4 ms·

Soyuz spacecraft was technologically simpler - yet safer - than Space Shuttle. It can be argued that US had technically superior, but safety-wise inferior acces

by avmich 2y ago

Soyuz spacecraft was technologically simpler - yet safer - than Space Shuttle. It can be argued that US had technically superior, but safety-wise inferior access to space capability until 2011, when the last Space Shuttle flight happened, then US had zero crewed spaceflight capability until 2020, and after that US again had technically superior access to space capability. Russia in contrast didn't develop its crewed spaceflight capability, it uses the technology left from the USSR. Russia maintains that technology, but progress with the improvements is rather slow. So Russia wasn't lagging in a sense of having - and using - a technology, but definitely was and is lagging in a sense of developing a new technology. As we see, the lagging of US - in a sense of having and using a technology - was for 9 years, and lagging of Russia - in a sense of having and using technology - for now is about 5 years. In a sense of developing new crewed space technology Russia is lagging roughly since the dissolution of the USSR, so 30+ years. There were quite a few attempts - again, in crewed space technology - but little results.

kragen 2y ago
I disagree that the Space Shuttle was technically superior. It was more complex, more expensive, and less safe; in my book all three of those are forms of technical inferiority. The Space Shuttle program was already a significant regression from the capabilities of Apollo. Yes, it's true that Russia wasn't making much progress on improvements on Soyuz, but neither was the US; instead they were backsliding faster than Russia was. I think we can date the US's crewed-spaceflight inferiority to Russia to roughly 01972, when Apollo ended; Russia had launched the first space station the year before, and though the US would briefly operate Skylab in 01973–4, but would not catch up to the Russians again in crewed spaceflight until 02020. The Space Shuttle boondoggle made it possible for sufficiently motivated people to deny this until 02011.
- avmich 2y ago
  Yes, the Shuttle was more complex, expensive and dangerous than Soyuz, and yes, those are forms of technical inferiority. But the Shuttle was capable of solo flights for couple of weeks without adverse effects of Soyuz - that is, Shuttle was bigger, and that's useful. Shuttle brought the bigger crew - more than twice bigger, so there could be better specialization and division of labor, and even the amount of tasks done per unit of time. Shuttle brought significant payload capability - so the crew could make final preparations before the payload would be launched. Similarly Shuttle can "dock" to Hubble to service it. Or crew could work on orbit in SpaceLab which Shuttle carried to orbit and back. Those are advantages. Shuttle was more gentle in landing - of course, when things went well. Landing on the strip without passing significant acceleration moments before that - that's another advantage. I don't think SU and Russia had technical superiority over US - except admittedly safety of the Shuttle, and except those periods when US hadn't have the capability at all. Safety is a big item, so Russia can claim superiority for this reason, and also for simplicity and cheapness, but better US solutions - e.g. with Crew Dragon - suggest it's normal that flying to space better - for many reasons, some of which are shown above - may be either more expensive or will require significant changes, like e.g. modern America companies are pushing. Now Russia doesn't have much of superiority left, and little capabilities to attain it, or at least it seems so. It's arguably better to have the ability to develop to the needed level, than just to carefully preserve achievements of the past.

by avmich 2y ago

kragen 2y ago

I disagree that the Space Shuttle was technically superior. It was more complex, more expensive, and less safe; in my book all three of those are forms of technical inferiority. The Space Shuttle program was already a significant regression from the capabilities of Apollo. Yes, it's true that Russia wasn't making much progress on improvements on Soyuz, but neither was the US; instead they were backsliding faster than Russia was. I think we can date the US's crewed-spaceflight inferiority to Russia to roughly 01972, when Apollo ended; Russia had launched the first space station the year before, and though the US would briefly operate Skylab in 01973–4, but would not catch up to the Russians again in crewed spaceflight until 02020. The Space Shuttle boondoggle made it possible for sufficiently motivated people to deny this until 02011.

avmich 2y ago
Yes, the Shuttle was more complex, expensive and dangerous than Soyuz, and yes, those are forms of technical inferiority. But the Shuttle was capable of solo flights for couple of weeks without adverse effects of Soyuz - that is, Shuttle was bigger, and that's useful. Shuttle brought the bigger crew - more than twice bigger, so there could be better specialization and division of labor, and even the amount of tasks done per unit of time. Shuttle brought significant payload capability - so the crew could make final preparations before the payload would be launched. Similarly Shuttle can "dock" to Hubble to service it. Or crew could work on orbit in SpaceLab which Shuttle carried to orbit and back. Those are advantages. Shuttle was more gentle in landing - of course, when things went well. Landing on the strip without passing significant acceleration moments before that - that's another advantage. I don't think SU and Russia had technical superiority over US - except admittedly safety of the Shuttle, and except those periods when US hadn't have the capability at all. Safety is a big item, so Russia can claim superiority for this reason, and also for simplicity and cheapness, but better US solutions - e.g. with Crew Dragon - suggest it's normal that flying to space better - for many reasons, some of which are shown above - may be either more expensive or will require significant changes, like e.g. modern America companies are pushing. Now Russia doesn't have much of superiority left, and little capabilities to attain it, or at least it seems so. It's arguably better to have the ability to develop to the needed level, than just to carefully preserve achievements of the past.