soyuz the underappreciated workhorse?

[Nibb31]

Oh and one other thing: Spaceships don't kill people. People kill people.

Apollo 1, STS-51-L, STS-107, Soyuz-1, Soyuz-11 all have one thing in common: human overconfidence.

[Skyrunner27]

Oh and one other thing: Spaceships don't kill people. People kill people.

Apollo 1, STS-51-L, STS-107, Soyuz-1, Soyuz-11 all have one thing in common: human overconfidence.

Thats what I am saying it wasn't the vehicle it was the fault of people on the ground. Whether it be not learning their mistakes from other space agencies, not waiting to launch,or not having an unmanned flight flight to test your vehicle. (Columbia had no abort option even though NASA was almost certain of damage and I don't know that much about Soyuz-11 to say anything.)

[Nibb31]

Well, Soyuz-11 was pretty much bad luck. The jolt caused by the explosive bolts on separation of the service module caused a pressure valve to malfunction. There was nothing the crew could do. It was fundamentally a design oversight, which is human error, but it's probably the only space accident that fits in the "shiit happens" category, because you can't really point any fingers.

The other casualties were all due to launch pressure and overconfidence. On Columbia, the foam issue was well known, but no mitigation plan was ever put in place.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Nibb31

[Rokker]

It wasn't strong enough to burn through something. It was intended to blind (both people and optics) and maybe cause moderate skin burns, all of that without the risk of depressurisation. Never got into production though, only to prototyping phase.

Everything i've heard about it was that it was meant to disable circuitry and burn holes in suits.

[crazyewok]

A ****ty assholish joke made on a fact, not a straight up fact.

I wasnt even aware I made a joke. Just pointed out 2 shuttle blew up and the others are in museums while the soyuz is still flying.

Didums to you hurt little american feelings but fact is fact. I know you guys like rewritting history though.

[NASAFanboy]

I wasnt even aware I made a joke. Just pointed out 2 shuttle blew up and the others are in museums while the soyuz is still flying.

Didums to you hurt little american feelings but fact is fact. I know you guys like rewritting history though.

Soyuz has had more accidents.

May I remind you of Soyuz 1?

Perhaps Soyuz 11 will sober you up.

And possibly that Soyuz which nearly blew up on the launchpad, and that Soyuz that collided with Mir?

Comparing he Soyuz and Shuttle is like comparing oranges to apples. The shuttle is an icon of human engineering because it was capable of constructing space infrastructure during launches, that it was, in fact, a little space station, and that it could bring entire satellites home.

The Shuttle is not flying so NASA can focus funds on the Beyond Earth Orbit program with Orion, and jumpstart commercial space development with CCDev.

The Soyuz is still flying because the Russians are happy doing resupply missions and building things in LEO. Heck, even the Soyuz will likely be cancelled in the coming decade. And sure, the Russians have plans, but they're just concept art and PowerPoint, while NASA has built an entire new capsule.

Anyways, your post is just offensive to Americans. Don't taunt us. Yes, fact is fact, but your the one rewritting history. Stop overhyping the accidents of the Shuttle.

Fun Fact. I heard from someone that a space shuttle could fit an entire Soyuz spacecraft and a little boostee into its cargo hold.

So stop comparing them.

They where different craft built for different purposes. The Cold War is over, comrade. It's been over for thirty years, of which you probably spent under a rock.

Edited January 26, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[crazyewok]

Soyuz has had more accidents.

May I remind you of Soyuz 1?

Perhaps Soyuz 11 will sober you up.

And possibly that Soyuz which nearly blew up on the launchpad, and that Soyuz that collided with Mir?

The 2 Fatal accidents that happed at the beguining. As pointed out the soyuz has evolved a lot. Unlike the shuttle. And the other 2 no fatal incidents just show the soyuz can take a beating.

The shuttle is an icon of human engineering because it was capable of constructing space infrastructure during launches, that it was, in fact, a little space station, and that it could bring entire satellites home.

That was its problem. It was designed to do TOO MUCH. It was overcomplicated and overpriced.

The Shuttle is not flying so NASA can focus funds on the Beyond Earth Orbit program with Orion, and jumpstart commercial space development with CCDev.

Grounded is still grounded.

Heck, even the Soyuz will likely be cancelled in the coming decade.

Only when Russia have a replacemnet?

And sure, the Russians have plans, but they're just concept art and PowerPoint, while NASA has built an entire new capsule.

Source except typical American ANti russian sentiment?

Anyways, your post is just offensive to Americans.

Why? I pointed Out a fact the shuttles are either grouned or destroyed. Not my fault if you Americans cant handle fact. The post I originally replying to was offensive to Russians. O sorry that right that ok its ok to belittle Russia, but America cant dare critises or point out thier faliures (Sarcasm).

Don't taunt us.

So pointing out fact is taunting now in America? No wonder the USA is sinking in education.

Yes, fact is fact, but your the one rewritting history.

No I havent said anything thats not fact.

Fun Fact. I heard from someone that a space shuttle could fit an entire Soyuz spacecraft and a little boostee into its cargo hold.

So? The soyuz wasnt meant to be a jack of trades. It was meant to get people too and from a destination safely and at reasonble cost. Bigger is not always better.

Edited January 26, 2014 by crazyewok

[crazyewok]

The Cold War is over, comrade. I

Im not Russian little boy. Im British.

[Nibb31]

Soyuz is the jeep of space.

The Shuttle was the semi-trailer truck of space with a sleeper cabin.

Sometimes you need a jeep, sometimes you need a semi-trailer, but you can't say that one is better than the other.

(Orion is going to be the Hummer of space and the CCDev vehicles will be the yellow cabs of space)

[crazyewok]

Soyuz is the jeep of space.

The Shuttle was the semi-trailer truck of space with a sleeper cabin.

Sometimes you need a jeep, sometimes you need a semi-trailer, but you can't say that one is better than the other.

(Orion is going to be the Hummer of space and the CCDev vehicles will be the yellow cabs of space)

I agree with this. Both had a role. Though the shuttle to me was far too overcomplicated. I have no problem with both being equally appreciated. I just dont buy in this shuttle FTW attitude.

[Maxilica]

The Soyuz is one sturdy vessel. Say what you want about Soviet/Russian engineering, but I find it amazing that they've been using practically the same design since 1967...

Also, on Soyuz 23, the capsule performed a water landing, but sank due to the water filling up the parachutes (like in last year's Gravity). The rescue team didn't come until the next morning due to the fog, but all this time the capsule remained water-tight and the cosmonauts were OK (although they WERE running low on power...)

[Alchemist]

As for comparing Shutle with Spacehab to Soyuz: try comparing, let's say, Salyut-6 station with all the Soyuz and Progress crafts sent to it to how many Shuttle/Spacehab flights correspond to the same payload to orbit...

Ad yes, Soyuz is a bit too small for large stations (they have been considering replacing it with couple times lager craft, but you know, the development costs for something like this...), but don't you think the Shuttle is a bit too large for usual supply runs? Maybe the Dragon will prove itself as a feasible alternative (when they talk about reusability, don't count the cost until they get it really running back and forth - the Shuttle is a good example of too costly maintenance)

BTW, you could fit entire Salyt station in Shuttle/Buran cargo bay.

[Alchemist]

The Soyuz is one sturdy vessel. Say what you want about Soviet/Russian engineering, but I find it amazing that they've been using practically the same design since 1967...

And if you look at the rocket, it is based on year 1957 design (which is the first ICBM and the first space launcher)... Of course, over these years both rocket and the spacecraft did evolve so much that you may count several generations with practically nothing really left from the previous generation. As they say, space technology doesn't like revolutions, it prefers evolution.

[Aphox]

Sup, moderator intervention.

It's pretty obvious that this is a really touchy topic for a lot of people, but I'd like that everybody stays cool-headed and civil in their replies. Stay away from steering this into a political discussion, and please remember that there is absolutely no reason to attack other users for their opinion or responses. Also remember that not everybody here is from the same country (hurr), and there are several different dialects in here that change the way people read posts. If you have a problem, please report the post and ignore it, so we can deal with it.

Regards,

The mod team

[Kryten]

I wasnt even aware I made a joke. Just pointed out 2 shuttle blew up and the others are in museums while the soyuz is still flying.

The Soyuz is only still flying because all of the attempts to replace it have failed or been very badly delayed. The soviets/russians clearly didn't/don't believe that it is/was good enough, or we wouldn't have had the Zarya/TKS/LKS/Spiral/Buran/Kliper/CCTS/PPTS/Probablyabouttenothersthataren'tdeclassifiedyet programs.

[crazyewok]

S

Fun Fact. I heard from someone that a space shuttle could fit an entire Soyuz spacecraft and a little boostee into its cargo hold.

Fun fact one: Soyuz is still flying the shuttle isnt.

Fun fact two: NASA is going back to a capsule design for manned mission and is useing dedicated designs for cargo.

The shuttle tried combining manned missions and cargo lifting. And ended up not being efficient at either. Only thing is was good for was satellite repairing. And the ISS I sure could have been built without it. Russia managed to but MIR up without a shuttle.

Im not a fan of the shuttle and I dont get all the abuse because Im not. I liked Gemini (Something I think had a lot more potential that what it was used for) and Apollo I also have high hopes for the Orion capsule and the Dragon capsule but I think the shuttle was a dud and the fact that NASA is not really following up on space planes itself is because it seems a dead end.

Edited January 26, 2014 by crazyewok

[mdatspace]

Soyuz is good.

But there are differences in capability compared to the shuttle. Soyuz can carry 3 people. The largest crew the shuttle flew was 8 people. The Shuttle can carry 24,000 kg to LEO. Progress(The cargo version of Soyuz) can carry 2,350 kg.

[Firov]

Fun fact one: Soyuz is still flying the shuttle isnt.

Well, you can hardly argue with this "logic". If it's not flying anymore, it must have been a huge failure. Makes sense to me.

Take Apollo for example. It flew a total of 11 manned flights before it was retired. Clearly it was a huge failure. Then Gemini, since you brought it up. Oh, sure, it produced some invaluable information that paved the way for the the lunar missions, but if it would have been worthwhile it would still be flying, so we can only conclude it was a failure and waste of money. On the Soviet side Vostok was an even greater "failure" than Apollo, after all, it only had 6 manned flights. What a bunch of chumps they must have felt like after they set the ~5 day record for a cosmonaut in orbit that wouldn't be broken until years later during the "failed" Gemini program. How they ever recovered from such "failure" is beyond me.

Finally, we arrive at the shuttle. The massive failure that it was. Oh, sure, it successfully completed 133 missions and helped build the ISS during it's 32 year lifespan, versus the 116 of Soyuz over a longer 47 year lifespan, but the fact that it's not currently in use clearly must mean it was a failure, just like Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Vostok before it...

Excellent logic Crazyewok.

Every single spacecraft has a limited lifespan. Partly because of advances in technology and partly as a result of changing requirements. Even Soyuz is slated to be replaced by a more modern and capable craft. It likely would be already if those replacement programs weren't under funded by Russia's government. That's simply the nature of spaceflight. As your technology advances and your mission requirements change you design new spacecraft that better utilizes those advancements to make them more capable of achieving your goals.

So I'm curious, when Soyuz is retired and replaced by something new, the PPTS perhaps, are you going to use this "logic" that if it's not still flying it must be a huge failure? I thought not...

[crazyewok]

Soyuz is good.

But there are differences in capability compared to the shuttle. Soyuz can carry 3 people. The largest crew the shuttle flew was 8 people. The Shuttle can carry 24,000 kg to LEO. Progress(The cargo version of Soyuz) can carry 2,350 kg.

To be fair neither did cargo very well.

Shuttle-$10000 per kg 28.8 ton

Progress $5000 per kg 7 ton

Proton - $4000 per kg 19.7 ton

To me the proton is the better lifter

Really the only thing the shuttle had the advantage on is repairing.

Crew transport the soyus comes out top and cargo lifting the proton ( though the falcon will prob take that)

[crazyewok]

Well, you can hardly argue with this "logic". If it's not flying anymore, it must have been a huge failure. Makes sense to me.

Take Apollo for example. It flew a total of 11 manned flights before it was retired. Clearly it was a huge failure. Then Gemini, since you brought it up. Oh, sure, it produced some invaluable information that paved the way for the the lunar missions, but if it would have been worthwhile it would still be flying, so we can only conclude it was a failure and waste of money. On the Soviet side Vostok was an even greater "failure" than Apollo, after all, it only had 6 manned flights. What a bunch of chumps they must have felt like after they set the ~5 day record for a cosmonaut in orbit that wouldn't be broken until years later during the "failed" Gemini program. How they ever recovered from such "failure" is beyond me.

Finally, we arrive at the shuttle. The massive failure that it was. Oh, sure, it successfully completed 133 missions and helped build the ISS during it's 32 year lifespan, versus the 116 of Soyuz over a longer 47 year lifespan, but the fact that it's not currently in use clearly must mean it was a failure, just like Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Vostok before it...

Excellent logic Crazyewok.

Every single spacecraft has a limited lifespan. Partly because of advances in technology and partly as a result of changing requirements. Even Soyuz is slated to be replaced by a more modern and capable craft. It likely would be already if those replacement programs weren't under funded by Russia's government. That's simply the nature of spaceflight. As your technology advances and your mission requirements change you design new spacecraft that better utilizes those advancements to make them more capable of achieving your goals.

So I'm curious, when Soyuz is retired and replaced by something new, the PPTS perhaps, are you going to use this "logic" that if it's not still flying it must be a huge failure? I thought not...

It failed in my opinion as it didnt accomplish its orginal purpose and that was a reduced earth to orbit costs.

The shuttle was one of the most expensive methods to reach orbit due to its high maintiance. Look ats the costs posted above.

It might have had the lasted in tec aboard but it was still a money drain and ineffienct way to get things into LEO.

K

[Wahgineer]

Yeah that why a bunch of tubes is still flying Americans to the ISS while the space plane is gathering rust in museums (or in billions of little exploded peices). Why is it the USA is going back to a bunch of tubes for future manned programs?

Id take the bunch of tubes.

Look at some other launcher designs

I have, and I see: winged spaceplanes, with black bellies, white backs, delta wings, side mounted on a stack, etc. The only thing that comes close to Soyuz is the Chinese rip off (they also plan on building their own rip off of the shuttle). Even though the shuttle no longer flies, it still has a long reaching influence.

[crazyewok]

Look at some other launcher designs

I have, and I see: winged spaceplanes, with black bellies, white backs, delta wings, side mounted on a stack, etc..

Erm like? I see only the dreamchaser. O and the unmanned Boeing X-37 but we are talking manned spaceflight here.

On the other hand I see the Orion capsul, And Dragon Capsul with NASA look likes they are going to be useing for manned missions.

Edited January 27, 2014 by crazyewok

[Wahgineer]

The shuttle was designed to launch space tugs and assemble Solar Power Satellites and build space stations. The problem was was that none of those things ever materialized. The reason the shuttle seems over designed is because the projects it was designed to take part in never got pas the drawing board.

[crazyewok]

The shuttle was designed to launch space tugs and assemble Solar Power Satellites and build space stations. The problem was was that none of those things ever materialized. The reason the shuttle seems over designed is because the projects it was designed to take part in never got pas the drawing board.

So inefficient. Waste of money.

It might have been the pinnacle of engineering but it was a waste of resources that could have been used elsewhere. Dont buy stuff your not going to use properly .

I work in Industrial microbiology. We can get a brand new piece of equipment with all the lasted bodangles which can do multiple things, yet 9/10 that old piece of equipment in the corner that's dedicated to one thing still does the job better with better cost effectiveness.

[bigdad84]

Fun Fact. I heard from someone that a space shuttle could fit an entire Soyuz spacecraft and a little boostee into its cargo hold.

Fold in the solar panels, you could fit more than one... Enough said.

As for the shuttle being a waste of resources, it made orbital construction a lot easier in the process. I'd like to see something the size of the ISS built without the shuttle. The big solar panels alone would be difficult to get there without the shuttle. I'm pretty sure we all see your point here in saying that the shuttle was a waste of resources, but look at the present time, if it wasn't for the shuttle, the international space station would not exist.

Edited January 27, 2014 by bigdad84