Russia Cancels All Moon Missions Till 2025 (sputniknews.com) 135
schwit1 writes: Faced with a shrinking budget and poor economic conditions, Russia has once again trimmed back its proposed ten-year space plan for the next decade in space, canceling all Moon missions until after 2025. Russian might now have a giant government-run aerospace corporation, but flying space missions is not really its primary task. Like all government agencies divorced from profit and loss, its primary task is really to provide pork barrel jobs, regardless of whether those jobs do anything useful or not. Thus, Russia will have a very expensive space program for the next decade, but the money spent will not accomplish much of anything new.
No story bias here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice unbiased "story". It's always fun to read the editorials at Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Ramblings from obviously biased people with a poor grasp on reality
Re:No story bias here... (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't biased. This is so far tilted towards capitalist supremacy it's almost horizontal.
It's like a piece of anti-commie propaganda from 1969 got republished with some dates mixed up.
I'm actually afraid not cheering the article on will result in my username being put on a House Unamerican Activities Committee list.
Re:No story bias here... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm actually afraid not cheering the article on will result in my username being put on a House Unamerican Activities Committee list.
I'm not worried - I've got photos of J. Edgar Hoover in a dress held in several safe locations around the world. If anything happens to me, those images go straight to Woodward and Bernstein!
Re: (Score:3)
I would read that story between the lines. Hmm, spending more on the space program and not many launches. I would consider that a development cycle. Developing new orbit achieving technology costs a lot of money and for commercial and other reasons is kept very secret until the launch or major construction cycle begins but until then all the engineering et al is done in strict secret apart from of course the size of the budget and funnily enough where large portions of that money is not being spent.
So yo
Re: (Score:2)
I think they are preparing to take their bits of the ISS independent once NASA losses interest, selling access to the ESA and maybe partnering with China. Once NASA is out of the way they will be free to work more closely with China, which has plenty of money to spend and aligns with their goal of getting to the moon. They see the future as being based around access to three moon and beyond, with orbital space stations being commercial hubs for doing research, tourism and repair missions.
Re:No story bias here... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's interesting is they don't even mention that Russia's rockets are still what we're relying on to get people and supplies to the ISS right now. Yeah, it's not sexy in the least - but they're doing something we currently can't (which is ludicrous)!
Hopefully SpaceX will be changing that in a few years; but that old saw about "people who live in glass houses" comes to mind...
Re: (Score:2)
The article comes across as factual reporting on a subject of general interest, whereas your post is biased.
Re: (Score:2)
It appear that all samzenpus delivers is mindless, right-wing extremism and paid adverts thinly disguised as 'tech articles'. I'm definitely driting in the direction of not bothering reading /. anymore.
...pork barrel jobs, regardless of whether those jobs do anything useful or not.
And what is this? A cheap shot at fundamental research from somebody who hasn't got a clue? Most of the progress in science, technology and medicine since the dawn of time is based on research that would have been seen as wortless waste of time by most of contemporary society - science used to be regarded as
Re:No story bias here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Government exists because it has the most guns
No matter what, rudimentary game theory guarantees that somebody is going to have the most guns. And by definition, they'll be in charge.
Better a legitimate government than some warlord, mobster or oligarch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Government exists, because no human society over a few dozen members can ever hope to manage their society without it. It isn't some entity separate from society, it is inherent in any large society. Even largely hunter-gatherer societies still have rules, but generally have the enforcement of those rules can be done by the group itself.
Do you seriously imagine that any large scale agrarian or industrial society could ever manage itself without government? Or are you truly one of those insane wingnut Libert
Re: No story bias here... (Score:2)
Re:No story bias here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how you can build your own company from scratch without doing all those other things.
Re: No story bias here... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Money may emerge organically, but it isn't sustained organically. Who ever controls the creation of money BECOMES the government.
Really? Common law emerges iteratively? Then how come it took an English monarch to create the system of common law? What use is a consensus among arbitrators if one party decides to use physical force if it doesn't like the ruling? We've already been through this in history and the outco
Re: (Score:2)
Contract law is not a private matter. Never has been. The clue is in the name - it is law. It is backed by threat of force if neither parties comply. You offer no evidence, just assertion, regarding transportation.
So what if you built a *company* from scratch. Your company can't exist witho
Re: (Score:3)
Well the only examples I've ever seen where there is no government is Somalia, Waziristan, Afghanistan and the like. Basically what the anti-goverment people fail to forget is that there is a thing called human nature and with the lack of government you have a warlord society.
If roads and bridges were built based on market needs then only big cities would have roads and bridges.
In Soviet Russia, moon missions cancel you (Score:2)
Or least they would have if they put any people on their N1s.
Split the costs (Score:1)
Why not split the effort with China? One make the launch vehicle(s) and the other the crew capsule and lander?
Re: (Score:1)
If they both want big rockets, then split on lander side of things, such as one making the actual lander and the other making the orbiter capsule. I'm sure something can be worked out. My initial suggestion was only a starting suggestion.
Re: (Score:2)
China and India can collaborate on the rocket's first stage, Russia can make the second stage, the USA can make the capsule, the EU can make the lander, and Canada can put a robot arm on top. Considering the reliability of good close working relations, the way different parts always work well together in rocket science, and the impossibility of changing budget priorities in any of the countries, it can't fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Or why not do what the US is doing, and merely hiring commercial companies to provide a service based on a technology implemented roughly 60 years ago?
Always nice to see commonality between old foes (Score:3, Insightful)
Thus, Russia will have a very expensive space program for the next decade, but the money spent will not accomplish much of anything new.
So, just like the U.S. then?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You gotta hand it to the Saudi's, they know how to play it for the longer run. High oil prices cause R&D into alternative energy and marginal oil fields. It takes a while to ramp those up.
Whenever the alternatives and marginal fields are close to kicking in, pull the plug on prices and frustrate investors. Wait a few years and the alternatives fade, giving you a near monopoly. Burnt investors then won't play again in the future, knowing the rug will again be pull
Re: (Score:2)
Burnt investors then won't play again in the future
Hardly. Real investors only look at the numbers and probabilities. If the Sauds are counting on being able to raise their oil prices again, in the near future, they've embarked upon a truly stupid strategy. The Wright brothers weren't the first people to attempt powered flight. Alternative power is here to stay, the real question is "when" they will return a profit that justifies the investment cost.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the Sauds are counting on being able to raise their oil prices in the near future.
I think what happened was that the market underestimated the supply of "light, sweet" crude, and presumed that supply would force oil prices to stay at about $40/barrel long term.
The Sauds, on the other hand, saw demand for their product disappearing within 20 years, if alternative energy production kept developing at its current pace. They have accepted that they cannot constrain their output in order to favor
Re: Always nice to see commonality between old foe (Score:1)
It's not a cost problem, they found the
Re: (Score:2)
Says the AC.
Aerospace is National Security (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, NASA stopped building big rockets that went to the moon and "just" went into low earth orbit for a few decades, and they're *still* basically back at square one when it comes to building Saturn V-sized engines. Imagine if aerospace had been completely shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
remain in the program doing little work
I naively asked a question to my manager very early on in my career about what happens to all these people (referring to the hundreds of people around us) after we're finished. He kinda shrugged his shoulders smiled a bit and let out an inaudible laugh.
Now I just don't care anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
Or maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Modded Offtopic? Seriously?
The reality is that manned space missions are a relic of the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Or our resources are currently being so badly squandered that they are untenable.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it isn't economical (yet) to develop "general purpose" robots. Machines can "help" mine, but they cannot do it all independent of a human (yet). They also can't economically self-repair (yet).
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason I read that as "manned space missiles".
Eh (Score:2)
Not much point, really, of going to the moon unless we're going to establish a lunar colony. And odds are asteroid mining is a better investment anyways.
Though it would be nice to be able to go to the moon, if we so choose. And there's probably value in inspiration, too.
Re: (Score:3)
The moon would be a good place to do the refining from the asteroid mining. Some gravity, but not so much it makes it hard to launch, and little atmosphere to worry about contaminating the metals. Doing smelting in freefall would be difficult, as the separation of impurities only works well under gravity.
Re: (Score:2)
It would still require fuel to move materials off the Moon. I still think either orbital smelting, or even better, portable smelting that you can move from asteroid to asteroid, is far better than putting smelting and refining facilities on a gravity well that still requires an escape velocity of 2.38km/s.
