Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russia Working on Soyuz Replacement

Posted by michael on from the do-you-feel-lucky dept.

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."

59 of 311 comments (clear)

  1. In Soviet Russia... by MattyCobb · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  2. Damn! Happened again! by Trillan · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Damn! Happened again! by Jackdaw+Rookery · · Score: 3, Funny

      You need a Soviet mouse then. Designed and built in three minutes from steel and random tubing, to help move it across the desk it comes with 24 mini jets clustered around it.

      It will last longer than cockroaches and be derided by everyone working on more complex and expensive solutions; but it will just go on working for decades to come.

      Now then, what was this thread about? Oh yeah ...

  3. Wait a minute by Bobdoer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Wait a minute by wronskyMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Their economy is in a slum right now; how are they paying?
      Typical capitalist criticism. Didn't you learn in PoliSci 101 how in Soviet Russia, the Soyuz pays for 60% of your income tax?

      --
      --- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
    2. Re:Wait a minute by arivanov · · Score: 5, Informative
      Their economy is in a slum right now; how are they paying?

      Get a clue.

      Read some actual reports on Russian economy

      Russia still has regions living in extreme poverty, but as an overall economy it has had a year on year GDP grouth of 7+ for the third year running. So in fact economically, it has no problem in affording it.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  4. I bet they do it, too... by tinrobot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I bet they do it, too... by kitzilla · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yeah, it'll be a great bird. Nothing fancy, robust, and big. Based on proven design. You have to think this might end up being a moon vehicle, too.

      As far as paying for it: the Russians desperately need a symbol of national pride. They'll find a way to get this flying.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    2. Re:I bet they do it, too... by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Spacefaring is one of the few instances where socialism has shown a clear advantage over capitalism. That and OSS, but don't tell Microsoft.

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    3. Re:I bet they do it, too... by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Informative

      Buran/Energia

      From the site:


      The modular Energia design could be used for payloads of from 10 to 200 tonnes using various combinations of booster stages, numbers of modular main engines in the core stage, and upper stages. The version with two booster stages was code-named Groza; with four booster stages, Buran; and the six-booster stage version retained the Vulkan name. The 7.7 meter diameter of the core was determined by the maximum size that could be handled by existing stage handling equipment developed for the N1 programme. The 3.9 meter diameter of the booster stages was dictated by the maximum size for rail transport from the Ukraine.

      Propellant selection was a big controversy. Use of solid propellants in the booster stages, as used in the space shuttle, was considered again. But Soviet production of solid fuel motors had been limited to small unitary motors for ICBM's and SLBM's. There was no technological base for production of segmented solid fuel motors, and transport of the motor sections also presented problems. The final decision was to use the familiar Lox/Kerosene liquid propellants for the boosters. In the 1960's Glushko had favoured use of toxic but storable chemical propellants in launch vehicles and had fought bitterly against Korolev over the issue. It is surprising that he now accepted use of Lox/Kerosene. But Korolev was dead, and the N1 a failure. Glushko's position had been vindicated, perhaps he now had to agree objectively that use of the expensive and toxic propellants in a launch vehicle of this size was
      not rational.

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    4. Re:I bet they do it, too... by CommunistTroll · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Spacefaring is one of the few instances where socialism has shown a clear advantage over capitalism. That and OSS, but don't tell Microsoft.

      And what is going to be increasingly more important to advanced economies - software and space, or pig iron and textiles?

      The more advanced we get, the greater the advantage socialism has over capitalism...

    5. Re:I bet they do it, too... by d_strand · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what? Lots of people on /. seem to think that russia is still communist... Well they aren't!

      Russia today is as ultra capitalist as you can get (i.e the rich/powerful are in complete control). Russia today is a weird maffia-hybrid country. Their government is so corrupt they'd make Al Capone proud and the various mafia organizations does whatever they want while the people suffer (as usual). Russia today is worse than italy was at its worst mafia heydays a generation ago.

      So maybe they'll make a good spaceship but it wont be because they're communists, it'll be because they have little resources and have to make it as cheap as possible (i.e proven, reliable and of-the-shelf technology)

    6. Re:I bet they do it, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pretty much every space endeavor of any significance has been undertaken by socialist organizations. Where do NASA or the ESA or the Russian space program get their funding? Not from their profits or investors.

      Love it or hate it, most big government programs (the US Post Office is one notable exception) are basically socialist. Take money from citizenry, spend it on something else. There have been very few capitalist space exploits (aside from communications satellites), and even those use government launch vehicles.

      Could capitalism do space better than socialism/big government? Maybe, but we'll probably never know, because space vehicles are pretty much identical to missiles, and letting just anybody launch an ICBM is a pretty bad idea.

    7. Re:I bet they do it, too... by Polkyb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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!
  5. Right, that's the problem. by Jon_Sy · · Score: 5, Funny

    "due to the fact that the station wasn't designed to operate with a crew as small as two or three people."

    From all the articles i've read on /., it seems like it wasn't designed to operate, period.

    1. Re:Right, that's the problem. by My_Dirty_Facist_Ass · · Score: 3, Funny

      You read the articles?

      You must be new here.

  6. Cool, but where's the money? by Chairboy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The RSA is starved for cash, this is probably a fantasy until money appears. Based on their history, I would guess that this is a balloon they are floating to try and get parties with deeper pockets (eg, NASA, maybe the ESA) to offer the development funding.

    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.

  7. Money (what we have and what we pretend to have) by p-adically+yours · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ``There is no explanation whatsoever where the money needed to implement the declared program would come from,'' Koptev said.

    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

  8. Re:Cart before the horse? by eddiegee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  9. Re:Cart before the horse? by Locky · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. Farewell to the Soyuz by CommunistTroll · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Even on a modern anarcho-capitalist shoestring budget, the ex-Soviet space industry continues to show itself more innovative and flexible than the US system - where every major capitalist company involved has to be fed part of each contract; and where each company uses money earmarked for space for its own private research.

    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.

    1. Re:Farewell to the Soyuz by ottffssent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As has been mentioned before, NASA has an incredible handicap:

      They can't let people die.

      When someone dies in an accident at NASA, it has to be thoroughly investigated. The investigation has to point to a clear proximate cause, which must be eliminated from every future design (and past ones). All this must be clearly documented in excruciating detail in order to maintain the fiction that space travel is safe.

      On the other hand, a space program which is allowed a more realistic viewpoint (that being "Space is dangerous. It's really far away, and there's no air, and it's colder than Siberia. People will die. We make it as unlikely as is feasable, but shit happens.") can have vastly more efficient designs. Three craft (lacking major design flaws) have a much higher chance of succeeding at least once than one over-engineered ship. No matter how well-made (and NASA's made some incredibly solid machinery, no doubt about that), there's always that one-in-a-billion chance that something will go wrong, and there's nothing quite like a backup or two to keep things on track.

      I'd be almost as happy to see the Russians or Chinese set up a proper moon base as I would be to see good ol' Stars and Stripes waving over a dome (you know they'd make it wave).

      Good luck to the Russians indeed. And anyone else who's venturing off our little blue marble. We need all the luck we can get.

      --
      High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
    2. Re:Farewell to the Soyuz by CommunistTroll · · Score: 3, Insightful
      As has been mentioned before, NASA has an incredible handicap:

      They can't let people die.

      It would seem to me that NASA can indeed let people die - in fact it has let at least 14 people die in Shuttles alone...

      How many people have died in the Soyuz? None!

      Don't confuse the public relations mea culpa with actually listening to the damn engineers! Under capitalism the people with the money rank higher than the people with the knowledge - management will override those pesky engineers who point out costly inconveniences like bits falling off the wing...

    3. Re:Farewell to the Soyuz by tftp · · Score: 4, Informative
      As another reply says, four people total died in 70's during earlier Russian spaceflight activities (not counting accidents on the ground, some fatal some not.)

      Komarov died in Soyuz-1 on descent; the parachute failed to open. This had been fixed.

      Dobrovolsky, Volkov and Patsaev died on descent because the outer atmospheric valve opened too early, and the cosmonauts were only wearing shirts. This had been fixed in two ways: the valve had been reworked, and everybody now must wear light spacesuits during liftoff and descent.

      Accidents are unavoidable. If one is too afraid of risk, he won't accomplish anything. As a russian proverb says, "one who does not take risks does not drink champaigne."

    4. Re:Farewell to the Soyuz by WegianWarrior · · Score: 4, Informative

      How many people have died in the Soyuz? None!

      According to this article in Wikipedia, the official deathtoll for the spaceprogmans are 18 astronauts in flight, 11 astronauts in training and at least 70 groundcrew in launch pad accidents.

      we know that NASA has lost 14 astronauts in flights and 3 in training - so logic dictates that the USSR lost 4 kosmonauts in flight and another 8 in training. One life was lost on Soyuz 1, and a further three on Soyuz 11.

      What might be more interesting is that no kosmonauts has died in space since 1971, despite the fact that the russians have way more actuall hours spendt in space than the americans. This suggests that the design of the Soyuz is either safer in it self or that the russian spaceprogram is willing to learn from it's mistakes...

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    5. Re:Farewell to the Soyuz by axxackall · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Most of ground deaths were caused by unreasonable high pressure from the top political communist leaders. Not from technical reasons.

      I know that as I I spoke to some russian kosmonauts back in University where they gave us some introductionary lessons about the space research. After official lessons we usually had some non-official questions-and-answers meetings... Memories...

      Anyway, that pressure from top-communists has been declined even in late years of Soviet Union. Today Russian leaders don't make that pressure either. So, the management style in Russian Space programs is very different. It's still very disciplined (not like in over-burocratic NASA) and based on old school russian scientific culture (lack of such culture is the major problem in USA IMHO). And of course it's very technology-oriented (that's like in NASA).

      I believe in todays Russian Space programs. Even if US administration will make everything to shut it down in order to protect own NASA, Russians still can make some space business with EU and Australia. And perhaps Latin America too. The only problem to be expected is if USA administration would try to shut such relationships down, looking at it as a terrorrsm or something.

      --

      Less is more !
  11. esa working on same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    i think they are... its called an Automatic Transfer Vehicle
    http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/ATV/in dex.html

    1. Re:ESA working on same thing by Holger+Spielmann · · Score: 3, Interesting
      No, the ATV is intended only as a cargo vessel. It will eventually replace the russian Progress which supply ISS. ATV will offer a significant increase in paylod capacity compared to progress.

      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....

  12. Slashdotted already? Full Article Text: by jay-be-em · · Score: 3, Informative

    Full article text can be found here

    --
    "Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
  13. Forgive me, but... by anzha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Forgive me, but... by cujo_1111 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
  14. Re:The problem with the ISS by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It should in any case be in a higher orbit, and it should be expanded so that it can be used to assemble large interplanetary spacecrafts. Also, build a station on the lunar surface and one in the L1 (between earth and the moon). Not a bad first step towards a good infrastructure in space.

  15. Its not just the russians.... by cbdavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  16. Re:Cart before the horse? by cujo_1111 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  17. Super Soyuz has been proposed before by zzabur · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  18. Re:Cart before the horse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  19. Russia should bring back Buran by randomized · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Russia should bring back Buran by zurab · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every time the word Buran has even been uttered, the idea has been shot down by the RSA right away. Not only do they not have enough funds to bring back the program, they have also lost a lot of specs and documentation, not to mention people and the minds who worked on it. It is at a point where they would effectively be reverse-engineering their own shuttle.

      Besides, IMO, the U.S. space shuttles have shown that there could be more efficient ways to design space vehicles for the LEO, and Russians (and everybody else for that matter) would be better suited to think forward, rather than repeat the NASA history.

  20. wishful thinking by tloh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  21. more on the lunar Soyuz by WegianWarrior · · Score: 4, Informative

    ..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.
  22. Re:The problem with the ISS by bm_luethke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "A moon base or space elevator would be infinitely more useful than a space station."

    Well, I agree 100% there. Unfortunatly this is like saying "zero emmesion unlimited power is much more useful than what we now use".

    I am sure that more than just NASA would LOVE to have said elevator. I am also sure they would like a permament moon base. Those are currently either impossible or the cost is so prohibitive to be impossible. Though I am betting that a moon base is MUCH more expensive than the ISS as you have many more variables and more more gravity to overcome, though it is probably more usefull.

    As is, if a permament space platform is wanted (not needed as it is currently not - and yes I agree with the funding and think it ought to be raised - I'm not knocking space exploration in that statement) then the ISS is probably the best mix of possibility and funding. But the best may not be a easily workable solution.

    --
    ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
  23. You are right by Teahouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  24. What project this alegged system is based on ? by S3D · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Interesting, what this project is based on ? Existing projects like Energiya/Buran ? buran, MAKS , spaceplane RAKS(Igla) , Zarya Or something new ?

  25. Money seems to be their problem by Geekonomical · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >>>>
    ``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

  26. Re:The problem with the ISS by ThroatwobblerMangrov · · Score: 3, Informative

    The ISS was designed to perform scientific experiments in microgravity, a condition which is naturally not present on the moon. A space elevator is totally infeasible at the moment. It is absolutely safe to predict that none of us will see such an installation realized in her or his lifetime.

  27. Re:The problem with the ISS by Docrates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The ISS WAS a good idea, provided that everything NASA was putting on Press Releases at the time was true: That they had a Shuttle that actually worked like a shuttle, that there were plenty of missons planned that would benefit from the "pit stop" (they even were considering adding refuling capabilities), that the ISS wouldn't be a destination, but a waypoint, etc...

    Of course, you add international and domestic politics to the formula and you get the mess we have today: They had to settle for "the ISS destination", they added low imapct, easily replaceable scientific work to justify it, they moved the orbit to where it was mostly useless for anything else to accomodate the Russians (whom are worthy of admiration), and now that we need that "pit stop" to comply with the CAIB and save the Hubble, it won't do.

    Will a moon base fare any better? I don't know. I couldn't have possibly predited the mess the ISS turned out to be when the first idea for "Freedom" came along.

    The space elevator, now THAT would be a breakthrough.

    --

    There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
  28. Russian shuttle by SpinyManiac · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Russian shuttle by mikerich · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yes, neither of them were 'real' shuttles, as they needed an expendable launcher.

      But then the US Shuttle is only 'semi-real' too, needing an expendable tank and SFB's to be fished out of the drink and majorly refurbished every launch.

      But the Soviets scored a cost advantage there. The most expensive parts of the US Shuttle are the main engines which were designed to be fired repeatedly. They need maintenance every few firings. The Soviets had engines that only needed to be used once then thrown away.

      And they had a second advantage. Because the Shuttle's engines are attached to the orbiter, the vehicle has to haul them into orbit, reducing the payload. Energia threw away the main engines, Buran only needed small, light thrusters to achieve orbital velocity - so it could carry more.

      IIRC, the four relatively small boosters attached to Energia were designed to be reusable. They would parachute back to Earth and be refurbished. They were liquid oxygen/kerosene engines and much simpler to refurbish than the Shuttle's main engines.

      In the event, they were the only successful part of the Energia programme. Energia itself was only launched twice, Buran only the once. The boosters were redesigned into the Zenit launcher which now powers Sealaunch. (It gives you some idea of how big Energia must have been when each of its four boosters can put a sizeable payload into geostationary orbit!)

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

  29. Re:The problem with the ISS by spongman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's mostly true, but as a contrast: how many prople born in the 1890's thought they'd live to see live pictures of a man walking on the other side of the planet, let alone on the moon...

  30. Re:The problem with the ISS by Bi()hazard · · Score: 5, Interesting
    First, many of you are probably wondering what L1 is-the first Lagrange Point where an object can enter an equilibrium orbit that matches the moon's motion.

    It could be useful if we want to come up with a plan similar to this one for colonizing Mars. Due to Earth's immense gravity, weight and aerodynamics are critical in spaceship construction. However, once the ship is in low gravity these considerations are totally irrelevant. Given a good space station we could have three sets of spacecraft: a true space shuttle for lifting things up to the station; transportation craft designed to move things between planets and moons, and explore new areas; and landers designed to reach planetary surfaces. Assuming we'd be establishing actual colonies on the moon and eventually Mars, this is probably the only cost-effective way of doing it.

    In space you can do a lot of cool things with something as simple as a piece of string - provided, of course, that your "string" is made of high-tech materials, has an electrically conductive core, and measures many kilometers long. Tethers have electrodynamic applications - for example, a tether in Earth orbit to which electricity is applied will interact with Earth's magnetic field and climb to a higher orbit without using propellant. Allowing ionospheric electrons to move through the tether via plasma contactors at both ends causes the tether to slow down and drop to a lower orbit. Tethers also have momentum-exchange applications. Physically linking high- and low-orbit objects with a tether forces the object in lower orbit (for example, a spacecraft) to travel slower than dictated by orbital mechanics, while the higher-orbit object (for example, a payload) travels faster. If the tether is cut, the payload will jump to a higher orbit while the spacecraft will drop to a lower one. Hoyt and Uphoff propose a Cislunar Tether Transport System for shipping cargo between low-Earth orbit (LEO) and the lunar surface using minimal propellants. Their work is described by "Cislunar Tether Transport System," AIAA 99-2690, R. Hoyt & C. Uphoff; paper presented at the 35th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Los Angeles, California, June 20-24, 1999.

    That's just one example of the stuff we could try if we had a serious space program with good infrastructure. Once a moon colony starts to have practical value (mining, manufacture in decreased gravity, science, and of course, the all-important military applications) we'll start to see progress down this road. Unfortunately, it will be a long time before that happens. The military, our best bet to kick-start the process, won't bother until rival nations start building fleets of armed satellites.

    Once the military faces the prospect of a space-based war all these ideas are no longer just cool, they may be essential to survival. So, the best-funded operation in the world will be determined to create a moon base capable of controlling space near Earth. Once that's done it will be paid for and justified by tacking on scientific and industrial components. Yes, that's how we're most likely to begin our grand and heroic journey into the destiny of man-for the purpose of being able to kill each other more effectively. Human nature, right?

    But don't worry, recent history shows us that the best deterrent to war is mutual assured destruction, and we'll be fairly safe until we have a large enough moon base to become self sufficient and declare independence from Earth. In Soviet Russia, the moon colonizes YOU!

    Read the rest of this comment...

    look i have a sig!

  31. Re:Money (what we have and what we pretend to have by torpor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. --
  32. I love Buran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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).

  33. Re:Cart before the horse? by cruachan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As Rutherford said:

    "We haven't got the money, so we've got to think!
    "

  34. What next?!? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny


    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
  35. Russians make the best rockets by csoto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  36. Why not just... by vudufixit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  37. Re:Building in space... by visgoth · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The press will have a field day, and critics will say "I told you so! Space is dangerous! Bring our boys home!"

    Some days I think someone should just bitchslap the press and tell them to stfu. Of course space is dangerous! But so is building highrise buildings, flying aircraft, mining, etc. If we cowered in fear because of every potentially dangerous thing, we'd still be swinging from trees.

    --
    My patience is infinite, my time is not.
  38. Re:Building in space... by AoT · · Score: 3, Funny

    We'd probably just be looking at the trees thinking how dangerous it would be to swing on them.

    --
    A blog about stuff.
  39. New Propulsion Systems Already In Works by Buran · · Score: 3, Informative

    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