Russia was supposed to send two Soyuz and three Progress ships to the station this year, but space agency officials warned last fall that it might be unable to meet its obligations because of lack of money.Ī Progress costs about $22-million, and a Soyuz is slightly more expensive. A Progress can carry only 2.75 tons of cargo, compared to a much heavier shuttle payload. The Soyuz looks decidedly claustrophobic with three astronauts cramped in their seats. The Soyuz and its cargo version, the Progress, date back to the 1960s and can be used only once, unlike the space shuttles. shuttles ferried long-term crews to the station, while Russian rockets carried astronauts and space tourists on short visits, using a fresh Soyuz craft and leaving it behind as an emergency lifeboat. The next crew will likely have to spend about six months in orbit instead of the usual four months because Russia doesn't have enough Soyuz escape capsules to replace the crews more frequently than twice a year, Vinogradov said. "We will have to send a minimal crew because we aren't in a very good shape in terms of life-support resources, primarily water," Vinogradov told the Associated Press, though he added there's no "critical shortage." Vinogradov said the next crew would likely include two men _ a Russian and an American _ instead of the usual three. Semyonov and other Russian space officials said this week that a Soyuz would carry a replacement crew to the station in late April, but NASA said it hasn't been decided how or when the current crew would return home. It's not in the American line to abandon a piece of equipment which is worth billions of dollars." "I believe that NASA understands it quite well. "The station's parameters are such that it's impossible to leave it without crew," said astronaut Pavel Vinogradov, who took part in talks with NASA about the station's future. Russian officials and astronauts say leaving the international space station empty could doom the celestial outpost. Russian media speculate NASA may opt to keep the station temporarily unoccupied after its current crew returns, causing an indefinite break in Russia's own manned space program for the first time since Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space in 1961. A chronic cash shortage prompted Russia to discard the Mir space station in March 2001. The money crunch delayed the launch of the pivotal Russian-built crew module for the space station by more than two years, until 2000. The Khrunichev rocket plant has been an exception, earning tens of millions of dollars by launching foreign satellites. Potential new orders would offer relief to Energiya and other Soviet-era space giants that have struggled to survive on a fraction of once-generous state funds after the 1991 Soviet collapse. "We need more money to revise our production schedules and engage our suppliers," said Yuri Semyonov, chief of RKK Energiya, the company that builds both Soyuz and Progress ships. The new challenge could help revive Russia's troubled space industry. They said this week they are already talking to NASA about how to run the station without shuttles. Russian space officials say they can assume the primary role, provided the United States and other partners offer money to build more ships. shuttle missions for most supplies, while Russia's spacecraft have played a secondary role. Since the first crew entered the station in 2000, the orbiting outpost has relied on U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |