NASA Has No Plans To Buy More Soyuz Seats (spaceflightnow.com) 87
schwit1 writes: Both Boeing and SpaceX better get their manned capsules working by 2019, because NASA at this point has no plans to buy more seats on Russian Soyuz capsules after the present contract runs out. Spaceflight Now reports: "Even as the commercial crew schedules move later into 2018, NASA officials say they are not considering extending the contract with Roscosmos -- the Russian space agency -- for more launches in 2019. The last Soyuz launch seats reserved for U.S. astronauts are at the end of 2018. It takes more than two years to procure components and assemble new Soyuz capsules, so Russia needed to receive new Soyuz orders from NASA by some time this fall to ensure the spacecraft would be ready for liftoff in early 2019." The second paragraph above notes that even if NASA decided it needed more Soyuz launches, it is probably too late to buy them and have them available by 2019. "A Soyuz is a complicated vehicle, and a complicated vehicle doesn't come into existence in a matter of days," said Kirk Shireman, NASA's space station program manager. "It takes over two years to build a Soyuz, so yes, at some point in time, building a new Soyuz vehicle is not an option. We're working with our Russian counterparts on exactly when that is. We have not crossed that date yet, but I believe the date is in sight. It will be this calendar year when we will cross the point where we won't be able to build a Soyuz in time for when our last seats that we've already procured expire," Shireman said.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obama is paving the way [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
I admire that. Far too many on the far right are spineless.
Re: (Score:1)
Sadly, you are a conservative Canadian, i.e. uneducated, so, I doubt that you understand anything about America.
However, It appear that your whole life is wrapped up in fucked up politics. You should come to America and join the GOP/tea*/kkk/nazi party. You would fit right in.
Re: (Score:2)
Why be afraid pf posting facts?
My Karma has been trashed before and it will be again.
Re: Won't matter anyway. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No need. The Chinese already have a copy. The Shenzhou [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
And America needs to quit throwing their money away to Putin, let alone to China.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank god that you are not American. Zero chance of buying a CHinese capsule. And America needs to quit throwing their money away to Putin, let alone to China.
Wow. Congrats on confirming the stereotypes of Americas. You guys lost the innovation race because of your arrogance and stupidity. You keep of voting in idiots who you think are "cool". Unfortunately, Canada has caught that disease. Justin makes Dan Quayle look like a Rhodes scholar. He has nice hair though.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because I said that NASA is NOT going to spend money on buying from China?
Obviously, you must work in NASA like I did and think that you know how NASA (or even China for that matter) operates.
The fact that you think that Jesus was a social conservative means that you have not even read the bible, let alone had history.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly has the US lost the innovation race?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While they are there, they can steal the plans for the Russian RD-180 rocket motor so the US can build its own and not need to keep buying the things from Russia...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually we CAN produce this economically, but not against a nation that has their money in the crapper.
Also, there is no reason to go further with it. BO and SpaceX will have far more powerful engines using methane shortly.
Re: (Score:2)
there is no dirty mail that will make russians vote against Putin.
What will make them do that, is if Putin tries to put back in place with totalitarian system, or if their economy continues to stay collapsed.
It is this later that is very likely going to cause another person to replace him. Hopefully, the next time, they will modify their constitution to say no more than 2 terms. period.
CONgress is the issue (Score:2)
no soyuz seats = no space for nasa astronauts (Score:5, Interesting)
"boeing and spacex better get their manned capsules working by 2019"
lol. perhaps in 2025 at >10x cost of soyuz (inflation adjusted)
enough said.
better lay off the astronauts till then.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
History.
Re: (Score:1)
New Private space is normally a great deal cheaper than Russia. It is old private space that is more expensive.
In addition, SpaceX is close to being on track for start of 2018, so not a big deal.
Re: no soyuz seats = no space for nasa astronauts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Make Space Great Again (Score:2)
Re: Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Durable. Durable. Yeah, when you build your interceptors out of nickel steel [wikipedia.org] they're durable as bricks - and they've got similar flight kinematics, too! I hear your Syrian buddies are so impressed by that rugged brick-like durability that they've towed their entire MiG-25 fleet out into the desert around the T4 airbase and left 'em to rot. But hey, at least they're durable. A thousand years from now they'll dig those planes out of the sand and stand around to marvel at the brick-like creations of their prim
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nah now you clowns are kicking around in upgraded Su-27s trying to milk more life out of a dated airframe while you wait for the PAK-FA to get engines worth a sorry fuck. But just like the shit engines in the MiG-25, you STILL can't make a jet engine the equal of ours and so the PAK sits on the ground, lost and forlorn, while our own F-35s are already in service and droppin bombs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually Russian jet engines don't last very long. So I wouldn't expect those to be reliable.
Re: (Score:3)
https://warisboring.com/india-... [warisboring.com] :
In the past decade, the Indian Air Force has bought hundreds of Su-30MKI fighter jets from Russia. ... ... ...
But it turns out, the twin-engine jets have failure-prone motors. Their AL-31FP engines break down with alarming frequency.
Parrikar attributed the failures to faulty bearings that contaminated the plane’s oil supply. It seems that metal fatigue led to tiny pieces of metal shearing off the friction-reducing bearings, which then entered the oil system.
However,
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.defensenews.com/sto... [defensenews.com] :
...
India ordered 45 MiG-29K aircraft and equipment worth $2.2 billion in two separate orders — in 2004 and 2010 — from Russia. It is the primary combat platform on Vikramaditya, which was acquired from Russia when it was known as the Admiral Gorshkov...
On problems with the engine, the CAG report said: "Since induction in February 2010, 40 engines (62 percent) of twin-engined MiG-29K have been withdrawn from service/rejected due to design-related defects."
Addit
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say China and Russia is a completely different beast than Russia alone. Compared to the Cold War they've lost a lot of allies and NATO has gained about as much. The battle lines won't start in East Germany, a united Germany will stand against them. And the Poles. And the Baltic States and most of Ukraine and former Yugoslavia. Putin can try funny business in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea since they're not NATO members but he really has no chance alone (or with their lackeys like Belarus) in an open war wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:3, Interesting)
ISS, like the Space Shuttle program before, is more of an ongoing PR promotion (and jobs program) than any kind of useful scientific mission.
Either send humans to Mars or stick with unmanned missions. More manned trips just to sit in LEO and pretend to do something useful are just pissing away money. It's time to end the charade.
Sadly, NASA will probably just end up funneling even more money to politically-connected contractors with the excuse that we need to build our own rockets, throwing even more good money after bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Projects like ISS aren't just one thing. You have many groups involved each with their agenda. One of those groups unquestionably is researchers. Would they rather have all the money spent on ISS go just to their research? Sure. But it's not going to happen. The PR value supports the research, just as it did with Apollo (but obviously on much, much smaller scale).
Likewise a lot of people would rather see the money that went into ISS go toward a Mars mission; but that would (at the time of ISS's planni
Re: (Score:2)
Projects like ISS aren't just one thing. You have many groups involved each with their agenda. One of those groups unquestionably is researchers. [...] Likewise a lot of people would rather see the money that went into ISS go toward a Mars mission
And a third group just looks at something like the ISS as a profit center. One of three groups got what they wanted.
This is how the real world works.
Re: (Score:2)
ISS, like the Space Shuttle program before, is more of an ongoing PR promotion (and jobs program) than any kind of useful scientific mission. Either send humans to Mars or stick with unmanned missions.
How would sending a handful of astronauts to Mars to live on life support for a few days be any less of a PR stunt than the ISS?
Re: (Score:2)
You can't go to Mars until you solve the life support, it's a four year mission minimum with no easy resupply from Earth. To solve life support you need a space station.
SpaceX Dragon 2 should be ready (Score:4, Interesting)
It is proven technology as it already delivers supplies to ISS and returns safely. They have tested the abort system on the ground along with the other systems. I do not see why they will not be ready for flights in 2018 [spaceflightnow.com]. Boeing on the other hand is still way behind [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is proven technology as it already delivers supplies to ISS and returns safely. They have tested the abort system on the ground along with the other systems. I do not see why they will not be ready for flights in 2018 [spaceflightnow.com]. Boeing on the other hand is still way behind [theverge.com]
Keep dreaming. SpaceX has never launched a person into space. Dragon 2 may be ready for testing by 2018, but given SpaceX's recent spotty record with launches, NASA in no way will put an astronaut on a SpaceX rocket or an untested Dragon 2. Their safety rating and supplier quality control needs to be dramatically improved before that happens.
Re: (Score:1)
Would this be the same spacex that has blown up two rockets within the last year? One for mysterious reasons unknown?
I don't think nasa will let its astronauts ride on that contraption until spacex does the hard work to change their corporate culture to value reliability -before- fancy tail landings, no matter what the may have to say publicly.
And Boeing? always delayed "another 6 months". But to their credit it probably wont' blow up if they ever launch it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oooh, more details on the solid oxygen crystals cause idea? I hadn't seen that one yet.
Also, I hadn't heard that SpaceX and NASA disagreed on the cause of the CRS-7 failure... more like SpaceX figured out early that the symptoms matched a failed helium tank strut but didn't believe it at first because none of the struts they tested failed similarly, so they went on reviewing and ended up testing most of their strut inventory before they found a few (just two?) that were also dangerously weak. At no part of
full reversal ahead? (Score:1)
With the way Russia has been running their space program, I think we may be the one giving the Russians rides to the ISS. While it's embarrassing that we retired our only means of space flight before building something new, I'm glad we were able to pay to hitch a ride with the Russians. Scientific discovery is a long path and to not travel it is to say you care about your pride more than you care about science and that is a dangerous attitude.
2 years seems rather excessive (Score:3)
Even factoring in number of orders doesn't account for the difference. There are about 15 Soyuz launches per year [universetoday.com]. Airbus is delivering about 30 A380s per year [wikipedia.org]. So that would only account for a factor of 2, putting expected build time for a Soyuz at 160 days, or less than half a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Apples and oranges - because the second example doesn't examine the time from order to delivery. So, while it sounds impressive to the uneducated and clueless, your examples are completely meaningless.
Re:2 years seems rather excessive (Score:4, Funny)
2 years to build a new Soyuz capsule after it's ordered? It takes Boeing and Airbus about 80 days to build a 777 [airlinereporter.com] or A380 [techly.com.au].
Wow, 80 days to make a 777? It takes Toyota only 17 hours to make a car [reference.com]! Wow, 17 hours to make a car? It takes my corner deli three minutes to make a sandwhich!
False comparisons anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC the thing is the Russians operate two production lines in parallel to be able to keep the current Soyuz production output. If the US doesn't order more flights they'll just shutter one of the production lines. Oh and if you know anything about computer hardware, like CPU pipelining, you'll probably know that any pipeline (same model also applies to assembly lines) has startup latency and instruction latency. i.e. it may take a long time to restart production in a line until you get the first unit out,
Re: (Score:2)
Most Soyuz flights are unmanned, it takes a lot longer to prepare for a manned mission, especially when you have Russia's unmatched safety record.