Russia to join NASA to moon?

[docm]

http://www.space.com/news/061207_ap_moon_russia.html<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

docm,<br /><br />You know, if the U. S. had any sense, it would drop the Ares rocket program, the CEV, and just bankroll the Russians. The Kliper is an excellent design for an orbital access ship, and heaven knows, the Russians have the proven rockets to get it up there. Right now, the two greatest space powers are floundering around in a post-Cold War world, trying to act friendly to each other, but still determined to show the other they are superior. Well, neither of us is likely to get very far without the other, although my money is on the Russians if the U. S. goes on stumbling around by itself.<br /><br />By combining the financial resources of the U. S. with the well developed rocket technology of Russia, an off planet effort assured of success would be launched. We could be on the Moon by 2012, and have a base by 2014. We could launch a couple of more space stations, to support lunar operations and to provide space for corporate researchers to work. American dollars go a long way in the Russian economy, and investments in hardware would cost a fraction of what American hardware would, while bringing about a return far earlier than if the U. S. goes it alone.<br /><br />American contractors would be busy with building hardware for the lunar base, and designing the first true space ships, built to operate only in a vacuum. Thought could be given to doing a lifting body re-entry vehicle with a more balanced treatment, avoiding the heavy lift aspect of the current shuttle, and focusing on development of a fly-back booster.<br /><br />Russia can get us into space faster than our own resources can, and take us to the moon, but the U. S. has already begun down the road that leads to advanced methods of traveling to and from space. In the long run, Russia would be using our hardware to get to and from the other side of the sky, a partner in our growth, rather than an imaginary adversary. We are fellow travelers on this Starship Earth, and learning to build lifeboa <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[docm]

@halman<br /><br /><b>a partner in our growth, rather than an imaginary adversary.</b><br /><br />You don't watch the news much, do you? <br /><br />We can partner with them in many ways, but the political climate has been getting frosty of late because of Putin returning to his KGB roots. <br /><br />I therefore find putting our spacefaring eggs in their launchers basket highly risky at best and profoundly stupid at worst. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

All this 'spaceship earth' nonsense is really sweet, but you forget that NASA isn't in the business of accessing space. They're running a jobs program.

 

[dreada5]

Russia's very good when it comes to reliability.<br /><br />US is better when it comes to cutting edge technology.<br /><br />It'll be a long time, if ever, that these two strengths are combined to produce they kind of advanced, manned interplanetary spaceships we see in movies ie. what CEV needs to be.<br /><br />In the meantime, I think NASA have made the right move in announcing their willingness to involve an international community, specifically Russia. This will likely mean we'll end up with a larger moonbase sooner than we would if americans went it alone. <br /><br />What's important is that space-faring nations continue to develop their own heavy-lift launchers because as ISS has proved, having more than one means of getting people/hardware off-planet is crucial to keeping construction/operations going.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">We can partner with them in many ways, but the political climate has been getting frosty of late because of Putin returning to his KGB roots.</font>/i><br /><br />And Russia is helping Iran build out its nuclear technology and blocking any attempts to impose sanctions. Russia also controls major energy supplies to Europe (Eastern and Western), and they have a habit of quadrupling prices or having accidential shutdowns when a country (e.g., Ukraine) does something (like electing a pro-western leader) that Russia doesn't like. Reporters who are critical of Russia have a habit of getting killed. Russia's government has siezed control of major business assets (e.g., Gazprom) by installing the appropriate people or arresting major shareholders.<br /><br />Russia has become d@mned scary over the last few years.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">You know, if the U. S. had any sense, it would drop the Ares rocket program, the CEV, and just bankroll the Russians.</font>/i><br /><br />Griffin has repeatedly said that the US will control all the core capabilities to achieve its goals. This means independent access to space and Lunar orbit, Lunar lander and ascent vehicle, EVA system, and core navigation and communication equipment. This seems pretty much non-negotiable.<br /><br />Everything else NASA is willing to outsource to third-parties. These include habitation, rovers, ISRU production, high bandwith communications, etc.</i>

 

[halman]

docm,<br /><br />Yes, I am aware that Russia has been less than an ideal player on the world stage, and that many recent events indicate a backing away from democracy and capitalism. But I also know that the transition to a capitalistic society has been very difficult for Russia, and that many Russians hark back to the days of the Soviet Union, because things seemed to be more stable then. Considering some of the actions of the U. S., I think that there is merit in the criticism directed at us from other countries.<br /><br />Most people seem willing to turn a deaf ear to the human rights abuses that have been well documented in China, so that we can enjoy trade with that country. Of course, their support of our economy has strengthened their position somewhat, but, the fact remains, China is no where near embracing democracy.<br /><br />We are far more likely to influence Russia in a positive way by working openly with her, and avoiding trying to punish her for her perceived failings. Criticism and attacks only make one more defensive, and less open to change. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

RadarRedux,<br /><br />As much as I would like to see a strong American space program, with reliable hardware that we can call our own, I am concerned that the lack of leadership and support from Congress is going to result in the United States losing its ability to get off of this planet. There are many who say that the Ares rocket proposed is seriously flawed, and may be unworkable. We are already expecting a period of several years where America will not have its own access to orbit, and this could easily become indefinite.<br /><br />America could still be a leader in off planet exploration and development, even without its own access to space, as long as it was in a strong partnership with another country which does have access. And the wealth generated by development would facilitate designing and building a completely new launch system, which could be the workhorse of the latter half of this century.<br /><br />We say that we want to work with the Russians, but we treat them with distrust and a superior attitude. Current law limits the transfer of technology, even though it is very unlikely that Russia is going to turn aggressor any time soon. NASA is not allowed to purchase directly services from a foreign government, even though that government is our only means of insuring continued involvement in off planet activities. These policies need to be changed if we are going to expect true cooperation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[montmein69]

The true position of russia :<br /><br />http://en.rian.ru/science/20061205/56488582.html<br /><br />If most part of the program is non-negotiable, I'm affraid Europe should be on the same position. (nonetheless the human presence on the moon as the "future for mankind" is not an evidence for european taxpayers)<br />Cooperation can't be based on this preliminary "I'm the leader, I decide, join me"<br /><br />Maybe US government doesn't understand that, Hope US citizen does.<br /><br />I'm strongly convinced that a cooperation based on robotic missions for real science should be better for all space agencies. <br /><br />As well for funding, brain skills, industries, employment ... a global cooperation involving equality and humilty is the smartest attitude for all countries. Perhaps a little bit utopic ??? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

The idea sounds awesome. though I haven't the the article at the link yet.<br /><br />I would just like to add that space exploration shouldn't be up to just the hand full of countries as it is at the moment, but a full co-operative multi-national undertaking. Personaly I'll love to see the commonwealth get more involved <br />(read Australia).<br />Cheers EBM <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[halman]

montmein69,<br /><br />I am glad to see that Russian journalists are not much better than American journalists regarding scientific facts:<br /><br />"The permanently sunlit half of the Moon opens up good opportunities for electricity generation..."<br /><br />"There is no dark side of the Moon. As a matter of fact, it is all dark." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

LOL!<br />That's funny <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Good idea but you require immence money.

 

[montmein69]

Halman<br /><br />You're absolutely true on the journalists position and behaviour.<br />But IMHO the citation of Igor Panarin (spokesman for the Russian Space Agency) was the most important. <br />(no mention of that in the space.com article<br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/061207_ap_moon_russia.html) <br /><br />But perhaps Panarin was just making a joke ? <<If US want to lead all the program, they must pay for sub-contractors whatever their country />> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[john_316]

I think in apparent articles Russia would like the US to pay the bills. And if the bills are being paid by us then we should be running the show. Of course if Russia wants a bigger stake then they could stand in the batter box and say they want to make a break in the game too.<br /><br />However we are not going to shut Russia out. They will be included in the program at different levels. Now on the other indications of Russian involvement I agree they should be involved in some form or another. Not just for show or opposition.<br /><br /><br />Perhaps allowing open bids on certain things such as habitation, alternate power generation, regolith extraction and a host of other things would give Russia a more palatable taste of $$$ and the future. Remember our Taxpaying dollars are putting us there, not Europe's cash. I could see a few companies show the willingness to make a few dollars in the things that don't require core and principled "American only!" preview.<br /><br /><br />Anyways I have told many good Russian people before "Welcome Aboard!"<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />

 

[mithridates]

I don't think "the bills" is a good way to express it given that the "bills" in this case are costs that are decided by each agency. It's more equivalent to outsourcing where one country has a union that demands a minimum of $20 per hour for a task while another country can do the exact same thing for 5% of the price. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[halman]

john_316,<br /><br />Russia has the launch vehicles on hand or ready to build to support an extensive Lunar program. They will build and fly the hardware, if we will pay for it. This would save us years in developing and testing the Ares rockets, and lots of lots of money. That would be true international co-operation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

They don't have a heavy lift vehicle do they?

 

[josh_simonson]

It wouldn't really save money, if the government spends money domestically, it gets spent domestically and most of it comes back in taxes again within a year. If it's spent offshore, 0% comes back as taxes.<br /><br />If you charged your son a 50% income tax, wouldn't you be willing to pay him twice as much to mow the lawn as the neighbor kid?<br /><br />Also, the most commonly accepted justification for the space program is that the development of high-technology for it generates wealth and stimulates the economy and the tech sector. That argument is completely worthless if you are stimulating another contries economy with tax money from the US. Say some russian invents the next 'velcro' on the US taxpayer's dollar - the investors get no dividend on it.<br /><br />Perhaps if Russia did something very helpful in some way they'd deserve a kickback like that, but they haven't exactly been the most reliable partner of late. We're better off letting their ability rust and spending the money at home instead even though it costs more.

 

[halman]

rocketman_5000,<br /><br />I think that the Energia is considered a heavy lift, and I believe that it has flown at least once. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

josh_simpson,<br /><br />Personally, I would rather see the U. S. spending its money on developing equipment to use on the Moon, as well as a vehicle to get to and from the Moon, than spending it building a 'hot dog on a pencil' as some have described the Ares launch vehicle. We have already built a number of rockets, and how much will we learn building more? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I think that the Energia is considered a heavy lift, and I believe that it has flown at least once. "</font><br /><br />The Energiya is most definitely heavy-lift -- in the same class as Saturn V. It has lifted once... just. It put the Buran into orbit in 1988. Mind you -- claiming Russia 'has' a heavy lift option based on a booster that has only flown once -- and that 18 years ago is a bit of a stretch.

 

[halman]

mrmorris,<br /><br />Well, I'll grant that it is a bit of a stretch, but I still maintain that Russia is a lot closer to having a heavy lift launch vehicle that we are, because they have a design which has flown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> We're better off letting their ability rust and spending the money at home instead even though it costs more.</i><br /><br />That capability is available today domestically in the EELVs. There is no intrinsic reason that medium-lift vehicles can't enable lunar vehicles, it just requires a higher flight rate and propellant depots. Jon Goff at Selenian Boondocks has been talking up both Lockheed capsules and a 5m "Wide Body Centaur" as a replacement for the EDS. Some development is involved, but not nearly as much as the Stick/CALV is getting. You can put 3000 tons into LEO using today's boosters for the cost of developing the Stick and CaLV. <br /><br />If this is going to be a free market, US businesses need access to international aerospace firms, including in Russia. I agree that NASA should look to US firms first, but as with the RD180, we as businesses should be able to go offshore for hardware/software and talent. And I can't say this enough: NASA really should be looking to contract out all Earth-to-LEO operations. They could be building lunar hardware now if they didn't insist on operating the first leg of the journey. <br /><br />Russia has very unique capabilities, especially at the Energia Rocket Company. They have proposed a 600ton mars orbitter and lander, along with uprated Soyuz and eventually the Kliper/Parom system. It actually makes more business sense than NASA sense, but a LEO/Moon/Mars architecture could easily be created using their hardware as a base. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>