Russia Tops With 45% of Spacecraft Launches in 2006 119
knight17 writes "This year was a really good year for space exploring nations, but Russians may be the most happiest among them, because they grabbed a huge 45% of the spacecraft launching market this year. The coming year is also very good for Russian space programs, since next year they will finish the GLONASS navigation project. The US is in second place, and China & Japan in third with six launches each. The Russian officials said that the launches of spacecrafts will be lesser than what this year has been seen."
Arianespace (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hybrid receivers? (Score:1, Informative)
When SA was switched off, interest in GLONASS has vanished. Probably Galileo receivers (and certainly the early ones) will be GPS/Galileo.
true but...whats the point? (Score:1, Informative)
There are many launch bases in the world. Launch locations include Kaoru, French Gianna, Japan, China (at one time), and Hawaii. The bases are used to launch many types of commercial satellites. Private companies transport spacecraft all over the world to be launched. While the number of launches from Kaoru might be higher than the U.S. or elsewhere, the spacecraft being launched are mostly from other countries.
The Russian Antonov is the largest commercial plane in the world and this plays a role as well. It has 4 independent cranes can load next-gen sized spacecraft and the plane itself can house the entire launch campaign including employees. Companies like Space Systems/Loral have been leaving for launches out of Moffet Field for years.
It all boils down to cost. They produce cheaper rides, cheaper launches, and quality transportation. Therefore they launch more rockets. It also takes less fuel to get to orbit from Russia. I highly doubt these numbers represent anything special.
Borat (Score:3, Informative)
And, by the way, Kazakhstan is in first place! Little known secret is that rockets are actually launched from Baikonur, which is in Kazakhstan, greatest nation in the world! All other nations have inferior rockets!
-- Borat
I work as a NASA engineer on the launch programs (Score:2, Informative)
NASA makes satellites such as STEREO and then buys a ticket on a Delta II or an Atlas V. IT then oversees the launch process. Contractors make the rockets (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc.)
The process is far more complex than that, but regardless this 45% capture does not reflect poorly on NASA whatsoever. Delta II's and Protons are tried and true and the current workhorses of the international space community.
If you want to see NASA at its finest look at the Mars missions or STEREO or Cassini. They are marvels of engineering.
Re:Hybrid receivers? (Score:3, Informative)
24 billion rubles is 2.3 million dollars? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Good. Teach NASA a lesson. (Score:2, Informative)
Agreed. Number of launches is not necessarily a good indicator of overall health of a nation's space program.
For a variety of reasons (some related to how cheaply and reliably they can launch), Russian satellites tend to be designed for shorter lifetimes than their western counterparts. For example, the article cited Glonass satellites. A Glonass vehicle has a design lifetime of 3 years, while the American GPS system has a satellite lifetime of ~ 10 years. The Russians need to launch more often to maintain the constellation.
Does that mean that either program is healthier than the other? No. It just means the Russians chose to design a constellation with a cheaper satellite that requires replenishment more often instead of one with a more durable (and expensive) spacecraft that doesn't require as many launches. One philosophy isn't better than the other, each side chose the one that best fit their design requirements and the resources they had at their disposal.
Re:Good. Teach NASA a lesson. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good. Teach NASA a lesson. (Score:3, Informative)
How does one create a commercial space program capable of manned missions to space and interplanetary scientific probes?
Private industry will jump in as soon as they feel it's profitable. NASA's continued existence in no way forbids this. The payoff from NASA's current activities will come decades, maybe centuries in the future when manned spaceflight has matured enough to allow humans to colonize other worlds. The reward from this is no less than the continued survival of the human species in the event of a planetary cataclysm. (which is only a matter of when, not if)
Mining asteriods and the greater solar system can reduce the environmental impact of terrestrial mining operations and might be quite profitable if it can be done efficiently enough. Everything that has been learned (and continues to be learned) from NASA's probes will be of tremendous help in figuring out how to tackle something like that.
A lot of good science is being accomplished with NASA's robotic missions. This may be of little value to some, but it's the life's-work of others. Some might sneer and call the martian rovers "expensive toys humping rocks on another planet," while others view it as another step on the very long path to humanity leaving its cradle.