Space station future adrift (Soyuz purchase crisis)

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....

In sci.space.policy Jim Oberg wrote:
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....
... there is some hope, a museum with old Apollo Ships))
" ?Fund a crash program for a quick-and-dirty lifeboat designed only to save the lives of the crew. In 1987, NASA examined removing an unflown 1960s Apollo spacecraft from a museum and refurbishing it as a lifeboat. Commercial companies have proposed lifeboats that might be ready by the 2006 deadline if they get an immediate go-ahead."
ROTFL)) Regards
Adam Przybyla
--
http://www.polsek.org.pl/?eng

Adam Przybyla wrote:
" ?Fund a crash program for a quick-and-dirty lifeboat designed only to save the lives of the crew.

NASA is unable to do those. It can only do fancy ships with complex systems
that take years and years and years to plan and where funds are cut off after
the first test because something went wrong (that is what tests are for, but
politicians don't understand that anymore).

Rutan would be the only one capable of whipping up something cheap and simple
within 2 years.

If the yanks can't send money to Russia, perhaps they could get China to
supply the "Soyuz" in exchange for becoming a member of the ISS ?

Of course, this being an "NBC" article, things are all blow out of proportion
with words like "adrift" and "crisis".

Russia was to continue to build the Soyuz anyways. But after 2006, Russia was
to have 2 or 3 crewmembers of its own choice, and provide the Soyuz for ferry
and escape pod capability, while the americans would provide Shuttle for ferry
of the US or other crewsmembers and CRV for escape pod.

When the USA cancelled the CRV programme, it essentially broke its commitments
to the ISS, so it is only normal that the agreements need to be reviewed.

It is interesting that such stories are coming out at a time where the USA
refuses to allow the agreements reached by UN's IAEA and GB/FR/DE with Iran to
take root by constantly stoking the fire and making unfounded accusations that
cause Iran to rethink its position.

reading-comprehension-challenged "John Doe" wrote
Of course, this being an "NBC" article, things are all blow out of
proportion
with words like "adrift" and "crisis".

Check the byline again.

John Doe wrote:

Rutan would be the only one capable of whipping up something cheap and simple
within 2 years.

ROTFL. The powers that people invest in Rutan are becoming nothing
short of miraculous.

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

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

In article , John Doe wrote:
Rutan would be the only one capable of whipping up something cheap and simple
within 2 years.

There are plenty of people who could at least be *testing* something
suitable in a couple of years or so... given generous funding and an
absence of bureaucratic roadblocks. But it would probably be another year
or so, even in a maximum-speed program, before the result was cleared for
operational service.

(Four years after Jim Chamberlin sold NASA on doing Gemini, it was flying
operationally -- although not quite in final form -- despite considerable
delays due to poorly-developed subsystem technologies. The first test
flight, of a somewhat-incomplete spacecraft, came a little over two years
after the contract award.)

Even today's NASA is not utterly incapable of doing something like this,
if O'Keefe made it a major priority, picked someone good to lead it, and
insisted that it not be done as a "business as usual" project. That sort
of determined effort to get fast results doesn't seem likely.

If the yanks can't send money to Russia, perhaps they could get China to
supply the "Soyuz" in exchange for becoming a member of the ISS ?

Distinctly unlikely. Many of the people currently in power in Washington
have gotten there partly by howling with alarm about the Yellow Peril:
how the evil Chinese were stealing US technology and how the traitorous
Democrat scum in the White House and Congress were letting them get away
with it. Serious space cooperation with China would require a major
policy turnaround, and years of effort mending the rather frayed relations
between the two countries. A lifeboat by that route is just not in the
cards right now.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article , John Doe wrote:


snip

If the yanks can't send money to Russia, perhaps they could get China to
supply the "Soyuz" in exchange for becoming a member of the ISS ?


Distinctly unlikely. Many of the people currently in power in Washington
have gotten there partly by howling with alarm about the Yellow Peril:
how the evil Chinese were stealing US technology and how the traitorous
Democrat scum in the White House and Congress were letting them get away
with it. Serious space cooperation with China would require a major
policy turnaround, and years of effort mending the rather frayed relations
between the two countries. A lifeboat by that route is just not in the
cards right now.


And, on the other side of the equation.. The US is not exactly looking
like a good bet in starting partnerships right now. There is a tradewar
heating up and this would just be another bit of fodder. And, when it
comes to China, until we reach an agreement with them concerning the
exchange rate, don't expect much cooperation between the governments
on governmental projects.

On the technical side...

China seems to know what it wants. I don't see them diverting their
capsule production lines into a production program. They are still
very early in their test phase and they won't likely sign onto anything
that will throw off their planning at this stage. They have the next
5 years locked. It would be very uncharacteristic for them to shift
things around now. Had we cut them in a few years ago when they made
approaches during their initial planning stages, we could do this. But,
that did not happen and they aren't going to move their schedule for the
US.

I suspect a rather loud "No" from China on the question of cooperation
on ISS at this point, if they bother to answer at all.

(Derek Lyons) :

John Doe wrote:

Rutan would be the only one capable of whipping up something cheap and
and simple within 2 years.

ROTFL. The powers that people invest in Rutan are becoming nothing
short of miraculous.

I have to agree, there must be at least a dozen other companies in the USA
that can do it in that time frame as well, and probably as many companies in
Europe who can do too if they had the contract, design and money on hand.

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

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

(Derek Lyons) :

John Doe wrote:

Rutan would be the only one capable of whipping up something cheap and
and simple within 2 years.

ROTFL. The powers that people invest in Rutan are becoming nothing
short of miraculous.

I have to agree, there must be at least a dozen other companies in the USA
that can do it in that time frame as well, and probably as many companies in
Europe who can do too if they had the contract, design and money on hand.

goggles

There probably isn't a single company in the world that can do the
job, nor a consortium of the either. You are seriously delusional as
to how complex a 'simple' taxi/lifeboat is.

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

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

(Derek Lyons) :

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

(Derek Lyons) :

John Doe wrote:

Rutan would be the only one capable of whipping up something cheap and
and simple within 2 years.

ROTFL. The powers that people invest in Rutan are becoming nothing
short of miraculous.

I have to agree, there must be at least a dozen other companies in the USA
that can do it in that time frame as well, and probably as many companies
in
Europe who can do too if they had the contract, design and money on hand.

goggles

There probably isn't a single company in the world that can do the
job, nor a consortium of the either. You are seriously delusional as
to how complex a 'simple' taxi/lifeboat is.

No, I am not. I am quite aware how stupidly complex NASA or the ESA can make
such a craft. However if you had read the lifeboats in space thread you
would realize a simple float untill rescue lifeboat does not need to be
complex. There are simple but limited ways to do something or there are
complex but less limited ways to do things. NASA loves complex. Think KISS
instead.

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