-
#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.