3 ms·

All very good comments from fellow HN-ers (the ones regarding the Economist's accuracy). My first thought on the title of the article was "if it ain't broken,

All very good comments from fellow HN-ers (the ones regarding the Economist's accuracy). My first thought on the title of the article was "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". As it goes for 'commuting' people back and forth to ISS (and previously to Mir - Mir means both 'World' and 'Peace' in Russian language) Soyuz was the favorite means of transportation. I am not against upgrading, but if it does the job, leave it alone :)

starbeast 8y ago
As an aside to your comment about the naming of MIR, I have been saying for a while that, completely ignoring any science or technology benefits, the ISS and other combined space programs have paid for themselves many times over by giving the USA and Russia something really tricky and high level to coordinate over that is nothing to do with where the nukes are pointing today. Is the best back-channel going.
walkingolof 8y ago
Soyuz does the job alright, but its a complex system that could be simplified with what we know today, for example the Soyuz launcher have 20 main engines in a complex arrangement that was the cause of the last accident.
- proaralyst 8y ago
  I thought it had five main engines, four with six chambers and the fifth with eight?
  - walkingolof 8y ago
    True, Sloppy nomenclature of me, it have 5 "engine" assemblies, with in total of 20 main chambers and 12 vernier chambers, a complex setup, Falcon 9 have, well, 9, all the same. Ref RD-107: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-107#/media/File:RD-107_Vostok.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-107#/media/File:RD-107_Vost...
xoa 8y ago
>"if it ain't broken, don't fix it" Cost is always an inseparable part of the equation however. Going to space for $10000/kg vs $5000/kg vs $1000/kg vs $500/kg all mean very different things for what missions become feasible and the safety factor and performance of said missions too (since the latter both have mass costs). SpaceX or BO ultimately doing the job much more cheaply, carrying more mass, with simpler designs made possible by modernized ME and knowledge, and that are more adaptable to other missions (methalox for example is a favorable compromise fuel for Mars surface launches and orbital refueling), doesn't mean Soyuz would be "broken" sure but it will make it obsolete for most of the world. Ground manufacturing capability and best practices change too. Long term standing still isn't a great idea.
- baybal2 8y ago
  It all depends if you own the whole space programme. Even the $10000 vs $500 per kg difference you named will make a small difference for the cost of a whole programme. The LV cost for a manned mission is 1/10th of the whole launch cost.
gandhium 8y ago
> My first thought on the title of the article was "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" Problem is - it's broke already. In all means - sloppy quality, price hikes, political bullshit with 'russkiy mir'...

starbeast 8y ago

As an aside to your comment about the naming of MIR, I have been saying for a while that, completely ignoring any science or technology benefits, the ISS and other combined space programs have paid for themselves many times over by giving the USA and Russia something really tricky and high level to coordinate over that is nothing to do with where the nukes are pointing today. Is the best back-channel going.

walkingolof 8y ago

Soyuz does the job alright, but its a complex system that could be simplified with what we know today, for example the Soyuz launcher have 20 main engines in a complex arrangement that was the cause of the last accident.

proaralyst 8y ago
I thought it had five main engines, four with six chambers and the fifth with eight?
- walkingolof 8y ago
  True, Sloppy nomenclature of me, it have 5 "engine" assemblies, with in total of 20 main chambers and 12 vernier chambers, a complex setup, Falcon 9 have, well, 9, all the same. Ref RD-107: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-107#/media/File:RD-107_Vostok.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-107#/media/File:RD-107_Vost...

xoa 8y ago

>"if it ain't broken, don't fix it" Cost is always an inseparable part of the equation however. Going to space for $10000/kg vs $5000/kg vs $1000/kg vs $500/kg all mean very different things for what missions become feasible and the safety factor and performance of said missions too (since the latter both have mass costs). SpaceX or BO ultimately doing the job much more cheaply, carrying more mass, with simpler designs made possible by modernized ME and knowledge, and that are more adaptable to other missions (methalox for example is a favorable compromise fuel for Mars surface launches and orbital refueling), doesn't mean Soyuz would be "broken" sure but it will make it obsolete for most of the world. Ground manufacturing capability and best practices change too. Long term standing still isn't a great idea.

baybal2 8y ago
It all depends if you own the whole space programme. Even the $10000 vs $500 per kg difference you named will make a small difference for the cost of a whole programme. The LV cost for a manned mission is 1/10th of the whole launch cost.

gandhium 8y ago

> My first thought on the title of the article was "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" Problem is - it's broke already. In all means - sloppy quality, price hikes, political bullshit with 'russkiy mir'...