soyuz the underappreciated workhorse?

[BlackBicycle]

Tiberion, maybe you should learn how to make your points clear with less text.

I am not reading ANOTHER wall of text. Sorry. I am sure you have a lot of interesting things stuffed in there, but... We are mere humans, and as a rule we don't read 1KB of text just to figure out someones opinion on the stuff we are discussing.

[Tiberion]

I wasn't giving an opinion, I was passing on information that people were requesting. I am sorry if I had more information than I could pass along in 150 characters, but we are not operating on twitter here, so tough cookies. If you don't want to take part, then don't.

[Skyrunner27]

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

http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/commercializingspace/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Authorization_Act_of_2010

Here you go.

[Camacha]

not because it was unreliable or costly. It was planned out.

It was planned out because it was costly and aging badly.

[Camacha]

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

You mean a spacecraft that has been improved and refined since the dawn of space flight? The modern Soyuz is not the same Soyuz as the first one.

The trick about going to space is not to do things the difficult way, the trick is to keep it as simple as possible. Only when there are no easy options you take the hard route.

[hugix]

I talked with an astronaut that flew the Soyuz to the ISS and he felt really safe. And for that the Soyuz is a great spacecraft. It can deliver people towards destinations in LEO and return them safely. And if any of the automated systems errors. You can always use an older system still installed.

But if I had to choose. I would go for the space shuttle. Its capacity to carry more then three persons into orbit saved the MIR program finances. Its ability t carry a mobile lab in its bay is worthy. And most of all, it could return cargo from space safely! Even in KSP you get more science from returning the experiments then form broadcasting the results.

If I had to go to the ISS to replace an faulty pump, I would choose for the Soyuz as a vehicle.

If I had to do science and had to bring back results. I would have gone for the shuttle With an Multi Purpose Logistics Module in them.

[koshelenkovv]

Soyuz is good piece of 70's technology. But it's very outdated and suboptimal for 2010's.

Russia nave no engineer manpower to make something really new, so only thing that is left is to make minor upgrades to existing vehicle.

Soyuz is like an unpowered lawnmower.

It's cheaper, simpler and more reliable than one with motor, but you can't mow a lot with it.

We really need new vehicle.

With modern tech it could be made bigger, with more crew and cargo return capacity, and even cheaper than Soyuz.

Edited December 28, 2013 by koshelenkovv

[koshelenkovv]

and if you asked in Russia it'd be the reverse. Except the Shuttle would be mentioned as an example of the failures of Imperialist American Capitalism.

Not really.

Space Shuttle is awesome and capable vehicle, but it's also a good example of flushing money down a drain.

It was too expensive to use for any country except U.S., and with time it became too expensive even for U.S.

[Shuttle]

I like such holywar threads but I didn't expect this thread will start to deliver so quickly:

and if you asked in Russia it'd be the reverse. Except the Shuttle would be mentioned as an example of the failures of Imperialist American Capitalism.

All my acquaintances in Russia seem to be enjoying what American Capitalism brought us: GPS, movies, music, electronics, clothes, planes, etc. I haven't met anyone who still thinks in terms of capitalists and communists. Also, russians (at least the ones I talked to) like to critisize our country! You will be surprised but Europe and America are VERY often treated as much better places for living than Russia, especially among younger people.

Russia is way more socially connected to the "global village" than for example China. Russian people are heavily influenced by Western media. Knowing about the existence of space shuttles is common knowledge, it's a pop-culture thing.

Knowing about Soyuz, not really. I doubt many Russians would give you a blank stare if you asked about it, like a typical American would, but I find hard to believe they would not know what a space shuttle is.

Exactly. However, I doubt anyone in Russia except for geeks knows what Energia and Polus is. Not to mention Almaz, Zond, Molniya, etc.

As of Russia building the shuttle-like craft... well, I researched the topic extensively (watching interviews with the participants of the project, watching conversations with russian cosmonauts on the topic, and one personal conversation with Mr. Kubasov). My general conclusion is that Buran was a copycat for no reason. Or maybe there was a reason: to "show them we can do it too". Shame, really.

Well, as far as I understand Soviet leaders treated Shuttle as a threat to Soviet Union so they wanted to make sure they have a similar weapon to counter it.

Anyway, we're ignoring the actual white elephant in the room - Buran. The Soviets clearly liked the system enough to almost wholly replicate it and the changes they did make solved very few of the actual issues the NASA program had. Not safer or significantly cheaper. They were even spending money developing a reusable Energia.

So if the Russians really were laughing at the "Imperialists" wasteful program, I'm sure they were really amused by their own government's folly. Well, in private anyway.

From what I've read, soviets didn't like the system, at least Glushko. He actually thought shuttle was a very bad idea (as a cheap space truck). What about "not safer", Buran completed one unmanned spaceflight so I guess it would be possible to send it to ISS unmanned at least for cargo missions. And don't forget it had ejection seats for two pilots. However, Buran lost a piece of its heat protection in orbit, I even had a video bookmarked somewhere.

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.

If the richest country in the world has to shut down shuttle because it was too expensive then it must be a very bad every-day space truck.

[check]

Not really.

Space Shuttle is awesome and capable vehicle, but it's also a good example of flushing money down a drain.

It was too expensive to use for any country except U.S., and with time it became too expensive even for U.S.

Yeah, the major problem with the Space Shuttle was that it was much too capable for what it ended up being used for. It could have completed the vast majority of its missions if it was a smaller, leaner, cheaper and safer craft.

[Nibb31]

Tiberion, maybe you should learn how to make your points clear with less text.

I am not reading ANOTHER wall of text. Sorry. I am sure you have a lot of interesting things stuffed in there, but... We are mere humans, and as a rule we don't read 1KB of text just to figure out someones opinion on the stuff we are discussing.

What an ignorant thing to say. If people were that limited, then we never could have done any of those great things. Becoming a scientist or an engineer requires reading books (lots of them, and with lots of pages!), not just relying on tweets and YouTube videos.

You've got a lot of nerve to go from "I didn't know the fundamental thing about the stuff I've been discussin" in one post to "please look up the details for me" in another post, and then "OMG wall of text" in the last one when someone actually bothers writing up a very good summary to educate you.

[Albert VDS]

The Space Shuttle doesn't look anything like your standard rocket setup and thus is more recognizable no matter how it's portrayed.

You can put it's silhouette on any background and people will know what it is.

Soyuz looks like any other rocket to the average person, so it's not as recognizable.

Is the Soyuz under appreciated? I think it is, but only because the average person doesn't care about space flight.

Is the Soyuz over appreciate by space nuts? Again, I think it is. It's like a reliable old and small car. It can take you places, but that's all it can do.

Is the Soyuz safer than the Space Shuttle? If either blow up on the launch pad, then at least the Soyuz would have a escape tower.

Both have zero change of surviving when something fails during reentry.

There is no comparing the 2 other than that.

Counting casualties in your "is it safer" calculations is like concluding that your dingy is safer than the Titanic.

[Brethern]

Soyuz is good piece of 70's technology. But it's very outdated and suboptimal for 2010's.

Russia nave no engineer manpower to make something really new, so only thing that is left is to make minor upgrades to existing vehicle.

Soyuz is like an unpowered lawnmower.

It's cheaper, simpler and more reliable than one with motor, but you can't mow a lot with it.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41YQ80T1RVL._SX300_.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41KBV57FX8L.jpg

We really need new vehicle.

With modern tech it could be made bigger, with more crew and cargo return capacity, and even cheaper than Soyuz.

Sort of what microsoft did with windows 8?

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Amram]

Tiberion, maybe you should learn how to make your points clear with less text.

I am not reading ANOTHER wall of text. Sorry. I am sure you have a lot of interesting things stuffed in there, but... We are mere humans, and as a rule we don't read 1KB of text just to figure out someones opinion on the stuff we are discussing.

I disagree.

Appreciation of an informative post is something you are sorely lacking. If you haven't the attention span, that's your problem, but don't go harping on Tiberion and citing it as a flaw suggesting that his points aren't clear enough. Having read it, He's not wasting words, literally every line is packed with info, which many of us did not have before.

This isn't twitter, texting, nor facebook, and that is no wall of text. That actually borders on short given the scope it tries to cover. I'm somewhat disappointed that anyone would call that far too large to be worth their time. It took me barely a minute to read.

You want a wall of text, THIS is a wall of text, by yours truly, and all of it on topic and no longer than it needed to be. Despite its size, I was thanked for the effort, because we do not all as a rule fear 1kb of text. Shame you couldn't be bothered to show a similar courtesy.

Tiberion, don't shorten them, make'em longer, it was a good informative post. I'd have read it if it were 20 pages as long as the info kept coming.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Amram
fixed a typo

[Dunbaratu]

Just throwing in another 2 m/s from my memory... note, the costs are from the end of the cold war era - just when the debate of rockets/return capsules versus a reusable spaceplane was at its hottest:

Cost of launching 1 kg into low Earth orbit:

Shuttle: $120

Soyuz: $40

That shows an amazing ignorance of the rocketry equation. You'd get the same sort of disparity for comparing ANY two launch vehicles, one of which is capable of hauling far more tonnage into space than the other is. When a vessel has a smaller payload, it costs less per kilogram of that payload.

When the shuttle was used to truck massive payloads, it was as efficient as any disposable rocket THAT tried doing the same job. The inefficiency and expense came from the fact that it was often used well below its capacity and used just to truck people and not use its large payload capacity.

An 18-wheel truck rig is an efficient way to haul heavy cargo across town. But when someone tries using it to commute a few passengers to work and back, and leaves the cargo space in the back empty, it's not being used correctly and a different vehicle should be used for that sort of commute.

Soyuz is designed for pure passenger missions. Light and small. It's like a compact car compared to the massive truck that is the Space Shuttle. Far better for commuting, but utterly incapable of hauling large cargo.

What made the Shuttle inefficient was that it was the only thing NASA had so it used it for everything even things it was not made for. Had it had two types of vehicle, one large and one small, and only used the Shuttle for the large cargoes it was optimized for, it would have been fine.

[Albert VDS]

Sort of what microsoft did with windows 8?

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

That saying means if something works then you shouldn't change it.

It doesn't deny progression and/or shouldn't.

You can't expect progress to occur if you keep using old technology.

It's like sticking with the horse and wagon in favor of cars.

[check]

Had it had two types of vehicle, one large and one small, and only used the Shuttle for the large cargoes it was optimized for, it would have been fine.

That would have been much better, but still not optimal. The Shuttle, in the end, didn't need a 2000 km cross-range capability. And if it were used for station building soon after it entered service, it also wouldn't have needed the ability to return a 14 ton payload back to Earth (The Space Lab missions wouldn't have been necessary with a station).

[jfx]

Heh, what am I weeping about? Something a random person typed on Wikipedia?

You see them small numbers on the wikipedier? Is citations. Good stuff you should try them sometime.

Much information
                                               many serious.
                     very extensive

wow

[Simon Ross]

Yes, Soyuz is unappreciated. While Apollo stole the thunder, Soyuz has quietly been putting people into orbit for nearly 50 years.

It's not dramatic like Apollo was, it's not a high tech space plane like Shuttle was.

However..... Pretty hard to be critical of a design that hasn't really needed to be changed for nearly half a century and still does the job it was designed for.

Sometimes, keeping things simple really is the best way

[koshelenkovv]

Just throwing in another 2 m/s from my memory... note, the costs are from the end of the cold war era - just when the debate of rockets/return capsules versus a reusable spaceplane was at its hottest:

Cost of launching 1 kg into low Earth orbit:

Shuttle: $120

Soyuz: $40

WUT?

Costs never have been so low, even in 70's.

[Brethern]

That saying means if something works then you shouldn't change it.

It doesn't deny progression and/or shouldn't.

You can't expect progress to occur if you keep using old technology.

It's like sticking with the horse and wagon in favor of cars.

And the soyuz works. It does what it needs to do and does it well.

Considering the fact that people are still using the horse and wagon today that speaks in volumes for how reliable it is.

[PakledHostage]

Appreciation of an informative post is something you are sorely lacking. If you haven't the attention span, that's your problem, but don't go harping on Tiberion and citing it as a flaw suggesting that his points aren't clear enough. Having read it, He's not wasting words, literally every line is packed with info, which many of us did not have before.

I agree. The main thing that has kept me active on these forums for as long as I have been is the level of knowledge of so many members and their willingness to share. At times, a juvenile mentality reminiscent of a highschool schoolyard creeps in, but then a bunch of posts from people like Tiberion, Kryten or K^2 (among others) restore my faith.

BlackBicycle, crazyewok, etc, please take notice: These guys you are arguing with have earned the respect of a lot of readers on this forum. Going at them in much the same way that a socially awkward teenager might isn't going to make the rest of us pay attention to your opinions.

[crazyewok]

Both have zero change of surviving when something fails during reentry.

Slightly wrong on that.

The soyuz has had a few big issues with rentry when the engine module failed to detached and the soyuz has had to come in with it still on and in one case round the wrong way and in both cases the soyuz still got the cosmanaught back alive, albit with some bumps and brusies. So it pretty damed tough.

Edited December 28, 2013 by crazyewok

[Albert VDS]

And the soyuz works. It does what it needs to do and does it well.

Considering the fact that people are still using the horse and wagon today that speaks in volumes for how reliable it is.

And people still use wooden sailboats. I doubt that you go to work/school by horse and wagon.

Slightly wrong on that.

The soyuz has had a few big issues with rentry when the engine module failed to detached and the soyuz has had to come in with it still on and in one case round the wrong way and in both cases the soyuz still got the cosmanaught back alive, albit with some bumps and brusies. So it pretty damed tough.

We all know that they survived by luck and not due how though it is. It would share the same fate as the Shuttle if it had a damaged heatshield.

[crazyewok]

We all know that they survived by luck and not due how though it is. It would share the same fate as the Shuttle if it had a damaged heatshield.

I dont beleive in luck. Yes it could have ended in disaster but it didn't, the ship pulled through and it shows that its a tough little SOB.