NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Missions To The Moon (HSF) => Topic started by: Hyperion5 on 11/26/2012 04:39 am

Title: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 11/26/2012 04:39 am
I was surprised to find not a single topic addressed leaks last year on Russia planning missions, unmanned and then manned, to the moon. 

http://www.space.com/14915-russia-moon-landing-2030.html

There are a couple of interesting differences between Russian manned moon plans and Apollo:

"Russia's new space vision focuses heavily on the moon. In addition to the manned lunar landing, Roscosmos is considering building a space station in orbit around Earth's nearest neighbor by 2030."

http://en.rian.ru/science/20120427/173094312.html

"In late January, Roscosmos’s head, Vladimir Popovkin voiced plans to set up manned moon research bases with European and U.S. partners, saying that there were plans to either set up a moon base or to launch an orbital station. To that end, Russia is currently developing a “prospective manned transportation system” to be sent to the moon, he added."


-------------

This sounds like a realistic timeline if a fairly ambitious set of goals for Roscosmos.  It sounds to me like the plan is that one of the heavier Angara rockets, an Angara 5 or Angara 7, will be used to put the Soyuz' successor into lunar orbit not long after NASA/ESA send astronauts around the moon on Orion. 

But beyond that, things get fuzzy.  How does Russia plan on building a moon base or lunar space station if even the heaviest Angara (the unfunded Angara 7 concept) will require multiple launches for a moon mission?  It does appear that the Russians are considering a heavy-lift rocket, which would solve a lot of issues (http://moonandback.com/2012/08/23/energia-seeks-to-resurrect-heavy-lift-rocket-with-ukraine-and-kazakhstan/). 

I personally think the Angara rocket family will prove inadequate to the task Russia has set as a goal.  Which brings up one of my favorite questions, will the Russians have to bring back the Energia or something derived from it to accomplish these goals?

As there aren't yet a lot of details on Russia's moon plans, figure on this thread being wide-ranging and speculative.  So shoot away and post what you think of Russia's plans and just how you see them being accomplished or stymied. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: woods170 on 11/26/2012 07:45 am
Why no discussion you ask?

Well, let me put this way. The Russians have a habbit of announcing some grandiose plan for their future explorations in space once every few years. They often include a new spaceship to replacy Soyuz, and a new superbooster, or resurrection of Energia and ideas for either lunar outposts or lunar space stations. However, so far, none of those plans have come to anything. As a result, enthusiasm for newly announced (or even leaked) Russian space plans has become lackluster at best over the years.

Mind you: this idea to resurrect Energia is certainly not the first, and it probably will not be the last either. And just as all other attempts it will probably fail. Most probable reason: no payloads for such a monster rocket.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/26/2012 01:41 pm
Pretty much how the way has always been seen since the time of Korolev (with a brief side-excursion down a dead-end alley called 'N1' due to the need to race NASA to the Moon and, possibly, Korolev's ego not being able to tolerate von Braun having a bigger rocket than him).

You use multiple launches of MHLVs like a Proton to launch the lander and propulsion module to LEO and then launch a BEO-ready Soyuz (Zond-2?) to bring up the crew.  You then fly a fairly typical EOR, LOR, LOR, direct descent mission.  It might be necessary to include an expendable stores module too, depending on how much life-support endurance can be wrung out of the Soyuz.

The big unexplored area is the endurance of the propulsion module.  It may be necessary to pre-place the ROI propulsion module in LEO due to the fact that Russia lacks any high-Isp engines that can provide propulsion for the TLI, LOR and ROI burns on one fuel load.


[edit]
Added point about Soyuz life support
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 11/26/2012 01:42 pm
Why no discussion you ask?

Well, let me put this way. The Russians have a habbit of announcing some grandiose plan for their future explorations in space once every few years. They often include a new spaceship to replacy Soyuz, and a new superbooster, or resurrection of Energia and ideas for either lunar outposts or lunar space stations. However, so far, none of those plans have come to anything. As a result, enthusiasm for newly announced (or even leaked) Russian space plans has become lackluster at best over the years.

Well there are at least a few differences going forward for Roscosmos.  They've awarded a contract for the new manned successor to Soyuz, so it appears that at least is happening.  The nickname for the new capsule is hilarious.  Apparently some in the Russian press dubbed it "Orionski", because it so strongly resembled the Orion.

We also have images of Angara cores being posted, which is the rocket that will carry that new manned vehicle, so another plus there.  I am fairly certain that if Russia were to build the 7-core Angara 7, they could fling their new capsule around the moon (they might be able to do it with the Angara 5).  However, as you've noted, the Angara 7 is not yet funded.  At least with universal rocket modules it wouldn't be an expensive task to go from the Angara 5 to the Angara 7. 

Mind you: this idea to resurrect Energia is certainly not the first, and it probably will not be the last either. And just as all other attempts it will probably fail. Most probable reason: no payloads for such a monster rocket.

Well we'll see just how serious the Russians are this decade.  I suspect that if the Chinese were to approve the Long March 9 heavy-lift rocket and a definitive timeline for a manned moon mission, the Russians' national pride might be stung enough to provoke more of a response.  It would be hard for them to sit back, with Roscosmos getting an ever-bigger budget each year, and explain how it was that both America and China were flinging people to and past the moon while Russia was stuck in low earth orbit.  At the very least the Russian economy will enable more ambitious plans today than it has in the past. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Quindar Beep on 11/26/2012 04:04 pm
Pretty much how the way has always been seen since the time of Korolev (with a brief side-excursion down a dead-end alley called 'N1' due to the need to race NASA to the Moon and, possibly, Korolev's ego not being able to tolerate von Braun having a bigger rocket than him).

Let's not forget Glushko. He designed Energia to be an all-purpose rocket, not just a Shuttle launcher, by moving the engines off the orbiter and onto the bottom of what a lot of people think is Buran's "external fuel tank" -- it's not.

Glushko was very interested in going to the Moon after he took over TsKBEM from Korolev's successor Mishin in 1974; he was only shifted off the topic because he was specifically ordered to drop it and work on Buran and space stations instead.

There's evidence, and I personally believe, that he was just waiting for another gyration in the USSR's political leadership so that he could shift back to a Moon mission and base. Even if he himself died, he positioned his bureau so that his hypothetical successor could use Energia as a foundation.

Unfortunately for him the Soviet Union fell apart immediately after his death. His rocket is gone and not coming back, and the Russians aren't developing another one (or any of the other necessary hardware) as long as their economy is smaller than Brazil's -- i.e., for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 11/27/2012 06:34 pm
Pretty much how the way has always been seen since the time of Korolev (with a brief side-excursion down a dead-end alley called 'N1' due to the need to race NASA to the Moon and, possibly, Korolev's ego not being able to tolerate von Braun having a bigger rocket than him).

Let's not forget Glushko. He designed Energia to be an all-purpose rocket, not just a Shuttle launcher, by moving the engines off the orbiter and onto the bottom of what a lot of people think is Buran's "external fuel tank" -- it's not.

That was the great thing about Energia.  It was multipurpose and thanks to no foam on the central core, also probably safer than the Shuttle going up.  I say probably because RD-170 engines have been known to blow up.  I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Energia was a better setup than the STS.  If the USSR hadn't collapsed, it is altogether possible we'd be still seeing the Buran and the Energia today.  Of course, once the USSR had learned of NASA's plans to go back to the moon, it would have been very easy to simply re-purpose the launcher for moon missions.  The Energia dying out really makes it much harder for Russia to send men beyond geosynchronous orbit, even with the Angara 5.  They'd probably need the Angara 7 to send cosmonauts (with fuel to spare) to lunar space stations. 

Glushko was very interested in going to the Moon after he took over TsKBEM from Korolev's successor Mishin in 1974; he was only shifted off the topic because he was specifically ordered to drop it and work on Buran and space stations instead.

There's evidence, and I personally believe, that he was just waiting for another gyration in the USSR's political leadership so that he could shift back to a Moon mission and base. Even if he himself died, he positioned his bureau so that his hypothetical successor could use Energia as a foundation.

Unfortunately for him the Soviet Union fell apart immediately after his death. His rocket is gone and not coming back, and the Russians aren't developing another one (or any of the other necessary hardware) as long as their economy is smaller than Brazil's -- i.e., for the foreseeable future.

Funny you should mention Brazil. :)  Russia launches more rockets than any country on earth thanks to its Soviet heritage while Brazil hasn't even shown the ambition to send a man into space, nor does it have the rocket to do so.  Yet while I understand that Russia's economy is now seriously out-classed by many countries, it still has revived quite a bit since 2000.  If one checks the betting odds on which country's likely to be first back to the moon, the Russians are currently in about 3rd position after China.  I don't think there's enough bets on Brazil for them to even show up.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: the_roche_lobe on 11/27/2012 09:47 pm
Brazil's absence from the table should be a warning about the future of spaceflight overall. National prestige and spaceflight are slowly becoming unhinged from each other. Brazil might decide (and I'm talking about as a nation, not what Brazilian private enterprise may or may not do in the future) it doesnt care?

P
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 11/27/2012 11:01 pm
Brazil's absence from the table should be a warning about the future of spaceflight overall. National prestige and spaceflight are slowly becoming unhinged from each other. Brazil might decide (and I'm talking about as a nation, not what Brazilian private enterprise may or may not do in the future) it doesnt care?

P
 

Actually Brazil may be an exception to the global norm.  Think about why the Soviets and the US had the original moon race during the Cold War.  You had two big nuclear powers struggling for global ideological supremacy and suddenly in the late 1950s a brand new area of technology with immense geopolitical significance opens up.  The Russians, who were till this point badly trailing, suddenly under Korolev and Krushchev's leadership beat the US to space.  You hear allegories about this today--about how we need another "Sputnik moment".  It was geopolitics that subsequently drove Kennedy to launch the race for the moon. 

Recently geopolitical competition has been heating up for the major northern powers of Russia, China, the US, EU and India.  Brazil, being an isolated southern newcomer into world power politics, doesn't feel the geopolitical urge.  In the space of this decade, we've seen all of the northern powers but India put up the beginnings of their own satellite navigation systems.  China has become the world's 3rd country to have an independent manned spaceflight ability, and India looks set to follow them by possibly 2020.  The Chinese plan on eventually going to the moon.  The Americans plan on going around the moon and beyond.  Even the Indians are planning manned flights.  Russia now has a decision to make about where they're taking their manned space program. 

Roscosmos could sit back and simply fling up space stations and put cosmonauts in them, but they've done that plenty of times around earth and their competitors will eventually up their game.  So why might a Russian moon mission, either to orbit or for a landing, be more plausible now, even given that? 

What's changed this time around is Roscosmos is actually getting some significant budget increases and it having access to a new launcher and capsule.  The old Soyuz launcher, although updated, can only send up 8.5 mt into LEO.  The incoming Angara 5, fully upgraded, will top 28 mt to LEO.  An Angara 7 version would top 40 mt and would probably be capable of sending a Soyuz around the moon.  Now I'll admit if they stopped at the Angara 5 or 7, Russia would not have enough capability to launch the new capsule.  But given enough competition, I think there's a fair chance, given the modest resources space eats up, that Russia could finally push for a bigger launcher on the order of 70 mt to LEO. 

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/29/2012 01:56 pm
To the OP.  On a rocket.  Couldn't resist.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: asmi on 11/29/2012 03:47 pm
I guess the biggest problem is that Roscosmos has apparently learnt PowerPoint from NASA, and now they are producing paper rockets and spacecrafts at alarming rate. Will see how it goes, but as I see now general public in Russia has started asking questions about where ever-growing RSA's budget money are going, so there might be some improvement.
My guess is Angara will fly in a next couple years or so (especially keeping in mind that the parts of it already flew and will soon (hopefully) fly again as part of South Korea's rocket, so giving them flight experience for free.
As for the Soyuz spacecraft successor - it's a difficult question because currently it has no destination. Missions to ISS are being perfectly handled by existing S/C, and Russian philosophy has always been not to fix something that isn't broken. The task here is much harder for Russians that for every other nation - while other nations need any human-rated S/C to gain independent access to space, Russia need the one that is significantly better than Soyuz which is excellent at what it does, and it's proven reliability would be hard to go around.
There is a recent announcement that ISS partners are going to start technological preparations for manned flight to Moon, so someone will have to come up with hardware for that. I suspect that upgrading Soyuz for HEO would be an easiest (and surely the cheapest) option out there...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 11/29/2012 04:59 pm
I guess the biggest problem is that Roscosmos has apparently learnt PowerPoint from NASA, and now they are producing paper rockets and spacecrafts at alarming rate. Will see how it goes, but as I see now general public in Russia has started asking questions about where ever-growing RSA's budget money are going, so there might be some improvement.
My guess is Angara will fly in a next couple years or so (especially keeping in mind that the parts of it already flew and will soon (hopefully) fly again as part of South Korea's rocket, so giving them flight experience for free.
As for the Soyuz spacecraft successor - it's a difficult question because currently it has no destination. Missions to ISS are being perfectly handled by existing S/C, and Russian philosophy has always been not to fix something that isn't broken. The task here is much harder for Russians that for every other nation - while other nations need any human-rated S/C to gain independent access to space, Russia need the one that is significantly better than Soyuz which is excellent at what it does, and it's proven reliability would be hard to go around.
There is a recent announcement that ISS partners are going to start technological preparations for manned flight to Moon, so someone will have to come up with hardware for that. I suspect that upgrading Soyuz for HEO would be an easiest (and surely the cheapest) option out there...

Probably, though we also have the Russians signing a contract for a new manned vehicle weighing 12 mt.  I'm willing to bet an Angara A7, which can send 9 mt to GTO, could probably fling a Soyuz around the moon with minimal upgrades.  The question now is, how much weight does the Soyuz need to gain for this lunar mission capability? 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Khadgars on 11/29/2012 05:20 pm
IMO I think you're much more likely to see the Russians get invited to join BEO mission from NASA sometime in the future rather than Russian doing it on its own.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: asmi on 11/29/2012 05:33 pm
IMO I think you're much more likely to see the Russians get invited to join BEO mission from NASA sometime in the future rather than Russian doing it on its own.
There is a possibility of that too, especially keeping in mind recent announcements from RSA, but NASA's plans are even more paper than RSA's are. At least Angara's parts are flying or, I should probably say, trying to fly :), while SLS is in deep bureacratic paper stage, and there are no signs that it would ever leave that stage. And Russians has got a vehicle that can be adapted for BEO at a reasonable expence, while NASA's got nothing here as well...
Allthough personally I'd prefer to see ISS 2.0 on LLO than any flag-and-bootstep-like mission from any agency. The main reason I prefer that is internation aspect makes such an endeavor much more stable and less susceptible to political wind shifts. And extra redundancy (two-fault tolerant US + two-fault tolerant Russian) is always a good thing, especially in a place where you can't have a vessel arrive in a matter of hours from launch...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Khadgars on 11/29/2012 05:52 pm
IMO I think you're much more likely to see the Russians get invited to join BEO mission from NASA sometime in the future rather than Russian doing it on its own.
There is a possibility of that too, especially keeping in mind recent announcements from RSA, but NASA's plans are even more paper than RSA's are. At least Angara's parts are flying or, I should probably say, trying to fly :), while SLS is in deep bureacratic paper stage, and there are no signs that it would ever leave that stage. And Russians has got a vehicle that can be adapted for BEO at a reasonable expence, while NASA's got nothing here as well...

I believe SLS is due to complete its PDR by this time next year and Orion is well underway as well.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 11/29/2012 06:43 pm
I believe SLS is due to complete its PDR by this time next year and Orion is well underway as well.
Did you mean that it's due to complete one paper stage and advance into another paper stage? That's exactly what I've said above...

I'll address this quickly and get back on topic. 

A PDR is only two steps away from a Production Readiness Review, meaning you have to start fabricating machining and other things to be used to actually build the SLS right around that time.  So in fact the SLS will stop being a paper rocket in terms of the ability to build it shortly thereafter.  Actually building it is a little further along.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_review_%28US_Government%29

Here are all the various stages to design that NASA goes through:

Here are the steps SLS, to the best of my knowledge, has gone through. 

Mission Concept Review (MCR)
System Requirements Review (SRR)
Mission Definition Review (MDR)
System Definition Review (SDR)


Here is what they're working towards in the next year:

Preliminary Design Review (PDR)


Here are the steps after that:

Critical Design Review (CDR)
Production Readiness Review (PRR)
Test Readiness Review (TRR)
System Acceptance Review (SAR)
Operational Readiness Review (ORR)
Flight Readiness Review (FRR)

---------------------

It occurred to me that if Russia does have several options if it were to cooperate with other space agencies or countries. 

ESA route

The Ariane 5 ME's predecessors were human-rated from the beginning and the ME will put up around 11.2 mt to GTO and be available within the decade.  I'm not sure what it's GEO numbers look like, but I suspect they'd be close to the Angara 7's 9 mt to GEO (the Angara 7 is more capable than I thought).  Since both rockets are human-rated and have plenty of capability, you might be able to launch a Soyuz lunar mission on either.  While I have my doubts about this approach after the ESA went with NASA, the Ariane 5 should have no problems flinging a Soyuz much farther than it goes today. 

Ukraine route

Russia's Angara 7 may not have enough launch capacity for robust lunar missions.  If Russia really wants a more capable rocket for lunar missions, it needs a Zenit Heavy.  Admittedly the RD-171 engine isn't the most reliable or highest build quality, but if you were to substitute in four higher-quality RD-191 engines per core, you could get engine-out reliability.  It'd also let NPO Energomash max out RD-191 production numbers.  A Zenit Heavy ought to lift more to TLI than an Angara 7 even before adding in a LH2 upper stage.  This would be a much easier option than building an all-new mega rocket.

China route

The biggest Long March 5 will be capable of flinging a Shenzhou or Soyuz capsule around the moon (it does 14 mt to GTO as well).  Chinese-Russian cooperation isn't exactly unprecedented, and using both the largest Angara and Long March 5, you could do some serious missions around the moon.  Russia might strike a bargain if China went ahead with the conceptual Long March 9, which would supposedly lift 50 mt to TLI.  The Russians could offer their new, larger capsule while the Chinese would supply the rocket.  Given the deal struck between the ESA and NASA, this is not unprecedented. 

India subsidy route

Offer the Indians a chance to put up cosmonauts first to LEO (which I've heard they may do) and then beyond.  India lacks launchers that can even send up men, so they might be quite willing to pay some good money to get in on Angara flights.  I suspect they wouldn't mind the chance at having an Indian astronaut on a lunar mission of any kind and would pay handsomely for the opportunity.  Russia could let India help defray its costs while it provides much of the hardware. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: asmi on 11/29/2012 07:15 pm
You don't need GTO to get to the Moon - all you need is ability to lift modified Soyuz (or whatever else S/C they are going to use) + TLI stage to LEO. I remember that such op (lunar flyaround) has been estimated to cost around $400M. I don't remember what kind of hardware was used though, but my coarse calculations are:
S/C - 9 mt (currently it's 8 mt, I've added 1 mt for modifications)
TLI stage - Briz-M (dry mass 2.5 mt, fueled mass 22.5 mt, ISP 326)
such a combination would have Dv budget of 3221 m/s, enough to execute a mission. TLI stage can be lofted by Proton-M, Soyuz - by Soyuz-2.b launcher.
Sounds like we have a mission :)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: asmi on 11/29/2012 07:40 pm
People keep saying that, which is true, but STS was also a jobs program that flew every year.

This all sounds too familiar during the same time period between Apollo and STS.  It will never be what we dream about, but doesn't mean its not going to fly and do amazing things.
We will see, but this is off-topic here anyways, so let's get back on topic :)

As far as russian flight is concerned, the main problem seems to be TLI stage, or a lack of it. The mission plan I've proposed is good enough for lunar flyby, but for LLO they will need something else, more powerful and what will be able to last long enough to execute TLI, LOI and TEI at the end of the mission. Current Soyuz main engine has Dv budget of around 500 m/s which is more than enough for LEO ops, but is a joke for lunar ops unless there is some sort of booster that can propel S/C back to Earth.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: The Off Topic Sheriff on 11/29/2012 08:22 pm
Nooooo. This is not about SLS. Off topicness removed.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Patchouli on 11/30/2012 01:13 am
People keep saying that, which is true, but STS was also a jobs program that flew every year.

This all sounds too familiar during the same time period between Apollo and STS.  It will never be what we dream about, but doesn't mean its not going to fly and do amazing things.
We will see, but this is off-topic here anyways, so let's get back on topic :)

As far as russian flight is concerned, the main problem seems to be TLI stage, or a lack of it. The mission plan I've proposed is good enough for lunar flyby, but for LLO they will need something else, more powerful and what will be able to last long enough to execute TLI, LOI and TEI at the end of the mission. Current Soyuz main engine has Dv budget of around 500 m/s which is more than enough for LEO ops, but is a joke for lunar ops unless there is some sort of booster that can propel S/C back to Earth.

Some concepts have a Block DM or Fregat stage providing the extra delta V.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 11/30/2012 06:04 pm
You don't need GTO to get to the Moon - all you need is ability to lift modified Soyuz (or whatever else S/C they are going to use) + TLI stage to LEO. I remember that such op (lunar flyaround) has been estimated to cost around $400M. I don't remember what kind of hardware was used though, but my coarse calculations are:
S/C - 9 mt (currently it's 8 mt, I've added 1 mt for modifications)
TLI stage - Briz-M (dry mass 2.5 mt, fueled mass 22.5 mt, ISP 326)
such a combination would have Dv budget of 3221 m/s, enough to execute a mission. TLI stage can be lofted by Proton-M, Soyuz - by Soyuz-2.b launcher.
Sounds like we have a mission :)

You could alternatively do it with an Angara A5 and a Soyuz 2.1b launcher.  My personal preference is to do it in one launch.  For that, you'd have to fund and build the Angara A7V, which has 40.5 mt of LEO payload lift.  I think given they'll already be using the Angara A5/KVRB, this would not be particularly difficult to do.  You would need a new pad or to retrofit an existing one.  That means you might either try retrofitting the Energia's old pad down in Baikonur or more likely just build an all-new one at the new Vostochny Cosmodrome in eastern Russia. 

An Angara A7V is a launcher that could easily lift the 22.5 Briz-M TLI stage and a 9 mt Luna Soyuz with margin to spare. 
40.5 mt-31.5 mt=9 mt spare capacity

Interestingly, this extra capacity bring up the possibility you might be able to launch Russia's future 12 mt, 6-man capsule with a TLI stage to LEO on one Angara A7V.  If the mass of an enlarged Briz-M stage proved too much to launch with your capsule on the Angara A7V, you either do two launches or upgrade your TLI stage.  If I were going for an TLI stage upgrade, I'd build an LH2 stage with four RD-0146 engines.  Each produces 22,000 lbf of thrust, is relatively low pressure, and they have 362 seconds of Isp in a vacuum.  It's not the least expensive way of doing things, but the engines already exist and are seeking a use.  They'd be perfect for sending cosmonauts around the moon. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-0146
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/01/2012 10:52 am
PPTS/PTK-NP development during 2012
At: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk_2012.html


Sodruzhestvo heavy-lifting rocket
At: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sodruzhestvo.html


Prospective Piloted Transport System
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospective_Piloted_Transport_System
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 12/02/2012 04:55 am
PPTS/PTK-NP development during 2012
At: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk_2012.html

"Despite an apparent effort to "diet" the ship to 9.1 tons, designers had to eventually compromise at 9.5 tons in 2012. As a result, a fully fueled Moon-bound spacecraft would have a mass of 23 tons - a huge increase from 16.4 tons projected for such a vehicle in 2008. For missions limited to the low Earth orbit, the spacecrft would be launched only partially fueled, thus reducing its mass to 17 tons."

This capsule is going to weigh some 17 mt with a service module that has just enough fuel to work in low earth orbit?  Now that is a weight increase over the Soyuz!  17 mt is too much for a Zenit to handle, so that leaves the launch vehicle of choice, the Angara A5P, and also the Proton M.  I suppose if the launch is unmanned Roskosmos would tolerate the Proton M for a launch.  If this new spaceship is going to weigh 23 mt just for arriving at the moon, this is going to necessitate multiple launches of an Angara A7V. 

If we're limited to the Angara A7V as our maximum size launcher, that'd necessitate some serious re-think on Russia's approach with a spaceship this heavy.  My strategy would be to send up a 40 mt extra-large KVRB stage 4 meters in diameter and mounting 4 RD-0146 engines.  That might just be enough to get the new PTK-NP/PPTS into lunar orbit with some margin to spare. 

Sodruzhestvo heavy-lifting rocket
At: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sodruzhestvo.html

There's a bit of irony.  I propose a 5-core Zenit Super Heavy for lunar missions and that's basically what's been proposed by RKK Energia.  It's obvious what the limiting factor in this design is; just like with the Falcon Heavy rocket, it's the upper stage that limits it the most.  I can't help but wonder about the thrust:weight ratio of this Sodruzhestvo at liftoff.  A Zenit is very nearly 1.6:1 at liftoff, so the Sodruzhestvo rocket could be an extraordinary accelerator unless it is lengthened significantly from the Zenit.  With cross-feed you could probably easily add another 10-15% to the initial payload numbers judging by the numbers for Falcon Heavy. 

It might actually be able to attract a few customers away from the Falcon Heavy given its payload numbers.  If Falcon Heavy proves successful, I expect Sodruzhestvo might be nearly as successful.  It would certainly have no lack of lifting power, given its astonishing liftoff thrust of 8.5 million lbf.  To put that in context, that's 7.5% more thrust at liftoff than the Energia, 11% more  than a Saturn V, and 25% more than the Space Shuttle.  If this launched by 2020, the only thing with more thrust at liftoff would be SLS (8.87 million lbf). 

If Russia sticks to its plan for lunar missions, I'd have to say such a rocket would make a lot of sense.  Given 70 mt of payload lift, you could launch manned lunar missions with a 45 mt TLI and a 23 mt manned spaceship.  It should also enable Russia to build a space station in lunar orbit.  Commercially it would be the ultimate GTO satellite launcher out there if you wanted to launch huge communications satellites.  The question I have is, would you have to a TLI stage with RD-0146 engines to get to the moon or could you use something with lower Isp and more flight experience? 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 12/03/2012 05:54 am
LV Sodruzhestvo - Ukrainian path and no hydrogen.   
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/04/2012 11:59 am
....

It might actually be able to attract a few customers away from the Falcon Heavy given its payload numbers.  If Falcon Heavy proves successful, I expect Sodruzhestvo might be nearly as successful.  It would certainly have no lack of lifting power, given its astonishing liftoff thrust of 8.5 million lbf.  To put that in context, that's 7.5% more thrust at liftoff than the Energia, 11% more  than a Saturn V, and 25% more than the Space Shuttle.  If this launched by 2020, the only thing with more thrust at liftoff would be SLS (8.87 million lbf). 

If Russia sticks to its plan for lunar missions, I'd have to say such a rocket would make a lot of sense.  Given 70 mt of payload lift, you could launch manned lunar missions with a 45 mt TLI and a 23 mt manned spaceship.  It should also enable Russia to build a space station in lunar orbit.  Commercially it would be the ultimate GTO satellite launcher out there if you wanted to launch huge communications satellites.  The question I have is, would you have to a TLI stage with RD-0146 engines to get to the moon or could you use something with lower Isp and more flight experience? 



Note:

"The new Long March 9 details were revealed by Liang Xiaohong, the Communist Party Chief at the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT),  China’s largest rocket  contractor. Vick at Global Security did an extensive review of Liang’s revelations."

"Liang outlined several new Long March versions, virtually all of them testing elements that would eventually find their way into the Long March 9 that has 4 million lb. more of liftoff thrust than the 7.5 million lb. thrust NASA Saturn V."

From: First Look: China’s Big New Rockets   By Craig Covault
At: http://www.americaspace.org/?p=22881



Consider a Moon ISRU Partnership with Russia initially supplying the PPTS/PTK-NP spaceship, China the super heavy launcher, and another nation, such as India, the lander.

Bring in other countries, Europe, and/or companies for money, habitats, garages, spaceship hangers, mining equipment, electric power units, and ISRU facilities. It would be a stone soup approach to gaining access to Lunar ISRU benefits and scientific knowledge. Many current large business and science projects have international participation that makes them doable. 

Eventually Russia would have its own super heavy launcher and a Lander but those high costs are not really desirable for the initial stages of How Russia would go to the Moon.

The USA would be stuck with the heavy costs of building, expanding, and maintaining its space station in an L2 orbit. The President has made it very clear that he has no interest in having NASA astronauts and scientists going to the Moon. 

Many European, Asian, and American international companies that already do business in Russia might want to participate in such a Moon ISRU Partnership.


Cheers!
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Archibald on 12/04/2012 12:32 pm
Quote
The USA would be stuck with the heavy costs of building, expanding, and maintaining its space station in an L2 orbit. The President has made it very clear that he has no interest in having NASA astronauts and scientists going to the Moon. 

You really sounds like a broken record

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30039.msg975982#msg975982

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30179.msg976770#msg976770

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28380.msg978168#msg978168

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29162.msg964394#msg964394

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28141.msg975947#msg975947

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30360.msg983136#msg983136

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30357.0

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30081.msg978159#msg978159

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29918.msg961758#msg961758

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19491.msg932988#msg932988

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30043.msg981055#msg981055

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29846.msg951383#msg951383

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29529.msg935265#msg935265

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30465.msg987380#msg987380

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26218.msg791759#msg791759

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27471.msg934780#msg934780

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25846.msg780147#msg780147

No ?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/04/2012 01:28 pm
Now, if anyone can clearly show us where that 'no NASA astronauts on the Moon plan' has been officially changed to an 'affordable plan to get astronauts on the Moon', please do so. It would certainly make that post a great one!

I love Mars, but NASA hyping Mars and not planning for international human missions to the Lunar surface seems downright silly.

NASA's ignoring human missions to the Moon leads to considering how private companies or Russia or China or some combination of entities might get us back on the Moon. America and Russia, and as many international space exploration partners as possible, working as a team would be able to devise efficient, affordable, and low risk ways to get us permanently back to the Moon.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Moe Grills on 12/04/2012 08:37 pm
  I hate to bring up any hint of politics in this discussion, but
here goes...
Russia needs to approach "Space Adventures Ltd" and offer to
pay to have two of its own cosmonauts accompany that anonymous
billionaire who has promised to pay 150 million dollars to become
the first lunar 'tourist' to flyby the Moon onboard an updated Soyuz/Zond.
If the Russian taxpayers get excited about such a mission, they might be
willing to cough up further funds for more ambitious lunar missions.
Example: (first) Flyby of the Moon > (then) orbiting the Moon > (next) landing on the Moon > (finally) a Russian encampment on the Moon.
All this will involve making the Russian public/taxpayer interested and
patient, since the entire plan will span over a decade.

Apollo 8 had to happen before Apollo 11.

Metaphor: "If we want to run, we have to learn how to crawl and then walk first as infants before becoming children."
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 12/04/2012 10:26 pm
....

It might actually be able to attract a few customers away from the Falcon Heavy given its payload numbers.  If Falcon Heavy proves successful, I expect Sodruzhestvo might be nearly as successful.  It would certainly have no lack of lifting power, given its astonishing liftoff thrust of 8.5 million lbf.  To put that in context, that's 7.5% more thrust at liftoff than the Energia, 11% more  than a Saturn V, and 25% more than the Space Shuttle.  If this launched by 2020, the only thing with more thrust at liftoff would be SLS (8.87 million lbf).   

Note:

"The new Long March 9 details were revealed by Liang Xiaohong, the Communist Party Chief at the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT),  China’s largest rocket  contractor. Vick at Global Security did an extensive review of Liang’s revelations."

"Liang outlined several new Long March versions, virtually all of them testing elements that would eventually find their way into the Long March 9 that has 4 million lb. more of liftoff thrust than the 7.5 million lb. thrust NASA Saturn V."

From: First Look: China’s Big New Rockets   By Craig Covault
At: http://www.americaspace.org/?p=22881

I did say 2020, did I not?  Even if Russia were to only sign off on the Sodruzhestvo "Super Zenit" HLV at the same time (supposedly 2015), I'd put long odds on the Russians finishing theirs first due to already having the basic core and all of the needed engines.  China still has to create quite a few of those engines and build a much larger vehicle.  If Putin gives Roskosmos the go-ahead at the same time or a bit earlier, the Sodruzhestvo is flying first.

Anyone know what the payload mass fraction/percentage is likely to be on a Sodruzhestvo?  The Long March 9 must not have a particularly good one, because that Saturn V with 4 million lbf less thrust puts up only 10 mt less into LEO (130 mt vs 120 mt) and only 5 mt less for TLI (50 mt vs 45 mt).  Obviously, with its much higher payload mass percentage, it wouldn't take much to make Saturn V's payload heavier than a CZ 9's.  Coincidentally one of the few rockets I've found that rivals a Saturn V in both payload and payload mass fraction is the one Russia can't afford to make anew, the Energia.  It's too bad, as the Energia would have made a great Russian moon rocket.  Partly for reasons of enabling single-flight moon missions, I'm advocating a four RD-0146 engine XL KVRB TLI stage for the Sodruzhestvo. 


Consider a Moon ISRU Partnership with Russia initially supplying the PPTS/PTK-NP spaceship, China the super heavy launcher, and another nation, such as India, the lander.

Big fan of the China-Russia approach eh?  Well given how much a PTK-NP/PPTS capsule is likely to be an advantage for such missions I don't blame you.  It'd be a huge improvement on the Soyuz or Shenzhou.  Russia saves China the hassle of an all-new capsule while Russia gets access to a Chinese heavy-lifter.  I'm not sure I'd want the Indians handling the lander, as they're not exactly known for great space tech.  If the US had the money or political will, I'd advocate a partnership with the same agency that originally landed men on the moon.  As it is I think China would be better off doing their own lunar lander.


Eventually Russia would have its own super heavy launcher and a Lander but those high costs are not really desirable for the initial stages of How Russia would go to the Moon.

The USA would be stuck with the heavy costs of building, expanding, and maintaining its space station in an L2 orbit. The President has made it very clear that he has no interest in having NASA astronauts and scientists going to the Moon. 

Cheers!

You do realize that in 2016 we're going to get a new President-elect?  When the new President takes office in 2017, they'll find a NASA that once again can launch astronauts into LEO and also is about to launch the massive SLS.  It'll be the first time since 1973 that we've had a rocket capable of single-flight moon missions of any kind.  I expect you'll see some significant tweaks to US space policy, but I don't think NASA is going to be stuck in low earth orbit for another 40 years.  I think a push towards lunar missions will be hard to avoid due to China's plans. 

Given plans in the US and China, the Russian people may start wondering, "why can't we do that?" A Sodruzhestvo would be an easy initial answer to that and would kill off any chances of the Energia-M.  I think if they want to go any heavier than that, the easiest way to up payload further would be to upgrade the Sodruzhestvo's upper stage and the 5 booster engines.  Beyond that (say 90 mt?) Russia would be crazy not to simply revive the Energia if they have the money in the future.  If Russia really put some serious cash into it, they could crush a Long March 9 when they unveiled the Vulkan Herkules version pushing up 200 mt to LEO with nearly 15 million lbf of thrust. 

LV Sodruzhestvo - Ukrainian path and no hydrogen.   

Well I've got to agree with you on the Sodruzhestvo.  That makes a ton of sense.  However, could you really send a 23 mt PTK-NP around the moon with a TLI stage weighing under 50 mt if it doesn't use hydrogen? 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/05/2012 10:44 pm
....

Well I've got to agree with you on the Sodruzhestvo.  That makes a ton of sense.  However, could you really send a 23 mt PTK-NP around the moon with a TLI stage weighing under 50 mt if it doesn't use hydrogen? 



Going to the Moon with international partners is more politically useful and economically doable than doing it alone. International partners also add essential stability and continuity to long-term Lunar exploration, ISRU, and  development.

Using hydrolox for the Earth Departure Stage, the insertion into Lunar orbit, the departure from Lunar orbit, and for the reusable Lander prepares Russia for the near future when hydrolox will be commercially available on the Lunar surface. Russia needs high Isp hydrolox propellant to minimize costs. Russia needs hydrolox ISRU to minimize costs. Reusable rockets, sustainability, and the rapid expansion of the Lunar options are enhanced by hydrolox ISRU.

International high tech partnerships, strategic geopolitical location influence or control, tourism, research, and resource exploitation are the doable soft and hard power expanding goals. 

Russia would go to the Moon with as many partners as possible.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 12/06/2012 04:09 am
....

Well I've got to agree with you on the Sodruzhestvo.  That makes a ton of sense.  However, could you really send a 23 mt PTK-NP around the moon with a TLI stage weighing under 50 mt if it doesn't use hydrogen? 

Going to the Moon with international partners is more politically useful and economically doable than doing it alone. International partners also add essential stability and continuity to long-term Lunar exploration, ISRU, and  development.

Using hydrolox for the Earth Departure Stage, the insertion into Lunar orbit, the departure from Lunar orbit, and for the reusable Lander prepares Russia for the near future when hydrolox will be commercially available on the Lunar surface. Russia needs high Isp hydrolox propellant to minimize costs. Russia needs hydrolox ISRU to minimize costs. Reusable rockets, sustainability, and the rapid expansion of the Lunar options are enhanced by hydrolox ISRU.

International high tech partnerships, strategic geopolitical location influence or control, tourism, research, and resource exploitation are the doable soft and hard power expanding goals. 

Russia would go to the Moon with as many partners as possible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't go with many partners, just that they'd probably want to have some independent capability to launch lunar missions as well.  One of the reasons why the ISS is still operational is because it relied on both Russia and the US to send up crew.  Lunar missions would be more sustainable if they have two countries that can carry them out on some level.  For that you need a Sodruzhestvo with real lunar capability. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/06/2012 09:34 am
....

I'm not saying they wouldn't go with many partners, just that they'd probably want to have some independent capability to launch lunar missions as well.  One of the reasons why the ISS is still operational is because it relied on both Russia and the US to send up crew.  Lunar missions would be more sustainable if they have two countries that can carry them out on some level.  For that you need a Sodruzhestvo with real lunar capability. 



Yep. Redundant means of transporting humans and equipment to the Lunar ISRU facility would be wise. Systems that work to enable backup access to the Lunar surface would be needed in order to ensure sustainability.

It would be great to see a permanent human presence on the Moon. Currently NASA isn't making any serious plans to land humans on the Moon. Russians and some other folks may have to carry the Lunar ISRU planning and preparation work forward.

NASA needs to change its asteroid and Mars focus to a more local Lunar focus if it wants to work with Russia on Moon missions. Such a change in NASA's focus is possible.


See:

NRC: No National Consensus on NASA Strategic Plans; Asteroid-First Mission Not Deemed Compelling  By Laura M. Delgado  December 5, 2012
From: http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nrc-no-national-consensus-on-nasa-strategic-plans-asteroid-first-mission-not-deemed-compelling

"An ambitious congressionally-mandated study of NASA’s strategic plans and ability to achieve them, released today, describes a grim state of affairs that, if not corrected, threaten U.S. continued leadership in space."



Space Foundation Recommends NASA Adopt Pioneering Purpose
12/04/2012
http://www.spacefoundation.org/programs/research-and-analysis/pioneering/media/space-foundation-recommends-nasa-adopt-pioneering

"Commenting on the report findings, the Space Foundation Chief Executive Officer Elliot Pulham said, 'Our research revealed that NASA is struggling to find its way as a result of years of circumstance and mixed signals from political leadership. But, the fundamental issue is the muddled -- or non-existent -- understanding of why NASA exists and what it should be doing.'"



If the President and NASA's leadership continue to refuse to provide international leadership in doing ISRU on the Lunar surface, Russia may decide to lead in such an effort. Russia has the experience with building and using much of the hardware that would be needed for cislunar transportation systems and for humans to live and work on the Moon. For Russia, it really comes down to a willingness to spend the money and lead.

If America and Russia really don't want to lead in tapping Lunar resources, China or eventually India could decide to provide such international leadership.


Cheers!
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 12/06/2012 11:20 am
LV Sodruzhestvo - Ukrainian path and no hydrogen.   
Well I've got to agree with you on the Sodruzhestvo.  That makes a ton of sense.  However, could you really send a 23 mt PTK-NP around the moon with a TLI stage weighing under 50 mt if it doesn't use hydrogen? 
1. Where on Earth did you get 50 mt TLI stage for Manned Lunar mission?

According to RKK Energia's president Vitaly Lopota, the rocket (LV Sodruzhestvo) could deliver between 60 and 70 tons to the low Earth orbit. Let's assume 65 mt.

2. It's not around the moon (Zond-style) mission. PTK-NP objective is a LLO.

3. PTK-L and EDS are launched by two separate LVs with EOR docking.

 
 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Archibald on 12/06/2012 12:21 pm
Quote
If the President and NASA's leadership continue to refuse to provide international leadership in doing ISRU on the Lunar surface

aaand... 18th time I read this.
Naughty President Obama that don't want astronauts on the lunar surface. I'm quite sure he killed that poor Neil Armstrong for that reason. Evil Obama, booh 

Quote
could you really send a 23 mt PTK-NP around the moon with a TLI stage weighing under 50 mt if it doesn't use hydrogen? 

Nope. The approximate rule of thumb is that a LOX/LH2 stage can throw its own mass through TLI (read, a 15 ton Centaur throws a 15 ton payload, and on)
For the sake of comparison, a 20 tons Block D barely throws a 7 tons Soyuz in TLI - a mere 1/3 of its own mass.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/06/2012 01:24 pm
Yep. Hydrolox is the way for Russia go to the Moon for several good reasons.

Oh, and it may surprise one poster, but I have defended the President on this website when several posters were attacking his leadership. Come to think about it I also defended the previous President when he was under attack by a poster or two.

Of course, the current President continues to follow poor advise on L2, asteroid missions, and Mars and has publicly expressed a strong disinterest in getting us permanently back on the Moon to do ISRU.

The current President's well known lack of interest in the Moon is partly the reason why we are posting and thinking about How would Russia go to the moon


And I really didn't have anything to do with the comments in either:

NRC: No National Consensus on NASA Strategic Plans; Asteroid-First Mission Not Deemed Compelling  By Laura M. Delgado  December 5, 2012
From: http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nrc-no-national-consensus-on-nasa-strategic-plans-asteroid-first-mission-not-deemed-compelling

Or,

"The official NASA plan does not include a return to the surface of the Moon, distancing itself from the cancelled Constellation Program (CxP) approach of Moon, Mars and Beyond, first cited in the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE)."
From: Exploration Alternatives: From Propellant Depots to Commercial Lunar Base  November 15th, 2012 by Chris Bergin
At: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/exploration-alternatives-propellant-depots-commercial-lunar-base/


Sometimes a poster wants to blame and attack the messenger and ignore the root cause of the message. It is convenient and easy to do that. Such is life.


Cheers! 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 12/07/2012 12:23 am
LV Sodruzhestvo - Ukrainian path and no hydrogen.   
Well I've got to agree with you on the Sodruzhestvo.  That makes a ton of sense.  However, could you really send a 23 mt PTK-NP around the moon with a TLI stage weighing under 50 mt if it doesn't use hydrogen? 
1. Where on Earth did you get 50 mt TLI stage for Manned Lunar mission?

According to RKK Energia's president Vitaly Lopota, the rocket (LV Sodruzhestvo) could deliver between 60 and 70 tons to the low Earth orbit. Let's assume 65 mt.

2. It's not around the moon (Zond-style) mission. PTK-NP objective is a LLO.

3. PTK-L and EDS are launched by two separate LVs with EOR docking.



Nope. The approximate rule of thumb is that a LOX/LH2 stage can throw its own mass through TLI (read, a 15 ton Centaur throws a 15 ton payload, and on)
For the sake of comparison, a 20 tons Block D barely throws a 7 tons Soyuz in TLI - a mere 1/3 of its own mass.

I don't mean a Zond style mission, I mean a full-on LLO mission capability in one flight.  Archibald is right about LH2 being a good way to go.  The rocket's got limited payload and can't be upgraded much.  A TLI stage other than LH2 would have to be enormous (except perhaps CH4) to send a 23 mt PTK-NP into LLO.  So enormous it'd be dangerously close to the maximum the Sodruzhestvo could lift to low-earth orbit.  Cutting weight from the PTK-NP would be a costly endeavor if it came to that. 

Russia already has an excellent and recently developed RD-0146 LH2 engine that they'll be using on some versions of the Angara.  There's even talk of using it for an enlarged Soyuz-3 based off the 2.1v: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz3_lv.html

Given they have the engine and will be using it, why not use it to eliminate the hassles of earth-orbit rendezvous?  Besides, if your TLI stage only weighs roughly 25 mt, you've still go around 15-20 mt of additional payload lift to use.    With all that extra payload, you might even consider enlarging your KVRB stage, perhaps adding a 5th RD-0146, and sending along a small space station module while you're at it.  Or perhaps a propellant module to keep the station fully-fueled.  The point is with LH2 a Sodruzhestvo is a very useful rocket that can do LLO missions in one flight.  Without a KVRB stage we start having the costly possibility of the rocket being inadequate even for EOR missions to LLO. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Archibald on 12/07/2012 06:55 am
Facts are so easy to distort; it's easy to makes oneself the victim.

Let's say I'm a victim, too, just a little angry to read 18 times the same rant - a) China is heading for manned lunar missions (red herring: it is not)
b) CGR will force astronauts to the lunar surface, or under it (how Apollo astronauts survived, no idea)

c) naughty Obama don't want astronauts on the Moon, blah blah blah again and again, over and over, as I pointed.

This is just annoying to read, and one can't skip it because it spreads to too many threads all across the forum, a bit like a contagious plague.

Quote
I don't mean a Zond style mission

For lunar orbit you add 1 km/s after TLI (4 km/s) and of course 1 km/s for the trans Earth injection.

With the approximate rule of thumb, to send the 23 tons ship into TLI (thus not in and out of LLO) you'll need a stage massing 70 tons or more - at the upper limit of the rocket payload range.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/07/2012 10:16 am
Facts are so easy to distort; it's easy to makes oneself the victim.

Let's say I'm a victim, too, just a little angry to read 18 times the same rant - a) China is heading for manned lunar missions (red herring: it is not)
b) CGR will force astronauts to the lunar surface, or under it (how Apollo astronauts survived, no idea)

c) naughty Obama don't want astronauts on the Moon, blah blah blah again and again, over and over, as I pointed.
....


As to GCRs... We now have a thread for that topic. For the purposes of this thread, Apollo missions were very short. If Russia leads the international effort to establish ISRU propellant production on the Moon, mission durations of six months to a year or more may be the norm and that means they will most likely use lots of regolith for GCR shielding. And they probably won't want to hang around at L2 without any effective GCR shielding.

Right. The President's leadership of NASA has been stunningly brilliant. And my endlessly repeating that thought is why you should never read any of my 1,750 posts.

Yep, it might have been Santa Claus that made that wildly trust building speech on  April 15, 2010 at the John F. Kennedy Space Center Merritt Island, Florida. You know the one that goes, "Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before."
At: http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/trans/obama_ksc_trans.html


No one is responsible for NASA not having any official plan to return Americans to the Moon and for it not having a doable, fiscally sensible, and widely supported plan for its astronauts to work with astronauts from the space agencies of other countries to do beyond low Earth orbit exploration missions. Doesn't that make sense? It is the way great things get done today. No accountability is the new and popular mantra. 

Of course, having no one actually responsible for leading NASA doesn't create a whole lot of trust in NASA's planning abilities to do anything that involves BLEO human spaceflight, does it?

Unfortunately, Russia may view America as a not completely trustworthy potential partner for exploring the Moon.



Experts Outline Plethora of Issues Facing the Second Obama Administration   By Laura M. Delgado    Dec 4, 2012
At: http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nrc-no-national-consensus-on-nasa-strategic-plans-asteroid-first-mission-not-deemed-compelling

"Yet, Smith emphasized that in order to be successful in addressing any of these, there is a need to improve on an underlying aspect of the relationship between key stakeholders: trust."

And, "Not only features of what has been a turbulent relationship between the Executive Branch and Congress during the first Obama Administration, mistrust and unease permeate on a larger scale between the United States and its international partners."

And, "The U.S. decision to pull out of the joint U.S.-European  robotic Mars mission called ExoMars is a perfect example, Smith explained. Even though Europe remains interested in cooperating with the United States – something which 'amazes me,' she said – rebuilding U.S. credibility as a reliable partner will be key moving forward."



Yep. And the first step in "rebuilding U.S. credibility as a reliable partner" might be for the President to show up in Florida and declare, 'It is an American priority to send NASA and international space exploration partner astronauts to the polar regions of the Moon to do ISRU.'

Would that simple statement build some international trust?

Could we then go to the Moon with Russia and a lot of other countries? 

Wouldn't that be a good answer for How would Russia go to the moon?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: asmi on 12/07/2012 12:36 pm
Yep. And the first step in "rebuilding U.S. credibility as a reliable partner" might be for the President to show up in Florida and declare, 'It is an American priority to send NASA and international space exploration partner astronauts to the polar regions of the Moon to do ISRU.'

Would that simple statement build some international trust?
Actually it wouldn't. As far as I know, current NASA's reputation outside US is sort of like a one of a politician - they talk a lot, but do much less (if any at all) and often not what they've promised to. So even if Obama et al will show up tomorrow in Moscow and offer start building stuff to go to Moon, RSA will likely refuse at least until they will get their own hardware able to achieve LLO and Lunar surface. There are a bunch of reasons for that, mainly because NASA is known for its ability to back out in the middle of the project due to shifts of political winds in Washington. Russians generally try to not waste resources, so if they've started anything (and put money in it) they are going to finish it off.

On a topic - I've heard a year ago or so that Russia has restarted their program to develop nuclear-based engines. Maybe that's what they are gonna use for TLI - so pushing hydrolox tech into a history books and museums :) Will see.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 12/08/2012 01:55 am
Facts are so easy to distort; it's easy to makes oneself the victim.

Let's say I'm a victim, too, just a little angry to read 18 times the same rant - a) China is heading for manned lunar missions (red herring: it is not)

I don't mean to anger you, it's just there is a possibility that might happen.  People in my profession, international relations, have to make predictions all the time.  What we find is that the further out those predictions are, the less accurate they tend to be.  This gets to the point that even the most-lauded IR experts produce predictions no better than flipping a coin.  The same is often true in space.  Many of us could be wrong about China's eventual intentions.  It certainly doesn't help that the program is run almost like the old Soviet program. 

One thing I can say is about China's capabilities.  The Shenzhou capsule could be slung around the moon by the heaviest Long March 5 about to fly around 2014-2015.  That's something that certainly would suggests a glimmer of possibilities.  We'll know one way or another for sure if the Long March 9 gets approved.  I can see only one reason for building a rocket that large, and it's got nothing to do with national security or building enormous space stations. 


For lunar orbit you add 1 km/s after TLI (4 km/s) and of course 1 km/s for the trans Earth injection.

With the approximate rule of thumb, to send the 23 tons ship into TLI (thus not in and out of LLO) you'll need a stage massing 70 tons or more - at the upper limit of the rocket payload range.

So basically that eliminates a non-hydrolox method for sending the NPT-PK/PPTS to the moon via earth-orbit rendezvous.  Thanks for pointing that out.  I suppose if need be you could always upgrade the rocket's RD-171 engines and the upper stage to provide you some margin.  You could probably push the payload to around 80-90 mt, which should be more than enough.  Sorry if anything I post bothered you. 

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: kkattula on 12/08/2012 08:31 am
To the OP.  On a rocket.  Couldn't resist.

Buy a ticket with Golden Spike?


But seriously, Russia wouldn't need to build a mega launcher, or develop a hydrolox EDS.

They could just use muliple storable propulsion stages. Launched on current LV's to LEO, each one an autonomous space tug. They would rendezvous and wait for the lander and crew capsule. Assemble, then do TLI, dropping off stages. The final stage does LOI and TEI.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/12/2012 01:13 pm
To the OP.  On a rocket.  Couldn't resist.

Buy a ticket with Golden Spike?


But seriously, Russia wouldn't need to build a mega launcher, or develop a hydrolox EDS.

They could just use muliple storable propulsion stages. Launched on current LV's to LEO, each one an autonomous space tug. They would rendezvous and wait for the lander and crew capsule. Assemble, then do TLI, dropping off stages. The final stage does LOI and TEI.



"Buy a ticket with Golden Spike?" Close, but no cigar.

"Russia wouldn't need to build a mega launcher, or develop a hydrolox EDS"
if they built their PPTS/PTK-NP capsule, Europe built an ATV derived Service Module for the PPTS/PTK-NP, China built the 11 million lb. thrust Long March 9 heavy lift launcher, and they all kicked in some money to buy a Lunar Lander from Golden Spike.

Perhaps by working together Russia, Europe, China, and Golden Spike could do some very affordable international missions to the Moon.   
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 12/13/2012 07:39 pm
To the OP.  On a rocket.  Couldn't resist.

Buy a ticket with Golden Spike?


But seriously, Russia wouldn't need to build a mega launcher, or develop a hydrolox EDS.

They could just use muliple storable propulsion stages. Launched on current LV's to LEO, each one an autonomous space tug. They would rendezvous and wait for the lander and crew capsule. Assemble, then do TLI, dropping off stages. The final stage does LOI and TEI.



"Buy a ticket with Golden Spike?" Close, but no cigar.

"Russia wouldn't need to build a mega launcher, or develop a hydrolox EDS"
if they built their PPTS/PTK-NP capsule, Europe built an ATV derived Service Module for the PPTS/PTK-NP, China built the 11 million lb. thrust Long March 9 heavy lift launcher, and they all kicked in some money to buy a Lunar Lander from Golden Spike.

Perhaps by working together Russia, Europe, China, and Golden Spike could do some very affordable international missions to the Moon.   

Golden Spike's already ruled out selling tickets to the Chinese, though I'm not sure if they'd be unwilling to sell tickets to the Russians.  It'd be the ultimate irony if Russia went to the moon with the help of a private American firm after all these years.  I'm not sure national pride would stand for it.  The Russians inevitably would want to stop "paying Americans" to send cosmonauts to lunar orbit/lunar surface.  You see the very same politics at work in the US due to NASA's reliance on Soyuz. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 12/14/2012 02:55 am
...
So basically that eliminates a non-hydrolox method for sending the NPT-PK/PPTS to the moon via earth-orbit rendezvous.  Thanks for pointing that out.
...
No it does not!
Mission could be performed by 2xLV SODRUZHESTVO 
- Cargo LV launches EDS stage (LOX/naftil propulsion) to LEO ;
- Manned LV launches stack PTK-L + Block_DM (scaled up 1.5 modification of standard version) to  LEO;
- EDS and stack are docking on LEO (EOR);
- EDS performs TLI (Delta  V 3150 m/sec);
- EDS disposed;
- Oversized Block DM performs MCC+LOI (Delta V 1300  m/sec);
- PTK-L performs docking on LLO (to lander or LOS)
- PTK-L return to Earth by performing TEI maneuver 

Major reason why it possible - lunar lender travels to LLO separately (4 LV required for a landing mission)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/14/2012 03:02 pm
.....

Golden Spike's already ruled out selling tickets to the Chinese, though I'm not sure if they'd be unwilling to sell tickets to the Russians.  It'd be the ultimate irony if Russia went to the moon with the help of a private American firm after all these years.  I'm not sure national pride would stand for it.  The Russians inevitably would want to stop "paying Americans" to send cosmonauts to lunar orbit/lunar surface.  You see the very same politics at work in the US due to NASA's reliance on Soyuz. 



Getting to LEO is much easier than getting to the Lunar surface.

A large country, such as Russia, can afford to produce large jetliners and other impressive examples of high technology. And a large country, such as Russia, can benefit from and afford to produce the launchers, spacecraft, and space stations needed to do LEO missions. Even though this is true for Russian LEO missions, Russia has instead chosen the greater benefits of being involved with the International Partners at the ISS for its LEO space missions.   

If we consider an affordable and thus sustainable human Lunar ISRU base, Russia would gain substantial benefits and national pride from having partners. And partners that have some special skill sets to contribute can be a good thing for many reasons.

If Golden Spike doesn't sell Landers to certain countries, and doesn't sell Landers to partnerships that contain certain countries, perhaps the company is following a highly restrictive business plan that will need to be changed in order to be successful and promote the rapid growth of commercial activities in cislunar space.

Spaceships need to become much more common and widely used in order to help reduce their costs.

Note that Boeing routinely makes lots of money by selling its high tech large airliners around the world, and those jets probably contain technological systems equal to or possibly even much more sophisticated than those that will be used in the Golden Spike Lander. Business is about making money.

Russia and its Lunar partners, whoever they may turn out to be, will each contribute some useful element, or elements, needed to establish, maintain, and grow the Lunar polar ISRU base.

Payments to Golden Spike from Russia and its partners could be in the form of money, launch services, Lunar accommodations, ISRU propellant, and other goods, services, and real property that could cover the costs of the Landers. Golden Spike and its many customers would greatly benefit from having an ISRU base as a destination on the Lunar surface.

A Golden Spike Lander or perhaps a Lander from Japan, South Korea, India, Brazil, or some other country would help Russia and its partners defray some of the cost of a Lunar ISRU base.


Edited.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: asmi on 12/14/2012 05:07 pm
Well, Golden Spike's lander is just as non-existent than any other one out there, so there is no particular benefit in buying that vs building themselves (by that I mean not neccessarily by Russia itself, but maybe by some other IP). Right now no one in the world (except for NASA of course) seems to be interesting for asteroid mission NASA seems to be occupied with, but there is significant interest in Lunar missions. So I think if NASA will keep insisting on asteroid mission, Russia will partner with ESA and possibly some other countries (which do not have such strong prejudice towards certain countries) and they will go ahead. I'm fairly certain human-rated Angara-A5P will fly long before any Lunar assets can be realistically expected to be built even if work on them will start today. Having even more heavier-class LV would be beneficial, allthough it would NOT be an absolute requirement. And the option to leverage some other LV (like ESA's Ariane-5) to carry unmanned parts to LEO is there as well. So they can, for example, launch service module + EDS stage atop Ariane-5, then launch crew capsule atop Angara-A5P and dock them together in LEO. Russians have huge experience in rendezvous ops (I'd say much more than any other country or agency in the world), and, more importantly, their rendezvous/docking equipment is "off-the-shelf" thing that can be installed to almost any spacecraft (look at ESA's ATV as example).
They can even throw in MLM-sized LLO space station unmanned first (using pretty much any unmanned LV) to provide for "abort to station" capability so cosmonauts/astronauts will be able to survive aboard this station long enough for help to arrive, should they for some reason become stranded in LLO. Again, they've built and operated more space stations than all others combined, so I'm sure they will figure out how to add additional radiational protection to the module. And having a space station in LLO can provide for a lot of science as well as it will be ideal platform for surface surveying to look for best place to set up ISRU/lunar surface station.
So there are no major technical or engineering issues with such a mission - it's mainly a problem of having enough political will (and money) to execute all of that.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 12/19/2012 06:10 am
Well, Golden Spike's lander is just as non-existent than any other one out there, so there is no particular benefit in buying that vs building themselves (by that I mean not neccessarily by Russia itself, but maybe by some other IP). Right now no one in the world (except for NASA of course) seems to be interesting for asteroid mission NASA seems to be occupied with, but there is significant interest in Lunar missions. So I think if NASA will keep insisting on asteroid mission, Russia will partner with ESA and possibly some other countries (which do not have such strong prejudice towards certain countries) and they will go ahead. I'm fairly certain human-rated Angara-A5P will fly long before any Lunar assets can be realistically expected to be built even if work on them will start today. Having even more heavier-class LV would be beneficial, allthough it would NOT be an absolute requirement. And the option to leverage some other LV (like ESA's Ariane-5) to carry unmanned parts to LEO is there as well. So they can, for example, launch service module + EDS stage atop Ariane-5, then launch crew capsule atop Angara-A5P and dock them together in LEO. Russians have huge experience in rendezvous ops (I'd say much more than any other country or agency in the world), and, more importantly, their rendezvous/docking equipment is "off-the-shelf" thing that can be installed to almost any spacecraft (look at ESA's ATV as example).
They can even throw in MLM-sized LLO space station unmanned first (using pretty much any unmanned LV) to provide for "abort to station" capability so cosmonauts/astronauts will be able to survive aboard this station long enough for help to arrive, should they for some reason become stranded in LLO. Again, they've built and operated more space stations than all others combined, so I'm sure they will figure out how to add additional radiational protection to the module. And having a space station in LLO can provide for a lot of science as well as it will be ideal platform for surface surveying to look for best place to set up ISRU/lunar surface station.
So there are no major technical or engineering issues with such a mission - it's mainly a problem of having enough political will (and money) to execute all of that.

I'll have to agree with you on the Angara A5P being a decent help on these sorts of things.  It can lift several more tonnes to LEO and beyond than a Proton M and the Angara A5/KVRB (LH2 upper stage version) would just add to that.  Still, if I were head of Roscosmos, an Angara A7V would be really nice to have, and the Sodruzhestvo would be even better. 

Still it's nice to know Russia could at least get a decent start creating a LLO space station with the launchers it has or will soon.   
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/19/2012 02:21 pm
....

Still it's nice to know Russia could at least get a decent start creating a LLO space station with the launchers it has or will soon.   



Yep. And if Russia and its partners build their station in a 'frozen LLO orbit' inclined at 86º, every two hours they could have access to a large and inviting polar ice deposit where they could build a hydrolox ISRU propellant facility. That ISRU facility would be very useful for them and everyone in cislunar space.

Who knows, the Golden Spike folks and NASA might even want to sometimes park their spacecraft at the LLO station owned by Russia and its partners, right?

Hyperion5, how much do you think Russia and its partners would charge per day for parking a spacecraft at the LLO depot station?

How much would Russia and its partners charge for the Lunar ISRU hydrolox propellant that they could sell at their LLO depot station?

Golden Spike Landers might eventually use hydrolox, right?

NASA would need quite a bit of hydrolox for its many asteroid and Mars missions, right?

Other customers could also eventually show up at the '86º frozen LLO' depot station and they might need lots of hydrolox, some supplies, and a little maintenance work on their spacecraft, right?

Do you think such a LLO propellant depot could someday be profitable for Russia and its partners?

Well at least Russia and its partners would be always willing to sell us their Lunar derived propellant, right Hyperion5?



"'There are actually a number of 'frozen orbits' where a spacecraft can stay in a low lunar orbit indefinitely. They occur at four inclinations: 27º, 50º, 76º, and 86º'—the last one being nearly over the lunar poles."

From: Bizarre Lunar Orbits
At: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/06nov_loworbit/ 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: asmi on 12/19/2012 04:33 pm
Still, if I were head of Roscosmos, an Angara A7V would be really nice to have, and the Sodruzhestvo would be even better.
If I understand the situation correctly, the problem of A7 is the lack of payload. Ironically that very problem prevents Atlas V Heavy from coming into existence. Technically A7 is nothing more than A5 with two more URMs, so I think once they will really want it - it will come online pretty soon.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 12/19/2012 06:59 pm
....

Still it's nice to know Russia could at least get a decent start creating a LLO space station with the launchers it has or will soon.   



Yep. And if Russia and its partners build their station in a 'frozen LLO orbit' inclined at 86º, every two hours they could have access to a large and inviting polar ice deposit where they could build a hydrolox ISRU propellant facility. That ISRU facility would be very useful for them and everyone in cislunar space.

Who knows, the Golden Spike folks and NASA might even want to sometimes park their spacecraft at the LLO station owned by Russia and its partners, right?

Hyperion5, how much do you think Russia and its partners would charge per day for parking a spacecraft at the LLO depot station?

Well let's see, they're charging us 60 million dollars for a seat on the Soyuz, right?  If Russia were feeling generous they'd charge us a million a day for manned vehicles at such a station.  I'm not optimistic on them being that generous.  You have to consider it's not exactly normal to have a space station in LLO.  In fact, it's never been done before.  I imagine Russia might charge ten million or more just for the right to dock with the thing, and then perhaps a million or two per day if our astronauts stayed awhile.  Unmanned ships would obviously be there longer, so I think the charge per day would be considerably lower. 

How much would Russia and its partners charge for the Lunar ISRU hydrolox propellant that they could sell at their LLO depot station?

Golden Spike Landers might eventually use hydrolox, right?

NASA would need quite a bit of hydrolox for its many asteroid and Mars missions, right?

Golden Spike does not yet have any lander design even finalized.  They could just as easily decide they're building a metholox engined lander.  They could use ISRU for that as well, it's not a deep cryogen, so it has the major advantage of less need to worry about boil-off.  I might also add methane is a less problematic propellant than hydrogen. 

NASA would definitely need quite a bit of hydrolox supplies for deep space and asteroid missions, although an astronaut recently proposed bringing an asteroid into lunar orbit to make things easy.  Planetary Resources, as you might imagine, was all for it.  I still think an easier place to put a space station for deep space missions would be the EML-2 point, so they'd need a tug to transport Russian ISRU-produced hydrolox/metholox supplies there. 

I have to point out that if the Russians want to sell ISRU hydrolox/metholox supplies, they're going to need to land on the lunar surface and stay for extended periods to set up permanent infrastructure.  My top bet on who would help the Russians on that would be the Chinese and Europeans.  That's hoping for an awful lot, but it's nice to see that the workhorse rockets of many countries are getting steadily bigger and more capable. 

The Chinese will soon have the highly capable Long March 5 family flying, Russia will be upgrading to the much more capable Angara family, the US will have the Falcon Heavy flying soon, the Ariane 5 ME is now on its way, and the Indians are pushing hard towards a manned flight by 2020 on a bigger launcher.  Just look at how the Delta & Atlas families have grown over time.  They're enormous now compared to the originals.  All of this suggests that unlike in the Apollo era, the workhorse launchers are big enough to enable lunar capabilities. 

Other customers could also eventually show up at the '86º frozen LLO' depot station and they might need lots of hydrolox, some supplies, and a little maintenance work on their spacecraft, right?

Do you think such a LLO propellant depot could someday be profitable for Russia and its partners?

Well at least Russia and its partners would be always willing to sell us their Lunar derived propellant, right Hyperion5?

It'll be profitable if people see the moon as the next natural point in space exploration.  What you need is for the CSA, JAXA, ESA, NASA, and CNSA all to look to the moon as the next logical step in space exploration.  We're getting close to accomplishing all we could want in low-earth orbit with ISS.  The Chinese already have the beginnings of their first space station and will soon accomplish much of what we have with ISS by 2020.  These organizations need to convince their compatriots that they exist for good reasons.  They're going to need something more than yet another LEO space station.  A lunar space station would have a lot more sex appeal to Russian taxpayers than yet another modular space station in LEO. 


"'There are actually a number of 'frozen orbits' where a spacecraft can stay in a low lunar orbit indefinitely. They occur at four inclinations: 27º, 50º, 76º, and 86º'—the last one being nearly over the lunar poles."

From: Bizarre Lunar Orbits
At: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/06nov_loworbit/ 

86 degree orbit sounds best for ISRU and would make for some spectacular earthrises.  Btw, what would have happened if Apollo 8 had been unmanned and suffered a short circuit after inserting itself into LLO? 

Still, if I were head of Roscosmos, an Angara A7V would be really nice to have, and the Sodruzhestvo would be even better.
If I understand the situation correctly, the problem of A7 is the lack of payload. Ironically that very problem prevents Atlas V Heavy from coming into existence. Technically A7 is nothing more than A5 with two more URMs, so I think once they will really want it - it will come online pretty soon.

Anyone read Russian?  Apparently this says they can launch every Angara off a single pad except for the big Angara A7: http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=44

The biggest thing holding back the Angara A7 is not the design but the lack of a proper launchpad.  I've read the Russians didn't think things through entirely and built the Angara launchpad only big enough to handle up to the Angara A5 & its derivatives.  Why?  I have no idea.  My quick solution to this would be to re-purpose the Energia launchpad for the A7. 

To be honest, there's one other reason why you don't see an Atlas V Heavy.  If it didn't exist an upgraded Atlas V Heavy would be very possible.  It's attached below.  Also attached below are evolutions of workhorse launchers showing how they've grown massively more capable over time. 

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/24/2012 12:18 pm
See:

Thanks Anik for posting this slide on NK forum:
Truly a Christmas present. Mission profile based on
Khrunichev Angara 7 space tug.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 12/25/2012 12:26 am
See:

Thanks Anik for posting this slide on NK forum:
Truly a Christmas present. Mission profile based on
Khrunichev Angara 7 space tug.

http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=44&lang=en

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara7.html

Thanks for the link, Happy Martian.  That's encouraging news, though I've got one major question.  Since when could the Angara A7V (AKA Angara A7B) launch 53 mt+ into LEO?  Every source I can find says the biggest Angara will only be launching up to 41 mt from Russian cosmodromes.  I can understand if they've upgraded one of the upper stages to enable this, but I was just kind of surprised seeing an Angara A7V shown launching a payload a Falcon Heavy barely cannot.  Can I ask where Fregate is finding his sources on that payload number?  Even Khrunichev isn't showing it on their Angara page. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: DougSpace on 12/25/2012 06:30 pm
Yep. And if Russia and its partners build their station in a 'frozen LLO orbit' inclined at 86º, every two hours they could have access to a large and inviting polar ice deposit where they could build a hydrolox ISRU propellant facility. That ISRU facility would be very useful for them and everyone in cislunar space.

If the Russians had lunar ice ISRU, is there a way that they could deliver ice-derived propellant to any LEO orbital inclination in a just-in-time manner thereby eliminating the need for LEO depots?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/26/2012 02:09 pm
Yep. And if Russia and its partners build their station in a 'frozen LLO orbit' inclined at 86º, every two hours they could have access to a large and inviting polar ice deposit where they could build a hydrolox ISRU propellant facility. That ISRU facility would be very useful for them and everyone in cislunar space.

If the Russians had lunar ice ISRU, is there a way that they could deliver ice-derived propellant to any LEO orbital inclination in a just-in-time manner thereby eliminating the need for LEO depots?



That is an interesting question.

Two thoughts:

1. The Lunar gravitational field isn't uniform. By making careful and proper use of the significant Mascon distortions in the Moon's gravitational field it should be possible to 'slide', 'skate', or 'surf' the distorted Lunar gravitational field and change the orbital inclination with minimal use of rocket propellant for delta-v burns.


"In orbital mechanics, a frozen orbit is an orbit for an artificial satellite in which the natural drifts due to the earth's shape have been minimized by carefully choosing the orbital parameters. Typically this is an orbit where over a long time, the altitude is always the same at the same point in each orbit[1] -- changes in the inclination, position of the lowest point of the orbit, and eccentricity have been minimized by choosing initial values so that their perturbations cancel out.[2] This results in a long-term stable orbit that minimizes station keeping propellant usage.

And, "But the perturbing force caused by the oblateness of the Earth will in general perturb not only the orbital plane but also the eccentricity vector of the orbit."

From: Frozen orbit  By Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_orbit
 


"Gravitational anomalies slightly distorting the orbits of some Lunar Orbiters led to the discovery of mass concentrations (dubbed mascons), beneath the lunar surface caused by large impacting bodies at some remote time in the past.[1] These anomalies are significant enough to cause a lunar orbit to change significantly over the course of several days.[citation needed] 'Lunar mascons make most low lunar orbits unstable' but there exist four 'frozen orbits' 'where a spacecraft can stay in a low lunar orbit indefinitely.' The frozen orbits occur at four inclinations, 27º, 50º, 76º, and 86º.'[1]"

And, "The Apollo 11 first manned landing mission employed the first attempt to correct for this effect. The parking orbit was "circularized" at 66 nautical miles (122 km; 76 mi) by 54 nautical miles (100 km; 62 mi), which was expected to become the nominal circular 60 nautical miles (110 km; 69 mi) when the LM made its return rendezvous with the CSM. But the effect was overestimated by a factor of two; at rendezvous the orbit was calculated to be 63.2 nautical miles (117.0 km; 72.7 mi) by 56.8 nautical miles (105.2 km; 65.4 mi). [6]"

And, "The Apollo 15 subsatellite PFS-1 and the Apollo 16 subsatellite PFS-2, both small satellites released into lunar orbit from the Apollo Service Module near the end of their respective missions, provided later scientists data on Lunar gravitational perturbation effects. PFS-1 ended up in a long-lasting orbit, at 28 degrees inclination, and successfully completed its mission after one and a half years. PFS-2, was placed in a particularly unstable orbital inclination of 11 degrees, lasted only 35 days in orbit before crashing into the Lunar surface.[1]"

From: Lunar orbit  By Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit



2.  For Russian spacecraft, and the spacecraft of other nations, to 'surf' the Moon's gravitational field, reach high Lunar orbit, or achieve various Earth orbits while minimizing propellant usage, a solar powered Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) propulsion system for the hydrolox tanker or mobile hydrolox depot could be used.

Or Masers or lasers could be used to create power beams on the Moon, or at a large solar power station in a stable high Lunar orbit. The Masers or lasers could beam power that would be converted into electricity for the VASIMR propulsion system of the orbiting hydrolox tanker or mobile hydrolox depot.


Note also:

"The Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) is an electro-magnetic thruster for spacecraft propulsion. It uses radio waves to ionize and heat a propellant, and magnetic fields to accelerate the resulting plasma to generate thrust. It is one of several types of spacecraft electric propulsion systems."

And, "The method of heating plasma used in VASIMR was originally developed as a result of research into nuclear fusion. VASIMR is intended to bridge the gap between high-thrust, low-specific impulse propulsion systems and low-thrust, high-specific impulse systems. VASIMR is capable of functioning in either mode. Costa Rican scientist and former astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz created the VASIMR concept and has been working on its development since 1977."

From: Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket  By Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket



Facts About the VASIMR® Engine and its Development  By Ad Astra Rocket Company
At: http://www.adastrarocket.com/VASIMR_development_AdAstra_15July2011.pdf



For Russia, and other nations, the 'frozen LLO orbit' inclined at 86º could be a staging orbit for VASIMR powered hydrolox tankers/mobile hydrolox depots that would eventually head off to many other orbits around the Moon and Earth.

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: asmi on 12/26/2012 11:47 pm
It doesn't have to be that complicated (or I should probably say, futuristic). They can use up some of the fuel they're transporting for the actual transportation. Remember RSA prefer "take-it-easy" approach, meaning less risky new tech on a particular mission (as opposed to NASA's "big bang" approach, where a lot of new unproven stuff get's put into a single S/C). Take a look at the "Soyuz" spacecraft improvements - they could've just put all new stuff on a first vehicle, but instead they gradually introduce changes one a time. And you know what - looking at Soyuz flying for decades I'd say their approach works best.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: major_tom on 12/28/2012 05:05 pm
See:

Thanks Anik for posting this slide on NK forum:
Truly a Christmas present. Mission profile based on
Khrunichev Angara 7 space tug.

http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=44&lang=en

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara7.html

Thanks for the link, Happy Martian.  That's encouraging news, though I've got one major question.  Since when could the Angara A7V (AKA Angara A7B) launch 53 mt+ into LEO?  Every source I can find says the biggest Angara will only be launching up to 41 mt from Russian cosmodromes.  I can understand if they've upgraded one of the upper stages to enable this, but I was just kind of surprised seeing an Angara A7V shown launching a payload a Falcon Heavy barely cannot.  Can I ask where Fregate is finding his sources on that payload number?  Even Khrunichev isn't showing it on their Angara page. 

It's a recent development. They now call it Angara A7.2 and Angara A7.2V.

The A7.2 is pretty much the same as A7, with a 4.1m diameter keroLOX
1st stage core, using an RD-191 engine.
OTOH the A7.2V has, in place of the A7.2 core stage, a 5.7m diameter
LH2/LOX core, using an RD-120 engine.

See following NK forum posts:

http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum13/topic244/message1018841/#message1018841

http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum13/topic244/message1019221/#message1019221

Hope at least those 2 can use the same launch pad   ::)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/31/2012 06:28 am
Thanks Major Tom. Looks like there are four different size hydrolox upper stages! MOB2 is used for Lunar missions.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 12/31/2012 06:51 am
Thanks Major Tom. Looks like there are four different size hydrolox upper stages! MOB2 is used for Lunar missions.

Thanks for posting the attachments of the new versions, Steven.  Those would really change the scope of what Russia could do in lunar orbit.  It certainly would make things easier given an extra 10-20 mt of LEO lift capability.  I'd been wondering how Khrunichev could claim the Angara A7 design could be capable of lifting up to 75 mt to LEO.  Turns out they "cheated" by producing a huge core with an RD-0120 engine.  :) 

Those are some seriously impressive Angaras, although by using an RD-0120 from the Energia the design is almost more Energia than it is Angara.  So what do we have for upper stages here?  Am I correct in spotting a 1, 2 and 4 RD-0146 engine upper stages?  I can only hope Russia figures a way out of launching all of the Angara A7 variants from the same launchpad, because for whatever reason they can only launch the Angara 1.2-Angara 5/KVRB off the same pads right now.  Does anyone know whether there are any plans to add cross-feeding of propellants for the smaller Angara versions?  That certainly wouldn't hurt Russia's lunar plans. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: douglas100 on 12/31/2012 02:31 pm
...I can only hope Russia figures a way out of launching all of the Angara A7 variants from the same launchpad, because for whatever reason they can only launch the Angara 1.2-Angara 5/KVRB off the same pads right now. 

The Angara pad at Plesetsk:

http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/foto/279/707/# (http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/foto/279/707/#)

If you look at the 4th image you'll see that the cut outs on the work platforms are shaped for a maximum of 4 strap on cores. The launch mount has a similar restriction, I believe. That's one reason why the current pad is restricted to A5 or smaller variants.

If they build an Angara pad at Vostochniy (a given, if they want to do a manned Lunar mission, I think) then they may be able to redesign it to take 7 cores.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/01/2013 04:09 am
I'd been wondering how Khrunichev could claim the Angara A7 design could be capable of lifting up to 75 mt to LEO.  Turns out they "cheated" by producing a huge core with an RD-0120 engine.  :) 

Actually, its only 53.4 t payload with A7.2V/MOB2, including the dry mass of MOB2.

Quote
Those are some seriously impressive Angaras, although by using an RD-0120 from the Energia the design is almost more Energia than it is Angara.  So what do we have for upper stages here?  Am I correct in spotting a 1, 2 and 4 RD-0146 engine upper stages?

I think there are either one or two engines, not four. The largest stage is about double the mass of smallest stage. We also see one LOX pipe on the larger stages going to one engine, with presumably the other LOX pipe being on the other side going to the other engine.

Quote
I can only hope Russia figures a way out of launching all of the Angara A7 variants from the same launchpad, because for whatever reason they can only launch the Angara 1.2-Angara 5/KVRB off the same pads right now.

With different diameter central cores, I think a different pad would have to be used.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 01/01/2013 06:21 am
I'd been wondering how Khrunichev could claim the Angara A7 design could be capable of lifting up to 75 mt to LEO.  Turns out they "cheated" by producing a huge core with an RD-0120 engine.  :) 

Actually, its only 53.4 t payload with A7.2V/MOB2, including the dry mass of MOB2.

Well I've seen some claims about Khrunichev considering an HLV version capable of flinging up to 75 mt to LEO.  Obviously these versions would not be a fulfillment of that claim.  However, given the small size of the RD-0146, I think it shouldn't be too hard to stuff 4 of them into the interior of the largest Angara 7.  With a much bigger hydrolox second stage than the A7.2V/MOB2, I would think 60 mt to LEO should be possible.  Beyond 65 mt is where I'm struggling to understand how you keep the design in the "Angara family" and still hit those payload targets.  I'm doubtful Russia would really need anything much bigger than the Angara A7.2V for lunar missions, so thankfully it's not something that should worry anybody. 


Those are some seriously impressive Angaras, although by using an RD-0120 from the Energia the design is almost more Energia than it is Angara.  So what do we have for upper stages here?  Am I correct in spotting a 1, 2 and 4 RD-0146 engine upper stages?

I think there are either one or two engines, not four. The largest stage is about double the mass of smallest stage. We also see one LOX pipe on the larger stages going to one engine, with presumably the other LOX pipe being on the other side going to the other engine.

Well given there are proposed Soyuz rockets with four RD-0146 engines in a smaller core, I'd say at least we know the Angara series has a lot of upgrade potential.  Personally I'd recommend they ditch the Briz-M and stick with only the RD-0146 in varying numbers for the smaller versions' 3rd stages & the bigger versions' 2nd stages.  It's a great engine and I'd guess will probably not have nearly the same reliability issues as the Briz-M stage. 


I can only hope Russia figures a way out of launching all of the Angara A7 variants from the same launchpad, because for whatever reason they can only launch the Angara 1.2-Angara 5/KVRB off the same pads right now.

With different diameter central cores, I think a different pad would have to be used.

Well that's going to defeat some of the purpose of building the Angara series if they need 3 pads to launch all the versions.  If I had my way, I'd just up the RD-0146 engine count and hydrolox quantity to up the capacity of the Angara 7 with the 4.1 m kerolox core.  That'd let you get away with only 2 pads.  With only 2 pads, you'd have an easier time getting lunar missions funded and a higher flight rate per pad. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/02/2013 06:05 am

Actually, its only 53.4 t payload with A7.2V/MOB2, including the dry mass of MOB2.

Well I've seen some claims about Khrunichev considering an HLV version capable of flinging up to 75 mt to LEO.

The language in the table for the upper stages is

началная масса РБ без ПН, т
рабочий запас топлива, т
ПН (ГСО) т
ПН (отлетная траектория к Луне) т
ПН (на орбите спутника Луны) т

which translates to
    
Main mass RB without PN, t
A working supply of fuel, t
PN (GSO), t
PN (otletnaâ trajectory to the Moon), t
PN (orbiting satellite of the Moon), t

So the first two lines are masses of the stage and propellant, followed by payloads to geosynchronous orbit, trans Lunar injection and Lunar orbit. According to the other figures though, A7V launchers only MOB2 into Earth orbit. The 20 t PTK-M payload is launched separately by A5.2.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/05/2013 07:24 am
@Hyperion5
A dedicated topic exists on a Russian launchers scetion of this
forum Russian Manned Moon Architecture
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15735.0
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 01/09/2013 02:07 am
@Hyperion5
A dedicated topic exists on a Russian launchers scetion of this
forum Russian Manned Moon Architecture
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15735.0

Right, but this thread I should mention isn't just about Russian launchers, as interesting as they are, but also how Russia might cut costs via international partnerships.  I think there's a strong likelihood that other countries will be involved with Russia's push towards lunar operations.  If I had to take a bet on which countries are most likely, this would be my list:

1.) China--China's going to be flying the new Long March 5 shortly after Russia starts flying its Angara family.  The biggest Chang Zheng 5 will be capable of flinging a Soyuz or Shenzhou capsule around the moon, and can also launch Russia's massive new PTK capsule (23 mt+).  China also unquestionably has the pockets while Russia has greater space expertise, so the partnership would be a natural.  A longer-term possibility would be if China decided on building the Long March 9 (mega rocket) while Russia supplied the lunar space station and their massive new PTK-L spaceship for moon missions. 

2.) ESA--Europe may not be in the best of situations right now, but their economy absolutely dwarfs Russia's.  The ESA has the enviable launch site at Kourou, which would be a great place for launching the heavier Angaras alongside the Ariane 5 ME.  Obviously the Angara family has considerably more capability but the ESA's top launcher is human-rated and should be able to help build a LLO space station.  The ESA would be a generally excellent partner for Roscosmos for spreading the financial risk around. 

3.) India--Perhaps not the most likely but the Indians have got the resources now to at least subsidize the Russians efforts.  If the cost of that is bringing along a few Indian cosmonauts for the ride, why not?  I see little for India to lose in hitching a subsidized ride with the Russians to lunar orbit, especially because it may be 2020 before we see India independently launch someone into space. 

Tied for 4th

4.) JAXA/NASA--Japan and the US are both interested in the moon, though the US' official policy is to head towards asteroids first.  JAXA I find as unlikely simply because of the bad state of Japan's economy. 

Which countries do you think most likely to work with the Russians if Roscosmos is truly going to the moon, or at least lunar orbit? 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 01/09/2013 03:53 pm
NASA and Russia are working together to get American and Russian astronauts, as well as those of other nations, to the ISS. This provides an example of what may happen during future Lunar missions. NASA could launch the Russian reusable Lander on the SLS.



"In the spirit of a truly international program we notionally suggest that perhaps Russia would be the provider of the reusable lander. The important point here is that we have learned on ISS that interdependence between the Partners is not a weakness, but a strength. By pooling our resources, we can accomplish more together than any of us can accomplish on our own."

And, "The platform is relocated to HLO in order to reduce the overall propellant requirements for the landing system."

And, "For the purposes of this example, we will assume relocation to a lunar polar orbit which allows access to all the moon’s most interesting landing sites."

And, "In our conceptual example, the LTV is used to reduce the size of the lander by offloading the
propellant needed to get from HLO to LLO and back. Recognizing that development costs must be kept as low as possible, the existing ATV was assumed as a model for the LTV (figure 21). The propellant capacity of the LTV is assumed to be 6.9t of MMH / N2O4. It has four main engines which are assumed to be upgraded (320s) versions of the Aerojet R-4D."

From: Exploration Platform in the Earth-Moon Libration System Based on ISS  By Michael Raftery  at Boeing Defense, Space, & Security, Houston, TX, United States and Dr. Alexander Derechin  at S.P. Korolev RSC Energia, Korolev, Moscow Region, Russia   2012
At: http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_12-12-12/Raftery_12-12-12.pdf



Or a different option would be for America to provide the SLS launcher and Orion, Japan a powerful CPS (with five or six MB-60s) for the SLS, Russia the reusable Lunar Lander and PPTS/PTK-NP spacecraft, and the European Space Agency (ESA) the ATV based Service Module and the ATV space tanker that resupplies the Lander at a small mobile Chinese built space station depot that is in a stable frozen 86º inclined low Lunar orbit.


See:


PPTS/PTK-NP development during 2012
At: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk_2012.html


A Study of CPS Stages for Missions beyond LEO   By Mark Schaffer May 16, 2012
At: http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Schaffer_5-16-12/Schaffer_5-16-12%20Rev%20A.pdf
 

To minimize the reusable Lander's delta-v requirement and mass, improve Lunar mission flexibility, and to reduce risk through timely rescue options, the space station's frozen 86º inclined low Lunar orbit will have a 16.9 km altitude, or be as low as is feasible given the requirements of the stable frozen 86º inclined orbit. In such a low Lunar orbit the station's passive GCR shielding requirements would be reduced by almost half compared to a high Lunar orbit, L1 orbit, or L2 orbit. Most likely the GCR shielding would be in the form of conformal tanks filled with MMH and N2O4 propellants or some other suitable propellants that are also used by the Lander.



"Hover times and landing weights were maximized on the last four landing missions by using the Service Module engine to perform the initial Descent Orbit Insertion burn 22 hours before the LM separated from the CSM, a practice begun on Apollo 14. This enabled the LM to begin its powered descent from a 9.1-nautical-mile (16.9 km) altitude with a full load of descent stage fuel, leaving more reserve fuel for the final approach."

From: Apollo Lunar Module    Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module



"'There are actually a number of 'frozen orbits' where a spacecraft can stay in a low lunar orbit indefinitely. They occur at four inclinations: 27º, 50º, 76º, and 86º'—the last one being nearly over the lunar poles."

From: Bizarre Lunar Orbits
At: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/06nov_loworbit/   



Eventually, if it is desirable for future missions, the mobile space station depot could be moved to another frozen low Lunar orbit. If it is going to be moved to a medium high Lunar orbit, a high Lunar orbit, an L1 orbit, an L2 orbit or a high Earth orbit, it would first be modified by adding a GCR shielding material such as Lunar water.

The mobile space station should have enough stored propellant that it could change the orbit of the station while docked with the Orion spacecraft so as to enable the rescue of a Lander coming up from the Moon. There should also be enough available space station propellant to rescue an Orion or PPTS/PTK-NP spacecraft arriving into Lunar orbit from LEO. Note that the space station could act as a 'first stage' for the docked Lunar Lander that would actually be the spacecraft used to effect the rescue of the Orion's or PPTS/PTK-NP spacecraft's crew.

A specialized heavy reusable hydrolox Lander would also need to be built based on the CPS and using MB-60s or NGEs. Another option could be a heavy reusable Lander based on a Russian or Chinese hydrolox engine. Using hydrolox might eventually require the mobile space station depot to be moved into a medium high Lunar orbit.

Missions with low risk, low cost, internationalized cost sharing, 'simple' operations from a frozen 86º inclined low Lunar orbit, and an initial focus on Lunar polar exploration to enable the building of an ISRU propellant facility ASAP should be the basis of How would Russia go to the moon.


Edited.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/13/2013 09:44 am
From: Exploration Platform in the Earth-Moon Libration System Based on ISS   By Michael Raftery  at Boeing Defense, Space, & Security, Houston, TX, United States and Dr. Alexander Derechin  at S.P. Korolev RSC Energia, Korolev, Moscow Region, Russia 2012
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_12-12-12/
Interesting details from presentation:
- High Lunar orbit - 3200 km;
- Platform's base module is Russian NEM-derived one;
- Reusable Moon Lander (launched under 5 m PLF), potentially build in Russia;
- ATV-derived tanker (disposable) - concept similar to Energia Parom propellant container; allow to fuel transfer vehicle and Lunar module.
Unlike Parom container, has a propulsion system and automatic docking capability; 
- ATV-derived transfer vehicle (reusable) - concept similar to Energia Parom space tug and Apollo Descent Orbit Insertion maneuver;  transfer vehicle would deliver LM from HLO to LLO and back from LLO to HLO.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 01/15/2013 05:47 pm
From: Exploration Platform in the Earth-Moon Libration System Based on ISS   By Michael Raftery  at Boeing Defense, Space, & Security, Houston, TX, United States and Dr. Alexander Derechin  at S.P. Korolev RSC Energia, Korolev, Moscow Region, Russia 2012
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_12-12-12/
Interesting details from presentation:
- High Lunar orbit - 3200 km;
- Platform's base module is Russian NEM-derived one;
- Reusable Moon Lander (launched under 5 m PLF), potentially build in Russia;
- ATV-derived tanker (disposable) - concept similar to Energia Parom propellant container; allow to fuel transfer vehicle and Lunar module.
Unlike Parom container, has a propulsion system and automatic docking capability; 
- ATV-derived transfer vehicle (reusable) - concept similar to Energia Parom space tug and Apollo Descent Orbit Insertion maneuver;  transfer vehicle would deliver LM from HLO to LLO and back from LLO to HLO.

Fregate,

Is that launcher I see a Zenit Heavy or is that supposed to be the 5-core Sodruzhestvo relative of the Zenit? 

-----

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_01_15/Will-Russians-fly-to-the-Moon/

Russia is also planning to launch three satellite observatories to the orbit and to further explore the Moon. For this purpose, Russia will land two stations – “Luna-Globe” and “Luna-Resource” on the Moon. It is also planned to organize a mission to deliver samples of the Moon’s ground to the Earth.

Speaking about the prospects of flying to other planets, Russia is planning to create a device that would be able to deliver people to the Moon by 2020.

“However, this doesn’t mean that Russia is planning to send people to the Moon already in 2020,” Russian expert in cosmonautics Academician Alexander Zheleznyakov says. “It is only planning to create a device, that would be able to deliver people to the Moon, by 2020.”

“The flight itself will take place after 2020,” Academician Zheleznyakov continues. “Until now, the only thing which is already certain about this project is who will finance the creation and the construction of the spaceship. It is not yet certain what type of rocket will take this ship to space. I hope that this will be known when engineers finish working on the creation of the ship.”

Another Russian expert in cosmonautics, Yuri Karash, says that if Russia is planning to create a spaceship for flying to the Moon, it should also think of a device that would allow the cosmonauts to land on the Moon. There would be little use in coming very close to the Moon without landing on it, the scientist believes.

It is not yet known either how Russia will deliver samples of the Moon’s ground to the Earth. The construction of the “Luna-Globe” and “Luna-Resource” stations does not envision a return of these stations back to Earth, Mr. Karash says.

“However, there is nothing bad in the fact that Russia’s newly adopted program of space exploration does not specify these details,” Academician Alexander Zheleznyakov says. “The program, after all, is meant only to outline the main features of Russia’s space plans for the foreseeable future. And the main task now is to create a space industry infrastructure in Russia that would compensate all our recent misfortunes with launching satellites.”
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/16/2013 12:20 am
LV Sodruzhestvo is a Heavy Zenit with LEO capability 60-70 metric tonnes.

The major variation of the theme - upper stage propulsion system:
- in Rafferty-Derechin paper shown cryogenic US with 2xRD-0146D LREs, while on Anatoly Zak web site - Upper stage is KeroLOX (1xRD-0124A LRE).

LV still the same.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 01/16/2013 05:32 am
LV Sodruzhestvo is a Heavy Zenit with LEO capability 60-70 metric tonnes.

The major variation of the theme - upper stage propulsion system:
- in Rafferty-Derechin paper shown cryogenic US with 2xRD-0146D LREs, while on Anatoly Zak web site - Upper stage is KeroLOX (1xRD-0124A LRE).

LV still the same.

Well I know it's in essence a big Zenit.  What I was getting at is that the picture I see appears to be of only a 3-core Zenit Heavy, not the 5-core Sodruzhestvo version.  Is Russia really considering ordering up both versions for their lunar plans or will they stick with just one or the other?  If you were betting, which upper stage would you expect a possible Sodruzhestvo to carry? 

I'm getting confused on possible Russian HLV plans.  I've seen Anatoly Zak reporting proposals for both the Sodruzhestvo & the Yenisei-5.  The latter is basically like the Energia with the same 4 Zenit boosters but with only a 4.1 m, 3 RD-0120 engine core and an upper stage up top.  Anatoly Zak was saying they've basically going to have a lot of problems bringing back the RD-0120 engine because the infrastructure for it has gone away.  That was why I was so surprised to see an Angara A7 version being proposed with a RD-0120 powering a hydrolox core.  I know the Sodruzhestvo could be built with few problems in just a few years.  I'm just questioning why the need for proposing the Yenisei at all if it looks like a min-Energia with an upper stage. 

That's a lot of extra design work to do on an all-new core and upper stage, along with pad issues.  What is so much more attractive about the Yenisei-5 than simply reviving the Energia?  Could they not just build the factory for a new Energia near the pad to avoid the rail transit issues with cores wider than 4.1 meters?   Surely it can't be that much cheaper.  I know the Yenisei-5 would be more capable, but that's with an upper stage.  Add a decent hydrolox upper stage to Energia and suddenly it'll be crushing the SLS Bloc II with advanced solids in capability.  I can understand the Sodruzhestvo as a cost-conscious HLV.  I'm struggling with the Yenisei-5. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/17/2013 12:42 am
G'day Phillipe!
You wrote:
Quote
"Well I know it's in essence a big Zenit.  What I was getting at is that the picture I see appears to be of only a 3-core Zenit Heavy, not the 5-core Sodruzhestvo version.  Is Russia really considering ordering up both versions for their lunar plans or will they stick with just one or the other?  If you were betting, which upper stage would you expect a possible Sodruzhestvo to carry?"

My AU $0.05:   
1. LV Energia had 4 (!) boosters compatible with the first stage of LV Zenit.
Please visit site buran.ru - it has a most comprehensive inforamation about of LV Energia.   

2. LV Energia is dead - it's a HISTORICAL fact, and LV was MADE IN USSR
never officially closed. I heard a lot of gossips about its reincarnation, but
it would never happened without re-starting production of RD-120 LRE.
 
3. We are guessing wihich  LV(s) would be used for Lunar Missions.
Sodruzhestvo (aka Heavy Zenit) seems to be the most rational choice, but there is a HUGE political implication (not made in RUSSIA). Because of this I would expect a multiple "reinventing a wheel" exercises.

4. Please note that none of LVs shown in your post are officially endorsed by Russian Space Agency for a Lunar Mission.

5. Upper Stages:
a) ASFAIK LV Sodruzhestvo would use KeroLOX Upper Stages;
b) If RSC Energia and Krhunichev (NPO Salyut) reach a mutual understanding, ther is a chance that cryogenic Upper stages would be used (with RD-0146D propulsion).
IMHO the most optimal configuration might be
- Cryogenic Upper Stage 1 CUS1, launched by Cargo LV (perform LEO circularization and TLI);
- Cryogenic Upper Stage 2 CUS2, launched by Manned LV (mated with PTK-L
manned spacecraft, performs LEO circularization, EOR docking with CUS1 and LOI maneuver). Propulsion either RD-0126 or RD-0146D.
 
   
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: catdlr on 01/17/2013 01:56 am
Russia plans to send probe to moon in 2015

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-plans-send-probe-moon-2015-194841899.html
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/17/2013 04:09 am
"Meanwhile in Russia" (C)
It's seems to be that Moon officially had been endorsed as a NEXT objective in a  Russian State Program of Space Exploration for the period from 2013 to 2020.

Unfortunately NO manned Moon landing planned until completion of ISS Program in 2020.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 01/17/2013 04:25 am
G'day Phillipe!

Hold on their mate.  If we're doing names, you need to upgrade me to my far cooler-looking Russian name: Филипп.   ;)

My AU $0.05:   
1. LV Energia had 4 (!) boosters compatible with the first stage of LV Zenit.
Please visit site buran.ru - it has a most comprehensive inforamation about of LV Energia.
   

Right, but doesn't everybody who's ever followed the Soviet space program know about the Buran & the Energia launcher?  I will check out the site, thanks.  Did you mean to write "inforamation" or is that just a typo?   ???

2. LV Energia is dead - it's a HISTORICAL fact, and LV was MADE IN USSR
never officially closed. I heard a lot of gossips about its reincarnation, but
it would never happened without re-starting production of RD-120 LRE.

Speaking of the restart of RD-0120 production, given we're seeing a proposed version of the Angara 7 with that engine, what would you peg the chances on the engine being revived?  They're certainly going to want it if politics is going to get in the way of the Sodruzhestvo (5-core Zenit). 
 
3. We are guessing wihich  LV(s) would be used for Lunar Missions.
Sodruzhestvo (aka Heavy Zenit) seems to be the most rational choice, but there is a HUGE political implication (not made in RUSSIA). Because of this I would expect a multiple "reinventing a wheel" exercises.

So the fact that's there's a friendly government in Kiev is overridden by nationalistic fear.  Ugh.  Ditching the Sodruzhestvo because it'd be made in the Ukraine strikes me as one of the most illogical moves out there.  What are they expecting, for the Ukrainians to say no to lots of Russian cash?  I still say Sodruzhestvo>Yenisei 5 from a practical standpoint.  I get the feeling we're going to be seeing lots of Yenisei 5-like HLV proposals in the coming years if Russian lunar plans hold up.  That or maybe they'll actually get around to building those giant Angaras you were showing. 

4. Please note that none of LVs shown in your post are officially endorsed by Russian Space Agency for a Lunar Mission.

That's the real shame, because any of them would be a huge boon to Russia's lunar ambitions.  I would expect, based on the capabilities of the Bloc I SLS, that a Sodruzhestvo with a 4 RD-0146 engine EDS stage could probably propel a fully-laden PTK-L through TLI in one launch.  That would be a rather handy capability and make things a lot simpler. 

5. Upper Stages:
a) ASFAIK LV Sodruzhestvo would use KeroLOX Upper Stages;
b) If RSC Energia and Krhunichev (NPO Salyut) reach a mutual understanding, ther is a chance that cryogenic Upper stages would be used (with RD-0146D propulsion).
IMHO the most optimal configuration might be
- Cryogenic Upper Stage 1 CUS1, launched by Cargo LV (perform LEO circularization and TLI);
- Cryogenic Upper Stage 2 CUS2, launched by Manned LV (mated with PTK-L
manned spacecraft, performs LEO circularization, EOR docking with CUS1 and LOI maneuver). Propulsion either RD-0126 or RD-0146D.
   

RD-0126?  I've heard of the RD-0124 and the RD-0146, but the RD-0126 is a new one for me.  Wow.  Just looked it up over here: http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0126.htm

476 seconds of specific impulse?  No wonder they're considering using that on an EDS or space tug.  That is the most efficient hydrolox engine I've ever read about, and by a good margin.  Ah, but the t/w ratio is horrific at 12.49/1.  No wonder the RD-0146 looks so attractive in comparison. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/17/2013 04:50 am
Филиппу от Игоря.
Му apologies for typo - should be information, of course.

Please note that RD-0146D (with nozzle extended) is re-startable LRE, while RD-0146 (with a fixed nozzle) is not. 
Isp are 470 and 463 sec respectively, while thrust 7.5 tf and 10.0 tf. 

Please also note that there are 2 versions of RD-0126 LRE.
But they are never entered production stage. Due to very low thrust I would not recommend it for EDS Stage.

Single launch - for this scenario EDS should provide enough propellant for orbit circularization, TLI and LOI maneuvers. Total delta-V should be ~4685 m/sec (at least).

FYI : Unlike Apollo CSM, Russian PTK-L spacecraft is not capable (by original design) to perform a Lunar Orbit Insertion maneuver.

Cheers
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 01/17/2013 01:10 pm
....

Please note that RD-0146D (with nozzle extended) is re-startable LRE, while RD-0146 (with a fixed nozzle) is not. 
Isp are 470 and 463 sec respectively, while thrust 7.5 tf and 10.0 tf. 

Please also note that there are 2 versions of RD-0126 LRE.
But they are never entered production stage. Due to very low thrust I would not recommend it for EDS Stage.

Single launch - for this scenario EDS should provide enough propellant for orbit circularization, TLI and LOI maneuvers. Total delta-V should be ~4685 m/sec (at least).

FYI : Unlike Apollo CSM, Russian PTK-L spacecraft is not capable (by original design) to perform a Lunar Orbit Insertion maneuver.

Cheers


"Another round of recalculations completed by November brought a two-section vehicle to 20.3 tons, including a nine-ton crew module. A mass of the crew module was reduced from a maximum of 10,435 kilograms and a mass of the propulsion module from 13,206 kilograms."

And, "After a cruising flight between the Earth and the Moon lasting between three and five days, the Earth departure stage would also be used to slow down the vehicle and insert it into the lunar orbit roughly coinciding with the orbit of the Lunar Orbital Station, LOS. The Earth departure stage would then be discarded and the PTK spacecraft would use its own engines to rendezvous and link up with the orbiting facility. The PTK ship would also use its own propulsion to depart the lunar orbit on its way back to Earth."

And, "The ship's propulsion module would be carrying enough propellant to deliver a total velocity increase, or Delta V, of around 1,300 meters per second. This amount would afford up two dockings in the 100-kilometer orbit around the Moon and a trajectory correction maneuver during a back trip between the Moon and the Earth, which would not last more than five days."

Consolidating and refining the design
At: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk_2012.html



Capsule mass:    8,913 kg (19,650 lb)
Service Module mass:    12,337 kg (27,198 lb)
Total mass:    21,250 kg (46,848 lb)
Service Module propellant mass:    7,907 kg (17,433 lb)
Performance
Total delta-v:    1,595 m/s
Endurance:    21.1 days

From: Orion (spacecraft)  Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29   


The masses of the two capsule are not that much different, nor are the delta-v requirements. If it is politically and economically desirable, it would seem doable to use the  European Space Agency's ATV derived SM for both the Orion and PTK NP.

Again if it is politically and economically desirable, both Russia and America might also choose to use a common Japananese CPS with three or four MB-60 hydrolox rocket engines for "orbit circularization, TLI and LOI maneuvers". 

Both Japan and the European Space Agency would each be trading real hardware for securing an appropriate number of 'seats' on American and Russian Lunar missions. Both America and Russia would be saving some money.

Who should build the "Lunar Orbital Station" and make sure it gets to "the 100-kilometer orbit around the Moon"?

Who should build the reusable Landers?

Who should build the LEO to LLO to LEO solar powered reusable tanker/supply ships?

Who should build the needed surface inflatable habitats?

Who should build the inflatable Lander hangars that are needed for maintenance, repair, radiation shielding, and thermal protection?

Who should build the initial Lunar surface solar power and thermal energy storage units?

Who should build the rovers?

Who should build the rover towed portable drills?

"How would Russia go to the moon" in a sustainable manner? Most likely Russia would go about it the same way America, China, or India would--with a lot of help from as many countries and companies as possible.

Edited.   
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 01/17/2013 04:29 pm
....

Please note that RD-0146D (with nozzle extended) is re-startable LRE, while RD-0146 (with a fixed nozzle) is not. 
Isp are 470 and 463 sec respectively, while thrust 7.5 tf and 10.0 tf. 

Please also note that there are 2 versions of RD-0126 LRE.
But they are never entered production stage. Due to very low thrust I would not recommend it for EDS Stage.

Single launch - for this scenario EDS should provide enough propellant for orbit circularization, TLI and LOI maneuvers. Total delta-V should be ~4685 m/sec (at least).

FYI : Unlike Apollo CSM, Russian PTK-L spacecraft is not capable (by original design) to perform a Lunar Orbit Insertion maneuver.

Cheers


"Another round of recalculations completed by November brought a two-section vehicle to 20.3 tons, including a nine-ton crew module. A mass of the crew module was reduced from a maximum of 10,435 kilograms and a mass of the propulsion module from 13,206 kilograms."

And, "After a cruising flight between the Earth and the Moon lasting between three and five days, the Earth departure stage would also be used to slow down the vehicle and insert it into the lunar orbit roughly coinciding with the orbit of the Lunar Orbital Station, LOS. The Earth departure stage would then be discarded and the PTK spacecraft would use its own engines to rendezvous and link up with the orbiting facility. The PTK ship would also use its own propulsion to depart the lunar orbit on its way back to Earth."

And, "The ship's propulsion module would be carrying enough propellant to deliver a total velocity increase, or Delta V, of around 1,300 meters per second. This amount would afford up two dockings in the 100-kilometer orbit around the Moon and a trajectory correction maneuver during a back trip between the Moon and the Earth, which would not last more than five days."

Consolidating and refining the design
At: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk_2012.html



Capsule mass:    8,913 kg (19,650 lb)
Service Module mass:    12,337 kg (27,198 lb)
Total mass:    21,250 kg (46,848 lb)
Service Module propellant mass:    7,907 kg (17,433 lb)
Performance
Total delta-v:    1,595 m/s
Endurance:    21.1 days

From: Orion (spacecraft)  Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29   


The masses of the two capsule are not that much different, nor are the delta-v requirements. If it is politically and economically desirable, it would seem doable to use the  European Space Agency's ATV derived SM for both the Orion and PTK NP.

Again if it is politically and economically desirable, both Russia and America might also choose to use a common Japananese CPS with three or four MB-60 hydrolox rocket engines for "orbit circularization, TLI and LOI maneuvers". 

Both Japan and the European Space Agency would each be trading real hardware for securing an appropriate number of 'seats' on American and Russian Lunar missions. Both America and Russia would be saving some money.

It seems more practical to me if they use Vinci engines from the Ariane 5 ME's upper stage for any EDS stage.  That's an under-development engine that will soon see service on a regularly flying launch vehicle and it's more capable than Russia's RD-0146/D engines or America's RL-10 series with 40,465 lbf of thrust and 465 seconds of specific impulse.  It's also restartable up to five times, which would make it well-suited to Lunar orbit insertion as well. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinci_%28rocket_engine%29
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/18/2013 09:26 am
Guys, in regards of Russian Lunar spacecraft mass please note the most recent data is on the bottom of this page http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk_2012.html

Mass characteristics of the PTK NP spacecraft as of end of 2012
Total mass of spacecraft on low lunar orbit is 20 metric tonnes.

Vinci Cryogenic Engine vs RD-0146D - please try to compare a geometry of both engines. Propulsion system based on 2xRD-0146D has a combined thrust 15 tf (147.15 kN) and specific impulse 470 sec. Plus oxidizer to fuel propellant mixture for RD-0146D is 6:1, while for Vinci 5.8:1 (it would require less hydrogen and lesser volume of hydrogen tank).   

 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 01/20/2013 12:32 pm

"The Luna-Resource Heavy Lander which is being developed in tandem with the Indian Space Agency will reach the lunar surface in 2017 with an Indian moon-robot on board."

And, "Russian experts have selected six zones for Russian spacecraft to land on – three at the Moon’s North Pole and three at its South Pole. Scientists say chances of finding water and ice in these areas are fairly high. Alexander Zheleznyakov of the Russian Academy of Cosmonautics believes that Moon exploration programs will pave the way to the exploration of other planets, particularly Mars."

And, "A large-scale exploration of the Moon is due to begin by 2013-2040, while a mission to Mars is part of Russia’s strategic agenda for the foreseeable future. Russian Space Agency representatives say a manned mission to Mars could become a reality by the middle of the 21st century."

From: Russia embarks on Moon exploration program
At: http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_01_17/Russia-embarks-on-Moon-exploration-program/



A Lunar exploration program with both robots and humans and based on a large group of nations interested in the Moon and with significant technical leadership from Russia, China, and India could be very doable.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 01/21/2013 04:51 am
Guys, in regards of Russian Lunar spacecraft mass please note the most recent data is on the bottom of this page http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk_2012.html

Mass characteristics of the PTK NP spacecraft as of end of 2012
Total mass of spacecraft on low lunar orbit is 20 metric tonnes.

Vinci Cryogenic Engine vs RD-0146D - please try to compare a geometry of both engines. Propulsion system based on 2xRD-0146D has a combined thrust 15 tf (147.15 kN) and specific impulse 470 sec. Plus oxidizer to fuel propellant mixture for RD-0146D is 6:1, while for Vinci 5.8:1 (it would require less hydrogen and lesser volume of hydrogen tank).   

Right, but one Vinci engine puts out 180 kN, or 18 tf, so you could use one Vinci engine in place of two RD-0146D engines, though 2 RD-0146E engines (10 tf per) would outpunch the Vinci.  Given the Isp difference is tiny and the mixture ratio is modestly different, the engine merits a look if Russia starts working with the ESA.  I will say though that the RD-0146 engine family is pretty fantastic.  I'd take them over the RL-10 engine family, especially since their modern design likely makes them much cheaper.  Also, given Russian manufacturing costs, I can practically guarantee that. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Fregate,

I was looking up the Yenisei-5 again and then over at the Energia.  Now I know it's only a conceptual rocket and not officially part of the lunar architecture, which is why I'm talking about it here.  There's one thing that's really striking me about the contrast between it and the Energia.  Though they've got the exact same boosters and both lack an upper stage, their core stages are different enough to cause some drastic differences in capability. 

Energia
Stage 2 fuel weight    797 tons
Stage 2 dry weight    50 tons
Stage 2 length            59 meters
Stage 2 diameter    7.750 meters

Yenisei-5
Stage II propellant load    548 tons
Stage II dry weight            ???
Stage II length                  ???
Stage II diameter              4.1 meters

Now here's the thing.  The Energia's got 45.4% more propellants and 33% more thrust from its core stage than the Yenisei-5.  Yet Anatoly Zak is reporting the following stats on its capabilities versus an Energia's. 

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/yenisei5.html
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/energia.html

Energia
Payload from Baikonur    
95-100 tons to 51-degree LEO
18 tons to geostationary orbit
32 tons to the lunar transfer
28 tons to Venus and Mars

Yenisei-5
125 tons tons to 51.8 degree LEO
30 tons to geostationary orbit
49 tons to lunar transfer
65 tons to lunar transfer (2 launches)

Now look at this--this I'm fairly sure tops the Energia by quite a bit. 
Payload Mass Percentage     5.21 percent

Is the reason why the Yenisei-5 is a prospective Energia-killer because it has an exceptional dry mass or that it's better proportioned to its job?  I know the Energia could famously add another 4 Zenit boosters and an upper stage to fling up to 195 tonnes into LEO orbit if ever needed.  Well whatever the reasons, this thing could beat an SLS Bloc IB to LEO & through TLI without an upper stage.  That's pretty astounding.  If Russia builds this I'd say the only drawback is unlike the Energia a 4.1 m core allows much smaller payload fairings.  If Russia wants to do a single-launch lunar mission I'd say build the Yenisei-5. 


Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 01/21/2013 02:56 pm
OK. Until the Russian Yenisei-5 or another Lunar mission capable heavy launcher gets built, offer seats to NASA and other stakeholders and launch the PTK NP spacecraft and a Lander on the SLS.

This option would allow Russia to initially concentrate their space budget on the PPTS/PTK-NP and a Lunar Lander. Russia could eventually jointly develop a Lunar mission capable heavy launcher with India and China. 

The Orion Lunar missions could use a Russian, Japanese, Chinese, ESA, Golden Spike, or other commercial Lander.

Bigelow, or a similar business, could provide the lightweight space station hotel or mobile exploration platform in a "45km x 203km polar frozen orbit".

Page 10
"Station-keeping per year":
...
"~0 m/s in 45km x 203km polar frozen orbit"

From: Architecture Trade Report
At: http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/exploration/IntlExplorationArchitectures/IntegratedArchReview/Exploration_architecture_Study_Draft_v9web_version.pdf

Also at: www.scribd.com/doc/18686183/ESA-ExplorationArchitecture


A permanent international polar ISRU base will need multiple cargo and human spaceflight transportation systems.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/29/2013 11:54 pm
"Meanwhile in Moscow"  ;D

Head of Roscosmos Vladimir Popovkin in his openning speech this Tuesday (29th of Jan 2013) on annual Korolev's Readings (Bauman Moscow State Technical University) made a statement that Russian Federal Space Agency (ROSCOSMOS) and Russian Academy of Science (RAN) joined Space Exploration taskforce might evaluate feasibility of manned Lunar program for scientific purposes.
"Should Academy of Science make a call of establishing human presence (on the Moon), than humans will be present there."
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: woods170 on 01/30/2013 08:25 am
"Meanwhile in Moscow"  ;D

Head of Roscosmos Vladimir Popovkin in his openning speech this Tuesday (29th of Jan 2013) on annual Korolev's Readings (Bauman Moscow State Technical University) made a statement that Russian Federal Space Agency (ROSCOSMOS) and Russian Academy of Science (RAN) joined Space Exploration taskforce might evaluate feasibility of manned Lunar program for scientific purposes.
"Should Academy of Science make a call of establishing human presence (on the Moon), than humans will be present there."

It's been a while since I had a good laugh, but this one had me rolling over the floor.  :D
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/31/2013 05:50 am
Do not forget that Head of ROSCOSMOS is retired General of Russian Space Forces.
Do not be so amused by military-style language - those guys literally think in such fashion.
I'll give you more laughable quote that I heard on tactical training:
"After World War II Germany had been quartered by three non-equal halves".
Sounds funny, but true - occupied Germany had originally 4 zones, then 3, in the end (before fall of Berlin wall) - just 2!   
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 01/31/2013 10:20 am
"Meanwhile in Moscow"  ;D

Head of Roscosmos Vladimir Popovkin in his openning speech this Tuesday (29th of Jan 2013) on annual Korolev's Readings (Bauman Moscow State Technical University) made a statement that Russian Federal Space Agency (ROSCOSMOS) and Russian Academy of Science (RAN) joined Space Exploration taskforce might evaluate feasibility of manned Lunar program for scientific purposes.
"Should Academy of Science make a call of establishing human presence (on the Moon), than humans will be present there."

It's been a while since I had a good laugh, but this one had me rolling over the floor.  :D

I don't quite understand the grammar. Arn't they saying that if the Academy of Science set themselves the mission of doing what the VSE set out to do, they would succeed?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: ChileVerde on 01/31/2013 01:29 pm
I don't quite understand the grammar. Arn't they saying that if the Academy of Science set themselves the mission of doing what the VSE set out to do, they would succeed?

Me neither. The Bauman Institute doesn't seem to have a transcript yet (http://www.bmstu.ru/mstu/events/news.html?newsid=1342).

fregate, would it be possible for you to give us the Russian sentence?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 02/04/2013 01:46 pm
Yes, unfortunately I have to admit that my translation from Russian does not make any sense in English.  :-[
Original quote was:
"Если будет необходимость по линии Академии наук присутствия человека (на Луне), тогда там должен присутствовать человек"
Not quite a JFK Vision statement.   
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 03/02/2013 01:38 pm
How would Russia go to the moon?

One of its future Lunar mission partners could be South Korea.

Encyclopedia Astronautica  Korea South
At: http://www.astronautix.com/country/korsouth.htm
"In December 1997 KARI was allowed to proceed with development of liquid oxygen/kerosene rocket motor for an orbital launcher, but this was abandoned when the South Korean government decided it wanted to be among the top ten spacefaring nations by 2015. The existing program was too limited in growth potential to allow that. Therefore it was decided to leapfrog the technology by contracting with Russian companies."


South Korea, Russia partner for historic satellite launch  By Stephen Clark   SPACEFLIGHT NOW  January 30, 2013
At: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1301/30kslv/#.UTIDADceq64
"South Korea officials said Wednesday they succeeded in launching a small satellite aboard part-Russian, part-Korean rocket, marking the first time the rising Asian power has launched a spacecraft into orbit from its own soil."


Note also:


Korean Astronaut Program   Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Astronaut_Program
"On April 8, 2008 Yi So-yeon took off from the Baikonur [7] space center in Kazakhstan at 11:16 GMT aboard Soyuz TMA-12. She spent ten days conducting scientific experiments aboard the International Space Station."
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/05/2013 03:35 am
Considering that South Korea has abandoned the Naro (KSLV-1) in favour of developing its own completely South Korean launch vehicle (the KSLV-2), the tie between South Korea and Russia is no longer so great. South Korea also no longer has an astronaut program.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 03/05/2013 09:46 am
Considering that South Korea has abandoned the Naro (KSLV-1) in favour of developing its own completely South Korean launch vehicle (the KSLV-2), the tie between South Korea and Russia is no longer so great. South Korea also no longer has an astronaut program.


Note however:

"Impediments to South Korean rocket development

Republic of Korea efforts to build an indigenous space launch vehicle is hindered due to persistent political pressure of the United States, who had for many decades hindered South Korea's indigenous rocket and missile development programs[13] in fear of their possible connection to clandestine military ballistic missile programs.[14] South Korea has sought the assistance of foreign countries such as Russia through MTCR commitments to supplement its restricted domestic rocket technology. South Korea is working on an engine for an indigenous launcher planned for 2021."

From: Naro-1   Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naro-1


See also:
Introduction to Space Activities of Korea  Korean Aerospace Research Institute December 2008.
At: http://www.aprsaf.org/data/aprsaf15_data/Plenary/day4/CR_Korea.pdf


Both Russia and South Korea are thinking seriously about the Moon.

NASA has a hard time saying the word "Moon"...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: gospacex on 03/05/2013 09:52 am
Both Russia and South Korea are thinking seriously about the Moon.

Oh really? :)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 03/05/2013 01:40 pm
Both Russia and South Korea are thinking seriously about the Moon.

Oh really? :)


Yep, really.


"III. National Space Plan
Lunar Exploration
National Lunar Program
KSLV-II in 2017(1.5 ton class)
Lunar Orbiter in 2020
Lunar Lander in 2025
Participation in International Space Exploration Initiatives
* GES (Global Exploration Strategy)
: Participation of 14 Space Agencies (including KARI)
* ILN (International Lunar Network): 9 countries (including Korea) signed the ILN Statement of Intent in July, 2008"

From: Page 25 of Introduction to Space Activities of Korea  Korean Aerospace Research Institute December 2008.
At: http://www.aprsaf.org/data/aprsaf15_data/Plenary/day4/CR_Korea.pdf



Just because our President doesn't like the idea of tapping the known Lunar resources, that doesn't mean that Russia, South Korea, and the rest of the world are in agreement with him. 

If SpaceX can seriously talk about flying folks off to Mars, why is it difficult for some space cadets to believe that Russia, South Korea, and some other nations couldn't work together to tap the known resources of the Moon?

Maybe a little respect for the goals of other nations would be wise Gospacex.

And remember, if push ever comes to shove, perhaps Russia and South Korea have a little bit more money than SpaceX does. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Jim on 03/05/2013 01:53 pm
Both Russia and South Korea are thinking seriously about the Moon.

Oh really? :)


Yep, really.


"III. National Space Plan
Lunar Exploration
National Lunar Program
KSLV-II in 2017(1.5 ton class)
Lunar Orbiter in 2020
Lunar Lander in 2025
Participation in International Space Exploration Initiatives
* GES (Global Exploration Strategy)
: Participation of 14 Space Agencies (including KARI)
* ILN (International Lunar Network): 9 countries (including Korea) signed the ILN Statement of Intent in July, 2008"

From: Page 25 of Introduction to Space Activities of Korea  Korean Aerospace Research Institute December 2008.
At: http://www.aprsaf.org/data/aprsaf15_data/Plenary/day4/CR_Korea.pdf



Just because our President doesn't like the idea of tapping the known Lunar resources, that doesn't mean that Russia, South Korea, and the rest of the world are in agreement with him. 

If SpaceX can seriously talk about flying folks off to Mars, why is it difficult for some space cadets to believe that Russia, South Korea, and some other nations couldn't work together to tap the known resources of the Moon?

Maybe a little respect for the goals of other nations would be wise Gospacex.

And remember, if push ever comes to shove, perhaps Russia and South Korea have a little bit more money than SpaceX does. 

Nope, nothing but lipservice. You have trouble distinguishing reality vs pie in the sky ideas that have no chance in becoming real,.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 03/05/2013 02:07 pm
Both Russia and South Korea are thinking seriously about the Moon.

Oh really? :)


Yep, really.


"III. National Space Plan
Lunar Exploration
National Lunar Program
KSLV-II in 2017(1.5 ton class)
Lunar Orbiter in 2020
Lunar Lander in 2025
Participation in International Space Exploration Initiatives
* GES (Global Exploration Strategy)
: Participation of 14 Space Agencies (including KARI)
* ILN (International Lunar Network): 9 countries (including Korea) signed the ILN Statement of Intent in July, 2008"

From: Page 25 of Introduction to Space Activities of Korea  Korean Aerospace Research Institute December 2008.
At: http://www.aprsaf.org/data/aprsaf15_data/Plenary/day4/CR_Korea.pdf



Just because our President doesn't like the idea of tapping the known Lunar resources, that doesn't mean that Russia, South Korea, and the rest of the world are in agreement with him. 

If SpaceX can seriously talk about flying folks off to Mars, why is it difficult for some space cadets to believe that Russia, South Korea, and some other nations couldn't work together to tap the known resources of the Moon?

Maybe a little respect for the goals of other nations would be wise Gospacex.

And remember, if push ever comes to shove, perhaps Russia and South Korea have a little bit more money than SpaceX does. 

Nope, nothing but lipservice. You have trouble distinguishing reality vs pie in the sky ideas that have no chance in becoming real,.

International politics got humans to the Moon once. International politics and known Lunar resources will get humans back to the Moon. There is money to be made in those Lunar hills.

And Jim, while talking about your own lipservice to the President's lackof BLEO  human spaceflight plans, why don't you let the Mars crowd know that there isn't any NASA money for human Mars missions?

Snipe everywhere at everyone or snipe not at all. Or, is it "You have trouble distinguishing reality vs pie in the sky ideas that have no chance in becoming real,." 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Wenni on 04/03/2013 07:38 pm
Hi! There is an interesting article about the russian plans to return to the moon:
http://www.space.com/20461-russia-moon-robots-missions.html?cmpid=514648
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 04/04/2013 12:30 am
Hi! There is an interesting article about the russian plans to return to the moon:
http://www.space.com/20461-russia-moon-robots-missions.html?cmpid=514648



Thank you Wenni! Welcome to NASASpaceFlight.com Forum!

It is nice to know that some Russian folks are coming up with doable, affordable, and sensible human BLEO space exploration plans.


"Russia's rekindling of an aggressive moon exploration plan was unveiled by Igor Mitrofanov of the Institute for Space Research (IKI) in Moscow during Microsymposium 54 on "Lunar Farside and Poles — New Destinations for Exploration," held in The Woodlands, Texas, on March 16 and 17."

And, "Mitrofanov said that the lunar pole is a most favorable place for future outposts for humans in deep space and emphasized that moon exploration was a step toward future Mars journeys."

From: Destination Moon: Russia to Launch New Wave of Lunar Robots
By Leonard David   April 1, 2013
At: http://www.space.com/20461-russia-moon-robots-missions.html?cmpid=514648

Edited.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: RanulfC on 04/04/2013 09:52 pm
Hi! There is an interesting article about the russian plans to return to the moon:
http://www.space.com/20461-russia-moon-robots-missions.html?cmpid=514648



Thank you Wenni! Welcome to NASASpaceFlight.com Forum!

It is nice to know that some Russian folks are coming up with doable, affordable, and sensible human BLEO space exploration plans.

You seem to have missed or ignored the whole point that the PLAN was for robots and not humans...

Keep trying :)

Randy
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 04/06/2013 03:35 am
Hi! There is an interesting article about the russian plans to return to the moon:
http://www.space.com/20461-russia-moon-robots-missions.html?cmpid=514648



Thank you Wenni! Welcome to NASASpaceFlight.com Forum!

It is nice to know that some Russian folks are coming up with doable, affordable, and sensible human BLEO space exploration plans.

You seem to have missed or ignored the whole point that the PLAN was for robots and not humans...

Keep trying :)

Randy

Randy,

Russia has a doable, useful, and scientifically interesting Lunar destination for its robots and eventual human BLEO base.

Russia is devising a realistic and affordable BLEO human space exploration architecture.

Russia can attract like minded nations.

Russia is designing a Lunar capable spacecraft:



"Another round of recalculations completed by November brought a two-section vehicle to 20.3 tons, including a nine-ton crew module. A mass of the crew module was reduced from a maximum of 10,435 kilograms and a mass of the propulsion module from 13,206 kilograms."

And, "After a cruising flight between the Earth and the Moon lasting between three and five days, the Earth departure stage would also be used to slow down the vehicle and insert it into the lunar orbit roughly coinciding with the orbit of the Lunar Orbital Station, LOS. The Earth departure stage would then be discarded and the PTK spacecraft would use its own engines to rendezvous and link up with the orbiting facility. The PTK ship would also use its own propulsion to depart the lunar orbit on its way back to Earth."

And, "The ship's propulsion module would be carrying enough propellant to deliver a total velocity increase, or Delta V, of around 1,300 meters per second. This amount would afford up two dockings in the 100-kilometer orbit around the Moon and a trajectory correction maneuver during a back trip between the Moon and the Earth, which would not last more than five days."

Consolidating and refining the design
At: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk_2012.html



We are building an Orion Lunar mission spacecraft, a Nova class Moon mission launcher, and have zero real BLEO human space exploration architectural planning because we don't have an affordable, doable, and official destination.

Maybe we should join the Russians, Golden Spike, and other Lunar surface minded folks and get our astronauts, engineers, and scientists, to the polar regions of the Moon. We could even do ISRU there. That would be nice, wouldn't it?

Or do we Americans simply prefer visions of unfunded, costly, and high risk asteroid and Mars missions?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 04/06/2013 11:41 am
Hi! There is an interesting article about the russian plans to return to the moon:
http://www.space.com/20461-russia-moon-robots-missions.html?cmpid=514648



Thank you Wenni! Welcome to NASASpaceFlight.com Forum!

It is nice to know that some Russian folks are coming up with doable, affordable, and sensible human BLEO space exploration plans.

You seem to have missed or ignored the whole point that the PLAN was for robots and not humans...

Keep trying :)

Randy

I don't really understand why HM is enthusiastic about this approach, since it is very similar to the Obama proposal to actually land a precursor in his term and focus on affordable things done frequently instead of Constellation-sized projects that collapse before achieving anything.

..but in any case I really do like it for those same reasons, and it could in fact be a good starting point for manned missions. The whole concept of architectures so expensive that you just dont even consider sending them ten times unmanned before the first manned flight is just the wrong way to go IMO.

It is probably stretching it a bit, but I bet you could put a person on the moon and bring them home again with nothing a lander capable of one ton, if enough infrastructure was in place from previous unmanned one ton cargoes and it was refuel-able. You might not have abort to orbit, but you would have a huge flight history and multiple previous landers which has to be better than landing humans on the first go with no such backup. Also you would already have rovers in place that had been teleoperated for a year or so but could be used by a human.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 04/06/2013 01:42 pm
....

I don't really understand why HM is enthusiastic about this approach, since it is very similar to the Obama proposal to actually land a precursor in his term and focus on affordable things done frequently instead of Constellation-sized projects that collapse before achieving anything.

..but in any case I really do like it for those same reasons, and it could in fact be a good starting point for manned missions. The whole concept of architectures so expensive that you just dont even consider sending them ten times unmanned before the first manned flight is just the wrong way to go IMO.

It is probably stretching it a bit, but I bet you could put a person on the moon and bring them home again with nothing a lander capable of one ton, if enough infrastructure was in place from previous unmanned one ton cargoes and it was refuel-able. You might not have abort to orbit, but you would have a huge flight history and multiple previous landers which has to be better than landing humans on the first go with no such backup. Also you would already have rovers in place that had been teleoperated for a year or so but could be used by a human.



Randy, the Russians and lots of other folks including me want a human base in a polar region of the Moon. Robots go first and then humans.

Have you heard something about NASA's Lunar human goals that I have missed? Currently NASA's lack of official Lunar human space exploration planning has been bluntly noted by someone far wiser than me.


"In the current wilderness of unattainable space policy ideas, this one certainly stakes out new territory.  Since we can’t get to an NEA, let’s bring one to a place to which we can get, thus successfully avoiding the place that we should be exploiting in order to attain true space faring capability – the lunar poles."

From Let’s Haul Asteroids!  By Paul Spudis    April 5, 2013   
At: http://www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/lets-haul-asteroids/



The Russians, and most serious folks in the world, fully understand that the polar regions of the Moon are the next logical place for us to go. Making full use of Lunar polar resources is doable. The Russians fully understand the importance of tapping natural resources in difficult to access places. 

Any other space destination or activity other than a Lunar polar ISRU base does not make much sense at this time.

I would love to see human Mars missions in my lifetime. But I know we need to carefully go to the Moon and do propellant ISRU in order to have robust and successful Mars missions.

I'll most likely miss seeing the first human Mars landing missions, but that's OK if I can see us doing what we need to do on the Moon in order to get ready for a sustainable series of missions to explore and colonize Mars and eventually Ceres.

The Russians are wisely going to build a base on the Moon in a polar region. If they cannot plan on building that base with America as one of their partners, they'll do it without us.

They may be puzzled or dismayed by our anti humans landing on the Moon NASA policy silliness, but that won't stop them from providing some leadership to the many countries on Earth that want to see their citizens working on a polar Lunar propellant ISRU production facility and doing other valuable commercial and scientific work on the Moon's surface.

The Russians will help to build a permanent human ISRU base on the Moon because they understand how such a humble beginning will eventually grow and turn out to be something wonderful that no one can fully imagine today.


Edited.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 04/08/2013 09:14 am
No I dont think I have heard anything that you have missed, I was  referring to the original proposal that was thrown out by congress.
I forget the exact name. I have some sort of summary with filename "Budget overview 1 Feb 2010" titled "Fiscal hear 2011 estimates"

Robotic Precursors (millions)
2011:$125 2012:$506 2013:$699 2014:$797 2015$923

*Led by NASA’s Exploration Directorate, this program will send robotic precursor missions to the Moon, Mars and its moons, Lagrange points, and nearby asteroids to scout targets for future human activities, and identify the hazards and resources that will determine the future course of the expansion of human civilization into space. Projects will generally support missions that are less than $800 million in life-cycle cost.

*Research goals include testing technologies and operational concepts and making observations that can benefit future human activities in space.

*Missions may include:
** Landing on the Moon with a robot that can be tele-operated from Earth and can transmit near-live video.
** Demonstrating a factory to process lunar or asteroid materials for use for various purposes.

-- I also remember a more detailed later document that specifically included a lunar precursor with a ISRU package, I think it would have been in 2015.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: RanulfC on 04/08/2013 06:25 pm
Hi! There is an interesting article about the russian plans to return to the moon:
http://www.space.com/20461-russia-moon-robots-missions.html?cmpid=514648



Thank you Wenni! Welcome to NASASpaceFlight.com Forum!

It is nice to know that some Russian folks are coming up with doable, affordable, and sensible human BLEO space exploration plans.

You seem to have missed or ignored the whole point that the PLAN was for robots and not humans...

Keep trying :)

Randy,

Russia has a doable, useful, and scientifically interesting Lunar destination for its robots and eventual human BLEO base.

Russia is devising a realistic and affordable BLEO human space exploration architecture.
No humans, robotic ONLY. They do NOT have a "realistic/affordable BLEO human space exploration architecture" anymore than the US does. As far as the PTK spacecraft goes it is about as far along as the OTHER 3-4 "advanced" space craft got before they were cancled so far there is nothing to get excited about.

They are facing the exact same poitical issue the US is, politicians "saying" one thing but not supporting what they are saying with either finances or political support.
 
Quote
Russia can attract like minded nations.
India, China and Europe have all indicated that they would "like" to pursue Lunar robotic missions. They all have instead pretty much shut down those efforts or greatly reduced their priority. Just like the US.
Quote
Russia is designing a Lunar capable spacecraft:
Russia is designing a vehicle equivilent to Orion, note that they are NOT working on a human landing vehicle just like the United States is not.
Quote
We are building an Orion Lunar mission spacecraft, a Nova class Moon mission launcher, and have zero real BLEO human space exploration architectural planning because we don't have an affordable, doable, and official destination.
Close. We're building a huge, expensive, launch vehicle that will be rarely used because of its cost (pretty much all the reasons that ended up being used NOT to build the NOVA launch vehicle in the first place) and so have no funding available, allocated or planned for developing and building a "human exploration architecture" that uses any other components OTHER than the SLS and Orion spacecraft. This of course means that we can ONLY make plans to "go" where this equipment is capabable of going. This is NOT the Moon, or Mars and that pretty much leaves an L1/2 space station or an asteroid where no lander or other equipment is needed.

The Russians have HAD the capability to use their existing infrastructure to plan and carry out different types of Lunar missions for decades. However they seem to be on a path (if this current spacecraft doesn't end up cancled as well) to follow towards the current dead-end that the United States is pursuing where they will end up with a "BLEO" capsule and a HLV but no funding or capability to actually DO anything with it. In a way this makes some practical/political sense since their government has been no more interested than ours actually pursuing any actual BLEO manned missions or operations which would mean they don't really need an real increased capability just as is the case with the United States.
(And before you start another "anti-Obama" rant on the subject lets be CLEAR that this has been an unofficial but very VISIBLE policy since the mid-1960s and it has made NO difference WHO was President OR if they had a stated "destination" or "goal" at all. The fact that Russia, India, China, and Europe have ALL had similar "asperations" over the decades and also show a marked lack of progress despite stated policy to the contrary is probably a very good indication that the "reasons" are far from simple. No matter what we'd LIKE them to be)
Quote
Maybe we should join the Russians, Golden Spike, and other Lunar surface minded folks and get our astronauts, engineers, and scientists, to the polar regions of the Moon. We could even do ISRU there. That would be nice, wouldn't it?
Nice? Yes of course it would, and in a "prefect" world it might even be a possible thing.

Let me first point out that "Golden Spike" and many other "Lunar Surface Minded" folks are not planning on using ISRU nor are they planning on setting up large scale infrastructure as would be required to seriously pursue ISRU and Lunar resource extraction and production. That isn't their "focus" or their "goals" which are in fact not at all applicable to the goals and focus of National Space programs such as those pursued by the US, Russia, China, India and Europe.

For the most part while many of the former have "plans" those plans are based solely on "commercial" interests and are not compatiable with, nor able to be intergrated with National Space Programs. Thre is also the issue that the majority of these endevours lack any significant funding of any sort, this in turn leads to those efforts "plans" normally being rather vague in key areas and avoiding attaching funding or "numbers" to them unless necessary.

On the other hand the latter in the form of National Space Programs have money but due to political and other needs those funds are normally neither constant or predicable and there is a lot of political pressure NOT to associate national programs with or fund commmercial activities with public money.

On the gripping hand, the suggestion of "cooperation" between National Space Programs requires a significant and extended effort in coordination of the various, sometimes mutually exclusive and contradictory goals, focus, and ambitions of the programs themselves as well as the changing and volitile political and public relations aspects of each nation or group. There is always a very high cost in money, political will, communications and stress' involved with cooperative international efforts. The example of the ISS in both cost overruns and political issues shows that while it would "nice" if we all "played-together" in reality it is not a very likely formula for a "long-term, sustainable, and in-expensive" program.

As an "example" of what you're suggesting let me point out that IF we were going to "join" with "other Lunar Surface Minded" people you have to ask the hard question(s) of HOW and WHAT and WHERE... (As well as "how much," "how little," "who," etc)

1) The US is building the SLS and BLEO Orion spacecraft. We're spending a lot of money and effort on this so it would NOT be "unreasonable" (others will of course NOT see it this way) for us to insist that the Russians drop ALL efforts in building HLV capability and a BLEO spacecraft. (Perhaps "assign" them to build the Lunar Lander and its support equipment BUT they have to do so so that it will work on and with the SLS and Orion)

2) Europe could work on the in-space propulsion systems and possibly the solar or other power systems. (As long as everything is compatable with the SLS/Orion "main" components)

3) China and India which lack large manned space flight capability or experiance would be regulated to working on surface systems (extraction and processing) and robotic system.

And this is just the "begining" of the various issues and needs. (If you can't see "problems" already you haven't been paying attention close enough to international politics :) )

Quote
Or do we Americans simply prefer visions of unfunded, costly, and high risk asteroid and Mars missions?
The "False Logic" here is that what "Americans" prefer/don't-prefer is a material question with any bearing on the subject being discussed.

(I need to point out a grammatic/logic issue you keep "refering" to that you need to change and/or re-think as well; If something is "unfunded" it is impossible for it to be "costly" since it is in fact "Unfunded" and therefore actually "costs" nothing until such a time as it is either funded or an actual funding "allowance" is assigned to it. In the case of ANY of the "possible" BLEO missions currently under discussion the "costs" are very tenative due to the unknown costs of and budget for ANY BLEO missions at the present time. We at this point know that each flight of the SLS/Orion IS going to be expensive mostly because of the in-frequent flight rate and general high costs associated with seriously under-utilizing both the capability and infrastructure of NASA and the SLS itself. What the Orion spacecraft DOES once it is launched by the SLS is going to be less of a cost factor in general because of the general high cost of the SLS/Orion program itself. It will matter little if the Orion stays in LEO, goes around the Moon or visits L1/2, it will "cost" less than a lunar landing because none of these require a lander research, development and building program. The MAJOR reason that the L1/2/DSH concept has been put forward is that it will cost less to develop and build than a "Lander" vehicle and can use a large portion of already existing or developed equipment.)

"Americans" can be shown (depending on which polls you read, who asked the questions and WHAT questions were asked) to be HIGHLY interested in putting people on Mars as soon as possible. They can also be shown to want the same thing with the Moon and about a dozen "other" space concepts. In general though what Americans WANT is highly dependent on specific priorities of which "Space Exploration" is NOT one of the top ones. This is reflected by the fact that the "representatives" of the American population (Congress) have no specific or priority belief that our space program requires "focused goals" or "specific-destinations" which in itself is clearly evident in funding levels and priorities.

Congress specifically "rejected" an expanded Lunar robotics program, precursor ISRU missions and even ISRU research and this is a position they have followed for several decades. NASA as a government agency can only "do" what it is authorized and funded to do and even then ACTUAL funding has more "say" on what is "authorized" than any actual wording does.

Russia, India, China, etc none of the other "lunar-minded" nations are "confused" or even surprised by "our" dismissal of doing a Lunar program since we are simply admitting publicly what we've been showing is our intent for decades. We HAVE after all "been-there" and we WERE the "first" ones to do so.
An important fact to keep in mind though is despite this lack of enthusiasm and seeming indifference to the possibility of anyone else going and doing something on the Moon EVERYONE else is finding the task is not as easy/cheap/desirable as some might think...

Randy
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: RanulfC on 04/08/2013 06:40 pm
I don't really understand why HM is enthusiastic about this approach, since it is very similar to the Obama proposal to actually land a precursor in his term and focus on affordable things done frequently instead of Constellation-sized projects that collapse before achieving anything.
Note he's "enthusiastic" as long as nobody actually MENTIONED that Obama had the same idea :)

But it's not a "new" process either, NASA has always planned on putting a lot of robots "on-the-ground" first even if only to pre-survey like the did with Apollo.
(IIRC Obama also mentioned a "reusable" in-space transport as a "goal" which never made it out of Congress either :( )
Quote
..but in any case I really do like it for those same reasons, and it could in fact be a good starting point for manned missions. The whole concept of architectures so expensive that you just dont even consider sending them ten times unmanned before the first manned flight is just the wrong way to go IMO.
Same here actually but the point is that it HAS to be PART of an overall program/plan. The problem as you note is "we" (the US) seem to be totally doing it wrong specifically and by the numbers :)

Unfortunatly as "I" pointed out, NASA can only "do" what they are funded and authorized to do and those two "requirements" are political footballs that can be "either/or" as well as "neither/nor" at times :)
Quote
It is probably stretching it a bit, but I bet you could put a person on the moon and bring them home again with nothing a lander capable of one ton, if enough infrastructure was in place from previous unmanned one ton cargoes and it was refuel-able. You might not have abort to orbit, but you would have a huge flight history and multiple previous landers which has to be better than landing humans on the first go with no such backup. Also you would already have rovers in place that had been teleoperated for a year or so but could be used by a human.
That's been brought up more than once, however it takes an actual COMMITMENT both of political and financial support and the willingness to take a "longer" than politically normal view. Which brings the question right back to HOW do "we" get the politicians to quit playing politics and actually SUPPORT expanding the "space program" into something sustainable and continious rather than the ocassional "stunts" and specticles they are used to?

Randy
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 04/09/2013 10:13 am

Quote
It is probably stretching it a bit, but I bet you could put a person on the moon and bring them home again with nothing a lander capable of one ton, if enough infrastructure was in place from previous unmanned one ton cargoes and it was refuel-able. You might not have abort to orbit, but you would have a huge flight history and multiple previous landers which has to be better than landing humans on the first go with no such backup. Also you would already have rovers in place that had been teleoperated for a year or so but could be used by a human.
That's been brought up more than once, however it takes an actual COMMITMENT both of political and financial support and the willingness to take a "longer" than politically normal view. Which brings the question right back to HOW do "we" get the politicians to quit playing politics and actually SUPPORT expanding the "space program" into something sustainable and continious rather than the ocassional "stunts" and specticles they are used to?

Randy
Ah yeah, probably by me. Another of my hobby horses.  :-[

I think politicians follow lobbies and lobbies represent existing jobs, which is why I think it would be so good to start landing something, anything at all. I think once a few hundred million a regularly spent on surface operations it will get a lobby. If NASA gets out of the space trucking business it could become the most important HSF lobby: to have missions that involve actual surface activity of some sort.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 04/09/2013 02:24 pm
....
Close. We're building a huge, expensive, launch vehicle that will be rarely used because of its cost (pretty much all the reasons that ended up being used NOT to build the NOVA launch vehicle in the first place) and so have no funding available, allocated or planned for developing and building a "human exploration architecture" that uses any other components OTHER than the SLS and Orion spacecraft. This of course means that we can ONLY make plans to "go" where this equipment is capabable of going. This is NOT the Moon, or Mars and that pretty much leaves an L1/2 space station or an asteroid where no lander or other equipment is needed.
....


Russia needs to get together with the international community and see which countries could work together to build a Lander.

America should not be expected to contribute more to the Moon's polar surface and high Lunar orbit missions than the already funded and very capable SLS and Orion combination.



President George W. Bush stated, "Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program. Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions."

And, "Also, the moon is home to abundant resources. Its soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air. We can use our time on the moon to develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems that will allow us to function in other, more challenging environments. The moon is a logical step toward further progress and achievement."

And, "With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond."

From: President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program  Remarks by the President on U.S. Space Policy   January 14, 2004 NASA Headquarters  Washington, D.C.
At: http://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm



"Leaving aside the issue that few (or no) near-Earth asteroids are suitable targets for human missions, at least with current space systems (launch vehicle, life-support, total delta-v), the basic problem with human missions to NEAs is time – the length of travel time to get to a NEA, added to the amount of loiter time around it when you get there, followed by the time needed to get you safely home again.  During all this time, the crew is exposed to the full fury of solar particle events (the “coronal mass ejections” that can fry you in a few minutes time) and the steady stream of galactic cosmic rays – radiation unfiltered or stopped by the Earth’s Van Allen radiation belts which protect crews aboard the ISS in low Earth orbit.  Add to this issue the fundamental problem of abort scenarios.  If things go wrong with your spacecraft soon after departure what do you do?  Can you get back home?  Usually, the answer is “not quickly or easily.”  The concatenation of these events usually ends in the sinisterly bureaucratic phrase, 'loss of crew.'"

Let’s Haul Asteroids!  By Paul Spudis    April 5, 2013   
At: http://www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/lets-haul-asteroids/



"This report describes the results of a study sponsored by the Keck Institute for Space Studies (KISS) to investigate the feasibility of identifying, robotically capturing, and returning an entire Near-Earth Asteroid (NEA) to the vicinity of the Earth by the middle of the next decade."

And, "The delivery of a 500-t asteroid to lunar orbit, therefore, represents a mass amplification factor of about 28-to-1. That is, whatever mass is launched to LEO, 28 times that mass would be delivered to high lunar orbit. Longer flight times, higher power SEP systems, or a target object in a particularly favorable orbit could increase the mass amplification factor from 28-to-1 to 70-to-1 or greater.

And, "Galactic Cosmic Rays: Exposure to Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) may represent a show-stopper for human exploration in deep space [10]. The only known solution is to provide sufficient radiation shielding mass. One of the potentially earliest uses of the returned asteroid material would be for radiation shielding against GCRs. Astronauts could cannibalize the asteroid for material to upgrade their deep space habitat with radiation shielding."

And, "Fourth, the destination orbit would be a high lunar orbit so that even at the end of mission the natural perturbations of the trajectory would cause an eventual impact on the Moon, not on Earth. This can be insured by the laws of celestial mechanics and selection of orbit. Although multiple levels of redundancy would be employed to maintain control of the asteroid, in the event of a failure in which control is lostthe asteroid would also impact the Moon.

And, "Sending a human to a Near-Earth Asteroid now would require months of flight time and consequent life support and radiation protection systems not yet designed."

And, "After lowering the asteroid to a stable lunar orbit, a high-fidelity propagation was performed using Copernicus [38] and all potential perturbations for a demonstration of stability. The asteroid remained captured in lunar orbit after 20 years of simulation without any additional station-keeping as shown in Fig. 15."

From: Asteroid Retrieval Feasibility Study
At: http://kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/asteroid_final_report.pdf



Limited and short missions to an unstable L1 or L2 destination space station that has inadequate GCR protection aren't useful or needed for anything at this time or for a long time into the future. Russia and other nations fully understand that the Moon is the only useful destination that we have. Even folks who are considering using robots to haul asteroids could eventually be putting their asteroids into stable high Lunar orbits where there isn't a need for "any additional station-keeping".

The highly useful Moon truly should be the focus of Russian, American, and the world 's human BLEO space missions, no matter what type of BLEO missions we are contemplating in the near future.   



"At a joint meeting of the Space Studies Board and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board in Washington on Thursday, the head of that study, Al Carnesale of UCLA, reiterated those concerns. “Since it was announced, there was less enthusiasm for it among the community broadly,” he said of the asteroid mission goal. 'The more we learn about it, the more we hear about it, people seem less enthusiastic about it.'"

And, "Carnesale suggested that, in his opinion, it might be better to shelve the asteroid mission goal in favor of a human return to the Moon. 'There’s a great deal of enthusiasm, almost everywhere, for the Moon,' he said. 'I think there might be, if no one has to swallow their pride and swallow their words, and you can change the asteroid mission a little bit… it might be possible to move towards something that might be more of a consensus.'"

And, "Carnesale was followed at the meeting by NASA administrator Charles Bolden, who showed no sign of accepting Carnesale’s advice. He noted that a number of nations have expressed interest, to varying degrees, in human lunar exploration. 'They all have dreams of putting human on the Moon,' he said. 'I have told every head of agency of every partner agency that if you assume the lead in a human lunar mission, NASA will be a part of that. NASA wants to be a participant.'"

From: Back to the Moon? Not any time soon, says Bolden  By Jeff Foust      April 5, 2013
At: http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/05/back-to-the-moon-not-any-time-soon-says-bolden/



Let's see. Folks everywhere want to make good use of the Moon.

NASA doesn't want to provide a leadership to such missions Lunar surface missions, but "NASA wants to be a participant" in human Lunar missions.

This would appear to be a good situation for Russia to provide the leadership needed to get humans to both the Moon's polar surface and to robotically captured asteroids in stable high Lunar orbits.

Russia provides the leadership and organizes who does what, including who builds the Lander.

America contributes the SLS launcher and the Orion Lunar mission spacecraft.

Some 'horse trading' needs to be done by Russia and then international human missions to the Lunar polar surface and to robotically captured NEAs that are put into stable high Lunar orbits will become affordable, doable, and supported around the world because, "There’s a great deal of enthusiasm, almost everywhere, for the Moon."


Edited.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Jim on 04/09/2013 02:33 pm


President George W. Bush stated, "Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program. Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions."

And, "Also, the moon is home to abundant resources. Its soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air. We can use our time on the moon to develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems that will allow us to function in other, more challenging environments. The moon is a logical step toward further progress and achievement."

And, "With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond."

From: President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program  Remarks by the President on U.S. Space Policy   January 14, 2004 NASA Headquarters  Washington, D.C.
At: http://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm


Once again another post with a lot of meaningless quotes.  Just because Bush said them doesn't make it true.  The prove is that congress didn't back it up with money
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 04/09/2013 02:46 pm


President George W. Bush stated, "Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program. Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions."

And, "Also, the moon is home to abundant resources. Its soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air. We can use our time on the moon to develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems that will allow us to function in other, more challenging environments. The moon is a logical step toward further progress and achievement."

And, "With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond."

From: President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program  Remarks by the President on U.S. Space Policy   January 14, 2004 NASA Headquarters  Washington, D.C.
At: http://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm


Once again another post with a lot of meaningless quotes.  Just because Bush said them doesn't make it true.  The prove is that congress didn't back it up with money


Jim, do you want to stay in LEO or do you want to go where the rest of the world wants to go?

State your position and quit whining and sniping.

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Jim on 04/09/2013 02:59 pm

Jim, do you want to stay in LEO or do you want to go where the rest of the world wants to go?

State your position and quit whining and sniping.


False choice and premise. 
What I think what the US Gov't should be funding does not conflict with my views on human space exploration.
Anyways, the "rest of the world" is not going anywhere either.  Nothing but talk and no money backing up.   
Whining?  Look in a mirror, your posts are nothing but. 
It isn't sniping pointing out non credible posts.

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: RanulfC on 04/09/2013 04:12 pm

Quote
It is probably stretching it a bit, but I bet you could put a person on the moon and bring them home again with nothing a lander capable of one ton, if enough infrastructure was in place from previous unmanned one ton cargoes and it was refuel-able. You might not have abort to orbit, but you would have a huge flight history and multiple previous landers which has to be better than landing humans on the first go with no such backup. Also you would already have rovers in place that had been teleoperated for a year or so but could be used by a human.
That's been brought up more than once, however it takes an actual COMMITMENT both of political and financial support and the willingness to take a "longer" than politically normal view. Which brings the question right back to HOW do "we" get the politicians to quit playing politics and actually SUPPORT expanding the "space program" into something sustainable and continious rather than the ocassional "stunts" and specticles they are used to?
Ah yeah, probably by me. Another of my hobby horses.  :-[
If it makes you feel any better it's NOT just "you" though :)

The problem is politics can and will only get you so far and colonization, large scale ISRU, and resource extraction are places where that won't go.
Quote
I think politicians follow lobbies and lobbies represent existing jobs, which is why I think it would be so good to start landing something, anything at all. I think once a few hundred million a regularly spent on surface operations it will get a lobby. If NASA gets out of the space trucking business it could become the most important HSF lobby: to have missions that involve actual surface activity of some sort.
Somewhat :) The problem is that same "politics" set NASA up AS the gatekeeper and reason for spending money. If they take that away then they lose reasons to spend money through NASA and thence some "control" over that money. Space flight in general and HSF in particular don't have any special "appeal" or incentive for them to actually spend money to ACCOMPLISH anything. As long as money gets spent in the right places it doesn't matter the amount or the actual effect.
Things might be different if there was some sort of HSF "lobby" but "space advocates" are so fragmented and have so many various agenda's they won't even try and cooperate so there is no "lobby" forces in play.

If commercial forces were to start landing regularly on the Moon it would make no difference in the political sitation and simply reinforce the idea that the government doesn't need to spend any money on THAT particular scenerio again.

Randy
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 04/09/2013 04:37 pm

Jim, do you want to stay in LEO or do you want to go where the rest of the world wants to go?

State your position and quit whining and sniping.


False choice and premise. 
What I think what the US Gov't should be funding does not conflict with my views on human space exploration.
Anyways, the "rest of the world" is not going anywhere either.  Nothing but talk and no money backing up.   
Whining?  Look in a mirror, your posts are nothing but. 
It isn't sniping pointing out non credible posts.





Is your negative politics simply about trying to discourage the Russian space program and have them not develop doable international human and robotic Lunar missions?

Why do you continually make "non credible" posts that there isn't enough money for international Moon missions and rigidly support the position that nothing is doable for America except robots and having NASA's leadership endlessly blather about costly human asteroid and Mars missions that congress doesn't seem inclined to fund? 

What should NASA do? Ignore the laws you don't like? Close its doors? Send only robots BLEO?

Currently, NASA is depending on Russian launches to get astronauts to the ISS.

Our 'private' LEO human spaceflight transport companies are moving slowly and sucking hard on NASA's budget while many folks loudly and falsely claim those companies can do human Moon and Mars missions without significant government investment.   

Jim, give a clear and doable international BLEO human spaceflight program and don't just snipe, duck, and run away. Please point out what is doable and desirable for Russia to do for Moon missions, which happens to be the topic of this thread. If you cannot come up with anything, simply admit it.


Edited.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Jim on 04/09/2013 04:54 pm

1.  Are your negative politics simply trying to discourage the Russian space program and have them not develop doable international human and robotic Lunar missions?

2.  Why do you continually make "non credible" posts that there isn't enough money for international Moon missions and rigidly support the position that nothing is doable for America except robots and having NASA's leadership endlessly blather about costly human asteroid and Mars missions that congress doesn't seem inclined to fund? 

3.  What should NASA do? Ignore the laws you don't like? Close its doors? Send only robots BLEO?

4. Currently, NASA is depending on Russian launches to get astronauts to the ISS.

5. Our 'private' LEO human spaceflight transport companies are moving slowly and sucking hard on NASA's budget while many folks loudly and falsely claim those companies can do human Moon and Mars missions without significant government investment.   

6.  Jim, give a clear and doable international BLEO human spaceflight program and don't just snipe, duck, and run away. Please point out what is doable and desirable for Russia to do for Moon missions, which happens to be the topic of this thread. If you cannot come up with anything, simply admit it.


1.  I have nothing to do with it.  Anybody with common sense can see that the Russian space program has no real money or intentions of doing any real exploration.

2.  They are very credible posts and reflect reality.

3.  Yes, NASA should only sent robots to BLEO.  There is no need for NASA or the USG to fund manned missions to BLEO.  There is no beneficial return to the USG to do so.

4.  Yes, and NASA should pay for a US company to provide the service.

5.  a.  They are slow because they are under funded
b.  There is no need for govt funding of human Moon and Mars missions.  If commercial companies want to go then they can find their own funding

6.  I don't need to provide a plan, because there is nothing doable and desirable for Russia


You just don't understand, there is no need for govt funding of human Moon and Mars missions because there is no benefit to the gov't.

 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: RanulfC on 04/09/2013 05:01 pm
Russia needs to get together with the international community and see which countries could work together to build a Lander.
Russia has made no efforts to do so so that's one strike against the idea already. At present they "seem" to want to go it alone and they have every right to do so if they feel like it. Then again they PROBABLY won't do anything at all...
Quote
America should not be expected to contribute more to the Moon's polar surface and high Lunar orbit missions than the already funded and very capable SLS and Orion combination.
SLS and Orion are not "capable" of anything, they haven't flown yet. On the other hand Russia could logically argue that they already HAVE a very powerful launch vehicle and that the United Statets should drop SLS/Orion in favor of building a lunar landing vehicle compatable with the Russian launch vehicle.

The only 'expectation' in an international negotiation at this point is that everyone will have their own idea of what the problems are and who should work on which problems. The "problems" being everyone else ideas.
(This is how I pretty much know you've never worked on "cooperative" programs before :)

Quote
President George W. Bush stated,....
Nothing of importance since his OWN party and Congress (controlled by his party and willing to back him to the fullest on any OTHER issue) did not allocat, authorize or fund his program.
Quote
Let’s Haul Asteroids!  By Paul Spudis    April 5, 2013   
At: http://www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/lets-haul-asteroids/
Paul Spudi has his opinion also, though again he has no support of anyone who actually decides policy or funding so what he says is immaterial to the discussion.

Quote
Limited and short missions to an unstable L1 or L2 destination space station that has inadequate GCR protection aren't useful or needed for anything at this time or for a long time into the future.
And yet they are currently the ONLY thing NASA has the funds and (hopefully soon) will have the capability of doing with the budget, equipment and limitations it has been given. So our choices, which you seem to keep ignoring in favor of proposing something which is NOT among the choices, is not funded, or even politicaly acceptable, is to continue to do "nothing" or to do something useful with the capability, funding, and time we DO have such as putting up an L2 gateway and begining to gather data and knowledge that will be required for missions beyond the Earth/Moon system...

Quote
Russia and other nations fully understand that the Moon is the only useful destination that we have.
Slightly incorrect. The actual statement to be truthful and honest should say the following: "Russia and the Other nations fully understand that the Moon is the only possible destination outside of Low-Earth-Orbit that they have the possible technology and capability to reach. They may or may not actually fund missions there and they may or may not actually be successful. The do not at this time have any plans to construct or operate any large scale ISRU opertions and may not even do ISRU experiments though they plan to consider doing them."
Quote
The highly useful Moon truly should be the focus of Russian, American, and the world 's human BLEO space missions, no matter what type of BLEO missions we are contemplating in the near future.   
You forgot the first part which should read: "I believe but can not provide any proof that... The highly useful Moon truly should be the focus of Russian, American, and the world 's human BLEO space missions, no matter what type of BLEO missions we are contemplating in the near future." Even though I know there is currently no such planning in the works or attempts being made to do so."

I'd agree with that beings its true.

Quote
"Carnesale suggested that, in his opinion,... "
Has no effect on those who set National Space Policy and no effect whatsoever on those who actually control NASA direction politically or financially.
Quote
Let's see. Folks everywhere want to make good use of the Moon.
Old story, no financing, no political support, nothing happening. This has not changed at all.
Quote
NASA doesn't want to provide a leadership to such missions Lunar surface missions, but "NASA wants to be a participant" in human Lunar missions.
Incorrect, NASA WANTS to "provide leadership" as they have been directed to, they would also welcome the chance to participate in human Lunar Missions, however they are not authorized to do either, nor do they have a budget to do so. This is by design by Congress.
Quote
This would appear to be a good situation for Russia to provide the leadership needed to get humans to both the Moon's polar surface and to robotically captured asteroids in stable high Lunar orbits. Russia provides the leadership and organizes who does what, including who builds the Lander.

Russia has no such "leadership" ambitions and while they would welcome "participation" in their program they would not and will not be anyone one else dictate that program. Their ships, their rockets, their plan. Period.
Quote
America contributes the SLS launcher and the Orion Lunar mission spacecraft.
Russia has no interest in using or planning around the SLS or Orion spacecraft. They have their own plans and if NASA wishes to participate they can drop the SLS and Orion and pay the Russians to ride on THEIR vehicles. Thank you.
Quote
Some 'horse trading' needs to be done by Russia...
You may have slept through recent history but Russia is no longer going to play "second-fiddle" or "poor-relation" to the United States or anyone else. (President Putin's words by the way) Russia will provide participation and cooperation to any international cooperative efforts but they will neither constrain themselves to or agree to any cooperative effort that is not fully and equally an effort between equal and soverign nations. Russia will not have internal or external policy questioned or interfered with as conditions to any cooperative effort and Russia demands that any cooperative efforts be fully equal and reciperative and that Russian input be of equal value. (Short form? If the US and Russia ever build anything in space together again the Russians get to design it and the US can be the "contractor" this time and build for the Russian Space Agency)

Russia has money, power, and international prestige and if the United States wants to "cooperate" with Russia in a space project then they can feel free to buy Russian Rockets, ride on Russian Spacecraft and do things Russias way. Period.
Quote
... and then international human missions to the Lunar polar surface and to robotically captured NEAs that are put into stable high Lunar orbits will become affordable, doable, and supported around the world because, "There’s a great deal of enthusiasm, almost everywhere, for the Moon."
Replace the word "Moon" with "Mars" and it's all been said before.

Note, "Affordable, doable, and supported" are NOT politically necessary for any government space program and are almost never used as "requirements" in any way shape or form in their make up. The problem here is that in general at all levels NO ONE in the United States Government supports or advocates in any real way a RETURN to the Moon let alone going there to establish an expensive and un-realistic ISRU extraction system. IF the "government" decides to send NASA to Mars they will (it is assumed with SLS/Orion) have all the capability they need to perform the mission.

Your particular issue is that you WISH to believe that there is a segment of the United States Government which actually CARES about, or is CONCERNED with expanding American space efforts and is looking to a future of American space power and place. Unfortunatly if such a segment did exist is has been unable to get any significant support either financial or political to appear in over 40+ years and it is unlikely that such a group even exists.

Russia has HAD the capability to visit the Moon since shortly after the United States did and has SIGNIFICANTLY not done so. There is no indication that they paln on anything but a short series of robotic probes with various experimental packages in the future.

Randy
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: RanulfC on 04/09/2013 05:24 pm
Is your negative politics simply about trying to discourage the Russian space program and have them not develop doable international human and robotic Lunar missions?
Pure rhetoric here Happy YOU know as well as anyone that NOTHING said here is going to have any major effect on ANYONES program be it US, Russian or other. The main issue here is that YOU keep trying to assume more "interest," money, and political support than really exists. And then you go and "assume" that it all is
ALSO great interest in EVERYBODY doing so in some international program with no evidece whatsoever of such cooperative interests.
Quote
Why do you continually make "non credible" posts that there isn't enough money for international Moon missions...
You have yet to show any credible" evidence that there IS enough money, interest, or planning FOR such missions.

But this THREAD is about how "Russia" would go to the Moon which has been answered several times. LIke the US they would most likely NOT seek "international" partners and go it alone. They HAVE the technology and knowledge to do so but as with the US they seem to NOT have the political will and money to do so.

Trying to construct a fantasy scenerio where they "get-together" with every other nation with a space program and embark on some quest to build ISRU extraction and processing facilities and huge moon bases is not anywhere in anything that is being said let alone actually considered by Russia or anyone else.

Ignoring reality just because you don't like it isn't getting this conversation anywhere. Discussing what NASA and the US does or does not do isn't staying on subject with this thread. Like it or not Russia seems to be on the same boat as NASA and the US, lots of rhetoric but no support or funding. That does not seem likely to change any time soon and no "cooperative" effort is likely to change that fact.
Quote
Jim, give a clear and doable international BLEO human spaceflight program and don't just snipe, duck, and run away.
He doesn't have to do so as its not the subject of this thread but then again YOU continue to insist on an "international" BLEO human spaceflight progam and he just keeps pointing out where YOUR plan does not match reality which makes it clear that your plan is also not "doable" either.
Quote
Please point out what is doable and desirable for Russia to do for Moon missions, which happens to be the topic of this thread.
Actually the TOPIC of this thread is HOW Russia would go to the Moon, not what is "doable or desirable" for them during those missions. More mechanics and less politics and pie-in-the-sky.

The "how" is pretty easy and it is plain they are would not stray far from their standard "brute-force" approach. You seem to be the only person who keeps ignoring this fact.
Quote
If you cannot come up with anything, simply admit it.
Hello pot... You haven't yet :)

Randy
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 04/09/2013 05:38 pm
I am surprised that this thread is still active... it went OT within half a page of getting out of the station... Nothing worth reading here, just a bunch of Space Policy rants, rigidly locked onto their own hobby horses...

just in case nobody has read the subject of the thread lately it is:

HOW would Russia go to the moon???

great promise from the perspective of the OP... but got shanghaied by a couple of Press Gangs...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 04/09/2013 11:22 pm
I am surprised that this thread is still active... it went OT within half a page of getting out of the station... Nothing worth reading here, just a bunch of Space Policy rants, rigidly locked onto their own hobby horses...

just in case nobody has read the subject of the thread lately it is:

HOW would Russia go to the moon???

great promise from the perspective of the OP... but got shanghaied by a couple of Press Gangs...



Russia faces the same BLEO problem as America. BLEO missions are very expensive and the only logical goal is the Moon.

The only practical way to do such Lunar missions is with international cooperation.

Why have some folks been convinced that government led scientific research and tech development in LEO is doable and useful, but government led scientific research and tech development on the Moon is impossible? 



"Carnesale was followed at the meeting by NASA administrator Charles Bolden, who showed no sign of accepting Carnesale’s advice. He noted that a number of nations have expressed interest, to varying degrees, in human lunar exploration. 'They all have dreams of putting human on the Moon,' he said. 'I have told every head of agency of every partner agency that if you assume the lead in a human lunar mission, NASA will be a part of that. NASA wants to be a participant.'"

From: Back to the Moon? Not any time soon, says Bolden  By Jeff Foust      April 5, 2013
At: http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/05/back-to-the-moon-not-any-time-soon-says-bolden/



From the available evidence, it appears that America would participate with a Russian led effort to go back to the Moon.  Jim and other folks are unhappy with such an idea and would prefer a NASA and world that does nothing with BLEO human missions because it fits with their limited vision about what governments should be doing.

Russia is clearly pushing for international missions to the Lunar surface.

NASA claims astronauts should investigate robotically captured asteroids. But where would those captured asteroids be brought to? Stable high Lunar orbits.



"Sending a human to a Near-Earth Asteroid now would require months of flight time and consequent life support and radiation protection systems not yet designed."

And, "After lowering the asteroid to a stable lunar orbit, a high-fidelity propagation was performed using Copernicus [38] and all potential perturbations for a demonstration of stability. The asteroid remained captured in lunar orbit after 20 years of simulation without any additional station-keeping as shown in Fig. 15."

From: Asteroid Retrieval Feasibility Study
At: http://kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/asteroid_final_report.pdf 


So the Moon is becoming the focus of both America and Russia's attempts to do human and robotic BLEO missions.

If NASA is sending astronauts to stable high Lunar orbit to investigate robotically captured asteroids, then there shouldn't be a big issue about some of those missions going to low Lunar orbit to do surface missions with the Russians and the rest of the world.

The reason it becomes a 'big issue' is simply that it doesn't fit with some of the 'limited government politics' of various posters.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 04/22/2013 02:57 pm
Russia has HAD the capability to visit the Moon since shortly after the United States did and has SIGNIFICANTLY not done so. There is no indication that they paln on anything but a short series of robotic probes with various experimental packages in the future.

Randy

Wait a minute here, since when did the N-1 have a successful test flight, Randy?  They only really would have had that capability in the early 1990s had the USSR not collapsed. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: RanulfC on 04/22/2013 05:43 pm
Russia has HAD the capability to visit the Moon since shortly after the United States did and has SIGNIFICANTLY not done so. There is no indication that they paln on anything but a short series of robotic probes with various experimental packages in the future.

Randy

Wait a minute here, since when did the N-1 have a successful test flight, Randy?  They only really would have had that capability in the early 1990s had the USSR not collapsed. 
Mid-70s to early 80s IIRC is when they really started working on orbital assembly by remote. They didn't actually "need" the N1 or the "Super-Proton" either. There was speculation that they "might" try to up the ante by the mid-70s and land a larger crew for a longer stay. But it became pretty obvious they "lost-interest" after Apollo-11. Coupled with the fact most of the involved "Chief Designers" were pushing bigger rockets still, the actual capability "at-hand" seemed to have been overlooked.

There are hints that it was suggested at points, but it actually seems that more was said about the possibility in the West instead and even then no one was being very detailed. (Given the lack of knowledge concerning actual capabilities its not hard to see why :) )

You really only needed (need) semi-regular access to orbit and the ability to assemble on-orbit (manned or remote) and you can build up and fly a pretty hefty mission structure. But it wasn't near enough to go to Mars and the Moon had already "been-done" by America so there didn't seem to be any interest in the Soviet government.

The current Russian government seems less interested despite the rhetoric, and my own take is that they have less capability now than then. They also seem to be moving more towards the same type of architecture that the US is which might be problimatical. In either case, now they would have to actually put extensive effort and finances into bringing about a manned lunar effort. Neither seems to be going on so far it is only robotics and talk.

Randy
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 04/25/2013 01:49 pm
....

The current Russian government seems less interested despite the rhetoric, and my own take is that they have less capability now than then. They also seem to be moving more towards the same type of architecture that the US is which might be problimatical. In either case, now they would have to actually put extensive effort and finances into bringing about a manned lunar effort. Neither seems to be going on so far it is only robotics and talk.

Randy


Randy, "despite the rhetoric" for America "so far it is only robotics and talk" about Mars.

"They also seem to be moving more towards the same type of architecture that the US is which might be problimatical." Right, Randy knows more than the Russians and NASA about how to do Lunar missions...

Direct missions to the nearby Moon will remain a whole lot more affordable and useful for both the Russian and American governments during the next four to six decades than would sporadic, risky, and extremely costly footprints and flags missions to Mars. Deal with it Randy.

The Russians, our other international space exploration partners, China, India, and Congress are interested in doing human and robotic Lunar surface ISRU missions. You and the President remain confused and in denial about that reality.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 04/26/2013 02:35 pm
...
The main issue here is that YOU keep trying to assume more "interest," money, and political support than really exists.

...
ALSO great interest in EVERYBODY doing so in some international program with no evidece whatsoever of such cooperative interests.
...
Randy



Randy, you do tend to greatly undervalue the shared Russian and American interest in peace.



"Concerning the value of such partnerships, I will say this: we are simply less likely to fight with those nations and societies with whom we seek partnerships in the pursuit of challenging enterprises. Space exploration is an ideal venue for such partnerships and such enterprises. I was a military man for my entire career, one way or another, and I will tell you what every veteran knows: no military man wants to see his friends fight and die if there is any possible way to avoid it. Partnership in space exploration offers us one of those ways."

And, "The Apollo-Soyuz mission was the shining light during the cold war era in our relationship with the Soviet Union. Today, the ISS is the shining light of our partnership with our 15 partners, and the people of their countries, even though other issues between our countries may wax and wane. Our future of human space exploration beyond LEO to the moon and eventually to Mars can also be a shining light to all of the countries who are our partners in this great endeavor."

From: Statement of Thomas P. Stafford, Lt. Gen. USAF (Ret.)  April 23, 2013   United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Science and Space Hearing   Challenges and Opportunities for Human Space Exploration
At: http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=852195af-35cb-4230-9250-bda755fe236d


Edited.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/15/2013 01:52 am
UNDERWATER ASTRONAUT ON THE MOON   September 11, 2013
At: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Astronauts/Underwater_astronaut_on_the_Moon

"ESA astronaut Jean-François Clervoy and ESA astronaut instructor Hervé Stevenin slipped into the roles of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin last week for an underwater simulation of the historic mission to the Moon."

And, "Jean-François and Hervé wore a Comex-designed Gandolfi spacewalk training suit based on the Russian Orlan spacesuit."
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/15/2013 05:44 am
Pretty much how the way has always been seen since the time of Korolev (with a brief side-excursion down a dead-end alley called 'N1' due to the need to race NASA to the Moon and, possibly, Korolev's ego not being able to tolerate von Braun having a bigger rocket than him).

You use multiple launches of MHLVs like a Proton to launch the lander and propulsion module to LEO and then launch a BEO-ready Soyuz (Zond-2?) to bring up the crew.  You then fly a fairly typical EOR, LOR, LOR, direct descent mission.  It might be necessary to include an expendable stores module too, depending on how much life-support endurance can be wrung out of the Soyuz.

The big unexplored area is the endurance of the propulsion module.  It may be necessary to pre-place the ROI propulsion module in LEO due to the fact that Russia lacks any high-Isp engines that can provide propulsion for the TLI, LOR and ROI burns on one fuel load.


[edit]
Added point about Soyuz life support
Pretty good plan. It'd be fairly simple and pretty close to within range of existing Russian capabilities, with the exception of the lander. I bet they could do a couple of these for less cost than a new Mir-type space station (especially if you include ten years of operations on the space station).
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Patchouli on 09/15/2013 06:04 am
Actually the Russians do have a high ISP engine that's equivalent to the RL-10.

The RD-0146 engine.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-0146
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Julesverne on 09/15/2013 06:41 am
Quote
Nothing worth reading here, just a bunch of Space Policy rants, rigidly locked onto their own hobby horses...

So true !
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: QuantumG on 09/15/2013 07:45 am
Quote
Nothing worth reading here, just a bunch of Space Policy rants, rigidly locked onto their own hobby horses...

So true !

You need to leave the author tag in so people know who you are quoting.

Thanks.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 09/15/2013 08:52 am
Actually the Russians do have a high ISP engine that's equivalent to the RL-10.

The RD-0146 engine.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-0146
It seems to be Energia might order RD-0146-derived engines (Isp=470 sec, thrust 10 tonnf, multiple ignitions, extended nozzle) from KBKhA to propel a space-based tug to perform TLI, MCC and LOI burns in order to launch a manned PTK-L to Low Lunar Orbit. RSC Energia during PPTS Technical Project reviewed multiple propulsion options (combinations of KeroLOX and HydroLOX propulsion) for a single and double-stage space tug.
As expected HydroLOX space tug propulsion required smaller LAUNCH vehicle to launch Lunar assembly stack to LEO parking orbit.   
   
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: M129K on 09/15/2013 09:46 am
Quote from: fregate
As there aren't yet a lot of details on Russia's moon plans, figure on this thread being wide-ranging and speculative.  So shoot away and post what you think of Russia's plans and just how you see them being accomplished or stymied.

Alright, I'll do exactly that.

I'm a bit skeptical over Russia's ability to accomplish this but I've alway cared more about the technical side of things. As a launch vehicle, something like a Zenit Heavy, AKA Sodruzhestvo would be ideal in terms of cost. The payload could be something close to 70 tons to LEO, which would be enough to launch either PTK or a 30-ish ton lander in LEO with a big hydrogen fueled EDS. The lander would be sent first and would enter LLO, with the LOI burn being done either by the lander itself or the EDS, that will depend on the size and fuel used by it. Then, PTK is launched. They rendezvous in LLO and the lander brings the crew of four to the surface. Russian anthem plays and they'll have a party on the moon with strong alcohol. After a week they go back into orbit and return to earth in the PTK.

RKK and Khrunichev might have plans to revive Energia but I doubt that will ever come to fruition. Tooling is gone and development would be extremely expensive, and Russia wouldn't be able to afford it. As for Progress's methane powered STK... Don't even think about it.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Julesverne on 09/15/2013 06:14 pm
Quote
Nothing worth reading here, just a bunch of Space Policy rants, rigidly locked onto their own hobby horses...

So true !

You need to leave the author tag in so people know who you are quoting.

Thanks.
Ever heard of Mappy Hartian ?  ;D 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: QuantumG on 09/16/2013 12:27 am
Ever heard of Mappy Hartian ?  ;D

Unfortunately yes, and you tricked me into reading something he wrote.. thanks!

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/16/2013 10:24 am
Quote
Nothing worth reading here, just a bunch of Space Policy rants, rigidly locked onto their own hobby horses...

So true !

You need to leave the author tag in so people know who you are quoting.

Thanks.
Ever heard of Mappy Hartian ?  ;D

Who is Mappy Hartian?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/16/2013 01:58 pm
Russian Lunar missions are likely to be part of an internationally supported program.


Note:

"Capabilities which enable lunar surface exploration advance the readiness of partners for Mars surface missions. Continuous human presence on the Moon may follow, driven by government or non-government rationale, using existing and additional capabilities."

From: The Global Exploration Roadmap    August 2013   by the International Space Exploration
Coordination Group    Members: Canada, Europe, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of
Korea, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States.
At: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/GER_2013_Small_Final.pdf
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/29/2013 01:36 pm
One of Russia's, and America's, future international space exploration partners may well be China, which makes this article useful for consideration.

CZ-9 as reported in Aviation Week
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_09_30_2013_p22-620995.xml

As that article, Chinese Super-Heavy Launcher Designs Exceed Saturn V By Bradley Perrett of Aviation Week & Space Technology  September 30, 2013, notes:

"Chinese engineers are proposing a Moon rocket more powerful than the Saturn V of the Apollo missions and matching the payload of NASA's planned Space Launch System (SLS) Block 2, the unfunded launcher that would put the U.S. back into super-heavy space lift."

"Moon rocket" is a lovely term, isn't it?


Edited.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: M129K on 10/13/2013 09:00 am
"Chinese engineers are proposing a Moon rocket more powerful than the Saturn V of the Apollo missions and matching the payload of NASA's planned Space Launch System (SLS) Block 2, the unfunded launcher that would put the U.S. back into super-heavy space lift."
That means absolutely nothing... Just read it carefully. "The unfunded launcher." That thing is as much of a pipe dream as the sketches on my desk right now. There's a good chance SLS, Falcon Heavy, Angara-7, and Energia-5K are all flying before something like this from China is close to leaving the ground. And all of those launchers are good enough for a "Moon-rocket."
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: M129K on 10/13/2013 09:08 am
If Russia is not capable of developing a SHLV, like is somewhat expected of them, it's still possible to do Lunar exploration using only Angara 7. With roughly 40 tons to LEO, a cryogenic rocket stage with a PMF of 0.88, a mass of 40 tons and an Isp of 463 this stage, when launched on A7, could bring about 19.7 tons into LLO, which hopefully is enough for a PTK/modified Soyuz with enough propellant to return, as well as a three-man lander. Four launches to the moon is pretty reasonable and since A7 would have to be launched from a different pad than the manned launcher, either A5P or Soyuz, they could be launched close enough so that propellant boil-off wouldn't be a problem.

For Mars, a SHLV is probably needed, but that's very far into the future anyway.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 10/23/2013 03:29 pm
If Russia is not capable of developing a SHLV, like is somewhat expected of them, it's still possible to do Lunar exploration using only Angara 7. With roughly 40 tons to LEO, a cryogenic rocket stage with a PMF of 0.88, a mass of 40 tons and an Isp of 463 this stage, when launched on A7, could bring about 19.7 tons into LLO, which hopefully is enough for a PTK/modified Soyuz with enough propellant to return, as well as a three-man lander. Four launches to the moon is pretty reasonable and since A7 would have to be launched from a different pad than the manned launcher, either A5P or Soyuz, they could be launched close enough so that propellant boil-off wouldn't be a problem.

For Mars, a SHLV is probably needed, but that's very far into the future anyway.


Money issues and reducing risks are the main issues.

Stage the Russian Lunar missions from the ISS.

America and Japan could offer Russia, China, India, and the ESA an 8.4 meter diameter MB 60 powered DUUS in exchange for seats and cargo mass to the Lunar Surface.

That could be a low cost win-win situation that offers many useful Lunar transportation backup options. And it would be a risk reducing situation for everyone.

Russia, China, and the ESA could cooperate in building a modest horizontal Lander.

We would need to have zero boil off cryogenic propellent storage capabilities at the ISS.

Any real problems?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: M129K on 10/23/2013 06:33 pm
Money issues and reducing risks are the main issues.

Stage the Russian Lunar missions from the ISS.

America and Japan could offer Russia, China, India, and the ESA an 8.4 meter diameter MB 60 powered DUUS in exchange for seats and cargo mass to the Lunar Surface.

That could be a low cost win-win situation that offers many useful Lunar transportation backup options. And it would be a risk reducing situation for everyone.

Russia, China, and the ESA could cooperate in building a modest horizontal Lander.

We would need to have zero boil off cryogenic propellent storage capabilities at the ISS.

Any real problems?
I mean, if Russia would have no SHLV available. Also, why a horizontal lander? The best lander design I can imagine for Russia is a Briz-M derived one, which would be vertical.

Besides, cryogenic propellant depots are not necessary. If Angara can launch within short enough time spans, boil off is not a problem. Even if it would be, two Briz-M upper stages can do anything an equally sized cryo stage would be able to do for far less cost and without any boil-off.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/24/2013 10:58 am
Just out of interest, what is the best performance available for a lunar cargo lander that uses Fregat as its basis?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: M129K on 10/24/2013 11:04 am
Just out of interest, what is the best performance available for a lunar cargo lander that uses Fregat as its basis?
Depends. Does it only have to land, or does it have to do the entire LEO-TLI-LOI-Landing sequence?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/24/2013 11:40 am
Just out of interest, what is the best performance available for a lunar cargo lander that uses Fregat as its basis?

Depends. Does it only have to land, or does it have to do the entire LEO-TLI-LOI-Landing sequence?

Definitely only the de-orbit and landing. I might not know much but I know enough to guess that requiring it to do TLI too would reduce the payload reaching the lunar surface down to a trivial figure.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 10/26/2013 07:35 am
Just out of interest, what is the best performance available for a lunar cargo lander that uses Fregat as its basis?
Depends. Does it only have to land, or does it have to do the entire LEO-TLI-LOI-Landing sequence?


"A version called Fregat-SB can be used with Zenit-2SB rocket. This version has a block of drop-off tanks which makes increased payload capability possible. Fregat-SB was launched for the first time on 20 January 2011, when it lifted the Elektro-L weather satellite into geosynchronous orbit.[3]"

From: Fregat     Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fregat



If the Fregat-SB could drop off some tanks at the International Space Station and 'pick up' a very large "block of drop-off tanks" at the same time, the beyond LEO possibilities are interesting.

If the Fregat-SB could drop off the large block of tanks and 'pick up' some appropriately sized tanks and landing gear while stopping over at a stable frozen low Lunar orbit, it could then proceed to land a reasonable payload mass on the Moon.

If the 'Fregat-SB Lander' is carrying a robotic rover and lands with a significant amount of propellant still on board, after a few months the rover could climb back onto the Fregat and they could do a quick hop flight to another interesting location.   


"'There are actually a number of 'frozen orbits' where a spacecraft can stay in a low lunar orbit indefinitely. They occur at four inclinations: 27º, 50º, 76º, and 86º'—the last one being nearly over the lunar poles."

From: Bizarre Lunar Orbits
At: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/06nov_loworbit/ 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: M129K on 10/27/2013 02:59 pm
Just out of interest, what is the best performance available for a lunar cargo lander that uses Fregat as its basis?

Depends. Does it only have to land, or does it have to do the entire LEO-TLI-LOI-Landing sequence?

Definitely only the de-orbit and landing. I might not know much but I know enough to guess that requiring it to do TLI too would reduce the payload reaching the lunar surface down to a trivial figure.

Alright, i finally got myself to calculating this, and it seems that a Fregat doing only the descent would be able to get about 4.4 tons of cargo down to the surface, which is a surprisingly high amount. An Apollo AM would probably fit on that. If it has to do LOI too, it goes down to 2.2 tons, which is still useful for a resupply cargo lander. It doesn't even have the delta V to land itself on the surface if it has to do TLI too.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/27/2013 03:22 pm
Thanks for everyone who took my whim seriously. From M129K's comments, I'm thinking it would be practical to use Fregat as the basis of a cargo and short-duration crew lander using BRIZ-M as the TLI stage. However, I suspect that there still would need to be Earth orbit rendezvous and assembly.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 11/01/2013 01:48 am
Since we're on the subject of ways Russia would fling things around and onto the moon, I thought I'd share the latest from Anatoly Zak's site: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk_2013.html#kd.

Most interesting to me is the Russians, for now, are ruling out a two-launch approach for flinging a manned PTK capsule around the moon. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: M129K on 11/01/2013 06:20 am
Thanks for everyone who took my whim seriously. From M129K's comments, I'm thinking it would be practical to use Fregat as the basis of a cargo and short-duration crew lander using BRIZ-M as the TLI stage. However, I suspect that there still would need to be Earth orbit rendezvous and assembly.

Briz M probably can't take that stack to Lunar Orbit. A cryogenic upper stage like KVTK would be very helpful in this case. This would, however, allow for a single launch sortie when launched on just Angara A7; you would only need a crew return vehicle, which might turn out to be a bit of a problem though. Maybe a Soyuz, stripped down for two people (remove Orbital Module?) with a Fregat upper stage would be light enough for a single A7 to get into LLO.

If they could get the Soyuz down to about 5 tons, the Fregat upper stage would give enough delta V to enter LLO and return from it. A7 is probably capable of that.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 11/02/2013 06:37 pm
Since we're on the subject of ways Russia would fling things around and onto the moon, I thought I'd share the latest from Anatoly Zak's site: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk_2013.html#kd.

Most interesting to me is the Russians, for now, are ruling out a two-launch approach for flinging a manned PTK capsule around the moon.


If Russia decides to do single launch Lunar missions with the four passenger PTK NP spacecraft, it will need to build an HLV or Super HLV at some point. What might a cost efficient Russian HLV be like?

We can probably forget the idea of a costly to develop Russian methalox based HLV launcher.

Why?

Russia has some great kerolox engines, and kerolox has performance equal to or superior to methalox for getting into LEO.



"The Bad and the Ugly
  O2/methane    - poorer than RP-1 and more difficult to handle"

From: Alternate Propellants for SSTO Launchers   By Dr. Bruce Dunn    Adapted from a Presentation at: Space Access 96   Phoenix Arizona    April 25 - 27, 1996
At: http://www.dunnspace.com/alternate_ssto_propellants.htm
 


"5. Based on historically-proven launch vehicle hardware, liquid oxygen and kerosene appear to be a preferred propellant combination for SSTO. Of all the propellants considered, these require the smallest fraction of orbiting mass for major propulsion components."

From: Single stage to orbit mass budgets derived from propellant density and specific impulse  By John C. Whitehead   Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory   
This paper was prepared for submittal to 32nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference Lake Buena Vista, FL July 1-3, 1996
Available at: http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/379977



"The payload performances of the reusable kerosene and methane booster are therefore almost identical with some edge for kerosene. In view of the increased size and dry mass of a reusable methane booster stage, one can expect a cost disadvantage for CH4 from a launch vehicle system level point of view."

From: Comparative Study of Kerosene and Methane Propellant Engines for Reusable Liquid Booster Stages    By Holger Burkhardt, Martin Sippel, Armin Herbertz, and Josef Klevanski               
4th International Conference on Launcher Technology "Space Launcher Liquid Propulsion" 3-6 December 2002 – Liège (Belgium)



Note that  Anatoly Likhvantsev, Energomash’s Director of Innovative Technology, is also considering atsetam, a mixture of acetylene and ammonia, as a propellant that could improve the performance of launchers by 30 percent.


"Once the optimal ratio of acetylene and ammonia is found (in which fuel will be sufficiently powerful without exploding too easily) the designers will specify the parameters of the engine."

And, "According to preliminary calculations, the atsetam engine will not require major structural changes to existing rocket motors since the physical properties of atsetam do not differ much from kerosene."

From: Russia Develops Revolutionary Ammonia Rocket Engine
At: http://www.defencetalk.com/russia-develops-revolutionary-ammonia-rocket-engine-42389/



NASA has direct involvement of the ESA in future SLS missions due to the ESA building the Service Module for the Orion spacecraft. NASA may also use the easy to restart, highly efficient, and reliable Japanese MB 60 open expander hydrolox rocket engines for the SLS's DUUS/CPS.

If Roscosmos wants mass efficient space missions and to be readily compatible with the 8.4 meter diameter SLS launcher and its 8.4 meter diameter DUUS/CPS and various future LEO, ISS, Lunar, and Mars mission modules, then an 8.4 meter diameter core Russian HLV first stage built near the Vostochny Cosmodrome and powered by RD-171s or RD 180s, with perhaps two to eight Angara or Zenit based boosters, and an 8.4 meter diameter second stage powered by two to six Russian licensed and built MB 60 rocket engines could be quite useful to Roscosmos in doing international missions that involve JAXA, NASA, and the ESA.

Eventually, America will probably build an 8.4 meter in diameter nuclear thermal rocket engine powered upper stage for NASA's SLS.

Russia could also build an international mission compatible 8.4 meter diameter nuclear thermal rocket engine powered upper stage for the Roscosmos HLV.

Why? Perhaps for some of the same reasons that NASA will need such a nuclear stage.


"Advancement of U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests requires high performance
propulsion systems to support missions beyond low Earth orbit. A robust space exploration program will
include robotic outer planet and crewed missions to a variety of destinations including the moon, near
Earth objects, and eventually Mars."

And, "The recently announced national space policy2 supports the development and use of space
nuclear power systems where such systems safely enable or significantly enhance space exploration or
operational capabilities."

From: Small Reactor Designs Suitable for Direct Nuclear Thermal Propulsion  By Bruce G. Schnitzler 
January 2012   Idaho National Laboratory Space Nuclear Systems and Technologies Division
Available at: http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/1042384


Edited.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: M129K on 11/05/2013 04:24 pm
Quote from: HappyMartian
If Roscosmos wants mass efficient space missions and to be readily compatible with the 8.4 meter diameter SLS launcher and its 8.4 meter diameter DUUS/CPS and various future LEO, ISS, Lunar, and Mars mission modules, then an 8.4 meter diameter core Russian HLV first stage built near the Vostochny Cosmodrome and powered by RD-171s or RD 180s, with perhaps two to eight Angara or Zenit based boosters, and an 8.4 meter diameter second stage powered by two to six Russian licensed and built MB 60 rocket engines could be quite useful to Roscosmos in doing international missions that involve JAXA, NASA, and the ESA.

Sharing tank diameter isn't really an advantage since the tanks are very different anyway. Russia has several HLV designs on the table, and none of them look like what you are describing. While it is a neat concept, Russia has no interest in buying tanks from the US, and making the entire rocket a Russia-fied SLS really takes away the point of Russia having an HLV anyway. For an upper stage, RD-0146 is sufficient, and MB-60 has little advantage over it. Also, being dependent on foreigners isn't an advantage in international missions.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 11/07/2013 03:42 pm
Quote from: HappyMartian
If Roscosmos wants mass efficient space missions and to be readily compatible with the 8.4 meter diameter SLS launcher and its 8.4 meter diameter DUUS/CPS and various future LEO, ISS, Lunar, and Mars mission modules, then an 8.4 meter diameter core Russian HLV first stage built near the Vostochny Cosmodrome and powered by RD-171s or RD 180s, with perhaps two to eight Angara or Zenit based boosters, and an 8.4 meter diameter second stage powered by two to six Russian licensed and built MB 60 rocket engines could be quite useful to Roscosmos in doing international missions that involve JAXA, NASA, and the ESA.

Sharing tank diameter isn't really an advantage since the tanks are very different anyway. Russia has several HLV designs on the table, and none of them look like what you are describing. While it is a neat concept, Russia has no interest in buying tanks from the US, and making the entire rocket a Russia-fied SLS really takes away the point of Russia having an HLV anyway. For an upper stage, RD-0146 is sufficient, and MB-60 has little advantage over it. Also, being dependent on foreigners isn't an advantage in international missions.



Roscosmos can build its own 8.4 meter diameter core launcher. It has the highly efficient rocket engines that would be very useful for such an endeavor. And it could even co-produce such an HLV with the ESA, or other interested entities. 

Russia and several other countries could possibly offer mission seats or money for production licensing rights to the simple, efficient, and highly useful MB-60. The precedent has already been set by America using the RD-180 on the Atlas V.   

If Roscosmos develops a more useful and versatile upper stage hydrlox rocket engine than the open expander MB-60, or if Roscosmos develops a highly efficient nuclear thermal rocket engine, then the rest of the world could license or buy or trade seats on missions for access to that Russian engine.

Perhaps the most useful way to develop and encourage the international use of such a nuclear rocket engine for cislunar space missions would be for Roscosmos to co-develop it with the ESA and several other space agencies and international businesses.

It would be quite beneficial if NASA were to be involved with designing and building such an international nuclear rocket engine, but given the flexible and zigging and zagging nature of NASA's leadership's self-proclaimed space goals, perhaps that isn't feasible.

Sharing tank diameter is important for minimizing load bearing mass. Wisely using payload kilograms is crucial for reducing Lunar, asteroid, and eventually Mars mission risks and costs.

Commonality and not having to kludge together two different diameter modules simplifies attaching power and communication cables and fluid transfer lines. Mobile robot arm attachment and movement risks are also simplified with a common stage and module diameter.

We can design-in commonality now and decrease cislunar mission risks and costs or down the road a bit we can whine about trying to patch together and inefficiently integrate very different and not very compatible 'heritage' cislunar space systems.

And if we fail to develop international standards, someday there might be an international group of space experts explaining to the world that some astronauts and other folks died simply because the leaders of the spaceship Earth in 2013 lacked the will to develop sensible international space mission standards. 

Common docking standards and the 8.4 meter diameter for modules and reusable upper stages and are just the small beginning of what needs to be designed and built with a common world standard if we Americans are serious in following our own current space law about doing international space missions to develop the Moon and the rest of cislunar space.

Cislunar space, which is legally defined to include the Moon's surface under the current American space law, offers many opportunities for developing international trust, respect, and cooperation. Are those important international diplomatic goals?


"More than 70 nations use the International Space Station (ISS) for research today, and a growing realization of its value is driving a sense of urgency to continue the unique facility after the scheduled 2020 shutdown, and replace it once it is gone."

Post-ISS Orbital Outposts Taking Shape   By Frank Morring, Jr.  Aviation Week
At: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_09_30_2013_p24-620364.xml


Should we encourage 70 or more different standards be used at the ISS, on the Moon, and for beyond cislunar missions or should the leaders of both Roscosmos and NASA be seriously focused on devising commonly accepted and used international standards that everyone will benefit from?

Is trying hard to improve our international relations, especially after the ongoing diplomatic fiasco of the NS_ using the Internet to spy on the leaders of countries as well as violating the privacy of reporters, Russian citizens, and the other crew members of the spaceship Earth, a smart idea?

Should we continue to ignore our own highly relevant American law about doing international cislunar space missions by pretending international cooperation for space standardization of modules, stages, and equipment is unimportant?

Should we continue to follow the current President's whims of having NASA produce a lot of power point presentations about heading off to Mars while in reality we are currently building a Lunar mission defined international Orion spacecraft which is very similar to Russia's Lunar mission PTK NP and while both of those vehicles are in need of serious international mission planning?

If Russia decides to delay building its HLV until the 2030s, could the PTK NP be launched earlier than that into LEO or towards the Moon by the SLS?

If the Cape Kennedy Space Center is truly going to be a commercial launch complex, could a company buy Russian launchers and send them uphill from Florida?

Or are those valuable launch sites simply going to become awarded to whoever has the most influence in the White House or Congress?

What would be a win-win situation for everyone, including Russia's interest in going to the Moon to do ISRU?

Is blather that ignores the Moon and our relevant American cislunar centric space law a wise basis for space engineering standards and cislunar mission planning with Russia?

Should NASA's leaders be doing what is needed to design standards, Lunar modules, and Landers in coordination with Roscosmos and our other Space Exploration Partners, or is endless planning for costly phantom Mars and asteroid missions that Congress doesn't want to fund more useful and productive?

Russia is probably going to the Moon with America and quite a few other countries. The real questions revolve around how to minimize the risk of those Lunar missions and how to do them in as cost effective manner as possible.

And the issue of reducing the risks and costs of international cislunar missions isn't really about politics or policy. That cislunar centric space development plan is already found in our relevant space law and in the repeatedly stated desires of our international partners to go to the Moon.

If we Americans are going to discuss changing our current space law so that it no longer requires NASA to put astronauts on the Moon, then that is a political and policy issue that needs to be debated elsewhere.

Are we Americans really going to change our space law and decide to not use the SLS and international Orion to get folks to the Lunar surface?

If so, then NASA should at least use the SLS and the international Orion to go to LEO where we Americans can add modules and capabilities to the ISS, service NEO defense system telescopes, and wave goodbye to travelers from Russia and the rest of the world as those good folks head off to the Moon.


Edited.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/03/2013 06:06 am
Report from ESA Bulletin 156 (http://esamultimedia.esa.int/multimedia/publications/ESA-Bulletin-156/offline/download.pdf):

"Lunar exploration

Discussions with Russia to define an incremental participation with ESA in their lunar exploration programme are progressing. Possible ESA contributions will aim to: prepare technologies and capabilities for future exploration missions; and gain knowledge to plan safe, effective and efficient human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit."
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 12/03/2013 01:59 pm
Report from ESA Bulletin 156 (http://esamultimedia.esa.int/multimedia/publications/ESA-Bulletin-156/offline/download.pdf):

"Lunar exploration

Discussions with Russia to define an incremental participation with ESA in their lunar exploration programme are progressing. Possible ESA contributions will aim to: prepare technologies and capabilities for future exploration missions; and gain knowledge to plan safe, effective and efficient human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit."


Yep. Amazing. Who would of thunk it, right? Certainly no one in the White House.

Thank you for the quote Steven Pietrobon.

And also on page 85 of the November 2013 ESA bulletin number 156 where your quote came from:

"A workshop, ‘Dissemination of information on space-related hazards to national civil protection authorities’, was held at ESOC in September with representatives of European emergency response agencies, and provided valuable input to the NEO segment for preparing the international coordinated response to a possible asteroid impact threat. Roadmaps for future activities related to both impact effect
tools and asteroid deflection missions have been finalised."


Hopefully we can start doing some serious planning for more space based large telescopes for early NEO detection. Chang'e 3 has a telescope on it. Since the President and NASA's leadership don't want NASA to go back to the Moon, perhaps we can request Russia, China, and the ESA to place some large telescopes on the Moon as a part of an international early warning NEO defense system.

Lunar based telescopes might be more easily serviced and could have a much longer working life than orbiting telescopes.

Developing the Moon and the rest of cis-lunar space should also make it much easier for Russia, China, and the ESA to stage "asteroid deflection missions".

It is really good that Russia and the ESA are interested in "lunar exploration". Their cis-lunar space efforts, or China's, might even save New York City or someplace else from an asteroid or comet someday.


Edited.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 05/08/2014 12:50 pm
Decided to revive topic in 2014 :)
There are two interesting articles in Russian IZVESTIA newspaper web site (links are below)
* RSC Energia asked for 1 Trillion roubles for a Lunar Program (http://izvestia.ru/news/567630) (18th of March 2014)
* Russia would commence Moon colonization from 2030 (http://izvestia.ru/news/570482) (8th of May 2014)

Short summary:
* In March Rocket & Space Corporation Energia performed budget estimation for PPTS (Prospective Manned Space Transportation System) Program.
* Price tag is around of 1 trillion RUB ($US 27,444,818,762 or ~$US 27.5 billions according to exchange rate effective on 18 Mar 2014)
* This amount is approximately one third of total Roskosmos budget to be allocated within Russian Federal Space program from 2016 to 2025 (awaiting approval).

Money mostly would be spent on design and manufacturing of SHLV (Phase I LEO capability 70-90 tones, Phase II -  120 tones and above).  According to preliminary estimations price tag would be around 800 billions RUB ($US 22,058,231,436,302 or ~$US 22.0 billions) , while budget cost of new generation manned spacecraft (PTK) program is 160 billions RUB ($US 4,411,646,287,261 or ~$US 4.5 billions) and includes Spacecraft, LES tower, PLF Shroud and a complete set of ground-based infrastructure; 

So far, Rocket & Space Corporation Energia and Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center performed some internal SHLV feasiblity studies but did not submit any formal proposal to Roscosmos. Stand by for SHLV tender to be announced by Russian Space Agency ;)

According to the draft of the "Concept of Russian Lunar Program" document (prepared by join taskforce Roscosmos and Russian Academy of Science) it would include the following three stages:
Stage I (2016-2025) Robotic pre-cursor missions Luna 25, -26, -27, -28 and -29. Selection of the of Lunar polygon/Lunar base exact location near South Pole, geological (rather selenological ) surveys and in-situ studies of Lunar soil properties;       
Stage II (2026-2030) Manned mission to Lunar Orbit on new generation spacecraft (PTK-L) currently under design by Energia (note without Moon landing);
Stage III (2030-2040) Manned Moon landing missions - crew would visit Lunar base/Lunar polygon and would establish ore-processing infrastructure.

One of the major objectives of program - to establish an independent access to Cis-Lunar space with optional international cooperation (as long as such cooperation would not block critical path)

Document had been created by the following organizations:
* Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IKI);
* Central Research Institute of Machine Building (TsNIIMash); 
* Lavochkin Research and Production Association(NPO Lavochkin);
* Rocket & Space Corporation Energia (RSC Energia);
* Institute of Nuclear Physics, a division of Moscow State University (NIIYaPh MGU);
* Sternberg Astronomical Institute, a division of Moscow State University (GAISh MGU);
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/09/2014 05:06 am
Stage II (2026-2030) Manned mission to Lunar Orbit on new generation spacecraft (PTK-L) currently under design by Energia (note without Moon landing);

Soyuz would make for a better and cheaper crewed system as it is lighter and already available.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 05/09/2014 07:31 am
Stage II (2026-2030) Manned mission to Lunar Orbit on new generation spacecraft (PTK-L) currently under design by Energia (note without Moon landing);

Soyuz would make for a better and cheaper crewed system as it is lighter and already available.
G'day Steven! Glad to hear from you...
Current version of Soyuz spacecraft (Soyuz-TMA) is a manned transportation spacecraft to service LEO-based Orbital Station (deliver crew to ISS and safely return back to the Earth).
AFAIK ''off the shelf" it is not suitable for Lunar Orbit missions (without MAJOR modifications) due to the following constraints:
- SM (PAO) doe not have enough propellant capacity to provide Delta-V for TEI burn
- RV (SA) heat shield is not suitable for return from TEI trajectory;
- RV (SA) GNS should provide right trajectory on mission return leg (AKA "skip reentry" maneuver);
- No means for deep-space communications;
- Spacecraft should have enough supplies to provide for 2 or 3 crew members for period up to 8-10 days
(AFAIK since introduction Soyuz-TMA never flew more than 3 days in autonomous flight);   

RSC Energia did some preliminary studies how to adopt SOYUZ-TMA back in 2006 for Space Adventure Lunar fly-by commercial mission and they came to a conclusion that additional pressurized mission module would required for such mission

Spacecrafts from Soyuz spacecraft family suitable for such mission might be based on Zond configuration (Soyuz 7K-L1 without Orbital Module, only for Lunar fly-by, 2 cosmonaut crew) or might be based on Soyuz 7K-LOK (last time RSA tried to propose this design for ESA ASTC spacecraft in 2006-2008).

IMHO RSC Energia spent to much money for PPTS spacecraft, they most likely reach a proverbial "no return point", however the faith of a whole program is unclear in absence of LV (waiting for Angara 5, Angara 5P flight and SHLV decision).   
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: ImUtrecht on 05/09/2014 07:43 am
By trampoline ?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 05/10/2014 03:05 pm
By trampoline ?


Trampoline to Space? Russian Official Tells NASA to Take a Flying Leap   By Alan Boyle
At: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/trampoline-space-russian-official-tells-nasa-take-flying-leap-n92616

Our relationship with the USSR was pretty poor in July 1969.

And yet we learn from:

"Moon Shoot  The Inside Story of America’s Race to the Moon"  By Alan Shepard, Deke Slayton, Jay Barbee, and Howard Benedict  1994  Page 326

“The first seeds of what would become ASTP—Apollo-Soyuz Test Project—began to sprout in 1969. Thomas Paine, the NASA administrator, was aboard Air Force One carrying President Richard Nixon across the Pacific to greet the first astronauts returning from the Moon."


Clearly President Nixon saw the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project as a useful method to help thaw out the Cold War and channel our destructive relationship into a more mutually useful direction.

Perhaps some Presidents understand the importance of improving international relations through new international beyond LEO space missions and some Presidents don't. Maybe some American Presidents appreciated the international diplomatic significance of the Space Shuttles and perhaps some did not.

Perhaps President Putin and Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin felt Russia had its 'face slapped' when our current President decided to unilaterally cancel all planning for American-Russian led international human Lunar surface missions without any serious consultation about doable and logical alternatives for future human beyond LEO missions that included the Russians.

Maybe mutual 'face slapping' by international leaders really isn't useful for improving international relations, developing the Moon and the rest of cislunar space, and preparing humans to head off to Mars and Ceres.

Despite the noise and some confused leaders, Russia is going to the Moon with America and the rest of the world in the international and mutual benefit spirit of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, MIR, and the ISS. 

As for me, right now I'm going back to watching the movie "Armageddon". Watching NASA spacecraft being resupplied with propellant at a Russian Space Station and then a Russian joining the Americans and everyone heading off to defend the planet Earth against an enormous asteroid is much more useful than thinking about the 'face slapping' antics of international leaders.

Those "Armageddon" international space heroes do face some significant problems and they keep on trying to solve them. Maybe we should do the same thing.


Edited.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Danderman on 05/10/2014 03:35 pm
Current version of Soyuz spacecraft (Soyuz-TMA) is a manned transportation spacecraft to service LEO-based Orbital Station (deliver crew to ISS and safely return back to the Earth).
AFAIK ''off the shelf" it is not suitable for Lunar Orbit missions (without MAJOR modifications) due to the following constraints:
- SM (PAO) doe not have enough propellant capacity to provide Delta-V for TEI burn
- RV (SA) heat shield is not suitable for return from TEI trajectory;
- RV (SA) GNS should provide right trajectory on mission return leg (AKA "skip reentry" maneuver);
- No means for deep-space communications;
- Spacecraft should have enough supplies to provide for 2 or 3 crew members for period up to 8-10 days
(AFAIK since introduction Soyuz-TMA never flew more than 3 days in autonomous flight);   

RSC Energia did some preliminary studies how to adopt SOYUZ-TMA back in 2006 for Space Adventure Lunar fly-by commercial mission and they came to a conclusion that additional pressurized mission module would required for such mission

Yeah, CSI did the heavy lifting for RSC Energia's lunar flyby mission, a couple of years before the Space Adventures/Energia announcement:

http://www.constellationservices.com/lunarexpresssmsystem.html

The CSI Lunar Express Mission Module was an integral part of the mission, as early as 2004.

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 05/11/2014 01:05 am
CSI proposed design had its roots in ASTP Apollo Docking Module. Please have a look at Preliminary design (1971) and final flight configuration (1975) by Rockwell International.

Similar design shared by Soyuz A and Shenzhou orbital modules, Mir docking module, ISS Pirs, Poisk, and Rassvet Modules, Lockcheed Martin CEV Mission module and GEO Service Node as well as mission module for PTK-Z  :)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/12/2014 08:13 am
Current version of Soyuz spacecraft (Soyuz-TMA) is a manned transportation spacecraft to service LEO-based Orbital Station (deliver crew to ISS and safely return back to the Earth).

The original mission for Soyuz was a Lunar mission in its 7K-LOK (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soy7klok.htm) guise. Those capabilities required for a Lunar mission can all be added back. Having a 10 t (7K-LOK was 9,546 kg) vehicle instead of 20 t is a significant saving.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 05/12/2014 10:55 am
Current version of Soyuz spacecraft (Soyuz-TMA) is a manned transportation spacecraft to service LEO-based Orbital Station (deliver crew to ISS and safely return back to the Earth).

The original mission for Soyuz was a Lunar mission in its 7K-LOK (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soy7klok.htm) guise. Those capabilities required for a Lunar mission can all be added back. Having a 10 t (7K-LOK was 9,546 kg) vehicle instead of 20 t is a significant saving.
Good configuration for end of 60s and mid 70s, but it's already part of the history. For political reasons Russians decided to build "Orionsky" capsule to match NASA manned spacecraft capabilities in Cis-Lunar space.
Considering that Energia designers fall back after Klipper concept cancellation, moving further back to LOK would be two steps downstream - "been there, done that". 

Ironically, there are more chances that Chinese would upgrade Shenzhou for lunar missions rather than spend a fortune for a new generation manned spacecraft.     
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 05/16/2014 07:08 am
Meanwhile in Russia. :)
After announcement on joint press-conference of D.Rogozin (Deputy Prime-Minister) and O.Ostapnko (Head of Russian Space Agency) about "re-evaluation of values" in ISS Program after year 2020, RIA Novosti published   
an expert opinion of Chief Editor the of Russian Cosmonautics News Magazine Igor Marinin http://ria.ru/space/20140513/1007644572.html
According to him, Russian Space Program should set a goal to achieve manned Moon landing in 2030. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 05/16/2014 01:39 pm
Meanwhile in Russia. :)
After announcement on joint press-conference of D.Rogozin (Deputy Prime-Minister) and O.Ostapnko (Head of Russian Space Agency) about "re-evaluation of values" in ISS Program after year 2020, RIA Novosti published   
an expert opinion of Chief Editor the of Russian Cosmonautics News Magazine Igor Marinin http://ria.ru/space/20140513/1007644572.html
According to him, Russian Space Program should set a goal to achieve manned Moon landing in 2030.



Sustainable Lunar human and cargo missions will need reductions in the cost of getting payloads to LEO.

Russia may have some useful ideas for reusable first stages for the Angara launch vehicle family...

MID-AIR RETRIEVAL TECHNOLOGY FOR RETURNING OF REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES & BOOSTERS
By S.V. Antonenko and S.A. Belavskiy   2009
At: http://www.eucass-proceedings.eu/articles/eucass/pdf/2009/01/eucass1p481.pdf

"The only one feasible principle for the nearest future is a mid-air retrieval (MAR), which will permit potentially the creation of the effective RLV. For practical realization of the results obtained, the authors in cooperation with M.L. Mil's Moscow Helicopter Plant (MHP) and 'Parachute Design' Scientific Institute have developed the launch vehicles' booster MAR technology (including the structure and principles of main elements formation)."

And,

"Table 1
Family of Angara launch vehicle with MAR boosters of first stage"

And,

"The MAR technology is based on the current technological capabilities and materials. The new technologies and materials, if they are invented, will help to improve the MAR technology and will make its application more profitable."


Edited.

 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/16/2014 01:48 pm
To the OP: Try a "really big trampoline"...  ;) It would be nice if they actually get their cosmonauts out of LEO for the fist time... :o
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: asmi on 05/16/2014 01:50 pm
To the OP: Try a "really big trampoline"...  ;) It would be nice if they actually get their cosmonauts out of LEO for the fist time... :o
At least they can get to LEO themselves, unlike some self-proclaimed "leader"...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Danderman on 05/16/2014 01:56 pm
CSI proposed design had its roots in ASTP Apollo Docking Module.

Not really.

The CSI lunar mission module always was basically a Soyuz OM, we just decided to make it look generic in our early presentations.

Because the module had to interface between a Russian spacecraft and Russian upper stage, it was always going to be intrinsically Soyuz-like; plus, we wanted the cheapest possible system.

The mission module would contain the long distance communications system, the extended duration toilet (basically a Soyuz toilet with a larger tank), a buffer battery, a Kurs passive unit, and a backup life support system and consumables.  All of this could fairly easily be fitted into a Soyuz orbital module.

Like the Shuttle-Mir docking module, and the later Rassvet, the center section would have been extended to more than a meter in length.

The "bottom" or "aft" section that interfaced with the upper stage did not require a docking adapter, so the bottom hemisphere could either have been fitted with a porthole, or an EVA hatch.


There wasn't much detail in the version that RSC Energia provided publicly, but it would be interesting to compare the CSI and Energia versions of the mission module.


Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/16/2014 02:00 pm
To the OP: Try a "really big trampoline"...  ;) It would be nice if they actually get their cosmonauts out of LEO for the fist time... :o
At least they can get to LEO themselves, unlike some self-proclaimed "leader"...
At least we pulled-up to the ISS in a "yacht" and built it, while they still get to use thier "dinghy"... stay tuned my friend...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: asmi on 05/16/2014 02:01 pm
At least we pulled-up to the ISS in a "yacht" and built it, while they still get to use thier "dinghy"... stay tuned my friend...
Except when your "yachts" blew up, while "dinghy" keeps flying for 40 years without any fatalities.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/16/2014 02:03 pm
At least we pulled-up to the ISS in a "yacht" and built it, while they still get to use thier "dinghy"... stay tuned my friend...
Except when your "yachts" blew up, while "dinghy" keeps flying for 40 years without any fatalities.
Selective history...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: asmi on 05/16/2014 02:07 pm
Selective history...
Time to educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_manned_space_missions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_manned_space_missions
Last fatality was on 6 June 1971, which is 43 years ago. Your "yacht" didn't even exist, and don't exist now, while Soyuz still flies...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/16/2014 02:14 pm
Selective history...
Time to educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_manned_space_missions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_manned_space_missions
Last fatality was on 6 June 1971, which is 43 years ago. Your "yacht" didn't even exist, and don't exist now, while Soyuz still flies...
I speak spaceflight history in totality and not choose to ignore fallen cosmonauts nor astronauts. Show some respect...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: asmi on 05/16/2014 02:20 pm
I speak spaceflight history in totality and not choose to ignore fallen cosmonauts nor astronauts. Show some respect...
I'm not showing any disrespect. I'm merely pointing out that the more complex system is, the higher is the probability of things going south. NASA has decided to ignore this, and we all know how did it work out.
And yea - I'm also making fun of hypocricy of the "leader" who can't even get to space without help from others :D
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Atlan on 05/16/2014 02:21 pm
If they manage to pull it off with old soviet tech, then they will go with soviet tech. If not i guess Power Point and Photoshop, apparently the main development tools of russian the space program, will have to do the job.

Sorry for the snarky comment, but i really see no other options here :)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 05/16/2014 02:28 pm
To the OP: Try a "really big trampoline"...  ;) It would be nice if they actually get their cosmonauts out of LEO for the fist time... :o


What's your political game Rocket Science?

Can you add some insight to this thread's topic or are you just going to continue to visit various threads in order to keep adding as much firewood sarcasm as you can to the current blazing political foolishness?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: asmi on 05/16/2014 02:34 pm
What's your political game Rocket Science?

Can you add some insight to this thread's topic or are you just going to continue to visit various threads in order to keep adding as much firewood sarcasm as you can to the current blazing political foolishness?
I think I owe you an apology for falling into his trolling and derailing the thread. This won't happen again.

On the topic - personally I don't care if they use Soviet-era stuff or not as long as it will work. Doing something is better than not in any case.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: veblen on 05/16/2014 02:41 pm
To the OP: Try a "really big trampoline"...  ;) It would be nice if they actually get their cosmonauts out of LEO for the fist time... :o


What's your political game Rocket Science?

Can you add some insight to this thread's topic or are you just going to continue to visit various threads in order to keep adding as much firewood sarcasm as you can to the current blazing political foolishness?


Rogozin with his wondrous trampoline added validity to jokes and sarcasm. In a way its a good thing.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/16/2014 02:42 pm
To the OP: Try a "really big trampoline"...  ;) It would be nice if they actually get their cosmonauts out of LEO for the fist time... :o


What's your political game Rocket Science?

Can you add some insight to this thread's topic or are you just going to continue to visit various threads in order to keep adding as much firewood sarcasm as you can to the current blazing political foolishness?
Nah, Happy... that would be Rogozin...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 05/16/2014 04:19 pm
To the OP: Try a "really big trampoline"...  ;) It would be nice if they actually get their cosmonauts out of LEO for the fist time... :o


What's your political game Rocket Science?

Can you add some insight to this thread's topic or are you just going to continue to visit various threads in order to keep adding as much firewood sarcasm as you can to the current blazing political foolishness?


Rogozin with his wondrous trampoline added validity to jokes and sarcasm. In a way its a good thing.


The Cold War was an extremely bad thing and anyone who was around then or can read an Internet history article knows that. Everyone doing what we can to try to avoid a Cold War II would be wise.

The Space Race to the Moon was really a desperate attempt to fend off the monster of the Cold War.

Making ignorant 'jokes' about the current Russian Space Program or the previous Space Program of the Soviet Union Era and ignoring the related Cold War deaths of millions of innocent women and children around the world so you can appear 'cool' and 'tough' and 'smart' is foolishness for a space cadet.

And given our current super war technology across the Blue Planet, perhaps the death toll from a Cold War II would be much much higher.

I would much rather go to the Moon with the Russians and everyone else on the planet Earth than redo the stupid 'duck under your desk and pray' days of my youth.

If Russia's leadership really decides to no longer sell us RD-180s, fine. Find solutions. Don't whine, play the blame game, get sarcastic and ugly, or make the RD-180 an additional issue. Let it go.

The future of the ISS is in limbo. Apparently, the planning for the ISS to have a very long lifetime to 2028, or perhaps even much further into the future, and for international human missions to the Moon cannot occur under our current President. So be it. We have lots of elections. Vote for wiser leadership.

Explore positive international options that may work in the future. Ignore the foolish individuals that love to belittle others and spout political sarcasm to help start a Cold War II.

Eventually, folks around the world will start to realize that everyone exploring and developing the Moon and tapping its water and other resources is a win-win situation for our spaceship Earth and that blabbing endlessly about footprints and flags on Mars while teaching kids how to duck and pray under a desk is a risky and costly lose-lose proposition.

The Moon is what we humans will develop first. Russia's leadership clearly understands that. We will go to Mars and Ceres. And we will be well-prepared to go to those and other distant spheres to stay, not simply to plant a few flags and then ignore them for many decades.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/16/2014 09:10 pm
To the OP: Try a "really big trampoline"...  ;) It would be nice if they actually get their cosmonauts out of LEO for the fist time... :o


What's your political game Rocket Science?

Can you add some insight to this thread's topic or are you just going to continue to visit various threads in order to keep adding as much firewood sarcasm as you can to the current blazing political foolishness?


Rogozin with his wondrous trampoline added validity to jokes and sarcasm. In a way its a good thing.


The Cold War was an extremely bad thing and anyone who was around then or can read an Internet history article knows that. Everyone doing what we can to try to avoid a Cold War II would be wise.

The Space Race to the Moon was really a desperate attempt to fend off the monster of the Cold War.

Making ignorant 'jokes' about the current Russian Space Program or the previous Space Program of the Soviet Union Era and ignoring the related Cold War deaths of millions of innocent women and children around the world so you can appear 'cool' and 'tough' and 'smart' is foolishness for a space cadet.

And given our current super war technology across the Blue Planet, perhaps the death toll from a Cold War II would be much much higher.

I would much rather go to the Moon with the Russians and everyone else on the planet Earth than redo the stupid 'duck under your desk and pray' days of my youth.

If Russia's leadership really decides to no longer sell us RD-180s, fine. Find solutions. Don't whine, play the blame game, get sarcastic and ugly, or make the RD-180 an additional issue. Let it go.

The future of the ISS is in limbo. Apparently, the planning for the ISS to have a very long lifetime to 2028, or perhaps even much further into the future, and for international human missions to the Moon cannot occur under our current President. So be it. We have lots of elections. Vote for wiser leadership.

Explore positive international options that may work in the future. Ignore the foolish individuals that love to belittle others and spout political sarcasm to help start a Cold War II.

Eventually, folks around the world will start to realize that everyone exploring and developing the Moon and tapping its water and other resources is a win-win situation for our spaceship Earth and that blabbing endlessly about footprints and flags on Mars while teaching kids how to duck and pray under a desk is a risky and costly lose-lose proposition.

The Moon is what we humans will develop first. Russia's leadership clearly understands that. We will go to Mars and Ceres. And we will be well-prepared to go to those and other distant spheres to stay, not simply to plant a few flags and then ignore them for many decades.
Get Happy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Sxv-sUYtM
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 05/17/2014 03:46 am
Guys, I am not a moderator on NSF, but could we please stick with the MAJOR topic.
I am pretty sure there are a lot of opportunities to exercise our comedian talents regarding current events in Ukraine even on this forum.
I would hate if this topic would be closed due to some childish posts :(     
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 05/17/2014 04:52 am
CSI proposed design had its roots in ASTP Apollo Docking Module.

Not really.

The CSI lunar mission module always was basically a Soyuz OM, we just decided to make it look generic in our early presentations.

Because the module had to interface between a Russian spacecraft and Russian upper stage, it was always going to be intrinsically Soyuz-like; plus, we wanted the cheapest possible system.

The mission module would contain the long distance communications system, the extended duration toilet (basically a Soyuz toilet with a larger tank), a buffer battery, a Kurs passive unit, and a backup life support system and consumables.  All of this could fairly easily be fitted into a Soyuz orbital module.

Like the Shuttle-Mir docking module, and the later Rassvet, the center section would have been extended to more than a meter in length.

The "bottom" or "aft" section that interfaced with the upper stage did not require a docking adapter, so the bottom hemisphere could either have been fitted with a porthole, or an EVA hatch.


There wasn't much detail in the version that RSC Energia provided publicly, but it would be interesting to compare the CSI and Energia versions of the mission module.
Ok, by popular demand (find 7 differences):
Soyuz-A (project 1962) with cylindrical Orbital Module
(http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/graphics/s/soyuza.jpg)
Below
Energia Soyuz Lunar flyby scale model from MAKS-2011 aerospace exhibition
Space Adventure evolved Mission Module attached to BlockDM Upper Stage (before it was a standard Soyuz OM).
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: R7 on 05/17/2014 06:45 am
Cold War like tensions require Cold War like defusing levity:

In Soviet Putin's Russia moon goes to you!
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 05/17/2014 08:01 am
Cold War like tensions require Cold War like defusing levity:

In Soviet Putin's Russia moon goes to you!
Please invite Yakov Smirnoff to this forum :)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 05/18/2014 03:18 am
Cold War like tensions require Cold War like defusing levity:

In Soviet Putin's Russia moon goes to you!
Please invite Yakov Smirnoff to this forum :)



"I like parades without missiles in them. I'll take Bullwinkle to a tank any day."

"The human spirit is not measured by the size of the act, but by the size of the heart."

"Yakov Naumovich Pokhis, better known as Yakov Smirnoff"

From:  Yakov Smirnoff        Wikipedia
At:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Smirnoff 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 05/18/2014 04:35 am
(http://glarkware.com/files/product-preview-adult-soviet-small.jpg)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Archibald on 05/19/2014 07:04 pm
Selective history...
Time to educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_manned_space_missions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_manned_space_missions
Last fatality was on 6 June 1971, which is 43 years ago. Your "yacht" didn't even exist, and don't exist now, while Soyuz still flies...
Time doesn't change statistics.
Soyuz and Shuttle still have the same fataly rate for a simple reason: the shuttle carried three times more astronauts than Soyuz while the overall number of flights is roughly similar (a bit more than a hundred).
Put otherwise, the shuttle had 135*7 seats (of which 14 were deadly) while the Soyuz has 3*100 seats (of which 4 were lethal). Do the math: its 1/67.5 vs 1/75, not that far appart.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/20/2014 01:40 am
Get Happy...

Hah!  I had heard about this song.  Had not heard the song, nor seen the video!  246M views!

Thanks for the simple happiness!

Da peeple is lookin' for answers!  Happiness is.

Even if Russia is suggesting that we use trampolines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Sxv-sUYtM
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: asmi on 05/21/2014 05:41 pm
Time doesn't change statistics.
Soyuz and Shuttle still have the same fataly rate for a simple reason: the shuttle carried three times more astronauts than Soyuz while the overall number of flights is roughly similar (a bit more than a hundred).
Put otherwise, the shuttle had 135*7 seats (of which 14 were deadly) while the Soyuz has 3*100 seats (of which 4 were lethal). Do the math: its 1/67.5 vs 1/75, not that far appart.
Two things - Soyuz have a string of 110 missions without fatalities (111 is in progress now), while Shuttle failures are more or less evenly spaced, which indicates design issues with the latter.
BTW Soyuz have completed a total of 120 missions, 121 is in progress now.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: jongoff on 05/22/2014 11:06 pm
By trampoline?

You beat me to the punch.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: SpaceRock on 05/28/2014 03:01 am
I very rarely post here but read daily. I suspect that this sudden nationalistic trend is not doing any favors for the future that we all want in space. I was born in 1980. I have vague recollections of the cold war, and i thought that we have evolved past that point. Cooperation in space is what I grew up on, and have taken great pride in my country (USA) that we have been able to cooperate with former rivals (Russia, and even farther back japan) in space. I have always viewed space as the common denominator that elevated our countries past petty bickering. I also have faith that this will continue. I am a lowly high school astronomy teacher but I hope that for humanities sake we can keep going forward with healthy engineering competition and rise above political bickering. (my two cents, delete if inappropriate.)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: QuantumG on 05/28/2014 03:12 am
I have vague recollections of the cold war, and i thought that we have evolved past that point.

I saw Terminator 2 in the cinema.

Sarah Connor: Skynet fights back.
The Terminator: Yes. It launches its missiles against the targets in Russia.
John Connor: Why attack Russia? Aren't they our friends now?
The Terminator: Because Skynet knows the Russian counter-attack will eliminate its enemies over here.


I could barely hear Arnie's line over the laughing.

Cooperation in space is what I grew up on, and have taken great pride in my country (USA) that we have been able to cooperate with former rivals (Russia, and even farther back japan) in space. I have always viewed space as the common denominator that elevated our countries past petty bickering.

It's always been play acting for the cameras. There is literally a line down the middle of the ISS that Cosmonauts have to report whenever they cross, so Russia can send a bill to NASA.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: SpaceRock on 05/28/2014 03:26 am
i'm well aware there are both russian and american interests in the space station. (and yes, i've also seen 2010)
regardless, the US gave up on the Space Station Freedom and the Russians let Mir plummet. Even if it was a pure economical decision, it was a decision based on mutual trust and respect for each nation's space programs.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: QuantumG on 05/28/2014 03:41 am
i'm well aware there are both russian and american interests in the space station. (and yes, i've also seen 2010)
regardless, the US gave up on the Space Station Freedom and the Russians let Mir plummet. Even if it was a pure economical decision, it was a decision based on mutual trust and respect for each nation's space programs.

It was a political decision too. The US lost economically (and continues to), but saw a way to get insight into Russian launch operations (read: ICBMs), and the Russians saw it much the same way. In no way was it a peace-and-love sing-along. International cooperation is a marketing term for keeping your enemies closer than your friends.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: high road on 05/28/2014 10:59 am
Keeping your enemies closer makes it easier to access/copy the things they're good at. If there ever was a reason to keep the peace, it's right there. Peace and coöperation is cheaper than conflict and having to do everything yourself. Add competition to improve the things you both suck at (or where there's still a lot of room for improvement).

Taking decisions of cooperation based on shrewd arguments makes a much more durable peace than hippie dreams and goals ever will.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: HappyMartian on 06/07/2014 10:32 am
Keeping your enemies closer makes it easier to access/copy the things they're good at. If there ever was a reason to keep the peace, it's right there. Peace and coöperation is cheaper than conflict and having to do everything yourself. Add competition to improve the things you both suck at (or where there's still a lot of room for improvement).

Taking decisions of cooperation based on shrewd arguments makes a much more durable peace than hippie dreams and goals ever will.


"The 285 page report, released on Wednesday, provided a refined view of NASA’s current roadmap, claiming international cooperation – including an alliance with the Chinese – and the potential use of the Moon as a proving ground, is required to achieve the 'Horizon Goal'"

From: NRC Pathway approach to Mars includes Lunar landings, Chinese alliance  By Chris Bergin
June 4, 2014
At: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/06/nrc-pathway-approach-mars-lunar-landings-chinese-alliance/


Let's go to the Moon with Russia, South Korea, China, Canada, Pakistan, Europe, Nigeria, Egypt, India, Brazil, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Moon Express, Golden Spike, and everyone else who wants to go and is willing to seriously contribute to the effort. 

Or we all can stir up a Cold War II and complain about everyone else while ignoring how each of us may have contributed to the mess with our shrewd and shrill arguments and name calling.

Going to the Moon with Russia and everyone else makes pretty good sense, right? Good. Glad that is finally settled.


Edited.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Jim on 06/07/2014 07:39 pm

Going to the Moon with Russia and everyone else makes pretty good sense, right?


Wrong, see RD-180
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: gospacex on 06/07/2014 08:58 pm
Let's go to the Moon with Russia, South Korea, China, Canada, Pakistan, Europe, Nigeria, Egypt, India, Brazil, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Moon Express, Golden Spike, and everyone else who wants to go and is willing to seriously contribute to the effort. 

Or we all can stir up a Cold War II and complain about everyone else while ignoring how each of us may have contributed to the mess with our shrewd and shrill arguments and name calling.

Going to the Moon with Russia and everyone else makes pretty good sense, right? Good. Glad that is finally settled.

European space program is an example how efficient multi-national space program is. ATV costs 1bn apiece, and let me remind you that it (1) can't even return to Earth in one piece and (2) the program is terminated.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 06/08/2014 02:26 am
A quite interesting quote from the most recent NRC report "Pathways to Exploration: Rationales and Approaches for a U.S. Program of Human Space Exploration"
Quote
The Russian human spaceflight program is centered entirely around the ISS, with its several
critical modules and its capacity to deliver crews and cargo to the facility. However, building on decades
of space station activity, Russia continues to advance conceptual studies for follow-on programs,
including proposals for human activity beyond LEO.40 In a space policy statement issued by the Russian
Federal Space Agency (Roskosmos) in April 2013, the Russian government noted that “space activities
are one of the primary factors determining the level of development and influence of Russia in the
modern world.”41 Despite this acknowledgement, Russia has struggled to expand its human spaceflight
program beyond the ISS, and robotic missions to the Moon and planets have been almost nonexistent in
the past 20 years. The Russian government has continued to press forward with the development of a
follow-on spacecraft to the Soyuz, known under the generic designation PTK NP, that is comparable in
size and mission to NASA’s Orion.42 The vehicle is expected to carry four cosmonauts on missions
beyond LEO—principally to lunar orbit—lasting about a month.43 The Russians expect to begin flight
testing of the spacecraft with crews in 2018, though this will be a challenging deadline to meet. There are
long-term plans for the exploration of both the Moon and Mars, but, given fiscal realities, these would be
folded into any global initiative involving at the very least the Europeans, a point underscored in the 2013
Russian space policy statement noting that the Russian state interests “support the possibility of full-
scale participation in projects of the international community in the research, mastery and use of space,
including that of the Moon, Mars and other bodies in the solar system.”44
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: newpylong on 06/10/2014 04:17 pm
Let's go to the Moon with Russia, South Korea, China, Canada, Pakistan, Europe, Nigeria, Egypt, India, Brazil, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Moon Express, Golden Spike, and everyone else who wants to go and is willing to seriously contribute to the effort. 

Or we all can stir up a Cold War II and complain about everyone else while ignoring how each of us may have contributed to the mess with our shrewd and shrill arguments and name calling.

Going to the Moon with Russia and everyone else makes pretty good sense, right? Good. Glad that is finally settled.

European space program is an example how efficient multi-national space program is. ATV costs 1bn apiece, and let me remind you that it (1) can't even return to Earth in one piece and (2) the program is terminated.

$1B a piece? All 5 of them cost $1.2B Euro together. Who cares if they could or couldn't return to earth they brought 8 tons up.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 07/26/2014 02:17 pm
Hi! There is an interesting article about the russian plans to return to the moon:
http://www.space.com/20461-russia-moon-robots-missions.html?cmpid=514648

Anybody interested what had been mentioned in R&D Magistral Tender in 2013 about Lunar Infrastructure?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 10/12/2014 04:29 am
10th of OCTOBER 2014 Round Table session in ITAR-TASS Press Centre "Solar system's nearest planets exploration by Lunar surface exploration as a premier"
Quote
10 октября 2014 года в пресс-центре ТАСС прошел круглый стол на тему “Изучение ближайших планет Солнечной системы на примере освоения поверхности Луны”.

В мероприятии приняли участие начальник Управления стратегического планирования Роскосмоса Юрия Макаров, директор ИКИ РАН, вице-президент РАН Лев Зеленый, заместитель генерального конструктора ОАО РКК “Энергия” Александр Деречин, первый заместитель генерального конструктора ФГУП “НПО им. С.А. Лавочкина” Максим Мартынов, заместитель генерального директора ФГУП ЦНИИмаш Сергей Крикалев и заместитель генерального директора ГНЦ ФГУП “Центр Келдыша” Владимир Кошлаков.

В рамках дискуссии была обсуждена программа освоения дальнего космоса, ключевым моментом которой станет освоение Луны: изучение, высадка и первые базы на ее поверхности. Как заявил в своем вступительном слове начальник Управления стратегического планирования Роскосмоса Юрий Макаров: “Федеральное космическое агентство разработало программу по освоению дальнего космоса и Луны. Технически мы к этому готовы. И Луна должна стать форпостом, на котором будет базироваться дальнейшая программа полетов к Марсу и другим планетам”. Он также добавил, что одну из ключевых ролей в новой программе будет играть космодром Восточный, строительство которого планируется завершить в 2015 году, а также о необходимости построить ракету-носитель сверхтяжелого класса, способную вывезти в космос более ста тонн полезного груза.

Первый заместитель генерального конструктора “НПО им. С.А. Лавочкина” рассказал о существующих и перспективных автоматических кораблях.

Сергей Крикалев добавил, что освоение Луны и планет Солнечной системы невозможно без подключения пилотируемой космонавтики, которая также переориентируется на долгосрочные полеты.

Александр Деречин рассказал о том, что полеты на Луну – это задача международного уровня, а также о роли России и партнеров в ее решении.

Лев Зеленый в свою очередь рассказал о перспективах международной космонавтики на несколько десятилетий вперед.

Круглый стол послужил заключительным мероприятием, организованным Роскосмосом в рамках Всемирной недели космоса, которая проходила с 4 по 10 октября и была приурочена к годовщине запуска первого в мире искусственного спутника Земли, сообщает пресс-служба Роскосмоса.
The following representatives of [the Russian space industry] participated in the event:
- Yuri Makarov (Roskosmos, Head of Strategic Planning Directorate);
- Lev Zelyoniy (Institute of Space Research IKI, Director; Russian Academy of Science, Vice-president);   
- Alexander Derechin (Rocket & Space Corporation ENERGIA, Chief Designer Deputy);
- Maxim Martinov (NPO Lavochkin, Chief Designer Deputy);
- Sergei Krikalev (FGUP TsNIIMash, General Director Deputy);
- Vladimir Koshlakov (GNTs FGUP Keldish Centre, General Director Deputy).

During event participants discussed a Deep Space Exploration Program
В рамках дискуссии была обсуждена программа освоения дальнего космоса, ключевым моментом которой станет освоение Луны: изучение, высадка и первые базы на ее поверхности. Как заявил в своем вступительном слове начальник Управления стратегического планирования Роскосмоса Юрий Макаров: “Федеральное космическое агентство разработало программу по освоению дальнего космоса и Луны. Технически мы к этому готовы. И Луна должна стать форпостом, на котором будет базироваться дальнейшая программа полетов к Марсу и другим планетам”. He also added that spaceport Vostochny would became one of the key assets in a new Program (upon construction completion in 2015) and there is a strong demand to develop SHLV capable to deliver  more than 100 tones of payload to LEO

Note: Oleg Ostapenko (Head of Russian Federal Space Agency) and Ekaterina Kuvshinkova (Institute of Space Research IKI, Science Fellow) supposed to participate in event (according to press conference announcement) but both of them unfortunately had not been present during press-conference. :)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 10/12/2014 05:26 am
10Th of October 2014 New batch of Lunar soil would be returned to Earth in 2023-2055
Quote
10.10.2014 Новую партию лунного грунта доставят на Землю в 2023-25 годах

Доставка новой партии лунного грунта на Землю планируется в 2023-2025 годах, заявил в пятницу журналистам первый заместитель генерального конструктора НПО им. С.А. Лавочкина Максим Мартынов.

"В программе есть на данный момент четыре миссии: это первая демонстрационная посадочная 2025 года, орбитальный аппарат, который необходим для поддержки всех посадочных миссий, дальше уже полноценная посадочная миссия "Луна-27" и в районе 2023-2025 года проект по доставке на Землю образцов вещества из районов Южного полюса", — сказал Мартынов.

По его словам, планируется доставка грунта в таком же виде, без изменений его температуры и с сохранением всех его веществ, передает РИА Новости.
Delivery of the new batch of Lunar soil is planned for 2020-2025, said to journalists on last Friday Maxim Martynov (NPO Lavochkin Chief Designer First deputy)

"Current [Russian Federal space exploration] program include four [Lunar] missions:
- Demo landing mission in 2025;
- Lunar Orbiter to provide [communication and information] support for all landing missions;
- Luna 27 full-scale landing mission;
- Lunar sample mission return 2023-2025 from Lunar South Pole vicinity." said Martynov.

According to him, lunar soil on return leg to Earth would be kept in a special container that would be capable maintain soil original temperature and preserve sample original properties, informs RIA Novosti   
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 10/12/2014 05:29 am
10th of October 2014 Russia Will Return to the Moon in the end of 2020 decade
Quote
10.10.2014 Россия "вернется" на Луну в конце 2020-х
Россия "возвратится" на Луну в конце следующего десятилетия, сообщил журналистам в пятницу глава Института космических исследований Лев Зеленый.

"Мы разработали ряд лунных миссий. Это проекты "Луна-25, 26, 27, 28" и "Луна-29". Уверен, что к концу следующего десятилетия Россия вновь высадится на спутник Земли", — сказал он.

Район посадки будет выбираться "по очень важным критериям: наличие воды под ногами на глубине 1,5 метров под поверхностью, наличие прямой видимости Земли".

Больше всего таких районов посадки на Южном полюсе Луны, указал Зеленый.

По его словам, до посадки будет осуществлено несколько облетов Луны с помощью автоматических станций, передает РИА Новости.
Russia would return to the Moon till the end of the next decade, said to journalists Lev Zeleniy (Head of Institute of Space Research) on last Friday.

We developed a set of Lunar missions,, that include Luna-25, 26, 27, 28 and Luna-29. "I am sure that Russia would be able to perform landing on Earth's satellite till the end of the next decade", he said

Landing zones would be chosen in order to satisfy important selection criteria such as:
- water presence on depth of 1.5 m under surface;
- direct visibility from Earth.   

The majority of such zones are near South Pole, specified Zeleniy.

According to him, before landing robotic Lunar Orbiter missions would provide information about [selected] landing zones, informs RIA NOVOSTI
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 10/12/2014 05:34 am
10th of October 2014 Russia prepared a Deep Space Exploration Program (http://itar-tass.com/kosmos/1499069)
Quote
10.10.2014 В России подготовили программу освоения дальнего космоса

Роскосмос подготовил программу освоения дальнего космоса и, прежде всего, Луны, заявил в пятницу журналистам начальник управления стратегического планирования Роскосмоса Юрий Макаров.

"Технологически мы созрели, наша промышленность, в принципе, готова к освоению дальнего космоса и, прежде всего, Луны. Мы подготовили программу "Освоение дальнего космоса", скоро ее представим", — сказал Макаров.

По его словам, это "очень амбициозная программа не только по бюджету, но и по задачам. Ядром программы является Луна".

Как добавил Макаров, в этой программе будет задействован строящийся на Дальнем Востоке космодром "Восточный", а также ракеты-носители тяжелого, а в дальнейшем и сверхтяжелого классов, передает РИА Новости.
[Russian Space Agency] Roskosmos prepared a Deep Space Exploration Program with a Moon as a priority objective according to the announcement  made before journalists by Yuri Makarov (Head of agency Strategic Planning Directorate) on last Friday.
 
"We have a mature technology and our [space] industry is ready for exploration of deep space [BLEO], including  Moon and interplanetary missions. We prepared a Deep Space Exploration program, that would be soon presented to public" - said Makarov

According to him "During this year we prepared a Deep Space Exploration Program in cooperation with Russian Academy of Science (RAN), Kurchatov National [Nuclear Research] Centre and RosATOM.  This is quite ambitious program not just by budget scale but also by set of objectives. The foundation stone of the program is Moon Exploration" 

Makarov noted that the program would be based on Far East spaceport Vostochny (currently under construction) as well as on Launch Vehicle of Heavy class (HLV) and later Launch Vehicle of Super Heavy class (SHLV) - informs RIA Novosti news agency.
(http://photocdn1.itar-tass.com/width/744_b12f2926/tass/m2/uploads/i/20141010/3865432.jpg)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 10/14/2014 03:55 pm
MOON DAILY
Russia to take Moon exploration as core of space program
by Staff Writers
Moscow (XNA) Oct 14, 2014

--Russia will take the Moon exploration as a core of its space program for the next decade, Federal Space Agency Roscosmos said Friday.
...
 Roscosmos forecasts the first Russian manned expedition to the Moon could be sent in late 2020s. Once conducted successfully, it would be the first manned mission to the Moon after a break of more than 40 years following the U.S. Apollo program.

Before the manned expedition, three automatic missions, namely Luna-25, -26 and -27, are expected to be fulfilled.--

I take them more seriously, since the are first going to explore with a few robotic missions
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 10/14/2014 10:12 pm
Quote
I take them more seriously, since the are first going to explore with a few robotic missions
IMHO five robotic missions is slightly more than a few  ;D ; they would be qualified for a PROGRAM  ;)
Plus they have plans for robotic polygon (test site as a pre-cursor for a manned Lunar base).
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 10/15/2014 03:31 am
Quote
I take them more seriously, since the are first going to explore with a few robotic missions
IMHO five robotic missions is slightly more than a few  ;D ; they would be qualified for a PROGRAM  ;)
Plus they have plans for robotic polygon (test site as a pre-cursor for a manned Lunar base).

I am not sure where getting five from, but they should send 5 or more- and not be limited to the south pole.
But perhaps 4 to south pole and one to north. First to south, next to north. Compare. then do 3 more
in south [assuming the results confirm their preference to south pole]. Second to south pole should to alternative location in south pole, and last two being precursors for manned landings.
The first manned landing would continue the exploration of the moon, and serve as precursors to any plan to make a base.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 10/15/2014 04:34 am
Quote
I take them more seriously, since the are first going to explore with a few robotic missions
IMHO five robotic missions is slightly more than a few  ;D ; they would be qualified for a PROGRAM  ;)
Plus they have plans for robotic polygon (test site as a pre-cursor for a manned Lunar base).

I am not sure where getting five from, but they should send 5 or more- and not be limited to the south pole.
But perhaps 4 to south pole and one to north. First to south, next to north. Compare. then do 3 more
in south [assuming the results confirm their preference to south pole]. Second to south pole should to alternative location in south pole, and last two being precursors for manned landings.
The first manned landing would continue the exploration of the moon, and serve as precursors to any plan to make a base.
Not all 5 are landers :)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/15/2014 10:01 pm
Russia is not going to the moon.  They couldn't do it in the 60's and they aren't doing it now or in the future.

Every month or so there is some grand proclamation from Russia about this that or the other mission, ISS, Mars, Heavy lift, moon.  They don't have the resources or financial strength.  They are lame ducks, flying 45 year old equipment.  Very successful equipment mind you, but still 45 years old paid for in soviet times.

Not to be little the great work many people do in Russia.  But they are resource constrained.

This is propaganda from a formally great power simple as that.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 10/16/2014 12:33 am
Russia is not going to the moon.  They couldn't do it in the 60's and they aren't doing it now or in the future.

Every month or so there is some grand proclamation from Russia about this that or the other mission, ISS, Mars, Heavy lift, moon.  They don't have the resources or financial strength.  They are lame ducks, flying 45 year old equipment.  Very successful equipment mind you, but still 45 years old paid for in soviet times.

Not to be little the great work many people do in Russia.  But they are resource constrained.

This is propaganda from a formally great power simple as that.

Generally, yes.
But one might be imagining going to the Moon must be expensive and it is not profitable.
Or say this as general rule, a manned mission to Mars is about 10 times the cost of going to the Moon.
So if imagining that NASA going to do a Mars manned mission, one should also allow the same "possibility"
of Russia doing a lunar manned program.
Or said differently every other space power is interested in the Moon, and one could say US is wondering about  going to Mars. Or Europe is interested in the moon, China has sent, and is sending lunar landers to the Moon. Though India is first Asia power to send an orbiter to Mars- though it's doubtful it will do much more in regards to going to Mars [other than maybe more orbiters or a lander].
So in context of possibility of US sending crew to Mars, one can think other nations as sending crew
to the Moon. And one could wonder, between China or Russia who will send crew first to the Moon [or will India or Europe get their first [or Americans]. And of course it could be China and Russia doing joint manned operation [or multiple parties {China, Russia, India, Japan, Europe, and individuals in the US or NASA} being involved with Lunar exploration which starts with robotic lander and continues on to manned missions to the Moon. Google has Lunar Xprize, this doesn't mean this would be the entirety of Google involvement with the Moon. And  the the Xprize is drawing in parties [ie, Israel] into doing projects which will morph over time. And Obama "we already gone to the Moon" will be history, and next US leadership, will probably want to put as much distance as possible from Obama [even if Democrats- as the democrats who will not even say they voted for Obama {and of course they did}.
So while Obama leads from behind, one has others doing things. And some things Russia been doing needs repair in terms of PR. So actually going to the Moon and involving Europe and others, PR wise does a lot of repair. People can quickly forget that Russia was murdering people and isn't russia great with what it's doing- opening up the universe, etc. Or Russia wasted far more money with it's invasions- and for the invasions not to be completely wasteful and worthless, going to the Moon can help.
Just saying it, helps a bit [and so could be just cheap talk] but actually doing it, helps more. Keep in mind Putin wants to return Russia to it's previous "glory" and biggest glory ever achieve by the soviets was related to their adventures in space. What else did do but some military conquests? And in general, diminishing the US? Btw, answer is nothing.
Now, one can imagine this all according to Obama's plan of returning to the Moon. And/or one can imagine this another vacuum, Putin will take advantage of.
Meanwhile, China and Russia have been mortal enemies for centuries- both are and remain the greatest threat to either of them. And China is going to the Moon. What are Russia going to do? Watch China do this? Is India which smacked China in face by beating them to Mars orbit, just going watch China go to the Moon? I don't think so.

As for costs, any other country other US or EU, can put lander on the Moon cheaper than NASA or ESA could manage. They might not be as dazzling or "always" work, but it's sort of FCB, even if fails 1/2 the time it's still cheaper. And in terms of crew, these countries might willing to take same level risk that the Apollo crew took. American crew may have been brave, but one can find some people anywhere who will be willing to take such risks.
But anyhow, how much? Probably less than 5 billion dollars- to get to point of landing some crew. Or say 3 billion each from 3 nations working together.

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 10/16/2014 02:40 am
Russia is not going to the moon.  They couldn't do it in the 60's and they aren't doing it now or in the future.

Every month or so there is some grand proclamation from Russia about this that or the other mission, ISS, Mars, Heavy lift, moon.  They don't have the resources or financial strength.  They are lame ducks, flying 45 year old equipment.  Very successful equipment mind you, but still 45 years old paid for in soviet times.

Not to be little the great work many people do in Russia.  But they are resource constrained.

This is propaganda from a formally great power simple as that.
I would not be SO pessimistic about Russia (even I made my own choice by leaving it  in 1992) - it's UNPREDICTABLE country. :) They have resources and financial strength, the biggest issues are political will (well absence of such thing anyway) and a HUGE generation gap of qualified workforce.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 10/19/2014 12:21 pm
Roskosmos is Planning Manned Lunar [Landing] Flight after 2030
Роскосмос планирует пилотируемый полет на Луну после 2030 года (http://itar-tass.com/kosmos/1508501)
TASS News Agency,  15 Oct 2014, 9:04 UTC+4
(http://photocdn2.itar-tass.com/width/744_b12f2926/tass/m2/uploads/i/20141015/3869481.jpg)
ITAR TASS Archive by Sergei Kazak
Quote
Moscow, 15 Oct /TASS/ Russian Deep Space Exploration Program (currently under review) contains an objective of sending manned crew for a Lunar mission after 2030. Statement had been made by Denis Liskov, States-Secretary of Roskosmos (also Roskosmos Head Deputy) to TASS correspondent during "OPEN INNOVATIONS" forum [On second day of forum].     
"This document [explicitly] states a manned mission to Moon and non-manned mission to Mars" - said Liskov. Accoridng to his words, Program was submitted [for endorsement] to the government, it already had been reviewed on Scientific & Technical Council of the Military & Industry Committee. "It was adjusted accordingly during review and we are now discussing those changes." After analysis and putting enchantments we will re-submit this document for government review."- said interviewee but he did not specify when it might occur.
He ascertained that a new Program is [closely] related to [Russian] 2016-2025 Federal Space Program (FKP), however [time-wise] Deep Space Exploration Program would be implemented later on.   
"FKP includes objectives for both Moon and Mars exploration. We are planning to launch interplanetary robotic missions to Mars as well as to Moon. Manned flight (with Lunar Landing) will take place after 2030 that's why it is not [explicitly] included in FKP. But [all key] technologies that would be tested for a [manned flight] implementation are included in Federal Program [as pre-requisites] ", - added Liskov.
Last week Lev, Zelenjy, (Head of Institute of Space Research IKI RAN) during Round Table press-conference in TASS press-centre made an announcement that Russian cosmonauts would perform Lunar fly by in the middle of 2020s and finally would be landed on the Moon surface in the end of 2020s   

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 10/19/2014 02:11 pm
Ok, by "popular demand" - who is who in Russian Lunar robotic Exploration Program
"Luna-25" (aka Luna Glob) Demo Landing mission near South Pole 
"Luna-26" (aka Luna Resource OA )Lunar Orbiter
"Luna-27" (aka Luna Resource PA) Precision Landing mission 
"Luna-28" (aka Luna Resource 2) Lunar soil form South Pole Sample Return
"Luna-29" Lunokhod mission
First 3 missions already included into FSP. last two are proposed 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 10/20/2014 06:59 pm
Ok, by "popular demand" - who is who in Russian Lunar robotic Exploration Program
"Luna-25" (aka Luna Glob) Demo Landing mission near South Pole 
"Luna-26" (aka Luna Resource OA )Lunar Orbiter
"Luna-27" (aka Luna Resource PA) Precision Landing mission 
"Luna-28" (aka Luna Resource 2) Lunar soil form South Pole Sample Return
"Luna-29" Lunokhod mission
First 3 missions already included into FSP. last two are proposed

It's only "by popular demand" if you're counting yourself and a few others, Igor.  ;)  I'm glad to see that they're at least committing to some serious robotic missions.  They're going to need something bigger than an Angara 5 if they want to send cosmonauts to the Moon, or at least need quite a few launches. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Moe Grills on 11/03/2014 12:47 am
Russia is not going to the moon.  They couldn't do it in the 60's and they aren't doing it now or in the future.

Every month or so there is some grand proclamation from Russia about this that or the other mission, ISS, Mars, Heavy lift, moon.  They don't have the resources or financial strength.  They are lame ducks, flying 45 year old equipment.  Very successful equipment mind you, but still 45 years old paid for in soviet times.

Not to be little the great work many people do in Russia.  But they are resource constrained.

This is propaganda from a formally great power simple as that.

I'm very ANGARA at you.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 11/03/2014 01:01 am
Lost in translation? Angara is not equal angry!
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/03/2014 08:21 pm
Nor does Nova mean, No va
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/05/2014 11:07 am
Russia is not going to the moon.  They couldn't do it in the 60's and they aren't doing it now or in the future.

Every month or so there is some grand proclamation from Russia about this that or the other mission, ISS, Mars, Heavy lift, moon.  They don't have the resources or financial strength.  They are lame ducks, flying 45 year old equipment.  Very successful equipment mind you, but still 45 years old paid for in soviet times.

Not to be little the great work many people do in Russia.  But they are resource constrained.

This is propaganda from a formally great power simple as that.

I'm very ANGARA at you.

It took 15 years to get to a single test flight.

The Ruble is crashing after poor governance and falling oil prices.  Russia is not going anywhere near the moon for a very long time.  They'll be lucky to keep what they have flying.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 11/07/2014 04:30 am
Russia is not going to the moon.  They couldn't do it in the 60's and they aren't doing it now or in the future.

Every month or so there is some grand proclamation from Russia about this that or the other mission, ISS, Mars, Heavy lift, moon.  They don't have the resources or financial strength.  They are lame ducks, flying 45 year old equipment.  Very successful equipment mind you, but still 45 years old paid for in soviet times.

Not to be little the great work many people do in Russia.  But they are resource constrained.

This is propaganda from a formally great power simple as that.

I'm very ANGARA at you.

It took 15 years to get to a single test flight.

The Ruble is crashing after poor governance and falling oil prices.  Russia is not going anywhere near the moon for a very long time.  They'll be lucky to keep what they have flying.

Yes, yes, and Russia is doomed and so on.  There's an old saying about Russia that comes to mind.  "Russia is never as strong as she looks; Russia is never as weak as she looks."  Russia faced a far worse economic crisis in the 1990s than anything it is facing today.  Best example?  It is now self-sufficient in food production, which was not something you could have said during the 1990s.  Despite that economic collapse the Russians managed to hold onto their nuclear arsenal, their launch capabilities, and even maintained the Mir Space Station in orbit (albeit with American help).  Given the costs of producing shale oil forms a floor under oil prices, there's only so far prices can drop before they stall out.  So Russia will suffer, sure, but its government is investing heavily in a new cosmodrome over in Vostnochny.  Far from barely being able to launch, you'll soon see the Russians gain the ability to launch from their own territory (all manned launches currently are done from Kazakhstan).  Russia is also investing more in its space program generally, and has surpassed the ESA in total nominal funding.  The effect of this can be seen in the lunar missions mentioned by fregate and also the joint ESA-Roscomos missions to Mars being worked on as we speak. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 11/07/2014 05:03 am
I agree with Hyperion5 for 150% - Russia is absolutely unpredictable country that could reach peak of efficiency in case of emergency.
Russian space industry passed rock bottom around 2004-05 and now on the move with a full steam :) They have a lot of tricks under their sleeves. BTW "Rebirth of the Phoenix" is a chapter title in Anatoly Zak book "Russia in Space" (Second edition currently in print)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Amur_Tiger on 11/18/2014 07:38 am
Russia is not going to the moon.  They couldn't do it in the 60's and they aren't doing it now or in the future.

Every month or so there is some grand proclamation from Russia about this that or the other mission, ISS, Mars, Heavy lift, moon.  They don't have the resources or financial strength.  They are lame ducks, flying 45 year old equipment.  Very successful equipment mind you, but still 45 years old paid for in soviet times.

Not to be little the great work many people do in Russia.  But they are resource constrained.

This is propaganda from a formally great power simple as that.

I'm very ANGARA at you.

It took 15 years to get to a single test flight.

The Ruble is crashing after poor governance and falling oil prices.  Russia is not going anywhere near the moon for a very long time.  They'll be lucky to keep what they have flying.

If the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 90s couldn't get Russia out of space what makes you think that the comparatively minor issues they're having now are going to significantly impact their plans if they have the political will to do it?

Given that we're on the cusp of seeing Angara work through it's test launches I think it's foolish at best to suggest that Russia is more prone to talking then doing then any other space-faring nation.


As to how, I think it'll shake out with time, particularly as the Angara rocket is taken through it's paces and starts to build up a meaningful launch record that'll either firmly put the Proton problems in the past and reassure other nations that it is one of if not the preeminent space faring nation right now. Or alternatively problems with Angara could sink hope of co-operation for 5-10 years as they work to correct things. Being on the verge of launching their first major rocket family since the fall of the Soviet Union just leaves too many questions about their capability in the air that'll soon be answered.

Who might work with them is pretty variable too, international politics right now rules out the west barring some significant improvements in relations, which seems to be at least a 5 year project barring Russia and the EU/US actually agreeing on something when it comes to Ukraine, which seems unlikely.

The options outside of that are less political however and in no particular order:

1. China, has some of the will and certainly has the funds to manage it, isn't likely to care about Russian geopolitical adventures in Ukraine/elsewhere. The two biggest questions with China are whether they want to diminish their own glory by sharing it with a partner and whether or not they can be trusted to not suddenly start launching Angara ripoffs the moment the Russians start to share plans.

2. India, has little of the will but some of the funds to contribute. Their biggest advantage is that they have an excellent working relationship with Russia, no geopolitical or industrial espionage issues here. Also the possibility for a near-equator launch site would carry significant advantages, perhaps enough to push an Angara A7 into being able to launch a full moon mission. Biggest challenge here would be getting India interested enough to put the funds down, perhaps once they start receiving shipments of their Pak Fa variant they'll feel like space and a moon shot are a worthy endeavor with their Russian comrades.

3. South Korea is a bit of an odd-ball, they've worked together with Russia in the past on launch vehicles but both funds and will would be hard to come by in the quantity needed for a moon shot, even assisted by the Russians. Perhaps as part of a larger joint-venture space port in the Far East, but it seems like a long shot, particularly with the current geopolitical mood out there.

Personally I think the Indian one is the most interesting prospect both because of the reliability of the relationship between the two countries and because the near-equator launch site could make a moon shot possible without anything more then the addition of boosters to the Angara rocket they're testing this December, the biggest challenge would be getting the ball rolling.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 11/18/2014 09:15 am
@Amur_tiger Why China need to steal Angara  design? Please compare Long Marsh V  and Angara A5/KVTK GTO payload capabilities. You might be surprised. Yes Angara A5 could deliver the same 25 tonn on LEO like LM-5 but it does not use hydrogen
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Amur_Tiger on 11/18/2014 02:54 pm
@Amur_tiger Why China need to steal Angara  design? Please compare Long Marsh V  and Angara A5/KVTK GTO payload capabilities. You might be surprised. Yes Angara A5 could deliver the same 25 tonn on LEO like LM-5 but it does not use hydrogen

I wasn't meaning to be specific to Angara, though I suspect that as the family is tested there will be advantages and strengths to the Angara and more importantly it's components. Given that the Long March core engine is based off the RD-120 it's pretty easy to imagine that China may have a few more things to learn from the Russians, especially since the Angara looks to be around 2 years ahead of the Long March's launch schedule.

Either way there's an issue of trust there, evidenced by issues over Flanker sales after the Chinese, an issue that isn't present with India.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 12/06/2014 10:29 am
Back to major topic
ITAR-TASS Russian news agency press-release 5th of December 2014 (http://itar-tass.com/kosmos/1625827)
Quote
Разработчики лунной программы РФ предлагают выделить на нее 12,5 трлн руб. до 2050 года

МОСКВА, 5 декабря. /ТАСС/. Разработчики российской программы по исследованию и освоению Луны предлагают выделить на эти цели около 12,5 трлн руб. до 2050 года, следует из проекта долгосрочной программы освоения дальнего космоса, направленной на утверждение в правительство.
В составлении программы участвовали специалисты Роскосмоса, "Росатома", Института космических исследований РАН, Курчатовского института, ЦНИИмаша.

"На основании полученной укрупненной оценки стоимостных затрат на реализацию лунной программы в период с 2014 до 2025 года суммарные затраты составят порядка 2 трлн руб.", - уточняется в тексте. При этом ежегодные расходы в этот период варьируются от 16 млрд до 320 млрд руб.
С 2026 по 2035 год разработчики программы предлагают тратить на освоение Луны от 290 млрд до 690 млрд руб. в год. Суммарные затраты в этот период составят 4,5 трлн руб., подсчитали они. "Пик нагрузки приходится на 2030-2032 годы - период начала высадки космонавтов на поверхность Луны и начала построения лунной орбитальной станции", - уточняется в документе.
Затраты на освоение Луны с 2036 по 2050 год могут составить порядка 6 трлн руб. - от 250 млрд до 570 млрд руб. ежегодно. Оценка стоимостных затрат, уточняется в проекте, производилась в ценах 2013 года с учетом значений индексов-дефляторов.
По данным авторов проекта, на разработку необходимой для лунной программы космической техники пойдет лишь 10% средств. Основные деньги будут потрачены на эксплуатацию и поддержание работоспособности космической техники.

Quote
Russian Lunar Exploration Program planners asked for funding in amount of RUB 12.5 trillion ($US ~236.2 billion) till 2050

MOSCOW 5th of December (TASS). Russian Lunar Exploration Program planners asked for funding in amount of RUB 12.5 trillion ($US ~237 billion) till 2050 as quoted from the Draft documentation of the long-term Deep Space Exploration Program that had been submitted for Russian government endorsement.

This Program had been drafted with participation of experts from Russian Federal Space Agency (Roskosmos), Rosatom, Institute of the Space Research (IKI) of the Russian Academy of Science, Kurchatov's Institute and TsNIIMash.


Based on macro estimations of funding for Lunar Exploration Program implementation during period from 2014 till 2025 total spending was estimated around RUB 2 trillion ($US ~ 37.8 billion) as quoted from the document draft. Annual spending for this period could vary in a wide range from RUB 16 billion to RUB 320 billion (from $US 303 million to $US 6.045 billion) per annum.

During period from 2026 till 2035 Program planners proposed for Lunar Exploration spending in range from RUB 290 billion to RUB 690 billion (from $US 5.479 billion to $US 13.035 billion) per annum. with total spending for that period to be around RUB 4.5 trillion ($US 85.006 billion)

"Spike of spending should occur around 2030-2032 - that is period for manned lunar landing by cosmonauts and beginning of the Lunar Orbital Station construction" said jn the document 

A projected Program budget for period from 2036 till 2050 could reach an amount around RUB 6 trillion
($US 113.341 billion) with annual funds in a range from RUB 250 billion to RUB 570 billion ($US 5.773 billion to $US 10.768 billion). Budget estimation for a Program had been done for 2013 prices (adjusted with CPI) 

According to Program planners, only 10% of all expenses would be spent for a new Lunar hardware development. Majority of the funds would be allocated for maintenance and guaranteed availability of Lunar transportation system.

US currency amounts are based on exchange rate effective on 05 Dec 2014 http://www.xe.com/currencytables (http://www.xe.com/currencytables)
"Show me the money!"  Jerry Maguire
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: savuporo on 12/07/2014 06:08 pm
Ok, by "popular demand" - who is who in Russian Lunar robotic Exploration Program
"Luna-25" (aka Luna Glob) Demo Landing mission near South Pole 
"Luna-26" (aka Luna Resource OA )Lunar Orbiter
"Luna-27" (aka Luna Resource PA) Precision Landing mission 
"Luna-28" (aka Luna Resource 2) Lunar soil form South Pole Sample Return
"Luna-29" Lunokhod mission
First 3 missions already included into FSP. last two are proposed 

I was just reading updates on Luna-25 and it seems it has had a "minor slip" from 2016 to 2018 now, and has had it's instruments severely descoped. Sources ebull.ru excellent news compilations (http://www.ebull.ru/) and this (http://recentnewstechnology.blogspot.com/2014/10/russian-moon-past-present-and-future-of.html)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: savuporo on 12/08/2014 04:15 pm
By the way, here is a very recent article and a nice video talking about exactly whats happening with Luna-Glob etc. Seems to be a report from a recent roundtable meeting (http://itar-tass.com/press/events/2246) with some prominent russian space industry  figures. After reading and watching this, the launch dates are murkier than ever :)

http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2053959 ( Moon: the seventh continent )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT0LmPooEy8
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 12/08/2014 08:53 pm
Please read my post #195 in this topic - it was a press conference in the beginning of October in ITAR-TASS press center.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: savuporo on 12/08/2014 09:53 pm
Please read my post #195 in this topic - it was a press conference in the beginning of October in ITAR-TASS press center.
Thanks - i did, now. Still no smarter about the actual plans and launch dates. Lev Zelenyi seems to be giving conflicting dates for Luna-25 ( or is it Luna-25A now ? ) anywhere from 2016, 2018 to 2020 depending on the interview occasion - and the budgets have apparently not been confirmed either yet.

EDIT: did learn something that i missed before though. Luna-25 and onwards are all planned to run off plutonium RTGs ( not just RHUs - which Chang'e-3 effectively borrowed from Russia ) which makes it pretty exciting for polar landings.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 12/16/2014 06:25 am
Please read my post #195 in this topic - it was a press conference in the beginning of October in ITAR-TASS press center.
Thanks - i did, now. Still no smarter about the actual plans and launch dates. Lev Zelenyi seems to be giving conflicting dates for Luna-25 ( or is it Luna-25A now ? ) anywhere from 2016, 2018 to 2020 depending on the interview occasion - and the budgets have apparently not been confirmed either yet.

EDIT: did learn something that i missed before though. Luna-25 and onwards are all planned to run off plutonium RTGs ( not just RHUs - which Chang'e-3 effectively borrowed from Russia ) which makes it pretty exciting for polar landings.
We have to wait for official Federal Space Program approval.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 12/16/2014 06:30 am
RIA Novosti Press release 15 Dec 2014 (http://ria.ru/space/20141215/1038293602.html)
Quote
Роскосмос подтвердил планы создания национальной орбитальной станции
С помощью станции Россия "сможет решать задачи различного характера". В частности, станцию рассматривают как базу для лунной программы России.
МОСКВА, 15 дек — РИА Новости. Роскосмос рассматривает вариант создания высокоширотной национальной космической станции, этот вопрос может быть внесен в новую Федеральную космическую программу, сообщил журналистам в понедельник глава Роскосмоса Олег Остапенко.
"Я подтверждаю, мы рассматриваем такой вариант, это одно из перспективных направлений", — сказал Остапенко, отвечая на вопрос журналистов.
Он отметил, что с помощью станции Россия "сможет решать задачи различного характера". В частности, станцию рассматривают как базу для лунной программы России: "Такой вариант есть — мы его сейчас просчитываем".
Эксперты восприняли идею создания национальной космической станции России неоднозначно: одни указывали, что это может подстегнуть развитие космической, а за ней и других отраслей промышленности, а другие были более скептичны.
Так, академик Российской академии космонавтики имени Циолковского Игорь Маринин заявлял РИА Новости, что можно переориентировать на эти цели три модуля, которые Россия планировала отправить к МКС, но пока не запустила. По его оценке, "это реально, достаточно дешево", но "вопрос в другом — нужна ли нам такая станция?".
]Подобного мнения придерживается и член-корреспондент Российской академии космонавтики имени Циолковского Андрей Ионин. Ранее он выразил мнение, что несмотря на имеющийся технический задел, создание Россией собственной космической станции не имеет практической цели и приведет лишь к неоправданным расходам.
To be translated - scouts honour :)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: savuporo on 12/16/2014 06:30 am
We have to wait for official Federal Space Program approval.
The budgets should be approved in December, right ?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: savuporo on 12/16/2014 06:34 am
To be translated - scouts honour :)
Already done : http://rt.com/news/214483-russia-national-space-station/
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 12/16/2014 06:35 am
We have to wait for official Federal Space Program approval.
The budgets should be approved in December, right ?
Budget for 2015 according to ROSKOSMOS statement had not been cut out (due to financial crisis/sanctions), but they did not revel a total amount of spending. :(
Russian government suppose to approve the following tabled documents:
- Deep Space Exploration Program (2016-2040)
- Lunar Exploration Program (2016-2040)
- Federal space program (2016-2025)
And by approving them they also have to find means of funding (at least in theory)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 12/16/2014 06:36 am
To be translated - scouts honour :)
Already done : http://rt.com/news/214483-russia-national-space-station/

Slightly different content :(
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 12/16/2014 01:40 pm
The ruble is in freefall right now. Not good news for Russian space plans.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 12/16/2014 09:04 pm
Ruble might be in trouble, but Roskosmos decided to use only "Made in Russia"components. It might require additional investments to cover gaps in production and some time until those brand new production capabilities became available.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Moe Grills on 12/24/2014 08:05 pm
Now that a successful Angara A5 launch has occurred, a booster capable of putting 23.5 tonnes in LEO, we should reappraise Russia's ability to?
1) Carry out a successful cislunar mission with a Soyuz with two billionaire 'tourists' onboard, even before this decade is out.
(a bad Ruble means that Russia would be more eager to obtain 200 million in dollars or Euros; maybe becoming more accommodating and less hostile to westerners to do so).
2) Work out a practical mission in the next ten years involving an LEO rendezvous of two 23.5 tonne modules;
one of which will park in Lunar orbit for a week maybe more with 4 cosmonauts onboard.
Nobody has done it before; it is doable for Russia if she is determined to do so. It will be prestigious; Russia needs a mission and program that restores Russia's pride and prestige.
3) Use upgraded, beefed up Angara's (near Saturn class) to send up to 3 cosmonauts to the lunar surface before
the next decade is out. They can stay on the lunar surface for a week in a pressurized lunar 'tent'.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: savuporo on 12/24/2014 08:18 pm
1) Carry out a successful cislunar mission with a Soyuz with two billionaire 'tourists' onboard, even before this decade is out.
Major blocker is still making Blok-D (M) do what it has only done once in ancient history, survive in space for more than a few hours. Judging by its recent record, the outlook is not good.

EDIT: and the other problem of course is simply lack of recent experience running a deep space mission. Tracking and mission control. Not having done that in decades, and Phobos-grunt slightly underperforming, i think using billionaires as your practice payloads is not the best idea. At least Luna-25 or something along these lines would have to fly first.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Moe Grills on 12/24/2014 09:31 pm
1) Carry out a successful cislunar mission with a Soyuz with two billionaire 'tourists' onboard, even before this decade is out.
Major blocker is still making Blok-D (M) do what it has only done once in ancient history, survive in space for more than a few hours. Judging by its recent record, the outlook is not good.

EDIT: and the other problem of course is simply lack of recent experience running a deep space mission. Tracking and mission control. Not having done that in decades, and Phobos-grunt slightly underperforming, i think using billionaires as your practice payloads is not the best idea. At least Luna-25 or something along these lines would have to fly first.

Problems are not always barriers. And Russia, with all its problems, is no longer a backward nation.
I'm old enough to remember when the USSR was 10 years behind America in computer technology, and yet
that Soviet state achieved robotic dockings in LEO, lunar sample return missions,  Venus landings and if it weren't for a martian dust storm the USSR would have had the first scientifically successful Mars lander.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: savuporo on 12/24/2014 10:13 pm
yeah, but all this has very little to do with Angara's success. I don't think a new ( awesome ) operational launcher gets Russia any closer to the moon, as launchers did not seem to be the blocker in the first place.

"if we put two Lunokhods on the moon, how come we can't put Luna-Resurs on the moon?"
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 12/24/2014 11:48 pm
Now that a successful Angara A5 launch has occurred, a booster capable of putting 23.5 tonnes in LEO, we should reappraise Russia's ability to?
1) Carry out a successful cislunar mission with a Soyuz with two billionaire 'tourists' onboard, even before this decade is out.
(a bad Ruble means that Russia would be more eager to obtain 200 million in dollars or Euros; maybe becoming more accommodating and less hostile to westerners to do so).
2) Work out a practical mission in the next ten years involving an LEO rendezvous of two 23.5 tonne modules;
one of which will park in Lunar orbit for a week maybe more with 4 cosmonauts onboard.
Nobody has done it before; it is doable for Russia if she is determined to do so. It will be prestigious; Russia needs a mission and program that restores Russia's pride and prestige.
3) Use upgraded, beefed up Angara's (near Saturn class) to send up to 3 cosmonauts to the lunar surface before
the next decade is out. They can stay on the lunar surface for a week in a pressurized lunar 'tent'.
Moe, please note that 23.5 tones payload to LEO is payload capability of Angara A5 LV launched from Plesetsk to LEO orbit with inclination 63 degree. The same launch vehicle could easily deliver at least 25 tones to LEO from Vostochny on LEO orbit with inclination 51.7 degree after 2021.
Angara A5 is paving road to man-rated LV Angara A5P that would carry a manned PTK NP to LEO. First manned Lunar orbit flight is planned for 2028 and first RUSSIAN Lunar landing is planned for 2030.
Decision about Superheavy launch vehicle (Saturn V class) would be made by Roskosmos in Jan 2015. It's not neccessary that it would be based on Angara family design, Khrunichev already teamed with Samara Rocket Center PROGRESS, RSC Energia is lobbying their Launcher plus there is a proposal from Makeev Rocket center.
Souyz around Moon project did not leave a feasibility study stage since 2006, it was Energia idea to earn more money via Space Adventure and currently not supported by Roskosmos. Lumar modification of Soyuz however might be used for transporting crews to OPSEK.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 12/25/2014 12:44 am
1) Carry out a successful cislunar mission with a Soyuz with two billionaire 'tourists' onboard, even before this decade is out.
Major blocker is still making Blok-D (M) do what it has only done once in ancient history, survive in space for more than a few hours. Judging by its recent record, the outlook is not good.

EDIT: and the other problem of course is simply lack of recent experience running a deep space mission. Tracking and mission control. Not having done that in decades, and Phobos-grunt slightly underperforming, i think using billionaires as your practice payloads is not the best idea. At least Luna-25 or something along these lines would have to fly first.
Block-DM endurance had been discussed in a separate topic:
Yes current version of Block DM works 8 hours for GEO/GTO missions;
Block D was a critical piece of hardware for Soviet Manned Lunar program at had endurance at least of five days, Soviets also successfully fired Blok D space tug after a week on LEO. And do not forget Block-DM derived propulsion system for orbital maneuring trustees on Buran - they had been design with endurance of at least 30 days.
Recent records had nothing to do with Block-DM-03 performance - in one instance it was a human error when technicians poured more propellant according to a wrong value in instruction, in second case it was malfunction of LV after launch.
Stand by for a goverment payload on Proton-M LV.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Danderman on 12/25/2014 03:14 am

Souyz around Moon project did not leave a feasibility study stage since 2006, it was Energia idea to earn more money via Space Adventure and currently not supported by Roskosmos. Lumar modification of Soyuz however might be used for transporting crews to OPSEK.

It wasn't Energia's idea.

For the record, the mission concept «Лунный экспресс» was introduced to Energia  from the West, I believe, in June of 2004.  I was there, so this is from my memory.

http://www.kp.ru/daily/23335/31058/

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 12/25/2014 04:25 am
yeah, but all this has very little to do with Angara's success. I don't think a new ( awesome ) operational launcher gets Russia any closer to the moon, as launchers did not seem to be the blocker in the first place.

"if we put two Lunokhods on the moon, how come we can't put Luna-Resurs on the moon?"
A huge gap of two generations of engineers since last robotic lunar soviet mission Luna-24 delivered lunar soil sample 1976 - for 38 years nobody in USSR/RF planned a lunar mission.
Head of NPO Lavichkin reluctantly admitted that soviet know how for lunar landing is lost now and they need to learn again how to land on the moon. That's why Roskosmos decided to cooperate with ESA -after cancelation of European robotic lander, especially interested in laser ranging
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 12/25/2014 04:27 am

Souyz around Moon project did not leave a feasibility study stage since 2006, it was Energia idea to earn more money via Space Adventure and currently not supported by Roskosmos. Lumar modification of Soyuz however might be used for transporting crews to OPSEK.

It wasn't Energia's idea.

For the record, the mission concept «Лунный экспресс» was introduced to Energia  from the West, I believe, in June of 2004.  I was there, so this is from my memory.

http://www.kp.ru/daily/23335/31058/
Ok, poor choice of words - yes Energia supported Space Adventures original sale pitch.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: savuporo on 12/25/2014 05:02 am
Block D was a critical piece of hardware for Soviet Manned Lunar program at had endurance at least of five days, Soviets also successfully fired Blok D space tug after a week on LEO.
I know. Thats what i meant above with the once ever "ancient history" mission. I dont doubt that Blok-D was hoped to do great things, but this one flight was 44 years ago. I'd be interested to know if anyone even has sufficient technical record retained on how this was achieved, because western records are all vague based on remote observations. But the Cosmos-382 was apparently extensively instrumented with video cameras etc. Insulation upgrades ? Ignition, purge system upgrades ? Batteries ? etc.

Quote
Recent records had nothing to do with Block-DM-03 performance - in one instance it was a human error when technicians poured more propellant according to a wrong value in instruction, in second case it was malfunction of LV after launch.
Well, the best race car does not win championships on its own without a competent pit crew.

Generally i dont think a manned Russian stack would be heading to the moon without the venerable Blok-D - unless KVTK turns out to be a lot less mythical creature than it appears currently.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Danderman on 12/25/2014 05:34 am
I dont doubt that Blok-D was hoped to do great things, but this one flight was 44 years ago. I'd be interested to know if anyone even has sufficient technical record retained on how this was achieved, because western records are all vague based on remote observations. But the Cosmos-382 was apparently extensively instrumented with video cameras etc. Insulation upgrades ? Ignition, purge system upgrades ? Batteries ? etc.


This begs for someone to write up the history of this mission, since it featured some very unusual maneuvers. I believe it is still in orbit, waiting for someone with a good camera to image it.

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: savuporo on 12/31/2014 07:13 pm
I think there is a bad bug on the loose in Russia. I think its seasonal.

http://itar-tass.com/en/non-political/770119
Quote
The Russian company Lin Industrial currently developing the ultralightweight Taimyr rocket has announced readiness to build a base on the Moon

Not sure if this is a bad translation again or did Lin (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36301.15) get carried away at some new years party.

The mode of operation for russian space industry
1) Show a space related something that has credible way of working, assuming enough effort and funds is put into it
2) ? ? ?
3) Lunar base !


Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/01/2015 07:48 am
I think there is a bad bug on the loose in Russia. I think its seasonal.

http://itar-tass.com/en/non-political/770119 (http://itar-tass.com/en/non-political/770119)
Quote
The Russian company Lin Industrial currently developing the ultralightweight Taimyr rocket has announced readiness to build a base on the Moon

Not sure if this is a bad translation again or did Lin (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36301.15) get carried away at some new years party.

The mode of operation for russian space industry
1) Show a space related something that has credible way of working, assuming enough effort and funds is put into it
2) ? ? ?
3) Lunar base !



This is original Russian article (without any New Year alcohol influence)
Quote
31 Dec 2014 Российская компания объявила о готовности создать базу на Луне за 550 млрд руб. ITAR-TASS  (http://itar-tass.com/kosmos/1681531)
Пилотируемые экспедиции на Луну и развертывание элементов инфраструктуры планируются после 2030 года
МОСКВА, 31 декабря. /ТАСС/. Российская компания "Лин Индастриал", разрабатывающая сверхлегкую ракету "Таймыр", заявляет о готовности создать базу на Луне в течение 10 лет после принятия соответствующего решения. Стоимость базы, по предварительной оценке, составит 550 млрд руб., сообщил ТАСС генеральный конструктор фирмы Александр Ильин.
В проекте программы освоения дальнего космоса, направленном на утверждение в кабмин, на лунную программу в 2014-2025 годах предлагается выделить порядка 2 трлн руб. При этом пилотируемые экспедиции на Луну и развертывание первых элементов лунной инфраструктуры планируются после 2030 года.
"Стоимость создания лунной базы первого этапа на двух членов экипажа и второго этапа на четырех человек, по предварительной оценке, составит 550 млрд руб.", - рассказал Ильин.
Он подчеркнул, что проект предполагает использование уже существующей техники и средств, которые могут быть созданы в ближайшие пять лет. Так, в качестве ракеты-носителя предлагается использовать модернизированную тяжелую "Ангару", первый полет которой состоялся в конце декабря. Корабль, по словам Ильина, можно создать на основе корпусов спускаемого аппарата и бытового отсека "Союзов", а посадочный лунный модуль - на базе разгонного блока "Фрегат".
"Лин Индастриал" предлагает осуществить 13 пусков тяжелых ракет для строительства базы на Луне, всего же для поддержания жизнедеятельности базы нужно 37 пусков в течение пяти лет.Первое лунное поселениеВ компании уже придумали, где можно развернуть первое лунное поселение - это гора Малаперт в районе южного полюса Луны. "Это достаточно ровное плато с прямой видимостью Земли, что обеспечивает хорошие условия для связи и является удобным местом для посадки. На горе в течение 89% времени присутствует солнечное освещение, а продолжительность ночи, которая случается всего несколько раз в год, не превышает 3-6 суток", - отметил Ильин.
В проекте программы освоения дальнего космоса, направленном на утверждение в кабмин, на лунную программу в 2014-2025 годах предлагается выделить порядка 2 трлн руб. При этом пилотируемые экспедиции на Луну и развертывание первых элементов лунной инфраструктуры планируются после 2030 года.
"Стоимость создания лунной базы первого этапа на двух членов экипажа и второго этапа на четырех человек, по предварительной оценке, составит 550 млрд руб.", - рассказал Ильин.
Он подчеркнул, что проект предполагает использование уже существующей техники и средств, которые могут быть созданы в ближайшие пять лет. Так, в качестве ракеты-носителя предлагается использовать модернизированную тяжелую "Ангару", первый полет которой состоялся в конце декабря. Корабль, по словам Ильина, можно создать на основе корпусов спускаемого аппарата и бытового отсека "Союзов", а посадочный лунный модуль - на базе разгонного блока "Фрегат".
"Лин Индастриал" предлагает осуществить 13 пусков тяжелых ракет для строительства базы на Луне, всего же для поддержания жизнедеятельности базы нужно 37 пусков в течение пяти лет. Первое лунное поселениеВ компании уже придумали, где можно развернуть первое лунное поселение - это гора Малаперт в районе южного полюса Луны. "Это достаточно ровное плато с прямой видимостью Земли, что обеспечивает хорошие условия для связи и является удобным местом для посадки. На горе в течение 89% времени присутствует солнечное освещение, а продолжительность ночи, которая случается всего несколько раз в год, не превышает 3-6 суток", - отметил Ильин.
"Возможный срок реализации проекта - 10 лет от начала принятия решения, из них 5 лет - непосредственно развертывание базы и работа экипажей", - добавил он.
Комментируя эту инициативу, директор Института космических исследований РАН Лев Зеленый отметил, что проект символизирует возвращение интереса к изучению и освоению Луны. "Но говорить о строительстве целого поселения пока рано", - отметил академик.
Зеленый пояснил, что сначала нужно выбрать место посадки, создать технологии, обеспечивающие доставку и жизнедеятельность человека на Луне, определиться с задачами для космонавтов и решить вопрос радиационной защиты. В концепции, предложенной РАН и Роскосмосом, эти вещи предусмотрены, напомнил директор института, предложив считать проект "Лин Индастриал" "артековской фантазией".
"Хорошо, что они мечтают. В их команде есть талантливые люди. Какие-то их разработки в будущем могут пригодиться", - заключил Зеленый.

P.S. Alexander Ilyin is active member of NK Fourm (Nickname Lin) and owner of this web site spacelin.ru and blog http://users.livejournal.com/___lin___/
Artek Fantasy - is a reference to the flagship Soviet Pioneer (a kids organisation similar to Scouts) Camp located in Crimea :( Ouch!
Tell me exactly what is needed to be translated.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fast on 01/01/2015 12:16 pm
Totally pointless.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: AntiAnti on 01/03/2015 01:55 pm
Titles in media are unclear. Lin don't promise to build this base and dont asks any funding for it. The point was to make a well-defined concept and show that lunar base could be much cheaper then official (now denied because of economical problems) lunar program.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 07/24/2015 12:39 am
We have to wait for official Federal Space Program approval.
The budgets should be approved in December, right ?
Budget for 2015 according to ROSKOSMOS statement had not been cut out (due to financial crisis/sanctions), but they did not revel a total amount of spending. :(
Russian government suppose to approve the following tabled documents:
- Deep Space Exploration Program (2016-2040)
- Lunar Exploration Program (2016-2040)
- Federal space program (2016-2025)
And by approving them they also have to find means of funding (at least in theory)

Is the draft federal space plan a public document? Is there a copy of it available online somewhere? In fact, are any of the above documents public, even in draft form?

Any idea when the final version will be approved and released?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 07/24/2015 01:21 am
We have to wait for official Federal Space Program approval.
The budgets should be approved in December, right ?
Budget for 2015 according to ROSKOSMOS statement had not been cut out (due to financial crisis/sanctions), but they did not revel a total amount of spending. :(
Russian government suppose to approve the following tabled documents:
- Deep Space Exploration Program (2016-2040)
- Lunar Exploration Program (2016-2040)
- Federal space program (2016-2025)
And by approving them they also have to find means of funding (at least in theory)

Is the draft federal space plan a public document? Is there a copy of it available online somewhere? In fact, are any of the above documents public, even in draft form?

Any idea when the final version will be approved and released?
Unfortunately submission of Federal Space Program 2016-2025 had been delayed by ROSKOSMOS, and draft not PUBLISHED. Even worst - Russian government decided not to publish anymore any tender documentation for space industry.
So, in terms of PR it's BACK to USSR scenario and absolute information VOID, just gossips :(
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 07/24/2015 02:51 am
Unfortunately submission of Federal Space Program 2016-2025 had been delayed by ROSKOSMOS, and draft not PUBLISHED. Even worst - Russian government decided not to publish anymore any tender documentation for space industry.
So, in terms of PR it's BACK to USSR scenario and absolute information VOID, just gossips :(

Does that include the Deep Space Exploration Program and Lunar Exploration Program documents as well? Anything public on them?

I heard that the Federal Space Program report is expected soon, but maybe that only means that it will be announced, not that it will become public.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 07/24/2015 03:03 am
Unfortunately submission of Federal Space Program 2016-2025 had been delayed by ROSKOSMOS, and draft not PUBLISHED. Even worst - Russian government decided not to publish anymore any tender documentation for space industry.
So, in terms of PR it's BACK to USSR scenario and absolute information VOID, just gossips :(

Does that include the Deep Space Exploration Program and Lunar Exploration Program documents as well? Anything public on them?

I heard that the Federal Space Program report is expected soon, but maybe that only means that it will be announced, not that it will become public.
Parts of Federal Space Exploration program would became available and hopefully they would be published before 2016. Not so sure about other 2 documents  - for instance a 5 mission Luna 25-29 robotic program already would split - 3 missions before 2025 and remaining two - after 2025.   
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 07/24/2015 09:11 pm
Screenshots from that October 2014 video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT0LmPooEy8

They are building flight hardware.

The big black cylinder in the first photo is the telescope for Spektr-RG.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: tesla on 07/24/2015 09:16 pm
Screenshots from that October 2014 video.

They are building flight hardware.

I don't know what the big black cylinder is in the first photo.

Interesting. Does anyone have more info on this lunar lander? Looks to me like this spacecraft is in final assembly and soon ready to take flight.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: redliox on 07/24/2015 09:24 pm
Screenshots from that October 2014 video.

They are building flight hardware.

I don't know what the big black cylinder is in the first photo.

Interesting. Does anyone have more info on this lunar lander? Looks to me like this spacecraft is in final assembly and soon ready to take flight.

I'm not sure if it's in final assembly but it does bear a slight resemblance to the Luna landers.  I have to admit, I didn't think Russia was actually building anything.  Impresses me that they're up to more than just building Soyuz and Progress modules.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 07/24/2015 11:48 pm
Interesting. Does anyone have more info on this lunar lander? Looks to me like this spacecraft is in final assembly and soon ready to take flight.

I'm not sure if it's in final assembly but it does bear a slight resemblance to the Luna landers.  I have to admit, I didn't think Russia was actually building anything.  Impresses me that they're up to more than just building Soyuz and Progress modules.
[/quote]
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/25/2015 06:50 am
Well, they're building something that looks a lot like Lunar Resurs. Here's a close up from the Luna3 image.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 07/25/2015 01:40 pm
The Luna8 image shows it off better. You can see the payload box on top. They have an agreement with ESA concerning scientific payloads. They may be assuming that Russia will build the lander and ESA the science instruments. Russian artwork includes a rover, but the rover was originally supposed to be built by the Indians, and they dropped out several years ago.

The cooperation is called PROSPECT:

http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/leag2014/presentations/carpenter.pdf

http://wsn.spaceflight.esa.int/docs/research/PROSPECT%20User%20Group%20Call%20Issue.pdf
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 07/26/2015 03:55 am
Here is an image taken from the PROSPECT document above. It's late, I'm tired, and I'm too lazy to read through the document. However, it looks like the plan is for ESA to develop the instrument payload for the Luna 27 lander. That would include a drill and a chemical laboratory. Russia develops the lander and I assume also provides the launch vehicle. They're talking about a 2020 launch date, which is still quite a ways off to launch this thing.

(If the vehicle in the video is the Luna 27 lander, that big gray box still has to be filled in by ESA.)

So depending upon what this will actually do, and where it lands, and what gets funded, it could be an interesting mission to the Moon. Might go looking for those polar volatiles that everybody is so keen to examine.

That said, Russia has not had a successful planetary mission since the 1980s. If I was ESA, I'd be really nervous about working with them. Maybe ESA's plan is to limit their own risk by not spending too much money on the scientific instruments, but it's still a risky proposition.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 07/26/2015 08:19 pm
So Russia is talking about three possible lunar missions in the next ten years:

Luna-25, an orbiter
Luna-26, Luna-Glob
Luna-27, Luna-Resource-1

It appears from what I can gather that the plan is to launch Luna-27 before Luna-26. The only reason I can guess is because Luna-26 does not have foreign participation, but Luna-27 now has ESA on board. That means that the Russians don't have to pay for science instruments, only the lander and launcher, so it's cheaper. Previously Luna-Resource had ISRO as a partner providing a rover, but that deal fell through after the 2011 Phobos-Grunt failure.

So that leads me to wonder if the lunar lander hardware in the above photo is Luna-26 or Luna-27? I suspect that it is Luna-27 because that's more of a sure thing than a Russia-only lander.

All that said, I don't want to get too hung up on the designations. There has been a lot of churn in the last four years, and I could easily see the Russians relabeling Luna-Resource-1 as Luna-26 and Luna-Glob as Luna-27 based upon the order that they will fly.

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: MattMason on 07/27/2015 12:52 pm
Meanwhile, back in the Russian spaceflight planning lounge..

I've tried to read this entire 3-year old thread to glean what official plans are being considered, amidst financial issues or governmental desire or viable launch and flight hardware. As NSF threads go, however, there was a lot of chaff and only a few grains of wheat here, atypical for us. But we are talking about Russian spaceflight, which is mercurial in direction at best.

So let me ask some questions to redirect the thread back to the manned plans.

1) With Russia formally recommitting itself to staying aboard the ISS through 2024, would this decision (from a financial view) likely keep Roscosmos stagnant in terms of preparing only Soyuz and Progress spacecraft and their launch vehicles?

2) In the past announcements, has there been a consideration of the Russians taking things up a notch after 2024, by deciding to create a new space station, but one that's in lunar orbit? Or a new Earth-orbit station that can serve as a waypoint for a future manned or unmanned expedition? These are my speculations, obviously; I'm fishing for what the Russians are currently considering, if anything, not what they've made in the past. I noted the Luna lander that's been under construction recently.

If nothing else, posting links to thread answers to these questions might suffice.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 07/27/2015 11:22 pm
Meanwhile, back in the Russian spaceflight planning lounge..

I've tried to read this entire 3-year old thread to glean what official plans are being considered, amidst financial issues or governmental desire or viable launch and flight hardware. As NSF threads go, however, there was a lot of chaff and only a few grains of wheat here, atypical for us. But we are talking about Russian spaceflight, which is mercurial in direction at best.

So let me ask some questions to redirect the thread back to the manned plans.

1) With Russia formally recommitting itself to staying aboard the ISS through 2024, would this decision (from a financial view) likely keep Roscosmos stagnant in terms of preparing only Soyuz and Progress spacecraft and their launch vehicles?

2) In the past announcements, has there been a consideration of the Russians taking things up a notch after 2024, by deciding to create a new space station, but one that's in lunar orbit? Or a new Earth-orbit station that can serve as a waypoint for a future manned or unmanned expedition? These are my speculations, obviously; I'm fishing for what the Russians are currently considering, if anything, not what they've made in the past. I noted the Luna lander that's been under construction recently.

If nothing else, posting links to thread answers to these questions might suffice.
I would assume the difficulties related to building their new launch site, the price of crude oil, and their need for war/conquest are the biggest factors.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/28/2015 08:03 am
So that leads me to wonder if the lunar lander hardware in the above photo is Luna-26 or Luna-27? I suspect that it is Luna-27 because that's more of a sure thing than a Russia-only lander.

Well, the Figure title in the image says Luna 27!

In the past announcements, has there been a consideration of the Russians taking things up a notch after 2024, by deciding to create a new space station, but one that's in lunar orbit? Or a new Earth-orbit station that can serve as a waypoint for a future manned or unmanned expedition? These are my speculations, obviously; I'm fishing for what the Russians are currently considering, if anything, not what they've made in the past. I noted the Luna lander that's been under construction recently.

The impression I get is that Russia will be building a space station from old elements of ISS and some new elements post 2024. I think its a long way before Russia looks to put a space station in Lunar orbit.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: vapour_nudge on 07/28/2015 08:22 am
So that leads me to wonder if the lunar lander hardware in the above photo is Luna-26 or Luna-27? I suspect that it is Luna-27 because that's more of a sure thing than a Russia-only lander.

Well, the Figure title in the image says Luna 27!

In the past announcements, has there been a consideration of the Russians taking things up a notch after 2024, by deciding to create a new space station, but one that's in lunar orbit? Or a new Earth-orbit station that can serve as a waypoint for a future manned or unmanned expedition? These are my speculations, obviously; I'm fishing for what the Russians are currently considering, if anything, not what they've made in the past. I noted the Luna lander that's been under construction recently.

The impression I get is that Russia will be building a space station from old elements of ISS and some new elements post 2024. I think its a long way before Russia looks to put a space station in Lunar orbit.
Steven, conspiracy hats on. perhaps the plans for a future Russian station are the real reason behind the constant delays on the launch of the MLM :-)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: AntiAnti on 07/29/2015 10:50 am
Steven, conspiracy hats on. perhaps the plans for a future Russian station are the real reason behind the constant delays on the launch of the MLM :-)
It's not just a conspiracy :) The real reason is RSC Energia must repair MLM within the received (and consumed) funding. Khrunichev was subcontractor that screwed it, so Energia demands Khrunichev repair MLM for its own funds. But Khrunichev is very close to bankruptcy and the company just don't have enough resources for MLM now. So Energia and Khrunichev lobbied additional funding for 'modernisation' of the MLM to make it possible to use is as a core module of the separated space station after ISS.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: AntiAnti on 07/29/2015 10:55 am
1) With Russia formally recommitting itself to staying aboard the ISS through 2024, would this decision (from a financial view) likely keep Roscosmos stagnant in terms of preparing only Soyuz and Progress spacecraft and their launch vehicles?
Yes. Actually it's the only option for Roscosmos. Also, Komarov (new cheif of Roscosmos) widely supports international cooperation.

2) In the past announcements, has there been a consideration of the Russians taking things up a notch after 2024, by deciding to create a new space station, but one that's in lunar orbit? Or a new Earth-orbit station that can serve as a waypoint for a future manned or unmanned expedition? These are my speculations, obviously; I'm fishing for what the Russians are currently considering, if anything, not what they've made in the past. I noted the Luna lander that's been under construction recently.
Roscosmos is in a huge crisis now. And nobody actually realizes how strong this crisis is. I very, VERY doubt any brand new russian station after ISS is possible. The most obvious and easy option is to separate new modules of the Russian Segment of the ISS after 2024 to small LEO station. MLM + Node module + Science and Energy module. Also RSC Enegria works on an expandable module (a bit smaller then Bigelow' BA-330).
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: AntiAnti on 07/29/2015 11:00 am
So Russia is talking about three possible lunar missions in the next ten years:

Luna-25, an orbiter
Luna-26, Luna-Glob
Luna-27, Luna-Resource-1
No,
Luna-25 aka Luna-Glob (in 2019)
Luna-26, an orbiter
Luna-27 aka Luna-Resource-1 with european drill and, probably, landing software.

It's Luna-25 on youtube screenshots on the previous page and Luna-27 on the other pictures.

Scientists ask to move Luna-25 form 2019 to early 2018. Also Roscosmos have now an official plan to launch next-gen manned ship to the Moon orbit in 2025. But imho its impossible - full-scale regress in russion space industry continues. So don't trust ambitious plans of Roscosmos. It's just a words. BUT: imho, the next-gen manned ship is possible. I don't think they will abandon this project.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 07/29/2015 04:14 pm
So Russia is talking about three possible lunar missions in the next ten years:

Luna-25, an orbiter
Luna-26, Luna-Glob
Luna-27, Luna-Resource-1
No,
Luna-25 aka Luna-Glob (in 2019)
Luna-26, an orbiter
Luna-27 aka Luna-Resource-1 with european drill and, probably, landing software.

It's Luna-25 on youtube screenshots on the previous page and Luna-27 on the other pictures.

Scientists ask to move Luna-25 form 2019 to early 2018. Also Roscosmos have now an official plan to launch next-gen manned ship to the Moon orbit in 2025. But imho its impossible - full-scale regress in russion space industry continues. So don't trust ambitious plans of Roscosmos. It's just a words. BUT: imho, the next-gen manned ship is possible. I don't think they will abandon this project.

Where can I find info on the dates? And what is the date for Luna-27? I thought that because Luna-27 has European funding that it was moved to an earlier date.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: AntiAnti on 07/29/2015 04:52 pm
Where can I find info on the dates? And what is the date for Luna-27? I thought that because Luna-27 has European funding that it was moved to an earlier date.
Luna-25 - 2019, Luna-26 (orbital) - 2021, Luna-27 (Resources) - 2022. Dates are from the draft of the russian Federal Space Program 2016-2025. I think, it's avalible in L2. Also you can read about launch sequence here (in russian): http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=2&nid=377477
Sorry, it's google-translate:
Quote
We hope that the launch of the "Luna-25" will take a place not later then 2018. The start window for it is: the end of 2017 - beginning of 2018.
Then there is a lunar orbiter, which is equipped with a very good instruments. Earlier, at the initial stage of the lunar program, we planned aids "Luna-25" and "Luna-26" to run together. It looked bad, gets very poor research payload on each one. So now in the orbiter it reflects a very serious competitive range of scientific equipment. There are about 12 tools with a total weight of approximately 120 kg.
The central part of the lunar program of the first phase - a "Luna-27", landing of the platform at one of the polar regions (like "Luna-25"). Not very close to the pole, and where there is the inclusion of subsurface ice. This is a heavier machine. It is planned to deliver one of the most interesting experiments - carried out soil sampling with greater depth using a drilling rig. Providing of this tool we discuss with our European colleagues. The instance of this installation, by the way, will be on the Martian rover, which is a part of the "ExoMars" project. For the Moon, it, of course, will be modified. Its task - to take soil samples from a depth of two meters, with keeping the inclusion volatiles.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 07/29/2015 06:46 pm
Thank you. I'm trying to understand the details of all this and figure out what is first, second, and third. I'm also trying to understand what is funded and most likely to fly, and what is still only primarily computer drawings and fantasy.

I do think that Russia would be better going with an orbiter first, then a lander. The orbiter is easier and Russia needs some experience to train all their new (young) people. A lander might be a tough thing to do with limited experience.

I do not see the draft Russian federal space plan on L2. Am I missing it?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: spacenut on 07/29/2015 07:24 pm
If Russia does go to the moon, it will probably launch two to three Angara 5's, dock and go. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: asmi on 07/29/2015 07:28 pm
I do think that Russia would be better going with an orbiter first, then a lander. The orbiter is easier and Russia needs some experience to train all their new (young) people. A lander might be a tough thing to do with limited experience.
Why do you think orbiter is easier? Most of their failures were caused by hardware problems, not software, and things can fail during landing just as well as during orbital insertion (or station-keeping). As far as software goes, direct landing (without Lunar orbital insertion) is less complicated than orbital insertion burn followed by station-keeping to stay in that orbit.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Bob Shaw on 07/29/2015 07:43 pm
I do think that Russia would be better going with an orbiter first, then a lander. The orbiter is easier and Russia needs some experience to train all their new (young) people. A lander might be a tough thing to do with limited experience.
Why do you think orbiter is easier? Most of their failures were caused by hardware problems, not software, and things can fail during landing just as well as during orbital insertion (or station-keeping). As far as software goes, direct landing (without Lunar orbital insertion) is less complicated than orbital insertion burn followed by station-keeping to stay in that orbit.

Since the 1960s, the USSR/Russia has carried out *hundreds* of almost entirely automated dockings. Doing so in Lunar orbit would be nothing special to them.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: MattMason on 07/29/2015 07:49 pm
So that leads me to wonder if the lunar lander hardware in the above photo is Luna-26 or Luna-27? I suspect that it is Luna-27 because that's more of a sure thing than a Russia-only lander.

Well, the Figure title in the image says Luna 27!

In the past announcements, has there been a consideration of the Russians taking things up a notch after 2024, by deciding to create a new space station, but one that's in lunar orbit? Or a new Earth-orbit station that can serve as a waypoint for a future manned or unmanned expedition? These are my speculations, obviously; I'm fishing for what the Russians are currently considering, if anything, not what they've made in the past. I noted the Luna lander that's been under construction recently.

The impression I get is that Russia will be building a space station from old elements of ISS and some new elements post 2024. I think its a long way before Russia looks to put a space station in Lunar orbit.
Steven, conspiracy hats on. perhaps the plans for a future Russian station are the real reason behind the constant delays on the launch of the MLM :-)

Just asking. I'm not in the industry, but the Russians, unlike the U.S., have historically maintained a space presence every year since the old space race got started.

I'm personally curious why and how they would suddenly cease doing anything major; they've always had a "go big or go home" attitude.

Russia, in its two incarnations, has been going broke for over 90 years, so flying due to lack of money has never truly been an issue in a land where anything was possible--often using someone else's money.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 07/30/2015 02:51 am
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: AntiAnti on 07/30/2015 09:20 am
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/xindex.php,qaction=dlattach,3Btopic=30465.0,3Battach=1051309,3Bimage.pagespeed.ic.S8lCC8thsn.jpg
it's outdated.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: AntiAnti on 07/30/2015 09:27 am
I do think that Russia would be better going with an orbiter first, then a lander. The orbiter is easier and Russia needs some experience to train all their new (young) people. A lander might be a tough thing to do with limited experience.
Orbiter is heavy platform with a lot of science instruments. Luna-25 is a small and mostly technology demonstrator lander. To be clear, I think it's mistake. They should start with a very simple small or even micro class orbiters without any serious science payload.
I do not see the draft Russian federal space plan on L2. Am I missing it?
It was an assumption, probably it's unavalable there.
(http://s019.radikal.ru/i615/1507/82/888702d4f60b.jpg)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: AntiAnti on 07/30/2015 12:28 pm
If Russia does go to the moon, it will probably launch two to three Angara 5's, dock and go.
The plan is to use Soyuz-2 for robotic missions. For manned missions they want a new Angara-A5V launcher with heavy LH-LOX upper stage. Payload to LEO is about between 34 and 38 t. The funding is included in the federal program for a next decade (2016-2025) with a target manned flight to the moon orbit in 2025 with using the new spaceship (PTK NP), new H2-LOX tug and two Angara-A5V. I think PTK NP will be finished and ready up to 2021-2023, but the idea of Angara-A5V looks very doubtful.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: JasonAW3 on 07/30/2015 02:24 pm
If Russia were to send a man to the moon, they'd likely do it the same way NASA will probably do it.

     As passengers on a commercial spaceflight.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/31/2015 08:20 am
Thanks AntiAnti. Note that there are two Luna-Resurs lander flights in 2022, both using Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat. The graph also shows two new missions (to me at least) called Luna-Grunt and Luna-Perspektiva launching after 2025. So the missions are

2019  Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat  Luna 25 (Luna-Glob Lander)
2021  Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat  Luna 26 (Luna-Resurs Orbiter)
2022  Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat  Luna 27 (Luna-Resurs Lander 1)
2022  Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat  Luna 28 (Luna-Resurs Lander 2)
202?  ?                  Luna 29 (Luna-Grunt)
202?  ?                  Luna 30 (Luna-Perspektiva)

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 08/03/2015 07:52 pm
Thanks AntiAnti. Note that there are two Luna-Resurs lander flights in 2022, both using Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat. The graph also shows two new missions (to me at least) called Luna-Grunt and Luna-Perspektiva launching after 2025. So the missions are

2019  Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat  Luna 25 (Luna-Glob Lander)
2021  Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat  Luna 26 (Luna-Resurs Orbiter)
2022  Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat  Luna 27 (Luna-Resurs Lander 1)
2022  Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat  Luna 28 (Luna-Resurs Lander 2)
202?  ?                  Luna 29 (Luna-Grunt)
202?  ?                  Luna 30 (Luna-Perspektiva)



Which ones are those on the above chart? Lower right yellow bars?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 08/03/2015 07:55 pm
So what is the guiding document/policy for these robotic lunar missions? By that I mean how does Roscosmos justify doing them and in what order?

In the U.S., planetary science missions flow from the planetary science decadal survey. The decadal survey states the science goals and outlines some possible missions to achieve the science, and then NASA has programs that implement certain missions. But they have to be traced back to the DS (or in the case of Discovery missions, they can be to any target, but usually to address science questions that have been listed in the DS).

I'm just wondering if there is a Russian policy framework that outlines science or other exploration goals, and then each of these missions is intended to fulfill some part of that.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/04/2015 07:41 am
Which ones are those on the above chart? Lower right yellow bars?

Yes. The two lower right yellow bars are Luna-Grunt and Luna-Perspektiva. I used the Russian alphabet table at Wikipedia to get the English transliterations. I also did the same for Mars Missions above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_alphabet

2016  Proton-M/Briz-M    EkzoMars 1
2018  Proton-M/Briz-M    EkzoMars 2
2024  Angara-A5          Ekspeditsiya-M (Mars-Grunt)
202?  ?                  Planeta-Perspektiva


Does anyone know what the Luna and Planeta Perspektiva missions are?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: AntiAnti on 08/04/2015 09:16 am
Luna-Grunt is aiming to get an intact sample of lunar ice to the Earth.
Luna-Perspectiva is not the mission. It's R&D activity for the technologies for the next-generation lunar science missions. Planeta-Perspektiva is the same thing for beyond-lunar spacecrafts.
Ekspeditsiya-M is a second and useless attemt to launch Phobos-Grunt mission (failed in 2011).
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: savuporo on 08/04/2015 02:41 pm
So what is the guiding document/policy for these robotic lunar missions? By that I mean how does Roscosmos justify doing them and in what order?..
There is a 10-year plan, that was last formalized as FKP-2025 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36644.0). Whether anything ever works in reality according to the plan is a different matter.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/06/2015 08:54 pm
Found this paper on a Russian moon base. Will need to translate. NB the website is worth a look, they are developing small sat LV similar to Rocket lab Electron.

http://www.spacelin.ru/#!moon-7-presentation/c1usz
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Bob Shaw on 08/09/2015 12:12 am
Found this paper on a Russian moon base. Will need to translate. NB the website is worth a look, they are developing small sat LV similar to Rocket lab Electron.

http://www.spacelin.ru/#!moon-7-presentation/c1usz

Most of the website seems to be Luna 16 on steroids; a lander which seems to be an LK crossed with a Progress on top of a Luna bus is pure Kerbal!
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: savuporo on 08/09/2015 04:29 am
Found this paper on a Russian moon base. Will need to translate. NB the website is worth a look, they are developing small sat LV similar to Rocket lab Electron.

http://www.spacelin.ru/#!moon-7-presentation/c1usz

Most of the website seems to be Luna 16 on steroids; a lander which seems to be an LK crossed with a Progress on top of a Luna bus is pure Kerbal!
We had a thread on Spacelin.ru here a while ago : http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36301.0
How's their microlauncher coming along ?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 08/16/2015 01:09 pm
http://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/55cd407c9a794798a569f21e

Here is a rough translation:

Roscosmos postponed the project of landing a man on the moon

Roscosmos had to postpone the project of landing a man on the moon due to budget savings, write "News" with reference to the draft Federal Space Program (FCP) for 2016-2025 years.

Originally it was planned that the landing on the moon occur in 2030. The reason for the transfer was a significant reduction in funding development work PPTK-2 (long-term manned transport complex) within which is developing lunar landing complex (LVPK).

"Financing of the ROC" PPTK-2 "is reduced approximately two-fold, resulting in a delay in the establishment and start of flight tests LVPK 2-3 years - said in a presentation of the Russian Space Agency, attached to the project FCP-2025. - Start of flight testing LVPK expected in the years 2029-2030. "
Advertising

This means that a manned flight with landing an astronaut on the moon's surface is possible in the area of 2033-2034's, say "News".

"Home ground experimental testing of the complex is scheduled for 2024, - stated in the draft of the space program. - Lunar landing complex will ensure delivery crews to lunar orbit in a predetermined area on the surface of the moon, as well as the surface of the moon lunar orbit crew of four. Duration of the crew on the Moon - not less than 14 days. "

Even halving the budget works on PPTK-2 looks much: in the years 2016-2025 Federal Space Agency asked for the project 20.8 billion rubles.

In April 2014 in charge of the defense industry Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, one of the priority tasks of Russia in space called "the colonization of the moon and near-moon space." Other tasks for the Russian space sphere, Rogozin said, "the expansion of our presence in low-Earth orbits, and their transition from development to use", as well as training and the start of development of Mars and other Solar System objects.

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 08/16/2015 03:34 pm
From July 2014:

http://www.jspec.jaxa.jp/2014symposium/pdf/3-7%20Russia_2.pdf

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Davp99 on 08/25/2015 02:57 pm
This I doubt. Too much Money for a Moon Program. Where will they get the B's of rubles From ?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/01/2015 09:26 am
From July 2014:

http://www.jspec.jaxa.jp/2014symposium/pdf/3-7%20Russia_2.pdf

Thanks. That graph is very confusing. It looks like they are aiming for a Lunar landing in 2029. There are lots of elements. Attached is an English transliteration. If anyone can describe what all these acronyms are, that would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Year Luna
2019  25  Luna-Glob
2021  26  Luna-Resurs-OA
2023  27  Luna-Resurs-PA
2025  28  Luna-Grunt
2025  29  Luna-Orbita-1
2026  30  Luna-Orbita-2

Propulsion Modules
MB-1 1/2/3/4
MB-2 1/2/3/4
MB-3 1/2

Lunar Landers
MBVPM-1 1/2
MBVPM-2 1
MBVPM-3 1/2
BVPM-1 1/2/3

Lunar Orbit Satellites
KA KVNO-L 1/2
KA DKS-L 1/2
TL 1

Lunar Crewed Spacecraft
PTK-L 1/2/3/4/5
LVPK 1

Lunar Orbital Station (LOS)
EM 2 (solar panels)
UMM 2 (fixed module)
ZhM 1 (inflatable module)

Lunar Base (LB)
Lunomobil'-1 (transporter)
EM 3 (solar panels)
LM 1
ZhM 2 (inflatable module)
UMM 3 (fixed module)

Solar Electric Transport System
MOB TG (50)
GTK-L (20)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 09/01/2015 04:22 pm
Thanks. That graph is very confusing. It looks like they are aiming for a Lunar landing in 2029.

I've been looking closely at the Russian space program this past summer and it is very much a moving target. In the past two months a number of projects have been announced as slipping to the right. So they are now talking about humans orbiting the Moon by 2030 or a little later. Although certainly their budget situation is driving this, I think that there's a bump in the announcements because of their out-year planning dates. In other words, if something is right at the edge, like 2029, and the edge is 2030, they have to announce that it won't happen in this current planning horizon but slips to the next one.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: K-P on 09/01/2015 04:52 pm
In other words, if something is right at the edge, like 2029, and the edge is 2030, they have to announce that it won't happen in this current planning horizon but slips to the next one.

I dont' want to sound too cynical but reality is that Russia has not even mastered unmanned exploration beyond LEO ever during its existence, so before that happens (budgetwise and technologywise) I see zero chances of having manned Russian-made expedition anywhere except ISS/LEO. Even NASA's Mars/Moon plans sound solid and near-term when compared to Russia in this context.

What will most likely happen, is that while ISS is there, all the Russian money and effort is spent to keep it going and use the existing hardware (soyuz/progress) to create at least some revenue as long as possible.

After ISS is ditched, Russia won't be building Mir 2 or MLM+something -stations. They won't be building anything. If there is money, they might purchase some existing circumlunar-capability (or seats) from Chinese or from international markets (Dragon, Orion...?) with cold cash or again by some bilateral/multilateral barter deals to continue and expand their presence in space, or then they could use Soyuzes to fly to Tiangong stations in the future perhaps...

Russia will rely only on updated Soyuzes for decades to come (as has been the case so far) and once the destination of ISS is gone, they either have an option to fly to Tiangong / commercial stations with them or shut down the Soyuz line once and for all.

When even the most elementary and near-term items in those powerpoint slides are just speculation or delayed repeatedly, it is hard to see any future with the rest...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 09/01/2015 06:04 pm
I agree. Writing about Russian space planning is somewhat like arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin (answer: 5). It's all theoretical. They don't have the money to do anything beyond what they are already doing. I do think there are differences compared to NASA, but that requires a more complex explanation, and it is besides the point.

If you want a general assessment for Russia, you can assume that they will continue doing the things they are currently doing. Also, any project that has a foreign partner is more likely than one that does not.

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 09/01/2015 11:23 pm
There doesn't appear to be a general Russian space policy/program thread (or maybe there is and I missed it). These two articles are worth reading together:

http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/Aerospace%20America%20PDFs%202015/September%202015/AA-Sept2015_Feature1_StuckInDecline.pdf

http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/Aerospace%20America%20PDFs%202015/September%202015/AA-Sept2015_Feature1_CaseforOptimism.pdf
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: savuporo on 09/01/2015 11:51 pm
There doesn't appear to be a general Russian space policy/program thread (or maybe there is and I missed it). These two articles are worth reading together:

http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/Aerospace%20America%20PDFs%202015/September%202015/AA-Sept2015_Feature1_StuckInDecline.pdf

http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/Aerospace%20America%20PDFs%202015/September%202015/AA-Sept2015_Feature1_CaseforOptimism.pdf

Good articles. I kinda want to side with Zak, but for one thing - the industry is losing a massive amount of commercial market revenue right about now, which will hurt a lot.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 09/02/2015 12:57 am
Zak's argument is:

-the Russians have rebuilt some important capabilities, like GLONASS
-they have worked hard on Angara and Vostochny and are close
-if you look at their overall failure RATE compared to other countries, it is not that different (for instance, nearly twice as many launches and thus twice as many failures)


That said, I think you can ask some valid questions about quality control. Here are two:

-are the failures due to stupid mistakes that really should have been caught?
-are they making the same mistakes more than once?

The answer to both questions is yes. That implies a systemic problem, not a simple, or statistical one.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/03/2015 10:04 am
I dont' want to sound too cynical but reality is that Russia has not even mastered unmanned exploration beyond LEO ever during its existence, ...

When Russia was part of the USSR, it mastered unmanned exploration of the Moon and Venus. It is the only country to have performed robotic Lunar sample return and the first country with robotic Lunar rovers. They were also the first to send images back from the surface of Venus. Of course, that is now gone but Russia is trying to return to the Moon with robotic missions.

Quote
After ISS is ditched, Russia won't be building Mir 2 or MLM+something -stations. They won't be building anything. If there is money, they might purchase some existing circumlunar-capability (or seats) from Chinese or from international markets (Dragon, Orion...?) with cold cash or again by some bilateral/multilateral barter deals to continue and expand their presence in space, or then they could use Soyuzes to fly to Tiangong stations in the future perhaps...

Russia has a very proud tradition in its crewed space program. They have kept it going and I believe they will continue to do so. The Russians have definite plans for life after ISS which I believe will involve some type of station. To give all that up to and just send Soyuz's to foreign space stations would I think be highly unlikely. By the way, the core module of Mir 2 became the ISS Zvezda Service Module.

Getting back on topic. I do think the current plan for Lunar landings is overly ambitious. I believe the much lighter Soyuz spacecraft should be used instead of PTK and the Lunar Orbital Station should be skipped alltogether. Just go straight to the Lunar surface, like in Apollo and N1-LOK-LK, but using two to four smaller size launch vehicles.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 09/03/2015 09:19 pm
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/russia-just-announced-its-officially-going-back-to-the-moon/ar-AAdSR5O?ocid=mailsignout

Lousy article. The spacecraft is not Pu-238 powered. It has solar panels. The Pu-238 is to keep it warm at night.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Danderman on 09/04/2015 12:28 am
Russian exploration policy today is pretty similar to the way NASA used to plan: keep doing the same stuff over and over for 20 years and then a miracle happens and we are on Mars (or the Moon).
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 09/04/2015 12:49 am
Russian exploration policy today is pretty similar to the way NASA used to plan: keep doing the same stuff over and over for 20 years and then a miracle happens and we are on Mars (or the Moon).


I don't think that's it. They have ambitions, they don't have the money or the capabilities to implement them. I think that they could come up with a better overall approach--figure out what skills and capabilities they need and start a long-range effort to build them.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: savuporo on 09/06/2015 05:31 pm
I found this amusing. Pretty thorough, lets hope its at least half as successful as ГОЭЛРО

http://ria.ru/infografika/20140720/1016570823.html


Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: K-P on 09/07/2015 04:53 pm
When Russia was part of the USSR, it mastered unmanned exploration of the Moon and Venus. It is the only country to have performed robotic Lunar sample return and the first country with robotic Lunar rovers. They were also the first to send images back from the surface of Venus. Of course, that is now gone but Russia is trying to return to the Moon with robotic missions.

Well, hardly mastered... when looking at the sheer number of probes they sent during the 70s/80s and comparing it to the small number of succesful ones and modest data volume (in comparison with USA for example). Of course, thanks to USSR, today we know what are the properties of a lens cap when it is placed on the surface of Venus...
(ok, joking aside)

Anyway, the designers, the operators, the hardware and the political will of that era is gone, and yes, so is the nation too, so if Russia wants to build something totally by itself it has to start from the scratch basically (apart from the launcher capability).

The Russians have definite plans for life after ISS which I believe will involve some type of station.

Plans maybe, but no modules.

Separating those few Russian modules (and Zarya is not Russian) from ISS is really a far-fetched option, I believe.
Building a small station around the existing (but not yet launched) MLM is even more difficult.
Building entirely new modules is decades away for them.

I really see no post-ISS destination for Soyuz other than Tiangong X or commercial (American) stations.
Even then it could be a hard market for Soyuz when there are other more advanced vessels available by then.

By the way, the core module of Mir 2 became the ISS Zvezda Service Module.

Yes it did. However, this time there's no functional core module on the ground waiting to be launched (or utilized in some other station project).

I believe the much lighter Soyuz spacecraft should be used instead of PTK and the Lunar Orbital Station should be skipped alltogether. Just go straight to the Lunar surface, like in Apollo and N1-LOK-LK, but using two to four smaller size launch vehicles.

Well, this sort of speculation is a bit premature. There are so many uncertainties ahead for Russia even as a country and therefore even more for their space program that I find any "plans" beyond 2020 and/or containing new spaceship designs just a nice powerpoint fantasy and nothing more serious.

Again, I don't want to sound too cynical. I just want to keep some realism in this speculation game...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 10/28/2015 10:39 pm
From Vladimir Solntsev (President of RSC Energia) presentation about 4-launch Moon landing architecture based on Angara-A5V.
He claimed that first Russian manned landing is planned for 2029. Thanks anik!
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/29/2015 04:21 am
I'm certainly excited to see this plan, but until we see some numbers this might be no more than a marketing exercise. I think that unless we hear of a Moon landing announcement from Putin, that this will be just a dream for now, similar to NASA's early Lunar ambitions before Kennedy's announcement in 1961.

https://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/americatothemoonlogsdon.pdf
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Magneto88 on 10/29/2015 12:03 pm
I'm certainly excited to see this plan, but until we see some numbers this might be no more than a marketing exercise. I think that unless we hear of a Moon landing announcement from Putin, that this will be just a dream for now, similar to NASA's early Lunar ambitions before Kennedy's announcement in 1961.

https://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/americatothemoonlogsdon.pdf

What is Putin's current view on the space program? He's certainly proved willing to spend massive amounts on prestige projects. The Sochi Winter Olympics cost $51b and the 2018 World Cup is going to cost around $18bn. Of course those projects produce a much more guaranteed and immediate prestige return than a moonshot 15 years down the line but if anything if something catches his eye, he's more reliable on funding than say the European governments or Congress.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: redliox on 10/30/2015 05:58 am
I'm certainly excited to see this plan, but until we see some numbers this might be no more than a marketing exercise. I think that unless we hear of a Moon landing announcement from Putin, that this will be just a dream for now, similar to NASA's early Lunar ambitions before Kennedy's announcement in 1961.

What is Putin's current view on the space program? He's certainly proved willing to spend massive amounts on prestige projects. The Sochi Winter Olympics cost $51b and the 2018 World Cup is going to cost around $18bn. Of course those projects produce a much more guaranteed and immediate prestige return than a moonshot 15 years down the line but if anything if something catches his eye, he's more reliable on funding than say the European governments or Congress.

That does bring a few scary thoughts to mind reminiscent of the Cold War worries.

I half hope some of this becomes reality, but I know that Russia's promises are more hot air than NASA's.  The only thing that might swing the favor toward them is the fact ESA and China would readily jump on their boat for a Moon mission. 

I wouldn't hold my breath, but I would find it a form of poetic justice if, by 2029, a Russian lander coupled with an American Orion conducts the return to Luna.  When you think about it, it's doubtful either nation will gather the funds and will to do a complete mission.  Wishful thinking, but that's the best example I can think of Russia truly renewing its space program.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/31/2015 02:51 am
Lets do some analysis. According to Anatoly Zak, the A5V can put 35 to 37.5 t to LEO.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara5v.html

Four of those is 140 to 150 t to LEO. If using a hydrolox stage, 50 % of your initial mass is used for TLI. This means that if your TLI stage is limited to 37.5 t, assuming a 90% propellant mass fraction, that gives a propellant mass of 33.75 t with a stage mass of 3.75 t. This means your TLI mass is 33.75-3.75 = 30 t. Thus, the actual total LEO mass is 2x(37.5+30) = 135 t.

For LOI, we have a propellant fraction of 20% if using hydrolox or 25% if using kerolox. That gives 30x0.2 = 6 t propellant with hydrolox and 7.5 t with kerolox. Assuming 90% propellant mass fraction for hydrolox and 92% with kerolox that gives stage masses of 6x(1/0.9-1) = 0.67 t and 7.5x(1/0.92-1) = 0.65 t, respectively. Thus payload into LLO is 30-6-0.67 = 23.33 t and 30-7.5-0.65 = 21.85 t, respectively. So the mission certainly seems doable, with quite a respectable mass for the Lunar Lander of over 20 t. The Apollo LM was only 15 t.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/31/2015 03:01 am
I do(n't) care how or who does it - but I just want someone to get on with it! Now!! Get started!!! If Putin wanted a 'soft power' way to show up the U.S. technologically, a series of good Lunar sortie missions might be a good start...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: redliox on 10/31/2015 03:54 am
I do(n't) care how or who does it - but I just want someone to get on with it! Now!! Get started!!! If Putin wanted a 'soft power' way to show up the U.S. technologically, a series of good Lunar sortie missions might be a good start...

If Russia can pull it off I would agree.  Luck with deep space hasn't been on their side since the late 1980s though.  If they could leverage whatever technology they lack through partnerships that might lead to a success somewhere, Luna or otherwise. China might be the larger concern since their landers have been oversized, which implies they may be testing for an eventual crew lander.  For now all we can do with either country is speculate and wait.

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/31/2015 04:23 am
I do(n't) care how or who does it - but I just want someone to get on with it! Now!! Get started!!! If Putin wanted a 'soft power' way to show up the U.S. technologically, a series of good Lunar sortie missions might be a good start...

Why?  What's the point of repeating what was done 50 years ago?

Far from "showing up" the U.S. technologically, I think it would have the opposite effect on most people -- it would be a reminder that the U.S. had already done this decades ago.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/31/2015 04:58 am
I do(n't) care how or who does it - but I just want someone to get on with it! Now!! Get started!!! If Putin wanted a 'soft power' way to show up the U.S. technologically, a series of good Lunar sortie missions might be a good start...

Why?  What's the point of repeating what was done 50 years ago?

Far from "showing up" the U.S. technologically, I think it would have the opposite effect on most people -- it would be a reminder that the U.S. had already done this decades ago.


A slightly facile analysis I feel - no offense intended.

But we've been going into orbit since April 1961; more than 50 years! Perhaps we don't need to do that anymore, either...?!
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/31/2015 05:02 am
Also; what's the point of sending more rovers to Mars; haven't we already done that, over and over since 1997? And sorry; the "we've done the moon" arguments are shallow. The Moon is a frontier, a continent-sized place, a world that is still more than 95% unexplored by humans. So is the Earth's ocean floor, for that matter...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/31/2015 05:20 am
I do(n't) care how or who does it - but I just want someone to get on with it! Now!! Get started!!! If Putin wanted a 'soft power' way to show up the U.S. technologically, a series of good Lunar sortie missions might be a good start...

Why?  What's the point of repeating what was done 50 years ago?

Far from "showing up" the U.S. technologically, I think it would have the opposite effect on most people -- it would be a reminder that the U.S. had already done this decades ago.


A slightly facile analysis I feel - no offense intended.

But we've been going into orbit since April 1961; more than 50 years! Perhaps we don't need to do that anymore, either...?!

Sure, and something new like a long-term base on the Moon, a trip to Mars orbit, or any one of a number of other things beyond Earth orbit would be interesting.  I just don't find a repeat of Apollo by itself interesting.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/31/2015 05:28 am
Also; what's the point of sending more rovers to Mars; haven't we already done that, over and over since 1997?

If we were sending the same rover again just to prove we could do it, I would agree with you.  But, in fact, each rover has produced very different science information.

Apollo has already landed and collected samples from several locations, and the Soviets collected their own samples.

If someone said there was some new scientific objective that the Russians were planning to achieve that would give fundamentally new information that could only be achieved with a human landing, I'd say, "great!".  But all we were talking about here was Russia planning to land people on the Moon.  Nothing about scientific objectives, which leads me to think it's really just about showing they can do it, which is not very interesting decades after it was done.

And sorry; the "we've done the moon" arguments are shallow. The Moon is a frontier, a continent-sized place, a world that is still more than 95% unexplored by humans. So is the Earth's ocean floor, for that matter...

Is it really unexplored if we have hi-res maps of the whole thing taken from orbit?

Yes, there are still things to be learned from the moon.  A probe to a polar crater would be interesting.  But there's no point in people tagging along for that -- it just makes it a lot more expensive.  If the goal is to learn more about the moon, great, spend the same money on robotic probes and you can send lots of them to many different areas.

That may make it sound like I'm against human spaceflight, but that's not true -- I'm all for it.  But lets not confuse the reasons for it.  Learning more about the Moon is not a valid reason for it.  Enabling the long-term colonization of space is.  And repeating Apollo doesn't help the long-term colonization of space.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/31/2015 05:35 am
Well, I don't advocate the U.S. strictly repeating Apollo, no. However, new ideas and capabilities could be phased into lunar sortie missions. The 3 day Apollo J-Class missions (15, 16 & 17) were magnificent achievements no matter how you slice it! If Russia or anyone else repeated and improved on those concepts - the way that early Salyuts eventually led to ISS and beyond - then we could see some marvelous missions. The Russian lander could rendezvous with pre-landed habitats at various excellent lunar sites and spend a full lunar day at these sites before coming home. Then the next steps: stay one full day and night, then start linking Habitats to form an Outpost. Then build a cargo and supply infrastructure to support larger crews and longer stays. One's space-geek imagination could run wild.

But a start has to be made. Complaining that short sortie missions are mere 'flags & footprints' is worse than useless - you've gotta start somewhere! Manned lunar missions would be restarting essentially from scratch. You've got to walk before you can run, etc. There will be no huge, 'Moonbase Alpha' from the get go - mankind's return to the Moon will be experimental and tentative at first. As will our manned arrival on Mars...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/31/2015 05:45 am
Well, I don't advocate the U.S. strictly repeating Apollo, no. However, new ideas and capabilities could be phased into lunar sortie missions. The 3 day Apollo J-Class missions (15, 16 & 17) were magnificent achievements no matter how you slice it! If Russia or anyone else repeated and improved on those concepts - the way that early Salyuts eventually led to ISS and beyond - then we could see some marvelous missions. The Russian lander could rendezvous with pre-landed habitats at various excellent lunar sites and spend a full lunar day at these sites before coming home. Then the next steps: stay one full day and night, then start linking Habitats to form an Outpost. Then build a cargo and supply infrastructure to support larger crews and longer stays. One's space-geek imagination could run wild.

But a start has to be made. Complaining that short sortie missions are mere 'flags & footprints' is worse than useless - you've gotta start somewhere! Manned lunar missions would be restarting essentially from scratch. You've got to walk before you can run, etc. There will be no huge, 'Moonbase Alpha' from the get go - mankind's return to the Moon will be experimental and tentative at first. As will our manned arrival on Mars...

If it were the first steps to all that, then yes, it would be interesting.  Here's the thing though: Apollo didn't turn out to the be first steps toward any of that.  It turned out to be too expensive to be sustainable.  I see no reason to think a Russian rehash would be any different.

That's why I'm much more interested in anything that addresses the fundamental reasons Apollo was too expensive.  Exhibit A is SpaceX trying to land a first stage.  That, far more than anything else going on today is the true first step toward all the things you dream about on the Moon, and all the things I dream about all over the solar system.

To me, repeating Apollo with throw-away boosters is a dead-end.  Making launch to orbit cheaper is the key to everything.  Right now, only SpaceX is seriously attempting that in a way that could really change things long term.

You talked about a lunar landing as a way for Putin to show up the west technologically.  To me, if Putin wants to show up the west technologically, the only way to do it is to work on reusable launch technology.

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/31/2015 06:41 am
Except, sadly they wont. Russia talks a big game - have done for years - then they do little. They are even less willing than the U.S. to invest in new space technologies and infrastructure. They are still using basically old designs from the '60s and '70s (despite working well) and despite the enormous pool of talent and experience over there, little is being done. And their latest Cosmodrome will be years late finishing, if ever.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/31/2015 11:42 pm
It'd be awesome if Russia went to the Moon. We'd have to go to the Moon AND go to Mars, then, just like last time, or else look like merely second-run losers.

Sadly, no way that all will happen unless oil is like $200/barrel. But happily, we may do both anyway by leveraging the private sector.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/01/2015 12:08 am
Yes. My heart desperately wants Mankind On Mars. But my (sore) head knows we could use a Lunar Outpost first...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/01/2015 12:48 am
Yes. My heart desperately wants Mankind On Mars. But my (sore) head knows we could use a Lunar Outpost first...

You test human sized Mars rovers and habitats on the Moon. Several years in a vacuum chamber is impracticable. So please both your head and your heart by ensuring that lunar equipment can take Mars temperature ranges.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 11/01/2015 03:54 pm
You test human sized Mars rovers and habitats on the Moon. Several years in a vacuum chamber is impracticable. So please both your head and your heart by ensuring that lunar equipment can take Mars temperature ranges.

There's nothing Mars-like about the moon. Any equipment developed would need to be specialised to wildly different requirements.

The moon is not a stepping stone to Mars. Just as Mars is not a stepping stone to anywhere else in the solar system. They are highly specialised destinations. You go to the moon because there's an independent reason for going to the moon, not because it's a stepping stone to or test-bed for somewhere else.

The exception is fuel/air/water if the lunar poles are as icy as orbital data suggests. That, and only that, is a resource for broader cis-Lunar and BEO exploration.

I do(n't) care how or who does it - but I just want someone to get on with it! Now!! Get started!!!
Yes. My heart desperately wants Mankind On Mars. But my (sore) head knows we could use a Lunar Outpost first...

This is just emotive geek wishing for a Golden-Age SF (retro-)future. But it blinds you.

If you want a future where humanity, where civilisation, has spread through the solar system, then the path to that goal does not pass through these kinds of human "sortie" programs. On the contrary, each of the overpriced human "big" goals seem to have harmed any prior incremental build up. Apollo ended lunar exploration. Shuttle delayed HSF development for 30 years. The price of Freedom/ISS appears to have prevented development of other space-stations. Constellation... SLS...

"JUST GO! Do SOMETHING! I don't care what, just give me a SF shiny thing!" does vastly more harm than good.

Or, to be blunt, to anyone working towards long term settlement of space, you are an enemy not an ally.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: RonM on 11/01/2015 04:17 pm
If you want a future where humanity, where civilisation, has spread through the solar system, then the path to that goal does not pass through these kinds of human "sortie" programs. On the contrary, each of the overpriced human "big" goals seem to have harmed any prior incremental build up. Apollo ended lunar exploration. Shuttle delayed HSF development for 30 years. The price of Freedom/ISS appears to have prevented development of other space-stations. Constellation... SLS...

"JUST GO! Do SOMETHING! I don't care what, just give me a SF shiny thing!" does vastly more harm than good.

Or, to be blunt, to anyone working towards long term settlement of space, you are an enemy not an ally.

The big question is why have human spaceflight? If spreading mankind across the solar system is the goal, then there has to be technical and economic reasons for humans to be there or it won't happen.

One technical reason deals with the speed of light delay in communications. Being able to remotely operate robots in near real time, say for mining operations, requires being relatively close. No more than a few light-seconds away.

That reason works for Mars, asteroids, or anything else beyond cis-lunar space because they are many light-minutes from Earth. However, the Moon is close enough to Earth that any lunar operations can be controlled directly from Earth.

While a moonbase would cool, it's not needed. With budget constraints, Russia might have to stick with robotic exploration of the Moon.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/01/2015 05:41 pm
You test human sized Mars rovers and habitats on the Moon. Several years in a vacuum chamber is impracticable. So please both your head and your heart by ensuring that lunar equipment can take Mars temperature ranges.

There's nothing Mars-like about the moon. Any equipment developed would need to be specialised to wildly different requirements.

The moon is not a stepping stone to Mars. Just as Mars is not a stepping stone to anywhere else in the solar system. They are highly specialised destinations. You go to the moon because there's an independent reason for going to the moon, not because it's a stepping stone to or test-bed for somewhere else.

The exception is fuel/air/water if the lunar poles are as icy as orbital data suggests. That, and only that, is a resource for broader cis-Lunar and BEO exploration.

I do(n't) care how or who does it - but I just want someone to get on with it! Now!! Get started!!!
Yes. My heart desperately wants Mankind On Mars. But my (sore) head knows we could use a Lunar Outpost first...

This is just emotive geek wishing for a Golden-Age SF (retro-)future. But it blinds you.

If you want a future where humanity, where civilisation, has spread through the solar system, then the path to that goal does not pass through these kinds of human "sortie" programs. On the contrary, each of the overpriced human "big" goals seem to have harmed any prior incremental build up. Apollo ended lunar exploration. Shuttle delayed HSF development for 30 years. The price of Freedom/ISS appears to have prevented development of other space-stations. Constellation... SLS...

"JUST GO! Do SOMETHING! I don't care what, just give me a SF shiny thing!" does vastly more harm than good.

Or, to be blunt, to anyone working towa

You test human sized Mars rovers and habitats on the Moon. Several years in a vacuum chamber is impracticable. So please both your head and your heart by ensuring that lunar equipment can take Mars temperature ranges.

There's nothing Mars-like about the moon. Any equipment developed would need to be specialised to wildly different requirements.

The moon is not a stepping stone to Mars. Just as Mars is not a stepping stone to anywhere else in the solar system. They are highly specialised destinations. You go to the moon because there's an independent reason for going to the moon, not because it's a stepping stone to or test-bed for somewhere else.

The exception is fuel/air/water if the lunar poles are as icy as orbital data suggests. That, and only that, is a resource for broader cis-Lunar and BEO exploration.

I do(n't) care how or who does it - but I just want someone to get on with it! Now!! Get started!!!
Yes. My heart desperately wants Mankind On Mars. But my (sore) head knows we could use a Lunar Outpost first...

This is just emotive geek wishing for a Golden-Age SF (retro-)future. But it blinds you.

If you want a future where humanity, where civilisation, has spread through the solar system, then the path to that goal does not pass through these kinds of human "sortie" programs. On the contrary, each of the overpriced human "big" goals seem to have harmed any prior incremental build up. Apollo ended lunar exploration. Shuttle delayed HSF development for 30 years. The price of Freedom/ISS appears to have prevented development of other space-stations. Constellation... SLS...

"JUST GO! Do SOMETHING! I don't care what, just give me a SF shiny thing!" does vastly more harm than good.

Or, to be blunt, to anyone working towards long term settlement of space, you are an enemy not an ally.
rds long term settlement of space, you are an enemy not an ally.
Ha!! If you say so... P.S: But my thinking is still correct and I am right. "Do something" - They should; I'm right.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 11/01/2015 06:09 pm
Apollo ended lunar exploration. Shuttle delayed HSF development for 30 years. The price of Freedom/ISS appears to have prevented development of other space-stations. Constellation... SLS...

If everything that has happened is negative, in your view, then perhaps you should consider that your own perceptions and expectations are flawed, and not the programs themselves. Your views are not in line with the real world.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: gospacex on 11/01/2015 06:24 pm
Apollo ended lunar exploration. Shuttle delayed HSF development for 30 years. The price of Freedom/ISS appears to have prevented development of other space-stations. Constellation... SLS...

If everything that has happened is negative, in your view, then perhaps you should consider that your own perceptions and expectations are flawed, and not the programs themselves. Your views are not in line with the real world.

You hardly can argue against facts. Unless I've been asleep and we do have an ongoing manned lunar exploration program...
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/01/2015 06:57 pm
You test human sized Mars rovers and habitats on the Moon. Several years in a vacuum chamber is impracticable. So please both your head and your heart by ensuring that lunar equipment can take Mars temperature ranges.

There's nothing Mars-like about the moon. Any equipment developed would need to be specialized to wildly different requirements.
It seems the Moon is more like Mars, than Mars is like Earth. Or if there is nothing Mars-like about the Moon then there is certainly nothing Earth-like about Mars.

Quote
The moon is not a stepping stone to Mars. Just as Mars is not a stepping stone to anywhere else in the solar system. They are highly specialised destinations. You go to the moon because there's an independent reason for going to the moon, not because it's a stepping stone to or test-bed for somewhere else.
The Moon is a stepping stone to Mars. The Moon is nearer to Earth and is easier to get to than Mars.
What make a stepping stone a stepping stone is it being somewhat flat, and it's close to you.
And everywhere is highly specialized. Earth is not uniform.
And Mars is stepping stone to elsewhere in this solar system.
I think it's quite wrong to think of Exploration of Mars [or even further wrong, that the settlements of Mars] as some kind of cul-de-sac.
And lunar polar region are quite different than lunar equatorial regions.
Quote
The exception is fuel/air/water if the lunar poles are as icy as orbital data suggests. That, and only that, is a resource for broader cis-Lunar and BEO exploration.
Yes, it seems the only currently known place on the Moon which should be explored in near term is lunar polar regions. And this task is relatively easy.
Or finding minable water in lunar polar regions is easier than finding minable water on Mars.

I think finding minable water on Mars is going to be more like finding minable water on Earth, or probably more similar to mining oil on Earth. Or one could say one is going to make water on Mars and do so by mining.
In comparison with Moon, the Moon is going to be more like hunting and gathering, or I don't imagine one going to drill water wells on the Moon. Or I assume, all early mining on the Moon [edit: all early mining not just water mining] will be more of the searching and finding stuff on the surface. Though for water mining on the moon, it might be possible to make a tunnel, and pressurize and/or do mining in this style and which similar to some mining operation on Earth [or less than picking stuff up on the surface]. Then again I think it might be possible to just mine the top few inches of the lunar surface- or it could "more" of hunting/gathering type operation.

But how one mines water on the moon will be determined by early exploration of the lunar poles, whereas where, to exactly mine would be the less early part of exploration of lunar poles.

So I think it's possible, if the exploration is done soon, that we could have lunar mining occurring within a decade. I don't think one can have Mars water mining within a decade. Or I believe NASA when it says Mars exploration will not be done prior to 2030.
And only path to exploring Mars prior to 2030, is for NASA to explore the Moon- explore the lunar regions of the Moon with purpose of determining if and/or where there are minable locations of water on the Moon. We could finish this lunar exploration before 2025, and then focus on Mars exploration.
One uses the army one has, were NASA more competent, we could finish exploring the Moon well before 2025, though with the NASA we have it's also quite possible NASA will continue to wander aimlessly and not even begin exploring the Moon before 2025.
I believe exploration of the Moon would be a way to focus the NASA organization so it can explore space.

Just to be clear, NASA has not ever explored space. Apollo program was not space exploration- it was a stunt to get humans to the lunar surface and return them safely. And idea of exploring space was given up decades ago- and a nail in the coffin of that dim hope of exploring space, was the idea that the moon did not have minable water.

Edit. To clarify, what NASA says is exploration is similar to being the first person to the south pole. And in space [it's very big] there are many south poles. That is a stunt. It's PR.
PR is TV ads- superbowl ads could be worth watching, but mostly they are not interesting.
But in any case, it's not exploration.
Lot's of exploration is being done on Earth- and not by governments. Perhaps exploration of space is something governments could do, but there no clear indication of them actually trying to do this.

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/01/2015 08:05 pm
While a moonbase would cool, it's not needed. With budget constraints, Russia might have to stick with robotic exploration of the Moon.
A robotic moon base would be cool too.
Run it long enough and you would eventually have an excellent justification to send an astronaut or two.. to clean all those cogs and gears with a toothbrush :)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 11/01/2015 10:02 pm
Apollo ended lunar exploration. Shuttle delayed HSF development for 30 years. The price of Freedom/ISS appears to have prevented development of other space-stations. Constellation... SLS...
If everything that has happened is negative, in your view, then perhaps you should consider that your own perceptions and expectations are flawed, and not the programs themselves. Your views are not in line with the real world.

Then explain the error in anything I said.

Has the US had a manned lunar program since Apollo? Has the US had even had a robotic lunar lander in four decades? Did the incremental development through the '50s and '60s continue after Apollo? Or did it all come to a crashing halt?

Did the Shuttle meet its original goals of lowering the cost of taking humans into LEO? Or at least lead to subsequent versions that did meet those goals over the 30 years of the STS program? Or instead, did STS consume the majority of the HSF budget for its entire existence?

Has Freedom/ISS ushered in a wave of space settlement? Or does it cost nearly as much to operate as it did to build? Is ISS going to be replaced at its end-of-life, or is the whole idea being dropped?

Did Constellation achieve (or have any chance of achieving) the goals laid out by VSE? Or did it shrink down to smaller and smaller goals, ending up with Apollo-redux, while its budget and schedule blew out until it was cancelled?

Is SLS freeing up funding for BEO missions? Or is it consuming the majority of the HSF budget not consumed by ISS?

If the things I said weren't true, people like Matt wouldn't be shouting "DO SOMETHING! ANYTHING!"
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/01/2015 11:06 pm
Apollo ended lunar exploration. Shuttle delayed HSF development for 30 years. The price of Freedom/ISS appears to have prevented development of other space-stations. Constellation... SLS...
If everything that has happened is negative, in your view, then perhaps you should consider that your own perceptions and expectations are flawed, and not the programs themselves. Your views are not in line with the real world.

Then explain the error in anything I said.

Has the US had a manned lunar program since Apollo? Has the US had even had a robotic lunar lander in four decades? Did the incremental development through the '50s and '60s continue after Apollo? Or did it all come to a crashing halt?
It ended. And one could say it ended later than the plan. Or they made extra capability to land crew on the Moon, because they could have failed in first attempts- being successful on first attempt, gave them a surplus capability. And one aspect of ending Apollo was the fear of sequent loss of life, and little justification available to explain why the risk should have been taken- or the value of further landing was not high enough to justify the risk to life and the cost of continuing it.
Or crashing to halt was the plan, though there was many [not higher leadership] which wanted some kind of extended mission which included wild plans of going to Mars.

Quote
Did the Shuttle meet its original goals of lowering the cost of taking humans into LEO? Or at least lead to subsequent versions that did meet those goals over the 30 years of the STS program? Or instead, did STS consume the majority of the HSF budget for its entire existence?
The Shuttle did not meet it's goal. The shuttle remained an experimental craft which was improperly used
as an operational vehicle. Dreamchaser could related to the Shuttle program,  but NASA recently chose not to support that private experimental vehicle by awarding a contract to it.
The Soyuz which flying before Shuttle, remained a lower cost of getting crew into space, and had few accidents. And Soviet Union [with much smaller budget] had other separate means of lifting heavy cargo
other than the Soyuz.
Also considering NASA is returning to something like the Saturn V. NASA is essentially admitting the Shuttle program was a waste of time and budget. Or they threw away something to make something better, and now returning to approach they threw away [but it to will obviously fail- or NASA has become worst, not better from the time of Saturn V. Or without the Saturn V built NASA went to the Moon in less than 1 decade- which they apparently can't do now. And it has nothing to do with the world and everything to do with the agency.]

Quote
Has Freedom/ISS ushered in a wave of space settlement? Or does it cost nearly as much to operate as it did to build? Is ISS going to be replaced at its end-of-life, or is the whole idea being dropped?
ISS is interesting. NASA will not build another ISS. NASA appears to be planning to destroy ISS somewhere around 2024. And with such stupidity NASA may go the way of the Dodo.  And then they point fingers at everything other than what NASA repetitively failed to do.
Quote
Did Constellation achieve (or have any chance of achieving) the goals laid out by VSE? Or did it shrink down to smaller and smaller goals, ending up with Apollo-redux, while its budget and schedule blew out until it was cancelled?
Constellation is continuing- they changed the name and re-arranged the deck chairs.
One could say some lobbyists won and other lost and Griffin was a jerk. But not a real change.
Quote
Is SLS freeing up funding for BEO missions? Or is it consuming the majority of the HSF budget not consumed by ISS?
It's in a holding pattern, one will see the damage once it begins to fly- which I hope is sooner rather
than later. Getting rid of SLS, now, is about as intelligent as crashing ISS, now.
Quote
If the things I said weren't true, people like Matt wouldn't be shouting "DO SOMETHING! ANYTHING!"
Well SLS and ISS is and was basically "DO SOMETHING! ANYTHING!".
And boils down to job programs, not space exploration. Or what has been done has worked fine,
it's a job program.
Though NASA mining the Moon would also be a job program- or it also would not be about exploring
space or lowering the cost of getting into space.
The only thing lowering the cost of getting into space is the satellite market, and for reasons unknown
NASA does nothing to help the satellite market- or does not desist from damaging this market. Or if the satellite market was dependent on NASA, it would be dead.
But not saying I want NASA to help to satellite industry- a helping government seems involves much death and misery as rule rather than exception.
Rather what I am saying is NASA has not lowered the cost of launch, and has done things which increase this cost, did this as a "plan" -if any idiocy can be called a plan. But good news is that launch costs continue to become lower in real dollars.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Oli on 11/01/2015 11:37 pm
Has Freedom/ISS ushered in a wave of space settlement? Or does it cost nearly as much to operate as it did to build? Is ISS going to be replaced at its end-of-life, or is the whole idea being dropped?

The ISS is the only permanently manned outpost in space. It's expensive, even with fixed-price commercial cargo/crew, but if we cannot afford it we probably shouldn't go anywhere else before we can.

Bolden saying "we don't do LEO anymore" scares me.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/02/2015 12:52 am
Has Freedom/ISS ushered in a wave of space settlement? Or does it cost nearly as much to operate as it did to build? Is ISS going to be replaced at its end-of-life, or is the whole idea being dropped?

The ISS is the only permanently manned outpost in space. It's expensive, even with fixed-price commercial cargo/crew, but if we cannot afford it we probably shouldn't go anywhere else before we can.

Bolden saying "we don't do LEO anymore" scares me.
Yes. It's more scary than we have been to the Moon.
LEO will remain the lowest delta-v destination in space [from Earth].

And it sounds like Bolden has been involved in planning [deep in the weeds]  to de-orbit ISS.
Fortunately, we elect a new president at least every 8 years- and I can't imagine a next Potus keeping
Bolden and NASA has history of making detailed plans which are later flushed. And what the good of old plans when one can one busy yourself with new and improved plans?

Now it's possible ISS could be saved by Russkies, not because they like to preserving history.
But it seems they like to hold onto junk and mementos. Like Hitlers skull:
"MOSCOW -- What officials claim is a fragment of Adolf Hitler's skull went on display Wednesday, along with documents revealing what happened to the dictator's remains after they were seized by Soviet troops in 1945. "
And they got their Dear Leader in the glass coffin.
The history of their greatest could be important, particularly as they continue to wane.
And how does letting the vile capitalists ruin their space station in their orbit, play?

As for specifically: "if we cannot afford it we probably shouldn't go anywhere else before we can."
I would say that operating space station at a low cost is important in terms of opening space
frontier. But then again perhaps any long term space station would have artificial gravity.
I think de-orbiting ISS is mostly a PR thing. Or there is enough people who oppose spending money on NASA when that money could serve another purpose, and one handing them a nice shiny weapon if you de-orbit ISS.
How can you explain this in terms of wise use of tax dollars?
How much was the total cost of ISS? What did you accomplish with it this money?
And if this is important, why did you crash into the atmosphere?
Now a person could easily ask the same type question about the Shuttle Program.
And one could ask about both the Shuttle and the ISS.
But an unique question with ISS, is why did you decide to crash the International Space Station into the
atmosphere?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/02/2015 02:20 am
I'm confused.  Is the subject of this thread "How would Russia go to the moon?" or "Ramblings about U.S. space policy"?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 11/02/2015 02:22 am
I'm confused.  Is the subject of this thread "How would Russia go to the moon?" or "Ramblings about U.S. space policy"?

Do not be :) Both countries are staying on LEO :(
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Darkseraph on 11/02/2015 02:42 am
I suppose a manned lunar mission could be a joint venture between Europe and Russia. It would help spread some of the cost, because neither of them have the budget to go it alone although both have expressed interest in the Moon as the next destination in their manned programs.


The politics for cooperation on a project of this scale are not great at the moment considering the Ukraine crisis. But even so, Soyuz is launched from French Guiana right now and ESA have a joint project with Roscosmos in the form of Exomars. If successful this could pave the way for larger projects.





Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/02/2015 06:01 am
You test human sized Mars rovers and habitats on the Moon. Several years in a vacuum chamber is impracticable. So please both your head and your heart by ensuring that lunar equipment can take Mars temperature ranges.

There's nothing Mars-like about the moon. Any equipment developed would need to be specialised to wildly different requirements.

The moon is not a stepping stone to Mars. Just as Mars is not a stepping stone to anywhere else in the solar system. They are highly specialised destinations. You go to the moon because there's an independent reason for going to the moon, not because it's a stepping stone to or test-bed for somewhere else.

The exception is fuel/air/water if the lunar poles are as icy as orbital data suggests. That, and only that, is a resource for broader cis-Lunar and BEO exploration.
{snip}

Look again

Moon

Hard vacuum
dusty
Temperature range a high of about 100 °C (373 K; 212 °F) and a low of about -147 °C (126 K; -233 °F)


Mars

Near vacuum mean surface pressure of about 600 pascals (Pa), much lower than the Earth's 101,000 Pa
dusty in parts
Temperature range high of about 20 °C (293 K; 68 °F) at noon, at the equator, and a low of about −153 °C (120 K; −243 °F) at the poles


The Moon is both hotter and colder than Mars. So equipment built to handle the lunar temperature range can handle the Mars temperature range. The weak atmosphere means that people have to treat Mars as being a vacuum. The Moon does not have dust clouds except when rockets land and take off or vehicles drive passed which means habitats and vehicles have to be dust proof.

This means that Mars projects will be able to save time and money by buying TRL 9 lunar equipment rather than having to develop their own. There will be exceptions for Mars own equipment particularly for ISRU.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/02/2015 06:24 am
You test human sized Mars rovers and habitats on the Moon. Several years in a vacuum chamber is impracticable. So please both your head and your heart by ensuring that lunar equipment can take Mars temperature ranges.

There's nothing Mars-like about the moon. Any equipment developed would need to be specialised to wildly different requirements.

The moon is not a stepping stone to Mars. Just as Mars is not a stepping stone to anywhere else in the solar system. They are highly specialised destinations. You go to the moon because there's an independent reason for going to the moon, not because it's a stepping stone to or test-bed for somewhere else.

The exception is fuel/air/water if the lunar poles are as icy as orbital data suggests. That, and only that, is a resource for broader cis-Lunar and BEO exploration.
{snip}

Look again

Moon

Hard vacuum
dusty
Temperature range a high of about 100 °C (373 K; 212 °F) and a low of about -147 °C (126 K; -233 °F)


Mars

Near vacuum mean surface pressure of about 600 pascals (Pa), much lower than the Earth's 101,000 Pa
dusty in parts
Temperature range high of about 20 °C (293 K; 68 °F) at noon, at the equator, and a low of about −153 °C (120 K; −243 °F) at the poles


The Moon is both hotter and colder than Mars. So equipment built to handle the lunar temperature range can handle the Mars temperature range. The weak atmosphere means that people have to treat Mars as being a vacuum. The Moon does not have dust clouds except when rockets land and take off or vehicles drive passed which means habitats and vehicles have to be dust proof.

This means that Mars projects will be able to save time and money by buying TRL 9 lunar equipment rather than having to develop their own. There will be exceptions for Mars own equipment particularly for ISRU.

The similarities between Mars and lunar requirements are superficial.  Dive more deeply and you find that nearly any system designed for Mars won't be useful on the Moon and any system designed for the Moon won't be useful on Mars.  Designing to work in both places just means more cost and a system that is less good at either place.

Low pressure is very different from hard vacuum.  A 28-day thermal cycle is very different from a 24-hour thermal cycle.  Having solar energy available with a 12-hour night is very different from having solar energy available with a 14-day night.  Gravity of .16g is very different from gravity of .38g.

No unmanned probe to Mars has ever been tested on the Moon first.

If we are interested in Mars, we should go for Mars, not waste precious time and resources on the Moon.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: hkultala on 11/02/2015 07:07 am
Can anybody translate the main points of the russian slides in the previous pages?

Those that talk about 4 A-5V launches?

What are the different parts launched?

PPTS on one launch, moon lander on another launch?
but what are the other parts? some upper stages/space tugs for flying between LEO and LLO? But in what-sized parts?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 11/03/2015 09:12 pm
Can anybody translate the main points of the russian slides in the previous pages?

Those that talk about 4 A-5V launches?

What are the different parts launched?

PPTS on one launch, moon lander on another launch?
but what are the other parts? some upper stages/space tugs for flying between LEO and LLO? But in what-sized parts?

LV1 Cargo - Payload MOB-D (KeroLOX Space Tug) + Lunar Lander 
LV2 Cargo - Payload MOB-KVTK (Cryogenic HydroLOX Space Tug)   
LV3 Man-rated - Payload MOB-D (KeroLOX Space Tug) + PTK-L (Lunar Orbiter spacecraft crew 4 cosmonauts) 
LV4 Cargo - Payload MOB-KVTK (Cryogenic HydroLOX Space Tug)

Concept of operations:
1. LV1 launches MOB-DM + Lunar Lander  into circular 200 km LEO orbit
2. LV2 launches MOB-KVTK  into circular 200 km LEO orbit
3. EOR and automatic docking of MOB-D + Lunar Lander stack with MOB-KVTK
4. MOB-KVTK transfer stack to a highly elliptical orbit (2 burns)
5. MOB-KVTK jettisoned 
6. MOB-DM perform TLI burn
7. Upon arrival at Moon MOB-DM perform LOI burn
8. MOB-DM jettisoned 
Steps 1-8 then repeated for LV3 and LV4 payloads
17. LOR and automatic docking of Lunar Lander with PTK-L spacecraft.
18. Crew transfer to Lunar Lander
19. Lunar Landing
20. Launch from Moon and entering Moon orbit
21.  LOR and automatic docking of Lunar Lander Ascending Stage with PTK-L spacecraft.
22. Crew transfer from Lunar Lander to PTK-L
23. Lunar Lander Jettisoned
24. PTK-L Service Module performed EOI burn 
25. Module separations, descent, atmospheric entry and landing   



Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: the_other_Doug on 11/03/2015 09:35 pm
My only question, in this rather well-thought-out sequence, is how many elongated Earth orbits do you expect steps 12 through 14 to encompass?

I only ask because, unless you develop radiation shielding well above the present state of the art, you really want a crewed vehicle to pass through the Van Allen belts once each way, and that as quickly as you can reasonably manage.  The "slow spiral" types of trajectories aren't real healthy for flesh and blood cargo.

Other than that, yeah -- that flight sequence actually works.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: spacenut on 11/03/2015 09:38 pm
Mars also has a lot more water than the moon, thus making it more beneficial for human habitation. 

Yes, it would take about 5 A-5 launches to assemble a moon mission stack.  Not really hard, but Russia would have to have the will and money to do it. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 11/03/2015 10:34 pm
Mars also has a lot more water than the moon, thus making it more beneficial for human habitation. 

Yes, it would take about 5 A-5 launches to assemble a moon mission stack.  Not really hard, but Russia would have to have the will and money to do it. 
5 Angara A-5 launches would deliver 125 tones to LEO, while 4 Angara A-5V launches - 150 tones :) 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 11/03/2015 10:56 pm
My only question, in this rather well-thought-out sequence, is how many elongated Earth orbits do you expect steps 12 through 14 to encompass?

I only ask because, unless you develop radiation shielding well above the present state of the art, you really want a crewed vehicle to pass through the Van Allen belts once each way, and that as quickly as you can reasonably manage.  The "slow spiral" types of trajectories aren't real healthy for flesh and blood cargo.

Other than that, yeah -- that flight sequence actually works.
According to article in VPK web-site (Military-industrial complex)
- for Lunar Lander mission to LEO - one elliptical earth orbit with apogee 39,000 km and perigee 200 km
- for PTK-L  mission to LEO - two elliptical earth orbit with apogee 2,000 and 39,000 km and perigee 200 km 

Please note that those numbers are outdated  at the time of publication authors assumed: 
Mass of PTK-L 18 tones
Mass of LPVK 18.2 tones 
LEO Payload of Angara-5V 35 tones

More recent info:   
Mass of PTK-L 19 tones (announced on MAKS-2015)
Mass of LPVK 18.2-19 tones 
LEO Payload of Angara-5V 37.5 tones
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/04/2015 01:37 pm

The similarities between Mars and lunar requirements are superficial.  Dive more deeply and you find that nearly any system designed for Mars won't be useful on the Moon and any system designed for the Moon won't be useful on Mars.  Designing to work in both places just means more cost and a system that is less good at either place.

Low pressure is very different from hard vacuum.  A 28-day thermal cycle is very different from a 24-hour thermal cycle.  Having solar energy available with a 12-hour night is very different from having solar energy available with a 14-day night.  Gravity of .16g is very different from gravity of .38g.

No unmanned probe to Mars has ever been tested on the Moon first.

If we are interested in Mars, we should go for Mars, not waste precious time and resources on the Moon.


A 24-hour thermal cycle means that Mars will need fewer batteries (at night) than the Moon.

Long term we are going to both the Moon and Mars.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: spacenut on 11/04/2015 03:06 pm
The only reason I see in establishing a moon base is to manufacture lox.  Moon soil is about 40% oxygen.  More lox by weight will be needed for fuel to and from Mars, like about 4 times the weight of liquid methane.  Methane can be brought from earth via SEP tugs to L1 or L2.  A reusable moon lander/lox maker can bring up lox from the moon.  Say land it at the beginning of a 14 day solar cycle.  At the end launch lox to the L1 fuel station.  Russia has the rocket and capability to do this, for a seat on a Martian trip. 

A Mars MCT or craft could be launched from earth, refuel in LEO with extra liquid methane and some lox, go to a LaGrange point to refuel lox, then proceed to Mars. 

Russia could help with refueling station keeping at either point.  It gives us an excuse to go to and mine the moon for oxygen.  Far less fuel and energy required to launch lox from the moon than from earth. 

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: redliox on 11/04/2015 04:32 pm
No unmanned probe to Mars has ever been tested on the Moon first.

If we are interested in Mars, we should go for Mars, not waste precious time and resources on the Moon.


A 24-hour thermal cycle means that Mars will need fewer batteries (at night) than the Moon.

Long term we are going to both the Moon and Mars.

In the short term though it is starting to look like the international community favors the Moon and NASA is losing face in explaining the details in reaching Mars.  Regardless of how the next administration changes policy, NASA may be goaded into sending up Orion less for 'Mars testbeds' as opposed to stewarding international Moon landings.  Main missing ingredient to an 'Apollo 2' is just a lander, which may be what ESA, Russia, or China contributes.

Specifically regarding Russia, they're boastful and show obvious lunar interest but they won't be a linchpin.  They're still too broke and brain-drained.  If those charts are any indication, they need to make some upgrades to Soyuz, which are warranted but likely to be delayed just as shuttle and Orion/SLS plans slipped due to budget issues in the past.  Still worth keeping an eye on.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: RonM on 11/04/2015 07:18 pm
No unmanned probe to Mars has ever been tested on the Moon first.

If we are interested in Mars, we should go for Mars, not waste precious time and resources on the Moon.


A 24-hour thermal cycle means that Mars will need fewer batteries (at night) than the Moon.

Long term we are going to both the Moon and Mars.

In the short term though it is starting to look like the international community favors the Moon and NASA is losing face in explaining the details in reaching Mars.  Regardless of how the next administration changes policy, NASA may be goaded into sending up Orion less for 'Mars testbeds' as opposed to stewarding international Moon landings.  Main missing ingredient to an 'Apollo 2' is just a lander, which may be what ESA, Russia, or China contributes.

Specifically regarding Russia, they're boastful and show obvious lunar interest but they won't be a linchpin.  They're still too broke and brain-drained.  If those charts are any indication, they need to make some upgrades to Soyuz, which are warranted but likely to be delayed just as shuttle and Orion/SLS plans slipped due to budget issues in the past.  Still worth keeping an eye on.

Yes, it's time for international cooperation. Russia and ESA can design and build the lunar lander. No need for them to build a HLV or capsule because NASA will be looking for something to do with SLS and Orion.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: savuporo on 11/05/2015 12:26 am
Yes, it's time for international cooperation. Russia and ESA can design and build the lunar lander.
They are busy doing so, however due to budgetary and multiple other issues it keeps getting forever delayed, as discussed right in this thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30465.msg1410938#msg1410938)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/05/2015 04:36 am
Specifically regarding Russia, they're boastful and show obvious lunar interest but they won't be a linchpin.  They're still too broke and brain-drained.  If those charts are any indication, they need to make some upgrades to Soyuz, which are warranted but likely to be delayed just as shuttle and Orion/SLS plans slipped due to budget issues in the past.  Still worth keeping an eye on.

The Russian plan is to use the new PTK spacecraft and not Soyuz.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Proponent on 12/04/2015 10:46 am
TASS, 30 November: Russian manned mission to Moon to require up to six Angara rocket launches (http://tass.ru/en/science/840321).
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 12/04/2015 11:59 pm
Interesting that the Russian proposal will use a dual-launch EOR architecture. Payload on one launch, dockable TLI-stage on another.

It's been proposed since... well, Von Braun? But all-in-one direct launches always seems to be selected. Perhaps the advantages of the concept are finally sinking in?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/05/2015 04:53 am
Cost is 12.5 trillion Rubles ($217B). I think it would be much cheaper and easier if they used Soyuz, whose original purpose was to go the Moon.

The article say four to six launchers of A5V. The six launchers would be PTK/CPS, LM/CPS and Lunar Base/CPS (CPS is the cryogenic propulsion stage, PTK is the crewed spacecraft and LM is the Lunar Module). Each A5V can deliver 35 t to LEO, with a dual launch delivering 18-20 t to low Lunar orbit (LLO).

First manned flight is for 2029, with a Lunar orbit mission in 2028. It seems Luna 25 has been delayed to 2024 (a five year delay).
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/05/2015 05:15 am
Build enough launchpads then salvo launch the A5V for lunar missions. Seems doable, in a 'perfect world'.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Space Invaders on 12/05/2015 07:28 am
How is Russia going to pay for this?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Proponent on 12/05/2015 09:37 am
Interesting that the Russian proposal will use a dual-launch EOR architecture. Payload on one launch, dockable TLI-stage on another.

It's been proposed since... well, Von Braun? But all-in-one direct launches always seems to be selected. Perhaps the advantages of the concept are finally sinking in?

In the 60s, when NASA chose single-launch LOR, time was more precious than money.  Now it's the other way around:  I suspect that's why multilaunch approaches are back in fashion.  What Russia proposes now, though, is not classic EOR as NASA meant in 1962.  Back then the idea was two launches, one rendezvous and docking in LEO.  I would call the current suggestion "ELOR": Earth- and lunar-orbit rendezvous.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 12/05/2015 12:09 pm
Interesting that the Russian proposal will use a dual-launch EOR architecture. Payload on one launch, dockable TLI-stage on another.
It's been proposed since... well, Von Braun? But all-in-one direct launches always seems to be selected. Perhaps the advantages of the concept are finally sinking in?
In the 60s, when NASA chose single-launch LOR, time was more precious than money.  Now it's the other way around:  I suspect that's why multilaunch approaches are back in fashion.

Looking at SLS, the all-in-one direct architecture is still dominating thinking in at NASA.

[Before anyone quibbles. By "dual-launch", I'm not talking about having separate crew and cargo flights.]
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/16/2015 08:40 am
Here is one possible lunar transport system involving all three agencies and their resources.
NASA for DSH at lunar DRO and Orion for crew transport.
ESA a reusable lander based at DSH, using storable propellant and DV of 4km/s.
Russian delivers a fully fuel in space stage to DSH where it docks with lander. The Russian stage delivers lander to lunar orbit and does half of the landing burning then separates from lander ie crasher stage. The lander now has enough DV to land and return to DSH. Fuel deliveries for lunar lander can be done by any mix of the agencies/. countries.

This should play to all three agencies strengths. 
ESA would have biggest development cost for lander but NASA might provide the crew habitat module, which could borrow heavily from Orion systems. 

If NASA and ESA what to go it alone they could use a ULA ACES upper stage instead of Russian stage.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 12/29/2015 01:57 pm
http://tass.ru/en/science/847526
 

Russian space agency cuts most projects related to Moon exploration


Science & Space December 29, 3:58 UTC+3

MOSCOW, December 29. /TASS/. Practically all the projects related to manned flights to the moon are absent from an updated version of the Federal Space Programme for the years 2016 through 2025 drafted by the Federal Space Agency after the downwards revision of its budget, Izvestia daily said on Tuesday referring to the document it had obtained. "As it follows from the text of the draft programme, which Roscosmos has submitted to the government for review, a decision was taken to sacrifice the lunar programme that was named a strategic goal for future development of Russian space research," the newspaper said.

"Compared with the version of the programme, which Roscosmos presented in April 2015, the creation of a lunar landing/takeoff complex, a lunar orbital station, construction of a lunar base, the designing of a spacesuit for operations on the Moon, and designing of a system for robotic maintenance on the moon have been removed from the list of financed programmes," it said. However, works continue on a spaceship that might make flights to the Moon in the future. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who supervises the aerospace industry in the government, said in April 2014 Russia was eyeing colonization of the Moon.

On Monday, President Putin signed a decree on disbanding the Federal State Agency that will be replaced with a state space corporation. The same presidential decree instructed the government "to ensure the continuity of powers of and functions transferred to the State Corporation for Space Activity Roscosmos from the Federal Space Agency.".

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/30/2015 05:32 am
Unfortunately, no surprise there. Looks like Putin has no interest in crewed Lunar missions.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 01/01/2016 03:26 am
http://www.pravdareport.com/news/russia/29-12-2015/132975-russia_lunar_mission-0/

Russia still flies to the Moon and builds lunar base, despite rumors

29.12.2015 | Source: Pravda.Ru



http://sputniknews.com/russia/20151230/1032483495/russia-lunar-program.html

Death Rumors of Russian Lunar Program 'Greatly Exaggerated' - Deputy PM


"Russian deputy prime minister also stated that Russia has begun creating an ultra-heavy carrier rocket for deliveries of deep space exploration.

“Work has begun in the new space program. I’ll tell you this as some sort of serious news that this is an ultra-heavy rocket,” Dmitry Rogozin said.

The carrier rocket will be used as a “truck” to deliver expeditions into deep space, according to him."


[I've read another account that indicates the rocket is called Phoenix.]


Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 01/01/2016 03:44 am
http://stalinason.livejournal.com/

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/01/2016 06:37 am
http://www.pravdareport.com/news/russia/29-12-2015/132975-russia_lunar_mission-0/

Russia still flies to the Moon and builds lunar base, despite rumors

29.12.2015 | Source: Pravda.Ru

Reading the article, it says

"Roscosmos has not refused from manned spaceflights to the Moon. The program for 2016-2025 stipulates for the exploration of the Moon with the use of automatic complexes. The program also  provides for the creation of the scientific and technical basis for manned missions to the satellite of the Earth," he said.

I understand that to mean robotic missions to the Moon and studying crewed Lunar missions. Or in other words, there won't be any Russians walking on the Moon any time soon.

Quote
"Russian deputy prime minister also stated that Russia has begun creating an ultra-heavy carrier rocket for deliveries of deep space exploration.

What does he mean by "ultra-heavy carrier rocket"? If it is the A5V with 35 t to LEO, that is hardly ultra-heavy, but it is the vehicle that was planned to be used for crewed Lunar missions. The basic A5 is being developed. The question is if the hydrolox upper stage for the A5V is being developed. I suspect not, as that is going to be an expensive stage.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 01/01/2016 12:58 pm
What does he mean by "ultra-heavy carrier rocket"? If it is the A5V with 35 t to LEO, that is hardly ultra-heavy, but it is the vehicle that was planned to be used for crewed Lunar missions. The basic A5 is being developed. The question is if the hydrolox upper stage for the A5V is being developed. I suspect not, as that is going to be an expensive stage.

There's a bigger one, 100+ ton range. It's called Phoenix (or Russian equivalent). I'll find the references.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: clongton on 01/01/2016 01:19 pm
Those images make me think that they are reviving the "concept" used to create the Energia-Vulcain; good sized central core, varying numbers of strap-on LRB's to suit the payload mass, with a LH2 Upper stage for in-space propulsion. It is how they planned to go to the moon after the demise of the N-1. A Medium Lift LV capable of Heavy Lift by adding LRB's and a large LH2 Upper Stage. It is a similar concept that was used on this site to create the AJAX HLV, which in it's largest configuration would put 185 tons into LEO or send 65 tons thru TLI, or in its ML configuration would put 30-50 tons into LEO. It is an elegant architectural concept and makes their heavy lift more useful than the SLS will be because by dropping the LRB's and using a smaller US it becomes a Medium lift LV and available to compete in the Launch market head to head with ULA's Vulcan and SpaceX's FHFT. Interesting. I hope they follow thru with this. It could serve them, and everyone else, for a very long time.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 01/01/2016 02:53 pm
https://hi-tech.mail.ru/news/rogozon-samosval/


Translation:


If the "Angara" - a jeep, the "Phoenix" - Dump

Rogozin said that the realization of this project Russia is suitable in the same way as it once worked in the USSR: Soviet engineers developed the first rocket "Zenith", and later - extra heavy rocket "Energia". "Space Truck" will be built on a new technological base, and the first step will be "Phoenix."

If the "Angara" - is a "jeep", which will take out into space in the form of light seven tons, a heavy - up to 37 tonnes in various configurations, we to create a large, large expeditions need a truck, "truck".

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/02/2016 12:42 am
https://hi-tech.mail.ru/news/rogozon-samosval/


Translation:


If the "Angara" - a jeep, the "Phoenix" - Dump

Rogozin said that the realization of this project Russia is suitable in the same way as it once worked in the USSR: Soviet engineers developed the first rocket "Zenith", and later - extra heavy rocket "Energia". "Space Truck" will be built on a new technological base, and the first step will be "Phoenix."

If the "Angara" - is a "jeep", which will take out into space in the form of light seven tons, a heavy - up to 37 tonnes in various configurations, we to create a large, large expeditions need a truck, "truck".


My understanding that "Phoenix" is not a designation for Launch Vehicle, it's rather a R&D Program to develop a new generation of EELV that suppose to achieve the following:
- replace Ukrainian-build Zenit rockets;
- reuse first stage of LV in SHLV (similarly what had been done in Soviet time - first stage of Zenit and SHLV Energia boosters had a common design concept);
- possibly introduce MethanLOX propulsion engines. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Moe Grills on 01/02/2016 06:36 pm
    Let's make this clear! Russia is not going to land men on the Moon this century using its own purse-strings alone.
There's no military advantage, so she can't draw on Russia's military budget.
Russia's leading science academy does not favor it, for a good reason; Russian scientists are barely able to keep the lights on in their labs and barely able to earn an income because Russia's science budget is slashed to the bone.
Sure, Russia's new generation of Angara rockets have the power to boost 10's of metric tons to the Moon, but that's as far as it goes....
  Everything else is f**king WISHFUL THINKING.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 01/02/2016 09:31 pm
    Let's make this clear! Russia is not going to land men on the Moon this century using its own purse-strings alone.
Generally that seems to be the case.
A better hope might be Brazil or some pacific island nation.
Or China has much higher chance. Or China seems almost as likely as US is of going to the Moon.

Of course with Russia they could be involved and not using their own purse-strings [just a pacific island nation or Brazil could be involved and not be dependent on their government funding it].

Now were crude oil prices to return to $100 per barrel levels [and higher], it might be possible that Russia
government has enough money to kick in some money. Though such higher oil prices would probably decrease China, India, Japan, and/or Europe chances of being involved with Lunar exploration. And with US, crude oil prices up or down are not an issue related to lunar exploration- but war could deter it.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/03/2016 01:18 am
Call me a hopeless optimist. but I truly hope that Russia would eventually land cosmonauts on the Moon before 2050s - for Russia it's a matter of national prestige to achieve an objective that USSR did not fulfill. Most likely it would happened in cooperation with ESA or/and Chinese Space Agency.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 01/06/2016 09:28 pm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a18849/russia-plan-cosmonauts-moon/

Russia's Big Plan To Finally Put Cosmonauts on the Moon

​Making sense of the latest shakeup at Roscosmos.​
By Anatoly Zak


The Russian space agency, Roscosmos, typically celebrates the new year in a traditional Russian fashion: With a two-week bash lasting through Orthodox Christmas and up to January 14. But this year, things were a little more subdued.  Workers building the new Vostochny spaceport in the country's remote far-eastern taiga were given just two days to mark the coming of 2016.

Now, that's partly because of the lagging construction at Vostochny. But Roskosmos had another reason to be in a less-then-festive mood. The Kremlin crossed off the biggest item on the agency's Christmas list: a flight to the Moon.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 01/15/2016 03:53 pm
http://tass.ru/en/science/849578

[NOTE: I suggest NOT clicking on that link. It might be dubious from a security standpoint. I have reprinted the article below.]


Russia to give up Moon, Mars missions witout support from Europe

Science & Space January 14, 14:42 UTC+3
"The launches will be implemented only with the participation of the European Space Agency in the project," says the note to the Moon-29/Moon-Grunt and Bumerang projects



MOSCOW, January 14. /TASS/. Russia will give up soil probes on the Moon and the Phobos as the Mars satellite under the 2025 federal space program, if it finds no support for these projects from the European space corporation, according to a draft federal space program released on Thursday.

The program draft was prepared by Russia’s space corporation (Roscosmos) for submission to the Russian government for approval.

"The launches will be implemented only with the participation of the European Space Agency in the project," says the note to the Moon-29/Moon-Grunt and Bumerang projects. The Bumerang/Expedition-M project is the repetition of the Phobos-Grunt (Phobos-Soil) project that ended in a failure in 2011. The project aims to establish an interplanetary station to survey Mars and its satellites and deliver Phobos soil samples to the Earth. The spacecraft can be launched in 2024, if the European Space Agency cooperates with Roscosmos in this project.

The Moon-Grunt (Moon-Soil) project envisages using a special device to collect and place soil samples from the Moon’s southern pole into a thermostatic chamber and deliver them to the Earth. Given the ESA’s participation, the launch of this space vehicle is scheduled for 2024. Also, the document introduces new numeration of Russian lunar missions expected for implementation until 2025.

Infographics Russia’s Moon exploration program Russia’s Moon exploration program Russia is developing a new generation Advanced Crew Transportation System. Its first flight to the Moon is planned for 2028. Infographics by TASS Specifically, the Moon-Grunt project was enumerated as No. 28, which has now been assigned to the back-up project Moon-Resource Landing Vehicle: two landing stations will be sent at once to the Earth’s satellite in 2021: Moon-27 and its back-up vehicle Moon-28. Previously, the back-up vehicle had no number of its own.

There are plans for 2019 to launch a spacecraft as part of the project Moon-Globe (Moon-25) and for 2020 to launch a space vehicle under the project Moon-Resource Landing Vehicle (Moon-26).

The previous draft of the federal space program prepared by Roscosmos in April 2015 envisaged plans to launch the Moon-26 vehicle in 2021 and the Moon-27 spacecraft and the back-up vehicle at the beginning and at the end of 2022.

Russian orbital constellation to include 70 satellites instead of 95 by 2025 According to the draft federal space program for 2016-2025 the number of satellites in the Russian orbital constellation in 2025 will reach 70 instead of previously planned 95 spacecraft.

According to the document that is being prepared for the government’s approval, in 2025 the number of satellites in the Russian orbital constellation will reach not 95, as it had been planned with the budget of 2 trillion roubles, but 70 spacecraft given the new financing.

The number of launches of spacecraft under the new federal space program for 2016-2025, in view of the budget cuts, will decrease from 185 to 150.

According to previous reports, the financing of the federal space program until 2025 would amount to some 1.4 trillion rubles ($18.27 billion), and the draft program presented last spring provided for budget financing worth 2 trillion roubles ($26.11 billion).

According to the document, instead of the planned 47, the new draft envisages 38 launches of Earth remote sensing (ERS) satellites, and by 2025 the orbital constellation will comprise 25 ERS spacecraft instead of the planned 20. The new federal space program draft excludes the launches of the meteorological satellites Electro-M, Meteor-MP, Obzor-O (system for high resolution observation of Russian territory) and Lider (space complex for all-weather monitoring of man-made and natural disasters).

As for the fundamental space research, according to the federal space program draft, the number of satellite launches to this end will be cut from 20 to 15, and the orbital constellation will decrease from 10 to 4 satellites. The launches of one Intergeliozond (space complex for heliophysics research of the Sun) and four Rezonans satellites (complex for studying the interaction of electromagnetic waves and particles in the Earth's magnetosphere) are excluded from the new program.

Roscosmos also intends to cut spending on servicing the International Space Station (ISS) in 2016-2015 by almost 30 billion rubles.

On Monday, the Izvestia daily reported, citing the final federal space program draft, submitted by Roscosmos to ministries, that over the next decade Russia will allocate 252.1 billion roubles ($3.43 billion) for flight control, servicing the Russian segment of ISS and implementing a program of scientific experiments. Earlier FSP draft submitted in April last year envisaged spending 281.4 billion rubles ($3.82 billion) on the space program. The final draft was cut by almost a quarter to 1.521 trillion rubles ($21 billion) for the next 10 years.




Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 01/15/2016 07:15 pm
Russia decreases number of satellites in its 2025 plan due to budget cuts
Science & Space January 14, 14:10 UTC+3
The number of launches of spacecraft under the new federal space program for 2016-2025, in view of the budget cuts, will decrease from 185 to 150

More:
http://tass.ru/en/science/849569


MOSCOW, January 14. /TASS/. The number of satellites in the Russian orbital constellation in 2025 will reach 70 instead of previously planned 95 spacecraft, according to the draft federal space program for 2016-2025 prepared by the Russian state space corporation, Roscosmos.

According to the document that is being prepared for the government’s approval, in 2025 the number of satellite in the Russian orbital constellation will reach not 95, as it had been planned with the budget of 2 trillion rubles, but 70 spacecraft given the new financing. The number of launches of spacecraft under the new federal space program for 2016-2025, in view of the budget cuts, will decrease from 185 to 150.

According to previous reports, the financing of the federal space program until 2025 would amount to some 1.4 trillion rubles ($18.27 billion), and the draft program presented last spring provided for budget financing worth 2 trillion roubles ($26.11 billion). On Monday, the Izvestia daily reported that Roscosmos intended to cut spending on servicing the ISS in 2016-2015 by almost 30 billion rubles. Citing the final federal space program draft submitted to ministries the daily said that over the next decade Russia would allocate 252.1 billion rubles ($3.43 billion) for flight control, servicing the Russian segment of ISS and implementing a program of scientific experiments. Earlier FSP draft submitted in April last year envisaged spending 281.4 billion rubles ($3.82 billion) on the space program. The final draft was cut by almost a quarter to 1.521 trillion rubles ($21 billion) for the next 10 years.

Russia cancels plans for building two modules for new orbital station
The corporation has also lost some of the original ambitious projects, including creation of two autonomous modules (transformable and power generating ones, ordered by the Russian Academy of Sciences), meant for the creation of a Russian orbital station. The project is absent from the latest version of the program. A transformable module was to be created in 2020-2025 and its launch was scheduled for 2025. Its service life was estimated at five years and design and manufacturing costs, 12.3 billion rubles.

The six-tonne power generating module, having a life cycle of ten years, was to be built in 2021-2025. Its design capacity was set at 18 kilowatts. The launch was scheduled for 2025. Project’s costs were expected at 13.7 billion rubles. Earlier, the head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, Vladimir Solovyov, said Russia had no plans for creating a national orbital station in high latitudes due to the radiation situation. Unmanned space vehicles can be used there instead. Media say if Russia curtails its participation in the ISS project, it might create a national orbital station with an inclination of 62 degrees North (the ISS is in orbit with an inclination of 51.6 degrees). The ISS will stay operational till 2024.

Seven Russian spacecraft to be launched to ISS in 2016
According to Roscosmos, Russia in 2016 will carry out seven launches to the International Space Station (ISS). "Four manned and three cargo launched to the International Space Station are planned from the Baikonur cosmodrome in 2016. The first launch of a manned spacecraft is scheduled for March 19, the second - for June 21, third - for September 23 and fourth - for November 16. The cargo spacecraft will be launched on March 31, July 4 and October 20," Roscosmos said in a statement in Facebook.

On June 21, the first manned spacecraft of a new modification - Soyuz-MS will be launched to the ISS. The new series Soyuz has an upgraded flight control and navigation system. The state corporation sources said that communication with the cosmonauts in the new spacecraft will be ensures during the whole flight to the station, and it will take less time to find the descent module when it returns from orbit. In addition, the new spaceship has an upgraded docking and internal transfer system, as well as an improved power supply system: the size and power of solar cells are increased - the solar panels will produce more energy.

Russia drops plans for launching manned Soyuz spacecraft from new spaceport Russia’s space corporation has also dropped plans for launching the new series manned Soyuz-MS spacecraft from the Vostochny spaceport in the Amur Region. The project has been deleted from the draft of the federal space program for 2016-2025. The launch of Soyuz-MS from Vostochny has been removed from the latest version of the document about to be submitted to the government for approval. Originally Roscosmos hoped to carry out the launch at the end of 2019.

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/16/2016 03:25 am
Thanks BlackStar. Here's the infographic. Looks like a PTK Lunar mission is planned for 2028. The missions that first article is talking about are Luna 29 (Luna-Grunt) and Expedition-M (Mars-Grunt) planned for 2024. Those won't go ahead without ESA participation. The other Luna missions all appear to be still going ahead.

2019 Luna 25 (Luna-Glob)
2020 Luna 26 (Luna-Resurs-OA)
2021 Luna 27 (Luna-Resurs-PA 1)
2021 Luna 28 (Luna-Resurs-PA 2)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 01/18/2016 07:29 pm
    Let's make this clear! Russia is not going to land men on the Moon this century using its own purse-strings alone.
There's no military advantage, so she can't draw on Russia's military budget.
Russia's leading science academy does not favor it, for a good reason; Russian scientists are barely able to keep the lights on in their labs and barely able to earn an income because Russia's science budget is slashed to the bone.
Sure, Russia's new generation of Angara rockets have the power to boost 10's of metric tons to the Moon, but that's as far as it goes....
  Everything else is f**king WISHFUL THINKING.

No, you're not right. Until April 2015, the Federal Space Program for 2016-2025 DID include a manned landing on the Moon. It was not light promisses, it was real program with real money. Everything changed in April 2015, when Government decided to scale down the program to match economics capabilities of Russia given the new economical situation.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: RanulfC on 01/21/2016 07:48 pm
Call me a hopeless optimist. but I truly hope that Russia would eventually land cosmonauts on the Moon before 2050s - for Russia it's a matter of national prestige to achieve an objective that USSR did not fulfill. Most likely it would happened in cooperation with ESA or/and Chinese Space Agency.

Your a hopeless optimist..., but then again aren't we all? :)

Randy
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/21/2016 07:58 pm
Call me a hopeless optimist. but I truly hope that Russia would eventually land cosmonauts on the Moon before 2050s - for Russia it's a matter of national prestige to achieve an objective that USSR did not fulfill. Most likely it would happened in cooperation with ESA or/and Chinese Space Agency.

Your a hopeless optimist..., but then again aren't we all? :)

Randy

Perhaps "manic / depressive" or bipolar is a more accurate description of both American and Russian space ambitions ... ;)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: RanulfC on 01/21/2016 09:21 pm
Call me a hopeless optimist. but I truly hope that Russia would eventually land cosmonauts on the Moon before 2050s - for Russia it's a matter of national prestige to achieve an objective that USSR did not fulfill. Most likely it would happened in cooperation with ESA or/and Chinese Space Agency.

Your a hopeless optimist..., but then again aren't we all? :)

Randy

Perhaps "manic / depressive" or bipolar is a more accurate description of both American and Russian space ambitions ... ;)

Actually I can think of several dozen, er, "mental health" terms to apply to the drivers/deciders behind both programs and unfortunately in both cases it's mostly not people who are actually involved with said programs :)

Randy
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Zannanza on 01/22/2016 08:11 am
What they lack is money and the political will to do that. It also seems to me that there's a shortage in well-qualified and experienced aerospace engineers for a project this scale.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 01/23/2016 02:19 pm
What they lack is money and the political will to do that. It also seems to me that there's a shortage in well-qualified and experienced aerospace engineers for a project this scale.

That is probably true. They lost a lot of people during the 1990s. Equally important, they have not had any major space development projects in the past few decades, so no good training ground for new people.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: redliox on 01/23/2016 08:12 pm
What they lack is money and the political will to do that. It also seems to me that there's a shortage in well-qualified and experienced aerospace engineers for a project this scale.

That is probably true. They lost a lot of people during the 1990s. Equally important, they have not had any major space development projects in the past few decades, so no good training ground for new people.

Again I feel pity for Mother Russia.

Hopefully they can finally put together that replacement for Soyuz, but considering they're cutting their ISS and satellite budgets that's not a good sign in general.  If they contribute any hardware for lunar programs, it will be launchers, upper stages, and leftover ISS parts (and I still remember how their first few modules causes too many delays to the ISS assembly).  They might manage an underweight equal to Orion flying around the Moon, but it'll probably be 15 years behind NASA.

Russia will go to the Moon...by either hitching a ride with NASA or China or via trampoline.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Danderman on 01/23/2016 08:22 pm
Angara 5V is kind of equivalent to a Saturn IB with a Centaur upper stage, so it couldn't send that much to the Moon.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/23/2016 11:16 pm
Angara 5V is kind of equivalent to a Saturn IB with a Centaur upper stage, so it couldn't send that much to the Moon.
Could Angara 5V in single launch deliver crew to Cislunar habitat at Lunar DRO or EML1/2?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/24/2016 10:05 am
Angara 5V is kind of equivalent to a Saturn IB with a Centaur upper stage, so it couldn't send that much to the Moon.
Could Angara 5V in single launch deliver crew to Cislunar habitat at Lunar DRO or EML1/2?
Not in single launch - to deliver manned PTK-L "Federation" spacecraft to LLO/EL1/EML2  it must be 2 launches:
- manned Angara A5V (payload PTK-L+ KeroLOX space tug MOB-DM);
- cargo Angara A5V (payload HydroLOX space tug MOB-KVTK);
- EOR of  2 spacecrafts to assemble lunar stack assembly on LEO.
- Multiple TLI burns in perigee. 
More details on picture below   
Not sure about DRO but most likely this architecture would allow such capability.   
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: llanitedave on 01/24/2016 04:20 pm
One can always dream that things will improve in a post-Putin Russia.




But all their plans right now call for expendable launchers.  Don't we expect those to change as reusability takes the launch vehicle world by storm over the next decade?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Darkseraph on 01/24/2016 04:56 pm
Allegedly there are two paying customers for that Lunar orbital trip Space Adventures is offering using Russian hardware. I hope it goes ahead as it would inject greater confidence in Russia abilities even as a non-government mission. :)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/27/2016 12:06 am
First slide of my presentation for Space Association of Australia in Melbourne on 25th of January
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Danderman on 01/27/2016 04:02 pm
Angara 5V is kind of equivalent to a Saturn IB with a Centaur upper stage, so it couldn't send that much to the Moon.
Could Angara 5V in single launch deliver crew to Cislunar habitat at Lunar DRO or EML1/2?

IF the orbital crew launcher is Angara 5P and the spacecraft was sized to match Angara 5P payload capacity, simply replacing the upper stage with a hydrogen fueled stage should not be sufficient for one Angara 5V launch vehicle to send the spacecraft to the Moon. Two would be required.

Typically, the ratio between orbital capability and lunar capability for a rocket is 1:2.5 with high energy upper stages. So, if PTPK has a mass of 20 tons, a 50 ton launcher with hydrogen fueled upper stage would be required to send it to the Moon in a single launch.

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 01/27/2016 05:35 pm
Allegedly there are two paying customers for that Lunar orbital trip Space Adventures is offering using Russian hardware. I hope it goes ahead as it would inject greater confidence in Russia abilities even as a non-government mission. :)

They have been talking about this for so long that it should be clear by now that it's not real. A couple of years ago I was in a room with one of the Americans who was involved in that effort and he spoke confidently about how it was likely to happen. He's a sane and well-regarded guy and I would normally be inclined to believe him, but I doubted him then, and two years later I still consider it to be wishful thinking.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Danderman on 01/27/2016 07:07 pm
Allegedly there are two paying customers for that Lunar orbital trip Space Adventures is offering using Russian hardware. I hope it goes ahead as it would inject greater confidence in Russia abilities even as a non-government mission. :)

The good news is that the longer that SA takes, the more advanced the Russian systems become, and the easier the mission is to accomplish.

The bad news is that it is taking SA a long time to make this go.

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: JazzFan on 01/28/2016 12:19 am
Allegedly there are two paying customers for that Lunar orbital trip Space Adventures is offering using Russian hardware. I hope it goes ahead as it would inject greater confidence in Russia abilities even as a non-government mission. :)

The good news is that the longer that SA takes, the more advanced the Russian systems become, and the easier the mission is to accomplish.

The bad news is that it is taking SA a long time to make this go.

This is a great confidence builder for those would be commercial lunar explorers who planned for 2040.  At this rate, the newer technology being developed is untested, while the current Soyuz technology that they want to abandon needs to keep being updated.   How long will it be before they reach the sweet spot of relatively new and yet mature technology?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 01/28/2016 03:26 am
The good news is that the longer that SA takes, the more advanced the Russian systems become, and the easier the mission is to accomplish.

The bad news is that it is taking SA a long time to make this go.


That's ridiculous. If they are not actively developing new systems, then taking longer does not make anything "more advanced." And the longer this goes on, the more likely their alleged customers just give up. If somebody says "I am ready to do this now and give you $100 million" and the response is "Wait another decade," how sure can they be that the customer is actually willing to wait?

This project is a joke. It always has been.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 01/28/2016 03:26 am
First slide of my presentation for Space Association of Australia in Melbourne on 25th of January

The words "hope springs eternal" come to mind.  Oh well.  Russia's going to need oil prices at $200 and a cut in the defense budget to make this happen now.  It's a shame because I'm sure they have the technical know-how to pull it off. 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/29/2016 04:44 am
Looks like Space Adventures have updated their web site.

http://www.spaceadventures.com/experiences/circumlunar-mission/

They are still saying 2018 for the Lunar flyby mission.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/30/2016 09:19 am
Angara 5V is kind of equivalent to a Saturn IB with a Centaur upper stage, so it couldn't send that much to the Moon.
Could Angara 5V in single launch deliver crew to Cislunar habitat at Lunar DRO or EML1/2?

IF the orbital crew launcher is Angara 5P and the spacecraft was sized to match Angara 5P payload capacity, simply replacing the upper stage with a hydrogen fueled stage should not be sufficient for one Angara 5V launch vehicle to send the spacecraft to the Moon. Two would be required.

Typically, the ratio between orbital capability and lunar capability for a rocket is 1:2.5 with high energy upper stages. So, if PTPK has a mass of 20 tons, a 50 ton launcher with hydrogen fueled upper stage would be required to send it to the Moon in a single launch.


4 launch Angara A5V CONOPS illustrated here:   
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Nilof on 02/01/2016 01:00 pm
Imho, the best thing Russia could do to become relevant again in space would be to resurrect the tripropellant RD-701/704 engine family. Better Isp than the RS-68A with a fuel mixture twice as dense, and a T/W ratio similar to the RD-180, makes an SSTO with a final mass fraction/dry mass fraction > 2 possible. That ratio pushes reusable SSTO from "hard and a 20% mass increase dooms you" to "as easy as reusable 2-stage". It also has very deep throttling, which makes VTVL an option.

This is why you see the MAKS concept being re-proposed every so often. The key enabler is not Air launch. It's the amazing test-stand measured performance of the RD-700 family.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Archibald on 02/01/2016 02:19 pm
I wonder how does RD-701 compares to Aerojet Thrust Augmented Nozzle ?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Nilof on 02/01/2016 11:18 pm
I wonder how does RD-701 compares to Aerojet Thrust Augmented Nozzle ?

With a >300 atmospheres chamber pressure, you don't have to worry about fancy nozzles. You get to have both a high sea-level Isp and a high expansion ratio with an ordinary bell nozzle. Sea level T/W ratio is higher than the RD-170/180/190 family. A hydrolox engine+TAN would need to achieve Merlin1D levels of T/W ratio to beat it.

With that said, you could see the RD-70X design as a kind of thrust augmenting nozzle, since the hydrogen is burned in the pre-burner and the Kerolox is added downstream.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 02/05/2016 03:12 am
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/news/a19269/revealed-russias-manned-lunar-lander/http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/news/a19269/revealed-russias-manned-lunar-lander/

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 02/05/2016 03:21 am
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/news/a19269/revealed-russias-manned-lunar-lander/http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/news/a19269/revealed-russias-manned-lunar-lander/


This is a PRE, PRE, PRELIMINARY design :) Lander should fit max available PLF for Angara A5V (volume constraint) and should be no heavier than space tug stack (MOB-KVTK plus MOB-DM) lunar orbit capability (19-20 tones). More detailed design should be revealed by R&D "PPTS-2" (to be included eventually in Federal Space Program and not necessary in current one :) ) 
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/19/2016 08:44 am
I thought this proposal was pretty good. Only two 40 t launches. Their lander seems pretty light. Only 11.5 t compared to 15 t for the Apollo LM.

http://en.spacelin.ru/moon-seven/presentation/
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 02/19/2016 09:40 am
I thought this proposal was pretty good. Only two 40 t launches. Their lander seems pretty light. Only 11.5 t compared to 15 t for the Apollo LM.

http://en.spacelin.ru/moon-seven/presentation/
40 tones is a "right value" of LEO payload for Dual Launch Architecture. Considering that original Angara A5V proposal started from 35 tones of payload, then it had been increased to 37-38 tones, I would not be surprised if LV eventually would "grow" and reach 40 tones.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 02/19/2016 09:06 pm
Overview of robotic lunar and Mars plans:

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Russia_plans_return_to_Mars_Moon_despite_money_woes_999.html

Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Danderman on 02/20/2016 12:17 am
Overview of robotic lunar and Mars plans:

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Russia_plans_return_to_Mars_Moon_despite_money_woes_999.html



"scientists have new hope of again sending missions to the Moon and to Mars."

It's those Russian scientists again, always right around the corner from sending people to Mars.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: savuporo on 03/20/2016 05:56 pm
So it appears with the recent news of 30% cut to the Roscosmos budget the answer to the original title of this thread becomes "With a functioning economy"
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 03/29/2016 01:40 pm
This presentation from Friday is mostly about planetary protection. But it includes a slide about the Russian robotic lunar program.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: josespeck on 12/19/2017 03:24 pm
I thought this proposal was pretty good. Only two 40 t launches. Their lander seems pretty light. Only 11.5 t compared to 15 t for the Apollo LM.

http://en.spacelin.ru/moon-seven/presentation/
40 tones is a "right value" of LEO payload for Dual Launch Architecture. Considering that original Angara A5V proposal started from 35 tones of payload, then it had been increased to 37-38 tones, I would not be surprised if LV eventually would "grow" and reach 40 tones.

Spacelin has been purchased by Galaktika. (http://spacelin.ru/novosti/taymyr-rabota-prodolzhaetsya/)
Alia Prokofieva (http://www.spaceforum.com/speakers/aliya-prokofeva/), owner and president of Galaxy Group of Companies. (http://galaktika.space)
Quote
...we abandoned the fuel delivery system to the engine, choosing instead an electric pump...
our New Zealand colleagues from RocketLab not so long ago tested their carrier rocket Electron, equipped with electric pumps, thereby proving the operability of this solution.
...during the development it became obvious that the available batteries for electric pumps are too heavy.

Anyone can mount rockets with electric pumps without paying patents to Rocketlab?.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/25/2017 05:33 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBJkDTt_bZQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBJkDTt_bZQ)

Quote
«Луноход»: возвращение

Published on 25 Dec 2017
  Земляне планируют вернуться на Луну. Возможно, Роскосмос и НАСА, используя опыт «Аполлонов» и автоматических «Луноходов», будут работать совместно.

Google translate:

Quote
Lunokhod: Return

Earthlings plan to return to the moon. Perhaps Roskosmos and NASA, using the experience of the Apollo and the automatic Lunokhods, will work together.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/26/2017 07:24 pm
Some screen grabs. Looks like the large lander also performs LOI with Federatsiya, like in Constellation. Obligatory Lunar base included! Looks like the artist just copied the ISS configuration for a new space station.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/28/2018 07:38 am
Some screen grabs. Looks like the large lander also performs LOI with Federatsiya, like in Constellation. Obligatory Lunar base included! Looks like the artist just copied the ISS configuration for a new space station.
Steven, those are fantasies from animation company that were made for a Roscosmos documentary.
"The real McCoy" are below (slides from Chief Designer of RKK Energia Evgeniy Mikrin presentation on Annual Korolev Readings on 23th of January 2018)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/28/2018 07:45 am
A title slide of my presentation for February meeting of the Space Association of Australia. 
Stay tuned :)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/29/2018 04:16 am
Looking at the schedule. Not sure what the difference is between BP and PP. STK has three cores and STK1 has six cores. Soyuz-5, STK and STK1 LEO payloads are 17, 50 and 88 t, respectively. Federatsiya LEO is 14.4 t, Federatsiya Lunar is 20 t and LVPK Lunar lander is 27 t.

2022 Soyuz-5 BP1 (Federatsiya LEO test flight)
2023 Soyuz-5 BP2 (Federatsiya to ISS)
2024 Soyuz-5 PP1 (Federatsiya to ISS)
2027 STK BP3 (Federatsiya to DSG)
2027 STK PP2 (Federatsiya to DSG)
2028 STK1 BP (LVPK to LEO)
2028 STK1 BP4 (Federatsiya to Lunar orbit)
2029 STK1 BP (LVPK to Lunar orbit)
2029 STK1 PP3 (Federatsiya to Lunar orbit)
2030 STK1 BP (LVPK to Lunar orbit, first crewed landing)
2030 STK1 PP4 (Federatsiya to Lunar orbit)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/02/2018 05:49 am
Here's a video that contains those screen grabs. Not sure what the difference is between BP and PP missions.

Looks like the LVPK Lunar module will come in two versions. The first version will mass 20 t, carry 2 crew, return 100 kg and last 3 days on Lunar surface. The second version will mass 27 t, carry 4 crew, return 625 kg and last 14 days on the Lunar surface. STK II will probably be used for this second version.

It doesn't look like the DSG (LOP-G) is used for the actual landing missions.

Acronyms
PTK  Federatsiya
MKS  International Space Station
LVPK Lunar module
KVTK Hydrolox upper stage
DM   Kerolox upper stage
STK  Heavy lift launch vehicle
DSG  Deep Space Gateway

 
Missions
2022 Soyuz-5 Federatsiya (BP1, LEO)
2024 Soyuz-5 Federatsiya (BP2, ISS)
2025 Soyuz-5 Federatsiya (PP1, ISS)
2027 STK     Federatsiya (BP3, ISS?)
2027 STK     Federatsiya (PP2, DSG)
2028 STK I   LVPK (BP, LEO?)
2028 STK I   Federatsiya (BP4, LLO)
2029 STK I   LVPK (BP, 15 km perilune?)
2029 STK I   Federatsiya (PP3, LLO)
2030 STK I   LVPK (BP, first crewed landing)
2030 STK I   Federatsiya (PP4, LLO)


Launch Vehicles
Soyuz-5 17 t RD-171M + RD-0124M + DM
STK     50 t 3xRD-171M + RD-0124M + 2xDM
STK I   88 t 6xRD-171M + RD-0124M + KVTK + DM
STK II 115 t 6xRD-171M + H2/O2 Stage 2 + H2/O2 Stage 3


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pobTBHHJMMk
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: TorenAltair on 05/02/2018 11:58 am
MKS might be derived from the freeflying lab they are developing and can be docked to the ISS, the Oka-T-MKS.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 05/03/2018 03:14 am
MKS might be derived from the freeflying lab they are developing and can be docked to the ISS, the Oka-T-MKS.
Please do not confuse everybody MKS is ISS in Russian (Mezhdunarodnaja Kosmicheskaya Stantsiya/Международная Космическая Станция)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 05/03/2018 03:20 am
Here's a video that contains those screen grabs. We have BP and PP missions. PP missions consist of PTK and MKS elements. I believe MKS is a mission module that allows operation in low Lunar orbit (LLO).

Looks like the LVPK Lunar module will come in two versions. The first version will mass 20 t, carry 2 crew, return 100 kg and last 3 days on Lunar surface. The second version will mass 27 t, carry 4 crew, return 625 kg and last 14 days on the Lunar surface. STK II will probably be used for this second version.

It doesn't look like the DSG is used for the actual landing missions.

Acronyms
PTK  Federatsiya
MKS  Service Module?
LVPK Lunar module
KVTK Hydrolox upper stage
DM   Kerolox upper stage
STK  Heavy lift launch vehicle
DSG  Deep Space Gateway

 
Missions
2022 Soyuz-5 Federatsiya (BP1, LEO)
2024 Soyuz-5 Federatsiya (BP2, ISS)
2025 Soyuz-5 Federatsiya (PP1, ISS)
2027 STK     Federatsiya (BP3, ISS?)
2027 STK     Federatsiya (PP2, DSG)
2028 STK I   LVPK (BP, LEO?)
2028 STK I   Federatsiya (BP4, LLO)
2029 STK I   LVPK (BP, 15 km perilune?)
2029 STK I   Federatsiya (PP3, LLO)
2030 STK I   LVPK (BP, first crewed landing)
2030 STK I   Federatsiya (PP4, LLO)


Launch Vehicles
Soyuz-5 17 t RD-171M + RD-0124M + DM
STK     50 t 3xRD-171M + RD-0124M + 2xDM
STK I   88 t 6xRD-171M + RD-0124M + KVTK + DM
STK II 115 t 6xRD-171M + H2/O2 Stage 2 + H2/O2 Stage 3


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pobTBHHJMMk
MOB-KVTK is Hydrolox space tug
MOB-DM is Kerolox space tug
Both are man-rated and slightly different from baseline space tugs KVTK (Khrunichev) and Block-DM (Energia) to be used /used  for cargo (mostly GEO/GTO) missions
DSG is already rechristened to LOP-G by NASA :)
Federatsiya is an official name of spacecraft developed within New Generation Manned Transportation Vehicle PTK NP  Program
STK Phase II ha been beefed up to 130 tones Stage II and III to be propelled by RD-0150 engines   
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Olaf on 05/04/2018 05:08 pm
https://sputniknews.com/science/201805041064139106-russia-cosmonaut-moon/
Russian Cosmonaut Could Fly to Moon for 1st Time Aboard US Spacecraft - Source
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 11/29/2018 12:58 pm
Roskosmos Lunar Architecture in 2007 Most of info from this report still relevant 11 years later.  8)
Some of those images (rather fragments of them) already had been published in two Russian Books
(https://cv01.twirpx.net/1024/1024554.jpg?t=20180701022057)
(http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/pil-ex-na-mars/001.jpg)
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Olaf on 01/20/2019 10:18 am
https://sputniknews.com/science/201901201071642801-russia-roscosmos-nasa-spacecraft-moon-missions/
Russia to Create Backup Manned Vehicle for Moon Flights Without NASA Funding
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 01/20/2019 08:39 pm
This would be a backward move for Russian Space agency - it is not sustainable to spread limited funds between 2 manned spacecraft programs, unless NASA is going to pay for Soyuz-L.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/21/2019 03:30 am
The first paragraph.

"MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Russia's State Space Corporation Roscosmos chief Dmitry Rogozin has said that NASA had asked Roscosmos to create a lunar version of the Soyuz spacecraft as a backup manned space transport system for flights to the Moon."

Finally, Soyuz will be doing what it was originally designed to do! This is all provided of course that Roscosmos can actually get the funding from the Russian government.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: yoram on 01/21/2019 04:59 am
So which launcher would the lunar Soyuz use?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Tywin on 01/21/2019 05:02 am
The first paragraph.

"MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Russia's State Space Corporation Roscosmos chief Dmitry Rogozin has said that NASA had asked Roscosmos to create a lunar version of the Soyuz spacecraft as a backup manned space transport system for flights to the Moon."

Finally, Soyuz will be doing what it was originally designed to do! This is all provided of course that Roscosmos can actually get the funding from the Russian government.

And what happened with the Federatsia?
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/21/2019 07:00 am
So which launcher would the lunar Soyuz use?

They were proposing Soyuz-2/Proton for a Lunar flyby, so would need more than that for Gateway. They might need to use one Proton for the Soyuz with an added stage and then rendezvous with another Proton which carries an additional stage that performs part or all of TLI. Two Angara-5 flights might also be another possibility.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/21/2019 07:35 am
And what happened with the Federatsia?

According to the article, that would still be developed.

"In late June, Rogozin said that manned flights to the Moon on the Soyuz spacecraft are possible, while the development of the new Federation spacecraft is being completed."
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: SciNews on 02/10/2019 08:33 am
RIA Novosti (Russian) https://ria.ru/20190209/1550625837.html
Google translation:
"Russian cosmonauts will land on the moon in 2031
MOSCOW, February 9 - RIA News. The first Russian manned expedition should go to the moon in 2031, and then these flights are planned to be annual, according to the document of the Roskosmos head scientific institute TsNIIMash, which is at the disposal of RIA Novosti.

The explanation indicates that the crew of the first expedition will have to work out some "operations of astronauts on the Moon" and "carry out work on the tasks of the RAS".

In 2032, it is planned to deliver a moon-car (a heavy lunar rover with the ability of astronauts to move) to the Earth satellite, as well as a second expedition, which will be engaged in "testing vehicles on the surface."

The expedition of 2033 will have to make long-distance trips on a lunomobile and test robotic complexes.

A start is scheduled for 2034, and a continuation of the construction of the lunar base is planned for 2035.

Each expedition received a code name - from M1 to M5. They are supposed to be carried out at the expense of two launches of an extra-heavy rocket - one will put a manned spacecraft into orbit, the second - a landing complex for disembarking and subsequent launch from the Moon, as well as other equipment.

Piloted flights must be preceded by two test launches in 2028 and 2029, respectively, with testing of the landing complex and fly-by of the Moon by a manned ship.

Russian lunar program
Earlier it was reported that Roskosmos had finally determined the most preferable look of the Yenisei super heavy-class launch vehicle, which is planned to be used for flights to the Moon. According to a RIA Novosti source in the rocket and space industry, this is an option with six side blocks with RD-171MV engines and a central unit with an RD-180 engine.
President Vladimir Putin signed a decree creating a super-heavy rocket in early 2018. Sketch design should be completed by November of this year, and the first launch is scheduled for 2028th.
It is assumed that the rocket will send to the moon the layout of the new manned ship "Federation", he will fly around her and return to Earth."

Images of RD-171MV https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39208.msg1909578#msg1909578
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/10/2019 09:06 am
Proton may be a capable booster; but it has had some quality control and reliability issues in recent years. Too many have crashed or simply gone boom. I'd like to believe an Angara derivative could launch basic lunar expeditions in twinned launches of the best Angara 5 (more than 30 metric tons to LEO): one pair of launches each for the Command vehicle (Soyuz upgrade or Federatsiya) and the Lander. How massive a Lander could a separately launched propulsion stage send on TLI? And would that stage and/or Lander have enough delta-v to brake itself into lunar orbit? :(
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Tywin on 08/27/2019 08:47 pm
Looks like Russia, starts a real planning for go to the Moon...

https://twitter.com/katlinegrey/status/1166425148712525824

https://ria.ru/20190827/1557935527.html
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/28/2019 10:11 am
Here is the Bing translation, which is smart enough to use transliterations for the most of the words in quotes!

https://ria.ru/20190827/1557935527.html

"MOSCOW, Aug 27 - RIA Novosti. The State Corporation "Roscosmos" called the program of the first flights of Russian cosmonauts to the moon "Forabya" and the next stages are called "Forpost" and "Baza". This is stated in the documentation on the public procurement website.
According to the announced tender for preparation for the flight to the moon, the Russian manned program is divided into three stages. The first one was called "Foraying", the second was called "Forpost" and the third was called "Base".
In November 2018, Roscosmos and RAS began discussing the program of manned flights to the moon for the future until 2040. The concept of the program should be reported to the country's leadership by the end of autumn 2019."
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: blaze79 on 08/28/2019 10:32 am
It is not so smart. I have no idea what is "Forabya". First phase can be translated as "sortie" but I it is very hard to find transliteration.
Title: Re: How would Russia go to the moon?
Post by: fregate on 08/28/2019 11:23 am
It is not so smart. I have no idea what is "Forabya". First phase can be translated as "sortie" but I it is very hard to find transliteration.
As usual "Lost in translation" - the codenames for 3 stages from R&D Program Pastoral-1 were (since 2018):  «Вылазка» (Sortie or raid), «Форпост» (Vanguard or outpost) and «База» ([Moon]base)