Slashdot Mirror
As NASA Seeks Next Mission, Russia Holds the Trump Card
Geoffrey.landis (926948) writes "After the space shuttle retired in 2011, Russia has hiked the price of a trip to the International Space Station, to $71 million per seat. Less well recognized is the disparity in station crews. Before the shuttle stopped flying, an equal number of American and Russian crew members lived on board. But afterwards the bear began squeezing. For every two NASA astronauts that have flown to the station, three Russians have gone. Eric Burger asks, how did it come to this?"
Russia being Russia is the best thing that can happen to Space X if they have what it takes.
Nonsense! Dragon is beginnning its Man-Rating this year.
It should be qualified by the end of next year, unless NASA gets a big helping of "Not Invented Here" and decides to kill the man-rated Dragon in favour of its own design (which won't be ready this decade, if ever).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Access to space has always been a pissing contest. You would even be in space if it wasn't.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
Only in your imagination maybe. NASA and NOAA have been doing global warming/climate change research long before Obama was even a senator. But don't let facts get in your way.
1. The ISS was a mistake in and of itself. The science its done wasn't worth the money. There were cheaper ways to attain the same knowledge. That money could have been better spent on other NASA projects.
2. Never trust the Russians. By all means do whatever in the name of diplomacy. But NEVER trust them. It goes back to the policy under Reagan... Trust but Verify... which really means we DO NOT trust them but we do business with them in a safe and sustainable way.
3. Allowing the US to lose its ability to go to space while the ISS remained active.
4. Not cultivating alternatives from spaceX etc that offered to fill the gap.
It goes without saying that the US is run badly these days. The politics being what they are about half the population will never admit it but such is the reality. As a people, we need to grow beyond our factionalism, find common ground, and hold our leaders to some reasonable standards. Otherwise, we'll just bounce between one faction's incompetents and the other's. Each side giving the profound incompetence of its own candidates a blind eye until they're out of political capital and then it shifts to the next guy. Back and forth.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Maybe the reason more Russians are going up than Americans is because it costs $71Million to send an American.
NASA's 2014 budget is ~$17.5B, and they do a lot of really good stuff, the ISS is kinda low on that totem pole, if you ask me. There's a lot more to space exploration than sitting in the ISS, babysitting experiments, chatting with school kids and waiting for your ride
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
regardless if it was the last 5 years or the last 14 years, its fairly obvious that they are a shadow of what they used to be.
I think this one's pretty friggin' obvious. We discontinued our man-rated means to low earth orbit before we had a working replacement. It's the exact same way we lost Skylab, except we were theoretically cooperating with Russia this time, while last time we weren't. Obviously our degree of cooperation was misunderstood, and they have chosen to exploit our weakness.
Mind you, our man-rated means to low earth orbit was ridiculously inefficient compared to what it was supposed to cost, and the turnaround on our pretty little space planes was orders of magnitude worse than the week-or-two expected between launches. It was so expensive that our politicians wouldn't push for a small, inexpensive (relatively speaking) method to reach space for when we didn't need a crew of ten and a payload of ten tons. Had we spent the money to either refine the Saturn-series to make them less expensive and more efficient or started on a new project after the Shuttle finally got going then we probably wouldn't be in this predicament now.
At least it'll be good for a relative up-and-comer in SpaceX and to a lesser extent to Orbital/ATK.
This hopefully will be a lesson for not discontinuing one's own abilities before being ready with a new program, but you'd think that Skylab falling from orbit and burning up would have taught us that lesson.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Dragon is already reusable, and Falcon 9R first stage looks like it's gonna be reusable soon. (reusable 2nd stage seems more doubtful considering the enormous reentry speeds involved)
If or when they start doing regular launches with the reusable Dragon and F9R, how low do you think they can get the price per seat down to? Russians are charging $71m per seat, can SpaceX get it down to $1m per seat?
Translation: I hare science that makes me feel bad.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And that little fact is almost entirely due to Congress' inability to think past pork and the next re election cycle. Yes, NASA has some internal issues (as does every human endevour with more than one person involved) but yo-yo funding and put-it-here thinking have really trashed the agency.
You reap what you sow. /grump
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
But afterwards the bear began squeezing.
Bull. Shit. During the Russia Ukrane conflict America had a few choices.
1. Not our monkeys, not our circus. Avoid international diplomatic and military actions that may exacerbate the situation.
2. Military intervention.
3. Diplomatic intervention.
we avoided 1 entirely because this hasnt been our style since 1910. We avoided 2 because we have a 25 year track record of failed wars and coups, not to mention king georges debacle in iraq. we also dont pick fights with countries that possess a nuclear fleet or long range bombers. Three works, and it works because we're beholden as members of NATO to protect our allies. because we rely on russia very little (as does russia us) we expect to get away with what basically amounts to a great deal of symbolism.
If russia were sending more than just a shot across the bow for America to stop with the sanctions and rhetoric, it could...
1. categorically deny access to Baikonur for american companies who rely on inexpensive satellite lift services
2. gift Iran with a host of technical engineers and troops to help complete a functional nuclear powerplant.
3. Re-value or cease export of oil to the united states...its just 5% of our total consumption, but they could offer incentives to Venezuela who provide 10% of american oil to refuse service as well. still, 5% would be enough to send our stockmarkets into a brisk panic.
I very sincerely doubt Russia wants any part of a sincere challenge, so dicking with astronaut counts and the cost of a space toilet seems reasonable.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Translation: I hare science that makes me feel bad.
You wascawy wabbit!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
| I very sincerely doubt Russia wants any part of a sincere challenge, so dicking with astronaut counts and the cost of a space toilet seems reasonable
The Russians are imposing sanctions on themselves, to pre-empt the embarrassment of US doing it to them first.
"Oh, so you are thinking of ordering Lockheed to stop buying our RD-180 engine for hard currency? Nyet! We'll ban it first!"
JFK: We choose to go to the Moon
Reusable and Man-Rating are different concepts here.
However reusable will cut the costs down dramatically. The Falcon 9 booster itself is less than 60m a launch. ISS resupply missions on Dragon are around 100m (I believe, I couldn't find the number.) Obviously a man-rated Dragon is going to cost quite a bit more. This means they could literally throw away the dragon capsule every time it flies and be cheaper than Soyuz.
Also, keep in mind that Dragon seats 7, Soyuz seats 3.
Also I would say that any cost savings from SpaceX have more to do wtih how efficient they are compared to how horrifically inefficient NASA contractors are.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Normally I would not even look at AC comments, but WTF? I know plenty of NASA people and no one is getting rich over there.
Maybe we can persuade The Donald to invest in space exploration.
Then no Russians would be needed.
In dollars, Musk is worth 5x Trump. Musk has made more money this year than Donald Trump's entire portfolio is worth.
In value to society, it is incalculable.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
I dont think the issue is how much money it costs sending US astronauts on Russian rockets, the issue is that the Russian rockets are the only option right now.
Yes, as it should be. What those who bring up SS and Medicare never seem to want to say is that there is a specific tax collected to pay for those items, and until the recent collapse a few years ago, that tax brought in a SURPLUS every year. Even with a few years of no surplus from revenue (it's reserves are still growing, however), the fund will be in the black for the next 20+ years. Try blaming something that isn't affecting the budget with a negative.
Here's an idea, lets gt rid of the F-35 program, a plane we don't need, is behind schedule, is massively over budget, and still can barely get off the ground. The cost projection for that one useless pork program, if given straight to NASA, would double their budget for the next 80 years.... of course, that's ignoring any MORE cost overruns that the F-35 will have in the future. It's odd, i don't find the phrase "create and maintain a global military hegemony" anywhere in the Constitution.
The answer to the question put forth, though, is pretty simple: congress has been inundated with complete fucking idiots who couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag even if they had instructions. The complete idiots who are anti-science, anti-education, anti-intelligence... these people who rail against progress, all the while using and abusing their positions for their own political power. That's why we're in this situation. Every time you see someone on these boards who complain NASA isn't needed, or hasn't done anything useful.... those people exemplify is the reason why we're at this point: pure, unadulterated, stupidity.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Because for the second time in my life the US has retired a working manned system long before the replacement was ready.
Can you imagine the Have retiring all the nuclear subs in service before the next generation was in service? We did it with Apollo and we did it with STS.
It just shows that manned space flight and space flight in general are not priorities which IMHO SUCKS!!!!!!!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I would put it past them. "Elon Musk" is a monocle and a white cat away from being a Ian Flemming villain. Youse guys really ought to hire a better quality script writer for your reality down there.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
that tax brought in a SURPLUS every year.
Only by a very limited definition of surplus, used by what is called pay-as-you-go accounting. Under accrual accounting ("generally accepted accounting principles"), which the government does not have to follow, SS and Medicare did not run surpluses. The difference is this: under pay as you go, as long as the cash that you pay to beneficiaries during the year is less than the cash taken in by the taxes taken in during the year, you are balanced. However, under accrual accounting, the things that must be balanced are not the cash flows, but rather, the promised benefits and the promised taxes.
As an example, If you get a $1000 paycheck at the end of the week, and you spend $900, then you have $100 at the end of the week, and under any definition you had a surplus. But if you get a $1000 paycheck, and you spend $1050, you did not run a surplus (and probably depleted some of your bank account). Lastly, if you get a $1000 paycheck, then you spend $1050, and you borrow $150 from a friend, you have $100 cash left over at the end of the week. But because you have promised $150 to your friend, which is more than the $100 cash you have left over, you have not run a surplus. That is the situation SS and Medicare have found themselves in - sound from a pay as you go basis, but not promising to tax enough/promising too many benefits to be sound on an accrual basis
They increased the price to $71 million.
From what?
If it was previously $70 million, so what. Sure that's a lot of money to use, but maybe it was justified.
On the other hand, if it was from something like $22 million, then some big flags should have been raised in the fraud dept.
Actually in 2006 is was $22 million, but if the article is going to use the new prices as a point, it needs to mention what the previous price was, otherwise it's just an unqualified statement. Speaking of which, why didn't anyone start yelling when they more than tripled the price?
Hmm, Dragon seats seven in manned-mode. $133M per launch (which is what NASA is paying SpaceX now for flights to ISS. Double that for no other reason than that we can...
Hmm, $40M per person sound reasonable.
Of course, if Dragon and Falcon 9R are each good for, say, five flights, we can reduce the cost per flight by half easily (F9R first stage is 70% of the cost of the Falcon all by itself). Which could leave you at $20M per seat.
By and by, Falcon 9R's second stage will also be reusable. If they can get five launches out of that, we're talking an 80% reduction in cost of a Falcon/Dragon combo, which might let you put a man up for $4M per seat....
And that's assuming five launches per bird. Ten reduces cost by half again.
Yes, prices above (except for the base $133M that NASA is paying SpaceX now) are highly speculative. Point is that SpaceX can probably boost men for considerably less than Russia charges without even finishing up the "Reusable" part of Falcon-9, much less after they get Falcon 9R fully reusable.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
NASA's bureaucracy has had a long history driven into the ditch by Congress. No system can survive to function in any meaningful way when someone is constantly turning the steering wheel every which way while simultaneously and randomly jabbing the clutch, the brake, the accelerator, flipping switches and levers back and forth in the manner of a spastic three year old whom just finished downing the entire sugar bowl and six cans of Red Bull.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
If you think you can do it cheaper USA, go for it. Otherwise don't complain about how much another country charges you.
It is much easier to destroy than to build.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
[...] send robots out to explore other planets, and let real science move on.
What's sad is that you figure that the robots are doing "real science."
