and roscosmos is 100% government subsidized so what???Big_Gazza wrote:miketheterrible wrote:Also, let us be real here. What is the point of making money from the company when companies like Elon Musk rely on over $6B in subsidies just to be able to do his work. In other words, it will be a major loss, not gain unlike what RMF claims.
The fact Russia still launches shit into space and does what it needs, is fine by me. Commercial market is getting over inflated anyway thanks to China, India and others joining in. Oh well.
Russia builds rockets to launch payloads. Commercial space is nice, but its not core. Its essential to be able to produce domestic launch services to orbit Russian gov, military and industry payloads, to do so at an efficient price and in reliable fashion, and to ensure that the industry generates local jobs and supports domestic high-tech engineering and manufacturing capability (and supports local tax base). Its not just about dollars per kilo to orbit, nor manufacturer "profit" or stock value inflation....
Admittedly Russia has issues with reliablity (mainly Proton & Briz-M), but these are mostly to do with the impact of the catastrophic 90s and the failure to maintain recruitment and training of a new generation of specialists. The Old Guard designers and engineers retired (or died off) and the lost talent was not replaced. Proton was reliable in the 80s, 90s and early 00s, but afterwards suffered losses due to non-design issues, either human errors, QA/QC failures, or build-problems with the then-new Briz-M upper stage, which is consistent with "brain-drain" of experienced personnel. Interestingly, Soyuz hasn't been similarly impacted, so it seems to be mostly a Khrunichev issue. Angara should be free of these issues as its an all-new project with much younger key personnel, new serial manufacturing lines and newly trained/qualifed manufacturing workforce. Despite the 5th columnist BS, Angara costs will be on a par with Proton and will become cheaper as the serial manufacture of common modules becomes established and more streamlined.
In any case, SpaceX have yet to show that they are particulary low cost, or that his recovery technique will substantially reduce launch costs. A F9 costs ~60M, which is the same as a Proton to commercial customers. Russian gov federal launches cost significantly less. Musk talks big, but he hasn't delivered on low costs to orbit, and only has ULA and ArianeSpace to compete against, who are clearly not setup to be low cost operators (as their focus is maximum reliability and it has a premium price).
SpaceX is producing some good tech, but expectations on their impact on the industry is way overblown. Musk will take launch service contracts from ULA, but he won't deliver on huge cost reductions, and there will be no huge surge in commercial space activities as other than the current established activities like commsats and remote sensing, there is simply no way to generate a profit from space. Space activities are driven by earthly demand for services, and launch costs are not a significant driver. Does anyone really believe that halving the cost to orbit will double the launch rate when the cost of the commsat bird is up to 10x the cost of the launch vehicle? Likewise Musk isn't going to colonise Mars, thats just an absurd pipedream. If he gets F9 heavy working, he won't have any customers so he won't launch many. Commercial operators are not going to engage in planetary exploration as there are no profits to be made, and the USG is going to be financially constrained and won't fund missions either. What payloads are there in the 50-60T range eagerly awaiting the F9H?
commercial space is very inmportent you deny competitors of money
you can have larger production driving costs down, more workers ,better salaries etc. only in your imaginary worlds its not important , eventually even russian companies will go too space x , but im sure you all will say its fine, ....
russian space is in chaos , you can pretend, but downhill slope is showing.