Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Soyuz Vs Shuttle?  
User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Posted (8 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 17132 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Enough of A vs B..

As the first woman space tourist docks with the space station, i am wondering on which ship would u much rather travel to space.

For me.. id probably go with the Soyuz.. Seems safer.

Seems like you cant trust the shuttle fleet anymore. It Losses more part than Steve Guttenmberg.


Step into my office, baby
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 4 hours ago) and read 17140 times:

Remember that Soyuz is more than the capsule, its a complete system used for manned, unmanned and satellite launches. To date -

97 manned missions (Soyuz-1 to Soyuz TMA-8)

106 supply missions (Progress space craft)

A total of over 850 launches (Soyuz launcher vehicle) with very few failures.

Im going to go with Soyuz.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 4 hours ago) and read 17124 times:

Quoting Mt99 (Thread starter):
For me.. id probably go with the Soyuz.. Seems safer.

Statistically, both have a 2% rate of Loss of Crew.

If you're given the option to be a space tourist on either vehicle, it's Shuttle hands down. It has the greatest internal volume of any spacecraft and more window space than Soyuz. Crew comforts are noteably superior.

Quoting Mt99 (Thread starter):
Seems like you cant trust the shuttle fleet anymore.

That's because the Shuttle is given an almost unlimited degree of scrutiny to insure it is opperating properly. Everything about the Shuttle makes the news lately because STS-115 is only the 3rd post-Columbia flight.

And really, there has never been a better time to fly the Shuttle. It's the safest it has ever been.

Had you passed your assumption in November 2002 when Endeavour flew the last mission before Columbia was lost, you would have likely said that the Shuttle was a safe vehicle with no losses since Challenger in 1986. Likewise, just prior to Challenger STS-51L, the Shuttle had flown 24 successful missions.

Would you rather have flown before those incidents marred the Shuttle's safety record, or would you rather fly now that they have been fixed? Believe me when I say Soyuz has had some very close calls over the years as well.


User currently offlineChksix From Sweden, joined Sep 2005, 345 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 4 hours ago) and read 17107 times:

I'd rather go on the shuttle aswell. Specially on re-entry and landing up on the flightdeck.

Agree that it's safer than ever now.



The conveyor belt plane will fly
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months ago) and read 17076 times:

Here are the statistics. I went ahead and counted both STS-115 and Soyuz TMA-8 although both are still in flight.

Soyuz (1967-Present)
------------------------------
Flights: 95
Failures: 4 (2 non-fatal)
Failure Rate: 4.21%

Cosmonauts Flown: 228
Fatalities: 4
Fatality Rate: 1.75%

Shuttle (1981-Present)
------------------------------
Flights: 116
Failures: 3 (1 non-fatal)
Failure Rate: 2.59%

Astronauts Flown: 692
Fatalities: 14
Fatality Rate: 2.02%

Soyuz Failures:
Soyuz 1 (1967), Soyuz 11 (1971), Soyuz 18A (1975, Non-Fatal), Soyuz T-10A (1983, Non-Fatal)

Shuttle Failures:
STS-51L (1986), STS-83 (1997, Non-Fatal), STS-107 (2003)


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4001 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17064 times:

Which one comes with better IFE and PTVs and a free can of Coke?
(Typical a.net forum 'aviation enthousiast' question) biggrin 

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineMke717spotter From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2465 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17058 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 4):
STS-83 (1997, Non-Fatal),

What happened in that one?



Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17056 times:

Quoting Mke717spotter (Reply 6):
What happened in that one?

#2 Fuel cell malfunction required premature landing only 3 days into a 15 day mission. Reflown as STS-94

There was also an SSME failure on STS-51F that caused an Abort-To-Orbit


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17050 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
There was also an SSME failure on STS-51F that caused an Abort-To-Orbit

Yes, STS-2 and STS-44 both returned early, but the lion's share of the mission's objectives were accomplished nevertheless, as were STS-51F's, so they aren't considered failures. STS-83 however, was a Spacelab flight that accomplished very little and really must be considered a failure.


User currently offlineLnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1608 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17050 times:

While the logic says to go with the Soyuz, simply due to the number of flights, and the low-mortality rate when compared with the Shuttle, I must say that the Shuttle looks like it's much more 'fun' going into orbit on..

I'd probably go with the Shuttle.

1011yyz



Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 980 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 17023 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I would go with both, but chances are zero.  Smile

While on a (9th level) tour in NASA this summer, I asked them if they accepted volunteers. The answer was: nay.

BEG2IAH



FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17007 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 4):
Failures: 3 (1 non-fatal)
Failure Rate: 2.59%

There were five aborts within three seconds of launch. If you count those as failures the statistics get worse.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16991 times:

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 11):
There were five aborts within three seconds of launch. If you count those as failures the statistics get worse.

But how does a count-down abort in any way contribute to mission failure numbers?


User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 16977 times:

Hmmm

Shuttle for roomyness, bigger windows, better waste management system, required piloting skills and a front view landing.

Soyuz for unique ingress, egress, one heck of drop from the sky and seeing how small the body can get when cramed into a seat. (my knees don't bend that much for very long).

Soyuz has a lot of exoticness to me. But sitting in a Shuttle means you can sit where some legends have sat.

I will take C: The Enterprise only problem is 1 bathroom for so many crew members.



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineCURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 16947 times:

One of the two fatal Soyuz accidents was due to human error, I'm talking about the one that got depressurized on re-entry, am I right?


If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 16947 times:

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 11):
There were five aborts within three seconds of launch. If you count those as failures the statistics get worse.

Yes they would, but why on earth would you count a launch scrub as a mission failure? That's not the mainstream definition of a mission failure.

Generally, a mission failure is when a vehicle flies but does not complete its mission. The only exception I know of, and even that is often argued, is Apollo 1, destroyed during a Plugs-Out Test a few weeks before scheduled launch. In all the other cases of a post-ignition abort (Gemini 6, STS-41D, etc.) the mission did eventually launch and was successful.

I should point out that Soyuz 15, Soyuz 33, and Soyuz T-8 should probably also be classified as mission failures, since all three failed to dock with a Salyut space station as intended.


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3754 posts, RR: 29
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 16934 times:

We should also add reliability in the equation. I would say the following:

Safety: Both are equal, but the Soyuz accidents happened a long time ago. 1:1

Capabilities: Shuttle wins this one easily. However, Soyuz could land on soil many years before any US technology did that. 3:1 (2 points because of the payload and comfort difference)

Cost: I cannot say whether Soyuz is more cost effective, but it seems so. 3:2

Reliability: Soyuz wins obviously, even if we do not have completely reliable figures here compared to the Shuttle. 3:3

So the result is 3:3 A fair draw if you ask me. Both systems are needed for the ISS, and they both have their drawbacks.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 16930 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 16):
Safety: Both are equal, but the Soyuz accidents happened a long time ago. 1:1

Until STS-107, you could say the same for Shuttle. It had been 17 years and 88 flights since the last Shuttle accident.

Soyuz has only flown 85 flights since the Soyuz 11 disaster.


User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16852 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 15):
why on earth would you count a launch scrub as a mission failure?

Technically, anytime the SSME's are ignited is counted as a launch. So an abort after ignition means a return to the VAB for engine re-inspection, same as any other launch.

I agree it's not a mission failure, it's only a launch failure. But it's still a distinction that abort is more serious than a hold or simple rescheduling.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16835 times:

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 18):
Technically, anytime the SSME's are ignited is counted as a launch.

No it isn't, as demonstrated by the six Flight Readiness Firings.

Launch is motion off the pad, not engine ignition. Note that firing up the SSMEs 6.6 seconds before liftoff is done for the express purpose of making sure everything is working right before committing to launch. At the very least, I would say launch begins with Hold-Down Post release, not SSME ignition. The RSLS computer makes sure the three SSMEs are burning properly and if they are, they command SRB ignition and Hold-Down Post release. If they're not, the RSLS halts the launch attempt (the narrowest abort was at T-1.8 seconds.)

And they didn't always roll back to the VAB after the post-ignition aborts. STS-51F didn't. STS-55 didn't.

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 18):
I agree it's not a mission failure, it's only a launch failure.

No, it's a launch scrub, albeit more dramatic than most.


User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 16819 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 19):
Launch is motion off the pad, not engine ignition.

My reference is the NASA web site. They say: "The procedure that has been used on previous aborts treats an RSLS abort after SSME ignition as a launch and to require a complete engine reinspection."

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/...issions/sts-68/mission-sts-68.html

I was wrong about the rollback being required. STS-55 had its engines replaced on the launch pad, a rollback was not needed, but the abort was treated like a launch.

The FRF's are also counted as launches. My reference on that is William Harwoods launch chronology:

http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/stschrono.html


User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 16807 times:

Let me clarify what I've been arguing. My objective is to have a meaningful statistic for the reliability of the shuttle. So my argument is based on the somewhat arbitrary definition that the SSME's should be 100% reliable when they ignite, and I want a statistic that measures how much less than 100% reliable they actually are. I forgive them statistically for problems detected before ignition (scrubs), but I penalize them for problems detected after ignition.

I realize that an abort before the hold-down posts release is not a launch, but for the purpose of keeping meaningful statistics I propose counting the abort after ignition as a launch failure, because it indicates a serious reliability issue.

So NASA gets credit for successful FRF's, but they also get penalized for aborts at T-2 seconds. It's just statistics.

We can also count the STS-51F abort to orbit as a launch failure for statistical purposes even thought the mission was 100% succesful. I hope that doesn't sound totally insane.  

[Edited 2006-09-22 03:14:57]

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 16797 times:

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 20):
I was wrong about the rollback being required. STS-55 had its engines replaced on the launch pad, a rollback was not needed, but the abort was treated like a launch.

That's because any ignition of the SSME requries certain turn-around procedures before the vehicle can attempt another countdown.

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 21):
So NASA gets credit for successful FRF's, but they also get penalized for aborts at T-2 seconds. It's just statistics.

Arbitrary statistics that you chose and represent nothing meaningful.

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 21):
I forgive them statistically for problems detected before ignition (scrubs), but I penalize them for problems detected after ignition.

Many of the relevant engine parameters required for safe opperation of the vehicle can't be measured until the engine fires.

It isn't practical to perform a 20 second FRF before each flight if performance can be verified in 8 seconds and the auto-sequence controller can perform an RSLS abort if necessary.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 16789 times:

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 20):
My reference is the NASA web site. They say: "The procedure that has been used on previous aborts treats an RSLS abort after SSME ignition as a launch and to require a complete engine reinspection."

Nonsense. If NASA considered the FRF flights, they would today have announced the safe landing of the 122nd Shuttle mission, not the 116th. But all NASA references say this week's mission was No.116.

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 21):
I realize that an abort before the hold-down posts release is not a launch, but for the purpose of keeping meaningful statistics I propose counting the abort after ignition as a launch failure, because it indicates a serious reliability issue.

Of what? The Shuttle system? The system did exactly what it was intended to do... when an engine isn't meeting parameters, it safely aborted the launch sequence. It is a mystery to me how you can lump this in the same category as the Falcon 1 launch, which left the pad with a leaky propulsion system because its brains didn't know any better.

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 21):
Let me clarify what I've been arguing. My objective is to have a meaningful statistic for the reliability of the shuttle. So my argument is based on the somewhat arbitrary definition that the SSME's should be 100% reliable when they ignite, and I want a statistic that measures how much less than 100% reliable they actually are.

Then failures in flight is the logical measure. The failure rate is 1 in 348.

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 21):
Let me clarify what I've been arguing. My objective is to have a meaningful statistic for the reliability of the shuttle. So my argument is based on the somewhat arbitrary definition

Very arbitrary. So abitrary that it is used to describe the success rate of absolutely no other launchers in the world. NASA and nearly all historians consider both Gemini and Apollo to have been 100% successful from a launch standpoint. But Gemini 6 aborted on the pad after engine ignition and rising a few inches off the pad. Apollo had engines out on Apollo 6 and Apollo 13. Many launch vehicles use multiple engines precisely to give them engine-out performance and improve the odds of a successful launch. However, your definition penalizes vehicles which have multiple engines for redundancy and other vehicles which bring up the engines to full thrust before committing to flight.

Cutting off engines before committing to flight is not a launch failure or a mission failure, it is a pre-flight launch abort.


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 16754 times:

Start I would prefer the Sojuz and landing the Shuttle, one Sojuz capsule drifted and landed on a cliff, a close call.

User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 16689 times:

Quoting CURLYHEADBOY (Reply 14):
One of the two fatal Soyuz accidents was due to human error, I'm talking about the one that got depressurized on re-entry, am I right?

No, Soyuz 11 was mechanical failure, not human error. A vent valve opened accidentally when the Soyuz's Orbital Module was jettisoned prior to re-entry. The crew tried to save themselves by closing the vent valve, but didn't have enough time to get to it before they lost consciousness. They were not wearing spacesuits and died of decompression/asphyxiation.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Soyuz Vs Shuttle?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Presidential Helicopters, Shipping Vs Ferrying posted Sat Oct 28 2006 16:01:14 by Boeing Nut
Is This AN AA 747 Carrying A Space Shuttle? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 02:25:45 by Fll2993
Boeing Mulls 767 Vs 777 Tanker Offering posted Wed Sep 27 2006 17:13:21 by DAYflyer
Status Of Space Shuttle Endeavour posted Sat Sep 23 2006 06:44:00 by RJ777
Fail-Safe Vs Dr.Strangelove posted Fri Sep 22 2006 19:30:52 by B741
Shuttle Support Vehicles What Are They posted Thu Sep 21 2006 17:35:07 by Airfoilsguy
Object Shadows Shuttle; Landing Waved Off - Report posted Tue Sep 19 2006 17:47:36 by AerospaceFan
OFFICIAL: Shuttle Launch Scrubbed...Again posted Fri Sep 8 2006 17:30:37 by S12PPL
Shuttle Launch Imminent: Live Streaming Link Here posted Fri Sep 8 2006 15:33:05 by KFLLCFII
Space Shuttle Launch Delays posted Wed Aug 30 2006 03:01:02 by Thorny
Rafale Vs Typhoon Again In The UAE posted Sun Nov 13 2011 06:21:48 by Devilfish
Saturn V And Shuttle Questions posted Thu Oct 27 2011 08:30:32 by Thrust
Space Shuttle Orbiter Hydraulic System posted Fri Sep 9 2011 21:58:32 by Wingscrubber
Changes In Shuttle Launch Stats And Reasons Why posted Sun Aug 28 2011 15:09:26 by Thrust
EF2000 Vs Su-30MKI posted Mon Jul 25 2011 01:27:21 by epten
STS-135: Final Space Shuttle Touchdown 'The End' posted Thu Jul 21 2011 03:22:52 by ZKNCL
ISS/Space Shuttle Wake Up Times posted Sat Jul 16 2011 22:09:12 by flymia
Single Unit Rockets Vs. SRB Assisted Ones posted Sat Jul 16 2011 13:19:51 by Thrust
Will Nasa Ever Build A New Space Shuttle? posted Fri Jul 8 2011 23:19:22 by United Airline

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format