Russia to finally send man to the Moon, Telegraph
“A spacecraft will “conduct a demonstrative manned circumlunar test flight with the subsequent landing of cosmonauts on [the Moon’s] surface and their return to Earth” by 2030, according to a leaked strategy document from Russia’s space agency, Roskosmos. … Yury Karash, a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Cosmonautics, said that prestige would not be restored with a symbolic flight to the Moon. “Back in the 1960s the Soviet Union was competing head-to-head with the United States,” he said.”

Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member...

64 replies on “Russians on the Moon in 2030?”

  1. I’ll believe this when I see it. A circumlunar flight could be done with the Soyuz, but a landing would require a lot of investment that Russia does not currently have.

    1. Indeed, they pretty much have the capability now – Space Adventures has a plan to do this using Russian stuff (with some straightforward mods to existing, heritage hardware) that only needs money in order to happen.

          1. To be honest, I just did and there’s nothing there about a lander. A hab module for transit, sure, but no lander. And no EDS to get everything to lunar orbit. Even if it’s an adaptation of an existing upper stage, it would need work to act as an EDS for somethiing as massive as the Suyuz & hab modules pictured.

          2.  The problem is not so much in doing a lander as in affording a lander development program.

            1.You either develop more rapidly and test on orbit, accepting failures as a means of sorting out what works/doesn’t more rapidly, or …

            2.You overdesign/overtest on the ground, then whittle down the mass growth, putting all the “eggs” in the least destructible “basket”,  then risk that.

            1 risks incremental costs (including launch) over development costs for getting down developmental creep/growth. 2 reduces incremental costs by depending on developmental to do everything.

            If you have tons of experience with lander development, you do 2. If your incremental costs (including launch) are cheaper, than you do 1.

            Side effect of doing 1 thats better than 2 is that you get a more effective vehicle because of accumulated flight history.

          3. Mr.Consequence

            1.You either develop more rapidly and test on orbit, accepting failures
            as a means of sorting out what works/doesn’t more rapidly, or …

            I told you to crash that dragon on the moon during that first falcon heavy test flight lol
            Test it has you go! LOL.

            Window number one please 🙂

    2. “a landing would require a lot of investment that Russia does not currently have”

      However one thing that the Russian space program does seem to have, more than our government space program, is a willingness for commercial partnerships, sponsorships, paying passengers, even commercials filmed in space and Pizza Hut logos on the side of rockets.  This combined with their typically simple yet robust spacecraft could very well be enough to pull off a landing while the U.S. is still deciding whether or not we even need to go to the Moon again.

  2. Russia could do a circumlunar flight with their existing hardware, but a landing would take an enormous amount of money which they don’t have.   They can’t even afford to do the circumlunar flight with existing hardware.  If it weren’t for ISS payments from the US, they would not even be flying manned Soyuz flights.  China will reach the Moon before Russia.

    1. I swear to g**, you guys sound like a bunch of Mike Griffin budgeteers.

      To go cis-lunar with a crew of three (two paying tourists and a Soyuz pilot) is $300 million. They’ve already got one signed tourist (rumored to be James Cameron, who is running around trying to collect as many frequent-explorer miles as he can 🙂 and were supposedly going to announce a second one… at least twice, so go figure they haven’t found a sucker, er tourist to commit.

      I’m sure there are a couple of U.S.-based companies who would love to collaborate with the Russians on a lander for the ego candy. Go take at look at some of the sub-orbital crowd. It wouldn’t surprise me to see Space Adventures facilitating some back-door discussions so they can have the next “cool” adventure to sell to Cameron. Hell, they’re probably trying to upsell Cameron for a moon landing 🙂 🙂

      1. Your comment seems to imply that a cis-lunar flight is nearly a landing, and someone just needs to add in a lunar lander and you’re done.  That’s nowhere close to true.  Building a machine that can land and then take off and get back to orbit, even from the moon, is a big challenge, and getting the whole thing to lunar orbit is an even bigger challenge — far bigger than getting a few passengers to lunar orbit.  The Russians would have to build an entirely new launcher to get a lunar lander to lunar orbit.  The whole reason the U.S. got to the surface of the Moon already and the U.S.S.R. never did is that we were able to build and operate the Saturn V, while Russia failed repeatedly with their super-heavy-lift vehicle.

        1. And this is a #Fail because 1) The Russians aren’t planning a cis-lunar mission with a big rocket so the whole “You need a Saturn V”  argument 2) You’ve got plenty of sub-orbital VTVL work here in the U.S. directly applicable to a 2020 lunar lander. And carbon fiber, cheap titanium, and better-than-60s-era Aluminum alloys.  3) Again: It’s MikeGriffin land, you don’t need a big-throw launcher and the way Grandpa did it.

          1. No, you don’t need a big launcher, you can do it with a much smaller launcher, like Proton. However you _do_ need a lander. You also need to get from LEO to the moon & back. You need a dedicated earth departure stage (EDS) to boost your Suyuz & new lander to the moon and you need to modify the Soyuz at least a little so that it can withstand re-entry. To get all that to LEO will cost you ate least 3 if not 4 Proton launches.

            So can the Russians do it with the hardware they have now? No, not really. Do they have the command and communicatins infrastructure to adequately manage such a mission? Nope, not any more. Can they do it with the boosters they have? Yep, just gonna need a bunch of them.

            Do they have even a fraction of the money needed to design and develop a new EDS, a new lander, modify the Soyuz install new communications and test it well enough that anyone at all will fly in it?

            No, not even a fraction of what even they would require.

            The Russian space program is (unfortunately) a broken reflection of what it used to be. The failures of the past year are more indicative of endemic problems than it might seem on the surface. Their infrastructrue is really rotting underneath the veneer of successful and frequent Soyuz & Progress launches. To get to a lunar landing within the next 18 years would require not only the funds needed to build the lunar mission capacity, but also to run additional programs prior to the lunar program so that their infrastructure & human capital could be brought back up to the state is was in 30 years ago. _Then_ they might have a chance. But they haven’t got that kind of money or they’d be spending it now on regular missions and wouldn’t be in the institutional mess that they are in at the moment.

        2. Paul–

          Sooo, starting from scratch, SpaceX can build and launch a family of rockets and a spacecraft for under $1 billion dollars within 10 years, but the Russians, even with their established (abet decayed) industrial base, knowledge base of spaceflight, and the incentive of rich tourist money, can’t figure how to do a lander and do a moon mission in 18 years?

          I would go so far as to get into basement-geek mode and speculate that the Russians could even 1) Collaborate with the Chinese on a manned lander and/or 2) Buy a proven manned lander from the Chinese within 18 years 🙂

          1. The Russian space program is nothing like SpaceX, any more than a state-owned Russian company is like a Silicon Valley tech company.

            Why are there so many really successful internet companies in Silicon Valley and none in Moscow?  It’s not because Moscow doesn’t have computer programmers.  It’s for the same reason SpaceX could do a lunar landing for at least an order of magnitude less money, and much less chance of failure, than Russia.

        3. Chris,

          Agreed that landing is a lot harder than just orbiting.  However one reason that we needed Saturn V was because both the crew module and the lander were launched to the Moon on one rocket.   At the time that was considered the best method.  Today we (or Russians or Chinese) would probably do things differently.  Probably you could use three smaller rockets to send the crew module, ascent module and descent module to the Moon.  Knowing the Russians they would send the ascent and descent modules first and have them auto-dock in lunar orbit.  Once that is successful send the Crew.

          Also I would certainly not expect to see disposable landers like we had with Apollo.  Maybe disposable descent modules to start with but certainly there is no need to throw away the ascent module.  Using this method you only have one or two launches per mission, depending on whether you are reusing only ascent module or both modules.  Another reason to send ascent and descent modules separately is so that you don’t have to replace both in case one module develops a problem or reaches end of service life.

          Yes this means refueling but any country that can’t figure out how to refuel a lander in lunar orbit probably shouldn’t be going to the Moon in the first place.

          Update – I posted this before reading no one of consequence post which also mentions modularity (I keep forgetting about the “Load more comments” button)

          1. I agree that it can be done with several smaller launches, and that’s probably easier than doing super-heavy lift today, but it’s still not any easy thing to do.

            And I agree that if you’re doing more than just one or a small number of missions, having re-usable landers (or at least ascent vehicles) is definitely the way to go.  But again, this isn’t easy.

            Sending Soyuz once around the moon given what the Russians already have is much, much easier than doing a full moon landing.  Well, actually landing isn’t really even the hardest part — returning the cosmonauts to Earth afterwards is the hard part.

  3. This is a bit off-topic, but there is a question I have been wanting to ask, but this site does not have general-question forums. In the early 60s, there was a big debate within NASA about lunar orbit rendezvous vs earth orbit rendezvous, with the former backed by Dr. John Houbolt and the latter by Von Braun. LOR eventually won. I have always wondered, which method were the Soviets planning to use with their big moon rocket, the one that blew up on the pad a few weeks before Apollo 11?

    2. Neal,

      The Soviet big moon rocket was called the N-1.  According to reports years later, two N-1’s and at least two of it’s predecessor (referred to as L-1 in some references, but nor all) blew up on the pad before they gave up.  The only pictures I’ve seen of the pad explosions were black and white, but still mighty awe inspiring — a tall mountain of metal turning into complete devastation.

      Steve

      1. Strictly speaking the N-1s did not “blow up” but shut down shortly after ignition and were destroyed by ground impact. The immediate problem was an inadequate control system that could not possibly keep such a complex structure in controlled flight. However even today Russia has problems from basic funding to quality control.

        Any country with sufficient resources could send people to the moon, but tourism is a luxury good and the size of the market is highly sensitive to cost. I question whether Russia (or the US) could afford lunar flight with the income that could actually be derived from the sale of tickets to tourists, unless they first develop technology considerably lower in cost than current expendable launch vehicles and spacecraft.

      2.  Um, folks.. N-1 was launched 4 times.. 1 time blowing just above the pad, all the others had flights over 60 seconds and at least 1km away from the launch pad.  2 blew due to oscillations (which blew a couple F-1 engines on the test stand, before they figured out how to quash them), 1 from loss of flight control, and the one near the pad due to a loose bolt getting sucked into the fuel pump.

        Jus’  saying….

  4. Wow. Is everyone on nasawatch so jaded with current space flight that they can’t imagine the Russians landing on the moon in 18 years?

    As said by others a Soyuz with few modifications could do what Apollo 8 did in the 1960’s just before the US landed on the moon.

    I think if the Russians wanted to land on the moon they could definitely do it in 18 years. (Probably a lot sooner if they wanted to!)

    Remember – The Russians soft landed there before us in 1966 With Luna 9.

    Personally I think Commercial folks or the Chinese will be the first to get back to the moon first.

    1. 18 years is a long time, so it’s not entirely inconceivable that in 18 years the Russians will land on the Moon, it just seems very unlikely.  What’s your reason for thinking they could “defintely” do it?  They weren’t able to back in the 60s and 70s when they were putting a lot of resources into it, and they haven’t put any large amounts of money into a space program in decades.  Why think that would change now?

      I suppose it depends on your definition of “could do it”.  If you mean that if the Russians suddenly had such a drastic change in national priorities that they decided to spend 10% of GDP every year on a lunar landing they could do it, you are right, they probably could.  But such a drastic change seems very unlikely, and absent such a drastic change in Russian priorities, there’s very little reason to think they could do it.

      1. Why do they need a ton of money?

        Again: Go look at SpaceX’s development and building costs.

        Add sugar daddy tourist money.

        License (or steal) VTVL tech from Armadillo or Masten or NASA (like project Morpheus). Or use the existing LEM ’60s design as a template and build a modern version, substituting composites and better (lighter/stronger) metal tech when you can.

        *sigh* Just talking this way makes me want to move back into my parent’s basement….

        1. The track record of the Russian space program is nothing like the track record of SpaceX.

          SpaceX has a track record of doing a lot of things with little money in the recent past.  The Russian space program has a track record of simply continuing to launch Soyuz capsules that were designed decades ago.  There’s nothing wrong with continuing to do what you have been doing for decades, it’s useful, but it’s not the same as developing new space vehicles.

          And back when the Soviet program was actually developing new vehicles, it sucked up lots of money and had its share of failures.  To the limited extent that the Russian program continues truly new development, they also haven’t been particularly successful (Phobos-Grunt being the most recent example).

          1.  SpaceX does not have much of a track record. They have made two new rockets that have flown several times (the Falcon 9 twice with the last flight over 15 months ago) and a reentry vehicle that has flown once. They have promise, but haven’t demonstrated being able to sustain much yet. The jury is still out on SpaceX.

          2. John, I have to disagree.  SpaceX has an amazing track record.  For $800 million they developed and deployed three major new engines (the largest, Merlin, through several generations, all of which flew), two new launch vehicles, and a new spacecraft.  They launched the spacecraft into orbit and recovered it unharmed back on the surface of the Earth.  It’s stunning.  And all before the company was 10 years old.

            Before SpaceX, nobody could have ever believed any company, let alone a brand new company, or any government space program could have done all that in so little time for so little money.

            I’m stunned that you could call say that amounts to nothing but “promise”.  They’ve done more than promised, they’ve delivered, and there’s every reason to believe they will continue to deliver on their very ambitious plans.

          3. Having a unmanned cargo craft rendezvous and birthed to the ISS, Providing crew access, carrying people to the moon, carrying people to Mars, making their boosters reusable for up to 10,000 flights, those are the promises. The first one is hopefully about to be accomplished, but the others are still just promises and hype.

            Regarding designing and flying a new booster as they have is a tremendous accomplishment, but this has been done by many countries, Russia included. To SpaceX’s detrement they only have two launches using the Falcon 9 and have fallen behind. To be able to sustain rocket launches is another promise still to be accomplished and a big factor in proving that they can deliver what they promise.

            The subject of this article relates to SpaceX going to the moon which is only a promise.

        2. As far as I can tell, Armadillo, Masten, and Morpheus don’t do anything fundamentally very different from what the Apollo lunar lander did — none of their technology would allow someone to duplicate the Apollo landings with significantly less mass.  And composites are useful for some applications, but they are not a panacea.  See the failure of the X-33 program for an example of how over-estimating the benefit and under-estimating the difficulty of using composites led to failure.  Plain old aluminum has some amazing properties that are hard to replace with composites.

          With the 787, Boeing spent many billions and managed, with a combination of composites replacing aluminum and other techniques, to cut fuel consumption by 20%.  Even if you could do the same for a lunar lander, that’s only 20% less fuel you need to bring along.  You still have a very large amount of mass you need to get to lunar orbit.  That requires either a single very heavy lift launcher, like Saturn V, or many smaller launches and sophisticated techniques for putting it all together in orbit.

        3.  “Why do they need a ton of money?

          Again: Go look at SpaceX’s development and building costs.”

          I believe SpaceX has quoted needing about $1 or 2 billion to make a crewed capsule for LEO. I would think a lunar landing craft would cost much more. They are still working on getting an unmanned cargo craft into orbit.

          So far, we mostly just have promises. Until SpaceX gets some more experience under its belt and can meet some of its more difficult promises, I wouldn’t depend on SpaceX yet on providing cheaper or timely access to the moon.

          1. Yah, throw another billion on top to 2x the SpaceX quote.

            The full discussion in context is that it would cost up to $1 billion *if* done under as a traditional NASA FAR-based contract.

            Which it isn’t, at this point, because phase 3/CCi-whatever is being run as an SAA.

            Most of SpaceX’s issues have been in software and overpromising/overestimating delivery schedule.  Compare their development and costs to Orbital’s efforts and it makes a more interesting and rich discussion.

      1.  No Keith, they can’t do it.

        They aren’t going to build a Saturn V, they can’t figure out how to do a lander using 21st century materials and design methods — because They Are So Backwards they don’t have AutoCAD, and they certainly can’t learn anything from SpaceX because they are all a bunch of dumb former Communists.

        *sigh* Some people should be locked in a room with Mike Griffin and an accounting tutorial.

      2. If they had the money, they’d use it for something else.

        Better put, why does Russia actually do something, as opposed to why does Russia (often) announce things that they never do?

        The Soviet lunar program was to deny the Americans first dibs on the Moon.

        Russia’s station programs beat Skylab, and Mir did bigger/longer/better. Russia shrewdly partnered with the US on ISS, like ESA/JAXA, for an underwritten way to maintain HSF capability for lesser expense. Talk of a Russian station is as usual just talk.

        Like this is too. It’s just another way to yank the American chain.

        Can they do it? Sure. But why would they do it? Not a good enough reason yet. When there is, then you’ll see real plans.

        Could Russia have done Fobos Grunt if they absolutely had to bring it off – absolutely yes. So why didn’t they? Because a “good enough” effort was all that was required – hey, maybe it might even work …

  5. Well, with what hardware? Or one shot with Energia? They would need to test the rocket. And first they would have to rebuild half of building 112. This is a disgrace.

    So assemble in space (ala 7K, 9K und 11K) with some cobbled together hardware is much more likely. Just look how they cobbled together Pirs/Poisk modules for the ISS. On that basis they could make an extended crew module if they assemble in space anyway, so they could ferry two passengers to the moon. And if they dock it at an space station (whichever that will be in 2030), they could reuse the thing, only sending a new tanker up. I would really love to see what they could get running by simply using the stuff they already have.

  6. Don’t worry, the Russian’s going to the moon on their own is about half likely to Ralph Kramden sending Alice there.

    1. The Russians could go to the moon, but it might be funded by Richard Branson or James Cameron.

      1. Sadly, even Richard Branson and James Cameron together probably couldn’t provide the billions the Russians would need to get to the surface of the moon and back.  Bill Gates or Warren Buffet could, but they don’t seem interested.  They seem to prefer to spend those billions saving countless lives here on Earth by fighting malaria and other such common ailments.

  7. Like any program anywhere – if serious about landing moon/mars/whatever … it starts first with a lander. Many, many ways to get it and crew there.

    Had the US wanted to get there even sooner,  the LM had to have been started sooner.

    That is when the clock starts for real.

    add:
    1963 January 30 – Selection of major contractors for the then LEM.

  8. I hope they are sincere, and I don’t really care what hardware they use to get there, whether circumlunar or a landing. If Russia becomes a lunar player, as China apparently plans to, perhaps this will wake up Congress and get them to fund NASA, and commercial crew, as they should be funded. As it stands, NASA’s budget would disappear if it were folded into the DoD’s, and its aspirations are far more noble. 
    If a race would help alter the status quo, I’m all for a race to the moon and beyond. International competition might lead to faster results than international cooperation.

    2. From what I’ve heard the Apollo LEM was very complicated.  They pushed the limits of what they could do with 1960s technology.  The whole thing went through repeated major redesigns before they came up with something that would do the job.

      The major difficulty was to keep the mass as low as possible.  They went to enormous lengths to keep mass to an absolute minimum.  They didn’t even put seats in the LEM, as even a light-weight seat was too much of a luxury to afford on the very tight mass budgets they were on.  Walls were made of extremely thin sheets of aluminum surrounding honeycomb structures to give structural integrity with the very least amount of material.  The engineers had to try repeatedly before they were able to manufacture something with such thin pieces of metal and tight tolerances.

      And even with all that, it took the largest rocket ever built, by far, to get the thing to the lunar surface and the astronauts back.

    3. “Was the LEM very complicated?”

      LM  (the spacecraft formerly known as LEM) was not quite as complex as a Space Shuttle orbiter but probably was in the same ballpark.   Doing a precision landing in a vacuum, in 1/6 g using only thrusters for steering had only been done a few times before, unmanned.  If Surveyor had landed on a rock and flipped over, oh well.  But LM required precision steering up to the last second so that the commander could pick out a safe landing spot.  And fuel margins were very, very tight (that’s why CAPCOM Charlie Duke said “You got a bunch of guys about to turn blue” after Apollo 11 landed)

      LM had what was effectively a type of fly-by-wire system which could be operated in several modes, one of which was automatic landing, but from what I understand none of the six commanders chose to use the automatic mode and instead flew LM using one of the partial assist modes.

      Speaking of computers, it was a risky and controversial decision to use integrated circuits in CM and LM as this was considered to be a developing technology, there wasn’t a lot of experience for the engineers to draw on other than a few  missiles.  However they needed this capability to handle the very complicated real-time calculations that landing on the Moon required, but they didn’t have the weight or space capacity for traditional 1960’s computers, so they really pushed the technology envelope and went with IC.  

      LM had an inertial navigation system that was updated by ground tracking from Earth, by star tracking, and by radar altimeter.  The computer checked that these different inputs matched before updating the computer “model” of the flight path.

      Of course there was also the descent engine, ascent engine, rendezvous and docking capability, life support systems, etc..  And LM was big enough to carry a bunch of science equipment, and to top it off was able to deploy a two-person electric vehicle.  I’m really just skimming the surface of what was one of the most remarkable vehicles ever built.  Someone who worked on LM would probably tell you that I am making it all sound too simple compared to what they actually accomplished.

      1. And today you can space harden a couple of Android phones for  the compute power and potentially even motion/acceleration sensors.

        It was hard THEN. Slide rules. Paper. No CNC machines.

        Now even the rednecks at Red Jacket have a CNC machine on the shop floor.

        1. “It was hard THEN. Slide rules. Paper. No CNC machines.”

          Implying that it should be easy now just because we have fast computers?  If we apply that thinking for example to supersonic airplane travel, we should now have supersonic passenger flights from New York to Hong Kong, after all the computers that we have now are so much more powerful than when they built Concorde so it should be easy, right?  

          The fact is that the enormous physical challenges of spaceflight have not gone away, and that includes building machines that can land humans on the Moon. Having powerful computers is certainly a huge benefit but it doesn’t make any of it easy.

          1. My point is that rather than whining about how hard it is, there are enough improved tools and methods to enable more companies to get in the game. Rather than simply shoveling money at the legacy ones who are more interested competitions.

            A good real-world analogy is to look at the current race to revisit the Mariana’s Trench. Back then, using ’50s-ish technology, Trieste did its touch and bounce at the deepest part of the ocean.

            Today, you’ve got a bunch of semi-bored billionaires planning to spend significant loiter time down in the deepest part of the ocean. And they’re getting there using more innovative methods and modern electronics and materials technology, with budgets that are footnotes in large nation-states.

            No, the challenges of spaceflight haven’t gone away, but we’re bringing shotguns to the fight these days, rather than stone knives and bearskins.

    4. Mass was so critical they shaved metal from bolt heads. There were only two test flights before the landing so a lot of preflight simulation and anaylsis was done instead. When Armstrong took the controls the first thing he said was “this is much harder than the simulator”. Navigation capability was limited and the Eagle was far off course when Armsrong took over and landed manually.

      Today a logical approach would be extensive inflight testing with a series of unmanned subscale landers to test GNC, propulsion, autonomous landing by radar navigation, and concepts for full reusability as well as surface rovers and exploration before actually putting people on the vehicle. All this costs money, however, so tax dollars would be needed, and the scientific gain would be limited even with landings in polar areas.

  10. So in 2012 we’re 18 years from attempting a Russian manned lunar landing, and in 1962 they were about 8 years from attempting it. Two data points define a trend. It turns out that they will be — er, WERE — zero years from the attempt in — 1922.

    Hat tip to Bo Bobko for performing the original trend analysis for MOL launch.

  11. Yeah, it was.

    The key consideration on the LM was mass. If you have the capability to throw vast quantities of mass at the Moon, then the LM design gets much, much easier. The only reason the Saturn V could do it at all was because when the inital booster performance estimates were being run by Von Braun, he bumped the projected Apollo spacecraft masses up by something like 50%.

    In the end they were only just able to do it, even then.

    Paul

    1. To be specific, its an issue of lifetime on orbit and ability to return from the surface.

      If you could rely on months on-orbit/surface, you could take a relatively simple design and place one on orbit, the other on the surface, each with a separate LV (say Proton).

      Then you launch a Soyuz with a third, lunar rendezvous, land near landed  lander, walk to said lander, return, rendezvous with autonomous Soyuz, return with Blok DM.

      That is the ultraminamalist way of doing it. I’ve left out the details intentionally.

      add:
      This is also been suggested as a Mars lander strategy as well, possibly coupled with autonomous ISRU to refuel/reuse ascent vehicles.

      If it wasn’t obvious, this deals with the mass growth problem of the lander – due to the rocket equation. By having the lowest number of effective “stages”, you have the least growth “sensativity” – e.g. no nested stages.

      You start out with an autonomous lander, with a direct descent that uses delta V miserly to allow for multiple landings/ascents, to test its viability. This becomes your backup ascent vehicle.

      You then repeat the excercise from the descent side, with multiple approaches tested from low lunar orbit. You may then boost afterwards to EML 1/2 to retain a backup descent vehicle likewise.

      The backups give you lifetime assessments, and if you were to refuel them, allow you to perpetuate the assets.

      So you are flying active lunar profiles years ahead of actual HSF use. And they are the same vehicle, so given EML station, they can alternate roles eventually as well.

  12. Sorry to be negative, but it seems to me that people are now doing with Russian hardware what they were doing before with US hardware — playing Lego.  Personally, I won’t worry about a lunar lander until I know we can land back on Earth.  When was the last time that Russia successfully used a manned Soyuz capsule (or any other capsule) to land from farther out than LEO?  Slowing down and landing from TEI velocities coming home from the Moon is a lot more demanding than just reentering from a LEO free-fall orbit.  Is this not a concern?

    Steve

    1. More demanding than ICBM re-entry?

      C’mon, the Japanese did this with asteroid sample return and SpaceX says Dragon’s heatshield is rated for Mars return.

      Not a show-stopper.  Cost of total mass to be delivered to lunar orbit likely to be biggest challenge. But cost can be offset by offering one seat on a two-man lander to a
      paying tourist. 

      The “market” for a CIS-lunar flight is currently “strapped” at $150 million for one seat. However, being the first “tourist” to land (and safety return, gotta have that part in there) on the moon is likely to be a much more dramatic boon.  

      Number of people (paid and gov’t) to LEO – hundreds. 6 new names (more or less) done every couple of months without fail.  Boring.

      Number of people to set foot on the moon (at this point in time): 12, yes, if my finger-math is correct. Last mission: 1972.

      I bet Space Adventures has a super-secret Excel spreadsheet that has a price tag and a list of potential customers.

      Is it worth $500 million? Is it sellable at $500
      million? $250 million?  $200 million?  My fuzzy navel gazing says $250-$375 million, with an upper bound of $500 million. After that, even the one-tenth of 1% start to squeal.

      1. “More demanding than ICBM re-entry?”

        Yes, actually.  A direct lunar re-entry has a lot more delta-v to burn off than an ICBM payload re-entering from it’s sub-orbital hop, which is closer to LEO re-entry.

        Of course, Soyuz was originally designed with eventual lunar missions in mind, so I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that all a Soyuz capsule would need would be a thicker heat shield and it could handle reentry from the moon.  Maybe they even put a thick enough heat shield on all Soyuz capsules.  SpaceX does with Dragon.

    2. The Russian’s did this with Zond in the late 60’s  I am quite sure they can do it again, they can use Proton  to put Soyuz into a translunar  injection , the heat shield needs updating as duse the service module.
      both Russia and ESA have been discussing a joint lunar program  and space adventures have been talking about tourist flights around the moon.   perhaps a combination of all three will make this happen

  13. The Russians love to dream but rarely put their money where their mouth is. And America’s space program is gradually going the same way.

    The ruling oligarchy in China, however, appear to be much more serious people. They may be slow and cautious in their space efforts but they always seem to move in a progressive direction. So when the Chinese say that they’re going to the Moon to protect their interest, I believe them!

    Marcel F. Williams

    1.  Putin calls a meeting.

      “Guys, I would like to be known for more than simply stealing a couple of elections. And I’ve been thinking about what Neal Patrick Harris–“

      “You mean Neil deGrasse Tyson, Mr. President.”

      Putin stops and stares at the person who corrected him, makes a little note on a pad, then continues…

      “As I was saying, this Tyson fellow says that if we don’t do space exploration, we’ll end up back in the caves with the rest of the world passing us by.  Now, I know he’s just trying to sell books in America, but he’s got a point.

      “The Chinese, having bought and repackaged the Soyuz, want to put a man on the moon. It would be very bad if the Chinese passed us up. I mean, we wouldn’t be able to sell high tech arms.. we’d just look like a third rate country. Like France, except without the surrender.

      “I want to leave my country a better legacy than just ripping off my last election.  Now, this Roscosmos plan isn’t bad, but it’s flawed–“

      “But we will land on the moon by 2030, in 18 years…”

      “In 18 years, the Chinese will be offering us space to rent out a restaurant in their moonbase, you dolts! I want the goal to be within a decade.  Just like Kennedy.”

      “We can’t–” Putin looks at the next interloper silently.

      “Now boys, let me tell you, your problem is you have a bad attitude.  I realize things have been rough over the last couple of years, but this Harris, er, Tyson is right. We’ve got more money flowing in from oil revenues these days, so we should invest it.

      “I’m not saying its going to be easy and I realize we have a real mess on our hands with management, but I’m going to get my people to fix that, understand? Don’t try to skim too hard, keep your egos in check and get a couple of our boys on the moon by 2022.

      “I realize the Chinese think they have a head start on us, but we still have our share of engineers and our computer sciences people aren’t shabby either. And this isn’t the ’60s anymore. We’ve got modern materials, better computer support, and we still build some of the best warplanes in the world — I expect that to count for something.

      “If our grandfathers could beat back the Nazis in the Great War and keep pace with the Americans throughout the 70s and 80s, I expect this generation should be capable of doing great things.

      “If you are successful, we will be able to celebrate Yuri’s night on the moon in a decade.”

Comments are closed.