soyuz the underappreciated workhorse?

[Nibb31]

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.

Sure, but Soyuz has very little chance of ever damaging its heatshield, because it's only exposed in the last minutes before reentry.

The Shuttle's exposed heatshield and large surface area was its main vulnerability and the side-mounted configuration can be considered a fundamental flaw. It had several near burn-throughs with damaged tiles until Columbia finally pushed the limits too far.

The side-mount configuration was chosen because the purpose of the Shuttle was to bring back the engines and because an inline configuration wouldn't have fit inside the VAB. A smaller, inline shuttle like Hermes or DreamChaser, for crew only or smaller cargo, would have avoided those problems. However, it still wouldn't have brought back its main engines, and there is very little point in actually adding wings, hydraulics and landing gear just to reuse the crew compartment.

So yeah, it's the whole "wings in space" idea that is wrong. For ferrying crew up and down, a capsule designed for cost and safety constraints is just vastly superior.

[Psycix]

The Soyuz was great. Reliable and affordable proven over a large amount of flights.

But it WAS great. Not anymore.

Cost to LEO in $/kg

Delta IV Heavy

18,913 $/kg

Space shuttle

13,494 $/kg

Saturn V

9,915 $/kg

Soyuz

6,940 $/kg

Falcon 9

4,297 $/kg

Falcon Heavy

2,547 $/kg

Reusable Falcon rockets:

At least 50%, and up to an order of magnitude reduction in cost."

250 - 1250 $/kg

Any questions?

Sources:

http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf (2002 paper, I adjusted for inflation using: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=5%2C357&year1=2002&year2=2013)

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

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

http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

Calculations:

Space shuttle: $10,416 in 2002 dollars adjused for inflation to 2013 dollars

Soyuz: $5,357 in 2002 dollars adjused for inflation to 2013 dollars

Delta IV Heavy: Calculated from: $435 million / 23 metric tons

Falcon 9: Calculated from: 56.5M / 13150 kg

Falcon Heavy: Calculated from: 135M / 53000 kg

[Shuttle]

Any questions?

http://b-i.forbesimg.com/steveschaefer/files/2013/06/300x2002.jpg

If Shuttle is that cheap and reliable, why did NASA stop using it? Great post, by the way!

Edited December 28, 2013 by Shuttle

[koshelenkovv]

The Soyuz was great. Reliable and affordable proven over a large amount of flights.

But it WAS great. Not anymore.

Cost to LEO in $/kg

Delta IV Heavy 18,913 $/kg

Space shuttle 13,494 $/kg

Saturn V 9,915 $/kg

Soyuz 6,940 $/kg

Please, do not forget that Soyuz is the rocket AND spaceship.

One can send satellite in space on top of a Soyuz rocket. And one can send Soyuz manned vehicle on top of a Soyuz rocket.

So, 6,940 $/kg is a cost of launching satellite or crew?

Falcon 9 4,297 $/kg

It's not man-rated. And there is no crewed dragon yet.

Thread is about manned vehicle, that's why we do not compare Ariane and Proton here.

Falcon Heavy 2,547 $/kg

Falcon Heavy do not exists.

Reusable Falcon rockets: At least 50%, and up to an order of magnitude reduction in cost." 250 - 1250 $/kg

They do not exist either.

Edited December 28, 2013 by koshelenkovv

[Nibb31]

The Soyuz was great. Reliable and affordable proven over a large amount of flights.

You're confusing Soyuz the launcher and Soyuz the spacecraft.

The Soyuz launcher is still competitive on the commercial launch market, which is why ESA invested in a Soyuz launch facility in Kourou and it is part of the Arianespace commercial lineup:

http://www.arianespace.com/launch-services/launch-services-overview.asp

[Psycix]

If Shuttle is that cheap and reliable, why did NASA stop using it? Great post, by the way!

Why did you conclude it was cheap and reliable?

Even the Soyuz is about twice as cheap, and has displayed more successful flights with less failures.

However, the Space Shuttle had one unique capability: The ability to bring large cargo back to earth in the cargohold.

So, 6,940 $/kg is a cost of launching satellite or crew?

That's just the launch vehicle, so excluding crew capsule.

I think you are too pessimistic (although you may say realistic) about SpaceX's future endeavours.

-The dragon capsule has achieved several milestones in NASA's Commercial Crew Development Program.

-The Falcon Heavy is for the most part identical to the Falcon 9 hardware, which exists and has been proven.

-The Falcon Heavy has three upcoming missions on the manifest. It'd be a bit odd to sell a rocket they can't build.

-All of the hurdles for reusability have been demonstrated to be passed. Upper atmosphere retroburn and reentry has been successfully executed on the CASSIOPE flight and landing on the surface has been demonstrated with grasshopper. They will try to execute the complete maneuver on next ISS resupply mission in early 2014.

You're confusing Soyuz the launcher and Soyuz the spacecraft.

The Soyuz launcher is still competitive on the commercial launch market, which is why ESA invested in a Soyuz launch facility in Kourou and it is part of the Arianespace commercial lineup:

http://www.arianespace.com/launch-services/launch-services-overview.asp

I wrote my post mainly because there was talk about launch vehicles in the thread. It indeed does not apply to the Soyuz spacecraft.

However, the Soyuz spacecraft is old. Even though improved and updated over the years, sometimes it is best to start over from scratch, with 21st century materials and construction techniques. This is the main reason for the Falcon's success, and if SpaceX manages to apply this reputation to the Dragon spacecraft the Soyuz can retire.

Aside from Dragon there are more next-gen crew vehicles in development, like Boeings CST-100 and perhaps the SLS.

In overall design, the Soyuz has an orbital module AND a descent module, instead of just having one capsule. (+ service module)

Next-gen capsules which do not have that extra module will be lighter, carry more crew and cargo, while being cheaper and more reliable.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Psycix

[Firov]

Why did you conclude it was cheap and reliable?

Even the Soyuz is about twice as cheap, and has displayed more successful flights with less failures.

The second part of your statement isn't technically true. Since the first manned flight of the Soyuz spacecraft, it has completed 120 manned flights over the course of 46 years, 118 if you don't consider missions that are still ongoing (docked with the ISS). It has suffered 2 fatal accidents, resulting in the loss of all crew, as well as a number of more minor accidents that have resulted in serious injuries.

The Space Shuttle has been used in 135 manned flights, over the course of 32 years, obviously a shorter period of time. It too has suffered 2 fatal accidents, resulting in the loss of all crew. It also experienced a few minor failures (SSME failure during ascent, fuel cell failure in orbit, etc), though due to sufficient redundancy these didn't cause any injuries. That said, a few of these failures did result in the mission being cut short.

Anyway, I do think it's going to be interesting to see what SpaceX can do with their Dragon spacecraft. It could potentially be the Soyuz killer, since it has a larger crew capacity and is potentially much cheaper. Plus, it has the ability to return cargo from orbit, which is a capability that we currently lack with retirement of the shuttles.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Firov

[koshelenkovv]

I think you are too pessimistic (although you may say realistic) about SpaceX's future endeavours.

I hope sincerely that SpaceX will manage to build reusable rocket and manned vehicle.

Bit it's daunting task and no one solved it before, even with much more funding.

(maybe for that very reason - government agencies have much more funding, so less stimuli to make anything in cost-effective way)

So I think that it's too early to speak about costs of reusable rockets before these rockets really flew.

I wrote my post mainly because there was talk about launch vehicles in the thread. It indeed does not apply to the Soyuz spacecraft.

However, the Soyuz spacecraft is old. Even though improved and updated over the years, sometimes it is best to start over from scratch, with 21st century materials and construction techniques.

And I said that Russia have no engineer manpower to develop totally new vehicle, so they make small upgrades to existing ones.

Yes, it would be good to develop a new spaceship - larger, better and cheaper than outdated Soyuz, and it's definitely possible with modern tech.

But what are stimuli for developing it? ISS will be decommissioned in several years, and for which sake one will need manned LEO vehicle?

There is only way - greatly reducing launch prices could drive customers to make simpler and cheaper satellites (if it will fail, just launch new one), increased demand could lead to advent of new bus manufacturers, who will offer cheaper buses and integration services, thanks to concurrency, then increased satellite amount could lead to advent of companies offering cheaper ground operations and support, and this all, repeating in several circles could lead to great reduction of satellite manufacturing, launch, support and associated costs.

