Comment Re:Not made here syndrome (Score 1) 227
Sorry, I should have added the qualifier 'per person'. I guess what I am getting at is that if NASA were to fund Energia (which they won't do for political reasons) the US could maintain 1 or 2 crew on the ISS for the period 2010 to 2014. This is something the soyuz is doing flawlessly atm.
With regard to the skateboard/minivan comparison, I can tell you right now that with this new comp, NASA is looking for a skateboard and not a minivan, so its a moot point. There is no way $500 mill and 4 years is going to get you any form of heavy lift. With regards to that, it is worth noting the issue with putting ISS components up there is that a lot of the future components were designed for the shuttle, something that is not easy to work around. Energia have heavy lift capability (zarya etc) but of course payloads must be designed with the booster in mind. This would apply to any lifter/component combination.
Lastly, safety. The important thing to note here is that you can say that the numbers ie individual deaths per person flown are similar - ie similar death rates, but you have to look at the developmental stages of the vehicles involved - half of the shuttle deaths have occured in the last 3 years and the rest in the last 20. Soyuz have not experienced a fatality for _35_ years. They ironed the bugs out. It is solid Russian engineering - 'built like a brick shithouse' (australian slang). Many space experts (and many amateurs like myself) know that the shuttle is an experimental/developmental vehicle. One that fell far short of its original design and engineering criteria due to funding/politicing. Yes it's awesome, it is fantastic - but I would fly the Soyuz 50 times before I ever hopped on a shuttle :P
How this relates to the parent: the simple and obvious answer is if it aint broke don't fix it. Yes, the shuttle is broke. The Soyuz is not. My point is that rather than just fund Energia to do what it does best, pride and politics would get in the way and the US would ignore the stable foundations that Soyuz has built. It all comes down to purpose - and that's where the spin comes into it: if the objective is to keep the ISS operational and Americans in space from 2010 to 2014, then you would be slightly lazy to suggest anything other than to continue flying Soyuz. If however, as we are lead to believe, that the objective is to stimulate private space enterprise, then there are many more prerequisites than a $500 mil. lottery with no foreseeable viable industry capable of sustaining itself. To truely invigorate private space enterprise, there are many fundamental things that need to change - such as having a viable business model whereby space is actually profitable.
Don't get me wrong, I wish to see space travel boom in my life time! I can't wait to buy my ticket on Virgin Galactic :P I follow Scaled Composites and Armadillo religously. I have read every book I can find on spaceflight. I wanted to be an astronaut/fireman. I just can't help but look at announcements like this with a grain of cycnicism with history in mind. Read 'Lost In Space' by Greg Klerkx...it gave me a much different view.
With regard to the skateboard/minivan comparison, I can tell you right now that with this new comp, NASA is looking for a skateboard and not a minivan, so its a moot point. There is no way $500 mill and 4 years is going to get you any form of heavy lift. With regards to that, it is worth noting the issue with putting ISS components up there is that a lot of the future components were designed for the shuttle, something that is not easy to work around. Energia have heavy lift capability (zarya etc) but of course payloads must be designed with the booster in mind. This would apply to any lifter/component combination.
Lastly, safety. The important thing to note here is that you can say that the numbers ie individual deaths per person flown are similar - ie similar death rates, but you have to look at the developmental stages of the vehicles involved - half of the shuttle deaths have occured in the last 3 years and the rest in the last 20. Soyuz have not experienced a fatality for _35_ years. They ironed the bugs out. It is solid Russian engineering - 'built like a brick shithouse' (australian slang). Many space experts (and many amateurs like myself) know that the shuttle is an experimental/developmental vehicle. One that fell far short of its original design and engineering criteria due to funding/politicing. Yes it's awesome, it is fantastic - but I would fly the Soyuz 50 times before I ever hopped on a shuttle
How this relates to the parent: the simple and obvious answer is if it aint broke don't fix it. Yes, the shuttle is broke. The Soyuz is not. My point is that rather than just fund Energia to do what it does best, pride and politics would get in the way and the US would ignore the stable foundations that Soyuz has built. It all comes down to purpose - and that's where the spin comes into it: if the objective is to keep the ISS operational and Americans in space from 2010 to 2014, then you would be slightly lazy to suggest anything other than to continue flying Soyuz. If however, as we are lead to believe, that the objective is to stimulate private space enterprise, then there are many more prerequisites than a $500 mil. lottery with no foreseeable viable industry capable of sustaining itself. To truely invigorate private space enterprise, there are many fundamental things that need to change - such as having a viable business model whereby space is actually profitable.
Don't get me wrong, I wish to see space travel boom in my life time! I can't wait to buy my ticket on Virgin Galactic
