Author Topic: NASA Extends Crew Flight Contract With Russian Space Agency  (Read 61698 times)

Offline MP99

Shuttle only gets us extra crew while the Shuttle is on-station. After the Shuttle leaves (Shuttle has a rather limited on-orbit lifetime, even when attached to the station), any extra crew have to leave with her.

What effect does the "crew surge" have while Shuttle is docked?

How much maintenance work can they offload from the permanent crew while they're there? I believe maintenance is a substantial overhead for ISS's crew.

Edit: IE I'm wondering whether the combined effect could be more than the contribution of a 7th crew member for a few days.

cheers, Martin
« Last Edit: 03/15/2011 08:47 pm by MP99 »

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Edit: IE I'm wondering whether the combined effect could be more than the contribution of a 7th crew member for a few days.

There IS NO "7th crew member". This mythical 7th crew member contributes just as much to ISS ops as the other shuttle crew members.

ISS normally has a crew of 6. When the Shuttle is docked, the whole complex could have a crew of 10-14, depending on Shuttle crew size.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Edit: IE I'm wondering whether the combined effect could be more than the contribution of a 7th crew member for a few days.

There IS NO "7th crew member". This mythical 7th crew member contributes just as much to ISS ops as the other shuttle crew members.

ISS normally has a crew of 6. When the Shuttle is docked, the whole complex could have a crew of 10-14, depending on Shuttle crew size.

Up to the limits of ALSO keeping the shuttle operating.

Shuttle ops, in a commercial capacity, would be likely robotic ops for large ORUs from the payload bay AND EVAs to install/replace components (assuming this is approved, rather than staged EVAs). Or it could be the robotic ops to remove an MPLM from the PLB, and then all the work to transfer & store: which, if one follows the docked time threads, is at least 4 days to complete, if not the entire docked mission.

So just from the standpoint of 'temp astronauts' that will be returning after the surge, they provide an invaluable service.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Of course they provide an invaluable service. My point was that it was silly to say that Shuttle provides a "7th ISS crew member" when it actually provider several temporary crew members.


Offline northanger

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I can see how the 7th ISS crew member became "mythical", looks like we've been scaling this back over time.

link

Quote
ISS was originally intended for 7 crewmembers, but it was decided a while ago to only support 6 crewmembers.

I did find, CRS Issue Brief for Congress, 2005 (pdf)

Quote
“Expedition” crews have occupied ISS on a 4-6 month rotating basis since November 2000. Originally the crews had three members (two Russians and one American, or two Americans and one Russian), with an expectation that crew size would grow to six or seven once assembly was completed. Crew size is temporarily reduced to two (one American, one Russian) while the U.S. shuttle is grounded in order to reduce resupply requirements. The number of astronauts who can live on the space station is limited in part by how many can be returned to Earth in an emergency by lifeboats docked to the station. Only Russian Soyuz spacecraft are available as lifeboats. Each Soyuz can hold three people, limiting crew size to three if only one Soyuz is attached. NASA planned to build a U.S. Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) to provide lifeboat capabilities for at least four more crew. The Bush Administration canceled those plans due to cost growth in the ISS program, then began a different program (the Orbital Space Plane) that also was cancelled.
- - -
At the time the core complete configuration was announced, another major concern was the decision to indefinitely defer the CRV, which subsequently was canceled. That would have limited the space station to three permanent crew members, not seven as planned, reducing the number of researchers on board to conduct the research program.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Of course they provide an invaluable service. My point was that it was silly to say that Shuttle provides a "7th ISS crew member" when it actually provider several temporary crew members.



No it's not Lars.  During construction the combined crews were mainly dedicated to assembly.  Yet, there was still ISS ops and science to attend to.

During logistics/crew-rotation runs, the pace does not need to be as feverish.  The shuttle crew could essentially tend to the transfers, etc and the "7th person" could be dedicated to any number of things onboard ISS. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline DARPA-86

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 137
  • Pig farmer from Ryan, Iowa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
The real issue here is that this is yet another example of the current NASA Adminstration taking a confrontational approach to Congress.  The Congressional intent has been clear - make us less reliant upon Russian crew capacity, not more.  Now with over three years remaining on the existing contract, this NASA Adminstrator committs us to another two years and an additional three quarters of a billion dollars out of future NASA budgets to underwrite another nations space program.

Those are funds and contracts that may not be within the grasp of non-Russian providers today, but in three years? - one could make the argurement it is a capability achievable by another partner.  I don't care if it is Orion, Dragon, CST-100, even an "evolved ATV" - geopolitics alone make the case for a second provider to a National Lab of the United States that the US taxpayer has invested between $ 70 billion and $ 100 billion since Dec of 1993.

Offline Chris Bergin

Little thread delete back. Everyone be careful when posting to ensure it adds to the thread and isn't wasting our bandwidth ;)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
The real issue here is that this is yet another example of the current NASA Adminstration taking a confrontational approach to Congress.  The Congressional intent has been clear - make us less reliant upon Russian crew capacity, not more.  Now with over three years remaining on the existing contract, this NASA Adminstrator committs us to another two years and an additional three quarters of a billion dollars out of future NASA budgets to underwrite another nations space program.

How is it the fault of the current NASA administration? They have been proposing commercial crew for gap reduction which will could remove the need for future Soyuz contracts, yet Congress insists on trimming that down as much as possible to only CCDEV studies while CxP contracts (which were going nowhere fast) are maintained.

By supersizing SLS, congress is also holding Orion hostage to it. (even though it will hopefully fly on EELV)

The NASA administration shares the blame, but IMO congress is the entity now that is most responsible for this continued "underwriting of another nations space program".

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Of course they provide an invaluable service. My point was that it was silly to say that Shuttle provides a "7th ISS crew member" when it actually provider several temporary crew members.



No it's not Lars.  During construction the combined crews were mainly dedicated to assembly.  Yet, there was still ISS ops and science to attend to.

During logistics/crew-rotation runs, the pace does not need to be as feverish.  The shuttle crew could essentially tend to the transfers, etc and the "7th person" could be dedicated to any number of things onboard ISS. 

The 7th person could not stay aboard the ISS when the shuttle leaves and thus would not be considered part of the ISS crew. Unless we want to buy 3 soyuzs since the CRV was canceled.

The shuttle like any manned spacecraft could provide temp. personel but that isn't crew for the station.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Of course they provide an invaluable service. My point was that it was silly to say that Shuttle provides a "7th ISS crew member" when it actually provider several temporary crew members.



No it's not Lars.  During construction the combined crews were mainly dedicated to assembly.  Yet, there was still ISS ops and science to attend to.

During logistics/crew-rotation runs, the pace does not need to be as feverish.  The shuttle crew could essentially tend to the transfers, etc and the "7th person" could be dedicated to any number of things onboard ISS. 

The 7th person could not stay aboard the ISS when the shuttle leaves and thus would not be considered part of the ISS crew. Unless we want to buy 3 soyuzs since the CRV was canceled.

The shuttle like any manned spacecraft could provide temp. personel but that isn't crew for the station.

Thanks pathfinder!  Try at least reading even the last page of posts prior to "commenting". 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline northanger

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Right now I'm trying to determine the difference between capability vs. functionality. Some say there is no difference, Microsoft says,

Quote
A capability models what a business function does—its externally visible behavior (versus how it does it, its internal behavior)—and the expected level of performance.

and, Capability is more powerful than process

Quote
Thinking exclusively about processes creates rigidity leaving the enterprise vulnerable to competitors who think beyond “what has to be done” and toward “what are the different combinations of resources to create the outcome.”

This happened in the music industry. Where recording companies were perfecting their supply chain processes to meet the requirements for lower prices demanding by mass retailers like Wal-Mart only to be upset by a new configuration of resources known as Napster and eventually iTunes. The process focus contributed to a limited vision and execution.

iTunes illustrates capability thinking. First off, iTunes is build from a collection [of] resources...

The structures required for supporting the next generation enterprise and CIO

Quote
Without a re-organization that assigns resources and responsibilities for evolving the operating model, change will continue to be sporadic, risky and disruptive. These are the resources CIOs need to actively manage the operating model.

Yes I am talking about an organization having three major operational areas: The Line, the Back Office (oversight) and Enterprise Capability (evolution)

So what is in an enterprise capability organization? The resources required to define, build and sustain how the enterprise works defined by its capabilities. A capability is the resources an enterprise uses to create outcomes and it embodies the combination of process, human capital, technology, information and culture.

For me, the enterprise is Space Exploration and ISS is just one of many components that if leveraged properly could accelerate future development of that enterprise. And that's the point some folks are making: we're not mapping this out effectively.

What would, if anything, be accelerated if NASA said it needed nine, and not six or seven, permanent crew at the space station? Because the only reason why I'd consider nine is to accelerate the enterprise in the new commercial framework. Working that problem may help everyone understand why the Shuttles need to be retired and something else accelerated.

I apologize if this is more meta than anybody needs :) But I just learned that repowering Apollo 13's command module took 500+ steps with the astronauts grabbing every piece of blank paper they could find. With Lovell saying "Look it, give us the proper information, no more, no less". It would be great if we could do something similar to power up the new commercial space enterprise to help our venture capitalists (the public, the president and the congress) and keep space alive and fun.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Some things that everyone can agree on:

1) The Russians will likely continue to raise their prices until the US has an alternative to Soyuz for lifeboat services.

2) Continuing to fly the Shuttle does nothing to influence #1 above.

3) Buying Soyuz lifeboat services and flying Shuttle can divert financial resources that could be instead used to develop and fly a US lifeboat.

4) However, the STS-134 and STS-135 budgets are not redeployable to developing a US lifeboat alternative to Soyuz.




Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 3
Some things that everyone can agree on:

1) The Russians will likely continue to raise their prices until the US has an alternative to Soyuz for lifeboat services.


Could a manned dragon be launched unmanned?

This would not require the development of an LAS, and if it is really as simple as installing some chairs in a cargo-dragon, it would be quite cheap.

Would enable a seventh crew-member and could do it this year IMHO if they keep COTS-3 or CRS-1 docked to the ISS.
JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Some things that everyone can agree on:

1) The Russians will likely continue to raise their prices until the US has an alternative to Soyuz for lifeboat services.

2) Continuing to fly the Shuttle does nothing to influence #1 above.

3) Buying Soyuz lifeboat services and flying Shuttle can divert financial resources that could be instead used to develop and fly a US lifeboat.

4) However, the STS-134 and STS-135 budgets are not redeployable to developing a US lifeboat alternative to Soyuz.





1.  Probably.  We handed them a monopoly.
2.  It would give us a position to negotiate from relative to price increases and it would allow other revenue from "spaceflight participants".
3.  A US "lifeboat" is either Orion or a commercial vehicle.  The financial and technical aspects of that have been discussed at length.
4.  This doesn't even make any sense given STS-134, and especially STS-135, are critical to ISS. 

Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8

Could a manned dragon be launched unmanned?

This would not require the development of an LAS, and if it is really as simple as installing some chairs in a cargo-dragon, it would be quite cheap.

Would enable a seventh crew-member and could do it this year IMHO if they keep COTS-3 or CRS-1 docked to the ISS.

While a Dargon could act as lifeboat there would be no way to get the 7th person up sort of buying more Soyuz flights. The shuttle is about to be retired(and couldn't get back the the ISS without atleast a 2-3 year gap). Might as well develop the LAS and have a craft capable of carring 7.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
AArggh.  It's not a 2-3 year gap.  Goodness how many times does it have to be said. 

Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Some things that everyone can agree on:

1) The Russians will likely continue to raise their prices until the US has an alternative to Soyuz for lifeboat services.


Could a manned dragon be launched unmanned?

This would not require the development of an LAS, and if it is really as simple as installing some chairs in a cargo-dragon, it would be quite cheap.

Would enable a seventh crew-member and could do it this year IMHO if they keep COTS-3 or CRS-1 docked to the ISS.

Cargo Dragon is incapable of undocking quickly from ISS since it uses a CBM interface instead of APAS or LIDS. Therefore unsuitable for the CRV role. Crew Dragon will use LIDS.
JRF

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
AArggh.  It's not a 2-3 year gap.  Goodness how many times does it have to be said. 



Most sources figure atleast 2 years to restart the shuttle's production lines.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
AArggh.  It's not a 2-3 year gap.  Goodness how many times does it have to be said. 



Most sources figure atleast 2 years to restart the shuttle's production lines.

Ahhh, I see.  "Sources".  Got it. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0