soyuz the underappreciated workhorse?

[Skyrunner27]

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...

Most shuttle rescue plans involve docking with the ISS and wait for the shuttle while fitting it with a device that would allow for autonomous control of the orbiter in atmosphere. The HST repair would have resulted in the loss of the orbiter due to high inclinations.

[iDan122]

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

Umm no its was not, it killed some 15 people in 35 years, the Soyuz killed less than 7 in some 45 years and counting.

Besides, the Soyuz descent capsule can keep itself pointed the right way at reentry because the airflow will keep it steady and its heatshield is whole unlike that of the shuttle.

[Firov]

Umm no its was not, it killed some 15 people in 35 years, the Soyuz killed less than 7 in some 45 years and counting.

Besides, the Soyuz descent capsule can keep itself pointed the right way at reentry because the airflow will keep it steady and its heatshield is whole unlike that of the shuttle.

You do realize, of course, that both craft had exactly 2 fatal accidents, right? Furthermore, the shuttle has actually flown more times than Soyuz over that "35 year" period. The only reason so many astronauts died in Shuttle accidents is because it has a crew size that's more than 2 times the size of a Soyuz crew. This has been covered already in this thread, but I'm guessing you didn't read that far back. That's akin to saying that 747's are vastly less reliable than single engine Cessna 172's because they've killed more people, even though there are considerably more Cessna crashes per flight hour.

Furthermore, as has also been pointed out, the Challenger disaster wasn't so much a design flaw with the shuttle as it was a serious flaw with NASA's management. The temperature was extremely cold that day and the engineers responsible for designing and constructing the SRBs warned NASA management that the temperature was well outside the design specs for the SRBs and that they should postpone the launch until a warmer day. NASA management acknowledged these warnings and promptly launched anyway, which resulted in the overly brittle o-rings failing during ascent, as the engineers cautioned. Soyuz would likely fail as well if it was launched well outside of it's design specifications against the warnings of it's design engineers.

So yes. Considering what the Shuttle was, it's actually incredibly reliable.

Also, one other point that's been brought up, the Shuttle did have the ability to land itself since STS-1, at least in theory. This ability was never flight tested since they considered it too risky. The only thing the automated systems couldn't do was lower the landing gear, and this ability was added after the Columbia disaster.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Firov

[Kulebron]

So yes. Considering what the Shuttle was, it's actually incredibly reliable.

You seem to be doing the same conclusion that led NASA to launch Challenger to the disaster. Feynman described it very well: what he was told by NASA managers was "since it did not crash it's reliable". He insisted on many things that were dangerous like playing with fire. Just compare with Soyuz: much narrower wind/icing conditions envelope for launch, no escape system, exposed heatshield, etc.

How do you comment this?

[Firov]

You seem to be doing the same conclusion that led NASA to launch Challenger to the disaster. Feynman described it very well: what he was told by NASA managers was "since it did not crash it's reliable". He insisted on many things that were dangerous like playing with fire. Just compare with Soyuz: much narrower wind/icing conditions envelope for launch, no escape system, exposed heatshield, etc.

How do you comment this?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. The shuttle was designed around specific conditions for launch. Yes. That kind of thing included wind speed and temperature conditions. This reinforces my point, actually.

If the engineers responsible for designing something tell you not to launch because the conditions are outside of original design specifications and that it would be extremely dangerous to do so, then you don't launch. Simple. Challenger was purely a failure by NASA's management, and not indicative of any particular flaw of the shuttle itself.

Had NASA management listened to the engineers who designed the SRBs rather than disregarding all of their warnings, it's very likely that Challenger would be hanging from the ceiling in some museum right now.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Firov

[Brethern]

I'm not sure what you're asking here. The shuttle was designed around specific conditions for launch. Yes. That kind of thing included wind speed and temperature conditions. This reinforces my point, actually.

If the engineers responsible for designing something tell you not to launch because the conditions are outside of original design specifications and that it would be extremely dangerous to do so, then you don't launch. Simple. Challenger was purely a failure by NASA's management, and not indicative of any particular flaw of the shuttle itself.

Had NASA management listened to the engineers who designed the SRBs rather than disregarding all of their warnings, it's very likely that Challenger would be hanging from the ceiling in some museum right now.

Yet it's not,

both shuttle accidents happened due to management error. You'd think they'd learn to trust the engineers that when they say there's a problem there's a problem.

And considering the fact that soyuz never had to have space walks to fix heat shield's speaks for which one is safer.

[Kryten]

And considering the fact that soyuz never had to have space walks to fix heat shield's speaks for which one is safer.

Considering the fact the shuttle has never spent a good part of it's re-entry going backwards, leaving the crew unable to reach the controls while being a few seconds from fiery death, it's obvious which one is safer. You could make that kind of statement about any incident with either vehicle.

[Brethern]

Considering the fact the shuttle has never spent a good part of it's re-entry going backwards, leaving the crew unable to reach the controls while being a few seconds from fiery death, it's obvious which one is safer. You could make that kind of statement about any incident with either vehicle.

Considering the fact that the soyuz righted itself I'd say that's a moot point.

[Kryten]

It 'righted itself' solely due to some straps burning through at the right moment. If they'd held on a little longer, the cosmonaut would've cooked.

[Brethern]

It 'righted itself' solely due to some straps burning through at the right moment. If they'd held on a little longer, the cosmonaut would've cooked.

Would the space shuttle have survived an incorrect entry into the atmosphere?

Out of all the soyuz craft to enter the atmosphere wrong they all made it back with minimal injuries.

[Firov]

And considering the fact that soyuz never had to have space walks to fix heat shield's speaks for which one is safer.

And the fact that the Shuttle could carry up to 10 astronauts, served as an orbital science station, deployed satellites, serviced satellites, and built the ISS speaks to for which one is more flexible.

I don't think anyone would say that the Space Shuttle is "safer" than Soyuz, however, it's an apples to oranges comparison, since the Space Shuttle is so much more than a simple crew ferry which is what everyone seems to be forgetting. As I've previously pointed out, the Shuttle had a far more complex series of design requirements than the Soyuz, which resulted in a vastly more complex craft. Now in any engineering endeavor adding complexity is going to reduce reliability. It's a simple fact. Despite that complexity and flexibility though the Shuttle was remarkably reliable.

I just wish people would recognize the difference in scope when "comparing" the two vehicles. It's a shame the Soviet's never really used Buran. Then we could at least have a somewhat meaningful comparison discussion rather than a seemingly never ending comparison of apples to oranges.

both shuttle accidents happened due to management error.

Not quite. Yes, there was some concern that Columbia might have been damaged by a foam strike once it was in orbit, but by that point it was already too late to abort the launch (obviously). Sure, they might have sent up a rescue shuttle, but either way, unless that rescue shuttle was carrying EVA gear and orbital repair materials then the Columbia orbiter was doomed the instant that foam hit the wing. So while Challenger could have been averted simply by listening to the design engineers (or following the design specs) and aborting the launch, there was no quick fix for Columbia. As such, I wouldn't really consider Columbia a failure by NASA management as Challenger was.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Firov

[maccollo]

If the engineers responsible for designing something tell you not to launch because the conditions are outside of original design specifications and that it would be extremely dangerous to do so, then you don't launch. Simple. Challenger was purely a failure by NASA's management, and not indicative of any particular flaw of the shuttle itself.

Narrower margins for safe operations means less safe. Lack of abort systems means less safe, and is a design flaw.

You wouldn't say there's nothing wrong in a car that lacks crumple zones and seat belts.

Considering the fact the shuttle has never spent a good part of it's re-entry going backwards, leaving the crew unable to reach the controls while being a few seconds from fiery death

Columbia?

[Firov]

Narrower margins for safe operations means less safe. Lack of abort systems means less safe, and is a design flaw.

You wouldn't say there's nothing wrong in a car that lacks crumple zones and seat belts.

Uh... what? No. Narrower margins for safe operations means fewer days available for launch. Launching outside of those margins is a foolish mistake, and not indicative of a design flaw of the craft. That's like saying the Soyuz is flawed because it can't be launched in the middle of a hurricane. At most, narrower margins for launch is an inconvenience for the organization using that launch vehicle since they have fewer days during which they can launch.

[maccollo]

That's like saying the Soyuz is flawed because it can't be launched in the middle of a hurricane.

That would be one hell of a reliable and safe rocket.

[Kulebron]

And the fact that the Shuttle could carry up to 10 astronauts, served as an orbital science station, deployed satellites, serviced satellites, and built the ISS speaks to for which one is more flexible.

Since the thread is not only about safety, let me remind you: one more Soyuz can be assembled within a week. If you need to scale up to Shuttle's scale, just make 3 of them. And this will still be cheaper, wider launch margins, shorter pad dwellings (hours rather than weeks). And none of your crew will have to work on checking the heatshield.

You can't scale a Shuttle down if needed. Compare this to the current satellite market, where Ariane 5 has no clients, and Frenchmen decided to use the smaller Soyuz booster.

When they launched Shuttle since 2005, every time they had to spend the very expensive flight hours for shield checking. And those hours were still more expensive than in Soyuz.

[Kryten]

Compare this to the current satellite market, where Ariane 5 has no clients, and Frenchmen decided to use the smaller Soyuz booster.

Whut? Ariane 5 has eleven contracted launches this year-they're launching them literally as fast as they can.

[Firov]

Whut? Ariane 5 has eleven contracted launches this year-they're launching them literally as fast as they can.

Impossible! Ariane 5 isn't Russian! Therefore it must be garbage!

Since the thread is not only about safety, let me remind you: one more Soyuz can be assembled within a week. If you need to scale up to Shuttle's scale, just make 3 of them.

Anyway, yes, Soyuz is cheaper than a shuttle launch, and you might even be able to launch multiple Soyuz to achieve the same kind of crew transport capacity, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still JUST a crew ferry. It can't do anything else. It can't be used in the construction of space stations, the deployment or maintenance of satellites, or to conduct orbital science experiments.

Also, keep in mind, the Shuttle costs around 450 million per launch, according to NASA. Meanwhile, in a recently signed contract, Soyuz costs NASA 70.7 million... per seat. Now, admittedly, the Shuttle cost doesn't appear to factor in the initial research and development costs, which are considerable, but Soyuz isn't as cheap as you think, which is why I think the Dragon Rider is going to provide pretty strong competition in the crew ferry market in the coming years.

Finally, why would you need to scale down the Shuttle? If you only need to ferry a few astronauts to something in orbit and then return them safely, then use a dedicated crew ferry like Soyuz or the upcoming Dragon Rider. As I have pointed out time and again to seemingly deaf ears, the two craft were designed for very different missions. The Soyuz is a capable crew ferry, absolutely. However, for larger crew capacities, heavy satellite launches, in orbit satellite servicing, orbital construction, or science missions, the Shuttle has got it beat, simply because none of those things were design requirements for Soyuz, while they were for the Shuttle.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Firov

[Seret]

Shuttle vs Soyuz is a pointless argument, since there isn't any question of choosing one or the other. The STS is gone, Soyuz is still flying. The point of this thread was too highlight what an excellent workhorse Soyuz has been, and will continue to be. That remains a fact whatever your opinion of the shuttle.

[CaptRobau]

Also, keep in mind, the Shuttle costs around 450 million per launch, according to NASA. Meanwhile, in a recently signed contract, Soyuz costs NASA 70.7 million... per seat.

It's so high because the Americans have no other options, so the Russians can ask anything they want. 70 mil is not the price the Russians pay to put a cosmonaut up there.

Also the the comparison between Soyuz and the Space Shuttle is moot. The Shuttle is supposed to do nearly everything, while the Soyuz is part of a larger fleet. The Russians can launch station modules on things like the Proton-K while the Soyuz is the crew ferry. The Shuttle is both the station launcher and the crew ferry. Very different.

What can be discussed is conventional rockets vs. shuttles. In that discussion I'd argue for the conventional rockets. They can do everything the Shuttle can, except for returning large quantities of cargo from orbit, but due to them being more versatile launchers (scalable stages and scalable payload sizes vs. a single design and limited cargo bay) I'd choose them over the Shuttle.

[koshelenkovv]

Also, keep in mind, the Shuttle costs around 450 million per launch, according to NASA. Meanwhile, in a recently signed contract, Soyuz costs NASA 70.7 million... per seat. Now, admittedly, the Shuttle cost doesn't appear to factor in the initial research and development costs, which are considerable, but Soyuz isn't as cheap as you think, which is why I think the Dragon Rider is going to provide pretty strong competition in the crew ferry market in the coming years.

It's so high because the Americans have no other options, so the Russians can ask anything they want. 70 mil is not the price the Russians pay to put a cosmonaut up there.

Space tourists paid $30 million, and Russians made profit on it.

$70 million is an outright robbery, but Americans have no choice.. yet.

[K^2]

Have you taken Russian inflation into account, though? Back when the tourist was launched, $30M was a lot more than $70M today by a wide margin.

There is no question that Russians could do this for less if there was competition, but this wasn't a good comparison.

[koshelenkovv]

Inflation in Russia is noticeable but not huge (under 10%), and reflects well in USD to RUR exchange rate.

Rate was 23 rubles per $ in 2008, now it is 33 rubles per $.

So no, $30m in 2008 is not much different than $30m now.

[koshelenkovv]

Here is picture to give some people the idea of what they trying to compare to what.

You do not need to haul 737 in space to ferry astronauts to ISS.

And there is not much things you can do with a minuscule tin can, other than ferrying astronauts to ISS .

Edited January 2, 2014 by koshelenkovv

[K^2]

Inflation in Russia is noticeable but not huge (under 10%), and reflects well in USD to RUR exchange rate.

Rate was 23 rubles per $ in 2008, now it is 33 rubles per $.

So no, $30m in 2008 is not much different than $30m now.

Even in the States $30M USD aren't the same thing today as it was in 2008. In Russia, things are much worse. You can't just watch the way Ruble slips relative to Dollar. You have to take a look at the way prices and costs have been increasing across the board. The difference between buying power of $30M USD in Russia in 2008 and today is very significant.

I'm also sure you realize that amount that the money is going to buy you depends very much on the channels it ends up taking. Just because somebody figured out how to have part of the $30M settle in their pockets to make a profit, doesn't mean that the launches weren't made at a loss. The loss would simply be taken out of budget somewhere else, turning the whole thing into a grand laundering operation. Similarly, of the $70M per seat today, I would expect a large fraction ending up in pockets of officials across the chain. Since this is a deal between governments, I wouldn't be surprised if larger fraction is lost in various kickbacks.

So again, you really can't be making a comparison here.

[kiwiak]

There was some critisism of wings in space concept in this thread.

But it seems that some people still think this concept has some uses.

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

I wonder what will they use it for. Remote satellite repairs/refueling?

Getting used to usual transparency level of most american space programs, it feels strange to get so little info, but well its USAF, not NASA.