Russia launches lunar lander - declaring space race

[Swank]

If forward thinking had taken place, and decisive action taken, it's unlikely that we would be in the situation we currently find ourselves. Everything that's being done appears to be reactive, and even then not always carried through. It's even arguable that an increase in building space rockets, and regular launches into space, could actually increase our carbon footprint rather than reduce it.

I agree that any energy consuming activities that can be done outside of our planet's atmosphere are a good thing, but there's a deal of difference between wanting something to happen and it becoming a reality.

I'd like to think that hydrogen rocket fuel has a very small carbon footprint.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Kennedy's speech was both mesmerising and astonishing. It left no-one in any doubt that the US would put a man on the Moon, no matter the cost. you knew it would be done. Since the last person set foot on the Moon in 1972 we only seemed to be going backwards in our vision of the future. Yes, great things have been achieved with space stations, with probes and the Mars Rover. But the determination to send humans beyond close orbit seems to be notable by its absence.

Put simply, why is it more than 50 years since we set foot on the Moon? I think perhaps its that we've realised how foolhardy it was, and how incredibly lucky we were. Given the advances in technology, I think that we are now more aware of the hazards of space travel, even 'short haul' to the Moon.

I suspect there were several reasons for not going back. First and most important, the Apollo missions had done their job: pull one over the Soviets and restore US prestige.

Second, a drop of public interest in the missions which made their cost no longer justifiable.

Third, their massive cost in the first place - 4,5% of the US budget - which meant they were not sustainable.

And probably fourth, a growing appreciation of the dangers: of 9 missions one nearly ended in disaster. NASA did not want the optimism marred by one or more tragedies. IMHO it was the two shuttle disasters more than anything else that ended the shuttle programme.

These reasons still apply today.

 

[Swank]

I suspect there were several reasons for not going back. First and most important, the Apollo missions had done their job: pull one over the Soviets and restore US prestige.

Second, a drop of public interest in the missions which made their cost no longer justifiable.

Third, their massive cost in the first place - 4,5% of the US budget - which meant they were not sustainable.

And probably fourth, a growing appreciation of the dangers: of 9 missions one nearly ended in disaster. NASA did not want the optimism marred by one or more tragedies. IMHO it was the two shuttle disasters more than anything else that ended the shuttle programme.

These reasons still apply today.

You've neglecting a massive economic downturn and energy crisis in the 1970s.

 

[Vince W]

Ukrainian terrorists place moon in path of innocent Russian spacecraft.
- Russian state media

 

[Justin Swanton]

You've neglecting a massive economic downturn and energy crisis in the 1970s.

It appears that's going to replicate itself too.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

I like new words that sound cool, like echoic incentives, it has a strong ring to it, like stoic. Eceomically might be a good word to describe how cheap it should be to harvest lunar water but in reality might turn out be not so simple, like the lunar dust situation could end up. I suspect multiple airlocks will keep the dust out of the underground living quarters. Making machinery that is immune to the dust might be possible as it doesn't seem to be too bad mechanically speaking for the rovers, just speeds up wear and tear. The dust isn't good for soft materials, like fabric, aluminum, and plastic. Not being able to clean off the dust seems to be the worst problem. Perhaps exposed surface material will need careful development so the dust won't get embedded in it. Next rover should get a mini garage to clean the dust off periodically. I feel human lunar exploration is certain, and Mars for the foreseeable future, will be robotic, accompanied by propagandic posturing. The world stage has more industrial players than it used to, and they are making up for lost time. As for "clear thinking," that's part of the past that has been left behind. The current situations are now forcing people to react, because there is no choice but to react, its called catch up, or out of passive options, which is propelling progress towards an always uncertain future.

 

[Pyan]

Let's concentrate on the tech rather than than the politics, please, people.

 

[Danny McG]

According to the Russian news agency ' Luna -25 went into an off-design orbit and collided with the moon '.

That's because they launched in daylight so they couldn't find it at first

 

[Justin Swanton]

Let's concentrate on the tech rather than than the politics, please, people.

The avatar matches the post.

OK, tech. But politics, especially contemporary politics, is so interesting.....yessir, tech!

Slightly on topic, the cost of a Mars mission has been estimated at half a trillion dollars, but I notice that doesn't take into account the necessity of supplying effective shielding for the crew which will add hundreds of tons dead weight to the Mars ship and push the cost (all those launches!) through the exosphere. I say at least a trillion for one mission.

Edit: magnetic shielding might work.

 

[paranoid marvin]

This isn't techy, but I hope it isn't political. Uts definitely relevant.

Our attitude to risk, certainly at a governmental level, has changed significantly since the 1960s.

Back then the US had just come out of 2 World Wars and Korea, was in the middle of the Cold War and heading into the Viernam war. Lives were being lost on a daily basis, and the Space Race was just an extension of the Cold War - and they were way behind the USSR.

The astronauts were fighter pilots and test pilots; jobs that saw them daily putting their lives at risk.

There was growing disruption amongst the population who were starting to question the actions of their government and a disaffected youth who had been sold the American Dream but were feeling shortchanged.

In short you had a government needing to do something drastic, which was on a semi-permanent war footing, and distinguished pilots prepared to risk their lives for the cause.

So it's perhaps unsurprising that risks were taken to get men on the Moon. Within 18 months of that happening, manned missions to the Moon quickly lost interest with the population, and so also with the government.

What would have happened if they had pressed on to build Moon bases, and attempt travel to Mars? With 1960s technology we would almost certainly have met with catastrophes and the loss of many lives.

But we would also know far more than we do today about the hazards that will confront us, and we would almost certainly have better technology to deal with those threats. The problem is that the cost of this knowledge would have been bought very dearly.

With the way of the world today, we would never have sent people into space or to the Moon with the equivalent of 1960s technology. We won't even send them with modern technology, instead sending probes and robots to do the jobs instead.

Would some of these failed missions have succeeded if humans had been aboard? Would we now have bases on the Moon and manned flight to Mars if we had dared to do? Quite possibly. But I think we've decided that human life is more important than space exploration; more important than going too fast too soon. Which is a good thing. But which flies in the face of NASA's current goal of interplanetary travel within the next decade.

 

[Wayne Mack]

I'd look at manned missions to space and the moon from a different perspective. It wasn't that governments were more accepting of risk in 1950s-1960s, it was that there wasn't a viable alternative to manned missions. With technological advancements, we can now send equipment into space to fly by planets, we can send rovers to planet surfaces, and we can launch telescopes outside of the atmosphere. And these things continue to hold public interest. We are actually getting more benefit out of technical exploration than we ever got out of manual exploration.

While building a space station or a base on the moon or Mars is intriguing, building those requires understanding of how to create a viable, largely self-sustaining biosphere. That is technology that would be far easier and less expensive to develop on Earth and far more beneficial to implement here than in space.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I'd look at manned missions to space and the moon from a different perspective. It wasn't that governments were more accepting of risk in 1950s-1960s, it was that there wasn't a viable alternative to manned missions. With technological advancements, we can now send equipment into space to fly by planets, we can send rovers to planet surfaces, and we can launch telescopes outside of the atmosphere. And these things continue to hold public interest. We are actually getting more benefit out of technical exploration than we ever got out of manual exploration.

While building a space station or a base on the moon or Mars is intriguing, building those requires understanding of how to create a viable, largely self-sustaining biosphere. That is technology that would be far easier and less expensive to develop on Earth and far more beneficial to implement here than in space.

True, but there's always the option not to go at all.

In 2023, even if we didn't have probes and rovers, we still wouldn't be sending manned missions to the Moon or to Mars until we were sure that it was safe to do so.

That wasn't the case back in the 60s. Armstrong supposedly thought their mission only had a 50% chance of success.

 

[Justin Swanton]

This vision of the early 2000s didn't seem so far-fetched in the early 50s (I lapped up Dan Dare as a kid).

 

[Robert Zwilling]

We won't even send them with modern technology

Maybe "we" won't send them, but corporations will. That's one of the enduring science fiction space adventure themes, the corporation always putting humans into risky situations to make a few extra bucks. While that may only exist in science fiction stories set in the future, I don't think it is far off the mark when it comes to the current goals of the privatization of the global space program. It will be interesting to watch the private companies go up against the government sponsored space programs, or maybe it is already the other way around. India is moving towards privatizing its space program. Its called other people's money.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Maybe "we" won't send them, but corporations will. That's one of the enduring science fiction space adventure themes, the corporation always putting humans into risky situations to make a few extra bucks. While that may only exist in science fiction stories set in the future, I don't think it is far off the mark when it comes to the current goals of the privatization of the global space program. It will be interesting to watch the private companies go up against the government sponsored space programs, or maybe it is already the other way around. India is moving towards privatizing its space program. Its called other people's money.

