Soyuz

[7499275]

I am referring to Bobcat's Soviet pack in this thread just as a heads up.

It includes the Soyuz TMA, U, and Progress, what are the differences between these three? I know one is manned and the other is unmanned (right?)

[Strategia]

I don't have the pack (so shame on me for commenting, but I'm gonna do so anyway), but hitting up Wikipedia shows that the TMA is the current manned version, U is the carrier rocket, and Progress is an unmanned resupply ship.

[Guest]

I am referring to Bobcat's Soviet pack in this thread just as a heads up.

It includes the Soyuz TMA, U, and Progress, what are the differences between these three? I know one is manned and the other is unmanned (right?)

Soyuz TMA: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soyuztma.htm

Soyuz U: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soyuzu.htm

Progress: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/progress.htm

[7499275]

I had looked at wikipedia and they just managed to confuse me a bit more, thanks for the links though. So let me just make sure though I understand this correctly, the TMA acts as a transport for crew memebers to and from the ISS? The Soyuz U is the launch rocket that carries the TMA and Progress Modules? And Progress takes supplies to the ISS?

[asmi]

Current version of Soyuz spacecraft is TMA-M (a.k.a. "Digital Soyuz"). It is currently being carried to orbit atop Soyuz-FG rocket, which is basically Soyuz-U with some modifications for man-rating (primarily aimed at reducing max acceleration to 4g, while Soyuz-U is rated up to 6g if my memory serves me well). As for Progress, current version is Progress-M-M, also "digital". Basically "digital" upgrade removed all analogue control loops and replaced them with digital ones, upgrade also included more advanced main computers, which allowed performing fully autonomous burns while in LOS (Loss-of-Signal, so no comm with the MCC). This was required to allow for currently used fast 4-orbit rendezvous profile, that allows spacecraft to reach ISS in less than 6 hours instead of ~2 days-long profile that was used before that.

[7499275]

Ah thank you guys for clearing up my confusion on the subject!