Slashdot Mirror


Russian Moon Landing May Take As Many As Six Launches (examiner.com)

MarkWhittington writes: Russia has made no secret of its desire to land cosmonauts on the lunar surface sometime in the late 2020s. As the United States, at least for the current administration, has decided to bypass the moon in favor of Mars, Russia could move to wipe out the humiliation it suffered at the hands of NASA when it lost the 1960s race to the moon with the landing of Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969. However, a story in TASS suggests that a Russian moon landing effort would be complex, requiring up to six launches of its Angara rocket.

38 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. They should have gone in '69 by transporter_ii · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apparently space travel was much easier back then.

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    1. Re:They should have gone in '69 by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      They tried with the N1 testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re: They should have gone in '69 by binarylarry · · Score: 2

      Von Braun also designed and oversaw the Apollo missions...

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  2. Don't hold your breath by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're talking about 2029 as the earliest launch date with a flyby perhaps a year earlier. All of this, of course, depends on funding. Which doesn't seem like such a bright spot:

    n September, Russia’s Federal Space Agency Roscosmos announced that it will send a lander, Luna 25, to the Moon's south pole in 2024. After touchdown, the lander will investigate the lunar surface for future lunar bases. The Luna 25 mission was initially proposed in 1997 and has since suffered a number of delays, but it seems that with Europe's aid the mission could finally get the jump-start it needs. Construction of the spacecraft has already begun.

    So, they are trying to send an unmanned probe to the moon that was supposed to be launched 18 years ago in another nine years. And you thought NASA has budget problems.

    And they want to send a whole metric shit ton of equipment - six booster loads full. From a scientific point of view it sounds great. But it doesn't sound particularly realistic.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Don't hold your breath by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Everything costs a lot more in the US though. One US dollar spent by the US government at some US contractor is not going to go nearly as far as the same amount (in Rubles of course) spent by the Russian government.

      Just look at how ridiculously inflated defense costs have gotten in the US. An aircraft carrier cost about 2.5B 20 years ago, now they cost 15B. Inflation isn't that high in this country.

    2. Re:Don't hold your breath by KGIII · · Score: 3, Informative

      Inflation isn't that high but there are lots of costs associated with such projects. These are not the same carriers purchased twenty years ago - look at the available tech that they can now stuff into one.

      That does NOT negate your point about it being too pricey. It just means that the rate would almost certainly exceed inflation because they're not even similar products except they both float and launch planes - not even the planes are the same in many cases. Add in the amortized design changes and, yeah, it's gonna be more costly - tech that we have now simply was not available then. It is still, of course, too damned expensive because, honestly, we've got enough of 'em already and nobody else can even remotely compete with such a class.

      We've won... We can trickle along with moderate improvements at much lower cost, at a decreased level of alertness, and be fine. Our military has lots of problems but our Navy is, very much so, far above any other blue-water force on the planet. Bar none.

      That said, there's no real comparison between the two types of carriers. Even if we left the design largely the same, the amount of tech that was unavailable for prior inclusion would make it more expensive by default.

      Finally, I wonder if the Russians are accepting anonymous donations? I'd throw a few bucks there way. I like space and I like Russia. I've donated to NASA before (I'll skip the novella) and that made me feel pretty good. Donating to Russia would be even more meaningful as they're probably able to stretch the Rubles further even after their administration takes their cut.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:Don't hold your breath by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      These are not the same carriers purchased twenty years ago - look at the available tech that they can now stuff into one.

      20 years ago, I paid $3000 for a 133MHz computer, with 64MB of RAM. Today, I can buy a 3GHz computer, with 4GB of RAM, for $300.

      How much thrust does that produce? Payload capacity to orbit?

