Russia upping the price of Soyuz flights in 2012?

Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history Fred J. McCall wrote:
I just find it 'interesting' that now that we *need* them, the
Russians are charging us more per seat than they ever charged the
'tourists' they brought up. Even more 'interesting' is that they
want to INCREASE the price in 2013.

Insert name of UberCapitalist like Obi Wan here taught them well...

This is not "capitalism". It is "state corporatism". Though there are
many anti-capitalists who would like to blur the distinction.

On Feb 12, 9:45�pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

:
: All kidding aside, the Russian (or Chinese) price is irrelevant once a
: US commercial provider becomes available. There are "buy American"
: provisions in the law. SpaceX and the others don't have to match
: Russia's price. Once Dragon (or any other US commercial vehicle) is
: available and meets NASA's requirements, NASA will buy it and stop
: buying Soyuz/Progress. Period.
:
:isnt buy american illegal? given things like NAFTA and all the other
:free trade laws?
:

Not when the purchaser is spending government money.

Hidiotic Hallerisms Helided

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
�only stupid."
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � -- Heinrich Heine

so its fine to essentially rip off the taxpayer?

because ultimately all taxayers pay for overpriced government work

This leads to bloated budgets and our country headed towards
bankruptcy...

Yes, because taxpayers also love it when their hard earned tax dollars are
used by the government to pay foreign nations.

They're damned if they do, damned if they don't.


wrote in message
...

so its fine to essentially rip off the taxpayer?

because ultimately all taxayers pay for overpriced government work

This leads to bloated budgets and our country headed towards
bankruptcy...

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" writes:

Yes, because taxpayers also love it when their hard earned tax dollars are
used by the government to pay foreign nations.

They're damned if they do, damned if they don't.


See, my plan is looking *better* all the time!

Think of it as an 'investment', we have precendents; AIG, GM, Chrysler,

so why not,

S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation, Mattel, The Lego Group, ...

;-)

Dave

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

This is not "capitalism". It is "state corporatism". Though there are
many anti-capitalists who would like to blur the distinction.

It's whatever the market will bear.
They will have a monopoly on crew travel to and from the ISS once the
Shuttle retires till some other manned system can be brought on line, so
they can charge whatever they like come 2013 and anyone who wants to
travel to the station can either meet their price or simply not go.
In pure laissez-faire capitalism there's nothing wrong with a monopoly
at all; in fact it's a invitation for competitors to develop lower price
or more efficient ways of offering the same services, which advances
overall technology.
Which would work great in a world where all workers made the same wages,
but in this case means that only China would have the ability to
undercut the Russian prices for these launch service.

Pat

On Feb 13, 12:36�am, David Spain wrote:
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" writes:

Yes, because taxpayers also love it when their hard earned tax dollars are
used by the government to pay foreign nations.

They're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

See, my plan is looking *better* all the time!

Think of it as an 'investment', we have precendents; AIG, GM, Chrysler,

so why not,

S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation, Mattel, The Lego Group, ...

;-)

Dave

Well NASA took their shot, with ARES I think most here knew it was a
bad idea from the day the program was announced!

Most myself included thought using a existing expendable would be
better.

So in tyoical nasa fashion, politics ruled and the bad program was
selected

But with shuttle cost of over 5 billion a year, russia will be a
bargain at twice the price