NASA Strikes $44 Million Deal For Soyuz Flights

[SpaceKiwi]

Interesting article about this on the SDC home page this morning. Seems like approximately 20 mil per one-way trip. I'm being slightly facitious here, but is this another example of typical 'government procurement practice' when you can get a round-trip ticket through commercial brokers for the same price?<br /><br />With the advent of CEV, I guess NASA are not so favourably disposed towards the outcome of Russian projects such as Klipper, etc. However I wonder, slightly seriously, whether NASA shouldn't have 'creatively managed' the price of these Soyuz seats, given Roskosmos 50 mil per, thereby shooting them some much needed extra cash.<br /><br />Big picture-wise, I would have thought it's in NASA interest to see another vehicle capable of visiting ISS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

I think the $20m space tourist price is subsidised because the Soyuz are already going to fly, with or without the tourist - it's not as if they're sending up a third of a capsule just for him, he is simply replacing one cosmonaut.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Yeah, I know, Henry. I was being fairly tongue-in-cheek with my comment.<br /><br />I did like the look of my second thought though, from a purely 'wishful thinking' point-of-view. It's too bad they (NASA) can't shunt a few dollars Roskosmos's way, with the relaxation of the Iran Non-Pro'. I guess there is plenty at home to spend the cash on, not least of which are the new US vehicles, but it would be nice to try and ensure Klipper gets built also with a few well-placed bucks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[moonmadness]

Have any of the private spaceflight wannabes given any idea how much they would charge for an equivalent service? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do play one on the TV in my mind.</p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

t/Space gives $20M per CXV flight of four to the ISS, but they need $500M investment first.

 

[mattblack]

If I had the money, I'd pony up with it. Someone should. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"t/Space gives $20M per CXV flight of four to the ISS, but they need $500M investment first. "<br /><br />5 mill per seat? Not bad. The Russian had better watch out if t/Space gets up and running.

 

[shoogerbrugge]

Instead of making contracts per flight why doesn't NASA come with a vision for propper ISS utilisation, which includes long term contracts for suppliers and shows some common sense. It takes about 18 months to build a soyuz and a progress, its senseless to orders them one by one for the next spring. <br /><br />If NASA makes up its mind on the ISS or strikes a deal with RSA about how to crew the ISS a long term planning can be started. Proper use of the ISS needs 4 Soyuz flights a year and the needed logistical support and life support, what stands it the way, and then deal with that.....<br /><br />Jeez, NASA creates a long term plan returning to the moon but forgets the ISS. Instead of vision they show no initiative beyond getting the modules up<br /><br /><br />And Tspace, c'mon. They are going to create an aircraft, a booster and a spacecraft for 500million USD. Yeah right, how much has SpaceX put into their puny Falcon1? Thats only a simple booster way under the performance Tspace needs. And the most complicated of it all is the spacecraft. 500million USD, I'd sooner believe the earth is flat......

 

[tomnackid]

NASA has already poured a lot of money into helping to develop the Soyuz "T" series--the version currently used that can finally hold 3 space suited crew members of average adult size.

 

[ragnorak]

Really, NASA has helped the Soyuz-T series, in what way? Details please. Sources etc.

 

[tomnackid]

From russianspaceweb.com<br /><br />"RKK Energia also developed another version of the spacecraft, known as Soyuz TMA, or "anthropometric," to address the issues raised during US-Russian cooperative program. "Anthropometric" upgrades would remove the limitations for the height of the crewmembers onboard the Soyuz and as a result, would allow using the TMA version as a "lifeboat" for the International Space Station. The production of the TMA spacecraft, however, was stalled by non-payments by the Russian government to the RKK Energia at the end of the 1990s. Ironically, NASA, which originally ordered the upgrades also refused to pay for the development of the TMA, until Russia insures the production of the spacecraft."<br /><br />So I guess it was specifically the TMA version. The T was designed in 1980. I'm assuming that NASA, Energia and the Russian govenrment have worked out the financial dificulties by now!

 

[nacnud]

When is the ISS lifesupport going to be capable of supporting 6 crew?

 

[comga]

The Soyuz was not capable of accomodating tall cosmonauts. The Russians had a simple solution: pick short cosmonauts. I think they were all 5' 7" or shorter. We Americans can't do that. We can't tell the astronauts "You're too tall". Heck, even some of the women would exceed this limit. So we paid them to make more room. <br /><br />But back to the beginning of this thread, it DOES seem like a bad deal. As I see it, tourists get full rides, with training and touring, for $20M, which includes the fees for Space Adventures. NASA is getting a ride and a half for $43M, doing all their own training, and paying all the incidentals. It DOES seem like they didn't bargain very hard. This is supported by the Russians promising no price increases for the next seven years. Not surprised. They should be pretty comfortable with this price.

 

[syndroma]

Tourists pay for a week long trip, while NASA pays for half year stays.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Tourists are subsidised on the Soyuz flights, in the sense that they don't pay one-third of the cost of launching a Soyuz.<br /><br />On the other hand, the Russians get $20 million for not much additional cost over that for launching two men to the ISS.<br /><br />NASA is paying for its astronauts to be one of the two men, and will be expected to pay half the cost. Presumably NASA could have asked for a share of any tourist revenue, but instead settled for no price rises over the next seven years - less problematical.<br /><br />(Read 'men' as including women, although have any women actually been launched to the ISS since the two-man crew rotations started?)

 

[erioladastra]

'We Americans can't do that. We can't tell the astronauts "You're too tall". '<br /><br />Actually, we can and do. There is a max and min limit for astronauts. I can't recall the numbers but I think it is 5.0 and 6.0 (was 5'9" and then later raised to 6').