Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ...


I chose the Space Shuttle over the Soyuz simply because the
Space Shuttle is more flexible.

Can you clarify this. Their appears to be much more flexibility in the
Soyuz Transport system than the shuttle transport system from what I
have read.

Just to name a few.

Shuttle is limited to one lauch and retreival site, Soyuz has numerous
launch sites and can land in many locations.

Soyuz can be reconfigured to progress configuration for delivery of
fuels and various cargoes etc, while shuttle can only carried those
items considered safe.

Soyuz has capabilities such as automated docking the shuttle does not.

The soyuz launcher can launch payloads to heo or interplanetary
missions, whereas the shuttle is limited to the leo.

The shuttle operates for weeks in space while soyuz can operate for
months if not more.

Availability of soyuz transportation system is dependant on customer
money available whereas shuttle is dependant on bureaucracy,
scheduling also interrupted by military payload requirements.

Soyuz engineering is mature and solid, where as shuttle is marginal
and hanging at the edge.

Or is the nature of your question to define a minimum number of
american rockets, as some of your other selections could also be
performed better by foreign launchers.

"spacelearner" wrote in message
m...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
...

Shuttle is limited to one lauch and retreival site, Soyuz has numerous
launch sites and can land in many locations.


I do believe that the Shuttle has multiple landing sites. For one, there's
the alternate site in California. Then there's a number of abort landing
sites.

The soyuz launcher can launch payloads to heo or interplanetary
missions, whereas the shuttle is limited to the leo.


The Shuttle can indeed launch interplanetary missions, within certain size
restrictions. As an example, if I recall correctly, the Galileo mission was
launched from the Shuttle. It had to use, I think, two modified IUS motors
(or was it an IUS and Star) instead of the Centaur upper stage once planned
for the Shuttle, but nonetheless it got there.


The shuttle operates for weeks in space while soyuz can operate for
months if not more.

Not with people aboard continuously.

On 2004-06-10, EAC wrote:

I chose the Space Shuttle over the Soyuz simply
because the Space Shuttle is more flexible.

Er... If it's flexible, then why is that it's the Soyuz that is
currently keeping the I.S.S. manned?

Soyuz takes three people and some luggage, and really does need to get
home in two days or stay over somewhere. Shuttle takes seven, a small
apartment, twenty tons of equipment, and can easily do fourteen days
on-orbit on its own.

Unfortunately, in certain operation respects it's more fragile. (Or
possibly its operators are just more protective). Hence it not doing
much at the moment.

--
-Andrew Gray

"The Ruzicka Family" wrote in message ...
"spacelearner" wrote in message
m...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
...

Shuttle is limited to one lauch and retreival site, Soyuz has numerous
launch sites and can land in many locations.


I do believe that the Shuttle has multiple landing sites. For one, there's
the alternate site in California. Then there's a number of abort landing
sites.

I understood that the one in california was no longer available and
the literature mentions no other landing sites. Can you give the names
of these sites so I can do some research.

The soyuz launcher can launch payloads to heo or interplanetary
missions, whereas the shuttle is limited to the leo.


The Shuttle can indeed launch interplanetary missions, within certain size
restrictions. As an example, if I recall correctly, the Galileo mission was
launched from the Shuttle. It had to use, I think, two modified IUS motors
(or was it an IUS and Star) instead of the Centaur upper stage once planned
for the Shuttle, but nonetheless it got there.

Are solid motors still allowed to fly in the shuttle??. Additionally,
their is no such limitation with the soyuz launcher.


The shuttle operates for weeks in space while soyuz can operate for
months if not more.

Not with people aboard continuously.

Argh I missed the significance of that, research shows than many of
the long term soyuz missions are related to salyut spacestation
operations. Although doesnt it make soyuz more flexible than the
shuttle, in that you can dock soyuz in space for long periods in
some cases almost a year it seems.

Thanks for your response. After reading alot of books I'm trying to
learn more about space and I've learnt something from your data.. None
of this suggests any aspect in which the shuttle is more flexible than
soyuz so I will make the assumption that the original poster wanted
only US spacecraft on his list.

I do believe that the Shuttle has multiple landing sites. For one,
there's
the alternate site in California. Then there's a number of abort
landing
sites.

I understood that the one in california was no longer available and
the literature mentions no other landing sites. Can you give the names
of these sites so I can do some research.

Who knows? Maybe with all of the budget cutbacks due to Bush's "vision"
thing for the Moon and Mars, they may have mothballed the California site.
But I doubt it. In the event that the Shuttle HAS to land, but the Cape
site is socked in with weather, I would think they need the secondary
California site for safety sake.

As to the abort landing sites, I believe there's one designated in Spain and
another one in northern Africa, at the very least. Again, this is a safety
precaution in the event of an ascent abort, so I wouldn't think they'd do
away with them.


The soyuz launcher can launch payloads to heo or interplanetary
missions, whereas the shuttle is limited to the leo.


The Shuttle can indeed launch interplanetary missions, within certain
size
restrictions. As an example, if I recall correctly, the Galileo mission
was
launched from the Shuttle. It had to use, I think, two modified IUS
motors
(or was it an IUS and Star) instead of the Centaur upper stage once
planned
for the Shuttle, but nonetheless it got there.

Are solid motors still allowed to fly in the shuttle??. Additionally,
their is no such limitation with the soyuz launcher.

Unless they're only planning from now on to use the Shuttle for on-orbit
maintenance, research, ISS supply, etc, then I would think solid motors
might still be allowed. But you could be correct.
True, Soyuz has no such potential limitation for using solid upper stages,
but I'll bet you won't see one launching with both a solid upper stage AND a
live crew!



The shuttle operates for weeks in space while soyuz can operate for
months if not more.

Not with people aboard continuously.

Argh I missed the significance of that, research shows than many of
the long term soyuz missions are related to salyut spacestation
operations. Although doesnt it make soyuz more flexible than the
shuttle, in that you can dock soyuz in space for long periods in
some cases almost a year it seems.

Thanks for your response. After reading alot of books I'm trying to
learn more about space and I've learnt something from your data.. None
of this suggests any aspect in which the shuttle is more flexible than
soyuz so I will make the assumption that the original poster wanted
only US spacecraft on his list.


I think that both the Soyuz and the Shuttle have their specific niches.
There are some things that Soyuz is better suited for, while the Shuttle is
better suited for others.

I understood that the one in california was no longer available and
the literature mentions no other landing sites. Can you give the names
of these sites so I can do some research.

Well the highlights a

Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Now the most commonly used site, but
in the early days of shuttle few shuttles landed here, as the runway
is concrete and of limited size (contrast with the dry lakebeds, which
are rather more forgiving if you overrun them). Landing here means
you don't need to ship the shuttle across country, which adds about $1
million in the case of an Edwards landing.

Edwards Air Force Base, California. Has been used for dozens of
landings, including most of them in the early years.

White Sands, New Mexico. One shuttle has landed he
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/chron/sts-3.htm
The gypsum that it landed on turned out to gum up the works more than
expected.

Here's a list of possible landing sites from 1993:
http://www.angelfire.com/fl/Jacqmans/landing.html

Here's a list of TAL sites from 2001 (and a description of what TAL
is): http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/tal.htm

There's a nice page
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/...ty/sts-els.htm
Undated, but seems to roughly match the KSC page where they overlap.

Nice page at:
http://yarchive.net/space/shuttle/sh...ing_sites.html
which claims that the list of emergency sites is confidential (! - I'm
curious about what "confidential" would really mean here).

(Most of these were the top hits from a web search for "shuttle
landing sites", so you wouldn't have had to look very far, just FYI).

Shuttle is limited to one lauch and retreival site, Soyuz has numerous
launch sites and can land in many locations.

Numerous launch sites? Baikonur, Tyrutam (sp?), and the one possibly
going in at Kourou? Soyuz has the capability to land almost anywhere,
but that means you have to have the stuff to go out, retrieve and
possibly treat the crew, and bring them back.


True, the shuttle is limited to one launch site today, but one other
site was completed at Vandenberg (though never used). As for
recovery, the primary landing site is the SLF runway at Kennedy, and
the first alternate is Edwards AFB. Additional sites can be used as
necessary; one of the early flights landed at White Sands because
Edwards was flooded (or at least all muddy). The abort landing sites
mentioned in other posts are also avalible, though they would probably
not be used in any situation besides launch abort.

Soyuz can be reconfigured to progress configuration for delivery of
fuels and various cargoes etc, while shuttle can only carried those
items considered safe.

True, progress can deliver fuel and other "hazardous" cargo, but the
shuttle can bring a lot more of the "safe" items, replenish the water
from the fuel cells, and it can ferry up equipment racks (in the MPLM)
and other large hardware. It can also return larger amounts of stuff,
which the progress can't really do.

Soyuz has capabilities such as automated docking the shuttle does not.

The automatic docking capability for the Soyuz was originally
implemented because the Soviets did not trust their cosmonauts to do
the docking manually... many missions had to abort because system
failed and the cosmonauts were not trained to make dockings manually.


The soyuz launcher can launch payloads to heo or interplanetary
missions, whereas the shuttle is limited to the leo.

The shuttle has launched several payloads into other-than-LEO space...
such as TDRS, various comsats into GEO, Magellan, Galileo, Ulysses,
and Chandra. All of these required various combinations of PAMs,
Star-48's, and IUS's, but they did get there. This capability has
been all but retired now, since the remainder of the missions will be
dedicated to ISS support.


The shuttle operates for weeks in space while soyuz can operate for
months if not more.

If you define "operating for months if not more" as being virtually
shut down while docked to a space station, then yes. However, the
shuttle has flown missions in excess of two weeks (theoretically
capable of up to a month with EDO kits), whereas the current Soyuz
models can only operate independently for a couple of days. The last
independent Soyuz flights were back in the 70's, IIRC, and I don't
think they lasted much longer than a week or so.


Availability of soyuz transportation system is dependant on customer
money available whereas shuttle is dependant on bureaucracy,
scheduling also interrupted by military payload requirements.

The shuttle has not flown dedicated DOD flights for at least 10
years... original plans called for at least one shuttle to be
dedicated to the DOD, but after STS-51L the military decided to move
back to expendibles (Titan III, etc) and only fly the payloads that
were already committed on the shuttle.

(Bob Martin) wrote:

If you define "operating for months if not more" as being virtually
shut down while docked to a space station, then yes. However, the
shuttle has flown missions in excess of two weeks (theoretically
capable of up to a month with EDO kits

Nit: Only one EDO kit has been built to date, and it was lost onboard
Columbia.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"The Ruzicka Family" wrote in
:

I do believe that the Shuttle has multiple landing sites. For one,
there's
the alternate site in California. Then there's a number of abort
landing
sites.

I understood that the one in california was no longer available and
the literature mentions no other landing sites. Can you give the
names of these sites so I can do some research.

Who knows? Maybe with all of the budget cutbacks due to Bush's
"vision" thing for the Moon and Mars, they may have mothballed the
California site.

Was the political cheap shot really necessary? I do not believe it added
anything productive to the discourse here. Furthermore, it is a false
statement. For the record, Bush has *increased* NASA's budget each year of
his administration. *If* his proposed 5.6% increase for this year is
approved, he will have succeeded in restoring most of what Clinton *cut*
from NASA's budget, once inflation is factored in.

Sources:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...s/hist04z1.xls
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55385main_01...ummary%20Ta b
le.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...s/hist10z1.xls

And in the end, you never really answered the original question either. For
the record, STS-107 had twenty-five entries in its landing site table.
Seven of them are doubled-up, for a total of 32, and Houston can uplink
others if the need arises. More landing sites are available for higher-
inclination flights, including ECAL sites along the US east coast, such as
Myrtle Beach, Cherry Point, and Dover.

Source:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2237main_ENT_107_F_1_E1.pdf (p. 12 of the PDF)

And in an emergency, the shuttle can land on just about any old 7500-ft
long, 130-ft wide runway with an operational TACAN or DME within 50 n.mi.

Source:
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/news/columbia/fr_generic.pdf (rule A2-264,
EMERGENCY LANDING FACILITY CRITERIA, p. 123 of the PDF)

Are solid motors still allowed to fly in the shuttle??.
Additionally, their is no such limitation with the soyuz launcher.

Unless they're only planning from now on to use the Shuttle for
on-orbit maintenance, research, ISS supply, etc, then I would think
solid motors might still be allowed. But you could be correct.

Nope, he's wrong, solids are still allowed on the shuttle. It's just that
there are no missions on the manifest requiring them.

The shuttle operates for weeks in space while soyuz can operate
for months if not more.

Not with people aboard continuously.

Argh I missed the significance of that, research shows than many of
the long term soyuz missions are related to salyut spacestation
operations.

"Many"? Try "all". The longest Soyuz free-flight (Soyuz 9) was less than 18
days, barely an hour longer than the longest shuttle flight (STS-80). And
that's a Soyuz variant that doesn't exist any more; the current version
(TMA) is limited to 4.2 days of free-flight.

Although doesnt it make soyuz more flexible than the
shuttle, in that you can dock soyuz in space for long periods in
some cases almost a year it seems.

"Almost" a year? The Soyuz is rated for 200 days in space, when docked to a
space station.



--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

(Bob Martin) wrote in
om:

Shuttle is limited to one lauch and retreival site, Soyuz has numerous
launch sites and can land in many locations.

Numerous launch sites? Baikonur, Tyrutam (sp?),

One and the same. Baikonur is the name of the facility, Tyuratam is the
name of the closest village.

and the one possibly
going in at Kourou?

Currently not planned to support the manned Soyuz.

Soyuz has the capability to land almost anywhere,

....the key word being "land". That's one big reason why the Kourou site
won't support the manned Soyuz, at least without some kind of upgrade to
allow water landings.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.