Soyuz Procurement That Falls Short of NASA's Own Commercial Crew Requirements

It mystifies me why they keep doing this — this is hardly a trivial matter, and yet they allow only two weeks for a written response. I've worked in aerospace, so I know that RFPs generally require a painfully quick turn-around, but two weeks for a service this important, unique and long-term?

Combine that with the contradiction of:
1) "NASA/JSC intends to contract with Roscosmos for these services on a sole source basis,"
and
2) "Interested organizations may submit their capabilities and qualifications to perform the effort in writing..."

It's obvious that they're going with Roscosmos and have absolutely no interest in whether there are any "Interested organizations" with alternative services to offer between now and June 30, 2016.

This is obviously a done deal (for better or for worse), so why did they bother with this "Solicitation" nonsense? Just to pretend that they're doing it by the rules?

Steve

Keith, it is all about jobs.

IF SpaceX is allowed to develop a manned program for BILLIONS, with a (b>B, less than NASA; you have just essentially eliminated thousands of government, union jobs. This doesn't look good.

Whether NASA does, or does not, invest in SpaceX does not determine the final outcome; but just when. If NASA had some intellectual honesty with itself, it would allow SpaceX to press with a manned capsule while they still figure out where the 4.5 BILLION, with a B, on some awesome power points and a few test articles.

The choices are going to be very difficult. NASA is in a precarious position, not all of it its fault. But Shuttle and ISS gobble up HSF and it doesn't leave a lot left over. You then have the two black holes that are JWST and MSL. There has just been so much poor management, mis-management, and pie in the sky.

These are the realities.

SpaceX will quickly achieve the same safety factors that are with Soyuz through the testing and development. It should be said again that SpaceX has many talented engineers, scientists, and computer programmers. Many of whom have garnered significant experience with the likes of NASA, USA, and ULA.

The only question is does NASA want to pay for it (which is peanuts compared to its own development cycles (unproven and broken)) or do they want to wait for SpaceX and Elon to pony up.

VR
RE327

Maybe someone can answer an honest question for me about the suitability of a crewed version of the Dragon for ISS ops.

What would be the general Ops Concept if you had a crew onboard the ISS which needed to do an emergency evacuation? Or a return to the ISS after it had for some reason been "de-crewed" (is that the right word?)

My question centers around the fact that as I understand it even the crewed version of the Dragon can not perform an unassisted docking, but rather assumes a close-by station keeping position and then is grappled and docked by the robotic arm.

The same would apply to undocking.

Does this mean that the Soyuz crew would be the last to leave in an emergency, and the the first to return? Otherwise, who would run the arm?

It would seem that a crewed vehicle intended to be used as a lifeboat would need the capability to dock or depart without the assistance of the arm.

Crewed Dragon will have a LIDS docking interface rather than the CBM berthing interface on the cargo version. Because of this, Crewed Dragon (and any other crew vehicle using the LIDS ports) will be able to undock from the station quickly and easily even in the event of total loss of power on the station itself.

If you look at SpaceX's own simulations of missions to the ISS, you will note that the Cargo Dragon is berthed like a MPLM cargo module whilst the Crewed Dragon docks at the PMA2 docking port under its own power and guidence like the shuttle does. Undocking is also carried under the Dragon's own power.

This is no different than what we are doing to other industries. We regulate our own companies to the point where they cannot operate at all let alone compete. We insist that our own trucks have $12,000 particulate filters installed on them while under NAFTA, Mexican trucks are given a free pass to belch all the smoke they want on our freeways (Only American smoke is harmful?) We close our own factories by imposing new regulations and import from countries which don't meet any regulations let alone our old ones. One politician went so far as to declare "Be careful what you wish for! If you want to insist that the Chinese stop selling us toys with lead in it's paint and poison free food, you will see massive price increases!"

I guess I find the comparisons between brand new and untested commercial spacecrafts and a proven, reliable workhorse like the Soyuz vehicles a bit curious. Before the first American ever flew on a Soyuz vehicle, quite a number of humans had been transported to and from LEO. In fact, before Norm flew, the series 4 (TM) Soyuz had carried 55 crewmembers on 19 different flights. Before that, the last series 3 T vehicle, T-15, successfully flew to and docked to 2 separate space stations. Since the first American passenger there have been 13 additional series 4 flights, and 18 series 5 TMA spacecraft flown. Why the heck SHOULD the Russians need to prove themselves before any additional contracts? When another commerical spacecraft can post as impressive a record as Soyuz, I'll be willing to give them a bye as well. Until then, they need to prove how they can, without adding too much weight to fly safely with the design they now have, put humans in orbit and return them. I'm certain someone has a "ready in the can" retort to this, so I will sit back and enjoy any attempts to show why newbies should get the same treatment as the pro's.

Blame, Deferring Responsibility onto others and Hypocrisy make the World go around...

If there is an accident on an American commercial crew vehicle, there will be a backlash and the government and NASA will be blamed for not setting stringent enough requirements on companies providing the service.

If the is an accident on Soyuz, not so much. The can always say...well it was A RUSSIAN vehicle that was the problem. The actual safety of the vehicles in question doesn't matter as much as the psychology of it. I'm guessing managers and politicians really like saving their own asses.

If you think this is crazy.....just look at the BP oil disaster a few months ago. Everybody calls the company BP, but as soon as the disaster hit the Administration couldn't do enough to remind the public that it was "BRITISH Petroleum" responsible.

I don't think its anything to do with NASA or the government having a vendetta against US industry. It actually wants to throw money at industry. But those in charge must avoid blame and/or save their asses at all costs.

@Hogan:
You entirely miss point. Soyuz do not have to prove itself or whatever you read in article that is not here.

Problem is double standard - differently treating russian rockets with americans than american rockets with americans on board.

"so I will sit back and enjoy any attempts to show why newbies should get the same treatment as the pro's"
Criteria and rules should be same for both. This is only fair.