Re: (Score:2)
It would still require fuel to move materials off the Moon.
Two words: Rail Gun.
The reason I'd bring it up is that, at least in theory, smelting will work the same way as it does on Earth except it's being done on the Moon. Nothing new to learn. Rail Guns for launchers have already been done--there's nothing really new to invent, just design.
In the case of asteroids, there's some research that needs to be done on how do you smelt in zero G. Can a way be figured out? Sure, but that will take time and effort as well. And once you figure out how to do it, how are
Re: Asteroid Mining (Score:2)
You may be interested in this report I'm working on:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/... [wikibooks.org]
Rather than one or two places, it envisions settling the whole Solar System using networks of self-replicating factories.
Re: (Score:2)
Doing smelting in freefall would be difficult, as the separation of impurities only works well under gravity.
In space, you can have as much "gravity" as you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Freefall lets you make impossible alloys.
Re: (Score:2)
For example?
That summary (Score:4, Insightful)
You can see from my commenting history that I have no love for Russia, but that summary... what are you trying to pull?
Pork barrel? (Score:1)
Keep your opinions to yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we really need the juvenile editorializing like you did in the line below?
"Like all government agencies divorced from profit and loss, its primary task is really to provide pork barrel jobs, regardless of whether those jobs do anything useful or not."
Really? REALLY? Grow up and get some street smarts. The real world is far different than what you state above.
Stick to the news until you have a clue how the real world works. Is there waste and port barrel jobs in government? Absolutely. But that's the primary task of all government agencies? Jeesh. /. out to require a basic understanding of high school civics to avoid your kind of childish, pollyanna thinking.
And meanwhile, the OP ought to spend some time around the countless government agencies and people who work very hard and succeed in making all of our lives better. It would be a real eye-opener.
Signed,
First time poster after hundreds of hours over years of lurking.
More sanctions (Score:4, Insightful)
This can't be right. Every Russian troll everywhere will tell you there is nothing wrong in Russia. The sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and theft of Crimea are having no effect. Everything is fine.
Yet these same trolls can't explain why their banks keep failing, why their biggest quasi-bank, VEB, needs $13 billion to keep itself afloat, why every other week another article comes out, such as this one, saying more and more programs are getting cut or eliminated, why pensioners are having their money allowance reduced, or why, based on current projections, Russia will run out of money before the end of 2016.
Corrupt fascist oligarchs such as Putin will tend to have this effect on a country, especially when the mothers of the Russian soldiers killed invading Ukraine are not allowed to talk about their son's deaths [theguardian.com] because deaths of soldiers during "peace time" are state secrets [bbc.com].
The longer Russia keeps invading and attacking its neighbors, the more it keeps trying to bully its neighbors, the longer sanctions will stay. The trolls can whine all they want about the sanctions not having any effect, but the louder they squeal the more one knows they're hurting.
There's a reason former Soviet bloc countries have embraced the freedoms of the West rather than the repression of Soviet Russia. They know all too well the indignities and injustice served upon them by Russia. Witness the deportations of Tartars from Crimea, the daily raids on Tartar homes to see if there is any "subversive" material, the refusal by the Russians to allow Tartars to speak their own language or have their own schools.
Russia will suffer until it either dies or changes. Unfortunately the Russian people are too stupid to make change happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Full of hate toward Russia and little knowledge about outside what MSM told you about!
And, NO, the Russia's propaganda report all the events of bad economy to their people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H5X3WYm_3U
Just watching how Avakov and Yatseniuk was in fight with Saakashvili early this month. And Saakashvili's report on Yatseniuk corruption, etc.
Don't you know about the 'lustration' law which bans ALL officials worked for old government without judgment.
Corrupt fascist oligarch Putin have not billio
Re: (Score:3)
It's Tatars, not Tartars.
Re: (Score:1)
I keep hearing this conspiracy theory, but all I ever get are links to conspiracy theory sites run by morons and paranoid schizophrenics.
Re: (Score:3)
I keep hearing this conspiracy theory, but all I ever get are links to conspiracy theory sites
Does a long paper from a Pulitzer-awarded journalist [lrb.co.uk] accounts as conspiracy?
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for that! Good reading.
Here's one of the heavily-citationed "conspiracy theory" sites that also does a good job piecing together and presenting the story:
http://stormcloudsgathering.co... [stormcloudsgathering.com]
TL;DR: ISIS is doing 'Murrica's work with 'Murrican weapons. They're just the latest in a long chain of manipulated boogeymen. This is really the only practical way to drag democracies into foreign wars to keep the non-Western economies down and keep the US$ propped up as the only currency for the international oi
Trumpisms (Score:1)
Like all government agencies divorced from profit and loss, its primary task is really to provide pork barrel jobs, regardless of whether those jobs do anything useful or not.
Isn't it a bit early to audition for a job with the Trump administration?
Maybe they’ll do some other science? (Score:2)
Believe it or not, there are LOTS of Russians interested in doing some real science. So I don’t know maybe some people working there will do other useful research with the budget they have? Just a wild thought.
That being said, they don’t have the same freedoms there as we have in other major European nations, North America, etc. There may a culture of keeping your head down so you don’t get into trouble. It’s not as bad as during the Soviet era, but it’s not awesome either.
in soviet russia we moon you! (Score:5, Funny)
in soviet russia we moon you!
Citation needed (Score:3)
I hate Putin, but the links in this story do not support its conclusion. What is the total budget for Russian space program? What other missions are planned? Has anyone quantified waste versus useful work?
It could be that moon is just not the most scientifically or commercially important target right now and they are focusing on more interesting missions. Obama reached the same conclusion a few years back while INCREASING total NASA budget to focus on Mars exploration.
In related news, (Score:3)
I'm also cancelling all my purchases of Italian supercars until 2025 due to budget constraints.
There's no story here folks. Russia is still flying designs from the late 60s. Even at the height of the Soviet power they did not manage to build a rocket with enough lift capability to take humans to the moon. They sure as heck can't do this now. Their space exploration has been confined to LEO for more than a decade. Old guard has retired and/or died off, the best and brightest are leaving the country in droves. It can't be done there. Shit, it can barely be done over here.
Like CERN? (Score:2)
that's because they're going for (Score:2)
Useful != new (Score:2)
2. Going to the Moon is not exactly new...
Russia is bankrupt (Score:1)
Their wars against Ukraine and in Syria (against who knows whom) cost money, which it does not have. Hoping, the oil will remain at above $100 per barrel, Putin spent years entrenching his own position instead of reforming the country. With the oil below $40, their currency reserves are melting and no relief is forthcoming. As Kennedy put it decades ago about USSR — they are trying to maintain a First World military with a Third World economy...
That such a large country remains so dependent on oil-ex
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, and so does North Korea. Russia does not grow enough food of its own [quora.com], it can not make its own cars [economist.com] — nor computers. Their sanctions do not support "local businesses" — maybe, they are helping Chinese firms. Russians are increasingly suffering [forbes.com] and it will get worse.
But I was not talking about sanctions specifically. Even without the sanctions they would've been overstretched fighting several wars. Too overstretched for traveling t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Your attempts to trivialize it are pathetic. It is not just "surplus missiles". Wars are expensive — a single launch of Grad or Uragan costs hundreds of thousands, for example — and your country can not afford them. Not with oil below $40. Heck, you are willing to barter tanks for some bananas [lenta.ru] already!
Yeah, sure. Only the loser — Germany
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sosi huj, moskal'skaja svoloch'. Ruki korotki.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you better learn Ukrainian then, mraz'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too much blood and tears have been shed over the past two years for this to happen any time soon. Russia will wallow in its own misery, while China eats it up from behind [night-freddys.ru].
I doubt, it is in Ukraine's interests. Good fences make better neighbors.
But we are so far away from the topic now, that I'm ending my participation.
Re: (Score:2)
Biased much (Score:1)
2 Sides to TFA (Score:2)
1) It is poor writing to say things like "...government agencies divorced from profit and loss, its primary task is really to provide pork barrel jobs, regardless of whether those jobs do anything useful or not..." in a slashdot post without giving the slightest data-based foundation for such an (obviously biased) statement
2) If the news is true, then it may provide some confirmation for the theory that EU sanctions are actually working, which would be good news. Please note my careful phrasing of this hypo
And in US news, $20B passed, Orion killed! (Score:2)
Re: Oh, like NASA! (Score:2)