Russian 2030 moonbase and Luna 25 lander

Grey Havoc

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
9 October 2009
Messages
21,147
Reaction score
12,249
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/russia-is-planning-to-build-a-permanent-manned-base-on-the-moon-095818907.html

Russia’s space agency is planning to build a manned moon base - launching modules into space on six separate rockets.

Russia plans to launch a lunar probe in 2024 which will scout possible locations - before landing a man on the moon in 2030.

Construction of the Luna 25 lander has already begun, the official state news agency Tass has reported.

Once the components are in place, assembly of the moon base will continue over ten years.

Moscow has previously said that it envisages the base being permanent.

Last year, deputy premier Dmitry Rogozin said: 'We are coming to the moon forever.'

In an article in the government newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta he wrote, ‘'The moon is not an intermediate point in the race. Ot is a separate, even a self-contained goal.

'It would hardly be rational to make some ten or 20 flights to the moon, and then wind it all up and fly to the Mars or some asteroids.

'This process has the beginning, but has no end. We are coming to the moon forever.'
Click to expand...

Anyone have anything more on this new program?
 
Detail look into the program.
http://jalopnik.com/russia-reportedly-plans-to-build-a-lunar-base-by-the-20-1745479179

Angara 5 version use for lunar plans
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara5_kvtk.html
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara_urm2v.html
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara5v-mob1-kvtk.html
 
I would be cautious about using Yahoo News as a source of information (which is my polite way of saying don't do it...). The reason is that a vast majority of their content is written by amateurs who get paid a tiny amount per article, and so what they do is they pretty much reprint content from other sources, without checking it or even knowing much about it.

The article you linked to is a perfect example. It appeared two days after this article:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/roscosmos-10-year-budget-cut-for-third-time/551337.html

The Moscow Times article indicates that Russia has been cutting its space budget continuously. You would think that the Yahoo News guy writing about Russian Moon plans might also include the tiny little fact that they keep cutting their budget and delaying all of their plans, but he was apparently oblivious to that fact.
 
Oh, the lunar dreams. I guarantee no country will go to the moon by 2030. it will be just an endless game of postponing the launch - until the next elections. We do not have technology to go to the moon with manned missions. We need to accumulate much more expertise in precision mechanical engineering and that needs to be done in related fields and industries as well to create a workpool from which to extract the best of the best. That is my personal belief.
 
ADVANCEDBOY said:
Oh, the lunar dreams. I guarantee no country will go to the moon by 2030. it will be just an endless game of postponing the launch - until the next elections. We do not have technology to go to the moon with manned missions. We need to accumulate much more expertise in precision mechanical engineering and that needs to be done in related fields and industries as well to create a workpool from which to extract the best of the best.
Click to expand...

Who is "we"?

Technology to send humans to the Moon has existed since humans went to the Moon. No new technology is required. Hardware needs to be developed, but it is hardware based upon existing technology.
 
blackstar said:
Who is "we"?

Technology to send humans to the Moon has existed since humans went to the Moon. No new technology is required. Hardware needs to be developed, but it is hardware based upon existing technology.
Click to expand...

It existed. Whether it still exists is debatable. They'd have to reinvent a LOT of wheels. Look at all the money they've spent just on the "new" J-2 engine or the "new" heat shield material.
 
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Russia_Postpones_Plans_on_Extensive_Moon_Exploration_Until_2025_999.html
 
Orionblamblam said:
Comrades! Don't believe the western capitalist lies! Russia will be on the moon momentarily!
Click to expand...
Putin's economy in the ass. We in Russia do not believe in the Russian moon base until 2025.
10 years ago Rocket and Space Corporation Energia announced the construction of a moon base in 2015:
http://lenta.ru/news/2006/01/25/moon/
Already 2016.
 
sferrin said:
blackstar said:
Who is "we"?

Technology to send humans to the Moon has existed since humans went to the Moon. No new technology is required. Hardware needs to be developed, but it is hardware based upon existing technology.
Click to expand...

It existed. Whether it still exists is debatable. They'd have to reinvent a LOT of wheels. Look at all the money they've spent just on the "new" J-2 engine or the "new" heat shield material.
Click to expand...
Not only does the technology no longer exist, but a lot of the expertise who made such technology possible 50 years ago are now dead.
 
In Russia, a deep economic crisis. No money for space projects. Moon expedition is now planned in the 2035.

Russian:

http://www.interfax.ru/world/490464

English:

http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160120/1033407556/russia-postpones-moon-mission.html
 
'It would hardly be rational to make some ten or 20 flights to the moon, and then wind it all up and fly to the Mars or some asteroids.'

As the young folk say: sick burn, bro! ;D
 
NilsD said:
sferrin said:
blackstar said:
Who is "we"?

Technology to send humans to the Moon has existed since humans went to the Moon. No new technology is required. Hardware needs to be developed, but it is hardware based upon existing technology.
Click to expand...

It existed. Whether it still exists is debatable. They'd have to reinvent a LOT of wheels. Look at all the money they've spent just on the "new" J-2 engine or the "new" heat shield material.
Click to expand...
Not only does the technology no longer exist, but a lot of the expertise who made such technology possible 50 years ago are now dead.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The technology and knowhow stills exists. No new technology or processes are needed. We know how to build rockets, landers and entry vehicles.
Also, the "new" J-2 engine or the "new" heat shield material costs are irrelevant to this topic
a. they aren't new technology
b. The costs are due to poorly conceived program with a lack of true goals and poor management.. (they exist more for the jobs they provide than the tasks they enable)
c. There are other engines and heat shield materials that were developed for less.
 
Part of the problem here is a rather common one that people have trouble understanding the difference between technology and hardware. Technology is a somewhat abstract term that encompasses the knowledge, skills, and resources to build something. If the technology does not exist, that means that you have to do research and experimentation to figure out what does and does not work in order to develop the technology. And certainly the technology to land humans on the Moon is accessible to the most advanced countries like Russia and China, assuming that they are willing to spend the resources.

Hardware, of course, is a physical thing, and nobody currently has the necessary hardware.

The difference between the two can be easily illustrated: the technology to build a car is widespread and consists of things like the knowledge to manufacture an internal combustion engine. But the hardware is the car itself. You can have the technology and not have the hardware--until, of course, you build the car.

That said, technology requires knowledge, and knowledge is not entirely contained in books or computer hard drives but also exists in the brains of people. When people die out, or the education system falls apart, some knowledge is lost, and with it the ability to replicate the technology. For instance, using the internal combustion engine as an example, while the design specs, physics and other things may all be recorded in a book, the best way to maximize the performance of an engine might not have been written down but is in the head of a designer who has done trial and error over time. That designer falls down the stairs and breaks his neck, then some of the knowledge--a component of what we understand as "technology"--is lost. It has to be regained, possibly by conducting experiments, tests, etc.

Russia has technology and it has education institutions. They could build a lunar spacecraft if they worked at it. They would have to work harder than the Americans, who have more robust industries and education institutions and other technological advantages (in electronics, for instance), but they could do it. The key issue is cost, and Russia is broke.
 
Taking Blackstars point a bit further:

As he suggests, some elements of stored technology has a relatively short shelf-life. We fragile humans.

Technology consisted, to a large extent, of manufacturing techniques: turning raw materials into finished components that assemble into a system.

Till recently manufacturing required a lot of hands-on work by skilled craftsman who shared 'tribal knowledge'. Handed down knowledge that dealt with those intangible tasks not covered in the documents of manufacture. Engineers and floor Machinist's used to a lot of cross-pollination. Social conventions aside, it used to be an engineer would come down to the shop floor and be able to discuss things with a Craftsman intelligently -- that Engineer might even know something about machine tools; tribal knowledge infused every floor of the plant. The two able to convey and understand information. I point to the NASA contractors during the Apollo years. Or Electric Boat Company in the late 50's.

Now, with additive and subtractive machining, our Machinist's have been reduced to chip-sweepers, wire feeders, and bit changers. In one generation, tribal-knowledge is lost. Today's Engineer's: Many of them lost without CAD filling in all the blanks of design, material selection, and the 101 other things formerly understood and employed by 'practical' Engineers.

Sure, today's application of technology (on the manufacturing front) is quicker, better, and cheaper than when the knowledge and skills were housed in the noggins of people. But, today, we have no fall-back if the lights go out.

Do the public schools teach 'shop' anymore? Or was that slot filled by black-history-month? Did they convert the drafting room, the metal shop, the wood shop into bathrooms for the five sexes we seem to have developed over the past few years?

Secure from Rant.

David
 
merriman said:
Now, with additive and subtractive machining, our Machinist's have been reduced to chip-sweepers, wire feeders, and bit changers. In one generation, tribal-knowledge is lost.
Click to expand...

Well, we could also bemoan all the carriage drivers and stablemen that lost their livelihoods when horses were replaced by automobiles. The requirements for tradesmen shift. It's always been like that.

I don't work in a factory, but I suspect that it's not as dire as you portray, at least due to those technologies. Those jobs have evolved. But the technology is not perfect and people still have to operate the machines. A few months back I heard a presentation by a guy who does R&D for a specialty metals company. They provide various alloys for high technology products, like jet engine turbines, nuclear reactors and stuff. He talked a bit about the challenges of producing powdered metals for use in additive manufacturing (3D printing) machines. He said that often the companies send them very specific specs for the metals and then are surprised when they do not perform as advertised in their machines. The machines choke up on the powders. That leads me to believe that a skilled technician is needed to tune and operate the machine, not simply to pour the powder in the supply bin and press the start button.

And, when you think about it, that goes back to my earlier point about technology is not simply what is written down (the specs for the metal powder) or what is proven to work (the 3D printers), but also exists in the heads of the people who are making the products.
 
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Russia_plans_return_to_Mars_Moon_despite_money_woes_999.html
 
http://news.slashdot.org/story/16/02/21/168236/russias-moon-and-mars-exploration-ambitions-hobbled-by-a-lack-of-money
 
Well it's Russian and they are going to the moon. Other than that I can't tell what the captions are saying.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGYmMVFY7TI
 
Well since it requires 4 launches and multiple rendezvous rather than doing everything with one big booster, Apollo on Atkins might be more appropriate.
 
fredymac said:
Other than that I can't tell what the captions are saying.
Click to expand...
[0:06] Пилотируемый транспортный корабль
[0:17] Пилотируемый транспортный корабль
[0:18] Ракета-носитель "Ангара-А5"
[0:25] Стыковка с орбитальной станцией
[0:29] Пилотируемый транспортный корабль для доставки грузов к орбитальной космической станции и возвращения их на Землю
[0:39] 14,4 тонны - общая масса корабля (при полёте к орбитальной станции)
[0:44] 500 кг - масса доставляемых и возвращаемых грузов (при полёте к орбитальной станции)
[0:49] До 4 человек - численность экипажа
[0:56] До 1 года - полёт в составе станции
[1:08] Пилотируемые полёты к Луне
[1:12] Пилотируемый транспортный корабль. Назначение пилотируемого транспортного корабля: полёты к Луне, доставка людей и грузов
[1:14] Ракета-носитель "Ангара-А5В"
[1:20] Не более 4 g - перегрузка при выведении
[1:24] [вверху:] Элементы системы РБАС (ракетный блок аварийного спасения); [ниже:] Обтекатель двигательного отсека
[1:29] 6,1 метра - длина корабля
[1:37] 4,5 метра - диаметр возвращаемого аппараты. 3,5 метра - диаметр двигательного отсека. [справа:] Солнечные батареи. [слева:] Возвращаемый аппарат. Двигательный отсек
[1:44] [слева:] Остронаправленная антенна на раскрывающейся штанге. [справа:] Приборы для обеспечения сближения корабля
[1:45] 100 кг - масса доставляемых и возвращаемых грузов (при полёте к Луне)
[2:04] 20 тонн - общая масса корабля (при полёте к Луне)
[2:24] Двигатели причаливания и ориентации корабля
[3:04] До 3 суток - автономный полёт
[3:07] Маршевые двигатели
[3:16] Посадка возвращаемого аппарата
[3:19] Посадка возвращаемого аппарата пилотируемого транспортного корабля
[3:28] 3 g - номинальная перегрузка при спуске
[3:37] 9 тонн - масса возвращаемого аппарата
 
