T O P

Roscosmos to discuss crew assignments on Crew Dragon with NASA

Roscosmos to discuss crew assignments on Crew Dragon with NASA

AutoModerator

Thank you for participating in r/SpaceX! This is a moderated community where technical discussion is prioritized over casual chit chat. However, questions are always welcome! Please: * Keep it civil, and directly relevant to SpaceX and the thread. Comments consisting solely of jokes, memes, pop culture references, etc. will be removed. * Don't downvote content you disagree with, unless it clearly doesn't contribute to constructive discussion. * Check out [these threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/threads) for discussion of common topics. If you're looking for a more relaxed atmosphere, visit r/SpaceXLounge. If you're looking for dank memes, try r/SpaceXMasterRace. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/spacex) if you have any questions or concerns.*


z3r0c00l12

I wonder if Nasa will add a cost premium for seats like Roscosmos did to Nasa.


Jarnis

As far as I know, the plan is to do trades. So for each Russian flying on Dragon (paid for by USA), a NASA astronaut would fly on Souyz (paid for by Russia). Direct barter of seats, one for one.


CProphet

Agree straight seat swap was NASA's intention. However...have to wonder how much Rogozin wants to sweeten the deal. Time will tell.


EdmundGerber

> Rogozin There's the only problem I have with this deal. I'd rather someone else in charge, over in Russia.


kelvin_klein_bottle

ego and corruption is part of the job requirements for any position high enough.


ishiggydiggydowop

Yup. Russia is not unique in that regard.


ergzay

I'm just going to comment that this is a pet peeve of mine. It's disingenuous to try to equate many countries level of corruption as being the same. The level of corruption in Russia is an entirely level of bad worse than anywhere else in the western world. People constantly spout how the US is corrupted but in actuality it's really not compared to most places in the world (many people are unfamiliar with how bad it is elsewhere in the world). (One example: we don't have blatant police bribery everywhere like many places in Latin America/Africa/Southeast asia.) Yes things can be improved, but trying to report on corruption doesn't even get you fired from your job, let alone killed. In fact it gets headline news and tons of clicks. It's to the point people write up fake corruption "scandals" for the clicks here in the US. Trying to equate corruption everywhere just makes things worse.


Pul-Ess

The US is actually quite good at keeping corruption constrained to politics, and out of public services.


ergzay

Indeed. I personally have never found any corruption in public services in any news articles I've ever read, at least not in any case other than where it's an article about someone getting arrested for it.


cptjeff

If you think the US has political corruption to speak of, you ain't never seen most other countries. Sure, there's plenty of stuff that can be improved, but we generally do a very good job at preventing government officials from profiting personally in exchange for votes. The campaign finance system is ugly, but the one thing it's quite good at is keeping that money out of politician's pockets. There are a lot of ways to get money into a campaign account by scummy means, but there's a damn good firewall between campaign and personal accounts.


millijuna

Russia is basically a mafia state. To equate it with the US is laughable at best. (Note that I'm not American).


RizzyNizzyDizzy

That’s correct. People in USA don’t know how good of a system they have got. Even corrupt people have done something good. In my country corrupt people don’t give a fuck. Albeit that’s changing but it’s pretty slow. I have seen some maps regarding the level of corruption in each country. USA is always in blue meaning least corrupt.


ignazwrobel

Or put together quite eloquently, there's the Fallacy of Gray: The world is not black and white, but some grays are definitely darker than others: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLJv2CoRCgeC2mPgj/the-fallacy-of-gray


keepitreasonable

I think it usually shows that people really haven't traveled / worked internationally very much. "Corruption" overseas is not even really seen as corruption. Ie, cops will make so little they "of course" do pretextual stops of westerners for "spot fines". As long as amounts are small folks go about business. Good news: You can ignore tons of laws that are on the books. Bad news: Some of these guys are NEVER in their office - you have to find them or pay a "fee" to someone to facilitate things. If you piss someone off there are not a lot of checks if they have pull. Others can ignore laws too. Best is to be broke I found. When I worked for a business with money overseas the amount of folks looking for a piece was damn high compared to backpacking. I always thought "exit" taxes were a kind of weird rule too - you can't leave until you pay these, usually only in cash in many places. Always wonder how that money gets divided up.


cryptokronalite

Hueehuwehuee muh whatboutism


Goolic

They need money. Putin cut rogozin's budget by 20%. He will ask for a subsidy or will fly tourists.


slicer4ever

What benefit is there in seat swapping? More varied crew?


Jarnis

Say you have 7 people up, 4 went with dragon, 3 went with Soyuz. Without swapping, thats 4 US/International, 3 Russian. What if Something Happens that requires Dragon to return early. Say a medical emergency that leads to Dragon returning. Result: ISS with only 3 russians on board. Not optimal. Or if other way around, no russians remain onboard. Neither is "end of the world" in an emergency, but if you can avoid it, that is desired. Swap seats, and no matter what one US crewmember stays onboard when crew is reduced temporarily.


codinglikemad

Is that really the situation they have in mind? I would have thought it's more scheduling issues vs. operational issues. IE, they want to get someone up to do something next months, but there's a quality issue that is being investigated on all available dragons (Something we've seen several times - whenever there is an incident with a falcon we lose launches from them for 3+ months usually I think?), so you shove them on a Soyuz which has a spare (or at least not urgently needed) seat, and take the seat later on a dragon to make up for it. The scenario you are describing would require co-training of all ISS staff on both platforms, wouldn't it? Not saying that isn't plausible, I just think it is the less focused on scenario.


Nergaal

from a political perspective, the original agreement says if there is no American onboard ISS, no Russian can be on board, and vice-versa. the idea being that the sole-remaining side can do "espionage-type" things if there is nobody from the other side to confirm nothing sketchy is being done. remember, that ISS is part of the outcome of the ending of the Cold War


bingobangobenis

> remember, that ISS is part of the outcome of the ending of the Cold War yup, there was a couple years where US and Russia looked to be having good relations, then that all went down the shitter. There will never be a US/Russia space station again, probably. Russia isn't participating in the US' next foray to the moon, though i think they were invited. On the bright side, it allows the US to pick a better orbit for whatever next space station occurs. We had to compromise heavily energy wise, because of kazakhstan's relatively horrible location for launching into equatorial orbits


Jarnis

No. This is the exact situation where seat swaps help. Every crewmember trains for the craft they go up with. The seat is "fixed" as in they cannot swap vehicles for the return trip (Souyz requires personalized seat liner, Dragon seats I believe also get customized for each person, suits are custom fit in both cases...) Any issue preventing launches of one craft most likely just stretches crew rotation. So if a crew was planned for 6 months and the launch of the replacement crew is delayed by a month or two, the previous crew stays up longer. It would take longer than a few months to set up an additional Souyz crew rotation flight.


slicer4ever

Ah, i see, thank you.


8andahalfby11

Based on pricing, who loses in that agreement?


Jarnis

Probably NASA if you compare direct costs to supply the seats. Probably Roscosmos if you compare "market price" of a seat. Because Russia has been overcharging thru the nose for Soyuz seats.


Nishant3789

No reason to compare market prices here


Jarnis

It matters in a way - NASA ends up paying less money over time for keeping ISS crewed vs previous "Souyz only" situation.


karlywarly73

What about Meerkats?


johnabbe

The [first one is doing great work](https://africanews.space/meerkats-stunning-image-reveals-cosmic-threads-ribbons-and-rings/), are more on the way?


HolyGig

No reason not to.


Not_My_Idea

They dont have to pay market prices anymore which means the $90m price also doesn't exist anymore. No one is going to be paying that anymore, so why would it still be relavant?


HolyGig

I never said the $90M price was relevant. We don't even know what Dragon actually costs, what NASA is currently paying isn't accurate there either. Still, we know Falcon 9 is cheaper for cargo than the commercialized Soyuz and Dragon has 4 seats instead of 3. Id imagine Dragon is cheaper on a per seat basis.


Bunslow

*probably*. the weakening of the ruble has changed the arithmetic considerably compared to 8 years ago


Frostis24

I would imagine Russia since it makes sense for Dragon to be cheaper( without any added costs).


kelvin_klein_bottle

The poor saps who will be f[lying economy class on the Soyuz, versus the Chads in first-class Dragon with their extra head and leg room.](https://i.redd.it/o8ybvu0k13061.jpg)


Teberoth

The shuttle was apparently dubbed 'the Cadillac' by astronauts who flew both. Tons of room and apparently a smoother ride (relatively speaking anyway). I would imagine the shuttle landing was definitely smoother. Not sure how the Dragon splashdown versus the Soyuz last-second-rocket-blast compare in confort.


peterabbit456

>... Not sure how the Dragon splashdown versus the Soyuz last-second-rocket-blast compare in comfort. Astronauts who have returned in a Soyuz have described the landing as being just like a low speed car crash, at maybe 15 to 30 MPH. Dragon splashdown has to be a lot more comfortable.


Teberoth

To be honest that's my gut feeling too. The seating in Dragon also looks like there was more space for the astronauts for optimal impact ergonomics(not sure what you'd call it properly?). Whereas the cramping the the Soyuz might mean there are some slight compromises to that.


ManiaMuse

Soyuz has shock absorbers in the seats and fires small retro rockets immediately before impact. But yes Google brings up a lot of descriptions of the landing being like being in a minor car crash.


Martianspirit

A German astronaut described the thruster pod firing as a kick in the ass by a horse, followed by another horsekick on landing.


Bunslow

what makes you think dragon is more comfortable? final impact speed is pretty similar, and plenty of folks recall that the surface tension of water can often make it feel as incompressible as concrete. my first order guess is that they're equally uncomfortable at touchdown


peterabbit456

>what makes you think dragon is more comfortable? Mainly, the testimony (statements) of astronauts. > final impact speed is pretty similar, and plenty of folks recall that the surface tension of water can often make it feel as incompressible as concrete. I'm sure if you belly flopped into the ocean at the speed a Dragon splashes down, it would be painful. But a capsule doesn't come to such a sudden stop when it hits the water, compared to land. --- The Russians have different opinions about acceptable discomfort than NASA. - On the first few orbital flights in the 1960s, the cosmonaut had to bail out and parachute down to the ground, because the capsule didn't have an adequate parachute. - The Soyuz capsule comes down under a single parachute. NASA insists on 3 or 4 parachutes. - On the Soyuz abort a year or 2 ago, the cosmonauts were subjected to 22 Gs when the reentering capsule hit the Earth's atmosphere.


Professional_Copy587

And a 1/50 chance of killing you


Teberoth

I figured you were taking the piss but... The Shuttle had 135 missions (not counting atmospheric testing by Enterprise), all crewed, with seven available seats per flight, though flights were not always full. The minimum fatality rate (14 fatalities) was 1.48% per seat. (looks like \~128 empty seats so about a 1.7% casualty rate, which is actually shockingly close to 1/50, eg 2%) The Soyuz has had 147 crewed mission to date (across 6 generations of Soyuz) which have led to 4 fatalities. Crewed missions are also not always the full three three people but the minimum fatality rate is 0.9% per seat (looks like there has been approx 30 empty seats on crewed flights since '67, so \~0.97% casualty rate, nearly twice as good as the shuttle).


CutterJohn

Key difference being soyuz's casualties were all very early in the program. That said its abort/loss of vehicle rate was higher than the shuttle, but the capsule is a hard little nugget and saved its crew in all but two instances.


Teberoth

Yes, '67 and '71, I thought about mentioning it but it didn't seem germain. (Sidebar, was that second loss technically the first 'ghost' spaceship as the capsule made it back fine on its own?). Escape System aside some of those missed orbit failures with ballistic returns must have been rough. I think the most recent hit something like 20g at one point.


CutterJohn

Wiki says 6.7g. Which is still rough.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Teberoth

The Soyuz actually fires a set of powerful (solid fuel?) retro rockets moments before landing IIRC which is what makes the big explosion looking dust cloud. Blue origin does much the same. So you aren’t exactly dropping hard on the ground. While I think most of us have the practical experience to extrapolate an idea of what a water landing might be like (woo cannonball!). I can’t really think of anything mundane I would compare a rocket assisted cushion to...open to ideas mind you...


Nishant3789

Jumping just before a descending elevator stops at the selected floor


cptjeff

Didn't a cosmonaut get in trouble for posting a russian language version of that meme?


Bunslow

that sounds funny, but im doubtful any cosmonaut would be that stupid as to publicize something like that


Yeetstation4

This makes me wonder how many guys you could jam into a dragon capsule if the seating was rearranged


Bensemus

It does have an official capacity of 7 I believe. I doubt it will ever fly like that unless it's docking with a Starship for just crew transfer as that really eats into it's cargo capacity.


AresV92

You could fit more if you packed em in like sardines. Not sure if the life support could handle that though.


lezmaka

Or put them in the trunk


AresV92

Wear a space suit duct taped to the trunk the whole way up haha.


cptjeff

Yeah, if you've been listening to 2 Funny Astonauts, Garret Reisman (one of the head designers of Crew Dragon during his time at SpaceX) talks about how they could do 7, but how he sure as hell wouldn't want to be crammed in there with 6 other people for more than a few hours. That would absolutely be sardines mode.


nicgom

If you take into consideration the duration of the trip and the Soyuz looks better, it can make the trip in harder situations and has done it in just about 3 hours, that's just a minimal fraction of what it takes on crew dragon.


sobani

> it can make the trip in harder situations What does 'harder' mean in situation?


riptideMBP

> What does 'harder' mean in situation? The Soyuz booster was designed to be an ICBM and as such is less prone to bad weather than Crew Dragon on top of Falcon 9


nicgom

Harder weather, crew dragon first manned mission to the ISS needed to be postponed because of the weather, Soyuz would have done the trip, from what I read at that time the outside is made so it can resist bad weather better, also I think one of the reasons it can get to the ISS as fast as it does.


marcusbrichards

Neither NASA nor SpaceX see any reason to take risks like that. There is simply no good reason to launch in bad weather when you can just wait it out. As for why it can get to the ISS fast- the first crew dragon launch window would have gotten them to the ISS in about 8 hours versus the 18-24 hours that is more common (or the 2 days Soyuz used to take) so Crew Dragon can rendezvous much faster if they want it to- there just isn't a lot of reason to. The Soyuz orbital module has just 5 m^3 of living space versus ~9 m^3 for Crew Dragon (which is also laid out more comfortably) so you definitely want to get out of Soyuz as quickly as possible. It's likely we'll see shorter rendezvous times in the future for Crew Dragon, though the reluctance to launch in bad weather will make it less common than with Soyuz.


millijuna

That's the thing. The weather limits are different for the Soyuz rocket due to its design and durability. They're basically the mack truck of rockets.


mikekangas

The US astronauts.


Jarnis

Sometimes you have to be the one that takes it for the team, to ensure flexibility in abnormal situations. Ticket to ISS is still a ticket to ISS.


mikekangas

Ya. I would be a stowaway on any rocket headed that way.


PineappleLemur

Russia in this case.. NASA would need to pay more per seat on a souyz. By doing the 1:1 exchange they just pay the crew dragon price and get to fly on both.


MyCoolName_

Now each country pays based on its own costs of launching one human. Before, the US paid an inflated price for Soyuz seats, and Russia paid its internal price. So the US is better off than before, and Russia worse off (losing the Soyuz markups).


battleship_hussar

Lmao I'd hate to be the poor bastard that has to ride in the cramped Soyuz up there instead of Dragon, but at least they get up there faster now I guess, like 4 hours or something after launch


Chris-1010

Record is 3h I think. I don't think soyuz is that bad. The capsule is cramped, but the orbital module has space. And you can lock it up, you have your own toilet room. Also Soyuz later stages have way less power, so you will not have to endure 4G's like riding the powerful dragon. Also, you do not need to worry about getting seasick in the soyuz, as it lands on land. People have thrown up in Appollo capsules I think. Luckily, only landings in very smooth waters for returning crews up to now. So The Soyuz has some ponts where it scores against Dragon rides. And it is the prooven most reliable spacecraft today. Dragon may get there, but Soyuz has already proven it is safe.


Phoenix591

worse. there was a [phantom turd loose](https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/poop-space-revisited-apollo-10s-floating-turds-pop-44-years-1c9284102) on one of the apollo missions.


Shuber-Fuber

That was in part luck. The launch timing is such that they don't have to do a lot of orbit phasing to wait to catch up to ISS.


Nergaal

there are so few people getting to ISS that I am pretty sure any ride up is preferable to... Starliner type ride.


CapitanRufus

Was hoping Crew Dragon seats might undercut Soyuz costs and push Roscosmos' to use it instead, in order to reduce risks to ISS from future docking malfunctions, etc.


Jarnis

Dream on. Soyuz is the way Russia stays "in the game" as Real Honest Spaceflying Country. They will never retire it without a replacement flying. Fully expecting Soyuz to hit "this thing has kept flying for 100 years since first version launched" milestone.


big_duo3674

Well, you have to give some credit to them for going the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" route. It's not necessarily a bad thing with rockets, just like with airplanes.


myname_not_rick

As long as they can fix these quality issues and stop putting the station at risk. Several docking issues in the last year, and now two engine firing issues once docked that spun it out of alignment. They need, to put it bluntly, to get their shit together. As long as they are being safe about it I fully support them using Soyuz for as long as they please.


AresV92

Don't forget the in flight abort because a dude crammed the booster into the mount even though it wouldn't fit.


Jarnis

True, but it is a cramped design that decisively could use some serious modernization. They have actually done some "under the hood" changes in the systems, but still.. there is a fine line between relying on proven design and being unable to fund a proper upgrade that is sorely needed.


Martianspirit

It is cramped during launch and landing. For the in flight phase they have the orbital module. The total available volume is not that small.


Jarnis

True, but when your vehicle has strict occupant size limits and can carry almost no cargo down I call it cramped :D


codinglikemad

The Soyuz has a very good safety record compared to pretty much anything else out there to my understanding. That isn't to say that the close calls recently are excusable, but they've done an enormous numbers of launches on the various generations of this craft, and I don't think they've had fatalities in them since, what,1971? I would feel far safer in a Soyuz than in a starliner, let me say that much.


Shpoople96

I'd hesitate to compare anything to starliner at this point...


marcusbrichards

The MS-18 thruster mishap did not get as much coverage as I thought it would. That's the second time the Russian space program has thrown the ISS off-kilter this year.


playwrightinaflower

Has there been any (credible) public info about the causes of the misfirings, especially the second one? I would think that -speculation alert- either some new code does not do quite what the programmer thought it would do, or some hardware degraded compared to previous vehicles, e. g. valves that are no longer made to spec and now stick at inopportune times...


warp99

Soyuz probably costs around $20M per seat. They were just selling it to NASA for $80M per seat because they could!


Chris-1010

The soyuz is mass-produced and russia's labour costs are low. Crew dragon also has to earn money for starship and Starlink, so they will add quite some margine to the seatprize. I think the latest tourist seats where 40m on soyuz? The internal costs for Rocosmos should be a lot lower, so Dragon seats would always be more expensive for them. That they milked NASA for $95M a seat last time doesn't mean it costs so much. They just made $70M profit on it.


CutterJohn

The fact that SpaceX beat out all the competition on price with southern california payroll costs continually amazes me.


Chris-1010

Reuse helps of course. But anyway, SpaceX chose not to offer seats cheaper than rocosmos internal price to get more profit. Starship is exceptionally cash-hungry, as is Starlink for now. I think they collected some 15-$18B from capital market, so all in all, spaceX is far from profitalble for years to come and they will have to get cash from the captial market a lot in the future. So it's hard to say they beat everybody else with SoCal labour costs or by filling financial gaps with captial raising on the market. Of course a lot of that is building infrastructure nd Businesses to make a lot of money in the future. But for now, SX is far from profitable.


Martianspirit

I am pretty sure, no more than $5 billion since founding. Data are public, since any new stocks are registered, even with a private company.


[deleted]

[удалено]


FRCP_12b6

Eh, it gets them to the ISS, which is the important thing. Makes a lot of sense from a scheduling perspective as you are often sending up 3 people from different countries at the same time.


Its0nlyRocketScience

So a Cosmonaut will get to upgrade to a first class Dragon seat while some poor Astronaut is forced to fly out of the cosmodrome on Soyuz? This is a total rip off


Jarnis

Have to take one for the team to ensure that if either ship has to return early, there is still crew from both US and Russia on board. Sometimes you have to do sacrifices...


Xaxxon

No it’s a seat exchange.


Bunslow

These seat swaps are no-cash deals, in kind trade only


[deleted]

[удалено]


xBleedingBluex

NASA purchases the seats from SpaceX. NASA is still the middle man and doing the negotiating with Russia, regardless of who is actually doing the flying.


SpacexerFan

*A soul for a soul*


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


scr00chy

NASA managers have said during the Crew-3 press conference that they were hoping to have a Russian cosmonaut on Crew-5. It is expected that if the deal with Roscosmos isn't in place in time, that seat will go to Jeanette Epps instead. https://www.elonx.net/list-of-crew-dragon-crews/


Bunslow

damn, no crew 4 trade? that sucks


tperelli

How the turn tables


Carlyle302

The seat swap is mutually benificial to both parties. It guarantees each party always has a representative on station regardless of when crew vehicles come and go (or are delayed.)


Bensemus

Russia would 100% prefer to be selling seats instead of just swapping. They are in desperate need of money, especially since Putin just cut the space agency's budget.


skalpelis

I wonder if they'll pee all over those Tesla Model ~~Y-es~~ X-es. https://www.livescience.com/62751-why-cosmonauts-pee-yuri-gagarin.html


lordqaz

Did any of the Russians that flew on the shuttle pee on the bus before their launches? Or is this only a thing they do at home? Or does the NASA suit prevent that? Can you even pee out of a spaceX suit? I think it should be an option to be able to releave yourself right be you get on the rocket. Rather than have to sit in a moist suit for a few hours.


lessthanperfect86

IIRC they do have a toilet at the top of the tower for last minute toilet breaks before boarding. *edit: Don't know the reliability of this source but here it is anyway: https://www.airspacemag.com/space/last-bathroom-for-200-miles-597005/


Scourge31

Got to be careful those are electric ⚡


Jarnis

No risk, as no Model Ys are used.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dragvs1

1. Denial 2. Anger 3. Bargaining 4. Depression 5. Acceptance


Dragongeek

6\. *Trampolines*


Neige_Blanc_1

That was obvious. I don't buy a single adversarial statement from Russians towards NASA. It's just a game. They will fly on SpaceX ships. They will play the ball on ISS extension. Most likely they will eventually join Artemis. Their engagement with China can not be a happy one. What can China give them other than little money to suck them dry for technology..


myname_not_rick

I think their engagement with China definitely took a bit of a dive when they were like "nah, we're gonna do what we want" and put their station in an orbit Russia can't reach.


TS_76

I really doubt they will join Artemis, or that we will offer it to them. Artemis is more a prestige thing, and wildly expensive. NASA has already spent tens of billions of dollars on it (SLS), so unless Russia wants to cough up $20B to pay for one of their Cosmonauts to go, I doubt there is any chance of it happening.


ZehPowah

The tentative plan was for Roscosmos to supply an airlock for the Lunar Gateway, but they backed out of that.


flagcaptured

They’re having problems just making airtight walls, much less air locks lately…


Its0nlyRocketScience

The less Russian technology involved with our return to the moon, the better. With their ships leaking and station modules flying out of control, all while blaming the US, I don't forsee any good coming from further hardware sharing


Bunslow

we already *did* offer artemis to roscosmos. they said no.


TS_76

When, and in what capacity?


Bunslow

a year or two ago, and you can google it, there were space news articles about it


Neige_Blanc_1

They have plenty to offer. It's always nice to have an alternative method of transportation. Besides, life support technologies is something they do really well. And most importantly - we don't want them in China's corner. And neither do they. Rogozin does not decide what happens on this level of engagement. His boss does. If they do the step towards more cooperation with NASA, this is a political decision, I am 100% sure.


TS_76

What alternative method of transportation though? As far as I know, they have no capability of leaving LEO with what they currently have. Yes, it's a political decision, but not one I think anyone in Congress would be in favor of. As a U.S. Citizen, I would be upset by it. Yes, I don't mind partnering with the Russians, in fact I think we should, but i'm not in favor of them jumping in at the last minute (which is what it would be at this point) and not sharing in the enormous cost of the program (which I highly doubt they can afford). I certainly would have been in favor of them partnering with us at the start, but obviously that didnt happen.


rustybeancake

Note that other nations will absolutely be jumping in to Artemis for a much lower cost than NASA are footing. A Canadian will fly around the moon on Artemis 3, basically in exchange for Canada supplying the Canadarm 3 for Gateway. https://spacenews.com/canadian-astronaut-to-fly-on-first-crewed-artemis-mission/ Other nations are no doubt chomping at the bit to go down in the history books as “the Nth nation to travel to the moon”, etc.


Euphoric-Abroad-8655

Maybe I am misremembering because I was a kid but I feel like the Canadarm was the top of Canadian national pride in the 90s. We were just so happy to be included haha


marcusbrichards

I mean why not be proud? Canadarms have functioned beautifully on the STS and the ISS.


Euphoric-Abroad-8655

Oh I am. I was a kid in the 90s. Of course I’m proud.


TS_76

Yeh, but Canada is like Junior America with Tim Hortons.. :).


CaptainBrant

I wouldn't count it out yet. If Artemis ends up being successful and there is no good alternative to get people to the moon, they may have am interest by default. Or they can wait 20 years to get there on their own or with other nations.


TS_76

I think we need to see what 'Success' is for Artemis. I'm not sold on the idea that we wont pull the same thing we did 50 years ago, land a few times, collect some rocks, and head home. Atleast NASA doing that. IF SpaceX wants to continue landing on the moon, and is paid for it, I could envision a future where they simply buy seats on a Starship flight, but I would think that NASA/U.S. Government would need to OK that, and I dont see that being part of Artemis. Having said that, things are changing rapidly, so who knows..


CaptainBrant

Do you think the presence of Gateway would put this situation in a very different realm than the landings of 50 years ago?


TS_76

Potentially, if it comes to exist. However, I don't see the point to be honest. What does the gateway give you? Especially with SpaceX providing starship as the lander. When your lander has 10x the pressurized volume of your space station, things don't seem to make sense. I think a better option (in the future) is to scrap SLS after the first few flights (assuming Starship works out). Use Falcon9 and Crew Dragon to ferry astronauts up to LEO to dock with a Starship lander. Starship all the way to the moon and back. I dont see the need for SLS, Gateway, Orion or any of those pieces. NASA is already depending on Starship for the lander, and Falcon9 and Dragon we know already work.


megamanxoxo

I kind of wish we would put a Russian and Chinese counter part on Artemis. It'd be one of the greatest soft power ploys the US has ever come up with. The world would love the colloboration and honestly all 3 of us should be working together to explore the solar system. It's insanely expensive and complicated to do so and having more than one nation contribute rather than compete would be very beneficial. I want to find out if there is microbial alien life in our solar system before I die, please. I want satellites that can better detect planetary systems and maybe detect alien activity.


TS_76

The Russians have little to offer, if we had to partner with someone it would be the Chinese. In the next decade or so once ISS is decom'ed, Russia literally wont have anywhere to go to with Soyuz, and will offer next to nothing in terms of space tech. I seriously wouldnt bother with them at this point.


megamanxoxo

IMO it's less about what they have to offer wholesale but about soft power on the world stage.


TS_76

Yes, but softpower in that form isn't going to work with a "Peer" adversary. If you wanted to partner with say.. India, or Japan, then yeh, that makes sense. The idea would be to keep them out of the orbit of China or Russia using "Soft Power", which makes total sense. Getting Russia involved really buys us nothing. 20 years ago, I may have had a different opinion on that, as Russia had MUCH more experience operating a Space Station, and hence how to live in space for longer durations, but now.. nah.


holydamien

> What can China give them other than little money to suck them dry for technology.. This rhetoric is so bloody infantile and wrong. Russia and China have been cooperating for ages, they mutually agreed to technology transfer. And trust me China has way more cash at hand than Russia, and they are trade partners. With Russia's experience and proven technologies and China's ambitions and resources it will be nothing but better for both parties. Russia can continue partaking in space adventures and keep some of its legacy and pride as a space faring nation, China can use the help and be less isolated in space and advance its programs. How's that a bad thing, seriously? Cooperation and technology transfer is human civilization's building blocks, I guess when you are looking through lenses of wild, selfish capitalistic profit driven psyche, you fail to see the value in that.


phryan

China put there latest space station at an inclination too low for Russia to reach. Effectively ruling out Russian visits. So the two would need to build a new station in order to do a cooperative build. Russia's stated goal of detaching their segment of the ISS to start another is probably to risky even for China. That segment is falling apart and even the newest parts have problems.


holydamien

Which is more reason for future cooperation? Current Chinese space station won't be staying operational that long, not like ISS, it's a long term test bed, they are eyeing Lunar missions, and seek to improve aspects to that end if I understand it correctly. Besides, they can take cosmonauts there themselves if it comes to it? Considering current spacecraft is based on Soyuz, it'd be a familiar ride. I think Russia is also not married to the idea of detaching the Russian ISS modules, maybe it's a pr stunt or just testing the waters. ISS won't be up forever as it is, Russa hinted at 2025, current expiry date is 2030 for ISS anyway.


Neige_Blanc_1

You don't know how China conducts joint businesses? Not enough historical experience? It's "My way or the highway" approach. If you don't do it as they want it to be done, they would say that they have enough resource to do it on their own rather than take national humiliation of following someone else. Russia and USA had similar period, but they have soon half a century of cooperation, learnt how to trust each other in technology, how to respect each others differences. China still significantly acts as they are a standalone civilization capable of doing it on their own and therefore deserving to demand what they want without much respect to interest of others. And by the way, Russia knows that, otherwise and there is no free space technology exchange between Russia and China as NASA/Roskosmos informal agreement assumes that both sides mostly follow that Chinese ban by US Congress, as US Congress mostly foots the bill. If Russia gave China its state-of-the-art, China would not have been technologically positioned now about where USSR and USA were in 80s.


Xaxxon

No they probably know that Artemis is a pork joke. The US will bail on Artemis after one or two launches because it’s asinine.


Neige_Blanc_1

I don't think so. Once HLS contract is confirmed, pork part ends.


Xaxxon

Dunno what you’re trying to say but the costs associated with SLS are absurd and unsustainable. No one would voluntarily join that.


Neige_Blanc_1

SLS will die after making few launches. We all know that. But it will die not because Artemis dies, but rather because Artemis will go a different way. Who will need SLS once Starship program achieves what it hopes to achieve in 4 years..


Xaxxon

Starship doesn’t do “Artemis” though. Artemis is a silly plan created due to the limitations of SLS.


Neige_Blanc_1

Plans usually have a way to evolve beyond original framework. You really think we are not going to have a permanent base on Luna by thr end of the decade? I think we will.


Xaxxon

Sure but I wouldn’t call it Artemis. The actual Artemis implementation of it is silly.


j--__

whether you would call it "artemis" or not, the usa will. how that isn't obvious to you i don't know.


Jarnis

Starship can do "put people on the Moon" and when option is to pay 1 billion to launch 4 crew, or pay something like one fifth of that, possibly with larger crew, even Congress tends to understand math that much.


Xaxxon

Congress doesn’t give a shit about space. They care about funneling money to corporations who give it back via campaign contributions and cushy jobs for their kids.


Jarnis

True, but when it becomes time to start saving money because infinite moneyprinter BRR goes broke, if your options are to keep flying 1 billion a launch (with lots of pork), fly more and lot cheaper and less pork, or take massive PR hit of abandoning your lunar program AGAIN... Even politicians can take door number 2. Only real reason they have not killed SLS yet is because of sunk cost & saving face so it does not become so blazingly obvious that it was all just a massive pork jobs program.


wpwpw131

There is always a third option, which is one Congress has opted for for years: under fund the living shit out of NASA until they simply cease lunar operations.


Neige_Blanc_1

It doesn't, until there is a real threat of China winning the second Luna race. And then suddenly it could be their top priority..


tuxeri

It's about time the seat exchange program happens! :)


peterabbit456

This is very reasonable on their part. Soyuz is reliable and acceptably safe. Why risk Soviet lives as test subjects on a new American capsule? But after 4 successful, manned Dragon flights, the objections have been satisfied. Don't expect to see Russians on Starliner any time soon.


RazvanI

Finally, as expected russians will fly Dragon to ISS. That is a very good achievement of NASA/SpaceX team. Perhaps, in the future, by 2030, not only russians but Boeing, BO and others will fly Starship to Orbital Reef the Sci-Fi project just announced today (https://www.pcmag.com/news/blue-origin-to-build-a-commercial-space-station-called-orbital-reef).


tyzoid

Since SpaceX is private and can sell to anyone... I wonder if Roscosmos will ever buy out an entire ride to the ISS on Dragon 2. Theoretically, the only reason they need to work with NASA is when there's a mix of NASA astronauts and Roscosmos cosmonauts onboard.


ynnus

I’m not sure it is entirely that straightforward. Private or not, the technology is valuable/important enough that the US will want/get a say if a non US citizen wants to take a ride.


londons_explorer

I wonder if that 'say' is written in a contract somewhere, or if it is some unwritten 'don't do this or we'll make life hard for you' thing...


ynnus

The ‘say’, my guess, is articulated in whatever ITAR (export restriction) agreement exists for SpaceX’s technology. Even though the technology isn’t being transferred, exclusive use by the foreign entity would probably require some additional hurdles to be cleared.


MarsCent

Yusaku Maezawa is non U.S citizen and he just bought himself a Starship ride! And it was all a private arrangement - no other security arrangements except with FAA for Starship launch!


Xaxxon

Not sure why the US government would care. It’s not like you’re given the blueprints when you get on.


urinaurinaurinal

The training and systems familiarization?


Xaxxon

You’d be training to use software you don’t have access to unless you’re in the spacecraft.


bitterdick

Clearly the Russians are planning to steal the capsule and land it in the Baltic Sea, only to publicly claim it was an accident. Then 6 months later in a surprise announcement they will reveal their brand new capsule named Matroshka developed by a company named CosmosX.


bartvanh

But if the capsule is filled with smaller capsules, where does the crew sit?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Naekyr

Even NASA could never do what Space X does. The previous NASA administrator said in a recent interview that if their test vehicle exploded or crashed 3 times like Starship, the goverment would instantly can the entire project. It seems like Layman public and political perception is everything for NASA, the cost of a RUD is much higher than just the dollars it cost. And NASA doesn't have a competition problem, it's not for profit and doesn't have hardcap deadlines. It also doesn't have a cost cap problem, low budgets for NASA just means that projects take longer but they don't change the project - NASA was given tiny budgets for a next gen rocket design, they still went and designed a $1billion machine called SLS, but because of the budgets it took two decades to build it. If Space X took two decades to build Starship or it cost $1billion to build each vehicle they'd be bankrupt and out of business many times over simply from having no revenue come in.


CutterJohn

The entire Starship development has been an open primer to anyone willing to watch on what major milestone decisions you have to shoot for. Honestly ITAR is a pretty outdated and ridiculous law... Nobody wants to use a cryogenic booster to launch nukes.


18763_

Am sure there are other components which could be very useful for rocket development even though the engines are different. It doesn't have to be nukes, even regular rockets can do lot of harm .


Jarnis

In theory yes. NASA has say when ISS is involved, but Russia has exactly as much say as well, so... If Russia wanted to pee on their own spaceflight industry... Odds of this happening: Effectively zero. Would require very unusual situation. Asteroid hits plant that builds Soyuzes, need few missions to tide over until capability rebuilt?


Chris-1010

Soyuz is mass-produced in a way lower labour cost country. It employs Rocosmos people, and for shure is a lot cheaper than $55m a seat for rocosmos. There is no reason to fly dragon instead of soyuz and it would be a political, unecessary nightmare.


avwie

I doubt you can sell military equipment to anyone…


tyzoid

Dragon is no more military equipment than boeing's planes, and boeing sells aircraft to customers in other countries.


avwie

Some countries yes, not anyone


JC2535

“That’ll be $80 million dollars per seat.”


OldWrangler9033

I wonder if Cosmonauts are to report anything that may benefit Russian space program after riding up on a Dragon 2.


Jackswanepoel

Pretty sure the Russians are regretting their ‘trampoline’ comment more and more as time passes.


Honest_Cynic

Interesting flip. I recall reading a few years ago that Russia said they would be stepping back from the launch market since it has become too low-margin with cheaper Chinese and Indian launch services. They said they would focus more on the lucrative satellite market. I wonder if this is a result of that redirection.


OudeStok

Cooperation with adversaries is always better than conflict. But cooperation requires movement from both sides. Currently the Russian Federation is clampling down on their own population, killing political opponents, experimenting with cyber warfare against Europe and the US and actively interfering with US and European elections. Could movement from Roscosmos be a signal that Putin wants to tone down Russian agression in Ukraine, Europe and the US - a sort of ping pong diplomacy? Worth looking at....


[deleted]

[удалено]


ALiiEN

Why tho? They have their own ride and I thought they were wanting to distance themself/become even more self-sufficient in space ("Yeah well I'm taking our modules and creating our own space station!!!.... with blackjack... and hookers!" - Roscosmos...probably).


Decronym

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[BO](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hi10mbv "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |[FAA](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hhzqfj2 "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration| |[HLS](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hhzpam7 "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[ICBM](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hi1sa9b "Last usage")|Intercontinental Ballistic Missile| |[ITAR](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hi2skkg "Last usage")|(US) International Traffic in Arms Regulations| |[JAXA](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hhzpgt4 "Last usage")|Japan Aerospace eXploration Agency| |[LEO](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hi4eeov "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[RUD](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hi1cgdq "Last usage")|Rapid Unplanned Disassembly| | |Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly| | |Rapid Unintended Disassembly| |[Roscosmos](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hi35oet "Last usage")|[State Corporation for Space Activities, Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscosmos_State_Corporation)| |[SLS](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hi4eeov "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[SRB](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hi2s2v0 "Last usage")|Solid Rocket Booster| |[STS](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hi29bja "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)| |[TWR](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hi2s2v0 "Last usage")|Thrust-to-Weight Ratio| |[ULA](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hitaup3 "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starliner](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hi39uko "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)| |[Starlink](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hi4029r "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |[cryogenic](/r/SpaceX/comments/qfeytz/stub/hi2skkg "Last usage")|Very low temperature fluid; materials that would be gaseous at room temperature/pressure| | |(In re: rocket fuel) Often synonymous with hydrolox| |hydrolox|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^(17 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceX/comments/q4d8u5)^( has 120 acronyms.) ^([Thread #7304 for this sub, first seen 25th Oct 2021, 13:53]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceX) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)


FemaleKwH

Now can we let Rozogin in the US?


NCstate223

Ah yes now it becomes safe to fly Crew Dragon now that all the funding and internal challenges within Roscosmos were publicly announced