4 ms·

> Soviet rocket designs remain pretty much unsurpassed to this day Well except for SpaceX’s reusable rockets which are the future. Im sure there will be some

> Soviet rocket designs remain pretty much unsurpassed to this day Well except for SpaceX’s reusable rockets which are the future. Im sure there will be some use for current Soviet rockets in the future but unless they come out with something to compete with Elon’s they are going to be left behind.

cartoonworld 5y ago
Oh, yes. Don't get me wrong -- it's over! I don't disagree with you either, it's another example of how misplaced development priorities can look like winning big until the handkerchief reveals a fat, dead rabbit. edit: the rabbit stinks, too.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Eh, I disagree. Soviet rockets are really exceptional to such a level that, for the task of for example putting people into the ISS, they are so cheap that making the rocket isn't even the most expensive part. These numbers are from 2-3 years ago, total launch cost is 4 billion rubles, while the cost of a Soyuz FG is 0.9 billion rubles. So the rocket is actually less than 25% of the cost of the launch, which is why Soyuz will for the foreseeable future be more efficient at its task than any rocket, reusable or not (!!!) So as a product intended to fulfill a task, the Soyuz is actually the result of much better engineering decisions and really engineering and manufacturing in general than anything else. Because it's performance here is launch reliability, where it's #1 and can launch in conditions the SpaceX craft can't, as well as cost, where it is still lower and will be lower than anything else for over 50 years.
  - cartoonworld 5y ago
    Really interesting, thanks for the insight. Since I was a boy, I had wondered why we hadn't improved our launch vehicles, I saw new cars and planes and electronics and whatnot produced every year, but I often wondered why the Space Shuttle was still the thing we used "to go into space". I learned about RAMJET/SCRAMJET, doted on Star Trek warp drives and fantasized about teleportation, I kind of never questioned that rocket lift technology might have just reached some newtonian limits. I've certainly never considered the total cost of launches and the reliability or weather considerations. A 25% cost reduction from vehicle recovery sounds great, but I've read "Eccentric Orbits" and am now considering there are many additional factors in these programs. I don't know very much about launch economics, especially since there is clearly much to consider. Thanks for the perspective.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      The best way to look at it, IMHO, is from the demand side. Q: Why has space technology remained fairly stagnant? A: Because the economic demand to fund improvements hasn't existed. We look at the market and say "But all those satellites! Surely they could pay for it." But that's underestimating (a) the cost of development (HUGE! And there's a low-quantity of launches to amortize over) & (b) the value of incremental improvement (negligible, as most current customers aren't cost sensitive). That's SpaceX's real genius. Reusability isn't a competitive advantage unless it coincides with increased demand. Demand which they themselves seeded via the StarLink constellation.
sudosysgen 5y ago
Eh, yes and no. Reusable rockets are the future but in many aspects they are still behind Soviet technology, especially as far as engines and cost efficiency, which is quite incredible. Indeed, the NK-33 has a higher ISP and similar throttle range than the Merlin engines. There are even more efficient engines but IIRC they are not comparable in throttle range or TWR. The Raptor engines are better, but they haven't flown a mission yet. But the killer feature of Soviet rockets is really their cost. They are much cheaper than anything else due to much cheaper design and engineering for their performance. The Merlin engine is much much more difficult to manufacture than the NK-33 and much more expensive. This leads to a situation where it's much cheaper to build and entire Soyuz, throw it away, and build another one, than to use a reused Falcon rocket to put people into the ISS, per person. The Soyuz, even when you throw it away, is so cheap that IIRC most of the cost is from operational expenses and not actually purchasing the craft.
deepnotderp 5y ago
He's talking about the staged combustion cycle kerolox engines, which are still far more efficient than the Merlin engines. Even with more advanced nickel based "superalloys" the US has still been unable to build a closed cycle kerolox engine.

cartoonworld 5y ago

Oh, yes. Don't get me wrong -- it's over! I don't disagree with you either, it's another example of how misplaced development priorities can look like winning big until the handkerchief reveals a fat, dead rabbit. edit: the rabbit stinks, too.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Eh, I disagree. Soviet rockets are really exceptional to such a level that, for the task of for example putting people into the ISS, they are so cheap that making the rocket isn't even the most expensive part. These numbers are from 2-3 years ago, total launch cost is 4 billion rubles, while the cost of a Soyuz FG is 0.9 billion rubles. So the rocket is actually less than 25% of the cost of the launch, which is why Soyuz will for the foreseeable future be more efficient at its task than any rocket, reusable or not (!!!) So as a product intended to fulfill a task, the Soyuz is actually the result of much better engineering decisions and really engineering and manufacturing in general than anything else. Because it's performance here is launch reliability, where it's #1 and can launch in conditions the SpaceX craft can't, as well as cost, where it is still lower and will be lower than anything else for over 50 years.
- cartoonworld 5y ago
  Really interesting, thanks for the insight. Since I was a boy, I had wondered why we hadn't improved our launch vehicles, I saw new cars and planes and electronics and whatnot produced every year, but I often wondered why the Space Shuttle was still the thing we used "to go into space". I learned about RAMJET/SCRAMJET, doted on Star Trek warp drives and fantasized about teleportation, I kind of never questioned that rocket lift technology might have just reached some newtonian limits. I've certainly never considered the total cost of launches and the reliability or weather considerations. A 25% cost reduction from vehicle recovery sounds great, but I've read "Eccentric Orbits" and am now considering there are many additional factors in these programs. I don't know very much about launch economics, especially since there is clearly much to consider. Thanks for the perspective.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    The best way to look at it, IMHO, is from the demand side. Q: Why has space technology remained fairly stagnant? A: Because the economic demand to fund improvements hasn't existed. We look at the market and say "But all those satellites! Surely they could pay for it." But that's underestimating (a) the cost of development (HUGE! And there's a low-quantity of launches to amortize over) & (b) the value of incremental improvement (negligible, as most current customers aren't cost sensitive). That's SpaceX's real genius. Reusability isn't a competitive advantage unless it coincides with increased demand. Demand which they themselves seeded via the StarLink constellation.

sudosysgen 5y ago

Eh, yes and no. Reusable rockets are the future but in many aspects they are still behind Soviet technology, especially as far as engines and cost efficiency, which is quite incredible. Indeed, the NK-33 has a higher ISP and similar throttle range than the Merlin engines. There are even more efficient engines but IIRC they are not comparable in throttle range or TWR. The Raptor engines are better, but they haven't flown a mission yet. But the killer feature of Soviet rockets is really their cost. They are much cheaper than anything else due to much cheaper design and engineering for their performance. The Merlin engine is much much more difficult to manufacture than the NK-33 and much more expensive. This leads to a situation where it's much cheaper to build and entire Soyuz, throw it away, and build another one, than to use a reused Falcon rocket to put people into the ISS, per person. The Soyuz, even when you throw it away, is so cheap that IIRC most of the cost is from operational expenses and not actually purchasing the craft.

deepnotderp 5y ago

He's talking about the staged combustion cycle kerolox engines, which are still far more efficient than the Merlin engines. Even with more advanced nickel based "superalloys" the US has still been unable to build a closed cycle kerolox engine.