Has NASA thought about buying rights to the Soyez?

[rustyshackleford]

Hi, I am wondering if NASA has thought of buying the rights to dual produce the Soyez instead of developing the ARES? Not even sure if Russia would do it, but considering you can buy a seat, who knows? The Soyez is a very safe way to get into LEO and this would probably be 10 times cheaper than continuing with ARES and bridge the gap to return to space after the retirement of the STS.

Hopefully this is a new comment, I am looking forward to your responses!

Rusty

 

[kelvinzero]

Interesting question, which may well see you lynched..

I think one reason that would make it impractical is the same reason we cannot just rebuild the equipment from the apollo era. It isnt just the design, it is also all the highly specialised tools and factories and experience that goes into manufacturing each part, and all the tricks in handling that equipment that probably do not end up documented in the design but are only passed down in training of new workers to handle that equipment. This includes for components that are not even unique to that one design but would be unique to the russians and it goes right down to the level of nuts and bolts.

Perhaps a lot could be gained by sharing information with the russians. I dont know. But whatever the americans build will have to exploit existing american tools and experience as much as possible. This means if it is not shuttle derived then it will probably be derived from another american launcher, otherwise you have to reinvent your industry right down to the nuts and bolts level.

 

[mithridates]

Actually, one of the proposed alternatives to Ares would use Russian technology. It's both the largest and cheapest alternative and seems to be receiving a fair amount of attention.

The all liquid rocket is called HLLV RP-1. There was a similar rocket studied by NASA in the 2005 Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS). It has an 8.4m first stage powered by five Russian-made RD-180 engines. It has 8.4m second stage powered by 4 J-2X engines. It also uses two liquid strap-on boosters each powered by an RD 180. No details were immediately available about its proposed performance or how it compares to the other rockets, including the Ares V.

 

[MeteorWayne]

This topic is not related to a Mission or a Launch, so will be moved to Space Business and Technology.

 

[Eman_3]

I seriously doubt that the Russians would allow anyone to copy their designs. Of course, their response would be .."OK, we will let you study and copy our rocket, only if you allow us to inspect and copy your Trident II."

But it's already been decided, the USA and NASA will have to rely on the Soviets.

In 2007, NASA signed a $719 million contract for 15 Soyuz seats (15 up, 15 down) as well as for 5.6 tonnes of cargo.

 

[Swampcat]

...the USA and NASA will have to rely on the Soviets.

The Soviets???

Where ya been the past 20 years ? :lol:

 

[SpacexULA]

I seriously doubt that the Russians would allow anyone to copy their designs. Of course, their response would be .."OK, we will let you study and copy our rocket, only if you allow us to inspect and copy your Trident II."

Russia didn't have any trouble selling help in the design for the Shenzhou (spacecraft).

They are also selling help to the Indians for their HSF program.

 

[docm]

Funny discussion given that it's quite possible the Russians/Soviets 'borrowed' much of the General Electric D-2 proposal for Apollo when designing the Soyuz: mission/orbital module in front, re-entry/descent capsule amidships and propulsion/solar to the rear. The RV mold line is just too close to the D-2. So, IMO what's to license?

 

[CalliArcale]

I seriously doubt that the Russians would allow anyone to copy their designs. Of course, their response would be .."OK, we will let you study and copy our rocket, only if you allow us to inspect and copy your Trident II."

Actually, there is a long history of Russians (and, formerly, the Soviets) licensing their technology abroad, chiefly to Soviet bloc nations and other nations friendly to them during the Cold War, though these restrictions are loosening in the growing entrepreneurial spirit of it all. They've even licensed some manned spaceflight technology to the Chinese, including some Soyuz technology. So there is precedent. And they'd probably be willing.

But the US government would probably not be as willing. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I don't think it can happen anytime in the forseeable future, for a variety of reasons. There are too many government acquisition rules in place that would need waivers.

 

[Eman_3]

Funny discussion given that it's quite possible the Russians/Soviets 'borrowed' much of the General Electric D-2 proposal for Apollo when designing the Soyuz: mission/orbital module in front, re-entry/descent capsule amidships and propulsion/solar to the rear. The RV mold line is just too close to the D-2. So, IMO what's to license?

Here's an informed look at comparisons between the Soyuz and General Electric D-2.
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/wastolen.htm

It's very informative, and based on the dating of events, it appears that the Russians arrived at the same conclusion as General Electric at about the same time frame.

What does really concern me however, is the method in which NASA arrived at deciding on favor of the Apollo capsule concept versus the GE D-2, which was definitely more efficient.

The end result of this design approach was remarkable. The Apollo capsule designed by NASA had a mass of 5,000 kg and provided the crew with six cubic meters of living space. A service module, providing propulsion, electricity, radio, and other equipment would add at least 1,800 kg to this mass for the circumlunar mission. The General Electric D-2 or Soyuz spacecraft provided the same crew with 9 cubic meters of living space, an airlock, and the service module for the mass of the Apollo capsule alone!