Slashdot Mirror


Soyuz To The Moon?

colonist writes "The Americans won the first race, but the Russians might beat them back to the moon. The reliable Soyuz, currently the only means of transport to the International Space Station, may send tourists on a voyage around the moon (gallery of illustrations). Constellation Services International's plans call for the Soyuz spacecraft to dock with a logistics module and an upper stage. The upper stage fires to send the Soyuz on a free-return circumlunar trajectory."

45 of 426 comments (clear)

  1. 503 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    first post before a 503

    1. Re:503 by ronnieroller · · Score: 3, Informative

      Seems like these 503 errors started when they had that upgrade awhile back

    2. Re:503 by JonBuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would be nice if the site admins posted some kind of explanation of why it's happening.

  2. Be sure to get... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the "free return" part in writing.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  3. Unspecified Fee by wayward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article says that they'll be charging an "unspecified fee." I'm curious how much that will be. Also, I wonder whether they'll have trouble with liability/insurance issues.

    1. Re:Unspecified Fee by kfg · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you're stuck in lunar orbit how are you going to file in a Russian court?

      KFG

    2. Re:Unspecified Fee by still+cynical · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unspecified fee:

      Liftoff: free
      Trip to lunar orbit: free
      Return to Earth: free
      Re-entry: free
      Deployment of parachutes: $100 million

      --
      Ignorance is the root of all evil.
  4. Intresting... by deedude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe this will kickstart a new space race to the moon. Of course, they said the same thing when when the Chinese talked about a moonshot as well (though I havn't heard anything sense). Perhaps the Russians will force a new market on space travel, and (hopefully) it'll get cheap enough in the future to be affordable. After all, who hasn't dreamed of going to the moon at some point?

  5. "Back?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wouldn't they have to get there in the first place to go "back"?

  6. yay me by underworld · · Score: 3, Funny

    my first slashism:

    in soviet russia, the moon circumnavigates you!

  7. Re:If you are tired of 503 by foidulus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'll post as a logged in subscriber, I'm not going to renew the subscription after the 503s....
    Watch the karma burn!

  8. if i had... by DeionXxX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    if i had the money... i'd do it in a heart beat... talk about ridiculously cool. what besides going to Mars (which won't happen for 20 more years atleast) would top it?

    some people spend ten - twenty years training and going to school for just the chance to go to space.

    fuck buying a big ass yacht or a stupid jet, you can fky to the goddammn moon!

  9. It might be a step in the right direction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Being 25 now I've been thinking what I consider likely things that I'll get the opportunity to do in life and i'm semi-sure that space tourism (in orbit) becoming affordable within my lifetime is likely and possibly trips to the moon as well. I'm not that sure about Mars - if a manned mission is likely within 25 years, a huge leap in technology might make it possible for the masses within 50. - I remember reading a (funny) prediction how Mars will be the favorite resort for senior citizens in 2050 because the lower gravity will be so much more pleasant. Who knows!

  10. Radiation by rarose · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd be concerned about radiation doses... I would imagine the Soyuz is only shielded for flight being more-or-less within Earth's magneosphere, but the moon is another story.

    How many chest x-rays in a moon trip? :-)

    --
    --Rob
    1. Re:Radiation by cmowire · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's no more or less shielded than Apollo.

      Basicly, the radiation dosage is small enough that you can do it once without any major side effects.

    2. Re:Radiation by Frogbert · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't think you should worry about that... Buzz Aldrin is what? 75 years old and still going strong. Ofcourse that all depends on whether he went to the moon in the first place *shifty eyes* *puts on foil hat*

    3. Re:Radiation by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It's no more or less shielded than Apollo.

      Indeed, Soyuz would have been the Soviets' moon spacecraft, if things had gone a little differently. What worries me is this:

      Soyuz has gone into Earth orbit a bazillion times and has had two lethal failures, both in the early days of the programme. As a space tourist, I'd accept those odds. But Soyuz has never been to the Moon, except IIRC as an unmanned Zond test flight... Apollo went nine times, one of which was very, very nearly a lethal failure. I'm not so sure of those odds, especially since an Apollo XIII failure would be very, very likely to become lethal due to the presence of an incompetent, untrained and panicking tourist in the capsule!

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    4. Re:Radiation by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Funny
      *shifty eyes* *puts on foil hat*

      If you're suggesting Aldrin never went to the Moon, a tinfoil hat won't help. I recommend a boxer's gumshield.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  11. Re:subtle joke by Somegeek · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't you hate having to explain your own jokes Timothy? I mean AC?

    --
    And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
  12. Space Race by tpgp · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Americans won the first race

    Which first race?

    Do you mean: (from Wikipedia's space race page)

    The first artificial satellite?
    The first animal in space?
    The first fly by moon?
    The first spacecraft on moon?
    The first human in space?

    They were the earliest space achievements - and all 'won' by the USSR.

    The American's won the race to get the first man on the moon - no more, no less.

    America did not win the space race.

    America did not win the 'first' race.

    --
    My pics.
    1. Re:Space Race by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      America did not win the 'first' race.

      Ok, yeah, but at least we did win the Battle of Pearl Harbor and capture the Enigma machine.

      KFG

    2. Re:Space Race by shadowbearer · · Score: 5, Informative

      America did not win the space race.

      America did not win the 'first' race.


      Hmmm.

      Some other firsts:

      First *guided* and piloted (as opposed to launched on similar orbits passing somewhat close at 4k mph) rendezvous in space: America, Gemini 6/7, which achieved rendezvous via onboard thrusters, computers, and radar.

      First men around the moon, first men *on* the moon: America (Apollos 8 and 11) - if anyone thinks that wasn't a win, you don't know what you are talking about - the Soviets simply couldn't match our determination and engineering)

      First human in space to move around with a device made for the purpose: Ed White, America ( the Soviet space walk was tethered and non-propelled; we developed something to allow him to move around and attempt the first useful work in orbit)

      First serious use of Geosynch communications sats: America; also first "spy" sats that could transmit via encrypted video and not rely on de-orbited film canisters.

      First unmanned docking with a booster which was used to boost our manned spacecraft into higher orbits: America (Gemini, with the Agena)

      First Human-guided landing on the moon: America (Neil piloting the LM down after the guidance computers failed - also, mind you, we essentially *boasted* that we'd land a man on the moon within ten years, and we did it - the Russians did not and still haven't. )

      First space "station": Skylab (yeah, not permanently manned, but it was the first, and very profitable knowledge-wise.) The Sovs profited a lot from the knowledge we gained from Skylab. Note that they didn't launch Mir for many years afterward.

      First reusable orbital vehicle that could deliver cargo: America - the space shuttle (yeah, it's a clusterfuck now - but blame the funders, not the engineers, at least not the original ones. We could do better, if the idiots in the many layers of "oversight" had got the hell out of the way in the 70s. )

      The Soviets won a lot of the unmanned contests back then, and some of the manned. We passed them by in the mid 60s and went higher and a *lot* further. (Yeah, we stagnated after that. But that's politics for ya; thanks for nothing, Nixon; despite your public support for the space program, you did doodly to stop it getting shafted by Congress.)

      What it comes down to, tho, is that the Soviets had no "firsts" in space after Leonov's space walk; and despite starting way behind them, we passed them and beat them hands down in the "space race". It wasn't until Mir that they did something we hadn't done - and if we'd taken advantage of the infrastructure we had at the point of Apollo 11, they'd not even done that.

      SB
      (apologies, I've just finished reading Chris Kraft's excellent book "Flight", and I recommend it highly.)

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    3. Re:Space Race by segfault7375 · · Score: 4, Funny


      ...he Soviets simply couldn't match our determination and engineering...

      In Soviet Russia, the moon lands on YOU!

      Sorry, I couldn't resist :)

    4. Re:Space Race by shadowbearer · · Score: 3, Informative


      Von Braun did a lot; but he was also somewhat of an obstructionist. His (and his team's) greatest contribution, late in the program, was the Saturn 1B and 5 rockets. Before that he was pretty well out of the picture, somewhat during Mercury, and totally out during Gemini and Apollo, other than his contribution to the launch platform.

      Von Braun was often described as someone who'd work for anyone, and had no allegiance to any country. I find that simultaneously despicable and admirable. The guy was one helluva engineer, and knew how to drive brilliant people to accomplish things.

      You should really read Kraft's book. There were many things in it that were an eye-opener.

      You should also think on how hard it is to work for someone you detest - Braun detested the Nazis, but he had little choice during WWII. We're just damned lucky that the Soviets didn't capture him first (IIRC he and his team *chose* to be captured by the Americans. THINK on that) .

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    5. Re:Space Race by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Which first race?

      The first race to the moon:

      The Americans won the first race, but the Russians might beat them back to the moon.

