Russia to spend $60M in 2016-2018 to fund space voyages to Moon, Mars

The project to create a nuclear-power transport module, intended to fly to the moon and Mars, will receive 3.81 billion rubles ($60 million) in funding in 2016-2018, according to the public procurement website.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The decision to design space transport powered by a megawatt-class nuclear power unit was made in 2010. As reported, the technical solutions embodied in the concept of transport and energy module will allow to solve a wide range of space tasks, including research programs on the moon and distant planets as well as establishing automated bases on them.

[Edit for brevity. --DJW001]

The new project involves the use of ionic electric jet engines, in which the jet thrust is created by accelerating the electric field of the ion flux. The nuclear reactor delivers the electric current required for this process, and radioactive substances do not make contact with the external environment. It is assumed that xenon will be used as the working fluid in the engine.

Source.

It is heartening to see Russia putting its resources towards the peaceful exploration of space. They seem more committed to developing a means of deep space propulsion than the United States, where the VaSIMIR drive is being under-funded amidst controversy. Nevertheless, between Russia and the United States, healthy competition means that the age of the "atomic rocket" dreamt of in the 1950s may soon be at hand.

Thanks. Something decent on ATS for a change.

Just need someone to mention it's already happened in their reality now...

I'm waiting for nano-spaceships

a reply to: DJW001

60Mil for Space exploration doesn't sound like much but it's exciting to hear that they are going to use nuclear propulsion instead of chemical. SnF for the great news!

a reply to: DJW001

I wonder how NASA will respond to this?...........

That's s pretty modest Hollywood production budget. They should be able to produce some good film.

Just kidding. Or maybe it's all a photo op for pootey.

a reply to: DJW001

The U.S. spends way more than $60 million over three years (2016-2018) on in-space propulsion technologies. Maybe it can be argued that VASMIR is underfunded, but they spend a lot of money on electrical propulsion systems (ion drives, etc.), PLUS they spend billions on preparing for a future manned mission to Mars.

Specifically on VASMIR technology, in 2015 NASA contracted with the private firm Ad Astra for $10 million over three years for VASMIR reasearch. Prior to that, NASA spent $100s of Millions on VASMIR though NASA's own Advanced Space Propulsion Laboratory (ASPL) since 1995 -- until VASMIR was privatized by NASA in 2005 under an agreement with Ad Astra to privately develop the technology further -- plus $30 million of capital from private sources raised by Ad Astra:

Ad Astra Rocket Company Wins Major NASA Advanced Propulsion Contract

NASA has awarded several contracts to private firms (and those firms then also raise private funding from other sources) for other deep-space capabilities and research. This Public-Private menthod seems to be a good approach, keeping a part of the burden off of the taxpayers and putting some of the burden on private firms to raise addition private funds (on top of NASA's award) needed for the research:

NASA Announces New Partnerships with U.S. Industry for Key Deep-Space Capabilities

But, like I said, NASA also spends tens of million per year on other advanced propulsion systems, such as ion propulsion.

Here is NASA's budget breakdown for FY (Fiscal Year) 2017. This also includes past budgets for 2015 and 2016, and proposed 2018-2021 budgets. $60 million (and that's what Russia is spending over THREE years) isn't much compared to the $19 Billion that NASA is proposing to spend in 2017 alone on various space exploration (such as new manned vehicles, new launch vehicles, in-space propulsion technologies, and Mars Mission earl planning), and Earth-based programs (such as terrestrial aviation technology). That $19 Billion includes hundreds of millions and even Billions of dollars on advanced propulsion and the development of future deep space manned missions -- among other things.

NASA's FY2017 President's Budget Request Summary
NOTE: LINK OPENS DIRECTLY TO AN 11MB PDF FILE

$60 million? It took $2.5 billion just for curiosity and it was non-manned.

Also wonder why everyone is getting in a hurry to get off earth? Seems like a lot of fast moving projects to colonize the moon and mars by 2040.

a reply to: lostbook

Nasa can go # themselves with a clown shoe #ing traitors.

a reply to: lostbook

60Mil for Space exploration doesn't sound like much but it's exciting to hear that they are going to use nuclear propulsion instead of chemical. SnF for the great news!

i wouldn't want to ride in a spacecraft that only cost 60mil, hell the f-35 C cost $337 million, and it still got bugs.

originally posted by: stabstab
a reply to: lostbook

Nasa can go # themselves with a clown shoe #ing traitors.

Geez, was that really necessary? Show me where on the doll the bad astronaut touched you...

a reply to: Orionx2

You're comparing apples to oranges, everything cost 10x more for NASA compared to the rest of the world. Dont underestimate Russia they destroyed you in the space race, and look at India and China's budget.
The rest of the world can do it and do it cheaper.

a reply to: DJW001

Meh Russia can not even afford to modernize their Navy, I don't buy this claim for a second.

originally posted by: defiythelie
a reply to: DJW001

Meh Russia can not even afford to modernize their Navy, I don't buy this claim for a second.

Russia knows that it cannot project power through military means, so it is desperately looking for a way to project soft power. Space exploration was the Soviet Union's most successful means of doing this, followed by ballet. Watch for a ballet offensive in the near future.

a reply to: muSSang

You're comparing apples to oranges, everything cost 10x more for NASA compared to the rest of the world.

NASA has always insisted on triple redundancy on its crewed missions, which traded cost for safety. They are less risk averse with uncrewed projects.

Dont underestimate Russia they destroyed you in the space race, and look at India and China's budget.

That is a bizarre claim. It is the Soviet Union, not the United States that no longer exists. The Soviet Union never put people on the Moon, nor sent a probe further than Mars or Venus. NASA has sent spacecraft to every planet in the Solar System. The United States built and flew the Space Shuttle, the most sophisticated spacecraft of all time. It fulfilled its operational lifetime and has been retired. Russia is still using the same Soyuz spacecraft the Soviets developed half a century ago.

originally posted by: muSSang
a reply to: Orionx2

You're comparing apples to oranges, everything cost 10x more for NASA compared to the rest of the world. Dont underestimate Russia they destroyed you in the space race, and look at India and China's budget.
The rest of the world can do it and do it cheaper.

LOL? Not sure what else to add. History is clear and not on your side.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: defiythelie
a reply to: DJW001

Meh Russia can not even afford to modernize their Navy, I don't buy this claim for a second.

Russia knows that it cannot project power through military means, so it is desperately looking for a way to project soft power. Space exploration was the Soviet Union's most successful means of doing this, followed by ballet. Watch for a ballet offensive in the near future.

Meh, they got to level of space exploration mostly because of Nazi scientists (the US too!). A space race or just trying to top NASA would cost way more then updating a few ships. But hey if Russia wants to bankrupt itself once again who am I to stop it?

Whatever. Russia claimed a mach 7 jet with no proof as well. Uh, nothing has came of that. There are other aircraft claims that are long on ambition but short on promise. Try lurking the Aircraft Projects pages for a while ...

And who cares? Already have tech beyond that! Do not need to go toe-to-toe with an opponenent already 30 years (+) behind.

What our current allies (US) have makes shuttles look like paper airplanes.

Just read sorce. Mega watt!!?????? Lame. Pretty sure Lockheed has 100 kW fusion (not fission) reactor(s). Big "nothing to see here".

IMO (self declared "fusion fanboy", in full disclosure).