-
#20
by
Oli
on 01 Jan, 2016 07:47
-
?
Roscosmos launching American astronauts to the ISS was always only a temporary arrangement. The political situation might have accelerated commercial crew somewhat. SpaceX has nothing to do with it.
I don't know where you get this from. Soyuz doing crew rotation has been the plan of record since the station agreement was signed. It's Russia's primary contribution.
Sorry, should have said Roscosmos having a monopoly on crew rotation was always meant to be temporary.
-
#21
by
Star One
on 01 Jan, 2016 08:31
-
Russia Says Elon Musk is 'Stepping On Our Toes'
“The main goal today is to make space cheap. Competitors are stepping on our toes. Look at what billionaire Musk is doing with his projects.”
So, how serious is this? With Roscosmos as a state corporation, even with a lean budget, could this amount to much?
Or is it, as usual, posturing of an over committed, under financed, decades behind - state run organization, mouthed by an arrogant politician for hype?
Here is an expanded version of the quote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-30/elon-musk-stepping-on-toes-in-space-race-russia-official-says
“Competitors are stepping on our toes. Look at what billionaire Musk is doing with his projects. This is very interesting, well done, and we treat this work with respect.”
So rather than an indictment of Russian attitudes, I think this teaches us about certain media's disrespect for the truth in the pursuit of inflammatory headlines.
(edit.. Come to think of it, I wonder if he meant to say "biting at our heels".. this seems the gist of the entire statement to me: Russia is ahead on cheap reliable launch and they can be proud of this but they could lose that position if they stagnate. In fact I think he is saying they deserve to lose it if they stagnate.)
Thank you for digging out the full quote of what was said and what surprise, not, that there was more to the story than placed in the OP's article which chopped him off early and changed the context completely in doing so.
-
#22
by
Prober
on 01 Jan, 2016 15:52
-
?
Roscosmos launching American astronauts to the ISS was always only a temporary arrangement. The political situation might have accelerated commercial crew somewhat. SpaceX has nothing to do with it.
I don't know where you get this from. Soyuz doing crew rotation has been the plan of record since the station agreement was signed. It's Russia's primary contribution.
think you might be a little off on this. Soyuz (from my understanding) was the backup return, and the Space Shuttle (USA) having the main transport responsibility. That's why the USA buys the seats. Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
#23
by
Prober
on 01 Jan, 2016 15:58
-
I prefer Rogozin's "respect" and "well done" response, to Stéphane Israël's "there's nothing to see here".
The sad but true fact is that Elon, running a private company, can make more decisions and make on-the-fly adjustments in one Monday morning meeting then either of them could in a year.
Add this latest tweet, and I'd say Rogozin understands exactly where this is all going. Russia has a proud and honored history of Space accomplishments. What they do not currently have enough of though, is the political, economic or cultural infrastructure to organically grow a company like SpaceX...and let them fly...I personally wish they could find a way to do so...
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/682717803166695425
Sorry but any time I hear the name Rogozin his words are recalled. So....
Maybe Rogozin is going to direct the design of a highly advanced "Trampoline" satellite launcher
-
#24
by
Rocket Science
on 01 Jan, 2016 16:05
-
I prefer Rogozin's "respect" and "well done" response, to Stéphane Israël's "there's nothing to see here".
The sad but true fact is that Elon, running a private company, can make more decisions and make on-the-fly adjustments in one Monday morning meeting then either of them could in a year.
Add this latest tweet, and I'd say Rogozin understands exactly where this is all going. Russia has a proud and honored history of Space accomplishments. What they do not currently have enough of though, is the political, economic or cultural infrastructure to organically grow a company like SpaceX...and let them fly...I personally wish they could find a way to do so...
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/682717803166695425
Sorry but any time I hear the name Rogozin his words are recalled. So....
Maybe Rogozin is going to direct the design of a highly advanced "Trampoline" satellite launcher
I think it will be a "trampoline landing-pad" instead for a future reusable first stage...
-
#25
by
baldusi
on 01 Jan, 2016 20:07
-
think you might be a little off on this. Soyuz (from my understanding) was the backup return, and the Space Shuttle (USA) having the main transport responsibility. That's why the USA buys the seats. Correct me if I'm wrong.
AIUI, there Shuttle simply couldn't perform the task of emergency egress vehicle, since it could stay on orbit just 30 days. Thus, Soyuz was needed for that role until a solution could be developed for the USOS. Regrettably the X-38 proyect was cancelled and the ISS partnership then agreed to depend on Soyuz for CRV until such a time as the non-Russian side developed their own vehicle.
So, Soyuz was always the CRV of the ROS. Since X-38 cancellation it has also been the CRV of record until NASA decided to go with Commercial Crew (and Orion as backup), when they decided not to deorbit the station in 2015.
-
#26
by
Coastal Ron
on 01 Jan, 2016 20:49
-
?
Roscosmos launching American astronauts to the ISS was always only a temporary arrangement. The political situation might have accelerated commercial crew somewhat. SpaceX has nothing to do with it.
I don't know where you get this from. Soyuz doing crew rotation has been the plan of record since the station agreement was signed. It's Russia's primary contribution.
think you might be a little off on this. Soyuz (from my understanding) was the backup return, and the Space Shuttle (USA) having the main transport responsibility. That's why the USA buys the seats. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The Shuttle was certainly capable of moving crew to and from the ISS, but since the Shuttle could only stay in space for two weeks it could not KEEP crew permanently at the ISS if, for safety reasons, you wanted the crew to have the capability to return home on short notice. Only the Soyuz was capable of providing the "lifeboat" function when the ISS partners agreed to build the ISS.
The X-38 Crew Return Vehicle would have been able to provide the "lifeboat" function (crew take Shuttle up, CRV down) but Bush cancelled it in 2002, in part because of cost overruns on the ISS itself.
So the cancellation of the Shuttle program never really affected the crew transportation situation on the ISS.
-
#27
by
Patchouli
on 01 Jan, 2016 22:45
-
The Shuttle was certainly capable of moving crew to and from the ISS, but since the Shuttle could only stay in space for two weeks it could not KEEP crew permanently at the ISS if, for safety reasons, you wanted the crew to have the capability to return home on short notice. Only the Soyuz was capable of providing the "lifeboat" function when the ISS partners agreed to build the ISS.
The X-38 Crew Return Vehicle would have been able to provide the "lifeboat" function (crew take Shuttle up, CRV down) but Bush cancelled it in 2002, in part because of cost overruns on the ISS itself.
So the cancellation of the Shuttle program never really affected the crew transportation situation on the ISS.
Canceling the X-38 was pretty stupid as it could have been evolved into a crew transport vehicle.
Hopefully Dragon V2 and Starliner will rectify the problem.
Though the problem of sole dependence on Russia for crew transport never should have existed in the first place.
-
#28
by
QuantumG
on 01 Jan, 2016 23:05
-
Though the problem of sole dependence on Russia for crew transport never should have existed in the first place.
Then you might as well say the ISS never should have existed in the first place. Partnership is dependence.
-
#29
by
Rocket Science
on 01 Jan, 2016 23:24
-
If Russia didn't have the ISS to go to what HSF program would they have today? Space station Mir was on it's last legs without major upgrades or replacement... They still wouldn't have gone to the Moon. So all he really has to complain about is his loss of satellite customers... That's business, innovate or stagnate... His choice is the proclamation of a new agency... This emperor really has no clothes...
-
#30
by
SLC17A5
on 01 Jan, 2016 23:39
-
Rogozin has played a major part in the decline of Russian space. His goal, along with Putin and his clique, is to ensure that the Russian secret police are able to plunder the state and the citizenry as extensively as possible. Everything else is a press release.
-
#31
by
Alf Fass
on 01 Jan, 2016 23:40
-
My hope is that the Russians - and Europeans - have the sense to firstly try to copy the business model, rather than focus on the engineering.
Sadly that's probably not going to happen.
-
#32
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Jan, 2016 00:17
-
Canceling the X-38 was pretty stupid as it could have been evolved into a crew transport vehicle.
Don't forget the cancellation of HL-20 in 1990 and the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) in 2004. There were also Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) studies in 1986 called Station Crew Return Alternative Module (SCRAM) and a large Discoverer type capsule. See
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/nasaacrv.htm After 31 years of trying, NASA is finally getting the spacecraft they need! Here's a summary of all the different programs
ACRV HL-20 1986-1990
X-38 1991-2002
OSP 2002-2004
MPCV Orion 2004-
CCDEV Dragon 2/CST-100 2010-
We shall see if the CCDEV vehicles can be competitive with Soyuz.
-
#33
by
Rocket Science
on 02 Jan, 2016 16:54
-
Canceling the X-38 was pretty stupid as it could have been evolved into a crew transport vehicle.
Don't forget the cancellation of HL-20 in 1990 and the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) in 2004. There were also Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) studies in 1986 called Station Crew Return Alternative Module (SCRAM) and a large Discoverer type capsule. See http://www.astronautix.com/craft/nasaacrv.htm After 31 years of trying, NASA is finally getting the spacecraft they need! Here's a summary of all the different programs
ACRV HL-20 1986-1990
X-38 1991-2002
OSP 2002-2004
MPCV Orion 2004-
CCDEV Dragon 2/CST-100 2010-
We shall see if the CCDEV vehicles can be competitive with Soyuz.
Even if it costs us a bit more Steven, it would be worth it in order to have HSF autonomy again and not having a character like Rogozin to rub our face in it again once and for all... I hope the U.S. never places itself in this position ever again...
-
#34
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 02 Jan, 2016 20:10
-
The only issue is the lack of reusability. I had speculated that they could do a seven engine core if they also used an RD-0162SD for the upper stage. But regrettably the Voystochny transport restrictions required a bigger upper stage with the 74tonnes RD-0169.
To my point that:
... but the Russians seem especially challenged, as the last three decades of design choices seem to go counter to the formula that Musk is counting on for re-usability ...
You see this throughout.
Can't see how they can afford existing operations/missions on new, reduced budget.
Let alone any new program to displace old programs.
And to gain access to budget, you'd have to consolidate to fewer systems/components, collapsing certain ones. The choices here are not good ones.
-
#35
by
AncientU
on 02 Jan, 2016 22:07
-
Roscosmos has bigger things to worry about than Musk's experiments.
Cheap launch isn't that important.
“The main goal today is to make space cheap,” Rogozin said...
Problem with ***not*** cheap launch is you may find yourself without the payloads to launch -- and get hard cash. Looking at not-so-great recent track records for Soyuz and Proton and the incursion into Ukraine/Syria, Russia is standing to lose a significant chunk of hard cash from commercial launches. (Proton didn't get any during 2014... when Ukraine conflict flaired.) Place that on the table with losing crew transport dollars and add a major budget crunch nationally, and you get a multi-sided squeeze of an already tight situation.
Rogozin probably couldn't care less about cheap spaceflight -- remaining a player in the game is what counts.
-
#36
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 03 Jan, 2016 02:15
-
Even if it costs us a bit more Steven, it would be worth it in order to have HSF autonomy again and not having a character like Rogozin to rub our face in it again once and for all... I hope the U.S. never places itself in this position ever again...
I totally agree that the US needs independent crew access to ISS in order to provide access in case there is a problem with Soyuz. When the US capsules start flying, I'm wondering what Russia will do. Will they continue to fly four Soyuz a year? If they do, that would provide six commercial seats a year they could sell. At $30M to $40M each (maybe at the old price of $25M if they really want to be competitive) that would undercut the price of seats on Dragon 2 or CST-100, provided that US commercial seats are even available (NASA might not like the idea of tourists flying on their missions).
-
#37
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 03 Jan, 2016 09:52
-
Sorry guys, but I don't understand this thread.
1. I've searched for almost an hour, but I've not found any Rogozin interview on Rossiya 24 where he says this.
2. Even if he said this, what is the problem ? He says that Musk is challenging Russia, which should go further in developping rocket technologies. Where is the arrogance, and where is the problem ?
-
#38
by
ChrisWilson68
on 03 Jan, 2016 10:41
-
Sorry guys, but I don't understand this thread.
It's simple. Rogozin made a statement about SpaceX presenting a challenge to Russian space. How Russia will react is interesting to some people. Hence this thread. It is to discuss how Russia is reacting to SpaceX, in particular with respect to Rogozin's latest comments.
1. I've searched for almost an hour, but I've not found any Rogozin interview on Rossiya 24 where he says this.
The very first post on this thread had a link to an article discussing the Rogozin quote on Fortune magazine's web site. I've seen it discussed on other news outlets. Why does it matter to you whether you can find a link to it on Rossiya 24? Surely you don't think Fortune would just make it up, do you? Why would they make up something and claim it was on Rossiya 24 when it would be so easy for Rossiya 24 to refute if it weren't true? And if it weren't true, surely Russia would have refuted it by now, no?
2. Even if he said this, what is the problem ? He says that Musk is challenging Russia, which should go further in developping rocket technologies. Where is the arrogance, and where is the problem ?
What exactly are you replying to here? If you think someone on this thread said something specific that you disagree with, you should reply to that specific comment.
-
#39
by
ChrisWilson68
on 03 Jan, 2016 10:45
-
Cheap launch isn't that important.
If you are happy continuing what we've been doing in space at the same pace without change, cheap launch isn't that important.
If you want our civilization to do more in space, cheap launch is everything.
