-
Impact of Rouble Crash on Russian Aerospace Industry Plans
by
Danderman
on 01 Dec, 2014 19:57
-
This thread is NOT about impact of souring East West relations on Russian aerospace, but rather, the impact of the current financial crisis in Russia caused by the oil glut on Russian aerospace.
My feeling is that most of the announced increases in spending on space projects will never materialize.
First launch from the Soyuz pad at Vostochny is probably going to be at the end of this decade, but the Angara pad will probably be five years late.
You can forget the Soyuz replacement within the next 10 years, and HLV is a project for the 30s.
Angara-5 will not, therefore, replace Proton for GSO launches for at least another 10 years, unless they are performed from Plesetsk.
I would bet money that Progress launches will be reduced from 4 to 3 per year, within 2 years.
No chance of a new Russian space station within 10 years. If MLM is announced to be flown as part of a new station rather than to ISS, it will never fly.
Any program that generates foreign capital will continue unabated, unless the political environment prohibits it. For example, Dnepr flights will continue.
Aerospace workers will not get significant raises, and the bifurcation of the industry into very old and very young workers will continue, along with a relatively high failure rate of equipment.
-
#1
by
sdsds
on 02 Dec, 2014 07:23
-
Hmm, yes. I tried to get a sense of how much the purchasing power of the ruble has declined. Attached is a plot showing its one-year history against both dollars and gold. Ouch!
But to what extent does this hurt their aerospace industry, which presumably pays most of its bills in rubles?
-
#2
by
woods170
on 02 Dec, 2014 13:00
-
This thread is NOT about impact of souring East West relations on Russian aerospace, but rather, the impact of the current financial crisis in Russia caused by the oil glut on Russian aerospace.
My feeling is that most of the announced increases in spending on space projects will never materialize.
First launch from the Soyuz pad at Vostochny is probably going to be at the end of this decade, but the Angara pad will probably be five years late.
You can forget the Soyuz replacement within the next 10 years, and HLV is a project for the 30s.
Angara-5 will not, therefore, replace Proton for GSO launches for at least another 10 years, unless they are performed from Plesetsk.
I would bet money that Progress launches will be reduced from 4 to 3 per year, within 2 years.
No chance of a new Russian space station within 10 years. If MLM is announced to be flown as part of a new station rather than to ISS, it will never fly.
Any program that generates foreign capital will continue unabated, unless the political environment prohibits it. For example, Dnepr flights will continue.
Aerospace workers will not get significant raises, and the bifurcation of the industry into very old and very young workers will continue, along with a relatively high failure rate of equipment.
IMO that is a very bleak (read: pessimistic) take on current affairs.
-
#3
by
asmi
on 02 Dec, 2014 16:40
-
I would bet money that Progress launches will be reduced from 4 to 3 per year, within 2 years.
How much money are you willing to bet?
To other points - all of that depends on a political will much more than on economics as all these projects are just peanuts financially speaking. As far as I know, there is currently huge political pressure to get A5 flying (at least from Plesetsk), and complete Soyuz pad at Vostochny, so these are almost certain to happen. As for the rest - we will see.
-
#4
by
Lars-J
on 02 Dec, 2014 19:07
-
First launch from the Soyuz pad at Vostochny is probably going to be at the end of this decade, but the Angara pad will probably be five years late.
This seems overly pessimistic. The pad appears to be half-done, and there is lots of prestige at play for Putin. I don't think it will take 4-5 years until the first launch.
You can forget the Soyuz replacement within the next 10 years, and HLV is a project for the 30s.
The only Soyuz replacements in the pipeline are incremental Soyuz upgrades, and they should move ahead where funds allow. Soyuz 2-1v (no boosters, NK-33 engine) has already flown once, and the Soyuz 2-3 (2-1v with boosters) would be a low-cost upgrade that could be fielded if needed.
Angara-5 will not, therefore, replace Proton for GSO launches for at least another 10 years, unless they are performed from Plesetsk.
Well, it turns out that the first A5 launch (scheduled for the new few weeks) is taking a test payload to GTO, so it looks like the plan is to indeed perform some GSO missions from Plesetsk.
I don't think the picture is as grim as you paint it. There is always a lot of powerpoint projects coming out of Russia, but that is nothing new. (nor is it limited to Russia)
-
#5
by
Prober
on 02 Dec, 2014 19:42
-
I would bet money that Progress launches will be reduced from 4 to 3 per year, within 2 years.
How much money are you willing to bet?
To other points - all of that depends on a political will much more than on economics as all these projects are just peanuts financially speaking. As far as I know, there is currently huge political pressure to get A5 flying (at least from Plesetsk), and complete Soyuz pad at Vostochny, so these are almost certain to happen. As for the rest - we will see.
Vostochny as a full scale spaceport might be at an end. Before the cash mess, a labor mess in Vostochny was in process. If the Soyuz pad is made operational look for more of a military site like Plesetsk.
-
#6
by
SIEP
on 02 Dec, 2014 20:53
-
The World is ending, oh no!
I fail to understand the point in posting pure personal speculation, in light of rules that lead to the deletion of certain posts and threads while others evade the same fate, like this one.
-
#7
by
Danderman
on 03 Dec, 2014 14:32
-
First launch from the Soyuz pad at Vostochny is probably going to be at the end of this decade, but the Angara pad will probably be five years late.
This seems overly pessimistic. The pad appears to be half-done, and there is lots of prestige at play for Putin. I don't think it will take 4-5 years until the first launch.
You can forget the Soyuz replacement within the next 10 years, and HLV is a project for the 30s.
The only Soyuz replacements in the pipeline are incremental Soyuz upgrades, and they should move ahead where funds allow. Soyuz 2-1v (no boosters, NK-33 engine) has already flown once, and the Soyuz 2-3 (2-1v with boosters) would be a low-cost upgrade that could be fielded if needed.
Angara-5 will not, therefore, replace Proton for GSO launches for at least another 10 years, unless they are performed from Plesetsk.
Well, it turns out that the first A5 launch (scheduled for the new few weeks) is taking a test payload to GTO, so it looks like the plan is to indeed perform some GSO missions from Plesetsk.
I don't think the picture is as grim as you paint it. There is always a lot of powerpoint projects coming out of Russia, but that is nothing new. (nor is it limited to Russia)
Two different issues here:
1) By "Soyuz replacement", I meant the spacecraft, not the launcher. Since there is going to be a Soyuz launch pad at Vostochny, I am presuming that Soyuz LV will continue indefinitely.
2) Angara 5 launched from Plesetsk can put smaller payloads into GSO, but cannot replace Proton functionality.
-
#8
by
Danderman
on 03 Dec, 2014 14:33
-
The World is ending, oh no!
I fail to understand the point in posting pure personal speculation, in light of rules that lead to the deletion of certain posts and threads while others evade the same fate, like this one.
I am not suggesting that the Russian space program is coming to an end due to the economic problems, only that a slowdown should be expected, which is contrary to the official story today.
-
#9
by
Prober
on 03 Dec, 2014 19:42
-
The World is ending, oh no!
I fail to understand the point in posting pure personal speculation, in light of rules that lead to the deletion of certain posts and threads while others evade the same fate, like this one.
I am not suggesting that the Russian space program is coming to an end due to the economic problems, only that a slowdown should be expected, which is contrary to the official story today.
This thread is NOT about impact of souring East West relations on Russian aerospace, but rather, the impact of the current financial crisis in Russia caused by the oil glut on Russian aerospace.
I'm going to try and word this in a non-political way, so take it as such. Its just an understanding of the monies tied to oil.
One of the major monies tied to Oil is the USA dollar. Russia has said it no longer wished to use the US dollar as the trading currency. Has signed an agreement to move Oil monies to a new currency the Chinese yuan.
It will take a few years of this major transition. The process good, or bad, leaves Russia's space program's future, in the hands of the Chinese yuan.
-
#10
by
Danderman
on 03 Dec, 2014 21:24
-
I'm going to try and word this in a non-political way, so take it as such. Its just an understanding of the monies tied to oil.
One of the major monies tied to Oil is the USA dollar. Russia has said it no longer wished to use the US dollar as the trading currency. Has signed an agreement to move Oil monies to a new currency the Chinese yuan.
It will take a few years of this major transition. The process good, or bad, leaves Russia's space program's future, in the hands of the Chinese yuan.
for better or worse, the Rouble has crashed against the Chinese Yuan, as well.
This financial downturn has nothing to do with a handful of oil contracts that are priced in Yuan, as opposed to against the dollar; in fact, Russia has previously priced contracts against the Euro. The reality is that Russia's economy is in a sharp decline, similar to the US decline in 2008.
I am suggesting that expansion of the Russian space program in the context of this economic collapse is unlikely, and I am trying to determine what programs will be most impacted. In general, I see delays rather than outright cancellations as the most probable outcome, with the impacted programs those related to exploration or expansion of current capabilities, as opposed to ISS participation, or those programs that generate foreign revenues.
-
#11
by
Mark S
on 03 Dec, 2014 21:36
-
My guess is that we won't have to break out the trampoline to reach ISS after all.
Not that we were going to anyway. But Russia will probably be much more appreciative of the $70 million per seat for the next three years.
-
#12
by
Danderman
on 05 Dec, 2014 15:38
-
I would expect the flight of Orion to put some pressure on the politicians to show that they are making progress on a next generation spacecraft, but I wouldn't expect anything other than rhetoric, rather than announcing some advanced first launch date. Instead, I would expect the politicians to say that the next generation spacecraft will be flying Real Soon Now.
-
#13
by
fregate
on 07 Dec, 2014 00:42
-
Do not underestimate internal Russian resources - if ROUBLE became weak it would be economically feasible to start production of certain components domestically rather than buy them from overseas suppliers. After Ukrainian conflict this year there is a state-wide program to replace import components by domestically produced ones it's call IMPORTREPLACEMENT
But I reluctantly have to agree that current financial situation probably would push back progress in Russian Space exploration program at least for few decades.
-
#14
by
Rocket Science
on 07 Dec, 2014 01:13
-
As long as Russia remains a resource based economy it will never expand to meet its lofty goals. Even though it just inked a 400 Billion dollar over 30 year gas deal with China that may end up putting them in the red. Belt tightening could cause aerospace to be impacted by material/equipment shortages or quality control issues which may lead to increased launch failures like those already experienced in recent years...
-
#15
by
Danderman
on 08 Dec, 2014 14:22
-
and so it begins ............................
Plummeting Rouble Hits Russia's Space Programmehttp://www.newsweek.com/plummeting-rouble-hits-russias-space-programme-288301Russia’s federal space exploration agency Roscosmos could be forced to close down or indefinitely delay whole projects due to the worsening economic situation in the country. The plummeting Russian rouble has rendered the agency incapable of planning their spending ahead of time, national daily newspaper Izvestia reported on Monday.
According to Izvestia, Russia’s Gonets satellite system, launched by the Ministry of Defence and intended to restore Russia’s status as a major aerospace power, may not meet its upcoming deadline for government funding from 2016 to 2025.
“Due to the complete unpredictability of prices in November the scientific engineering council was not able to reconcile anything concerning the orbital system of communication Gonets,” the anonymous source from the central strategic planning of Roscosmos told Izvestia.
-
#16
by
Prober
on 12 Dec, 2014 02:37
-
and so it begins ............................
Plummeting Rouble Hits Russia's Space Programme
http://www.newsweek.com/plummeting-rouble-hits-russias-space-programme-288301
Russia’s federal space exploration agency Roscosmos could be forced to close down or indefinitely delay whole projects due to the worsening economic situation in the country. The plummeting Russian rouble has rendered the agency incapable of planning their spending ahead of time, national daily newspaper Izvestia reported on Monday.
According to Izvestia, Russia’s Gonets satellite system, launched by the Ministry of Defence and intended to restore Russia’s status as a major aerospace power, may not meet its upcoming deadline for government funding from 2016 to 2025.
“Due to the complete unpredictability of prices in November the scientific engineering council was not able to reconcile anything concerning the orbital system of communication Gonets,” the anonymous source from the central strategic planning of Roscosmos told Izvestia.
from that article: “In February the one euro was 48 roubles, at the end of November it is 60 roubles. What will the exchange rate be in a year or two? We cannot afford to guess and we cannot estimate that. "
Todays drop (thurs.) Despite the rate rise, the ruble continued its slide. The currency broke above 55 rubles to the dollar
for the first time ever as it struck its new all-time low of 55.80, a one-day decline of 1.5 percent. And against the euro, it was heading toward the 70 ruble threshold for the first time, hitting 69.14 rubles to the euro.
-
#17
by
Prober
on 15 Dec, 2014 11:59
-
Another article just hit 1hr ago....more new lows and this:
"Vedomosti further reported Monday that the government plans to cut budget spending by 10 percent in 2015. The cuts would impact transportation programmes as well as spending on space, aviation and development of the rar east, the report said."
I would read rar east as far east.
http://news.yahoo.com/ruble-hits-low-despite-interventions-111703875.htmlMoscow (AFP) - The Russian ruble on Monday fell to new lows despite repeated interventions by the central bank to keep the national currency afloat.
"The ruble crumbled to 58.81 to the dollar and 73.23 to the euro after the Moscow Exchange opened Monday morning."
-
#18
by
IslandPlaya
on 15 Dec, 2014 21:52
-
Russian interest rate has just gone from 10.5% to 17%
Oh..
-
#19
by
Prober
on 16 Dec, 2014 01:20
-
Russian interest rate has just gone from 10.5% to 17%
Oh..
yep, and Russia is dipping into their stored Gold to shore up things.
Sadly, Russia could be heading into a repeat of 1930's Germany when wheel barrels of paper were needed just to purchase food. There are some serious lessons from that time.
-
#20
by
Lars-J
on 16 Dec, 2014 16:46
-
Russian interest rate has just gone from 10.5% to 17%
Oh..
yep, and Russia is dipping into their stored Gold to shore up things.
Sadly, Russia could be heading into a repeat of 1930's Germany when wheel barrels of paper were needed just to purchase food. There are some serious lessons from that time.
This also explains Ukraine - and why Putin is flexing his military muscle in general. Distractions for the domestic population. If the economy crashes, he will be exposed, and he will either become even more desperate or be thrown out.
-
#21
by
Danderman
on 16 Dec, 2014 16:52
-
As interesting as the discussion about Russian international politics is, the purpose of this thread is not to discuss the reasons for the Rouble crash, but rather the impacts on Russian aerospace.
For example, we may be seeing more emphasis on Russian made subsystems, which, in turn, may limit capabilities for future Russian flight systems.
-
#22
by
SIEP
on 17 Dec, 2014 03:20
-
This entire thread should be deleted. Perhaps Danderman would feel more at home and certainly more comfortable in the section dedicated to the US programs, since he seems to hold a grudge against the Russian one.
-
#23
by
QuantumG
on 17 Dec, 2014 03:27
-
This entire thread should be deleted. Perhaps Danderman would feel more at home and certainly more comfortable in the section dedicated to the US programs, since he seems to hold a grudge against the Russian one.
Heh. He's worked as an advisor on Russian spaceflight for decades..
-
#24
by
sdsds
on 17 Dec, 2014 04:39
-
we may be seeing more emphasis on Russian made subsystems
I think this is the key observation. Rubles will still have purchasing power for goods and services within Russia, i.e. those priced in rubles.
which, in turn, may limit capabilities for future Russian flight systems.
Can you expand on this at all? What current Russian flight system capabilities rely on components that are not priced in rubles?
-
#25
by
marcus79
on 17 Dec, 2014 10:36
-
Might the currency crisis not hit different parts of the space program differently?
For example, I can't see how it would impact the production cost of a Proton or a Soyuz rocket very much. If anything these would yield more rubles when sold to international customers in hard currencies. This is obviously different for Russian satellites, as indicated in the article cited earlier. Not sure about the new cosmodrome, whether it uses very much IKEA furniture and such.
What about HSF? It would seem to me that as Soviet-heritage systems, the Soyuz and Progress craft are fabricated mostly from Russian-made components. The same would hold for the station modules as well. Perhaps a number of subsystems would use foreign-made components, but enough to drive the price over the roof? I'm sceptical about that, given the engineering heritage.
What's to stop Russia from proceeding with OPSEK after 2020? They already have much work done on Nauka, OKA-T and presumably some preliminary work done on the node and two large modules. If Angara and Soyuz can launch from Vostochny in 2020 or soon after, than this is possible. In fact, from a Russian standpoint of hurt pride it may very well be desirable. It can also be used as a way to cover for non-development on the HSF aspect of the lunar program, which really seems out of reach just now (unless they really want to go for broke).
-
#26
by
Prober
on 17 Dec, 2014 10:53
-
Might the currency crisis not hit different parts of the space program differently?
just put the computer on, and CNBC is saying there is open talk about Russia moving the army into Kazahstan. So who knows
-
#27
by
marcus79
on 17 Dec, 2014 12:16
-
Might the currency crisis not hit different parts of the space program differently?
well just put the computer on and CNBC is saying their is open talk about Russia moving the army into Kazahstan. So who knows
My remark was more intended in a technical-financial sense: how much 'space' can be bought per ruble. I think it is better to refrain from rumors, especially highly unlikely ones.
-
#28
by
jg
on 17 Dec, 2014 13:48
-
The irony is that it means that Russia, in need of foreign exchange, may be much more likely to want to sell their engines (which I expect are priced in dollars), so I expect the rhetoric to go away. That foreign exchange is precious in a currency crisis.
Of course, the damage has already been done to the relationships, so maybe they'll figure they've nothing to lose. And Putin may decide to go the foreign boogieman route in general, which he might to try to retain power. Saber rattling has often been a route to holding onto power.
The whole situation is sad, and a first class mess.... Sigh.
-
#29
by
faadaadaa
on 17 Dec, 2014 14:14
-
How long is the current contract for seats to ISS? Somehow I expect the price to rise drastically when it expires.
-
#30
by
Rocket Science
on 17 Dec, 2014 14:42
-
Russia might try their own suggestion of the use of "trampolines" by dumping their Roubles on them and see if they get a "rebound" in value... If they can’t afford them we’ll loan them any that NASA isn’t using...
-
#31
by
Danderman
on 17 Dec, 2014 15:27
-
I would prefer that this thread be about the impacts of the economic crisis on specific programs, rather than a generic discussion of US or Russian foreign policy.
With so many readers here, this thread could be a useful tool in forecasting changes to the 2006-2015 program, and the next 10 year plan.
And, no, this thread is not about "bashing" the Russians, but rather is intended as a realistic view on the future of their space program under adverse conditions, keeping in mind that the program really never recovered from the fall of the Soviet Union, and so is currently in a weakened state even before the effects of the crisis are manifested.
-
#32
by
Lars-J
on 17 Dec, 2014 17:48
-
What's to stop Russia from proceeding with OPSEK after 2020? They already have much work done on Nauka, OKA-T and presumably some preliminary work done on the node and two large modules. If Angara and Soyuz can launch from Vostochny in 2020 or soon after, than this is possible. In fact, from a Russian standpoint of hurt pride it may very well be desirable. It can also be used as a way to cover for non-development on the HSF aspect of the lunar program, which really seems out of reach just now (unless they really want to go for broke).
Read this article for a sobering analysis:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/vshos.html
-
#33
by
baldusi
on 17 Dec, 2014 18:08
-
If I have to say something, is that this crisis will have a cycle of no more than 5 years. The oil reserves under 40USD/bbl are already depleted, and after they save face and actually implement a crisis plan, they are going to get ahead a lot faster than after the URSS fall. What I do believe is that this will impact the ISS, since they will be even more late with their modules, but they also will have a lot of dependence on the ISS partnership's money. By 2017/18 their economy will have rebound enough to talk about longer term partnerships realistically.
Since ESA will have to decide to go forward in 2016, my guess is that the ISS will go forward for the simplest reason that it will be the cheapest option for Russia and ESA (vs a full blown BEO program and a custom station). I don't see Roscosmos being able to get into the Chinese station. Basically because I don't see the Chinese accepting a 51.6 orbit, nor bearing most of the cost.
For the industry, the international contracts will be a life saver (Soyuz-ST, Proton-M, RD-180/1, Kondor and other spy satellites, ExoMars, etc.). So I expect ILS to get a lot more competitively, Progress might make some price reductions to Arianespace to win some new contract, Dnpr will probably eat a lot of Vega's market, and I don't discount a couple of GSO comm wins for Reshtenev. I see a slowdown of Glonass with the K2 arriving by 2019 and KM in 2023, and a serious slowdown with the rest of Russian military satellites.
-
#34
by
marcus79
on 17 Dec, 2014 19:27
-
What's to stop Russia from proceeding with OPSEK after 2020? They already have much work done on Nauka, OKA-T and presumably some preliminary work done on the node and two large modules. If Angara and Soyuz can launch from Vostochny in 2020 or soon after, than this is possible. In fact, from a Russian standpoint of hurt pride it may very well be desirable. It can also be used as a way to cover for non-development on the HSF aspect of the lunar program, which really seems out of reach just now (unless they really want to go for broke).
