From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz vs. reality
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:37:58 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: queen.eng.umd.edu

In article <442010ca7@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>DA:  The optimal means of using the Soyuz is for U.S. commercial
>DA:  launchers to orbit the lifeboats from Florida,
> 
>-Baloney. Figure out transportation costs from Russia + Cost of U.S. 
>-launchers. Compare to Proton launchers in Russia, without all the 
>-integration headaches. 
> 
>Since the baseline NASA plan is to launch Soyuzes on the Shuttle, the
>above is merely *your* personal pipedream, and therefor not relevant.

Oh ho, you do study under the Sherzer methods. Sure you aren't really wearing a
different name? 

It also flies in the face of what Lockheed is proposing. 

>-Russians cannot fly to Freedom's 28 degree orbit.

So why is Lockheed proposing to use a Proton launcher to deliver Soyuz-based
ACRVs to Freedom? 

>I believe the Russians have some experience with the aerodynamic drag
>of the Soyuz solar panels. Actually, they are significantly smaller than
>the Freedom panels, and very small in relation to other structures on
>the station. 

Until they end up blocking somebody's experiment. 

>-Big deal. 
>-
>Spoken like a true non-astronaut. Astronauts report privacy to be a 
>big deal.

If it's that big of a deal, then why didn't the other crew module get left on?
hmmm? 

>-If it's a lifeboat, why do you want a free flying spacecraft?
>-
>So we can use Soyuz for other purposes, such as inexpensive satellite
>repair, in case the shuttle is grounded, in case we want to save
>money, etc.

Soyuz has no arm, no workspace for tools and extremely limited maneuvering 
capability (See: Apollo/Soyuz mission in '75). 

To suggest it can be used for sat repair is a joke. 

>-It's cheaper still to use Russian boosters. 
>-
>Not if they can't put a Soyuz in the right orbit. The Proton is about
>6,000 pounds of payload capability short of being up to the job.

Oh? So why's Lockheed looking into using it to deliver ACRV? After all, if you
leave off the (un-necessary) solar panels and all the stuff you DON'T need
hanging around Freedom do disrupt experiments, you probably lose 6,000 lbs.

Or you do the typically russian thing and add strap-ons if you want your full
Soyuz. 

>-I see incentives for the Russian launch industry. I see few for 
>-"commercial" other than the integrater. Get real.
>-
>Again, the Russians can't orbit the Soyuz in the 28 degree orbit, without
>using Energiya.

As examined above, if you use the Full Soyuz, certainly not. If using Soyuz as
a ACRV with some weight stripped out of it, no problemo. Of course, you
play it fast and loose with slapping foreign hardware onto U.S. boosters while
keeping to the rules on considering my scenario. 

>-Why don't you Space Zealots show some real guts, rather than trying these
>-kludgy back-door solutions? 
>-
>We are certainly open for suggestions. What solutions should we use?

See below.

>-Get a law written to force NASA to contract for alternate means of 
>-delivering astronauts, other than Shuttle. 
>-
>Politically impossible today, and will be unless the shuttle fails. In
>that case, the law will be irrelevant. Unless you really believe that
>the space activist movement has a chance to ground the Space Shuttle.

Your buddy Sherzer thinks he can if he sneaks in Soyuz through the back door,
he can kill shuttle. Let's be real.  

Since you folks blab about saving money and free markets and the need for a
replacement to the shuttle, it would seeem to me the easiest way to do this is
to find a right (well left) minded congressman willing to sponsor a bill for
"Alternate Delivery of Astronauts to Space Station Freedom." 

Pick your own numbers of astronauts to deliver, and the schedule per year. Set
reasonable goals. And let the market decide. 

By the time you batter it through Congress, Freedom will be in business and
ready for customers. 

The solution might be Apollo II. It might be DC-Y/Delta Clipper. Or it might be
a Russian/American hybred. So be it. 
 
>-If you guys start playing the least cost game, the least cost solution 
>-is to buy American astronauts tickets to Star City for launch on the 
>-Soyuz/Proton express... don't kid yourselves.

>Again, the Russians can't get Soyuzes into Freedom's orbit.

This has already been addressed above....
                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --