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:3, Insightful)
Refund? (Score:1, Insightful)
What if the kill the astronaut? Do we get a refund?
In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Insightful)
Rocket rides YOU!
Re:supply and demand (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
Re:Capitalism (Score:1, Insightful)
And this is why I think you're an idiot: why would a country intentionally cause the economic collapse of it's biggest trading partner? The scenario you describe is Mutually Assured Economic Destruction.
Re:Disgraceful! (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.
Re:Interesting question would be, (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 hauling 10 tons of cargo in 10 runs by russians will be still cheaper than hauling all the 10 tons in one run by a shuttle.
Re:Disgraceful! (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell is going on with our country?!
You gave up to chase stock markets instead.
beating the commies to the moon (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Why the hell does it cost so much to reach orbi (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 engines running both at sea level and in actual space, and it cheats by using SRBs and dumping its fueltank
The problem still stands though, there is a reason we have actual rocket scientists, because it is frickin hard, especially if you want something where the risk of loss of life is acceptably low to todays society (which is rather hypocritical in that respect)
Re:Capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Capitalism (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:Capitalism (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes they will. For the same reason that we will never really do anything to provoke them about their atrocious human rights record. They make a LOT of money from us, and in exchange the political class in the US gets to keep their electorate perpetually entertained with cheap shiny toys. Remember when a plasma tv cost $8k+? Now everyone has a 1080p LCD TV made in China, and they paid a tenth of that price or less. I see no reason why either party would want to disrupt this arrangement.
Re:Capitalism (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:Nothing to see here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Disgraceful! (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:Capitalism (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 it would be prison time.
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: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.
Re:Capitalism (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 most political campaigns (thanks, Justice Roberts) benefit from the trade imbalance and thus will lobby against any move to do anything about it. So as a result, China and multinationals win, while American industrial workers and the cities that American industry was once based in (e.g. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Detroit) lose.
Re:Capitalism (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 -- to re-do Apollo. Why talk about the future if all we care about is recreating the past? The future is in the basic technological R&D that will make future things like landing on the moon seem easy in comparison to how Constellation was going to do it.