Russian Space Program: News & Discussion #3

Musk flying silo SN9 crashed and exploded because one raptor failed to ignite.

Musk flying silo SN10 landed hard (soft-crashed?  ) and exploded because two raptors didn't shutdown properly.

So NO.  Raptor is NOT a better engine than RD series.  If it was, it wouldn't be failing. Don't give me some crappolo about cRaptors being a new design so failures should be excused.  It should have been thoroughly tested before getting bolted onto a test vheicle.   Musk looks to have cut his engineering tolerances too fine in the quest to save weight and his wunder-waffe engines don't look that spiffy in the golden glow of a burning vehicle (and crew...).

You can try to spin three failures in a row as "successes" like the Musk knob-jockey legion idiots do, but I know a failure when I see one.  If "StarShip" was a Rusky or ChiCom vehicle I couldn't imagine the pindos trotting out fake reasons to call the tests a success.  All things considered, I'd rather ride an RD-series than one of Musks failure-prone new-fang-dangely flame throwers, and don't get me started about Muskian nonsense shitfuckery about riding these things to the Moon or Mars

Big_Gazza wrote:Musk flying silo SN9 crashed and exploded because one raptor failed to ignite.

Musk flying silo SN10 landed hard (soft=crashed?  ) and exploded because two raptors didn't shutdown properly.

So NO.  Raptor is NOT a better engine that RD series.  If it was, it wouldn't be failing. Don't give me some crappolo about cRaptors being a new design so failures should be excused.  It should have been thoroughly tested before getting bolted onto a test vheicle.   Musk looks to have cut his engineering tolerances too fine in the quest to save weight and his wunder-waffe engines don't look that spiffy in the golden glow of a burning vehicle (and crew...).

You can try to spin three failures in a row as "successes" like the Musk knob-jockey legion idiots do, but I know a failure when I see one.  If "StarShip" was a Rusky or ChiCom vehicle I couldn't imagine the pindos trotting out fake reasons to call the tests a success.  All things considered, I'd rather ride an RD-series than one of Musks failure-prone new-fang-dangely flame throwers, and don't get me started about Muskian nonsense shitfuckery about riding these things to the Moon or Mars

You keep on repating Musk that, Musk this...I get that you dont like the guy (I dont like him neither) but it is not like Musk designed the Raptor engine in his Tesla while driving to work...It just happens Musk has the money to pay to a big team of very bright people who have developed the Raptor engine, using modern machinery, materials, simulation and calculation techniques not avialable back when RD 170/180 were developed.

From what I have observed from SpaceX so far it seems they just have the resources to do all these live tests and make them a public show, where a failure is not a big issue because they field the next protoype in matter of weeks/months.

Somehow you forgot to mention last SN failures happened on re-entry, while atempting to land the SN craft back on earth. Something no other rocket system is able to achieve currently. RD 180 has never been tested for these purposes and for all we know it would go kaboom too in similar tests. Also this means the Raptor engine perfomermed flawlessly during what all other rocket engines are doing- bring the rocket to desired height.

Nomad5891 wrote:Somehow you forgot to mention last SN failures happened on re-entry, while atempting to land the SN craft back on earth.

They were not re-entering as they were never orbital (or even sub-orbital). They went straight up, and then fell straight down. In that respect they are not different to 90% of rocketry failures.

Something no other rocket system is able to achieve currently.

Neither has cRaptor, truth be told....

RD 180 has never been tested for these purposes and for all we know it would go kaboom too in similar tests.

RD-180 isn't designed for deep throttling.  It was specified to use kerolox propellents and deliver high thrust and high isp to deliver payloads to orbit.  Comparing RD-180 to a Raptor is like comparing a diesel locomotive to a 6-seat people mover.

Musks silos went kaboom because the vehicle performed unscheduled lithobraking...  and the lack of engine control in deep throttle was the primary contributing factor. Raptor was designed for this duty and clearly isn't performing to spec. R-180 on the other hand lifts payloads to orbit and does it exceptionally well, so well that even the Russophobic Atlantacist scum in the US military have chosen it to launch their birds.

Also this means the Raptor engine perfomermed flawlessly during what all other rocket engines are doing- bring the rocket to desired height.

Just because it reached the intended altitude means fuck all.  Do we have the planned altitude-time curve to compare with actual telemetry?  If not, how the feck do you know if the engine cluster performed as expected? You're taking it on faith, rather than any objective evidence.

From what I have observed from SpaceX so far it seems they just have the resources to do all these live tests and make them a public show, where a failure is not a big issue because they field the next protoype in matter of weeks/months.

That alone is disturbing... treating a rocket engine like a Microsoft operating system where you build some shit and use it and when it breaks you determine what broke and fix it and then deploy it and then when it breaks again you fix that is not a good design and testing method.

It essentially means you are using your customer to beta test your hardware... which is OK for the operating system of a small building company or some snotty nosed kid playing computer games... but what if it is being used by a hospital or nuclear power plant...

Somehow you forgot to mention last SN failures happened on re-entry, while atempting to land the SN craft back on earth. Something no other rocket system is able to achieve currently.

They have made it a necessary part of its job... whether no other rocket has done it or not is irrelevant... it fails something it is supposed to be able to do.

That makes it a failure.

RD 180 has never been tested for these purposes and for all we know it would go kaboom too in similar tests.

It does what it is supposed to do... the Musk rocket does not.

Musks silos went kaboom because the vehicle performed unscheduled lithobraking... and the lack of engine control in deep throttle was the primary contributing factor. Raptor was designed for this duty and clearly isn't performing to spec. R-180 on the other hand lifts payloads to orbit and does it exceptionally well, so well that even the Russophobic Atlantacist scum in the US military have chosen it to launch their birds.

A very good point... an indicator of engine performance would be if Russia wanted to buy it for use on their rockets the way the US uses Russian rocket engines on their rockets...

GarryB wrote:That alone is disturbing... treating a rocket engine like a Microsoft operating system where you build some shit and use it and when it breaks you determine what broke and fix it and then deploy it and then when it breaks again you fix that is not a good design and testing method.

Funny how what the Muskian fanbois describe as a new paradigm in space development sounds just like the practises of the USSR in its early years of missile/rocket development. Build.. launch.. fail... learn what went wrong... try again... Of course when Russians/Soviets were doing it then it was taken as evidence of primitive technology and an inferior engineering culture. Now that exceptionalist private-enterprise SpaceX is doing it then it is miraculously converted into a cutting-edge innovative philosophy and evidence of the superiority of Western entrepenurialism...

One more StarShip failure and they equal the record of the N-1. Somehow I don't think the next SpaceX failure will receive the same level of smug satisfaction that was directed at Korolevs OKB-1 design bureau.

The abject hypocrisy of our increasingly dysfunctional Western societies sickens me to my guts.

Nomad5891 wrote:

You basically use 3 paragraphs of text to ultimately admit the Raptor engine is better engine than RD series...

Just stop writing shit. You don't understand the parameters that are important for engines. If anything, you're trying to compare the RD-180 and the Raptor, which is a sign of complete ignorance. Let me help you understand using simple pictures.
It's a Raptor:


This is RD-181:


You see, even a complete idiot can figure out that there are DIFFERENT engines in these pictures.

I will not mention that the maximum thrust of the Raptor is 2000 kN (by the way, I do not see any confirmation that at least one Raptor in flight has reached this value - as far as I remember, the real result of the working cycle does not exceed 1800 kN). By the way, the thrust of the RD-180 is 3830 kN. Just so you know.

You know what looks more like a Raptor?

Here is this engine:

And it's superior to the Raptor.

Since relations are falling down the cliff:

Roscosmos is more interested in creating a national orbital station, says CEO

Rogozin said that current negotiations with NASA on the future of the ISS were "shallow".

KHIMKI /Moscow Region/, March 17. /TASS/. Russia’s space corporation Roscosmos is more interested in creating a new Russian orbital station than an international one, the corporation’s CEO Dmitry Rogozin told the media on Wednesday.

"We are rather oriented towards a national station," Rogozin said, adding that Russian cosmonauts would then be able to feel they are totally in command on board the Earth’s orbiter.

A fundamental decision on a new station would be made by the end of this year, he said.

Rogozin said that current negotiations with NASA on the future of the ISS were "shallow". He speculated that ISS’s life cycle would be repeatedly prolonged not by several years, but by one year. Also, he said it might be possible to extend the service life not of the whole station, but of its individual modules.

"On the sidelines of the April 9 launch we plan to hold technical consultations with NASA," Rogozin said, adding there was a possibility of configuring the Lunar orbital platform Gateway for its possible docking with Russia’s new generation spacecraft Oryol.

"On the whole, I am looking forward to full-scale talks when NASA’s new chief takes over. Possibly in May. We may have a meeting for a serious discussion then. So far we have been holding talks with acting officials," Rogozin said.

https://tass.com/science/1267017

kvs wrote:All the specifications of the Raptor engine are to be found only in the words of Elon Musk.   Look up the Wikicrappia references cited.
Musk is a serial shyster who claims his lithium battery has 2x the capacity in the same form factor as the competition.   Which is
a brazen lie since the volume of his battery is 2x larger.  

The RD-180/1 engines are sold to US companies that can verify their specifications.   Nobody can verify the specifications of the
Raptor engine.  

The trolls on this forum comparing the Raptor LOX/CH4 engine over LOX/RP1 engines are total idiots.   The Isp increase is due to the use
of a different propellant.

Isp for various Russian/Soviet LOX/CH4 engines

RD-0120M-CH: 372  
RD-160: 381
RD-167: 379
RD-185: 378

So Russia developed 380 range LOX/CH4 engines before SpaceX existed.  

Maybe someday the freaking sectarians of the mask will evolve to the level where they can read about the old Soviet development: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-701
By the way, some morons in the Wiki decided to compare the maximum (short-term) test pressure achieved in the Raptor with the normal (long-term) duty cycle pressure in the RD-701, although in reality the RD-701 had a test pressure 15% higher than the duty cycle pressure.

Scorpius wrote:

You see, even a complete idiot can figure out that there are DIFFERENT engines in these pictures.

So you googled the pictures of two engines...well done!
I never claimed RD180 and Raptor were identical. I said Raptor is superior technology to current RD series engines. They can´t be identical and at the same time one being superior, you can understand this? I hope.


As for not being fair to compare both engines because one is dual chamber, dual nozzle and the other is single chamber, single nozzle is just you trying to evade the facts. Wait, go tell this to the americans that plan to substitute RD180 with BE4 which is again single chamber, single nozzle methalox rocket engine. Tell them they are doing a huge error as both engines are compeltely different and thus not interchangeable. Stupid losers, how they dare question Scorpius from RussiaDefence forum. Right.

Facts are both RD180 and Raptor are first stage, staged combustion rocket engines.
Both are intended for the same application in spacecrafts.
Both use basically same technology with little variations. It is not like Raptor is using some alien anti matter technology to achieve thrust...
Of course they are comparable, you like it or not.

Something on the topic.
Soyuz 2.1a with 38 satelites to be launched on 20th of March from Baikanour:

Tingsay wrote:Yep, vann7 just made me realize just how overrated space can really be.

Did the moon landing stop global warming? No
Did it cure Cancer? No
Eliminate poverty? No

Did USSR's first satellite in space prevent it's collapse? Lol no
Did Yuri gagarin's first man in space achievement made Western Dorks move over to Russia's sphere of influence? haha no      
Did Laika's achievement make the West respect the Soviets and start moving over to Soviet High-tech BizNiZ?  ahahahaha


Ironically, the thing that a lot of space enthusiasts look down on, Low-Earth Orbit is at the moment really the only part of space that has a tangible economic and practical impact on the land dwelling creatures known as Humans.

All this soviet union achievements in space , attracted a tons of scientist and engineers to soviet union ,from europe ,that came to help their space program. all this achievements are advertising.
The problem with soviet union is that they only compete with the west only in space and totally
ignored all other business . soviet union forgot to influence the new generations too and modernize its culture. they began to censor religion and repress freedoms of expres​sion(which was pure idiocy)
and began to ban western music , western movies ,western electronics ,television , instead of doing what china is doing today ,that welcomes it AND competes with them.

