Russia Has Sights Set On Manned Moon Landing By 2030 207
New submitter techfun89 writes "Russia plans on sending cosmonauts to the moon as well as unmanned spacecraft to Mars, Jupiter and Venus by 2030. Considering the recent launch failures in Russia, these plans seem very ambitious. From the article: 'These ambitious spaceflight goals are laid out in a strategy document drawn up recently by Russia's Federal Space Agency (known as Roscosmos), the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported Tuesday (March 13).
And there's more. Roscosmos wants a new rocket called Angara to become the nation's workhorse launch vehicle by 2020, replacing the venerable Soyuz and Proton rockets that have been carrying the load since the 1960s.'"
Re:Good idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
America's got looooots of money.
The embarrassing part should be what you choose to spend it on.
Re:Good idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
When the first moon landings happened, the technology that folks were able to take down to the surface was exceptionally limited. This means that any landings in the future will be able to carry out experiments that could have only been dreamed about in the 60s.
Probably the most prominent new capability is that due to advances in computing and robotics, these experiments can now all be carried out remotely without having to send costly meatbags to tend to them.
Re:Good idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there any advantage to sending a person?
Yes. As they put it during Project Mercury, "No Bucks, no Buck Rogers." Well, the reverse is true, as well.
Otherwise, why haven't we covered the Moon in rover tracks by now? It is much easier than controlling them on Mars, after all, and probably easier to land them (although no aerobraking might compensate for the lighter gravity). Likewise, they could have dispersed a wide net of sensors around it, instead of depending on the few left from the Apollo landings.
And, of course, the real expense is getting to High Earth Orbit. After that, as some hard SF writer put it, you are half way to anywhere. At least in delta-V terms.
Re:Good idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yes. As they put it during Project Mercury, "No Bucks, no Buck Rogers." Well, the reverse is true, as well."
They didn't have the remotely-manned tech we do now or robots in quantity would have preceded men.
If there is, at the moment, anything a man can perform which a robot cannot, that argues for improved robots rather than sending expensive tourists. We need improved robot tech for all the dull/dirty/dangerous jobs on Earth, and as we are moving to "lights out manufacturing" in advanced industries so we should seek to automate everything else over time.
Re:Not a chance (Score:4, Insightful)
Nowadays they can only build 20 year old rockets, and make minor improvements here and there.
20 years? Soyuz is from 1966, and has heritage from the R-7 (designed starting in 1953, a derivative launched sputnik in '57).
So by my count, that's 55 years, with modifications along the way, but the major ones done in the first decade or two.
Russia's fall in engineering and science is rather tragic.
Re:Good idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Some Americans have lots of money as do some Chinese and some Russians and at least one Mexican. The rest of us are poor schlubs living hand to mouth like everyone else. Granted there are probably more documented rich in America.
Re:Good idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
They didn't have the remotely-manned tech we do now or robots in quantity would have preceded men.
Robots did. There were 21 such robotic missions prior to the first manned mission. Apollo 12 [wikipedia.org] landed near (about 360 meters away) one of those robotic missions, Surveyor 3 [wikipedia.org].
If there is, at the moment, anything a man can perform which a robot cannot, that argues for improved robots rather than sending expensive tourists.
There is plenty. Perhaps you ought to watch some Apollo footage sometime to see it. The thing to remember here is that humans are currently the best robots out there for a number of important tasks (such as making decisions, land-based surveying and prospecting, land-based sample collection, etc). Humans have overhead such as supplies and need for radiation protection, but that boils down to mass and power needs just like any robotic payload.
We need improved robot tech for all the dull/dirty/dangerous jobs on Earth, and as we are moving to "lights out manufacturing" in advanced industries so we should seek to automate everything else over time.
The problem here is that this approach gets in the way of us doing cool things. Suppose I develop a new industrial process, but the prototype requires considerable human intervention (precisely because a human developed it with limited resources). I don't have the capital for this "lights out" stuff or to make sure that my workers and I are sufficiently out of harms way to fulfill whatever safety levels you're attempting to achieve here.
I have a better idea. Let's not waste time or effort making the world ridiculously safe.