You are not logged in.
http://www.physorg.com/news129984649.html
All I can say is groovy, and I hope it doesn't get too delayed!
Offline
No ESA press release on this so far, maybe they ran out of ink?
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
LOL
Well, If all goes well this will be pretty awesome.
When I heard that both ESA and Russia had plans to go to the Moon and Mars by x date, I was suspicious because they're weren't even talking about developing the necessary craft nor had they anywhere near the capability.
This puts me at ease a little. Having more than one nation capable of landing on the Moon will be good for a space economy and settlement.
Offline
Sure, if it's true it's good news, but this is reported as "travel" to the Moon, it won't be a landing.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Sure, if it's true it's good news, but this is reported as "travel" to the Moon, it won't be a landing.
That doesn't necessarily mean it can't land. They just didn't specify.
Its very unlikely that a landing capabilty wouldn't be developed. Russia and Europe both have plans for moon missions in that time frame. Its doubtful that they're going there to just orbit the Moon since robots can do that for much much cheaper.
Anyways, there is more to the story here: http://space.newscientist.com/article/d … rizon.html
Offline
Eh, Russia tooting its horn to steal NASA's thunder. Note how the dates coincide with NASA's rockets.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Why teh fuk not?
It better that two or three nations go and explore than just the one. Space exploration and industry will develop faster that way.
We all co-operate already with ISS, so why not for the Moon!
If the US ever decides to pull out of manned Moon exploration, atleast somebody will have the capabilities to continue it!
Offline
Gregori,
13 space agencies are already cooperating on the exploration of the Moon - hopefully this will be bigger and better than the ISS project!
ESA/RKA don't have the launcher or the lander to do the job. Traveling to the Moon is not that hard, a modified Soyuz could probably do it. The difficult part is landing on the Moon safely, the really hard part is taking off again.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Gregori,
ESA/RKA don't have the launcher or the lander to do the job. Traveling to the Moon is not that hard, a modified Soyuz could probably do it. The difficult part is landing on the Moon safely, the really hard part is taking off again.
Neither does the US, but that will change soon.
Offline
Let see if this advances out of the vaporware stage before the Klipper.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
It sure seems like the Klipper - 6 crew etc etc - the Russians have been trying to get ESA to pay for it for a long time.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Well, given the fantastic reliability of the Soyuz over it's 40 years service and the general wonderful things the Russian have achieved in space - I've not doubt that they can build this and it will work!!
Given the great work done to build Ariane 5 and the Jules Verne ATV, I've little doubt ESA can pull this off either since they now have good experience.
The only thing to worry about now is if it will get funded all the way through!
It will be a serious let down if either party decides to pull out.
This isn't a charge that can thrown soley at RSK, since NASA has promised loads of great programs before but axed them due to funding cuts and the president's temperament.
Anywhere, there needs to be more than one nation with the capabilities to get humans out of LEO!! That will insulate space exploration against budget cuts and fickle leaders.
Offline
Soyuz was built during the days of the Soviet Union, when engineers and technicians were effectively slaves controlled by the government. They also had blank checks for whatever they wanted. Nothing stood in the way, if anyone objected they disappeared in the Gulags. The media dare not report the accidents and cosmonauts who died were erased from history. Today Russia is different, even with petrodollars flowing in, funding is tight - that's why they need ESA euros.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Soyuz was built during the days of the Soviet Union, when engineers and technicians were effectively slaves controlled by the government. They also had blank checks for whatever they wanted. Nothing stood in the way, if anyone objected they disappeared in the Gulags. The media dare not report the accidents and cosmonauts who died were erased from history. Today Russia is different, even with petrodollars flowing in, funding is tight - that's why they need ESA euros.
Any evidence to back that up?
Offline
Sure.
Jim Oberg's lecture slides (PDF) - Oberg is probably the best authority on the Russian space program outside Russia.
and
Lots more on his site
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Sure.
Jim Oberg's lecture slides (PDF) - Oberg is probably the best authority on the Russian space program outside Russia.
and
Lots more on his site
Thats fair enough, but its doesn't take much credit away from Russian success in space. They've been quite technically excellent at it. Countless people have died pursuing manned space flight - Its inherently very dangerous.
The Soyuz craft is the most used vehicle for delivering humans into space and is extremely reliable. Russia has the experience in manned space flight to build on. ESA is going to catch up.
I've no doubt that the above craft and capabilities can be achieved once the funding isn't pulled by ESA or RSK.
Offline
Thats fair enough, but its doesn't take much credit away from Russian success in space. They've been quite technically excellent at it. Countless people have died pursuing manned space flight - Its inherently very dangerous.
The Soyuz craft is the most used vehicle for delivering humans into space and is extremely reliable.
Yes, and most of those "countless people" who died have been Russian or living under Russian occupation.
There's not much difference between the safety record of the Shuttle and Soyuz. Shuttle has certainly put far more people into orbit. The Shuttle is by far the most technically capable vehicle.
