NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
International Space Flight (ESA, Russia, China and others) => Russian Launchers - Soyuz, Progress and Uncrewed => Topic started by: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/30/2015 11:19 pm
-
Russia Says Elon Musk is 'Stepping On Our Toes' (http://fortune.com/2015/12/30/russia-elon-musk-spacex/)
“The main goal today is to make space cheap. Competitors are stepping on our toes. Look at what billionaire Musk is doing with his projects.”
So, how serious is this? With Roscosmos as a state corporation, even with a lean budget, could this amount to much?
Or is it, as usual, posturing of an over committed, under financed, decades behind - state run organization, mouthed by an arrogant politician for hype?
As I said in this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38678.msg1464089#msg1464089):
The smart strategy would be tiger team spin-outs for something like a Delta II class vehicle that's eventually recoverable, e.g. just how SX did Falcon 9. If things work, then spin-in. That's how other industries do such.
So with all of the massive assets at hand, and a "corporate form", and supposedly a desire to advance in a "respected direction" - what can/should/would need to be done to make this serious?
-
The Falcon LVs are a serious threat to Proton's commercial satellite business. They can match or better Proton on price and are just as or more reliable eg 5% failure rate for F9 is better than last few years for Proton.
Dragon v2 and Starliner will take Soyuz ISS business.
On plus side SpaceX are forcing the Russians to develop a RLV. Combined with the new capsule, Russian could start to build a space tourism business
-
Gotta love the "billionaire" jab..
-
The Falcon LVs are a serious threat to Proton's commercial satellite business.
Not only Proton. And not only Russian. SX already steals Ariane launches.
Note that Rogozin at least is the first to take seriously the challenge as a challenge.
Unlike Arianespace CEO Stephane Isreal: “We will never be launching 30 times per year,” (Arianespace’s initial assessment is that a [SX] rocket would need to launch 30 times per year to close the business case).
If SX were to launch 30 times a year, both Russia and Europe would have significant hits to launch service revenue - it would come out of both of their hide's. The only recourse would be to discount launches and insist on significant budget increases to cover the shortfall.
No provider is in a good position for this, but the Russians seem especially challenged, as the last three decades of design choices seem to go counter to the formula that Musk is counting on for re-usability, and at least Europe has the high end launch services secured from rivals, although that seems to be the most likely source of ULA future manifest wins to steal away.
Gotta love the "billionaire" jab..
Yeah, like no kleptocrat in Russia will lay hands on any of the funds, right? So how's that new Vostochny Cosmodrome working out?
-
The Russophobes are out in force I see.
-
The Russophobes are out in force I see.
Yep, totally just made up fears.
-
VOA's perspective...
http://www.voanews.com/content/analysts-russian-space-agency-restructure-unlikely-to-fix-problems/3124917.html
-
Roscosmos has bigger things to worry about than Musk's experiments.
Cheap launch isn't that important.
-
Russia has extensive liquid propulsion expertise and a stable of in production and heritage engines that are reusable. Until a just few years ago they were the only ones with any experience in large methane fueled engine. If they wish to develop a reusable booster system they are in a very good position to start from. The challenge Russia faces isn't technological, it is organizational and financial.
Rogozin, what ever one thinks of the man, is perceptive enough to realize that the status quo may become obsolete in the next few years. If changing the Russian space industry to be able to compete is going to be done from the top down then the top leadership needs know what the factors are that have allowed their competitors to be successful and the changes needed to replicate those factors. Based on the numerous threads and countless posts here on NSF debating about why SpaceX has been so successful I think it is safe to say the we don't fully understand why ourselves. Rogozin has a difficult task ahead of him.
-
Russia has extensive liquid propulsion expertise and a stable of in production and heritage engines that are reusable. Until a just few years ago they were the only ones with any experience in large methane fueled engine. If they wish to develop a reusable booster system they are in a very good position to start from. The challenge Russia faces isn't technological, it is organizational and financial.
Rogozin, what ever one thinks of the man, is perceptive enough to realize that the status quo may become obsolete in the next few years. If changing the Russian space industry to be able to compete is going to be done from the top down then the top leadership needs know what the factors are that have allowed their competitors to be successful and the changes needed to replicate those factors. Based on the numerous threads and countless posts here on NSF debating about why SpaceX has been so successful I think it is safe to say the we don't fully understand why ourselves. Rogozin has a difficult task ahead of him.
Free market enterprise in a true democracy is what made SpaceX successful as well as other corporations, it's not a secret. No one here on NSF doubts Russia's technical expertise that is hamstrung by it's politics.
If Mr. Rogozin is feeling hurt by having his toes stepped on, well perhaps it's time to slip on some "steel toed" boots and get to work like countless do in the west and create their own sucess...
-
Cheap launch isn't that important.
ISS crew is. That's a pretty enormous stiletto aimed at a geopolitical toe there. Remember Rogozin is responsible for quite a lot of administration outside of Roscomos. Although whilst Rogozin (in my own mass media biased opinion) isn't the most charming of men he's not hitting out at at Musk. I got quite the opposite impression.
-
Although whilst Rogozin (in my own mass media biased opinion) isn't the most charming of men he's not hitting out at at Musk. I got quite the opposite impression.
Me too. Why I created this thread.
Back to the underlying efficacy of the remark - empty only, Roscosmos "corporate" excuse, motivational only, or foreshadowing forceful decisions to slice/dice an out of control, impossible to manage structural assembly of a few thousand fiefdoms? And "how?" Not an easy, simple thing to attempt.
Or am I being to much of a "Russophobe", where my comments need to be nuanced to their fragile egos and delicate ears ... ;)
add:
Mind you, when I've visited SX, always reminds me of Russian attitudes/appearances/approaches/mindset. Also always wondered if Musk's "take away" from attempting to buy Russian propulsion prior to SX was to observe methodology to understand the "why" behind it all.
-
SpaceX has lit a fire in the rocket industry long before they successfully recovered a booster.
Obviously the reason is not because of the potential of marketing cheaper flights for customers, but because recovering as much as you can of your launch vehicle will save your company money, even if you still charge a higher rate. Even the Indian Space Agency is working on a recovery mode, as is Arianespace and ULA.
ULA will likely be able to charge more not because they save money but (as SpaceX has not yet shown by the numbers) but because ULA has a very reliable launch record. It's like Apple selling their computers. Internally, they aren't much different than PCs but are priced higher (I know--I'm a certified Apple and PC tech). But people who buy Apple products tend to come back because of the company's reputation of a long-lasting product. ULA has made a similar reputation--but now they have competition and they are smart to change their hardware model.
Roscosmos's venerable Soyuz rocket and spacecraft work well, but technology must evolve, and people like Musk isn't waiting for governments, ideological wars, huge rocks falling from the sky, or national pride to get things moving. They'll adapt as they realize that this will likely become a practical matter.
-
Mind you, when I've visited SX, always reminds me of Russian attitudes/appearances/approaches/mindset.
I've never associated dream cults with Russia, so I guess you're thinking about the totalitarian attitude :)
-
Russia Says Elon Musk is 'Stepping On Our Toes' (http://fortune.com/2015/12/30/russia-elon-musk-spacex/)
“The main goal today is to make space cheap. Competitors are stepping on our toes. Look at what billionaire Musk is doing with his projects.”
So, how serious is this? With Roscosmos as a state corporation, even with a lean budget, could this amount to much?
Or is it, as usual, posturing of an over committed, under financed, decades behind - state run organization, mouthed by an arrogant politician for hype?
Here is an expanded version of the quote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-30/elon-musk-stepping-on-toes-in-space-race-russia-official-says
“Competitors are stepping on our toes. Look at what billionaire Musk is doing with his projects. This is very interesting, well done, and we treat this work with respect.”
So rather than an indictment of Russian attitudes, I think this teaches us about certain media's disrespect for the truth in the pursuit of inflammatory headlines.
(edit.. Come to think of it, I wonder if he meant to say "biting at our heels".. this seems the gist of the entire statement to me: Russia is ahead on cheap reliable launch and they can be proud of this but they could lose that position if they stagnate. In fact I think he is saying they deserve to lose it if they stagnate.)
-
I've noted many times that US news sources are inherently dismissive in their attitudes towards most all Russian political motives, and extending that towards SpaceX and E. Musk is par for the course.
After the latest F9 launch, I was on RT.com the following morning. RT.com was reporting it as a top story, and it was quite respectful. I am not surprised Russians would be respectful towards SpaceX accomplishments. The Russians have proven themselves a leader in space for decades. That leadership is not just the technical accomplishments, but the vision and dreams of it's people, and technology leadership. That all stems from a Russian culture that values the drive for exploration and pushing frontiers. Such vision within a culture is rare in today's world, and just a handful of countries are able to cultivate and sustain interest in space accomplishments.
NASA Spaceflight has been invaluable to me to in that it reports quite accurately and respectfully on all existing and aspiring space powers, including those that may be adversarial to the USA in some ways. ( China, Iran, Norks, etc.)
I hope the Russians can self examine their position in launch technology, and further reform their industrial base to stay competitive. I think they will need to consolidate some design bureaus and make a more vertical industry, but it would be a loss to the world if their engine technology passes into history.
-
I prefer Rogozin's "respect" and "well done" response, to Stéphane Israël's "there's nothing to see here".
The sad but true fact is that Elon, running a private company, can make more decisions and make on-the-fly adjustments in one Monday morning meeting then either of them could in a year.
Add this latest tweet, and I'd say Rogozin understands exactly where this is all going. Russia has a proud and honored history of Space accomplishments. What they do not currently have enough of though, is the political, economic or cultural infrastructure to organically grow a company like SpaceX...and let them fly...I personally wish they could find a way to do so...
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/682717803166695425
-
Project Fenix is clearly the most rational and advances expendable rocket project that I've seen lately. Specially the gas-gas engines are quite similar to Raptor's projected specs. And they could work as excellent boosters for a SHLV.
The only issue is the lack of reusability. I had speculated that they could do a seven engine core if they also used an RD-0162SD for the upper stage. But regrettably the Voystochny transport restrictions required a bigger upper stage with the 74tonnes RD-0169.
-
Cheap launch isn't that important.
ISS crew is.
?
Roscosmos launching American astronauts to the ISS was always only a temporary arrangement. The political situation might have accelerated commercial crew somewhat. SpaceX has nothing to do with it.
-
?
Roscosmos launching American astronauts to the ISS was always only a temporary arrangement. The political situation might have accelerated commercial crew somewhat. SpaceX has nothing to do with it.
I don't know where you get this from. Soyuz doing crew rotation has been the plan of record since the station agreement was signed. It's Russia's primary contribution.
-
?
Roscosmos launching American astronauts to the ISS was always only a temporary arrangement. The political situation might have accelerated commercial crew somewhat. SpaceX has nothing to do with it.
I don't know where you get this from. Soyuz doing crew rotation has been the plan of record since the station agreement was signed. It's Russia's primary contribution.
Sorry, should have said Roscosmos having a monopoly on crew rotation was always meant to be temporary.
-
Russia Says Elon Musk is 'Stepping On Our Toes' (http://fortune.com/2015/12/30/russia-elon-musk-spacex/)
“The main goal today is to make space cheap. Competitors are stepping on our toes. Look at what billionaire Musk is doing with his projects.”
So, how serious is this? With Roscosmos as a state corporation, even with a lean budget, could this amount to much?
Or is it, as usual, posturing of an over committed, under financed, decades behind - state run organization, mouthed by an arrogant politician for hype?
