Russia Doubles Price For Launching US Astronauts 370
Third Position writes "NASA on Tuesday signed a contract to pay $55.8 million per astronaut for six Americans to fly into space on Russian Soyuz capsules in 2013 and 2014. NASA needs to get rides on Russian rockets to the International Space Station because it plans to retire the space shuttle fleet later this year. NASA now pays half as much, about $26.3 million per astronaut, when it uses Russian ships."
Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
"You wanted us to adopt market pricing, yes Comrade?"
Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Funny)
I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further.
Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Informative)
And this is why US will eventually fall, like every other empire in the human history. Only thing that is needed for it is when China and Taiwan decide to increase their manufacturing prices. It's a bad economy as it is and everyone in the US is getting high pays only because of international loans. You can't live on loans forever - eventually someone will start gathering them back. Since this is politics as well, the only thing needed is to provide manufacturing, product building and technology research cheaper than the US. Oh wait, that's what has been happening for years in India and China and US companies are still going for it.
You don't need to have a war to win, just collapse the other country.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That is the point everyone forgets. China has only one advantage over the USA. Cheap labor. China doesn't have any other resources that the usa also has. Tapping thoseresources isjust too expensive due to labor. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of tons of resources sitting in our landfills.
The USA may collapse financially however inside of 20years we have the tools,tech, and resources to rebuild. All it will take is deflation to lower labor costs, or a total war on the scales of WW II.
Re:Capitalism (Score:4, Informative)
That is the point everyone forgets. China has only one advantage over the USA. Cheap labor. China doesn't have any other resources that the usa also has.
You're wrong.
China has a massive industrial base.
Much of heavy industry, which was the backbone of the USA's industrial revoltion, picked up and moved to China (and Mexico).
The real bitch is that nobody in the USA is willing to rebuild the industrial base because it's (A) farking expensive and (B) will only serve to depress market prices (usually below what's considered an acceptable rate of return).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't see organized labor happening in China.
"The radiation suits for working in the reactor are inadequate. We're not turning the reactor back on until you give us better protection!"
"This milling machine is dangerous and there is no emergency stop. We're not working until it's fixed."
"We're undepaid and cannot afford to buy our own homes and are tired of living in company housing. We're on strike until you give us real living wages."
What do you think the answer to that would be in China? I'm betting i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What do you think the answer to that would be in China? I'm betting it would be prison time.
How quickly we forget...
You do realize that it could also mean prison time and even death at some point in the West, including U.S.? Does the name "Pinkertons" remind you of anything?
Merely reading on the history of the worker movement of the period, you're immediately bound to come by a lot mentions of worker's strikes and demonstrations being brutally suppressed. Whatever victories were won back then, they were paid for by blood.
Whether it will happen in China as well, eventually, is something that is har
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, there's more to the story than that.
If totally free markets operated as they're supposed to, then the dollar would fall against the renminbi, and that would make it cheaper to produce things in the US again, and the industry would move back. However, the Chinese know this, and are doing everything they can to prevent it (because it's helping them industrialize). Now, you'd think the US wouldn't stand for this and would start threatening tariffs, but many of the multinational corporations who fund
Re:Capitalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe not yet, but what about when time goes by and they grow? You know, USA is far from China's only trading partner. Their products are shipped everywhere in the world. When they've stable enough, and if they have enough political/economic reason to do so, why you think they will keep supporting US?
China already #1 market for new cars worldwide (Score:3, Interesting)
The US is no longer the largest market for a lot of things, from cell phones (China has more cell phone users than the entire American population) to cars (China is #1 in new car sales worldwide).
They can now pick and choose the markets the enter. It's why they refused to buy the Hummer, and why China/Walmart Refuses To Bid On NASA Contract [slushdot.com]. They're simply not that desperate for business any more, not with their economy still growing at almost 10% per year.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Several unrelated points here..
---
First...
It's funny that you think all other countries only care about making money.
Money only serves the goal.
---
China's manufacturing capacity is now about the same size as the US-- it's economy is about the size of california's.
The USA as of a couple years ago was still the largest manufacturer in the world. That can't be sustaintable- things do have to even out.
---
China is going to lose a ton of money on this play to keep the Yuan up. At some point, inflation is going
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
China has the power to divert their trade surplus into domestic stimulus quite successfully, and the great recession of the industrialized nations is barely felt.
Ironically, the only thing keeping China back right now is its giant foreign reserves from the trade surplus. If the US dollar collapsed, that would mean trillions in losses and problems in keeping the Yuan stable. Once they solve this problem, its a new world order, and it's only a matter of time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First things first, bond != shares. You can own 100% of the bonds issued by a company and it won't buy you any controlling interest as long as the company is solvent.
Now, on to the real discussion. The problem we have is that free trade (without a common market) artificially imports the lower regulatory standards from the exporting country. Even in the EU, you have issues like where Danish pork producers are utilising rearing technique which are discouraged or banned in other EU countries (and getting away
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Insightful)
Rocket rides YOU!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, am I the only one sitting here thinking, "Thanks, Obama for your generous budget slashing our manned space program"?
Well, do you want a balanced budget, or do you want a government-driven industry?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, am I the only one sitting here thinking, "Thanks, Obama for your generous budget slashing our manned space program"?
No, you're not the only one who incorrectly thinks he slashed the budget when he actually increased it [discovermagazine.com]. Lots of people wrongly think that canceling Constellation means abandoning manned space programs, when in reality there will be more need for manned space travel because of extending the ISS' life.
All it means is abandoning a stupid program that would have tried -- and failed --
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First in space, first satellite, first man in space, first orbit, first woman in space, first probes on Venus and Mars, first space station--not bad for a bunch of thugs, eh comrade?
That was communism, not the new thugarchy. I don't see the Russian space industry innovating quite as much lately. The US neither, by the way.
In other news (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting question would be, (Score:4, Interesting)
What does it cost with Shuttle?
Re: (Score:2)
What does it cost with Shuttle?
Probably a lot more. I can't believe the Shuttle would be cheaper than Soyuz.
Re:Interesting question would be, (Score:4, Informative)
A figured I'd better google some numbers. Wikipedia says $60 million or $1.3 billion per launch, depending on how you calculate it [wikipedia.org]. Nasa says $450 million per launch [nasa.gov]. NASA's figure is more expensive than Soyuz for 6 astronauts. Wikipedia's low end figure is obviously a lot cheaper (and kind of hard to believe).
Re:Interesting question would be, (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the USSR built a ground based laser and played it over the shuttle's window
I have never heard about this, and it would be fascinating if true, but I can't find any official cite of this incident. I see a one liner on Wikipedia about it copied from another non-official source, but the NASA mission report for STS-41G does not mention anything about it: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920075377_1992075377.pdf [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
The Shuttle is also still the only operating heavy-return-from-orbit vehicle.
If we are manufacturing in space, we will need Shuttles (or Shuttle-like vehicles) to bring the products to Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
If we are manufacturing in space, we will need Shuttles (or Shuttle-like vehicles) to bring the products to Earth.
True, but as you may have noticed, at the moment we're not manufacturing in space.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you just want to shuttle people to the ISS, all that extra capacity is somewhat overkill. It's like you're commuting to an office job in an 18-wheeler.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A figured I'd better google some numbers. Wikipedia says $60 million or $1.3 billion per launch, depending on how you calculate it [wikipedia.org]. Nasa says $450 million per launch [nasa.gov]. NASA's figure is more expensive than Soyuz for 6 astronauts. Wikipedia's low end figure is obviously a lot cheaper (and kind of hard to believe).
That $450MM is paid to American companies and individuals, which then pay taxes on some of the money and then spend most of the rest of it in America. When they spend it, there is more tax, and again most of the untaxed amount goes to another American company or individual.
Some leaks out, but a very large chunk of the $450MM the government spends per launch comes right back in the form of taxes.
Figure 450 million per shuttle launch (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html [nasa.gov]
Funny how it was cheaper to fly as a paid passenger than astronaut.
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhere in the range of $0 to $312,421.24, before adjusting for inflation and whatnot?
Re:Interesting question would be, (Score:5, Informative)
It is variable. The shuttle launches 7 not 3 people however the shuttle can also carry literally tons of cargo too something that requires multiple launches with russias design. It is why NASA built the iss. Launching the components is cheaper and more can bedone in any given section with the shuttle.
So for transporting just new people Soyuz isthe way to go. You needto expand the station the shuttle isbetter
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...still, with about $500mln per shuttle launch, I think dollar for dollar, russians would have a better perspective on achieving this all.
The basic problem with the shuttle is that it's a big, heavy vehicle, many tons of dead weight that need to be launched into the orbit. The russian rockets in final phase of the flight weight very little compared to the payload. They don't haul heavy-duty engines necessary for startup, landing gear, wings, and all that stuff that is not needed in the orbit. That means ha
Re: (Score:2)
Just looking at the cargo is deceptive, because it ignores the cost of re-entry. You're still paying shuttle prices for re-entry even though all that actually needs to come down is 7 astronauts,
I would pay a lot for the hang glider re-entry method.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to see here. (Score:4, Informative)
Prices go up when competition declines. Shock and horror expressed by those ignorant of basic economics. Film at 11.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Old News (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090513/155009780.html [en.rian.ru]
Yawn.
Re: (Score:3)
This is NOT old news. If you had bothered to read the article it already mentioned that NASA agreed in 2009 to pay up to $51 million for a seat, but this is a NEW agreement as of Tuesday for $55.8 million per seat.
Re:Old News (Score:5, Informative)
They agreed to pay $51 million adjusted for inflation.. the seats are for the 2012-2013 timeframe because they've already signed at this price last year - another reason why this is old news.
Simple economics (Score:2)
Supply vs. Demand curve. It's economics 101. There is less supply to meet demand thanks to Obama gutting NASA. And considering the only other market provider is China, we've effectively given Russia a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that and they've had to increase production because now there's more demand.
More costs, higher prices.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Shhh... Don't want facts to get in the way of a good political rant, now do we?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the shuttle was to be retired with no immediate replacement, but with one on the horizon. Now there is nothing on the horizon except Falcon 9 and Dragon. Which NASA probably would never use.
Re:Simple economics (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, he gutted the future that was planned and replaced it with something less retarded.
The future of the space program as embodied in Constellation was just more over-budget under-performing missions that failed to do anything to expand our horizons or solve the major problems making space exploration prohibitive.
To me the future of our space program looks brighter than ever.
supply and demand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We sure did...
Its too bad we're all demand and everyone else is the supply.
I think we failed our own economy by selling it out
Slippery Slope (Score:3, Interesting)
Its just another round of outsourcing.
Soon the USA will be lacking cutting edge skills and capacity in hi-tech manufacturing, and won't be able to compete with India.
The UK dropped all that sort of stuff in the mid-60s and look at us now. We welcome the US to the third-rate Nations club!
Private contractors? (Score:2)
How's that Falcon-9 coming along? I'm sure people won't object to "buying American" space travel rather than paying out to another country. It's bad for the economy and national pride.
Re: (Score:2)
How's that Falcon-9 coming along?
It's 3 months away ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Last I heard, it's waiting on approval from the Air Force range safety people. Range Safety has to be satisfied that the launch abort system will work before Falcon-9 can launch.
Once that happens, they can launch whenever there's an appropriate launch window.
Here's hoping the Air Force will get off the dime soon....
Note, however, that Dragon is not man-rated yet. This is purely the cargo version of the vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if any private up-and-comers can offer a better price with comparable reliability, they have a perfect opportunity.
Seriously. This is good news for SpaceX.
Price for a launch? how much to come back down (Score:2)
Could've been swapping moon seats (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the "moon program" had been designed as an international partnership from the beginning, with each nation focusing on the capabilities they actually have instead of stuff that they might have after pouring $9billion down the drain, Russia could have been flying the crew to orbit for free with the US supplying the heavy lift to take them beyond LEO. But no, Griffin had to go with his shockingly bad plan to put an overweight capsule on a solid rocket booster with an air-startable SSME (that doesn't exist
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
if the russians want to go to the moon, they dont need the US to do so. I realize that the proton with only 20 tons to LEO isnt exactly a saturn V, but in multiple launches, combined with a R7 soyuz launch for the crew, they could easily put a moon-capable craft in LEO. The russians are also planning to replace the Proton with the Angara A5, which will do 25 tons to LEO. Also the Angara A7 is being developed, which will lift 40 tons
Wikipedia also claims that russian moonshot plans in the 60's involved putti
Can I apply for a discount ? (Score:2)
I am the cardholder of an ISS frequent-flyer card.
Disgraceful! (Score:2, Interesting)
We lead the space race, put men on the moon, landers on Mars, explored the furthest reaches of our system, made huge technological breakthroughs via the space race and now we're reduced to begging for rides from the commies?
What the hell is going on with our country?!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The moment US decided to go for the shuttle the game was over. Form over function is ok for household gadgets but not for space exploration.
The US had did have the best launch system and just tossed it aside because it was more cool with a rocket with a bolted on hip looking spacecraft.
beating the commies to the moon (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The X-15 design doesn't scale up too well. Getting one person to Mach 8 and 30 km altitude took a B-52 launching craft. Add enough fuel to reach orbit and your space plane is too large to be launched by aircraft, and you're back to a rocket design, ie exactly what Nasa ended up developing. X-15 was interesting, but let's not get too sentimental about it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's not even any exploration here. There's no "killer app" for putting people in space. As long as the only reason to do so is more or less national pride, there won't be any efforts to do so which are driven by practicality. Find a reason to do it which actually looks like it will pay off, and things will change. Problem is, there's nothing out there. The moon is a useless chunk of rock. Mars is little better. Asteroid
Re:Disgraceful! (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell is going on with our country?!
You gave up to chase stock markets instead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How dare you disparage the brave, wealth-creating superhumans on Wall Street. If it weren't for them and their innovative, useful products the economy would crash and tens of millions would be unemployed.
Re:Disgraceful! (Score:4, Informative)
We lead the space race, put men on the moon, landers on Mars, explored the furthest reaches of our system, made huge technological breakthroughs via the space race and now we're reduced to begging for rides from the commies?
What the hell is going on with our country?!
Yep. America lead the space race.
1st earth creature in space: Russian Dog.
1st person in space: Yuri Gagarin (Russian).
1st person to orbit earth: Yuri Gagarin (Russian, same mission).
1st woman in space: Valentina Tereshkova (Russian)
1st space walk: Alexei Leonov (Russian)
1st man on the moon: Neil Armstrong (American)
After 5 space firsts by the Russians, America finally beat them to something: the moon.
1st space station: Salyut 1 (Russian)
Re: (Score:2)
Spending trillions of dollars killing brown people gives your politicians bigger hard-ons.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The population has discovered that they can vote themselves bread and circuses, and the money is going towards that.
Re:Disgraceful! (Score:5, Insightful)
We've become a bunch of scaredy cats. The Shuttle can still work if you accept the risk that we will lose astronauts during space travel. That's the price of space travel. It's not political like Obama or Bush. It has to do with our country being perfectly content sending thousands of young Americans to die in the foreign sands of war-zones, but terrified that seven grown men and women might die while exploring space. We're just being fucking stupid about this, and I say this with much love for the United States.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We lead the space race, put men on the moon, landers on Mars, explored the furthest reaches of our system, made huge technological breakthroughs via the space race and now we're reduced to begging for rides from the commies?
Are you kidding me? What Cold War leftovers modded this crap up? Lead the space race? The Russians were the first country to:
...And a host of other things. The ONLY time we Americans beat the Russians in the space race was when we put Little Neil Armstrong on the moon.
A) Put an orbiting satellite in space
B) Put a man in space
C) Send probes to Venus and Mars
And who said we were begging for rides? We have been partnering with the Russians for rides to and from the ISS for years now. When it comes d
Only double??? (Score:2)
might be a steal for the US (Score:2)
Here's to you, Sergey! (Score:2)
And For Getting Them Back? (Score:3, Funny)
I really hope that there are no loose ends in this deal... it would be suck that, after getting the astronauts to the ISS, they discover that back-to-earth service is not included and they need to negotiate a new contract for it...
Yes, I am Dogbert.
Re:Obvious Question (Score:5, Informative)
About $75 Million [nasa.gov] ($450 Million per launch)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What relevance does it has? You think the same kind of thing doesn't apply to Soyuz? (there are basically unmanned variants of it after all...)
Re: (Score:2)
The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission.
7 seats = $64M/seat.
6 seats = $75M/seat.
The shuttle can actually seat 10 in rescue configuration but never has, thankfully.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if it's cheaper for standing only?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a "ride" at the Cape where you get into a pressurized module in the cargo bay of a mockup shuttle and they rattle you around a bit. It's not fun, but I'm sure its educational or something. Anyway, it's actual size, 15 ft by 60 ft (4.6 m by 18.3 m), they cram about 80 people into it. Even the fattest Americans, who can fit in the seats, wouldn't overmass the shuttle. There's no reason they couldn't actually make this module and take that many people into space.. but of course, NASA would never do
Re:Obvious Question (Score:4, Funny)
So...this would be NASA's version of how many people can you cram in to a Volkswagon?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why the hell does it cost so much to reach orbi (Score:4, Informative)
the rocket is just going straight up, what's so hard?
No, it's not.
Are you telling me that if I had the best part of $60 million I couldn't design, build and fly my own rocket in to space?
Elon Musk has spent a good part of a billion so far, has some of the brightest minds in the world working for him, and that's the cheapest *anyone* has developed a launcher for so far.
Just strap a sealed chamber onto a grain silo of fuel, surely?
Good luck with that.
Re:Why the hell does it cost so much to reach orbi (Score:5, Insightful)
essentially - yes.
There are serious problems. Like, the engines are running a sustained explosion of hydrogen-oxygen mix, which produces temperature quite a bit higher than anything we have at our disposal could survive. It's pretty much only the shape that keeps the explosion far enough to be safe. Oxygen oxidizes everything it touches for prolonged time, hydrogen leaks through thinnest gaps deemed secure normally. Add stability - like ballancing a broom vertically on top of your finger, the unstabilized rocket will happily fly DOWN. Control acceleration - you could easily bring astronauts to orbit in half the time and quite a bit less fuel, except they would have to be scooped with a spoon from the rocket. Your "grain silo" has walls that aren't much thicker than alufoil, and can be easily pierced with a pencil, but it holds liquid hydrogen at room temperature. Check what pressure is liquid hydrogen at room temperature.
When you start adding it up, and especially if you add up all the -failed- tests before you get things right, you come up with much more than $60mln.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hehehe.
Start looking into what is involved. Look for twang, max-q, etc.
Realize also that the Saturn V rockets could gimble somewhat to maintain stability.
Re:Why the hell does it cost so much to reach orbi (Score:5, Informative)
Problem 1 - the burning fuel is hotter than the melting point of the engines.
Problem 2 - the engines have to run at sea level and in a vacuum.
Problem 3 - flying through atmosphere at 2000 MPH
Problem 4 - getting down
Get back to me after you think you have those solved cheaply and safely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem 2 - the engines have to run at sea level and in a vacuum.
If you plan on SSTO, then yes, you will either end up with a horribly un-optimized exhaust manifold design, or with variable geometry manifolds (or aerospikes or whatever). If however, you do multi-stage to orbit (like most conventional launchers), you simply optimize the first stage engine for sea level up to 20 miles (or whatever the hell the cut off point is for stage 1), and stage 2's engine can be optimized for 20 miles and up.
The shuttle is pretty much the only vehicle i can think off with liquid fuel
Re: (Score:2)
At 20 miles you're pretty much in a vacuum.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html [engineeringtoolbox.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure I remember watching this film once where this guy and his dog - his name was Grummit or something - managed to build this pretty cool rocket that ignited using a fuse. It was a bit old fashioned, but it seemed like a really cheap way to get to the moon. They didn't look like millionaires, and they seemed to have built it just using a saw, some metal, and a few household items, so I'm sure it can be done for a lot less than $60m. I th
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you telling me that if I had the best part of $60 million I couldn't design, build and fly my own rocket in to space? Even a brute force solution wouldn't be that expense, surely?
Hear that sound? that's every rocket scientist on Earth laughing at you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Russians tried that once. They ended up paying NASA about $2 million per astronaut. It turns out NASA hired Hollywood accountants.