Russia's Moon And Mars Exploration Ambitions Hobbled By A Lack Of Money (phys.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russia's Moon And Mars Exploration Ambitions Hobbled By A Lack Of Money (phys.org)

Posted by BeauHD on Sunday February 21, 2016 @04:44AM from the spare-some-change dept.

MarkWhittington writes: Phys.Org reports that the ambitions of the Russian Space Agency continue to exceed its financial wherewithal to carry them out. A Russian rocket is due to launch the first element of the European ExoMars program, which consists of the Trace Gas Orbiter and the Italian-built Schiaparelli lander, in March. Both are due to arrive at Mars in October. After that, Russia's space exploration plans are a bit hazy, hobbled by a lack of money.

114 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So... by pushing-robot · 2016-02-21 04:47 · Score: 4, Funny

Basically like everything else in the world?

--
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
1. Re:So... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-02-21 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  There's actually more than enough money to do many things in this world. What is lacking is simply the will to commit oneself to it.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
2. Re:So... by slashping · 2016-02-21 06:20 · Score: 2
  
  Still, there is not enough money to all those things at the same time. Choices will have to be made.
3. Re:So... by peragrin · 2016-02-21 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Forcing your will and projects on others is exactly how revolutions get started.
  American economy beat Russian economy as there wasn't one person deciding things, but distribution system based on need as determined who could pay for it. While not a perfect system, it allowed flexibility and growth far beyond other systems. It drove down cost of manufacturing while increasing distribution.
  By forcing one goal, you alienate those who don't believe in that goal. The last American president who pushed us to one very expensive goal paid for it with his life.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
4. Re:So... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-02-21 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Did Apollo force things onto others? Are there many important people-killing projects in the US right now, standing in the way of decarbonization, funding of useful peaceful scientific and technological research, or space exploration?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
5. Re:So... by peragrin · 2016-02-21 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Actually Apollo forced a lot of excessive spending, it was tolerated because it also enhanced people killing, and pushed scientific knowledge.
  Also people killing projects are a nessecary evil. Not everyone gets along. Some will force their will on others through violent means. Just look at how Isis controls it's villages after it takes over. You have to fight against the worst of people.
  Also those people killing projects often come up with peaceful uses afterwards. The US Navy wants to convert sea algae into jet fuel so carriers need smaller resuply vessels. If you can't see the civilian value of that then nothing will change your mind. However civilian case for paying for that research doesn't exist yet.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
6. Re:So... by murdocj · 2016-02-21 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  I wish I had points to mod you up as you deserve.
7. Re:So... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-02-21 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  We already know how to synthesize hydrocarbons; we don't need US Navy research for that. And a civilian case for paying for that research exists: not wiping out most of mankind with climate change. Which makes it a fine example of yet another case of weak spirit.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
8. Re:So... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-02-21 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  (This disappeared from my comment for some strange reason) Also, wasn't ISIS more or less a US creation? Invasion of Iraq, Camp Bucca, etc.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
9. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  The Apollo missions also provided the funding and test bed for the early US ICBM's. The US military and the civilian contractors who design and create tools for the military have also contributed a significant amount of technology into the civilian arena. A few contributions include the research into a distributed computer network that could continue to work if some of it's segments were destroyed. Of course that technology pioneered by DARPA mushroomed into today's Internet. GPS technology was originally a military funded system that is now used by everyone, military or civilian. TOR was originally a project run by the Naval Research Labs. DARPA created the first Onion technologies that came out in the late 1990's. The military stealth technology programs have resulted in new advances in material science, cutting edge computer architectures that are trickling down into civilian applications. Other technologies include nuclear, solar, and bio-fuel.
10. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  Not quite.... Something in the world actually have a net return, thus they can be funded by loans that are repaid and boost the economy. Where as most of the space program (if not all of it) is purely a consumption activity with no return.
11. Re:So... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-02-21 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that by the time Apollo was being developed, Polaris and Minuteman were already operational, I'd retract the ICBM angle. Having said that, military R&D has definitely helped but I was talking about such clusterfucks as those several most recent conflicts. Not much progress from blowing up some Afghan goats.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
12. Re:So... by angel'o'sphere · 2016-02-21 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Money is most certainly not "the problem" of this planet. As far as I can see, there are only choices between stock traders (wages) and farmers (third world) or ordinary people (workers, employees).
  Money is the very least thing to consider, especially if you know that 1% of the world population legally owns 99% of the "wealth" of the planet.
  Ah, you did not know that? And I might be off by 10% ... oops, my fault, 10% in both ways: 11% of the planets population own 89% of the planets wealth. Does that look better?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
13. Re:So... by rtb61 · 2016-02-21 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Money is an illusion, a false created premise meant to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. This how now been totally corrupted by psychopaths who should be in prison, where made up money is now a resource, seriously making up pretend money is supposedly a planetary resource the illusion fabricated by the psychopaths in charge.
  The exploration of space and humanity becoming a galactic species, should not be about the allocation of illusions it should be about the allocation of resources, real resources, can those real resources be allocated to humanity becoming a galactic species or not. The flip side being, should we pretend money is real as controlled by psychopaths so we can remain mud monkeys for all time focused on our genitals and nothing else (don't think that is the focus of main stream media, the banking sector, the military industrial complex, egoistic delusion, strutting and preening and pathetic sexual gyrations, they kill for fun because it gets the sick fuckers off).
  It ain't meant to be about funny money, it is meant to be able the worthwhile allocation of human and planetary resources. We have just become such a sick society we are locked into delusion that are extremely difficult to break.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
14. Re:So... by slashping · 2016-02-21 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  Money is an illusion
  Money can be traded for resources or labor, neither of which are illusions.
  
  The exploration of space and humanity becoming a galactic species
  Those are two completely different things. A bit of puttering around in the solar system isn't going to turn us into a galactic species. In fact, without discovering a magic propulsion system, we will never be a galactic species. And our best (albeit tiny) bet of finding such a magical propulsion is doing raw science right here on Earth, not by trying to walk around in the inhospitable deserts of Mars.
Gofundme by p51d007 · 2016-02-21 04:47 · Score: 1

Surprised they haven't resorted to the way ever other person does...GoFundMe. ;)
NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Lumpy · 2016-02-21 04:57 · Score: -1, Flamebait

If they need more money they need to focus on killing people in faraway lands and none of this silly exploration.
US Americans are far more interested in putting money into our military for killing people than Science. Now find life out there that we can kill? Now you got a source of funding!

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-02-21 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Killing people in other lands...especially oil lands...is a massive money loss. Didn't you ever read Dune?
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
2. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Nutria · 2016-02-21 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Sell us your shit for a reasonable (for even very unreasonable cartel-set values of "reasonable") price, and stop attacking the people who *do* sell us their shit for a reasonable price.
  I mean really: if there was ever a time to invade a country, it was when crude was $140/bbl. But we didn't.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
3. Re: NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  Dune is fiction. Are you a fucking moron? You probably think Hershey's has Oompa Loompas.
4. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by SuricouRaven · 2016-02-21 05:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This issue has been known since The Art of War. The first chapter can be summed up as two rules which Sun Tzu stresses are of far greater importance than any battlefield tactics:
  1. Don't get into a war unless you are confident you can win in.
  2. Even if you're confident you can in it, don't get into a war unless you are confident you can win it quickly - because war is horrendously expensive, and a prolonged campaign may leave your treasuries empty and people in poverty even if you are victorious in the field.
  He was not an advocate of the fair fight.
5. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Rei · 2016-02-21 05:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Seriously? Right now, when Amnesty International is complaining that Russia is committing some of the most egregious war crimes that the world has seen in decades, you're going to complain about the US killing people? The US, the country that sat out the whole conflict until Daesh started committing genocide, and has thusfar resisted pressure from all of its allies in the region to send in ground troops or even establish a no-fly zone?
  Really?
  Sometimes the double standards amaze me. The US takes out one MSF hospital in Afghanistan and the world is aghast and enraged. Russia takes out four hospitals in a single day, including coming back to double-tap an MSF one later in the day, adding to the near obliteration of the hospital system they've nearly conducted in Syria thusfar. And most people's reaction? Crickets.
  Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the US. I was out there protesting both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But seriously people, the hypocrisy here can be cut with a knife.
  
  --
  The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
6. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  Zapp Brannigan's big book of war says all you need is someone to blame it on.
7. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by smooth+wombat · 2016-02-21 05:30 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  If they need more money they need to focus on killing people in faraway lands and none of this silly exploration.
  
  Russia is already doing just that in Syria. Every day Russian war planes deliberately target civilians opposed to Assad's dictatorial regime. This past week Russia deliberately targeted several hospitals in Syria.
  
  Russia has tried to claim it's upgrading its weapons systems, but every time they do they come out the next month with downward revisions on the money available to purchase such weapons or put the programs on hold due to the corruption inherent in their society.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
8. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 05:55 · Score: -1
  
  Herp Derp much?
  WE AMERICANS FUCKING LOVE KILLING... Why else would the military get 75% of the budget?
  Russians are worse, they have 80% to military budget. Just proof that the USA and Russia are not different at all.... and if we get Trump, we will have a leader that is as bat-shit crazy as putin.
9. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  If you don't want your hospitals blown up, don't take your fucking Jihadists there.
  The problem with War today is that people think it can be waged in a limited fashion.
10. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by sycodon · 2016-02-21 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  " civilians opposed to Assad's dictatorial regime"
  So...rebels?
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
11. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  Parent is modded informative?
  Of course Russia doesn't bomb Assad's regime. They public stated they support them, and for good reason.
  Assad's regime is SECULAR. That means no force fed religion from government. Assad protects minorities like Christians and other Muslim sects. If you remove him, there will be chaos from ISIS and an Islamic regime will prevail, and make things worse in the region.
  It will be another mistake like removing other secular dictators like Saddam. At least they kept a general stability in the region of crazies.
12. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  Wow you are lapping up the Kool Aid. Russia are the only ones with the balls to combat CIA financed Al-Nusra freaks.
13. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by ChrisMaple · 2016-02-21 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  leave your treasuries empty and people in poverty
  So. The Democratic Party's goal is achieved.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
14. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by ChrisMaple · 2016-02-21 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  The U.S. 2015 figure is 16.3%, or 20.4% if veteran's benefits are included. How much are you being paid to be a liar?
  The three leading candidates - Sanders, Clinton, and Trump - are all mentally defective. We're screwed.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
15. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by slashping · 2016-02-21 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Russia wouldn't have to step in and help Assad if US led forces didn't try to topple him.
16. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by zedaroca · 2016-02-21 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  The US, the country that sat out the whole conflict until Daesh started committing genocide
  From the Global Intelligence Files in 2011, about the US financing anyone available to fight against Assad (read terrorists/"rebels"), and being interested in a big humanitarian disaster. Quotes from the e-mail:
  
  they said without saying that SOF teams (presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground focused on recce missions and training opposition forces. One Air Force intel guy (US) said very carefully that there isn't much of a Free Syrian Army to train right now anyway
  
  So there were no rebels to train, but they were there and training them anyway.
  
  the idea 'hypothetically' is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within
  
  They dont believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn't reach that very public stage.
  Also, there is a very interesting interview with the former head of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency):
  Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL (for some reason, I only get the "an error occurred" message, so here is a link to the most important part: Former DIA Head Concedes US Deliberately Backed Extremists in Syria).
  They are discussing a 2012 report by the DIA informing that by supporting terrorists, the US would end up supporting Daesh during the interview. Here is the DIA report, heavily redacted (it's just three pages out of seven pages).
  You should at least watch the 5 minutes video before saying that the US sat on the conflict again.
17. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by murdocj · 2016-02-21 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Uh... no rebels to train? Seems like half of Syria was lost to Assad before the USA ever got involved. Who was fighting then, unicorns?
18. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by zedaroca · 2016-02-21 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  The point of the post is that the US is involved from the beginning. Try reading the email from 2011, it's a quote of what the airforce guy says. I even made it bold for retards.
19. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by murdocj · 2016-02-21 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  so the guys who fought against Assad were... USA? Huh? Try thinking once in a while.
20. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  That's the Republican Party at work, actually, or haven't you noticed their last 5 administrations?
21. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by KeensMustard · 2016-02-21 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Civilians.
  "They don't like me" is not an excuse to kill people. Your people don't like you? Hmm. Jee. I dunno. Maybe you aren't a good leader then.
22. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by slashping · 2016-02-21 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  A country's leader only has a small influence on the course of a country. Blaming all your woes on the leadership, and then sending the country into chaos isn't always a good solution if things aren't going well.
23. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  Even if the allegations are true, these are not "the most egregious war crimes ... in decades". You need to chill out on the hyperbole. They would definitely be war crimes, but by the standard of war crimes, they are in the category of disregard for collateral damage. It's horrible, but in scale and sheer degree of negligence, not something that deserves to be singled out in the Syria-Iraq fuckorama of death. Again, I'm not suggesting it's OK, but no party in this war has clean hands.
24. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by SuricouRaven · 2016-02-21 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Bush II managed to screw up both of them, by looking at the war as a simple military contest without considering the subsequent expense of occupying territory with a hostile population afterwards. Sun Tzu had a great deal to say on how to fight a guerilla war against a force with superior numbers, but I don't recall him saying much on defending against the same tactics beyond 'try not to get into that situation.'
25. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  You've got to be the world's biggest dumb ass if you think that our recent problems with wars are primarily the work of Democrats. Remember that Republican president that threatened you were a traitor to the USA if you even had a difference of opinion on whether we should go to war?
  Sure, Democrats have started wars too, but you have to look back many, many years into history to dig up an example as horrid as our recent war entanglements.
26. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by angel'o'sphere · 2016-02-21 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  but I don't recall him saying much on
  As only one of his books is that famous, my suggestion is to re-read it.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
27. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 11:14 · Score: 0
  
  It will be another mistake like removing other secular dictators like Saddam. At least they kept a general stability in the region of crazies.
  Why is being secular dictator that better? He dealt extremely violently with demonstrators in Arab spring. That's how the civil war started. He is to be blamed for all that happened - he could allow free elections and there would be no war.
28. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by guestapoo · 2016-02-21 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, such a strong words.
  Now seeing the details of these claims: MSF stops sharing Syria hospital locations after 'deliberate' attacks - The Guardian
  
  Hospitals in opposition-held parts of Syria are refusing to share GPS coordinates with Russian and Syrian authorities because of repeated attacks on medical facilities and workers, Médecins Sans Frontières and humanitarian workers on the ground have said.
  “Given the number of hospitals that have been bombed since the war started, they do not think [giving GPS coordinates] is going to protect them, rather the opposite,” another official said.
  Don't let the title fool you. The WHOLE article does NOT have a word, or phrase suggest that they STOP provide GPS coordinates to Russia AFTER the incident. In fact, as the quote, they have never provided the data.
  Further details:
  http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-g...
  
  The charity, also known by its French acronym MSF, says repeated attacks against health facilities during Syria's five-year civil war have led medical staffers to ask the group not to provide the GPS coordinates of some sites. This was the case of the makeshift clinic run by the charity in the Syrian town of Maaret al-Numan, which was hit four times in attacks on Monday, killing at least 25 people.
  OTOH, the Kunduz hospital was the brightest lit building, with flag were easy recognize AND they provided GPS data, and they repeats the claim that "the strikes continued for half an hour after U.S. and Afghan authorities were told the hospital was being bombed" .
  After that, tanks entered and destroyed the evidences.
  
  While no-one know which was Russian or Syrian bombing or "other" airforces (remember the airstrike that killed numbers of SAA soldiers, no one know who did this).
29. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by guestapoo · 2016-02-21 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Score:4 Informative, without any information, and full of dis-informations.
  
  Tiger Forces complete the east Aleppo encirclement: 800+ ISIS fighters trapped
  
  https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/...
  https://www.almasdarnews.com/a...
  
  Al-Nusra Front Confirms Deaths of 300 Terrorists in Syria's Aleppo
  http://sputniknews.com/middlee...
  
  WOW, the title Syrian war: Russian-backed offensive in Aleppo has killed 500 people this month, Observatory says
  http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
  
  But actually, by at least 500 people, including 89 civilians, have been killed since the Russian-backed offensive on Aleppo province began earlier this month
  Now, do your homework!
30. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by _merlin · 2016-02-21 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Look how well the Arab Spring ended in Libya.
31. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · 2016-02-21 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  You mean a general low-level chaos killing thousands instead of a civil war killing hundreds of thousands?
  Yeah, it's a nightmare alright.
  
  --
  Last post!
32. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 17:53 · Score: 0
  
  The U.S. 2015 figure is 16.3%, or 20.4% if veteran's benefits are included. How much are you being paid to be a liar?
  The three leading candidates - Sanders, Clinton, and Trump - are all mentally defective. We're screwed.
  How so? Be specific, using actual facts please.
33. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by SuricouRaven · 2016-02-21 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  I read it a few years ago, I probably forgot that part of it.
34. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by DNS-and-BIND · 2016-02-21 19:11 · Score: 0
  
  Amnesty International and the other orgs are explicitly anti-American. I don't really know why you're surprised. AI was founded on the idea of exposing America's crimes and covering up those of the Soviets. Seriously, look it up.
  
  Alec saw the battle lines redrawn with stark clarity, with the victims of capitalist and imperialist oppression all over the world on one side, and the United States and its allies, including Spain, on the other. Given such a contest, he realised that to undertake the defence of the Spanish freemasons had been timely as well as symbolically correct because it opened the door for victims of injustice everywhere, but especially in countries friendly to the United States, to join his former comrades-in-arms in Spanish prisons in a grand international coalition of the oppressed whose plight, when efficiently publicised, would bring embarrassment and opprobrium to the adversaries of the Soviet Union.
  -- foundation of Amnesty International, 1954
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
35. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by wwalker · 2016-02-22 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, I decided to go against the /. tradition and read the linked article. "Most egregious war crimes" my ass! The Sky News link is a total propaganda piece. With images of crying children and "war crimes" claims liberally thrown every couple of paragraphs. So then I went to the source: https://www.amnesty.org/en/lat...
  Here are the quotes in the Amnesty source regarding bombing hospitals:
  "The briefing includes evidence suggesting that Russian authorities may have lied to cover up civilian damage to a mosque from one air strike and a field hospital in another."
  So, it wasn't "hospitals", it was one single *field* hospital. Basically, a bunch of tents in a field. Just like a military or training camp would look like from the air. Did it have any identifiable signs of being a hospital? And would ISIS try to use the same to hope to protect its own camps perhaps?
  "A witness to an attack just a few metres from Sermin field hospital in Idleb said the attack appeared to have been carried out by a more sophisticated plane as they did not see or hear the plane before the missiles were dropped."
  So they don't even have evidence it was Russia, since they didn't see or hear the plane. Does Russia even have stealth bombers?
  So from bombing a bunch of tents in the desert by possibly Russian planes we end up with definitive "most egregious war crimes". Wow.
36. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 19:44 · Score: 0
  
  You mean a general low-level chaos killing thousands instead of a civil war killing hundreds of thousands?
  No, a general low-level chaos killing thousands instead of a dictator picking off dozens and keeping the chaos in check.
37. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by Xest · 2016-02-22 23:40 · Score: 0
  
  "So then I went to the source: https://www.amnesty.org/en/lat..."
  Did you? The link you posted is dated December 2015, the hospital bombings happened only a week or two ago. Whether you're purposefully trying to conflate two reports I've no idea. Here's the actual MSF report:
  http://www.msf.org.uk/country-...
  The other hospitals hit weren't MSF hospitals but were independent (see just about every news source on the planet).
  "So they don't even have evidence it was Russia, since they didn't see or hear the plane. Does Russia even have stealth bombers?"
  Stealth isn't invisibility, it doesn't hide aircraft from visual view, so what has stealth got to do with anything? Sophisticated in this context simply means they were bombing from high altitude such as not to be visually identifiable. This is why we know it was Russian aircraft because Syria doesn't have anything anymore to hit from that height, and because air flight records show now US/coalition aircraft in the area at that time (in fact, the US/coalition folk don't even operate over that city anyway because they're not bombing friendly rebels, nor are they bombing Assad's forces - the US et. al. operate to the East against ISIS - they have no business there and if they were there the Russians would have radar record of it, which they don't).
  Still, I doubt for a second you're the type of person judging by your comments that would absolve the US in the same way - "Well they didn't actually see that it was predator drones that blew up the wedding party because they fired from too high altitude so the US must be innocent!".
  So I'd say nice try at deflection, but it really wasn't, you basically failed on all counts from using the wrong article to conflating things like stealth with invisibility. F for fail, must try harder next time, I hope Putin doesn't take your family's food away for this.
38. Re:NASA is headed in the wrong direction by KeensMustard · 2016-03-01 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  A country's leader only has a small influence on the course of a country.
  If Assad orders planes to drop barrel bombs on Syrian cities, is he responsible for the deaths caused?
  
  Blaming all your woes on the leadership, and then sending the country into chaos isn't always a good solution if things aren't going well.
  He can always, you know, not be the leader. If he chooses to persist in pretending to lead, whilst killing folk who have the temerity to suggest that he can't be their leader unless they agree to it, the fact that he didn't choose to step down when a sane and decent person would have makes him completely responsible for the deaths he ordered.
Russian economy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 05:00 · Score: 0

Now only if they'd make sure the framework for a market economy were in place instead of relying on revenue from gas sold to Europe, they might actually stand a chance. But no... oligarchs want their power and fuck those serfs. The advice of "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers" has the same effect on them as it did on the empire.
Bernie Sanders by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 05:01 · Score: 0, Funny

Doesn't need any money. He will build a free university on Mars for all black and brown people. And it'll be free.
1. Re:Bernie Sanders by burni2 · 2016-02-21 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  So you donate money and do not face the national gard when the third clone of Rosa Parks wants to attend MarsU and is facing protesters on Mars scanding "Go back to Earth you don't belong here!" ?
2. Re:Bernie Sanders by BarbaraHudson · 2016-02-21 05:21 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Doesn't need any money. He will build a free university on Mars for all black and brown people. And it'll be free.
  You've got it all wrong. Donald Trump is going to build a rocket to Mars. And he's going to make the Martians pay for it!
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
3. Re:Bernie Sanders by NEDHead · 2016-02-21 05:24 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  If I could build a wall around Trump, I would pay for it!
Funding wont be a problem by invictusvoyd · 2016-02-21 05:02 · Score: 1

All they need is another cold war .
1. Re:Funding wont be a problem by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 05:38 · Score: -1
  
  It would help if the country was not run by criminals who are off-shoring every dime that they can get their hands on
  At least they are lucky enough to have Ukraine and Syria to keep the people distracted from the theft
2. Re:Funding wont be a problem by Hognoxious · 2016-02-21 08:54 · Score: 0
  
  Don't worry, he'll be gone in about ten months.
  Oh, hang on ...
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
3. Re:Funding wont be a problem by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  It would be nice if criminals would not impose lame sanctions against Russia.
Same here by frovingslosh · 2016-02-21 05:06 · Score: 1

Lack of money has also delayed my trip to the Sun.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
1. Re:Same here by Tablizer · 2016-02-21 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  Go at night so you don't need expensive sun-shades
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
russia to the moon by johhny+ijsser · 2016-02-21 05:10 · Score: 1, Interesting

They dont have money to go to the moon but they have money to fund war
1. Re:russia to the moon by tomhath · 2016-02-21 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Because the money they do have comes from oil producing regions uncomfortably close the the war they are funding.
2. Re:russia to the moon by BarbaraHudson · 2016-02-21 05:22 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  They dont have money to go to the moon but they have money to fund war
  You sure you're talking only about Russia now?
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
3. Re:russia to the moon by sycodon · 2016-02-21 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Russia has untold amounts of conventional weapons left over from the cold war.
  Up until recently, their biggest cost would be for Jet fuel. Now it's just the cost of feeding their poorly paid troops.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
4. Re:russia to the moon by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-02-21 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Up until recently, their biggest cost would be for Jet fuel.
  Is that really the case? Surely their internal prices for oil products are still the same. About the most accurate characterization of their new situation is that they don't lose export money now by not exporting fuel and by burning it in their own vehicles.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
5. Re:russia to the moon by antdude · 2016-02-21 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  We need war on the moon. :P
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
No Russian Goods In Stores. by zenlessyank · 2016-02-21 05:10 · Score: 1

Hard to make money when you don't make anything regular consumers want. I don't need an ICBM or a tanker full of oil. How about some furniture or other household goods, or clothing? I would buy Russian goods if they were viable and available.
1. Re:No Russian Goods In Stores. by AchilleTalon · 2016-02-21 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  You don't drink vodka?
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
2. Re:No Russian Goods In Stores. by zenlessyank · 2016-02-21 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Not anymore. Some folks just aren't made to consume alcohol and I am one of them. Always starts out good, then somewhere along the line I blackout and then I need to start another thread about it. At least I figured it out before I became a road stain. I admit I kinda forgot about the Vodka, BUT, the point still stands. They need to make some goods.
Get Russians to Mars, A Truly Great Idea! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 05:21 · Score: 0

I'd be glad to participate growdfunding project buying one way ticket for Mr Putin up there :)
Google Images: Putin's Castle by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 05:22 · Score: 0

There's your money
they can at least send people to space station by sittingnut · 2016-02-21 05:25 · Score: 1

russia may be broke to do space right, but at least they are still able actually send people to space, unlike some other countries.
Military by one_red_eye · 2016-02-21 05:43 · Score: 1

That's because they're busy trying to reconquer the Warsaw Pact.
Edward Snowden by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 05:57 · Score: 0

Surely has the answer
[Citation needed] by wwalker · 2016-02-21 06:06 · Score: 1

Deliberately targeting civilians? Deliberately targeted hospitals? Corruption inherent in their society? Propaganda much? Care to provide any credible source of any of your claims?
1. Re:[Citation needed] by TechnoCore · 2016-02-21 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Putin wet dream is to destabilize and split EU. The weaker the EU, the easier it will be for him to retake the rest of the eastern Europe. Creating more refugee streams up into Europe sure is a way towards that. And trust me, that man would do anything, including bombing civilians to achieve his goals.
Same thing here. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2016-02-21 06:18 · Score: 1

All my plans for world domination is hobbled by the same thing. Lack of money.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Mother Russia, I have a date. by ChrisMaple · 2016-02-21 06:27 · Score: 1

May I have 2 billion rubles for gas?

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Raise money the old fashioned way by amightywind · 2016-02-21 06:56 · Score: -1

Look for Putin to try to raise money the old fashioned way. Invade their neighbors (probably Estonia) and loot them. Will the West fight back this time?

--
an ill wind that blows no good
craigslist? by porky_pig_jr · 2016-02-21 07:24 · Score: 1

Can't they just beg for money on craigslist, like everyone else does?
Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by tlambert · 2016-02-21 07:26 · Score: 0

Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars?
Apparently, they did not pick Mars...
1. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by slashping · 2016-02-21 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Going to Mars is a toy project that has no relevance to daily life of ordinary Russians. Invading Crimea does.
2. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by tlambert · 2016-02-21 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  Going to Mars is a toy project that has no relevance to daily life of ordinary Russians. Invading Crimea does.
  Other than getting the "Got shot invading Crimea: Achievement Unlocked" badge, what exactly is the relevance to the daily life of ordinary Russians?
3. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by avgapon · 2016-02-21 11:33 · Score: 0
  
  Sanctions. No original western food. Higher prices. Lower wages. Being proud of the Motherland.
4. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by Gavagai80 · 2016-02-21 15:30 · Score: 2
  
  A large percentage of the residents of Crimea were already Russian citizens, so it obviously had relevance to them.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
5. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by tlambert · 2016-02-21 15:46 · Score: 0
  
  A large percentage of the residents of Crimea were already Russian citizens, so it obviously had relevance to them.
  They were on vacation there. Or they were expatriates, trying to escape Russian rule. So yeah, you got me on that. It mattered to the residents of Crimea, who had, as a majority, voted for Ukrainian rule.
  It mattered to Russia to have a warm-water port to ship oil from, given that their oil pipie line in Afghanistan has been endangered since "The War On Terror" first landed boots in Afghanistan.
  But mattering to Russian Oligarchs is a far cry from mattering "to daily life of ordinary Russians", unless those oligarchs draft you into the army.
6. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 17:27 · Score: 0
  
  It mattered to the residents of Crimea, who had, as a majority, voted for Ukrainian rule.
  The majority voted for Russian rule.
7. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 18:41 · Score: 0
  
  Or they were expatriates, trying to escape Russian rule.
  In freaking Ukraine? =) And what's more, the most Russia-like part of it. You'd think they would have picked a decent country.
8. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by slashping · 2016-02-21 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  Still, going to Mars would have mattered much less.
9. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by tlambert · 2016-02-21 19:33 · Score: 0
  
  It mattered to the residents of Crimea, who had, as a majority, voted for Ukrainian rule.
  The majority voted for Russian rule.
  Wrong.
  "In January 1991, a referendum was held in the Crimean Oblast, and voters approved restoring the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. However, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union less than a year later, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was formed as a constituent entity of independent Ukraine, with a slight majority of Crimean voters approving Ukrainian independence in a December referendum."
  [...]
  "The internationally recognised Ukrainian territory of Crimea was annexed by the Russian Federation on 18 March 2014. From the time of the annexation, Russia has de facto administered the peninsula as two federal subjects—the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol—within the Crimean Federal District. The military intervention and annexation by Russia took place in the aftermath of the Ukrainian Revolution and was part of wider unrest across southern and eastern Ukraine."
  But nice attempt at astroturfing it as if it weren't an annexation. The United Nations does not recognize the 2014 referendum as valid.
10. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 19:45 · Score: 0
  
  But nice attempt at astroturfing it as if it weren't an annexation. The United Nations does not recognize the 2014 referendum as valid.
  It was an annexation with popular support. For what happens without said support, see Donbass.
11. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by tlambert · 2016-02-21 21:13 · Score: 2
  
  But nice attempt at astroturfing it as if it weren't an annexation. The United Nations does not recognize the 2014 referendum as valid.
  It was an annexation with popular support. For what happens without said support, see Donbass.
  You can't just move a bunch of people into an area, annex it without permission of the government from whom you are annexing it, and then call it "annexation with popular support". Otherwise, there are a few European countries well on their way to Syria declaring them "annexed with popular support".
12. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by Xest · 2016-02-22 00:10 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  ...at gunpoint, in a non-transparent election that Putin admits the outcome of was decided before it even began.
  Or in other words, no they didn't.
  You seem to be confusing a pretend vote with an actual referendum. Here's some actual polling from just before Putin ran his pretend poll and held everyone in Crimea at gunpoint that shows that most people didn't actually want to be part of Russia:
  http://www.cityam.com/blog/139...
13. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  You can't just move a bunch of people into an area, annex it without permission of the government from whom you are annexing it, and then call it "annexation with popular support".
  Why not? The "without permisson" part is the reason it's an annexation. The fact that the population didn't really mind is the reason it was with popular support. The people weren't moved into the area, they were stationed there in the first place. You do know that Sevastopol was a jointly-administered Ukrainian-Russian area with officially deployed Russian troops, don't you?
14. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  at gunpoint
  There was some gun-pointing at surrounded military bases and in front of the supreme council as the papers were being doctored. But a vote at gunpoint? You're a hoot.
15. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 11:31 · Score: 0
  
  Simply go to Crimea and ask people whether they want to stay in Russia or join Ukraine. There are many videos in YouTube about it, in case if you are too shy to visit Russia.
16. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by tlambert · 2016-02-22 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  You do know that Sevastopol was a jointly-administered Ukrainian-Russian area with officially deployed Russian troops, don't you?
  I was aware. Soldiers stationed in an area where they are non-citizens, and their families who are non-citizens, should not be allowed to vote on such things. This is the reason the United Nations does not recognize the 2014 referendum as being valid.
17. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 18:12 · Score: 0
  
  the United Nations does not recognize the 2014 referendum as being valid
  There's no question the referendum was a sham and a facade for the land grab. However, as land grabs go, this one was done immaculately. And people in Crimea actually celebrated. I don't mean the made-for-Russian-TV bullshit, but what they did privately. They had more trust in goddamn Putin than whatever came to power in Kiev. Whether that trust was misplaced and would be regretted is a different matter, but everything the Ukrainian authorities did afterwards only served to confirm the view that they were relatively better off this way.
18. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by Xest · 2016-02-23 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  Er, I think you need to get a clue if you think otherwise. The polling stations were surrounded by armed Russian troops.
  Or are you the sort of retard that things this guy is wearing a clown suit and that thing he's holding is just a pea shooter?
  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0...
  Of course, if it was actually a free and fair referendum then we'd know the truth from international observers, except, oh wait, they were kept away at gunpoint too.
19. Re:Invade Crimea and Ukraine, or go to Mars? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-23 12:50 · Score: 0
  
  are you the sort of retard that things this guy is wearing a clown suit
  Pretty much. At any rate, he's not wearing the same uniform as the Russian "polite men" in Crimea. And what's with the tape on the rifle (not a pea shooter that one)? And autumn leaves underfoot?
  Tineye places the earliest occurrences of your image around October 2014, which means it was probably taken somewhere in Donbass.
Keep plans for later by manu0601 · 2016-02-21 14:37 · Score: 1

They can clearly afford to spare the plans for later. Once Saudi Arabia will have driven North America's tar sand business to bankrupt, they will rise oil prices again, and Russia will have money for space exploration.
1. Re:Keep plans for later by Xest · 2016-02-22 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  "Once Saudi Arabia will have driven North America's tar sand business to bankrupt, they will rise oil prices again, and..." ...and North America's tar sand business will become financially viable again and the infrastructure to exploit it such as roads, and pipelines, will already be in place meaning it'll be cheap to start back up!
  Really, the only way out of this is economic diversification. Until exploitable oil available decreases prices are never going to go back up because to keep those North American tar pits closed the price can only really go up a little bit - it's going to have to stabilise at $50 - $60 for the foreseeable future to keep those other sources of oil suppressed and that can only last until Russia and Saudi's own oil reserves don't start to drain and end up becoming ever more expensive to exploit meaning they're not able to produce any cheaper than North American tar sands and fracking.
Putin is not stupid by manu0601 · 2016-02-21 14:40 · Score: 1

That makes no sense to invade a country where most of the people hates you. Even if war is easily won, you face fierce resistance from the population or you trigger a civil war. In either case it gets difficult to reap anything. Putin is not stupid, I can bet money Russia is not going to invade Estonia.
Business as usual by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 20:31 · Score: 0

Russian space programme is _profitable_. US, europe are still the biggest customer of the Russian space programme, with rest of the world lining up too.
Plans are not hazy - they are confidential. If I was in charge, I'd make for continued market dominance with low cost, reliable and safe launch vehicles - which might well be the strategy here.
And funny you should makke that point about Russian space programme and not everybody else's. Watching too much propaganda?
America by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 23:52 · Score: 0

No money? America supposedly went to the moon in the 60's using 60's technology. Of course, they have never gone back.
Kickstarter by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 07:48 · Score: 0

"Tovarisch, gib moneys so glorious Motherland could into space"
That should do it.
Exactly. You could say the same about NASA's! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 09:22 · Score: 0

If we gave NASA half the DOD's budget, do you really think Mars would be a "maybe in the 2030s" thing? Fuck no, early 2020s easy (not that there wouldn't be engineering hurtles to overcome, please no nit-picky asshole-ish-ness).
Stupid by amightywind · 2016-02-22 12:29 · Score: -1

Why would any sane person want to invade Crimea or Donbas? You don't think they hate him there? Putin's economy will be in ruins for years. He has a continuous deadly war in Ukraine. His actions indicate that in the short term he is more interested in expanding Russia's borders than building an economy (for which he enjoys huge competitive advantages!). Instead he presides over a violent, declining derelict of a country. How does he end up? Like Gaddafi.

--
an ill wind that blows no good