I find your attitude inconprehensiple. Their space program was a early inovator (though largely just for cheap PR). After a couple years they peaked with the Soyuz, which wasn’t top rate even for the day. And for well over 40 years they’ve put minimal effort or funds into their program. They do a few small scale efforts – etc. Not exactly pushing themself or their abilities.

Now Russia has some excelent folks, doing top rate aerospace efforts – but not in space. The new Sukoiu fighter looks to be more capable then the F-22, making everything but the F-22 (which we discontinued!!) as little more then targets. They build one of the best kerosene LOx rocket engines around, and are excelent at mathmatical analysis. They know how to build some excelet space craft designs — they just don’t.

Similarly I’ve been very straight forward about thinking NASA, though much more expansive then the Russian program, is also laughably backward. Claiming as cutting edge, or imposible, technologies they operated in production generations ago or continuously for decades. And Griffens “design to Pork” Constellation should have gotten him thrown in Jail.

But raving about Soyuz and the Russian space program as the model we should aspire to, is as crazy as GM deciding to base their new car lines on versions of the Edsel! Or IBM coming out with their next generation BetzMax based back up drives for PC’s!

If yuo think Soyuz (or Dragon or Orion for that mater), offer a great model for the future — your building a road back to the past with less and less usage of, and access to, space.

Actually I was talking about Soyuz or Gemini. But as to “robust and successful space program” It didn’t really do much or try to. (Limited number of space probes, limited LEO operations It has failed to update or improve its craft from the very limited ‘60’s equipment, and currently is under extreme pressure due to lack of funding.

As to Soyuz, its a very small, not very capable craft, that’s extremely brutal to passengers (how likely is a badly injured crewman being evac’ed on it – to be killed by the 10 G landing?), and was scary crude by the standards of the ‘60’s (Soviets were very embarrassed to let westerners see how crude it was compared to US capsules), and of course the US capsules are laughably crude by current standards.
Beyond that. Capsules are a high cost, low capability design configuration. If you need quick and dirty and need to fit on existing ICBM’s – its a compromise you might go for if you pushed. Its not a preferred design.

> == If you want to banter ‘strange’ then it’s ‘strange’
> you’d be so critical, if not defensive, over any recognition
> of Soviet/Russian space accomplishments. It smacks of
> the kind of thinking you’d expect circa 1970. ===

What’s with all this political embrace the Soviets/Russians crap coming from?! I started with – they have a crappy little capsule – and your jumping to defend the honor of their fatherland?!

Its a crappy little capsule. It doesn’t mater if the folks did historic or heroic stuff with it, its still a crappy little capsule. Its still a crappy capsule even if the Russian space workers are unpaid, and getting damn near no gov support. Had the gov been supporting their space program, the Russian space workers would have replaced Soyuz long ago. THEY think its a crappy little capsule, and a limitation on their whole space program. Had we stuck to our somewhat less crappy capsules, we never would have managed to do what we’ve done over the last 30 years, and certainly can’t do as much in the future with Orion, or commercial crew capsule, etc.

>> And that would be 2 crews, out of the 100 + flights, they lost.

== NASA lost two reuseable orbiters which is not
>particularly cost-effective,==

Humm – I wonder what the relative construction cost was between a 100 Soyuz , or 5-6 Orbiters divided by 130?

Dumb thought – how do you even compare costs over Soviet era and US? Certainly Apollo and Orion Capsules over as many flights would cost vastly more then the purchase and servicing costs of the Orbiters. Orions were hoped to cost abuot $200+M a peace not including overhead. Adjusting for inflation the 6 Orbiters (incase yuo want to count Enterprise as a full cost orbiter) came to about $110M per flight, well under $200M with preflight servicing.

Agree though NASA management is dangerously incompetent – especially given both accidents were traced to management errors.

>==. It was a leaner and more efficient/effective government
> agency in times past. ==

Ah, but then it didn’t have to play by civil service rules. No civil service agency can be competent because the system is not set up to reward or promote competence.

And that would be 2 crews, out of the 100 + flights, they lost. <– Uh, that would be four people over 40 years — not 14 in 17 years as NASA has. Los of life aside, NASA lost two reuseable orbiters which is not particularly cost-effective, is it. You best revisit the history of NASA. It's long overdue for a serious house cleaning of weak, dead-wood managers and the trimming of layers of bureaucratic management. It was a leaner and more efficient/effective government agency in times past. This is not your father's NASA today.

> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 17th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
> Inaccurate. You best do some reading up on Soyuz. they
> lost Komarov on the first mission in ’67 and the three
> Salyut crewmen because they did not know how to
> manually close a valve as the air bled out of their vehicle during reentry.

And that would be 2 crews, out of the 100 + flights, they lost.

>>Kelly Starks,
>> Yeah but the factories are running down and the staffs
>>with their knowledge base are retiring or dieing. Quality is declining.

> it would be really great if you could provide some references
> for the decline of this infrastructure..

You could read the James Oberg article from his site. Or notice the Soyuz has started to have problems, like the one a couple flights ago where the SM wasn’t releasing due to a latch problem. They lost a guy that way early in the soyuz history. I also remember a case where it released so late the Soyuz was starting reentry. With the SM still on, it was coming nose first, and the crew was smelling the gasets around the hatch burning, then the SM released and it flipped over and it landed pretty much ok.

Also had a flight reenterabit off and wound up landing in the wrong place.

>> Actually Soyuz as a worse record with 2 crashes over
>> 100 flights, vrs shuttles 2 over 130. And with quality declining….

> Oh, I see, you do have ulterior motive.. this is simply false.

No Trent, 2 out of 100, really is more then 2 out of 130.

>> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 17th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
>> Its not a elevator – a space ship needs to be able to do something in
>> space, and get people and and gear there and do things there.

> Actually, essentially it is. Soyuz does do things. You’re too hard on it.
> It gets you there. Which is the whole point of the spacecraft, ==

;/

Its stil a POS

>== which is why it’s been flying for nearly half a century. ==

Its been flying that long because the Soviets/Russian’s can’t afford to replace it – and never wanted to do much in space. We used to – so we built a much more capable – and a bit safer – craft. If we never wanted to do anything – we’ld have stuck to Geminis.

What I’d really be a fan of is something like an Ares IV, but with no SRBs. Can we say Saturn INT-20? When we’re ready to launch cargo, strap a couple SRBs on and make it an Ares IV. When we’re ready for more cargo, swap out the upper stage and make it an Ares V.

Inline. Liquid-fueled. Evolutionary.

(Credit goes to Ryan Crierie for mentioning the INT-20.)