6 ms·

I wish the article analysed the differences between the space programs in more depth. The US space program has had several new rocket and spacecraft designs whe

I wish the article analysed the differences between the space programs in more depth. The US space program has had several new rocket and spacecraft designs where the Russians (and Soviets before) have concentrated on progressive refinement. The Soyuz rocket is a refinement of the R7 ballistic missile - the world’s first - and the spacecraft has been continually refined since 1967. The first stage engines still use hydrogen peroxide to spin the turbopumps as they’re iterations on the V2’s engine. I guess there might be something there with high tech analysis vs traditional iterative engineering.

walkingolof 8y ago
Not quite accurate, the Russian space agenecy (and before that the Soviet) have tried several times to replace the Soyuz, without succeeding for various reason, but the main reason is lack of resources. Right now it looks like maybe the Soyuz 5 rocket and the Federation capsule may make it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)
- baybal2 8y ago
  Soyuz 5 is effectively a man rated Zenith. Zenith is made in Ukraine, and that's the end of story.
  - walkingolof 8y ago
    Its not, its a new design around a methane engine, its meant in certain configurations to replace Zenith and Proton, just like Angara, it greatly overlaps with Angara which makes many question that project. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz5.html http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz5.html
    - baybal2 8y ago
      Nomenclature matters, the Soyuz 5 was a fatter Zenith integrated in Russia. The Soyuz 5.* line built around methane was originally a completely different project that was haphazardly renamed in order to conceal that the original Soyuz 5 programme went nowhere.
- nine_k 8y ago
  Buran was never intended as a replacement for Soyuz, I suppose. Buran + Energiya were more a replacement to Proton, and a Space Shuttle-like capability to build advanced weapons systems in space, which would require extensive human labor and maintenance. The space crew for these systems were intended to be armed with laser pistols, with prototypes produced: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/satellites/a21527129/the-soviet-laser-space-pistol-revealed/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/satellites/a21527129/...
  - lambdadmitry 8y ago
    I'm not sure if Buran ever had any purpose apart from keeping up with Joneses. I mean, look at its shape. Shuttle's (comparatively) huge wings are there for polar-once-around that military asked for; why does Buran have the same? I've never ever heard of a polar-once-around requirement for Buran, despite the design considerations being more or less in the open now.
    - gandhium 8y ago
      One of the Buran designers openly admitted that they were forced to copy Shuttle since it was 'already working'.
trhway 8y ago
USSR/Russia did try new programs [somewhat] similar to US ones: - lunar mission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) : utter failure in particular because of unability to build bigger engine (like F-1). - Buran (similar to Shuttle) : technical success while somewhat unnecessary economically in much similar vain like Shuttle ... plus USSR collapse - modular architecture (Falcon 9/Heavy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angara_(rocket_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angara_(rocket_family) : 25+ years of development and still behind SpaceX - Russia seems to currently have no program, although it had it 50 years ago (RD-270), similar to the SpaceX's currently being developed full flow engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family) Flying and improving Soyuz (especially through the tough times of 199x and beginning of 200x) is definitely a success, albeit a kind of a forced one. Another great thing - refusal to sell warhead-less ICBMs to Musk in 2000 and thus forcing him to develop his own launcher :) Going forward i think the iterative engineering wouldn't allow to compete even close with SpaceX truly high-tech game changing features like the first stage reuse and probably Dragon2 capsule reuse. And Musk/SpaceX seems to be just warming up :)
- baybal2 8y ago
  Put hold on your optimism. Launch vehicles make only a minor part of the whole space programme, invariably of whether it is privately or publicly run. Rockets are an industry with financial model not unlike latest generation microelectronics, or jet engines. It may sound surprising, but just look at digits. It is also very similar in that regard, that it is near impossible for a newcomer to kickstart a business. You can be nearly 99% sure that there will be no company that will deliver GE9X competitor tomorrow in case of jet engines, or 7HPC process in case of semiconductor. The "added value" (really hate the term) on top of the basic piece of metal is many many times bigger than its material value. In that regard, the Soyuz being still relatively cheap, and being launched by regular engineers, rather than by 1000+ people with postdocs is a real advantage. My own prognosis is that China will eventually take lead in small payloads with cheap as dirt solid fuel LVs. And for anything else, it will still be a niche for nation-state backed heavy launcher programs.
madeuptempacct 8y ago
It is generally accepted that the USSR/Russia is more iterative in weapons development, while trying crazy one offs now and again (high speed, high depth, double-hull titanium submarines, supercavitating torpedoes, plasma stealth, 3D-thrust-vectoring on fighters, PESA radar on the MIG31, etc, etc). They keep what sticks, for example high off-bore, helmet queued IR-missile targeting on the MIG-29 (it took a while for the US AIM-9 to catch up), but go for the cheaper versions on everything else. While it is a budgetary necessity now, it simply "worked" in the past. The same can't really be said for their rockets though, Musk is going to "crush them" to quote our friend Khruschev, and then Russia has no technological lead left, at all. Maybe niches in cybersecurity and new nuclear power generators, but that seems to be about it. Tragic really.
- adventured 8y ago
  There is one other area of their economy that has gotten interesting in the last decade. Thanks to a leap in modernization, their wheat production doubled over ~15 years and it looks set to continue expanding. They have the potential to be a considerable agriculture power. Their oil industry, which used to be towering, is 'only' worth about the annual sales of Apple, or Google + Microsoft. With their current approach to political leadership, it's hard to imagine where the economic growth is going to come from to enable them to devote a lot more resources to their non-military space industry.
  - madeuptempacct 8y ago
    It's good to hear about wheat production - that wasn't exactly going well for them after losing Ukraine. "Their oil industry, which used to be towering, is 'only' worth about the annual sales of Apple, or Google + Microsoft. " This isn't a good thing though. There is no credit to be given here - it causes an over-reliance on oil prices, and any time there is a market crash, they slash budgets. Pretty horrible. "With their current approach to political leadership, it's hard to imagine where the economic growth is going to come from to enable them to devote a lot more resources to their non-military space industry." Yea, I actually think Putin did a good thing in cleaning up low level corruption. But for some delusional reason I thought he would invest in education, tech, and small business once he reduced some corruption at the low level. That never happened. Pretty disappointing.

walkingolof 8y ago

Not quite accurate, the Russian space agenecy (and before that the Soviet) have tried several times to replace the Soyuz, without succeeding for various reason, but the main reason is lack of resources. Right now it looks like maybe the Soyuz 5 rocket and the Federation capsule may make it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)

baybal2 8y ago
Soyuz 5 is effectively a man rated Zenith. Zenith is made in Ukraine, and that's the end of story.
- walkingolof 8y ago
  Its not, its a new design around a methane engine, its meant in certain configurations to replace Zenith and Proton, just like Angara, it greatly overlaps with Angara which makes many question that project. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz5.html http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz5.html
  - baybal2 8y ago
    Nomenclature matters, the Soyuz 5 was a fatter Zenith integrated in Russia. The Soyuz 5.* line built around methane was originally a completely different project that was haphazardly renamed in order to conceal that the original Soyuz 5 programme went nowhere.
nine_k 8y ago
Buran was never intended as a replacement for Soyuz, I suppose. Buran + Energiya were more a replacement to Proton, and a Space Shuttle-like capability to build advanced weapons systems in space, which would require extensive human labor and maintenance. The space crew for these systems were intended to be armed with laser pistols, with prototypes produced: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/satellites/a21527129/the-soviet-laser-space-pistol-revealed/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/satellites/a21527129/...
- lambdadmitry 8y ago
  I'm not sure if Buran ever had any purpose apart from keeping up with Joneses. I mean, look at its shape. Shuttle's (comparatively) huge wings are there for polar-once-around that military asked for; why does Buran have the same? I've never ever heard of a polar-once-around requirement for Buran, despite the design considerations being more or less in the open now.
  - gandhium 8y ago
    One of the Buran designers openly admitted that they were forced to copy Shuttle since it was 'already working'.

trhway 8y ago

USSR/Russia did try new programs [somewhat] similar to US ones: - lunar mission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) : utter failure in particular because of unability to build bigger engine (like F-1). - Buran (similar to Shuttle) : technical success while somewhat unnecessary economically in much similar vain like Shuttle ... plus USSR collapse - modular architecture (Falcon 9/Heavy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angara_(rocket_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angara_(rocket_family) : 25+ years of development and still behind SpaceX - Russia seems to currently have no program, although it had it 50 years ago (RD-270), similar to the SpaceX's currently being developed full flow engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family) Flying and improving Soyuz (especially through the tough times of 199x and beginning of 200x) is definitely a success, albeit a kind of a forced one. Another great thing - refusal to sell warhead-less ICBMs to Musk in 2000 and thus forcing him to develop his own launcher :) Going forward i think the iterative engineering wouldn't allow to compete even close with SpaceX truly high-tech game changing features like the first stage reuse and probably Dragon2 capsule reuse. And Musk/SpaceX seems to be just warming up :)

baybal2 8y ago
Put hold on your optimism. Launch vehicles make only a minor part of the whole space programme, invariably of whether it is privately or publicly run. Rockets are an industry with financial model not unlike latest generation microelectronics, or jet engines. It may sound surprising, but just look at digits. It is also very similar in that regard, that it is near impossible for a newcomer to kickstart a business. You can be nearly 99% sure that there will be no company that will deliver GE9X competitor tomorrow in case of jet engines, or 7HPC process in case of semiconductor. The "added value" (really hate the term) on top of the basic piece of metal is many many times bigger than its material value. In that regard, the Soyuz being still relatively cheap, and being launched by regular engineers, rather than by 1000+ people with postdocs is a real advantage. My own prognosis is that China will eventually take lead in small payloads with cheap as dirt solid fuel LVs. And for anything else, it will still be a niche for nation-state backed heavy launcher programs.

madeuptempacct 8y ago

It is generally accepted that the USSR/Russia is more iterative in weapons development, while trying crazy one offs now and again (high speed, high depth, double-hull titanium submarines, supercavitating torpedoes, plasma stealth, 3D-thrust-vectoring on fighters, PESA radar on the MIG31, etc, etc). They keep what sticks, for example high off-bore, helmet queued IR-missile targeting on the MIG-29 (it took a while for the US AIM-9 to catch up), but go for the cheaper versions on everything else. While it is a budgetary necessity now, it simply "worked" in the past. The same can't really be said for their rockets though, Musk is going to "crush them" to quote our friend Khruschev, and then Russia has no technological lead left, at all. Maybe niches in cybersecurity and new nuclear power generators, but that seems to be about it. Tragic really.

adventured 8y ago
There is one other area of their economy that has gotten interesting in the last decade. Thanks to a leap in modernization, their wheat production doubled over ~15 years and it looks set to continue expanding. They have the potential to be a considerable agriculture power. Their oil industry, which used to be towering, is 'only' worth about the annual sales of Apple, or Google + Microsoft. With their current approach to political leadership, it's hard to imagine where the economic growth is going to come from to enable them to devote a lot more resources to their non-military space industry.
- madeuptempacct 8y ago
  It's good to hear about wheat production - that wasn't exactly going well for them after losing Ukraine. "Their oil industry, which used to be towering, is 'only' worth about the annual sales of Apple, or Google + Microsoft. " This isn't a good thing though. There is no credit to be given here - it causes an over-reliance on oil prices, and any time there is a market crash, they slash budgets. Pretty horrible. "With their current approach to political leadership, it's hard to imagine where the economic growth is going to come from to enable them to devote a lot more resources to their non-military space industry." Yea, I actually think Putin did a good thing in cleaning up low level corruption. But for some delusional reason I thought he would invest in education, tech, and small business once he reduced some corruption at the low level. That never happened. Pretty disappointing.