So if russia did landed in the moon first , with humans and on top build the internet and developed the first computers ,and understood very well soft power , that is civilian business ,that society love
to buy with their hard earned money , then soviet union will have disbanded nato without firing a shot.

It is also important to remember that americans had a very huge head start , because from all
the major powers , it was americans the only one ,that was not invaded and destroyed all their factories and destroyed neither nuked as it was japan car factories and other top civilian industries.
so this game a huge huge head start to the american economy ,to become the factory of the world ,
the only business in the world ,selling to everyone , because US civilian factories were the only one operating in the planet.. and by being the nation ,that did not was bombed -->America. this
attracted all the european scientist and most brilliant students to US ,to create its industrial revolution.

still after having 10 to 20 years of huge advantage ,by not having to rebuild everything , soviet union
managed to win americans in space arrive first in moon ,mars and venus with probes. But soviet union ignored the soft power , ignored to modernize its civilian economy ,and relied in oil and agriculture and mining as their main source of income ,while american civilian industry totally was modernized 20 years after the end of world war 2. this is what when soviet union collapse.
a business as simple as McDonalds. was a major event , in the soviet union , with thousands of people waiting in line. soviet union forgot to compete with americans in every other area too , and focused only in weapons and space , so this is why their over spending , on top of falling in the afgan 10 year trap , sink the budget of russia. so soviet union could have been saved if it had not only patriotic leaders , but also people that understood soft power ,how important is to influence new generations ,towards russian orbit.

Russia will NOT be facing a war in syria , a war in ukraine , if russia was busy influencing the world ,winning the world with soft power ,with business and not with tanks. had russia was building a base in the moon ,could have blow a way the entire world ,and americans hollywood landing will have not been good enough to steal the show . but putin allowing his enemies to steal the show ,to make all the head lines in powerful civilians influential business , as is american entertainment industry , is what is overshadowing russia today versus the american business .

what give power americans is not their nukes or military , but their business. if you want internet and technology and american business , movies , games , you need to be part of their unfair system. since they not only dominate in modern business ,but also were very smart to make alliance with all other leading nations in technology too , like taiwan ,south korea ,japan. etc. so putin's blindness in thinking Russia have a future ,following the american banking industry ,following their united nations , their modern business , their electronics ,and internet. and later he don't understand why the west in unfair , the western system was created and shaped to bring down any nation ,that refuse to submit their hegemony. so putin needs to stop following it and create an alternative business world .
china is a perfect example of how innovative business can influence nations away of the american orbit. they censured huawei for example but neither europe ,neither latin america banned it. The moral of the story is , business leadership in civilians world means power . and russia is a powerless nation ,that have totally ignored to offer any competition to the west. is not in sport ,that russia needs to win gold medals.. is not rice farming records. what russia needs is space exploration medals , entertainment that every love , high tech that everyone wants . this is how you counter the western empire and only china is countering US high tech economy with better business.
you cannot buy anything on internet from russia is not a nation that offers anything that will directly benefit societies who wants progress and higher quality of lives. and this is a big mistake.
Russia if was smart will help china , and start a high tech /space war , a war for the influence and leadership of the world ,to offer an alternative to the american system. this will put an end to US power ,because no longer they will have a way to influence any nation with their innovative and ambitious business. it is influence and business success ,what makes the difference between being left behind or being a leader in the world. Russia is not even doing anything interesting today in space ,other than taxi to the iss. where soviet union used to compete very well but forgot about about all other influential modern business . allowing your enemies to dominate in the most influential business for average society ,is helping their empire to continue .

Nomad5891 wrote:I said Raptor is superior technology to current RD series engines.

Yes, we hear you, but we disagree for the stated reasons. For a "superior technology" the cRaptor isn't performing too well judging by its less than stellar performance so far.

If the US does indeed replace RD-180 with a US-origin engine then it means that the rockets must be discarded. No more Atlas cuz it isn't designed for cryogenic fuel tanks. If the US military wants to throw away a perfectly-good reliable well-designed kerolox vehicle just to be a good little space hipster then that is their call. No-one really cares.

Both are intended for the same application in spacecrafts

No, they are not. They are designed for very different flight applications and the fact that you seem unable to appreciate this tends to undermine your credability.

I'm done with this nonsense. I have better things to do than try (and apparently fail) to educate kids.

Vann7 wrote:All this soviet union achievements in space , attracted a tons of scientist and engineers to soviet union ,from europe ,that came to help their space program...

BULL

SHIT

!!!!

People and scientists especially were running out of USSR like cockroaches from forest fire

It was braindead shithole pretending to be a country held together by guns and fear

Hungry mobs don't give a shit about space and don't have enough calories for their brains to process the concept of it

Nomad5891 wrote:
So you googled the pictures of two engines...well done!
I never claimed RD180 and Raptor were identical. I said Raptor is superior technology to current RD series engines. They can´t be identical and at the same time one being superior, you can understand this? I hope.


As for not being fair to compare both engines because one is dual chamber, dual nozzle and the other is single chamber, single nozzle is just you trying to evade the facts. Wait, go tell this to the americans that plan to substitute RD180 with BE4 which is again single chamber, single nozzle methalox rocket engine. Tell them they are doing a huge error as both engines are compeltely different and thus not interchangeable. Stupid losers, how they dare question Scorpius from RussiaDefence forum. Right.

Facts are both RD180 and Raptor are first stage, staged combustion rocket engines.
Both are intended for the same application in spacecrafts.
Both use basically same technology with little variations. It is not like Raptor is using some alien anti matter technology to achieve thrust...
Of course they are comparable, you like it or not.

Well, I underestimated your level of stupidity. You've never been able to grasp the simple things:
1. Comparing engines of different thrust ranges is the lot of idiots.
2. Comparing engines of different designs is the lot of idiots.
3. You stated that "the Raptor is better than the RD series of engines" - but could not identify the RD-191 engine, despite the fact that this kerolox engine is superior to the Raptor in many respects, being in the same thrust category, having a similar design appearance and a less efficient fuel pair.

This is a prime example of your stupidity and incompetence. Just stay away from discussing topics that you have no idea about.

Soft trolling or hard trolling, it always ends the same way

Except Raptor is better than RD-171 family technology.

Russia was also working on staged combustion LOX/LCH4 with the French over a decade ago.
Just search for the "VOLGA" rocket engine.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/9732/snecma-in-volga-reusable-rocket-program-%28apr.-23%29.html

They even tested the turbopumps for it.
In the end neither France nor Russia wanted to spend the money to make this engine because of budget cuts in the space sector.

Raptor is a full-flow staged combustion engine, i.e. the technology Glushko tried to develop in the late 1960s with RD-270 and failed.
Because it is a full-flow engine it can work at higher chamber pressure than a regular staged combustion engine.
Glushko could not solve the combustion instability problems and blew up a lot of engines until he gave up on it.

Today there are advanced CFD simulation software tools which allow you to test advanced propulsion concepts without blowing up engines.
SpaceX developed their own CFD software in house that uses GPUs to perform the simulation more accurately in shorter timescales.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txk-VO1hzBY

That was used to develop the Raptor engine. Which was designed by Tom Mueller not Elon Musk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mueller

Sure, you could use a tripropellant engine. But that is a lot more complicated to manufacture and test.
Plus the engine you talked about, which is based on the Energia's LOX/LH2 engine, isn't that well suited to be a first stage engine.
It is optimized for cost, rather than performance, because it was supposed to be paired with the RD-171.
Which means it is heavier and has lower thrust-to-weight ratio than what is necessary for a first stage engine.

Compare that Soviet RD-0120 engine with the US RS-25 and you will see it is heavier, has less thrust, and less Isp.
What the RD-0120 does have over the RS-25 is that it uses a lot less parts. It is a single shaft engine, does not need resonance chambers, and uses channel wall nozzle.
The RD-0120 is much, much cheaper to manufacture. Which allows it to be expended. While the RS-25 is too expensive to manufacture to be used as an expendable engine.

If you use LOX/LCH4 you can use autogenous pressurization which means you don't need helium or nitrogen pressure tanks which cuts down on cost and mass.
LOX and LCH4 can be stored at roughly the same temperature, which means you don't need as much insulation between the fuel and oxidizer tanks.

The Russians were proposing using LOX/LCH4 at least since the 1990s. They tested it on several engine and had several engine designs for it.
It never happened because of R&D budget cuts. Same reason that LOX/LH2 upper stage for the Angara is still not available.

lancelot wrote:Except Raptor is better than RD-171 family technology.

sigh... here we go again.

The problem here is that you (and Nomad 5891) are being over simplistic. You can't apply a loose and wooley subjective term like "better" when discussing rocket engines. They are complicated machines and while they are outwardly similar (propellents go in, fire comes out...) the devil is in the details. There are just so many parameters that effect the engineering outcome and performance particulars.

RD series are designed to burn hydrocarbon fuel, maximise efficiency (ISP) and reliability. They are designed for use in an expendable lift vehicle, ie one start only required. They are designed for low unit cost. RD-170 and 180 use multiple combustion chambers on a single set of turbopumps to avoid combustion instability and achieve high thrusts per engine - RD-170 develops 7.9MN in a vacuum with 4x chambers, thats more than a Rocketdyne F-1. RD-180 develops 4.15MN with two. RD-191 develops 2.1 MN with one, while Raptor develops a max of 2.2MN with one. They don't try to optimise engine weight as T/W ratio means fuck-all for 1st-stage engines on launchers. Who cares if an RD-170/171 weights 10T when it is powering a ~1,000 launcher like a Zenit??? Russian designers accept heavy piping and multiple combustion chambers and the weight penalty it brings as this increases unit reliability and reduces costs as they can restrict the quantities of exotic alloys needed (eg only really needing them for cladding around high-temp LOX preburner streams where metal erosion is an issue with high-temperature oxidising gases typical of an oxygen-rich closed cycle). Russian (kerolox) engines are very efficient and have ISPs greatly in excess of their Western competitors, so they can handle a little extra mass.

Raptor and other methane/LNG burners in development in the US are geared to reuseability and restartability. They have a stick up their arses about weight savings and have chosen to build minimal mass designs. It remains to be seen how this affects their reuseability, and I suspect that SpaceX have been much less than honest when it comes to their reporting (how many flights do they get per engine? How often do inspections of engine wall thicknesses reveal unacceptable metal losses and require an engine changeout?)

No-one doubts that a full-flow closed cycle engine is a more difficult technology than a "regular" closed cycle version, but that doesn't make such an engine instrinsically "superior." Its all about the success of the implementation and the RD-series has DECADES of service history and HUNDREDS of engines flown without issue. AFAIK none of the very few RD-series failures have been due to design or manufacturing deficiencies. Failures have been due to human errors like foreign objects sucked into turbopumps like NSS-8 or non-engine related issues like dodgy hydraulic systems such as the rubbish that Ukraine supplied for Intelsat 27. US methalox is taking its first baby steps, and the much vaunted Raptor has so far been less than impressive.

Vann7 wrote:

Tingsay wrote:Yep, vann7 just made me realize just how overrated space can really be.

Did the moon landing stop global warming? No
Did it cure Cancer? No
Eliminate poverty? No

Did USSR's first satellite in space prevent it's collapse? Lol no
Did Yuri gagarin's first man in space achievement made Western Dorks move over to Russia's sphere of influence? haha no      
Did Laika's achievement make the West respect the Soviets and start moving over to Soviet High-tech BizNiZ?  ahahahaha


Ironically, the thing that a lot of space enthusiasts look down on, Low-Earth Orbit is at the moment really the only part of space that has a tangible economic and practical impact on the land dwelling creatures known as Humans.

All this soviet union achievements in space , attracted a tons of scientist and engineers to soviet union ,from europe ,that came to help their space program. all this achievements are advertising.
The problem with soviet union is that they only compete with the west only in space and totally
ignored all other business . soviet union forgot to influence the new generations too and modernize its culture. they began to censor religion and repress freedoms of expres​sion(which was pure idiocy)
and began to ban western music , western movies ,western electronics ,television , instead of doing what china is doing today ,that welcomes it  AND competes with them.  

So if russia did landed in the moon first , with humans and on top build the internet and developed the first computers ,and understood very well soft power , that is civilian business ,that society love
to buy with their hard earned money , then soviet union will have disbanded nato without firing a shot.  

It is also important to remember that americans had a very huge head start , because from all
the major powers , it was americans the only one ,that was not invaded and destroyed all their factories and destroyed neither nuked as it was japan car factories and other top civilian industries.
so this game a huge huge head start to the american economy ,to become the factory of the world ,
the only business in the world ,selling to everyone , because US civilian factories were the only one operating in the planet..   and by being the nation ,that did not was bombed -->America. this
attracted all the european scientist and most brilliant students to US ,to create its industrial revolution.

still after having 10 to 20 years of huge advantage ,by not having to rebuild everything , soviet union
managed to win americans in space arrive first in moon ,mars and venus with probes. But soviet union ignored the soft power , ignored to modernize its civilian economy ,and relied in oil and agriculture and mining as their main source of income ,while american civilian industry totally was modernized 20 years after the end of world war 2.  this is what when soviet union collapse.
a business as simple as McDonalds. was a major event , in the soviet union , with thousands of people waiting in line.  soviet union forgot to compete with americans in every other area too , and focused only in weapons and space , so this is why their over spending , on top of falling in the afgan 10 year trap , sink the budget of russia.  so soviet union could have been saved if it had not only patriotic leaders , but also people that understood soft power ,how important is to influence new generations ,towards russian orbit.

Russia will NOT be facing a war in syria , a war in ukraine , if russia was busy influencing the world ,winning the world with soft power ,with business and not with tanks. had russia was building a base in the moon ,could have blow a way the entire world ,and americans hollywood landing will have not been good enough to steal the show .  but putin allowing his enemies to steal the show ,to make all the head lines in powerful civilians influential business , as is american entertainment industry , is what is overshadowing russia today versus the american business .

what give power americans is not their nukes or military , but their business. if you want internet and technology and american business , movies , games , you need to be part of their unfair system. since they not only dominate in modern business ,but also were very smart to make alliance with all other leading nations in technology too , like taiwan ,south korea ,japan. etc.  so putin's blindness in thinking Russia have a future ,following the american banking industry ,following their united nations , their modern business , their electronics ,and internet. and later he don't understand why the west in unfair , the western system was created and shaped to bring down any nation ,that refuse to submit their hegemony. so putin needs to stop following it and create an alternative business world .
china is a perfect example of how innovative business can influence nations away of the american orbit. they censured huawei for example but neither europe ,neither latin america banned it. The moral of the story is , business leadership in civilians world means power . and russia is a powerless nation ,that have totally ignored to offer any competition to the west.  is not in sport ,that russia needs to win gold medals..  is not rice farming records. what russia needs is space exploration medals , entertainment that every love , high tech that everyone wants . this is how you counter the western empire and only china is countering US high tech economy with better business.
you cannot buy anything on internet from russia is not a nation that offers anything that will directly benefit societies who wants progress and higher quality of lives. and this is a big mistake.
Russia if was smart will help china , and start a high tech /space war , a war for the influence and leadership of the world ,to offer an alternative to the american system.  this will put an end to US power ,because no longer they will have a way to influence any nation with their innovative and ambitious business.  it is influence and business success ,what makes the difference between being left behind or being a leader in the world.  Russia is not even doing anything interesting today in space ,other than taxi to the iss. where soviet union used to compete very well but forgot about about all other influential modern business . allowing your enemies to dominate in the most influential business for average society ,is helping their empire to continue .




         

And where is the Soviet Union today? In the dumpster

Tingsay wrote:And where is the Soviet Union today? In the dumpster

Yeah sure, but Murica will follow and will do so within my lifetime

Champers is on ice. Bring it.