> The odd duck out here are the Russians as they really don't seem to have a replacement for Soyuz either in the works or anywhere close to being deployed
Perhaps this is because they don't really see a need for a new vehicle (Soyuz meets mission requirements just fine), let alone the benefit of having partially re-usable rockets?
Partially re-usable rockets require special launch/recovery procedures (ie. a "smart" barge parked in the ocean somewhere, or worse, over land someplace risking the population), a whole lot of R&D, a new untested vehicle, and no guaranteed payoffs (SpaceX's cost reduction and re-usability claims are yet to be proven).
The Soyuz, as you've pointed out, is fairly inexpensive (given it's mission), and is very well understood. From their perspective, it seems, the Soyuz is the ideal craft for the job, and any new build would largely result in a new craft meeting the same mission goals, ie. a waste of time and resources when they already have a vehicle that fills that need.
As of ~2013, Soyuz has about 939 successful launches, 24 failures, for a total of 963 launches[1]. Seems to be a "recipe" one doesn't want to tinker with.
I don't think the Russians see "over land" as a particularly big obstacle. Right now they just drop their spent first stages on land without much guidance. Before launches from Baikonur, they send out soldiers in helicopters to warn the nomads, and otherwise it's pretty much every man for himself. Salvaging the spent stages is apparently a bit of a cottage industry there.
Just a bit of a nitpick, your overall point here is entirely sound.
Perhaps this is because they don't really see a need for a new vehicle (Soyuz meets mission requirements just fine), let alone the benefit of having partially re-usable rockets?
Partially re-usable rockets require special launch/recovery procedures (ie. a "smart" barge parked in the ocean somewhere, or worse, over land someplace risking the population), a whole lot of R&D, a new untested vehicle, and no guaranteed payoffs (SpaceX's cost reduction and re-usability claims are yet to be proven).
The Soyuz, as you've pointed out, is fairly inexpensive (given it's mission), and is very well understood. From their perspective, it seems, the Soyuz is the ideal craft for the job, and any new build would largely result in a new craft meeting the same mission goals, ie. a waste of time and resources when they already have a vehicle that fills that need.
As of ~2013, Soyuz has about 939 successful launches, 24 failures, for a total of 963 launches[1]. Seems to be a "recipe" one doesn't want to tinker with.
[1] http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2138/how-many-succe...