Comment by trhway | Hacker News Reader

Comment by trhway | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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 :)

> 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).

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com