Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday August 12 2020, @01:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the trampolines-are-reusable dept.

Russia's space leader blusters about Mars in the face of stiff budget cuts

The leader of Russia's civil space program appears to be increasingly disengaged from reality. In recent months Dmitry Rogozin, the chief of Roscosmos, has given a series of interviews in which he has made all manner of big promises about the supposedly bright future of Russia's space program.

For example, in an interview published just today, Rogozin made the fantastical claim that his country's space program has the technical means to reach Mars and land cosmonauts there within eight to 10 years. If Russia is ready to finance such a plan, Rogozin guaranteed that Roscosmos stands ready to deliver.

Russia, Rogozin also recently said, is ready to do reuse better than SpaceX and the United States. SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, he said, is only "semi-reusable," and Russia aspires to build a 21st-century rocket capable of 100 flights. He then reiterated that Russia would like to develop a version of its Soyuz rocket that has a methane-fueled engine.

SpaceX has flown its Falcon 9 first-stage rockets five times, and it plans to push toward reusing each booster 10 times. It is not clear what, if any, steps Russia has taken toward reuse. The reality is that Russia depends on reliable but decades-old technology to get into space. And while Rogozin talks a good game about sending his cosmonauts to the Moon or to Mars, and about competing with SpaceX on reusable rockets, this appears to be mostly bluster.

If you are still under any illusions about the state of Russia's space program, now is the time to dispel them.

Previously: Russian Space Agency Abolished and Replaced Following Financial Violations
Price War Between SpaceX and Russia
Russian Rocket Builder May Have Replaced Special Alloys With Cheap Metals
NASA and Roscosmos Release Joint Statement on ISS Leak Amid Rumors
Head of Russian Space Agency Roscosmos Wavers on Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway
Russia Space Chief Spars with Elon Musk Over Launch Pricing


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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Interesting) by legont on Wednesday August 12 2020, @02:13AM (15 children)

    by legont (4179) on Wednesday August 12 2020, @02:13AM (#1035348)

    Soviet version does exist and is probably better than Musk's. Soviets designed parts of rockets that would glide back home. No propellant or excessive stress. One version was actually shown at Paris air show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikal_(rocket_booster) [wikipedia.org]

    --
    "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Flamebait=1, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday August 12 2020, @02:45AM (4 children)

    by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Wednesday August 12 2020, @02:45AM (#1035372)

    While I agree that the Russian (the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991) version would probably be better it is still a long way from actual flight.

    from your linked wiki

    A full-size engineering mock-up of the Baikal was exhibited at the Paris Air Show in July 2001

    and

    As of June 2016, the development was essentially complete, but funding for the manufacture of the flying prototype of the recoverable booster was absent due to the low expected launch rate.

    So, while Musk'c version actually exists and works the Russian version is at best just little more than a well defined dream sadly

    --
    "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 12 2020, @02:56AM (1 child)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday August 12 2020, @02:56AM (#1035378)

      just little more than a well defined dream

      Let's hope the same is true for Putin's latest round of nuclear weapons.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @05:31AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @05:31AM (#1035411)

        Putin's latest round of nuclear weapons

        Why bring up Donald J. Trump now?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @03:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @03:15AM (#1035383)

      Baikal is planned for ~200kN of thrust vs Falcon 9's 7,607 kN. These boosters really aren't in the same class size wise. Also Falcon 9's MECO happens at ~ mach 10, where Baikal is targeting mach 5.6. That a huge difference aerodynamic heating and downrange distance wise. Reusing the first stage is much easier if your first stage has half the delta v.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 12 2020, @07:50AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday August 12 2020, @07:50AM (#1035438) Homepage
      > the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991

      So what? The Сове́т (Soviet) Федера́ции (Federation) is the official name of the Russian Federation's senate. If they're happy with that term (meaning "council"), then we should be too. And before you say "just restricting it to the word describing how the country operates politically, and not actually including the name of the country is dumb", I'll just mention "the United States" (of Mexico, obviously, what else could I have been referring to?).
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday August 12 2020, @05:51AM (6 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday August 12 2020, @05:51AM (#1035420) Journal

    An untested Russian technology is not "probably better".

    If that's the standard you want to use, by the time Russia launches a partially reusable rocket in 2035, Musko will be launching thousands of superior fully reusable Starships.

    Russia does not have a serious space program right now. As the article notes, India is looking better. Their PSLV [wikipedia.org] is a serious competitor for SpaceX's Falcon 9, and their future plans look pretty good too.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday August 12 2020, @09:16AM (3 children)

      by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday August 12 2020, @09:16AM (#1035456)

      An untested Russian technology is not "probably better".

      There's nothing that requires extensive testing about gliding the booster back for reuse on a pair of extendable wings. It was the original design going back at least to the 40s along with simply parachuting it down. The military just wouldn't have it since it limits lift-offs and landing to certain weather conditions, specific trajectories and landing sites and exposes the craft to interception in orbits that aren't covered by radar.

      --
      compiling...
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 13 2020, @02:33AM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 13 2020, @02:33AM (#1035948) Journal

        There's nothing that requires extensive testing about gliding the booster back for reuse on a pair of extendable wings.

        Except that it's aerospace. You always need extensive testing for this stuff. But sure, you can get such testing while you fly it.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2020, @02:46AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2020, @02:46AM (#1035953)

          I volunteer GP to go first.

      • (Score: 2) by legont on Thursday August 13 2020, @01:18PM

        by legont (4179) on Thursday August 13 2020, @01:18PM (#1036114)

        Yes, exactly. When Russians were working on manned space program, the one time use rocket design won only because military wanted it. Most civilians wanted glide back. They thought about vertical landing, but dismissed for fuel costs and dangers. 60 years ago that was.

        --
        "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by driverless on Wednesday August 12 2020, @09:53AM (1 child)

      by driverless (4770) on Wednesday August 12 2020, @09:53AM (#1035463)

      It's also subject to the usual Russian curse of drastic underfunding unless it's military. Rogozin hasn't "disengaged from reality", he's playing the standard funding game of promising miracle solutions in order to get a fraction of what he's asking for at which point he can say he wasn't able to deliver the miracle because he didn't get enough funds. Вот такие дела.

      • (Score: 2) by legont on Thursday August 13 2020, @01:22PM

        by legont (4179) on Thursday August 13 2020, @01:22PM (#1036116)

        True. However, on a related note, I've heard that Chinese companies currently hire all available Russia's IT folks paying quite serious money even by the US standards. Perhaps funding issue will resolve itself soon.

        --
        "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Wednesday August 12 2020, @01:22PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 12 2020, @01:22PM (#1035513) Journal

    Soviet version does exist and is probably better than Musk's.

    Because?

    Soviets designed parts of rockets that would glide back home. No propellant or excessive stress.

    You still have the mass of the glide control parts - that mass stays with the stage every time even if the stage isn't being reused. And that creates a need to manufacture different stages (which weakens a little bit the economies of scale of making these things). It's also a more complex design and control problem (a place where Russia's space program is presently weak) and requires a landing strip. If they can get it to work, it'll probably be somewhat better than SpaceX's approach. But be aware of those trade offs.

    One mock up was actually shown at Paris air show

    FTFY.

  • (Score: 2) by legont on Thursday August 13 2020, @12:23PM (1 child)

    by legont (4179) on Thursday August 13 2020, @12:23PM (#1036099)

    I did not realize that a word "better" would produce such a storm, including flamebaits left and right. Let me go into more details.
    Gliding back home is better for many reasons the main ones being obviously fuel and stability of approach. Gliding is also tested for a hundred years and known technology that can be easily implemented.
    The issue with gliding is infrastructure costs. One needs a network of landing strips and friendly regulators. Even Musk can't reliably achive this in reasonable time so he went with worse solution. The one that is less enviroment friendly, mind you, and more dangerous.
    This story rhymes aviation. PanAm was created on similar to Musk's idea - use free seas. Large boats land in international waters screw you governments. PanAm succeeded, but eventually infrastructure was built and it died.
    The same will happen to Musk's rockets. We will glide back home while Musk's dyno's will stay in museums. Nothing is wrong with that, mind you.
    That's why I said that Soviet technology designed back in 40's is "probably better". In 50s Russians were flying rockets under bellies of aircraft that would go on ballistic trajectory and glide back home. This technology exists. Yes, there are difficulties, but yes, Rogosin is probably right - given the budget he will fly them in no time.

    --
    "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
    • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Friday August 14 2020, @04:37PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 14 2020, @04:37PM (#1036596) Journal

      Even Musk can't reliably achive this in reasonable time so he went with worse solution.

      Then it wasn't a worse solution.

      The same will happen to Musk's rockets. We will glide back home while Musk's dyno's will stay in museums. Nothing is wrong with that, mind you.

      Who is "we"? It's certainly not Russia today. And nobody is expecting the Falcon series or vertical landing to be the final word in launch systems.