Slashdot Mirror
US Senate Allows NASA To Buy Soyuz Vehicles
arc.light writes "According to a report at Space.com, the US Senate voted to allow NASA to buy Russian Soyuz vehicles for the purpose of servicing the International Space Station. Because Russia continues to assist Iran with its nuclear energy and ballistic missile programs, NASA would otherwise not be allowed to buy Russian hardware by the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000. The US House of Representatives still needs to give its approval before NASA can make such a purchase."
I mean why dont we just take Apollo back up there while we are at it, they where both built around the same time and seem to be better off than the shuttle is now :/
There HAS to be a better solution than these old 60s relics that doesnt cost a are and a leg like the flying deathtrap the shuttles are.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
So it seems that after Russia sends the last obligatory shuttle to the space station, we are left the with the options of a.) buying Russian gear to send our own folks or b.) paying the Russians to do it for us?
Whatever, if it saves money, I'm sure the government will do it. I'm pretty sure they can use extra cash wherever they can find it now.
Often it is a very good idea to buy the highest quality technology. Indeed, that is what NASA needs to do right now considering their extremely awful image in the eyes of the public (following the Challenger and Columbia disasters). Any more disasters and NASA is fucked. At least by purchasing this former Soviet equipment they can blame the Russians for any problems. Faulty manufacturing and engineering done by the Russians, and not by NASA, for instance. Considering NASA's current position, they have very little option but to prevent further incident, even if it means resorting to Soviet technology.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Both countries have old and due to be replaced space crafts. Difference is Russia's crafts have provened to be more realiable and cheaper.
"Go into the hall of mirrors and have a bloody hard look at yourself" - HG Nelson
I remember one US plane that had to be transported from China in a Russian Antonov-124. The US did not have any aircraft that was up to the task! How long shall we have to rely on so called "third world economies" to achieve our goals?
Why doesn't this [Bush] administration pay Americans to build these Soyuz like crafts instead of simply buying?
So....
IT is outsourced to India
Manufacturing is outsourced to China
High tech going to Russia
U.S. will supply the world's managers?
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Somehow I'd expect NASA would be much too arrogant to consider purchasing Russian equipment. If this idea is not rejected for stupid political 'national pride' reasons, I think it speaks pretty well for NASA ...
Your "near 100% perfect operation since inception" includes two missions that ended in the deaths of their crews. Out of 97 manned Soyuz missions, that's pretty darned close to the same record as the shuttle (two lost out of 114 flights).
But they don't have any choice. Either they purchase this equipment, or they become irrelevant. This purchase is necessary for their very survival, even if it bruises a few egos.
Sometimes one is forced to choose between a shitty choice or death. In this case they're chosen the shitty situation which may allow for their survival.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
This is just in the nick of time, because Crazy Ivan's Space Capsule Clearance House announced a sale for next week.
"Components. American components, Russian Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!"
wrote a while back during the last shuttle scare that this would be a good idea to keep america in space till they get a new launch vehicle sorted out, glad they finally did it.
Soyuz is one of the safest and most reliable space vehicles in existence, and considering the shuttles are grounded for god knows how long, we need a system to service and supply the iss.
Yeah I know it has limited cargo capacity, but it costs roughly 1/10 the cost of the shuttle to launch, if that, can be launched far more often, and its cargo capacity can be augmented by elv's like the delta or titan.
Plus side, we are less likely to lose astronauts, and can actually keep the iss supplied enough to do science beyond plugging the leaks with their fingers, and hopefully launch astronauts twice as often if it scales up well.
win/win from my pov.
ps. my "confirm i'm not a script" word is cannabis. Cool.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
The other difference is that as Americans, we celebrate every shuttle launch and landing with lots of fanfare, The Russians do nothing of the like; to me, this suggests that we are probably not sure the shuttles will perform, right?
When a shuttle is launched or is to return to earth, there is a lot of fanfare...as if to suggest that there was a sizable chance that things could go all wrong. No wonder we are now looking to Russians for some help.
the old saying "If it's not broken, don't fix it"
Soyuz has been successfully sending stuff into space for an awful long time and as far as we know has a very impressive safety record.
The space shuttle was a compromise design built by the lowest bidder.
In Soviet Russia...
We fly the Americans to space.
If only you were involved in hiring of techies, as I am, you'd know the answer already. United States does not produce [enough of] good engineers. You can't hire anyone competent, or nearly competent. And one out of a hundred who knows his trade wants $200K/yr and benefits and stock, and your firstborn too if he is hungry.
So you can't hire fools because they are useless, and you can't hire that rare skilled guy because he will bankrupt you. So what do you do? Good question. Many businesses just hire a few mediocre performers and hope for the best.
Actually it does. The clause in NASA's budget stopping them from buying Russian made soyuz capsules in the first place is there because Russia sold nuclear reactor technology to Iran, and congress got mad. So it is politics, just a different kind.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
Yeah ok, I'll just get my 4 guys together, pull the parts list off the internet and roll out a few FUCKING SPACESHIPS!
... a real fucking lot, and still didn't fill half of it's original mission profile. Originally it was supposed to be a single piece to orbit vehicle, no boosters or external fuel tank or nothin'.
How complicated to build and design do you think these things are? How much money do you think we have?
No we don't have an An-124, it's the largest plane currently flying, built by the russians partly as an expression of national pride, and it cost shitloads. Only flies a few times a year btw, not a lot of people need that much lifting power.
We don't (always at least) blow money on giant phallic symbols of economic domination, it takes money away from real economic domination, and apparently you are too much of an idiot with regards to finance to understand that.
Global free-market economics is based on specialization, ie. everybody doesn't do everything, but everyone finds something to be good at, and if someone else needs to do it too you pay that guy to help you. It's why we make most of the movies in the world and kashmir makes all the nice knit sweaters, and columbia makes all the cocaine, specialization has oppurtunity cost.
Even if we decided today to make a cheaper soyuz-type launch vehicle, expect one ready to fly in about 8-10 years, counting design, validation, testing, certification, etc. That is unless you want a bunch of astronauts to jump into a tin-can, strap a giant rocket to their ass and hold their breath.
The shuttle took nearly 2 decades to become flight ready, and cost
Unlike most things, this is rocket science, and logistics, and economics, and like 900 other things, and is much harder than throwing together a toaster.
Btw, Russia has had about 3 space stations in orbit during the 70's, 80's and 90's, including mir which was a surprising success. They are much MUCH better and more experienced at space than we are, which is why we had them help us with the ISS, just like we ripped off all of germany's experience when we started nasa and wanted icbm's. America is not the holy god of all everything, superior to all other countries in every way, though we do generally run the tables in most things. A lot of the time our experience and success comes from finding other countries that are very skilled at various fields, and ripping off their scientists and techologies, ie stealing britain's machinery expertise in the 19th century to build our own industrial revolution, or getting einstein, niels bohr (they had to call him nick during ww2 because niels was "too german"), werner van braun (warner brown), and everyone else from germany to build our atomic techonology, and space technology, and everything else.
Calling Russia a third-world economy is insulting and arrogant, and shows your ignorance/youth.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
Uhh - last I checked, Russia has a trade surplus, while the USA has been running a trade deficit for longer than anyone can remember. Large parts of the USA is extremely backward and large parts of US cities are decaying (or now, covered in mud and water). Don't believe everything you see on CNN regarding other countries. CNN is not even reality television, it is more like show wrestling...
Oh well, what the hell...
As I said when I was young and more prone to believe the system might work:
The Soviet government's effectiveness in space activities can, in general, be attributed to the fact that while our private sector is more effective than the Soviet public sector, our public sector is LESS effective than the Soviet public sector. Why this is so becomes obvious when you consider that the Soviet public sector has no private sector to tax -- any costs are born by itself, directly, whereas in the US (and other relatively free market economies) the governments have the luxury of becoming fat and lazy at the expense of the private sector.
It is a simple matter of accountability, the US private sector is most accountable for its costs, the Soviet system is next most accountable for its costs and the US government is least accountable for its costs.
Seastead this.
Now for a real shock, let's compare how many times each has flown. The total is 850 for Soyuz and 113 for Shuttle, but that's going back before the Shuttle existed. I wasn't able to find how many Soyuz launches since 1981, but I'll be it's at least twice as many.
Reliabity? Track record?
Soyuz has a very long and distinguished one.
SpaceX? Have they launched to leo yet? Will they be around in 10 years? 1?
How many successful launches have they had? What are their launch capabilities? Launch windows? Possible orbit packages?
It's rocket science, you go with what you know works, especially when you've got 2 shuttles out on a full count and the pitcher is a lefty.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
Looks like NASA is giving another step further to achieve the moon by 2018. :)
Wouldn't it be a veeery big irony going to the moon by the means of russian technology?
Geez. Will some of you take up reading already? 1,600 successful launches makes the Soyuz the sturdiest vehicle Homo Sapiens has going. We'll have Klipper, and the CEV up soon. Until then Soyuz is a perfect choice. Quit yer bitchin'.
kulakovich
See in the end what we were good at was high profile single purpose missions because we convinced ourselves we could spend and do whatever it took to get there. But now we see that the Amerikanskis are rather bad at the utilitarian aspects of space engineering.
The new design of NASA's next (or second-next) manned program is going back to more of a capsule design anyway...so really why not use Soyuz vehicles until our own capsules are ready to go? NASA has already basically admitted the capsule idea is safer and cheaper anyway for our level of tech.
Personally, I would much rather be sent to the ISS in a Soyuz than go up in a Shuttle. The ride might not be as comfortable and roomy, but my chances of surviving are far higher. It might be a bit cramped, but that's far better than flying apart on re-enrty due to having a too-complex system.
I watched some C-SPAN where NASA was talking about the new safety measures they implemented with all the cameras and such. Honestly, it's cause people to freak out more than it does to pacify due to the ability to see all the little problems that occure during lift-off that normally aren't seen. NASA had to explain a dozen times that "that's normal wear-and-tear, people" because the press was worried about all the little problems no one have ever really looked at before because of the new camera system. The good news is that most of the manuevers they did to fix it all are brand-new and never before done, and has given NASA much needed experience in dealing with space-based repair.
Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
Off hand, I would say that you are trolling. This story has NOTHING on it that is troll. It is purely about us having an alternative way into space. This story fits into space better thananything else. In addition, zonk (or the submittor) provides a quick background (why the senate voted to ban doing business with Russia).
/., nuke your account.
If you posted logined, I would suggest that
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It is the USA managers and CEO that have placed america where it is today. I seriously doubt that any none american company wants that. Here is a HINT of how our leaders are doing:
who is the top CEO that ran up a large deficit at the only company that ran, and had to be bailed out by Saudia Arabia, and now has THE top post and is again running up the world's and historical largest deficit? That is where managers are leading us today. Also check out United, US Airways, Delta, Northwest, The steel industry, shortly Boeing, clothing manufactuers, etc. About the only ones doing OK is big tobacco, and big oil. And I think that both are about to change.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I guess this really does define who has won the space race. When you have to go buy the other guy's space ships to keep flying, you really are conceding defeat. Not really any different to buying Japanese cars or Chinese cordless drills. They do it better, cheaper and more reliably. Not meant to be a troll, just a statement of (sad) fact.
The Soyuz record is "Near 100%", true. But that's not 100%. Neither record is 100%.
/. such as "nasa's core competencies whish seem to be killing astroanuts in groups of seven" is glib and gratuitously derisive.
We had Apollo 1 on the pad (3 dead) - they had R-16 on the pad (over 90 dead).
We had Challenger and Columbia, both fatal flights (14 dead), they had Souyz 1 and 11 - both fatal flights (4 dead).
We had a near miss on Apollo 13, they had one on Soyuz 5.
We each tossed a space station into the drink, arguably prematurely on both accounts.
Both have a full compliment of Charlie Foxtrot flight moments, and ground crew / training fatalities.
The usual rhetoric includes references here on
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
who blame everything on Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, or FDR (notice a pattern there?).
C, C, J, K, T, F...
C, C, J, K, T, F...
I don't see it.
Wait, maybe you mean numerical pattern:
68, 68, 74, 75, 84, 70.
Still don't see it.
Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, FDR..
Womanizer, Do-gooder, War President, Womanizer, Do-gooder, War President!!!
Was that it?
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
The plan is that as the launch services of SpaceX and other commercial providers matures, they'll be able to compete for commercial contracts to deliver cargo (and eventually crew) to the International Space Station. In fact, besides the Centennial Challenges competitions, this is one of the key ways NASA Head Michael Griffin is planning on fostering a commercial space industry.
From SpacePolitics, quoting a transcript of Griffin's recent announcement:
NASA has not had at its upper levels a manager or an administrator more supportive of commercial enterprise than I. We are base lining in the out years past the retirement of the shuttle, we are base lining commercial service to the station. That is the only known and knowable, at this point, market for those entrepreneurs that I have to give. We are base lining the use of that market for them and are providing, will be providing this fall a new procurement to try to stimulate that market.
That said, at the end of the day, what commercial means is, that it is not government directed. So, I can provide the incentive and I can provide the market that I have and commercial providers will either emerge or not. It is not acceptable for a publicly funded program not to have a way of meeting its mission requirements in the event that commercial operators do or don't materialize. So, the architecture that we have advanced allows NASA to meet its mission requirements, but also allows NASA to concentrate its resources on other more advanced activities if commercial providers can emerge in the next five to seven years. That is exactly our intent.
Our fondest desire would be to keep NASA on the very frontier of space activity, letting commercial provider fill in for those activities which are not frontier activities. We will be putting some money where our mouth is.
It's worth noting that NASA has also previously announced that they will be offering commercial contracts to US companies for transportation of cargo and eventually crew to the ISS. These would be fixed-cost contracts for services rendered, rather than the more traditional cost-plus contracts which reward inefficiency and waste. Unfortunately, none of the US companies are where they need to be yet, although it's looking like SpaceX should be there in a few years.
...
...
...
...
...
From this article:
NASA will soon solicit offers from firms interested in delivering cargo and crew to the international space station (ISS), but NASA Administrator Mike Griffin said he wants to buy services, not dole out development contracts to newcomers who were shut out of the competition to build the space shuttle's replacement.
Griffin said he also would like to see a robust commercial space transportation industry take root and thrive, and said the best way for NASA to help is "to utilize the market that is offered by the international space station's requirement to supply crew and cargo as the years unfold."
Griffin promised that NASA would give priority to non-government services should they become available, although he cautioned that deliberately "under utilizing" a NASA-owned and -operated system could encounter resistance from lawmakers intent on protecting government jobs.
Another difference between a traditional government contract and the deals Griffin hopes to make is that they would emphasize "performance rather than process." While NASA would insist on "certain standards," Griffin said "It's not up to me as the procurer of that service to determine how the engineers working for you, the provider, provide that service."
Charles Miller, president of Constellation Services International, said he was "enthusiastically looking forward" to NASA's crew and cargo solicitation. Constellation Services Internationals, Woodland Hills, Calif., is developing what it calls the LEO (low Earth orbit) Express standardized cargo container, which could launch atop virtually any rocket, as an affordable, near-term solution to NASA's space station re-supply needs.
Elon Musk, president of Space Exploration Technologies, said he was "definitely encouraged" by Griffin's remarks. "This is a market SpaceX has been interested in for a long time," Musk said.
I bet two mars rovers that European space engineering isn't the supreme quality that you claim it be. Also, NASA's space shuttle is the most innovative thing in the whole industry right now. They took a chance, they did the math and they figured rather then play it safe that they'd do their best to move the field of space aviation forward. NASA did all of this with a reusable spacecraft that lands like a plane. NASA is the only agency taking chances, taking things to a new level. They have a shitty budget so to claim that they don't engineer well because they can afford to blow things up is ridiculous and ignorant.
Alot of people are making dumb claims about ISS and the russians doing everything. Its funyy how NASA's shuttle is responsible for delivering nearly every piece of ISS except for about 3. NASA's shuttle is the only spacecraft capable of carrying and assembling some of the very large and heavy payloads. There are 6 space agencies involved with ISS, you don't find it ironic how the Americans and Russians are the only ones that have done anything to help it?
The European space agency does few things, and those few things it does do take a long time. If they've had less failures its because they've had less to fail at. Until a year or two ago, space shuttle flights were very routine and made fairly often. It was one mistake that made the public freak out simply because they are used to safe airplanes and dont realize the risks of going to space. Finally all of that beauracracy has started to end. If you count all the time that the 5 shuttles have spent in space, it amounts to about 4 constant years (1045 days in flight), what is ESA's time? Oh thats right, they don't have manned space vehicles, rather they pay the Americans or Russians to fly with them.
I'm not saying ESA is useless, they are far from it and have done many useful things, but you opened your mouth and nothing but ignorance came out. One more thing, up until the 90's when the U.S. military decided to stop sharing its space secrets with ESA, ESA was pretty damn dependant on NASA and often only achieved things with NASA's assistance. This post isn't intended as a flame, I just find it amusing how NASA doesn't get one tenth of the recognition it deserves.
Regards,
Steve
No we don't have an An-124, it's the largest plane currently flying, built by the russians partly as an expression of national pride, and it cost shitloads. Only flies a few times a year btw, not a lot of people need that much lifting power.
They were built to carry miscellaneous military and civilian equipment like a couple of tanks or Buran buster. They fly every day, and carry anything from Sony Playstations to US military shipments to Afganistan. Volga-Dnepr Airlines has 10 An-124's in active use. New An-124 would not cost more than 80 millions of dollars - this can be hardly described as "shitloads" for the plane of its size. You might try to tell american military or u.s. companies like General Electric and Lockheed-Martin that they do not need this kind of lifting power, though they are not likely to listen to your advice.
So please stop being an idiot, and do not bullshit me and everybody on matters you have no slightest idea about.
The entire space race is more about propaganda and carefully chosen facts then about real accomplisments.
I see it very simple, US has the money, USSR got the tech. The cold war is over so why no cooperate for once. When the two worked together before they succesfully killed a lot of germans. Maybe the new US operated soyuz will be a commercial sucess. Or maybe it will crash on germany. Either way the world wins.
For interest of full disclosure, any country that started two of the two world wars should not now seek a seat on the security council. The proper role for such country is to be quiet.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I define "accident" as a catastrophic failure, not as missing a/some mission objective(s). You can have a successful mission even if you miss a/some mission objective(s). It's not the one you wanted, but that's why space is still considered "a frontier".
One huge factor is reentry stability. The soyuz capsule is inherantly stable. Once it performs a retro burn it is set to go. Natural aerodynamic stability (just like Mercury/Gemini/Apollo, and hopefully the CEV). The shuttle has no such thing. If it loses power, we lose the shuttle. That is huge. Another factor is that the Russians use the same and similar launchers/flight hardware/flight computers to launch Progress computers. Now I know, while a system is a sum of its components the unique combination of its components will lead to uniquenesses in the system, but having the additional flight time on those components gains experiance and system use time.
The Russians also have much higher flight rates in general. Shooting rockets isn't a special event to them it is the status quo.
I'm not knocking the shuttle - it was a good piece of hardware, and honestly the two accidents that occured were due to management errors. But the Soyuz system is a good system with a lot of merits and is honestly where we should have went post-Apollo (and is where we are going with the CEV).
-everphilski-