NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
International Space Flight (ESA, Russia, China and others) => Russian Launchers - Soyuz, Progress and Uncrewed => Topic started by: simpl simon on 04/16/2009 03:40 pm
-
NASA announcement at:
http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=134686
Minimum of 18 seats up to maximum of 24 seats beginning spring 2012.
Responses due 1 May.
-
Curtains for the manned version of Dragon!!
They willn't be able to do it without state funding!
-
What was the going round trip price per crew member the last time NASA bought seats in Soyuz? $50 million? So we are looking at a contract worth, say, something between $900 million to $1.2 billion?
-
Curtains for the manned version of Dragon!!
No it is not. If NASA wants to pursue COTS-D, this will not stop them.
NASA has made it clear from day one that while they would prefer a US commercial provider over Soyuz, they are not willing to "bet the program" that Dragon (or any other commercial provider) can be ready to go before the end of 2011. Therefore renewing the Soyuz agreement - and renewing it *now* - is a requirement, since the Soyuz production line needs a couple of years.
-
For anyone interested Mr Obama and Mr Holden have a really great idea they are right now putting
forefront. Read what Mr Holden has in mind ; the Chinese can fly us to the ISS. See Space.com
story today what they have found out. Now we are out sourcing our space program to China along with
the rest of our jobs. Plus they just about own us already.
-
"It might also be the Chinese, depending on how our relationship develops.(he added.)
I think it's possible in principle to develop the required degree of confidence in the Chinese," Holdren said in the interview in regard to having confidence in China's ability to launch U.S. astronauts. "I put it out there only as speculation, but I don't think it should be ruled out."
Doesn't sound like an actual firm proposal. Yes, it's feasible but as Holdren himself said, speculation.
-
For anyone interested Mr Obama and Mr Holden have a really great idea they are right now putting
forefront. Read what Mr Holden has in mind ; the Chinese can fly us to the ISS. See Space.com
story today what they have found out. Now we are out sourcing our space program to China along with
the rest of our jobs. Plus they just about own us already.
Is this Chinese thing only a cost issue or a big national issue??
If it is the latter, I wouldn't agree because the American public wouldn't feel any closer to the Chinese then the Russians. As of now, Russia seems the only choice.
-
Competition is good, even if its just the Russian and Chinese competing for our dollars.
-
Competition is good, even if its just the Russian and Chinese competing for our dollars.
The "competition" will be over the minute that SpaceX or some other US commercial provider can produce a viable alternative, even if it is more expensive than either Soyuz or Shenzhou.
-
Competition is good, even if its just the Russian and Chinese competing for our dollars.
The "competition" will be over the minute that SpaceX or some other US commercial provider can produce a viable alternative, even if it is more expensive than either Soyuz or Shenzhou.
What do you think constitutes "viable"? NASA is pretty proud of its human rating requirements and its ISS visiting vehicle standards.
If SpaceX shows up with a manned Dragon capsule and a Falcon 9 that has flown five times and blown up once, and says "flights depart from LC-40, $25 million, tickets must be purchased one month prior to departure", I can't see NASA going for it. They'll insist on going through the design, requesting changes to increase reliability, providing operational oversight, etc.
If Boeing or LockMart showed up with a conservatively-designed manned capsule that would fit on a single-stick EELV and had just passed through CDR, you could imagine NASA might be willing to take over the design and push it through to operational status. But how much would they be willing to pay for it? It's not like anyone else is going to come along and buy it out from under them.
-
Competition is good, even if its just the Russian and Chinese competing for our dollars.
The "competition" will be over the minute that SpaceX or some other US commercial provider can produce a viable alternative, even if it is more expensive than either Soyuz or Shenzhou.
More competition is even better.
-
Competition is good, even if its just the Russian and Chinese competing for our dollars.
The "competition" will be over the minute that SpaceX or some other US commercial provider can produce a viable alternative, even if it is more expensive than either Soyuz or Shenzhou.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=479551a894177ad8e10529eae3b6a12a&_cview=0
Synopsis:
Added: Apr 16, 2009 11:32 am Modified: Apr 23, 2009 3:49 pmTrack Changes
This is modification 1 to the synopsis entitled PROCUREMENT OF CREW TRANSPORTATIONAND RESCUE SERVICES FROM ROSCOSMOS solicitation number NNJ09ZBG196R which was posted on April 16, 2009. You are notified that the following changes are made: The purpose of this modification is to revise the minimum number of Soyuz seats which maybe procured from a minimum of 18 seats to a minimum of 3 seats. NASA is still accepting capability statements from interested organizations documenting their ability to provide Crew Transportation and Rescue Services requirements identified in the synopsis.The due date for responses is not extended. Documents related to this procurement will be available over the Internet. These documents will reside on a World Wide Web (WWW) server, which may be accessed using a WWWbrowser application. The Internet site, or URL, for the NASA/JSC Business Opportunitieshome page is http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/bizops.cgi?gr=D&pin=73 Offerors are responsible for monitoring this site for the release of the solicitation andany amendments. Potential offerors are responsible for downloading their own copy of the solicitation and amendments.
-
I think that it was indeed an error by NASA to lock in 18 seats from the Russians for the post 2012 at this early date. Certainly, there is no technical requirement for Roskosmos to know how many seats NASA will buy after 2012, at this moment in time. I believe that the construction time for a Soyuz is 18 months, not 3 years.
-
Competition is good, even if its just the Russian and Chinese competing for our dollars.
The "competition" will be over the minute that SpaceX or some other US commercial provider can produce a viable alternative, even if it is more expensive than either Soyuz or Shenzhou.
What do you think constitutes "viable"? NASA is pretty proud of its human rating requirements and its ISS visiting vehicle standards.
If SpaceX shows up with a manned Dragon capsule and a Falcon 9 that has flown five times and blown up once, and says "flights depart from LC-40, $25 million, tickets must be purchased one month prior to departure", I can't see NASA going for it. They'll insist on going through the design, requesting changes to increase reliability, providing operational oversight, etc.
If Boeing or LockMart showed up with a conservatively-designed manned capsule that would fit on a single-stick EELV and had just passed through CDR, you could imagine NASA might be willing to take over the design and push it through to operational status. But how much would they be willing to pay for it? It's not like anyone else is going to come along and buy it out from under them.
I can't see NASA going for it on their own, but I can see the Congressmen who control NASA's purse strings forcing the issue. Then again, it's also hard to see Boeing or LM producing a conservative-designed manned capsule on their own dime, or even on COTS-D money.
-
@ veryrelaxed
I'm not sure that the US Gov't will be willing to offer 'guarantees'. Indeed, from what happened to PlanetSpace's bid for CRS, one wonders if there is some momentum to giving 'new guys' (like Orbital and Space-X) an advantage on these processes.
That said, I've got a feeling that ULA would probably be able to get a manned spacecraft operational faster than Space-X. This is mostly because ULA (or, specifically, Lockheed-Martin and Boeing-MDD) have enormous experience in the game whilst Space-X is still working things out from basic principles.
That said, I feel obliged to mentio that NASA is reducing its minimum contracted commitment to Roscosmos could be interpreted as an 'escape hatch' in case the plug is suddenly pulled on US manned spaceflight some time during or after 2012.
-
How many times do I have to say it
ULA doesn't build spacecraft, it only exists to build Atlas and Delta
-
The question at the end of the day for NASA is about time and money. Even if LM or Boeing came up with something, they'll take atleast 3 years to complete the whole process and NASA will have to fund the whole thing.
The reason for this is that when EELVs where built LM and Boeing where confident that they will be used big numbers and hence they would end up making huge profits.
However, in this case the manned spacecraft is required only until the completion of Orion. This would mean somewhere between 15-20 flights for that spacecraft. Why would ULA or anybody invest in such a project ??
-
The question at the end of the day for NASA is about time and money. Even if LM or Boeing came up with something, they'll take atleast 3 years to complete the whole process and NASA will have to fund the whole thing.
The reason for this is that when EELVs where built LM and Boeing where confident that they will be used big numbers and hence they would end up making huge profits.
However, in this case the manned spacecraft is required only until the completion of Orion. This would mean somewhere between 15-20 flights for that spacecraft.
NASA is perfectly aware that a commitment to continuing Orion flights to ISS, even after a US commercial alternative were available, would have a chilling effect on the development of those alternatives. NASA has stated, repeatedly, that Orion is an expensive way for the US to rotate ISS crews and that once the initial test flights are complete they'd prefer to reserve Orion for beyond-LEO flights if a US commercial provider were available for ISS duty.
-
The question at the end of the day for NASA is about time and money. Even if LM or Boeing came up with something, they'll take atleast 3 years to complete the whole process and NASA will have to fund the whole thing.
The reason for this is that when EELVs where built LM and Boeing where confident that they will be used big numbers and hence they would end up making huge profits.
However, in this case the manned spacecraft is required only until the completion of Orion. This would mean somewhere between 15-20 flights for that spacecraft.
NASA is perfectly aware that a commitment to continuing Orion flights to ISS, even after a US commercial alternative were available, would have a chilling effect on the development of those alternatives. NASA has stated, repeatedly, that Orion is an expensive way for the US to rotate ISS crews and that once the initial test flights are complete they'd prefer to reserve Orion for beyond-LEO flights if a US commercial provider were available for ISS duty.
The hard part a commercial provider will still have with Orion's presence is that to maintain access to space, NASA still has to have a budgetary immediate reason to fly. If it isn't doing lunar/other missions, and Orion can only fly to ISS by default, even a small flight rate to maintain the capability would be a serious PITA to any commercial vendor. That is the reality.
So the issue, unfortunately, is still present.
It's a non-issue of the commercial vendors fly BEFORE Orion ... because with good flight history, there would be much political pressure to cancel Orion (wouldn't happen for other reasons), and there would be a deal cut to guarantee business not unlike this Russian crew transport deal. My bet is that this will happen.
-
It's a non-issue of the commercial vendors fly BEFORE Orion ... because with good flight history, there would be much political pressure to cancel Orion (wouldn't happen for other reasons), and there would be a deal cut to guarantee business not unlike this Russian crew transport deal. My bet is that this will happen.
Are you saying it is likely Orion would be canceled if a commercial US capsule were available soon?