Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russia Doubles Price For Launching US Astronauts

Posted by samzenpus on from the strange-bedfellows dept.

Third Position writes "NASA on Tuesday signed a contract to pay $55.8 million per astronaut for six Americans to fly into space on Russian Soyuz capsules in 2013 and 2014. NASA needs to get rides on Russian rockets to the International Space Station because it plans to retire the space shuttle fleet later this year. NASA now pays half as much, about $26.3 million per astronaut, when it uses Russian ships."

27 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. Capitalism by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "You wanted us to adopt market pricing, yes Comrade?"

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    1. Re:Capitalism by Mr+Thinly+Sliced · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further.

    2. Re:Capitalism by sopssa · · Score: 4, Informative

      And this is why US will eventually fall, like every other empire in the human history. Only thing that is needed for it is when China and Taiwan decide to increase their manufacturing prices. It's a bad economy as it is and everyone in the US is getting high pays only because of international loans. You can't live on loans forever - eventually someone will start gathering them back. Since this is politics as well, the only thing needed is to provide manufacturing, product building and technology research cheaper than the US. Oh wait, that's what has been happening for years in India and China and US companies are still going for it.

      You don't need to have a war to win, just collapse the other country.

    3. Re:Capitalism by sopssa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe not yet, but what about when time goes by and they grow? You know, USA is far from China's only trading partner. Their products are shipped everywhere in the world. When they've stable enough, and if they have enough political/economic reason to do so, why you think they will keep supporting US?

    4. Re:Capitalism by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is the point everyone forgets. China has only one advantage over the USA. Cheap labor. China doesn't have any other resources that the usa also has.

      You're wrong.
      China has a massive industrial base.
      Much of heavy industry, which was the backbone of the USA's industrial revoltion, picked up and moved to China (and Mexico).

        The real bitch is that nobody in the USA is willing to rebuild the industrial base because it's (A) farking expensive and (B) will only serve to depress market prices (usually below what's considered an acceptable rate of return).

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  2. Interesting question would be, by dragisha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What does it cost with Shuttle?

    --
    http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
    1. Re:Interesting question would be, by mcvos · · Score: 3, Informative

      A figured I'd better google some numbers. Wikipedia says $60 million or $1.3 billion per launch, depending on how you calculate it. Nasa says $450 million per launch. NASA's figure is more expensive than Soyuz for 6 astronauts. Wikipedia's low end figure is obviously a lot cheaper (and kind of hard to believe).

    2. Re:Interesting question would be, by peragrin · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is variable. The shuttle launches 7 not 3 people however the shuttle can also carry literally tons of cargo too something that requires multiple launches with russias design. It is why NASA built the iss. Launching the components is cheaper and more can bedone in any given section with the shuttle.

      So for transporting just new people Soyuz isthe way to go. You needto expand the station the shuttle isbetter

       

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:Interesting question would be, by damburger · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't forget to add in 25t of cargo launched alongside the crew (so no rendezvous needed for a crew+cargo mission). Furthermore, the shuttle payload bay is BIG and can accommodate payloads too large for any other currently flying vehicle.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  3. Nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Prices go up when competition declines. Shock and horror expressed by those ignorant of basic economics. Film at 11.

  4. Old News by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090513/155009780.html

    Yawn.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Old News by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      They agreed to pay $51 million adjusted for inflation.. the seats are for the 2012-2013 timeframe because they've already signed at this price last year - another reason why this is old news.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  5. Re:Obvious Question by sycodon · · Score: 4, Informative

    About $75 Million ($450 Million per launch)

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  6. Re:Simple economics by Shugart · · Score: 3, Informative

    Can't blame this one on Obama. The shuttle was to be retired with no replacement before Obama took office. He did gut the future of the space program though.

    --
    History is so yesterday!
  7. Figure 450 million per shuttle launch by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html

    Funny how it was cheaper to fly as a paid passenger than astronaut.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  8. Slippery Slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Its just another round of outsourcing.

    Soon the USA will be lacking cutting edge skills and capacity in hi-tech manufacturing, and won't be able to compete with India.

    The UK dropped all that sort of stuff in the mid-60s and look at us now. We welcome the US to the third-rate Nations club!

  9. Re:Why the hell does it cost so much to reach orbi by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Informative

    the rocket is just going straight up, what's so hard?

    No, it's not.

    Are you telling me that if I had the best part of $60 million I couldn't design, build and fly my own rocket in to space?

    Elon Musk has spent a good part of a billion so far, has some of the brightest minds in the world working for him, and that's the cheapest *anyone* has developed a launcher for so far.

    Just strap a sealed chamber onto a grain silo of fuel, surely?

    Good luck with that.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  10. In Soviet Russia... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Rocket rides YOU!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  11. Could've been swapping moon seats by Frankenshteen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If USA hadn't canceled the constellation program, the perception of exclusivity for Russia would be diminished, and USA would have a big shiny carrot to barter some short term help with.

    --
    "It's a doughnut stuffed with M&M's. That way when you finish the doughnut, you don't have to eat any M&M's."
  12. Re:Obvious Question by Green+Salad · · Score: 3, Funny

    So...this would be NASA's version of how many people can you cram in to a Volkswagon?

  13. Re:Disgraceful! by miffo.swe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The moment US decided to go for the shuttle the game was over. Form over function is ok for household gadgets but not for space exploration.

    The US had did have the best launch system and just tossed it aside because it was more cool with a rocket with a bolted on hip looking spacecraft.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  14. Re:Why the hell does it cost so much to reach orbi by Smallpond · · Score: 4, Informative

    Problem 1 - the burning fuel is hotter than the melting point of the engines.

    Problem 2 - the engines have to run at sea level and in a vacuum.

    Problem 3 - flying through atmosphere at 2000 MPH

    Problem 4 - getting down

    Get back to me after you think you have those solved cheaply and safely.

  15. Re:Disgraceful! by turgid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the hell is going on with our country?!

    You gave up to chase stock markets instead.

    --
    Stick Men
  16. Re:Disgraceful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    We lead the space race, put men on the moon, landers on Mars, explored the furthest reaches of our system, made huge technological breakthroughs via the space race and now we're reduced to begging for rides from the commies?

    What the hell is going on with our country?!

    Yep. America lead the space race.
    1st earth creature in space: Russian Dog.
    1st person in space: Yuri Gagarin (Russian).
    1st person to orbit earth: Yuri Gagarin (Russian, same mission).
    1st woman in space: Valentina Tereshkova (Russian)
    1st space walk: Alexei Leonov (Russian)
    1st man on the moon: Neil Armstrong (American)

    After 5 space firsts by the Russians, America finally beat them to something: the moon.

    1st space station: Salyut 1 (Russian)

  17. Re:Why the hell does it cost so much to reach orbi by SharpFang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    essentially - yes.
    There are serious problems. Like, the engines are running a sustained explosion of hydrogen-oxygen mix, which produces temperature quite a bit higher than anything we have at our disposal could survive. It's pretty much only the shape that keeps the explosion far enough to be safe. Oxygen oxidizes everything it touches for prolonged time, hydrogen leaks through thinnest gaps deemed secure normally. Add stability - like ballancing a broom vertically on top of your finger, the unstabilized rocket will happily fly DOWN. Control acceleration - you could easily bring astronauts to orbit in half the time and quite a bit less fuel, except they would have to be scooped with a spoon from the rocket. Your "grain silo" has walls that aren't much thicker than alufoil, and can be easily pierced with a pencil, but it holds liquid hydrogen at room temperature. Check what pressure is liquid hydrogen at room temperature.

    When you start adding it up, and especially if you add up all the -failed- tests before you get things right, you come up with much more than $60mln.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  18. Re:Disgraceful! by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We've become a bunch of scaredy cats. The Shuttle can still work if you accept the risk that we will lose astronauts during space travel. That's the price of space travel. It's not political like Obama or Bush. It has to do with our country being perfectly content sending thousands of young Americans to die in the foreign sands of war-zones, but terrified that seven grown men and women might die while exploring space. We're just being fucking stupid about this, and I say this with much love for the United States.

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  19. Re:Simple economics by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, he gutted the future that was planned and replaced it with something less retarded.

    The future of the space program as embodied in Constellation was just more over-budget under-performing missions that failed to do anything to expand our horizons or solve the major problems making space exploration prohibitive.

    To me the future of our space program looks brighter than ever.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are