Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space Moon

Despite Lean Space Budgets Russia Is Headed For the Moon (blastingnews.com) 108

MarkWhittington writes: Thanks to the collapse of oil prices that has ravaged the Russian economy, dependent as it is on fossil fuel exports, Russia's space program is facing draconian budget cuts... Still, the country that lost the race to the moon still has ambitious plans for Earth's closest neighbor... The Russians even have hopes of landing cosmonauts on the lunar surface by the end of the 2020s.
New evidence of subsurface ice helped fuel their interest in human moon landings, according to Science magazine, which reports that Russia is first planning five robotic missions to the moon over the next nine years. Three of these will be conducted with the European Space Agency, including one which will drill for underground samples in the new areas of the lunar surface, and the director of Russia's space agency says "the next decade will be quite busy for us."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Despite Lean Space Budgets Russia Is Headed For the Moon

Comments Filter:
  • Room? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Schmorgluck ( 1293264 ) on Saturday April 09, 2016 @06:13PM (#51876563)
    I'm feeling too lazy to look it up, but is there enough room on the moon to fit the whole of Russia?
  • In America, spacecraft land on moon. In Russia, moon land on spacecraft. *crunch*
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 09, 2016 @06:47PM (#51876699)

    Russia has big problems right now and the expense of going to the moon has nothing to do with it. Their military is getting old, their Navy needs an upgrade, and there is a battle between Russia and the West over Ukraine. Considering the Russians just announced a budget cut to their military for the first time in decades, and with no end in sight to low oil prices, this will all just remain a statement of intent but will not likely come to anything concrete.

    • by guacamole ( 24270 ) on Saturday April 09, 2016 @09:23PM (#51877279)

      Sounds like you have been out of touch with the Russian military, as the description you give corresponds to the 1990s or early 00s. Russian military has been undergoing a massive structural reform during the past 10 years, and it has been acquiring and renewing its weapons systems at a very fast pace. Just to give you an idea of the scale of the upgrades, like last year Russian air force received about 200 new 4+ or 4++ generation fighter jets. Currently they're testing, a 5th generation fighter jet and a next generation tank and IFV platform. Yes, Russian navy is the most neglected of all Russian military branches. Russia being more of a land power, has historically spent less money on its ships. But even in the Navy, there is quite a bit of new things happening. For example, the Black Sea Fleet is in the middle of receiving six new diesel submarines, three frigates, a number of corvettes and other ships. It's not a lot, but once you compare this progress to the fact that Black Sea fleet has not received any ships in the previous 20 years, this progress is obvious.

      Also observe Syria. Before Russian military got involved there, Assad's government was basically on its last ropes. After Russians came, Assad's forces with Russian help reconquered much of Aleppo, Hops, and Palmyra. The "moderate" rebels begged for cease fire, and Assad is now advancing west onto ISIS held territory.

      • PS: Oh yeah, and forget Ukraine. The Ukraine conflict is basically over. The ball is mostly on the Ukrainian side, where they have yet to confirm whether they will conform to the "Minsk" peace agreement protocols that their president already signed.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        This is pretty outdated. Their 5th generation fighter? It is so under performing with respect to stealth and various things, that their only major purchaser, India, is pretty much dropping the contract (even when they dont have a choice of another 5th gen fighter, other than their home made one which is atleast a decade or two away). If India drops it, it will not go to production; it will be suspended, until oil prices improve and Russia can hold their own weight. The T14 is a great tank (Russia in general

        • When I read comments like yours, I always start wonder if you're on the payroll of Lockheed Martin. I mean seriously, what exactly does an armchair expert like you know about the Russian T-50 fighter jet or the Russian T-14 tank or what exactly does anyone know about T-14 armor? Both of these projects are still in testing stages (the Indian FGFA will be based on T-50). India just agreed to continue investing in the FGFA project development to the tune of 4 billion USD [rt.com].

          As for the T-14 tank, you can't really

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            India has been flip flopping on T-50 based 5th gen. It is public knowledge that they are not at all satisfied with the radar and thermal signature. The fact that they have been even considered dropping the contract, when they have no other option for decades should tell you enough about them.

            T-14 has been in production for a while now, and Russia has been trying to find a market for it. Number of countries have tested, none went for it, because it did not live up to its hype. It is not unusual for the Russi

            • First of all, T-14 is certainly _NOT_ under series production. A bunch of T-14 were made for testing purposes. That's it. Nobody outside of Russian military knows much about T-14, besides its basic architecture. You have no basis to argue that T-14 was offered for sale, because so far T-14 has not been taken to any international weapons shows. And in fact, nobody wants to buy a product that hasn't been adopted yet by the motherland's military. So basically, Russians will test and adopt the T-14 first, fix i

              • For the T-50, you dont iron out stealth issues over time. That is not how radar signature or stealth signature work. They are design time decisions. The US criticism is of cost and range. Stealth is generally considered part of the definition of 5th gen. No one has questioned if the F-35 is really 5th gen. I agree the Indian are going to continue to invest in it, mostly because the deal includes tech transfer, which they badly need. It is funny they are still threatening to drop it.

                T-14 were part of Russian

        • I don't know where you get the idea about the under funding of Russian military. First of all, no military will have enough money for all it wants, ever. Look, Pentagon is getting $600 billion USD a year, which in my opinion still an absurdly big figure, and yet lots of people in the military, and a certain party are already screaming bloody murder. Russian military budget had doubled in the past 3-4 years, and now they will be getting something like a 10% cut this and the following years. No major procurem

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            That 10% cut and the budget was proposed with an expected average oil price of $60. Guess what, so far the average has been in the 30s, and it is expected to continue for the near term.

            Operation costs shouldnt matter of course, I agree with you on that. They came in help of an ally and they succeeded in getting their ally a very good seat in the negotiation table. But it should be not used as an example of abundance of russian military funding, because it it not.

            I find it funny that you find it puzzling tha

        • In Syria we have seen that even the T-90 reactive armour holds well against a TOW

        • by dbIII ( 701233 )

          This is pretty outdated. Their 5th generation fighter?

          How does it compare to the Joint Strike Fighter?

          Yes I know that isn't funny at all - it's a tragedy because we are paying for the thing.

        • by aliquis ( 678370 )

          Russian military has been under funded for sometime now, had to take a serious cut this year. And about Syria, Russia pretty much wanted to get rid of their old arsenal, old missiles, old non-smart bombs. Nothing Russia used in Syria was modern and they did not have spend any significant money on the expedition (with Assad pitching in when required).

          So why haven't superior USA spent much more and solved the issue?

          Yeah, that's right, because democracy, human rights, self-rule and dictatorships doesn't necessarily matter all that much as long as the relationship of those in rule and the US is a good one.

      • by dj245 ( 732906 )

        Sounds like you have been out of touch with the Russian military, as the description you give corresponds to the 1990s or early 00s. Russian military has been undergoing a massive structural reform during the past 10 years, and it has been acquiring and renewing its weapons systems at a very fast pace. Just to give you an idea of the scale of the upgrades, like last year Russian air force received about 200 new 4+ or 4++ generation fighter jets. Currently they're testing, a 5th generation fighter jet and a next generation tank and IFV platform. Yes, Russian navy is the most neglected of all Russian military branches. Russia being more of a land power, has historically spent less money on its ships. But even in the Navy, there is quite a bit of new things happening. For example, the Black Sea Fleet is in the middle of receiving six new diesel submarines, three frigates, a number of corvettes and other ships. It's not a lot, but once you compare this progress to the fact that Black Sea fleet has not received any ships in the previous 20 years, this progress is obvious.

        Also observe Syria. Before Russian military got involved there, Assad's government was basically on its last ropes. After Russians came, Assad's forces with Russian help reconquered much of Aleppo, Hops, and Palmyra. The "moderate" rebels begged for cease fire, and Assad is now advancing west onto ISIS held territory.

        Russia has made great strides in modernization, but the money is running out and they were getting all of their ship turbines from Ukraine. Ukraine really isn't in the mood to sell them any more so they have some setbacks there. [vice.com] The economy is still very poor so that is another big problem. It will continue to be poor as long as oil prices are low (Russia's pre-2015 budget was ~40% funded by oil or something like that). Now that most of the gulf states are fighting each other, secretly and not-so-secretl

        • Not all of new Russian ships rely on the Ukrainian turbines. Among the most notable ships that need Ukrainian engines are 11356Ð Admiral Grigorievich frigates. Only six were meant to be built, but Russians already got the turbine engines for three of them, and the ships will be heading to Black Sea soon. The other three do not have engines, and there was a rumor that they would be sold to India, since Ukraine may sell the turbines to their navy.

      • Also observe Syria. Before Russian military got involved there, Assad's government was basically on its last ropes. After Russians came, Assad's forces with Russian help reconquered much of Aleppo, Hops, and Palmyra.

        Against an enemy with no airforce and very little air defence, that's hardly an achievement.

        Belgium could have probably managed it, and without hitting quite as many hospitals.

        • Belgium could have probably managed it, and without hitting quite as many hospitals.

          Please don't make people laugh by bringing Belgium into the discussion. A few weeks ago, after the horrific terrorist attacks in Europe, Belgium suddenly was compelled to send a grand total of ONE F16 fighter jets in support of the western coalition against ISIS. Now, that's some serious firepower. Moreover, not even US allies have the smart weapon's munitions to drop on ISIS:

          U.S. Allies 'Borrowing' Munitions To Drop On ISIS [jalopnik.com]

  • by Daniel Matthews ( 4112743 ) on Saturday April 09, 2016 @07:10PM (#51876785)
    Nobody knows how it got there but it should buy a lot of rocket fuel.
  • by Dorianny ( 1847922 ) on Saturday April 09, 2016 @09:26PM (#51877289) Journal
    Oh sure and they are also building the Russia Alaska Superhighway [wallstreetdaily.com], A fleet of Supercarriers [themoscowtimes.com]. In the Real World Russia shrank the defense budget by %10 in 2015 and still Russian Reserve Fund running empty [cnbc.com]
  • Russia never saw a bad idea it didn't like. They are probably planning to fake the moon landing because they think they can get away with it.
    • I'd like to thank whoever modded me as a troll. I should have known better. Not only can Russia not go to the moon in 4 years. I should have known better than to say that they can stage a moon landing in 4 years. They don't have the technology.
  • We've heard these noises from Russia before. I can't help but think at this point the Russians are just shouting whatever they think might sound the most appealing into the microphone. In the near (~5 years) the US is going to stop relying on Russia to get Astronauts to the ISS. Once that happens hundreds of millions of dollars are suddenly going to stop going into Russian coffers.

    This combined with a much more robust and inexpensive launch options (Space X, ULA, Blue Origin, Skylon?, etc) is going to fur
    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

      This combined with a much more robust and inexpensive launch options (Space X, ULA, Blue Origin, Skylon?, etc)

      Most of those use rocket motors that are purchased from Russia.

      • Most of those use rocket motors that are purchased from Russia.

        Besides ULA's ATLAS V rocket, who uses Russian engines ?

        • by dbIII ( 701233 )
          More to the point, to show you are paying attention, who doesn't :)
          What ULA and a couple of the others are doing is enough to make my point isn't it?
  • Russia's Luna 2 probe got to the moon first in 1959. Luna 3 (also 1959) was the first to photograph the far side of the moon. Luna 9 soft landed on the moon and sent the first pictures from the surface back in 1966. Yes, the Apollo program put a man on the moon first (1968), but I think Russia deserves credit for many previous firsts (beyond Sputnik and Gagarin).

    • Their Venus landings were the most impressive achievement, even with some of the craft failing. Operating equipment in 864 degree F (462 C) environment and 90 earth atmospheres of pressure is amazing.

  • The more countries that have space programs the LESS likely anyone will land on the moon or anywhere else.

    The 1960's US was a rare place where people cared about contributing at work and not just haranging Congress for more funds.

    This is just bragging about a (dubious) future accomplishment.

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Working...