Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday October 12 2021, @06:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the squeeze dept.

Putin slashes Russia’s space budget and says he expects better results:

Russia plans to slash funding for spaceflight activities during the coming three-year period, from 2022 to 2024. The cuts will come to about 16 percent annually, several Russian publications, including Finanz.ru, report. (These Russian-language articles were translated for Ars by Rob Mitchell.)

For 2022, the state budget for space activities will be set at 210 billion rubles ($2.9 billion), a cut of 40.3 billion rubles ($557 million) from the previous year. Similar cuts will follow in subsequent years. The most significant decreases will be in areas such as "manufacturing-technological activities" and "cosmodrome development." Funding for "scientific research and development" was zeroed out entirely.

[...] Putin has reportedly told the Russian space corporation, Roscosmos, that it must increase the reliability of Russian rockets and "master" the next generation of launch vehicles. This directive has come in response to growing competition in the global space launch business, particularly from US-based SpaceX.

I guess Russia is throwing in the towel as far as space is concerned?


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This discussion has been archived.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 Immerman on Wednesday October 13 2021, @03:29PM (4 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday October 13 2021, @03:29PM (#1186677)

    >Given that reusable launch vehicles have yet to prove them selves significantly cheaper than single use ones,

    How do you figure that? Last I heard the Falcon 9, despite being only partially reusable, was significantly undercutting the competition. And that's despite a near-unanimous consensus that they're operating with *huge* profit margins that are being sunk back into Starship development.

    Significantly cheaper to operate does NOT mean significantly cheaper to hire. Not while one company has a monopoly on the new technology, and absolutely no incentive to lower prices beyond what's necessary to undercut the competition.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday October 14 2021, @08:06AM (3 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday October 14 2021, @08:06AM (#1186916) Homepage
    I reckon that because Space-X charged the US military (thus the US taxpayer) 6 times the going rate for a launch. That ain't cheaper, that's a quarter of a billion more expensive.

    Oh, other ones, yes, they've been cheaper. And you know why they can do that? Because of the over-charging elsewhere.

    You've confused "cost" and "price" again.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday October 14 2021, @02:26PM (2 children)

      by Immerman (3985) on Thursday October 14 2021, @02:26PM (#1186978)

      Pretty sure they're making a profit on *every* launch - otherwise why would they launch at all? It's not like they'd want to give that money away to other customers by subsidizing those launches.

      And pretty much every analysis agrees they're making a *huge* profit on every launch. The military contracts may be especially lucrative, but they are lucrative for *everyone* - have you actually looked at the going rate for a military launch?

      And I assure you I'm not confusing cost and price - cost is what SpaceX pays, price is what they charge the customer. And the large distance between them is pure profit.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday October 14 2021, @03:30PM (1 child)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday October 14 2021, @03:30PM (#1186995) Homepage
        Your first point is wrong by technicality - by design, they make a loss on Starlink launches, for obvious reasons.

        However, your second point is properly wrong because the recent (2020) Roscosmos analysis concluded that SpaceX is using predatory pricing to attract customers.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday October 15 2021, @05:05PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Friday October 15 2021, @05:05PM (#1187316)

          You mean the same Roscosmos that has consistently attacked SpaceX on every front with the flimsiest of excuses for over a decade? And been just as consistently proven wrong?

          Hint - when looking for an unbiased analysis of... anything really, don't rely on the testimony of the people who are losing business and/or reputation to it.

          By all means - listen to their arguments, they may be raising a legitimate concern worth investigating. But your default assumption should always be that it's a biased and self-serving fabrication. They're human, and such "sour grapes" storytelling is what we do. They might not even be lying, as such, just projecting their own inevitably-flawed assumptions onto a situation where they don't apply.