House passes bill to let NASA buy Soyuz

[Chris SF]

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051027/NEWS02/51027004/1007

[Avron]

Chris SF - 27/10/2005  10:05 AM

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051027/NEWS02/51027004/1007

Is the bill restricted to Soyuz only?

[gladiator1332]

I wonder, now that we will be buying Soyuz capsules, why don't we work with the Russians to modify them for lunar flights? It would be much cheaper to do that. This way we could keep the Shuttle flying until the SDLV is ready, while lunar flights are being done by the Soyuz. THe price for a flight to lunar orbit in a Soyuz was the last I heard around $100 million. I don't see why NASA could operate the Shuttle and a Soyuz lunar craft. Once the SDLV's are ready and the ISS is complete, NASA would then go to the small companies like T/Space for an ISS transfer vehicle.
The reason I bring this up is, there really is little difference between the CEV and the Soyuz. I believe it would be much cheaper to modify the Soyuz for lunar flight than to build an entirely new spacecraft. The opposition to this would be the fact that NASA's new moon ship would be made in Russia. However, we could still build the SRB Launcher and the SDLV. And we will need spacecraft for the ISS, this is where T/Space could come in, as well as Lockheed and Boeing. TO land on the Moon we will need a lunar lander. And why can't we open up Soyuz production lines here in the US. Car companies do it all the time.

[kraisee]

gladiator1332 - 27/10/2005  3:15 PM

I wonder, now that we will be buying Soyuz capsules, why don't we work with the Russians to modify them for lunar flights? It would be much cheaper to do that. This way we could keep the Shuttle flying until the SDLV is ready, while lunar flights are being done by the Soyuz. THe price for a flight to lunar orbit in a Soyuz was the last I heard around $100 million. I don't see why NASA could operate the Shuttle and a Soyuz lunar craft. Once the SDLV's are ready and the ISS is complete, NASA would then go to the small companies like T/Space for an ISS transfer vehicle.
The reason I bring this up is, there really is little difference between the CEV and the Soyuz. I believe it would be much cheaper to modify the Soyuz for lunar flight than to build an entirely new spacecraft. The opposition to this would be the fact that NASA's new moon ship would be made in Russia. However, we could still build the SRB Launcher and the SDLV. And we will need spacecraft for the ISS, this is where T/Space could come in, as well as Lockheed and Boeing. TO land on the Moon we will need a lunar lander. And why can't we open up Soyuz production lines here in the US. Car companies do it all the time.

The problem with that is then America has no CHOICE for access to space.   With CEV, they aren't tied to the economics up's and down's of another country's space program.

Also there's a lot of national pride involved in the space program.   I just can't see the American public swallowing the idea of relying on Russia's spacecraft and paying their tax dollars to do so.   I think the average American tax-payer would rather pay a bit more and do it themselves, because their investment stays in the US economy and keeps it fuelled.

[Terry Rocket]

Yes, we either get the Shuttle flying again, or what other option is available? Non. We need to do this, with the back up of Soyuz and get the CEV and SDLV ready.

[Dogsbd]

gladiator1332 - 27/10/2005  3:15 PM

The reason I bring this up is, there really is little difference between the CEV and the Soyuz.

Is there a Soyuz variant that can carry a crew of six I am unaware of?

It always amazes me when people are so quick to just throw away American built, owned and controlled manned access to space and depend on another country to provide such a vital resource.

[Colby]

Well, it would actually be Kliper instead of Soyuz if all goes as planned in Russia. The American pride thing is a big factor. I say we buy into the program, American-ize it, and launch it on a CLV!  Only kidding.

[gladiator1332]

Dogsbd - 27/10/2005  7:38 PM

gladiator1332 - 27/10/2005  3:15 PM

The reason I bring this up is, there really is little difference between the CEV and the Soyuz.

Is there a Soyuz variant that can carry a crew of six I am unaware of?

It always amazes me when people are so quick to just throw away American built, owned and controlled manned access to space and depend on another country to provide such a vital resource.

Damn, I should have looked into that closer. The CEV and Soyuz are two different spacecraft. Maybe there was similarities between Apollo and Soyuz, but the CEV is something totally new.

ANd you have every right to call me out on that, since the blunder of downsizing the CEV to nothing but an Apollo clone is something that is getting on my nerves as well.

[realtime]

Pride is one thing.  Strategic access is another.

You're talking about nothing less than outsourcing our space program to a country that was our direst enemy two decades ago.  Yes, we're all buddy-buddy now, but that could change overnight.

Then where would we be?  With a withered space program, no technical base, no infrastructure, no self-confidence, and no access to space.

Sorry if it seems like I'm piling on here, but that is a really bad idea.

[lmike]

I realize it's a political/moral impossibility to not have a token American while there is a Russian/European on the ISS, but personally I would limit US presence to shuttle visits until the ISS-CEV is flight ready, and use the money that will now go to pay for the Souyz (CRV+ferry) to do prizes (or even outright subsidies) for the alt.space guys.  t/Space capsule, Falcon-5 rockets, Orbital Sciences tug, etc...  They are cash strapped but willing and, I believe, able.  Even if they are yet to prove themselves, I believe long term it's a much smarter investment for my tax money.

[Avron]

Does the bill allow for purchase of services via Kliper or Proton?