Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Monday September 24 2018, @05:12PM   Printer-friendly

Russia throws doubt on joint lunar space station with U.S.: RIA

Moscow may abandon a project to build a space station in lunar orbit in partnership with U.S. space agency NASA because it does not want a "second fiddle role," a Russian official said on Saturday.

[...] [The] head of Russian space agency Roscosmos, Dmitry Rogozin, said Russia might exit the joint program and instead propose its own lunar orbit space station project.

[...] A spokesman for Roscosmos said later that Russia had no immediate plans to leave the project. "Russia has not refused to take part in the project of the lunar orbit station with the USA," Vladimir Ustimenko was quoted as saying by the TASS news agency.

FLOP-G?

Also at ABC (Associated Press).

Previously:

Related:


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Monday September 24 2018, @05:31PM (16 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday September 24 2018, @05:31PM (#739281) Journal

    That's great and all, but the Soviet Union no longer exists and the Russian space program is in the shiiter now:

    http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/roscosmos/problems-continue-plague-russian-space-program/ [spaceflightinsider.com]
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-space-programme-collapse-soyuz-2-1b-rocket-cosmodrome-launch-failure-latest-news-a8094856.html [independent.co.uk]
    https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2018/08/russia-slowly-declining-space-superpower/150279/ [defenseone.com]

    Their upcoming rockets are far from impressive:

    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/08/china-main-spacex-competitor-as-russia-is-giving-up.html [nextbigfuture.com]
    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/08/russia-stopping-proton-m-rocket-project-as-it-cannot-compete-against-spacex-and-china.html [nextbigfuture.com]
    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/08/russia-will-spend-24-billion-to-develop-a-large-rocket-by-2028.html [nextbigfuture.com]

    If the Russians do still have lunar ambitions, getting involved in the FLOP-G would be a bad idea. It is just an expensive destination planned to give the Space Launch System a place to go (even though you could build it far cheaper using Falcon Heavy).

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @06:13PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @06:13PM (#739299)

    Is this news accurate, or do we have gellman amnesia effect here?

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Monday September 24 2018, @06:35PM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday September 24 2018, @06:35PM (#739322) Journal

      Their ISS cash cow could be going away as soon as next year. They don't do any major space exploration missions like NASA does and their Fobos-Grunt mission was a failure. Their upcoming rockets are not competitive with Falcon Heavy and BFR.

      Michael Crichton is an overrated dead man.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @07:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @07:05PM (#739340)

        Hmm, chrichton just gave a name to it, so not sure why that came up. It is extremely common, there is even a catchier new name for it...

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday September 24 2018, @07:43PM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 24 2018, @07:43PM (#739362) Journal
      Why are you asking rather than coming up with a real argument? Notice that the list of Russian achievements only had two since 1970 and those two are default wins (that is, because the US isn't yet competing). Introduce manned flights by SpaceX and others, then the position of Russia will be far from secure.
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @11:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @11:44PM (#739452)

        Why are you asking rather than coming up with a real argument?

        Because the essence of the effect is that you don't even know what questions to ask...

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by requerdanos on Monday September 24 2018, @06:37PM (2 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 24 2018, @06:37PM (#739324) Journal

    That's great and all, but the Soviet Union no longer exists...r upcoming rockets are far from impressive...If the Russians do still have lunar ambitions, getting involved in the FLOP-G would be a bad idea.

    1. The Soviet Union hasn't been transporting USA's astronauts to and from the International Space Station since 2011 (that's actually Russia).

    2. The question here is not whether their rockets are impressive, but whether Russia would play "Second Fiddle".

    3. The question here is neither whether the mission is a good idea (you're right; it isn't) but whether Russia would play "Second Fiddle".

    If the U.S. thinks Russia should play second fiddle in some way, perhaps they should review their space history.

    If you genuinely think that Russia's underwhelming rockets and less impressive space program make it somehow not as good as the U.S., I invite you to please consider that they can put people in space and the U.S. can't, and it's been that way for a long time. The U.S. has performed in fits and starts, some really good ("That's one small step for a man..."), some not that great ("Hey, I know, let's discontinue these Shuttles with no replacement even while we have personnel in space; let them call a taxi or something"). Meanwhile Russia has quietly been (and yet remains) a steady, reliable performer.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Monday September 24 2018, @07:21PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday September 24 2018, @07:21PM (#739349) Journal

      1. You listed a bunch of Soviet Union space achievements, which is why I mentioned it. Russia is weaker than the Soviet Union and not engaging in a "space race". If we have a space race with any country going forward, it will probably be China.

      2. Russia's unimpressive rockets are an important piece of the overall picture. Their space program is shit, and they have no plans to effectively compete with SpaceX. Note that this is not just a problem for Roscosmos, but also Arianespace and others.

      3. LOP-G is designed to give the military industrial complex some pork money to build a destination for the U.S. pork rocket: the Space Launch System. Most of the components appear to be U.S.-built and planned to launch using the SLS Block 1B. Yes, Russia is playing "second fiddle", at least under the current plans. They would be wasting their time and money by participating in what amounts to a U.S. stimulus package to certain U.S. companies.

      The U.S. has all the technology needed to put people into space. What they get with Soyuz is a relatively cheap [businessinsider.com], cramped ride that only goes to the ISS, which is the only place the U.S. wants to send humans at this point anyway. It was a good deal while it lasted, although the price has increased greatly over the years, but soon SpaceX and maybe Boeing's offerings will be better. The Soyuz reliability record is not shared by their other rockets.

      In retrospect, the U.S. lack of a domestic manned spaceflight provider has been a great thing. The gap allowed SpaceX to get lucrative contracts to deliver cargo and soon humans to the ISS. If the company succeeds with BFR, the consequences will be enormous.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Monday September 24 2018, @07:53PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 24 2018, @07:53PM (#739367) Journal

      If you genuinely think that Russia's underwhelming rockets and less impressive space program make it somehow not as good as the U.S., I invite you to please consider that they can put people in space and the U.S. can't, and it's been that way for a long time. The U.S. has performed in fits and starts, some really good ("That's one small step for a man..."), some not that great ("Hey, I know, let's discontinue these Shuttles with no replacement even while we have personnel in space; let them call a taxi or something"). Meanwhile Russia has quietly been (and yet remains) a steady, reliable performer.

      It's not the US's space program that is relevant here, but US private industry. A big part of Russia's capabilities comes from its launch systems. Those aren't keeping up with SpaceX.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 24 2018, @06:44PM (7 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 24 2018, @06:44PM (#739330) Journal

    Russian space program is in the shiiter now

    That's why the US stands in line, to hitch a ride on Russian spacecraft, right?

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Monday September 24 2018, @07:38PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday September 24 2018, @07:38PM (#739358) Journal

      The U.S. does it because it's "cheap" and goes to the ISS, which the U.S. is committed to. Once the U.S. finally cuts its dependence on Russian vehicles, a large chunk of Russian space activity will evaporate.

      The U.S. continues to lead the world on space science. Look at this timeline:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Solar_System_exploration [wikipedia.org]

      Can you find Russia's last successful solar system science mission?

      Trick question. The Soviet Union successfully launched Vega 1 and Vega 2 in December 1984. The Russian Federation has had no successful Russia-led missions, and two big failures: Mars 96 and Fobos-Grunt. The U.S. has launched TESS, InSight, and the Parker Solar Probe just this year.
      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @07:41PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @07:41PM (#739361)

      Just cause the US system is worse, doesn't mean theirs is good, does it?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 24 2018, @07:57PM (3 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 24 2018, @07:57PM (#739371) Journal

        Of course not. I'm happy to see some civilian projects starting to work out. To my knowledge, none of those civilian craft are sacrificing safety in the pursuit of profit. Not yet, at least. Competition always lowers prices, and at the same time drives the developers to seek better ways of doing things. Russian space development may suck, but US development sucks worse, so thank my plate of spaghetti for people like Elon Musk.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @10:15PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @10:15PM (#739433)

          They can't sacrifice safety for profits. Well, they could, but that one safety incident will tank their reputation beyond any profit margin they were able to increase. The cost of building and launching a vehicle makes skimping on safety just plain stupid.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 25 2018, @12:25AM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 25 2018, @12:25AM (#739463) Journal

            Yes, that's obvious to you and me. But, to an MBA? It seems that maybe the space-going corporations don't hire MBA's.

            • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25 2018, @01:58AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25 2018, @01:58AM (#739489)

              ULA & Ariannespace do. I bet Northrup Grumman Innovation Systems (nee OrbitalATK) does too. It takes a lot of MBA to maximize shareholder value from their government contracts. After all, you don't want the engineers talking directly with the customers! They might actually deliver what the customer wants and asked for, and working to boot, without change orders. Cannot have that.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25 2018, @02:44AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25 2018, @02:44AM (#739507)

      I'm always reminded of this exchange from the opening of 2010

      Dr. Floyd: "How could you convince your people to allow Americans to go on the flight?"

      Moisevitch: "It won't be easy. However, I'm pretty good. A Russian craft flown by Russians... carrying a few poor Americans who need our help. That also doesn't look too bad on the front page of Pravda."

      Of course, the Musky One may soon be changing that.