update: outsourcing NASA's manned space program to Russia

Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 4:12 AM

<<<<< JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER No. 2020 -- 5/27/2009 >>>>>

In a recent newsletter (#2018) I described how NASA is outsourcing its entire
manned space program to Russia. It's an outsourcing deal that makes very
little sense considering that it can't even be argued doing this saves money
because in the long run it's more expensive. There are plenty of disadvantages
to the outsourcing -- here are just a few:

* We will lose many good paying jobs to the Russians.

* We will lose our independence to be able to manage manned space missions
-- especially to the International Space Station (ISS). Lots of things could
happen once the Russians have a monopoly on space. What would happen if the
Russians had problems that forced a grounding of their rocket, or if they
decided to use their monopoly to charge more or to gain political concessions?
Use your imagination to think about the bad things that could happen.

* Our money will be used to support Russia's space technology infrastructure.
While we mothball significant chunks of our own the Russians will build
theirs. They are still working on their own version of the Space Shuttle
called the Buran which will receive a huge cash infusion thanks to our
shortsighted polices. Use the link below to see a picture of the Buran and you
will see how similar it looks to the Space Shuttle. Next thing you know we
will sell them a decommissioned shuttle so that they can just copy it.

* We will lose more technology and expertise to Russia and other competitors.

There are many other reasons to not do this, but let's concentrate on the
financial part since more advocates of outsourcing usually justify themselves
on the basis of cost.

Typically one mission to the ISS using the Space Shuttle is manned by 6
astronauts and a maximum of a 50,000 lb cargo load. In order to compare apples
with apples, the following calculations compare what it would cost to do a
roughly equivalent job by the Russians.

The Russian Soyuz space capsule can take a maximum of 3 people to the ISS with
a minimal cargo load. The Soyuz is about as good as the Apollo that we sent to
the moon, but Soyuz has much less payload capability. You can bet that most
missions will be manned with at least one cosmonaut, so only 2 astronauts will
fly up at a time. That means 3 Soyuz missions will be necessary at a cost of
$51 million x 6 = $306 million.

Getting the astronauts up to the ISS is just part of the problem because for
an equivalent mission we need to add the cost of cargo. The Russians can fly
unmanned cargo missions using the Progress rocket, which can haul 5,000 lbs
into near Earth orbit -- WHICH IS ONE TENTH THE CAPABILITY OF THE SPACE
SHUTTLE!

The Saturn V rocket in comparison could carry a Space Shuttle sized cargo all
the way to the moon. It would take about 20 Progress rockets to carry the same
cargo as a single Saturn V into low Earth orbit!

Fortunately the Russians can produce lots of Progress rockets because it looks
like we are going to need them. LOL!

It's difficult to make a true apples-to-apples comparison because the Progress
isn't capable of carrying the big bulky loads that the shuttle can handle.
Doing a mission like the Hubble telescope won't be feasible.

For the following study I will look at the total pounds of cargo instead of
the size. In order to haul 50,000 lbs of cargo into space the Russians would
need to launch 10 Progress rockets. The Russians charge about $50 million for
one of these launches, so total cost would be $50 million x 10 = $500 million,
assuming that all 10 of the launches are successful. The Russian Progress has
a very good track record but insurance will be needed, and I have no way of
knowing how to calculate that. I also didn't include the cost to do spacewalks
or other procedures in order to build all of the components into a larger
assemblies which of course the shuttle could haul in a single trip.

So, to do an equivalent Space Shuttle mission to the ISS the U.S. will have to
pay Russia about $800 million. Conservative estimates of the cost of launching
a space shuttle is about $300 million a flight, so the U.S. ends up one half
billion dollars in the hole every time it does an equivalent mission. That
money will go into Russian coffers and will be counted towards the U.S. trade
deficit.

NASA doesn't have to hire Russia to launch cargo however -- it could pay the
Chinese, or Indians, or perhaps Europe who have a capable Ariane rocket. Soon
maybe even the North Koreans could be hired. The problem is that all of their
payload capacities and costs are very close to the Russians, so we won't gain
anything by groveling to other nations if we decided not deal with the
Russians for cargo.

The $300 million per launch of the shuttle isn't the only cost however -- NASA
estimates it would cost another $2.5 billion to maintain the Shuttle program.
At $800 million a pop it wouldn't take too long to make up the cost of
outsourcing and we would keep our manned space program.

It should be mentioned that NASA is trying to keep the cargo hauling part of
the job in the USA. It has paid $3.5 billion for two U.S. companies called
Orbital and SpaceX to figure out how to make a rocket as good as the Russian
Progress. So far the companies have failed to deliver, so NASA may have to
crawl back to the Russians. Ironically the research funding to these two
companies has already cost more than a $1 billion more than it would have cost
to just keep the Space Shuttle flying.

In conclusion the U.S. would save gobs of cash by keeping the program in the
U.S. The standard economic argument for offshoring cannot justify our dubious
deal with the Russians.

Compared to the $750 billion that will be spent for the Stimulus bill, and
$1 trillion for the bank bailout, it seems downright insane to allow the Space
Shuttle program to die because of the initial $2.5 billion price tag.
Would somebody in our government please come down to Earth and make the
rational decisions necessary to save our space shuttle until a viable
alternative is in place?

REFERENCES:

http://www.solarnavigator.net/aviation_and_space_travel/space_shuttle.htm
NASA's Space Shuttle

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/042moneywasted.html
The INCREDIBLE WASTE of NASA's money
NOTE: This guy seems like a nut because his writing skills aren't very good,
but he knows what he is talking about. Read carefully until you dismiss him.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13441.msg290262#msg290262

Current year cost for Soyuz launches

http://chapters.marssociety.org/canada/winnipeg/files/lv.html
Launch Vehicles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
Saturn V

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/buran.html
Buran space shuttle

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6434021.html

Former astronauts urge space funding
By TIM TALLEY Associated Press Writer ) 2009 The Associated Press May 20,
2009, 6:28PM

OKLAHOMA CITY Former astronauts and NASA administrators said Wednesday the
space shuttle mission to repair and upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope is a
good example of why the nation needs a viable, well-funded space program.

"The Hubble Space Telescope wouldn't be in the shape it's in if it wasn't for
them," George Abbey, a former director of the Johnson Space Center in Houston,
said of the mission by the crew of the space shuttle Atlantis to make the 19-
year-old observatory more powerful than ever.

"It's a great example of why you have men in space and the value of men in
space," Abbey said.

Abbey and other former NASA officials discussed funding issues and the
uncertain direction of the U.S. space program during a ceremony at the
Oklahoma History Center to observe the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 10
mission, for which Oklahoma native Thomas Stafford served as commander.

Stafford, who also flew on two earlier Gemini missions and commanded a second
Apollo mission in 1975, said the future of the space program will depend
largely on what kind of support it receives from the Obama administration.

Former astronaut Fred Haise, the lunar module pilot on the aborted Apollo
13 mission, said funding is vital if the space program is to repeat the
successes of the 1960s that ended with a series of manned missions to the
moon.

"You're not going very far if you don't have enough," Haise said.

Former astronaut Walter Cunningham, the lunar module pilot on Apollo 7, said
administrators and budget writers should stop citing risk factors in space
flight when deciding which NASA programs to fund and how much they receive.

"Space is never going to be cheap. And it's never going to be safe,"
Cunningham said. "Sometimes that's the price you pay for progress."

The former NASA officials said the nation's manned space flight program has
produced technological breakthroughs that were inconceivable when NASA began
planning for moon missions in the early 1960s.

"This telephone I have on my belt is probably more powerful than the computers
we had," retired astronaut Richard Gordon, who flew on Gemini and Apollo
missions, said as he held up his cell phone. "The technology has increased in
leaps and bounds."

But the nation's shuttle fleet is scheduled to be retired next year and the
next generation of space vehicle is not scheduled for deployment until 2015.

Abbey and others said they oppose retiring the shuttle.

"I don't think that's in the best interest of the country to retire the
shuttle," Abbey said. Parking the shuttle fleet would mean NASA would have to
rely on the Russians for space travel.

"It's taking capability away from the country. We're losing a leadership
role," he said. "You want to maintain a dual capability."

Cunningham said he also disagrees with retiring the shuttle fleet and doubted
whether NASA can meet its deadline to have a new space capsule flying by 2015.

The space shuttle is the safest manned spacecraft the nation has ever produced
and each was designed for 100 missions, Cunningham said. But Atlantis is on
its 30th mission and space shuttle Endeavor has flown only 22, according to
NASA's Web site.

"I don't know where the space program is going and I don't know that anyone
does," he said.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Newsletter Homepage:
http://www.JobDestruction.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm

Support this Newsletter and www.JobDestruction.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm

To Be removed from this mailing list, reply to this email with UNSUbSCRIBE in
the subject window

Back to archives