Quote from: owais.usmani on 10/12/2021 07:30 am[Regarding Soyuz spacecraft, reply to deleted post]That relic spacecraft from the 60s still works and meets all the requirements laid down for it in 2021, and has proven to be the safest and most reliable way for humankind to reach orbit.[deleted]Untill recently the only way. But a hole drilled in one and covered up during manufacturing, and a booster destroying the launcher causing a (safe) abort to orbit doesn't make it 100%.
[Regarding Soyuz spacecraft, reply to deleted post]That relic spacecraft from the 60s still works and meets all the requirements laid down for it in 2021, and has proven to be the safest and most reliable way for humankind to reach orbit.[deleted]
Quote from: daedalus1 on 10/12/2021 07:43 amUntill recently the only way. But a hole drilled in one and covered up during manufacturing, and a booster destroying the launcher causing a (safe) abort to orbit doesn't make it 100%.If you want 100%, stay on the ground. Closest you are going to get to that in terms of crew safety today is Soyuz by any metric.
Untill recently the only way. But a hole drilled in one and covered up during manufacturing, and a booster destroying the launcher causing a (safe) abort to orbit doesn't make it 100%.
Quote from: joek on 10/12/2021 09:59 amQuote from: daedalus1 on 10/12/2021 07:43 amUntill recently the only way. But a hole drilled in one and covered up during manufacturing, and a booster destroying the launcher causing a (safe) abort to orbit doesn't make it 100%.If you want 100%, stay on the ground. Closest you are going to get to that in terms of crew safety today is Soyuz by any metric.That's true and I wasn't implying that 100% is realistic over a long period of time, for any human transport system.But those two recent instances I quoted were caused by seriously lacking production checking. So are a cause for concern.Anyway I'm drifting from my original comment, that Europe buying Soyuz is a step backwards. Russia and China are developing next generation capsules to replace the ageing and limited Soyuz and it's Chinese derivative. Europe should do the same if they want independent access to orbit.
Quote from: daedalus1 on 10/12/2021 07:43 amQuote from: owais.usmani on 10/12/2021 07:30 am.........
Quote from: owais.usmani on 10/12/2021 07:30 am......
...
I thought I read the hole was sabotage?
<snip>we really dont know what issues had Soyuz during its development because USSR is not so transparent.<more snip>
Given that using Soyuz (spacecraft) from the East was not practical because the craft is not really designed to have the ocean as the main abort scenario, Kourou would seem even harder. I think this is more of a "let's study it together even though we know it won't be viable". Probably some money for the Russians and this would feed into a possible European crewed vehicle without authorizing one.
The Soyuz is not designed to abort to a water landing.
Quote from: abaddon on 10/13/2021 01:44 pmThe Soyuz is not designed to abort to a water landing.Soyuz is designed to accommodate an water landing. The only time this has occurred with cosmonauts on board was with Soyuz 23, an unintentional lake splashdown which was survivable but unpleasant. However, multiple Soyuz-derived craft (e.g. the Zonds) have been deliberately targeted for water landings successfully.
From the ESA/Kourou perspective specifically: If the desired outcome is human spaceflight from EU domestic soil, then there are broadly 3 options:1) Develop a new domestic human launch system (at least a capsule/spaceplane/etc, possibly a launcher too). Upside is fully domestic capability, downside is extreme cost and long schedule.2) Purchase a proven 'modern' human launch system. At the moment, that's SpaceX's Dragon atop Falcon 9, so that means building a Falcon 9 pad at Kourou and shipping Falcon 9 cores over there. 3) Purchase a proven 'modernised' human capsule that can launch atop the Soyuz launch vehicles you are already launching from Kourou.Amongst those, option 3 is the pragmatic "get people in orbit fastest and cheapest' choice, option 1 'best' in the long term for developing domestic technical capability beholden to no outside power, but not viable unless there is sufficient political will to stump up the substantial capital and wait several years for the payoff (no, there is currently not).
Back on topic of Russian space policy (rather than Soyuz vs. others):The driver for the ISS involving the Russian section was to ensure external support for the Russian space program through the instability of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and more specifically to ensure that the large number of trained aerospace engineers remained employed in Russia for at least nominally non-military purposes, rather than ending up suddenly redundant and scrabbling for any relevant work that can find (with Iran, North Korea, etc all very happy to hire them for their 'Totally Not an ICBM, Honest!' programmes). The question is, has that calculus changed? With what certainly appears from the outside like an imminent collapse of the Russian launch industry - loss of external funding from Soyuz seat and RD-180 sales, loss of internal government funding, multiple abandoned projects, the continued issues and delays with Angara, etc - does that risk still exist, and is there any will to prevent it?
One would have to be very careful about possible spies...
Quote from: JayWee on 06/13/2022 04:05 pmOne would have to be very careful about possible spies...Hence my caveat of, "assuming it'd be doable from a foreign policy/national security standpoint....."
Quote from: MGoDuPage on 06/13/2022 06:10 pmQuote from: JayWee on 06/13/2022 04:05 pmOne would have to be very careful about possible spies...Hence my caveat of, "assuming it'd be doable from a foreign policy/national security standpoint....."Probably not and that is probably why everyone in the West decided on purely financial aid to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. That's when any workforce recruitment efforts should have happened. And that was with far laxer export control laws in place. With today's draconian laws and regulations, it's pretty much an impossibility. So its wishful thinking at best and a complete delusion at the worst.