The Story of Baikonur, Russia's Space City 237
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.
Bargain space flight (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bargain space flight (Score:5, Interesting)
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:The Space Shuttle is GREAT (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Costs (Score:2, Interesting)
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:The Space Shuttle is GREAT (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Soviet Russia (Score:4, Interesting)
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".
Go Meme Yourself (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Costs (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Bringing lots of stuff down intact (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Well, (Score:3, Interesting)
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?)?
Re:Costs (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Not a problem for me! (Score:3, Interesting)
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:The Space Shuttle is GREAT (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever actually looked at a picture of a Buran on the launch pad? Try this one. [wikipedia.org]
Oh? Check out this picture of Energia configured to carry cargo. [buran.ru]
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:How did you get modded up? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
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).