Could/Should the Russians help us return to the Moon?

[willpittenger]

Do the Russians have anything to offer in our attempt to return to the Moon? If so, should we be seeking their help? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[BReif]

Why shouldn't the exploration of the he Moon be an international undertaking? Certainly the Russians could share the cost, share technology, etc.

 

[docm]

Yes, Russia has things to offer and we've invited them to do so along with ~12 other nations as regards thye proposed moonbase. That's not to say tech transfers should be done blindly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

willpittenger,<br /><br />To my mind, it is obvious that the United States would benefit tremendously by partnering with the Russians in our effort to return to the Moon. They have launch vehicles of several sizes, which have been proven, or have at least flown before, and can produce them at a fraction of the cost that we would face in building our own launch vehicles. To duplicate existing capability seems totally ludicrous to me, especially when doing so will take several years, and a large portion of a budget which is almost certainly inadequate to accomplish our stated goals. The Russian Klipper spacecraft could be operational in a year or two, if we were to switch the development budget from the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle to the Klipper.<br /><br />We could achieve a return to the Moon working with the Russians for a fraction of what it would cost us going it alone, and apply those savings to building the equipment that is really important, the stuff that we will need on the Moon. The way the budgets are looking, we could end up building a launch vehicle, and then run out of money to build the craft to make the journey to the Moon, as well as the habitats, solar power systems, rovers, etcetera, that we want to use on the Moon. So we would end up with a launch vehicle which not only duplicates existing capacity, as far as the EELV's are concerned, but which also competes with any private launch system.<br /><br />Building the Lunar exploration equipment will require a lot of engineers and technicians, so we can't claim that having the Russians provide the transportation will hurt our aerospace companies. And that equipment will be new, never-been-done-before type stuff, not rockets which we have been building in one shape or form for 20 some-odd years. We could leap frog past the whole launch vehicle development time frame and CEV development time frame right into the Lunar landing time frame, perhaps saving as much as ten years over what doing it on our o <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[mooware]

<yellow>"Do the Russians have anything to offer in our attempt to return to the Moon"</yellow><br /><br />Maybe the question would be... do WE have anything to offer the Russians when they go to the Moon?<br /><br />

 

[mooware]

I think this would be the best case scenario. Who knows, it might even help lead to world peace if we collaborate more and more.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Do the Russians have anything to offer in our attempt to return to the Moon? If so, should we be seeking their help?</font>/i><br /><br />The official NASA policy (which I agree with) is that the US will own the core capabilities -- transportation to the Lunar surface, basic communications, and basic EVA capability -- but everything beyond that is open to cooperation. Note: this doesn't mean that any other group can't or shouldn't duplicate these core capabilites. Having two independent means to access the Lunar surface would be a good idea in my opinion.<br /><br />But beyond that, NASA is looking for cooperative support for LOTS and LOTS of stuff.<br /><br />Side note: Russia insists that Belarus double what they currently pay Russia for natural gas and threatens to cut of gas to Belarus beginning Jan 1 (in the middle of winter!) if they don't agree. NASA doesn't want to be in this position.</i>

 

[j05h]

<i>> The official NASA policy (which I agree with) is that the US will own the core capabilities -- transportation to the Lunar surface, basic communications, and basic EVA capability</i><br /><br />US as in NASA or US as in US-based corporation? This is my major beef with ESAS/VSE. NASA is insisting on building an HLV that is going to take almost 20 years to finish, instead of starting now with reasonable, available launchers. We have excess launch capacity here in the States, but they refuse to use it. I just checked out the "MorphLab" lunar base concept, it could be built, flown and occupied for less than the cost of ARES V development. Imagine 6 people on the Moon for 3 months, for 26 Delta IVH launches. Instead of insisting on 100+ tons to LEO, why aren't they working inside current payload abilities? There is no logical reason to put off lunar exploration until after an HLV is flying.<br /><br />Can the Russians be useful partners? Sure, and no they shouldn't be in the critical path. This doesn't mean we should go about this in the slowest, stupidest and most dangerous (ATK) manner. NASA should be focusing on the hard stuff in getting there - the LEO to Lunar surface segment, and they should be doing it in the opposite manner they are pursuing. On top of that, they are delibrately violating the Launch Services Act by building/operating the new rockets. They are supposed to use commercial services whereever possible and have redefined the product so they can claim it's not available. <br /><br />Whatever. US business interests are going to beat NASA back to the moon at this rate. I'm not sure where Russia fits in the future, but right now they are willing to fly you around the Moon for about $100million. They could easily handle the Earth-LEO-LLO segment.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

halman,<br /><br />I find myself agreeing with you 99% of the time, but I have to take issue with your idea of using Russian LVs as the primary means of getting to the Moon under a US lead program.<br /><br />Unquestionably, Russia could play a major role in any effort to establish a lunar base. They have skills and technology that could significantly augment whatever the US, or any other country, were to apply to the endeavour. IMO, the establishment of a Lunar Base should be an international effort with a grand scope and the cooperation of all spacefaring nations...and those private organizations capable of participating.<br /><br />However, the logic of relying on Russian LVs seems misguided. I am of the opinion that the US should have its own transportation system. It's not just a matter of national prestige, though that's certainly part of it, but one of giving our own engineers and scientists the nation's vote of confidence in their abilities (not to mention a paycheck) as well as providing redundancy in the event of a problem with Russian systems...or their government.<br /><br />I like the idea of NASA purchasing cis-lunar transportation, or at least access to LEO, but I would much rather see the money for those purchases go into developing domestic private operators and supporting our economy than sending it to Russia to support theirs. OTOH, if some Russian company were able to provide some essential service (Energia comes to mind in regards to heavy lift) then it might make economic sense to do business with them.<br /><br />Another point of contention...<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"The Russians have done more to further off planet exploration than any other country, bar none."</font><br /><br />Frankly, this is just flat wrong, IMO. Name the last planetary exploration spacecraft sent out by the Russsians. Name one. The Soviet Union doesn't count, nor do failures. The Russians have done an excellent job of sending humans to LEO and making it as near a r <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">This is my major beef with ESAS/VSE. NASA is insisting on building an HLV that is going to take almost 20 years to finish, instead of starting now with reasonable, available launchers.</font>/i><br /><br />I have mixed feelings on this, but I think one major issue is politics. Many political leaders came out and said that the Moon2Mars recommendations would be dead on arrival if it included the closure of any NASA facilities. My interpretation of these comments is that NASA had to largely keep the existing workforce in place, and that probably had at least some effect on design decisions. To paraphrase Rumsfeld: "You go to the Moon with the workforce that you've got and not necessarily the workforce you might want."</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Whatever. US business interests are going to beat NASA back to the moon at this rate.</font>/i><br /><br />Someone needs to find a profitable business model in space that doesn't involve taking money from NASA. Space tourism is one obvious solution (as there are several companies pursuing this), and communication and earth sensing satellites already exist. However, I believe there needs to be something more.<br /><br />Can microgravity research and manufacturing reach a self-sustaining levels largely independent of government funding? Will GE manufacture turbine blades in space? Will Pfizer develop a drug that can only be effectively manufactured in microgravity environments? Will something be found on the Moon that can be effectively harvested (PGM, He-3, ?) for financial use on Earth?</i>

 

[willpittenger]

And what about the butcher of Tiemenn Square? The Russians are supposedly refusing to share technology with the Chinese that could help they reach the moon. Frankly, I think the Chinese might insist on going on their own. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

I concurr. Besides, too many people are going to complain about relying on the Russians. Look how long ISS was delayed due to their funding problems. Furthermore, shipping everything to the Russian launch sites would be a pain.<br /><br />When I asked, I figured we might invite them to send cosmonauts along on select flights. However, unless they provide equipment (beyond launch) for use in lunar orbit or the surface, I would limit those cosmonauts to junior positions.<br /><br />Incidentally, the only real interplanetary success that either the Soviets or the Russians had were the Venus balloons and landers they sent. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

First, some boosters aren't man rated. It would cost us as much to man rate some of them as it would to build a new design. For instance, the booster used for the Gemini project (Titan) was a big mistake. If a crew had to eject, they would do so into poisiness fumes.<br /><br />Second, requiring 26 launches would not be good. It would take us a long time to get those 26 items into orbit -- and then you have to assemble it. Think of ISS only on a much faster schedule. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[halman]

swampcat,<br /><br />Perhaps I am alone in thinking this way, but it seems to me that we could hire Russian companies to provide launch capacity, while at the same time taking Russia on as a partner in developing a lunar base. By viewing the Russian companies as contractors, we open up competition to provide those launch services as cheaply as is safely and reliably possible. Personally, I don't see any American company catching up with the Russian companies inside of 10 years, and even then only if a group of investors were to put up several billion dollars to develop a new, clean-sheet launch vehicle.<br /><br />I would dearly love to know that the United States was able to put people in orbit using a step-rocket, as well as having a heavy lift vehicle that could send 100 tons to the Moon. But the reality is that the ability does not exist, except for the shuttle being able to haul folks to Low Earth Orbit. Given sufficient time, and a much larger budget, certainly a home-grown launch system could be brought on line. However, the Ares concept is a response to a short time line and minimal funding. I am no rocket expert, but I am hearing a lot of people I consider to be well informed stating serious reservations about the Ares launch vehicle. Looking at the beast gives me the willies, which is certainly no scientific criticism, I know, but I can understand why people are saying that this rocket is not going to be able to perform its stated mission.<br /><br />And if it turns out that the Ares is a failure, what then? Do we go back to the drawing board, after asking Congress for billions more? Or does Congress decide that developing a new rocket is too expensive, and tell NASA to find some other way to get into space? How many years would we lose if this controversial rocket proves to be a flop? I remember the shuttle being controversial, but that controversy was over whether we needed it, not whether it would fly. We also have to be realistic about our budge <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> First, some boosters aren't man rated. It would cost us as much to man rate some of them as it would to build a new design.</i><br /><br />That's garbage. We're talking about Delta IV, Atlas V, SpaceX and possibly SeaLaunch. I can guarantee you they will not cost anywhere near the cost of developing ARES I to "man rate". Lockheed is probably going to do Atlas V 401 regardless of NASA. Bringing up Titan is not useful, as it is no longer flown. The current EELVs could be brought up to human safety standards fairly easily. <br /><br /><i>> Second, requiring 26 launches would not be good. It would take us a long time to get those 26 items into orbit -- and then you have to assemble it. Think of ISS only on a much faster schedule.</i><br /><br />You didn't bother reading about MorphLab at all. The individual components meet on the lunar surface, not as a massive object in LEO. They rely on Delta IVH as a launcher, can survive the destruction of several units while maintaining function and are mobile over several thousand kilometers. Think of a flock of ducks landing and huddling together, not ISS. Think next-generation. <br /><br />Since you've never heard of Google:<br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/morphlab.htm<br /><br />Back to the subject, what is most useful that Russia can offer? The most useful components are Soyuz/Progress, the FGB and proposed MarsPost. MarsPost's orbiter would be a good starter baseblock for lunar and asteroid bases. All of these items are commercially sourcable, including delivery to orbit.<br /><br />Again, who is the "us" that are returning to the Moon?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

breif:<br />Why shouldn't the exploration of the he Moon be an international undertaking? Certainly the Russians could share the cost, share technology, etc.<br /><br />Me:<br />On the basis of cost. If ISS is any guide...the benefits to the U.S. in cost reduction by going international have not been realized. International space projects were touted as being cost effective but the reality is anything but.<br /><br />Of course there are other reasons for going international, the main one being as a way to promote peaceful cooperation between nations which in the long run is probably a better goal than just saving money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

New post <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If ISS is any guide...the benefits to the U.S. in cost reduction by going international have not been realized. International space projects were touted as being cost effective but the reality is anything but.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I suspect the problem is coordination. Everybody wants to do things their way. I hear the arguments over English vs. Metric took forever. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>New post<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />???? Where is the new post? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

JO5H:<br />I'm not sure where Russia fits in the future, but right now they are willing to fly you around the Moon for about $100million.<br /><br />Me:<br />They have never been out of LEO with humans so I would have to see this demonstrated at the quoted price before I'd put a lot of faith in it. They can get you to orbit for $20 mil but thats been demonstrated.<br /><br />Having said that, they may yet prove it and if there can be a mutually beneficial cooperative way of returning to the moon (For us, Russia as first timers), then we should follow that path. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Thats exactly what it was for the most part. Sorry about that new post thing. I had a duplicate of the one where you cut and pasted my comment and simply typed in new post as a sort of place holder. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

So how do we solve it for Orion? Just borrow the ISS agreements? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

I don't think there is a way to solve the cost thing entirely. There will be some overuns, especially in a program of ISS scope. The only choice for now would be to accept that there will be no tangible benefit from strictly a cost saving standpoint and focus on those benefits that can be shown from international cooperation. The biggy being keeping nations focused on peaceful pursuits rather than prepping for wars.<br /><br />My main point is that we can go to the moon either on our own, or go as part of an international effort. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>My main point is that we can go to the moon either on our own, or go as part of an international effort.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I know. I just don't want to pay an arm and a leg. If such cost cutting resulted in safety issues, we might have a problem. But if the cost goes too high, such programs will go bye-bye faster than a jack rabbit with a fresh brand on its rump. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>