Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Has No Plans To Buy More Soyuz Seats (spaceflightnow.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the space-taxi dept.

schwit1 writes: Both Boeing and SpaceX better get their manned capsules working by 2019, because NASA at this point has no plans to buy more seats on Russian Soyuz capsules after the present contract runs out. Spaceflight Now reports: "Even as the commercial crew schedules move later into 2018, NASA officials say they are not considering extending the contract with Roscosmos -- the Russian space agency -- for more launches in 2019. The last Soyuz launch seats reserved for U.S. astronauts are at the end of 2018. It takes more than two years to procure components and assemble new Soyuz capsules, so Russia needed to receive new Soyuz orders from NASA by some time this fall to ensure the spacecraft would be ready for liftoff in early 2019." The second paragraph above notes that even if NASA decided it needed more Soyuz launches, it is probably too late to buy them and have them available by 2019. "A Soyuz is a complicated vehicle, and a complicated vehicle doesn't come into existence in a matter of days," said Kirk Shireman, NASA's space station program manager. "It takes over two years to build a Soyuz, so yes, at some point in time, building a new Soyuz vehicle is not an option. We're working with our Russian counterparts on exactly when that is. We have not crossed that date yet, but I believe the date is in sight. It will be this calendar year when we will cross the point where we won't be able to build a Soyuz in time for when our last seats that we've already procured expire," Shireman said.

87 comments

  1. Roseanne Barr: It's a scam, a con, and it's rigged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Roseanne Barr: I Was the First Person to Tell Trump to Run for President

    "When Roseanne ended its celebrated run, Barr got her own syndicated television talk show, The Roseanne Show. Recently, she realized she'd had two very special guests come through her studio-and told one of them he should consider a presidential run.

    "I interviewed both Trump and Michael Moore together," said Barr, who says she "sort of" knows the GOP frontrunner and likes him "as a human being." "I was watching it and I tell Trump, 'You should run for president,'" she grinned.

    Why did Trump seem so presidential back then? "Because of all of his views," Barr said. "He was extremely progressive. He was saying we should invest more in education, and we need health care. He said all the things that Hillary's saying. That's why I know that it's just a con. The whole fucking thing. It's a scam, a con, and it's rigged.""

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

  2. Won't matter anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Hillary will have us at war with Russia by then.

    1. Re: Won't matter anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      This. And Europe WILL do its part.

    2. Re:Won't matter anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I'm not sure why this is modded down, because it's almost certainly the reason NASA isn't bothering to buy more seats from Russia.

      If you haven't noticed, you're not paying any attention, but Hillary Clinton is on the warpath with Russia and the entire DNC seems to be following her. She essentially declared war on Russia in the last debate.

      And if you think that's just windless paranoia, NBC News just broke this: CIA Prepping for Possible Cyber Strike Against Russia

    3. Re:Won't matter anyway. by sycodon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obama is paving the way

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re: Won't matter anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia is already at war with US.

    5. Re:Won't matter anyway. by WindBourne · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Congrats. You are the only GOP/neo-cons/tea* that I see that has enough of a backbone to simply go with their login rather than be an AC.
      I admire that. Far too many on the far right are spineless.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:Won't matter anyway. by aristotle-dude · · Score: 0, Troll
      Far too many Democrats are spineless and will vote for Hillary regardless what comes to light. If you are a democrat with principles and you cannot bring yourself to reevaluate what party you belong to and vote Trump then the least you could do is not vote at all or vote for a third party.

      As a Canadian, I am sad to see the joker the millennials and burned out hippies voted in as PM. The guy is clueless and arrogant. He has no respect for the working class and thinks it is OK to spend taxpayer money on lavish parties. The PM is NOT the head of state. Our head of state is the queen and her representative on the federal level is the governor general. Justin Trudeau thinks he was elected "KING" with less than 40 percent of the vote.

