Author Topic: Russian space policy  (Read 23290 times)

Offline eeergo

Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #20 on: 10/12/2021 10:21 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%.

Yeah, I forgot about the exploding, obliterated Soyuz capsule when trying out its abort system on ground tests. Oh, and the one that couldn't reach ISS because it spent most of its propellant, yet almost managed to crash against its own service module, only to have stuck valves on its next mission. Or the ones whose heat shield got damaged by its launcher, and finally caused a LOCV when "factual" analysis showed it was "safe"... wait, am I missing something?

The hung-up booster in MS-10 didn't destroy the launcher: it caused it to deviate from its planned path, shutting down its engines for the abort. The abort wasn't to orbit. The hole on the orbital module did not cause any mission or safety impacts. Ah, these "facts" are just impeccable. [deleted]
« Last Edit: 10/12/2021 10:37 pm by zubenelgenubi »
-DaviD-

Offline daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 929
  • uk
  • Liked: 478
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #21 on: 10/12/2021 10:25 am »
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%.
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.

Offline Stan Black

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3135
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #22 on: 10/12/2021 05:05 pm »
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%.
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.

I thought I read the hole was sabotage?

Offline fast

  • Member
  • Posts: 98
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #23 on: 10/12/2021 05:53 pm »
...
...
...

First: It is not fair to compare long time operational Soyuz to new designs of Dragon 2 and Starliner issues during verification testing. This is why testings are done to catch the problems and we really dont know what issues had Soyuz during its development because USSR is not so transparent.
Second: Shuttle safety record is bad, but Soyuz also lost a crew.

If EU is willing to subsidize Ariane program for sake of independent space access, logically to expect them to develop it own manned spacecraft - totally within they capability.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2021 10:41 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11186
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7405
  • Likes Given: 72501
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #24 on: 10/12/2021 10:46 pm »
Moderator:
I just completed extensive editing and deletions to improve this short, new thread to NSF forum standards.

I could have made shorter work and consigned most of this thread to oblivion.

One of my improvements is moving this thread to Space Policy.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2021 10:47 pm by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11186
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7405
  • Likes Given: 72501
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #25 on: 10/12/2021 10:54 pm »
I thought I read the hole was sabotage?
FYI for readers, see this thread, also here in Space Policy, for the most recent news and discussion.  The thread also contains a link to the original "current events" thread.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54548.0
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #26 on: 10/13/2021 08:30 am »
<snip>
we really dont know what issues had Soyuz during its development because USSR is not so transparent.
<more snip>

Well actually quite a bit of information about Soyuz development history leaked out in the years after the CCCP ceased to exist.

Soyuz development problems were extensive. Komarov got killed by the infamous parachute incident but there was much more wrong with Soyuz 1: one of two solar wings failed to unfold, horizon sensor failed, star sensors failed, automatic atitude control system went dead.

After Soyuz 1 the vehicle basically went thru a full re-design to get rid of the most pressing problems. Similar in nature to how the Apollo CSM was completely re-done after Apollo 1. The Soyuz 2 vehicle was a huge improvement over the Soyuz 1 vehicle. Similar in nature as to how the Apollo 7 CSM was a huge improvement over the Apollo 1 CSM.

However, even after the mostly successful mission of Soyuz 3 the Soviets kept running into problems and further development was needed. Which led to an again much improved version of Soyuz being introduced after Soyuz 11.

All in all it took well more than a decade before Soyuz reached the level of reliability that we see today.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9329
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #27 on: 10/13/2021 12:12 pm »
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?

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5274
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #28 on: 10/13/2021 01:44 pm »
Before the thread went sideways @baldusi made a comment that seemed worth following on:

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.

This seems like kinda a deal-breaker to me?  The CST-100 is designed to land on land, but also designed to abort to water landing because of course it is.  The Soyuz is not designed to abort to a water landing.  What kind of work would need to be done to make it able to do so?  That seems like it would be very expensive and require extensive recertification, which makes me question the purpose of this other than a very brief and likely small infusion of cash.

Right now, Russia is able to sustain a high launch rate and (presumably) make some desperately needed cash on the backs of the OneWeb LEO constellation, which they are orbiting a significant percentage of.  That won't last forever and the Soyuz seems unlikely to be a launcher of choice for bigger follow-on constellations.  As others have noted NASA buying Soyuz seats is over, commercial Proton launches are basically done, RD-180 is done... Russia really needs something new to make their space program cash positive.  So I understand the allure of exploring manned space flight with Europe.  But the above issue seems virtually insurmountable to me.

With Putin cutting back the funding and asking for more (pay less and get more is not a winning strategy) where is the cash going to come from to sustain the Russia space program?

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9329
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #29 on: 10/13/2021 02:07 pm »
The 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.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #30 on: 10/13/2021 03:29 pm »
The 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.

Yes. There is nothing about the design of Soyuz that prevents water landings, even during aborts.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9329
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #31 on: 10/14/2021 11:47 am »
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).

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5274
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #32 on: 10/14/2021 07:30 pm »
The 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.
Thanks for the correction.  So that would mean the initial concern about abort zones being over water when launching from Kourou is in fact not a concern.
« Last Edit: 10/14/2021 07:31 pm by abaddon »

Offline Slarty1080

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2740
  • UK
  • Liked: 1871
  • Likes Given: 814
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #33 on: 03/12/2022 07:20 am »
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).
I think option 3 just transitioned from pragmatic to unimaginable in just a few days.
My optimistic hope is that it will become cool to really think about things... rather than just doing reactive bullsh*t based on no knowledge (Brian Cox)

Offline MGoDuPage

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #34 on: 06/13/2022 03:49 pm »
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?

To piggy-back on edzieba's comment....

Clearly US/European relations with Russia have deteriorated even more since last year, so some type of joint operation isn't going to be in the cards for some time. However, if there IS still a cadre of top quality Russian aerospace engineers & rocket scientists working in & around that seemingly doomed program & assuming it'd be doable from a foreign policy/national security standpoint.....

Would NASA, private commercial spaceflight companies,  ESA, etc. consider doing an aggressive recruitment/talent raid like the US did with key German scientists during & immediately after WWII?   I'm not necessarily talking about a super high volume "talent raid", as I have no idea if there's any real labor shortage stateside. Perhaps there isn't any & if so, that kind of demand might not even exist. But even in that case, I'd at least think it'd be worth "cherry picking" a half dozen or dozen of the very best Russia might have to offer--if those types are still around & are now seeing the writing on the wall and are therefore amenable to making the move. 


It might not even require a massive specifc spaceflight/aerospace program for which they're being recruited to work. Just a national security policy to not only get them out of Russia, but to match them up & ensure they land at good quality programs (whether government or private industry), in the United States. (Or if not in the US, at least NOT with China, North Korea, Iran, etc.-- ESA, JAXA, etc.).
« Last Edit: 06/13/2022 04:04 pm by MGoDuPage »

Offline JayWee

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 997
  • Liked: 992
  • Likes Given: 1838
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #35 on: 06/13/2022 04:05 pm »
One would have to be very careful about possible spies...

Offline MGoDuPage

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #36 on: 06/13/2022 06:10 pm »
One 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....."

Offline DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1199
  • Likes Given: 65
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #37 on: 06/13/2022 06:42 pm »
One 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.
« Last Edit: 06/13/2022 06:44 pm by DaveS »
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline JayWee

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 997
  • Liked: 992
  • Likes Given: 1838
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #38 on: 06/13/2022 07:19 pm »
One 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.
And the incentive to spy for broken Russia back in the 90ties was way way less than is today.

Btw, look at what problems Firefly had with its Ukrainian owner...
« Last Edit: 06/13/2022 07:19 pm by JayWee »

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2280
  • Likes Given: 2184
Re: Russian space policy
« Reply #39 on: 07/13/2022 07:20 am »
Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov rumored to take over Roscosmos from Dmitry Rogozin.

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1547104851280240644

You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Tags:
 

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