Russian Space Program: News & Discussion #1

Russia’s Draft 2016-2025 Space Program to Be Ready Next Month: Space Chief

Russia’s new federal 2016-2025 space program will be submitted to the Russian government in December, the head of the Russian space agency Roscosmos, Oleg Ostapenko, said Wednesday.

“I think that the new federal space program will be submitted to the Russian government in December,” he said.

“The program is yet to be approved. Once it is approved, I will be ready to name specific figures and where these funds will go,” he told RIA Novosti on the sidelines of the Airshow China-2014 space exhibition.

The previous space program for 2006-2015 was adopted by the Russian government in October 2005 with changes introduced to the plan in 2007, 2008 and 2011.

This program includes the creation of various satellite communication and navigation systems and the launch of spacecrafts intended for research of the Sun, the Moon and Mars.

Russia will begin in 2017 to deploy its own orbital space station

The crew of Soyuz TMA-13M spacecraft returned to Earth
Russian Aviaton » Monday November 17, 2014 14:18 MSK

On November 10th 2014 the descent module of manned Soyuz TMA-13M transport manned spacecraft landed normally north to Arkalyk city (Kazakhstan) at 06:58 Moscow time. The crew of ISS-40/41 long-duration mission formed by commander Maxim Suraev (Roskosmos) and flight engineers Reid Wiseman (NASA) and Alexander Gerst (ESA) returned to Earth, press-service of the Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) reports.

"It was the debut flight for Reid Wiseman and Alexander Gerst, and the second one in Maxim Suraev’s career. During his debut flight Maxim Suraev logged 169 days in space (from September 30th 2009 to March 18th 2010) as commander of Soyuz TMA-16 and flight engineer of ISS-21/22 mission. On September 30th 2010 Maxim Suraev was awarded with the title of the Hero of Russia", - the press-service added.
Follow us on: Follow ruaviation on Twitter

On May 28th 2014 Suraev started his second ISS mission as the commander of Soyuz TMA-13M spacecraft. During the expedition the Roscosmos’ cosmonaut carried out over 600 sessions and 51 scientific experiments. Together with Alexander Samokutyaev he performed a spacewalk and spent 3 hours 41 minutes outside the station. Now his mission has been successfully completed; he has logged a total of 334 days in space.

“A “space” generation of Drosophila melanogaster insects returned to Earth together with the crew members (the first generation of the insects born after the flight of Foton-M No.4 spacecraft). The insects were sent to ISS on October 29th 2014 onboard the Progress M-25M transport spacecraft. This experiment was aimed at studying the impact of repeated zero-G conditions on a multicellular organism. These studies are of great importance for the science in terms of deep space exploration,” Roscosmos noted.

Prior to arrival of the next ISS crew the following cosmonauts will be working at the station: Barry Wilmore (commander, NASA), Alexander Samokutyaev (flight engineer, Roscosmos) and Elena Serova (flight engineer, Roscosmos).

Nice

Russia’s Satellite Constellation to Comprise 150 Spacecraft by 2025

Soyuz TMA-15M carrying new crew docks with International Space Station

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-russian-rocket-ban-20141213-story.html

For more than a decade, the United States military has depended on buying Russian-made rocket engines to launch its most crucial satellites. On Friday, Congress said no more.

Despite lobbying from a joint venture of Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., the Senate voted 89-11 to approve a bill Friday that would ban the Pentagon from awarding future rocket launch contracts to firms using Russian engines.

Yeah, Congress-critters are real pros in all fields of science and engineering.

F*ck em!

Previous sales of Russian rocket engines probably kept a few companies afloat but now they will have work from government orders of their own to fill so this really effects Russia rather less than it effects US launch efforts.

Explorer says one-tonne meteorite is lying on bottom of lake in Russia’s Karelia

PETROZAVODSK, December 12. /TASS/. A meteorite weighing about one tonne is lying buried deep in sand on the bottom of Lake Vygozero in Russia’s northwestern republic of Karelia, Vadim Chernobrov, the leader of a team of researchers, said on Friday.

“A celestial body flew from the easterly direction, from a low population area at about 08:00 a.m. Moscow time on December 1. This meteorite was making practically no noise while falling and the most loud sound it produced was the sound of it hitting the ice,” Chernobrov, who heads the Kosmopoisk (Space Research) association, told journalists, adding that this was the reason that so few people had witnessed its fall when it was still dark. “Divers managed to sense the object under sand on the lake’s bottom.”

Magnetic field distortion has been registered over the meteorite crater. Divers failed to lift the heavy object from the bottom because of thin ice. “All observable factors - the flight direction, whop, specific crater testifying to the velocity of the fall - all indicate that it was a meteorite,” he said. “It is a unique case having no precedents in the history.”

A probable meteorite fall in Lake Vygozero was reported on December 2, when two fishermen called to the local emergencies services to say they had seen a trace along the coastline as though something had plowed up the soil. The trace ended in a clearing in the lake’s ice. They said one of them had come closer to the clearing to see a crater but he could not tell exactly what was down there - the bottom was sandy and covered with silt. When rescuers reached the scene, they also saw the trace and a 12-metre bank caving and a clearing in the lake. An amateur diver said he had seen a four-metre crated on the bottom, but no objects in the vicinity.

Meteorite attacks hit the headlines after the notorious meteorite fall near Russia’s Urals city of Chelyabinsk on February 15, 2013. A 10,000-tonne meteorite with a diameter of about 17 meters entered the Earth atmosphere and broke into numerous fragments, the bulk of which fell down in Russia’s Urals Chelyabinsk region. A shock wave that followed the fall of the meteorite broke windows in more than 4,700 houses in Chelyabinsk. Astronomers said the Chelyabinsk meteorite was the biggest celestial object to hit the Earth since the Tunguska event in 1908, when a huge meteorite exploded over Russia’s Siberia. In 2013, the meteorite shower was observed in five Russian regions - the Tyumen, Sverdlovsk, Chelyabinsk and Kurgan regions, and in the republic of Bashkortostan.

Eyewitnesses said they had first seen a bright flash in the sky and had heard the sound of explosion. More than 1,500 people, including more than 300 children, sought medical help after the incident, and as many as 69 people, including 13 children, were hospitalized.

Several fragments of the meteorite have already been found. The biggest one measuring 12 centimetres in diameter was lifted from the bottom of Lake Chebarkul. These fragments are now being studied by scientists.

kvs wrote:http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-russian-rocket-ban-20141213-story.html

For more than a decade, the United States military has depended on buying Russian-made rocket engines to launch its most crucial satellites. On Friday, Congress said no more.

Despite lobbying from a joint venture of Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., the Senate voted 89-11 to approve a bill Friday that would ban the Pentagon from awarding future rocket launch contracts to firms using Russian engines.

Yeah, Congress-critters are real pros in all fields of science and engineering.

F*ck em!

...Hahahahaha, here's the level of scientific knowledge in U.S. Congress:



...Rep. Paul Broun is the chair of the U.S. congressional science and technology committee no less!

Here's another one, U.S. congressional rep. Hank Johnson believes islands that are overpopulated could capsize...

GarryB wrote:Previous sales of Russian rocket engines probably kept a few companies afloat but now they will have work from government orders of their own to fill so this really effects Russia rather less than it effects US launch efforts.

I have also seen talk of China having interest in buying engines from Russia, and/or licencing production, although I'm not sure for what rocket program of theirs.

Would love to see more cooperation between China and Russia regarding Space... would love to see India get involved there too.

Space exploration is important stuff and I would like to see the two countries with the largest populations involved the the nation with the longest space travel history.

Successfully

And this is a major event because this was the 400 Proton launch ! ! ! !

Russian telecommunications satellite communications "Yamal-401" launched into the target orbit

I guess ISS is as good as dead

In Russia will create a national space station

Ok this is gonna sound silly, but what are the possibilities of constructing a space shipyard, from what i understand there are 3 main problems with space travel:
1:Speed/propulsion
2:Atmosphere
3:Gravity

Building a shipyard in space would allow us to create larger spacecraft that can act as launch platform/supply base for entry/reentry crafts that will go exploring other planets, this should resolve most of our atmospheric problems (not to mention a number of propulsion issues as well).

What do you guys think, too soon, cause i think we're late as hell, since we landed on the moon almost half a century ago FFS?

For example:

Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center confirmed that is plans to perform 11 launches of Proton-M rockets in 2015

Russian Aviaton » Tuesday December 16, 2014 00:30 MSK

The plans for performing 11 launches of Proton-M rockets in 2015 are preliminary ones, TASS reports with reference to Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center.

“This is the preliminary program. The document will be finalized later,” a representative of the center said.
Follow us on: Follow ruaviation on Twitter

Earlier a source close to the rocket and space industry reported that 11 launches of Proton-M launch vehicles will be performed next year.

“The first launch will be performed on January 30th (Proton-M launch vehicle with Inmarsat-5F2 satellite),” he reminded. The next launch may be performed in February: a military satellite will be placed into orbit.

In spring five launches of Proton-M launch vehicles will be performed (“Express-AM7”, “Express-AM8”, “MexSat-1” (Mexico), “Glonass-M” (three satellites), “Inmarsat-5F3),” the source said.

In summer two Proton-M rockets with TurkSat-5B (Turkey) and Eutelsat-9B will be launched. “In autumn two Proton-M launch vehicles should place into orbit “Express-AMU-1” and “Intelsat-31” spacecraft,” he added.

It was reported earlier that two more Proton-M rockets will be launched in 2014: on December 16th (Yamal-401 spacecraft) and on December 28th (Astra-2G satellite).

AlfaT8 wrote:Ok this is gonna sound silly, but what are the possibilities of constructing a space shipyard, from what i understand there are 3 main problems with space travel:
1:Speed/propulsion
2:Atmosphere
3:Gravity

Building a shipyard in space would allow us to create larger spacecraft that can act as launch platform/supply base for entry/reentry crafts that will go exploring other planets, this should resolve most of our atmospheric problems (not to mention a number of propulsion issues as well).

What do you guys think, too soon, cause i think we're late as hell, since we landed on the moon almost half a century ago FFS?

For example:

There has been talk of space elevators since forever. They would make orbital assembly and launch practical. But even with carbon nanofibre materials
the structure is just too large to stay intact.

For now there are plans to assemble Mars mission vehicles by launching to LEO of multiple payloads. This gets around the need for one ginormous
launcher but it is not Star Trek.

kvs wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Ok this is gonna sound silly, but what are the possibilities of constructing a space shipyard, from what i understand there are 3 main problems with space travel:
1:Speed/propulsion
2:Atmosphere
3:Gravity

Building a shipyard in space would allow us to create larger spacecraft that can act as launch platform/supply base for entry/reentry crafts that will go exploring other planets, this should resolve most of our atmospheric problems (not to mention a number of propulsion issues as well).

What do you guys think, too soon, cause i think we're late as hell, since we landed on the moon almost half a century ago FFS?

For example:

There has been talk of space elevators since forever.   They would make orbital assembly and launch practical.   But even with carbon nanofibre materials
the structure is just too large to stay intact.  

For now there are plans to assemble Mars mission vehicles by launching to LEO of multiple payloads.   This gets around the need for one ginormous
launcher but it is not Star Trek.

Curses, i was trying to avoid the space elevator (should of used a different pic), i meant a shipyard without an elevator, where men and supplies could be ferried to/from earth via spacecraft/toughs.

The main problem is that construction in zero gravity is a pain in the backside.

It remains cheaper to actually launch larger pieces built on the ground and attach them together in space than to launch all the bits and build it in space.

Production on the moon would be easier with low gravity but with no atmosphere it becomes propellent intensive too.

If the building materials could be found on the moon and extracted to be used there then it would be much more practical.

In earth orbit if you could scoop up old bits of space junk and use them... melt them in some nuclear furnace and then use them to make new components it might kill two birds with one stone....

Russian astronomer Leonid Yelenin has discovered his third comet

GarryB wrote:The main problem is that construction in zero gravity is a pain in the backside.

It remains cheaper to actually launch larger pieces built on the ground and attach them together in space than to launch all the bits and build it in space.

Of course, prefabricate them, launch them in to space and then manually or remotely attach them to each other.
Same for the ships.

Production on the moon would be easier with low gravity but with no atmosphere it becomes propellant intensive too.

If the building materials could be found on the moon and extracted to be used there then it would be much more practical.

But then we're talking about mining and production facilities too, might as well be talking colonization.
And honestly an orbital shipyard would be much easier to work with thanks to its close proximity to Earth, rather then a Moon base.

In earth orbit if you could scoop up old bits of space junk and use them... melt them in some nuclear furnace and then use them to make new components it might kill two birds with one stone....

Always a fan of recycling, but wouldn't a nuclear furnace make those components radio active?

Does the sun make the moon radioactive?

Are meteorites found on Earth radioactive?

Of course, prefabricate them, launch them in to space and then manually or remotely attach them to each other.
Same for the ships.

So why not just make them modular and launch them together to "dock" in orbit and then fly to wherever they will be flying?

But then we're talking about mining and production facilities too, might as well be talking colonization.
And honestly an orbital shipyard would be much easier to work with thanks to its close proximity to Earth, rather then a Moon base.

the capacity to "remote mine" materials would be invaluable. Building moon bases would be cheapest if we had mining there too... mine tunnels would be excellent and more resistant to radiation from space than man made prefabricated structures assembled on the surface... especially if water can be found there, which can easily be used as rocket fuel.

the low gravity of the moon would make construction of larger structures easier and it is not really that far away... most of the energy needed to get to Mars is used climbing out of earths atmosphere and away from Earths gravitational pull.

GarryB wrote:Does the sun make the moon radioactive?

Are meteorites found on Earth radioactive?

Hey, your mentioning nuclear furnaces here.

Of course, prefabricate them, launch them in to space and then manually or remotely attach them to each other.
Same for the ships.

So why not just make them modular and launch them together to "dock" in orbit and then fly to wherever they will be flying?

Because i believe that spacecraft will require a hell of lot more fine tunning then an almost non-moving orbital superstructure, not to mention a more hand on approach.

Basically the dock is meant to house workers there supplies and equipment while earth sends the modular components to be assembled, similar to how the Americans build there aircraft carriers.

For example:

But then we're talking about mining and production facilities too, might as well be talking colonization.
And honestly an orbital shipyard would be much easier to work with thanks to its close proximity to Earth, rather then a Moon base.

the capacity to "remote mine" materials would be invaluable. Building moon bases would be cheapest if we had mining there too... mine tunnels would be excellent and more resistant to radiation from space than man made prefabricated structures assembled on the surface... especially if water can be found there, which can easily be used as rocket fuel.

Ok, so who's going to maintain those "remote miners", where will these maintainers be housed, how is the water going to get extracted, where are they gonna find a rocket foul production facility, how are the maintainers gonna come and go from moon.
See what i mean, at the end of the day before we go underground we'll need to prepare the infrastructure above ground first, which will still require some level of colonization.

the low gravity of the moon would make construction of larger structures easier and it is not really that far away... most of the energy needed to get to Mars is used climbing out of earths atmosphere and away from Earths gravitational pull.

The problem with the moon is still distance, and i think you just proved my point, think how easier it'll be to colonize the Moon or even Mars if we can avoid Earths atmosphere by building construction and launch platforms in our own orbit.

Hey, your mentioning nuclear furnaces here.

Well it could hardly be a coal fired furnace now could it?

Perhaps we can just call it a furnace and leave it at that?

Because i believe that spacecraft will require a hell of lot more fine tunning then an almost non-moving orbital superstructure, not to mention a more hand on approach.

I don't understand.

There is no such thing as a non moving orbital superstructure... to remain in orbit it needs to maintain that orbit, which means propulsion and the ability to manouver to avoid the largest debris in orbit.

It makes more sense to completely build modules on the ground and then sit them on the back of a large rocket like Buran is placed on the back of an energyia rocket. Once placed in orbit other modules can be docked to it and then a whole lot of smaller tank based rockets can then ferry fuel up to the finally built module based long range space ship.

Having some sort of manned space port would just add to the cost... you have to get the whole port up there in addition to all the components and fuel as well as fuel for the port to retain its orbit etc etc...

Building up a spaceship in orbit would be just as easy in open space as the modules themselves would allow internal access to systems and external work can be done via space walks or robots.

Hopefully most of the assembly would be done on earth minimising the amount of work in space to perhaps docking and turning things on.

Basically the dock is meant to house workers there supplies and equipment while earth sends the modular components to be assembled, similar to how the Americans build there aircraft carriers.

The cost of building a structure to house all those workers, and the risk of working in space would not make it viable. the 300 ton ISS cost billions and takes from 6 to 12 people.

It would make rather more sense to build modules on the ground and just dock them together in space and then when you are ready to leave earth orbit you load it up with fuel and supplies and accelerate away.

Ok, so who's going to maintain those "remote miners", where will these maintainers be housed, how is the water going to get extracted, where are they gonna find a rocket foul production facility, how are the maintainers gonna come and go from moon.

Why do you think adding people is the solution? How many people has the US sent to maintain that robot rolling all over Mars.

Not having to send humans is a huge advantage... it makes it cheaper and simpler... send a drilling machine weighing 3 tons to the Moon and it might require 40 tons of fuel to get it there. A human to maintain and operate it will weigh perhaps 80-100kgs but will require several tons of food and air to breath and water and might therefore require an additional 120 tons of fuel to get to the moon AND BACK. Drilling equipment can be left to either continue drilling, or lie dormant waiting until it is needed again.

Drilling by remote control wont be easy, but once mastered can be sent on very long range missions to asteriods and the moons of other planets... the mining results could help pay the costs of the otherwise scientifically interesting missions.

The Russians have developed a fuel cell that runs on Diesel fuel... imagine a moon near the triple point of methane... ie methane exists as a solid, a liquid and a gas on this small moon. Now imagine that AIP technology adapted to work with methane to generate electricity using the moons atmosphere...

See what i mean, at the end of the day before we go underground we'll need to prepare the infrastructure above ground first, which will still require some level of colonization.

Why?

Is it because that is what is shown in movies and sci fi tv shows?

A drilling machine that collects up the material it is drilling and can perform some basic analysis to determine what it is drilling could be landed on the surface and the first thing it does is drill down 5 metres and then start drilling sideways to create tunnels, using radar to look at the structure of rock to make sure it wont collapse and perhaps determine the structure and type of material around it.

The unwanted material can be collected up and moved to spoil piles near the surface, where it could be pumped into bags and used as a building material similar to sand bags on earth.

A few months analysing the material being dug out and we will have some idea of the value of mining in that area and also the potential for building underground and above ground structures.

Water content and rock structure and strength will influence decisions of where to dig.

The problem with the moon is still distance, and i think you just proved my point, think how easier it'll be to colonize the Moon or even Mars if we can avoid Earths atmosphere by building construction and launch platforms in our own orbit.

Hahahahaha.... sorry, but that is like saying NZ isn't so far away from Europe once you get to the US... building in orbit is hard and still has the problem of leaving earths atmosphere.

Having the construction facilities and the vast majority of the construction manpower in orbit makes it much harder and more expensive than having them all on the ground and launching them in loads and assembling and fuelling them in space.

A rocket going to mars will be hundreds of tons if not thousands of tons but 90% of that weight will be fuel. That means assembling three main 100 ton modules would require three Energyia launches of 100-120 tons each, and then dozens of launches to fuel the space craft with thousands of tons of rocket fuel. Constructing a 300 ton space ship in space and then launching up the rocket fuel would take dozens of launches for the space craft components and dozens more for the fuel... and would take years to assemble in space all the while vulnerable to impacts. In comparison construction on the ground is quicker, easier, safer, cheaper, though if one of the three launch vehicles fails and you lose one third of your space ship there could be problems...

Nice

Orbital: the amount of the contract for the supply of engines from Russia less than $ 1 billion

Duma proposes to merge Roscosmos with United Rocket Space Corporation