Hacker News Reader

Comment by andyjohnson0 | Hacker News Reader

The Russian Luna-25 lander mentionedin the article crash landed a few days ago. They dont appear to be a serious contender at the moment.

View on HN

I get it, you dislike Russia - but they are objectively one of the most experienced and consistent contenders in the space race.

Around 1,800 space launches (including USSR) vs 1,500 USA. And they seem to be increasing the frequency of launches.

In what way?

Just look at the negative tone towards all things Russia in their posts. This type of emotionally driven attitude clouds judgement.

And sure, there’s plenty to criticize about Russian politics but that doesn’t mean they aren’t a space contender.

Heck, replace Russia with India. India has a ton of basic problems but that is not stopping them from competing.

>"[Russia] are objectively one of the most experienced and consistent contenders in the space race."

I mean I'm not sure if this is true.

How not? Russia has been launching payloads even throughout the war (30 or so in 2023 - including unspecified military systems).

They until recently sold around 100 RD-180 rockets to the US - none of which experienced issues. Not to mention putting US astronauts into space.

Russia is one of the few nations that actually have the history, engineering talent, finances and the raw resources to compete.

It might be true but I doubt a sanctioned nation will be able to continue a largely unproductive enterprise at this scale. They have definitely been punching above their weight so far though, unfortunately it will probably fizzle out soon

Have you noticed who Russia shares it's borders with? Go read about which chips the devastatingly effective Lancet 3 drone contains (hint: made in 2022 & 2023).

Plus, it's been widely reported that Russian military industrial output is way up with factories working 3 shifts, etc. We are not talking about illiterate Afghanis.

Yes, they absolutely were, but their golden era is long past. The Soyuz is a workhouse but it's also basically a 1960s design, and Russia isn't even trying to build reusable rockets.

Angara, Amur, Soyuz-5, Soyuz-7 are all in the works.

Angara and Soyuz-5 are designed to be reusable to some extent.

> The Soyuz is a workhouse but it's also basically a 1960s design

If you want to say something is obsolete, you need to be more specific. I'm sure a lot of "1960s design[s]" are state of the art.

I don't dislike Russia. I dislike what the Russian government is doing to the world, and the peril that it creates for us all. I dislike the stubborn nationalistic gullibility among some Russians that is aiding this. And I dislike the cynical destruction of hope and opportunity for young Russians. They, and all of us, deserve better.

You basically proved my point: maybe you don't "dislike" them, but you are looking at their space program through an emotional lens of how you "feel" about them, not based on their actual technical merit.

It's an easy trap to fall into, but a dangerous one. We've also seen it manifested in the war prognosticating ("they're a bunch of drunks who will run out of missiles soon!"). Well, apparently there are some sober ones.

> It's an easy trap to fall into, but a dangerous one.

So is patronising people on the internet, it seems.

I'm going to leave it there.

It's really weird the spin on this. Space X rockets (and others) blow up all the time, it's part of the R&D process. So not sure why this is being reported so negatively (well, actually, I do, of course...)

Because this was not an R&D mission?

> It's really weird the spin on this.

The "spin" is coming from you.

> Space X rockets (and others) blow up all the time

SpaceX has done ~227 successful Falcon missions in a row. Those rockets do NOT "blow up all the time". Further, the success rate of the Falcon 9 is 247/249. Meaning, 99.20%. For the block 5 variant it is 192/192 or 100% success rate.

SpaceX is also developing some rockets. You seem to be comparing rockets which are under development and where SpaceX often gives a low probability of success with missions that are supposed to work. The development rockets are NOT in production, they are NOT used to bring cargo in space. It's really apples vs oranges.

> So not sure why this is being reported so negatively (well, actually, I do, of course...)

Instead of giving some stupid hint just say what you wanted to say. Up to now what you said doesn't make sense to me, so no why not explain the rest as well.

>well, actually, I do, of course...

I think it's because Luna-24 nearly 5 decades ago was a success, and reported Soviet success rates of their probe programs were 100% (despite the actual number being lower), alongside some cheekiness due to Russian timeline being chosen to land just before the Indian mission.

I don't think that such a failure of a 50 year old technology with a previous "100%" success rate is that weird for people to have such a take about. I think it is weird that you suggest SpaceX rockets are blowing up all the time, when a much more direct and accurate comparison would be the Japanese/Israeli lander failure.

Do we consider Japan/Israel serious contenders to NASA/ESA in space here? Probably not in the same way as India and China.

It wasn't a rocket that blew up. The launch was successful. Something failed on the Luna 25 spacecraft itself when it was moving to a pre-landing orbit, and it crashed into the Moon.

That kind of thing just doesn't happen to NASA and ESA very much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com