{Russian and European politicians have little incentive to fly supplies with American COTS ventures no matter how long ISS orbits.}

John,

Not sure what point you are making. Russian and Europe look at COTS, and NASA’s desire for ISS cargo delivery, purely from an industrial/commercial perspective. Their incentive is that NASA pays them for delivering a service.

Right now NASA is buying COTS-like services from Russia. NASA is paying Russia for crew transfer services (Soyuz), and possibly cargo delivery services (Progress). NASA is paying for these services out of their “ISS crew and cargo services” program.

Russia needs no other incentive.

Meanwhile, the Europeans have:

1) Offered NASA a similar deal for cargo delivery on the ATV, and

2) Partnered with one or more of the US big guys, during COTS, in offer(s) to deliver ISS cargo via an ATV on an EELV.

– Al

If you look at the budget of New Zealand, the revenues are $38.29 while the fixed expenditures are $36.12 billion. That is a difference of $2.17 billion, which in in American dollars (if converted presentl) equals to $1.38 billion.

Are you are meaning to tell me that New Zealand can feasibly afford to spend half (!) of its elastic income for an astronaut program? You are full of shit. Perhaps you should look at some statistics before you spout off at the mouth. You are a liar.

— Greg

That’s an interesting question in the space tourism arena. I have no idea how much Space Adventures paid to get into the game, but my impression is that it wasn’t a lot, as space investments go. They found a very smart way to exploit government-developed capabilities, and one government’s desperate need for cash, to exploit an existing niche. Since tourists probably pay most or all of the cost of supplying their otherwise empty seats, in theory it’s even possible to claim that this is not a subsidized business.

For commercial space to happen soon, this is exactly the sort of game that others need to play. (The only comparable example I can think of today is the company proposing to use excess Ariane capacity to launch space tugs to allow commercial comsats to continue operating after their fuel is gone.) I would look to Space Station logistics for future opportunities. What surplus and currently unused government capacity can be used to supply some critical need for the Space Station?

One thought: right now, the Space Station’s water is supplied by the Space Shuttle’s power supply. Soon, that source may no longer be around. Is there some other way to supply water and oxygen to the Space Station using surplus capacity on spacecraft going there anyway? One possibility: rocket stages are rarely burned to depletion. What happens to the oxygen left in the stages that deliver cargo spacecraft to the Space Station, or on the cargo craft themselves? Is there any way to decompose left over storable oxidizer (I doubt it, but it’s worth a thought)? For another possibility, think about ballast. . . .

Another thought: what’s going to happen to the CEV’s (and Kistler’s and the Dragon’s) solar arrays (if they have them) after they leave the Space Station? Could they be detatched from their respective vehicles and assembled into new power supplies at the Space Station, or possibly for later use on the moon . . . or even on other spacecraft?

Sure, these are tiny steps, but these are the sorts of things that, over time, can grow into enormous businesses.

— Donald

Definitely. I’m the last to underestimate the psychological importance of Tito and SS1 and Virgin Galactic. But to project potential growth, you have to go beyond market research and ask: what does it cost to get into the game? And when you do, how long does it take to get into the black?

In the early 1920s one could buy a Fokker FII or Handley Page O/400 for low seven figures in 2006 dollars (or buy and convert a WWI Vimy bomber for high six figures), and start flying 4-8 people between Berlin and Munich or London and Paris. Lufthansa and Imperial Airways and KLM were going concerns very quickly.

It’s a richer world now, in both relative and absolute terms — but it’s going to take a lot of SS2 barnstorming, and a lot of ISS and Bigelow Hilton traffic beyond that, to drive down to that level in real costs, and up to that level in ROI.

Tourist flights are just starting to pay for some of the Space Station’s bills. So far, it’s a tiny, tiny amount, mostly subsidizing (wrong word, but I can’t think of another) Soyuz crew exchange flights. However, over time, that percentage will grow as people find other commercial uses for a base in LEO and more logistics and operations costs are handed off to commercial entities of one form or another. Some day, probably decades in the future, we’ll wake up one day and find that, while governments are still using and supporting whatever the station has become, they are no longer the primary users.

That is my prediction. I hope I live long enough to find out.

— Donald

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/SURVEY.xml

During the past 10 years, Aviation Week & Space Technology has conducted an annual overview of the Aerospace and Defense (A&D) job market–the skills most in demand, compensation compared with other technological industries and what attracts talented men and women.

Over that decade, the workforce has shrunk and then rebounded to more than 600,000 employees, according to the Aerospace Industries Assn. (AIA). Now, the mystifying question ( mystifying to whom, Sherlock? ) is whether the industry faces a looming talent crisis.

A vocal group of A&D leaders warns that the industry confronts a dip in engineering, mathematics and science talent; and that the U.S. is losing its innovation edge. Their concern is on three levels–an aging workforce, a shortage of professionals in the 38-52 age group and the resulting stress of youthful professionals accepting workloads that may exceed their experience.

…

Gosh, what a mysterious mystery: why oh why is there currently a shortage of aerospace professionals in the 38-52 age group?

I prefer to ask not if any country WILL have an astronaut program, but whether any country CAN have a national astronaut program over the next ten years.

If you can buy a Bigelow module for $250m, plus two cargo flights and three manned flights each year from Elon for $70m each, even New Zealand could afford to have a space program.

But let’s think outside the box and ask if ANY country will have a national astronaut program (for any reason except inertia) in about ten years?

We can (as some of the other writers have pointed out) expect the Station to continue orbitting. We can continue to see the commercial organizations continue to innovate – such as Virgin Galactic.

Given a few years (conservatively estimate ten) they can develop a launch vehicle with sufficient energy to dock with the Station. These vehicles should be able to beat the venerable Soyuz booster since it is long in the tooth and inefficient. They can beat the heavily subsidized Ariane.

What happens when there are more opportunities to fly with a commercial vehicle and more tourists then scientists then entrepreneurs have flown than have national (test pilot, etc) astronauts?

Will the number of Canadians that have flown increase faster due to them paying to fly rather than being paid to fly?

Who knows what will happen – given a few more breakthroughs? But who would have thought that a MicroSoft billionaire would have teamed with Burt Rutan to show us that it can be done in a new way?