
US to Stop Using Soyuz Spacecraft, Invest in Domestic Private Space Industry - sz4kerto
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/US_to_Stop_Using_Soyuz_Spacecraft_Invest_in_Domestic_Private_Space_Industry_999.html
======
ChuckMcM
So a bit link baity and not exactly news. The US has been "going have a manned
space flight capability again" since forever. But it was pretty clear the
current development and procurement system was breaking down. Orion is taking
way to long and weak budgeting it only part of the story.

Unless they go out of business I'd expect SpaceX to develop a manned mission
capability with or without NASA contracts. Its one thing to be able to take US
astronauts into space, it is quite another to be able to take _anyone_ you
want into space and back again. Even now I don't think some people fully
appreciate the capability SpaceX has developed.

For those of you making proposition bets, here is one for you, "Mexico builds
an open access launch facility on their gulf coast." The argument for is
pretty strong, it can create a bunch of jobs, it can take advantage of NAFTA,
and as a launch only facility needs a relatively limited amount of
infrastructure. as Arianespace has shown in French Guiana.

Then its really the Mexican equivalent of the FAA giving licenses to send
something orbital.

~~~
Crito
Would ITAR play nicely with a launch facility in Mexico? Would they need some
sort of loophole or clever organization to ensure that it wasn't "exporting"
the rocket tech?

~~~
goodcanadian
It has always been possible to legally export ITAR controlled technology. You
just have to follow the correct procedures and get the correct permissions. A
PITA to be sure, but I doubt launching from Mexico would pose any serious
problems. Besides, it is not like they would be selling rockets to random
people in Mexico, it would remain under the control of the U.S. owner until it
was launched.

~~~
ceejayoz
Hell, we've let China launch ITAR controlled tech.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708)

------
higherpurpose
Hopefully it's SpaceX. The other two have fatten enough on wasteful government
contracts.

~~~
a3n
Whoever wins, the money will attract corruption from within and from secondary
contracts. If it's SpaceX, they'll eventually be bought by Lockheed or Boeing.

------
qwerta
Was not 2017 original plan? Orion is under development for more than 10 years
now.

~~~
rational-future
It's hard to take the non-nuclear Orion seriously, knowing it's a product of W
Bush's "space initiative".

~~~
lutusp
> It's hard to take the non-nuclear Orion seriously ...

It might be a bit early to describe a booster as "non-nuclear" until there's a
practical candidate in the nuclear category that meets with public approval.
That would be like calling a coal-fired power plant non-fusion-based.

~~~
rational-future
NASA had/has 2 Orions: a "nuclear" and a "non-nuclear" ;-)

------
altcognito
Are they going to go with just one of them? If so, that looks bad for SpaceX.
They may have caught wind of it early and let go of some people in
anticipation. I just can't see the federal government giving a mega deal to a
"small" less-connected SpaceX over industry favorite Boeing. Tell me I'm
wrong. I really want to be wrong.

~~~
rational-future
SpaceX looks to me like a software startup, that can clue a cheap, working
hack from existing products. But Boing is a mega corp like Microsoft, Google,
Intel that can create revolutionary new products from the ground up.

~~~
ceejayoz
SpaceX is making rockets that come back and land like a 50s sci-fi wet dream
at what look like they'll be drastically lower prices than ever before. Boeing
is making an Apollo successor. I think you've got which one's innovative
backwards.

~~~
avmich
Agree, it's hard to say when was the last time Boeing did something innovative
- on the scale of SpaceX - in space technology.

In 12 years SpaceX roughly managed to build two rockets and one space
freighter cheaply - economical "first", to produce stages with e.g. high
(comparing to industry standard) dry-to-wet-mass ratio, to produce a kerosene
engine with, again, pretty high thrust-to-weight - and run a development
program on vertical landing for the first stage.

Don't see anything comparable to that from Boeing.

~~~
mikeash
Not just run a development program for vertical landing but figure out a way
to make customers pay for much of the testing, too. Part of what's so
brilliant about their reusability system is that it can be included on many
regular launches without any additional risk to the payload. So instead of
having to make expensive special launches just for the test program, they get
to fire satellites into orbit _and_ carry out testing on a flight the customer
purchased.

------
hadoukenio
Sadly it took sanctions and not gusto to fund the US space program v2.0

~~~
enupten
Brace yourself for another Cold war.

~~~
hell-banned
And for trillion dollar profits, if you're luky to be in the MIC complex.
Which is the force behind Euromaidan.

~~~
ceejayoz
Which one? Russian or American?

~~~
rational-future
American of course: after the advertised end of operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan a new enemy was urgently needed.

~~~
ceejayoz
And yet, the equipment being used and destroyed and purchased in this "new
Cold War" is almost exclusively Russian. Putin can't really fairly blame the
West for invading Crimera, either.

~~~
trhway
>Putin can't really fairly blame the West for invading Crimera, either.

blame? Putin can only be grateful to the Ukraine right nationalists (supported
by West) who assaulted the foundational freedom of the Russian ethnic minority
- the language - the very first thing after they took power in Euromaidan.
While not having any real practical meaning, this assault was extremely
symbolic and immediately provided popular support that Putin may have been
lacking before. Crimea was basically handed over to Putin on the golden plate.
It was so great for Putin that i sometimes wonder whether these right
nationalists were paid Putin's agents :)

