Russia to approve new Moon rocket

BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 16, 4:19 pm, Bluuuue Rajah Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote:
Russia to approve new Moon rocket
By Anatoly Zak
Science reporter

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7946689.stm

Russia is developing a new generation of space vehicles

Russian space officials are to select the winning proposal for a new
rocket intended to carry cosmonauts on missions to the Moon.

This will mark the first time since 1964 that the Russian space
programme has made the Moon its main objective.

It will be only the second time since the collapse of the Soviet Union
that Moscow has endorsed the development of a new space vehicle.

The rocket is expected to fly its first test mission in about 2015.

According to the objectives given by the Russian space agency
(Roscosmos) to industry, a future rocket should be able to hoist a
payload three times heavier than Russia's veteran Soyuz spacecraft,
including twice the number of crew, and use environmentally friendly
propellants.

The development of the new rocket should be accompanied by work on
Russia's next-generation manned spacecraft, which will use it to get
into orbit.

Russian space officials say the yet-to-be-named rocket should carry its
first manned spacecraft in 2018. The project was timed to roughly
coincide with the US space agency's (Nasa) plans to return astronauts to
the Moon by 2020 under its Constellation programme.

Late start

However, in what seems like a case of history repeating itself, Russia
is starting late in its bid to beat the US - and potentially China - to
the Moon.

In 1961, President John F Kennedy met the Soviet challenge in space by
launching the original US lunar effort.

Yet the Soviet government waited until 1964 before committing itself to
the costly expenditure of a manned landing.

The Kremlin ultimately aborted the monumental effort after the Apollo 11
lunar module touched down on the Moon first.

In a 21st Century version of this Moon race, the US, Europe, China,
India and Japan had all declared their intention to explore Earth's
natural satellite, while Russia struggled to emerge from its post-Soviet
economic crisis.

As Nasa starts unveiling the first prototypes of US rockets and
spacecraft for lunar expeditions, Roscosmos is only starting its lunar
programme.

To make matters worse, along with the new fleet of rockets and
spacecraft which need to be built, the Russian government committed in
2007 to moving its main space launch site from the Baikonur Cosmodrome
in Kazakhstan to Vostochny in Russia's Far East.

The new rocket is intended to carry a manned capsule to the Moon

In 2008, Roscosmos finally started quietly soliciting proposals from the
industry to develop a brand-new rocket which could support lunar
expeditions. All major Russian space firms reportedly vied for the
government contract to build the vehicle.

While Roscosmos had never publicised details of the bidding process, a
number of Russian space officials hinted that they were close to
choosing a winner at the beginning of 2009.

On 14 March, Alexander Chulkov, head of the rocket and launch facilities
directorate at Roscosmos, told BBC News that the agency would pick a
winner by March 25.

"We have a bidding procedure, under which we made a request for
proposals and now will be reviewing those proposals to determine a prime
developer, based on the most interesting project from the cost-
effectiveness point of view," Mr Chulkov said.

He explained that the agency's main requirement for the future manned
rocket was to be able to carry no less than 20 tonnes to low-Earth
orbit, with the maximum capacity of about 23 tonnes.

For comparison, the Soyuz capsule, which Soviet and Russian cosmonauts
have been riding to orbit since 1967, weighs around seven tonnes. Nasa's
Ares-I rocket for the next-generation Orion spacecraft will be able to
lift a total of 25 tonnes.

Everybody wins?

Contenders must also employ non-toxic propellants such as kerosene or
liquid hydrogen on all stages of the vehicle.

According to Mr Chulkov, industry will generally be free to design the
general architecture of the future rocket.

"Roscosmos has its own opinion about the configuration (of the rocket),
which we would like to see, however, we understand there is some
distance between what we want and what might be available," Chulkov
said.
The new Russian rocket could take one of several configurations

The decision on the prime developer would clear the way to the
preliminary design phase of the rocket, which was expected to last for
about one year.

"Thus, in 2009 we will start the development of this rocket," Mr Chulkov
said.

Although the Russian space agency is expected to name a single prime
developer, it has been rumoured in unofficial fora that the contract
would distribute various responsibilities for the project among several
major rocket firms.

These include TsSKB Progress in Samara, the developer of the Soyuz
rocket, and KB Mashinostroenia in Miass, a chief developer of submarine-
launched ballistic missiles.

Thus, a bulk of the workforce building Russian rockets today will remain
employed.

How heavy is heavy?

A new rocket for the manned spacecraft is only one component in the
array of hardware which will be required to land humans on the Moon in
the 21st century.

With the multi-launch scenario for a lunar expedition adopted by both
Nasa and Roscosmos, a separate heavy lifting vehicle would be needed to
carry the lunar landing module and the rocket stage to propel it from
the Earth orbit toward the Moon.

However, it seems that Nasa and Russia have drastically different
understanding of what "heavy-lift" means.

While the US space agency embarked on the development of its titanic
Ares-V rocket with a payload capacity target of 145 tonnes, Russian
space officials have indicated a much lower appetite for payload
tonnage.

"In the field of heavy-lifting rockets we have… the yet-to-be-flown
Angara (rocket), while the requirements for the next-generation rocket
are within the same category," Mr Chulkov said.

The Angara rocket, which has been under development since the mid-1990s,
is expected to make its maiden flight in 2011.

It would be capable of carrying as many as 35 tonnes into low-Earth
orbit. But some of its derivatives could lift between 40 and 50 tonnes.

According to documents from the Khrunichev enterprise, developer of the
Angara rocket, up to four launches of the Angara-7 vehicle would be
required to accomplish a single lunar expedition. By comparison, Nasa
can rely on one Ares-I rocket and one Ares-V for each Moon landing.

Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
configuration?

Why reinvent the wheel?

~ BG

You mean the same Saturn V that no one has plans for?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
Just go look it up! wrote:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:


Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
configuration?

Why reinvent the wheel?

Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that
any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.

From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a
completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/co...res/index.html

Could be wrong though.

Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only
seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive......

The plans still exist, on microfilm.

Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do, very
few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on the SV
plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was assumed
context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening time.

It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

"Mike Ash" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Just go look it up! wrote:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:


Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
configuration?

Why reinvent the wheel?

Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that
any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.

From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a
completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/co...res/index.html

Could be wrong though.

Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only
seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive......

The plans still exist, on microfilm.

Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do, very
few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on the SV
plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was assumed
context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening time.

It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.

The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.
http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/ima...washington.jpg

Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,
Just go look it up! wrote:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:


Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
configuration?

Why reinvent the wheel?
Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that
any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.
[snip]

The plans still exist, on microfilm.

Which plans? For the rocket itself or for the thousands of test jigs needed to
build it?

Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do, very
few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on the SV
plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was assumed
context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening time.

It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.

"Androcles" wrote in message
...



It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.

The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.

http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/ima...washington.jpg


It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...




Spamming lied and said I wrote:
It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.


I wrote this:
The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.

http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/ima...washington.jpg


Mike Ash did not write:
It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today.


No good reason to rebuild it, then, even if the plans are on microfiche.

What would be good is if ignorant, lying, spamming *******s like

left the correct attributions alone instead of snipping them and making
it appear to other readers as if they were as stupid as the moron
.

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...




Spamming lied and said I wrote:
It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.


I wrote this:
The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.

I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean
and come to understand the word 'spamming'




http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/ima...washington.jpg


Mike Ash did not write:
It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today.


No Keith Willshaw wrote that




No good reason to rebuild it, then, even if the plans are on microfiche.

What would be good is if ignorant, lying, spamming *******s like

left the correct attributions alone instead of snipping them and making
it appear to other readers as if they were as stupid as the moron
.


When people resort to Ad Hominem attacks it reflects badly on themselves
especially when they use words they dont understand

Quote
Spam
Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to
multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.
/Quote

Keith

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...




Spamming lied and said I wrote:
It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.


I wrote this:
The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.

I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean
and come to understand the word 'spamming'

Just FYI, if you didn't already know, Androcles is a notorious troll in
certain groups (I'm guessing he's posting "from" sci.astro) and has a
particularly bizarre obsession with quoting and suchalike. Best to just
leave him be if you ask me.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...




Spamming lied and said I wrote:
It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.


I wrote this:
The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.

I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean
and come to understand the word 'spamming'




http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/ima...washington.jpg


Mike Ash did not write:
It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built
today.


No Keith Willshaw wrote that

What do mean, "No"?

I said Mick Ash did NOT write that, you stupid *******.

So :
Yes, Mike Ash did not write:
It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today.


You can't read, can you?
Why don't you just **** off, you are clearly an imbecile.

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising or because
you are a troll; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.

"Mike Ash" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...




Spamming lied and said I wrote:
It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper
to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum
everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.


I wrote this:
The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.

I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean
and come to understand the word 'spamming'

Just FYI, if you didn't already know, Androcles is a notorious troll in
certain groups (I'm guessing he's posting "from" sci.astro) and has a
particularly bizarre obsession with quoting and suchalike. Best to just
leave him be if you ask me.

Good idea, you can **** off too.
*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising or because
you are a troll; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.