Is NASA dead

IIRC, someone reported on the news the other day, approx 50 million per trip for the Russian space-taxi service...

Jon

And the NASA website says it costs nine times that per shuttle launch > . I'd say we're getting a pretty good deal ... the time has come for the private sector to show us what they can do with costs .

NASA claims $450,000,000 per shuttle launch:

But the shuttle has higher capacity to LEO, so cost per kg is maybe only halved by using the Soyuz (again, using NASA's numbers- which cover only operating costs.. real costs from NASA are more like $1.3bn/launch when you amortize the cost of the program over the number of launches).

Either way, it looks to be MUCH cheaper than using current NASA technology. Given that the ISS is doomed to "de-orbiting" in 8 or 9 years (2020), it seems like a reasonble choice.

.. also see the article in the most recent issue of _The Economist_ entitled "The end of the Space Age".

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

On 7/10/2011 10:30 AM, Snag wrote: ... the time has come for the private sector to

Just wait til OSHA catches up with the private space businesses. They will kill it with regulations.

Paul

Hear, hear!

-- Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we fail to take risks or seize opportunities. -- Susan Rice

Well, it's $50 mil to send two astronauts up, with a bit of gear. Anything else right now has to ride on a conventional rocket. We now send folks into space at the pleasure of the Russian government. IOW, we can be locked out of space for years if they chose to do so. Not likely, but possible.

I couldn't agree more on this. And I do think while we've become dependent upon Russia to get people into space, in the long run it will be to our benefit to get serious about space in a commercial way for low orbit stuff and leave NASA to deeper exploration.

Jon

Actually the cost is closer to 60 million per astronaut for the trip. That gets you one seat and 110 pounds of cargo.

The Shuttle on the other hand can handle a payload of 55,000 pounds, With 7 people on board and with the capability of 11 people during emergency transport. 7 during normal operations.

So for 9X the price you get a very large increase in abilities.

Which is akin to using a 53' semi to carry that passenger and luggage if you don't need to haul anything big. Certainly more capability, but a better value to take the taxi.

Hubble would have been lttle more than useless space junk without the capacity of the shuttle. And the Shuttle can retrieve things like broken satellites on the return trip if required. That's the real loss.

What if the Russians decide they won't carry us up there anymore? On the high seas an abandoned vesicle can be claimed, using an extention of sea law, they might just take the space station away from us.

Burt Rutan, please hurry, we need you.

Wes

-- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

This is the kind of huge space telescope the Shuttle was meant to launch and service, not the Hubble:

the Soviet Union fell it lost much of its value, but who could have predicted that, or wished otherwise?

jsw

Yes it is.

Being able to get to earth orbit is vital to our defense and our economy. I can't believe we gave up on it wiht out a replacement ready.

Wes

If a viable shuttle was still in existance, would it be possible to attach propulsion to increase the height of the orbit and the stations life?

Wes

There is no shortage of ability to "get to earth orbit" by the US, Wes. The Big Atlas' and Delta's are still being flown regularly. What no one in the world can do at this point is bring back a malfunctioning piece of hardware for repair. The shuttle retrieved a lot of expensive stuff that failed to deploy properly and that saved a lot of money and time. Insurance premiums were also reduced.

I can't believe we gave up on it wiht out a replacement

The Space Shuttle is an archaic piece of junk. It's a miracle we only lost two of them. In fact, it's a miracle this thing ever got off the ground.

That doesn't mean the mission wasn't important and necessary. It is and it's a mission that won't be accomplished by anything private industry will be able to produce in the next twenty or so years, if ever. Your jaw would drop were you aware of the stupidity underlying recent failures and near misses.

can't believe

There's Delta IV for the military. And there are other options for commercial satellites.

Is there any benefit, vital or otherwise, to putting people into space? Wasn't the ISS just a make-work project to keep Russian scientists from churning out ICBM designs to pay the rent?

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

h propulsion to

The Russians wisely gave their ISS module tow eyes.

jsw

spacex (

) is more-or-less right down the street from KSC and has a NASA contract to develop astronaut transport capabilities. They expect to be in full operation in three years and at half the cost we are currently paying Russia to ferry our guys to the ISS,

NASA is concentrating on bigger things, and they believe that the LEO stuff should be left to the private sector. I watched the last launch on NASA TV, which had extensive coverage of the astronauts boarding the shuttle and getting hooked up and squared away. I was a bit surprised that out of the seven members of the closeout crew, only two were NASA employees and the others were contractors.

he high seas an

ht just take the

They'll be flying to the ISS in three years.

I didn't write clearly, I was agreeing with you on the bring back capablilty lost but didn't word it right. It is late for me.

Wes

-- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller