Russians offer a Soyuz to NASA for $65m

[shuttle_rtf]

Came in from our Russian writer...no idea if it's a new story, but he's claiming the quote is 'hours old'...anyway:<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=3506<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[lunatio_gordin]

That's good news! does this allow them to Bypass the Iran acts?

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>includes a Russian Cosmonaut as a Shuttle Commander it was announced during a press conference.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />????? <br /><br />Am I reading it wrong, or is part of the quid pro quo that a Cosmonaut be elevated to Shuttle Commander at some point? <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>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I sub-edited it a little better from Sergi's copy, but yes - that's how it seems.<br /><br />Sergi mainly works for RIA in Moscow, so I'll ask if they have a longer article with any more on that specific element.

 

[gofer]

I think they mean Souyz commander/pilot. My guess it's a case of clueless translation and/or original media report. I've seen a couple of Russian article translations referring to Souyz launches as "...Souyz shuttle was launched...." ???<br /><br />Re: subject matter, perhaps NASA can drive a hard bargain upping the electricity charges (most of the ISS power is generated by the American segment)<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">That's good news! does this allow them to Bypass the Iran acts?</font>/i><br /><br />This hurdle must still be crossed, and it is a critical one. As I mentioned in another thread (America being kicked out of ISS?), American astronauts probably won't be able to use the ISS after March of 2006 unless NASA can buy this service from Russia.<br /><br />Besides manned access to ISS, the Soyuz is the lifeboat for the ISS, and an American cannot stay onboard ISS without an exit strategy. Without the deal, an American may only be able to use ISS when the shuttle is docked to it.</i>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Could well be...in fact, I don't like leaving anything in that is uncertain or unclarified, so I'll edit that out of Sergi's report until there is a confirmation of this (Shuttle Soyuz or NASA Shuttle).

 

[lunatio_gordin]

I'm just hoping that this offer might allow them some wiggle room in congress to get past it...

 

[frodo1008]

It seems like a pretty good price to me. At that price perhaps we could have the Russians make up enough that if a shuttle was to be too damaged to return to Earth, enough soyuz capsules would be on line to rescue all the stranded astronauts! <br /><br />Perhaps if NASA was to put it that way to congress they could be freed up to deal with the Russians in a reasonable manner instead of so stupidly allowing politics to get in the way!!!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It seems like a pretty good price to me.</font>/i><br /><br />The price is not the issue.<br /><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">instead of so stupidly allowing politics to get in the way!!!</font>/i><br /><br />This issue is more complicated than most. Russia is Iran's main technical partner in developing its nuclear capability, and Iran has recently restarted its nuclear enrichment program -- a critical step to building nuclear weapons.<br /><br />Further complicating the issue is that Iran appears to be supplying Iraqi insurgents new, more powerful roadside bombs (the shaped explosives) that are directly killing US soldiers in Iraq.<br /><br />As long as Russia continues to help Iran build a nuclear power capability, and as long as Iran continues to enrich uranium and actively support the killing of Americans in Iraq, weakening ITAR and INA in order to buy a Soyuz craft will be difficult for Congress to swallow right now.</i></i>

 

[spacester]

The scuttlebutt just before the Columbia disaster was that O'Keefe had pulled off a multi-party deal to work around ITAR / INA by not sourcing the money from American coffers. Soyuz would have doubled its production rate and the money was going to come from the Japanese. ESA was involved seemingly. NASDA was going to step up to the plate with serious cash and get a ton of on-orbit time for that back porch of theirs. It was just scuttlebutt.<br /><br />IIRC O'Keefe was waiting til Columbia was down before announcing it. I was wishing somebody like Shuttle_RTF was around to get answers.<br /><br />Then, O'Keefe was able to negotiate based on STS getting ISS built to core complete or more (having just declined to provide the promised lifeboat). Now, however, the STS capability is a bit shaky. But still . . .<br /><br />Any chance that sort of deal could be worked at this juncture? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gofer]

Honestly? It's a good price, I guess. But what’s the reference point? 2 astros to LEO, $32.5 mil per seat, with docking and all the trimmings. Btw, wouldn’t it be cheaper to book a flight with Space Adventures? $20mil per seat.<br /><br />But it's a good price for goods NASA doesn't, or rather shouldn't want. I know ISS problems have been talked about to death, but here’s my take…<br />Firstly, the ISS will never look and perform as it was conceived to, at least as a science space station (as a Russian owned tourist trap, perhaps) <br />Secondly, the ISS has no role to play in the return to the Moon program. The currently proposed architecture envisions no stop over in LEO it's a direct trajectory approach with perhaps a single rendezvoused with the transfer stage. <br />Thirdly, when it comes to tax dollars, it *is* important what and who they are spent on. (Perhaps, the North Koreans have something we want, should we buy it?) And with the current situation in the Middle East and recent confrontations (like in Ukraine elections) Why should the American taxpayer subsidize a potential adversary’s space program? To access a dysfunctional facility that has no place in its space program future and gives no returns on tax dollars? <br />Fourthly, the US does seem to have an unfair monetary contribution obligations to the project. It invested about 70+% of monetary and technical resources into it from the total contributions. And finally, the ISS is just a huge waste of money giving no return to *the American taxpayer* except the proverbial international obligations. Therefore, the remaining participation of America in ISS is a deliberate waste of tax dollars and deliberate pretence. Now, given that I believe all of this is true and I do pay taxes fully, is it not appropriate to bargain and question this potential 'deal'?<br /><br />([edit] yes, NASA wastes money etc... too expensive, etc..., and I do complain about it as much, but at least it's spent on my count

 

[gofer]

Now things like the newly announced Space Adventures Zond-like trip on the Souyz to the moon and space tourists are fine by me. Private investment and all... but not tax dollars.

 

[rogers_buck]

They should accept the offer and fly 3 astronauts to the ISS. That way they can start launching shuttles back-to-back unmanned. This would require scant modifications to the shuttle and no automatic systems for docking. The shuttle could be met by the Soyuz in close proximity to the station and manually docked. They could start launching a shuttle a month without messing about with the hopeless ET foam problem. Odds are all the shuttles would be alive and well at the end of their service, but those same odds look grim with humans onboard.

 

[gofer]

I know it's just a proposal from RSA, so I'm probably overreacting up there..., but if NASA seriously considers this, I'd rather they give the money (2 souyz flights=$130mil is a lot of money to small companies like that) to t/Space (and maybe give them a subsidized launcher) and skip a couple a flights to the ISS if needed.

 

[frodo1008]

Well here goes...<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> "Honestly? It's a good price, I guess. But what’s the reference point? 2 astros to LEO, $32.5 mil per seat, with docking and all the trimmings. Btw, wouldn’t it be cheaper to book a flight with Space Adventures? $20mil per seat." </font><br /><br />In the first place the soyuz can take up three people for only a little over $20 mil. <br /><br />Which is just about what you would want to go to Space Adventures. Is this Space Adventures the marketing side of Burt Rutan's operation? If so, then you would have a real problem here, as it is going to take at least three years for Rutan & company to even begin to make a profit on just sub orbital flights. And I think that I read where Rutan has stated that it will be at least 5 years (and quite probably even more) before he is ready with any kind of orbital vehicle for private use. Although I believe that he would absolutely be ready by the time the shuttle shuts down completely in 2010, with the CXV type of capsule. However, as the soyuz IS ready NOW, and for just about the same cost. And we know that the soyuz is reliable (otherwise there would be NO people on board the ISS at this time) then it would seem to me to be somewhat of a bargain. <br /><br />If, at the same time we help the cash starved Russian space industry retain its excellent staff, instead of shipping them off to countries like Iran to help build rocket delivery systems for nukes, then one could say that was also a plus, now couldn't one?<br />

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">Am I reading it wrong, or is part of the quid pro quo that a Cosmonaut be elevated to Shuttle Commander at some point? </font><br />they must not like that guy very much <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

RIA is Novosti if memory serves - which kinda makes it the same source, given Sergi moonlights for us <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />But it wasn't a one on one interview - and the substance of the article is correct.<br /><br />Here's Tom with the weather.

 

[peterweg]

>This issue is more complicated than most. Russia is Iran's main technical partner in developing its nuclear capability, and Iran has recently restarted its nuclear enrichment program -- a critical step to building nuclear weapons.<br /><br />Further complicating the issue is that Iran appears to be supplying Iraqi insurgents new, more powerful roadside bombs (the shaped explosives) that are directly killing US soldiers in Iraq. <br /> /><br /> Thats all propaganda and bull&%$#@!. There is no evidence that Iran is involved with supplying bombs to Iraq. Its pure guesswork, according to a British Military officer. The Iran nuclear issue is another propaganda issue - they are not doing anything illegal. <br />This is off-topic, stick to talk about reality based events in space travel.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">This is off-topic, stick to talk about reality based events in space travel.</font>/i><br /><br />I disagree. If Congress believes this is true, this could directly affect the probability of the US funding a Soyuz. And this in turn affects US operations (or lack thereof) on ISS.<br /><br />To think international politics do not affect our space policy is very naive.<br /><br />bale, man farsi mifahmam.</i>

 

[josh1943]

frodo i thought space adventures was the company buying soyuz seats for tourist flights. <br /><br />peterweg, saying to stick to topic, well international relations is a big factor in a international space station. also they play a large factor when our relations with the russians are cooling off many in congress would rather pay 400 million to use our space craft then spend 20 million for a russain. also if the russains want to play hard ball and refuse to send any american iss setters up, and thereby be forced out of the iss cause we cant keep crew transfers going with our maned programs. then we should just pull out of the entire iss project and undock all of our parts on the iss and send them into the sea. i would rather see that happen then see our tax dollars be used as a russain motel.

 

[JonClarke]

That's called cutting your nose off to spite your face.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Loosing access to space because of short term policies towards a tin pot dicatorship would be a really bad idea. However the US has a habit of obsessing about some tin pot dictatorships, viz. Cuba and Iraq. It is also veery selective about which country's nuclear programs it worries about. there has been very little State Dept. angst over Pakistan or Israel. Is the US locks itself out of space for a few years rather than take yup it excellent and rational offer it will only have itself to blame.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>