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.

4 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  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. 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."

  4. 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.