NASA Uses Bait and Switch Tactics To Buy Soyuz Seats
Procurement of Crew Transportation and Rescue Services From Boeing, NASA
“NASA is considering contracting with The Boeing Company (Boeing) for crew transportation services to and from the International Space Station (ISS) on the Russian Soyuz vehicle. This transportation would be for one crewmember in the Fall of 2017 and one crewmember in the Spring of 2018. NASA is considering purchasing these services from Boeing, without competition, because no other vehicles are currently capable of providing these services in Fall 2017 or Spring 2018. NASA has contracts with two U.S. commercial companies for crew transportation to the ISS. However, these vehicles are still in the developmental stage, and not expected to begin fully operational flights to the ISS until 2019. NASA also is considering an option to acquire crew transportation from Boeing for three crewmembers on the Soyuz in 2019, to ensure the availability of back-up transportation capability in the event the U.S. commercial contractor vehicles are delayed or to augment future ISS operations and research.”
“Russia recently announced its plans to decrement the Russian crew count onboard ISS from three to two, beginning in CY 2017. As a result of Russia reducing its crew count by one crewmember, there is now an available Soyuz seat in the 2017-2018 timeframe on each of the two planned spacecraft that would have otherwise had two Russian crew aboard. Of the 24 total Soyuz seats available in 2017-2018, the three seats resulting from the Russian crew decrement are the only available means of transporting additional US crewmembers to ISS during this period.”
“An agreement was recently reached between the Boeing Company and S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Public Corporation, Energia (“RSC Energia”), who is the manufacturer of the Soyuz spacecraft and has the legal rights to sell the seats and associated services. As a part of this agreement, Energia agreed to provide to Boeing two specifically identified seats on the Soyuz spacecraft for long-duration travel to and from the ISS, one on a flight to occur in the Fall 2017 timeframe and another on a flight to occur in the Spring 2018 timeframe. Additionally, Energia provided Boeing three additional specifically identified seats in the Spring 2019 timeframe on two Soyuz spacecraft. Finally, Boeing and RSC Energia agreed that each of these five seats will include a launch of an individual to and from the ISS, including all services normally provided during launches to ISS. Boeing and RSC Energia have represented that Boeing has the full rights to these seats and can sell them to any third party.”
Keith’s note: How sneaky. Neither SpaceX or Boeing are going to have their crew services ready in time to replace Soyuz in the near term. So NASA uses Boeing to buy more Soyuz seats. Its not the first time that they have bought Soyuz seats. But NASA omits mention of the word “Soyuz” in the title of the presolicitation notice. No one will notice, right NASA? But wait – there’s more – RSC Energia gave Boeing 5 Soyuz seats to settle a business deal gone sour (Sea Launch) – and Boeing can charge NASA whatever whatever they want for these seats. And if CST-100 flights are delayed further and more Soyuz seats are needed then Boeing can sell extra seats to NASA. Boeing makes money from NASA one way – or the other – unless SpaceX gets into space with their crewed Dragon.
Seems that Boeing got the right to buy Soyuz seats as part of Sea Launch deal to offset the $298M owned to @Boeing by Energia
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) January 17, 2017
|
|
As leadership departs, NASA quietly moves to buy more Soyuz seats, Ars Technica
“Last September, based upon anonymous sources, Ars reported that NASA had begun considering buying additional seats in 2019 as a hedge against further delays with the commercial crew program. Both NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and the agency’s head of human spaceflight, Bill Gerstenmaier, subsequently denied this report.”
NASA considering Boeing offer for additional Soyuz seats, SpaceNews
“NASA officials previous indicated that there were no plans by the agency to purchase additional Soyuz seats directly from Roscosmos. William Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for human exploration and operations, said in an October interview that the deadline had passed for NASA to purchase additional Soyuz seats from Roscosmos for 2019 missions.”
Keith’s note: Have a look at the board of directors of RSC Energia. Five of the Eleven members work for Roscosmos including Yuri Vlasov “deputy general director for rocket and space industry of State Corporation for space activities Roscosmos”. RSC Energia is owned by the Russian government. Buying Soyuz seats from RSC Energia instead of Roscosmos is a distinction without a difference. Boeing has not disclosed what the value of these seats are or what they will charge NASA for them.
|
|
ВОЕИНЖ
Funny how the orange cheeto fails to mention that it was the republican congress that gutted commercial crew funding.
To be fair the Democrats in the Senate, while they had control, did not champion Commercial Crew funding. Ms. Mikulski (D-Maryland) cut a deal to ensure JWST and science through Goddard were taken care of. In return, Mr. Shelby (R-Alabama) protected SLS and Marshall.
Honorable mention here is Mr. Nelson (D-Florida) who thought he could piggy back on KSC funding via MSFC but that is behind schedule. This is just the senate side. I would argue that the Democrats are slightly more receptive to Commercial Crew in the House – barely.
Respectfully, Commercial Crew is the red-headed step-child of both parties and why we need commercial access to LEO. Very few elected officials truly support it and both Republicans and Democrats work against it for their own district and state self interests.
“Once you get to earth orbit, you’re halfway to anywhere in the solar system.” – Robert A. Heinlein
There are also districts that benefit from Commercial Crew and commercial cargo, in Florida, Texas, and California, among others. We as space enthusiasts can make sure our representatives are aware of it. Of course the nation benefits as well…
O’keefe selected depot centric/DOD/comm fleet in 2004. Red controlled, shuttle shutdown, $ to payload.
Oops. Bush appointed Griffin, Congress added 3 flaws to the VSE, 2005 ESAS helped shuttle derived be born again. Yet another false news tweet: all Red.
A few months after 2005 ESAS, the LAS abort mass was increased from 4 to10 mT due to solids, and Ares I could not get off the ground. Yet, it took until 2010 to kill CxP (Blue), but ‘stall and delay’ forced worse alternative, both “70 and 130mT” and commercial for LEO, not to mention BEO HLV apartheid.
Leaders stand up and applaud good policy. Watch who stands and who does not. “We didn’t deny Sputnik was up there (laughter). We didn’t argue about the science (climate change), or shrink our R&D budgets”, deny 50 yrs of oil remain, manipulate data.
https://youtu.be/cCXSO-3mt5…
The so called “Commercial” Crew program isn’t doing anything to advance commercial spaceflight anyway. It’s just another NASA pork program. If anything, it has done more to hinder development of a commercially viable industry than to foster it. In the end, all CCDev has accomplished is to shift NASA dollars from Congressional districts in CO & UT to CA.
Well, except that by diverting Orion from ISS, it did manage to create a gap that had to be filled by Soyuz, thereby also shifting a pile of American taxpayer dollars to Moscow.
It is possible that Mr. Musk has a different and probably more nuanced view.
Two things:
Commercial crew didn’t “divert Orion from ISS”. Nor did Obama “cancel the ISS version of Orion”, he proposed it. Obama’s original 2010 proposal was to develop “Orion-lite” to launch on a man-rated Atlas V, to service the ISS.
It was Congress that forced the heavy-Orion back onto Obama, as part of SLS.
And:
By 2009, the delivery date for Ares 1 and Orion was slipping more than one-year-per-year. So continuing with Constellation wouldn’t have shortened the gap either.
It was also the Obama administration that cancelled the ISS version of Orion (which would have easily been flying by now, although Girffin certainly handicapped it with his abominably stupid Ares I), and NASA leadership that ignored the clear wishes of Congress to down select CCDev to a single vendor long ago. (Given that NASA just awarded contracts for the full program of a total of 6 operational flights each, this is probably the most foolish multi-vendor procurement of all time.)
Plenty of blame to go around for everyone.
An interesting view. Often critics sing the praises of competition.
It is also the case that the sorry record with single source can motivate the most obsequious Administrator.
It is very sad that our government did not think about the possibility of this situation 10 or more years ago when they cancelled our only human rated vehicle. And now we regress to new, untried version 1 spacecraft, and capsules at that. It is even more distressing that none of our government officials care or understand that we might be in a similar situation in the not to distant future when the ISS is decommissioned. At that point it wont matter if we regain human “capsule” flight capability, there will be no place for them to go and nothing for them to do, and thus our space program looses another decade or more floundering in lack of vision and real, long-term, sustainable and attainable goals.
They did think about it. The Commercial Space Act of 1998 laid the groundwork for allowing NASA to pursue commercial cargo and crew.
“An Act
To encourage the development of a commercial space industry in the United States, and for other purposes.
Oct. 28, 1998 – [H.R. 1702]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.–This Act may be cited as the “Commercial Space Act of 1998”.
(b) Table of Contents.–
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I–PROMOTION OF COMMERCIAL SPACE OPPORTUNITIES
Sec. 101. Commercialization of Space Station.
Sec. 102. Commercial space launch amendments.
Sec. 103. Launch voucher demonstration program.
Sec. 104. Promotion of United States Global Positioning System standards.
Sec. 105. Acquisition of space science data.
Sec. 106. Administration of Commercial Space Centers.
Sec. 107. Sources of Earth science data.
TITLE II–FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Sec. 201. Requirement to procure commercial space transportation services.
Sec. 202. Acquisition of commercial space transportation services.
Sec. 203. Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990 amendments.
Sec. 204. Shuttle privatization.
Sec. 205. Use of excess intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Sec. 206. National launch capability study.”
https://www.nasa.gov/office…
It sat for six years until the shuttle accident provided an opportunity for the white house to finally pursue it.
In “The Vision for Space Exploration”, from Feb 2004 it reads”
“C. Space Transportation Capabilities Supporting Exploration
• Develop a new crew exploration vehicle to provide crew transportation for missions beyond low Earth orbit;
« Conduct the initial test flight before the end of this decade in order to provide an operational capability to support human exploration missions no later than 2014;
• Separate to the maximum practical extent crew from cargo transportation to the International Space Station and for launching exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit;
« Acquire cargo transportation as soon as practical and affordable to support missions to and from the International Space Station; and
« Acquire crew transportation to and from the International Space Station, as required, after the Space Shuttle is retired from service.”
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55…
So since 1998 Congress had a green light to fund commercial crew, 18 years … we should have had operational commercial passenger services for over a decade.
The government thought about it, but refused to fight the congressional pork train to space states.
The 1998 Act was well before the decommissioning of the Shuttle and therefore can not be considered as a countermeasure to its loss and the time needed to produce a replacement. The “Vision” did provide a stop-gap concept, but as it was not a “Law” it had no teeth and therefore we see the position we are in today and at least for the next 2 years should everything go perfectly. My point about the loss of ISS still stands.
Similarly the CAIB recommended that Shuttle be retired only when a replacement system for LEO access was in service.
I know it was.. I stated that it sat for years .. it was the shuttle accident that allowed the white house to push for it later…
“It sat for six years until the shuttle accident provided an opportunity for the white house to finally pursue it.”
The most likely prospect one can imagine to come from Trump is the gutting of climate research at NASA and using the “savings” to fund some sort of “commercial” program plagued by nepotism and corruption.
There’s too much conflating of issues here. The fact that we are forced to buy these capsule seats from our Russian partners has nothing to do with the value these seats represent to a company – Boeing – that suffered real losses from Sea Launch, receiving in-kind value as compensation.
Why wouldn’t Boeing charge NASA for these valuable seats?
Just because money didn’t change hands does not mean the seats cannot be valued in dollars (or rubles, I suppose). Indeed what exactly is Boeing supposed to do with these seats anyway, if not sell them to NASA?
And indeed it was a risky move by Boeing to even take the seats as payment, betting that the Boeing capsule would be late (shocking, I know), and that SpaceX would be late as well. I suppose they were deeply discounted.
That’s the real story here: the fact that Boeing, had it met schedules, would be holding valueless Soyuz seats.
Its unlikely crew will fly on an Atlas with solids–there is not even an abort test. Further, it makes little economic sense to (try to) certify a LV that will be retired. Relying on Russia and SpaceX seems prudent, given that a decade was waisted on HLV.
Why is it unlikely?
There are abort tests for Starliner, just that Boeing elected, and NASA di not require, an in-flight abort test and instead opted for alternate means to certify the abort system (including a pad abort test and wind tunnel testing). Actually, planned in-flight abort tests are exceedingly rare…Apollo did one but it used a Little Joe rocket. There were some unplanned uses, but if they never occurred the systems would never have been tested in-flight.
You answered part of the question. The LOC is so small during prelaunch (fueling loading being debated) that the the pad abort simply tests Starliner and not the combined LV (and LAS system) in a common configuration.
The certification standard requires 14, 6, 3 or 2 flights in a common configuration instrumented to provide design verification and flight performance data. “the LOC probability distribution for the ascent phase of a 210 day ISS mission shall have a mean value no greater than 1 in a 1000.” The LAS was mandated because of the low # of flights.
So a successful pad test does not really help the rest of the mission phase LOC probability distribution. yes 100 or so successful launches, but none tested destructing solids combined with LAS with new ‘fairing’ altering load paths. let the extrapolation continue. On a LV that will be retired at 4.2B?
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/50…
I’m not clear on your comment? Atlas isn’t in the picture as far and I know.
Correct! CST-100 launches on Atlas 522-4.2B; {Dragon F9x(2.6B)}. The 2 engine upper stage has not flown for awhile, load paths change with the capsule and needs wind tunnel testing, deflectors, etc, but the real issue is the two solids when the LOC is determined in *combination* with the LV (and LAS if this is to reduce LOC).
Parachutes and large burning chunks of debris complicated by the variability in the commanded abort vs delay time for solid destruction, not to mention the difficulty in demonstrated reliability, with only a pad abort==> Prudent to have *contingency* plans. Contrast with all liquids. IOW: 1 in 1000?
IOW: it’s called outsourcing, either engines or the complete package. gee thx CxPers……
I agree. This sounds like investing in commodities futures. I’ve just never hear of a futures market in plane or train tickets, so rocket tickets is a bit of a novelty. Getting _all_ the available seats was a clever touch. That makes Boeing a sole-source provider without (I think) violating laws about monopolies. In any case, the seats wouldn’t have been valueless if Starliner or Dragon fly first. They could recover something at rich space tourist rates. But you’re right that this is definitely hedging their bets.
Lets just see what the price of the seats is shall we? Shouldnt be a penny more than what we pay directly to the Russians for the same seats. If it is then someone is grifting the taxpayers again.
Also interesting information that changes the perspective of the discussion. Thank you as well.
What about them trampolines ?
hat tip on this Keith. this smells like a classic old space swindle. More importantly I think you coined an awesome new euphemism “a distinction without a difference”
Thanks – but the euphmnism is borrowed from someone else who first said it – somewhere.
Folks, let’s please separate two very different parts of this proposed transaction. Everyone wants to talk about the 3 seats in Winter/Spring of 2019. The NEWS here is the seats from the A-line Soyuzes in Fall 2017 and Spring of 2018. Those seats don’t just include a transportation service, but actual new U.S. crew slots aboard ISS. Russia is reducing their crew size to 2, and the U.S. would be able to increase its crew to 4.
As has been discussed before, that extra U.S. crew person *immediately* doubles U.S. utilization crew time, from 35 person hours a week to over 70. That dramatically increases the PAYOFF of the ISS and all of its sunk capital and current operational costs to the American taxpayer. This is a very good thing.
If it turns out that Boeing is selling these first two seats at something like NASA has paid recently, namely ~$80m each, that’s a bargain. That means that we are doubling our ISS utilization for one year for $160m.
Given that the onset of commercial crew services in late 2018 or 2019 will lead to a potential further growth in U.S. crew size, and a further growth in U.S. utilization productivity from ISS.
Guys… this is MORE AMERICAN HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT. The annual cost of ISS, including cargo and baseline Soyuz services, is like $3 billion. For an extra $160m or so, we’re getting a raw increase of American hours in orbit of 33% (from 3 person years to 4 person years)
and a doubling of utilization hours.
Like I said: a very good thing.
(You may now continue your squabbling about mistakes made 10+ years ago.)
Yep.
Interesting information that changes the perspective of the discussion. Thank you.
2 yrs ago, a LV that will be retired was handed 4.2B to fly crew to ISS by 2018. The new LV option was not selected because it would negate all the demonstrated reliability of Atlas.
The old reliable Atlas 522 mixes solids with crew, parachutes and large burning chunks of debris, with a large variation in the time delay between the commanded abort and solid destruction making it unlikely the integrated package can meet the 1:1000 LOC by 2018. Vulcan with crew: no solids.
Alternatively, at $80M, a billion buys about dozen seats, leaving 3.2B for certifying the next generation LV, rather than $/time on a LV with RD-180s/solids that will be *retired*.
At 3B/yr, how much extra ISS utilization time would be available? At 1B/yr and 2B/yr applied to missions and technology development? There are many more plans that make the process more efficient. Oops, USG cannot tell the private sector what to do with taxpayer dollars. Go Figure.
BTW, 10 yrs ago was not a *mistake*. It was also not a *mistake* that climate denying scientists manipulated satellite data to show no warming, violating the physics that nighttime temperatures were warmer than days. It does appear however that lying and deception pays quite well.
Small nit: The repeated *mistake* is now in its 4th decade:
NASA is building an HLV and capsule it does not require at 3B/yr based on the expendable 70s shuttle derived hardware with solids, that adds 6mT to LAS mass, added by Nixon that lost out to Titan unless if flew 28x per year that costs billions more than other alternatives, with LV24/25 more expensive than CxP, yet SLS/Direct was retained in 2017-2010=7, while it missed gap closing, 2009, and Dec 2016 deadline.
“When NASA proposed on-orbit fuel depots in this Administration’s original plan for human space exploration, they said this game-changing technology could make the difference between exploring space and falling short. Then the depots dropped out of the conversation” 57B cheaper
http://www.spaceref.com/new…
“The U.S. House of Representatives on May 10 approved a 2013 NASA budget of $17.45 billion that would force an immediate restructuring of the agency’s Com Crew Program”
http://spacenews.com/commer…
“Imagine the howls you would get if climate models predicted it was warmer at night than during the day. You would hear people on the other side just screaming bloody murder: “How can you believe this, these people are incompetent, how can you possibly believe the model that has this wrong sign of the diurnal cycle in it. The physics is obviously all screwed up”. […] It goes to show you the amount of confirmation bias going on in this debate. […] These people accept the satellite data completely uncritically, because it tells them what they want to hear.”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/…
I don’t mind Boeing selling NASA Soyuz seats they have been given as compensation for losses incurred as long as the are sold at not one single cent more than they would cost direct from Russia. What I do find wrong is the conflict of interest that this generates, Boeing is one of two companies being paid to be developing a commercial crew transport system for NASA that should be substantially cheaper than purchasing Soyuz seats, If Boeing is looking to sell these Soyuz seats to NASA then there is every motive to delay their own work on commercial crew just long enough for NASA to need to buy these seats surely that is a very clear conflict of interests.