Around the moon in 2011

Charles Lurio, Brookline MA — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:50:14 GMT

Alan,

You say that the Russian plans are, "... that a round-the-moon flight is planned for 2011, with two paying passengers accompanying two professionals." Actually it says that the 'revamped Soyuz,' with a round-the-moon capability, will first fly by that time -it's not at all clear to me that that means it has to carry paying tourists. I'm sure they hope for commercial passengers for the Lunar flight, but I think it has more to do with keeping up with - and preceding, with a loop flight - the US return to the moon as laid out in Griffin's VSE plan.

Also, look at Energia's plans from July, referenced from the SpaceDaily.com reprint of the the Novosti release ...

(http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/
news/news-2006/public_07-01.html).

In the section on manned Lunar plans it states,

" The first phase: circling of the Moon and landing on the Moon on the basis of existing space technologies. In this phase the serial-production Proton and Soyuz LV, DM and Fregat Upper Stages (US), as well as the upgraded Soyuz spacecraft would be used.....

" The first expedition is cycling of the Moon. A two-launch scheme. First the Soyuz spacecraft is inserted via the Soyuz LV (the crew consists of three persons). Depending on tasks to be solved, it could first dock to ISS and stay a certain time attached to the Station, and could be immediately used for flight to the Moon. Then the DM Block Upper Stage is placed into the near-earth via the Proton LV. It carries a habitation module from Soyuz (with a passive docking unit), which serves the crew as an additional pressurized module. After spacecraft docking to US an accelerating burn is produced - and Soyuz executes circling of the Moon. The crew returns to the Earth in the descent module of the spacecraft on the re-entry trajectory with the second space velocity. The first manned circumlunar flight could be implemented already in 2011 or 2012......... The manned flight to the circumlunar orbit is possible in 2013. "

Note that it states that the crew consists of _three persons_. It's hard to see how you could fit a fourth into the Soyuz descent module, even with the reduction in equipment weight and presumably volume (as well as the beefed up heat shield for lunar flights) discussed elsewhere for the 'revamped Soyuz'. It's also noted earlier that the basic module sizes are not changing. "Second space velocity" is a Russian convention for earth escape velocity. (As one might guess, 'first space velocity' is that required to orbit the Earth.)

Around the moon in 2011

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 01:35:41 GMT

ABSOLUTES
As mentioned 12/25/06, definitions of words present a problem and the definition of an absolute does not escape the usual difficulties. There are those, who do not wish absolutes to exist, who define (perhaps better left as an undefinable) "absolute" in such a way that absolutes cannot exist (the self-fullfilling prophecy). Obviously, one cannot demonstrate the existence of an absolute to those who have the proposed definition that precludes its existence or pobable existence. For me, "absolute" is best chosen as an undefinable, like time, mass, or length in physics, something one is expected to have experienced or have a "feeling for". Lest one still wants to doubt the existence of any absolutes, I'd like to suggest their own existence. Knowing that there may be many who do doubt their own existence let me try a universal for all and all our universe (whose existence may be doubted if one so chooses). Here's an ABSOLUTE (there are many more, but those who refuse to accept this one will refuse to accept any others I have in mind): "In our universe gravity exists and is an attractive (not replusive) force.". I suspect that Einstein would have added that God had no choice but to make it an attractive force if He wanted to create a universe like ours (one that can lead to human life and all its wonders). Of course, Planck would have added; "Who does Einstein think he is telling God what God can and cannot do?". Einstein and Planck have both been shown to be wrong about some things in physics, but they, with all others having their impressive knowledge and many who don't, AGREE that gravity is an attractive (not replusive) force. I don't see much hope for those who doubt their own existence, the existence of our universe, or that gravity is a force of attraction, but maybe the New Year will bring them REVELATION (resurrection?). It seems a shame that their heartfelt submissions to Alan Boyle's Cosmic Log don't exist or are, perhaps, meaningless. Again, here's to a very meaningful New Year to ALL.

P.S. For those up to date in cosmology, there seems, also, to be a repulsive force in our universe other than electromagnetic, but gravity still remains an attractive force in our universe. Finally, for the mathematically inclined, "mathematicians know God (the Absolute) exists because mathematics is consistent and the devil (the absence of God) exists because we can't (according to Godel) prove it. Einstein would have said that a universe such as ours required God to make it consistent and it is consistent, thereby, making the maximum speed of light the absolute maximum speed for our universe. Like the consistency of mathematics being a matter of faith (unprovable by Godel, finitistically) so is the consistency of our universe. Lots of luck to those seeking infinitistic proofs, if they exist, Meanwhile, the rest of us can live happily observing the consistency of our universe in our daily life (my car is still, this morning, in the driveway where I left it last night and I'm not worried about falling through my bedroom floor to China when I get out of bed, etc.) and FEELING it's truth everyday inspite of any temporary doubts.