Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Russian Space Industry To Receive $69 Billion Through 2020

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the foresight-is-2020 dept.

Government 64

An anonymous reader sends word that the Russian Space industry will be getting a big boost over the next eight years. Prime Minister Medvedev has approved $68.71 billion in space-related funding from 2013 to 2020. That's a huge increase from the $3.3 billion spent annually in 2010 and 2011. The increased funding is one of several efforts to restoring Russia's slowly fading spaceflight capabilities. "The failure of a workhorse Proton rocket after launch in August caused the multimillion-dollar loss of an Indonesian and a Russian satellite. A similar problem caused the loss of a $265 million communications satellite last year. Medvedev criticized the state of the industry in August, saying problems were costing Russia prestige and money." Medvedev said, "The program will enable our country to effectively participate in forward-looking projects, such as the International Space Station, the study of the Moon, Mars and other celestial bodies in the solar system."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Receiving $69 billion? (3, Funny)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | about 2 years ago | (#42444457)

Russian Space Industry To Receive $69 Billion Through 2020

That's what she said.

Receiving 2.1 trillion roubles (2)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about 2 years ago | (#42444513)

The Reuters article referred to 2.1 trillion rubles:

"Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev approved a plan to spend 2.1 trillion roubles ($68.71 billion) on developing Russia's space industry from 2013 to 2020, state-run RIA news agency reported."

A lot of money in any case.

Re:Receiving 2.1 trillion roubles (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | about 2 years ago | (#42444819)

The Reuters article referred to 2.1 trillion rubles

Same thing, right? As long as a common, changeable currency is mentioned, there is nothing wrong with translating it into a form people understand, no? I for one would have had no clue what to make of a figure stated in rubles, while US Dollars make sense to most North Americans, Europeans, and others without them having to look up currency conversion factors.

Re:Receiving 2.1 trillion roubles (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42445097)

The summary mentioned no currency so it could have been LEGOs, which I understand is better than gold.

Re:Receiving 2.1 trillion roubles (2)

cnettel (836611) | about 2 years ago | (#42445173)

A dollar sign in international text is frequently assumed to be USD. It's certainly not "[mentioning] no currency".

Re:Receiving 2.1 trillion roubles (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | about 2 years ago | (#42447919)

The summary mentioned no currency...

It said "$69 Billion" in English, using what could be taken as an American dialect, on a US-based site, so that is pretty clearly indicative of United States dollars. Sorry if there was no fine print or legalese to explicitly explain details, but it looked rather obvious anyway.

Re:Receiving 2.1 trillion roubles (3, Insightful)

priceslasher (2102064) | about 2 years ago | (#42448963)

What's aggravating about the summary is the comparison of 1 years budget to 7 years of budget. It is still a 3x increase in budget, from 3.3 billion to roughly 9.9 billion.

Re:Receiving 2.1 trillion roubles (1)

Pseudonym (62607) | about 2 years ago | (#42446191)

Same thing, right?

Yes, but it kills the innuendo value in the figure.

At least, that's what I pulled out of the comment.

Re:Receiving 2.1 trillion roubles (1)

tokul (682258) | about 2 years ago | (#42453775)

A lot of money in any case.

Lets put it in perspective. 10 billion a year. Lots of money to burn on rockets.

Or 1/10 of Russia's military budget for the same time period. two times less than promised increase in military expenditures. less than 3% of federal budget for 2011.

Given than budget is funded by exports of natural resources, I would say that they expect slight increase in oil/gas prices and bigger profit margins.

Space travel is fascinating, but it causes less worries for politics than health care, social policies or military.

Re:Receiving $69 billion? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42445073)

In Soviet Russia, she says YOU!

Re:Receiving $69 billion? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42446903)

stfu

Re:Receiving $69 billion? (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | about 2 years ago | (#42459657)

no, you

Re:Receiving $69 billion? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42445327)

I think she'd rather receive $2020 Billion (long scale, not short scale) through 69. ;)

In sovjet russia ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42444519)

In sovjet russia space industry receives you

Re:In sovjet russia ... (0)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 2 years ago | (#42444543)

You're doing it wrong.

In Soviet Russia, Space Probe probes YOU!

Re:In sovjet russia ... (1)

drankr (2796221) | about 2 years ago | (#42444915)

You must be from one of the satellites to spell it "sovjet", though...

Re:In sovjet russia ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42446917)

seriously...STFU. The 'In russia...you'. So old Come up with something original. I know most jackwads on here think they're funny (which, in the most part, they seriously aren't). Be original, try harder, or STFU as stated earlier.

echos of the 90s (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42444699)

In the 1990s the rich west used to blow money over to the Russians to give them something to do, so they didn't have to work for middle easterners. Proliferation and all that.

In the 2010's, the rich Russians will be blowing money our way, to make sure our unemployed NASA guys won't have to work for middle easterners. Same deal, cut back on proliferation.

Re:echos of the 90s (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42444837)

The NASA guys will just go over to Lockheed-Martin, General Atomics, DARPA, etc. to work for ways to kill Middle-Easterners. The Christian-dominated government of the United States and the military industrial complex would wet themselves if the Middle-Easterners set off a nuke, because it would usher in the Revelation and Jesus and the United States would stand victorious against the Islamic heretics.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:echos of the 90s (0)

approachingZero (1365381) | about 2 years ago | (#42445145)

Maybe you already know this but many important people in science and math are and were Christians. Take Faraday ~ 'Faraday was a devout Christian; his Sandemanian denomination was an offshoot of the Church of Scotland. Well after his marriage, he served as deacon and for two terms as an elder in the meeting house of his youth. His church was located at Paul's Alley in the Barbican. ' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday) I am not overly religious, I just find that your signature makes you come off as uneducated and I thought it right to mention it to you. Remember the Apollo 8 NASA Astronauts read from the old testament while orbiting the moon. What has Stenger ever done? Be Well.

Re:echos of the 90s (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#42445221)

Maybe you already know this but many important people in science and math are and were Christians.

That probably results from the fact that for the most of the history of science, our understanding of nature was actually pretty lousy. How many important people in science have been Christians since *real* science took off, somewhere at the beginning of the 20th century?

Re:echos of the 90s (1)

approachingZero (1365381) | about 2 years ago | (#42445303)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science#2001.E2.80.93today_.2821st_century.29 [wikipedia.org] I am not a believer in a personal god myself, I simply suspect things can't be totally random.

Re:echos of the 90s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42448505)

This is entirely off topic, but I have faith (ha!) that it may give thought to some.

Things are not random. The only things that appear random are merely patterned in a way that we, as humans, cannot naturally comprehend. Waves, weather, planetary movements, and radiation through the universe all appear random yet we can predict them all. Things flow, things have reasoning behind them. The universe at large is the way it is simply because there is no other way it could be. It is all clockwork that at it's simplest levels are self sustaining. It is a big, giant, multidimensional Mandelbrot that encompasses all of existence.

Take evolution as an example (you don't even have to believe in it to see the example), creatures are the way they are merely because being any other way has led to their incapability to pass on their genetics. If it could be any other way then it would be. Teeth too big to let you eat? Death. Not attractive enough to mate? Death. What is left is what didn't die. That whole process is based on biological chemistry which is based on physical properties of elements which is based on various physical interactions. We call that the study of physics of course. Physics is, in turn, based on logic. If it wasn't, then there could be no predictions, no laws of motion, no machines, no internet. Logic merely is. If a then b. If not a then not b. Even logic itself is bound to the idea. It is merely because there is no other way it could be.

God, Gods, spirits or pantheons may or may not exist. It does not matter. We know it is all logical clockwork right down to tiny little bosons of mass between 125 and 127 GeV/c^2. The rest may appear random, we may or may not be lacking a Creator, but we surely are lacking a complete understanding of creation.

Re:echos of the 90s (1)

Maudib (223520) | about 2 years ago | (#42446781)

Plenty of great scientists have been Christians. However thats an irrelevant an aside. Throughout history great people have done great things in spite of their religious affiliations. Its like the classic 'Stalin was an atheist' argument level by other irrational people of faith, just an irrelevant aside used by people who prefer arguing from emotion.

Re:echos of the 90s (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42448085)

Many atheists are very happy using such reasoning to blame religion for acts of evil, but unwilling to use the same reasoning when it comes to atheism.

Re:echos of the 90s (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#42454749)

Many atheists are very happy using such reasoning to blame religion for acts of evil

Sometimes it's right to ascribe acts of evil to a religion, especially if the religion actually commands its adherents to do so.

but unwilling to use the same reasoning when it comes to atheism.

Perhaps because atheism doesn't command you to do anything? When atheists commit evil acts, it's for other reasons. Stalin didn't commit acts of evil because he was an atheist, he committed them because he was a psychopathic crackpot. Many psychopathic crackpots actually happen to be theists, mind you.

Re:echos of the 90s (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about 2 years ago | (#42448885)

Well, except that he wasn't. Stalin was even a seminarist of the orthodox faith.

Re:echos of the 90s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42447053)

Good point! Naturally, all this is happening while our mouth-breather hillbilly congress, and ex-social-worker
president gape at other people making some progress toward the future, while we make little or none!

$69 billion is a sexy number (4, Insightful)

arcite (661011) | about 2 years ago | (#42444781)

Too bad $60 billion of that will be siphoned off to slush funds and other nefarious activities.

Re:$69 billion is a sexy number (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#42445415)

You're getting confused with NASA.

Russia actually builds stuff that goes to space.

NASA is guilty of feeding an enormous bureaucracy full of academic studies, failed projects and priority backflips.

Q: What do you think $69 billion would get you in NASA?
A: Budget complaints, and not much else.

Re:$69 billion is a sexy number (2)

RCL (891376) | about 2 years ago | (#42445535)

And Russia is full of corruption, so GP's comment is spot on.

DISCLAIMER: I am a Russian citizen.

Re:$69 billion is a sexy number (0)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#42446259)

every country is full of corruption... that's merely a consequence of them being full of humans

the difference is that even with corruption, Russia still manages to achieve things on shoestring budgets

everyone whinges about their own government, so your response isn't at all surprising, but the American economy is in much deeper shit than Russia

DISCLAIMER: I am neither Russian or American, so I see things a little more objectively

Re:$69 billion is a sexy number (1)

mutantSushi (950662) | about 2 years ago | (#42448039)

well, i think it would be enlightening if you wanted to tally up their successes achieved with this budget. rus-m? vostochny? glonass (the last certainly CAN be a success, but not yet)

Re:$69 billion is a sexy number (2)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#42448609)

without russia the ISS would be a floating piece of space junk (which wouldn't eventually burn up in the atmosphere)

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Federal_Space_Agency
"Due to International Space Station involvements, up to 50% of Russia's space budget is spent on the manned space program. Some observers have pointed out that this has a detrimental effect on other aspects of space exploration, and that the other space powers spend much lesser proportions of their overall budgets on maintaining human presence in orbit."

russian space agency budget 2012: $5.2 billion
nasa budget 2012: $17.8 billion

russian success is soyuz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_program) and proton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Proton_launches)
these programs are as close to mass production for spacecraft as any country has ever come, and i can only imagine that russian engineers and technicians have kept it going under pretty harsh conditions

NASA has JPL, and but even that is now mostly scientific studies

Re:$69 billion is a sexy number (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#42565445)

re: "(which wouldn't eventually burn up in the atmosphere)"

haha i mean would

Re:$69 billion is a sexy number (1)

Yomers (863527) | about 2 years ago | (#42449291)

GLONASS is currently operational ( http://www.sdcm.ru/index_eng.html [www.sdcm.ru] ) , it is second operational global navigation system after US GPS, so you can call it a success.
 
  Most relatively new GPS chips support GLONASS, so it is already used in consumer devices (for example Iphone 4S and 5) increasing positioning accuracy in cities with tall buildings and another situations where open sky view is limited.

that's a lot (1)

ozduo (2043408) | about 2 years ago | (#42444835)

of $100,000 tool bags http://www.space.com/7088-tool-bag-lost-space-meets-fiery.html [space.com] Or maybe the Russians will buy theirs at a local hardware store

Re:that's a lot (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#42445335)

Given the mark-up tacked on to anything in earth orbit, NASA could probably be sourcing them from Harbor Freight and they still wouldn't want to drop one...

The USA got Obamacare (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42444901)

What now?

Re:The USA got Obamacare (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42445201)

Trolling trolls keep trolling?

Read it wrong... (0)

TerranFury (726743) | about 2 years ago | (#42445011)

At first, instead of "billion," I read "bitcoin."

I was surprised, to say the least.

knowledge (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#42445281)

That's a lot of money for space research. . Do they know something we don't?

Re:knowledge (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#42445433)

maybe they found nazis on the dark side of the moon?

...or americans

Re:knowledge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42448019)

Or they'll finally send a rescue mission after the Pioneer One.

Re:knowledge (3, Interesting)

fragMasterFlash (989911) | about 2 years ago | (#42445481)

They know that the privately funded space industry is growing and could potentially surpass state run space agencies one day unless they continue to innovate. I am guessing the Soviet space program would rather license technologies they develop to private industry rather than simply fade away into the history books.

Build a space economy first (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 2 years ago | (#42446275)

Agreed, except that the Soviets have been history for over two decades now.

Even the current $3 billion budget would be more than enough for a private space company to develop a new launch system, provided the amount is focused on the right projects. I suspect a good part of the amount is taken up by the bureaucracy and deep space missions that fail.

While interplanetary research is good, I'd prefer a focus on near-Earth missions geared toward the exploitation of space or at least the development of a more self-sustaining space economy as far as fuel and life-support systems are concerned. That could involve the usual back-to-Moon-to-stay scenarios or something more esoteric like building solar arrays in Earth orbit.

Re:Build a space economy first (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42446523)

Even the current $3 billion budget would be more than enough for a private space company to develop a new launch system, provided the amount is focused on the right projects.

$3 billion is more than enough for anyone to develop a new launch system, provided the amount is focused on the right projects. The hard part isn't private vs public, the hard part is finding the right focus.

Re:Build a space economy first (1)

mutantSushi (950662) | about 2 years ago | (#42448017)

It's not just launch systems though, and it's not just development, but procurement. Russia is also intent on developing GLONASS, as well as satcoms and visual/radar imaging, as well as funding space exploration such as to the Moon (Luna), Mars and the moons of Jupiter. All that needs funding of launch system development and much more. There's alot of depth to Russian expertise, they have competing entities developing different approaches. Re-usable launchers, or semi-re-usable, with folding wings on the 1st stage boosters allowing the booster to glide back and be refueled (lower cost) has been perpetually on the back-burner... Hopefully stuff like that, and more, will be funded to fruition. Longer-term, it's not just SpaceX but projects like Reaction Engines SABRE that will be defining the launch economy, and Russia needs to be there to be relevant.

Re:knowledge (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#42445921)

They know that if they manage to create a good rocket, there will be a huge return on their investment. There's lots of money in LEO, especially when competition is limited.

Re:knowledge (1)

wibblewibble (2766235) | about 2 years ago | (#42446233)

That's a lot of money for space research. . Do they know something we don't?

Well, if they don't now, they will in a few years time.

That's HALF of NASA's budget (5, Informative)

Khopesh (112447) | about 2 years ago | (#42446299)

That's a lot of money for space research. . Do they know something we don't?

What are you talking about? No it is not!

They use some of that money for manned space missions rather than for research. Still, their previous $3 billion annual budget could afford to send men to space while NASA's $18 billion [wikipedia.org] annual budget apparently cannot. Now Russia announces a spending increase up to USD$68.71 billion over eight years (USD$8.59b a year), roughly half of what NASA's sliced up budget is currently.

Neil deGrasse Tyson's video pleas We Stopped Dreaming [youtu.be] and its follow-up A New Perspective [youtu.be] proposed we increase NASA spending to 1% of the US Federal Budget (current spending: 0.49% [wikipedia.org] ) suggests we could go to Mars and innovate the way we did in the 70s. That's significantly more than Russia's new investment and would help us keep our lead. Otherwise, we're losing both innovation and innovators.

I'd like NASA to be funded by the largest of:
* 1% of the US Federal Budget ($3.8t [wikipedia.org] -> $38b in 2011)
* Half of the US DOD's Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation budget ($79b [wikipedia.org] -> $39b in 2010)
* 5% of the whole US Military budget ($550b [wikipedia.org] -> $27b in 2011, $708b [wikipedia.org] -> $35b in 2012)

This extra funding would come from otherwise allotted military spending (so an increase to the military budget would typically increase NASA's budget as well). As I noted a few paragraphs earlier, this would roughly double the current $18b budget and would bring us to Mars.

Re:That's HALF of NASA's budget (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42447325)

Half of all US military RDTE Funds should go to NASA is labeled +5 Informative? Did all slashdot's moderator points end up in China this morning or is everyone just hung over?

How much is enough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42448577)

China is our economic partner. China is not a military threat.
We have 26 aircraft carriers. They have one.
We have more nuclear armament then they have modern aircraft.
We have state of the art military technology across the board. The best they have is window dressing on 20 year old technology.
We can shutdown GPS on a whim.
We have computer viruses that can destroy industrial equipment.
We have biological viruses that could wipe out most of humans on the planet and we aren't even sure how to kill it yet.
If we stopped buying cheap goods from China, millions would starve, hundreds of millions would revolt.
For the first time in all of history, one country has more raw might then the rest combined.
When will enough be enough?

Oh and one last thing: We are not at war with China!

Re:How much is enough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42451519)

DoD RDTE buys things like systems that prevent the Taliban from exploding roadside bombs and killing our troops. It develops systems to monitor and track the very biological terrors you write of. NASA does none of this. We are engaged in economic war with China and if you think they would have qualms with using military force to achieve their ends then you need to study history and review their spending budgets.

Re:That's HALF of NASA's budget (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42449045)

* 5% of the whole US Military budget ($550b [wikipedia.org] -> $27b in 2011, $708b [wikipedia.org] -> $35b in 2012)

That's ridiculous. It should be the other way around. The whole US Military budget, including all of DOD, should be 5% of the NASA budget.

At least in a sane world.

Re:knowledge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42446943)

It's about 1/2 of what NASA receives.

Re:knowledge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42450107)

The Commis have always known something we didn't, but their people were always kept in the dark. The UK public found out about Sputnik before Russian citizens as it's a democracy and they were able to ping it to prove it worked.

Russia will send massive amounts of this money into slush funds. I agree with that. Space related slush funds but slush funds the same.

It's not that stuff wont get done, it's just that we won't know what's getting done.

As for why? The world isnt flat its round, and the earth isnt the center of the universe or even the solar system. If they're smart they'll have competing companies in x prize like competitions to get some of this money for achievement as well as being given some for stimulus or low/no interest loans.

Propulsion would seem to me to be the logical step for most of that money.

But also, exoplanetary horticulture (self sustaining Mars habitats) and other ancillary projects like Robotics makes sense.

Discipline first (2)

RCL (891376) | about 2 years ago | (#42445587)

Throwing more money at it won't help if they don't increase the discipline. I bet those rocket losses were caused by bad/missing QA in supply chain and overall negligence, which seems to be omnipresent in Russian society at large. I'm not that old, but I remember Soviet times when the discipline was much higher. Nowadays, my compatriots borrowed Western relaxed way of life but unfortunately haven't borrowed Western attitude to work and Western responsibility for its quality.

In related news, (1)

melted (227442) | about 2 years ago | (#42446043)

The number of orders at Lamborghini and Ferrari has just doubled for the next few years. Keep in mind that at least half (if not two thirds) of this money will inevitably be stolen. That's just how "business" is done over there. IRS would have a field day discovering the discrepancies between what folks officially make, and what they actually spend.

The 2nd Space Race (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42449481)

I am glad to see the 2nd space race happen.

Even if it is between mostly private companies, that is still a good thing because if it brings us safe, cheap space industry quicker, all the better for humanity.
We NEED to get to space this century as a society. If we don't, feel lucky if you won't live to see past it, it will be horrible.

I'm hopeful that when space mining takes off, it will kickstart our leap to space.
Even if it is only a partial leap and "oh no brain diseases from outer space!" is a thing, even with artificial gravity through spinning, that will still be a good thing because it would be vital research towards getting humans out in to space permanently rather than semi-permanently.
Hell, even if we just plop ourselves on other planets, that will be better than nothing.

Meanwhile, in the US (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | about 2 years ago | (#42450477)

...the U.S. military budget is projected to be nearly 870 billion in 2013.

charges US astronauts a billion a launch? (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 2 years ago | (#42450591)

They already charge US astronauts 3x ($60M) per launch seat compared to ($20M) for space tourists like Sarah Brightman. The US screwed by terminating its viable shuttle program without a replacement for at least 8 years.

United Nation Space Programs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42453681)

We asked NASA & Politicians to expand NASA's Space Programs Globally. I think Russia should incorporate other countries in it's Space Programs ie India, Thailand, Malaysia, Korea, etc. If countries aren't going to combine space programs then they will try to put their own military in space & space programs.

is there some unwritten rule (1)

KingBenny (1301797) | about 2 years ago | (#42477883)

that prevents for instance SpaceX to deal with anyone but the U.S. government or is this all still 1960s just like the rest of the world ?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?