...or you will be charged for two seats.

it is normal for any high tech endeavor to outsource mundane/janitorial work. Russia and US mastered this non-reuseable type of space flight decades ago. It would not make any sense for NASA to go back and implement the same system now. What would be great is if NASA used the time and money to implement a more advanced and efficient system - Shuttle was a great endeavor and its lessons need to be implemented into the new systems. And by the way, for example, while Russia ferries NASA atrounauts, Russia, or anybody else except NASA, has no ability to [successfully] send an actual Mars probe or create JWST (which impact on science and overall enlightment of the human race would possibly be bigger than even Hubble's one). So stop being pissed off and start writing the code for the mirrors alignment:)

For lifting cargo you might have a good point.

I'd almost sooner outsource our military... (opps!!!)

(Side note, there's a big difference between space industry and space science research. The needs of physicists/astronomers are different than the needs of engineers, even if there is some overlap. Both need to be supported and encouraged. And both need both private and government funding.)

That's just a back of the envelope calculation with a gazillion assumptions, but useful for making projections for the next few years.

Does it bother you buying "Made in China" stuff?

Maintaining a space program is a very expensive proposition, and given the enormous amont of debt the government possesses, I'd say it was a wise decision to shut the whole thing down.

Since the risk of this thread devolving into a federal budget debate expands exponentially with every post, I propose leaving the subject for another time and place.

Space Shuttle Endeavour cost about $1.7 billion, each Space Shuttle flight cost $450 million, $480.1 million has been awarded through the COTS program - and they would pay an astronaut $65k/year. I'm guessing they feel that the rare opportunity to be in space is enough pay for you. ;)

I'd still do it if I qualified for it.

PS: I wish people would stop with the lazy and "funny" comments. It's like wading through crap.

Indeed. I think the submission being a light/fluff piece brings out commenters who otherwise would stay away. That's not a complaint about the submission, however. It's both informative and, on a deep and nerdly level, really cool.

Hence why they don't have to pay astronauts half a million.

I'm applying tonight.

Flying = ISS is in an orbit, very little aerobatic ability

Flight down = Soyuz module pre-programmed to hit target

But NASA will swap a graduate degree in something scientific for having buzzed around pretending to shoot people in a F16/18. Perhaps they could extend this to other parts of their operation? HST staff = extensive peer-reviewed published papers, or experience with a 105mm howitzer.

http://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/ascans2009.html

(But the bennies are out of this world.)

Does the back float count?

Since the ad is for astronaut candidates, the frequent travel is presumably of the boring, Earth-bound type.