Slashdot Mirror

At present time, the 98th Soyuz flight is docked to the International Space Station.

True. But there have also been 26 unmanned flights in the Soyuz programme. And don't forget the Progress spacecraft, derived from the Soyuz spacecraft and used for resupply. According to Wikipedia there have been 42 original Progress flights, 61 Progress M's, and 11 Progress M1's. That's another 114 flights, taking the total of Soyuz + Progress to almost twice as many flights as the STS.

Then there's the Soyuz rocket that is used to launch all of those, as well as other payloads. According to Starsem, who also use the rocket to launch commercial payloads, the Soyuz launch system has been used 1727 times. I don't have figures on how many of those have failed, but I bet the rate is better than the STS.

The Soyuz program is over forty years old and may not be as sexy as the shuttle. But both the rocket and spacecraft are good, simple designs that have had a long time to work most of the bugs out. You'd have to be stupid to not at least consider using them.

There hasn't been a *public* Soyuz crew death since 1971

There haven't been any, and so the statistic stands. There are no gaps in the Soyuz launch records, no missing crews. Jim Oberg has pretty much debunked claims of covered up deaths in space. The deaths you explicitly refer to were indeed training accidents, and just as I don't count the crew of Apollo 1 (or people like Eliott See for that matter) in launch reliability statistics, you're correct not to count them either.

The Proton is a rocket family, but it doesn't contain the Soyuz, so I don't know where that non-sequiter comes from, especially given the proton is not human-rated. The Soyuz is also a family, but the differences between the family members comes from what upper stage you stick on top (Fregat, etc). The lower stage plus boosters is the same, right back to the original R-7 ICBM adapted to launch Sputnik. You can find more recent launch data from Starsem, the Soyuz launch company, and historical data can be also be found pretty easily, assuming you're searching for the right rocket family! If you're vague on Russian rocket families, this diagram will help. The Proton statistics -- a completely different, cargo rated booster-- have no bearing on the Soyuz statistics, the actual launch vehicle that is in the same arena as the shuttle (and these days the Long March 2F) in putting humans in orbit.

Russia are involved in a lot of ESA work (and have been for 15 years apparently), as well as working with their Soyuz launch vehicle for many European probes. ESA are currently planning a Soyuz launch pad at Europe's launch site in Kourou, French Guiana.

The article also made no mention of SMART-1, the 'ion-drive' probe heading to the moon. It will be taking various readings and photos - in of course, higher detail than some previous endeavours. Wonder if they'll photograph the US moon landing sites? (Even apart from satisfying the skeptics - it'd be kinda cool to see new aerial shots of the sites!)

Russia are not (yet) members of the ESA. In the last week, Greece and Luxembourg were granted membership - the effort is growing. Members contribute an amount based on GNP, with a corresponding proportion of contracts and research being offered to that member.

Efforts are widely distributed - even my own (relatively small) University in Ireland has a number of researchers working on ESA stuff!

Cost. The budget was extremely tight and Russia launch cheaper than ESA, even for ESA-run missions. It's a pretty strange state of affairs.

I hope there are still some people reading, but not enough to slashdot this site. I was mooching around the Beagle 2 mission site and found a link to Starsem, the Russian company that provided the launcher. They have the user manual for the Soyuz-Fregat launcher online!! How cool is that? Caution, it's an 8MB download.

The UK is also perfectly capable of chucking money at a good project ultimately to have it cancelled after 10 years development.

Did anyone in the U.S. ever hear of HOTOL

I would include the Russian Buran cancellation here as well but that was more as a result of a coup.
It should, however, be noted that the Russian "Starsem" organisation really know how to get a lot into orbit using the disposible Soyuz system.

There have been 1675 Soyuz system launches to date!

This image of the Soyuz production line show the extent of the operation.

The UK is also perfectly capable of chucking money at a good project ultimately to have it cancelled after 10 years development.

Did anyone in the U.S. ever hear of HOTOL

I would include the Russian Buran cancellation here as well but that was more as a result of a coup.
It should, however, be noted that the Russian "Starsem" organisation really know how to get a lot into orbit using the disposible Soyuz system.

There have been 1675 Soyuz system launches to date!

This image of the Soyuz production line show the extent of the operation.

The Soyuz system is a veritable box of fireworks; since the 60's its been the principal launch vehicle for all Russian space missions and in terms of unmanned sattelite deployments it has in the past run to more than 6 launches a month.

Here's a link to a photo of the 'production line' it looks pretty busy.

Also interesting to note, that the Soyuz capsules are managed by Starsem, a french-russion joint venture, in which Arianespace is a shareholder. And for the record: Soyuz has made 1673 succesful launches! So much for anyone's doubt on russian reliability.

Also interesting to note, that the Soyuz capsules are managed by Starsem, a french-russion joint venture, in which Arianespace is a shareholder. And for the record: Soyuz has made 1673 succesful launches! So much for anyone's doubt on russian reliability.

This link has the Soyuz launches back to '96. It shows one failure. I don't doubt that during the cold war, faliures were covered up, though.

Space and tech has information on a lot of production and experimental spacecraft. Including payload user manuals in the expendable launch vehical section. The Soyuz payload user manual makes great three AM reading :) According to the documentation there, the Atlas V is in the same category as the Proton and the older Shuttle configurations. IE, roughly 20 tons to LEO, including the Colombia. The Atlas V is just barely more powerful for LEO than the Proton (45238 lbs vers 44035). But, is not as powerful as the current shuttles for LEO, at 65000 lbs. FYI, Columbia has a limited LEO capability. In it's original configuration, it was limited to around 10000 lb payloads. And, granted, GSO is a different ball game.