-
#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.
