Countries Considering Circumlunar Flight From ISS

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Countries Considering Circumlunar Flight From ISS

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday October 12, 2010 @08:50AM from the because-they-can dept.

FleaPlus writes "The BBC reports that the space agencies of Europe, Russia, and the US are in (very) preliminary discussions about a potential collaborative mission where astronauts would assemble a small spacecraft at the ISS, then fly it around the Moon and back. This is somewhat similar to previously-proposed commercial missions, with many elements adapted from spacecraft systems already in existence. This would also be a testbed for eventual asteroid and Mars missions, which would likely require modules to be launched on multiple rockets and assembled in space."

170 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Let's do this thing! by elrous0 · 2010-10-12 08:54 · Score: 3, Funny

I think they should make it look like an awesome motorcycle, with flames painted on it and a kick-ass logo with a skull, spinners, and a lot of chrome--I mean a LOT of fucking chrome! And that shit should have hydraulics too, just a crazy lift kit...an INSANE lift kit!

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:Let's do this thing! by ElectricTurtle · 2010-10-12 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Pfff motorcycle... bah! It should be a 1960s Corvette like in the opening to Heavy Metal.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
2. Re:Let's do this thing! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  Yessir! I've got the Heavy Metal soundtrack ripped and ready to go!!
3. Re:Let's do this thing! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  A Delta 66 baby!
4. Re:Let's do this thing! by ooshna · 2010-10-12 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  No way I'm think more like the Scooty Puff Sr.
5. Re:Let's do this thing! by c6gunner · 2010-10-12 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  So .... something like this?
6. Re:Let's do this thing! by sconeu · 2010-10-12 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Only if they play "Radar Rider" during launch.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
7. Re:Let's do this thing! by Duggeek · 2010-10-12 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  ...and only if they get to ride in their EVA suits,
  ...and get it on tape,
  ...to the sweet, sultry sounds of Journey.
  
  --
  This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
do it. by Ryanrule · 2010-10-12 08:54 · Score: 1

do it now!
1. Re:do it. by ByOhTek · 2010-10-12 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure if you are joking, serious, or trying to be cute with a quote, or some combination of the above, but I agree with the literal interpretation.
  It's a wonderful test to advance our abilities in space travel. And, if the test works, we could keep adding on to the module, and if we really want to do something interesting, have multiple fueling trips, for larger fuel capacities and better/faster flight times for different locations in the solar system.
  Am I too optimistic if I find this *VERY* exciting?
  
  --
  Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Wow! by MozeeToby · 2010-10-12 08:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Am I the only one who thinks that this could have been done 30 years ago with multiple shuttle launches. I know, I know, the shuttle engines are designed to perform multiple long burns without being inspected and rebuilt but come on, orbital refueling just seems like the kind of thing we should have been doing for decades now. I guess we haven't done much for manned (and therefor time critical) long range missions since Apollo but still, this seems like it's some pretty low hanging fruit as far as space exploration technology is concerned.
1. Re:Wow! by KillAllNazis · 2010-10-12 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Hindsight is 20/20. If it's a low hanging fruit it's one that hasn't been reached yet.
2. Re:Wow! by sznupi · 2010-10-12 09:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  We routinely do refueling on orbit "for decades now" - ISS, earlier Mir and Salyut stations, all refueled by visiting Progress spacecraft (which have provisions for fuel transfer in their docking collar)
  (but Shuttle would be really a bad choice for such mission - around 70 tons of dead weight, thermal shielding probably ill-suited for a possibility of direct reentry on return)
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
3. Re:Wow! by Facegarden · 2010-10-12 09:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Am I the only one who thinks that this could have been done 30 years ago with multiple shuttle launches. I know, I know, the shuttle engines are designed to perform multiple long burns without being inspected and rebuilt but come on, orbital refueling just seems like the kind of thing we should have been doing for decades now. I guess we haven't done much for manned (and therefor time critical) long range missions since Apollo but still, this seems like it's some pretty low hanging fruit as far as space exploration technology is concerned.
  I know you're just highlighting the point, but you really shouldn't act so surprised. Sadly, everything we do in space is low-hanging fruit. We've done some amazing stuff with telescopes and things launched out into space, but as far as human exploration... not much has been done in the last 40 years. We could have easily had a manned outpost on Mars already, but it would have taken a lot of money, a lot of risk (with likely some tragic deaths along the way - more so than what we've had) and least likely of all, the cooperation from one political administration to the next.
  That's the biggest problem at NASA - one president says "The last president had no vision - lets go to mars!" and then the next president says "The last president was spending like crazy. We can't afford to go to mars!" and then it repeats every 8 years or so.
  If we had had a concerted and continuous effort to explore space, we could have filled out the inner solar system by now.
  But would have taken trillions of dollars, and a level of agreement that we've simply never had.
  Thats why I'm so excited about privatization of space exploration - a corporation has a real vested interest in getting something done. Unlike politicians.
  Hopefully the billionaires of the world will take us places no government has. THAT is what I'm looking forward to.
  Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has said he'd like to retire on mars. That's likely a little far-fetched, but he's more likely to make that happen than NASA. (well, technically his fortune is pretty small in comparison to some other people, but lets say Tesla does really well...)
  -Taylor
  
  --
  Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
4. Re:Wow! by h4rr4r · 2010-10-12 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Or one real rocket launch.
  I want to meet the man that decided to put the crew vehicle on the side of the stack and ask him two things.
  1. Did you ever see a rocket launch before making that decision?
  2. WTF were you thinking?
5. Re:Wow! by Nefarious+Wheel · 2010-10-12 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Apollo 11 was run from this perspective. Multiple launches (Apollo + Agena) docked in orbit to become the composite lunar spacecraft.
  
  --
  Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
6. Re:Wow! by Darkness404 · 2010-10-12 09:28 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Exactly, the problem is though, we need agreements that governments won't interfere with private spaceflights which is what will probably happen. Already billions of dollars have been spent on spacecraft, R&D and research that is locked up in government hands and even though we, the taxpayers have paid for it, we can't access it.
  
  If the government would simply let citizens use what they have paid for, I think we'd see private spaceflight soar to new levels.
  
  But until we have a sane foreign policy that maintained lasting alliances without either sacrificing the sovereignty of the country or its citizens, I don't think that will happen because rather than use diplomatic means we want to attack anyone who might get a nuke in the unsustainable idea that no one is going to develop that technology independently so the US's citizens get harmed.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
7. Re:Wow! by tibit · 2010-10-12 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  The shuttle engines turned out to be brittle things, and the initial overhaul/life design goals were missed by a lot. They are removed for inspection (partial disassembly!) after each mission. I don't know about other parts, but I know that the block II (redesigned) turbopumps had a 10 mission design overhaul period, I don't know how it turned out in practice.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
8. Re:Wow! by Lord+Ender · 2010-10-12 09:36 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  No, you can't just refuel a shuttle in orbit. I don't know if you've noticed, but the shuttle's tanks drop off the thing on its way up.
  And even if it kept its tanks on it, it's not a station wagon. You don't just refuel it and turn the key. It is designed for one launch, from a big complicated tower, and then must be overhauled before launching again.
  
  --
  A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
9. Re:Wow! by Planesdragon · 2010-10-12 09:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We could have easily had a manned outpost on Mars already, but ...
  But there's ZERO profit in it. Go on and name a period of human exploration of Earth, and all of them have one thing in common: profit.
10. Re:Wow! by maxume · 2010-10-12 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  So you are somewhat realistic about it costing trillions of dollars to put a few dozen people on Mars.
  Do you really see trillions of dollars of benefits from such a thing?
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
11. Re:Wow! by vlm · 2010-10-12 09:42 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The shuttle engines turned out to be brittle things, and the initial overhaul/life design goals were missed by a lot.
  
  Early on they fixed the size / mounting / weight. But the shuttle continually got in danger of cancellation, so they added more and more promises, until it attempted to do everything for everyone. Which made it fat. Only way to get more thrust is crazy chamber pressure, approaching 3000 psi. Which requires crazy injection pressure to keep the injectors stable. Which results in turbopumps that only last "about one mission, plus or minus one".
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
12. Re:Wow! by vlm · 2010-10-12 09:46 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  2. WTF were you thinking?
  Probably, "I can't believe they're making us risk all these lives so that we can haul the shuttle engines back to earth and reuse them" Followed closely by "the damn SSMEs are going to be such maintenance hogs we'd be better off ditching them in the ocean anyway".
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
13. Re:Wow! by CohibaVancouver · 2010-10-12 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Go on and name a period of human exploration of Earth
  No profit:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste
14. Re:Wow! by Facegarden · 2010-10-12 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  So you are somewhat realistic about it costing trillions of dollars to put a few dozen people on Mars.
  Do you really see trillions of dollars of benefits from such a thing?
  It depends. What else are you using the money for? War? Or feeding the poor?
  If we spent trillions on space exploration, I imagine that the amount of new technology developed to do so could greatly improve the lives of many people on earth. At least, in the long run.
  But its really hard to say, unfortunately. That would be a long debate, and I'd have to do some research to give you a good answer. For now, all I can say is that I think it would be a good thing.
  -Taylor
  
  --
  Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
15. Re:Wow! by vlm · 2010-10-12 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  The OMS engines optimistically have a total delta-V, stock, of about 1/3 of a KM/s if their tanks are full (which they aren't, after circularizing orbit). You probably could top them off at great effort.
  Unfortunately it takes about four times that delta V to get from low earth orbit to low lunar orbit. So you'd be better off shoving tanks into the cargo bay.
  Big problem is absolutely everything else from navigation sensors, non-rad hard computers, cooling system, communication system, all of it would have to be gutted and redesigned. May as well start from scratch... which they're doing...
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
16. Re:Wow! by Captain+Nitpick · 2010-10-12 10:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Apollo 11 was run from this perspective. Multiple launches (Apollo + Agena) docked in orbit to become the composite lunar spacecraft.
  This is incorrect. Each manned Apollo mission used a single Saturn V. (Except for the Apollo 7 test flight, which used a Saturn IB.) Orbital docking occurred between the command/service module and lunar module launched on the same rocket.
  Agena boosters were modified to practice docking during the Gemini program, but had no direct involvement in Apollo.
  
  --
  But then again, I could be wrong.
17. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  You'd be better off getting some high-reliability main engines (with reduced thrust, and thus forcing the space-going orbiter to be launched to LEO essentially empty, then add the payload when you refuel on-orbit); since there is little drag above the altitude where the empty tank is dropped, keeping it attached and then fully or partially refilling it on-orbit is quite feasible.
  IMO the biggest problem is that the SSME, as it made it into production, is the rocket equivalent of a smallblock V8 modified to make 1000hp. Sure, if you know what you're doing, you can get that power out of it -- once -- but you're not gonna take it on a road-trip.
  That, and the fact that everyone, including me, can look up some numbers on wikipedia, toss out a hypothetical mission profile, and see if the delta-v's there. We're all rocket scientists these days, and that's definitely a good thing. But it does make it easy to underestimate the actual cost of developing that alternate mission profile, including all the risk assessment and mitigation, to the point where you can start ordering parts and modifications. The "overhead" engineering cost here is rather larger than the actual cost of modifying the bird, and that funding has to somehow be provided (with no guarantee that the answer won't be "sorry, can't do that in acceptable parameters") before we can commit to the mission. And in that sense, even if the orbiter needed nothing but an engine swap, you're right, we may as well start from scratch -- it's a lot easier to sell politicians a project to develop a new vehicle than a project (even if it were as low as half the cost) to develop a modification to an old vehicle.
18. Re:Wow! by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-10-12 10:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Despite what you and some others want everyone to believe, there are quite a few people in this world that do stuff for things other than profit. One of the (maybe) advantages of the increasing poverty-wealth gap is that some individuals who are able to accumulate an enormous amount of money (think Musk, Branson) are able to do things for reasons other than profit. These things may include (if all goes according to Musk's plan) space exploration. It wouldn't surprise me, in the least that some Billionaires out there do things just for the hell of it. This isn't exactly a first in history. Look at the pyramids in Egypt, or most of the ancient wonders of the world. The extraordinarily rich dumped their life savings into what was, essentially, a giant penis waving contest. The only difference today is that big building's don't suffice for bragging rights anymore. So Musk and Branson and Bigelow said they want to up the bar and start a penis-waving competition over getting to various places in space first. One way or another, such adventures will spin off technologies and knowledge that, unless it is lost entirely, will benefit mankind overall. Personally, I'm okay with that.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
19. Re:Wow! by corbettw · 2010-10-12 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  So your rebuttal that profit is not, in fact, the prime motivator for periods of exploration is a stunt that only happened once and still hasn't been repeated? Interesting....
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
20. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 10:30 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The Trieste was part of a United States Navy project during the late 50's, when the US had a strong vested interest in developing better submersible technology for it's expanding fleet of nuclear submarines.
  So to amend the grandparent, there are TWO reasons why any real exploration is done: profit and military gain. The fact is, exploration takes a huge investment and enormous risks, and the only times in human history it has been done was because there was something to gain by it, be it profit or power.
21. Re:Wow! by rijrunner · 2010-10-12 10:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Umm. Not with the Shuttle. The engines are badly designed for zero-G. They have never been fired in orbit for a reason. (Also, the Shuttle could not have survived re-entry from a lunar return. It gets real ugly trying to cut the velocity from a vehicle returning from that far out.)
  But, you could have done with with some basic assembly. The technology has been there for years. The last real innovation was the TransHab module.
  There are some real technical issues to deal with when discussing ISS though. It is in a very bad orbital plane for lunar missions. There are much better orbits. I am cynical here. I think the reality is that ISS really does not have much of a purpose outside of justifying Shuttle budgets.
22. Re:Wow! by sconeu · 2010-10-12 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Just being nitpicky. Are you counting Skylab and ASTP as Apollo missions? Those used a Saturn 1B as well.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
23. Re:Wow! by Chris+Burke · 2010-10-12 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Just being nitpicky. Are you counting Skylab and ASTP as Apollo missions? Those used a Saturn 1B as well.
  Why would you infer that, since they never said only Apollo missions used Saturn 1B rockets?
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
24. Re:Wow! by Crypto+Gnome · 2010-10-12 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  For the life of me it ASTOUNDS ME how big an issue this is for The United States of America.
  
  Maybe y'all need to go back and HIT YOUR HISTORY BOOKS a little more.
  
  If it were not for amazingly brave/fearless/reckless adventurers who KNEW BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that risking their life (and the lives of their crew) was worth it, to make such an amazing new discovery YOUR NATION WOULD NOT EXIST TODAY.
  
  --
  Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
25. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  Actualy it was allready done flying around the moon with the apolo
  Since we can dock in space already even roboticly, automaticly and since we now the math of orbiting.
  I wonder what the added value is, the idea is to serperate from the ISS, go around the moon, and back to earth.
  Way more simple and cheaper would be to return to the ISS again (requires no parachutes, heatshielding etc).
  Something with more added value is to launch from the ISS something that can harvast 'dead' satelites, and return them to the ISS.
  Then add a repair bay to the ISS or make something new from the old satellites.
  If you cant repair them removing of those satelites would already be quite an achievement.
26. Re:Wow! by mike260 · 2010-10-12 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Do you really see trillions of dollars of benefits from such a thing?
  It's not like the money would be created or destroyed either way. More interesting to think of the resources that would be expended - lots of brainpower, lots of gear, a bit of fuel and a few lives risked.
27. Re:Wow! by turbidostato · 2010-10-12 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  "If it were not for amazingly brave/fearless/reckless adventurers who KNEW BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that risking their life (and the lives of their crew) was worth it, to make such an amazing new discovery YOUR NATION WOULD NOT EXIST TODAY."
  Yeah, sure. The problem is that what's worth is based on expected profit. Which in turn is based on the difference between percieved cost and expected gains.
  What I mean is that you tend to have more people risking their lives when they percieve that their life sucks (if you reduce percieved costs, it's easy to achieve percieved net benefits). You wouldn't have a gold rush out of a bunch of self-satisfied overweighted people.
  Or, in other words: you yourself, Mr Crypto Gnome, have enough stamina to tell people to hit their History books, from the comfortability of your basement supported by a full fridge, but you don't go yourself to find a new diamond mine in the middle of a war territory. Ask yourself why.
28. Re:Wow! by maxume · 2010-10-12 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  The money is a pretty good proxy for the resources that would be expended.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
29. Re:Wow! by Chris+Burke · 2010-10-12 11:46 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  *Sitting in my lavish study with the window overlooking the hedge maze, idly browsing Slashdot while sipping expensive brandy*
  The extraordinarily rich dumped their life savings into what was, essentially, a giant penis waving contest.
  *Monocle pops out of eye*
  Great Scott! That's it!
  *Picks up the phone and hits speed dial #1*
  Benson! Be a good chap and cancel the space exploration initiative. I know, it was very exciting, but it won't be necessary anymore. I've found a much more direct way to accomplish the same thing! Instead, I want you to redirect all the funding to constructing a tremendous waving phallus! I mean tremendous like the Burj Khalif, only thicker! No, not a merely phallic tower, I mean as close to an actual phallus as possible. And it has to wave back and forth while still remaining proudly erect in testament to my manhood. You see now? Good. Yes, of course it needs testicles! You're not much of a man with one but not the other, right? What's that, Benson? Ah, I'm not sure. Let's let the architect decide if that would make it look too Jewish. Good. Then get to it, and do keep it quiet as much as possible. You know as soon as my peers hear of this idea, they'll start making plans for even bigger ones, so mine must at least be the first to be finished and waving in their faces! Thank you, Benson.
  *Hangs up the phone*
  Ah, thank you Slashdot. To think I was going to waste all that money on a moon base! How silly that would have been!
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
30. Re:Wow! by Idiomatick · 2010-10-12 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  There is 100% no use for a refuelling station in space unless we are landing (and leaving) in other gravity wells similar to our own or deeper.
  
  In space fuel and engines used are completely different things from the ones we use leaving a gravity well.
  
  If we are always going to space from earth then there is no need to carry around the giant ass in-atmosphere engines. It is simply a waste of effort. Going to space from here we won't need to keep the engines because we can always attach fresh engines here on earth next departure. And clearly you don't need the engines to land or crash into any heavenly body.
  
  The only time we would need the big in-atmosphere engines to actually make it to space is if we land on and then depart from another planet... One where we don't have large manufacturing plants to attach fresh engines.
  
  So why would we have such a thing set up?
  
  Also, pumping fuel from the earth processing and refining it to ship it up out of earth's deep gravity well seems like a lot of waste (the cost of launch just to make fuel available is very high). IF we are to honestly start landing on other planet/moon's surfaces we need a better system. Perhaps rather than pumping gas from earth we could develop a transport system from Titan. .14g (escape velocity of 2.6km/s rather than 11.2km/s). It has lakes of hydrocarbons that we could make usable with little refining (using a robust engine rather than building a large refinery operation may be easier). (I'm aware that the hydrocarbon lakes are near the poles but there IS likely someplace we could get fuel easier than earth)
  
  A possible advantage of getting the fuel off earth would be profit. If economies of scale kick in then it might make economic sense to ship fuel or other materials to earth (if we already have an in space shipping service for the fuel)...
  
  My apologies for rambling.
31. Re:Wow! by dakameleon · 2010-10-12 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  If the government would simply let citizens use what they have paid for, I think we'd see private spaceflight soar to new levels.
  Ok, sure. Here's the keys to the space shuttle, go for it buddy.
  Oh wait, you want the facilities too? ok sure. But you're going to have to pony up for the fuel.
  What's that? Private satellites have been going to space for years on the back of NASA and private rockets? Well whoopdeefreakin'do, ain't that some news.
  The simple fact is that the publicly visible space program has been seen as government-based because it is based around scientific research, which is paid for by the government. That hasn't prevented thousands of commercial satellites from going up - but there's been no commercial imperative for private, peopled, tourist-style space flight, so you haven't seen the "private" side of access to space. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by letting citizens use what they've paid for, but I'd disagree with the idea that citizens have not had access, nor benefited from the space program just by staying here on earth.
  
  But until we have a sane foreign policy that maintained lasting alliances without either sacrificing the sovereignty of the country or its citizens, I don't think that will happen because rather than use diplomatic means we want to attack anyone who might get a nuke in the unsustainable idea that no one is going to develop that technology independently so the US citizens get harmed.
  You mean like with the British and French? They're allies with atomic weapons developed independently of the US. We've survived for years without going toe-to-toe with China. All of whom have space programs. Don't see how that's relevant to the first part of your argument, though.
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
32. Re:Wow! by dakameleon · 2010-10-12 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  Thats why I'm so excited about privatization of space exploration - a corporation has a real vested interest in getting something done. Unlike politicians.
  Corporations have a vested interest in getting some profits, and they're usually answerable to shareholders looking for a return within a few quarters, maybe a couple of years at the most. Corporatism isn't usually applicable to capital-heavy risky-return enterprises.
  Politicians have an interest in getting stuff done - so long as it happens within 4 years and manages to enhance their image in, and provides benefits for, their particular electorate. The President is the only one with a country-wide electorate, so don't expect it to be pushed by anyone less than that.
  
  Hopefully the billionaires of the world will take us places no government has. THAT is what I'm looking forward to.
  The richest billionaires are actually slightly more focused on solving problems on this world, like malaria, AIDS, and other gaps between the haves and the have-nots across the world. Some would argue the benefits of that investment, but I think you'd be hard pressed to push your case against that kind of altruism.
  You might still find a billionaire willing to push across space boundaries, but don't expect them to do it for an altruistic motive.
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
33. Re:Wow! by J05H · 2010-10-12 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  Elon is under 40, has a fortune in the low billions and several successful businesses under his belt. If anyone has a shot at getting to Mars, it is he.
  
  --
  gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
34. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  I haven't RTFA (on the assumption that it won't mention such details anyway), but it's quite possible they plan a direct-from-lunar reentry with aerobraking only (ambitious, but doable). In that case, adding enough fuel to decelerate to LEO would be a major issue.
  As for harvesting satellites... just do the math once. With present tech, that's not economical from a salvage perspective, and the collision issue in LEO solves itself within a couple decades if all future satellites include deorbiting balloons/chutes/sails.
35. Re:Wow! by Facegarden · 2010-10-12 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Elon is under 40, has a fortune in the low billions and several successful businesses under his belt. If anyone has a shot at getting to Mars, it is he.
  Hmm. I guess he's got a lot of stock options and whatnot, but he ran out of cash recently. I know that for a guy like him, he'll have lots of other assets besides cash, but I got the sense his fortune wasn't that big. Maybe its just all tied up.
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/22/elon-musk-says-hes-broke_n_620612.html
  He does own one of the two companies that has a good shot at jump starting commercial spaceflight though.
  
  --
  Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
36. Re:Wow! by J05H · 2010-10-12 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Space only makes sense if people can eventually live and thrive there. Profit is part of that, entreprenuership and creation of destinations maybe the rest.
  Telecom and imaging satellites are known money makers. ISS tourism is a known market that is producing commercial follow-on and interest in lunar flyby. Virgin drop tested their new suborbital the other day.
  Destinations in this context are places for people and materiel that can provide staging for further endeavors, whether that is exploration, extraction, settlement or remote sensing and control. Rick Tumlinson once proposed ISS be the central point for "Alphatown" a cluster of co-orbital stations, there are other strategic locations for bases through out the inner solar system.
  Using ISS to stage a lunar flyby is a great idea in this context.
  
  --
  gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
37. Re:Wow! by sconeu · 2010-10-12 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  Well, both used Apollo spacecraft. Heck, the word "Apollo" is in the name of the ASTP mission -- Apollo -Soyuz Test Project.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
38. Re:Wow! by robot256 · 2010-10-12 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has said he'd like to retire on mars. That's likely a little far-fetched, but he's more likely to make that happen than NASA. (well, technically his fortune is pretty small in comparison to some other people, but lets say Tesla does really well...) -Taylor
  Actually, Tesla is a money sink, and always will be. Its goal was never to cater to anything other than Musk's tiny/imaginary market for luxury electric cars with average performance (for electrics). SpaceX, on the other hand, is turning into a cash cow, tapping into the robust competitive market for small- and medium-sized commercial satellite launches. They already have contracts for 30+ launches with a dozen companies and governments (NASA is the biggest buyer of course), and so far their rockets have been extraordinarily successful. If anything finances Musk's Mars base, it will be SpaceX.
39. Re:Wow! by Facegarden · 2010-10-12 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, Tesla is a money sink, and always will be. Its goal was never to cater to anything other than Musk's tiny/imaginary market for luxury electric cars with average performance (for electrics)....
  GOD I am SO tired of people not fucking getting it... Tesla started by making a $100k car... to prove that electrics could be cool and performance did not have to be an issue, and to cover the high costs of entering that kind of market.
  NOW they're working on a $50k electric car that is basically already done, and they have shown off. Its a nice family sedan and it looks great.
  They have said the the goal after that is to make a $20k electric car, as well as a van, and basically all car types.
  Everyone things Tesla is only about the Roadster, and gets all fucking pissed off every time they get government funding, but the whole idea is and always has been to prove the viability of electric cars as more than just for weenies, and then sell them to everyone. Selling the expensive one first was just to make enough money to keep doing it! Its also the only kind of car you can ask people to pay for up front, and deliver a year later. People that buy a Tesla can afford to wait, so it gave them advance funding to help development.
  And not one major car manufacturer had announced any plans to sell a pure electric until years after Tesla started selling their cars. As far as I can tell, Tesla singlehandedly created the (still small) market for pure electrics, and met their goal.
  Give them some fucking credit.
  -Taylor
  
  --
  Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
40. Re:Wow! by robot256 · 2010-10-12 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  And not one major car manufacturer had announced any plans to sell a pure electric until years after Tesla started selling their cars. As far as I can tell, Tesla singlehandedly created the (still small) market for pure electrics, and met their goal.
  Give them some fucking credit. -Taylor
  You know, I've read all the stuff about Musk's financial trouble, Tesla being behind schedule, prices still out of range in the near future, but I had never really given thought to the fact that Tesla was the brand that put the "cool" back in electric cars. You're probably right that we wouldn't be seeing the Nissan Leaf, Coda, Focus EV, etc., today if it weren't for them.
  That said, it's still going to be a while before they turn into a money machine. They have a lot of competition in a fledgling market where it is easy to make a mistake and fall behind. I do hope they become one of many successful EV makers.
41. Re:Wow! by Facegarden · 2010-10-12 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  And not one major car manufacturer had announced any plans to sell a pure electric until years after Tesla started selling their cars. As far as I can tell, Tesla singlehandedly created the (still small) market for pure electrics, and met their goal.
  Give them some fucking credit.
  -Taylor
  You know, I've read all the stuff about Musk's financial trouble, Tesla being behind schedule, prices still out of range in the near future, but I had never really given thought to the fact that Tesla was the brand that put the "cool" back in electric cars. You're probably right that we wouldn't be seeing the Nissan Leaf, Coda, Focus EV, etc., today if it weren't for them.
  That said, it's still going to be a while before they turn into a money machine. They have a lot of competition in a fledgling market where it is easy to make a mistake and fall behind. I do hope they become one of many successful EV makers.
  I agree. They've got a steep road still ahead of them, but I really hope they make it. All the other car manufacturers ignored electrics for years and years, until finally Tesla came about and decided to do what the established car companies didn't care enough to do. GM might be just about to release the Volt, but Tesla announced the Roadster back in 2006, when the Hummer was still king (a google search shows that Hummer sales were still *accelerating* in 2006).
  Tesla really did do something truly innovative and awesome and I hope they succeed.
  Sorry if I came off a bit harsh, I'm just so used to people ragging on them for being an evil company that steals government funds to make pleasure vehicles for the rich, but that couldn't be farther from the truth.
  I really respect Tesla and Musk for what they've done.
  -Taylor
  
