Slashdot Mirror
Russia Tops With 45% of Spacecraft Launches in 2006
knight17 writes "This year was a really good year for space exploring nations, but Russians may be the most happiest among them, because they grabbed a huge 45% of the spacecraft launching market this year. The coming year is also very good for Russian space programs, since next year they will finish the GLONASS navigation project. The US is in second place, and China & Japan in third with six launches each. The Russian officials said that the launches of spacecrafts will be lesser than what this year has been seen."
Clearly, Slashdot has the most best editors of all the internets.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Ooo-Oooo, Mr Koter , Mr Koter - "In soviet russia you position sattelite".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I wonder if it'll become worthwhile to build a hybrid gps/glonass/galileo receiver to cross-compare data from all three and get better precision...
The Russian officials said that the launches of spacecrafts will be lesser than what this year has been seen.
This must have been literally translated from Russian. Most other languages are hilarious when literally translated without changing cases or tenses - "Throw me down the stairs my hat".
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
The Russian officials said that the launches of spacecrafts will be lesser than what this year has been seen.
Does. Not. Parse.
.
Ok- so that means that Russia had what - 26 launches or so? I don't recall many of them making the news in the US. See - that is the kind of stuff I want to see make the national news for the masses- not the OMG moment of some political nut job of the day-
xxxxxxxxxx
It's your mess. YOU clean it up!
Hurray for Russia!!
Perhaps they can teach NASA how to run an economical, yet highly effective, space program.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
For those interested, Arianespace toped 5th with 5 Ariane5 (omg 555????) successful launches in 2006. http://www.arianespace.com/site/launchlog/launchlo g_sub_index.html
Apologies as my "C" key is busted, so I Cut and Copied the "C" from "Post Comment"!
Seemingly the Russians with their outdated technology are winning the space race. The USA with all its money, trying for reusable spacecraft, lost!
Europe is not cited, and certainly did more than 3 launches last year. It seems very strange...
Don't the Russians actually launch their space vehicles from Kazakhstan?
No, I'm not just saying that because the scoop sounds like something Borat might have said.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
The article states they grabbed LAUNCHES. I'm not sure that has much to do with their space program.
..and yes, we are messy.
There are many launch bases in the world. Launch locations include Kaoru, French Gianna, Japan, China (at one time), and Hawaii. The bases are used to launch many types of commercial satellites. Private companies transport spacecraft all over the world to be launched. While the number of launches from Kaoru might be higher than the U.S. or elsewhere, the spacecraft being launched are mostly from other countries.
The Russian Antonov is the largest commercial plane in the world and this plays a role as well. It has 4 independent cranes can load next-gen sized spacecraft and the plane itself can house the entire launch campaign including employees. Companies like Space Systems/Loral have been leaving for launches out of Moffet Field for years.
It all boils down to cost. They produce cheaper rides, cheaper launches, and quality transportation. Therefore they launch more rockets. It also takes less fuel to get to orbit from Russia. I highly doubt these numbers represent anything special.
Highly effective? More launches != more effective.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
"The US is in second place, and China & Japan in third with six launches each. The Russian officials said that the launches of spacecrafts will be lesser than what this year has been seen."
And, by the way, Kazakhstan is in first place! Little known secret is that rockets are actually launched from Baikonur, which is in Kazakhstan, greatest nation in the world! All other nations have inferior rockets!
-- Borat
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
What a silly bunt.
As a NASA engineer who works on the expendable launch vehicle programs I can tell you that the comments made so far are born out of ignorance. NASA contracts launch programs to launch satellites for itself. ULA, ILS, etc. sell rides to space. Russia's launch services have a high degree of American engineering and participation (I have US citizen friends who work in Borat'ville).
NASA makes satellites such as STEREO and then buys a ticket on a Delta II or an Atlas V. IT then oversees the launch process. Contractors make the rockets (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc.)
The process is far more complex than that, but regardless this 45% capture does not reflect poorly on NASA whatsoever. Delta II's and Protons are tried and true and the current workhorses of the international space community.
If you want to see NASA at its finest look at the Mars missions or STEREO or Cassini. They are marvels of engineering.
NASA does rule the scientific field and does the best job in engineering spacecrafts for scientific purposes mostly because you got the bigger budget (but how long?). The Russians have always been superior to U.S when it comes to launching stuff into space and in my opinion they still are. And isn't that what really matters? But hey, maybe that's why the U.S is hurrying up the new Moon missions and replacing the shuttle with the good old rockets. Why on earth did you replace the Saturn family with the space shuttle? Would have it really been too expensive to have them working side by side, the shuttle for the manned missions (repairs, visits to space stations etc.) and Saturn for the bigger payloads. Now that's where the U.S system fails, everything has to be always done in such a high and mighty manner.
She's kind of fat...
Europe is not a country. It is a continent, and Russia is part of it.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
What failure? The US designed the ISS. We are using the Space Shuttle to build it. The Russians have launched 2 small station modules. The US has launched 12. We were the first and only nation to make it to the moon, and we will be the first back with no competition in sight. Is any other country even attempting to build moon-capable launchers?
an ill wind that blows no good
It's what they do.
On the Russian side, it sounds like much of that activity is from commercial satellite launches. Useful, but not all that interesting. On the American side, a big chunk is pointless, outdated shuttle launches. Some of those will be useful, such as fixing the Hubble, but most will just be the make work project that is the IIS.
Seemingly the Russians with their outdated technology are winning the space race. The USA with all its money, trying for reusable spacecraft, lost!
I'm not sure what you mean by that, since we didn't just try for reusable spacecraft we actually built them. They're called "Space Shuttles". We've put lots of stuff into Earth orbit using the Shuttle fleet. Granted, the launch cost was far greater than originally projected, but show me a single government on this planet that doesn't incur major cost overruns on a big project. Let's also remember that we didn't spend enough money up front to build the spaceplane that NASA originally wanted: the Shuttle is a flying kluge and it's amazing to me that it works at all. Sometimes it doesn't. Congress, in more ways than one, screwed us by getting cheap after the end of the Apollo program.
In any event, since you seem to think the U.S. space program has been a failure, let me point out that the U.S. Global Positioning System has been operational for decades while Russia's satellite network never achieved more than partial functionality. The entire planet has benefited directly from the U.S. investment in GPS (not that I expect any expression of gratitude at this point) so much so that now entire economies are dependent upon that kind of technology. Sort of like the Internet, for that matter. As I understand it, GLONASS wasn't working at all for a long time and at its peak had nowhere near the global impact of GPS.
Besides, "winning" a race depends upon the nature of the race, and what you are trying to achieve in the first place. Seemingly you need to do some more research before posting.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The budget for the Saturn V wasn't sustainable. Neither was the high launch rate (roughly 40 Shuttle launches per year) that the Shuttles were supposed to have. Now, NASA could have done something like Ares I and V back then. Ie, a smallish manned launcher and a heavy lifter designed to be cheaper to manufacture and launch than a Saturn V. But they didn't.
I am not surprised at all by this statistic. Every few months or so I've been hearning something about russia's space program in the major news sources (like CNN); this while the US space program was completly grounded.
Sometimes, it almost seems like beating the Russians to the moon killed the US space program more than anything else. It meant that we no longer had anything to proove, and could just sit back and watch space-planes evolve on their own. Well, that ain't happening.
What would happen if Russia became the first nation to have a semi-permanent lunar settlement? That I could see happening.
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
Google tells me 24 billion Russian rubles = 911.085634 million U.S. dollars. The poorly written blog has inaccurate information...
The Russians aren't idiots. I'm sure they're collecting loads of scientific data with each flight to help then design and implement future space programs. In the long run, practice will make perfect.
Personally though, I'd just scrap NASA entirely as it's entirely too encumbered by red-tape to do anything worthwhile and replace it with commercial space programs. Competing interests will result in increased innovation and cost reduction.
Unless I miss my guess, Russia hasn't trailed in number of launches per year in probably 30 years. This is roughly their normal percentage.
You seem to forget the we (the US) have seen inside Mir. It was a carnival of danger and reckless management. This recklessness persists to this day with Russia's sleazy instance to fly moviestars in space for profit. Look up some of the interviews of US astronauts who spent time there. I for one am unimpressed.
A desperite crash landing of a probe can hardly be compared to the "giant leap" of Apollo. I gave GDub credit for injecting life into the moribund earth orbital program.
Nonetheless, you can expect most of the spacefaring nations of the world to be grovelling for a piece of Project Constellation.
an ill wind that blows no good
More launches != more effective
Agreed. Number of launches is not necessarily a good indicator of overall health of a nation's space program.
For a variety of reasons (some related to how cheaply and reliably they can launch), Russian satellites tend to be designed for shorter lifetimes than their western counterparts. For example, the article cited Glonass satellites. A Glonass vehicle has a design lifetime of 3 years, while the American GPS system has a satellite lifetime of ~ 10 years. The Russians need to launch more often to maintain the constellation.
Does that mean that either program is healthier than the other? No. It just means the Russians chose to design a constellation with a cheaper satellite that requires replenishment more often instead of one with a more durable (and expensive) spacecraft that doesn't require as many launches. One philosophy isn't better than the other, each side chose the one that best fit their design requirements and the resources they had at their disposal.
Worst...sig...ever!
The Ares I and Ares V designs draw from the launch technologies developed over the past 25 years. The SRB Ares I first stage is fantastically reliable and cost efficient. The parallel staged Ares V combines the best of lightweight shuttle tankage and newly developed LH2 RS-68 engines. It is a smaller simpler design than the Saturn V that will have a 40% greater payload. The Orion spacecraft will support missions of many months and has huge interior volume compared to anything else ever flown. No other nation has a capability remotely comparable.
an ill wind that blows no good
One wonders why China and Russia, now flush with profits though adopting the U.S. style capitalism they fought for 50 years, do not aggressively build a greater capability. In America we say, "show me the money!" They aren't.
an ill wind that blows no good
Create the rockets back in the 60's and keep building them the same way. Oh, pay your ppl about a fraction of what other countries make. And do not worry about fires on a space station, O2 generators that fail, rockets that blow up early in the program (and yes, the USSR lost more than their fair share back in the 60's and 70's). Oh, have a much higher failure rate on other parts of a space program, so focus on the areas where you have success from 30 years ago, rather than focus on why you failed and move on.
So, here are some real thoughts. USSR/Russia has had their successes. So has America. USSR/Russia has had their failures. So had America. So has India, EU, Japan, China, and Brazil (hopefully, they continue theirs, since it seems like nothing has happen since the accident). But a good country learns from failures and moves on. NASA moves on whenever they get funding. Problem is, admins play havoc with NASA starting with Nixon killing off Apollo. Even now, Bush and congress is telling NASA to go to the moon, without proper funding. By the time that we have a new launcher, there will be multiple private launchers and space stations. The cool thing is that the costs will go down, and going to the moon will be quite a bit cheaper.
In fact, I would guess by 2011, the space config that will go to the moon will be a tug-pushed Bigelow station with orion in the front of it. In addition, by 2013, we will have a lunar lander and a number of Bigelow station that will serve as the core hubs of a lunar station. Quite simply, we are heading towards a much lower costs space program. And why is that? Because NASA (and RKA) did the vast majority of the research. Even now, Bigelow's was NASA's research. The private rockets that will launch the world into space ALL owe their expensive research to 2 countries space programs. And even then, USSR "borrowed" heavily from NASA. Ever wonder why the Bruan was so similar to the space shuttle?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Part of Russia's need for more orbiting hardware is because of its far northern location. When you are close to the poles, it is impossible to use geosynchronous satellites. There is just too much atmosphere to cut through when the satellite is that low in the sky. Instead, Russia must use constellations of three satllites in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_orbit Molniya orbit to accomplish what the US can do with one. I'm not saying this accounts for all the volume, but it's certainly some of it.
Russians developed several versions of the GLONASS satellite. The original model was designed for three years. The first satellite of this type was launched in 1992. GLONASS-M is designed for 7 years (first one launched in 2005), and GLONASS-K - for 12 years (to be launched in 2008).
End i well be so klever to mit with shem! I love Kazakhstan!
Idiot. You clearly are an outsider with no concept of how the launch industry works. So nice that you get modded +5. True Slashdot form...morons get the mod point.
Call me when you work at KSC like I do.
How does one create a commercial space program capable of manned missions to space and interplanetary scientific probes?
Private industry will jump in as soon as they feel it's profitable. NASA's continued existence in no way forbids this. The payoff from NASA's current activities will come decades, maybe centuries in the future when manned spaceflight has matured enough to allow humans to colonize other worlds. The reward from this is no less than the continued survival of the human species in the event of a planetary cataclysm. (which is only a matter of when, not if)
Mining asteriods and the greater solar system can reduce the environmental impact of terrestrial mining operations and might be quite profitable if it can be done efficiently enough. Everything that has been learned (and continues to be learned) from NASA's probes will be of tremendous help in figuring out how to tackle something like that.
A lot of good science is being accomplished with NASA's robotic missions. This may be of little value to some, but it's the life's-work of others. Some might sneer and call the martian rovers "expensive toys humping rocks on another planet," while others view it as another step on the very long path to humanity leaving its cradle.
because in Soviet Russia, the spell-checker corrects you. :/.
In Modern Russia, you correct the spell-checker, and by looking at the OP it's clear this isn't working out
Perhaps not always, but usually.
:-)
As long as the rockets don't fail (and I haven't heard much of that happening during 2006), it tend to mean they get more research projects in the air.
Also, the Russians of course know that minimizing the rocket launches necessary is essential for their space program.
They aren't stupid, many actually being rocket scientists!
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
The space race is since long over.
USA and Russia are nowadays fairly often collaborating in space and both have played major roles in getting much of the tech at ISS up and running.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Oh, pay your ppl about a fraction of what other countries make.
People keep forgetting about this. It is a trend that is eating into many science and tech related fields. It is hard to see how technology can be our comparative advantage, except maybe the cutting-edge stuff that no other country wants because of the boom-bust cycles it dumps on the careers of angry voters.
Table-ized A.I.
Private industry will jump in as soon as they feel it's profitable. NASA's continued existence in no way forbids this.
Let me ask a question: at what point is it profitable to compete when your competition's profit is based on their ability to spend larger and larger amounts of someone else's money?
The more money Nasa spends on spaceflight, the harder it is for comercial flights to happen - who is going to invest in a business competing with the US government?
That said, I think the current Nasa management sees the problem, and is trying to avoid it. The launcher they are currently building is so large that it will never be profitable, even ignoring sunk costs. That leaves an opening for the little guys to shine on a per mission cost basis.
But never doubt - Nasa being there delays comercialization of space. Unfortunate, but true.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
moron troll fails to realize slashdot put an end to the shock site field a long time ago, way to go AC keep up the good work.
Did someone say cake?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28997
So you're the one to blame for the "ost Comment" bug!?
i noticed several caustic remarks that we (Russia i mean coz i'm russian) use Baikonur for our launches. Yeah, we sometimes use it, but we pay $115billions for using it and we rented it up to 2050 by the way (http://www.interfax.ru/r/B/politics/23.html?id_is sue=11652093/).
And the second, more important. 80% of our commercial launches we execute from our own Plesetzk space centre. Though it's more difficult/expensive and less profitable.
And as to our research programs: two days ago we started experiment to prepare for Mars expeditions. 5 volunteers will spend 500days in special isolated module fulfilling functional duties of participants in the Marsian expedition. (http://www.interfax.ru/r/B/politics/2.html?id_iss ue=11656172/)
There must be a "6. Goto 4" somewhere in there...
Sounds like this author only counted spacecraft sellers like International Launch Services and Sealaunch. If you only count the stuff that lifted off, Russia produced all of it except 3 shuttle launches, some Delta II launches, some Arianne V launches, and a Minotaur launch.
^boost^
(lol?)
The lesson's gonna fall on deaf ears. Economical space program would be to outsource the launches (something Russians are good at) but build satellites (something Russians are very bad at, GLONASS included). But congressmen don't seem to think so, they favor protectionism....
IIRC, there was a smaller Saturn, the IB, which was used for Earth orbital missions - Apollo 7 and 9, the ASTP, and visits to Skylab. Not sure what the economics looked like on that as compared to Ares, though. As for the heavy lifter, you're probably right there; there's not much commercial use for such a colossal rocket, and something rather smaller and cheaper would have been needed.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
All that's well and good. So why are you guys so terrified of flying astronauts on Atlas and Delta? Instead of slight modifications to existing rockets, you are rolling out two entire new lines of vehicles that might or might not have the advertised capabilities. Existing EELV are no more dangerous than the proposed ARES I and V, and they exist today. We could begin the lunar program now, in 20 ton chunks, instead of waiting 15+ years to do it in 100 ton chunks.
Payload neutrality, commercial sourcing, base-camp and resource staging are the way to succeed and do it quickly. Building behemoth launchers out of 30-year old components is a route to failure, IMHO. If it's about jobs, just offer buyouts to all those Shuttle workers. It doesn't much matter because a US commercial project is going to beat you guys back to Luna, using US and Russian hardware.
Josh
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
You're aware that NASA designs and builds almost nothing, right? Practically everything is already outsourced, and most NASA employees are essentially contract administrators.
IMHO, they should get rid of contractors, bring everything in house, and get some God damned work done.
If it's about jobs, just offer buyouts to all those Shuttle workers. It doesn't much matter because a US commercial project is going to beat you guys back to Luna, using US and Russian hardware.
Oh, we can just fire them - they're only contractors. The problem is that the executives live large off of those operations, and those executives have friends in congress. Those friends in congress also know that deleting a program means losing jobs in their district, most likely, because the programs are carefully partitioned to occur in the most different districts possible. It's like pork, but for congressional marketing purposes.
Personally, I'd like to see NASA become an actual engineering and flight design agency instead of a contract administration house. A new, improved flight vehicle every 3-5 years. Real risk taking and testing. I'd like a pony, too.
Is it any suprise that the former VP at Thiokol has suggested a "new" launch vehicle that relies on the existing Thiokol boosters? Nothing like that kind of innovation to keep you on the ground.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I'm not sure about the price of the Titan IV, but that seems to fit. It was produced in the late 80's (as a response to the Challenger disaster I gather), but IMHO there's no obvious reason that they couldn't have developed it in the mid-70's.
I can't agree with the term "outdated" technology.Russians surely have technology that is equally brilliant of that of the United States, but most people in the west thinks that after Soviet Union's disintegration they are just in the list of "Developing Nations".Open your eyes and watch
About the GPS system, who knows that is another strategy of the US ? Indians refused to use the GPS system of the US military and they are planning a new system.It may be true that the Russians do not have the kind of money the US have
This has nothing to do with the relative brilliance of the scientists and engineers that came up with the various technologies the U.S. and Russia developed for space. Both sides accomplished amazing things and both had spectacular failures. It so happens that the Space Shuttle and the Global Positioning System were not among our failures, nor does the United States space program qualify as a failure, as the GP stated. You'd probably like to believe that, but it just isn't true.
... well, this anti-U.S. paranoia has reached the pandemic stage, it appears. You probably believe that the Internet is just another American plot to take over the world. If so, it must be considered one of our most dismal failures considering that everyone, everywhere, including our bitterest enemies, have profited by it. Besides, what, precisely, has the United States done with GPS that would indicate that we have any intention of using to damage another country in any way? What possible benefit would we drive from such actions? Nothing, that's what. It's not our fault if other folks chose to put their eggs in our basket, and besides: the nations that use it the most heavily are our allies, for heaven's sake! Get over yourself. Paranoia is a disease ... get treatment.
... all of us, I'm glad that the EU is forging ahead with Galileo. Global dependence upon this technology has reached the point where some serious redundancy is in order. The Russian system (if it ever becomes fully operational) will only help with that. Of course, people like you probably consider that to be yet-another plot to take over the world (keep in mind that the Soviet Empire was just that, but since they aren't Americans I guess GLONASS would be okay in your book.)
Nobody in the West who has even half a brain dismisses Russia as a "third world" nation. Third world nations don't have one of the best-educated populaces in the world, world-class research facilities, nuclear reactors and I don't know how many ICBMs with warheads to match. Russia has consistently produced some of the most capable technical people anywhere: I've personally worked with many of them over the years and found them uniformly impressive in that regard. I'm less enamored of their form of government, but I'm an American so I make no apology for that.
And so far as the GPS being another "strategy" of the United States
Personally, given the relative importance of satellite-based navigation aids to, well
Sheesh.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Russia is VERY good at putting man in space. Their launch vehicles are tried and true. Progress and Soyuz are awesome preformers. You can not question it. The Shuttle was o.k. in it's time. Give me a Saturn V and Apollo craft oiver a shuttle EVERY TIME. The Apollo and LEM were true space craft. Designed to fly OUTSIDE of Earth's atmosphere. I look forward to the new launch vehicle and spacecraft. Russia does have a clue as to what they are doing. Happy new year!
We would have used Chinese to man the call centers but you speak like you have marbles in your mouth. You would still be counting on your fingers if America hadn't shown you what software is. Manufacture cheap shit and be content.
We are arming India and the Taiwanese with our best (well, second best) fighters. Do you not see how you are being encircled? My forefathers delighted in killing your people in the Korean war. You made fine targets.
This coming from a Maoist who can barely grasp the idea of public debate without civil war. Here is a clue. In the US both sides can win an election. I relish the coming spectacle when the Maoists go down and the Taiwanese take power.
an ill wind that blows no good
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
And you hit it precisely on the head. The way to compete is not to compete. Offer something different, like packages in a specific time frame, guaranteed. Or be much more customer friendly, etc.
But let me ask you this, if the US postal service closed tomorrow, would that be good or bad for FedEx?
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;