JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 16 Oct 2018
01:36:51 -0400:

On 2018-10-15 19:36, Fred J. McCall wrote:

The Russians operate on a very 1960's QC model. 'Blame' is an
integral part of that.


This *appears* to be the case but I don't work there so I can't say for
sure. The fact that the guy who drilled hole in wrongt place didn't tell
supervisor is an indicating that this is a problem. Indication does not
make "proof" though.


And this is part of your problem, Mayfly. You look at the facts (or
at least the few that you remember) and then discount what they tell
you as "not proof".


You mean besides it being a 1960's design?


Come on. I this a fair accusation of Soyuz?


Yes.


The capsule has modern
electronics, glass cockpit, automated ejection system etc.


The capsule and the rocket are two different independent things,
despite both being called 'Soyuz'. Note that a lot of that 'modern
electronics' and such was funded by NASA in order to modify the
capsule so that larger American astronauts would 'fit'. There is no
"automated ejection system". There IS an automated Launch Escape
System, the design of which has not changed since it was developed
back in the 1960's.


So I have to
wonder what else was upgraded over time and what is left of the originla
design.


The first two stages (the strap-ons and the core) haven't changed
basic design since they were originally developed for the R-7 ICBM.
There have been a couple of engine changes to uprate performance (the
last of these was in 2000), but the vehicle design (including the
analog control system) haven't changed. Switching to a digital
control system to get rid of the limitations imposed by the old analog
system is pretty much the driving force behind Soyuz-2 development.


And if the engines work well and have proven themselves over many years
and perform close to what modern engines can do, why re-inent the wheel?


Ask the Russians. They have done that several times with the current
family of Soyuz rockets and have done it again with Soyuz-2, which is
much further along (to the point of being phased in) than you seem to
think it is.


Spacex use Kerosene, so it can't be all that bad.


Who (other than you) said anything about kerosene?



Why would they do that? ULA isn't doing that with their new rocket.
ESA isn't doing that with their new rocket. The only people doing
that are SpaceX and Blue Origin.


Soyuz is commercially viable as a cheap alternative to the ULA/ESA
expensive rockets. With SpaceX now winning the low cost market, why
should Russia spend rare money to develop a clone of Soyuz that still
wouldn't compete against SpaceX ?


Why would ULA? Why would ESA? And yet that is precisely what they
are doing. There is no 'low cost' vs 'high cost' market. There's a
payload market. This isn't like cell phones or computers.



Everyone else is still stuck in the
paradigm that it's 'cheaper' to throw the whole works away every time
rather than spend a little extra money to enable some reuse.


No, ULA/ESA know they can still get somke customers with their expensive
rockets, either because of unique capabilities SpaceX or Soyuz don't
have, ...


Name those capabilities. Payload interface is different by launcher,
so the only 'capability' I can think of is support for a specific
payload interface. If your payload is already designed and it would
be expensive to change it, you might opt for the vehicle that supports
the interface you built to. Other than that, 'capability' equates to
'payload to orbit' and neither ULA nor ESA offer anything that
'special' there.


... or because lobby efforts garantee money coming their way from
government/military launches.


There's going to be some of that.


Nobody is claiming ULA new rocket would be cost competitive with Falcon9
or BFR.


Well, nobody except ULA, which insists that the sort of reuse SpaceX
and Blue Origin are targeting is the wrong path and will be more
expensive in the long run. Note that ESA sort of makes that same
claim.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson