Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Senate Clears Nasa To Buy Russian Spaceships  
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3599 posts, RR: 20
Posted (9 years 3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7259 times:

Essentially Senate will let NASA purchase russian technology for spacecrafts.

Quote:
The U.S. Senate approved Sept. 21 a bill that would clear the way for NASA to buy the Russian Soyuz vehicles it needs to continue to occupy the International Space Station beyond this year.

However NASA cannot buy Soyuz crafts yet.

Quote:
The U.S. House of Representatives also is considering amending the Iran Nonproliferation Act to permit NASA to buy Soyuz vehicles, but it has yet to take any legislative action.

Senate Clears NASA to Buy Russian Spaceships

This is an interesting development. Never thought I would see it. Can you imagine a Soyuz taking off from Kennedy?


Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7220 times:

Quoting Centrair (Thread starter):
This is an interesting development. Never thought I would see it. Can you imagine a Soyuz taking off from Kennedy?

This is surely just a continuation of the present crew taxi plan. The only difference is that NASA will now pick up the tab (or a portion thereof), in lieu of delivering crews via shuttle.

So sorry, no Soyuz launches from the Cape... 

If the Columbia accident had not occured, would NASA still have had to bail out the taxi program at this point? The need for emergency crew escape would still exist as would the 6 month Soyuz lifetime....

[Edited 2005-09-26 15:50:22]

User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3789 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7156 times:

I think this is a good sign, because this shows that the US are willing to continue the international partnership on the ISS instead of going unilateral ways only... The russians always said that they were in fact willing to support the station, but they only had limited financial ressources. With more money they can build more Soyus class ships.

Yet, one thing is without doubt... The ISS needs the shuttles for completion, especially the Europeans rely on it.

Michael


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7143 times:

Well, the ISS need the shuttle to push the station futher into orbit.
As for Sojuz, I think the base in French Guiana could be used, since the Russians already are building a base there.
See http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Launchers_Home/SEMCDI1PGQD_0.html

[Edited 2005-09-26 23:46:36]

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7133 times:

>> Well, the ISS need the shuttle to push the station futher into orbit.

That, and H2O and component delivery...


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7127 times:

Quoting Centrair (Thread starter):
This is an interesting development. Never thought I would see it. Can you imagine a Soyuz taking off from Kennedy?

You won't. The Senate has agreed to modify the Iran Non-Proliferation Act to allow NASA to purchase SEATS on Soyuz flights, and other services necessary in support of the International Space Station. This means that NASA will be able to send funding to Russia for more Progress resupply missions, too. This is a huge victory for NASA, both because the INPA was a major impediment to the Space Station, and because the US Congress rarely --- VERY rarely -- permits sending hard currency overseas (Russian citizens don't vote in US elections, afterall.) That they have agreed to do so now is extremely interesting.

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 1):
If the Columbia accident had not occured, would NASA still have had to bail out the taxi program at this point? The need for emergency crew escape would still exist as would the 6 month Soyuz lifetime....

Yes, but NASA was planning to get around the INPA by swapping Shuttle flights for lifeboat seats. The Shuttle was to launch the Russian Space Power Platform for ISS.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 2):
I think this is a good sign, because this shows that the US are willing to continue the international partnership on the ISS instead of going unilateral ways only... The russians always said that they were in fact willing to support the station, but they only had limited financial ressources. With more money they can build more Soyus class ships.

Keep in mind that even with Russia doing the lion's share of the work since the Columbia accident, they are STILL behind the curve compared to what they promised when they joined the program in 1994. They were committed to six Progress resupply flights per year, but they've only managed four per year since First Element Launch in 1998. With the Shuttle flying, NASA was able to make up the Russian shortfall, with Shuttle water and reboost having been critical (Shuttle actually performed more reboost miles 1998-2002 than Progress did.) Now, without Shuttle flying relief, the lack of those extra two Progress flights each year has been hurting badly. Hopefully, the lifting of NASA's restrictions due to the INPA will let them send money to Russia to get the Progress flights up to the desired level, as well as buying a US seat on each Soyuz flight from now until CEV debuts.

Quoting Alessandro (Reply 3):
As for Sojuz, I think the base in French Guiana could be used, since the Russians already are building a base there.

No, you'll never see Soyuz manned launches from Kourou for two reasons:
1. The pad (the old Ariane 4 pad) is only being modified for the unmanned Soyuz rocket, not the manned spacecraft
2. Soyuz is to be retired (if you believe the Russians) early in the next decade anyway, and replaced by Kliper. That's maybe ten more manned Soyuz launches. Its not worth the cost of upgrading Kourou and moving operations there for only ten more flights.


User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3599 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7106 times:

We might not see Soyuz launched from Kourou. But we might see Kliper!

"On June 10, 2005, the head of manned space program of the European Space Agency, ESA, who conducted talks with Russian space officials in Moscow, said that his agency would support the Kliper project, according to the Russian press. Nikolai Moiseev, Deputy Chief of Russian Space Agency, Roscosmos, was quoted as saying that the Kliper system would be adapted for launches from Russian facilities, as well as from the European space port in Kourou, French Guiana. According to Russian space officials, with the European support, the Kliper could fly "no later than" 2011 rather than "after 2012" launch date quoted previously."

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7047 times:

Centrair, interesting news, I wonder how much ESA can upgrade the old Ariane 4 platform?

User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7032 times:

Quoting Centrair (Reply 6):
We might not see Soyuz launched from Kourou. But we might see Kliper!

Would have been nice if the Russians had launched from Kourou from the start. ISS would have been in a 28.5 deg orbit instead of 51.6 and the shuttle would have had far more payload capacity into that orbit... oh well

edit:
According to Russian space officials, with the European support, the Kliper could fly "no later than" 2011 rather than "after 2012" launch date quoted previously."

Another space "race" shaping up with CEV flying in 2012?

[Edited 2005-09-27 16:08:49]

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6965 times:

>> "On June 10, 2005, the head of manned space program of the European Space Agency, ESA, who conducted talks with Russian space officials in Moscow, said that his agency would support the Kliper project, according to the Russian press.

Is "Kliper" for sure a go then?


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6948 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9):

Is "Kliper" for sure a go then?

No, although it's looking better than previous new wonder-spacecraft or wonder-rockets that Russia has said they were introducing. Russia can't even keep its promises for ISS, so its questionable how far they'll get with Kliper. European participation in Kliper raises it above, say, the never-to-appear ISS Research Modules or the stillborn Angara booster which they trumpeted at every opportunity as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Kliper is a radical departure for Russia, a country that has hitherto been loathe to make radical changes in anything. Consider me highly dubious of Kliper.


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6929 times:

Thorny I think you forgot the Buran?
Anyway the Russians are definitly cashing in on their "know-how" and I wouldn´t be surprised if we see manned space missions from French Guiana
with Sojuz even if ISS would be scrapped pre-maturely?


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29840 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6930 times:

Correct me if I am wrong but haven't US companies been buying rockets and engines from them for years?


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6871 times:

Quoting Alessandro (Reply 11):
Thorny I think you forgot the Buran?

Which the Russians flew only once --unmanned--, overheating its structure due to a poor thermal protection system design, which resulted in its never flying again. Hardly encouraging for the Russians to try something radically new again.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 12):
Correct me if I am wrong but haven't US companies been buying rockets and engines from them for years?

US companies, yes. US government, no. There is a big difference. Until this week, NASA has been allowed to actually purchase Russian hardware exactly once: the FGB (Zarya) module for ISS. And that was an extremely special case that had more to do with international diplomacy (bringing the Russians into the ISS in the hope they wouldn't sell ICBM/Nuke know-how to Iran... a complete policy failure, by the way.)

US companies buy foreign hardware quite frequently. Numerous American satellites have been launched on Ariane or Proton. But governments rarely do. Even in Europe, the whole point of developing the Ariane was to get European space access independent of the United States. Ditto Japan and the H-2 rocket. Europe continues to support the money-losing Ariane 5, and Japan the EXTREMELY money-losing H-2 for the same reason the US supports the money-losing Delta IV and Atlas 5... they'd rather waste money in their own taxpayer districts than save money but send it all beyond their borders. Those cases where one nation or the other uses the other's launch services have generally been in barter agreements... no money changing hands. (i.e. US builds the satellite, Europe launches it, or vice-versa, and everyone shares the data.)


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6849 times:

Thorny, that wasn´t the issue, the issue was that they didn´t want to test new designs...

User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6840 times:

Quoting Alessandro (Reply 14):
Thorny, that wasn´t the issue, the issue was that they didn´t want to test new designs...

Well, they don't like to introduce radical new designs, that much is clear, and when they do their experience has not been all that good (N-1, Energiya/Buran). Kliper will be a radical departure: a winged spacecraft from a country with very little winged hypersonic experience, assisted by Europe, which also has very little winged hypersonic experience. The Onega booster is a major improvement to Soyuz. Together Onega/Kliper is going to be a big project, certainly in excess of the US CLV/CEV project in complexity. But Russia's most recent success fielding a new manned spacecraft (Soyuz in 1967) was even longer ago than America's (Shuttle in 1981.) Buran was not a success, so it is debatable how much its experience will help the extremely different Kliper.

I'm dubious of Kliper because Russia still doesn't have enough money to develop it on its own and it is unlikely Europe will contribute in a big way. (Europe is hedging its bets, with EADS and Alenia also working on the US CEV proposals.) A far more sensible use of Russia's money would be to double the production rate of the proven Soyuz/Progress family and boosters. Maybe they could also actually build the Universal Docking Module they promised for ISS, and the Research Modules that were supposed to dock there. Why go down the Kliper path when they can't meet their existing funding requirements?


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Senate Clears Nasa To Buy Russian Spaceships
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canada To Buy 4 Boeing C-17s posted Wed May 31 2006 00:31:33 by KrisYYZ
RAAF To Buy C-17s posted Fri Mar 3 2006 13:56:25 by DL021
I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!? posted Thu Sep 15 2005 23:21:06 by TedTAce
Croatia Wants To Buy F-16... Again posted Sat Mar 12 2005 11:08:33 by TripleDelta
Malaysia About To Buy A400M posted Mon Jan 24 2005 17:12:49 by Columba
South Africa Set To Buy 8 To 14 Airbus A400Ms posted Fri Dec 10 2004 09:57:44 by KEESJE
RAF To Buy Outright The C17? posted Fri Apr 16 2004 19:25:04 by Splitzer
US Customs To Buy Indian Helicopters? posted Wed Nov 26 2003 18:32:43 by Gamps
SwedenAirForce To Buy A400M? posted Fri Oct 3 2003 16:11:47 by Solnabo
Malaysia Plans To Buy Super Hornets posted Wed Oct 1 2003 19:28:28 by Triple Seven

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format