Russian space craft safest in the world

zhena

Senior member
Feb 26, 2000
587
0
0
from...

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s841626.htm

The first American was launched into space since the Columbia shuttle disaster on Saturday, aboard a Russian Soyuz rocket.

U.S. astronaut Dr Edward Lu and Russian cosmonaut Yury Malenchenko blasted off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazkahstan to the International Space Station (ISS), with Russian space craft now the only link with the ISS after the shuttle program was grounded.

NASA is conducting a lengthy investigation into the February 1 accident that killed seven crew as their shuttle disintegrated on re-entry and does not expect to resume flights for a year. NASA concedes that Soyuz is uniquely safe.

"It's the most reliable spacecraft in the world in terms of its safety record. They've been flying Soyuz vehicles for 36 years but they've only had two accidents," NASA spokesman Mr Rob Navias told AFP.

"They've used the same technology for decades, and it works," he added.

On April 24, 1967, the first manned Soyuz to be launched on a test flight exploded on its return to Earth, killing the cosmonaut on board. Then on June 30, 1971, three Russian astronauts died as their Soyuz vessel re-entered the atmosphere. Since then, there have been no accidents involving manned craft.

The disappearance of the U.S. space shuttle Columbia came 17 years after space shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after launch on January 28, 1986, killing six crew and one passenger-observer.

Leonid Mordasov, a top official from the TsNIIMASH space research institute, says current Russian space technology dates back to the 1960s. The Shuttle program began in the 1970s. But the relative lack of money, compared to the United States, forced designers to devote much greater attention to safety mechanisms, he said.

"Our rockets and launchers were made a long time ago, with modest resources but with a triple margin of safety," he told AFP. "We did not count on 'absolute' reliability, but on having the option to save the crew at all times. For every stage of the flight, there is a special safety mechanism.?.

The Americans, in contrast, spent huge funds on developing top-of-the-range technology to make the shuttle as safe as possible, but did not foresee the need to make adjustments in an emergency.

"The U.S. shuttle flight is extremely expensive and they had to give up additional security measures and rely on the quality of their components," said Mordasov.

At the tip of the Soyuz rocket is an engine that can be activated instantaneously to eject the module in which the astronauts are located. This was used twice, in 1975, when two Russian astronauts landed safely after bailing out when their Soyuz hit trouble a few minutes into the flight, and in 1983 when another two-man crew ejected after the rocket burst into flames at the launch-pad.

For US shuttles, in contrast, it takes several minutes to evacuate at launch as the crew have to get out of their seats and climb out of the hatch to escape. Inflight, parachuting out is only possible for a small part of the trajectory.

Valery Ryumin from space construction firm Energiya, believes another factor is the long years of experience in the Russian space industry, which employs 800,000 people. "Despite the break-up of the Soviet Union, we managed to keep the backbone of our experts, that's the most important," he said.

"People work for us for decades, while in the United States they hire a new group for every new project. There are few books, manuals in our sector. People learn from experience, and this human experience is irreplaceable," added Ryumin.


 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
With the secrecy of the Russians during the Soviet Union era, I wonder about the accuracy of reporting regarding the number of deaths that have occurred. However, it is generally acknowledged that the Russians have some damn good launch vehicles. NASA is mired in bureaucratic nonsense and inefficiency. Nevertheless, the US space program has scored some resounding successes -- from the moon landing to Viking to Voyager to GPS to Hubble to the Mars Rover.

It's unfortunate that the breakup of the Soviet Union and the cooperation between NASA and the Russian space agency has not led to some technology sharing, but the Russians are still caught in the intrigue of the Cold War.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,892
543
126
It's the most reliable spacecraft in the world in terms of its safety record. They've been flying Soyuz vehicles for 36 years but they've only had two accidents," NASA spokesman Mr Rob Navias told AFP.
This in stark contrast to the US Space Shuttle, which has had....hmm....two accidents.
At the tip of the Soyuz rocket is an engine that can be activated instantaneously to eject the module in which the astronauts are located. This was used twice, in 1975, when two Russian astronauts landed safely after bailing out when their Soyuz hit trouble a few minutes into the flight, and in 1983 when another two-man crew ejected after the rocket burst into flames at the launch-pad.
And none of the Russian 'safety measures' would have made a lick of difference in either of the Shuttle accidents, where catastrophic destruction of the Shuttle was for all practical purposes were instantaneous.

The Shuttle, depending on the configuration and frame, can carry a crew of six or seven while the Soyuz is limited to a crew of three. The Shuttle can carry tons of payload whereas the Soyuz can barely carry enough food and water for three cosmonauts. Hundreds of experiments can be carried out by a Shuttle crew while in orbit, resulting in greater scientific value of each mission. Soyuz can barely carry enough food and water for three cosmonauts, let alone the equipment to carry out but a few experiments. There have been more Shuttle missions in 22 years than Soyuz missions in 36 years.

If the Soyuz is more 'safe', its entirely due to its utter simplicity. With simplicity, also comes a more narrow scope of mission versatility, capability, and per launch 'value'.
 

kl001

Senior member
Apr 24, 2003
302
0
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
... but the Russians are still caught in the intrigue of the Cold War.

Right, and NATO has been dismissed, and US Marines are not training Georgian Army and Chechen terrorists, and US Army does not invade sovereign countries and kill civiliands any more. Those Russian bastards, still caught in the intrigue of the Cold War!
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
A great credit goes to Korolev, who designed the original Russian rockets that took Gagarin to space, and Soyuz.
My grandfather used to work for Korolev as a plane electrician during WW2. Korolev was designing rocket boosters for planes from within Stalin's labor camp at that time.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
It's the most reliable spacecraft in the world in terms of its safety record. They've been flying Soyuz vehicles for 36 years but they've only had two accidents," NASA spokesman Mr Rob Navias told AFP.
This in stark contrast to the US Space Shuttle, which has had....hmm....two accidents.
At the tip of the Soyuz rocket is an engine that can be activated instantaneously to eject the module in which the astronauts are located. This was used twice, in 1975, when two Russian astronauts landed safely after bailing out when their Soyuz hit trouble a few minutes into the flight, and in 1983 when another two-man crew ejected after the rocket burst into flames at the launch-pad.
And none of the Russian 'safety measures' would have made a lick of difference in either of the Shuttle accidents, where catastrophic destruction of the Shuttle was for all practical purposes were instantaneous.

The Shuttle, depending on the configuration and frame, can carry a crew of six or seven while the Soyuz is limited to a crew of three. The Shuttle can carry tons of payload whereas the Soyuz can barely carry enough food and water for three cosmonauts. Hundreds of experiments can be carried out by a Shuttle crew while in orbit, resulting in greater scientific value of each mission. Soyuz can barely carry enough food and water for three cosmonauts, let alone the equipment to carry out but a few experiments. There have been more Shuttle missions in 22 years than Soyuz missions in 36 years.

If the Soyuz is more 'safe', its entirely due to its utter simplicity. With simplicity, also comes a more narrow scope of mission versatility, capability, and per launch 'value'.

Russia did spend all that money for its own space Shuttle, they even developed a plane just to carry it. But it wasn't cost effective for their limited budget. Soyuz was good enough to ferry people to space, and there are separate unmanned rockets to carry small cargo (Progress) and large cargoes (Energiya, etc). Keep in mind that Russians built MIR without a Space Shuttle.
 

AvesPKS

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
4,729
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: tcsenter
It's the most reliable spacecraft in the world in terms of its safety record. They've been flying Soyuz vehicles for 36 years but they've only had two accidents," NASA spokesman Mr Rob Navias told AFP.
This in stark contrast to the US Space Shuttle, which has had....hmm....two accidents.
At the tip of the Soyuz rocket is an engine that can be activated instantaneously to eject the module in which the astronauts are located. This was used twice, in 1975, when two Russian astronauts landed safely after bailing out when their Soyuz hit trouble a few minutes into the flight, and in 1983 when another two-man crew ejected after the rocket burst into flames at the launch-pad.
And none of the Russian 'safety measures' would have made a lick of difference in either of the Shuttle accidents, where catastrophic destruction of the Shuttle was for all practical purposes were instantaneous.

The Shuttle, depending on the configuration and frame, can carry a crew of six or seven while the Soyuz is limited to a crew of three. The Shuttle can carry tons of payload whereas the Soyuz can barely carry enough food and water for three cosmonauts. Hundreds of experiments can be carried out by a Shuttle crew while in orbit, resulting in greater scientific value of each mission. Soyuz can barely carry enough food and water for three cosmonauts, let alone the equipment to carry out but a few experiments. There have been more Shuttle missions in 22 years than Soyuz missions in 36 years.

If the Soyuz is more 'safe', its entirely due to its utter simplicity. With simplicity, also comes a more narrow scope of mission versatility, capability, and per launch 'value'.

Russia did spend all that money for its own space Shuttle, they even developed a plane just to carry it. But it wasn't cost effective for their limited budget. Soyuz was good enough to ferry people to space, and there are separate unmanned rockets to carry small cargo (Progress) and large cargoes (Energiya, etc). Keep in mind that Russians built MIR without a Space Shuttle.

I agree with you that their total package of manned and unmanned rockets is probably just as effective as the Shuttle. However, this article seemed to be discussing only the Soyuz, which, by itself, is not as effective as the Shuttle is in its ability to perform a multitude of roles.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,892
543
126
Russia did spend all that money for its own space Shuttle, they even developed a plane just to carry it. But it wasn't cost effective for their limited budget. Soyuz was good enough to ferry people to space, and there are separate unmanned rockets to carry small cargo (Progress) and large cargoes (Energiya, etc). Keep in mind that Russians built MIR without a Space Shuttle.
Just pointing out the inherent differences between the two programs which explain the higher degree of risk. There is really no comparison to be made between the two. The Russian space vehicles don't have a quarter of the versatility or capability as ours.

It would be a bit like saying that an abacus is so reliable that it can perform underwater or in the desert without electricity while a math coprocessor cannot. Hey, that's great, try doing climate forecasting on an abacus.
 

GroundZero

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2002
3,669
1
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
With the secrecy of the Russians during the Soviet Union era, I wonder about the accuracy of reporting regarding the number of deaths that have occurred. However, it is generally acknowledged that the Russians have some damn good launch vehicles. NASA is mired in bureaucratic nonsense and inefficiency. Nevertheless, the US space program has scored some resounding successes -- from the moon landing to Viking to Voyager to GPS to Hubble to the Mars Rover.

It's unfortunate that the breakup of the Soviet Union and the cooperation between NASA and the Russian space agency has not led to some technology sharing, but the Russians are still caught in the intrigue of the Cold War.
there have been reports " unconfirmed, but credible " at the times.
concerning more russian cosmonaut deaths than have been reported worldwide"


but one thing is for sure, ourr shuttles have blown up twice, how many times have they flown compared to the russian craft?
and remember we get to reruse it till it blows up
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
There is no question that the Shuttle is a more capable and complex machine then the Soyuz, and very versatile. But do you really need the versatility on all missions? For a lot of missions, you don't need 7 crew and large load. It's kind of like driving a 18 wheeler as a daily driver. Sometimes a Civic will do the job just fine, and you can rent a u-haul for the large stuff. Most of the time, a Soyuz/Progress is enough, and you can use Energiya to launch the large stuff once in a while. The cost savings from Shuttle reusability are wiped out by the maintainance expenses. And Soyuz can launch rain or shine, while Shuttle is very picky about the weather. I think it's time for NASA to develope a new spacecraft with the latest technologies that will be cheaper, simpler, and more reliable than the Shuttle. Something that maybe has enough space for 5 people and supplies. A people mover as opposed to a cargo mover.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: RealWarlock
Capitalism always cut corners.

Yes, especially because NASA, the government owned space agency is a prime example of capatilist enterprise.

Ah, yes, critical thinking at its finest.

 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: kl001
Originally posted by: AndrewR
... but the Russians are still caught in the intrigue of the Cold War.

Right, and NATO has been dismissed, and US Marines are not training Georgian Army and Chechen terrorists, and US Army does not invade sovereign countries and kill civiliands any more. Those Russian bastards, still caught in the intrigue of the Cold War!

NATO is the only credible military organization on the planet, and its purpose is defensive only.

US Marines are not and never will train the Georgian Army. US Special Forces are training the army of the SOVEREIGN state of Georgia. What's wrong with that?

At what point has the US ever trained the Chechens? Please, provide some substantive link to back up your baseless allegation.

Exactly which part of the recent war in Iraq or the previous war in Afghanistan had anything to do with Russia? I don't even know what "civiliands" are.

Troll.
rolleye.gif
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
The problem is that Lockheed and Boeing are getting hundreds of millions per launch in maintainance contracts. It's in their interest to keep a complex, expensive to maintain Space Shuttle, even if that complexity puts Astranauts at risk. Space Shuttle can haul 29 tonnex, compared to 3 tonnes for the cargo version of Soyuz called Progress. Unless you are hauling 29 tonnes into orbit, you are just wasting fuel, and not using the Shuttle to its full ability. Shuttle is useful to lift large chunks of Space station into Orbit. It's also unique in its ability to retrieve satellites. But we need something between Soyuz and the Shuttle. Maybe something that can haul 10 tonnes.