Path:
 menudo.uh.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!news.service.uci.edu!ucivax!ofa123!
 Wales.Larrison
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re:  More Soyuz as ACRV stuff
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 23 Jan 93  20:51:36

David Anderman writes regarding use of Soyuz as an ACRV:
>   How cheap? Some reports state that a fully operational Soyuz
>could be purchased for $7 million. ...
    Other reports (Space Business News, 4 Jan 92) have substantially
higher prices. SBN reports that the price of a new Soyuz-TM is about
$50 M, as quoted by NPO Engergia chief Yuri Semenov to the US
government  (These are the prices which will be used any any US
contractor integrating Soyuz onto SSF).

>        The optimal means of using the Soyuz is for U.S. commercial
>launchers to orbit the lifeboats from Florida, and to have the
>Shuttle return the Soyuzes to the Cape for refurbishment every six
>months or so. [...]
>        Currently, two U.S. launchers can handle the Soyuz: the
>Atlas-Centaur is an almost ideal fit, and the Commercial Titan has
>more than enough capability, in fact, it may be able to orbit a
>logistics module with supplies along with the Soyuz.
    My independent analysis shows the Atlas II capability to be VERY
marginal (too close to call).  The commercial Titan can launch a
Soyuz, but a SSF logistics module weighs about 35,000 lbs.
Delivering a Soyuz AND a logistics module is virtually impossible
with the currently offered Commercial Titan (a Titan-III), unless
you use a Titan-IV, which has not been offered commercially (and
costs like fury -- over $ 300 M per launch).

>        The key to NASA's plan to downgrade Soyuz is in its concept
>of orbiting the Soyuzes in the Space Shuttle payload bay, two at a
>time. The rationale for this is that it is technically feasible,
>and will not require NASA to deal with the commercial launch
>sector. [.....]
>        The third, and most difficult to understand,  reason is
>that the Soyuzes will last longer in orbit if launched inside the
>shuttle.  Currently, the Russians are reluctant to allow the Soyuz
>to remain operational in orbit for more than three of four months
>due to its fuel lines degrading. Exposure over long periods to the
>thermal stresses of low earth orbit cause Soyuz fuel lines to lose
>integrity.  However, these same fuel lines have a longer lifespan
>if they have not yet been used. If carried into orbit aboard the
>Shuttle, and docked with Freedom by a remote manipulator arm, the
>Soyuz engines, and therefore, the fuel lines, will not be used
>unless there is an emergency. In this manner, NASA hopes to get an
>additional few months out of the Soyuzes as lifeboats.
    The issue is in the hydrazine fuel.  Once the lines are "wetted"
and some of the hydrazine has gone through the combustors, you get
slow decomposition of the hydrazine.  This is one of the life limits
the Russians have identified to NASA (and US contractors).  If the
propulsion unit is not wetted, then the calculated certified life is
over 3 years -- versus about 180 days.

     Just for grins, let us compare three cases:
     1) Shuttle, carries up 2 Soyuzes every 3 years, and replaces
them.  Shuttle cost = $300-500M/flt
     2) Atlas IIAS/Centaur launches, 1 Soyuz per flight.  Initial
launch of 2 Soyuezs, replacement every 180 days.  Cost $ 120M +
(note:  this price is the quoted commercial price for an Atlas
IIAS/ Centaur, not including any escape system, Soyuz/Atlas
interface, or pad or GSE modifications)
     3) Commercial Titan III launch, 1 Soyuz per flight.  Initial
launch of 2 Soyuezes, replacement every 180 days. Cost = $ 160 M +
(Note: this is the quoted commercial price for the Mars Observer
launch -- not including any escape system, Soyuz/Titan interface or
pad or GSE modifications).
     Time scale = 15 years.  Cost of refurbishing a Soyuz = $10 M
(returned unused); $30 M (returned via reentry), Soyuz has infinite
lifetime (very simplying assumption)

    Case 1:  Shuttle launches = 5.  Soyuzes procured = 4 (new)
Soyuzes refurbished = 6.  Total cost = $1760 - $2760 M
    Case 2:  AtlasIIAS launches = 60.  Soyuzes procured = 4 (new).
Soyuzes refurbished (post use) = 58.  Total cost = $ 9140 M
    Case 3:  Titan III launch = 60.  Soyuzes procured = 4 (new).
Soyuzes refurbished (post use) = 58.  Total cost = $ 11540 M

    Seems like a bit of a savings to use the Shuttle ....
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                          Space Technology Investor


--- Maximus 2.01wb
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU