|
Author
|
Topic: Congress underfunding commercial crew program
|
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 08-26-2015 07:08 AM
   
Just read interesting post from Phil Plait on his Bad Astronomy blog regarding the US manned space program, and specifically the underfunding of the Commercial Crew Development program by Congress by around $1 billion over the last 5 years, whilst simultaneously paying the Russians nearly $500 million a year to fly American astronauts to the ISS.You can read the blog entry here. Please read the whole article before commenting as he explains in detail his point of view, and his related opinions on SLS, Orion etc. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-26-2015 09:28 AM
It should be noted that Phil's citation of Mika McKinnon's io9 article is misleading, as McKinnon compared apples with apples and oranges by citing a "per seat" cost for the Soyuz that also includes training on the Russian segment of the ISS and cargo allocations. NASA combined several contracts with Roscosmos into one that resulted in the misinterpreted per seat cost.Cost savings is not really not the strongest argument for adopting U.S. commercial crew vehicles; rather it the investment in U.S. companies and the future of a robust commercial presence in low Earth orbit. |
onesmallstep
Member Posts: 1310
From: Staten Island, New York USA
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 08-26-2015 10:04 AM
Add to the incentives for Commercial Crew: no Russian language and height requirements!  |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-26-2015 10:40 AM
Of course, all astronauts flying to the space station, regardless of the vehicle they take to get there, are required to learn Russian.And I believe there are still height requirements for the Dragon and CST-100; they are just more allowing than Soyuz. |
advertisement