Kaputnik - 9/8/2007 1:34 PMGood question. I'm not in a position to answer fully, but I can add this:Soyuz has a demonstrated safety record of about 98% (I think Ed Kyle is the man to go into more detail on this one). This compares unfavourably to the expected safety record (LOC) of 1/1200 or so for Ares/Orion. However, the Ares/Orion number is conjecture and the Soyuz one is demonstrated reliability.Second, the Soyuz re-entry capsule is good for LEO missions but not as well equipped for lunar re-entry. It is designed to survive lunar re-entry, but requires a double-dip manoeuvre to reduce heat loading; this adds complication and reduces safety.On cost, even the most expensive estimates for Soyuz are around $65m per flight; this is far below the Ares/Orion figures.
Kaputnik - 9/8/2007 12:34 PMGood question. I'm not in a position to answer fully, but I can add this:Soyuz has a demonstrated safety record of about 98% (I think Ed Kyle is the man to go into more detail on this one).
This compares unfavourably to the expected safety record (LOC) of 1/1200 or so for Ares/Orion. However, the Ares/Orion number is conjecture and the Soyuz one is demonstrated reliability.
Norm Hartnett - 9/8/2007 1:55 PMSo you are saying that two missions at 98% safety would not compare well with one mission with a LOC of 1/1200 and that two Soyuz missions would be about $130m or about $21.7m per person? [...]
sandrot - 9/8/2007 11:08 AMQuoteNorm Hartnett - 9/8/2007 1:55 PMSo you are saying that two missions at 98% safety would not compare well with one mission with a LOC of 1/1200 and that two Soyuz missions would be about $130m or about $21.7m per person? [...] I would not assume that since one seat on a Soyuz is marketed at 21.7 M$ that 21.7M$ represents 1/3 of a Soyuz mission cost.
HarryM - 9/8/2007 7:10 PMThe Zond flights which tested Soyuz lunar flybys were pretty horrible in success rate, hardly reassuring.
HarryM - 9/8/2007 2:10 PMThe Zond flights which tested Soyuz lunar flybys were pretty horrible in success rate, hardly reassuring.
brihath - 9/8/2007 1:25 PMQuoteHarryM - 9/8/2007 2:10 PMThe Zond flights which tested Soyuz lunar flybys were pretty horrible in success rate, hardly reassuring.May not be a good comparison. Zond missions were launched by Protons- different launch vehicle, safety record, costs, etc. At the time of the Zond missions, I think there were still a lot of reliability issues with the Proton launcher.
HarryM - 9/8/2007 11:42 AMI can understand cost validation for ISS missions, just not sure how a Soyuz would fit into a Lunar architecture in terms of "replacing" the Orion. I would guess crew would be in full Orlan type EVA suits not a pressure suit, so 2 not 3 crew, so you would need 2 Soyuz for a 4 crew Lunar mission.
sandrot - 9/8/2007 1:08 PMQuoteNorm Hartnett - 9/8/2007 1:55 PMSo you are saying that two missions at 98% safety would not compare well with one mission with a LOC of 1/1200 and that two Soyuz missions would be about $130m or about $21.7m per person? [...] I would not assume that since one seat on a Soyuz is marketed at 21.7 M$ that 21.7M$ represents 1/3 of a Soyuz mission cost.
gladiator1332 - 9/8/2007 2:57 PMOn another note...the Soyuz spacecraft was the problem for the two fatal missions...Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. The launch vehicle (tank and SRB) caused the two Shuttle fatal missions. It is tough to compare Ares I to Soyuz in terms of safety as Ares I hasn't flown yet. We have already seen with Shuttle how LOC projections can be way off.
gladiator1332 - 9/8/2007 11:57 AMOn another note...the Soyuz spacecraft was the problem for the two fatal missions...Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. The launch vehicle (tank and SRB) caused the two Shuttle fatal missions.
Jim - 9/8/2007 4:53 PMQuotegladiator1332 - 9/8/2007 2:57 PMOn another note...the Soyuz spacecraft was the problem for the two fatal missions...Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. The launch vehicle (tank and SRB) caused the two Shuttle fatal missions. It is tough to compare Ares I to Soyuz in terms of safety as Ares I hasn't flown yet. We have already seen with Shuttle how LOC projections can be way off. Columbia was a orbiter TPS problem, not an ET problem
TrueBlueWitt - 9/8/2007 4:55 PMQuoteJim - 9/8/2007 4:53 PMQuotegladiator1332 - 9/8/2007 2:57 PMOn another note...the Soyuz spacecraft was the problem for the two fatal missions...Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. The launch vehicle (tank and SRB) caused the two Shuttle fatal missions. It is tough to compare Ares I to Soyuz in terms of safety as Ares I hasn't flown yet. We have already seen with Shuttle how LOC projections can be way off. Columbia was a orbiter TPS problem, not an ET problemAnd... what was it that caused the TPS problem???
edkyle99 - 9/8/2007 9:40 PMQuotesandrot - 9/8/2007 1:08 PMQuoteNorm Hartnett - 9/8/2007 1:55 PMSo you are saying that two missions at 98% safety would not compare well with one mission with a LOC of 1/1200 and that two Soyuz missions would be about $130m or about $21.7m per person? [...] I would not assume that since one seat on a Soyuz is marketed at 21.7 M$ that 21.7M$ represents 1/3 of a Soyuz mission cost.The price is going up fast, partly due to the falling dollar versus the ruble and partly due to Russia just wanting more money. According to this recent report, a Soyuz seat now costs $30 million, and will cost $40 million beginning next year. http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2007-07-18-space-tourism-costs_N.htm - Ed Kyle
Norm Hartnett - 9/8/2007 8:59 PMI wasn't so much interested in "replacing" the Orion, I was wondering more about compatibility. E.G. [...] Would there be the possibility of a Progress style resupply capability?
Kaputnik - 9/8/2007 5:27 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 9/8/2007 9:40 PMQuotesandrot - 9/8/2007 1:08 PMQuoteNorm Hartnett - 9/8/2007 1:55 PMSo you are saying that two missions at 98% safety would not compare well with one mission with a LOC of 1/1200 and that two Soyuz missions would be about $130m or about $21.7m per person? [...] I would not assume that since one seat on a Soyuz is marketed at 21.7 M$ that 21.7M$ represents 1/3 of a Soyuz mission cost.The price is going up fast, partly due to the falling dollar versus the ruble and partly due to Russia just wanting more money. According to this recent report, a Soyuz seat now costs $30 million, and will cost $40 million beginning next year. http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2007-07-18-space-tourism-costs_N.htm - Ed Kyle$65m per Soyuz was what I believe RKK wished to charge NASA for ISS access some years ago; however, when the MirCorp company was attempting to save Mir, it apparently was able to stage a complete Soyuz mission for only $21m. Interesting.
Norm Hartnett - 10/8/2007 3:45 AMI have seen estimates of Ares I/Orion operational costs of between $300m and $600m here at the web site, does anyone have a more accurate figure? Assuming the lower figure of $300m this works out to $50m per man in LEO compared to somewhere around $21.7 to $30m for Soyuz. Does that sound right? That brings into question the safety issue. Given the recent history of the Soyuz, is it any more risky than Orion? Where do you trade off the cost versus the safety?
Kaputnik - 9/8/2007 4:27 PM $65m per Soyuz was what I believe RKK wished to charge NASA for ISS access some years ago; however, when the MirCorp company was attempting to save Mir, it apparently was able to stage a complete Soyuz mission for only $21m. Interesting.
Nothing surprising. $21M direct cost as an in-kind investment to potentially bootstrap finance a $0.5B business opportunity is perfectly reasonable.
$65M to charge another government's agency for operating a vehicle under its flight rules, under its scheduling demands/reporting requirements, and as a one-shot business opportunity - seems cheap to me.
Remember that you have to look at the business itself, not just the vehicle. More goes into it that just parts and some services. Payload "integration" charges alone can vary 4x depending just how they are done. It has surprised me that no one has done a business that just does this standalone across launchers/countries.
Norm Hartnett - 9/8/2007 9:45 PMI have seen estimates of Ares I/Orion operational costs of between $300m and $600m here at the web site, does anyone have a more accurate figure? Assuming the lower figure of $300m this works out to $50m per man in LEO compared to somewhere around $21.7 to $30m for Soyuz. Does that sound right? That brings into question the safety issue. Given the recent history of the Soyuz, is it any more risky than Orion? Where do you trade off the cost versus the safety?
OV-106 - 10/8/2007 5:04 PM ... The US will not forever lock itself into relying on the Russians. ... Subing that function out to a foreign nation that can be erratic at times would never fly with Congress, any Administration and, I hope, the American public.
Used to believe that - til this administration. Now anything is plausible. Just needs the appropriate political theory to fly cover under, and pay-off to some loyal interest. For a while, it may even look reasonable. Then reality will bite ...
Steve G - 12/8/2007 2:56 AMOn the other hand, it's so tiny, there's not much you can do with it other than an ISS taxi.
Steve G - 11/8/2007 7:56 PMThere have been no Soyuz fatalities since 1971, and the iffy Zond missions were based on the same early Soyuz designs. So ball park, the Soviets/Russians have had 85 consecutive missions without LOC with the Soyuz.
neviden - 12/8/2007 4:34 AMQuoteSteve G - 12/8/2007 2:56 AMOn the other hand, it's so tiny, there's not much you can do with it other than an ISS taxi.What more do you want from it? It gets crew from Earth to LEO and back to Earth cheaply, safely and reliably. It doesn't need to do anything else, since there is some kind of space station waiting in LEO for them to do their job.
Steve G - 12/8/2007 7:33 PMIt was originally designed to fly to the moon. In that context, it was tiny and even in the LOK configuration, would have had just a fraction of the Apollo's capabilities.
Steve G - 12/8/2007 7:33 PMI've always been astounded that they never evolved to a larger 4 - 5 manned version.
neviden - 13/8/2007 6:53 AMQuoteSteve G - 12/8/2007 7:33 PMIt was originally designed to fly to the moon. In that context, it was tiny and even in the LOK configuration, would have had just a fraction of the Apollo's capabilities. It could bring people From Earth to LEO. From LEO to Moon orbit (with extra booster). From Moon orbit back to Earth. It could keep crew alive and transport them safely around. Apart from smaller number of the crewmembers, what part of the "just a fraction of the Apollo's capabilities" does Soyuz not have?Being in “tiny” cramped capsule for few days is something that might be irritating, but nothing the crew could not handle. If you need more people in space simply build and launch more of them. QuoteSteve G - 12/8/2007 7:33 PMI've always been astounded that they never evolved to a larger 4 - 5 manned version.You could build bigger Soyuz TMA, but then you would need a bigger rocket. Recent upgrades to Soyuz 2-1b increased its capabilities, and since Russians and Europeans are talking about joint manned program, that could result in a bigger/better/upgraded Soyuz.
brihath - 13/8/2007 3:16 PMQuoteneviden - 13/8/2007 6:53 AMQuoteSteve G - 12/8/2007 7:33 PMIt was originally designed to fly to the moon. In that context, it was tiny and even in the LOK configuration, would have had just a fraction of the Apollo's capabilities. It could bring people From Earth to LEO. From LEO to Moon orbit (with extra booster). From Moon orbit back to Earth. It could keep crew alive and transport them safely around. Apart from smaller number of the crewmembers, what part of the "just a fraction of the Apollo's capabilities" does Soyuz not have?Being in “tiny” cramped capsule for few days is something that might be irritating, but nothing the crew could not handle. If you need more people in space simply build and launch more of them. QuoteSteve G - 12/8/2007 7:33 PMI've always been astounded that they never evolved to a larger 4 - 5 manned version.You could build bigger Soyuz TMA, but then you would need a bigger rocket. Recent upgrades to Soyuz 2-1b increased its capabilities, and since Russians and Europeans are talking about joint manned program, that could result in a bigger/better/upgraded Soyuz.I would guess Kliper would have fit the bill, had they been able to fund the development. I thought it looked like a good concept, but their decision to go with the Soyuz launch vehicle added considerable constraints to getting the complete vehicle into orbit. I consider it an evolution of Soyuz, as they planned to borrow the orbital module design from it.