Amazing Pics of Abandoned Russian Spacecraft Factory

[MrCaffeineX]

What are you talking about?

Are you saying we 'gave up on space travel' because we finally retired the Shuttle after multiple extentions? NASA has a new heavy-lift rocket in development and private American contractors are slowly taking over ISS resupply missions...

IMO the real mistake we made was opting to develop the Space Shuttle rather than continuing with the Saturn family of rockets. The tech just wasn't there yet, it ended up being too dangerous and expensive.

I guess that depends on the definition of success. There are some interesting stats here: http://www.space.com/12376-nasa-space-shuttle-program-facts-statistics.html

If you want to say that any loss of life was a failure, then the entire US space program would be a failure, but overall, I'd say 133 out of 135 missions going successfully while flying into space and then returning to the Earth isn't that bad, statistically speaking.

 

[Skripka]

I guess that depends on the definition of success. There are some interesting stats here: http://www.space.com/12376-nasa-space-shuttle-program-facts-statistics.html

If you want to say that any loss of life was a failure, then the entire US space program would be a failure, but overall, I'd say 133 out of 135 missions going successfully while flying into space and then returning to the Earth isn't that bad, statistically speaking.

Eh, the Space Shuttle was still a colossal failure in terms of project goals. I mean HUGE.

A) Space Shuttle was to be cheaper than Saturn V: It ended up being a hell of a lot more expensive...to build, and to maintain, and to fly.

2) Space Shuttle was to fly far more frequently than Saturn V with a turn around time on each vehicle of around 2 weeks: Turn around time ended up averaging to 3 months+.

III) It was to be light weight...it came in 20%+ overweight...resulting in it not being able to haul USAF satellites.

d) Be 100% reusable...definitely not.


Sure it got the job done, and is a great piece of history...but it really missed the mark in doing what it set out to do: make space travel affordable. It instead made space travel more or less routine, and NASA budget has been shrinking ever since as popular apathy towards space has set in.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

I guess that depends on the definition of success. There are some interesting stats here: http://www.space.com/12376-nasa-space-shuttle-program-facts-statistics.html

If you want to say that any loss of life was a failure, then the entire US space program would be a failure, but overall, I'd say 133 out of 135 missions going successfully while flying into space and then returning to the Earth isn't that bad, statistically speaking.

The Shuttle is the most complex machine ever built. If anything went wrong with the Shuttle during liftoff or re-entry the crew was pretty much screwed. The Apollo missions actually had a functional launch-abort system and their heatshields were protected until needed. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that if we had continued to use the Saturn family of rockets their safety record would be at least as good as the Russian Soyuz.

A Saturn V could lift 5x the payload of a Space Shuttle to low-earth-orbit in one go for roughly twice the cost of a shuttle launch. Skylab was a quarter the size of the ISS and it only cost ~$3 billion (adjusted for inflation) to assemble and launch. ISS is well over $100 billion at this point and the Shuttle program delays significantly hampered work on the station. The Shuttle program should have been cancelled and replaced once the rising costs, risks, and flight turnaround times made it unsuitable to use as the standard launcher for all US government payloads. The program just didn't make sense any more.

The bright point to the Shuttle program is that it put a large number of scientists and experiments in orbit over the years. Apollo only took one career scientist to the moon, the rest were all military guys.

 

[Skripka]

The Shuttle is the most complex machine ever built. If anything went wrong with the Shuttle during liftoff or re-entry the crew was pretty much screwed. The Apollo missions actually had a functional launch-abort system and their heatshields were protected until needed. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that if we had continued to use the Saturn family of rockets their safety record would be at least as good as the Russian Soyuz.

A Saturn V could lift 5x the payload of a Space Shuttle to low-earth-orbit in one go for roughly twice the cost of a shuttle launch. Skylab was a quarter the size of the ISS and it only cost ~$3 billion (adjusted for inflation) to assemble and launch. ISS is well over $100 billion at this point and the Shuttle program delays significantly hampered work on the station. The Shuttle program should have been cancelled and replaced once the rising costs, risks, and flight turnaround times made it unsuitable to use as the standard launcher for all US government payloads. The program just didn't make sense any more.

The bright point to the Shuttle program is that it put a large number of scientists and experiments in orbit over the years. Apollo only took one career scientist to the moon, the rest were all military guys.

STS quit making sense a long time ago.

I remember back when I was in middle school videos and primitive renderings of SSTO vehicles being drafted to replace the STS, because everyone knew the thing was too damned expensive and monstrous to maintain. With the STS making space routine and less remarkable on a popular basis-the political willpower to get NASA the funding it needed has evaporated.

The ISS is yet another gigantic money sink...once it gets "finished" then what? The "then what" question is something never seemingly on the minds of people doing these proposals. Bush pushed the manned missions to Mars and the Moon, with no "then what" idea at all in sight. Because ultimately that was why we stopped the Apollo missions in the first place-we got there and there was a ton of barren rocks and not much else.

 

[Ramses]

Eh, the Space Shuttle was still a colossal failure in terms of project goals. I mean HUGE.

A) Space Shuttle was to be cheaper than Saturn V: It ended up being a hell of a lot more expensive...to build, and to maintain, and to fly.

2) Space Shuttle was to fly far more frequently than Saturn V with a turn around time on each vehicle of around 2 weeks: Turn around time ended up averaging to 3 months+.

III) It was to be light weight...it came in 20%+ overweight...resulting in it not being able to haul USAF satellites.

d) Be 100% reusable...definitely not.


Sure it got the job done, and is a great piece of history...but it really missed the mark in doing what it set out to do: make space travel affordable. It instead made space travel more or less routine, and NASA budget has been shrinking ever since as popular apathy towards space has set in.

As much as I admire and love and grew up loving the Shuttle, I agree. It was an ongoing fiasco I guess we just couldn't extract ourselves from somehow. Sometimes older is better, though it's going to be hard on the PR dept to go back to something that looks old.

One of the big regrets of my life is I never saw a shuttle launch up close. I even lived in FL a couple times and just couldn't make it happen what with the repeated postponements and such.
I was driving at night in the middle of nowhere once though and saw a launch from many, many miles away, it lit up the entire horizon. It was beautiful, and I'm about as cynical and jaded as they come.

 

[MrCaffeineX]

STS quit making sense a long time ago.

I remember back when I was in middle school videos and primitive renderings of SSTO vehicles being drafted to replace the STS, because everyone knew the thing was too damned expensive and monstrous to maintain. With the STS making space routine and less remarkable on a popular basis-the political willpower to get NASA the funding it needed has evaporated.

The ISS is yet another gigantic money sink...once it gets "finished" then what? The "then what" question is something never seemingly on the minds of people doing these proposals. Bush pushed the manned missions to Mars and the Moon, with no "then what" idea at all in sight. Because ultimately that was why we stopped the Apollo missions in the first place-we got there and there was a ton of barren rocks and not much else.

That's the biggest problem. There were different designs that were contemplated during the STS era, but they were never implemented. Funding and political willpower disappeared over the years, making it more difficult for NASA to work on such projects. At this point, I doubt we'll see a truly reusable space vehicle in my lifetime, though I do like to dream from time to time and Space-X is at least trying.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Bush pushed the manned missions to Mars and the Moon, with no "then what" idea at all in sight. Because ultimately that was why we stopped the Apollo missions in the first place-we got there and there was a ton of barren rocks and not much else.

It was politics. Apollo was never really about science or exploration. It was a act by Kennedy to move the ongoing Soviet-US competition from a military to a civilian arena. Nixon cancelled the second run of Saturn V's right after Apollo 11. With Johnson gone, a republican-run congress, and the Soviets hopelessly behind in the space race there was no political will to fight the massive budget cuts conservatives were demanding.

I'm with Neil deGrasse Tyson: we need to raise the NASA budget to 1% of tax revenue. With 1% of taxpayer's money NASA could have a permanent base on the moon, practice moving asteroids around, and visit Mars. In the next century or two we'll be looking back on the missions of today like we look at the Lewis and Clarke expedition. It didn't do anything for the average American of the early 1800s, but it opened the door to future expeditions and secured territory for the United States.

 

[BroHamBone]

Or you know, rather than reading about it on IMDB, you could watch it => https://www.vice.com/video/season-two-afghan-money-pit-and-the-pacification-of-rio

HAHAHAHA, thanks for the assistance

 

[Skripka]

That's the biggest problem. There were different designs that were contemplated during the STS era, but they were never implemented. Funding and political willpower disappeared over the years, making it more difficult for NASA to work on such projects. At this point, I doubt we'll see a truly reusable space vehicle in my lifetime, though I do like to dream from time to time and Space-X is at least trying.

It was typical corporate-esque thinking IMHO.

If you walk into a board meeting asking for $50,000 to replace a server rack that still "works" you're not going to get money either. Why? Because it "works"...even if it is unreliable, constantly in need of maintenance, and more expensive than just replacing. What happened is not unique or special to NASA at all, it happens every day of the week in institutions around the world.

It was politics. Apollo was never really about science or exploration. It was a act by Kennedy to move the ongoing Soviet-US competition from a military to a civilian arena. Nixon cancelled the second run of Saturn V's right after Apollo 11. With Johnson gone, a republican-run congress, and the Soviets hopelessly behind in the space race there was no political will to fight the massive budget cuts conservatives were demanding.

I'm with Neil deGrasse Tyson: we need to raise the NASA budget to 1% of tax revenue. With 1% of taxpayer's money NASA could have a permanent base on the moon, practice moving asteroids around, and visit Mars. In the next century or two we'll be looking back on the missions of today like we look at the Lewis and Clarke expedition. It didn't do anything for the average American of the early 1800s, but it opened the door to future expeditions and secured territory for the United States.

Why go to the Moon? Why visit Mars? Then what?

You get people there on basically a one-way ticket, they die due to lack of resources on hand other than moon/martian rock and dust...then what?

Lewis and Clark had it easy, anywhere they went they could live off the land. Humans are tough to keep-we need lots of food, lots of nitrogen/oxygen air, and liquid water none of which is readily available anywhere else in the Solar system so far as is known.

The Moon and Mars and asteroids have no food, no water (not that we have a real shortage of it here), no air (which we're polluting what is here)....the only real point aside from political PR is possible mineral resources which we aren't sure of. And even if they are found, that isn't necessarily a good thing. You know why the Africa became the capital of the slave trade? Because Columbus going exploring and bringing gold back from the New World (mined with enslaved/tortured at gunpoint indigenous labor) crashed the Gold market in the Old World.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

The Moon and Mars and asteroids have no food, no water (not that we have a real shortage of it here), no air (which we're polluting what is here)....

There's plenty of water on both, as well as the raw materials for food and breathable air.

Why climb Mt Everest? Why visit Antarctica? By exploring the environment we learn and improve ourselves. The drives to travel and learn are fundamental to being human, it's how we ended up as a global technological civilization. We stagnate without it. No kid is going to be inspired by an engineer designing an airfoil or engine that's a few percent more efficient. Seeing people living and working on the edge of what's possible is inspiring.

the only real point aside from political PR is possible mineral resources which we aren't sure of.

Water and mineral resources we are reasonably sure of, there's more gold in the average metallic asteroid than has ever been mined on Earth. Think about what the development of cheap aluminum production did for civilization. Imagine if all metals were just as cheap. At the same time it would be wise to build experience moving asteroids around so we don't end up going the way of the dinosaurs when the next big asteroid happens to cross our path.

IMO the search for life alone justifies a few Mars missions. A radio telescope/lunar outpost on the far side of the moon would be extremely valuable from a scientific perspective while also providing practical experience manufacturing and working in low-gravity. Long-term outposts in orbit or on the moon will function as general-research labs like the ISS.

Beyond that, it bothers me that people don't appreciate what Apollo did for this country. We didn't get tang and velcro from the space program, what we got was a generation of scientists and engineers and a massive boost to the electronics and aerospace industries. With aerospace dominance being a key component of US defense policy it makes sense to continue to invest in space exploration. We could have permanent moon bases and mars missions for a fraction of our budget, why not explore?

And even if they are found, that isn't necessarily a good thing. You know why the Africa became the capital of the slave trade? Because Columbus going exploring and bringing gold back from the New World (mined with enslaved/tortured at gunpoint indigenous labor) crashed the Gold market in the Old World.

Hopefully we learn from our history and don't enslave the Martians?

---

THOUGHTFUL critics, concerned over the allocation of limited national resources, ask whether this is a good way in which to spend funds that might otherwise be used for the betterment of man's lot on the surface of the earth. Could some of the money going into space research be diverted into other programs of public interest -- medical research, education, housing, technical aid to emerging nations -- a variety of projects contributing to the welfare of our society?

This question implies that public funds are transferable. However, the reduction of support for one national program does not carry a guarantee of increased support for other projects. President Kennedy remarked recently, "Some people say we should take the money we are putting into space and put it into housing or education ... My judgment is that what would happen would be that they would cut the space program and you would not get additional funds for education."

But if space money cannot readily be rerouted into other channels, that negative consideration in itself is not a reason for these large expenditures. What are the positive values which we derive from this investment?

The nation can expect the following consequences of the space program: the fruits of research into fundamental problems of science; economic benefits from the application of satellites to communications and weather forecasting; long-range technological benefits accruing to industry; a general stimulus to science and to science education; and, most important, the security which comes from U.S. leadership in space.

Robert Jastrow - Why Land on the Moon? - 1963

 

[Skripka]

There's plenty of water on both, as well as the raw materials for food and breathable air.

Why climb Mt Everest? Why visit Antarctica? By exploring the environment we learn and improve ourselves. The drives to travel and learn are fundamental to being human, it's how we ended up as a global technological civilization. We stagnate without it. No kid is going to be inspired by an engineer designing an airfoil or engine that's a few percent more efficient. Seeing people living and working on the edge of what's possible is inspiring.



Water and mineral resources we are reasonably sure of, there's more gold in the average metallic asteroid than has ever been mined on Earth. Think about what the development of cheap aluminum production did for civilization. Imagine if all metals were just as cheap. At the same time it would be wise to build experience moving asteroids around so we don't end up going the way of the dinosaurs when the next big asteroid happens to cross our path.

IMO the search for life alone justifies a few Mars missions. A radio telescope/lunar outpost on the far side of the moon would be extremely valuable from a scientific perspective while also providing practical experience manufacturing and working in low-gravity. Long-term outposts in orbit or on the moon will function as general-research labs like the ISS.

Beyond that, it bothers me that people don't appreciate what Apollo did for this country. We didn't get tang and velcro from the space program, what we got was a generation of scientists and engineers and a massive boost to the electronics and aerospace industries. With aerospace dominance being a key component of US defense policy it makes sense to continue to invest in space exploration. We could have permanent moon bases and mars missions for a fraction of our budget, why not explore?


Hopefully we learn from our history and don't enslave the Martians?

---

You missed my point.

Imagine if all metals were just as cheap? Sure. Mines on Earth would go out of business. Lost jobs. More people out of work. More wars in $hithole countries with no other resources. Greater economic inequality. More violence and hatred aimed at USA etc. Same thing will happen when petroleum runs dry, that will be a different set of countries but same deal. Hell, that sets aside any thought about gold reserves backing currency value. Gold/platinum/etc is suddenly no longer precious, then what is?

Sorry to burst your Star Trek utopia bubble. Colombus finding more gold crashed the precious metals market. That was the lesson.



Your post is yet another example of a failed "then what" of policy thinking.

 

[rudy]

You missed my point.

Imagine if all metals were just as cheap? Sure. Mines on Earth would go out of business. Lost jobs. More people out of work. More wars in $hithole countries with no other resources. Greater economic inequality. More violence and hatred aimed at USA etc. Same thing will happen when petroleum runs dry, that will be a different set of countries but same deal. Hell, that sets aside any thought about gold reserves backing currency value. Gold/platinum/etc is suddenly no longer precious, then what is?

Sorry to burst your Star Trek utopia bubble. Colombus finding more gold crashed the precious metals market. That was the lesson.



Your post is yet another example of a failed "then what" of policy thinking.

So you think we should just all sit around because someone might lose a job? Computers put accountants out of work..... Maybe we should get rid of computers.... Why didn't accountants cause a civil war in the USA? Efficiency and cheap goods allow us to do things we couldn't do before which allows us to be more efficient which results in better stability on average for humans. Yes a couple of miners lose their jobs so what? They adapt and find new jobs or retire. Try the opposite and run resources dry and see what kind of war ensues. Its the difference between people who see the big picture and people who can only see the small picture.

 

[Skripka]

So you think we should just all sit around because someone might lose a job? Computers put accountants out of work..... Maybe we should get rid of computers.... Why didn't accountants cause a civil war in the USA? Efficiency and cheap goods allow us to do things we couldn't do before which allows us to be more efficient which results in better stability on average for humans. Yes a couple of miners lose their jobs so what? They adapt and find new jobs or retire. Try the opposite and run resources dry and see what kind of war ensues. Its the difference between people who see the big picture and people who can only see the small picture.

They adapt or retire? You don't have a f'ing clue where most of those mines are...or how those people have to live. They are in places where OSHA rules about air quality and respirators don't exist. And "retirement" is either in a wooden box, or when their body is too broken from breathing dust or getting caught in an equipment failure. And odds are the wooden box comes at an age younger than you are.

Keep living in Star Trek fantasy land.

Meanwhile back here, on real Earth, automation and the quest for higher efficiency and profits is about to put all the fast-food employees and delivery drivers out of work. However bad you think our unemployment woes are or aren't, they are about to get much worse.


See the big picture, indeed.

 

[rudy]

They adapt or retire? You don't have a f'ing clue where most of those mines are...or how those people have to live. They are in places where OSHA rules about air quality and respirators don't exist. And "retirement" is either in a wooden box, or when their body is too broken from breathing dust or getting caught in an equipment failure. And odds are the wooden box comes at an age younger than you are.

Keep living in Star Trek fantasy land.

Meanwhile back here, on real Earth, automation and the quest for higher efficiency and profits is about to put all the fast-food employees and delivery drivers out of work. However bad you think our unemployment woes are or aren't, they are about to get much worse.


See the big picture, indeed.

So you are saying we would actually be saving them from a shitty life by forcing them to find something that wont slowly kill them? Sounds horrible..... Maybe those need a nice kick in the ass to get them to diversify.

10000 years ago someone found a cereal plant that produced bigger grains then they propagated it and put half the village out of work in the fields. Did civilization die? No it flourished. You are the one who has no clue how it really works. Surplus cheap food has made our lives stable so we could improve our lives and have spare time to make more efficiency gains. Every single decade another machine puts more Americans out work, this has been happening for hundreds of years. Yet through it all every time guess what? We not only come back we come back stronger. Efficiency gains and maintaining a leading edge is why the USA is the worlds most powerful nation and economy. Sadly most ignorant Americans would rather only look at the current situation and try to hold it from progress not realizing progress is the very thing that made their situation better than much of the rest of the world. Your good life is made possible by 2 and only 2 things, efficiency and resources. More efficiency and more resources = better life. Are there corrections and crashes in economies, yes but things bounce back better when you look at the bigger picture which is the overall economy constantly rising over the long term and quality of life going up. Space travel has led to many efficiency gains not the least of which is GPS which has revolutionized the life of half the world.

 

[Skripka]

So you are saying we would actually be saving them from a shitty life by forcing them to find something that wont slowly kill them? Sounds horrible..... Maybe those need a nice kick in the ass to get them to diversify.

10000 years ago someone found a cereal plant that produced bigger grains then they propagated it and put half the village out of work in the fields. Did civilization die? No it flourished. You are the one who has no clue how it really works. Surplus cheap food has made our lives stable so we could improve our lives and have spare time to make more efficiency gains. Every single decade another machine puts more Americans out work, this has been happening for hundreds of years. Yet through it all every time guess what? We not only come back we come back stronger. Efficiency gains and maintaining a leading edge is why the USA is the worlds most powerful nation and economy. Sadly most ignorant Americans would rather only look at the current situation and try to hold it from progress not realizing progress is the very thing that made their situation better than much of the rest of the world. Your good life is made possible by 2 and only 2 things, efficiency and resources. More efficiency and more resources = better life. Are there corrections and crashes in economies, yes but things bounce back better when you look at the bigger picture which is the overall economy constantly rising over the long term and quality of life going up. Space travel has led to many efficiency gains not the least of which is GPS which has revolutionized the life of half the world.

I don't think you've been paying attention at all. China has the USA by the economic and efficiency balls. And has for a long time, and it is only getting worse. So much so that all the CEOs in the USA admitted it 20 years ago, pushed for NAFTA and shipped all the manufacturing to China. The USA is so powerful it doesn't dare annoy China about Taiwan...and only very reluctantly and hesitantly does the USA do anything meaningful about Russia and the Ukraine.

The USA and its denizens have some serious self-image issues.

 

[rudy]

I have been paying attention and am very aware of where China is, and all you are doing is further proving my point. So that was a pretty useless comment, and by all current measures even though the last several decades have seen China make huge progress they still are not ahead of the USA by most measures, but the Chinese are on the way there while Americans make comments like yours the Chinese are investing in space and everything else in a bid to take the lead.

 

[trueplaya4ever8]

This set of photos was pretty damn awesome, crazy how much is left behind to just fade away.

 

[Ramses]

This set of photos was pretty damn awesome, crazy how much is left behind to just fade away.

Russians ain't bashful about leaving stuff to rot if it's not of use apparently. Chernobyl stuff comes to mind often but they had a decent reason for it there I guess, but there are a bunch of other examples. It's become sort of an old school Russian stereotype, wasting crazy money and resource just to blow it off and let it rot if it don't work out. Pretty crazy. Makes you wonder what else is moulding away somewhere over there.

 

[potency]

Wow. I'd hate to see my billions wasting away like that...

What's a billion rubles worth? Maybe $50?

 

[DeathFromBelow]

You missed my point.

Imagine if all metals were just as cheap? Sure. Mines on Earth would go out of business. Lost jobs. More people out of work...

I think it's pretty much a given that computers and robots are going to make most jobs obsolete in the next century anyway. Society is going to have to adapt to these economic changes regardless of whether space is a priority or not. I'd rather have such a future with abundant resources than without.

Gold/platinum/etc is suddenly no longer precious, then what is?[/QUOTE]
The ideas and constructions that those resources make possible and the skills/information required to utilize them.

Hell, that sets aside any thought about gold reserves backing currency value...

Why on earth would you want to do that? You're assuming that a gold standard is actually possible now (it isn't) and that it would be a good thing (it clearly wasn't). I went through a libertarian gold-bug phase myself and I'm glad I got out of it.

Sorry to burst your Star Trek utopia bubble. Colombus finding more gold crashed the precious metals market. That was the lesson.

No, that was the effect of finding a lot of precious metals. The lesson was don't peg the value of your currency to some arbitrary resource like gold.