E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Ted Huetter / Museum of Flight
Software billionaire Charles Simonyi peeks inside the Soyuz spacecraft he purchased and is now lending to the Museum of Flight in Seattle. The Soyuz TMA-14, which Simonyi rode into space in 2009, was shipped from Russia and was unpacked at the museum on Friday.
A Russian Soyuz spacecraft that carried a billionaire into orbit — and ended up being purchased by the billionaire — was settled into its new home in Seattle's Museum of Flight on Friday after a whirlwind intercontinental trip.
Software executive Charles Simonyi was on hand for the arrival of the Soyuz TMA-14 descent module, which took him into space along with a NASA astronaut and Russian cosmonaut in March 2009. That launch marked Simonyi's second trip to the International Space Station, for which he paid an estimated $35 million.
Simonyi rode back down to Earth on a different three-seat Soyuz at the end of his 13-day space trip. The TMA-14 remained docked to the station until the next departure, six months later. After it landed, Simonyi had the opportunity to buy the spacecraft from the Russians, and he took it. Although the purchase price was not disclosed, it was probably more than $1 million and less than the $3 million that Simonyi donated to the Museum of Flight for its new Space Gallery.
The Soyuz was crated up and flown to Chicago on a Russian transport plane, then loaded onto a truck for the 2½-day drive to Seattle, museum curator Dan Hagedorn told me. "It made a record transit out here," he said.
In a statement issued by the museum, Simonyi said he hoped the exhibit "will inspire the next generation of space explorers."
Ted Huetter / Museum of Flight
The Soyuz TMA-14 sits on its shipping pallet inside the Museum of Flight's Charles Simonyi Space Gallery.
Ted Huetter / Museum of Flight
The Soyuz spacecraft is designed to be operated by the commander in the center seat of the three-seat descent module, as you can see from this interior view of the Soyuz TMA-14.
Ted Huetter / Museum of Flight
Software executive Charles Simonyi shakes hands with Dan Hagedorn, curator of the Museum of Flight, marking the formal acceptance of Simonyi's loan of the Soyuz to the Seattle museum. The video below, from The Seattle Times, provides a 360-degree view of the Soyuz.
As I noted in December, when the Space Gallery opened its doors, this isn't the first slightly used Soyuz capsule to be purchased by a passenger: An earlier spaceflight participant, New Jersey inventor/entrepreneur Greg Olsen, also bought his Soyuz and had it put on display at New York's Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum. Another one of Simonyi's space acquisitions may be more precedent-setting: a working space toilet from Russia.
Shuttle mockup on the way
Eventually, the space toilet and the Soyuz will be joined in the 15,500-square-foot Charles Simonyi Space Gallery by the museum's piece de resistance: a full-scale mockup of the space shuttle's fuselage. Astronauts at Johnson Space Center used the full-fuselage trainer to familiarize themselves with the shuttle's interior, and when the shuttle fleet was retired, NASA awarded the 120-foot-long mockup to the Museum of Flight.
The shuttle stand-in is due to be shipped up to Seattle in pieces, starting in May. "It'll be coming in on the massive Super Guppy, which is going to be an event in itself," Hagedorn said. "We think by the end of July it'll be fully assembled."
Visitors will be able to walk through the mockup's cargo bay, but access to the crew compartment and the cockpit will be provided only "on a very limited basis" because the quarters are so tight, Hagedorn said. Despite those limits, visitors will almost certainly be able to go places they could never go in the shuttles that flew in space, which will be put on display at museums in Florida, California and "the other Washington."
Hagedorn, who is 65 years old, sounded like a kid as he talked about the Soyuz and the full-fuselage trainer. "They're the cat's meow," he said. "I tell people I have the best job in the world."
More about space artifacts:
- Russian spacecraft heading for Seattle
- Seattle museum gets 'keys' to shuttle trainer
- The real dirt about the Soyuz space toilet
- Shuttles' future homes: Fla., Calif., D.C., N.Y.
Simonyi is the founder of Intentional Software. Microsoft, where Simonyi used to work, is a partner along with NBC Universal in the msnbc.com joint venture. I helped prepare a mission pamphlet for Simonyi's first spaceflight in 2007 as a freelance project.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
No offense, but that looks like an over heated piece of metal that has no idea where it has been, or where it is supposed to go. That is the ugliest space ship I have ever seen, but maybe it is super technologically advanced, I don't know. It looks like a piece of crap, sorry.
This is a descent module, it's been burned during the descent through the atmosphere. The exterior coating is expendable; it wears off during that.
Russian modules can land on solid surface; US only had water landing technology, until space shuttle was introduced, which requires a landing strip.
Russian spacecraft have always been among the butt-ugliest things to ever take to the skies, but even the Space Shuttle, a very impressive vehicle, looked like crap right after re-entry. You can just barely see the nosecone of Atlantis over my left shoulder in my profile picture, but from 50 feet away, it was clearly not the beautiful, shining spacecraft it was on the day it launched (although it was seriously awe-inspiring).
But back to Russia, they've never been into aesthetics; the only decent-looking thing to ever come out of Russia was Anna Kournikova.
Warren, you're no mona lisa yourself.
...meanwhile on earth literally governments are struggling to stay alive and shutting down their space programs. why the f are individuals able to purchase more than governments or the masses of people? it isn't because they earned it, it is because we have permitted them to take it from the masses. it is the basis of our overboard capitalistic empirical system to permit it. there is nothing noble or admirable about this story; it is utter hate and greed. ...meanwhile on earth millions are starving...22% of US children live in poverty (f'n really).
They should cut it in half so you can see the inside also.
Buddhesus "Permitted them to take it from the masses"??? like you didn't CHOOSE to buy that pc, Ipad, etc... Get a clue idiot!! People choose to spend their money, people choose to supply what you want... THAT'S how it works... I'm sure he never put a gun to anyone's head and said "You MUST buy my product." Oh, and there will always be starving people..(if children are starving, that's their parent's fault) That's their own fault, NOT the sucessful businessman's.
There was a Volkswagen ad from 1969 that consisted of a model of the Apollo Lunar Module, the VW logo, and the caption:
"It's ugly, but it gets you there."
Do you want a spaceship that's pretty, or gets you where you intend to go?
Aerodynamic is usually pretty to us (the F-4 Phantom not withstanding), but that kind of pretty doesn't matter outside the atmosphere.
Oh, and even everyone's favorite post-Shuttle 'pretty' spacecraft, the X-37b, looks a little scorched around the edges right after re-entry...which is exactly to be expected.
There was a Volkswagen ad from 1969 that consisted of a model of the Apollo Lunar Module, the VW logo, and the caption:
"It's ugly, but it gets you there."
Do you want a spaceship that's pretty, or gets you where you intend to go?
Aerodynamic is usually pretty to us (the F-4 Phantom not withstanding), but that kind of pretty doesn't matter outside the atmosphere.
Oh, and even everyone's favorite post-Shuttle 'pretty' spacecraft, the X-37b, looks a little scorched around the edges right after re-entry...which is exactly to be expected.
I wonder if he has a bumper sticker that says “my other car is a Soyuz TMA-14“?
I don't think it's Russian.
I'm pretty sure that is the prototype from Apple's new line of i-Pods.
And I MUST HAVE IT!!!!
That's pretty neat for a man to be able to follow a dream like he has done.
What would have been "pretty neat" is that these narcissists had and followed a dream such as feeding, educating and healing to fruition.
It must take a lot of effort to remain so self-righteously butthurt 24/7, drew,
Raisa, it is a sorry state-of-affairs when the recognition of the needs of others and the opening of a discussion results in insults.
DrewMeister, when was he last time you did that with your discretionary entertainment money?
Is it okay if I'm rich enough to visit Antarctica, instead? The Grand Canyon? The nearest amusement park?
What's the point of earning big bucks (however you define that), if not to do the things you could not otherwise afford? The answer is to make space access even cheaper, not telling those with five cents more than you how they should legally spend their money...
Space does not belong to just government astronauts.
It is indeed a peculiar irony of world history that an American company called Space Adventures had to turn to a Russian government-run agency to achieve the first series of successful commercial manned space flights. We all hope that one of America's new private commercial space flight companies will eventually match that accomplishment by placing paying customers in low earth orbit, and in the process perhaps even do so with more aggressive pricing. For the moment, I suppose we must content ourselves with congratulating the Russians on their technological achievement in demonstrating that capitalism really does work.
This is not what I would call commercial manned space flight. This is a private individual paying to ride in a government space capsule. Commercial manned space flight to me would imply the vehicle used to get into space was commercially made.
No doubt the Russians are not turning a profit yet but at least they have the innovation to cut costs by working in paying customers.
I wouldn't at all be suprised if the Russian's produce the first commercially profitable entities. Who knows what those guys are working on?
It is indeed ironic that communist (e.g. China) and previous communist countries such as Russia are making capitalism work so well lately.
Wish I was rich..I'll buy a new US congress.
You can buy your own congress - you just need to be the NRA or the ethanol lobby.
Fixed that for you.
Got to give the Russians credit. First they charge $35 million for two trips to the space station and then they sell their used space junk to the same passenger for over $1 million. No wonder they are still flying and with paying passengers, no less!
They've been flying the Soyuz design since 1967 (though there have been considerable interior upgrades) As long as it's a single-use ballistic capsule, they've built up a lot of used ones, and every museum in Russia probably has two by now.
Why not sell them to interested parties?
The capsule is quite a bit smaller than I thought it would be.
It's all in the perspective. Same thing with the Concorde supersonic, they made the windows very small to intentionally give the impression of a larger size aircraft. There is a Conorde on display at the edge of one of the runways at London Heathrow and was suprised at how small they really were.
ps to MSNBC, those new "older and newer: tabs at either side of the iexplorer browser windows are extremely annoying and block a lot of the pages content, cause false clicks. Reminds me of horse blinders.
There is a Concorde on display at the Museum of Flight in Seattle also, right next to the exhibit that will house the Soyuz capsule.
Excellent! Thanks for that info Jim in Auburn. That was another bird I was sorry didn't survive without a successor.
I guess those floating "newer and older" tabs are a newsvine thing? They appear when you page down below the main story.
Anyway, they are terrible with the way they expand out just when you don't want them to, especially when trying to post a comment. I accidentally click on them and get navigated away all the time.
Back on topic, I wonder if this guy has a frequent flyer card now and will get future discounts for souvenirs?
Alan Boyle ....
You come up with some of the strangest , cool stuff ....
Your work is nicely complete ....
I have to thank you again for this one ....
Great job as always ....
The spaceship looks very cute. Then we may be able to copy one.
It's an excellent space vehicle. Kudos for him.
It is much smaller than I expected, and looks more like something from Jules Verne than a 21st century spacecraft. I'd still take the ride, though.
Me, too!
@Gary2272840: What are you expecting? The USS Enterprise from Star Trek? Real Nerds know not to expect that when it comes to Real Life Space Programs....
I would like to know what's taking the billionaires so long to build the first Star Ship Enterprise too.
Half kidding of course. The other half that's not a joke is pathetic so far.
What a cool gift to the people! Kudos to this man for using his money for the betterment of education in the form of history. I'd love to see that thing!
With regard to the Soyuz being this small, the Chinese version is slightly larger. Spacecraft of these relatively modest dimensions will continue to be the norm until we finally transition away from our puny chemical rockets to the type of nuclear thermal propulsion engines developed by the NERVA program between 1955 and 1972, and then to the type of nuclear fusion propulsion envisioned by "Project Orion" on which Ted Taylor and Freeman Dyson and others also began working at General Atomics Corporation between 1955 and 1963. All of the leading science fiction writers of that era, such as Arthur C. Clark and Robert Heinlein, incorporated these kinds of nuclear technologies in their novels at that time. They were truly prescient in this regard. If we wish to truly become an interplanetary species, there is simply no getting away from the fact that the universe runs on nuclear.
1. Existing rockets aren't the last word in chemical propulsion. Stay tuned...
2. Though technically possible, you aren't likely to see nuclear thermal rockets used for Earth surface launch. 'Nuclear' is still the other 'N' word for a lot of people. (NERVA didn't have the thrust to weight ratio for that, anyway) You'll at least have to get into orbit first.
3. Though technically possible, there's NO way you'll see nuclear pulse used for Earth surface launch, even if you can get it past the nuclear Test Ban Treaty (which has no exceptions for atmospheric or space nuclear detonations for propulsive purposes...that's what really killed Project Orion). If you can't get a fairly conventional nuclear rocket past the anti-nuclear folks, they'll have utter fits over something that requires actual explosions...
Your points are well taken that it would be a difficult sell politically for using either form of nuclear propulsion for direct assent from the earth's surface, even though both are technically feasible. With regard to the NERVA NTR engines, it is not true that they do not possess a sufficient thrust to weight ratio. The thrust for each engine developed by Westinghouse-Aerojet General would have been 75,000 lbs and the total engine weight iincluding reactor, rocket nozzle, turbopumps, and shadow radiation shield was just 15,000 lbs. Further, Westinghouse discovered that, despite some early concerns about neutron flux that turned out to be unfounded, the NERVA engines could be clustered in order to deliver virtually any total thrust needed. This high thrust delivered by NTR combined, with high a very high specific impulse, and the fact that no oxydizer is required for an NTR, made for a very favorable power to weight ratio.
i think that i like the idea of a space elevator better instead of nuclear rockets. just saying.
May I humbly suggest that the reason we should pursue nuclear thermal rocket technology rather than a space elevator in the near term is that NTR is a technology that already exists and is available to us right now. In contrast, the technology to build a space elevator does not yet exist, and may not exist for a very long time, if ever. Here is a link providing background on the NERVA program under which NTR was developed and already paid for by American taxpayers:
http://www.marspapers.org/papers/Shirk_2011_contrib.pdf
With regard to a space elevator, while it does appear possible that it will someday become technically feasible once sufficiently strong materials are developed, it should be noted that such an elevator will also bring with it enormous hazards of its own. Were such an elevator attacked by hostile forces or terrorists, as depicted in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy, its collapse would lead to a swath of widespread destruction across much of the planet. Further, such an elevator only provides access to geosynchronous orbit. Nuclear propulsion will still be required to provide the kind of inexpensive, reliable and routine access to points throughout the solar system that are needed to enable the realistic sustenance of commercial markets, colonization, and exploration.
Untried technology, materials we can barely produce in laboratory quantities to date, you must first travel to the equator to use it, it's a slow ride through the VanAllen belts (rockets cut across them quickly) to geostationary orbit (What? You only needed to get to LEO? Sorry, it's of little help for that), very hard to reach you if you get into trouble on the way up, and a stationary target for absolutely every object that's not in geostationary orbit...
Yeah, that sounds like fun.
In looking back over how far mankind has progressed since discovering the atomic bomb and comparing that to all that took place in science the previous 4,000 years, I would not be surprised if a new source of power were to be discovered in the future that we are not even aware of at this moment.No doubt when that first bomb was detonated those scientists had some ideas of what might lay in the future.But surely none of them dreamed of the world as we know it know with microwave ovens, cell phones,satellites, space shuttles,nuclear power plants,genetic engineering,laser surgery,MRI's and objects on Mars.So what will we use for any future space flights?Will someone come up with an antigravitational engine or something else that uses the natural laws and in ways we can't even phantom for now?It's exciting times we live in, if we don't kill off ourselves or the planet.I do suspect though it will be someone who is thinking outside of the box who makes those discoveries.Meanwhile, how wonderful for the public to be able to reach out and touch something that once went into space.Almost like being there oneself, without the high ticket price.Imaginatoin can fill in the rest.That's what dreams can do for so many in the meantime.