Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russia To Build an Orbital Construction Plant

Posted by kdawson on from the all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace dept.

jamax writes "Russia plans to build an orbital plant for the production of spacecraft (link to sketchy Google translation of the Russian original) that are too big to build planetside, or are just too bulky to fire into orbit once built. Presumably these are the ships we would fly to the Moon and Mars. Plans seem to be rather sparse at the moment, with the tentative construction date set for 2020, after the ISS is scheduled for decommissioning."

182 comments

  1. on-orbit assembly, finally by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hope that the Russians are *not* looking at flying to the Moon or Mars. The NEAs make much more interesting destinations where their expertise in micro-gravity environments can be best put to use.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:on-orbit assembly, finally by dlanod · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's no mention of the Moon or Mars in the translated article, so that is purely speculation in the summary. It's very much pie in the sky (pun intended) at the moment, with reporting just saying "it was proposed" and "The government's Security Council supported the idea". Nothing about funding or plans at this point in time.

    2. Re:on-orbit assembly, finally by egr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually there is, in both, short version and full version Russian version and translated version

    3. Re:on-orbit assembly, finally by dlanod · · Score: 2, Informative

      At risk of replying to my own post, following the links right through to a far more detailed article reveals that Mars was specifically mentioned by the Director of the Space Research Institute but left out of the article linked in the summary. The above article is a much more informative and interesting read on the plans for the Russian space industry.

    4. Re:on-orbit assembly, finally by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      There is a mention of Moon and Mars flights in the original article (I read Russian).

    5. Re:on-orbit assembly, finally by salec · · Score: 2, Informative

      The NEAs make much more interesting destinations

      True. There will be little industry enterprises in space, spaceships construction included, without abundance of materials from some place out of deep gravity well, unless we get to make a space elevator, of course. However, it is a chicken-and-egg type of problem: in order to go and get enough materials for new space industry, we need large cargo vessels to begin with. And, we'll need permanent orbital bases as well.

      Perhaps first (OK, next) generation of these structures will be universal: suitable for permanent orbiting celestial bodies, as well as for moving between them, with facilities to dock relatively small STO ships, as well as attach to own class ships to form larger structures.

      Some sort of sphere with lot of ports comes to mind - single one easily rotated for artificial gravity, can be connected to sibling spheres with addition of cylindric corridors (Atomium - like), same unused ports/connection points can be equipped for cargo capsules docking. The universal dock/connection points should also be strong points of the spheres: external thrust engine modules should be delivered from Earth as final stage (like any other STO ship, satellite, etc.) of a rocket and connected there when needed, manipulator (robotic "hands") modules too.

      However, all this versatility is in vain if it cannot be repaired indefinitely. For short lived things, we better go for "do one thing and do it well" approach. If we cannot finish a project before its components wear out, we shouldn't set goal that ambitious. We need methods of reducing wear on critical components, perhaps by making replaceable outer shells or sheet layers that can be patched if damaged (and a method of patching that works in outer space, of course).

      Last but not least, anything large enough in orbit must have autonomous safety self-destruction (breaking down in small enough chunks to burn in atmosphere) mechanism embedded inside, to be triggered by certain signs of atmospheric (re-)entry in progress. Or, there should be a strict regulation regarding limits of how big structures are allowed in sub-geosynchronous orbits.
  2. Impressive...If It Works by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

    This will be impressive if the project is successful. I admit that I'll be a bit disappointed that we didn't do it first, though.

    Of course, it's going to be a while off, either way. Maybe our space program will have a renaissance in the meantime.

    1. Re:Impressive...If It Works by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At the very least, it might start up a new space race, which would be a much needed motivation to get the US to start seriously looking at space travel again.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    2. Re:Impressive...If It Works by erlehmann · · Score: 1

      At the very least, it might start up a new space race [...]

      Though I'd call it a faction, not a race, I welcome our Lunar Corporation overlords^Wmistresses.
    3. Re:Impressive...If It Works by Protonk · · Score: 1

      remember, talk is cheap. It is easy to talk about a subject of national pride like this and hard to decide to fund it. I put this in the same camp as GW talking about going to Mars in 2004. Anyone remember that?

    4. Re:Impressive...If It Works by Jerome+H · · Score: 1

      Yeah
      Earth 2150 FTW

      --
      int main() { while(1) fork(); }
    5. Re:Impressive...If It Works by earthforce_1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sadly the US probably won't - It looks like Obama will be the next president, and his is planning to gut NASA's manned space program:
      http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_nasa_plan_gets_little_p.php

      It looks like the Russians or Chinese are our last best hope to find a way off this rock.

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    6. Re:Impressive...If It Works by Protonk · · Score: 0

      because they don't make a new US president every 4 years and because commercial space travel will never happen, amright?

    7. Re:Impressive...If It Works by tekiegreg · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well yeah but...commercial space travel to the moon or Mars? We just barely got those commercial rockets into suborbital space...4 more years and they might finally hit orbital travel...

      I'm not saying that commercial travel isn't feasible for the U.S., but just not in a 4 year timeframe that you think...

      --
      ...in bed
    8. Re:Impressive...If It Works by Protonk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WEll, I think there are a lot of things going on here.

      First: Space is not the bonanza we thought it was in the 1950's and 1960's. Part of the formulation of our space program was the terrible arms race with russia, but part of it was the modernist notion that we would remake space in our image and reap the dividends. Surprisingly this mindset not only impacted the laity but also the technological priesthood (engineers, scientists). We were going to have colonies on mars and the moon within 50 years, no question.

      Second: We greatly underestimated the challenges we face. Here was an underestimation made by the public but not by the engineers. We saw that we went from heavier than air flight to being on the moon in inside 70 years and assumed that continued progress would follow the same track. As a matter of fact it couldn't (not least because of diminishing marginal returns but also because of the huge change in challenges between getting to LEO and getting to the moon). Once we got to the moon we realized that the next step wasn't right around the corner. This happened to coincide with a number of social changes that demystified the space race and caused people to be less inclined to pay for large government projects.

      Third: We confused lack of public progress with lack of progress and we confused public achievements with scientific achievements. In the time between Apollo 11 and now, we have sent out Cassini, Hubble, Chandra, DS-1, Pioneer 10 and 11 and Voyager, the mars rovers, the Venus probe, and hundreds of earth satellites. We have become much better (in many, though not all ways) at building spacecraft as a country and a species. But we have also glorified achievements that haven't been so monumental. The Space Shuttle wasn't as good a vehicle as it should have been and it should have been phased out long ago. the ISS, for all its good points, does not advance the state of the art as much as DS-1 did.

      As a result, we have both an unrealistic expectation of space flight and an underestimation of our progress in the past 25 years. I think we need to be prepared to wait another 25 or 50 before we are talking about the Moon or Mars in any serious, consistent fashion. But we will also not be there in the same way. Corporate space flight WILL be a mainstay of the future and it probably will bring more people into space in the 21st century than government space flight.

      So dont look at 4 year timelines. Look further down the road. Also, the 4 year comment of mine was snarky. The OP was complaining about Barack Obama's wish to cut nasa funding as though it would forever doom the US space program. I was pointing out what we happen to get a new president every so often and 4 years isn't the end of the world.

    9. Re:Impressive...If It Works by credd144az · · Score: 1

      which would be a much needed motivation to get the US to start seriously looking at space travel again. Or maybe China. The stage may be set for another country to take the lead in space exploration. Not that I think it will be Russia, but the US only has the lead right now. Other countries are gaining quickly.
    10. Re:Impressive...If It Works by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Second: We greatly underestimated the challenges we face. Here was an underestimation made by the public but not by the engineers. We saw that we went from heavier than air flight to being on the moon in inside 70 years and assumed that continued progress would follow the same track. As a matter of fact it couldn't (not least because of diminishing marginal returns but also because of the huge change in challenges between getting to LEO and getting to the moon). Once we got to the moon we realized that the next step wasn't right around the corner. This happened to coincide with a number of social changes that demystified the space race and caused people to be less inclined to pay for large government projects.

      Actually, the engineers were far more on the ball than this. They really did envision a grand space program with colonies across the solar system. To make it happen, they designed quite a few incredible machines. The Saturn V was only the herald of many amazing advancements in spaceflight that were to come. Artificial gravity, Single-Stage to Orbit, Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, Nuclear Thermal Engines, and other amazing designs were drawn up, prototyped, and in some cases even built.

      Rockets were going to diversify into craft that were smaller and cheaper for manned space flight as well as craft that were larger and similarly cheaper for launching massive payloads like space stations, moon base supplies, interplanetary craft, raw materials, foundries, whatever you could imagine.

      So what really happened? Well, there's no question in that respect. The space race was 98% politically motivated. The US and the USSR couldn't lob nukes at each other due to that pesky MAD thing, so they lobbed space technology breakthroughs at each other in the biggest pissing contest in history. Both sides developed incredibly expensive crash programs to bring advanced space technology to fruition. The result was the development of new materials, new engines, new electronics, new physics, new logistics, just about every area of science and technology was pushed to the limit of what these post-WWII economies could muster. (Which was quite a bit given the breakneck pace of WWII technological development and modernization.)

      Each side tried to out-muster the other, with the USSR handily keeping one step ahead of the US in every development. So the US set its sights on an incredible goal: Landing a man on the moon. The USSR tried to beat the US to the punch on this task, but when they failed, they didn't take the loss lightly. Rather than admit defeat, the USSR buried any information on the fact that they had even tried. The official line to the public was, the USSR was not in a race to the moon.

      Where did that leave the US? Ultimately, with a very expensive space program that had outlived its political usefulness. Lunar missions were scaled back and eventually canceled. The SkyLab station was put in a parking orbit and eventually allowed to reenter and burn up. The grand plans for a small space shuttle, a large Saturn V, a "jumping off" space station, a moon base, and interplanetary mini-Orion missions were scaled back to a single spacecraft. President Nixon demanded that both NASA and the military fly one craft, and one craft only. So they hatched a grand plan for the future, put all their eggs in one basket, and asked the impossible of their engineers: They wanted the Space Shuttle.

      Now there's an interesting economic issue with trying to create a machine that is everything to everyone. Unless you have a strong history of both successes and failures from which to understand every nuance required to design and build the all-in-one wonder, you are almost guaranteed to produce a machine that is jack-of-all-trades and master-of-none. Which is exactly what happened with the Space Shuttle.

      * Cargo capability was too small for military sats
      * Launch cost was too high for commercial sats
      * Satellite return capability was unnecessary
      * Extreme cro

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    11. Re:Impressive...If It Works by Cervantes · · Score: 1

      Sadly the US probably won't - It looks like Obama will be the next president, and his is planning to gut NASA's manned space program:
      http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_nasa_plan_gets_little_p.php Yes, clearly, delaying Bush's ill-advised Moon-to-Mars program by 5 years is equal to "gutting NASAs funding".

      Try to be a little less melodramatic, will you?
      --
      If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
    12. Re:Impressive...If It Works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      60% taxes, gutting NASA, eletism... why is this guy the fore runner?

    13. Re:Impressive...If It Works by Protonk · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Maybe you read me wrong, but I noted that the second point was an error better ascribed to the public than the engineers. They had a good idea of what needed to be done, but it wasn't clear to the public what that entailed and how long it might take.

      All in all, thanks for the awesome comment. I wish I had more to say in response but there is little to disagree on and disagreement is the nature of discourse on the internet. :)

    14. Re:Impressive...If It Works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you intentionally flamebaiting?

    15. Re:Impressive...If It Works by master_p · · Score: 1

      Even if it takes 10000 years to achieve space travel (assuming it's possible) that will allows us to colonize the galaxy, it's insignificant compared to the benefits. Imagine you are in 1000000 years from now and looking back at the start of space travel history...10000 years is nothing. And 50 years is less than nothing. Too bad we live at this era and can't enjoy space travel...

    16. Re:Impressive...If It Works by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Well yeah but...commercial space travel to the moon or Mars? We just barely got those commercial rockets into suborbital space...4 more years and they might finally hit orbital travel...

      The first time around, it was 7 years from suborbital flight to a flag planted on the moon...and that was a government project, with all of the inefficiencies that those entail.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  3. One small step... by dlanod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This would be a great step forward for space exploration, and hopefully it will kick start the rest of the world into launching their own if/when this proves to be a success. Something this big really needs governments to support it, it is too big for the nascent private space industry at the moment.

    1. Re:One small step... by magarity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Something this big really needs governments to support it
       
      The tricky bit is that said government must be able to afford it. Russia is not currently on that list.

    2. Re:One small step... by juhan+pruun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Russia is on that list. No foreign debt, space capable infrastructure and ... look at the commodity prices.

    3. Re:One small step... by dlanod · · Score: 1

      Russia currently can afford it, with its large oil and gas reserves giving it a very significant cashflow boost over the last few years. The questions will be (a) whether it can still afford it in 10-20 years time, which is the timescale for the project, and (b) whether they will deem that money better spent elsewhere.

    4. Re:One small step... by magarity · · Score: 1

      ...I should have added, "but if the Chinese announce this kind of plan, watch out."

    5. Re:One small step... by DavidShor · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Really? I'm more worried about China's long term growth prospects then Russia's. Russia is an industrialized first world country. They are economically dependent on high oil prices, but I don't think oil prices will drop below $70 a barrel in the next 20 years.

      China on the other hand, is an ethnic powderkeg(Tibet is just the tip of the iceberg) only kept together by guns and economic growth. From an economic standpoint, they have to deal with long-term environmental damage on a never before seen scale, a rapidly aging economy(unexpected side-effect of the one child policy), and very high rates of inflation.

      If I had to pick, I'd say that Russa seems like the better bet.

    6. Re:One small step... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Russia is an industrialized first world country.
      I'm curious as to your definition of "First World", since none that I am aware of even remotely consider Russia for inclusion. It neither has particularly high per-capita income (first traditional measure), nor a sufficiently stable and developed economy (another one). It's HDI is also lower than all European countries (including Eastern Europe), and is about on par with Mexico and Libya - hardly first world countries either.
    7. Re:One small step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...I should have added, "but if the Chinese announce this kind of plan, watch out."
      Actually, since the article is thin on details, I would worry about the Russians. Maybe the spacecraft they plan on making only go downwards at high speed.
    8. Re:One small step... by DavidShor · · Score: 1
      A lot of development economists consider Mexico and Libya to be first world countries as well.

      But Russia is a bit of an outlier. They have a more educated populace then many Western European countries, several extremely advanced industries, well developed capital markets...

  4. makes sense by MassiveForces · · Score: 5, Funny

    they don't call it "The Federation" for nothing in Star Trek

    1. Re:makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Emperor Palpatin..err, President Putin will make sure that the Death Star..err, Orbital Plant will be complete and fully operational.

    2. Re:makes sense by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Why do you think the U.S. has been offering safe haven to Jedi's for all these years? The power to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:makes sense by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      FYI: US is also a federation :) That's what F in FBI stands for.

  5. P-Fleet by Burning+Plastic · · Score: 2, Funny

    It sounds like Captain Pirk has definitely arrived in our time...

    --
    [All Your Fish Are Belong To Us]
  6. Not sure this will work by EEPROMS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Building anything in space is horrendously complex and expensive. The USA will be broke for the next few years so I cant see anything coming from that direction other than some toy like commercial projects (Virgin) that will die once the handful of billionaires who can afford it have taken a ride. Even though Russia is rolling in cash right now I don't think they will have enough money and expertise to pull this off in the long run. Really this needs to be a global affair with its own "standards body" so everyone can take part and a really nasty bit of work in charge to bang peoples heads together when they start arguing over bolt sizes or the colour of toilet seat lid.

    1. Re:Not sure this will work by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Building anything in space is horrendously complex and expensive.

      I think Bigelow Aerospace would disagree. They already have prototype space station modules in orbit, and in the next few years they'll be launching up more of them and linking them together into larger stations. Robert Bigelow seems to think he can make a profit on it, and is betting a few hundred million of his own dollars on it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Aerospace

    2. Re:Not sure this will work by khallow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      other than some toy like commercial projects (Virgin) that will die once the handful of billionaires who can afford it have taken a ride.

      That completely explains why successful businessmen are staking their money and reputation on a "handful of billionaires". Too bad they haven't figured this out yet.

      Even though Russia is rolling in cash right now I don't think they will have enough money and expertise to pull this off in the long run. Really this needs to be a global affair with its own "standards body" so everyone can take part and a really nasty bit of work in charge to bang peoples heads together when they start arguing over bolt sizes or the colour of toilet seat lid.

      Russia does have the experience. Money always is a problem with them so you might be right there. I don't understand the desire for a "standards body". Everyone doesn't need to take part. Everyone doesn't need to get in on toilet seat design. Everyone doesn't need "a nasty bit of work" in charge.

      Sorry, but I'm annoyed by the airchair astronauts who know better than anyone else what's to happen in space. You seem to fit that mold quite well with your groundless pronouncements. Maybe it'll turn out that that building things in space are indeed "horrendously complex and expensive", that commercial projects will flop, and that we need some sort of global effort to do this sort of thing in space. But none of this has been demonstrated.

    3. Re:Not sure this will work by Taint+Bearer · · Score: 0

      Building rockets etc on earth is horrendously complex and expensive as well.

      We are going to have to start building things in space sooner or later, as it is much cheaper to get all our raw materials up there from NEAs than build it here and blast it all into space from earth. Not to mention that welds are much stronger when done in space, due to the micro-gravity and (partial) vacuum.

      Its not like they are planning on launching this year or anything, its a maybe for 2020.

      --
      For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. Arthur C. Clarke (1917 - 2008)
    4. Re:Not sure this will work by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Russia has more than enough experience to run a station.... WTF. More parts of ISS are built by them and they log way more manned hours than the US team does. They're much better at extreme repairs under dire conditions than US astronauts also.

      Their process is a bit backwards, they have cheap, stable, easy to build large rockets. The only problem is that they are no where near as efficient as US rockets... they can lift Heavy... cheap... exactly what space building requires. Besides if they need robotics or other complex stuff NASA has been laying off for years.. they can borrow somebody cheap.

    5. Re:Not sure this will work by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I'm annoyed by the airchair astronauts who know better than anyone else what's to happen in space.

      Do you mean this guy? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Astronaut-EVA.jpg/600px-Astronaut-EVA.jpg

      He probably knows quite a bit :)
    6. Re:Not sure this will work by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      space robots are super cheap. they don't have to be strong, a tiny gyro can unstuck one from almost any postion it can get itself into, and their onboard computers don't really need to be that fast since without gravity to deal with in navigation you can use more naive pathing algorithms since you can do things like jump a 40 foot gap or climb a wall.

      the hard part is making sure the circuits can handle the extra radiation, and the Russians already can do that.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    7. Re:Not sure this will work by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Building rockets etc on earth is horrendously complex and expensive as well.

      Meh. It's a couple of ballons in an aluminium tube, parked on top of a gimballed copper funnel fed by pumps and a fuel-based cooling system. Control systems are cheap. Computation is cheap. Comms are cheap. Contractors are cheap and we've done all this stuff before.Not to say it isn't reasonably complex, just not horribly.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    8. Re:Not sure this will work by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Their process is a bit backwards, they have cheap, stable, easy to build large rockets."

      A very backwards process indeed, especially when compared to one that produces expensive, difficult-to-build medium rockets.

      "The only problem is that they are no where near as efficient as US rockets... they can lift Heavy... cheap... exactly what space building requires"

      The qualifier that gets placed in front of "efficient" when describing a system with a higher cost per unit of work done isn't usually "more".

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    9. Re:Not sure this will work by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Your post would make a lot more sense if the economies of nation-states bore any real resemblance to personal finances. As it is, your post makes no sense at all.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  7. Vaporware by Protonk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Plain and simple. there is a long list of russian projects announced in boom times (like 1995 and now) but abandoned when the rubber met the road.

    This is not to say that the Russians aren't advancing the state of the art in space--they are. They are also excellent builders of launch vehicles and spacecraft. BUT. That doesn't mean that proclamations like this are to be accepted without a huge dose of skepticism.

    I would be much more willing to believe that Russians would fund a new launch site, a SSTO or similar projects. This smacks of unreality.

    1. Re:Vaporware by tftp · · Score: 1
      I would be much more willing to believe that Russians would fund a new launch site, a SSTO or similar projects.

      Even the article in question mentions that a new space launch site ("Vostochny", or Eastern) opens in 2015 - it's only 7 years from now, so I'd guess the construction has been funded already. The surveying and design phase will take until 2010, and then the workers come in. The site has been already decided on.

      With a SSTO there is a little problem, though - nobody on this planet has a clue how to do it, even in theory. Funding has little to do with this, compared to physics. My personal bet is that we won't see SSTO until we get antigravity. Chemical rockets are just as ridiculous as hot air balloons in the age of supersonic jets.

    2. Re:Vaporware by Protonk · · Score: 1


      With a SSTO there is a little problem, though - nobody on this planet has a clue how to do it, even in theory. Funding has little to do with this, compared to physics. My personal bet is that we won't see SSTO until we get antigravity. Chemical rockets are just as ridiculous as hot air balloons in the age of supersonic jets.

      Or Orion. :)
    3. Re:Vaporware by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      can't use orion on the ground or in the atmosphere. well, you / CAN / but it's a really fuggin bad idea.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    4. Re:Vaporware by Protonk · · Score: 1

      That's why the smiley face.

    5. Re:Vaporware by AJWM · · Score: 1

      With a SSTO there is a little problem, though - nobody on this planet has a clue how to do it, even in theory.

      You're wrong there, it's just that nobody has properly tried it. If you think it has something to do with physics, you're reading the wrong physics books.

      Take Atlas, for example, the original 1958 technology. Using kerosene/LOX propellants, not known for their high Isp, it was damn close to SSTO -- the only thing it discarded on its way to orbit were the two outboard booster engines -- just the engines, mind, they fed from the main fuel tank.

      Or consider the Shuttle External tank and six SSME's, plus an allowance for structure and plumbing. Go ahead, do the math yourself. All the way to orbit with no dropped parts. You can do a similar thought experiment with Saturn tankage and SSMEs.

      Now, that's just to orbit. Most people pushing SSTO also want the thing to de-orbit, land, and be reused, otherwise there's not much point. That's doable too, but you need to be a bit more careful about the design so that you can afford the weight of a heat shield. It also helps to design the thing with a single primary load path rather than two orthogonal load paths (ie, you land in the same orientation you launch, either vertical or horizontal, rather than launching one way and landing the other -- this also gives you more launch abort options).

      I know a number of rocket scientists and engineers who believe SSTO can be done as long as it's done right, including Max Hunter, who has written books on rocket design and was responsible for the Thor missile, which later became the Delta.

      (The X-33 was a cluster fuck from the start: vertical takeoff/horizontal landing, so two load paths, so extra weight; the airframe separate from the propellant tankage, so twice the weight penalty there, and then that godawful V-shaped tank with a lousy surface-area to volume ratio (more weight) and ridiculous stresses where the two lobes of the V join. No wonder it kept breaking.)

      --
      -- Alastair
  8. Damn! by kris.montpetit · · Score: 1

    2020?? This sucks. We're all going to be geezers before domestic space travel comes around

    1. Re:Damn! by Zarf · · Score: 1

      2020?? This sucks. We're all going to be geezers before domestic space travel comes around yep. This just in... we may not see working nano-tech in our lifetimes either.
      --
      [signature]
    2. Re:Damn! by ShadowMarth · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself, I'll be middle-aged. Still die before we get off-world colonies.

  9. pysics joke: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obrital plant: Schroedinger would be proud.

  10. Ret-con by crankyspice · · Score: 1

    The biggest question currently facing /. readers -- how will this play out against the NCC-1701 under construction teaser trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/)?

    --
    geek. lawyer.
    1. Re:Ret-con by phrostie · · Score: 1

      it looks like they are assembling it on the ground.

      that's just F'ed up

    2. Re:Ret-con by Foerstner · · Score: 1

      The original Enterprise was always supposedly built in San Francisco. Why they picked that city, I don't know.

      --
      The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
    3. Re:Ret-con by Protonk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because gene Roddenberry was a communist?

      Or more likely, because he felt that it was a city the represented a look ahead and was cosmopolitan enough to get a feel for what Roddenberry felt the future should look like?

  11. those Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A big spacecraft build in orbit because it is impossible to launch as a whole? This is nothing more than a plan for the follow-up for the ISS.

    The only new thing about it is the idea that a (set of) module(s) could detach and make a trip to another planet.

    1. Re:those Russians by Protonk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except the ISS wasn't a factory. It was a space laboratory and docking facility. the purpose of the ISS was to maintain a manned presence in space, not to serve as a serious jumping off point for exploration. Those who said that it would are speaking figuratively.

      I'm not arguing that this is a real flesh and blood project (I think it is a case of the russians making a statement of national pride when they are flush with cash), but it certainly wouldn't be the ISS 2.

    2. Re:those Russians by tftp · · Score: 1
      'm not arguing that this is a real flesh and blood project (I think it is a case of the russians making a statement of national pride when they are flush with cash

      I see it as a research project, with the only output expected being numbers, charts and computer models. Besides, there ought to be something after ISS, probably? The best way to find out what it is is to give those rocket scientists something to work on. If the research ends up interesting, the thing will be built. If not, it will be set aside - just as every research project under the Sun. Nothing to see here.

  12. SEI/Space Station Freedom anyone? by usul294 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As I recall there was talk 15-20 years ago of doing this in the US at a cost of $400-500 billion. Seems to be a tad too expensive for Russia, in fact for anyone. Its much cheaper to send up everything you need for one mission. The biggest cost is putting things into Earth orbit, so unless they have a plan to get raw materials to the assembly station without launching them off Earth first, it seems like they just want to build a giant space station for the hell of it when there is a cheaper way of doing things. I doubt this ever gets past the planning stage.

    1. Re:SEI/Space Station Freedom anyone? by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Russian space program typically does things for millions that would cost the US billions.. that's the way they do business.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:SEI/Space Station Freedom anyone? by Protonk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The cost savings in working with the russians is probably about 30-60%, not 99.9%.

    3. Re:SEI/Space Station Freedom anyone? by Jurily · · Score: 1

      Like when the US spent a lot of money to develop a pen that can write without gravity, while the russians used pencils?

      Awww. Wikipedia says it's just an urban legend. But that won't stop me from posting.

    4. Re:SEI/Space Station Freedom anyone? by Protonk · · Score: 1

      yeah, I think they used to use Grease Pencils (China Markers, some people called them) for stuff. Don't knwo if they still do.

    5. Re:SEI/Space Station Freedom anyone? by Arcane · · Score: 1

      $400 - $500 Billion is too expensive for a long term space project?

      Then why the hell is spending that much in Iraq acceptable for a long term clusterfuck?

      Someone has their priorities screwed up.

    6. Re:SEI/Space Station Freedom anyone? by n+dot+l · · Score: 1

      yeah, I think they used to use Grease Pencils (China Markers, some people called them) for stuff. Don't knwo if they still do. Yeah, that's what they originally used. Having (conductive) graphite dust floating around getting into the electronics was thought to be a bad idea. My understanding is they're now using space pens (I don't know whether they bought them, or whether the design was stolen during the Cold War).
    7. Re:SEI/Space Station Freedom anyone? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Russian space program typically does things for millions that would cost the US billions..

      No, the Russians typically do a fraction of what the US does and thus unsurprisingly pays a fraction of what the US does. Space fanboys don't realize this because they swallow propaganda rather than actually study the facts.
       
      For example - I bet you don't realize that the US paid for almost a third of MIR, boosted almost 40% of it's final weight into orbit, carried almost 25% of the supplies delivered over it's life - and returned electronics modules salvages from Progress so the Russians could reuse them. Or for another example - to replace a single Shuttle flight requires 4 Soyuz flights, and 6 Progress flights... (Which at currently quoted prices runs about 80% of the cost of Shuttle mission.) Even so, it still falls short of what the Shuttle can do - because they can't deliver exterior cargo (like the recently delivered DEXTRE), and their ability to deliver interior cargo is hampered because the Russian APAS docking system/hatches are a quarter the size of the US/ESA CBM berthing system/hatches.
    8. Re:SEI/Space Station Freedom anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just went to a talk by former astronaut Tom Jones about asteroid mining. It's actually a lot cheaper when you consider that there are plenty of near-earth orbiting asteroids with purer minerals/metals than anything we could find on Earth. Also, the gravity well for an asteroid is negligible when compared to the moon or (especially) earth. All you need to do is change the orbit without mistakenly causing a mass extinction. Don't knock it till you try it, I say.

    9. Re:SEI/Space Station Freedom anyone? by 2short · · Score: 1

      "Space Pens" are not actually expensive; they are literally a few bucks at Office Depot. So I'm guessing the Russians just bought them, if they weren't given them free, like NASA, who never spent any money at all on them.

  13. DS by gadzook33 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well you can't very well build a giant steel planet with an energy weapon capable of destroying other planets in a warehouse.

  14. Death Star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep... just another step along the way for the "Evil Empire" to create a "Death Star"

  15. I have it on good authority by BlindRobin · · Score: 1

    The plans describe something that looks just like pie...

  16. I plan to buy yaught and jet plane by syousef · · Score: 1

    ...but I can't afford it.

    I didn't think the Russian economy had quite reached the point where orbital contruction factories were a consideration.

    Would love to see it happen, but not holding my breath.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  17. How about by sentientbrendan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they plan to send a manned mission to Jupiter in 2100? How about a mission to alpha centauri while their at it?

    Notice how people come up with fantastic plans to do space stuff in the year 2020? Bush did a similar thing with his plan to go back to the moon.

    Whatever date it is, it's a date that the current people in office, will no longer be in office, or if they are, no one will remember what the plans are.

    This is just an attempt by politicians to make themselves look "visionary" while actually doing nothing. If, 70 years from now when someone actually gets around to going to mars, no one is going to remember what kind of plans a bunch of jokers with no intention of providing funding pulled out of the ass in 2008.

    1. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do the same with global warming.
      They'll set goals for 2020 or even 2050 but they dont actually have to do anything.

    2. Re:How about by amck · · Score: 1

      2020 is only 12 years away. I don't think Putin intends to be out of officed by then; he's just resting as Prime Minister for a term, pulling the strings in the background and pretending not to be President. I don't think anyone in Russia is fooled.

      --
      Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
    3. Re:How about by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1
      I don't know. A lot of countries throwing the "twenty years hence, we shall do mighty things!" idea around don't have quite so strong a drive to build (or restore) global prestige and the like as Russia does. I don't know if they have the means (or the actual desire) to pull off something that ambitious, but I'd be more willing to believe Russia would be willing to attempt it than I would the United States (which lacks the will for such things even if some in the government were serious) or China (which seems more content taking a cautiously-paced approach to space).



      Do I think they'll do it? I dunno. Would I be surprised if they followed through? Only a little.

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
  18. Wouldn't put too much faith in this by alex.vingardt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1) I wouldn't put too much faith into what this website (ie. lenta.ru) posts (they are known to post rumors as actual news) 2) The average age of members of the Russian Academy of Sciences is over 70 (which is a miracle in itself since the life expectancy for males is 59). People who could've been developing space projects like this have been choosing to work for private companies for the last 20 years or so. Space programs have always been monopolized by the government and these jobs don't pay well enough to attract recent graduates. Whatever projects the Russian Space agency claims to have in the pipeline (if indeed they do) will never be realized b/c of lack of qualified professionals in the field (those 70-year olds working for the government right now are not gonna be there forever [unfortunately]). Whatever press releases they put out there are just merely for show so that NASA and the rest of the world will think that the Russian Space Program is not stagnant. Unfortunately, claiming that something revolutionary (and not so revolutionary) is being actively worked on when in fact it's not the case has become a trend in Russia.

    1. Re:Wouldn't put too much faith in this by juhan+pruun · · Score: 1

      Fanatics at something do not care about salary. Give them bed, healthy food and plenty of time to play with your imagination and skills at some ambitious project. Like Kosmos Kombinat ... or Linux

    2. Re:Wouldn't put too much faith in this by juhan+pruun · · Score: 1

      your->their

    3. Re:Wouldn't put too much faith in this by Protonk · · Score: 1

      Russians care about safety. The military didn't, or at least felt that the cost of human life was less what the west felt it was.

      The current russian space agencies and companies care about safety but don't have the same apparatus as the US companies do, nor do they have the same litigation history. US companies may deal with safety in superficially different manners than russian companies but the underlying notions (sound engineering principles, learning from mistakes, valuing life) are the same.

  19. Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One reason that the US doesn't have a plan for an orbital assembly infrastructure is that NASA is working towards a "heavy lift vehicle", the Ares V which will lift somewhere in the order of 130 tons to low Earth orbit. The things NASA has in mind take only 1-3 launches of the Ares V to put up. So the only assembly one would need under those circumstances is docking.

    Now my opinion on the matter is that Russia has a superior approach. NASA's Ares V is planned to launch around 2-4 times a year, but it has high fixed costs, and as far as I know, there are no plans to increase the launch rate of the Ares V significantly. That means there are unexploited economies of scale. An orbital assembly station is a cleverer approach in that it means one can use a smaller rocket to launch the material. They can either use existing rockets like Proton or Soyuz or future designs like Angora (which is intended to launch up to 25 tons into orbit, assuming they build it). That means the Russians can substitute frequent launches of a smaller vehicle to build things of comparable size (OTOH, I've been unable to determine how much mass or volume this station would be able to manage at once). My take is that the Russian approach, all else being equal including labor and ground-based infrastructure costs, will result in a lower cost per kilogram of payload. That is the primary metric for the cost of a launch vehicle.

    There are tradeoffs between the two approaches. The Ares V has high operation costs and high costs per launch. The Russian approach will result (IMHO) in lower launch costs, but then one must add in assembly costs and R&D costs to make space equipment that can be assembled in space. I hope the Russians are serious about this assembly station and make it happen. If it works, it'll open up space in a way that larger launch vehicles cannot.

    1. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      I am not sure if your reasoning makes sense.

      When you launch an Ares V, you are, of course, burning a lot of money, but you are also launching about 5 times more cargo than an Angora launch. All things being equal, the bigger launch wastes less material and equipment.

      And there is nothing that prevents using an Ares I or any other smaller lifter for lighter cargo.

      Still, there is nothing to prevent usage of the combined capabilities of all the vehicles and platforms available. If someone can build an in-orbit facility where a satellite can be refurbished and sent back to a new orbit, it will more or less pay for itself in just a couple years. Some interesting electro-magnetic propulsion systems would have to be developed as well as some large pressurized shops with doors big enough to let a satellite through, but that's nothing really impossible.

      --
      http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
    2. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by Protonk · · Score: 1

      All things aren't equal. he is arguing that there is a strong negative cost curve for spacecraft launches, that the FIRST launch costs bunches, but subsequent launches cost less than the one before it.

      If that is true, then using more launches of smaller vehicles saves more money than doing one on a large vehicle (also spreads out risk).

      We aren't saying that it IS true, necessarily. I think that the spacecraft industry does face a declining cost curve, but not THAT steep (not like chipmaking or electricity generation, with large fixed costs and no costs of production).

      If there aren't economies of scale, then you are right. But if there are, then you are wrong.

    3. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by khallow · · Score: 1

      When you launch an Ares V, you are, of course, burning a lot of money, but you are also launching about 5 times more cargo than an Angora launch. All things being equal, the bigger launch wastes less material and equipment.

      There are various things to remember here. First, let's assume that Ares V is launched for around 30 years and generates 100 launches over it's lifetime. I see speculation that it's fixed costs per year are on the order of $2 billion a year and incremental cost per rocket is $250 million. That may be overstated though when it comes to cost and failing to meet deadlines, NASA routinely exceeds expectations. There's also several billion in R&D costs including Ares I work (since the justification for the Ares 1 is that it has commonality with the Ares V and provides a testing bed for some of the Ares V tech). That's up to 13k tons to LEO, for somewhere around $100 billion, $8,000 or so per kilogram over the lifetime of the program (ignoring the time value of money). In comparison, the Shuttle is apparently around $50k per kilogram once you including fixed operating costs and R&D.

      In comparison, the Russians already have launch costs (including fixed costs per year) around 3-4k per kilogram (maybe more for larger payloads). The Angora will probably be more cost improvement than capability since it is a modest improvement in payload (about 25% more) than the Proton M and is intended to replace the Soyuz (so I dimly recall). I doubt they'll have serious R&D costs. And it's reasonable to expect that the Angora will launch around 500 or more times to get similar payload to orbit (just look at the business the Soyuz and Proton have picked up over the decades). Plus the Russians can use the Angora for commercial launches as well.

