SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 13 2021, @05:45PM (2 children)
The ISS had an enormously important purpose. It was not a vanity project. Neither was the enormously expensive space shuttle. The ISS provided a place for the shuttle to go, and the shuttle provided a reason for the ISS to be built.
No loose edges.
Very interesting.
Rather than a Space Hotel, the Starship the Space Cruise line idea makes better sense. Nothing needs to permanently stay in orbit. Spend six days on a space cruise line and see the world. It would need to have lots of food like the cruise ships (which are really floating restaurants) on Earth. The Starship lands. Passengers disembark. Another Starship is launched with another load of passengers. Two Starships could be rotated so that they get serviced and restocked on alternate weeks.
You've got to start somewhere in order to learn how to do it better and cheaper. That is true for space stations as well as rockets.
If you ever want long term habitats in space, or on Mars, you're going to have to start somewhere. A small space station or lunar base will eventually be needed if we're ever going to do it like in science fiction.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday October 13 2021, @06:47PM (1 child)
You are far more cynical that I - and I'm pretty cynical. The ISS was a huge international effort, and I promise you they weren't all in it to help pad the wallets of American aerospace companies. Lots of valuable R&D came out of the project.
To-may-to/to-mah-to. What is a cruise ship, but a floating resort-hotel that stops different places for optional day trips? As there's no place for Starship to stop I think the hotel analogy works slightly better. At least until there's a moon-base to visit (though such a trip would be far more expensive, and frankly I doubt the Moonies would be eager for visits from disruptive, disease-ridden tourists.)
>You've got to start somewhere in order to learn how to do it better and cheaper.
Sure. But you also need to satisfy some demand to justify the expense. And there's precious little demand to be served by a "more of the same" space station.
Power and propulsion systems are already advancing far faster in the satellite sector. While life support will continue to develop for the space hotels, manned Mars missions, and moon base - which *does* serve many new purposes. Initially as a R&D test bed for developing the technologies for mining and utilizing local resources before tackling more profitable asteroids, and eventually as a source of oxygen for both habitats and orbital refueling (with large amounts of refined steel and aluminum as byproducts, promoting further R&D). Lunar regolith is 40+% oxygen by mass, and in the longer-term the moon is a perfect place for "rail-gun" launches to orbit, or even other planets, which can be far cheaper and more efficient than rockets. It takes less than 1 kWh/kg to reach Earth orbit from the moon's surface, and with a railgun that's all you need to deliver. If I remember by results from a few days ago, you should be able to launch 12kg from the moon's surface to a Mars-transfer orbit using the amount of energy needed to synthesize only 1kg of methane from water and CO2. You're using the moon itself as your "propellant", which is about as close to a reactionless drive as the laws of physics seem willing to allow. (Though in fairness solar sails and solar-wind sails have much to recommend them as well - provided you're not in a hurry.)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 13 2021, @09:06PM
I have no doubt that lots of valuable R&D came out of ISS. And that other nations had their own reasons for participating.
Addressing your other remarks . . .
Maybe what we need for an orbital starship cruise ship is some orbital day-trip beaches. Where you can sit, or float, and stare at the Earth. Or space.
Oh, and some orbital McDonalds.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.