Canadian astronauts could take commercial flight to space station

[Jeff Lerner]

"...CSA president Steve MacLean says he's impressed by what SpaceX accomplished...."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/canadian-astronauts-could-take-commercial-flight-to-space-station/article1850404/

[scienceguy]

Yaay! Canada participating in space!

[simonbp]

Canada and Japan would seem to be the best-poised to take advantage of the US commercial crew options, as they already have well-trained astronaut corps, but no potential for domestic crewed spacecraft. In the longer run, Brazil, Australia, Korea, and even the UK could also take advantage of US commercial flights, likely to rented space on a Bigelow station.

In other words, if US commercial crew and Bigelow's stations succeed, the US (independent of NASA) may end up dominating the global manned LEO infrastructure for decades to come...

[mmeijeri]

ESA also has very bad prospects for a manned spacecraft of their own.

[jongoff]

Does anyone else see the irony that a foreign country's space program announces plans to fly on a US commercial operator before the US space program can bring itself to?

You can't write this sort of comedy...

It actually makes a fair deal of sense.  Trying to run a space program as a space program instead of a jobs program leads you to slightly different (and cheaper) decisions.  At some point you're going to see a lot of countries touting the fact that for $50-100M/yr their manned space program (1-2 astronauts per year to a Bigelow Station or ISS) is accomplishing as much science as NASA's at a tiny fraction of the price.

~Jon

[mmeijeri]

At some point you're going to see a lot of countries touting the fact that for $50-100M/yr their manned space program (1-2 astronauts per year to a Bigelow Station or ISS) is accomplishing as much science as NASA's at a tiny fraction of the price.

Makes you wonder how much 'prestige' value there is in having your manned spaceflight program be the laughing-stock of the developed world...

[docmordrid]

Only the US Govt. could figure a way to pay $1000/mile for a taxicab and make it sound patriotic

[SpacexULA]

Now if only we could get the ISS partners to contract SpaceX to develop their LAS.

ESA, JAXA, CSA, KSRI, ANGKASA, AEB, and NASA could split the costs.

I know, not happening, but gosh it would be fun to see some of the partners publically say "If the other partners will pay the rest, we will fund 10 -100M of the dev costs to manrate Dragon, as long as we are given full access to contract the vehicle afterwards".

Come on Mr  MacLean, put money where your mouth is, offer to contribute 10M over 3 years to help fund the man rating of Dragon!

[simonbp]

At some point you're going to see a lot of countries touting the fact that for $50-100M/yr their manned space program (1-2 astronauts per year to a Bigelow Station or ISS) is accomplishing as much science as NASA's at a tiny fraction of the price.

Wouldn't be hard considering ISS isn't really design to "do science" as much as have the politically correct pieces from the politically correct people in a politically correct orbit...

It's also instructive that only about half of the big US-operated telescopes are actually run by the US federal government (through NOAO and NSF), while the other half are funded privately and/or through the states that host them (chiefly Arizona, California, and Hawaii). This may be the type of model that US spaceflight moves to, with parallel (and possibly competing) public and private programs...

[jongoff]

Wouldn't be hard considering ISS isn't really design to "do science" as much as have the politically correct pieces from the politically correct people in a politically correct orbit...

While completely true, that hasn't prevented it from making manned spaceflight look more expensive than it really is in the eyes of many critics and potential investors.  Space (manned or robotic) is expensive enough when it isn't done as a jobs program that tacking on another order of magnitude really doesn't help...

It's also instructive that only about half of the big US-operated telescopes are actually run by the US federal government (through NOAO and NSF), while the other half are funded privately and/or through the states that host them (chiefly Arizona, California, and Hawaii). This may be the type of model that US spaceflight moves to, with parallel (and possibly competing) public and private programs...

A friend of mine at NASA Ames was working on a PhD dissertation discussing exactly this theme.  His basic thesis was that telescopes were the "space exploration" of the previous centuries, and that most of it has usually been done by wealthy individuals for prestige, bragging rights, philanthropy, etc.  His point was that the current batch of space entrepreneurs is more a return to the historical trend than an aberration.

Here's a link to a much shorter (2-3pg) whitepaper he wrote on the topic: http://www.cmu.edu/silicon-valley/files/pdfs/macdonald-alex/brief-history-space-explore.pdf

But yeah, if the cost of manned spaceflight can be brought down to something more sensible (ie if the premium of running manned spaceflight as a jobs program is really anywhere close to as big as critics like I suggest--I could be wrong), you really could see small governments, non-profits, and even wealthy individuals financing research and other activities in space.  Really that's where we need to start moving if we want manned spaceflight to continue to matter in the long-run.

~Jon

[iamlucky13]

ESA also has very bad prospects for a manned spacecraft of their own.

There is occasional talk of evolving the ATV into, first a cargo return vehicle, and then eventually into a crew-capable version.

There's not much motion in that direction, but with the Arianne V flying, the ATV to use as the basis for a service module, and the combined financial resources of much of the EU, they're a lot closer than the other countries mentioned.

Anyways, there's nothing really remarkable in the interview. He basically said that if SpaceX has proven sufficiently capable when the time comes to arrange transport of their next astronaut to the ISS, they'll be considered.

[Ronsmytheiii]

At some point you're going to see a lot of countries touting the fact that for $50-100M/yr their manned space program (1-2 astronauts per year to a Bigelow Station or ISS) is accomplishing as much science as NASA's at a tiny fraction of the price.

Makes you wonder how much 'prestige' value there is in having your manned spaceflight program be the laughing-stock of the developed world...

and if wished were horses we'd all be eating steak

Edit: let me explain

1.  Bigelow has not launched a station yet, it might be on the boards but like many commercial ventures could fail

2.  NASA ultimately controls who arrives at station and therefor has a say in the design

3.  Right now NASA is paying for the ESA/JAXA/CSA astronauts to go to station on Soyuz, so not only is NASA paying for itself but other nations.

4.  1-2 people will not be as productive as the 4 member USOS that already has a decade worth of assets built up

5.  ISS is more expensive because it will have more assets (ie solar power, exterior experiments, cupola)

6.  also the reason the commercial sector would be cheaper is due to investments already undertaken by NASA, so they dont have to carry the costs.

[jongoff]

At some point you're going to see a lot of countries touting the fact that for $50-100M/yr their manned space program (1-2 astronauts per year to a Bigelow Station or ISS) is accomplishing as much science as NASA's at a tiny fraction of the price.

Makes you wonder how much 'prestige' value there is in having your manned spaceflight program be the laughing-stock of the developed world...

and if wished were horses we'd all be eating steak

Edit: let me explain

1.  Bigelow has not launched a station yet, it might be on the boards but like many commercial ventures could fail

2.  NASA ultimately controls who arrives at station and therefor has a say in the design

3.  Right now NASA is paying for the ESA/JAXA/CSA astronauts to go to station on Soyuz, so not only is NASA paying for itself but other nations.

4.  1-2 people will not be as productive as the 4 member USOS that already has a decade worth of assets built up

5.  ISS is more expensive because it will have more assets (ie solar power, exterior experiments, cupola)

6.  also the reason the commercial sector would be cheaper is due to investments already undertaken by NASA, so they dont have to carry the costs.

And early PCs couldn't do anywhere near what a mainframe could...

~Jon

[Namechange User]

It has nothing to do with what some are trying to imply here (again....yawn). 

It is as simple as Canadian astronauts will ride "commercial" if and when it is available because the United States is paying for it. 

If the USA is paying for it we will use American "commercial" instead of paying the Russian's for Soyuz.  The Canadian decision is simply going along with it, funding their own transportation method if they are not happy or giving up their ISS crew slots. 

[yg1968]

The Canadian Space Agency is still looking at commercial crew flights past 2012:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/26/canada-space-program-chris-hadfield_n_1169839.html

[grr]

It has nothing to do with what some are trying to imply here (again....yawn). 

It is as simple as Canadian astronauts will ride "commercial" if and when it is available because the United States is paying for it. 

If the USA is paying for it we will use American "commercial" instead of paying the Russian's for Soyuz.  The Canadian decision is simply going along with it, funding their own transportation method if they are not happy or giving up their ISS crew slots. 

So, if Canada could send up more astronauts, you do not think that they would?
They would simply maintain this constrained schedule and be happy with it instead of jumping on more flights and sending up more people?

[grr]

.....
But yeah, if the cost of manned spaceflight can be brought down to something more sensible (ie if the premium of running manned spaceflight as a jobs program is really anywhere close to as big as critics like I suggest--I could be wrong), you really could see small governments, non-profits, and even wealthy individuals financing research and other activities in space.  Really that's where we need to start moving if we want manned spaceflight to continue to matter in the long-run.

~Jon

Back in the early 90's, when all of the internet was on twisted pair (i.e. RBOCs), a number of companies were saying that the net would remain on twisted pair and then move to fiber. Gates, in his normal fashion, screamed that he and another would put it over sats and that by mid 2000's that everybody would be using sats for internet. However, Paul Allen said that was all a mistake and suggested that it should be carried over Cable lines. The Cable industry (TCI being the dominant player) said not a chance. They felt that it was all about video over analog lines. So, Paul Allen created Charter and pushed the industry. Now Charter bankrupted, but it was Charter that pushed everything. In particular, Allen met with Malone of TCI and convinced him that the net and moving to digital was the way to go. The rest is history.  Cable industry in America forced down the price of internet, though these day's, they are the thieves (comcast comes quickly to mind ).  Once Paul had that started, the money FLOWED into cable. It become the dominant player. 

With Allen in this arena and have made 2 big splashes (funding for scaled composites and of course, the recent stuff), it is only a matter of time before loads more money comes this way.  I would be shocked if ellison is NOT looking into this. He has been a player in the aviation world for a long time. Likewise, I would bet that Gates,  McNealy, Joy, etc are watching what is going on. McNealy and Joy are young enough and loaded with money.

[Comga]

...which has nothing to do with the OP.

This started with: "(CSA president Steve) MacLean would not rule it out when asked if a Canadian might hitch a ride on a commercial vessel, like SpaceX's Dragon.

“If you were to ask me to be a betting man, when the time comes that will be a decision that I could see that could happen,” he said.

“If everything goes well, and if it shows that to our satisfaction everything is OK, everything is safe and secure, yes, it's possible.” "

The article goes on with even more qualifiers.

This is hardly a commitment.  It's not even a prospective plan.  He is not "ruling it out".  It is simply logical.  What is his alternative? 

[yg1968]

There is 3 options for the CSA's future astronauts (that will be flying after 2012):
1- Obtain a commercial flight in 2019 through a barter agreement with the U.S.: this is the preferred option per the article that I linked above.
2- Pay for a commercial flight with cash. This option would only be available if commercial crew is cheap enough (e.g. $20 million).
3- Pay the Russians $63 million for a flight with cash: this option has been ruled out as being too expensive in the article that I linked above.

[Rahkashi]

Great. The more people we put into space, the better off we'll be. What are we going to call Canadian space travelers? Maplenauts?