Author
|
Topic: Upsizing Soyuz to accomodate six seats
|
Lou Chinal Member Posts: 1306 From: Staten Island, NY Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 07-11-2010 06:50 PM
I'm sure this has been thought of before, but it this era of free enterprise - scale up the Soyuz. The Russian reentry module has a base of about 86 1/2 inches while the Chinese Shenzhou is about 100 inches (I don't know the exact dimensions). It's about 13% larger, but still smaller than Apollo. The Shenzhou has carried three, and they are looking into fitting a fourth crew member aboard. By increasing the base diameter to about 120-130 inches and using new construction methods, six people could be carried. Don't forget you would be launching from French Guiana not Baikonur. Again I have not figured out thrust/weight ratio, but I know you would get considerably more bang for the buck. By new construction methods I mean "Friction Stir Welding" now being developed for Orion. The 120-130 inch diameter would still be much smaller than Apollo at 160 inches was. During this time of seeking out new ways to achieve low earth orbit this might be an option. |
Tonyq Member Posts: 199 From: UK Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted 07-12-2010 01:59 AM
quote: Originally posted by Lou Chinal: The Shenzhou has carried three, and they are looking into fitting a fourth crew member aboard.
What is your source for this information?China have said that the unmanned Shenzhou 8 will be the first production vehicle and that subsequent craft will be the same. The manned flights to the Tiangong small station, which will follow as Shenzhou 9, 10 etc. have only been mentioned as carrying two or three taikonauts. |
Philip Member Posts: 5952 From: Brussels, Belgium Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 07-12-2010 02:56 AM
Four seats is correct...The average Taikonaut is smaller than the average Cosmonaut. And there are restrictions in length because after six months in space, the cosmonauts' spine get stretched and they still have to fit in their Sokol spacesuits, which are a one piece spacesuit with the helmet attached to it (the gloves come apart with it). |
Tonyq Member Posts: 199 From: UK Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted 07-12-2010 04:28 AM
But what is the source of this suggested four person development? Where has this been published in a credible source?I follow the Shenzhou programme very closely and have never seen any mention of upgrading it to seat four people. I'd suggest that the size of taikonauts is largely irrelevant. Whilst it may be possible to squeeze more smaller people into the available space, their needs for life support, oxygen, water and consumables must be similar to anyone else and these all take up room and add to the weight. |
divemaster Member Posts: 1376 From: ridgefield, ct Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-12-2010 09:13 AM
Don't you have to bring the launch vehicle into consideration? The Russian's have been using "ol' faithful" for years. To carry more weight, you need a bigger launch vehicle. What's the rule of thumb - four pounds of propellant per 1 pound of cargo. Add two to four occupants PLUS a larger Soyuz and methinks you're going to need a new launch vehicle.Gee. Maybe they shouldn't retire the shuttle JUST for this reason. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-12-2010 09:23 AM
Note that Roscosmos does have plans for a six-seat spacecraft, the 'Rus', with a new set of launchers to loft it. |
divemaster Member Posts: 1376 From: ridgefield, ct Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-12-2010 12:39 PM
Are "we" paying for it? Otherwise, I doubt it will [cough] get off of the ground. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-12-2010 12:48 PM
The U.S. is not involved in the Rus but the point as it is relevant to this thread is that Roscosmos recently assessed upgrading its launch capability and chose a new design over modifying the Soyuz. That would suggest that adding three more seats is not as easy or efficient as the original post alludes. |
Lou Chinal Member Posts: 1306 From: Staten Island, NY Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 07-13-2010 03:00 PM
I would prefer to fly a winged vehicle down to a runway landing, but after the shuttle retires I'm afraid the world is going to be stuck the 'bump down' method.If we have to go this way, let's make the best of it. As far as the fourth seat in Shenzhou I have no hard data, but everyone I've talked to who has been inside one says the same thing. Sure you get a fourth seat in here. Do we really need the orbital module? Soyuz did when there was no ISS to go to. Now that there's a destination to go to, why not leave it at home? The Zond has been test flown (unmanned). I am just trying to do this with a minimum of R&D. Research and development equal time and money. The Russians could crew the entire ISS with one flight. |
Tonyq Member Posts: 199 From: UK Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted 07-14-2010 03:38 AM
quote: Originally posted by Lou Chinal: As far as the fourth seat in Shenzhou I have no hard data, but everyone I've talked to who has been inside one says the same thing. Sure you get a fourth seat in here.
So your original comment which clearly suggested some definitive Chinese plan is just anonymous guesswork and hearsay... |
Lou Chinal Member Posts: 1306 From: Staten Island, NY Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 07-14-2010 07:18 AM
This is a proposal not a plan. That's the purpose of cS to discuss ideas. I'm sure the Russians never planned to sell tourist seats on Soyuz when it first flew. Tracy, that's just my point they need a bigger launch vehicle, and yes I agree the shuttle shouldn't be retired but it is. |
John Charles Member Posts: 339 From: Houston, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 07-14-2010 07:58 PM
quote: Originally posted by Lou Chinal: Do we really need the orbital module? Soyuz did when there was no ISS to go to. Now that there's a destination to go to, why not leave it at home?
Lou, the first five in the Soyuz TM series jettisoned the orbital module before the de-orbit maneuver, but on TM-5, a control system malfunction left the crew in orbit overnight in the tiny re-entry module without food or even a toilet. After that, the efficient Soyuz engineers decided that the orbital module was not superfluous and it has stayed attached until after successful deorbit burns ever since.Amenities aside, the orbital module provides upmass to the ISS, as well as providing crewmembers some minimal comfort between orbit insertion and docking. According to some who have been there, the re-entry module was not designed for comfort, and lives up to its specifications. |
Lou Chinal Member Posts: 1306 From: Staten Island, NY Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 07-15-2010 03:35 PM
John, thanks for the info. I guess we know why the Russians never tried a manned moon shot.I hope their new launch pad at Kourou can accommodate a bigger booster. |