Author Topic: Russian launch failures  (Read 6869 times)

Offline Nicolas PILLET

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Gien, France
    • Kosmonavtika
  • Liked: 417
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Russian launch failures
« Reply #20 on: 12/09/2017 02:43 PM »
I've made some statistics abut Soviet/Russian launches :

http://www.forum-conquete-spatiale.fr/t18808-statistiques-des-lancements-russes

If you look at the last graphic at the bottom of this page, you can see that the main reason for the decrease is that they have no more film-return capsules.

Another reason is the increase of satcoms' life duration.
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

Offline Nicolas PILLET

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Gien, France
    • Kosmonavtika
  • Liked: 417
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Russian launch failures
« Reply #21 on: 12/09/2017 02:47 PM »
Correlating number of launches and Russian economy is really a bad idea. In the 1970s-1980s, Soviet economy was not good at all, and they made about 100 launches per year.

The peak of Russian economical crisis was in 1998-2000, and they made 39 launches in 2000.
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

Offline Phillip Clark

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2280
  • Hastings, England
  • Liked: 338
  • Likes Given: 855
Re: Russian launch failures
« Reply #22 on: 12/09/2017 02:52 PM »
I've made some statistics abut Soviet/Russian launches :
http://www.forum-conquete-spatiale.fr/t18808-statistiques-des-lancements-russes
If you look at the last graphic at the bottom of this page, you can see that the main reason for the decrease is that they have no more film-return capsules.
Another reason is the increase of satcoms' life duration.

Not just the film-return photo-recons but military launches in general - ELINT, "minor military", etc.
I've always been crazy but it's kept me from going insane - WJ.

Offline Stan Black

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2877
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: Russian launch failures
« Reply #23 on: 12/10/2017 03:35 PM »
The data are from ... this marvellous site, nasaspaceflight.com:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17568.msg1171855#msg1171855
("Information about Proton rocket", table "Briz-M Baikonur delivery dates" compiled by Stan Black)

I tried to update that list.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17568.msg1756855#msg1756855

It looks like they no longer send the Briz-M from factory to launch site on is own. These days the Briz-M are shipped along with the Proton-M rocket and fairing to the launch site? The Briz-M is no longer sent by aeroplane? 11Т756 railway carriage is used?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17568.msg1640131#msg1640131
https://www.roscosmos.ru/20896/
« Last Edit: 12/10/2017 03:37 PM by Stan Black »

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6178
  • Liked: 3969
  • Likes Given: 5460
Re: Russian launch failures
« Reply #24 on: 12/10/2017 05:09 PM »
I've made some statistics abut Soviet/Russian launches :

http://www.forum-conquete-spatiale.fr/t18808-statistiques-des-lancements-russes

If you look at the last graphic at the bottom of this page, you can see that the main reason for the decrease is that they have no more film-return capsules.

Another reason is the increase of satcoms' life duration.

Thanks for these graphics!

Looks like they made up some of the drop-off by taking a significant share of the word's commercial launches (starting around 1998-2000) -- just when Delta iv and Atlas v were planning to support flight rate with commercial launches.  Now, their commercial flight rate is collapsing and with it the much-needed cash flow into the space launch industry.  This loss combined with the country's budget woes is a double hit to space industry, triple if you include the soon-to-be discontinued US-funded crew flights (vols habites).  Don't see any of these diseases getting cured soon.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2017 05:18 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Russian launch failures
« Reply #25 on: 12/10/2017 05:16 PM »
...

The Soviet Union/Russia has been on one long decline since 1970. Note: (Source:UN)

...
Thank you for the data. And yes, the general correlation is clear, as the attached graph illustrates.
I'd like to play with more detailed figures - could you please give the link to the source of your numbers ?

Quote

The run-up in oil prices from 2002-2013 masked a lot of the inefficiencies and bloat in their system. Much of the profit from the resource sector was pilfered by oligarchs and sent into Swiss bank accounts rather than rebuilding/upgrading old soviet infrastructure, or general economic improvement. Russia now has dutch disease, and relies on digging stuff out of the ground to purchase more complicated products/services from abroad. The eventual transfer to electric cars and away from fossil fuels will only hurt them more.
- well, that's true, but it is pretty general true.
I hope to find more specifics with more detailed economic numbers. That's why I'm asking for the source.

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnllist.asp

" GDP and its breakdown at current prices in US Dollars"
"Exchange Rates and Population"
« Last Edit: 12/10/2017 05:19 PM by ZachF »

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Russian launch failures
« Reply #26 on: 12/10/2017 05:24 PM »
I've made some statistics abut Soviet/Russian launches :

http://www.forum-conquete-spatiale.fr/t18808-statistiques-des-lancements-russes

If you look at the last graphic at the bottom of this page, you can see that the main reason for the decrease is that they have no more film-return capsules.

Another reason is the increase of satcoms' life duration.

Thanks for these graphics!

Looks like they made up some of the drop-off by taking a significant share of the word's commercial launches (starting around 1998-2000) -- just when Delta iv and Atlas v were planning to support flight rate with commercial launches.  Now, their commercial flight rate is collapsing and with it the much-needed cash flow into the space launch industry.  This loss combined with the country's budget woes is a double hit to space industry, triple if you include the soon-to-be discontinued US-funded crew flights (vols habites).  Don't see any of these diseases getting cured soon.

6-8 launches per year (about half manned) to the ISS. Take those and the commercial launches away and you're down a lot. By the mid 2020s Russia could be struggling to put up 8-10 launches a year IMHO.

Don't forget Arianespace phasing out their Soyuz launches and ULA switching to BO engines. More lost cash flow for space industry.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2017 05:35 PM by ZachF »

Offline Nicolas PILLET

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Gien, France
    • Kosmonavtika
  • Liked: 417
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Russian launch failures
« Reply #27 on: 12/11/2017 11:31 AM »
Take those and the commercial launches away and you're down a lot.

Of course.
Take commercial and ISS launches away from SpaceX's manifest and you're down a lot, too.
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

Offline JMSC

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 107
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Russian launch failures
« Reply #28 on: 12/15/2017 05:47 PM »
Take those and the commercial launches away and you're down a lot.

Of course.
Take commercial and ISS launches away from SpaceX's manifest and you're down a lot, too.

The difference being though is that a large number of the ISS manned seats are being taken away from Soyuz and given to SpaceX and Boeing.  From 2006 to 2018 NASA paid Russia a little over $3.36 billion and over $500 million a year on average for 2017 and 2018.  Beginning in 2019, a good chunk of that $500 million a year will be going to buy seats on Dragon II and pumping up SpaceXs bottom line instead of Roscosmos.  Given the Russian civilian space program budget is only a little over $2 billion a year, losing the manned ISS business is a huge financial blow for the program.

http://www.businessinsider.com/astronaut-cost-per-soyuz-seat-2016-9

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Russian launch failures
« Reply #29 on: 12/16/2017 04:45 PM »
Take those and the commercial launches away and you're down a lot.

Of course.
Take commercial and ISS launches away from SpaceX's manifest and you're down a lot, too.

The difference being though is that a large number of the ISS manned seats are being taken away from Soyuz and given to SpaceX and Boeing.  From 2006 to 2018 NASA paid Russia a little over $3.36 billion and over $500 million a year on average for 2017 and 2018.  Beginning in 2019, a good chunk of that $500 million a year will be going to buy seats on Dragon II and pumping up SpaceXs bottom line instead of Roscosmos.  Given the Russian civilian space program budget is only a little over $2 billion a year, losing the manned ISS business is a huge financial blow for the program.

http://www.businessinsider.com/astronaut-cost-per-soyuz-seat-2016-9

Yep. They are losing cash flow on all sides.

Domestic space budget had to drop from $4 billion a year to $2 billion because of the drop in oil/gas prices.
~$1-1.5 billion a year throwing up over a dozen commercial Proton launches/year, pretty much gone now.
~$500 million a year sending people to the ISS, soon to be gone.
~$150 million a year selling Soyuz to Arianespace, soon to be gone.
~$200 million a year selling 8-10 RD-180s to ULA, soon to be gone.

That's a "Space industry" total just right there dropping from about ~$6 billion/year a couple years ago to $2 billion and change by the early 2020s... Jeff Bezos can outspend that by himself. The question is, does this start to trigger a death-spiral syndrome? And if so, when?
« Last Edit: 12/16/2017 04:48 PM by ZachF »

Tags: