Russia in space. How things really are in Russian cosmonautics

There has always been a craving for the unknown in man. Space - so close and so distant - is infinity, in the exploration of which we have done, probably, half a step. What awaits us tomorrow: an asteroid or a terraforming of Mars? Will NASA send the first man to Mercury or send him back to the future? Stay tuned for the most interesting things happening outside the stratosphere. When the Earth is explored completely and completely, a person will not get bored: he will have space.

The superiority of the USSR over the United States in the space field before the historic landing of man on the moon was undeniable. The USSR was the first to launch an artificial satellite into near-earth orbit, sent a man into space, sent a spacecraft to fly around the moon, for the first time receiving images of the back side of the satellite. The first to make a soft landing on the Earth satellite was also a Soviet apparatus - "-9". In the end, it was the Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov who was the first in the world to make a spacewalk from a spacecraft. It would seem that it was the Soviet people who were supposed to be the first to land on the moon. But that did not happen. Why did you lose the moon race?

The American entrepreneur who founded Tesla and SpaceX is literally obsessed with his desire to move people to Mars. To send the first settlers to the Red Planet, he wants to use the Starship spacecraft, which is currently under development and being tested. During a recent test, its Starhopper prototype was supposed to

The Bible indicates the causes of the crisis and the ways out of it

Summer… There is a certain lull in the life of the countries. During this time, important decisions are rarely made, or large projects are started. Many are on vacation, and besides, the heat relaxes the body and brain, causing the desire to take a break from the autumn-winter-spring business marathon, preferably away from the place of work. The inhabitants of Russia, not spoiled by the warm climate, are especially susceptible to the immobilizing effects of summer bliss.

This time of the year is called the "low season". Its influence is felt in all government departments, including space. But observing the sphere of activity for which Roscosmos is responsible, sometimes you cannot get rid of the feeling that the “dead season” has come not within the walls of a high-rise building on Shchepkina Street, where the space department is located, but in the cosmonautics itself.

The events of recent years in this industry, including the July fall of the Proton, have reinforced the impression that this not very cheerful phrase in relation to astronautics is filled not with a figurative, but with the most direct meaning and is not seasonal, but chronic.

Where does the skepticism come from?

At first glance, there is no reason for it. Yes, the Proton fell, but this has happened before. True, the last couple of years has been especially "fruitful" for various space failures. According to Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who oversees the space industry, since December 2010, this is the ninth accident. Moreover, six of them occurred during the launch of spacecraft in the interests of state needs. And the most unpleasant thing is that all these failures happened not with experienced, but with standard products.

But did not the government react promptly to the fall of the Proton, which overflowed the barrel of state patience? A commission was immediately formed to find out the causes of the accident, which quickly established this cause.

As if from a cornucopia, proposals were poured, including the introduction of photo and video filming of the assembly process of rocket and space technology so that experts could control the quality of this work. The head enterprises - developers, manufacturers of rocket and space technology products were instructed to conduct "an analysis of the completeness and sufficiency of the available lists of critical elements and especially critical operations", as well as "to develop and agree with the head research institutes plans of measures for additional checks and tests of critical elements of the existing stock of rocket products. - space technology ".

Finally, the head of Roscosmos, Vladimir Popovkin, was reprimanded, although, as Rogozin emphasized, not for the July crash of the Proton, but for "improper performance of the duties assigned to him." (Popovkin was lucky that a year earlier the proposal of the United Russia deputies to introduce the death penalty for those guilty of space accidents was not accepted.)

However, all of these steps above are at the level of spraying water on plants planted in barren, rocky soil. For a short period of time, this measure is capable of "greening" them, but in the long term, the seedlings are doomed to extinction. What needs to be done for the survival of the "plants", and what was actually proposed for this?

What the Bible says

The wall of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the lower house of the US Congress is engraved with parable 29:18 from Scripture: Where there is no vision, the people perish. And vision is, first of all, the ability to discern a spiritual, moral or intellectual landmark of development and go towards it. Simply put, set a goal and move towards achieving it.

The words from the Bible apply not only to people, but also to areas of human activity. Only that of them has a chance of success, before which a specific goal is set, the pursuit of which stimulates the development of this activity. Astronautics is no exception. What are the goals facing her?

Guaranteed guarantees

To answer this question, you need to look at two main documents that determine the development of the Russian space industry. These are the state program "Space activities of Russia for 2013-2020" (approved in December 2012) and "Basic provisions of the BASICS of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of space activities until 2030 and further perspective" (approved in April 2013). Simply put, Russia's space programs up to 2020 and up to 2030.

The main goal of the program until 2020 was proclaimed "to ensure guaranteed access and the necessary presence of Russia in space." “Voice of America” has already written in the article “Who Dooms Russia to Lagging in Space” that this problem can be solved by launching spacecraft such as the first Soviet satellite, which entered orbit on October 4, 1957, or by sending ships of the Gagarinsky type into space. "East".

However, the program until 2020 emphasizes that this "guaranteed access" will go hand in hand with "maintaining the leading positions of the Russian Federation in manned flights." This situation can cause nothing but extreme amazement, because at the present time these "leading positions" are maintained with the help of ships of the same name and launch vehicles (LV) of the "Soyuz" type.

The first in four years will go to the sixth, and the second - the seventh decade from the moment of birth. For 10 years now, although, of course, not with the same frequency as the Soyuz, the Chinese ships Shenzhou have been successfully flying. These vehicles are conceptually based on the three-seater Soyuz, but at the same time they are more spacious, have greater versatility and power-to-weight ratio than the Russian ship.

In a few years, the seven-seater American spacecraft Dragon will begin flying, which will soon be joined by several other manned spacecraft, one being developed by NASA and others by private US companies. Even India started designing its own manned spacecraft.

As for the Russian modules for the ISS, almost all of the cosmonauts who flew on this complex note that American, European and Japanese modules are distinguished by the best quality of development and manufacture, as well as higher comfort for the crew. Therefore, Russia's "leading" positions in the field of manned astronautics can arise only in the fevered imagination of some "space" officials or jingoistic patriots.

"Easternization" of Russia's space policy

The program to 2030 has one "radical" difference from the program to 2020. In it, in the lists of interests, goals, priorities and tasks of Russia in the field of space activities, the first place is given not only to “guaranteed access of Russia to space”, but to access precisely “from its territory”.

But excuse me, because Russia has "guaranteed access to space from its territory"! Moreover, even without Baikonur, from where Astana, despite the occasional friction with Moscow due to the fall of "poisonous" "Protons" on Kazakh territory, does not intend to "expel" Russia.

We are talking about Plesetsk. Is anyone restricting Russia's activities at this cosmodrome, which is located on its territory and is one of the most actively used in the world? Most of the launches of military satellites on medium-class carriers are made from Plesetsk.

Moreover, from there, a new carrier rocket "Angara", which is intended to replace the "Proton", should go on its maiden flight. And there is also the Yasny (Dombarovskiy) cosmodrome in the Orenburg region, from where light vehicles and the Kapustin Yar rocket range are launched.

Thus, to designate the provision of "guaranteed" launches from Russian territory as the dominant goal in the program until 2030 is like setting the Russian Olympic team as the main goal for the upcoming Winter Olympics ... guaranteed to arrive in February 2014 for games in Sochi. But it was precisely on the achievement of such an absurd goal that the Russian cosmonautics were guided by its leaders.

However, let's not rush to accuse these leaders of irrationality. It is possible that here they, on the contrary, have shown refined diplomacy (or is it more correct to say - cunning?). Indeed, in every phrase "guaranteed access to space" the word "Eastern" appears in burning letters. It is with the construction of this cosmodrome that the provision of this guarantee is associated.

The problems of Russian cosmonautics are not that there is nowhere to launch, but that there is nothing to launch, except for the infinitely outdated technology created in the days of Chief Designer Sergei Korolev. But the "space" leadership of Russia does not seem to care. I would like to believe that due to insufficient competence in space activities, otherwise we will have to assume that Popovkin's fight against corruption in the space industry ended in the defeat of the general director of Roscosmos.

Construction is one of the most corrupt spheres of activity in Russia. On April 8, 2013, Roscosmos sent to the government the concept of a new Federal Target Program for the Development of Cosmodromes for the period 2016-2025, requesting its implementation of more than 900 billion rubles, or $ 30 billion over 10 years. According to the independent expert on cosmonautics Vadim Lukashevich, these $ 30 billion will simply be "buried in the ground, mainly at the Vostochny cosmodrome, the cost of which has surprisingly increased by almost an order of magnitude (!) During the design and construction start."

Strategic plan or "filing"?

But the toothlessness and eclecticism of the state programs until 2020 and until 2030, seasoned with the sauce of “guarantee”, cannot be explained by the corruption component alone. In the "Memorandum" prepared by the staff of the space cluster of the Skolkovo Foundation, it was emphasized that in these documents "a clear, clear mission of Russia in space" was not formulated at all.

According to the authors of the Memorandum, the State Program of the Russian Federation in the field of space activities until 2020 is a "binder" of federal target programs in the field of space activities, without defining the budgetary obligations of the state. The programs themselves, in fact, are more or less balanced collections of proposals from the leading enterprises of the rocket and space industry. "

As for the "Fundamentals of Policy ... until 2030", this document, as noted in the "Memorandum", also contains a "full set" of provisions that do not allow drawing practical conclusions on the directions of domestic space activities on the basis of this document. There are too many goals, they are not stated concretely ”.

And why?

The answer lies on the surface. The supreme executive and legislative authorities of Russia admit in words (as it is formulated in the state program until 2030) that “the state of space activities is one of the main factors that determine the level of development and influence of Russia in the modern world, its status as a highly developed state in terms of science and technology. ".

However, in reality, neither the president with the government, nor the legislators see any connection between astronautics and the welfare of the state. Otherwise, they would have set goals for the Russian space industry long ago, the achievement of which contributed to the rise of both the country's science and technology and its authority.

Let's be fair: in 2005 the Roscosmos budget was about 24 billion rubles, which, according to Lukashevich's calculations, was about 10 times more than in 2002. By 2008, it had grown to 40 billion, and since 2009 - to about 100 billion annually. Moreover, in 2012-2015. it is planned to invest 650 billion rubles in the space industry of Russia.

The numbers, even when adjusted for inflation, are impressive.

Caring or Farming?

But one gets the impression that the Kremlin and Okhotny Ryad in this way are simply paying off from astronautics, because they have completely removed themselves from defining its goals and objectives, having instructed to do this to someone ... who should achieve and solve these goals and objectives. That is, Roskosmos and its associated structures, which they carried out in the form of state programs until 2020 and until 2030.

Now imagine the situation: the average student is asked to do his own math homework. With a high degree of probability, this will be closer to 2 + 2 =, and not a proof of Poincaré's conjecture. In accordance with this principle, Roskosmos, according to Lukashevich, determines the scope of work outside the atmosphere.

In other words, the Federal Space Agency, together with its subordinate Central Scientific Research Institute of Mechanical Engineering (TsNIIMash), set for the Russian cosmonautics the goals that this agency can achieve without much headache. They are either “guaranteed” attainable, or tied to abstract “international cooperation”, which may not take shape, or take shape, but without the participation of Russia, or stand so far in the future that none of those who proposed these goals will personal responsibility neither for their achievement, nor for the expenditure of funds that were allocated for this.

Where there is no interest, there is indifference

But the scope of work determined by Roscosmos for itself, neither from a qualitative nor a quantitative point of view, does not even approach the scale of those scientific, technical and political tasks of Russia, the solution of which would allow the country to rise at least one step higher in the world ranking of states.

For this reason, the supreme power of Russia turns a blind eye to confusion and vacillation in the country's space plans, including a 10-year delay in the implementation of the already stillborn idea of ​​repeating Apollo, the development of a new spacecraft for a non-existent carrier, the endless postponement of the first launch of the Proton successor - "Angara" launch vehicle, etc.

And the "ninth wave" in this "pitching" was the recent decision of the Ministry of Finance to cut funding for Roscosmos by 63 billion rubles in 2014-2016. The State Duma's reaction to this step was an additional explanation for the stagnation in Russian cosmonautics.

The first deputy chairman of the State Duma for industry, Vladimir Gutenev, saw in this a threat to disrupt the construction of Vostochny. The deputy chairman of the State Duma did not see the main threat to the Russian space industry in the form of a progressive scientific and technological lag not only from the United States and Europe, but even from such relative newcomers in space as China and Japan.

Correct words…

Speaking at the beginning of August this year at a meeting of the commission to investigate the accident of the Proton-M launch vehicle, Rogozin said: “Every time these space programs are being formed, one should ask oneself a simple question: WHY? They always say that manned space exploration is needed. I say again: why, to whom do we still have to prove that we can keep our astronauts in orbit for as long as we want? "

“Proved,” Rogozin continued. - What's next. What for? Why all these programs, which are noted in the program of space activities, and in priority areas? I say it again: ask yourself a question every time, this is a lot of money. They must be justified. "

Bravo, Deputy Prime Minister! Finally, the power in your person has demonstrated an understanding of the biblical wisdom discussed at the beginning of the article. Any activity that does not pursue specific goals, the pursuit of which contributes to its development, is doomed to degradation.

... and questionable decisions

However, having started “for health”, Rogozin finished “for peace”. In his opinion, in order to rectify the state of affairs in the Russian cosmonautics, it is necessary ... another suggestion).

Ideas like these cause bad déjà vu. Since 2006, there has been a United Aircraft Corporation in Russia, which by now has been able to “give birth” only to a regional “Superjet” made of foreign elements, whose flight performance fits exactly into the formula “neither this nor that”.

But even without this, Rogozin's proposals cannot evoke anything but a sense of surprise. Imagine a situation: the engine of your car does not start, or does not "pull". You call the "technician", and the arrived masters, instead of repairing the engine, suddenly start digging into the control system.

"Engine" - these are the ideas, goals and objectives that should move the astronautics forward. And "digging" in its management is an attempt to create all sorts of "united corporations".

Two main questions

They should underlie the planning of space activities. This is WHY and WHERE? Moreover, it is in this sequence.

If the answer to the first question is to continue throwing dust in the eyes of the Russians with the "largest in the world" number of space launches or flights of the "most reliable in the world" Soyuz spacecraft ", then the answer to the question" where? " very simple. This is, as before, into low-earth orbit.

It is quite possible to get there with the help of the current archaic space technology of Russia, created in the late 1950s - the first half of the 1960s, or, in extreme cases, come up with a "stump" from stations like Mir or the ISS in the form of a free-flying, periodically visited module ".

If the answer to the question "why?" Is to raise science and technology in general, as well as the authority and prestige of the Russian state both inside the country and abroad, then the answer to the second question will be: "Only in" deep "space", beyond the lunar orbit, with a focus on Mars".

Three conditions

They must be fulfilled by the state if it seriously considers astronautics as a means of solving the aforementioned scientific, technical and political tasks that can lead Russia to a new stage of development.

First: to set an ambitious and innovative goal in space, which is on the verge of modern technological capabilities of mankind and taking into account the technologies that will be created in the process of achieving it.

Doesn't sound so fantastic. Recall that in the late 1940s, the launch of an artificial Earth satellite and a manned flight into space were not just at the limit, but beyond the technological capabilities of not only the USSR, but the whole world, which did not prevent the Soviet Union from deciding in 10-12 years both of these tasks.

Second: this goal should be in the foreseeable future (10-15 years), or the process of achieving it should be divided into segments that do not exceed (or better yet, even shorter) this period, so that movement towards this goal is carried out under strict and effective control on the part of the highest executive and legislative power of Russia.

Third: to ensure the achievement of this goal with the necessary financial and administrative support, while introducing the strictest accountability for the expenditure of allocated funds.

Only if these conditions are met, it will be possible to say that the state does not just pay off astronautics by increasing its budget, but gives it a “vision”, without which it, as follows from the Holy Scriptures, is doomed to perish.

Original publication: golos-ameriki.ru

States' perceptions of military threats related to space activities are expressed in two aspects: threats with the use of space systems and threats against space systems. International discussions about this intensified in the 2000s in connection with the American program for the creation of strategic missile defense systems and in connection with the Chinese and American experiments to destroy their satellites in 2007 and 2008, respectively. However, the real economic, technical and political possibilities of military use of outer space differ from commonly used rhetorical figures.

Military space activities traditionally include providing access to space, reconnaissance, communications, navigation and movement control on land, at sea, in the air and in space, including missile attack warning systems.

Today, the United States, Russia, China have the most developed military space programs.: 147, 84 and 58 of 352 military vehicles in orbit, respectively. This is due to foreign policy interests that go far beyond their borders. The European NATO members together have a little more than 30 military satellites, the rest belong to other states.

At the same time, there are more than 1420 vehicles in orbit. And commercial communication devices and remote sensing of the earth can also be used by the military of those states in whose jurisdiction the companies-owners are located.

Orbital maneuver

One of the most promising areas is the creation of satellites capable of maneuvering in near-earth orbit. It is important to understand that with the development of ion engines, more and more advanced microsatellites are getting this option. In 2005-2010, the United States launched several experimental vehicles with this capability. In 2014, Russia also launched a small satellite that moved independently in low-earth orbit. Orbital maneuvering will allow creating flexible satellite systems: concentrating them over the conflict zone, modernizing their components without replacing the satellites entirely, etc.

At the same time, international public opinion is reinforced in the idea that maneuvering satellites in a conflict can be used to destroy enemy satellites. There are no fundamental technical limitations for such a step, but this undertaking for developed countries seems to be completely meaningless - the resources expended with a hypothetical result and its political consequences are in no way justified.

In conditions when there are hundreds of vehicles around the Earth, and the enemy uses dozens of them, including commercial satellites that do not belong to him, the destruction of several satellites can in no way affect the situation. Moreover, regardless of the political situation and at a sufficient level of accuracy, global navigation systems can be used to solve military problems. Gps(USA), GLONASS(Russia) and the system created by the Europeans Galileo.

Consequently, a much more effective way of depriving the enemy of access to space systems will not be to destroy them, but to suppress communication channels between satellites and its receivers in the conflict zone. And often it is much more convenient to do this with the help of ground systems, and not through the deployment of special satellites.

We emphasize once again that the described argumentation works for countries that are responsible participants in the system of international relations, involved in world trade and possessing modern armed forces. But this line of reasoning does not work for political regimes like North Korea, whose motivations boil down to the holding of power by the ruling group and the breaking of existing international rules of the game.

Such regimes themselves have little dependence on space systems, and therefore the destruction of satellites of other states may become for them a good opportunity for foreign policy blackmail. Given the reduction in the cost of platforms for creating small satellites and access to space, such a threat from outsiders international relations are worth keeping in mind. And this is precisely where active measures to protect space systems may be required, including maneuvering in space.

Near-Earth space control

In recent years, space control systems for near-earth space have become very important, allowing you to get a complete picture of the space activities of different states, as well as convert this into strengthening security and foreign policy capital. The championship here also belongs to the American side.

The United States, in addition to the developed ground infrastructure located in different parts of the world and allowing to control the near-earth orbit, has three satellite systems. Among them: the orbital space observation system ( Space Based Surveillance System, SBSS), space tracking and observation system ( Space Tracking and Surveillance System, STSS) and geosynchronous satellites of the system for detecting space objects ( Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program, GSSAP). At the same time, by 2020, the American air force plans to replace the only existing satellite. SBSS, located in a sun-synchronous orbit, with three new small-sized geosynchronous vehicles.

System STSS consists of three satellites, two of which serve as technology demonstrators and are integrated with the naval component of the US missile defense. Accordingly, the main targets for it are ballistic missiles and warheads, which it can track throughout the flight.

System GSSAP to date, it is the newest - in July 2014, both of its satellites were launched. Their peculiarity lies in the possibility of orbital maneuvering, which allows them to study spacecraft of interest from a relatively close distance, launched by other countries into geosynchronous orbits. Of course, in this case we are talking about situations when these very countries have not announced the designation of new space objects.

With the development of technology and industry, the appearance of similar systems is likely for other major participants in space exploration, moreover, this does not require the deployment of large satellite constellations. However, such systems become necessary when the economic and political activities of a country and its key partners critically depend on the satellite systems of that country. Today this is relevant only for the United States and the European countries that depend on them in the security sphere.

Thus, Russia does not yet need to spend limited resources on the creation of its own satellite system for the global control of outer space. It is enough to maintain control of the orbit over its territory with the help of ground systems.

The idea of ​​a military "shuttle"

The experimental vector for the development of military activities in space since 2010 has been demonstrated by the American unmanned spacecraft reusable X-37 B ... This device is capable of staying in near-earth space for many months, changing its orbit due to the engines, landing at an airfield and, after the necessary maintenance, go back into space.

Another advantage X-37 B- the presence of a compartment where equipment is installed, depending on the tasks performed by the ship. Thus, the spaceplane can play the role of a heavy reconnaissance and communications satellite, can act as a carrier of microsatellites and, hypothetically, an automatic repair ship.

However, currently X-37 B serves as a scientific laboratory for the US Air Force, a demonstrator of technology, and it is premature to talk about its routine use in the coming years. Also, the talk that the spaceplane can become a carrier of high-precision weapons and / or a means of destroying satellites seems to be unfounded. The arguments here are the same as in relation to maneuvering satellites - the discrepancy between the resources expended and the likely result.

Do you need "hypersound"?

Attempts to create hypersonic aircraft have become another experimental direction of military space activities. Such vehicles move in the upper layers of the airspace and along a suborbital trajectory and are controlled using space systems. In this case, the launch can be carried out using a light-class launch vehicle.

It is the hypersonic movement that opens the way to the practical implementation of the concept of a fast global non-nuclear strike ( Prompt Global Strike), formulated in the 2000s in the United States. Americans in 2010-2011 twice tested the devices over the Pacific Ocean HTV-2 , the purpose of which was to collect telemetry and other data on flights in the atmosphere at speeds up to 20M. After the experiments carried out, research work in this direction has returned to the laboratories. In the field of hypersonic aircraft, which actually blur the boundary between the atmosphere and space, Russia and China have research programs today.

It also poses the problem that any current and future missile defense systems must counter all suborbital targets. And as far as can be judged, for modern Russia, hypersonic technologies are interesting, first of all, in the context of increasing the capabilities of its strategic forces to overcome anti-missile systems.

As for China, this country in 2014 conducted three flight experiments with hypersonic vehicles. Wu-14 , whose speed reached 10M. In the context of the creation of the Chinese global navigation system and the gradual build-up of a national constellation of satellites by Beijing, this could mean a desire to acquire the capabilities of a global non-nuclear strike in the coming decades. Probably, the Chinese technology will be inferior to the American one, but it will be sufficient for solving military tasks outside the PRC.

In this regard, it should be borne in mind that the concept of a rapid global strike in the American, Chinese or any other version may not be realized. But the accumulated new knowledge and technologies will definitely be used in the creation of new generations of aerospace technology for military and commercial purposes. This means that Russia needs to continue precisely fundamental research in this area and, possibly, without reference to the creation of specific systems.

Missile defense again

The US missile defense program is associated with military space activities. Strategic missile defense systems can be classified as space activities, since they involve intercepting warheads flying along a suborbital or low-orbit trajectory. In addition, it performs its tasks, relying on satellites and ground-based space monitoring facilities.

At the same time, despite the experiment carried out in 2008 to destroy a satellite descending from orbit using an anti-missile system " Aegis " (Aegis), it is wrong to consider missile defense as a means of destroying satellites. A huge part of the satellites are beyond the reach of any anti-missile systems, and the negative consequences of the destruction of a satellite directly in orbit in 2007 were demonstrated by a Chinese experiment. Then, as a result of being hit by a specially launched ballistic missile, the satellite turned into a large cloud of space debris, which for several years was a danger to other vehicles. And for the international reputation, not to mention the long-term foreign policy goals, such actions are fraught with only damage.

At the same time, as already mentioned above, for states, the destruction of single enemy satellites does not in any way affect security and does not create any military superiority in the event of a conflict. And given the fact that anti-missile systems can only be afforded by economically and politically developed countries, the risk of combat rather than experimental use of these systems as anti-satellite weapons can be considered as tending to zero.

Space begins on earth

Military space activities also include improving and enhancing the stability of ground-based space infrastructure. It is the ground infrastructure that ensures the operation of satellites, and the satellites themselves are used in the interests of consumers on land, at sea and in the air, and are connected to them through satellite navigation chips, telephones, etc.

The most urgent threats here are the creation of electronic interference for such devices, for the satellite communication channels with the Earth and the destruction of ground stations, which has already been mentioned in passing. By and large, today and in the foreseeable future, the most effective and widespread methods of fighting space systems will be those that have nothing to do with the concepts of "space weapons" or "anti-satellite weapons".

In this context, the example of the American system is very indicative. Raiders designed to recognize extraneous influences on communication channels with satellites. In the spring of 2013, the deployment of this system was completed, consisting of five mobile antennas in different parts of the world, including the launch site at Cape Canaveral, Hawaii, Japan, Germany (the location of another antenna was not indicated).

This system is designed to protect communications through commercial satellites, as well as communications channels for US troops overseas, which also often use commercial space systems. And it is clear that the interception of information passing through satellites, the suppression of communication channels or the delivery of strikes against ground space infrastructure are available to a much larger number of states and non-state players than the creation and use of their own satellites.

Moreover, the United States, as the country most dependent on space systems, has to spend the most resources on protecting its advantages. At the same time, all other players (with the exception of American allies), depending on the likelihood of an armed conflict with the United States, are or may be interested in reducing these advantages.

From this it becomes clear that the most probable are "space battles" occurring exclusively on the earth's surface. The ratio of the expended resources, military and political costs and the predicted result seems to be optimal here.

In the context of all of the above, we can conclude that the current stage in the development of military space activities has several main vectors. First, it is an increase in the stability and flexibility of satellite systems - due to orbital maneuvering technologies, automatic reusable vehicles, etc. Secondly, it is the development of outer space control systems. Thirdly, this is the development of electronic warfare systems and countermeasures to such systems. Fourthly, it is the research of hypersonic movement and the improvement of anti-missile technologies, which in the future will make it possible to combat vehicles moving at hypersonic speed.

As you can see, there is still no talk of some kind of "Star Wars". Nevertheless, exceptional situations are possible when the destruction of a spacecraft or large fragments of space debris may be deemed necessary due to their threat to other satellites, an orbital station, manned spacecraft or people on Earth. But it is precisely the exclusivity of such a development of events that underlines the fact that the special creation of space weapons today is not a rational step. For such circumstances, a technique designed or created for other purposes will be used.

In light of all of the above, the following approach to its own military space program seems to be optimal for Russia:

• Focus on improving the reliability of our own satellite systems;
• Create conditions for the development of commercial space systems, which, if necessary, can be used by the military. This will reduce the cost of providing the armed forces with space systems;
• Prioritize fundamental scientific research in the space sector, which will improve Russian military security in the long term.

The value of military-space parity in itself leads to unjustified costs. Russia needs to proceed from the idea that the size of the military satellite constellation is directly proportional to the level of the country's economic development and the role of space systems in its economic activity.

It is easier for Soyuz to fly through the eye of a needle than to calmly talk on the Internet about the state of affairs in Russian cosmonautics. The reason is simple - too many succumb to the temptation of black and white thinking, and extreme positions clash in discussions. Some believe that NASA is disappearing without Russian engines and places on manned spacecraft, while others are sure that Roskosmos has long been eating up the last rocket under the bridge without salt. The reality is somewhere in between these extremes, but discussions usually, instead of searching for the truth, slide into swearing. Understanding these risks, let's try to talk briefly about the state of the Russian cosmonautics.

Number of starts

For thirteen years in a row, Russia has been the leader in the number of space launches. But in 2016 we were overtaken by the United States and - for the first time - by China. In 2017, one private company SpaceX has a chance to overtake Russia in the number of launches. Our leadership in this dimension was a source of pride, and its loss was cause for frustration. How justified is it?

Number of launches by country since 2004

The large number of Russian launches in recent years has several reasons at once. First, applied satellite constellations were deployed - GLONASS for navigation, Express, Yamal for communications, Resource for remote sensing of the Earth, military satellites. Secondly, foreign spacecraft were actively launched under commercial contracts.

When in the 90s Russian launch vehicles entered the world market, they turned out to be cheap and were in great demand.

The purpose-built company ILS offered favorable prices for the Protons, and since 1996 there have already been 98 launches into the most commercially demanded geostationary orbit. Thirdly, according to the manned program, 4 Soyuz with cosmonauts and 4–5 cargo Progress launches every year, this is already at least 8 launches a year.

GLONASS is now deployed and requires fewer launches to maintain constellation. With commercial contracts, the situation worsened: the private company SpaceX entered the launch services market, competing with ILS prices. In 2016, the Proton accident did not lead to a loss of payload, the satellite was successfully launched into target orbit, but the investigation of the incident was superimposed on the detection of improper solder in the engines, and as a result, the Proton did not fly for almost a year. Even in the manned program, one cargo "Progress" was removed, because of which the Russian crew of the ISS had to be reduced from 3 people to 2.

Paradoxically, the reduction in launches is a consequence of one good reason. In the 1980s, the USSR carried out hundreds of launches in the region a year, but its Strela communication satellites could operate in orbit for only six months, and the Zenith reconnaissance satellites - only two weeks.

When the active life of satellites is so short, it negates the effect of a large number of launches. Now our satellites have begun to operate in orbit for much longer, therefore, new replacement ones need to be launched less often.

Also, in parallel, the process of replacing carrier rockets is under way. The old "Cosmos" and "Cyclone" do not fly anymore, the conversion "Dnepr" is also gradually ending their careers. And if the new lightweight Soyuz-2.1v, which first flew at the end of 2013, launched in June 2017 for the third time, then the Angara is doing less well. After two test launches in 2014, it still hasn't started flying with real satellites. The point is not only to eliminate the inevitable remarks after the first - albeit successful - launches. The Khrunichev Center, which produces Angara, is shifting missile production to Omsk and is cutting space in Moscow by 80%. Against the background of these perturbations, the delay in serial production, alas, is natural.

Emergency

It is widely believed that our missiles are constantly falling. But statistics do not confirm this. If we look at the relative accident rate (the number of accidents divided by the number of rockets), we can see that the indicators of the Russian cosmonautics are at a level comparable to that of other countries.

Relative accident rate of leading space powers since 2004, payload loss 1 point, accident without payload loss - 0.5 points

In addition to the European Space Agency, which is characterized by an almost zero accident rate (and the only incident in 2014 was associated with the abnormal operation of the Russian Fregat unit - satellites were launched into an off-design orbit, but are successfully operated), Russia, the United States and China show approximately the same accident rate.

Why is the myth of our constantly falling missiles so tenacious?

Firstly, the work of the media is structured in such a way that a successful launch takes place with minimal coverage, but the accident attracts much more attention. Secondly, astronautics is perceived as an integral part of the country's prestige, so there are forces that in every possible way pick up the news about accidents in order to use them to prove that "everything is bad in the country." There is a whole list of memes that I regularly get for any reason, and personally, I am already in my teeth. Thirdly, human psychology itself tends to black-and-white thinking, and rational analysis requires intellectual efforts. And fourthly, despite the really good PR efforts of Roscosmos, much could have been done better.

PR

You can hear the opinion that things are going well for Roscosmos, but it does not know how to PR. This is not entirely true - the PR activity of Roscosmos is quite noticeable. The agency has active pages in social networks... Astronauts participate in broadcasts, maintain their own pages, and, for example, photos from orbit on Instagram are very popular. In 2016, a lot of effort went into the slogan "Raise your head!"

Many good words can be said about Roscosmos TV. They release two weekly programs on YouTube (until recently, one aired on Russia 24), and make good films. Thanks to them, we can learn in detail about how astronauts train.

They also created a good video encyclopedia "Cosmonauts" and managed to release very nice videos on astronomy "what if".

At the same time, there is a feeling that the work lacks resources and consistency. For example, the launch of a manned spacecraft is an important and exciting event. But there is no uniform and noticeable illumination. Sometimes more resources are allocated, the launch is commented on and attempts are made to draw more public attention to it. But at times, on the contrary, the quality of work subsides. When the manned Soyuz was launched on July 28, the North-West Federation of Cosmonautics (enthusiasts-popularizers not part of the Roscosmos structure) organized a demonstration of the launch at the Starcon festival. But this particular time, the broadcast quality was one of the worst in the last few years, and it blurred the efforts of people. Alas, for uniformly high-quality launch lighting, you have to go to NASA TV.

Unfortunately, it is not noticeable that serious resources are allocated for PR. It comes to the ridiculous - for more than fifty years missiles of the "R-7" family have flown without onboard cameras. In 2014, the European Space Agency bought a couple of sets of cameras with its own money, installed them on the purchased Russian rockets and received gorgeous picture separation of the side blocks of the first stage.

Roskosmos once put cameras on a rocket launched from the Vostochny cosmodrome in 2016, and that's it. And this despite the fact that footage from the rocket in real time shows not only the brilliantly owning PR SpaceX, but even the Chinese Space Agency.

And, finally, Roskosmos was simply out of luck with some PR. The most keen-sighted telescope, the Spectr-R, which sees a thousand times better than the Hubble, operates in the radio range, and its results look absolutely not spectacular despite all the scientific uniqueness.

Image of the galaxy OJ287

Good and bad

The space industry of any country has its own strengths and weaknesses - someone has achieved a lot in one, someone has advantages in another, and everyone has their own problems.

Strengths:

1. Russian cosmonautics has a well-developed applied component. One of the two global navigation systems, geostationary and low-orbit communication systems, meteorological satellites and Earth remote sensing satellites, military satellite constellations - we have all this. In terms of the number of operating satellites, Russia ranks third after the United States and China.
2. Manned space exploration is definitely a strong point. The Soyuz spacecraft is reliable and efficient, and even after the start of flights of American manned spacecraft it will look good against their background. It may not be very comfortable, but it will work without problems until the appearance of the new Federation ship. A huge amount of knowledge and technologies have been accumulated on orbital stations and man's long-term stay in space.
3. Leadership in certain areas remains. For example, we have the best oxygen-kerosene engines for rockets and excellent electrojet (ion, plasma) engines for satellites. Launch vehicles "Proton" and "Soyuz" have a huge accumulated operating statistics, while they are constantly being modernized.
4. Potentially breakthrough technologies are being developed - a nuclear tug, detonation engines, hypersonic technologies (so far for military use, in the future they can be used for space), methane engines.

Weak sides:

1. There are no own scientific vehicles outside the earth's orbit. Yes, they cannot yet bring direct profit, but this is interesting scientific data and a lot of PR. This problem is partially compensated for by participation in joint projects, when our devices are on the devices of other space agencies - neutron detectors in the orbits of the Moon and Mars, as well as on Curiosity - ours. The Exomars project is a joint project with the European Space Agency.
2. There are failures in some technological areas. Despite the fact that we know how to produce oxygen-hydrogen engines, they still do not pass from laboratories to serial rockets. And these engines are very beneficial in the upper stages. There are problems with the element base for spacecraft.
3. From the leader in terms of the profitability of commercial launches, our astronautics has moved to the list of competitors. Now a modification of Proton is being developed - Proton Sredny, which will have to increase its competitiveness in the market of launch services. In theory, Angara was supposed to become economically efficient, but without regular launches it is impossible to say whether these calculations will be justified.
4. There is no clear vision of the plan for the development of cosmonautics for several years ahead. Sudden news that, for example, there will be no manned Angara on the Vostochny, and the cosmonauts will be transported from Baikonur by the Soyuz-5 rocket (aka Phoenix / Sunkar) that has not yet been fully designed. new sudden changes.

The cosmonautics of Russia, alas, is not "ahead of the rest of the planet" - there are areas where we are overtaken. At the same time, it is categorically wrong to bury her - the work is going on actively and quite well. In the coming years, even with inertial motion, Russia will remain on the list of leading space states (USA, Russia, China) and agencies (European Space Agency, 22 countries).