NASA Blinks on Tito (My Title)
Rand Simberg
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,107050,00.html
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
Allen Thomson
>
> http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,107050,00.html
Good for Tito, good for the Russians. Maybe even good for ISS -- perhaps
there's now a glimmering of a reason for it to exist.
Let's see: Tito is paying $2e7 for a ride, profit to Russia probably like
$1e7. ISS is slated to cost, creative gummint accounting aside, $6e10. So
a few thousand Titos or equivalents, launched on Soyuzes, might approach
payback. A stretch, but not totally out of the question.
Stephen Voss
> there's now a glimmering of a reason for it to exist.
>
> Let's see: Tito is paying $2e7 for a ride, profit to Russia probably like
> $1e7. ISS is slated to cost, creative gummint accounting aside, $6e10. So
> a few thousand Titos or equivalents, launched on Soyuzes, might approach
> payback. A stretch, but not totally out of the question.
There are lot of people with a lot of money who would be willing to pay a lot
to ride into space.
Why? Because its different! For the same reason people pay $20,000 to go
on tours of Antartica.
Why hasnt NASA done anything regarding space advertising? All these
modules, and not one of them has a commercial logo on them?
Aaron Smith
Stephen Voss wrote:
Who would be *looking* at these advertisements?
--
_________________________________________________________________________
A gram of prevention is worth a kilo of cure - go metric! |
---------------------------------------------------------------------|
Aaron Smith, tt...@gte.net
A decimal point makes a magnitude of difference. |
---------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------
John Percy Kerslake
They may not be allowed to re the POTUS decree after 51L
--
J.P. Kerslake B.Sc., F.B.I.S. Pager 07626 - 235878 e-mail address:-
Work = kers...@sees.bangor.ac.uk
Home = john...@kerslakej2.freeserve.co.uk,
Dyslexia Rules KO. RiscStation 64 meg 50 ns RAM. 9G HD, A.N.T.-I.S.
Rand Simberg
Percy Kerslake <john...@kerslakej2.freeserve.co.uk> made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> Why hasnt NASA done anything regarding space advertising? All these
>> modules, and not one of them has a commercial logo on them?
>
>They may not be allowed to re the POTUS decree after 51L
AFAIK, that only applied to commercial payloads--not ads. NASA has
its own policy to not allow ads, but that's not driven by any White
House dictum, again, AFAIK. Maybe Dwayne knows otherwise.
Invid Fan
wrote:
Does the Federal Government allow advertising in other agencies?
There's no reason NASA should be a special case, after all.
--
Chris Mack "Never let two artists marry! Always push the
'Invid Fan' painter down the well! GRR! I CAN'T FORGET!"
-Quinton, 'Thieves & Kings'
In...@localnet.com
Christopher M. Jones
Sorry, the numbers don't add up.
Don't be mistaken, Tito is *NOT* paying for this flight. He
is paying the Russians for the priveledge of using the free
third seat on the Soyuz. The Russians took him up on this
offer because, well because the seat was pretty much free and
any money they get for a rider is essentially just icing on
the cake and they could use as much money as they can get.
A Soyuz flight costs a lot more than $20 million dollars, all
Tito's contribution does is offset that cost some. Ask
Iridium how much it costs just to launch a Soyuz rocket.
Ask MirCorp how much it costs to send up a Progress or a
Soyuz. It's a lot more than $20 million. I'm not sure what
the actual baseline cost is, but I'm pretty sure it's more
than 3x that. So, even if you were launching entire crews
of tourists, you wouldn't make one cent of profit.
Hypothetically, you might be able to make a profit in the
near term in space tourism, but not with Soyuz, or the
Shuttle. Soyuz is the most cost effective launch system
available, but it's still not profitable even with very
high ticket prices. Something like the Angara with a
large, perhaps suborbital, simple cabin that didn't have
all the sophisticated hardware for serious space usage
(such as for rendezvous and docking equipment, long term
on orbit storage capabilities, etc.) could bring the
ticket price down into the single digit millions and
could be profitable. I'm thinking of at least a 2 to 1
passenger to crew ratio, preferably larger. With a
rocket the size of the Angara you could easily have a
cabin that held maybe 8 or 10, with a crew of 2, that
gives you 4 or 5 to 1. Charging 1 Tito per person would
yield 160 or 200 million clams per flight, so at that
rate you could definitely make a profit. If you could
cram a full dozen into the cabin, you could probably
make a profit charging half a Tito or less per ticket.
--
Move 'em on, head 'em up,
Head 'em up, move 'em on,
Move 'em on, head 'em up,
Rawhide!
Head 'em out, ride 'em in,
Ride 'em in, let 'em out,
Cut 'em out, ride 'em in,
Rawhide!
Dwayne Allen Day
: Tito's contribution does is offset that cost some. Ask
: Iridium how much it costs just to launch a Soyuz rocket.
: Ask MirCorp how much it costs to send up a Progress or a
: Soyuz. It's a lot more than $20 million. I'm not sure what
: the actual baseline cost is, but I'm pretty sure it's more
: than 3x that. So, even if you were launching entire crews
: of tourists, you wouldn't make one cent of profit.
Starsem charges $35 million. That does not include a spacecraft.
D
GCHudson
You are correct about the Starsem price. However, the Russian cost of the
Soyuz launcher is more on the order of $2.3 million per flight. This is their
approximate marginal cost to produce one more launcher in any given year. Mr
Tito is thus paying for the booster, the Soyuz (which costs around $3 million)
and essentially all of the other Soyuz class launches which occur in this
calendar year, just as MirCorp essentially paid for all the launches which took
place last year. While I can't reveal my sources for these numbers, I am
satisfied that they are accurate to better than a factor of two. And just in
case anybody wants to know, the Proton costs about $5 million.
I'm not too interested in arguments that they are not a market economy and that
these costs are "not realistic." That may be so, but the costs are real, based
on the low wages and the highly automated construction (in the case of the
Proton). The fact that we can't duplicate their costs in the US is no argument:
we don't duplicate many third world costs for lumber, textiles and even
electronics. If we could, there'd be no reason to import such goods.
Gary C Hudson
JF Mezei
> Don't be mistaken, Tito is *NOT* paying for this flight. He
> is paying the Russians for the priveledge of using the free
> third seat on the Soyuz.
And when you buy a discounted air ticket to fly trans-pacific, you are barely
paying your onw way. But the airline makes a profit as a whole because it is
carrying lucrative cargo as well as a few filthy rich first class passengers.
Similarly, for space flight where the bulk is paid for by the cargo, using
spare capacity for a tourist can be profitable as long as the tourists pays
for the training and the added fuel/consumables.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Don't be mistaken, Tito is *NOT* paying for this flight. He
>is paying the Russians for the priveledge of using the free
>third seat on the Soyuz.
What do you imagine a paying passenger does when he buys an ariline ticket? He
doesn't pay for the cost of the whole flight himself, only for the privelege of
getting a seat on the plane!
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On
the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too
late." (Churchill, 1934)
--
J.G.
that Tito's flight represent 10% of RSA's budget have any relevancy (I don't
really know what Russian govt budgets mean) but when you take Starsem's
charge for a Soyuz launch not counting the vehicle of course, consider most
of us have no idea what the real markup is.(At least I don't).