      The sentence is clearly referring particularly to the effort to send a manned mission to the moon, since it is predicated on the thing that the Americans did first.

      It's interesting to note that the US also nearly lost the race to be the first to circle the moon, as revealed here. Evidence suggests that the Soviets tried to beat Apollo 8 by mere days by launching a mission profile similar to this current tourist scheme. Unfortunately for the Soviets, the new Proton booster required to launch the unmanned half of the mission was still problem-prone at that time:

      A week later, the Soyuz booster is being removed from its pad, but now a Proton / L1 combination is on the Proton pad. This seems to clearly indicate that attempts were being made, right up to and beyond the day Apollo 8 was launched, to beat the Americans to the moon. The authors theorise that an attempt at a manned launch to the moon using the two-launch podsadka scenario was attempted, but that some serious spacecraft problem must have resulted in the Proton launch being scrubbed.

      This is basically the whole story of the "space race". The Soviets were first with everything that they could achieve with their outstanding R-7 booster (which was used to launch Sputnik, and evolved into the Soyuz booster still in use today). However, they had problems scaling past that in either size or complexity, and the Americans were first to do most things outside of low earth orbit (with the exception of their moon probes and their way-cool Venus landers).

  13. The rules are simple... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bring Back our Flag...

    And you've won. I'll be waiting.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    1. Re:The rules are simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're missing the point, there was no "Race to the moon", that was merely an invented fiction to make the US public feel good about themselves.
      The Russians at one point considered proposing to JFK that they share resources with the Americans regarding a moonshot to help spread the expenses a bit, this obviously failed when JFK got the bullet. The Soviets didn't want to send a manned mission to the moon, it was too much expense for far too little return, they were content to let the US go there and plant a silly little flag instead. The Soviets were smarter than that, they spent their money on multiple unmanned missions to the moon, to mars, to Venus etc..(they had rovers on the moon in the 60's remember) and got back reams more hard data than they would have if they'd blown it all on mega expensive PR stunts like the moon landings. make no mistake, the USA made a huge technological achievment with the landings and I think they were fantastic acomplishments but you have to remember, it was a one horse race, no matter what FOX tells you, the Soviets had better things to do so they didn't even bother trying.

    2. Re:The rules are simple... by pyrrhonist · · Score: 4, Informative
      The Soviets didn't want to send a manned mission to the moon, it was too much expense for far too little return, they were content to let the US go there and plant a silly little flag instead.

      This is complete bullshit. Kamanin's diaries prove this is untrue.

      The Soviet Union had two huge secret projects designed to win the moon race. The L1 project would send a Soviet crew around the moon before the Americans, using a stripped-down Soyuz spacecraft launched by a Proton rocket. The L3 project would beat the American Apollo program to the lunar surface. The Soviets lost both races. In the case of being the first to send a man around the moon, that loss was measured in days or weeks.
      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  14. Not a stretch, the Proton is made for this by Chairboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Soviets planned on launching a Soyuz atop a Proton launcher (currently used as a heavy cargo launcher, roughly equivalent payload to the Space Shuttle) to put a Soyuz into a free-return trajectory around the moon.

    The Proton was soviet man-rated in the 1960s, and the design has been extraordinarily succesful over the past 30+ years, so it's not unreasonable to imagine that this process could be completed again.

    The economical way to do this would probably be to man-rate it as part of a commercial launch. It wouldn't be free, but it would certainly be cheaper then developing a new heavy lift rocket or buying Titan IVB, the only other rocket in use with equivalent throw. Of course, this is complicated by the Titan IVB assembly line shut down, so you'd probably want to look at the EELV, but that's not flying yet.

    The Soyuz is built for the high-g reentry that a lunar return entails, they just need to pull their old heatshield design out of mothballs and modernize it.

  15. Recycling spacecraft by schweini · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I love the idea of recycling the Progress crafts by sending them to the L1 point and docking them together there in order to form a supply-silo instead of letting them disintegrate in the atmosphere.
    Which brings up a question that has been bugging me for ages: why isn't this done with other spacecraft?
    e.g. I guess the spaceshuttle's main tank (the big brown thing) is designed to resist immense pressures, and is mainly hollow after the fuel as been burned. why not fill it up with air, water or whatever (after cleaning), and use it as some form of emergency spacestation? or at least as a scrapyard in space?
    Of course there would be problems like the delta-v to escape velocity, etc. but with those immense costs of getting stuff into space, i'd suppose i'd still pay off, and it might spark of a "dirtier" kind of space-industry, (now that we are at the verge of being able to go to space completly privately), where companies recycle stuff in space for whatever...

  16. Obscene by noelo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If a trip into orbit costs hundreds of millions for space tourists, I imagine that a trip around the moon would cost billions. I might be nieve but for an individual to spend that amount of money on a tourist trip is obscene with the amount of world povery. We all bitch about Bill Gates and his amount of money but at least he uses his billions for some good via the Gates foundation.

  17. Re:Atlantis tragedy made economicly possible?... by StarWynd · · Score: 4, Informative

    we lost a shuttle and crew due to old systems breaking down

    Actually, the old systems have been pretty reliable. In the two shuttle disasters we've had, neither has been the result of equipment breaking down because of age. NASA took very good care of the shuttle, but the culprit of one disaster was a design flaw and the other disaster was caused by an accident. There's a big difference between a piece of foam damaging the leading edge of wing on take-off and a wing not working correctly because of lack of maintenance and care.

  18. Won which race? by natpoor · · Score: 4, Interesting
    We Americans may have won the first race to the moon, but we decided that the first race into space (satellite, human, take your pick) wasn't worth it since we were going to lose. Avoiding races you know you can't win isn't very sporting. If you want a real challenge, cooperation is much more difficult! (Eventually we succeeded at that too.)

    Thankfully the Soviets got Sputnik up there, though, huh? Otherwise, no Internet for us!

  19. Crap. by FrankieBoy · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The Americans won the first race"

    First satellite in space: USSR Sputnik

    First Dog in space: USSR Laika

    First Man in space: USSR Yuri Gagarin

    First Woman in space: USSR Valentina Tereshkova

    First Space Station: USSR Salyut

    First Earth Orbit by a human: USSR Yuri Gagarin

    First Space Walk: USSR Alexei Leonov

    First Woman Space Walk: USSR Svetlana Savitskaya

    Who won?

    1. Re:Crap. by yeremein · · Score: 4, Informative

      First Earth-orbit rendezvous: USA, Gemini VI/VII, 1965
      First Earth-orbit docking: USA, Gemini VIII, 1966
      First lunar soft-landing: USA, Surveyor 1, 1966
      First manned circumlunar flight: USA, Apollo 8, 1968
      First lunar-orbit docking: USA, Apollo 10, 1969
      First manned lunar landing: USA, Apollo 11, 1969

      The USSR made an impressive first showing, no doubt, but they fell short when it came to reaching the moon...

  20. Re:If you are tired of 503 by Trogre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm tired of them.

    But then again I'm not a subscriber, so it's not like slashdot owes me anything.

    In fact, quite the opposite.

    Still:
    Worst... Slashdot week... ever!

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  21. Re:The Space Race will be won by Russia and China. by Teancum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you consider other exploration groups that have been put forward by Americans, I think you are greatly mistaken. The opening up of the American West was filled with thousands of deaths, including little children that happened to be in the wrong place, like under a wagon axle or in the front of a stampeding herd of buffalo.

    The problem with NASA is it isn't being done the American way. The future of the American space program/space industry will be with groups like Armadillo Aerospace and Scaled Composites, not with "government" run projects like NASA. Americans can stomache deaths and accidents (look at the deaths of people who do base jumping in the USA). The problem is that it is very difficult to convince American taxpayers to foot the bill to allow people to do that kind of silly stuff.

    This is not to say that I think that India or China isn't welcome in space... far from it. Indeed, I see an Indian presence in space to be much more like the new American approach over time, if for nothing else than the fact that it will be the only way that India can afford a space program.

    China will be more like the traditional government run programs, but China has a tendancy of being even more cautious than the USA for doing things of that nature. This is not because they value life more or less, but the Chinese government will not want to appear to be a failure and it will affect the Chinese political heirarchy harder when failures do occur.

    BTW, the Americans used chimpanzees instead of dogs for the early spaceflights, precisely because they felt that the American people could stomache losing a chimp. Also, by using a chimp they could "test" response situations more accurately than could be done with a dog. If you want to see what Americans will support with tax dollars, just go to any animal shelter to see what is done when they get overcrowded. One method of euthenasia is death by suffication in a vacuum, no different than leaving a dog in space. Yes, I do know other methods are used like injection of lethal substances.

  22. The Space Station is in the wrong orbit by fname · · Score: 4, Informative
    Simply put, ISS is in the wrong orbit as a stopping point for cargo or people on the way to the moon. I stole this from an article on SpaceReview,
    For the ISS, its lack of usefulness as a base for lunar exploration is due to the fact that it is in the wrong orbit. In order to make the station accessible from both Cape Canaveral and Baikonur, it is in a skewed orbit, suitable for doing useful earth observation but not for much else. The Clinton administration saw it as a symbol of US-Russian friendship and for keeping the large aerospace contractors happy, but that was about it.
    The article goes on to say it's feasible if ISS is moved to an equatorial orbit, which simply won't happen unless it occurs 50 years from now.

    The reason it's not useful as a lunar stop-over base is the same reason that Columbia could not have docked at ISS. Changing from one orbit to another is extremely costly (in terms of fuel), and any lunar mission has to be essentially on the equatorial plane.

    Of course, the idea could still work, but the Soyuz would have to be launched to an equatorial orbit from a suitable launchsite.
  23. Illustrations are RIGHT by imroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    *sigh* No. You sound like the Apollo-fakers that try to pin all sorts of claimed "oddities" in the moon photos on the lack of atmosphere. Ever notice that here on Earth that shadows from the sun don't have a penumbra either? (at least, not big enough to notice)

    Go read up on "soft shadows" in any CG text. Soft shadows, or penumbras, are not due to atmosphere. Soft shadows are due to the light source being an area and that some points on a surface only "see" part of the light. These areas form a gradient on the surface from fully-lit to full-shadow.

    Presumebly you are referring to picture 6? That fade-off doesn't even have anything to do with soft shadows. That's simple diffuse lighting. As the surface turns away from the light source, it emits less light.

  24. Short Memories by Shihar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pointing out that the US is not always the shit is a no brainer. Super powers tend to fuck up because they are run by humans. Until we get rid of pesky humans, you can expect the US (and all other nations for that matter) to fuck it up and do bad things. Because the US is that last remaining super power, you can expect that when the US fucks up, it fucks up big.

    All of that said, the world is better off because of the existence of the US. People accuse Americans of having a short memory, but that seems to be a human condition, not just an American condition.

    If you recall 60 or so years ago there was World War II. Now it can be easily argued that the US stirred the pot for that war in its own way, though, if you are talking about Germany (Japan being a much different story), you can place the blame pretty squarely on Europe, and give the US credit for trying to prevent World War II. The US was one of the few countries not to demand 'reparation' payments from Germany over World War I, and in fact the US even made an attempt to pay off some of Germany's debt. A large hunk of the rest of the world did not take this approach and led Germany to complete and utter economic ruin, giving rise to fascism.

    We could talk a long time about World War II, but I think it can be summed up by saying that Russia would have fallen without a second front, and the second front would not have existed unless the US hadn't pumped resources to those brave Brits and eventually joined the fight themselves.

    On to the an interesting piece of history, the Cold War. First, the US saved West Berlin. Without the massive airlift effort in the face of the Soviet blockade, the people of West Berlin would have had the option of starving to death or surrendering to the Soviets. Zooming back a little further, it should be realized that the US spent the entire Cold War acting in the defense of democracy. It is naïve to think that the rest of Europe could have held back the Soviet Union on its own. Hell, half of Europe was already taken, and you can be certain they at least wanted the rest of Germany.

    The US spent countless trillions of dollars fighting the Soviet Union on every front. I don't think people understand what a large fraction of the US productivity and wealth was sacrificed in the Cold War simply to hold the Soviet Union back. That doesn't even begin to touch on the thousands of lives that were given up in places like Korea and Vietnam to fight them directly with guns and bullets. The world IS a better place because South Korea is not the festering pit of despair that North Korea is. The world IS a better place because West German remained free of Soviet oppression.

    The US fought the Soviets with a level of fanaticism that makes your average terrorist look mild mannered. The US had a finger leveled over the button to wipe out both the USSR and the US if it came down to that. The US was fully prepared to wipe itself out if that was the only way to hold the Soviets back. During the Cuban missile crisis, many Americans expected the end of the world. That moment where Kennedy brought the US to near nuclear oblivion over a stupid symbolic stand against the Soviets is revered in American history and made Kennedy a hero. Threatening to utterly wipe out the Soviet Union, and thus commit to having the Soviet Union wipe out the US is one of the prouder moments in American history.

    Love or hate it, the US has been fanatical for democracy and freedom since World War II. They have been fanatical enough to wipe themselves off the face of the earth in nuclear oblivion if it meant protecting the rest of the world from the Soviet Union. In that fanaticism more then a few horrible mistakes were made. The US has help more then its fair share of lesser evils to keep the greater evil at bay. Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden come to mind as people the US backed simply because they looked to be the lesser of two evils at the time. To say the US has never made a mistake would be silly. The

    1. Re:Short Memories by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Informative

      On to the an interesting piece of history, the Cold War. First, the US saved West Berlin. Without the massive airlift effort in the face of the Soviet blockade, the people of West Berlin would have had the option of starving to death or surrendering to the Soviets. Zooming back a little further, it should be realized that the US spent the entire Cold War acting in the defense of democracy. It is naïve to think that the rest of Europe could have held back the Soviet Union on its own. Hell, half of Europe was already taken, and you can be certain they at least wanted the rest of Germany.

      Yay, American distortion of the truth yet again. During the Berlin Airlift, flights were flown from 9 airfields into Berlin (mainly landing at Templehoff airport and Gatow RAF airfield - I lived at the latter in the 1980s). 6 of those airfields were in the British sector of western germany, dispatching mainly British aircraft carrying mainly British supplies. The US made up just slightly less than half of the effort right up until the last few months of the effort, when Truman authorised a 200% increase in the effort on the American side, right before the Soviets capitulated and reopened supply routes.

      Also something to think about is the fact that the US was NOT 'protecting' Europe out of altruistic feelings, it simply saw that a Soviet occupied Europe would pose a huge and imminent threat to the US if the Soviets ever decided to attack. Thus the effort and monetory value put into 'protecting' Europe made sense because it was infact protecting the US. Its interesting to note that if you look at history from the late 1940s to now with a objective eye, the US comes out as more aggressive than the USSR. It was the US hatred of the Soviet way of life that fueled the cold war. Fair enough, Soviet Russia may not have been a non evil country, but the arms race was born more out of the US view of the Soviet thinking than of Soviet aggression.

  25. Earth-Moon L-1? Riiiiight by GileadGreene · · Score: 3, Informative
    Interesting to note that in this slide they allude to the possibility of making some kind of permament "depot" at the Earth-Moon L-1. Which makes great PR, but also leads me to wonder just how much real analysis has gone into their mission concepts.

    Libration point mission are hard. Manned libration point missions - if we ever do one - would be harder, since they tend to be much more susceptible to last-minute changes in trajectory. Then add the complications of trying to do proximity maneuvers, let alone rendezvous-and-docking, in such a complex dynamic environment (the cutting edge in L-point research right now is formation flying - not close maneuvers, but just trying to maintain any kind of coordinated trajectory between multiple spacecraft). Finally, throw in the fact that the Earth-Moon libration points are tenuous at best, with dynamics that are seriously warped by the Sun's gravity (libration "points" are an artifact of three-body dynamics, such as Earth-Moon-Spacecraft), and you have a recipe for a severe difficulties or a serious cost explosion. Not to mention the propellant costs incurred by attempting to station-keep for any appreciable period of time in the vicinity of their "depot". As I said, it makes me wonder about the quality and/or depth of their analysis...

  26. Slightly OT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The russian soyuz seemes more reliable and much more cheaper than the american space shuttle. USA won the space race to the moon, but I guess that in the end the Russians won in terms of safe and cheap access to space.

    Each shuttle has a flight cost in the order of 500 million dollars (source) and each soyuz launch has a cost of 20-25 million dollars (cant find a source, however the spacetourists that paid 20 million dollars paid covered the launch costs IRC). So when the soyuz is 25 times cheaper than the space shuttle (ok, if you want to launch humans and payload, you need 2 soyuz launches, but its still cheaper) - why dont Nasa simply buy human/payload launch services from the russian agency, that would be much cheaper for Nasa.

  27. I'll Soyuz on the Dark Side of the Moon by Tex+Bravado · · Score: 4, Funny

    Over 30 years ago, Roger Waters knew what was coming.
    Cosmic ! Or merely Brain Damage...

  28. How about some important ones? by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny

    First game of golf played on another planet or moon: USA, Alan Sheppard, 1971
    First wheeled vehicle to be kicked because it wasn't working on another planet or moon: USA, Apollo 15, 1971
    First mutant space fungus to be grown entirely in orbit: Russia, Mir, 2000. Bonus points to the USA for bringing the original strain up with them on the space shuttle.
    First zero-gee sex in orbit: Still waiting for confirmation on this. Suspect a government cover-up of some kind.