Ichabod

Palomar · 2005-09-22 10:16:14

http://www.space.com/news/050921_senate_soyuz.html

*We went from the glorious Saturn V to THIS?

We've been reduced to buying other nations' ships??

"And I shall write 'Ichabod' above the temple doorway, for the glory has departed." -- Some Old Testament prophet, paraphrased. (Yeah, even if I am an agnostic; it's a suitable quote for how I'm feeling)

Search isn't yielding this up as previously posted...sorry if a repeat (not intentional).

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-09-22 10:26:10

Ah Yes tthe INA,...

Well between having no ride and paying for a cheap one, I think Nasa wants to protect there investment for the US governments part in the ISS which it has financed.

This is hopefully only a stop gap measure. CEV and all the shuttle dervied vehicles need to be constructed quickly and from the cost savings of not flying the shuttle.

Palomar · 2005-09-22 10:41:23

02_Saturn%20V%20launch_KSC-69PC-0442.jpg

SpaceNut · 2005-09-22 10:51:31

Yup those were the days...

Basically the new ships are being made from the parts used for 3 shuttle flights per year, plus some new stuff to complete each vehicle. All for a year budget use of about 8 Billion for 2 flights of each rocket type in the new vision. Sure looks like from the stand point of how many rockets are used at once the Saturn was ahead of its day.

edit
image was way to large to view her for dial up users:
Image of New rocket pairs

size comparison of the past, present and future

publiusr · 2005-09-23 15:27:30

Write your Congressmen and Senators people! NASA is going to be the whipping boy again, all to feed gambling den rebuilds, moochers and fighter-jocks with F-22s and JSFs

Commodore · 2005-09-23 17:05:08

Am I the only one who thinks this is a godsend? We can now have a Soyuz rescue craft at the ready in the event of failure of the shuttle tiles. Taking 3 astronauts off the ISS will greatly reduce strain on it, assuming the Soyuz can be remotely opperated. I bet it can modified to carry 4 as well.

Progress launches could be increased to pick up the slack caused by the grounding of the Shuttle for a tiny fraction of the cost.

THe only limit is the rate at which they can build and launch them. Hell, if we pay for some of the Russian ones they can get the Klipper done faster. Although given the way the Russians operate they will probably just milk it all they can.

The time to swallow our pride was back when we had to ground the shuttles with one still in orbit, if not before that. We got a lemon. If we can solve that problem and still get things done then we aught to. Besides, maybe it will embarass some more money out of Congress.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-23 17:19:54

I don't

A station that can comfortably sustain two, perhaps three people will be holding at the bare minimum four or five even if Soyuz takes a full three seats back down.

Soyuz was originally intended for two people, it was then modified to hold three. It is physically impossible to pack four people into a Soyuz capsule safely.

Progress can't make up for Shuttle for two main reasons, first off it can only carry 2.2MT of cargo. Thats it. Maximum. Only a tenth of what Shuttle can carry. Second, the hatch Soyuz/Progress/ATV use is a mere 80cm wide. Its not big enough to bring important componets (gyros, batteries, airlock or LSS parts).

If anything, it will convince Congress that NASA is incompetant, and should be eliminated.

Commodore · 2005-09-23 17:51:55

A station that can comfortably sustain two, perhaps three people will be holding at the bare minimum four or five even if Soyuz takes a full three seats back down.

Thats assuming the Shuttle requires a full compliment to do assembly missions. Remember theres 2 additional crew members up there if they are trained.

And at the very least keeping a Progress at the ready stocked with supplies would greatly reduce the strain in the event of a lifeboat incident.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-23 20:52:49

A minimum Shuttle compliment is probobly about five, and the ISS probobly three when/if Shuttle is back up and flying, or at least two for caretaker operations. That means at least seven, probobly eight people on the ISS. Not a great situation, Soyuz or no.

Having a Progress and an R-7 in the hanger isn't a bad idea though.

TwinBeam · 2005-09-23 22:05:55

How much is it going to cost?

And how will that cost compare to the cost of the planned "stick" launch vehicles we're going to spend the next few years building to do something very similar?

Commodore · 2005-09-23 22:45:55

Good question Twinbeam. Anyone know the cost of a Soyuz w/launcher or a Progress w/ launcher?

The Soyuz tourist package is $20 million, I doubt the whole package is much more than $100 million.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-24 14:07:15

Oh we are SO not going to rely on Russia for Moon/Mars systems, we have learned our lesson there.

RobS · 2005-09-24 17:37:27

I think it's a great idea that we can buy space on a Soyuz. Describing it as buying a spaceship is misleading; we'd be buying space to get Americans to ISS if the shuttle's not operating. Since we aren't planning to ditch ISS into the ocean any time soon, let's make sure there's an American astronaut on something we're paying for anyway. It would be strange to pay tens of billions to put ISS up there and have it staffed by a Russian and an Italian (no offense meant to either nationality).

-- RobS

BWhite · 2005-09-24 18:00:16

Oh we are SO not going to rely on Russia for Moon/Mars systems, we have learned our lesson there.

Likewise, if t/space or SpaceX or alt-space whoever does fly, absolutely NASA should purchase seats on a fixed price per ticket basis (if equal or cheaper than NASA owned). However, NASA cannot be dependent upon commercial launchers to stay in business.

Rxke · 2005-09-25 03:54:07

It would be strange to pay tens of billions to put ISS up there and have it staffed by a Russian and an Italian...

It would be more than strange. Imagine the flak current administration would get in such a case (Note, I'm *NOT* neccesarily saying it would be current administration's fault, but that's just the way politics works: whoever's on the helm gets critiqued for whatever bad thing happens /now/ irreverent if such things are a result rooted in the past or not...)

Just imagine the headlines....

Palomar · 2005-09-25 09:33:54

I think it's a great idea that we can buy space on a Soyuz. Describing it as buying a spaceship is misleading; we'd be buying space to get Americans to ISS if the shuttle's not operating. Since we aren't planning to ditch ISS into the ocean any time soon, let's make sure there's an American astronaut on something we're paying for anyway. It would be strange to pay tens of billions to put ISS up there and have it staffed by a Russian and an Italian (no offense meant to either nationality).
-- RobS

*I definitely see your points, but it's still sad and a blow to national pride that we're having to rely on others. Let's not get used to this as "par for the course." At the basics, it's a humiliating situation. The glory of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo ... now this predicament.

Disgraceful.

We can't get used to this in an "oh well" fashion. Not saying you're advocating that, btw. We must keep our edge.

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2005-09-25 10:56:56

How much is it going to cost?
And how will that cost compare to the cost of the planned "stick" launch vehicles we're going to spend the next few years building to do something very similar?

According to this web page the cost of production for a Progress-M cargo ship in year 2000 was $2.65 million roubles. Production of 6 launch vehicles was $17.14 million roubles and propellant was $0.20 million roubles so $17.34 million roubles for manufacture and propellant, or $2.89 million roubles each. Launch cost was $0.53 million roubles each. There are line items for "Subcontractor costs" and "Cargo spacecraft production backlog" but I don't know what those are for so I'll ignore them. The total is $5.54 million roubles for manufacture, fuel, and launch operations.

According to Corporate Information the exchange rate as of Friday was $0.0351 US dollars per Russian New Rouble. The New Rouble was issued in 1997, replacing the old Rouble. I haven't found anything on the web about revaluing the Rouble since then so year 2000 Roubles should convert. That works out to $0.194454 US dollars.

Hmm, sounds fishy. This UK exchange site says one US dollar is worth $27.7937 Russian Roubles, which works out to $0.03597937662 US dollars per Russian Rouble; about the same. Globex Bank lists Rouble/Dollar exchange rates in the year 2000. It was $27 Roubles per US dollars for the first 5 days of year 2000, so using that the cost of a Progress works out to $0.205185 million. That's $205,185 for manufacture, fuel, and launch operations.

Doing the same thing for Soyuz using Soyuz TM-31 it cost $3.69 million Roubles to manufacture, $2.89 million for launch vehicle plus propellant, and $0.64 million for launch costs. Personal gear cost $0.64 million for 2 sets so $0.32 million for a single mission. The total is $7.54 million Roubles. That doesn't include equipment launched into orbit, space station operations, "Subcontractor costs", or "Manned spacecraft production backlog". Using the beginning of year 2000 exchange rate we get $0.279259259 million US dollars or $279,259.26 per Soyuz. As of August 19, 2005, Russia was willing to sell a Soyuz (spacecraft, rocket, and launch services) to NASA for $65 million US dollars. Dennis Tito paid somewhere between $12 million and $20 million for his single seat. I think Russia is laughing all the way to the bank.

BWhite · 2005-09-25 11:46:31

Dennis Tito paid somewhere between $12 million and $20 million for his single seat. I think Russia is laughing all the way to the bank.

Exactly!

He paid much less than $20 million with the restriction that he NEVER admit how much less than $20 million he actually paid.

J.J. Moesker · 2005-09-25 13:51:12

Robert, I'm pretty sure that you are making a mistake while interperting the numbers. I would rather belief that the numbers in red are in roubles and the numbers in blue are in dollars. This would roughly result in a 7.5M dollar price tag, which is still dirty cheap.

RobertDyck · 2005-09-25 16:26:37

The title "Estimated cost of Mir Operations in 2000 (Million Roubles)" is in blue. Since the title is blue I tought that meant the blue column was also million roubles. However, you are correct that there are two sets of columns, red with (R) and blue with ($). That does probably mean the blue column is US dollars. That's a badly titled chart.

Ok, so that means the cost of Progress-M in year 2000 was $5.54 million and the cost of Soyuz-TM was $7.54 million. Since the exchange rate was $27.00 in year 2000 and it's $27.7937 now, spacecraft prices are about the same today.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-10-01 00:01:20

NASA Wants to Purchase Russian Space Technology
http://www.mosnews.com/money/2005/09/16 … ssia.shtml
The U.S. human spaceflight program, no longer able to count on flying the space shuttle, could lose the use of Russian spacecraft as well, forcing U.S. astronauts to abandon the International Space Station. The Bush administration is now seeking clearance to purchase Russian space technology and equipment, including Soyuz spacecraft, The Washington Post reported on Friday

Palomar · 2005-10-01 04:53:51

*And in brighter news:

Griffin's admission (thread)

"Ichabod" no more. Days later I'm still pleasantly amazed! Thank you Mr. Griffin.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-10-06 11:01:06

So can we instead of buying a soyuz, could we instead buy a Shenzhou knockoff. Or is there some other agreement too that prohibits this as well.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-27 07:01:31

Well here is an update on the INA:

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102602200.html]House Approves Bill to Let Astronauts Fly on Soyuz
Measure Aims to Ensure U.S. Access to Space Station[/url]

The House yesterday passed a bill to allow U.S. astronauts to fly on Russian Soyuz spacecraft through the end of 2011 in a move to forestall the possibility that the United States would lose access to the international space station.
Lugar's bill would terminate purchases in 2012, while the bill passed by the House would terminate all purchases and contracts by Jan. 1, 2012

[url=http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/3418966]NASA gets House go-ahead to buy Soyuz spacecraft
Bush expected to sign bill lifting ban on purchases of Russian hardware[/url]

House Passes Iran Nonproliferation Act Amendment to Help U.S. Space Program

So how many missions are expected to need such purchases and is this charge for only a one direction use or is both up and down a single cost to pay? Also how much will Nasa save by not flying shuttle?

Commodore · 2005-10-27 11:42:04

The best application I can think of is to delay construction of the ISS untill the VSE HLLV is ready (start it now), ground the Shuttles and retire 2 and increase Progress supply missions to the ISS to pick up the slack. Once the HLLV is ready. Reactivate the remaining shuttle, launching with a crew of 3. Launch another 3 on a Soyuz, and have a spare Soyuz on the pad should the Shuttle be damaged on launch. Launch the remaining peices of the ISS en mass and stick them together in one marathon Shuttle mission.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-09-22 10:16:14

Re: Ichabod

#2 2005-09-22 10:26:10

Re: Ichabod

#3 2005-09-22 10:41:23

Re: Ichabod

#4 2005-09-22 10:51:31

Re: Ichabod

#5 2005-09-23 15:27:30

Re: Ichabod

#6 2005-09-23 17:05:08

Re: Ichabod

#7 2005-09-23 17:19:54

Re: Ichabod

#8 2005-09-23 17:51:55

Re: Ichabod

#9 2005-09-23 20:52:49

Re: Ichabod

#10 2005-09-23 22:05:55

Re: Ichabod

#11 2005-09-23 22:45:55

Re: Ichabod

#12 2005-09-24 14:07:15

Re: Ichabod

#13 2005-09-24 17:37:27

Re: Ichabod

#14 2005-09-24 18:00:16

Re: Ichabod

#15 2005-09-25 03:54:07

Re: Ichabod

#16 2005-09-25 09:33:54

Re: Ichabod

#17 2005-09-25 10:56:56

Re: Ichabod

#18 2005-09-25 11:46:31

Re: Ichabod

#19 2005-09-25 13:51:12

Re: Ichabod

#20 2005-09-25 16:26:37

Re: Ichabod

#21 2005-10-01 00:01:20

Re: Ichabod

#22 2005-10-01 04:53:51

Re: Ichabod

#23 2005-10-06 11:01:06

Re: Ichabod

#24 2005-10-27 07:01:31

Re: Ichabod

#25 2005-10-27 11:42:04

Re: Ichabod

Board footer