Russia to the Moon before Orion flies

[radarredux]

Russian space organizations seem to be releasing a lot of press releases about future spacecraft and mission plans. The latest, released the same day that the Orion CEV contract was announced (coincidence?), declares that Russia will begin manned flights around the Moon in the 2011-2012 time period -- a full 2-3 years before the Orion CEV reaches LEO.<br /><br />Lots of the other stuff too (permanent Lunar base, mining Helium-3, Mars).<br /><br />I wonder if the Congress-critters who authorize NASA's funding are being fed these press releases. Listening to their Congressional hearings, many seem quite concerned about another country beating us back to the moon. Maybe we should each print the article and mail it to our local Congress-critter. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br /><br />Russia Plans To Launch First Flight To The Moon In 2011-2012<br />http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Russia_Plans_To_Launch_First_Flight_To_The_Moon_In_2011_2012_999.html

 

[DuhFly]

They're are probably hoping to raise enough money from space tourists to fund the project.

 

[frodo1008]

Radar, there IS an operative word there. The word is "around" as in "around the moon".<br /><br />As great as NASA's gamble in letting Apolla 8 go "around the moon", it isn't quite the same as landing "on" the moon, now is it?<br /><br />A moon landing is a far more dangerous and complicated undertaking. Somehow also having such a trip for only some $200 million would ordinarily seem a little low in price, except that the exchange rate makes an American $200 million the same as a Russian $20 billion, so it is actually possible. Of course, then the anti NASA types would then point out that NASA would have to have some billions to do what the Russians could do for only $200 million! <br /><br />However, I agree if we could get our current warhawk Republican types to feel threatened by either or both the Chinese or Russians in space, NASA could very well be on its way to the type of funding it was given back in the 1960's, or perhaps even better!

 

[serak_the_preparer]

<i>. . . feel threatened by either or both the Chinese or Russians in space, NASA could very well be on its way to the type of funding it was given back in the 1960's, or perhaps even better!</i><br /><br />Here's a notion from the conspiracy world:<br /><br />Now that Russian and American space efforts are intertwined, it might be in Russia's interests to publicly declare major ambitions in space. Then, as you say, bold goals for the American program can be justified on that basis. To sell big and bold space plans to the Congress down the road, however, NASA argues for international partnerships to get the job done. Russia, the former threat, now becomes a desirable partner. Both space programs then receive funds from US tax-payers and others. Both space programs win.<br /><br />No, I'm not suggesting this is the case. The level of collusion implied would be tricky, to be sure.<br /><br />Could make for a good science fiction story, however.

 

[henryhallam]

Even orbiting the moon a la Apollo 8 is much more difficult than looping once round it on a free-return trajectory.<br /><br />That is not to belittle Russia, I think any opportunity to get humans out of LEO is pretty cool.

 

[rybanis]

Its true that it is more difficult, but it is STILL much easier than actually attempting a landing (I know, I know).<br /><br />On another note:<br /><br />Publicity-wise, I think a cruise to the moon and back might be really good for the program. I wonder how the public would react to seeing live shots of astronauts orbiting the moon? Waving their hands then looking out the window with a camera? It might help to inspire the generation that grew up with Apollo. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

It certainly IS cool! And if anyone can do it inexpensively the Russians can! So I do hope they go for it!!

 

[serak_the_preparer]

My earlier post describes what is not much more than a crackpot theory. Russia doubtless genuinely wishes to hold onto her prestige as a spacefaring nation. While the US just as sincerely wishes not to lose any more of its status as a space power. Nevertheless, the result could easily end up being the same.<br /><br />Years ago, NASA's space station program came into existence, largely as a response to the USSR's Mir. Yet it morphed into the Russo-Euro-American partnership we have today.<br /><br />Could the same thing happen when it comes to mankind's return to the Moon?

 

[j05h]

> owever, I agree if we could get our current warhawk Republican types to feel threatened by either or both the Chinese or Russians in space, NASA could very well be on its way to the type of funding it was given back in the 1960's, or perhaps even better!<br /><br />Great, another Cold War. Are you really looking forward to that? <br /><br />The proper argument for using Soyuz-derived vehicles is that NASA could then concentrate on the lunar lander and a moderate lunar orbit station. Lockmart is getting $7.5 Billion to build up to 8 Orion capsules and fly them twice/year. That buys a lot of Soyuz flights to LLO. I understand it's not politically tenable but that $7.5G would buy a lot of lunar landers and a lot of Atlas V's to launch them. <br /><br />I believe in peace and cooperation. Mostly.<br /><br />(climbs into flamesuit)<br /><br />If we're going to have military-industrial make-work, it should at least be performed with foresight. Infrastructure R&D (not ops) and doing the stuff No One Else Can should be the goal. Flying circles around the moon is way cooler than LEO. Soyuz and EELV could truly get us there Faster and Cheaper, and I'm not concerned about Better as it gets in the way of Good Enough. <br /><br />If I were Mike Griffin, the first thing I'd do after signing Lockmart is bill LM for the X-33 fiasco. Right off the top.<br /><br />(removes flame suit) <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

People should always be on alert when the name "Sevastyanov" is in an article about Russian space programs. He is NOT an official of the Russian Space Agency, rather he is the president of a private company, Energia, which is a contractor used by the Russian Space Agency in various projects.<br /><br />Sevastyanov has made claims about non-existing plans and likes to tell the press about many of his "visions" and mixes truth with some half-truth and states certain possible plans as facts. <br /><br />Sevastyanov method of mixing truth and fiction is apparent in this sentence: "Russia is planning to use a modernized version of the Soyuz manned spacecraft, the workforce of the Russian space fleet, for the flights to the Moon, Sevastyanov said, adding that the first spacecraft would be ready in 2010." The Soyuz has always been incrementally modernized, just look at the TMA and the TM. What is also correct is, that Energia is the contractor for the work on ACTS, a study (!) to look at a Soyuz-derived next generation spacecraft together with ESA which he mentions (although in a misleading way):<br />"Sevastyanov said the Russian Space Agency and the European Space Agency had already expressed their support for the project and the first modernized Soyuz would be launched in 2010."<br /><br />The study ESA and Roskosmos are doing for the next-generation spacecraft and the modernisation of the Soyuz are two separate things, they are more like Phase 1 and Phase 2 of a program. So the new Soyuz spacecraft launching in 2010 will be more an evolutionary step forward like a Soyuz-TMA was a small improvement to a Soyuz-T. IF ESA and Roskosmos decide to build a real next-generation spacecraft after the ACTS study in 2008, that spacecraft will take a while to develop and test and WILL NOT be flown in 2010 or to the moon in the 2011-2012 timeframe.

 

[halman]

frodo1008,<br /><br />Without Russia, there probably would not be any manned space exploration at all. Only the embarassment of Russia putting a human in orbit goaded the United States into manned spaceflight, and the determination Russia displayed in frequent manned launches required a truly heroic response, so the U. S. went to the Moon. Russia has viewed space as a frontier for human development since the inception of their space program, while the United States has consistantly treated space as a laboratory for scientific investigation, and ignored the potential of humans living and working in space. Only pressure from our industrialized peers forced the United States to agree to building a spacestation, even though the U.S. had the premier vehicle for station construction all the way back in 1981.<br /><br />Maybe it is because Russia is such a difficult part of the world to survive, so space doesn't seem that challenging, that is behind the astounding progress they made through the 1960's and '70's. At one point, they had three seperate launch facilities, and the number of launches they did in a month exceded the yearly total of American launches on a regular basis. Building rockets on assembly lines made launch costs much cheaper, something the United States seems intent on ignoring. If we had built 20 or 30 Saturn 5 rockets, the price per rocket would have been far cheaper.<br /><br />Going to the Moon was merely an extension of getting off of this planet, something which the Russians did first. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Back in history,when Dwight Eisenhower was president of USA,the sputick was launched.It was the international geophysical year ,Krushev was present.He gave no inkling as to events.There was shock in USA, when sputnik went up much too surpring for American public.There was public outrage against leaders who were advocating US supremacy to nation "of peasants"I n fact shock increased after sputnik 2.Nasa saw the light of the day out of all these.Van Allen saved the face of US by sending explorer 2 .It was short time relief .Russians sent Votosk .Gagarin was first man in space.Kennedy took great initiative for sending man on moon to outdo Russins and in1969,there was first moon landing.Cold war by product.

 

[syndroma]

> <i>People should always be on alert when the name "Sevastyanov" is in an article about Russian space programs. </i><br /><br />I would be more aware reading claims of a Roscosmos officials, they are just technically illiterate. Especially their new PR guy, Panarin.<br /><br />Sevastyanov is a dreamer, in a position to fulfill his dreams. And things DO happen in Russia without Roscosmos, just look at Sea Launch, which is Energia's private endeavor.

 

[themanwithoutapast]

Energia's share of Sea Launch is 25%. They produce the Block-DM for the Zenit, a part of the Zenit they have produced before Sea Launch was created. I am not sure how we can back up claims of a company that it will have people flying to the moon in 2010 to 2011 by pointing to them building the 3rd stage of a launcher that has been in use for some 20 years now.

 

[syndroma]

Can you explain then why Energia got 25% for the upper stage while Yuzhnoe/Yuzhmash got only 15% for the whole rocket? And Energomash got nothing for RD-171? But you missed my point - Energia is free to pursuit its interests with or without support from Roscosmos (in reality things are a bit more complicated of course). <br /><br />And what's your problem with flyby of the moon? Digital version of Soyuz is in production already, new TPS and communication equipment are not impossible to design and build before 2010. Will this vehicle be the same one to be used by Europeans is yet to be seen.<br /><br />Things are complicated indeed, with little information available publicly, and your comments are of no help either.

 

[frodo1008]

I was NOT knocking either the Russians nor their excellent programs! However, if you look at the title of this thread it is just a tad bit on the confusing level, don't you think? The implication is that we (the US) are in some kind of competition with the Russians, but the truth is they are NOT landing ON the moon before the US gets back to it, they are NOT landing on the moon at ALL! The comparison is bogus as it compares apples with oranges!<br /><br />I actually wish the Russians all the success in the world (or out of it for that matter)! But facts are facts!

 

[halman]

frodo1008,<br /><br />I apologize for giving you the impression that I was flaming you over your remarks. I should have prefaced what I said with something like "Irregardless of the accuracy of the report, these are some things which I wish that more people were aware of." Or something like that. I basically used your post as a springboard to get a pitch in for the real pioneers in spaceflight, who are currently hamstrung by outdated American regulations from being able to receive any payment from the U. S. government to do contracting for us. If we wanted to get to the Moon in a hurry, I'll bet the Russians would be able to do it, if they had the cash in hand. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Ah, now I understand. No problem! As I stated, I too greatly admire the work of the Russians, whose equipment may lack some of the electronic and computer complexity of our own, BUT IT WORKS VERY, VERY WELL!!!! Perhaps BECAUSE it lacks some of our electronic and computer complexity?<br /><br />Sometimes, it seems that some of our members of congress are fighting the cold war still! Of course, some of these very same members of congress are the ones that keep NASA's budget as inadequate as it is in the meantime! Such vast wisdom is truly inspiring to future generations, I am sure!<br /><br />Live Long and Prosper!<br /><br />

 

[bdewoody]

My opinion is that Japan will be the next country to successfully land a human on the moon in a tight race with China. Neither country has to worry about nervous congressmen who can pull the rug out from under their respective space agency's feet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">However, if you look at the title of this thread it is just a tad bit on the confusing level, don't you think? The implication is that we (the US) are in some kind of competition with the Russians, but the truth is they are NOT landing ON the moon before the US gets back to it, they are NOT landing on the moon at ALL!</font>/i><br /><br />I apologize if the title misled, but the point still stands: a Russian company has announced plans to fly humans out to the Moon and back (i.e., well beyond LEO) <i>before</i> the Orion CEV makes LEO. (Side note: the article also mention's the company's plans for Lunar surface operations).<br /><br />The more interesting aspect (from my perspective) is the timing of the announcement: the same day that NASA announced the Orion CEV contract.<br /><br />Indeed, it was slightly over a year ago that the same guy announced that they would offer the same trip to tourists for $100 million. The odds of a non-coincidence re-announcement of the same plan on the same day that NASA and the Orion CEV is getting press attention are slim. I believe it was a case of "one-upmanship".<br /><br />A common theme on these boards is that America is <i><b>not</b></i> in a race this time. That somehow we are now above that this time. If you look at the language coming from Russia, China, Congress, and even Griffin, I think there is clearly a race.</i>

 

[mithridates]

I think the best thing any country could do for space would be a really quick and easy mission around the moon and right back. Even something of that minor magnitude would jolt people back into a competitive mode in a way that no unmanned probe can. Then again, countries are usually interested in winning space races and they probably wouldn't want to do something that would spur on other agencies while only costing money on their end. We on this board would be happy to see that though, I assume. The more competition the better. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[j05h]

> I think the best thing any country could do for space would be a really quick and easy mission around the moon and right back.<br /><br />The only issue is who is the race against? It gets really muddy when the lunar fly-by is crewed by an Energia cosmonaut and American billionaire. Who's race is that, and who just won? International Business? <br /><br />I give the Soyuz-flyby 0% chance of flying if it's only Russian. Not enough money available. If Space Adventures can find a client with the cash, I think they'll fly within 4 years of signing. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

Maybe it would be best if the US isn't the first back to the moon.<br /><br />The US was in a race with the Russians and we spent a huge amount of money and made incredible progress right up to the point that we actually beat them at something, people to the moon.<br /><br />Once we won the first thing, we called off the competition.<br /><br />Sooo, if somebody else makes it back to the moon first then maybe we will kick into high gear to....<br /><br />1) Build a moonbase.<br /><br />2) Go to Mars....<br /><br />etc.

 

[j05h]

> Maybe it would be best if the US isn't the first back to the moon. <br /><br />What I'm arguing is that private international businesses are going to spearhead space exploration. Excepting current robotic expertise. I think groups like Space Adventures and Energia have as good a shot at Moon and Mars flights as any national government. <br /><br />Whatever opens the frontier.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>