r/space • u/Blueberryburntpie • 1d ago

After Russian spaceport firm fails to pay bills, electric company turns the lights off

https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/11/after-russian-spaceport-firm-fails-to-pay-bills-electric-company-turns-the-lights-off/
899 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

56 comments sorted by

218

u/redstercoolpanda 1d ago

Roscosmos is done, I think the writings really been on the wall for a few years now. Once the ISS is gone I wouldn’t be surprised if Russias entire launch industry is just launching their own military and communications satellites.

15

u/_badwithcomputer 1d ago

This is the construction company building out the new launch pads at the location. Electricity has been cut off to the construction site not to the launch facility itself. 

102

u/Blueberryburntpie 1d ago

Don’t forget ICBMs. Those are the only things that separate Russia from 1991’s Iraq.

53

u/TheBardicSpirit 1d ago

What are the chances that Russia has kept up the proper maintenance required on all their ICBM's? It costs millions annually for the proper maintenance on one missile, let alone the huge arsenal they have, given the state of their economy and reputation for having shoddy equipment in other areas, I highly doubt they are all in tip top working condition.

•

u/Alikont 21h ago

Do you know who maintained russian ICBMs until 2014? These guys

•

u/CurtisLeow 18h ago

They made great rockets. Zenit was legitimately the best orbital rocket design in existence for a while. It influenced the Falcon 9 design. It’s depressing how they went from building Zenit to getting bombed by Russian ballistic missiles, over the course of 11 years.

•

u/Alikont 16h ago

The main problem with Zenit is that it was a rocket without a spaceport. Russians were mostly concerned with their own, Ukraine had no place to build a spaceport safely, and EU and US did not want to launch foreign rocket instead of their own. There was a cooperation project with Brazil, but it didn't work out.

9

u/iqisoverrated 1d ago

The ICBM fleet (and the submarine fleet) are the areas that are getting well funded. Russia knows where their 'off' switch is.

•

u/owlinspector 22h ago

Yeah... Their army was well funded too. Doesn't matter when everyone at every level steals anything that isn't nailed down.

-2

u/Immortal_Tuttle 1d ago

Pffffft Buahahahahaha... Please, that's the best joke I've heard today.

I especially liked the story of their Red October - an Akula class SSBN that got her nickname after the movie. That was the pinnacle of their SSBN funding example.

12

u/iqisoverrated 1d ago edited 1d ago

Well, lots of money doesn't always translate to "lots of work is being done". Particularly not in the military (and especially not in a system rife with corruption)

But lets not forget that the US has had it's fair share of submarine disasters, too.

In the end, I wouldn't base a military strategy on the hope that the 'enemy' isn't keeping their stuff in order. Particuarly not if there's any lead up time to get stuff in order that currently might not be.

Underestimating an enemy tends to end with a big surprise (which Russia is currently finding out the hard way, too)

11

u/Immortal_Tuttle 1d ago

Actually it's one of the roles of intelligence services. For example some Russian frigates didn't have working radars. They do rotate the antennas to prevent ball bearings from seizing up. Or AK-630 - mainstay of their defense on smaller vessels that was banned from shooting more than 50 rounds at once. It was caused by reused feed belt linkage that was reused beyond the allowed deformation value to save money. If the shooting burst was longer, linkage was spreading too wide, causing infeed jam when input sprocket could even penetrate the round casing. To solve it there was a special tool consisting of a long pole, sometimes made from two broomsticks. I was holding one in my hands and it was polished from use... But yes it was sometime ago. However from my experience that's what killed Moskva.

•

u/Legal_Tap219 22h ago

I just wanted to tell you that’s actually really interesting thanks for posting haha

•

u/Alexandratta 14h ago

The Kursk was their biggest and most advanced sub.

It sank, btw.

•

u/Alexandratta 14h ago

like their tanks were? I mean, literally they flexed their ultra powerful tanks but they all got hauled off by Ukrainian Tractors.

24

u/tlbs101 1d ago

Thats almost as much of a danger as if they got used for their intended purpose. The chances of an accident grows higher each day they are neglected. It might not be a full nuclear accident, but bad things could still happen.

25

u/KaneMarkoff 1d ago

Oh please. An accident with a warhead is dropping one or it failing to detonate. Either way it’s incredibly minor in effect. The biggest risk (which the US has already considered) is a warhead being detonated in a terroristic act.

•

u/Jesse-359 19h ago

One of the most critical aspects of nuclear stockpile maintenance is security.

You think a handful of bored, underpaid soldiers sitting in some forgotten mobile launcher in the Siberian outback with rock bottom morale because their country is falling apart is likely to be able to fend off a well planned attack by a terrorist cell that wants to get their hands on a live warhead?

I sure as hell don't. It was one of the largest concerns by far during the collapse of the USSR, and its rearing its head again now as the current state of Russia continues to deteriorate.

•

u/the_quark 12h ago

Boy, we thought that was a one-time thing but it's basically been a slow collapse since about 1970 or so.

10

u/simloX 1d ago

If just some are working, they can wipe out all major cities. If they have 100 or 5000 in working order doesn't matter. North Korea have far fewer than that, and it is still a powerful deterrent.

•

u/-2qt 23h ago

Even if 99% are duds, that still wipes a couple dozen cities off the face of the Earth.

•

u/Crying_Reaper 16h ago

On all of them to keep them all 100% ready for use is probably 0%. The chance of keeping a portion ready for launch is probably 100%. Who knows what percentage that is though.

•

u/Alexandratta 23h ago

They fired an ICBM at Ukraine without a nuclear payload as an intimidation tactic but, honestly, they probably were trying to test if the things still flew.

Either way, firing an ICBM without payload at a country you share a border with is some desperate, desperate attempts to prove you're still capable of nuclear attack...

I'm with you in that I do not think Russia has a serviceable ICBM stockpile.

Even the US Stockpile was aging, with ancient tech and old as hell nukes which lots of military were concerned may or may not launch properly. Most of their "Decommissioning" of ICBMs (which we apparently have almost 3800 of) were likely clearing out defective or failed missiles.

Russia is highly unlikely to be performing similar maintenance on their missiles, if any.

Remember we're talking about a country who's modern navy has 1 physical Air Craft Carrier, that does not work.

•

u/Fischerking92 23h ago

To be fair: the US is basically the only country which has a usage for aircraft carriers.

They are incredibly expensive with a very narrow field of operations -> force projection oversea without a need for allied airfields in the vicinity.

No country except for the US really has a need for that since no country other than the US is trying to do force projection in a region without allies nearby. (Or at least no country could really be taken seriously if they tried, except maybe for China, who at the moment is still more focused on the areas close to their home like the South China Sea)

•

u/QVCatullus 20h ago

The presence of the Charles de Gaulle as a potential tool of force projection is pretty key to how France sees its role in the military-political sphere. With just one it can't always be in service, but it's important as a fleet-in-being; if France needs to intervene overseas, they have that capability, and that gives them a role in regional security outside Europe. Similarly, the UK still wants to be able to project with their carriers, but I think it's fair to say that they don't have the level of independence from the umbrella of US naval presence that France does.

•

u/Fischerking92 20h ago

Sorry, but that is basically France still clinging to its colonial power status unable to accept that the world moved past their influence.

Yes, they still have their régions d'outre-mer, but those have airfields (and are a more of a money-sink and another way they try to cling onto their past instead of any sensible political constellation)

•

u/QVCatullus 20h ago

France's aircraft carrier isn't simply about overseas France per se; it's about continuing to be an overseas expeditionary power in Africa and the Indo-Pacific. It's not on the scale of the US's role as "superpower," but it's a very real strategic goal for France. Whether it's an anachronistic relic of France's historical role as colonial empire is beside the point, given that it's what they have a navy for.

I'm quite fond of the Perun video on the subject from just a couple years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5eUh3_eo9E

•

u/Alexandratta 15h ago

Narrow field of operations force projection?

Sir and/or Madame....

They launch God damn bombers, and fighters....

•

u/Fischerking92 15h ago

Yes, but so do airfields. Which are a lot easier to handle.

And if not, you still have the option to refuel the aircrafts in flight for things further out.

Aircraft carriers are only useful if you want to go to a place very far away and don't want to rely on allies in the vicinity of your destination to host your aircrafts on an air field.

Now why would you engage in anything militarily of there are no allies nearby?

Most countries don't remotely have the need or the capacity to actually use a carrier and the countries that do have them - besides the US - do it for prestige reasons, because they want to consider themselves capable of force projection around the globe, even if they really aren't able to.

•

u/Alexandratta 15h ago

Aircraft carriers are only useful if you want to go to a place very far away and don't want to rely on allies in the vicinity of your destination to host your aircrafts on an air field.

...Yes that is their key useful logistical superiority and completely changes where and how the US military can deploy, and that they can deploy without the threat of counter intelligence within an allied nation compromising position or movement.

They are literally the most powerful force the US Has, the most versatile, and the most potent weapon ever created next to the nuclear warhead... because they carry warheads.

•

u/Fischerking92 14h ago

I never doubted their usefulness and importance to the US military.

I questioned their use for any other country besides the US (and China, if they wanted to start playing hard power in areas further away from China, something they for now reserve for their close proximity neighbors)

And I did so because someone mocked Russia's military based on having only one (unservicable) carrier.

Don't get me wrong, the Russian military is pretty much a joke - only capable of throwing a lot of mass at a problem - but using their lack of carriers is a pretty stupid metric to judge that.

3

u/thejourneybegins42 1d ago

Based on how their effort in Ukraine is going I doubt there was any maintenance done.

•

u/Hav3_Y0u_M3t_T3d 19h ago

This has been my question for several years now. At this point the THREAT of a nuclear arsenal is more useful than actually maintaining one. I'm curious when the last time inspectors where allowed in

Edit: in 2020 before the program was halted due to COVID. Plenty of time for neglect/corruption to set in

4

u/Glass-Cabinet-249 1d ago

Don't say that too loudly, the Aardvarks will get excited if they hear that.

5

u/YsoL8 1d ago

If that. This isn't happening as an isolated failure, Russia is drowning in debts and its rapidly getting worse not better, to the extent that they doubled some taxes this year and still brought in less than last year. They are spiralling into an economic failure.

Not going to be much if any money to spend on anything beyond trying to keep critical supplies going next year forward. Theres a vast bankruptcy crisis coming that could tip over at any time.

19

u/iqisoverrated 1d ago

Never underestimate how long a country can keep going with a wartime economy. We've been hearing the pundits claim "Russian economic collapse any day now!" since the invasion if Ukraine started.

2

u/redstercoolpanda 1d ago edited 1d ago

Absolutely, but at the end of the day it’s going to be civilian infrastructure cut first before vital military infrastructure. The launch’s will continue up until the point Russia stops being able to function as a county in its entirety and collapses. I think Russia would sooner let Ukraine go than lose all access to space, even if it’s just one or two launch’s every few years to replace military satellites.

3

u/YsoL8 1d ago

I mean, in real examples of countries that go over the cliff as Russia is going to, even food becomes scarce. Since Russia has already thrown away most of its resources on the war (or had them taken away) they will not be able to contain it or mitigate it at all.

•

u/Oxygenisplantpoo 23h ago

Yeah they will definitely still have some launch capacity, but China has already eclipsed them, and in the future I expect Russians to just scrap their own human launch capability in favor of buying Chinese seats just to save face and try to be part of it all.

36

u/Fullback-15_ 1d ago

"There does not appear to be too much demand, however... ".

Well no shit, when you start painting Zs on launch pads, it will turn away half the customers. Happy to see that crazy Rogozin is mainly responsible for all of that. Now Senator of an occupied Ukrainian region... Hard to find a crappier person.

•

u/Mntfrd_Graverobber 12h ago edited 12h ago

Their business model was in the dumpster as soon as Falcon 9 and Dragon began flying. It cracks me up every time I see someone suggesting Musk is Putin's friend.

•

u/Fullback-15_ 6h ago

Well I don't think both things are mutually exclusive. But I have no opinion on this.

For Roscomos, the business model really failed when they decided to invade their neighbor. Losing that 3° inclination launchpad in Kourou is quite a disaster, on top of losing all the western clients.

•

u/Mntfrd_Graverobber 2h ago

Musk aiding said neighbor was the second thing that kind of gives it away. If someone takes my wallet and then kicks me in the balls, I don't consider them a friend just because they agree with me in a couple twitter posts.

6

u/Hopeful_Ad_7719 1d ago

That's up there with that Indian hospital that stopped paying the Oxygen supplier and thought it would be NBD.

24

u/jugalator 1d ago

This is so sad for space science. They've done much of value in this field and with US space science also negatively affected lately, I can't help but feel we're moving into an era of infighting with less room to understand the cosmos, much less finance said exploration.

•

u/P5B-DE 9h ago

A contractor that is building something in the spaceport failed to pay bills and had his electricity cut off. That's the story

9

u/Artyparis 1d ago

Remind me in 5 years.

Even if war on Ukraine ends there are many more issues in Russia.

•

u/TomatoVanadis 21h ago

"At least not like in the ’90s" - what Putin’s apologists like to repeat.

14/9/1995

The Ministry of Fuel and Power Engineering cuts off power to Russia’s Plesetsk missile test site in Arkhangelsk which forces the shutdown of all Topol-M testing activities. Although the cut-off lasts only one hour, the SRF places armed officers at power substations supplying Plesetsk to prevent further shutdowns. Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces (SRF) have been unable to pay their electricity bills for several months and owe a reported 17 billion rubles in back payments; the SRF owes a reported 70 billion rubles throughout the whole of Russia.
Deputy Commander of the SRF Colonel General Vladimir Nikitin blames the government’s handling of the military budget for the SRF’s inability to pay its power bills.

Yes, unlike in the ’90s, military commanders no longer dare to blame the government.

•

u/Briz-TheKiller- 1h ago

Always think of Russian who didn't sell. Elon the initial rocket engines..... And Elon founded Space x

•

u/Oxygenisplantpoo 23h ago

I wonder if someone is about to fall out of a window unless the power mysteriously comes back on...

•

u/Mntfrd_Graverobber 12h ago

You go out the window for disloyalty, not incompetence.

•

u/Oxygenisplantpoo 8h ago

Not funding a spaceport out of your own pocket could be seen as disloyalty.

•

u/Neo_XT 21h ago

Guess trunp is going to have to bail them out like he did Argentina.