Russia to join NASA to moon?

[thinice]

Actually Energia has lifted twice.

 

[mrmorris]

Ah yes -- forgot about Polyus.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">because they have a design which has flown.</font>/i><br /><br />Well, the US had the Saturn V, and it flew. Supposedly NASA even still has the blueprints.</i>

 

[dreada5]

http://space.com/news/061213_moonbase_international.html<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Before the first astronauts are sent back to the Moon, Lavoie said, NASA envisions conducting an unmanned test of the lander, using the mission to deliver an unpressurized rover and a solar power unit producing perhaps 6 kilowatts of electricity.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think the above is a good idea. To use the test mission opportunity to deploy hardware to lunar surface at the same time. <br /><br />Did the Apollo programme do anythng similar?

 

[josh_simonson]

They test flew the LEM in earth orbit, then again in a near-landing before finally landing people on the moon. Unlike the LEM, the LSAM will be capable of fully automated flight. LEM came in manually.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Did the Apollo programme do anythng similar?</font>/i><br /><br />I was just referring to the heavy lift capability of the US versus Russia. Both have had heavier lift capabilities in the past than they do now.<br /><br />The current NASA plan is much more robust and safer (probabilistically) than Apollo.</i>

 

[john_316]

<b><font color="yellow">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. </font>/b><br /><br /><br />That may be very well true but we also have two semi-heavy lift vehicles and if I believe correctly they could be configured for even heavier lift if needed. They are Atlas-5 With a Russian licensed motor and the Delta-4 Heavy.<br /><br />The Delta-4 heavy has flown once. I believe with several more launches under its belt it can be shown to be a supporter for the Lunar program even if it just supplements it. <br /><br />Another thing is that they both can also be built now while Energia would require several years to get up and running. Another note of interest is that we can always turn to the Shuttle-C and or Shuttle-Z as an alternative route to having heavy lift.<br /><br />To me heavy lift is over 50 tons to LEO and at least 25 tons to GEO/Lunar orbits.<br /><br /><br />We also must remember that when we outsource to another country we don't get the tax revenue as mentioned before. We actually in all lose money on the deal. Thus we paid for a service and even though it was a fair price and we got what we wanted. There was no further investment return. Remember NASA works on tax revenue not on business revenue it does not generate. If NASA where to be privitized then NASA would actually make money. Though I don't advocate privatizing NASA yet.<br /><br />Take a look at the ISS. Where is the $$$ return for us other in science and research?<br /><br />However on a side note India could possibly be the future business partner with the USA on rockets by what I have seen in some areas lately.<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /></b>

 

[halman]

john_316,<br /><br />I guess that it all is relative. I grew up believing that rockets like the proposed Nova would fly, boosting around 250 tons into Low Earth Orbit. I still consider 100 tons to be the minimum rating for heavy lift, because that is a major section of a space ship, space station, or base, in one launch. Yes, we can do it with out heavy lift, but there is more to the problem than just more frequent launches. Failures will happen, and the more we do, the more failure is likely, as a result of the odds of chance.<br /><br />A small earth mover larger than a Bearcat weighs tons, and that is with a diesel power plant. Battery packs are going to be heavy, not matter what technology we use, until we become much more adept at storing large amounts of energy in a small place. But the most critical aspect of heavy lift is the ability to put a completely assembled, tested, provisioned, and fueled space craft in low Earth orbit, ready to head out for the Moon. And some day we will want to put the ships bound for Mars up, and the largest sections possible on each lanuch will reduce the chance of errors in assembly.<br /><br />The presence of large, articulated lorries, or semi-tractor-trailer rigs, attests to the pressures to move as much as possible at once. The fact that they are not used for hauling people tells us that they are highly specialized, and designed to do one thing well: Move mass. And then there are the dump trucks used in pit mines, with wheels 20 feet tall. Sure, the job could be done with smaller trucks, but that is not the way that feels right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[john_316]

I understand your optimism to lift 100 tons+ to orbit as well. I am in total agreement with you there. However we have to look at what direction the agency is going to go.<br /><br />Some say its just a jobs program in congressional districts and I may agree with some of that. Okay a lot of that. <br /><br />Some say its to keep a business afloat. ATK is very well afloat without making SRBs. They make rocket motors and missile motors along with tons of ammo for rifles and tanks. And I guess they are into materials design too these days.<br /><br /><br />My option would have been a clean white sheet with a new rocket and deep-six the shuttle. However, by keeping the STS community in tact we can migrate to a rocket that will keep people employed. I know! Its a jobs program.<br /><br />The idea of the stick also befuddled me. Why waste money when you could man rate a current vehicle or two from both big companies. All they had to do was design the upper stage, do a design review on the current EELV's and then impliment those changes as required. Me might have a CLV as early as 2008 rather than 2010. <br /><br /><br />But thats NASA for you.<br /><br /><br />I understand NASA wants to keep its contractors happy. I also understand contractors want big paychecks too. <br /><br />Now what would have happened if NASA would also have asked for international bids on the CLV o HLV? That is if where allowed to do so?<br /><br />You think Boeing and Lockmart would have given lower bids?<br /><br /><br /><br />Anyways its just a matter of time before Bowing and Lockmart merge anyways.....<br /><br /><br /><br />Somethinge else to digest:<br /><br />What happened to the big rocket with Kerosene rockets? I was under an impression that they could do it cheaper that way. No I dont want to hear about the enviromental crap.<br /><br /><br />I wonder what will happen when this program is way over budget and very late?<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />

 

[halman]

john_316,<br /><br />You must keep in mind that I tend to talk as if NASA's funding is going to be increased somehow, for the pure and simple reason that I am very skeptical that the CEV will fly, or the Ares at current budget levels. In part this is because I have watched too many years of NASA being given enough money to fly the shuttle, but not enough to do anything with it, as well as endless design studies which have never lead to any hardware. Doing anything in space means creating an open-ended commitment to funding programs that get very expensive, which is something that Congress seems to be avoiding lately. When we are four years down the road, and the shuttle has been retired, and we discover that there are some serious flaws in the Ares launch vehicle, I believe that Congress will just decide to pull the plug, give up on the whole thing, because, in their perspective, it is just scientific research, which is not going to have any impact on anything.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

the US had a heavy lift booster that last flew 33 years ago. I will contend we have no HL capacity. 18 years under a different form of goverment and administration is a long time. Drawings are lost or subcomponents are no longer available. I am sure the computers used on that rocket are no longer able to be manufactured.<br /><br />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I am sure the computers used on that rocket are no longer able to be manufactured. "</font><br /><br />I'm positive of it. I read that the quarry where they got the limestone the computers where chiseled from has been shut down. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[josh_simonson]

Saturn Vs cost $2.5 billion each in current money. We don't want to rebuilt that rocket, as shown that a 3 stage F1-X rocket wasn't even considered in ESAS.

 

[holoman]

Post deleted by holoman

 

[j05h]

<i>> This is a bad idea with the American people footing the billions of dollars spent on space research. </i><br /><br />Then it is a good idea for private ventures - why make other people foot the bill for your adventures?<br /><br /><i>> <br />Russia has garbage technology and they want to get a hold of our superior space technology. </i><br /><br />You don't know what your writing about. No US system exists, not from alt.space, NASA or Big Aero, that can match the FGB-SM-Soyuz-Progress architecture. I'm talking off-the-shelf vehicles available for purchase/use not viewgraphs. Russia brings unique capabilities to any human space effort. You can shout about the X-33 and Space Station Fred all day and it will not change that fact. <br /><br />Is there espionage between the US and Russia? Of course, but that is to be expected. All nations and corporations do it.<br /><br />The more important question, IMHO, is whether Russia will join corporate America in developing the high frontier? <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The more important question, IMHO, is whether Russia will join corporate America in developing the high frontier?</font>/i><br /><br />I think they will be. It is hard to believe that it was only 8 years ago, in 1998, that Russia was so bankrupt that it defaulted on its public and private loans; the Russian ruble collapsed.<br /><br />Today Russia is chugging along, helped along with a flood of cash from its natural energy resources. I was listening to a cable news show today, and the reporter was referring to Russia as a superpower again (primarily an energy superpower).<br /><br />Will Russia turn its back on space and let others be the space faring peoples? I don't think so. If there is the potential for economic gain or national prestige, I think Russia will be there.</i>

 

[holmec]

Actually for purpose of going to the moon, Russia, like us, has nothing built. They are looking at a capsule system like Soyuz but larger, and they are considering partnering with Europe who offered to provide a module like 'Columbus' module for ISS. This I guess is suposed to be a little space station around the moon. <br /><br />ACTS article on wikipedia - very informative!<br /><br />I wonder if Russia wants to tag along in the landing of the moon, have not heard of any lunar lander by the Russians as of yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>