Fifty years of Soyuz

[Kryten]

 On November 28th 1963, the first Soyuz rocket lofted the first Soyuz spacecraft into orbit, meaning both systems are fifty years old today.

 The spacecraft, designated Kosmos-133, was intended to automatically rendezvous and dock with a second Soyuz, but it quickly lost attitude control and the second was never launched. It was decided that it would still be possible to test the re-entry sequence, and the craft was deorbited on November 30th; telemetry showed that it would land off-course in China, so a self-destruct was activated.

 It would take three years to iron out most of the gremlins of the Soyuz design, but now it's a reliable workhorse, and likely to fly for many more years. The new Federatsiya spacecraft is set to replace it in the 2020s, but Soyuz has outlived attempted replacements many times before...

[NSEP]

Truely an amazing vehicle. But it will be replaced with some other spacecraft and it has to.

[_Augustus_]

17 hours ago, Kryten said:

 On November 28th 1963

Think you meant 1966.

[DerekL1963]

On 11/28/2016 at 10:32 AM, Kryten said:

 On November 28th 1963, the first Soyuz rocket lofted the first Soyuz spacecraft into orbit, meaning both systems are fifty years old today.

Yes... and no.   While the Soyuz booster remains largely unchanged, the Soyuz spacecraft is radically different.   The Soyuz of 2017 only resembles the Soyuz of 1966 only in the general moldline and gross details.

[todofwar]

I do love the Soyuz. Based on how little damage the boosters sometimes sustain, I wonder if they could survive with some strong parachutes, and have the core stage land Falcon 9 style. 

[YNM]

8 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

Yes... and no.   While the Soyuz booster remains largely unchanged, the Soyuz spacecraft is radically different.   The Soyuz of 2017 only resembles the Soyuz of 1966 only in the general moldline and gross details.

So what makes a production car "new" ? New chassis design ? Often not the case.

In all due respect, it's all very similar. It's not like they tweak the roundness or anything to have gentler reentry or something, AFAIK.

 

Anyway, congrats comrade Korolev. Your design has outlived all the other.

[DerekL1963]

4 hours ago, YNM said:

So what makes a production car "new" ? New chassis design ? Often not the case.

How exactly is such a question relevant?  We're discussing engineering reality, not market driven appearances.  But to answer it, while year-to-year may not (generally) show a large change - when you step back and compare larger timescales, the change is immediately visible.
 

4 hours ago, YNM said:

In all due respect, it's all very similar. It's not like they tweak the roundness or anything to have gentler reentry or something, AFAIK.

Similar, yes.  But "similar" is not "the same as".  Virtually every system onboard is radically different in the current mark than in the original vehicle.

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, YNM said:

So what makes a production car "new" ? New chassis design ? Often not the case.

Soyuz-1,-2 → -3
Multiple changes.

Soyuz-11 → -12
Radical changes, a new modification of the ship.

Soyuz → T
Crew 2→3, spacesuits (so and their external equipment) replaced, digital computer added, teleradiocommunication system significantly extended, solar panels added (hadn't existed), cooling system replaced, engines replaced, fuel system replaced, deorbiting sequence changed, RCS replaced, parachutes replaced,landing engine system extended, LES replaced.

T → TM
Docking systems replaced, computer replaced, a workplace for manual docking added, engines replaced, fuel tank replaced, parachutes replaced, landing engines replaced, radiocommunication system replaced.

TM → TMA
Cabin extended down (crew sits in the seats stamped out from the cabin bottom to let the kerb crew members be 10 cm taller), seats replaced, control panel replaced, inner design replaced, pressurized hull envelope replaced, landing engines replaced,

TMA → MS
Solar panels replaced, engine system replaced, communication systems replaced, computers replaced, docking system replaced, anti-meteorite protection added, telemetry systems replaced.

[magnemoe]

18 hours ago, YNM said:

So what makes a production car "new" ? New chassis design ? Often not the case.

In all due respect, it's all very similar. It's not like they tweak the roundness or anything to have gentler reentry or something, AFAIK.

Anyway, congrats comrade Korolev. Your design has outlived all the other.

For cars its mostly an issue about branding, some change the model names more often than they do major changes. Other model names live forever. 
The original vw beetle was the same model, but during its long life it was just a couple minor parts who was unchanged. 

Spacecrafts are different, Its hard to get money to an project to replace soyuz but you have an budget for building new ones, this includes needed modifications so it evolves. 
Planes has much of the same issue, building an new model is expensive so its often better to modify the old ones. 

[YNM]

... Which all explains why it's still called Soyuz-something, not, say, Federation or anything else. Still the same principle, the same bases. Much like B744 and B748 are just the same thing bar upgraded engines, avionics, interior, better aerodynamic, etc... It's not like they make just a whole bunch of difference so the FAA or any regulator would ask for re-certification...

Which also means that, there should be parts/aspect of the vehicle that's still as original as it was by Korolev (or Korolev's bureau).

Edited December 1, 2016 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, YNM said:

Which all explains why it's still called Soyuz-something, not, say, Federation or anything else.

MS is presumed the last Soyuz generation to be replaced with PTKNP "Federation".

1 hour ago, YNM said:

there should be parts/aspect of the vehicle that's still as original as it was by Korolev (or Korolev's bureau).

3 sections, including the habitat on top (which means: need to be launched with LES together with the escape capsule; needs a splittable shroud to do this; enter/exit to the capsule only through habitat, so through three _{in shroud, in habitat, in capsule} hatches under sharp angle to each other; needs to be splitted into three parts to deorbit, rather than two for, say, TKS).

Edited December 1, 2016 by kerbiloid

[_Augustus_]

It mildly scares me that with their <$1 billion budget the Russians can keep Soyuz flying safely. It must be dumb luck that it hasn't had an accident in 40 years.

[todofwar]

1 hour ago, _Augustus_ said:

It mildly scares me that with their <$1 billion budget the Russians can keep Soyuz flying safely. It must be dumb luck that it hasn't had an accident in 40 years.

That's more a commentary on US inefficiency in general I think. Look at India and their Mars probe as another example.