Vulcan Administrator
Russian Technologies Can Put Cosmonauts On Moon
Despite Russia's 30-fold disadvantage in financing its space effort as compared with America's, it has greater chances of being the first in reaching the Moon this time, or perhaps the Mars.
The paradox is that the Americans have put all their money in the transport system being developed by NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and its budgetary division.
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Established Member
good for them. There'll be no sour grapes from this american. If the Russians can develop cheap, reliable transport then they deserve to win.
Established Member
The Chinese are not to be ignored either. WIth Japan and Europe ramping up their space programs, I expect the USA to be watching someone else do the landing in the near future.
Established Member
I don't know what gives you the impression that Europe is 'ramping up' its Space Program, but it is actually not the case. Budget levels for the coming years (up to 2013) will be corrected for inflation only. This still means that several science programs will have to be cut or scaled down. As far as Russia is concerned, they did indeed increase their space budget but it is nowhere sufficient to do anything beyond Clipper (which is a shuttle to LEO). Japan has launched Hayabusa and a wheather satellite but nothing else, and China is launching 1 manned spaceflight every 2 or 3 years.Originally Posted by Enzp
So, if forced, I would put 4 cents on an American walking on the Moon within the next 20 years, 1 cent on China and 95 cents on nobody at all.
Member
"Most of them have been spent on upgrading the space shuttle system and looking for causes of the Columbia disaster of February 1, 2003. Reports also say that the idea is mooted to abandon the shuttle program altogether and save money for lunar and Martian missions.
But such a step is unlikely to meet the emerging deficit in NASA's budget, which may grow to $6 billion at the peak of preparations (2006-2010) for interplanetary expeditions. Only extra cash injections can allow the agency to develop and build a new generation manned spacecraft by 2012 that is necessary for a lunar mission scheduled by President Bush for 2020."
I didnt know budget problems were already this big, I thought the idea of cutting all but iss construction shuttle missions would free up the money.. So not only cost overruns for shuttle but also for interplanetary missions? Howbout spacetelescopes?
2 billion a mission on existing Soyuz technology?..even Spacedev is not so "cheap"
Does anyone know howmuch the 2nd or 3rd nasa manned moon mission would probably cost?
Established Member
First? What, is there a 30 year statute of limitations on "firsts" or something?
Order of Kilopi
Hawking has his predictions.
Here is mine:
The first to build an HLLV wins the Moon.
----------------Period
Order of Kilopi
Some pics of Russians at work:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...rt=11&posts=19
This is how REAL spaceflight goes. Blue Collar Space. Not rich wannabes cavorting all over like Branson, or Rutan in his powered gliders.
This is WORK people.
This is what you are really competing with--Men of Iron forged in the the furnaces of the Gulag--hands scarred and burned.
Men not afraid of work. This is the kind of committment that also allowed Stennis to rise from the muck. Go big--or don't go at all.
Established Member
I'd like to see that.
Order of Kilopi
Going to the moon to do what, exacly? There's no prize for being second, is there?
Order of Kilopi
True. But spaceflight only seems valid if it is a plaything for rich pilots--with SPS systmes that humanity needs being laughed at by the alt.spacers who need to focus on payloads.
I have been an advocate for SPS, say--for awhile. people think if an object in space is over a certain size--it is impossible. But that would only be true if craft werer limited in size to the very playthings the alt.spacers want. Large craft combined with nanosheet tech can really open space for us in a few years--if we cooperate.
Order of Kilopi
Stay. Given the astounding engineering edge Russia has over the US in terms of mission endurance, I have little doubt in my mind, that if Russia puts its own people on the Moon, they're not leaving anytime soon.
Established Member
If they only got some more $$$.
Established Member
Greece could have been the first nation to reach the Moon, if the Greek cities of the classical period had coöperated with each other instead of competing and occasionally fighting.
There is a lesson to be taken from this.
Order of Kilopi
In the rush to get to the moon in the 1960's and 1970's they forgot to plan, to stay. That's a bit like spending years getting fit for a marathon and then when you've crossed the line ... just vegetating.
Established Member
Actually it was like the marathon. In the marathon, it is just a race, and when you are done, you haven't actually gone anywhere. It is the competition, not the destination. The original moon landing was a race with the Soviets, pure and simple. We got there, we won, race over.
Established Member
What engineering edge? This may have been true when Mir existed and Space Station Freedom was just an expensive pipedream, but it doesn't hold water today.
Order of Kilopi
America landed on the moon a number of times (I am not sure how many).
How many Russian manned missions landed? Any?
I know they did Lunakhod's etc
Established Member
Six Apollo missions actually landed on the surface of Moon, that is 12 astronauts in total.
Three other Apollo missions visited Moon's vicinity (some astronauts were there twice). No other people, including Russian, have been anywhere near the Moon. Soviet Union had the required capacity to send people there, but after Apollo 11 it lost its interest for manned lunar missions. Instead they focused on building space stations in low Earth orbit.
There have been several US and Soviet unmanned lunar landing missions. Soviet Lunokhod is so far the only robotic rover ever traveled on the surface of the Moon.
Order of Kilopi
Their edge is that they aren't obsessed with the state of the art. They go with what works without needing to reinvent the wheel every time they make an incremental step forward in systems technology. They like their systems straightforward and uncomplicated. Stuff that can possibly be dealt with on site without needing to pester the ground staff to figure out what the heck the engineers screwed up THIS time.
I see people writing about why we don't simply go back and upgrade Apollo capsule designs with newer technology, and I hear their explanations about why not and I want to slap them upside the head. The Russians have been doing exactly that with their Soyuz craft since the first one flew ages ago. I sincerely doubt the electronics in current generation Soyuz craft are carbon copies of the first systems, but what was changed as technology advanced was adapted without needing to completely scrap the design and start all over again.
Given a choice, I'll go with a design philosophy based around "We know this works" over "Most advanced" any day of the week.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote