“able to deliver 10 tons of cargo to the Moon in 200 days”
Awesome. A faction of the payload of Starship delivered 6 months later. 😉
What is this from Russia? comment all about?
That Slavic people are technological primitives still using oxen as work animals in farming or something?
The Russians have always been at the forefront of things nuclear, maybe a little bit too eager, if you know what I mean.
I read the linked article, and the proposed system is nuclear-electric, which I guess makes sense for a slow, cargo-carrying space freighter. As a “tug”, am I to assume something that get’s refueled to make multiple trips, or maybe gets an initial loadout of propellant for an ion-propulsion scheme to be used multiple times?
Is this thing intended to use aero-braking to reenter Earth orbit? Or does it use ion propulsion to do a slow, spiraling return inbound?
I wasn’t referring to their expertise so much as their financial wherewithal.
Yes, but judging by Ctrots remark, this is an Oxcart in Space?
He was just quoting the article. 200 days does seem like a long time to get to the Moon.
It’s how long it takes at low thrust. But it’s a lot cheaper, propellant wise. If the payload isn’t in a hurry, and there’s a steady line of ships, it’s a good way to go. It’s like the oil tankers continuously spaced every few miles between the Persian Gulf and Japan.
Is nuclear electric really cheaper, in terms of fuel (as opposed to “propellant”)?There’s certainly no reason to use it anywhere this side of the asteroid belt.
I’m reminded of the two options presented for the VASIMR 30 days to Mars idea: either a 600 ton nuclear reactor, or 800 tons of solar panels. The former is politically unlikely, the latter results in a mile-long spaceship. Proponents didn’t seem to understand why I was laughing at them.
I saw this news item, “Microsoft Says Russians Hacked Its Network, Viewing Source Code”
The poor Russians, their software will never work right from this time forward.
Another point is, if you’re relying on the pipeline effect to get durable goods from point to point, solar sails are far better than ion drive. No engine, “fuelless,” and, as always, the best part is no part. So what if it takes a load of methane/ethane 20 years to get from Titan to Mars? The beauty of the pipeline effect is, the length of the pipeline is irrelevant. So long as you put product in at the wellhead, product will keep coming out of the tap.
I suppose this project is doable – perhaps even in spite of Russia’s current penury and bleak prospects. The Soviet Union once built 100 Kw reactors to run its ocean surveillance radar sats. Build a new one, hook on some extant ion engines and there you go, instant tug. But all it would be able to do is shuttle back and forth between Earth and lunar orbits. It can neither descend to, nor ascend from, the Moon’s surface.
So, what is the purpose of this thing? The only people going to the Moon any time soon are us and, maybe, the Chinese. The Russians have already turned down an opportunity to join Artemis. They may imagine the Chinese will take them instead, but that isn’t going to happen.
The Russians have no lander. Perhaps the idea is to build one in pieces and use this tug to move the pieces to lunar orbit for assembly? If the lander is to carry people down and up, its crew will have to arrive separately, Artemis-style. Perhaps the Russians could cobble up a way to do that using nothing larger than the Angara 5 but I’m dubious. Even if the Russians can afford the tug, they can’t afford all the other stuff needed to make it useful.
As a stand-alone effort, the only job this tug might reasonably have is to deliver supplies to Gateway. Perhaps this initiative is aimed at competing with SpaceX’s Dragon XL? Sounds completely daft, I know, but I just can’t see any other achievable cis-lunar “ecology” into which this notional tug might fit.
“able to deliver 10 tons of cargo to the Moon in 200 days”
Awesome. A faction of the payload of Starship delivered 6 months later. 😉
What is this from Russia? comment all about?
That Slavic people are technological primitives still using oxen as work animals in farming or something?
The Russians have always been at the forefront of things nuclear, maybe a little bit too eager, if you know what I mean.
I read the linked article, and the proposed system is nuclear-electric, which I guess makes sense for a slow, cargo-carrying space freighter. As a “tug”, am I to assume something that get’s refueled to make multiple trips, or maybe gets an initial loadout of propellant for an ion-propulsion scheme to be used multiple times?
Is this thing intended to use aero-braking to reenter Earth orbit? Or does it use ion propulsion to do a slow, spiraling return inbound?
I wasn’t referring to their expertise so much as their financial wherewithal.
Yes, but judging by Ctrots remark, this is an Oxcart in Space?
He was just quoting the article. 200 days does seem like a long time to get to the Moon.
It’s how long it takes at low thrust. But it’s a lot cheaper, propellant wise. If the payload isn’t in a hurry, and there’s a steady line of ships, it’s a good way to go. It’s like the oil tankers continuously spaced every few miles between the Persian Gulf and Japan.
Is nuclear electric really cheaper, in terms of fuel (as opposed to “propellant”)?There’s certainly no reason to use it anywhere this side of the asteroid belt.
I’m reminded of the two options presented for the VASIMR 30 days to Mars idea: either a 600 ton nuclear reactor, or 800 tons of solar panels. The former is politically unlikely, the latter results in a mile-long spaceship. Proponents didn’t seem to understand why I was laughing at them.
I saw this news item, “Microsoft Says Russians Hacked Its Network, Viewing Source Code”
The poor Russians, their software will never work right from this time forward.
Another point is, if you’re relying on the pipeline effect to get durable goods from point to point, solar sails are far better than ion drive. No engine, “fuelless,” and, as always, the best part is no part. So what if it takes a load of methane/ethane 20 years to get from Titan to Mars? The beauty of the pipeline effect is, the length of the pipeline is irrelevant. So long as you put product in at the wellhead, product will keep coming out of the tap.
I suppose this project is doable – perhaps even in spite of Russia’s current penury and bleak prospects. The Soviet Union once built 100 Kw reactors to run its ocean surveillance radar sats. Build a new one, hook on some extant ion engines and there you go, instant tug. But all it would be able to do is shuttle back and forth between Earth and lunar orbits. It can neither descend to, nor ascend from, the Moon’s surface.
So, what is the purpose of this thing? The only people going to the Moon any time soon are us and, maybe, the Chinese. The Russians have already turned down an opportunity to join Artemis. They may imagine the Chinese will take them instead, but that isn’t going to happen.
The Russians have no lander. Perhaps the idea is to build one in pieces and use this tug to move the pieces to lunar orbit for assembly? If the lander is to carry people down and up, its crew will have to arrive separately, Artemis-style. Perhaps the Russians could cobble up a way to do that using nothing larger than the Angara 5 but I’m dubious. Even if the Russians can afford the tug, they can’t afford all the other stuff needed to make it useful.
As a stand-alone effort, the only job this tug might reasonably have is to deliver supplies to Gateway. Perhaps this initiative is aimed at competing with SpaceX’s Dragon XL? Sounds completely daft, I know, but I just can’t see any other achievable cis-lunar “ecology” into which this notional tug might fit.