Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Waspie_Dwarf

Russia’s Space Program Is Ineffective

Recommended Posts

Waspie_Dwarf

Russia’s Space Program Is Ineffective – Audit Chamber

MOSCOW, July 4 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s Federal Space Program is ineffective, largely due to poor management of space activities and budget funds allocated for space projects, the Audit Chamber said Thursday.

The absence of a comprehensive management system in regard to space programs, projects, contracts and expenses under the Federal Space Program for 2006-2015 made this program highly ineffective, despite the increase in budget spending for space exploration by 2.5 times in the past three years, the Audit Chamber said in a statement.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Space Commander Travis

Well, at least they have a manned spacecraft, even if it may be 40 years old or more. Thanks to the current President, America doesn't even have one any more. i still think we'd be much better off letting Russia (or indeed China) take a lead, rather than waiting for America to take an interest once again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Thanks to the current President, America doesn't even have one any more.

It was Bush that grounded the Shuttle, not Obama.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

It was Bush that grounded the Shuttle, not Obama.

yes, but it was Mr. O that cancelled any future manned project, wasn't it. The shuttles were due for grounding anyway, they were clapped out death traps. i can't blame GW for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

yes, but it was Mr. O that cancelled any future manned project, wasn't it.

No. You haven't been keeping up have you?

Constellation was cancelled but Orion is still being built, as is the Commercial Crew Program.

In fact the gap in America's manned capacity is likely to have been reduced (as long as Congress doesn't further cut the budget) by switching to Commercial BEFORE Orion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeta Reticulum

It was Bush that grounded the Shuttle, not Obama.

Then why didn't Obama reinstate it ? Would seem he could do this ... if Bush could dismantle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Then why didn't Obama reinstate it ? Would seem he could do this ... if Bush could dismantle it.

Because production of the external tanks had already ceased. Once they were all used then no more shuttle flights were possible.

Besides NASA did not have enough funding to continue flying the shuttle AND to start Orion and the Commercial Crew Program.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junior Chubb

Ahhh, bless them. I was never a fan really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shrooma

to be fair, i'd only say that russia's space programme was ineffective in the same way dettol is ineffective.

i mean, sure, they're only killing 99% of germs stone dead, so to speak, but they're still doing better than most countries are, and deserve SOME credit at least!

at least they're showing commitment towards spaceflight, and there can't be that many countries who've INCREASED their space budget 3rs on the trot....?

good luck to 'em i reckon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

to be fair, i'd only say that russia's space programme was ineffective in the same way dettol is ineffective.

i mean, sure, they're only killing 99% of germs stone dead, so to speak, but they're still doing better than most countries are, and deserve SOME credit at least!

That is a poor analogy. It is more like discovering that your disinfectant, which used to kill 99% of germs, now frequently fails to kill any at all.

at least they're showing commitment towards spaceflight, and there can't be that many countries who've INCREASED their space budget 3rs on the trot....?

Commitment does not mean effectiveness.

If you increase the budget you expect to get an improvement, that is not the case. The Russian space industry is suffering a bit of a crisis at the moment.

The failure of the Proton-M launch vehicle on the 2nd July was the 4th failure of this vehicle since December 2010 (with a further launch suffering a premature engine shut down and being classified as a partial failure). If this was a cutting edge experimental vehicle such loses might be considered acceptable, but it isn't. It is a rocket that has been in service since 1965 and was once considered to be one of the most reliable launch vehicles in the world.

The fact that the Proton was so successful for so long means that we can virtual discount major design problems. We must, almost certainly, be looking in a decline in the standard of production. Declining quality at a time of increasing budget, that is not an indication of an effective programme.

with Europe's Arianespace currently dominating the commercial satellite launch market and China and SpaceX beginning to take a slice of the pie, Russia can ill afford to miss out.

Then there is the once mighty Russian tradition of planetary exploration. At a time when Europe, China, Japan and India as well as the USA have all sent probes to either the Moon or other solar system objects, the Russian have not had a successful planetary mission since the Vega 1 and 2 missions to Venus and comet Halley, and they were launched in 1984. Since then the Soviet Union/Russia has attempted 4 missions to Mars. All have failed.

I believe that the lack of funding for non-manned exploration in the final years of the Soviet Union/ early years of the Russian Federation has come back to haunt them. Roscosmos was starved of cash. Now the cash is beginning to flow again, but recovery is slow.

good luck to 'em i reckon!

I agree with that sentiment.

I believe the Russian space programme will recover. Now that NASA is having huge success with its Mars rovers people have forgotten how much in disarray US planetary exploration was a little while back. Between 1993 and 1999 3 of NASA's 5 Mars missions were lost.

In 1993 the Mars Observer was lost just 3 days before it was due to enter Mars orbit, probably as a result of a fuel line rupture.

In 1999 the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed into the Martian surface instead of entering orbit due to a mix up between metric and imperial units.

Also in 1999 the Mars Polar Lander. This is believed to have been the result of inadequate testing of hardware leading to the vehicle mistakenly cutting poser to the engine when it was still 40m above the ground.

In the 1990's NASA's Mars exploration nearly became a laughing stock, but NASA regrouped. I believe Roscosmos will rise again too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shrooma

the american failures at mars is where the term 'phantom menace' originated from.

now, if they could just build a 'jar-jar' probe and lose it somewhere.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

That is a poor analogy. It is more like discovering that your disinfectant, which used to kill 99% of germs, now frequently fails to kill any at all.

Commitment does not mean effectiveness.

If you increase the budget you expect to get an improvement, that is not the case. The Russian space industry is suffering a bit of a crisis at the moment.

The failure of the Proton-M launch vehicle on the 2nd July was the 4th failure of this vehicle since December 2010 (with a further launch suffering a premature engine shut down and being classified as a partial failure). If this was a cutting edge experimental vehicle such loses might be considered acceptable, but it isn't. It is a rocket that has been in service since 1965 and was once considered to be one of the most reliable launch vehicles in the world.

The fact that the Proton was so successful for so long means that we can virtual discount major design problems. We must, almost certainly, be looking in a decline in the standard of production. Declining quality at a time of increasing budget, that is not an indication of an effective programme.

with Europe's Arianespace currently dominating the commercial satellite launch market and China and SpaceX beginning to take a slice of the pie, Russia can ill afford to miss out.

Then there is the once mighty Russian tradition of planetary exploration. At a time when Europe, China, Japan and India as well as the USA have all sent probes to either the Moon or other solar system objects, the Russian have not had a successful planetary mission since the Vega 1 and 2 missions to Venus and comet Halley, and they were launched in 1984. Since then the Soviet Union/Russia has attempted 4 missions to Mars. All have failed.

I believe that the lack of funding for non-manned exploration in the final years of the Soviet Union/ early years of the Russian Federation has come back to haunt them. Roscosmos was starved of cash. Now the cash is beginning to flow again, but recovery is slow.

the legacy of those great heroes of the West, Gorby & Yeltsin, yet again, I suppose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Tutankhaten-pasheri

I believe that the lack of funding for non-manned exploration in the final years of the Soviet Union/ early years of the Russian Federation has come back to haunt them.

Well, of course. During the moron Yeltsin's time, pensions were not paid and all manner of horrors happening, so money for rockets was not such a priority. I think people do not fully understand the difficulties and chaos faced in the 90s. I think that to have continued at the present level is a miracle. Now, if 1991 was simply a bad nightmare, then it is probable that Buran would still be flying, but we will never know, and it is now beyond rescue....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tutankhaten-pasheri

the legacy of those great heroes of the West, Gorby & Yeltsin, yet again, I suppose.

Yes, complete morons both of them. I have no doubt than within five years or so, Gorbachev will be dead and there will be sickening and fauning coverage of this in Western media. West cheered when "White House" was shelled by tanks of Kantemirovskaya Division, yet they should have cheered the guys inside. Alexander Rutskoi I am thinking of. Yes I know, there would have been even more chaos if the "putsch" succeeded, but nothing is simple in this, nothing as it seems, nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.