Thank You Russia

rockets are made this way because they rely on the rd 107 family engine, which were designed in 1950s
they are pretty complicated engines due to a preheat cycle but very good thrust ratio for it's size so they package a whole bunch of them into a single rocket
they tried to make bigger sized versions of the rd family but failed so they kept using them 70 years later, they use regular kerosene oxygen, since russia has lots of natural gas it's not too complicated to make the fuel

us has lots of money so they can test all kinds of fuel so they make engines to take advantage of new fuels they developed such as solid fuel and liquid hydrogen fuel etc

also the russians tried to make new fuel but caused the largest launch disaster in history so they became a bit shy

>us has lots of money so they can test all kinds of fuel so they make engines to take advantage of new fuels they developed such as solid fuel and liquid hydrogen fuel etc
We've also been the only country putting significant work towards reusability since the Soviets canceled the Buran Program. Rocket fuel only accounts for about 1 percent of the cost of launch so reusability is pretty significant

re-usability was a convenient lie when the program cost billions to develop and uprooted whole Apollo infrastructure, it wasn't to save on costs, it was to bankrupt the whole space program

>they tried to make bigger sized versions of the rd family but failed
what is rd 170, rd 180, and rd 190
>they use regular kerosene oxygen, since russia has lots of natural gas
natural gas is methane not kerosene
>us has lots of money so they can test all kinds of fuel so they make engines to take advantage of new fuels they developed such as solid fuel and liquid hydrogen fuel etc
what is the rd 0120
>also the russians tried to make new fuel but caused the largest launch disaster in history so they became a bit shy
what is the proton rocket

no, im right

But based Elon proved it was viable

>and uprooted whole Apollo infrastructure
I always hear people say this but they fail to understand the context of the time
Its 1972
The Apollo program is the most expensive megaproject on Earth at the time
We've already proven we could land on the moon 6 times

Now what would you have done?
>Lets continue the Apollo program even though it's primary objectives have already been accomplished and then some using our nearly decade old Saturn Vs
Or
>Lets put Apollo on hold and develop a next-generation launch vehicle that would on paper make sending humans to LEO (something that is expected to become vital in the coming decades since the Soviets are starting to build Space Stations)
Yeah the Shuttle cost a lot of money but I don't think anyone had the foresight to see that at the time. In the end I think it was the better investment because it eventually lead to the ISS. Apollo had no direction after the moon landings.

yes but that's not the point of the space shuttle
the space shuttle was designed to use up the money apollo set aside for a better launcher, that's why near the 2000's it had no more funding to pay for the contractors and it was terminated early, not because the government ran out of money but because it wasn't meant to be renewed
nixon basically killed the space initiative because Apollo achieved the race to the moon and signed the shuttle so it would use up the rest of it
the two disasters of the space shuttle made the congress question the point of the program and funding for extending its life was cut so after that nasa had no way of getting people to the iss

the funding for nasa was always politically motivated, every year it needs to be renewed and every year it was cut
when the missions to the moon was launched there were protesters too about how the funding was used for the benefit of white people

also...
>take advantage of new fuels they developed such as solid fuel
russia uses solid fuel rockets primarily for their strategic nuclear forces and artillery units.

They've also been working on a new family of universal interchangeable launch systems URM (universal rocket module) designed for mass production and low cost of transportation. google angara, yenisei, and don rockets if ur interested
reusable launch systems isn't a new concept. the problem has always been the costs associated with repairs for the next launch and whether they are cheaper than single use rockets. The space shuttle system was originally lauded as the next step in space exploration which will reduce launch costs to allow for the full colonization of our solar system, but proved to be more expensive to send a kg of cargo to space than the apollo program. SpaceX never released a full analysis of their reusable launch system costs, but the US government is giving spacex massive economic gibs in the form of no-bid lucrative launch contracts, free scientific and engineering data packages from NASA, and the costs of sending cargo on the falcon rocket system is steadily rising as is now almost as expensive as the russian systems, so it cant be good.

Is the Chinese space program any good? All I know is that they're the 3rd country to send people into space and the only country to send a lander on the far side of the moon.

But how is their space program? Compared to Russia's, Japan's, Europe's.

it's not failed to understand the context
it's the shuttle program was designed to be very expansive due to the large tank like structure and the proposed amount of shuttles, it had no additional benefit in space, the amount of stuff it carried in the bay is about the same as an apollo launch, around 50,000 kg

it wasn't a choice between 1 car or another car

it was a choice between 1 car and 6 cars on top of a tank that can be refuelled and take off mid air on top of another plane

americans don't allow chinese on the iss

why?

Well since the majority of the cost associated with launches is the total loss of the first stage, I would assume SpaceXs approach is easily the most affordable in the industry

The reason the Shuttle Program cost so much had more to do with NASA blowing budgets on R&D costs and the fact that Space Planes themselves are just not very efficient
They have a single Space Station in orbit currently unoccupied, a fraction of the size of the ISS, and several plans for unmanned missions in the future but overall China is very secretive about their civilian space program

racism

Because the Chinese don't like sharing technology or research with the rest of the world

China's space program is a fraction of the budget of Europe's and most of their rockets are basically modified old Soviet stock. They do manned launches but they're very far and in-between

I watched a YouTube video and they explained that when China applied in the 90's, their space program was "too small" and they don't contribute enough (all the countries involved on the ISS contributed a lot). But in the 00's and 10's, US was the one continually denying China because they said Chinese astronauts would commit technological espionage if allowed on. I THINK all the other nations wanted to include China, but the US didn't want them on.

They're building their own ISS now which is 1/4 smaller. Completion around 2024 I think.

>the amount of stuff it carried in the bay is about the same as an apollo launch, around 50,000 kg
the shuttle can only carry 27,500 kg to low earth orbit while the saturn 5 rocket can carry over 140,000 kg to low earth orbit. The space shuttle was originally sold to Congress as a vehicle that could make spaceflight cheap and frequent
The exact breakdown into non-recurring and recurring costs is not available, but, according to NASA, the average cost to launch a Space Shuttle as of 2011 was about $450 million per mission. But the two solid rocket boosters and the external tank were the cheapest part of the launch system and meant to be disposable. The cost of the shuttle itself, the costs of repairs after each flight, and the costs of the three main HLOX engines were by far the most expensive parts of the program

>they tried to make bigger sized versions of the rd family but failed so they kept using them 70 years later
from the wiki page:
The RD-170 (PД-170, Paкeтный Двигaтeль-170, Rocket Engine-170) is the world's most powerful multi-combustion chambered liquid-fuel rocket engine, designed and produced in the Soviet Union by NPO Energomash for use with the Energia launch vehicle. The engine burns the Russian equivalent of RP-1 fuel and LOX oxidizer in four combustion chambers, all supplied by one single-shaft, single-turbine turbopump rated at 170 MW (230,000 hp) in a staged combustion cycle.[3][5] By comparison, the Rocketdyne F-1 engine (five of which were used on each Saturn V) is the world's most powerful single-combustion chamber rocket engine.

btw they are now using a derivative of this engine for their new angara program

Attached: big boi.jpg (1200x800, 254.52K)

>230,000 hp
NEED this engine in my car
maybe if i slap a huge supercharger on it