Senate Clears NASA to Buy Russian Spaceships

[dragon04]

Is this ominous news for the STS program?<br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/050921_senate_soyuz.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Duplicate thread, and absolutely not.

 

[crix]

This news is especially 'interesting' politically for the United States given this other piece of news released the same day:<br /><br />http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1791616,00.html<br /><br />Coincidence? What do the Russians stand to gain by putting the US in this awkward position? Will it be further resolve for the US to pour more money into our own man-rated space hardware? I hope so.

 

[darkenfast]

I don't think this is anything new, or a big deal. The Soyuz is going to have to keep flying to the ISS. If we want to keep U.S. astronauts up there, then we have to pay for it. The Russians cannot afford to do it for free. The requirement for Congressional approval was because of laws passed regarding technology transfer. The bill is apparently non-controversial.

 

[kane007]

Good!<br /><br />Maybe in 2013 NASA can contract for klipper as well.<br /><br /><font color="red">DO NO HARM</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[vt_hokie]

The Kliper looks like what I wish the U.S. had pursued...a lifting body spacecraft, with perhaps a winged version for runway landings. I like it a lot better than that ballistic reentry/parachute landing tin can CEV design!

 

[kane007]

But what I've seen so far the klipper could not get to the moon, and back, SAFELY. Short of a minimum energy flyby.<br /><br /><font color="red">DO NO HARM</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[vt_hokie]

I don't know, I thought the Russians were saying it could get to the moon. If you take the two launch architecture that NASA wants, you could launch your departure stage and lander on an unmanned heavy lift vehicle, and then attach whatever shaped crew transport you wanted in low earth orbit. And for a re-entry following a lunar flight, Kliper will probably result in lower g-loads on the crew than the CEV capsule.

 

[kane007]

Hmmm, lots of surface area for all that heat.<br /><br />Lots, and lots, of heavy heat shielding.

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">If you take the two launch architecture that NASA wants, you could launch your departure stage and lander on an unmanned heavy lift vehicle</font><br /><br />Or you could be sane and launch it on six EELV heavy's, and/or the nearest SpaceX equivalent.

 

[phaze]

Maybe Russia should go into the spaceship manufacturing business full-time. They could sell em to any nation that wants one... offer to build spaceports and supporting infrastructure... pursue different models... make some with laser guns! Whee!

 

[mattblack]

Sane to launch on SIX EELV heavies? I don't think so, Tim!!! <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>

 

[nyarlathotep]

Well, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than spending $15B development + $1B per launch on new launch vehicles using overpriced, outdated crud left over from the STS. It would also encourage entrepreneurs to develop cheaper, more efficient offerings if there happened to be a buyer in that mass range.<br /><br />Maybe they could spend some of the change on funding useful projects, say VASIMR, hall thrusters and vapour core reactor research. Or are they planning on using 900T of chemical rockets to get to mars?

 

[nacnud]

Well the launch cost of six EELV Heavies would be about $1.8B, plus you have to deal with boil off of propellants.

 

[nyarlathotep]

That's the low volume price. If LockMart and Boeing were churning out cores at high volumes, you'd be looking at more in the range of $900m.

 

[mattblack]

Nyarlathotep; you must be new here because we've chewed these bones over and over a hundred times on this forum. You truly are preaching to the converted, but a slightly cynical converted, nonetheless.<br /><br />Overpriced STS-derived gear? Perhaps. Outdated crud? No. And again NO. There isn't another booster concept in the world that could lift more than 100 metric tons, except Energia and that's moribund. With each SRB and SSME and Tank/corestage (ET derived) manufactured from scratch, how can it be old and outdated?<br /><br />Use the tools that work with the money you have. After Challenger, the SRBs became the second most reliable manned launcher ever made (after the Soyuz booster). Why chuck it in the trash? The Russians keep things that work, shouldn't America, too?<br /><br />Look: I've read every trade study pdf document on the Vision For Space Exploration that was ever made (THOUSANDS of pages). And you know what? Even the firms that were studying and/or advocating Atlas and Delta-derived EELVs, they ALL said that a 20-ton to LEO booster just wouldn't do. They would have to be upgraded to AT LEAST a 45 ton-to-LEO booster. That would take years and billions for what in effect would be almost all-new launchers, not to mention launchpads.<br /><br />$8-10 billion bucks and 10 years to develop an upgraded EELV that might just launch 50 tons? $10-11 billion and 10-12 years to develop a Shuttle-derived booster to launch 110+plus tons to LEO?<br /><br />It's a classic no-brainer. And I have to say that we "oldies" in this forum thrashed out all this booster argument stuff MONTHS ago. It's old news, old hat and hardly worth discussing anymore. Period.<br /><br />VASIMIR and gaseous core reactors? **** HOT STUFF!! No question, can't argue with that. But reality check:<br /><br />Project Promotheus and most other space nuclear initiatives: As of now in great danger of being canned. No nukes, my friend, unless Mr Bush and associates do a little lobbying in the right ears. Not gon <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>

 

[nyarlathotep]

If the American people dont have the maturity for nukes, then they have no place being in space. You're better off scrapping the entire program and putting the funds towards your massive deficit, because you are NEVER going to see any worthwhile development outside of GEO without nuclear power or propulsion.

 

[crix]

I don't mean to get too political here as this is a space missions and launches forum but I just wanted to point out that this bill is not non-controversial.<br /><br />"The bill was introduced Sept. 15 by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) to provide temporary relief from provisions in the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 that bar U.S. purchases of Russian human spaceflight hardware as long as Russia continues to help Iran in its pursuit of nuclear know-how and advanced weapons technology."

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>I don't think this is anything new, or a big deal. The Soyuz is going to have to keep flying to the ISS. If we want to keep U.S. astronauts up there, then we have to pay for it. The Russians cannot afford to do it for free. The requirement for Congressional approval was because of laws passed regarding technology transfer. The bill is apparently non-controversial.<<br /><br />That's basically it. Well put.

 

[trailrider]

Well, let's stop wasting time and get ahold of our Congressional Representatives, and ask them to introduce or co-sponsor a bill to do the same thing the Senate bill does! Tell them we want this bill passed without ammendments, and as expeditiously as possible.<br /><br />You will probably talk to a staffer, rather than the Congressman/woman. Be COURTEOUS, and inform them what the bill does. Specifically refer to S. 1713.<br /><br />The whole point of the bill is to allow NASA to maintain our participation in the ISS project until the Shuttle is declared operational again. It allows the U.S. to pay Russia for Soyuz spacecraft to support the ISS.<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I don't think this is anything new, or a big deal.</font>/i><br /><br />I think it is -- it shows that Congress can reach reasonable and rational decisions.<br /><br />Sometimes we get ourselves wrapped around some pretty silly things (e.g., renaming "french fries" to "freedom fries"). It is nice to see some quiet common sense.</i>

 

[kdavis007]

Mixed feelings about this... I guess the shuttle is over....

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I don't know how many times this has to be said, but this does not in any way, whatsoever, indicate the ending of the STS program. Soyuz and the STS are totally different beasts.

 

[yurkin]

<font color="yellow">I think it is -- it shows that Congress can reach reasonable and rational decisions.</font><br /><br />Good point. I believe I said a year ago that Congress would sooner see ISS fall from the skies rather then pay the Russian for use of the Soyuz as lifeboats. But I can see more sensible heads in Congress prevailed.<br />

 

[dragon04]

"I don't know how many times this has to be said, but this does not in any way, whatsoever, indicate the ending of the STS program. Soyuz and the STS are totally different beasts."<br /><br />I completely understand that statement. But I'd say this is a fairly drastic reversal in the mindset of Congress, all things considered.<br /><br />Americans are being lifted to ISS already aboard Soyuz capsules. I have no idea if the US government is buying the ticket for the ride, however. I think that the US "buying" Russian spacecraft in part would be driven by the resupply needs of ISS missing from the lack of shuttle missions.<br /><br />But at the bottom of it, while Congress isn't saying it, I just have to wonder if they aren't thinking about STS termination. As I stated above. This is a fairly drastic and rapid reversal in the mindset of a Congress that almost never does things rapidly.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>