soyuz the underappreciated workhorse?

[NASAFanboy]

The Shuttle was used for orbital construction and satellite deployment.

One shuttle launch cost slightly less than just using a conventional rocket. So yes, the cost did decrease very slightly, but not by a lot. The Shuttle was the primary builder of the ISS, launching ESA/NASA/JAXA/CSA built components to the International Space Station.

It was a success. It was not inefficent, and was capable of many great things, many of which where never accomplished due to budget constraints (Build interplanetary spacecraft? You bet. Provide rountine acess to space? Yep.). The Shuttle accomplished its goals, but in the end, it came down to either a manned mission to Mars and exploration BEO and giving its role to SpaceX and Sierra Neveda and Blue Origin, or being confined to LEO with an infrastructure for nothing.

So in a limited sense, the shuttle was a success. In fact, it could probably launch a Salyut station with a Soyuz docked to it while INSIDE the Cargo Bay, then take the whole contraption back home and land on the runway with it, just like that. It could carry twice as much crew as the Soyuz, carry four times the cargo/Supplies of the Progress, and return as many payload home as it took up. That's a better job.

Think of the Shuttle as a cruise ship and the Soyuz as a small tour boat.

Anyways.

Why is this turning into an Soyuz vs Shuttle debate?

[crazyewok]

The Shuttle was used for orbital construction and satellite deployment.

One shuttle launch cost slightly less than just using a conventional rocket. So yes, the cost did decrease very slightly, but not by a lot. The Shuttle was the primary builder of the ISS, launching ESA/NASA/JAXA/CSA built components to the International Space Station.

Not really. The shuttle was $10000 per Kg to LEO and a proton about $4000. Yes it built the ISS but the ISS would likely still have been built without it as the Russians built MIR without the shuttle so there no reason NASA and Russia could have used a purely cargo lifter for ISS construction.

And your falling for the bigger is better. Not always. Plus there are better and cheaper methods to launch a similar range payload using cargo only rockets.

It all well and good saying what it COULD have been used for, the fact was it wasn't. Budget restraints or not it was under utilised and a pig to maintain.

Plus im not really saying its Soyuz vs Shuttle, more space planes are not the best method for earth to orbit (at the moment) expect under very special circumstances like satellite repair. They may look cool ect but the capsule design it alot better at the moment. That goes for Soyuz, Dragon, Orion (Capsule) ect. And it better and cheaper to launch your payload with payload only rockets. The shuttle had a role but it was very niche. Quite frankly If I was to send large cargo up I would choose the Proton rockets or now the Falcon 9's purely as they are cheaper.

http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf

[sgt_flyer]

Well, they are interested in spaceplane reentry designs, because it 's much less hard on the crew and has a steerable descent.

(Soyuz standard reentry is around 4g and up to 8.5g in emergency reentries, and once the parachute is deployed, crosswinds can make the capsule drift quite a bit.

(Dreamchaser lifting body is planned to experience 1.5g during reentry)

[crazyewok]

Well, they are interested in spaceplane reentry designs, because it 's much less hard on the crew and has a steerable descent.

(Soyuz standard reentry is around 4g and up to 8.5g in emergency reentries, and once the parachute is deployed, crosswinds can make the capsule drift quite a bit.

(Dreamchaser lifting body is planned to experience 1.5g during reentry)

See dreamchaser might work as its not trying to be too much. The shuttle was over complicated and tried to be too much. In my experience when you are trying to do something in the lab and you need to do it reliably, repeatedly and cheaply, simplicity is key, and im guessing that this principle applies outside of Microbiology and goes as far as Rocket science . Were the shuttle failed IMO is that is tried to be good at everything. It should have concentrated on either crew transport or Cargo or better yet had a crew version and cargo version.

[Rokker]

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.

Well other than the fact that Soyuz 7K-OKS as well as the whole first generation Soyuz was designed to be flown without their cosmonauts wearing suits at all, much less for liftoff and re-entry. I would consider that a design flaw since those are probably to 2 places where a dangerous high altitude decompression of a spacecraft could occur (under the forces and vibrations of liftoff and landing that is).

[Nibb31]

Well, they are interested in spaceplane reentry designs, because it 's much less hard on the crew and has a steerable descent.

(Soyuz standard reentry is around 4g and up to 8.5g in emergency reentries, and once the parachute is deployed, crosswinds can make the capsule drift quite a bit.

(Dreamchaser lifting body is planned to experience 1.5g during reentry)

DreamChaser is in competition with Dragon 2.0 and CST-100. At least one (probably two) of those competitors will have to go, and DC is a bit of the underdog here, unfortunately.

[CalculusWarrior]

DreamChaser is in competition with Dragon 2.0 and CST-100. At least one (probably two) of those competitors will have to go, and DC is a bit of the underdog here, unfortunately.

I'm unsure what the main differences between the Dragon and CST are. On the surface, they are both capsules which aim to provide crew transportation on par with the Shuttle and carry some supplies. With the Dream Chaser on the other hand, you at least have a lower g load and cross-range capabilities making it stand out.

I suppose in the end it will come down to cost, and safety.

[Rokker]

Does shuttle program have anything to do with this miserably short list?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landings_on_extraterrestrial_bodies

Delta wings are cool. Average Joe want delta wings.

Do you consider the only probe to (while not being a landing) enter the Jovian atmosphere as well as entering into Jovian orbit a worthwhile accomplishment not to mention the first asteroid flyby (Galileo probe)? That happened thanks to the shuttle. What about a probe that mapped the surface of Venus and was the first spacecraft to circularize its orbit using the magic of aerobraking (Magellan). That was a shuttle launch. Lets not forget everyone's favorite space telescope that has vastly improved our understanding of the universe around us (Hubble) which actually only succeeded because the shuttle was able to RETURN to space in order to repair it, something impossible to accomplish using any other vehicle. We must also remember 2 of the 3 brothers and sisters of Hubble within the Great Observatories program the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory and the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Sure none of these were landings, but they were amazing contributions to our knowledge and abilities in space.

[Rokker]

I'm unsure what the main differences between the Dragon and CST are. On the surface, they are both capsules which aim to provide crew transportation on par with the Shuttle and carry some supplies. With the Dream Chaser on the other hand, you at least have a lower g load and cross-range capabilities making it stand out.

I suppose in the end it will come down to cost, and safety.

Not to mention they would soon be out of use by NASA if it decides to start using Orion.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Rokker

[crazyewok]

Do you consider the only probe to (while not being a landing) enter the Jovian atmosphere as well as entering into Jovian orbit a worthwhile accomplishment not to mention the first asteroid flyby (Galileo probe)? That happened thanks to the shuttle. What about a probe that mapped the surface of Venus and was the first spacecraft to circularize its orbit using the magic of aerobraking (Magellan). That was a shuttle launch. Lets not forget everyone's favorite space telescope that has vastly improved our understanding of the universe around us (Hubble) which actually only succeeded because the shuttle was able to RETURN to space in order to repair it, something impossible to accomplish using any other vehicle. We must also remember 2 of the 3 brothers and sisters of Hubble within the Great Observatories program the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory and the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Sure none of these were landings, but they were amazing contributions to our knowledge and abilities in space.

But could they have been launched into orbit on a cheaper unmanned payload orinated rocket? If so the price of launch could have been halved.

[crazyewok]

Not to mention they would soon be out of use by NASA if it decides to start using whatever it designs for the Mars program.

Why?

The SLS will be overkill for anything routine like ISS supply and crew transport. Why do it with a SLS when you can do it with a Falcon and Dragon much more cheaply?

Be more efficient if they run the Dragon and Orion together. The Orion for lunar + missions and the Dragon for ISS milk runs.

Edited January 27, 2014 by crazyewok

[Rokker]

Overall I find this discussion, even my own participation in it, to be fairly ignorant over a large number of things. For example, comparing the price per kg is sort of pointless since the launches always cost about the same whereas the weights are always different. Also, the Space Shuttle is a partially reusable spacecraft+launch vehicle designed to ferry large payloads and 5-7 man crews into space simultaneously whereas the Soyuz spacecraft is a FAMILY of multiple variants (4 to 7 depending on who you ask, and soon to be one more) with many differences between the current and the originals. The space shuttle was not used commercially so it was not designed with cost effectiveness in mind. We are also dealing with entirely different classes of vehicle in terms of payload capabilities (if we discuss the Soyuz rocket, rather than the spacecraft), seeing as the shuttle could launch up to about 29 metric tonnes along with 7 crew members, where the Soyuz could/can launch 2-3 crewmen OR 7 metric tonnes, making the shuttle a heavy launch vehicle and the Soyuz a medium launch vehicle. Overall, they are completely incomparable. Now, what I can not understand about this argument is why are we comparing two completely different spacecraft and saying that obviously one is better when both have pros and cons, great overall records and beautiful histories aimed at getting man farther into space. Why can't they both just be great. Stop the arguing and agree they have both done a lot for the world and get over our petty needs to always be "more correct" than the other person.

[Rokker]

But could they have been launched into orbit on a cheaper unmanned payload orinated rocket? If so the price of launch could have been halved.

Why launch 2 rockets to launch a satellite and perform experiments when you can do them at once. Also, the 4 Hubble service missions were possible because of the shuttle

[Rokker]

Why?

The SLS will be overkill for anything routine like ISS supply and crew transport. Why do it with a SLS when you can do it with a Falcon and Dragon much more cheaply?

Be more efficient if they run the Dragon and Orion together. The Orion for lunar + missions and the Dragon for ISS milk runs.

Crap that's right, I had a brain fart and forgot they were using the SLS now instead of the Ares 1

[crazyewok]

Overall I find this discussion, even my own participation in it, to be fairly ignorant over a large number of things. For example, comparing the price per kg is sort of pointless since the launches always cost about the same whereas the weights are always different. Also, the Space Shuttle is a partially reusable spacecraft+launch vehicle designed to ferry large payloads and 5-7 man crews into space simultaneously whereas the Soyuz spacecraft is a FAMILY of multiple variants (4 to 7 depending on who you ask, and soon to be one more) with many differences between the current and the originals. The space shuttle was not used commercially so it was not designed with cost effectiveness in mind. We are also dealing with entirely different classes of vehicle in terms of payload capabilities (if we discuss the Soyuz rocket, rather than the spacecraft), seeing as the shuttle could launch up to about 29 metric tonnes along with 7 crew members, where the Soyuz could/can launch 2-3 crewmen OR 7 metric tonnes, making the shuttle a heavy launch vehicle and the Soyuz a medium launch vehicle. Overall, they are completely incomparable. Now, what I can not understand about this argument is why are we comparing two completely different spacecraft and saying that obviously one is better when both have pros and cons, great overall records and beautiful histories aimed at getting man farther into space. Why can't they both just be great. Stop the arguing and agree they have both done a lot for the world and get over our petty needs to always be "more correct" than the other person.

Thing you missed a huge chunk as its gone beyond soyuz verse shuttle which to be honest cant be compared and more are spaceplanes worth it compared to capsul craft in general and dedicated cargo planes.

And no launch costs are not all the same for a shuttle launch it was $300 million, for a soyuz 45 million and a proton 85 million a falcon 55-60 mil. Sorry but the shuttle is inefficiant,

Im not saying the USA hasnt achevied some great things, apollo for example. But sorry the space shuttle was a white elephant and money bit. You say but it want designed to be cost effective? Well you should ask yourself why not? Those are your tax dollers and you should expect maxium effieciency. It was the high maintience that meant NASA cut saftey corners, it was high maintience that led to it being retired not upgraded. The numbers just didnt add up for the shuttle and what it all boils down too numbers.

[Nibb31]

Why launch 2 rockets to launch a satellite and perform experiments when you can do them at once.

Because lots of smaller launches are much cheaper than one big launch every 6 months. You get to share all the fixed costs over more launches and you benefit from economies of scale in manufacturing.

Also, the 4 Hubble service missions were possible because of the shuttle

Only because Hubble was designed to be serviced by the Shuttle, which made it super expensive. It would have been cheaper to launch 3 replacement Hubbles than to perform all those repair/upgrade missions. If anything, the Hubble program proved that it was not economical to do repairs in space.

[crazyewok]

Why launch 2 rockets to launch a satellite and perform experiments when you can do them at once. Also, the 4 Hubble service missions were possible because of the shuttle

A proton and a soyuz seperatly still only works out at just over 100 mil compared to the shuttles 300 mil.

As for the hubble? Well thats likley the only thing the shuttle was usefull for. But was a $196 billion program worth that when the hubble cost $2,5 billion? Would have been cheaper to send up four hubble replacements!

[crazyewok]

Because lots of smaller launches are much cheaper than one big launch every 6 months. You get to share all the fixed costs over more launches and you benefit from economies of scale in manufacturing.

Only because Hubble was designed to be serviced by the Shuttle, which made it super expensive. It would have been cheaper to launch 3 replacement Hubbles than to perform all those repair/upgrade missions. If anything, the Hubble program proved that it was not economical to do repairs in space.

Omg you agree with me on something.

[CalculusWarrior]

...comparing the price per kg is sort of pointless since the launches always cost about the same whereas the weights are always different...

The main deal with comparing price per kilo put into orbit is it is an excellent means of comparing different launch vehicles. If you want to get a satellite into orbit and want to pay as little as possible to do so, then you definitely want the most efficient/cheapest launcher.

...the space shuttle was not used commercially so it was not designed with cost effectiveness in mind...

I believe that the reason the Shuttle was designed to be reusable was in fact to offer a more economically viable method of space travel than rolling out a $1 billion Saturn V every time you wanted to put something into orbit.

I do agree with you that the Soyuz and Shuttle are entirely different spacecraft, meant for entirely different purposes, and they're both excellent ships which have accomplished much in promoting access to space.

[sgt_flyer]

Crap that's right, I had a brain fart and forgot they were using the SLS now instead of the Ares 1

Heh maybe there's a hope - SLS block II might end up using the Pyrios liquid booster from dynetics / rocketdyne - one of the possibilities they showed with this booster would be to associate it with SLS upperstage (like ARES I concept) to send the crew capsule to LEO.

[Rokker]

Thing you missed a huge chunk as its gone beyond soyuz verse shuttle which to be honest cant be compared and more are spaceplanes worth it compared to capsul craft in general and dedicated cargo planes.

And no launch costs are not all the same for a shuttle launch it was $300 million, for a soyuz 45 million and a proton 85 million a falcon 55-60 mil. Sorry but the shuttle is inefficiant,

Im not saying the USA hasnt achevied some great things, apollo for example. But sorry the space shuttle was a white elephant and money bit. You say but it want designed to be cost effective? Well you should ask yourself why not? Those are your tax dollers and you should expect maxium effieciency. It was the high maintience that meant NASA cut saftey corners, it was high maintience that led to it being retired not upgraded. The numbers just didnt add up for the shuttle and what it all boils down too numbers.

Oh, should I want efficiency, well thanks for telling me what I should want. Honestly though, I think what I want for my tax dollars is innovation and change. Something new, something different, something that paves the way for the spacecraft of the future. Leave cost efficiency to companies because governments are never good at it in the first place. Now if we wanted cost efficiency, NASA would still be using the space shuttle which would cost us much less that the 65 million per seat that Russia charges us for Soyuz. Now you bring up the point of costs to launch. Lets look at what we get for the prices listed. 300 million dollars to launch up to 29 metric tonnes AND 7 crew. To accomplish this using Soyuz (I am ignoring Proton and Falcon since this is an argument between the shuttle and Soyuz) I would need 4 Soyuz cargo launches and 3 Soyuz crewed launches. This brings the price to $315 million with separate crews and cargo, rather than the option to send up one large satellite. If you really wanted to compare the two (which I have stated I don't anymore) the shuttle had much better capabilities, especially for cost. Not to mention you could pick a landing site and not worry about having to fight off wolves when you landed. Now the reason Soyuz is so cheap overall would be due not to efficiency, but basic economics.You see, the more you build something typically the cheaper the cost to build it will get, especially if the design stays relatively similar, allowing for processes to become more standardized and improve as technology improves. The Soyuz is so cheap because it has been around for a long time and so many of them have been made. In the beginning they would have been fairly expensive as well.

[Rokker]

Because lots of smaller launches are much cheaper than one big launch every 6 months. You get to share all the fixed costs over more launches and you benefit from economies of scale in manufacturing.

Only because Hubble was designed to be serviced by the Shuttle, which made it super expensive. It would have been cheaper to launch 3 replacement Hubbles than to perform all those repair/upgrade missions. If anything, the Hubble program proved that it was not economical to do repairs in space.

And what do we lose? Progress in technology and experiences. I like to imagine a future where space travel is common and satellites can be fixed by a neat little maintenance crew rather than having to send up satellite too replace a still orbiting, broken satellite, littering space with more and more debris until we end up with some hellish Kessler syndrome that ruins space for the next decade. I want a world where spacecraft can be reused rather than essentially "throw it away when its done." To me, achieving this is worth the extra cost.

[crazyewok]

Oh, should I want efficiency, well thanks for telling me what I should want.

Well why not just put $196 billion in a pile and burn it. *cough" 17 trillion debt *cough*

Honestly though, I think what I want for my tax dollars is innovation and change.

You can do that without throwing money away.

Something new, something different, something that paves the way for the spacecraft of the future.

The shuttle was so inovative NASA complety ditched space planes and went back to capsules lol

Leave cost efficiency to companies because governments are never good at it in the first place.

Funny later on you say you want common access to space. Make up your mind man! Cant have common access without cost efficiency. Plus this isnt KSP money still has to come from somewhere!

if we wanted cost efficiency, NASA would still be using the space shuttle which would cost us much less that the 65 million per seat that Russia charges us for Soyuz.

Again proof that NASA throws money away.

Now you bring up the point of costs to launch. Lets look at what we get for the prices listed. 300 million dollars to launch up to 29 metric tonnes AND 7 crew. To accomplish this using Soyuz (I am ignoring Proton and Falcon since this is an argument between the shuttle and Soyuz)

You lost me. Sorry but if your going to be ignorant and ignore other launch systems Im not even going to bother. Multi system is the way to go. confining yourself to one launch system is stupid at best as it results in a expensive money drain like the Shuttle. But to have two dedicated systems that working toghether can accompish the same mission as a multi purpose platform but at half the cost. Its stupid to think overwise and even more stupid to ignore it and just focus on just shuttle V soyuz.

Not to mention you could pick a landing site and not worry about having to fight off wolves when you landed.

Better to fight wolves off than be blown up because a tile has come off the fragile heatsheild. Anyway as I said NASA has ditched its spaceplane fad.

[Rokker]

Well why not just put $196 billion in a pile and burn it. *cough" 17 trillion debt *cough*

You can do that without throwing money away.

The shuttle was so inovative NASA complety ditched space planes and went back to capsules lol

Funny later on you say you want common access to space. Make up your mind man! Cant have common access without cost efficiency. Plus this isnt KSP money still has to come from somewhere!

Again proof that NASA throws money away.

You lost me. Sorry but if your going to be ignorant and ignore other launch systems Im not even going to bother. Multi system is the way to go. confining yourself to one launch system is stupid at best as it results in a expensive money drain like the Shuttle. But to have two dedicated systems that working toghether can accompish the same mission as a multi purpose platform but at half the cost. Its stupid to think overwise and even more stupid to ignore it and just focus on just shuttle V soyuz.

Better to fight wolves off than be blown up because a tile has come off the fragile heatsheild. Anyway as I said NASA has ditched its spaceplane fad.

Um, a tile didn't come off the shuttle, the shuttle survived multiple missing tiles, the wing was smashed in. that would ruin any spacecraft, having a section smashed on the heat shielding. Also the actual tile part of the shuttle is fragile, but that is a big part of the reason for the much stronger black coating, which is not as fragile. Learn your facts.

I do want common access to space, and that can be done cost effectively. The companies are the ones that can do it cost effectively, not the govt. In fact, you saying the money has to come from somewhere only improves the idea of a company doing it over a government as it is much harder to raise taxes than to make a legitimate business profit.

As for innovation being done cheaply, that is incorrect. Innovation, because it is new, will always cost more. For example, the 2010 equivalent cost of the manned Gemini launches cost $723 million. That is because space travel was much newer. All the technology was new and innovative. And NASA has not "ditched its spaceplane fad" It is simply idiotic to take a spaceplane to anywhere except LEO currently, go beyond LEO and the benefits of having the wings are lost due to the extra weight. Since NASA is planning to go beyond LEO soon, there is no reason to keep them going, especially since they went a decade beyond their planned lifespan.

Having multiple systems only increases complexity and the likelihood of failure. Using multiple launches to accomplish a mission increases the complexity far beyond what the shuttle did.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Rokker

[Guest]

The problem with the Shuttle was that it tired to be everything at once. That resulted in a spacecraft with a lot of deadweight, tight tolerances and huge price tag. Solid rocket boosters were an inherent safety hazard, too. Shuttle was incredibly complex and while it was quite capable, most of it's missions could've been accomplished by normal LVs. Russians did just that, launching their space station modules on Proton. Spacelab was about the only thing Shuttle was necessary for, even other, high-mass return missions could've been done with a normal LV and an automated, heat-shielded spacecraft. Hubble was a modified KH-11, it probably could've been launched atop a Titan IVB if it had to. Now, for a servicing mission, a Shuttle was indeed the best choice, though I suspect you could outfit a Dragon for this, too.

Soyuz, on the other hand, was built for one thing only, and does that thing really well. Barring initial, very rushed development, it worked really well and was constantly improved through the years. Russians exceed at evolutionary design, and the current Soyuz is a result of a long, long testing process. It's optimized for one thing, which ensures efficiency and safety. It's not reusable, but refurbishing a Space Shuttle could, IIRC, cost more than building a Soyuz spacecraft. It also has a survivable failure mode through all phases of flight, which is something Shuttle could not really achieve. All in all, Soyuz is safer and cheaper for a crew ferry, and other jobs are better done by specialized spacecraft.