Kaputnik - 9/8/2007 1:34 PMGood question. I'm not in a position to answer fully, but I can add this:Soyuz has a demonstrated safety record of about 98% (I think Ed Kyle is the man to go into more detail on this one). This compares unfavourably to the expected safety record (LOC) of 1/1200 or so for Ares/Orion. However, the Ares/Orion number is conjecture and the Soyuz one is demonstrated reliability.Second, the Soyuz re-entry capsule is good for LEO missions but not as well equipped for lunar re-entry. It is designed to survive lunar re-entry, but requires a double-dip manoeuvre to reduce heat loading; this adds complication and reduces safety.On cost, even the most expensive estimates for Soyuz are around $65m per flight; this is far below the Ares/Orion figures.
Kaputnik - 9/8/2007 12:34 PMGood question. I'm not in a position to answer fully, but I can add this:Soyuz has a demonstrated safety record of about 98% (I think Ed Kyle is the man to go into more detail on this one).
This compares unfavourably to the expected safety record (LOC) of 1/1200 or so for Ares/Orion. However, the Ares/Orion number is conjecture and the Soyuz one is demonstrated reliability.
Norm Hartnett - 9/8/2007 1:55 PMSo you are saying that two missions at 98% safety would not compare well with one mission with a LOC of 1/1200 and that two Soyuz missions would be about $130m or about $21.7m per person? [...]
sandrot - 9/8/2007 11:08 AMQuoteNorm Hartnett - 9/8/2007 1:55 PMSo you are saying that two missions at 98% safety would not compare well with one mission with a LOC of 1/1200 and that two Soyuz missions would be about $130m or about $21.7m per person? [...] I would not assume that since one seat on a Soyuz is marketed at 21.7 M$ that 21.7M$ represents 1/3 of a Soyuz mission cost.
HarryM - 9/8/2007 7:10 PMThe Zond flights which tested Soyuz lunar flybys were pretty horrible in success rate, hardly reassuring.
HarryM - 9/8/2007 2:10 PMThe Zond flights which tested Soyuz lunar flybys were pretty horrible in success rate, hardly reassuring.
brihath - 9/8/2007 1:25 PMQuoteHarryM - 9/8/2007 2:10 PMThe Zond flights which tested Soyuz lunar flybys were pretty horrible in success rate, hardly reassuring.May not be a good comparison. Zond missions were launched by Protons- different launch vehicle, safety record, costs, etc. At the time of the Zond missions, I think there were still a lot of reliability issues with the Proton launcher.
HarryM - 9/8/2007 11:42 AMI can understand cost validation for ISS missions, just not sure how a Soyuz would fit into a Lunar architecture in terms of "replacing" the Orion. I would guess crew would be in full Orlan type EVA suits not a pressure suit, so 2 not 3 crew, so you would need 2 Soyuz for a 4 crew Lunar mission.
sandrot - 9/8/2007 1:08 PMQuoteNorm Hartnett - 9/8/2007 1:55 PMSo you are saying that two missions at 98% safety would not compare well with one mission with a LOC of 1/1200 and that two Soyuz missions would be about $130m or about $21.7m per person? [...] I would not assume that since one seat on a Soyuz is marketed at 21.7 M$ that 21.7M$ represents 1/3 of a Soyuz mission cost.
gladiator1332 - 9/8/2007 2:57 PMOn another note...the Soyuz spacecraft was the problem for the two fatal missions...Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. The launch vehicle (tank and SRB) caused the two Shuttle fatal missions. It is tough to compare Ares I to Soyuz in terms of safety as Ares I hasn't flown yet. We have already seen with Shuttle how LOC projections can be way off.
gladiator1332 - 9/8/2007 11:57 AMOn another note...the Soyuz spacecraft was the problem for the two fatal missions...Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. The launch vehicle (tank and SRB) caused the two Shuttle fatal missions.
Jim - 9/8/2007 4:53 PMQuotegladiator1332 - 9/8/2007 2:57 PMOn another note...the Soyuz spacecraft was the problem for the two fatal missions...Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. The launch vehicle (tank and SRB) caused the two Shuttle fatal missions. It is tough to compare Ares I to Soyuz in terms of safety as Ares I hasn't flown yet. We have already seen with Shuttle how LOC projections can be way off. Columbia was a orbiter TPS problem, not an ET problem
TrueBlueWitt - 9/8/2007 4:55 PMQuoteJim - 9/8/2007 4:53 PMQuotegladiator1332 - 9/8/2007 2:57 PMOn another note...the Soyuz spacecraft was the problem for the two fatal missions...Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. The launch vehicle (tank and SRB) caused the two Shuttle fatal missions. It is tough to compare Ares I to Soyuz in terms of safety as Ares I hasn't flown yet. We have already seen with Shuttle how LOC projections can be way off. Columbia was a orbiter TPS problem, not an ET problemAnd... what was it that caused the TPS problem???
edkyle99 - 9/8/2007 9:40 PMQuotesandrot - 9/8/2007 1:08 PMQuoteNorm Hartnett - 9/8/2007 1:55 PMSo you are saying that two missions at 98% safety would not compare well with one mission with a LOC of 1/1200 and that two Soyuz missions would be about $130m or about $21.7m per person? [...] I would not assume that since one seat on a Soyuz is marketed at 21.7 M$ that 21.7M$ represents 1/3 of a Soyuz mission cost.The price is going up fast, partly due to the falling dollar versus the ruble and partly due to Russia just wanting more money. According to this recent report, a Soyuz seat now costs $30 million, and will cost $40 million beginning next year. http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2007-07-18-space-tourism-costs_N.htm - Ed Kyle