You took my statement out of context, I wasn't specifically referring to their space program's successes vs. their failures, but rather why Russian engineering has seldom relied on State of the Art technology in its implementation. You're looking at the result, whereas I'm looking at the process, and involved components.
Perhaps the Russians have tons of gee-whiz techno-geekery all designed and ready to go but they just can't afford to build it, but I'm assuming it's more likely that they have fallen behind in computing, materials, and other bleeding edge-technological fields.
I think that the Russians generally use lower tech equipment because they lack the money, know-how, and facilities to build state of the art equipment, rather than a simpler is better philosophy.
Russian nuclear safety is laughingly bad, it always has been. I'm in the nuclear navy, and generally when we explain why we do our things the way that we do them, by comparing it to a russian design and point out their flaws. Look at chernobyl, in what way was that good design? The whole reason russian subs are faster than american subs are because they lack as much shielding in the reactor compartment. This is a known fact. Even the movie K19 highlights poor russian nuclear designs. Where are the equivalent US nuclear incidents, if Russian subs are so equivalent?
I can't go into a detailed discussion of Russian tanks or planes, but I leave you with this. Many of our opponents in the last 20-25 years have used Soviet weaponry. If their equipment is so effective, why has the US basically decimated every standing army that stood against it during that time? The Iraqis had Russian tanks, it didn't seem that they did too well against American weaponry either time.
I wouldn't trust my life with Russian Technology. I'm not very familiar with their space program, but I know that their weapons systems are plagued with problems, and design flaws that essentially discount the lives of their operators. Their nuclear powered submarines are especially prone to this, as their crews were regularly swapped out on deployment due to the deterministic effects of chronic radiation exposure over the course of their deployment, i.e. they got radiation sickness and died.
Their, tanks, their planes, their warships all suffered from a similar philosophy and were generally a few generations back technologically from US equipment. Certainly the Russians made some effective equipment, and there was definitely a lot of it, but most of it was designed with the more is better philosophy rather than technological know how.
Slashdot Mirror
You took my statement out of context, I wasn't specifically referring to their space program's successes vs. their failures, but rather why Russian engineering has seldom relied on State of the Art technology in its implementation. You're looking at the result, whereas I'm looking at the process, and involved components. Perhaps the Russians have tons of gee-whiz techno-geekery all designed and ready to go but they just can't afford to build it, but I'm assuming it's more likely that they have fallen behind in computing, materials, and other bleeding edge-technological fields.
I think that the Russians generally use lower tech equipment because they lack the money, know-how, and facilities to build state of the art equipment, rather than a simpler is better philosophy.
Russian nuclear safety is laughingly bad, it always has been. I'm in the nuclear navy, and generally when we explain why we do our things the way that we do them, by comparing it to a russian design and point out their flaws. Look at chernobyl, in what way was that good design? The whole reason russian subs are faster than american subs are because they lack as much shielding in the reactor compartment. This is a known fact. Even the movie K19 highlights poor russian nuclear designs. Where are the equivalent US nuclear incidents, if Russian subs are so equivalent? I can't go into a detailed discussion of Russian tanks or planes, but I leave you with this. Many of our opponents in the last 20-25 years have used Soviet weaponry. If their equipment is so effective, why has the US basically decimated every standing army that stood against it during that time? The Iraqis had Russian tanks, it didn't seem that they did too well against American weaponry either time.
I wouldn't trust my life with Russian Technology. I'm not very familiar with their space program, but I know that their weapons systems are plagued with problems, and design flaws that essentially discount the lives of their operators. Their nuclear powered submarines are especially prone to this, as their crews were regularly swapped out on deployment due to the deterministic effects of chronic radiation exposure over the course of their deployment, i.e. they got radiation sickness and died. Their, tanks, their planes, their warships all suffered from a similar philosophy and were generally a few generations back technologically from US equipment. Certainly the Russians made some effective equipment, and there was definitely a lot of it, but most of it was designed with the more is better philosophy rather than technological know how.