would china trust russia to lunch it’s own prestige space hardware?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
China's Space Program News Thread
- Thread starter crazyinsane105
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
When the Soviet and Russian engineers are the same people, who cares?Russia’s Zarya module was constructed not by Russia but by the late soviet union before it dissolved as an additional module for the Mir space station. Russia’s contribution was to repurpose inherited hardware for use in the ISS.
Yet Russia's Proton launchers are quite reliable; they have made access to the ISS routine. For many years, the only way for US astronauts to visit the ISS was to go Russia first. You like to laugh at the alleged Russian incompetence, but keep the Proton in mind -- it has an excellent record for reliability.Given the very spotty track record of Russian space endeavor with anything that was even partially developed after the dissolution of the USSR, I would not suppose Russia to be capable of developing a reliable follow on the Zarya today.
As I mentioned earlier about the moon base, let's not forget launch rate. With Russia's involvement, twice as many launches will be possible than China could probably do by itself. The extra launches will be very important for supplying a large lunar base.
This is not exactly correct. The design for Zarya was inherited from the Soviet Union. However, the US paid for the Russians to build a new one between 1994 & 1998.
that is debatable. Zarya was nominally built new in Russia with American funding using a soviet design. But the speed with which it was built and the low cost charged strongly suggest it was in fact a refurbished piece of hardware that had been mothballed during the soviet era. The theory that Zarya was existing hardware is supported by additional information about soviet space program declassified since 2000. most of Zarya was probably built between 1985-1987.
Last edited:
When the Soviet and Russian engineers are the same people, who cares?
Yet Russia's Proton launchers are quite reliable; they have made access to the ISS routine. For many years, the only way for US astronauts to visit the ISS was to go Russia first. You like to laugh at the alleged Russian incompetence, but keep the Proton in mind -- it has an excellent record for reliability.
As I mentioned earlier about the moon base, let's not forget launch rate. With Russia's involvement, twice as many launches will be possible than China could probably do by itself. The extra launches will be very important for supplying a large lunar base.
you neglect the importance of the administrative bureaucracy, the up stream supply chain and political environment to the efficiency of a space agency, All these are very different under russia as compared to the USSR. some of the technical people might be the same, but over all in terms all that have an impact the product, they are mostly not the same people.
As i said, the primary value of Russia in any space endeavor is a fleet of efficient boosters, and the soyuz capsule, inherited from the soviet union.
both of these achieved their eventual reliability by being allowed to fail many times in actual service, bespeaking a cultural approach to reliability that differs sharply from those of CNSA.
Last edited:
Yet NASA has landed on Mars multiple times while ESA crashed on it. I don't think we should go to the path of comparing piece by piece, but focus on the capabilities which is that ESA does not have something that NASA can not live without.
Nasa had crashed, or “disappeared”, it’s share of probes to Mars. what NASA had, and ESA lacked, was a set of clear and serious long term goals besides showing off, and a political atmophere that allowed NASA to stick to these goals over several decades.
that is debatable. ... most of Zarya was probably built between 1985-1987.
cite? Sorry, but I have never heard this before.
Yet Russia's Proton launchers have remained reliable, which indicates that much of the successful Soviet engineering and management has survived. If I were a cosmonaut or astronaut, I would certianly prefer to be launched by a Proton than by some flaky exploding SpaceX vehicle.you neglect the importance of the administrative bureaucracy, the up stream supply chain and political environment to the efficiency of a space agency, All these are very different under russia as compared to the USSR. some of the technical people might be the same, but over all in terms all that have an impact the product, they are mostly not the same people.
Russia could contribute far more than that. @plawolf mentioned low-g experience. I have added life support and doubled launch rate. Even if the Russians contributed only reliable launchers, that would be quite enough reason to partner with them: the launch is by far the most important step into space.As i said, the primary value of Russia in any space endeavor is a fleet of efficient boosters, and the soyuz capsule, inherited from the soviet union.
Nonsense. Early US launchers were famous for blowing up, and the Apollo 1 astronauts (Gus Grissom, Ed White, Roger Chaffee) burned to death; I doubt you would accuse the Americans of a cultural failing. In any case, the Russian rockets have a long, long track record for reliability now, and that is extremely important.both of these achieved their eventual reliability by being allowed to fail many times in actual service, bespeaking a cultural approach to reliability that differs sharply from those of CNSA.
ESA's members aren't interested in having a fully independent space program. Haven't been ever since the Berlin Wall collapsed when the Columbus space station and the Hermes space shuttle were canned. They did not even bother to make a manned capsule to use with the ISS which wouldn't have been that hard, given they already had the ATV resupply vehicle. It is not a problem of technology but political and financial will.
Russia invested quite a lot in space based nuclear power for example. They still do, checkout the Nuklon project.
Russia invested quite a lot in space based nuclear power for example. They still do, checkout the Nuklon project.
early American launchers, when they were still mostly just a civilian face for the military ballistic missile programs, certainly did have the culture of let’s see what happens. But when the truly civilian side of US space program began to receive strong political and budgetary support, the culture of through exhaustive tests quickly took hold. That doesn’t mean there were no failures. Apollo one being one example. But the track record of high probability of 1 round success and relatively low probability of subsequent failure was impressive. Saturn 5, the most ambitious rocket attempted in that era or any other, succeeded on the first launch snd never had a failure, because everything had been tested to death on the ground before the rocket was every assembled. The soviet equivalent, the N-1, had a 100% failure rate. N-1’s complex first stage fuel distribution system had never been tested on the ground before the first launch. it blew up and destroyed the rocket.Yet Russia's Proton launchers have remained reliable, which indicates that much of the successful Soviet engineering and management has survived. If I were a cosmonaut or astronaut, I would certianly prefer to be launched by a Proton than by some flaky exploding SpaceX vehicle.
Russia could contribute far more than that. @plawolf mentioned low-g experience. I have added life support and doubled launch rate. Even if the Russians contributed only reliable launchers, that would be quite enough reason to partner with them: the launch is by far the most important step into space.
Nonsense. Early US launchers were famous for blowing up, and the Apollo 1 astronauts (Gus Grissom, Ed White, Roger Chaffee) burned to death; I doubt you would accuse the Americans of a cultural failing. In any case, the Russian rockets have a long, long track record for reliability now, and that is extremely important.
yes, if the soviets didn’t give up, I am sure after a few more failures they would eventually iron out all the bugs and by now the N-1 would be quite impressively reliable. but the difference in early failure rate still illustrate the difference in engineering culture.
The chinese, if anything, is much more methodical and painstaking than NASA.
Last edited:
So Russian launchers have failed, and US launchers have also failed. But the bottom line is, Russia's launchers now have a track record for reliability that the US only dreams about. Russia will be a good partner for the moon base.early American launchers, when they were still mostly just a civilian face for the military ballistic missile programs, certainly did have the culture of let’s see what happens. But when the truly civilian side of US space program began to receive strong political and budgetary support, the culture of through exhaustive tests quickly took hold. That doesn’t mean there were no failures. Apollo one being one example. But the track record of high probability of 1 round success and relatively low probability of subsequent failure was impressive. Saturn 5, the most ambitious rocket attempted in that era or any other, succeeded on the first launch snd never had a failure, because everything had been tested to death on the ground before the rocket was every assembled. The soviet equivalent, the N-1, had a 100% failure rate. N-1’s complex first stage fuel distribution system had never been tested on the ground before the first launch. it blew up and destroyed the rocket.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.