Russia Working on Soyuz Replacement 311
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."
The problem with the ISS (Score:2, Interesting)
A moon base or space elevator would be infinitely more useful than a space station.
Re:The problem with the ISS (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The problem with the ISS (Score:5, Interesting)
It could be useful if we want to come up with a plan similar to this one for colonizing Mars. [marsinstitute.info] 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 [amazon.com]. In Soviet Russia, the moon colonizes YOU!
Read the rest of this comment... [colonpee.com]
look i have a sig! [colonpee.com]
Re:The problem with the ISS (Score:2, Redundant)
Aerodynaics don't mean jack regardless of gravity. Within an atmosphere they are a big deal, of course. Which leads to the idea of building a space station close to Earth, and when it's proven, you can send the station itself off to Mars.
Also (and somewhat trollishly), mutually assured destruction being a good war deterrent sounds like a good reason for the US to STFU about other countries having nuclear programs.
Re:The problem with the ISS (Score:2)
to hell with space stations, moon bases, space infrastructure...
Let's take a 50 year period and do nothing but work on a decent propulsion system that is at least 100% more efficent than the horrible ones we have now. 200% would be more desireable... I'm thinking we need a 1000% more efficient to do what we all want it to do.
New Propulsion Systems Already In Works (Score:4, Informative)
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!
Re:Building in space... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Building in space... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Building in space... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The problem with the ISS (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The problem with the ISS (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The problem with the ISS (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The problem with the ISS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The problem with the ISS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The problem with the ISS (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Why would you want to tether the station to either the Earth of the moon?
In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Funny)
hell, someone had to do it...
Damn! Happened again! (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.
Re:Damn! Happened again! (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re:Damn! Happened again! (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm. I think I just need one with a tether. I mean, cable.
Wait a minute (Score:4, Interesting)
I know for a fact that DVD bootlegs do not produce that much capital.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:2, Funny)
Russian official: The Soviet Union will be pleased to offer amnesty to your wayward vessel.
American official: The Soviet Union? I thought you guys broke up.
Russian official: Yes, that's what we wanted you to think! [laughs]
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Funny)
Typical capitalist criticism. Didn't you learn in PoliSci 101 how in Soviet Russia, the Soyuz pays for 60% of your income tax?
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Informative)
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:Wait a minute (Score:2)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
OK, let's read an actual report [worldbank.org] about the Russian Federation's economy.
Population below national poverty line: 25%
GNI per capita US$2,140
GDP US$346.5 billion
GDP Growth 4.3 %
Let's see, $346B is 1/5 that of England (half the population of Russi
Re:Wait a minute (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:2)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Informative)
That's the civilian budget, I expect that a lot of spending is hidden in the military budget - in the finest tradition of aerospace industries.
Russia still sends payloads into orbit from Plesetsk, almost all of them military. It's currently extending the complex to handle the new Angara rocket to replace the Proton which can only be fired out of Baikanur in Kazakhstan.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Interesting)
Oil. Russia is rapidly becoming the West's favoured oil producer since its pipelines run straight into Europe and the Black Sea.
The Russian economy has been enjoying something of a boom in the last couple of years. Whilst it's still much smaller
I bet they do it, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
They keep things simple, and their stuff works.
Re:I bet they do it, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as paying for it: the Russians desperately need a symbol of national pride. They'll find a way to get this flying.
Re:I bet they do it, too... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I bet they do it, too... (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 th
Russian shuttle (Score:4, Informative)
The French had a mini shuttle called Hermes [astronautix.com], designed to fly on the front of Ariane.
Re:Russian shuttle (Score:4, Informative)
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 [sea-launch.com]. (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.
Re:I bet they do it, too... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's quite possible, ESA has been quietly deepening its links with the Russian space programme for some time now.
ESA has contracted Rosaviakosmos to supply Soyuz rockets for launch out of the Ariane site in French Guyana. Not only will it give Soyuz a new lease of life - allowing it to lift heavier loads into orbit, but that is lots of hard currency pouring back into Russia.
ESA is relying on the Russians to provide the launcher for Venus Ex
Re:I bet they do it, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I bet they do it, too... (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:I bet they do it, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I bet they do it, too... (Score:2)
Re:I bet they do it, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 l
Re:I bet they do it, too... (Score:3, Interesting)
If only it were so. In fact Russias economy is pretty often described as 'putin-capitalism' as so many economic restrictions are placed on private companies - and when a company steps out of line it has a habit of being 'bought out' by one of putins 11 or 12 super rich ex-party cronies (it might be 10 now if he's decided to exile another like he did last year).
Capitalism requires freedom - ultra capitalism requires ultra freedom. The majority of russia isn't aware of t
Re:I bet they do it, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Russia today is as ultra capitalist as you can get (i.e the rich/powerful are in complete control).
By that definition, medieval Europe was "ultra-capitalist" - after all, the Church was rich and powerful, and it was in complete control. "Capitalism" does not mean "control by the rich and powerful". The term "capitalism" implies other things, like a free market, property rights, rule of law, etc. which do not apply especially well to present-day Russia. No, Russia is not socialist anymore, but "anarch
Re:I bet they do it, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
1) If socialism is such a good way to undertake large projects such as space programmes, how come so many of the other large-scale undertakings in socialist countries have, to put it in popular terms, sucked donkeyballs? If anything, socialism has been the cause of a number of failures of the Russian space program, due to strict adherence to unrealistic schedules. Of course, capitalist organisations fall victim to the same trap fr
Re:I bet they do it, too... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:I bet they do it, too... (Score:2)
Right, that's the problem. (Score:5, Funny)
From all the articles i've read on
Re:Right, that's the problem. (Score:3, Funny)
You must be new here.
Cool, but where's the money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of interest, NASA had a similar idea in the 1960s with their 'Big Gemini' [astronautix.com] program and the 'Apollo Rescue CSM' [astronautix.com] program. It's very feasible, and the Soyuz is a solid design.
Re:Cool, but where's the money? (Score:2)
Money (what we have and what we pretend to have) (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Money (what we have and what we pretend to have (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Farewell to the Soyuz (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
But I would love to see that new vehicle, I think this is the way to go, no Shuttles, just simple reusable modules with more capacity.
Re:Farewell to the Soyuz (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Farewell to the Soyuz (Score:3, Insightful)
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 cos
well, actually 3 people died - (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Farewell to the Soyuz (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Re:Farewell to the Soyuz (Score:3, Informative)
Well, it was actually 'fixed' before that mission, when the crew wore space suits. The reason they didn't for that mission was that with three people on board they just couldn't fit the extra bulk of the space suits of the era. T
Re:Farewell to the Soyuz (Score:5, Informative)
How many people have died in the Soyuz? None!
According to this article [wikipedia.org] 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...
Re:Farewell to the Soyuz (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Farewell to the Soyuz (Score:2, Interesting)
I like the Russian designs for their simplicity and effectiveness in general, but at least we got to use our shuttles.
Re:Farewell to the Soyuz (Score:2, Insightful)
That is all.
Ban the concept of "Aero-space" and create only a "TRANSPORTATION" sector. Open it up to GM, and let 'er rip.
The Russians can't really do this - they don't have as grand a free market for massive industrialized production as the US does - but the fact remains that the Russian space program parallels US car industry manufacturing design ideals more than the US program does, that is for damned sure
Do not blame US capitalism for our woes. (Score:3, Interesting)
Even the supply chain is subject to pork barreling and government arm twisting. The system isn't designed to be efficient. It is designed to favor powerful Senators, Government Employees, and those who curry their favor.
They have no incentive to improve. I was hoping that by essentially condeming t
esa working on same thing (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/ATV/i
Re:ESA working on same thing (Score:3, Interesting)
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 f
Slashdotted already? Full Article Text: (Score:3, Informative)
Forgive me, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do the Russians even have the money to do this?
NASA Watch [nasawatch.com] only had a short quip that funding was a fantasy.
While the Russian economy is growing [cia.gov], it still seems less than likely that they'll be able to afford this. They have a PPP GDP smaller than France [cia.gov], Italy [cia.gov], or Brazil [cia.gov] right now.
Re:Forgive me, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
You are right (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:You are right (Score:3, Insightful)
Politically this becomes an easy sell on all fronts. Financially it's way cheaper. In the event of 'incidents' (and you know they will happen), it's trivially easy to point the finger at Russia and say 'thier fault'. That's the biggest probl
Re:Forgive me, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Its not just the russians.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:Its not just the russians.... (Score:2, Insightful)
"And even in the strictest military sense of the word, is the US funding of its current defense requirements genuinely making the nation safer? No nation has the capacity to challenge the United States in any conventional military sense. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global military spending rose to $798 billion in 2000, an increase of 3.1 per cent from the pre
Super Soyuz has been proposed before (Score:5, Informative)
Russia should bring back Buran (Score:5, Informative)
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/ [buran.ru]
Re:Russia should bring back Buran (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I love Buran (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
wishful thinking (Score:5, Interesting)
more on the lunar Soyuz (Score:5, Informative)
..for those curious about such things *smiles*:
Soyuz 7K-L1A circumlunar [astronautix.com]
Soyuz 7K-L1A test article [astronautix.com]
Soyuz 7K-L1E circumlunar test article [astronautix.com]
Soyuz 7K-L1P prototype, boilerplate capsule [astronautix.com]
Soyuz 7K-LOK planned lunar orbiter [astronautix.com]
You might also be interested in reasing baout the Soviet Lunar Lander [astronautix.com] and the launchsystem [astronautix.com] 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 [astronautix.com], the various soviet manned lunar programs [astronautix.com] and wether the design of the Soyuz was stolen [astronautix.com] from the US.
Re:more on the lunar Soyuz (Score:3, Informative)
What project this alegged system is based on ? (Score:3, Interesting)
New Space Race (Score:2, Interesting)
Money seems to be their problem (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
Re:Money seems to be their problem (Score:2)
What next?!? (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!
this could be daft, but hell (Score:3, Interesting)
Russians make the best rockets (Score:5, Insightful)
We will not explore the solar system without these brilliant people. "Going it alone" is stupid and shortsighted. But, then again, so are politicians...
Why not just... (Score:4, Interesting)
No Funding. Don't Hold Your Breath (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, it would be just another LEO vehicle.
Don't hold your breath.
If we had given the russians some money (Score:3, Interesting)
If we want to go to Mars why not use Energia type boosters to put our mars craft into orbit. If we want to go to the moon, the Russians are the only ones with the knowhow who can help us do it affordably.
Re:Cart before the horse? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now give it 4-5 more years of poor funding and then we'll see what else flies off!
Re:Cart before the horse? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cart before the horse? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Cart before the horse? (Score:4, Informative)
If the ISS survives the problems that Mir had, it will be doing quite well.
Re:Cart before the horse? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cart before the horse? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cart before the horse? (Score:5, Insightful)
"We haven't got the money, so we've got to think!
"