Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space Science

Russia's New Cosmodome Approved 83

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the goink-back-into-space dept.
eldavojohn writes "You may recall discussing Baikonur, the Kazakhstan city rented by Russia that has been used as a launch site for quite some time. Today, Putin has just approved construction of Vostochny between 2010 and 2018 which will be positioned in the far east of Russia to complement the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in the northern part of the country. This is not bad news for Kazakhstan as the director of the Russian Federal Space Agency has announced they plan to operate this facility alongside Baikonur."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russia's New Cosmodome Approved

Comments Filter:
  • *sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ari_j (90255) on Friday November 23, 2007 @12:21AM (#21451357)
    There's a big difference between a cosmodrome and a cosmodome. I got my hopes up really high from the story title, just to have them dashed by the blurb.
  • by bogaboga (793279) on Friday November 23, 2007 @12:51AM (#21451483)
    Despite what we in the west think about the Russians, I strongly believe they will deliver on this given their track record.

    I also know that when they finally deliver, the whole atmosphere will be met with very little fanfare unlike in the US.

    I guess it's not in them to seek publicity unlike we in the west.

    Now for those who might think this post is "flamebait", I'd like to remind them that the Soviet Union, much of which became today's Russia had and still has the biggest, heaviest and highest-capacity flying aircraft in service today. And this was put in service more than ten years ago...again, with little fanfare.

    Contrast that with the Airbus A380 that the [TV] networks appeared not to get fed up of when it made its first commercial flight. Ohh, what about the Space Shuttle which continues to make news whenever it's to lift off or land. On this front, the Russians just fire their Soyuz craft as if it's just another chore!

  • by quanticle (843097) on Friday November 23, 2007 @01:23AM (#21451621) Homepage

    Despite what we in the west think about the Russians, I strongly believe they will deliver on this given their track record. I also know that when they finally deliver, the whole atmosphere will be met with very little fanfare unlike in the US.

    That's because of a fundamental difference between Soviet/Russian space policy and American space policy. The Soviet space mission was always viewed as a military one, while the American space agency was a civilian organization. Therefore, there was always more fanfare around American launches, simply because NASA made itself more accessible to the public than the equivalent Soviet agency.

    Now for those who might think this post is "flamebait", I'd like to remind them that the Soviet Union, much of which became today's Russia had and still has the biggest, heaviest and highest-capacity flying aircraft in service today. And this was put in service more than ten years ago...again, with little fanfare.

    Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. The AN-225 [aerospaceweb.org] was originally envisioned as a special carrier for the canceled Buran [aerospaceguide.net] space shuttle. Only one was ever built, and even it was in storage until 2000, at which point it was retooled into a conventional transport. To compare a custom-built transport originally built for a single purpose to a multi-use mass-produced jetliner is unfair. You may as well compare Formula 1 cars to Toyota Camrys.

  • by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater&gmail,com> on Friday November 23, 2007 @01:54AM (#21451707) Homepage

    Despite what we in the west think about the Russians, I strongly believe they will deliver on this given their track record.

    Huh? Their track record over the last fifteen odd years is of one project after another that fails to materialize - or is delivered years late.
     
     

    I guess it's not in them to seek publicity unlike we in the west.

    That would explain the endless stream of glossy presentations, especially from their space industry, promising ever more wonderful accomplishments. (None of which, as noted above, have ever amounted to anything.)
     
     

    Now for those who might think this post is "flamebait", I'd like to remind them that the Soviet Union, much of which became today's Russia had and still has the biggest, heaviest and highest-capacity flying aircraft in service today. And this was put in service more than ten years ago...again, with little fanfare.

    It's not that your post is flamebait, it's just disconnected from the facts. The AN-225 was put into service nearly twenty years ago in the Soviet Union - with a great deal of fanfare. It was then mothballed with the fall of the Soviet Union. When it was placed back into service, it wasn't Russia that placed it in service - but a private company. While it did recieve a great deal of fanfare in the appropriate circles, like all cargo aircraft it was soundly ignored by the media. Comparing it with the A-380 is comparing apples and oranges.
     
     

    Ohh, what about the Space Shuttle which continues to make news whenever it's to lift off or land. On this front, the Russians just fire their Soyuz craft as if it's just another chore!

    Again the disconnection with facts... It may not make the Western media, but it does the Russian each time it launches or lands.
  • by FooAtWFU (699187) on Friday November 23, 2007 @03:23AM (#21452039) Homepage

    "but I suspect this wild success is the exception, rather than the rule."

    why, whats your logic behind that, because you give very good examples of WHY such technology races benifit us then proceed to try trash it based on nothing. everytime man has been invovled in competition of this nature, he has produced better tech, and there's no reason to think we won't this time.

    Couple of things. First, we've already done a Space Race. The problems of Space have been attacked, and been solved (to within the appropriate mission parameters as applicable). There are diminishing returns on research in the area. Sending a crew to the Moon, sending a crew to Mars.... it's a quantitative difference, sure, but it's not the same deal as sending people up there to begin with. Secondly, on that note, I don't think the Next Big Thing is going to be spectacularly space-related. Biotech/genetics, possibly, or maybe some nanomateriwhatever stuff, but not so much Spacey. I mean, even practical fusion power (which would be an awesome next-big-thing and which could be construed as Spacey) isn't something that you could reasonably expect to walk away from a new major space program with.

    Past performance does not necessarily indicate future results... it'd be naive to assume that throwing money at space will keep coming back with awesomely wonderful things, and there are so many things that we could be spending money on, research and otherwise.

  • by MrKaos (858439) on Friday November 23, 2007 @03:29AM (#21452067) Journal
    Both space programs had some fantastic accomplishments (Russian space endurance and American science and moon landings), and any criticism you can level at one you can level at the other. The reality is that America's space program was born of Industrial might and the Russiam program was born from political might. Where the Russian program was pragmatic the American program was ambitious, I admire both.

    Both programs were driven from the passion of just two men - Korolov and Von Braun - championing similar goals, to advance humanity into the space age. The reality is the space age was born out of the paranoia of the other capability to inflict harm. Our risk mitigated litigious society doesn't do things "because they are hard" to achieve any more, instead our mantra is "better, faster, cheaper". Both programs are now the victims of pork barreling and both suffer from a critical "lack of relevance" to Joe Public.

    More than likely the Baikonur cosmodrome will be opened up to more commercial use as it gets more expensive to maintain, so additional launch facilities have got to be a good thing. The shuttle downtime did demonstrate that collaboration works when it comes to utilising redundancy in a space program, which is a positive outcome for the ISS. I just wonder how much could be achieved if co-operation and standardisation across space programs were the norm and not just an exception.

  • Re:*sigh* (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23, 2007 @09:12AM (#21453497)
    > Did I mention I got married? [youtube.com]

    Huh? Why would anyone reading Slashdot care?

All the simple programs have been written.

Working...