      I think Justin was elected because seniors were disenfranchised by staff at care homes, by elections canada volunteers and I also believe many blindly voted on party lines instead of looking at leadership qualities. They should have not voted if they knew about the rigging of local riding candidate selections by Trudeau and other undemocratic moves made by the Liberals prior to the elections. The mainstream media also did not cover the destruction of election signs by NDP and Liberal supporters, the nazi graffiti painted on Conservative party campaign offices of local candidates as well as sexist threats toward female candidates. The fact is that the Conservative party fielded more women as candidates and people from more cultural backgrounds than the Liberals but the mainstream media was biased against the ruling party of the time.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    7. Re:Won't matter anyway. by WindBourne · · Score: 0

      Im a registered Libertarian and am writing in Lawrence Lessig so that I can block ppl like you from interfering in our politics.
      Sadly, you are a conservative Canadian, i.e. uneducated, so, I doubt that you understand anything about America.
      However, It appear that your whole life is wrapped up in fucked up politics. You should come to America and join the GOP/tea*/kkk/nazi party. You would fit right in.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:Won't matter anyway. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Why be afraid pf posting facts?

      My Karma has been trashed before and it will be again.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    9. Re: Won't matter anyway. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree. I am just sick and tired of the AC trolls here, of which most are on the right. I wish all ppl would simply use their login and perhaps be nice and friendly to others

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  3. The solution is simple... by DaHat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Obama must tomorrow order the NSA to hack Roscosmos, obtain complete specifications for the Soyuz platform, open source it, then contract with a different 3rd party to build our own line... but rather than using domestic parts/labor, outsource the whole thing to India or China to save on costs.

    While the NSA is at it, best to find some dirty emails regarding Putin to help sway the election back the way they want it.

    --
    Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    1. Re:The solution is simple... by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      No need. The Chinese already have a copy. The Shenzhou.

    2. Re:The solution is simple... by jonwil · · Score: 1

      While they are there, they can steal the plans for the Russian RD-180 rocket motor so the US can build its own and not need to keep buying the things from Russia...

    3. Re:The solution is simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several US companies have a license to manufacture the RD-180, but they would be more expensive than Russian sourced ones.

    4. Re:The solution is simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have to steal the plans, they obtained them perfectly legally and are allowed to produce the engines. However, the US cannot do so economically, so they do not.

    5. Re:The solution is simple... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      You obviously do not understand the russians.
      there is no dirty mail that will make russians vote against Putin.
      What will make them do that, is if Putin tries to put back in place with totalitarian system, or if their economy continues to stay collapsed.
      It is this later that is very likely going to cause another person to replace him. Hopefully, the next time, they will modify their constitution to say no more than 2 terms. period.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:The solution is simple... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      we already have the full plans for the 180. And there is ZERO reason to do that.
      Actually we CAN produce this economically, but not against a nation that has their money in the crapper.
      Also, there is no reason to go further with it. BO and SpaceX will have far more powerful engines using methane shortly.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:The solution is simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "open source it, then contract with a different 3rd party to build our own line"

      That is completely counter to what many powerful politicians WANT to happen, the unabated funneling of money to defense contractors/their districts. We've effectively already got a program much as you suggest, CCDev is attempting to stimulate competition between US aerospace companies (Currently Boeing, SpaceX & Blue Origin) for a commercial crew vehicle. Despite its relative success chugging along in defiance of an operating budget roughly half the desired budget for much of its first few years (less than $3b spent in total and two launchers nearing readiness vs SLS that has spent more than $10B and is only a collection of partially built parts) there have been multiple attempts to defund it or transfer its funds to SLS "if" it goes over-budget. We CAN already build crewed craft for roughly the cost of Russian/Chinese craft (Dragon V2 is expected to be 1/3 the cost of Soyuz per seat), but that would require we cut the pork.

  4. CONgress is the issue by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Hopefully CONgress properly fund human launch.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  5. no soyuz seats = no space for nasa astronauts by sittingnut · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "boeing and spacex better get their manned capsules working by 2019"
    lol. perhaps in 2025 at >10x cost of soyuz (inflation adjusted)
    enough said.

    better lay off the astronauts till then.

    1. Re:no soyuz seats = no space for nasa astronauts by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      Citation on the "10x cost" claim?

    2. Re:no soyuz seats = no space for nasa astronauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      History.

    3. Re:no soyuz seats = no space for nasa astronauts by WindBourne · · Score: 0

      then wrong.
      New Private space is normally a great deal cheaper than Russia. It is old private space that is more expensive.
      In addition, SpaceX is close to being on track for start of 2018, so not a big deal.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:no soyuz seats = no space for nasa astronauts by WindBourne · · Score: 0

      Why do you say that? So far human launch will costs far less than what Soyuz has over the same time frame. And once we start re-launching humans, per seat costs will be a great deal less than soyuz.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:no soyuz seats = no space for nasa astronauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Private space is normally a great deal cheaper than Russia. ...
      In addition, SpaceX is close to being on track for start of 2018

      Citation Please.

    6. Re:no soyuz seats = no space for nasa astronauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So far human launch will costs far less than what Soyuz has over the same time frame.

      Seriously?
      Or is that a joke? based on silly logic; since no human was launched over the same time frame = zero cost?.

    7. Re: no soyuz seats = no space for nasa astronauts by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      http://spaceflightnow.com/laun... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:no soyuz seats = no space for nasa astronauts by tsotha · · Score: 1

      SpaceX was certainly on track to deliver people to the ISS far more cheaply than Soyuz. Whether or not that remains the case will depend somewhat on the latest failure.

    9. Re: no soyuz seats = no space for nasa astronauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You give links which fail to back up your claims
      1/ New Private space is normally a great deal cheaper than Russia.
      2/ In addition, SpaceX is close to being on track for start of 2018.

      Cost numbers and dates of manned flights are missing. In fact, launch schedule linked mention months of delays in unmanned SpaceX launches.

    10. Re:no soyuz seats = no space for nasa astronauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SpaceX was certainly on track to deliver people to the ISS far more cheaply than Soyuz. .

      No. There is nothing to back that claim. Almost all of SpaceX launches suffer from months of delays from original set date. And actual costs are not disclosed at all. Mere claims are circulated that reuse and other methods will reduce cost. This has not been demonstrated. So far all the used stuff had to be refashioned for reuse.(Expensively if we examine what is been done, again no numbers disclosed).

  6. Make Space Great Again by ChadSmith4920 · · Score: 0, Troll

    When it comes to outer space TRUMP Space will be FANTASTIC!!

    1. Re:Make Space Great Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make Great Space Again - when half the population move to Canada

    2. Re:Make Space Great Again by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      you mean the guy that said that we should take money from NASA and spend it on the roads and tax cuts? That guy?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Make Space Great Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has he said that, if so where? The nearest I can find is he has shown interest in NASA, but mentioned that we have more important things to focus on, suggesting more of a stagnant budget or maybe a slight decrease. I'm all for bashing that loud mouthed, pathological lying, orange, sexist, racist, buffoon, but please don't go down his route of telling lie after lie to "get your point across".

      http://time.com/4428346/donald-trump-space/

    4. Re: Make Space Great Again by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      http://gizmodo.com/the-2016-pr... Actually, I did not lie. And I see no reason to lie about any candidate, even though I'm a registered Libertarian.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  7. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because Putin's Russia is doomed.

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their military is at least twice as powerfuls as the US.

    2. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's cute. The largest Air Force in the world? The United States Air Force. The second? The United States Navy.

    3. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Lots of planes will come in handy when some rebels with a peashooter shoot down your F-117, the so called "stealth fighter". Again.

    4. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lull http://www.globalfirepower.com

    5. Re: Good by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The United States has NEVER fought an enemy without air superiority. The only enemy that came close was Japan and only until the US started sinking their carriers in the Coral Sea. Germany had already lost the battle of Britain by the time the US came on the scene and the Luftwaffe was decimated and never recovered - especially after having to also deal with the Russian front after Barbarossa. While the US has more aircraft than Russia, the US also has a lot of front and a lot more bases to defend - from Japan to Lithuania. Plus American aircraft are extremely high tech, delicate creatures. Russian aircraft are built to be rugged and most of them can land on grass strips and other rough surfaces. Any American who over-estimates the potential of his armed forces against an enemy such as Russia and China (they have a mutual defense pact by the way so an aggressive America would not be fighting only one enemy) is in for a nasty, nasty shock.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes, very robust. Lightweight even.

      All you need is an air compressor.

    7. Re:Good by hey! · · Score: 1

      Projects like ISS aren't just one thing. You have many groups involved each with their agenda. One of those groups unquestionably is researchers. Would they rather have all the money spent on ISS go just to their research? Sure. But it's not going to happen. The PR value supports the research, just as it did with Apollo (but obviously on much, much smaller scale).

      Likewise a lot of people would rather see the money that went into ISS go toward a Mars mission; but that would (at the time of ISS's planning) make hardly a dent in what would have been needed. ISS is a critical bridge to future manned exploration (if any) of the solar system. It's an achievable short-term program which maintains and advances practical hands-on experience with human spaceflight and space habitats.

      This is how the real world works. You can't get everything you want, but you can get some of what you want by helping others get some of what they want.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:Good by khallow · · Score: 1

      Projects like ISS aren't just one thing. You have many groups involved each with their agenda. One of those groups unquestionably is researchers. [...] Likewise a lot of people would rather see the money that went into ISS go toward a Mars mission

      And a third group just looks at something like the ISS as a profit center. One of three groups got what they wanted.

      This is how the real world works.

    9. Re:Good by speedplane · · Score: 1

      ISS, like the Space Shuttle program before, is more of an ongoing PR promotion (and jobs program) than any kind of useful scientific mission. Either send humans to Mars or stick with unmanned missions.

      How would sending a handful of astronauts to Mars to live on life support for a few days be any less of a PR stunt than the ISS?

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    10. Re: Good by whodunit · · Score: 1

      Durable. Durable. Yeah, when you build your interceptors out of nickel steel they're durable as bricks - and they've got similar flight kinematics, too! I hear your Syrian buddies are so impressed by that rugged brick-like durability that they've towed their entire MiG-25 fleet out into the desert around the T4 airbase and left 'em to rot. But hey, at least they're durable. A thousand years from now they'll dig those planes out of the sand and stand around to marvel at the brick-like creations of their primitive ancestors. Das Rodina's legend will live on, in a museum, and then you'll finally achieve your deserved ascendancy over the decedent West!

      Durable. Durable. I love you Vatniks so much. SO MUCH

    11. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the maintenance issues (kind of inline with the "high tech/rugged" issues noted). I believe at one point less than half of the F-35/F-22 fleets were flight ready at any one time, the rest were in the process of some kind of in depth maintenance. Since then I believe things have improved, to a little shy of 70%... And that is in peacetime, In combat situations that is likely to plummet very quickly as these aircraft are extremely maintenance intensive, for each hour they spend in the air they spend dozens of hours on the ground being overhauled. I'm not sure of the numbers on Russian aircraft but I would assume they are closer to the A-10 (around 6 hours per flight hour). I love the fact that we have some of the most advanced aircraft on the planet, but we need to focus a little more on their cost/durability/combat readiness and a little less on their spec sheets and toys.

    12. Re: Good by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Confirming that the RuAF consists entirely of MiG 25's. Oh wait, they haven't been produced since the Soviet era.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    13. Re: Good by cheesybagel · · Score: 0

      Actually Russian jet engines don't last very long. So I wouldn't expect those to be reliable.

    14. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your basis for this is? I can't find much of anything about the maintenance requirements of Russian aircraft but they are still flying a lot of jets from the 70s and 80s and I very much doubt that they are cranking engines/aircraft off assembly lines these days. And I don't think US fighters engines exactly keep the engines they're built with either given that the F-35 had a engine replacement requirement right in its specs (engine swaps were supposed to take 2 hours, they take 52).

    15. Re:Good by drsquare · · Score: 1

      You can't go to Mars until you solve the life support, it's a four year mission minimum with no easy resupply from Earth. To solve life support you need a space station.

    16. Re: Good by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I'd say China and Russia is a completely different beast than Russia alone. Compared to the Cold War they've lost a lot of allies and NATO has gained about as much. The battle lines won't start in East Germany, a united Germany will stand against them. And the Poles. And the Baltic States and most of Ukraine and former Yugoslavia. Putin can try funny business in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea since they're not NATO members but he really has no chance alone (or with their lackeys like Belarus) in an open war with NATO. Now China on the other hand has a massive number of soldiers and massive production industry that could be retooled for war. I guess the ace in the hole is the nukes, but if China develops a rocket shield then all bets are off.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    17. Re: Good by whodunit · · Score: 0

      Nah now you clowns are kicking around in upgraded Su-27s trying to milk more life out of a dated airframe while you wait for the PAK-FA to get engines worth a sorry fuck. But just like the shit engines in the MiG-25, you STILL can't make a jet engine the equal of ours and so the PAK sits on the ground, lost and forlorn, while our own F-35s are already in service and droppin bombs.

    18. Re: Good by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      "We clowns"? I'm a Canadian living in Panama...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    19. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it gets under reported and you won't find much about it online. Reality is, Russian engines have been known to be notoriously unreliable so much so, that my friend at the Victorville airfield actually does parts for Russian military jet engines (For anyone in the known, that place is a pitstop for aircraft with a lot of CNC manufacturers, etc) , because Russia doesn't even trust their own manufacturers. Surprise, a US company making parts for the Russian military in California of all places! But since I have no references to this, you won't believe me, but I don't care. You can go down there yourself to see, most of the doors are open in a lot of these warehouses. A lot of life has come back to a lot of aerospace industry in Southern California thanks to Russia. That MC-21 brought a lot life back in Huntington Beach alone (Anyone in this business knows what the hell I'm talking about, you can actually look this up on google). Meanwhile, Russia likes to tell its people that everything was produced domestically.

      So the PAK-FA not having its own engine was no surprise to anyone in this business. More than likely they're going to try to find a third party supplier for engines for the PAK-FA, either from India or some western company will supply them. And considering how anti-west Russia has been, the PAK-FA is just going to be doing nothing but demo shows since they probably won't ever get a decent engine for it for a long time.

      So yeah, keep believing about this superior Russian airforce. Russia has literally created their own logistical nightmare for a lot of Russian military equipment thanks to a lot of incompetence and lack of oversight from the Russian government.

    20. Re: Good by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      https://warisboring.com/india-... :

      In the past decade, the Indian Air Force has bought hundreds of Su-30MKI fighter jets from Russia. ...
      But it turns out, the twin-engine jets have failure-prone motors. Their AL-31FP engines break down with alarming frequency. ...
      Parrikar attributed the failures to faulty bearings that contaminated the plane’s oil supply. It seems that metal fatigue led to tiny pieces of metal shearing off the friction-reducing bearings, which then entered the oil system. ...
      However, a more general worry for the Air Force is the poor serviceability of the Su-30MKI fleet—meaning the number of aircraft actually available for operations on a daily basis. ...
      Based on figures given by Parrikar, only 110 Su-30MKIs are “operationally available.” From a total of more than 200 aircraft that Irkut and HAL had delivered by February 2015, that means 56 percent are ready at any given time.

      http://www.theepochtimes.com/n... :

      According to a report by the Beijing-based Sina Military Network, the Russian-built engine used in the J-10 is prone to malfunction, having caused multiple crashes in recent years. ...
      The Russian-built engine had lost power at over 11,000 feet, said pilot Li Tong, who ejected at 1,000 feet following an abortive 198-second attempt to glide the aircraft to a local airfield. ...
      According to Chinese naval publications cited by Sina, consultations with Russian providers to find a solution for the AL-31 compatibility issues have been delayed for want of funding.

      It's not like this isn't a widely reported problem... It isn't exclusive to the AL-31 series engine used in the Su-27 and derivatives either. The RD-33 engines used in the Mig-29 allegedly have such low lifetimes that most of them have been retired in the countries that actually did buy them. While Mig-21 from the 1960s are still flying...

    21. Re: Good by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      http://www.defensenews.com/sto... :

      India ordered 45 MiG-29K aircraft and equipment worth $2.2 billion in two separate orders — in 2004 and 2010 — from Russia. It is the primary combat platform on Vikramaditya, which was acquired from Russia when it was known as the Admiral Gorshkov...
      On problems with the engine, the CAG report said: "Since induction in February 2010, 40 engines (62 percent) of twin-engined MiG-29K have been withdrawn from service/rejected due to design-related defects." ...
      Additionally, the serviceability of the warplanes was low, ranging from 21.30 percent to 47.14 percent, according to the report. ...
      Detailing the defects of the engine on MiG-29K, the report noted that "even as the RD-33 MK engine (mounted on MiG-29K) was considered an advancement over the engine of the MiG-29K, its reliability remains questionable."

    22. Re:Good by tsotha · · Score: 1

      That's kind of a joke. Russia is weaker than it's ever been in relation to the US.

    23. Re: Good by tsotha · · Score: 1

      At this point Russia is relying on its nuclear arsenal to maintain its independence, the same way Pakistan and North Korea do. It would have no hope in a conventional war against the US, particularly if the other NATO countries were involved.

    24. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Confused. What parts of life support need to be "solved"? Oxygen? Worst case scenario is 6 tons of oxygen candles per astronaut for the entire four year mission. Using electrolysis of water (which can also be their drinking water for most of the mission, cycled around and around, it's about 1.4 tons of water per astronaut for four years (.84 kg per day needed, and water is 88.8888% oxygen, so about 350 liters of water per year). Using in situ water and electrolysis would lower the requirements even more, but obviously can't be relied on until more exploration and experimentation has been done.

  8. Good by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ISS, like the Space Shuttle program before, is more of an ongoing PR promotion (and jobs program) than any kind of useful scientific mission.

    Either send humans to Mars or stick with unmanned missions. More manned trips just to sit in LEO and pretend to do something useful are just pissing away money. It's time to end the charade.

    Sadly, NASA will probably just end up funneling even more money to politically-connected contractors with the excuse that we need to build our own rockets, throwing even more good money after bad.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  9. It's a scam, a con, and it's rigged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Roseanne Barr: I Was the First Person to Tell Trump to Run for President

    "When Roseanne ended its celebrated run, Barr got her own syndicated television talk show, The Roseanne Show. Recently, she realized she'd had two very special guests come through her studio-and told one of them he should consider a presidential run.

    "I interviewed both Trump and Michael Moore together," said Barr, who says she "sort of" knows the GOP frontrunner and likes him "as a human being." "I was watching it and I tell Trump, 'You should run for president,'" she grinned.

    Why did Trump seem so presidential back then? "Because of all of his views," Barr said. "He was extremely progressive. He was saying we should invest more in education, and we need health care. He said all the things that Hillary's saying. That's why I know that it's just a con. The whole fucking thing. It's a scam, a con, and it's rigged.""

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

  10. SpaceX Dragon 2 should be ready by frank249 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is proven technology as it already delivers supplies to ISS and returns safely. They have tested the abort system on the ground along with the other systems. I do not see why they will not be ready for flights in 2018. Boeing on the other hand is still way behind

    --

    Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.

    1. Re:SpaceX Dragon 2 should be ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is proven technology as it already delivers supplies to ISS and returns safely. They have tested the abort system on the ground along with the other systems. I do not see why they will not be ready for flights in 2018. Boeing on the other hand is still way behind

      Keep dreaming. SpaceX has never launched a person into space. Dragon 2 may be ready for testing by 2018, but given SpaceX's recent spotty record with launches, NASA in no way will put an astronaut on a SpaceX rocket or an untested Dragon 2. Their safety rating and supplier quality control needs to be dramatically improved before that happens.

    2. Re:SpaceX Dragon 2 should be ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Would this be the same spacex that has blown up two rockets within the last year? One for mysterious reasons unknown?

      I don't think nasa will let its astronauts ride on that contraption until spacex does the hard work to change their corporate culture to value reliability -before- fancy tail landings, no matter what the may have to say publicly.

      And Boeing? always delayed "another 6 months". But to their credit it probably wont' blow up if they ever launch it.

    3. Re:SpaceX Dragon 2 should be ready by nick1austin · · Score: 2

      One one rocket blew up this year, and one last year (two rockets in two years). The reasons for both are known with over 99% certainty. (CRS-7 was failure of a helium tank strut, AMOS-6 was formation of crystals of solid oxygen within the COPV overwrap). Both NASA and SpaceX investigated the CRS_7 accident and disagreed about probably cause. SpaceX went with the NASA report and implemented ALL of NASAs recommendations. Dragon 2 shares a common design with Red Dragon and there is no way Elon will allow that slip because Red Dragon can only launch on certain dates and missing 2018 would mean a delay to Red Dragon of 27 months.

    4. Re:SpaceX Dragon 2 should be ready by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Oooh, more details on the solid oxygen crystals cause idea? I hadn't seen that one yet.

      Also, I hadn't heard that SpaceX and NASA disagreed on the cause of the CRS-7 failure... more like SpaceX figured out early that the symptoms matched a failed helium tank strut but didn't believe it at first because none of the struts they tested failed similarly, so they went on reviewing and ended up testing most of their strut inventory before they found a few (just two?) that were also dangerously weak. At no part of this did I hear anything about SpaceX believing that the probable cause was anything else, just that the initially-predicted cause seemed unlikely.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  11. Bring back the Moonraker! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Build the space station, populate it with perfect human specimens, arm it with lasers and wipe the corruption off the face of this planet.

  12. Space Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd hate to see anyone in the Soyuz teams end up as another taxi driver in Moscow, or as hot dog sales specialist at the the streets of New York.

  13. Mother Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is always at war, comrade.

  14. Shenzhou is never discussed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep on saying that NASA should buy Shenzhous from China, and launch them on Atlas V. The annual humans into space market is small: only 12 passengers per year. Yeah. Soyuz. Shenzhou on Atlas V. Shenzhou on Long March 2f. A less than perfect Dragon on Atlas V. Orion. My lineup.

    1. Re:Shenzhou is never discussed by WindBourne · · Score: 0

      Thank god that you are not American. Zero chance of buying a CHinese capsule.
      And America needs to quit throwing their money away to Putin, let alone to China.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Shenzhou is never discussed by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Thank god that you are not American. Zero chance of buying a CHinese capsule. And America needs to quit throwing their money away to Putin, let alone to China.

      Wow. Congrats on confirming the stereotypes of Americas. You guys lost the innovation race because of your arrogance and stupidity. You keep of voting in idiots who you think are "cool". Unfortunately, Canada has caught that disease. Justin makes Dan Quayle look like a Rhodes scholar. He has nice hair though.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    3. Re:Shenzhou is never discussed by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      yeah, right.
      Just because I said that NASA is NOT going to spend money on buying from China?
      Obviously, you must work in NASA like I did and think that you know how NASA (or even China for that matter) operates.
      The fact that you think that Jesus was a social conservative means that you have not even read the bible, let alone had history.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Shenzhou is never discussed by drsquare · · Score: 1

      How exactly has the US lost the innovation race?

    5. Re:Shenzhou is never discussed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lost the innovation race? What planet are you on? Chinese technology advances can only advance as fast as the US technology advances. Their entire economy is built upon using sweatshop laborers so their exports are cheaper. And they are quickly losing even this part of their economic plank. All the other little neo-barb countries in SE Asia are offering international companies even cheaper laborers and while not requiring foreign countries to operate under the restrictive laws China places on international companies wanting to do business on their soil. And has China got that one fix-it upper aircraft carrier they bought into full service yet? Only 10 more to go and 40 years worth of operational experience to gain until they can be called an effective blue water navy. The US could cut China off at the knees by just stopping all trade between the two countries. China produces nothing the US cannot make or get from someone else. There would be a period of adjustment but who knows maybe the US will bring the manufacturing back in house. On the other hand the bulk of US exports to China is food which is a little more critical to a states survival than cheap toasters and clothes. And no China does not own the US. They invest money in the US by purchasing bonds and securities. And China is willing to purchase billions of dollars of these financial instruments because they recognize the US has the most stable political, financial, and banking systems in the world. And if hostilities were to break out between the US and China what are the odds the Chinese will ever see any of their money now stored in US banks? They will need one hell of a debt collector to get their money back. And forget GDP numbers and look at the per capita figures to get a clearer picture of a countries economic health.

      All that being said there is really no reason for China and the US to fight one another. The US has never invaded China and the only time the US military was in their territory was in WW2. The US committed a fighter squadron to harass the Japanese during their occupation. This was before the US was even close to building the military machine that evicted Japan from damn near every country in SE Asia. Plus there has been a sizeable Chinese population in the US starting back in the 1800's.

      And arrogance breeds contempt which I certainly have for idiots like yourself who continue to make erroneous generalizations of Americans. According to your fellow travelers Americans are fat, lazy, stupid, and ignorant. If that is true then what does it say about the rest of the world? If Americans have been able surpass them in almost every meaningful category? I say it's pastime for the US to stop the pretense and start looking out for number one. Withdraw all the expensive military commitments made to a bunch of ingrates who deserve to fight their own battles. The US will then trade with any other country on the planet where there is an advantage. No more government commenting on a countries internal policies no matter how many people are getting killed. And if anyone does something stupid against US interests they should expect a rather sizeable response and the word non-combatant or international law never enter the dialog.

    6. Re:Shenzhou is never discussed by tsotha · · Score: 1

      To Congress the space program is just another way of shoveling cash to critical districts. Buying from China would defeat the purpose.

  15. full reversal ahead? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 0

    With the way Russia has been running their space program, I think we may be the one giving the Russians rides to the ISS. While it's embarrassing that we retired our only means of space flight before building something new, I'm glad we were able to pay to hitch a ride with the Russians. Scientific discovery is a long path and to not travel it is to say you care about your pride more than you care about science and that is a dangerous attitude.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  16. 2 years seems rather excessive by Solandri · · Score: 2

    2 years to build a new Soyuz capsule after it's ordered? It takes Boeing and Airbus about 80 days to build a 777 or A380.

    Even factoring in number of orders doesn't account for the difference. There are about 15 Soyuz launches per year. Airbus is delivering about 30 A380s per year. So that would only account for a factor of 2, putting expected build time for a Soyuz at 160 days, or less than half a year.

    1. Re:2 years seems rather excessive by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      2 years to build a new Soyuz capsule after it's ordered? It takes Boeing and Airbus about 80 days to build a 777 or A380.

      Apples and oranges - because the second example doesn't examine the time from order to delivery. So, while it sounds impressive to the uneducated and clueless, your examples are completely meaningless.

    2. Re:2 years seems rather excessive by speedplane · · Score: 3, Funny

      2 years to build a new Soyuz capsule after it's ordered? It takes Boeing and Airbus about 80 days to build a 777 or A380.

      Wow, 80 days to make a 777? It takes Toyota only 17 hours to make a car! Wow, 17 hours to make a car? It takes my corner deli three minutes to make a sandwhich!

      False comparisons anyone?

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    3. Re:2 years seems rather excessive by nateman1352 · · Score: 1

      Remember this is Russia. Most of the USSR state owned industry was sold to former Communist party members and other politically well connected people for pennies on the dollar, including the Soyuz factories. It takes 2 years to build a Soyuz because they use the exact same industrial process to build them that they used 40 years ago under Communist rule. It's Govornment subsidized and NASA pays through the teeth for it anyway, so zero incentive to improve inventory management or process efficiency.

    4. Re:2 years seems rather excessive by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      IIRC the thing is the Russians operate two production lines in parallel to be able to keep the current Soyuz production output. If the US doesn't order more flights they'll just shutter one of the production lines. Oh and if you know anything about computer hardware, like CPU pipelining, you'll probably know that any pipeline (same model also applies to assembly lines) has startup latency and instruction latency. i.e. it may take a long time to restart production in a line until you get the first unit out, but then the following units come out a lot quicker. Try reading about CPU manufacturing for e.g. time to get first silicon after a tapeout. It takes months to get the first unit out.

    5. Re:2 years seems rather excessive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been 195 A380s built since 2005, or about 17 per year. I believe there have been about 130 "Soyuz" (multiple generations) launches since the mid 60s, or about 2.7 per year. So one has over 6 orders of magnitude more of a production rate, which usually limits its supply chain and thus requires a longer procurement foresight.

    6. Re:2 years seems rather excessive by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Most Soyuz flights are unmanned, it takes a lot longer to prepare for a manned mission, especially when you have Russia's unmatched safety record.

  17. Spatial Obamacare doings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By his special envoy friend, right? And we public do not matter when they only know how to say no, no more, it is over, the end of it. On another hand, why wouldnt the Russians have a stock of Soyuz vehicles? So we not only outsource space vehicles but give them an erratic demand incentive to not have a steady supply, expect then for private enterprises to fill in the void on the doctrine private enterprise is always better than government enterprise (except for wars, see?), and finally someone will start annoying because those companies had ties to the Russians for equipment and should be investigated!!! Doesnt it sound like crappy as in total crap? I do not think these are expressions of Arrow s Theorem, but rather than some people are in fact incoeherent and inconsistent, but we have to hire them as government officers and waste valuable time writing reasonable complaints like this one! SHAME, we should be example and budget at least one vehicle per year commissioned, JUST IN CASE.