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: 2
20
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
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)


According to Wiki a Soyuz orbital module has Internal volume is 6 m³, living space 5 m³.
While an Apollo command module has interior volume of 210 cubic feet (5.9 m3) or a Crew cabin volume: 218 cu ft (6.2 m3) living space, depending on which part of the Wikipedia is more credible.
en.wikipedia.org...(spacecraft)
en.wikipedia.org...

Both Soyuz & the Apollo CM were designed to accomodate 3 humans. Now what about the American's regard for human life?




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



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


I think that all cooperative moon base ideas will be rejected by the US. Because the US has something to hide on the moon. I don't know what it is. But the KeepOut zones have made me suspect that something isn't quite right.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by DJW001
 



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


I think that all cooperative moon base ideas will be rejected by the US. Because the US has something to hide on the moon. I don't know what it is. But the KeepOut zones have made me suspect that something isn't quite right.


You are absolutely right.


But in very next future, Russia or China, will do the final step on disclosure.
It's only a question of time, when they will discover what the "US black project" has done on Moon and Mars.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
So you're comparing a part of a retired single purpose section of the entire craft the US put into orbit back in the 60's while Russia is still using a craft the fraction of the size as the whole 262,000 pound Apollo translunar vehicle. When the Russians get more than 22,000 pounds into orbit then one can make some calculative probability comparisons as to the likelihood of a functional success. Though more than half of the mass of Apollo in earth orbit was fuel, still 110,000 pounds made the journey to the moon. One can clearly see the Russians have yet to demonstrate the ability to launch sufficient mass from earth to provide for living and propulsion to the moon, and I do note you leave out the whole landing capabilities of the Russians, which I noted was their biggest problem in sending men to the moon.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 



So you're comparing a part of a retired single purpose section of the entire craft the US put into orbit back in the 60's while Russia is still using a craft the fraction of the size as the whole 262,000 pound Apollo translunar vehicle. When the Russians get more than 22,000 pounds into orbit then one can make some calculative probability comparisons as to the likelihood of a functional success. Though more than half of the mass of Apollo in earth orbit was fuel, still 110,000 pounds made the journey to the moon. One can clearly see the Russians have yet to demonstrate the ability to launch sufficient mass from earth to provide for living and propulsion to the moon, and I do note you leave out the whole landing capabilities of the Russians, which I noted was their biggest problem in sending men to the moon.


I agree that the Russians have a lot of work to do before they can actually land on the Moon. In fact, they might not be able to do it without help. Personally, I doubt that the Russians have even made a serious proposal to the US. I think the head of Roscosmos was just blustering a bit in a radio interview to cover for their recent string of, er, learning experiences. But as I said: here's hoping.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
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!
Although they had several crashes, they landed more than "a robot", it was something like 7, with three returning back with samples.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


6>3, and manned also. Plus look at the kilos they have, Oh, I forgot, they only have grams of moon dust. Silly me.

All of those landings were not soft powered ones.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
6>3, and manned also. Plus look at the kilos they have, Oh, I forgot, they only have grams of moon dust. Silly me.
Yes, but 7>1, and that was what you said, don't move the goalposts now.



All of those landings were not soft powered ones.
I thought that from Luna 16 onwards they were all powered landings.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
What does the 7>1 represent?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


7 robotic probes instead of your reference to "a robot", implying that there was only one.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Did you calculate the NASA Mariners? I believe an Apollo mission touched one of them, on the moon, with real live human hands.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
Did you calculate the NASA Mariners?
Why should I?

You said:

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!


I was only pointing that they didn't "barely got a robot to land safely without crashing", they got seven, and, I think, some used powered landings.

I know that when I'm tired my English gets worse, but I was expecting it to still be understandable.


jra

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
Did you calculate the NASA Mariners? I believe an Apollo mission touched one of them, on the moon, with real live human hands.


That would be Surveyor 3 you're thinking of. 7 of those were launched with 5 of them landing successfully.


Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
I think that all cooperative moon base ideas will be rejected by the US. Because the US has something to hide on the moon. I don't know what it is. But the KeepOut zones have made me suspect that something isn't quite right.


How many times has it already been explained to you that those keep out zones are small. Nothing could be kept hidden by them. Only Apollo 11 and 17 have a keep out zone. The rest of the landing sites do not, they just have some minor restrictions, like keeping a certain distance from some of the equipment left behind, the LRRR being one example.


But anyway, getting back to the original topic. An international Lunar base would be great I think. I'd really like to see a return to the Moon and preferably a permanent one, before we start going off to Mars. And finding ways to do it affordably would be a bonus. Perhaps a mix of Government and private spaceflight would help keep costs down. Bigelow Aerospace, a company that has developed inflatable modules has some ideas for a Lunar base which looks pretty neat. link.
edit on 21-1-2012 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


The idea of a station orbiting the moon as mentioned in the article as an alternative to a moon base is curious. I'm at a loss as to what that would accomplish.

Other than an over-abundance of vacuum, I'm unaware of anything on the moon that there is to exploit. The lunar soil has a relatively high amount of Helium-3 but mining it (rather than producing it on Earth) would involves staggering resources to the extent that it does not seem viable.

Scientifically, astronomical observatories and solar wind particle research seem likely to benefit from a manned base.

