Russian space program -- book chapter conclusions

In sci.space.history message , Sat,
2 Jun 2007 15:21:09, Scott Hedrick posted:

"R.Glueck" wrote in message
...
I do recall a 1980's Nat. Geographic based solely on the superiority of the
Soviet space program.

*They* managed to send missions to Halley's Comet.

That's not real superiority. ESA and Japan did it too; ESA did it
better.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

"Dr J R Stockton" wrote in message
nvalid...
In sci.space.history message , Sat,
2 Jun 2007 15:21:09, Scott Hedrick posted:

"R.Glueck" wrote in message
...
I do recall a 1980's Nat. Geographic based solely on the superiority of
the
Soviet space program.

*They* managed to send missions to Halley's Comet.

That's not real superiority. ESA and Japan did it too; ESA did it
better.

The point is, the nation with the superior means *didn't*. The half-assed
attempt with Challenger hardly counts.

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
That's not real superiority. ESA and Japan did it too; ESA did it
better.



ESA didn't drop landers and balloons on Venus on the way; Vega was a a
mighty impressive pair of missions.

Pat

"The Russian aerospace engineers are very proud people" is an
understatement, as they were also extremely dollar efficient at most
missions not costing 10% of what equal dollars our NASA required.

Their Venus missions are still way better proof than anything ESA or
NASA ever accomplished per dollar, and for having also accomplished
their missions within a relatively short amount of time.

The Zionist perpetrated Cold War is what damn near nailed each of our
coffins shut in a very spendy and nuclear button pushing way (which
still could happen if our resident LLPOF warlord keeps going after the
likes of Iran). One mutually perpetrated mistake and the world would
have paid a horrific price, not that the Zionists would have minded.

Russian aerospace had not 10% of the overhead, and at the time they
also had surplus energy to burn. Nowadays Russia is still somewhat
better off than our NASA, although the original cache of equal dollars
simply are not there to behold for accomplishing much of anything
without outside investments coming to their rescue.

Tonnage wise, most of what has gotten into space and/or of exploring
other planets and moons is extensively via Russian technology.
Therefore, I'd still put Russian aerospace at the top of the stack,
with ESA and NASA combined close behind. In the near future it'll
become mostly China, especially since we're all so deeply invested on
behalf of fighting to our deaths on behalf of these Zionist wars, with
the latest war being in one way or another one of global energy
domination (including yellowcake).

The ongoing raping and pollution of mother Earth, of having
contributed our soot, excessive amounts of CO2, loads of secondary
methanes as a direct result, plus horrific amounts of NOx is just too
freaky bad. All the rest of this world will just have to put up with
whatever the Zionists plus a few other special interest groups have
within their perverted mindset.

Mean while, the planetology of Venus is very much alive and kicking in
a geothermal and otherwise ETI way, as well as we need a plan of
action for getting our moon relocated into Earth's L1, because Earth
is otherwise only going to get itself hotter and someday Venus might
not look all that bad (especially if we needed such raw elements of
energy, and otherwise for having the nearly ideal environment as for
extracting such a nearby cache of that energy).
-
Brad Guth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell



On May 23, 4:45 pm, "R.Glueck" wrote:
"Michael Turner" wrote in message

oups.com...

There is a more-than-slight redolence of obsolete Cold War rivalry in
this comment.

Michael, I was last in Russia, in 1994. At that time, I was at the
Gagarin training facilites, talking to numerous engineers. It that context,
my remarks reflect what they expressed to me concerning their technology and
where it was going. The Russian aerospace engineers are very proud people,
and my observation was their desire to forge ahead of the United States as
soon as they could. Remember, at that time MIR was still the USA's only
hope of getting long term experience in orbit using the shuttle technology.
Having the USSR collapse, and then swallowing the extremely bitter pill of a
humbled space program was very, very, tough for those people. I do recall a
1980's Nat. Geographic based solely on the superiority of the Soviet space
program. Falling before a worthy advisary is one thing, having the advisary
gloat is another.



Well, what about licensing it to them commercially, rather than simply
offering it for free?

The capital for new technological development isn't there. It just isn't.
"No bucks, no Buck Rogers."

Who cares?

I think a great number of Russian engineers care. I think developing,
proving, and implementing is what engineers do best and long to do more of.

So long as Russian

engineers, factory workers and technicians are making 1/10th as much
as their western counterparts, Russia will be the low-cost leader.

Only if they can produce a quality product that will hold up to the
standards being set for long term presence in space. Spacecraft must become
lightweight, durable, and reliable. I think that will be the rule in the
coming (predicted) space age.



Gee, that's a profoundly anti-capitalist sentiment if I ever heard
one.

Yes it was. I'm not endorsing Communism or Socialism; I'm reflecting
upon what I saw and experienced while I was doing research at
Zvezdny-Gorodk.

Khruschev is spinning in his gave, no doubt.

What can I say beyond this? Khruschev loved, relished, everything about his
space triumphs, and thus pumped huge amounts of funding into space
development. He did it for the wrong reasons, I'd say, but his funding made
things happen, both in the Soviet Union and in the United States.

If you've not been into Russia to talk to the people who were there after
the fall of the Soviet Union, your perspective might be different. That
said, I haven't been there in over a decade. My reference might well be out
of date, and I'll be the first t admit it.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

R.Glueck / "The Russian aerospace engineers are very proud people" is
an understatement, as they were and remain as extremely dollar
efficient at most missions not costing 10% of what in equal dollars
our NASA requires.

Their Venus missions are still way better proof than anything ESA or
NASA ever accomplished per dollar, and for having also accomplished
their extensive missions within a relatively short amount of time.

The Zionist perpetrated and otherwise promoted Cold War is what damn
near nailed each of our coffins shut in a very spendy and nuclear
button pushing way (which still could happen if our resident LLPOF
warlord keeps going after the likes of Iran). One mutually
perpetrated mistake and this world would have paid a truly horrific
price, not that the Zionists would have minded.

Russian aerospace had not 10% of the overhead, and at the time they
also had surplus energy to burn, and there was also no such GreenPiece
or any other environmental groups in sight. Nowadays Russia is still
somewhat better off than our NASA, although the original cache of
equal dollars simply are not there to behold for accomplishing much of
anything without outside investments coming to their rescue.

Tonnage wise, most of what has gotten into space and/or of exploring
other planets and moons is extensively via Russian technology.
Therefore, I'd still put Russian aerospace at the top of the stack,
with ESA and NASA combined close behind. In the near future it'll
become mostly China, especially since we're all so deeply invested on
behalf of fighting to our deaths on behalf of these Zionist wars, with
the latest war(s) being in one way or another one of global energy
domination (including yellowcake).

The ongoing raping and pollution of mother Earth, of having
contributed our soot, excessive amounts of CO2, loads of secondary
methanes as another direct result, plus absolutely horrific amounts of
NOx is just too freaky bad. All the rest of this world will just have
to put up with whatever the Zionists plus a few other special interest
groups have within their perverted mindset.

Mean while, the active planetology of Venus is very much alive and
kicking in a geothermal and otherwise ETI way, as well as we'll need
to devise that plan of action for getting our moon relocated into
Earth's L1, because Earth is otherwise only going to get itself hotter
and perhaps some day Venus might actually not look all that bad
(especially if we needed such an accessible wealth of those raw
elements of energy (extracting 90% yellowcake if not 100% raw U238),
and otherwise for having the nearly ideal orbital path and local
environment as for our extracting such a nearby cache of that energy).
-
Brad Guth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell



On May 22, 11:11 am, "Jim Oberg" wrote:
I'm doing a big book chapter for a DoD 'space power' book,
my chapter is on the russian program.

Here are my conclusions, and I'd like to open them up to
discussion, critique, and suggestions. The material remains
copyright by me, 2007, etc etc etc... and it's a draft.

Conclusion

For the foreseeable future, Russia appears committed to internationalization
of its main non-military space activities, mainly as a crutch in obtaining
services disproportionate to contributed resources ("For 5% of the
investment we get 30% of the resources" is a frequent comment in
justification of the space station partnership) and as a badge of 'major
player' status in the world.

At the same time, Russia shows no signs of developing a capability for major
innovation in spacecraft engineering or of demonstrating more than
lip-service interest in quantum advances in space operations capabilities.
Incremental progress has been the watchword for decades, usually not by
choice but out of necessity because all previous attempts at break-out
projects (human lunar flight, advanced robotic Mars probes, the 'Buran'
shuttle, the Polyus-Skif family of orbital battle stations) ended in
humiliating frustration.

Providing commercial launch services for foreign customers has provided
multi-dimensional benefits to Russia. Beyond the significant cash flow, such
activities fund booster upgrades and, in the case of converted military
missiles, fund validation of lifetime extension efforts for still-deployed
missile weapons.

Military applications of space systems remain uninspired, with critical
constellations (such as the missile early warning net) still significantly
degraded and likely to remain so for many years. Russian officials have
evidently decided that, despite any public posturings over US military
threats, there is essentially no prospect of actual hostilities in the
foreseeable future and hence little pressure to reconstitute military space
assets to a Soviet-era level. Russia retains an operational anti-missile
system around Moscow that, with hit-to-kill guidance, could provide
significant anti-satellite capability; it is also developing small robotic
rendezvous spacecraft similar to US projects that have potential
anti-satellite capabilities at any altitude they can be launched into.

Attempts at domestic commercialization of space-related services, including
communications, navigation, and mapping, remain seriously - perhaps
irremediably - hamstrung by the recent resurgence of a traditional Russian
top-down structure of authority. Bureaucrats are being ordered to implement
wider use of space infrastructure, and after many years of rosy reports of
progress, Moscow may realize that it is almost all, as usual, a sham.

There is still little indication of successful exploitation of space
discoveries and space-developed technologies (what NASA and the Europeans
call "spin-offs") as a means of improving the technological skills of
Russian industry. The space industry, as a component of the national defense
industry, remains strictly compartmentalized from Russia's civil economy,
and the resurgence of broad espionage laws (and several recent
highly-publicized convictions) will keep this ghettoization in force. This
in turn may require other government measures, from patent purchase to
industrial espionage, to acquire technologies that some Russian industries
may already possess but are in practice forbidden to share internally.

Russian space-related scientific and exploratory research, after hitting
rock bottom a decade ago, is showing signs of a modest rebound. Russian
space scientists may be able to resume making respectable contributions to
the world scientific literature in the coming decade, another ticket to
world-class status that spreads prestige to all of Russia's science
reputation..

But even if the main values of the Russian space program remain symbolic,
these symbols have computable value to the nation's self-confidence and to
the reputation of its technology - either for commercial export or as a
reflection of the efficacy of its weapons. The modest but steady resource
commitment to the space program reflects the government's assessment of the
degree of value, now and in the foreseeable future.

However, none of these intentions have much chance of success unless the
Russians find a way out of the looming demographic crisis that mass
mortality is confronting them with. In a society and an industry where
monopolization of knowledge was power, and sharing it often led to legal
prosecution, behavior must change, and fast. This must be done so that space
workers a decade from now, without the in-the-flesh guidance and advice of
the old-timers, will be able to draw on their 'team knowledge' that survived
the passing of its original owners and was preserved in an accessible,
durable form. The alternative is a return to the 'learning curve' of more
frequent oversights, mistakes, and inadequate problem solving of the dawn of
the Space Age - with its daunting costs in time, treasure, prestige, and
even human lives.