Russia is planning to land on the moon, in 2030.? (Interesting)

Recently I watched a video about the space race going on in the early days between the USA & Russia formerly USSR. I didn't realize they never landed on the moon at all. I also found it interesting that Russia is planning on landing on the moon in 2030. Do you think this is just to say they can do it, or is there some dark alternative motive?

The Video I saw which mentioned the 2030 date, and went over the history of the Space Race.

a reply to: BStoltman Wait a second, you never realized that the Russians never landed on the moon? To be honest they definitely have the tech to do so. They probably even have the know how. If they will is a different story though. Either way I hope they do. In fact I hope every country try’s to do this. We need these races to happen. And thank you for uploading a video for me to watch. I have been rewatching Isaac Arthur videos for a while now and love new science videos.

why is going to take so long??

didn't anyone learn anything from our first moon mission which we can't recreate?>

a reply to: toysforadults

Knowing how to do it and having the technology readily available are two totally different things. A rocket designed for low earth orbit, or even geosynchronous orbits doesn't have the capability to go to the moon without multiple launches.

There is a reason SpaceX is develop the Falcon Heavy and NASA is developing the SLS. Then you have to develop the lander and ship to get it there. That's not the kind of thing you develop quickly.

a reply to: Zaphod58

By quickly,do you.mean......how did the USA do it in 20odd years after von braun helped them with the technology in the 50s and 60s for USA to do it, and the Russians are still thinking of doing it in another 12yrs? That's what I can't work out. The Russians ain't stupid.

a reply to: Zaphod58

did we forget how to do it? never worked on developing an easier way to do it?? had 1 plan did it a few times shut the entire program down and forgot how to do it and delete all the footage....

yeaahhhh........

a reply to: hiddenNZ

They did it in 20 odd years, on about double the budget they have had in recent years. From 1964-68, the budget (in millions, equivalent to 2014 constant dollars) was between $32,000 and $43,554 (3.5-4.4% of the budget). The budget in 2017 was $19,508 (in millions), or 0.47% of the budget.

a reply to: toysforadults

Again, knowing how, and having the tech sitting around are completely different things. We don't have Saturn V rockets, and landers just sitting around. And they sure as hell aren't going to build systems with that tech anymore. That means testing new tech and development of new systems. That means time.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I really have a hard time wrapping my head around NASA officially shutting down all moon related activities including continuing to work on technology that get's us there more efficiently.

Strictly from a strategic point of view I think we would have to colonize the moon if we had the ability to get there. Imagine not being the first military power in the world to make a move in this direction?

a reply to: toysforadults

NASA didn't shut it down.

President Nixon did.

The USSR and the USA were in a space race.

The USSR had the the first satellite in orbit, the first dogs / man / women in space and they landed the first probe on the moon together with other firsts.

The USA finally caught up and were first to land a man on the moon.

Why would the USSR then go to the moon. That race had been won.

P

a reply to: toysforadults For a long time I did too. But after reading up the whole situations started to make sense. The Soviets realized we got to the moon before them. We won and they moved onto making missiles at a faster rate then we did. Because they did that the US directed those funds to well making missiles. And that ended the space race. I am 99% positive that Zach knows more than I do in this regard and I hope will step in again to lay the “Zaph law”.

a reply to: pheonix358

you really think the whole thing was just to get there, say yay I land on the moon woopy! then leave with no intent to come back?

a reply to: Allaroundyou

sounds very simple, it was a race and the intent of the race was to touch it then never go back, make perfect sense. it's of no strategic importance to humanity for any other reasons

a reply to: toysforadults

Yes.

It was a big pole waving affair between the two superpowers.

P

I heard Musk and Bigelow both saying, within a weeks time, that the venture of carving up the Moon is at the doorstep. U.S., China, Russia... The most valuable landscape will most likely be on the side we do not see. (my line)

a reply to: toysforadults

The plan was to get there first. Once they did, they were going to continue to go, and even work on new tech to stay there. But the public lost interest and wanted to know why we were spending all that money on going to the moon and not fixing our problems on earth. We beat the Evil Russian Empire there, and that was all anyone cared about. Once we did that, the average person didn't see the point anymore. Unlike the military, NASA was a much more public program, that relied on public interest. It dried up.

Staying on the moon is going to be extremely hard. It would have cost 7-10 times the cost of the entire Apollo program to get a base to the moon and set it up. They spent over $100B on Apollo in ten years. To put that in comparison, the shuttle program spent $200B over 40 years. The public didn't want to keep spending the money. In 1968, NASA testified to Congress on the possibility of putting a permanent base on the moon. They would start in the early 1970s, and possibly have it established by 1980. They briefed three options to get the base to the moon. Option A would have added $725M to Apollo, Option B $745M, and Option C $1.090B. Those were only rough estimates on cost.

www.wired.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

true and technology has more than octoupled in the time span.

presumably the 2030 launch frame has more to do with logistics and other research planned with the launch, not just the actual landing on the moon or difficulties associated.

Russia has the most consistent and successful space exploration track record, the US has the most...

a reply to: Zaphod58

By 2030 the SpaceX BFR (Big Falcon Rocket) will be in service for about 6 years (6 to 8).
According to Elon's planning.
Considering these plans, wouldn't the Russians a. Hire a BFR or b. Invest billions in a rival?
I'm going for a.

a reply to: odzeandennz

They began developing a super heavy rocket in 2014. The first phase of the rocket would be capable of carrying 80-85 tons. They'd use two launches to get to the moon with those rockets. The second phase would increase the payload to up to 180 tons, and would be used to support permanent moon facilities and beyond. They're looking at around $14B to develop the rocket and upgrade launch facilities. Like the SLS, it's been delayed, but it appears they're back to working on it again, as of last year.