Isn't the Soyuz itself kind of low tech?

Man what a righteous rocket the Soyuz is. If they gave out awards for the sexiest rockets of all time - the Soyuz would win hands down.

@Annalee Newitz:
Nope. In many ways it's more high tech than the shuttle. They have to build a new one for each mission so the design itself is very elegant and basic. However, they can (and do) update and replace the internal components all the time. So, the control bards, computers and all that other jazz can change completely over the course of a few years.

Someone familiar with a Soyuz form the shuttle era wouldn't even recognize the insides of the current ones. compared to the shuttles that get real updates once in a blue moon because of the cost of certifying it and the politics of who gets the contract. It's cheaper for NASA to special order parts for twenty year old computers than it is to update to new ones.

@Ryan H:
Reread that three ties for spelling mistakes and still screwed up. It is supposed to be "control boards". I don't think putting bards in control of anything would be a good idea.

Stupid flu mucking with my head.

@Ryan H: Except The Globe Theatre

Russian Uniforms: Still intimidating
Russian Soldiers: Apparently not so much.

@Ryan H: If it makes you feel any better I read it as "boards." And that other one as "times."

@92BuickLeSabre: They can be. Especially when they're drunk and walking around Moscow in uniform with AK-74s.

And then all the amputee vets on the metro are intimidating in another way.

This is making me think of "Galaxy Express 999". But that's just wrong.
@92BuickLeSabre: "Russian Uniforms: Still intimidating" Yup--biggest military hats in the world.

@Annalee Newitz:

Echoing Ryan, not so much low tech as reliable and reasonably priced tech. And as Ryan says, they've steadily upgrading everything in Soyuz boosters over the decades. The Soyuzes of the late Sixties are nothing like the Soyuzes of the late Oughts.

Heck, the Soyuz of the late oughts (great word) is quite different from the ones from the late nineties. Ever since it's become obvious that the shuttle* replacement was never going to show in time. Now that the Soyuz is going to be THE source for access to the ISS they have made plenty of changes.

*first time around I typoed that as 'shittle' and was very tempted to leave it.

@corpore-metal: So they're basically the Linux boxes of space is what you're saying.

Space trains? HELL YEAH!

"This mixture of high and low technology is probably the future of space exploration"
And also the commercialization of space. Because the only way I'm gonna get into orbit is to buy tickets!

Soviet tech is really cool.

@Annalee Newitz:

Well, sort of. The metaphor kind of breaks when you consider what Ryan said here:

"It's cheaper for NASA to special order parts for twenty year old computers than it is to update to new ones."

See, I think there a is a misunderstanding there. It's the same misunderstand that makes people boggle over why it's taking the FAA so long to update the air traffic control system.

It's not that aeronautics engineers are being cheap or that it's some sort of silly competitive bid politics thing. It's because the failure modes of old 286s well known and well documented. The cosmonauts and astronauts visiting the space station can bring their laptops with OSX or XP because that's not mission critical. But the life support and steering systems are going to be running on old 286s (or something similar.) with some custom built Unix-likes because that's reliable and kept as simple as necessary.

Soviet paranoia made them hush up a lot of fatal space disasters in the early days but, at the same time, Cold War military pressures made the Russian launch a lot of rockets and take a lot of risks. They did this to scare the hell out of the US but also to use redundancy to make up for failures.

In the end it gave them something that is very reliable provided it's well funded. It was well funded in the Soviet days. It's getting back to being well funded with foreign money these days.

i say light that candle and bring about the future of train travel.

@dave the wet sprocket: That's what I hoped was happening in the picture.

@92BuickLeSabre: Seriously...is that Paul Giamatti in middle lower picture...?
(that guy is EVERYWHERE)

I wasn't aware that the Soyuz was constantly upgraded (that makes me feel better about this next statement)...

What the hell is up with the lack of a shuttle replacement... come on guys lets get going!!!

@DocGratis: GOP in charge for the last eight years is what happened, poppet. If you never want to see real space exploration again, just vote for the old gray fellow who wants to "stay the course."

@SavannahJack: True enough.. maybe they are afraid we might anger God...

or find a way to get to heaven with rockets...

@TheRemedy: Wasn't he a Transformer? I prefer Night Trains to Space Trains though.

the Russians stole that train from agents West and Gordon

@DocGratis:

"What the hell is up with the lack of a shuttle replacement... come on guys lets get going!!!"

No money, is what's up with that. NASA has a smaller space budget than the USAF.

It isn't just a matter of which party is in charge either (BTW, Congress makes the budget, not the President, folks) - both parties more-or-less hate NASA. It makes sense, as so do the US electorate.
-Kle.

@Klebert L. Hall: "It makes sense, as so do the US electorate."
Huh?

This makes me think of Space 1889, and gets me tingly in all the right spots.

I want space flying pirate ships!!

Memo to someone: remake that game, license that property for a television series, make a breakfast cereal.

I think I built that out of legos once.

"This mixture of high and low technology is probably the future of space exploration" - Hells yeah! Proof that Firefly is the most accurate, realistic portrayal of the future. And to think some of you mocked it as a "Space Western" ... For shame.

@Annalee Newitz: Ding!

@Klebert L. Hall: It's not a partisan issue, it's a cost/benefit/justification issue. Without a whirlwind of new inventions and technologies or a nationalistic sentiment that we have to be on top of the technological scramble, the average taxpayer doesn't think space exploration or space science is WORTH the billions of dollars that we really ought to be putting into it (and into the right programs, dare I say). I fear, as one of my old Physics professors used to say, that no one thinks space is cool except us geeks. :(

Cool! Rocket-powered train!

I wonder if they're going to use it to travel through time.