Россия планирует создать к 2015 г. постоянную базу на Луне

[Димитър]

Ну вот всё и прояснилось, как я и предполагал:
http://www.kp.ru/daily/23652/49496/

глава Роскосмоса Анатолий ПЕРМИНОВ:
 
- Мы действительно заключили с РАО «ЕЭС» договор о том, что начнем изучение перспектив получения энергии из гелия-3 в рамках термоядерной реакции. Этот документ поддержал президент Курчатовского института академик Велихов. По результатам работы созданной научной группы в конце года пройдут слушания, и тогда мы примем решение, будут ли эти исследования продолжены.

Подождем до конца года ?

[Олигарх]

Ну что вы смеётесь. Опять журналисты всё напутали:
"Россия планирует создать к 2015 г. постоянную базу на Луне" - это комментарий журналистов. А Севастьянов сказал "... мы планируем ...". "мы" - то есть РКК Энергия. РКК Энергия планирует. Каждый может планировать. В этом нет ничего плохого. Но, как видно из ФКП, денег на реализацию пока никто не довал.

Ну вот всё и прояснилось, как я и предполагал:
http://www.kp.ru/daily/23652/49496/
"... от разговора Николай Николаевич отказался. Пояснения для газеты дала его помощник Елена КАЛУЖИНА.
- Действительно, проект не записан в Федеральную космическую программу 2006 - 2015 годов. Николай Николаевич озвучил общее направление работ, которыми могла бы заниматься РКК «Энергия».
- Если дата прибытия на Луну указана, то должен существовать график наземных работ, испытаний...
- Какие-то наработки существуют. Реальных графиков пока нет, но они могут быть разработаны в кратчайшие сроки. "

Опубликовано на www.thespacereview.com

Moonscam: Russians try to sell the Moon for foreign cash
by James Oberg
Monday, February 6, 2006

With NASA's return to the Moon plans struggling with severe budget constraints, advocates of expanded human spaceflight both inside the agency and outside it have been encouraged by a blitz of publicity from Russia concerning their own plans to build a Moon base in the next ten to fifteen years. The vision of the 1960's "Moon Race" and the astronomical funding levels it engendered is bound to cheer up today's spaceflight advocates.

At a seminar on space research at Moscow's Bauman State Technological University on January 25, a leading Russian space official proclaimed that a moon base could solve the world's energy crisis by mining the isotope helium-3, potentially a valuable fuel for nuclear fusion power plants. "We are planning to build a permanent base on the moon by 2015 and by 2020 we can begin the industrial-scale delivery... of the rare isotope helium-3," Nikolay Sevastianov announced.

Sevastianov, the recently-appointed head of the Energia Rocket and Space Corporation (the firm that builds and operates all of Russia's human space vehicles), claimed that one ton of helium-3 could produce as much energy as 14 million tons of oil. "Ten tons of helium-3 would be enough to meet the yearly energy needs of Russia," he added. "There are practically no reserves of helium on the Earth. On the Moon, there are between 1 million and 500 million tons, according to various estimates," he said, enough for the entire planet's energy needs for a thousand years.

"We are optimistic about a complex for transportation which can be created by 2015, and a complex for extracting helium-3 on the Moon can be built by 2020," Sevastianov told "Russia TV" reporter Aleksandr Rogatkin in a program aired January 29.

But exultation may be premature. The first thing an observer must notice about this chorus of bold Moon talk is its source.
!!! Sevastianov and other experts are first and foremost spaceship salesmen, not spaceship buyers. !!!
What they are announcing is their willingness to carry out the described mission, if somebody else steps up and pays for it.

An Associated Press story prudently pointed out that "Sevastianov's statement appeared to be part of Energia's publicity campaign aimed at attracting government funding for the development of a next-generation spacecraft."

The story continued with commendable caution:

"Not everyone is sold on the promise of helium-3: A workable fusion reactor is still decades away, and researchers say that the technology for using helium-3 is more difficult than the technology for other potential fusion fuels that would be more abundant on Earth. Even if the technique for helium-3-based fusion were perfected, mining the material on the moon and bringing it to Earth may not make economic sense, skeptics say."
At the Bauman seminar, held annually in honor of Soviet space program founder Sergey Korolyov (1906–1966), one of Korolyov's surviving colleagues urged support for the proposals.

"Our state must develop a state program for lunar exploration," Boris Chertok told a television reporter. "We must start thinking as early as today what energy will be used for producing electricity for our distant descendants. We must not use up everything and leave them unable to survive." Adding in a reference to the ongoing record cold snap in Russia, Chertok continued: "The poor chaps should not freeze."

Franchising Russian spacecraft

Seeking private funding for major new space projects is actually a standard Russian practice.
БОЛЕЕ ТОЧНО Seeking foreign (mostly government or aerospace industry) funding
Что касается частного иностранного финансирования, то они действуют только через посредников, не очень умелых, как практика показывает. Похоже, единственное исключение – Андерссон, президент Space Adventures.
Причем, похоже, даже посредников они не ищут/отбирают, скорее они их.
Попыток же непосредственно выйти на потенциальных частных инвесторов, российских и иностранных (крупный бизнес – туристический типа Хилтон (www.hiltongroup.com), телевизионный, кино, банки ... который мог бы пойти на долгосрочные инвестиции, не ожидая быстрой отдачи), кажется, и вовсе не было.

In the past two years, many innovative space vehicles have been touted in Russia. Their common feature is a lack of substantial Russian federal funding. Instead, space agency and industry officials have been instructed to talk up the virtues of this new hardware and find foreign partners willing to foot most of the bill.

The concept of mining helium-3 from lunar dirt is not original with Russia, and has been discussed at length in the Western space literature.
!!! This is underscored by an embarrassing slip-up:
not even the artwork released in Russia to show "a typical Moon base" is original.
!!!! It too has been ripped off from Western sources, often apparently in violation of international copyright laws. !!!

One Moon base concept shown on the Komsomolskaya Pravda website on January 27 (http://www.kp.ru/upimg/photo/57527.jpg) was carefully labeled in Russian, showing the helium-3 refinery and the storage and transshipment equipment.
!!! But within three hours space observer Rusty Barton had posted on an Internet space policy newsgroup the URL of the original artwork by Roger Arno (http://www.challenger.org/pacct/Images/LunarBase-fs.jpg), with the notice: "copyright 1996-97, California Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Further reproduction is prohibited."

Russia can and does produce original spacecraft, but in recent years mostly on other people's money. The Russian space industry has been offering space services to foreign customers since the fall of the Soviet Union, and in good years brought in $500 to $800 million for launches, manufacturing, and testing and operating vehicles. For money, it has built segments of the International Space Station, while paying for other components out of the federal budget.

The Europeans have paid Russian firms to build a new launch pad in Kourou, French Guiana, for the Soyuz rocket, and to build and test an inflatable heat shield for returning material (and ultimately crewmembers) from the space station. And the two biggest "jewels in the space crown" of Russia's future space program, the Kliper human spacecraft and the Angara family of booster rockets,
rely almost exclusively ? on foreign financial support. ЭТО ОН ОШИБСЯ

This is not at all inherently a bad thing, since Russia has shown that it can deliver on its spacecraft contracts, both for routine space transportation and for innovative development. Where foreign partners want to play their own leading roles in projects independent of, and complementary or competitive to, US projects, it could be a win-win-win situation all around.

Additional voices

Space geologist Erik Galimov, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, added that immediate steps must be taken to explore potential mining sites. "We should start geological survey, make maps of blocs exposed to the Sun, and design experimental installations if we want to start the production of helium-3 on the Moon in 15–20 years," he said.
"There is nothing difficult from the engineer's point of view in the production of helium-3," he continued. "It is only a matter of investments."
He calculates that an area of 10–15 square kilometers with the depth of three meters will be enough for producing one ton of helium-3. Engineers will have to remove and purify three meters of sand, enrich helium-3, and liquidify it for the delivery to the Earth.
"It is much easier to develop resources on the Moon than to produce oil on the Earth," ДА НУ?
Galimov continued. "The Moon should become part of the Earth economy, as helium-3 is the only alternative to modern energy sources, which will ensure the normal environmental future of the planet," he said.

Raising the stakes, a spokesman for another vastly underemployed Russian spacecraft builder fanned anxieties that a Chinese-Russian alliance would stake out lunar resources first—unless, presumably, European and American money (or for that matter, even Moscow's own money) showed up first. At the same space conference, Alexander Lukyanchikov from the Lavochkin Research and Production Center told TASS January 27 that before mining the Moon, unmanned spacecraft (coincidentally, the kind his company used to build for the Soviet government during the glory days of the "Space Race") would be needed first.

"Before building a manned base, we should study the Moon with the help of unmanned apparatuses and build a research compound, which will become a future industrial base," he said.

He did admit that such projects had been sparse for several decades: "Although Russia had not been working on a lunar program for the past 30 years, the center carried on research of planetary rovers," he continued. "That research will make the core of the lunar research compound, which will have scientific and applied tasks," such as the helium-3 refinery.

The Lavochkin Bureau, he modestly suggested, was ready to manufacture "a number of light and heavy lunar rovers, telecom and astrophysical compounds, a runway, large-size antennas and other facilities," whatever a still-unidentified customer is willing to pay for. And remote-sensing satellites in lunar orbit, he added.

The project would not require large investments, he went on, because the launches of all vehicles with the exception of heavy lunar rovers can be done onboard existing Rockot or Zenit rockets that could be purchased from yet another team of starving rocket scientists.

Sergey Buslayev, another official at the Lavochkin company, showed pictures of old Lunokhod Moon rovers to a television reporter. "It is a kind of a geologist who will automatically move on the surface and find places which are richer in helium."
The Russian TV correspondent ended his program with the best estimate of actual costs for such a project: "The most modest calculations say 20 billion to 30 billion dollars will be required," he casually pointed out—with no indication of who might be willing to pay for it.

James Oberg (www.jamesoberg.com) is a 22-year veteran of NASA mission control. He is now a writer and consultant in Houston.

Я уже не обижаюсь на Оберга за это нескрываемое презрение к российской космонавтике.

Насчет стыренного пацанами из РККЭ рисунка лунной базы.
Пожалуй, мы, участники форума НК, тоже виноваты в этом позоре!
Наши замечательные чукчи-писатели выдают слишком много текста и очень мало картинок и схем.
Меньше слов – больше рисунков и схем, товарищи писатели!
Тогда пацаны из РККЭ будут тырить их, а не американские рисунки. Хоть международного позора не будет ...
Да и вам, чукчи-писатели, будет приятно увидеть свои рисунки и схемы в новаторских предложениях РККЭ!

[ДмитрийК]

Насчет стыренного пацанами из РККЭ рисунка лунной базы.

Стрырили не РККЭ а Комсомольская Правда.
Оберг на эту тему развел вонь по всему юзнету. На мое предложение послать которкий емаил автору статьи и указать на "ошибку" и таким образом снять проблему он только огрызнулся. Наверное это было бы слишком просто, писать было бы не о чем.

[Олигарх]

Насчет стыренного пацанами из РККЭ рисунка лунной базы.

Стрырили не РККЭ а Комсомольская Правда.
Оберг на эту тему развел вонь по всему юзнету. На мое предложение послать которкий емаил автору статьи и указать на "ошибку" и таким образом снять проблему он только огрызнулся. Наверное это было бы слишком просто, писать было бы не о чем.

Насчет стыренного рисунка.
Несколько участников нашего форума были на эти чтениях. И журналисты НК, конечно.

Все-таки, был ли этот рисунок в презентации РККЭ?

Если нет, то получается, что журналист КП, отталкиваясь от содержания презентации, вспомнил про американский рисунок и использовал его?

Если да, ... L

PS Одновременно со статьей Оберга, на этом сайте опубликована другая:

Apocrypha now: no go for seven orbits
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, February 6, 2006

Jerry Seinfeld used to tell a joke about getting in line for a movie and asking the guy ahead of him if it was the correct line. "But that guy has probably asked the guy in front of him," he said, "and so on, and so on." Such a system had an inherent flaw, however: "what if one of those people is an idiot?" Seinfeld asked.

Historians face this problem constantly. Even the best and most diligent author cannot check every single fact in his or her work, running it to ground to see if it is truly accurate. At some point (actually many points) they will have to rely upon the work of previous writers for facts, data, and even interpretations of evidence. They have to trust in their sources. But when authors write about a subject or event based upon somebody else's data and that data is wrong, the result is that they repeat the error. Anybody who then cites the new work will also repeat the error as well, and thus errors can persist in history books over decades. Repeating a factual error multiple times does not make it right, but may make it inevitable.
...
Go for seven orbits
Space history undoubtedly has many more of these apocryphal stories that are too good to check. Another one is the oft-repeated claim that John Glenn was going to fly for seven orbits around the Earth until he experienced problems with his heat shield. At that point, Glenn's mission was cut short to three orbits and he was told to reenter.

The story has appeared in at least one book. William Burrows wrote about it in his engaging 1998 history This New Ocean. On page 340 Burrows states "He [Glenn] had been told before his Friendship 7 thundered over the Atlantic that he would get at least seven orbits." On page 341, in the midst of describing the suspected heat shield problem, Burrows wrote: "Seven orbits were now out of the question." Burrows cites the NASA book This New Ocean, which recounts the flight, but doesn't actually contain the error.
This is not to single Burrows out. His book is quite good and he's a great writer (and a genuinely nice guy—and it is worth adding that his book does not contain the Goldstone tracking station mistake). The John Glenn error has been repeated in a number of other places. A quick Lexis/Nexis search of news stories during John Glenn's 1998 space shuttle flight turned up a number of examples.
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer reported that "mechanical problems cut short" Glenn's Mercury flight. The ABC news show 20/20 also got it wrong when Hugh Downs said that "five hours after liftoff, Glenn's flight was cut short." Newsday also reported that the flight was "cut short."
...
What is the origin of this story? One suspects that it comes from the movie version of The Right Stuff and the oft-repeated bit of dialogue from mission control that Glenn was "go—at least seven orbits." As he starts his third orbit, Glenn is told to begin his retrofire sequence and come down. He asks "Only three orbits?" and is told yes, only three orbits. The movie clearly implies that Glenn's mission was cut short from seven orbits to only three.
...
Now one could actually use logic to deduce that Glenn was never scheduled for seven orbits. After all, he landed in the Atlantic Ocean after launching at 9:47 am on February 20, 1962 from Cape Canaveral. Each orbit lasted approximately 90 minutes, meaning that if his flight was originally planned for seven orbits it would have lasted about ten and a half hours, or until after eight pm at night, well after dark. That did not make sense. Would NASA really want to try and recover an astronaut on a dark ocean? Logic alone strongly implies that the flight was not planned for seven orbits.

But it's possible to find a primary source. !!!
A good one is the official NASA post-flight report, Results of the First United States Manned Orbital Space Flight. On page 71 of that report there is a table showing the planned and actual times of various events during the flight in hours, minutes and seconds. According to the table, retrofire initiation was originally planned to occur at four hours, thirty-two minutes, and fifty-eight seconds into the flight. It actually occurred at four hours, thirty-three minutes, and eight seconds.
Glenn's mission was not cut short by four orbits. In reality, it lasted longer than planned—by a whole ten seconds.

But what about the announcement from mission control that Glenn was "go for seven orbits"?
At the time, flight controllers were worried about achieving any orbit at all. !!!!
It was far more likely that the Atlas rocket was going to underperform and put Glenn too low to complete his planned three orbits. !!!!
In print the words are often subtly altered from the actual dialogue. In actuality, John Glenn said "Roger, loud and clear. Flight path is good." To which a mission controller responded: "Roger, Seven. You have a go—at least seven orbits." This was mission control's way of informing Glenn that his altitude and velocity were sufficiently high that he would stay up for at least seven orbits if he did not initiate retrofire.
Glenn later said that he believed the actual values would have kept him up for a hundred orbits or more.

There are undoubtedly other examples of apocryphal stories from space history, and enterprising space buffs might find it challenging to pick some of the stories from space history that sound too good to be true and run them to ground.
For instance, Glenn has said that after his Mercury flight he was grounded by President John F. Kennedy, who was concerned that an American hero might be killed on another space flight.
But the story does not sound right, and to date no evidence has been produced to corroborate it. It may not be possible to completely refute this claim, but certainly someone could dig up better evidence about it. (If you have other apocryphal stories—ones that have been repeated several times in various books or news reports even though they are wrong—please send them to zirconic (at) earthlink.net [replace "(at)" with "@"].)

[дилетант]

Да не,народ,не реально это....К 2015 году....Осталось менее девяти лет....Не доживу я,чувствую,до освоения луны! :?

[Pavel Anisimov]

http://www.lapsha.ru/articles/tech/2006/01/19/041000.html

Минэкономразвития РФ одобрило сегодня проект Федеральной космической программы на 2006-2015 годы, предусматривающей значительное увеличение финансирования космической отрасли.

«Основные цифры утверждены. Сейчас решается, как и из каких источников будет обеспечено финансирование», — сообщил глава «Роскосмоса» Святослав Давыдов.

По его мнению, в 2006-2007 годах необходимо совершить прорыв в финансировании космической отрасли. В этой связи он поделился перечнем первостепенных задач, поставленных перед «Роскосмосом»:

— К концу 2007 года российские специалисты должны завершить разработку нового гибридного двигателя для наших ракетоносителей, который позволит снизить расход топлива на 30-40 процентов. Объём финансирования этого проекта с 1982 года составил порядка 219 миллиардов неденоминированных рублей. Для завершения работ необходимо ещё столько же деноминированных.

— Примерно в это же время совместно с РКК «Энергия» мы закончим модернизацию пылесоса ПН54Е, который будет на 25% менее шумным за счёт вдвое менее мощного электромотора. Также значительно расширится цветовая гамма изделий. Это непрофильное для нас направление, на него выделены смехотворные 11 миллиардов.

— В течение 2010-2015 годов мы планируем отправить марсоходы и луноходы ко всем известным планетам Солнечной системы, включая Землю. По нашим расчётам, к моменту прибытия последнего из них к цели будет достроен и новый Центр управления полётами, строительство которого мы начали в прошлом году. Эти два проекта объединены в один и оцениваются примерно в 689,5 миллиардов рублей.

— В период с 2015 по 2029 год совместно с китайскими коллегами планируется создание первых лунных баз на Марсе. Финансирование этого проекта уже ведётся китайской стороной. Наш вклад в эту программу носит бартерный характер.

— Уже в 2045 году на этих базах будет построен межгалактический гиперкосмолёт 12-го поколения «Флиппер», на котором будет совершён первый пилотируемый полёт на Солнце — венец российской космической программы.

«Если финансирование будет увеличено на 3630% и достигнет 24 млрд. руб. в месяц, то мы сможем осуществить все эти проекты», — заявил глава «Роскосмоса».

«Все цены указаны без учёта НДС», — добавил Давыдов.

Вам самому-то не смешно - ведь точно указан источник информации lapsha.ru? Похоже, что нет - все написано без смайликов...
А насчет реального срока постоянной станции на Луне к 2015... Скромнее надо быть, господа, а то многим у нас в стране даже кушать нечего. Вот, эдак, году к 2040 - очень даже может быть.
Ах да, чуть не забыл - 1 апреля же послезавтра.  :shock:  С праздником всех!!! Юмор оценил по достоинству.