To the moon - the whole world




At the seemingly ordinary event, the 68-th International Astronautical Congress, which took place in Australian Adelaide at the end of September, the first step was taken towards the beginning of the actual development of deep space by Russia. NASA accepted an invitation for the joint construction and subsequent operation of the lunar orbital space station (LOX).

Since the project is technically complex and far from cheap, Russia immediately proposed expanding the number of participants to include, in addition to the originally implied ESA, Japan and Canada, also the BRICS countries. Today, such a broad cooperation does not seem fiction. However, time will tell who is ready to join the work.

The future near-moon station was named Deep Space Gateway - “Gateway to deep space”. It is intended to be an outpost for the construction of a habitable lunar base, and in the distant future for flights to Mars. LOKS is planning to start building the 2024 year, that is, at the end of the estimated functioning of the International Space Station (ISS), which, by agreement of the participants, should cease to exist.

Forgotten landing

Taking into account the vast experience of our country in the construction and operation of long-term space stations, without any discussion, a general decision was taken that the creation of LOX will use the Russian standards of life support systems and docking stations. In continuation of the traditions established on the ISS, each of the project participants will contribute to the common cause, which is expressed in the financing and technical equipment of LOX. The Russian contribution at the design stage is so far marked by the creation of only one gateway module. Retrofitting - with an increase in the volume of tasks.

Although by and large it is more logical to “dance” from the Russian base unit, by analogy with the service module of the ISS. In any case, our systems of life support, waste management, oxygen regeneration and other equipment have undergone many years of testing in extraterrestrial conditions and proved their reliability. However, it is possible that at the next stage, our station segment, by analogy with the ISS, will include not one, but several compartments. When it comes to sending people to the surface of the Moon, you need to have in place a fully-run Russian landing module. This is reasonable both as a supplement to the American module and from a political point of view - suddenly there will be discord between the project participants.

Now NGO them. Lavochkina is actively recalling the long-standing developments of the landing of automatic vehicles on the lunar soil. Over the decades of the absence of scientific space in Russia, they have thoroughly forgotten how this is done. We'll have to learn again. Most of the designers and engineers of those early years of the triumph of the Soviet lunar automatic stations, because of their age, no longer work in the enterprise. And the new generation has no such experience.

Big seven year plan

In addition to contractual obligations for the construction of LOX (supply of a lock module), Roskosmos must necessarily solve several technical problems. First of all, create a manned ship "Federation". This is task number one, because otherwise Russia simply will not have the means to deliver astronauts to the moon. Funding is coming, waiting for the results. The first flight of the "Federation" in an unmanned version, we recall, is scheduled for 2022 year.

The following follows logically from this task: the creation of a new launch vehicle, the Soyuz-5, on the Phoenix theme. By the first flight of the "Federation" with the crew, this RN should be fully tested in unmanned launches, including commercial ones, under the Sea Launch and Land Launch / Baiterek programs (launched from the Baikonur cosmodrome). The third task is to build a launch complex for the Angara-5 launch vehicle at the Vostochny cosmodrome. The problem is that the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle is too small in terms of carrying capacity (17) for manned flights towards the Moon and is only suitable for near-Earth orbit. A more powerful carrier is needed, namely, the 25-tonne Angara-5, which in turn requires a launch facility.

Construction should begin this fall. The project is ready, the estimate is determined, funding is provided, the timing is known. The contract with the general contractor is signed. They promise to manage in three years. In order to avoid unnecessary mistakes in the project, the experience of building such a structure at the Plesetsk cosmodrome was taken into account.

To fully participate in LOX, it is necessary to solve all the indicated tasks. Nevertheless, it is hoped that by the year 2024 it will succeed.

"Union" indestructible

"Union" flies into space for half a century. And the eponymous rocket carrier, based on the legendary royal "seven" (P-7), and even more - October 4 celebrated its 60 anniversary. It is time for peace, skeptical "experts" hint. But they do not understand the main thing: rockets and space ships are not made for the fashion show, where modern style is in high esteem. In a manned space program, the main criterion is the reliability of the systems. Over the past years, the "Unions" (and ships, and carriers) have accumulated on their reputation with interest. Recall that the Soyuz twice saved the crews in complex emergencies, and a much more modern, electronics-stuffed Shuttle two full crews, 14 astronauts, alas, ditched.

New American manned ships, which are preparing for their first flights, have yet to develop positive statistics. And it is far from a fact that the matter will immediately go flawlessly, even if the systems are tested on ground test benches. It is impossible to take into account everything - the practice of space flight proves it.

What else the Soyuz spacecraft is good at is that it can be launched directly into lunar orbit with the help of already existing launch vehicles Proton-M or Angara-5. The only thing that will be required additionally is the upper stage. In the same way, cargo ships of the Progress type, which will deliver oxygen, products and consumables to the station, can be launched in the direction of the Moon.

Soyuz was developed in 60 for the lunar complex. Another thing is that for a number of reasons he had to linger in Earth orbit for half a century.

Time strong

The moment came when you could put a fat point in the discussion of super-heavy media. Our initial position was as follows: to be super-heavy, but in due time. And this time seems to come, for the contours of the future giant are looming on the horizon.
Nobody is fundamentally against the carrier of the 100-ton and heavier class as such. The only problem is that such payloads for civilian or military purposes do not yet exist. But since a fundamental decision has been made to go to the moon, it means: somewhere to 2030, such payloads will appear.

Roscosmos has finally decided on the phased creation of super-heavy RN after comprehensive development of the Phoenix theme, that is, the creation of Soyuz-5 carrier. His first stage will be one of the modules in the super heavyweight layout. These plans are gradually becoming a reality, because according to Phoenix, funding has already been opened. It is hoped that at the beginning of 2020's, the Soyuz-5 will fly, and there they will take on the heavyweight.

Its main cargo (military "baggage" for the time being left behind the brackets) will be lunar manned vehicles and upper stages. The latter contain several tens of tons of fuel to ensure that a ship with astronauts is sent to the departure trajectory to the Moon. For clarity, the Proton-M launch vehicle introduces tons of cargo into the 22 orbit, and 7 tons to the Moon. Soviet "Energy" - respectively 100 and 32 tons of cargo. Therefore, the closer we are to the Moon, the greater the need for super-heavy PH. After all, the annual cargo traffic between the Earth and the lunar orbits can be measured in tens and hundreds of tons, until it passes to thousands.

The second attempt

According to preliminary information, the assembly of LOX is planned to be conducted directly in the lunar orbit. Although it would be much easier on near-earth. And then with the help of a powerful tug, they would have abandoned the station already bundled closer to the Moon.

Obviously, LOX will last at least 25 years (by analogy with the ISS), and with a planned update of the modules, it takes much longer. Crews from Earth will arrive here and take-off modules from here to the Moon. A transshipment base for lunar colonies-settlements will appear here when the development of the resources of our natural satellite begins. In general, the prospects loom.
It is expected that by the middle of the next decade, LOX will begin to function as planned. For Russia, this will be the second attempt to achieve the cherished goal after the offensive, absolutely unreasonable closure of the Soviet lunar program. I want to believe that this time we will succeed.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

102 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Dark Lord 28 October 2017 07: 16 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    That I missed such news, I would like to know more about the project. Who will do what and how. number of station segments cost. And does this mean that the Russian segment of the ISS will not be completed ??
    1. BRONEVIK 28 October 2017 08: 19 New
      • 21
      • 0
      +21
      Join
      It’s a pity that the stations were once built as a whole, but now the segments (we’re still happy)
      1. maxim947 28 October 2017 21: 58 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Very optimistic, even with too much. To be honest, all these projects are no longer perceived in any way, they have been unmeasured recently. It just needs a normal program, which should be steadily funded, and for its execution someone should bear personal responsibility. Now we have a lack of a development strategy, a constant change in the existing program, sequestration of individual projects and complete confusion in an industry where no one is personally responsible for anything. Until there are clear objectives and concrete responsibilities (like Korolev SP), there will be a mess.
        1. ALEX_SHTURMAN 30 October 2017 09: 24 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          One chatter completely agrees .. Roscosmos is still that claak no project they have yet to finish: Neither the federation, nor the tugboat for the new truck, nor the Launch vehicle for the new ship, the ISS have not yet completed, Neither the East have yet been completed, but already fly to the moon. It is very similar to knocking money out of the state budget, it is not clear what. And no one is responsible for anything ..
          1. Mestny 12 March 2018 18: 17 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            To write this, you must first finish school.
            Klaak pancake.
    2. newcomer 28 October 2017 09: 41 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      I read the headline in English, I remembered the game “Dead Space“, oh God forbid. on the topic: if we don’t overpower us alone (purely financially, technically we can), then let the whole world, everything will become more or less outlined after the flight of the “Federation”. Yes, and it would be necessary to deal with “authorship”, because not so long ago I read an article about this program from the Energy leadership, it seemed to me that we would work there under the leadership of NASA, this is a mess!
    3. SERGUS 28 October 2017 10: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: The Dark Lord
      I would like to know more about the project. Who will do what and how. count in station segments cost.

      It is unlikely to be more detailed, because based on the article, these are just plans:
      was first step taken to the beginning of Russia's real deep space exploration. Invitation accepted NASA for the joint construction and subsequent operation of the lunar orbiting space station (LOKS).
    4. Tsoy 28 October 2017 10: 36 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: The Dark Lord
      That I missed such news, I would like to know more about the project. Who will do what and how. number of station segments cost. And does this mean that the Russian segment of the ISS will not be completed ??


      These are all plans. Even the US itself is not yet sure about the station. There is no approval of the White House, plus only a letter of intent is signed. Even the exact number and composition of participants is not. Who is there that is going to start building this year is unknown. Although the information flashed that the module Berth will be upgraded for use in the DSG.

      With regards to the ISS. "Science" again postponed for launch. Due to problems with the pollution of the tanks, it will be sent to the station no earlier than 18. If the ISS is not extended to 28, then the module flies no more than 5-6 years in orbit, and this cannot be called an adequate waste of resources.
      1. Cannonball 28 October 2017 12: 21 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The problem is not only in tanks, there the resource of materials and components is already small.
        1. Tsoy 28 October 2017 13: 04 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Cannonball
          The problem is not only in tanks, there the resource of materials and components is already small.


          Yes, I saw somewhere here that at first they tried to clean the inside with chemistry, but it was necessary to cut it and cook it again. Tin as it is.
          1. Cannonball 28 October 2017 13: 16 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            With the tanks and everything else sorted out. The work is on.
  2. Settlement Oparyshev 28 October 2017 09: 13 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The stations were built in its entirety, because if you shoot a few, then you won’t put them in a heap. Have you stopped putting them at random in the moon just to get in. Therefore, all sorts of maneuvers in lunar orbits that would come together would require a lot of fuel and cause doubts. Next: you need a huge apparatus to snuggle up. A huge landing apparatus, which includes a take-off ship. The attraction there is only 6 times less, there is no atmosphere. To brake and maneuver, you will have to burn a lot of fuel. For takeoffs and maneuvers, the same will have to be fired. and you need to get to the lunar station.
    Then, when you want to return to your native Earth, again you need to get exactly and how much fuel to burn, to reach the second lunar speed, to break away from the Moon. In orbit of the Earth, you need to meet and dock the landing ship otherwise you will have to carry a heavy capsule with you. everything will be decided, sorry we will not survive.
    1. Falcon5555 28 October 2017 13: 50 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Further, when you want to return to your native Earth, again you need to get exactly and how much fuel to burn in order to reach the second lunar speed, to break away from the moon.

      Little toliv required.
      In the Earth’s orbit, you need to meet and dock the landing ship, otherwise you will have to carry a heavy capsule with you.
      And here - a lot. sad
  3. Gray brother 28 October 2017 09: 40 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Is it really invented how to overcome Van Allen's belts?
    1. Nevsky_ZU 28 October 2017 10: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Gray Brother
      Is it really invented how to overcome Van Allen's belts?

      They also need to pierce the dome of the Flat Earth. laughing
      To be honest, it is interesting after this version and theory, I looked differently at the delay of scientific and technological revolution (scientific and technological revolution) in the world and the delay of cosmonautics in near space.
      1. Gray brother 28 October 2017 10: 18 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Nevsky_ZU
        They also need to pierce the dome of the Flat Earth.

        Radiation belts are the real thing, unlike.
        1. Nevsky_ZU 28 October 2017 10: 23 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Gray Brother
          Quote: Nevsky_ZU
          They also need to pierce the dome of the Flat Earth.

          Radiation belts are the real thing, unlike.

          Well, well)) Well at least that already in the flight of Americans to the moon began to doubt
          1. Gray brother 28 October 2017 10: 29 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Nevsky_ZU
            Oh well))

            Google / Yandex to the rescue.
          2. Gray brother 28 October 2017 10: 35 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Nevsky_ZU
            It’s good that even in the flight of Americans to the moon they began to doubt

            Do not dare to swing at the holy !!! NASA is trying to solve this problem. laughing
            "We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space" - '' We still need to solve this problem before we start sending people to this region of space. ''
            Wat so Wat. wassat
            1. Blackmokona 29 October 2017 18: 42 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Even during the Soviet Lunar program, Soviet turtles circled the Moon without any problems and returned without any damage. Enough myths produce
              1. tolancop 29 October 2017 21: 34 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: BlackMokona
                Even during the Soviet Lunar program, Soviet turtles circled the Moon without any problems and returned without any damage. Enough myths produce

                So the turtles. They withstand radiation levels much higher than humans. Back in the 70s, he read in one of the popular magazines the article "The Secret of Tortilla or Radiation and Blood."
    2. Settlement Oparyshev 28 October 2017 21: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Maybe not men to send, but new transics, they are not so afraid of radiation.
  4. Cannonball 28 October 2017 10: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Another project for sawing funds
    1. Nevsky_ZU 28 October 2017 10: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      What kind of Hollywood is resting))

    2. Gray brother 28 October 2017 10: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Cannonball
      Another project for sawing funds

      Don’t worry, we won’t give them money, we don’t have them - we are negro Obama has torn the economy to shreds.
  5. Tsoy 28 October 2017 10: 52 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    There was a wave of criticism on the project now, and in spite of all the ambition I somehow agree. Why do we need a station on the moon? There are enough robotic platforms for satellite research. Nobody is going to build a lunar base in the future, much less to extract minerals. Intermediate point to Mars? It makes sense if the DSG starts producing fuel itself, otherwise it will first need to be delivered to the station itself, and with the current development of technology it is unlikely that it will be a space plant. Use as a center for research on the effects of radiation of deep space and cosmic radiation in isolation from the Earth’s magnetic field? It was possible not to build the whole station. There is Orion with resources up to 31 of the day in space. Conduct an autonomous space experiment to simulate a flight to Mars? The same could be done in Earth orbit.

    So apparently, DSG is nothing more than the only payload for SLS. There will be no station project and the most monstrous rocket since Saturn 5 will not be needed. And these are jobs and multi-million dollar contracts. SLS has so many lobbyists that it is called the Senat Launch System, that is, the Senate launch system. But of course this does not detract from the ambitions for the construction of the most distant outpost of mankind. Without even such strange movements, we will not move forward.
    1. Cannonball 28 October 2017 12: 19 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Orion is not there yet. But there is a "Union" with a resource of 200 days
      1. Tsoy 28 October 2017 13: 02 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        200 days only as a part of the orbital station, in autonomous flight no more than 3 days.
        1. Cannonball 28 October 2017 14: 19 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Soyuz-9 flew almost 18 days autonomously. This world record has not been broken so far.
    2. Settlement Oparyshev 28 October 2017 13: 06 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      A station on the Moon is needed for two topics. To get fuel based on some kind of helium. And second, drill the Moon and make sure that the Moon is hollow, and civilization of aliens lives inside. So that the goals of exploring the Moon are significant.
      1. Tsoy 28 October 2017 13: 08 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Some? Dear sir, you are an expert. Helium-3 is called. I'll type in the letters so as not to cause confusion. Helium three. Like two, only three. I hope about aliens is a joke.
        1. Settlement Oparyshev 28 October 2017 14: 10 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          No joke, that you are not interested in our Moon. Otherwise, you would watch luminous objects every night, fluttering over the surface of the lunar body. As for helium, as you insist on 3, you don’t bother to puff in such a quantity. I knew about him when they were already scribbling on my overcoat, and I'm sorry for you, only Mum and Dad still ..li.
          1. Tsoy 28 October 2017 15: 01 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: pp to Oparyshev
            No joke, that you are not interested in our Moon. Otherwise, you would watch luminous objects every night, fluttering over the surface of the lunar body. As for helium, as you insist on 3, you don’t bother to puff in such a quantity. I knew about him when they were already scribbling on my overcoat, and I'm sorry for you, only Mum and Dad still ..li.


            Judging by the nickname and the avatar on your overcoat scribbling in the nuthouse in the same room with Napoleon. And from where only so many lunatics are taken.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Reptiloid 29 October 2017 10: 56 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: pp to Oparyshev
            Otherwise, you would observe luminous objects fluttering above the surface of the lunar body every night

            It’s probably fireflies! Or firecrackers produced by neighbors! And if these are real UFOs, then ... Well, it's a pity --- there is no Anton Chekhov or Ankylosing spondylitis. They would figure it out ...
            PS.Every night ?????????????? This is strong!
      2. Gray brother 28 October 2017 14: 12 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: pp to Oparyshev
        A station on the moon is needed for two topics. To get fuel based on some kind of helium

        Need a shovel, a lot of shovels.
        Quote: pp to Oparyshev
        And secondly, drill the moon and make sure that the moon is hollow, and civilization of aliens lives inside

        You can’t drill the moon, otherwise the aliens will die from depressurization.
        1. Setrac 28 October 2017 22: 30 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Gray Brother
          Need a shovel, a lot of shovels.

          Helium - gas - need pumps ... bicycle
      3. Reptiloid 29 October 2017 10: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: pp to Oparyshev
        The moon is hollow, and civilization lives inside

        There is a formula according to which gravity propagates inversely with the square of the distance. So, according to this formula, it turns out that there is no gravity inside the hollow gravitating sphere !!! In other words, if the moon is empty, then inside --- WEIGHTLESS !!!!!!!!!! And how do the poor aliens eat there? Shitting? Are you sleeping? Create your own kind? Where put the "retired" "? Poor they are unhappy, probably waiting and dreaming, as if they were quickly "" drilled "" ...
        1. Settlement Oparyshev 29 October 2017 10: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Vanga ate a crust of bread a week.
          There is nothing to spoil
          Why not sleep? The body is not particularly hard.
          There are no departed all embodied.
          Drill? So they have holes out, otherwise how would their flights be watched by earthlings.
  6. PlotnikoffDD 28 October 2017 12: 22 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    all this is empty talk.
    again, uncles will go to the state account for all sorts of conferences, receive daily allowances and travel expenses, sign memoranda and protocols, and the output is ZERO again!
  7. Negro 28 October 2017 13: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Another fantasy.

