It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia proposes international Moon base-- again!

page: 1
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Russia's space agency Roscosmos says it is in talks with European and U.S. partners about creating permanent manned research bases on the moon.

"We don't want the man to just step on the moon," Roscosmos chief Vladimir Popovkin said in a radio interview Thursday.

"Today, we know enough about it, we know that there is water in its polar areas," he said, and "we are now discussing how to begin [the moon's] exploration with NASA and the European Space Agency."


www.moondaily.com...

Russia proposed a joint Russian-American lunar base back in 2007, but the US (George W Bush, presiding) rejected the idea:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps things have changed enough over the past few years that such a project would be politically feasible. An ISS style lunar base is the next logical step towards a mission to Mars. It would encourage the development of techniques to manage the hazards of long term radiation outside the magnetosphere and foster the ability to use extraterrestrial resources to provide for the necessities of life. Both of these skills will be required for a mission to Mars. Here's hoping!




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I like the idea, especially with combined efforts on an international scale it would be feasible. But sadly I don't think the US would be open to such an idea, it may put their already existing outposts on the moon at risk of being discovered.
Just joking, right?!
But to be honest, space superiority is of upmost importance and such a project would conflict with the interests of the US military space program.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 



But to be honest, space superiority is of upmost importance and such a project would conflict with the interests of the US military space program.


Not at all. The military rely on space based surveillance and command and control systems, but these need to be near the Earth. The Moon is simply too far away to be strategically useful. It takes a spacecraft days to go either way, and even if you wanted to put a Dr. Evil death ray there, the inverse square law dictates that it would be much less effective there than in Earth orbit.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 


Then the US should start an official program to build a base on the Moon to hide any suspicious activities, even that of Space Navy, meaning it officially is not really...

Because with the beginning of public space transportation, it won't be long before mining industries and such start looking on the Moon to further their own activities, without the hassles of Earth's laws and regulations...



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
so russia will fight the moon-people and build a base with america....poor moon-people, they won back in the 70s but i guess our new high-tech weapons make a fight possible and so we will try again...



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



I absolutely agree, yet I don't think such a base would be used for surveillance purposes, at least not for earth based targets. Its rather about who gets to mine the available ressources on the moon first and any permanent base there would be a vital part for further missions by any other nation to the moon and beyond. You really have the upper hand being the first one, you can dictate with whom you will share the mined ressources (energy independency, as Helium 3 has a lot of potential), whom you will give the right to establish another base (as an already existing base would be used to supply fuel and nourishments for further bases or space based missions, consequently decreasing the cost and effort for anyone else who wants to go there) and you get to call the moon your own, at least for a few decades.
edit on 20-1-2012 by Clairaudience because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 


I absolutely agree, yet I don't think such a base would be used for surveillance purposes, at least not for earth based targets. Its rather about who gets to mine the available ressources on the moon first and any permanent base there would be a vital part for further missions by any other nation to the moon and beyond. You really have the upper hand being the first one, you can dictate with whom you will share the mined ressources (energy independency, as Helium 3 has a lot of potential), whom you will give the right to establish another base (as an already existing base would be used to supply fuel and nourishments for further bases or space based missions) and you get to call the moon your own, at least for a few decades.


There is already an international treaty in place that prohibits any nation from "owning" the Moon. The physical and technological challenges are great enough that any permanent establishment would require international co-operation. The US and Russia each were able to put a small space station into orbit on their own, but it took a consortium to build the ISS.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Clairaudience
 

There is already an international treaty in place that prohibits any nation from "owning" the Moon. The physical and technological challenges are great enough that any permanent establishment would require international co-operation. The US and Russia each were able to put a small space station into orbit on their own, but it took a consortium to build the ISS.


I am aware of the treaty, but it doesn't hold much importance as no higher entity will be able to regulate what you do on the moon. Being the first one also means that other nations will be dependant on your help if they want a piece of the cake, or rather swiss cheese.
But yes, of course the technological challenges are great enough that a single nation will most likely fail in its endeavours. If there is a nation that could potentially pull it off after years of hard and costly work it would be China or the US. Dont get me wrong, I really would love to see a combined effort to esablish a base there, but I really don't see that happening any time soon, especially when considering the situation as of now on the world stage.
edit on 20-1-2012 by Clairaudience because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Hah! They know we have triangle bases on the Moon and they want a piece of it without having the resources themselves.

So they want to negotiate for a cut. Their ace-up-the-sleeve could be to say cut us in or we'll blow the lid off triangles seen down here...

A far-fetched supposition? Yeah. About as far-fetched as them wanting to talk about building Moon bases.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


It's a nice idea and long overdue in my view but ......neither the US or Europe have the money or the vehicle to get there , let alone build a Moon base .
I'd say the Russians would be better off teaming up with China if they're serious about it .
edit on 20-1-2012 by gortex because: edit to edit



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   


Russia proposes international Moon base-- again!


This is actually good business sense because... if the current administration gets reelected, then chances are good that any US involvement in a moon base will be partially, if not even largely dependent on Russian hardware. The Americans are out of the space business for the foreseeable future and even SpaceX is dragging along and postponing flight tests.

Good money in talking those skinflint Americans into a long term space venture.
edit on 20-1-2012 by redoubt because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Space needs to be made cheap....


Them starting a base means more workers will be required meaning they'll have to come up with more efficient method of traveling to the moon..


they can make the base underground to battle radiation and work out constantly[they'd do that anyway] to battle muscle atrophy



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


I think a Soyuz is entirely too small even for moon runs. You cram a crew of three in there for a 3-day flight I don't believe it has the room for life support fuel and supplies, not to mention I never saw a orbiter/lander proposal, not even in pencil. No, the Russians aren't any further from going to the moon than anyone, in fact the US has more than one system in the works. I never saw a Russian plan. Even in LEO the Soyuz carries solar panels for fuel, nah, in its current configuration, not a moon craft.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 



I think a Soyuz is entirely too small even for moon runs. You cram a crew of three in there for a 3-day flight I don't believe it has the room for life support fuel and supplies, not to mention I never saw a orbiter/lander proposal, not even in pencil.


Soyuz 9 kept two cosmonauts alive and well for 17 days. It would not be luxurious, but it is not impossible. Additional details of proposed lunar Soyuz variants here:

en.wikipedia.org...(spacecraft)

(Sorry if I sound curt, but I'm having keyboard issues and every character counts!)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


More issues than keyboard, there is nothing on that link.

Yes, I know the Soyuz can dock, but to what? What carries the propulsion fuel, what carries supplies? If History taught us anything, it taught us the Russians are powered landing (soft landing) challenged, that is where my biggest concern would lie (besides Russian cost cutting rush to launch, kill him if it doesn't work) mentality. Powered landings is the ultimate #1 reason the Russians didn't send men to the moon after Apollo, they barely got a robot to land safely without crashing!

But I still wouldn't want to travel in a Soyuz. You enjoy the space offered in a Smart Car.




Like I said, that power comes from solar panels, not stored reserves.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Do note; the occupancy is within that spherical front part, the rest is infrastructure and crap!

Russian regard for human life is of a lab mouse, expendable.
edit on 20-1-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
Hah! They know we have triangle bases on the Moon


The wheels on the bus go round and round....

This site's motife says deny ignorance, not basic IQ...



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I call dibs on the He3 !



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Sounds to me they're just trying to get the ball rolling - while the US is bogged down in nonsense (warmongering etc), the Russians are like "ahem... you know what would be cool - if we teamed up and did this instead" ... *shrugs* - Weren't the Chinese supposed to put a man on the moon back in 2010?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by DJW001
 


It's a nice idea and long overdue in my view but ......neither the US or Europe have the money or the vehicle to get there , let alone build a Moon base .
I'd say the Russians would be better off teaming up with China if they're serious about it .
edit on 20-1-2012 by gortex because: edit to edit


China, Russia, India and Japan.
Stay sure... They will do it!




top topics



 
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join