Slashdot Mirror
Russia Begins Work On a Lunar Lander (examiner.com)
MarkWhittington writes: Whether and when Russia will try to send cosmonauts to the moon is an open question. The Putin government has heavily slashed spending on the Russian space program, a measure brought on by declining oil and gas revenues. But, as Popular Mechanics reports, Russian engineers have gone ahead and have started to design a lunar lander for the eventual Russian lunar surface effort. When money is going to be forthcoming for such a vehicle is unknown, though Russia could partner with another country with lunar ambitions, such as China or the European Union.
I, for one, hail our Russian Mooning Overlords!
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
This is good, because it opens up opportunities for cooperation with the proud Russian people that might not have existed at 80 Euro oil.
The sooner we cease petty tribal conflicts here on earth, the sooner we can get on with hating life forms on other worlds.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
That's interesting, because Russia itself announced they were postponing their lunar ambitions for a long time due to the economic crisis they are facing due to low oil prices, costs of fighting in Syria and Ukraine and the fact they abolished/reformed ROSCOSMOS into a state corporation with an emphasis on profit making. Besides, in aerospace circles, going back to the 1990s, being profiled in PM was considered the 'kiss of death.'
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
Obama's policy may be uninspiring but that's still an improvement over Bush's plan which was untenable.
A better option would be to have an inspiring goal (eg return to the Moon or go to Mars) but with a public-private funding model. The age of large-scale government-only space projects such as the Bush proposal are no longer feasible. Meanwhile we have a burgeoning private space industry that can make significant, cost-effective contributions.
I really wish there was a way to edit your comment after you've posted it, just to fix mistakes. Sorry but I'm blind to grammatical errors when I preview. I can only see them after I've posted.
On it. And while Russia uses disposable, America's will be reusable. Sadly mark Whittington is all about BS and never about facts.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It is all important that the US resume plan put forward by President Bush so that the US can dominate colonization of the moon. Let the other countries realize they are in competition. Aren't you all tired yet of the bed-wetter Obama's space policy?
It doesn't work that way. The moon is not sovereign territory under international law, and may not be claimed as such.
"We came in peace for all mankind."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Poll 1: Which nation/organization do you think will be next to land people on the moon?
* China (CNSA)
* USA (NASA)
* Japan (JAXA)
* Europe (ESA)
* India (ISRO)
* Russia (RFSA)
* North Korea (KCST)
* Privately funded (e.g. SpaceX, Blue Origin or Cowboy Neal without direct state support) (ETLA)
Poll 2: Which nation/organization do you want be next to land people on the moon?
(same options)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
The other option is to not send redundant bags of meat into space. These days it makes just as much sense to send a pineapple or a meerkat as it does to send humans: none of the features of a human are particularly useful in the vacuum of space or near vacuum on Mars. Better to send a robot or bunch of robots specifically designed to achieve whatever the particular aims we have for that mission.
It's a box full of monkeys with the words "peekaboo perfect space explore!" written on the side.
Moon lands on you!
Tell the kock bros to pay you more and you will make to clean up when you move from one of them to the other. Blowhard, you are a real fucking idiot when it comes to space. You want us to continue wasting money on lockheed just so that losers like you have a job.
Meatbags will provide a sacrificial symbol AND a nice snack for our incoming alien overlords. Stop being selfish.
Google has been doing it for year: Google's Tax Tricks: 'Double Irish' And 'Dutch Sandwich' Published October 21, 2010
Arstechnica had the balls to report it in 2013, it is also a tech site.
Slashdot is run by pussies, whoever the new owner is.
Google is moving even more money through a shell corporation in Bermudaâ"reaching a total of â8.8 billion ($11.91 billion) in 2012, 25 percent more than it did in 2011. By employing a legal yet ethically questionable practice, Google is saving itself billions in taxes worldwide.
The new figures were first reported by the Financial Times on Friday, citing âoe[recent] filings by one of Googleâ(TM)s Dutch subsidiaries.â This widespread strategy of moving money around involves two specific tactics known as the âoeDutch Sandwichâ and the âoeDouble Irish.â (Ars obtained a copy of this filing, dated September 27, 2013, from an anonymous source.)
As the Times concluded, these disclosures mean âoethat royalty payments made to Bermudaâ"where the company holds its non-US intellectual propertyâ"have doubled over the past three years. This increase reflects the rapid growth of Googleâ(TM)s global business.â
The British newspaper cited filings from Google Netherlands Holdings, which represents the âoeDutch Sandwichâ part of the equation.
Bermuda triangle of taxation
As Ars has reported before, hereâ(TM)s how the Double Irish works. Bloomberg first described the process in 2010: a company sells or licenses its foreign rights to intellectual property developed in the United States to a subsidiary in a country with lower tax rates. The result? Foreign profits that come from that techâ"like the rights to Googleâ(TM)s search and advertising technology, effectively the keys to the kingdomâ"are now attributed to that offshore subsidiary rather than the Mountain View, California headquarters. The subsidiaries have to pay âoearmâ(TM)s lengthâ prices for those rights, just like an outside company would.
Because we need to work on making news
Because lawd knows there isn't enough of it until we make some... er, more...
Just to be precise: the European Space Agency (ESA) is not part of the European Union.
The former is about science and the later about forcing neoliberalism through unwilling People's throats. Current EU rules would probably forbid the creation of a ESA-like thing today.
But to be fair, EU also contribute to ESA budget.
Honestly, Russia is in the enviable position of already having the critical parts needed for a crewed lunar mission.
They have Soyuz for crewed launches, Proton for heavy uncrewed, plus Angara coming on line to replace the troublesome Proton. Soyuz was originally designed for lunar missions, and could be fairly simply modified for lunar return. Russia also regularly does propellant transfer and autonomous docking and have a large array of storable-propellant upper stages to use, so they could launch the lander partially filled using Proton into a distant lunar orbit and refuel and/or reposition using a Progress vehicle (perhaps tweaked to allow bigger propellant tanks).
Soyuz could dock with a couple of full Briz-M stages in LEO, push out a lunar orbit and meet with the pre-place lander. ...I suspect Russia will not build a mega-rocket like SLS. They don't need to, since they're very good at docking and propellant transfer (something they do regularly on ISS). Which is good because they don't exactly have a lot of money right now.
Mate, I think you miss the point of exploration. I for one hope they find the money to fund this effort sooner rather than later, I've not yet seen a man set foot on the moon in my lifetime (born in 1990) and be it the Russians or the Chinese I don't particularly care. One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
"Yes?"
"The race to put a man on the moon is over. You lost. Loser!"
The countries with a good coastline situation: USA, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia
Not too bad: Spain, France, Ireland, United Kingdom, Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, China, and... Russia.
I'm only willing to say "not too bad" for Russia because of the Black Sea. That arctic stuff is slightly better than worthless. The combination of Vladivostok and St. Petersburg might have put Russia in the "good" category except for the fact that Russian life revolves around Moscow. Vladivostok isn't well-connected.
>> Russia Begins Work On a Lunar Lander
Landing is easy. Now try building something that can re-launch itself back OFF the moon and I'll be impressed.
Yes, I think so. Thanks steel structure and pre-engineered buildings
steel structure and
But astronaut will be the only job in the future. Robots will take all of our other jobs here on Earth. Only humans can explore and do science in person. Because it's what we do. Or something.
The russian cosmonauts will land and start moonshining vodka.
Immediately after the landing, the Russian Duma has voted to annex the Moon and renamed it Novo-Crimea. This resulted in a diplomatic row with China and Japan, becase the russians began deporting the lunar rabbit population to Siberia...
A joint CIA-Mossad effort managed to steal various parts of the russian lunar lander from the factory line. When assembled they always ended up with a battle tank...
- Mr. President, Mr. President, the Russians have landed on the Moon and painted it all red!
- Where's the problem, just send our guys and write Coca-Cola on it!
Won't somebody think of the alien overlords?!?
Mate, I think you miss the point of exploration.
Not seeing any evidence that that is true,
I for one hope they find the money to fund this effort sooner rather than later, I've not yet seen a man set foot on the moon in my lifetime (born in 1990) and be it the Russians or the Chinese I don't particularly care.
I haven't seen a man swallow a pinecone either. Not sure that that creates a compelling reason for anyone to take up pinecone swallowing. From my perspective, I'd rather we went exploring - sent a robotic sub to the oceans of titan, or drilling into icy crust of europa. If I want to see a glorified meat van, I'd bling up the butchers ute.
One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
Now robots take those leaps on our behalf.
... despite the aspirations of some politicians.
Humans aren't particularly well suited to the summit of Mount Everest either. Instead of trying to climb it, we should just send an ice climbing robot to reach the summit. It can chemically analyse the ice, and tell us how cold it is - mission accomplished!
It is true. However, there should be a development of a technology to live on other planets, otherwise the humanity would be too vulnerable in case of an asteroid impact. What may and will happen sooner or later.
Why a new Lunar Lander when we have http://my.ign.com/atari/lunar-... ?
Bags of meat? We no of no more remarkable organo-electro-mechanical device in the universe than homo sapiens. And we know of no better specimens of homo sapiens than Americans. Minor environmental requirements are no impediment for going to the moon.
I do not think they would need anything else but Proton since last Zond-Proton flights were successful. Proton can now carry more and have new lighter materials, and all that is needed are minor changes to Zond and LK lander in terms of materials and guidance. They could fit both Zond and LK lander in one single launch. On the other hand, in USA there really are no technical barriers, you can pretty much choose whatever launch vehicle you want, it is just that there is almost no sense to send a human in its current complicated biological life form with all this protective clothing and shields, capsules etc. just to show he can walk on Moon or Mars surface, so no money for that, except as publicity stunt for some company.
Surely the computer technology involved must be incredibly cheap compared to what it cost in the 60s? So why haven't we gone back? Why aren't there scores of robotic rovers with 4k cameras sending back live video from the Moon, right now?
"...as Popular Mechanics reports..."
Popular mechanics lost all credibility when it attempted to explain the collapse of the WTC as a "pancake collapse". They even omitted the 47 structural steel beams that re-forced the core of the building. Unbelievable.
Humans aren't particularly well suited to the summit of Mount Everest either. Instead of trying to climb it, we should just send an ice climbing robot to reach the summit. It can chemically analyse the ice, and tell us how cold it is - mission accomplished!
People climbing Mount Everest usually aren't financed by tax money. People can make tasks harder on themselves as much as they like as long as they pay for it themselves. Space missions are funded with tax money, which makes it a legal issue if they spend much more money than they have to in order to accomplish a certain mission. Usually politicians have no problem passing new laws allowing wastefulness in order to gain country scale phall... errr status symbols.
Mate, I think you miss the point of exploration.
Not seeing any evidence that that is true,
I for one hope they find the money to fund this effort sooner rather than later, I've not yet seen a man set foot on the moon in my lifetime (born in 1990) and be it the Russians or the Chinese I don't particularly care.
I haven't seen a man swallow a pinecone either. Not sure that that creates a compelling reason for anyone to take up pinecone swallowing.
From my perspective, I'd rather we went exploring - sent a robotic sub to the oceans of titan, or drilling into icy crust of europa. If I want to see a glorified meat van, I'd bling up the butchers ute.
One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
Now robots take those leaps on our behalf.
Have you hugged your robot lately? OP refers to the thrill of exploration. Robot craft are interesting and useful, and I support their ongoing use to be sure - but the explorer's urge is deeply ingrained in (most of) us, at a very personal level - thanks evolution! "Fun" I think, is the operative word, although many on both sides of the issue would lift their noses at the very suggestion of such an emotion - how politically incorrect (*sniff)!
Spain, 1492 - members of the public argued against organizing and achieving the treacherous and expensive journey filled with monumental and unknown dangers it would take to cross the ocean for unknown payoff. Instead they argued to send pigeons and donkeys because that made much more sense.
That's exactly what that comment will sound like in 500 years. Congrats!
Original Soviet moon plans failed because they never got their rocket launch vehicle N1 working.
A better analogy would be: because exploring had always previously been done on foot, in 1492 funds that would have been put into exploring by boat were instead spent on developing means to extend the distance that could be travelled by foot, including long poles that allowed explorers to cross bodies of water by walking on the bottom. Of course, the scale of the atlantic overwhelmed this mode of travel, so exploring was confined to well known spots that were easily reachable, and had infact already been settled with and traded with by people in boats for thousands of years. Nevertheless the long pole walkists looked down and mocked those who dared suggest that boats may in fact represent a superior technology and the notion of that exploring required one to travel by foot was impractical, dangerous, faintly ridiculous, and meant that no real exploring was even happening.
If the personal challenge of going to Mars inspires you, all power to you. But for this to be an Everest style challenge, you'll need to walk there. Riding there in a machine is cheating. It's the machine (and the guys who designed, tested and built it) that did all the work, so from a "summit Everest" perspective, it's those guys who get the credit and the kudos.
That is what he said: you're talking about things you can't possibly know. This isn't all that hard to understand.
Have you hugged your robot lately? OP refers to the thrill of exploration.
You weren't thrilled when Huygens plunged through the clouds of Titan and landed on the surface? You weren't thrilled by the recent flyby of Pluto? What's wrong with you?
Robot craft are interesting and useful, and I support their ongoing use to be sure - but the explorer's urge is deeply ingrained in (most of) us, at a very personal level - thanks evolution! "Fun" I think, is the operative word, although many on both sides of the issue would lift their noses at the very suggestion of such an emotion - how politically incorrect (*sniff)!
You've arbitrarily constrained exploring to requiring the actual explorer to cart along a bag of meat. This constraint is bizarre- why not replace the bag of meat with a pineapple? It's not exploring unless you carry along a pineapple, with a robotic arm to hurl out the pineapple and a recording that says "THERE! Now the pineapple has set foot on this (arbitrarily defined) surface, this planet/moon is EXPLORED!"
Your constraint means the end of exploration, because exploration will be confined to the places where technology allows robots to carry us bags of meat. This means, in practical terms, we will never explore and further than perhaps Mars or Venus.
To the extent that if an asteroid impacts the Earth, you are better off on Earth than on Mars or the moon. If a serious asteroid impact were even likely.
Bags of meat? We no of no more remarkable organo-electro-mechanical device in the universe than homo sapiens.
On the earth perhaps. In space, they just float about helplessly. If actually exposed to the harsh realities of space or another planetary surface, they die. The most remarkable part of a human (the brain) should tell you that sending humans to space when robots are already better adapted, in every way, is ridiculous.
It is absolutely possible. Any moment. Have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It was a relatively small meteor, but bigger asteroids repeatedly hit the Earth, and it will happen again. There is no doubt of it, the question is when.
Plants do not need oxygen at all, it is even poisonous for them in a way. In principle, they may turn a planet without oxygen into a habitable planet. But this technology does not exist yet.
It is absolutely possible. Any moment. Have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
It was a relatively small meteor, but bigger asteroids repeatedly hit the Earth, and it will happen again. There is no doubt of it, the question is when.
No - the question is, if such an asteroid struck the earth, would the Earth be less habitable than Mars?
Plants do not need oxygen at all, it is even poisonous for them in a way.
Plants die in a vacuum. Humans also die in a vacuum.
In principle, they may turn a planet without oxygen into a habitable planet. But this technology does not exist yet.
The maths is relatively straightforward:
Now:
Earth: Habitable
Mars: Inhabitable
[Earth gets Struck by an Asteroid]
Earth: Habitable
Mars: Inhabitable
Firstly, whether Everest is a solo achievement or a team effort, achieved using machines or just muscle power, is not relevant, The point is that the utility of sending robots to Mars, even really good ones, is limited to the scientific information they can transmit back to us. This info could be valuable, but it's value is vanishingly insignificant, compared to the value of our becoming a multi planetary species. We may be fleshy meat bags, but we're the ones that do things, and we do them mostly for ourselves.
Sending a robot ahead, to prepare the ground, build some infrastructure - now that's a good idea, but it's only a precursor to people making the trip.
Firstly, whether Everest is a solo achievement or a team effort, achieved using machines or just muscle power, is not relevant,
Strange. First you said that Climbing Everest was analogous to a robot carrying a meat bag to Mars - but now when we have looked a bit closer, it appears that it isn't.
The point is that the utility of sending robots to Mars, even really good ones, is limited to the scientific information they can transmit back to us.
Which is, to date, the only objective reason anybody has given as to why we (our agents) should go to Mars.
This info could be valuable, but it's value is vanishingly insignificant, compared to the value of our becoming a multi planetary species.
But "becoming a interplanetary species" has no objective value. You might believe it does, but the value is based on religious belief.
We may be fleshy meat bags, but we're the ones that do things
Crap.
Have we ever dived into the Jovian atmosphere? Got inside the orbit of Venus to grab nasty solar particles? Landed on Titan? Snapped pictures of Pluto? Left the solar system?
We've done none of those things, because in fact it makes no objective sense for us to do them when robots can do them better, and faster, and cheaper, and more reliably. Insisting that meat bags must, under their own strength travel around space in order for space travel to be valid is faintly embarrassing, like suggesting that the only "true" music is accapella, musical instruments are a tool of the devil, or that real farmers dig in the soil with their hands: plowing with steel behind a tractor is not "true" farming. It is just a doctrine with no basis in reality.
Sending a robot ahead, to prepare the ground, build some infrastructure - now that's a good idea, but it's only a precursor to people making the trip.
Spare us your religious diatribes. You don't decide on our behalf, what constitutes our destiny.
"Your constraint means the end of exploration, because exploration will be confined to the places where technology allows robots to carry us bags of meat. This means, in practical terms, we will never explore and further than perhaps Mars or Venus."
I have no such constraint: "...and I support their ongoing use to be sure". Yes, I was thrilled by Huygens, and as for New Horizons my name is on the onboard disc. To say that I am an unconstrained Star Trek fan would be closer to the truth - which, in fiction launched a LOT of probes. Indeed, I would state: Let's launch even more probes, in reality! And people - it's not an either/or world.
No, the European Union is not a country.
I think that's a job for the incoming, meatbag-eating alien overlords.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I have no such constraint: "...and I support their ongoing use to be sure". Yes, I was thrilled by Huygens, and as for New Horizons my name is on the onboard disc.
But before you implied that robotic exploration was "not really" exploring:
OP refers to the thrill of exploration. Robot craft are interesting and useful, and I support their ongoing use to be sure - but the explorer's urge is deeply ingrained in (most of) us, at a very personal level
How does 2 or 3 people going to Mars or the Moon satisfy an urge deeply ingrained in (most of) us ? It seems for the vast, vast majority of the human race the experience is the same regardless of whether warm bodies are present.
" Insisting that meat bags must, under their own strength travel around space in order for space travel to be valid is faintly embarrassing,"
That would indeed be embarrassing, however it's not remotely what I'm saying. You seem obsessed with the idea of humans doing things using their own muscles. Once again - that is irrelevant, and nothing to do with my point.
As you say, we haven't yet dived into the Jovian atmosphere, or landed on Titan. But that's because it's technically easier to send a specially designed robot to those places, than a person. However, given the requisite technical know how, sending a person is highly desirable.
"Spare us your religious diatribes. You don't decide on our behalf, what constitutes our destiny."
I can only think that you have utterly misunderstood what I have been saying. You seem unaccountably angry, so tell me this. Do you think that humans becoming a multi planetary species is NOT to be desired?
" Insisting that meat bags must, under their own strength travel around space in order for space travel to be valid is faintly embarrassing,"
That would indeed be embarrassing, however it's not remotely what I'm saying. You seem obsessed with the idea of humans doing things using their own muscles. Once again - that is irrelevant, and nothing to do with my point.
If humans aren't using their muscles, then there must be a machine doing the work. This immediately raises the question - if the machine is doing the work (propelling forward, changing direction, communicating with Earth etc etc) what exactly is the human doing? If, after years of thinking about it, we can't think of ONE thing that humans do in space that isn't easier and cheaper to do with a machine, why does the machine that goes to space and already performs all the actual functions have to cart a human about?
As you say, we haven't yet dived into the Jovian atmosphere, or landed on Titan. But that's because it's technically easier to send a specially designed robot to those places, than a person. However, given the requisite technical know how, sending a person is highly desirable.
Why would it be desirable for a human to dive into the Jovian atmosphere? If you were planning a craft that was going to Titan, what is the compelling reason to send a human plus the tons of required food/survival machines instead of just sending tons more machines? What function would the human perform on Titan that is not better served by a machine?
"Spare us your religious diatribes. You don't decide on our behalf, what constitutes our destiny."
I can only think that you have utterly misunderstood what I have been saying. You seem unaccountably angry, so tell me this. Do you think that humans becoming a multi planetary species is NOT to be desired?
I've already said:But "becoming a interplanetary species" has no objective value. You might believe it does, but the value is based on religious belief.
If humans aren't using their muscles, then there must be a machine doing the work. This immediately raises the question - if the machine is doing the work (propelling forward, changing direction, communicating with Earth etc etc) what exactly is the human doing? If, after years of thinking about it, we can't think of ONE thing that humans do in space that isn't easier and cheaper to do with a machine, why does the machine that goes to space and already performs all the actual functions have to cart a human about?
Unless you've time traveled back from the year 3000, your estimates of the capabilities of robots is WAY too high. Did we send a robot up to repair the Hubble space telescope? No. I grant you that robots can be better suited to survival in space, but they are LIMITED in what they can do, in terms of achieving things once they are there.. In a general problem solving situation they cannot hope to match the flexibility of a person,( and remote tele-operation does not solve this). Now granted, that's using today's technology - but I would argue that developing tech. to send a human to mars will be realised MUCH sooner than tech. to develop a robot capable of matching a human/s dexterity, thinking etc.
What function would the human perform on Titan that is not better served by a machine?
People are quite robust - not to the environment of outer space, but in the sense that they can think around problems, and repurpose things. If you're remotely operating some device, you're always at the mercy of your sensors, transmitters, and whatever manipulators you put on the thing. It's a really a brittle setup.
I've already said:But "becoming a interplanetary species" has no objective value. You might believe it does, but the value is based on religious belief.
. Did the Europeans colonising America have "no objective value"? They didn't just send a few robots over to measure some stuff, they went and colonised, and it changed the world. What makes you think that the same wouldn't be the case with another planet (Mars)? Now - you might argue that you could colonise purely with a society of robots - but those are sci-fi robots, nothing like the robots of today. The tech for your fantasy robots is an order of magnitude further away that the tech. for sending a person to Mars. As for your unshakable faith in their performance, well - what was that you were saying about religious belief?
Unless you've time traveled back from the year 3000, your estimates of the capabilities of robots is WAY too high.
My estimate of robot capability is based on what could be achieved if we spent a fraction of what it would cost to send a human.
Did we send a robot up to repair the Hubble space telescope?
Would we send a robot NOW, rather than a human? Probably.
In a general problem solving situation they cannot hope to match the flexibility of a person,( and remote tele-operation does not solve this). Now granted, that's using today's technology - but I would argue that developing tech. to send a human to mars will be realised MUCH sooner than tech. to develop a robot capable of matching a human/s dexterity, thinking etc.
Generally speaking, humans need to solve more problems because the systems need to sustain them tend to be far more complex than the systems need to sustain a machine. How many problems does a hammer need to solve - just the one. It doesn't ever have problems with it's life support, or running ut of food, or getting bored.
People are quite robust
Nope - people are inherently fragile - in body and mind.
Did the Europeans colonising America have "no objective value"?
The Americas were already colonised - so over all, a net zero value.