Soyuz vs. Space Shuttle

Anonymous Coward writes: "In the recent article on Slashdot about the sale of one used Soyuz space capsule, there was at least one comment along the lines that it was sad that cash-strapped Russia is selling off its spacecraft for "playhouses." The Soyuz is not reusable, therefore it is irrelevent that a used one be sold. The cost to build and launch a Soyuz is cheaper than a Shuttle launch. It is also safer. The Russians don't have to worry nearly as much about the weather at their landing sites as NASA does. One added benefit of Soyuz is that as the Russians keep building new ones, they perfect the manufacturing process. What would it take to build a new shuttle? We definitely don't have the experience manufacturing spacecraft that the Russians have. If, God forbid, we were to lose another shuttle, we would be left with only three and no plans to replace them. I have always leaned toward the "keep it simple, stupid" attitude. While the shuttle is really cool looking, especially when it lands, I feel it is over-designed and the Spaceplane is just a bigger step in the wrong direction. Maybe the shuttle should exist in addition to a simpler non-reusable capsule and be used only for a small percent of manned space missions. I think this would be an interesting discussion for us nerds, and I'm sure that there are NASA nerds who read Slashdot."

Cargo Capacity

[Taufiq]

I'm not a rocket scientist, but doesn't the Space Shuttle often retrieve things from orbit and return them to Earth?

SOYUZ SPECIFICATIONS

...can accommodate a crew of three and 50 kg cargo for Mir-type operations, returning a full crew and 50 kg to Earth (no crew: 450/300 kg up/down).

Can't the STS return your average bus to Earth? What else can you use to do that? ... not that anyone has a bus in orbit they need to retrieve.

The Space Shuttle is 1970 ideas

[scotpurl]

The space shuttle was conceived in the early 1970's. It's old technology, and old-style thinking in the same ways that most U.S. auto manufacturers continue to churn out low-quality, high-defect, technologically immature products.

The original space shuttle was a space-faring jet with air-breathing engines. The ideas were ahead of the technology, and they finally went to straight rocket power. The latest incarnation of the old idea, the Space Plane, is what the shuttle will be. NASA should really do the efficient heavy-lifting rockets to toss loads skyward, then send the technicians along in a much smaller shuttle to deal with things. The Russians perfected that technique.

The newer shuttles have been improved over the years, and I believe the newest ones are actually smaller than the original Enterprise, and make better use of the internal space (thus providing more useable space). The engines have improved, as has the entire rest of the vehicle. You never hear about tiles vibrating loose anymore.

The real problem here is that the U.S. Public demands 100% safety and success in all things spacegoing. Blowing a school teacher apart, and losing a few Mars probes hasn't helped their cause. But let's remember NASA has to deal with the low-bidder curse that plagues the U.S. Military. Lowest bidder = highest problems = highest number of fixes = highest long run cost = nice method for getting rich while being the "lowest" bidder. I think it was Kodak who offered two mirrors (tested) for the price of the one untested, imperfect mirror that made it into the Hubble. I can't remember which Congressman introduced the bill requiring one of his home-state companies do the mirror.....

Don't you read /. ?

[billybob2001]

not that anyone has a bus in orbit they need to retrieve

Oh no? [slashdot.org]

Modularity or Flexability?

[Mad Hughagi]

I think the key thing to note about these two different launch vehicles is that they are used with two very different principles in mind.

The Russian space program is highly modular in that they use different lauch vehicles to deliver their cosmonauts as opposed to their equipement. The nice thing with this is that it optimizes your expenses in that if you just want to send up men, you do so, and if you want to send up just a space station module and some satellites, you do that independantly. It also allows you to make your vehicles much less complex as you only have to deal with a restricted set of neccessary tasks that the launch system needs to satisfy.

The American program has rested on creating a highly flexible orbiter that can satisfy both of these major space tasks (delivery of men and materials). While it takes a more complicated system and more resources to do so, they can concentrate more on perfecting this one vehicle.

Bear in mind that I'm generalizing the situation, as I know that the there have been other vehicles and whatnot, but if you were to compare these two vehicles I believe that their main difference lies in the purpose for which they were built.

I think it will be interesting to see how things unfold in the future, perhaps NASA should be looking at a 'smaller, cheaper' strategy all accross the board. Another thing that may bring new aspects to the table is the fledgling Chinese space program, and although they are depending heavily on the Russian program it will be interesting to see if they can implement a new methodology.

The only way we're going to find out what's best is by exploring all of the different options, and although I think one would be hard pressed to say that this method is better than that one at the current stage of the game, it definately helps to have a diverse program so that we can explore the options.

In my humble opinion...

[TWX_the_Linux_Zealot]

... it would be really keen for development to change to look at how to produce reuseable 'assembly line' designed spacecraft, maybe not along the lines of what the Russians have, probably something more like a lifting body or something capable of launching in without having to shed tanks. It would be neat if a new spacecraft had the ability to actually fly around a bit with power or the ability to be flown in the atmosphere back to its launch site instead of requiring a piggy back. I like the look of the current shuttle, and I'm sure that the astronauts like having something rather large and relatively secure to go back to while on space missions. I would imagine that if the shuttle were hit with any space debris and if the hull they could seal off that section and attempt to deal with the problem from there. I don't know how much room is in the russian craft, but I don't think there's much that can be sealed off.

Pardon the ranty nature of that... it's morning.

The Machine that Changed the World....

[scotpurl]

"The Machine that Changed the World" by James Womack, Daniel Jones, and Daniel Roos. Published by Simon & Schuster. No ISBN number, so you'll have to hunt for it. Nice little book out of MIT, about 10 years old, that studies the automobile and it's future. Nice starting point if you want to have an informed opinion. (flame mode off) After that, do a bit of reading on The Toyota Method (aka Just In Time Delivery), which has Darwin'd into the bastardized Six Sigma (whose champions seem to focus on statistical manipulation as holy grail, rather than processes). For those who don't want to read, I'll summarize the Toyota Method. Order in bulk, but take delivery in small bites. When problems arise, you've got less faulty product, the person who delivered it to you has less to recall, and there's less money tied up in parts/pieces that are sitting around in warehouses. (That's just part of the whole Toyota method.)

Anyway, the Koreans (KIA = Killed In Automobile) and the second-tier are aiming at a market, which is out crapping the crap end of the car market. Resale value is not a measure of engineering quality, or assembly quality. Ford had good quality, but they're managing themselves out of the market, and have frankly lost the hungry edge to do better. Chrysler still suffers from the Iococa legacy. (Remember, Lee Iococa went to President Nixon and said airbags will kill more people than they save, and we'll go bankrupt from the extra expense.) Oldsmobile was good a few decades ago, but haven't pulled any neat technology tricks since their Quad engine was created. Dodge makes nice trucks, but flimsy cars.

For the real skinny on engineering quality plus assembly fit&finish, take a look at the repair histories. http://www.consumerreports.org for example. True, the U.S. companies are improving (save Saturn, which can't decide whether to improve, or fold), but the improvements have been in the past 4-5 years. Which means I'm guilty of 90's thinking at the least.

Remember, a poor quality product is most often a deliberate management decision, not a failing of the engineers, or of the assemblers. American auto manufacturers are plagued by older management, who are outdated, undereducated, and curiously proud of it. Of course, they'll word it, "That's the way we've always done it." Display some adaptability, folks.

I'm a consultant out in industry, and I'm amazed at the amount of money that gets squandered. A company with an average market share, and an average product, can make money easily. They have chosen not to by choosing inept internal management, who make inept decisions, which cost money. Sure, it's only a few tens of thousands here and there, but it all adds up.

Re:Cargo Capacity

[RWalker]

STS has a payload bay length of about 60 feet; enough for your average bus. Oddly enough, the Soyuz capsule itself fits neatly in the shuttle bay, but that goes along with the launcher at Vandenburg AFB and the military space stories of the 1980s. Soyuz and the space shuttle simply cannot be compared, as it does a great injustice to them to do so. Soyuz was originally designed off of the L-1 Zond module, and essentially made for translunar flight. In fact, there are accusations of the Soyuz actually being a copy of GM's design for Apollo, and judging from the precedents the Soviets had set, there is every reason to believe this. To the Russian's credit, however, they have been able to adapt the Soyuz to meet their needs over the past 35 years, and today's Soyuz module quite more refined than its pioneer counterparts. STS, on the other hand, was designed from the start to military specifications (even so much so that in missions STS-1 through STS-4 the crew sat in ejection seats modified from the SR-71), hence the massive cargo bay and launcher at "Slick Six" (Vandenberg AFB). Until STS-51L, the shuttle was the sole method for the Air Force to deploy satellites; in this respect STS was a huge failure. The Air Force expected STS to be ready by 1979 and flying closer to 20 missions a year, however, the funding was cut (mostly early on by the Nixon Administration) and STS lost its turbofans, liquid fuel boosters and reusable fuel tank. Funding was not even provided for the idea of boosting the expendable drop tank, an Air Force idea, into orbit, where they could be easily used for space station components. However, STS did get NASA an excuse to launch seven Astronauts and experiments into orbit while launching satellites. If the soviet N-1 superboosters had actually worked, instead of totally destroying their launch complexes, perhaps the US would have stuck with the heavy lift rockets, such as the Saturn V and Nova, but as it was, the budgets were cut, and the rest is history....

Re:In my humble opinion...

[tooth]

I would imagine that if the shuttle were hit with any space debris and if the hull they could seal off that section and attempt to deal with the problem from there. I don't know how much room is in the russian craft, but I don't think there's much that can be sealed off.

Yeah, that's probably true, but then you've got the probabilty factor of getting hit increasing the more large your "space ship" gets. I think that it would be a fairly even trade off: get hit and have a chance of sealing it, or not get hit at all (if you did get hit though...)

Re:In my humble opinion...

[Mad Hughagi]

Unfortunately I don't think we're going to get away from the shedding of tanks concept until we can engineer a thrust mechanism that can provide enough power to overcome the gravitational potential of the earth without having to utilize a significant amount of fuel.

I imagine this is the basis of the new breed of 'space-jets' that are currently being considered, but even if they are successful in producing these vehicles they would still have to use the old rocket-booster style mechanism to launch equipment and whatnot due to mass considerations.

Another thing that might come into play is the re-entry dynamics of a significantly larger vehicle (one that did not dispose of it's fuel containers), not to mention the fact that the containers are dropped when they run out of fuel so that you don't have to carry needless mass.

One thing that amazes me is that NASA used to paint the main booster and this contributed to over 600 extra pounds! That's enough to probably add at least 3 more people and their required resources (food, water, etc) to the launch. I haven't done the calculations, but I imagine that dropping the boosters significantly decreases the amount of fuel you need in the first place.

I think that real promise lies in some of the novel launch mechanisms that are being proposed. I don't have the links at hand but two of the most interesting are a rotor system that gets up to the higher atmosphere before firing thrusters and a laser induced 'flying saucer' that focuses the laser energy to explode the air underneath it for thrust.

As for getting hit with space debris, I don't know if there is really much that can be done - it seems more like a game of russian roulette in any situation. 'Space is big' and I think they're counting on the statistics to save them from unfortunate accidents.

We need the Soyuz...

[The Mayor]

This may only be urban myth, as I don't remember my source. However, I went to school and lived in Houston for 13 years, and had a lot of contact with people from NASA, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is correct.

One of the main reasons I have been told we embraced the Russians for the space station is that several parts of the space station are too heavy for any US rocket or the space shuttle to lift into orbit. The Russians have a rocket that can carry significantly larger payloads into space. As a result, it was cheaper to partner with the Russians to use their rockets.

IIRC, this is also part of the reason we're building backups for the modules that the Russians are building. We are not simply doing this for insurance--we expect the Russian-built modules to fail. So we build backups. We still get to use the Russian rockets. And we don't have to go through the engineering effort to design, build, and test a new rocket (which we probably couldn't do within the timeframe for the space station anyway).

Well, like I say, this is put forth as pure heresay, as these things were only mentioned in casual conversation. It seems plausible to me. And I remember seeing payload levels for the US and Russian launchers years ago, with the Russian launchers having significantly larger capacities. As for the rest? You be the judge...

You need the right tool for the job

[lquam]

In the shuttle, we tried to build a Swiss Army Knife and that's basically what we got--a collection of tools in one platform that sort of work, but not as well as a real screwdriver or a real pliers. Fortunately, the shuttle has proven to be a quite good mobile space construction and maintenance platform (and, of course, it did keep the U.S. in the manned space game and allow us to put a lab up for a couple weeks every few months for the past 15 years).

By partnering with Russia we've effectively combined each others tool boxes. It isn't a question of Soyuz vs. shuttle, but rather what do you use each for and how do you augment and replace these platforms, along with Energia and others, down the road.

There's no doubt that Soyuz is the right platform for getting a few humans and their kit to and from fixed platforms like the MIR or ISS.

However, until now (with the ISS habitable), the shuttle was the far best tool for working on the ISS. Imagine having to suit-up in a Soyuz capsule, go spacewalking for a few hours running wiring and attaching antennas only to have to squeeze back into your Soyuz for a restful 8 hours strapped to an acceleration couch. Forget it. I'm sure the astronauts of all the countries who have been working on the station these last few launches very much enjoyed having some place to stretch their legs.

So:

Need to fix a low orbit satellite, send up the shuttle. (Or just de-orbit it and replace it if it's cheap.)

Need to put a big chunk of space station into orbit, stick it on top of an Energia.

Need to get three replacement crew to the ISS, send a Soyuz up.

Need to send up 250 kilos of emergency supplies, use a Soyuz cargo capsule.

Need to send up 5 replacement crew, fifteen laptops, a new APU, and 50 rats for some experiments, use the shuttle.

In other words, use the right tool for the job.

Of course, in the future, the trick is to not try and build another Swiss Army Knife. Replace Soyuz with a small, re-usable lifting body that can get 5 or 6 people into orbit with a little more cargo; build a minivan this time, not a Winnebago. And when we need larger pieces lifted into orbit, don't build a 'space 747', strap a few more boosters on a Russian rocket. And when the shuttle is getting too old, build a pickup truck not a Lincoln Navigator.

--Len Quam

Russian Space Shuttle

[ixian]

Actually, Russians had a space shuttle program too, but it got canceled in late 1980s. The shuttle was called Buran. More info here: http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/rsa/buran.html

The Shuttle's just hitting its' stride

[Archon_SD]

Actually, IMHO, the shuttle is only just hitting its' stride. Its real utility is as a pack mule for NASA.. and it excels as a man-transport system. With the creation of manned space platforms like the Int'l space station and to some extent Mir, the shuttle finally has a mission worthy of its' talents. Though, I agree with another poster below.. who asks about using the shuttle to retrieve payloads from orbit. It's an ideal *method* to do so.. and it'd be "nice" to be able to retrieve satellites and things when they're through being useful.. especially those in Geosynchronous orbit.. but the da(ng)ed thing just costs too much to operate. *That* I believe is where the space plane will come in handy. It's not just a technology showplace.. the space plane should allow for cheaper shuttling of payloads as well as faster manned transportation.. not only is it faster than the concord.. but it will hopefully be cheaper and safer.

Re:The Space Shuttle is 1970 ideas

[Tau Zero]

The newer shuttles have been improved over the years, and I believe the newest ones are actually smaller than the original Enterprise...

They're all the same size, otherwise they wouldn't be able to use the same engines, external tank and boosters.

However, every succeeding orbiter has been lighter, and thus capable of better performance. The engines have improved a fair bit too.
--