Read this article for a sobering analysis: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/vshos.html
That article more or less makes the same point, doesn't it? It says until the 2020s, so it would not be implausible to see a shift from ISS to OPSEK from 2021 or somewhat later. I still think Russia will move out of ISS after 2020. After all, commercial crew should be available by then (even taking into account delays of a few years of Boeing and SpaceX), so they would not get money from NASA for crew transport anymore.
Knowing they will lose that subsidy, why on earth should they stay with ISS unless for political reasons?
Like I said before, if most of the components of OPSEK are Russian-made, the ruble crisis won't directly increase its costs. The state of the economy will hinder them of course, I'm not arguing that they will do the lunar project in the near future, but OPSEK should be possible in principle.
-
#35
by
Lar
on 17 Dec, 2014 19:50
-
I would prefer that this thread be about the impacts of the economic crisis on specific programs, rather than a generic discussion of US or Russian foreign policy.
So would I. Please.
I don't want to try to have to figure out what to snip.
-
#36
by
baldusi
on 17 Dec, 2014 21:13
-
Like I said before, if most of the components of OPSEK are Russian-made, the ruble crisis won't directly increase its costs. The state of the economy will hinder them of course, I'm not arguing that they will do the lunar project in the near future, but OPSEK should be possible in principle.
There's inflation and the serious loss of export prices means a lot less revenue for the tax base. I.e. the government will have to seriously tighten their belt. So they will do whatever they can that means the least amount of money. Voystochny will not be fully developed, exactly because it is so expensive. And that will mean that it is a lot cheaper to finish MLM for the ISS than to retrofit it for the new station. According to Zak's site, is 1B Rubles vs 4B or 5B, just for that module. And you'd need at least one extra module. Staying in the ISS they can delay the NEMs and stop work on the PTK.
Besides, if they actually send the MLM they might get enough living space to actually send space tourists again. So many, in fact, that they might squeeze a third Soyuz just for that. A week long stay in the ISS might be charged 35M, with two tourist it might pay for itself. Russians understand demand and supply quite well.
-
#37
by
Rocket Science
on 17 Dec, 2014 21:25
-
Like I said before, if most of the components of OPSEK are Russian-made, the ruble crisis won't directly increase its costs. The state of the economy will hinder them of course, I'm not arguing that they will do the lunar project in the near future, but OPSEK should be possible in principle.
There's inflation and the serious loss of export prices means a lot less revenue for the tax base. I.e. the government will have to seriously tighten their belt. So they will do whatever they can that means the least amount of money. Voystochny will not be fully developed, exactly because it is so expensive. And that will mean that it is a lot cheaper to finish MLM for the ISS than to retrofit it for the new station. According to Zak's site, is 1B Rubles vs 4B or 5B, just for that module. And you'd need at least one extra module. Staying in the ISS they can delay the NEMs and stop work on the PTK.
Besides, if they actually send the MLM they might get enough living space to actually send space tourists again. So many, in fact, that they might squeeze a third Soyuz just for that. A week long stay in the ISS might be charged 35M, with two tourist it might pay for itself. Russians understand demand and supply quite well.
That's a great idea, except now they may have to compete with what ever SpaceX offers up. They are no longer the only game in town for orbital space tourism...
-
#38
by
baldusi
on 17 Dec, 2014 22:55
-
SpaceX won't be offering anything until 2017, by that time the Russians will be recovering and the ISS partnership will have a more clear path forward.
PD: fix your quotes.
-
#39
by
marcus79
on 18 Dec, 2014 11:01
-
Like I said before, if most of the components of OPSEK are Russian-made, the ruble crisis won't directly increase its costs. The state of the economy will hinder them of course, I'm not arguing that they will do the lunar project in the near future, but OPSEK should be possible in principle.
There's inflation and the serious loss of export prices means a lot less revenue for the tax base. I.e. the government will have to seriously tighten their belt. So they will do whatever they can that means the least amount of money. Voystochny will not be fully developed, exactly because it is so expensive. And that will mean that it is a lot cheaper to finish MLM for the ISS than to retrofit it for the new station. According to Zak's site, is 1B Rubles vs 4B or 5B, just for that module. And you'd need at least one extra module. Staying in the ISS they can delay the NEMs and stop work on the PTK.
Besides, if they actually send the MLM they might get enough living space to actually send space tourists again. So many, in fact, that they might squeeze a third Soyuz just for that. A week long stay in the ISS might be charged 35M, with two tourist it might pay for itself. Russians understand demand and supply quite well.
I can see your point, but I still think the OPSEK scenario is more likely, just to sum up my reasons:
1. Financially it matters less, since they lose the NASA subsidy after US commercial crew comes online. I do not think tourism can compensate for that, nor is the MLM really a nice place to hang out.
2. The budget, while hit, is not hit hard enough to preclude any new initiatives. After all, it was slated for a big expansion previous to this crisis. It seems to me that given a 170 billion ruble budget (2013), the difference between 1B and 4-5B rubles is not insurmountable. Of course, as you note there will be more modules needed. But it is possible to spread work out over the years. OPSEK could even be only man-tended for its early stages, not permanently occupied.
3. Focusing on OPSEK can be a way of deflecting attention away from the cancellation of PTK and putting the lunar program on the back burner. Sure it costs more than ISS, but also less than the projects envisioned before the crisis. In that sense it can be a 'compromise'.
4. As mentioned by Zak it 'justifies' Vostochny.
5. Space is touted as a prestige item by the Russian government, as seen at the Sochi opening ceremony, even in the logo of the 2018 world cup.
6. Building OPSEK and moving away from ISS can be seen alongside import substitution, the tendency for Russia to become self-sufficient again. This is in harmony with the prestige HSF is accorded by the government.
7. The personalities involved, such as Rogozin and those like him, and their patriotic-nationalist inclinations.
8. For those antagonistic to the US it provides an opportunity to hurt the US space program badly, for it would really cost NASA if Russian participation in ISS ended in 2020. Either extra investment would be needed to keep ISS up (hurting Orion/SLS's chances) or it would need to be ditched (with all the commercial crew money down the drain).
Russia's economic problems are not as severe as those of Greece, neither does it have a similar debt. I think there is some scope to do something still. If a balance is sought between patriotic-nationalist feelings and economic realities, than OPSEK may well be the answer. Not saying that this is a good or a bad thing, just pointing out the parameters of the situation as I see them.
-
#40
by
Danderman
on 18 Dec, 2014 14:20
-
As a means of injecting some reality into this conversation, can anyone tell us the requirements to put MLM into the 65 degree OPSEK orbit? Proton can't do it. And, given those requirements, in what year would this launch be feasible?
-
#41
by
schaban
on 18 Dec, 2014 14:39
-
I don't think the impact will be as severe as in other industries. Russia space industry gets big chunks of revenues in USD. This gives them exchange flexibility, actually improving bottom line.
And, contrary to other industries, it is less likely to be be hit by sanctions. Falling oil prices also help.
Indirect impact may be a bit more severe. Either because of cancellations of Russian-built payloads or greatly increased risk of mishaps.
Payloads could be cancelled / postponed due to sanctions or overall price increase in rubles to the point they are not profitable (commercial com sat) or don't fit into the budget (government)
Risks increase due to overall deterioration of the industry and transportation system in particular.
But those indirect impacts will have lag of a year or more, so, if ruble recovers within a year, nothing would change.
My opinion, of course...
P.S. Russian space survived much bigger collapse 25 years ago. Yes, I'm aware that world/US helped at the most dire times back then.
-
#42
by
baldusi
on 18 Dec, 2014 14:59
-
As a means of injecting some reality into this conversation, can anyone tell us the requirements to put MLM into the 65 degree OPSEK orbit? Proton can't do it. And, given those requirements, in what year would this launch be feasible?
Isn't Anagara-5 quite capable of doing exactly that from Plesetsk?
-
#43
by
Prober
on 18 Dec, 2014 16:49
-
As a means of injecting some reality into this conversation, can anyone tell us the requirements to put MLM into the 65 degree OPSEK orbit? Proton can't do it. And, given those requirements, in what year would this launch be feasible?
Sounds like a real orbital mechanics question.
Maybe some of the same thinking used to bring standard parts into a working lunar mission like
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20311.0 ?
-
#44
by
Lars-J
on 18 Dec, 2014 17:21
-
Like I said before, if most of the components of OPSEK are Russian-made, the ruble crisis won't directly increase its costs. The state of the economy will hinder them of course, I'm not arguing that they will do the lunar project in the near future, but OPSEK should be possible in principle.
Most - if not all - components of MLM are Russian-made. How has that helped it launch faster, or cost less? It hasn't. There is a lot more factors involved.
-
#45
by
Danderman
on 18 Dec, 2014 18:25
-
As a means of injecting some reality into this conversation, can anyone tell us the requirements to put MLM into the 65 degree OPSEK orbit? Proton can't do it. And, given those requirements, in what year would this launch be feasible?
Isn't Anagara-5 quite capable of doing exactly that from Plesetsk?
A systems engineer would tell you that simply launching MLM into orbit from Plesetsk is not sufficient to create the OPSEK system.
Translation: if MLM is in a 65 degree orbit, how is the rest of the station going to be assembled and serviced?
-
#46
by
marcus79
on 18 Dec, 2014 18:49
-
As a means of injecting some reality into this conversation, can anyone tell us the requirements to put MLM into the 65 degree OPSEK orbit? Proton can't do it. And, given those requirements, in what year would this launch be feasible?
Angara A5 in 2021? Or perhaps even 1-2 years later. That would allow for at least 6-7 years to finish the pad at Vostochny. I would doubt they could do it before that, given the ISS commitment through 2020.
-
#47
by
marcus79
on 18 Dec, 2014 18:52
-
Like I said before, if most of the components of OPSEK are Russian-made, the ruble crisis won't directly increase its costs. The state of the economy will hinder them of course, I'm not arguing that they will do the lunar project in the near future, but OPSEK should be possible in principle.
Most - if not all - components of MLM are Russian-made. How has that helped it launch faster, or cost less? It hasn't. There is a lot more factors involved.
Of course you are right, but unlike for satellites it is not the lesser value of the ruble that would make MLM more costly. That was the precise point I was making.
-
#48
by
Prober
on 18 Dec, 2014 21:02
-
As a means of injecting some reality into this conversation, can anyone tell us the requirements to put MLM into the 65 degree OPSEK orbit? Proton can't do it. And, given those requirements, in what year would this launch be feasible?
Isn't Anagara-5 quite capable of doing exactly that from Plesetsk?
A systems engineer would tell you that simply launching MLM into orbit from Plesetsk is not sufficient to create the OPSEK system.
Translation: if MLM is in a 65 degree orbit, how is the rest of the station going to be assembled and serviced?
Wouldn't you first launch MLM from what's in stock, the Protons in Baikonur? Refuel, and add a small number of modules etc.
-
#49
by
baldusi
on 18 Dec, 2014 22:05
-
As a means of injecting some reality into this conversation, can anyone tell us the requirements to put MLM into the 65 degree OPSEK orbit? Proton can't do it. And, given those requirements, in what year would this launch be feasible?
Isn't Anagara-5 quite capable of doing exactly that from Plesetsk?
A systems engineer would tell you that simply launching MLM into orbit from Plesetsk is not sufficient to create the OPSEK system.
Translation: if MLM is in a 65 degree orbit, how is the rest of the station going to be assembled and serviced?
Soyuz (rocket) can reach from Plesesk and Vostochny. Progress could (theoretically) launch from either and Soyuz (capsule) could reach it from Vostochny.
-
#50
by
fregate
on 19 Dec, 2014 00:23
-
As a means of injecting some reality into this conversation, can anyone tell us the requirements to put MLM into the 65 degree OPSEK orbit? Proton can't do it. And, given those requirements, in what year would this launch be feasible?
How about Angara-A5 from Plesetsk? Proton-M could do it but mass of MLM should be decreased to compensate for additional delta-V (higher inclination)
-
#51
by
Danderman
on 19 Dec, 2014 14:12
-
As a means of injecting some reality into this conversation, can anyone tell us the requirements to put MLM into the 65 degree OPSEK orbit? Proton can't do it. And, given those requirements, in what year would this launch be feasible?
How about Angara-A5 from Plesetsk? Proton-M could do it but mass of MLM should be decreased to compensate for additional delta-V (higher inclination)
A space station is a system, so there is more to the problem than just putting an empty MLM into orbit.
-
#52
by
baldusi
on 19 Dec, 2014 20:19
-
As a means of injecting some reality into this conversation, can anyone tell us the requirements to put MLM into the 65 degree OPSEK orbit? Proton can't do it. And, given those requirements, in what year would this launch be feasible?
How about Angara-A5 from Plesetsk? Proton-M could do it but mass of MLM should be decreased to compensate for additional delta-V (higher inclination)
A space station is a system, so there is more to the problem than just putting an empty MLM into orbit.
Soyuz and Progress can be launched from Voystochny and Plesetsk (only Progress). Angara already can do heavy lift from Plesetsk, might have a pad (or two) in Voystochny. They still have their Lutch system. They still have their tracking stations. Baikonour processing equipment is being moved to Voystochny. What else is required? I sincerely don't know what's missing (except funding and an actual reason to do so). Soyuz landing zones?
-
#53
by
Danderman
on 19 Dec, 2014 22:52
-
Soyuz and Progress can be launched from Voystochny and Plesetsk (only Progress).
In the sense that my car can fly to the Moon, sure.
-
#54
by
TomH
on 20 Dec, 2014 06:34
-
O.K. I will try to stick to the OP's wishes and limit this strictly to economic theory.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that when your own currency decreases in value, foreign currency proportionately increases in value. It then becomes costly to import items, but more profitable to export items. This means that the Russians will have a harder time paying for their own scientific and military launches, but at the same time every engine and launch service sold to someone else is worth more and more as the ruble drops. This means they will likely be reticent to restrict sales of RD-180s and seats on Soyuz.
Baldusi is correct when he says this will be a cyclical thing. Actually, the entire thing is being orchestrated by OPEC. Saudi Arabia normally would have cut production to drive prices back up. As it is, they have every well flowing at full capacity in order to drive prices down. This will make US shale oil and Canadian tar sand production unprofitable and bankrupt those ventures. That will stabilize prices through lower supply. Saudi Arabia will then reduce output and drive prices higher. Investors will be loathe to reinvest in North American shale and tar sand reserves out of fear it will happen all over again. At this point, Russian petroleum will again rise in price. Russia really needs to diversify its economy, but that will not happen under authoritarian rule.
Other industries hit by this are Tesla and related electrical corporations owned by Musk. Tesla stock has taken a nose dive. I hope these industries rebound, as I firmly believe Musk will need to use his personal Tesla profits to supplement Raptor/BFR and MCT.
-
#55
by
baldusi
on 20 Dec, 2014 09:43
-
Soyuz and Progress can be launched from Voystochny and Plesetsk (only Progress).
In the sense that my car can fly to the Moon, sure.
Could you enlighten us on the reasons of the impossibility? Lack of MIK? Any equipment and processing facilities at Baikonour can be moved to Vostochniy. Zak has stated that the 68deg launch trajectory is done over land and would be mostly compatible with crewed Soyuz launches. I'm not saying it's cheap nor reasonable. Just that can be done.
I insist that cheapest option is staying in the ISS.
-
#56
by
Prober
on 20 Dec, 2014 10:24
-
O.K. I will try to stick to the OP's wishes and limit this strictly to economic theory.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that when your own currency decreases in value, foreign currency proportionately increases in value. It then becomes costly to import items, but more profitable to export items. This means that the Russians will have a harder time paying for their own scientific and military launches, but at the same time every engine and launch service sold to someone else is worth more and more as the ruble drops. This means they will likely be reticent to restrict sales of RD-180s and seats on Soyuz.
think you need to do a reverse on that thinking. If product xyz is contracted in us dollars for 1$, and it buys 60% more for that same dollar. The buyer could buy 60% more stuff for the same (1$) amount of money spent. That if and only if, you were allowed to buy. The guy with the ruble is going to need more business to just pay his bills, not do any future R&D or expansion.
Your example above, if your the one manufacturing the RD-180, well you might wish to sell a couple more engines ASAP and get the cash in the pipeline.
-
#57
by
TomH
on 20 Dec, 2014 20:40
-
O.K. I will try to stick to the OP's wishes and limit this strictly to economic theory.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that when your own currency decreases in value, foreign currency proportionately increases in value. It then becomes costly to import items, but more profitable to export items. This means that the Russians will have a harder time paying for their own scientific and military launches, but at the same time every engine and launch service sold to someone else is worth more and more as the ruble drops. This means they will likely be reticent to restrict sales of RD-180s and seats on Soyuz.
t I think you need to do a reverse on that thinking. If product xyz is contracted in us dollars for 1$, and it buys 60% more for that same dollar. The buyer could buy 60% more stuff for the same (1$) amount of money spent. That if and only if, you were allowed to buy. The guy with the ruble is going to need more business to just pay his bills, not do any future R&D or expansion.
In Yyour example above, if your you're the one manufacturing the RD-180, well you might wish to sell a couple more engines ASAP and get the cash in the pipeline.
Prober, you are misreading my statement.
Reticent is a synonym for
hesitant.
Reticent to restrict is in essence an intentional double negative. The meaning of my statement is they would now be hesitant or loathe to limit sales as they were previously threatening to do. Thus, they now would find a high degree of motive to export as many sales and services as possible, because the value of the currency being brought into the country is more valuable than their own currency. You are saying the same thing that I said.
-
#58
by
Prober
on 20 Dec, 2014 23:47
-
O.K. I will try to stick to the OP's wishes and limit this strictly to economic theory.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that when your own currency decreases in value, foreign currency proportionately increases in value. It then becomes costly to import items, but more profitable to export items. This means that the Russians will have a harder time paying for their own scientific and military launches, but at the same time every engine and launch service sold to someone else is worth more and more as the ruble drops. This means they will likely be reticent to restrict sales of RD-180s and seats on Soyuz.
t I think you need to do a reverse on that thinking. If product xyz is contracted in us dollars for 1$, and it buys 60% more for that same dollar. The buyer could buy 60% more stuff for the same (1$) amount of money spent. That if and only if, you were allowed to buy. The guy with the ruble is going to need more business to just pay his bills, not do any future R&D or expansion.
In Yyour example above, if your you're the one manufacturing the RD-180, well you might wish to sell a couple more engines ASAP and get the cash in the pipeline.
Prober, you are misreading my statement. Reticent is a synonym for hesitant. Reticent to restrict is in essence an intentional double negative. The meaning of my statement is they would now be hesitant or loathe to limit sales as they were previously threatening to do. Thus, they now would find a high degree of motive to export as many sales and services as possible, because the value of the currency being brought into the country is more valuable than their own currency. You are saying the same thing that I said.
thx hate dealing with double negatives
-
#59
by
fregate
on 21 Dec, 2014 09:08
-
The rules of export - manufacturer is buying parts in local currency but selling a ready product in foreign currency. It's actually more beneficial for local manufacturers when exchange rate became more favourable for a foreign currency. we had the same situation in Australia when strong $AU dollar actually led a lot of local manufacturers to bankruptcy. So weak rouble mean good news for Energomash for RD-181.
-
#60
by
MP99
on 21 Dec, 2014 13:33
-
O.K. I will try to stick to the OP's wishes and limit this strictly to economic theory.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that when your own currency decreases in value, foreign currency proportionately increases in value. It then becomes costly to import items, but more profitable to export items. This means that the Russians will have a harder time paying for their own scientific and military launches, but at the same time every engine and launch service sold to someone else is worth more and more as the ruble drops. This means they will likely be reticent to restrict sales of RD-180s and seats on Soyuz.
think you need to do a reverse on that thinking. If product xyz is contracted in us dollars for 1$, and it buys 60% more for that same dollar. The buyer could buy 60% more stuff for the same (1$) amount of money spent.
No, the opposite. If the product is contracted in dollars, spending $1 will get you the same as the day the contract was signed. The company selling it to you gets a windfall (much higher profits).
For it to work the way you said, it would have to be contracted in Roubles. Then the buyer gets any advantage of a fall in the rouble (but loses when the rouble goes up).
cheers, Martin
-
#61
by
baldusi
on 21 Dec, 2014 15:06
-
O.K. I will try to stick to the OP's wishes and limit this strictly to economic theory.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that when your own currency decreases in value, foreign currency proportionately increases in value. It then becomes costly to import items, but more profitable to export items. This means that the Russians will have a harder time paying for their own scientific and military launches, but at the same time every engine and launch service sold to someone else is worth more and more as the ruble drops. This means they will likely be reticent to restrict sales of RD-180s and seats on Soyuz.
think you need to do a reverse on that thinking. If product xyz is contracted in us dollars for 1$, and it buys 60% more for that same dollar. The buyer could buy 60% more stuff for the same (1$) amount of money spent.
No, the opposite. If the product is contracted in dollars, spending $1 will get you the same as the day the contract was signed. The company selling it to you gets a windfall (much higher profits).
For it to work the way you said, it would have to be contracted in Roubles. Then the buyer gets any advantage of a fall in the rouble (but loses when the rouble goes up).
cheers, Martin
BTW, the Sea Launch contract with NPO Energomash was done in Ukrainian Rubles, thus, they ended up having to sell significantly under cost. And the relative weakness of the USD during the 2005 onwards has not helped them either. Now they might have a good year.
-
#62
by
Phosphorus
on 21 Dec, 2014 15:09
-
-
#63
by
baldusi
on 21 Dec, 2014 21:50
-
BTW, the Sea Launch contract with NPO Energomash was done in Ukrainian Rubles
Currency name is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_hryvnia
Now that I've read it, it would seem that the contract might be previous to the introduction of the hryvnia, and had been denominated in karbovanets.
-
#64
by
hrissan
on 21 Dec, 2014 22:13
-
O.K. I will try to stick to the OP's wishes and limit this strictly to economic theory.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that when your own currency decreases in value, foreign currency proportionately increases in value. It then becomes costly to import items, but more profitable to export items. This means that the Russians will have a harder time paying for their own scientific and military launches, but at the same time every engine and launch service sold to someone else is worth more and more as the ruble drops. This means they will likely be reticent to restrict sales of RD-180s and seats on Soyuz.
think you need to do a reverse on that thinking. If product xyz is contracted in us dollars for 1$, and it buys 60% more for that same dollar. The buyer could buy 60% more stuff for the same (1$) amount of money spent.
No, the opposite. If the product is contracted in dollars, spending $1 will get you the same as the day the contract was signed. The company selling it to you gets a windfall (much higher profits).
For it to work the way you said, it would have to be contracted in Roubles. Then the buyer gets any advantage of a fall in the rouble (but loses when the rouble goes up).
cheers, Martin
BTW, the Sea Launch contract with NPO Energomash was done in Ukrainian Rubles, thus, they ended up having to sell significantly under cost. And the relative weakness of the USD during the 2005 onwards has not helped them either. Now they might have a good year.
Any sane large business expecting income and expense in different currencies will buy insurance against exchange rates going up/down in the form of appropriate market instruments (fx options).
So they sold significantly under cost but compensated that by executing their fx options.
Anyway, with all that sanctions the russian industry will substitute imported technologies with domestic ones, becoming less dependent on fx rates. Russian aerospace will do just fine, at least under "authoritative" rule.
Now some political text, moderators are free to delete after this line.
Russian foreign "partners" would prefer "free and democratic" rulers like gorbatchev and eltsin. It would be so cool if research centers got zero money again, factories turned into shopping centers with modern equipment sold as a scrap, scientist moved to usa and europe or had to sell chinese clothes at local markets, army got no new weapons or fuel for training for decade, nuclear submarines cut to pieces, stockpiles of strategic metals just disappear, parts of country declare independence and leave, civil airplane industry bought and killed... Just several examples that came to my mind.
Not that now everything is so rosy
but this thread made me laugh several times. After the industry survived what it survived after ussr collapse, an fx rate jump is not going to kill it. Only together with the rest of Russia that is.
BTW Seeing people on aerospace forum seriously using words like "authoritative" is just fun. Anyone smart enough to discuss aerospace should understand what those terms mean in context of USA foreign (and increasingly domestic) policy. Will not elaborate for risk of being freely and democratically banned.
-
#65
by
sdsds
on 21 Dec, 2014 23:29
-
Any sane large business expecting income and expense in different currencies will buy insurance against exchange rates going up/down in the form of appropriate market instruments (fx options).
Yes, that's a sensible approach for them to have taken.
the russian industry will substitute imported technologies with domestic ones
Can you expand on this a bit? What are the currently imported technologies?
After the industry survived what it survived after ussr collapse, an fx rate jump is not going to kill it.
I hope you are right!
-
#66
by
baldusi
on 22 Dec, 2014 10:42
-
BTW, the Sea Launch contract with NPO Energomash was done in Ukrainian Rubles, thus, they ended up having to sell significantly under cost. And the relative weakness of the USD during the 2005 onwards has not helped them either. Now they might have a good year.
Any sane large business expecting income and expense in different currencies will buy insurance against exchange rates going up/down in the form of appropriate market instruments (fx options).
So they sold significantly under cost but compensated that by executing their fx options.
Is this an actual data or are you making an assumption? AIUI, they didn't cover for the RD-180 contract because they never expected the ruble to be stronger than the USD (which happened during 2002 to 2013). Regarding the RD-171M contract I'm only writing from what I've read from mainstream Russian media (like RIA Novosti).
-
#67
by
TakeOff
on 22 Dec, 2014 12:10
-
Big oil producers generally sell most of their oil according to bilateral contracts with big consumers, at a price fixed for several years into the future. Not according to daily price changes on the much smaller oil spot market exchanges. And much of the rest has been sold on the public oil futures market for at least a year. So Russia's actual income from oil delivered will likely not be significantly affected until over a year from the drop in oil prices started. The cheap oil would have to continue throughout 2015 to substantially decrease Russian oil cash flow to its space program.
What has happened is that the financial markets, currency and interest rates, have instantly foreseen and reacted in anticipation of what the future conditions of Russian economy will be if this continues. That shakes things up. But the actual dollar flow in trade for oil to Russia will not be immediately halved, as some news stories might give the impression of. So they should be able to go on as usual this far, but will soon be forced to do severe cutbacks.
Russia has always been dependant on oil prices. That's what started their industrialization before the communists took over a hundred years ago. That's what made Stalin able to doctor the Molotov-Ribbentrop alliance in 1939. That's what made Soviet powerful during the oil crises of the 1970's. That's what destroyed Gorbatjov in the 1980's and Yeltsin following him. And oil price is what made Putin powerful. The Russian economy is a simple function of oil prices, it just has a lag of a year or two.
-
#68
by
fregate
on 24 Dec, 2014 02:59
-
RD-180 sale almost bankrupted Energomash - the lion share of profits went to a third party who actually fixed prices on US market. With floating prices of currencies at certain stage manufacturer have been forced to sell engines BELOW production cost (!) Orbital tried to obtain them, hit a wall with exclusive deal between middle man and ULA, try to challenge them in US court and finally ordered a custom version of engines directly from manufacturer. Without hostile takeover by RSC ENERGIA Energomash would be in difficult financial situation. In ironic twist of fate current president of Energia V.Solntsev is a former head of Energomash. He followed footsteps of Valentin Glushko - a founder of Energomash who became a head of Energia in 1974.
-
#69
by
Prober
on 24 Dec, 2014 04:21
-
RD-180 sale almost bankrupted Energomash - the lion share of profits went to a third party who actually fixed prices on US market. With floating prices of currencies at certain stage manufacturer have been forced to sell engines BELOW production cost (!) Orbital tried to obtain them, hit a wall with exclusive deal between middle man and ULA, try to challenge them in US court and finally ordered a custom version of engines directly from manufacturer. Without hostile takeover by RSC ENERGIA Energomash would be in difficult financial situation. In ironic twist of fate current president of Energia V.Solntsev is a former head of Energomash. He fooled footsteps of Valentin Glushko - a founder of Energomash who became a head of Energia in 1974.
Labor costs were cheap in Russia and manufacturing costs are not an issue. Only contracts and where the monies flow would cause problems. I don't dispute the possible bankruptcy. A poor contract is not the means to blame currencies.
-
#70
by
Prober
on 24 Dec, 2014 04:34
-
O.K. I will try to stick to the OP's wishes and limit this strictly to economic theory.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that when your own currency decreases in value, foreign currency proportionately increases in value. It then becomes costly to import items, but more profitable to export items. This means that the Russians will have a harder time paying for their own scientific and military launches, but at the same time every engine and launch service sold to someone else is worth more and more as the ruble drops. This means they will likely be reticent to restrict sales of RD-180s and seats on Soyuz.
think you need to do a reverse on that thinking. If product xyz is contracted in us dollars for 1$, and it buys 60% more for that same dollar. The buyer could buy 60% more stuff for the same (1$) amount of money spent.
No, the opposite. If the product is contracted in dollars, spending $1 will get you the same as the day the contract was signed. The company selling it to you gets a windfall (much higher profits).
For it to work the way you said, it would have to be contracted in Roubles. Then the buyer gets any advantage of a fall in the rouble (but loses when the rouble goes up).
cheers, Martin
BTW, the Sea Launch contract with NPO Energomash was done in Ukrainian Rubles, thus, they ended up having to sell significantly under cost. And the relative weakness of the USD during the 2005 onwards has not helped them either. Now they might have a good year.
With Ukraine entering NATO now, and getting closer ties to the EU and maybe Euro. Just don't see new business in the partnership with Russia even if it means money. Russia just cut the natural gas supplies to Ukraine. How do you manufacture with no energy source? Further Both Russia and Ukraine interests owe almost a billon US dollars to Boeing. We might have seen the last launch of SeaLaunch as it is.
SeaLaunch stick a fork in her
-
#71
by
Lars-J
on 24 Dec, 2014 06:10
-
Now some political text, moderators are free to delete after this line.
Russian foreign "partners" would prefer "free and democratic" rulers like gorbatchev and eltsin. It would be so cool if research centers got zero money again, factories turned into shopping centers with modern equipment sold as a scrap, scientist moved to usa and europe or had to sell chinese clothes at local markets, army got no new weapons or fuel for training for decade, nuclear submarines cut to pieces, stockpiles of strategic metals just disappear, parts of country declare independence and leave, civil airplane industry bought and killed... Just several examples that came to my mind.
What you describe may indeed be an accurate description of what happened, but they are not necessarily linked -
"free and democratic" does not have to mean that
"research centers got zero money again, factories turned into shopping centers with modern equipment sold as a scrap, scientist moved to usa and europe...". It happened, it's unfortunate, but not inevitable.
Also, setting it up as "gorbatchev/yeltsin" vs "putin" is coming close to describing a False Dilemma fallacy (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma ) - There are other choices, other ways of doing things.
-
#72
by
MP99
on 24 Dec, 2014 09:05
-
With Ukraine entering NATO now...
News sources here describe this as a very long-term goal.
Cheers, Martin
Sent from my GT-N5120 using Forum Fiend v1.2.14.
-
#73
by
Rocket Science
on 24 Dec, 2014 12:07
-
O.K. I will try to stick to the OP's wishes and limit this strictly to economic theory.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that when your own currency decreases in value, foreign currency proportionately increases in value. It then becomes costly to import items, but more profitable to export items. This means that the Russians will have a harder time paying for their own scientific and military launches, but at the same time every engine and launch service sold to someone else is worth more and more as the ruble drops. This means they will likely be reticent to restrict sales of RD-180s and seats on Soyuz.
think you need to do a reverse on that thinking. If product xyz is contracted in us dollars for 1$, and it buys 60% more for that same dollar. The buyer could buy 60% more stuff for the same (1$) amount of money spent.
No, the opposite. If the product is contracted in dollars, spending $1 will get you the same as the day the contract was signed. The company selling it to you gets a windfall (much higher profits).
For it to work the way you said, it would have to be contracted in Roubles. Then the buyer gets any advantage of a fall in the rouble (but loses when the rouble goes up).
cheers, Martin
BTW, the Sea Launch contract with NPO Energomash was done in Ukrainian Rubles, thus, they ended up having to sell significantly under cost. And the relative weakness of the USD during the 2005 onwards has not helped them either. Now they might have a good year.
Any sane large business expecting income and expense in different currencies will buy insurance against exchange rates going up/down in the form of appropriate market instruments (fx options).
So they sold significantly under cost but compensated that by executing their fx options.
Anyway, with all that sanctions the russian industry will substitute imported technologies with domestic ones, becoming less dependent on fx rates. Russian aerospace will do just fine, at least under "authoritative" rule.
Now some political text, moderators are free to delete after this line.
Russian foreign "partners" would prefer "free and democratic" rulers like gorbatchev and eltsin. It would be so cool if research centers got zero money again, factories turned into shopping centers with modern equipment sold as a scrap, scientist moved to usa and europe or had to sell chinese clothes at local markets, army got no new weapons or fuel for training for decade, nuclear submarines cut to pieces, stockpiles of strategic metals just disappear, parts of country declare independence and leave, civil airplane industry bought and killed... Just several examples that came to my mind.
Not that now everything is so rosy but this thread made me laugh several times. After the industry survived what it survived after ussr collapse, an fx rate jump is not going to kill it. Only together with the rest of Russia that is.
BTW Seeing people on aerospace forum seriously using words like "authoritative" is just fun. Anyone smart enough to discuss aerospace should understand what those terms mean in context of USA foreign (and increasingly domestic) policy. Will not elaborate for risk of being freely and democratically banned.
What you are describing is what the west had to go through post “Space Race” and “Cold War”. My family was part of those times and had all the overtime work they wanted and were subject to layoffs and career changes or starting new businesses. Why should it be any different for Russians? The nation has many bright people and is more than capable of doing great things like innovation and producing new consumer products that the world wants to buy at the right price. You need to begin to produce quality automobiles and aircraft for export just like rockets are in demand for commercial launches and not just weapon systems and expect a job for life...
-
#74
by
kevin-rf
on 24 Dec, 2014 15:05
-
What you are describing is what the west had to go through post “Space Race” and “Cold War”. My family was part of those times and had all the overtime work they wanted and were subject to layoffs and career changes or starting new businesses. Why should it be any different for Russians? The nation has many bright people and is more than capable of doing great things like innovation and producing new consumer products that the world wants to buy at the right price. You need to begin to produce quality automobiles and aircraft for export just like rockets are in demand for commercial launches and not just weapon systems and expect a job for life...
That is a little harsh, Russia is making those changes, just look at the Sukhoi Super Jet SS-100, this new Russian jet by all accounts is an excellent plane that since entry into service has had an excellent dispatch reliability (unlike say another new Boeing Jet), and speaking of Boeing they have a design center in Moscow and several critical titanium parts on the 787 are currently sourced from Russia. People are buying, and with energy Russia has much to offer.
-
#75
by
asmi
on 24 Dec, 2014 15:22
-
That is a little harsh, Russia is making those changes, just look at the Sukhoi Super Jet SS-100, this new Russian jet by all accounts is an excellent plane that since entry into service has had an excellent dispatch reliability (unlike say another new Boeing Jet), and speaking of Boeing they have a design center in Moscow and several critical titanium parts on the 787 are currently sourced from Russia. People are buying, and with energy Russia has much to offer.
These things are not shown in
BSMSNBC's et. al. as they don't fit into official propaganda...
-
#76
by
Rocket Science
on 24 Dec, 2014 15:48
-
What you are describing is what the west had to go through post “Space Race” and “Cold War”. My family was part of those times and had all the overtime work they wanted and were subject to layoffs and career changes or starting new businesses. Why should it be any different for Russians? The nation has many bright people and is more than capable of doing great things like innovation and producing new consumer products that the world wants to buy at the right price. You need to begin to produce quality automobiles and aircraft for export just like rockets are in demand for commercial launches and not just weapon systems and expect a job for life...
That is a little harsh, Russia is making those changes, just look at the Sukhoi Super Jet SS-100, this new Russian jet by all accounts is an excellent plane that since entry into service has had an excellent dispatch reliability (unlike say another new Boeing Jet), and speaking of Boeing they have a design center in Moscow and several critical titanium parts on the 787 are currently sourced from Russia. People are buying, and with energy Russia has much to offer.
It might be a little harsh Kevin but that’s the real world of globalism. The nation has a rich history of aerospace designers many stayed and some found success overseas... My point Russia has a lot to offer but the people need to step up as individuals and take risks in order reap the rewards. Change is difficult and it takes time, I wish them good luck and continued success...
-
#77
by
Danderman
on 25 Dec, 2014 03:07
-
I should say that this new Cold War business is annoying and not necessary, and should be resolved by the professionals as soon as possible. Having said that, we need to recognize that one aspect of the political breakdown is the ruble crisis, which will have profound impacts on Russian aerospace.
This thread is about those impacts.
-
#78
by
Prober
on 26 Dec, 2014 04:37
-
Have a long drawn out line of thinking but I'm reluctant to post it.
A something new has been added to events. Russia is planning/doing movement of Russian launchers (missiles) equipped with nuke payloads into Ukraine. This IMHO becomes a Arch Duke event (WWI). Talk about the 10,000 Russian "volunteers" located in Domblass Ukraine ends. This event scraps many agreements. UK & USA automatically ACT, NATO is called upon.
Stakes can be much higher depending on the answer to this question.....
A splinter group out of the KGB (I've forgotten the Russian name). In western terms they are Rouge KGB fanatical. Was Mr. Putin part of this group?
-
#79
by
fregate
on 26 Dec, 2014 07:18
-
Have a long drawn out line of thinking but I'm reluctant to post it.
A something new has been added to events. Russia is planning/doing movement of Russian launchers (missiles) equipped with nuke payloads into Ukraine. This IMHO becomes a Arch Duke event (WWI). Talk about the 10,000 Russian "volunteers" located in Domblass Ukraine ends. This event scraps many agreements. UK & USA automatically ACT, NATO is called upon.
Stakes can be much higher depending on the answer to this question.....
A splinter group out of the KGB (I've forgotten the Russian name). In western terms they are Rouge KGB fanatical. Was Mr. Putin part of this group?
is it your hypothetical event (regards from Tom Clancy) or is it a recent gossip from mass media?
-
#80
by
Prober
on 26 Dec, 2014 13:52
-
Have a long drawn out line of thinking but I'm reluctant to post it.
A something new has been added to events. Russia is planning/doing movement of Russian launchers (missiles) equipped with nuke payloads into Ukraine. This IMHO becomes a Arch Duke event (WWI). Talk about the 10,000 Russian "volunteers" located in Domblass Ukraine ends. This event scraps many agreements. UK & USA automatically ACT, NATO is called upon.
Stakes can be much higher depending on the answer to this question.....
A splinter group out of the KGB (I've forgotten the Russian name). In western terms they are Rouge KGB fanatical. Was Mr. Putin part of this group?
is it your hypothetical event (regards from Tom Clancy) or is it a recent gossip from mass media?
read google news (my stuff dismisses social media; garbage in garbage out) all these pieces are out there (3 reliable differing souces saying the same thing)....this is no joke.
Mindset: If the USA would move ships, aircraft, the army and maybe missiles into Cuba this would break many agreements going back to 1962. Russia would respond (rightly so)
Equivalence breakage of Ukraine agreements.
if you wish to enjoy the type of KGB agent I'm referring to look into this video (based on factual event)
-
#81
by
fregate
on 01 Jan, 2015 11:48
-
Have a long drawn out line of thinking but I'm reluctant to post it.
A something new has been added to events. Russia is planning/doing movement of Russian launchers (missiles) equipped with nuke payloads into Ukraine. This IMHO becomes a Arch Duke event (WWI). Talk about the 10,000 Russian "volunteers" located in Domblass Ukraine ends. This event scraps many agreements. UK & USA automatically ACT, NATO is called upon.
Stakes can be much higher depending on the answer to this question.....
A splinter group out of the KGB (I've forgotten the Russian name). In western terms they are Rouge KGB fanatical. Was Mr. Putin part of this group?
is it your hypothetical event (regards from Tom Clancy) or is it a recent gossip from mass media?
read google news (my stuff dismisses social media; garbage in garbage out) all these pieces are out there (3 reliable differing souces saying the same thing)....this is no joke.
Mindset: If the USA would move ships, aircraft, the army and maybe missiles into Cuba this would break many agreements going back to 1962. Russia would respond (rightly so) Equivalence breakage of Ukraine agreements.
if you wish to enjoy the type of KGB agent I'm referring to look into this video (based on factual event)
[youtube]fv0NlYLrRaM[/youtube]
I heard exactly an opposite - that one of the leading Ukrainian parties became ballistic and would like to produce a nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Nobody in their SANE mind would store nuclear WOD in war zone, but this is my PERSONAL opinion
BTW I watched the movie last year - D-rated comparing with Hunt for Red October and Crimson Tide
Still waiting for your "facts"
-
#82
by
Danderman
on 01 Jan, 2015 18:03
-
Discussions of hypothetical international political events are O/T here.
What is on topic are news of the impacts of the Ruble crisis on Russian aerospace, ie launches and programs delayed.
-
#83
by
Prober
on 02 Jan, 2015 10:16
-
Discussions of hypothetical international political events are O/T here.
What is on topic are news of the impacts of the Ruble crisis on Russian aerospace, ie launches and programs delayed.
disagree, missile launchers are aerospace. Funds moved to military uses might come out of Space research funds? You can only stretch limited Rubles so far.
-
#84
by
gospacex
on 02 Jan, 2015 11:28
-
By 2017/18 their economy will have rebound enough to talk about longer term partnerships realistically.
It is possible that Russian economy would not rebound at all. Russian companies' share prices mostly did *not* recover from 2008 crisis, unlike Western ones.
Unlike worldwide 2008 crisis which did end, current crisis in Russian economy has no end in sight: sanctions are likely to remain until Putin retreats from Crimea which he won't do; Russian companies have ~700bn of foreign debt which they can't refinance (no one is willing to lend them money b/c of the sanctions); because of interest rate hike businesses are closing or downsizing (no, it's not wishful thinking, I see numerous reports about this in Russian web); capital flight grew x2 in 2014; emigration of young educated people has increased too.
-
#85
by
gospacex
on 02 Jan, 2015 11:39
-
Saudi Arabia normally would have cut production to drive prices back up.
They recently discovered a new reality: if they cut production, others (such as Venezuela and Iran) *increase* it, with the net result of prices staying the same but SA losing market.
As it is, they have every well flowing at full capacity in order to drive prices down. This will make US shale oil and Canadian tar sand production unprofitable and bankrupt those ventures. That will stabilize prices through lower supply. Saudi Arabia will then reduce output and drive prices higher.
SA can well do that. It will only lead to them losing $$$.
Add to this the ~40% annual growth of renewables and wind/photovoltaics almost reaching price parity with traditional electricity generation. Photovoltaics price is falling b/c of production tech being optimized and economies of scale, and there is no way this trend will stop in foreseeable future (next ~20 years at least).
In mere 10 years, the *demand* for hydrocarbons will show a significant, and more importantly, *permanent* decline.
-
#86
by
gospacex
on 02 Jan, 2015 11:44
-
Tesla stock has taken a nose dive.
Google finance does not show it.
-
#87
by
marcus79
on 02 Jan, 2015 13:46
-
By 2017/18 their economy will have rebound enough to talk about longer term partnerships realistically.
It is possible that Russian economy would not rebound at all. Russian companies' share prices mostly did *not* recover from 2008 crisis, unlike Western ones.
Unlike worldwide 2008 crisis which did end, current crisis in Russian economy has no end in sight: sanctions are likely to remain until Putin retreats from Crimea which he won't do; Russian companies have ~700bn of foreign debt which they can't refinance (no one is willing to lend them money b/c of the sanctions); because of interest rate hike businesses are closing or downsizing (no, it's not wishful thinking, I see numerous reports about this in Russian web); capital flight grew x2 in 2014; emigration of young educated people has increased too.
Yes, it is likely that the current situation is not sustainable. Yet it seems to me that Russia is more moving toward China than toward the West, not only in geopolitical terms but also in terms of the political economic model. Up till now Putin has tried to balance between economic liberalism and geopolitical authoritarianism. Given that he cannot give up the latter (or face total defeat), he may well be forced to introduce things like capital control. That he has not done so already points to his unwillingness to go there, but it seems to me he will simply be forced by circumstances. It is arguably also the more popular course for his natural allies at home and in China.
A more Russian-based economy would be good news for the space industry in the long run, since it would force them to make more indigenous components for satellites and other equipment. Obviously, the hydrocarbon-fuelled dreams of lunar bases will have to be scrapped in practice, becoming the 'goal' like Mars is for NASA today. Although eventually they could well cooperate with China in a lunar programme.
-
#88
by
asmi
on 02 Jan, 2015 16:46
-
It is possible that Russian economy would not rebound at all. Russian companies' share prices mostly did *not* recover from 2008 crisis, unlike Western ones.
Unlike worldwide 2008 crisis which did end, current crisis in Russian economy has no end in sight:
You guys don't seem to understand Russian business situation. Since this not a financial forum (nor I am a financial specialist), I will try to explain it in simple terms. The reality is that vast majority of businesses there get financing not from the stock exchange (IPO/FPO, bonds and other financial instruments) like it is here in the West, but from banks and similar financial organizations. This makes this financing more expensive (since interest rate offered by the banks is dependent on Central Bank's refinancing rate), but it also insulates a company from whatever is happening on the stock market - since banks usually require securities like company's fixes assets and their price is not affected by fluctuations of stock prices. Now - there are few big companies what are listed in other stock exchanges, and they
might be affected by that if that's where they intend to draw financing from. That is why most Russian businesses shrug off any "stock market crashes", but they freaked out when refinancing rate was raised. Many businesses which are considered "vulnerable" by the Government (these are mostly agricultural, transportation) are subsidized in various ways (like providing Governmental guarantees for financing, tax breaks - most small businesses have an option to pay either 6% flat off their money flow, or 15% off income, and so on). Many of you probably heard that Russia has the lowest personal income tax rate in Europe (13% flat), but what you likely don't know is that employers pay significant taxes (it's called "social tax") on top of what their employees pay. This tax is used to finance social services like pension fund, healthcare (healthcare is free for all Russians, and here's where money are coming from), unemployment payments (works like employment insurance here in Canada) and so on.
I hope this will be useful.
-
#89
by
asmi
on 02 Jan, 2015 16:49
-
sanctions are likely to remain until Putin retreats from Crimea which he won't do;
He won't. I will cause so many internal problems so it's not an option. Even launching all-out nuclear war is more "favourable" option.
Russian companies have ~700bn of foreign debt which they can't refinance (no one is willing to lend them money b/c of the sanctions);
See my explanations above.
because of interest rate hike businesses are closing or downsizing (no, it's not wishful thinking, I see numerous reports about this in Russian web); capital flight grew x2 in 2014;
That is not true (again, see above).
emigration of young educated people has increased too.
And neither is this - to the best of my knowledge, and I know a thing or two about this since I happen to be an immigrant myself, and I talk to a lot of others who are thinking about immigration and try to help them out - I didn't notice any immigration hike in recent years, on fact it was on steady decline.
BUT all of this is mostly irrelevant to space industry.
-
#90
by
Prober
on 02 Jan, 2015 17:04
-
By 2017/18 their economy will have rebound enough to talk about longer term partnerships realistically.
It is possible that Russian economy would not rebound at all. Russian companies' share prices mostly did *not* recover from 2008 crisis, unlike Western ones.
Oh you scored today GO
I wish I could turn the launch key on every member of NSF around the world to focus on 07-08. There are reasons the Russian companies didn't recover, not the ones you think. Only a leaker would release the dirty secret from behind the locked door.
Unlike worldwide 2008 crisis which did end, current crisis in Russian economy has no end in sight: sanctions are likely to remain until Putin retreats from Crimea which he won't do; Russian companies have ~700bn of foreign debt which they can't refinance (no one is willing to lend them money b/c of the sanctions); because of interest rate hike businesses are closing or downsizing (no, it's not wishful thinking, I see numerous reports about this in Russian web); capital flight grew x2 in 2014; emigration of young educated people has increased too.
correct, and Mother Russia's credit card bill becomes due in less than 6 weeks I believe. Don't know if she has the cash to pay....default will ______?
-
#91
by
gospacex
on 02 Jan, 2015 21:06
-
A more Russian-based economy
Who exactly is going to be opening these "more Russian based" businesses, in the country where rule of law doesn't exist, where several huge businesses were destroyed merely on a whim of government, because owners dared to not completely agree with Putin?
And this is just a tip of the iceberg - Western press would not report, and therefore you won't hear, that another lucrative business somewhere in e.g. Astrakhan got destroyed by bureaucrats. But this happens hundreds of times each year. I was talking to people who had this happened to them, and they decided to start a new life and open a new business *in a saner country*!
Count how many former Putin aides have emigrated.
-
#92
by
asmi
on 03 Jan, 2015 04:56
-
Who exactly is going to be opening these "more Russian based" businesses, in the country where rule of law doesn't exist, where several huge businesses were destroyed merely on a whim of government, because owners dared to not completely agree with Putin?
That's what western media tells you?
Please tell me this - what do you
actually know about Russia, not from media/web, but from your own experience and that of your friends?
-
#93
by
Danderman
on 03 Jan, 2015 05:01
-
So, do any of you experts know whether Khrunichev, Energia, Lavochkin, et al are going to survive the ruble crisis?
-
#94
by
marcus79
on 03 Jan, 2015 12:08
-
So, do any of you experts know whether Khrunichev, Energia, Lavochkin, et al are going to survive the ruble crisis?
No, I do not.
But suppose one or several of them folded could the state not take over the assets and key personnel, placing them in the hands of the United Rocket and Space Corporation?
-
#95
by
Prober
on 03 Jan, 2015 13:43
-
So, do any of you experts know whether Khrunichev, Energia, Lavochkin, et al are going to survive the ruble crisis?
We could do some general thinking....we do know RD-180's and Orbitals engine purchases are western cash. Is it enough to keep the company alive?
We know Soyuz Crew to ISS and a private tourist to the ISS. But is that enough to keep everything alive?
We do know what 10 Soyuz to South America, but some quality issues with the last stage. Will that be enough?
Dan you started this thread, and there were some more drop numbers. Not sure if you wish to post them.
-
#96
by
Prober
on 06 Feb, 2015 19:27
-
This can not be good, and should filter into the Russian Space Program.
http://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/news/38788481/chto-delat-s-dengamihttp://finance.yahoo.com/news/russians-advised-pull-money-banks-145700524.html"A columnist for Russia's Vedomosti newspaper, a joint venture between the Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal, has advised readers to pull their savings out of banks and convert them into physical dollars."
"It is better to keep money in foreign currency (dollars more than euros as the US economy is doing better than the EU) and prepare for what many economists are already saying could be a return to the conditions of the
1990s .."
I post this because when it says
1990's I think of the story I heard, that empty food containers were sent to MIR, as employees were not paid.
-
#97
by
Danderman
on 22 Mar, 2015 18:12
-
The latest impact has been the cancellation of any plans for a true heavy lift launch vehicle.
-
#98
by
fregate
on 23 Mar, 2015 03:16
-
The latest impact has been the cancellation of any plans for a true heavy lift launch vehicle.
there is also a bright side of this sad story - in theory Proton and Soyuz launches should be more competitive by price.
-
#99
by
Danderman
on 25 Mar, 2015 13:44
-
The latest impact has been the cancellation of any plans for a true heavy lift launch vehicle.
there is also a bright side of this sad story - in theory Proton and Soyuz launches should be more competitive by price.
In theory, but it is likely that prices for these are in US dollars and unchanged. It would be nice if I were wrong, since SpaceX is cleaning their clock right now.
Of course, fixed contracts like for NASA astronaut rides on Soyuz should be very lucrative for Russia now.
-
#100
by
fregate
on 26 Mar, 2015 02:30
-
The latest impact has been the cancellation of any plans for a true heavy lift launch vehicle.
there is also a bright side of this sad story - in theory Proton and Soyuz launches should be more competitive by price.
In theory, but it is likely that prices for these are in US dollars and unchanged. It would be nice if I were wrong, since SpaceX is cleaning their clock right now.
Of course, fixed contracts like for NASA astronaut rides on Soyuz should be very lucrative for Russia now.
So lucrative that Roscosmos is ready to sell a 6 month flight seat to a tourist in order to improve a budget bottom line
-
#101
by
Danderman
on 01 Apr, 2015 16:14
-
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/nasa-gets-sucked-in-to-russian-space-agencys-fight-for-funds/518339.htmlRoscosmos chief Igor Komarov on Saturday suggested that Russia and the United States would join together to build another space station after the current International Space Station (ISS) project ends in 2024.
Komarov's announcement on Saturday may have been an attempt to influence government decision-making as he presides over a
complete rewrite of the Federal Space Program 2016-2025 — a key planning document that will lay out Russia's activities in space over the next decade.
The program was supposed to be submitted to the government last year, but
Russia's economic crisis has forced officials to gut the original proposal and take a careful look at what is actually achievable.
-
#102
by
catdlr
on 23 Apr, 2015 00:50
-
-
#103
by
Danderman
on 29 Dec, 2015 12:36
-
The impact of the ruble crash has been to kill Russian lunar plans for the time being.
One scenario for later this century is while America goes to Mars, Russia explores the Moon, much as Russia launched space stations when NASA explored the Moon.
-
#104
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 30 Dec, 2015 05:11
-
One scenario for later this century is while America goes to Mars, Russia explores the Moon, much as Russia launched space stations when NASA explored the Moon.
Well, that was the public view. In secret, the Soviets were also trying to go the Moon, but failed.
-
#105
by
davey142
on 30 Dec, 2015 21:46
-
Let's face it people, Putin might have rescued Russia from the worst of the Yeltsin days, but he was caught by the same trap that gets so many countries : the Russian economy was not diversified. I expect when oil rebounds Russian space plans will flourish, when oil tanks, the programs get cut. Now, in my opinion, running a space program based on the spot price contracts for oil is less than optimal.
I suspect that Ruble value vs. Dollars has little to do with it. As far as I can tell, Russian space is not the one that's importing goods and services from its supposed "geopolitical rival." If anything, cheaper Rubles means American companies and NASA spend less buying RD-180s and Soyuz seats and Russian companies get more Rubles for every Dollar. The problem seems to be sanctions and oil prices. I guess long rooted domestic problems also play a factor.
-
#106
by
Rocket Science
on 30 Dec, 2015 21:54
-
-
#107
by
Rebel44
on 15 Jan, 2016 23:01
-
Russian government announced another 10% budget cuts to everything except "sacred cows" (pensions, employee salaries and security apparatus).
If oil price stays low for longer, further cuts will be needed (at which point Russian space program might be reduced to Powerpoint presentations).
-
#108
by
faramund
on 17 Jan, 2016 05:36
-
Let's face it people, Putin might have rescued Russia from the worst of the Yeltsin days, but he was caught by the same trap that gets so many countries : the Russian economy was not diversified. I expect when oil rebounds Russian space plans will flourish, when oil tanks, the programs get cut. Now, in my opinion, running a space program based on the spot price contracts for oil is less than optimal.
I suspect that Ruble value vs. Dollars has little to do with it. As far as I can tell, Russian space is not the one that's importing goods and services from its supposed "geopolitical rival." If anything, cheaper Rubles means American companies and NASA spend less buying RD-180s and Soyuz seats and Russian companies get more Rubles for every Dollar. The problem seems to be sanctions and oil prices. I guess long rooted domestic problems also play a factor.
I'm not sure Putin rescued Russia from anything, although I grant that Yeltsin turned into a clown. The rise and fall of the Russian space program, or Russian influence, seem to have more to do with the price of oil, then anything else.
-
#109
by
Lars-J
on 18 Jan, 2016 16:53
-
Let's face it people, Putin might have rescued Russia from the worst of the Yeltsin days, but he was caught by the same trap that gets so many countries : the Russian economy was not diversified. I expect when oil rebounds Russian space plans will flourish, when oil tanks, the programs get cut. Now, in my opinion, running a space program based on the spot price contracts for oil is less than optimal.
Oil prices have gone up and down since Putin took office, but has high oil prices ever actually caused a lot of Russian space funding? I've seen lots of empty promises, but the big budgets never seem to materialize.
-
#110
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 18 Jan, 2016 17:35
-
I've seen lots of empty promises, but the big budgets never seem to materialize.
They made Angara, Vostochnyi, Spektr-R, numerous comsat and observation satellites, Soyuz-2.1v, etc.
But yes, if you are waiting for a manned flight to Jupiter, you are likely to be disappointed !
-
#111
by
Lars-J
on 18 Jan, 2016 17:43
-
I've seen lots of empty promises, but the big budgets never seem to materialize.
They made Angara, Vostochnyi, Spektr-R, numerous comsat and observation satellites, Soyuz-2.1v, etc.
But yes, if you are waiting for a manned flight to Jupiter, you are likely to be disappointed !
I'll give you Vostochnyi, but the Angara development has been going on for two decades. And as far as the rest, nobody has claimed that Russian space work stops completely when funds are low.
But hey, if you want to completely blow off my statement, and you *DO* think that the Russian space program is well funded during high oil prices, then go ahead. Some numbers would to back it up would be welcome.
-
#112
by
Prober
on 18 Jan, 2016 17:49
-
this story just popped up on Yahoo
Russia catches senior engineer on delayed space pad project 'taking bribe'http://news.yahoo.com/russia-catches-senior-engineer-delayed-space-pad-project-145339118.html"The FSB security service arrested the engineer overseeing road construction materials at the site on suspicion of taking a 50,000-ruble ($632) bribe from contractors, the Investigative Committee of the far eastern Amur region where the project is located said in a statement."
-
#113
by
SLC17A5
on 18 Jan, 2016 18:49
-
Presumably he was admonished for taking such a small bribe, and released after paying a bribe.
-
#114
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 18 Jan, 2016 19:20
-
But hey, if you want to completely blow off my statement, and you *DO* think that the Russian space program is well funded during high oil prices, then go ahead. Some numbers would to back it up would be welcome.
During decade 2006-2015, every rouble promised by the Federal Space Program has been given to Roscosmos. This amount of money is somewhat equivalent to the French space budget. After 2009, when oil prices went high, Government decided to fund Vostochnyi development with a new budget, independant from the Federal Space Program.
I don't know what "well funded" means. Is Russian space program less funded than US space program ? Yes. Is the Russian space budget in accordance with Russia's financial capabilities ? Yes.
PS : Sorry if I have offensed you. My goal was to give an opinion, not to hurt anyone.
-
#115
by
Prober
on 20 Jan, 2016 15:14
-
-
#116
by
rpapo
on 20 Jan, 2016 15:52
-
Even more telling is the attached graph (courtesy of Google). It may be getting cheap for us to buy Russian, but it sure must be hard on the people there.
-
#117
by
Lars-J
on 20 Jan, 2016 21:52
-
But hey, if you want to completely blow off my statement, and you *DO* think that the Russian space program is well funded during high oil prices, then go ahead. Some numbers would to back it up would be welcome.
During decade 2006-2015, every rouble promised by the Federal Space Program has been given to Roscosmos. This amount of money is somewhat equivalent to the French space budget. After 2009, when oil prices went high, Government decided to fund Vostochnyi development with a new budget, independant from the Federal Space Program.
I don't know what "well funded" means. Is Russian space program less funded than US space program ? Yes. Is the Russian space budget in accordance with Russia's financial capabilities ? Yes.
My point was merely that even in "good times", the Russian space program operates with shoe string budget - compared to what they are trying to get done with the funds they are given. Even in good times the workers are underpaid and facilities deteriorate.
Yes, it may be close to the French budget in actual funds, but they are certainly trying to do more with it. Are they stretching themselves too thin? Perhaps, but they are understandably weary of cutting back capabilities.
It is encouraging to see the investment in new sites (Vostochnyi) and LVs (Angara), and hopefully that will continue.
-
#118
by
Prober
on 21 Jan, 2016 15:17
-
Even more telling is the attached graph (courtesy of Google). It may be getting cheap for us to buy Russian, but it sure must be hard on the people there.
I hate turning on my screen and seeing the news.
(3hrs ago posted)
Russian ruble keeps on falling, hits new record low http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russian-ruble-continues-falling-hits-081757605.html"The ruble traded above 85 to the dollar for the first time in Moscow early Thursday afternoon, a fall of more than three percent, which beat the previous low of 82.4 to the dollar set in trading Wednesday evening. It later recovered slightly to trade around 84.2."
Also Thursday, the Russian central bank said it had revoked the license of Vneshprombank, one of the country's top 50 lenders, after finding evidence that "persons exercising control over the bank" had stripped its assets, adding that law enforcement would be involved in tracking the missing money. The funds may have been spent in Russia, Europe and the U.S. on property such as real estate, shares and "expensive vehicles," the central bank said in a statement.
Vneshprombank reportedly holds funds for
major Russian state companies.
Does this bank have any "interests" in space enterprises? This could be a major hit if so
-
#119
by
Danderman
on 21 Jan, 2016 15:59
-
I've seen lots of empty promises, but the big budgets never seem to materialize.
They made Angara, Vostochnyi, Spektr-R, numerous comsat and observation satellites, Soyuz-2.1v, etc.
But yes, if you are waiting for a manned flight to Jupiter, you are likely to be disappointed !
No one is saying that the Russians have done nothing in the last 10 years. The issue is that there have been promises of lunar and Mars missions and giant launchers over the last 10 years which were not going to happen even with higher oil prices.
I would be happy if the Russians can hold their program together over the next 10 years, let along go to the Moon.
One of the issues is that there has been a failure to incorporate private capital into the space sector, which creates a single point failure mode if the government cuts funding. Even when the larger aerospace firms invest, that capital comes from the government.
But I reluctantly have to agree that current financial situation probably would push back progress in Russian Space exploration program at least for few decades.
read google news (my stuff dismisses social media; garbage in garbage out) all these pieces are out there (3 reliable differing souces saying the same thing)....this is no joke.
