Шестиместный Союз

Туфи

Сообщения: 289

#80

17.08.2010 00:52:30

Цитировать
ЦитироватьI have a question. Doesn't this approach cut deeply into reliability of Soyuz system?

1. I doubt that standard Soyuz SAS can pull out 2 SA instead BO+SA.

2. If suitable SAS exist or can be made I think that it is still less reliable then three seat Soyuz. Let me explain what I think. Let's say that probability of success for each SA is 0,95 then combined probability is 0,95*0,95=0.9025. Problems with sections not separating from each other or docking cone cut deeply into reliability of that system. On first glance scheme look more reliable as not "all eggs are in one basket" but that is an illusion. On start more chance for success have upper SA on the descent I think lower (I write about acheme Александр Шлядинский draw). Should then cosmonauts throw a dice for seat placement? :shock:

К сожалению, для меня сложно читать большие тексты на английском, потому, что я и в маленьких не всё понимаю. В общем прошу извинить, если чё.

То, что 0,95*0,95=0.9025 - это можно сказать как про запуск двух СА одной ракетой, так и про запуск двух обычных ракет, каждая со своим СА. Даже во втором случае вероятность хуже, так как больше всяких могущих сломаться систем.

You are wrong on this one. Success probability of rocket carrier is separate and identical in all cases. True higher number of launches lead to rise of rocket failure probability during prolonged time frame but that is not the question now.

As for reliability of 3-seated and 6-seated spacecraft scheme then at best success probability of 6-seated version you propose can be expressed as square of success probability of 3-seated version. Reason is the same you tried to quote for 2 launch of 3-seated Soyuz number of components is rising and probability of failure of some of them rise. Please have in mind that rocket failure don't necessary lead to crew loss while in the spacecraft failure crew will have state funeral. We can argue about is the loss of reliability of the spacecraft that high or not so high... that is still open for debate. The loss of reliability of that scheme is why I think that only some mixed crew+cargo scheme can be made that way. Crew would be launched in upper SA and return using lower SA I think.

Цитировать
Цитировать3. Because all that I wrote above if something of a kind comes to life one section would be for crew and other for cargo. If that is so then why two SA? Make BO retrievable and place some cargo for return there. BO has mass and diameter close to Vostok if I remember well. Put a heat-shield around BO, place parachute in place of EVA hatch on BO, some hatch with heat shield in cross section between BO and SA to make BO hermetical and to complete the heat shield, cosmonauts can install some kind of inflatable shield around docking cone for heat protection... I personally would make that inflatable heat shield have cone shape and allow some orientation on reentry but that makes heat shield construction for the rest of the BO more complex then Vostok design. As for the BO toilet returning problem... well I think it will be "constellation Urine" there as it is today on shuttle :-).

Просто второй БО никому особо не нужен. Важно людей возить, больше и дешевле. Всем в конечном счёте хочется побывать в космосе.

We didn't understand each other. I should explain. Enlarging crew complement using this scheme is too dangerous in my humble opinion even if it is possible to make. Please note that even for my proposal in this thread about using two TKS VA I didn't proposed 6 membered crew but same crew+cargo scheme. I don't have bias against your idea but whole concept is something that I find flawed to some extent and therefore using this scheme it make sense only to make crew+cargo scheme. If so isn't it better (or on the same level of trouble during development) to convert whole existing single Soyuz BO to retrieving cargo capsule (not like Raduga capsule concept already done before). It seems that you comprehend that I wanted to add another BO, please rest assured that isn't my intention. If I remember well Vostok was retrieving around 800kg from orbit.

I don't know from what materials Soyuz BO is made of. Maybe converting BO today through heat shield addition isn't possible if it is made with high percentage use of polymeric materials that simply will not survive heat and mechanical stress during that reentry. Enlarging crew complement on station is needed and there I find your proposal correct but the way you want to achieve it is wrong.

At the end I must say that USSR engineers were right on spot when they designed Soyuz/Progress system. People for the transport take taxi and for cargo they rent a truck. Shuttle failure is 2-in-1 attempt which makes you for any launch to prepare a monster to put some cargo in orbit regardless of it size and why on Earth they have such large crew complement if they didn't made station at that time. OK more crew can do more experiments in 2 week free flight time they had but that looks to me like an old joke "if a women can give birth to a child in a nine months time then 9 women can bring one baby in a month" :-D.

Цитировать
Цитировать4. As for fun section with using several SA combined may I put my idea here ;-)? Lets put 4 SA. We cut cross section passages on sides of the SA to the left and right. Put them together sideways and rotate each SA for the 90 degrees from each other. On top SA there is also Zond like docking cone, on bottom one huge PAO. I call this design "drill bit". :lol:

Если СА будет наклонён на 90 градусов, то при срабатывании САС, кровь прильёт к ногам космонавтов и они потеряют сознание. Не знаю останутся ли они после этого живы, так как перегрузки при срабатывании САС очень большие.

It seems that I need to enlarge use of smiles in here :-D. Point 4 was a joke (fun section). But as continuation of joke let say we can add rails to the cosmonaut chairs allowing them to run in circles like hamsters during launch that would make all the kids want to be cosmonauts again ;-) :-D. Yes you are correct that orientation of cosmonauts during launch must be as it is today and that mine fun proposal won't allow. Cosmonauts would most likely survive that but it isn't human to put anyone to that experience.

Dave Bowman

Сообщения: 3,244