I totally agree that the future of space exploration is tied to corporate ventures. Having said that, it will be interesting to see just how stringent governments are when it comes to health and safety in space. It's one thing to send satellites up, quite another to have manned missions.

The Challenger disaster stopped space flight for almost 3 years; Columbia more than 2 years, and led to the termination of the Shuttle programme.

 

[Pyan]

I don't think H&S has as much to do with it as the bad publicity it generates.
On H&S grounds, they should close access to Yellowstone National Park: more people have died falling or jumping into the hot springs there than have died in the entire USA space programme. In 2022 alone, 378 people died in private small plane crashes across the USA, but you don't see them banning private pilot's licences.

 

[Swank]

Maybe "we" won't send them, but corporations will. That's one of the enduring science fiction space adventure themes, the corporation always putting humans into risky situations to make a few extra bucks. While that may only exist in science fiction stories set in the future, I don't think it is far off the mark when it comes to the current goals of the privatization of the global space program. It will be interesting to watch the private companies go up against the government sponsored space programs, or maybe it is already the other way around. India is moving towards privatizing its space program. Its called other people's money.

Corporations are more risk adverse than governments. It's not the risk of lives, but the risk of being sued by investors if the scheme doesn't work.

The ideal situation is essentially the military model - private industry competing to fulfill a government funded mission. That's where XB70s come from.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I don't think H&S has as much to do with it as the bad publicity it generates.
On H&S grounds, they should close access to Yellowstone National Park: more people have died falling or jumping into the hot springs there than have died in the entire USA space programme. In 2022 alone, 378 people died in private small plane crashes across the USA, but you don't see them banning private pilot's licences.

But that is private individuals taking calculated risks. An employer has a legal responsibility to ensure the safety of their employees whilst at work. That's not so easy if you are sending them on a 2 year mission to Mars. Spacecraft and space itself are inherently unsafe things, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

[Justin Swanton]

I totally agree that the future of space exploration is tied to corporate ventures.

But is it? Corporations have to turn a profit. They can't fall back on taxpayer money. To date the only profitable venture in space is telecommunications satellites. What could humans possibly do in space that would offset the enormous cost of getting them up there? When Musk sends people into orbit he doesn't do it as a corporate venture but as a government subcontractor. If NASA doesn't pay him he doesn't launch any astronauts, simple.

Personally I don't think manned spaceflight has any future beyond what it is now.

As somebody once said, the great thing about being a pessimist is that you're never disappointed.

 

[paranoid marvin]

But is it? Corporations have to turn a profit. They can't fall back on taxpayer money. To date the only profitable venture in space is telecommunications satellites. What could humans possibly do in space that would offset the enormous cost of getting them up there? When Musk sends people into orbit he doesn't do it as a corporate venture but as a government subcontractor. If NASA doesn't pay him he doesn't launch any astronauts, simple.

Personally I don't think manned spaceflight has any future beyond what it is now.

As somebody once said, the great thing about being a pessimist is that you're never disappointed.

For now, yes, until R&D has been completed and we have cost effective, safe space travel in the same way as aeroplanes, trains and road transport.


According to Google, the cost of the original Apollo programme to send a manned mission to the Moon (adjusted for inflation) was over $250 billion. The cost of the Artemis project to return to the Moon is under $100 billion. Presumably the next one will be cheaper still.

In context, the Airbus 380 project was around $25 billion and Dreamliner around $30 billion. Its conceivable that in 10-20 years time, the cost of developing a new commercial aeroplane will not be too dissimilar to the cost of developing a new spaceship.

On the other hand the Mars Rover was 'only' about $2 billion, and has provided far more information than any manned flight ever could.

I do think that it is inevitable that someone, be it Russia, China, India or the USA will attempt a flight to Mars - perhaps even a mega rich tycoon wanting to put their name in the history books like Armstrong and Aldrin, Mallory and Tenzing or Amundsen. There are precious few 'firsts' that still are within the reach of someone rich or skilled or brave enough.