Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[orange]

Golden Spike Company

France, Germany, Japan, Brazil, Britain any guesses?

[Esna Pitoojee]

Assuming you're referring to a manned landing,

The question lies in HOW they choose to get there, in my opinion.

During the Cold War, both the US and USSR pursued "single launch to moon" designs in which an orbiter, lunar lander, and associated support systems were to be launched in a single vehicle and propelled to the moon with no further assistance. "Assembly in orbit" systems in which several segments would be launched individually, connected, and then launched out of LEO were considered but ultimately disregarded because (if I remember correctly) at the time the mechanics of sending up a first module and maintaining it in orbit while a second launch could be prepared for some time weeks or months down the line were considered "to complicated" and time-consuming compared to simply building a bigger rocket.

Now, however, the largest rockets are built for significantly smaller payloads. Comparing some current common launch vehicles to the Saturn V (260,000 pounds / 120,000 kg to LEO) and Soviet N1 (200,000 lb / 90,000 kg to LEO), we see:
Atlas V - 64,820 lb / 29,400 kg to LEO
Delta IV - 49,740 lb / 22,560 kg
Long March 4 - 9,300 lb / 4,200 kg
Proton-M - 49,000 lb / 22,000 kg
Liberty (planned) - 44,500 lb / 22,000 kg
Falcon Heavy (planned) - 120,000 lb / 53,000 kg
(numbers snagged from Wikipedia)

All the rockets today carry a mere fraction of the payload that did or were expected to get us to the moon. This leaves two options: Assemble something in orbit, or build a bigger rocket (again). The US seems to be leaning towards the latter option with the descriptively-named Space Launch System, which will even surpass the carrying capacity of the Saturn V. Frankly, though, I think most of the private companies will go for the "build it in orbit" idea.

First off, we're a LOT better at putting things in orbit and keeping them there than we were during the Space Race; there are several generations of engineers who participated in the Skylab, Salyut, Mir, and ISS programs - the latter two being particularly significant as they also involved building things in orbit which didn't even always come from the same country of origin.

Second, computers are a lot better today. While I'm not a electronics engineer or computer scientist, I'd be surprised if we couldn't rely on computer systems to mate two unmanned components safely. Compare this to the theoretical "build it in orbit" ideas from the space race, where humans had to be part of the immediate docking process - in turn, forcing you to either resupply them, recover and then relaunch a crew later, or be ready to head out as soon as docking was complete.

Finally, I'd dare say that some of these companies - SpaceX in particular - would love the PR they'd get from building something in orbit, particularly as it pertains to SpaceX's stated goals of expanding the human presence in the solar system.

[orange]

There was a link.

The how is being worked by a private company - Golden Spike Company.

 

It was more of a what countries do you think might be interested in spending part of a year's space budget (France, Germany, Japan) or a few years of their space budgets (India, Italy, Britain, Brazil, Canada, S. Korea).

[Nicoletta Mithra]

China.

[Lyn Farel]

I think we might rather see France/Germany together through EADS&Co than anything else.

[orange]

China.

We will see; they are always slow and purposeful.

I think we might rather see France/Germany together through EADS&Co than anything else.

The French and Germans would first have to agree on goals, like whether to develop a new Rocket or provide their contribution to ISS by providing two service modules for NASA's Orion.  The second was chosen by ESA, despite the best efforts of France to get funding for a new European rocket (commercial market share for the Ariane V is dwindling).  Two possible Orion missions (2017/2019 if the program survives the next few years) will be supported by an ATV derived service module.

The European teams competing in the Google Lunar X Prize can probably beat ESA to the moon unmanned.

[Lyn Farel]

Ah I see.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

China.

We will see; they are always slow and purposeful.

If hare and tortoise are up for a race, I bet on the tortoise.

[hellgremlin]

Everyone knows the moon belongs to Moon Nazis.

[lallara zhuul]

Iron Sky!

[orange]

 

I miss Ken.

[Nmaro Makari]

Frankly, its most likely to be a BRIC country, although NASA still has a fair shot despite the budget cuts by dint of being the foremost of the world's space agencies.

The ESA might one day, but probably after the others, especially considering Europe's economic situation and getting Europeans to agree on anything is a mammoth task in itself. Add onto that, the Ariane V rocket is still their main vehicle and there is simply no political will to shell out for a replacement, then it looks not-so-bright for the ESA.

Related to that, just a bit of personal lament here, the lack of a British space programme is a source of great dissapointment to me. Even thought the UK has astrophysicists and engineers coming out of its ears and plenty of capable potential astronauts, there seems to have never been the political will, and I daresay public interest either. So, in short you can rule Britain out for a moon landing. If we do, it will probably be through the ESA.

However, the British space industry isnt completely dead, encouraging projects like Skylon are still going, so yay for that!

Worth bearing in mind here that atm Russian Soyuz rockets are the only means to get to the ISS at present.

I am hopeful for ventures like SpaceX and asteroid mining.

Personally though, I believe Mars is a far nobler goal.

[orange]

My original intent behind posting was to share the announcement by Golden Spike Company.

Only thanks to my space community friends was I reminded that as of yesterday, it has been 40 years since homo sapiens have gone more than 550 km away from the Earth's surface.  If the Earth was a basketball, we haven't gone more than 1 cm above its surface since 1972.

[Lyn Farel]

especially considering Europe's economic situation

The economic situation is not especially specific to Europe. And medias have the stupid habit to make it seem like Greece bankrupt and the shitty situation in some south countries are de facto the whole situation in Europe.

[Nmaro Makari]

especially considering Europe's economic situation

The economic situation is not especially specific to Europe. And medias have the stupid habit to make it seem like Greece bankrupt and the shitty situation in some south countries are de facto the whole situation in Europe.

You missed the point.

In Europe now, the key buzzwords are: "Austerity Drive" and most of Europe's nations are adhering to it. I.e. most of Europe's nations are making massive cuts and others are having to spend less money.

Plus, at the moment, Europe's mind is firmly on the ground concerning the economy, its what politicians talk about, it's what society talks about. There is very little appetite for sojurns into space. Of course, the resources of space are vast and within our reach, but even now we have difficulty convincing people about it's usefulness.