After Bush speech, Russia mulls missions to Moon and Mars (...yeah right)

AFP ^ | Thu, Jan 15, 2004

[RusIvan]

The Russians are dumping hardware because they are desperate for hard currency. ===

It is stupid remerk it doesn't explain anything. Russia sells millions of tonns of oil and gas. And you still tell she is desperate?

Russian engineers simply smart enough to do the job for fraction of cost. That is the source of problem for american space industry.

[RusIvan]

The best they were able to do was send a probe to the moon...and that crashed. ===

Crashed? Remember Lunohod the moving vehicle on Moon. BTW all later design including today Spirit of Mars resemble that Lunohod.

[Prime Choice]

I stand corrected and am in your debt for this enlightenment.

I looked up some images of Lunohod (circa 1970). It does bear some resemblance to the Mars rovers, but judging from its overall composition, the resemblance is rather limited in that both craft have wheels, an antenna and a solar panel.

Of course, about the time that probe was on Luna, the Apollo astronauts were cruising around their Lunar landing site on a Lunar dune buggy. ; )

[RusIvan]

I stand corrected and am in your debt for this enlightenment. ==

I understand:)). Let us agree that any car in the world resembles one another. So any outer space planetohods resembles one another either.

[Prime Choice]

Russian engineers simply smart enough to do the job for fraction of cost. That is the source of problem for american space industry.

With all due respect, perhaps you can regale us with the success of Phobos I, Phobos II and the Buran shuttle (which, if memory serves, went up for action in 2002 for a mere $6 million after making only one unmanned flight).

Yet you would have us believe that Russia is ready to make a journey to Mars? Even though Russia has never managed to get a cosmonaut to the moon?

[Consort]

Doveryai no proveryai.

[MrJingles]

New state-of-the-art russian booster.
(Hamster not included...)

[RusIvan]

Yet you would have us believe that Russia is ready to make a journey to Mars? ==

Who is ready today? I just said that russian space industry may do that for fraction of cost then american space industry.

[presidio9]

Photo taken on the surface of Venus by Soviet Venera probes in 1975.

[boris]

"With all due respect, perhaps you can regale us with the success of Phobos I, Phobos II and the Buran shuttle (which, if memory serves, went up for action in 2002 for a mere $6 million after making only one unmanned flight)."

And don't forget the Buran was virtually a carbon-copy of the Shuttle. Its engines--the RD-0120 (not to be confused with the RD-120) were copies of the SSME with a slightly larger nozzle and a slightly lower thrust. The Russians filed Freedom of Information Act requests (through their embassy) and were given the blueprints, reports, and other documents.

Sometime ago I did a survey of Mars mission success and discovered that well over half the failures were Russian ones.

--Boris

[Prime Choice]

Who is ready today?

Considering the successes of the space program of both nations, I would say the U.S. is far more prepared than Russia at this time.

I just said that russian space industry may do that for fraction of cost then american space industry.

Yet those savings would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. As another already pointed out, the failure:success ratio in Russian spacefaring is much larger than that of the United States. Bottom line: if given the choice between sending a manned mission to Mars in 10 years for X dollars and not having them return, I'd rather opt for a manned mission to Mars in 20 years for 10*X dollars and have them return safely.

It's never a good idea to cut corners on safety and redundancy. And from the looks of things, that appears to be precisely what the Russian space program does.

Yes, the U.S. space program has 17 casualties to its name. All losses were tragic, but considering how far we've gone, the casualty rate is exceedingly low. If we'd ignored safety and redundancy on the scale that the Russians have consistently done, the work-related mortality of our astronauts could easily have been three- or four-fold what it is.

[RusIvan]

Yes, the U.S. space program has 17 casualties to its name. ==

Russian rate is 0. Soviet rate was 5.
Consider that Soviets then Russia continuously stayed in space begginning from late 70th. There was almost constatnly space station with 2-3 cousmanauts on board. Each day of all this years.
Then Russia continued that tradition. During all this turbulent years of russian independence there were always space flights.
Russian SOUZ rocket is safest in the world. There was already about 1500 launches of it. Only few about 5 or 6 failures.

Recent air leak on ISS was due to american module not russian. No one report it in american press. But if it would russian leak then I would see lot of reporting.

It is press of cause. But investigative mind have to seek truth on its own.

Ask boris. His main reprimand that russians "dump" thier hardware for fraction of cost. But he told good about ussian launch vehicles or engines for example. Do you know that new american rocket Atlas-5 uses russian engines. American car with russian engine so to speak:)).

Beleive or not. Russia can do everything America can. And for fraction of cost. It is only the question of financing. There are no scientific or technological backwardness in Russia.

[Prime Choice]

Russian rate is 0. Soviet rate was 5.

Consider that Soviets then Russia continuously stayed in space begginning from late 70th. There was almost constatnly space station with 2-3 cousmanauts on board. Each day of all this years.

If the failures are to be framed within the post-Soviet years, then so must the successes in this discussion.

As for the Soviets/Russians having men in space, that is not entirely due to technological superiority; it's more due to the nature of Soviet government that could make such decisions without having to be concerned about public criticism. NASA's accomplishments have been limited not by technological issues, but by Congressional budget cuts due to lack of public support. By 1973, a man on the moon was no longer considered interesting by the average American, even though such a thing was considered the Impossible Dream a mere 5 years before.

The Soviet Union caught us flat-footed and had us beat in the space race with the first satellite, the first man & woman in space, the first space walk and all that. But it was our focus on redundancy and safety (with only nominal concern for the cost of such) that got us to the moon and back, thus effectively beating the Russians at a race in which they held a hefty lead.

This simple fact cannot be lightly dismissed.

Russian SOUZ rocket is safest in the world. There was already about 1500 launches of it. Only few about 5 or 6 failures.

We need more than a rocket to get to Mars. The rocket only gets us into Earth orbit. It's great that the rocket is so successful, but is it reusable? That is a linchpin of the future of space exploration, not disposable rockets.

Recent air leak on ISS was due to american module not russian. No one report it in american press.

On the contrary. That was indeed covered in the American press. I read about it in USA Today, the L.A. Times, Des Moines Register, et cetera.

I personally figured it was only a matter of time before an air leak occurred on the ISS. As I recall, Mir had its share of such things. It only stands to reason that every bug that visited Mir would eventually visit the ISS.

Ask boris. His main reprimand that russians "dump" thier hardware for fraction of cost.

The charge may be spurious, but what do you imagine the production cost of the Buran was? I find it hard to believe it was produced for less than $6 million...yet that's what the asking price was in 2002.

But he told good about ussian launch vehicles or engines for example. Do you know that new american rocket Atlas-5 uses russian engines. American car with russian engine so to speak:)).

Quite true. The engine was better for the purpose of launching commercial satellites. But once again, we need more than just a rocket to get to Mars.

Beleive or not. Russia can do everything America can. And for fraction of cost.

Cool. Then it should be no challenge for Russia to spend the next three years going to the moon 9 times, landing 6 times and safely returning all missions. Once that's done, we'll talk.

[boris]

"Russian rate is 0. Soviet rate was 5."

You are conveniently forgetting the (October 1960?) launch disaster that vaporized hundreds of souls...on the ground.

--Boris

[RusIvan]

This simple fact cannot be lightly dismissed. ==

I agree with those facts. I don't tell that Soviet Union somehow has superiority in space but USSR has competitive technology I say. It wasn't backwardness.
So my point about Russia today is in much better shape than USSR and can do much better. She doesn't have backwardness either. SO it is just matter of right money. Just fraction of those for NASA.

We need more than a rocket to get to Mars. ===

But idf you hav esafe rocket technology now you may expand it to needed vehicle. After all it will be just another rocket.

It only stands to reason that every bug that visited Mir would eventually visit the ISS. ==

Air leak was due to american lab module then nothing to do with Mir station. "On Monday, astronauts removed a hose in the window of a US onboard laboratory which was the likely source of the leak." http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1025114.htm .. It is from Google search.

Mir station was depressurised once due to accident: cargo ship rum it. But station was fixed right in space and served 5 more years. If it isn't show of good technology then what it is?

I find it hard to believe it was produced for less than $6 million... ==
I don't know where 6 mln number came from. I think the design and production of Buran costed more then that.

[RusIvan]

You are conveniently forgetting the (October 1960?) launch disaster that vaporized hundreds of souls...on the ground. ==

I didn't mention it because it wasn't in space.

[RusIvan]

Then it should be no challenge for Russia to spend the next three years going to the moon 9 times, landing 6 times and safely returning all missions. ==

Challenge is money. Nothing technological. Russia has heavy rocket with 100 tonn capacity the Energy rocket.

[RusIvan]

[boris]

As I said above:

"And don't forget the Buran was virtually a carbon-copy of the Shuttle. Its engines--the RD-0120 (not to be confused with the RD-120) were copies of the SSME with a slightly larger nozzle and a slightly lower thrust. The Russians filed Freedom of Information Act requests (through their embassy) and were given the blueprints, reports, and other documents."

This applies to the vehicle, tiles, tankage, and all other major components, not just the engines.

--Boris

[RusIvan]

Buran is carbon copy? Check this site: http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.htm ..

I don't think that Buran is carbon copy. It looks a like but all the cars and airplanes of the world look alike. Inside they are different.

Buran has few predessesors. Like Bor vehicle and Spiral. I think that russian designers used some information from Shuttle project if as you say there was blueprints available. But to copy Shuttle onbase of it is impossible.
If you are engineer then you agree. Can you copy RD -180 engine if you eevn have it in your warehouse? Not talking about blueprints of that engine.

BTW in what year those blueprints was gone into Soviet Embassy?