/sci/ - Science & Math

There isn't a single cause.
It was mostly about resource allocation and luck.
The russian moon program failed because they picked a more complex solution and they run out of budged for proper testing.

What makes you think they were more successful? Or more reliable? Or less worried about prestige? None of those things seem true to me. Quite the opposite, in fact.

>>7007177
>Russian program was more successful because...?
>Russian program was not about prestige because...?
>Russian program used the same technology over and over again yet the American program lacked innovation?

>>7007177
I remember being told that the russians had an advantage because they had more results in stability theory and thus could send rockets into orbit without freezing the fuel while the americans had problems to determine whether their solution were stable or not.

>>7007177
I reckon that it had to do with the fast that the Russians tried to get into space from the 1930s while America joined the space race in the 50s. So the Russians had all there scientists in place while the Americans heavily depended on German scientists they acquired with operation paperclip. It's a gap of 20 years, it's quite an achievement for the Americans to do in 10 years what the Russians took 30 years.

Dedication.
Capitalism by its nature only suceeds in short term prestige/money oriented goals.
Communism takes a much longer view with 10-20 year sustained plans.
The ISS would never have happened without Russia giving up its technology and experience free to the USA.

>>7007177
>"Russian much more successful"
>pic of Energia than only launched twice, Russia's second least successful space program

but I know what you mean. Assuming you mean "higher launch rate" by successful, the answer is that they settled on launch solutions that were good enough and then used the heck out of them. Kosmos-3M for light payloads, Soyuz/Molniya for medium and crew, Proton for heavy. US also did lots of launches, but they are spread over more rocket designs so had more teething pains.

But another way to look at it is from the demand side. Russia had to launch more often because their satellites didn't last as long.

For manned launch, the Soyuz is just an inherently better design than the Shuttle. Cheaper, safer, shared production/infrastructure with unmanned launches. Same reason all the Commercial Crew entrants hope to reap savings (and why SLS will be as fucking expensive as the Shuttle).

>>7007242
A 10-20 year plan is useless if you can't fund it because your economy is shit. On the other hand, American capitalism funded everything the Americans did and created the first private space programs.

>>7007242
>capitalism

Are you under the impression that the American space program was run by a private business venture?

Are you also under the impression that the Soviets weren't doing it for prestige? Why do you think they did it, then?

>>7007177
>Why has the Russian space program been much more successful then the American space program?

In what way?

>>7007255
>For manned launch, the Soyuz is just an inherently better design than the Shuttle. Cheaper, safer, shared production/infrastructure with unmanned launches.
Soyuz isn't an "inherently better design" than the shuttle. The shuttle's design was much more advanced, but poorly executed. The top priority of the shuttle program was to distribute taxpayer dollars to American aerospace corporations. You can't run anything like that without spending too much money and having the wrong people doing important parts of the work.

Soyuz lost as many crews as the shuttle did. The shuttle lost more passengers, but only because it carried more passengers. Soyuz is not safer. It has more fallbacks than the shuttle, but also lower reliability of the main mode. There are frequent anomalies, and it's only a matter of time before they have another crew loss.

The main way in which Soyuz is cheaper than the shuttle was is that it's far less capable. NASA pays $70 million/seat for Soyuz. So that's $210 million for a 3-seat vehicle with no cargo. While the shuttle program was running, the incremental cost of a flight was about $500 million for a 7-seat vehicle with 25 tons of cargo. If you wanted to truly replace a shuttle flight, you'd need 3 Soyuz launches and a Delta IV Heavy, which would cost over $1 billion.

To be fair, the total program cost of the shuttle brings it up to about $1.5 billion per flight, but that includes all of the initial R&D and facility construction back to the 70s. Those sorts of costs, paid in the Soviet era, aren't factored into recent Soyuz prices, and the EELVs also have high program costs.

>Same reason all the Commercial Crew entrants hope to reap savings (and why SLS will be as fucking expensive as the Shuttle).
SLS will be much more expensive than the shuttle, and SpaceX is the only Commercial Crew entrant that's about reaping savings.

>>7007283
>>7007296
The economy is shit now because the Saudi's are going to crash the US shale gas market and and gain global leverage for the expansion of Sunni'ism(?). Western sanctions are doing the rest.

Russia SHOULD have been getting closer to the west, but Ukraine was rushed by the EU. Soyuz IS needed for a mars push (unless that is bollox US propaganda).

Do you measure success by short expensive steps or long term consistency?

>>7007402
You just are not factoring in the R & D costs for not only shuttle but standard launches. Soyuz because it is old tech is far cheaper.0

>>7007418
>You just are not factoring in the R & D costs for not only shuttle but standard launches.
I don't know what you mean by that. I gave a figure including the R&D costs for the shuttle. We don't have Soyuz program costs.

>Soyuz because it is old tech is far cheaper.0
As I pointed out, this isn't really true. In the first place, the space shuttle was also old tech, from the 1970s.

Secondly, to replace a shuttle flight using its full capabilities (take 7 crew and 20+ tons of cargo to the ISS), you'd need 3 manned Soyuz launches ($630 million to NASA), plus a Delta IV Heavy ($300+ million to NASA, plus you've got to allocate a share of the EELV "capabilities maintenance" payments, so really, $500 million up to a billion), plus a spacecraft to precisely maneuver the Delta IV Heavy payload to rendezvous with the ISS (even though it doesn't sound impressive, this is also going to be a large expense, at least in the tens of millions, and possibly over $100 million).

To really replace a shuttle flight, they'd all have to happen at exactly the same time, and they'd have to provide independent crew accommodations for a couple of weeks, and support EVA work.

Soyuz is far cheaper because it's a little capsule with very limited capabilities, and because the Russian space program is not treated as a way to distribute large amounts of government money to private businesses and create jobs in the various home districts of legislators. SpaceX is not using old technology, but their launch vehicle is already cheaper than Soyuz, and their manned spacecraft will be too.

A capsule is not a space shuttle alternative. When the shuttle was used for crew rotation on the ISS, it could rotate the whole crew in one launch and also came with many tons of pressurized cargo in a large volume, replacing several resupply missions at the same time. Conversely, the shuttle could not replace a capsule, since it couldn't do lifeboat duty by staying docked for months.

>>7007296

>Are you also under the impression that the Soviets weren't doing it for prestige? Why do you think they did it, then?

The space programs of both the US and the USSR was/is about developing missile technology. Everything else is just a kind of extra bonus that is kept running primarily for propaganda purposes. Like "the space race" for example was effectively just a series of rapid advancements in missile technology (i.e. propulsion and guidance of rockets) which was sold as the early stages of the new golden age of humanity in which we would colonize the planets and eventually travel between the stars.

>>7007177
Great thread! I just changed my desktop background.

BTW, I had no idea before today but apparently Russians did a first EVA.

And their submarine programs were way behind

You win some, you lose some

>>7007575
this wasnt about winning or losing some. Nice try amerifat.

Soyuz is far cheaper because it's a little capsule with very limited capabilities, and because the >Russian space program is not treated as a way to distribute large amounts of government money to private businesses and create jobs in the various home districts of legislators.

There i rest my case.

Incidentally, i was never criticising the US, you are putting up sats to survey the globe for climate/temp/moisture changes. Respect for that, no other fucking country would do it. (Well i respect it anyway).

But i stil stand by my initial statement, the 'public' space program is cheaper and more succesful due to the political system (and lack of investment).

>>7007403
Does pretending you know what you're talking about on the internet satisfy your insecure personality, or is it just for giggles?

>>7007325
>anglosphere outnumbers all others

feels good man

Yeah russian program is far more succesful I mean for gods sake they have a flag on the moo.. oh wait

>>7007887
I do so apologise. Obviously economics has no bearing on science at all.
I didnt realise I had an insecure personality, should I seek treatment? (You are clearly a qualified clinical psychologist).

>>7008145
Moon isn't everything dude.

as a murrifat I do not regard the Russian space program as successful at all. They waited until after the americans produce communication satellites, spy satellites, weather satellites, tv satellites. They waited until after Americans to make a global positioning system. The Russians launched 18 failed missions to mars in a row while the US sent four rovers. This is not a program we should be modeling. I think we have more to learn from the Indians space program which has produced good results on minuscule budgets.

>>7007255
>the answer is that they settled on launch solutions that were good enough and then used the heck out of them.
So did we, but that didn't stop it from becoming one of the most expensive launch systems in existence.

>>7008934
But stil... The russians had the first sattelite in orbit, they had the first man in space and so on... So yeah, they are quite succesful

No body realizes it, but Russia is a much better country than the U.S.

>>7008991
>No body realizes it, but Russia is a much better country than the U.S.
never been there but I can tell you one thing... 50 years from now that country will still be united while the US will be engulfed in long-term civil/racial/god-knows-what kind of wars. personally, I wish I was born 40 years ago so I don't have to go through nightmare that's coming.

>>7007177
Because since the cold war there hasnt been a reason for the US as a nation to spend the time and resources. We're nlw witnessing a cultural and privatized movement towards space, which will inevitably surpass other countries.

The moon landing of America on tv was fake the moon is already occupied by ET's that why they never returned they keep this shit secret.

>>7008991
yeah they're just cream of the crop when it comes to human rights. remember how the LGBT protests went?

>>7009029
no one cares about genderfaggots anyway.

>>7007403
>Soyuz IS needed for a mars push
I sincerely can't see in what way can Soyuz be useful for a mars push, unless you are assembling craft on the orbit, which you don't.
>>7008991
I would not say so. It has its share of upsides, but also its share of problems, and some of them, though serious, are hard to see from the outside. And the upcoming ten or so years will be rather interesting and unpredictable. Still like being here.
t. Russian

>>7009819
>assembling craft on the orbit, which you dont.

I actually dont know where you are coming from here. The sheer quantity of 'stuff' needed for 'colonisation' of mars is HUGE.

Are you going to send it bit-by-bit (expensive) or as one-or-two huge deliveries?

I had no idea the ISS was fully assembled on the ground and launched as one lump... I will look up the youtube for THAT launch !

>>7007402

>The main way in which Soyuz is cheaper than the shuttle was is that it's far less capable. NASA pays $70 million/seat for Soyuz. So that's $210 million for a 3-seat vehicle with no cargo. While the shuttle program was running, the incremental cost of a flight was about $500 million for a 7-seat vehicle with 25 tons of cargo. If you wanted to truly replace a shuttle flight, you'd need 3 Soyuz launches and a Delta IV Heavy, which would cost over $1 billion.

Not really. The Soviets had a different methodology paradigm. Instead of the Shuttle, which is a relaunchable Salyut class space station that lasted 2 weeks, they had the Mir/Soyuz/Progress system, where cosmonauts lived in space permanently for a decade and with the space station component larger and permanently stationed in space, and resupplied. It turns out you get more efficient man hours in space that way. Soyuz could last 6 months on orbit.

If America didn't have the Shuttle, they wouldn't be trying to do 2 week shuttle missions a few times a year like that. They operated Shuttle just to keep operating it and their mission extent was catered around what it could do. Shuttle is over, and we're not replicating its missions like that: we're on the space station track instead which is a different approach.

And you can't ignore Shuttle ongoing fixed costs, or that missions to launch sats don't need crew and can get away with just a rocket.

>>7007402

>and the EELVs also have high program costs.

Those are already part of the ticket price NASA pays. A portion is pro-rated to non-Air Force outside consumers to pay back a portion of fixed costs. EELVs have Air Force to help shoulder the burden of maintenance.

>>7007177

>Why has the Russian space program been much more successful then the American space program?

it's not though

I mean, for fuck's sake the entire Russian space agency lags behind a fairly new startup (SpaceX). The only reason the Russian space agency was ever taken seriously was because Sputnik scared the shit out of everyone in the early 1950s.

Also, the USAF have the x-47 which has the record for longest flight hours in orbit before successfully returning to earth. But the nature of it's activities is classified, because it probably launches spy satellites.

>>7007403

>because the Saudi's are going to crash the US shale gas market

Actually they're crashing Russia's oil industry, gazprom laid off a third of their workforce a month again. Meanwhile current US fracking wells remain profitable, and new wells will be duge when the Saudis inevitably have to raise prices again when ISIS comes for their next bribe.

And Soyuz is old and more outdated than the shuttle, especially when Lockheed said they might have a nuclear rocket motor by 2030.

>>7010966
>nuclear rocket
Oh great, give the hippiefags a reason to ally with the conserfags to tear down even more science.

>>7010969

the anti-nuclear movement is basically dead now

also, conservatives are generally pro-nuclear and pro-space, because if anything it means billion dollar contracts to campaign backers and jobs for their constituents

>>7010973

>the anti-nuclear movement is basically dead now
What paradise land do you live in that isn't the US? There are five nuclear power stations on train, McConnell loves coal, and California is building solar farms.

>because if anything it means billion dollar contracts to campaign backers and jobs for their constituents
Which means that they aren't really pro-either of those things. Just pro-politically motivated and pro-awfully managed programs.

>>7010973
>anti-nuclear movement is basically dead now
I'd say they're placated at most. By the ongoing silence in the industry.

Try suggesting increased utility of nuclear power to a group of self-proclaimed greens and it'll be a shitstorm of 'muh feels take precedence over science'.

My otherwise sane sister has a case of 'the atums are evul' and it's a pain.

>>7007180
>a more complex solution
What is it?

>>7010978

>What paradise land do you live in that isn't the US?

I live in the US.

>There are five nuclear power stations on train, McConnell loves coal, and California is building solar farms.

California is in decline, as evidenced by the huge exodus of middle class types out of the state. And McConnell represents Clark County, which is just an extension of California. Neither are very good indicators of nuclear power investment. Meanwhile Texas is getting two new reactors by 2025, even though much of the state's money comes from oil. While Fukishimia slowed things down, a nuclear renaissance is well underway and picking up more steam each year.

>Which means that they aren't really pro-either of those things. Just pro-politically motivated and pro-awfully managed programs.

so? We still get things as a result.

>>7010981

>Try suggesting increased utility of nuclear power to a group of self-proclaimed greens and it'll be a shitstorm of 'muh feels take precedence over science'.

nobody gives a shit about people who identify as "green", especially when they started shit with the AFL over the Keystone XL pipeline. They are politically irrelevant.

>>7007235
>from the 1930s
What?

inb4 Tsiolkovsky, he was a great man really outside of time, but he never built rockets

>>7007403
>The economy is shit now because the Saudi's are going to crash the US shale gas market and and gain global leverage for the expansion of Sunni'ism(?).
/pol/ fuk offff
Also, Saudi are the best US firend on Middle East

>>7010993

>And McConnell represents Clark County, which is just an extension of California.
Anon what?

>so? We still get things as a result.
No, that's not necessarily true at all.

Here, basic science and history aside, this is a good primer on the current state of the US nuclear industry: http://www.brookings.edu/research/essays/2014/backtothefuture

>>7010992
Having 3 times as many engines, therefore 3times as likely something will go wrong and IIRC they used really nasty fuel mix that theoreticaly had more power, but they failed to fix the problems

>>7010973
No it's not, look at Germany
They closed ALL nuclear plants because of them

>>7011040
What nasty fuel mix?
They used querosene as always.

Also they tried to use very advanced engines (the sames as in Antares) and they couldn't build them bigger, creating many problems to control them all

The reason that Russian space program is better is because NASA gets barely any money since the space race ended because Americans give 0 fucks about space and american politics are about what the people think.

>>7011114
And roscosmos gets even less money since the ussr collapsed because economy is shit, and it has to rely on help from nasa and selling what they got to get money.

>>7011041
>They closed ALL nuclear plants
no we didn't.
our politicians slowly recover from the greentard movement, it's probably too late for nuclear energy in germany though.

>government space programs
>viable
Heh

>>7010966
2030 is too long.

For a 'real' mars mission we (imho) need 2 of them. 1 'tug' doing a 'bus' run earth2mars another docked at a station in mars orbit for 'emergency' return to earth. ( i am not a believer in suicide missions).