Russia investigates downsizing space station crew from three to two NASA has confirmed that the Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos is mulling whether or not to continue staffing the International Space Station with its usual complement of astronauts. Last week the Russian newspaper Izvestia quoted Sergei Krikalev, director of manned programs at Roscosmos, saying that the agency had …
allow Russia to auction off the place to space tourists.
How long do they spend on the ISS? I wonder if the trip would be up and back or if you have to stay the duration of entire "mission" (i.e. until the next ferry arrives to bring you down)? I can't see people who are able to afford the trip being able to spend extended periods (weeks or months) on the ISS.
Now if I can get a good internet (and phone) connection on the ISS...
They wouldn't spend long up there, the previous tourists typically stayed about a week though with all the training involved it was pretty much a full time job for about a year I recall reading.
That was possible when the permanent crew was lower and two incoming long term crew (+ tourist) could go up before a different long term pair (+ same tourist) returned a few days later. Now the crew is nominally 6 a crew of 3 leaves before the next goes up. Even if the crew dropped to 5 nominally up-before-down would mean 8 temporarily aboard. Russia must think this possible and within the capabilities of the ISS, will Nasa agree? There have been no tourist flights since the long duration crew increased to 6.
It would be sad if manned space ground to a halt because of $80m here, $80m there. Hopefully the private sector will be able to step in.
On the other hand I have become disillusioned with manned space travel. In the past it was appealing because there was a sense we were just around the corner from manned missions to Jupiter etc, but that's not going to happen. Over the next century the best we can hope for is a very expensive dome on the Moon that will be an even more tenuous money sink than the ISS.
Yes, there's the argument that no-one in 1916 could have predicted the great leaps in aeronautics and space travel that took place over the next fifty years. But jet propulsion, rockets, orbital mechanics, even atomic energy were *known* in 1916. The rest was a mass of expensive and often deadly finessing. I'm just not convinced that nanomachines and graphene and nuclear fusion - whenever that is ready - are going to provide us with the extra oomph to make manned space travel routine or economical. Perhaps we are stuck here after all.
I wouldn't be too glum. The news, which is generally written from the perspective of the great unwashed, doesn't give a good picture of what's really going on. For starters, while NASA's budget is "only" about $15 billion (that's bigger than Hollywood), the US military space program is something over $20 billion. And while all global government space programs together are about $70 billion, that's dwarfed by the money flowing through commercial space - about $250 billion. That's mostly the commsat market of course, but still.
Meanwhile, the growth of commercial and private space activity is beginning to look very encouraging. I've only really been following closely since 2011, but in that time this area has blossomed, with ever-increasing activity, quality, successes, and business. The launch cost structure defined by SpaceX is 1/2 of the old days, and is well on its way to dropping by another 1/3 to 1/2 if/when the reusable first stage becomes the norm. This is forcing ULA for example to completely restructure their company to compete with SpaceX.
The big thing about all this is that as costs to get into space ("LEO is 1/2 way to everywhere") are reduced, the potential launch market goes up geometrically. At 1/2 the cost the market is probably at least 4 times as large. This in turn will drive higher production volumes, reducing costs further and improving reliability and dependability in the process. We are transitioning from the hand-built Hupmobile to the factory-automated Model T.
In the meantime, the technology is advancing on all fronts. That is the less well known factor of the SpaceX success - they were able to build a 'clean sheet' design for everything, using the latest in rocket technology and materials. For instance the $5 million turbo pump was replaced with a $500,000 turbo pump built in-house. There are a dozen advanced ion propulsion systems, and even some work on exotic physics. There are IIRC two companies working on new nuclear thermal rockets. (A minor aside re nanotechnology - check out NanoRAM, which is presently in use in several USAF satellites.)
Not to go on too long, but all this is trending toward an impending explosion in all aspects of space.
I think I recall a story of a lighthouse keeper murdering the other keeper during their tour of duty as a result of personality conflicts, but anyway he was barking mad when the relief finally came. That's why after that Trinity House always had a crew of three keepers.
Makes you think...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
