Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

Shaltai · 2004-10-19 07:20:23

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/10/19/ … tml]Russia has asked the United States and other space exploring countries to contribute to the Kosmoport project — allowing flights to Mars and the Moon to be launched from Baikonur’s Energiya launching complex in Kazakhstan

MarsDog · 2004-10-19 12:29:23

Russia must be getting desperate to ask a foot, gallon, slug measuring country.

Commodore · 2004-10-19 13:35:34

Russia must be getting desperate to ask a foot, gallon, slug measuring country.

Slugs? ???

Anyway heres a few more http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id … =0]details.

RUSSIA PROPOSES TO U.S. PARTICIPATION IN SUPERHEAVY BOOSTERS LAUNCH PROJECT
MOSCOW, October 18 (RIA Novosti) - During visit to Baikonur of NASA Deputy Administrator Frederick D.Gregory, the Russian side proposed the United States' participation in the unique project Spaceport (Kosmoport), which intends the launch of superheavy carrier rockets, Vyacheslav Davidenko, official spokesman for the Russian Space Agency, has told RIA Novosti on Monday.
"Fred Gregory and a representative delegation of American scientists and businessmen inspected the versatile complex Stand-Start, designed for testing and launch of Energia carrier rockets under the programme for the reusable space system Energia-Buran. The first start was made on May 15, 1987", he said.
During the talk on the programme, the Stand-Start performances and its unique capability to launch superheavy boosters, the American side was proposed to participate in the Spaceport project, Davidenko said.
"Spaceport could breathe a new life into the facility and rid future participants in international cooperation of heavy investments to be made in a new space infrastructure. It is already in place here and only has to be adapted to new projects", he said.
In the future, Spaceport can provide an opportunity for launching superheavy carrier rockets for interplanetary missions and exploration of planets in the Solar System.
"It will be, certainly, the large-scale project of a manned mission to Mars, building of a space base on the Moon", Davidenko said.
"The American delegation discussed the proposals for a long time and chief delegate Fred Gregory has promised to continue cooperation with the Russian side after reporting to NASA chief Sean O'Keefe", Davidenko added.
To him, Russia is going to propose participation to other space powers, too.

I like the Energia platform, but I think if were going to all work together in this, then Kazahstan is not the best place to launch from. It's better to get the ESA to let us build a couple launch pads in there facility in the South Atlantic.

And I think that even if we do go with the Energia, be should still develope an alternetive in the event that something goes wrong, we don't end up stranding people somewhere.

RobertDyck · 2004-10-19 14:47:33

If we open the issue of alternative launch sites or an alternate vehicle, that eliminates the advantage of Energia/Baikonur. It leads to designing something new from scratch, and that would cost a lot of money. Number of vehicles is an issue America is already struggling with; some budget guys in Washington want to down-select the Delta IV/Atlas V to just one, while the military wants to maintain both. I don't think we need another pair.

I think Energia is a great launch vehicle, and we should focus on equipment we don't have. However; the hawks in Washington view space as a military advantage and want use it to maintain dominance. Of course, dominance maintained by military might will lead to escalating terrorism from foreign groups who see that military dominance as terrorism against them. We'll never have safety in North America as long as the hawks have influence in Washington. That may sound like a completely different subject, but it leads to who builds the space port. The hawks will want the space port in U.S. territory, and the launch vehicle to be entirely American built.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-19 14:52:15

I like the Energia platform, but I think if were going to all work together in this, then Kazahstan is not the best place to launch from. It's better to get the ESA to let us build a couple launch pads in there facility in the South Atlantic.

I would love to see Energia fly again, but if this is to happen, we have to accept the fact that the program comes kit and caboodle with the launch pads that were built in the 80's and deperately need repair.

Restarting Energia would probably be the cheapest way of fielding a new HLLV, but we must also realize that every improvement we make to the system incurs a new cost. Want an in-line upper stage? That will cost you. So will a launch pad at Korou.

At a certain point, a clean-sheet vehicle begins to make sense after making so many changes to Energia. The cost-benefit analysis should also be performed on the costs of building a Shuttle-C type vehicle and launching it from KSC versus bringing back Energia and building a new pad at Korou.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-19 16:18:05

I would favor multible system for heavy launcher, that way you don't put all your egg's in one basket and if something happen like with the shuttle your not grounded. Of course that cost more, because we are building several system in possibly several countries, but, we are trying to build a community of space fairing nation and not just one. We are trying to spead out the benifit of developing science and co-operation with other nation.

So I would keep the current shuttle launch pad for Cargo C Shuttle and go for the next generation shuttle for the replacement of the current shuttle. Yes, I would like the Russion to continue with there heavy Energia/Baikonur and Eurpeans get in on it, there invited too. We can all bring something to the table when it come to a space venture.

Larry,

RobertDyck · 2004-10-19 18:04:26

I've been trying to detail a mission plan that includes a reusable Interplanetary Transfer Vehicle (ITV) that would go from Earth orbit to Mars orbit. As I've mentioned in a few posts, this would include an expendable TMI stage, and use the MAV as an expendable TEI stage. Janyce Wynter wants me to use self-launching technology to lift the ITV to Earth orbit. My calculations show a single medium lift vehicle could do it. The TMI stage would have could be lifted separately. A single Delta IV Large can lift the upper stage from a Delta IV Medium with full fuel tanks. I don't know how many Delta 4-2 stages would be needed for TMI. Timberwind 45 would make a great TMI stage, that's a little over the lift capacity of a Delta IV Large but a single Angara 5 could lift it. The Mars lander could be launched with a Delta IV Large.

So 1 custom built self-launching ITV based on Delta IV Medium, 1 Delta IV Large to lift the lander, and 1 Angara 5 to lift the TMI stage. Another launch to carry crew, either Soyuz or the yet-to-be-designed CEV. Assume the MAV and cargo were sent on a previous launch. Bottom line, we can go without heavy lift.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-19 18:14:23

I would favor multible system for heavy launcher, that way you don't put all your egg's in one basket and if something happen like with the shuttle your not grounded.

Well said. NASA was totally screwed in 1986-88 and again in 2003-05 because the shuttles were grounded. Soyuz and Progress cannot give us the same features that the shuttle did, and ISS suffers as a result. Now, if we had both Shuttle and Buran, we could still be assembling the station right now.

At least NASA will have two or three different CEV launchers available. Delta IV, Atlas V, and possibly an SRB-based booster could all fill in for each other. Not only would it provide a measure of robustness if one vehicle was grounded, but it forces Boeing and LockMart to compete against each other for lower cost and better performance.

comstar03 · 2004-10-19 19:14:29

Everyone,

You could get Russia, Europe and United States to agreed on Space vessel design, crews, launching facilities, training facilities, and more. They can not meet to talk about working together on small projects without having issues, we are talking about major issues and the space exploration future.

Think again !!!!

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-10-20 03:18:56

NASA was totally screwed in 1986-88 and again in 2003-05 because the shuttles were grounded.

Not quite the same thing IMHO. NASA was totally screwed because management incompetence and willful ignorance killed 7 people. That probably wouldn't be an issue with shuttle-C or any similar equipment.

You might loose a $5B spacecraft; but that would be a lesser issue. At least as far as public opinion/mourning is concerned.

ANTIcarrot.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-20 05:49:06

When it comes to rocket build from any design we will always need to make modifications for the unexpected but it is the amount of time to build just one that is the problem when it comes to keeping cost low per rocket and for also building a higher quantity of them for use in a shorter period of time than is currently achievable.
Even the soyuz takes roughly 18 months to complete so unless you have multiple assembly lines going and multiple entry points within the build process for units to be built fast enough we definitely need all the varieties of rockets that we can get, even if they are from other nations.

Commodore · 2004-10-20 15:52:04

Whatever happens in the heavy lift department, the Russians seem convinced there going to have a pad in French Guiana.

http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id … o_alert=0] TEST LAUNCH OF NEW CARRIER SOYUZ 2 MIGHT BE POSTPONED - EXPERT

MOSCOW, October 20 (RIA Novosti) - The first test launch of the new Russian Soyuz 2-1A carrier rocket from the Plesetsk Space Center is highly likely to be postponed for several days because of ground systems failure, a competent source working on the launch program told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.
"According to preliminary data, the first launch of the new Soyuz, previously scheduled for October 29, will be postponed for several days, to November 2 - November 5," he said.
According to the source, postponement of the launch date is nothing extraordinary.
"It is always extremely difficult to prepare for the first launch, for it attracts much attention, and it's better to check everything once again than fail in the end," the source said.
Previously senior engineer with the Progress design bureau Valery Abrashkin told RIA Novosti that the first experimental task for the Soyuz 2-1A would be to orbit the Oblik Russian spacecraft.
"In fact, this satellite, with its service life expired because it was built many years ago and has since been not launched for financial reasons, is just a mock-up of payload," Abrashkin said.
However, according to the engineer, the Oblik will be equipped with all necessary testing devices.
"The spacecraft has modern vibration and temperature sensors to check the operation of the first- and second-stage modernized engines," the engineer said.
The first vehicle of the new Soyuz generation also has a large four-meter fairing that enables the rocket to take 300kg of additional payload.
"New Soyuzes will take to the outer space from the new launching pad our people will build at the Kourou space center in French Guiana. As soon as we have a record of several successful launches from our pads and enough statistical data, we will move the Soyuzes to the Guiana site," Abrashkin said.

If everyone else is going to launch from there, and put stuff in an orbit ideal for that launch site, can we afford not to?

RobertDyck · 2004-10-20 17:03:21

That sounds like the model of Soyuz that Encyclopedia Astronautica calls http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soyuzst.htm]Soyuz ST. It has a lift capacity of 7,800kg to 240km Orbit at 51.8°. I think that inclination implies launch from Svobodniy. Lift capacity would be a little lower from Plesetsk, higher from Kourou. That sounds like a valuable work horse, but not heavy lift.

Euler · 2004-10-20 17:57:36

If everyone else is going to launch from there, and put stuff in an orbit ideal for that launch site, can we afford not to?

If other countires decide to build a space station in an equatorial orbit, then the US would simply not be able to contribute any launch services. However, the US has enough power and influence that it could probably bully any group that it is part of into using a 28 degree orbit.

Commodore · 2004-10-20 18:24:20

If everyone else is going to launch from there, and put stuff in an orbit ideal for that launch site, can we afford not to?
If other countires decide to build a space station in an equatorial orbit, then the US would simply not be able to contribute any launch services. However, the US has enough power and influence that it could probably bully any group that it is part of into using a 28 degree orbit.

Probably, but for commercial purposes, the ESA and now Russia will be able to launch either bigger payloads for the same price, or the same payload for less.

I'm thinking it would be worth the billions in the long run to use the Vision as an excuse to build our pads on prime real estate, with the the big launchers picking up the better part of the tab, and in return they can use our pads there to compete with the other two.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-25 10:44:29

More from Russia on joint ventures into deep space programs.

RUSSIA AND THE US: HEADING TO DEEP SPACE TOGETHER?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-10-19 07:20:23

Re: Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

#2 2004-10-19 12:29:23

Re: Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

#3 2004-10-19 13:35:34

Re: Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

#4 2004-10-19 14:47:33

Re: Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

#5 2004-10-19 14:52:15

Re: Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

#6 2004-10-19 16:18:05

Re: Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

#7 2004-10-19 18:04:26

Re: Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

#8 2004-10-19 18:14:23

Re: Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

#9 2004-10-19 19:14:29

Re: Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

#10 2004-10-20 03:18:56

Re: Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

#11 2004-10-20 05:49:06

Re: Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

#12 2004-10-20 15:52:04

Re: Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

#13 2004-10-20 17:03:21

Re: Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

#14 2004-10-20 17:57:36

Re: Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

#15 2004-10-20 18:24:20

Re: Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

#16 2004-10-25 10:44:29

Re: Russia Asks U.S. to Join Mars Mission Project

Board footer