      As I see it, there is some benefit to a larger rocket. At some point, the cost per launch is going to dominate the fixed costs. For a small rocket, those incremental costs would reasonably be higher per kilogram launched than a large one. But you need to have sufficient launch volume to exploit that. I don't see Ares V launch volume ever being enough for that to matter.

    4. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by khallow · · Score: 1

      (also spreads out risk) One obvious way is that if the Ares V is built on schedule, it'll be the sole vehicle in its class. That means it is a single point of failure. If Angora runs into a problem. the Russians have two existing vehicles that can deliver slightly less performance (I'm ignoring the Proton M which might be discontinued to make way for Angora), Delta IV heavy and Ariane V. That means less delay in projects that depend on Angora. OTOH, the assembly station is also a single point of failure and one which is much more difficult to work around.
    5. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by tftp · · Score: 2, Informative
      future designs like Angora

      Angora is a breed of cat. Angara is a river. The latter is the name for the rocket :-) Though I like cats more than rivers.

    6. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by Protonk · · Score: 1

      THAT's why it wasn't ringing a bell. Thanks.

    7. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by khallow · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I had checked the spelling before I posted, but obviously I still managed to screw it up.

    8. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This assumes that a orbital assembly station doesn't have an astronomical operating cost. Its in space sir

    9. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by khallow · · Score: 1

      Mir wasn't astronomical in cost. Sure it could be, but that's not inevitable.

    10. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in all reality the ISS will still be up there. The CanadArm2 fitted with the CanadaHand (Dextre) is definitely capable of performing some construction tasks (especially if additional attachments are created for Dextre). Sure it is not ideal for the task, but it could work in a pinch.

    11. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      But, again, there are the fixed costs for the launch facility and costs associated with each launch. I am not sure keeping a 3 launch/year Ares V facility costs significantly more than a 15 launch/year Angora facility. You have to keep in mind that's five times more launches per year just to match capacity. Then there is the in-orbit construction (which is also needed if we are to build anything significant in space). The only way it may work is if a lot of the construction work is highly automated and controlled from the ground - keeping a dozen construction workers in LEO just doesn't make much financial sense (but I would sign up immediately nevertheless).

      One thing that puzzles me is that by using the LH2/LOX combination for the first stage, the Ares V gets hideous costs with fuel and facilities (they have to store a whole lot more hydrogen than, say, a Saturn V had and that's not easy).

      --
      http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
    12. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      "That may be overstated though when it comes to cost and failing to meet deadlines, NASA routinely exceeds expectations"

      To be fair, they routinely do it both ways. When they get it right, they tend to get it very right.

      But then, they have really clever people. They sure have figured out how to modulate expectations in a favorable way.

      Still, just to match capacity, the Angora facility would have to launch 15 times more than the Ares V. That's more than one per month. I am sure it also incurs in large fixed costs.

      BTW, can't all shuttle launchpads be converted to Ares V ones? Can't they launch more than 3 unmanned flights a year (most of the shuttle delays are because it's a human-rated vehicle that can't fail without causing a presidential speech)

      --
      http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
    13. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by Protonk · · Score: 1

      right. to be clear, I'm not saying 100% that the cost curves point toward the Angara being the more economical launch vehicle all else equal. The point was specifically to say that they might be.

      I suspect that there is a cost savings in doing 15 launches per year over three especially if the cost per launch (separate from the fixed cost) is kept low. I also STRONGLY suspect that the savings doesn't make up for the cost in building an orbital assembly platform.

    14. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by khallow · · Score: 1

      Still, just to match capacity, the Angora facility would have to launch 15 times more than the Ares V. That's more than one per month. I am sure it also incurs in large fixed costs.

      I believe the Russians have done this before with Proton. And their Soyuz line probably comes close as well.

      BTW, can't all shuttle launchpads be converted to Ares V ones? Can't they launch more than 3 unmanned flights a year (most of the shuttle delays are because it's a human-rated vehicle that can't fail without causing a presidential speech)

      Maybe they can. The Ares V will be heavier than the Shuttle (due mostly to the larger SRBs), so I think that means special launch pads, new crawlers, etc. But really that wouldn't matter much if they launched more often (to spread those costs over more launches). Increasing the number of launches doesn't seem part of the plan. Some things like the VAB seem to be bottlenecks for a greater number of launches and I don't see any planning to make more frequent launches of Ares V an option for the future.

    15. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by khallow · · Score: 1

      The ISS is also intended for microgravity experiments and must maintain a low vibration environment for those experiments. If it is still being used for that, then the station will be limited in what construction tasks it can do.

    16. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by khallow · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, I misspelled "Angara". That's the actual name of the Russian launch vehicle.

    17. Re:Implies they aren't depending on "heavy lift" by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      The idea of a furry purring vehicle was somewhat disturbing.

      --
      http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
  20. Utopia Planitia by Borommakot_15 · · Score: 0

    Sounds similar to Utopia Planitia to me...

    Now, we just have to go looking for someone named Zefram Cochrane...

  21. Good idea !!! by posys · · Score: 1

    makes sense...

    --
    The Future is already here, just unevenly distributed... THE ROBOTIC WAGELESS ECONOMY NOW! http://RoboEco.com/slash
    1. Re:Good idea !!! by Pavan_Gupta · · Score: 1

      indeed

  22. Well, lets get real. by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For the last decade, Russia has announced LOADS of plans for space but does not want to pay for them (even though they are very cash positive). The only way this will happen is if America or EU backs it. As to not flying to the moon ot mars, that is absolutely their goal.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Well, lets get real. by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 4, Informative

      With the increase in state funds due to the rising resource prices, the russians have a bit of cash to spare, and with putin being keen to show his countrymen that they are a superpower again it doesn't seem outrageous that they might try something in space - which has always had major propaganda value. The budget for the Russian Federal Space Agency has been increasing every year (but is still a fraction of nasa).

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    2. Re:Well, lets get real. by rbanffy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US, Europe and Russia have all proposed the most fantastic things, promising them for the next few years and then postponing or canceling them for budget reasons.

      This project, like any fantastic one proposed in the past, has very little chance of, pun intended, ever flying.

      --
      http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
    3. Re:Well, lets get real. by ringmaster_j · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, even if we accept the premise that Roscosmos lacks funding (dubious), the idea that they'd co-operate with ESA/NASA on a project of this scale, in this political climate, is laughable. I mean, ESA and NASA aren't even working together anymore, at least compared to how they were five years ago, so why would Roscosmos join in? No, it just doesn't make any sense.

    4. Re:Well, lets get real. by DavidShor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they cooperated with NASA during the heat of the cold war, I don't imagine it would be particularly toxic now.

    5. Re:Well, lets get real. by richardablitt · · Score: 1

      Hasn't China been talking about financially backing Russian space projects recently?

    6. Re:Well, lets get real. by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, Russia does not trust China. In fact, I think that they trust them less than they trust the USA. For example, they saw the fairly recent deal that Transrapid had with China. Sold them a short track, and was hoping to extend it. But at some point, China sent in maglev experts to examine everything with a fine tooth comb. Now, they are getting ready to clone their own version of it. Russia is concerned about theft by just about any country. That is why when South Korea had a person recently "borrow" books from Russia that was off-limit, he was let go.
      As to the recent deal on mars, I think it was designed to encourage USA to re-consider our choices concerning the moon.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:Well, lets get real. by ringmaster_j · · Score: 1

      Things are arguably worse off now between Russia and the West than they were during detente, the period of the Cold War during which there was the most East-West space co-operation. At least then there was the direct acknowledgement of the need for co-operation and peace, and that it could be attained through scientific co-operation. Nowadays, Russia and the West are back in competition mode, and Putin really seems hellbent on pursing a combative foreign policy that shuns internationalism. Say what you will about its merits, but his policies are far more anti-Western than were the policies of Brezhnev at the height of detente (Brezhnev's ulterior motives aside).

  23. Well, if the Russians are smart by Salsaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Perhaps they will buy the decomissioned ISS, fix it up a bit, and just use that as a starting point.

    1. Re:Well, if the Russians are smart by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Heh, you know the Russians will be operating the ISS 20 years after the Americans have left.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Well, if the Russians are smart by khallow · · Score: 1

      Not what I hear. The operation of the station is heavily dependent on both the US and the Russians. The US has provided a lot of the critical components of the system. For example, a considerable portion of the hardware comes from NASA, the communication system comes from the US, NASA has a "small army" on the ground maintaining the ISS. Further, the US may remain responsible for the station's deorbit even if they hand off operations to another.

  24. Canadians will pwn them. by billy901 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I doubt any of this will be possible without Canadian engineering. McDonald, Detweiller and associates created the Canadarm and Dexter, and Russia will probably require technology like this to make this possible. Canada is becoming a great hand in the space industry. McDonald, Detweiller and associates are really putting Canada in the news around the world. It's an excellent thing that they weren't sold.

    --
    Please visit http://www.mederbil.com/ i7, GTX 275, 4 1TB Caviar Green in RAID 0+1 array, EVGA X58 3X SLI Board, Silver
  25. Damnit! by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    The Reds are going to beat us to Jupiter!

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  26. Actually, America MIGHT be interested by WindBourne · · Score: 1, Interesting

    We have talked about building power plants in space. If it is cheaper to bring up the raw material and process it, then I suspect that we MIGHT do it. Of course, that remains to be seen.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Actually, America MIGHT be interested by khallow · · Score: 1

      I gather from the clues in the story, that the Russians are talking about orbital assembly not manufacture. The distinction is that the pieces are made on Earth and assembled by robot or human in space. Probably most of the pieces will be designed so that it doesn't take a lot of labor to put them together. We are a long way from manufacture in space.

      Currently, the only source for material would be Earth's surface. It doesn't make sense IMHO to lift a factory to orbit as well as the raw materials, when one can build the factory on Earth's surface for far less cost and lift the finished goods to orbit. We'll need another source (the Moon, Mars, near Earth asteroids, etc) that is easier to deliver materials from than Earth before orbital manufacture makes sense.

  27. Stepping Hard Into the 20th Century by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Am I ever glad that the US spent the last 15 years subsidizing Russia's space industry and wasting our time on that ISS boondoggle, so Russia could take the money and race past us with an actual worthwhile project in orbit.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Stepping Hard Into the 20th Century by Protonk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm glad. That money meant that scientists and engineers from one of the foremost space powers in the world didn't starve or move to Iran. It meant that the AMAZING corporate memory at Krushnev and Energia (among many, many others) could be maintained when the country's ruling elite wrecked the place.

      It meant that US companies and European companies could see lower costs to orbit for their products and that means that people in the US would face lower costs on things that required satellites in the first place.

      It meant that the US got to get an official window into russian rocketry and that two former enemies could develop close ties between professionals and organizations.

      It meant that for about 1/100th of the price of the Iraq war, we got all that, and a functioning Space Station to boot.

      It meant that SOMEONE can get into space and push the species forward, who cares what language they speak when they get there.

    2. Re:Stepping Hard Into the 20th Century by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      All that is OK. What would have been better would have been if the US taxpayers weren't stuck with that ISS boondoggle, while Russia literally rockets past us. We didn't exactly get a "functioning space station". If we'd made a better deal, this new Russian "Orbital Construction Plant" could have been shared more with the US, instead of us just creating our own competition and trying to compete with a worse tool.

      I'm all for human advancement. I just don't like being the one to pay for the other humans to advance, while we lag behind.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Stepping Hard Into the 20th Century by Protonk · · Score: 1

      I think you might be overestimating the russian space industry. they aren't "rocketing past" anyone, this press release is probably the same fluff as their manned flight to mars 10 years ago. As I posted elsewhere, this is a statement of national pride in a time of economic ease for Russia.

      So all in all, we paid for them to keep their slight edge in some areas (launch vehicles, payload integration, manned space flight--although that is arguable) and paid for them not to drop too far behind in others.

    4. Re:Stepping Hard Into the 20th Century by Protonk · · Score: 1

      and on top of what else I said, you aren't paying very much. Out of your income taxes this year NASA (and other net transfers to russia or the ESA) probably comprised less than 50 dollars. That's the whole of NASA. What was paid to the russians is probably on the order of 2-5 dollars per year over 10 years or so.

      I'm not saying that stuff is a good use of taxpayer dollars just because it doesn't use that many taxpayer dollars. I'm just saying stuff needs to be kept in perspective.

    5. Re:Stepping Hard Into the 20th Century by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Well, it's hard to know, because Russia's state capitalism ("fascism") is rolling in petrorubles, and finances quite a lot of secret space science and industry.

      Russia also financed a successful laser-sail project into the outer Solar System while it was saving that money on the ISS (but getting the science to repurpose for its private agenda).

      Again, what I would prefer would just have been a better deal. I think the cooperation is the best part, partly because it kept that engineering out of the hands of other, less manageable threats, like the states developing missile systems that are strong marketing for more Star Wars boondoggle. But the US should have gotten a lot more for its money.

      For example, we could have paid Russia for its extra nukes to dismantle (and take custody of their explosive cores), and let them use the money to pay their share of the ISS (and the rest). There have been lots of better strategic deals, better for the both of us (and the rest of the world), though not for Putin's scary agenda.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:Stepping Hard Into the 20th Century by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It;s that last part that I'm saying, too. I never said we're paying too much in absolute dollars for our space budgets. We're spending way too little. We should reverse the budgets of the Pentagon and NASA (and leave the Pentagon and the CIA/NSA/etc to fund their own military/spook space programs). But as is implicit in your statement, the saving grace in our bad deals is only that they're relatively small. That's small consolation. So I'd rather see much bigger deals that are a lot better for us (and everyone else, by not funding bad buys).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Stepping Hard Into the 20th Century by Protonk · · Score: 1

      But the Russian's aren't the bad guys. That is part of what I am saying.

      Also, to be fair, part of those dollar transfers and contracts were for launch services that the US could not offer. In other words, Arianaspace (spelling), Lockheed and Boeing (and NASA, w/ the shuttle) couldn't fit a launch window, so we paid the russians to do it.

    8. Re:Stepping Hard Into the 20th Century by Protonk · · Score: 1

      Oh, well if you are going to argue that the Russians should have been more faithful with our money and we should have negotiated a better deal then we are in agreement. However, I can only offer you my word as someone with some 2nd hand experience on the subject that those results were close to as good as we were going to get. We could spent much more time and effort negotiating a slightly better deal, but it would not have been significantly better.

      And unfortunately, none of the NASA deals could have stopped putin from coming to power on top of a lake of oil and natural gas. That was outside the scope. Perhaps if we hadn't shilled so hard for Yeltsin all those years (check the Time Magazine cover article about it ca. Summer 1996, it is a sobering story. If we found out that Russians had as much influence on our elections as we did on theirs, we would be pissed) we would be in a better spot. But we were scared about the communists taking over...or whatever.

    9. Re:Stepping Hard Into the 20th Century by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't think just taking advantage of the US and getting a better deal makes them the "bad guys" (except that it's bad for me and my country). The payments for launch services aren't really what I'm complaining about, either. It's how the US paid the Russians' share of the ISS as a direct subsidy, while the Russians blatantly blew off their engineering contributions to it (like whole module components delivered way late and faulty). Meanwhile, the Russians were launching their own private laser sail projects and others, with the money they saved, but without sharing their results with us.

      Again, a bad deal at my expense (in both money and in opportunity cost).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    10. Re:Stepping Hard Into the 20th Century by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Well, Putin coming to power isn't the fault of our bad space program deals. Though they're of course related, as the KGB and space launches are part of the same industry in Russia.

      Putin's succession after Yeltsin was in fact really due the KGB concocting the Chechen war to discredit Yeltsin (and democracy with him). It's documented quite explicitly and in great detail in Alexander "Polonium 210" Litvinenko's report _Blowing Up Russia_ (published right after he died from the KGB polonium poisoning). But that is tangential to the Russian giveaway space deals with first Clinton and then Bush.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    11. Re:Stepping Hard Into the 20th Century by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It meant that SOMEONE can get into space and push the species forward, who cares what language they speak when they get there.
      You're right that language doesn't matter; but political ideology just might. I wouldn't want to see that sort of thing.
  28. I hope they keep the rules in mind by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    After all, regulations specify thrusters only while in space dock!

    1. Re:I hope they keep the rules in mind by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      well i sure as hell hope they don't bring up their impeller drives in the dock, that would kill everyone.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  29. Finally! by johnnys · · Score: 1

    When they get that built, they'll be able to build and launch the Project Orion spacecraft without getting all that fallout into the atmosphere. Whee!

    --
    Sometimes the "writing on the wall" is blood spatter...
    1. Re:Finally! by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the nuclear fuel for a nuclear spacecraft will have to come from the Earth's surface . . . and be launched into orbit on a rocket . . . which might explode/disintegrate/or otherwise scatter radioactive material over a large area in the even of a problem . . .

    2. Re:Finally! by dsmall · · Score: 1


      Project Orion was and is the only plan I've seen with a prayer of getting to a percentage of c and making it to Alpha Centauri within a lifetime. The usual irrational fears about radiation and nuclear weapons will probably prevent it, though. Space is full of enough radiation that it just doesn't matter in reality, and at least we'd get some use out of all of those expensive plutonium pits that cost so bloody much to make.

      Bet it would get dusted off in a real hurry if we had an asteroid on a collision course.

        You know, George Dyson's book on Project Orion is a terrific resource on this, since Freeman Dyson, his dad, took a year to help the project:

      http://www.amazon.com/Project-Orion-Story-Atomic-Spaceship/dp/B000FUTQFU/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208146708&sr=8-1

            I have this book and it has a number of details that are quite interesting. Recommended.

            Something quite surprising I found while just looking up this book today is apparently the History Channel is doing a show on Project Orion as part of "History Undercover".

            As for radioactive matter being scattered over the Earth's surface during a launch accident, isn't this more of an engineering problem to build containers that don't split open under X accelerations? This worry keeps coming up from the antinuke people and it never happens. Ye gods, the SNAP power supply on the LEM had them in a lather.

            Pound for pound nuclear fuel is a million times more powerful than any chemical fuel. I'm a little sick of the antinuke people tying our hands and forcing us into our current era of global warming. Thanks a lot.

            -- Dave

  30. DS9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    They should model it after DS9 for space tourists. I for one would look forward to playing Dabo at Quark's bar. I mean Russian's got to have a bar on that place.

  31. WTF? The cliche hasn't occured yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my Culture fanfic, Orbital Construction Plant builds GSV In Soviet Russia!

    1. Re:WTF? The cliche hasn't occured yet? by plover · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Over Soviet Russia, construction plant orbits YOU!

      --
      John
  32. Kruschev... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    "...and the missiles are coming out of the factories like sausages!"

    Russians are good at hyperbole and Americans are good at falling for it.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  33. well, that is the question. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I could see Musk, Bigelow, and either Carmack or Bezos getting together just to get a small NEA or put us on the moon and then send material back to earth orbit. If some sort of assembly is started in orbit, than I could see these guys starting a small manufacturing plant that produces solar cells for space.

    Of course, the question is, can it make money? At first glance I want to say not a chance. But I think that combine a carbon tax AND the military (US and NATO) needing quick easily movable power, could make this very profitable. But ......

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:well, that is the question. by Ereinion · · Score: 1
      There's a book I read called Mining the Sky by John Lewis that makes a good case for the economics of getting building materials from space instead of firing them up the gravity well - the Moon is a bit barren unless we can find water there, but one of the numbers he brings up is that even one of the smaller metallic asteroids (say 1km across) in near earth orbit could contain billions of dollars worth of iron, not to mention the 'trace' amounts of precious metals that would probably also run into the billions.

      There's also a lot of silicon up there for building solar satellites, but man, I've played Sim City, I know what trouble beaming power from space can be...

    2. Re:well, that is the question. by Protonk · · Score: 1

      the problem is that most things with lots of materials tend to bring their gravity well with them (planets and moons). :)

      I think in a lot of cases, the economics dictates that the absolute minimum be launched from earth (so an orbital assembly plant would only be a good idea if the eventual product is too large to be brought up by itself and the consumables needed for assembly are very few).

      Once you are up there it is much more a task of conserving resources you have than anything else. So there better be a good reason to travel millions of miles to the asteroid belt to grab some metal.

      Also, I think that most of those space industry/near sci-fi books (even though I love them, esp. islands in the sky) REALLY underestimate the engineering needed to mine, process and fashion materials into products and overestimate the usefulness of raw materials. In other words, a hunk of iron is probably less useful than a hydraulic pump or a chip for a transceiver.

      that isn't to say it can't be done, but it is akin to asking a Columbus to build a mechanical clock at sea using only the materials found around him. What might be an acceptable task in Spain becomes monstrously difficult in the Atlantic.

    3. Re:well, that is the question. by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

      Also, I think that most of those space industry/near sci-fi books (even though I love them, esp. islands in the sky) REALLY underestimate the engineering needed to mine, process and fashion materials into products and overestimate the usefulness of raw materials. In other words, a hunk of iron is probably less useful than a hydraulic pump or a chip for a transceiver.

      I think you're missing the point.

      True, for some things it would be ridiculous to try to make them in space--take music, for an extreme example. The cost of setting up a decent music industry in space would vastly exceed the cost of transmitting a bunch of MP3s to them.

      But this is just one end of a long continuum. At the other end, consider light. It would be just as moronic to ship all of your illumination up from Earth when you are surrounded by free sunlight.

      In between we find all sorts of things from hard drives (easier to ship up) to bulk matter for radiation shielding (for any project > 10*ISS or so, easier to get up there). By the time you start talking about things on the scale of space based solar power to meet the world's energy needs, a lot more things make sense to harvest up there rather than sending them up. Glass, aluminum, and oxygen are much easier to get from the moon than from the earth after economies of scale start to kick in.

      that isn't to say it can't be done, but it is akin to asking a Columbus to build a mechanical clock at sea using only the materials found around him. What might be an acceptable task in Spain becomes monstrously difficult in the Atlantic.

      A better analogy would be expecting Columbus to take all his air and drinking water with him rather than just breathing normally and catching / storing rain water.

      --MarkusQ

  34. How about building decent cars first? by alexmin · · Score: 1

    As someone who knows it firsthand, technological prowess of Soviets/Russians are _greatly_ overstated. How about building a car that does not utterly suck first?
    Many people in USofA may not realize it but modern Russian state is build upon premise of alleged supremacy over decadent West/third world East (don't laugh) and hot air like this press release is only internal propaganda tool not inteded for external consumption.
    Besides, it's published on Lenta.ru (jokingly called Lenta.vru - ribbon.lie)

    1. Re:How about building decent cars first? by Protonk · · Score: 1

      you obviously don't know it first hand. Aside from the site being a sham (it is) and the claim probably being hot air (it is) if your conclusion is that Russian space expertise is vastly overstated then I don't think you have too much experience with it.

      The Russians have world class talent and technology when it comes to space. that doesn't mean that they make great cars. As a matter of fact, it comes from making the decision as a communist power to make rockets, not cars (That is a gross over simplification, but you get the idea).

    2. Re:How about building decent cars first? by alexmin · · Score: 1

      "First class" talent from Russia is already 10 years busy working for defence contractors around DC beltway an staffing trading rooms on Wall street. That is if not collecting disability/medicare/social security payments (older generation, the one that developed all that 30+ year old tech that you are so proud of.) Ah, well, may be you are talking about "first class" modern Russian kind, but let's not kid ourselves - it does not have anything to do with first world class. Here is an exercise - find reference to Russia on the list of 100 top world schools http://www.webometrics.info/Top_100_by_Country.html (hint - there is NONE)

      As for experience, not to pump the chest, but does 10 years of study/research on space-related programs in soviet institutions count for first hand?

    3. Re:How about building decent cars first? by Protonk · · Score: 1

      As for experience, not to pump the chest, but does 10 years of study/research on space-related programs in soviet institutions count for first hand? Not if it leads you to the concluson that their launch vehicle and space expertise is somehow correlated to their ability to build cars.

      Yes, some (read: a lot) of their tech is old. A lot of ours is old, although not that old. A good portion of US satellite CPUs are (or were a bit ago) based on a rad hardened version of the PPC 601/603 (some modern satellites I know have 68k's in them). Plenty of other components are even older. In the case of Russia, the basic tech (like the Proton launch vehicle) is 40 years old, but they have made new revisions of it up until the present day. That old technology has a failure rate that is comparable or better than the equivalent US heavy launchers (even averaging the space shuttle in). For a customer, that is all that matters. Getting the satellite in the right orbit in one piece is the important part, and the Russians do it as well as anyone on the planet.

      That doesn't mean they are going to be that way forever in the future. The infrastructure in that country is destroyed. The demographics are terrible. The income of the government is very much dependent on commodity prices. Talent (as you say) is emigrating at an alarming rate. In 20 years, unless there is a reversal of many, many things, Russia will not have a world class space program. However, as it stands, it isn't very ar behind at all.

    4. Re:How about building decent cars first? by alexmin · · Score: 1

      I contend that building cars (or any reasonably sophisticated machinery for that matter) is a direct manifestation of general technological ability of a nation. Think of this: for one graduate going to work on space programs there are going to be 5 if not 10 that had to pick up something simpler, like building cars, locomotives, airplanes, TV sets, you name it. After all, we are talking about "top talent" here? So where is those wonderful products produced by those 5 individuals that do not work for military/space programs? So, maybe those 5 individuals are not so bright after all? Should not that lead to conclusion that 'cream of the crop' we are talking about is more like a wash?
      Talent does not grow in vacuum, it has to have nutrients in form of mundane programs providing funding to the labs, majority of which do not have anything to do with space. Ask any professor or post-doc researcher. But all to be seen so far is just self-aggrandizing rhetoric (nanotech KGB way :) and no recent substantial advancements.
      I strongly recommend anyone who wants to develop opinion on technological abilities of the Russians to travel to labs in Moscow, Chernogolovka, Zhukovski, Novosibirsk and see the state those facilities for themselves.

    5. Re:How about building decent cars first? by Protonk · · Score: 1

      But I'm not talking about research generally. I'm not talking about whether or not Russia still has any worthwhile Phd/postdoc programs. I'm saying that, specifically with respect to the aerospace industry, Russia is a world leader. Period.

      As I said in my previous post, it doesn't look like they will stay this way for too long. far too many of the principal talents are old and far too many promising students are leaving to the west. but that doesn't mean that current ability to deliver and current tech in the aerospace industry isn't top notch.

    6. Re:How about building decent cars first? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at the state of US cars recently? :)

    7. Re:How about building decent cars first? by mahmud · · Score: 1

      You are being silly when comparing making cars to designing spaceships in the context of USSR. The reason all Soviet consumer goods are of such shit quality, is because there was no competition, so the consumers were ready to buy whatever crap thrown at them (there were huge shortages of even the crappiest cars, so consumer couldn't afford to demand better quality).
      Space industry, on the other hand was in a direct competition with the _best_ products of the West - of course Soviet space program yielded world-class technology, it was an absolute imperative to deliver, lest the country would fall face down into the dirt.
      Maybe you are a geek that was working in Soviet labs, nevertheless, your words lack credibility, since you demonstrated an inability to see simple causal relationships.

  35. Ah, Russian translations by ortholattice · · Score: 1
    This article's translation seemed relatively good compared to what I've seen, and I was starting to think they've finally been able to improve the translation process by at least ensuring complete sentences. Then I clicked on the linked story about the Black hole against collider:

    Eight babies mastered statistics on the neutron estrelles found mountains, Russian scientists fired newspaper for scientists, black holes and opened a few of its secrets, and probably pozhalev that, once again gathered to destroy the Earth.. The first four news - the truth, whether fifth - the court will decide.

    Now I'm wondering whether the original article's translation was just a fluke of good luck, or if actually the errors are coincidentally all adding in the same direction to produce a nearly grammatically correct article about something completely different than what we think it is about. For all we non-Russians know, "orbital construction plant" could be a mistranslation of "crop circle maker".

    1. Re:Ah, Russian translations by httpcolonslashslash · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't they work on the Universal Translator first?

  36. And, just where are they getting the cash? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    The Russians couldn't even afford to foot their end of the bill for their ISS commitments. I don't think that diverting funds will pay for their grandiose dreams.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:And, just where are they getting the cash? by alexmin · · Score: 1

      Grandiose dreams do not require much funds, just enough to fill that big pipe or theirs :)

    2. Re:And, just where are they getting the cash? by oliderid · · Score: 1
      he Russians couldn't even afford to foot their end of the bill for their ISS commitments.

      And the USA couldn't provide the shuttles flights necessary for its maintenance either. Without Russians ISS would be dead by now. Without US funds ISS would have never seen the light.

      That's why I like space exploration so much...Suddently all these microscopic narrowminded national interests become meaningless. You need your neighboor to get the jobs done.

  37. More power to 'em..... by blankoboy · · Score: 1

    I think it's great to see a country make a bold step like this. The US is really behind the game in terms of Space exploration efforts, and it seems like they will only slide further back at this point. Hopefully this action by Russia will get other nations jump onto the bandwagon and get more competitive (or collaborative even!). Why must the superpower nations blow all their $$$ on their military when there is such a vast space for us to explore. We are sitting here watching the parade go by when there's so much to explore out there and it's a shame beyond words.

  38. Actually, it *is* for Moon and Mars flights by apankrat · · Score: 1

    > There's no mention of the Moon or Mars in the translated article

    The original article starts with -

    "Interfax reports that Russia is going to construct a spaceship assembly factory to service Moon and Mars flights. This has been announced by Anatoly Perminov, the head of RosCosmos agency"

    --
    3.243F6A8885A308D313
  39. You get what you pay for by lusiphur69 · · Score: 1

    To be fair, the United States isn't exactly on the bleeding edge of technology when it comes to car design. Besides, the whole idea of a national automobile industry is sort of quaint and outdated in the modern era, where multinational conglomerates with engineers drawn from all over the world dominate.

    Perhaps space exploration and rocket science are unrelated to engineering of personal conveyances?

    Sure the release is - obviously - making promises that will likely not be kept, however, anything that awakens in the body politic a rediscovery of the virtue of funding space research will be welcomed. I think we can agree that, unlike the automotive industry, the aerospace industry - outside of communications satellites and military hardware - suffers from a lack of funding, particularly in pure research and space exploration.

  40. Remember Thor V! by Charles+Wilson · · Score: 0

    Ahhh, the Maddogs of the Thorium Trust finally make an appearance. "Are the Spindizzies ready? SPIN!" Thank you James Blish. CW

  41. proper human translation by aerton · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to Interfax, Russia shall build an orbital factory for construction of space vessels for flights to Moon and Mars. Such announcement was made by Anatoly Perminov, head of Ruscosmos.

    According to Perminov, Roscosmos suggested to create a manned assembling complex on near-earth orbit. 11 April it was approved on security counsel by government. Complex can be used to assembly space crafts that are too heavy to to be assembled on Earth.

    These plans can only start after end of use of ISS in 2020. A more precise date was not discussed.

    Perminov also reported that spaceport Vostochny in Amur region will be ready in 2015, and the first manned launch from it is scheduled in 2018.

  42. PR Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If history serves me correctly, the US wanted to build the space station alone. The reason it became the ISS is it became too expensive for us build alone. The ISS is due to be decommissioned in 2020? We'll be lucky if it's finished by 2020.

    You think software projects miss milestones alot. . . that's nothing compared to space projects. When was the last time a significant project actually made it's deadline, or came close? Apollo is what I remember.

  43. As they say in Wikipedia .. by apankrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    .. "a citation needed", especially for the "does not want to pay for them" part.

    --
    3.243F6A8885A308D313
    1. Re:As they say in Wikipedia .. by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How many plans has russia announced over the last decade and how many have been carried through? How is their new small shuttle progressing? How is their new heavy launcher work progressing? How is even their additions to the ISS progressing (ones that America paid for)? It is real simple. If you announce a number of plans, not just ideas, and then do not fund, then obviously "you do not want to pay for them".

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:As they say in Wikipedia .. by encoderer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not to mention, of course: When was the last time the Buran lifted-off? Hell, when was the FIRST time the Buran lifted-off? Sure, that's going back a few years, but this has been an endemic problem for an awful long time in the Ruskie space agency.

      I mean, as an engineer I understand the 'if it works...' thinking, but the only thing the agency is producing of any utility is more Soyuez crafts.

  44. Would be very happy if.... by hotfireball · · Score: 1

    I would be very happy if entire red soviet Russia would be transferred to the Moon or (better) red Mars, making their orbital Kremlin and orbital Red Square available for their citizens.

  45. The Russians are more likely to build.. by vorlich · · Score: 1
    1. More branches of Ikea, supermarkets and shopping centres
    2. more infrastructure especially roads in order to connect the huge nation,
    3. more of those insulated oil rigs to exploit Siberian reserves,
    4. more really big machines to exploit all their other natural resources,
    5. more manufacturing to supply the domestic demand among the young population who in the main can't remember anything about the former Soviet Union,
    6. more fast food outlets,
    7. more nuclear power plants
    8. more representative local democracies,
    9. More schools and universities
    10. more middle class members of the population


    after which history of course comes to an ...
    --
    Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
  46. Well, yes and no. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I am not 100% certain, but I think that the tension is caused by W. forcing us to be apart. In particular, he is opposed to our working closely with ESA, let alone RSA. I am not certain, but I suspect that W. wants a little less transparency on our space program.

    But the other major issue is private enterprise. It has the ability to change EVERYTHING for USA. I think that bigelow has designs to be on the moon by 2015 (long before USA even has a rocket to get there). Obviously, musk wants us there ASAP, since they will have the cheapest launch going. and want scale by numbers.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  47. ISR by eneville · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia space station builds you!!

    --
    Why UNIX?
  48. can anyone say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [russian accent]

    Battlecruiser Operational!

    [/russian accent]
    Lets hope they didn't research the yamato cannon, else we are all doomed.

  49. Hurrah! by bhunachchicken · · Score: 1

    And then the P-Fleet can finally be born!

    Pirk's cunning strikes again!

    --
    THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
  50. Sorry for being sketchy by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Real advance in space research will be possible only after great concentration of money in one pair of hands, who won't be dependent on the popular vote to decide what to do with this money. That's because that type of research is w/ very delayed practical outcome (dissemination of human race) and politicians in traditional democracies will lose. When popular vote will be ready for that because of clear evidence of overpopulation that might be too late.

    Clear concentration of money in one pair of hands is possible only in undemocratic non-capitalistic (possibly "state capitalism") economy. We know from the history that type of economy is inferior to the free (or more free) economy. That is why it is not possible to have it in one separate country (that, by the way, is a cardinal difference between Marx and Lenin).

    But it is possible to have it when there is no competition between economies, that is when there is only one global government. That situation, predicted by Marx as a result of development of imperialism, is possible. And that situation could give a rise to transformation (degradation) of that economy under the absence of competition into less democratic, less free market state with more concentration of power in one hands and less dependence of popular vote.

    And that future state is the only entity that will be able to pull the giant leap (w/ immense spending without any immediate relief to the population) to the dissemination project.

    Disclaimer: I hate Soviet communism, and I know what it was.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  51. So what are the answers ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are you asking everyone when it was you who stated that they were not following through with their plans. If you implying some answers, then that's exactly what you already did in you original post. And that's why you were asked to present the actual facts.

    So here are some simple questions to get you started -

    So how many plans has russia announced over the last decade and how many have been carried through?
    How is their new small shuttle progressing?
    How is their new heavy launcher work progressing?
    How is even their additions to the ISS progressing (ones that America paid for)?

  52. Cool! A Minnie Driver / Anne Hathaway love scene! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > Russia To Build an Orbital Construction Plant

    Yikes, that's a mistake. Their tech level may be right, but their industrial base is no way near large enough to accomplish such a thing.

    They'll have to get a hell of a lot more peons mining crystals and chopping trees before they can dream of jamming their tech tree advancement way up that far. They don't even have enough huts for the peons they have now!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  53. Re:You must live in some bizzare parallel world... by LanceUppercut · · Score: 1

    In our world though the situation is quite the opposite: Russia's industrial base is sufficient to saturate the orbit with plants like that in copious numbers. What is lacking is the tech level required to build something really useful. And the problem here is not in Russia but in the simple fact that the tech in question doesn't exist anywhere on this planet yet.