Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Energiya Pushes For A 6-Person Space Capsule 391

Posted by timothy from the isn't-funded-'til-it's-funded dept.
voss writes "Apparently the Russians want to build their own reusable capsule called the Clipper that can be used up to 25 times and can fit 6 people. They also say they can build their ship in 5 years. The key here is if they can get the funding. The shuttle will be retired in 2010 and with no credible replacement on the horizon...why doesn't NASA give the Russians a chance?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Energiya Pushes For A 6-Person Space Capsule More

Energiya Pushes For A 6-Person Space Capsule

Comments Filter:

  • Good for them (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Spazmasta ( 744225 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @03:53AM (#8625994)
    Maybe now NASA will stop dilly-dallying around and get some new technology other than the outdated space shuttle. We've really been slacking ever since we stopped going to the moon, and maybe international involvement will help us get back on track.

    • Re:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)

      by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @03:56AM (#8626044) Journal
      Kinda like the ISS did?

      (Yes this post is sarcasm)

    • Maybe now NASA will stop dilly-dallying around and get some new technology other than the outdated space shuttle.

      I am confident that whatever "new technology" NASA gets will be a compromise between various mission requirements that the new shuttle will be billions of dollars overbudget and will do nothing the current shuttle cannot do, while being more unsafe.

      Cynnicism, or realism? This is NASA, after all...

    • Re:Good for them (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Amiga Trombone ( 592952 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @04:34AM (#8626163)
      Maybe now NASA will stop dilly-dallying around and get some new technology other than the outdated space shuttle. We've really been slacking ever since we stopped going to the moon, and maybe international involvement will help us get back on track.

      Why compete? It would be more to the point if one of NASA's contractor's licensed the Energia technologies and simply modified them to NASA's specifications. It would also help Energia fund some of their more ambitious projects.

      What's the point in reinventing the wheel?

    • Vaporware Space Race (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Unfortunatly, I think the US, Russia, China and India are all going to get tied up in a "Vaporware" space race. That is the country that can draw the best plans and PR will win.

      I have no faith that manned space flight will ever get passed LEO in my lifetime

    • Re:Good for them (Score:5, Informative)

      by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @06:07AM (#8626377)


      Maybe now NASA will stop dilly-dallying around and get some new technology other than the outdated space shuttle. We've really been slacking ever since we stopped going to the moon, and maybe international involvement will help us get back on track.

      Great. Perhapse you can help ensure NASA gets a budget that matches its former glory?

      Take a look at the CAIB report [www.caib.us]. Pay attention to Volume I, Chapter 5 [www.caib.us]. Read over section 5.3 An Agency Trying To Do Too Much With Too Little. Along with some very interesting text is some telling charts. NASA's funding in 1965 was a little under 4% of the national budget or $5,250 million (the equiv. of $24,696 million in 2002). Meanwhile, FY 2002 saw a budget of $14,868 million - less than 1% of the national budget.

      • How about using a meaningful comparison? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Tau Zero ( 75868 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @10:36AM (#8627054) Journal
        NASA's funding in 1965 was a little under 4% of the national budget or $5,250 million (the equiv. of $24,696 million in 2002). Meanwhile, FY 2002 saw a budget of $14,868 million - less than 1% of the national budget.
        I really hate to see statistics abused like this.

        First, in 1965 the national budget did not include much money for certain programs which have exploded since then (for example, most of the Great Society stuff like Medicare). Comparing fractions of the budget without adjusting for huge changes in the portion of GNP which goes through the government makes any comparison suspect.

        Second, the economy is several times as big now as it was then. Is something less important if you allocate 1% of 4*x to it instead of 4% of x?

        Third, we have already solved many of the technical and engineering problems required to do the things we want to do in space (I think we should put a permanent population on Mars, others may differ). For instance, we already know how to maintain people in space for months at a time. We know how to handle ultra-cryogens such as liquid hydrogen; we now use them routinely in rocket boosters and other applications. We don't need to spend money to re-invent these wheels.

        What NASA really needs is a mission and a reform of its bureaucratic mentality so that it can pursue it properly. It doesn't need more money, it needs to shed the albatross of the enormously expensive and obsolete Shuttle program so that the money can do something more useful than paying for an army of government contractors.

  • no way (Score:4, Insightful)

    by badriram ( 699489 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @03:53AM (#8625997)
    Accepting someone elses design is almost admitting that a under funded agency can bring up better plans than NASA.

    And what makes you think NASA does not have a better one on their plans.

    • Re:no way (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21, 2004 @04:02AM (#8626079)
      Russians always seem to have a much, much different design philosophy than America when it comes to space. It's not just about funding. I think this comes from their cold war philosophy. The idea that an soviet fighter jet should be able to land on almost any airstrip, even half bombed-out, refuel, and take off in an hour (or something like that). Contrasted with American designs which are always very maintainence-heavy, and more technologically sophisticated/complex.

      This is really a core difference in design/engineering philosophy between Russian and USA, and I think it definitely extends into their space programs. USA craft are very susceptible to slight malfunctions. Russian craft will be fine as long as you have a roll of duct tape or a bit of wood glue. Anyhow, my point I guess is just that, I think sometimes the Russian approach is more practical. I'd like to see what they would build.

      • Re:no way (Score:2, Insightful)

        by modder ( 722270 )
        "Russian craft will be fine as long as you have a roll of duct tape or a bit of wood glue. "

        Or a wrench in the event of fire?
        • Actually, yes - whatever works. Wrench, like a hammer, is a very versatile tool :-) Myself, I'd very much prefer a wrench to a computer keyboard if a fire breaks out. Less chance of a failure.

      • Bullshit: re NIH & Engineering Philosophy (Score:5, Informative)

        by cmholm ( 69081 ) <cmholm@mauihol m . o rg> on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:25AM (#8626278) Homepage Journal
        NASA, the DoD, and American aerospace firms have had no reluctance to buy and/or license better Russian technology. Both the newest Boeing Delta and Lock-Mart Atlas use license-built Russian engines with nary a design change. NASA couldn't wait to get it's hands on Russian space nuke power generators when offered. When the DoD needed a drone to simulate a common Russian anti-ship missile, they skipped the American contractors and just bought the Russian anti-ship missile.

        Regarding the generalizations for strength/weaknesses in Russian and American aerospace products, particularly aircraft:

        Russian airframes, landing gear, gearboxes... built tought to work in shitty conditions.

        Russian turbojets, great while they work, but need to be rebuilt every few hundred flight hours.

        Russian avionics/radar: relatively primitive and prone to crapping out.

        American airframes: finely engineered and can take a licking. Landing gear: engineered for whatever a particular design's expected environment, pick one: candy-ass smooth USAF tarmac, a carrier deck, dirt strip.

        American engines: reliable, last long time, 1000's hours between rebuilds.

        American avionics/radar: used to crap out regularly, even if not as often as Russian... until Hughes and Westinghouse got their digital h/w worked out in the 80's, now tough as nuts and runs for weeks w/o swapping out.

        Just as an example, ask the Royal Malaysian Air Force. They fly F-18 and MiG-29. Sure, the 29's were about a quarter the price of the 18's, but it's the 18's that are flight-ready almost 24x7.

        • You forgot to mention that when you rebuild a Russian engine, it tends to be a relatively quick process using cheap parts. The other point is that Russia being extremely diverse for weather conditions means that one design has to cope with a lot.
          • Point well taken. The issue remains, however, how much aggregate time in depot does it take to support a squadron of (in this case) 29's vs. a squadron of 18's. The Russian parts may be cheap, and the rebuild quick, but is it really that great of a deal for the ground crew to be constantly taking aircraft off of flight status to yank one set of engines and drop in another? God help 'em if for some reason the tempo of operations picks up during, say, a war.

            • Re:Cheap Parts, But At What Cost? (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Slashamatic ( 553801 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @08:46AM (#8626716)
              On the other hand the same philosophy suits non-combat situations well.

              For example, a friend of mine was on a mining job in Uzbekistan. They had taken over a mine and substantially upgraded the equipment with the latest western stuff. After a while, some major items (pumps) were switched back to the Russian models because although they broke down more often, the downtime and running cost was much less than the Swiss models.

              Back to combat operations, this was one of the successful aspects of the Red Army during WW2. The Germans were living on the edge of an extended logistical supply pipeline and even though the Russians were local, the fqctories were often a long way away (Stalin moved his production as far away from the advancing Germans as possible) so easy maintenance was very important.

              I don't know enough about modern military aircraft, but it would be interesting to put in a total picture including maintenance costs and logistics (part inventories and so on). I have an acquaintance that flies the big Antonovs, and swears by them (even though they too are forever engine swapping).

    • > Accepting someone elses design is almost admitting that a under funded agency can bring up better plans than NASA.

      Thats wrong in at least 2 ways.

      - The Energia rocket dates back to Soviet times, and at that time the institute was not underfunded really.

      - This technology is about as old as the Saturn 5 rocket. Using it is like saying that NASA took a 3 decade detour, which might be true, but is not likely what NASA wants.

  • Race for Mars? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ewithrow ( 409712 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @03:55AM (#8626026) Homepage
    "Zelenshchikov said Energiya engineers were also working on a huge spaceship for a flight to Mars, set to weigh 660 tons, the Interfax news agency reported."
    Maybe this is just the thing we need to start another space race? Competition is good, and I don't think Americans will sit around while the Russians start testing a Mars spacecraft..

    • Re:Race for Mars? (Score:4, Informative)

      by zurab ( 188064 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @07:19AM (#8626528)
      Competition is good, and I don't think Americans will sit around while the Russians start testing a Mars spacecraft..

      I think that there's a good chance Energia is bluffing about the 660 ton Mars spacecraft. That's not another satellite launch - who's going to pay for that?

      But assuming for a second that Energia is not bluffing, NASA would have to either play catch-up or compete on a different level. IANARS (rocket scientist) but as far as I know, Energia lifters are one of, if not the best of the breed. Unlike Buran, the launch vehicle that was going to lift it into the orbit (and did so once) - LV Energia [energia.ru] - has not been lost or forgotten. When it was designed and built, it could carry up to 100-120 tons into orbit, over 200 tons if fully expanded. The main difference from the STS being that the shuttle has its main engine on the spacecraft, while Buran was lifted entirely [buran.ru] by Energia rocket and attached liquid rocket boosters (i.e. spacecraft did not do any lifting of its own).

      Now, as far as I know, nobody else including NASA has anything like this. While Energia design could be relatively easily used for lifting cargo other than Buran, I'm not sure the Shuttle main engine could be that easily ported or even comparable in power. If there's indeed a renewed competition in space and considering that there's still a lot to be said about lifting 660 pound spacecraft into LEO (not even about going to Mars and back), I am wondering what would NASA's plans be - play catch-up, or do something entirely different?

      Again, IANARS, so feel free to correct.

    • Re:Race for Mars? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geoswan ( 316494 )

      Maybe this is just the thing we need to start another space race? Competition is good, and I don't think Americans will sit around while the Russians start testing a Mars spacecraft...

      Lol. And why isn't this just the thing to base a Mars effort that is an international co-operative effort?

      This is one of the things that kills me about slashdot. What, in heaven's name, caused moderators to give this so many mod points? Ewithrow, bless their heart, didn't provide any links to outside references. The

  • Forget the clipper. What's up with the Mars ship? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by silentbozo ( 542534 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @03:55AM (#8626028) Journal
    Zelenshchikov said Energiya engineers were also working on a huge spaceship for a flight to Mars, set to weigh 660 tons, the Interfax news agency reporte

    660 tons? Wow. That's a lot of hard currency at work there. You think maybe the Chinese have put a back-order in for a ship to beat the US to the red planet?
    • 660 tons? Wow.

      No kidding. According to some rough calculations I did, it's about five times the mass of Mir. Now that is a spacecraft. I hope they get the funding to build it.

      • Re:Forget the clipper. What's up with the Mars shi (Score:4, Informative)

        by tftp ( 111690 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:24AM (#8626275) Homepage
        Actually, Russian treasury is relatively full of money, and they had positive budget for several years. That is, in fact, not very good (limits investments), and the new government is being assembled now that knows how to spend. The previous government was stuffed with ex-bankers who, from all arithmetics, only knew how to add and multiply :-) These bankers fixed the economy, and now it's time to use that money. Space is as good technology investment as any, if not better (because it affects many areas of science at once.)

    • Re:Forget the clipper. What's up with the Mars shi (Score:4, Interesting)

      by zakezuke ( 229119 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:12AM (#8626249)
      To per it in perspective, the statue of liberty is 225 tons I believe. The best argument for lunar orbit recovery was the amount of fuel required would blow up the cape if there was an accident.

      The Saturn I's empty weight is about 85 tons, about 650 tons fueled... with a payload capasity of 120 tons into earth orbit, 45 tons to the moon.

      While I'm all for a Mars mission... I'd rather that such a launch vehicel were to rendezvous with a space station, tank up, then launch.
      • Such a mass can be trivially [now] assembled from many pieces sent up separately. And the spacecraft, once launched and assembled, will stay up there forever (as long as you care to maintain it), and can travel wherever you want, as long as it has enough fuel (which you are free to send up from Earth, or gather anywhere else, technology permitting.)
        • Such a mass can be trivially [now] assembled from many pieces sent up separately. And the spacecraft, once launched and assembled, will stay up there forever (as long as you care to maintain it), and can travel wherever you want, as long as it has enough fuel (which you are free to send up from Earth, or gather anywhere else, technology permitting.)

          There is wisdom here. I'd still say it would be a wise move to focus on putting fuel into orbit rather then a space craft. The spacecraft is a trivial mass

          • Re:Forget the clipper. What's up with the Mars shi (Score:4, Informative)

            by tftp ( 111690 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:53AM (#8626338) Homepage
            It all depends on the engine type (and on the required power.) For example, ion engines have virtually no seals, and use inert gas as a fuel. You can get that (Helium) on the Moon, for example. But ion engines have low thrust. Want something more - grab some H2 and O2, and burn them. Both can be found on Mars, as it seems to be (and a simple electrolysis will break the H20 apart for your flying pleasure.)

            I would not be too concerned about seals. In low-G environment, and with low thrust, you get very low acceleration - and low vibration. Your washing machine probably has more stress on its pipes than a zero-G rocket engine.

            A properly constructed rocket engine, which stays at 50-100K all the time, will be fine for many years. Satellites also have small engines for orbit correction, and they seem to be OK. All modern rockets (incl. Shuttle) have cryogenic fuel, experience thermal shock of 300 degrees C during fueling, and still work fine.

            • I would not be too concerned about seals. In low-G environment, and with low thrust, you get very low acceleration - and low vibration. Your washing machine probably has more stress on its pipes than a zero-G rocket engine.

              Assuming we are talking seals on a typical H O2 type rocket, wouldn't it be a legit concern for seals having a limited lifespan due to what the tank contains, or just break down over time? After all, while an ion engine would be just spiffy to get to mars and back, I don't think they
              • Liquid hydrogen generally is not corrosive, IIRC; oxygen is, by definition, but not to all materials. Prudent choice of materials will ensure the longevity of the engine.

                Ion engine is indeed useless for a planetary launch. However it is kinda possibly OK for a long haul. All depends on what you want to accomplish. It is quite efficient, since its reaction mass is thrown away with a very high speed. But probably it is still too weak for any meaningful flight to Mars. I'd say, H2+O2 would be the best choice

    • This site - which I highly recommend - may describle something similar to this Mars ship:

      http://www.astronautix.com/craft/marpost.htm

      To quote a little from this site:

      In December 2000 Leonid Gorshkov of RKK Energia proposed a manned Mars orbital expedition as an alternative to Russian participation in the International Space Station. The expedition would also provide the means for reviving Russian ascendancy in space.

      The Marpost (Mars Piloted Orbital Station) spacecraft would have a total mass of 400

  • I wish NASA was better at PR.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21, 2004 @03:55AM (#8626030)
    First off, I was really pissed off at NASA and the media outlets for the scant coverage of the mission results concerning water on mars. All we got was a 4 minute introduction and one panelist into the release and it was back to the CNN/FOX 30 minute cycle of endless Pro-Bush news bits and Iraq coverage. Luckily, I have the NASA TV channel on satellite, so I was able to flip over -- but for the >95% of americans without NASA tv, they missed out on an hour's worth of enlightening details of Mars, straight from scientists and not tabloid writers with no understanding of science.

    Now, this release isn't even going to be televised. The only initial outlet is a conference call for reporters only.

    I'm ashamed of NASA and I am ashamed of our media coverage of science. When I was a kid, every space shuttle launch was televised. Taking 10-30 minutes of time out of my day to watch the occasional launch helped inspire me to think above the quagmire I was born into, to know there was something greater. Kids today get MTV and 24 hour news spin channels in 30 minute loops.

    But hey, at least they get a nice, fast Internet and ~225 national channels of garbage via satellite.

  • 25? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gowmc ( 457451 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @03:56AM (#8626031)
    Would you really want to be the guy using it the 25th time?

  • What happened to the Buran? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    WHy don't they use that?
    • IIRC, most of the Burans left are chopped up into bits, and two are not even assembled. Anyway, the Buran is as dated as the shuttle, which is the entire point of building a new one... Take a look: Buran, by NASA [nasa.gov] BTW, the Clipper is being built by Energiya, which also has the Buran launcher to its credit...

    • Re:What happened to the Buran? (Score:4, Informative)

      by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:31AM (#8626288) Homepage
      You obviously do not know Buran history.

      I have posted this before and will post it again. Buran program started at about the same time as the Shuttle, but was initially aiming for a smaller vehicle which could land nearly anywhere, not a specially prepared strategic bomber airstrip with 30 km to spare. There are pictures of a Russian Kiev class carrier group recovering one of the prototypes taken by a New Zeland destroyer as early as later 70'es in the pacific. In btw, it looks exactly as one of the competitors for the current NASA vehicle. IMO Energia should sue for plagiarism. Unless whoever was the proposer actually used their blueprints (which is quite likely, happens quite often lately, especially when congresscritters are not watching).

      Unfortunately, at one point some idiot above issued an order for Buran to comply with the same spec as the shuttle while retaining automatic landing. This was the most stupid decision ever, because the shuttle spec is a result of political horse trading. Its capacity was increased at the last moment at the expense of other flight parameteres to get Pentagon funding. This resultted in it being pushed way beyond the limits of our engineering at the time (and possibly now).

      This resulted in:

      Instead of a small launcher Soyuz or Proton Class stage 1+2, Buran had to use Energia which meant a dependency on a launcher program which was in its very early stages at the time.

      It stopped being economically feasible. Let's face it, the shuttle is not. It is the most expensive (in terms of dollar per killogram) launcher.

      As a result after one successful fully automated test flight, and one take off incident it was mothballed. Someone finally did the books and the numbers did not come out.

      If you do not believe me check how many Burans are actually floating around (one was even on sale lately). Basically Russia still has definitely more then 2. It does not fly them because it does not make any sense (financially) and because launching them requires building Energia launchers which for all practical purposes are too far from being sufficiently reliable for human launches. They simply have not been tested enough.

      • Let's face it, the shuttle is not. It is the most expensive (in terms of dollar per killogram) launcher.

        Which is really "fun". :-(

        NASA claimed that the Shuttle would become the cheapest transport known to man. (It was not only incompetence -- they knowingly lied about expected flight rates to get the $/pound down to the hundreds.)

        The shuttle got so expensive that NASA had to throw their weight around to stop competition. (This is possible to argue -- maybe e.g. taking over and failing the Delta Cl

      • There are pictures of a Russian Kiev class carrier group recovering one of the prototypes taken by a New Zeland destroyer as early as later 70'es in the pacific.

        Don't accuse others of not knowing Buran history when you cannot get it straight yourself.

        What was recovered in the Indian Ocean (not the Pacific) was a very small (2-3m) model of an aerodynamic shape very different from Buran. While the Russian have never owned up to exactly what it was a subscale model of, it's believed today to have been a con

  • Reused up to 25 times? (Score:4, Funny)

    by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @04:22AM (#8626130) Homepage
    OK, if it is designed to be used 25 times...I sure wouldn't want to be on flight 25.

    • Re:Reused up to 25 times? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @06:43AM (#8626463)
      Are you kidding? Mir was designed for a five-year lifespan. After something like 12 years they crashed a cargo ship into it, depressurised half the station, set the rest on fire and for good measure took down all the computers and it still wouldn't die...

      If the Russians say it's designed for 25 flights, I'd start to worry around flight 78 :-)

      • Are you kidding? Mir was designed for a five-year lifespan. After something like 12 years they crashed a cargo ship into it, depressurised half the station, set the rest on fire and for good measure took down all the computers and it still wouldn't die...
        No, it didn't die. But it did need nearly 24/7 life support, massive organ transplants,and around the clock nursing care.
  • As a U.S. taxpayer, I'm all for giving the Russians a chance. Heck, who's stopping them? What I'm not in favor of is taxing Americans and then GIVING the money to the Russians to build the thing. We've outsourced and sent enough jobs overseas. Hasn't anyone noticed there are fewer and fewer of us taxpayers not on unemployment here? Personally I have nothing against Russia at all, but I have something against anyone who holds out their hands and expects Americans having enough problems making a buck here t
    • Oh Jesus fucking Christ. "Hasn't anyone noticed there are fewer and fewer of us taxpayers not on unemployment here?" What's unemployment at these days, 6.7%? That was the AVERAGE unemployment rate for the period 1970-1995! You're talking about people STARVING TO DEATH?!? Look, reasonable people can differ on whether outsourcing is good, or whether Bush is handling the economy well (to the extent a president has influence on such matters), but telling tales of impending apocalypse because unemployment

  • Picture and more info (Score:5, Informative)

    by zzabur ( 611866 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @04:48AM (#8626198)

    A nice picture and more information on the plan are in astronautix.com [astronautix.com].

    The 14.5 tonne reusable lifting body would be used as a space station ferry and lifeboat, or could operate independently to shuttle tourists to space.

    This is mainly based on proven technology, so there is a chance it may actually be built. Space tourism is also getting quite hot [spaceadventures.com] lately. They are planning to use another Russian designed spacecraft [spaceadventures.com].

  • Smart...!!! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by theirishman ( 749404 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:08AM (#8626243) Journal
    The Russians are a smart people, they are the only country that are flying( Yeah China are flying but 1 flight ) and have contuined no matter what the public think of them or what weather condictions are like.. -40oC and a snow storms had not stop the Soyuz from being launched in to orbit. The country has always lacked the funding for its space program, they have beaten all other countrys in a number of races ( frist satellite, animal, man and woman. ) also they are the only country to have a long term presence in space, the Mir space station comes to mind. I beleave that they have proved themselves over the years. I am not saying they should revice full funding from NASA or anyother country.. but certnely a few bucks in the right direction would help, even to a design stage.

    • Re:Smart...!!!..and more (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The Russians [former Soviets] have the largest flying object in the world - the Antonov-225. I once witnessed its smaller cousin the Antonov-124 land with over 100 SUV size vehicles and extra crago. It was an amazing sight. Even the airport staff who see aircraft of all sizes and types of craft were amazed. This aircraft handled itself and took off in just 90 minutes! For any person who saw the amount of cargo it put on tarmac, they could not believe it. I understand its wheel alone weighed in at more than

  • Wouldn't it be swell if US taxpayers could (Score:3, Interesting)

    by melted ( 227442 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:21AM (#8626271) Homepage
    tell the government where their money should go? It's not related to Energiya, or whatever, just a general thought. I'd happily contribute $1K out of my yearly taxes to space exploration. It's a much wiser investment than $500 (average among tax paying americans) I indirectly spent last year on Iraq war.

    Imagine what kind of amazing technology could NASA put out if they were getting $100B budget each year. We'd be all over the place in Solar system already and shuttle would be the most reliable thing in the world. Of course they will fail if you run them for decades!

    • Re:Wouldn't it be swell if US taxpayers could (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Slashamatic ( 553801 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @06:12AM (#8626388)
      Imagine what kind of amazing technology could NASA put out if they were getting $100B budget each year
      Yep, there would be some of the most wonderful offices in the world with armies of cost accountants with their finger firmly on every pencil in the organisation. There would be lots of fat juicy contracts for the companies that were major congessional or presidential election contributors, with elegant paperwork supporing every $100,000 screwdriver.

      As you may see, I would have extreme problems with NASA getting so much money in its current form. It seems that many of the people from the current chief administrator downwards have lost their way, whther for space or aeronautiucs research.

  • partner up with ESA instead (Score:4, Interesting)

    by VanillaCoke420 ( 662576 ) <vanillacoke420.hotmail@com> on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:24AM (#8626274)
    Because NASA will probably be busy developing their own Crew Exploration Vehicle. I think that a partnership between ESA and Russia could work out well in this case. It will help the russians build a new spaceship, and it might help speed up ESA's Aurora programme.
    • Good idea, the EU already contributes a lot towards civillian applications in the CIS. However unless there was good control, a lot of the money would be 'diverted'.

    • Already tried that (Score:2, Interesting)

      by sunbeam60 ( 653344 )
      ESA and RKA did partner up in the early nineties to do exactly that. After the Europeans had shifted their efforts away from Hermes (the European mini-shuttle), the Russians bailed out due to economic concerns and left Europe nowhere.

      I can understand why ESA would be a little reluctant to try that stunt again.
  • can be used up to 25 times

    Well I'd hate to be on the crew for mission 25. "Hey guys, this is the last mission before your ship wears out and has to be scrapped! Who wants to fly her one last time?" No thanks, I'll take one with fewer miles on the clock!

    Why would they design something which has to be 100% safe and say it will only last 25 times?

    • Saying that it'll fly 25 times means that it has been designed to fly at least 30 times.

      Just like a bridge engineer would design a bridge for 30 tons and rate it for loads up to 20 tons.

  • NASA can not fund Russians because of US law (Score:4, Informative)

    by Martti ( 764010 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:59AM (#8626353)
    A U.S. law known as the Iran Nonproliferation Act prohibits NASA from making cash payments to the Russians unless the president certifies to Congress that Russia is not providing missile or other sensitive technology to other countries(=Iran).
  • The USA has some sort of trade boycott of Russia which prevents investment in the Russian space program. Which means the way is open for cooperation between Russia and the EU: I believe Arianespace will be using Russian launchers at some point. However, it's hard to imagine the EU wanting a manned space program (or indeed any big showy projects with very dubious returns) what with all the new accession countries joining next month.

    Perhaps the answer is for the Russians to suggest that the program should tak

  • Two (russian budgetary) Words;

    Massive money overruns that break ability working goodly.

  • At the same time NASA cancels RS-84 and X-43 (Score:3, Informative)

    by Maimun ( 631984 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @08:56AM (#8626745)
    The news is here [aviationnow.com].

    The official site of RS-84 does not mention it [boeing.com] but it seems to be true. I saw the announcement in usenet [google.com].

  • Why don't we give the Russians a chance? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Syberghost ( 10557 ) <syberghost@@@syberghost...com> on Sunday March 21, 2004 @10:28AM (#8627017)
    When I started writing this post, I was going to show how the Russian approach care less about the lives of the astronauts, treating them like expendable components, and thus wasn't suitable for a country like the US that puts more of premium on human life.

    Then I did the math.

    They've done about twice as many manned launches as we have, but lost only 4 people, while we've lost 14 so far. (Not counting Apollo 1.)

    Maybe we should be looking more closely at their approach.

  • why doesn't NASA give the Russians a chance? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LooseChanj ( 17865 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @12:04PM (#8627436) Homepage
    Uh, because the people who hold the purse strings (congress) don't like the money going to people who don't vote for them.

  • Excuse me? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @02:30PM (#8628356)
    Excuse me, but "give them a chance"? What is this, the lottery?

    How is it 'free trade' if companies ship all the decent jobs overseas, but unfair if someone with an advantage technically/militarily (the US) doesn't want to let others catch up?

    Makes a lot of sense.

  • Crazy on a number of levels. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Performer Guy ( 69820 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @04:45PM (#8628901)

    Let's remember that the Russions almost killed the ISS due to cost overruns and overly optimistic projections. NASA had to bail them out again and again with U.S. taxpayer dollars.

    Besides, even if this were feasible (and it isn't) it would be insane for the US to spend US tax dollars on this kind of R&D in another country. If the Russians can do it let them spend their own cash on it and persuade the Russian government to fund it.

    Let's remember people that the space program is a gigantic job creation scheme, it takes money from us and uses it to fund jobs and development domestically. When it starts spending that money abroad we're all thoroughly screwed.

  • Doing fiscal irresponsibilty one better (Score:3, Interesting)

    by beforewisdom ( 729725 ) on Monday March 22, 2004 @12:11AM (#8631246)
    Eventhough the cold war is long over it looks like some people at the Kremlin still want to match the White House for irresponsible spending. There are many worthy things for *people* sorely lacking funds in the US while Bush has had one of the biggest budget deficits of all time....AND he wants to build moon bases, missions to mars. Not to be outdone, Putin, who can't get a flagship submarine to launch a missle during a high profile photo-op.......with Russia in *tatters* is deciding to build a reusable space capsule? Last I heard the Russian space program was financing itself by giving joy rides to rich Americans. No wonder Bush and Putin get along. They have no concept of basic fiscal management.

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close