial provider fill in for those activities which are not frontier activities. We will be putting some money where our mouth is.
That's not me. Out of three of my recent hires two are fresh from university. But I wouldn't dare to claim the "heads full of knowledge" thing :-) It's a sad state of affairs at times. But I do what I can.
Perhaps there would be more engineers and more good engineers if they were hiring americans fresh from school instead of importing them all the time, or only hiring people who already have jobs doing what you want?
That's what you get when you cross capitalism with bureaucracy (the resulting product is called "big business".) In this mess the functionaries are required to hire only those who are known to work best, and at the same time the functionaries are not willing to take risks. Students, being nothing but risks, are out.
My business is small, and we don't have any money to hire today, but when we do I only look for skills. That's capitalism alone, where I am willing to take risks to get the results. So the only small thing I require from new hires is ability to code Qt (desktop, Win32) and POSIX (embedded, Linux or QNX or "while (1) {} with interrupts") in their sleep :-) Math background on signal processing is also required. How the applicant gets there - I don't care, but if he doesn't understand what a negative frequency is, or how to produce a complex signal, or how the clock jitter translates into time domain, he can't write the code, or even read what we have already.
It's worth noting that NASA has also previously announced that they will be offering commercial contracts to US companies for transportation of cargo and eventually crew to the ISS. These would be fixed-cost contracts for services rendered, rather than the more traditional cost-plus contracts which reward inefficiency and waste. Unfortunately, none of the US companies are where they need to be yet, although it's looking like SpaceX should be there in a few years.
...
...
...
...
...
From this article:
NASA will soon solicit offers from firms interested in delivering cargo and crew to the international space station (ISS), but NASA Administrator Mike Griffin said he wants to buy services, not dole out development contracts to newcomers who were shut out of the competition to build the space shuttle's replacement.
Griffin said he also would like to see a robust commercial space transportation industry take root and thrive, and said the best way for NASA to help is "to utilize the market that is offered by the international space station's requirement to supply crew and cargo as the years unfold."
Griffin promised that NASA would give priority to non-government services should they become available, although he cautioned that deliberately "under utilizing" a NASA-owned and -operated system could encounter resistance from lawmakers intent on protecting government jobs.
Another difference between a traditional government contract and the deals Griffin hopes to make is that they would emphasize "performance rather than process." While NASA would insist on "certain standards," Griffin said "It's not up to me as the procurer of that service to determine how the engineers working for you, the provider, provide that service."
Charles Miller, president of Constellation Services International, said he was "enthusiastically looking forward" to NASA's crew and cargo solicitation. Constellation Services Internationals, Woodland Hills, Calif., is developing what it calls the LEO (low Earth orbit) Express standardized cargo container, which could launch atop virtually any rocket, as an affordable, near-term solution to NASA's space station re-supply needs.
Elon Musk, president of Space Exploration Technologies, said he was "definitely encouraged" by Griffin's remarks. "This is a market SpaceX has been interested in for a long time," Musk said.
The difference is in the trends. Both Soyuz accidents happened early in the life cycle and were addressed. They havent had an accident in how many years? That's a very valid metric that is completely in Soyuz favor. There are other factors that leave the ball in the Soyuz court as well. Cost is a huge one.
-everphilski-
- SpaceX hasn't launched to LEO
- SpaceX only makes boosters
- Noone currently makes a capsule (man rated, cargo rated, whatever) that mates with a SpaceX rocket.
If you could link to their website, I presume you could take a minute to read about their engine testing program and lack of actual (sub-orbital or orbital) flights.
-everphilski-
I clicked and went below +5 only to find that you are trolling for something other than real engineers.
Train a smart guy with a differing skill set?
'Wait! What is this "train"?'
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Ironically I submitted a story about how H1B (visa worker) positions were not being made public, denying unemployed US techies the chance to apply. And, slashy passed on it. So there is one data point that slashy does not publish all political stories.
Table-ized A.I.
You're the one trolling, oh Anonymous One. If a story offends you, there is no need to reply or even read it. How dare you speak for the entirety of Slashdot in poo-poohing a story which some may find interesting.
I guess Americans are the fattest^H^H^H^H^Hlargest people on the planet after all! LOL!!
Naw, it's probably our legal system that makes it too difficult to reject astronauts due to obesity.
Table-ized A.I.
Shuttle safety doesn't remain same over time. It decreases. Precisely because shuttle is reusable, and each of them gets worn out with each flight.
Soyuzes are built freshly for each launch, so each time it flies, it is brand-new system which may or may not have improvements in technology.
Post a link here then, please. It sounds interesting.
If anyone wants to mod it off-topic, blame me and put them on my post.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
No we don't have an An-124, it's the largest plane currently flying, built by the russians partly as an expression of national pride, and it cost shitloads. Only flies a few times a year btw, not a lot of people need that much lifting power.
They were built to carry miscellaneous military and civilian equipment like a couple of tanks or Buran buster. They fly every day, and carry anything from Sony Playstations to US military shipments to Afganistan. Volga-Dnepr Airlines has 10 An-124's in active use. New An-124 would not cost more than 80 millions of dollars - this can be hardly described as "shitloads" for the plane of its size. You might try to tell american military or u.s. companies like General Electric and Lockheed-Martin that they do not need this kind of lifting power, though they are not likely to listen to your advice.
So please stop being an idiot, and do not bullshit me and everybody on matters you have no slightest idea about.
The entire space race is more about propaganda and carefully chosen facts then about real accomplisments.
I see it very simple, US has the money, USSR got the tech. The cold war is over so why no cooperate for once. When the two worked together before they succesfully killed a lot of germans. Maybe the new US operated soyuz will be a commercial sucess. Or maybe it will crash on germany. Either way the world wins.
For interest of full disclosure, any country that started two of the two world wars should not now seek a seat on the security council. The proper role for such country is to be quiet.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
-1 Troll, and about time too. Still, I can see this one coming up again and again, so heres a little perspective for you, cully. Heres a little snippet of conversation I had with an Iranian woman.
...
######: imagine
######: with one
######: just one
######: bomb they kill our wishes
######: our sense our lifes
######: our thinking
######: but
######: they can
######: launch bomb
######: cause we dont have
######: powerfull bombs like
######: theirs
Then she went on to tell me about her fear and distress, becoming more upset as the conversation went on. And just in case you thought Iran was another Afghanistan, my extraordinarily ignorant american friend, heres a wee taste of culture for you...
######: we have own musical instrument
######: iranian
######: u dont know them
######: we have tar
######: setar
######: tonbak
######: santoor
######: nei
######: daf
######: they r great
Fucking yanks.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Maybe we should hand over the space-programme to Apple?
It is sad that they have to support a government that is increasingly authoritarian, that supports our enemies (or soon to be enemies) and violates nuclear non-proliferation. We couldn't buy a Japanese launch vehicle instead? We couldn't insist that they cease aiding Iran as a condition of buying billions of dollars of space equipment?
Actually, it doesn't. Other countries exporting significant quantities of cocaine include Peru and Bolivia.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Um, the Russians lost at least two Soyuz with crew early in the program. While the craft is undoubtably safer than STS, I hardly think that we need to stretch the truth to make a case here. Also the Progress module that rammed Mir is basically an automated Soyuz, so we do know that the Russians have their share of glitches. It happens when you are engaged in such an inherently risky business.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
That's the record for the Soyuz FG lifting body - not for manned missions on the Soyuz T/TM/TMA.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
In space research it comes from Russia, just to remind you. Remember, who was first to launch a sputnik? :-)
Just had to say it.
...a stunned silence fell upon the hall.
You forgot dogs and cats sleeping together as another sign of the end times. :D
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
Nonsense.
But in most cases it's not even a matter of making engineers out of salesmen or something, it's a matter of training someone with technical skills on the flavor of the month computer language or manufacturing technique. I think the point still stands: companies would vastly prefer searching the entire fricking globe for someone who matches their bullet list of desired qualifications, rather than just taking someone smart and training them on those skills.
There are some legitimate business reasons for that, sometimes. It's still unfortunate for society in the long run.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
*J*immy Carter
Lyndon *B*aines *J*ohnson
*J*ohn F Kennedy
Harry S Truman
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Only 2-1/2 BJs - Damn - the "much suckage of male members" theory was looking good for a minute ...
Well, I've read the constitution, and it is amazing that it's held this long. And I didn't say it was at the rate of tyranny yet--but it does seem to be coming dangerously close with things like the PATRIOT act(which needs to be taken to court, to prevent such a thing from going any further--let's just hope that Bush doesn't take over the courts too). Censorship seems to be winning out in America--just look at any /. story about violent video games or porn. The CDA(which was overturned, thank $DEITY) contained a provision to ban debates on abortion.(see http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/CDA.html) I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican government tried that again--now that Republicans in specific, and pro-censorship politicians in general, control all three branches of government(making a judicial overturn much harder), freedom-lovers need to be twice as vigilant as before. Yes, there are many, many governments much worse, but acting like the US is immune to becoming like that is helping the US become like that. I know it's cliché, but "The only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
http://transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pro jects.view&workid=CCD3097A-96B6-175C-97F15F270F2B8 3AA
A proposal to use an air-launched booster, possibly the SpaceX Falcon V, to launch an Apollo-type four man capsule that can reach the ISS.
I think I have found the connection . They are better present than the current President of the USA .. ranked 54th best president .. so i guess he can't be that bad..oh wait
Though not quite as much as Bush
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
I like to think of the United States being the world's R&D department. We come up with the ideas, bungle them, and then someone else picks it up and does it properly.
I think it's more like: some other country comes with a fledgling new technology, we discover it, and figure out how to make a product out of it that we can make money on. Then, we reap the profits while the margins are high. Later, when the product becomes a commodity, we leave it to other countries to start banging 'em out.
The Brits invented the computer, but we're the ones making all the money. The Germans invented the automobile, but until 20-30 years ago, we were the ones making all the money, and now it's the Japanese and the Koreans. Ditto for the jet engine, the television, etc.
The key to the US economy is the ability to find The Next Big Thing, and turn it into a moneymaker. One can only hope that our current Bible-thumper-influenced government will not stifle biotech and genetics research to the point that we lose our opportunity there...
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Well, Sir Business Genius, let's say the customer pays $100K to design the $FOO, and the prospective employee wants $200K/yr, and the job takes exactly one year. Where will the missing money come from?
I jump on the opportunity to train a smart guy whenever I see it. However it's much harder to find someone smart than to find a pre-trained monkey, so to say. Smart people are rare, and they are all too aware of their value. Often they estimate their value to be so high that it exceeds the revenue from the job that I have. Rare a job can justify paying anyone $200K/yr (or even $150K). They just don't produce enough goods to match their salary (or I just don't have jobs where they would produce.) Either way, I can't afford many of the smart people. They are welcome to keep looking or to drop their prices.
As seen here.
They haven't needed it since the solar max and hubble servicing missions, until recently with Hubble's diminished capacity - and what happens? People start talking about some imagined robotic mission to service the hubble again as if it were a near-term possibility. That's the daydream/
Only no such robotic capabilities exist, while the human/shuttle servicing missions are proven solutions.
The last statment is simply derision masking as glibness - ask a pilot or astronaut if they think the reality is that the "most capable machine" is "often not a good choice".
And it's really a question of decision making and nerve - apparently we're planning to go to the moon in a gilded Apollo replica, when a week earlier almost none of us thought we needed to go to the moon. But it makes headlines and "Returning to the moon is an important component of the President's Vision for Space Exploration." Who knew.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Russia would probably want the EU to join them...Putin wouldn't allow for the other way around...
One that hath name thou can not otter
Well, Sir Business Genius, let's say the customer pays $100K to design the $FOO, and the prospective employee wants $200K/yr, and the job takes exactly one year. Where will the missing money come from?
Why do they expect that price? What are they comparing it to? Overseas companies? If we put tarrifs on the buggers, then cheap labor won't pay anymore. We should not offer open trade unless they purchase an equal amount from us. Defecits just make for nasty bubbles anyhow. Thus, "normalizing" it with tarriffs simply does what the market will do anyhow, but with less swings. Risk is part of investment decisions also, just just raw cost. The US used to have far higher tarrifs, and there is no objective evidence that it hurt our economy back then.
Table-ized A.I.
Take, for example, the government purchases. The customer (the US Government) is, by law, required to award the contract to the lowest bidder. So if you want to bid you have to come up with the lowest possible price, and if you don't - then you get nothing. So the market pressure (that free market thing, you know, that something that determines the cost of goods) is often defining the price. In this sort of game you either half-starve your workers, winning marginally profitable bids, or starve them completely, by going out of business. That's how things are; smaller businesses, without lobbyists, run very lean here.
More often, though, the customer (the government) has the budget allocated already - such as "we are building the bridge from here to there, and here is $5M to do it." Then the cost is predetermined, and the bidders compete in cutting corners. One popular corner to cut is the cost of labor force...
But government orders are a world in itself. We don't need to focus on those. Let's have a look at something more common, like selling stuff to other businesses. For example, you hire 10 engineers to develop and maintain a Moogle Search appliance for Intranet searches etc. - you know what it might be like. The engineers are employed full time because you add new plugins for new data types all the time, and you update the box from time to time. With $80K per soul, all the overhead taken into account, you burn through (80K / 12)*2*10 = 130K per month, or $1.6M per year, and that is a very rough number (your overhead is higher than that.)
Now, let's assume each of your Moogle Boxes is sold for $3,000. You then have to sell (130K/3K) = 43 boxes per month, or two per business day, just to make it even. This rate does not include any advertising, any taxes on profit, any salary to you personally, as a business owner, any warranty costs, any sick pay, or anything else of that sort. It doesn't even include cost of parts that go into the product.
As you can see, the cost of labor is immense. This is the greatest expense a US-based business carries, and it is recurring, and it is growing. Note that a business is usually spending on a worker about twice of his salary because of taxes and benefits and insurance etc. etc.
If you need to hire just one worker at $200K/yr rate this will set you back about half a million dollars by the end of the year. It is up to you to decide if you can get out of this worker anything that you can sell to compensate. In most cases it is not possible because of one simple reason: the employee is overpriced. Basically, a normal human can't produce anything worth of giving him ten new cars every year.
So what do we have here? We have the very reason why it's practically impossible to manufacture most products in USA. The labor costs kill you. For example, it will cost you $5K to make a most basic TV set. How can you sell that? No way. You are out of business.
You definitely can trace this reasoning back to its roots, financial and historical, and untangle the whole sorry mess. The premise stays the same - the labor of an american (or generally Western, since Europe is not behind at all) worker is too expensive compared to the value of goods he produces. That, in turn, is because he is paying mortgage on his $2M home, and that is because the land was appraised at $1M and the construction company charged him $1M to put some lumber together, and that is because... etc.
This explains why only specific types of businesses remain in USA - such as service, and military, and ultra-high-tech. China can manufacture a whole alarm clock, with radio and LED and everything, for the equivalent of 30 minutes your work time. Can you produce this clock, out of thin air, within 30 minutes? If not then you are overpaid; your true labor price, per hour, is equal to the cost of goods you can manufacture per hour.
We
United States does not produce [enough of] good engineers.
Well, as a good engineer working for an entire company of good engineers in these here United States I think your remark is about as far off base as it's possible to get. Believe me, both the people who are "involved in the hiring of techies", as you claim to be, and those who are managing said technical people are generally thumb-fingered idiots. That has nothing to do with the fact that, by and large, America's pool of technical people is still pretty high caliber. The problem with America's industrial base is primarily political and managerial, not technical, and if we could just re-learn the ability to effectively use our engineering and scientific talent we'd have no problems being competitive in the New World Order / Global Economy.
Heck, if our corporate and elected leaders (little difference though there is anymore) would take a lesson from the Japanese, and invest more money in R&D when times are hard, pay those rare skilled guys a decent buck (maybe attracting even more people to become rare skilled guys) we might find that things would be looking up instead of looking down.
Even though you do make a distinction between "mediocre" and "rare skilled guy", you apparently don't have a concept of value. The reason that "rare skilled guy" demands (and gets!) a top salary is because he's worth every damn penny if his employer makes effective use of him! It's not his fault if he runs up against someone like you that only sees the dollar signs and is unable to accept that performance and experience actually count for a *lot* more than the money, because a "good" engineer who really knows his stuff will earn his employer a hell of a lot more than his pay.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I think I have found the connection . They are better present than the current President of the USA
Yeah, this coming from FIDEL CASTRO. If you wanted to shock me you could've praised capitalism and christianity.
I'm not going to argue about who is or isn't a better president because I don't really have any objective method of measuring such a thing. All I'm going to say is that President Bush is very, very good at what he does. I'm just not quite sure what he's doing all the time, and many of the reasons are eluding me. He's obviously quite good at it though, otherwise he'd never have been elected twice. And don't give me that crap about stealing an election. Even if that's true and all he did was stuff ballot boxes, he's damned good at it! Right now he's the best out of all the politicians, and that takes SKILL, my friend.
All that being said, it'll be really interesting how history views this in 20 years. Some presidents have presided over absolute fucking chaos. Lincoln is a great example of this. Brutal marshall law imposed against the citizens for a war many thought was stupid and pointless. Hundreds of thousands of casualties. A horde of DARK PEOPLE unleashed upon society! But our opinion now is that it was the Right Thing (TM) because it ended up in a way that we feel benefits us and is better than the alternative. Only time will tell how this affects the future. We may end up thinking it was a huge blunder, and we may end up praising the man for his convictions. One thing's for sure: As the older generations die off, the younger generations will get older, consider themselves wiser, become more conservative, and start worrying about the younger generations.
My money is on the USA doing the same thing it did in Vietnam. Stick with it for a long, bloody time, then get fed up with it and pull out at JUST the right time so that massive repercussions await those who allied with us. Ever talked to someone who managed to escape south vietnam in its final days? I have met quite a few. Their story is usually along the lines of "I thank you for what you did for us, but I don't know if I can ever forgive you for what you did to us." Basically that we pulled out, entire families were brutally slaughtered all over the place, especially for their support for America. A lot of people that escaped were the only survivors in their family. Why? Because America gets sick of dying for other people. Even if its the only thing keeping those other people alive. Also because politicians, in the end, cater to the largest and loudist lobbying groups, and nothing is fucking louder than a group of war protesters.
I'm not saying whether any of this is right or wrong. I'm not saying whether America's leadership is a bunch of assholes or heros. I'm just saying that these are things that people need to rationally look at, preferably without the political blinders on, and discuss the ramifications of. And then keep in mind that most of us are probably wrong.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
The fact is, Soyuz has a history of accidents, incidents, and near misses across it's entire history.
Wise from Nasa to buy more advanced tech then they have. The russians, have still the only turbo charged rocket engine, with an afterburner, in the world. As always it's hard to admit that another nation might be sometimes better in science.
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
Never thought I'd see the day when NASA would be seeking to buy the Russian Soyuz in order to keep flying. I think its great that NASA has to buy the Soyuz in that they are a bit a huble pie here. Wasn't that long ago that the US space program looked down on Russia & MIR. At the same time its a terrible indication of how bad things have become in NASA. Stalin must be laughing in his casket.
In case you havn't noticed, Israel has had nukes for several decades now. They got them in a seemingly unhold alliance with South Africa (pre-Mandella) and Taiwan. All three of those countries have nukes now, although none of them openly proclaim the fact. All three are seemingly surrounded by enemies and only very distant geographical allies.
I even got a codename for you: The main Israeli nuke is called the "Jericho". I think it is an appropriate name as well, at least from a historical perspective. I think they even have one call "Gamorrah", but I'm not so sure on that last name. All told, I think Israel has about 50-100 nukes in their arsenal. There are many reasons why there hasn't been a major war in the Middle East involving Israel since the 1973 war, and the nukes are one of them. Think about it and do some research if you think I'm wrong.