India Plans Its Own Moon Shot

anzha writes: "CNN is reporting that India is planning an unmanned mission to Luna in 2007. The US, Russia (when it was the USSR), and Japan are the only nations to have done so, or so they say. For some reason, I thought that ESA, the European Space Agency, had sent one also. At any rate, while I'd like to see the Stars and Stripes posted all over the galaxy, more competition is better! So, all I have to say is, 'Go, India! Go!'" I wonder if China is still on track for 2005.

Re:Well...

[Skyshadow]

Pakistan doesn't have a space program worth mentioning. This is more a competition with China.

Re:Scary.

[Anonymous Coward]

i don;t even think were capabale of such things as this.

ERROR Your host is trying to (re)connect too fast -- throttled.

ESA isn't a country

[tempestdata]

I'm not sure if the ESA did send a probe to the moon, but even if they had, the space agency has many member countries.

I'm very happy to hear that India is willing to push itself to new heights. If there is any country that would want to colonize the moon (or mars), Its India. (well, china too). There you go. There's the space race..

About ESA

[jukal]

> I thought that ESA, the European Space Agency, had sent one also

ESA [esa.int] is just preparing it's first trip to moon, it's project called SMART-1 [esa.int]. It's going to travel to moon, but the key of the project is to test the new propulsion system, which is planned to be used for much longer trips.

Re:Well...

[crawling_chaos]

Actually, they aren't. Neither the U.S. nor the Russians used their manned moon rockets as ICBMs. It's massive overkill. Bombs don't weight as much as manned capsules do.

Even satellite launch systems don't usually make very good ICBMs, since the satellite rockets tend to use cheaper liquid fuels, while the ICBMs use more expensive solids. This allows the ICBMs to be on call more often, since you don't have to periodically de-tank the fuel. The Russians may still have a liquid-fueled ICBM, but we got rid of ours after we developed Minuteman.

The ICBM designs we've used in the manned space program:

• Redstone: (not really an ICBM, but still a military rocket.) Sub-orbital Mercury missions.
• Atlas: Mercury orbital missions, umanned launch of the Agena target vehicles for Gemini.
• Titan II: Gemini.

That's it, and each of these began as missiles and turned into launchers, not vice-versa. We've never turned a Saturn or a Shuttle into an ICBM. Nor have we used their engines or other structures in ICBM designs. I think the early shuttle designs used modified Minuteman IIs for the SRBs, but that was discarded in favor of a partially reusable design. Not much need to re-use an ICBM, if it works.

Re:Well...

[mentin]

No, the ballistic rockets suitable for delivery of bomb to other side of the planet can't deliver it to a target a few hundred miles away. They are just not suitable for this.

E.g. minimum range for Russian balistic missiles is about 2,000 kilometers. They just can't be programmed for shorter range without massive redesign.

Middle and short range strategic missiles are used for hundred miles ranges, and they are very different beasts.

Re:Well...

[mestreBimba]

Not always so.
The Russians are using a SS-N-18 naval launch vehicle as the basis for their Volna launch vehicle (which is launched from a submarine).

With this package the Russians are putting comercial satelites into orbit, at a fairly cheap price. I have read that thet are also testing other systems based on old solid fuel ICBM motors.

Re:Well...

[antirename]

I don't think many nations should be selling ICBM technology to either of of them. At the moment they can only nuke each other, maybe a SMALL part of China; extending their reach is asking for trouble. Pakistan especially has given no indication that they can control their extremists, let alone their nukes.