Cathedrals vs. bazaars

> Soyuz is the counter-example. Fails often, but hasn't
> killed any astronauts in decades.
>
> Arthur

Fails often?

The Soyuz launch vehicle's successful flight a couple weeks ago was
number 1685! (Of course, this counts related LVs with the same core.)
In the last 8 years, there has been only one failure.

Soyuz LV launch log (7/96 to present)
http://www.starsem.com/soyuz/log.htm

The Soyuz spacecraft has flown more than 230 times, with very few
critical failures (Soyuz 1, Soyuz 11 - almost 35 years ago). On all
levels (critical failures, major and minor in-flight anomalies, etc.)
it has done better than all US spacecraft, especially considering the
much smaller number of flights for the U.S. Mercury, Gemini, and
Apollo. And have you ever seen the binders that document all the
Shuttle in-flight anomolies? Most of the Soyuz systems are robust
enough that problems (like mistargeted landings) do not lead to
critical failures.

Soyuz spacecraft family
http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/soyuz.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soyz7kok.htm

I think you have to say the Soyuz launch vehicle and spacecraft is
the most successful piloted space system ever built.

One lesson from Russia: "The 'better' is the enemy of the 'good'."

In other words, if you have a working system, you get low cost
routine operations by keeping the same basic design, and making
incremental improvements. New systems can be developed, but they have
to be brought into operation and demonstrate success before you
retire old systems. The American habit of starting with a blank sheet
of paper each time mystifies the Russians.

This philosophy works well on something like launch vehicles, where
you want low cost and reliable operation. You can still take risks
and test new technologies on space experiments. (Like the Russian
solar sail test, or the Gemini tether test.) Just don't bet
*everything* you have on each part of a new system working perfect
the first time. The successful 'full-up' test of the Saturn V
(called 'Apollo 4', Nov. 1967) was *very* lucky.

- Eric Dahlstrom