After reading a recent Washington Post highlighting Bush's trip to Europe
and looking up on my wall at never-opened boxes with never-assembled USSR
rocket models, I got a little excited. Most of the Post talks about how
Europeans are impressed (?) with Bush, but do not like his policies at all.
There is also an article about Bush's meeting with Putin. Apparently Bush
'changed his mind' and has decided that a Russian-American friendship would
be really good. As for the actual details of the meeting, it was mostly
Putin being nice and trying to convince Bush to abandon the missile-defense
program. The meeting seemed to be about disagreements mostly, but
considering that Bush has newfound enthusiasm in good Russian relations
maybe something could happen? Although missile defense is the most touchy
subject, and space has a lot to do with it, a Russian-American space
alliance would still be a possibility. The pooled resources of the two most
(at one time or another at least) prestigious space-faring nations in the
world might be a good thing. I'm not sure NASA could cooperate very well in
its current state, or that I'd want NASA to have such direct control of the
only breath-of-fresh-air from NASA, but changes could be made. I'm sure a
Russian-American space 'shared' space organization with launches all over
the world (or at least on opposite ends of it) could work. Maybe Dennis
Tito would be very good as the American administrator (he certainly does
have experience with the Russians, although he may not want to work for the
government). Bush would definitely be enthusiastic about a pro-business
space policy that drives the Rus-American space organization to develop
cheaper launch technology etc. that also leaves room for some science here
and there (a pluto probed would be built in space of course). The Russians
would probably not mind it if the Americans came with money and promised to
work primarily on helping Russian and American space business. It would all
probably work as long as someone didn't tell Bush that space business may
... ahem ... one day significantly reduce the use of oil ... ahem ...
This seems like the best 'next step' to me? However, I have proven myself
to be a tad bit nutty? If all the Americans and Russians on this list could
write to their congressmen, and maybe even the big guys, about this it might
'break through' (like everything else did right ;) ). Seriously, I don't
see how we're going to get anywhere without some major changes to the
system, this may be one.
I've heard that the Russian space budget is $170 million/year,
approximately. That's less than one STS launch. It's difficult to see
what 'alliance' means in that context, besides a one-way flow of money from
my country (U.S.) to Russia.
U.S. Modules were delivered very late due to budgetary problems within
Russia, and this lateness caused a lot of excess spending on the U.S. side
--- you can't just lay off your entire workforce and then tell them to come
back when the Russian module arrives. Many said in hindsight that it
would have been cheaper to build the hardware that Russia ultimately
provided within the U.S. instead. Based on this poor track record, I
would hope that our U.S. Congress will look very suspiciously on any
dependence on Russian hardware for any future endeavors.
Sea Launch and ILS marketing of Proton flights and other services seem to
be doing well. Less government is better with respect to these
activities, so I would hope they are not part of your alliance plans.
Russia needs dollars badly. There seems to be an idea floating about in
ssi_list that Russia should offer its launchers to the world on the cheap.
I disagree strongly. I hope that they will extract the maximum willingness
to pay from their customers, and reap the associated profits. If it costs
them $x million to put a satellite into LEO or GEO, and they're able to get
someone to pay $4x million for that service, then that's a good thing, not
a bad --- they need those profits for a variety of reasons.
Ron Menich
"Zachary
me.com>
06/17/01
03:45 PM
Please
respond to
ssi_list
After reading a recent Washington Post highlighting Bush's trip to Europe
and looking up on my wall at never-opened boxes with never-assembled USSR
rocket models, I got a little excited. Most of the Post talks about how
Europeans are impressed (?) with Bush, but do not like his policies at all.
There is also an article about Bush's meeting with Putin. Apparently Bush
'changed his mind' and has decided that a Russian-American friendship would
be really good. As for the actual details of the meeting, it was mostly
Putin being nice and trying to convince Bush to abandon the missile-defense
program. The meeting seemed to be about disagreements mostly, but
considering that Bush has newfound enthusiasm in good Russian relations
maybe something could happen? Although missile defense is the most touchy
subject, and space has a lot to do with it, a Russian-American space
alliance would still be a possibility. The pooled resources of the two
most
(at one time or another at least) prestigious space-faring nations in the
world might be a good thing. I'm not sure NASA could cooperate very well
in
its current state, or that I'd want NASA to have such direct control of the
only breath-of-fresh-air from NASA, but changes could be made. I'm sure a
Russian-American space 'shared' space organization with launches all over
the world (or at least on opposite ends of it) could work. Maybe Dennis
Tito would be very good as the American administrator (he certainly does
have experience with the Russians, although he may not want to work for the
government). Bush would definitely be enthusiastic about a pro-business
space policy that drives the Rus-American space organization to develop
cheaper launch technology etc. that also leaves room for some science here
and there (a pluto probed would be built in space of course). The Russians
would probably not mind it if the Americans came with money and promised to
work primarily on helping Russian and American space business. It would
all
probably work as long as someone didn't tell Bush that space business may
... ahem ... one day significantly reduce the use of oil ... ahem ...
This seems like the best 'next step' to me? However, I have
proven myself
to be a tad bit nutty? If all the Americans and Russians on this list
could
write to their congressmen, and maybe even the big guys, about this it
might
'break through' (like everything else did right ;) ). Seriously, I don't
see how we're going to get anywhere without some major changes to the
system, this may be one.
Mainly what I was thinking was giving American dollars a political excuse to
do more reasonable things, the Russians would act simply to increase the
amount of stuff that can be done. They would do this by adding their
resources (certainly not $$$$ resources) to America's as well as acting like
a check in a 'balance of power', they would be the snotty little kid that
always tells on you (not that they deserve such an image, but someone needs
to make sure money is spent reasonably.)
approximately. That's less than one STS launch. It's difficult to see
what 'alliance' means in that context, besides a one-way flow of money from
my country (U.S.) to Russia.
> I've heard that the Russian space budget is $170 million/year,
> approximately. That's less than one STS launch. It's difficult to see
> what 'alliance' means in that context, besides a one-way flow of money from
> my country (U.S.) to Russia.
For, when a country like Russia can launch hardware for an order of
magnitude lower cost than NASA, does America ultimately suffer more
or less for NASA to do something? I honestly don't know, but I suspect
they suffer more for NASA to do it. Doubtless the money that could have
been spent on the launch could have been on other things- towards
Mars or other targets.
> The dependence on Russia for ISS components proved to be disastorous to the
> U.S. Modules were delivered very late due to budgetary problems within
> Russia, and this lateness caused a lot of excess spending on the U.S. side
> --- you can't just lay off your entire workforce and then tell them to come
> back when the Russian module arrives.
It has also been said that 70% of the ISS is of Russian build; much
of the equipment being off the shelf, rather than having to be
designed from scratch. The Russians have had a space station for
decades... Would NASA have been able to design the same equipment
for less AND hit the schedule? Debatable. Very debatable.
> Many said in hindsight that it
> would have been cheaper to build the hardware that Russia ultimately
> provided within the U.S. instead. Based on this poor track record, I
> would hope that our U.S. Congress will look very suspiciously on any
> dependence on Russian hardware for any future endeavors.
It might be said that the people who said this might
have been in a position to gain from any such change to the program.
Looking at the X33 program, twice over budget and not delivering anyway
it is easy to see that a lot of programs get delayed. The Russians
delivered hardware that mostly worked.
> Sea Launch and ILS marketing of Proton flights and other services seem to
> be doing well. Less government is better with respect to these
> activities, so I would hope they are not part of your alliance plans.
Strongly agree.
> Russia needs dollars badly. There seems to be an idea floating about in
> ssi_list that Russia should offer its launchers to the world on the cheap.
I haven't noticed. There is an idea that Russia could offer its
launchers on the cheap, and perhaps could be made to offer its
launchers on the cheap. For many applications such as space
tourism, this would be an enabler; and the Russian space program
would be far better off with a larger overall profit, even at a
much lower percentage profit.
> I disagree strongly. I hope that they will extract the maximum willingness
> to pay from their customers, and reap the associated profits. If it costs
> them $x million to put a satellite into LEO or GEO, and they're able to get
> someone to pay $4x million for that service, then that's a good thing, not
> a bad --- they need those profits for a variety of reasons.
Absolutely. At the moment they seem to be making more like $8x million
per launch. Pretty good margin in any business.
But we need to remember something.
Right now we are transitioning from the high profit, low volume
portion of the development of space towards higher profit (lower %
of turnover though), very much higher volume part of the development
curve. Overall profits can go up by 10 or more times over the next
10-20 years, as we slide towards the very much cheaper access to
space that has to come, however unlikely that seems now.
> Ron Menich
civilization?"
No argument from me on X-33. NASA dumped the very successful DC-X program
for the more glamorous X-33. X programs are supposed to be risk-reducers,
but the failure of the X-33 program did not reduce risk (to put it
lightly!). They should have built a replacement for DC-X and continued
along that evolutionary path.
Ian Woollard
ssi_list@...
06/18/01 06:19
PM
Please respond
to ssi_list
...
> Many said in hindsight that it
> would have been cheaper to build the hardware that Russia ultimately
> provided within the U.S. instead. Based on this poor track record, I
> would hope that our U.S. Congress will look very suspiciously on any
> dependence on Russian hardware for any future endeavors.
It might be said that the people who said this might
have been in a position to gain from any such change to the program.
Looking at the X33 program, twice over budget and not delivering anyway
it is easy to see that a lot of programs get delayed. The Russians
delivered hardware that mostly worked.
...
>>>>No argument from me on X-33. NASA dumped the very successful DC-X
program
for the more glamorous X-33. X programs are supposed to be risk-reducers,
but the failure of the X-33 program did not reduce risk (to put it
lightly!). They should have built a replacement for DC-X and continued
along that evolutionary path.>>>>
technologically easy for NASA and would have allowed them to compete with
the Russians for commercial launches. The development time table for such a
booster could be extremely rapid, within 2-3 years they would have a
working prototype. The Sea Dragon type launch vehicle seems particularly
attractive to me. No specialised materials are required, the pressure fed
engine technology is extremely simple and the lower stage is fully
re-usable. The concept does not require any launch facilities at all, just
a ship yard where it can be assembled and then towed out to the sea. The
expendable upper stage of the vehicle could be moulded out of fibre-glass
for pennies a pound. What's more, the concept could be scaled up to the
point where 100t to LEO (or greater) boosters are feasible.
I have to wonder whether or not NASA is heading towards another expensive
flop, with its SSTO program.
Tony
Learn how to use your computer and the internet to set up an online
business, from the comfort of your own home. Get full details here:
>
> No argument from me on X-33. NASA dumped the very successful DC-X
program
> for the more glamorous X-33. X programs are supposed to be risk-
reducers,
> but the failure of the X-33 program did not reduce risk (to put it
> lightly!). They should have built a replacement for DC-X and
continued
> along that evolutionary path.
Actually, X33 was the opposite, it was chosen because it took so
many risks. It was suppose to push the boundaries. This was bad. It
was a departure from everything done with rocketry from it's
inception to just before the STS. Build, test, tweek, test, build on
earier success, test, tweek, test, ect. I understand that
occasionally you have to start over from a fresh perspective, but X33
was ridiculous. I don't even recall their being discussions for
atmospheric drop test of scale models.
At least we got a working aerospike engine out of it.
(BTW, I will not get into the issue of SSTO being a silly idea in
the first place)
king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)