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

qso1 · Dec 29, 2006

Lol, I like the jackrabbit analogy. The VSE still has to get past a new incoming Presidential Administration that is very likely to be democratic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

Swampcat · Dec 29, 2006

halman, There is no doubt, as I said in my previous post, that Russia could prove to be a valuable partner in a Lunar Base project. I am of the opinion that the ISS partnership has been a good thing for both countries, despite some problems. Considering the cost and complexity of a Lunar Base, any and all nations and private organizations that wish to participant under the leadership of the US should be encouraged to do so. Russian LV technology and expertise could very well provide additional valuable assets to this effort, but IMO, American tax dollars should not go, exclusively, to buy Russian LVs when there are American companies that could provide that capability. I share your skepticism over the Ares vehicles, though I don't doubt NASA's engineers can make them fly. I, too, believe that it is time for NASA to concentrate on the bleeding edge stuff while making use of available LVs. IMO, there are American LV providers, both current and near future, who could, given the appropriate incentive, provide that service. Look at Bigelow and LockMart. Look at SpaceX, Blue Origin, RPK and others. Some may laugh, but these are serious efforts to develop private human spaceflight. Their efforts should be supported in order to promote the general welfare of our nation. Instead, NASA is developing another unique LV system for NASA's exclusive use and spending large sums of tax dollars to do it. I have read posts by you in other threads where you support private enterprise in space. I know that our views are not that different. Have some faith in private enterprise. Certainly Russians, through their own private industry, should participate, but lets not further cripple American LV development in the process. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "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."Thomas Jefferson </div>

Swampcat · Dec 29, 2006

"Regarding off planet exploration, what use will the knowledge that our probes have gathered be if we do not get out there to utilize it?" OK, possibly I misread your intention here, but there is a difference in our understanding of what is meant by exploration. I have no problem with the concept of remote exploration using non-human assets. Yes, it is research, but that is a kind of exploration. OTOH, I agree with you wholeheartedly that remote exploration without subsequent exploration and exploitation by in situ humans seems to miss the whole point of doing it in the first place. I still disagree with your original statement that the "...Russians have done more to further off planet exploration than any other country, bar none." I would surely give them credit for their LEO human spaceflight expertise, but what have they done to characterize the conditions human Lunar or Martian explorers will encounter on these bodies? I would say that having put humans on the surface of the Moon gives us a bit of a leg up on that score. The point is, though these "probes" may be defined as research, it is research in support of planetary exploration. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "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."Thomas Jefferson </div>

radarredux · Dec 29, 2006

> So how do we solve it for Orion? Just borrow the ISS agreements?/i> I certainly hope not, but there are certainly a lot of lessons to be learned from ISS. For a non-NASA partner, I would recommend that they do not enter into a long-term development operations until it is clear that NASA and, more importantly Congress, are fully supportive of the Lunar program. It has been clear on many occasions that Congress has not been strongly supportive NASA's plans (including ISS, Freedom before that, First President Bush's plan to go to Mars, Apollo). Don't rely on a partner whose financial backers are not supportive of the effort. For NASA, I would recommend not committing to providing a capability to a potential partner unless you fully know its costs to you and what you won't be able to do because of those costs. ISS has been much more expensive to build and operate than originally planned. One of the primary criticisms of the Shuttle and ISS is that together they are so expensive that there is no other money to do anything else (like go to the Moon, Mars, or anywhere else). The only reason there is a plan to go to the Moon is because NASA made the decision to kill the Shuttle program, pare down participation in ISS, and exit ISS altogther relatively early (~2017). If NASA really supported ISS the way it was originally envisioned, it couldn't go to the Moon. Before NASA and Congress accepts international participation, it should understand the commitment involved and what it is giving up to support that commitment./b> In short: If NASA promises to support long-term international efforts on the Moon, it will probably have to give up Mars to do it (at least for an additional 10 years or so). NASA, with planned budgets, cannot support a contining Lunar presence and go to Mars.

holmec · Dec 29, 2006

Absolutely. And the HLV is needed not only for the moon but for earth orbit stuff too as well as Mars. I'm glad NASA is looking to the long haul and not the short term. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

ldyaidan · Dec 29, 2006

I agree, a lot of the problem is co-ordination, as well as accountablitiy. I think there needs to be an international space agency created, that exists outside of political borders. That way, responsibilities and contracts can be granted based on ability and resources available. These can be granted/contracted to companies or countries, regardless of borders. All participants would reap the benefits, as long as they are meeting their commitments, but there would be a more centralized, neutral agency to run the show. Rae

rocketman5000 · Dec 29, 2006

To Radarredux, It should not be NASA's responsibility for long term support of the moon. When NASA was created it evolved from the NACA and both agency's missions was of research and to create standards. Thus enabling economic development by private industries. To ldyaidan: There is already an international space agency. Its called ESA. and has its quarks and drawbacks as well.

christine16 · Dec 29, 2006

we can do it on our own, and some not inportante things give to them

j05h · Dec 31, 2006

> 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. All true, but they have offered a priced option for lunar access. While that number is tenative, at least they are trying the commercial route. We need all the access we can get. The real question should be how to build a sustainable cis-lunar infrastructure while making it a profitable group of enterprises? Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

qso1 · Jan 1, 2007

Its good they are trying the commercial route and thats what I'm hoping will be demonstrated. There have been too many promises by both sides on some kind of easy access to space being just around the corner. Thats my reason for wanting them to demonstrate what they are advertising. The more important question is that which you asked about making a sustainable cis-lunar infrastructure and make it profirable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

halman · Jan 2, 2007

qso1, Probably, the Russians are very anxious to demonstrate their ability to circumnavigate the Moon, but they are constrained by the lack of funds. This is where the debate that we are engaging in gets crucial. The Russians have proven launch technology, life support, and navigation hardware, but no money. The United States has no man rated launch systems except the shuttle, no life support technology outside of the shuttle, and oodles of navigation hardware. To duplicate the Russian capabilities will take the U. S. years, and billions of dollars, while at the same time discouraging development of private sector launch capacity. It is not a matter of whether or not the U. S. is capable of developing the launch capacity and capsule technology, it is a matter of whether we can afford it, while developing the tools that we will use on the Moon. At the same time, the Russians are barely able to maintain their space capabilities, due to lack of funding from their government. Hiring Russian companies as contractors would assure that the Russian space companies stayed afloat, and would save billions in development costs that should be spent on developing the equipment we will need on the Moon. We also would be creating a market for launch capacity, which would stimulate investment into private development, instead of discouraging it, as the Ares program will do. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

willpittenger · Jan 2, 2007

Unfortunately, keeping Russian companies afloat also helps build the skills of employees of those companies to the point where those employees might attempt to sell those skills to the highest bidder. Since most human spaceflight experience started with ICBMs, it is logical to conclude that Iran or a similar country could get ICBMs from those used to building man-rated boosters. <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 · Jan 3, 2007

willpittenger, I am sorry, but I don't follow the logic of your argument. If Russian aerospace workers are gainfully employed in a long-term program of providing launch capacity for the American effort to return to the Moon, they would not likely be inclined to quit their jobs and start working for some renegade government. On the other hand, if the Russian aerospace program continues to disintegrate, I would think that such actions would be far more likely. The Russian workers already have the skills, as demonstrated by the regular launches of the Soyuz and Progress space vehicles. There is evidence that China purchased the designs for its ICBM rockets from the Russians, who are definitely starved for hard currency. Maintaining stability in the Russian aerospace industry is one of the reasons that I advocate hiring those companies to provide launch capacity for the U. S. program. Their experience is invaluable, and their designs are highly reliable. U. S. aerospace firms would benefit far more, I believe, from developing and building the hardware that we will send to the Moon than they would from building a space capsule and a launch vehicle derived from 30 year old components. To my mind, it is absurd to expect Russia to ante up any substantial amount of money for the Moon project, because their economy is still struggling to emerge from a socialist model which denied most consumer goods, and was incredibly corrupt, and which is based on a currency which is not traded outside of Russia. What they have to offer is off-the-shelf equipment that is proven and reliable, which can be produced in large amounts at low cost immediately. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

willpittenger · Jan 3, 2007

Actually, I was thinking my argument would apply in two aspects that you missed:<li>The employees might attempt to get that extra cash on the side. Remember, you stated how corrupt the economy was there.<li>Just because we throw money at a company doesn't mean they won't go under or be forced to downsize.</li></li> <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>

Search

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

qso1

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

radarredux

Guest

holmec

Guest

ldyaidan

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

christine16

Guest

j05h

Guest

qso1

Guest

halman

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

halman

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page