Astronaut Careers May Stall Without the Shuttle 142
Hugh Pickens writes "NPR reports that former shuttle commander Chris Ferguson now moonlights as a drummer for MAX Q, a classic rock band comprised solely of astronauts. 'Perhaps we'll have some more time to practice here once the shuttle program comes to a slow end,' says Ferguson, raising the question — what does the future hold for NASA's elite astronaut corps after the agency mothballs its aging space shuttles in the coming months? NASA currently has about 80 active astronauts, as well as nine new astronaut candidates hired last year. But there will be fewer missions after the shuttle program ends, and those will be long-duration stays at the space station. When the Apollo program ended, astronauts had to wait years before the space shuttles were ready to fly, but the situation was different back then. Space historian Roger Launius says, 'Even before the end of the Apollo program, NASA had an approved, follow-on program — the space shuttle — and a firm schedule for getting it completed.' These days, no one knows what NASA will be doing next. Meanwhile, private companies are moving forward with their efforts, raising the possibility of astronauts for hire. NASA administrator and former astronaut Charlie Bolden talked about that prospect earlier this year, saying it would be a different approach for NASA to rent not just the space vehicle, but also a private crew of astronauts to go with it. 'When we talk about going to distant places like Mars, the moon, [or] an asteroid, we will not be able to take someone off the street, train them for a few weeks and expect them to go off and do the types of missions we will demand of them,' said Bolden."
Re:Obama policies lead to higher unemployment! (Score:3, Insightful)
Migrate to a country with a manned space program (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obama policies lead to higher unemployment! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not obviously true that reusability is the best way. Reusability increases the launcher complexity and weight, hence design costs and launcher costs. You produce less launchers, so gain less from mass production. You can produce fewer launchers, but you need to pay for recovery and turnaround.
It may still turn out to be the best way, as SpaceX are trying to prove, but it isn't obvious.
Re:I expect the number of astronauts to go up (Score:3, Insightful)
They spend much more of their budget on unmanned missions these days, and I think have gotten much more of a scientific return on that than the Apollo program did. I'd say the value being extracted with 50% of the budget is at least 1000% of the Apollo era, which did relatively little science, and lots of photo ops and Cold-War posturing.
These days, NASA does things like operate a space telescope, send a rover to Mars, send a probe to Europa, operate dozens of scientific satellites, etc.
Re:Obama policies lead to higher unemployment! (Score:2, Insightful)
But the shuttle proved that a reusable launch vehicle was impractical for equipment launches. Getting things down from orbit is very expensive, so reducing costs requires that you allow anything you don't need to burn up. There's nothing so expensive that it's worth preserving through atmospheric re-entry.
The only case where that's not true is people, but we never send up enough people that a re-entry vehicle the size of the shuttle is justified.
Re:I expect the number of astronauts to go up (Score:2, Insightful)
But, for some reason, having international partners on the critical path of an international mission is just too ego shaking for NASA.
It's not an issue of ego, it's one of reliability. The US and Russia aren't exactly the best of friends; Russian aftermarket/product support is, well, less than notable; and the incorporation of Russia into the current ISS program was less a matter of needing them there than an effort to essentially bribe their rocket engineers and keep them busy on civil applications instead of military ones. I'd be extremely reluctant to put anyone outside of my own group on the critical path to one of my projects unless I absolutely had to. I wouldn't even consider a Russian company, frankly. Oh, and go ask the Indians how their Russian-built carrier is coming along.
Also, consider the wider economic picture. Do you want to send money outside your country to a potentially-unreliable partner and completely depend on them, or would you rather invest a little more in your own country and retain that technical knowledge yourself, helping out your own citizens and enabling yourself to build on that platform rather than giving it up to someone else?
Re:I expect the number of astronauts to go up (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because the US treats Russia like a "little brother" and doesn't ask them to seriously contribute in any way that matters. Russia responds by saying "this isn't a partnership, you pay."