I suspect $20,000,000 US per taxi flight would be a very dramatic offset to
their costs. Until there is a CRV, the replenishments of Soyuzi must
continue (okay the spice must flow). Why not allow Russia an incentive.If
anything, that third seatliner is a threat to NASA and ESA now. It is my
speculation that perhaps the fear of another Tito incident will cause NASA
to solidify plans to modify the third x-38 directly into a CRV. I dont know
if a modified X-38 could ever hold 7 people (and the CRV looked pretty
cramped anyway), but with talk of a Stretched Italian Painter as a hab, I am
beginning to think the final crew scenario will be somewhere in the "Crew
equal to five or more but less then seven".
Note: I am not complaining about the possible MPLM hab, either. Anything
that gets the crew to a level that some science could be done is good,
whatever that science may be.
Note 2: To whomever came up with the tito as a monetary unit, thanks.
Note 3: I still think Big Gemini would make a good return vehicle. This is
an irrelevant note, most likely unread and yet I post it.
-Jonathon
"Christopher M. Jones" <christ...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:4DnE6.283$dN2.3...@news.uswest.net...
Henry Spencer
Dwayne Allen Day <wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>Starsem charges $35 million. That does not include a spacecraft.
Note: that's their price, not their cost.
--
When failure is not an option, success | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
can get expensive. -- Peter Stibrany | (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)
Henry Spencer
Christopher M. Jones <christ...@qwest.net> wrote:
>Don't be mistaken, Tito is *NOT* paying for this flight...
On the contrary, he's paying considerably more than the whole flight
costs. This is a seller's market; that price is in no way minimal.
>Ask Iridium how much it costs just to launch a Soyuz rocket.
Why would they know? What they know (might know -- I don't believe they
used any Soyuz launches) is how much the Russians *charge* for it, which
is a different story entirely. Quite apart from their own motives to
maximize profit, the Russians have been under a great deal of political
pressure from the West *not* to undercut Western suppliers too badly.
>Ask MirCorp how much it costs to send up a Progress or a
>Soyuz. It's a lot more than $20 million. I'm not sure what
>the actual baseline cost is, but I'm pretty sure it's more
>than 3x that.
Hardly. You can buy a Proton launch for that kind of money.
Dwayne Allen Day
:>Starsem charges $35 million. That does not include a spacecraft.
: Note: that's their price, not their cost.
I never said otherwise.
D
Dwayne Allen Day
: Why would they know? What they know (might know -- I don't believe they
: used any Soyuz launches) is how much the Russians *charge* for it, which
: is a different story entirely. Quite apart from their own motives to
: maximize profit, the Russians have been under a great deal of political
: pressure from the West *not* to undercut Western suppliers too badly.
One could also add that the actual "cost" of a booster is probably
deceptive--their program is so starved for cash that any money above the
actual cost probably gets vacuumed away immediately. In other words, it's
like operating a grocery store where all you can sell is one tube of
toothpaste a month. The cost to you might be $1.00 a tube, you might sell
it for $2.00 a tube, but if your rent is five grand a month, these other
figures become somewhat meaningless.
D
Jorge R. Frank
<hWrE6.32976$3G6.1...@news3.aus1.giganews.com>:
>It is my speculation that perhaps the fear of another Tito incident
>will cause NASA to solidify plans to modify the third x-38 directly into
>a CRV. I dont know if a modified X-38 could ever hold 7 people (and the
>CRV looked pretty cramped anyway), but with talk of a Stretched Italian
>Painter as a hab, I am beginning to think the final crew scenario will
>be somewhere in the "Crew equal to five or more but less then seven".
A modified X-38 need not carry seven; since the Russians remain obligated
to provide one Soyuz at a time, a capacity of four would suffice for a crew
of seven.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
J.G.
four residents in Stretched Italian Painter Hab (SIPH)? I am asking this
question because I am unsure of the likelihood they would reuse the Hab
shell or a node vs the MPLM
-Jonathon.
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:Xns908AEAFE...@204.52.135.10...
Lars Joreteg
> I have probably missed the applicable thread, but is it possible to berth
> four residents in Stretched Italian Painter Hab (SIPH)? I am asking this
> question because I am unsure of the likelihood they would reuse the Hab
> shell or a node vs the MPLM
If the Hab is MLPM-sized, it will hold 16 racks. Each crew quarter fits in a
rack, so an MLPM could theoretically hold 16 quarters. But of course the
remaining racks will be taken up by uther things such as food
storage/preparation racks (4 I think), more life-support racks, shower/cleaning
rack, excercise equipment, etc.
- Lars
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>> http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,107050,00.html
Actually, I think we can now see *why* NASA is objecting to Tito.
Very simply: what Tito is costing the Russians is only a fraction of
what Tito *costs*, most of which is being paid by the American
taxpayer. So NASA objects to Russia making money this way basically
for the same reason it didn't allow the Apollo astronauts to take home
extra moon rocks to sell as souvenirs for amounts on the order of
$1e6.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Christopher M. Jones
> Christopher M. Jones said:
>
> >Don't be mistaken, Tito is *NOT* paying for this flight. He
> >is paying the Russians for the priveledge of using the free
> >third seat on the Soyuz.
>
> What do you imagine a paying passenger does when he buys an ariline
ticket? He
> doesn't pay for the cost of the whole flight himself, only for the
privelege of
> getting a seat on the plane!
Well d'uh. I thought I was fairly clear. On a commercial airlines
flight, each person pays their appropriate share of the cost+profit
for the flight. Tito is the only paying passenger on his flight,
ergo he must pay the entire cost and more to make it profitable.
--
Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European swallow. That's my
point.
Alan Anderson
> > >Don't be mistaken, Tito is *NOT* paying for this flight. He
> > >is paying the Russians for the priveledge of using the free
> > >third seat on the Soyuz.
> >
> > What do you imagine a paying passenger does when he buys an ariline
> ticket? He
> > doesn't pay for the cost of the whole flight himself, only for the
> privelege of
> > getting a seat on the plane!
>
> Well d'uh. I thought I was fairly clear. On a commercial airlines
> flight, each person pays their appropriate share of the cost+profit
> for the flight. Tito is the only paying passenger on his flight,
> ergo he must pay the entire cost and more to make it profitable.
On a specially chartered flight, the amount paid is typically the extra
cost (plust profit) for that flight over and above the "standing cost" of
the airline. That's basically crew, consumables, and a miniscule amount
of overhead and vehicle depreciation. It was my understanding that
providing Tito's ride will cost almost an order of magnitude less in
consumables/expendables than the amount being charged. Soyuz boosters
are, to a first approximation, *cheap* to build and to fly.
Isn't the other big "payload" for this flight the Soyuz spacecraft
itself? Call it a ferry flight if you want.
Christopher M. Jones
> In article <4DnE6.283$dN2.3...@news.uswest.net>,
> Christopher M. Jones <christ...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >Don't be mistaken, Tito is *NOT* paying for this flight...
>
> On the contrary, he's paying considerably more than the whole flight
> costs. This is a seller's market; that price is in no way minimal.
>
> >Ask Iridium how much it costs just to launch a Soyuz rocket.
>
> Why would they know? What they know (might know -- I don't believe they
> used any Soyuz launches) is how much the Russians *charge* for it, which
> is a different story entirely. Quite apart from their own motives to
> maximize profit, the Russians have been under a great deal of political
> pressure from the West *not* to undercut Western suppliers too badly.
