A $100 Million Trip to the Moon

Kyusaku Natsume writes "Russia's federal space agency will offer a $100m trip to the moon. From the UK Guardian's article:" "We've had the necessary technology for many years, the only problem will be finding someone prepared to pay that much." "

Not the first time

[Rxke]

They posted this idea before.
Looked extremely nice, but there are some problems with this...
Biggest stumblingblock: the heatshield is not up to the increased punishment it'll get when re-entering from a trans-luna trajectory instead of a deorbit from LEO...

But then again, that's only a matter of strenghthening the shield. But then again, that needs testing, and will add serious weight.

So they can't do this tomorrow, the hardware is not tried and tested... Yet...

Re:Russsia shouldn't be the only one

[roman_mir]

but I somehow thought that by now a public company could have pulled it off alread - are you kidding? Imagine this: you start a company like that. Let's say you have 1000,000,000 USD as a starting capital. How much can you do for that money? What would it take? You can buy Russian Soyuz launch vehicles, but for that money can you have your own space station and a moon module capable of going around the moon and back to the station? What about the fuel for the moon station? The Russians have Protons and Zeniths, you would have to buy those. How many customers will you get? One every 2 years? How will you make money on that?

No, it's too early for any private company to even think about such things. The Russian space agency can only afford to do this because they have all the infrastructure for it: they have Soyuz and Proton and the space station.

Re:Russsia shouldn't be the only one

[Daniel_Staal]

Not so odd. The set-up cost of a space program (launch vechicle design, location, landing location, monitering center, etc.) is a very high sunk cost. Russia has it, built and paid for. So all they have to pay for is each launch, and ongoing maintenice. Since their budget has been cut, they have a strong incentive to find alternative funding.

In other words: They have the capablitly set up, and they have a reason. No one else has that: NASA is funded enough to keep going, and no one else has existing human-spaceflight capablity.

That's not too much

[Anonymous Coward]

It's between 10-11% of my net worth. I might do it.

Not quite all the way to the moon

[Shimmer]

TFA says the offer is to orbit the moon, but not land on it. An important distinction, I think.

-- Brian Berns

Re:Finances

[amliebsch]

Or did the US already claim the Moon as their own so other countries cannot trespass?

The plaque left on the moon (affixed to the first LEM) reads as follows:

HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON
JULY 1969, A.D.
WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND

Interestingly, however, the United States (along with most spacefaring countries) has not ratified the 1979 Moon Treaty, which would basically prohibit any property rights on the moon (or other celestial bodies). So the door is still open for future ownership of lunar surface.

Re:Seems a bit steep to me...

[s20451]

Space tourists will not land on its surface but will circle its dark side and orbit close enough to examine its cratered lunar crust. In fact you can see the dark side from Earth; just try to find the moon during the "new" phase. I think what they mean to say is the far side, which is never visible from Earth.

To be pedantic ...

[s20451]

Space tourists will not land on its surface but will circle its dark side and orbit close enough to examine its cratered lunar crust.

I'll do them one better. I will only charge $99 million to let people see the dark side of the moon. Just stand in my back yard, look at the moon, and whatever portion is dark, that is the dark side of the moon. (Offer not valid during full moons.)

I think what they mean is the far side of the moon, which is never visible from Earth (because the moon rotates at the same rate that it revolves). The far side is illuminated as often as the near side; for instance, it is fully illuminated during every new moon.

Re:Just don't be the 13th to go

[Anonymous Coward]

> Bakinour, we have a problem.

Mission control is in Moscow. Baikonur just does the launching.

The US as the same. Mission control is in Houston. Cape Canaveral just does the launching. Control is passed from launch control to mission control as soon as the vehicle clears the tower.

Re:I don't think they can do it

[Anonymous Coward]

"But there is a big difference between Earth orbit and going to the Moon. Even if you're not landing there."

The Russians have made it to the moon.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_manned_l unar.html [russianspaceweb.com]

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetar y_lunar.html [russianspaceweb.com]

While there are considerable more failures than successes, the Russians have achieved lunar orbit and returned.

Re:To be pedantic ...

[akgunkel]

See Tidal Locking [wikipedia.org]

Russians ripped off Constellation Services

[FleaPlus]

There's an article over on MSNBC [msn.com] with more info about the moon trip proposal. It turns out that the mission design is basically the same one that Constellation Services International, a small California space firm, proposed to the Russians last year. It seems that the Russians have just taken the proposal and blown off CSI. You can see the older article about CSI's design (with a diagram showing how it'll work) here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6558855/ [msn.com]

From the newer article:

NBC News space analyst James Oberg wrote about the Lunar Express concept eight months ago [msn.com]: As laid out by Constellation Services International's [constellat...rvices.com] Charles Miller, the passenger would first be brought up to the international space station aboard a modified Russian Soyuz craft. Then the Soyuz would make a rendezvous with a booster-equipped logistics module that has been sent into orbit separately. The beefed-up craft would make an elongated figure-8 course around the moon - not landing there, but slingshotting around to return to Earth.

Oberg was amazingly prescient when he wrote, "The obvious question is what would prevent the Russians, or some other international space business, from simply stealing the idea and blowing off Miller and his associates."

In an e-mail exchange with Oberg, Miller was "sorry to say" that CSI was not involved in the Russian round-the-moon project, reported by Moscow-based Channel 1 (in Russian) as well as the RIA Novosti news service.

Instead, the news reports say that Russia's Federal Space Agency and Energia, the prime contractor for much of the country's space hardware, are working on the project. Channel 1 says proceeds from the two-week, $100 million tour package would go toward building Russia's next-generation spaceship, the Kliper [msn.com].

Re:Seems a bit steep to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

You stupid fag. The currency in Russia is the Rouble, not dollars.