NASA Needs To Go To Priceline.com

Finance Falcon 9 for human flight right now - today! We do not need an emergency escape system from the get go - most of the shuttle flights lacked one. We simply are not serious about human space flight if we are not willing to do this. I do not disagree about our negotiating "skills," but Falcon 9 is the quickest most real answer.

As for ISS, if after all this and six crew members it can only do 35 hours of research a week and no research which was used to justify the ISS, then you can deorbit it in 2012 for all I care. Keith has already documented the procrastination which allowed earth science to proceed ahead of ISS science.

While I agree with Oberg’s premise that a better deal can, in theory, be negotiated with Russia, and should be if at all possible, it all hangs on whether the Russians have any interest in negotiating, or in the ISS.

What does the ISS actually offer the Russians at this juncture?  With the Soyuz as the only ride, they’ve "made their point";  they can consider themselves to have won the game, so the ISS (and international cooperation there) are possibly of less and less interest to them.  They’re making every dollar (not ruble) that they can, while they can.  If pressed to negotiate price, they may just raise the price, to make another "point" while they can.

They learned a lot about long-duration missions on Mir and then on ISS that they don’t need to repeat any more, and they seem to be much less interested in non-human experimentation in space than others, so what, if anything, does the ISS offer them in the future, aside from other countries’ money?

  Always make sure you know the other guy’s motivations before you attempt to negotiate.

Steve

What does the ISS actually offer the Russians at this juncture?
Excellent question Steve.

Russians spend most of their time playing oppositional to the US, as a means to gain maximal advantage in "leverage".

Its a historical thing. The gain they get from it is being seen as a like superpower ... even though they cannot spend like before to even fake it.

That is the true advantage they get out of it. We could list their half-reasonable issues (too low an inclination - 64 degrees would cover all of Russia instead of 52, even though past Russian stations were at 52...)

Which is why dealing with ESA is better for the US, because the issue is similar to the ESA Russia case. Then, if you have short term projects with Russia, then they end up outfoxing themselves in the chess game, and have to back down in order to get the return before the game ends.

The key issue is not to have open-ended involvements with Russia. The Chinese know this cold.

-nooneofconsequence.

"We do not need an emergency escape system from the get go - most of the shuttle flights lacked one"

The shuttle had quite a bit more money spent on analysis and testing before that first flight than I suspect SpaceX is planning on spending.

-We do not need an emergency escape system from the get go - most of the shuttle flights lacked one.

-The shuttle had quite a bit more money spent on analysis and testing before that first flight than I suspect SpaceX is planning on spending.

Absolutely true. Space X makes no secret of its use of NASA information from their analysis and testing. And I have to ask what was the effect on reliability, safety, and price of all that NASA analysis and testing. Right now the Falcon program is the fastest way to get back in the game. Certainly there are other options further down the road, but for now our top priority should be to get back in the game rather than negotiating with Russia.

We can't afford a human spaceflight program right now.
We have to focus on realistic unmanned missions.

And we'll call Mr. Musk if we have a need to launch any cheese.

How can any writer say that the Soyuz came in nose first?The article reference does not say that.Does he think a ballistic entry is nose first?It is just not angled up,which gives a longer time to deaccelerate,giving less g's.Or no control whatever and a capsule automatically assumes the correct angle,but will have higher g,s.Nice safety feature actually.But look at the Genesis video.It is flopping all over and lands on its edge.Too flat maybe?
The law now says that SpaceX only has to get a liability waver from the crew now and a launch permit.They could launch someone from the cape as cargo.FAA and USAF are not allowed to check to see if conditions are right for humans.In '12 FAA will be allowed to set rules,but Congress is talking about extending the ban.They want someone to actually fly someone before any rules.Then they will know what the rules should be.They said.SpaceShip 1 and 2 had no rules.No ejection seats or ballistic parachutes ,I think.Crazy that anyone would fly in something like if it was a private plane.Even some private planes today have ballistic parachutes.

Let's face it, we built a building with only two keys for access. Our key has been destroyed, no hope of using it again. NASA can't manufacture a new one within the projected life of the building. You can claim we own the building but only in the sense that we possess the means to destroy it or render it useless. These are not cards that we can actually play.

I'm hoping Russia gets creative and borrows Bigelow's model for space tourism. If they can crack the market it will give commercial space a far larger boost than NASA can provide. History might possibly record that as the largest contribution of ISS to space flight.

after dragon has done a few missions to iss we could bolt a few seats in there send people to iss without an escape system. A 3 or 4 flight tested dragon is much safer than shuttle ever was. It is silly to not fly at all while we wait for an iss taxi that's 100 times safer than shuttle.

Are you serious? How many times did the Soyuz T fly successfully before a launch abort system saved the crew with 2 seconds to spare?

Well if the Russians decide to assert ownership of the ISS, we'll just have to go up there and tell them they can't have it.

Oh wait...