Some updates on the Soyuz-K or Acts

[jimfromnsf]

Comsats are not part of a space program, those are commercial interests, neither are metsats. <br /><br />When was the last planetary probe, astronomy or space science mission by russia.

 

[jimfromnsf]

" 1. Both of course. You don't know much about transpoation if you think it is not real work.<br /><br />2. This is a very arbitary definition. Launch systems and spacecraft have to be developed, built, maintained upgraded, and monitored. This is a space prgram.<br /><br /><br />3. Which Russia also has. The have flown, in the last seven year, both their own research spacecraft and instruments on collaborative spacecraft.<br /><br />4. Ariane space cannot be considered independently from ESA which developed the rockets and is its main customer."<br /><br />1. I never said it wasn't real work. It is not an "end", it is only a "means"<br /><br />2. It is not arbitary, a launch vehicle just gets you some where, it doesn't produce anything. That is a transportation system. So what if they have to be "developed, built, maintained upgraded, and monitored", so does a truck.<br /><br />3. very few spacecraft, less than one per year, which is very poor. No planetary spacecraft<br /><br />4. ESA is not the main customer. and it is independent

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Comsats are not part of a space program, those are commercial interests, neither are metsats.</i><br /><br />While operated commercially by RCCC, national communiations satellites are defined according to national space policy and therefore a part of an overall space program. Metsats, which are run by national agencies such as&%$#@! Planeta and IKN RAN.<br /><br /><i>When was the last planetary probe, astronomy or space science mission by russia.</i><br /><br />The last (and unsuccessful) planetary probe was Mars-96. in 1996.<br /><br />The last astronomy (sun-earth physics to be precise) mission was Coronas F in 2001<br /><br />The last science mission was Compass-2 in 2006.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

i]1. I never said it wasn't real work. It is not an "end", it is only a "means"<br /><br />It is the clear thrust of your argument. You said That is not a space program, that is a trucking company. Followed by Who does the real work: the farmer or the trucker that hauls the grain? In other word Russia does not have a space program it is only a trucking company. Further the real work done by the “farmers†as opposed to the truckers.<br /><br /><i>2. It is not arbitary, a launch vehicle just gets you some where, it doesn't produce anything. That is a transportation system. So what if they have to be "developed, built, maintained upgraded, and monitored", so does a truck.</i><br /><br />The launcher is an essential part of the system. Developing that system was and is part of the Russian space program.<br /><br />Since you want to pursue the truck analogy, trucks are developed by commercial enterprises. But that does not mean that trucks are not part of national programs, through both regulatory policies and through specific development programs – for example for military requirements. <br /><br /><i>3. very few spacecraft, less than one per year, which is very poor. No planetary spacecraft</i><br /><br />Poor compared to what standard? The PPP GDP of Russia is roughly equivalent to Brazil. How many spacecraft has Brazil launched? Russia does more in space than Japan, India, China, Germany, France, or the UK, all countries with larger (in some cases much larger) economies. It's space budget is roughly a tenth of NASAs. In these terms it does very well.<br /><br /><i>4. ESA is not the main customer. and it is independent</i><br /><br />I <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I have to agree that Arianespace should not be considered a part of ESA. They are separate entities. They are both government-run, though, and as such their interests are often very closely aligned. There isn't really a good US analogy. Arianespace is a bit like Airbus, really. It's government run, but gets its bread and butter from commercial contracts.<br /><br />Getting back to the point of the thread, the Soyuz-K updates are interesting. Some have expressed skepticism about RussianSpaceWeb, but if you bear in mind that it's really an industry news blog, it's pretty useful, especially for picking up on rumors within the industry. The information is not official, and therefore not reliable for investment decisions or things like that, but it's still interesting.<br /><br />Scenario 1 caught my interest, because it would be nice to see the old dream finally realized. This is basically what they were trying to achieve back in 1969. The main problem was that Proton just wasn't ready, and lacked the "oomph" to hoist the heavy Soyuz on that sort of mission profile. As with many Russian spaceflight dreams during the Soviet period, they were ambitious beyond the technology and resources which were available to them at the time. Part of the trouble, of course, was that they were hamstrung by political in-fighting, which often used the space program alternately as a chessboard and as a pawn. (And which basically abandoned the space program when it became apparent that they wouldn't beat the Americans. The politicians sure proved their colors then, and I don't mean that in a good way.) Now that the capability exists, it would be cool to see it happen.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the other scenarios seem impractical to me. I'd like to see Scenario 4, mainly because I'd like to see Angara finally happen. But I have my doubts. The government isn't really behind it, so I suspect the space program will have to make do with the rockets they have. Lest we Americans get <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"The launcher is an essential part of the system. Developing that system was and is part of the Russian space program."<br /><br />no, the launchers are provided by commercial companies. The Russian gov't has no launchers, therefore not part of the space program.<br /><br />A space program is managed by a space agency. any other work not managed by the agency is not part of the civilian space program.

 

[CalliArcale]

*mod hat on*<br /><br />Okay, I think we're seriously off topic here. Let's not get off on the semantics of what constitutes a space program and get back to Soyuz-K. If you have nothing else to say on the subject, perhaps it is time for this thread to end. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

OMG you guys are funny. I can't believe your fighting over the definition of a space program. <br /><br />The biggest bang for the buck right now looks like an upgraded Soyuz flying to equatorial Bigelow-based facilities, flying out of Kourou and using Parom tugs. If the rumors of a 60 or 63 degree Bigelow Nautilus station are true, that would put Baikonur and Plesetsk in range, as well as most US launch sites. Jon Goff had an interesting discussion of it a while ago, the orbit would provide daily overflights of the same locations. Either situation would likely see Soyuz (or -K) servicing Nautilus stations. Soyuz already exists and is begging to be upgraded - there is definitely a business case for a 4-7 seat Soyuz derivative.<br /><br />Once there is a rentable destination in orbit, there will definitely be a market for spaceflight. Once Dragon or Soyuz comes online the cost to orbit should stabilize - my guess is somewhere between $1-5M for a week onorbit with several weeks training beforehand. Soyuz is an elegant, proven system with a stellar safety record, but for commercial utilization it's current training regime is to much for most people. 6 months of training is a long time for busy adults (ie. space tourists) to take off. There is definitely a market for tourist flights at that cost and simplicity. <br /><br />Upgraded Soyuz for a Moon platform is also very attractive. The configuration was designed for lunar-speed reentry (Zond) and should easily grow to that role. Docking of extra stages onorbit is required, but they have a lot of experience at it already. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Now, I'm waiting you prove me wrong with your Soyuz-ACTS but I read it here first and can find nothing related on the ESA website. And frankly, reading the trend these weeks in Europe-Russia relationship, technology transfer and funding would surprise me.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />LOL! I don't see a need to prove you wrong. We should just hide and watch because Europe and Russia are not over talking about how the would make a new craft. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

jim, I know what you are saying but the way you are saying it is nonsense.<br /><br />You redefined space program here for some reason that's illogical, just to prove a point. Of course Russia has a space program, the longest running one in history. Don't be so short sighted.<br /><br />But of course the Russians boast. This is just a cultural thing. Shoot we boast as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Yeah, the Russians: cheap talk and cool drawings, that's all they've got!<br />If we could get 1$ each time they announce "Russians to Mars in 2014", or "Circumlunar flights for tourists" or "Kliper gonna replace Soyuz" or whatever..., we could buy a new car!<br /><br />Instead of working for propaganda, they should write sci-fi for Hollywood. They would get rich at least. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Of course there is a lot of talk. They have to justify their existence to get the doe. Part of the talk is just cultural. Don't be thwarted by it, just look at what they do do. (LOL, did I say 'do do'?). In other words ignore the cheap talk and look for the deeds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

I like the Fregat combination as well. Funny think it kind of looks like Armadillo's Pixel.<br /><br />Actually I'm holding out for Russia to keep the parom tug and incorporate it for the moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Interesting set of scenarios, especially considering that most of the hardware is off-the-shelf. The biggest challenge is getting Fregat and other stages to dock with Soyuz, and this is where orbital assembly would shine. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />How do you mean? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> How do you mean?</i><br /><br />I mean that the docking portion of the proposed Russian Moon flights is the most complex part. Using Parom combined with a space station and robot arm would allow for system checkout, stowage of extra stages and a gathering place for components and crew. Otherwise the Soyuz is going to be command vessel and waiting for the BlokDM to arrive. Just seems to make sense.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[vishniac2]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>In other words ignore the cheap talk and look for the deeds. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That's what I do...but I like to display my bad mood as much as they like to boast!

 

[holmec]

Nice.<br /><br />Funny you mention Parom.<br /><br />I was contemplating yesterday a way to use smaller launchers (like soyuz, ares I, ariane V weight class) to go to the moon but only use 3 launches per mission.<br /><br />If you had a reusable tug and a reusable lunar lander, you could refuel the tug and lander for each mission. Also have the tug stationed in Earth orbit and the lander in Lunar orbit at the beginning of a mission.<br /><br />The tug would have to be like Parom but bigger and able to perform aerobraking around earth.<br /><br />The lunar lander would have to be one piece, ulike apollo's LEM.<br /><br />The idea is to launch two rockets with canisters of fuel that dock with the tug in earth orbit, then launch the capsule with crew and dock with the tug. The tug performs TLI to get to the lander in lunar orbit and then refuels the lander and crews the lander. The crew perform the mission on the surface of the moon, the lander redocks with the tug. Then the tug disconnects the lander and performs a TEI. On its way to the Earth the capsule disconnects from the tug and lands like apollo did. The tug then being unmanned performs maneuvers to start its aerobraking. It fires the last of the fuel, disconnects the fuel canisters and aerobrake to Earth orbit ready for the next mission.<br /><br />I know its full of complications, but it may save on some launches and make good use of equipment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>