From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz vs. reality
Date: 25 Jan 1993 20:55:56 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 <252310ced@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>If Lockheed is seriously considering launching Soyuzes on Protons
>to SSF, they are ignored several very real constraints; this would
>not be the first time a business made a bad decision. 

Funny, they seem to have more information at their disposal than you or I, and
they're considering it. 
 
>A stripped-down Soyuz already exists; it's the one the Russians
>use now. Trying to drop 6,000 lbs from the current Soyuz is kind
>of like trying to drop 6,000 lbs. from you. The final result wouldn't work too 
>well. 

Because you're being mule-headed and ignoring what I said. ACRV <> Full Soyuz. 
  
>A Proton can't get a 14,000 lb Soyuz into the orbit of SSF; even if it could, 
>an Atlas-Centaur would do the job better, and pretty much at the same cost.

Hand waiving. We've been over this before and you still stick to launching a
full-up Soyuz which WILL NOT HAPPEN. Isn't happening. 

>There are integration costs with the Atlas - guess what, there are integration 
>costs with the Proton, too. The Soviets never launched
>a full soyuz on a Proton in the old days.

No need to. Until the money gets waived around.
 
>The Proton is not man rated. Not even Leonid Breshnev agreed to fly a
>person on a Proton - they're quite nasty.

Sure. But nobody's man-rated a Soyuz on an Atlas either. 

>It is practically impossible to add strap-ons to a Proton - you would
>need to completely change the assembly line procedures, and create new
>tools and dies, especially for adding strap-ons. After all, the structures
>that *look* like stra-ons on the sides of the current Protons are *not*. They 
>are fuel tanks that feed fuel lines inside the first stage. Proton currently
>has no strap-ons, and no real capability of adding any. Not to mention the
>major revisions to the launch structure and transport vehicles.

*yawn* So even if you can't do that, you can do some fun things with the
next biggest launcher size in line. 

>My feeling here is that you are not too familiar with the Proton, and your
>ideas about its capabilities are based on this lack of information.

My feeling is you're being patronizing. See below for further information.

>As for the bill you mentioned; why not talk to your congressperson to get
>*their* feedback? It's probably not a bad idea - except that it is politically 
>infeasbile.

No more so than some of the garbage which you've been suggesting. 

> However, if your congressperson if willing to introduce the bill, 
>we can probably get some folks to support it.

We? Oh thank you Master of the Seven Lobbyists.
 
>As for the inability of the Soyuz to act as a platform for satellite repair - 
>don't worry, the Soviets have already used it as such. The
>Soyuz is a fine platform for such things. 

Oh really? Why don't you provide some more details on the maneuverability once
it gets into orbit, the amount of working space it has to store tools, and the
number of people you can put into it.

Got some news for you: A) It has very little maneuverability once in orbit,
B) Little working space for large objects C) No arm to grapple things, and 
C) a limit of three people and maybe a half dozen days in orbit for independent
operations once you load in all the groceries and tools you need to fix
anything.

Get real, bud. 


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space