Russian Space Program: News & Discussion #3

thegopnik wrote:Musk seemed asshurt calling the Amur rockets as rip offs even though 2 flights of them are cheaper and carry more payload than current falcon heavy rockets.

The Amur rocket seems like a good design to me but I do not see why they could not have used the RD-191 to power it to make something like that faster and cheaper.
Most rocket engines can be reused, otherwise how would you be able to test them before flight, and the RD-171 series was designed to be able to be used multiple times.
Over a dozen times I think. RD-191 can also throttle down to 27% power level which is more than what the SpaceX Merlin can do.

thegopnik wrote:The other issue with Space X is they are currently not testing or AFAIK plans of testing fly wing rocket designs while Russia has recently created a design bureau for that, so instead of using half of fuel for take off and half of fuel for re-landing, I am sure it would be cheaper to just use half fuel and land on a runway with a parachute to be re-used again.

Than of course there is the nuklon project which Space X has nothing similar to offer, while NASA just keeps talking about it instead of giving launch dates.

I do not think that is a problem SpaceX has to be honest. Their engineering team has no experience with aerodynamics. So they are better off sticking to what they know how to do best which is rocket engines. I have read a lot about this, the extra propellant for propulsive reentry adds like 20% extra mass to the vehicle, which is about the same you would add if you put wings and landing gear on the vehicle and strengthened the structure to make a glider. A VTHL vehicle like that needs to be able to handle not only vertical stress but also horizontal stress so it needs extra reinforcement to the structure. The main advantage of the glider is that you can return back to the launch site even on those launch profiles where SpaceX needs to do a barge landing on the middle of the ocean. With a glider you wouldn't need those barges at all. But that requires expert aerodynamicists and a lot of testing facilities which SpaceX does not have.

SpaceX did try to use parachutes, that is supposed to add only like 10% extra mass to the vehicle, but all the attempts they made with landing the rocket on the sea resulted in major damage to the vehicle so they gave up on it. You would also need to make the rocket resistant to salt water corrosion because of the ocean landing which isn't trivial. It has been done before though. Robert Truax who worked for the US Navy made the Seabee rocket which could be even launched from inside salt water. He tested launching it from the San Francisco Bay and it worked fine.

With regards to Nuklon, I also think it is much better to use nuclear electric or solar electric propulsion to go to Mars and the Moon than simply making larger and larger chemical rockets. But SpaceX has zero nuclear engineering talent. At best I think they could work on solar electric, nuclear electric is beyond their means. Russia has the largest and most sophisticated nuclear industry in the world so of course that is something that works for Russia but not SpaceX.

thegopnik wrote:that's 3 points for Russia, 0 points in progress for Space X or NASA, but Russia getting all 4 points will prove to be difficult because they have yet to test launch the Yenisei or Don Rockets, I hate to admit it, but I think they are having a tight race in terms of who can send the heaviest shit into orbit with Space X and NASA(maybe even China). SLS has earlier maiden flight dates and as much as we shit on Space X starship flights, they keep getting higher and higher in altitudes. I am trying to figure out why everyone here has high confidence that Russia would not have a problem launching the Yenisei or Don Rockets into orbit compared to what Space X is doing? Does everyone think that the Starship will take a longer time to reach orbit by the time Russia already just yeets out the Yenisei and Don with ease? This is a concern if perhaps they ever decide to do deeper space exploration with bigger nuclear tugs to farther planets or even possibly manned ship to Mars. This is the only reason why I am not laughing like everyone else on this forum at the starship launches because we do not know how Roscosmos compares in sending their newest and heaviest rocket launches in comparison.

I do not think Russia needs any of that crap to be honest. I think what they need to do is finish the LOX/LH2 second stage for Angara and reduce its construction cost by simplifying the rocket and the production methods. Angara is modular and can be used for all launch requirements be manned or unmanned. Large rockets like Yenisei or Starship are not cost effective and there is no launch market which needs these rockets. Same reason why Energia and Saturn V were cancelled.

Have you ever looked at the proposed Starship first stages? More rocket engines than N-1 rocket. It has a high chance of launch failure.

You won't get any special minerals by going to the Moon or Mars. The Moon has basically the same mineral composition as the Earth as it was made from the same starting matter. Mars is much smaller than the Earth to begin with. You do not need those large rockets to colonize the Moon or Mars anyway. This can all be done with nuclear or solar electric and multiple launches for much cheaper.

The original Von Braun Mars and Korolev Moon mission proposals used multiple launches and on orbit assembly. They went with larger rockets for the Moon program only because on orbit assembly back then was unreliable, they could not even dock vehicles in space reliably, this is not the case now.

lancelot wrote:The Amur rocket seems like a good design to me but I do not see why they could not have used the RD-191 to power it to make something like that faster and cheaper.

RD series are kerolox and can't run on a cryogenic fuel component with fundamentally different flow properties and heat numbers. They would be better off desning an all new engine than to try modifiy the RDs.

Most rocket engines can be reused, otherwise how would you be able to test them before flight, and the RD-171 series was designed to be able to be used multiple times.
Over a dozen times I think. RD-191 can also throttle down to 27% power level which is more than what the SpaceX Merlin can do.

True, because the RD-170 was originally for the Zenit-based Energia strapons and they were intended to be recoverable in later flights.  Designing an engine for multiple starts however also allows them to be tested numerous times, and increases the safety margins so an engine can be certified for man rating.

The RD191 does indeed have an excellent low-throttle capability, but its still too powerful to permit single-engine landing control of a near-empty F-9 type core. It has 1.92MN at sea level, or equal to ~195 tonne. At 30% it puts out ~59 T while an F9 empty core is said to be only 25.5 T. [edited]

I have read a lot about this, the extra propellant for propulsive reentry adds like 20% extra mass to the vehicle, which is about the same you would add if you put wings and landing gear on the vehicle and strengthened the structure to make a glider.

SpaceX did try to use parachutes, that is supposed to add only like 10% extra mass to the vehicle....

Musks supporters often denigrate the idea of fly-back boosters by going on about them not being "scalable" and that the extra mass of wings, hydraulics, air-breathing cruise engine (like the Baikal concept) makes it too heavy. This is patently nonsense. The US used SRBs for decades on their heavy lifters (expendable) and STS (recoverable) and they are absurdly heavy with a horribly low ISP, but none of that matters. "Inefficent" strap-ons simply need to burn more fuel to get their primary job done - ie to lift the stack above the bulk of the planets atmosphere.Then they detach and the stack continues on its way with efficient engines/propellent combos.  If SRBs will do the job there is no reason why a Baikal-type winged rocket can't, and don't let any Musk-worshipping Space-ex fanboi tell you different  

With regards to Nuklon, I also think it is much better to use nuclear electric or solar electric propulsion to go to Mars and the Moon than simply making larger and larger chemical rockets. But SpaceX has zero nuclear engineering talent. At best I think they could work on solar electric, nuclear electric is beyond their means. Russia has the largest and most sophisticated nuclear industry in the world so of course that is something that works for Russia but not SpaceX.

Absolutely, and its this consideration that is the strongest evidence that Musk is outright LYING when he laims his "StarShip" is intended to carry high numbers of colonists to Mars.  StarShip is light years away from what an efficient interplanetary transport is going to look like. It will need to have a life support unit suitable for (alledgedly) dozens of PAX over a 9-month trip, and a high-capacity solar array to provide in-cruise power (probably not much smaller than ISS). Does anyone REALLY think this thing will be able to carry all these people, food and water for 9 months, all the necessary cruise support systems, plus fuel to not only reach orbit after seperation from the BFG, but to inject itself on a trans-martian escape trajectory, then be able to land (on a planet with an atmosphere that is so tenuous it offers very little braking capacity to large heavy craft)?????

Nah...  this is Star Trek fantasy for idiots and shareholders with more money than brains...          

thegopnik wrote:I am trying to figure out why everyone here has high confidence that Russia would not have a problem launching the Yenisei or Don Rockets into orbit compared to what Space X is doing?

Because Yenisei & LM9 are practical SHLVs while "StarShip" is a wanna-be military fast-reaction global troopship masquerading as Moon/Mars Colony Ship. The best StarShip can probably do is sub-orbital hops to deliver Special Forces to some hot-spot where the US wants urgent boots on the ground

I think what they need to do is finish the LOX/LH2 second stage for Angara and reduce its construction cost by simplifying the rocket and the production methods. Angara is modular and can be used for all launch requirements be manned or unmanned.

Absolutely correct.  Russia needs to ignore the mouth breathers who shit-can Angara and focus on the prize.  

Large rockets like Yenisei or Starship are not cost effective and there is no launch market which needs these rockets. Same reason why Energia and Saturn V were cancelled.

Energia and Saturn V were cancelled because they had no missions.  But you are correct that they are not cost effective as they will be launched rarely and will never be cheap.  SHLVs are however built to establish a national capability, not to make profit, and thats another reason why private operators aren't about to build them and fly tourists to dead planets.  No money to made, only huge outlays and equally large obligations/responsibilities.

Have you ever looked at the proposed Starship first stages? More rocket engines than N-1 rocket. It has a high chance of launch failure.

N-1 failed mainly because Soviet control technoogy in the mid 60s wasn't up to the task of controlling all thise engines in a sufficently synchornised and reliable fashion, plus they lacked the computational capability to simulate the dynamics of the stack in flight. One of the test vehicles was lost due to it developing an uncontrollable roll due to gas dynamic effects, and the 4th was lost due to pogo breaking up the stack because the controls couldn't react fast enough to damp out the oscillations.  Modern tech can and will solve these issues, leaving engine reliability as the main issue (but as F-9H showed that is also managable, or at least over one of two flights)

Big_Gazza wrote:

lancelot wrote:Except Raptor is better than RD-171 family technology.

sigh...  here we go again.

The problem here is that you (and Nomad 5891) are being over simplistic.  You can't apply a loose and wooley subjective term like "better" when discussing rocket engines. They are complicated machines and while they are outwardly similar (propellents go in, fire comes out...) the devil is in the details.  There are just so many parameters that effect the engineering outcome and performance particulars.

RD series are designed to burn hydrocarbon fuel, maximise efficiency (ISP) and reliability. They are designed for use in an expendable lift vehicle, ie one start only required. They are designed for low unit cost. RD-170 and 180 use multiple combustion chambers on a single set of turbopumps to avoid combustion instability and achieve high thrusts per engine - RD-170 develops 7.9MN in a vacuum with 4x chambers, thats more than a Rocketdyne F-1.  RD-180 develops 4.15MN with two. RD-191 develops 2.1 MN with one, while Raptor develops a max of 2.2MN with one.  They don't try to optimise engine weight as T/W ratio means fuck-all for 1st-stage engines on launchers.  Who cares if an RD-170/171 weights 10T when it is powering a ~1,000 launcher like a Zenit???  Russian designers accept heavy piping and multiple combustion chambers and the weight penalty it brings as this increases unit reliability and reduces costs as they can restrict the quantities of exotic alloys needed (eg only really needing them for cladding around high-temp LOX preburner streams where metal erosion is an issue with high-temperature oxidising gases typical of an oxygen-rich closed cycle). Russian (kerolox) engines are very efficient and have ISPs greatly in excess of their Western competitors, so they can handle a little extra mass.

Raptor and other methane/LNG burners in development in the US are geared to reuseability and restartability. They have a stick up their arses about weight savings and have chosen to build minimal mass designs. It remains to be seen how this affects their reuseability, and I suspect that SpaceX have been much less than honest when it comes to their reporting (how many flights do they get per engine? How often do inspections of engine wall thicknesses reveal unacceptable metal losses and require an engine changeout?)

No-one doubts that a full-flow closed cycle engine is a more difficult technology than a "regular" closed cycle version, but that doesn't make such an engine instrinsically "superior."  Its all about the success of the implementation and the RD-series has DECADES of service history and HUNDREDS of engines flown without issue. AFAIK none of the very few RD-series failures have been due to design or manufacturing deficiencies.  Failures have been due to human errors like foreign objects sucked into turbopumps like NSS-8 or non-engine related issues like dodgy hydraulic systems such as the rubbish that Ukraine supplied for Intelsat 27.  US methalox is taking its first baby steps, and the much vaunted Raptor has so far been less than impressive.

So here we go again. You wrote a lot of fancy words and terminology to just admit what I have been advocating the whole time.
Raptor is superior technology than RD series:

-It is cheaper to produce 2 Raptors than a single RD180
-2 Raptors that can be fited in rougly the same space as single RD180 and give roughly the same trust as a single RD180
-Raptor's piping and pumps placing is optimal per design, plus methane burns cleaner. Less seals because of full flow staged combustion.All this translating in better reliability than RD series.
-Raptors can be throttled down much further allowing for a spacecraft to land using its main engine.
-Raptors can be reused dozens of times.
-Raptors doesnt use exotic, toxic fuel.


I never said RD series were bad, so I dont get why you get your panties in a knot.

It is not a diss to Russia by no means. As I said I am sure Russia will catch up and soon field a better reusable methalox engine than Raptor or BE4. They have the brains, the money and the know-how.
BTW Didn't Rogozin recently claim Russia will start a new methalox reusable rocket desing? I suggest you together with that Singularity guy and KVS send him an angry fan letter and urge him to stop this maddness. Tell him Russia should stick to non reusable, kerosene rocket engines. Forget all this capitalsit bullshit about progress and innovations...


EDIT:

Big_Gazza wrote: "StarShip" is a wanna-be military fast-reaction global troopship masquerading as Moon/Mars Colony Ship. The best StarShip can probably do is sub-orbital hops to deliver Special Forces to some hot-spot where the US wants urgent boots on the ground

Oh boy...this is VERY interesting. Please do tell us more about how USA with military bases all over the world needs an unarmed, unarmoured space rocket which launch can be detected immediatly by both Russia and China for surprise delivery of troops.

Nomad5891 wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote: "StarShip" is a wanna-be military fast-reaction global troopship masquerading as Moon/Mars Colony Ship. The best StarShip can probably do is sub-orbital hops to deliver Special Forces to some hot-spot where the US wants urgent boots on the ground

Oh boy...this is VERY interesting. Please do tell us more about how USA with military bases all over the world needs an unarmed, unarmoured space rocket which launch can be detected immediatly by both Russia and China for surprise delivery of troops.

Actually there was a study for this a couple of years back by the USMC called "SUSTAIN".
https://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2006-12/semper-fly-marines-space/

There have been studies on this on the USA at least since the 1950s. For example the "Ithacus" from the 1960s.
http://www.astronautix.com/i/ithacus.html

Also back when Bill Clinton was on his 2nd term the US produced all sorts of studies on how to eliminate or greatly reduce foreign military bases with all sorts of gadgets. That's when concepts like Prompt Global Strike came up. Back then the US did all sorts of studies on how they could retain conventional global strike capabilities in case they had to stop using foreign military bases for whatever reason.

Nomad5891 wrote:You wrote a lot of fancy words and terminology to just admit what I have been advocating the whole time.
Raptor is superior technology than RD series:

Raptor utilises more complex technology, but that does not make it "superior".  Again, it depends on the success of the implementation, and the RD series is a solid piece of kit with along established pedigree that is recognised (by honest experts at least) as the premium hydrocarbon-burning engines available.  Raptor on the other hand has performed sub-par thus far with several failures in "StarShip" launches as I described. Are you seriously trying to say that Raptor is "superior" given these undeniable facts????  

Lets look at some of your supporting points:

It is cheaper to produce 2 Raptors than a single RD180

You really think that a Raptor engine only costs USD1M???                 What a joke.  Energomash sells to ULA for USD 9.9M each and the industry thinks that is a good price.

Raptor's piping and pumps placing is optimal per design, plus methane burns cleaner. Less seals because of full flow staged combustion.All this translating in better reliability than RD series.

OK, so you can paraphrase from Space-ex public outreach literature (or maybe wiki). Gratz, your teachers must be proud.

BTW "full flow" is a bit of a misnomer, as the propellents in a conventional CC engine also flow at full rates thru their respective halves of the turbopump, but while the conventional engine has a single shaft and a 3rd turbine for the preburner exhaust, the FF engine has seperate TP shafts and a preburner for each. Reduction of turbopump pressure/temperature and the elimination of the interpropellent seal is spruiked as the big advantage here (which is a good feature) but the downside is increased complexity in needing to synchronise the speed of two turbopumps and a higher component count. One hand gives reliability , the other takes away...

Raptors can be throttled down much further allowing for a spacecraft to land using its main engine.

Raptors can be trottled down to a min of 40%, while RD-191 can handle 30%. Hmmm...  

Raptors can be reused dozens of times.

Thats a design specification, so its yet to be demonstrated. Space-ex is a private company and has terrible transparency.  Musk doesn't release important operating data so we cannot know how much refurbishment his F9 cores require to return to flight condition, or how often the Merlins get changed out. The smart money is that each F9 core requires millions in refurb, and he changes engines on a routine basis, but Musk isn't telling....

Raptors doesnt use exotic, toxic fuel.

RD-series burn kerolox not hypergolics. I presume you knew that, but were too busy to regurgutating Space-ex press releases to notice the error?

My problem with your posts is that you are coming across as a fan-boi who reads Space-ex PR releases or wikipedia articles and can't resist repeating what others say without the slightest degree of scepticism.  You really think that Space-ex will mass-produce an engine that has double the TWR of the RD-series, can fire 1000x (seriously, thats what some idiots are saying...), will be far more reliable, yet all for ~USD250k once they ramp up production?????            C'mon get serious.  Yoour bullshit detector should be screaming by now - are you sure you have it plugged in and switched on?

I'm guessing you're not a STEM graduate?  I'm an engineer by profession, and while that certainly doesn't mean I'm infallible, the engineering discipline teaches us to consider first principles and evaluate concepts on their actual merits, not rubber-stamp ideas because they come with a glossy set of photos or because the originator knows how to work social media and indulge in PR blitzes.

Nomad5891 wrote:Oh boy...this is VERY interesting. Please do tell us more about how USA with military bases all over the world needs an unarmed, unarmoured space rocket which launch can be detected immediatly by both Russia and China for surprise delivery of troops.

Who said anything about Russia or China?

The Pentagram has never seen a weapon system or power projection concept they didn't like, and they very much want a boots-on-the-ground analog of their Prompt Global Strike concepts. How practical it will be in a real-world setting is not the point.  The Pentagram thinks it could be possible, and they want Musk to demonstrate it. If he can, they would be happy to shell our some serious bread. He's clearly not going to the Moon on this thing, so what is it intended for?

It is not a diss to Russia by no means. As I said I am sure Russia will catch up and soon field a better reusable methalox engine than Raptor or BE4. They have the brains, the money and the know-how.

Agreed, and its important to recognise that so far Russians haven't bothered with re-starting development of new engine designs like FFCC because currently they aren't recovering and reusing engines. When they do, they will then have a driver for the development efforts. Until then, RD-series are more than adequate to do what they want & need.

BTW Didn't Rogozin recently claim Russia will start a new methalox reusable rocket desing? I suggest you together with that Singularity guy and KVS send him an angry fan letter and urge him to stop this maddness. Tell him Russia should stick to non reusable, kerosene rocket engines. Forget all this capitalsit bullshit about progress and innovations...

Russia has no time for progress and innovations. They are too busy sheltering in their mud huts from the snow and bears while working on their nuclear-powered interplanetary tranport system Nukelon....

Yeah, asserts the clown that claims he invented the vacuum
tube train concept (not just some specific technical solution).

And the amazing technology he intends to make his vacuum tube train work... super magnets? Anti Gravity?... wheels...

This is why I know that HyperLoop is a con job.  Instead of working on real maglev tech (which Musk doesn't have) he is busy reworking the fuseage of a business jet and putting it in a tube to hoodwink the rubes that he is on to something and is just a few years from a M3 transport for cross-continental commuterage...  

Big_Gazza wrote:RD-series burn kerolox not hypergolics. I presume you knew that, but were too busy to regurgutating Space-ex press releases to notice the error?

I ment it more in the way Raptors doesnt rely on an exotic (expensive) and toxic fuel to achieve their stats. In my personal view such thing would nullify any advantage these engines have over current first stage rocket engines.

Big_Gazza wrote:
My problem with your posts is that you are coming across as a fan-boi who reads Space-ex PR releases or wikipedia articles and can't resist repeating what others say without the slightest degree of scepticism. You really think that Space-ex will mass-produce an engine that has double the TWR of the RD-series, can fire 1000x (seriously, thats what some idiots are saying...), will be far more reliable, yet all for ~USD250k once they ramp up production????? Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing C'mon get serious. Yoour bullshit detector should be screaming by now - are you sure you have it plugged in and switched on?

Well I am not a fanboy of anyone, of course I take everything with a grain of salt. Actually I favour russian/soviet technology and aproach of solving problems over american ones. It´s just that I dont let me personal likings and preferences to negate clear facts such as USA private companies revolutionazing space launch business in the last decade or China becoming a key player in the field.

Spacex have already showed I think that they are capable of delivering most of what they promise. They have the funds, which sadly is the most important factor when we speak about the R&D field.
If they fail with Raptor, which I agree with you, is a possibility, I dont think the idea of reusable methalox engine would die with it. They (or someone else) will fine-tune it and field it at somepoint.

Big_Gazza wrote:
I'm guessing you're not a STEM graduate? I'm an engineer by profession, and while that certainly doesn't mean I'm infallible, the engineering discipline teaches us to consider first principles and evaluate concepts on their actual merits, not rubber-stamp ideas because they come with a glossy set of photos or because the originator knows how to work social media and indulge in PR blitzes.

I am not an engineer, nor do I have any background in rocket engines and I am totally fine admiting it.
I do agree with you SpaceX does a lot of show, but hey thanks to that we are back to when millions of people follow launch of rockets to the space and actually care about space exploration. Which I think is a good thing, and if the cost to pay is to have a narcisist CEO posting glossy pictures on social madia I would pay it any day.

Tingsay wrote:

And where is the Soviet Union today? In the dumpster

yes because of the corruption of their leaders and gorbashev traitor. There was nothing wrong
with the soviet union space program. It was one of the few things they did right , after investing heavily in a strong education system .  Russia federaltion today , only thing it have to brag about
of being a "modern nation" all of them is thanks to soviet union extremely  ambitious space program , investments in space and soviet strong education system that was free.

Without soviet investments in space , putin will not have today any space rocket to go to the iss or anywhere. all putin "Achievements" that he feel proud about , comes from the heavy scientific developments of the soviet era. All russia industry was created by soviet union, and there are very few new companies that were born during putin's era.  that the only thing he promotes is bullshit sports and judo. Even today in 2021 , Russia is making headlines with sputnik V vaccine ,something that came thanks to soviet union microbiology centers build by the soviet as the gamaleya institute .

in other words ,there is almost nothing new ,no new industry scientific or technology in Russia ,that putin rely   ,that did not came from the soviet era.  Without the ambitious education system and ambitious space program ,that soviets developed , Russia will have never had anything to show the world ,that is a "modern nation".  It should be shameful ,that soviet space program ,was far more advanced that what putin's space program have today. Soviets had space exploration projects in 3 planets , with rovers and space shuttles too . today Russia space program is not a shadow of what it used to be during soviet times.  by the time russia do something meaningful in space will be too little and too late . i don't know of any cosmonaut during soviet union ,that resigned from his job , from having nothing to do .. as it happened during putin's era.


if this is not embarrassing ,then what it is ?

Cosmonaut Resigns Station Command for ‘Better Job’

Russian cosmonaut Gennady Padalka, who holds the world record for cumulative days in space, has announced his voluntary resignation from the Russian cosmonaut corps.
Padalka, 58, has already applied for step down and is expected to leave Russian Space Agency Roscosmos cosmonaut corps by April 28. The Cosmonauts’ Training Center (CTC) already confirmed receiving his application and said that it will be processed by an inter-departmental committee.

“ I had to resign. I am tired of doing nothing.

Padalka himself explained his decision by the fact that he has only small chances to join any space mission in the near future. “I had to resign. I am tired of doing nothing.  he told TASS, explaining his decision.

https://www.rt.com/news/385727-russian-record-holding-cosmonaut-resigns/


So when you have the most glorious cosmonauts of soviet union era resigning for having nothing
to do , because of their mediocre government ( putin)  wasting their time in other things , then you know that russia is truly facing a real crisis in space , and from a top power in space , now is in third place in activity ,in anything related to space explorations projects.  if this is not bad , then nothing is. it is putin the biggest problem Russia face , his outdated vision and development of russia is what is holding back the nation. He was billions and billions of dollars in totally waste of money in that he over spend over a period of 8 years in hosting olympics , up to $80 billions dollars he throw to the garbage , because he truly believed that sports can unite and promote good relations.    


Putin don't understand soft power , he don't understand leadership. One of the MOST IMPORTANT
jobs of a leader of a nation could ever have is to motivate their people and not to demoralize them..
and above you have nothing less than a cosmonaut tired of doing nothing ,that resign from his job.
what will happen if all cosmonauts resign? wouldn't that be an awakening call ,that there is something wrong with putin as a leader? Even the head of roscosmos ,have been demoralized too
by putin ,he openly told how putin expect him to be as active as nasa and china space program with only 1/20 of their budget.      he even told that , that their assembly workers are demoralized
by their low salaries and that this does not help , in making their workers more competitive    


another one . Making Russia "Great again" ?  

Yuri Lonchakov




Russian cosmonaut due to command a flight to International Space Station quits to work for a gas company 'because his wife wants him to earn more money'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2413998/Cosmonaut-Yury-Lonchakov-quits-work-gas-company-money.html

So i could write a 500 hundred page book , explaining why putin is an idiot. he is destroying
Russia ,with his outdated vision , outdated modernization of his country , he is literary destroying
the country in pieces. albeit not intentionally ,but by being incredibly stupid he do it. but the end result is the same , he is destroying russia ,by not understanding how to develop his country when facing war in all fronts. military ,cultural and business.  the last thing a country president should do
is demoralize his population and even less ,those that are supposed to work in the most prestigious industries (the handful russia have) that Russia can use to show the world ,they are not a third world nation.

When a president lacks of a real vision for the future of his country , in a world of peace ,nothing happens , people gets bored and just move to a new nation. but when that nation is facing war ,as russia is facing, the country is destroyed in a million of pieces , because when nations face wars , the government major job is to motivate its people to unite the nation behind their government in power.
but demoralizing society is what will create civil unrest and euromaidans ,and similar conditions ,that caused the destruction of soviet union and the russian empire too.

So what we have in summary ?
- 2 cosmonauts demoralized by putin's mediocre space program ,who resigned from what was
supposed to be the most prestigious job in all russia, to be a cosmonaut.
- The director of Russia space program , Rogozin  complaining to the media RT, how bad is the
funding of Russia space program , and even speaking about how demoralized are workers in Russia
space industry ,because of their low wages.  

who is to blame for the demoralization of the entire Russia space program ?

- It is NATO ?
- It is russia liberals ? Navalny ?
- Or instead is consequence of Putin's budget cuts in the most important things , Russia have
to earn soft power , and promote business ,and earn a little of respect in the world ?

i think is Putin the problem. he have no clue , no vision of how Russia needs to be developed ,
in order not only to survive the western attacks on their economy ,but also to transform the nation
into a true super power in space , something that will become very powerful motivator and achievement for the entire nation and encourage patriotism if Russia was a leader in something there , and achieved something never done before in space ,write history books , and create a momentum for the nation ,to rise from its paralysis ,that putin's gas station have created.

Vann7 wrote:

Tingsay wrote:

And where is the Soviet Union today? In the dumpster

yes because of the corruption of their leaders and gorbashev traitor. There was nothing wrong
with the soviet union space program. It was one of the few things they did right , after investing heavily in a strong education system .  Russia federaltion today , only thing it have to brag about
of being a "modern nation" all of them is thanks to soviet union extremely  ambitious space program , investments in space and soviet strong education system that was free.

Without soviet investments in space , putin will not have today any space rocket to go to the iss or anywhere. all putin "Achievements" that he feel proud about , comes from the heavy scientific developments of the soviet era. All russia industry was created by soviet union, and there are very few new companies that were born during putin's era.  that the only thing he promotes is bullshit sports and judo. Even today in 2021 , Russia is making headlines with sputnik V vaccine ,something that came thanks to soviet union microbiology centers build by the soviet as the gamaleya institute .

in other words ,there is almost nothing new ,no new industry scientific or technology in Russia ,that putin rely   ,that did not came from the soviet era.  Without the ambitious education system and ambitious space program ,that soviets developed , Russia will have never had anything to show the world ,that is a "modern nation".  It should be shameful ,that soviet space program ,was far more advanced that what putin's space program have today. Soviets had space exploration projects in 3 planets , with rovers and space shuttles too . today Russia space program is not a shadow of what it used to be during soviet times.  by the time russia do something meaningful in space will be too little and too late . i don't know of any cosmonaut during soviet union ,that resigned from his job , from having nothing to do .. as it happened during putin's era.


if this is not embarrassing ,then what it is ?

Cosmonaut Resigns Station Command for ‘Better Job’

Russian cosmonaut Gennady Padalka, who holds the world record for cumulative days in space, has announced his voluntary resignation from the Russian cosmonaut corps.
Padalka, 58, has already applied for step down and is expected to leave Russian Space Agency Roscosmos cosmonaut corps by April 28. The Cosmonauts’ Training Center (CTC) already confirmed receiving his application and said that it will be processed by an inter-departmental committee.

“ I had to resign. I am tired of doing nothing.

Padalka himself explained his decision by the fact that he has only small chances to join any space mission in the near future. “I had to resign. I am tired of doing nothing.  he told TASS, explaining his decision.

https://www.rt.com/news/385727-russian-record-holding-cosmonaut-resigns/


So when you have the most glorious cosmonauts of soviet union era resigning for having nothing
to do , because of their mediocre government ( putin)  wasting their time in other things , then you know that russia is truly facing a real crisis in space , and from a top power in space , now is in third place in activity ,in anything related to space explorations projects.  if this is not bad , then nothing is. it is putin the biggest problem Russia face , his outdated vision and development of russia is what is holding back the nation. He was billions and billions of dollars in totally waste of money in that he over spend over a period of 8 years in hosting olympics , up to $80 billions dollars he throw to the garbage , because he truly believed that sports can unite and promote good relations.    


Putin don't understand soft power , he don't understand leadership. One of the MOST IMPORTANT
jobs of a leader of a nation could ever have is to motivate their people and not to demoralize them..
and above you have nothing less than a cosmonaut tired of doing nothing ,that resign from his job.
what will happen if all cosmonauts resign? wouldn't that be an awakening call ,that there is something wrong with putin as a leader? Even the head of roscosmos ,have been demoralized too
by putin ,he openly told how putin expect him to be as active as nasa and china space program with only 1/20 of their budget.      he even told that , that their assembly workers are demoralized
by their low salaries and that this does not help , in making their workers more competitive    


another one . Making Russia "Great again" ?  

Yuri Lonchakov




Russian cosmonaut due to command a flight to International Space Station quits to work for a gas company 'because his wife wants him to earn more money'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2413998/Cosmonaut-Yury-Lonchakov-quits-work-gas-company-money.html

So i could write a 500 hundred page book , explaining why putin is an idiot. he is destroying
Russia ,with his outdated vision , outdated modernization of his country , he is literary destroying
the country in pieces. albeit not intentionally ,but by being incredibly stupid he do it. but the end result is the same , he is destroying russia ,by not understanding how to develop his country when facing war in all fronts. military ,cultural and business.  the last thing a country president should do
is demoralize his population and even less ,those that are supposed to work in the most prestigious industries (the handful russia have) that Russia can use to show the world ,they are not a third world nation.

When a president lacks of a real vision for the future of his country , in a world of peace ,nothing happens , people gets bored and just move to a new nation. but when that nation is facing war ,as russia is facing, the country is destroyed in a million of pieces , because when nations face wars , the government major job is to motivate its people to unite the nation behind their government in power.
but demoralizing society is what will create civil unrest and euromaidans ,and similar conditions ,that caused the destruction of soviet union and the russian empire too.

So what we have in summary ?
- 2 cosmonauts demoralized by putin's mediocre space program ,who resigned from what was
supposed to be the most prestigious job in all russia, to be a cosmonaut.
- The director of Russia space program , Rogozin  complaining to the media RT, how bad is the
funding of Russia space program , and even speaking about how demoralized are workers in Russia
space industry ,because of their low wages.  

who is to blame for the demoralization of the entire Russia space program ?

- It is NATO ?
- It is russia liberals ? Navalny ?
- Or instead is consequence of Putin's budget cuts in the most important things , Russia have
to earn soft power , and promote business ,and earn a little of respect in the world ?

i think is Putin the problem. he have no clue , no vision of how Russia needs to be developed ,
in order not only to survive the western attacks on their economy ,but also to transform the nation
into a true super power in space , something that will become very powerful motivator and achievement for the entire nation and encourage patriotism if Russia was a leader in something there , and achieved something never done before in space ,write history books , and create a momentum for the nation ,to rise from its paralysis ,that putin's gas station have created.

Yep and you are STILL OVERRATING the importance of space exploration.

Besides Low Earth Orbit and a few Geostationary Orbit, there is absolutely no value in space.
Russia is already doing enough in LEO and like kvs said, is already making moves in GEO. Beyond that is as meaningless as million dollar "modern art" paintings. Of course one day it will be genuinely valuable to mankind, but NOT in your lifetime or mine. Not even in your great grand children's lifetime.

I ask you again:
Did the moon landing stop global warming?
Did it cure Cancer?
Eliminate poverty?

Did USSR's first satellite in space prevent it's collapse?
Did Yuri gagarin's first man in space achievement made Western Dorks move over to Russia's sphere of influence?
Did Laika's achievement make the West respect the Soviets and start moving over to Soviet High-tech BizNiZ?

The answer is NO to all of that.

Mars is a useless little planet with nothing to offer.  I don't see people rushing to colonise the Peruvian Atacama Desert, and that benighted bleak-scape is a tropical paradise compared to the Red Planet.  I mean, just think about the foolishness of the endeavor.  Setting up shop in a radiation/UV-soaked, freezing cold & nearly airless desert with poisoned soil, incapable of supporting terrestrial life, a few hundred million miles and 2 years away from any external help/supplies/spare parts, and where it costs several thousand dollars to get a single kilo of payload to low-earth orbit, let alone to Mars orbit.

Musks endless public masturbation will amount to nothing except the soiling of his hands and the faces of his empty-headed fan-bois and fluffers.

George1 wrote:

Eight OneWeb satellites separate from Fregat booster

It will take about four hours to put the satellites into orbit

MOSCOW, March 25. /TASS/. Eight OneWeb communication satellites carried by the Soyuz-2.1b carrier rocket have separated from the Fregat booster, Russia’s Roscosmos State Space Corporation said on Twitter.

"The first four of OneWeb’s satellites have separated from the Fregat booster," one of the tweets reads. Another tweet says that four more satellites have separated.

The Soyuz-2.1b rocket carrying 36 OneWeb satellites was launched from the Vostochny spaceport at 05:47 am Moscow time (02:47 am GMT) on Thursday. It will take about four hours to put the satellites into orbit.

OneWeb satellites were first launched from the Vostochny spaceport in December 2020. A total of 36 space vehicles were put into orbit. Overall, the British company plans to deliver around 600 satellites into a near-Earth orbit. OneWeb’s renewed agreement with the French launch service provider Arianespace includes the lift-off of 16 Russian Soyuz carrier rockets from the Kourou, Vostochny and Baikonur spaceports in 2020-2022. Each launch allows orbiting 34-36 satellites.

https://tass.com/science/1270095

This proves Russia has the capability to build a low orbit constellation like SpaceX's Starlink if they wanted to. Unlike what you hear on MSM outlets Starlink is not commercially viable. Much like Iridium you will find out it will need to rely on military contracts for it to be economically viable. In fact the US military is already testing Starlink on large aircraft.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/12/spacex-prepares-for-air-force-test-of-starlink-satellite-internet.html

Starlink is not usable in any place which has dense population in it because the satellites have limited capacity per cell. This means its market is severely limited. In North America this will mainly mean Canada. Ironically something like Starlink is likely more economically viable in Russia than the US. Not that Russians particularly need it with much lower network access costs than the US.

If Russia had plans to launch 20.000 low-tech sats into orbit the whole west would scream about "space debris" and "space junk".

Hole wrote:If Russia had plans to launch 20.000 low-tech sats into orbit the whole west would scream about "space debris" and "space junk".

StarLink is already compromising ground-based astronomy as satellites routinely pass thru the telescopes field of view during the necessary long exposures. If this was being done by Russian or Chinese commsats then the West would be incandescent with (fake) rage. Because they are birds from the Golden Boy however the media and gtovernments studiously ignore the Astronomers protests.

A wonderful example of the Wests corruption and utter lack of scruples.

Yep and you are STILL OVERRATING the importance of space exploration.

He is ignoring reality.

His view seems to be that the only reason the west hates Russia is Putin, but to believe that you would have to believe what the west says and that is a path with a tragic end.

Very simply Russia could cure cancer or Covid, they could offer free trips to any westerner to Mars or beyond... the western press wont suddenly say... hey... these guys aren't so bad after all... maybe we are wrong and we just misunderstood them...

You see the west thinks Russia is the west, so they know when Russia does stuff it is bad for the west and will be only good for Russia, because when the west does something it is only good for the west... that is how things work.

Essentially what Vann is saying is if Putin was gone then the west would love Russia and Russians, but Putin is actually their best bet for good relations with Russia... the Russians who don't really like Putin don't like him because they think it is too soft on the west and too pro west... the alternative to Putin is the Russian Communist party and nutters like Zhirinovsky.

So Vann... keep complaining... and I will keep saying what I say... complaints and the demonisation of Putin in the western media is a good thing for Russia because it means he is doing a good job. When they start being nice to him and giving him credit for stuff we will know he has started selling Russia out for pieces of silver... but based on past history I don't expect that to ever happen.

It is amusing the west thinks a few sanctions will break the Russians... perhaps reading a bit about Stalingrad and Leningrad during the period of WWII would be useful to those who think just one more sanction will break them.

BTW there is enormous value in space exploration... even just new technologies and materials for high pressure or high temperature as well as anti radiation materials and technology being developed is useful in a wide range of things we need and use here on earth.

But building huge spaceships to carry people into deep space is an enormous waste of time and money most of the time and is more about ego and pride than anything actually useful.

Going through the process of developing a moon base and keeping people there is interesting because it will require things to be recyclable and reusable to a degree we really don't actually bother with here on earth. You put stuff in a yellow bin and other stuff in a green bin and further stuff in a red bin, but how much actually gets recycled into anything other than being dumped in land fill.

Improved technology converting waste into matter than has value and can be reused would be the most useful thing moon bases will likely result in.

kvs wrote:The Moon base is by far the most worthwhile project.   Hopping to another glorified Moon, aka Mars, does not make sense without first developing
the foreign planet station technology.   The Moon is the ideal field test and people can be rescued whereas they can't be rescued on Mars.

Also, the Moon is likely to have the minerals that would possibly justify space mining.   It would be cheaper to get them from the Moon than
from the asteroid belt.   In theory asteroid mining would be cheaper, but super low gravity drilling and explosive boring is hardly existing
technology.  

People are letting their fantasies run loose and think that they can get instant sci-fi gratification.   That is why they bitch and bitch about
the Russian space program failing to deliver.   It's not like their own space programs (if they have them) are delivering.   But instead of bitching
against their own "failures" they feel compelled to bitch against Russia.

DeltaV requirements to return useful quantities of materials to Earth is always going to be the giant hurdle that space-based mining will likely never be able to overcome. There is nothing on asteroids or even the moon that is intriniscally valuable enough to justify the immense costs of extraction and shipping to earth.