fredinno

Russia's Space Budget Slashed

Recommended Posts

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38959.msg1454018#new

http://news.yahoo.com/russian-government-already-paying-space-195035280.html?nf=1

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/27/news/economy/russia-space-crisis-cosmodrome/index.html

Oh noes.

"On Monday, Igor Komarov, the director of Roscosmos — Russia's version of NASA — announced that the space agency will receive a total of $22.5 billion dollars in government funding over the next 10 years.

That might sound like a lot, but it's close to how much NASA gets from the federal government each year. In 2015, alone, NASA received approximately $18 billion, and is projected to get a similar amount each year through 2019 ."

 

In other words: Rocosmos, with new cuts- $22.5 Billion Budget for the next 10 years.

NASA Budget, currently- $18 Billion. (though this is not just space budget)

 

These cuts have been made due to the deteriorating Russian economy. It's also the 3rd cut this YEAR, and is HALF the amount originally planned for in Rocosmos' long term plan.

 

There goes Russia's plans to land people on the Moon...and PPTS (aka Orionski)...and OPSEK (Russia's next gen space station). Even the new Russian ISS modules are at risk at this point. Vostochny Cosmodrome is still happening though.

 

Also, a comment from NovaSilisko, (former) KSP Developer: "So it sounds to me like this basically means the end of Russia's lunar and planetary exploration short of ExoMars, with most of the budget going into Earth-centric operations like the ISS. No Venera revival, no Luna revival, no Phobos-Grunt reflight..."

 

This sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check this out--we're spending around $20m each year, while RosCosmos gets $22.5m to spend for the next 10 years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the oil prices, it came down to either annexing Crimea and fighting a war in Syria or having social and exploration programs. Russian government went with the former.

Edited by K^2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

$22.5 billion dollars in government funding over the next 10 years.

Quote

$22.5 billion dollars in government funding over the next 10 years.

Quote

overthe next ten years

Is that what i think it is? So then it would be 2.25 billion a year??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Is that what i think it is? So then it would be 2.25 billion a year??

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fredinno said:

Yes.

That's a real shame. Although I guess their rockets aren't terribly expensive, and they can do something like the Discovery Program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roscosmos will have to rely heavily on selling services to other space agencies. It doesn't help them that NASA announced to get out of ISS as quickly as possible.

$2B per year doesn't get you a lot. New Horizons alone cost $700M...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Roscosmos will have to rely heavily on selling services to other space agencies. It doesn't help them that NASA announced to get out of ISS as quickly as possible.

$2B per year doesn't get you a lot. New Horizons alone cost $700M...

2024 is near the end of ISS' intended lifetime of 30 years, or 2028. Not exactly as fast as possible, and plans change, what with the new election coming up. 

 

24 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

That's a real shame. Although I guess their rockets aren't terribly expensive, and they can do something like the Discovery Program.

But pretty much everything other than ISS turnover and a few space probes is doomed under this budget- one point of speculation is that Progress flights halt, and HTV, Dragon, and Cygnus, assuming those are the winners of CRS-2 may have to pick up the slack. 

 

One thing I thought that was going to be great were the next Luna Missions, and post- ExoMars European-Russian Cooperative missions, like Phobos-Grunt 2.

Guess where that all went?

 

Maybe the future nationalized Russian Space Industry can funnel some of its profits to Rocosmos? http://sputniknews.com/russia/20130904/183163496/Russian-Space-Industry-to-Be-Consolidated-Within-Year--Rogozin.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wel, i'm not surprised. Russia, for all its enormity has an economy the size of Italy's and Brasil. That's not much for a 130+ million country spanning two continents. With dropping oil prices and international sanctions something had to give.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the US/Canadian shale oil business, and Russia are all suffering from the Sunni oil price war on Iran. The recent deal with Iran is a 135 B$ handout, so the Saudis are going to drive oil far lower than the initial plan I think.

I read that there was talk of $20/barrel oil again. Welcome to the 1990s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R.I.P Russian space. Really, I don't think America, Canada, or Russia are doing too good, what with dropping oil prices. Pretty much the whole (REDACTED) world is doing bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, the US/Canadian shale oil business, and Russia are all suffering from the Sunni oil price war on Iran. The recent deal with Iran is a 135 B$ handout, so the Saudis are going to drive oil far lower than the initial plan I think.

I read that there was talk of $20/barrel oil again. Welcome to the 1990s.

It's actually cheaper due to inflation.

 

Also, $20 a barrel would make the world fall into a depression, from the current recession. Let's hope it doesn't get worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, fredinno said:

It's actually cheaper due to inflation.

It's not inflation. You can argue that the drop in US import demand has forced them to compete in asian markets with other producers who used to sell more in the US, but it's not inflation. The Saudis could cut production, and then they'll claim they'd lose market share, but the Saudis have also been smart about diversifying assets to cover potential losses, and they really want to hurt Iran. I recall reading that before sanctions were planned to be lifted, Iran needed $80/barrel to keep the government lights on. What's oil today, $36?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they meant that oil will be cheaper than in the 1990's, if it hits $20/barrel, because of inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In russia a billion dollars worth of rubles gets you a lot more aerospace work than a billion dollars in the US, because aerospace sector wages are very low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've just realized that the Russian space dead ??  he's dead since the collapse of the great space powers of the USSR, in the 90s all miraculously managed to keep the space industry, the way Russia has no space program. But I'm sure that the fat Rogozin and Ostapenko "That space has so much as I am with the ballet" already stuffed his pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE#.D0.91.D1.8E.D0.B4.D0.B6.D0.B5.D1.82_.D0.A0.D0.BE.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.BE.D1.81.D0.BC.D0.BE.D1.81.D0.B0

Sorry it's in russian, but it's a table, you'll get it. The budget expenses are in thousands of rubles. Now, 2 trillions / 10 = 200 billions. I don't see any cut in local currency (yet). We'll see how it goes. It's a good thing our aerospace industry is forced to use (and improve) our own tech instead of spending monies abroad, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems everyone is cutting funds to space programs... I guess fighting wars and designing new weapons is more important:rolleyes:. Think of all the money wasted in wars, not only by Russia in their recent "excursions" but by western countries as well developing billion dollar military projects that are plagued with problems (F-35). The country that will probably have a larger share in space travel in the future is probably China...

Edited by A35K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A35K said:

It seems everyone is cutting funds to space programs... I guess fighting wars and designing new weapons is more important:rolleyes:. Think of all the money wasted in wars, not only by Russia in their recent "excursions" but by western countries as well developing billion dollar military projects that are plagued with problems (F-35). The country that will probably have a larger share in space travel in the future is probably China...

 

No, China is spending lots on Military too. The Chinese Space Agency really is lowly financed, in comparison to its economy and economic growth, TBH, more so than, say ESA. China has yet to get serious about space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, A35K said:

It seems everyone is cutting funds to space programs... I guess fighting wars and designing new weapons is more important:rolleyes:. Think of all the money wasted in wars, not only by Russia in their recent "excursions" but by western countries as well developing billion dollar military projects that are plagued with problems (F-35). The country that will probably have a larger share in space travel in the future is probably China...

 

Don't forget - first launchers were essentially ICBMs adapted for more peaceful use. :) Advances in military areas do affect civilian space exploration, so not all money are wasted from our point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2015, 11:47:41, fredinno said:

It's actually cheaper due to inflation.

 

Also, $20 a barrel would make the world fall into a depression, from the current recession. Let's hope it doesn't get worse.

Usually the rest of the world (well all other industries) takes off with cheap oil.  Pretty much *everything* requires a bunch of energy to do, and cheap energy makes everything that much cheaper.

Not so good for industries governments dependent on oil sales.  Also not good for anybody trying to replace oil (tar sands, solar cells, electric cars, wind plants).  The Saudis have been doing this on a regular basis to prevent competition, but this appears a bit extreme.  Not so sure how much longer they can pull it off (oil use keeps increasing and they can only draw so much out of those pumps without damaging the fields.  Once those pumps pull water, the house of Saud likely falls and the whole country becomes irrelevant (with the presumed exception of Mecca and Medina).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wumpus said:

Usually the rest of the world (well all other industries) takes off with cheap oil.  Pretty much *everything* requires a bunch of energy to do, and cheap energy makes everything that much cheaper.

Not so good for industries governments dependent on oil sales.  Also not good for anybody trying to replace oil (tar sands, solar cells, electric cars, wind plants).  The Saudis have been doing this on a regular basis to prevent competition, but this appears a bit extreme.  Not so sure how much longer they can pull it off (oil use keeps increasing and they can only draw so much out of those pumps without damaging the fields.  Once those pumps pull water, the house of Saud likely falls and the whole country becomes irrelevant (with the presumed exception of Mecca and Medina).

Well, only problem is that the last time oil crashed, it triggered (not caused though) the Great Recession. No idea if this is considered politics or economics, so no idea if I'm allowed to go further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Well, only problem is that the last time oil crashed, it triggered (not caused though) the Great Recession.

Actually the opposite of this statement is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frybert said:

Actually the opposite of this statement is true.

Opposite of the entire thing? Or just one clause?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now