Is there a possibility that Russia can land on Mars before USA?

Chinas space tech is behind Russia's especially since their space station is essentially a Mir. Regardless, the US can't send a man on the moon now when they once were able to.

My, how time has gone.

If the US had delayed even a few months the first men on the moon could have been Soviet.

the Soviets had pretty much solved all the problems of landing someone on the moon and bringing them back... it just came down to who could do it first... once the US had done it there was no need for the Soviets to go.

They already had the first landing on the moon, first view of its dark side, first orbit of the moon, first return of moon dust, etc etc... all the US did first was land a man there...

GarryB wrote:If the US had delayed even a few months the first men on the moon could have been Soviet.

the Soviets had pretty much solved all the problems of landing someone on the moon and bringing them back... it just came down to who could do it first... once the US had done it there was no need for the Soviets to go.

They already had the first landing on the moon, first view of its dark side, first orbit of the moon, first return of moon dust, etc etc... all the US did first was land a man there...

The Soviets could never make it alive to the moon anyway, they tried and failed actually. Their N1 rockets had "explosive habits" upon launch.

Using your "first" this and that logic, they did achieve the largest conventional explosion while trying apparently. Now that's a first right?

No, so lets face it. They were beaten at their own game, it was a failure.

KiloGolf wrote:

No, so lets face it. They were beaten at their own game, it was a failure.

Russia was not "beaten" at all in the space race..

Russia suggests America has NEVER landed on the moon and calls for 'an investigation

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3130017/Russian-official-demands-investigation-really-happened-moon-landing-original-footage-disappeared.html


Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

Only people who have done zero investigation about the moon controversy
will believe in the official story.. Just like 9/11 that  most people in t his forum thinks
it was taliban in caves who did it..  when it was an inside job.

So NASA beat Russia in nothing.. they came second to send a satellite to space,  
second with a man in space , second with a space station , and second to do a space walk ,
arrive second in mars and the moon.. with a probe and then not even visit Venus..
but still claim "victory" after a fake movie of the moon ,that its original footage was destroyed "to save money" according to NASA . and after "landing" in the moon on the first try for near a dozen of times.. and "playing Golf in the moon". Contrary to All common sense and logic ,
They decommission is Saturn Rocket and send it to a museum..after achieving "so much success" .

It never cease to amaze me people naiveness ,specially in this forum.. the moon landing is like religion..you need to believe by faith. Because all evidence shows the opposite of what they claim they did. When you have a top aided of Putin , creating headlines for accusing NASA
of Corruption in the moon.. and then using RT , to promote the story and the most shocking thing. Putin not distancing from his declarations. you need to have a real brain dysfunction to not see what is he really saying..between the lines.. that the Moon landings were FAKE.. and Russia knows this. and that they are ready to expose NASA if American continues with its hostilities towards Russia. it was clear as water ,why the Moon controversy came from
nowhere in time US and Russia relations were all time low and they fabricated the doping
scandal and banned Russians from sports.

So the only ones who defeated Russia in space was the Soviets ,not Americans..
the soviets did had a much more advanced space program than Russia today.
The whole Moon hoax hollywood landing was created to bankrupt Russia ,trying to achieve
what they never did..and to try to stop Russia decade ahead in space development.

-Facts..
1)You never send people to the moon to an incredibly risky mission ,
unless you send animals first.. either a monkey or a dog.. but we are to believe they
were so desperate to try the risk.

2)The whole point of the space race to the moon ,was a contest to see which nation
was more advanced and which system was better.  If they do it first ,then it will be
a major humiliation for Russia and a major promotion for capitalism over commuism.
But did you have any idea .. of the HUGE negative consequences ,that will have been
if the Astronauts die in the moon??? or they get lost in space forever?  about
how embarrassing will have been for Americans that?  that people will be buying telescopes
only to try to see dead americans in space?   Or the many songs and jokes the world
will do about the lost Americans in space?    Such a failure  will have cost
the job of the President of United States. To have common sense and logic is easy..
don't be afraid to use your brains..  If NASA mastered space in 1971.. as they claimed..
then they will have not abandoned it and just forget about it for 30 years,,,and will have pushed to create a base in the moon..which was the next logical step.. instead they just
decommission the most successful Rocket of Americans.. Saturn.. and then focus in developing a much more expensive space shuttle and start from zero again??

In the real world.. of Science and engineering .such things never happen.. only in fantasy land.
and in the mind of incredibly naive and ignorant people. as it was 9/11 that 2 planes collapse
3 buildings and the last one not even touch by any plane.     Time to wake up..
Nobody ,no humans ever left the earth orbit.. there was no technology before to do it safely.
but they could fake it day and night with movies.. which they did. The only thing that travel
to the moon was Probes and Rovers.. from US and Russia..and OMG.. you neither need humans to travel to the moon either to have laser reflectors on the moon.. thats why Rovers exist.
NASA or Russia could even deploy a refrigerator in the moon ,or a vehicle.. but that does not
proof anything that humans ever landed there.  

Imagine if Spain after traveling 8 times to the new discovered world.. they call America ,says.. alright.. we did it.. lets return to Europe and do something else.  If history and common sense teach us something..is that whenever man conquer a new world..that he truly likes , he does not leave it.. he instead ,fully explore it.. conquer it.. and take advantage of the fame world wide for the discovery.. and NEVER ABANDON IT.
explore it more and more and search for its resources and mining.. and create bases there..
thats what Rational humans will do.  Mickey Mouse in the other hand after landing in the moon will just lose interest after a few travels and stop permanently traveling so they don't
master and perfection their skills and technology    NASA Moon landings are 100% fake and this is the reason why they depend on Russia for transportation to the ISS.. they never mastered manned space program ever..and probably they hide many more deaths on its Saturn rocket ,we never aware of ..and this is why Russia is hired. and it had NOTHING TO DO.. with "Saving money".  

Russia in the other hand do exactly the things a real space program nation will do.. They
still working with their Soyuz rocket original design from 1971.. but with improvements..
why reinvent the wheel if it works??   Russia was first to speak about going to the
moon for mining.. and creating a moon base..to use it as a base for going farther in space.  again shows a real rationality behind their space program.  Americans after decommision saturn ,create a space shuttle that fails.. and then go and create another..and fails.. and then in the end ,they give up and ask taxi to Russia for the ISS just to "Save money" . ,just pure fantasy.

This is all you need to know about the Apollo program.. Why not ask the astronauts
after they returned from it no? how amazing it was ?  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifx0Yx8vlrY

here NASA Atronauts speaks as if they never flew beyond low earth orbit..
and never had tech to go to the moon ,and if they never crossed the van allen belt..  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vOXj3aRueY

So they admit there are major challenges they need to solve first before going
to the moon .. what? Didn't NASA mastered that already with the Apolo program?  
and saw how Don Pettit another NASA astronauts a chemical engineer with PHd..claimed NASA destroyed the technology to go to the moon..    but it doesn't end there, he gave a conference showing the challenges for space traveling and spoke about how NASA "destroyed
the technology to go to the moon. " WTF. Then A Putin aided claiming NASA Corruption in the moon and demanding an international investigation? .
.. .. how can anyone believe in the moon landing today when Russia Government using RT and the fucking same astronauts are hinting it was fake..
aside of the overwhelming evidence it never happens.. is beyond understanding.  
Blind Fanboys indeed are the worse thing in this planet.. You can shown them all evidence
of the world they are wrong and they still will hold into their belief system.

The Soviets could never make it alive to the moon anyway, they tried and failed actually. Their N1 rockets had "explosive habits" upon launch.

Using your "first" this and that logic, they did achieve the largest conventional explosion while trying apparently. Now that's a first right?

If you are going to be an ass about it there are more dead Astronauts than Cosmonauts...

If you are also going to be pedantic... Yes Germany was first at getting a man to the moon I am sure Hitler was proud.

The thing is that all the technology and equipment needed to actually do a moon landing was perfected by the Soviets first... first man in space, first EVA, first docking, etc etc... like I said the only first the US achieved was first man on the moon.

Big deal.

And the Saturn V is just as big a bomb as the N-1 was.

Inadequates have a compulsive need to achieve by proxy.

I still can't figure out why NASA produced so many obviously fake moon photos and videos. The "TV" broadcasting of
the moon missions by having the TV cameras record a projection on a canvass screen was bizarre as well. That
is why the images are so grainy. It's almost as if someone was trying to cover something up.

In fact real question to ask may be can Russia still land to the moon before US

ZoA wrote:In fact real question to ask may be can Russia still land to the moon before US

Not a bad idea

T-47 wrote:

ZoA wrote:In fact real question to ask may be can Russia still land to the moon before US

Not a bad idea

A real mission to the moon is scary as hell.. the challenges are multiplied by 100. and the mars the challenges are multiplied by 500.. it can be done . today with today technology but is very risky.. a million things can go wrong.. In the international Space station ,that is located 350km above earth...it is still protected by the earth atmosphere ,so radiation is very minimal.

But once you leave the Van Allen radiation belt. Even plastic can melt.. imagine that.. if radiation can melt plastic , and electronics ,then how worse it will be for humans? To operate in the moon, will be comparable to operate in chernobil nuclear reactor after the accident. Russia deployed robots to help cleaning the roof of the plant..that exploded liberating radiation on the roof and the radiation exposed after a couple of hours damaged the control remote robots all its electronics .destroyed. Strong Radiation literary modify the atomic structure of things.. People who cleaned chernobil most of them died.. weeks or months later. of radiation.
their mouth taste was like metal.. according to them. and people just collapse.. Then on top of that ,you have extreme heat and extreme cold.. Moon surface temp goes from
253 degrees F (123 C). to minus 243 F (minus 153 C) ... for comparison the world record in earth of heat ambient temp is Lybia with 134F. so is like twice that.. you need an incredibly efficient air conditioner system with oxygen ,with batteries that can keep you cool for 3 days..
such technologies did not exist in 1971. and then you have what if the Space rockets miss the moon orbit and keeps going? because the engines freeze? then you have the major problem of manually controlling a lander without computers.. the entire thing can flip , what if the lander fall in crater? then how they will connect in the return to earth the lander with an orbiter rotating around the moon without computers? it will be like trying to jump inside a truck , when passing under a bridge ,while it is moving at 100km per hour. Simply non sense.

Thanks to computers and Technology today ,it is possible ,but still is very risky if you try to do it right on the first try.. .you need to fully master moon landing first with robots ,then with animals and bring them back and forth alive a dozen of times and develop several orbiters in the moon for information ,communications and for rescue ship. and once you mastered moon travel with robots and animals and have orbiters with rescue space ships orbiting the moon orbit .. then after a dozen of successful missions.. then you can try it with humans.. but going to the moon.with humans before deploying major infrastructure first.. in case of emergency.. with food ,batteries ,communications ,shelter ,Rovers and extra lander ,and with rescue ships ready in case something goes wrong. then only then we will see real moon landing..

mars landing with humans is even more complicate.. you need total domination of space ships.. that never runs out of fuel ,and create a complete habitable place in an unlivable one. and
solved the problem of endless electricity .solar panels is not good enough.. If something goes wrong in mars ,then you are doomed.. like your oxygen generator breaks . so for every man you send to the moon ,you need to land first enough supplies for months per person. with transportation and tools. it will be incredibly expensive and full domination of solar system travel safely is required. maybe in the next 50 to 80 years.
we will get there..

Full mastering of Moon and Mars traveling (same way we master FLying by plane for civilians) will only be mastered with humans travel, when we develop first cities in Space orbit where people live for years, with gravity simulated and all that. Don't think we will see any of that in this generation.

Americans are so desperate to beat Russia in mars ,that they promoting the idea ,
of one way ticket to mars.. ie.. suicide missions.. it will be the fastest way.. all he needs
is to survive a few minutes in mars surface. and have not to worry about food or developing
a living place.

Vann is back :')

GarryB wrote:

The Soviets could never make it alive to the moon anyway, they tried and failed actually. Their N1 rockets had "explosive habits" upon launch.

Using your "first" this and that logic, they did achieve the largest conventional explosion while trying apparently. Now that's a first right?

If you are going to be an ass about it there are more dead Astronauts than Cosmonauts...

If you are also going to be pedantic... Yes Germany was first at getting a man to the moon I am sure Hitler was proud.

The thing is that all the technology and equipment needed to actually do a moon landing was perfected by the Soviets first... first man in space, first EVA, first docking, etc etc... like I said the only first the US achieved was first man on the moon.

Big deal.

And the Saturn V is just as big a bomb as the N-1 was.

Saturn was a much bigger piece of kit, and did the job.

Remember in late-1960s and early 1970s terms (safety no so much of a concern for either side) the US simply, and eventually beat USSR in space. Then the space shuttle followed, GPS constellation and the USSR just about regained some edge with Energia/Buran (and Mir) before collapsing.

The US collapsed so to speak in terms of space exploration/development by cancelling Ares V, in the late 00s (insert financial crisis and anemic-to-non existant growth).

Now both countries are stuck with a pickle in terms of space programs.

Saturn was a much bigger piece of kit, and did the job.

The Saturn 5 is the fifth in the line of Nazi rockets and was not much bigger.

It was slightly longer but also much narrower than the N1... you do know they were both designed to do the same job don't you?

Remember in late-1960s and early 1970s terms (safety no so much of a concern for either side) the US simply, and eventually beat USSR in space.

The rich and powerful United States of America spent an enormous fortune to fly people to the moon... they had already lost the space race, which was the race to put a man in space. What they did first was put a man on the moon... which is not nearly as hard.

Then the space shuttle followed, GPS constellation and the USSR just about regained some edge with Energia/Buran (and Mir) before collapsing.

The space shuttle was worse than useless... to put it in perspective if the US space shuttle was launched at full capacity and landed with its entire payload bay filled to weight capacity of solid gold and was then able to land and the payload of 10 tons of solid gold could be sold off to pay for the cost of the flight each launch would still cost 300 million dollars.

At a time when the Soviets actually had a real space station able to remain in orbit for years compared with just over a week for the space shuttle the SS was a total waste of time and money.

In fact if relations with Russia had not improved and the US decided on a another showy PR stunt like the race to the moon it would have gotten US astronauts killed.
With their belief in US superiority in materials and medicine etc the US astronauts were fully expecting to be able to live for months in space with their special diet and exercise programme and step out of their seats when they landed back on earth after visiting Mir.

In the end they found they could not even lift their hands... they would have been dead if they had taken what they learned in their week long space flights in their Shuttle to fly to Mars.

BTW educate yourself... navigation systems have existed quite some time too.

Buran was a military programme because they thought the real reason for the US Space shuttle was as a super high speed bomber... one of those mesospheric bombers Van keeps bleating on about all the time. In reality an ICBM is much much cheaper and already available.... a space shuttle is terribly expensive, though the Soviet model is much more flexible and modular than the US system. The Soviet system can take the shuttle itself off and put a 200 ton space station component directly on the back of the launcher... the current ISS could have been launched in about 5 launches with Buran...

Now both countries are stuck with a pickle in terms of space programs.

Russia has more important things to spend money on than dick measuring contents with an unreliable back stabbing partner like the US.

I don't think russia will lend on mars before USA, because they don't invest enough money in this sphere,unlike usa

predator300029 wrote:I don't think russia will lend on mars before USA, because they don't invest enough money in this sphere,unlike usa

US doesn't invest much in it either. The most likely candidate is Elon Musk beating everyone.

Vladimir79 wrote:US doesn't invest much in it either.  The most likely candidate is Elon Musk beating everyone.

Musk is just a show-pony who owns a rocket company. SpaceX doesn't currently have a manned LEO capability, and won't launch such vehicles unless the USGov pays for them (ie shuttle service to/from ISS). The idea that Musk is going to land humans on Mars is nothing but fan-boi BS.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:US doesn't invest much in it either.  The most likely candidate is Elon Musk beating everyone.

Musk is just a show-pony who owns a rocket company.  SpaceX doesn't currently have a manned LEO capability, and won't launch such vehicles unless the USGov pays for them (ie shuttle service to/from ISS).  The idea that Musk is going to land humans on Mars is nothing but fan-boi BS.

The fanboi BS comes from the notion that the private sector can always do it better. That is utter BS. The private sector will never get
together and fund Manhattan Project type activity. Trips to Mars are not economical for any corporation. If governments bootstrap
the development of such activity, then perhaps decades later the private sector will take over and cream the coins. But it is unlikely
that Mars will be some sort of expansion of Earth's economy. If we need minerals, we still have the 70% of the planet below the seas which
we have not tapped. It will be much cheaper to have automated sub-sea mining than burn vast amounts of energy hopping in and out of
gravitational potential wells.

kvs wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:US doesn't invest much in it either.  The most likely candidate is Elon Musk beating everyone.

Musk is just a show-pony who owns a rocket company.  SpaceX doesn't currently have a manned LEO capability, and won't launch such vehicles unless the USGov pays for them (ie shuttle service to/from ISS).  The idea that Musk is going to land humans on Mars is nothing but fan-boi BS.

The fanboi BS comes from the notion that the private sector can always do it better.   That is utter BS.   The private sector will never get
together and fund Manhattan Project type activity.    Trips to Mars are not economical for any corporation.    If governments bootstrap
the development of such activity, then perhaps decades later the private sector will take over and cream the coins.    But it is unlikely
that Mars will be some sort of expansion of Earth's economy.   If we need minerals, we still have the 70% of the planet below the seas which
we have not tapped.   It will be much cheaper to have automated sub-sea mining than burn vast amounts of energy hopping in and out of
gravitational potential wells.

Bingo. The so-called "Private Space economy" simply a joke. Other than useful birds for communications, meteorology and navigation, space activities don't make a profit and private enterprise won't touch them with a barge pole. If the USGov stops spending taxpayer dollars on the ISS, the crewed flights will stop dead.

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:US doesn't invest much in it either.  The most likely candidate is Elon Musk beating everyone.

Musk is just a show-pony who owns a rocket company.  SpaceX doesn't currently have a manned LEO capability, and won't launch such vehicles unless the USGov pays for them (ie shuttle service to/from ISS).  The idea that Musk is going to land humans on Mars is nothing but fan-boi BS.

The fanboi BS comes from the notion that the private sector can always do it better.   That is utter BS.   The private sector will never get
together and fund Manhattan Project type activity.    Trips to Mars are not economical for any corporation.    If governments bootstrap
the development of such activity, then perhaps decades later the private sector will take over and cream the coins.    But it is unlikely
that Mars will be some sort of expansion of Earth's economy.   If we need minerals, we still have the 70% of the planet below the seas which
we have not tapped.   It will be much cheaper to have automated sub-sea mining than burn vast amounts of energy hopping in and out of
gravitational potential wells.

Bingo.  The so-called "Private Space economy" simply a joke.  Other than useful birds for communications, meteorology and navigation, space activities don't make a profit and private enterprise won't touch them with a barge pole. If the USGov stops spending taxpayer dollars on the ISS, the crewed flights will stop dead.

It will take many trillions to prospect for rare earth minerals below the sea and it will offer much less technological R&D returns.


Also before advertising me copper sea water extraction, if you're so confident about sea mining explain to me how each of these elements can be cheaply extracted from the sea:

Indium

Beryllium

Gallium

Tungsten

Iridium

Palladium

Platinum

Lithium

Uranium

Titanium

Germanium

Selenium

Erbium
Thulium

...explain to me how each of these elements can be cheaply extracted from asteroids orbiting thru vacuum at a distance of 10s of millions of kms?

Not sure if you realize this but there is no such thing as a Gallium asteroid. Being primitive undifferentiated bodies, valuable materials aren't conveniently lumped into nuggets lying on the surface of boulder-piles... If present, these valuable materials will be spread through the dust and soil and measured in ppm. Good luck trying to extract useful quantities and returning it to earth for less capital outlay than mining here on Earth.

They say the average asteroid is worth $50 billion in mineral elements, most of the value in platinum. If it costs $49 billion to conduct the mining they have already made a profit and they would have the infrastructure to mine many more. The only question is what company is large and bold enough to take the risk. The long term problem for that is once everyone starts mining asteroids these minerals will not be as rare or valuable as they are now and would need a growing market to sustain their value. The barriers to entry are so high only one or two companies would even try it and they would form a monopoly on the industry.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:US doesn't invest much in it either.  The most likely candidate is Elon Musk beating everyone.

Musk is just a show-pony who owns a rocket company.  SpaceX doesn't currently have a manned LEO capability, and won't launch such vehicles unless the USGov pays for them (ie shuttle service to/from ISS).  The idea that Musk is going to land humans on Mars is nothing but fan-boi BS.

Isn't he bankrupt because of his ideas ? I heard tesla is loosing something like 5000 $ per minute or hour. His reusable rockets won't help him.

Tesla is not doing well, but even if it went to the wall, SpaceX is a separate company and Musk won't lose his shirt.

Its not his money. Its the money from pension funds and from people that are told by their bank that it would be a good "investment". And, of course, tax payer money.

Vladimir79 wrote:They say the average asteroid is worth $50 billion in mineral elements, most of the value in platinum. If it costs $49 billion to conduct the mining they have already made a profit and they would have the infrastructure to mine many more.  The only question is what company is large and bold enough to take the risk.  The long term problem for that is once everyone starts mining asteroids these minerals will not be as rare or valuable as they are now and would need a growing market to sustain their value.  The barriers to entry are so high only one or two companies would even try it and they would form a monopoly on the industry.

I think you are missing the show-stopper detail about the distribution of minerals in asteroids. On Earth we have the water cycle which extends from the ionosphere down to the base of the upper mantle layer (670 km below the surface). The distribution of minerals is fundamentally shaped by the flux of water and the presence of free oxygen in the atmosphere. One result is aggregation of minerals in the form of various oxides into veins. This aggregation makes commercial extraction of minerals viable. Asteroids originate from the earliest period of the solar system. Long before any water cycle and oxidation would have occurred. There are no veins of minerals and instead they are diffused through the rock or iron at very low concentrations.

No company is going to "mine" asteroids since they cannot be mined. We have no technology of cheaply extracting diffuse trace amounts of elements. In the real world this would require vapourization of the rock and the operation of centrifuges as with enriched uranium production. The clowns who estimate the "value" of an average asteroid completely ignore the cost of extraction. Your logic about the 49/50 in costs vs returns also fails to account for risk. Any screwup will result in tens of billions of losses. Risking tens of billions of losses on a one billion profit is not the casino action that corporations are known for. That is why we have an insurance industry. Even small potential losses are insured. However, no insurance company is going to cover high cost asteroid mining. Only the government can cover such losses and sci-fi reliability statistics may require centuries to achieve.

kvs wrote:I think you are missing the show-stopper detail about the distribution of minerals in asteroids.   On Earth we have the water cycle which extends from the ionosphere down to the base of the upper mantle layer (670 km below the surface).    The distribution of minerals is fundamentally shaped by the flux of water and the presence of free oxygen in the atmosphere.   One result is aggregation of minerals in the form of various oxides into veins.   This aggregation makes commercial extraction of minerals viable.    Asteroids originate from the earliest period of the solar system.   Long before any water cycle and oxidation would have occurred.    There are no veins of minerals and instead they are diffused through the rock or iron at very low concentrations.  

No company is going to "mine" asteroids since they cannot be mined.    We have no technology of cheaply extracting diffuse trace amounts of elements.   In the real world this would require vapourization of the rock and the operation of centrifuges as with enriched uranium production.   The clowns who estimate the "value" of an average asteroid completely ignore the cost of extraction.    Your logic about the 49/50 in costs vs returns also fails to account for risk.   Any screwup will result in tens of billions of losses.    Risking tens of billions of losses on a one billion profit is not the casino action that corporations are known for.    That is why we have an insurance industry.   Even small potential losses are insured.   However, no insurance company is going to cover high cost asteroid mining.    Only the government can cover such losses and sci-fi reliability statistics may require centuries to achieve.  

Asteroids have more than 3X the concentration of minerals as the best deposits on Earth making the actual process of extraction more economical. All they have to do is bring the ore worth processing back to a facility in Earth orbit that has easy access to resupply launches. If they need water they can launch it up there and have scrubbers clean it for reuse. With these reusable rockets it might just be worth it to land the ore on Earth and process it here.