    4. Re:Don't hold your breath by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Not everything follows Moore's Law. That and they can include *more* tech. We're still being ripped off but not as much as one might think.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:Don't hold your breath by Rei · · Score: 2

      Also, it should be noted that mass production hits some obstacles when it comes to upper stages. You need a lot fewer engines, and higher ISP than you need for the lower stages (but not as much thrust requirement). You can do it with the same or similar ISP like SpaceX does (same engine, just vacuum optimized expansion nozzle), but that limits your scaling - it's fine to LEO/GEO but you're never going to get to Mars and back with a practical-sized rocket with those kinds of ISP figures. Which is why SpaceX's future plans hinge around in-situ methane production, so that they don't have to carry all of that return mass. It's a reasonable, although challenging, approach.

      There are some possibilities mind you for getting more impulse out of their current designs. They're already taking some interest steps with the Falcon 9v1.2, aka "Full Thrust" - instead of having their LOX near its boiling point, they're supercooling it to just above its triple point and cooling the propellant to the maximum level of viscosity that their turbopumps can manage, so that they both increase in density, thus increasing both tank capacity and thrust. But while they're playing with increased viscosity propellants, they could take it to the next stage and go with mildly gelled propellants. The gelling isn't in and of itself a performance enhancer, but it lets you suspend aluminum (or if you don't mind the handling problems, lithium) particles in your fuel. Aluminum gives dozens of extra sec ISP, and lithium dozens more. Aluminum also increases propellant density, meaning more thrust and tank capacity (lithium unfortunately decreases it). While lithium metal is fairly expensive (a couple dozen dollars per kg), aluminum is cheap, about $1,50/kg.

      Another nice thing (according at least to my CEA simulations with lithium) is that the latter significantly lowers chamber temperature, all other conditions (mass flow rate, expansion ratio, etc) being the same. Entering the conditions for the SSME, for example (77,5:1 expansion ratio, mass flow rate per square meter = 2223,8 kg/sec), CEA calculates (if SSME were lossless) 464,5 sec vac ISP (real world, after losses is 452 sec), 0,36g/cc propellant density, 3602,82K chamber temperature (real world 3573,15K) and exhaust of H2O (~76%) + H2 (~24%). CEA says that with a slightly different ratio you could add an extra 1,4sec ISP, but it's basically near maximum. With aluminum added to the ideal mix it calculates Al (43,9%)/LOX (39,1%)/LH2 (17,0%): 544,0 sec, 0,34g/cc, 3689,38K, -> H2 (~91%), Al2O3 (~9%). And with lithium, it calculates Li (30,0%)/LOX (34,6%)/LH2 (35,4%): 583,2 sec, 0,17g/cc, 2362,44K, -> H2 (~89%), Li2O (~11%). Now, these figures assume complete burning of the metals - which is often difficult to achieve in the real world with aluminum as its oxide has such a high melting point - but in general metalized propellants offer huge potential improvements to performance, with non-esoteric technology, and without posing serious pollution problems (like, say, using fluorine as an oxidizer does). So it'd be interesting to see what SpaceX could achieve if they could get their system to handle gelled propellants - the potential is huge.

      (Note: these calculations are for adding metals to LOX/LH... but the same thing applies to hydrocarbon fuels, albeit to a slightly lesser degree)

      --
      I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
    6. Re:Don't hold your breath by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Don't forget graft. That's surely in the budget too.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re:Don't hold your breath by swb · · Score: 2

      But hasn't BMW a long track record of relatively more advanced engineering in their cars which has more or less always accounted for some of their price premium? Do you think the relative-to-other-cars increases in sophisticated engineering has increased or stayed constant?

      I also wonder if BMW pricing (especially for higher-end models like the 6 series) hasn't increased merely to defend its position as a status item? If their market demographic has seen an increase in income, BMW raises their price to both extract more of that income from its customers as well as maintain its status position and exclusivity.

  3. Sputnik? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 3, Informative

    FTSummary: Russia could move to wipe out the humiliation it suffered at the hands of NASA when it lost the 1960s race to the moon with the landing of Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969.

    Uhm, "lost" the space race?

    Sputnik? Remember?

    Oh, and Russia also landed a craft on, and beamed back images from, the surface of Venus. They were first. In fact, and I expect to be corrected, I don't recall the US ever landing a probe on Venus that did anything other than send back a few blips of telemetry readings before dissolving in the Venusian atmosphere.

    1. Re:Sputnik? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "when it lost the 1960's race to the moon"

      Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

    2. Re:Sputnik? by pr0t0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. I wasn't alive at the time, and I'm sure their was nationalistic pride that was lost to the Americans when we went to the moon; but the former Soviet Union had nothing to be ashamed about. Their aerospace chops were proven time and again. Sputnik, Gargarin, Tereshkova, Mir, Venera, etc., not to mention Sukhoi and Mig.

      That was 45 years ago. Today, the U.S. has to beg for rides to the ISS. WE'RE the ones who should be humiliated.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    3. Re:Sputnik? by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sputnik was never intended as a "slap in the face to anyone". Self centered people tend to think that others do things especially for their own benefit. Sputnik was a mere step forward in technology. It would have been difficult to create an orbital satellite that did NOT fly over the United States at some point or other. That America decided to take it as a personal insult from "those commie bastards" is another thing entirely.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Sputnik? by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      I'm so often reminded of the "Tortoise and the Hare" tale when I think about the United States.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Sputnik? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Sputnik in fact was an AFTERTHOUGHT.

      The Russians had a single unified ICBM effort and they decided to just "put a cherry on top" as it were. American leadership was much less in a panic about it than the general public. Eisenhower also liked the idea of setting the precedent of allowing sat overflights as the US was priming to put up spy satellites.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Sputnik? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      but the development of the Shuttle and the Soviets' failure with their equivalent

      Actually, the Soviets succeeded in realizing that an airplane-shaped payload strapped onto the side of a rocket makes no sense after only one flight. It took us over 100 flights before we realized the same thing. I think they won that round.

    7. Re:Sputnik? by naughtynaughty · · Score: 2

      The US doesn't beg for rides, it pays for a ride. Just like I pay for an Uber ride instead of building my own car and using it. Makes sense for me, makes sense for NASA. Buying rides to the ISS allowed the US to stop financially supporting the space shuttle and divert that funding towards a next generation vehicle.

    8. Re:Sputnik? by TWX · · Score: 2

      The shuttle's misuse as a payload delivery platform was not a technical failure of the vehicle. You are right, it was a terrible cargo vehicle, but would have been an excellent vehicle on which to operate longer-duration special missions that required the equipment to be launched and returned in one configuration.

      It was our own damn political fault that we decided that the shuttle should contain the parts for a station, parts that individually had to be smaller than the shuttle's cargo bay. Had the entire payload of the launching rocket been station parts plus enough cowl to protect it for launch we could have sent up much bigger station parts, and if we used the shuttle for anything, could have housed the astronauts that were to complete assembly of the station in-orbit, or could have been configured not as a cargo vehicle but as a crew transport vehicle to the station carrying significantly more than the eight that it was equipped for.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    9. Re:Sputnik? by dbIII · · Score: 2
      The need to get the thing into polar orbits of a certain height and the height envelope of what was possible to build and launch without building a new spaceport resulted in that bizzare compromise of the vehicle strapped onto the side of a rocket. It's a credit to NASA that they even managed to launch something shaped like that at all. If you don't see it as a big deal look up "bending moment" for a start, without even getting into centre of mass and aerodynamics.

      Had the entire payload of the launching rocket been station parts plus enough cowl to protect it for launch we could have sent up much bigger station parts

      The political restriction of one single vehicle to do everything prevented that. It's kind of what we are seeing now with a military jet that is supposed to do everything.
      A lot of the more serious near future SF from the last few decades (and recent ISS modules in reality) has space stations built out of modules launched unmanned on dedicated rockets and the manned missions involve connecting them together. The Japanese near-future fiction "Space Brothers" has a moonbase built out of modules and assembled by remote controlled industrial robots before the first people are planned to turn up - even the wheeled vehicles are sent in to be at the landing site before the astronauts land. In that fiction they get around the lack of a Saturn V in the near future by sending the lander into Earth orbit unmanned and then docking something like a Soyuz to it on a manned flight to avoid having to lift all the stuff in one go.

  4. Humiliation? by eumoria · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Russia could move to wipe out the humiliation it suffered" First to put something in orbit, first man in space, they landed robotic rovers on the moon around the same time we were there. I'm not trying to dismiss the amazing Apollo program but this is very biased nonsense. As an American the Russians should be proud of their space program. No humiliation.

  5. 6 launches isn't complex by Robotbeat · · Score: 5, Informative

    6 launches isn't complex. We do twice that many flights to ISS every year. In total, we've done over 160 flights to ISS, with Russia doing over half of those.

    Anyway, I bet they can do it in 4 Angara launches. Russia is super experienced with in-space rendezvous, autonomous docking, and even more advanced things like propellant transfer (which they do regularly at ISS). 4 or even 6 launches would be no problem.

    They'll save a ridiculous amount of money by not building a megarocket like we insist on.

    But I agree with the skeptical posters here. Russia always talks about these sorts of things and never does them (not that we're much better). I think it's code-word for "if oil gets over $150/barrel and stays there, then we can do this."

    1. Re:6 launches isn't complex by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Hey don't knock $100+/bbl oil. It got a lot of countries a lot of alternative energy sources. Even now with cheaper oil, I don't see Germany shutting down its solar/wind projects. They will still be making electricity for a long time. The trick is convincing someone to make the initial investment.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:6 launches isn't complex by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, last time it kicked off the shale oil/gas boom with some pretty stupid cowboy goldrush antics that are starting to have a bit of fallout now. Meanwhile solar/wind/etc are quietly progressing worldwide to compete with the much lower price.
      Rusted on Republicans take note - the Chinese are making an absolute fortune selling those solar panels developed in the USA but forced offshore to keep some donors happy. America could be making a killing from that American technology if a few loud Texan oil executives had not put their interest ahead of the country. Those six million manufacturing jobs lost recently could be doing that and spinoffs instead of that many or more doing it in China.

  6. Re: Resume the lunar program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    That depends on which hopeless moron is elected to replace him. If it's Trump then I predict a change to a program to send people to Venus. It's a lot closer, is similarly sized to earth, and has a real atmosphere.

  7. Docking is now less hard work by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A more complex payload can now reach the moon without the many compromise of the past efforts as seen on television.
    A later permanent lunar ability would then be less tricky allowing for the wonders of the ultimate high ground to be explored and science shared.
    Russian has the very complex metallurgy, science, support, academics, computer applications to ensure all such projects will work.
    Lets hope the needed projects get the full funding soon :)

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  8. Patriotic assholes by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 3, Informative

    Patriotism is a disease that makes a moron believe (s)he's better than someone else because (s)he's better than someone else because they were squeezed from a vagina that either already was a citizen of a country or squeezed from it in said country.

    Unless you're ass was the one planted in the pod which landed on the moon, you're the asshole who thinks Armstrong said "On small step for the United States". A man landed and walked on the moon and you make this about national boundaries? This is about what we can accomplish as human beings if we set our minds to it. Using something that barely counts as a computer and communications systems which worked nearly by accident, we sent humans riding on an enormous bomb into space and managed to actually slow them down enough to land on the surface of the moon.

    This was a victory for all of the world... not just the U.S. and it sure as hell wasn't a loss for the Soviet Union. The were able to see that their fellow man stood on the surface of the moon and be proud of what we can all accomplish and to know that if we reach for the stars... one day we might just reach them.

    Screw your pathetic patriotic nonsense... every day I come here and read Slashdot and see people from all over the world (including Russia and China) talk about popular science together as a common species. I visit sites where people from around the world work to further medicine and we don't consider patents or national boundaries, we consider illnesses. We work together to design new algorithms for pattern detection within ultrasound images to detect anomalies.

    I visit other sites where we discuss the mysteries of the Universe and generally find that we like those mysteries. Sometimes we wonder would we like it so much if they weren't mysteries. We speak as humans with no regards for national boundaries and who was squeezed from a vagina in a given place.

    Patriotism is for fools. Nationalism is for fools. There is only one reason for national boundaries and that's to have some order to managerial tasks like deciding who should pay for which roads to be built.

    I was born an American... when I learned that patriotism is a hoax, I decided to be something far greater... a human instead. My life has been far more fulfilling since.

    That said... as someone born in New York, I do take an irrational pride in New York pizza and bagels... it's not a competition, it's an observation... we do it better.

  9. Russian Roulette by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    They have six rockets, but only one of them is loaded.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Re: Resume the lunar program by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    50 kilometers above the surface the temperature and pressure are earth-normal. Huge dirigibles using oxygen and nitrogen would float in the denser co2 atmosphere.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  11. Re:Resume the lunar program by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A moon base would be by far the biggest boondoggle in the history of this nation: Trillions of dollars sunk into a make-work social program for space nutters.

    Come on, surely you can do better than that. The bank bailouts, the wars knowingly started on false premises, the wars started on "regime change" ...

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  12. Von Braun Screwed Up by kenwd0elq · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the 1960's, the USA was faced with a decision; go to the moon fast using a lunar-orbit rendezvous technique, or take our time and do it right, with an Earth-orbit rendezvous. The Earth-orbit rendezvous would have built a space station, assembled the actual Moon rocket in space, and returned to Earth orbit to actually land in a landing capsule.

    Von Braun wanted to get there FAST, without bothering to assemble any space infrastructure along the way, and we won the "space race". But in doing it that way, we didn't learn anything about space construction, or build anything that would last, and we haven't been back to the moon in nearly 50 years. If the Russians are smart, they'll build their moon rocket in orbit near the ISS, and use that as a "construction shack" to building some actual orbital infrastructure. With that many launches, it almost sounds like they've chosen that path.

    As a dedicated American patriot (and retired Navy officer), I can only say, "Godspeed, Russia! SOMEBODY has to build a lunar colony, and if it isn't going to be America, at least it'll be HUMANS back in space!"

    1. Re:Von Braun Screwed Up by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Yes but didn't JFK state an end date and Von Braun react to fit the timetable?
      However it does make sense - Skylab should have been first and not last to be disgustingly abandoned to deorbit due to budget cuts.

  13. Re: RECORD MAKING !! by kenwd0elq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Pilgrims who sailed on the Mayflower didn't expect to ever return to Europe. And half of them died in the first couple of years, in the horrible wilderness called "Massachusetts".

    Everybody who goes to Mars will die. (Some quickly, some slowly, some from old age.... maybe even some who come back to Earth.) EVERYBODY dies. Many pioneers died along the Oregon Trail, or heading to California. Exploration isn't safe, but staying home in bed doesn't protect you from dying.

  14. It's a classic case of... by tkrotchko · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "As the United States, at least for the current administration, has decided to bypass the moon in favor of Mars"

    It's a way of kicking the can so far down the road that you can't even find the can.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  15. Moon Landing by Spudboy2003 · · Score: 2

    People still believe the USA landed month Moon? That's sad.

  16. Re:Patriotic Pizza by ITRambo · · Score: 2

    New York pizza tasted like Domino's pizza to me, edible but far from delicous other than NY's stone baked crust. Chicago pizza kicks New York pizza's ass.

  17. Anyone want to make a bet? by kheldan · · Score: 2

    I'm betting that if and when Russia does have boots on the ground on the Moon, Putin tries to claim some (or all) of the real estate there, international treaty or not. Same bet applies to China, assuming they ever made it there (less likely, though).

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!