    The Russian Federation, the NYA, has not yet confirmed its participation in the ISS after 2020. And here it is necessary.
  8. srha 28 October 2017 13: 52 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Hmm. And it is not planned before this project to drive away the Squirrel, Strelka, Bee, Fly etc. to the moon?

    And then, after all, the Russians have experience only turtles, and trust the Americans ...
  9. Old26 28 October 2017 14: 29 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: The Dark Lord
    That I missed such news, I would like to know more about the project. Who will do what and how. number of station segments cost. And does this mean that the Russian segment of the ISS will not be completed ??

    Yes, no problem. The station will be a complex of 5 modules and two ships
    1. Energy module - 8,5 tons
    2. Two residential modules of 7,39 tons.
    3. Gateway module - 9 t
    4. Logistic module (alas, no data yet)
    5. Two ships. Orion and Federation


    On the gateway module - a module for docking, plus two hatches for access to outer space. Residential modules are 5,96 x 4,2-4,5 meters in diameter. Volume 63,7 cubic meters. 4 people in a normal situation, 6 in the maximum

    Quote: Gray Brother
    Is it really invented how to overcome Van Allen's belts?

    And why is it difficult to overcome them? The most difficult option is protection against proton flux. But during the passage of the belt, the astronaut (astronaut) receives a dose comparable to about the monthly dose that he receives on the ISS

    Quote: pp to Oparyshev
    The stations were built in its entirety, because if you shoot a few, then you won’t put them in a heap. Have you stopped putting them at random in the moon just to get in. Therefore, all sorts of maneuvers in lunar orbits that would come together would require a lot of fuel and cause doubts. Next: you need a huge apparatus to snuggle up. A huge landing apparatus, which includes a take-off ship. The attraction there is only 6 times less, there is no atmosphere. To brake and maneuver, you will have to burn a lot of fuel. For takeoffs and maneuvers, the same will have to be fired. and you need to get to the lunar station.

    there is a monograph of our scientist - Shumeyko "Manned flights to the moon." Read. there are a lot of graphs, tables and calculations. And a huge amount of fuel is not there. As for the "hit" in the lunar orbit. For this, interorbital tugs are being developed. which will transport these modules there.

    And frankly incomprehensible passages of the author, for example, such
    Recall that the Soyuz saved crews twice in difficult emergency situations, and the much more modern Shuttle, stuffed with electronics, two full crews, 14 astronauts, alas, ditched ..

    The author makes a completely stupid comparison. Unions twice really saved the crews. Once "at zero", at the start, when the carrier exploded, another time at the stage of operation 3 steps. And if in the first case the SAS worked, then in the second the command was simply given to disconnect the ship and the descent vehicle rushed to the ground along a ballistic trajectory. "At zero" there were options for salvation from the Shuttles (EMNIP to a height of either 6 or 10 km). The explosion did not leave an opportunity to escape. In the same way, with such a crew of 7 people, it would be impossible to save the Buran crew. Well, what happened to “Colombia” during the descent phase could not have been saved from the “Buran” in the same way. So the comparison is rather stupid.

    And more
    New American manned ships, which are preparing for their first flights, have yet to develop positive statistics. And it is far from a fact that the matter will immediately go flawlessly, even if the systems are tested on ground test benches. It is impossible to take into account everything - the practice of space flight proves it.

    What else the Soyuz spacecraft is good at is that it can be launched directly into lunar orbit with the help of already existing launch vehicles Proton-M or Angara-5. The only thing that will be required additionally is the upper stage. In the same way, cargo ships of the Progress type, which will deliver oxygen, products and consumables to the station, can be launched in the direction of the Moon.

    Soyuz was developed in 60 for the lunar complex. Another thing is that for a number of reasons he had to linger in Earth orbit for half a century.

    And what, "Federation", statistics do not have to produce? Or does the author believe that a ship with an autonomy of 10 days is an ideal means of flight to the moon? With his fuel supply for maneuvering? Or will the "Union" of the Moon be inhibited by the holy spirit?
    1. Settlement Oparyshev 28 October 2017 15: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      For God's sake, let them take a little fuel. The flag is in their hands.
    2. nPuBaTuP 17 November 2017 18: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      In the same way, with such a crew of 7 people, it would be impossible to save the Buran crew. Well, what happened to “Colombia” during the descent phase could not have been saved from the “Buran” in the same way. So the comparison is rather stupid.

      And what does Buran have to do with it? ... The author of the article wrote about the Union
      And Challenger did not die "at zero"?
  10. Old26 28 October 2017 16: 01 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: pp to Oparyshev
    For God's sake, let them take a little fuel. The flag is in their hands.

    It's not that they take little fuel. we are talking about the fact that there are a lot of fairy tales about the wild fuel consumption in the orbit of the Moon and, accordingly, the impossibility of carrying out certain operations.
    1. Settlement Oparyshev 28 October 2017 21: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, the harlot went, I passed.
  11. opoffis 28 October 2017 17: 45 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Old26
    The author makes a completely stupid comparison. Unions twice really saved the crews. Once "at zero", at the start, when the carrier exploded, another time at the stage of operation 3 steps. And if in the first case the SAS worked, then in the second the command was simply given to disconnect the ship and the descent vehicle rushed to the ground along a ballistic trajectory. "At zero" there were options for salvation from the Shuttles (EMNIP to a height of either 6 or 10 km). The explosion did not leave an opportunity to escape. In the same way, with such a crew of 7 people, it would be impossible to save the Buran crew. Well, what happened to “Colombia” during the descent phase could not have been saved from the “Buran” in the same way. So the comparison is rather stupid.
    And more

    What are you talking about!?
    Did you go to school at all?
    Only for such an assessment of the comparison you can be booked right away (visibility of comments) forever, you can’t write anything useful anyway!
  12. Old26 28 October 2017 17: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: opoffis
    Quote: Old26
    The author makes a completely stupid comparison. Unions twice really saved the crews. Once "at zero", at the start, when the carrier exploded, another time at the stage of operation 3 steps. And if in the first case the SAS worked, then in the second the command was simply given to disconnect the ship and the descent vehicle rushed to the ground along a ballistic trajectory. "At zero" there were options for salvation from the Shuttles (EMNIP to a height of either 6 or 10 km). The explosion did not leave an opportunity to escape. In the same way, with such a crew of 7 people, it would be impossible to save the Buran crew. Well, what happened to “Colombia” during the descent phase could not have been saved from the “Buran” in the same way. So the comparison is rather stupid.
    And more

    What are you talking about!?
    Did you go to school at all?
    Only for such an assessment of the comparison you can be booked right away (visibility of comments) forever, you can’t write anything useful anyway!

    And what does not satisfy you in that. what did i write? Let's point by point ...
  13. nmaxxen 28 October 2017 20: 41 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Need a base on the moon.
    Without any meaningless stations, neither in the orbit of the Moon, nor in the orbit of the Earth.
    A man in orbit has nothing to do, you must immediately fly to the moon.
    Korolev understood this.
    Clarify the reality and location of lava tubes on the moon and immediately arrange a permanent station in them - a colony.
    1. mariusdeayeraleone 28 October 2017 22: 10 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      We have not yet been allowed
    2. nPuBaTuP 17 November 2017 18: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      A station in orbit should first be visited (as long as a place is chosen for a permanent colony).
      Well, then with time as needed and collect a permanent VOC
  14. Old26 28 October 2017 20: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: nmaxxen
    Need a base on the moon.
    Without any meaningless stations, neither in the orbit of the Moon, nor in the orbit of the Earth.
    A man in orbit has nothing to do, you must immediately fly to the moon.
    Korolev understood this.
    Clarify the reality and location of lava tubes on the moon and immediately arrange a permanent station in them - a colony.

    In order, in which case, it is guaranteed to get several corpses on the surface of the moon? After all, an orbital station in orbit of the Moon is, first and foremost, an insurance policy for those who will be at the base on the surface of the Moon. Anything can happen, and a rescue ship in orbit is absolutely not an extra precaution. Moreover, cargo modules along the Earth-Moon route are most easily received in ISL orbit and only then sent to the surface. Of course, the OS that is planning at the initial stage is the minimum that is necessary for preliminary work
    1. nmaxxen 28 October 2017 22: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      the rescue ship in orbit is not at all an extra precaution.

      rescue ship and orbital station are completely different things.
      Once again I will say: a person in orbit has nothing to do - you just need to bury yourself under the lunar surface, and learn how to use lunar resources for life support systems.
      And try to minimize the cargo flow from Earth to the Moon.
      Some kind of intermediate stages such as VOCs and the ISS are evil imposed by bureaucrats and politicians.
  15. TOR2 28 October 2017 22: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Back in the 60s. Mikhail Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov from the USSR Academy of Sciences put forward the hypothesis that the moon, our satellite, was actually created by artificial means. This hypothesis has 7 main postulates, popularly called riddles.
    The first riddle. the orbit of movement and the magnitude of our satellite are physically impossible. This is due to the fact that the magnitude of the moon is equal to a quarter of the magnitude of the planet Earth, and the ratio of the values ​​of the satellite and the planet is always many times smaller. The distance from the Earth to the Moon is such that the dimensions of the Sun and the Moon are visually the same. If the Moon were a body that at some point was pulled by the Earth and found a natural orbit, then this orbit would be expected to be elliptical. Instead, it is strikingly round.
    The second riddle of the moon. the implausible curvature possessed by the surface of the moon is unexplained. The results of geological studies lead to the conclusion that this planetoid is, in fact, a hollow ball. One explanation is that the lunar crust was made of a solid titanium frame. And, indeed, it has been proven that the lunar crust and rocks have an unusually high level of titanium.
    The third riddle of the moon. the explanation for the large number of craters on the lunar surface is widely known - this is the lack of atmosphere. There remains an unexplained depth to which space meteorites could penetrate. Even craters with a diameter of 150 km. do not exceed 4 km. deep into the surface.
    The fourth riddle. How did the so-called moon seas form? These gigantic areas of solid lava that originate from the inside of the moon could easily be explained if the moon were a hot planet with a liquid inside where they could arise after meteorites.
    The fifth riddle of the moon. gravitational attraction on the surface is not uniform. This effect was already noted by the Apollo 8 crew when it circled the lunar seas.
    Sixth. a rather shocking and loud fact is the geographical asymmetry of the lunar surface. The famous dark side has much more craters, mountains and relief elements. And most of the seas, on the contrary, are in the visible part.
    The seventh riddle. low density. The density of our satellite is 60% of the density of the Earth. This fact, together with various studies, proves that the Moon is a hollow object!

