Senate Clears NASA to Buy Russian Spaceships

Space.com ^ | 21 September 2005 | Brian Berger

[Gekko The Great]

You are much too cynical. Bill Gates has spent billions on a cure for malaria. Where is the payoff?

Gates might be doing that, but the goal is likely not a business-oriented one. He probably has other things in mind, a tax dodge, notoriety, whatever. We all know where Gates makes his money, in a business sense. He pushes product out the door and probably most of us here now reading these posts are using his company's products. That's his business, not curing malaria. If he didn't have the software business he wouldn't even be thinking about spending money on malaria.

The jerks who are only interested in the bottom line get all the press but there are a lot of private foundations who spend a lot of money on worthwhile but non-profit endeavors.

I have a feeling you're talking about a different color of an animal from what other posters have mentioned when you talk about non-profit foundations vs. "private business". Non-profit foundations have their place and do some good work, but not on the scale of this undertaking. We're talking about mobilizing resources on a national level to get a job done. That is a considerable scale-up from the activities of most private foundations.

Look, I think it is just unrealistic to assume that an effort of this scope, with a long-term benefit that probably cannot even be quantified at this point in time, is going to appeal to businesses in this country that practice the short-term, what's-the-bottom-line, quick buck payoff model currently in vogue. Look at what's going on out there. Our industrial infrastructure is being sold out for a quick buck, the remainder is falling apart because of neglect (companies don't want to take risks building anything), R&D being done in this country is a shadow of it's former self, and high-tech jobs are being offshored to the lowest-cost common denominator, all to save a few pennies on the bottom line and make the financial statements look good. With that viewpoint, what company is going to want to take on a job that has a long-term payoff, one that is decades down the road? I just don't think it's going to happen given the way business is done in this country today.

[TalonDJ]

They do that already. They're called "contractors".

Yes but it is done under the direct (mostly) control of the NASA bureaucracy. One of the guys I work with use to do that stuff with the branch of our company that does that in Huston. The way NASA subs stuff out to contractors and the way the will be 'buying' a space mission from Russian are two very different things. The difference is pay for odd jobs done on a ship or pay for the whole mission being complete. With the later the company can try to find ways to innovate and save money. With the former it is more like corporate welfare. The get their money by doing to same old same old and have zero incentive to do things better/faster/cheaper. I am talking specifically about the companies the support shuttle launches which is where most of NASA's money is going these days.

[chimera]

They're still contracting to NASA, whether it is to build pieces of an overall project, or a turnkey system. We're talking about buying Soyuz vehicles from the Russkies. Same deal with North American when they supplied the Apollo CSM package. Contractors still do most of the work. That's the way a lot of government work is. The agency manages the projects, and contractors do the work.

But government agencies get their marching orders from political leaders. Right now NASA is greatly prone to inefficiencies born of conflicting political agendas and lack of will. There is no overarching geopolitical imperative like there was in the Apollo era. Sputnik was a huge wakeup call for those of us who were around during that time. We literally feared for our lives.

That might happen again. It could, if we have the spectacle of Chinese astronauts on the lunar surface, maybe with the intention of setting up a base there, for, maybe, weapons basing, or research? Then you'll see the pols get off their duffs and get serious about going back. Then again, maybe not...

[Dan Evans]

Our industrial infrastructure is being sold out for a quick buck, the remainder is falling apart because of neglect (companies don't want to take risks building anything), R&D being done in this country is a shadow of it's former self...

Yes, I would suggest that we first discover why these things are happening and address these problems before we waste more money on space projects. Sending taxpayer money to Russia is not going to help, it will only make things worse.

I think all of the issues you raise are pathologies that were created by liberal, big-government thinking. NASA is just another wart on this monster. If we cut government down to half the size it will free up trillions of dollars.

And we somehow get our technical infrastructure back to where it should be, there will be plenty of expertise and private sector cash to fund space exploration without having to employ rocket scientists in totalitarian countries. Even today private foundation funding eclipses NASA's budget severalfold. Private contributions for tsunami relief alone was in the billions.

[Dan Evans]

"The private sector" (everyone bow and genuflect) still does the work.

The good news is that if get rid of NASA we still have all those private-sector companies that can be employed for space research.

[Dan Evans]

The space shuttle is one of the few projects that NASA has done where NASA is prime contractor. As you say, it works better when they don't do that.

[chimera]

The good news is that if get rid of NASA we still have all those private-sector companies that can be employed for space research.

They'll still be around in some form, but they won't be doing space research. They're in it now because they can make money from doing work for NASA, which has long-term goals in mind, some perhaps even not related to profit-making.

That's the point others on this thread have been making. The impetus is lacking in the private sector. They're going to do whatever makes them the fastest buck. And that probably isn't space research. There are those who will cheer that on and say, good, if there is not money to be made, we shouldn't do it, money is God and that's all that counts. But they won't feel that way if there are Chinese moon bases up there with weapons pointed at us, or getting ready to jump off to Mars, or explore the asteroid belt for useful things, or go on to the stars...

[andyk]

"If the ride is mo fly, then they must buy"

LMAO!

[Gekko The Great]

Yes, I would suggest that we first discover why these things are happening and address these problems before we waste more money on space projects.

No need to expend much effort on that. You know why it is happening as well as I do. It is because it makes the companies doing those things (selling out) the most money in the least amount of time, avoids risk, and generates relatively large financial rewards for a relatively small number of people (who are in charge of the sell-out to begin with).

Trouble is, that process is self-limiting. After you've sold out the last infrastructure to foreign bidders and offshored the last US job to cheaper labor markets, then what do you do? You're left with an empty shell that soon collapses for lack of a reason to exist. So then those who have robbed the place have to take off for the hills before those they sold out come get them and drag them off to a necktie party.

"Private industry" that sacred mantra of uber capitalists everywhere (like me), is in the process of eating it's seed corn, and, eventually, eating itself alive. There is no investment in long-term, risky ventures, simply because the business model practiced today says, don't do that, it doesn't have a fast enough payoff. There have been no new oil refineries built in this country since the 1970s because the industry doesn't want to take the risk of never having those operate, and it taking too long for a return on investment. Better to keep the old stuff running and hope for the best, which is fine until demand exceeds supply and/or a hurricane comes along and knocks out a good portion of your production (sound familiar?). Investing money in people and things is a long-term deal, and business today seems to look as far out as the next quarterly profit statement, no further.

[TalonDJ]

Yes but with Soyez they (NASA) Does not have the final say in all the details and in how the vehicle is built and maintained. The prime contractor (Energia?) gets a lot of freedom there and hence the costs will be much lower. That is what I hope catches on with NASA contracts to American companies.

[chimera]

Contracts will likely be let on a fixed-cost basis. NASA probably won't "save" anything. But the contractor will be driven to cut as many corners as possible to maximize profit, especially if there is limited oversight by the customer (NASA), as you say. That happened once before (Apollo 1) and you know what the result of that was back in January 1967. I remember it vividly. Bottom line, I don't think I'd want to ride in one.

[TalonDJ]

Unleashing the power of engineers and companies to focus on cost savings I see as the more key thing to jump starting the viability of the manned space effort. I don't car if the price tag stays the same if the profit margin increases.

[chimera]

The effort will collapse if we start losing crews because of shoddy workmanship resulting from cutting corners. Cheap isn't always better. It's the kind of work where you can't afford sloppiness. Look at what the recent losses have cost in terms of time. Risk-adverse business models will induce the "private sector" to shy away from pursuing such work.

You are probably too young to remember the Apollo 1 fire. There was serious talk about canceling the whole program at that point, we just weren't up to the job of going to the moon, we didn't have the intestinal fortitude to suck it up after that tragedy. But we did, in large part because of renewed insistence on good engineering and attention to detail, not maximizing profits and doing things on the cheap.

[repentant_pundit]

Better to trade energy futures and speculate in real estate

I not only mentioned investors, I also mentioned private funding. Wealthy liberal "philanthropists" throw their private money at all kinds of things that make them feel good, whether or not those things benefit them financially. Witness Ted Turner giving $1 Billion to the U.N., for example.

So why wouldn't some well-heeled science buffs like Paul Allen, or space cadets in the mold of Timothy Leary, simply donate to further the cause of space travel ? Even if there's no personal return on investment, and they don't get to ride on the spaceship, they get a thrill and an ego boost out of the process.

Kinda like sports fans paying outrageous prices to see their team (oops, there goes that Entertainment angle again)

.

[RussianJew]

It's sad that they are doing away with Hubble. I hate to see it go.

Guys, You have to stop them. I think, The Hubble project is not the American project any more. It's the earth's project like first spaceman, first moon landing, MIR, ISS, first Shuttle flight. In 1999 Russians decided to get MIR from the orbit. For many people it was like to kill the dream. Don't do the same mistake. I hope you will find the necessary means to keep the Hubble up there.

[Dan Evans]

I think the reasons our industrial infrastructure is decaying are rooted in big government. Too many demands from government, too many potential hazards from tort lawyers, too many environmental restrictions, too many class-action suits, too many demands and restrictions on hiring and firing women, minorities and homosexuals.

It is so much easier to do business overseas it is a wonder we still do any manufacturing in this country.

The problem feeds on itself. As US industry shrinks, there is less fodder for the lawyers and so they get leaner, meaner, and are even more aggressive towards the remaining victims. In such a hostile environment, is it any wonder that corporations think short-term?

[Iris7]

"Our industrial infrastructure is being sold out for a quick buck, the remainder is falling apart because of neglect (companies don't want to take risks building anything), R&D being done in this country is a shadow of it's former self, and high-tech jobs are being offshored to the lowest-cost common denominator, all to save a few pennies on the bottom line and make the financial statements look good. With that viewpoint, what company is going to want to take on a job that has a long-term payoff, one that is decades down the road? I just don't think it's going to happen given the way business is done in this country today."

May I offer that my personal bitter experience exactly confirms your statement.

[RusIvan]

Oddly, some Russians are assisting the Moslems to develop the nuke. ==

No one helps to develop them a nuke.
All Russia does is just CIVILIAN nuclier reactor for electricity plant from which all burnt fuel will be taken away to Russia for reprocessing. Iran don't have and won't get from Russia no technology for enrichment! (the technology all fuss about).
If you got educated to know a difference you wouldn't say nonsense about nuke development.

[RusIvan]

There is no investment in long-term, risky ventures, simply because the business model practiced today says, don't do that, it doesn't have a fast enough payoff. ==

It is true. But all socialists of the world critisize "private industry" same way. What then to do?

It seems so that the goverment adgencies has to do long-term investments in technologies (thermonuclier reactor for example) and do fundamental science (another thing needed but never done by "private industry").
SO no way to get rid of NASA, goverment laboratories, funding the university researches and so on.
All of those are long-term and no profit in near future.

How "private industry" can do those I cann't imagine?

[Iris7]

Apollo 13 was caused by a series of administrative errors done by NASA. Had to do with three specification changes on the command module oxygen supply tank heater control relay.

This is also NASA's opinion as to cause.

NASA site

Gus Grissom, when asked about flying the Apollo, replied "Well,you think about the fact that you are at the top of 6 million parts, all made by the lowest bidder!"

Just pointing out that heavy management controls by NASA have not been uniformly effective.

IMHO the Shuttle is an absolutely horrible design, almost beyond belief.

So why not use Energia machines, safer, cheaper, simpler. Good designs.

Pratt & Whitney is building engines in partnership with Energomash.

Pratt and Whitney site