[avmich]

But it's more economical, money-wise, as Russian launchers history shows. In general, American rocket school tends to have better mass efficiency but less economical efficiency that Russian rocket school.

"When he wants more thrust, Ivan doesn't look for a fancy propellant with a higher specific impulse. He just builds himself a bigger rocket. Maybe he's got something there." - J. Clark, Ignition! https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pd...

[dnautics]

> When he wants more thrust, Ivan doesn't look for a fancy propellant with a higher specific impulse. He just builds himself a bigger rocket

On the other hand the Soviet Union did develop syntin... (also from Ignition!)

[avmich]

Of course the point was that one can use simple and crude solutions, or effective and sophisticated ones. Another example would be that in Russian rocket engines pumps tend to be put on the same axis as the turbine, so frequencies of turbine and pumps are the same and some of them can be non-optimal. In American tradition one uses gears, which makes both turbine and pumps (more) optimal, for the cost of gear mechanism. Practice shows that both approaches can work, but, just as with vertical assembly, which requires a tall building or a vertical transportation of a rocket, some ways look simpler than others. Simpler not necessarily better - but in rocket assembly it's probably cheaper to do it horizontally.