    They will trample from there along with the orbital station. If there is extra money behind the puddle, let them invest. It is much more necessary to complete the "Federation" and bring to mind the "Angara". As for the prospects, now it would be nice for Roskosmos to return to the topic of a space sailing ship. By experimenting in near space such a sailboat can be taught to move both in the solar wind and against it. In the future, this technology is useful for sending automatic stations to deep space and for organizing shuttle cargo traffic between the Earth and Mars.
    1. nmaxxen 28 October 2017 22: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      "Federation" is an utter stupidity imposed by politicians who forced designers to conceptually copy American absurd barrels. That is, the same rake when Kremlin elders forced to copy the shuttle.
      For flights to the moon, the Unions (or a new ship repeating its concept at a new level) are quite enough, which were originally designed for flights to the moon.
      1. nPuBaTuP 17 November 2017 19: 38 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: nmaxxen
        "Federation" is an utter stupidity imposed by politicians who forced designers to conceptually copy American absurd barrels. That is, the same rake when Kremlin elders forced to copy the shuttle.
        For flights to the moon, the Unions (or a new ship repeating its concept at a new level) are quite enough, which were originally designed for flights to the moon.

        Does the Federation not conceptually repeat the Union?
  16. Old26 28 October 2017 23: 05 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: nmaxxen
    Quote: Old26
    the rescue ship in orbit is not at all an extra precaution.

    rescue ship and orbital station are completely different things.
    Once again I will say: a person in orbit has nothing to do - you just need to bury yourself under the lunar surface, and learn how to use lunar resources for life support systems.
    And try to minimize the cargo flow from Earth to the Moon.
    Some kind of intermediate stages such as VOCs and the ISS are evil imposed by bureaucrats and politicians.

    Of course. But a rescue ship cannot be in orbit for months. He just does not have enough autonomy. To increase autonomy, it must fly as part of an orbital station. You can take for comparison the autonomy of the "Union". It is 7 months in the composition of the orbital complex, and 10-14 days in an autonomous flight EMNIP.
    And it is precisely to the orbital station in which case the rescued will be delivered from the surface.
    Just so bury under the lunar surface immediately will not succeed. We’ll have to do a dozen flights on the Earth-Moon route, which will deliver the necessary equipment to the surface. And it will take a lot to, as you say, "burrow beneath the surface." These are modules of various types, a power plant (most likely a reactor). Vehicles on the surface and not just rovers, but quite serious conveyors, including those with attachments (earthmoving equipment, bulldozers, etc., kmk). We will have to equip a spaceport with the appropriate infrastructure. And most importantly, how many people will be the base of this base.
    A station in orbit will help solve these issues at a lower cost. Of course, the initial configuration of the station is too small, but this is only the first phase, designed for EMNIP 56 or 8 starts of the carrier SLS

    Quote: nmaxxen
    And try to minimize the cargo flow from Earth to the Moon.

    You physically cannot reduce it. The base cannot be completely autonomous. It will require the delivery of food, water (in doubt), air, equipment for research. It will not be possible to reduce to a minimum. And here's the question. In case of emergency, how to save people from this base? Only landing modules can be on the base. It is unlikely that in the coming years there will be modules capable of lifting a dozen people from the surface? So, if the station personnel will be 4-6-8 people, they can be lifted from the surface by several modules. What's next? they will remain in the orbit of the moon with a supply of air for 3-4 days ???

    Quote: nmaxxen
    Some kind of intermediate stages such as VOCs and the ISS are evil imposed by bureaucrats and politicians.

    Intermediate stages such as VOCs and ISS are a necessity, and for the Moon there is also a guarantee of safety
    1. nmaxxen 28 October 2017 23: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      1. not the fact that a lifeguard ship is generally needed.
      most likely it will be easier to make a direct start from the moon - this is also much more reliable - you will need more fuel, of course, but not so much that it would be too much for it to save VOCs.
      2. Even if you contact the ship with a lifeguard:
      the difference in the autonomy of the union, which you cited as an example, is primarily determined by the fact that no one uses its resources - SJO, etc. - and not by the fact that it is part of the station.
      but I repeat - a direct start from the moon is better.
      3. It is unclear why VOCs are safer than stations on the moon, why do cosmonauts even bring them in between?
      4. Under the surface of the moon it is safer and more comfortable and easier in every sense:
      4.1 there is gravity - you can fully live without health problems
      can grow plants
      animals can live (as far as I remember the whole flight experience says that no mammal can bear weightlessness due to problems not only physiological but also behavioral.
      simplified SJO due to natural convection, a completely simple toilet, etc.
      4.2. Possibility of installing a nuclear reactor for almost unlimited power consumption.
      in orbit of the earth, no one dares to go for it.
      4.3. Potentially unlimited source of raw materials: for a start, water and nitrogen at least.
      .4.4 Low gravity will allow for construction and installation work inside the station without the use of mechanisms
      .......
      and this is just offhand
      1. nmaxxen 29 October 2017 00: 31 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        5. The biggest advantage of the base on the moon: lava tubes
        If the information about them is at least partially reliable, then this is an unlimited space for the life and work of the population of the colonies.
        Sealing their walls is orders of magnitude easier than building modules from scratch.

        By the way, a question for you Old26,
        you position yourself here as a person interested in astronautics,
        What do you think of lava tubes - how likely is their existence on the moon,
        and what is their possible structure?
      2. nPuBaTuP 17 November 2017 19: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: nmaxxen


        4.1 ............ as far as I remember the whole flight experience says that no mammal can bear weightlessness due to problems not only physiological but also behavioral.
        .........
        4.2. Possibility of installing a nuclear reactor for almost unlimited power consumption.
        in orbit of the earth, no one dares to go for it.
        4.3. Potentially unlimited source of raw materials: for a start, water and nitrogen at least.
        .4.4 Low gravity will allow for construction and installation work inside the station without the use of mechanisms

        And man is not a mammal?
        And then the Earth’s orbit if there is a conversation about VOCs?
        Are you sure that the water supplies will be near the "lava tubes" (if they are there at all)
        Mechanisms will have to be used by anyone
  17. Diviz 28 October 2017 23: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    let's call the gypsies again, and without them in any way.
    corrupt ... as Stalin would say.
  18. viktorch 29 October 2017 00: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    who will pay for the banquet?
  19. shuravi 29 October 2017 14: 43 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    One of the reasons why the Russian Federation does not have its own ISS.
    http://nvdaily.ru/info/80468.html
    1. Cannonball 29 October 2017 15: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Why does Russia need its own ISS?
  20. Old26 29 October 2017 15: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: nmaxxen
    By the way, a question for you Old26,
    you position yourself here as a person interested in astronautics,

    I do not position myself as a person interested in astronautics. It’s just already in the blood. Having just worked in this industry for almost 1,5 decades, you try to keep yourself in the subject, plus old connections. No more

    Quote: nmaxxen
    5. The biggest advantage of the base on the moon: lava tubes
    If the information about them is at least partially reliable, then this is an unlimited space for the life and work of the population of the colonies.
    Sealing their walls is orders of magnitude easier than building modules from scratch.

    By the way, a question for you Old26,
    What do you think of lava tubes - how likely is their existence on the moon, and what is their possible structure?

    To be honest, I don’t think anything. The issue of sealing lava tubes is now not a question at all. There will be no talk of any use in the next few decades (optimistic forecast) or centuries (pessimistic forecast). How do you imagine being able to seal these lava tubes? Imagine (purely arbitrary) that such a tube will have a length of 3-5 kilometers and a diameter, well, for example 15 meters. You will have to seal a surface area of ​​150-250 thousand square meters. Than? Especially at a height of, for example, 15 m? I gave the numbers from the flashlight, and if the dimensions of these tubes are an order of magnitude larger ???
    Or less?

    Quote: nmaxxen
    1. not the fact that a lifeguard ship is generally needed.
    most likely it will be easier to make a direct start from the moon - this is also much more reliable - you will need more fuel, of course, but not so much that it would be too much for it to save VOCs.


    It seems that you think in terms of a century that way 22-23, and not those realities that are now. The scheme of any of the base projects involves at least one ship on the surface and 1-2 as a backup for those in orbit.
    You forget one thing: it’s one thing the landing module, starting from the surface of the moon and docking with the orbital base, from where the astronauts on a ship of the type "Orion" or "Federation" can launch to the Earth and a completely different ship, which not only starts from the moon, but also on its engines accelerates in the direction of the Earth? Where will more fuel be needed? In a ship that should reach 1 space speed and dock with a station or in a ship that should leave the moon at 2 space speed, and then slow down at the Earth so as not to enter the atmosphere at an unacceptable speed? A heavy ship on the moon means more fuel and a more serious life support system. And in the end, absolutely everything that can happen to the ship on the lunar surface can happen. One micrometeorite in the tank or control unit of this ship and all. The personnel of the base will not return from the surface ...

    Quote: nmaxxen
    2. Even if you contact the ship with a lifeguard:
    the difference in the autonomy of the union, which you cited as an example, is primarily determined by the fact that no one uses its resources - SJO, etc. - and not by the fact that it is part of the station.
    but I repeat - a direct start from the moon is better.

    The difference in the Union’s autonomy is that in one case (during an autonomous flight) the LSS operates at 100% and energy is consumed from the ship’s power supply system - in this case, in various modifications of the Union, the crew’s autonomy is determined for a period of 2-3 weeks, a maximum of a month with austerity. In another case, the ship’s LLS is connected to a single station LSS system. And the energy and resource consumption of the ship’s LLS is completely different. But he is nonetheless.

    The launch, direct, was never carried out from the Moon, except for those three small returning vehicles with soil, which needed a meager fuel. In all other cases - in the orbit of the moon - a command module with an engine and fuel. Same thing now. the game is not worth the candle. The reliability of the Take-Off Module-Station-Return Ship-Earth system is much higher than that of the Take-Off Module-Earth system. I repeat. Fuel reserves should be such as to first land a heavy ship, consisting of a landing and take-off module. The mass of this ship will be significant. It will take more fuel to land the entire complex, which means that the mass of the complex will float. Plus, you will need a full-fledged return ship, capable of not only taking off, but having typed the 2nd spacecraft to go to Earth, slow down and board ...
  21. Old26 29 October 2017 15: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I will continue

    Quote: nmaxxen
    3. It is unclear why VOCs are safer than stations on the moon, why do cosmonauts even bring them in between?

    At least because = that it is not stationary. And it can be supplied much easier than the base on the moon. Why bring astronauts - I already wrote. All the elements of this system will be simpler. And simpler - almost always more reliable. It is easy to break, for example, a screwdriver with a ratchet and interchangeable “Stings”, and much more difficult is the usual answer, in which the handle around the “sting” is all. The reliability of the second, simpler is higher than that of the first, where there is a ratchet, and seats for removable "tips". So it is here. In terms of system reliability, a system with a station is reliable, as simpler, with simpler components than a returning ship on the lunar surface

    Why bring in between?
    For example, they have a failure of the LSS. The only way is to start. But SJO or its components can be delivered from the ground by another transport. In one case, the base remains deserted, and possibly not even preserved for a very long period of time, as the base personnel flew to the ground (according to your scheme). It is a completely different matter when there is a station in orbit. The astronauts on the ship went into orbit, docked to the station and are waiting for the delivery of the LSS with the next transport. Delivered. They were loaded onto a ship (or planted near the station using manual control. They returned to the station, mounted and continued to work.
    It is completely different if they (or another crew) need to be sent again in a few weeks or months to the Moon, with all the stages ...

    Quote: nmaxxen

    4. Under the surface of the moon it is safer and more comfortable and easier in every sense:
    4.1 there is gravity - you can live fully without health problems you can grow plants
    animals can live (as far as I remember, all flight experience says that no mammal can bear weightlessness due to not only physiological but also behavioral problems. It is simplified by the SJF due to natural convection, an absolutely simple toilet, etc.).
    4.2. Possibility of installing a nuclear reactor for almost unlimited power consumption. in orbit of the earth, no one dares to go for it.
    4.3. Potentially unlimited source of raw materials: for a start, water and nitrogen at least.
    4.4 Low gravity will allow for construction and installation work inside the station without the use of mechanisms
    .......
    and this is just offhand

    All is correct. But not with modern technology. What you describe is still fantastic. Maybe in a few decades this will become relevant, but I'm afraid that this is too optimistic a time frame. Rather, it will be used in a few centuries.
    Have you heard anything about a project like Luna 7? These are not plans of the 60s - 70s, when all these plans were built on a wave of euphoria. That to that. The Luna 7 plan is based on creating a moon base of approximately the following configuration. Moreover, they are going to do this in several stages. I exclude the orbital station from consideration so far; a lot has already been said about it in this thread. I will stop at the lunar base

    1 stage.
    • Delivery to the Moon’s orbit and launch into a highly-electric orbit above the South Pole of a communications satellite to communicate with the Earth.
    • Delivery to the surface of 2-3 light automatic moon rovers for reconnaissance
    • Installation of beacons to form a grid of coordinates, installation of light beacons in the base area.

    2 stage
    • Delivery to the surface of a heavy manned rover (non-pressurized platform with a removable building module (bulldozer and excavator equipment, loader, soil meter). At the first stage with a removed building module, this is a vehicle for a distance of 5-10 km
    • Delivery to the surface of power station No. 1.
    • Delivery to the surface of two residential modules, a service module, a scientific module and a storage module (stocks of liquid fuel). Together with the scientific module, the chassis of the module consisting of motor wheels is delivered. The module has a gateway and, if necessary, it can be used as a lunar rover with a sealed cabin.
    • Delivery of two tankers with fuel for 2-3 gas stations of the take-off module in which fuel is only in the landing stage)
    • Delivery of roof elements to protect base modules
    • Delivery to the surface of power station No. 2

    This completes the creation of a base for TWO human.

    Now consider the possibilities.
    Existing and promising launch vehicles can drop loads of up to 8-10 tons into the Moon’s orbit, and loads up to 3,5 tons on the Moon’s surface.

    So, residential modules. Dimensions of carrier arrester - no more than 4,5-5 meters in diameter. How to place a residential module in them? There are two options. Horizontally and vertically. In the horizontal position, the module can be installed on the landing stage and directly from the Earth without delay to land on the surface (I'm not talking about accuracy). But at the same time, the module, or rather its residential part, will have a length of a couple of meters with a diameter of three meters. Will living in such a module be convenient? I don’t think so. You can place it vertically on the earth, but for this in the moon’s orbit it will be necessary to rebuild it from a vertical position to a horizontal one. There are no restrictions on the length of the module, there is only a restriction on the diameter (4,5 meters)

    Planting modules is easier and more reliable when monitoring from a lunar orbital station than from Earth. The delay in passing the command for 1-2 seconds will land the module 3-5 km from the place intended for the base.

    Personnel will have to dock residential modules with each other through a heavy lunar rover with a building module. Further. Replace the protective roof. Roof structures - approximately 1700 kg.

    Next is the power supply.
    = Residential module No. 1 - 3,7 kW
    = Residential module No. 2 - 0,67 kW
    = Service module - 4,57 kW
    = Scientific module - 0,67 kW

    TOTAL - about 10 kW. Taking into account the efficiency and everything else, it will be a “sail” with dimensions of 4x15 meters and a weight of 200 kg together with the structure. For short nights at the South Pole, power station No. 2 is also required. Namely rechargeable batteries. The total mass of the battery - about 2,7 tons

    A nuclear power plant is not planned at the first stage of moon exploration from the word EXCEPT. As well as powerful ships, which now simply do not exist
  22. nmaxxen 30 October 2017 00: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: old26
    .

    Thank you for such a detailed answer.
    I am writing my answer - continued.
    I will only inform you in advance that all your comments are only
    confirm (although written with a critical eye)
    the uselessness of lunar orbital manned modules (and especially stations)
    to ensure the creation and operation of a habitable station (and in the long term colony) on
    The moon.
    1. nmaxxen 30 October 2017 00: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      o1
      Quote: old26

      And simpler - almost always more reliable. It is easy to break, for example, a screwdriver with a ratchet and interchangeable “Stings”, and much more complicated is the usual answer, in which the handle around the “sting” is all. The reliability of the second, simpler is higher than that of the first, where there is a ratchet, and seats for removable "tips". So it is here. In terms of system reliability, a system with a station is reliable, as simpler, with simpler components than a returning ship on the lunar surface.

      A perfectly correct analogy
      it only works in favor of my thesis:
      -simple reliable screwdriver (this is the one with the “handle around the“ sting “and that's it” - your quote)
      this is a take-off module of direct flight from the surface of the moon to the earth. (my version)
      - a complex compound screwdriver ("there is a ratchet, and seats for interchangeable" tips "- your quote)
      this is a complex complex scheme where the start of the take-off lunar module occurs, then docking in the lunar orbit with the orbital module, the astronauts transition and the start of the orbital module to the earth.
      And do not forget that there is a problem of having stable near-moon orbits. Due to the influence of the Earth and the Sun, not all near-moon orbits are stable;

      The superiority of direct flight from the surface of the moon to the earth is obvious.
      Thanks for the useful and correct analogy with a screwdriver :)
    2. nmaxxen 30 October 2017 00: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      o2
      Quote: old26

      And in the end, absolutely everything that can happen to the ship on the lunar surface can happen. One micrometeorite in the tank or control unit of this ship and all. From the surface, the personnel of the base did not return ....

      It's funny - all this can be written about LOS or the orbital module (participating in the return of astronauts)
      also "it can happen .... absolutely everything that is possible" (your quote).
      Moreover, meteorites are more dangerous in the Moon’s orbit because the module passes through the back of the moon - where the meteor shower is MUCH more.
      And if we take into account the deepening of the lunar base under the surface, then resistance to meteorites will be orders of magnitude greater.
      What dangers can besides damage to the equipment?
      Depressurization - there are more spaces on the moon, you can make more compartments separated by partitions.
      Thermal disasters (in the event of a failure of thermoregulation systems) - also easier to compensate -
      especially under the surface where as they say stable temperature (- 35) degrees.
      Although the true temperature distribution in the depths of the moon is a very important and interesting topic for research, there can be many surprises.

      And again, the reliability of the lunar base is much better than that of the orbital station.
  23. parma 30 October 2017 12: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Sounds too optimistic. There are no hangars yet, and it seems that the article was in VO a couple of months ago that they were burying it .. Even the moon was still colonized for dozens, if not hundreds of years .. What could be the maximum, this is a prayer scientific colony for the purpose of geological exploration, and even then for the future , I just can’t imagine what it is necessary to extract / produce there at such a cost in transportation ..
  24. nebche 30 October 2017 17: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Skipped the article.
    Two words about symbolism and superstition. You should not change the name of the carrier "Union" to "Federation". It is clear that the interpretation follows from the Russian Federation. So what? Always look back at the political process? Many people know what he led to. If success in space is associated with the Soyuz, this does not mean that there will be success under a new name. And the political environment tends to change faster than technology. The word Union itself carries more positive meanings. All you need to change the index. The union should be.
    1. Ace Tambourine 30 October 2017 20: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In general, United means the same .... But it does not fly ...
  25. Ace Tambourine 30 October 2017 20: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I still didn’t understand ... Hollywood was pushing us in, or what?
    I don’t ... of course I admit that you can take a chance and land on the 2nd space one, and after that walk along the deck of an aircraft carrier invigoratingly ...
    1. Ace Tambourine 30 October 2017 20: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      But not 7 times !!!
      1. Ace Tambourine 30 October 2017 21: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And in general, what will Gridasov and Sharansky say about this !!!!! ....
  26. Old26 30 October 2017 20: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: nmaxxen
    Thank you for such a detailed answer.
    I am writing my answer - continued.
    I’ll only inform you in advance that all your comments only confirm (although they were written with a critical eye),
    the uselessness of lunar orbital manned modules (and especially stations) to ensure the creation and operation of an inhabited station (and in the future colony) on the Moon.

    Kamrad! Here we disagree on the problem, which is basically normal. I nevertheless believe that VOCs (or as it is usually called OKLS - the orbiting space lunar station) is a necessary stage in the creation of a lunar inhabited base


    Quote: nmaxxen
    o1
    Quote: old26

    And simpler - almost always more reliable. It is easy to break, for example, a screwdriver with a ratchet and interchangeable “Stings”, and much more complicated is the usual answer, in which the handle around the “sting” is all. The reliability of the second, simpler is higher than that of the first, where there is a ratchet, and seats for removable "tips". So it is here. In terms of system reliability, a system with a station is reliable, as simpler, with simpler components than a returning ship on the lunar surface.

    A perfectly correct analogy
    it only works in favor of my thesis:
    -simple reliable screwdriver (this is the one with the “handle around the“ sting “and that's it” - your quote)
    this is a take-off module of direct flight from the surface of the moon to the earth. (my version)
    - a complex compound screwdriver ("there is a ratchet, and seats for interchangeable" tips "- your quote)
    this is a complex complex scheme where the start of the take-off lunar module occurs, then docking in the lunar orbit with the orbital module, the astronauts transition and the start of the orbital module to the earth.
    And do not forget that there is a problem of having stable near-moon orbits. Due to the influence of the Earth and the Sun, not all near-moon orbits are stable;

    The superiority of direct flight from the surface of the moon to the earth is obvious.
    Thanks for the useful and correct analogy with a screwdriver :)

    Regarding the reliability of the screwdrivers, I agree. And in principle, I would agree with your interpretation if not for one BUT. Big such BUT. Yes, the reliability of your “direct take-off ship” (let's call it that) will be higher than the landing ship-take-off-station-ship-to-Earth system. But paradoxical as it sounds now, it is this system that is more reliable in operation. We just run into insurmountable technical difficulties in your version
    The question of the stability of the lunar orbits is unlikely to represent some unsolvable problem. Planned polar orbit. Complexes (orbital) are equipped with propulsion systems, both their own and docked ships. The superiority of direct flight from the lunar surface is obvious, if not for the technical and technological obstacles that arise with this method. So far, all of the existing OKLS projects are still based on the performance characteristics of existing or promising carriers that may appear in the next 3-5 years. And in all such projects, calculations are based on the possibility of bringing certain cargoes to the moon (by mass), and they are built on the possibility of delivering certain masses of cargo to the surface. And most importantly, are built on the capabilities and energy of propulsion systems
    I have already posted one of the drawings of the international station. Rescue ships are not shown there. On the second - our, domestic, project. There are rescue ships on it.

    1.

    2.

    The ship itself, which will land on the lunar surface, will consist of a landing and take-off stage


    Quote: nmaxxen
    o2
    Quote: old26

    And in the end, absolutely everything that can happen to the ship on the lunar surface can happen. One micrometeorite in the tank or control unit of this ship and all. From the surface, the personnel of the base did not return ....

    It's funny - all this can be written about LOS or the orbital module (participating in the return of astronauts)
    also "it can happen .... absolutely everything that is possible" (your quote) ..

    Everything. And I do not refuse my words. It may shandarahnut along the body of the orbital station as well as along the residential module of the lunar base. . The question is that the base on the Moon is stationary and only residential modules and the EMNIP scientific will be covered by the roof project. Service and storage modules, solar and battery power plants, a landing ship, tanker ships, a heavy moon rover are all outside the roof. But the station in orbit, protected by anti-meteorite screens from micro-meteorites, may not be affected, and if the flow is dense enough, it will get out of the way. The stationary lunar base in this case will play "heads and tails." Hit - not hit because it is outside the roof

    Quote: nmaxxen
    o2 And if we take into account the deepening of the lunar base under the surface, then resistance to meteorites will be orders of magnitude greater. What dangers can they besides damage to the equipment ?.

    None. But now we are not technically or technologically capable of creating an in-depth lunar base. Just physically.
  27. Old26 30 October 2017 20: 56 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I will continue

    Quote: nmaxxen
    o2
    Depressurization - there are more spaces on the moon, you can make more compartments separated by partitions.
    Thermal disasters (in the event of a failure of thermoregulation systems) - also easier to compensate -
    especially under the surface where as they say stable temperature (- 35) degrees.
    Although the true temperature distribution in the depths of the moon is a very important and interesting topic for research, and there can be many surprises ..

    Yes, all this would correspond to the realities if the base were buried. Our carriers had such a “format” that they could deliver cargo to the moon not limited by overall dimensions and mass. But alas. I wrote to you in one of the answers that all this could really be at the end of the 21st, beginning of the 22nd century, but not in the next 5-7 years, when they plan to create this station. Alas, we are now limited to carriers.
    Just for information, the weight distribution of the Apollo-type ship and its landing module

    The energy of the Saturn-5 carrier made it possible to send a complex weighing about 45 tons to the moon. What was included in these 45 tons
    1. The service compartment of the ship weighing 23,3 tons
    2. Command compartment weighing 5,5 tons
    3. The lunar complex weighing about 15 tons (more precisely 14710 kg)

    Let's figure it out next. The command compartment did not participate in the evolutions of this system. This is just the crew habitat. According to various sources, of the 23,3 tons of the service module, fuel ranged from 17,7 to 18,6 tons. It was used to correct the course during the flight to the Moon, braking (from the magnitude of the 2nd space velocity of the Earth to the 2nd space velocity of the Moon). And accordingly, for the acceleration of the ship after completing the mission when flying to Earth and for braking before landing.
    For all this, the very 17,7-18,6 tons of fuel were used

    Further. The lunar complex consisted of a landing stage weighing 1,73 tons with a fuel supply of 6,2 to 8,2 tons and a take-off stage (in fact it is an ordinary cabin) weighing 1,9 tons with about 2,4 tons of fuel.
    The thrust of the landing stage engine was throttled from 478 kg to 4495 kg. Roughly speaking, the maximum thrust was 4,5 tons. During operation, the lunar ship burned about 6,2-8,2 tons of fuel (to land an almost 15-ton complex). Roughly speaking, the take-off stage burned 2,5 tons to lift an almost 1-ton stage into orbit of the Moon (i.e., to reach the 2st space velocity of the Moon).
    Now, as an option, they plan to facilitate this takeoff and landing stage without refueling the takeoff. And refuel it on the surface from tanker ships. Saving mass of almost 2,5 tons.

    Now, if you consider your option for a “direct take-off” ship, it turns out that you will need to send a ship of about the same mass as Apollo to the moon. I don’t even ask what the thrust of the landing gear engine should be and how much fuel it should burn
    Suppose (now, frankly too lazy to look) on Apollo, when approaching the moon, 12 tons of 18 fuel left, that is 2/3. That is, if we are now sending a ship of such a mass as the old Apollo to the Moon, then we will need to land the "Single Ship" weighing 60-70 tons on the Moon. Burning at the same time 30-40 tons of fuel. And then from it to lift the ship in 25 tons. But is there enough stock of that fuel (which was according to Apollon’s calculations) to lift this 25-ton ship from the moon, accelerate it to the second space ship, go to the ground and slow down there. I personally I DO NOT KNOW. Therefore, now they plan to apply the very scheme I wrote about ...
    It may be less reliable from the point of view of calculations of the reliability of the system, but more real, implemented in the present time.

    Quote: parma
    Sounds too optimistic. There are no hangars yet, and it seems that the article was in VO a couple of months ago that they were burying it .. Even the moon was still colonized for dozens, if not hundreds of years .. What could be the maximum, this is a prayer scientific colony for the purpose of geological exploration, and even then for the future , I just can’t imagine what it is necessary to extract / produce there at such a cost in transportation ..

    Before colonization, yes, perhaps hundreds of years. But not to create a scientific base there. As for the "funeral" of the carrier of the Angara A-5, everything is possible, but there is no talk of super-gravity on its basis. Physically it could not be. It’s already talking about super-pulling on the basis of Soyuz-5 (though it’s also non-existent)

    Quote: nebche
    Skipped the article.
    Two words about symbolism and superstition. You should not change the name of the carrier "Union" to "Federation". It is clear that the interpretation follows from the Russian Federation. So what? Always look back at the political process? Many people know what he led to. If success in space is associated with the Soyuz, this does not mean that there will be success under a new name. And the political environment tends to change faster than technology. The word Union itself carries more positive meanings. All you need to change the index. The union should be.

    And no one is going to change the name of the carrier to "Federation," This, sorry, the name of the ship. What it will output is not yet clear. Either Angara, or Soyuz-5. The names have nothing to do with it. This is really superstition. Based on this, in the next 50-100 years we will only have ships and carriers with the name "Soyuz" and with a serial number such as the ship "Soyuz-312" and the carrier "Soyuz-56"?
    Nonsense. By the way, originally there was a ship called "North", which was later changed to "Union". The first, most grandiose successes in space were on the Vostok and Voskhod ships. And nothing, the sky didn’t fall headlong and the industry did not crumble, that instead of the Voskhod, the Soyuz began to fly, and instead of the Soyuz launch vehicle, Onega, Aurora, Yamal, and dozens of different media projects with various names. The Russian cosmonautics will be destroyed not by changing the name of the spacecraft to “Federation”, but by the innovator, for example, by “Rus”, “Amur” or “Yenisei”, but CHALLENGE IN OTARSLI
    1. Ace Tambourine 30 October 2017 21: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      If I could, then 100500 pluses put you b ..
    2. nmaxxen 30 October 2017 21: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      in any case (even with superstitions even without) the name "federation" is vile.
      And I repeat:
      “Federation” is an utter nonsense imposed by politicians who forced designers to conceptually copy American absurd barrels (artificially inflated so that in response to - why are they better than a union? Joyfully answer: 6-7 people fit - we are not wasting taxpayer money for nothing !!!).
      That is, the same rake when the Kremlin elders were forced to copy the shuttle.
      For flights to the moon, the Unions (or a new ship repeating its concept at a new level) are quite enough, which were originally designed for flights to the moon.
  28. Old26 30 October 2017 21: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Ace Tambourine
    If I could, then 100500 pluses put you b ..

    Thanks, but for what? I didn’t say anything top secret here laughing
    1. Ace Tambourine 30 October 2017 22: 10 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      for rationality ...
  29. Old26 30 October 2017 22: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Ace Tambourine
    I don’t ... of course I admit that you can take a chance and land on the 2nd space one, and after that walk along the deck of an aircraft carrier invigoratingly ...

    Well, they approached the Earth’s atmosphere at a speed somewhat lower than the second space one. About 11 km / s. Over the first 13 seconds, the overload reached 3G, the next 16 seconds and overload reached 6,2 G, and at this value it was approximately stabilized. Nothing supernatural. In case of an emergency landing of the Soyuz along a ballistic trajectory, overloads reach 9 G. And nothing, after landing (and this was a couple of years ago) they themselves left the SA and contacted the search squad
  30. Old26 30 October 2017 23: 06 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: nmaxxen
    in any case (even with superstitions even without) the name "federation" is vile.
    And I repeat:
    “Federation” is an utter nonsense imposed by politicians who forced designers to conceptually copy American absurd barrels (artificially inflated so that in response to - why are they better than a union? Joyfully answer: 6-7 people fit - we are not wasting taxpayer money for nothing !!!).
    That is, the same rake when the Kremlin elders were forced to copy the shuttle.
    For flights to the moon, the Unions (or a new ship repeating its concept at a new level) are quite enough, which were originally designed for flights to the moon.

    Kamrad! The development of designs cannot be stopped.
    • After all, we started from the “Vostoks”. Single with ejection systems as CAC. 6 manned vehicles.
    • Moved to Sunrises. They are already multi-seat (double). Prepared 8 manned ships.
    • But they ceased to satisfy and moved to the "Union". double and triple. But as a ship - this is an outdated option. A couple of people and 300 kg of cargo.
    • New ship. For 5-7 people. And not because the Americans did that. "Union" is simply outdated. To infinity it is impossible to exploit. Especially this concept. I see nothing wrong with a six-seater ship. Which in this case can be both purely manned, and cargo-passenger and cargo.

    And this is not stupidity imposed by politicians, but the transition to a new stage of multi-seat ships. Any expedition to the orbital station is unfortunately a minimum of people because of the ships. Station efficiency, including and in scientific research it will be higher when not “universals”, such as current astronauts and astronauts, but specialists will be engaged in these studies. Still, Americans sometimes try to adhere to this concept and send their astronauts to the station not only techies and military (like ours), but also scientists of other specialties. For example, Peggy Annette Witson, the first female commander of the International Space Station, has a bachelor's degree in biology and chemistry, and four years later she received a Ph.D. in biochemistry. Agree that she will perform work in this industry more skillfully than the engineer of "Energy". And the presence of a multi-seat ship (for 6-7 people) will help to send not only a military man or an engineer, but also scientists to the station. As for the Buran, everything was somewhat different there. Yes, you probably already know about it
    1. nmaxxen 30 October 2017 23: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The snowstorm was somewhat different because the illiterate Kremlin elders did not notice (or they were simply convinced that it was better) that the main engines of the hydrogen stage
      not on the spaceplane but under the tank. We got an extra heavy carrier, but then
      the original idea of ​​the shuttle was lost (the reusability of the most expensive systems of the second stage - no matter how stupid this idea was - which practice has toughly shown) and therefore the snowstorm turned out to be a completely meaningless expensive toy.
      But I do not blame the Soviet designers for this - all the blame lies with the Trotskyists andropyshes manipulating the Kremlin elders.
  31. Old26 31 October 2017 08: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: nmaxxen
    The snowstorm was a little different because. But I don’t blame the Soviet designers for this - all the blame lies with the Trotskyists andropyshes manipulating the Kremlin elders

    Eco poked you. Trotskyists, Zinovievites ... So you can walk to the search for enemies in the evenings under your own bed. Take it easy. Everything was a little different.

    Work on shuttles in the USSR before the start of work on the product "35", if any, was carried out on an initiative basis. These include work of various kinds. This is the work of the Lightning Design Bureau along the Spiral-EPOS line, this is the work on the small spaceplane in the Chelomey Design Bureau (there were also such rumors). But our Kremlin elders were really scared by the “opportunity” (no one told them that it was hypothetical) of the bombing of Moscow using the Space Shuttle system. And if they’re “scared” - do as they have. But even here, there were a lot of options, including and with aerodynamic designs of the orbital aircraft itself. There were rumors that they were working on not only the airplane scheme that existed, but also the machines with the bearing body, by analogy with the machines of the Spiral system

    But even in the design process, the circuit has undergone changes. At the first stage there was an orbital plane, almost completely repeating the scheme of the American shuttle. True design can be called formal, without deep elaboration, but nonetheless. The carrier itself was 4 liquid "sidewalls" in contrast to 2 American solid fuel. To take this step - 4 sidewalls we were forced to delay with the development of powerful solid fuel accelerators, which would be enough and 2. But that would throw the program another 10 years. And it wasn’t the time. Race in space, in t.ch. and within the framework of the famous program of Star Wars, such reserves of time did not give.
    So, at the first stage the scheme was as follows
    • 4 side blocks, an outboard tank, three cruise engines on the orbital ship itself, two CAC engines (which was not on the shuttle), orbital maneuvering engines

    The second stage.
    • Marching engines in the amount of 3 pieces migrated from the ship to the central tank. There was only one engine left on the plane

    The third stage - exactly the kind that Buran had

    Quote: nmaxxen
    The snowstorm was somewhat different because the illiterate Kremlin elders did not notice (or they were simply convinced that it was better) that the main engines of the hydrogen stage
    not on the spaceplane but under the tank. We got an extra heavy carrier, but then
    the original idea of ​​the shuttle was lost (the reusability of the most expensive systems of the second stage - no matter how stupid this idea was - which practice has rigidly shown)

    Having gone our own way - the engines on the central unit - we really killed two birds with one stone. They created a heavy universal carrier. Depending on the number of side blocks and the size of the central block (that is, its dimensions, they could be different), we could get a line of carriers, the so-called radar carriers. And it was more effective than creating media exclusively for the shuttle

    Your passage is not quite clear about the fact that the original idea of ​​reusability was lost?
    The Americans, too, it was not reusable, although it is customary to say so. And they had it "partially reusable." They did not save the fuel tank, which means the system could not be called completely reusable. The same is with us. In the future, the sides were supposed to be rescued, and even rumors circulated, a variant of shooting the engines of the central tank and rescuing them by parachute. Although the meaning of this eludes me

    Practice has not shown that the system was stupid. The Americans could not know in advance that inter-flight service would take such a long period. Therefore, they promoted their system precisely in the theoretical version. But in theory, it (the Space Shuttle system might not have been unprofitable. But for this, the Americans had to have a fleet of at least four ships and a frequency of launch into orbit - once a week. That is 1 times a year. And each the ship was supposed to fly off about 52 times, however, all theoretical developments collapsed after the first flights.
    It turned out that the inter-flight service is not as fast as planned. The second one. The Americans made a mistake in the amount of cargo that would have to be removed. The cost of their withdrawal has become significantly higher than on disposable media. The third. It turned out that very few objects had to be removed from orbit and delivered to Earth.
    As a result, economic inefficiency and high cost of withdrawal. We are even worse. We didn’t have any cargo that would have to be shuttled
    1. nmaxxen 31 October 2017 11: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: old26
      Eco poked you. Trotskyists, Zinovievites ... So you can walk to the search for enemies in the evenings under your own bed. Take it easy. Everything was a little different.

      It was just you who pushed - as you began to repeat everything that I said about the snowstorm and the shuttle only in a long and tedious form. Yes, and with the wrong semantic accents.
      First, I wrote that I was lost (read carefully) STUPID idea of ​​reusability in the form of an American shuttle. But it was even more stupid to make a shuttle in the form of a snowstorm - where there was not even an attempt to return the expensive elements of the second stage after the flight. namely engines.
      I'm writing about the reusability of a flawed and wretched senile fraudulent American shuttle
      "the idea was stupid - that practice harshly showed,"
      and you begin under the guise of opposition again in a long and tedious form to explain to me the same thing that I wrote.
      The story is repeated with the clarification of the superiority in the reliability of a direct launch from the moon and with the use of the orbital intermediate module with joints and other phantom sticks.
      you oppose me. then repeat all my arguments (only in a confused form), and then agree with me with reservations (types of high cost and mass) that are not relevant to the subject of discussion, namely reliability.
      The last paragraph is generally gorgeous - again they repeated after me that the shuttle is shit and the snowstorm is even worse,
      and then they put in the pearl "We didn’t have any cargo that would have to be taken out by shuttle"
      so the Americans didn’t have them either !!!! since how correctly you are, although with the addition of water from the well-known facts (and I know the facts about the history of attempts to draw up the concept of “reusability” of the 1960s-1970s much more since I studied them in the original language), they repeated for me that the shuttle is nonsense.
      And further .
      In principle, I am not against clowning battles using the passages “Eco pushed you”, “calm down”, etc. - but despite the additional fun, this will not increase the information content of our discussion.
      So please, refrain from doing so.
    2. nmaxxen 31 October 2017 11: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: old26
      To take this step - 4 sidewalls we were forced to delay with the development of powerful solid fuel accelerators, which would be enough and 2. But that would throw the program another 10 years. And it wasn’t the time. Race in space, in t.ch. and within the framework of the famous program of Star Wars, such reserves of time did not give.

      They made us take this step because the Soviet designers, unable to send three letters of the Kremlin, old men and andropyshes in an attempt to get them to copy American shit, tried to make some elements sound though.
      TTRD crutches for a hydrogen carrier - this is generally dumb nonsense - which I have repeatedly written about in various branches of this forum.
      The economically and technically justified place of a turbojet engine as the main remote control is only in military equipment - where its advantages in compactness, the absence of pre-flight procedures and long-term storage outweigh the monstrously low impulse and, in the context of such a fashionable (hysterical) ecology, a disgusting exhaust.
      1. nmaxxen 31 October 2017 11: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I am generally against the fraudulent term “accelerator” in the names of missile stages, since any missile stage is an accelerator.
        The side walls of the shuttle were called accelerators, to mask the impossibility of creating (at reasonable prices and timing) a fully hydrogen shuttle, as originally intended.
        Thus, they created the illusion among the authorities and the illiterate public that this is only
        a small refinement - we can cope without a fundamental alteration of the hydrogen carrier structure. And so, such a member of the congressional committee sits and sees - think of it near the large shuttle tank, added two small white pencils - a really small revision.
        I also used these tricks in the USSR - the odious Tupolev broke through the creation of a completely new Tu-22m aircraft under the guise of upgrading the frankly unsuccessful Tu-22.
      2. nmaxxen 31 October 2017 11: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        bureaucracy all over the world lives by the same fraud laws. therefore, so many ugly (and expensive, divorced bureaucrats and their partners businessmen) divorced ugly (and expensive) animals with a hydrogen step and TTRDshny crutches specify.
        and it’s good that Soviet designers saved us from such insanity.
        although they could not save from many others.
      3. Falcon5555 7 November 2017 23: 43 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        TTRD crutches for a hydrogen carrier - this is generally dumb nonsense - which I have repeatedly written about in various branches of this forum.

        If you wrote about this, this does not mean that it is proved. Turbojet engines create a danger and some kind of peculiarity (hot next to cold), but there are rational considerations in favor of them. You have poorly mastered the materiel. Old writes a lot correctly. Read the old one.
  32. nmaxxen 1 November 2017 15: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In the treasury of the advantages of the lunar base over the orbital.
    Lunar surface module with dimensions comparable to orbital will be much simpler and easier
    - due to the lack of engines of gyroscopes and other orientation systems,
    docking station, computers and control systems,
    attachment points for solar panels, and other external systems, optional portholes (?), etc.
    just a barrel with a life support system and a gateway
    moreover:
    LSS is much simpler than orbital in mind:
    - the lack of a special space toilet (rather ordinary earth), which even the Americans could not really make for a long time.
    - easier thermoregulation - there is a surface from which heat transfer can be carried out.
    it can be manually covered with lunar soil - to improve thermoregulation and anti-meteorite protection
    - A lot of work that seems heavy on the earth on the moon can be done at the expense of 1/6 gravity, right up to dragging the modules by hand.
    due to mass saving, the module can be made either stupidly large diameter - 5-7 meters and put it on the ground vertically.
    or make it rectangular in cross-section with rounded corners instead of cylindrical with a maximum dimension of 4.15 m for transportation by train.,
    make the length as large as possible while observing the weight limit.
    1. Ace Tambourine 7 November 2017 20: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I beg your pardon ... YOU are talking about which of the railways you interpret ...? Earth or Moon ...? On Earth, like BE, it’s immaterial ... you can collect from fragments and at the launch site, but with the Moon you can understand ...

      ,
  33. nmaxxen 1 November 2017 15: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The moon is much more important than Mars both for research and development.
    Hype around Mars is associated with the effect of the Hodge Ishak Emir.
    A flight to Mars can be prepared for another 10 years or even more, and then postponed a couple of times.
    And all this time, be considered an expert on innovation, a person who drives progress.
    And that means attracting significant investments into your business.
    So the goal must be kept at a considerable distance.
  34. nmaxxen 3 November 2017 00: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Sokolov Andrey Konstantinovich. Through the crater, 1972
    Years of the artist's life 1931, Leningrad - 2007
    Canvas, oil
    1. nmaxxen 3 November 2017 00: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      A.Leonov. Crater Chain
    2. nmaxxen 3 November 2017 00: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Moon-21

      Picture A. Sokolova "Lunokhod-2"
    3. nmaxxen 3 November 2017 00: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      They even depicted the base in the cave - a kind of my favorite moon lava tubes.
      Only lava tubes are much more convenient than hypothetical caves for placing a lunar base.
  35. selivan1 5 November 2017 20: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    we will help them, and they will be the first to land again
    1. nmaxxen 7 November 2017 21: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There are no joint projects in space with other countries (bureaucrats are eager for comfortable and interesting business trips, businessmen wanting to fish in troubled waters, spies wanting to frolic in the turmoil and expand the intelligence network, and potential traitors wanting to be useful lackeys to their future owners)
      - only for money (no less than the cost price + solid profit) - to take foreign astronauts of researchers and their scientific instruments and mechanisms. Or for money, draw an advertisement even on devices even on the surface of the moon - for example, for a couple of billion, put the logos of Coca-Cola and other companies on the moon.
  36. nPuBaTuP 17 November 2017 20: 44 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: nmaxxen
    In the treasury of the advantages of the lunar base over the orbital.
    Lunar surface module with dimensions comparable to orbital will be much simpler and easier
    - due to the lack of engines of gyroscopes and other orientation systems,
    docking station, computers and control systems,
    attachment points for solar panels, and other external systems, optional portholes (?), etc.
    just a barrel with a life support system and a gateway
    moreover:
    LSS is much simpler than orbital in mind:
    - the lack of a special space toilet (rather ordinary earth), which even the Americans could not really make for a long time.
    - easier thermoregulation - there is a surface from which heat transfer can be carried out.
    it can be manually covered with lunar soil - to improve thermoregulation and anti-meteorite protection
    - A lot of work that seems heavy on the earth on the moon can be done at the expense of 1/6 gravity, right up to dragging the modules by hand.
    due to mass saving, the module can be made either stupidly large diameter - 5-7 meters and put it on the ground vertically.
    or make it rectangular in cross-section with rounded corners instead of cylindrical with a maximum dimension of 4.15 m for transportation by train.,
    make the length as large as possible while observing the weight limit.

    In order for an EASY Lunar surface module to sit on the Moon, what are we going to shoot it at? .... Old tells you about the validity of the OKLS due to the fact that there are currently no carriers that can throw something so large on the Moon. You continue to bend about the fact that the Earth-Moon-Earth flight is better than if the OS is present in this chain.
    Dear, can you imagine how much soil you need to fill up a module with a diameter of 4 meters (or as you deigned to put it DARK BIG DIAMETER 5-7 meters)? And to do the filling manually, this is already forgive utter nonsense .... like dragging and dropping modules manually ....
  37. Indifferent 13 January 2018 19: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    What nonsense! Very reminiscent of the flight of amers to the moon! The problems with radiation have not yet been resolved. Both the passage of our three zones and the influence of solar activity near the moon. The station needs lead-plexiglass containers for each astronaut, where they could wait for an increase in radiation when flying through hazardous areas. And each such sarcophagus will weigh at least half a ton. It means for all cosmonauts several tons of useless, but such necessary load. Apparently not the scientists gathered at the symposium, but stupid people after the USE, but parents landed in good positions.
  38. Bypassed 13 March 2018 19: 26 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The Soyuz saved crews twice in difficult emergency situations, and the much more modern Shuttle, stuffed with electronics, two full crews, 14 astronauts, alas, ditched.

    Well, why distort so:
    1. Komarov - Soyuz-1
    2. Volkov, Dobrovolsky, Patsaev - "Soyuz-11"
    Bright memory