Russia Begins Work On a Lunar Lander (examiner.com) 93
MarkWhittington writes: Whether and when Russia will try to send cosmonauts to the moon is an open question. The Putin government has heavily slashed spending on the Russian space program, a measure brought on by declining oil and gas revenues. But, as Popular Mechanics reports, Russian engineers have gone ahead and have started to design a lunar lander for the eventual Russian lunar surface effort. When money is going to be forthcoming for such a vehicle is unknown, though Russia could partner with another country with lunar ambitions, such as China or the European Union.
well (Score:3)
I, for one, hail our Russian Mooning Overlords!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Obama's policy may be uninspiring but that's still an improvement over Bush's plan which was untenable.
A better option would be to have an inspiring goal (eg return to the Moon or go to Mars) but with a public-private funding model. The age of large-scale government-only space projects such as the Bush proposal are no longer feasible. Meanwhile we have a burgeoning private space industry that can make significant, cost-effective contributions.
Re: Obama's space policy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Mate, I think you miss the point of exploration.
Not seeing any evidence that that is true,
I for one hope they find the money to fund this effort sooner rather than later, I've not yet seen a man set foot on the moon in my lifetime (born in 1990) and be it the Russians or the Chinese I don't particularly care.
I haven't seen a man swallow a pinecone either. Not sure that that creates a compelling reason for anyone to take up pinecone swallowing. From my perspective, I'd rather we went exploring - sent a robotic sub to the oceans of titan, or drilling into icy crust of europa. If I want to see a glorified meat van, I'd bling up the butchers ute.
One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
Now robots take those leaps on our behalf.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you hugged your robot lately? OP refers to the thrill of exploration.
You weren't thrilled when Huygens plunged through the clouds of Titan and landed on the surface? You weren't thrilled by the recent flyby of Pluto? What's wrong with you?
Robot craft are interesting and useful, and I support their ongoing use to be sure - but the explorer's urge is deeply ingrained in (most of) us, at a very personal level - thanks evolution! "Fun" I think, is the operative word, although many on both sides of the issue would lift their noses at the very suggestion of such an emotion - how politically incorrect (*sniff)!
You've arbitrarily constrained exploring to requiring the actual explorer to cart along a bag of meat. This constraint is bizarre- why not replace the bag of meat with a pineapple? It's not exploring unless you carry along a pineapple, with a robotic arm to hurl out the pineapple and a recording that says "THERE! Now the pineapple has set
Re: (Score:2)
I have no such constraint: "...and I support their ongoing use to be sure". Yes, I was thrilled by Huygens, and as for New Horizons my name is on the onboard disc.
But before you implied that robotic exploration was "not really" exploring:
OP refers to the thrill of exploration. Robot craft are interesting and useful, and I support their ongoing use to be sure - but the explorer's urge is deeply ingrained in (most of) us, at a very personal level
How does 2 or 3 people going to Mars or the Moon satisfy an urge deeply ingrained in (most of) us ? It seems for the vast, vast majority of the human race the experience is the same regardless of whether warm bodies are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Humans aren't particularly well suited to the summit of Mount Everest either. Instead of trying to climb it, we should just send an ice climbing robot to reach the summit. It can chemically analyse the ice, and tell us how cold it is - mission accomplished!
Re: (Score:2)
If the personal challenge of going to Ma
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, whether Everest is a solo achievement or a team effort, achieved using machines or just muscle power, is not relevant, The point is that the utility of sending robots to Mars, even really good ones, is limited to the scientific information they can transmit back to us. This info could be valuable, but it's value is vanishingly insignificant, compared to the value of our becoming a multi planetary species. We may be fleshy meat bags, but we're the ones that do things, and we do them mostly for ourse
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, whether Everest is a solo achievement or a team effort, achieved using machines or just muscle power, is not relevant,
Strange. First you said that Climbing Everest was analogous to a robot carrying a meat bag to Mars - but now when we have looked a bit closer, it appears that it isn't.
The point is that the utility of sending robots to Mars, even really good ones, is limited to the scientific information they can transmit back to us.
Which is, to date, the only objective reason anybody has given as to why we (our agents) should go to Mars.
This info could be valuable, but it's value is vanishingly insignificant, compared to the value of our becoming a multi planetary species.
But "becoming a interplanetary species" has no objective value. You might believe it does, but the value is based on religious belief.
We may be fleshy meat bags, but we're the ones that do things
Crap.
Have we ever dived into the Jovian atmosphere? Got inside the orbit of Venus to grab nasty solar
Re: (Score:2)
" Insisting that meat bags must, under their own strength travel around space in order for space travel to be valid is faintly embarrassing,"
That would indeed be embarrassing, however it's not remotely what I'm saying. You seem obsessed with the idea of humans doing things using their own muscles. Once again - that is irrelevant, and nothing to do with my point.
As you say, we haven't yet dived into the Jovian atmosphere, or landed on Titan. But that's because it's technically easier to send a specially desi
Re: (Score:2)
" Insisting that meat bags must, under their own strength travel around space in order for space travel to be valid is faintly embarrassing,"
That would indeed be embarrassing, however it's not remotely what I'm saying. You seem obsessed with the idea of humans doing things using their own muscles. Once again - that is irrelevant, and nothing to do with my point.
If humans aren't using their muscles, then there must be a machine doing the work. This immediately raises the question - if the machine is doing the work (propelling forward, changing direction, communicating with Earth etc etc) what exactly is the human doing? If, after years of thinking about it, we can't think of ONE thing that humans do in space that isn't easier and cheaper to do with a machine, why does the machine that goes to space and already performs all the actual functions have to cart a human
Re: (Score:2)
If humans aren't using their muscles, then there must be a machine doing the work. This immediately raises the question - if the machine is doing the work (propelling forward, changing direction, communicating with Earth etc etc) what exactly is the human doing? If, after years of thinking about it, we can't think of ONE thing that humans do in space that isn't easier and cheaper to do with a machine, why does the machine that goes to space and already performs all the actual functions have to cart a human about?
Unless you've time traveled back from the year 3000, your estimates of the capabilities of robots is WAY too high. Did we send a robot up to repair the Hubble space telescope? No. I grant you that robots can be better suited to survival in space, but they are LIMITED in what they can do, in terms of achieving things once they are there.. In a general problem solving situation they cannot hope to match the flexibility of a person,( and remote tele-operation does not solve this). Now granted, that's using tod
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you've time traveled back from the year 3000, your estimates of the capabilities of robots is WAY too high.
My estimate of robot capability is based on what could be achieved if we spent a fraction of what it would cost to send a human.
Did we send a robot up to repair the Hubble space telescope?
Would we send a robot NOW, rather than a human? Probably.
In a general problem solving situation they cannot hope to match the flexibility of a person,( and remote tele-operation does not solve this). Now granted, that's using today's technology - but I would argue that developing tech. to send a human to mars will be realised MUCH sooner than tech. to develop a robot capable of matching a human/s dexterity, thinking etc.
Generally speaking, humans need to solve more problems because the systems need to sustain them tend to be far more complex than the systems need to sustain a machine. How many problems does a hammer need to solve - just the one. It doesn't ever have problems with it's life support, or running ut of food, or getting bored.
People are quite robust
Nop
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To the extent that if an asteroid impacts the Earth, you are better off on Earth than on Mars or the moon. If a serious asteroid impact were even likely.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a relatively small meteor, but bigger asteroids repeatedly hit the Earth, and it will happen again. There is no doubt of it, the question is when.
Plants do not need oxygen at all, it is even poisonous for them in a way. In principle, they may turn a planet without oxygen into a habitable planet. But this technology does not exist yet.
Re: (Score:2)
It is absolutely possible. Any moment. Have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch [youtube.com]?... [youtube.com]
It was a relatively small meteor, but bigger asteroids repeatedly hit the Earth, and it will happen again. There is no doubt of it, the question is when.
No - the question is, if such an asteroid struck the earth, would the Earth be less habitable than Mars?
Plants do not need oxygen at all, it is even poisonous for them in a way.
Plants die in a vacuum. Humans also die in a vacuum.
In principle, they may turn a planet without oxygen into a habitable planet. But this technology does not exist yet.
The maths is relatively straightforward:
Now:
Earth: Habitable
Mars: Inhabitable
[Earth gets Struck by an Asteroid]
Earth: Habitable
Mars: Inhabitable
Re: (Score:2)
Bags of meat? We no of no more remarkable organo-electro-mechanical device in the universe than homo sapiens.
On the earth perhaps. In space, they just float about helplessly. If actually exposed to the harsh realities of space or another planetary surface, they die. The most remarkable part of a human (the brain) should tell you that sending humans to space when robots are already better adapted, in every way, is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Spain, 1492 - members of the public argued against organizing and achieving the treacherous and expensive journey filled with monumental and unknown dangers it would take to cross the ocean for unknown payoff. Instead they argued to send pigeons and donkeys because that made much more sense.
That's exactly what that comment will sound like in 500 years. Congrats!
Re: (Score:2)
A better analogy would be: because exploring had always previously been done on foot, in 1492 funds that would have been put into exploring by boat were instead spent on developing means to extend the distance that could be travelled by foot, including long poles that allowed explorers to cross bodies of water by walking on the bottom. Of course, the scale of the atlantic overwhelmed this mode of travel, so exploring was confined to well known spots that were easily reachable, and had infact
Colonization of the moon (Score:1)
It is all important that the US resume plan put forward by President Bush so that the US can dominate colonization of the moon. Let the other countries realize they are in competition. Aren't you all tired yet of the bed-wetter Obama's space policy?
It doesn't work that way. The moon is not sovereign territory under international law, and may not be claimed as such.
"We came in peace for all mankind."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Another benefit of low crude pricing (Score:4, Insightful)
This is good, because it opens up opportunities for cooperation with the proud Russian people that might not have existed at 80 Euro oil.
The sooner we cease petty tribal conflicts here on earth, the sooner we can get on with hating life forms on other worlds.
Re: (Score:2)
With a growing Russia China partnership, you claim seems pretty silly. Now guess why China abandoned the one child policy, hmm, now where can those extra Chinese citizens migrate to, to solidify a particular partnership, where could extra expertise come from to, hmm, spice up the population of China and get it advancing (Americans are such slow and shallow thinkers, multiculturalism produces quite significant social advantages and you quite readily seem to forget that).
So making public the lander without
Re: (Score:1)
Trade with the Australians is virtually guaranteed by the ChAFTA treaty, but the Russians are too crooked even for the Chinese Industrialists. Expansion goes West.
Nope. The two biggest economies stay that way in a mutually beneficial arrangement. Edward's destination would not be the 1st choice of very many who might be described by the prefix "sino-"
Re: (Score:3)
The sooner we cease petty tribal conflicts here on earth, the sooner we can get on with hating life forms on other worlds.
There are no life forms from other worlds that we will ever have to directly deal with. We know there is nothing within our solar system that is any danger to us. Interstellar space is too large and too hostile to life to make transport possible for any kind of life to get here or for us to get there, ever. So, your wish will never come to be.... Maybe we can stop hating, but I seriously doubt we are up to that.
Re: (Score:2)
The sooner we cease petty tribal conflicts here on earth, the sooner we can get on with hating life forms on other worlds.
There are no life forms from other worlds that we will ever have to directly deal with. We know there is nothing within our solar system that is any danger to us. Interstellar space is too large and too hostile to life to make transport possible for any kind of life to get here or for us to get there, ever. So, your wish will never come to be.... Maybe we can stop hating, but I seriously doubt we are up to that.
Come on. We could stop hating instantly.
We would simply have to give in to our innate sense of fairness and develop the ability to utilize our empathy skillset.
Re: (Score:2)
The sooner we cease petty tribal conflicts here on earth, the sooner we can get on with hating life forms on other worlds.
There are no life forms from other worlds that we will ever have to directly deal with. We know there is nothing within our solar system that is any danger to us. Interstellar space is too large and too hostile to life to make transport possible for any kind of life to get here or for us to get there, ever. So, your wish will never come to be.... Maybe we can stop hating, but I seriously doubt we are up to that.
Come on. We could stop hating instantly.
I don't think the nature of mankind has that capacity and history is chuck full of examples of hate being expressed by mankind. Where I believe that individuals may overcome their propensity to hate and stand as an inspiration to others in this regard, I also recognize that each person is born with the propensity to be selfish, uncaring which is the precursor to hate. It's here to stay.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately you are wrong. Interstellar travel could be possible with current technology, just the investment would be massive and the people picked to travel would likely be on a suicide mission. Don't discount the discovery of future technology. We know barely the basics of physics. Though interstellar travel is certainly difficult it is not impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh it's impossible...
I suppose Einstein might be wrong and we might discover a way to go faster than light, but until we have even a hint that there are cracks in the theory of relativity any ideas that we might be able to traverse the void of interstellar space and survive even one way is no more than wishful thinking. Even a one way trip will take to long and the environment of space will render the space craft junk and it's contents lifeless before they could possibly get to anyplace that can support li
Re: (Score:2)
While you're probably correct, making declarative statements about things you can't possibly know about because of your minuscule sphere of experience is a fool's game.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't all that hard to understand. The environment of Space is deadly, it kills all life. You have to carry along a little bit of earth to make living in space possible and doing this long term, without resupply from earth is not possible. We may be able to move around in the Solar system and scavenge resources here and there, but interstellar space is generally huge and empty, devoid of all material. Think of it as a huge, bottomless void between solar systems, much like a moat isolated a castle, s
Re: (Score:2)
BUT I can possibly know and be confident of my projection.
Yea I cannot predict the future, but there are some things I can figure out before they happen if I'm a careful observer.
For instance, if you jump off a 20 story building onto the ground level parking lot in nothing but street clothes, I can be confident that you are going to die long before you hit the ground and prove me right. You may want to claim "it's possible" not to die, and I suppose one could imagine ways that might happen, a sudden updr
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The level of arrogance and ignorance in both your post and the grandparent would be astounding if it wasn't for the fact that it appears to be all-too-common. That "landlocked Asian minor country" has the largest coastline of any nation in the world. They are in the midst of rapid deployment of technologies to exploit the resources and opportunities of the arctic region including many new icebreakers in an effort to open a northern sea route (which may become very viable if the global warming predictions
Re: (Score:1)
They are growing increasingly capable while we appear to be stagnating.
said no military expert ever.
Suggesting Russian military capabilities or tech is anywhere near the level of US or European levels is hilarious. Sure, tech wise they're doing an impressive job on the budget they have, but that's about it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also worth noting that Russia can put humans in space, and the only other country with that capability is China. Chances are the next person to set foot on the moon will be Chinese or Russian, and the best hope the US has of getting to Mars first is Elon Musk.
doubtful (Score:2)
America, otoh, has 4 companies working (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
/. Poll opportunity (Score:3)
Poll 1: Which nation/organization do you think will be next to land people on the moon?
* China (CNSA)
* USA (NASA)
* Japan (JAXA)
* Europe (ESA)
* India (ISRO)
* Russia (RFSA)
* North Korea (KCST)
* Privately funded (e.g. SpaceX, Blue Origin or Cowboy Neal without direct state support) (ETLA)
Poll 2: Which nation/organization do you want be next to land people on the moon?
(same options)
Re: (Score:2)
Predicted it years ago (Score:2)
It's a box full of monkeys with the words "peekaboo perfect space explore!" written on the side.
European Union (Score:2)
Just to be precise: the European Space Agency (ESA) is not part of the European Union.
The former is about science and the later about forcing neoliberalism through unwilling People's throats. Current EU rules would probably forbid the creation of a ESA-like thing today.
But to be fair, EU also contribute to ESA budget.
Lander is all they need. They have the other parts (Score:4, Informative)
Honestly, Russia is in the enviable position of already having the critical parts needed for a crewed lunar mission.
They have Soyuz for crewed launches, Proton for heavy uncrewed, plus Angara coming on line to replace the troublesome Proton. Soyuz was originally designed for lunar missions, and could be fairly simply modified for lunar return. Russia also regularly does propellant transfer and autonomous docking and have a large array of storable-propellant upper stages to use, so they could launch the lander partially filled using Proton into a distant lunar orbit and refuel and/or reposition using a Progress vehicle (perhaps tweaked to allow bigger propellant tanks).
Soyuz could dock with a couple of full Briz-M stages in LEO, push out a lunar orbit and meet with the pre-place lander. ...I suspect Russia will not build a mega-rocket like SLS. They don't need to, since they're very good at docking and propellant transfer (something they do regularly on ISS). Which is good because they don't exactly have a lot of money right now.
Mr. Putin, President Trump is on the line... (Score:1)
"Yes?"
"The race to put a man on the moon is over. You lost. Loser!"
Landing is easy. Now build one that re-launches... (Score:2)
>> Russia Begins Work On a Lunar Lander
Landing is easy. Now try building something that can re-launch itself back OFF the moon and I'll be impressed.
The EU is not a country... (Score:2)
... despite the aspirations of some politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Written by an American? (Score:2)
No, the European Union is not a country.