-
Should US astronauts still fly on Soyuz after Commercial Crew is available?
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 25 Sep, 2011 19:16
-
Wanted to start this thread here rather than commercial as the main emphasis is on station operations rather than specific to commercial crew only. After commercial crew is available, it seems that the USOS will fly crews on CC and the Russian segment will fly their crew on Soyuz. YEt when one thinks about redundancy, perhaps still mixing crews on spacecraft would still be a desirable nominal operation.
For example, suppose there is another incident where a Soyuz craft is grounded. Now the entire Russian segment (and as a result the USOS) is under threat if the existing Soyuz must return. Therefore, while NASA should pay only Commercial crew for seats, and Russia pay for Soyuz seats, perhaps a seat swap would be appropriate for future operations.
-
#1
by
Jorge
on 25 Sep, 2011 19:19
-
NASA doesn't want to go through the drama of asking Congress for more INKSNA extensions once CC is available.
-
#2
by
hop
on 25 Sep, 2011 19:45
-
I don't see this as much of an argument for it. All the crews have some training on each side, plus regular contact with ground control, so your scenario wouldn't be nearly as a bad as a complete de-crew.
With two completely independent crew vehicles, ISS will already be a lot better in terms of transport redundancy than it has for most of it's life, and even more so compared to every other station in history.
I don't see any reason the partners couldn't do a straight across seat swap in cases where it made sense, but I don't see it as the default because it means significantly more training in the other country.
-
#3
by
SpacexULA
on 25 Sep, 2011 20:01
-
For example, suppose there is another incident where a Soyuz craft is grounded. Now the entire Russian segment (and as a result the USOS) is under threat if the existing Soyuz must return. Therefore, while NASA should pay only Commercial crew for seats, and Russia pay for Soyuz seats, perhaps a seat swap would be appropriate for future operations.
Very interesting situation you mention there.
I would hope that American astronauts would still go for training on the Soyuz post CC just because the 3rd crewmemeber on a Soyuz still has mission duties, just like the spaceflight participants that go up now.
I would hope that the norm becomes for RSA and NASA astronauts are both cross trained to at least ride in all manned vehicles in the lowest skill seat.
So RSA, ESA, and NASA should all have a stable of astronauts that can ride in the 3th seat on a Soyuz, 4th seat on Orion, and 7th seat on Dragon/CST-100.
-
#4
by
hop
on 25 Sep, 2011 20:08
-
NASA doesn't want to go through the drama of asking Congress for more INKSNA extensions once CC is available.
Would that apply to a straight up seat swap ?
-
#5
by
Confusador
on 25 Sep, 2011 20:23
-
I would think that that a seat swap would have some practical benefits during crew rotations. Even now, when one crew has returned but their replacements have not yet arrived, there are crew members on both the Russian and US sides. This may be an unusually long gap, but there will always be one, and the only way to avoid having a single nation represented would be to share rides.
-
#6
by
Jorge
on 25 Sep, 2011 20:58
-
NASA doesn't want to go through the drama of asking Congress for more INKSNA extensions once CC is available.
Would that apply to a straight up seat swap ?
If the Russians were willing to do a straight-up seat swap (i.e. no money changes hands), sure. But they've never been willing to do that. They loves them that hard currency, and that's where INKSNA comes in.
-
#7
by
A_M_Swallow
on 25 Sep, 2011 21:22
-
Allow an overlap. It can be embarrassing to get rid of an existing transport system before its replacement works reliably.
-
#8
by
Jorge
on 25 Sep, 2011 21:29
-
For example, suppose there is another incident where a Soyuz craft is grounded. Now the entire Russian segment (and as a result the USOS) is under threat if the existing Soyuz must return. Therefore, while NASA should pay only Commercial crew for seats, and Russia pay for Soyuz seats, perhaps a seat swap would be appropriate for future operations.
Very interesting situation you mention there.
I would hope that American astronauts would still go for training on the Soyuz post CC just because the 3rd crewmemeber on a Soyuz still has mission duties, just like the spaceflight participants that go up now.
I would hope that the norm becomes for RSA and NASA astronauts are both cross trained to at least ride in all manned vehicles in the lowest skill seat.
That is not a sustainable model in the long term. ISS expedition crew training is already too long (2.5 years) and is inefficient because of the travel requirements.
When ISS crews start getting Commercial Crew training, something else *must* give, especially if the Commercial Crew providers insist on having ISS crews travel to their facilities rather than provide training at JSC.
-
#9
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 26 Sep, 2011 05:07
-
-
#10
by
Danderman
on 26 Sep, 2011 05:37
-
This thread assumes that Soyuz will be flying after the paying customers disappear.
