totm dec 2019 Russian Launch and Mission Thread

[NuclearFish]

3 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

What do recent (last 22 years) Russian crewed Mars exploration concepts look like? How many have their been?

Astronautix only goes up to a 2000 RSC Energia proposal.

As I know, there were no such proposals. Their only concept (except of rockets) is Zeus nuclear tug, winch I really don't know why is needed. 

[kerbiloid]

9 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

What do recent (last 22 years) Russian crewed Mars exploration concepts look like? How many have their been?

Depends on who wins the Third Battle For Shackleton Crater in 2045.

[DDE]

Angara-1.2 out of Plesetsk, payload classified

https://t.me/mod_russia/14941?single

Kosmos-2555, susoected to be an imaging sat

https://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara1-flight1.html

Also, Rogozin: Russia has determined the date for exiting the ISS project, but we're not going to tell anyone until one year in advance

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5338995

Also also Rogozin: "Why does everyone consider me a jerk who makes vague promises?"

[kerbiloid]

Once KSP-2 gets released. New space - new software.

[DDE]

On 4/29/2022 at 9:06 AM, kerbiloid said:

During the EVA session the cosmonauts have planted flag on ISS.
https://www-rbc-ru.translate.goog/rbcfreenews/626b32799a7947b6e41f966c?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru

(Video is available only on original link,)
https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/626b32799a7947b6e41f966c
 

First time since 1991 on Mir.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Because I saw this photo getting passed around as Ostalgic copium, I got suspicious. So I dug.

And now I've got outright video.

https://youtu.be/coFZYOvbV7o?t=1074

[Codraroll]

On 4/30/2022 at 2:41 PM, DDE said:

Also, Rogozin: Russia has determined the date for exiting the ISS project, but we're not going to tell anyone until one year in advance

Bold of Rogozin to assume there will be funds to run Roscosmos for even a year from now in the first place.

Jokes(?) aside, I really wonder how Russia's space program will be affected long-term by the ongoing unmentionable. It was not in a good shape before, and it was always questionable whether Russia would have the economy to sustain a domestic space program in the face of competition from the East and the West (especially considering how funds had a certain tendency to shrink along the way between the budget office and the launchpad). I think it wouldn't be too controversial to say that the Russian space program has not managed to innovate at a competitive rate. The Soyuz, while reliable, doesn't quite have the capabilities or the economic efficiency to give it an edge over comparable systems in the US or China. The development of successors has been troubled, to say the least. The global launch market is too small for Roscosmos to sustain itself on the crumbs left over when those two have finished gobbling up their shares. And now several customers have shut it out entirely (Europe), build their own systems instead (India), or they give too little business to provide much revenue anyway (the rest of the world).

There has always been some discrepancy between how expensive a space program is and how small Russia's economy is (approximately the same GDP as Spain - before the unmentionable, now it's roughly on par with the Netherlands, but with nine times as many people to provide for). The Soviet Union could afford it, because they had a huge economy.  Russia itself, on the other hand? It will have to be done on a shoestring budget, and you can't compete on a shoestring budget, especially when the management takes half the shoestring away to buy sports cars and offshore property.

[SunlitZelkova]

52 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

Bold

*insert General Kenobi meme*

52 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

I really wonder how Russia's space program will be affected long-term by the ongoing unmentionable.

My guess is it will end up being propped up by money from Chinese cooperation on the Moon. Not now, maybe not even ten years from now, but further down the line China will need Russia as a partner in… Earthly matters… and if space is something necessary for propaganda and sort of defense reasons they’ll probably help them out. OR (see below)

55 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

The Soyuz, while reliable, doesn't quite have the capabilities or the economic efficiency to give it an edge over comparable systems in the US or China.

Soyuz is basically the same thing as Shenzhou. Shenzhou will likely fly all the way to the 2030s because of how slow development is with the Next-Generation Crewed Spacecraft.

So they should be fine in that department. Without Yenisei and Moon landing plans, there isn’t exactly much to be gained from Orel anyways.

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

There has always been some discrepancy between how expensive a space program is and how small Russia's economy is (approximately the same GDP as Spain - before the unmentionable, now it's roughly on par with the Netherlands, but with nine times as many people to provide for). The Soviet Union could afford it, because they had a huge economy.  Russia itself, on the other hand? It will have to be done on a shoestring budget, and you can't compete on a shoestring budget, especially when the management takes half the shoestring away to buy sports cars and offshore property.

Errr… I think this assessment is a little flawed, for two reasons.

1. “The Soviet Union could afford it”- the Soviet Union couldn’t afford it, it only “afforded it” by neglecting the civilian sector which led to collapse. An old lady, upon finding that potatoes at a market in a suburb of Moscow were spoiled, supposedly once said “we have these great Sputniks, right? So why don’t we take them and launch these rotten potatoes in to space” or something to that affect. Now this important because of the reason below.

2. “Lack of investment” is sort of a problem all over Russia, not just the space program (see the performance of a certain military in a certain conflict so far). From what I have read, it seems to be a symptom of the chaos of the 90s. However, it may only be because Russia chooses not to invest that these problems exist rather than it being incapable of doing so. After all, there was a time when the country built tanks and ICBMs on its own while being almost completely cut off from the “world” (capitalist) economy. It wasn’t because the Ukrainian SSR or Baltic SSRs had access to Western tech- as the atom bomb’s code name said “she did it herself”. So Russia could theoretically do it again with the right organization and commitment. There have been passing comments about this sort of grand “reorganization of the state” but as to whether it will actually be possible will have to waited upon and seen.

So, in summary, I think it is too early to say what will happen or begin planning a funeral. A lot of assessment around the Russian tech sector seems to assume that Russia is like a video game NPC. In reality though, Russia has the opportunity to change its strategy to achieve its goals (in the case of this discussion, maintaining its status as a space power).

The Sputnik ball is in their (the government’s) court.

[steve9728]

About the Roscosmos corporate in Chinese space station and the lunar research station these two things I guess:

1. CNSA said the space station will have at least one international module. And I think it probably would be like the Chinese make the 'crust' of the 'pie', while the Russians or ESA make the 'filling' of the 'pie'. Which means CNSA provide everything it need like socket for the science racks, the platforms for the experiments, and the China's standards for everything which will bring to the station but not 'made in China'.

2. The lunar research station that thing. If I don't miss understanding the CNSA and China's official media meaning, That project mainly depends on the CNSA themselves: of course there will be much more better if our Russain friends everything goes well and ESA can also corporate in some field on that, and I really looking fowards on this. But still CNSA make the plans depends on themselves.

I've always thought that there must be crazier things in international space history if Soviet/Russia can use low-latitude launch sites. But now obviously...you know... No offence, but even my hometown province's (Guangdong) GDP is higher than Russia. That's really hard for Russia to build a new space station or make both 'fillings' and the 'crust' and sent it to the Chinese space station.

As the old Chinese saying goes: the apprentice is taught, the master is starved. In cases of Russian and Chinese technologies I think it reflects the current problem pretty accurate.

Edited May 2, 2022 by steve9728

[kerbiloid]

12 hours ago, Codraroll said:

I really wonder how Russia's space program will be affected long-term by the ongoing unmentionable

Focusing on military needs, freezing the non-immediate scientific ones.

12 hours ago, Codraroll said:

It was not in a good shape before

It was in better shape than in 200+ other countries, except just one or two.

Can't remember a ESA crewed ship name...

12 hours ago, Codraroll said:

and it was always questionable whether Russia would have the economy to sustain a domestic space program in the face of competition from the East and the West

Since 1940s...

12 hours ago, Codraroll said:

especially considering how funds had a certain tendency to shrink along the way between the budget office and the launchpad

Agreed, both SLS/Orion and SS/SH are swallowing money without chewing, and still both are far from flying.
CST also isn't trying its best.

On the other hand, several generations of 3d designers and music composers had a chance to gather some food in their trashcans and are happy with that.

Orion really costs a billion of dollars? Indeed? An aluminium barrel with some electrics inside costs like a sea cruise liner? 

12 hours ago, Codraroll said:

I think it wouldn't be too controversial to say that the Russian space program has not managed to innovate at a competitive rate.

1. As we can see, both lunar programmes currently are competing in design and funding, rather than in capturing the Moon rocks.

2. Any lunar programme won't be a thing until the fusion tech comes into game. So, still about a decade or two till real lunar flights.

3. When one party can't, another party doesn't need to hurry.
The slower is the Russian lunar programme, the more safety protocols the American developers and bureaucrates can sell "to be sure in the flight success". 
China, in turn, already has monopoly on rare-earth mining, so it doesn't need a lunar base except for picture, while others don't have theirs.

4. It's much cheaper to prevent someone's lunar monopoly than establish your own.
Because it needs tens of superheavy ship launches to build a base, but just a football-sized sleeping lunar "probe" to cancel.

So, the competition is not symmetric, and even NK can establish a flight-free zone on the Moon after some humble efforts and small money.
Take Luna-16, replace electronics, add a solar panel, and replace the return probe with something bringing light and warmth to lunar home, hide it on the Moon, and you may stop arguing which NASA lunar base design is better.

There are a lot of Herbert's Dune fans on this forum, and they should recall "the actual owner of a thing is he who can destroy it".
Not that I'm agreed, but that's their favorite book, not mine.

So, the Moon "colonization" will anyway be international, with participation of all countries who can destroy another one's outpost.
And it will be cheaper to share your tech and knowledge to prevent somebody other's mislanding on top of your base.

12 hours ago, Codraroll said:

The Soyuz, while reliable, doesn't quite have the capabilities or the economic efficiency to give it an edge over comparable systems in the US or China.

It doesn't even need to compete in price. The total programme cost is important.
Though, we can see literally nothing but slogans about the Crew Dragon economic efficiency, and we can see literally everything about the SLS/Orion one.

China has a Soyuz-like ship.

12 hours ago, Codraroll said:

he development of successors has been troubled, to say the least.

The main trouble is the absence of need, as we can see on the example of Orion, CST, Dragon tourists.

Wow! The second civilian tourist crew! Dragon rulez!
Can you bring a more bright evidence that the Dragon-class ship usage is a useless luxury rather than an actual necessity.
A whole ship of human ballast instead of specialists to solve the practical problems.

Wow! Axiom will build a space hotel! Axiom rulez!
Can you bring a more bright evidence that they don't need a new orbital station except for nothing?

Anything of that comparable to Shuttle even remotely? 
Such technical degradation, so quickly they forgot they were riding real spaceplanes a decade ago...

So, currently Soyuz is absolutely in trend, and a decade or two later there will be another tech to build a post-Soyuz.

12 hours ago, Codraroll said:

The global launch market is too small for Roscosmos to sustain itself

It was too small always. So, just the funding source value has been redistributed, and it happened not yesterday.

And as the Roscosmos is not the biggest player on the market, the biggests ones should worry more. 

If the sky is too small for Roscosmos, what to say about SpaceX vs ULA and ESA?

Just several years ago (since 2010) it was "Help us, Obi Van Roscosmos, you are our only hope!"
And that's after 135 flights of Shuttle, which was a real space cruiser comparing to the puny Dragon lifeboat.
Can you guarantee this won't repeat a decade later, after the First Muskovite Space Race and the First OneStarlinkWeb Battle?

12 hours ago, Codraroll said:

And now several customers have shut it out entirely (Europe)

It could shut anyway if they could due to their own rocket, and don't bet your money that they will not unshut once the situation cools a little, and everyone's in the world pants get back dry.
Or once the Green World Fighters will have sent the ESA after the nuclear plants and coal energetics, because other buisiness brings more profit the rockets damage the ozone layer.

It's a serpentarium Europe, after all. The EU was invented to help them to not bite each other cooperate and live in peace.
You snooze, you lose, n'est-ce pas, mein lieber Freund, oh la la?

Of course, if you are AUKUS  British Empire 2.0, you may stop worrying about money and not sell your crops and meat to the Soviet Union like Canada and Australia were doing since 1960s, for the money paid by the Western Germany for Soviet natural gas pumped via the pipes bought in the same Western Germany in spite of strict American sanctions), while the Soviet submarines were propelled by propellers made by the metal-cutting machines bought in Japan and Norway for same German money in spite of same American sanctions, too.

While the Soviet pure scientific spacecrafts were traditionally equipped with a pack of French scientific tools.

And that's exactly during the hot phase of the Cold War, with Zapad'81 vs Able Archer'83, KAL 007, Reagan's "I just declared the Empire of Evil out-of-law, the bombardnent starts in five minutes.", and so on.

Brief version: the rich part of the Europe is not closed forever for years.
The poor part wouldn't buy the spacecrafts anyway.

12 hours ago, Codraroll said:

There has always been some discrepancy between how expensive a space program is

made by bureaucracy over its actual cost.

12 hours ago, Codraroll said:

and how small Russia's economy is (approximately the same GDP as Spain - before the unmentionable, now it's roughly on par with the Netherlands

Don't forget that the nominal GDP of developed countries consists also of servicing activity (barbershops, oral hygiene consulting,tourist entertainment, etc.) which is actually costs counted as incomes.
Because they don't form new material values, they are just invented "jobs" to keep the crowd of excessive people indoors and busy by throwing money on the street from the incomes of really profitable sectors of economics. Like the efforts spent on this forum don't turn into real spaceflights.

You don't need a special human to bring your food from the bar to the table two meters away, but even a lousy diner hires them just because others do.
And others do so because TV sitcoms tell them it's normal for a respectable restaurant, and it's normal for a respectable (white/blue)collar rat-in-the-wheel to make somebody socially lower bring him/her food from the bar to feel high.

Once TV starts saying that it's normal to stand in a queue, and the waiters are a useless luxury, the waiters would disappear.
The same about barbershops, beer bicycles, and many other important parts of GDP totals. 

Spoiler

 

So, the GDP argument is not directly applicable here. Richer countries have more false GDP states.

12 hours ago, Codraroll said:

The Soviet Union could afford it, because they had a huge economy. 

The Soviet Union was buying food since 1962s from its enemies.
The post-Soviet Russia (and Ukraine) bring up 30% of global food export, and that's while their agriculture is treated as very ineffective. With total population of 140+40 = 180, of 286 mln in the late USSR.
They buy a lot of seed from former-Monsanto (curretly bought by Bayer), etc.?
1. A lot, but not everything. In Soviet times even nothing. 
2. Bayer doesn't need the Eastern plowlands to sell the seeds? Well, well...
(Of course, the German words written in hieroglyphs would look weird... And "ordinateur personnel"  in Arabian letters.)

The Soviet Union had a very heavy ballast of ideological (almost religious) constraints on its economics.
The post-Soviet countrues have none, it's only a question of their choice which economical model to use.

12 hours ago, Codraroll said:

It will have to be done on a shoestring budget, and you can't compete on a shoestring budget, especially when the management takes half the shoestring away to buy sports cars and offshore property.

The USSR space was on a shoestring budget since 1950s.

"What a horror! The Russian space is now just 3rd, not 2nd!"

Edited May 2, 2022 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

Aaaaaaaaaaaand this is why unless it's about SLS and Orion (which everybody hates) space policy matters should probably be shied away from, even if they have been allowed in the past in certain instances.

[Rutabaga22]

Why are so many russian command modules Spheres?

 

[kerbiloid]

44 minutes ago, Kerballego22 said:

Why are so many russian command modules Spheres?

 

Just one of them, Vostok/Voskhod.
It was derived from design of cabin of the stratospheric balloon (which were ancested en mass from the Auguste Piccard cabin).

As it was an unstable technology, they used it as a shape for the first return vehicle with cabin inside, to simplify the heat exchange and aerodynamics calculations, and to minimize the total mass,

Later it stayed in use for the Vostok-class crewless returnable satellites.

***

Also it was later used as a base for the orbital service module of Soyuz, because it was familiar and proven.
Then for the lunar lander cabin as well.

***

The small crewless crafts have a spehrical command pod to protect the old-style and thus not vacuum-proof electronics.

***

Other command modules are conical or sphericonical, like everyone's else.

[DDE]

2 hours ago, Kerballego22 said:

Why are so many russian command modules Spheres?

I think in large part it's because until Oryol, the Korolyov design school (being specific here to rule out kerbiloid's favorite bridesmaid) generally had a fairing over the spacecraft, whereas the Faget school from the get-go had the capsules directly atop the vehicle and exposed to the airstream. So the US went with a craft shaped like a fairing, aerodynamic on both ends, whereas the Soviets went with craft that had maximum volume per mass and fairing diameter - spheres, and spheres on spheres.

[Rutabaga22]

4 minutes ago, DDE said:

Oryol

After looking it up it kinda reminds me of orion

 

[DDE]

10 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Aaaaaaaaaaaand this is why unless it's about SLS and Orion (which everybody hates) space policy matters should probably be shied away from, even if they have been allowed in the past in certain instances.

A decent discussion would require common ground with regards to the current and future state of the Russian economy. Said common ground is hard to come by, and that situation is unlikely to improve.

* insert obligatory joke about an old man being swindled by the guy who sold him USD at 200 RUB *

Spoiler

At the very peak some banks sold it at maybe 150

 

[Codraroll]

21 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

My guess is it will end up being propped up by money from Chinese cooperation on the Moon. Not now, maybe not even ten years from now

Problem is, none of them presently have the technology to send people to the Moon. It will have to be developed first. And by the current rate of development, it won't be Russia that develops all that technology. I think it's even a fair assumption that the Russian equipment will be the same in ten years as it is today (which is to say, pretty much the same as in 1980), if they even retain the knowledge about how to build it. A Moon project will be a Chinese solo run. What would they then need Russia for? (or to be even more sinister: what do they need Russia for at all, that they can't just waltz in and take for themselves?)

21 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

1. “The Soviet Union could afford it”- the Soviet Union couldn’t afford it, it only “afforded it” by neglecting the civilian sector which led to collapse. An old lady, upon finding that potatoes at a market in a suburb of Moscow were spoiled, supposedly once said “we have these great Sputniks, right? So why don’t we take them and launch these rotten potatoes in to space” or something to that affect. Now this important because of the reason below.
(...)
After all, there was a time when the country built tanks and ICBMs on its own while being almost completely cut off from the “world” (capitalist) economy. It wasn’t because the Ukrainian SSR or Baltic SSRs had access to Western tech- as the atom bomb’s code name said “she did it herself”. So Russia could theoretically do it again with the right organization and commitment. There have been passing comments about this sort of grand “reorganization of the state” but as to whether it will actually be possible will have to waited upon and seen.

My point is, the total funds and industrial capacity available to current Russia is less than what was available to the Soviet Union, in absolute and relative terms. It is a smaller country and economy these days, less self-sufficient (in a world with lesser opportunities for self-sufficiency for any countries, really), without the same option to commandeer the best and brightest to work in the sectors where the state needed people. These days, the good engineers go to the oil industry, or move abroad. It also seems to me that the Soviets didn't waste such large fractions of their space budget on, er, lets-be-generous-and-call-it-"management" (the aforementioned sports cars and offshore property). The space program is coasting on inherited wealth, designs, and know-how from much richer days, and all they can do is to maintain it. But it seems Russia does not have the necessary funds or skill base to take it out of stagnation.

21 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

So, in summary, I think it is too early to say what will happen or begin planning a funeral. A lot of assessment around the Russian tech sector seems to assume that Russia is like a video game NPC. In reality though, Russia has the opportunity to change its strategy to achieve its goals (in the case of this discussion, maintaining its status as a space power).

The Sputnik ball is in their (the government’s) court.

Not planning the funeral yet, but I'm curious to see what way forward could possibly cause matters to improve. Russia can't turn back into the Soviet Union, and reach a similarly dominant position. It's smaller on its own this time 'round, with less international support, and its peers have evolved. The government strategy of "we'll appoint my good buddy to this well-paid position and let his underlings sort out the practical details, how hard can it be?" is unlikely to change under the current government, and a new government might not have superficial national pride so high on the priority list that they will continue to fund such a luxury endeavour as a space program that can't keep up with its peers.

12 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Completely incoherent, whataboutist ramble

I don't think there's any way I could respond to this while staying within the forum rules.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Codraroll

[SunlitZelkova]

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

Problem is, none of them presently have the technology to send people to the Moon. It will have to be developed first. And by the current rate of development, it won't be Russia that develops all that technology. I think it's even a fair assumption that the Russian equipment will be the same in ten years as it is today (which is to say, pretty much the same as in 1980), if they even retain the knowledge about how to build it. A Moon project will be a Chinese solo run. What would they then need Russia for? (or to be even more sinister: what do they need Russia for at all, that they can't just waltz in and take for themselves?)

What I am imagining is a similar role in China’s lunar program to that of ESA or JAXA in the “Western” human spaceflight program- cooperation with “the big guy” as a means of keeping the lights on. There’s nothing really off about building a surface hab from a space station module, while they obviously *can* build lunar probes. Will Yenisei fly though? Or Oryol? They could end up like Hermes and HOPE if the wrong decisions are made.

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

My point is, the total funds and industrial capacity available to current Russia is less than what was available to the Soviet Union, in absolute and relative terms. It is a smaller country and economy these days, less self-sufficient (in a world with lesser opportunities for self-sufficiency for any countries, really), without the same option to commandeer the best and brightest to work in the sectors where the state needed people. These days, the good engineers go to the oil industry, or move abroad.

Yes, but as I mentioned this could theoretically be turned around.

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

It also seems to me that the Soviets didn't waste such large fractions of their space budget on, er, lets-be-generous-and-call-it-"management" (the aforementioned sports cars and offshore property). The space program is coasting on inherited wealth, designs, and know-how from much richer days, and all they can do is to maintain it. But it seems Russia does not have the necessary funds or skill base to take it out of stagnation.

Well, if I am to believe Chinese newspaper articles from the 1960s and 1970s, they sort of did.

What is for sure though is although not exactly the same, space funding and would-be space funding getting (deliberately, because it had higher priority) siphoned off into the ballistic missile program was a serious problem. They still managed to do quite a few things though.

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

Not planning the funeral yet, but I'm curious to see what way forward could possibly cause matters to improve. Russia can't turn back into the Soviet Union, and reach a similarly dominant position. It's smaller on its own this time 'round, with less international support, and its peers have evolved.

Think China and the USSR in the early-mid 50s but reversed, and with 21st century technology.

It’s not a perfect analogy, but something like that dynamic.

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

The government strategy of "we'll appoint my good buddy to this well-paid position and let his underlings sort out the practical details, how hard can it be?" is unlikely to change under the current government, and a new government might not have superficial national pride so high on the priority list that they will continue to fund such a luxury endeavour as a space program that can't keep up with its peers.

It sort of is keeping up though- the ISS is still here after all, and there are eight years ahead of them to figure out what to do next.

Space is one of Russia’s* great prides, I can’t see the government having an option of ending the human spaceflight program (at least in LEO) without obviously looking weak.

I suppose another option they have is sticking with LEO and using the post-Apollo Soviet narrative that deep space exploration is too dangerous for humans and should be left to probes. That would require actually funding more probes though.

*On the international stage, not sure what the average Russian person actually thinks

Edited May 2, 2022 by SunlitZelkova

[kerbiloid]

10 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Problem is, none of them at all presently have the technology to send people to the Moon.

Corrected this for you.

10 hours ago, Codraroll said:

And by the current rate of development, it won't be Russia that develops all that technology.

By the current rate of development, the Moon will be reached by foot, via the paper bridge built from ground to there.
("Elon time" joke is needed here.)

Because no visible profit is expectable, but the funds are required.
Maybe, the fusion will change the game rules. But it will happen decades later, and many infantile fantasies of "green world right now" and "cancellation of everything you don't like" will evaporate much sooner.
So, we don't know, who exactly "they" will develop what.
The demography is... specific... everywhere, and the median age in the overpopulated less developed countries together with coming water/food crysis is what will change the political landscape much sooner than the Moon base will get built or fusion reactors will be implemented.

10 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Russian equipment will be the same in ten years as it is today (which is to say, pretty much the same as in 1980)

ORLY? 1980?

The fact that R-7 was derived from V-2 A-4 doesn't mean that the tech is still same like in 1940s.

And we can recall that only three countries have this obsolete tech.
Maybe ESA could, too, if put efforts. But it doesn't look like they are going to. Windmills are more important.

And why are you sure that the Western space plans will stay untouched in the current economical situation?

10 hours ago, Codraroll said:

A Moon project will be a Chinese solo run.

Never. Until others start doing that, making China spend money, too.

Because to the date any lunar station project is a foam bubble castle with no prototype on ground and no clear ideas about profit.

9 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Will Yenisei fly though? Or Oryol? They could end up like Hermes and HOPE if the wrong decisions are made.

Did Nova fly? Sea Dragon? Nexus? "Twenty" other versions of Apollo? DynaSoar? DC? Ares? Constellation? _{Spaceship? CST-100? Orion? SLS?}

Intermediate projects exist to develop parts for later ones.

10 hours ago, Codraroll said:

A Moon project will be a Chinese solo run. What would they then need Russia for? (or to be even more sinister: what do they need Russia for at all, that they can't just waltz in and take for themselves?)

Not to enter politics, but why do you think that US/EU will need Russia less than China could?

To the date, somebody created AUKUS focusing at the Australia region.

If US Navy has to sneak into Bering Sea past Chinese sea bases along the rented Russian Pacific coast, like now they have to do in South China Sea, won't all lunar base money be spent on Frisco, Seattle, and Ancoridge sea fortresses instead of the Moon?

So, I believe that after a period of turbulence, all will be good in NASA/Roscosmos cooperation.

10 hours ago, Codraroll said:

My point is, the total funds and industrial capacity available to current Russia is less than what was available to the Soviet Union, in absolute and relative terms.

It also has less ballast and more developed technologies.

10 hours ago, Codraroll said:

It is a smaller country

Indeed, just 1/9 of terrestrial land instead of former 1/7. 

Others have grown....

10 hours ago, Codraroll said:

less self-sufficient

Not less than USSR. Late 1990s-early 2000s  tech level is available on its own. And the 1980s mentioned by you are not a problem at all.
But we can hope that the Western partners will find a way to support it with modern technologies like they were doing non-stop since 1940s.

10 hours ago, Codraroll said:

The space program is coasting on inherited wealth, designs, and know-how from much richer days, and all they can do is to maintain it.

(Here comes the list of cancelled and slowly crawling Western projects of the same period).

10 hours ago, Codraroll said:

But it seems Russia does not have the necessary funds or skill base to take it out of stagnation.

It seems so not the first century...

(Think, why do the cosmonauts watch exactly "White Sun of Desert" before launch.)

10 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Not planning the funeral yet, but I'm curious to see what way forward could possibly cause matters to improve. Russia can't turn back into the Soviet Union, and reach a similarly dominant position

While others are looking swell...

10 hours ago, Codraroll said:

with less international support

Than it was in Cold War when all developed Western countries were standing in row to cooperate, and China was in open confrontation, and USSR was spending a lot of money on the less developed countries support...

10 hours ago, Codraroll said:

might not have superficial national pride so high on the priority list that they will continue to fund such a luxury endeavour as a space program that can't keep up with its peers

If the space and rockets were depending on "national pride", von Braun would stay a "clown with Max & Moritz rockets" till 1970s, instead of being hired by militaries and get money to build something big. The space is military-driven, and the Hubble is an overturned spysat.

Most part of engineering in any field is dull and not interesting, and enthusiasm has nothing to do there, only hard working.

10 hours ago, Codraroll said:

23 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Completely incoherent, whataboutist ramble

I don't think there's any way I could respond to this while staying within the forum rules.

Not unexpectedly.

Edited May 3, 2022 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Did Nova fly? Sea Dragon? Nexus? "Twenty" other versions of Apollo? DynaSoar? DC? Ares? Constellation? _{Spaceship? CST-100? Orion? SLS?}

Intermediate projects exist to develop parts for later ones.

Note that I said that Yenisei and Orel might not fly but I did not say that SLS and Starship "will" fly 

All space programs are constantly under threat of turning into the Graf Zeppelin II, IMO.

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

It seems so not the first century...

(Think, why do the cosmonauts watch exactly "White Sun of Desert" before launch.)

But the organizing force that did that doesn't exist anymore (I am assuming you are referring to industrialization in the 30s, correct me if I am wrong).

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

By the current rate of development, the Moon will be reached by foot, via the paper bridge built from ground to there.
("Elon time" joke is needed here.)

Because no visible profit is expectable, but the funds are required.
Maybe, the fusion will change the game rules. But it will happen decades later, and many infantile fantasies of "green world right now" and "cancellation of everything you don't like" will evaporate much sooner.
So, we don't know, who exactly "they" will develop what.
The demography is... specific... everywhere, and the median age in the overpopulated less developed countries together with coming water/food crysis is what will change the political landscape much sooner than the Moon base will get built or fusion reactors will be implemented.

 

And why are you sure that the Western space plans will stay untouched in the current economical situation?

Never. Until others start doing that, making China spend money, too.

Because to the date any lunar station project is a foam bubble castle with no prototype on ground and no clear ideas about profit.

Did Nova fly? Sea Dragon? Nexus? "Twenty" other versions of Apollo? DynaSoar? DC? Ares? Constellation? _{Spaceship? CST-100? Orion? SLS?}

Intermediate projects exist to develop parts for later ones.

 

(Here comes the list of cancelled and slowly crawling Western projects of the same period).

I think you are kind of misunderstanding why these past projects did not succeed. These failed for very specific political and economic reasons, not simply "the politicians don't want to give money".

Apollo was really never supposed to happen- NASA desired to go for a better performing orbital spacecraft, then a space station, and only then conduct crewed lunar flights. Kennedy screwed that up. As a result of how expensive it was and NASA's behavior that led to the Apollo 1 fire, combined with a very traumatic war at a time when people actually cared about curbing debt, in backlash, Congress canceled all further crewed deep space projects and went with the Space Shuttle, purely for political reasons (jobs in California). That backlash persisted throughout the years, while NASA also had to spend money to keep the Shuttle running.

Now the situation has changed in 2022-

1. This is the most important- no one really cares about capping debt. Even if they do, it is certainly not enough to cut crewed spaceflight programs, because of the jobs they offer in politically important states.

2. (Sort of) no traumatic war (for now).

3. Either NASA is no longer doing shenanigans with contractors that allow safety hazards to occur or no one cares if they do.

4. ISS has been operating for 20 years now, the Shuttle is gone, and LEO crew transport is being handled by private companies.

Short of five megaton detonations at KSC and Boca Chica, it is pretty unlikely Artemis will be stopped. Even if it devolves into a flags and footsteps program with no base, it should continue.

Likewise, such factors don't appear present in Russia's case. Barring literal physical collapse of the country or a couple of 400 kiloton detonations, the Russian space program should be able to continue in some form.

EDIT- in case anyone is wondering about that second condition (war), the first cancels it out even if there is conflict. Iraq didn’t end in total government crewed cancellation after all- it ended with SLS (of all things)

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If the space and rockets were depending on "national pride", von Braun would stay a "clown with Max & Moritz rockets" till 1970s, instead of being hired by militaries and get money to build something big. The space is military-driven, and the Hubble is an overturned spysat.

Most part of engineering in any field is dull and not interesting, and enthusiasm has nothing to do there, only hard working.

While it was military-driven at first, that is not necessarily the case anymore.

Apollo was purely political and had no military applications. Likewise the Space Shuttle originally had no military applications either, and the DOD ended the use of the vehicle after Challenger- yet it flew until 2011.

Although Mir might have had military applications (having been conceived prior to the full Almaz cancellation) ISS obviously doesn't and Soyuz is still flying, despite crewed military spaceflight having concluded with Almaz.

Now it could end up being military driven again (what with the ROSS military mission comments), but it is not exclusively so.

Edited May 3, 2022 by SunlitZelkova

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

But the organizing force that did that doesn't exist anymore (I am assuming you are referring to industrialization in the 30s, correct me if I am wrong).

I'm referring to the characters' psychology.
Absense of pathos, constructive pessimism, scepticism, and stoicism. At the same time, strong inner beliefs and ideas. For somebody - a catastrophe, for them - another Tuesday.
Find some "space enthusiasm" or other loud words in their mind. 

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

These failed for very specific political and economic reasons, not simply "the politicians don't want to give money".

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

1. This is the most important- no one really cares about capping debt. Even if they do, it is certainly not enough to cut crewed spaceflight programs, because of the jobs they offer in politically important states.

In 1960s they needed jobs in the same states, too.
They may keep building SLS for future (they need a lot of them for lunar base), or same personnel may get hired to producing missiles (due to the mentioned political situation), remember what I was saying about the SLS priority in the SLS thread.
And as the space market is too small even for Protons, the SLS and SpaceX manufacturers may face a competition here much sooner than Roscosmos gets gone.

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

EDIT- in case anyone is wondering about that second condition (war), the first cancels it out even if there is conflict. Iraq didn’t end in total government crewed cancellation after all- it ended with SLS (of all things)

In this case other countries may be involved, too, and under those oil price conditions any lunar programme would be postponed.

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Apollo was purely political and had no military applications.

Apollo was run when Lunex and Horizon were postponed.
Nothing purely political is in military pilots (the same from Mercury and Gemini on top of IRBM/ICBM Redstone, Jupiter,  Titan II) flying to the Moon in test flights on the ship whose early purpose was a lunar base personnel rotation in direct landing flights, after the previous two pure military projects.
Simultaneously to DynaSoar and MOL pure military projects which would be in priotity if Apollo was pure civil.

And the rumors of a nuke onboard of Apollo-13 are of course rumors, but sounding very close to the known Soviet cancelled E-4 lunar craft with a test nuke.

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Apollo was purely political and had no military applications. Likewise the Space Shuttle originally had no military applications either

Space Shuttle was done in co-lobbying of NASA and Pentie.

Both were military, like all of them. Just had a double-purpose civil application. And as we can see, nobody cared about scrapping the national pride when  cancelled Apollo.

[DDE]

18 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

*On the international stage, not sure what the average Russian person actually thinks

I've learnt that outright arguments similar to a certain compatriot of mine are counterproductive even at the best of times, so I'm just going to play the part of the language barrier-bypassing skirmisher.

The closest poll I found would be the one from 2016 which had respondents pick an unrestricted number of important anniversaries. 53% picked both Vostok-1 and V-E Day; from personal memory I'd say both were heavily celebrated bu official sources, but V-E day, significantly more so.

https://www.levada.ru/2016/04/08/osvoenie-kosmosa-2/

Both that poll and a subsequent 2018 poll also had the question I didn't consider useful it itself - on both dates, 61% of respondents declared Russia to be the leader in space exploration.

It only becomes interesting when you consider the other question in the 2018 poll: "Have you heard anything about Elon Musk launching a superheavy rocket?" (now, granted, we can argue whether Falcon-Heavy is an SHLV...) 62% of respondents have not. The similarity between 61% and 62% is... amusing.

On the flipside, 2% out of n = 1600 claim to have watched it live. Considering the numbers previously indicated, their smallish sample hasn't been too biased, so that's a remarkably large number.

https://www.levada.ru/2018/04/12/ko-dnyu-kosmonavtiki/

[Gargamel]

While the discussion of the space program of any one nation will be rife with political undertones, let's try to avoid making statements that run afoul of any of our forum rules.   And also, remember we're just a bunch of space nerds on a forum about little green men, stop and pause before posting a heated reply. 

[SunlitZelkova]

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

In 1960s they needed jobs in the same states, too.
They may keep building SLS for future (they need a lot of them for lunar base), or same personnel may get hired to producing missiles (due to the mentioned political situation), remember what I was saying about the SLS priority in the SLS thread.
And as the space market is too small even for Protons, the SLS and SpaceX manufacturers may face a competition here much sooner than Roscosmos gets gone.

I'm curious about your opinion surrounding missile manufacturers and space. They already get a lot of money for maintaining the current force and will get more for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (which has been described in terms very similar to how SLS is- a pointless system purely intended for keeping jobs)*.

So SLS shouldn't have anything to do with it, because missile manufacturers already have money for maintenance purposes and the Minuteman III replacement.

Thus SLS has its own purpose and won't be killed for budget reasons, or if it does, it will only be to find a replacement to keep Artemis going. Likewise, there are a multitude of reasons for keeping Roscosmos intact and it could be expected that the Russian government will attempt to do so.

*It should be noted that these statements date from prior to the supposed silo fields in China and a general wake up call (real or imagined) towards China's nuclear arsenal, and could change

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Apollo was run when Lunex and Horizon were postponed.
Nothing purely political is in military pilots (the same from Mercury and Gemini on top of IRBM/ICBM Redstone, Jupiter,  Titan II) flying to the Moon in test flights on the ship whose early purpose was a lunar base personnel rotation in direct landing flights, after the previous two pure military projects.
Simultaneously to DynaSoar and MOL pure military projects which would be in priotity if Apollo was pure civil.

Quoting myself from the last time this was discussed-

Quote

Apollo was not a replacement for Lunex. Apollo was originally an advanced (in comparison to Mercury) LEO spacecraft that was intended to eventually evolve into a space station program, *kind of* like 7K-OK and 7K-OKS/DOS.

Once Kennedy, without full approval from NASA, decided to land a man on the Moon before 1970, it got converted into a lunar landing program. It should be noted however that it was purely expeditionary, never intended to build a lunar base as Lunex did. Funding was only provided for one G-class mission, four H-class missions, and five J-class missions. The original and actually funded plan never called for a lunar base.

As the first few years of the program past, NASA centers got ambitious and came up with studies and proposals for a lunar base, but these remained as, for all intents and purposes, glorified napkin drawings, with no actual development taking place, and funding never being allocated. They tried to get funding in 1967, but the US government really didn't care about the Apollo program beyond Kennedy's goal and beating the Soviets, so that mindset, in combination with a desire to punish NASA for not being honest to Congress with North American Aviation's behavior that contributed to the Apollo 1 fire, led to little funding being assigned for the Apollo Applications Program- only enough for the Orbital Workshop (OWS) which became Skylab. The lunar base dreams got abandoned because it didn't appear they were going to have more Saturn Vs to launch the base and crews anyways.

Lunex likely got cancelled because of the following reasons-

1. It was too ambitious for its time (spaceplane)

2. There was little to no military value when compared with the need for funding for fighting in Vietnam

3. The Air Force, amidst the squeeze on funding that the Vietnam War caused, saw crewed military spaceflight as one of the easiest things to get rid of. Dynasoar and MOL lived on because their AOR (LEO) had potential value, but even they saw little development work beyond mockups and calculations, and got cancelled eventually too.

---

The Moon Race was not run for a "strange purpose"- just exploration of the Moon. In 1962 when Apollo began, uncrewed probes were constantly failing and the data they could return was extremely limited. Humans were deemed necessary for scientific exploration. Despite the E-8-5 program getting started not that long after, in the psychotic hysteria brought about by Gagarin's flight and the Red Scare in general, it made perfect sense.

It did not finish in a strange way, as we will see below.

---

There was nothing sudden about the cancellation of the latter Apollo flights.

Congress did not give funding for further Saturn IB and Saturn V construction in 1968, so not only were there no further batches, but even some vehicles that had been ordered were then cancelled. Apollo 20 was cancelled in January 1970 in order to use the Saturn V to launch the aforementioned Orbital Workshop (which would be named Skylab the following month). Apollo 15 and Apollo 19 were cancelled in September 1970 as a result of budget cuts, with the numbering scheme of course being altered so that the first J-class mission (originally Apollo 16) would become Apollo 15, and so on.

The L3 program wasn't cancelled after Apollo 11 because of the following reasons-

1. They had funding and a schedule. You don't just stop development after spending so much time.

2. The Soviets still nonetheless could have attempted to reach the Moon, in the same manner that the US didn't just cancel Mercury and jump to Apollo because Vostok beat Mercury-Redstone.

As stated above, the Apollo missions were cancelled long before N1 and L3 development got cancelled. Thus the N1 was not cancelled because of Apollo. More likely, once Glushko replaced the problematic Mishin as head of TsKBEM, he decided to cancel it on his own initiative, for the following reasons-

1. He disliked it due to its design and supposedly to a lesser extent, because of the falling out with Korolev

2. He understood that the Moon Race was over and would not receive further support from the Communist Party, government, and military. The military (at least Grechko) in particular hated the whole thing and felt it was a distraction from achieving deep nuclear parity with NATO

3. The focus was on space stations, and would soon turn to countering the Space Shuttle threat as well

 

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

And the rumors of a nuke onboard of Apollo-13 are of course rumors, but sounding very close to the known Soviet cancelled E-4 lunar craft with a test nuke.

Err... I have never heard such rumors. I recall the E-4, but ADMs on Apollo 13? (Secret) nuclear weapons on the Moon died with Project A119 in 1959.

There was a proposal to detonate a "small-ish" (the actual word used, apparently) nuclear device on the Moon to clear the way for geological studies, but this was rejected because it would mess up the study of the natural radiation environment.

11 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Space Shuttle was done in co-lobbying of NASA and Pentie.

Both were military, like all of them. Just had a double-purpose civil application. And as we can see, nobody cared about scrapping the national pride when  cancelled Apollo.

The actual Shuttle we got had military purposes, but the original one was purely civilian.

This is evident in how NASA documents prior to the complete cancellation of Apollo/Saturn V production and death of all crewed spaceflight projects besides the Shuttle mention a much smaller payload bay than that that would be required for big reconnaissance satellites.

[DDE]

5 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I'm curious about your opinion surrounding missile manufacturers and space. They already get a lot of money for maintaining the current force and will get more for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (which has been described in terms very similar to how SLS is- a pointless system purely intended for keeping jobs)*.

*It should be noted that these statements date from prior to the supposed silo fields in China and a general wake up call (real or imagined) towards China's nuclear arsenal, and could change

Gonna drop in and point out that solid rocket motors have a finite shelf life, so at some point the Minutemen would have to be retired. A debate exists on whether the US needs land-based ICBMs at all, but GBSD and Columbia-class SSBNs would have to come in sooner or later.

And GBSD could not be used to meaningfully counter Chinese silo fields because the capabilities of ICBMs against silo fields are already mostly maxed out (whereas the capability of SLBMs against silos are quite recent and mostly associated with the "superfuse" program). Any attempt to use GBSD as a counter would involve boosting the numbers of the force beyond the constraints of New START/СНВ-3, and say what you wish about Ol' Sleepy Joe, but I expect him to hang onto that agreement. He's already strangled the Trump-era nuclear Tomahawk redeployment program, and the UK program to double its arsenal, which inevitably would require US assistance, hasn't been heard from since (Given up in exchange for AUKUS? Idle speculation at best, but in line with past US-British nuclear shenanigans).

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

So SLS shouldn't have anything to do with it

Do you know other boosters of such size?

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Err... I have never heard such rumors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119

The rumors of Apollo-13 among other Apollos were probably based on the presence of several kilograms of plutonium onboard.

Quote

To power the ALSEP, the SNAP-27 radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) was flown. Developed by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, SNAP-27 was first flown on Apollo 12. The fuel capsule contained about 3.79 kilograms (8.36 lb) of plutonium oxide. 

Officially, 238 for RTG, and I believe that's so, but now only fishes can say exactly.
https://science.slashdot.org/story/11/11/28/1637231/will-nasa-ever-recover-apollo-13s-plutonium-from-the-ocean

Anyway, a little strange usage of a crewed ship to test RTG. Are they immortan?
Even 7K-VI, which was designed with two RTG instead of solar panels, was carrying them on two long bars to be extended right after the LEO insertion, i.e.several minutes after launch.
The Apollo-13 crew would spend ~4 (actually spent ~7)  days sitting next to it.
Was it really necessary just to test RTG for a long-term crewless lunar probe?
It looks rather strange and of course the Apollo-13 movie omitted the subject.

Anyway, there was a self-warming hot object in the service module, and the exploded cryotank was not far from it, unlike in other Apollos.
(It officially was there, and both 238 and 239 are self-heating).

So, probably the conspiracy theorists think that the tank was warmed up, and LOX became GOX, unlike in other Apollos,
So, the RTG was not delivered to the Moon and exploded days later "Hey, look! Our reactor exploded! Bad reactor, bad!" but happily returned to the Earth and splashed.
 

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The actual Shuttle we got had military purposes, but the original one was purely civilian.

The original one stayed on paper.
Only help of Pentagon (who just had lost their DynaSoar) and design change helped to get the necessary money to build a much bigger spaceplane than NASA wanted.

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

This is evident in how NASA documents prior to the complete cancellation of Apollo/Saturn V production and death of all crewed spaceflight projects besides the Shuttle mention a much smaller payload bay than that that would be required for big reconnaissance satellites.

NASA wanted a small bay for scientific tools. Pentagon needed a bay for any railroad payload.
Spysats match the railroad payload standard.
To improve the position, the bay size was declared as a universal cargo capability to replace other rockets and pay for the joy.

Edited May 4, 2022 by kerbiloid