Why can't Russia create a Starlink analogue?

Image t.me/bureau_1440

While many eyes are on Iran and the fighting unfolding around that country, we should be far less concerned about this – the Special Military Operation in Ukraine continues, with heavy ground fighting and exchanges of precision strikes. weapons long range.

Lack of choice

Elon Musk recently shut down Starlink terminals in Ukraine that were not verified on special "whitelists." According to senior Russian Defense Ministry officials, the shutdown of the Starlink terminals had no impact on the quality of communications for Russian ground units.

However, we are currently primarily interested not in communications, but in the possibility of using Starlink terminals or their analogues to carry out strikes using long-range kamikaze UAVs, with high "manual" targeting accuracy at the final stage, with the ability to further search for and verify targets, as well as objectively monitor the results of strikes in real time.

Do we have the ability to directly control kamikaze UAVs from hundreds of kilometers away?

The author does not have a precise answer to this question, but it will most likely be negative.

Communication satellites located in geostationary orbit have high latency and low interference immunity; using such communications is possible and necessary, but only in certain scenarios.

The largest private geostationary communications satellite ever built is Jupiter 3, weighing over nine tons, developed by Maxar Technologies and L3Harris Technologies for Echostar Hughes Network Systems.

It seems like they're currently trying to do something with mesh networks, but how long can the signal chain be? What will be the signal transmission delays, especially as the number of intermediaries increases?

It can be assumed that mesh networks will work at a depth of a couple of hundred kilometers, but beyond that, there will most likely be delays and signal interruptions, especially if the enemy knocks out the “chain links.”

Starlink for the Poor: Communications Based on Stratospheric Balloons and Stratospheric UAVs – the author is also skeptical about this direction, at least in terms of organizing high-speed communication networks, both due to the low carrying capacity of UAVs and the difficulty of keeping the balloons in a given area.

In other words, the Starlink high-speed satellite communications system can only be replaced by a similar domestic high-speed satellite communications system.

It seems that one of the projects closest to reality is the low-orbit communication system of the company "Bureau 1440", but the exact time frame for the commissioning of this system is still unknown.

Image 1440.space

So what's stopping us from creating a domestic high-speed satellite communications system?

Disposable "trampoline"

Despite the fact that Russia is seriously behind in terms of creating partially reusable missiles-carriers, we have all the capabilities to launch artificial Earth satellites (AES) into orbit.

Yes, it will be more expensive than the US, but it's not yet critical. Let's not forget that Russian launch vehicles launched some of the satellites for OneWeb, a British project competing with Starlink.

Nevertheless, the creation of partially and fully reusable launch vehicles should become one of the national priorities, and, in the author's opinion, at least three projects must be implemented in parallel.

The first project is the partially reusable Soyuz-7 (formerly Amur-LNG) methane-fueled rocket from JSC Progress Rocket and Space Center, which could become a lighter-lift equivalent of SpaceX's American Falcon 9 rocket.

A model of the Soyuz-7 launch vehicle. Image: commons.wikimedia.org / F.Alexsandr

The second project is the fully reusable launch vehicle "Korona" from JSC "GRC Makeyev".

The evolution of the Korona launch vehicle concept. Image by makeyev.ru

The third project is a strategic, fully reusable heavy-lift launch vehicle-spacecraft system, which is worth stealing from SpaceX, at least conceptually – the country's survival is at stake, so there's no room for complacency here.

It will still not be possible to completely borrow SpaceX's solutions, since this would require copying the entire plant; we will have to adapt the project to our technological capabilities.

If anyone says three projects simultaneously would be too expensive, let them imagine the cost of the SVO—with a domestic equivalent of the Starlink network, the war would have ended long ago. It's easier to abandon the orbital station and some scientific projects—later, partially reusable, and especially fully reusable, launch vehicles will more than compensate for all of this.

If private business gets involved in the creation of reusable rockets, this area also needs to be supported, for example, by tax exemptions.

For now, we shouldn't forget about the well-deserved Proton launch vehicles. You never know how things will turn out, and these products have long demonstrated very high reliability and, for a disposable launch vehicle, are relatively inexpensive.

However, it seems that our main problems are with the satellites themselves.

Electronic component base

Let's start with one of our most pressing issues: radiation-resistant electronic components. We have a problem with that, but at least it's almost always available, despite the sanctions—it's produced and sold in very large quantities all over the world. Radiation-resistant electronic components, however, are a much more rare and proprietary commodity.

It's important to understand that ECB, while resistant to terrestrial radiation, is unsuitable for satellites. At a nuclear power plant, the primary radiation is gamma rays, and at worst, neutron fluxes. Cosmic radiation, on the other hand, is a flux of charged particles—protons, electrons, and atomic nuclei—moving at near-light speeds.

Image from support.elvees.com / tehnoomsk.ru

Even fast neutrons in the reactor core don't accelerate beyond 40,000-45,000 kilometers per second, while the speed of light, at which protons, electrons, and atomic nuclei can travel in outer space, reaches nearly 300,000 kilometers per second. The energy of fast neutrons in a reactor reaches 10 MeV (megaelectronvolts), while cosmic particles reach 1,000,000 MeV and even 1,000,000,000,000 MeV (for "aliens" from deep space).

Russia has specialists in radiation-hardened electronics. Much of their work depends not only on the electronic component base but also on design schemes that enhance reliability.

Image by niiis-micro.ru

Protection can be partially increased by using passive shielding – not lead, which itself becomes a source of induced radiation when hit by fast particles, but materials rich in hydrogen – polyethylene, plastic, and composites with the addition of boron.

There's another interesting way to produce radiation-hardened electronics. Each microchip is currently unique in many ways, so their radiation resistance varies greatly from batch to batch, and even from sample to sample. Some companies purchase large batches of microchips and test them for resistance using a special method; the samples that pass the test are sold as radiation-hardened.

And of course, we need our own radiation-resistant electronic component, especially since it doesn't require any "fine" manufacturing processes. Even if we can't manufacture something ourselves, the chances of ordering such products from somewhere in China will be an order of magnitude higher than the most modern "terrestrial" chips.

AFAR

In addition to the satellite's internal components, they must also be equipped with antennas, which are active phased array antennas (APAA). Not only the satellites, but the terminals themselves also have APAA antennas.

We're only just starting to get things right with military AESAs, but here we need to produce hundreds of satellites operating in outer space, as well as tens to hundreds of thousands of small-sized user terminals.

X-band microwave phased array antenna module. Image courtesy of apni.ru

AESA is a complex technology, and it's impossible to deny our lag in this area, but it is a critical technology for communications and radar, for both civilian and military systems, so we need to catch up as quickly as possible.

Image by aftershock.news

Software

The communications satellites planned for deployment by Bureau-1440 are to be placed in an 800-kilometer orbit. In such an orbit, the satellites move at a speed of approximately 7,5 kilometers per second. At this speed, it is necessary to communicate with terminals, which can also move, lose signal, or be obstructed by obstacles.

Solving this problem requires complex software, and luring programmers into space projects is far from easy. It's possible that Bureau-1440 will have a better chance than Roscosmos, at least because, based on personal observations, programmers dislike the formality of state-owned companies—permission to wear shorts and flip-flops, and a fridge stocked with Coke, can be a significant recruiting tool.

Recruiting personnel into IT has its own specifics

Furthermore, any software requires debugging, and not all of it can be done here on Earth. Debugging software on existing satellites, meanwhile, carries the risk of bricking them. What happens with a bricked system in orbit? Taking it to a service center is somewhat difficult.

Inter-satellite communications, positioning and ground component

High data transfer rates can only be achieved by providing inter-satellite communication – optical (laser) communication channels are usually used for this, and for such communication to work, the satellites must know their coordinates with minimal error.

It seems that such laser inter-satellite communication has already been tested at Bureau-1440, but it is one thing to connect two or three satellites, and quite another to do the same when there are hundreds of them.

Image 1440.space

Also, for the reliable operation of the satellite network, a ground component is necessary, both for transmitting traffic to the global network and for increasing the accuracy of satellite positioning – the more such ground stations, the better.

We have a large territory, but it would be desirable to have ground stations abroad, but who will allow us to build them now?

North Korea, some African countries, perhaps we will be able to reach an agreement with Vietnam or Myanmar, and that’s probably all.

We spent so much money helping God knows who all over the planet, just so our little ship could pay them a visit or our little planes could fly over. And then the Americans came and simply took it all for free. Have any conclusions been drawn from this? It's still unclear.

Conclusions

As we can see, creating a high-speed communications network based on low-orbit satellites is far from a simple task.

It’s no wonder that no one took it on before SpaceX – not because they didn’t want to, but because they couldn’t.

Image t.me/bureau_1440

For us, this is one of the critical areas that ensures the competitiveness of the state and the survival of the armed forces.

Comments

[Mikhail Ivanov]

We failed to create excellent military communications because Borisov and his subordinates stole six billion...
The project was called Constellation. There was an article about it on VO.

[Mikhail Ivanov]

If you're interested, I recommend reading about this project: https://tvzvezda.ru/news/201611301411-hjak.htm?ysclid=mmlen9elxq209591698

[Ilya-spb]

The answer is simple. Russian high technology is impossible in a climate of total corruption and rampant theft!

Strict control will return - the death penalty for thieves and confiscation of property from the entire family of the thief... Then it will start.

The history of the Russian Empire and the USSR confirms this.

[tsvetahaki]

If there is no theft, there will be free funds.
But raising and training a new generation of scientists and engineers (not in the fields of management and law) will take a lot of time.
As well as the restoration of industry.

[Dedok]

But raise and teach a new generation of scientists and engineers are on them

It's very difficult: the only teachers left in universities are those who have done almost nothing with their own hands, which means that even if they can convey what others have written in "textbooks," the practical implementation of such training will be almost "zero."
All of these are problems of 2000-2010, when it was necessary to improve the material base of engineering universities, but this did not happen...
and now time has passed and it still takes a lot of time to catch up...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

It takes a lot of time to correct the mistakes of architects and road builders; that's where a lot of time is needed.
Revitalizing industry and incentivizing engineers won't take much time. We just need to change the tax system and eliminate Ukrainian agents in government at all levels.
And it is not so much the material resources of universities that need to be improved, but rather approaches to remuneration for engineering work.

[Dedok]

A pRevive industry and stimulate engineers

Do you work in industry?
maybe at a university - where do you see the level of graduates?
and even a bird won't poop at the snap of a finger...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Old man grumbling is no argument. Graduates have always been and will always be different.

[Dedok]

Graduates have always been and will be different.

You're just not in the know...

[VlK]

What's wrong with graduates? They graduate as they are taught; miracles don't happen. If, at a minimum, they were expelled for academic failure and didn't charge for retaking tests and exams, the quality of their output would improve significantly. But not above the level of teaching at the university or college itself.

[Dedok]

What's wrong with the graduates? They graduate as they are taught, miracles don't happen.

You read all of "our correspondence" on this issue...

[VlK]

It's very difficult: the only teachers left in universities are those who have done almost nothing with their own hands, which means that even if they can convey what others have written in "textbooks," the practical implementation of such training will be almost "zero."
All of these are problems of 2000-2010, when it was necessary to improve the material base of engineering universities, but this did not happen...
and now time has passed and it still takes a lot of time to catch up...

I agree with everyone, although even in the 90s (I graduated from an engineering university in 96), teachers were already clearly divided into two groups - "theoreticians" and "practitioners." In terms of timeframes, on average, it takes 5 years for a university graduate to become a competent specialist (let's say a teacher), plus another 5 years (or maybe 4 years) for a student to go from first-year to graduate, and then they need the same 5 years. These are roughly the timeframes you should be working with if you're building an entire system from scratch. But you can shorten the timeframe by bringing in specialists from specialized fields to teach specialized subjects, and by giving students relevant practical skills through real-world practice. But who needs that? Perhaps the students themselves, to gain work experience so they can put it on their resume later.

[Dedok]

But it's possible to reduce this by bringing in specialists from relevant fields to teach specialized subjects, and by giving students relevant practical skills through regular internships. But who needs that?

What does it mean to cut back? Do we have a workers' faculty from the 30s?
When today's school-university partnership focuses on training for "problem execution" rather than "solutions," as was the case during your studies, then what's the point of cutting? Do you see the difference in the way learning objectives are set?
Well, as for "specialists in the field" - there are almost none - and that's why problems are popping up everywhere: young people are taught to execute, not solve...
Besides, not every specialist can teach; some are given the ability, while others are not given it at all...

[VlK]

Reduce the time it takes to develop a professional by continuing to provide a theoretical foundation in university (college) classes and, through practical (industrial) training, concrete, relevant skills in the chosen profession. Then, when applying for a job, graduates won't have to hear our old classic, "Now forget everything you learned..."; most employers are already reluctant to hire someone from scratch; everyone requires at least a year of experience in their field, and where can a former student get that?
But yes, without reconfiguring your target settings, it's unlikely that anything will work out, but this starts in school with the OGE-EGE system - they teach you not to look for the right solutions, but to pass exams.

[Dedok]

reduce the time it takes to become a professional by continuing to provide a theoretical basis in university (college) classes and specific, relevant skills in the chosen profession in practice (industrial).

What kind of production practice are you talking about?
Please provide the numbers of the specialties (areas) of study to understand which areas of production we are talking about...
We are lagging behind in every way, in everything...
What people can teach in production is just to show what they have...
To teach is not to show, it is to TEACH!
Provide theory, provide practice - corresponding to the current level of technology, not those that enterprises have...

[VlK]

My eldest recently graduated from a communications college and is now studying at an institute. I can't tell you their majors, I don't know. Where can I get an internship? MTS, maybe (just not in a sales office), or even Russian Railways. It's just that now the students themselves are looking for one, so they can get a certificate of completion with the organization's seal.

[Dedok]

Only now the students themselves are looking for it, so that close with a certificate of completion with the organization's seal

This is the real state of affairs in our country...
Unfortunately, all the wealthy are happy with this: their children study somewhere else...

[VlK]

What's surprising, if show-offs are the most important thing in our lives? Getting and reporting at least somehow—that's what we need to fight first and foremost, it turns out. Bringing all announced results into line with reality, and at the level of the National Idea—something like "Be, not seem." Look, he just came up with it on his own, while our State Minds have been struggling for 30 years, unable to come up with it. Maybe they'll borrow something from here.

[your1970]

Quote: VlK

What's surprising, if show-offs are the most important thing in our lives? Getting and reporting at least somehow—that's what we need to fight in our lives first and foremost, it turns out. Bringing all announced results into line with reality, and at the level of the National Idea—something like "Be, not seem." Look, I just came up with it on my knees, otherwise our State Minds will already They've been puffing and puffing for 30 years, they just can't give birth to it, maybe they'll at least borrow it from here))

- more....
"We'll Catch Up and Overtake America," "Communism by the Year 2000," "An Apartment by the Year 2000"

[Zoer]

Quote: VlK

Where to do an internship - even at MTS, but not in sales offices), or at Russian Railways.

Mmm! He'll be sitting in your tech support department with a communications engineer's license!
You still don't get it. We don't need users of cellular systems. We need CREATORS of communication systems. HOW can MTS teach this?

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: VlK

Where to do an internship? Even at MTS, just not in the offices...

My friend's older brother graduated from MAI, and went to work for an internship at Khrunuchev's design bureau... they immediately said, "Don't count on it. They're all just a handful of young people here, most of them are cronies—they're just getting paid." Mestove is mute.

[Dedok]

But yes, without reconfiguring your target settings, it's unlikely that anything will work out, but this starts in school with the OGE-EGE system - they teach you not to look for the right solutions, but to pass exams.

But this is generally an "unbearable burden": when they abolished specialties and introduced "Bologna", there was only one barely concealed goal - to reduce funding for universities...
Well, do the math yourself - there were 5 years of study, now there are 4 years.
i.e. 20% of the allocated budget funds were saved...
So what now? Should we go back to 5-year education? Where will the funds come from?

[VlK]

Is a four-year specialist degree (like a bachelor's degree) really an impossible task? In our fifth year, we spent half a year preparing for the state exam and another half writing the thesis. Surely this could be resolved organizationally somehow.
The problem is that with the introduction of machine-readable tests in schools to eliminate the influence of subjective factors on assessments, teachers have shifted away from teaching knowledge and skills to teaching exams. This leads to the low quality of applicants—knowledge quickly "learned" is quickly forgotten.

[Zoer]

Quote: VlK

reduce the time it takes to become a professional by continuing to provide a theoretical basis in university (college) classes and specific, relevant skills in the chosen profession in practice (industrial).

For a turner or a mechanic, this will work. For an engineering technician, it won't. Only through hands-on work, only through firsthand experience creating a real product in a strong, experienced team, can an engineer develop.

[Zoer]

Quote: Dedok

You're just not in the know...

That is putting it mildly.

[Zoer]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Old man grumbling is no argument. Graduates have always been and will always be different.

They will always be equally bad if the university is below par. It's strange that this isn't more than obvious to you.
Moreover, even a top graduate from a top university is only a "blank," a "crude" specialist. And for this "blank" to become a high-quality specialist, they must join a strong company that is constantly focused on the business and strives for results. Only in such a company of seasoned specialists, having learned a ton of their own lessons, will this "blank" become a specialist. So, we have problems at the blank stage, at the stage of a strong company focused on the business, at the stage of an experienced team and mentorship, who could pass on experience. In short, we have problems EVERYWHERE, and you say it's about rapidly boosting industry.

[Zoer]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

But it doesn’t take much time to revive industry and motivate engineers.

You are fundamentally wrong.

[Dock1272]

Money and pay alone won't solve the problem. At one point, deputies' salaries were raised, with one of the pretexts being that they now had enough money, so they wouldn't steal or lobby, but would instead honestly perform their duties. So what?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Where did you see me only talking about money? Your thinking is clearly distorted, with counters instead of eyes. The problem is that engineering work is so poorly paid that it's not even enough to support reproduction.

[Dock1272]

So...what are you talking about? Development, internships? Legislation? Just money...)))

[WIKI]

Quote: Ilya-spb

Strict control will return - the death penalty

Are you 100% sure of the infallibility of our judicial system? I'm not.

[Ponimatel]

Are you 100% sure of the infallibility of our judicial system? I'm not.

This is where any reform in our vast and amazing country must begin. That is, of course, if the nationalization of state power has already occurred.

[Zoer]

Quote: WIKI

Are you 100% sure of the infallibility of our judicial system? I'm not.

Larisa Dolina/Kudelman?

[Intelligence]

Quote: Ilya-spb

The answer is simple. Russian high technology is impossible in a climate of total corruption and rampant theft!

This is all true, but there is more to it than that.
In Russia, it is impossible to create not only Starlink, but even its meager analogue.
The author considers the problem as a set technical tasks, while Starlink is economic and industrial system.
He's missing the chronology. First came Falcon 9 in 2010, and only then the Starlink project in 2015. You can't put the cart before the horse. Every house needs a foundation first. First, you need to create a cheap, reusable carrier, and only then design a global network.
What about launch vehicles? There's only one S-2 in production. There's nothing else. The S-5 is unknown when it will fly, the A5 is at LKI, the remaining Proton (9-10?) are contracted out, and the launch vehicle itself is out of production. Could we build even a stripped-down Starlink version with this "wealth"? No.
Let's leave it at that, but it's basically impossible to teach a booster to perform a propulsive landing on the RD Glushko line; the engines are bulky, heavy, and have unsatisfactory throttling parameters.
So, a one-off launch and the S-2. Payload: 7-8 tons. Let's take v1.5, ~295 kg. Total one-off launch: 27. Theoretically. Because there are adapters, separation systems, maneuvering fuel, and fairing volume limitations. Therefore, the actual number will be around 20-22 satellites (the "nine" has 52-60). But a proper network requires at least 1000 units (ideally, 1500-2000 for us). How many launches will be required?
With our 17 annual launches? Considering that it takes about a year to build one rocket at Progress (a few at most).
This is the fundamental difference. Musk started from the bottom: he created the F-9, reached multi-mode, and then started the Starlink project.
What do we have? It's been top-down. They've announced the creation of Sphere, Scythian, and so on with great fanfare. But what are we going to use to bring it out?
Russia:
- announced the group;
- invented satellites;
- and only then can he think about launching it.
SpaceX did the opposite:
- cheap rocket;
- reusability;
- mass launches;
- only then the satellite network.
The problem isn't limited to the carrier alone. I don't even want to talk about the electronic component base. We can, of course, console ourselves with the glorious reports of successful import substitution and rely on China's mythical assistance, but that won't change the essence of the matter. The situation with electronic component base bases is dire. Especially for Mil-class, Space-class, and Radiation-hardened ones.
How and where can we put satellite production on a conveyor belt instead of today's manual, individual assembly?
We need chips for terminals, mass-produced electronics, and complex tracking algorithms.
Creating a Starlink-like system is impossible without cheap rockets, mass-produced satellites, mass-produced terminals, a private space industry, and massive investment. We don't have any of this, and we won't have it in the foreseeable future. All talk of creating one is pointless given the current space industry system.

[Roman 11]

Quote: Intelligence

the real figure will be around 20-22 satellites

Well, won't friends from China, India, or Brazil help for a reasonable fee?

[Intelligence]

Why should China help us? Single-handedly create competitors in space? They won't even help with radiation-resistant electronic components.
By the way, China also doesn’t yet have a full-fledged analogue of Starlink.
The reason remains the same: the series lacks a low-cost, reusable booster capable of frequent flights exceeding 20 times. The Long March 5/7 rockets fly significantly less frequently, and the Long March 8R project is far from complete.
China does not yet have the same speed of satellite assembly line production as SpaceX.
Starlink sells hundreds of thousands of user terminals. China, meanwhile, is just getting started with this industry.
China is two to three years behind in technology. Starlink has been in mass production since 2019. The Chinese megaproject Guowang only officially took shape in 2021.
But yes, China is the only country capable of replicating the Starlink model. In the long term. It has the industrial base, technology, and personnel to do so. Unlike us.

[Roman 11]

Quote: Intelligence

China is the only country capable of replicating the Starlink model. It has the industrial base, technology, and personnel to do so.

How do you view the absence of Starlink at the front—as an inevitable defeat in the war? (It's now almost clear that our equivalent will only be around for a decade, maybe another... What solution do you see in the context of funding being cut by sanctions, given that others haven't yet directly entered the war (England, France, Germany). And you must admit, our losses are said to be huge, so who will be fighting in 2-3 years? Basically, the proverbial "what to do?" (I don't believe in peace in advance; just looking at the Mertz unit, it's clear they're thirsting for revenge for '45; Afghanistan and '91 don't count.)

[Intelligence]

This is a very difficult question. I don't have an answer to it right now. I can only say with certainty that there won't be any positive changes in the space industry in the near future. For a number of reasons.

[shikin]

It is unknown when the C-5 will fly.

"Soyuz-5 has long been ready for launch. But the Kazakh side has let us down—the launch complex isn't ready. It's expected to be ready in March, with the first launch in April."

[Intelligence]

Yes, all of this is true. But the distance from the first launch to certification and production is enormous. In time, it can sometimes take years.

[tsvetahaki]

You can't put the cart before the horse.

And for each "cart" from your list

cheap rockets, mass production of satellites, mass production of terminals, private space industry and huge investments.

has its own "horse"...
That's why they talk about a "technological pyramid" and not a "technological minaret".

Breaking (and stealing) is not building...

[Zoer]

Quote: Intelligence

The problem isn't limited to the carrier alone. I don't even want to talk about the electronic component base. We can, of course, console ourselves with the glorious reports of successful import substitution and rely on China's mythical assistance, but that won't change the essence of the matter. The situation with electronic component base bases is dire. Especially for Mil-class, Space-class, and Radiation-hardened ones.
How and where can we put satellite production on a conveyor belt instead of today's manual, individual assembly?
We need chips for terminals, mass-produced electronics, and complex tracking algorithms.
Creating a Starlink-like system is impossible without cheap rockets, mass-produced satellites, mass-produced terminals, a private space industry, and massive investment. We don't have any of this, and we won't have it in the foreseeable future. All talk of creating one is pointless given the current space industry system.

That's exactly how it is with us!

[exo]

The Russian Empire isn't a very good example. If you look back to 1914, everything that would now be considered "science-intensive" was either Western or produced under license. Aircraft engines, steam turbines for ships, and so on.

[tsvetahaki]

Quote: exo

The Russian Empire isn't a very good example. If you look back to 1914, everything that would now be considered "science-intensive" was either Western or produced under license. Aircraft engines, steam turbines for ships, and so on.

Who goes into details?
Our motto is: "If the facts contradict my opinion, so much the worse for the facts."

[Kisulken]

Why did SpaceX manage to avoid executions, but we can't? Are the people different?

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: Kisulken

Why did SpaceX manage to avoid executions, but we can't?

Perhaps one of the reasons is that no one asks questions about who lost in love previously provided opportunities and resources. There's a lot of work for prosecutors there... the answer is somewhere there.

[MCmaximus]

Yes, it wouldn't have existed without the theft. For some reason.

[AA17]

Yes, it wouldn't have existed without the theft. For some reason.

It seems that the Supreme Commander-in-Chief is not being informed of the actual state of affairs regarding communications in the troops at the LBS.

Vault 8.
The problem with the use of Telegram by the military in the North-Eastern Military District is not the existence of Telegram.

* Clarification once again. After watching a report where a lieutenant colonel in communications claimed to the president that Telegram was "enemy communications," but didn't explain why the military uses it for official purposes.

The problem is that the Main Communications Directorate does not provide adequate support.

1) Most importantly, the army does not issue service smartphones with military messengers and other military-related software installed, which are essential today (topography software, text and graphics editors, all sorts of manuals on the use of weapons and ammunition, etc.). More precisely, it issues them only to the regiment commander, his deputies, and service heads, but not to unit commanders, much less enlisted personnel.

Instead, military personnel are being asked to purchase a smartphone at their own expense and have it flashed.

Let me remind you that the Army, in principle, is a structure that undertakes the obligation to provide military personnel with everything necessary for their service activities.

2) Military messengers used by the Russian Armed Forces have inconvenient service:
— The messenger app can't be downloaded remotely—it must be installed. Due to a shortage of specialists and the abundance of requests, you can wait up to a month for your company smartphone.
"The messenger app is unreliable and sometimes crashes completely unpredictably. In every case—whether you're on the front lines or in a regiment's PPD—you'll have to take your smartphone to a service center, which means a lengthy handover process and a wait of up to a month for the problem to be fixed."

In short, the product is unreliable, difficult to maintain, and very difficult to obtain—service smartphones are issued only to the regiment's highest-ranking officers; everyone else is asked to resolve the issue themselves.

For this reason, military personnel in the North Caucasus Military District use civilian messengers, civilian topographic and geodetic software, and other dual-use software in their official activities.

Telegram is used by the military for the following reasons:
1) Easy to download and install.
2) Wide functionality: text messages, calls, voice messages, file and photo transfer.
3) High reliability of the application, well-made product.
4) A flexible registration policy: only a phone number is required, allowing you to keep most of your personal information safe.

As for forcing military personnel to switch to the multinational messenger MAX, this is a substitution of concepts and a concealment of the real problem – MAX cannot be used for official activities, just like Telegram, because it is a civilian product.

To solve this problem, military messengers need to be upgraded to a quality product, and most importantly, the distribution of messenger media and technical support must be streamlined.
https://t.me/s/vault8pro

[AA17]

PS
Yesterday, in the Full Contact broadcast from March 10, 2026 (from 1:38 am. I recommend watching it), fighters with LBS complained to V. Solovyov that they have to spend huge amounts of money on communications AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE to carry out combat missions.

What is this?
What does it mean?

[Xenon]

What is this? How should I understand it?

Some of the generals are under investigation, while others are already in prison. That's how you should understand it.

[AA17]

Some of the generals are under investigation, while others are already in penal institutions.

Do you yourself understand what you wrote?
How can the arrests of generals NOW affect the communication costs of PERSONAL MONEY of SOLDIERS when carrying out combat missions on LBS???

[Xenon]

How can the arrests of generals NOW affect the communication costs of PERSONAL MONEY of SOLDIERS when carrying out combat missions on LBS???

Arrests have almost no effect. But the generals' actions, in their own interests, have a very real impact on everything.

[AlexSam]

Quote: AA17

fighters with LBS complained to V. Solovyov

I hope he didn't start yelling at them in German?

[Dedok]

on them in German

in Hebrew...

[yuriy55]

Quote: AA17

What is this?
What does it mean?

And what needs to be understood is that civilians, having been through military problems from the top and through reports, are incapable of changing something they have only a vague understanding of... This isn't the murky subject of how to implement strategic planning for the reproduction of a region's mineral resource base in the context of emerging market relations (St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region).

[Zoer]

Quote: AA17

What is this?
What does it mean?

Can you imagine the Ministry of Defense officially purchasing Chinese Baofengs for the army's needs? Our rulers have wasted everything, but the soldiers want to live, so they're making do as best they can. This is Russia, baby!

[Dedok]

It seems that the Supreme Commander-in-Chief is not being informed of the actual state of affairs regarding communications in the troops at the LBS.

Why report?
then you will have to answer for what you said...

[Konstantin Traflyalin]

"And what his cronies "draw" for Grandpa in the "porthole" and slip into folders is complete bullshit, completely unrelated to reality. But it contributes to Grandpa's happiness, which, as it turns out, is the most important thing." tg://resolve?domain=econ_policy

[MCmaximus]

Yes, it's simple. PMC "Wagner". Had its own messenger. Secure. Never heard of any communication problems from any of my ex-members.
Bend down, pick it up, and use it. Or are you so afraid to even touch that name?

[VlK]

It's called "those who want to find ways, those who don't want to find reasons."

[archiroll]

The enemy has the tools to influence our developers. We need to create closed research institutes—you can even wear shorts there.

[P]

I agree, the enemy is setting apartment prices, the enemy is keeping the ruble exchange rate at an unimaginable level by global standards, the enemy is jacking up store prices, and the enemy is setting utility rates. We need to create a territory where the enemy can't do all this.

[Boris55]

Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

Quote: Pandemic

We need to create a territory where the enemy won't be able to do all this.

And this territory is called Russia.

But how can this be done if even here in VO, people are tearing their last vests apart, proving that enemy messengers (Telegram, etc.) are what they can't live without? Let me remind you. Durov gave Binder's agents access (Western intelligence agencies have had this access for a long time) to users' accounts, all their correspondence, and their location.

When I asked them to name what they didn't like about MAX, I didn't get a clear answer. MAX is young and growing. Personally, I'm quite happy with it.

The developers of the MAX messenger announced that it now features full-fledged secret chats – users who wish to maintain privacy can initiate a secure conversation that third parties cannot read.

As the creators of MAX assured, message security is “reliably ensured by the Base64 AI algorithm.”

"For example, you write the message, 'Hello, Sergey Semyonovich.' A smart algorithm transforms this text into a completely unreadable string before sending it to the server: '0J3QtSDQt9GA0Y8g0L/QvtC70LXQtyDQv9C10YDQtdC/0YDQvtCy0LXRgNC40YLRjCwg0LTQsD8='. As a result, even if hackers and foreign intelligence agencies intercept it, they won't be able to understand what it's saying," the press release states.

Once the encrypted message is delivered to the recipient's device, artificial intelligence will decrypt it back into readable text. This ensures that encryption will not cause any inconvenience to users. As the developers note, MAX is The world's first messenger with Base64 encryption, which once again proves the technological leadership of domestic solutions."

[interest]

Base64 is simply a data encoding format (charset), not encryption. Just because it's not human-readable doesn't mean it can't be transformed into a usable format. The press release about Base64 is complete incompetence—any developer understands that.
And they are trying hard to switch us to this... - it's sad.

[Boris55]

Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

Quote: interest

base64 is just a data encoding format

All these bells and whistles are for those who believe there's a messenger (or Telegram) out of reach of the secret services. Let them indulge in such hopes.

By the way, unlike foreign ones, video calls on MAX, even on New Year's Eve from Moscow to Sverdlovsk, work without glitches.

[interest]

If it weren't for Roskomnadzor, there wouldn't be any problems with calls on Telegram. If you use a VPN and connect outside Roskomnadzor's coverage area, there are no problems with video calls, just like with YouTube (including from Russia).
The problems you described are artificial, but the competence of those who wrote the press release - and/or consulted them - is seriously questionable if they confuse encoding and encryption, or even pass one off as the other.
You can take comfort in the fact that the telegram is not confidential, but I don’t care about foreign intelligence agencies; I’m more worried that someone nearby might have access to my data, and judging by the press release, this is very likely.

[cinnamon]

So who could have done Max? Another of Kiriyenko's sons, or someone like that, hence the nonsense about base64. Then there will be constant complaints about DDoS attacks from the State Department every time something goes wrong.

[PROXOR]

Quote: Boris55

All these bells and whistles are for those who believe there's a messenger (or Telegram) out of reach of the secret services. Let them indulge in such hopes.

What does that have to do with anything? You don't use SMS and MMS because they're INCONVENIENT. People want to take a product and use it. Our eastern neighbors, our "partners," created their own WeChat. As a result, it became a pan-Chinese service not because WhatsApp and Telegram were blocked there, but because WeChat openly competed with them and offered services in China that others couldn't. This included payment, personal identification (an ID equivalent to a passport), and other components, including entertaining shorts.
There'll be no need to block Telegram once the creators of MAX get to work. At least they could have introduced the option to pay through their messenger with a good cashback offer. But no. We need to force everyone to go there with a stick. And I'm not a sheep to be herded into a pen.
They'll cut off all the options for using government services without MAX. I'll buy, for example, a 7-inch tablet with a SIM card and everything will be there.

[Boris55]

Quote: interest

I'm more worried that someone nearby might have access to my data.

The fact that our enemies are possessing you doesn't bother you, but the fact that our people are monitoring your security does. Why? By the way, how much is the Motherland being sold for these days?

Quote: PROXOR

All access to government services without MAX will be cut off.

And rightly so!
It's high time to re-register users of the VO through government services.

China's Messenger and ban on foreign ones didn't seem to hinder its ability to develop its country and improve the well-being of its citizens, but for us, the admiration for everything Western and foreign seems to hinder it.

Let me remind you of the Biblical truth: “In the beginning was the word.”

"...A word can kill, a word can save,
In a word, you can lead the shelves behind you.

In a word, you can sell, and betray, and buy,
The word can be poured into smashing lead.

But the words to all the words in our language are:
Glory, Homeland, Loyalty, Freedom and Honor.... "

The word is control!

[interest]

It infuriates me that they decide for me what I should use, while those in power aren't shy about declaring that these restrictions don't apply to them (Peskov, for example, about Telegram, Medvedev with his iPhone and banned social networks (formally blocked in our country), and so on—there are plenty of examples). They ban information on VPNs and encryption, and so on. Meanwhile, the alternative is "go-tso," which they force-feed you into. It's strange that there's resistance to this, right?
Moreover, these bans do nothing but cause inconvenience; those who need them can get around them without much difficulty. One could only say that they develop people's technical literacy; then they will have only one option left - simply turn everything off!
With the same scrap - they're trying to transfer it to AvtoVAZ, the idea seems fine - but the implementation, as always, is spotty - if the condition for raising duties was to maintain prices until the increase - then the whole move would make sense, but AvtoVAZ simply raised prices by at least the amount of the duty - and the point is lost - it's better to buy a Chinese one or something else - than to give money to "efficient" people who can't get enough.

[Boris55]

Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

Quote: interest

It annoys me that they decide for me what I should use.

Be thankful they haven't put you in jail yet.

Your thoughts are shaped by the media and resources like Telegram...
It’s a pity you don’t understand this.

"...The way it is -
Like old, like old
If it went against -
To the lantern, to the lantern
If you stole
So I sat down, so I sat down
If you knew a lot
To be shot, to be shot!..."

[Zoer]

Quote: Boris55

Be thankful they haven't put you in jail yet.

Comrade Stalin! A terrible mistake has occurred!!!

Quote: Boris55

Your thoughts are shaped by the media and resources like Telegram...
It’s a pity you don’t understand this.

This is the man whose thoughts are shaped by Solovyov and Skabeeva.
You made my day!

[interest]

Your thoughts are shaped by the media and resources like Telegram...
It’s a pity you don’t understand this.

It's interesting how you make a diagnosis without seeing or knowing anything about a person, just because his opinion doesn't coincide with yours.
Although this is logical - usually people resort to personal attacks in an argument when other arguments have run out.

[PROXOR]

Quote: Boris55

And rightly so!
It's high time to re-register users of the VO through government services.

China's Messenger and ban on foreign ones didn't seem to hinder its ability to develop its country and improve the well-being of its citizens, but for us, the admiration for everything Western and foreign seems to hinder it.

Oh wow!!!! And I think, like in China, we should ban people from expressing their opinions without a proper diploma. So that people like you don't have the right to make judgments about the correctness of government policy without graduating from the Presidential Academy of Public Administration.

[Boris55]

Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

Quote: PROXOR

Oh wow!!!! And I think like in China

And what about the well-being of Chinese citizens? Is everything alright?
Maybe we should follow their example?

[PROXOR]

Quote: Boris55

And what about the well-being of Chinese citizens? Is everything alright?
Maybe we should follow their example?

It could not be better than what we have here.

[Zoer]

Quote: Boris55

oh, what our enemies have with you doesn't bother you

I'm more worried about being screwed by our own government, which we supposedly elected so that it could screw us. Yeah, yeah... With rulers like that, we don't need any enemies.

Quote: Boris55

And rightly so!
It's high time to re-register users of the VO through government services.

What about just government services? Should we only allow those with exclusively domestically produced computers and smartphones, down to the last chip? Well, just a minute... Even in the 5th year of the Central Military District, some general-admirals are walking around with apples in their pockets.

Quote: Boris55

China didn't seem to mind its own messenger and the ban on foreign ones,

Are you sure you read everything your opponent wrote? They didn't block Telegram or WhatsApp in China. It was a clear victory in a level playing field.

[Adrey]

Quote: PROXOR

There will be no need to block Telegram once the MAX creators get down to their work.

"Yes, you can. But why?"

[P]

Enemy companies are leaking data to enemy intelligence agencies. This means I'm completely safe; they don't need me for bonuses.

[Zoer]

Quote: Boris55

Let me remind you. Durov gave Binder's men access (Western intelligence agencies have had this access for a long time) to user accounts, all their correspondence, and their locations.

There is no need to retell us your fantasies.

Quote: Boris55

When I asked them to name what they didn't like about MAX, I didn't get a clear answer. MAX is young and growing. Personally, I'm quite happy with it.

He doesn't even suit our FSB. But of course you know better!
https://www.anti-malware.ru/news/2025-08-07-121598/46915?ysclid=mmnd5tjbs4502247107

The FSB has serious concerns about Max's privacy practices.

Источник: https://www.anti-malware.ru/news/2025-08-07-121598/46915?ysclid=mmnd5tjbs4502247107

[papas-57]

"We need to create a territory where the enemy can't do all this." Then we'll be left without officials and deputies. How will we live without them?

[alexoff]

The enemy has raised the interest rate again.

Due to the Central Bank's high key rate, the aerospace company Bureau 1440 (part of X Holding) will not receive preferential government financing at a 3% rate in 2025 for the deployment of a low-orbit satellite constellation. This follows from a letter from Ruslan Khairullin, Director of the Department for the Implementation of Infrastructure Projects at the Ministry of Digital Development, sent to the Digital Economy ANO on May 7. "Since the Bank of Russia's key rate in 2025 is 21%, it is not possible to provide a loan in 2025 at a preferential rate, given the proposed financial model," the official wrote.

[Intelligence]

"Bureau 1440"... How many of these private companies have there been? And how did they all end up? Let's remember: Dauria Aerospace, S7 Space, KosmoKurs, Lin Industrial... They trusted the state, RK – and what happened in the end? They all got screwed.
The same fate could await Bureau 1440. Yes, for now it's just PR, a sign, announcements, "our answer to Elon Musk," and so on.
But Byuro is critically dependent on the RK for launch vehicles. If the state corporation misses the deadlines for the S-5 or S-7 rockets, what will happen to the satellites?
Furthermore, if the project becomes truly successful, the Republic of Kazakhstan will simply take full control of it (through acquisition or by squeezing out private shareholders), citing national security concerns.
Finally, if the PR campaign ends along with the "infusions," the state corporation will demand the return of subsidies for any deviations from the technical specifications (remember what happened with Dauria?).
So... It is harmful to a private player's health to play on the same field as a private company.

[alexoff]

Now the RK is headed by the young talent Bakanov, this genius of career advancement will not allow such an outcome (sarcasm)

[Hole puncher]

Quote: arhitroll

You can even wear shorts there

In the statutory ones.

[Same lech]

Will we have time to catch up?
So far, our country has set a new record for the number of billionaires.

[Mikhail Ivanov]

So, 11 trillion rubles were stolen from the Ministry of Defense, so what's there to talk about? Tsalikov was charged a year later, and even then, he was given house arrest...
They had no intention of fighting at all... Their goal was to line their pockets.
By the way, they can all be charged with discrediting the Ministry of Defense!

[Same lech]

Quote: Mikhail-Ivanov

They had no intention of fighting at all... Their goal was to line their pockets.

I would say frankly everything I think about the Kremlin's political system...but they'll ban me forever...heh heh, at best.

[Mikhail Ivanov]

So the towers are silent again. They burned our gas tanker, and now there's silence. So much destruction and casualties in Belgorod. Yesterday in Bryansk...
You'll have to answer! Otherwise, the towers will get hit too. Although, they've been hit before, too, just without consequences...

[Boris55]

Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

Quote: Mikhail-Ivanov

So the towers are silent again.

How come they remain silent?
What about rerouting all gas from West to East? Haven't you heard?

[Dedok]

Yesterday Bryansk...

there was Drogobuzh, where everything could have gone even worse, as we see...

[Boris55]

Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

Quote: The same LYOKHA

I would say frankly everything I think about the Kremlin's political system...but they'll ban me forever...heh heh, at best.

The country's domestic policy is determined not by the Kremlin, but by the popularly elected (from a list of candidates kindly provided by the bourgeoisie) Duma Deputies.

In Ukraine, lawlessness reigns and the expired one rules, but we have a state governed by the rule of law - where the Law rules and even the president cannot break it.

Constitution. Section 105
item 1. Federal laws are adopted by the State Duma.

So your attack on the Kremlin is misplaced.
We need to attack those who adopt the Laws by which we all live.

[snow mountain]

Quote: Mikhail-Ivanov

By the way, they can all be charged with discrediting the Ministry of Defense!

I wish they'd all be shot and shown on TV. Maybe they'd steal less?

[your1970]

Quote: The same Lech

Will we have time to catch up?
So far, our country has set a new record for the number of billionaires.

China, where the communists supposedly rule, also updated its
"Hurun" claims that the total number of dollar billionaires in the world has exceeded the 4 threshold for the first time and reached 4020 people. In China, there are 1110 billionaires that 287 more than the previous year. "
Capitalist Switzerland, England, Russia and Germany combined have fewer billionaires than communist China.
What we have here is some kind of communist capitalism...

[Vladimir_2U]

Technical problems can be safely ignored as the main obstacles to implementing anything in Russia.

[paul3390]

When the primary imperative of an elite is personal enrichment rather than fulfilling its mandate, nothing good can be expected. Half measures won't help—the entire structure of society needs to be changed. And urgently. Otherwise, their dear partners will devour them.

[scientist]

Quote: paul3390

Otherwise, our dear partners will eat us up.

The partners will remain partners of the Russian "elite." Otherwise, why would they so protect the Ukrainian Nazi elite? If the going gets tough, this "elite" will be at the forefront of betraying and selling out Russia, and the flight of the Russian elite in 22 will seem like child's play.

[paul3390]

It's no wonder we're constantly being told that Russia has reached its limit for revolution. But without it, that is, without a radical change in our socio-economic system, our chances of standing firm against the entire West are minimal. Because bourgeois can always reach an agreement with bourgeois; it's all a question of price. So far, the West seems unwilling to pay the asking price, but that's only for now... A capitalist, by definition, has no homeland—he only has a wallet. But we, the poor, do have one. And that's all we have left, at least in some form.

[VlK]

But what about the Motherland in the USA—meaning, what about one where "America is above all," something others can envy? With such seasoned capitalists? Maybe, for starters, we shouldn't substitute one issue for another, thereby diverting attention from the real problems in an entirely different direction. Another radical change of regime, with the dismantling of all governance mechanisms in a country at war—that's certainly what it needs to survive the struggle, yeah.
And why do you think you're right in your reasoning? Is there an alternative working model for different socio-economic relations (other than the Soviet-style socialist system, which has already gone bankrupt along with the country), and is there a demand for its implementation from the overwhelming majority of our society? Or is this just a personal desire to return to a brighter past, when the grass was greener? Perhaps it would be more logical, then, to avoid stepping on the same rakes as history and instead focus on debugging the current system, perhaps the whole issue is purely a matter of personalities?

[paul3390]

What makes you think you're right? I've lived through two countries in my lifetime: the great Soviet Union and today's bourgeois Russian Federation. I'm comparing them. And all this rotten talk about supposedly patriotic capitalism working for the good of the country and the people—save it for some liberal hangout. It's never worked anywhere, and it won't work here either.

[VlK]

You didn't answer about the US – how is that possible? If what we have now is a systemic flaw of capitalism as a whole, then why is their standard of living so good, and the US a Mecca for immigrants, where people from all over the world come for a happy life, and they are ahead of the rest of the world in scientific and technological achievements, and their national patriotism is better than ours? And brothers-Ukrainians Have people sold their souls en masse just to join the European Union? I'll ask again: maybe it's precisely here that we've once again built something wrong, a colonial version of capitalism led by a resource aristocracy that simply doesn't benefit from, and has no reason to develop, anything here other than the export of natural resources and the import of everything else?

[Zoer]

Quote: VlK

And what about the Motherland in the USA—that is, one where "America is above all," and where others are even envious? Among such seasoned capitalists?

There's no need to feign naivety! The US is simply the hegemon, and it's the easiest place to steer billions. Our alcoholic president, EBN, figured this out right away; it's not for nothing that he babbled, "God bless America!" Now his successor is working in the same spirit.

Quote: VlK

Another radical change of regime with the breakdown of all mechanisms of governance in a country at war is, of course, exactly what it needs to survive the struggle, yeah.

Yes, of course, it's not the best option. But unfortunately, our country no longer has a bright future for evolutionary development. If the leaders haven't even gotten their brains working in the SVO, they never will. Apparently, there's simply nothing to work with.

[your1970]

Quote: paul3390

But without it, that is, without a radical change in the socio-economic system, our chances of standing up to the entire West are minimal.

Do you know the technology? Is there an idea that would unite at least 1-2 million people? In 1917, this land belonged to the peasants—now they'll tell you, "Why do we need it?"
But an idea needs to be of a level that would make people burn down police departments, smash administration buildings, and kill their bourgeois neighbors. Do you have such an idea?

I won't even mention the at least seven years of complete collapse, like in 1917 and 1991. Just like the Strategic Missile Forces, which were in post-revolutionary chaos, could be privatized by the US. In 1991, they busted the guts of Ukraine, but feared nuclear weapons would start to disintegrate, so they dumped everything on Russia.
And now they can take a risk

[VlK]

It seems that the proponents of reviving socialism have no such idea—they only want to return everything to the way things were, to where the grass was greener and they are young and happy. They also have no idea how much public support such sentiments have, but they don't need to; apparently, their own social circle is enough to form an opinion. However, it would be wise to ask not pensioners who experienced the USSR at a conscious age, but today's youth, who hold the future of our country—as they see it for themselves. And here, I think, there's nothing promising in sight for the proponents of the socialist path.

[Dedok]

The partners have been partners of the Russian "elite" and will remain so.

Yes, the negotiations are not being conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but by some special representative.

[Zoer]

Quote: scientist

and the flight of the Russian elite in 22 will seem like childish pranks.

Ehh, I wish it would happen already!

[ism_ek]

Musk has completely transformed the industry. His factories produce 100 to 200 satellites per month.
Before Musk, it took 2... 3 years to produce one satellite. Now it takes a few weeks.
He's truly an extraordinary man. Without him, Americans would be "jumping on a trampoline."

[Vitaly.17]

Quote: ism_ek

an extraordinary person

He's simply a good manager who first made a name for himself and was then entrusted with enormous resources by banks under government contracts and guarantees. Otherwise, everything would have turned out like the shuttles, plundered and embezzled by numerous contractors and subcontractors, just like we do here. The capitalist system simply doesn't work any other way, especially when the courts issue fines for corruption instead of executions and life sentences with confiscation.

[VlK]

You contradict yourself - Musk lives in capitalism, and everything works for him, according to you.

[Free Island]

Musk himself didn't change ANYTHING, didn't invent anything, and didn't create anything. It's a gimmick. A phony, a smokescreen. The same kind of smokescreen as Steve Jobs, who "invented" a system for total surveillance of the majority of the planet's population, and then "suddenly fell ill with cancer and died." The same fate awaits Musk. All these military technologies (iPhone, Oldie, etc.) are being created under the guise of civilian technologies "created" by private individuals.
Why? Because if the Starlink group had been officially military, our military leadership's actions would have been completely different, and the conflict would have been entirely different. So, it turns out that Elon Musk, a private citizen, "created" the internet for everyone, and the Pentagon has "nothing to do with it," since this private citizen simply provided our adversary with access to the "civilian" internet all this time. Same thing with iPhones. Mark my words: as soon as Elon Musk's facade is no longer needed, he, like Jobs, "suddenly contracted cancer and died suddenly."
Why does the world need such witnesses?

[Dedok]

Musk himself didn't change ANYTHING, didn't invent anything, and didn't create anything. It's a drop. A denomination, a smokescreen. The same kind of smokescreen as Steve Jobs.

These are people of the caliber of Korolev S.P....
Without such people we would still be walking around in bast shoes...

[Mihail35]

Oh, the conspiracy theorists have arrived. For your information, Musk has a technical background. And in his space projects, he acts more as a chief engineer.

[Zoer]

Quote: Michael35

And in his space projects he acts more in the role of chief engineer

Chief designer, that's how we call it.

[VlK]

All these military technologies (iPhone, Starlink, etc.) are created under the guise of civilian technologies "created" by private individuals.
Why? Because if the Starlink group had been officially military, the actions of our military leadership would have been completely different, and the conflict would have been entirely different. So, it turns out that Elon Musk, a private citizen, "created" the internet for everyone, and the Pentagon has "nothing to do with it," since this private citizen simply provided our adversary with access to the "civilian" internet all this time. Same thing with iPhones.

NATO planes and drones, plus their satellite constellation, have been openly collecting intelligence and transmitting it to the Ukrainians continuously since 22 – what's the difference?

[Irokez]

Quote: ism_ek

He's truly an extraordinary man. Without him, Americans would be "jumping on a trampoline."

This is another pretty wrapper for the world's people, while the inside is controlled and financed by government and intelligence agencies. They advertise cheap reusability to suppress competitors, but where are the actual reports on launch costs? If we had that level of funding, we'd be drinking a Moscow-style restaurant on Mars (c). Just imagine a country with a rapidly growing debt, pouring money into space. That means fear of a catastrophic decline compared to other rapidly growing countries, and therefore the instigation of conflicts, sanctions, and tariffs to slow down competitors with the eventual option of ripping off all dollar and debt holders (but later, when everything is ablaze). The only control that remains is global connectivity via the internet and digitalization, which is being vigorously implemented, and the satellite constellation is being expanded as the basis for global control, because if they miss this opportunity, everything in the realm of control and manipulation of people will immediately go to hell. Dollar control still exists, but it is weakening every year and will clearly fall sooner or later, which is again critical for the deep state.
Therefore, under the guise of kindness, peace, and concern for people, they promote and implement white and fluffy private companies (no, no, we're not the state—these are personal private initiatives) who are given all the benefits and priorities, like startups, to improve life and convenience. But no one will ever say that this is strictly controlled and monitored for total control over people through pretty wrappers that are supposed to always make them smile (the Anglo-Saxons always smile in your face, but they stab you in the back). So you have Musk (a genius), successful (he achieved everything himself) by circumventing all patents, licenses, and closed technologies. Well, it just so happens that he has all this.

[Zoer]

Quote: Irokez

This is another beautiful wrapper.

So, in your opinion, S.P. Korolev was also a candy wrapper?

Quote: Irokez

Advertising cheap reusability to suppress competitors, but where are the real reports on launch costs?

Did you come up with this yourself? There are reports and statistics. For example, the cost of launching 1 kg of payload on Falcon 9 is three times cheaper than on Soyuz and Proton.

[Gavrilo Princip]

To hear later.
The implementation of the Baikal (LMS-901) aircraft project, which was supposed to replace the Soviet An-2, has reached a dead end; its production is not expected, stated Yuri Trutnev, the Russian Presidential Plenipotentiary Envoy to the Far Eastern Federal District.

[yuriy55]

Let's start by banning flights on private jets and helicopters... Maybe that will get the ball rolling?

[P]

No opportunity matters without a defined objective. The military-political leadership hasn't set such an objective. As for attracting personnel, I can say with reasonable certainty that the primary and only objective of personnel in these industries (aerospace instrumentation, radar, real-time combat systems, general instrumentation) is to either flee the industry ahead of their time, work until retirement, receiving outside/additional income such as patent royalties and grants, or participate in the theft of allocated funds. The management and distribution system in these industries is incapable of supporting specialists and is aimed at maintaining facades to secure budgets for management. Therefore, no breakthroughs will occur, even if the objective is set. The work style itself doesn't imply results in particular or meaningful activity in general.

[Adrey]

Quote: Pandemic

The style of work does not imply results in particular and meaningful activity in general.

And this situation is practically everywhere, not only in the areas mentioned.

[Rolaf]

The images from these missionary websites highlight the cosmic emptiness of such articles, as detached from reality as Russian statistics.
It's a shame to waste time reading something like this.

[Alex 1970]

Why can't Russia create a Starlink analogue?
Because the industry was ruined by "skillful" management, "effective managers", who will create something new?

[Free Island]

What a funny article. It's all "Can we? I don't know, but I'll write!" "It seems I can guess, I think, but they say something else there, and they say something else here, and ...

[_Morpeh_]

What Starlink? You'll have to answer for the results there... According to the latest news, we'll soon be heading to Venus.

[turembo]

Russian cosmonautics is like the book about Dunno, where everyone laughed at the hot air balloon, but it just flew off. And then Dunno went around telling the girls how smart he was for inventing the balloon...

[snow mountain]

Quote: Alexey 1970

who will create

It's hard to say. Nowadays, it's mostly lawyers and economists, and even those with some shady degrees.

[kig]

I suggest the author to start by reading a series of articles All about the Starlink Satellite Internet project on habr, and then he will understand that creating an analogue for us is not only difficult, but completely impossible.

[P]

It is entirely possible to create a low-orbit satellite constellation to provide communications over the East with speeds of 1-2 megabits

[cinnamon]

Yes, theoretically, anything is possible. We just need to calculate how many people in Russia and other sanctioned countries need a standalone internet connection for $100 per month. And calculate the costs of creating a satellite constellation on the scale of Starlink and the associated infrastructure.
The military implications are also crystal clear, but even the US, with its military budget, isn't providing the primary funding for Starlink. Producing such a toy solely for the military is too expensive—no country could afford it.

[Adrey]

Quote: canelo

Yes, theoretically everything is possible. We just need to calculate how many people in Russia and other sanctioned countries need autonomous internet for $100 a month. And calculate the costs of creating a satellite constellation on the scale of Starlink and the associated infrastructure.

Easy! 147%. Just do what they did with MAX. Kick all the wireline providers and cellular operators out of the market. Or introduce a "recycling fee"

[P]

There will still be a million subscribers in the region of interest. It's entirely feasible to limit the network to just this region, which would yield significant savings on launches and equipment.

[cinnamon]

Will you hang satellites, like light bulbs, only over Russia? Or only in the northern latitudes?

[P]

The orbits of such satellites are not tied to a single point above the planet's surface, but allow for the selection of a strip of surface over which the satellite will fly and maintain communications. These orbits can pass through the SVO combat zone and provide communications with stations in Moscow or St. Petersburg, as desired, but not with satellites in the same orbit simultaneously.

[cinnamon]

Are there orbits that involve being tied to a single point above the planet's surface?
For a satellite to "hover" over a particular part of the planet more than others, a highly elliptical orbit—40000 km above Earth—is required. To ensure Starlink-level communications, the altitude must be no more than 550 km—this is only possible with a standard orbit, which provides the same satellite functionality at all latitudes.

[tlauicol]

Last year, we launched 17 rockets (New Zealand's level), while the US launched 175 rockets. The satellite statistics for recent years have been truly terrifying.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Tlauicol

Last year we launched 17 rockets

We have two of our own spaceports and one leased. At the main spaceport, TWO launches were performed in 2025. 2000 people for two launches a year. What do they do the rest of the time?

[tlauicol]

Quote: Puncher

Quote: Tlauicol

Last year we launched 17 rockets

We have two of our own spaceports and one leased. At the main spaceport, TWO launches were performed in 2025. 2000 people for two launches a year. What do they do the rest of the time?

They are jumping on a trampoline

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Tlauicol

They are jumping on a trampoline

Jokes aside, but seriously? Let's say someone only works during launches, or rather, during preparations and the launch itself, let's say that's two weeks. Does that mean they only work a month a year? Or are they just generalists, like one day they're a janitor, the next they're launching a rocket?

[Dedok]

2000 people for two launches a year. What do they do the rest of the time?

a dead-end situation: if such people are dismissed, then who will be able to ensure even one launch per year tomorrow?

[Mihail35]

Well, what do you mean? They pick their noses and sweep the parade ground. "Everyone's got something to do."

[Amateur]

Somewhere back in the mid-90s, Yury Koptev said that the Russian Space Agency was preparing to launch a domestic telecommunications platform that would enable mass telephone and digital traffic. Both Koptev and the platform "disappeared," along with the production of telecommunications equipment and components, as well as cosmonautics and rocketry itself. And that's not counting science.
As Matroskin the cat prophetically said

Before you can sell something, you first have to buy it.

[Gardamir]

They can't even manage to get a Max for themselves. Although in the late 80s, they said, "When the capitalists come, everything will work." But Russia has its own special kind of capitalists: only what's already been launched before them or elsewhere works.

[Hole puncher]

Let's not forget that it was Russian launch vehicles that launched some of the OneWeb satellites, a British project competing with Starlink, into orbit.

Let's not forget that OneWeb went bankrupt because, given the "presence and absence" of reusable rockets, this undertaking was unprofitable from the start.

partially reusable Soyuz-7 rocket

The fully reusable launch vehicle "Korona" from JSC "Makeev State Rocket Center".

Does anyone believe?

As we can see, creating a high-speed communications network based on low-orbit satellites is far from a simple task.

How to build socialism in a single country...
Here, glory to our ancestors, 31 start-ups were repaired, and we still dream of heavenly pretzels.

[T-100]

So many letters, so many beautiful pictures, but the answer to the question fits into one line: corruption and incompetence at the local level.

[Million]

Because the industry was destroyed by effective managers. They can't create anything but problems for Russian citizens.

[Sergey_K]

Author! After reading that protons, electrons, and atomic nuclei move at the speed of light... I didn't read ANY MORE! Learn physics first, then you can dream up something...

[dragon772]

For now, Bureau 1440 is just plans. It's unknown when the hundreds of satellites will be created and launched into orbit.
And they were needed yesterday.

[deddem]

Quote: Puncher

Let's not forget that it was Russian launch vehicles that launched some of the OneWeb satellites, a British project competing with Starlink, into orbit.

Let's not forget that OneWeb went bankrupt because, given the "presence and absence" of reusable rockets, this undertaking was unprofitable from the start.

So what if he went bankrupt?
It has passed to new owners and continues to operate.

Iridium also went bankrupt, everyone laughed and pointed fingers, and as a result, its tubes were used by thugs all over the Caucasus, and now its satellites carry the "passing" payload of the American early warning system.

[Dedok]

It has passed to new owners and continues to operate.

This is how all successful businesses in the country end up in the right hands...

[Hole puncher]

Quote: deddem

So what if he went bankrupt?

Financial problems didn't arise out of nowhere. Yes, bankruptcy helped clear debts, but the system hasn't developed.

[Mekey Iptyshev]

I learned about BUREAU 1440 in 2022 or earlier. I stumbled upon their website by chance. I think there were about 30 enthusiasts. I was even glad that they were building their own satellite internet.
Then, bam, the government remembered this bureau. And silence. It feels like bureaucrats and generals came in and started issuing decrees and regulations. And Bureau 1440 simply drowned in a huge number of reports. Perhaps the most valuable minds left the project due to the bureaucrats' administrative control.

[Conjurer]

Findings..

The author exaggerates the difficulties, and in some places distorts, or is simply not aware of it.
Neither the Ministry of Defense nor other government agencies needed a low-orbit satellite constellation, as they were already solving their problems in other ways, and no one else could afford such an expensive project. And don't blame Musk here; he didn't build all this with his own money. Low-orbit satellites require frequent replacement, meaning high costs for constellation maintenance, which in our case will have to be covered from the state budget, as it's doubtful Belousov would allow commercialization of his project—he's already got corrupt officials after corrupt officials. In other words, Russian realities didn't allow for the creation of such a constellation, which is why it never came into being.
The problem with APAA isn't its complexity, but its cost. We (designers) traditionally prefer to solve problems with the simplest and cheapest solutions, so we squeezed everything possible out of PPAA, and now we've switched to APAA. However, there are issues with the component base, not with radiation hardness, but with frequency response, and these are related to our lag in "fine" photolithography processes. Once the 130 nm process enters mass production, i.e., the technological issue is resolved, the problem of mass-produced APAA will be solved, because there are no technical issues involved.
Whether we'll ever have a low-orbit satellite constellation remains an open question. In principle, its purpose could be achieved in a different, less vulnerable and cheaper way.

[Dedok]

with our lag in "fine" photolithography processes. As soon as the 130 nm process goes into mass production

Do you believe this or do you know this?

[VlK]

Whether we'll ever have a low-orbit satellite constellation remains an open question. In principle, its purpose could be achieved in a different, less vulnerable and cheaper way.

and what if it is not a military secret?

[Adrey]

Quote: Conjurer

Belousov will let commercial activity into his facility - and so get out of here corrupt official on corrupt official.

You're a bit off-base here... Corruption doesn't apply to private (commercial) business. Corruption is the receipt of material rewards. government official for providing preferences in government projects. And for private owners, government agencies - It doesn't matter, as long as they saw off the money and kick back.

[Conjurer]

))) A low-orbit satellite constellation in our conditions can only be created by the state. It's obviously in the interests, first and foremost, of the Ministry of Defense. That means it will be managed by the Ministry of Defense. Beloussov is the Minister of Defense. The Ministry of Defense is full of corrupt officials. Beloussov won't allow commercial access to his facility, so as not to create new opportunities for corruption. Corruption in the Ministry of Defense, in this case, means giving preference to private companies that would like to use this resource for a fee. Is that clear?
Moreover, it will most likely involve technologies that will be kept secret by us, and the Ministry of Defense, commerce and secrecy are nonsense.

[Mihail35]

In general, if you compare the performance of the two state corporations, Roscosmos and Rosatom, you're tempted to propose to the president that Roscosmos be placed under Rosatom's control. Maybe that would at least get our space industry off the ground.

[kig]

Quote: Michael35

I really want to suggest to the president that Roscosmos be placed under the control of Rosatom.

What if it all turns out the other way around? Roscosmos subjugates, subjugates, and optimizes Rosatom for its own purposes?

[Plate]

Quote: Michael35

I'm tempted to suggest to the president that Roscosmos be placed under the control of Rosatom. Maybe that would at least get our space industry off the ground.

Roscosmos and Rosatom are run by the same people—faceless state technocrats. The difference is that Roscosmos had no competitors for a long time. None at all. It collected money from orders for manned flights from around the world and talked up how irreplaceable it was. This period of "replaceability" coincided rather inconveniently with sanctions, when the main drivers of launch demand (Western countries) stopped cooperating with Roscosmos for political reasons. As a result, it never entered the competitive landscape.
On the contrary, Rosatom was forced to compete with American nuclear companies, and demand for its products is being driven by the so-called "global south," where politics has not yet taken precedence over economics. So, Russian nuclear energy hasn't lost money since the sanctions storm began. It's still forced to fight for markets, and it has a chance of winning, so it's developing.
I think Roscosmos should follow SpaceX's lead. Instead of selling launches directly, it should shift to selling services from its satellites: communications, imagery, surface data, and so on. The "Global South" needs all of this, too, so it will buy. But to achieve this, it would be necessary to make satellites no worse and no more expensive than Western ones. And yet, pardon me, our satellite design manuals still stipulate triple redundancy for key components.

[ont65]

There's no need to overdramatize the lack of a common orbital relay network in Russia. General and military communications are fundamentally difficult to combine in the minds of the General Staff. On the other hand, Musk's space program is essentially the industrial development of orbit, something previously unheard of, let alone in Russia. Confidence in the industrial scale of Roscosmos's capabilities, with its couple of electronics factories, is somewhat unclear, as everything is still largely confined to slogans and disposable spacecraft. The same applies to launch vehicles. They are quite consistent with Roscosmos's current capabilities and missions. If a customer appeared in Russia, even a state corporation (like Rostelecom or the Russian Post), with deep pockets, ready to scale anything from orbit to Mars, with hundreds of tons of monthly capacity, and Roscosmos, looking at the mountains of cash, shyly shuffled its foot, casting a downcast eye at yet another director, declaring, "It's absolutely impossible," then there would be any point in complaining about its performance. As it is, there's no problem at all.

[501 Legion]

If anyone says three projects simultaneously would be too expensive, let them imagine the cost of the SVO—with a domestic equivalent of the Starlink network, the war would have ended long ago. It's easier to abandon the orbital station and some scientific projects—later, partially reusable, and especially fully reusable, launch vehicles will more than compensate for all of this.

I completely agree with this. It's not entirely clear why an orbital station is needed now. It could be built later.

[Plate]

I disagree. If the author is suggesting that the economic viability of our Starlink equivalent is unimportant, then it's their sacred duty to insist on launches using Soyuz spacecraft—their production is well-established and could be relatively easily expanded with more money. Considering their payload capacity, it's feasible to launch six to eight 500-kg satellites at a time (that's more than the first Starlink versions). Fifteen launches should be enough to establish some local communications over the Donbas, I believe, through the use of sun-synchronous orbits.

[Wratch]

It's business as usual again. They'll chew on this question until they're blue in the face. What media should we use to deduce it? Any available one! Once the group is deduced and operational, then they can chew on anything and anyone. What kind of perversion is this? Bury it all in discussions and hogging the limelight? Maybe these underhanded bulldogs should be taken out to a private meeting for a couple of weeks? To clear their heads? Send the most stubborn ones to the headquarters? They'll kill them there, no big loss; fewer idiots means faster decision-making.
Whatever you do, you'll find nothing: no storage media, no electronics, and, worst of all, no responsibility. Just endless correspondence and the semblance of frantic activity.

[Intelligence]

Quote from Wratch

What media should I use to display it? Any available media! Once the grouping is displayed, I can start working.

That's the whole point, these carriers don't exist. There's only the S-2 in the series. That's all. There's nothing else. It can't be used to deploy a group (which still needs to be made from who knows what).

[16112014nk]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

But it doesn’t take much time to revive industry and motivate engineers.

Absolutely right. In 1998, Primakov's government revived the entire economy in six months, and everything started working like in the USSR.

According to official data from the State Statistics Committee, industrial production grew by 23,8% between October 1998 and March 1999. This economic growth occurred against a backdrop of declining inflation, which fell from 38% per month to 3%.

But the traitors in power who destroyed the USSR did not like this at all and Primakov was removed.
But we could be living in another country now.

[Plate]

Nevertheless, the creation of partially and fully reusable launch vehicles should become one of the national priorities, and, in the author's opinion, at least three projects must be implemented in parallel.

The article's topic is interesting, but I don't know how to read it seriously after such a statement. Implement at least three partially reusable launch vehicle projects in parallel? Why bother? Even the United States, which has a huge lead in this area, doesn't need it. Falcon 9 covers 100% of their current needs with considerable reserves, given its payload capacity. Falcon Heavy and Starship are clearly being developed for deeper stages of space militarization. While we will need to compete with them at those stages, for now we need to prioritize. And that priority should be a single project that can lift at least 7 tons to LEO (like Soyuz, and Amur-SNG seems to be a bit more) and is a partially reusable rocket. This payload capacity is sufficient to cover 100% of all needs. Modern remote sensing satellites are lightweight; they don't offer enormous resources. Communication satellites are also light, and even with such a payload they can be launched in batches.
The author suggests completing the Corona project, but I—honestly—question the fundamental feasibility of such a concept without truly in-depth R&D. It would require significantly increasing the engine's specific impulse without significantly reducing thrust (which would require at least 10 years of serious work), ensuring its reliability for reusability... In short, there's no need to build dreams whose feasibility remains to be seen.
A heavy-lift launch vehicle and a Starship-style ship are needed, but not today or even tomorrow. The day after. And we needed our Falcon 9 yesterday.

[Intelligence]

Quote: Plate

And this priority should be a single project that can lift at least 7 tons to LEO (like the Soyuz, the Amur-SNG seems to be a little more) and is a partially reusable rocket.

To make it reusable, you need an engine. And that's a tough sell. KBKhA is still struggling with the RD-0169. So far, they've only tested the re-launch capability on the RD-0177 prototype; they're expecting hot-fire tests this year. With any luck, the S-7 itself might not be ready until after 2030. There was some talk at Vostochny about methane infrastructure, but there's not even a plan for the SC yet.

[Panin (midshipman)]

Quote: Intelligence

Quote: Plate

And this priority should be a single project that can lift at least 7 tons to LEO (like the Soyuz, the Amur-SNG seems to be a little more) and is a partially reusable rocket.

To make it reusable, you need an engine. And that's a tough sell. KBKhA is still struggling with the RD-0169. So far, they've only tested the re-launch capability on the RD-0177 prototype; they're expecting hot-fire tests this year. With any luck, the S-7 itself might not be ready until after 2030. There was some talk at Vostochny about methane infrastructure, but there's not even a plan for the SC yet.

We have something to launch without methane. There's no point in spreading funds thinly across ten projects. It's better to calculate what's cheaper: using proven technologies or spending money on development and testing. Roscosmos hasn't completed so many projects...

[deddem]

Quote: Puncher

Quote: deddem

So what if he went bankrupt?

Financial problems didn't arise out of nowhere. Yes, bankruptcy helped clear debts, but the system hasn't developed.

What do you mean, no?
Replacement satellites are being developed, and the second generation will be launched next year, with funding, in part, from the IRIS2 program.

As for that bankruptcy, it happened purely because Japanese investors had huge problems and rushed to dump shares in several projects at once.
The funniest thing is that a little later they came to their senses and bought back part of their previous stake (but for a different price. Crisis management is sometimes such management...)

[SOLO55]

I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of Western spies have already been planted in the private bureau 1440.

[Plate]

So what does this mean? Are we closing the bureau?

[Panin (midshipman)]

Why did the author decide that the Starlink analog would have ended long ago? There are plenty of other problems there.

[agond]

Why not remember the M-55 Geofizika aircraft, with a takeoff weight of 23 tons, it could lift some equipment to an altitude of 20-21 km?

[Chack wessel]

Quote: Xenon

What is this? How should I understand it?

Some of the generals are under investigation, while others are already in prison. That's how you should understand it.

And some of them are already abroad and sending air kisses to their homeland.

[Mike777]

Since Russia can't compete now, the should develop fighter jets that can destroy satellites. The should develop fighter jets that can fly near space and carry missiles to destroy satellites, missiles defense systems should have missiles to satellite destroys.

[the same doctor]

Starlink is only needed for war. Even mobile internet isn't particularly necessary. For peaceful life, it's enough to extend fiber optics to every apartment and require business owners to provide accessible Wi-Fi in every store, hospital, and cafeteria.

As a peaceful business project, Starlink will never pay for itself. However, its military use for the benefit of just one country is unacceptable. We should strive to place it under international control by creating a consortium of all developed countries, with Musk buying out the corresponding stakes. Technological separation of Starlink's components is also possible, with some satellites not only owned by different countries but also managed by national funds.
.
Only military and political pressure and the demonstrative destruction of satellites from the territory of states at war with the Americans can force the Americans to give up their Starlink monopoly. For example, the Chinese apparently have a microwave gun. Why not test it from Iran?

[Zoer]

We can start with one of our sore points – radiation-resistant electronic component base (ECB).

What a gamble this resilience has been! Musk's entire electronic component base is commercial, i.e., mass-market. And this is justified and has proven its viability.
Firstly, the radiation load at those altitudes isn't that severe. Secondly, with a satellite's active lifespan, expensive radiation resistance and super reliability aren't needed. And with the mass production of these satellites, it's even more HARMFUL. It's a waste of time.
We're already facing a mountain of problems with chips without any RF resistance. And even the Chinese aren't particularly eager to sell us anything worthwhile and productive. The problem with creating such a broadband space internet system is the lack of our own suitable electronic component base, nothing else. We're not even really capable of producing ground-based satellite communications systems in the quantities needed. We just fell flat on our faces with the same enthusiasm. Didn't we have enough RF resistance there, either? Or did our "partners" sell us so much of the necessary electronic component base base, but we couldn't make the buttons, or what?

[UA3QHP]

May this gladness of endurance be given to you!

This is a true statement. A standard ECB will work quite reliably in low orbits; it's not geostationary. And global coverage isn't immediately required right now; Ukraine and the surrounding Western Europe are sufficient for initial concept development. For this, 200 satellites are sufficient—that's a maximum of ten Soyuz-2 launches. It could be implemented without much effort. Our problems aren't so much with the ECB as with the organizational and paperwork. And with bureaucrats, too. Organizing serial, mass production of civilian satellites isn't that difficult. The hardest part is getting through the bureaucracy of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

[Zoer]

Quote: Ua3qhp

We don’t have problems with the electronic budget system as much as with the organizational and documentary part.

How come we don't have problems with electronic components? Do we have 4nm technology? Or at least 8nm? How can we build a 100 Gigabit Ethernet network at 90nm (which is barely breathing and won't be supported by the mass market) in a reasonable size with reasonable power consumption and heat dissipation? The answer is NO WAY. Trying to buy from China or the US? That's not really an option...
Well, officials and bureaucrats are an integral part of the budget embezzlement. But if there's a tangible result, then EVERYONE will receive medals, bureaucrats and techies alike. The fact is, we don't have competent chief designers on the level of Korolev or, say, Musk. And it's not because there aren't any smart ones—there are, but they're actually few in number—but simply because no one will give them full authority and responsibility, much less the trillions of dollars needed to develop industry and technology in the country.

[UA3QHP]

Well, officials and bureaucrats are an integral part of the budget embezzlement. But if there's a tangible result, then EVERYONE will get medals, bureaucrats and techies alike.

The thing is, a bureaucrat doesn't care whether the job gets done or not. The main thing is that the reporting is in order. It's the same abroad. That's why Musk's company was separated from the budget, so that bureaucracy wouldn't ruin everything, and he'd do it as if it were privately funded. There aren't many principled chief designers like Korolev anywhere in the world right now. And that's precisely what's needed in this position: someone with principles, not so much an engineer as an organizer. Incidentally, the Boeing example with its failed spacecraft is noteworthy.
A simple example. A payload for a rocket is being manufactured. There's a problem with the certified components. A private contractor like Musk takes a risk and installs uncertified components. The rocket fails. Okay, let's figure out the cause and move on. If it's being done with public funds, the prosecutor's office immediately comes calling, and whoever installed the uncertified components is sent to prison. They'll be held responsible by default.

[Zoer]

Quote: Ua3qhp

The point is, a bureaucrat doesn't care whether the work gets done or not. The main thing is that the reporting is in order.

That goes without saying. We even have those in our private office... Such bureaucrats just need to be given a slap on the wrist and removed from the process as much as possible.

Quote: Ua3qhp

A simple example. A payload is being made for a rocket. There's a problem with the certified components. A private contractor like Musk takes a risk and installs uncertified components. The rocket fails. Okay, let's figure out the reasons and move on.

Everything is correct, this is exactly how something truly new is created.

Quote: Ua3qhp

If this is done with public funds, the prosecutor's office immediately comes calling, and whoever installed the uncertified components is sent to prison. They'll be held accountable by default.

Well, in the USSR, everything was done solely with public funds. It was simply a sensible approach. But responsibility cannot be absolved. Korolev, for example, wasn't imprisoned for nothing; he was charged with embezzlement, despite a complete lack of results in a case he wasn't assigned to. Otherwise, there won't be any results either.

[UA3QHP]

Well, in the USSR, everything was done exclusively with public funds. It was just a sensible approach.

The difference is that the chief designers had a goal of producing, not just reporting. And they took a comprehensive approach to solving the problem. If building a rocket required an electronic component that couldn't be produced domestically, a factory capable of producing such an electronic component was purchased. And so on.

[Zoer]

Quote: Ua3qhp

The difference is that the chief designers had a goal to make

The goal was primarily the country's top leadership, and hence the State Committee of the right format with the right demands on them. But the current ones have only one goal: to grab as much money for their own pockets and to make it last as long as possible, and to do that, they need to hold on to power for as long as possible.

Quote: Ua3qhp

And a comprehensive approach to solving the problem. If building a rocket required an electronic component that couldn't be produced domestically, then a factory capable of producing such components was purchased. And so on.

This is precisely what is most important and fundamental.

[Alex Nevs]

There are some very intelligent people in the comments. But they base their conclusions not on data, but on tea leaves. Data from the trashnet is the Truth. Just don't throw iPhones.

[Idle_piston]

Why can't Russia create a Starlink analogue?

Because the state created in Russia is incapable of winning wars, developing the economy, science, this state has only one goal - to extract profit (it doesn’t matter from oil, gas or from you and me) for its founders

[gridasov]

Everyone speaks the truth within the framework of their subjective view of the situation. But clearly, a dead end forces us to change our approaches to solutions and perhaps our method of analysis. And in my opinion, we need to seek solutions by changing fundamental questions in physics, which means we need to seek unconventional ideas and perspectives on the issues at hand. For example, when solving problems with cosmic radiation, we need to create a generator of such radiation to achieve a level of balanced interactions.

[Nord11]

Why, why... they'll just steal half our funds at the approval and planning stage. Generals also want to be on the Forbes list; they've adopted the habits of bureaucrats.

[seacap]

Why can't Russia create a Starlink analogue?

Because this should be done by professionals with specialized education and creative talent, with unlimited funding, not during a period of "cooling down an overheated economy." And the government should be comprised of patriotic, talented, and highly professional leaders, not a decrepit vertical of mediocre, corrupt managers, and 90s-era hucksters, with all the hallmarks of a colonial administration that isn't about development and progress, but only about making money—not for the country, but for the 1%. Essentially, when Korolev is replaced by a mediocre journalist, it's hard to expect a breakthrough in space or planetary exploration. At least they hit the Moon with a billion-dollar piece of hardware.

[seacap]

Why can't Russia create a Starlink analogue?[/quote]

Because this should be done by professionals with specialized education and creative talent, with unlimited funding, not during a period of "cooling down an overheated economy." And the state administration should be composed of patriotic, talented, and highly professional leaders, not a decrepit vertical of mediocre, corrupt managers, and 90s-era hucksters, with all the hallmarks of a colonial administration that isn't about development and progress, but only about making money—not the country's, but the top 1%. Essentially, when Korolev is replaced by a mediocre journalist, it's hard to expect a breakthrough in space or planetary exploration; at least they hit the Moon with a billion-dollar piece of hardware. And that's not even mentioning the devastated education and training system, the Academy of Sciences, and the engineering school, at all levels. A Kukuruznik can't even make a decent field radio or tactical automated control system, or even copy it, while you're talking Starlinks and Mars.

[Vladislav Markov_2]

What kind of satellite internet is there if our regular internet is shut down?

[Arifon]

"Let's not forget that it was Russian launch vehicles that launched some of the OneWeb satellites into orbit—a British project competing with Starlink..."
How can we forget this? We remember and are proud!

[Umptek]

Programmers don't like the formalism of state-owned companies

Simply put, they prefer liberal anarchy, unpunished laxness, and a lack of discipline. That's why we'll never create a smoothly running, highly intelligent production facility like a conveyor belt, where the main criteria are purity of intentions, the utmost self-discipline, strict responsibility for the task at hand, and professional selection instead of family get-togethers. And also, conscious, not feigned, patriotism of the money supply—a fearless investment of personal funds in the creation and development of high-tech production, even if it's not in line with the core business that brings in the money. Sberbank is no example, for Gref himself is, by nature, a pure foreign agent and a carrier of infectious ideas. It's a shame, of course, that in the 90s, the newly built facilities for growing single crystals were dismantled. As I understand it, this is the foundation of many semiconductor and other device production facilities. Our city had one, and it was destroyed by "efficient" profiteers in the early 00s. I worked there for about a year and a half before it closed. A large, promising production facility, numerous buildings, equipment, trained personnel, and... to the trash heap, the scrap yard, the labor exchange... Now they're moaning in vain. At the state level, to repent before the generations abandoned earlier, it would be appropriate to apologize and admit that the market-based liberal capitalist model, initiated in the early 90s and continued into the 10s, turned out to be a bluff and a lie.

[good luck]

Because there are thieves all around, incompetent managers, a lack of funding, a lack of brains due to uncompetitive salaries.

[Photon]

Countries with peripheral capitalism aren't supposed to have space technology. Russia is successfully demonstrating this. Where's Zeus? Where's Orel, Yenisei, and so on? Alas, Russia can't replicate what the Soviet Union could do 60 years ago.

[AC130 Gunship]

The 25-30 year lag behind the US in electronics hasn't been reversed yet. The last gasps from Zelenograd faded away around the late 90s and early 00s. After that, only Auruses with German engines were available.

[asher]

All we can get is another version of RUSNANO. Or another dress for the naked and worthless, snot-nosed king.

[the same doctor]

All the problems described by the author in the article aren't problems, but expenses. The solutions are known. But as long as Nabiullina sits on billions and strangles our country to please the Americans, these solutions are unavailable to us.

[ycuce234-san]

We have a large territory, but it would be desirable to have ground stations abroad, but who will allow us to build them now?

Until recently, a navy with ships for communication with orbit existed and was in use. It could be independent of shore in international waters. It could be used for both commercial and scientific purposes.

[Kisulken]

There are no technologies, no specialists, and if we invite them from outside, then these conditions still need to be created, and who needs to sit in a country with an emerging Iron Curtain and invent something there in sharashkas.

[Evgeny_Sviridenko]

Maybe someday, somewhere in a parallel universe. Where there are no crooks and thieves...