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?"

9 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Space X, you're up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Russia being Russia is the best thing that can happen to Space X if they have what it takes.

  2. Re:Eric Burger asks, how did it come to this? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

    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"
  3. So many mistakes. by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re:Eric Burger asks, how did it come to this? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  5. Re:Eric Burger asks, how did it come to this? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  6. Re:Eric Burger asks, how did it come to this? by meglon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:What are they doing up there? by MildlyTangy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    17 bil? is that all? 17 measly billion dollars a year for all of NASA?

    Shit guys, get your act together. You spend more money a year on air conditioning for the US Army ( ~$20bil )

    Nice set of priorities you have there.

    seriously, wtf!?

  8. Re:Eric Burger asks, how did it come to this? by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  9. Re:Eric Burger asks, how did it come to this? by njnnja · · Score: 5, Informative

    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