Sorry, I was a bit ambiguous. Certainly the per unit manufacturing
marginal costs for each Soyuz launcher are insanely low. However,
what is of interest is the total per flight cost of a Soyuz launcher
and Soyuz-TM spacecraft including operations costs. In that sense
I think the values for the _price_ of the launch (i.e. the "cost"
to the buyer, not the cost to the seller) are a more accurate
representation of what the Russians are willing to sell flights
for. That is certainly a bit more than the $20 mil. Tito is
paying. And I'm pretty sure the Soyuz spacecraft costs a tad
more than a buck fifty. In terms of setting up a business
selling 3rd seats on Soyuz flights for about 1 Tito per ticket
I think there's no question that the venture would not be
able to pay for the total manufacturing and operating costs,
let alone make a profit.
My post was mainly in response to the implication that it would
be possible to profitably finance part of ISS construction /
operations with 3rd seat Soyuz flights at Tito prices. Which
is, at best, complete fantasy.
> >Ask MirCorp how much it costs to send up a Progress or a
> >Soyuz. It's a lot more than $20 million. I'm not sure what
> >the actual baseline cost is, but I'm pretty sure it's more
> >than 3x that.
>
> Hardly. You can buy a Proton launch for that kind of money.
You might be able to pay for one (if you were the Russian
government), but you couldn't _buy_ one.
--
True, I talk of dreams,
Which are the children of an idle brain,
Begot of nothing but vain fantasy.
Christopher M. Jones
> On a specially chartered flight, the amount paid is typically the extra
> cost (plust profit) for that flight over and above the "standing cost" of
> the airline. That's basically crew, consumables, and a miniscule amount
> of overhead and vehicle depreciation. It was my understanding that
> providing Tito's ride will cost almost an order of magnitude less in
> consumables/expendables than the amount being charged. Soyuz boosters
> are, to a first approximation, *cheap* to build and to fly.
>
> Isn't the other big "payload" for this flight the Soyuz spacecraft
> itself? Call it a ferry flight if you want.
Perhaps. My point was that it's insane to think that you could
pay for the entire costs of the Russian space program with 3rd
seat Soyuz flights.
--
Ground control to Major Tom, commencing countdown, engines on.
Douglas Ellison
of magnitude greater than that.
What his money is doing is offsetting some of the cost of the flight, by
acting as breathing ballast on board
I for one, am glad that he's doing it
Doug
"Christopher M. Jones" <christ...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:rmCE6.231$yl3....@news.uswest.net...
Christopher M. Jones
> He's not paying for all of the flight - that would run into a possible
order
> of magnitude greater than that.
>
> What his money is doing is offsetting some of the cost of the flight, by
> acting as breathing ballast on board
>
> I for one, am glad that he's doing it
Precisely! We are in agreement.
--
I don't want to be your little research monkey boy
The creature that I am is only going to destroy
John Percy Kerslake
<URL:mailto:simberg.i...@trash.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:57:20 +0100, in a place far, far away, John
> Percy Kerslake <john...@kerslakej2.freeserve.co.uk> made the
> phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> Why hasnt NASA done anything regarding space advertising? All these
> >> modules, and not one of them has a commercial logo on them?
> >
> >They may not be allowed to re the POTUS decree after 51L
>
> AFAIK, that only applied to commercial payloads--not ads. NASA has
> its own policy to not allow ads, but that's not driven by any White
> House dictum, again, AFAIK. Maybe Dwayne knows otherwise.
>
>
travel into space after the POTUS decree after 51L.
GCHudson
The Russian Aviation and Space Agency budget for 1999 (latest year for which I
had quick figures) was 3 x E9 Rubles. The conversion rate is about 29 Rubbles
to the Dollar. Thus, the ENTIRE BUDGET of the RSKA is $103 million. They
conduct several Progress launches and now at least two Soyuz launches per year
on this budget. (Protons are generally sold commercially.) It does not take a
calculator to see that that "tourist" flights to ISS, just to replace Soyuz
spacecraft (done every six months) could cover nearly forty percent of the
budget. Flying a couple more dedicated "tourist" flights per year could cover
the rest. If two Soyuz are docked to the ISS in order to expand the crew to
six, then there will be four flight opportunities per year doing nothing else.
Do the math.
I find it astonishing that we in the US can't accept how inexpensively the
Russians conduct (and have always run) their space program. It is, and always
has been, performed for a few percent of the cost of the US effort.
Gary C Hudson
Rand Simberg
Percy Kerslake <john...@kerslakej2.freeserve.co.uk> made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> >They may not be allowed to re the POTUS decree after 51L
>>
>> AFAIK, that only applied to commercial payloads--not ads. NASA has
>> its own policy to not allow ads, but that's not driven by any White
>> House dictum, again, AFAIK. Maybe Dwayne knows otherwise.
>>
>>
>What I intended to say was shurely it is ilegal for US privat Citizens to
>travel into space after the POTUS decree after 51L.
I'm also not familiar with any such decree as that. The only decree I
recall was to no longer launch commercial satellites. AFAIK, there is
no law, or even executive order, against private citizens flying on
the Shuttle--this remains at NASA's discretion.
rk
> I find it astonishing that we in the US can't accept how inexpensively the
> Russians conduct (and have always run) their space program. It is, and always
> has been, performed for a few percent of the cost of the US effort.
A question:
What does the typical senior engineer in the Russian aerospace field
make? Ex-soviet engineers that I know used to drive taxi cabs at night.
--
rk They are not caused by a single
stellar engineering, ltd. error, but by a sequence of errors
stel...@erols.com.NOSPAM that build and propagate due to a
Hi-Rel Digital Systems Design lack of leadership and accountability.
-- Dan Goldin, April 27, 2000.
Alan Anderson
> ... My point was that it's insane to think that you could
> pay for the entire costs of the Russian space program with 3rd
> seat Soyuz flights.
Your point seems to be based on a pretty good feeling for the costs of
launching rockets in the US space program. Unfortunately, that leaves you
ill-prepared to deal with the remarkably low costs of launching rockets in
the Russian space program. The particular brand of "insanity" to which
you refer is apparently shared by the people who prepare the Russian space
program budget. The numbers are there to support the proposition.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Well d'uh. I thought I was fairly clear. On a commercial airlines
>flight, each person pays their appropriate share of the cost+profit
>for the flight. Tito is the only paying passenger on his flight,
>ergo he must pay the entire cost and more to make it profitable.
However, the flight would have occurred whether or not Tito was onboard. Tito,
by paying $20 million, has made the flight less of a loss than it otherwise
would have been.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Perhaps. My point was that it's insane to think that you could
>pay for the entire costs of the Russian space program with 3rd
>seat Soyuz flights.
I never said you could.
Henry Spencer
You can come pretty close, depending on just how enthusiastic you are
about the "more than" part, and how anxious the Russians are to make a
deal with you. Isakowitz3 quotes full four-stage Protons at $90-100M, and
Soyuzes at $30-50M. And those are list prices.
Henry Spencer
Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@trash.org> wrote:
>...AFAIK, there is
>no law, or even executive order, against private citizens flying on
>the Shuttle--this remains at NASA's discretion.
As witness Senator Glenn.
Rand Simberg
he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In article <3aec0581...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@trash.org> wrote:
>>...AFAIK, there is
>>no law, or even executive order, against private citizens flying on
>>the Shuttle--this remains at NASA's discretion.
>
>As witness Senator Glenn.
I thought of that, but I suspect that many would not consider a
Senator a "private citizen."