OK, so a quick cut and paste into Google Translate:

[0:06] manned transport ship
[0.17] manned transport ship
[0:18] The launch vehicle "Angara-A5"
[0:25] The docking with the orbital station
[0:29] manned transport spacecraft to deliver cargo to the orbiting space station and return them to Earth
[0:39] 14.4 ton - the total weight of the ship (if the flight to the space station)
[0:44] 500 kg - the weight delivered and returned goods (when flying to the space station)
[0:49] Up to 4 people - the number of crew
[0:56] Up to 1 year - as part of the flight station
[1:08] manned flight to the Moon
[1:12] manned transport ship. Appointment manned transport spacecraft: the flights to the Moon, delivery people and goods
[1:14] The launch vehicle "Angara-A5V"
[1:20] No more than 4 g - overload in deriving
[1:24] [top:] Elements RBAS system (missile unit emergency rescue); [Below] Fairing the engine compartment
[1:29] 6.1 meters - the length of the ship
[1:37] 4.5 meter - diameter of the recovery vehicle. 3.5 meter - diameter of the engine compartment. [Right:] Solar. [Left:] returns the machine. engine bay
[1:44] [left:] Highly-antenna on the drop-down bar. [Right:] instruments for spacecraft rendezvous
[1:45] 100 kg - the weight delivered and returned goods (when flying to the moon)
[2:04] 20 tons - the total mass of the spacecraft (when flying to the moon)
[2:24] The engines of the ship docking and orientation
[3:04] Up to 3 days - autonomous flight
[3:07] Marching engines
[3:16] Planting recovery vehicle
[3:19] Planting the recovery vehicle manned transport spacecraft
[3:28] 3 g - rated overload during the descent
[3:37] 9 tons - the mass of the recovery vehicle
 
I seem to remember an all hypergolic internal combustion engine rover concept from Russia.
 
How predictible, that was. Not a big change TBH, since Luna 25 has been around for at least 25 years, so 2 more ain't no big deal anymore...
 
As long as the primary goal is to get rich quick and be called an oligarch, no money will be spent on this. Unless, of course, the United States actually launches a component for a Moon base. Then, and only then, will Russia see this as a threat worth taking action on. But, in the United States, the primary goal is to get rich very quick and spend your time on a beach drinking Pina Coladas. You can see the Moon from there, no need to make the trip.
 
They do not exactly have the dosh or probably will, to do more than make grandiose plans anyway.
 
blackstar said:
Well, we could also bemoan all the carriage drivers and stablemen that lost their livelihoods when horses were replaced by automobiles. The requirements for tradesmen shift. It's always been like that.

I don't work in a factory, but I suspect that it's not as dire as you portray, at least due to those technologies. Those jobs have evolved. But the technology is not perfect and people still have to operate the machines. A few months back I heard a presentation by a guy who does R&D for a specialty metals company. They provide various alloys for high technology products, like jet engine turbines, nuclear reactors and stuff. He talked a bit about the challenges of producing powdered metals for use in additive manufacturing (3D printing) machines. He said that often the companies send them very specific specs for the metals and then are surprised when they do not perform as advertised in their machines. The machines choke up on the powders. That leads me to believe that a skilled technician is needed to tune and operate the machine, not simply to pour the powder in the supply bin and press the start button.

And, when you think about it, that goes back to my earlier point about technology is not simply what is written down (the specs for the metal powder) or what is proven to work (the 3D printers), but also exists in the heads of the people who are making the products.
Click to expand...
Yes, and that's exactly the point. The people who can tell you "that's not going to work", the highly experienced machinists, have been fired for wanting too much salary. The "engineers" speccing the materials to go into the 3d printers don't have a clue that their metal spec won't work right, because they can't go down to the plant floor and talk to a machinist with 20+ years experience.

The even more toxic places, the "engineers" don't want to talk to the machinists.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom