Author Topic: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?  (Read 41442 times)

Offline Bubbinski

Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« on: 04/22/2008 11:47 pm »
After 2 ballistic landings in a row, I'm thinking it's time this possibility gets seriously discussed.  There is the upcoming shuttle retirement and gap until Orion and Ares become operational, about 2015-16 if all goes well.  For several years, Soyuz would be the only currently planned crewed vehicle to visit ISS.

It's April 2008 - about two years until shuttle retirement.  What options are there to develop a Soyuz backup vehicle that could fly about 2011 or 2012?

 - Kliper?  When could that be ready by if the Russians restart it?
 - Dragon atop Atlas, Delta, or Falcon 9 if that flies successfully?
 - ACTS/ARD/ATV?  I asked about that earlier and people responded a European crewed vehicle wouldn't be ready before 2016.
 - Orion command module only or stripped down SM atop Delta 4 or Atlas 5?
 - Shenzhou?  (I did see some links on this forum that discussed that and ruled it out - Chinese haven't done docking yet, for example.  But could that change, are there circumstances that could put the Chinese in the mix?).
 - Anything else?  Rutan/Scaled Composites?  Other "new space" companies?  India?  Japan?

I don't want this to turn into a "boycott/bash Soyuz" thread or anything like that.  Let's just talk about a backup plan, an extra means for crew to get to ISS until Ares is ready.
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #1 on: 04/23/2008 12:23 am »
I don't think there is any plausible backup in that time frame, nor is the recent landing incident a particularly good reason to pursue one.

The lead time on Soyuz is supposedly 2.5 years. Do you really think someone is going to design, build, and qualify an entirely new manned orbital spacecraft in little more than that ? Maybe if it was a national priority with blank check to back it up, but not under any realistic scenario.

Space-X might claim Dragon will be ready in that time frame, but if you look at their predicted vs. actual schedules to date, it would be safe to assume it will be several years late.

Shenzhou is probably doable technically, but bringing China on board as an ISS partner and would be a massive undertaking. Even if the political issues could be agreed in principle (extremely unlikely), negotiating the detailed agreements, clearing ITAR, translating and reviewing all the relevant technical details (in both directions) would almost certainly take years.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #3 on: 04/23/2008 01:25 am »
Quote
Bubbinski - 22/4/2008  6:47 PM

After 2 ballistic landings in a row, I'm thinking it's time this possibility gets seriously discussed.  There is the upcoming shuttle retirement and gap until Orion and Ares become operational, about 2015-16 if all goes well.  For several years, Soyuz would be the only currently planned crewed vehicle to visit ISS.

It's April 2008 - about two years until shuttle retirement.  What options are there to develop a Soyuz backup vehicle that could fly about 2011 or 2012?

 - Kliper?  When could that be ready by if the Russians restart it?

Russia can't afford it on their own, ESA chose not to pay for it, US won't pay for it (US money would be better spent on US alternatives). Will be experimental, unlikely to be safer than Soyuz for quite some time (i.e. >2015).

Quote
- Dragon atop Atlas, Delta, or Falcon 9 if that flies successfully?

Could fly unmanned by 2010, manned flight by time of shuttle retirement would require a lot more funding. Will be experimental, unlikely to be safer than Soyuz for quite some time (i.e. >2015).

Quote
- ACTS/ARD/ATV?  I asked about that earlier and people responded a European crewed vehicle wouldn't be ready before 2016.

People were probably right. Will be experimental, unlikely to be safer than Soyuz for quite some time (i.e. >2015).

Quote
- Orion command module only or stripped down SM atop Delta 4 or Atlas 5?

Command module won't work alone; stripped down SM only viable option. Unlikely to be available before 2012.  Will be experimental, unlikely to be safer than Soyuz for quite some time (i.e. >2015).

Quote
- Shenzhou?  (I did see some links on this forum that discussed that and ruled it out - Chinese haven't done docking yet, for example.  But could that change, are there circumstances that could put the Chinese in the mix?).

Political non-starter. Would require US funding to accelerate the flight schedule, also political non-starter. Will be experimental, unlikely to be safer than Soyuz for quite some time (i.e. >2015).

Quote
- Anything else?  Rutan/Scaled Composites?  Other "new space" companies?  India?  Japan?

Rutan has his hands full just getting his second suborbital craft to work. You're forgetting OSC - they already are a COTS player. t/Space could be a player. No way India or Japan could field a spacecraft before Orion unless they got a lot of US funding that would be better spent accelerating Orion, SpaceX, OSC, or t/Space. Regardless of which one, will be experimental, unlikely to be safer than Soyuz for quite some time (i.e. >2015).

Quote
I don't want this to turn into a "boycott/bash Soyuz" thread or anything like that.  Let's just talk about a backup plan, an extra means for crew to get to ISS until Ares is ready.

I'm not trying to be funny by putting "Will be experimental, unlikely to be safer than Soyuz for quite some time (i.e. >2015)" next to all the options. It's just the truth. If you are looking for a Soyuz substitute with comparable safety, the only viable alternative that could be fielded in the 2010-15 timeframe is the space shuttle.
JRF

  • Guest
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #4 on: 04/23/2008 02:36 am »
ESA with Russia development the Eurosoyuz, that will be flown after Soyuz TMA retirement and this is a one step for use techs in the new Kliper spacecraft.

Offline Bubbinski

Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #5 on: 04/23/2008 03:08 am »
Eurosoyuz - is that an updated Soyuz as the name implies, with the same number of crew and the same spacecraft structure, only with new internal systems?  Or is it a larger Soyuz derived craft that can carry more crew?  And would it be launched from Baikonour, or from Kourou, Guiana?

Also is this project approved and funded, when would it start flying if that's the case?
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #6 on: 04/23/2008 03:22 am »
If the Russians can't get Soyuz to work right, asking them to build something new is pointless.

Offline Bubbinski

RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #7 on: 04/23/2008 03:29 am »
Quote
hop - 22/4/2008  6:23 PM

I don't think there is any plausible backup in that time frame, nor is the recent landing incident a particularly good reason to pursue one.


Good point on the time frame.  But from everything I've read so far, Expedition 16 had a close call, and I have to think that should at least get people thinking how ISS would be supported if the worst happened to a future Soyuz.  I don't feel comfortable with only one option for flying crew to the ISS for at least five - and possibly more - years.

Jorge, good point about the various options being experimental.  But wouldn't Orion be considered "experimental" even when it becomes operational if it sticks to its current schedule?  (I believe Shenzhou has 5 flights under its belt if you count unmanned flights, and Orion would have 2 or 3 before first manned flight, correct?) Yet it would still be relied on to fly crew to ISS.  How many flights (or what other criteria would be used) would Orion have before it would be considered as safe as Soyuz?

Also how long could the ISS fly unmanned in its current or completed config?  If it could not fly remotely for long without being abandoned, wouldn't it be better to have a backup option for crew ready even if it were still in the experimental phase, if Soyuz had a long standdown?
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #8 on: 04/23/2008 04:22 am »
technologically, we are at a point and have been for some time where a LEO spacecraft can be thought of as a system of systems.  Nothing new and cutting edge needs to developed.  Time to effect is a function of will and red tape.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline cb6785

  • First Officer MD11F / Simulator Instructor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1195
  • EDDS/STR
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #9 on: 04/23/2008 10:21 am »
I guess we can rule out US alternatives, 'cause there will be no man-rated LV until Ares I (as long as NASA sticks to this plan). So there's only the choice to use Soyuz or Ariane 5... Soyuz is flying and despite the recent landing problems quite reliable, so if you would want a backup IMO the only fast and cost-efficient solution would be to push to an ATV-derrived vehicle. Yeah and that would be: experimental.
You know, if I’d had a seat you wouldn’t still see me in this thing. - Chuck Yeager

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #10 on: 04/23/2008 11:55 am »
Quote
cb6785 - 23/4/2008  6:21 AM

I guess we can rule out US alternatives, 'cause there will be no man-rated LV until Ares I (as long as NASA sticks to this plan). So there's only the choice to use Soyuz or Ariane 5... Soyuz is flying and despite the recent landing problems quite reliable, so if you would want a backup IMO the only fast and cost-efficient solution would be to push to an ATV-derrived vehicle. Yeah and that would be: experimental.

Incorrect.  

1.  How is Ariane 5 manrated?
2.  OSP should that it would be easy to manrate the EELV's (just as easy as Ariane)

Offline cb6785

  • First Officer MD11F / Simulator Instructor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1195
  • EDDS/STR
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #11 on: 04/23/2008 01:07 pm »
Ariane 5 was developed to be manrated because it was originally designed to be the LV for Hermes (Mini-Shuttle-Project). And so are parts of ATV technologie.
You know, if I’d had a seat you wouldn’t still see me in this thing. - Chuck Yeager

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #12 on: 04/23/2008 01:24 pm »
To my way of thinking, if we are looking to just provide a Soyuz substitute to fill in until NASA is able to get back in the game, then almost anything will do. But if one takes the long view and realizes that whatever we do we must not derail the lunar effort, then we need to think about what we can spend our money on that doesn’t take away from the lunar effort. Any money we spend on an interim solution has to come from that lunar program development and we should avoid that because it will probably kill it.

Shuttle will be flying until 2010, so we are covered until then with our own spacecraft. So what do we do between then until NASA gets back in the game?

Meiza has suggested the Viking CTV on a man-rated Ariane-5.
I suggest an alternative that will close the gap to just 2 years, and possibly down to as little as 18 months with a small increase in funding. So I suggest we spend our money on an American solution that continues the lunar path.

Although it is clearly appropriate to do so, DIRECT has not been mentioned yet, but it is perhaps the most viable option to actually addressing this issue of all the possible options mentioned. None of the other options will take us to the moon. In fact all the other options put the lunar program in jeopardy by siphoning off the funding needed for it.

DIRECT will keep the American lunar program on track. In fact, as you all are aware, it will even accelerate it in terms of the Ares highly questionable schedule of Orion 1st flight in 2015-2016. If NASA switched to DIRECT, we fly Orion not later than 2012, possibly as early as mid-late 2011 with a little extra funding (closing the gap to as little as 18 months), we remain on track to the moon, and if Congress would authorize and fund extending Shuttle operations for only 9 months, that would cut even that small gap in half, effectively eliminating the gap entirely. The final STS crew rotation flight would station an American astronaut onboard ISS for a 9 month tour. To be up front about that, that Congressional option would cost some additional money (9 months of STS operations), which Congress has not authorized, but the option is there. *IF* the switch is made to DIRECT, suddenly we have the ability within our grasp, with assistance from the Congress, to completely eliminate the gap. Then the need for a Soyuz substitute goes completely away.

Meiza’s suggestion, and in fact, everyone elses, creates a LEO solution which puts the moon in jepordy, but below is what I believe is the REAL answer. Let's not get spooked into a knee-jerk reaction and end up shooting ourselves in the foot. We need to keep our eye on the ball and stay focused on the goal, which is the moon, not LEO.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #13 on: 04/23/2008 02:18 pm »
Ah yes, Direct.  The savior of us all.  Well this thread almost made it to one full page before it got thrown into the mix again.  To the direct sales team, everyone is aware of this concept for a launch vehicle it does not need to be inserted into every thread.  To the best of my knowledge Direct type concept vehicle cannot provide an alternative to Soyuz because it cannot dock to the ISS.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #14 on: 04/23/2008 02:20 pm »
Quote
OV-106 - 23/4/2008  10:18 AM

Ah yes, Direct.  The savior of us all.  Well this thread almost made it to one full page before it got thrown into the mix again.  To the direct sales team, everyone is aware of this concept for a launch vehicle it does not need to be inserted into every thread.  To the best of my knowledge Direct type concept vehicle cannot provide an alternative to Soyuz because it cannot dock to the ISS.
What? Orion will dock to ISS. Where have you been?

And DIRECT is definitely on topic for this thread. The thread creator asked: “It's April 2008 - about two years until shuttle retirement. What options are there to develop a Soyuz backup vehicle that could fly about 2011 or 2012? ”. The Jupiter very definitely fits the bill because it can get Orion flying by 2011 or 2012, just like the question asked.

Others have offered their suggestions, and I have offered mine. All are ligitimate suggestions. What's your suggestion?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #15 on: 04/23/2008 02:25 pm »
Quote
cb6785 - 23/4/2008  9:07 AM

Ariane 5 was developed to be manrated because it was originally designed to be the LV for Hermes (Mini-Shuttle-Project). And so are parts of ATV technologie.

To be manrated isn't manrated

Offline marshallsplace

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
  • UK
    • music website
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #16 on: 04/23/2008 02:48 pm »

So the only possible backup craft is the shuttle?

OK for speculation sake - if soyuz was grounded 2010 and RTF 2012, would NASA find a way to keep the shuttle going?

Offline Mark Max Q

  • Going Supersonic
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 15
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #17 on: 04/23/2008 03:03 pm »
Quote
marshallsplace - 23/4/2008  9:48 AM


So the only possible backup craft is the shuttle?

OK for speculation sake - if soyuz was grounded 2010 and RTF 2012, would NASA find a way to keep the shuttle going?

They've been looking into that before the Soyuz problem. Can't say much as it's L2.

Offline cb6785

  • First Officer MD11F / Simulator Instructor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1195
  • EDDS/STR
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #18 on: 04/23/2008 03:08 pm »
Quote
Jim - 23/4/2008  3:25 PM

Quote
cb6785 - 23/4/2008  9:07 AM

Ariane 5 was developed to be manrated because it was originally designed to be the LV for Hermes (Mini-Shuttle-Project). And so are parts of ATV technologie.

To be manrated isn't manrated

To be manrated is more manrated than not to exist.
You know, if I’d had a seat you wouldn’t still see me in this thing. - Chuck Yeager

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #19 on: 04/23/2008 03:42 pm »
Quote
cb6785 - 23/4/2008  11:08 AM

Quote
Jim - 23/4/2008  3:25 PM

Quote
cb6785 - 23/4/2008  9:07 AM

Ariane 5 was developed to be manrated because it was originally designed to be the LV for Hermes (Mini-Shuttle-Project). And so are parts of ATV technologie.

To be manrated isn't manrated

To be manrated is more manrated than not to exist.

Don't play games.  The Ariane is just as far from being manrated as Delta or Atlas

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #20 on: 04/23/2008 03:49 pm »
Quote
marshallsplace - 23/4/2008  10:48 AM

So the only possible backup craft is the shuttle?

OK for speculation sake - if Soyuz was grounded 2010 and RTF 2012, would NASA find a way to keep the shuttle going?
In my opinion, the only backup spacecraft we can depend on is Shuttle. Everything else, excepting Shenzhou and Orion, are paper spacecraft. We are already building Orion. Metal has been bent. The process is underway.

1. Shenzhou is a political non starter. That drives us back to Shuttle.
2. Shuttle “could” be extended, but unless it’s done with *additional* funding, will only postpone the onset of the gap – it will not reduce it, and drive the first launch of Orion and the lunar schedule to the right by at least the same amount of time. But if accompanied by the necessary additional full operating funding so that Orion’s launch vehicle development could proceed as scheduled, then Shuttle can be the temporary substitute to take us back to Orion. So what's the fastest way to get Orion flying without sacrificing the moon and violating the congressionally mandated “preserve the workforce” issue? How do we launch Orion?

1. Ares can’t get Orion in the air fast enough, no matter how much money we spend on it.
2. EELV can get Orion in the air, but will leave us stranded in LEO and will destroy the STS workforce. That’s the same bad effect as Ares-I.
3. Jupiter can get Orion in the air and preserves both the moon and the STS workforce. Without an operational extension of Shuttle, the gap can be as small as 18 months. With additional Shuttle operational funding, the gap can be as small as Congress is willing to cover, right down to zero.

Then there are the other options mentioned in the first few posts. The trouble with all of them is that there is no other manned spacecraft in existence at this time. All the manned spacecraft would need to be developed from scratch, except that Dragon has a little lead time. We would still need to develop and man rate the launch vehicle. All that will siphon off huge sums of money and kill the STS workforce, something Congress has mandated be preserved.

ATV could be converted, but because of the way it’s designed, it amounts to a brand new development effort, and ESA would still need to man rate the Ariane 5. To date, the member states have not shown the kind of willingness to allocate the kinds of funds that effort would take, and I doubt the United States would pick up that kind tab on a foreign launch system.

So that leaves us … where?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Thomas ESA

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #21 on: 04/23/2008 03:50 pm »
Quote
Jim - 23/4/2008  10:42 AM

Quote
cb6785 - 23/4/2008  11:08 AM

Quote
Jim - 23/4/2008  3:25 PM

Quote
cb6785 - 23/4/2008  9:07 AM

Ariane 5 was developed to be manrated because it was originally designed to be the LV for Hermes (Mini-Shuttle-Project). And so are parts of ATV technologie.

To be manrated isn't manrated

To be manrated is more manrated than not to exist.

Don't play games.  The Ariane is just as far from being manrated as Delta or Atlas

That is not true Jim. The EELVs ability to be manrated was clearly shown as poor in the ESAS report. Ariane is far superior on this ability. cb6785 is correct with Hermes.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #22 on: 04/23/2008 04:02 pm »
Quote
Thomas ESA - 23/4/2008  11:50 AM

Quote
Jim - 23/4/2008  10:42 AM

Quote
cb6785 - 23/4/2008  11:08 AM

Quote
Jim - 23/4/2008  3:25 PM

Quote
cb6785 - 23/4/2008  9:07 AM

Ariane 5 was developed to be manrated because it was originally designed to be the LV for Hermes (Mini-Shuttle-Project). And so are parts of ATV technologie.

To be manrated isn't manrated

To be manrated is more manrated than not to exist.

Don't play games.  The Ariane is just as far from being manrated as Delta or Atlas

That is not true Jim. The EELVs ability to be manrated was clearly shown as poor in the ESAS report. Ariane is far superior on this ability. cb6785 is correct with Hermes.
Thomas;
In all fairness, the authors of ESAS, using very questionable data from less than ideal sources, went out of their way to show the EELVs in a bad light. The experts in the EELV community who could have, and were anxiously willing to, provide them with REAL numbers, were never asked to do so. The conclusions drawn by ESAS in reference to man rating the EELVs are biased and incorrect. You cannot believe them because they are founded on very bad data.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #23 on: 04/23/2008 04:02 pm »
Quote
Thomas ESA - 23/4/2008  11:50 AM

Quote
Jim - 23/4/2008  10:42 AM

Quote
cb6785 - 23/4/2008  11:08 AM

Quote
Jim - 23/4/2008  3:25 PM

Quote
cb6785 - 23/4/2008  9:07 AM

Ariane 5 was developed to be manrated because it was originally designed to be the LV for Hermes (Mini-Shuttle-Project). And so are parts of ATV technologie.

To be manrated isn't manrated

To be manrated is more manrated than not to exist.

Don't play games.  The Ariane is just as far from being manrated as Delta or Atlas

That is not true Jim. The EELVs ability to be manrated was clearly shown as poor in the ESAS report. Ariane is far superior on this ability. cb6785 is correct with Hermes.

ESAS was wrong, again.  EELV's were to be manrated for OSP and it wasn't going to take much.  (It just happened that my organization was doing this).   Also as repeated many times on this forum, Michael Griffin's words had said the same.  There isn't much difference in  launch vehicles that launch manned spacecraft or billion dollar unmanned spacecraft

EELV

Offline cb6785

  • First Officer MD11F / Simulator Instructor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1195
  • EDDS/STR
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #24 on: 04/23/2008 04:02 pm »
Quote
Jim - 23/4/2008  4:42 PM

Don't play games.  The Ariane is just as far from being manrated as Delta or Atlas

Tell that to the ESA folks who said things like: "Unmanned - but man-rated – ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) has the unique capability....." and who think about exchanging the Integrated Cargo Carrier with a manned capsule, call it CTV and launch it atop Ariane. The only thing not beeing build today is that capsule!
You know, if I’d had a seat you wouldn’t still see me in this thing. - Chuck Yeager

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #25 on: 04/23/2008 04:20 pm »

Offline Thomas ESA

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #26 on: 04/23/2008 04:33 pm »
Quote
Jim - 23/4/2008  11:02 AM

ESAS was wrong, again.

You cannot make these acqusations without proof. If this was real, ULA would have reacted. They did not.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #27 on: 04/23/2008 04:35 pm »
Quote
cb6785 - 23/4/2008  12:02 PM

Quote
Jim - 23/4/2008  4:42 PM

Don't play games.  The Ariane is just as far from being manrated as Delta or Atlas

Tell that to the ESA folks who said things like: "Unmanned - but man-rated – ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) has the unique capability....." and who think about exchanging the Integrated Cargo Carrier with a manned capsule, call it CTV and launch it atop Ariane. The only thing not beeing build today is that capsule!

The ATV craft it self is manrated, not the booster.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #28 on: 04/23/2008 04:42 pm »
Quote
Thomas ESA - 23/4/2008  12:33 PM

Quote
Jim - 23/4/2008  11:02 AM

ESAS was wrong, again.

You cannot make these acqusations without proof. If this was real, ULA would have reacted. They did not.
They did, and were quietly told to suck it up, otherwise there could be 'unspecified' negative consequences.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline cb6785

  • First Officer MD11F / Simulator Instructor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1195
  • EDDS/STR
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #29 on: 04/23/2008 04:55 pm »
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 23/4/2008  5:35 PM
The ATV craft it self is manrated, not the booster.

Ok, but (sorry to repeat myself) it's a lot easy to do the necessary upgrades (command lines for abort systems, etc.) on a vehicle designed to carry humans even if it never actually had to, than on a vehicle designed as a cargo horse from the very beginning.

I don't say it's impossible to man-rate EELV in the near future but IMHO it can be done faster, with a smaller amount of work on Ariane.
You know, if I’d had a seat you wouldn’t still see me in this thing. - Chuck Yeager

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #30 on: 04/23/2008 04:57 pm »
Quote
Thomas ESA - 23/4/2008  12:33 PM

Quote
Jim - 23/4/2008  11:02 AM

ESAS was wrong, again.

You cannot make these acqusations without proof. If this was real, ULA would have reacted. They did not.

It has been documented over and over on this forum.  Even the OSP NASA people weren't given a voice.  The repost was made a controlled document

Offline Spacenick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #31 on: 04/23/2008 05:06 pm »
What is all this talk about man-rating about? I'm pretty sure neither Saturn-V nor Vostock nor any other old vehicle was man-rated with modern standards probably even soyuz isn't. So what is the real problem with riding on an Ariane 5? For the launch phase one would put a launch escape system on top of  of the CTV (ATV propulsion stage (more than safe enough for huamns with its 3 independent systems and all this stuff) + bigger Soyuz derived Reentry capsule) anyway.
I simply can't see the point of man-rating, the only thing one might have to do is changing the flight parameters to make the ride less rough, but that should be nothing more than a software configuration change on a modern vehicle.
Btw, who thinks Long march is more safe than Ariane 5? I'd find  a non man -rated Ariane with a changed flight path much more comfortable than Long March.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #32 on: 04/23/2008 05:14 pm »
Quote
Spacenick - 23/4/2008  1:06 PM

1.  What is all this talk about man-rating about? I'm pretty sure neither Saturn-V

2.  I simply can't see the point of man-rating, the only thing one might have to do is changing the flight parameters to make the ride less rough, but that should be nothing more than a software configuration change on a modern vehicle.
.

1.  It was.  It had high factors of safety 1.4 vs 1.25, it had a LV health monitoring system (EDS), the trajectory was designed for manned flight.  Not saying 1.4 is mandatory, just that the Saturn was designed to be manrated

2.  It isn't that "simple".  The LV would have assess whether it can handle the new environments (thermal, loads, max q, etc)   for the new trajectory

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #33 on: 04/23/2008 05:30 pm »
"Possible backup craft to Soyuz?"

There is and only will be one before 2016 plus: Space Shuttle. Sadly, we plan to abandon it before this time, leaving exactly no backup. Not a smart move.

Analyst

Offline pm1823

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 473
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #34 on: 04/23/2008 05:57 pm »
Quote
Analyst - 23/4/2008  12:30 PM

"Possible backup craft to Soyuz?"

There is and only will be one before 2016 plus: Space Shuttle. Sadly, we plan to abandon it before this time, leaving exactly no backup. Not a smart move.

Analyst

You talking about saving 1 Orbiter and 1 Launch Pad? Which one? :)

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #35 on: 04/23/2008 06:06 pm »
Quote
pm1823 - 23/4/2008  6:57 PM

Quote
Analyst - 23/4/2008  12:30 PM

"Possible backup craft to Soyuz?"

There is and only will be one before 2016 plus: Space Shuttle. Sadly, we plan to abandon it before this time, leaving exactly no backup. Not a smart move.

Analyst

You talking about saving 1 Orbiter and 1 Launch Pad? Which one? :)

If they extended Shuttle, it would have to be two orbiters (taking it in turns to support the other on LON). It's one launch pad now anyway (bar LON-400 sitting on 39B).

Time is fast running out to have this ability, due to the External Tanks.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Bubbinski

Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #36 on: 04/23/2008 06:07 pm »
And if the Space Shuttle were somehow preserved past 2010, and the shuttle ended up being the only vehicle after a Soyuz standdown, would the shuttle actually be able to be the emergency crew return vehicle for a permanent crew, staying six months on orbit?  As I recall the max duration planned for shuttle flights was 28 days, and in practice shuttles have flown for up to 18 days.  

If 28 days is the max a shuttle could fly, then for permanent occupancy of ISS there'd have to be one shuttle flight a month until Soyuz returned.  There has never been 1 shuttle flight a month for a whole year, so I would imagine in reality there would have to be "man-tended" stretches and "unmanned" stretches until Soyuz came back.  Then the question arises, how long can ISS in current config fly unmanned?
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline marshallsplace

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
  • UK
    • music website
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #37 on: 04/23/2008 06:11 pm »
Quote
Mark Max Q - 23/4/2008  4:03 PM


They've been looking into that before the Soyuz problem. Can't say much as it's L2.


The idea of only having one human capable spacecraft to reach the ISS has got to be a concern to the ISS international community.  We've been here before (with the ISS and Soyuz partnership) but not with all international parties as now "engaged".  

I'm not surprised "they've" been looking into this.  There is a lot at stake.


Offline cb6785

  • First Officer MD11F / Simulator Instructor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1195
  • EDDS/STR
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #38 on: 04/23/2008 06:15 pm »
Does anybody wanna make an educated guess what would be the course of action if Soyuz would be grounded......let's say mid-2009? Shuttle still flying and the Soyuz docked working correct, but no new ones goin' up.
You know, if I’d had a seat you wouldn’t still see me in this thing. - Chuck Yeager

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #39 on: 04/23/2008 06:17 pm »
In the event of a Soyuz spacecraft stand-down, they could leave a volunteer caretaker crew aboard between shuttle flights, without assured return capability, because the supply chain would not be interrupted (Progress, ATV, and later on, HTV, maybe Cygnus, maybe even unmanned Dragon). It'd be risky, but hardly certain death, and would preserve ISS. Even if the stand-down was two years and Shuttle no longer available, It would only extend manned flight duration by one-third. (Isn't current record 466 days?) They could probably even have a Soyuz of last resort available at ISS, in case the choice was ride the Soyuz or breathe vacuum. That actually seems less risky than counting LON for Shuttle rescue.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #40 on: 04/23/2008 06:19 pm »
Quote
Bubbinski - 23/4/2008  2:07 PM

And if the Space Shuttle were somehow preserved past 2010, and the shuttle ended up being the only vehicle after a Soyuz standdown, would the shuttle actually be able to be the emergency crew return vehicle for a permanent crew, staying six months on orbit?  As I recall the max duration planned for shuttle flights was 28 days, and in practice shuttles have flown for up to 18 days.
SSPTS could support more than 18 days, less than 28 (which was an extended duration orbiter "enhancement," cancelled a long time ago) -- but that's a moot point.  The shuttle program in its current state can't support continuous crew rescue capability at the station; without that, the station would have to fly uncrewed for extended periods.

Offline Bubbinski

RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #41 on: 04/23/2008 06:19 pm »
Quote
Time is fast running out to have this ability, due to the External Tanks.

Is there a hard, published "drop dead" date yet?  And does this apply to Direct as well?
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #42 on: 04/23/2008 06:23 pm »
Quote
Analyst - 23/4/2008  1:30 PM

"Possible backup craft to Soyuz?"

There is and only will be one before 2016 plus: Space Shuttle. Sadly, we plan to abandon it before this time, leaving exactly no backup. Not a smart move.

Analyst

The opposite, maintaining the Space Shuttle at a cost of untold billions of dollars for the express purpose of having a backup to a much cheaper and equally if not more reliable system is not a smart move either.  

I consider the Soyuz reliable enough for what its contracted role is to be.  Nevertheless, a backup is already being developed, of sorts.  A backup would consists of two elements, a launcher and a crew capsule.  The launchers exist.  I side with Jim in that man rating is not the issue it's made out to be.  Coupled with a Launch Abort System, a capsule on an existing launch vehicle with a suitable launch record will be more safe than what is currently accepted with the Space Shuttle.

Of capsules, two are seriously being developed that I am aware of; the Orion and the Dragon.  I consider the Dragon to be the more likely candidate of the two to finish development within the timeframe.  Know that this is separate from delivery estimations of its native launcher.  All that would remain would be the launch vehicle safety work necessary, which would also include integrating the capsule atop the launcher.  Seeing the Dragon through to completion, as well as the launcher work, would be the timeframe from the identification of a critical Soyuz problem to implementation of an alternative, presumably.

I consider everything else presented, except maybe for Shenzou, to be more time consuming.  I'd consider Shenzou; hell, I'd include them in ISS right now; after all, was Soyuz-Apollo such a terrible thing?  What, you can buy all the stuff they make, you can take out a trillion dollar loan from them, but you can't put astronauts on their launch vehicles?  That's sacred ground?    I like space programs that build bridges rather than walls.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #43 on: 04/23/2008 06:42 pm »
Quote
libs0n - 23/4/2008  2:23 PM

I consider everything else presented, except maybe for Shenzou, to be more time consuming.  I'd consider Shenzou; hell, I'd include them in ISS right now; after all, was Soyuz-Apollo such a terrible thing?  What, you can buy all the stuff they make, you can take out a trillion dollar loan from them, but you can't put astronauts on their launch vehicles?  That's sacred ground?    I like space programs that build bridges rather than walls.

As a followup to this, that could be the very basis of their inclusion: just showing up.  Showing the ability of their capsule to dock with the ISS, for use as a demonstrated backup to the Soyuz should that ever be required.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #44 on: 04/23/2008 06:58 pm »
I started imagining a Shenzhou "just showing up" at ISS one day. What would we do, charge them with trespassing? Then I started wondering if the ISS airlock doors can be opened from the outside, and if the docking mechanisms are automated to the point an uninvited visitor could just go ahead and dock. These seem like necessary safety features, as well as necessary (in the case of docking) if the ISS ever has to be left unmanned.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #45 on: 04/23/2008 07:07 pm »
Quote
Analyst - 23/4/2008  1:30 PM

"Possible backup craft to Soyuz?"

There is and only will be one before 2016 plus: Space Shuttle. Sadly, we plan to abandon it before this time, leaving exactly no backup. Not a smart move.
Analyst
There are 6 other real possibilities:
1. Shenzhou on a Long March if the politics can be fixed (Possible but difficult at best)
2. Dragon on the F-9 if there is a massive funding infusion to COTS ( Extremely risky)
3. Dragon on an EELV (I seriously doubt Musk would do that)
4. Orion on an EELV but destroys the STS workforce and puts the moon in jeopardy.
5. Orion on a Jupiter - 18 month gap, or 9 months if Congress ups the budget a little.
6. Orion on a Jupiter - zero gap if Congress will fully fund additional Shuttle flights in addition to the current budget projections until Orion is ready (Jupiter will be flying before Orion is ready).
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #46 on: 04/23/2008 07:08 pm »
Quote
William Barton - 23/4/2008  2:58 PM

I started imagining a Shenzhou "just showing up" at ISS one day. What would we do, charge them with trespassing? Then I started wondering if the ISS airlock doors can be opened from the outside, and if the docking mechanisms are automated to the point an uninvited visitor could just go ahead and dock. These seem like necessary safety features, as well as necessary (in the case of docking) if the ISS ever has to be left unmanned.
"Environmental impact" and "operational impact" assessments aside, the question for the Shenzhou is the same as the shuttle -- can it provide crew return capability for the station until the next one is launched and docks to the station?  Otherwise, the station would have to be "decrewed" as with the shuttle.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #47 on: 04/23/2008 07:09 pm »
What is the loiter time of Soyuz at the Station as an escape vehicle of last resort? How long can it remain a viable vehicle without replacement?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Bubbinski

Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #48 on: 04/23/2008 07:10 pm »
I wouldn't imagine Shenzhou or another spacecraft just "showing up" - I would imagine NASA, the Russians, and NORAD would be able to track and pick up anything that could come close to the ISS.  

I would imagine, though, if the ISS partners ever signed an agreement with the Chinese, that possibly one of their first missions would be a rendezvous, not docking, with ISS, just like Discovery did a close rendezvous with Mir (STS-63) way back in 1995.  As for how long that could take, wasn't Apollo Soyuz done within 3 years of signing an agreement in 1972?

Edit: One other thing I just thought of.  How many systems would Soyuz and Shenzhou have in common, and would a Soyuz failure jeopardize Shenzhou flights?
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #49 on: 04/23/2008 07:11 pm »
Quote
Bubbinski - 23/4/2008  7:19 PM

Quote
Time is fast running out to have this ability, due to the External Tanks.

Is there a hard, published "drop dead" date yet?  And does this apply to Direct as well?

It was September, but the MAF guys say there's been a slight stretching of this. Still very tight.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #50 on: 04/23/2008 07:18 pm »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 23/4/2008  3:11 PM

Quote
Bubbinski - 23/4/2008  7:19 PM

Quote
Time is fast running out to have this ability, due to the External Tanks.

Is there a hard, published "drop dead" date yet?  And does this apply to Direct as well?

It was September, but the MAF guys say there's been a slight stretching of this. Still very tight.
This topic (shuttle "point of no return" date) would probably make for a popular thread...the question with respect to timing probably needs to be aware of the political calendar.  September is somewhat moot because the traditional presidential election campaign usually "begins" around Labor Day...the tradition isn't that important except that I'd expect Congress (much of which is also up for election) to be in recess by then through the election in November.

If they can "stretch" until a little after the next President is inaugurated in late January, that would be more useful, politically.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #51 on: 04/23/2008 07:26 pm »
Quote
clongton - 23/4/2008  3:09 PM

What is the loiter time of Soyuz at the Station as an escape vehicle of last resort? How long can it remain a viable vehicle without replacement?

Weren't they replaced every 6 months for Mir, whether there was a crew rotation or not? Since they can be flown unmanned, they could swap the empty Soyuz for a new one as many times as needed, until they finally flew one up that was good for return. Be a good way to test the "fix."

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #52 on: 04/23/2008 07:33 pm »
Quote
William Barton - 23/4/2008  3:26 PM

Quote
clongton - 23/4/2008  3:09 PM

What is the loiter time of Soyuz at the Station as an escape vehicle of last resort? How long can it remain a viable vehicle without replacement?

Weren't they replaced every 6 months for Mir, whether there was a crew rotation or not? Since they can be flown unmanned, they could swap the empty Soyuz for a new one as many times as needed, until they finally flew one up that was good for return. Be a good way to test the "fix."
Flown unmanned this way, they could also use it in lieu of a Progress resupply mission. There's sufficient volume inside for supplies.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #53 on: 04/23/2008 07:34 pm »
Quote
William Barton - 23/4/2008  3:26 PM

Quote
clongton - 23/4/2008  3:09 PM

What is the loiter time of Soyuz at the Station as an escape vehicle of last resort? How long can it remain a viable vehicle without replacement?

Weren't they replaced every 6 months for Mir, whether there was a crew rotation or not? Since they can be flown unmanned, they could swap the empty Soyuz for a new one as many times as needed, until they finally flew one up that was good for return. Be a good way to test the "fix."
Same duration w/ISS...I think the question there is how much longer than 6 months could the Soyuz last.  The problem with "good for return" is if you have to return to verify that. :)

Offline Longhorn John

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1570
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 130
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #54 on: 04/23/2008 08:04 pm »
The main point is we should have a US back up, period.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #55 on: 04/23/2008 08:12 pm »

1.  Given the Chines Flight rate, which may indicate a production rate, I would not say they are capable of responding in the short term to this need. 

3.  Musk will do whatever gets him money, so if they say put Dragon on an EELV with your face paintend purpose and one eye closed, he damn well will put Dragon on top of an EELV with his face painted purpose and with one eye closed...if they give him the money.

IF Soyuz suffers a one - three year grounding, the only realistic, available, operational option is the Shuttle.  If Shuttle is not available, then we are faced with abandoning the ISS.  Nothing else is available.

And, Ares/Orion or Direct/Jupiter/Orion would be pushed back, perhaps lost

Quote
clongton - 23/4/2008 3:07 PM
Quote
Analyst - 23/4/2008 1:30 PM "Possible backup craft to Soyuz?" There is and only will be one before 2016 plus: Space Shuttle. Sadly, we plan to abandon it before this time, leaving exactly no backup. Not a smart move. Analyst
There are 6 other real possibilities: 1. Shenzhou on a Long March if the politics can be fixed (Possible but difficult at best) 2. Dragon on the F-9 if there is a massive funding infusion to COTS ( Extremely risky) 3. Dragon on an EELV (I seriously doubt Musk would do that) 4. Orion on an EELV but destroys the STS workforce and puts the moon in jeopardy. 5. Orion on a Jupiter - 18 month gap, or 9 months if Congress ups the budget a little. 6. Orion on a Jupiter - zero gap if Congress will fully fund additional Shuttle flights in addition to the current budget projections until Orion is ready (Jupiter will be flying before Orion is ready).


Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #56 on: 04/23/2008 08:29 pm »
Quote
mike robel - 23/4/2008  4:12 PM

If Shuttle is not available, then we are faced with abandoning the ISS.
Disagree.  The shuttle is not even available now; some reasons were mentioned above (flight duration, flight rate).  Another set of ops issues would be operating two orbiters simultaneously -- probably not "impossible," but probably not desired.  And in the current configuration, I'm not sure a second orbiter could dock to PMA-3, either.

In the hypothetical of a Soyuz standdown in this timeframe, they'd have to decrew the station when the current vehicle reaches end of life, shuttle or not.

Offline Spacenick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #57 on: 04/23/2008 08:32 pm »
Well, the good thing is, I can't think of a real possibility of Soyuz getting grounded. the Russians would never ground it just because one might blow up, as was done for the shuttle, however, this is not only because of Russian mentality but also because of the fact, that it's quite unlikely to discover a design mistake severe enough to ground it after all those years. Money and ressource problems on the other hand might be possible but I guess someone would probably pay what is needed to keep ISS going.
What I wonder is this, if man-rating is so important, how the hell are they supposed to make Ares-I a safe vehicle within a reasonable timeframe, I mean designing something for humans doesn't make it more secure than say an Ariane. Even more so with such a design, where there is this massive solid rocket beneath the capsule which simply can not be turned off after ignition, I can not even imagine how a launch abort system is supposed to carry tha capsule off a burning solid booster.

Another easy alternative for a Soyuz outage, due to the launcher would be launching an unmanned Soyuz with another rocket. It's highly unlikely not to work as a life boat from one day to the other.
By the way, I've read that the Russians are planning on a Soyuz iteration between TMA and ACTS/Klipper/Eurosoyuz which is supposed to stay docked with the ISS for 1 year.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #58 on: 04/23/2008 08:50 pm »
It's hard to see how an LV failure would stand down the Soyuz. It has happened in the past at least twice, and the LAS worked both times. But judging from recent news stories, what would happen if a Soyuz did enter nose first, to the point where the hatch burned through and the crew was toast? That's pretty much equivalent to Columbia, albeit less focused, because it's a production line expendable capsule. Wouldn't they at least stand down long enough to find out what failed and implement better manufacturing quality control?

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #59 on: 04/23/2008 08:52 pm »
Quote
William Barton - 23/4/2008  4:50 PM

It's hard to see how an LV failure would stand down the Soyuz. It has happened in the past at least twice, and the LAS worked both times. But judging from recent news stories, what would happen if a Soyuz did enter nose first, to the point where the hatch burned through and the crew was toast? That's pretty much equivalent to Columbia, albeit less focused, because it's a production line expendable capsule. Wouldn't they at least stand down long enough to find out what failed and implement better manufacturing quality control?
The Russians have lost cosmonauts in flight before, and in each case, they stood the system down for the time required to identify and fix the problem.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #60 on: 04/23/2008 09:03 pm »
Quote
William Barton - 23/4/2008  4:50 PM

It's hard to see how an LV failure would stand down the Soyuz. It has happened in the past at least twice, and the LAS worked both times.
Not that hard...the crew transport can't get to orbit without the LV.  If they have to stand down to find the LV problem, they can't launch.

It's the duration of the stand-down that might be different than the shuttle.  Perhaps they might find and fix the problem in the several months before the next scheduled increment launch.  The historical record probably shows how long the stand-downs were or at least when the next launch occurred after the failures you mention.

Offline synchrotron

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 13
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #61 on: 04/23/2008 09:11 pm »
Quote
Spacenick - 23/4/2008  7:32 PM
What I wonder is this, if man-rating is so important, how the hell are they supposed to make Ares-I a safe vehicle within a reasonable timeframe, I mean designing something for humans doesn't make it more secure than say an Ariane. Even more so with such a design, where there is this massive solid rocket beneath the capsule which simply can not be turned off after ignition, I can not even imagine how a launch abort system is supposed to carry tha capsule off a burning solid booster.

You can't shut The Stick off, but you can vent the thrust radially to reduce axial thrust.  This lets the LAS outrun the stage.  Personally, I'd rather have something I could throttle down, but this approach can be engineered to work.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #62 on: 04/23/2008 09:19 pm »
Quote
William Barton - 23/4/2008  12:26 PM
Weren't they replaced every 6 months for Mir, whether there was a crew rotation or not? Since they can be flown unmanned, they could swap the empty Soyuz for a new one as many times as needed, until they finally flew one up that was good for return. Be a good way to test the "fix."
6 months was the duration, however, there has been some improvements have been added which extend this, and ISTR a few of the ISS flights have gone over.

The reason for this limit are well understood (mainly decay of H202 in the DM propulsion system), so the sort of test-by-destruction you suggest isn't needed. You might do an unmanned qualification flight, or gradually extend the envelope, but basically all thats needed is time and money. ISTR the Russians already offered to extend it to a year for some unspecified amount of cash.

Offline Bubbinski

Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #63 on: 04/25/2008 12:08 am »
Has the offer been accepted, are the Russians working now to extend Soyuz to one year on orbit?
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #64 on: 04/25/2008 12:22 am »

Quote
clongton - 23/4/2008  12:33 PM  Flown unmanned this way, they could also use it in lieu of a Progress resupply mission. There's sufficient volume inside for supplies.

Not so good. The Soyuz descent module structure is pretty hefty. Without a crew, they can load maybe 500 kg of cargo. Also, Soyuz brings no prop to ISS, so Progress is a much better cargo carrier (some lessons there for SpaceX, maybe).

 


Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #65 on: 04/25/2008 12:28 am »

Quote
Bubbinski - 23/4/2008  12:10 PM  One other thing I just thought of.  How many systems would Soyuz and Shenzhou have in common, and would a Soyuz failure jeopardize Shenzhou flights?

You are correct, the Shenzhou descent module is real close to Soyuz in design, so the Chinese may be looking forward to some ballistic re-entries of their own.

The Russians have flown so many Soyuzes that the basic bugs have been worked out, and now what they face is what airliners have to deal with: unusual combinations of failures. One of the reasons that airliners are so expensive today is that they are designed not just to combat the obvious failure modes, but also chains of failures. Soyuz was not designed in this way, however. Neither was Shuttle for the most part.
 

 


Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #66 on: 04/25/2008 12:30 am »
Quote
Bubbinski - 24/4/2008  5:08 PM

Has the offer been accepted, are the Russians working now to extend Soyuz to one year on orbit?
My recollection  (warning: vague memory of press reports) is that this was something discussed in the many iterations of how the US would provide a CRV, and went nowhere. However, Wikipedia currently claims (without citation that I can see) that Soyuz TMAT will replace TMA in the 2010 time frame and have a 1 year lifespan.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #67 on: 04/25/2008 01:09 am »
Quote
Danderman - 24/4/2008  8:22 PM

Quote
clongton - 23/4/2008  12:33 PM  Flown unmanned this way, they could also use it in lieu of a Progress resupply mission. There's sufficient volume inside for supplies.

Not so good. The Soyuz descent module structure is pretty hefty. Without a crew, they can load maybe 500 kg of cargo. Also, Soyuz brings no prop to ISS, so Progress is a much better cargo carrier (some lessons there for SpaceX, maybe).


The dragon is stripped for cargo flights

Offline ronatu

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #68 on: 04/25/2008 08:11 pm »
Soyuz is become extremely reliable machine. What happened last two times just prove it. It is safe and simple.
However it is too risky to US do not have access to space on its own.
I do not understand how it is possible, especially voluntarily....

Offline Bubbinski

Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #69 on: 04/25/2008 08:33 pm »
Quote
ronatu - 25/4/2008  2:11 PM

However it is too risky to US do not have access to space on its own.
....

The "gap" frustrates me and many others, it's a whole 'nother thread in itself but it kinda ties into this thread as well.  Others can expound on the causes of this gap far better than I could.

And if Congress, the President, and NASA got a good plan to reduce or eliminate the gap (reducing the gap by a year or two may be the best that can be hoped for, IMO - it is a late date with the shuttle retirement looming, craft take time to develop), then that would also be one answer to the question of a Soyuz backup.
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #70 on: 04/25/2008 09:20 pm »
Quote
Bubbinski - 25/4/2008  4:33 PM

The "gap" frustrates me and many others, it's a whole 'nother thread in itself but it kinda ties into this thread as well.  Others can expound on the causes of this gap far better than I could.

And if Congress, the President, and NASA got a good plan to reduce or eliminate the gap (reducing the gap by a year or two may be the best that can be hoped for, IMO - it is a late date with the shuttle retirement looming, craft take time to develop), then that would also be one answer to the question of a Soyuz backup.
Some plans for reducing the gap may not provide an earlier U.S.-based crew return capability (with the CEV), particularly if the gap is reduced by stretching out or extending shuttle operations.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #71 on: 04/26/2008 06:54 am »
Quote
psloss - 25/4/2008  11:20 PM

Some plans for reducing the gap may not provide an earlier U.S.-based crew return capability (with the CEV), particularly if the gap is reduced by stretching out or extending shuttle operations.

This is something I never understood. It goes along the line: Extending Shuttle operations by one year will just delay Orion by one year, the gap stays the same.

We are spending $x/year for Orion and Ares I today and operate the Shuttle. Lets say x is $1 billion/year, it is probably more. Completely independent from Shuttle operations beyond 2010 or not, this adds up to $10 billion in 10 years to develop Orion and Ares I. There will, by definition, come a day then Orion/Ares I has been developed using this (already) available yearly budget and Shuttle flew to this very day. So the gap will shrink this way. Granted, we don't have money to start developing all the fancy other rockets and spacecraft, but saying extending Shuttle operations only shifts the gap seems to be a myth, often repeated but not proved.

Analyst

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #72 on: 04/26/2008 11:10 am »
Quote
Analyst - 26/4/2008  2:54 AM

Quote
psloss - 25/4/2008  11:20 PM

Some plans for reducing the gap may not provide an earlier U.S.-based crew return capability (with the CEV), particularly if the gap is reduced by stretching out or extending shuttle operations.

This is something I never understood. It goes along the line: Extending Shuttle operations by one year will just delay Orion by one year, the gap stays the same.
Read it again -- I'm not referring to the zero-sum game.  The plan I'm referring to just keeps funding shuttle operations through say 2015.  Then the CEV comes online in that 2015-2016 timeframe -- now "the gap" is a year or so.  It's a hypothetical plan, which I doubt is realistic, but it would also mean that the CEV still doesn't provide a backup to the Soyuz until 2015-2016.

Offline Hotdog

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Cape Town, South Africa
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #73 on: 04/26/2008 11:14 am »
I agree with mike robel. Musk will do whatever brings him money and proves his company's technology. If the number one priority is to close the gap as quickly as possible, you need to look at what hardware is currently available or the closest to being available.

The options on the capsule (crewed spacecraft) seem to be Orion, Dragon, Dreamchaser and any other NewSpace developments. Of these Dragon is most likely the closest to being available.

The options on the launcher are Atlas, Delta, Falcon 9 and Ares/Jupiter. Of these the Delta and Atlas are currently available and the Delta makes most sense.

The Dragon launch mass seems to be somewhere between 7000 and 8000 kg. The Delta IV Medium with single RS-68 on first stage, single RL-10B-2 on second stage and no strap-on solids has a LEO payload of 8600 kg to 185 km orbit (according to astronautix). I haven't worked out what the payload to ISS would be and if it could carry the Dragon but the safety numbers for this vehicle must be pretty good with one engine on each stage.

I can’t find a reference now to the length of time that Dragon can stay at the ISS but I seem to recall it was at least 6 months. That would allow it to be used in the same way as Soyuz.

If NASA really threw some COTS money at getting that combination flying as soon as possible it could close the gap, retire the shuttle and have money to spend on developing the VSE.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #74 on: 04/26/2008 11:26 am »
Quote
psloss - 26/4/2008  1:10 PM

Read it again -- I'm not referring to the zero-sum game.  

Well, you are not, but others here did and do. You know what I mean. What is your opinion about this?

Analyst

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #75 on: 04/26/2008 11:28 am »
Quote
Hotdog - 26/4/2008  1:14 PM


If NASA really threw some COTS money at getting that combination flying as soon as possible it could close the gap, retire the shuttle and have money to spend on developing the VSE.

Why do you think developing Dragon will be faster, better, cheaper than Orion?

Analyst

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #76 on: 04/26/2008 12:05 pm »
Quote
Analyst - 26/4/2008  7:26 AM

Quote
psloss - 26/4/2008  1:10 PM

Read it again -- I'm not referring to the zero-sum game.  

Well, you are not, but others here did and do. You know what I mean. What is your opinion about this?

Analyst
I'll save it for the other bazillion threads. :)  Part of my point was that "reducing the gap" doesn't necessarily mean accelerating CEV development.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #77 on: 04/26/2008 01:32 pm »
Quote
Hotdog - 26/4/2008  7:14 AM

I agree with mike robel. Musk will do whatever brings him money and proves his company's technology. If the number one priority is to close the gap as quickly as possible, you need to look at what hardware is currently available or the closest to being available.

The options on the capsule (crewed spacecraft) seem to be Orion, Dragon, Dreamchaser and any other NewSpace developments. Of these Dragon is most likely the closest to being available.

The options on the launcher are Atlas, Delta, Falcon 9 and Ares/Jupiter. Of these the Delta and Atlas are currently available and the Delta makes most sense.

The Dragon launch mass seems to be somewhere between 7000 and 8000 kg. The Delta IV Medium with single RS-68 on first stage, single RL-10B-2 on second stage and no strap-on solids has a LEO payload of 8600 kg to 185 km orbit (according to astronautix). I haven't worked out what the payload to ISS would be and if it could carry the Dragon but the safety numbers for this vehicle must be pretty good with one engine on each stage.

I can’t find a reference now to the length of time that Dragon can stay at the ISS but I seem to recall it was at least 6 months. That would allow it to be used in the same way as Soyuz.

If NASA really threw some COTS money at getting that combination flying as soon as possible it could close the gap, retire the shuttle and have money to spend on developing the VSE.

Let's be realistic and stop chugging the koolade.   Spacex hasn't launched one vehicle yet.

 Yep, we have lost two games and we should win the next one.  Our little running back is coming around slowly, he should help win the next one.  But just wait, we are bringing along a bigger guy, once he is ready, we should be winning.   With all this, we will be in the Super Bowl this year.  

 Would you believe these from an owner of an first year NFL expansion team?

Why should you believe Elon?

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #78 on: 04/26/2008 02:29 pm »
Quote
Jim - 26/4/2008  3:32 PM

Why should you believe Elon?

He is always right, old space is always wrong, for 50 years now. He is the God of spaceflight, isn't he?

Analyst

Offline Hotdog

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Cape Town, South Africa
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #79 on: 04/27/2008 02:57 pm »
Quote
Analyst - 25/4/2008  3:29 PM

Quote
Jim - 26/4/2008  3:32 PM

Why should you believe Elon?

He is always right, old space is always wrong, for 50 years now. He is the God of spaceflight, isn't he?

Analyst

I don't think Elon is the God of spaceflight and I don't think Dragon will be better than Orion. It is just a simpler, lighter and in the end less capable design.

Orion is designed to provide the exploration needs for the next couple of decades. It is designed to be able orbit the moon and to reenter at lunar return speeds. It will have all the systems needed to be able to dock at the ISS.

Dragon is a taxi, that's all. It has to be berthed manually by the station arm. While I like Spacex, I don't think the sun shines out their backsides. Any company which has a LEO taxi capsule in development at the moment fits the bill just as well, old space included. Spacex just seems to be the furthest down the development line for their capsule at the moment.

The point of my post (and this thread) was to look at the quickest way of providing crew access to the ISS. Again while I think the Falcon 9 development is great, it is not the logical choice for a launch vehicle to meet the challenge of closing the gap. There are existing vehicles which can do the job. The Delta IV Medium looks like a great fit for the Dragon (or any other light LEO taxi capsule). I don't know if LOC/LOM numbers have been calculated for this configuration, as it could never carry Orion, but with a single engine on each stage they must be pretty good.

This is not an exercise to punt NewSpace and bash old space. It is simply looking at the simplest and most logical option to get the job done now with what is available or closest to being available.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #80 on: 04/27/2008 07:18 pm »
Personally, I think there is no better option at the moment for the US than the shuttle. I agree with the proposed amendments before the Congress to utilize the shuttle with 2 flights per year. You have this perfectly good hardware waiting to go up, with billions spent building it; you still need ISS access (which the shuttle provides); and you need spares delivered on orbit.

I hate to say it, but if congress won't provide extra funding, it will have to mean delaying getting to the moon. Honestly, what is the point of going there again except to do more science? We have an orbitting lab that can do that, and maybe a slight delay in getting to the moon may end up being for the best. We can certainly use the time to develop radiation shielding, understand long-term duration stays better, and give the un-manned lunar landers & orbiters the time to get results and for us to understand them. Otherwise, we have to do the same thing as what happened to the ISS: scale-down due to cost overruns, budget cut-backs, and technology that took longer than expected.

Soyuz works, it only has a few glitches, and they will sort it out. Considering how many the shuttle has had (because it is so complex), we need to go with what works. We all know spaceflight is risky, and those astronauts know the risks, even with a craft with a perfect flight record. Unrealized hardware is just that, unrealized. When it's proven, fine, but until then let's just keep things simple and go with tried and true.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #81 on: 04/27/2008 07:59 pm »
Quote
robertross - 27/4/2008  2:18 PM

Personally, I think there is no better option at the moment for the US than the shuttle. I agree with the proposed amendments before the Congress to utilize the shuttle with 2 flights per year. You have this perfectly good hardware waiting to go up, with billions spent building it; you still need ISS access (which the shuttle provides); and you need spares delivered on orbit.

I hate to say it, but if congress won't provide extra funding, it will have to mean delaying getting to the moon. Honestly, what is the point of going there again except to do more science? We have an orbitting lab that can do that, and maybe a slight delay in getting to the moon may end up being for the best. We can certainly use the time to develop radiation shielding, understand long-term duration stays better, and give the un-manned lunar landers & orbiters the time to get results and for us to understand them. Otherwise, we have to do the same thing as what happened to the ISS: scale-down due to cost overruns, budget cut-backs, and technology that took longer than expected.

Soyuz works, it only has a few glitches, and they will sort it out. Considering how many the shuttle has had (because it is so complex), we need to go with what works. We all know spaceflight is risky, and those astronauts know the risks, even with a craft with a perfect flight record. Unrealized hardware is just that, unrealized. When it's proven, fine, but until then let's just keep things simple and go with tried and true.

I agree Shuttle extension followed by a smooth transition to either COTS and/or DIRECT would be the sane fail-safe approach to ISS maintenance and hopefully will be pursued by the next administration. Bush's VSE is fundamentally flawed by having a 4 year gap (now 6) for NASA vehicles when the ISS is meant to be utilised, you can't blame Griffin for this specific mandate even if his particular implementation has made it worse.

Offline Spacenick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #82 on: 04/27/2008 08:11 pm »
The shuttle is nice, but as you rightly said, it's extremely complex. Thus I think it's better to shut it down after it has delivered all ISS modules taht were designed to be delivered with it, spare parts can than be put on HTV or an ATV evolution design. Such an evolution design isn't there yet but it's easy enough to be considered an avilable solution in the same way the Russians used a modified progress to supply small modules to the ISS. Changing the ATV (which was already designed with this in mind) is probably even easier, it even has an existing tunnel trough its propulsion section so an aft docking port can be added. This way we could rely on Soyuz for humans and ATV/HTV/Progress for supplies. Even if there is a problem with Soyuz chances are it can be solved and kept flying. Another point one has to note that even with a flying shuttle a Soyuz out stand would mean a huge problem for the ISS a much bigger one than a shuttle out stand, this is because the Soyuz stays in orbit as a live boat which shuttle can't.
Thus the soyuz is essential for human presence on the ISS.
The biggest problem one could think of with Soyuz, other than a political crisis that kills Russian support of Soyuz, would be if a Soyuz stranded in orbit unable to reach ISS. In this case there would really be no simple way to help the astronauts, in fact the only thing I could think of would be to undock  an ATV  from the station and in a really risky maneuver use it to push the soyuz into a deorbit trajectory. The biggest problem is that, as hard as it may sound, astronauts stranded in orbit alive are a lot worse media wise than astronauts killed during an incident, just compare the Apollo 13 media outcry with the shuttle incidents.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #83 on: 04/28/2008 11:29 am »
Does anyone know if the US Air Force has a ‘black ops’ program for manned access to LEO?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #84 on: 04/28/2008 12:30 pm »
Quote
clongton - 28/4/2008  12:29 PM

Does anyone know if the US Air Force has a ‘black ops’ program for manned access to LEO?

Well, there are military shuttle missions. Beyond that you're into blackstar territory.   :laugh:

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #85 on: 04/28/2008 12:47 pm »
Quote
psloss - 23/4/2008  5:03 PM

Quote
William Barton - 23/4/2008  4:50 PM

It's hard to see how an LV failure would stand down the Soyuz. It has happened in the past at least twice, and the LAS worked both times.
Not that hard...the crew transport can't get to orbit without the LV.  If they have to stand down to find the LV problem, they can't launch.

It's the duration of the stand-down that might be different than the shuttle.  Perhaps they might find and fix the problem in the several months before the next scheduled increment launch.  The historical record probably shows how long the stand-downs were or at least when the next launch occurred after the failures you mention.

My point was, with 50 years and many hundreds of launches under its belt the R-7-derived launcher family isn't going to be stood down for design flaws. If a Soyuz LV explodes on the pad or fails during ascent, and the crew gets off using the LAS (one example of each from history), the Russians have sufficient experience with the vehicle to chalk it up to manufacturing error, and simply roll out the next one. If Challenger had had an adequate LAS and the crew had lived, and if Columbia had had a crew cabin with an independent TPS and the crew had lived, the reaction to both accidents would have been more predicated on the cost of vehicle loss than anything else. With an expendable LV, any Soyuz accident that doesn't result in crew loss is far less likely to cause any kind of stand down. In the entire Soyuz program, extending over 41 years, LV accidents haven't caused crew loss, only spacecraft accidents.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #86 on: 04/28/2008 01:04 pm »
Quote
William Barton - 28/4/2008  8:47 AM

My point was, with 50 years and many hundreds of launches under its belt the R-7-derived launcher family isn't going to be stood down for design flaws. If a Soyuz LV explodes on the pad or fails during ascent, and the crew gets off using the LAS (one example of each from history), the Russians have sufficient experience with the vehicle to chalk it up to manufacturing error, and simply roll out the next one.
Don't disagree, but then we're arguing semantics -- not sure I'd categorize a manufacturing error (if that were a sole cause) as a launcher failure.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #87 on: 04/28/2008 01:05 pm »
Quote
Jim - 26/4/2008  9:32 AM

Quote
Hotdog - 26/4/2008  7:14 AM

I agree with mike robel. Musk will do whatever brings him money and proves his company's technology. If the number one priority is to close the gap as quickly as possible, you need to look at what hardware is currently available or the closest to being available.

The options on the capsule (crewed spacecraft) seem to be Orion, Dragon, Dreamchaser and any other NewSpace developments. Of these Dragon is most likely the closest to being available.

The options on the launcher are Atlas, Delta, Falcon 9 and Ares/Jupiter. Of these the Delta and Atlas are currently available and the Delta makes most sense.

The Dragon launch mass seems to be somewhere between 7000 and 8000 kg. The Delta IV Medium with single RS-68 on first stage, single RL-10B-2 on second stage and no strap-on solids has a LEO payload of 8600 kg to 185 km orbit (according to astronautix). I haven't worked out what the payload to ISS would be and if it could carry the Dragon but the safety numbers for this vehicle must be pretty good with one engine on each stage.

I can’t find a reference now to the length of time that Dragon can stay at the ISS but I seem to recall it was at least 6 months. That would allow it to be used in the same way as Soyuz.

If NASA really threw some COTS money at getting that combination flying as soon as possible it could close the gap, retire the shuttle and have money to spend on developing the VSE.

Let's be realistic and stop chugging the koolade.   Spacex hasn't launched one vehicle yet.

 Yep, we have lost two games and we should win the next one.  Our little running back is coming around slowly, he should help win the next one.  But just wait, we are bringing along a bigger guy, once he is ready, we should be winning.   With all this, we will be in the Super Bowl this year.  

 Would you believe these from an owner of an first year NFL expansion team?

Why should you believe Elon?

What's the opposite of koolade? Buttermilk? Perhaps in addition to not chugging the koolade of newspace, we should be cautious about swilling the buttermilk of oldspace as well. No US company or government agency has successfully fielded a new manned spacecraft in 27 years. In fact, who in the US has developed a new large rocket engine in all that time? If I don't believe Elon Musk, I think I am obligated to direct the same doubts at all the other players, up to an including NASA. What have they all done lately? It's easy to point to SpaceX and claim spin, smoke-blowing, and koolade, but what are LM, Boeing, and NASA saying? Give us money and we'll give you results? Hey, give me $40bln and I'll get you to the Moon too!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #88 on: 04/28/2008 01:24 pm »
"In fact, who in the US has developed a new large rocket engine in all that time? "

Rocketdyne, the RS-68

"No US company or government agency has successfully fielded a new manned spacecraft in 27 years"

There was OSP but some administrator canceled it.

But also it doesn't mean spacex is the only one that is developing a manned spacecraft.  CSR hasn't be awarded

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #89 on: 04/28/2008 01:27 pm »
Quote
William Barton - 28/4/2008  8:05 AM
No US company or government agency has successfully fielded a new manned spacecraft in 27 years.

Arguably, Scaled Composites did with SpaceShipOne.

Quote
In fact, who in the US has developed a new large rocket engine in all that time?

Rocketdyne (now P&W) with RS-68.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #90 on: 04/28/2008 02:38 pm »
Quote
Jim - 28/4/2008  9:24 AM

"In fact, who in the US has developed a new large rocket engine in all that time? "

Rocketdyne, the RS-68

"No US company or government agency has successfully fielded a new manned spacecraft in 27 years"

There was OSP but some administrator canceled it.

But also it doesn't mean spacex is the only one that is developing a manned spacecraft.  CSR hasn't be awarded

That was my point precisely. Rocketdyne, with RS-68 a definite yes. And how do you discount SpaceX and Merlin? By quibbling the adjective "large?" Or by defining "developed" as "and successfully launched an orbital flight?" As for OSP, I'd say "cancelled" clearly means the manned spacecraft was not "successfully fielded, so the answer is "no one."

Clearly, SpaceX isn't the only one developing a manned spacecraft. And I say, the more, the better. Dragon is at best in the when and if category, right now. But so is Orion, for that matter.

Offline cpcjr

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #91 on: 04/28/2008 02:38 pm »
Once again we see the problem with relying on only one type of space craft at a time. If during the gap between STS and Orion the Soyuz has a fatal accident there will no access even to ISS  unless Space X can get a manned Dragon flying first.

However Dragon is probably the best chance of getting a back up for Soyuz.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #92 on: 04/28/2008 02:45 pm »
Quote
Thorny - 28/4/2008  9:27 AM

Quote
William Barton - 28/4/2008  8:05 AM
No US company or government agency has successfully fielded a new manned spacecraft in 27 years.

Arguably, Scaled Composites did with SpaceShipOne.

Quote
In fact, who in the US has developed a new large rocket engine in all that time?

Rocketdyne (now P&W) with RS-68.

Definitely arguable, with SpaceShipOne (and X-15 too). I should have been more specific, and said "manned orbital spacecraft." Since the thread is called "Possible backup craft to Soyuz," I didn't think I needed to, and SpaceShipOne is no more capable of reaching ISS than my Ford Ranger. Same with the rocket engine. I could have specified kerolox, but I wanted the point to be, R-68 and Merlin, so where does chugging the koolade come in? We need to pay attention to technical acievement, as well as end result. Suppose Falcon 9 and Taurus II both fly, as I devoutly hope? Outside of cheering both companies for their achievement, and trying not to quibble the smaller vs. larger debate, what added value is there? SpaceX will be producing Merlin engines. Who will be producing new NK-33 engines?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #93 on: 04/28/2008 03:20 pm »
Who will be producing new NK-33 engines?

Aerojet

Offline Bubbinski

Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #94 on: 04/28/2008 03:59 pm »
I'm glad there's been lots of good discussion here about possible alternatives, their strengths and shortfalls.  Is there a similar type of discussion going on now in the NASA leadership or in the White House or Congress?  Are there any plans/discussions/ideas floating around within NASA other than the stuff about shuttle extension on L2?
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #95 on: 04/28/2008 04:14 pm »
Quote
Bubbinski - 28/4/2008  11:59 AM

I'm glad there's been lots of good discussion here about possible alternatives, their strengths and shortfalls.  Is there a similar type of discussion going on now in the NASA leadership or in the White House or Congress?  Are there any plans/discussions/ideas floating around within NASA other than the stuff about shuttle extension on L2?
1. White House: I doubt it. That's just my opinion however. I could be wrong.
2. NASA leadership: Absolutlely. However, it's more geared toward what can be done to speed up Ares/Orion to minimize the gap, together with efforts to be included, in a meaningful way, with the Russian investigation of the incident. Safety of the returning crew is of paramount importance and everyone wants to make sure that all the bases are covered and all possible contingencies are looked at. The shorter they can make the gap, the less reliance on Soyuz will be needed. That's NASA's baseline position.
3. Congress: Similar to NASA, with a little more active consideration to alternative means of transport. However, the game in town is still Ares/Orion.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #96 on: 04/28/2008 04:18 pm »
Quote
Jim - 28/4/2008  11:20 AM

Who will be producing new NK-33 engines?

Aerojet

Will they? How many US companies are actually producing Russian engines under license, as opposed to engines bought from Russian production? Aren't Aeroject-produced NK-33s in the same category as P&W-produced RD-180s? I hear a lot of talk about these license-built engines, but are there actual production lines in the US cranking out US-built engines?

Hopefully there isn't a definition issue here, where engines assmebled in the US from Russian-made parts are considered "produced" in the US?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #97 on: 04/28/2008 04:57 pm »
Quote
William Barton - 28/4/2008  12:18 PM

Quote
Jim - 28/4/2008  11:20 AM

Who will be producing new NK-33 engines?

Aerojet

Will they? How many US companies are actually producing Russian engines under license, as opposed to engines bought from Russian production? Aren't Aeroject-produced NK-33s in the same category as P&W-produced RD-180s? I hear a lot of talk about these license-built engines, but are there actual production lines in the US cranking out US-built engines?

Hopefully there isn't a definition issue here, where engines assmebled in the US from Russian-made parts are considered "produced" in the US?

Once the current inventory is used up, Aerojet will perform all the production.  It is not the same as the RD-180 which is directly installed.    Aerojet has to refurb and modify the NK-33 for use

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
RE: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #98 on: 04/28/2008 06:38 pm »

Too bad X-38 never got a chance:

 http://www.thetechlounge.com/files/news/images/1192162087_x38_1.jpg" />

 

Wasn't 2008 the year it was supposed to be at the ISS? 


Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #99 on: 04/28/2008 07:05 pm »
Quote
Jim - 28/4/2008  5:57 PM

Quote
William Barton - 28/4/2008  12:18 PM

Quote
Jim - 28/4/2008  11:20 AM

Who will be producing new NK-33 engines?

Aerojet

Will they? How many US companies are actually producing Russian engines under license, as opposed to engines bought from Russian production? Aren't Aeroject-produced NK-33s in the same category as P&W-produced RD-180s? I hear a lot of talk about these license-built engines, but are there actual production lines in the US cranking out US-built engines?

Hopefully there isn't a definition issue here, where engines assmebled in the US from Russian-made parts are considered "produced" in the US?

Once the current inventory is used up, Aerojet will perform all the production.  It is not the same as the RD-180 which is directly installed.    Aerojet has to refurb and modify the NK-33 for use

And this is expected to work? How many billions has Aerojet put into copying the NK-33? 'Cause it ain't gonna be easy.

Offline Bubbinski

Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #100 on: 04/28/2008 07:11 pm »
Ah, the X-38....that was a very bad move getting rid of it.  I suppose it's too late to resurrect it?  Some flight testing was done, design work too, right?  And is the prototype still in the inventory?
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #101 on: 04/28/2008 07:17 pm »
Quote
meiza - 28/4/2008  3:05 PM

Quote
Jim - 28/4/2008  5:57 PM

Quote
William Barton - 28/4/2008  12:18 PM

Quote
Jim - 28/4/2008  11:20 AM

Who will be producing new NK-33 engines?

Aerojet

Will they? How many US companies are actually producing Russian engines under license, as opposed to engines bought from Russian production? Aren't Aeroject-produced NK-33s in the same category as P&W-produced RD-180s? I hear a lot of talk about these license-built engines, but are there actual production lines in the US cranking out US-built engines?

Hopefully there isn't a definition issue here, where engines assmebled in the US from Russian-made parts are considered "produced" in the US?

Once the current inventory is used up, Aerojet will perform all the production.  It is not the same as the RD-180 which is directly installed.    Aerojet has to refurb and modify the NK-33 for use

And this is expected to work? How many billions has Aerojet put into copying the NK-33? 'Cause it ain't gonna be easy.

It isn't that hard.  They have all the drawings and have converted them.  The materials are not exotic

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #102 on: 04/28/2008 07:28 pm »
Quote
Jim - 28/4/2008  8:17 PM

Quote
meiza - 28/4/2008  3:05 PM

Quote
Jim - 28/4/2008  5:57 PM

Quote
William Barton - 28/4/2008  12:18 PM

Quote
Jim - 28/4/2008  11:20 AM

Who will be producing new NK-33 engines?

Aerojet

Will they? How many US companies are actually producing Russian engines under license, as opposed to engines bought from Russian production? Aren't Aeroject-produced NK-33s in the same category as P&W-produced RD-180s? I hear a lot of talk about these license-built engines, but are there actual production lines in the US cranking out US-built engines?

Hopefully there isn't a definition issue here, where engines assmebled in the US from Russian-made parts are considered "produced" in the US?

Once the current inventory is used up, Aerojet will perform all the production.  It is not the same as the RD-180 which is directly installed.    Aerojet has to refurb and modify the NK-33 for use

And this is expected to work? How many billions has Aerojet put into copying the NK-33? 'Cause it ain't gonna be easy.

It isn't that hard.  They have all the drawings and have converted them.  The materials are not exotic

Interesting. I would have expected it to be harder. NK-33 runs oxidizer rich in the turbine, although it has lower chamber pressure than RD-180...
EDIT: Hmm seems it's full oxidizer flow that results in a mixture ratio of 58 and temperature of just 670 F. That's 350 C or 620 K.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #103 on: 04/28/2008 07:41 pm »
Quote
meiza - 28/4/2008  3:28 PM

Quote
Jim - 28/4/2008  8:17 PM

Quote
meiza - 28/4/2008  3:05 PM

Quote
Jim - 28/4/2008  5:57 PM

Quote
William Barton - 28/4/2008  12:18 PM

Quote
Jim - 28/4/2008  11:20 AM

Who will be producing new NK-33 engines?

Aerojet

Will they? How many US companies are actually producing Russian engines under license, as opposed to engines bought from Russian production? Aren't Aeroject-produced NK-33s in the same category as P&W-produced RD-180s? I hear a lot of talk about these license-built engines, but are there actual production lines in the US cranking out US-built engines?

Hopefully there isn't a definition issue here, where engines assmebled in the US from Russian-made parts are considered "produced" in the US?

Once the current inventory is used up, Aerojet will perform all the production.  It is not the same as the RD-180 which is directly installed.    Aerojet has to refurb and modify the NK-33 for use

And this is expected to work? How many billions has Aerojet put into copying the NK-33? 'Cause it ain't gonna be easy.

It isn't that hard.  They have all the drawings and have converted them.  The materials are not exotic

Interesting. I would have expected it to be harder. NK-33 runs oxidizer rich in the turbine, although it has lower chamber pressure than RD-180...

It's "not that hard" to build an orbital launch vehicle, either. But until SpaceX is orbiting payloads, they haven't done it. I believe the same criterion should be applied to US production of the NK-33 (and RD-180 as well). Until Aerojet has actually done it, they haven't done it. In the meantime, SpaceX has manufactured a handful of Merlins, two of which actually flew, one of which flew its full mission profile. Aerojet has refurbished some number of NK-33s, but as far as I know, none of them have actually flown. Which leads to another question: has any NK-33 ever been incorporated into an LV that made it to orbit? I guess close to a hundred of them were on the bottom end of N-1s that didn't, so they do have a lot of flight history.  :laugh:

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5412
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3861
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #104 on: 04/28/2008 07:43 pm »
NK-33 is a Russian built engine designed in the 60's.  

I would be surprised, no stunned, if there was anything in the engine that America technology in the 2000's that can't easily produce.  Russian design is not noted for being exotic and complicated.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #105 on: 04/28/2008 07:51 pm »
Here's a good question regarding US production of the NK-33. How much saving on development cost is it to reproduce an engine from drawings and a working model as compared to developing a same-category engine from scratch? I hear people say recreating the F-1 would be more trouble than it's worth, even though I've heard some people say the drawings for F-1 still exist as well. They're both 1960s vintage engines. What's the big difference?

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #106 on: 04/28/2008 07:54 pm »
Quote
wannamoonbase - 28/4/2008  3:43 PM

NK-33 is a Russian built engine designed in the 60's.  

I would be surprised, no stunned, if there was anything in the engine that America technology in the 2000's that can't easily produce.  Russian design is not noted for being exotic and complicated.

Even though American technology hasn't itself produced an engine like that since the 1960s? So we can just whip out the J-2 drawings and start building new ones too?

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #107 on: 04/28/2008 09:43 pm »
Quote
William Barton - 28/4/2008  12:41 PM

It's "not that hard" to build an orbital launch vehicle, either. But until SpaceX is orbiting payloads, they haven't done it. I believe the same criterion should be applied to US production of the NK-33 (and RD-180 as well). Until Aerojet has actually done it, they haven't done it
Big difference. Aerojet has a track record of producing working product. SpaceX has a track record of producing outrageously optimistic talk, followed by failure.

There's good reason to believe Aerojet is actually in a position to know how hard it will be. There is good reason to believe SpaceX doesn't, as demonstrated by claims their LV would be 10x more reliable than anything else, followed by a failure rate that rivals the early days of the space race.

If SpaceX get to the point where their performance matches their talk, people will start taking their talk more seriously.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #108 on: 04/28/2008 11:06 pm »
Sure it can be done, it will just take some time and money.

Offline brihath

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #109 on: 04/29/2008 03:20 pm »
Quote
Bubbinski - 28/4/2008  3:11 PM

Ah, the X-38....that was a very bad move getting rid of it.  I suppose it's too late to resurrect it?  Some flight testing was done, design work too, right?  And is the prototype still in the inventory?

AFAIK, the X-38 was supposed to be a "down only" lifeboat.  It would have been delivered by the Shuttle.  It would be lacking a lot...life support system, TPS, maneuvering system, launch vehicle interface, etc.  

IMO, if we want a backup to the Soyuz, keep Shuttle flying.  It is the only other operational manned space vehicle.  I am excluding Shenzou, because I don't think two flights in five years qualifies it as an operational vehicle.

Anything else, i.e. Dragon, COTS, etc. is just long range planning at this time and not viable as a back up.

Offline Spacenick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #110 on: 04/29/2008 05:00 pm »
I guess Shenzhou has to be excluded primarily for political reasons, the design itself probably quite flight worthy simply because it pushes no technical limits to hard and the basic idea is quite proven. One idea would be to buy some aditional Soyuz from the Russians, check them as thoroughly as possible and then keep them ready for launch on a different launcher so they can be launched in time as an unmanned life boat. Because the Soyuz design is already proven, this would mitigate many risks like a launcher stand down or political problems because the Soyuz would be parked flight ready in some American clean room.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #111 on: 04/29/2008 05:42 pm »
Quote
hop - 28/4/2008  5:43 PM

Quote
William Barton - 28/4/2008  12:41 PM

It's "not that hard" to build an orbital launch vehicle, either. But until SpaceX is orbiting payloads, they haven't done it. I believe the same criterion should be applied to US production of the NK-33 (and RD-180 as well). Until Aerojet has actually done it, they haven't done it
Big difference. Aerojet has a track record of producing working product. SpaceX has a track record of producing outrageously optimistic talk, followed by failure.

There's good reason to believe Aerojet is actually in a position to know how hard it will be. There is good reason to believe SpaceX doesn't, as demonstrated by claims their LV would be 10x more reliable than anything else, followed by a failure rate that rivals the early days of the space race.

If SpaceX get to the point where their performance matches their talk, people will start taking their talk more seriously.

When was the last time Aerojet produced a new large rocket engine all by themselves? Why should I believe Aerojet and not SpaceX? SpaceX has a history of producing a new rocket engine which successfully carried a second stage to staging altitude and velocity. The failure was at staging, followed by design issues in the second stage, using an engine that had never ignited in flight before. P&W produced a new engine which successfully carried a second stage to staging altitude and velocity. The second stage is derived from an engine family with history reaching back to the 1960s. Aerojet? Why is there good reason to believe Aerojet knows how hard it will be?

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #112 on: 04/29/2008 05:48 pm »
Quote
meiza - 28/4/2008  7:06 PM

Sure it can be done, it will just take some time and money.

Sure, but why do professionals see a big difference between resurrecting NK-33 and F-1? F-1 is regarded as too much trouble, but NK-33 is "not that hard." I'm curious why the different perception. I can understand using the NK-33s, since there are a hundred of them laying around, compared to just a few old F-1s. It's starting up new NK-33 production that puzzles me. Why would that be so much easier? I'm not disputing the F-1 might not be worth the effort. I mean, what would we do with it, stick it on the bottom of an Atlas V and add sidesaddle tanks for the extra fuel?

Offline brihath

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #113 on: 04/29/2008 05:52 pm »
Quote
Spacenick - 29/4/2008  1:00 PM

I guess Shenzhou has to be excluded primarily for political reasons, the design itself probably quite flight worthy simply because it pushes no technical limits to hard and the basic idea is quite proven. One idea would be to buy some aditional Soyuz from the Russians, check them as thoroughly as possible and then keep them ready for launch on a different launcher so they can be launched in time as an unmanned life boat. Because the Soyuz design is already proven, this would mitigate many risks like a launcher stand down or political problems because the Soyuz would be parked flight ready in some American clean room.

Buying Russian Soyuz spacecraft is still relying on the Soyuz.  The launcher is not what is at issue here.  An independent backup should be independent from the primary system.

Keep in mind that just because a design is robust, it doesn't mean the end product is safe.  Having worked in manufacturing for many years, we take a design that is sound and then turn it over to folks making 1/3 to 1/10 of what the design engineer(s) earn and require it to be built.  We then constantly drive costs down by improving efficiency or reducing raw materials costs.  

The pressure to manufacture to lower costs can be opposed to the design goals.  Without a good quality system in place to keep the two disparate goals focused on a safe and reliable product, the result can be a product that has serious deficiencies.  Good design doesn't necessarily lead to a good product.  Manufacturing execution and quality control play a part too.


Offline pm1823

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 473
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #114 on: 04/29/2008 05:53 pm »
//Soyuz would be parked flight ready in some American clean room.

It's impossible for political reasons. And NASA quality inspectors in the Energia's room should be enough.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #115 on: 04/29/2008 07:04 pm »
Quote
William Barton - 29/4/2008  1:42 PM

Quote
hop - 28/4/2008  5:43 PM

Quote
William Barton - 28/4/2008  12:41 PM

It's "not that hard" to build an orbital launch vehicle, either. But until SpaceX is orbiting payloads, they haven't done it. I believe the same criterion should be applied to US production of the NK-33 (and RD-180 as well). Until Aerojet has actually done it, they haven't done it
Big difference. Aerojet has a track record of producing working product. SpaceX has a track record of producing outrageously optimistic talk, followed by failure.

There's good reason to believe Aerojet is actually in a position to know how hard it will be. There is good reason to believe SpaceX doesn't, as demonstrated by claims their LV would be 10x more reliable than anything else, followed by a failure rate that rivals the early days of the space race.

If SpaceX get to the point where their performance matches their talk, people will start taking their talk more seriously.

When was the last time Aerojet produced a new large rocket engine all by themselves? Why should I believe Aerojet and not SpaceX? SpaceX has a history of producing a new rocket engine which successfully carried a second stage to staging altitude and velocity. The failure was at staging, followed by design issues in the second stage, using an engine that had never ignited in flight before. P&W produced a new engine which successfully carried a second stage to staging altitude and velocity. The second stage is derived from an engine family with history reaching back to the 1960s. Aerojet? Why is there good reason to believe Aerojet knows how hard it will be?

Because Aerojet has been modifying and test firing these engines for more than 10 years

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #116 on: 04/29/2008 07:07 pm »
Quote
Spacenick - 29/4/2008  1:00 PM
 One idea would be to buy some aditional Soyuz from the Russians, check them as thoroughly as possible and then keep them ready for launch on a different launcher so they can be launched in time as an unmanned life boat. Because the Soyuz design is already proven, this would mitigate many risks like a launcher stand down or political problems because the Soyuz would be parked flight ready in some American clean room.

Not that easy.  Soyuz is not a comsat, which are made to fly on different vehicles

Offline Spacenick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #117 on: 04/29/2008 07:46 pm »
when launched unmanned that shouldn't pose to big a problem should it?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #118 on: 04/29/2008 08:05 pm »
Quote
Spacenick - 29/4/2008  2:46 PM

when launched unmanned that shouldn't pose to big a problem should it?

It really all depends.  Soyuz and other vehicles are tested and certified to fly on a particular vehicle as far as vibration, thermal environment, etc.  Swapping launch vehicle, manned or unmanned, isn't as easy as you might think.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #119 on: 04/29/2008 08:10 pm »
When will the Soyuz ESA pad be ready for operations?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #120 on: 04/29/2008 08:34 pm »
Quote
Jim - 29/4/2008  3:04 PM

Quote
William Barton - 29/4/2008  1:42 PM

Quote
hop - 28/4/2008  5:43 PM

Quote
William Barton - 28/4/2008  12:41 PM

It's "not that hard" to build an orbital launch vehicle, either. But until SpaceX is orbiting payloads, they haven't done it. I believe the same criterion should be applied to US production of the NK-33 (and RD-180 as well). Until Aerojet has actually done it, they haven't done it
Big difference. Aerojet has a track record of producing working product. SpaceX has a track record of producing outrageously optimistic talk, followed by failure.

There's good reason to believe Aerojet is actually in a position to know how hard it will be. There is good reason to believe SpaceX doesn't, as demonstrated by claims their LV would be 10x more reliable than anything else, followed by a failure rate that rivals the early days of the space race.

If SpaceX get to the point where their performance matches their talk, people will start taking their talk more seriously.

When was the last time Aerojet produced a new large rocket engine all by themselves? Why should I believe Aerojet and not SpaceX? SpaceX has a history of producing a new rocket engine which successfully carried a second stage to staging altitude and velocity. The failure was at staging, followed by design issues in the second stage, using an engine that had never ignited in flight before. P&W produced a new engine which successfully carried a second stage to staging altitude and velocity. The second stage is derived from an engine family with history reaching back to the 1960s. Aerojet? Why is there good reason to believe Aerojet knows how hard it will be?

Because Aerojet has been modifying and test firing these engines for more than 10 years

I'll have to take your word for it, since you certainly are an expert, and I certainly am not. I don't really see that one follows the other though. When I was a kid, I bought a 1962 Chrysler Nieuport out of a junkyard. It's main problem was the installed 361 had a spun bearing. I found a 383 that had been sitting out in the rain in a different junkyard and managed to make a working 361 out of the parts. But I could never in a million years design a V-8 engine.

One thing I wonder is, why does the US have any rocket propulsion design engineers at all? What would they have been doing with themselves since 1980? Or are the guys who designed RS-68 and Merlin all 90 years old?

Offline Bubbinski

Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #121 on: 04/30/2008 04:44 am »
There's been a lot of good posts here about the various options available, lots of good discussion that I was hoping would happen.  To summarize, it would seem that the Soyuz backup situation would possibly go like this:

- Shuttle is going until 2010 - could be extended, extensions from 1 to 5 years (2011-2015 have been discussed), but would NOT be a viable "always present" crew return lifeboat for on orbit emergencies.  Shuttle would be available for "man-tended" stretches if no other craft were available, IF ISS could be flown for long periods in unmanned configuration with its current setup.  Late 2008 deadline if shuttle program to be extended.

- Orion could be ready in 2012 and is under development.  Big question is launch vehicle.   EELV flying now, will need to be man rated.  Ares I likely not available till 2015-2016, Direct possibly available sooner and also derived from Shuttle hardware.  Shuttle jobs and Moon program are considerations.  

- Dragon is being developed by SpaceX.  Big questions: COTS D funding, launch vehicle (Falcon 9 availability?  Atlas?).  Availability uncertain though unmanned flight scheduled for around 2010.  SpaceX has not yet launched a satellite into orbit, can Falcon 9 development go better than Falcon 1?

- Shenzhou has flown two manned flights and several unmanned flights, is actually developed and flying.  Chinese have yet to demonstrate docking technology, though, and politics could keep them out of ISS.  Hopefully systems commonality with Soyuz is not an issue.  If agreement could be reached now, ISS rendezvous flight possible by 2012?  (Apollo-Soyuz took 3 yrs. 1972-1975).  

- Other options are not yet approved or under active development.  Shuttle, Orion, Dragon, Shenzhou seem to be the potentially/possibly/perhaps/maybe viable Soyuz alternatives at the moment for ISS crew access.  

Edit: And only Shuttle has a comparable flight record to Soyuz, only Shuttle and Shenzhou are currently flying.  So any "lifeboat" alternative to Soyuz capable of staying on station for 6 plus months would need more testing first.

Do you think that's an accurate summary of the situation?

I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline CentEur

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Poland
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #122 on: 04/30/2008 08:41 am »
Quote
clongton - 29/4/2008  10:10 PM

When will the Soyuz ESA pad be ready for operations?

May 2009 according to February's ESA Bulletin.

Offline Spacenick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #123 on: 04/30/2008 08:47 am »
Could Orion be launched on an EELV in unmanned configuartion and then serve as a life boat on ISS or are the Americans still not willing to do automatic docking?

Offline pm1823

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 473
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #124 on: 04/30/2008 09:26 am »
Quote
CentEur - 30/4/2008  3:41 AM

Quote
clongton - 29/4/2008  10:10 PM

When will the Soyuz ESA pad be ready for operations?

May 2009 according to February's ESA Bulletin.

Anyways it will be new and not man-rated version of Soyuz-STK (v2.1) LV. :)

Offline Bubbinski

Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #125 on: 04/30/2008 03:44 pm »
Quote
Spacenick - 30/4/2008  2:47 AM

Could Orion be launched on an EELV in unmanned configuartion and then serve as a life boat on ISS or are the Americans still not willing to do automatic docking?

Good question.  I don't know - but as far as the U.S. doing automatic docking, I believe that was demonstrated last year by Orbital Express or whatever that DOD experimental satellite was called.  

Maybe Orion could be tested unmanned on an EELV to qualify the craft, in parallel with Ares I or Direct development, I would think it could save time and offer a qualified backup option in event of Ares grounding.  But would the money be there for that?
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #126 on: 04/30/2008 03:55 pm »
The first mission of Orion to ISS is unmanned

Offline synchrotron

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #127 on: 04/30/2008 05:09 pm »
The first mission of Orion to ISS does not perform docking.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #128 on: 05/01/2008 10:56 am »
Really! Wow, that is odd. I would expect various go-arounds like the ATV but not to attempt docking seems very odd.

Offline synchrotron

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #129 on: 05/01/2008 11:03 am »
As with shuttle, there is currently no requirement for autonomous rendezvous and docking for the CEV.

Offline synchrotron

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #130 on: 05/01/2008 11:17 am »
The major players all have AR&D GN&C solutions.  Lockheed demonstrated autonomous rndz on XSS-11 for AFRL.  Boeing demonstrated it on Orbital Express for DARPA.  Orbital had some hiccups on DART, but could probably get past that.  Draper is certainly capable of it and had demonstrated a man-rated byzantine fault-tolerant implementation.

On the sensor side we have the following: AVGS laser-illuminated camera system from MSFC, ARCSS multi-camera + LRF from Boeing, the rendezvous lidar used by Lockheed on XSS-11, a flash lidar from Ball Aerospace, the NFIR camera system from Lockheed, a triangulating laser camera + lidar hybrid from Neptec, the videometer laser-illuminated camera system on ATV (primary) from EADS Sodern, the rendezvous lidar on both ATV (secondary sensor) and HTV (primary sensor) from JenaOptronik.  Advanced Optical Systems also has an image correlator hybrid of AVGS.

KURS and the boresight camera used on Soyuz/Progress are built with obsolete technology.  Their functions could be duplicated with modern components, but there's development involved.  The shuttle man-in-the-loop system is a little ad hoc, but it works just fine.  Just not all by itself.

Offline Spacenick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #131 on: 05/04/2008 09:25 pm »
I'd say if Orion can't dock unmanned that would be a huge reason for shame, in my opinion autonomous docking is one of the most important features of a modern post shuttle spacecraft because it allows to build cargo ships from the same base and to dock modules for example for a flight to the moon BEFORE docking with a manned ship and automatic docking is a base requirement for building space stations post shuttle, which together with modern (maybe Ion drive) space tugs would be  even more flexible than today.
It will be interesting to see which approach China will take, I guess with todays technic automated shouldn't be much harder than manned docking with the big advantage of being able to test it with minimal risk. I guess after Shenzhou demonstrates docking for a few times they could be invited to dock or at least flyby the ISS, kind of a modern Soyuz-Apollo mission which took place in a politically even worse situation. However as a rescue craft Shenzhous flight rate is  much too low.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #132 on: 05/05/2008 12:28 am »
Quote
Spacenick - 4/5/2008  5:25 PM

I'd say if Orion can't dock unmanned that would be a huge reason for shame, in my opinion autonomous docking is one of the most important features of a modern post shuttle spacecraft low.

Orion is a manned spacecraft and nothing more.  It is not a tug nor will it be flown unmanned (except in lunar orbit).  The cargo version was canceled

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #133 on: 05/05/2008 10:55 am »
What Jim says is correct. However, I also agree that automated docking is a critical technology in a post shuttle world. My thinking is around the lunar mission. It is always possible that an LSAM returning to lunar orbit is damaged and cannot dock, for a whole host of possible reasons. In that case the only hope for the lunar crew is if they are able to command Orion to come get them. Automated docking capability on Orion is their only hope of survival in such a situation.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Spacenick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Possible backup craft to Soyuz?
« Reply #134 on: 05/05/2008 01:42 pm »
It's also important if for some reason the crew is unable to perform any complex tasks, such a situation nearly arose on Apollo 13, Carbondioxid intoxication makes you unable to perform a docking maneuver long before it becomes lethal and to be honest it's not really the most unlikely scenario. it would also be needed to rescue a crew from an Orion with failed TPS in orbit because with another crew on board the rescuing vehicle it wouldn't have enough seats, it's not like the shuttle where you can simply add some seats.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1