Russians walking on the moon by 2012!

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ragnorak

Guest
<br />Yeah, your humble opinion...<br /><br />Even with the might of the Soviet Union the Russians couldn't organise a heavy enough lifter. Even if their plans had worked they would have landed one man on the Moon. I very much doubt that Energia could organise a lunar programme. Their CEO should stop making an idiot of himself.
 
R

revolutionary

Guest
Anyone that says the Russians can't pull it off is full of crap and is probably being paid by the Russians to say it.
 
A

askold

Guest
Why would the Russians want to pioneer this effort? It's really expensive.<br /><br />They'd be better off waiting for the US to establish a moon base, then fly paying tourists there.
 
S

spayss

Guest
It's comical to hear 'this' announcement and 'that' announcement. Russian won't be walking on the Moon in 2032 let lone 2012. Russia has better things to accomplish on the domestic front.<br /><br /> My guess for anyone from any country walking on the Moon will be 2025 at the earliest. More likely 2030.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">Why would the Russians want to pioneer this effort? It's really expensive.</font>/i><br /><br />It depends on what is found on the Moon with the earliest probes and orbiters as well as potential technological breakthroughs made here on Earth. As the article says, the vision is the "Implementation of the lunar program, which will usher in the industrialization of the Moon." The book "Moonrush" focuses on this issue. China has mentioned it a few times too. If a few of the areas of the Moon prove to be valuable, and most are not, I would expect to see a rush by organizations and countries to "stake a claim" on the valuable locations.<br /><br />And then there is always national pride.</i>
 
B

BReif

Guest
I think it is more likely that no-one will be walking on the moon in this century, if ever. Its too expensive with little promise of a return on investment. I think, IMO, that the new administration in 2009 will study the VSE and all of manned spaceflight, see it in that light, and terminate the entire program.
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
I just hope to see Kliper flying by 2012 or so! With the U.S. returning to primitive capsules, Kliper is about the only thing I have to get excited about in human spaceflight these days.
 
S

spayss

Guest
brief, I agree with the premise. If there is another Moon landing, people will ask 'why' and it'll be the end of it. The billions needed for a base just won't be there. I was a space fanatic as a kid and remember the apollo 11 Moon landing. After that it was a BIG YAWN. Nobody cared because nobody could come up with a reason for going back. The first man to walk on the Moon was going to be the most famous human in history...instead he's less known than Sponge Bob and Paris Hilton. <br /><br /> Space nuts all thin it's some great travesty that apollo was dumped and man hasn't been back to the Moon. In 2006 we can't come up with a better reason for going back than we could in 1976. If it was private funds, so be it but tens of billions of borrowed dollars added to the federal debt? No way.
 
J

josh_simonson

Guest
>I my humble opinion, their strategy is better than the US approach. <br /><br />The first stage of their strategy is almost identical to the ESAS approach, except they use a LOR-LOR architecture instead of EOR-LOR. ESAS goes on to talk about building a lunar base, but it gets pretty vague at that point and mostly shows that it's too expensive to do without additional funding. The Energia plan lays out all the steps and assumes funding is available and useful resources can be economically acquired from the moon. Energia is a profit-oriented company, unlike NASA, so they can chase after exploiting space resources for financial gain. Making money isn't in NASA's charter, so they best they can do is demonstrate that something is possible and hope that someone else picks up the ball or congress authorizes them to form a nationalized space resource exploitation administration.<br /><br />Where's the money going to come from for the Energia plan? Russian oil and gas exports have tripled in price and made them relatively wealthy of late (similar to the exuberance in CA during the dot-com boom). The main question is wether energia can convince the folks at the kremlin to invest in them. Major funding will probably be withheld pending confirmation of Helium-3 and it's market value (lunar probes and ITER). Unlike the americans the russians don't really care much about useless space science such as cataloging the composition of the rings around uranus, so they won't engage in a major moon program unless they see something useful coming of it like resources, or perhaps for national prestige. Now that they're feeling a bit flush, it must be tempting for them to show that they're back in the saddle and still a major player.
 
G

gsuschrist

Guest
Russian oil hasn't made Russia wealthy. The Russian economy is smaller than countries like Italy, France, Canada, the UK, etc. They are relatively poor and barely a modern first world country and more like a second tier economy. The Russians would have to spend trillions of dollars to begin to have a western standard of infrastructure to support a first world lifestyle. <br /><br /> Saying the Russians are wealthy is like saying a fellow living on the street with a hundred dollars in his pocket is wealthy compared to a fellow living in a million dollar mansion with 50 dollars in his pocket. The Russians are poor second cousins to most western nations.
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
And yet, Russia is investing in high speed rail and buying a fleet of German ICE's. What does that say about the United States' pathetic third world transportation system?
 
B

barrykirk

Guest
vt_hokie,<br /><br />I'm going to start beating the dead horse right now.<br /><br />There is an old saying that if the only tool that you have is a hammer, than every problem starts to look like a nail.<br /><br />A capsule is inherently any more primative or advanced than a winged or lifting body re-entry vehicle.<br /><br />One has to look at the function that needs to be performed to decide which one is the superior solution in that particular case.<br /><br />There is a connotation that a winged re-entry vehicle is re-usable and that a capsule is expendible....<br /><br />and that re-usable is a good thing because it's cheaper.<br /><br />I will put equipement into three catagories.<br /><br />1) Expendible<br />2) Re-furbishable<br />3) Re-Usable.<br /><br />Expendible is self explanatory. It was never meant to be re-used.<br /><br />Re-Usable is like my car. Refilling the gas tank is substantially less expensive then buying a new vehicle.<br /><br />Re-Furbishable is the catagory I would put the STS into. Sure, you can re-use it. But the cost to re-use it may exceed the cost of building another one or be very close to the cost of a new one.<br /><br />Traditionally capsules have been expendible, but you could make them re-usable or re-furbishable.<br /><br />Traditionally winged vehicles like the STS can return a large mass from orbit. A capability which we may or may not need in the future.<br /><br />Question, could a capsule be designed with this capability? I don't see why not.<br /><br />The STS has the advantage that you get your expensive engines back to re-use or refurb.<br /><br />The downside to that is that they had to mount the STS on the side of the stack which causes other problems which we've experienced.<br /><br />I don't think anyone here will argue that the safest place to put you crew is on top of the stack. That means your capsule or winged re-entry vehicle won't have the main engines on board.<br /><br />You have argued that a winged or lifting body is more advanced a
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
Well, if I had a choice between flying aboard CEV and returning to Earth as "spam in a can" after a high-G reentry, or flying aboard Kliper and making an aircraft style landing, I'd choose the latter.
 
B

barrykirk

Guest
I understand that, but does a capsule have to have a high G re-entry?<br /><br />I understand that a capsule could be designed to generate a certain amount of lift to minimize the max-g's.<br /><br />If I had a choice, I'd fly first class every time. I can't afford it, so I always fly coach.
 
J

jtkirk1701

Guest
we need reusalbe for low earth orbit. if it can meet a larger vessel in orbit that has the ability to leave orbit.
 
Q

qso1

Guest
We need reusability regardless of capsule or winged. The shuttle was much larger than NASA originally wanted which was one contributing factor to the expense. A dynasoar type vehicle could be less expensive to operate in situations where winged vehicles were required. Capsules can be designed to be reused and could perform many functions. In cases where something large has to be brought back to Earth, the shuttle would be necessary but this has not proven to be a need on a regular basis except in Spacelabs case. Spacelab however was designed to remain in the shuttle payload bay during their missions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>
 
J

john_316

Guest
LOL<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Well, if I had a choice between flying aboard CEV and returning to Earth as "spam in a can" after a high-G reentry, or flying aboard Kliper and making an aircraft style landing, I'd choose the latter."</font><br /><br />Of course you would. But hypothetical future space travel agency would charge perhaps $3M for the luxury Kliper flight to your space hotel while more mass efficient CEV transportation would cost you only $1M. If you are filthy rich the difference won't matter <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />It's just like the subsonic/SST thing we talked about over at NSF. Capsules always have the economic edge, unless you alter the laws of physics, discover magic fuel or turn everybody a billionaire <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />
 
T

thinice

Guest
<i>"...$3M for the luxury Kliper flight to your space hotel while more mass efficient CEV transportation would cost you only $1M."</i><br /><br />Do you expect a devaluation of USD before CEV and Klipper will come to service? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
J

j05h

Guest
>Do you expect a devaluation of USD before CEV and Klipper will come to service?<br /><br />I don't expect a devaluation, but I don't expect CEV to ever carry paying passengers. Klipper is being built expressly as a multi-role craft, CEV is so far "government only". <br /><br />The next moon landing will be carried out by a private firm with a specific goal in mind. <br /><br />j <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
VT, you DEFINATELY need to get out more! The proposed Kliper is far less advanced than the CEV. The Kliper can't go to or return from the moon. The winged version of Kliper can't even make orbit on paper yet and if it missed the runway on its first and only pass, well sorry tovarich! The pure biconical version lands with parachutes and airbags like the CEV (Even the winged version will need a stabilizing parachute durring reentry.) It combines the worst features of a lifting body and a capsule! (Large exposed heat shield, unsuitable for direct lunar reentries, not a whole lot more cross range compared to the CEV) Still I hope to see it flying. Competition is good for progress and they need to upgrade from the Soyuze just as we need to upgrade rom the shuttle (and by upgrade I'm refering to the CLV/CaLV combination--twice the payoload of the shuttle, lower costs and greater safety for just launching humans.)<br /><br />If you want mass transit move to the big city. I'm willing to bet that New York's MTA, Metro North, PATH and LIRR systems come close to rivaling the rail system of all of Germany combined. Remeber, Europe is physically a much smaller place than the US. And much older and more settled. Rail didn't catch on in Europe until barge and cart traffic were so overloaded and condtions in cities were so crowded and congested that it was the only viable chioce. Most palces in teh US haven't reached taht point yet, but its changing. You seldon hear people WANTING to put in any new highways anymore--contrast this to the 50s when building highways was the epitome of "progress".<br /><br />As far as Rusians on the moon by 2012--doubtful, but encouraging that people are even dreaming about it. The US was a lot further away from landing a man on the moon when Kennedy announced it as our goal than the Russians are today, so who knows.
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
<i>I'm willing to bet that New York's MTA, Metro North, PATH and LIRR systems come close to rivaling the rail system of all of Germany combined.</i><br /><br />I used to work in New Jersey, and I took a NJ Transit train from my apartment in Westwood to my job in Teterboro when I worked for AlliedSignal. But I got laid off and had to go where I could find work. Believe me, I do wish to move out of the sticks and back to civilization.<br /><br />As for rivaling Germany, maybe when we have some of these!<br /><br />http://www.railfaneurope.net/ice/ice.html<br /><br />Amtrak's Acela Express is the closest thing we have to high speed rail, but it still can't match what they've got in Europe!<br />
 
B

barrykirk

Guest
Agreed, that re-usable is a necessary long term feature. But NASA never built a re-usable. They built a re-furbashible and then called it a re-usable.<br /><br />If they could fly the same shuttle two weeks after landing and the ground handling costs were not much higher than the cost of the fuel, then it's re-usable.<br /><br />First Stages should be the easiest to make re-usable, but NASA couldn't pull that one off.<br /><br />The procedure for refurbing a SRB is way too costly and time consuming. I will know that they are serious about re-usable when they switch to liquids. Sorry, but that's just the way I feel.<br /><br />Make the first stage big, powerful, expensive, and really REUSABLE.<br /><br />Then start looking at re-using second stages.<br /><br />Eventually, you will have everything re-usable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts