even if the shuttle keeps flying NASA would still be dependent on Russia's Soyuz - and has been dependent on the Soyuz since 2000! |
The space shuttle and Soyuz are both excellent vehicles and each has advantages and disadvantages. Unlike the shuttle, which can be thought of as a luxury van, the Soyuz is like a small economy car. You can (barely) fit three people into a Soyuz. The shuttle can carry seven people and could carry more for a rescue flight. The shuttle can also carry tons of cargo. The shuttle is the only spacecraft capable of returning large amounts of cargo to Earth. The return cargo can include refrigerated medical samples, failed hardware which can be refurbished and relaunched, and even personal items the astronauts want to keep.
Ever since crews have been living permanently on the space station NASA's had to rely on the Soyuz. |
Canada supplied the robot arm, used to assemble most of the space station. Europe contributed its "Columbus" laboratory module. Japan provided its "Kibo" module which includes both a pressurized laboratory and an external platform where experiments are exposed to the space environment. The United States built the bulk of the space station's components including several pressurized modules, broadband communications, and the giant solar arrays. Russia provides the living quarters and some of the additional modules. In addition Russia provided some early functions which were later performed by more efficient American components. These include most of the electrical power, and attitude control (orientation). Europe, Japan, and Russia all have automated spacecraft which deliver cargo. After the cargo is offloaded they're loaded with trash and burn up on reentry into the Earth's atmosphere.Also in the barter agreement was 13 Russian Soyuz spacecraft, each with a six months lifetime. Long duration crews travel to and from the space station via either the shuttle or Soyuz (make sure you've got your passports!). Each space station crewmember has an assigned Soyuz seat, even if they launch and land on the shuttle. 13 Soyuz times six months equals 6.5 years. The clock started running on October 31, 2000 when the first space station crew was launched on a Soyuz. Every space station partner knew that the 13th Soyuz would launch in 2006. This has never been a surprise or something that changed.
Russia would continue to use the Soyuz to fly their crew after its commitment was fulfilled. NASA could fly its astronauts via the shuttle, but needed its own crew rescue vehicle within 6.5 years of the first Soyuz launch.
Amazingly NASA officials ignored the 2006 deadline when the schedules for planned U.S. rescue vehicles slipped. |
President George W. Bush's new vision for NASA in 2004 called for shutting down the shuttle program in the 2010 timeframe, terminating U.S. space station participation after 2016, building a new launch vehicle, and a new spacecraft. The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) would carry crews to the space station and improved versions could carry people to the moon and Mars. The Ares launch vehicle would launch the CEV starting in 2012.
Supposedly the money saved by ending the shuttle program would pay for these new projects. Bush also called for the development of a new spacecraft to land on the moon and a new heavy lift launch vehicle. The Bush administration never gave NASA enough funding and the schedule kept slipping.
In 2008 NASA gave SpaceX and Orbital Sciences contracts to launch automated cargo vehicles, starting in 2011. These spacecraft are critical for providing food, replacement parts, water, and other supplies and getting rid of trash. Both companies are using brand-new launch vehicles and brand-new spacecraft so there are reliability concerns.
By the time Bush left office NASA was left without any vision - the Crew Exploration Vehicle and Ares launch vehicle were both behind schedule and over budget. A bi-partisan committee, led by aerospace executive Norm Augustine, noted that even if NASA went ahead with the Crew Exploration Vehicle it would start flying just as the space station was retired. The committee also noted that it made no sense to retire the $100+ Billion dollar space station just as it was becoming fully operational and recommended extending it until at least 2020. The Augustine panel also recommended flying one additional shuttle mission, using spare parts already paid for. That flight (STS-135) would launch over a year of food and other supplies as a buffer against problems with the commercial cargo flights.
Aerospace giants and startup companies have proposed commercial spacecraft. NASA has provided some development funds, but not the major amounts for test programs and production. A commercial company can be more efficient and less expensive than a government program but will it be as safe? The companies say yes and they've hired many NASA safety experts and retired astronauts. They claim they can fly people within three years of a contract. Whether or not they get contracts and meet those schedules is something only time will tell.
With no other choice NASA had to go back to Russia and purchase even more Soyuz seats. On March 14, 2011 NASA agreed to pay $753 Million for 12 crewmembers on four Soyuzes flying from 2014 to 2016, $62.75 Million per seat. The bottom line is Russia has the only current long duration spacecraft and can charge whatever the market will bear.
The bottom line is Russia has the only current long duration spacecraft and can charge whatever the market will bear. |
CAIB recommendations - R9.2-1 Prior to operating the Shuttle beyond 2010, develop and conduct a vehicle recertifcation at the material, component, subsystem, and system levels. Recertifcation requirements should be included in the Service Life Extension Program. |
Home