The Story of Baikonur, Russia's Space City

eldavojohn writes "There's an article up on Physorg about Russian space launch city Baikonur, rented by Russia from Kazakhstan. Although it is essentially the same as it was in the 60's and 70's, it is amazingly efficient and still operational. 'Even the technology hasn't changed much. The Soyuz spacecraft designed in the mid-1960s is still in service, somewhat modified. It can only be used once, but costs just $25 million. The newest Endeavor space shuttle cost $2 billion, but is reusable. Life and work in Baikonur and its cosmodrome are also pretty much what they were in the Soviet era. The town of 70,000 - unbearably hot in summer, freezing cold in winter and dusty year round - is isolated by hundreds of miles of scrubland.'" We last discussed Baikonur back in 2005.

Comments

Costs

[stoolpigeon]

This Nasa space shuttle faq lists endeavour's cost at 1.7 billion. Maybe they just rounded off, but a third of a billion seems significant to me.

It also lists the launch costs for a shuttle at about $450 million. I don't know if that's just the launch itself or if that includes the turn around costs. Of course - the article doesn't list similar numbers for the Soyuz - but it seems that while reusable - the shuttle still is exponentially more expensive. Although - I don't know of anything else that can get as much weight to orbit as the shuttle.

Re:Costs

[tilandal]

The shuttle is much larger and can carry far more of a payload. The shuttle can carry up to 24,400 kg to low earth orbit, that is substantially more then the Soyuz can carry. Many of the segments of the ISS were only able to be lifted into orbit with the Shuttle.

Re:Costs

[slashqwerty]

I don't know of anything else that can get as much weight to orbit as the shuttle.

At 21,000 kg to LEO, the Ariane 5 ECA comes pretty close. And it does a lot better than the shuttle to Geostationary Transfer Orbit. The Delta IV does slightly better than the shuttle at 25,800kg to LEO versus the shuttle's 24,400kg.

The Saturn V could put them all to shame. Although the planned Ares V can carry even more than the Saturn V.

Re:Costs

[Daengbo]

It can only be used once, but costs just $25 million. The newest Endeavor space shuttle cost $2 billion, but is reusable.

When I was a little boy, I sat in on one of my father's presentations on the (then future) space shuttle to interested people in the aviation community (he was with the FAA). The talk was glowing and emphasized how much we'd save by re-using this material. As a sci-fi enthusiast like my father, I remember being so excited about what I was hearing.

Sadly, that cost savings never came. I have read numerous reports about how much more that shuttle system costs than a traditional system. In my not-so-educated opinion, focus on the shuttle has left our space program behind where it would have been had we kept going with the tech we had at the time.

What's the next-gen shuttle going to cost us?

Re:Costs

[YrWrstNtmr]

The shuttle can carry up to 24,400 kg to low earth orbit, that is substantially more then the Soyuz can carry.

...is an understatement. Current Soyuz payload is 880kg.

Re:Costs

[ozmanjusri]

Sadly, that cost savings never came. I have read numerous reports about how much more that shuttle system costs than a traditional system.

Going on the numbers given here, the Shuttle costs $18,400/kg lifted to LEO, while the Soyuz costs $28,400 for the same lift.

Re:Costs

[Daengbo]

I wasn't comparing it to the Soyuz: I was comparing it to where we'd be now if we hadn't used it.

The NASA Chief Administrator Michael Griffin has recently suggested the decision to develop the Space Shuttle and International Space Station was a mistake by saying, "It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path. We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can."[1]

and

While the Shuttle has been a reasonably successful launch vehicle, it has not met the goal of greatly reducing launch costs. There are various ways to measure per-launch costs. One way is dividing the total cost over the life of the program (including buildings, facilities, training, salaries, etc) by the number of launches. This method gives about $1.3 billion per launch[1]. Another method is calculating the incremental (or marginal) cost differential to add or subtract one flight -- just the immediate resources expended/saved involved in that one flight. This is about $55 million. Neither figure is right or wrong; they are simply different ways to examine the picture.

The total cost of the program has been $145 billion as of early 2005, and is estimated to be $174 billion when the Shuttle retires in 2010. NASA's budget for 2005 allocates 30%, or $5 billion, to Space Shuttle operations.

Original goals of the Shuttle included operating at a fairly high flight rate (roughly 12 flights per year, at low cost, and with high reliability. Improving in these areas over the previous generation of single-use and unmanned launchers was a motivation. Although it did operate as the world's first reusable crew-carrying spacecraft, it did not greatly improve on those parameters, and is considered by some to have failed in its original purpose.

Although the final design differs from the original concept, the project was still supposed to meet USAF goals and be much cheaper to fly in general. One reason behind this apparent failure is inflation. During the 1970s the U.S. suffered from severe inflation. Between when the program began in 1972, and first flight in April 1981, inflation increased prices over 200%. When evaluating shuttle development costs in later-year dollars, this superficially appeared to be a large cost overrun in the program. In fact when discounting inflation, the shuttle development program was within the initial cost estimate given to President Richard M. Nixon in 1971.

The high shuttle operational costs have been much more than anticipated, if counting all associated support resources (total expenditures, including development costs, divided by number of flights). Some of this can be attributed to a lower flight rate, operating beyond the 10-year anticipated lifespan of each Shuttle, and higher than anticipated maintenance costs. The marginal or incremental per launch costs have been about 50% more than early projections.

Some reasons for higher than expected operational costs can be ascribed to:

Maintenance of thermal protection tiles turned out to be very labour intensive, averaging about 1 personweek to replace a tile, with hundreds damaged with each launch.

The main engines were highly complex and maintenance intensive, necessitating removal and extensive inspection after each flight. Before the current "Block II" engines, the turbopumps (a primary engine component) had to be removed, dissembled, and totally overhauled after each flight.

Launch rate is significantly lower than initially expected. This does not reduce actual operating costs, but if dividing total program costs by number of launches, more launches per year produces a lower per-launch cost figure. Some early hypothetical studies examined 55 launches per year, but the maximum possible launch rate was limited to 24 per year, based on manufacturing capacity of the external tank. Early in the shuttle development, the expected la

Re:Costs

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Yes, that is why something like 80% of ISS supplies did not arrive there by the Progress launch, no?

And the major Russian modules had to be lifted by the Shuttle, certainly?

Or perheaps the Russians use separate payload carriers which can range up to the Energia class of rockets which make the Space Shuttle look like a wimp at 4 times its payload to LEO and equal to the Shuttle's payload to .. Mars.

So one should really compare 2 Soyuz capsules (6 people) + payload launch = 1 Space Shuttle launch. Still its something like $25 mil x 2 for the Soyuzes + $60 mil for the Energia (at the expensive, all frills added end - the technology is not radically different from the Soyuz boosters) = $110 mil per launch. Which is 1/4th of a relaunch of a Shuttle, never you mind the up-front $1.7 billion cost. And the Shuttle, unlike the Energia payload, is rather unlikely to make it to Mars or Venus.

Not to mention that the thing is a death trap which killed 14 astronauts in the last two decades and is unlikely to stop there.

Re:Costs

[Cecil]

Don't forget the Russian Proton K. As it's able to lift 22,000 kg to LEO, I believe it's third among today's launch vehicles behind the shuttle and the Delta 4 Heavy (which is brand new). There are a few others worth mentioning as well. The Titan IV is not too shabby at 21,700 kg, and the Atlas V can lift 20,000 kg.

You're right that Saturn V is still king though, and will remain so for the immediate future. 118,000 kg, that's incredible, really.

Re:Costs

[XNormal]

I think you may be mixing up the Soyuz launcher with the Soyuz spacecraft.

The launcher can lift 7,800 kg to LEO.

Re:Costs

[FallOfDay]

"Although - I don't know of anything else that can get as much weight to orbit as the shuttle."

Saturn V lifted 118,000kg to LEO, Ares V will be 130,000kg to LEO. The shuttle is a mere 24,400kg to LEO (discounting the mass of the shuttle orbiter, itself).
All would've been outperformed by a maximum-configuration Energia-Vulkan @ 175,000kg to LEO. Frankly, nobody's ever come up with anything like a big enough rocket to really put human spaceflight into gear (i.e. Putting supplies & 20-50 people up, at once). You'd be looking in the range in excess of one kiloton to LEO, for this (i.e. Lifting a mass equivalent to twice the ISS, simultaneously). Just for an idea of scale, this would make any rocket about eight times more massive than a Saturn V, using present engine technology.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, Russian tech is excellent value & often to a higher standard than it's NASA equivalent. Energia-Vulkan would've put Ares V so shame, both on lifting ability &, no doubt, on cost too. A damned shame it was never fully developed, as it would've shown everyone the way forward. The price we pay for finishing off Communism, eh? However, it isn't as though NASA hasn't relied on Russian technology on their own rockets, in the past, either. The RD180 engine design was acquired pretty much straight from Energomash's RD170 & used on an Atlas rocket, just because it had a feedback mechanism to the engine, for unspent fuel, making the engine more efficient; something which NASA engineers hadn't even thought about.

Don't believe the $25 million

[FlyingSquidStudios]

It's just the sticker price. Then they hit you with the optional features like power steering and oxygen.

Re:Don't believe the $25 million

[IWannaBeAnAC]

maybe you should consider the safety records of Soyuz vs the shuttle, before making such statements...

Re:Don't believe the $25 million

[aliquis]

Yes.

Also you would probably save your government a hell of a lot of money if you let the russians produce the hardware.

If there is anything they do it's reliable stuff. (True for tanks, guns and whatever aswell.)

Re:Don't believe the $25 million

[glitchvern]

maybe you should consider the safety records of Soyuz vs the shuttle, before making such statements... Their safety records are similar. The shuttle has flown 119 times, the initial 4 missions with a crew of 2 all following missions 5-8, only 2 have had 8. The shuttle has had 2 disasters with all hands lost. The soyuz has flown 98 times, has a maximum crew of three and has had 2 disasters with all hands lost. Some people like to point out the last fatal incident for a manned soyuz spacecraft was 1971, but an unmanned soyuz-u launch vehicle did explode as recently as 2002 killing one and injuring seven. Admittedly the soyuz launch vehicle used on manned missions does go through higher quality assurance, but basically the highest success rate your going to get for a launch vehicle is around 98%.

Soviet Russia

[Stormx2]

I know this may be a little controversial, but can we just skip all the "In Soviet Russia..." jokes? Regulars don't find them funny. They're only modded up by people who've just got mod points for the first time and want to fit in. Come on, be original!

Re:Soviet Russia

[FlyByPC]

Regulars don't find them funny. Well, someone voted it Best Meme!

In Soviet Russia, the memes mod YOU!

Re:Soviet Russia

[Neon Aardvark]

I'm a regular, and I think "In Soviet Russia" jokes are funny precisely because they are so pointless and unfunny, just like the CowboyNeal poll options.

Re:Soviet Russia

[techno-vampire]

In Soviet Russia, memes don't find Slashdot regulars funny.

Re:Soviet Russia

[Wonko the Sane]

You must be new here

Re:Soviet Russia

[fm6]

In Soviet Russia, worn out jokes own you!

Actually, I suspect that many regulars do like the endless repetition of "in Soviet Russia" and "our x overlords". You and I get tired of hearing the same jokes over and over, but we might well be in the minority.

One problem is that the mod system give you a way to mod up good jokes, but no way to mod down bad ones. ("Overrated" is not supposed to be used for that, though it sometimes is.) So anybody who has a reaction to a story that's even vaguely humorous jumps in with it, because theres a good chance they'll be modded up.

Solution: balance the upmode "funny" with a new downmod: "lame".

Re:Soviet Russia

[Neurotoxic666]

In Soviet Russia, jokes mod YOU down.

Bargain space flight

[davmoo]

Just off the top of my head...

If the shuttle costs $2 billion, and a Soyuz is only $25 million, we could send up 80 Soyuz launches for that same $2 billion.

And if we expand it to cover that there have been 5 shuttles built, that becomes 400 Soyuz flights.

To put that in to perspective, there has only been 119 shuttle launches thus far, and 2 of those $2 billion dollar shuttles came back in little pieces parts. Plus, it doesn't even figure in launch expenses, just the price of the shuttles themselves. Hard to believe that way back when the shuttles were designed, they were expected to each be launched 100 times.

At those rates, it doesn't matter that a Soyuz isn't reusable.

Re:Bargain space flight

[stoolpigeon]

I mentioned the same above and have been doing some more digging. This popular mechanics interview with Greg Olsen was interesting. Here is the part that got it to pop up in my search:

PM: Soyuz costs $50 million a mission--the space shuttle costs more than $2.5 billion to get back up, and under the best conditions it costs $500 million ...
GO: That's tough. Remember, we could not have built the ISS without the shuttle. The shuttle has a huge cargo-carrying capacity. The Soyuz cannot do that, as reliable as it is. The shuttle has had its drawbacks, but it is the workhorse, and it was necessary in order to do the ISS.

They give more about cost - and he gives one view about the shuttle's capacity that adds a different perspective.

Re:Bargain space flight

[maxume]

I dare, nay, double dare you to fit Hubble into a Soyuz capsule:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Space_Shuttle_vs_Soyuz_TM_-_to_scale_drawing.png

The Shuttle is probably a stupid way to put people in orbit, but that isn't all it is used for.

Re:Bargain space flight

[ceejayoz]

Of course, that argument requires the assumption that we couldn't possibly make something with similar carrying capacity to the shuttle for cheaper than $500 million to $2.5 billion per launch.

The Saturn V had the ability to lift 118,000 kg to low earth orbit, to the Space Shuttle's 24,400 kg - and that at a similar cost per launch.

The Delta IV can lift up to about the Space Shuttle's capacity at $250 million a launch. The Russian Proton-M can lift a little less than the Shuttle at $100 million a launch. There are plenty of alternatives to the Shuttle for launching large payloads.

Re:Bargain space flight

[clarkkent09]

The comparison seems a little bit unfair on the Shuttle.

First of all, does the Soyuz figure of 25 mil include the cost of the launch vehicle or just the spacecraft? A search for per launch cost of Soyuz gives me figures from 40-60 mil.

Secondly, Shuttle has a maximum payload of 50,000lb, Soyuz is more in the region of 15,000lb. That gives about $200 mil for 4 Soyuz launches versus $450 mil per one Shuttle launch for equivalent amount of cargo. Of course there is the initial cost of the shuttle as well to take into account but unlike Soyuz that is spread over multiple launches.

Still, he only thing that really matters is the cost per pound of payload and Soyuz still beats Shuttle by a long way.

Re:Bargain space flight

[seadd]

That's tough. Remember, we could not have built the ISS without the shuttle. The shuttle has a huge cargo-carrying capacity. The Soyuz cannot do that, as reliable as it is. The shuttle has had its drawbacks, but it is the workhorse, and it was necessary in order to do the ISS. According to data from Wikipedia: SS payload to LEO: 24400kg Orbiter mass: 68,586.6kg So, to get 24 tons of cargo into orbit, we send nearly 70 tons extra. As a comparison, Russian Proton rocket launches 22 tons into orbit, and uses 40 years old proven design, and was used for launching the parts of the Mir station. So, why exactly do we need Space Shuttle? Do I hear someone mentioning Saturn 5?

Re:Bargain space flight

[silas_moeckel]

It would seem a lot of the logic behind the shuttle was to get the gear and the people there on one transport. While I personally think the shuttles design was most about getting the funding not building the most efficient/safe unit.

In any event it seems like the saturn v's could have gotten the IIS up in aprox 4 lifts, this would seem more efficient as there would be less hardware joining sections together.

Re:Bargain space flight

[Firethorn]

I dare, nay, double dare you to fit Hubble into a Soyuz capsule:

Why would you want to?

Launch cargo(like satellites) on cargo rockets. Life people in capsules designed for people.

As others have pointed out, there are a number of rockets capable of lifting a similar payload as the shuttle - for half the launch cost of the shuttle.

I've seen figures of $500 million for a shuttle launch, $50M for a soyuz(including the capsule), $250 for the Delta IV.

That means we can duplicate the shuttle for about three launches - 2 soyuz(a shuttle can hold more people) $100M total, and a Delta IV for $250M. This totals $350M, leaving me 150M off the launch costs alone to use for other purposes. Like building a space station that's actually useful.

For rather less than the cost of a shuttle, you should be able to design a 'soyuz/apollo heavy' capable of lifting the same number of people as the shuttle.

Re:Bargain space flight

[khallow]

Why would you want to launch the Hubble from the Shuttle? Use a Titan IV.

Re:Bargain space flight

[CharlieG]

Remember the MAIN design goal of the shuttle wasn't JUST to bring "stuff" to orbit, but to be able to bring sats DOWN from orbit - in fact, part of the design criteria was launch from Vandenburg, grab a sat, and LAND in ONE orbit (Military wanted to be able to snach Sats)

They did bring 2 or 3 Sats down from orbit in the early days

Re:Bargain space flight

[dbIII]

Von Braun's body is a moulderin' in the ground so we aint got Saturn V's no more.

To be quite serious there are a lot of people and infrastructure missing to recreate a Saturn V so it would be better to do something else that it's designers understand in every detail from early in it's development. The Russians have a large rocket in development - there's an ISS so why not international effort on a launch vehicle?

Reusable shuttle? Not really ..

[tomhudson]

"The Soyuz spacecraft designed in the mid-1960s is still in service, somewhat modified. It can only be used once, but costs just $25 million. The newest Endeavor space shuttle cost $2 billion, but is reusable"

Each shuttle mission costs a half-billion to launch. So many systems have to be rebuilt and retested that it would be cheaper to make them throw-away.

For example, by the time the shuttle engines are on the launch pad, they've been rebuilt pretty much from scratch and retested, which takes up almost 90% of their rated lifetime. Like a race car engine that has to be rebuilt every 750 miles, but is test for 675 miles before the race ...

Saying the shuttle is re-usable without looking at the real costs is ignoring reality.

Re:Reusable shuttle? Not really ..

[glitchvern]

For example, by the time the shuttle engines are on the launch pad, they've been rebuilt pretty much from scratch and retested, which takes up almost 90% of their rated lifetime. Is this still true? I know at the beginning of the shuttle program this was true, but that was about 5 major space shuttle main engine versions ago. Phase II engines first flew September 29, 1988 (STS-26 first post Challenger flight); Block 1 engines first flew July 13, 1995 (STS-70); Block IIa engines first flew January 22, 1998 (STS-89); Block II engines, which yes came after Block IIa engines, first flew July 12 2001 (STS-104) Boeing SSME paper. From 1992 to 2000 Space Shuttle annual operating costs decreased 40% Nasa Fact Sheet in part due to decreased SSME maintenance costs. How much does it costs to rebuild a Block II SSME? I can't find any numbers for that anywhere. It should be noted that a Block II SSME is the most reliable rocket engine ever built in large part because it's reuseability allows extensive static fire testing of each engine. The space shuttle may be crap, but a lot of the parts are awesome and SSME is one of them. It'll be a shame we will no longer use them when we discontinue the space shuttle, but attaching expensive reusable engines to an expendable booster really doesn't make a lot of sense.

The Space Shuttle is GREAT

[tjstork]

It seems rather fashionable to knock the Space Shuttle - it's expensive, it was overhyped, putting the thing on the side of the tank is a design mistake, and the tiles are a maintenance nightmare. It's easy to knock the Shuttle and demand a retreat to older style systems, and I've done it. But the more and more I think about it, the more I think, junking the shuttle and the approach of the orbital space plane is a huge mistake.

We are all aware of the negatives of the shuttle, but let's look at some of the positives of this system. First and foremost, the interior of the space shuttle is -huge- compared to the interior of a Soyuz, or for that matter, any other manned space craft. The Soyuz can bring up 2 or 3 astronauts, while shuttle missions with 6 or 7 are not uncommon. The Soyuz, the Apollo and the nascent Orion are essentially ballistic nosecones with people stuffed in it. The space shuttle has a habital volume, for its crew compartment alone, of over 70 cubic meters. The soyuz, on the other hand, has a habital volume of just 7 cubic meters. Astronauts in these capsules basically sit in their chairs, but in the shuttle they can get up, move around, and do things. The space shuttle is practically a space station in its own right.

The space shuttle has a cargo bay, and, thanks to the Canadians, has a really cool mechanical arm. The cargo bay can be pressurized for even more space, or it can contain additional research facilities. Have we forgotten that the European Space Agency has flown a science station in the space shuttle cargo bay already? Have we forgotten about the repairs made to Hubble? The Space Shuttle can and has repaired other satellites, and right now, is the ONLY SYSTEM that can bring them back a largish cargo from space to earth.

Everyone seems to like knocking NASA, cheering on the likes of Burt Rutan and the X-Prize in hopes for some private sector miracle, but I've not seen any private sector initiative, from scratch, put so much as a suitcase into orbit, certainly not a man, and nothing like the space shuttle. Those fancy suborbital flights are a joke - 3000mph requires a fraction of the total kinetic energy to attain the orbital velocity of over 17000mph. Let me know when anyone, really, anyone builds something as cool as the shuttle...and the thing is, when we're back to tiny capsules for manned space flight, when the naysayers win and the shuttles are tossed off to museums, everyone is going to compare the capsule to the shuttle and say geez, by far, the shuttle was the cooler thing, and the capsule is a step backwards, not forward, and that our next space ship should have been a newer version of the shuttle, not a rehashed capsule.

Re:The Space Shuttle is GREAT

[corsec67]

One of the biggest problems with the Shuttle is that the crew area is on the side of the external fuel tank, and the booster rockets. Yes, capsules on top may be "old hat," but it is a lot safer when you are going up and all of the almost-explosive stuff is under you. That, and there is nothing to fall onto the crew part. Who cares if the insulation on the tank gets damaged if it is below the crew part.

For example, how many missions prior to the Shuttle had problems with insulation falling onto other parts of the rocket?

I am not saying that a capsule instantly makes it safe, but it does alleviate a bunch of concerns NASA has with the Shuttle, especially since the Columbia accident.

Re:The Space Shuttle is GREAT

[rbanffy]

It's true the shuttle does things that are really necessary and quite cool - getting people to space and back, getting big things to space and getting other big things back, but the fact that those abilities are seldom needed at once is a killer.

There must be a way to ferry big stuff into orbit frequently - even if it is just a truckload of provisions for the ISS or a whole vehicle capable of taking a crew to the Moon and back. There must be a way to send people to the ISS and back. There must be a way to allow those people already in space to repair expensive stuff like the Hubble. Finally, there should probably be a way to return things the size of the Hubble back to Earth in one piece.

Sending large things to orbit is very frequent, ferrying people is less frequent and bringing back stuff is even less frequent if needed at all.

Having something that does all three at the same time seems like a bad idea.

Re:The Space Shuttle is GREAT

[Firethorn]

Great, it's a reusable space station. The point that I'd make is that it shouldn't be. For the cost of what we do with it, we could have an even larger permanent space station, just use smaller capsules(and large cargo rockets) to get there.

Design a space station that only has to survive being lifted once, and doesn't have to come down intact. Heck, make it modular - remove pieces as they wear out and let them drop back if you want to.

For satellite repair design a space tug that can go out with some astronauts and the robotic arm to conduct repairs on satellites. It should be almost an order of magnitude lighter than the shuttle, so it shouldn't take much fuel. For longer repairs, consider hauling the satellite back to the station. Heck, have a bigalow structure you can haul larger cargo into and pressurize if you want.

Re:The Space Shuttle is GREAT

[khallow]

The reason the Shuttle is a bad idea and remains so, is that it isn't economical to use. Many of those capabilities are unnecessary and add little value to the Shuttle. That's why it's only being used for launching ISS components and a Hubble repair mission. If the ISS were complete, the Shuttle would already be dead, and we'd be saving ourselves $2 billion or more a year.

Everyone seems to like knocking NASA, cheering on the likes of Burt Rutan and the X-Prize in hopes for some private sector miracle, but I've not seen any private sector initiative, from scratch, put so much as a suitcase into orbit, certainly not a man, and nothing like the space shuttle. Those fancy suborbital flights are a joke - 3000mph requires a fraction of the total kinetic energy to attain the orbital velocity of over 17000mph. Let me know when anyone, really, anyone builds something as cool as the shuttle...and the thing is, when we're back to tiny capsules for manned space flight, when the naysayers win and the shuttles are tossed off to museums, everyone is going to compare the capsule to the shuttle and say geez, by far, the shuttle was the cooler thing, and the capsule is a step backwards, not forward, and that our next space ship should have been a newer version of the shuttle, not a rehashed capsule.

Orbital Sciences and the Pegasus did just that in the late 80's. NASA started feeding them contracts so they wouldn't compete with the big players. Second, those fancy suborbital flights are closer to orbit than you think. They have higher delta-v's due to gravitational and air resistance losses (I'd say it turns a factor of five into a factor of 2-4). Also you can stage lifters. My take is that a three stage rocket will get you there. And we all know there are two stage to orbit launchers out there. No reason a private company can't repeat with its own funds what a private company did with government funds.

Ultimately, economics is far more important than "coolness". The Shuttle never was economical. Too bad it took us around thirty years to figure that out.

Re:The Space Shuttle is GREAT

[confused one]

I don't knock the shuttle generally. It's a fantastic machine. Everything you say about it is true. BTW, that includes the negatives about the tiles and mounting the thing on the side of a tank that you can't escape from. The problem is that it's such a marvelously complicated machine, that it's MTBF is unacceptably low. It's OVERcomplicated, being a system full of compromises designed in by multiple committees with differing goals. Don't misunderstand me, I love the things. BTW, FWIW I work for a NASA contractor adjacent to the Langley facility. It bothers me that about 1 in 100 have not returned in one piece. As an engineer, it also bothers me that the system is running wayyyy beyond it's design life.

The Soyuz system is remarkable in that it's been reliable. They're not perfect. Yes, they had fatal accidents, however, the last one occured in 1971. They learned from those failures and implemented design changes in the later modules. Yes, it's also true that Soyuz has only flown around 100 manned flights; but, even when it fails, as the NAV system did today, the people return alive. That's a reputation that's hard to argue with.

I think what we've learned from operating the shuttle and looking at the Russian program, is that simple makes for a better MTBF and does it at a lower cost. It may not be gee-wiz. It may appear to be a step backward. If this means the people come home alive, it's the right move. Use the big boosters, in parallel, to put the equipment in space and then have the people meet it there.

It's like we tried to run, when we didn't know how to walk yet. We stumbled a few times, scrapped our knees. Now we're being a little more cautious as we learn to walk with confidence. We'll run again, when the times right, that is, when the technology catches up and the infrastructure is in place.

Re:The Space Shuttle is GREAT

[rbanffy]

In fact, the Buran design was superior - it had no lift engines of its own and could ride on top of the real rocket. This simplifies the loads on the main rocket, allow for more cargo and makes the vehicle immune to insulation damage.

Of course the Soviets noticed this was a bad idea (it would be smarter to send the cargo on top of the Energia rocket and not carry Buran's dead weight) and aborted the project after the first flight.

They could have aborted it before, but then there was that national pride thing...

Re:The Space Shuttle is GREAT

[rbanffy]

It's not revisionist to think they probably ran out of money _because_ the Buran solved no real problem that had not already been solved with other technologies. Had the Buran a real task to do, it would probably get some funding.

Since the intention behind it (and other projects as well) was to give technical parity between the two superpowers and the Buran gave nothing new (the USSR could launch people and cargo to space better without it), it got scrapped. They could not afford to let the US develop something significantly better, so they had to do something on the same lines, just to be safe. The main difference is they took less time to figure out it was a really bad idea. And keep in mind theirs was a better one.

The problem is not "build a reusable spacecraft" but rather "get this thing to orbit, for less money than we already pay". If you focus on the wrong problem, it's inevitable you arrive at the wrong solution.

As it happened, Buran was a great solution to get something down in one piece. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen often enough to justify the money spent on it.

Re:The Space Shuttle is GREAT

[DerekLyons]

In fact, the Buran design was superior - it had no lift engines of its own and could ride on top of the real rocket.

Have you ever actually looked at a picture of a Buran on the launch pad? Try this one.
 
 

Of course the Soviets noticed this was a bad idea (it would be smarter to send the cargo on top of the Energia rocket and not carry Buran's dead weight)

Oh? Check out this picture of Energia configured to carry cargo.
 
 

and aborted the project after the first flight.

Actually, Buran first flew in 1988 and wasn't cancelled until 1993 - with the intervening five years spent building what was intended to be the operational craft (four of them).
 
Buran, and Energia, were cancelled because the country that built them (the Soviet Union) collapsed - and the country that replaced it (Russia/CIS) was broke.
 
Or, to put it simply you are zero for three.

Re:The Space Shuttle is GREAT

[RedWizzard]

It's not revisionist to think they probably ran out of money _because_ the Buran solved no real problem that had not already been solved with other technologies. Had the Buran a real task to do, it would probably get some funding. You do know that the soviet union was collapsing at the time, right? The lack of funding for Buran had nothing to do with the program and everything to do with the economic and political state of the union. Buran could have been the greatest space program ever conceived and it still would have been cancelled.

Baikonur - Kazakhstan vs. Russia

[ChemE]

One thing not mentioned in the article (but is mentioned in the 2005 article) is the problems between the Kazakh and Russian governments.They are still debating over problems (especially money) due to failed rocket launches, most recently in September. The Kazakh government keeps suspending and then unsuspending Russian operations at the base.

See this article from EurasiaNet: http://eurasianet.org/resource/kazakhstan/hypermail/news/0011.shtml

Go Meme Yourself

[fm6]

Calling a tired old joke a "meme" is pretentious crap. The word comes from Richard Dawkins's theory that some ideas are to culture what genes are to biology. I think that's an overrated theory, but even if I took it seriously (especially if I took seriously) I'd be irritated at people who think that telling the same joke over and over to the same audience is somehow spreading an idea. It's more like a social earworm. Mindworm?

Re:Bringing lots of stuff down intact

[CharlieG]

Yep - about it. The thing is, it was one of the BIG selling points, even in the commercial realm. Everyone was going to design their Sats to either be repaired on orbit, or recovered and returned to earth for repair/rebuild. There was even a NASA standard for how the grapple points would work.

  That all went away with Challenger. I can remember watching the couple of sat recovers on TV (Yeah - I'm an older geek - heck, I was writing some code at WORK when I heard Challenger was destroyed). I can remember the classified shuttle launches (everyones guess was one was a KH-7 and the other was a radar sat). I can remember the great talk about Vandenburg being almost ready (all the neat stuff was going to happen there), and about the next gen one piece carbon fibre SRBs. At the company O worked for we had a couple of Ex Perkin Elmer folks (they build the Hubble) and folks who worked for NASA helping build the first batch of shuttles. Heck, I can even remember the first drop test of the Enterprise

Q. How much does it cost to launch a Space Shuttle

[guacamole]

(NASA's) Answer. The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission.

In other words, the whole shuttle program had been a big waste of money that set the American space exploration back by several decades. The whole thing should have been canned after the Challenger disaster. At that point it was already so damn obvious that the program failed MOST of its original goals. This situation is so bad that Russians can indeed successfully compete with us even though they're using decades old technology and at a fraction of our costs.

Well,

[WindBourne]

We do not have a next-gen shuttle coming. We have a LOAD of new crafts coming online over the next 4 years.

1. In particular, Russia is still looking to develop their Kliper (I think that they have finally gotten wise and are just going it alone).
2. China has their copy of the current Russian system.
3. America is developing the Oriion capsule which will use the Ares I/Ares V rockets (possibly the Ares IV). The capsule will sit 7, and the launch costs for ppl will be 100M.
4. Spacex is doing Falcon 9 with Dragon at 35 Million for 7 ppl (COTS figures in this).
5. Scaled Composites has a space plane approach (similar to what was going to replace apollo, but Nixon pushed the current abomination on us), but costs are not known. It is expected to be no more than spacex's.
6. Another COTS entry now that kistler is dead (thank GOD; it was another military abomination; it was a way to funnel money from NASA to military companies such as l-mart). The new one is likely to be spacedev's dream chaser, though I think that t/space has a shot at it as well. t/space has the same weaknesses as kistler; ran by more ex-military ppl, while spacedev is ran by businessmen similar to spacex.
7. EADS is supposedly looking at doing at European space plane, but they have as much progress as Russia's kistler; sitting @ an idea.

So, to answer your question, I do not know. I do know that it will be a LOT cheaper very soon. Spacex has set the bar on that at about 5 million to launch a person. And the other launch systems will have to come close or beat it.

BTW, good to see you around again. You still in asia (thailand?)?

Not a problem for me!

[rts008]

Absofuckinglutely!

I second both IWannaBeAnAC and aliquis on this one, they are giving it to you straight up.

Also, I would consider insurance no matter what the source of my hardware for a 'Space Operation'....there are so many things that can fail and cause catastrophic failure.

As an American I hate to admit it (yes, I'm old enough to remember McCarthy, and having every public access gov't. building having to have a bomb shelter), but as far as heavy lift solutions, they are at the top of the heap. Effeciency, cost, capibility,reliability-they have it all...best orbital 'bang for the buck' solutions at this time.

Re:Command Economy

[GnuDiff]

Umm, not neccessarily.

Remember, the collapse of the SU - nobody had time nor money for space. Apart from several succesful science divisions, most of Soviet-time science institutions were struggling for survival (and many of them didn't survive) both in Russia and in its former republics. There was rampant stealing and selling of scientific machines, technologies and what have you. So, Buran might've been axed just because there was no interest in space exploration at that time at all.

Additionally, considering the costs mentioned, I wouldn't be at all surprised, if some costs that are significant in the US are simply not taken into account in Russian space programs. For example, it could well be that astronauts are paid next to nothing, or fuel is being diverted by government rather than being bought. Etc.

Re:How did you get modded up?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

First, The Energia has not been launched since the days of the Soviet Union. It is in the same boat as the Saturn V. That is, it is DEAD. Russia has openly come out and said that it will not launch again. But if you are going to do sad comparisons, then please compare the Engeria to the Saturn.

True, I had Energia mixed up in my mind with the Protons and the like. This does not matter however since what I was talking about is the practical concept and the costs of disposable boosters versus the cost-plus subcontractor's wet dream, the white elephant of a Shuttle.

Also unlike the Energia, the Saturn is not even possible to be built again as the NASA bureaucrats decided that its core technologies were not worth preserving. The Russians are still designing all sorts of new boosters, some of them comparable to Energia in capabilities.

Maybe in the 90's during the Soviets, but not today.

Energia was nothing but 2 Protons stuck to a larger core, none of which had any revolutionary departures from the present designs. The costs were simply linear progression in labour and materials.

Finally, trying to compare the costs of 2 soyuz (developed in the 60's and holds 3 guys, and little else), to the shuttle has to be the true joke. Based on that, then you should compare the apollo capsule costs against the soyuz. Worse, you play games with comparing the original costs vs. a launch costs.

No, I compared both, because the "original" cost of a Soyuz includes its launch cost. It is not a reusable vehicle.

Also, we are comparing the "bang for the buck" results, not the lengths of dicks of the nationals of the respective nations. Space Shuttle is only good at one thing: delivering pork barrel to contractors. At everything else it is a sub-standard vehicle for its expense, by all objective measures.

The US had the technology (as you yourself point out) to base their inexpensive vehicle designs on, but it chose instead to put greed and politics ahead of technical merits. And so the death-trap, completely uneconomical Shuttle is the result. The Russians are in no way responsible for American screwups, they merely chose to follow the proven path (and they have abandoned "pissing contest" impractical projects such as the Buran).