JF Mezei
> paying. And I'm pretty sure the Soyuz spacecraft costs a tad
> more than a buck fifty. In terms of setting up a business
> selling 3rd seats on Soyuz flights for about 1 Tito per ticket
> I think there's no question that the venture would not be
> able to pay for the total manufacturing and operating costs,
> let alone make a profit.
You are right about flights specifically launched for tourists. In the same
way that launching a 747 with just one passenger wouldn't be profitable.
But if the 747 is full of cargo and going no matter what, adding a passenger
won't cost much more to operate the 747 so the revenus from that one
passengers are almost all profit because the flight is paid for even without
the passenger.
In the case of Tito, he is riding on a soyuz that would be going with or
without a psssenger. So as long as Tito pays for the extra fuel and his
training, then the rest of the money is profit for the russians who need money
to fulfill their commitments to the ISS.
Joann Evans
>
> Stephen Voss wrote:
>
> > > Good for Tito, good for the Russians. Maybe even good for ISS -- perhaps
> > > there's now a glimmering of a reason for it to exist.
> > >
> > > Let's see: Tito is paying $2e7 for a ride, profit to Russia probably like
> > > $1e7. ISS is slated to cost, creative gummint accounting aside, $6e10. So
> > > a few thousand Titos or equivalents, launched on Soyuzes, might approach
> > > payback. A stretch, but not totally out of the question.
> >
> > to ride into space.
> >
> > Why? Because its different! For the same reason people pay $20,000 to go
> > on tours of Antartica.
> >
> > Why hasnt NASA done anything regarding space advertising? All these
> > modules, and not one of them has a commercial logo on them?
>
Some would be visible during video downlinks for news, they might
also be specifically imaged for promotional reasons, like the inflatable
Pepsi can on Mir awhile back.
NASA is intensely conservative and slow moving on things like this,
though. There was a lot of jumping through hoops just to visibly
get the word 'Canada' and their flag on the shuttle manipulator arm,
and that was hardly a commercial issue. (It didn't say Spar Aerospace,
after all.)
J.G.
was in large part culling ISS bound Soyuz and Progress flights to Mir. Was
Mir's budget handled soley by Energya or did the RSA have to devote anything
towards it?
"GCHudson" <gchu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010422122450...@ng-mq1.aol.com...>
JF Mezei
> NASA is intensely conservative and slow moving on things like this,
> though. There was a lot of jumping through hoops just to visibly
> get the word 'Canada' and their flag on the shuttle manipulator arm,
> and that was hardly a commercial issue. (It didn't say Spar Aerospace,
> after all.)
As I recall, the first Shuttle arm was donated by Canada to NASA in exchange
for the flag/Canada appearing on the other arms.
When Endeavour was built, did they build its arm from spares, or was a brand
new one built, or did Challenger's arm remain on the ground and thus not
destroyed ?
Jorge R. Frank
<3AE38227...@videotron.ca>:
>When Endeavour was built, did they build its arm from spares, or was a
>brand new one built, or did Challenger's arm remain on the ground and
>thus not destroyed ?
Challenger carried a Spartan-Halley spacecraft that was to have been
deployed and retrieved by the arm, so the arm was lost with the shuttle.
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>In article <3aec0581...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@trash.org> wrote:
>>...AFAIK, there is
>>no law, or even executive order, against private citizens flying on
>>the Shuttle--this remains at NASA's discretion.
>
>As witness Senator Glenn.
I seriously doubt NASA went to Senator Glenn and said "want to fly on
the Shuttle"? No, Glenn's flight was at the *President's* discretion.
Once the boss said "Let Glenn fly", then NASA made the most of it.
Briaon
Christopher M. Jones
> You are right about flights specifically launched for tourists. In the
same
> way that launching a 747 with just one passenger wouldn't be profitable.
>
> But if the 747 is full of cargo and going no matter what, adding a
passenger
> won't cost much more to operate the 747 so the revenus from that one
> passengers are almost all profit because the flight is paid for even
without
> the passenger.
>
> In the case of Tito, he is riding on a soyuz that would be going with or
> without a psssenger. So as long as Tito pays for the extra fuel and his
> training, then the rest of the money is profit for the russians who need
money
> to fulfill their commitments to the ISS.
Which was _precisely_ my point, and I have enumerated that
point quite clearly several times now. Can you people read?
</unnecessary bile>
=)
--
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Henry Spencer
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>As I recall, the first Shuttle arm was donated by Canada to NASA in exchange
>for the flag/Canada appearing on the other arms.
No, the markings weren't explicitly part of the deal. They were, in fact,
an afterthought, and one NASA wasn't especially happy about.
>When Endeavour was built, did they build its arm from spares, or was a brand
>new one built, or did Challenger's arm remain on the ground and thus not
>destroyed ?
An arm was destroyed with Challenger. (They don't belong to specific
orbiters; like some other major subassemblies, they get swapped around as
convenient.) I think Spar did build another one as a replacement.
pat
>
> >"Henry Spencer" <he...@spsystems.net> wrote:
> >> In article <4DnE6.283$dN2.3...@news.uswest.net>,
> >> Christopher M. Jones <christ...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >Don't be mistaken, Tito is *NOT* paying for this flight...
> >>
> >> On the contrary, he's paying considerably more than the whole flight
> >> costs. This is a seller's market; that price is in no way minimal.
>
> Russians conduct (and have always run) their space program. It is, and
always
> has been, performed for a few percent of the cost of the US effort.
>
> Gary C Hudson
I've always advocated open and free access to russian launchers as a way to
truly start stimulating the space industry.
Sadly, it has been a surprising segment of the activist community that has
opposed this
and other reforms that could truly run down costs.
Stephen Voss
> > its own policy to not allow ads, but that's not driven by any White
> > House dictum, again, AFAIK. Maybe Dwayne knows otherwise.
> >
> >
> What I intended to say was shurely it is ilegal for US privat Citizens to
> travel into space after the POTUS decree after 51L.
So?...all you need is Dubya writing on a piece of paper "I revoke Executive
order #(x) signed The President" . Anyway That only applies on the shuttle.
The executive order does not cover US citizens travelling on private or
foreign spacecraft.
It only says the shuttle cannot carry them into space.
Stephen Voss
Henry Spencer wrote:
> In article <3aec0581...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@trash.org> wrote:
> >...AFAIK, there is
> >no law, or even executive order, against private citizens flying on
> >the Shuttle--this remains at NASA's discretion.
>
> As witness Senator Glenn.
John Glenn at one point was a trained astronaut...someone could
say they are just "reactivating" his status.
Bill Bonde
Someone who was lying could say that. It was a POLITICAL PAYOFF. Job
well done, blah, blah, blah. We all know that. Let me ask you, how long
til Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin or Mike Collins get to ride again?
ralph buttigieg
rk wrote in message <3AE31216...@nospamplease.erols.com>...
>GCHudson wrote:
>
>> I find it astonishing that we in the US can't accept how inexpensively
the
>> Russians conduct (and have always run) their space program. It is, and
always
>> has been, performed for a few percent of the cost of the US effort.
>
>A question:
>
>What does the typical senior engineer in the Russian aerospace field
>make? Ex-soviet engineers that I know used to drive taxi cabs at night.
>
What off it? Why should this concern anyone more then , say, how much
footwear workers in Indonesia get compared to Americans?
ta
Ralph
Chris Jones
> In article <3AE38227...@videotron.ca>,
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> >As I recall, the first Shuttle arm was donated by Canada to NASA in exchange
> >for the flag/Canada appearing on the other arms.
>
> No, the markings weren't explicitly part of the deal. They were, in fact,
> an afterthought, and one NASA wasn't especially happy about.
Which is awfully ungracious and inconsistent of NASA, given how they plaster
the US flag on every piece of equipment they can, including stuff launched by
the Russians. (I'm not saying NASA is out of line to do so, though I would
prefer a little less flag-waving, just that they have no cause to be upset with
Canada for doing the same thing.)
rk
> >> I find it astonishing that we in the US can't accept how inexpensively the
> >> Russians conduct (and have always run) their space program. It is, and always
> >> has been, performed for a few percent of the cost of the US effort.
> >
> >A question:
> >
> >What does the typical senior engineer in the Russian aerospace field
> >make? Ex-soviet engineers that I know used to drive taxi cabs at night.
> >
>
> What off it? Why should this concern anyone more then , say, how much
> footwear workers in Indonesia get compared to Americans?
GCH made an analysis of costs and a comparison.
Labor costs are a significant part of doing these sorts of things.
There are others, but I am just starting with labor rates.
So, "what of it?" If we don't understand the "why," then one can't
really understand and improve, can one? Perhaps we should also include
the Australian space program in our models.
If you are interested in the cost of footwear I think you are on the
wrong channel. Heck, that's off-topic for the entire sci.* hierarchy.
I am not interested in discussing the costs of footwear made in
Indonesia. Does Indonesia have a space program? Do they make Moon
boots? I gots to know!
--
rk ... we must not repeat the errors
stellar engineering, ltd. of the past. This is blocking
stel...@erols.com.NOSPAM and tackling, not rocket science.
Hi-Rel Digital Systems Design -- Dan Goldin, April 27, 2000.
John Beaderstadt
> (I'm not saying NASA is out of line to do so, though I would
> prefer a little less flag-waving...)
I take the opposite tack: The more national symbols that are displayed on a single
item, the better. If we're going to have an international cooperative venture, then
let's brag about it. The more nations that have can feel pride in their
participation, the better. I'm rather disappointed that ISS is slated to display
only five national/consortium emblems; I'd like to see a lot more.
--
Beady's First Law of Social Harmonics: "Never let the engineers write the
instructions."
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Stephen Voss" <vo...@gate.net> wrote in message
news:3AE3D0C3...@gate.net...
You've missed the point several times. It says no such thing. There is no
such EO restricting private citizens on the shuttle. That is a NASA policy
put in place since 51-L. Mostly as self-preservation against bad publicity.
>
>
>
Leonard Robinson
(Purging of conspiracy theories)
Over in various Usernet & Internet political groups, the theory has arisen
that the Senator was given his second & final trip due to his support for
the Clinton Administration as opposed to the GOP. Unfortunately, it was not
allowed to die down until the Bush the Younger Administration took over.
Those days are over -- let us emulate the National Space Society's motto:
"RETURN TO THE MOON -- AND STAY!!"
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Leonard C Robinson
"The Historian Remembers, and speculates on what might have been."
Henry Spencer <he...@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:GC7p6...@spsystems.net...
Jordan S. Bassior
>Very simply: what Tito is costing the Russians is only a fraction of
>what Tito *costs*, most of which is being paid by the American
>taxpayer.
I don't see this -- what great cost is Tito imposing on the American taxpayer?
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>John Savard said:
>>Very simply: what Tito is costing the Russians is only a fraction of
>>what Tito *costs*, most of which is being paid by the American
>>taxpayer.
>I don't see this -- what great cost is Tito imposing on the American taxpayer?
It's not a question of marginal cost, so much as the cost of the ISS.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Captain Video
"Chris Jones" <c...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:tdnitjvkf...@world.std.com...
> he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
> > In article <3AE38227...@videotron.ca>,
> > JF Mezei <jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> > >As I recall, the first Shuttle arm was donated by Canada to NASA in
exchange
> > >for the flag/Canada appearing on the other arms.
> >
> > No, the markings weren't explicitly part of the deal. They were, in
fact,
> > an afterthought, and one NASA wasn't especially happy about.
>
> Which is awfully ungracious and inconsistent of NASA, given how they
plaster
> the US flag on every piece of equipment they can, including stuff launched
by
> the Russians.
And payed for by the U.S. at least twice.
(I'm not saying NASA is out of line to do so, though I would
> prefer a little less flag-waving, just that they have no cause to be upset
with
> Canada for doing the same thing.)
>
How many times have you heard Canada arm 2 in the last few days.
I think I heard it about 100 times, and we have a week to go.
They should shorten it a bit to Alpha-arm, I have heard it called station
arm with sounds good.
John Percy Kerslake
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 13:12:23 +0100, in a place far, far away, John
> Percy Kerslake <john...@kerslakej2.freeserve.co.uk> made the
> phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >>
> >> AFAIK, that only applied to commercial payloads--not ads. NASA has
> >> its own policy to not allow ads, but that's not driven by any White
> >> House dictum, again, AFAIK. Maybe Dwayne knows otherwise.
> >>
> >>
> >What I intended to say was shurely it is ilegal for US privat Citizens to
> >travel into space after the POTUS decree after 51L.
>
> recall was to no longer launch commercial satellites. AFAIK, there is
> no law, or even executive order, against private citizens flying on
> the Shuttle--this remains at NASA's discretion.
Would you like your leg back, It came off in my hand. I was joaking
about the land of free enterprise doing nothing without a gov. contract.
>
--
J.P. Kerslake B.Sc., F.B.I.S. Pager 07626 - 235878 e-mail address:-
Work = kers...@sees.bangor.ac.uk
Home = john...@kerslakej2.freeserve.co.uk,
Dyslexia Rules KO. RiscStation 64 meg 50 ns RAM. 9G HD, A.N.T.-I.S.
Chris Jones
> Chris Jones wrote:
>
> > (I'm not saying NASA is out of line to do so, though I would
> > prefer a little less flag-waving...)
>
> I take the opposite tack: The more national symbols that are displayed on a single
> item, the better. If we're going to have an international cooperative venture, then
> let's brag about it. The more nations that have can feel pride in their
> participation, the better. I'm rather disappointed that ISS is slated to display
> only five national/consortium emblems; I'd like to see a lot more.
Well, I do have a pair of socks I bought at Kennedy Space Center with the flags
of (I think) the 15 nations participating in ISS. National pride is good,
looking down on other nations (figuratively) is bad, IMO.
PixelCat
> How many times have you heard Canada arm 2 in the last few days.
> I think I heard it about 100 times, and we have a week to go.
Heck, why don't we paint a big hammer and sickle on it, right? I mean, it
wasn't Built In The Good Ole Yew Ess Of Ay, right, so it might as well have
been built by commies, right?
Hm. I just realized you sound one heck of a lot like Ed Anger of Weekly
World News fame. He's probably your hero.
Although "Canadarm" is a stupid name, whether or not it has a 2 tacked on
the end.
--
So much for a crossbow tank rush.
- Jason Kozak
Phil Fraering
> If you are interested in the cost of footwear I think you are on the
> wrong channel. Heck, that's off-topic for the entire sci.* hierarchy.
> I am not interested in discussing the costs of footwear made in
> Indonesia. Does Indonesia have a space program? Do they make Moon
> boots? I gots to know!
IMHO, the reason spaceflight is so expensive for the West is that
it's too politically controversial to start making launcher components
or complete launchers in Taiwan or S. Korea.
--
Phil Fraering "American-style iced tea is the perfect drink for
p...@globalreach.net a hot, sunny day. It's never really caught on in
the UK, probably because the last time we had a
hot, sunny day was back in 1957." - Tom Holt
Jim Kingdon
> inexpensively the Russians conduct (and have always run) their space
> program. It is, and always has been, performed for a few percent of
> the cost of the US effort.
While I sort of agree with this, nothing is simple in the case of
Russia's costs. For example:
* How much is Energia just subsidizing Soyuz/Progress out of Proton
revenues? Either due to deliberateness/inertia or because they just
don't have the accounting mechanisms in place to charge things to
one account or the other. Seeing this in US terms one might say
"but they are a private company, not a charity, why would they
subsidize it?" but as far as I know that kind of analysis doesn't
really apply to Energia as much as you'd think. (Whether it applies
to Lockheed Martin is also an interesting question, as L-M is
probably the closest US analogue to Energia and the other "private"
Russian companies).
* How regularly do the workers get paid? And is their a backlog of
back wages they are owed?
etc.
Richard Schumacher
> > In the case of Tito, he is riding on a soyuz that would be going with or
> > without a psssenger. So as long as Tito pays for the extra fuel and his
> > training, then the rest of the money is profit for the russians who need
> money
> > to fulfill their commitments to the ISS.
>
> Which was _precisely_ my point, and I have enumerated that
> point quite clearly several times now. Can you people read?
>
Yes, but Henry Spencer and the pricing data he quotes are more credible.
It is clear that Tito is paying the Russians more than the cost of this
entire mission.
rk
> > If you are interested in the cost of footwear I think you are on the
> > wrong channel. Heck, that's off-topic for the entire sci.* hierarchy.
> > I am not interested in discussing the costs of footwear made in
> > Indonesia. Does Indonesia have a space program? Do they make Moon
> > boots? I gots to know!
>
> IMHO, the reason spaceflight is so expensive for the West is that
> it's too politically controversial to start making launcher components
> or complete launchers in Taiwan or S. Korea.
I shall note that many electronic components are now made overseas.
--
rk They are not caused by a single
stellar engineering, ltd. error, but by a sequence of errors
stel...@erols.com.NOSPAM that build and propagate due to a
Hi-Rel Digital Systems Design lack of leadership and accountability.
Edward Lyons
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3AE38227...@videotron.ca...
>
> When Endeavour was built, did they build its arm from spares, or was a
brand
> new one built, or did Challenger's arm remain on the ground and thus not
> destroyed ?
RMS no.302 was destroyed along with Challenger.
Eddie Lyons
Portsmouth, UK
Edward Lyons
> John Beaderstadt <be...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>
> Well, I do have a pair of socks I bought at Kennedy Space Center with the
flags
> of (I think) the 15 nations participating in ISS. National pride is good,
> looking down on other nations (figuratively) is bad, IMO.
Check whether the British Union Flag is included on them. It is the only
country which is not actually participating in the project, or contributing
anything, to have its flag included. (It's included because it was included
as a signatory in the NASA-ESA agreement, although it opted later not to
participate.)
Eddie Lyons
Portsmouth, UK
Gary Hudson
Jim Kingdon wrote:
Energia doesn't own the Proton, nor do they sell it. ILS sell the Proton
and Krunichev builds it. Except for upper stages purchased from
Engergia, they derive very little revenue from Proton.
Gary C Hudson
Dwayne Allen Day
:> Which was _precisely_ my point, and I have enumerated that
:> point quite clearly several times now. Can you people read?
: Yes, but Henry Spencer and the pricing data he quotes are more credible.
: It is clear that Tito is paying the Russians more than the cost of this
: entire mission.
No, it's not "clear" that this is the case. It is _alleged_ that this is
the case.
D
Jordan S. Bassior
>>I don't see this -- what great cost is Tito imposing on the American
>taxpayer?
>
>It's not a question of marginal cost, so much as the cost of the ISS.
But the ISS already exists, and was built without consideration of Tito. So it
_is_ a question of marginal cost -- it's not as if TIto's non-presence would
give us a fraction of the money we spent to build ISS back!
pat
Dwayne Allen Day <wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote in message
news:_T1F6.378$S6....@grover.nit.gwu.edu...
Aerospace costs are never very transparent.
Suffice it to say the revenues are sufficient enough to someone.
JF Mezei
> How many times have you heard Canada arm 2 in the last few days.
> I think I heard it about 100 times, and we have a week to go.
>
> They should shorten it a bit to Alpha-arm, I have heard it called station
> arm with sounds good.
While I initially agree with your suggestion (yes, even as a canadian), you
should note that the canadian arm is not the only arm on the station. Don't
the russians already have the strela boom ?
(what will that be used for ?). And won't the japanese also have an arm ?
Having the name "Canadarm 2" does convey the message that it was built by the
same country and company that built the shuttle's arm. But Canadarm-2 is too
long and unimaginative.
Stephen Voss
Bill Bonde wrote:
Well a few people in NASA thought John Glenn was "owed one" so to speak
cause Kennedy kept him
out of the Gemini and Apollo programs. Armstrong et al already got their big
ticket
space mission, John Glenn had only been in space for a couple hours
when he went up the first time. It didnt cost that much to send him into
space
(since they were planning a shuttle launch anyway) and NASA got good
publicity.
In any event I doubt Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin are in anywhere near as
good
physical condition as Glenn was when he went up on that shuttle.
Rand Simberg
Voss <vo...@gate.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>In any event I doubt Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin are in anywhere near as
>good physical condition as Glenn was when he went up on that shuttle.
Don't know about Armstrong and Collins, but Buzz is in excellent
physical condition, AFAIK. I think that he still skis and dives.
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
Jorge R. Frank
>you should note that the canadian arm is not the only arm on the
>station. Don't the russians already have the strela boom ?
Yes.
>(what will that be used for ?).
It will be used by EVA crewmembers to move heavy cargo (and each other)
around the exterior, in places the SSRMS can't reach.
> And won't the japanese also have an arm
>?
Yes, on the JEM. There's also a European Robotic Arm (ERA) that will be
based on the SPP. Its future is as uncertain as the SPP itself.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Captain Video
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:Xns908CCF13...@204.52.135.10...
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote in
> <3AE4CC42...@videotron.ca>:
>
> >you should note that the canadian arm is not the only arm on the
> >station. Don't the russians already have the strela boom ?
>
> Yes.
Is it a RMA or Something like a tow bar.
I watched the video,and that is what it looked like.
I can't seem to find a closeup still any where
Jorge R. Frank
<Nx6F6.4082$Ee1.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>:
>
>"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
>news:Xns908CCF13...@204.52.135.10...
>> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote in
>> <3AE4CC42...@videotron.ca>:
>>
>> >you should note that the canadian arm is not the only arm on the
>> >station. Don't the russians already have the strela boom ?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Is it a RMA or Something like a tow bar.
>I watched the video,and that is what it looked like.
>I can't seem to find a closeup still any where
More like a cherry picker. It's a telescoping boom with a hand-operated
crank at one end and foot restraints on the other. This Strela isn't the
first one; there were two of them on Mir.
JF Mezei
Stephen Voss
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 21:40:57 -0400, in a place far, far away, Stephen
> Voss <vo...@gate.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>
> >In any event I doubt Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin are in anywhere near as
> >good physical condition as Glenn was when he went up on that shuttle.
>
> Don't know about Armstrong and Collins, but Buzz is in excellent
> physical condition, AFAIK. I think that he still skis and dives.
Maybe we should pay the Russians $20 mil to take Buzz Aldrin
up to the ISS. It would be a lot less than sending a shuttle up ;-)
Phil Fraering
> Phil Fraering wrote:
>
> > > If you are interested in the cost of footwear I think you are on the
> > > wrong channel. Heck, that's off-topic for the entire sci.* hierarchy.
> > > I am not interested in discussing the costs of footwear made in
> > > Indonesia. Does Indonesia have a space program? Do they make Moon
> > > boots? I gots to know!
> >
> > IMHO, the reason spaceflight is so expensive for the West is that
> > it's too politically controversial to start making launcher components
> > or complete launchers in Taiwan or S. Korea.
>
> I shall note that many electronic components are now made overseas.
Which ones, and from what countries?
--
Phil Fraering
p...@globalreach.net
And you can't have my shiny thing!
Phil Fraering
> Re Senator Glenn, and his Second Space Mission, 1998.
>
> (Purging of conspiracy theories)
>
> Over in various Usernet & Internet political groups, the theory has arisen
> that the Senator was given his second & final trip due to his support for
> the Clinton Administration as opposed to the GOP. Unfortunately, it was not
> allowed to die down until the Bush the Younger Administration took over.
>
> Those days are over -- let us emulate the National Space Society's motto:
>
> "RETURN TO THE MOON -- AND STAY!!"
I don't understand what you're saying. That we should ignore the
endemic problems of our government institutions?
Doug Jones
And bring him back, too?
(Old joke- at Case for Mars I back in 1981, Aldrin told of how a kid
asked him what his favorite Space Shuttle payload would be... "Senator
Proxmire," Buzz replied. "And bring him back, too," he hastily added,
explaining that maybe the view from up there might change the old
b*st*rd's mind. Somehow I doubt it would have.)
--
Doug Jones
Rocket Plumber
rk
> > > IMHO, the reason spaceflight is so expensive for the West is that
> > > it's too politically controversial to start making launcher components
> > > or complete launchers in Taiwan or S. Korea.
> >
> > I shall note that many electronic components are now made overseas.
>
> Which ones, and from what countries?
For example, programmable logic devices, which form a large part of the
logic for many spacecraft, are made in Japan and China.
Many memory chips, used in solid state recorders, are also made in the
Far East. This includes DRAMs and non-volatile EEPROMs.
Going off of memory; can look up specifics and post if anyone is
interested.
--
rk They are our gremlin hunters who are
stellar engineering, ltd. empowered to stalk the shop floor,
stel...@erols.com.NOSPAM look over our shoulders and take us
Hi-Rel Digital Systems Design to task when they sense something
might be wrong. This is not the
traditional 2 days of viewgraph watching.
-- Dan Goldin, April 27, 2000 on independent review teams.
PixelCat
news:3AE50028...@videotron.ca...
> BTW, BBC news reported monday evening that NASA had still not approved
Tito's flight.
Well, either they're wrong or Time is wrong... :)
PixelCat
news:3ae4da6b...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> Don't know about Armstrong and Collins, but Buzz is in excellent
> physical condition, AFAIK. I think that he still skis and dives.
Send 'em all up--fine by me.
PixelCat
news:3AE512AE...@qnet.com...
> (Old joke- at Case for Mars I back in 1981, Aldrin told of how a kid
> asked him what his favorite Space Shuttle payload would be... "Senator
> Proxmire," Buzz replied.
BWwhahahahaahahahahah!
PixelCat
news:Xns908CCF13...@204.52.135.10...
> > And won't the japanese also have an arm
> >?
> Yes, on the JEM.
I got the impression from pictures that this is a special-purpose arm,
perhaps mainly for moving items onto and off of the porch.
Michael R. Irwin
However, if that someone is on his way to Switzerland
with the take, then this fact is insufficient to illuminate
long term launch pricing and practices.
Regards,
Mike Irwin
Vytautas
the NASA model is the use of contractors, may be it was a good strategy in
the 60's , when there was no time to build the necesary infrastructure
themselfs, but for the money they pay to the contractors NASA could build
such an infrastructure itself. Of course there would be a period of
transition, wich could last depending on management quality from 5 to 10
years. After that NASA would spend much less on development costs and
certainly it would have more funds to do SOMETHING serious in space.
Of course the current situation may be so, that it's impossible for NASA to
make this change (well, maybe laws regulations or something else), then I
regret very much that NASA has becomed such a languishing organization. It
certainly doesn't say anything good about USA too. Hell, if the NASA would
really want to do so, it could promote serious proyects and advertise them
all over the country, so the electors would press their congresmans to
support these serious space exploration proyects. NASA doesn't have a
Kennedy to do the job for them now, they have to do it themselfs (well, the
comparison is not totaly exact, but the idea is the same). NASA is partialy
guilty for its current situation, was it SO difficult to think about another
project wich would encourage the USA people to support NASA seriously? The
space race was not the MAIN reason why the public apoyed the Apolo program,
the sense of adventure is still alive in all the people (well it's a way to
say it). NASA's problem is that it didn't proposed anything adventurous when
it was the time, and it hasn't to now, when they could achieve the same with
a SERIOUS advertisment policy. Yes, it's a risk, but hell, NASA wouldn't
lose more that it has with the X-33 proyect or some others. Vytautas.
P.s. May be some of the proyects NASA wants to make are not so bad, but the
advertisment section is lacking a lot.
"rk" <stel...@nospamplease.erols.com> wrote in message news:3AE418D8.FA60BD
3...@nospamplease.erols.com...
> ralph buttigieg wrote:
>
> > >> I find it astonishing that we in the US can't accept how
inexpensively the
> > >> Russians conduct (and have always run) their space program. It is,
and always
> > >> has been, performed for a few percent of the cost of the US effort.
> > >
> > >A question:
> > >
> > >What does the typical senior engineer in the Russian aerospace field
> > >make? Ex-soviet engineers that I know used to drive taxi cabs at
night.
> > >
> >
> > What off it? Why should this concern anyone more then , say, how much
> > footwear workers in Indonesia get compared to Americans?
>
> GCH made an analysis of costs and a comparison.
>
> Labor costs are a significant part of doing these sorts of things.
> There are others, but I am just starting with labor rates.
>
> So, "what of it?" If we don't understand the "why," then one can't
> really understand and improve, can one? Perhaps we should also include
> the Australian space program in our models.
>
> If you are interested in the cost of footwear I think you are on the
> wrong channel. Heck, that's off-topic for the entire sci.* hierarchy.
> I am not interested in discussing the costs of footwear made in
> Indonesia. Does Indonesia have a space program? Do they make Moon
> boots? I gots to know!
>
> --
> rk ... we must not repeat the errors
> stellar engineering, ltd. of the past. This is blocking
> stel...@erols.com.NOSPAM and tackling, not rocket science.
> Hi-Rel Digital Systems Design -- Dan Goldin, April 27, 2000.
Chris Jones
> Chris Jones <c...@world.std.com> wrote in message
> news:tdnhezf...@world.std.com...
> >
> > Well, I do have a pair of socks I bought at Kennedy Space Center with the flags
> > of (I think) the 15 nations participating in ISS. National pride is good,
> > looking down on other nations (figuratively) is bad, IMO.
>
> Check whether the British Union Flag is included on them. It is the only
> country which is not actually participating in the project, or contributing
> anything, to have its flag included. (It's included because it was included
> as a signatory in the NASA-ESA agreement, although it opted later not to
> participate.)
I checked, and it is included. I guess I should patch it out. "No
representation without taxation!" I say.
What the heck, I'm feeling both magnanimous and lazy. I'll just let it stay...
Rand Simberg
"Vytautas" <Slot...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>Hell, if the NASA would
>really want to do so, it could promote serious proyects and advertise them
>all over the country, so the electors would press their congresmans to
>support these serious space exploration proyects.
That is against the law, and a good thing, too. Government agencies
shouldn't be lobbying for more taxpayer money using taxpayer money.
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>John Savard said:
>>>I don't see this -- what great cost is Tito imposing on the American
>>taxpayer?
>
>>It's not a question of marginal cost, so much as the cost of the ISS.
>But the ISS already exists, and was built without consideration of Tito. So it
>_is_ a question of marginal cost -- it's not as if TIto's non-presence would
>give us a fraction of the money we spent to build ISS back!
You may think of it as a question of marginal cost, but that doesn't
mean that NASA necessarily thinks of it that way. The ISS was put
there for a purpose, after all, and should be employed to fulfill that
purpose. If the Russians owned it, then they could send who they like
to it.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Rand Simberg
jsa...@ecn.ab.SBLOK.ca.nowhere (John Savard) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>You may think of it as a question of marginal cost, but that doesn't
>mean that NASA necessarily thinks of it that way. The ISS was put
>there for a purpose, after all, and should be employed to fulfill that
>purpose.
And that would be...?
>If the Russians owned it, then they could send who they like
>to it.
They don't have to own it--they already have an agreement in place
that allows them to send who they like to it. If they didn't, you can
be sure that NASA would have prevented it.
Stephen Souter
<jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> "Christopher M. Jones" wrote:
> > paying. And I'm pretty sure the Soyuz spacecraft costs a tad
> > more than a buck fifty. In terms of setting up a business
> > selling 3rd seats on Soyuz flights for about 1 Tito per ticket
> > I think there's no question that the venture would not be
> > able to pay for the total manufacturing and operating costs,
> > let alone make a profit.
>
> You are right about flights specifically launched for tourists. In the same
> way that launching a 747 with just one passenger wouldn't be profitable.
>
> But if the 747 is full of cargo and going no matter what, adding a passenger
> won't cost much more to operate the 747 so the revenus from that one
> passengers are almost all profit because the flight is paid for even without
> the passenger.
>
> In the case of Tito, he is riding on a soyuz that would be going with or
> without a psssenger. So as long as Tito pays for the extra fuel and his
> training, then the rest of the money is profit for the russians who need money
> to fulfill their commitments to the ISS.
But hold on, Tito is not just going for a joyride on a Soyuz. He's also
planning on staying a while at the ISS. Which raises the question of
whether if he going to pay for the privilege shouldn't some of that $20
million be remitted to the US and other ISS partners to offset the costs
of him staying there. Otherwise it'd be like a rich tourist who pays for a
taxi ride to a hotel but gets to stay and eat at the hotel for free.
--
Stephen Souter
s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au
http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/
JF Mezei
> But hold on, Tito is not just going for a joyride on a Soyuz. He's also
> planning on staying a while at the ISS. Which raises the question of
> whether if he going to pay for the privilege shouldn't some of that $20
> million be remitted to the US and other ISS partners to offset the costs
> of him staying there.
One of Russia's responsabilities on the ISS is to keep a fresh supply of Soyuz
escape pods. This entails taxi crews bringing a new Soyuz every 6 months and
taking back the old one. That function has been factored into the ISS costs
already.
Whom Russia chooses to send up in the taxi flights doesn't affect costs at the
ISS levels since they were factored in a long time ago.
rk
> But hold on, Tito is not just going for a joyride on a Soyuz. He's also
> planning on staying a while at the ISS. Which raises the question of
> whether if he going to pay for the privilege shouldn't some of that $20
> million be remitted to the US and other ISS partners to offset the costs
> of him staying there. Otherwise it'd be like a rich tourist who pays for a
> taxi ride to a hotel but gets to stay and eat at the hotel for free.
Russia is sending up a replacement Soyuz. They have decided to accept
cash as part of the crew selection process and have trained Sugardaddy
to be part of the crew. Crew selection in many countries is often a bit
of an interesting process. I believe similar things are done on large
ships, where one can swab the deck and get passage.
This doesn't necessarily make it a good idea or anything, but the
Russians did first offer access to that seat to the other member nations
who weren't interested. Now, if the member nations want to tell Russia
how to run their crew selection process, then Russia will have the same
rights as other countries. And how about qualifying hardware and
software systems? I think applying this same logic - voting on
qualification rules - for hardware and software systems will cause
unbelievable headaches. It's probably in every one's best interest to
just shut up, let him fly, and be done with it.
--
rk They are not caused by a single
stellar engineering, ltd. error, but by a sequence of errors
stel...@erols.com.NOSPAM that build and propagate due to a
Hi-Rel Digital Systems Design lack of leadership and accountability.
j
> unbelievable headaches. It's probably in every one's best interest to
> just shut up, let him fly, and be done with it.
>
Or be started with it, do the Russians have trip #2 arranged yet? How/when
will we know?
--
http://www.ttsw.com/orion/orion.html Progress is waiting for you.
Jim Kingdon
> will we know?
Negotiations already underway, according to
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001-04-27-tito.htm (thanks to
NASA Watch for the link).
Let's hope that NASA and Russia can come to some reasonable agreement.
The Russians have been using the 3rd seat of the Soyuz for "tourists"
since the 60's (or some approximation to tourists; previously it was
fellow comrades from various Soviet allies).
Oh yes, it gets better, candidate tourist #2 wants to do an EVA too.
Wait 'til NASA has to make an official reaction to *that* one ;-).
j
<kin...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Or be started with it, do the Russians have trip #2 arranged yet? How/when
> > will we know?
>
> Negotiations already underway, according to
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001-04-27-tito.htm (thanks to
> NASA Watch for the link).
>
> Let's hope that NASA and Russia can come to some reasonable agreement.
> The Russians have been using the 3rd seat of the Soyuz for "tourists"
> since the 60's (or some approximation to tourists; previously it was
> fellow comrades from various Soviet allies).
Could they squeeze in a 4th? The couples market should dominate in this
price range.
>
> Oh yes, it gets better, candidate tourist #2 wants to do an EVA too.
> Wait 'til NASA has to make an official reaction to *that* one ;-).
What's an EVA cost? Shure beats rock climing.
Joe Strout
> > unbelievable headaches. It's probably in every one's best interest to
> > just shut up, let him fly, and be done with it.
>
> Or be started with it, do the Russians have trip #2 arranged yet? How/when
> will we know?
When they start preparing for the flight, I guess. And I certainly
hope they do. Space tourism is about the single most useful thing we
can possibly do with ISS, and if we're lucky, may jump-start a true
orbital economy.
Of course by "we" I mean humanity in general. Clearly NASA isn't
interested in doing business in space. Thank goodness the Russians are
around to show us the way...
- Joe
--
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| j...@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'