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
In Soviet Russia Soyuz replaces YOU!
hell, someone had to do it...
Matt
You have 1 Moderator Point! Use it or lose it! Is that a threat? -vapid
Every time slashdot mentions the ISS is falling apart, my mouse breaks.
* Trillan chucks cordless mouse across the room.
See? Again! I just can't figure it out.
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
I get the feeling the Russians will have something working long before we ever design a shuttle replacement.
They keep things simple, and their stuff works.
"due to the fact that the station wasn't designed to operate with a crew as small as two or three people."
/., it seems like it wasn't designed to operate, period.
From all the articles i've read on
Of interest, NASA had a similar idea in the 1960s with their 'Big Gemini' program and the 'Apollo Rescue CSM' program. It's very feasible, and the Soyuz is a solid design.
And where are the Russians getting the money, anyway? Last I checked, Russian government-funded things are ill-funded and poorly thrown together which would either indicate lack of funds, mismanagement, or both. I vote both.
At the same time, he reaffirmed his skepticism about Bush's space plan, saying that the U.S. administration would have trouble raising resources for the planned missions.
Really, when has this ever stopped us before?
I wonder what the equivalent of global bankruptcy would be...
(to the tune of "We'd make great pets"...)
-------
A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems. - Paul Erdos
Ummm, you did read the articles, right? The part is most likely from the solar panel release mechanism that is only used soon after launch. It may show a design flaw that a now useless part was able to float away, but saying that this somehow means that the Station is "falling apart" is a pretty big stretch.
Now give it 4-5 more years of poor funding and then we'll see what else flies off!
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.
i think they are... its called an Automatic Transfer Vehiclen dex.html
http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/ATV/i
Full article text can be found here
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
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.
Do the Russians even have the money to do this?
NASA Watch only had a short quip that funding was a fantasy.
While the Russian economy is growing, it still seems less than likely that they'll be able to afford this. They have a PPP GDP smaller than France, Italy, or Brazil right now.
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
I am wondering how we will pay for everything we want in space - a shuttle replacement, the ISS is an albatross ( a money pit), we wanna go to the moon, we wanna go to mars.
Things just havent been the same since the apollo missions. Just imagine what we could have done if we had persued our space dream instead of killing it...
Look here (thanks to the beeb) for a timeline of Mir's history.
If the ISS survives the problems that Mir had, it will be doing quite well.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
Russians have been designing larger and possibly reuseable Soyuz-type spacecrafts for long time. The original mission was ferrying military cosmonauts to Almaz and Polya military space stations. A later design was Zarya resusable space craft to be launched with Zenit booster. Project was cancelled on financial grounds back in 1989, but the technology has been further developed in connection with ISS and Sea Launch projects.
Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't the Russians who lost two space shuttles and fourteen astronauts in the last 25 years in spite of having far smaller budgets, and far more relaxed attitudes towards safety. While NASA was making an issue over a few batteries brought on the station without its inspection and permission, they didn't seem to do a thing about chunks of foam falling off of booster rockets until one bashed a hole in the shuttle wing causing the loss of one of the America's most cherished national treasures. Maybe that's the problem here. Folks at NASA just don't know how to make the very best of what they have anymore. Maybe what's is needed is to put them on the same budget diet the Russians are on. Scarcity of certain resources is one of the best catalysts for new inventions or ideas.
There is a project that russians were working on awhile back. It is shuttle like and was tested number of times during cold war. I suppose most of people here wouldn't know about it ala Lunokhod.
New project based on that technology is MAKS (mnogocelevaya aviacionno-kosmicheskaya sistema) which claims to be able to reduce cost per kilogram down to 1K usd. (from 12-15 nowdays). It's not space elevator, but definitely more possible at this time.
Read about Buran and MAKS here -
http://www.buran.ru/
-- shortcut - the longest distance between two points.
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.
..for those curious about such things *smiles*:
Soyuz 7K-L1A circumlunar
Soyuz 7K-L1A test article
Soyuz 7K-L1E circumlunar test article
Soyuz 7K-L1P prototype, boilerplate capsule
Soyuz 7K-LOK planned lunar orbiter
You might also be interested in reasing baout the Soviet Lunar Lander and the launchsystem they hoped to use. Had everythng gone as planned they could have reached the moon around the same time as the americans... but since their booster just wouldn't work right they lagged behind until they decided to cancell the whole program.
The site I've pulled those links from also has a number of interesting articles on the N1 program, the various soviet manned lunar programs and wether the design of the Soyuz was stolen from the US.
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
The Russians do not have the money to pay for this. They barely have the money to pay the heating bills at Star City. They lost one whole mothballed Buran (their last)a few years back because they couldn't pay for the maintenance to replace bolts keeping it suspended in a hanger.
What the Russians are doing is letting NASA know that they want to be included in the OSP competition. They will undoubtably be able to build a cheaper and probably more reliable craft than the US contractors, and they also are looking at a big brick wall ahead if they don't get this project.
Remember, the Russians deorbited Mir and put all their resources into the ISS at NASA's insistance. If the US abandons the ISS project in 2010, or cuts all external funding because they have their own safe 6 man OSP, Russia has no Soyuze launches, no Progress launches, and few satellite launches. NASA and the US are basically propping up the Russian space program right now. The Russians need to find a way to finance their once proud space industry, and they see the current funding dissappearing in 6 years.
"We have a design ahead of the Americans design"
"We will make it reusable"
"We can do all the LEO launches"
Sounds like they are trying to do all the LEO launches, funded by NASA, so the US can develop a trans-lunar vehicle. If someone at NASA sees it the same, it allows cheaper access to orbit, while enabling NASA to build a real trans-Lunar/trans-Mars type vehicle and a human-rated lander of some type. I am willing to bet a paycheck this is how it turns out:
Russia will own LEO, and be contracted by NASA to handle ISS personnel and resupply. NASA will build a bigger system that is more capable, but too expensive to be wasted on ferrying assignments to the ISS. They get the interplanetary craft.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
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
They had an airseal intergrity failure during reentry in the 70s
This is not a signature.
Why do people forget that such large portions of the INTERNATIONAL space station were built by Russia?
Your referring to Buran (snowstorm).
The French had a mini shuttle called Hermes, designed to fly on the front of Ariane.
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
Classic Propaganda:
...
Last I checked, Russian government-funded things are ill-funded and poorly thrown together which would either indicate lack of funds, mismanagement, or both.
No more, or less so, than any other major government in control of a vast pool of resources. The Russians, for example, are no different in this regard than, say... The United States Government.
You're a victim of propaganda. Fix that.
Lets just assume that what you're saying is true... in which case, the Russians are even more Powerful and Mighty than we imagine, since they're the ones who - in spite of such 'hardships' - are still able to re-supply ISS, still able to make launches, and still running a viable space program in spite of the cost overruns and budget difficulties.
You can't say that as easily about the US. You can say it, but not easily
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
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).
As Rutherford said:
"We haven't got the money, so we've got to think!
"
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.
First they replaced the beef in your burger with soyuz, now they're even going to replace the soyuz!
They'll be serving us Soyuz Green before you know it!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Building spacecraft in space is a huge proposition. First you have to think of the crew. Moving large, heavy objects around in null gravity is going to require a lot of training. To do it even remotely safely is going to require a crew who find the physics and behavior to be second-nature.
And what about when one of such a crew gets killed in an accident? The press will have a field day, and critics will say "I told you so! Space is dangerous! Bring our boys home!"
Not that I'm saying it shouldn't be done. In order for it to work, though, you need to raise the average knowledge level of both voters and the people in office. Otherwise, it just becomes another liability for anyone who supports it.
It's probably not going to be truly feasible until space operation is either commercialized, or is in some other way unencumbered by popular politics.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
why not build an engine module to attach to the ISS and transform it into a spaceship to go to Mars?
The latest Atlast/Delta rocket motors by Lockheed-Martin were, in fact, designed by Energia. They are far more efficient (read: bigger payloads or more fuel capacity) than what we were using, and they are beasts. Tough and indestructible.
We will not explore the solar system without these brilliant people. "Going it alone" is stupid and shortsighted. But, then again, so are politicians...
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
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?
There's no visible indication that this effort has any funding. The Russians have designed a lot of spacecraft, but it takes money to get one off the ground.
In any case, it would be just another LEO vehicle.
Don't hold your breath.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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.
Work is already progressing on new drive systems. The Deep Space 1 spacecraft was a testbed for autonomous navigation systems and for ion drive propulsion, which uses electricity and xenon gas to accelerate a spacecraft. Unlike the TIE (Twin Ion Engine) Fighters of Star Wars, a real ion engine provides a gentle push, comparable to the force exerted by a sheet of paper resting on your palm -- but it does it over an extremely long period of time, so the ion engine is extremely well suited to long interplanetary missions.
Nuclear engines are also in the works, those projects having begun in the 1970s (NERVA - Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) and continuing today with concepts and development starting for possible use in manned lunar/Mars missions as well as nuclear-powered spacecraft for planetary exploration (the Jupiter Inner Moons Orbiter -- JIMO -- for instance.)
Reader note: Sorry for taking so long to answer questions in this story -- it hit the site while I was asleep!
i am a soviet space shuttle
This all reminds one of Henry Spencer's signature line after the Challenger tragedy:
"There is only one spacefaring nation today, Comrade".
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