Remember that "real science" is pretty boring to most people. The conclusions are interesting but the actual study, hypotheses, testing--y'know, that whole "scientific method" stuff--is pretty damn dull unless it's something you're specifically interested and knowledgeable about. There is plenty of "real science" happening on ISS but since most of us don't understand it, we poo-poo it. Heck, just look at the information returned on the last Dragon capsule. Boring shit, right?
The robots, as you imply, are doing exploration, which is a bit more exciting. "What's over the next hill?" is a far more exciting question than "Why is that hill there?" The first one is exploration. The second one is "real science."
Yes, however because government can alter both revenue and expenditures every year, the point is moot. The difference in accounting needs to be applied to all things if you're going to apply it to one, and we can see the ridiculousness of the accrual method for a government by looking at the USPS. USPS is making a profit each year, until you factor in the pre-paid payments they've been forced to make for pensions for 75 years in advance. They are paying right now for the retirement of workers who will not be born for another 20-40 years.
And lets be sure to make people perfectly aware of the situation. Your statement "Under accrual accounting ("generally accepted accounting principles"), which the government does not have to follow, SS and Medicare did not run surpluses" tries to insinuate that somehow government has exempted themselves from using proper accounting methods. They have not. Both accounting methods are equally valid, and both are generally accepted. Because you would prefer them to use something other than what they use does not diminish the validity of what they are using.
Because we're talking about the US government, the big reasons a PAYG basis is not looked on favorably for businesses are moot. Cash flow changes are mostly immaterial, and the lack of security is moot; the worlds financial reserves are in dollars.... that alone is a form of security no other entity can hope to achieve. As for tax considerations, well, that's entirely moot to this specific discussion. So you're left with a valid accepted accounting practice.
So until the US government switches to an accrual basis, which will be never, what you've said is moot. In addition to that, it's not entirely a PAYG basis, as it does accumulate funds and is not limited in payouts purely on the revenues of a given year. The Social Security fund is in the black for 20+ years.
But lets go back to that F-35 program. Under your accrual method, that would be 1.4 trillion dollars taken out of the functioning budget of the US, and more every year as they reevaluate the cost of the program... and that program has ballooned in cost incredibly fast.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Re-usability drives UP costs, not down. You have to take the whole thing apart and rebuild everything, and you have to make everything stronger to take repeated use. Both of those drive UP the cost of the equipment. It's like a reusable bottle costs more to make than a disposable one.
"It's like a reusable bottle costs more to make than a disposable one." However, SpaceX's reusable launcher is their expendable launcher. It's the same hardware. Essentially, they are just looking at how many times they can reuse their "disposable bottle".
The Shuttle has poisoned the idea of reusability, but the Shuttle was never really suited to be reusable. Every system pushed the state-of-the-art to its limit - engines, heat-shield, tank, boosters - rather than taking what was then known (Saturn II, Saturn V, etc) and saying, "Can we save money by recovering/reusing a first-stage/capsule?" and then spending a decade gradually working outwards from that.
"You have to take the whole thing apart and rebuild everything". The system has been designed for the engines to be quickly removed and swapped out. (For example, they've removed engines, fixed valves, restored everything and re-prepped for launch within a day. IIRC, they've swapped out an engine on a vehicle at the Cape in 5 hours.)
Once they regularly recover stages, the recovered engines will all go into an engine-pool, where they will be tested individually; nine working engines will be fitted to a first stage and test fired together. Then the full rocket is assembled, raised onto the launch-pad and test fired again the day before launch. But the thing is...
"and you have to make everything stronger to take repeated use." But the thing is... they do the same thing with new engines anyway! Every engine is test fired at least three times between manufacture and launch. It's how they are designed. So it's not an extra "reusability" procedure, an extra cost, it's what they already do; and, according to Musk, it's not only a small part of SpaceX's launch cost, it's one of the reasons their costs are so low. So if you have already designed them for multiple-uses, it's pretty unlikely they'll work exactly four times and then suddenly stop. (Apparently they've test fired the engines dozens of times. So the only issue is whether there's additional wear/damage during actual flight that shortens the life. And recovering a few first stages would be a great way to have a look, yes?)
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.