Hacker News Reader

Comment by sitharus | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

USSR/Russia did try new programs [somewhat] similar to US ones:

- lunar mission 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) : 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)

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 :)

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.

> 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.

There are probably more people in accounting dept of OKB Khrunichev than in whole of SpaceX.

How probably it is?

Sorry, I cannot help but ask.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4...

Number of people working (число работников): 45000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Headquarters,_manufactu...

"Nevertheless, SpaceX still has over 3,000 suppliers with some 1,100 of those delivering to SpaceX nearly weekly."

I guess you have to have 15 workers working for average supplier to reach these pesky 45000 workers of OKBK.

These two companies have more or less similar structure and must have more or less similar number of workers. For US to have twice population of Russia it is quite possible to have more workers working (indirectly) with SpaceX, in my opinion.

Let's compare apples to apples. Krhunichev has its own massive supply chain, it doesn't make everything in house as well.

Spacex has 5k employees on payroll, Khrunichev 45K, a 9x difference.

One is a research institute with commercial launch business, another is a launch company, with own RnD, and production.

We have to compare apples to apples.

Khrunichev is a design and manufacturing facility, directly comparable to SpaceX. SpaceX also manages its own launches.

The whole idea that a post-Soviet state bureaucracy is not just comparable, but somehow more nimble than a new commercial upstart is ridiculous.

> Flying and improving Soyuz (especially through the tough times of 199x and beginning of 200x) is definitely a success

Let's not forget that they survived those 'tough times' with generous US financing.

Let's not forget that the US was buying up USSR tech as much as it could during those times. The US bought the designs for the YAK-141, which helped the development of the F-35. Oh, and the Russians invented stealth.

I was wondering why you were trying to prove your invalid point that the USSR did not lead in innovation in some, limited sectors - looks like the only thing your account does is hate on Russia.

Which is fine, but I am kind of interested in the why.

Yes, USSR invented stealth, internet, iphone, google and whatnot.

Ok, on the serious side - US obtained that design in joint agreement with a huge financial boon for YAK bureau to develop another plane for Russia.

Guess what - nothing from Yak design went into F-35 and nothing was produced in Russia by Yak.

Coincidence? I think not(c).

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/Buran_(spacecraft)

Soyuz 5 is effectively a man rated Zenith. Zenith is made in Ukraine, and that's the end of story.

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

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.

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/...

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.

One of the Buran designers openly admitted that they were forced to copy Shuttle since it was 'already working'.

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.

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.

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.

> IR-missile targeting on the MIG-29 (it took a while for the US AIM-9 to catch up)

AIM-9L (first type with IR/Laser) started producing in 1977. First MiG-29 flight was in 1977 (and I highly doubt that they had IR-missile targeting at that time).

Where's 'took a while' actually?

The AIM-9 had way less off-bore capability and could not be helmet aimed like the missile of the MIG-29. The US did not catch up on helmet-queued missiles. US pilots were stunned by the MIG-29s ability to win dog fights when they tested the plane in Germany. Hopefully I gave you enough to google.

"From 1969 the SEAM was incorporated in the F-4J and enabled the missile to be locked on a target off boresight slaving the missile's seeker head to the aircraft radar. "

1969 was way before MiG-29 first flight.

If you google enough, you might also find that there were experimental elicopter models of targeting helmets as well. In the meantime, you might want to concede that the Russians had a better system in this regard.

Straight from Wikipedia:

VTAS received praise[by whom?] for its effectiveness in targeting off-boresight missiles, but the U.S. did not pursue fielding it except for integration into late-model Navy F-4 Phantoms equipped with the AIM-9 Sidewinder.[5] HMDs were also introduced in helicopters during this time.[citation needed] were fielded by the South African Air Force. After the South African system had been proven in combat, playing a role in downing Soviet aircraft over Angola, the Soviets embarked on a crash program to counter the technology. As a result, the MiG-29 was fielded in 1985 with an HMD and a high off-boresight weapon (R-73), giving them an advantage in close in maneuvering engagements.

Several nations[which?] responded with programs to counter the MiG-29/HMD/R-73 (and later Su-27) combination once its effectiveness was known, principally through access to former East German MiG-29s that were operated by the unified German Air Force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display#ZSh-5_/...

So, in which conflict it was proved to be better?

The many technological areas where Russia is far behind the world include renewable energy, lithium-ion batteries, and electric vehicles. This is not surprising given that Putin's government is so closely tied to the fossil fuel industry.

On EV's, see this link, the answer to question 11 https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/28/an-interview-with-the-m...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com