Soyuz and Progress launch rates post 2010?

[radarredux]

For about 3 years Soyuz and Progress were the only means to support the ISS with a skeleton crew of 2 people, and at times there were concerns that supplies and spare parts were running very low. After 2010 ISS will have a crew three times that size, and there will be no shuttle. Japan and ESA are developing cargo supply ships, but neither have flown yet. Also I have yet to read about what operational budget ESA and Japan will spend on these supply ships.<br /><br />Will Russia be able to scale up production and launch rates of Soyuz and Progress to support an ISS that will be three times the size of the ISS during the Columbia hiatus? Who will pay for these flights?<br /><br />Will the US be paying significant sums to foreign suppliers for crew and cargo access to ISS until CEV flies? If so, has anyone explained this to Congress?<br /><br />The reason I ask this is that Congress is reducing expected funding levels for CEV and Ares development (e.g., $577 reduction for FY07 transcript), which will delay operational capability for CEV to ISS. Has anyone explained to Congress that the longer the CEV is delayed, the more money Congress will have to pay Russia for services to ISS?

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">Has anyone explained to Congress that the longer the CEV is delayed, the more money Congress will have to pay Russia for services to ISS?</font><br /><br />I'm trying to put together a mechanism to do exactly that.<br /><br />Anyone want to help? I need one active person from each Congressional District. (See the sigline: sneak preview only at this time, bells and whistles coming right up.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

My understanding is the the ISS will need 4 Soyuz flights a year once the crew climbs to 6 next year and preparation in in hand to allow this.<br /><br />When it was the sole supply craft to the ISS 3-4 flights a years were required to support 2 crew. Therefore 9-12 flights would be required to support 6.<br /><br />However 1 ATV or HTV flight is roughly the equivanent of 3 Progress, so 2 flights a year by these would mean only 6 Progress would be needed.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <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>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">However 1 ATV or HTV flight is roughly the equivanent of 3 Progress</font>/i><br /><br />Thanks. I didn't realize how much larger these cargo ships were.</i>

 

[j05h]

Energia broke ground on a new Soyuz capsule factory recently but I can't find an easy link to info. They plan on keeping up with both commercial and government needs.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Where I live I doubt the politicos even know we have a Space program. I've been posting here for a long time, originally it started as Mars 2010 back in 2000. Here it is 2007 and technologically I see nothing we have now that we didn't have seven years ago that would make a difference. Technological advancements since then would allow a lot of savings in systems, but what was available then would have worked just fine and advancements would have been added in as they became availabe anyway.<br /><br />I would even postulate a Mars program would have spurred advances beyond where they are today just like Apollo did. My 2GB mini-SD that uses an SD size adapter is a case in point. <br /><br />The real problem is there is just not a groundswell of support and assuming the government is going to finance it puts it into competion with other government programs that people, rightfully think, are at least equally important.<br /><br />If nothing else I think we should be asking government to not stand in the way and to contract with those who want to provide Space access, for National requirements rather than competing with them. If NASA needs the capability of the CEV they should open it up to competing designs and not design it themselves.<br /><br />Delta and Atlas could do the same thing Soyus does, but if ISS is going to be Astronauts and Cosmonauts and not scientists and engineers it is a waste of time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

ATV supposedly can carry 9 tonnes, although that includes propellant that is used for reboost. <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>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

Russia already has made the decision to step up Soyuz and Progress manufacturing. Starting 2009 there will be 4 Soyuz and 6 Progress flights a year.<br /><br />There are only 5 planned ATV flights until 2016, with intermediate intervalls between 18 and 24 months. The ATV main purpose is to carry scientific equipment and experiments and reboost the ISS. Only a small part of the cargo capacity will be used for food and other disposables.<br /><br />The HTV is not going to fly before 2009. Similarily to the ATV, the HTV is planned to be the main cargo ship to resupply Kibo and launch scientific equipment and experiments.<br /><br />4 Progress flights were adequate for a two-men crew and all spare equipment and reboosting fuel required for the ISS between 2003-2006. It is not correct to say you need three times as many for a six-man crew. 8 Progress will suffice (which is currently planned for 2010+, if the US cannot itself fulfill its cargo needs and has to buy Progress). If COTS is successful in the 2010-2015 period, the rate of Progress launches can be downsized to 6 or even 4.