I assume any base would be more about manufacturing than about mining resources, but I don't know what could be economically feasible-- yet assume anything requiring a near vacuum might be plausible. What would examples of that be?

I have wondered if the regolith itself might provide shielding from solar events, and if so, might, reasonably be loaded and launched from the lunar surface and then transferred to a deep space habitat for shielding-- but my guess is that plastic and water are not only better, but would still be cheaper.

So, once there, what would we want to do?







.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


You understand manned missions habitat requires more mass/volume. NASA has sent little space probes to everywhere 10x times more than the rest of the world combined, they are little crafts.

Russia has yet to demonstrate they can get 22,000 pounds into earth orbit, Apollo demonstrated they got 262,000 pounds into earth orbit and sent 110,000 pounds of that (after the fuel spent) to the moon, 9 TIMES!

Exactly what is your point?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
You might find it somewhat interesting that the NASA New Horizons space probe sent to Pluto in 2006, escaped earth gravity at a faster speed than all of history. It passed the lunar orbital range from the ground in less than 9 hours, it passed Mars's orbit in 2 and a half months, and got a speed slingshot from passing Jupiter (the only mass it would come into proximity of) in 13 months from liftoff.

The upper stage rocket fuel tank of New Horizons actually reached Jupiter before the spacecraft did. It was sent on an unguided tour of a solar orbit, while the New Horizons spacecraft was guided by NASA to turn toward where Pluto would be when it gets there.

Just a little FYI.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt


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)


It is the other way around-- and that is the point of a suggestion of International cooperation-- the Russians will need the USA's Heavy Launch Vehicle and our Orion/Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle if they want to set foot on the moon.

Sigh. Why is it that the News Media ignores the MPCV (a.k.a. Orion)?

It seems like everyone thinks the US is out of manned space flight "for the foreseeable future." The first capsule to be tested in orbit is already under construction-- not a model for testing escape systems and splash-downs, but a real live spacecraft.

The US will be back launching people into space soon-- and the Russians want to count on being invited. In fact, I believe that is the very point of the declaration. Frankly, I have no doubt the Russians will be invited-- and a part of any return to the lunar surface.

The Russians are pulling their hair our over Mars but they have done well in the past (reading about the Soviet/Russian Venus probes today... excellent work). For the most part, the US does not duplicate missions with Russia and for good reason-- we split the work and count on each other to come through. It has been so for quite a while.

I remember the Apollo-Soyuz-- an awkward but enormous milestone in international cooperation in space between the "Soviets" and the Americans-- and that attitude has only improved.


jra

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frira
The idea of a station orbiting the moon as mentioned in the article as an alternative to a moon base is curious. I'm at a loss as to what that would accomplish.


It might make it easier to resupply. Cargo ships could dock directly to it, rather than having to use a lander to reach the base. A single base orbiting the Moon would also have access to a larger portion of the Moon. Imagine having reusable Lunar landers that could go down and land at a particular site, let a small team explore that area, collect samples and what not, then return to the orbiting outpost, refuel and prepare for another mission to another location.

Personally I think I'd still prefer a Lunar base on the surface, but an orbiting one seems like it could have some advantages.


So, once there, what would we want to do?


Explore. Learn how to live on another world. etc

Mining and/or manufacturing anything on the Moon would not be economically practical at this time.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Perhaps when Russia joins the rest of the world on international issues they can ask for assistance in interplanetary issues. As long as they aid Syria and claim an attack on Iran is an attack on Moscow, all the while supplying them with nuclear technologies in the hopes of hurting Western interests, they should be laughed at, diplomatically of course.

Edit: It would be wonderful to sing kumbaya around a campfire with the Chinese and Russians and be able to fully cooperate, but alas that is simply not the world we live in. Russia wants cooperation when they need it (they have no vehicle to get to the moon) and then they threaten and hurt the US wherever possible.
edit on 21-1-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Frira

So, once there, what would we want to do?


Explore. Learn how to live on another world. etc

Mining and/or manufacturing anything on the Moon would not be economically practical at this time.


Right. In which case, multiple Apollo-like missions seem practical in lieu of a base.

Now, an extended stay with a separate inflatable habitat makes sense if the situation warrants.

As for "learn how to live..." I say, if you can do it on the ISS, then you do not need to do it on the moon. The ISS is about as extreme as it gets-- and it is the technological equivalent of a log cabin.

I am not saying we should not go, but unless there is a real need and a means to fill that need, the money will not happen.

Until that justification presents itself, I would much rather see us learning to live in space and developing necessary technologies which we know we must:
* centrifugal designs,
* shielding,
* space based ecological-environmental systems to minimize resupply and extend our range.

The Orion capsule and associated Heavy Launch vehicle can address those current needs better than anything we (or anyone else) has ever had-- but the space station concept seems to be the obvious "next step" even if it is also the "current step" and in that step is moving beyond a log cabin and toward a civilization in space.

Launching modules of habitats, labs, small factories, and supporting facilities (power generation, water recycling, etc.) to be assembled by the first occupants seems obvious if we are to have meaningful exploration-- and exploration for humans means mastery.

We did the Moon (and we did it right) and if Mars is next, then repeating the moon seems to offer little more than a dress rehearsal-- and at some point before going to Mars, the Moon probably will serve that purpose.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join