Here is an expanded version of the quote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-30/elon-musk-stepping-on-toes-in-space-race-russia-official-says
“Competitors are stepping on our toes. Look at what billionaire Musk is doing with his projects. This is very interesting, well done, and we treat this work with respect.”
So rather than an indictment of Russian attitudes, I think this teaches us about certain media's disrespect for the truth in the pursuit of inflammatory headlines.
(edit.. Come to think of it, I wonder if he meant to say "biting at our heels".. this seems the gist of the entire statement to me: Russia is ahead on cheap reliable launch and they can be proud of this but they could lose that position if they stagnate. In fact I think he is saying they deserve to lose it if they stagnate.)
Thank you for digging out the full quote of what was said and what surprise, not, that there was more to the story than placed in the OP's article which chopped him off early and changed the context completely in doing so.
-
?
Roscosmos launching American astronauts to the ISS was always only a temporary arrangement. The political situation might have accelerated commercial crew somewhat. SpaceX has nothing to do with it.
I don't know where you get this from. Soyuz doing crew rotation has been the plan of record since the station agreement was signed. It's Russia's primary contribution.
think you might be a little off on this. Soyuz (from my understanding) was the backup return, and the Space Shuttle (USA) having the main transport responsibility. That's why the USA buys the seats. Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
I prefer Rogozin's "respect" and "well done" response, to Stéphane Israël's "there's nothing to see here".
The sad but true fact is that Elon, running a private company, can make more decisions and make on-the-fly adjustments in one Monday morning meeting then either of them could in a year.
Add this latest tweet, and I'd say Rogozin understands exactly where this is all going. Russia has a proud and honored history of Space accomplishments. What they do not currently have enough of though, is the political, economic or cultural infrastructure to organically grow a company like SpaceX...and let them fly...I personally wish they could find a way to do so...
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/682717803166695425
Sorry but any time I hear the name Rogozin his words are recalled. So....
Maybe Rogozin is going to direct the design of a highly advanced "Trampoline" satellite launcher :D
-
I prefer Rogozin's "respect" and "well done" response, to Stéphane Israël's "there's nothing to see here".
The sad but true fact is that Elon, running a private company, can make more decisions and make on-the-fly adjustments in one Monday morning meeting then either of them could in a year.
Add this latest tweet, and I'd say Rogozin understands exactly where this is all going. Russia has a proud and honored history of Space accomplishments. What they do not currently have enough of though, is the political, economic or cultural infrastructure to organically grow a company like SpaceX...and let them fly...I personally wish they could find a way to do so...
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/682717803166695425
Sorry but any time I hear the name Rogozin his words are recalled. So....
Maybe Rogozin is going to direct the design of a highly advanced "Trampoline" satellite launcher :D
I think it will be a "trampoline landing-pad" instead for a future reusable first stage... ;)
-
think you might be a little off on this. Soyuz (from my understanding) was the backup return, and the Space Shuttle (USA) having the main transport responsibility. That's why the USA buys the seats. Correct me if I'm wrong.
AIUI, there Shuttle simply couldn't perform the task of emergency egress vehicle, since it could stay on orbit just 30 days. Thus, Soyuz was needed for that role until a solution could be developed for the USOS. Regrettably the X-38 proyect was cancelled and the ISS partnership then agreed to depend on Soyuz for CRV until such a time as the non-Russian side developed their own vehicle.
So, Soyuz was always the CRV of the ROS. Since X-38 cancellation it has also been the CRV of record until NASA decided to go with Commercial Crew (and Orion as backup), when they decided not to deorbit the station in 2015.
-
?
Roscosmos launching American astronauts to the ISS was always only a temporary arrangement. The political situation might have accelerated commercial crew somewhat. SpaceX has nothing to do with it.
I don't know where you get this from. Soyuz doing crew rotation has been the plan of record since the station agreement was signed. It's Russia's primary contribution.
think you might be a little off on this. Soyuz (from my understanding) was the backup return, and the Space Shuttle (USA) having the main transport responsibility. That's why the USA buys the seats. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The Shuttle was certainly capable of moving crew to and from the ISS, but since the Shuttle could only stay in space for two weeks it could not KEEP crew permanently at the ISS if, for safety reasons, you wanted the crew to have the capability to return home on short notice. Only the Soyuz was capable of providing the "lifeboat" function when the ISS partners agreed to build the ISS.
The X-38 Crew Return Vehicle would have been able to provide the "lifeboat" function (crew take Shuttle up, CRV down) but Bush cancelled it in 2002, in part because of cost overruns on the ISS itself.
So the cancellation of the Shuttle program never really affected the crew transportation situation on the ISS.
-
The Shuttle was certainly capable of moving crew to and from the ISS, but since the Shuttle could only stay in space for two weeks it could not KEEP crew permanently at the ISS if, for safety reasons, you wanted the crew to have the capability to return home on short notice. Only the Soyuz was capable of providing the "lifeboat" function when the ISS partners agreed to build the ISS.
The X-38 Crew Return Vehicle would have been able to provide the "lifeboat" function (crew take Shuttle up, CRV down) but Bush cancelled it in 2002, in part because of cost overruns on the ISS itself.
So the cancellation of the Shuttle program never really affected the crew transportation situation on the ISS.
Canceling the X-38 was pretty stupid as it could have been evolved into a crew transport vehicle.
Hopefully Dragon V2 and Starliner will rectify the problem.
Though the problem of sole dependence on Russia for crew transport never should have existed in the first place.
-
Though the problem of sole dependence on Russia for crew transport never should have existed in the first place.
Then you might as well say the ISS never should have existed in the first place. Partnership is dependence.
-
If Russia didn't have the ISS to go to what HSF program would they have today? Space station Mir was on it's last legs without major upgrades or replacement... They still wouldn't have gone to the Moon. So all he really has to complain about is his loss of satellite customers... That's business, innovate or stagnate... His choice is the proclamation of a new agency... This emperor really has no clothes...
-
Rogozin has played a major part in the decline of Russian space. His goal, along with Putin and his clique, is to ensure that the Russian secret police are able to plunder the state and the citizenry as extensively as possible. Everything else is a press release.
-
My hope is that the Russians - and Europeans - have the sense to firstly try to copy the business model, rather than focus on the engineering.
Sadly that's probably not going to happen.
-
Canceling the X-38 was pretty stupid as it could have been evolved into a crew transport vehicle.
Don't forget the cancellation of HL-20 in 1990 and the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) in 2004. There were also Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) studies in 1986 called Station Crew Return Alternative Module (SCRAM) and a large Discoverer type capsule. See http://www.astronautix.com/craft/nasaacrv.htm After 31 years of trying, NASA is finally getting the spacecraft they need! Here's a summary of all the different programs
ACRV HL-20 1986-1990
X-38 1991-2002
OSP 2002-2004
MPCV Orion 2004-
CCDEV Dragon 2/CST-100 2010-
We shall see if the CCDEV vehicles can be competitive with Soyuz.
-
Canceling the X-38 was pretty stupid as it could have been evolved into a crew transport vehicle.
Don't forget the cancellation of HL-20 in 1990 and the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) in 2004. There were also Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) studies in 1986 called Station Crew Return Alternative Module (SCRAM) and a large Discoverer type capsule. See http://www.astronautix.com/craft/nasaacrv.htm After 31 years of trying, NASA is finally getting the spacecraft they need! Here's a summary of all the different programs
ACRV HL-20 1986-1990
X-38 1991-2002
OSP 2002-2004
MPCV Orion 2004-
CCDEV Dragon 2/CST-100 2010-
We shall see if the CCDEV vehicles can be competitive with Soyuz.
Even if it costs us a bit more Steven, it would be worth it in order to have HSF autonomy again and not having a character like Rogozin to rub our face in it again once and for all... I hope the U.S. never places itself in this position ever again...
-
The only issue is the lack of reusability. I had speculated that they could do a seven engine core if they also used an RD-0162SD for the upper stage. But regrettably the Voystochny transport restrictions required a bigger upper stage with the 74tonnes RD-0169.
To my point that:
... but the Russians seem especially challenged, as the last three decades of design choices seem to go counter to the formula that Musk is counting on for re-usability ...
You see this throughout.
Can't see how they can afford existing operations/missions on new, reduced budget.
Let alone any new program to displace old programs.
And to gain access to budget, you'd have to consolidate to fewer systems/components, collapsing certain ones. The choices here are not good ones.
-
Roscosmos has bigger things to worry about than Musk's experiments.
Cheap launch isn't that important.
“The main goal today is to make space cheap,” Rogozin said...
Problem with ***not*** cheap launch is you may find yourself without the payloads to launch -- and get hard cash. Looking at not-so-great recent track records for Soyuz and Proton and the incursion into Ukraine/Syria, Russia is standing to lose a significant chunk of hard cash from commercial launches. (Proton didn't get any during 2014... when Ukraine conflict flaired.) Place that on the table with losing crew transport dollars and add a major budget crunch nationally, and you get a multi-sided squeeze of an already tight situation.
Rogozin probably couldn't care less about cheap spaceflight -- remaining a player in the game is what counts.
-
Even if it costs us a bit more Steven, it would be worth it in order to have HSF autonomy again and not having a character like Rogozin to rub our face in it again once and for all... I hope the U.S. never places itself in this position ever again...
I totally agree that the US needs independent crew access to ISS in order to provide access in case there is a problem with Soyuz. When the US capsules start flying, I'm wondering what Russia will do. Will they continue to fly four Soyuz a year? If they do, that would provide six commercial seats a year they could sell. At $30M to $40M each (maybe at the old price of $25M if they really want to be competitive) that would undercut the price of seats on Dragon 2 or CST-100, provided that US commercial seats are even available (NASA might not like the idea of tourists flying on their missions).
-
Sorry guys, but I don't understand this thread.
1. I've searched for almost an hour, but I've not found any Rogozin interview on Rossiya 24 where he says this.
2. Even if he said this, what is the problem ? He says that Musk is challenging Russia, which should go further in developping rocket technologies. Where is the arrogance, and where is the problem ?
-
Sorry guys, but I don't understand this thread.
It's simple. Rogozin made a statement about SpaceX presenting a challenge to Russian space. How Russia will react is interesting to some people. Hence this thread. It is to discuss how Russia is reacting to SpaceX, in particular with respect to Rogozin's latest comments.
1. I've searched for almost an hour, but I've not found any Rogozin interview on Rossiya 24 where he says this.
The very first post on this thread had a link to an article discussing the Rogozin quote on Fortune magazine's web site. I've seen it discussed on other news outlets. Why does it matter to you whether you can find a link to it on Rossiya 24? Surely you don't think Fortune would just make it up, do you? Why would they make up something and claim it was on Rossiya 24 when it would be so easy for Rossiya 24 to refute if it weren't true? And if it weren't true, surely Russia would have refuted it by now, no?
2. Even if he said this, what is the problem ? He says that Musk is challenging Russia, which should go further in developping rocket technologies. Where is the arrogance, and where is the problem ?
What exactly are you replying to here? If you think someone on this thread said something specific that you disagree with, you should reply to that specific comment.
-
Cheap launch isn't that important.
If you are happy continuing what we've been doing in space at the same pace without change, cheap launch isn't that important.
If you want our civilization to do more in space, cheap launch is everything.
-
Why does it matter to you whether you can find a link to it on Rossiya 24? Surely you don't think Fortune would just make it up, do you?
I'm skeptical about the translation and interpretation Fortune made of the interview. That's why I'm searching for the source. It would not be the first case where the Russian claim and the Western translation and/or interpretation are slightly different.
To be clear : I don't "charge" Fortune not to be honnest. I just want to check it by myself.
-
Sorry guys, but I don't understand this thread.
It's simple. Rogozin made a statement about SpaceX presenting a challenge to Russian space. How Russia will react is interesting to some people. Hence this thread. It is to discuss how Russia is reacting to SpaceX, in particular with respect to Rogozin's latest comments.
1. I've searched for almost an hour, but I've not found any Rogozin interview on Rossiya 24 where he says this.
The very first post on this thread had a link to an article discussing the Rogozin quote on Fortune magazine's web site. I've seen it discussed on other news outlets. Why does it matter to you whether you can find a link to it on Rossiya 24? Surely you don't think Fortune would just make it up, do you? Why would they make up something and claim it was on Rossiya 24 when it would be so easy for Rossiya 24 to refute if it weren't true? And if it weren't true, surely Russia would have refuted it by now, no?
2. Even if he said this, what is the problem ? He says that Musk is challenging Russia, which should go further in developping rocket technologies. Where is the arrogance, and where is the problem ?
What exactly are you replying to here? If you think someone on this thread said something specific that you disagree with, you should reply to that specific comment.
Other than the fact that the article in the OP is not the complete statement and therefore should in my view not be relied upon. Instead a later poster supplied the full quote which produced a different context than that in the OP.
-
The real question is when Russia will provide an alternative to Falcon.
-
I've noted many times that US news sources are inherently dismissive in their attitudes towards most all Russian political motives
You probably can't read native Russian press. Russian attitude towards US is several magnitudes worse.
The Russians have proven themselves a leader in space for decades. That leadership is not just the technical accomplishments, but the vision and dreams of it's people, and technology leadership.
What leadership?
They never reached Mercury or anything beyond Mars. Their Mars missions all weren't full successes - all landers failed, only two (IIRC) orbiters succeeded, last one in 1971. They can't even reach Mars now - last nine (!) attempts all failed.
Comsat market is owned by Western companies, not Russians. The reason is quite simple - Western sats routinely last for 15+ years, Russian sats often die before 5.
Russia did not ever launch sizable space telescopes. Its contribution to astrophysics via scientific spacecraft is minuscule. Compare with spacecraft from the West covering entire EM spectrum: HST, Chandra, Hipparcos, Gaia, Fermi, Hershel, WMAP, Planck, SOHO, Swift, Spitzer, XMM-Newton, COROT, Gravity Probe B...
What Russians do have are Soyuz (LV and capsule), Proton, and engine tech. That's not leadership in space in general. That's leadership in LVs and manned spaceflight.
-
Their last Mars orbiter was in 80s - Phobos program. It was 20 years ago.
A few years ago they launched a space telescope - Radioastron. Currently it's the largest space telescope.
-
Sorry guys, but I don't understand this thread.
1. I've searched for almost an hour, but I've not found any Rogozin interview on Rossiya 24 where he says this.
So far I found this:
http://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/5683ba3c9a7947320104ea9b
-
While Mr. Rogozin is fixated on his toes, his head is about to get stomped on… Therein lies the crux of the problem… He just doesn’t get it…
-
Sorry guys, but I don't understand this thread.
1. I've searched for almost an hour, but I've not found any Rogozin interview on Rossiya 24 where he says this.
2. Even if he said this, what is the problem ? He says that Musk is challenging Russia, which should go further in developping rocket technologies. Where is the arrogance, and where is the problem ?
Are you searching for controversy the most recent fortune article, which is not controversial as most here have agreed, as opposed to Rozogin's mockery earlier in the year ( April) that is the well deserved source of much disdain against him? His twitter account statements are the source of why he is not liked.
https://twitter.com/Rogozin/status/461137034292527104
He is unliked for his stabbs against the US relying on Russia for rides to the ISS and suggesting we build a trampoline to get there. ( Russian humor....meh)
-
Is it so shocking for you that I want to check a source ???
Sorry, I will never do that again. Now I will believe avery thing I read on the Internet, without asking any question.
-
I've noted many times that US news sources are inherently dismissive in their attitudes towards most all Russian political motives
You probably can't read native Russian press. Russian attitude towards US is several magnitudes worse.
The Russians have proven themselves a leader in space for decades. That leadership is not just the technical accomplishments, but the vision and dreams of it's people, and technology leadership.
What leadership?
They never reached Mercury or anything beyond Mars. Their Mars missions all weren't full successes - all landers failed, only two (IIRC) orbiters succeeded, last one in 1971. They can't even reach Mars now - last nine (!) attempts all failed.
Comsat market is owned by Western companies, not Russians. The reason is quite simple - Western sats routinely last for 15+ years, Russian sats often die before 5.
Russia did not ever launch sizable space telescopes. Its contribution to astrophysics via scientific spacecraft is minuscule. Compare with spacecraft from the West covering entire EM spectrum: HST, Chandra, Hipparcos, Gaia, Fermi, Hershel, WMAP, Planck, SOHO, Swift, Spitzer, XMM-Newton, COROT, Gravity Probe B...
What Russians do have are Soyuz (LV and capsule), Proton, and engine tech. That's not leadership in space in general. That's leadership in LVs and manned spaceflight.
I think you made my point for Russian leadership quite well. They absolutely are leaders in LV's and manned spaceflight. It's good to know we agree. I would also point out that whole "space race" thing. Who were we competing against, if not a potential equal at that time? Would the United States have accomplished what it has without the sharp edge of competition from the Soviet Union?
Does pointing out and showing admiration for the aspirations and accomplishments on non-US state actors give you some kind of insecurity or irritation over the accomplishments of NASA and the USA? Your post seemed insecure.
It does work like that for me. I have no problem weighing that NASA & the USA, if ranked in t's place as "most accomplished & special space powers", is the undisputed #1. GO USA YAY USA!
As a US citizen, I am proud to be a part of the culture that produce all of the observatories you listed. The planetary exploration programs enable by US mastery of high energy upper stage technology, as well as the development of EDL for exploration of planetary surfaces are some of the crown jewels that the USA, and all the other countries that contributed people or instruments for those missions can be proud of.
Bringing the topic back to Rozogin & Russia, I am hopeful the Russian's ambitions for space travel and accomplishments will continue in spite of political actors like him, or the tensions it brings between countries.
That is a concern I have for the USA's space program as well. The USA will not always have the ability to outspend the rest of the world combined on space activity. We will then have to rest our accomplishments on more than our financial dominance.
-
The real question is when Russia will provide an alternative to Falcon.
well the Zenit could but that's an old wound :-X
-
Oh great. Just noticed this thread.
Goes without saying, you can take Mr, Rogozin's comments to task, but I don't want to see any anti-Russia comments anywhere on this site. We have a lot of Russian members here - very good people - and they don't deserve it. You don't see Russians on here posting "Those Americans are crazy with their "World Champions" for 'domestic league' Superbowl titles", in the middle of a post about what NASA is doing, do you. ;D
Remember this is a globally used site.
-
The real question is when Russia will provide an alternative to Falcon.
In the late 2000s, there was a plan to have a VTVL boost-back first stage as part of a launch vehicle called Rossiyanka (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33315.0). But they didn't go through with that. They also haven't seemed to go with the Baikal flyback booster either.
-
The real question is when Russia will provide an alternative to Falcon.
In the late 2000s, there was a plan to have a VTVL boost-back first stage as part of a launch vehicle called Rossiyanka (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33315.0). But they didn't go through with that. They also haven't seemed to go with the Baikal flyback booster either.
Baikal is almost fully designed but internal funding had since to be diverted to cover cost of fixes on ISS RS Module MLM and repeated Proton and occasional Rockot failures. There are additional reasons but Ill leave that to someone else.