-
#11
by
Targeteer
on 26 Sep, 2011 22:47
-
well really doesnt matter now, as NASA only plans to fly two expedition crew members at a time...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26825.msg811772#msg811772
Thanks for pointing that thread out. I was wondering if NASA intended to fly 4 crew members on each flight which would mean no continuity on board--not a good idea for efficiency. A direct handover would give some but are they planning on reinstating that practice?
-
#12
by
Prober
on 27 Sep, 2011 00:10
-
This thread assumes that Soyuz will be flying after the paying customers disappear.
another very good point
-
#13
by
erioladastra
on 27 Sep, 2011 01:29
-
Wanted to start this thread here rather than commercial as the main emphasis is on station operations rather than specific to commercial crew only. After commercial crew is available, it seems that the USOS will fly crews on CC and the Russian segment will fly their crew on Soyuz. YEt when one thinks about redundancy, perhaps still mixing crews on spacecraft would still be a desirable nominal operation.
For example, suppose there is another incident where a Soyuz craft is grounded. Now the entire Russian segment (and as a result the USOS) is under threat if the existing Soyuz must return. Therefore, while NASA should pay only Commercial crew for seats, and Russia pay for Soyuz seats, perhaps a seat swap would be appropriate for future operations.
Good question. The ISS program is trying to convince the Russians to continue mixed crews. I am nto sure how that will play out as I am sure NASA will not be able to pay for Soyuz seats if there is commercial crewed vehicle. Maybe, as some note, a swap. This is very critical. if there is a problem with one side's vehicle, or say a crew has to come home for an emergency, you could leave that side with no one there for critical repairs. For example, fi there was a pump module failure on the USOS the Russians are not able to do it. Even if the Russians agree it is unlikely they would support cross training as was done before.
-
#14
by
erioladastra
on 27 Sep, 2011 01:31
-
-
#15
by
hop
on 27 Sep, 2011 02:43
-
This thread assumes that Soyuz will be flying after the paying customers disappear.
What's the alternative ? Are you really suggest the Russians might abandon their part of ISS if they can't sell Soyuz seats ? This would be the end of the entire ISS program.
-
#16
by
aquanaut99
on 27 Sep, 2011 04:17
-
What's the alternative ? Are you really suggest the Russians might abandon their part of ISS if they can't sell Soyuz seats ? This would be the end of the entire ISS program.
There have been some noises coming out of Russia recently about abandoning human spaceflight altogether in favor of unmanned exploration. Don't know how serious this is.
-
#17
by
Danderman
on 27 Sep, 2011 06:17
-
Those comments about Russia leaving ISS may be based on some internal political issues that we don't know about.
-
#18
by
Space Pete
on 27 Sep, 2011 13:29
-
Those comments about Russia leaving ISS may be based on some internal political issues that we don't know about.
I don't think Russia are going to leave the ISS - when ISS was scheduled to be splashed in 2015, they were making a lot of noise about undocking their modules and flying them as a separate station into the 2020s.
-
#19
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 28 Sep, 2011 04:53
-
Those comments about Russia leaving ISS may be based on some internal political issues that we don't know about.
Its probably a small minority making noise because unmanned has been underfunded. Putin likes manned spaceflight, so reports of its death are greatly exaggerated.
-
#20
by
Mike97
on 28 Sep, 2011 16:20
-
Think they should fly not only on Soyuz but also on Shenzhou after it's got more flights under its belt. Then it would be triple-redundant, and would bring China into ISS rather than continuing their separate space station.
Shenzhou is larger, more advanced in some ways, capable of docking with ISS, inexpensive, and has so far been reliable. Shenzhou can last as a lifeboat at least as long as Soyuz, and has an orbital module that could be left behind on ISS under its own power for a while after the descent module separates, allowing for certain experiments to be contained there. It could even be detached, go some distance from ISS while some risky experiment is run, and then re-dock with ISS, at much less expense than using a Progress for the same purpose. It would make a nifty addition.
I generally don't like China and that sentiment seems echoed by most in the West and also Russia, Japan, and pretty much anywhere else, but if Earth is going to explore space, best to do it together, with resources combined. Earth has 2 manned launch systems and will soon have 4 -- use them together, then no-one gets stranded when one of them has a glitch.
-
#21
by
Jorge
on 28 Sep, 2011 18:48
-
Think they should fly not only on Soyuz but also on Shenzhou after it's got more flights under its belt.
That is a necessary but not sufficient condition. An additional condition is that China *must* open up their program to outside insight to at least the extent that ESA and JAXA opened up their ATV and HTV programs to Russian and US insight.
China has shown no inclination so far to do so.