We are going back to the Moon Thread

_Tombstone_

Europe, Russia, China and India are all working on some form of getting to the Moon, the US don't know what they're at (Can billionaires save the space program?) so will probably fall in line.

May aswell put all this kinda stuff in this Thread.


China is storming along at the min, 20 Launches planned for this year, new Original Rockets coming - the Long March 5 and 7 (7 is equivalent to Ariane 5/Dragon/Progress, March 5 is more powerful), they're sending up the first Module/Lab of their Tiangong Space Station early this year and 3 Taikonauts to Dock with it later in the year aswell. The Core Module is due to go up in 2018 with the March 5 and the whole thing due to go live in 2022 (ish). Their is a Module up there since 2011 that's due to be deorbit at some stage.

Long March 9 is in early design for a Manned Moon run around 2030.


Here's a great page to kick it off on China - lots of Pics

China's booming space program might put the US and Russia to shame




Hail to our new Taikonaut overlords:pac:, doesn't even need two hands to fix that thing.

Tiangong-2: Video shows docking system for China's new space lab

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJvp263ZcD8

China Picks Up the Pace



The Russians are doing the same work...We really need to set up a Global Space Agency.

They've just revealed plans for their Cosmonaut Moon Lander, that's a Chinese, US and Russian one on the go, not sure what India is at yet.

Russian engineers are counting on a pair of Angara-5V rockets to deliver the lander without the crew toward its departure point in the lunar orbit. Two more such rockets would be needed to carry a transport ship with four cosmonauts from Earth to the lunar orbit, where the two would link up. Two crew members could then transfer into the lunar module, undock, and make a descent to the Moon.

They like China also have Probes in development.

shedweller

Awesome! I do love the Chinese positive mental attitude to stuff.
I following!

SNAKEDOC

I really dont understand any of this activity! Man supposedly landed in the moon 40 years ago and now america are basically building another saturn v rocket and apollo capsule to fly into deep space yet its still a capsule which means weightless and no plans to introduce artificial gravity. Anyway thats mars and this is about the moon. So i watched the videos on the development of orion and the techy doing all the talking basically said that the sheilding technology to get past the van alan radiation belt is only being developed for orion, but wait didnt they go past the van alan belt the first 6 times they landed in the moon. this second moon race would make the optimistic side of me get ever ao slightly pesimistic about whether or not man landed on the moon in the 60's. I have always been a firm believer and love all things space related but one can't help wondering were the conspiracy theorista right.

Wibbs

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

were the conspiracy theorista right.

No SD. No they weren't. Even slightly right.

uck51js9zml2yt

Wibbs wrote: »

No SD. No they weren't. Even slightly right.

Being devils advocate here....

Its over 40 years since we landed on the moon, technology has advanced in the interim and we still don't have the ability to land again.....its all being developed.

Why can't we use what we have to go back?

SNAKEDOC

Thats my point. Why is there being so much new development to do something that has already been done. Kinda like reinventing the wheel. Another little snippet from the orion video the nasa engineer states about the
Van alan radiation belt "the deadly radiation belt will require orion to be shielded and these are problems we will need to solve in order to get to the moon"
Now im no conspiracy nut but it is a little odd that now 49 years later nasa are trying with a little difficulty it seems to recreate a 40 year old mission.

nokia69

Davina Inexpensive Union wrote: »

Being devils advocate here....

Its over 40 years since we landed on the moon, technology has advanced in the interim and we still don't have the ability to land again.....its all being developed.

Why can't we use what we have to go back?

Because we don't have it, thats the point, after the Apollo program ended and the Saturn V was cancelled the US no longer had a rocket powerful enough to get to the Moon in one launch

They also stopped producing landers, service modules, command modules ect

And in place of all that great hardware we got the shuttle, which was a pointless waste of time and money but ended up being loved by know nothing idiots :mad:

Wibbs

nokia69 wrote: »

They also stopped producing landers, service modules, command modules ect

I seem to recall reading somewhere that they even lost some of the plans/blueprints for the Lunar Lander in a Grumman office move.

And in place of all that great hardware we got the shuttle, which was a pointless waste of time and money but ended up being loved by know nothing idiots :mad:

TBH N, hindsight really is 20/20. back in the day the whole Apollo setup was extremely expensive and wasteful. Something like 2 million kgs of state of the art technology burnt up to got there and get something that would with a squeeze fit inside the average living room back. IIRC it cost in today's money around 3 billion euro per launch and that's not including the development costs. They were dialling it back even by Apollo 12. It was the best and fastest way to get to the moon and beat the Russians alright and it was gobsmackingly cool, but it was never going to be sustainable.

For all its latter faults the shuttle was seen as a way forward, a way to make getting into orbit much cheaper and more routine with far less waste. As a kid at the time I loved the concept TBH. Sadly it became a bloated project and a compromised one in technology, size and budget.

Wibbs

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Thats my point. Why is there being so much new development to do something that has already been done. Kinda like reinventing the wheel. Another little snippet from the orion video the nasa engineer states about the
Van alan radiation belt "the deadly radiation belt will require orion to be shielded and these are problems we will need to solve in order to get to the moon"
Now im no conspiracy nut but it is a little odd that now 49 years later nasa are trying with a little difficulty it seems to recreate a 40 year old mission.

There are a couple of reasons why SD. Numero uno; budget. NASA pretty much had a blank cheque in the 1960's. Today their budget is tiny by comparison and no bucks no Buck Rogers.

They were also it must be said more gung ho, flying mission after mission in rapid succession(the Gemini mission schedule was unreal looking back), in ways that they would be reluctant to try again because of safety issues. The crews themselves were in many ways of a different breed. They were NOT careless fighter jocks, they were very careful measured men indeed, but they did generally come from a background in test piloting where at the time deaths of fellow pilots almost became "routine". The loss rate of test pilots back then looked like a war zone. The current climate wouldn't be happy with such losses and they have to be much more aware of public opinion, especially without the boogyman of the "Commies in Space" they had back then.

The moon shots themselves were centred around the premise of get up there and get the hell back in double quick time. So the radiation of the Van Allen belts which also concerned them at the time was less an issue. They got through them very quickly. They also had some shielding and flew the mass of the service module "into the wind" to add more protection. Even so the Apollo guys had way above average incidences of eye cataracts afterwards and reported and got used to seeing flashes in their vision as high energy particles flew through their heads. To sustainably run missions to the moon these issues would need to be more addressed than they were.

It's also why I think Mars missions at this stage are a major white elephant. Getting to and living on the moon is beyond our reach at the minute, but a workable set of problems, Mars adds a huge amount of problems on top of that.

Maximus Alexander

Wibbs wrote: »

I seem to recall reading somewhere that they even lost some of the plans/blueprints for the Lunar Lander in a Grumman office move.

Not to mention that all the people who worked on it are long retired / dead.

I don't understand this idea that some people have that if you want to go back to the moon you'd dig out the dusty old plans for a half century old, obscenely expensive rocket and just start trying to reconstruct it.

Sure, the basics of rocketry haven't changed, but everything else has and you're effectively starting from scratch either way. Hopefully this time around the space industry is mature enough that the technology will be kept, improved and refined for decades to come, rather than abandoned when the penis measuring contest is over.

Wibbs

+1. The vast majority of the big iron Saturn V was discarded before they reached orbit. For me the way to run sustainable moon shots is to keep the ISS up there beyond its current decommissioning date, use cheap reusable lifters like SpaceX etc to assemble bit by bit the moon "shuttle" in low earth orbit and fly to the moon and back from Earth orbit not the ground. Lunar habitations and such can be sent ahead on a slower boat from China which means less power and fuel required, while the people can shuttle back and forth at higher speeds.

Maximus Alexander

I do love the idea of a global space agency as mentioned by Tombstone above, which would also fit with your vision. Imagine how much could be achieved with everyone pulling in the same direction rather than just duplicating the effort! Unfortunately it's probably hopelessly naive from a political perspective.

mickmackey1

R.I.P. to the sixth man on the moon, Edgar Mitchell -

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local/apollo-14-astronaut-edgar-mitchell-85-dies-in-west/nqKdg/

nokia69

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I do love the idea of a global space agency as mentioned by Tombstone above, which would also fit with your vision. Imagine how much could be achieved with everyone pulling in the same direction rather than just duplicating the effort! Unfortunately it's probably hopelessly naive from a political perspective.

I'm not so sure, on the one hand I do see the benefit of pooling resources but then again there is a lot to be said for competition

Any global space agency would just turn into a giant version of NASA and thats the very last thing you want :eek:

Itssoeasy

Just reading this thread. Im shocked that people are suprised that it's a suprise that nasa aren't up to speed on technology that was last used in 1972.

Capt'n Midnight

Rocket fuel is chemistry. All gases have the same volume per molecule. 22.4 Litres at 0c. So you want lots of small molecules. Like H20 and CO2. By running an engine fuel rich you can get a lot more H2 and CO.

Thing is exotic rocket fuels with more energy are expensive , unstable and truly evil. Things even more toxic than cyanide have been tried as fuel.

The best performance so far was from a Hydrogen, Fluorine, Lithium engine.

Lithium metal isn't as reactive as sodium. But to use it in a rocket you need lots of it and you need it molten. A corrosive liquid metal that explodes on contact with water.

And then there's the fluorine which is a special case of "do no want". Of course it too explodes on contact with water. But whereas lithium might dissolve metals fluorine makes them burn. Actually fluorine makes pretty much everything that isn't already flourided burn. Things like asbestos, snow, wood, concrete, sand , metal , ashes. And it releases lots of hydrogen fluoride. A small molecule that will easily penetrate the skin and dissolve the calcium in your bones from the inside.


And you can get the same benefits by just using larger rockets with normal rocket fuel. So no, don't expect any improvements in chemical fuels anytime soon.

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. The vast majority of the big iron Saturn V was discarded before they reached orbit. For me the way to run sustainable moon shots is to keep the ISS up there beyond its current decommissioning date, use cheap reusable lifters like SpaceX etc to assemble bit by bit the moon "shuttle" in low earth orbit and fly to the moon and back from Earth orbit not the ground. Lunar habitations and such can be sent ahead on a slower boat from China which means less power and fuel required, while the people can shuttle back and forth at higher speeds.

Nah,
First off the ISS is in the wrong orbit. It should be in an equatorial one. So that's a huge payload hit right off.
use electric drive to setup a fuel cache at GEO or a Legrange point. Fuel there has twice the energy as at LEO.

Wibbs

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nah,
First off the ISS is in the wrong orbit. It should be in an equatorial one. So that's a huge payload hit right off.

I didn't say it would be easy goddamit!! I'm sure that over a period of time it could be slowly shifted into a more useful orbit. Given it's already up there which took a lot of heavy lifting it seems beyond wasteful to leave it burn up and crash in the Pacific sometime in the next decade. Though TBH I'm still cheesed off they let Mir burn.

use electric drive to setup a fuel cache at GEO or a Legrange point. Fuel there has twice the energy as at LEO.

Oh I'd be doing that too Capt'n. Basically I'd aim for a "spaceport" in LEO with a shuttle system running to the moon. It might contain a separate lander to get down and back as the the "shuttle" waits in orbit. Basically what 2001 and Space Odyssey envisaged, minus the orchestral maneuverers in the dark orbit. IIRC and I likely don't, I think one of Von Braun's plans for the original moonshot was to build a LEO station and go lunar from there. And later Mars. He envisaged a more scalable spaceflight future.

Ghost Train

Some nice looking space tourism posters, at end of article

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/8/10942578/nasa-new-space-travel-posters-mars-enceladus

_Tombstone_

nokia69 wrote: »

I'm not so sure, on the one hand I do see the benefit of pooling resources but then again there is a lot to be said for competition

Any global space agency would just turn into a giant version of NASA and thats the very last thing you want :eek:

It doesn't need to be that way (though yea, it's probably exactly what it would be), I can't understand Tenders anymore, I see it nearly every week on the News where....for eg Company ABC looks for a Job to be done in a certain way for a €1.

A Person/Company put in bids on ABCs Job
ABC accepts the one they like based on Price etc
OOOps it turns out it's gonna cost €10
ABC says no problem heres €20

Like WTF???

I nearly fell off my Chair when I came across this Story about the Company the Kremlin paid $59,000 to, to crack Tor. It was gonna end up costing them $150,000 to get out of the Contract when they realised they couldn't do it.

That's the way it should be.

_Tombstone_

The Soviet Union's Secret Moon Base That Never Was

The Soviet engineers hoped to start building their lunar outpost with the delivery of the multipurpose Lunar Engineering Machine, LIM. The three-ton rover would be used for soil-moving operations and scouting, cargo hauling, and it would also double as a crane and a mobile drilling rig. A telescope-like crane and a drill would be attached to the sides of the cockpit. The rover would be also equipped with external lighting, TV cameras, and windows.

To propel the exotic vehicle, the Soviets developed a four-cylinder internal combustion engine, but with a twist. Unlike traditional motors, it would burn self-igniting rocket propellant, mixing liquid fuel with oxidizer. Vacuum valves would be used to vent combustion products out of the engine's hermetically sealed housing. One engine would be enough to propel the vehicle, but when LIM was faced with difficult terrain, it could activate both motors and turn on all-wheel drive. Wheels of the machine were designed to be flexible to do away with a complicated suspension system.

The Russians were a great bunch of Lads...pity it is what it is now.

_Tombstone_

Is China's race to space a military ploy?

Bongalongherb

Less talk and more action to the Moon. Here's one I took on the 17th with a small cheap telescope and a low quality pocket camera in prime focus at 1080/30p. There will be a few clear nights ahead this week according to weather central.

Grab that telescope from the bag in the attic or wherever it is and look up into that beautiful clear sky and expand your thoughts and philosophy by looking through prime focus or through the eye-piece. Wrap up warm and you'll be fine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puNJ9PVy2zI

_Tombstone_

Project A119

It was nearly our first "Giant Step" into space. US planned to detonate a Nuke at the edge of the Moon so the Mushroom dust cloud would be illuminated by the Sun and be visible back on Earth in a PR exercise/show of one-upmanship against the Russians.

Lowry believes Project A119 has relevance today with the US proposing a missile defence system in space. He said: 'The US has always wanted to militarise space and some of the fanciful ideas currently being put forward will seem as incredible as the idea of nuking the moon in the Fifties seems today.'

^^This is it really, why theirs a push to get back out there. China is catching up and in many respects has passed out the US (thanks to NSA backdoors), the Moon has Military advantages and it's the only reason we they have any interest in going there.

Ren2k7

The Chinese dream of conquering space appears to have been a false dawn as instead of spurring a new space race the ChiComs seem more interested in messing about in LEO and developing anti-sat capabilities. In truth we'll probably see space being opened up thanks to the work of the private sector. National government space programs are hideously expensive, bloated and bureaucratic. I notice a lot of support here for a "global NASA". That would be a mistake IMO, the aim instead should be creating an active and vibrant space economy of private enterprise (put intended) successfully exploiting the solar system. The America's weren't colonise because of government programs, they were conquered because of private business establishing colonies on their own dime, establishing towns and making colonisation profitable.

The Americans are leading the way with the commercialisation of space and its time for Europe to follow suit.

Wibbs

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The Chinese dream of conquering space appears to have been a false dawn as instead of spurring a new space race the ChiComs seem more interested in messing about in LEO and developing anti-sat capabilities.

Mainly because LEO is "easy", lunar flights are very much harder and require much more engineering and heavy lifting. Even the run there and run back approach of Apollo was an order of magnitude more difficult than getting into LEO.

In truth we'll probably see space being opened up thanks to the work of the private sector. National government space programs are hideously expensive, bloated and bureaucratic. I notice a lot of support here for a "global NASA". That would be a mistake IMO, the aim instead should be creating an active and vibrant space economy of private enterprise (put intended) successfully exploiting the solar system. The America's weren't colonise because of government programs, they were conquered because of private business establishing colonies on their own dime, establishing towns and making colonisation profitable

Not quite that simple at all and I'm not sure where this black and white Private V Public vibe is coming from of late. The America's were colonised by a mix of, more often a marriage of, public and private monies and enterprise.

Moving to space exploration the US programme was also a marriage of public and private. NASA was as much a collection point for private enterprise(pun also intended ). The spacecraft, the electronics, the space suits, pretty much everything was designed and made by private companies. The only "pure" public sector space exploration was the Soviet programme, which did extremely well at first and continued pretty well as far as reliable launch vehicles and space stations go. Though in many ways it was also a marriage of sorts, more run like a huge private company with a government blank cheque. Look at the poster boy for "private space" Musk and his company. Without government monies and loans they wouldn't be flying today. And that's cool too, because until the costs drop dramatically and, or real profits are to be made out there it'll need to be a two tiered approach for the most part.

Ren2k7

Wibbs wrote: »

Mainly because LEO is "easy", lunar flights are very much harder and require much more engineering and heavy lifting. Even the run there and run back approach of Apollo was an order of magnitude more difficult than getting into LEO. Not quite that simple at all and I'm not sure where this black and white Private V Public vibe is coming from of late. The America's were colonised by a mix of, more often a marriage of, public and private monies and enterprise.

Moving to space exploration the US programme was also a marriage of public and private. NASA was as much a collection point for private enterprise(pun also intended ). The spacecraft, the electronics, the space suits, pretty much everything was designed and made by private companies. The only "pure" public sector space exploration was the Soviet programme, which did extremely well at first and continued pretty well as far as reliable launch vehicles and space stations go. Though in many ways it was also a marriage of sorts, more run like a huge private company with a government blank cheque. Look at the poster boy for "private space" Musk and his company. Without government monies and loans they wouldn't be flying today. And that's cool too, because until the costs drop dramatically and, or real profits are to be made out there it'll need to be a two tiered approach for the most part.

You're failing to remember that this new space race has only been possible thanks to innovation and cost cutting that's been driven by the private sector. The public sector has a role to play too but it won't be as great as it once was. You don't fly government air when travelling overseas and the same is now becoming true of spaceflight. The state has no business being involved with building launchers, the private sector can do that much more cheaply and efficiently. SLS is projected to have a per launch cost of over $1 billion. Compare that to the F9 at about $60 million. Granted the F9 is nowhere near powerful as the SLS but Musk has stated he could build a launcher of equivalent capabilities of around $300 million per launch.

Oh, and SpaceX is commercially successful and succeeding even without public contracts. There's a reason why the likes of Boeing, Lockmart (collectively ULA), Arianespace, Airbus, NASA and other space contractors are now referred to as Dinospace. New Space is completely changing the nature of spaceflight, and for the better.

Socialism has never worked on Earth so why would it work in space?!

Wibbs

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Socialism has never worked on Earth so why would it work in space?!

I'm getting the impression it's more about your personal politics than what is going on. I suppose the term "Chicoms" should have flagged that out of the gate. Sheesh, it's bad enough on Boards with the recent general election and now it's spilling over even here. Oh and by the by, it was the "commies" who got into space first with men(and women) and machines and were well ahead for quite a time, but it would take someone a bit daft to suggest that communism was working at the time.

You're failing to remember that this new space race has only been possible thanks to innovation and cost cutting that's been driven by the private sector.

With huge amounts of investment by government money. See below.

You don't fly government air when travelling overseas and the same is now becoming true of spaceflight.

Many if not most of the historical innovations in aircraft that led to jet airliners were funded by government monies, specifically the military. QV the Jet engine for a start.

The state has no business being involved with building launchers, the private sector can do that much more cheaply and efficiently.

Again with a lot of public money going on how things are going currently(Branson appears to be one of the few fully privately funded?).

SLS is projected to have a per launch cost of over $1 billion. Compare that to the F9 at about $60 million. Granted the F9 is nowhere near powerful as the SLS but Musk has stated he could build a launcher of equivalent capabilities of around $300 million per launch.

Musk states a lot of things and fans lap it up, but in reality few enough come down the pike and if and when they do pretty much always way behind schedule. Showboating is his thing and fair enough, as it is getting results, but it's best to take his public statements with a pinch of salt until the actual product gets rolled out.

Oh, and SpaceX is commercially successful and succeeding even without public contracts.

Have an oul read of this. From said LA times article;

Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.

"He definitely goes where there is government money," said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. "That's a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day."

Without public funding and incentives Musk and his companies quite simply wouldn't exist, or if they did, they wouldn't be where they are today. And as I said that's fine, opening up space via different approaches is the best way forward but until the costs drop dramatically and/or real profits are to be made out there it'll need to be a two tiered approach for the most part.

_Tombstone_

From out of left field - S Korea to land Rover on Moon by 2020 in conjuction with NASA to look for rare Minerals.

They've upped their Space Stuff Budget by 20% this year to $603 Million despite deteriorating economic conditions.

To promote aerospace companies’ competitiveness, the government plans to give a bigger role for local research institutes and small and mid-sized enterprises by reorganizing the state-led satellite development plans. A total of $230 Million will also be injected to provide marketing and technology support for companies in the sector.

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20160228000365

Don't know if this is a response to N Korea though...maybe.

_Tombstone_

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The Chinese dream of conquering space appears to have been a false dawn as instead of spurring a new space race the ChiComs seem more interested in messing about in LEO and developing anti-sat capabilities.

You need to read up on what they're at...even post 1 would do.

_Tombstone_

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

We really need to set up a Global Space Agency.

I'm telling ye, they are reading this stuff!:D

NASA has invited India to collaborate on its mission to Mars

NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) has invited representatives from space organisations around the world, including the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), to a meeting in Washington next month, where they'll discuss how they can work together on the journey to Mars, according to reports.

Hopefully, India will be part of the consortium between the US, Europe, France, Italy, among others, where all can capitalise on our capabilities to explore the Solar System."