Russian "Altairski" Lunar lander

Some art and video of a concept study for a new Russian manned Moon lander:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/los.html
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/lunar_lander_lo_1.jpg
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/lunar..._surface_1.jpg

Pat

On 24 Lug, 23:09, Pat Flannery wrote:
Some art and video of a concept study for a new Russian manned Moon lander:http://www.russianspaceweb.com/los.h..._surface_1.jpg



where are the descent/ascent engines' propellents tanks???

..

"gaetanomarano" wrote in message
...
On 24 Lug, 23:09, Pat Flannery wrote:
Some art and video of a concept study for a new Russian manned Moon
lander:http://www.russianspaceweb.com/los.h..._surface_1.jpg



where are the descent/ascent engines' propellents tanks???


Some good art there, once I unravelled i.e. separated the above
urls. It gives me to think.

And what I think is, what a bummer from Washington. While we
killed the Apollo program and then did that shortrange diversion
to nowhere (killing some more good stuff along the way and
burning up a couple of Shuttles with people in them) the
Russians persisted, they are in their second thousand launches,
and thinking about the future. Even while the whole country
went CRASH around them. I guess that down in Washington, their
pork wars are more important than *anything* even while the
American economy goes bust and the dollar's value ...dwindles.
Grump!

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Jly 24]

gaetanomarano wrote:
Some art and video of a concept study for a new Russian manned Moon lander:http://www.russianspaceweb.com/los.h..._surface_1.jpg




where are the descent/ascent engines' propellents tanks???


For the descent stage inside the LM-like lander stage.
In the ascent stage inside the white cylindrical section under the
dome-shaped crew compartment.
It may well used two toroidal tanks in the ascent stage stacked one atop
the other, with the engine(s) in the central hole of the torus - the
Russians are fond of torodial propellant tanks. The design shares some
similarities with their LEK moon lander design from the mid 1970's:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lek.htm

Pat

Martha Adams wrote:

Some good art there, once I unravelled i.e. separated the above
urls. It gives me to think.

Funny, the url's were on separate lines when I wrote it; from now one
I'll insert a blank line between each url.



And what I think is, what a bummer from Washington. While we
killed the Apollo program and then did that shortrange diversion
to nowhere (killing some more good stuff along the way and
burning up a couple of Shuttles with people in them) the
Russians persisted, they are in their second thousand launches,
and thinking about the future.

And with their current level of funding, thinking about the future is
all they can afford to do.
They can't even get a improved R-7 launch vehicle with a cryogenic upper
stage built, much less a manned Moon mission going.

Pat

"Martha Adams" wrote in message
news:ku7ik.1$c52.0@trnddc03...


Some good art there, once I unravelled i.e. separated the above
urls. It gives me to think.

And what I think is, what a bummer from Washington. While we
killed the Apollo program and then did that shortrange diversion
to nowhere (killing some more good stuff along the way and
burning up a couple of Shuttles with people in them) the
Russians persisted, they are in their second thousand launches,
and thinking about the future.

Let's see, what have the Russians done? Killed a couple of crews and
floated around the Earth quite a few times.

Their interplanetary science program is tiny compared to what we've done.

Compared to the US, they really haven't done that much more and in many ways
have done a lot less.

And yet everyone holds them up as the paradigm of things done right.

Simply compare the number of manned flights for example.

The shuttle alone has flown more times than all Soviet and Russian manned
missions combined.



Even while the whole country
went CRASH around them. I guess that down in Washington, their
pork wars are more important than *anything* even while the
American economy goes bust and the dollar's value ...dwindles.
Grump!

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Jly 24]





--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...
Let's see, what have the Russians done? Killed a couple of crews and
floated around the Earth quite a few times.

The shuttle program has done much the same, when measured by the same crazy
metric you're proposing here.

Their interplanetary science program is tiny compared to what we've done.

True, but they had some notable early success with Venus, which is a real
p.i.t.a. for a probe to land on and still remain operational.

Compared to the US, they really haven't done that much more and in many
ways have done a lot less.

And yet everyone holds them up as the paradigm of things done right.

To be fair, they've built and flown more space stations than the US.
They've also performed many more automated rendezvous and dockings than any
other nation.

They've also got a good deal of experience with LEO EVA's. Their Orlan
suits have many design features that NASA is considering adding to their new
lunar EVA suits.

Their approach to manned LEO operations is different than the US approach,
but I wouldn't necessarily call it better or worse.

Simply compare the number of manned flights for example.

The shuttle alone has flown more times than all Soviet and Russian manned
missions combined.

True, but many shuttle missions had Russian/Soviet analogs which were flown
unmanned on Proton or Soyuz launchers. For example, all of the commercial
satellite deploy missions flown by the shuttle simply didn't require
cosmonauts on board when you're launching them on a Proton or Soyuz. Ditto
for spysat deployment missions. Ditto for Progress missions.

True this changed for the shuttle, but only after the Challenger disaster
made it politically unacceptable for such missions to be flown on the
shuttle.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in
message ...
Let's see, what have the Russians done? Killed a couple of crews and
floated around the Earth quite a few times.

The shuttle program has done much the same, when measured by the same
crazy metric you're proposing here.

Umm, Jeff, you clipped out what I was responding to. *I* did not propose
the metric, the original poster did.

I was simply pointing out how useless it is because both countries have done
about the same.




Their interplanetary science program is tiny compared to what we've done.

True, but they had some notable early success with Venus, which is a real
p.i.t.a. for a probe to land on and still remain operational.


Key words are "early success". No real on-going successful programs. And
even there one could say we one-upped them, we landed on there and survived
with something not really designed to ;-)


Compared to the US, they really haven't done that much more and in many
ways have done a lot less.

And yet everyone holds them up as the paradigm of things done right.

To be fair, they've built and flown more space stations than the US.

And done what exactly?


They've also performed many more automated rendezvous and dockings than
any other nation.


I will grant that is one area where they excel at. (In fact better at the
automated ones than the remote controlled ones :-)



They've also got a good deal of experience with LEO EVA's. Their Orlan
suits have many design features that NASA is considering adding to their
new lunar EVA suits.

True, the "door" design on the Orlan is innovative and a good one.



Their approach to manned LEO operations is different than the US approach,
but I wouldn't necessarily call it better or worse.


Exactly. Yet there are many who seem to think that somehow the
Soviet/Russian one was intrinsically "better".


Simply compare the number of manned flights for example.

The shuttle alone has flown more times than all Soviet and Russian manned
missions combined.

True, but many shuttle missions had Russian/Soviet analogs which were
flown unmanned on Proton or Soyuz launchers. For example, all of the
commercial satellite deploy missions flown by the shuttle simply didn't
require cosmonauts on board when you're launching them on a Proton or
Soyuz. Ditto for spysat deployment missions. Ditto for Progress
missions.

True this changed for the shuttle, but only after the Challenger disaster
made it politically unacceptable for such missions to be flown on the
shuttle.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein





--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


Let's see, what have the Russians done? Killed a couple of crews and
floated around the Earth quite a few times.

Their interplanetary science program is tiny compared to what we've done.

Compared to the US, they really haven't done that much more and in many
ways have done a lot less.

And yet everyone holds them up as the paradigm of things done right.

Simply compare the number of manned flights for example.

The shuttle alone has flown more times than all Soviet and Russian manned
missions combined.

I have great respect for what the Russians have done, especially on a budget
much smaller than NASA's. But they shared very little of that experience
until the US made overtures to them to include Russia in the ISS. The US
is sharing what we learn with the world, rather than shrouding it in
secrecy.

Mike Ross

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:37:04 GMT, "Martha Adams"
wrote:

the
Russians persisted, they are in their second thousand launches

That's not a virtue, its a necessity due to the short lives of their
satellites. Western satellites last 10-15 years.

Brian