sh1pman

Vostochny is a bit too far north for ISS missions.

Worst-case for who? Also, I don’t like the term “cutting away”. The term I’d use is “helping to organise a democratic referendum about the future of several territories during political instability”.

No, because Yenisei was designed to be built as easily as possible using existing rocket parts from Soyuz-5 and Angara. But of course, that was before it was frozen. Who knows what design it’s going to have now. Maybe it’ll use new methane engines from Amur rocket.

Worth what? Also, there's no point in dealing with Yuzhnoye. Even if recreating "Energia" was planned for some reason. RD-171MV are built by "Energomash". Hydrogen engines can be ordered from KBKhA. Tanks can be built by RSC Energia, RSC Progress, Khrunichev or someone else.

Looks remarkably similar to RL10. Same fuel, same cycle, same thrust, same Isp, similar extendable nozzle. Even developed in cooperation with Pratt & Whitney who made RL10. Move along citizen, nothing to see here.

I think they’re making fun of FAA, not losing their minds.

SpaceX test fail: “This is why they test. Better luck next time!” Roscosmos test (partial) fail: “This is the end!”

But we can start celebrating in advance, right?

After reading the original article, I felt that it looked very much like a hit piece. Lists a bunch of problems, doesn’t tell what to do, not even a suggestion, but implies that it’s all the director’s fault. Mentions that the national security is at risk, as if knowing that the director's boss values security a lot… while skipping other things like the fact that work on Sarmat ICBM (built by Roscosmos company) is going very well. States that the construction work at Vostochniy is lagging behind schedule, but “forgets” that it was even further behind schedule when the director was appointed… I don’t want to defend anyone here, but things like these become easy to spot after reading a lot of Russian press I wonder if the original author (and possible client?..) expected his article to be translated and published on Ars Technica for the whole world to see.

Roscosmos shows some missile launches, and at 0:40 there’s a missile that I can’t recognize with an… interesting colour scheme. Is that “Yars”? Looks too fat. Can it be the new “Sarmat”? Also, happy RVSN Day!

Neutron looks more like a rocket from 2030s. Up to date, with minor improvements over competitors - but nothing revolutionary like full reusability, large scale orbital prop transfer, OP engines (nuclear or bimodal), SSTO capability, etc.

Which itself is basing its article, even more hilariously, on quotes from Channel One TV host Dmitry Kiselyov, who is of course a renowned expert on space satellites and anti-satellite missiles.

If I were writing a grant proposal for such a study, I’d ask for more money for more launches because one repeat is not enough for a convincing statistical analysis.

It’s ok if countries do their military stuff there, but in a way that doesn’t fill the orbit with deadly shrapnel that endangers everything, including people. (e.g. X-37B and Russian inspector satellites didn’t generate nearly as much condemnation). Similarly, nuclear tests were banned because they produced fallout and raised the amount of radioactive isotopes like 14C in the atmosphere.

“You see Ivan, old defunct Soviet satellites are not always in reasonable orbits, and this is life. Key to start.” I think you overcomplicate things, making them look far more cunning than they actually are. I’m 99% sure that space debris is just not an issue for MoD unless it endangers their own assets, which ISS isn’t.

What I’d really love to see is a Peresvet laser gun vs. satellite test. Melting a sat is better than blowing it up into a thousand pieces! Because the 40k-style Main Cathedral of the Armed Forces needs to be protected with anti-orbital laser batteries.

Roscosmos most likely knew, but couldn’t do anything about it. They have no authority over MoD, and the launch was from the army base nearby to Plesetsk, not the cosmodrome itself.

Of course, but I was responding to the part about “weaselling out of ISS”. If the MoD says there’s no danger, Roscosmos can’t use the debris danger as an argument in favor of withdrawal from the program.

Maybe, but no tracked pieces have such tracks yet, as far as I know. According to the press release by Russia MoD, the lowest-reaching debris are 40 km above ISS altitude. If this was intended as a way to weasel out of ISS, looks like they failed

One full Starship tanker. Not ASAP, debris will still need several years to reach as low as ISS orbit.

@DDE saw that. Even with tons of broken sats available, I still like my idea with Progress more

So they still need to test MiG-31 missile vs. satellite and a “Peresvet” laser gun vs. satellite. I guess, filling orbit with shrapnel is a way to defend against FOBS. I think the best way to do the test and not anger anyone is to blow up a Progress after it finishes its stay on the station. Undock, lower the orbit to 200x200 km, fire the missile. Lowest risk of getting a debris that can hit the station or anything useful.

What's the difference? Are the other objects trackable but unidentified, what does that mean?

Which number is correct?

From MoD statement: Maybe they know something and don’t tell.