The Soviet media was totally controlled by the government, and now the Russia media has recently fallen back under government control. The US media digs into every nook and cranny and reports every nut and bolt that fails. The Russians cover up everything they can including massive accidents, no wonder so many people believe the Russian systems are wonderful and that NASA's are useless.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
The media dare not report the accidents and cosmonauts who died were erased from history.
Cosmonauts who died both on missions and were reported very quickly and honoured as heroes. So were those who died in training (Bodarenko being the only exception) People who failed or were removed from training did "disappear" from the record, but are now known and have been known for at least 30 years.
"Vanished cosmonauts" are a myth.
Jon
Offline
Yes, and most of those "countless people" who died have been Russian or living under Russian occupation.
Please give evidence for "countless Russian deaths" in manned spaceflight. There have only been four.
The Russians cover up everything they can including massive accidents, no wonder so many people believe the Russian systems are wonderful and that NASA's are useless.
Don't let cold war events and prejudices colour recognition of genuine Soviet/Russian achievements or present realities.
Jon
Offline
Oberg is probably the best authority on the Russian space program outside Russia.
He is one source. There are others. And Oberg's objectivity is questionable with his increasingly strident hostility to US-Russian cooperation.
The Nedelin Catastrophe
A test of a military system, not a space launcher.
Jon
Offline
Cosmonauts who died both on missions and were reported very quickly and honoured as heroes. So were those who died in training (Bodarenko being the only exception) People who failed or were removed from training did "disappear" from the record, but are now known and have been known for at least 30 years.
"Vanished cosmonauts" are a myth.
Thanks Jon.
Only two publically known fatal accidents involving the deaths of four cosmonauts were admitted by the Soviets when they happened, the others were covered up. All of these fatal accidents were in Soyuz.
Many people were killed in the Soviet space programme, all these fatalities were kept secret at the time. Yes much of this has now been confirmed, but only because of the tireless work of people like Jim Oberg.
Please quote an authoritative reference for the denial of Oberg's work.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Thats fair enough, but its doesn't take much credit away from Russian success in space. They've been quite technically excellent at it. Countless people have died pursuing manned space flight - Its inherently very dangerous.
The Soyuz craft is the most used vehicle for delivering humans into space and is extremely reliable.
Yes, and most of those "countless people" who died have been Russian or living under Russian occupation.
There's not much difference between the safety record of the Shuttle and Soyuz. Shuttle has certainly put far more people into orbit. The Shuttle is by far the most technically capable vehicle.
The Soviet media was totally controlled by the government, and now the Russia media has recently fallen back under government control. The US media digs into every nook and cranny and reports every nut and bolt that fails. The Russians cover up everything they can including massive accidents, no wonder so many people believe the Russian systems are wonderful and that NASA's are useless.
Maybe had the US media looked into "every nook and cranny", the shuttle accidents could have been avoided. Afterall, the causes of both accidents were known about in far in advance by engineers and ignored by managers at NASA.
The shuttle maybe "the most technically capable vehicle", but its still dumb.
Its an over complicated time bomb that costs too much and can't get human out of LEO. It doesn't really do anything that other launchers can't do for much cheaper.
This is why NASA is doing a 180 with Ares and Orion, going back to the older and more practical ways of doing manned space vehicles.
Not that I think that NASA are useless (They've done many successful thigns in space), but the Russian deserve their dues for creating reliable space transport and some fantastic engineering!
Offline
This is why NASA is doing a 180 with Ares and Orion, going back to the older and more practical ways of doing manned space vehicles.
Not that I think that NASA are useless (They've done many successful thigns in space), but the Russian deserve their dues for creating reliable space transport and some fantastic engineering!
But that is literally the past. They do not have the resources and cold hard cash to reinvogorate there program and the Soyuz capsule has reached the end of its use. It does not have enough capacity to be upgraded and certainly any replacement requires foreign cash to pay for it.
ESA which at present does not have a man capable launcher is seen by the Russians as there best hope that is why they put out these statements trying to get ESA to invest.
But do ESA with there ATV have a vehicle that could quickly be man rated and one which has a lot of capability. Certainly next month in Germany there is a symposium of doing just that.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
The Ariane-V rocket was also developed with launching the Hermes European mini-shuttle way back when, so it is a smaller leap to man-rate it then most think I believe. It also has a pretty decent service record since they fixed the bugs in the software and engine nozzles.
Take the ATV, swap out the cargo carrier for a capsule, and viola'. If not for the Europeans lack of experience with space capsule technology, they could probably beat NASA to making an Ares-I/Orion style launch system.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
If not for the Europeans lack of experience with space capsule technology, they could probably beat NASA to making an Ares-I/Orion style launch system.
Doubtful. It's that lack of experience and the enormous cost of acquiring it that makes using Russian technology so attractive. Even with Russian technology this unconfirmed article (still no press release from ESA BTW) says first flight in 2018.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline