Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How the Russians can take the next step in space tourism (Tourism to the moon)
Spacefuture ^ | 6/25/02 | Alan Breakstone

Posted on 06/27/2002 6:40:09 PM PDT by Brett66

How the Russians can take the next step in space tourism


By Alan Breakstone

With Soyuz spacecraft taking millionaire tourists to the International Space Station, can existing technology be applied to launch even more tourist flights? I believe the answer is yes. Using 35-year-old blueprints and the existing Soyuz spacecraft along with Proton launch vehicle technology, the Russian space effort and visionary international investors can revive a celebrated Cold War project and send space tourists around the moon.

In the heat of the 20th century space race, Soviet engineers struggled to develop two projects for sending cosmonauts to the moon. One such project was the N-1/L-3 effort to land a man on the lunar surface. The other project, called L-1 (a modified, stripped-down Soyuz), was more modest by current standards but no less a challenge for the fledgling Soviet space program. The Proton rocket would launch the L-1 craft into an elliptical orbit, carrying two cosmonauts around the far side of the moon and back to earth.

Both the Soyuz and the Proton were brand new in the late 1960's, and there were many bugs in the pioneering technology. As the Soviets struggled, America took the piloted Apollo 8 around the moon. Out of 11 unpiloted launch attempts from 1967 through 1969, the Russians successfully flew only one modified Soyuz around the moon, unmanned.

The Soyuz was conceived in the early 1960's for a number of projects. The earth orbital version served as the equivalent of the American Gemini, giving the Soviet space program experience in orbital maneuvering, rendezvous and docking, and the EVA crew transfer that would have been needed for the Soviet moon landing program. Since the 1970's, the Soyuz has been used for ferrying cosmonauts and space tourists to space stations.

L-1 was a modified Soyuz designed to send two cosmonauts on a lunar fly-by that was planned for the late 1960's. This flight would have been roughly similar to the US Apollo 8 mission which sent astronauts into lunar orbit in 1968. Since the Americans got there first, L-1 was shelved.

L-3 was the Soviet lunar landing program and was equivalent to the US Apollo program. It included a heavily-modified Soyuz serving as the equivalent of the Apollo Command/Service Module, and a small one-man lunar lander equivalent to the two-man Apollo Lunar Module. The flight profile of L-3 was basically similar to Apollo, requiring the development of a large, heavy booster, the N-1, which was the equivalent of the Saturn V.

The N-1 failed all its unpiloted flight tests and was cancelled in 1974.

It took years to refine the Proton rocket and the Soyuz spacecraft. But 35 years later, both vehicles have a sterling reputation. The Proton regularly lofts satellites and ISS modules into orbit, and the Soyuz is an indispensable part of the ISS program. And the Soyuz has successfully carried both paying space tourists into orbit and back to earth. Both travellers had the time of their lives.

With Soyuz and Proton perfected and with travellers lining up for future Soyuz flights into orbit, it is time to revive the L-1 effort and take the next step in space tourism. A modern Proton lofting a suitably modified Soyuz could carry one cosmonaut and one space tourist on a five-day journey around the moon and back to earth. The paying space traveler would fly much farther from earth than any previous tourist, view the earth as a small blue globe in deep space, and come within 2,000 kilometers of the lunar surface. Deep-space tourism would be born, and the trip would be completed in the same amount of time as a Soyuz flight to the ISS.

Now it is up to investors and space tourism companies to determine how much a revived L-1 would cost, and whether there would be a return on investment, as modifying the existing vehicles for the circumlunar voyage would cost roughly the same as developing a small tourist station like MirCorp's Mini Station One. And there will undoubtedly be a long line of prospective customers. The lure of the moon would be an even stronger draw than cruising into low earth orbit.

We are well into the new age of space tourism. With the same technology already in use to build the ISS and send tourists up to it, the expansion of tourism to the moon can be accomplished.

References:

Encyclopedia Astronautica http://www.astronautix.com

Johnson, Nicolas. _The Soviet Reach for the Moon: The L-1 & L-3 Manned Lunar Programs & the Story of the N-1 'Moon Rocket'_ Cosmos Books. Canton, OH. 1994.



AB 25 June 2002



TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: goliath; lunar; moon; space; tourism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: Brett66
The flight profile of L-3 was basically similar to Apollo, requiring the development of a large, heavy booster, the N-1, which was the equivalent of the Saturn V. The N-1 failed all its unpiloted flight tests and was cancelled in 1974.

Equivalent of the Saturn V? I thought the N-1 generated around 10 million pounds of thrust from its 30 engines in its first stage, compared to the 7.6 million pounds of thrust from the Saturn V's first stage. In theory they could lift heavier payloads into space.

On the other hand, all N-1 tests resulted in either the rocket's blowing up of their own accord, or being blown up by the launch engineers due to various failures of the N-1 rocket (for starters, the dubious wisdom of having thirty engines in the first stage).

21 posted on 06/27/2002 10:55:43 PM PDT by Jay W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jay W
bttt
22 posted on 06/29/2002 12:23:30 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Here's a comparison of the Saturn V and the N-1:


23 posted on 06/29/2002 10:09:21 PM PDT by Jay W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jay W
WOW nice! So close!! I wonder why they chose the 30 engine option instead of the 5 engine option of the Saturn booster.
24 posted on 06/29/2002 10:19:24 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
you know what? using 35 year old technology combined with current processing power and miniaturization, I bet some enterpanuer here in the US could create a private company taking people to the moon for $25 mil easy...
25 posted on 06/29/2002 10:20:17 PM PDT by Mr. K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jay W
Interesting photo, by the looks of it, the upper stages were smaller on the N-1. That would of made for some seriously cramped cosmonauts if they ever went to the moon.
26 posted on 06/30/2002 8:48:21 AM PDT by Brett66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
Interesting photo, by the looks of it, the upper stages were smaller on the N-1. That would of made for some seriously cramped cosmonauts if they ever went to the moon.

Possibly. That National Air and Space Museum site from which the photo comes also has a "schematic" of the innards of the N-1. It might have been more spacious than the Apollo configuration. Note, though, how the upper stages of the N-1 are almost identical, on the outside, to the Apollo-Saturn upper stages.

It's all moot, because no N-1 flew for more than about 70 seconds before blowing up or being blown up by mission control.

27 posted on 07/01/2002 10:18:47 AM PDT by Jay W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
WOW nice! So close!! I wonder why they chose the 30 engine option instead of the 5 engine option of the Saturn booster.

Because the US after WW2 got all the top-level nazi scientists like Werner von Braun and the Russians got only low level technicians. We got the better rocket scientists.

If you look at ALL Soviet rockets, Vostok, Soyuz, etc., they ALL have lots of engines on the tail end of the rocket.

The problem with the N-1 was that in a couple of flights not all 30 engines ignited, which made the flight unstable, leading to the rocket's destruction.

The value of the N-1 is that it proves that the Soviets really were in a race with us to the Moon.

In term of aesthetics, I prefer the looks of the Saturn V rocket to the N-1. The Saturn V also had one other redeeming feature: It worked.

28 posted on 07/01/2002 10:24:46 AM PDT by Jay W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson