The main problem of our space is that many people think that she is. Criticism

One came across one article about our space program. I wanted to dispel the myths that have been in this article.


Information reason for writing this article was our next space setback with the withdrawal of two telecommunications satellites, "Express-MD2" and the Indonesian Telcom-3 on the rocket "Proton-M" on August 6. We did not address this issue directly "without delay", because our cosmic accidents have become a common thing — it was much more interesting to trace occurring after this "circles on the water." It was the events following the accident, can objectively speak not only about the problems in our space program, but also the adequacy of the measures taken. Anyway — the competence of the people who make strategic decisions for the space, and their understanding of existing problems, the very essence of what is happening.


So, what do we have? Looking back, it must be noted that in recent years, the frequency of accidents is growing like a snowball — these are just the main "milestones heroic way":

  Here is the ratio of unsuccessful operations to the number of flights as a percentage. What you can not see that, it would be "growing like a snowball."

— 26.01.2009: the loss of reconnaissance satellite "Person", which went into orbit, but have not earned. Damage to more than 5 billion rubles;

This incident occurred on 26/07/2008.

— April 2009: the loss of the satellite "Express-AM2";

First it happened on June 16. And second, what happened can not be considered a loss. It was a partial loss of the satellite worked until 1 August 2010. After the problems of March 8, 2009 satellite continued to work, but not as much as it was planned, it had to be cut for some time. So it can not be called a failure.

— 22.05.2009: communications satellite "Meridian-2" launched a carrier rocket "Soyuz-2.1a" an unplanned orbit due to premature cut-off thrust the third stage, which is why the use of the satellite's purpose became impossible;

Again, the accident occurred 25.05.2009. The satellite is used for its intended purpose but was not included in the Unified Satellite Communication System (ECS).

— December 2009: loss of a single (at the time) of the Russian scientific satellite "Coronas-Photon", launched into space in January, because of the "revaluation of battery life"; direct damage as a result of the failed "years of work" has made more than 173 million;

— April 2010: the loss of the satellite "Express — AM1";

Again, the satellite can not be called on it were being lost faults but he is now working. Because of the shooting time for the intended purpose only 12 hours in a day, but it is still not lost.

— 05/12/2010: three GLONASS-M satellites, which orbit the conclusion supposed to complete the formation of a national global positioning system, have fallen into the ocean because of refilling and a half tons of liquid oxygen upgraded Block DM-3 booster rocket "Proton-M"; damage $ 2.5 billion;

— 01.02.2011: failed launch military satellite "Geo-IK-2" on the launch vehicle "rumble", which is due to problems with the control system booster "Briz-KM" was on the non-targeted orbit, and three months later burned in the atmosphere;

— 18.08.2011: emergency launch telecommunication satellite "Express-AM4", after the normal operation the carrier rocket "Proton-M" has a problem in the control system (affected bug planted in sequence diagram) booster "Briz-M", which is why satellite was placed in an unplanned orbit with the impossibility of purpose; damage amounted to 7.5 billion rubles;

— 24.08.2011: due to problems with the engine third stage rocket "Soyuz-U" in 342 seconds of flight was lost cargo spacecraft "Progress M-12M", which fell along with the third stage in the Altai taiga. It was the first loss of the "Progress" in 33 years of flying ships (of 135 starts) since 1978;

Not at 342 and 325 seconds.

— 09.11.2011: failure to launch interplanetary space station "Phobos-Grunt" — after the release of the intermediate orbit around Earth undetermined reason to fire the engines of migratory unit, which is why the station is not able to enter the path to Mars. Direct damage is estimated at 5.2 billion rubles without the cost of the carrier rocket "Zenit";

5 billion is the cost of the detailed design, development, etc., etc. Projects are not closed and is scheduled to launch the spacecraft "Phobos-Grunt 2" in 2018 And the cost of spacecraft (SC), "Phobos-Grunt" 1.2 billion.

— 23.12.2011: blast the third stage of the carrier rocket "Soyuz-2.1b" with the launch of the satellite "Meridian";

— 06.08.2012: the loss of two telecommunications satellites, "Express-MD2" and the Indonesian Telcom-3 because of a manufacturing defect (clogged highways boost extra fuel tanks of fuel) engine booster "Briz-M" with the launch of the "Proton-M". Direct damage (excluding partial insurance recoveries) 6.5 billion.

When you look at this list, there are different ideas. First of all, if we started to let the priests sprinkled holy water rockets before the start paying their "contribution" to the reliability of starts from the state budget, then you need to be consistent and to prohibit by law to call our companions "Express" — the removal of this unfortunate name pereimovanie as "Breeze" in any "Shining Path", should significantly reduce the number of accidents. But secondly, seriously, it should be noted that while in the past, "fruitful" for space accident year by the middle of August, we have already lost two spacecraft (in two accidents upper stage "Breeze"), then this year the unfortunate start on August 6 was the first, but with the loss of two satellites, including one foreign language. According to the number of emergency starts — there is a positive trend. According to the severity of losses — nothing has changed, and at the international level even worse. I remember somewhere reading: "Fools are fewer, but their quality has improved."

Thirdly, the causes of accidents are very diverse — they are due to abnormal operation of engines last stages, boosters, failures in their systems of management and on-board systems of the spacecraft, irregularities and errors in the prelaunch of rockets and spacecraft … Troubles arise at different stages of the product life cycle — from production, through testing and prelaunch preparation to work in orbit. Such a variety of reasons says that the problem is not in one place, it is everywhere, all over the place and has a systemic character.

All of our accidents are the outward manifestation of a deep systemic crisis in the space industry, the existence of which was obvious for a long time, but to openly admit it could only new leadership in the face of Russian Federal Space Agency Vladimir Popovkin at the end of last year, after the failure of the launch of "Phobos-Grunt". Former head of the Federal Space Agency Anatoly Perminov, who held the post until April of last year, did not notice the hard systemic nature of cosmic accidents, trying to rectify the situation by local innovations and individual personal punishments. But without a proper diagnosis, treatment was useless …

So how seriously ill the Russian space program? Let's try to understand.

Russia has never been a "great space power."

To begin with, Russia has never been a "great space power." Such was the power of the USSR, who gave the world the first Sputnik, the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, the first woman astronaut — Valentina Tereshkova, the first space crew (Vladimir Komarov, Konstantin Feoktistov and Boris Yegorov, a spaceship "Voskhod-1"), the first exit open space Alexei Leonov, the first space station, the first soft landing on the moon, Venus, Mars …

Then we really were the first. But between the Soviet Union and Russia is a huge difference, a difference in everything — in the political system, economy, production facilities, resources, the mentality of the people. What was on the forces of the USSR, Russia for a number of policy reasons, do not do that. After all, she appeared in the throes of a very large, accompanied by the loss of a large part of the territory, population and industry, breach of economic relations, the economic crisis, accompanied by hyperinflation and impoverishment of the population, national default, taking on the public debt
of the former Soviet Union, dramatically reduced the responsibility and competence of the government. We actually lost a high-technology industry, the Russian science (applied and fundamental) ekes out a miserable existence. As for the space, we have lost a number of critical industry enterprises, which were in the former Soviet republics. You can only bring two of the most striking examples. Our Baikonur worth more than $ 50 billion, the only one with which we can start all types of rockets available to us, stayed in Kazakhstan, and the largest in the USSR "Yuzhny Machine-Building Plant" missile production — in Ukrainian Dnipropetrovsk.

What about the construction of Spaceport East. About the author has simply "forgotten."

Followed the collapse of the Soviet Union's economic decline in their relative scale comparable to the Nazi occupation of the European part of the Soviet Union in the period 1941-1942., With the only difference being that our grandfathers fought then with an external enemy in the united states, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the "dashing "1990 each could survive as a state, is not much different from total anarchy. In this case, the leadership of the country had the task is not to save the national economy, but rather shocking way to translate it to capitalism. Understanding the power of the country is facing problems and solutions clearly shows an example, in the mid-1990s. narrated by the author of the head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs Arkady Volsky, who was present at the meeting academician Julia Chariton, chief designer and supervisor of the KB-11 (Arzamas-16), with President Boris Yeltsin. Worried almost complete cessation of funding for the work, the "father" of our nuclear weapons in the hearts of Boris Nikolayevich asked directly:

— I do like the President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed forces of Russia ask — the country needs nuclear weapons or not?

And I heard this response:

— You are there for themselves in Sarov that themselves can not understand?

What can we say about the space program? Accordingly, for nearly 15 years, the entire industry is not funded properly, losing personnel and production capacity. No one involved in the preparation of new professionals, software, upgrading and updating of fixed assets. In the paddock was full of space science, industry institutions survive as best they could, on a starvation diet, losing people, laboratories, research schools. They left the most talented, enterprising and promising. There remained only the opportunists who are not able to find a different place, or people who have been unable to part with his beloved work. And, of course, the veterans, which was too late to change anything in life.

The problem was that the new people, especially young people, do not come into the industry for the past 15 years. And those who came, quickly went "on the side" to see the material and career prospects. After all, the young need to get families to acquire housing, they want to live a normal life, which could not give them space program. At a bare romance "dusty paths of far planets' life can begin, but it can not be built.

As a result, the space industry formed a strong cadre generation gap size in 15-20 years. For the high-tech industry is very much …

To move forward, every team needs continuity of experience, ideas, skills, work methodology, design schools that are passed on from one generation to another specialist. This requires co-existence in one production (creative, scientific, engineering, etc.) among people of different generations. In coming to his college days in the young professional team is enthusiastic, but no experience. And by the books in the young mind and the reality of the production process of modern high technology enterprise so great distance that the intern did not even once can all understand, it requires at least some experience, to turn out for the first few years of operation. And only after that it starts to fully learn from the experience of veterans, becoming a true professional. Therefore, the apex of his creativity between the ages of 30-45 years, the most productive years. When has the experience, ability to work independently, but the head is still fresh, it is easy to perceive the new. This is a middle management rulers of teams, departments, sectors, laboratories, offices, departments. Above them and around them have grown wise veterans to help councils and subordinate — growing young professionals. The most hard-working team — is the one in which the three age groups (up to 30 years, 30-45 years, and the start of 45 years) are approximately equal, the proportion of old people approaching retirement age should not exceed 20-25%, and most importantly — a "retired "there should be no right to" veto "when making major decisions. So it must be …

And what we have with us? No middle, the most fruitful link 30-45-year-olds, the core of any normal team. Young animals, which are not always able to learn from the veterans of pre-and zapensionnogo age not only because of the difference between the professional level, but because of the mental differences of generations. Not surprising — the first can not imagine myself without tablets and other trendy gadgets, and the latter do not always know how to turn on a desktop computer.

15 years in the industry were not new footage, and now the problem is not solved in a few years, by any means, even an infusion of money. This problem became public, it is not only space, but equally applies to all of our engineering. More precisely, the residual. And it should also be addressed at the state level. With the return of the authority of engineering work, the technical education of schoolchildren, with the promotion of astronautics at school, with the termination of the emasculation of the school program and return it to the priority of the exact sciences (mathematics, physics, and astronomy), with the discovery of forgotten "young technicians 'stations'. You need to change the mentality of the public with a predominance of "Lawyers and Economists", because of which the graduate school does not want to be an engineer, designer, or technologist, not wanting to look at the stars overhead. How can we talk about the development of astronautics in the country, which has repeatedly forced to extend an open set in the cosmonaut due to lack of applicants?

We need to work to improve the prestige of the technical high schools (higher scholarship, providing dormitories, exemption from military service, guaranteed employment and so on.), And a system of measures to fix graduates in enterprises (higher material interest, the creation of career prospects, housing). If every technical college graduate who came to work in the space program, would receive 5 years housing — sure, in 5 years the problem of personnel in the industry will disappear. But today's businesses simply can not solve the housing problems of its own employees, the industry here can not cope without government support.

None of this is not, and there is a moral and intellectual aging labor groups, where they exist. Our veterans no backs, they have no one to share their knowledge and experience. It is commonly thought that aging can only separate people. But it can get old and the team — when the bulk of its employees are approaching retirement age, he no longer accept new. At best, it will give out long outdated production technology level of the last century. With archaic labor productivity is low.

In our today's space program, there is another problem with the staff — the loss of skills. After all, even those few employees who are now 45-50 years, the last 15 years have not improved their skills, and lost it.
Lack of funding — is the lack of creative work, new breakthrough projects. If there are no new ideas and programs, the level of the industry is falling, it loses its ability to develop, but it increases the number of "warm" sites. And today's leaders — is not experienced professionals who have grown up on the interesting and important projects, and in the best case — just "dosidevshie to gray hairs" and peresevshie in its current chair. Well, at worst — all sorts of thieves and relatives of their superiors.

We lost a whole layer of professional managers, not having received and nurtured them. And abroad will not help us here, as it is possible in other "light" industries — aerospace is an integral part of our defense industry with its state secrets, and other forms of tolerance regime's restrictions. The problem of lack of modern management, among others, are not solved by "one-two!", It requires systematic work, cost and time.

Catastrophic situation with the staff to match and production problems. The main part of the production equipment is completely worn out, it has become outdated and obsolete and is for all conceivable life and depreciation rates. In fact, today we are working on machines, not much younger than those for whom going to the "Vostok-1" by Yuri Gagarin.

Of the enterprises, the replacement of worn-out assets — is directly state problem. The enterprises without their own means, often balancing on the verge of bankruptcy, this problem does not overpower. Without solving this problem, we will not be able to raise the extremely low efficiency of production to the level of productivity in order (!) Is lower than in developed countries.

Today, for the Russian space program — a suitcase without a handle — and throw a pity, and be uncomfortable. All that we have and what we use — created in Soviet times. After the collapse of the USSR, we were not able to create anything in our space program essentially new. We fly on the Soviet spacecraft "Soyuz" launches on the Soviet missiles from the Soviet cosmodrome. All attempts to create a new Russian manned spacecraft have so far failed. In the mid-2000s, we created the "Clipper", then instead of PCA (prospective manned transportation system), now — PTKNP (manned transport ship the new generation).First Clipper we did not create, he just won the competition which was later closed. This means that Roskosmos officially clipper did not take a new project. And in the second PCA is complex (RN vklechaet development and PTK NP) and PTK NP is itself kosmochesky unit and PTK NP has formally accepted as a future date spacecraft. Recently, the Russian Federal Space Agency heard of doubts about the feasibility of creating a new ship before the end of the service life of the ISS (2020). We continue to fly in the "Soyuz", the ideology of which was laid by Sergei Korolev back in 1960, and we are proud to announce the "most reliable" after the decommissioning of U.S. space shuttles. Given the fact that the U.S. has now developed several types of new space ships (one of which is intended for deep space), the current situation can be visualized in this example:

Our neighbor yesterday sold his old "Mercedes". Now he is waiting for the arrival of the dealership already paid two new cars ("Lamborghini" and "Maserati") and saving up money for a new "Ferrari", which is about to travel abroad. And for a few days until he came to the new car, he asked us for a ride this an old bike. This gave us a reason to swell with pride for our "most reliable car" and declare itself to the world as the "leader of the world automotive industry."

It is wrong to describe the political situation of the Americans because they have not yet created your spaceship. And if the author does want to describe the situation so why did not he say the same thing about the PCA and the spaceport East.

Funny? But in space all is well …

Absolutely not.

The situation with the new launch vehicles, we are no better ships. Periodically (and disappear) projects missiles "Aurora", "Yamal", "Rus-M" … The new Russian carrier rocket "Angara" created almost 20 years (Government Ordinance of 15.09.1992), but it has amazing quality — the last 5-6 years its planned launch date has consistently match the expression "… two years," ie, after two years from the date. In 2008, the first launch planned for 2010, in 2010 — for 2012, and now — at the beginning of the year 2014. Block "Angara" is not even twice managed to fly to the South Korean rocket "Naro" (both start-up failures), and tests, including fire and missiles — is not. What else? Permanent modification of the carrier rocket "Soyuz", first appeared in Sergei Korolyov 40 years ago.

The program carrier rocket Rus-M was resumed in 2012. Eshe is not clear where the author took that creating cancerethno-space complex "Aurora" was closed. A RN Yamal voobshe razrabatyvatsya started back in the USSR.

Most "new" Russian rocket, the first launch from Plesetsk which is scheduled for October of this year — "Soyuz-2.1V", is in fact a central block of the same "royal" R-7 rocket that launched the first Sputnik October 4, 1957 although with a different engine NK-33 created at the turn of 1960-1970 for the other missiles S. Korolyov — Moon H-1, which was to deliver a Soviet man on the moon. Excluding contemporary nuances, "Soyuz-2.1V" in fact, is a novel combination of the same old "Soviet" cubes.

Where our missiles are flying today? With the "Soviet" Baikonur and Plesetsk. The new high-grade Plesetsk East that allows for manned launches from our national territory, created in late 2007. Original plan to begin unmanned launches from the East in 2011, piloted — 2018-go, but the reality is: the first stage (for unmanned launches) hardly earns no earlier than 2020, the year after them — manned.

East had been recorded since 2007. In 2007, the first stone was placed in the construction of the East. Nobody planned to begin launching in 2011 bespelotnye as nastojashee construction only began in 2012 (and what time frame than shove, the construction goes according to plan).

Here is the portrait of a modern domestic space — the "Soviet" margin of safety over, cracked from all the seams in the form of a series of accidents in different formal reasons. And these accidents are added to the mosaic outward manifestation of a systemic crisis that has engulfed the entire industry as a whole. The possibility of Soviet space ran out, and Russian and there is no …

But there is one advantage — became aware of the systemic crisis. At the very least, top officials after the head of the Russian Federal Space Agency is not afraid to use this term. It would seem that the correct diagnosis is made, the case for the right treatment. And here is the obvious glaring difference between the competence of the Soviet leadership and the current juridical-journalistic personalities.

The fact is that even the right way out of the crisis, it is necessary to be clear about — why and where. But with this we have really bad …

Why Russian space?

Between the present and the Soviet era, there is one crucial difference — the Soviet space program had the goal of development. Yes, this goal has largely been a military and ideological, but it is — was. We had to be first, we proved to the world the superiority we have conquered nature and explore the space.

In contrast with our Russian space primarily manned, there is another global problem — the loss goals. Why do we fly into space? What each of us as a taxpayer has his pocket astronauts flying over your head? What are they doing there? For what purpose? What will be there tomorrow? What we will benefit from it? What is the purpose of the existence of an entire space industry? Well, except proforage directly involved in it? These questions have no clear answers … But they should be, any reasonable activity involves the ultimate goal.

And you do not fly voobshe offers?

Moreover, space is so time-consuming and resource-consuming activity, in the society if there is a doubt it necessary, already follows from this that there is this necessity. In other words, if our society is no answer to the question "Why do you need space?" Then we do not need space. Only in this way, and nothing else.

The current federal space program, the secret of its bulk volume, only gives the answers to the question "What do I do?" Answers for scarce circle of initiates, feeding on the establishment of the "what". But there is no answer, either for them or for us, the whole of society as a whole, the main question, "Why?" A clear, simple and understandable goal of our space activities, which explains this is the "why" is obvious to all and adopted by all.

In the form of the question lies the circle of people who need to find and formulate a response — it must be competent, recognized authorities, people from society. No officials, not politicians, not appointees from the top, not employees of the industry, looking for a job as an excuse for their own costly existence, namely members of the public. The strategic goal can not be developed within the industry. Especially one that has to be taken over by society, because require it some effort (intellectual and material costs in the form of financial, material and human resources in many areas).

We (the nation, people, society) ask yourself this question, why us in the person of our distinguished, the real authority, must find (formulate) response indicating a future goal of Russian man in space.

Space — is everything, this is an enduring part of our history and the category that defines our national identity. You can not repeat the methodology of public decision-making in recent years, thanks to which said first goal does not become national. For example, a few people because of their own ambitions, have decided that we need the Winter Olympics on the subtropical resort. As a result, the Olympic Games in Sochi was only to those people and their environment, reap the personal benefits. The same can be said of the APEC summit in Vladivostok, and much more. This transitory purpose, the implementation of which will have significant and long-term consequences for the national economy. But with the space we can not make a mistake.

As an example, this is solved in the U.S.? The Program of landing a man on the moon began with the famous speech of President John F. Kennedy's May 23, 1961: "… There was a time of great accomplishments, while a great new American enterprise, when our people have to take a clear lead in the space achievements, and this — the key to our future in the world … I believe that our people can set ourselves the task to the end of the decade to land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth. " And a nation, as one, mobilizing all the resources brilliantly solves the problem of Neil Armstrong landing on the moon July 20, 1969. On the establishment of the shuttle in January 1972 announced another American president — Richard Nixon. How to look for a cosmic purpose America now? President Barack Obama with the participation of NASA created in the summer of 2009, a special independent (from the space agency NASA) commission chaired by former Defense Minister and President of Lockheed Martin Corporation Norman Augustine, which also included another nine former and current heads of the companies, in varying degrees of space-related , scientists, engineers, astronauts and a retired Air Force general. The Commission holds public meetings at which their proposals could perform all comers, and prepared the final report, which became the basis of a new national policy. Policy (in the person of President Barack Obama) give voice to that goal, and Space Administration (similar to our Russian Space Agency) — only serves as a division of the executive branch. Under the supervision of the Congress and Senate committees.

We also search for the meaning of space concerned only space agency, designed to target space-related activities to perform, but do not look for. Government, the Federation Council, State Duma before any work there, they are to formulate the problem can neither themselves nor with the participation of the society. As a result, the national space policy in Russia does not exist. The people in charge of the space program in the Government of Russia, do not understand why it is needed and what to do with it.

Here's how to develop problems of space activities at us — l
ook at the sequence of recent events:

— 23/12/2011 Dmitry Rogozin, appointed deputy prime minister in charge of the military-industrial complex, including the space program. It is logical to assume that the designated person for this position, as they say, "in the subject." But not in a hurry, use our Government has long made by other criteria.

— 26.12.2011: Prime Minister Vladimir Putin at 17:28 (time to RIA "Novosti") indicates that "the control system in the space sector is insufficient," and instructs at 20:06 Rogozin to "deal with the problems in the space industry." It should be understood that the evening on December 26, Dmitry Rogozin, curator of space for its problems, I'm sorry, "no ear or snout." And he is a humanitarian, non-technical and economic education, having no managerial experience (except guide political movement "Homeland"), begins to "understand" …

— 29.12.2011, he said that the "Strategy of development of the space industry" will bring to the Cabinet within 50 days. " Remember this date — it's the end of February. Who writes this "strategy …"? An independent commission? The device Rogozin? No, he wrote a program of the Federal Space Agency of their industry. I should give credit V.Popovkinu — he, the officer, who put on a post not to dream, but to work within the framework of the approved plans and the released funds and time, began writing industry development strategy. Implementing the principle — if there is no one, then — he as you know, as best you can. Life Saving handiwork of … disciple asks himself the homework for tomorrow — but what if yesterday appointed a teacher at all in the subject of "no belmesa" and ask other teachers they simply do not come to mind … And one there to ask? Here's how Rogozin forms his entourage, following, as he tweeted, "only one criterion — the professionalism of + devotion to the interests of the country." The professional level of his "team" characterize the first destination: the head of the Secretariat, he appoints his former chief of staff of the faction "Rodina" in the State Duma D.Stupakova, as a new member of the Military-Industrial Commission, the former first deputy head of the faction "Rodina" in the State Duma Kharchenko. Stupakova attitude to the military-industrial complex of the country could not figure out at all, but it is known for professionalism Kharchenko: after four years of military service, he worked for six years director of the Krasnodar regional library collector, then 4 years — deputy director for the production of SUE "Kuban news", well then — parliamentary activity. A sort of visual realization of the Leninist principle that "every cook can govern the state."

— February 4, 2012 in Voronezh V.Popovkin "Rogozin outlined the strategy for the development of the space industry by 2030," ie, bear his allotted 50-day period. Characteristically, for a given question on Twitter on February 6, "… any plans to public discussion of the developed strategy of domestic space to [its] decision?" — Rogozin says, "No, this decision will be taken by professionals — general designer, scientists, industrialists, military and of course the government. " In other words, a society in the development of space activities is not involved, and the range of "professionals" unknown. And do not say whether this strategy is unclassified. But, as we shall see later, Vladimir Popovkin thinks otherwise, knowing that without public support for space exploration in the current environment is dead, and later her project will be discussed, albeit to a limited range of representatives "okolokosmicheskoy public" before its approval. We note in passing the level of understanding in other industries Rogozin defense — that he, for example, wrote in his Twitter account during a trip to Kazan: "The representatives of the Tatar told the defense industry … about what to do with them."

— February 16 Rogozin, speaking at the Federation Council, told MPs on how to run the state plans to modernize the military-industrial complex. Rapporteur he was V.Popovkin, formulated "facing the aerospace industry task as achieving a six-fold increase in a decade of productivity and increasing the share of new equipment up to 50%, and technology — up to 87% percent."

-February 28, 2012 Dmitry Rogozin, speaking through the "government hour" in the State Duma, said: "… problems with the rocket and space technology, do not have any clearly defined measure of corruption." He does not see corruption, or does not want to see? It turns out that this leprosy know everything but Rogozin — more November 10, 2011 I was in a BBC interview, said that "the main problem of our space — is corruption," see…111109_space_budget.shtml. In fact, any changes in the industry (re, engaging staff, etc.) require funds, but their separation is only meaningful when they are working, not plundered. Moreover, only in the absence of embezzlement of funds due to the investments depends on their size. But we have something quite the opposite — in recent years, funding for space is increasing, while the number of accidents is increasing. Here are the numbers: In 2005, the Russian Federal Space Agency budget of around 24 billion rubles, which was about 10 times more than in 2002. Gradually increasing to 2008 space budget rose to 40 billion rubles. Since 2009, the Federal Space Agency began to receive some 100 billion annually. And it is the year 2009 opens our list of accidents that have occurred before, but in 2009 began to grow like an avalanche … However, according to Rogozin, banal saw cut 30% of the budget (30 billion) annually, "do not have a salient corruption measure. " By "corruption" Rogozin understands only bribe at the conclusion of Equi

Like this post? Please share to your friends: