Russians offer Soyuz to NASA

[Chris Bergin]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=3506

[Avron]

Wonder what a Proton will cost NASA  to get the rest of the ISS in orbit? With one shuttle launch a year, the ISS components on Earth ready to go may rust before they can be launched, ok .. maybe not "rust"

[SRBseparama]

Where did you get one shuttle launch a year? It'll likely be at least three next year and up to five or six thereafter.

[Avron]

SRBseparama - 22/8/2005  12:38 AM

Where did you get one shuttle launch a year? It'll likely be at least three next year and up to five or six thereafter.

Based on current reality... I would love to see six fights a year with the three vehicles. Do you know if there is any major overhalls scheduled in the next five years?

[Ben E]

I was wondering, too, about the possibility of upgrades. It hardly seems worth it if the fleet is being retired in 2010. Discovery has just come out of an upgrade, Endeavour is undergoing one at the moment, so Atlantis is next up. She's been flying since May 2000. Perhaps NASA will just 'retire' Atlantis first, then Discovery and finally the most up-to-date, Endeavour, rather than wasting money (and years) on further upgrades.

As for flights next year, I believe it's four flights next year (STS-121 in March, STS-115 in May, STS-116 in September and STS-117 in December), followed by five per year thereafter. Still should be able to get the station complete by 2010, though.

Ben

[Avron]

Ben E - 25/8/2005  1:28 PM

As for flights next year, I believe it's four flights next year (STS-121 in March, STS-115 in May, STS-116 in September and STS-117 in December), followed by five per year thereafter. Still should be able to get the station complete by 2010, though.

I look forward to all Four flights next year

[Ben E]

It's lamentable, though, that in 1997 NASA had only three operational orbiters (Endeavour was undergoing overhaul) and yet achieved EIGHT missions, admittedly at a push. How times change! It makes me wonder why they can't speed things up to the old way of flying seven or eight per year and they'd get the station done and the Shuttle retired much sooner.

Any ideas why NASA isn't doing this?

Ben

[nacnud]

Because the ET has been found to have a fault?

Where have you been for the last few years!

[Flightstar]

Was speaking with a friend at HQ in DC and he believes the US administration has vetoed the deal. Thanks Bush!  

[Ben E]

Macnud:

Yes, I know about the ET problem, but after Challenger NASA knew about SRB problems and yet still manifested (if not actually achieved!) seven to eight missions per year until 1992, before the arrival of Endeavour. Heck, SRB problems persisted right through to 1996 and the STS-79 problems; they didn't just 'go away' after the post-Challenger fixes. The flight rate was still kept up to seven-ish per year, though, and repairs conducted as and when needed.

I agree that the ET problems should be fixed, but this delay to the fleet is no worse than the 17-inch disconnect problems that grounded Columbia in 1990 (seven-month grounding) and the entire fleet after the STS-93 wiring incident (six-month grounding). NASA was still looking forward to ramping-up the flight rate even in those circumstances. In a late-1999 manifest, eight missions were scheduled for 2000 and 2001, even in the wake of the STS-93 incident.

So, regardless of ET concerns, I think they should still try to get the remaining missions flown as quickly and safely as possible. If another accident, God forbid, is going to happen, it WILL happen regardless of whether they fly a couple or a dozen missions each year.

Ben

[starhunter]

US law prohibits NASA from purchasing or leasing any Russian vehicles. Shame, an outdated law that could be easily annulled.

[Avron]

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iss-05zzzz.html

[Space101]

So no more news on if the US will do a deal with the Russians, or can they even do a deal?

[MKremer]

They can't do any deals until Congress can exempt NASA from the INA.

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/06/nasa_to_get_ina.html

[Avron]

MKremer - 19/9/2005  9:35 AM

They can't do any deals until Congress can exempt NASA from the INA.

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/06/nasa_to_get_ina.html

Think Congress will exempt Nasa once they see the 100- 200 Billion Return to Moon proposal?

[James Lowe1]

It's being passed:

http://www.space.com/news/050921_senate_soyuz.html

[Avron]

James Lowe - 21/9/2005  7:45 PM

It's being passed:

http://www.space.com/news/050921_senate_soyuz.html

Wow... so can we expect the Russians to present to NASA a means to launch ISS hardware via Proton with some container to provide STS like mounts and support power, plus some means to move it close to the ISS via automated guidance?

[Sergi Manstov]

I think you are only buying the use of one Soyuz for your back up needs?

[MKremer]

Avron - 21/9/2005  7:25 PM

Wow... so can we expect the Russians to present to NASA a means to launch ISS hardware via Proton with some container to provide STS like mounts and support power, plus some means to move it close to the ISS via automated guidance?

No, this is only for the ability to buy one or more Soyuz vehicles if they need to for shuttling crew back and forth.

[Avron]

MKremer - 22/9/2005  10:13 AM

Avron - 21/9/2005  7:25 PM

Wow... so can we expect the Russians to present to NASA a means to launch ISS hardware via Proton with some container to provide STS like mounts and support power, plus some means to move it close to the ISS via automated guidance?

No, this is only for the ability to buy one or more Soyuz vehicles if they need to for shuttling crew back and forth.

Ok...
"Lugar’s bill, S. 1713, changes the law to permit NASA to buy [BOLD] any [/BOLD] Russian space hardware or services it needs for the International Space Station program until 2012."

Thats a bit more that just Human spacecraft.. so the door is open