Slashdot Mirror
Russia Working on Soyuz Replacement
Buran writes "The Associated Press is reporting that RKK Energia is starting design work on a new manned spacecraft able to carry a crew of six (or more) to the International Space Station. The vehicle may have a reusable crew module (current Soyuz TMA and Progress vehicles are disposable) and would theoretically finally allow ISS crew size to increase, as the current limiting factor is the capacity of the Soyuz spacecraft, designed in the early 1960s for manned lunar flights. (While Soyuz never flew to the Moon, its Zond circumlunar variant did so several times, and Soyuz and Progress craft have been resupplying various space stations for over three decades.) It will be interesting to see how this develops, as at present ISS crews spend more time maintaining the station than they do performing research, due to the fact that the station wasn't designed to operate with a crew as small as two or three people."
It's not that it isn't big enough to accomodate extra astronauts. The problem is that it is not attached to the moon or tethered to the Earth.
A moon base or space elevator would be infinitely more useful than a space station.
I have been pwned because my
Didn't the Russians report earlier that they wanted to send nuclear reactors to Mars? Now they want to develop a new space vehicle? Their economy is in a slum right now; how are they paying?
I know for a fact that DVD bootlegs do not produce that much capital.
EVERYDAY IS CATURDAY
Isn't NASA a major player in the ISS Project? Don't throw rocks from your glass house, Mir was doing better at this stage in its life then the ISS is doing right now.
Whereas the US ended up with the expensive and dangerous Space Shuttle - now grounded indefinately - the USSR managed to design the simple, usable and much cheaper Soyuz.
Maybe this is because under capitalism every decision is a compromise between rival power structures, while good engineering is an open discource between co-operating equals? (Compare Windows vs. Open Source)
Good luck to the Russians! Maybe they can keep the dream of space alive until we get our act together and join them again - in the spirit of human expansion and scientific discovery.
Mir did way better for way longer too.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
I believe they will pay for this by rewriting the ISS contract and making sure they will be the supplier of astronaut transport when the space shuttles retire. Not a bad move I must say. The other 14 nations in the ISS group may be able to get the US to agree to this.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
Politics aside, there is enormous opportunity for economizing by applying the recent success of the Chinese manned space program. In a way, it would be the homecoming of an evolved technology as the Chinese Shenzhou is an improved conventional design based largely on studying russian crew return capsules. Last I heard, no new cash has been found for Russian space missions. I'd be very excited if they can even afford to pay for major design work. A shame really. Less I be moderated down as an idealogical loudmouth, I do recognize that such levels of interaction is unrealistic. Assuming Energia is willing to ask, the Chinese will likely refuse. Thus far, the Shenzhou program has too much domestic significance for the Chinese for them to consider sharing it with the rest of the world just yet. I really wish the Chinese leadership have not decided to try and leapfrog their manned space program by establishing the narrow goals they have. Given the cash and other resources, Energia is likely to elegantly pull off any design job for replacing the Soyuz because the Russians have a sturdy tradition and a rich legacy that has been hard earned by developing their own space program. China, on the other hand, is relying on too much borrowed technology with too little home-grown experience. While admirable achievements have been made in the near term, I don't believe Chinese arospace engineers will make any real breakthroughs in space technology because have gotten their hands dirty enough yet by mucking around. God knows there is a large potential for embarassment if the result of Energia's efforts end up obsoleting the Shenzhou. If China contributes now, there might be bragging rights at least in claiming progony. *sigh* Nationalism and politics can be such a drag on inovation.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
Interesting, what this project is based on ? Existing projects like Energiya/Buran ? buran, MAKS , spaceplane RAKS(Igla) , Zarya Or something new ?
"It has already reached a serious project stage while the Americans are only talking about their spacecraft." Hmm, I wonder if were going to be seeing renewed competition in reusable spacecraft. What do you want to bet that the Russians announce plans for a Mars mission as well.
>>>>
``There is no explanation whatsoever where the money needed to implement the declared program would come from,'' Koptev said.
With their past experience and track record of Soyuz, this is definitely possible...but I really have my doubts about funding
Nevertheless, together which this Soyuz successor it makes sense - ESA will provide an enhanced replacement for Progress, Russia is developing a new crew capsule.
I hope that way Europe and Russia can provide a replacement for the aging Shuttle fleet.
It would be interesting to know if ESA does transfer technology from ARD to the new russian project....
Didn't they make a shuttle a few years back? Before the wall came down.
I seem to remember them launching something which looked a LOT like the US shuttle, orbiting a few times and returning it safely to earth. The big shouting point for USSR (at the time) was that it was capable of doing all of this unmanned, which the US shuttle still cannot do.
I also remember seeing more recently that it was currently sitting in a playground being a tourist attraction, not unlike the US shuttle Enterprise.
I resisted the urge to put USS Enterprise :-)
I've never shoed a horse, but I once told a donkey to piss off!
Buran still is the most advanced manned spacecraft that humans have made.
The production version was able to take off, fly to orbit, orbit, de-burn and go through re-entry, land on a runway and come to a complete stop - entirely unmanned and on autopilot. (And it did exactly this on it's one and only flight).
It's an absolute crying shame that there was no money for it, but hopefully the technology and lessons learned will still be around for the next generation of spacecraft (that actually get funded).
The problem with NASA and its supply chain is one created by government meddling from the highest levels. We do not have a real space agency, we have a pork barrel that is capable of putting things in space.
Even the supply chain is subject to pork barreling and government arm twisting. The system isn't designed to be efficient. It is designed to favor powerful Senators, Government Employees, and those who curry their favor.
They have no incentive to improve. I was hoping that by essentially condeming the Shuttle that Bush might cause more people to take a serious look at NASA and all that surrounds it. Instead the hate-Bush crowd ignores the real problem and instead blames Bush for no offering detailed solutions.
A solution will not come until we acknowledge the problem. NASA must be overhauled from one end to the other. Congress must not be allowed to saddle NASA with pork-barrel political favortism requirements. NASA needs the ability to do what is right for space exploration, not what is right for "political toady #x"
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
why not build an engine module to attach to the ISS and transform it into a spaceship to go to Mars?
Put another docking module on the ISS, and simply have two Soyuz craft on the station at one time to allow a complete evacuation of a full complement?
Russia today is as ultra capitalist
If only it were so. In fact Russias economy is pretty often described as 'putin-capitalism' as so many economic restrictions are placed on private companies - and when a company steps out of line it has a habit of being 'bought out' by one of putins 11 or 12 super rich ex-party cronies (it might be 10 now if he's decided to exile another like he did last year).
Capitalism requires freedom - ultra capitalism requires ultra freedom. The majority of russia isn't aware of the chechen war!
There are enough parallels to the current Bush administration that anyone could rip my arguement to shreds - but maybe that says more about Bush than russia.
Communism it aint though
And regarding to what you said about ICBM's, actually they can be modified and used to launch stuff into orbit. For example the Planetary Society's solar sail. I see some sort of beauty in that - to turn swords into plows, kinda. I have not yet lost hope in humankind.
That's quite possible, ESA has been quietly deepening its links with the Russian space programme for some time now.
ESA has contracted Rosaviakosmos to supply Soyuz rockets for launch out of the Ariane site in French Guyana. Not only will it give Soyuz a new lease of life - allowing it to lift heavier loads into orbit, but that is lots of hard currency pouring back into Russia.
ESA is relying on the Russians to provide the launcher for Venus Express late next year and possibly for the next European Mars probe in 2007 (assuming funding can be agreed).
Best wishes,
Mike.
They could have come up with that soyuz type 6 person transfer vehicle 5 years ago. Think of all the useful science we could have done with 6 people instead of 3.
If we want to go to Mars why not use Energia type boosters to put our mars craft into orbit. If we want to go to the moon, the Russians are the only ones with the knowhow who can help us do it affordably.
The russians have had some pretty impressive successes in their space program, but the past half-decade was spent with them falling behind in their ISS obligations and being unable to pay for their part of the commitment. Most of the trips to the space station to switch out crews, etc., have been financed by NASA, not Russia, even though they've been on Soyuz craft.
This announcement should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. The Russians have spent a lot of time lately claiming "anything you can do I can do better" with regards to American plans for space, but until they have flight tests of a six man module, we can probably give it the same level of credence we should have given the X-33, OSP, and several other defunct NASA programs.
I wouldn't cross your fingers about NASA's future plans for exploration either.
I keep seeing so many "Soyuz/Russian/Soviet spacecraft are so much better than anything built by the US" entries here. Maybe it would help if we posted a few hard numbers.
There have been eight accidents involving Soyuz spacecraft. Two resulted in fatalites.
Soyuz 1 - Parachute failure - One fatality
Soyuz 5 - Module separation failure on reentry - spacecraft nearly lost due to orbital module not detaching before reentry. Module detached due to atmospheric heating before spacecraft cabin burned through.
Soyuz 11 - Atmosphere leak during reentry - 3 fatalities.
Soyuz 18-1 - Stage separation failure resulting in boost-phase abort and 20.6+ g return.
Soyuz 23 - Electronics failure caused mission abort. Spacecraft landed in a lake and the crew nearly froze to death before the spacecraft could be pulled out.
Soyuz 33 - Engine failure. Reentry initiated by reserve engine. Ballistic trajectory resulted in 10g overload.
Soyuz T-10-1 - Launch vehicle blew up on the pad. Crew saved by abort system.
Soyuz TMA-1 - Guidance system failure on reentry caused a ballistic trajectory. Crew experienced 10g and landed 460km off target.
Hardly a sterling performance. Everyone has problems.
"Well Ranger Brad, I'm a scientist. I don't believe in anything." - Dr. Roger Fleming