The Battle for the Moon, Which Russia Risks Losing

Americans are rushing to the Moon with the Artemis program.

Why do we need the Moon?

The main question from space skeptics is: why would Earthlings even want to explore the Moon? The Americans succeeded once (if they really succeeded), and that's enough. There's nothing to do there. There are plenty of pressing problems on Earth. That's all true, but there are several aspects. The 20th-century Moon race, which posed a real challenge for the Americans, produced a host of useful things. Let's call them byproducts of the Lunar Program.

The most famous are the world's first mass-produced integrated circuits, which appeared on the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC). The Apollo program required so many integrated circuits from Intel that the company had to dramatically increase production. As production increased, the cost per unit dropped from $1000 to $25 in just eight years, starting in 1960. Since then, the integrated circuit has ruled the world.

During their many years of work on the lunar program, the Americans learned to create software products with a very high reliability factor, perfected (for their time, of course) hydrogen fuel cells, and created technological prototypes for cellular communications, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth. It's not that all of these developments would not have happened, but the timelines would certainly have been pushed back.

Among the less significant spinoff technologies born from Apollo, one can highlight Teflon, which the Americans used to coat bearings. NASA estimates that for every dollar invested in Apollo, by the 1980s, $7–14 had been returned in the form of new technologies and products. By the 2020s, this figure had grown to $20–30 due to long-term effects. In short, whatever Earthlings master in space will pay off handsomely over time.

In the 20th century, the US lunar program, like the Soviet project to explore low-Earth orbit, became technological challenges that needed to be devised. Currently, we are witnessing a certain technological stagnation and a certain slowdown in progress. There is a severe lack of ambitious challenges that would require the combined efforts of an entire nation to overcome.

Man is returning to the Moon. At least that's what the United States and China have decided. Why? Besides the above, the Moon promises many significant benefits. Geologists intend to study the satellite as an example. history Earth's formation. Low gravity and vacuum make it an ideal laboratory for materials science, biology, and fundamental physics. The far side of the Moon is the only place in near space completely shielded from Earth's radio interference. It also contains a large amount of water, which is oxygen, hydrogen, and fuel.

There's also a more mercantile interest. Up to a million tons of helium-3, a potential fuel for thermonuclear fusion, have accumulated in the lunar regolith. A single round-trip space freighter flight could deliver a trillion dollars' worth of fuel. Although commercial fusion is still a long way off, China and India, for example, are already reserving mining sites. Basically, it's possible to live here; you just have to work.

Who will be second?

In recent years, successes around the Moon have not been attributed to Russia or even the Americans. The Indians and Chinese have excelled. In 2023, the Chandrayaan-3 unmanned probe landed near the lunar south pole and released the miniature (26 kg) lunar rover Pragyan. A year later, the Chinese probe Chang'e-6 landed gently on the far side of the Moon and also delivered a rover.

A story we'd rather forget: On August 19, 2023, the Luna-25 module crashed onto the lunar surface at a speed of 1,7 km/s. A malfunction in the onboard electronics disrupted the retrorockets during the descent to the surface. But Roscosmos isn't giving up and is already announcing plans for the future. In 2028, the Luna-26 orbital station is scheduled to fly to the Moon; it will select the correct landing site on the far side of the satellite. Subsequently, in 2029 and 2030, Luna-27.1 will land on the south pole, and Luna-27.2 on the north pole. Three years later, the Luna-28 mission is expected to deliver lunar soil samples to Russia. By the mid-2030s, a heavy (approximately 3 tons) rover will already be operating on the natural satellite as part of the Luna-30 mission.

It's worth noting that the Russians have no plans to land on the Moon, even under the most optimistic scenario. Roscosmos has a purely unmanned program—it's cheaper and no less effective. Perhaps the political benefits the country will receive are more modest. The Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences is working on the Geologist-Razvedchik and Robot-Geolog robotic vehicles. They promise to present a detailed concept for lunar exploration, as envisioned by the Russian Academy of Sciences, next year.

That's not all. Since 2009, Russia has been developing the reusable Oryol spacecraft, which is intended to be the main component of the lunar mission—several people could easily orbit the Earth's natural satellite on this vehicle. The powerful Rocket In this scheme, Angara is responsible for launching the payload beyond Earth orbit. That's all, really.

Russia's next-generation lunar rovers: Geologist-Razvedchik and Robot-Geolog

What about their opponents and competitors? The Americans have the Artemis program, launched by NASA in 2017, which is a multi-stage plan to return astronauts to the Moon. The area of ​​interest is the South Pole—a region rich in water ice, which, as mentioned above, could become a resource for producing fuel and oxygen.

Artemis has already suffered several delays due to technical issues. The uncrewed Artemis I flight in November 2022 successfully tested the SLS (Space Launch System) rocket and the Orion capsule, although it revealed defects in the heat shield that required modifications. Artemis II, the first manned lunar flyby, is scheduled for April 2026 with a crew of four astronauts. This will test the life support and communications systems. The schedule will likely slip significantly, as has happened many times before. For example, with Artemis III, whose lunar landing was postponed until 2027. This is due to Elon Musk's Starship rocket, which has not yet met NASA's reliability standards. But even if the next American lunar landing is two or three years later than planned, they will still be ahead of everyone else.

The US has allocated considerable funds for this—by early 2026, the Artemis budget will reach hundreds of billions of dollars. And by 2028, Artemis IV will be paired with the Lunar Gateway lunar orbital station, which is being promoted as an international project. In 2023, Artemis VII is planned to conduct the fifth manned lunar landing, during which the SLS Block 1B rocket will deliver the Lunar Cruiser, a manned mobile platform, to the lunar surface. This will be a lunar rover capable of carrying a crew of several astronauts on trips lasting up to 45 days. Further plans call for the construction of a full-fledged lunar station.

Chang'e-5

The Chinese lunar program, named after the moon goddess Chang'e, is a CNSA (China National Space Administration) project divided into three phases. First, orbital missions, followed by lunar landings, sample return, and base construction. In 2026–2027, the Chinese plan to land on the Moon's south pole to search for resources. Chang'e-8 is expected to reach the technology demonstrator stage by 2029 as part of the International Lunar Research Station project. Incidentally, China is implementing this program jointly with Russia. Domestic engineers are responsible, among other things, for small-scale power plants—nuclear-powered, of course. Researchers from the aforementioned Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry are also participating in the international project. The publication Monocle reports:

The Institute is testing a technology for producing building materials for a future base using a lunar soil simulant. The raw material used is regolith simulant VI-T, made from ash and cinders from Kamchatka's Tolbachik volcano, which closely resembles the original in chemical and mineral composition. "The lunar soil simulant is produced using laser sintering, in which a powerful, thin beam of directed light fuses particles of the source material. The resulting sample is 5 by 15 millimeters in size and has hardness characteristics sufficient for use in space," explains Ivan Agapkin, a junior researcher at the Laboratory of Lunar and Planetary Geochemistry at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Geochemistry and Analytical Institute. He explains that the technology enables the rapid creation of small, complex-shaped objects such as screws, bolts, rings, and other compact structures. However, the method is energy-intensive, so its use is only possible after the development of a developed energy system on the Moon.

But that's all in the distant future, and by 2030, the first taikonaut will be on the Moon. The Lannews spacecraft is expected to deliver him (and likely more than one). And Beijing will do this without any Russian assistance.

Comments

[smart ass]

We're waiting for Rogozin on a trampoline and a nuclear space tug that's almost ready.

[Uncle lee]

And Beijing will do this without any help from Russia.

Disorder!

[novel66]

If they won't let me help, I have to do harm. Because it's no good.
Volodya!

[Infinity]

Quote: novel xnumx

If they won't let me help, I have to do harm. Because it's no good.

Well, we have joint lunar projects with China. But they can get to the Moon without us, but can we without them?
We have a lunar program, but given our current plans, state of affairs, funding, and priorities, we're not participating in a new lunar race. If we have an astronaut on the Moon, it will be after the US and China, even if they experience delays.

Moreover, we already have... "damage." As mentioned below, a serious accident occurred on November 27 at launch pad #31 at the Baikonur Cosmodrome (single(from which Russia can send manned and cargo spacecraft to the ISS) – the collapse of the service cabin (pictured). Despite its name, this is an extremely massive and complex structure necessary for preparing launch vehicles for launch.
The Gararin Launch Site at Baikonur has been in storage for over six years and has been handed over to Kazakhstan as a museum (and needs to be modernized for the Soyuz-2 launch vehicle). But in theory, a similar platform could be built from there. Plesetsk is unsuitable due to its latitude, and Vostochny lacks the necessary infrastructure and services.
By the way, the next launch was planned in 3 weeks - "Progress MS-33".
If the repairs drag on too long and they can't come up with a solution, we'll either have to bow to the US and buy seats on their cargo and crew spacecraft, or mothball the Russian segment of the ISS. Fortunately, Russian cosmonauts have experience flying Crew Dagon—the seventh already flew in August. The Japanese are also there, but they can only deliver cargo. However, they all have their own schedules, plans, and budgets (recently cut), and the number of docking ports on the American segment is limited, meaning they'll have to sacrifice their plans for us. If we mothball the Russian segment of the ISS, given the station's age and plans to refloat it in 2031, this option would effectively mean Russia's withdrawal from the project. However, this also takes time; moreover, according to the agreements, Russia must notify its ISS partners one year in advance of its withdrawal. This will also disrupt many scientific programs, and Russia's manned space program will be put on hold until the first modules of the Russian orbital station are launched.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Infinity

But in theory, the same platform can be taken from it.

To do this, certain conditions must be met.
1. Agree with Kazakhstan. Conduct negotiations, discuss terms and price.
2. Check the condition of the platform. I'm afraid the local Kazakhs, skilled in stealing non-ferrous metals, have already rendered the platform inoperable.
3. Remove from Gagarin launch site and move to site 31.
How long will this take? We have plans for December 2025, March, June, September, and December 2026 for trucks, and July 2026 for a replacement crew.

[Civil]

And here the Soviet reserve has ended... what they will come up with, how they will get out of this is unclear... the tug "Captain Ushakov" also lies in the Neva with the same thoughts.

[alexoff]

It's unclear what they'll come up with, how they'll get out of it...

Harness the power of AI! Our space launches will be generated by neural networks!

[Infinity]

Yes, I thought about that too. But on the other hand, if there's no identical platform in storage somewhere at Baikonur (which is highly unlikely, and even if there is, it would still take at least six months to repair), then we might have to negotiate with Kazakhstan and hope it's in good condition. What other options are there?
1) Build a new one. Tyazhmash in Syzran did the job for Vostochny, but that's also not quick; it requires funding.
2) Take them from other spaceports? They're needed there too, but it's unlikely the French will give them up at the mothballed site in Kourou (and there's no need to lead them from South America). Plus, they'll be removed and transported by then... They might also be unsuitable, since it seems Soyuz launches still require a turntable due to the peculiarities of the SAS.
3) Build a temporary structure every time? It's not guaranteed to be feasible. This would significantly increase the time and cost of launch preparations, as the temporary structures would need to be not only installed but also dismantled before launch (or risk losing them).
4) Transfer launches to Vostochny? That would be very time-consuming and expensive.
So this is a relatively viable option, although yes, it has some nuances.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Infinity

Just what other options are there?

The easiest way would be to persuade the Kazakhs, but I'm afraid we'll have to restore it to working order there, because everything valuable has clearly been removed and scrapped. In any case, it will take a long time.

[HAYMARS]

How do you transport it? Can you imagine the size and weight? It has to be broken up into pieces.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Clever man

Rogozina on a trampoline

Our "trampoline" is broken, and it's possible that the Russian cosmonauts sent on November 28th are the last. I haven't mentioned this yet, but due to the failure of Launch Pad 31, the ISS will be destroyed in 2027, not 2030. We were supposed to launch a cargo ship to the ISS in a few days, but it won't be there. Who will send cargo to the ISS now? I don't know, because NASA doesn't have the budget, and Russia is unlikely to fork out the money for the cargo ship. Under the ISS agreement, Russia sends six missions to the ISS per year at its own expense: two manned missions and four cargo missions. If Russia is out of the ISS for even a year, someone will have to shoulder the additional costs. NASA, with its reduced budget, can't afford it, and Russia clearly won't pay for it; it's easier to mothball its modules.

Quote: Clever man

nuclear space tug that is almost ready

The nuclear tug died before it was born; it can be forgotten. The reactor was apparently attached to the Chinese lunar program.

[Vitaly.17]

Quote: Puncher

Our "trampoline" is broken.

Our "trampoline" must address priority tasks related to the military defense system. It's better to ruin ambitions than to ruin people on the front lines.
The fact that the US, China, and even India have joined the lunar race is simply wonderful. We need to join these projects, exempting our scientists from sanctions and helping them spend money on their own projects. It's not just the Chinese and the West that are engaging in brain drain and technology theft; we need to establish the reverse process, too.

[Gardamir]

Your opinion and the opinion of those who rule categorically do not coincide.

[Vitaly.17]

Quote: Gardamir

the opinion of those who rule categorically disagrees

Judging by the downsides, there are plenty of rulers here

[fiberboard]

But FOM, VTsIOM, and Levada Center have a different opinion. 87% support them and over 90% approve!

[Gardamir]

I've been holding a grudge for some time now. Remember how, during perestroika, they criticized "odobryams." They said it was a Soviet phenomenon. The Soviet Union is gone, but odobryams lives on.

[lubesky]

Quote: Gardamir

I've been holding a grudge for some time now. Remember how, during perestroika, they criticized "odobryams." They said it was a Soviet phenomenon. The Soviet Union is gone, but odobryams lives on.

Moreover, colleague, the State Duma is moving ever faster toward "adopted unanimously"! The problem wasn't the vices of the Soviet regime, but the vices of its highest members...

[multi-category]

Quote: lubesky

The issue was not the vices of the Soviet government.

By the mid-70s, after Khrushchev's reforms, all that remained of Soviet power was a sham. The "advice" essentially boiled down to asserting what the Party would dictate from above and to the trade union-driven distribution of travel vouchers. People completely lost sight of the source of their power and influence over their lives.
My mother was a member of parliament on one of the local councils. Not a single important issue was decided there—always the mundane details. The boiler room might be low on coal, a pipe might burst, a dorm needed to be allocated, a troublemaker needed to be reined in. That's the level of government. As for who would get to build a dacha in the city center (yes, in the USSR, there were those who were more even-keeled than others), what schools were doing, the fight against the commercial mafia, and so on—the councils practically no longer addressed any of the issues. Very rarely, but through the councils, it was possible to influence the order of free apartments. But who ran the city, what laws and regulations applied—all of that was decided without the local councils. They were simply notified.

[Alexey Lantukh]

But who runs the city, what laws and rules apply, all this was decided without local councils.

All the most important issues and initiatives were decided in the district and regional party committees, and the Central Committee, which had their own apparatus, virtually independent of the grassroots party organizations. In short, the USSR was an empire, albeit one that did have a Politburo, where many decisions were made through discussion.

[osp]

This also applies to Russia.
The party that transformed from the CPSU seems to have survived to this day and its leader remains unchanged.
But her real situation turns out to be very difficult.
She has been out of politics for a long time - politics has passed her by.
Yes, the Duma elite receives some nice perks from the budget and privileges. But in the regions, they've lost almost everything—their numbers have dwindled significantly.

[Alexey Lantukh]

In general, it doesn't matter which group is in charge. What's important is that the governing group doesn't become ossified, that there aren't too many old retirees in the management apparatus, and that there's a change of management that isn't done through intermediaries. After all, the USSR partially implemented collective governance through the Politburo, the drawback of which was the excessive number of retirees in its ranks, low turnover, and, in addition, a dogmatic belief in its own dogmas.

[Sensor]

The State Duma is moving ever faster towards "adopted unanimously"!

To "Everyone rise. Thunderous and prolonged applause."

[16112014nk]

Quote: Sensor

"Everyone stands. Thunderous and prolonged applause."

Especially if you remember how the State Duma deputies met senators from an enemy country.

[bk316]

It's like it's a Soviet phenomenon. The Soviet Union is gone, but approval lives on.

What's surprising about that? People haven't changed.
Everyone remained: the doomsayers, the ardent communist-capitalists, and the conspiracy theorists in tinfoil hats.

[smart ass]

A lot of our people are dying because of Starlink, and that's just wasted space.

[multi-category]

The SVO is a Papuan war. Both sides in this conflict are using outdated technology. Yes, yes. All this drone fuss is already outdated – look at how Israel handled this issue in Gaza.
Hamas stopped using drones very quickly.
We haven't simply wasted space. In many sectors, we're 10-30 years behind the latest developments, and in some, like anti-submarine warfare, we're 40 years behind. Not because we're stupid, but because we don't have the money or industry to implement our plans, or because the money is being spent in the wrong places.
Space is just a detail. Because of it, we've only lost ground in communications and strategic intelligence.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: multicaat

Because of him, we only lost in communications and strategic intelligence.

That's all. Just insignificant little things.

[multi-category]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

That's all. Just insignificant little things.

They conceded, but they didn't lose. The problem is that we've lost ground in every technological niche, not just in space, but in some areas we haven't even started, and that's when it becomes a shame that our neighbors have Starlink. If I can't buy a Chinese radio station for a tank with encryption for $25, what space exploration is there?
I'll also note that in the three years before Rogozin was appointed head of Roscosmos, we had huge problems with launch accidents. These were later mitigated, but never fully resolved.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: multicaat

They gave in, but he didn't lose.

What's the point? If we're stuck running in place, or worse. The well-known scene of the entrance to Pokrovsk very well characterizes the state of our economy.

[multi-category]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

The well-known picture of the entrance to Pokrovsk

What's wrong with this picture?

[Per se.]

Quote: multicaat

What's wrong with this picture?

[smart ass]

You're all lying, we don't have many similar products!!!))))))

[bk0010]

Quote: multicaat

Yes, yes. All this drone fuss is already outdated - look how Israel handled this issue in Gaza.
Hamas stopped using drones very quickly.

How? Very interesting.

[multi-category]

Quote: bk0010

How? Very interesting.

There is a video of Klimov telling this story.
Overall, Israel, with the help of electronic warfare and direction finding, made life so difficult for drone pilots that they stopped fighting.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: bk0010

How? Very interesting.

Electronic warfare systems mounted on the aircraft pinpoint the drone operator's work location and raze it to the ground. Over time, the number of drone enthusiasts dwindles, eventually dropping to zero.

[bk0010]

Quote: Puncher

Using electronic warfare equipment placed on the aircraft, they determine the location of the UAV operator and destroy this place into dust.

It's logical, but it won't work for us: it's a shame to shoot down the planes while they're circling, detecting radiation sources. And there are fiber-optic UAVs, too...

[Hole puncher]

Quote: bk0010

It's a shame about the planes - they'll get shot down while they're circling

To prevent them from being shot down, there must be modern aviation capable of mitigating the problem. It's a shame we don't have that, only unique aircraft that weren't designed for this purpose.

[Illanatol]

Quote: multicaat

Yes, yes. All this drone fuss is already outdated - look how Israel handled this issue in Gaza.
Hamas stopped using drones very quickly.

There's no comparison. Not in terms of the number of drones, nor the technology used to deploy them, nor the conflict area. Does Hamas have access to the same kind of technical intelligence systems as the Ukrainian Armed Forces?
And the number of Hamas drones is simply paltry compared to what's actually being used in Ukraine. And Hamas itself initially consisted of three or four brigades, tops. The Ukrainian Armed Forces actually have at least 300 drones on their payloads and are currently capable of replacing losses.

[multi-category]

Quote: Illanatol

Incomparable

I think that the size of the theater of operations played a key role there, but Klimov hints that there was a factor of a qualitatively more serious step

[Trapperxnumx]

Quote: multicaat

Hamas stopped using drones very quickly.

Comparing Ukraine to Gaza is a very bold statement. Not even that.
VERY bold.

[cast iron]

Tell us how Israel solved the debt problem in Gaza?

[multi-category]

I won't be involved in the topic in any way and I'm not interested.

[FIR FIR]

Quote: Vitaly.17

It's not just the Chinese and the West that are engaged in brain drain and technology theft; we also need to set up the reverse process.

A mass migration of American and Chinese scientists to Russia? What wild fantasies do you have?

[multi-category]

I think there are no American scientists left for a long time now.
There are Indian-American, Mexican-American, etc.
Americans themselves have long ignored universities for technical specialties.

[FIR FIR]

Quote: multicaat

I think there are no American scientists left for a long time now.

Yes, there are others, and Nobel Prizes are regularly received by, for example, physicists Hopfield and Martinis, chemists Bruce and Baker, virologist Rice and physiologist Julius.

[multi-category]

Quote: FIR FIR

Martinis

graduated from the university in 1985, before the end of the Cold War.
Holfield was born in 1933. These are all dinosaurs. I'm talking about the new generation.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Vitaly.17

It's not just the Chinese and the West that are engaged in brain drain and technology theft; we also need to set up the reverse process.

Really? And what are the prerequisites for this? I personally don't see any.

[Machito]

Quote: Puncher

Quote: Clever man

Rogozina on a trampoline

Our "trampoline" is broken, and it's possible that the Russian cosmonauts sent on November 28th are the last. I haven't mentioned this yet, but due to the failure of Launch Pad 31, the ISS will be destroyed in 2027, not 2030. We were supposed to launch a cargo ship to the ISS in a few days, but it won't be there. Who will send cargo to the ISS now? I don't know, because NASA doesn't have the budget, and Russia is unlikely to fork out the money for the cargo ship. Under the ISS agreement, Russia sends six missions to the ISS per year at its own expense: two manned missions and four cargo missions. If Russia is out of the ISS for even a year, someone will have to shoulder the additional costs. NASA, with its reduced budget, can't afford it, and Russia clearly won't pay for it; it's easier to mothball its modules.

Quote: Clever man

nuclear space tug that is almost ready

The nuclear tug died before it was born; it can be forgotten. The reactor was apparently attached to the Chinese lunar program.

We should build our own orbital station. Finish Liana. Satellite internet, like Musk's. Reusable rockets.
What Moon? Why?
The Americans and Chinese are planning to go to the Moon. So let them fly and shove flags. We'll also check how solar flares affect the health of astronauts and teikonauts. It's in Kubrick's films that astronauts hop like bunnies, but in reality, Earthlings currently have no manned spacecraft beyond the Earth's magnetic field, which protects them from radiation.
Yes, of course, lunar exploration is very promising. But right now, there are so many pressing, unresolved space problems that should have been solved the day before yesterday.
It's likely that the problem of reactor cooling has never been solved for the nuclear tug. There's simply no working fluid capable of transferring the high temperature.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Bearded

We should build our own orbital station. Finish Liana. Satellite internet, like Musk's. Reusable rockets.
What Moon? Why?

Russia's manned space program is its very foundation. Without it, there won't be any funding for space at all, except for military satellites, and the Soyuz spacecraft are more than enough for that.
The Americans can't handle the ISS alone, because our modules support vital life-support functions. This means our cosmonauts' presence is essential. They could get there on Dragons, but who's going to pay? Does Russia have 80 million American dollars for one seat? NASA won't pay for our cosmonauts' transportation, so the decision on decommissioning the ISS ahead of schedule will be made in 2026 or 2027.
Our space station won't be ready by 2030, no matter what they promise, meaning there will be nowhere to fly and no reason to. Managers will scratch their bellies and decide to "temporarily" optimize costs during this time, cutting them on infrastructure maintenance and, most importantly, personnel. And that's a 100% death sentence for manned spaceflight. And then they'll forget about the space station and optimize it. And without the space station, Angara 5 is useless.

[novel66]

These fucking managers should be jailed for using the word "optimization", and again - the tower, because in their understanding, optimization is, first of all, the destruction of reserves (labor, material - and all sorts), and production cannot function normally without reserves.

[Konnick]

Quote: novel xnumx

These fucking managers should be jailed for using the word "optimization", and again - the tower, because in their understanding, optimization is, first of all, the destruction of reserves (labor, material - and all sorts), and production cannot function normally without reserves.

I can't imagine how an economist can lead Roscosmos. An economist thinks about savings, not results... pardon the tautology.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Konnick

I can't imagine how an economist can lead Roscosmos.

Well, how could it be otherwise? In other industries/directions they give orders, and nothing... For some reason, nothing works except optimization.

[multi-category]

Optimization logic isn't an economist. It's an idiot.
How many projects have been ruined like this? For example, in Krasnoyarsk, a Moscow-based optimizer bet heavily on Coca-Cola because the project was cut "for optimization and profit increase," which nearly resulted in the entire investment going down the drain. They had to sharply add about 40% to correct the situation.
Initially, we saved 10%. Someone simply needed to quickly earn a bonus for hitting impressive targets.
Therefore, one should not confuse economists with morons.

[novel66]

Rogozin is an economist??? Who the hell is he?

[Konnick]

Quote: novel xnumx

Rogozin is an economist??? Who the hell is he?

He is a journalist, which means he is completely incompetent.

[novel66]

Nothing! "Two slobbering tongues on the buttonholes" (C)

[Hole puncher]

Quote: novel xnumx

because in their understanding, optimization is, first of all, the destruction of reserves (labor, material - and all sorts of things), and production without reserves cannot function normally

Well, they can't optimize themselves, so they won't be the ones targeted for optimization. They just need to show that expenses were reduced within the specified timeframe, and then let the devil take care of it. They might even get a bonus for successfully completing the optimization.

Quote: novel xnumx

and production cannot function normally without reserves

It's not their headache.

[FIR FIR]

Quote: Puncher

Well, they can't optimize themselves.

Quote: Puncher

It is important for them to show that expenses have been reduced within the established timeframe, and then let the grass grow.

And then, even if there is a nuclear war, the main thing is to move to a chair with a higher back.

[Pioneer1984]

A firm contract has been signed for the production of four Angara A5M launch vehicles by June 2025, which are planned to be used for the following launches:

- August 2027 - a model of the Oryol spacecraft for testing the Emergency Rescue System (ERS) by controlled interruption of the launch vehicle's flight;

- December 2027 - module "NEM", 1st module of the orbital station "ROS";

- March 2028 - the Oryol spacecraft in an unmanned version, orbital flight;

- June 2028 - the UUM (Universal Node) and SHM (Gateway) modules in conjunction with the cargo ship - the 2nd and 3rd modules of the ROS orbital station;

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Pioneer1984

As of June 2025, there is a firm contract for the production of 4 Angara A5M launch vehicles, with the help of which the following launches are planned to be carried out

The Angara A5M hasn't been tested yet; its first flight is scheduled for 2027. If everything goes well, the plans will come together; if not, they'll be off track.

[Pioneer1984]

So why understand the dust ahead of time if there are no indications for this yet?

[Monster_Fat]

Satellite Internet, like Musk's.

Well, as it turns out, there's no need for "free" internet in the country at all. It turns out that workers only need internet from the approved "white list"; the rest doesn't fall under "traditional values" and is under the control of the treacherous West. Why do we need satellite internet for this?

[FIR FIR]

Quote: Monster_Fat

As it turns out, workers only need access to the internet from the permitted "white list"; the rest does not fall under "traditional values" and is under the control of the insidious West.

A wise Chinese comrade told me how it should be done.

Quote: Monster_Fat

Why do you need satellite internet for this?

I want a white list everywhere and anywhere!!!

[multi-category]

Quote: Bearded

We should build our own orbital station.

First of all, we need to build a profitable industry on this land.
Almost everything we produce ends up in the budget. Very little is put into the open market. Without healthy industrial development, all project plans become nonsense. Look at the cost of the latest megaprojects—the Zenit stadium, the Crimean bridge, the construction of the Sochi Olympics, the bridge to the Far East, and the cost of new high-speed train projects. They're all 5-11 times more expensive than abroad. It's a pointless exercise. That's because industry operates under delusional conditions.

[osp]

That's true. Most Soviet-era enterprises were highly unprofitable and made no profit.
I'll go further: the entire housing and utilities system, practically the entire system, has long been bankrupt in terms of service providers. All these municipal unitary enterprises, housing maintenance offices, water utilities, and others have long been bankrupt. And they survive on budget subsidies. Under the current circumstances, even annual tariff increases prevent them from modernizing their networks, developing themselves, or paying adequate salaries to their employees.
This is almost entirely a Soviet system, which cannot be self-sufficient under market conditions—citizens' debt amounts to only one and a half trillion rubles.

[multi-category]

Quote from osp

That's true. Most Soviet-era enterprises were highly unprofitable and made no profit.

How much can we talk about the Soviet period? Most companies could have undergone three or four modernizations since the collapse of the USSR. We're talking about the conditions in which these companies currently exist. Take the new Angstrom processor factories. They weren't launched because they couldn't find the personnel, and the money, no. BABLE, wasted. This has nothing to do with the USSR at all. And we have plenty of absurdities in our production. For example, yes, we can't fully compete with China in Turkey on the price of electrical outlets or vacuum cleaners. But why is the same thing happening in the domestic market? The climate excuse doesn't work here. No, it's our internal macroeconomic conditions, which we regulate ourselves, that are at work. There's nothing new here. Huge sales margins, which easily cover all import costs, poor domestic quality, a lack of reasonable, accessible financial leverage, taxes, problems with personnel and access to basic production assets, and the dominance of those who are more equal than others—various oligarchic and power structures that compete unfairly, not on equal terms. The complete insanity of the financial leverage being used, the constant rewriting of laws and operating regulations, their complexity, and the complete vulnerability of small and medium-sized businesses to the arbitrary exercise of administrative resources.
And taken together, the difficulties and risks of business are such that without a margin of 100-200%, no one wants to do anything, and that means the death of the industry.

[osp]

Why are there no excavator factories left in Russia?
Because the scale of the domestic market (determined by large-scale construction) no longer corresponded to the scale of production/its cost.
The same "Kovrovets" in the Vladimir region.
During the Soviet years, it was designed to produce thousands of excavators per year.
And then he released only hundreds. By the end of his existence, dozens.
And the huge plant became unprofitable because there was no market for these products.
And electricity for production is a whole other topic. Or more precisely, its price.

I know the situation at Angstrem and at other electronics plants.
There are a lot of materials and chemicals needed for it to work.
And a good half of this is not produced in Russia.
There is no civilian market for these chips at all in the country.
And the military man is not big.
That's why the price is what it is. There's a whole host of reasons.

[multi-category]

Quote from osp

The same "Kovrovets"

Who prevented the plant's management from thinking about what sales niches to target?
Here are bobcats cleaning the yards. There are thousands of them. Why didn't Kirovets make such equipment? There are also cranes and other engineering vehicles.
Why can this plant only afford to produce excavators?
Moreover, it was necessary to somehow build relationships both with long-standing customers, such as the Asian republics and the Caucasus, and with suppliers. I vividly remember how factories simply did nothing for decades during perestroika—they simply drifted along, even though many had economic and engineering departments numbering hundreds of people. What can I say—it was the same in my hometown. The management of the city-forming plant was busy with idle pursuits while lucrative orders were being placed, completely oblivious to the future, and squandered its potential for development for 30 years straight. As a result, when problems arose, the plant died, and with it the city. I was sort of trained in production management and am not inclined to approve of the carelessness displayed by the management of so many large plants. To put it bluntly, most of them were well aware of what would happen to the country in 1982-83, long before the major problems arose, but they did NOTHING to adapt their enterprises.

[osp]

Bobcat-like loaders were manufactured back in Soviet times by the Leningrad Excavator Plant, later by the Bars company. It was a decent loader, by the way.
But in the early 2000s, this enterprise also ceased to exist.
When UVZ was without government orders, it began producing PUMs through conversion; they developed 5 modifications of which only 3 were produced - for 500, 800 and 1000 tons.
This production also ceased by the late 2000s, and the plant returned to the military sector, with Russian Railways also being a customer there. They also manufactured and developed excavators, but that, too, is history.
The Kostroma Excavator Plant—draglines and pile drivers—is the same—the company is gone.
Voronezh - same thing. Disappeared.
And let's not forget that large enterprises like these had their own housing stock, construction departments, and housing management infrastructure.
If a factory dies in a single-industry town, it's doomed. Everything becomes depressive and subsidized. The population flees.

[multi-category]

It was like that in my homeland, but I still don't understand
Well, let's say the equipment isn't selling well, but I remember private owners buying cars for themselves. You could build a truck, an all-terrain vehicle, a light motorcycle, a quad bike, boat engines, and so on. Various construction equipment. There was a severe shortage of self-propelled pumps with a pipe for concrete work, for example.
Most of these same companies could have launched auxiliary production lines for metal grills, greenhouse frames, armored doors, and much more. But I remember from my city that no one bothered until things got really bad. Under Gorbachev, the word "conversion" was fashionable, but the proposals usually amounted to some utter nonsense that was guaranteed to ruin the enterprise. I was just calculating two conversion plans for Novosibirsk plants, and the results were extremely negative. Sitting around waiting for orders from who knows where and what kind of orders...that's not it. For example, in our city, there was a plant called RMZ, which specialized in metalwork. It was a disaster until management stopped waiting for the weather to clear and started doing something. Then they started making metal kiosks and all sorts of lightweight structures, helping private welders, started looking for large orders outside the city, and the plant started doing well. And I'd say the plant hasn't even filled half of its demand.

[osp]

In Novosibirsk there used to be 3 factories that made microchips.
Then, the remaining two were combined into one.
And to this day, the products there are mainly from the Soviet period - 1821 processor sets, 573 series ultraviolet-erasable memory.
All are from the late 80s. Space and military-industrial complexes are still being built on budget.
But on the civilian market, no one is interested in it or needs it, and it is not legal to sell it "on the side" since it has military approval.
And who in civilian life needs an 8-bit processor at 5 MHz and 8 KB of memory?
It would be suitable for satellites and Soviet-designed rockets, but at a stretch.

[multi-category]

Many such electronics factories closed all over the USSR, and we were already noticeably behind by about 15 years.
But there were a ton of truly unique, one-off production facilities that cost as much as a starship. Honestly, I don't understand what kind of idiot built the USSR's industry like that. Part of our industry was clearly parasitizing on the rest, and it's not entirely clear why.

[osp]

The Oryol loader plant also ceased to exist.
As in the case of excavator plants, this is far from just the welding of metal structures that can be converted.
These are entire workshops, for example, for the production of hydraulic cylinders—complex machines for turning, grinding, and polishing them. Everything is expensive and difficult to maintain. After the conversion, it was completely unclear what to do with it except for the equipment.
It is also logical that in small towns where there is a lot of land, the entire housing stock should be low-rise with a high degree of autonomy.
But what happened here? Even in regional centers with populations under 40, all housing was multi-story, 9-12 stories high, rarely 5.
Such houses are the most expensive to build and maintain.
And already in market conditions (especially if the city-forming enterprise has disappeared) everything becomes heavily subsidized.
And such a city gives nothing to the state in return - it only consumes.
This means that in the past, the housing stock existed at the expense of the enterprise, and was possibly heated by its thermal power plant or boiler room.
It now exists largely at the expense of the state, as all public utilities have long been bankrupt and highly unprofitable.

[Dock1272]

I read somewhere that under a socialist economy, the cost of production, in addition to the cost of producing the product itself, also includes the maintenance of the housing stock, clinics, kindergartens and camps, free medical care, etc., etc. Therefore, these products are not competitive in price on capitalist markets....

[osp]

So many enterprises in the post-Soviet era were forced to abandon these social assets simply to survive – there was no money to maintain them.
But the municipalities didn't want to take them on their balance sheets either - their budgets depend on the taxes of the same enterprise.
Vicious circle.

[osp]

Now they are closing the Bilibino Nuclear Power Plant.
The project did not pay for itself - the construction costs were enormous in such conditions, the station's capacity was minimal, and the power system was isolated.
But decommissioning will be a huge cost—it will take 30 years. Just removing the fuel will be pricey.
After closure, this station will no longer produce commercial products, but rather consume them—electricity, water, and heat. And employees will also need to be paid.
The corporation is state-owned, which means the state will pay.
But the fact is that these are also someone’s taxes, and someone will not receive enough of them.

[Sensor]

There is simply no working fluid to which high temperatures can be transferred.

At high temperatures, the working fluid can be anything; it doesn't matter what's being converted into plasma. The other question is how to heat this fluid, where and how to hold it to form a jet stream.

[Konnick]

Quote: Sensor

There is simply no working fluid to which high temperatures can be transferred.

At high temperatures, the working fluid can be anything; it doesn't matter what's being converted into plasma. The other question is how to heat this fluid, where and how to hold it to form a jet stream.

There is air in the atmosphere, and this is precisely the working fluid in a nuclear engine, but is there a vacuum in space, or do you also need a tank for the working fluid?

[Sensor]

Thanks to the minimal molecular weight and thermodynamic perfection of the working fluid—hydrogen—and the high temperature of its heating in a nuclear reactor up to 3000°K, this new type of engine is characterized by high energy indicators (the specific impulse of thrust is 910 s) and provides a significant expansion of the tasks to be solved in the exploration of near and deep space.

This is about the RD0410 (RD0411) nuclear rocket engine. Purpose
Engines for accelerating, braking and correcting spacecraft orbits, including those flying into deep space.
https://kbkha.ru/deyatel-nost/raketnye-dvigateli-dlya-kosmicheskoy-otrasli/raketnye-dvigateli-ao-kbha/yadernyj-raketnyj-dvigatel-rd0410-rd0411/

[multi-category]

Orbital space exploration has a ton of problems, starting with orbital litter. There's a real ton of junk out there. Stations are regularly bombarded with all sorts of junk—the Chinese got their comeuppance recently. I think that's why the US suddenly wants to go to Mars.

[smart ass]

Explain to me what astronauts do on the ISS for decades? What experiments? In that time, you could conceive a human being in space and raise them. What's the point?

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Clever man

Explain to me what astronauts have been doing on the ISS for decades? What experiments?

Ours is definitely on the money; their only concern is repairing modules that have already failed. On Nauka, for example, the cooling system failed, and half the equipment there can't be turned on because of it. For Russia, space exploration has long since become a poster child for something like "we still can do it..."

[multi-category]

Quote: Puncher

like we still can...

absurd movie clips are filmed in orbit
here is the entire scientific program

[Izotovp]

Both we and the Americans had already tried to conceive. Nothing worked due to the lack of gravity. We tried to cheat and conceive in a centrifuge. Nature laughed, and nothing worked either.
All of our core programs were completed by the end of the 80s. After that, as my colleague said, we were limited to taxi drivers and plumbers.
The conversion of technologies in our country is quite dismal, and the Central Bank's financial policy doesn't allow for long-term private investment in high technology. Forget the production of ultra-pure drugs and crystals, as developed at MIR. You're imagining it. The use of shape-memory materials in orbital assembly—what is that?
In general, everything is even sadder than it seems.

[solar]

Both we and the Americans have already tried to conceive.

I wonder. Who exactly were we trying to get pregnant with? Where can I read about it? Or is this just a cliché?

[Izotovp]

Naturally, no one in our country will give you any information about our cosmonauts. Some of the experiment participants are still alive, and no one is rushing to lift the secrecy. The Americans also officially deny it. So... don't take this seriously. OBS. But geneticists aren't even discussing the experiment itself, and why not? Something with gravity or magnetic fields.
With respect.

[jdiver]

I think there's a pretty good chance that humans outside the Earth's magnetosphere will turn into vegetables, having escaped the terrestrial "router" that controls various processes in our consciousness. We haven't yet traveled that far from Earth, unless you count the American fairy tales from the lunar hoax. I don't think there will be any Chinese or Americans on the Moon in 2030. Robots, yes, but humans—that's not a given. We'll see.

[Per se.]

Quote from jdiver

I think there's a pretty good chance that a person outside the Earth's magnetosphere will turn into a vegetable once they leave the Earth's "router"

The following was said and is more suitable for your comment.

It's quite possible that humanity is tethered to Earth; no one has yet verified this. An invisible "electronic collar" that "explodes" when removed from the designated zone—that would be quite a reality...

[jdiver]

I've come across a number of studies investigating the influence of the Earth's magnetic field on living organisms and the behavioral changes associated with its shielding. The results were quite interesting. People don't think in terms of a human being being merely a cell living within a larger living organism on the planet, possessing its own complex consciousness and structurally connected to this organism through complex interactions, and simply not adapted to life outside of it, not only physically but also informationally. It may turn out, for example, that human memory is impaired or even impossible when outside the planet's magnetosphere. Uploading the firmware of a new human being and conceiving outside the planet's boundaries has proven impossible so far—humans are not designed for this.
Politicians will promise flights to Mars and manned stations on the Moon. If necessary, they'll even promise a trip to Alpha Centauri. Nothing is impossible for chatterboxes, especially if they can boost their approval ratings and siphon off budgets.

[Per se.]

Yes, there's a lot we don't know. I don't trust the priests; they're pimps of faith, making money and gaining influence from religion. But just as it's unlikely a computer program would write itself, it's unlikely the DNA molecule would have emerged without a great cosmic "programmer." If the world is created like a program, it's quite possible that Earth's magnetic field isn't the only thing that tethers us. It's funny, if there were "life" on a laser disc or a computer hard drive, dreaming of transporting ourselves "to another planet," another disc, would be reminiscent of speculating about our tether to our planet.

[jdiver]

In recent decades, we have made significant progress in understanding how to imbue complex matter with complex behavior. Cybernetics, computer science, and information technology are the hallmarks of the modern world. We are creating immaterial (informational) objects within highly complex software systems for various purposes that already implement behaviors largely inaccessible to humans. Yet, we remain stuck in the inertia of caveman thinking about what consciousness is. Generalizing this concept, using the knowledge gained by modern information technologies, leads us to the conclusion that consciousness in its general form (untethered from the human biological platform) is essentially the target states of a system and a set of strategies for achieving them (algorithms for transitioning from the current state to the target) over time. And such consciousness is already possessed by robots and their individual subsystems, by humans and cells or organs of the human body, and even by protein molecules or even the atoms that comprise them. The scale and complexity of consciousness are changing, but we no longer view this concept from the anthropopuppet perspective of a small child, believing themselves to be the center and crown of everything in the world, rather than a cell in a vast living tissue with their own purpose within it. Humanity similarly expanded the concept of number, faced with the need to understand the world more deeply and create scientific models that more adequately describe it. We moved from natural numbers to integers, rational, irrational, and complex. And without these generalizations, we would not have our modern understanding of the physics of our world. The time has come to do the same with the concept of consciousness. After this, a number of sciences, such as psychology and similar ones, will transform into a kind of applied computer science, and many new and interesting scientific fields will emerge that study the biosphere, planet, Solar System, and so on as a single living whole. And we are arriving at a natural union of what has always been separated by religious and scientific descriptions of the world. The concept of God, which religions used with their figurative ancient terminology, is defined quite rationally as a global living system possessing consciousness, hierarchically composed of similarly conscious subsystems of smaller scale. A single organism extending from the scale of individual molecules to the substances that unite them into a single informational whole, organic and otherwise, the tissues and organs of living beings, groups of organisms (animal herds, peoples, etc.), the biosphere and other structural elements of the planet possessing their own behavior, the solar system as cells of the galactic fabric, and so on.
But this understanding, by generating a new worldview, thereby destroys business traditionally based on modern religions, as well as all political and economic superstructures founded on atheism and the denial of a single, living, conscious whole, in which each element has its purpose within its own supersystem. And this collapse of worldview destroys everything that modern elites rely on. So this process of worldview change will not receive any assistance from official science or religions. :)

[Per se.]

Yes, there is much we don't know, but in the world of capitalism, both official science and various religious denominations, tailored to local mentalities and understandings, will serve the interests of big capital.
Thank you for the dialogue, in conclusion I would like to recall the lines of Valery Bryusov.

Perhaps these electrons are Worlds where there are five continents, Arts, knowledge, wars, thrones and the memory of forty centuries!
Perhaps each atom is a universe with a hundred planets; everything that is here is there, in a compressed volume, but also what is not here.
Their measures are small, but still their infinity is the same as here; There is sorrow and passion, as here, and even There is the same worldly arrogance.
Their sages, having made their boundless world the center of existence, hasten to penetrate the sparks of mystery and reason, as I do now;
And at the moment when from destruction currents of new forces are created, they cry out, in dreams of self-hypnosis, that God has extinguished his torch!

Good luck to you!

[jdiver]

Beautiful poem. Thank you.

[multi-category]

Quote: Izotovp

Application

I remember how the USSR coordinated the fight against fires and locust infestations in real time from orbit. It even made the news.

[Izotovp]

Also searching for schools of fish and rescue operations.
Currently, this is done by UAVs, satellites and cameras on towers.

[FIR FIR]

Quote: Clever man

Explain to me what astronauts have been doing on the ISS for decades? What experiments?

Research in medicine, biotechnology, communications, materials science, construction, and so on. There's a lot going on, but a lot of it requires money, and the commercialization of space doesn't always lead to positive results, since investors only want profit, and as quickly as possible.

[novel66]

In fact, the new station also died without being born.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: novel xnumx

In fact, the new station also died without being born.

Bakanov was promised something at NASA, and he came back so pleased and started declaring that the ROS would be based on the same ISS instead of a polar orbit, and that there would be cooperation with the Americans. It's unclear who he's planning to cooperate with. I expect something will become clear next year.

[Pioneer1984]

Considering that the "nuclear tug" program has become completely classified, where did you get the information that "the tug is dead"? The OBS?

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Pioneer1984

Considering that the "nuclear tug" program has become completely classified, where did you get the information that "the tug is dead"? The OBS?

[media=https://cs15.pikabu.ru/video/2024/07/13/172085045722676577_6c8ce1dd_768x432.mp4]

[Pioneer1984]

Yes, indeed, "the source of all sources."

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Pioneer1984

Yes, indeed, "the source of all sources."

What do you mean? The head of Roscosmos is a nobody?

[Pioneer1984]

Where's the "head of Roscosmos"? Neither the former nor the current head of Roscosmos has mentioned the project's closure in any open sources. Especially since this project is under the auspices of Rosatom and the military.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Pioneer1984

Where is your "head of Roscosmos"?

On July 3, 2024, the head of Roscosmos will report to the State Duma.
https://cs15.pikabu.ru/video/2024/07/13/172085045722676577_6c8ce1dd_768x432.mp4
If you're too lazy to listen, I'll quote Yuri Borisov, in response to a question about the development of the Zeus nuclear tug program, directly: "Regarding our nuclear program, I have to disappoint you: it's not progressing at all. Because it hasn't been funded for three years now. ... But today, in our interactions with our Chinese colleagues, a nuclear power plant is more interesting and in demand for them. Therefore, my colleagues from Rosatom and I have now REFORMATTED this program, presented its new look and a new funding model, and I hope that after the president's instructions, it will finally begin to physically exist..."

[Nastia makarova]

The project not only did not stop, but expanded

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Nastia Makarova

The project not only did not stop, but expanded

Your desires and reality are not connected.

[Nastia makarova]

Your speculations too......

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Nastia Makarova

Your speculations too.

These aren't just speculations, but statements from the head of Roscosmos. Can you refute them?

[Nastia makarova]

He didn't say specifically that the project was closed forever, I read his speech to the State Duma

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Nastia Makarova

He didn't say specifically that the project was closed forever.

He reported that the topic has been reformatted to include the creation of a stationary nuclear power plant for the Chinese Lunar Base.

[Nastia makarova]

but he didn't say that the towing issue was closed)))))

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Pioneer1984

Where did you get the information that the "tugboat died"? OBS?

Borisov spoke about this in the State Duma on July 3, 2024. The video won't embed; I've included the link in the comment above.

[Pioneer1984]

I looked at the transcript of Borisov's speech; he didn't say anything about closing the program, but on the contrary, "Among the priority projects are Sfera, the Russian orbital station, and the space nuclear program." But there is no video of this speech.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Pioneer1984

there is no video of this performance

https://cs15.pikabu.ru/video/2024/07/13/172085045722676577_6c8ce1dd_768x432.mp4

[Izotovp]

Regarding the nuclear tugboat, the head of the Kurchatov Institute, Kovalchuk, recently reported to the president that work is in full swing.
Our ROS was conceived with a completely different concept: its primary focus would be a shipyard. Assembling interplanetary spacecraft, servicing satellites...
High-rise workers-installers)

[Monster_Fat]

Our "trampoline" is broken...

Well, here's what they write on iXBT.com:

A 144-ton structure fell from a great height at Baikonur, leaving the ISS unreachable: details emerge of the damage following the latest Soyuz launch. The 8U216 service cabin is a mobile metal platform measuring 19,06 m x 16,92 m and weighing 144 tons, housing two lifting platforms. During launch preparation, the service cabin is positioned underneath the rocket, and the platforms are raised, providing access to the Soyuz rocket's first- and second-stage engines. From here, the launch team performs all pre-launch operations on the lower portion of the rocket, including removing protective covers and installing pyrotechnic devices on the rocket's engines.

After prelaunch preparations are complete, the lifting platforms are lowered, and the service cabin moves along special rails into a special niche under the launch pad, clearing the way to the firing trench. The cabin's niche opening is closed with a special metal curtain attached to the service cabin. It is secured with two locks.
On November 27, preparations for the launch of the Soyuz-2.1a launch vehicle carrying the Soyuz MS-28 spacecraft proceeded as planned, and 44 minutes before liftoff, according to the launch team's report, the maintenance cabin was moved into its recess. However, a subsequent inspection revealed that either it was not securely secured in the recess or the latches holding it in place failed to withstand the load.

During the rocket's launch, a pressure differential developed between the space beneath the rocket, where exhaust gases from the operating engines are exhausted, and the niche housing the maintenance cabin. The resulting pressure differential ripped the maintenance cabin from its niche and sent it plummeting into the fire pit, where it fell upside down from a height of 20 meters.

Photos of the accident showed significant damage to the maintenance cabin, which experts believe is too extensive to repair. The only way to resume launches from Pad 31/6 is to install a spare maintenance cabin or build a new one.
Russia is temporarily unable to launch Soyuz manned spacecraft and Progress cargo spacecraft to the ISS. The next launch (Progress MS-33) was scheduled for December 21. The return of Pad 31/6 now depends on the speed of repairs...

They say manned launches can't be carried out from the Vostochny Cosmodrome because the second stage separates over the water surface, and if something happens, the cosmonauts would have to land on the water, and we have no experience retrieving a landing module from the ocean... I don't know how true this is.
P.S.: I wonder, if it's true, who chose the location for this cosmodrome and how?

[osp]

Yes, that's true. If the rocket fails, the spacecraft carrying the cosmonauts will fall into the Pacific Ocean, and their destination is unknown. They could simply perish there. Russia doesn't have ships or ground effect vehicles or seaplanes capable of getting there quickly.

And if some highly classified satellite were to crash due to a rocket, it could even fall onto Canadian territory...

[123_123]

Quote: Puncher

Who will send cargo to the ISS now?

Even at Baikonur, there are still active and unmothballed launch pads. Proton launches are also possible, but the launch program from pads 81 or 200 must be maintained. The next launch was scheduled for December.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: 123_123

Even at Baikonur, there are still active and unmothballed launch pads. Proton launches are also possible, but the launch program from pads 81 or 200 must be maintained. The next launch was scheduled for December.

Your assumptions are very naive.

[Nastia makarova]

So far, there has been no word that the launches will be postponed.
Why did the nuclear tug die before it was born?
research and development is ongoing and has not stopped

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Nastia Makarova

So far, there has been no word that the launches will be postponed.

Do you mean Progress will launch on December 21st?

Quote: Nastia Makarova

Why did the nuclear tug die before it was born?

Perhaps because, reporting to the State Duma on July 3rd last year, the head of Roscosmos stated that "things are not going well with him, because there has been no funding whatsoever for the last three years," and therefore the program was reoriented toward creating a nuclear reactor for a Chinese lunar base.

[Nastia makarova]

The launch will be delayed, then we can say for sure how much and not just guess.
Regarding the tugboat, a year later there were many statements about continuing development

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Nastia Makarova

Regarding the tugboat, a year later there were many statements about continuing development

Was it Bakanov or the "bloggers" who reported it?

[Nastia makarova]

journalists and bloggers..............

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Nastia Makarova

journalists and bloggers..............

So, when choosing between the head of Roscosmos and journalists/bloggers, do you trust people who don't have access to the subject matter more?

[Nastia makarova]

Journalists interviewing those in the know, but the head of the organization spoke vaguely and every word should be believed?

[Dock1272]

Do you need a specific yes/no? Then I'll remind you of Karlsson in a similar situation. Have you stopped drinking cognac in the mornings? Just a clear yes/no.

[alexoff]

The reactor was apparently added to the Chinese lunar program.

It's the same reactor as in the Burevestnik and Poseidon, with its own specifics, of course. The problem is that you can build a tugboat, but there's nothing to carry it.

[HAYMARS]

The ISS is supplied by all parties involved in the project—the US, the EU, and even Japan. But raising the orbit is more complicated.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: HAYMARS

The ISS is supplied by all parties to the project: the US, the EU, and even Japan.

The cargo launch is planned and funded in advance, with nothing extra planned. The loss of either side would require additional expenses, which NASA currently has no plans for and no reserves for. Thanks to Trump and the chaos at NASA, where a director has yet to be appointed.

Quote: HAYMARS

But with raising the orbit, things are more complicated.

SpaceX is building a ship to deorbit the ISS, and it will soon have to work.

[DMB 75]

We're waiting for Rogozin on the trampoline.

From Rogozin's diary.
1. Fly to the Moon, check whether Americans were there. Refute the landing as a false fiction.
2. Fly to the Moon, check whether the Chinese lunar rover was there. Refute the landing as a false fiction.
3. Obtain funding for the construction of a city on Mars and complete the villa in the Seychelles. Refute the existence of the villa as a false fiction.

A story you'd like to forget: On August 19, 2023, the Luna-25 module fell onto the surface of the Moon at a speed of 1,7 km/s.

If the Luna 25 mission had been called Rogozin 1, it wouldn't have been so upsetting to read about the crash.

[smart ass]

You've also forgotten a couple of Rogozin's important deeds. 1) Calling himself a wild and brave wolf. 2) Getting shot in the ass while drinking in the rear.

[urik62]

And get out of there to the Federation Council

[Dock1272]

He has a record in his personal file: combat wounds received in the SVO zone...))) and also the Order of Alexander Nevsky...

[fiberboard]

What does Rogozin have to do with this anymore?! We're all about "breakthroughs and consolidation of success." Our scientists are scattering all over the world, because the ruling gentlemen in Russia don't care. Syrians are already in Siberia, and Afghans and Indians are awaiting "work." Putin has already announced twice that Russian scientists should return to Russia. Officials, as usual, began feigning frenetic activity. So, have many returned? People simply stopped trusting Putin and his "team" long ago.

[nznz]

Aren't you tired of being sarcastic, the same old, bearded nonsense?

[Yuri L]

And the tugboat is indeed ready. Here it is, in this streamlined form. I won't show the Super Trampoline, it's too reminiscent of something related and feminized...

[alexputnik17]

Quote: Clever man

We're waiting for Rogozin

I'll add some firewood... Kubrick. An eternal theme.

[Hole puncher]

and by 2030 the first taikonaut will be on the Moon

This is very optimistic, considering China doesn't have the rocket for this. September 12.09.2025, 4, marked the end of the CZ-10 ground test series, but the US SLS has already flown and is now preparing for its second launch. Will the Chinese be able to overtake them in four years? Everything depends on the progress of the tests; any failure automatically pushes the deadlines forward. The US is currently the leader, but they have an idiot in power who has started cutting into space, and the lunar program has suffered greatly. Even in its truncated form, it is in better shape than China's. They have the SLS rocket to deliver the Orion spacecraft to the moon, the New Glenn rocket to deliver the Blue Moon Mark 1 lunar module, which is already assembled and is being prepared for a test launch, and the Axiom Extravehicular Mobility Unit spacesuit. All of this will fly to the moon next year, while China will only just begin test launches of the CZ-10.

[smart ass]

China is the world's number one economy. I've been there several times. From Yiwu to Shanghai! Their commuter train runs at 250 km/h! You can't even imagine the scale of their economy. If they want to, they can build anything and fly anywhere.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Clever man

You can't even imagine the scale of the economy.

It's hard to imagine, but I believe it's the first in the world. I was there too in the early 90s and saw how it all began, so I have something to compare it to today. Of course, it's fantastic.

Quote: Clever man

If they want, they can build anything and fly anywhere.

You're oversimplifying things. Money alone doesn't accomplish anything; you need competent people. If they're not there, or their competence isn't up to par, money won't help. While they can lure the best minds into civilian fields, who can raise the level of local talent, they don't let foreigners into the military or space. At least, I haven't heard anything like that. And it's obvious; China's state-run space program is stuck in the 90s.

[Anglorussian]

In France, such trains were already running 40 years ago.
The Chinese take numbers, their impressive achievements are slightly exaggerated.

[smart ass]

Google the Shanghai airport monorail train and see what year it was built. I've personally ridden it at 400 km/h, and it can outrun a plane on landing. It's quite a cool feeling.

[robocat]

Google the Shanghai airport monorail train and find out what year it was built.

What year was it made? the Germans.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Anglorussian

In France, such trains were already running 40 years ago.

We were talking about commuter trains. As for magnetic levitation trains, not only the Frogmen, but also the Japanese are discreetly smoking on the sidelines. The fastest transport of this kind is in China.
This whole gay-Europe is just a backwater compared to the developed regions of China.

[Anglorussian]

Even the so-called new Europe's per capita economic indicators (like the Baltics) significantly exceed those of China. I understand that the Chinese are your friends now, but .

[Motorist]

Quote: Anglorussian

Per capita economic indicators even in the so-called new Europe (the same Baltic states) significantly exceed those in China.

Alex, Is the PPP taken into account? In China, you can eat well in restaurants for 50 yuan a day. What about the same in Northern Europe (6 euros)?

[Anglorussian]

In Poland and Latvia, it's quite good (if you know the location). But the Chinese can't even reach England or Denmark in terms of performance. Incidentally, in Russia, they're also higher than the Chinese.

[garri-lin]

The economy is a complex and precarious thing. If you want too much, too much, if you overinvest, the economy suffers. And a collapse begins.

[Sondbu-sondbu]

We haven't been involved in any battle for the moon for a long time now. For some time now, we've had other priorities and battles to fight.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Sondbu-sondbu

We haven't been participating in any battle for the moon for a long time now.

The Chinese have enlisted Russia in their lunar program; a nuclear reactor from a failed nuclear tug will power a Chinese lunar base. That's assuming they can solve the cooling problem, of course, but that's easier on the Moon than in space.

[Illanatol]

There will be no Chinese or Yankees on the Moon in the near future. Soon, no one will care about the Moon.
Yeah, the Yankees decided to go back to the Moon... the Artemis program. Was that the first time they announced a return there? What about Constellation?
They'll make a lot of noise, extract a tidy sum from the budgets, and then they'll let it all slide.
Helium-3, they say, is needed. I read some upbeat articles about controlled thermonuclear fusion back in Leonid Ilyich's time. And for the next twenty years, they'll be writing about how soon, any minute now, a bright energy tomorrow is arriving...
But in practice, it's just a dud. Well, maybe it'll work as a script for another sci-fi blockbuster. Although "Kubricks" are in short supply these days, too.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Illanatol

There will be no Chinese or Yankees on the Moon in the near future. Soon, no one will care about the Moon.

Are you hinting at Armageddon?

Quote: Illanatol

They'll make a lot of noise, extract a tidy sum from the budgets, and then they'll let it all slide.

As for the US, that's unlikely. Trump certainly cut back on Artemis 3, but he couldn't bring himself to completely cut it.
Do you think the Chinese are also in it for the sake of "sawing up" the yuan?

[Illanatol]

1. No, it won't come to that. But the economic war will intensify, which will negatively impact the implementation of expensive but impractical programs in the near term.
2. I find it unlikely that the US will be able to manage both the "golden dome" and the "lunar program" simultaneously. If the question arises, which is preferable, what will Trump choose? For me, the answer is obvious. So what about "Constellation"? Back then, the US had fewer problems and was in a better economic situation. And what was the result?
The Chinese... no, not for the sake of embezzlement. But they built many cities that now stand in disrepair. Why? Well, some suffer from economic malaise, while others have the exact opposite problems. So they create "white elephants" just to keep the overheated engine of the Chinese economy from seizing up.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Illanatol

which will negatively impact the implementation of expensive but not very practical programs in the near future.

Of course, there's a danger. But the Americans already have a lot ready. The rocket and spacecraft for Artemis 2, the rocket and lunar lander, and the spacecraft for Artemis 3 have already been built by the ESA. So, everything is ready for Artemis 2, but for Artemis 3, half is done, the money has been spent, and it's too late to back out.

Quote: Illanatol

It seems unlikely to me that the US will be able to pull off both the "golden dome" and the "lunar program" at the same time.

I agree, all this is very expensive. Perhaps the US won't go beyond Artemis 3, but that's utter nonsense. China will be the one setting up the base.

Quote: Illanatol

I hope the overheated engine of the Chinese economy doesn't seize up.

This is a very complex issue. They've drawn up enormous plans for the 15th five-year plan, and I'm very curious how they plan to implement them.
Unlike the United States, the Chinese have not yet made any clear progress towards the Moon.
You might be right that this race will end with another flag-waving and selfies with the ground in the background.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Puncher

Of course, there's a danger. But the Americans already have a lot ready. The rocket and spacecraft for Artemis 2, the rocket and lunar lander, and the spacecraft for Artemis 3 have already been built by the ESA. So, everything is ready for Artemis 2, but for Artemis 3, half is done, the money has been spent, and it's too late to back out.

Were there any precedents? With the Apollo program, for example? Everything seemed to be going quite well, but then a fat polar fox came running. And the program was shut down early. Apollo 17 and 18 were scrapped. For some reason, they abandoned their Saturn V, saying they didn't need it anymore. And don't even mention the shuttles; the Saturn V had three, if not four, times the payload capacity. It could have launched an orbital station in one, maybe two, flights... And the vaunted "dark Teutonic genius" left NASA, slamming the door.
There's too much confusion in this whole story. And the hypotheses of the "moon landing conspiracy" or the "little green man club" somehow seem more logical.
Yet, history has few examples of a powerful and developed nation suddenly abandoning its acquired positions and demonstrating a clear inability to regain them. This is despite the complete absence of social upheaval, revolution, or war on its own territory.

Quote: Puncher

This is a very complex issue. They've drawn up enormous plans for the 15th five-year plan, and I'm very curious how they plan to implement them.

Characteristically, these plans are often unrelated to the consumer sector. Of course, the main thing is to keep the economy and industry busy. So, they will continue to build up their military and space capabilities (near and orbital).
And the Chinese are wise not to overly pursue the development of current "chemical" launch vehicles. They've exhausted their potential. Sure, they could reduce launch costs and the much-vaunted reusability... but that's not critical and won't open up any new prospects, by and large. The real breakthrough will come when engines capable of reaching speeds an order of magnitude (or more) higher than current ones appear. As it is, real space will remain inaccessible; tinkering in orbit and flights to the Moon (without any real prospects for exploration) are the best we can do.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Illanatol

And there were no precedents?

There were. Before Trump, there were no doubts about the implementation of Luna 2.0, but today, of course, it has been seriously undermined.

Quote: Illanatol

And the hypotheses of the "moon conspiracy supporters" or the "little green men club" somehow seem more logical.

The conspiracy theories sound like the standard "we're being deceived, all the facts are lies" theory. I believe the Soviet scientists and engineers who witnessed the lunar landings live and received telemetry and even video (as best they could, of course).

Quote: Illanatol

There are still few examples in history where a powerful and developed state suddenly abandons the positions it has won and demonstrates a clear inability to regain them.

This is a symptom of the onset of decline. If this happens, it's a clear signal.

Quote: Illanatol

Tellingly, these plans are often not related to the consumer sector.

On the contrary, it's precisely with that. They want to sharply increase domestic consumption. They have a problem with that: the Chinese are very frugal, because healthcare is expensive, pensions aren't available to everyone, and they have to support aging parents, so they have a lot of savings that don't contribute to the economy. So, the CCP's goal is to force people to spend more on their own pleasures.

Quote: Illanatol

And the Chinese are wise not to be particularly eager to develop current "chemical" RNs.

Their lack of progress isn't because they're waiting. They don't know how to work with internal combustion engines; all they've managed to do is adapt the Soviet RD-120.

Quote: Illanatol

And so, real space will remain inaccessible; fiddling around in orbit and flights to the Moon (without any real possibility of exploring it) will be the maximum possible.

If humanity relied solely on perspective, it would remain in the Stone Age. Columbus's discovery of America was a blatant gamble, 90% guaranteed death. Flimsy vessels, a lack of adequate navigational aids, no refrigeration or desalination systems, primitive medicine, a lack of understanding of the sources of scurvy, and much, much more...

[Sondbu-sondbu]

The Chinese are certainly great. But they don't consider Russia part of their ranks, and they use our developments for their own purposes as a favor and as a matter of course.

[snow mountain]

Quote: Sondbu-sondbu

For some time now we have other priorities and battles

Great said!

[Hole puncher]

The Battle for the Moon, Which Russia Risks Losing

By the way, the headline is patently incorrect. Only a participant in a battle can win or lose it. Russia isn't participating in the battle and, therefore, can't lose it...

[smart ass]

Of course, with 17 launches a year, what a battle.

[Per se.]

Quote: Puncher

Russia is not participating in the battle and therefore cannot lose it...

Now, if only we could sell oil and gas to the Moon (to lunatics)!... Probably, our corrupt traders have built not even a "space elevator", but a "Moon Stream" gas pipeline.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Per se.

It's probably not even a "space elevator" that our corrupt traders have built, but rather a "Moon Stream" gas pipeline.

Between desire and realization, there must be opportunity. Our own competencies don't match our desires, because when competent citizens cried out in the 90s, "Wake up! We're getting old, and there's no one to replace us!" no one bothered.
By the way, we ourselves are incapable of either extracting or transporting it. If it weren't for Schlumberger or Total, there wouldn't be any gas or oil pipelines.

[Per se.]

Quote: Puncher

We are getting old, and there is no one to replace us!" no one scratched themselves.

You know, wasn't that why they destroyed the USSR? They needed a colony, you get that. The only thing left is the last detail, from a great superpower, the strategic nuclear forces. Burevestnik, Poseidon—it's like with the Boomerang, Armata, and Kurganets—they puffed out their cheeks, paraded around crude equipment that hadn't even been accepted into service... Decision-making centers, only threats to the strategic military district remain, cutting off the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the Dnieper, no one took out a single bridge, Zelenskyy doesn't give a damn about Bankova, what Poseidon, what kind of navigation in the depths of the ocean.
So, the Moon issue: socialism was winning the "space race," while it was a matter of life and death for capitalism. Many praise Brezhnev and criticize Khrushchev, but Kennedy twice approached Khrushchev about jointly exploring the Moon, as the US was hopelessly lagging behind in manned spaceflight. Khrushchev refused both times; we would have beaten them even on Mars. Thanks to Leonid Ilyich for recognizing the American landing, for the Apollo-Soyuz show, and for all the perks the Yankees gave us back then. This is for the USSR "defeated" in space, for the Red "evil empire"... That's how we ended up with stagnation and Western fetishes, not "Hurray, Yura is in space."
The chatterbox Gorbachev and the Judas Yeltsin are already a logical outcome. What's next? We can't lie forever. If the Strategic Military District is to wipe out the Soviet Union's margin of safety, empty its warehouses and arsenals, and bleed Russia dry, then handing over the Strategic Nuclear Forces to a shameful ultimatum will be the icing on the cake, in the name of peace and humanism. More precisely, in the name of the palaces and yachts of the "elite" abroad, accounts in foreign currencies and foreign banks, dual and triple citizenship. Russia has already been turned into a cash cow and a squeeze lemon, pumping out raw materials and semi-finished products, selling off Soviet developments, and funneling billions abroad. Whether bayonets and pitchforks for traitors or something else is a question, but without a people's army and people's power, we will not win, nor will we leave Russia great, including in space.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Per se.

There is only one last nuance left from the great superpower, and that is the strategic nuclear forces.

11/28/2025 13th Missile Division, Yasny.

[AdAstra]

There's not a word about this in the news, where did you get this?

[Hole puncher]

Quote from AdAstra

There's not a word about it in the news.

Wrote
https://rtvi.com/news/smi-soobshhili-o-vzryve-rakety-v-orenburzhe-chto-izvestno-reakcziya-kremlya/

[AdAstra]

Peskov said he had not seen reports of a missile explosion near Orenburg.
If only they, but others were silent about this, even here, although there is a "News" column.

[Hole puncher]

Quote from AdAstra

If only they, but others were silent about this, even here, although there is a "News" column.

Has anyone written much about the accident at Baikonur? It's a crucial event for our space program. They'll never write about the exclusion of our cosmonaut Artemyev from Crew 12, who was caught photographing SpaceX documents prohibited for distribution with his phone and taking them outside the company premises during his flight training...

[AdAstra]

You are right and you didn’t write about this.

[Pioneer1984]

Accidents have happened, are happening, and will happen. Even a wooden club can break.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Per se.

Here, the topic of the Moon, socialism was winning the "space race", and this was a matter of life and death for capitalism.

The Moon issue was as unpleasant for the USSR as it is now for the Russian Federation.
Remember the statistics of the Soviet unmanned lunar program?
A total of 43 spacecraft launches took place. Of these, only 24 were named "Luna." Moreover, this designation didn't indicate the success of the flight, but merely that the spacecraft had entered a trajectory toward the Moon. Of the 24 "Luna" launches, only 14 were successful.
In 13 launches of the E-6 program (soft landing on the Moon), the USSR managed contract Lose 11 spacecraft. Of the 11 launches of the E-8-5 program (lunar soil delivery), 8 resulted in the loss of the spacecraft, and the failures were completely random—a landing failure was followed by a launch vehicle failure. In fact, the lunar missions for this program were cancelled, waiting for the last successful launch.
The lunar program was saved only by propaganda, which reported only on successful launches, or only partially successful ones, presenting what had actually been achieved as the real launch objective.

[Per se.]

Quote: Alexey RA

Only propaganda saved the lunar program.

Propaganda? You didn't mention the two lunar rovers, or that the Soviet Union successfully orbited the moon (Zond-5) back in 1968, returning a couple of turtles, various seeds, and some bacteria to Earth.
The Soviet Union had experience returning cargo to Earth, lunar rovers—what did the Yankees have in that? They just went and flew, with crews, on a miraculously developed rocket, with excellent F-1s that had operated flawlessly. Where did that experience come from, and where did it all go afterward, right down to the original film and photo footage, the soil itself? How could the thin-walled Apollo capsule have entered the Earth's atmosphere at 2 times the escape velocity, without using the "double-dive" scheme like ours, without killing the crew from the G-forces, who were bouncing around briskly after splashdown? Cosmic radiation and lunar temperatures—that's a whole other topic.
You are talking about our problems here, of course, he who does nothing is not mistaken.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Per se.

Propaganda? You didn't mention the two lunar rovers, or that the Soviet Union successfully orbited the moon (Zond-5) back in 1968, returning a couple of turtles, various seeds, and some bacteria to Earth.

Once again: 14 successful launches out of 43. 29 complete AMS thrown into the abyss.
Yes, for the Soviet people, who knew nothing of the failures, 14 launches was a source of pride. For the rest of the world, there were 43 launches, two-thirds of which were failures.
If they only reported on successful launches of rockets now—without mentioning the "replenishment of the oceanic satellite constellation" and blocking all information from abroad—then our jingoistic patriots would also be proud of the space program.

Quote: Per se.

You didn't mention the two lunar rovers.

Four lunar rovers. The first was lost. The last one was not launched before the entire program was shut down.

Quote: Per se.

You are talking about our problems here, of course, he who does nothing is not mistaken.

The E-6 program fits this definition with a stretch - it shows systemic work, each of the lost 11 AMS flew further and further.
The last lunar program, the E-8-5, was a haphazard assault: failures occurred at completely random stages. It seems they simply forgot about troubleshooting and started playing the one-armed bandit game with launches: if all the systems spin to the "no failure" position, the flight will be successful. If not, well, we'll be in the 72% of launch failures in the program.
Apparently, that's why the E-8-5 lunar series was cancelled - the Central Committee was tired of throwing money into space without a guaranteed result.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Per se.

Propaganda? You didn't mention the two lunar rovers, or that the Soviet Union successfully orbited the moon (Zond-5) back in 1968, returning a couple of turtles, various seeds, and some bacteria to Earth.

Once again: 14 successful launches out of 43. 29 complete AMS thrown into the abyss.
Yes, for the Soviet people, who knew nothing of the failures, 14 launches was a source of pride. For the rest of the world, there were 43 launches, two-thirds of which were failures.
If they only reported on successful launches of rockets now—without mentioning the "replenishment of the oceanic satellite constellation" and blocking all information from abroad—then our jingoistic patriots would also be proud of the space program.

Quote: Per se.

You didn't mention the two lunar rovers.

Four lunar rovers. The first was lost. The last one was not launched before the entire program was shut down.

Quote: Per se.

You are talking about our problems here, of course, he who does nothing is not mistaken.

The E-6 program fits this definition with a stretch - it shows systemic work, each of the lost 11 AMS flew further and further.
The last lunar program, the E-8-5, was a haphazard assault: failures occurred at completely random stages. It seems they simply forgot about troubleshooting and started playing the one-armed bandit game with launches: if all the systems spin to the "no failure" position, the flight will be successful. If not, well, we'll be in the 72% of launch failures in the program.
Apparently, that's why the E-8-5 lunar series was cancelled - the Central Committee was tired of throwing money into space without a guaranteed result.

[Ivan F]

"Four Lunokhods" – three launches. A 66% success rate is pretty impressive, considering the mission's complexity.

"Rejections occurred at completely random stages" – that's exactly what it was all about. Or do you think everything was calculated on supercomputers back then?

Your attack on Soviet cosmonautics, against the backdrop of Russian cosmonautics, is very eloquent.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Ivan F

"Rejections occurred at completely random stages"—that's exactly what it was all about. Or do you think everything was calculated on supercomputers back then?

You see, when work is underway to eliminate the deficiencies, then as this work progresses, failures occur further and further along the flight stages.
This happened, for example, in the E-6 program, where, as launches progressed, failures during orbital insertion gave way to failures of the spacecraft's power plant during the final stages of flight. That is, the spacecraft became increasingly lost from Earth... and finally, two stations in a row landed on the Moon.
The E-8-5 program was characterized by a distinct pattern of failures. That is, a launch vehicle failure, a landing failure... and suddenly – two failures during the initial phase of flight (the upper stage) and a launch vehicle failure. Then a successful flight, a lunar landing failure, a successful flight, a lunar landing failure – it seemed that everything was done, all that remained was to sort out the landing... and then suddenly another launch vehicle failure. In 11 launches of the program, two successful flights in a row were never achieved.

Quote: Ivan F

Your attack on Soviet cosmonautics, against the backdrop of Russian cosmonautics, is very eloquent.

And these aren't just estimates, but raw numbers. By the way, they help us assess the power of Soviet propaganda, which created a polished image of success in space and managed to sweep two-thirds of unsuccessful launches under the rug.

[Ivan F]

Bare numbers, divorced from reality, are meaningless squiggles. You might as well say the Americans don't know how to fly at all – we've had four deaths during flights, while they've had 14. We've had one death during training, while they've had three, not to mention two crashes during training. You see, their mortality rate is three times higher than ours. You can feel the power of propaganda.
When talking about the Union's cosmonautics, we need to talk about the overall amount of work accomplished. All the failures that occurred are just as much a contribution to research as successes. You can only develop if you're the first to do something. In any research (no matter what), success is rare, and that's what they look for among the many failures. The path to the goal lies through a sea of ​​failures.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Ivan F

Naked numbers, divorced from reality, are meaningless squiggles.

In reality, we have 29 complete spacecraft lost by the USSR due to the rushed nature of the lunar race. They wanted to be first for the sake of prestige, so instead of using mock-ups to practice the launch and flight stages, they launched complete spacecraft—just in case it worked. The result was only negative: the Russians lost another lunar station.

Quote: Ivan F

All the failures that have occurred are just as much a contribution to research as successes. This is the only way to develop if you're the first to do something.

Was it possible to develop normally and systematically? Without conducting experiments on a launch vehicle that had already failed several times, using real AMS?
It reminds me a lot of Makarov's story about two boats...

The entire calculation was based on the assumption that at that very moment, everyone would tear off their shirt and use it to plug some hole or tear. Imagine two boats setting sail from St. Petersburg to Kronstadt, one with sailors, the other with people completely unfamiliar with seamanship. The first would sail through, and nothing interesting would happen to them along the way, while the second would be caught in a storm, their sail would likely be ripped out, the boat would tip over, flood, and they would raise their shirts instead of sails, using their caps to bail out the water. In short, the voyage would be full of excitement. In Kronstadt, they would be greeted with every possible ovation, and these people would be known as true heroes.

[solar]

It seems they simply forgot about fixing the problem and started playing the one-armed bandit with launches: if the reels of all systems spin to the "no failure" position, then the flight will be successful.

This was clearly demonstrated in the N-1 lunar program. Due to a lack of funds (the economy must be economical!), ground-based test rigs for dynamic and fire tests of the entire launch vehicle or the assembled first stage were not built. The result was the program's failure.

[Per se.]

Quote from solar

The result is program failure.

The program's demise is more likely due to Korolev's death and a deal with the Americans over the Moon. Of course, this is just my opinion.

[solar]

The program continued after Korolev's death, but in the same reckless mode—they didn't give us any more money. All four launches took place after Korolev's death, not under his rule. The whole "fixed deal" thing is simply ridiculous.

[Per se.]

Quote from solar

The "fixed agreement" thing is just ridiculous.

There's little humor there. It's strange that they blame everything on the poor Soviet cosmonautics; no one finds it funny that after a series of failures and a catastrophe, where all three Apollo crew members burned alive in their oxygen environment, they suddenly flew to the Moon with flying colors, on an untried rocket, essentially with crude, untested engines. It's not funny if you know how development, refinement, and testing work? The pile of incriminating evidence we had, and the recognition of a fabulous success that arose out of nowhere, if you don't descend into demagoguery about American unmanned lunar probes (which, by the way, also had their share of accidents). It's funny, but it's good for your health...

[solar]

There's incomparably more evidence of moon landings than there is of Gagarin's flight. But you're not questioning it, are you?

[Per se.]

Quote from solar

There are incomparably more confirmations of flights to the Moon

I'll tell you that if we take a strictly scientific approach, it becomes abundantly clear that our knowledge of the Apollo manned flights to the Moon comes exclusively from NASA. To date, there has been no independent confirmation of these missions.
There weren't even any attempts at inspections, although there are no fundamental technical obstacles to this.

Therefore, the belief in the Apollo flights is entirely based today solely on the belief in the alleged honesty of NASA. But this approach is contrary to scientific principles and cannot be considered objective.
I watched the American communications from space with the center; it felt like I was listening to a radio production based on H.G. Wells, based on ancient ideas about space flight, and not about a real flight.
Let's stick to our guns; my opinion won't change anything, nor will yours, for that matter, although the official version is always easier and more convenient to dispute. Whether the US will face national shame for this falsification or not, time will tell.

[solar]

We know from objective materials - photos, videos, delivered samples.
Which can't be said about Gagarin's flight. But that doesn't stop you from believing he flew.

There weren't even any attempts at inspections, although there are no fundamental technical obstacles to this.

Oh, come on. Do you know who's in the photo?
But seriously, any self-respecting person understands the enormous amount of videos, photos, and other material evidence of flights that exists, and does not want to make a laughing stock of themselves by demanding some kind of “technical inspections.”

Therefore, the belief in the Apollo flights is based entirely today on the belief in the alleged honesty of NASA.

What you wrote applies much more to Gagarin's flight: there are no photos, no videos, no material evidence, he landed separately from the spacecraft and this was covered up, the flight was not announced in advance, Gagarin, by his own admission, did not control the spacecraft, and the spacecraft had no soft-landing system at all. But no one is questioning the flight. If you're so principled that tens of thousands of photos, hours of video, and hundreds of kilograms of lunar soil aren't enough and you need even more evidence, then, as an honest person, start by denying Gagarin's flight—there are far more grounds for that.

[Per se.]

Quote from solar

What you wrote applies to a much greater extent to Gagarin’s flight - there are no photos, no videos, no material evidence.

Oh, come on! Whose Crimea is it, and did Gagarin fly? An interesting analogy suggests itself. If Gagarin hadn't flown, your American "partners" wouldn't have bought the RD-180 from Russia, and they could have built the ISS themselves, without the help of Soviet engineering or the achievements of Soviet cosmonautics. Your facts... You should know that there's also such a directive as the "National Space Policy of the United States." It's perfectly suited to protecting the secrets of all American visits to the Moon. After all, these lunar missions are designated, no less, as "critically important information for American national interests." Only Russia (as the legal successor to the USSR) currently has the full right to inspect the lunar surface with any detail possible. No one will quarrel with the Yankees now; many already know that "the emperor has no clothes," but they're keeping quiet. You remember the pictures; even in Kubrick's time, a lot could have been devised, so what can we say now?
No one has to prove anything, Americans owe it to the whole world.
Conduct a demonstration flyby of the Moon, under international observation, film everything in maximum detail, and show it to the world. Alas, this is just empty talk and demagoguery by NASA claqueurs, and national interests at stake. Otherwise, I won't repeat myself; you can't lie forever; the later everything is revealed, the worse it will be for the "storytellers" and the "emperor with no clothes."

[solar]

There's no doubt that Gagarin flew. But when discussing whether Americans ever flew to the Moon, it's important to understand that the evidence that they did is incomparably greater than that of Gagarin's flight.

[Per se.]

Quote from solar

that there is incomparably more evidence that they flew

Not proof, but illustrations. "Wet underwear" is not proof that man swam across the ocean. Everyone only saw launches and splashdowns (and supposedly without using the "two-dive" re-entry scheme). Only Kubrick told us what happened on the Moon. I won't repeat the rest.

[solar]

Everyone only saw launches and splashdowns.

Everyone has seen and is seeing thousands of photographs, hours of video, hundreds of kilograms of samples directly from the Moon.

Everyone only saw launches and splashdowns.

In Gagarin's case, there's not even that. No launch, no landing. No answer to the basic question: why wasn't he given a simple camera on the flight? And yet, Gagarin's flight isn't called into question.

[Per se.]

Quote from solar

Gagarin's flight is not in doubt.

It's not being raised because others followed suit. I've already said that the Americans couldn't have built the ISS themselves; it was Soviet technical advances, our own technical progress in the development of manned spaceflight. Where did the Americans get their start, where did they acquire the technology? They bought our RD-180 engines (the miracle F-1 has sunk into oblivion, just like the miracle Saturn V rocket), and they even flew to the ISS on our rockets. Where is the US lunar legacy? Everything can't just appear out of nowhere and disappear into nowhere. If you work for NASA, you can "understand and forgive," but how can a Russian advocate for the West and question Gagarin's flight and the successes of Soviet cosmonautics... To sum it up, to each his own, all the best.

[solar]

It is not placed because others followed.

The Americans had exactly the same thing.

I already said that the Americans themselves couldn't build the ISS.

The Americans simply saved money. A practical approach. If they had needed it, they would have done it themselves. Like Skylab.

We bought our RD-180 engines

Because they bought it for pennies.

But how can a Russian person support the West and question Gagarin's flight?

Why are you twisting this? I never questioned Gagarin's flight. But I look at the world soberly and objectively.

[Dock1272]

Where's Energia (capable of launching 100 tons into Earth orbit and 24 tons into the Moon's orbit?)? Where's Buran? ... Same place as Saturn 5 and F-1...

[Per se.]

Quote: Doc1272

Where is Energia (capable of launching 100 tons into Earth orbit and 24 tons into the Moon's orbit?)? Where is Buran?

The same place where the Soviet Union is now. Except, I didn't hear about the US collapsing. Besides, both Buran and Energia were successfully tested. As for the analogy with the Saturn V and the F-1 engine, excuse me, but it's the same as if our N-1 rocket, just launched, without any test launches, was immediately sent to the Moon with a crew, and then flew like a charm on several missions. The Yankees had no experience returning cargo from space, or with manned spaceflight, much less with a lunar mission, suddenly and all at once. Save those fairy tales for housewives.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from solar

Due to a lack of funds (the economy must be economical!), ground-based test rigs for dynamic and fire tests of the entire launch vehicle or the first stage as a whole were not built.

T stands for tradition. Purchase millions in machine tools and save on installation supervision and commissioning. The result: millions of public funds wasted, yet they reported savings of 5-10 percent. Or save the navy's budget by abandoning shell testing—the fuses are a proven design, so why test them?
By the way, with the N-1 the reason might not have been only money - the refusal of fire tests significantly reduces the work time.

[multi-category]

Quote from solar

The result is program failure.

The program was initially launched with an acute shortage of resources.
You can't plan something like that, and Khrushchev didn't ask the experts.
But a miser pays twice. Not only was the rocket enormous in mass due to unprofitable, yet affordable, solutions, but almost all the work was wasted, with a significant percentage of management-level problems inherent from the start. Frankly, I don't understand why this couldn't have been done at a calm, gradual pace. And in general, instead of a lunar program, I would have focused on a spaceport project closer to the equator to significantly reduce the cost of the entire space program. For example, near the Cam Ranh base in Vietnam, or buying an island in Oceania or some territory in Africa for these purposes—the desert on Egypt's southern border, for example. There were certainly options.

[solar]

Frankly, I don't understand why this couldn't be done at a calm, progressive pace.

Because the scientific component of the program was minimal; it was a political project. D&P—to catch up and surpass America! If that doesn't work, at least imitate it. There are plenty of such projects in both aviation and space. The Tu-144, Buran, Yak-38—they're all D&P projects.

[multi-category]

Quote from solar

There are plenty of such projects in both aviation and space. The Tu-144, Buran, Yak-38—these are all D&P projects.

Well, here I categorically disagree with the list.
The military ordered Buran, and only after a series of shuttle missions in orbit. They didn't care about catching up—they wanted parity, and the issue was raised with good reason. However, I believe the haste was unjustified—it would have been far more useful and cheaper to develop an anti-satellite missile system.
The Tu-144 was a joint project; the Concorde was developed jointly by the French and British, and we had the Tu-144. There was active dialogue between the teams, and they exchanged solutions. That's why the aircraft turned out very similar. It's completely unclear who the USSR was catching up to in this situation.
Next, the Yak-38. Yes, the plane turned out to be a dud, but that was due to intrigue and internal intrigues, not some kind of catch-up game.
Incidentally, the Tu-144 entered regular service and, despite its problems, flew quite well. It was grounded after the show crash, which, incidentally, was orchestrated by the French—this has now been proven. Management made a rash decision. However, after the global oil crisis, both the Tu-144 and Concorde were condemned.
The Tu-144 was an extremely important project for the USSR, because huge distances needed to be connected by fast transport.
Incidentally, in the 80s, they began developing the second generation of supersonic airliners, as well as extremely wide-body aircraft. I witnessed a test of one of these with my own eyes, around 81 (I can't remember exactly – I was a kid). Again, there was no sign of any catch-up.
Please don't confuse Khrushchev's plans to catch up and surpass with others. Yes, this slogan was loud, especially in sports, but it was far from always decisive.

[solar]

The military commissioned Buran, and only after a series of shuttle missions in orbit. They didn't care about playing catch-up—they wanted parity.

Buran isn't a counterpart to the Shuttle; it's a superficial imitation. Technically, it has nothing in common with the Shuttle. The Shuttle is an independent spacecraft with fully functional engines capable of launching it into space and returning with those expensive engines. Buran's engines, however, weren't capable of launching it into space. The Energia launch vehicle launched it into space, while Buran was merely a payload for it, with engines for orientation only.

Next, the Yak-38. Yeah, the plane turned out to be useless.

A Harrier-like imitation. Read the memoirs—creating a single-engine aircraft like the Harrier never worked out, although they tried; they simply created an imitation for purely political purposes. The Soviet Union ended, politics no longer made sense, and so did the Yak-38 (along with the Yak-141). The Harrier still flies and is in service today (although it's now decommissioned in the US and UK), surviving several generations and seeing active service in various corners of the world.

However, after the global oil crisis, both the Tu-144 and Concorde were doomed.

The Tu-144, which mimicked the Concorde in appearance, rarely flew. It was a purely political project. After a few flights (which were performed by Tupolev test pilots, meaning they were essentially experimental rather than commercial), the Tu-144 was no longer carrying passengers by 1978 (it had begun carrying passengers in 1977). The plane flew from Moscow to Alma-Ata, but was unable to fly to Vladivostok or Khabarovsk, as originally planned.

Before the end of regular passenger service on May 23, 1978, Aeroflot crews operated 55 Tu-144 flights, carrying 3284 passengers. On June 1, 1978, just seven months after the start of commercial service, Aeroflot ceased supersonic passenger flights.

The aircraft had an assigned airframe life of 500 flight hours...

Concorde flew actively from 1976 to 2003, making many transatlantic flights.

Over 27 years of scheduled and charter flights, more than 3 million passengers have been transported[2], with the total flight time of the aircraft amounting to 243,845 hours.

For a long time, Concorde operated nonstop flights between Paris and New York, London and New York, and other destinations. It also actively operated charter flights.

Please do not confuse Khrushchev's projects to catch up and overtake with others.

The slogan was removed, but the principle remained. The question was no longer just catching up, but at least pretending to have caught up, which is clearly evident in the examples given. :((

[guest]

Quote from solar

The shuttle is an independent spacecraft. a ship with fully functional engines capable of taking it into space

Are you serious? Why would he need that rocket if he can do it on his own?

[solar]

This isn't a rocket. It's a booster rocket, a solid-fueled booster used to initially propel the spacecraft from the surface. Its burn time is only 120 seconds.
And in the middle of the Shuttle is a fuel tank, not a rocket. Buran, instead of this relatively inexpensive fuel tank, has a fully-fledged, super-expensive Energia launch vehicle, which propels Buran into space. And instead of the Shuttle's two relatively inexpensive solid-fuel boosters, it has four expensive, expendable liquid boosters—solid-fuel boosters with the required power couldn't be developed.
.

NPO Energia's designers decided to use the most powerful liquid-propellant rocket engine available—the four-chamber RD-170, developed under Glushko's supervision, which could produce a thrust (after modification and modernization) of 740 tf. However, instead of two 1280 tf side boosters, they had to use four 740 tf each.

The changes that differentiated the Energia-Buran system from the Space Shuttle system had the following results:
In the Energia-Buran system, the only reusable element in the first flight was the orbital ship itself, and the first stage blocks and the central block were lost during the launch process. The impossibility of reusing all eight first and second stage cruise engines significantly increased the cost of the launch, which, according to some sources, exceeded $1 billion versus $450 million for the Shuttle[41].

[multi-category]

imitation

You're talking nonsense. And I don't even need to read the whole thing to understand it. When nonsense is being spouted, it squeals and grunts loudly. You can hear it.

[solar]

I see that you yourself have already realized that I am right.

[multi-category]

Quote from solar

I see that you yourself have already realized that I am right.

Your vision is failing you. You're not just wrong, you don't care about history at all and are just spouting off on your own personal wavelength.

[solar]

My vision is fine. You have the classic reaction of someone whose beliefs are in conflict with reality.

Who do you trust more - your beloved wife or your shameless eyes?

[multi-category]

I wasn't giving you my convictions, but objective facts.
but in response I heard just "convictions".
It would be fine if we were talking about something that I hadn’t personally encountered, but I saw parts of the Buran program with my own eyes.
You simply cannot deceive me.

[solar]

I wasn't giving you my convictions, but objective facts.

You're turning everything upside down. I was the one who presented you with objective facts.

but I saw parts of the Buran program with my own eyes.

And that's why you didn't write a word of substance?
There's no doubt the military wanted a Shuttle or Harrier analogue. Only when an analogue failed did they continue to make imitations.

[multi-category]

I know little about UVP aircraft, so I won't comment. I know a lot about the Buran, much more than you do. I honestly don't understand how you get such extensive knowledge. I think you're simply lying.

[solar]

I know a lot about Buran, much more than you do.

Judging by your ignorance of common knowledge, you overestimate your own knowledge. The first Buran project was the OS-120 (Orbital System-120). The reusable cruise engines were designed to be mounted on the ship itself, with a fuel tank and boosters underneath—just like the Shuttle, except there were four liquid boosters, not two inexpensive solid-fuel ones like the Americans—the Soviet industry couldn't create powerful solid-fuel boosters. And there was no disposable Energia at all—only a cheap fuel tank (Figures 1-2), just like the Shuttle.
But reusable engines didn't work out, so they created the expensive, disposable Energia launch vehicle to replace the OS-120's fuel tank (the liquid boosters effectively became the Energia launch vehicle's first stage). The new version of the vehicle was named OK-97 (orbital vehicle-97). Thus, Buran transformed from a fully reusable space system into only a reusable orbital module—the most expensive parts of the system became disposable. While similar in appearance, Buran had nothing in common with the Shuttle from a technical standpoint; it was a purely orbital module, not a fully-fledged space system like the Shuttle.

I think you're just lying.

What you think is just a normal defensive reaction of your brain.

[multi-category]

Quote from solar

Thus, from a fully-fledged reusable space system, Buran turned into only a reusable orbital module.

Wait, I wasn't arguing about these things.
You claimed that Buran is an imitation of the presence of a system.
Here you're saying that this is a real system. Did you change your tune mid-air?
I'm well aware of the problems of our rocket industry and solid-fuel systems, but that has absolutely nothing to do with assessing the results of the Buran project. It was a working system, and unlike the shuttle, it operated from the start both as an autonomous robot and as a manned spacecraft, meaning it wasn't a blind copy of the shuttle. And as far as I know, it was radically different internally; for example, the recovery system was different.
There was no discussion whatsoever about what hadn't worked out. The Bulava rocket, for example, almost 50 years after the Trident's release, is still not doing so smoothly. Solid fuel remains a sad state of affairs in rocketry, and that's not a matter of debate.

[solar]

Wait, I wasn't arguing about these things.

Yah.

Changed shoes in the air?

You claimed that Buran is an imitation of the presence of a system.
Here you say that this is a real system.

Don't twist my words. Buran is a superficial imitation of the American Space Shuttle, but technically it's a completely different system. The Space Shuttle is reusable, including its expensive cruise engines, while Buran only has an orbital module. In this form, the system was initially unviable due to its prohibitive cost. But externally, yes, it imitated the Space Shuttle.

initially operating both as an autonomous machine and as a manned ship

Buran never landed in manned mode, so strictly speaking, it's difficult to call it a manned spacecraft. As for the Shuttle, it was also equipped with an automatic landing system, but the astronauts were categorically against it; they believed manual landing was safer, and they had the final say—they were in it. Landing tests were conducted in automatic mode, but just before touchdown, at the astronauts' insistence, they switched to manual mode. They were basically right. As you may know, Buran's landing was unpredictable—there were multiple system failures, and during the landing, it made a 180-degree turn and landed at the end of the runway instead of the beginning. At one point, they even considered activating the self-destruct system due to its unpredictable behavior.

I am well aware of the problems of our rocket industry and solid fuel systems, but this is in no way connected with the assessment of what was achieved in the Buran project.

Already in the first stage, it was necessary to switch from relatively inexpensive reusable solid-fuel boosters to expensive, disposable liquid-fuel boosters. But the overall design of the Shuttle was still preserved in the OS-120. Later, they completely abandoned the Shuttle, retaining its external appearance.

[multi-category]

Quote from solar

Shuttle has reusable everything

I don't give a shit what he has there
Did Buran fly? It did. No complaints about the buttons.

[solar]

I don't give a shit what he has there

Your position was obvious from the start.

[multi-category]

Another rude statement. Because my position still hasn't been articulated, but you've already made it clear twice. You're constantly trying to lead me into some delusional comparisons about one-offs and imitation, although the question is very simple: did it work/didn't work. And there's only one answer: it worked. What else are you trying to come up with here?
I can name dozens of real places where real people developed real, working components for Buran, often better than on the shuttle, or never implemented there at all. But I don't know what state secrets are, and I signed a document saying so, so look it up yourself if you think you know everything. But don't push me around, trying to convince me that none of this happened or was a sham, like the astronaut filming parks on the moon, of which 12 were built in the US. You can tell kids and they'll buy it, but I know your conclusions are incomplete; I've seen it. That's not a position. It's just plain reasonableness.

[solar]

although the question is extremely simple - did it work/didn't work

The question is what it was.

another boorish statement.

Actually, this is your statement.

I can name dozens of real places where real people developed real working components for Buran, often better than those on the shuttle or not implemented there at all.

Kindergarten, pants with suspenders. :((

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Alexey RA

Remember the statistics of the Soviet unmanned lunar program?

Both Martian and Venusian. Accident after accident... Technical perfection was achieved through mass launches.

[Per se.]

Quote: Puncher

Technical perfection was achieved through mass launches.

For example, like with the Saturn 5, a miracle rocket that suddenly appeared, with a record-breaking payload, and then suddenly disappeared from space exploration forever, along with its miracle F-1 engines?
Let's not forget that the first spacecraft to the Moon, Venus, and Mars were Soviet. The "conspiracy theory" isn't so much that Americans didn't go to the Moon, but that they did. This isn't about spacecraft, but rather about manned missions. Whether humanity will be able to solve the problem of manned flights to the Moon in the next 50 years is a question, let alone the second half of the last century, with its dashing space cowboys in diapers and cloth spacesuits.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Per se.

Let's not forget that the first spacecraft on the Moon, Venus and Mars were Soviet.

Do not forget.

Quote: Per se.

The "conspiracy theory" is not so much that the Americans weren't on the Moon, but that they were.

Conspiracy theories should be left to the REN TV audience. Personally, I'm more surprised not by the astronauts' flight to the Moon, but by the Voyager 1 mission, which has been ongoing for 48 years and is still operational. For some reason, the flawless operation of the spacecraft, which traveled through the entire solar system and then beyond, doesn't attract the attention of proponents of these theories.

[Per se.]

Quote: Puncher

For some reason, the flawless operation of the AMS that flew through the entire solar system and went beyond its boundaries

Another interesting fact is Curiosity's long-term operation on Mars, 10 years! This was despite gigantic dust storms that lasted for months, temperature fluctuations, and control difficulties. If NASA attributed the weak signal on the corner reflectors supposedly installed by the astronauts to dust on the Moon, then how did everything on the rover not get covered in dust, and how did it not get buried in dust and sand by the hurricane winds? Let me tell you this: if you've lied once, say, about the Moon, why not lie again? It's not for nothing that Canada's Devon is mentioned in this context. It's interesting that even a simple question about how a helicopter can fly in the thin atmosphere of Mars is met with the response that its blades spun faster to achieve this... How can you enter Earth's atmosphere at 2 times the cosmic velocity without braking? How can you breathe pure oxygen, even at reduced pressure (they spent about 7 days in a pressure chamber on Earth, and it was terrible afterward)? The response is rude or something like Gagarin didn't fly back then and the Earth is flat, haha. So, these days, the farther away from Earth, the more wonders NASA has. I wouldn't be surprised if they "landed" on Titan or Europa...

[multi-category]

I believe the US carried out a program to launch robots to the Moon. They could have done that. But I don't believe they built a rocket reliable and powerful enough to send a fully functional lunar module to the Moon, capable of carrying humans. I don't believe they solved the entire list of astronaut survival technologies for these missions. The Americans didn't even have a space survival research program. They proudly declared that they used submarine technology, which only some people wouldn't consider nonsense.
But I believe that they could honestly have taken a couple of astronaut corpses to the moon and even returned them back.

[Per se.]

Quote: multicaat

that they could honestly take a couple of astronaut corpses to the moon and even bring them back.

Enormous sums of money and extensive preparatory work were poured into this project. It's unlikely there was a need to transport corpses to the Moon, but dummies and transmitters could easily have been delivered automatically with the station. It's clear that much was planned "for future reference," with further refinement to be done later, but it appears everything turned out to be more complex; a manned mission to the Moon remains a challenge for humanity. Nevertheless, the "childish notions" of the last century are becoming increasingly absurd, the blunders and inconsistencies increasingly obvious. It would be better for the United States to repent to the world for the temptation to defeat the USSR in space and refute the superiority of socialism than to sooner or later suffer a national disgrace that could very well destroy the United States itself.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Puncher

Both Martian and Venusian. Accident after accident... Technical perfection was achieved through mass launches.

No, I'm not arguing that a 100% successful launch rate in such a program is impossible. But losing 11 spacecraft in a row is beyond the pale. Not just mockups, but fully assembled stations. Even after the first launches, it was clear the system was flawed. But the theater of truly Harms-esque absurdity continued— old ladies The AMS kept falling and falling.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Alexey RA

But losing 11 AMS in a row is beyond the pale.

Reliability wasn't our strong point. I can't imagine how the Voyagers flew so successfully, without breaking down and maintaining contact for so many years. Many people here look at the Apollo missions to the Moon with irony, saying their incredible reliability couldn't happen, but look at the Voyagers—that's where it's fantastic to have the Moon.

Quote: Alexey RA

The AMS kept falling and falling.

100 of 100!

[AdAstra]

But also to win.""""""

[Hole puncher]

Quote from AdAstra

But also to win

Well, it seems like they haven't even tried in recent years... "AdAstra!" is the slogan of the USA and China.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Puncher

By the way, the title is patently incorrect. Only the participant can win or lose a battle.

No. You can also lose a battle you're not directly involved in. If the side with whom you're at odds wins, it could have negative consequences for you too.

[Belisarius]

To steal someone else's woman
You must have ardor and passion!
And your task now is to not end up in the cemetery!
For the Yeltsin-Putin Russian Federation, the current task is to relearn how to produce artillery shells, machine gun barrels, bearings, machine tools at least to the standard of 30 years ago, etc., in sufficient quantities, so as not to depend on its big brother, the DPRK, and, to a lesser extent, on its great master, the PRC. However, judging by the statements of the prominent patriot Sechin, even such a goal is not being set.
And then there's this whole thing about the Moon... But if you add "Russia risks losing" to any technology competition, you could write a million articles. Like, "Russia risks losing the battle for flying cars!" And that's patriotic and they're not lying.

[U-58]

Unfortunately, this is true. Russia-USSR—a great state, a great country. But it seems that's a thing of the past. We have squandered, privatized, and slyly stolen our greatness. Historical, social, economic, and now military. War will eat up our last assets. So, are we even capable of reaching space? The Moon?
In principle, there are tasks in space. Mainly defense and communications. The achievements we achieve on the ISS are not generally known to the public.
Promising space, alas, is for great technological powers, but not for thieving oligarchies.
You can insist with the stubbornness of a donkey on your greatness, including in space, but the results say otherwise.

[Machito]

Quote: Belisarius

To steal someone else's woman
You must have ardor and passion!
And your task now is to not end up in the cemetery!
For the Yeltsin-Putin Russian Federation, the current task is to relearn how to produce artillery shells, machine gun barrels, bearings, machine tools at least to the standard of 30 years ago, etc., in sufficient quantities, so as not to depend on its big brother, the DPRK, and, to a lesser extent, on its great master, the PRC. However, judging by the statements of the prominent patriot Sechin, even such a goal is not being set.
And then there's this whole thing about the Moon... But if you add "Russia risks losing" to any technology competition, you could write a million articles. Like, "Russia risks losing the battle for flying cars!" And that's patriotic and they're not lying.

We should learn how to make regular cars. Learn how to make airplanes. Machine tools. And so on and so forth.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Bearded

We should learn to make regular cars.

[Dock1272]

Like in the viral interview: - Maybe we should start making normal cars... - But why? 😆😆

[smart ass]

Aren't you tired of bashing Yeltsin? Let me remind you of some simple facts. The USSR launched a man into space 16 years after the most devastating war in human history. Remind me when Yeltsin left?

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Clever man

Remind me when Yeltsin left?

The man is gone, the system remains.

[Gardamir]

You can't help but laugh sadly. Yeltsin's legacy lives on and triumphs. However, his successor has reached new heights.

[multi-category]

The system was not created by Yeltsin
This system of governance emerged after Khrushchev's coup. He managed to pile up a mess, and after him, Brezhnev's group didn't have the knowledge to properly sort it out. It turned out that way, and they were generally busy divvying up influence and "financial flows."
Yeltsin was simply one of the most successful fighters in this system, nothing more. Perestroika and the 90s essentially didn't change the approach to governance and organization, although a different system could have emerged among the mobsters. However, the oligarchs gradually took over everything, and the system remained, with minor modifications, exactly the same as in the USSR in the late 70s. Only the labels and obligations to citizens have changed. Instead of the USSR, there's the Russian Federation; instead of a welfare state, there's "we didn't ask you to have children." Instead of the Politburo, there's a team of oligarchs. Instead of the CPSU, there's United Russia, and exactly the same demagoguery and imitation of democracy. Even the equivalent of the KGB and political oversight has been fully restored, and even more so. Was this what Yeltsin created? In my opinion, Putin, in the new reality, has restored the system of governance he was accustomed to from the USSR.
But don't confuse the system with who now sets its tasks. That's what's changed radically.

[Gardamir]

By the way, this isn't in any way a support for Yeltsin, but during his time there was a massive project to install a fiber-optic network. And if the internet starts lagging somewhere, it's simply because the fiber-optic network is reaching the end of its lifespan.

[Per se.]

Quote: Clever man

Remind me when Yeltsin left?

Regarding Yeltsin, it's either bad or nothing. There's a successor left, but his plan is so cunning that "Stirlitz" hasn't been revealed yet.

[Per se.]

Quote: Belisarius

Like, Russia risks losing the battle for flying cars!

"Flying cars," if Russia doesn't even make its own files and nails anymore, have lost the "battle" to the Chinese...

[KCA]

Stop talking about nails, they're easy to make, there are two trays for nails in the hardware store, Chinese and domestic, those who buy for cheap repairs buy Chinese ones, those who buy for themselves, only ours, I've never seen Chinese files, they're all ours, hemp ones

[Per se.]

Quote: KCA

Enough of this talk about nails.

Yes, everything is wonderful here. We used to have the largest Miass file plant, famous for its products, which closed in the early 2000s. The last file plant closed relatively recently. Our metal... Most of the output from MMK, NLMK, Evraz, and Severstal is shipped abroad as ingots—they're exporting semi-finished products, essentially raw materials. We're having problems with stainless steel; imports of cold-rolled flat products and hot-rolled flat products have increased. "China," you say, for "cheap repairs"... Our companies are trying to buy imported products, primarily Chinese ones—they're better than domestic ones, they don't warp during processing, they're uniform, inexpensive, and, finally, they meet the specifications, which is something Russian products don't have. By the way, the "Moskvich" is also kind of ours...

[multi-category]

Yes, Chinese quality is rarely pleasing, but stainless steel screws can only be found in China.
They may be produced, but they are not sold in accessible stores.
Like many other things, we have very few places left that retain Soviet quality.

[Dock1272]

Really? I only see Chinese-made files and nails in stores (and on Ozon, by the way). I've never seen our own...

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Belisarius

Russia risks losing the battle for flying cars!

Buy a flying car from Xpeng, stick on your badge and voila, a flying Moskvich!

[multi-category]

Quote: Belisarius

about any competition in the technological field

It's important to remember that Khrushchev coined this term. In reality, these aren't really sporting events. The question is how quickly and at what cost, because both resources are limited, and there's also the added constraint of ensuring security at all times.
In my opinion, we need to stop pretending to be athletes and move on to cosplaying as workers, while simultaneously cultivating an effective foreign intelligence and industrial espionage service. Most of our government's agencies are no longer able to compete on their own resources.
I would also like to harness the entire institute to formulating economically efficient industries in our conditions that do not waste resources.

[turembo]

We need to save science. In fact, compared to our competitors, our lunar program looks like sending out a few Lego models with a Go Pro attached. And the technologies we could have invented and implemented will be purchased in real life once again. Basically, nothing new, just the same old course.

[bulatmuhamadeev]

You can't lose a battle if you stumble and don't reach it (c). Sun Rogizinsy.

[g_ae]

"Risks losing"? How can you "risk" not participating? A country incapable of replacing the Soviet crop duster is heading to the moon? Ridiculous. Although, it's a good excuse to steal budget money.

[g_ae]

By the way, where are the rockets supposed to be launched from? They broke the launch pad at Baikanur, I think. There's no new one, and it's not very convenient from Vostochny. Everything's been rigged and rigged. Greetings from rusty Tolik. They could sell oil and timber and pay the Chinese to give a Russian cosmonaut a ride. Then they'll be able to participate. It's all sad.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: g_ae

By the way, where do we launch rockets from?

The Oryol (Eagle) was supposed to fly to the Moon, launched on an Angara A5 rocket from the Vostochny Cosmodrome. The lunar Oryol was never built; it's now being redesigned for the ROS OS. It turns out the Angara A5 can't reach the Moon; they're now making the Angara A5M.

Quote: g_ae

At Baikanur, they broke the launch pad, it seems.

Now they're pretending nothing terrible happened, saying they'll fix it quickly, and it's not even important... Judging by the numerous photos of the refueling site, the client is more likely dead than alive. They're saying they'll take it off the Gagarin Launch Site. Yeah, but it's not ours anymore, it's Kazakh, and considering they're preparing it for a museum, all the non-ferrous metal has already been stolen and sold. And will Kazakhstan even sell it?

[g_ae]

Yeah, right! A proud eagle turned out. A shit-stained eagle, to be sure, but still an eagle.

[Nastia makarova]

What's so terrible about this??? There are no flight cancellations yet, maybe they'll be pushed back a few months.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Nastia Makarova

What terrible thing happened???

A single launch cannot launch rockets.

Quote: Nastia Makarova

There are no flight cancellations yet, but it might be shifted to the right by a few months.

36 months is also a bit long, do you have the exact data?

[Nastia makarova]

Where does the number 36 come from???? There was no official statement.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Nastia Makarova

Where does the number 36 come from???? There was no official statement.

Officially stated "in a short time frame", for the Russian Federation 36 is a short time frame.

[Nastia makarova]

So you came up with the number 36 yourself, as with everything else, this is just your opinion and nothing more.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Nastia Makarova

So you came up with the number 36 yourself, as with everything else, this is just your opinion and nothing more.

State your expectations, 6 months, three months, a month...
36 is optimistic

[Nastia makarova]

Why should I guess? Let's wait until they tell us. They'll write about it in the media, but there's no panic yet.

[multi-category]

Quote: g_ae

Soviet corncob

It was produced in Poland. The USSR quickly got rid of this production. And generally rightly so. But why technological developments were so generously entrusted to the periphery is unclear. And it's unclear why, despite the crystal-clear need for light aviation, it developed so poorly. Yes, we had a luxurious airplane instead of an intercity bus – the Yak-40. But... too luxurious. The niche between sport aviation and the Yak-40 remained empty for 50 years.

[naofumi]

There's also a more mercantile interest. Up to a million tons of helium-3, a potential fuel for thermonuclear fusion, have accumulated in the lunar regolith. A single round-trip space freighter flight could deliver a trillion dollars' worth of fuel. Although commercial fusion is still a long way off, China and India, for example, are already reserving mining sites. Basically, it's possible to live here; you just have to work.

Not only the promising He-3, but also the concentrated rare earth elements. This means that mining rare earth elements on the Moon is simply easier than on Earth.

Well, yes, any technological race brings (Who would have thought, right?) - technologies!


And on the topic Artemis vs Chang'e - I'll bet on Artemis. The US is more experienced in this matter, after all.
It’s already interesting that we’re betting on the Chinese and not on ourselves.

The main question from space skeptics: why would Earthlings even want to explore the Moon? The Americans succeeded once (if they actually succeeded), and that's enough.

Here's a photo of David Scott, commander of Apollo 15. Photo on the Moon.
And there is so much evidence of the American flight that questioning the flights to the Moon is simply stupid.

[Disant]

Naofumi (Yura)
Not only the promising He-3, but also the concentrated rare earth elements. This means that mining rare earth elements on the Moon is simply easier than on Earth.... China and India, for example, are already reserving mining areas.

ahHh-ha-ha, Yura is a joker)) helium shovel into the barrels and onto the Earth, and then we'll figure it out, What to do with it and why is it needed? Well, as for rare earths, of course and naturally, we dig them on the Moon - after all, they are our own, native ones, and it is expensive to smelt/dig/search/extract them here

Questioning the moon landings is simply stupid.

I agree. I'm fed up with the conspiracy theorists.

[alexputnik17]

Quote: Bearded

Machine tools. Etc., etc.

First, this. "Production of means of production." And DAM, during his presidency, confused machine tool manufacturing with the steel tool industry. What can I say? Two such factories in Moscow, "Krasny Proletary" and "MSZ named after Sergo Ordzhonikidze," were plundered. They're making something now, including CNC, but I don't understand where. Although, they say, it's domestic.

[Amateur]

which Russia risks losing

Russia lost it back in 1969.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Amateur

Russia lost it back in 1969.

In 1976, when the impossibility of guaranteeing a successful flight of the AMS to the Moon and back ended the gamut of failures of the E-8-5 program with the last successful launch (of which there were only three out of eleven).

[Amateur]

B.E. Chertok's memoirs devote an entire chapter to the Soviet lunar program. The E-8-5s are lunar avatars, while "Apollo" is "human." They're different things.

[Axe Yeti]

Of course, it lost, so all the lunar rockets were destroyed. The Americans lost too, back then; Yuri Gagarin was the first man in space. By that logic, they should have destroyed all their rockets, but for some reason they didn't.

[Sensor]

Among the less significant spin-off technologies born in the depths of Apollo, one can single out Teflon, which the Americans used to coat bearings.

Wiki writes: "The first fluoropolymers arrived in the USSR on American military equipment supplied under Lend-Lease from the United States during the Great Patriotic War as part of various seals and bearings." Mass production of fluoroplastics in the USSR began due to the need for seals in equipment handling uranium hexafluoride.

[alexputnik17]

By the way, at the command post, the same shells could be fired in three shifts. In an unmanned environment. Just keep an eye on the tools.
If only they hadn't stolen it.

[rocket757]

Question... what else on this topic hasn't been discussed before???
The changes aren't particularly noticeable... so what's the point of arguing?

[alexputnik17]

Quote: Naofumi

And there is so much evidence of the American flight that it is simply stupid to question the flights to the Moon.

Of course. They were there. They flew. Why did they stop?
Just don't talk about accidents. Korolev's fuel line was blown up by some missile and he almost went to jail for terrorism. But he wouldn't calm down.
And on the little things. Our guys figured out a toilet in their spacesuits. The Americans didn't. So how did they do it?
American journalists asked Armstrong if the Americans had a radiation suit... He didn't answer. They walk around, jump, and shoot things in all-terrain vehicles. Meanwhile, in scientific topics, like the soil we collected for the lunar rover and shared with them, I didn't see any scientific merit in their programs.
Was it punks or scientists who flew? I don't remember, four times? What's the science behind it? Jumping across the surface in an all-terrain vehicle?

[naofumi]

Of course. They were there. They flew. Why did they stop?

As we remember, the primary goal of the lunar program was to land a man on the Moon. They accomplished that goal, landing a man on the Moon. And more than once.
The program was later closed for financial reasons.

And on the little things. Our guys figured out a toilet in their spacesuits. The Americans didn't. So how did they do it?

We have a funnel with a suction device, the Americans have a diaper. It's not a toilet, it's just a urine suction device.

American journalists asked Armstrong whether the Americans had a radiation-resistant spacesuit... He didn't answer.

Apparently, he didn't mean to offend the journalist. After all, the purpose of a spacesuit is to maintain internal pressure, just like we do on Earth.
But the lunar module was shielded, yes. And in the event of a solar flare, the crew would have waited out the storm in the lunar module.

At the same time, in scientific topics, the same soil, we collected for the lunar rover and we shared it with them, according to their programs, I did not see any scientific value.

What kind of science do you mean? Preliminary Examination of Lunar Samples from Apollo 11
https://repository.hou.usra.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/d96b4ce1-0895-47ab-8bfe-37a9095b9b29/content

Was it punks or scientists who flew? I don't remember, four times? What's the science behind it? Jumping across the surface in an all-terrain vehicle?

Astronauts flew six times. This was primarily a political program.

[Per se.]

Quote: Naofumi

It was a political program first and foremost.

That's precisely it: a political program, not a technical or scientific one. Like the old joke: "How many times in one night? Six times! And she? She didn't come."... Just ask how the Americans made unprecedented concessions to the USSR, the "defeated" moon race leader, after their "triumph," what gifts they gave Brezhnev personally, and why Nixon personally flew to Moscow. That's politics.
From science and technology.
1. NASA is still unable to develop a heavy rocket with a payload of 70 tons, let alone repeat the capabilities of Saturn-5.

2. NASA classified the takeoff from the lunar surface as an ascent from a "deep gravity well," and lunar landing plans were delayed to the point of being virtually abandoned. This is unsurprising, as the Apollo lunar module was clearly incapable of launching from the landing platform due to the lack of exhaust vents.

3. The Apollo command module had the property of bistability during landing, that is, there was an equiprobable danger of its overturn and combustion when entering the Earth's atmosphere.

4. NASA still does not have a reliable heat shield for the command module to safely return crews from deep space.

5. The profile of "one-hole" (direct) entry into the Earth's atmosphere, declared in the reports on "Apollo", is practically inapplicable. If implemented when landing at the second space velocity, it can be catastrophic for the lander.

6. If the descent vehicle somehow transferred the entry into the atmosphere, then during the descent the astronauts would be in critical condition due to the serious danger of severe gravitational overloads after a long period of weightlessness and, most likely, after splashdown would be in a serious condition and would not look so cheerful.

7. The lack of key knowledge regarding human exposure to solar and space radiation in outer space makes real protection from radiation very problematic.

These are just some of the questions surrounding all the blunders and inconsistencies of the lunar explorers. The Americans had no idea about space medicine, let alone the nonsense about diapers. Before the advent of the shuttle, which finally allowed crews to breathe air instead of pure oxygen, it's unlikely the Yankees ever had any real manned spaceflight, other than suborbital hops and Hollywood wonders. NASA spares no effort or expense to cover up its lunar scam, so it's no wonder there are so many followers of the "Lunar Witnesses" cult.

[Dock1272]

Hi. Don't you watch movies? They found an Autobot on the Moon... That's why they flew. Come watch it, get to know him.

[BAI]

Space exploration, including military space exploration, is the preserve of superpowers. Russia is no longer a superpower. It's good that at least we have something.

[alexputnik17]

Quote: rocket757

Question... what else on this topic hasn't been discussed before???

Women?

[g_ae]

Yeah. One. Valley. The whole country is talking about it.

[sergan m]

"this figure rose to 20-30 dollars"

Is everyone in your editorial office illiterate?
20-30 is not a number, but a number.

[Gardamir]

Don't judge too harshly. These are new times. Now coffee isn't just a he, but also an it, and perhaps a she. What do you expect if the entire country, in a single impulse, even Russian language teachers have started pronouncing it "razy" (likely a "razy")?

[U-58]

She is shampoo. Plus, the triumph of letters. Й. Thailand, win.

[alexputnik17]

Quote: g_ae

Yeah. One. Valley. The whole country is talking about it.

Larisa, yes. Article 167 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is beyond her reach. There were precedents there with non-refunds. A new interpretation of the law. She probably can. Although it's sad.
rocket757 Please don't swear.

[Ross xnumx]

Lose? And when did the Moon become US property? As far as I remember, it's Earth's satellite...

[Hole puncher]

Quote: ROSS 42

And when did the Moon become US property? As far as I remember, it's Earth's satellite...

As far as I understand, the Moon will be divided based on the establishment of stations there. That is, the winners will be those who have managed to establish themselves there, hence the race for first come, first served status. The rest will be modestly sent on an "erotic journey" and will have no choice but to rock the UN podium, which has long since become a futile endeavor.

[Idle_piston]

The Battle for the Moon, Which Russia Risks Losing

In my humble opinion, I'd like to ask: what "battle" has Russia won over the past 30 years? Perhaps the battle between dollar billionaires over the number of wells.

[Vadim S]

And at 7am there are already half a hundred comments; the only ones that get more are about migrants :)))
What do we need a moon for? The economy is going down the drain, we can't even make a decent low-end car, people are being fleeced more and more to feed the treasury, and now we're talking about the moon. We can't afford it.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Vadim S

And at 7am there are already half a hundred comments; the only ones that get more are about migrants :)))

If the author hadn't brought Russia into this topic, there would have been much less, since essentially it's about a confrontation between the US and China; there are no third parties involved, and there won't be any.
In fact, the lunar race is currently raging within the US between Amazon and SpaceX. While Musk has staked everything on Starship and tied all his future projects to it, Bezos has quietly created the simpler New Glenn rocket, which can be scaled up for a manned lunar mission. And there's a chance that when the SLS is scrapped (because it's so expensive), Amazon will be tasked with building a replacement rocket. Bezos is more accommodating and flexible than the wild Musk.
Regarding China... There has been a back and forth between the CZ-10, which is inherently flawed, and the CZ-9, which is supposed to replicate the Starship. All of this has a negative impact on speed.

[Boris55]

Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

Quote: Puncher

We are talking about the confrontation between the USA and China; there are no third parties and there will not be any.

Will be!

August 1, 2025, 12:05
The heads of Roscosmos and NASA discussed the possibility of continuing cooperation (TV.1 Channel)

[Konnick]

Quote: Boris55

The heads of Roscosmos and NASA discussed the possibility of continuing cooperation.

What can they talk about? accountant Bakanov and engineer Chris Scolese?

Scolese received a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical and computer engineering from the University at Buffalo (1978); a Master of Science degree in electrical and computer engineering from The George Washington University (1982); and a Doctor of Science degree in systems engineering from The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. (2016). In 2015, the University at Buffalo awarded him an honorary doctorate.

Bakanov studied at the Saint Petersburg State University of Economics and Finance (SPbSEU) in economics and graduated in 2007.

[Amateur]

Bakanov studied at the Saint Petersburg State University

The words "St. Petersburg State University" (even without the subsequent additions) now mean that a person who graduated from it knows everything, about everything, and better than anyone else. True, there is one side effect: hearing loss, especially to the opinions of others.

[Gardamir]

not space, but essentially.

[Viktor Sergeev]

The ravings of a madman. They're still flying on rockets like they did in the 60s. Flying to the Moon, or even landing there for a couple of hours or days, isn't exploration. No one has the resources or capabilities yet. If our guys make Zeus, that would be perfectly feasible.

[Konnick]

What Moon... During the Soyuz-28 launch, the pad failed to move, or it was pulled out of its shelter under the launchpad, blocking the jet stream's exit. As a result, it itself collapsed, and the service trusses were scorched by the hot rockets that spilled onto the pad itself. Roscosmos deleted the video of the launch from its website... naive, the recording can be viewed elsewhere. The deletion of the video speaks volumes about the mental capacity of the current Roscosmos leadership.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Konnick

The deletion of the post speaks volumes about the mental capacity of the current Roscosmos leadership.

And some believe that Bakanov is fresh blood...

[U-58]

The main thing is that it is the “right” blood.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: U-58

The main thing is that it is the “right” blood.

At what plan?

[U-58]

In terms of loyalty, or more precisely, personal devotion.

[Dedok]

Roscosmos has removed the video of the launch from its website... naive, the recording can be viewed elsewhere.

They are not naive, unfortunately - they are stupid...

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Dedok

They are not naive, unfortunately - they are stupid...

That's true. The photos were taken almost immediately. The most important thing is that you can't hide something like this from the Americans. Even if they hadn't seen it, they would have had to mumble something when asked, "Where are the New Year's gifts that were supposed to be delivered under the space tree?"
Well, and traditionally, when it became useless to deny it, they began to shamelessly lie, “It’s nothing, we’ll fix it soon, no big deal….”

[Nastia makarova]

The Union flew away))))))))))))))))))

[Konnick]

Quote: Nastia Makarova

The Union flew away))))))))))))))))))

And the next one won't fly soon.

[Nastia makarova]

There are no changes yet, no cancellation of reserved cosmonaut seats either. It would be catastrophic if they cancelled everything and there would be a big fuss.

[Vsevolod Sidorov]

Well, let's fall for the "Star Wars" scam again...we'll spend hundreds of billions. 17. And for what? There is no profitable program for the Moon.

[Dmitry Eon]

Cooperation is needed, especially with China. China is spending huge amounts of money to single-handedly solve the problem of semiconductor dependence, and the same goes for aircraft dependence. Even China doesn't have the resources to catch up.

[Dmitry Eon]

The Moon is of interest not for the export of raw materials to Earth, but as a springboard for the exploration of the entire solar system, since lunar soil can be used for protection against radiation and micrometeorites and perhaps even for some kind of production, since this soil consists of oxides of iron, magnesium and titanium

[Disant]

as a springboard for the exploration of the entire solar system

Landing requires fuel. Taking off requires more fuel.

[kig]

The US and China are making plans...and we have our own plan, two and a half times more powerful than both of theirs combined!

[Mazunga]

Yes, we have a simple plan: steal some swag and become an American when we retire)) and this plan, with minor variations, is being put into practice

[Anthony]

So what do you expect if since 1992 the domestic cosmonautics industry has turned into a service bureau, a maintenance department!

[bulatmuhamadeev]

Musk initially built SpaceX as a service company, and it's working just fine.

[Boris55]

Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

Quote: E. Fedorov

and by 2030 the first taikonaut will be on the Moon.

I have only one question:
When and by whom was protection against cosmic radiation created?

[kig]

Quote: Boris55

I have only one question

What are you talking about, don't you know that the earth is flat, all the stars revolve around us, and the moon was drawn in Hollywood?

[Disant]

When and by whom was protection against cosmic radiation created?

There is no protection from cosmic radiation - there are very large chunks of energy there, in different ranges/variations, more/less, but from solar radiation you can partially cover yourself with sheathing and other things, even wet wipes.
In any case, it is impossible to stay in space for a long time outside the protection of the Earth's magnetic field.
That's why the automation is backed up four times, just like the crew—the brain is exposed to radiation, and malfunctions are possible. The same dose a person receives in a lifetime on Earth (sun + space) can be received in a few months to six months in space.
We have a special medical and biological institute that deals with this problem.

[Per se.]

It's quite possible that humanity is tethered to Earth; no one has yet verified this. An invisible "electronic collar" that "explodes" when removed from the designated zone—that would be quite a reality...

[pavelpavel]

Come on, China! What can they do? They've managed it. It's not like they're a capitalist country. And stealing, according to Putin, is somehow mortally dangerous. The microchip that rules the world is called the City of London, made up of 43 families and clans. They rule in a hybrid fashion, like Russia: Siluanov, Nabiullina, and Gref openly, while in the shadows, they sabotage things, led by unarmed party detachments—specialists. Their results surpass those of Nazi Germany: 30% of women are sterile, 20% of minors are repressed for not supporting their families. And just like the Russian spacecraft landed on the moon, so the rip-off is happening, and it will be huge. Capitalism, indeed!

[Dedok]

Battle for the Moon, which Russia risks losing

risks? - what risks are there where nothing is done...
There can be no risks there...

[g_ae]

The funniest thing is that none of the commentators believes Russia is capable of anything in the lunar program other than rampant embezzlement and theft of funds. This is how Vladimir Vladimirovich has earned the authority of his "managers." Such "faith" in the capabilities of the country and the government is "strained," there's no other way to put it.

[Maks1995]

Alas.
It's just that memory is short.
Moon by 2015, Mars by 2019.
This is what they once promised us from above and from Himself.

Deceived? Alas, it's nothing new, that means we're weaklings, that means we'll be deceived again.
There in the article - again, deadlines and plans of Roscosmos... (and therefore money from the budget...)

Recently, someone was jailed again at Roscosmos, it seems... he didn't share and was chosen as a scapegoat?

[Bersaglieri]

Oh yes, a secret lunar base has been mining He3 for 10 years now, and the first spacecraft with a turbo-propellant rocket has already reached the edge of the Oort cloud...

[Yuri_K_Msk]

And yet, these are fairy tales. It's too expensive, and it's unclear how the money will be mined on the Moon. Why expose people to unnecessary risk? Automatic rovers and base stations are sufficient. Helium-3 is a complete utopia. To obtain 1 liter of liquid helium-3, with its probable content of 0,01 µg/kg (100 ppb), it would be necessary to sift through at least 10-15 tons of lunar rock! There's no sand or dust on the Moon. Who will blast and crush the rock? And how will it be processed? Don't confuse "spice" mining, as in the novel "Dune," with Helium-3 and the Moon. The USSR already got involved in the Star Wars and the Buran program once. It turned out to be a waste of money. Russia, as in Soviet times, will have to rely on automated systems on the Moon.

[wku]

The American lunar program of the 60s and 70s gave the economy approximately 5 dollars for every dollar invested in this program, with the designs and technologies that had to be developed for the implementation of the lunar program and later used in other, more mundane industries, aircraft manufacturing, shipbuilding, mechanical engineering, electronics, etc., without any extraction.

[kig]

Quote: wku

$5 from every investment in this program,

Who, and more importantly, HOW, calculated this? Do you believe foreign fairy tales?

[foxes]

Russia risks losing

Well, it's as if she's no longer taking any risks. The Russian space industry, led by "effective managers," will soon die completely. The current leaders, by definition, can't create, only "optimize," i.e., destroy everything they touch.

[Million]

Until Russia has its own electronics industry, the Moon should be forgotten.
Not under the current government. Unfortunately, it can't pull the country through.

[Mazunga]

We need to win the long-term pension savings program))) otherwise, like the old-fashioned freeze, hop and there's no money, but hang in there))

[Bersaglieri]

The first stage of the race has already been lost. There's a chance in the next stage if we quickly develop an interorbital tug with a nuclear rocket engine (the same one promised for 2025-2028), but...

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Bersaglieri

but- SVO

It's very convenient to blame everything on the SVO. All the mistakes are due to laziness, negligence, and incompetence. All the problems are due to theft and corruption.

[Bersaglieri]

One day of combat at this intensity costs...50-100 million euros (or 5-10 billion rubles at the current exchange rate). Modern high-tech warfare is VERY expensive.

[Disant]

interorbital tug with a nuclear rocket engine (the same one that was promised for 2025-2028)

No, there will be no nuclear missiles in tow.
A nuclear power plant will generate ONLY ELECTRICITY. This electricity will accelerate the gas (fuel, working fluid) entering the engines.
2024 – preliminary design ready. 2030 – launch. Improved engines were already deployed two months ago.

[Bersaglieri]

A nuclear power plant with an ionic reactor, yes. There was also an alternative design with a high-thrust module using a traditional hydrogen-heating core.

[Disant]

There was simply another alternative project with a high-torque module. on a traditional "hydrogen heater" in the active zone.

The Americans developed this in the 60s, and now they've pulled out the old drawings again, and it seems like they're raising the issue of "give us money." This thing can just accelerate to Mars relatively quickly. give a one-time impulse.
And then what? Will it fly back? - We know how to store hydrogen in space, so that we can at least slow down near Mars?
tow, slowly, it reaches the orbit of the Moon, Venus, Mars, Saturn AND WILL GIVE ELECTRICITY to the equipment - several hundred kilowatts!!!!(several times more than on the entire ISS!) - forever and ever, without spending anything. and the Sun in Saturn's orbit is already 90 times smaller.- solar panels are useless

[Monster_Fat]

Well... "All is not lost." Russia is developing joint space cooperation with other countries:

With Zimbabwe: A joint statement on not being the first to place weapons in outer space and a memorandum on cooperation in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes were signed.

With Myanmar: A memorandum on cooperation in space was concluded.

With Burundi: A joint statement on not being the first to place weapons in outer space was signed.

With China: Negotiations are underway to develop a joint space program, including lunar exploration projects.

With Djibouti: Agreement on cooperation in space exploration....

See? The list of participating countries is encouraging... (especially China, which is already playing a leading role...) With such support, and considering Roscosmos's recent achievements, space will be ours... And have no doubt about it.

[Ronrew]

Incidentally, in early 2025, Russia and Madagascar signed an agreement on not being the first to place weapons in outer space. An unconditional victory for our diplomacy.

[solar]

I never trusted this Ma-Da-Gas-Kar. We finally managed to curb his cosmic expansion.
: ((

[kriten]

What moon? We have nowhere left to fly into space. We should at least win the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, not capitulate to the benefit of the moneybags who run the Kremlin.

[g_ae]

I can't resist. Judging by the points of the "peace plan," Russia could very well pay the US for all the damages from the war the US unleashed against Russia, using Russian money, carefully siphoned out of Russia by Siluanov and Nabiullina. With such "managers," you don't need enemies; the damage is greater than Western sanctions. And as for the Russians, the message cast in granite is "there's no money, but hang in there. Have a good day!" What the hell is the Moon! Are bearded Wahhabis from the villages going to promote it? Right!

[wku]

Has any flat-earther already written a thoughtful post about Americans flying to the moon from a Hollywood pavilion?

[Illanatol]

Quote: Anglorussian

Even the so-called new Europe's per capita economic indicators (like the Baltics) significantly exceed those of China. I understand that the Chinese are your friends now, but...

Well, we're waiting for the Estonian Katsmanauts on the Moon. I hope they're not too late.
Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the like have very high rates. These guys will certainly be at the forefront of exploration of the Moon, the Galaxy, and its environs. The Chinese have nothing on that!

[bk316]

Why would Earthlings even want to explore the Moon? The Americans succeeded once.

They managed to conquer the Moon? And what did they conquer there?

and also created technological prototypes of cellular communications, Wi-Fi and Bluetoothh

Really? Could you please elaborate?

[vadim dok]

I think the title of the article is incorrect - the battle for the Moon has ALREADY been lost. Unfortunately.

[Trapperxnumx]

A lunar station with a scientific laboratory, a nuclear reactor, and minimal personnel (or even robotic) would be the second step toward serious space exploration.
The first is an orbital station

[Umptek]

I read the article as a teaser, and since everything is obvious to me, I'll immediately predict it. The lead in returning to the Moon will be shared between America and China. We could be third if the political-economic structure of the state changes. Under the current capitalist-oligarchic "selpo" system, we might not even be third; it's more likely to be the EU and Japan. I'd like to joke that the Belarusians will be third, but oh well, I won't.
Now I'll go read the comments.

[bk316]

A funny article. It's quite interesting to read about plans to explore the Moon.
However, the article contains so many errors or simply fabrications about the history of the development of computing technology that doubts arise about the veracity of the announced plans.
So

The most famous are the world's first mass-produced integrated circuits, which appeared on the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) device.

It is common knowledge that the first integrated circuits were manufactured by Jay Last's group at Fairchild Semiconductor.
And the first mass-produced ICs were the micrologic series, and the first contract for this series was indeed for a rocket, but not for a lunar one, but for a Minuteman.
https://www.computer-museum.ru/histekb/integral_1.htm

The Apollo program required so many integrated circuits from Intel that the company had to increase production several times over.

Well, yes, but Intel started mass production AFTER the moon landing.
And their first commercial chip was DRAM 1103.
https://habr.com/ru/articles/406029/

and also created technological prototypes of cellular communications, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.

There is no way the Wi-Fi prototype could have been created in the 60s and 70s.
The first ideas on this matter appeared in the late 80s, and the prototype in the late 90s.
https://it-yota.ru/stati/istoriya-vozniknoveniya-wi-fi.html

[solar]

It is common knowledge that the first integrated circuits were manufactured by Jay Last's group at Fairchild Semiconductor.

Apollo Guidance Computer - the first computer on microchips.
Microcircuits manufactured by Fairchild Semiconductor were used in the AGC program and operated on resistor-transistor logic. All components used in the device underwent repeated, rigorous testing. Up to 60% of all microcircuits produced in the US at the time went to the Apollo program.

And the first mass-produced ICs were the micrologic series, and the first contract for this series was indeed for a rocket, but not for a lunar one, but for a Minuteman.

The Minuteman II program utilized microchips that utilized diode-transistor logic and diode-diode logic. This led to a number of problems, but the D-17 computer also marked a significant milestone in the development of computer technology.

[bk316]

The Minuteman II program utilized microchips that utilized diode-transistor logic and diode-diode logic. This led to a number of problems, but the D-17 computer also marked a significant milestone in the development of computer technology.

You are confusing the D-17, which is from the Minuteman-1 and is on a discrete base and is from 58, but I meant the Minuteman-2, the D-37 computer from 1961.

[solar]

I have a typo, I wrote about D-37, as you can see from the text of my post.

[Axe Yeti]

"You will never be allowed to spread across the galaxy. You will remain a reservation. You will carry urgent cargo until an alternative to jump ship is found." - Sergey Lukyanenko.
Once upon a time, when the reptilians screwed up their shuttles yet again and started using us not only as technicians on the ISS but also as cabbies, I remembered this quote from Lukyanenko. An alternative has been found, the necessary technologies for orbital stations have been obtained. I think that space will be closed to us at this point. The management will draw pretty pictures, but nothing more.

[Ronino]

Is it time to do this?
This costs a lot of money that could be spent on more important goals...
At least create a significant satellite constellation in the interests of the Ministry of Defense.

[newtc7]

Sir, if we stopped changing curbs in Moscow every year, we could easily put them on the moon. there is enough money.
What kind of money are you talking about if one official from Vladivostok stole 100 billion rubles? And that's just one! Even for 100 billion rubles, Russia's lunar program could be significantly advanced, very significantly! But, as you understand, our priorities in this country are different, very, very different.

[acetophenone]

It doesn't matter what's written in all these programs. And what deadlines are set out is also unimportant. What matters is WHO will implement them and WHO will lead them.

Comintern head Georgiy Dimitrov wrote in his diary about Stalin's words at a 1937 dinner with Voroshilov: "The most important thing is the middle cadres—party, economic, and military. They choose the leader, explain our position to the masses, and ensure the success of our cause. They don't try to climb to the top; they're not even noticeable."

There are no such shots. There are only those raking in everything for themselves, as far as their arms can reach.

[Evgeny_Sviridenko]

I don't know about the Moon, but while a large number of Russian pensioners are impoverished and forced to toil to death for the bourgeoisie... The people are the foundation of any state, and their well-being determines how much and what will be done and achieved in the country. And if, for example, in the US everything is done to ensure that smart people live well, then guess who will win any race or competition? Just out of curiosity, how many Russians work for the US and the West in general? "General estimates: According to UN estimates for 2021, the total number of Russians living abroad exceeds 10 million, placing Russia third in the world in this indicator after India and Mexico." "Thus, although it is impossible to provide a specific figure, we are talking about tens or even hundreds of thousands of Russian specialists working in the global high-tech industry outside of Russia." That's why when I see articles like "Spaceships furrowing the expanses of the Bolshoi Theater," they evoke nothing but bewilderment. The current "effective" management can't replace the hapless An-2, and now they're asking for the Moon. First, feed those hungry grandparents who survive on a measly 13000 rubles...

[Mitka]

This legacy of the Great USSR held on for so long!!! And only now is it ending. And then it's a dead end! And before your eyes, you see Rogozin's thick, dumb face!!!

[newtc7]

What did you expect? Have you seen the caliber of government officials? Forget the Moon—you'd be hard-pressed to survive on Earth with such managers. No matter where you throw a stone at any industry in Russia, you'll find a hole in the ground. There have certainly been some achievements and progress, but as always, it's not thanks to them, but in spite of them. Until our bureaucracy is changed, or until it miraculously changes itself, nothing will move forward.

[Stanislav Chernov]

Well, all these pompous speeches and slogans are certainly cool, but let's look at the most important thing: money. China spends $15 billion a year on its space program. The US spends $10 billion, but it's unclear whether that's for the entire program or just for preparations. They also have several additional programs that help with the lunar program, but they're funded separately. They've been working on this for ten years now. Russia, meanwhile, is only planning to begin developing a heavy-lift rocket, and has allocated $6 billion for the entire project.

[Phoenix Point]

The Chinese and Indians are strong.))) Energy is everything. Burevestnik won't let you lie. And it's not about money. Investing in space is always a risk. The article is dubious. The main question is, why will a Chinese person be the first to reach the Moon in 2030, without a Russian? Dreadful. Is Evgeny Fedorov Chinese?

[VlK]

Losing another battle for colonies—what a nightmare. Siberia and the Far East are still not fully developed, so why should we go to the Moon and stake out a claim? Without adequate investment in development, we'll be driven out of there, just like they did from Alaska.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Disant

A nuclear power plant will generate ONLY ELECTRICITY. This electricity will accelerate the gas (fuel, working fluid) entering the engines.

It's impossible to accelerate gas with electricity; gas itself has no electrical charge. The gas must first be converted into plasma, which requires energy from nuclear fission (or fusion).

[Illanatol]

Quote: Naofumi

Astronauts flew six times. This was primarily a political program.

But there was no need to fly six times for political purposes. Just once would have been enough – just plant a flag, prove priority, and that would be it.
Moreover, for political purposes, you don't even have to fly at all. It's enough to convince everyone you flew and planted the flag.
"It's more important not to be, but to seem." This is a paradigm of the American mentality, which can be traced even in children's fairy tales. For example, "The Wizard of Oz." Make everyone put on green glasses and believe that the glass around them is pure emerald. And from a provincial magician, you'll become a great wizard.

[Glagol1]

The Americans are facing significant delays with Artemis. There's a lot of talk, arrogance, and money involved. A landing won't happen before 2030, that's for sure. But a four-day flyby and home is certainly doable. But it won't have much practical value—it's mainly experience using the spacecraft on a trajectory, primarily the flyby. This could be done unmanned. A lunar base is closer to 2050, and it will be a small facility. No swimming pools or movie theaters.

[Phoenix Point]

Life from Evgeny Fedorov. Why does Russia need the Moon if there are nine other planets in the Solar System? Russia has an OPERATING "Burevestnik" spacecraft. This is the exploration of the entire Solar System. The main question is: why the rush? To please Evgeny Fedorov? And if everyone else is stuck in the 20th century and uses chemical and ineffective chemical rockets... Evgeny Fedorov will explain: Russia is catching up.

[vldmrom]

Man will still not be allowed to land on the Moon!!! Because he is stupid and greedy!!! The higher celestial beings responsible for the Earth and adjacent matter will never allow man to introduce chaos into the harmony of our universe (material and energetic), which will ultimately lead to destruction and death. Therefore, humanity faces a long path of evolution on Earth to reach the level where we will be allowed to do so. We will not be allowed into space at this stage; it would be a waste of resources! Let the Chinese and the British invest more in lunar exploration; they will sooner exhaust their desires. But we need to make life WORTHY for people here on Earth. And only then can we think about the exploration of near material space.

[1944-1989]

Poland sent Słabosh Uznański into space to satisfy his pierogi cravings. No one talks about the previous Polish cosmonaut, Hermaszewski, and while he had charisma, this one speaks like a robot.