Large Budget Cuts To Russia's Space Program
Russia’s new spaceport will have only one launch pad for Angara rockets due to budget cuts, TASS
“Only one launch pad for Angara carrier rockets will be built at the Vostochny spaceport, deputy head of the Center for Operation of Space Ground-Based Infrastructure Andrey Okhlopkov said on Wednesday. “There will be one universal [launch pad],” Okhlopkov said adding that it will be capable of servicing all types of Angara rocket, including Angara-A5V. The decision was made after federal target programs for developing cosmodromes were cut.”
Russian space agency scales back plans as crisis shrinks budget, Reuters
“Russia will spend 30 percent less on its space programme in the next decade and scale back a slew of projects to save money in the face of tanking oil prices and a falling rouble, a plan presented by the country’s space agency showed on Wednesday, According to the blueprint, presented to Russian media by Igor Komarov, head of space agency Roscosmos, the space programme budget for 2016-2025 will be cut to 1.4 trillion roubles ($17.36 billion), down from 2 trillion roubles.”
– Russian Space Follies, earlier post
– Putin’s Favorite Paramilitary Biker Gang Flies Flag in Space, earlier post
– Russia Built Its New Cosmodrome Wrong, earlier post
– Russian Sanctions Are Affecting Space Projects, earlier post
– Earlier Russia posts
Damn, that sucks. I knew it was coming with oil prices so low, but it sucks to see it actually happen. I was hoping the Russians would have the funds for some more Venus exploration.
Indeed. The images of Venus’ surface, small as they are, remain among the most dramatic of any planet.
We don’t need to go to Venus, in a few hundred years Earth while be just Venus.
Fill her up!
No, it won’t.
You are quite reliable, Mr. Eagle 🙂
They are only in the opening stages of a complete economic and political implosion. Putin confused his narcissistic delusions with reality and reality is biting back HARD.
BTW – He better not visit London: “President Putin ‘probably’ approved Litvinenko murder” http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-…
They would never arrest him as the President of Russia, hell, they wouldn’t arrest him period; they wouldn’t want to wage a war over him. Now, if after he left office the Russian government arrest him and transferred him to Great Britain, that might work.
Arresting a.foreign head of state on a diplomatic trip is hard to imagine. But they might not let him in the first place. The UK’s parliament recently debated the idea.of banning Mr Trump from their nation. It seems they are required to debate any issue raised by a petition signed by over 100,000 citizens, and the one about Mr. Trump had over half a million. No such ban was voted on or.passed. But it was debated in parliament. This isn’t a comment about the US elections. Just a possibility over what can happen if a foreign political figure makes.himself sufficiently objectionable to UK citizens.
God forbid if Trump got elected President, they wouldn’t keep him out either, not being the President of the United States. As much as people would like him, they would still have to deal with him.
The only way Putin is ever going to leave office is feet first. Every 2nd term, when he is “termed out” according to the Russian constitution, he will elevate another lapdog “Lurlene Wallace” type, like Medvedev, and switch offices with him, then take the official presidency back when he can like he’s already done once. He’ll keep that up until he either dies of natural causes or is killed from ambush by some other megalomaniacal Russian sociopath who’s too impatient to wait and manages to get the drop on the Lizard King.
I suspect that he may eventually (maybe sooner rather than later) be maneuvered out by a combo of financial and political oligarchs. He may (for the moment) be favored by the masses, but he is causing severe pain to the elites.
Agree there – if the oligarchs decide the Vladimir is too much of a liability they will ease him out.
Things are going pretty badly there.
http://www.marketwatch.com/…
There is at least the theoretical possibility some of them may try. But Putin made most of these guys and, as he has demonstrated more than once, he can break them too. Machiavelli was right. If you would strike at a king, you must kill him. If he survives, he will kill you. If you merely exile him, he will ceaselessly plot his return.
Putin strikes the lone renegade. I see this more like the Soviet (or Mafia) style where the elites gather and decide that Putin will retire gracefully a la Khrushchev or become a hollow leader.
The Russian people are experiencing yet another tragedy. In fact the history of that great nation is one tragedy after another as they struggle to govern themselves.
We are indeed fortunate for the head start given us by England and especially the thoughtful founding fathers.
true enough
Regrettably oil prices will not be low forever.
I’d suggest for the next 12 months anyway. U.S. Is now pretty much self-sufficient and the producers in the gulf are not cutting production for fear of losing market share. That backed by China slowdown and general economic woes continuing across the world’s economy, nope, not going to increase any time soon.
Just my crystal ball predictions.
Cheers
Good, So I can keep driving my V8 truck, and hold off buying a Tesla.
Unless of course you’ve read the OTHER posts on Nasawatch, those about global warming…
Not a question of market share but just funding their governments and programs … the whole area could topple if their unemployeed do not get their benefits
They will probably stay low for quite a while though. Certainly long enough to impose severe strain on the Russian economy, which is mostly a series of Potemkin Villages anyway. The fracking genie is out of the bottle and it ain’t going back in.
Gee whiz, Mr. Eagle. First it’s Mrs. Wallace, and then it’s Potemkin? Thanks for elevating the discussion 🙂
Thank you, thank you. I’ll be here all week.
Low oil prices are, in the long term, very damaging to the country and to the world for at least three reasons: first, they discourage the inevitable move to renewables; second, they pour more megatons of carbon into the air; and third, they waste an incredibly valuable resource by burning it when it is much more valuable as a source of manufactured goods and pharmaceuticals.
Economic analysis (by Google, who wanted to move to carbon-free energy for their servers, and others) has shown renewables (solar, wind, biomass) to be non-starters. The energy storage problem is very, very difficult. It’s expensive, dirty, and maintenance intensive. And there are huge NIMBY problems. If you want to move off of carbon energy, nuclear fission is the only near to mid-term solution.
I’m all for fission, but we need a waste processing plant. Carlsbad, anyone?
As to the Google study, it strongly confirmed that the Earth faces a massive problem and said correctly that solar, wind and biofuel were simply not enough to reverse global warming. Google commissioned the study to find zero carbon energy sources that were actually cheaper, $ per kW, than coal, counting only the generation costs. The study did not conclude that current alternatives were nonstarters, it simply said they would remain more expensive than coal and called for more research in newer alternatives. The study came out years ago before the remarkable improvements in batteries, possibly one of the disruptive technologies the Google paper calls for.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/en…
But it’s not just battery tech, it’s the total available solar and wind. They are insufficient. (Solar also has high maintenance costs and if was pushed out to homes, would cause an increase in medical costs due to falls from rooftops. Seriously.)
What maintenance costs are there for solar? I’ve had a 5kw system for nearly 10 years and all I’ve done is wash the panels down a couple of times a year.
Where I live residential solar system take up is higher than it’s ever been and so far has meant that our State government has not had to invest in additional base load capacity. In addition, it’s put power supply companies in trouble due to lack of foresight and also the way tariffs have been structured. Dropping demand and increasing feed into the system.
Cheers
What? The Earth experience about 100,000 terawatts of insolation at the surface. If there are currently problems with solar, shortage of sunlight is not among them.
BTW, as solar ramps up most will go into utility-scale solar farms, not rooftop units. The former has lower balance of system costs, which become more important as the cost of the modules themselves drops. Operating costs are also lower; for utility scale fixed tilt PV systems the O&M costs are roughly $.01/kWh.
Please reference numbers.
“said correctly that solar, wind and biofuel were simply not enough to reverse global warming.”
http://thinkprogress.org/cl…
I’ve been a supporter of nukes for many years- our electric rates here in Florida hover around 10-12 cents/KwH. These plants are part of the reason.
Some of my- shall we call them ‘fellow travelers’?- some of my friends are shocked. But nukes represent the only current technology that can move us off carbon.
I think it is the total opposite. Due to the fact that fission plants cost multiples of the real alternatives that displace GHG, it harms GHG reduction. Capital investment resources are limited, and the quantity required to actually impact GHG would impact funding for good solutions.
It is worth the effort to explore in detail this 25 yr old, yet totally relevant, paper on negawatts.
http://www.ccnr.org/amory.html
If you do the math, you can see that fission is (beyond the risk) a non-starter.
Hmm. It is true that the legacy plants are gigantic white elephants, and that the glory days of low rates in Florida due to our two plants might be limited. It is also true that FPL is seeking a rate increase to finance a new gas-powered plant. I suppose we have insufficient sunlight.
But I do hear, from time to time, about many alternative types of fission reactors. Most often these are championed by partisans, but still.
It’s something to learn about. To tell the truth something else to learn about is about the last thing I need. I have a publisher breathing down my neck for a June ms delivery, a weekly column that takes too much time, and a turn in Florida construction that is lighting a fire under my moribund office. Life is sweet.
On the other hand I would rather retire but my wife won’t hear of it.
From now on I think I’ll depend on Yale 🙂
[Click to enlarge image]
http://c1cleantechnicacom.w…
This image is outdated. China added another 20 gigwatts of wind capacity in 2015 ( 1 nuke = 1 gw) and is adding 35 gw more in 2016 of wind and solar.
“China cancels $6 billion uranium plant after protest”
http://www.rfa.org/english/…
Renewables are, as rktsci reminds us, far from inevitable. The Left used to believe that the triumph of socialism was also historically inevitable because history was a science and they had it all figured out. Now it’s Global Warming that’s supposed to be “inevitable” and “scientific.” Same shit, different day.
Which means all that pouring more CO2 into the air is going to do is make the plants grow faster, which doesn’t have to be predicted because it’s already happening.
So that’s two problems down and one to go.
Despite our calling oil and gas “fossil fuels,” they aren’t, really. Coal is a fossil fuel because you can find actual fossils in it. But oil and gas, as the late Thomas Gold first theorized, seem pretty definitely to be of abiogenic origin. The further into the Earth one digs, the more of both one seems to find. No one knows what the rate of natural formation of oil and gas is and it may be less than our current or projected rates of consumption. But, as the discovery of deep shale oil and gas demonstrates, the supply of a given resource is not necessarily fixed, but depends on the level of technology one can bring to bear in finding and extracting it. Once again, the allegedly “scientific” Peak Oil Hypothesis of a decade or so ago has been blown out of the water by events undreamt of in the philosophies of modern Malthusian Horatios.
Besides, if we ever do run out of exploitable hydrocarbons on Earth, there’s always Titan.
The hydrocarbons on Titan do not begin to show the complexity of oil found here on earth. And there’s a good reason: the heat of reaction required to bond additional H+ ions, thus enabling longer chains, is entirely absent.
In the case of earth’s mantle, it is arguable that the heat is present, or not. But for sure H+ is not available, and neither is much elemental carbon, though that’s not even significant; the lack of hydrogen means that longer chains are not possible.
The hydrocarbons shown to exist in space are quite simple chains, as anybody with at least the first course in biochem will explain, and were formed at a time when heat was available.
This is all pretty basic stuff.
This has gotten pretty far from Russia, but I’ll make one last digression. Titan actually does have plenty of higher hydrocarbons. I think oil and gas are mostly 8 carbon chains, around 100 AMU, and Titan’s upper atmosphere has plenty of stuff going up to 200 or so ( possibly over 1000 AMU, but the data don’t distinguish 1000 AMU from a clump of ten, 100 AMU molecules.) But you are entirely right about the chemistry and energy. Those molecules are produced in the upper atmosphere by solar UV and energetic particles from Saturn’s magnetosphere. The temperatures are way to low for thermal reactions.
I didn’t imagine a different source of energy. Good to have a real planetary scientist around when you need one.
The excess vegetation growth is not a “good”.
First of all, it is a lagging effect. CO2 is skyrocketing vastly faster than excess leafiness absorb.
[Click image to expand]
https://www.aip.org/history…
Plus its irrelevant. Plants use CO2 on “current account” then decay or get eaten, releasing the same CO2 back into the environment. If it is using fossil sourced (whether biogenic or abiogenic) it will have no effect on lessening levels.
What does happen by this induced excess growth is some bad stuff. The excess growth results in excess water depletion, distorts the mix of species in an ecosystem (due to differential response to CO2), a lowering of insect and pest resistance in affected plants, etc.
Plus Gold’s interesting theories are poorly supported. (“This theory is therefore invalid.” – Glasby), remember he was a lifelong opponent of the Big Bang Theory, who hit many a foul ball – plus some home runs.
But… so what? This isn’t a dicussion of the LACK of fossil fuels, its the problem of USING them. The methane ice hydrates are enough to supply the world for far into the future. But it would be a bad thing. BTW – there are fears that the dramatic ocean warming will release much hydrate melting. (methane is 86 times more potent then CO2 over 20 years as a GHG and there is maybe 1000-5000 gigatonnes of the hydrates) That could result in serious problems. It has happened before.
Renewables are, as rktsci reminds us, far from inevitable.
IEA: “Renewable electricity additions over the next five years will top 700 gigawatts (GW) – more than twice Japan’s current installed power capacity. They will account for almost two-thirds of net additions to global power capacity – that is, the amount of new capacity that is added, minus scheduled retirements of existing power plants. Non-hydro sources such as wind and solar photovoltaic panels (solar PV) will represent nearly half of the total global power capacity increase.”
For scale, a nuclear plant is approximately 1 gigawatt.
[Click to expand image]
http://118892d476e8e1a928c2…
Growth in various energy sources:
[Click to expand image]
http://www.scientificameric…
“Switch to Clean Energy Can Be Fast and Cheap
Strategically placing solar and wind farms across the U.S. could compensate for power lulls during cloudy or calm days”
Wind and sunshine could power most of the United States by 2030 without raising electricity prices, according to a new study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado, Boulder.
Even when optimizing to cut costs and limiting themselves to existing technology, scientists showed that renewables can meet energy demands and slash carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector by 80 percent below 1990 levels.“
Darn right about oil being too precious to burn.
There are 3 options to discourage the creation of GHGs.
1) Higher prices – sometimes via market forces or else taxes – to charge what the cost of replacing the next barrel of oil. For example, the “official” levelized cost of electricity from a new atomic plant is 7 cents per KwHr. ((In the real universe it is MUCH higher), This equates in energy content to a barrel of oil at $120.
It is important tho, to subsidize the poor who pay a regressive portion of their income on energy.
2) Lower usage by government fiat: Setting energy and mileage standards. This is tremendously successful. Just image how little gas will be used by 2025 when cars must average 60 miles per gallon.
3) promote lower cost alternatives and services
OR all of the above
I find the numbers interesting. This 30% cut will take the Russian space program down to $17.36 billion. That’s about NASA’s current budget, even without considering recent changes in exchange rates. That implies that the Russian program’s budget was significantly higher than NASA’s. I’m not sure if that is an apples to apples comparison: Roscosmos may do some militray and commercial work which, in the US, isn’t included in NASA’s budget. But it is interesting to me.
More than likely majority of the funding is for modernization efforts whether it is GPS, Communications, or other Military R&D. The Civilian side of the was just hanging on for the ride and hoping to enjoy the fruits of high fuel prices but that now seems to be put back in a desk drawer.
Actually I think that number is a multi-year plan, over 5 years if I’m not wrong. This means the annual budget is then 4 or 5 times less than NASA’s, which corresponds to what my understanding of it was. Anybody want to confirm/infirm this?
It’s $17.36 billion over 10 years, or divided out evenly, $1.7 billion per year. It is not $17 billion annually.
Thanks everyone, for pointing out what I was missing. When you say to yourself, “I’m either missing something or losing my mind,” it’s nice to have people promptly tell you what you’re missing.
Interesting and too bad. The Russians have much to offer in both expertise and in attitude about refining existing systems over building new ones.