@Nickolai_the_Russian_guy: I'm not trying to make a nationalistic flame, just a comment on the Soviet Space Program. From what I understand, the Soviets strategically and successfully exaggerated their capabilities. Economic feasibility - while true enough - is a red herring.

frigg

@shamusjack: They don't have graham crackers in Europe. Probably not in Russia either. I think they'll have to use ice cream wafers or Belgian waffles instead!

LittleJon

ahhhhh, not a lunar capsule. this thing is designed strictly to go to the space station and back, and maybe later to orbit around the moon. but it can't land on the moon, it uses its retro-rockets and legs to land on the earth, much like Soyuz, sans legs, does today.

mflembeck

@Ryan H: The back half is meant to be ATV-derived, although it looks much less like the ATV propulsion modules than earlier renderings. You'd probably like the website they quote in the article: www.russianspaceweb.com

Nickolai_the_Russian_guy

@frigg:
Is that why we successfully launched an orbiter on an unmanned flight in worse weather conditions than NASA ever launched and had it safely return to earth and conduct an automatic landing in a 17 m/s crosswind? And you know life support can't be that complicated since we managed to get it to work for 15 years on Mir.

To be fair, your argument is not entirely without merit: Soviet engineers always had a tough time with LH2, something the Americans excel at. But your basic argument is wrong in that both shuttles were/are extremely uneconomical unless their launch rates are substantial, which puts pressure to launch which leads to Challenger...

Nickolai_the_Russian_guy

I love Russian. They know what works and stick with it. This thing looks the back 2/3rds of a Soyuz with docking gear and observation bubble from the orbital module grafted onto the front.

Although assuming the back half is the standard Soyuz engine section the front half has been greatly scaled up from the standard Soyuz capsule.

Ryan H

@Nickolai_the_Russian_guy: The Soviet Union had a history of (strategically) exaggerating its space program. "No clear economical use for the technology" = "overwhelming technical challenges."

frigg

@shamusjack: Yes, I'm sure that two years of feasibility studies, 40 years of experience with the Soyuz design, and something like 10 years developing the ATV systems had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Sorry, I'm a space nut; majoring in astronautical engineering, so I'm prolly gonna be building this ship....while your kids play with styrofoam cups.

Nickolai_the_Russian_guy

Do you think one of the engineer's kids was screwing around with those styrofoam cups playing spaceship and thought "hey, what the fuck..add some graham crackers (ie solar panels) and some windows and Im getting a raise!"

shamusjack

it kinda looks like two Styrofoam cups shoved together don't it?

give me 80 million dollars and two Styrofoam cups and I shall make one for you.

jrghoull

@Nickolai_the_Russian_guy: Yeah I know about the Buran... but it's missing that whole "running with it" part.

DustyButt

Oh and speaking of all this moon crap, the rocket in my profile picture is the one the USSR was designing to take Soviet cosmonauts to the moon. I'll shut up now :)

Nickolai_the_Russian_guy

@DustyButt:
You know the Soviet Union actually did pick up on the shuttle thing (look up Buran on wikipedia), but they canceled the program in the 90's because there was no clear, economical use for the technology (surprise surprise).

Nickolai_the_Russian_guy

@Bodie1550:
@TerryinSt.Paul:

If I'm reading this right, what it means is that instead of just using one big engine for the descent (like Apollo did; they just cut the engine ~5-10 feet from the ground and the thing dropped like a rock, a very large rock with communications equipment and such), it'll have thrusters that enable it to land softly without the whole dropping thing, much easier on the lander.

And the Soyuz ships Russia is using today do the same thing for earth landing, but they don't have lander legs as shown in the photo in the article.

Nickolai_the_Russian_guy

*drinks surge* SPPPPPPAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCEEEEEEE RRRRRRAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shub-Niggurath

I just read the article. The thrusters and landing gear will be used to land back on earth, as opposed to parachutes and splashdown or hard landings.

Hey! You mean no one picked up the shuttle idea and ran with it? Hmmph.

DustyButt

@Bodie1550:
If you click the BBC link at the bottom and RTFA, you will see that that was a small yet forgivable error on Matt's part. It says it will use the thrusters for what he had stated PLUS it will use them to slow the craft down when it lands SOFTLY BACK ON THIS PLANET. Kinda like what we did 40 years ago but without all the crashlanding into the ocean and stuff.

TerryinSt.Paul

space hoonage coming soon to our moon. don't we own the moon,or at least have an option to buy. who are these people and why are they coming to our moon.

mcryder

I swear to FSM, that thing looks like something you buy in The Sims. Maybe it's just the drawing style. Maybe it's the coffee withdrawals.

OMG! Blink Tags!

"What's interesting is that the craft uses thrusters to slow its descent to the moon's surface as well as to launch itself off the surface."

Not sure why that's interesting. That's how we did it 40 years ago.

Bodie1550

euronauts

Nickolai_the_Russian_guy

@DustyButt: The reason a winged vehicle isn't feasible for a lunar mission is simple. You come back MUCH faster from the moon than you do from orbit. At those speeds, when you hit the atmosphere, a winged vehicle would stop being a winged vehicle.

Oracle989

looks like a flour mixer to me. *stares*

Amiash

*What's interesting is that the craft uses thrusters to slow its descent to the moon's surface as well as to launch itself off the surface* No that's not what is interesting and it's not what was said in the article, it'll use thrusters to land bad on the earth....

Churrito

The thrusters are exactly like in the current Soyuz - they fire just before landing to slow down the last bit since the vertical speed on parachutes is still high enough to cause quite a thud on a rigid capsule. What's new is that it also has the landing gears with suspension, which will further soften the impact with the ground.

This spacecraft is NOT for landing on the moon though and the thrusters have absolutely nothing to do with landing or taking off from the moon. These thrusters are only on the descent module and fire for only a few seconds. To take off from the moon into lunar orbit, you need to get the spacecraft from zero to about 1600 meters per second. And obviously to land you'd have to slow it from about 1600 meters per seocnd to zero. In order to do that you need lots and lots of fuel - much more than this spacecraft has even including the service module.

The American Orion (as well as Apollo back in the days) also will not land on the moon as such, but will use a special landing spacecraft (was called LEM on the Apollo) for this exact reason.

Kim98

How ironic that we originally went there to beat the Russians and now the Russians are helping us to get there to beat the Chinese.

strider_mt2k

@TerryinSt.Paul:

Got it. Thanks Terry. Sorry Matt.

Bodie1550

I think we should have just let Jesse James and Monster Garage mod one of the old shuttles first -- you know, just to see what they could come up with before we spent all this money "engineering."

GeekyNerdGuy

@Amiash:
We should both learn to read!
I glanced past, saw the illustration and thought it was a coo! new twist-in Bluetooth earplug.

ANoel

@strider_mt2k:
How do you figure Russia is helping America?

Nickolai_the_Russian_guy

I imagine this is what the insides of my washing machine looks like

kuryaking

@ANoel: haha i miss you sir.

Amiash

There are several problems the shuttle:
- heat tiles that need to be inspected and replaced
- ageing systems
- expensive maintenance

There were many good elements in the shuttle, but with the ballooning repair bills and systems that had not been updated it became unbearable burden. I like the shuttle and the while lifting wing concept, but it needs to be brought up to date. Unfortunately I don't feel there is much interest in the USA any more for realistic manned missions, or if there is the money is not showing this.

twilight-arc