10

If NASA were to apply the safety standards it is using on the CCtCAP program (Dragon V2 and CST-100 now chosen) would Soyuz meet those standards?

I suppose it helps if we are clear on what the safety standards are?

Much of it is paperwork, and for Soyuz, at this point in time, test flights are obviously not relevant (hundreds of manned flights so far?) and has an abort system.

But would Soyuz 'pass'?

geoffc
  • 79,523
  • 12
  • 227
  • 419

2 Answers2

7

As I noted in my answer to a similar question on Orion, Soyuz is immune. The US human ratings standards apply to vehicles developed on behalf of NASA, and to non-US vehicles that would dock with the US side of the International Space Station. (Note that there are no such vehicles, and none are planned.)

The Soyuz is built by Russia, launched by Russia using Russian-built launch vehicles, and docks with the Russian side of the ISS. The NASA human safety ratings rules don't apply to Soyuz. NASA has to abide by Russia's rules when NASA contracts with Russia to use Russian vehicles to fly US astronauts to the ISS.

Update

To make my answer a bit more on-target, there is no way that Soyuz could pass US safety requirements, for at least two reasons.

One is that Russia has its own engineering concepts of how to address safety and reliability, and those are rather different from those used in the US. I'm not saying Soyuz isn't safe, and I'm not passing judgement on the approaches used in the US versus those used in Russia. They're just different. Meeting the US safety standards would necessarily entail Russia switching to a US-style of documentation, data capture, traceability, testing, verification, and validation. For one thing, that would be ridiculously expensive. For another, Russia is a rather proud nation. It's not going to happen.

Another issue is that for Russia to comply with those US safety concepts, Russia would necessarily have to divulge a lot of Russian military secrets to NASA. That's even less likely to happen than Russia switching to a US-style of documentation, data capture, traceability, testing, verification, and validation.

Community
  • 1
David Hammen
  • 74,662
  • 5
  • 185
  • 283
  • 1
    I don't think the question was 'DOES the Soyuz pass' but instead 'WOULD the Soyuz pass', which implies an understanding that Soyuz isn't under the NASA human rating constraints. – Josh Johnson Sep 18 '14 at 22:02
  • That Soyuz is immune from US standards is key. There is no way that Soyuz could pass US safety requirements. I'm not saying Soyuz isn't safe. It's just that Russia has it's own concepts, and they are rather different from those used in the US. Not better, not worse, just different. Forcing Russia to comply with US regulations would not fly. In addition to being just different, for Russia to comply with US safety concepts would require Russia to divulge a lot of Russian military secrets to NASA. That ain't gonna happen. – David Hammen Sep 18 '14 at 22:20
  • 1
    No one has disagreed with that. The original question was if the Soyuz meets a given set of standards, not if they should, or what would be the reasons for doing so. I believe it was asked to give a comparison of the various methods that NASA uses to fly astronauts. – Josh Johnson Sep 19 '14 at 13:10
  • @JoshJohnson - I've updated my answer to make it very clear that Soyuz does not, can not, and never will meet those US-specific safety standards. – David Hammen Sep 19 '14 at 13:28
  • 2
    @DavidHammen: What if the question was reworded to "Would it be possible to construct a craft in compliance with NASA rules other than crew capacity, which was essentially identical to the Soyuz in design and function, or are some aspects of the Soyuz design or function (other than the aformentioned crew capacity limitation) inconsistent with NASA safety requirements? – supercat Sep 22 '14 at 19:35
  • @supercat - Why? The Soyuz and its launch vehicle exist precisely because Russia has developed them over long decades using their own style, their own standards, their own secrecy. Those styles and standards also pertain to Russia's ICBMs. Suppose worst comes to worst. The launch vehicle used to send the Soyuz capsule into orbit is extremely similar to the launch vehicles that Russia would use to send nukes to Washington DC. Russia is never going to tell NASA the details of their design, but knowing those details is essential to obtaining that human safety rating. – David Hammen Sep 22 '14 at 19:51
  • 2
    @DavidHammen: Let me rephrase: Are there any publicly-documented physical design aspects of the Soyuz design, other than the aforementioned crew capacity limitations, which would be inconsistent with NASA safety requirements (e.g. NASA requires that XYZ modules be accessible by the crew, but the Soyuz XYZ module is not)? I would guess that's what the original question was really after. – supercat Sep 23 '14 at 13:41
  • @supercat - That isn't how the human safety requirements work. They are very deep, very intensive, and very extensive. Everything from pre-design to construction to how suppliers guarantee inventory and quality to continued operations (and more) is subject to the rules. The international concerns that preclude that type of investigation coupled with Soyuz's long record of safe operations is why NASA explicitly made Soyuz immune from NASA's human safety standards. – David Hammen Sep 23 '14 at 20:37
  • @DavidHammen Actually, all land-based ICMBs of Russia that I could find are fueled with solid or hypergolic fuels. They do not use cryogenic liquid oxygen because they could not stand ready to launch at a moment's notice. So no, the launch vehicle used to send the Soyuz capsule into orbit is not extremely similar to the launch vehicles that Russia would use to send nukes to Washington DC. The R-7 as an ICBM became obsolete almost as soon as it was built. As an orbital carrier rocket, it is much, much better, and still the most reliable launch system ever flown. – DrZ214 May 30 '15 at 05:45
3

No. For example, one of the CCDev (Commercial Crew Development) key requirements includes: Deliver and return four crew and their equipment. Soyuz capsule only has the capacity to cram three astronauts / cosmonauts at a time.

Refer to Commercial Crew Program: Key Driving Requirements Walkthrough (Powerpoint presentation), which starts off with:

Three Primary Functions of the spacecraft in support of this:

  • Deliver and return four crew and their equipment
  • Provide Assured Crew Return in the event of an emergency
  • Serve as a 24-hour Safe Haven in the event of an emergency

And continues:

The CTS shall be capable of exchanging up to four NASA ISS crewmembers every 150 to 210 days. (3.1.2.4; R.CTS.13)

Of course, Soyuz spacecraft also isn't American (US domestic) vehicle and is not a part of a NASA's COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services) program.

Community
  • 1
TildalWave
  • 75,950
  • 13
  • 274
  • 455
  • 1
    I was thinking more along the lines of safety issues, so I will change the question to specifically exclude this answer. :) – geoffc Sep 17 '14 at 14:50