And this could somehow lead to demand of people getting in space.

Looks like very questionable scenario? It is!

Anyway, I wish SpaceX luck. But comparing launch prices on hypothetical vehicles is like count one's chickens before they are hatched.

Edited December 28, 2013 by koshelenkovv

[Shuttle]

I think it is not worth creating a new thread but Mother Russia has just launched Soyuz 2.1v with NK-33 on the first stage!

http://www.1tv.ru/news/techno/249348

[Spartwo]

SpaceX seem to be getting there though.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Spartwo

[koshelenkovv]

I think it is not worth creating a new thread but Mother Russia has just launched Soyuz 2.1v with NK-33 on the first stage!

http://www.1tv.ru/news/techno/249348

http://i.imgur.com/EBAlDrN.jpg

It's 'Soyuz light' without side boosters and with more powerful and effective 1st stage engine from old warehouses.

There is about 20 of NK-33 engines left. Russia can not revive their production and going to use RD-193 which it will develop by 2014.

Anyway, it can not launch people to space.

Edited December 28, 2013 by koshelenkovv

[Alchemist]

Didn't soyuz get a new launcher recently? EDIT:Yep it did>above<

Note that it is lighter (less than half the payload capacity) version of the rocket. It was never meant to be a launcher for the spacecraft.

However they are going to install that NK-33A on the second stage of the 3 stage configuration, too, giving it couple more tons of payload capacity - that could increase payload of the spacecraft, too.

[Alchemist]

There is about 20 of NK-33 engines left. Russia can not revive their production.

Actually they are reviving it

kuznetsov-motors.ru

[Tiberion]

And I said that Russia have no engineer manpower to develop totally new vehicle, so they make small upgrades to existing ones.

Yes, it would be good to develop a new spaceship - larger, better and cheaper than outdated Soyuz, and it's definitely possible with modern tech

Boy, I bet the guys working on the PPTS program making the PTK NP and Z variants would be surprised about that. Not sure that the Z version is still happening, but the NP is definitely seeing work done throughout 2013.

[koshelenkovv]

Boy, I bet the guys working on the PPTS program making the PTK NP and Z variants would be surprised about that. Not sure that the Z version is still happening, but the NP is definitely seeing work done throughout 2013.

Where is Kliper or MAKS?

'Nauka' ISS module was intended to be delivered in 2007. Still not delivered. Month ago it was returned for rework. Again.

Where is Rus-M rocket? Canceled. Revived. Canceled again.

Angara launch vehicle is in development since 1992. Still not flown.

Same story with PTK: they postponed first launch to 2018.

There is proverb: two 'later' constitute one 'never'.

And which rocket they intend to use for launching it? 20-yo still unflown Angara?

As always, money allocated to it will end up in someone's pockets and nothing will be delivered but mockups. A lot of them.

And the guys is not working. They just relaying money in their pockets.

Those laughable-paid engineers (not heads and directors!), who really could develop it, all retired or changed occupation or immigrated long ago.

Edited December 28, 2013 by koshelenkovv

[Tiberion]

Well, it may comfort you some to know you aren't alone in those issues. There's a long string of projects by NASA or the air force that never came to fruition, and they have been actively promoting Science, Tech, and Math subjects in school to replenish the number of people going into space-related fields.

I think its partly just the nature of how these expensive projects work now. I think both of our industries could use some reform. I hope we're seeing that in the US with the trend towards programs like Commercial Cargo and Crew where things must be a schedule and other goals, or the money doesn't come.

[koshelenkovv]

Actually they are reviving it

kuznetsov-motors.ru

Oh, really, my fault.

They will build engines for Aerojet.

[iDan122]

I always thought of the Soyuz as a lame, small space pod which was expendable. After seeing Gravity and finding out more about it, I actually thought of it as quite a nice craft with a hab module and good reliability unlike the shuttle.

[mdatspace]

I always thought of the Soyuz as a lame, small space pod which was expendable. After seeing Gravity and finding out more about it, I actually thought of it as quite a nice craft with a hab module and good reliability unlike the shuttle.

The shuttle was reliable, considering it completed most of its flights without significant problems.

[Kulebron]

Reusable Falcon rockets:

At least 50%, and up to an order of magnitude reduction in cost."

250 - 1250 $/kg

Any questions?

http://b-i.forbesimg.com/steveschaefer/files/2013/06/300x2002.jpg

Really very much speculative figure, and it's not been tested in full operational mode yet. Rocket engines are usually built only to work several minutes. Even if Merlins are heavier and more reliable, they'll probably need full re-check and re-assembly.

[ZetaX]

@ SFJackBauer:

Sorry for the long response time, the forum software failed to send my first version, which made me write everything again.

Note that the comment on lifes saved is purely to give other hypothetical reasons of similiar basis than the one critizied by it. I think money is well spent on research in a lot of cases, even if that research has no obvious goal and/or might never give anything useful in return. Science often does not work in this directed way, but more like evolution. A lot of things that were thought to be useless or be done for the fun of it turned out to be important in the long run, and there is no obvious reason why this trend should not continue.

This is also half of my answer to your question on the System/360 (of which I only know a little): in hindsight, it was probably good by IBM to go that way as it should have helped towards modern computers (but one could also make up a scenario were waiting ten more years might cause even better computers today), but it was in no way clear that this would come out of it, nor do I find that necessary to legitimate it. You can justify it if that was expected to go this way beforehand, that's all.

And on the exact question itself, I am indeed lacking enough information whether it was expected to be worth the investment (but, being capitalistic driven, likely was). There is nonetheless some difference to the case of the shuttle I think: the shuttle was developed (i.e. the science by the project itself, especially the research on the semi-reusable starting and airplane-like landing, was already done) and it was then very expensive to launch, so creating cheaper replacement afterwards might have been a better choice and if executed correctly maybe had no disadvantages. It's understansable that justifying a complete restart to congress and public would be hard, but assuming the above would still been the correct choice, making it a sunken-cost-fallacy.

Again, the LDEF and the Spacelab weighed a bit more than a couple of kilograms.

True, but how much of that mass was really needed¿ You could bring back the data and samples only, and burn the rest by deorbiting it. If you spend 500 million less each mission, which is less than half of the shuttles launch costs, on bringing the lab into orbit, then the cost of the lab itself might not be that relevant anymore.

As for the disrespectful comments, don't you think that:

So still would rather ride in the soyuz, better to return with broken bones than to return as vaporised molecules.

Is disrespectful for those who have lost their lives both on Soyuz and the Shuttle program? We are talking about people here.

I don't find that disrespectful but see it as a comment that is true, despite it's snarkyness. If I had to choose how to get back to earth safely and my options are a broken leg with probability of 50% or death with a probability of 5%, I would gladly choose the former. Such decisions might seem disrespectful towards humans if mentioned explicitely, but they happen a lot in real life, be them often more subtle or not. There are many cases that turn down to "do we save 100 or 1000 people¿", or any other version of the trolley problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). For example, we put more money into cancer research than e.g. into HIV or Ebola, as the former is the greater problem in the countries most of us first worlders live in.

[Meta]

In reply to the original post:

Almost everyone I know has heard/knows a good amount about Soyuz. We've learned about it in Social Studies almost every year of Middle and High School.. Maybe it's where I live, but what you said seems to be inaccurate.

[Kulebron]

I wonder how many guys here are defending Space Shuttle at any cost. If you read Richard Feynman's comments on the program and his memoirs, and the picture becomes clear: NASA had to prove it's own worthness by launching Shuttles at any cost. Nobody in the organization can or could criticize in public the organization, nor the Shuttle project.

I wonder why Americans have trouble with ISS missions flying Soyuz, and having soviet engines on Atlas and Antares rockets. Your space industry has many independent companies, and there are enough competitors to keep the industry sane and avoid becoming a self-referencing group.

Many claim it's unfair to compare ships, but if we considr a particular mission profile, they have to be compared, to choose the best one.

If we compare safety, the record is about the same, although for Soyuz the crew loss were in its early stage, while Shuttle had same problems through all its service life. Someone mentioned the pyrobolts issue that led to ballistic reentries and separation of service module in the atmosphere. For the sake of intellectual honesty I have to say this may lead to fatal accident, and has to be addressed. Shuttles were safer in this sense because they did not need any mechanical operations before landing. As far as other stages of flight are concerned, Soyuz is safer than Shuttle was.

1. Shuttle with its fragile side-by-side configuration is very sensitive to weather, and has very narrow launch windows. Before launch, a number of balloon probes and sound rockets are launched. Soyuz rocket and spacecraft are much sturdier and can launch in snowfall and turbulence.

2. Soyuz has escape system for pad or ascent incidents. Incidents similar to Challenger disaster, when the rocket was destabilized and disintegrated by dynamic pressure, are not fatal for Soyuz crew.

3. Upon landing, malfunctioning Soyuz spacecraft can still do a bumpy ballistic reentry and land safely. Shuttle could not land in case of damage or losing attitude control, and its heatshield, being exposed at all stages, is more vulnerable. The Soyuz parachutes work automatically and independently and are duplicated.

As for the economy of launches, the cost per kilogram shows a lot. Although, being state-financed, the industry makes me concerned, if really can sustain itself in current form, but that has little to do with the spacecraft design.

[Simon Ross]

I wonder how many guys here are defending Space Shuttle at any cost. If you read Richard Feynman's comments on the program and his memoirs, and the picture becomes clear: NASA had to prove it's own worthness by launching Shuttles at any cost. Nobody in the organization can or could criticize in public the organization, nor the Shuttle project.

I wonder why Americans have trouble with ISS missions flying Soyuz, and having soviet engines on Atlas and Antares rockets. Your space industry has many independent companies, and there are enough competitors to keep the industry sane and avoid becoming a self-referencing group.

Many claim it's unfair to compare ships, but if we considr a particular mission profile, they have to be compared, to choose the best one.

If we compare safety, the record is about the same, although for Soyuz the crew loss were in its early stage, while Shuttle had same problems through all its service life. Someone mentioned the pyrobolts issue that led to ballistic reentries and separation of service module in the atmosphere. For the sake of intellectual honesty I have to say this may lead to fatal accident, and has to be addressed. Shuttles were safer in this sense because they did not need any mechanical operations before landing. As far as other stages of flight are concerned, Soyuz is safer than Shuttle was.

1. Shuttle with its fragile side-by-side configuration is very sensitive to weather, and has very narrow launch windows. Before launch, a number of balloon probes and sound rockets are launched. Soyuz rocket and spacecraft are much sturdier and can launch in snowfall and turbulence.

2. Soyuz has escape system for pad or ascent incidents. Incidents similar to Challenger disaster, when the rocket was destabilized and disintegrated by dynamic pressure, are not fatal for Soyuz crew.

3. Upon landing, malfunctioning Soyuz spacecraft can still do a bumpy ballistic reentry and land safely. Shuttle could not land in case of damage or losing attitude control, and its heatshield, being exposed at all stages, is more vulnerable. The Soyuz parachutes work automatically and independently and are duplicated.

As for the economy of launches, the cost per kilogram shows a lot. Although, being state-financed, the industry makes me concerned, if really can sustain itself in current form, but that has little to do with the spacecraft design.

Unfortunately it's the same reality denial that NASA operated during the Shuttle era

Fact.... All the Soyuz fatalities occurred during the very early flights, since then the Soyuz has proved itself to be a robust, safe system to get a crew to LEO

Fact.... The Shuttle fatalities occurred when the system was pretty much a mature design

The Shuttle was fundamentally flawed, too complex, too fragile and no way for the crew to survive if anything went wrong

It remains today probably the most remarkable single piece of engineering we have ever built, but it was always one step away from a tragedy

[Alchemist]

Interesting note about safety: for Buran there was proposed using Soyuz to extract crew if the orbiter is compromised (then attempt automated landing, of course). Shuttle did had "keep another Shuttle ready" rule, but rescuing the crew would mean accepting the loss of the orbiter.

That means in case of Columbia scenario (heatshield damage of unclear magnitude) Buran had safe way out, while Shuttle had only risk the crew or lose the craft options.

Also, there is the rule "failure of a single system should not endanger the mission, failures of two separate systems must not endanger the crew". Of course, not always it's 100% possible, but it's a good rule of spacecraft design. Not so much possible for something as overengineered as a reusable spaceplane...