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."

Comments

Damn! Happened again!

[Trillan]

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.

Right, that's the problem.

[Jon_Sy]

"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.

Cool, but where's the money?

[Chairboy]

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.

Re:I bet they do it, too...

[kitzilla]

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.

Money (what we have and what we pretend to have)

[p-adically yours]

``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"...)

Re:Cart before the horse?

[Locky]

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.

Farewell to the Soyuz

[CommunistTroll]

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.

Re:Farewell to the Soyuz

[axxackall]

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.

Super Soyuz has been proposed before

[zzabur]

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.

Russia should bring back Buran

[randomized]

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/

Re:Wait a minute

[arivanov]

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.

Re:The problem with the ISS

[bm_luethke]

"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.

Re:I bet they do it, too...

[d_strand]

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)

Re:The problem with the ISS

[Docrates]

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.

Re:The problem with the ISS

[Bi()hazard]

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!

Re:Money (what we have and what we pretend to have

[torpor]

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 ...

I love Buran

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Russians make the best rockets

[csoto]

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...