  --
  Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
42. Re:Wow! by jgtg32a · 2010-10-12 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  So we need to convince the DoD that we need a "Rods from God" array in orbit?
43. Re:Wow! by WCLPeter · 2010-10-12 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone can create a giant undulating phallus. To truly spark the deep seated jealousy of your peers you must have the depth of vision to create an immense masturbation simulator then place it in the middle of a family theme park where the proles will spend countless hours waiting for the opportunity to ride it!
44. Re:Wow! by Darkness404 · 2010-10-12 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  The space shuttle isn't the thing private spaceflight needs, it is the plans to the space shuttle, the blueprints needed with all the calculations paid for by our tax dollars that are so frequently classified. We've had a ton of R&D go into making our spaceflight and it ends up being all scrapped so private enterprise can't build on it.
  
  The simple fact is that the publicly visible space program has been seen as government-based because it is based around scientific research, which is paid for by the government. That hasn't prevented thousands of commercial satellites from going up - but there's been no commercial imperative for private, peopled, tourist-style space flight, so you haven't seen the "private" side of access to space. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by letting citizens use what they've paid for, but I'd disagree with the idea that citizens have not had access, nor benefited from the space program just by staying here on earth.
  
  The fact is, citizens can't retrieve the R&D data which would be valuable to producing a commercially viable space program because it is all classified in the manner of "national security".
  
  You mean like with the British and French? They're allies with atomic weapons developed independently of the US. We've survived for years without going toe-to-toe with China. All of whom have space programs. Don't see how that's relevant to the first part of your argument, though.
  
  The only argument that people use against letting taxpayers use their purchased R&D is in the interest of national security which is self-crippling. The fear is that a country which we've bullied (Iran, North Korea, etc.) will get ICBM technology and use it against us if we open up our information to our taxpayers who paid for it. And rather than trying to have a foreign policy that makes it so North Korea, Iran, etc. won't want to attack us when they get ICBM technology, we instead try to make it so they can't get it by crippling our own technological progress in a vain attempt to prevent the development of technology which will eventually come to pass.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
45. Re:Wow! by DerekLyons · 2010-10-12 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  Despite what you and some others want everyone to believe, there are quite a few people in this world that do stuff for things other than profit.
  I keep seeing feel good twaddle like this in response to posts like the grandparents - but what I'm not seeing are any significant examples. That you believe that ancient monuments (built by nations, not individuals generally) to be examples shows just how confused you really are. Specifically, the Pyramids were built by a ruler, not a private individual, using slave and coerced labor, not a private fortune, for religious reasons, not for 'penis wagging'. Or, in short, they have precisely nothing in common with what you believe happened or would like to happen.
46. Re:Wow! by dakameleon · 2010-10-12 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't they try selling the shuttle?
  I hardly think that R&D is being totally scrapped - far more likely shelved.
  
  The fact is, citizens can't retrieve the R&D data which would be valuable to producing a commercially viable space program because it is all classified in the manner of "national security".
  I can't verify this as fact, but if I take you at your word, do you propose that plans of military hardware should be available to the public in this same manner? More money probably goes into DARPA projects than the space program, but we don't get to access that either.
  There's a compelling case to be made for greater access to this stuff, but if it's got a dual military purpose which has been paid out of military budgets, I don't see it getting out without some restrictions on access or use. Surely if you're motivated enough you can get security clearance for the purposes of building a private space access vehicle?
  
  And rather than trying to have a foreign policy that makes it so North Korea, Iran, etc. won't want to attack us when they get ICBM technology, we instead try to make it so they can't get it by crippling our own technological progress in a vain attempt to prevent the development of technology which will eventually come to pass.
  I don't know how related the shuttle program is to ICBM technology (sounds unlikely to me, but IANA Rocket Scientist), but this is hardly the only technology classified because its military implications are bad. You're thinking of a utopia - where no-one has issues with America, a country which currently accounts for more than half of the global military spend.
  I'm no rightist/neo-con/war hawk, but I'd hardly call it bullying to impose sanctions and work through a diplomatic process against two countries responsible for oppression of freedoms, possible human rights violations and, certainly for Iran, state sponsored terrorism. Sure, we could back away from fighting against all those injustices, looking the other way, but that approach hasn't had much historical success. The US cannot disengage from the world altogether in the hope of making those who bear grudges against us going away.
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
47. Re:Wow! by Vectormatic · 2010-10-12 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  no, we need to convince you americans that osama is hiding in a cave on mars, there will be space marines on site within the decade.
  rods from god are easily doable as it is, DoD would just develop and launch a few satelites, no real gain for space exploration
  
  --
  People, what a bunch of bastards
48. Re:Wow! by Vectormatic · 2010-10-12 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  if the circumlunar craft they are considering is capable of returning to the ISS (instead of just doing an apollo style direct re-entry), then having a fuel-bunker on the ISS would allow this craft to make multiple trips without ever returning to earth, in essence, making it a real space-ship.
  returning to the ISS also requires extra fuel, so my proposal would be a small/light spacecraft, optimized for in-vacuum travel (engines optimized for vacuum conditions etc..), no re-entry heat shield, large expandable fuel tanks etc.. which is launched up to the ISS. Then a second launch can supply fuel (just use a big bulk non man-rated launcher), which carries it all up in expendable fuel tanks (so no extra storage module is needed on the ISS), and then have the crew just fuel up the craft and take off for a lunar trip.
  If designed well, this construct could also make the shuttle obsolete for in-orbit repairs/operations, just add an airlock, manipulator arm and some cargo space and you could do a hubble repair with this, instead of having to launch an entire craft from the bottom of the gravity well
  
  --
  People, what a bunch of bastards
49. Re:Wow! by Issarlk · 2010-10-12 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't it all imaginary money anyway ?
50. Re:Wow! by Chris+Burke · 2010-10-13 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
51. Re:Wow! by Idiomatick · 2010-10-14 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ah. This is already available on the ISS (It had the functionality very early on). The only reason we've not shipped up giant fuel containers is simply cause we've never needed it. Bits of fuel go up in supply ships though.
  
  The reason you need a shuttle launch to repair the hubble is because the ISS isn't in the same orbit. Moving them around to meet is a a pain the ISS wasn't really designed for that type of mission. And you already are sending up a ship w/ the parts for repair and the people to do the repair... less mess to send them to the hubble directly. (obviously the iss has airlocks, really great manipulator arms and decent amounts of cargo space already so these aren't issues).
BREAKING NEWS by Crypto+Gnome · 2010-10-12 08:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Real World aspirations approaching within 50 years of Science Fiction dreams.

You Have Been Warned!

Also: "WHAT THE HELL TOOK YOU SO LONG"?

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
1. Re:BREAKING NEWS by Darkness404 · 2010-10-12 09:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Also: "what the hell took you so long"?
  
  Government.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
2. Re:BREAKING NEWS by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2010-10-12 09:43 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Government.
  Given that governments are, to date, the only entities that have done so much as put human beings in LEO -- to say nothing of sending them to the Moon -- you're going to have do some fancy dancing to make the case that government is what's stopping us from achieving science fiction dreams.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
3. Re:BREAKING NEWS by corbettw · 2010-10-12 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  People got distracted with developing the flying car. Now that that's done, it's on to Mars!
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
4. Re:BREAKING NEWS by Crypto+Gnome · 2010-10-12 11:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  Government.
  Given that governments are, to date, the only entities that have done so much as put human beings in LEO -- to say nothing of sending them to the Moon -- you're going to have do some fancy dancing to make the case that government is what's stopping us from achieving science fiction dreams.
  Ok then, specifically: Government
  
  Inertia
  excessive beurocracy
  incompetence
  lack of foresight
  ADHD
  Piss Poor Planning
  <cue fancy-dancing> Compare how long (and how much money) it took "the government" to be waving men-in-space vs insert-random-commercial-entity in the recent x-prize race(s).
  
  Yeah Yeah Yeah you can rabbit on about "standing on the shoulders of giants" but today the biggest current roadblock to the successful leveraging of "outerspace" for the betterment of humankind is "The Government".
  
  The *amazing achievements* in reaching the moon were *personally instigated by some dude who has been dead for many years now*. ONE (count'em folks, ONE) president made a significant committment to OuterSpace.
  
  everything done since then is a pale shadow of a once bright future.
  --
  Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
5. Re:BREAKING NEWS by Trogre · 2010-10-12 14:55 · Score: 0
  
  Who, Eisenhower? I would have picked Korolev over him as the big instigator of space travel although he, while government funded, was never a president. Kennedy did alright too.
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
6. Re:BREAKING NEWS by Darkness404 · 2010-10-12 15:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Ok, lets see here NASA has a yearly operating budget of US$17.6 billion, to compare that, Sir Richard Branson has a net worth of about 4.6 billion USD. So, lets see here: $17.6 billion a year with:
  
  A) Billions of dollars in taxpayer funded R&D that are inaccessible to private companies because they are classified.
  
  B) Several spacecraft
  
  C) The ability to use a lot of military technology
  
  D) A guaranteed revenue source from US taxpayers
  
  E) NASA had almost unlimited funding during the height of the cold war
  
  Private companies have none of these advantages and yet they've managed to do a lot more on a lot less of a budget.
  
  We've paid for a shitload of R&D that will never be realized because A) NASA has decided not to pursue it and B) It is considered classified so private enterprise can't use it.
  
  Dollar for dollar, private enterprise accomplishes worlds more of progress than any government space agency has. Want private enterprise to go to the moon? Give them $170 billion (cost of Apollo missions adjusted for inflation) and I'm sure we could get beyond a few spaceflights to the moon.
  
  The only advantage government has compared to the private sector is that no matter what they can steal -- I mean, acquire, enough money to fund their programs.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Doing what we already did 40 years ago? Yawn. by Rogerborg · 2010-10-12 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, I guess it's not exactly the same. Given the collaborative international nature of the effort, I can guarantee that it'll take five times as long to get going as Apollo, cost ten times as much (mostly in pork), and it'll be nobody's fault when it fails. Except maybe the French.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Let's rename ISS Utopia Planitia :) by youn · 2010-10-12 08:58 · Score: 1

definitely sounds cooler and more appropriate :)

--
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
Special Slashdot Memo #433223443 by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 09:02 · Score: 1, Funny

Cue all the private space launch company fans.
There's only outfit that can do it.
That outfit is Energia
Have fun.
Yours In Baikonur,
Kilgore T.
1. Re:Special Slashdot Memo #433223443 by the+linux+geek · 2010-10-12 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad Energia is actually owned by the Russian Federation government.
2. Re:Special Slashdot Memo #433223443 by mirix · 2010-10-12 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Govn't only owns 38% of shares now, apparently; I wouldn't call that ownership. Unless they have 51%+ of voting shares I suppose... which, I guess, is entirely possible.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
Re:Doing what we already did 40 years ago? Yawn. by ByOhTek · 2010-10-12 09:02 · Score: 3, Informative

[...] and it'll be nobody's fault when it fails. Except maybe the French.
But people will blame the USA no matter what.

--
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Have $100 million? by sznupi · 2010-10-12 09:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Here, get yourself a ride (those are people cooperating on almost all private spaceflights so far); also in Soyuz, it would seem - only apt, considering how it was the first spacecraft to carry macroscopic life (turtles) beyond LEO (around the Moon) and return it safely, on a Zond 5 mission.
Funny how, out of both sides involved in Lunar Race, it is Russia who now has few decades of experience with a spacecraft essentially capable of beyond-LEO operation.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
1. Re:Have $100 million? by Darkness404 · 2010-10-12 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Well of course it is Russia. Unlike the US who seems to think that we're not subject to the laws of economics and can spend all we want in dead end projects thinking that deathtraps like the Shuttle can last for 30 some years, Russia doesn't have the cash to go out and design an all new untested spacecraft and has to make do with what they have.
  
  Apollo was a technological dead-end. The Shuttle was a technological dead end. On the other hand Soyuz did what it needed to do and had a design that could be adapted effectively while cutting costs.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
2. Re:Have $100 million? by sznupi · 2010-10-12 09:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Heck, it is launched by a rocket from R-7 lineage. A family which carried all Soviet and Russian manned missions to date, starting with Yuri Gagarin. Which launched Sputnik. And was the first operational ICBM (not very practical in its first role; but...sort of competing space agency says it is "The most reliable ... the most frequently used launch vehicle in the world")
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
3. Re:Have $100 million? by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2010-10-12 09:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Apollo was a technological dead-end. The Shuttle was a technological dead end. On the other hand Soyuz did what it needed to do and had a design that could be adapted effectively while cutting costs.
  Apollo also did what it needed to do, and while it cost more than contemporary Soyuz designs, it also had to do a hell of a lot more than Soyuz or any other spacecraft has ever done. The reason it was a dead end was political, not technological. The Shuttle, I'll grant you, although I'll note that the early designs for a reusable people-launcher made a lot of sense; it was when they tried to combine it with a heavy-lift system that things went to hell.
  We could have kept turning out Saturn V's assembly-line style and even without incorporating all the improvements we could have made over the last 40 years, we'd still be ahead of where we are now, for less money.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
4. Re:Have $100 million? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 14:16 · Score: 0
  
  Care to back up that statement, "Apollo was a technological dead-end"? By 1975 The Apollo-Saturn system had launched lunar landing missions, earth orbiting missions, a space station, and a docking mission with the Russians (carrying the required docking adapter). Apollo-Saturn had two man-rated boosters, a big one and a medium sized one, and the flexible Command and Service Module stack. Von Braun had missions on the drawing board to go to Mars with Apollo derived hardware. Apollo was everything Soyuz is and more -- it was just abandoned, not a dead end.
  I won't ague with your point on the Shuttle.
5. Re:Have $100 million? by dryeo · 2010-10-12 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  We could have kept turning out Saturn V's assembly-line style and even without incorporating all the improvements we could have made over the last 40 years, we'd still be ahead of where we are now, for less money.
  And Saturn IB's, the Saturn V is overkill for many missions.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
6. Re:Have $100 million? by DerekLyons · 2010-10-12 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  Funny how, out of both sides involved in Lunar Race, it is Russia who now has few decades of experience with a spacecraft essentially capable of beyond-LEO operation.
  Except - the Russians don't. Soyuz isn't Zond. Not only does does Soyuz not have the heatshield to re-enter from a lunar trajectory, it doesn't have the life support endurance, power supply duration, or pretty much anything else. From 1973 on, the Soyuz has been a dedicated LEO taxi.
7. Re:Have $100 million? by sznupi · 2010-10-12 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  Thing is how it's in the family, how it would be reasonably straightforward and what "essentially" meant here; especially when compared with all the other currently operational for a long time manned spacecraft.
  (plus at least nominally it is Soyuz, 7K-L1 one, stripped and modified standard issue 1st gen one; virtually the same launchers were getting different names depending on the type of mission, too)
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
8. Re:Have $100 million? by Vectormatic · 2010-10-12 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  current Soyuz TMA capsules can sustain operations (life support etc..) for 30 person days, granted with three people on board that might be cutting it a bit close for lunar operations, but still more then the total mission time for apollo 11 (which actually did a lunar landing)
  Also, these things can be modified, it is only logical that recent Soyuz developments mostly focussed on oribital/ISS operations. If they want to do a moon-shot, they can adapt the current TMA design for longer duration missions (perhaps simply by removing 1 crew member, or filling up some of the orbit-module space with resources)
  
  --
  People, what a bunch of bastards
Re:Doing what we already did 40 years ago? Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 09:04 · Score: 0

And China will take all the credit if it succeeds.
This is something... by mdm-adph · 2010-10-12 09:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

...we should've been doing YEARS AGO.
Thank you and have a nice day.

--
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
1. Re:This is something... by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-10-12 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well at least they are talking about it now, rather than proselytizing about some super-heavy-mega-lifter rocket like Congress has been for the last decade or so. It may have taken 30 years too long to get here, but at least it got here (or, it might, based on the article). I, for one, was (and still am, to some degree) afraid that mankind's crowning space achievement would be walking on his own moon and ending it at that. Developing the infrastructure for, and demonstrating the ability to use, on-orbit resources as a staging ground for missions into deep space would be a very important step in getting further from Earth than the moon.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
shuttlecraft by Oceanplexian · 2010-10-12 09:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

I wonder why they went with the plan to have the craft return to earth? It makes more sense to me to have a reusable "shuttlecraft" that ferried
astronauts from the ISS to lunar orbit and back.
1. Re:shuttlecraft by Chowderbags · 2010-10-12 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  They probably want to have engineers tear it apart to see what kind of stresses it took and how well it holds up (both to space and to entering the atmosphere). Think of it as a prototype that they'll try to work the kinks out of.
2. Re:shuttlecraft by youn · 2010-10-12 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  I am speaking totally uninformed here but I suspect shuttles are good in theory but cost a lot more to operate for the same task. Also, it's easier to smash the darn thing in the ocean with parachutes than it is to slow it down to a halt, un orbit... probably requiring more energy/ fuel... therefore reducing the payload capacity... but I definitely have no expertise in the area so I'm speaking out of the blue
  
  --
  Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
3. Re:shuttlecraft by vlm · 2010-10-12 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder why they went with the plan to have the craft return to earth? It makes more sense to me to have a reusable "shuttlecraft" that ferried astronauts from the ISS to lunar orbit and back.
  Maybe version 2, if there is one.
  They're almost certainly going for a free return trajectory
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_return_trajectory
  Some of the Russian gear is so freaking tough, that they don't need to eject the service module or point the right way... So with a free return trajectory, after your initial orbit injection burn, you can, if necessary, completely power down the craft and you'll still end up back on earth. So if you're a bit nervous about your thruster rockets or inertial nav or whatever, no big deal. Essentially once the initial burn is complete, the astronauts are spam-in-a-can as far as "piloting" the craft is concerned.
  In practice you always need to make a few minor correction burns, but they tend to be ridiculous, like single digit or less m/s delta V.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
4. Re:shuttlecraft by sznupi · 2010-10-12 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  To save fuel on the return leg, one would need to do quite a bit of aerobraking either way; much harder if the aim is not to reenter, but end up in an orbit which can take you back to ISS. With the stress of braking, it'll be probably much better for some time to take it all the way down at that point.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
5. Re:shuttlecraft by 0123456 · 2010-10-12 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder why they went with the plan to have the craft return to earth? It makes more sense to me to have a reusable "shuttlecraft" that ferried astronauts from the ISS to lunar orbit and back.
  You know that big rocket stage that sent Apollo to the Moon from Earth orbit? You'd need something about a quarter as large as that to brake an Apollo CSM-sized vehicle into orbit to dock with ISS, and then you'd need to launch that all the way to the Moon as well, meaning you'd need a much larger rocket stage to get you there. Or you'd need to aerobrake and hope your computer didn't screw up and send you into completely the wrong orbit.
  To go from ISS to the Moon and back you'd need a far more efficient engine that current chemical rockets (ion, nuclear, etc).
6. Re:shuttlecraft by sznupi · 2010-10-12 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Don't exaggerate - while Soyuz is certainly tough (was meant for Moon return reentry after all), the two or so failures to detach service module were still close calls - and from more forgiving LEO, not from higher speeds of Lunar return.
  Anyway, they will probably try to perform skip reentry to limit G forces - that's what Soyuz already did on at least some Zond missions.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
7. Re:shuttlecraft by DerekLyons · 2010-10-12 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder why they went with the plan to have the craft return to earth? It makes more sense to me to have a reusable "shuttlecraft" that ferried astronauts from the ISS to lunar orbit and back.
  Because it takes an enormous amount of fuel to slow down into orbit. It also heavily constrains landing sites (already badly constrained or having high fuel requirements because of the idiotic choice of launch location) and heavily constrains return trajectories.
  
  Launching to the moon from the ISS is already stupid enough, there's no need to compound the stupid by adding a requirement that it enter orbit and rendezvous with the ISS.
8. Re:shuttlecraft by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-10-12 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  One major reason that I can guess is detla-V requirements. Getting into a lunar orbit requires one helluva hard burn for your spacecraft. As you are returning from lunar orbit, you would have to repeat the same hard burn to drop from lunar transfer orbit back into LEO to rendezvous a second time with the ISS. These fuel costs could be constraining. If, instead, you decide to plunge back into the Earth atmosphere directly, you can just slap a much heavier-duty heat shield on your spacecraft and allow the atmosphere to do some braking for you, thus lowering the delta-v requirements for that second "slow-down" burn. That's why this mission would require an extra heat-shield be added to the Soyuz, if that's the craft they are talking about taking.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
9. Re:shuttlecraft by c6gunner · 2010-10-12 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yeah, smashing things into the ocean IS pretty easy. Unfortunately, it means you'll not only have single-use spacecraft, but also single-use crews. On the other hand, there's little difference energy-wise between a soft landing in a capsule and a soft landing in a shuttle - they both need to slow down enough to survive the landing.
10. Re:shuttlecraft by dryeo · 2010-10-12 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  There's a big difference between soft landing a capsule returning from the Moon and a capsule/shuttle returning from LEO.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
11. Re:shuttlecraft by sznupi · 2010-10-13 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  ...or, for the adventurous, rely heavily on skip reentry.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
12. Re:shuttlecraft by sznupi · 2010-10-13 18:33 · Score: 1
  
  When looking at mission totals, there's quite a bit of a difference, energy-wise - shuttle soft landing systems form notably greater part of its total weight.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
DARPA Challenge model is better... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 09:09 · Score: 1, Informative

the money would be better spent offering a prize to the first company or organization that can send a ship around the moon and back....
offer $100 million to the first to do it...$50 million to the second....
or make it $500 million to the first.... ...it will still be insanely cheaper than the governments funding it themselves...and the tech might actually get commercialized.
1. Re:DARPA Challenge model is better... by FleaPlus · 2010-10-12 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  the money would be better spent offering a prize to the first company or organization that can send a ship around the moon and back....
  To offer prizes that large, NASA would need explicit approval from Congress. Good luck with that, especially when such efforts potentially compete with billion-dollar projects in politically-important congressional districts. Heck, NASA's been having difficulty just getting its $1M-$2M prizes funded.
2. Re:DARPA Challenge model is better... by sznupi · 2010-10-13 18:41 · Score: 1
  
  For $500 million, "governmental" Russian space program would be more than happy to do it. $100 million too, most likely. In fact, to a large part they are doing it...
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
imagine that by Ryanrule · 2010-10-12 09:11 · Score: 4, Funny

using a space station as a station...in space!
1. Re:imagine that by sharkey · 2010-10-13 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yo dawg...
  
  --
  
  --
  "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
The ISS is in the wrong orbit for this! by cheetah · 2010-10-12 09:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

The big problem with using the ISS to do this type of mission is that the ISS is in the wrong orbital plane to easily launch flights to the moon. While it's not impossible to fly from the ISS it will be far more costly(in terms of fuel) to do so. Basically as long assembling the mission at the ISS is less costly than a single launch into the correct orbital plane this might be feasible.
1. Re:The ISS is in the wrong orbit for this! by profplump · 2010-10-12 09:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's in the wrong orbit to do anything other than be reachable by launches from mainland Russia. It's not like no one ever thought of using the space station as a jumping-off point before, it's just that such ideas were made more or less impractical as soon as we decided to put the space station in this silly orbit.
2. Re:The ISS is in the wrong orbit for this! by sznupi · 2010-10-12 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Orbit of ISS makes much less of a difference if you launch from Baikonur... launching from there would be less costly in any case.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
3. Re:The ISS is in the wrong orbit for this! by geekoid · 2010-10-12 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Then we should sue the other one. wait, there isn't another one? well then maybe we should use the one we have to do this experiment.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:The ISS is in the wrong orbit for this! by FleaPlus · 2010-10-12 10:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The big problem with using the ISS to do this type of mission is that the ISS is in the wrong orbital plane to easily launch flights to the moon. While it's not impossible to fly from the ISS it will be far more costly(in terms of fuel) to do so.
  I've been looking all over, but can't find a good figure of just how much more costly (in terms of fuel) it would be to get from the ISS's orbit to do a lunar flyby. Are we talking about a few percent more delta-v required, an order of magnitude, or somewhere in-between?
  All I've been able to find is that it's apparently "cheaper" to get to lunar polar orbit from the ISS's inclination.
5. Re:The ISS is in the wrong orbit for this! by butalearner · 2010-10-12 10:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's in the wrong orbit to do anything other than be reachable by launches from mainland Russia. It's not like no one ever thought of using the space station as a jumping-off point before, it's just that such ideas were made more or less impractical as soon as we decided to put the space station in this silly orbit.
  Of course, the fact that the goal was to be reachable by launches from Baikonur means it's not a silly orbit, considering inclination changes are the most expensive in terms of delta-v (and money, as a result).
6. Re:The ISS is in the wrong orbit for this! by RabidMonkey · 2010-10-12 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  Since you talk like someone who knows what they're talking about, pretend that not all of us (me) do ...
  Why exactly is it that the ISS in a silly orbit, that can't be reasonably used to reach the moon? My knowledge of orbital mechanics/physics is par for the average highschool student, so this isn't immediately obvious to me.
  Thanks for helping edjimicate me.
  
  --
  We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
7. Re:The ISS is in the wrong orbit for this! by dryeo · 2010-10-12 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't the ISS orbit better for ending up in a lunar polar orbit? Considering all the talk about bases involves setting up at one of the poles, due to steady sunlight and shadowed craters containing water, a polar orbit sounds like a good idea.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
8. Re:The ISS is in the wrong orbit for this! by dryeo · 2010-10-12 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that most talk about lunar bases involves one of the poles, lunar polar orbit doesn't sound that bad.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Send the whole thing! by ddrueding80 · 2010-10-12 09:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just send the whole ISS. Most of their experiments don't care where the station is, so long as it is space, and plenty of instruments are already onboard.
1. Re:Send the whole thing! by vlm · 2010-10-12 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Just send the whole ISS. Most of their experiments don't care where the station is, so long as it is space, and plenty of instruments are already onboard.
  However, the thermal/cooling system is designed around the idea of having half a hemisphere at roughly room/earth temperature... It'll get mighty cold up there rather quickly outside of low earth orbit. I wonder if the refrigerant system can survive a liquid slug, if it gets too cold. Knowing NASA, probably.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
2. Re:Send the whole thing! by sznupi · 2010-10-12 09:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's designed for quite safe LEO radiation environment, deep inside the magnetosphere of Earth.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
3. Re:Send the whole thing! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  Only thing though is moving it would be hellishly hard.
  You'd have to anchor the entire station to itself from several locations so the thing doesn't break itself apart, unless you intend doing an extremely slow increase in distance over a long period.
  And the main reason it is there is for radiation protection.
  Any further out and it gets a bit riskier for the people on board.
  Until we design a decent EM forcefield (current ones are... not ideal), or build a huge physical shield (not going to happen), ISS will have to stay put.
4. Re:Send the whole thing! by skywatcher2501 · 2010-10-12 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Would the structure hold while being pushed out of Earth orbit?
5. Re:Send the whole thing! by DerekLyons · 2010-10-12 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Just send the whole ISS. Most of their experiments don't care where the station is, so long as it is space, and plenty of instruments are already onboard.
  But the ISS itself cares where it is... ISS isn't shielded to transit the Van Allen belts, and its thermal control isn't designed for lunar orbit. Nor is it structurally strong enough to take sufficient thrust to actually get it there in any reasonable time frame.
6. Re:Send the whole thing! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  How did this get modded up as Interesting? Considering that there is a whole section on wiki dedicated to ISS's orbital mechanics (low earth orbit of all things) I doubt it could be retrofitted to go anywhere else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Orbit_control
7. Re:Send the whole thing! by sznupi · 2010-10-12 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't quite so bad - "normal" conditions beyond the Earth magnetosphere are perfectly manageable during daily activities. The issue are solar flares - just improve their detection & modeling, and have a radiation bunker (basically inside water and fuel tanks; doubling as a sleeping place, might as well minimize daily dosage). A thing for which ISS wasn't planned...
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
8. Re:Send the whole thing! by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-10-12 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think the ISS was designed to protect against the radiation levels in the Van Allen belts. The Soyuz capsule, on the other hand, was designed for keeping things alive to and from the moon. Also, the ISS is a very heavy piece of equipment and the amount of fuel necessary to boost it into a trans-lunar orbit would be restrictive, to say the least.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
9. Re:Send the whole thing! by PedroV100 · 2010-10-12 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  lol you're forgetting the problem here: cost. especially cost of rocket fuel. you would have to spend lots of fuel to get lots of fuel into the space station, then youd have to burn whats left to get the whole space station(a lot of mass) to move towards the moon (and back).
10. Re:Send the whole thing! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  That's great then! If we send the whole thing we might get some useful mutations out of it.
Re:Doing what we already did 40 years ago? Yawn. by gmuslera · 2010-10-12 09:16 · Score: 1

Launching from space is different from doing from here. The people still must get up there, but once there, they could eventually do several trips, apart from the automated ones, and good part of the complexity/cost of getting to the moon/asteroids is mostly getting in orbit. And things could get interesting if asteroids can be mined to build new ships from materials from up there.
But why go back to the ISS? by MichaelSmith · 2010-10-12 09:17 · Score: 1

It costs a lot of fuel. About 4km/s of velocity change to match orbits with the ISS when you return from the moon, but if you can't do that burn then you have return to Earth so you need a heat shield anyway.
So yeah, maybe the ISS is a good place to integrate a vehicle like this but the best way seems to fly it around the moon then straight to Earth.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
1. Re:But why go back to the ISS? by 0123456 · 2010-10-12 09:26 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  So yeah, maybe the ISS is a good place to integrate a vehicle like this but the best way seems to fly it around the moon then straight to Earth.
  No, the inclination makes it a lousy place to go to the Moon from too. But using it is probably cheaper than building a construction shack in a sensible orbit if you're not planning to be going to the Moon on a regular basis.
2. Re:But why go back to the ISS? by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-10-12 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  ...the best way seems to fly it around the moon then straight to Earth.
  That's what they are talking about doing. The slashdot summary is glib, and thus, unclear. FTFA:
  
  This vehicle would then likely return straight to Earth, rather than returning to the ISS.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:Doing what we already did 40 years ago? Yawn. by phantomfive · 2010-10-12 09:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

lol except people in the USA will blame the French no matter what, apparently.

--
Qxe4
Re:Doing what we already did 40 years ago? Yawn. by jgtg32a · 2010-10-12 09:26 · Score: 1

Once you are in orbit you are half way to anywhere
FREAKIN' JENIUS ROCKET SURGEONS!!! by Thud457 · 2010-10-12 09:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Using a Earth-orbiting space station is exactly what von Braun recommended sixty years ago before you idiots turned it into a mad dash to "beat the commies". Then we would have had some real space infrastructure for our investment instead of several disposable programs with nothing left to show when they were over.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:FREAKIN' JENIUS ROCKET SURGEONS!!! by AshtangiMan · 2010-10-12 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Aside from the flaming I agree. The moon landings were not done from earth orbit, though they should have been because it would have been practice for other missions. As it was they were only practical for trips to the moon. Though we did learn a ton about spaceflight from them. I am excited at this news, hoping that it will come to fruition.
2. Re:FREAKIN' JENIUS ROCKET SURGEONS!!! by MaWeiTao · 2010-10-12 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Using a Earth-orbiting space station is exactly what von Braun recommended sixty years ago before you idiots turned it into a mad dash to "beat the commies".
  Who, me?
  I'd say we've got a hell of a lot to show for the space program. In an ideal world we should all be working together, but the fact is that humans are very competitive creatures. Without the one-upmanship between the Americans and Soviets it's very likely would have all done far, far less.
3. Re:FREAKIN' JENIUS ROCKET SURGEONS!!! by Dishevel · 2010-10-12 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  The "Idiots" mad dash to beat the commies is what spurred great innovation and growth in the space industry. Once we won we gave up. That was the problem.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
4. Re:FREAKIN' JENIUS ROCKET SURGEONS!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  Using a Earth-orbiting space station is exactly what von Braun recommended sixty years ago before you idiots turned it into a mad dash to "beat the commies".
  Who, me?
  A name like "MaWeiTao" looks Asian, so it's a pretty good bet you're a fucking communist, so yes, you.
5. Re:FREAKIN' JENIUS ROCKET SURGEONS!!! by dakameleon · 2010-10-12 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  A name like "MaWeiTao" looks Asian, so it's a pretty good bet you're a fucking communist, so yes, you.
  A name like "Anonymous Coward" looks cowardly, so it's a pretty good bet you're a fucking coward who never stood up to argue for the other approach.
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Re:Doing what we already did 40 years ago? Yawn. by h4rr4r · 2010-10-12 09:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Not if you have to change inclination like anything coming from the ISS would have to do.
Re:Doing what we already did 40 years ago? Yawn. by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2010-10-12 09:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

But people will blame the USA no matter what.
As long as there are large numbers of Americans who are unable to acknowledge that the USA is ever at fault for anything, or ever less than the best at everything, you have to expect a certain amount of reaction.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:first PISS by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 10:04 · Score: 0

I assure you, this wouldn't be the first time I've been pissed on ;)
Re:Doing what we already did 40 years ago? Yawn. by FleaPlus · 2010-10-12 10:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Not if you have to change inclination like anything coming from the ISS would have to do.
It depends. For example, I believe if you want to go into a lunar polar orbit, departing from the ISS's 51.6 degree inclination actually requires less propellant than if you were to depart from an equatorial orbit. If you want to go somewhere else that the ISS inclination is suboptimal for, all that means is that you need to carry up a little more propellant.
Orbitally Dumb by simonbp · 2010-10-12 10:05 · Score: 2, Informative

The ISS is in a 51 deg orbit (so the Russians can reach it from Kazakhstan), which is one the worst possible places to depart for the Moon from. Optimally, you want a transfer orbit coplanar with the Moon's orbit, which varies from 18-28 deg (depending of the time of year). This is because trajectory errors in coplanar orbits tend to cancel out, increasing safety, as well as reducing the mass of fuel required launch to the transfer orbit. So, either the ISS-launched mission does a very-expensive plane-change maneuver, or weighs more and is more unsafe than a conventionally launched mission. Either way, launching to the Moon (or any Lagrange Points) from the ISS is orbitally dumb.
BTW, the latitude of Kennedy Space Center is 28 deg, the furthest north it can be to optimally launch a mission to the Moon...
1. Re:Orbitally Dumb by 0123456 · 2010-10-12 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Either way, launching to the Moon (or any Lagrange Points) from the ISS is orbitally dumb.
  But if you have a choice between:
  1. Spend $50,000,000,000 on building a new NASA heavy lifter and $2,000,000,000 per launch.
  2. Spend $100,000,000 per launch sending each of a dozen components to ISS on existing smaller launchers, assemble them and then send the assembled spacecraft to the Moon.
  Then ISS makes sense. Obviously launching those components to a new space station in a low inclination orbit would save money in the long term, but would add billions more up front.
2. Re:Orbitally Dumb by simonbp · 2010-10-12 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  No, that's not the choice. The Congress has just (with a supermajority from both parties) approved a new NASA that funds the Big New Rocket, partly because of jobs. So, if NASA is already building a rocket that can go to the Moon with two low-inclination launches, being redundant and going to ISS is both dumb and pointless. If you really want station-based exploration, it's probably cheaper to just build a new station at 23 deg...
  Plus, I think you're vastly underestimating the cost to approve a new Visiting Vehicle for ISS. That's been nearly a third of Dragon and Cygnus costs so far, and they don't have massive propellant tanks.
3. Re:Orbitally Dumb by FleaPlus · 2010-10-12 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  The ISS is in a 51 deg orbit (so the Russians can reach it from Kazakhstan), which is one the worst possible places to depart for the Moon from. Optimally, you want a transfer orbit coplanar with the Moon's orbit, which varies from 18-28 deg (depending of the time of year).
  
  I've asked this question a couple other places but haven't gotten an answer yet: When you suboptimal, are we talking about a few percent, or more than that? If it's the former, while this is contrary to much of the way performance-obsessed agencies like NASA operate, suboptimal might still be good enough and simply a matter of launch more propellant.
4. Re:Orbitally Dumb by 0123456 · 2010-10-12 10:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  So, if NASA is already building a rocket that can go to the Moon with two low-inclination launches, being redundant and going to ISS is both dumb and pointless.
  Not if you want to get there before 2050.
5. Re:Orbitally Dumb by dryeo · 2010-10-12 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  And what if you want to end up in lunar polar orbit? You know, to establish those lunar outposts at the poles.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Special Slashdot Memo #42223443654399 by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 10:08 · Score: 0

You stated:
>>Too bad Energia is actually owned by the Russian Federation government.
Ergo: Energia is NOT a private launch company.
Which was exactly my point. Thanks for your agreement.
K. T.
Next step by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 10:14 · Score: 0

The next step should be a station in Lunar orbit. It doesn't have to be manned continuously, but it would be nice to have some spare parts and extra fuel there in case of trouble.
Re:Doing what we already did 40 years ago? Yawn. by ByOhTek · 2010-10-12 10:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

True, but such knee-jerk reactions of blaming us for everything don't help fix the issue.

--
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Re:Doing what we already did 40 years ago? Yawn. by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-10-12 10:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

One other big difference in this case is that they are talking about using an on-orbit space station as a staging ground for a mission. That is a huge step in terms of mission cycle and design. There is a very large difference between using big rockets to get from Earth to a destination, and using smaller rockets to get from Earth, to an intermittent way point, to your final destination. If a mission like this was executed well, and yielded good, reliable, cheap results, there could be a movement to develop on-orbit assembly infrastructure and on-orbit mission staging resources to a large degree. Such a paradigm shift in mission architecture would definitely represent a historic landmark in mankind's endeavors into space.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Building in orbit by jjohnson · 2010-10-12 10:38 · Score: 1

Someone who knows more about orbital mechanics and the economics of launches, please correct me here:
The main issue with getting into space is the high cost in energy (and thus money) of getting out of the Earth's gravity well. The heavier the load, the more fuel is required; more fuel increases the weight, which requires more fuel still... eventually you hit a kind of maximum whereby you can't add enough energy in the form of fuel to overcome the weight of the total package.
Wouldn't it then be economically feasible to launch many small packages that get assembled at the ISS? A swarm deployment to orbit, of sorts?

--
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
1. Re:Building in orbit by h4rr4r · 2010-10-12 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  That would cost even more probably. The reality is the fuel is not that expensive, maybe $20 worth of fuel for every lb of mass to LEO. The Rocket is the expensive part. So making more rockets makes this a more expensive plan.
2. Re:Building in orbit by jjohnson · 2010-10-12 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  Okay. Is there an economy of scale to building more smaller and simpler rockets instead of larger rockets? Overall, is it more economical to launch 10 packages of 100kg, or one of 100kg? The Russians seem to have figured out how to do it with the Progress Supply Vehicle.
  
  --
  Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Assume we had .... by petes_PoV · 2010-10-12 10:47 · Score: 1

we should've been doing YEARS AGO.
... what exactly would be different, now?
This self-assembly spacecraft wouldn't actually go to the moon, it would go around it and come back. No landings, no exploration, no payload return mission. In fact all you'd get are a few more photos just like they took 40 years ago with Apollo 8.
The craft wouldn't even complete the trip - it would be going too fast on the return path from the moon to slow down and dock back with the ISS, so it would just perform a "normal" atmospheric re-entry at 25,000 MPH just like all (more or less) the other Apollo moon missions did.
It might just be worthwhile if it was a stage in a definite strategy to restart exploration, but it sounds much more like yet another make-work task for the ISS - we've got this space station, it's just up there going round, and round, and round - can't we get to use it for something useful? A question that so far has had very little in the way of positive responses.

--
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Slightly OT by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 11:35 · Score: 2, Informative

increasing poverty-wealth gap
I keep hearing this... but it think it's safe to say that we've come a long way since the feudal system of serfs, lords, kings, etc.
You stand a far better chance now of switching from poor to rich than someone did even ~100 years ago.
Plus, the "super rich" of today are nothing compared to the likes of Rockefeller or Vanderbilt.
Orbital Moon Base by vvomero · 2010-10-12 11:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Instead of decomissioning the ISS they should just put it into orbit around the moon. It can be used as a base of some kind, store supplies, etc. at a later date.
1. Re:Orbital Moon Base by jwilso91 · 2010-10-13 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Lunar orbits are not stable over the long term, due to the mass concentrations ("mascons", chunks of higher density material embedded in the moon. Most are on the far side.) A libration point would be more appropriate, but would still require occasional orbital adjustments.
Re:Doing what we already did 40 years ago? Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 13:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

you have to expect a certain amount of reaction.
Exactly. The paradigm has shifted over generations. As long the U.S. only gets reactions, instead of actions from its fellow nations, *and* foots the bill in the process... There will always be a large percentage of it's citizens that could care less about your meaningless lack of contribution to what we do so well. Now fuck off.
(sarcasm intended, don't take it personally - i was going to post as myself but i'm a capitalistic karma whore)
Not thinking big enough by dbIII · 2010-10-12 14:06 · Score: 2, Funny

Send the entire moon! I'll bet we could have done it with 1999 technology!
Re:first PISS by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 14:36 · Score: 0

When you're the first to pass out at a field party, things are going to happen.
finally on the right track with the ISS by jebblue · 2010-10-12 15:01 · Score: 1, Insightful

Now you're talking. Find out what is possible beyond useful experiments in science, can we build (or at least assemble) a vehicle on the ISS and deploy it on a mission, get her and the crew back safely and see what was learned from this pragmatic exercise.
Re:Doing what we already did 40 years ago? Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-12 18:27 · Score: 1, Funny

And whos fault is that?
Telepresence Arrives by Doc+Ruby · 2010-10-12 19:28 · Score: 1

Now we can see what remote operation of industrial machines can do with a 3 second roundtrip delay.
Then we can put people on the Moon from where they can teleoperate stuff they put in Lunar, then Solar orbit from the Moon. Launch starting with a solar-powered railgun into Lunar orbit, then a Lunar ground laser (solar powered) fires at the orbiting package carrying a ballast load, that the laser pushes away from the device, shoving it into Solar orbit, shooting out through the Asteroid Belt examining composition out there and hustling metals back to the Moon for manufacturing. If we can wrangle in a 10 minute roundtrip feedback delay, we've mastered a beachhead to the inner Solar System.

--
--
make install -not war
Kourou Re:Orbitally Dumb by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-13 00:27 · Score: 0

Kourou it is, then!

Kourou is located approximately 500 kilometres (310 mi) north of the equator, at a latitude of 5 (deg) 10'. At this latitude, the Earth's rotation gives a velocity of approximately 500 metres per second (1,100 mph; 1,800 km/h) when the launch trajectory heads eastward. The proximity to the equator also makes maneuvering satellites for geosynchronous orbits simpler and less costly.
Re:Doing what we already did 40 years ago? Yawn. by ByOhTek · 2010-10-13 00:31 · Score: 1

I would say, both sides.
Oh I get it. I'll just say "wooooooosh" to myself now.

--
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Re:Doing what we already did 40 years ago? Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-13 03:42 · Score: 0

As long as there are large numbers of $Countrymen who are unable to acknowledge that $Country is ever at fault for anything, or ever less than the best at everything, you have to expect a certain amount of reaction.
FTFY.
Re:Doing what we already did 40 years ago? Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-13 06:38 · Score: 0

Oh, COME ON! We're trying our best!
-The Finns