NASA May Have to Buy Trips to Space 256
MattSparkes writes "Budget cuts could leave NASA without a Space Shuttle replacement, and leave it reliant on private firms to get payloads into space. A similar scenario happened between 1975 and 1981 when NASA made the transition from Apollo to the Space Shuttle. It seems like a strange state of affairs when a magazine can take people to space, but the USA can't."
Cost Effective? (Score:5, Insightful)
Star Wars (Score:2)
Without a reusable orbital vehicle, some of the military's more expensive spy satellites will be at risk. While I know the typical solution is just to spend more money and send up more equipment via rockets, without a vehicle our continued dominance in space would be questionable. As soon as someone brings up that tidbit of info, I'm sure NASA will get a check.
In the meantime, expect China to be counting down the days until it can start
Re:Star Wars (Score:5, Insightful)
And we don't even need those squishy bodies there to successfully deploy a satellite; sending them up for such a mundane task is just wasting money and putting lives in danger for no good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
A shuttle is not necessary to determine that a satellite has been destroyed by a missile. The destruction of China's weather satellite was reported [bbc.co.uk] before China confirmed [bbc.co.uk] the test had taken place. And I'm pretty sure that no shuttle went to have a look.
If I were China, I know I would.
Then you would be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cost Effective? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the tax money is coming back to Americans -- in the form of wages, stock dividends, purchases from other US companies, local property taxes -- and even some obscure stuff like corporate university research grants. If you're dealing with tax money that was TAKEN from Americans, I'd rather have it stay within the US.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, given the behavior of US companies and US citizens, most of that money from wages, stock dividends, and purchases is being sent over seas directly through outsourcing or indirectly through purchases of imported products.
Of course the libertarian in me says that increased
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a supporter of the war in Iraq. Afghanistan was necessary, yes, but the invasion of Iraq was excessive. And US and British historical meddling in the Middle East (Mossadegh, etc) has done little to make for a stable political situation there now.
As far as my SUV, I don't own one. Honda CB550 motorcycle a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not as if we hide the fact that we posses WMD (at least not with nuclear -- we're *supposedly* destroying our chemical stocks). But it's not a secret that we're able to glassify the Earth several times over. And, no, I don't think that's a terribly useful or good ability to have...
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
What, do you want to make sure the US isn't lying about violating international law? We are, and tough shit, it's a lot of bureaucracy to correct these situations. (eventually they are corrected, after like a decade+ of paperwork)
Re: (Score:2)
They should really be broken up just as the USSR was broken up.
Re: (Score:2)
However, just this past weekend probably tens if not hundreds of thousands of Americans drove their SUVs over to a neighbours house to eat burgers and watch the Super Bowl.
I wouldn't doubt though, that the original poster had tongue placed firmly in cheek and got exactly the response they wanted; "Well, *I* don't drive an SUV and *I* don't eat hamburgers and *I* don't watch football" as if that changes the fact that a huge percentage of Americans do exactly that.
Don't
Re: (Score:2)
Me, I voted with my feet, and moved to another country.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that the best we can do? Sounds like you're arguing to lower the charges from murder to negligent homocide.
This is how bureaucracies work:
I don't support it, I just pay my taxes.
I don't support it, I just authorized the use of necessary force, but this isn't what I meant.
I don't support it
Sorry, but I had to (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
=Lots!!!!!! (Score:2)
Good point and as nobody put in the figures. A shuttle mission runs between $500mil to $900mill, depending on whether it is ISS or Hubble servicing (the higher cost). The war is costing the treasury about $364bill. Some of that money is the ongoing cost of the US military 'resting state' costs, i.e. salaries, training and equipment replacement. The fact is that the military has been upscaled for this and most of the costs are multiplied so most of that number realy is *extra* cost.
Even allowing for giving
Mod parent up (Score:2)
So, for this pointless war in Iraq, and which our leaders have taken on with our tax $, there could have been the equivalent of ~ 500 + shuttle flights launched?
I rest my case.
Z.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Sometimes the truth hurts?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It already implicitly works that way. The hiring of volunteer soldiers at market salary levels, as well as hardware purchases from the market of defense industries, means that the military is collectively composed of the lowest bidders.
The only way to further privatize the situation is to shift control to the private sector... but that is against the very purp
Re:Sorry, but I had to (Score:5, Informative)
NASA should not be eliminated.
The federal government is charged with the responsibility to "Promote the General Welfare". If, therefore, there is value in space exploration, then one could argue that this promotes the general welfare.
Launching commercial satelites is something that could be done by the private sector. There is money in it. Purer research is not as appealing to the private sector. This research is what NASA should be focused on.
Some folks might say that research is only worth doing if it leads directly to a profitable discoverty, and that therefore private research is all that we need. I do not agree with this point of view. Scientific research for its own sake is a worthwhile endeavor and is in the long term interest of the public.
Re: (Score:2)
By which argument, you can justify the government doing _anything_ which isn't entirely harmful. Maybe you should read up on what the people who wrote the Constitution thought it meant.
However, even if you do believe that, there's no reason why NASA should be running an 'operational' spacecraft. The aeronautical side of NASA does a lot of useful research which assists American companies in futur
Re:Sorry, but I had to (Score:4, Insightful)
That's probably valid for stuff that pays off quickly. Long term stuff, like the survival of our species, is not gonna attract many for-profit organizations AFAICS. And yes, I do believe the colonization of space is essential for humanity's long term survival.
Also, FWIW, NASA makes you yanks look good world wide, which you might benefit from someday. In these times of dubya and "war on terror", I'm certain stuff like NASA helps alot of us non-americans to keep a nuanced view of your nation.
Re: (Score:2)
Spend billions on a stealth bomber, launch spy satellites into space==> defense of the county, necessary
Give some money researching climate change or space exploration, which could one day save all mankind==> waste of money, leave it to the private sector
The goal of any government should be to do what is best for it's people. Private organisations haven't got that policy, and sadly it seems that there is the perverse assumption within these that it is their duty to seek maximum profit a
Re:Sorry, but I had to (Score:4, Funny)
I do not, however, believe space exploration is within the constitutionally defined limits of what the federal government should be doing.
Seems to me that it fits right in with the commerce clause.
Re: (Score:2)
But strangly, it wasn't in a funding crisis ot the point that it won't have a shuttle when the republicans made the budget. I wonde
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I think they're generally indifferent to whether their policies strengthen America, weaken it, or whatever. To the Republicans, a policy or program is considered desirable if and only if it opens the federal treasury to their corporate patrons, who are subsequently expected to return a portion of the loot in the form of campaign contributions and other favors. Thus, privatization is a convenient and reliable way of converting taxpayers' m
Not the same thing (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not the same thing (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious solution.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The cold war is over and Russia isn't exactly on the opposite side. Give them some respect and do the right thing, buy Soyuz. The space program will keep going and USA will make friends which she so needs right now.
NASA (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:NASA (Score:5, Funny)
At least this didn't happen on the way to Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
We would be able to buy all new shuttles (Score:3, Interesting)
And a whole lot of other useful things like teachers, public housing, additional health care and other benefits to our country if we weren't spending our money somewhere else at the moment. [costofwar.com]
Not such a Bad Idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Unlikely. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress is pinching the 2007 budget. (Score:2)
Private companies (Score:2)
-b.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, better American corporations than the Russians or anyone else. At least *Americans* get the tax money back in the form of wages, dividends, and benefits. And, BTW, those corporations are *already* developing the launch technologies without Federal help. So it might be cheaper to pay them to launch rather than reinventing the wheel again.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
I apologise for the obvious questions. I probably should not ask them from someone who obviously has not thought what he is talking about:
1. And what specifically prevents Russians from buying back American components?
That is besides acts of congress which prohibit American companies to sell them.
2. What is the expense ratio between payload/carrier? What fraction of it is R&D and what is the proportion left in each country?
Launching is very very dirty business. Just ask anyone in Kazahstan down t
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on what propellants you use. Hydrogen + Oxygen as used in the main engines of the Shuttle are very clean, though the fuels used in the solid boosters leave something to be desired.
Even discarding environmental damage (and all the children with missing limbs and other birth defects in Kazahstan)
Are the birth defects from exhaust from space launches, or are they more to do with the fact that the Russians used Kazakhstan as a nuclear playground - plutonium
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there are solutions to that problem, namely taking a spaceplane to 40-50k ft (above most of the atmosphere) before igniting the rocket engines. Less air == less nitrogen oxides generated. Drop it from a large conventional jet plane, basically. And I'd suspect that the "more horrid" Russian fuels would be simply illegal to use in the USA
This isn't so strange (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just a small step toward the commercialization of space, and the use of off-the-shelf parts to get a job done. Perhaps one day, the Virgin Galactic, Armadillo Aerospace, and Scaled Composites will be bidding to deliver the next satellite into orbit around Mars.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They sort of do - a lot of military trucks are built specifically to government contract and only sold to civilians later or as surplus. Look at the Humvees, the M-151 MUTTs, and the Gama Goats as examples of this.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now they can focus on what they're good at, exploring and innovating, not running a hauling service.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, we're in the early stages of that, but not quite there yet. (And, some special purpopse military vehicles like the HMMV or those big honking hovercraft used by the military are, in fact, designed for the government specifically, even if they don't build 'em.)
Something like space
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, it doesn't, the US has an army for that kind of thing. Some things are best done in-house, the discussion is whether space travel is one of them. Pointing out different situations where things are not done in-house isn't really very useful unless it's used to illustrate an advantage.
Although it should be pointed out that while NASA operates the shuttles, all the major components were built by contractors anyway (Lockheed-Marti
Magazine vs NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Sending someone on a sub-orbital flight at 62 miles altitude and;
2) Bringing several working payloads into space, docking with a space station at 236 miles altitude, and performing orbital repairs on satellites at 355 miles altitude.
It's not like NASA is so incompetent that some private firm is beating them at this whole space thing.
Re: (Score:2)
And then there was that whole "men on the moon" thing. Let me know when a magazine is offering THAT as a prize...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a fair comparison. Atlas V and Delta IV have capabilities that approach that of the proposed Ares I though these vehicles aren't designed for manned use. And unlike the Space Shuttle, these platforms do a variety of useful things. And the suborbital flights were using an almost completely reusable vehicle with rapid turnaround time which is a new threshhold that hasn't been reached before. If that can be scaled up to orbit (and I think it will within a couple of decades), then it's a huge step beyo
A tragic and pathetic end for NASA (Score:2)
Now, look at what they've become.
Scrap it, before they just waste more. Time to focus on providing incentives directly to private industry. NASA is just a wasteful old baby-boomer pipe dream.
Mod me down NASA-lovers. In your heart you still know what I'm saying is true.
-Eric
Re:A tragic and pathetic end for NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
On the plus side you must recognize that NASA is putting out a lot of research that is free to the public. This is going to be a keystone in the future of private space flight ventures. So while I agree that NASA is riding the edge of usefulness they have contributed a lot and still have room to contribute more in the areas where the private sector would not see enough ROI on some projects. This pure research could still offer a lot in the overall understanding of what it's going to take to get people into space, what it's going to take to keep them there on a functional basis and a reason to go that offers a profit motive to corporations.
Without profit motive the private sector is going to be just as slow, if not slower, than NASA. We'd have to ride the coat tails of philanthropy into the final frontier. That's not exactly a glowing prospect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find it's the part where they're spending $1,500,000,000 a time to fly pizza to the space station so that they can keep people up there to fix the things that keep breaking that is the part people are complaining about. You'll also notice that most recent unmanned probes have been launched on commercial rockets, not the shuttle.
Re: (Score:2)
-Eric
I think this will be a good thing (Score:2)
I don't think those "seat-of-the-pants, just solve the damn problem"
Corporate Welfare (Score:2)
A Good Thing (Score:2)
Not Space... (Score:2, Insightful)
Take the hit now (Score:2, Interesting)
Just goes to show (Score:2)
So what exactly is wrong with this? (Score:2)
If the government needs to hire a civilian company to haul cargo to space, what is wrong with that? If it is more efficient, then I believe it is a better arrangement.
The more "normal" space travel becomes, the
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Maybe if NASA got out of the launch business, it could focus more on basic science and engineering?
Not so bad (Score:2)
Why is that sad? Private companies can get into space cheaper and easier. Just look at the bloated, over engineered shuttle that resulted from letting the government monopolize the space industry. If, instead of letting NASA build whatever it wanted, we had put the specs out and let companies compete for NASA's business, then we would probably already have a fully developed space tourism industry just l
Give the money to Scaled Composites with a goals (Score:2)
SpaceX, Rocketplane, and COTS Option (Score:3, Informative)
The American people will still have a vibrant space agency, that can focus on exploration, rather than on space launch, which is rapidly becoming a normal, commercial business.
NASA's COTS contract [nasa.gov] also includes Rocketplane [rocketplane.com], which also includes demonstrations for ISS support.
The COTS contract was a polite way for Congress to buy some insurance in case Lockheed's Space Shuttle Replacement [popularmechanics.com] spins out of cost control in terms of either dollars or time.
Which I think is a great move as a taxpayer, having watched ISS cost much more than planned and delivering much less than expected.
We just need the safest, soonest, and cheapest way to get people and stuff into space. I don't care who does it, so Lockheed and those people at NASA in bed with Lockheed, watch out, you've got competition.
Get dod to foot the bill (Score:2)
Misinformation (Score:4, Informative)
1) There are private companies out there who can do what NASA is doing: If you RTFA, you'll notice that currently only the Shuttle and the Russian Progress and Soyuz ships can make it to the ISS. There may be a possibility of a JAXA craft or an ESA craft in the future. Both government built craft.
2) NASA is afraid/against private industry building space craft: Actually, NASA is highly in favor of a private company building a space ship to go to the ISS. They are actively funding two companies to help them build such a craft. In their current architecture, the CEV/CLV is not really going to be used for ISS. They would rather use a COTS solution for that.
3) We should leave all of space exploration up to private industry: Private industry will only do something if they know they can get money for it. Can you show me the business plan to make money off of trips to the moon? Trips to the ISS? Remember, you have to have a net profit on these endeavors. Until the cost and risk are reduced to manageable levels, the private industry will not do this on their own. The Russians did not get a net profit from their space tourists. They got a little extra money from a mission that had to happen anyway. Virgin Galactic may actually be able to make money by sending people into space, but that is sub-orbital. A huge difference between that and going to the ISS. The reason for government funding into areas like this is to promote activity in areas that are too costly or too risky for a company to do.
4) A magazine can take people to space: No, a Russian Soyuz capsule can take people to space.
That will do for now.
You mean NASA is going to follow the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe this is ridiculous, but... (Score:2)
*grins sheepishly* (Score:2)
Oops. Silly me. The parent (Also by me) is based on mistaken assumptions. Ignore it. Sorry.
They already do this (Score:2)
Strange thing to say (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, sure, because the magazine will use its own launchers and launching pad and won't turn to a third party to organize the trip...
misplaced priorities (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Side note on funding priorities (Score:2)
The current Aviation Week has an editorial about the budget negotiations. The Administration's Office of Management and Budget is trying to get Congress to reconsider cuts for military bases, energy initiatives, veteran's affairs, Social Security, something called the American Competitiveness Initiative, AIDS expenses, something called the Millenium Challenge C
Re: (Score:2)
Places on manned NASA flights should be strictly determined by the benefit an individual would impart to the flight either by scientific work in orbit or by ability as a crew member of the launch vehicle. The size of the afformentioned individual's bank account should not be a factor.
Re: (Score:2)
Sad to say, the areas with the most wide open spaces - Texas, Wyoming, Montana, etc probably have the highest percent of Republicans. Agarophobes they are not.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
So they're not afraid of seaweed jelly?
Re: (Score:2)
HAHA LOL no...
The STS program began during the Nixon administration, and Eisenhower signed NASA into existence (note the metaphor of an eagle landing on the moon on the back of the Eisenhower dollar coin).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree with you, if we could assume that privatization would be done on a competitive bid basis and lead to significant cost efficiencies that would leave everyone - including taxpayers - a winner.
But that's not how the Big 'P' is done these days, is it?
Re: (Score:2)
When it happens, great, then NASA should get out of the orbital launch vehicle development business.
Heck with Starbucks, Bring on the HOOTERS Shuttle! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, countries like India are building up local launch capabilities because to make their nuclear weapons a credible threat for any given range, they need an effective delivery system with that much range. Orbital launch capability == ICBM capability.
Re: (Score:2)
Not when the cost of a shuttle launch has averaged around $1,500,000,000 over the course of the program, no. NASA, of course, could always buy Indian rockets... if it wasn't a jobs program to buy votes in America.