posted 12-03-2008 09:51 PM               

NASA Extends Contract with Russian Federal Space Agency

NASA has signed a $141 million modification to the current International Space Station contract with the Russian Federal Space Agency for crew transportation services planned through the spring of 2012.

The firm-fixed price extension covers comprehensive Soyuz support, including all necessary training and preparation for launch, crew rescue, and landing of a long-duration mission for three station crew members. The crew members will launch on two Soyuz vehicles in the fall of 2011. They will land in the spring of 2012. The flights may be used to meet NASA's obligations to its international partners for transportation to and from the station.

The contract extension also provides for the two Soyuz flights to carry limited cargo to and from the station and dispose of trash. The cargo allowed per person is approximately 110 pounds (50 kilograms) launched to the station, approximately 37 pounds (17 kilograms) returned to Earth, and trash disposal of approximately 66 pounds (30 kilograms).

posted 04-09-2010 10:27 AM               

NASA Extends Contract with Russian Federal Space Agency

NASA has signed a $335 million modification to the current International Space Station contract with the Russian Federal Space Agency for crew transportation, rescue and related services in 2013 and 2014.

The firm-fixed price modification covers comprehensive Soyuz support, including all necessary training and preparation for launch, crew rescue, and landing of a long-duration mission for six individual station crew members.

In this contract modification, space station crew members will launch on four Soyuz vehicles in 2013 and return on two vehicles in 2013 and two in 2014.

Under the contract modification, the Soyuz flights will carry limited cargo associated with crew transportation to and from the station, and disposal of trash. The cargo allowed per person is approximately 110 pounds (50 kilograms) launched to the station, approximately 37 pounds (17 kilograms) returned to Earth, and trash disposal of approximately 66 pounds (30 kilograms).

posted 03-14-2011 04:21 PM               

NASA Extends Crew Flight Contract With Russian Space Agency

NASA has signed a $753 million modification to the current International Space Station contract with the Russian Federal Space Agency for crew transportation, rescue and related services from 2014 through June 2016. The firm-fixed price modification covers comprehensive Soyuz support, including all necessary training and preparation for launch, flight operations, landing and crew rescue of long-duration missions for 12 individual space station crew members.

NASA has efforts underway to develop an American-made commercial capability for crew transportation and rescue services to the station following this year's retirement of the space shuttle fleet. Agency Administrator Charles Bolden cited this week's Soyuz contract extension as a reminder of how critically important those efforts are.

"The president's 2012 budget request boosts funding for our partnership with the commercial space industry and prioritizes our efforts to ensure that American astronauts and the cargo they need are transported by American companies rather than continuing to outsource this work to foreign governments," Bolden said. "This new approach in getting our crews and cargo into orbit will create good jobs and expand opportunities for our American economy. If we are to win the future and out build our competitors, it's essential that we make this program a success."

NASA made Commercial Crew Development awards in 2010 to stimulate efforts within the private sector, encouraging them to develop and demonstrate human spaceflight capabilities. The agency anticipates these systems will be available by the middle of the decade.

These services will provide our primary transportation to and from the International Space Station for U.S., Canadian, European and Japanese astronauts. To ensure a smooth transition as this new capability is developed, Soyuz support will continue as a backup capability for about a year after commercial services begin.

With this contract modification, station crew members may launch on Soyuz vehicles during a 24-month period. The contract will provide for the launch of six people in calendar year 2014 and six more in 2015, as well as their return to Earth in the spring of 2016 after a six-month stay aboard the station. The extended contract ends June 30, 2016.

Under the contract modification, the Soyuz flights will carry limited cargo associated with crew transportation to and from the station, and assist with the disposal of trash. The cargo provided per Soyuz seat is approximately 110 pounds (50 kilograms) launched to the station, approximately 37 pounds (17 kilograms) returned to Earth and trash disposal of approximately 66 pounds (30 kilograms).

posted 03-15-2011 07:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
Blame those in Congress for this disconcerting situation instead of the Russians.

---

However, it makes me tempted to tell the Russians, "Forget it. You can have the ISS. We'll concentrate our resources on our own program."

posted 03-15-2011 01:45 PM               

Similar cost comparisons could be made with the proposed SpaceX capsule. That is, while one could have an endless debate on the actual cost of flying the shuttle vs. using other vehicles, the savings are not as large as one would believe when considering the considerable loss of capability.

posted 03-15-2011 02:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
Blame those in Congress for this disconcerting situation instead of the Russians.

---

Congress has been left to pick up the pieces of what two administrations have allowed to happen, so pointing a finger there is not appropriate. We should have never allowed the discontinuation of one mode of transportation before another was tested and in place.

posted 01-23-2012 10:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hart Sastrowardoyo:
And spaceflight participants pay between 20 and 30 million dollars.

---

posted 01-24-2012 07:21 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rick Boos:
Question, how can one justify paying the Russians 50 to 63 million dollars per seat to launch into space? Anyone have any figures per seat for Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and the shuttle?

---

posted 04-30-2013 05:59 PM               

NASA Extends Crew Flight Contract with Russian Space Agency

NASA has signed a $424 million modification to its contract with the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) for full crew transportation services to the International Space Station in 2016 with return and rescue services extending through June 2017.

NASA is facilitating development of a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability with the goal of achieving safe, reliable and cost-effective access to and from the space station and low-Earth orbit beginning in 2017. This modification to the Roscosmos contract will ensure continued U.S. presence aboard the space station as NASA prepares for commercial crew providers to begin those transportation operations.

NASA is committed to launching U.S. astronauts aboard domestic spacecraft as soon as possible. Full funding of the administration's Fiscal Year 2014 budget request is critical to making these domestic capabilities possible by 2017.

This firm-fixed price modification covers comprehensive Soyuz support, including all necessary training and preparation for launch, flight operations, landing and rescue of six space station crew members on long-duration missions. It also includes additional launch site support, which was provided previously under a separate contract. The modification will allow for a lead time of about three years Roscosmos needs to build additional Soyuz vehicles. These services will provide transportation to and from the International Space Station for U.S., and Canadian, European or Japanese astronauts.

NASA is committed to launching our astronauts on American spacecraft from U.S. soil as soon as possible. Since the end of our Space Shuttle Program in 2011, NASA has relied on the Russian Space Agency (Roscosmos) for the launch and safe return of astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard its Soyuz spacecraft. While our Russian counterparts have been good partners, it is unacceptable that we don't currently have an American capability to launch our own astronauts.

That’s why the Obama Administration has placed such a high priority on correcting this situation. Three years ago, the Administration put forward a public-private partnership plan, the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), to ensure that American companies would be launching our astronauts from U.S. soil by 2015. It's a plan that supports the U.S. human spaceflight program, boosts our economy, and helps create good-paying American jobs. If NASA had received the President's requested funding for this plan, we would not have been forced to recently sign a new contract with Roscosmos for Soyuz transportation flights.

Because the funding for the President's plan has been significantly reduced, we now won’t be able to support American launches until 2017. Even this delayed availability will be in question if Congress does not fully support the President's fiscal year 2014 request for our Commercial Crew Program, forcing us once again to extend our contract with the Russians. Further delays in our Commercial Crew Program and its impact on our human spaceflight program are unacceptable. That’s why we need the full $821 million the President has requested in next year’s budget to keep us on track to meet our 2017 deadline and bring these launches back to the United States.

I am pleased with the progress our commercial crew providers are making. We now have an American company resupplying cargo to the ISS -- launching from U.S. soil -- and another company on track to join in this competition. I'm confident that our ambitious plan for U.S. crew transportation, if fully funded, will allow U.S. commercial companies to launch our astronauts in just a few short years.

I'm bullish on the American aerospace industry, and I'm committed to gaining the support of the U.S. Congress to fully fund our investments in these companies and bring untold benefits to our economy.

posted 04-30-2013 08:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
First $50 million per seat, then $55 million, now $63 million per seat.

---

posted 04-30-2013 10:14 PM               

The station was largely built and maintained early on by a U.S. based launch capability, one which had great benefits to the country and it's highly skilled engineers, technicians, and associated support personnel. The infrastructure which gave birth to the ISS was critical to this nation's economy, pride, and prestige.

Today, after our elected leaders have made poor decision after poor decision, we have nothing but a struggling commercial launch industry which gets left underfunded because the politicians can't get beyond their political ideologies. Who does this hand all the leverage to? Certainly not American industry, the American worker, or American students considering a career in the STEM fields who will make up the next generation of space professionals.

The leverage belongs to the only other partner in the operation who has a manned launch capability, and they will continue to exploit this advantage until the game changes. Unfortunately, the more this gets put off by under prioritizing, the closer to the end of the ISS's service life we get. At some point, the potential return on investment for commercial crew will not make it worth doing. And we just keep putting it off.

There is no comparison between this six year (or likely longer) gap and that between ASTP and STS-1. The simple fact is that during that hiatus there was no destination, no pressing need, for a launch capability to deliver crew and supplies anywhere. Those years could have become a decade and today it would be forgotten.

With an $8 million increase over the last agreement, that would put the next round of seats at roughly $80 million per astronaut, but I see no reason why the Russians wouldn't demand far more than that.

Instead of having a six or eight seat U.S. spacecraft shuttling astronauts to and from, we are left not to barter, but to negotiate price for single seats being competed for by other countries and various celebrities and billionaires going on joyrides.

This is not what was envisioned when ISS was conceived. If someone would have said, "We're going to build this with the U.S. shuttle, then park it and turn over exclusive access to the facility to another partner", no one in Washington would have supported it. Today, I know of only a handful of politicians who give more than a passing thought to the program.

posted 05-01-2013 03:21 AM               

I agree that U.S. commercial crew is better to arrive sooner than later, though for different reasons than have been cited. I disagree that there is a point of diminished return; there will always be a desire for low Earth orbit access, whether for public or private interests. But even after it is introduced, there will still be a value in retaining use of the Soyuz.

I disagree that for the space station to be a worthwhile endeavor that it must benefit the United States first, or more so than other countries. I agree that other Americans may think differently, but that doesn't necessarily mean their opinion is correct or right.

posted 05-01-2013 08:39 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
There is no comparison between this six year (or likely longer) gap and that between ASTP and STS-1. The simple fact is that during that hiatus there was no destination, no pressing need, for a launch capability to deliver crew and supplies anywhere.

---

posted 05-01-2013 08:50 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
This is not what was envisioned when ISS was conceived. If someone would have said, "We're going to build this with the U.S. shuttle, then park it and turn over exclusive access to the facility to another partner", no one in Washington would have supported it. Today, I know of only a handful of politicians who give more than a passing thought to the program.

---

The ISS was envisioned to be built only with the shuttle (Administrator Truly wouldn't budge on that if I recall), but no one in Washington supported it.

posted 05-01-2013 09:19 AM               

Kirk Shireman, NASA's deputy space station program manager, said April 18 the top risk facing the international project was the start of commercial crew transportation and the decision when to stop purchasing Soyuz seats and begin buying commercial rides.

"All of our top risks are budgetary now," Shireman told a NASA advisory committee. "We're very worried, from a budget standpoint, about commercial crew and Soyuz. Today, there is no budget for commercial crew and Soyuz."

"It's an expensive proposition to have an overlap between Soyuz and commercial crew," Shireman said. "Fundamentally, you're paying for a service on one side or the other that you're probably not going to use."

There is a three-year lead time for construction of Soyuz vehicles, forcing NASA to make decisions early.

"We don't want to be in a situation where we can no longer have U.S. crew members on-board ISS because we didn't buy any more Soyuz and commercial crew isn't ready," Shireman said.

posted 05-01-2013 10:00 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
Skylab was still in orbit from 1975 to 1979. Saturn IB could have delivered crews and supplies and even a re-boost until the shuttle. Someone decided not to.

---

posted 05-01-2013 10:12 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
Should the ISS fail for some technical reason, the Russians would lose their monopoly and the fledgling US commercial industry would have no destination to go to.

---

If NASA is forced by further cuts to downsize to considering one provider for crew services, most of the competitors will likely stop development (Boeing being a ?).

posted 05-01-2013 07:05 PM               

In the long run it doesn't matter why Congress supported the space station. As the government has consistently demonstrated, it either does not understand or is hostile toward the cause of advancing science. If jobs and national security sold Congress on the benefits of a space station, so be it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SkyMan1958:
...to have a work program for the ex-Soviet rocket builders

---

posted 05-01-2013 10:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SkyMan1958:
the Russian participation was a political decision at the highest U.S. political level to have a work program for the ex-Soviet rocket builders so that the workers would not go out and seek jobs where they would transfer technology to Third World countries that the U.S. did not like.

---

"The entire concept of ISS with the Russians was from the outset a foreign policy decision."

In July 1993, India became one of the five states (including China) in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) which was intended to prevent the spread of missile technology to Third World countries. The Russians agreed to stop exporting cryogenic manufacturing technology to India.

The Russians told the White House that the loss of the Indian deal would cost them several hundred million dollars (other observers considered that number highly inflated). By mid-1993, the directive was clear: The United States had to propose a space agreement that was worth the same amount.

U.S. diplomats insisted that there was no link between Russia's cancellation of the deal and it's acceptance of a U.S. space deal with equal dollar value, but they did admit that "things came together conveniently." The price tag of $400 million for the Mir visits alone was otherwise inexplicable. Russian officials valued the deal at about the same amount.

posted 05-03-2013 07:41 AM               

I would have preferred to read that "relying on only one source of launch capability - putting all our eggs in one basket - is not what Challenger taught us."

posted 05-03-2013 08:10 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
I would have preferred to read that "relying on only one source of launch capability - putting all our eggs in one basket - is not what Challenger taught us."

---

posted 03-24-2014 02:04 PM               

And is there a hard date for the CCV, whichever one is chosen, to start transporting crew members to the station? And if not, what is the likelihood of another agreement that will make Soyuz seats available until the CCV starts flying?

posted 03-24-2014 02:12 PM               

At present, NASA expects the first crewed commercial demonstration flight to the International Space Station to occur in the fall of 2017. Later this year (by August), NASA will select the company or companies that will fly astronauts to the station.

posted 03-25-2014 07:56 PM               

Later today, NASA astronaut Steve Swanson will liftoff towards the International Space Station, not from the Space Coast of Florida or some other American spaceport, but from Kazakhstan on a Russian spacecraft. And unfortunately, the plan put forward by the Obama Administration to address this situation has been stymied by some in Congress.

Since the retirement of the Space Shuttle — a decision made in 2004 – the United States has been dependent on the Russians to get our astronauts to the International Space Station. Recognizing that this was unacceptable, President Obama has requested in NASA's budget more than $800 million each of the past 5 years to incentivize the American aerospace industry to build the spacecraft needed to launch our astronauts from American soil. Had this plan been fully funded, we would have returned American human spaceflight launches – and the jobs they support – back to the United States next year. With the reduced level of funding approved by Congress, we're now looking at launching from U.S. soil in 2017.

Budgets are about choices. The choice moving forward is between fully funding the President's request to bring space launches back to American soil or continuing to send millions to the Russians. It's that simple. The Obama Administration chooses to invest in America – and we are hopeful that Congress will do the same...

posted 08-05-2015 02:17 PM               

NASA Notifies Congress About Space Station Contract Modification with Russia

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden sent a letter to Congress Wednesday informing members that, due to continued reductions in the president's funding requests for the agency's Commercial Crew Program over the past several years, NASA was forced to extend its existing contract with the Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos to transport American astronauts to the International Space Station. This contract modification is valued at about $490 million dollars.

The full text of the letter is available online and was delivered to the leadership of the congressional committees that oversee NASA.

posted 08-05-2015 03:35 PM               

1. Fully fund commercial crew, handing a perceived victory to Obama, or
   
2. Not fully fund commercial crew and American companies, and instead ship that money directly to Russia.

posted 08-05-2015 06:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SkyMan1958:
...they should be perfectly happy to develop their craft while watching whatever money they get help support their bottom line.

---