Could VSE cancellation spell the end of "Humans Beyond LEO"?

[jimfromnsf]

"ergo commercial entity called Space Adventures put humans in LEO. "<br /><br />Way off base<br /><br />Space Adventures is no more than a ticket agent. They did not "put" anybody anywhere. They don't even get credit for getting people to Baikonur. The airlines do<br />

 

[pathfinder_01]

<br />“I was under the impression that the issue in question was: "If VSE is cancelled, what happens to humans beyond Low Earth Orbit." I beleive that if VSE is cancelled, government manned spaceflight will cease to exist, and if that happens, Space Adventures will no longer have a product to sell. (yes, I beleive that if the US quits manned spaceflight, so will Russia and China in short order.) â€<br /><br />I don’t think it is quite that bad. So long as Russia and China stay in space, the US will do the same. What I doubt is that the VSE will lead to moonbases. Not because exploring the moon is hard, but because I have never understood the appeal of only sending about two flights to the moon a year. Not enough flight rate I think.<br /><br />The problem with the VSE is that after Columbia, there was an argument that the US could commit more GDP to spaceflight than they did in the 60ies since the economy has grown since then. What the politicians heard was that by spending about the same money on NASA as we do today on we could go to the moon. That is a very big difference. Most of what I have seen seems to put the estimates for the moon at about twice the cost of a shuttle launch. <br /><br />VSE should be a cheaper, safer way to get into LEO but beyond that is iffy. <br /><br />

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>hence the government space program, in contract with Space Advetures, put the tourist into LEO.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Still wrong. Governments arent there to take contracts from private industry, and get paid for that ( and usually its the other way around )<br />In given case, a certain company called RSC Energia fulfilled the contractual obligation to Space Adventures. <br />Yes, infrastructure developed and built by governments was used in the process, but that is beside the point, as this happens with practically any transportation contract on earth.<br />

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>LM put more money into Atlas V than the US Gov't<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />RSC Energia has also put their own money into R7 line of rockets and Soyuz spaceships. Whether more or less than RSA is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[BReif]

No-way, I am sure you see and understand my point. I am not going to debate semantics with you. We both know that a contract is an agreement between two or more parties entailing rights, duties and obligations. There was an agreement with the Russian and American space agencies to let this happen since they respectively own the facilities (ISS, Baikonur, etc.). They got something out of this, even if it was just good PR. Granted, it is an interesting arrangement.<br /><br />You stated;" Yes, infrastructure developed and built by governments was used in the process, but that is beside the point." Since this is precisely the point from my point of view as well as others, I take this admission as a concession. And, one thing you left out, these governments OWN these facilities and vehicles, not Space Adventures, not the tourists. The space agencies made it happen by allowing/selling a seat on their own spacecraft.<br /><br />One more point that I feel the need to re-iterate, the governments are using the infrastructure, vehicles, station, etc., as well, or no tourist flight would have taken place. Ask yourself, "Is the tourist flight to ISS marketed by Space Adventures dependent upon the American and Russian governments, (their space agencies), or is the RSA and NASA and ISS dependent upon the tourist? If NASA and RSA withdrew their consent for this, what would Space Adventures do then? If Space Adventures purchases a complete Soyuz and launches it, even at Baikonur, with its own cosmonauts, well then its all them (even though it was developed and built by a government originally (now by a contractor ), they buy it they own it). But as it is, they are not buying it, the tourist is just buying a seat on-board an existing RSA/NASA mission, paid for by the US and Russian governments. $20 million doesn't cover the full cost of that flight, after all.

 

[jimfromnsf]

RSC Energia doesn't put any of "their" money into anything.<br /><br />1. R7 line of rockets and Soyuz spaceships are pay for by NASA and RSA and any other users of the Soyuz launch vehicles. Energia doesn't put money into them, they find users who will.<br /><br />2. RSC is partially owned by the russian gov't<br /> <br />3. The Russian Strategic Rocket Forces launch the Soyuz rocket.

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I don’t think it is quite that bad. So long as Russia and China stay in space, the US will do the same. What I doubt is that the VSE will lead to moonbases. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />If within the next few years the US scales back an all-out VSE program (ie no lunar landings/outposts), I reckon some kind of CEV architecture will still emerge next decade at least design-capable of lunar fly-bys and NEO missions. Russia (w/Europe), China and perhaps others will try and follow suit by developing vehicles with similar <i>"redundant/future-proof"</i> capability.<br /><br />IMO one thing I think is true, whatever one prominent nation does in space the others will try and match or better.<br /><br />So does that mean that the US, Russian, Chinese etc national manned space programs may be around for quite a while yet (eventually right alongside private manned spaceflight), if for no other *real* reasons but to compete for world dominance in LEO or beyond?

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>RSC Energia doesn't put any of "their" money into anything. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Thats wrong, RSC Energia is responsible for investing in plenty of advancements they did do Soyuz.<br />Other than that, you pretty much described how US defense&aerospace giants operate. Again, this would bring us to saying that launching people on Atlas wouldnt be commercial.<br /><br />Now the aspect of whose payload was primary on these launches, was invoked. Again, just because the primary payloads on some launches happen to be owned and paid by governments, does not automatically mean that secondary payloads werent commercial.<br /><br />The important distinction is: who paid whom with whose money. If its government spending tax dollars to do stuff, its government operation. If its companies and private individuals where cash changes hands, its commercial.<br /><br />You can argue the details til blue in the face and try to draw lines in sand, but the fact is that Space Adventures, a commercial entity, is responsible organization for putting these five tourists in LEO.

 

[jimfromnsf]

You chose to ignore that Energia is quasi russian gov't? <br /><br />They do nothing without outside money. They never touch their own funds went they know there is a user. The Soyuz carrier and capsule upgrades have be user funded. They haven't funded an improvement on their own <br /><br />More commercial money went into Atlas V than went into Soyuz. <br /><br />Energia does not operate like US defense&aerospace companies, it operates more like NASA.<br /><br />Space Adventures did not put anybody anywhere. Ticket agents don't get credit for delivering people. No more than a doorman gets for whistling a taxi for a patron.

 

[j05h]

<i>> You chose to ignore that Energia is quasi russian gov't? </i><br /><br />Not sure about no_way but it doesn't bother me. The fact is that Energia works with a private US company, Space Adventures, to provide commercial access to ISS. As long as the flights are available for cash, I don't care who offers them. The more people that can access LEO, the more opportunities will arise for getting Humans Beyond LEO. Space Adventures maybe be a middle-man in this, but they are providing a service that otherwise was extremely complex/impossible for individuals previously. They are also spearheading the Lunar fly-by project and presumably looking for other spaceflight products. <br /><br /><i>> Energia does not operate like US defense&aerospace companies, it operates more like NASA.</i><br /><br />That is an excellent point, but they also offer commercial services now. Energia is Korolev's organization, it embodied the Soviet quest for space. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[saurc]

Sounds pessimistic. How come this kind of thing didn't happen in the 60's and 70's?

 

[MeteorWayne]

It did. Our lunar landing program only lasted 3 years from 1969 to 1972, consisting of 6 flights. Then the money was cut, and the program went away. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

>> <i>... Meanwhile, the human talent working on it has moved on ...</i><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">How come this kind of thing didn't happen in the 60's and 70's?</font>/i><br /><br />I heard one pundit declare NASA's greatest tech-transfer into industry was the human talent it let go following Apollo. All those scientists and engineers who worked for NASA, worked as contractors to NASA, or were inspired to go into their field in hopes of working for the space program flooded into the private sector.</i>