Author Topic: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA  (Read 21251 times)

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« on: 08/09/2007 04:55 pm »
Would anyone with the knowledge like to run with this comparison?

Assumption: Ares I/Orion meets all the ESAS requirements and it performs like NASA hopes.

Some ground rule assumptions on Costing:
Since Soyuz TMA only carries 3 versus Orion’s 6 it would be fair to assume 2 Soyuz flights to 1 Ares. Alternatively give the costs as man delivered to orbit. E.G. one third of the total cost on the Soyuz and one sixth of the cost on the Ares.
Development costs: there are a couple of ways to handle this, 1. Ignore it or 2. Make some assumption of the Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA development costs and factor that across some reasonable time length and do the same for Ares I/Orion. 3. Factor the Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA development costs across its entire lifetime versus Ares I/Orion at some fixed length, perhaps 20 years.

My gut is telling me that Soyuz is going to be much cheaper to operate than Ares but I am not really sure.

Safety: Are two Soyuz missions safer than one Orion mission or not?

Alternative missions: There are several ways to compare this. 1. What are the capabilities of the two launch vehicles? 2. What are the capabilities of the two space ships? 3. Within the “Lunar Mission” what are the capabilities of the Russian system Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA/Proton LV versus the Ares I/Orion/Ares V?

I’ll be interested to see what you Rocket Scientists come up with.

“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #1 on: 08/09/2007 05:34 pm »
Good 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.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #2 on: 08/09/2007 05:55 pm »
So 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?

On the lunar return it was my understanding that Orion was also planned to do a skip manuver to allow precision landing. Would that be equivalent to the Soyuz TMA heat loading manuver?
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline brihath

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #3 on: 08/09/2007 06:00 pm »
Quote
Kaputnik - 9/8/2007  1:34 PM

Good 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.

It might be a difficult comparison to make regarding costs, as the Soyuz launch vehicle has been operational in one form or another since 1957- R-7, Vostok, Voshkod, Soyuz, Molniya, Soyuz-Fregat, etc.  Thus the development and infrastructure costs have been spread over a lot of launches (over 1000 for the R-7 and variants, I think).  Plus, historical labor costs in Soviet era Russia would be very difficult to capture, which is when a lot of the development and infrastructure costs occurred.

Interesting idea, but just difficult to quantify.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #4 on: 08/09/2007 06:08 pm »
Quote
Kaputnik - 9/8/2007  12:34 PM

Good 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).

Just a hair under 98%, but the exact number depends on how you count Soyuz flights. Under the broadest possible definition (counting Soyuz 32, 34, and T-10-1, and not counting the TMA currently docked to ISS), you get 2 fatal accidents in 96 flights, or 0.979.

For all statistical intents and purposes, the shuttle's record is identical with two fatal accidents in 118 flights (again, not counting STS-118), or 0.983.

No other manned spacecraft even has enough flights to statistically compare them with Soyuz or shuttle.

Fatality rates for the two vehicles are also statistically equal. For Soyuz, 4 fatalities in 231 person-trips (1:57.8) and for shuttle, 14 fatalities in 705 person-trips (1:50.4).

Quote
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.

Pretty wild conjecture at that. These kinds of PRA estimates are derived from fault trees that only account for the hazards of the vehicle, and not the overall system, which includes both the vehicle and the (quite fallible) people who build and operate it. I've been looking for a sucker willing to bet that Orion will fly at least its first 59 flights with no fatal accidents, which would make its LOC rate match the shuttle's. The only reasons I won't actually bet against that are 1) blatant conflict-of-interest and 2) Orion's flight rate will be so low, I probably won't live long enough to collect.
JRF

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Motown
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #5 on: 08/09/2007 06:08 pm »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 9/8/2007  1:55 PM

So 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.
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline HarryM

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • California
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #6 on: 08/09/2007 06:10 pm »
The Zond flights which tested Soyuz lunar flybys were pretty horrible in success rate, hardly reassuring.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #7 on: 08/09/2007 06:14 pm »
Quote
sandrot - 9/8/2007  11:08 AM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 9/8/2007  1:55 PM

So 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.

I based the $21.7m figure on Kaputnik's estimated cost of $65m not the other way around. Currently I believe a seat on the Soyuz is going for $25m.

“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #8 on: 08/09/2007 06:22 pm »
Quote
HarryM - 9/8/2007  7:10 PM

The Zond flights which tested Soyuz lunar flybys were pretty horrible in success rate, hardly reassuring.

On the other hand, Soyuz is now well "broken in", and has also been upgraded in many ways during the last decade. They could probably come up with a lunar flyby version with not that much extra money. Also the automation technology in the sixties was pretty primitive, which was one big reason of the failures (they didn't carry crews on the tests).
The block DM though...

Offline brihath

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #9 on: 08/09/2007 06:25 pm »
Quote
HarryM - 9/8/2007  2:10 PM

The 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.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #10 on: 08/09/2007 06:39 pm »
Quote
brihath - 9/8/2007  1:25 PM

Quote
HarryM - 9/8/2007  2:10 PM

The 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.

I think Harry's referring to the Zond re-entry problems. The launcher had nothing to do with that.
JRF

Offline HarryM

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • California
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #11 on: 08/09/2007 06:42 pm »
I 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.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #12 on: 08/09/2007 06:57 pm »
On 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.


Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #13 on: 08/09/2007 06:59 pm »
Quote
HarryM - 9/8/2007  11:42 AM

I 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.

I wasn't so much interested in "replacing" the Orion, I was wondering more about compatibility. E.G. Orion/LSAM get a working base running could a Proton launched Soyuz and a Proton launched Russian/ESA lunar lander deliver crew to the base? Would there be the possibility of a Progress style resupply capability? What I was really trying to get at was whether either the Soyuz TMA or the Orion was versatile enough to consider other missions besides ISS.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #14 on: 08/09/2007 08:40 pm »
Quote
sandrot - 9/8/2007  1:08 PM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 9/8/2007  1:55 PM

So 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

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #15 on: 08/09/2007 08:53 pm »
Quote
gladiator1332 - 9/8/2007  2:57 PM

On 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

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #16 on: 08/09/2007 08:54 pm »
Quote
gladiator1332 - 9/8/2007  11:57 AM

On 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.

I don't know that breaking it down like that is useful in any particular way.

But I think it is worth noting that both Shuttle accidents were caused by the people running the system knowingly flying it outside of specification.  It's not clear that either of these would have a line item in a PRA like those done to calculate the reliability of the Ares I.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Online TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 487
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #17 on: 08/09/2007 08:55 pm »
Quote
Jim - 9/8/2007  4:53 PM

Quote
gladiator1332 - 9/8/2007  2:57 PM

On 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

And... what was it that caused the TPS problem??????

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #18 on: 08/09/2007 09:18 pm »
Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 9/8/2007  4:55 PM

Quote
Jim - 9/8/2007  4:53 PM

Quote
gladiator1332 - 9/8/2007  2:57 PM

On 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

And... what was it that caused the TPS problem??????

A flawed design.  All launch vehicles shed debris.  Period, no if's and's or but's about it.   The TPS was not designed for the environment that it would encounter.  

Just as the TPS is not designed to fly through the rain. They have a flight rule to avoid this environment.  With debris, you can't avoid it and you can't completely get rid of it.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #19 on: 08/09/2007 09:27 pm »
Quote
edkyle99 - 9/8/2007  9:40 PM

Quote
sandrot - 9/8/2007  1:08 PM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 9/8/2007  1:55 PM

So 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.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline pierre

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Turin, EU
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #20 on: 08/09/2007 11:49 pm »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 9/8/2007  8:59 PM

I 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?

This is slightly off topic, but FYI there was an European report a few years ago on exactly this. The conclusion was that a plain Ariane 5, with no modifications except a new upper stage based on the Vinci engine, could put 10.8 t in LTO and 3.5 t of useful payload on the lunar surface (a bit more than a Progress ship to the ISS).

There were also a few proposal (more or less realistic) to increase that value with updates to the Ariane 5.

Offline brihath

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #21 on: 08/10/2007 12:46 am »
Quote
Kaputnik - 9/8/2007  5:27 PM

Quote
edkyle99 - 9/8/2007  9:40 PM

Quote
sandrot - 9/8/2007  1:08 PM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 9/8/2007  1:55 PM

So 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.

The problem here comes down to economics.  It is easier to determine the price of something than its cost.  This is particularly true in Russia, where a capitalist market system has developed only over the past decade and a half.  

Under the Soviet system, there was no concept of cost, market, or P&L.  I remember reading in Thomas Reed's book, "At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War" that he visited a post Soviet areospace plant that was trying to use its capability to enter commercial markets.  They were trying to sell shovels made out of...titanium!  They had no idea how to equate cost of manufacture with price.  The whole concept was foreign to them.

This is part of the reason why comparing costs of access to space in Russia vs the US is very hard to do.  I'm sure they have a better idea now then in Soviet times, but it would be still hard to account for sunk costs, such as development or infrastructure for a system that has been around as long as Soyuz.

BTW- My review of that book is posted on Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/At-Abyss-Insiders-History-Cold/dp/0891418377/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1878931-3785207?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186706037&sr=8-1

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #22 on: 08/10/2007 02:45 am »
I 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?
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #23 on: 08/10/2007 07:46 am »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 10/8/2007  3:45 AM

I 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?

Well that's a pretty difficult question to ask. Personally, I would prefer to take a Soyuz over a brand new and untested Orion. But once Orion had a few flawless flights under its belt, I might be persuaded to swap, in only for the leg-room...
As has been posted above, Orion probably won't get an opportunity to demonstrate a better reliability record than STS or Soyuz, so it's going to be moot whether or not it is safer.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

  • Guest
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #24 on: 08/10/2007 09:26 pm »

Quote
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.


Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #25 on: 08/10/2007 10:04 pm »
The analysis is not even valid for one reason.  The US will not forever lock itself into relying on the Russians.  Orion is meant to be the core of Constellation Program.  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.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #26 on: 08/10/2007 10:06 pm »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 9/8/2007  9:45 PM

I 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?

You cannot give a more accurate figure at this point when the detailed design process is still in work.  Obviously ROM's can be generated based on what is known now but that is why you have the range given because there are still many unknowns and variables.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

  • Guest
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #27 on: 08/10/2007 10:15 pm »

Quote
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 ...


Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • Ottawa, ON
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 616
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #28 on: 08/12/2007 12:56 am »
There 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.  On the other hand, it's so tiny, there's not much you can do with it other than an ISS taxi.  Had the Soviet Union not collapsed, the Soyuz would have been long gone.

Offline neviden

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #29 on: 08/12/2007 09:34 am »
Quote
Steve G - 12/8/2007  2:56 AM
On 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.


Offline imfan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #30 on: 08/12/2007 11:25 am »
It is roughly in the same "tiny" league as Orion is. But joined with mission module it is almost as capable except the size of crew

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #31 on: 08/12/2007 01:20 pm »
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that a pair of Soyuzes would have a mass of only 15t, as opposed to the 23t+ of Orion. Admittedly Orion has greater delta-v (1855m/s rather than 390m/s), but an Orion has 10.23m3 habitable volume as opposed to the 18m3 of a pair of Soyuzes. Doesn't make the Soyuz seem so small, does it?
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #32 on: 08/12/2007 04:39 pm »
Quote
Steve G - 11/8/2007  7:56 PM

There 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.

The latter statistic (85 consecutive flights without LOC) is the relevant one; the former (no LOC since 1971) is not. It is worth pointing out (again) that the shuttle had 87 consecutive flights with no LOC between 51L and 107.

Given two vehicles with the same LOC rate and vehicle A with twice the flight rate of vehicle B, vehicle A will have an LOC twice as often as vehicle B.
JRF

Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • Ottawa, ON
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 616
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #33 on: 08/12/2007 05:33 pm »
Quote
neviden - 12/8/2007  4:34 AM

Quote
Steve G - 12/8/2007  2:56 AM
On 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.

It 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.  After the Soyuz 11 tragedy, the Soyuz could only accommodate 2 crew.  I've always been astounded that they never evolved to a larger 4 - 5 manned version.

Offline neviden

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #34 on: 08/13/2007 10:53 am »
Quote
Steve G - 12/8/2007  7:33 PM
It 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.

Quote
Steve G - 12/8/2007  7:33 PM
I'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.

Offline brihath

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #35 on: 08/13/2007 02:16 pm »
Quote
neviden - 13/8/2007  6:53 AM

Quote
Steve G - 12/8/2007  7:33 PM
It 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.

Quote
Steve G - 12/8/2007  7:33 PM
I'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.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Ares I/Orion versus Soyuz LV/Soyuz TMA
« Reply #36 on: 08/13/2007 03:45 pm »
Quote
brihath - 13/8/2007  3:16 PM

Quote
neviden - 13/8/2007  6:53 AM

Quote
Steve G - 12/8/2007  7:33 PM
It 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.

Quote
Steve G - 12/8/2007  7:33 PM
I'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.

The CSTS program will be a much more direct Soyuz replacement (if it is ever built)- it will be a three-module system but with a somewhat larger spacecraft/crew. Unverified details on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSTS

Acctually I was never that impressed with Kliper; it promised to deliver six people to orbit in a 15t spacecraft; this is the same mass per person as Soyuz. Perhaps by using one launch and a semi-reusable spacecraft they could have lowered operarting costs, but I doubt that it would have offset the development costs.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0