Author Topic: What do the Russians think of the CEV?  (Read 14524 times)

Offline Zoomer30

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« on: 10/14/2006 05:42 pm »
It makes you wonder if they are a little "worried" about the US getting a nice, cheap to use spacecraft for sending people to the station.  They wont be needed to send people up anymore and....well....bye bye $$$.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #1 on: 10/14/2006 08:15 pm »
Orion will be considerably more expensive than Soyuz to operate: higher wage costs in the US, it is a larger spacecraft, and it is optimised for lunar missions rather than the ISS role. The Orion flight plan also calls for relatively few ISS-related flights and complete cessation of these after 2016.
You should remember that at the start of the ISS project Russia expected routine STS missions to perform crew up-flights, whilst the ACRV would take on the 'lifeboat' role. The current situation (STS grounding and impending cancellation, ACRV cancellation) has of course been something of a bonus to Russia but Orion doesn't really go anywhere towards countering this.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline stargazer777

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #2 on: 10/14/2006 09:07 pm »
The Russians are still caught between memories of their glorious past exploits in space (and their is much to be proud of) and their current lack of resources to support their space ambitions.  Soyuz has been a life saver for us and the ISS, but it is seriously out of date and needs either a radical upgrade or a total replacement.  It seems the Russians (and the Europeans) have at least temporarily abandonded the Klipper concept of a reusable space shuttle like vehicle.  The most recent reports I have read indicate that the ESA has agreed to cooperate with the Russians to fund an upgraded Soyuz capsule.  The nature and extent of those upgrades was not described.  As with the ESA/Klipper cooperation, you have to be a bit skeptical of this project.  Just how much of a change can you make on Soyuz before you basically have to build a new spacecraft from scratch?  The ESA also a a serious lack of resources (read money) for their ambitious projects.  I wonder if it is worth the time and money to duplicate a capability we are already building with Orion?  Of course, there are important issues of national pride/ego in dealing with the Europeans and Russians.  At some point though, it is worth asking whether their resources would be better spent on a closer alliance with the US in space -- both in terms of ISS support and Moon/Mars exploration.  Could a European or Russian booster launch an Orion craft at least to the ISS?  If so, then it might be cheaper for everyone involved to just make more Orions and spread the cost of launchers among the other partners.

Offline Mark Dave

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1096
  • Ruined
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #3 on: 10/14/2006 09:07 pm »
After 15 years of service the ISS will be taken down. I heard that is the amount of time for a space station. For example Mir was expected to last just 8 years and went alot longer. I hope there is something to help keep ISS in orbit beyond the shuttle cancellation in 2010.


Offline Mark Dave

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1096
  • Ruined
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #4 on: 10/14/2006 09:07 pm »
After 15 years of service the ISS will be taken down. I heard that is the amount of time for a space station. For example Mir was expected to last just 8 years and went alot longer. I hope there is something to help keep ISS in orbit beyond the shuttle cancellation in 2010.


Offline stargazer777

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #5 on: 10/14/2006 11:00 pm »
I wouldn't assume the kind of limited lifespan you are describing for the ISS.  There are so many variables to take into account:  continual upgrade and repair, new and improved modules, and the determination of the participating nations to keep it alive.  All of these argue, in my mind at least, for a much longer lifespan for ISS than was anticipated.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #6 on: 10/15/2006 12:38 pm »
I don't see why people think the Soyuz is outdated. Whilst the basic design dates back to around 1962 it has been updated several times over the years, always building on the known performance of the previous versions. This is a very safe way of designing a spacecraft, by evolution rather than 'clean sheet'.
I was always a little sceptical of Klipper- an interesting project but it would have cost the same per person to fly as Soyuz does, and was therefore not returning on its investment. As I understand, the current ESA/Russia plans are to build a larger Soyuz-type craft with lunar missions in mind. It is almost certainly nothing more than a paper exercise showing how Europe and Russia can counter the Orion 'threat' and since there is no funding for manned lunar missions from these countries the project is not going to go anywhere.
I agree that the ISS will likely soldier on longer than 2016. With no imminent replacement there is no pressure to ditch it as there was with Mir. I also think that is is very likely that the Soyuz will continue to fly into the 2020s in esentially its present form.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #7 on: 10/15/2006 01:08 pm »
Quote
stargazer777 - 14/10/2006  6:43 PM

I wouldn't assume the kind of limited lifespan you are describing for the ISS.  There are so many variables to take into account:  continual upgrade and repair, new and improved modules, and the determination of the participating nations to keep it alive.  All of these argue, in my mind at least, for a much longer lifespan for ISS than was anticipated.

There is limited life.   The FGB is almost 10 years old.  It is not certified for 20 years.  MIR was onorbit for only 15 years

The Service Module was suppose to be MIR 2.  It has some old designs in it
there isn't any continual upgrade program.
There isn't any new and improved modules, other than the 4 still on the ground and they don't replace the SM or FGB

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2706
  • Liked: 1193
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #8 on: 10/15/2006 02:43 pm »
I think that the main limit to ISS lifetime will be $$$.

Besides that I can't imagine the Euros or the Russian purchasing US spare parts or renting MCC-H for the station, for instance and having to send hard currency to the US. Not talking about the ITAR issues, flying the ISS without the standing army at JSC, without the training facilities in Bldg 9, without MCC-H, etc etc.

I have never seen any convincing scenario describing how to fly the ISS without NASA.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #9 on: 10/15/2006 02:50 pm »
Quote
Jim - 15/10/2006  7:51 AM

Quote
stargazer777 - 14/10/2006  6:43 PM

I wouldn't assume the kind of limited lifespan you are describing for the ISS.  There are so many variables to take into account:  continual upgrade and repair, new and improved modules, and the determination of the participating nations to keep it alive.  All of these argue, in my mind at least, for a much longer lifespan for ISS than was anticipated.

There is limited life.   The FGB is almost 10 years old.  It is not certified for 20 years.  MIR was onorbit for only 15 years

The Service Module was suppose to be MIR 2.  It has some old designs in it
there isn't any continual upgrade program.
There isn't any new and improved modules, other than the 4 still on the ground and they don't replace the SM or FGB

As Stargazer777 said, there are a lot of variables. The FGB served its primary purpose up until Zvesda (SM) arrived, and is largely used for storage and "connective tissue" now. As long as its structural integrity remains solid it's more or less a benign module. The fact that there is not currently an upgrade program in place for ISS does not mean that there will not BE one. Same is true of the potential for new or upgraded modules. The fact that NASA doesn't have such plans doesn't mean anything at all, since NASA is just one user, and a diminishing one at that. As I have said repeatedly in numerous posts, the ISS does not belong to NASA, not even the US Segment. It "belongs" to the US, and those who made the investment of US tax dollars into it (i.e., the Congress) have stated their intent to see the ISS be fully utilized and have established what will be a longer-term, non-NASA mechansm for seeing that happen. In January, when the implementation plan for the National Laboratory is released, THEN we can all have a clearer idea of the ISS future potential, at least from the US persepctive.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #10 on: 10/15/2006 03:01 pm »
No matter how you wordsmith it, Any version of it would have to be supported by NASA and use limited NASA resources.  Can't call it a "National Laboratory" and cuts ties with NASA.   Congress says a lot but usually doesn't back it up with $.  It doesn't matter if there is a "National Laboratory", if no one is funding the experiments and PI's

"The fact that there is not currently an upgrade program in place for ISS does not mean that there will not BE one. Same is true of the potential for new or upgraded modules. "  

Where are the $$ for this.  If it isn't budgeted now, it is going to come out of someone's hide.  CAM is not around anymore.  No HAB.  If there are to be more modules, then there should be studies of them now.

"The fact that NASA doesn't have such plans doesn't mean anything at all"

Usually it does.  If no one is planning for it, it is harder to do.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #11 on: 10/15/2006 03:04 pm »
Quote
hektor - 15/10/2006  9:26 AM


I have never seen any convincing scenario describing how to fly the ISS without NASA.

Clearly, the MCC-H infrastructure will continue to be required for ISS operational control. But the "ownership" of that infrastructure can be changed with the stroke of a presidential pen on an Act of Congress, or by several other means. As I said earlier, the US Segment of ISS has been designated as a "National Laboratory" by the Congress. What that actually means in reality will begin to be seen in January with the completion of the required implementation plan. That event will begin the evolution of an entirely different future for ISS from the US vantage point, so any assumptions now about what that future will actually be should be considered "tentative."
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #12 on: 10/15/2006 03:22 pm »
Quote
Jim - 15/10/2006  9:44 AM

No matter how you wordsmith it, Any version of it would have to be supported by NASA and use limited NASA resources.  Can't call it a "National Laboratory" and cuts ties with NASA.   Congress says a lot but usually doesn't back it up with $.  It doesn't matter if there is a "National Laboratory", if no one is funding the experiments and PI's

"The fact that there is not currently an upgrade program in place for ISS does not mean that there will not BE one. Same is true of the potential for new or upgraded modules. "  

Where are the $$ for this.  If it isn't budgeted now, it is going to come out of someone's hide.  CAM is not around anymore.  No HAB.  If there are to be more modules, then there should be studies of them now.

"The fact that NASA doesn't have such plans doesn't mean anything at all"

Usually it does.  If no one is planning for it, it is harder to do.

As I said, today's situation may not be tomorrow's. Everything you said is correct in the current environment. All I'm saying is that the situation is on a "path to change" and that path, which will be seen early next year in the NL implementation report, could trigger the kinds of "plans" you are describing, including things like the potential to reinstate the CAM, the HAB or addtional modules, AND the funding stream to support them.

As to Congress not backing up what it says with $, just remember that every dime NASA gets in its budget comes from Congress, and right now there are two efforts under way in the Congress that, if successful, would add $2.4 billion to NASA's budget ABOVE the requested $16.2 billion for FY 2007, and if not successful in the limited time remaiing this year, will be reintroduced early next year.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #13 on: 10/15/2006 03:48 pm »
It is not just MCC-H, that is just a facility  It is the NASA and contractor personnel of the MOD that does the flight planning, support and control of the mission.  It is the NASA JSC Engineering group and the Boeing/subs contractor team that provide the sustaining engineering.  This can't be separated from NASA, since many of these people are matrixed and support multiple programs.  

"stroke of a presidential pen on an Act of Congress" like that is really going to occur.  Same as NASA being dissolved.   Too many cooks in the kitchen to really affect a change at that level.  

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2706
  • Liked: 1193
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #14 on: 10/15/2006 03:58 pm »
That won't fly... For me if NASA really withdraws in 2015, people in Europe and Russia will complain as much as they want, but there will be no other solution that cease operation and deorbit the whole thing. I am sorry for the Euros and Russians they are not realizing that right now and plan accordingly.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #15 on: 10/15/2006 04:26 pm »
Quote
Jim - 15/10/2006  10:31 AM

It is not just MCC-H, that is just a facility  It is the NASA and contractor personnel of the MOD that does the flight planning, support and control of the mission.  It is the NASA JSC Engineering group and the Boeing/subs contractor team that provide the sustaining engineering.  This can't be separated from NASA, since many of these people are matrixed and support multiple programs.  

"stroke of a presidential pen on an Act of Congress" like that is really going to occur.  Same as NASA being dissolved.   Too many cooks in the kitchen to really affect a change at that level.  

Heard much of the same when SFOC was being negotiated..but it got done. There used to be a Department of Health, Education and Welfare, now there is not; there didn't used to be a Department of Homeland Security, now there is. There didn't even used to be a NASA...now there is. All with Acts of Congress and strokes of a presidential pen. Maybe not perfectly, but there it is. And NASA could be dissolved or reconfigured, like splitting off Aeronautics, all the same way. Likely? Who can say? That's a subjective viewpoint. You have yours and I have mine. When it comes to Congress, mine comes from having worked there for twenty years and having a bit of an idea of what can happen there, coupled with ten years at NASA at JSC and HQ, two of which were as an AA--so I'm somewhat familiar with the kinds of changes that can be made "at that level."
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
RE: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #16 on: 10/15/2006 04:46 pm »
Quote
Zoomer30 - 14/10/2006  10:25 AM

It makes you wonder if they are a little "worried" about the US getting a nice, cheap to use spacecraft for sending people to the station.  They wont be needed to send people up anymore and....well....bye bye $$$.

I would imagine that they think of Orion the same way they worried about Venturestar, or OSP, or X-34, or X-38, or CRV or about how the Propulsion Module would cut into their Progress missions, or how EELV was going to be cheaper than the Soyuz LV.


Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #17 on: 10/15/2006 04:49 pm »
This probably belongs more in the ISS forum but here goes...
If NASA didn't have to provide any spacecraft, and the ISS was to be run entirely by the international partners with ESA & Russia providing the hardware (Soyuz, Progress, ATV, and perhaps Proton or Ariane launched modules to augment/replace the FGB/SM etc) what would NASA's involvement be reduced to? If NASA still had to provide some sort of mission control operation how much would that cost?
I had assumed that Russia would be perfectly capable of operating the ISS on its own- after all, the critical components are the Russian ones anyway.
As I said above, I find it hard to believe that the ISS will be deorbited in 2016. Mir was scrapped primarily for political reasons, not technical or financial ones. In 2016 there will almost certainly be no new space station planned and the pressure will be to keep the ISS in operation.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #18 on: 10/16/2006 12:49 pm »
If the Russians and ESA want to continue using the ISS after 2016, the US will come to terms. What conceivable benefit would it be to the US to upset them by 'insisting' on the closure of the facility?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: What do the Russians think of the CEV?
« Reply #19 on: 10/16/2006 01:18 pm »
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 16/10/2006  8:32 AM

If the Russians and ESA want to continue using the ISS after 2016, the US will come to terms. What conceivable benefit would it be to the US to upset them by 'insisting' on the closure of the facility?

The $ has to come from somewhere.  If the US doesn't want to spend it on the ISS, then the ISS has to be deorbited

Tags:
 

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