Space station future adrift (Soyuz purchase crisis)

"Kim Keller" wrote in message
. ..
We were well on our way to having a lifeboat demonstrator (X-38/ACRV), but
W
canceled it. We were making good progress toward a second lifeboat that
would've been Spiral 1 to a Spiral 2 ferry (OSP), which could've easily
led
to Spiral 3 (CEV) but W canceled it. Now we've thrown away almost four
years
(and how much money?) and have nothing but studies and an increasingly
fragile shuttle fleet to show for it. The requirement for a post-2005 CRV
still remains.

This is essentially the argument that NASA has had all along for whatever
their current generation of CEV would be. The problem with this argument is
that the CEV NASA wants to build has far more capability than you need for a
simple, do or die, CEV. That's why the X-38/ACRV was canned, because it was
so close to being an OSP that the administration decided to build the OSP.

Unfortunately, NASA has also had chronic problems with keeping its budgets
in line with projections. This is especially true for ISS.

It would have been far better for a bare bones, do or die, CEV to be
designed, developed, and tested before any ISS hardware made it into orbit.
No doubt that many within NASA would have complained that it wasn't good
enough (not enough crossrange or whatever), but at least the US would have
had something rather than nothing in this area.

My personal favorite for a low cost CEV (back in the late 80's) was an
Apollo derived capsule. Keep the exterior mold lines, TPS, and parachutes,
but update the interior and use a cold gas N2 RCS in conjunction with a
solid retro package. LEO Apollo missions had a relatively benign G profile,
and with interior updates, you could have added a bit more lift to the
trajectory, further limiting G loading and providing more control authority.

Instead, NASA has insisted on a new design based on a lifting body, that
still had to resort to parafoil to get the landing speed down to something
acceptable.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Kim Keller" :

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In an ideal universe, the proposed taxi/lifeboat would be a Block I to
CEV's Block II.

Given that there's some urgency to the station requirements, it would
make
sense for the lifeboat to be Block I, the taxi to be Block II, and the
reentry module for the beyond-LEO vehicle to be Block III.

We were well on our way to having a lifeboat demonstrator (X-38/ACRV), but
W
canceled it. We were making good progress toward a second lifeboat that
would've been Spiral 1 to a Spiral 2 ferry (OSP), which could've easily led

to Spiral 3 (CEV) but W canceled it. Now we've thrown away almost four
years
(and how much money?) and have nothing but studies and an increasingly
fragile shuttle fleet to show for it. The requirement for a post-2005 CRV
still remains.

Who is W?

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message ...
Space station future adrift
By Philip Chien
27 November 2004 // SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...1743-6276r.htm

NASA and the nations involved in the International Space Station project
will run out of emergency rescue craft within 18 months and have not decided
what to do after April 2006, when the final Russian Soyuz spacecraft leaves
the station and returns to Earth.

Soyuz, the three-person lifeboat for the crews if a fire, serious
illness or other disaster occurs, soon ends its production run under the
current international agreement, and a cash-strapped Russia wants
compensation for building more of the spacecraft after 2006.

But warning against payment to Moscow are U.S. anti-proliferation laws
and the initial spirit of the interagency project - under which NASA,
Roskosmos and the space agencies of the 14 other nations involved divide up
the tasks and no money changes hands.
The 1998 interagency agreement called for Russia to supply 11 Soyuz,
each to serve for six months, starting with the first crew launch on Oct.
31, 2000. The 11th Soyuz expires in April 2006.
"We're planning to have both purchasing and barter agreements that
will cover 2006 to 2010," said Alexei Krasnov, head of Roskosmos'
manned-mission programs.
NASA Deputy Administrator Fred Gregory said that "the United States
and Russia have been negotiating" the Soyuz issue and other matters.

etc....

It seems crazy to design and build a new 'lifeboat' when the Soyuz
already exists. Might it be politically possible for NASA to buy
lifeboats from a US company which would buy Soyuz's from Russia,
'upgrade' them somehow (coat of paint and decals?), and thus make them
domestic? Perhaps this would provide just enough face-saving to be
allowed under the US laws and the inter-agency agreement?

"Revision" k@tdot-com wrote:
"rk"

The USA and many other nations are worried about
nukes in the hands of Iran with its current leadership.

The current US policy is that Iran is not allowed to have nukes.

Incorrect. Iran's current policy (via the treaties she has signed) is
that they will not have nukes.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote

Who is W?

W is an alternate pronunciation of Dubya.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:44:55 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

In an ideal universe, the proposed taxi/lifeboat would be a Block I to
CEV's Block II.

In an ideal universe, NASA wouldn't be developing systems for getting
humans to or from LEO at all--they'd be buying tickets from commercial
providers.

In the ideal universe this might be true but in this one the commercial
providers are not present. Perhaps in a few years if Bigelow's prize
gets some results this will no longer be true.

However, since I presume your point is that we really don't live in
an ideal universe I believe you are correct.

Mike Walsh

The problem with getting ISS for free is that the operations costs will kill you.



John Halpenny wrote in message ...
Explorer8939 wrote:


If I had to bet real money, I would bet that NASA will choose not to
send astronauts to ISS for long duration missions after 2006. They
would rather spend billions on the long term CEV program than send a
dime to Russia for a ride on Soyuz. That's just the way it is. Look
for science to be performed on the 3 or 4 Shuttle missions to ISS
every year for the rest of the program. Unless, of course, Russia
concedes the point and gives the US more free rides on their
spaceships.

If the US can't get to their part of ISS perhaps they could sell it. If
the Globalstar network can go for a half cent on the dollar, perhaps
Bigelow will pay a token sum and operate it with Russian help until his
own station is available.

It seems crazy to design and build a new 'lifeboat' when the Soyuz
already exists. Might it be politically possible for NASA to buy
lifeboats from a US company which would buy Soyuz's from Russia,
'upgrade' them somehow (coat of paint and decals?), and thus make them
domestic? Perhaps this would provide just enough face-saving to be
allowed under the US laws and the inter-agency agreement?

No.

Henry Spencer wrote:
For a crash program, it is important to distinguish between
requirements (which absolutely must be satisfied) and wishlist items
(which can be disregarded if they prove inconvenient). The ability
to separate, wait, retrofire, reenter, and land is requirement.

Instead of years of expensive new development, why not just build
some more Apollo command modules? It sounds like they'd meet the
(ISS lifeboat) requirements just fine.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote:

Henry Spencer wrote:
For a crash program, it is important to distinguish between
requirements (which absolutely must be satisfied) and wishlist items
(which can be disregarded if they prove inconvenient). The ability
to separate, wait, retrofire, reenter, and land is requirement.

Instead of years of expensive new development, why not just build
some more Apollo command modules?

Because that would require years of expensive new development.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL