Build an American Soyuz

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
Tell me how is it that NASA with over 7 times the budget as well as the most advanced space tech now has to rely on the Russian space agency to get us to the space station that we have sunk $100 billion into already.

NASA was able to buy 15 seats to the space station with 5 tones of supplies for $719 million. The Soyuz spacecraft cost about $65 million.

The space shuttle on the other hand has a launch cost with development included of $1.3 billion. The Ares I would cost an expected $50 billion to develop and have a launch cost estimated to be around $1 billion.

Honestly how much would it cost and how long would it take for NASA to take the technology that we have had for decades and just build a cost-effective, reliable launcher that can at least keep the space station running. I am willing such a system would be on the order of about a billion.

It is like it is all or nothing. We cannot just build a vehicle that we know will be cheap and reliable based on proven technology.
 
J

Jazman1985

Guest
NASA would be incapable of building something similar to Soyuz for a similar cost. Building cheap and low tech is not how NASA does, or should do things. This is however, how Space-X is approaching the problem. They are more high tech than the Soyuz, but should still have a cheaper cost to launch. This is why NASA is interested in using them. With NASA's new commercial program, they will no longer be building the current generation of human launch vehicles. Hopefully they will apply themselves to materials engineering and technology development(including launching unmanned probes and landers) which is where they excel.
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
Jazman1985":1kk4idee said:
NASA would be incapable of building something similar to Soyuz for a similar cost. Building cheap and low tech is not how NASA does, or should do things. This is however, how Space-X is approaching the problem. They are more high tech than the Soyuz, but should still have a cheaper cost to launch. This is why NASA is interested in using them. With NASA's new commercial program, they will no longer be building the current generation of human launch vehicles. Hopefully they will apply themselves to materials engineering and technology development(including launching unmanned probes and landers) which is where they excel.

While I agree that commercial manned launchers should eventually take over I think that it is a bit premature to just drop the responsibility on their shoulders.
 
D

docm

Guest
Nevertheless the commercial options presented so far; Dragon, Orion Lite and Dream Chaser, offer 2x the crew capacity per spacecraft of Soyuz, making crew replenishment and rescue a far simpler affair. The sooner they can be brought into service, and I'd prefer at least 2 of them for redundancy, the better.
 
R

rockett

Guest
Soyuz can actually trace it's lineage directly back to the American Apollo days. Problem is, we threw our proven tech out the window for the Shuttle. They actually tried digging up the old Saturn stuff when they began Orion, and concluded we had lost it all and couldn't reconstruct it, except (I think) the second stage engine. An uprated version was supposed to be Aries second stage. So they resorted to cobbling together Aries I out of the solid Shuttle booster.

So once again, we throw it all out the window for what? Shuttle B or C (bad as they are) would be preferable to the current state of affairs as far as NASA staying in the manned space launch business.

So, maybe it is for the best we are turning it over to the private sector.

NASA could learn something from the Russians, build on what you've got instead of scrapping it and starting over every time...
 
E

edkyle99

Guest
DarkenedOne":1bkz7l36 said:
Tell me how is it that NASA with over 7 times the budget as well as the most advanced space tech now has to rely on the Russian space agency to get us to the space station that we have sunk $100 billion into already.

NASA was able to buy 15 seats to the space station with 5 tones of supplies for $719 million. The Soyuz spacecraft cost about $65 million.

The space shuttle on the other hand has a launch cost with development included of $1.3 billion. The Ares I would cost an expected $50 billion to develop and have a launch cost estimated to be around $1 billion.

$50 billion is way off for Ares I/Orion, but yes, it would have cost a good fraction of a billion, if not a billion, per mission.

But that is for a 25 tonne lunar-capable spacecraft. Soyuz is a 7.2 tonne LEO spacecraft. They don't compare side-by-side.

Cost scales roughly by orbited mass. A 25 tonne Soyuz would cost hundreds of millions of dollars too.

- Ed Kyle
 
D

docm

Guest
Of course the next question is why do you need 3x the vehicle mass for 1.33x the crew capacity? Saying it's because Orion is "lunar capable" doesn't cut it because the ISS Orion block wasn't, that would require so many changes as to be almost a new vehicle, so we're back to using a stretch-Hummer to drive the kids to a school that's 2 blocks away.
 
E

edkyle99

Guest
docm":3a4n1rkj said:
Of course the next question is why do you need 3x the vehicle mass for 1.33x the crew capacity? Saying it's because Orion is "lunar capable" doesn't cut it because the ISS Orion block wasn't, that would require so many changes as to be almost a new vehicle, so we're back to using a stretch-Hummer to drive the kids to a school that's 2 blocks away.

It isn't just crew capacity. Orion was being designed to provide much more delta-V. It was also being designed to handle a much higher-energy reentry, to perform a TEI type burn using a much higher thrust propulsion system. Etc.

It wasn't being designed to haul kids (astronauts) to school (ISS). That was a temporary "side job" foisted upon it. Orion was conceived as a deep space spacecraft, something that Dragon will not be if it is ever funded and developed to carry crew.

- Ed Kyle
 
D

docm

Guest
Not any more, so the point is moot save for how Orion will apply to Orion Lite - or whatever it'll eventually be called.

I also wouldn't dismiss a BLEO version of Dragon so easily. That PICA-X TPS leaves the question quite open IMO. Also, making a service module for it isn't going to be that difficult, especially if the hypergolic engine for their integrated LAS could be clustered for use there and the trunk has, or could be reinforced to provide, the structural strength. Even if it isn't we already know they can roll metal in the required diameter.

Size of the trunk? There are two sizes offered according to the DragonLab PDF, 2.3 and 4.3 meters, so lets think in terms of the larger. The Apollo SM 'can' was roughly 4 meters (22.5 feet minus the 9.25 foot nozzle extension). RCS via Draco's, something already in the kit. Reinforcement by a central core and bulkheads, same as Apollo SM, be it composite or metal.

Now for thrust. Apollo's SM had 20,500 lb/f (9.3 kN), but most commentaries I've read say it really only needed half that. If true then Dragon would only need about ~10,000 lb/f, maybe less. So, the question now is how much thrust would the LAS need and how many engines to provide it vs. how many would be necessary to deliver the thrust required for a SM?

Power? We now have the solar option and vastly improved storage tech, so that's solvable too.

For the most part we're down to money and motivation. Musk has stated that his motivation extended beyond LEO many times, so it's really a money issue. Given success in their business....
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
edkyle99":176fc76u said:
docm":176fc76u said:
Of course the next question is why do you need 3x the vehicle mass for 1.33x the crew capacity? Saying it's because Orion is "lunar capable" doesn't cut it because the ISS Orion block wasn't, that would require so many changes as to be almost a new vehicle, so we're back to using a stretch-Hummer to drive the kids to a school that's 2 blocks away.

It isn't just crew capacity. Orion was being designed to provide much more delta-V. It was also being designed to handle a much higher-energy reentry, to perform a TEI type burn using a much higher thrust propulsion system. Etc.

It wasn't being designed to haul kids (astronauts) to school (ISS). That was a temporary "side job" foisted upon it. Orion was conceived as a deep space spacecraft, something that Dragon will not be if it is ever funded and developed to carry crew.

- Ed Kyle

Yes Kyle I understand that the Orion has greater performance than that of the Soyuz. My argument is that I do not believe that such performance is necessary or worth the price tag. The latest estimate of the development cost is $49 billion just for Ares I and Orion.
http://gao.gov/products/GAO-09-844

Our first priority should be to maintain our ability to get to and from the station. As docm said Orion is overkill for doing this job. It would be to costly to use for ISS operations.

A system like the Soyuz would provide cost effective and reliable transportation to and from the station and would up and would be up and running with a much shorter time frame.

Our second priority should be to try to extend our reach beyond LEO. Now while the Soyuz is unable to go any destinations beyond LEO itself, neither is Orion. Both require an Earth Departure stage. While the Soyuz does not have the endurance to make it to moon it can be used as a transfer vehicle from LEO to a space craft that is.
 
E

edkyle99

Guest
DarkenedOne":39t91cqj said:
Yes Kyle I understand that the Orion has greater performance than that of the Soyuz. My argument is that I do not believe that such performance is necessary or worth the price tag. The latest estimate of the development cost is $49 billion just for Ares I and Orion.
http://gao.gov/products/GAO-09-84
That is not the development cost, that is (or was) the total projected program cost (including development *and* operation) for Ares I and Orion from now until 2020. That works out to about $4.5 billion per year *including development costs*. Once developed, the annual operational cost would have been much less than $4.5 billion per year.
Our first priority should be to maintain our ability to get to and from the station. As docm said Orion is overkill for doing this job. It would be to costly to use for ISS operations.
I agree completely about Orion being overkill for the ISS job. But then again, I don't want my space program to consist of ISS operations. I want NASA to go to the Moon. Orion was being developed to help make that happen. NASA already has a way to get to ISS. It is called "Soyuz".

- Ed Kyle
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
edkyle99":a6li1on6 said:
DarkenedOne":a6li1on6 said:
Yes Kyle I understand that the Orion has greater performance than that of the Soyuz. My argument is that I do not believe that such performance is necessary or worth the price tag. The latest estimate of the development cost is $49 billion just for Ares I and Orion.
http://gao.gov/products/GAO-09-84
That is not the development cost, that is (or was) the total projected program cost (including development *and* operation) for Ares I and Orion from now until 2020. That works out to about $4.5 billion per year *including development costs*. Once developed, the annual operational cost would have been much less than $4.5 billion per year.
Your right about that. However 4.5 billion dollars a year is still not really worth it in my opinion.

Our first priority should be to maintain our ability to get to and from the station. As docm said Orion is overkill for doing this job. It would be to costly to use for ISS operations.
I agree completely about Orion being overkill for the ISS job. But then again, I don't want my space program to consist of ISS operations. I want NASA to go to the Moon. Orion was being developed to help make that happen. NASA already has a way to get to ISS. It is called "Soyuz".

- Ed Kyle

Truth is that I am not really in a hurry to get back to the moon. I saw what happened in Apollo. There was one monumental government push to put man on the moon and the program was cancelled soon after. Now almost 40 years latter we still have not gone back or gone farther than LEO. The reason was it simply cost to much. That is why when Constellation proposed to do Apollo on steroids at an even larger cost I was doubtful. It is no wonder it has suffered the fate of Apollo even before the vehicles are developed.

Simple fact of the matter is that many people in the space community focus on the technical aspects while ignoring the economic and political ones. Considering the current economic and political climate there is just no way that such a costly program will survive. To date the only economically and politically sustainable outpost that we are able to maintain is the ISS, and there are even problems with that. New ways of doing manned space flight utilizing new concepts like advanced propulsion, ISRU, and etc. will have to be employed if manned spaceflight is ever to sustainable extend beyond LEO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts