soyuz the underappreciated workhorse?

[AlamoVampire]

I think the fact that USA operates ~half a space station but is unable to launch humans into space shows that the shuttle was a wrong step, wrong idea, wrong concept. America got bored of manned spaceflight after playing golf on the moon so they needed something that looked awesome and futuristic and made spaceflight look like a commute - and scare the evil communists a bit.

The fact that Soyuz is still flying is also quite outrageous. 1960s foolproof minimum design that somehow survived the collapse of the soviet system. Hey, nice job, but isnt it a shame that this AK47 design is the state of the art of rocket science in 2014?

I don't think the shuttle is good, I don't think Soyuz is good.

USA could have done better, USSR/Russia did OK if you consider the circumstances. I do not doubt that either space agency could have come up with much better solutions given proper decisions and sustained funding.

um you trolling? The shuttle is venerated for all it did for not only america BUT what it did for HUMANITY. It was retired not because we got bored of it, but because it was tremendously expensive to hurl into orbit. MORE expensive than the Soyuz, which is why Russia STILL uses it. Not because it is better, it is NOT, its CHEAPER. The shuttle launched some of the most revered satellites into orbit like oh, I dont know, HUBBLE for example. We had to shut down the shuttle program because of the expense at sending what amounted to a giant nuclear strength explosive into orbit with upwards of 7 LIVES on the line each time, a gamble that has cost lives. NEVER discount the shuttle. Never FORGET what that vessel did for science.

[Kerbin Dallas Multipass]

um you trolling? snip

Nope, but I believe you are intentionally trying to misunderstand my post.

The shuttle design fully lies in the responsibility of the US and it was the US taxpayer who funded the project. Not Liechtenstein, not humanity.

I'm explicitly stating that in my opinion neither Soyuz nor the Shuttle are good solutions. I'm saying though that if the US had opted for a less flashy and more efficient design we would see bi weekly launches from Cape Canaveral to a much larger international space station. With a system capable of launching Hubble like payloads.

The cost-inefficiency of the shuttle can be seen as a design/concept flaw that finally made this pretty dinosaur become extinct.

[AlamoVampire]

NASA is working right now on something to that end. While commercial entities send up missions like the Dragon capsule from SpaceX NASA can focus on rebuilding the SLS and things like ORION. I get defensive of the shuttle because, expensive though it was, it was the best launch system we had. Nothing could surpass its lift capability as far as cargo goes. I also have sever reservations about NASA relying on a spacecraft that is 5 decades old. Hell it is like us digging out the Saturn V and trying to throw our guys into space on that. The shuttle was no dinosaur as you put it. the Soyuz is. We need new, bigger and better tech, pure and simple.

[crazyewok]

if you do not mind using a space craft that was designed in the 60s.

If it works safely who cares when it was made.

[K^2]

the shuttle [...] and is the only fully reusable orbiter that has ever flown.

Technically, false. Buran orbiter was fully reusable and did fly one unmanned mission.

[Champ]

On another note using the failure argument is basically like saying that Apollo was the worst spacecraft in history.

Was there any other lethal failure than appolo 1 (which was just a test flight, who would blame a failure on a test flight ?) ?

Appolo 13 went bad, bud they all got back on (kerbin) earth

[Nibb31]

Nothing could surpass its lift capability as far as cargo goes.

That's wrong. Although the Shuttle stuck could put the 80 ton Orbiter into orbit, its actual payload was only 20t. The weight of the Orbiter was wasted energy. There are many other launchers in 20t class: Delta IV, Atlas V, Proton, Ariane 5, etc

The only useful operational capabilities that the Shuttle had were:

- it could bring back heavy stuff.

- it looked awesome.

I also have sever reservations about NASA relying on a spacecraft that is 5 decades old. Hell it is like us digging out the Saturn V and trying to throw our guys into space on that. The shuttle was no dinosaur as you put it. the Soyuz is. We need new, bigger and better tech, pure and simple.

Not comparable. The Saturn V was abandoned and to restart production would be akin to redesigning a whole new rocket. Soyuz has evolved over the years, so even though it looks the same on the outside, it is state of the art.

And of course, proven systems are often more reliable. An old Land Rover might not look as cool as the latest Corvette, but I know which one I'd rather have if I broke down in the middle of the desert.

[Nibb31]

Was there any other lethal failure than appolo 1 (which was just a test flight, who would blame a failure on a test flight ?) ?

Appolo 13 went bad, bud they all got back on (kerbin) earth

There were several near misses. Apollo 13 was extremely lucky. If NASA had operated the Saturn as they operated the Shuttle in the 80's, there would have been more incidents.

One of the reasons they abandoned the Apollo program was that they knew they were stretching their luck. Statistically, it was only a matter of time before another major incident happened.

[Skyrunner27]

Was there any other lethal failure than appolo 1 (which was just a test flight, who would blame a failure on a test flight ?) ?

Appolo 13 went bad, bud they all got back on (kerbin) earth

First you had Apollo 1 which you mentioned. Apollo 12 nearly had to abort after the lightning strikes and on rentry one of the crew members was struck quite badly in the head by a camera. Apollo 13 was near catastrophe.Apollo 15 had on of its parachutes fail to deploy. if you look at the Apollo-Soyuz test project that craft almost killed its crew. In short RCS fuel was venting into the capsule and all of the crew needed to be rushed to the hospital. I don't know if to includes this or not but in the construction of a Saturn V a person was hit by pressurized water when the water should have not been pressurized.

[Alchemist]

There's one notable thing about Soyuz that is both good and bad. It was "designed from the bottom": "we have this rocket, let' design a craft it can lift".

Good thing is that this reduced development costs and allowed using the same infrastructure. And that original orbital-assembly Lunar flyby project is what give birth to automated docking systems with refueling ability. Also that is why we still have this relatively cheap and reliable medium-light launch vehicle.

The bad thing is that they really stuck with this size. It's very good as the minimalistic solution, but sometimes you do need more. And there were at least two attempts to make bigger manned crafts: TKS (4 times heavier, launched by Proton, semi-reusable; at least it gave birth to station modules, but honestly, supplying Salyut/Almaz station with a craft of the same size also was a bit silly) and Zarya (twice heavier than Soyuz, launched by Zenit; project was never finished).

As for Buran - even its creators agreed that it had almost no civil use. Launch vehicle? If it an be launched by Proton, launch it by Proton (and they also wee developing 30 t grade Energia-M). Or strap 100 tons to Energia! Station assembly? Good idea, but when you already have docking grade RCS systems and autopilots of TKS... Payload recovery? Not too much of the actual payloads. They wanted to recover Salyt-7, but it crashed before Buran was finished.

That was more of "we know that your Shuttle can be used for some military tricks, well now we can do it too".

On the other hand, Energia... that was a magnificent launch vehicle

[Arran]

The west have the tendency too overengineer things, the shuttle is a full statement of overengineering.

A marvoulous piece of equipment for it days, but on its end it was horribly outdated, too expensive and lacking, and dispite the fatal accidents, its was for along time a stable platform.. I still think the two accidents with it, where primairly caused by NASA's dwingling funds, so hings had to go cheaper and cheaper, and with a complex over engineerd piece of machinery, that is an deathsentence.

Then when real lifes are taken, its the end for such machine..

It is also the reason, why after the Shuttle we only saw concept designs, NASA had thought of successors, but with no funding, it just stayed there, concepts.

The Sovjets wanted a shuttle too, the whole project collapsed at the fall of the Sovjet Union, but i do think they wanted the tech, and i would have loved to see the Buran to have been completed, to see wich of the 2 would be better, as i think the Russians again would kept their KISS system going with the Buran, what is in my opinion the way to go, (Also the reason i still love Russian Airplanes as well) and then we would have a real comparison in here..

The Solyuz is a totally different vehicle as the Shuttle, and both preformed imho remarkable, and both made it imho into the annexdotes of History, both for different reasons. But to say what is the better platform, i cannot answer since we talking to different systems, that only have one thing in common, they both went up in space, but thats about where the simulairities end.. Its like comparing a car with a truck. Both have simulairities, but differ to much to be compared.

Having that said, if i have to choose an Shuttle or the Solyuz, i prolly choose the Shuttle, why, simple, i have no clue how to fly a spacecraft for real, in the solyuz i have to be part on the ones that operates it due the small crew it can hold, in the shuttle there is enough room for me, to just tag along for the ride and enjoy the view

If there was enough room for me in the Solyuz just to tag along, i would choose both, dammit it sounds like fun to have a deaddrop just to get set on the ground last seconds by boosters, that is i think one hell of a rollercoaster ride ;-)

[Nibb31]

Soyuz was designed as a LEO taxi for ferrying crew from Baikonur to Salyut, Mir, and ISS.

Gemini was designed as a 2-seat trainer for experimenting new spaceflight techniques.

Apollo was designed for lunar expeditions.

Shuttle was designed as space truck for orbital construction, a launch vehicle, a work platform, and a small space station.

You can't really compare Soyuz and Shuttle. They were designed for different purposes, and it turned out that most of the design requirements for the Shuttle weren't needed.

A better comparison would be between Soyuz and CST-100, DreamChaser, Dragon.

[Piwa]

Americans are foaming at the mouth will prove the shuttle was the most reliable car in the world, but did not say why the program was closed. . . Finally admit that the Soyuz is the most reliable spacecraft in history.

[Piwa]

Soyuz was designed as a LEO taxi for ferrying crew from Baikonur to Salyut, Mir, and ISS.

Soyuz has been developed on the lunar program. For flyby of the moon.

[crazyewok]

Americans are foaming at the mouth will prove the shuttle was the most reliable car in the world, but did not say why the program was closed. . . Finally admit that the Soyuz is the most reliable spacecraft in history.

Yup Americans wont ever admitt a Russian craft could be better

[Psycix]

Yup Americans wont ever admitt a Russian craft could be better

Seeing as all crew to the ISS are currently transported by Soyuz vehicles, they pretty much acknowledged this.

[crazyewok]

Seeing as all crew to the ISS are currently transported by Soyuz vehicles, they pretty much acknowledged this.

That pretty much says it all really.

[Firov]

Yup Americans wont ever admitt a Russian craft could be better

Nationalism at it's worst...

I wouldn't say Soyuz is under appreciated , especially not with Soviet/Russian fanatics like this acting as cheerleader.

The simple fact of the matter is that the design requirements for the US Space Shuttle and Soviet Soyuz were radically different, and to make a blanket statement that one is "superior" over the other is naive in the extreme.

The Soyuz was designed to carry 2 (eventually 3) astronauts into space, rendezvous with a station, and then return them safely to Earth. It has done a commendable job achieving this design requirement over the last 30 years. It has suffered failures, some serious and even fatal, but overall it's still got a good record and until SpaceX's Dragon is man-rated, it's undoubtedly the best crew ferry around. Maybe even then, depending on how well Dragon works out.

The space shuttle however had a much more complex series of design requirements, which obviously required a much more complex, and expensive, craft. The shuttle, beyond simply carrying 7-10 astronauts, had to be capable of carrying 25 metric tons of cargo into orbit. Unlike Soyuz, which you insist on comparing it to for some reason, the Space Shuttle isn't simply a crew ferry. Someone in this thread described it as a "small space station", and that's an apt description, since it could linger in orbit for up to two weeks, or longer with the EDO pallet (almost 18 days on STS-80), during which time the mission specialists could perform and monitor science experiments, which was a major objective of early shuttle flights. Beyond all of that it still had to safely return up to 15 metric tons of it's cargo to a precision landing on an aircraft runway with an up to 1000 nautical mile cross range trip, all without exceeding 3g's during any phase of the mission, so as to not damage the science experiments. The fact that they were able to achieve all of those goals with a single reusable craft at all is impressive.

True, the Shuttle, much like Soyuz, also suffered two catastrophic failures. However, the loss of Challenger was more a result of poor management by NASA than any particular flaw with the shuttle system, since the SRBs were never rated for the extreme cold they experienced at the launchpad on launch day. Indeed, engineers at the company that manufactured the SRB's urged NASA not to launch as a result of this uncertainty. NASA management overruled those concerns and launched anyway.

Now true, the shuttle is vastly more expensive on a per launch basis than Soyuz, but that's like complaining that a semi-truck is more expensive than a small economy sedan. It could be argued that the shuttle program was a waste of money, and that we didn't need a craft capable of achieving everything the Shuttle could, but to claim that it's price somehow makes it "inferior" to a dedicated crew ferry is ridiculous. Whatever you may think of the Shuttle program's price, you can not deny that it's a truly incredible engineering achievement with a remarkably good safety record considering it's overwhelmingly complex design requirements.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Firov

[crazyewok]

Nationalism at it's worst...

Im neither Russian or American.

So I have no beef or love for either.

So Im just calling it as I see it.

[vetrox]

I love the shuttle as a feat of engineering. (i also like the soyuz for pretty much the same reason)

As has already been said. The soyuz is really just a crew ferry. The shuttle was a jack of all trades and had to be able to acomplish so much more and personally i feel it did an admirable job. To be able to go up and just spend a week in orbit looking at the universe above and the earth below? sounds like heaven to me.

But am i right in saying the soyuz crafts are the only ships going to and from orbit on a regular basis? so i would hardly call it underapreciated.

When i was in school i wasnt taught about either. Its only through my own interest in space flight that i know of them.

[BlackBicycle]

I have said it a couple of pages before... do I really have to repeat myself?

The shuttle was designed as a military vehicle, for WW3. Its purpose was to replace the shot-down satellites very quickly, in less than a couple of weeks. THAT is its original purpose. Everything else people here are talking about is a discussion of how NASA tried to find a use for this military unit in the peace time.

Being originally Russian, I find it rather natural. In the USSR, pretty much everything that was developed, has been developed for (and financed by) the military. Only after the development was complete will they think of a possible civilian use of the things they created. All of the rockets, the aircraft engines, the nuclear reactors for ships... the list goes on. Hell, even canned food was first and foremost checked by the Ministry of Defence, in terms of long storage durability - "strategic reserve" they called it.

Why is it so difficult for Americans to grasp the concept that during the Cold War, everything was geared towards the (possible) war effort? And not just in the USSR, you guys did pretty much the same thing (on a level of larger ventures, of course). It's WAR, you know, even if it is only a plausible one.

[Alchemist]

Space Shuttle isn't simply a crew ferry. Someone in this thread described it as a "small space station", and that's an apt description, since it could linger in orbit for up to two weeks, or longer with the EDO pallet (almost 18 days on STS-80), during which time the mission specialists could perform and monitor science experiments, which was a major objective of early shuttle flights.

Soyuz was created for the same purpose (and even a lunar flyby) and only later it was modified for work with stations. Also check the flight duration of Soyuz-9.

And if you want to compare overall scientific output of Shuttle and Soyuz, add Salyut stations to the equation.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Alchemist

[Skyrunner27]

I have said it a couple of pages before... do I really have to repeat myself?

The shuttle was designed as a military vehicle, for WW3. Its purpose was to replace the shot-down satellites very quickly, in less than a couple of weeks. THAT is its original purpose. Everything else people here are talking about is a discussion of how NASA tried to find a use for this military unit in the peace time.

Being originally Russian, I find it rather natural. In the USSR, pretty much everything that was developed, has been developed for (and financed by) the military. Only after the development was complete will they think of a possible civilian use of the things they created. All of the rockets, the aircraft engines, the nuclear reactors for ships... the list goes on. Hell, even canned food was first and foremost checked by the Ministry of Defence, in terms of long storage durability - "strategic reserve" they called it.

Why is it so difficult for Americans to grasp the concept that during the Cold War, everything was geared towards the (possible) war effort? And not just in the USSR, you guys did pretty much the same thing (on a level of larger ventures, of course). It's WAR, you know, even if it is only a plausible one.

Its simple, heres how NASA works. NASA is a civilian organization run by civilians designed since the Vanguard program to work like that. The first astronauts were from the military because they were test pilots willing to sit on a trash can of boom. The shuttle only had the military propositions put in after it made a deal with the airforce. The shuttle was designed as a reusable vessel because Americans did not like their money being used to "play golf on the moon." Also, we are discussing the success of the Soyuz vs. the shuttle not why they were designed. Hey the soyuz hasn't been to the moon yet like it was designed for. In conclusion, the Americans have a civilian program while the Russians have a military program.

[Firov]

WAR!!!

While it's certainly true that the USAF and NRO's demands had a major impact on the space shuttle's design, for example, the larger wing size to accommodate a 1000nm cross range ability, it's not quite accurate to say that it was designed purely for the military by the military. This was still a joint venture between NASA and the USAF. NASA always had intentions of using the Shuttle during peace time, and they were the ones who sought out the military to make it more economical, and ensure that they'd be able to get congressional approval to build it.

So yes, the military played a role, but despite that the Space Shuttle isn't, and never was, purely a military craft.

Soyuz was created for the same purpose (and even a lunar flyby) and only later it was modified for work with stations. Also check the flight duration of Soyuz-9.

And if you want to compare overall scientific output of Shuttle and Soyuz, add Salyut stations to the equation.

I suspected someone might bring that up, but figured people would be able to understand the difference between Soyuz 9 and the Shuttle science missions.

That difference being that Soyuz 9 accomplished very little of scientific worth beyond simply staying in orbit for a long period of time, and more then that, didn't have a crew of 5 to 7 astronauts. In fact, it only carried two crew, and certainly no mission specialists who weren't required to fly the craft, and were only along to perform science once in orbit.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Firov

[BlackBicycle]

Ah well. So you say NASA is a civilian organisation. While it may be true on paper, if you start tracing the funding and the major specs requests... you know. I might be wrong, of course, but I am under a strong impression that, if not for the military, the shuttle would not even exist. I am sure that even if NASA failed in pushing the shuttle budget through Congress, the army would have helped to push it through (or divert even more funds to it to compensate).

After all, tell me why would any sane people (which I hope at least a part of the Congress used to consist of) would approve the ultra-expensive, $120/kg (while rockets can do $40/kg), research-hogging spaceplane, if it was presented as a civilian hmm... progress statement? I cannot really imagine a good reason, hence the question mark.

I cannot remember the Soyuz9 right off the bat, but I have to remind you that the Americans literally jumped on the long-term stay physiological data from Salut7 and Mir, when they were finally given the chance. So your casual dismissal of the long-term orbital habitats importance sounds strange to say the least. As far as I know, the human physiology data from year-long spaceflights on Salut (Janibekov was the longest up there, if my memory serves me right, about a year on the station) is the basis on which NASA is currently planning Mars manned mission.