Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russia Has Sights Set On Manned Moon Landing By 2030

Posted by samzenpus on from the red-moon dept.

New submitter techfun89 writes "Russia plans on sending cosmonauts to the moon as well as unmanned spacecraft to Mars, Jupiter and Venus by 2030. Considering the recent launch failures in Russia, these plans seem very ambitious. From the article: 'These ambitious spaceflight goals are laid out in a strategy document drawn up recently by Russia's Federal Space Agency (known as Roscosmos), the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported Tuesday (March 13). And there's more. Roscosmos wants a new rocket called Angara to become the nation's workhorse launch vehicle by 2020, replacing the venerable Soyuz and Proton rockets that have been carrying the load since the 1960s.'"

16 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Good idea! by multiben · · Score: 5, Funny

    It will be good to finally get back to the moon. Can't wait to find out in what ways it's changed since the last time we visited.

    1. Re:Good idea! by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It will be good to finally get back to the moon. Can't wait to find out in what ways it's changed since the last time we visited.

      Actually a lot has changed since we last visited - sort of. When the first moon landings happened, the technology that folks were able to take down to the surface was exceptionally limited. This means that any landings in the future will be able to carry out experiments that could have only been dreamed about in the 60s. SO, while things on the moon itself may not have changed, we are probably still going to learn a vast amount for the first time.

      Besides, perhaps this is just the embarassment that the US space program needs to get some funding again.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Besides, perhaps this is just the embarassment that the US space program needs to get some funding again.

      By 2030 SpaceX will probably be running regular tourist flights; they'll be able to wave to the Russians as they land.

    3. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      America's got looooots of money.
      The embarrassing part should be what you choose to spend it on.

    4. Re:Good idea! by dwye · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is there any advantage to sending a person?

      Yes. As they put it during Project Mercury, "No Bucks, no Buck Rogers." Well, the reverse is true, as well.

      Otherwise, why haven't we covered the Moon in rover tracks by now? It is much easier than controlling them on Mars, after all, and probably easier to land them (although no aerobraking might compensate for the lighter gravity). Likewise, they could have dispersed a wide net of sensors around it, instead of depending on the few left from the Apollo landings.

      And, of course, the real expense is getting to High Earth Orbit. After that, as some hard SF writer put it, you are half way to anywhere. At least in delta-V terms.

    5. Re:Good idea! by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Yes. As they put it during Project Mercury, "No Bucks, no Buck Rogers." Well, the reverse is true, as well."

      They didn't have the remotely-manned tech we do now or robots in quantity would have preceded men.

      If there is, at the moment, anything a man can perform which a robot cannot, that argues for improved robots rather than sending expensive tourists. We need improved robot tech for all the dull/dirty/dangerous jobs on Earth, and as we are moving to "lights out manufacturing" in advanced industries so we should seek to automate everything else over time.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:Good idea! by symbolset · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It wasn't really all the cold war, you know. Sure, the Toynbee Tile "footballs in space" thing had something to do with it. But it had as much to do with Kennedy's skill as an orator and a desire to build some unifying non-military national mission so we could lay off the killing foreigners thing for a while. Usually for these things I cite the text of the speech, but today I find the recording of Kennedy at Rice University is up on Youtube now.

      12:15 he anticipates the home PC.

      I watched it again just now. Damn, but it's dusty in here.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    7. Re:Good idea! by bananaquackmoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm so tired of this attitude. It's people like you that keep me from having an apartment on the moon.

    8. Re:Good idea! by khallow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They didn't have the remotely-manned tech we do now or robots in quantity would have preceded men.

      Robots did. There were 21 such robotic missions prior to the first manned mission. Apollo 12 landed near (about 360 meters away) one of those robotic missions, Surveyor 3.

      If there is, at the moment, anything a man can perform which a robot cannot, that argues for improved robots rather than sending expensive tourists.

      There is plenty. Perhaps you ought to watch some Apollo footage sometime to see it. The thing to remember here is that humans are currently the best robots out there for a number of important tasks (such as making decisions, land-based surveying and prospecting, land-based sample collection, etc). Humans have overhead such as supplies and need for radiation protection, but that boils down to mass and power needs just like any robotic payload.

      We need improved robot tech for all the dull/dirty/dangerous jobs on Earth, and as we are moving to "lights out manufacturing" in advanced industries so we should seek to automate everything else over time.

      The problem here is that this approach gets in the way of us doing cool things. Suppose I develop a new industrial process, but the prototype requires considerable human intervention (precisely because a human developed it with limited resources). I don't have the capital for this "lights out" stuff or to make sure that my workers and I are sufficiently out of harms way to fulfill whatever safety levels you're attempting to achieve here.

      I have a better idea. Let's not waste time or effort making the world ridiculously safe.

    9. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      They didn't have the remotely-manned tech we do now or robots in quantity would have preceded men.

      You should seriously read something about the space race and the moon landing.

      Robots in quantity did preceed men, but history classes in the U.S. tends to focus on the manned mission since Soviet was first with all other important milestones in the space race incuding unmanned missions to the moon.

      Luna 9 and Luna 13 were the two unmanned Soviet probes that successfully landed on the moon before the American manned landing. The U.S. had some unmanned missions before the manned one but none of them managed to land.
      Luna 16 landed and brought home moon soil, Luna 17 was a Soviet rover that traveled over 10km on the moon.
      Luna 21, Luna 23 and Luna 24 were other successful Soviet missions. (More automated moon traveling and soil gathering.)

  2. I think they have this wrong... by idbeholda · · Score: 5, Funny

    The manned moon has its sights on landing in Russia by 2030.

  3. Not a chance by melted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's not a coincidence that newer Russian designs don't work. The "old guard" has retired. The new — immgirated. Just the other day international rankings came out for higher education. Not a single Russian school is on the list. That's what happens when you don't even pay starvation wages to your professors. Sooner or later they throw in the towel. It's a miracle things held together this long.

    Given the scarcity of talented engineers, and the pitiful salaries Roscosmos pays to its staff, I'm kind of wondering how they expect to pull this off. They couldn't even do it when they had some of the best schools in the world (which regularly minted Nobel laureates), during the Soviet times, with essentially unlimited budget and manpower. Nowadays they can only build 20 year old rockets, and make minor improvements here and there. Put simply, after neglecting higher education for about a decade and a half, they've pissed away their technical capability to do anything they haven't already done before.

  4. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    except that they will actually go; as opposed to faking some film in the desert

  5. Re:Wow! by Megane · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they hurry, they can get there before China.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  6. If I had a nickel by tsotha · · Score: 4, Funny

    If I had a nickel for every time the Russians announced some ambitious program I could run my own space program. Let's see if any money actually gets allocated.

  7. Re:Ambitious? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I like how the summary goes on about how ambitious it is for Russia to get to the moon in almost two decades. It took just a little over 8 years for the US to go from basically nada (hadn't even gotten into orbit yet) to landing on the moon.

    That's the popular version - and it's also very, very, wrong.
     
    F1 engine development started in 1856 for example. At the time of Kennedy's speech, both the Apollo CSM and what would eventually become the Saturn V were already being developed as well. This is why he chose the Lunar Landing as a goal in the first place - it was a reachable scientific and engineering goal that was already quietly underway.
     

    If anything, getting there by 2030 seems a rather conservative goal, even taking into account their recent issues.

    In 1995, their goal was the Moon by 2000, and Mars by 2015. In 2000, their goal was the Moon by 2010 and Mars by 2020. In 2010 their goal was the Moon by 2020 and Mars by 2030.... The Russians have a long history of bold powerpoint plans, and basically have never accomplished any of them.