Slashdot Mirror
Soyuz vs. Space Shuttle
Anonymous Coward writes: "In the recent article on Slashdot about the sale of one used Soyuz space capsule, there was at least one comment along the lines that it was sad that cash-strapped Russia is selling off its spacecraft for "playhouses." The Soyuz is not reusable, therefore it is irrelevent that a used one be sold. The cost to build and launch a Soyuz is cheaper than a Shuttle launch. It is also safer. The Russians don't have to worry nearly as much about the weather at their landing sites as NASA does. One added benefit of Soyuz is that as the Russians keep building new ones, they perfect the manufacturing process. What would it take to build a new shuttle? We definitely don't have the experience manufacturing spacecraft that the Russians have. If, God forbid, we were to lose another shuttle, we would be left with only three and no plans to replace them. I have always leaned toward the "keep it simple, stupid" attitude. While the shuttle is really cool looking, especially when it lands, I feel it is over-designed and the Spaceplane is just a bigger step in the wrong direction. Maybe the shuttle should exist in addition to a simpler non-reusable capsule and be used only for a small percent of manned space missions. I think this would be an interesting discussion for us nerds, and I'm sure that there are NASA nerds who read Slashdot."
The space shuttle was conceived in the early 1970's. It's old technology, and old-style thinking in the same ways that most U.S. auto manufacturers continue to churn out low-quality, high-defect, technologically immature products.
The original space shuttle was a space-faring jet with air-breathing engines. The ideas were ahead of the technology, and they finally went to straight rocket power. The latest incarnation of the old idea, the Space Plane, is what the shuttle will be. NASA should really do the efficient heavy-lifting rockets to toss loads skyward, then send the technicians along in a much smaller shuttle to deal with things. The Russians perfected that technique.
The newer shuttles have been improved over the years, and I believe the newest ones are actually smaller than the original Enterprise, and make better use of the internal space (thus providing more useable space). The engines have improved, as has the entire rest of the vehicle. You never hear about tiles vibrating loose anymore.
The real problem here is that the U.S. Public demands 100% safety and success in all things spacegoing. Blowing a school teacher apart, and losing a few Mars probes hasn't helped their cause. But let's remember NASA has to deal with the low-bidder curse that plagues the U.S. Military. Lowest bidder = highest problems = highest number of fixes = highest long run cost = nice method for getting rich while being the "lowest" bidder. I think it was Kodak who offered two mirrors (tested) for the price of the one untested, imperfect mirror that made it into the Hubble. I can't remember which Congressman introduced the bill requiring one of his home-state companies do the mirror.....
The Russian space program is highly modular in that they use different lauch vehicles to deliver their cosmonauts as opposed to their equipement. The nice thing with this is that it optimizes your expenses in that if you just want to send up men, you do so, and if you want to send up just a space station module and some satellites, you do that independantly. It also allows you to make your vehicles much less complex as you only have to deal with a restricted set of neccessary tasks that the launch system needs to satisfy.
The American program has rested on creating a highly flexible orbiter that can satisfy both of these major space tasks (delivery of men and materials). While it takes a more complicated system and more resources to do so, they can concentrate more on perfecting this one vehicle.
Bear in mind that I'm generalizing the situation, as I know that the there have been other vehicles and whatnot, but if you were to compare these two vehicles I believe that their main difference lies in the purpose for which they were built.
I think it will be interesting to see how things unfold in the future, perhaps NASA should be looking at a 'smaller, cheaper' strategy all accross the board. Another thing that may bring new aspects to the table is the fledgling Chinese space program, and although they are depending heavily on the Russian program it will be interesting to see if they can implement a new methodology.
The only way we're going to find out what's best is by exploring all of the different options, and although I think one would be hard pressed to say that this method is better than that one at the current stage of the game, it definately helps to have a diverse program so that we can explore the options.
UBU