possible joint Russia-USA missions to the Moon and Mars?

[spacefire]

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-05zl.html<br /><br /><br />seems like a step in the right direction. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[grooble]

"...and also the development of engines, because if this task is not accomplished, no spaceship will fly anywhere," Perminov said<br /><br />What are these guys, Rocket scientists?<br /><br />

 

[j05h]

this already happened: both Boeing and Lockheed are using Russian-designed/US-manufactured components in their rockets. Joint missions make a lot of sense, if managed by someone other than NASA and the State Department. SS Energia-Microsoft, anyone? Russian and American space tech do compliment each other nicely, despite the bumps in the road. <br /><br />I really like the "Marspost" that got trotted out again for the Paris Air Show. Take heritage-proven hardware and build a mega-FGB for creation of an outpost in Mars orbit, great idea. They still need an alternative to Elektron. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spacefire]

A joint mission would definitely make sense. It would probably happen in 10 years-versus 20 if the US went alone, 30 if Russia went alone, or 40 if China decided to go there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

"It would probably happen in 10 years-versus 20 if the US went alone"<br /><br />Look at ISS (international project) and Apollo (national project) and think again.

 

[spacefire]

different times, my friend, different times... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[j05h]

I actually agree with wvbraun on the timetable. However, if there was a way to make the Marspost orbiter a company-to-company deal instead of national agencies, it could be done both affordably and quickly. A Mars orbiter for teleoperation (and hold off on landing) could be done in 10 years, no problem. I would put mining Phobos above landing on Mars - the first trip out could set up water extraction, the second trip brings a lander.<br /><br />J <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

"However, if there was a way to make the Marspost orbiter a company-to-company deal instead of national agencies, it could be done both affordably and quickly."<br /><br />I agree.

 

[spacefire]

another good sign:<br /><br />"June 21<br /><br />Russia Considers U.S. Cooperation for Future Moon Missions<br /><br /> <br /><br />MOSCOW (Interfax) -- The Russian Federal Space Agency is considering a US proposal to participate in its Moon program.<br /><br /> <br /><br />"We have received an official invitation from NASA to join the Moon program and are now considering it," Federal Space Agency chief Anatoly<br /><br />Perminov told a news conference at the Interfax main office on Tuesday.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Perminov said the matter will be discussed in greater detail in autumn. Missions to other planets and the Moon "are only in NASA plans."<br /><br /> <br /><br />Such serious programs can be carried out only through international partnership, he said. "The safety and reliability of flights requires international cooperation," he said.<br /><br /> <br /><br />-- Interfax"<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

I believe it's high time that the US and Russia pursue a joint venture in the manned exploration of the Solar System.<br /><br />I'd also like to see the ESA, Japanese and Chinese involved.<br /><br />We've seen what happens when one country attempts to shoulder the expense of such goals alone.<br /><br />Imagine where we'd be right now had the "space race" been a co-operative venture.<br /><br />Hopefully, a Russian/US agenda can be brought to fruition in an aggressive and timely manner.<br /><br />I'm not sure that the general public will ever be as enthusiastic about space as it was in the Apollo years, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing. The lack of taxpayer support encourages multinational effort IMHO.<br /><br />What I hope is that through the scientific findings and results of these missions that private enterprise and industry finds sufficient reason to exploit space.<br /><br />The private sector is the ultimate destination towards which manned space flight is headed.<br /><br />Hopefully, a joint US/Russian Moon/Mars program will light the fire. <br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[chris_in_space]

wvbraun said:<br />""It would probably happen in 10 years-versus 20 if the US went alone" <br /><br />Look at ISS (international project) and Apollo (national project) and think again.<br />" <br /><br />Hey Werner, I know it has already been proposed to you, but maybe you should really think moving to the USA if you really take everything the USA does as being perfect without even taking the time to think about what you're saying. Cause with such absurd comparaisons like this one between ISS and Apollo and the conclusion you draw from, you must really have blind faith in everything the americans do. Oh and btw the shuttle accident was also sabotage by some of the other countries involved in the ISS (or maybe China?) cause the USA being so perfect could have never made an error or not forsee every circumstances. <br /><br />The USA is a great country in many ways but please think 2 seconds before saying non sense just to show in ALL your posts your admiration for no matter what the USA does.

 

[henryhallam]

I don't think wvb was trying to imply that the US is perfect. I agree with him that there is much more inefficiency and bureaucracy in almost <b>any</b> international project than in one completed by a single well-managed agency in one country. If these inefficiencies outweigh the advantages of international projects (namely, somewhat greater resources, more ideas, and past experience) then the national project will be faster and more effective.

 

[henryhallam]

Sorry, duplicate post

 

[wvbraun]

"We've seen what happens when one country attempts to shoulder the expense of such goals alone."<br /><br />Yes, that approach got the US to the moon within eight years. The ISS/Space Station Freedom program was begun in 1984 and more than 20 years later it still hasn't been finished.<br /><br /><br />"Imagine where we'd be right now had the "space race" been a co-operative venture."<br /><br />There would have been no lunar landings, no Skylab, no Saljut, no Mir, nothing, because the sole reason the huge financial investments required for these programs were made at the time was to beat the Soviets in space. Competition produces results and speeds up progress whereas cooperation leads to stagnation.

 

[wvbraun]

"you really take everything the USA does as being perfect without even taking the time to think about what you're saying."<br /><br />Maybe you should take some time to think about what you're saying. It was a US administration that made Space Station Freedom into an international project. Enough said.

 

[chris_in_space]

I'm sorry if not everybody could understand, but my reply is also related to everything wvbraun posts in free space...<br /><br />Now back to the national vs international project. First Apollo and ISS are completly uncomparable: the cirmunstances where not the same wheter political, financial, or operational. Just take the operational side. The Apollo program had very few accidents. If the Apollo 11 mission would have failed during take off for example I'm really not sure that the Apollo program would have continued and even if it would have continued the russians would have probably been there first. Instead the construction of the ISS is related to a terrible accident, and still it is continuing but is running greatly behind schedule. Now comparing the duration of the Apollo program and that of ISS and concluding that the ISS project is so much overtime because it's a not a national US project is for me just non sense.<br /><br />Now I completly agree that international projects are not always the best suited. I also think that the ISS is not really a success but not because it's an international project but because it was built without a clear goal in the mind...

 

[wvbraun]

"I'm sorry if not everybody could understand, but my reply is also related to everything wvbraun posts in free space... "<br /><br />It still doesn't make any sense as I pointed out above.

 

[j05h]

>I agree.<br /><br />Thanks. With all the aerospace consolidation, I'm almost expecting Boeing to merge with Energia and Lockmart to join with Krunichev, minus ITAR nastiness. It could be a big win vs Airbus, Ariane and Long March. Stranger mergers have happened...<br /><br />Here's a biz plan for the MarsPost: a company like SeaLaunch (as a subsidiary) purchases a MarsPost spacecraft from Energia, puts 3 of it's own crew and 3 national-agency astronaut mission specialists (US or otherwise) on a mars orbiter mission. The crew on arrival spends time maintaining the ship and doing commercial teleops, the mission specialists perform experiments and teleops. If time allows, there is extensive Phobos exploration. After 2 years, they use the MarsPost to return or use a lighter return vessel and leave the Post at Mars.<br /><br />US and Russia make natural aerospace partners, for many of the same reasons that inspired the Cold War.<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[chris_in_space]

Werner,<br /><br />I maintain your comparaison is absurd as is the conclusion that you take from it as I pointed out above.<br />