Question Russian Space Program rough around the edges

[ryan]

I was recently looking at this picture on NASA.com
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/502291main_201011260002HQ-full_full.jpg

It got me thinking, Spaceflight begs to be advanced, advanced computers, hardware all that hooharr. This is also no offense to our Russian Orbitnuts and such but is the RSA outdated in its flights.
For example the almost telephone booth sized compartments, the dry land landings.
Is this all done becuase Russia is a little rough around the edges or they dont have governmental backing (but which space agency does?:lol

Also back to that picture another question. Back when the Soviets when into space they had no choice to land inside the Soviet Union, but now that everyone hates another country :lol: (cough* North Korea cough*) is there any reason to still land so harshley across the road from no where?

Ryan.

 

[Izack]

Look into Soyuz reentry and landing procedures, and then you might reconsider. There's nothing crude about that photograph. :lol:

 

[Wishbone]

The choice of the landing site was driven by the following considerations: proximity to NIIP-5 aka Tyratam aka Baikonur (abort once around is possible in this way), moderately soft soil (not boggy!), absence of obstructions (such as electric lines or large rivers) for miles and miles (early on there were cases of landings near a running train, Gagarin barely missed the Volga).

And yes, given the history of the Soyuz, I would have wished for higher Cl/Cd (to reduce g's during reentry), and softer landings. Not for landing on the water, where one can easily get lost, sink and never be found again, even if the USSR had more carriers for SAR ops.

 

[ryan]

even if the USSR had more carriers for SAR ops.

And we all know Russia is absolutly churning out aircraft carriers.

Also on a smaller different subject do the RSA have plans to replace the Soyuz with something maybe a different version of Soyuz?

 

[Wishbone]

http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=7676

 

[N_Molson]

Think what you want about the Soyuz, but it's doing it's job since 60's, and it outlived any other manned programs. It's an excellent design, reliable, modular, light and cheap. S.P. Korolev was seeing beyond the Moon race ; he wanted to create the "Universal Spacecraft" and well, looks like he succeeded in that.

For example the almost telephone booth sized compartments

Soyuz descent module weights 3 tons, Apollo CM weighted 6,5 tons. Also consider that the Soyuz spacecraft includes an "Orbital Module", which makes it's internal volume greater than Apollo.

the dry land landings.

Ground landings have a lot of advantages. The first of it is that the recovery team can reach quickly the spacecraft and operate safely, without all the random factors you usually encounter at sea (weather, waves). Also, the capsule can't sink.

Also, you'll notice that the Soyuz capsules don't land in Russia. They land in Kazakhstan, which is now an independant country, and Russia has to pay for that (as they are renting Baikonur).

Now, ESA has it's own Soyuz launchpad in French Guyana (South America), Canada considers buying their own, and probably other countries will follow. Sending three human beings in orbit for less than 30M$ is still a fair deal !

 

[SiberianTiger]

And we all know Russia is absolutly churning out aircraft carriers.

Hmm, my sarcasm detection sensor is failing. :hmm: Please name at least three aircraft carriers "churned out" by Russia to prove you are serious.

BTW, on the picture I can see action of cushion landing engines of Soyuz's descent module. What is so wrong about it?

 

[Urwumpe]

Hmm, my sarcasm detection sensor is failing. :hmm: Please name at least three aircraft carriers "churned out" by Russia to prove you are serious.

Admiral Kuznetsov, Varvag, Kiev...

BTW, on the picture I can see action of cushion landing engines of Soyuz's descent module. What is so wrong about it?

It does not use airbags, that can fail in a dramatic way.

The only two ways I see for improving Soyuz are a bigger internal volume and more fuel capacity for orbital maneuvers. The rest is really designed precisely to the demands.

 

[Ghostrider]

As long as it works, who cares. When you're taking on anything as risky as space travel, you don't care about elegant design but about reliability. You want the toughest, meanest brute that can take a beating and still clunk around. I'd rather take my risks with any proven and ugly design than an iSpacecraft that bricks itself at the wrong moment.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Admiral Kuznetsov, Varvag, Kiev...

Which of which had been in service in mid-60's when Soyuz was decided upon?

In reality, Sovet Union undertook several space missions that involved landing in ocean and retrieval with a fleet of ships (that mostly happened in the Indian Ocean), but none of them were manned. Moreover, each event such Soviet fleet's activity was put under such close survelliance by the NATO forces, that even a sailor splashing away a bucket of slosh into porthole could trigger sending a note of protest from USA to Soviet Ministry of International Affairs (and then a rocket went down the subordination chain till reaching that very sailor...) And that was a real life event during a Bor-4 (Cosmos-1445) retrieval mission!

Imagine public image consequences for the USSR in case some NATO ship had come "too fast" to help out Soviet Cosmonauts landing in an ocean at the peak of the Cold War...

 

[Urwumpe]

Which of which had been in service in mid-60's when Soyuz was decided upon?

Ok, none, but at the same time, the USSR relied happily on telemetry ships. Who says that SAR can only be done by aircraft carriers?

As you said before, landing on land has many advantages, that easily outweigh the mass penalty. It is not like you can just drop into the ocean, you also need many design considerations for enabling that.

The USA simply selected water landing once, because it had advantages for their program, and later kept it because they had experience with water landing.

Also: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Moskva_class_helicopter_carrier

 

[SiberianTiger]

Also: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Moskva_class_helicopter_carrier

Never knew that the Moskvas were so old. After some more though put to it, I believe that splashing into the Black Sea could be a viable option for the Soviets. Probably, there was one prohibiting factor: it's not tropical and water is deadly cold through most of the year (despite the shores are full of very busy resort towns). I'm not sure if any Americal ocean splashdowns were performed outside of tropical waters.

 

[Urwumpe]

Probably, there was one prohibiting factor: it's not tropical and water is deadly cold through most of the year (despite the shores are full of very busy resort towns).

It is not that cold, it is still a Mediterranean ocean there. Cold enough to quickly chill you out without protection, but much less dangerous than for example the Northern Atlantic... I think some Mercury missions splashed down there. With proper gear, you can sure survive in the Black sea for hours.

And it is much better than lake Tenghiz of course.